A27369	----	A letter from a gentleman in Manchester to his friend concerning a notorious blasphemer who died in despair &c. Gentleman in Manchester. 1694 Approx. 9 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 3 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A27369 Wing B184 ESTC R28329 10526112 ocm 10526112 45205 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A27369) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 45205) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1394:38) A letter from a gentleman in Manchester to his friend concerning a notorious blasphemer who died in despair &c. Gentleman in Manchester. 4 p. Printed for John Whitlock, London : 1694. Caption title. "Licens'd, Decemb. 28th, 1694." Imprint from colophon. Reproduction of original in the British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Socinianism. Sunday. 2007-01 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-02 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-03 Mona Logarbo Sampled and proofread 2007-03 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A LETTER FROM A Gentleman in Manchester , To his Friend , Concerning a Notorious Blasphemer , Who Died in Despair , &c. Licens'd , Decemb. 28th . 1694. Dear SIR , THough you are more than One Letter in arrears to me already , for which ( according to the Rules of Correspondence ) I might well expect your Returns e're I gave you further Credit ; yet being providentially furnish'd with Extraordinary Matter , I am easily enclin'd to run you one other Letter into my Debt , the Contents of which will be ( indeed ! ) but too Sad and Surprizing . — I am not unsensible that upon such a Melancholy Occasion I could have addrest my self to several , more properly than to your self ; blessed be God , you are not of that unhappy number , that in Works , and even in Words , Deny the Divine Being ; nor dares you entertain the least Thought tending to the Contempt of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , God over All , Blessed for ever ! Neither the Atheism , nor the more pernicious Socinianism ( I was about to call it ) of this Profane Age has Tainted your truly Christian Soul : And yet I think the Terrible Instance I have before me , of God's Indignation against those Damnable Sins , will not to you be disadvantageously communicated . It may , at least , tend to Establish you in your most Holy Religion ; and thus no doubt but it will be dispers'd by you , much more than by one less seriously dispos'd . And truly , I think such a singular Relation cannot be made too Publick in our Age , wherein all manner of Licentiousness does abound ! But before I acquaint you with Particulars , give me leave to tell you , That you may relate what you shall have from me with all the Assurance in the World. My Evidence is a very Honest Credible Person , who saw and heard most of what follows , and who had the rest from Eye and Ear-Witnesses . But I have no Reason to imagin that the Truth of this Divine Tragedy will be call'd into any Question ; it is known over a great part of the County , and was not so long since acted , but that upon Enquiry , full Satisfaction may be had about it from Persons of the best Credit . And now , without more Preface , I shall give you a Faithful Account of Matter of Fact. At Downam , near Clithero , in Lancashire , there liv'd one T. B. ( the full of his Name , for his surviving Relations sake , is conceal'd , ) about Thirty six Years of Age , well known in that Town , at his Death especially by the Office he then bore of Churchwarden . This Miserable Creature , notwithstanding the good Education which his better Parents had bestow'd upon him , had for a great while indulg'd himself in an Excess of Wickedness , but chiefly in a Sacrilegious Abuse of the Lord●s-Day , on which he would use any unlawful Exercises : Nor did his Office restrain him from committing this Abomination , but as if he ( who should have been First in Punishing ) Prided himself in being the Ring-leader of the Sabbath-Breakers , he would not only Privately , and at Home , but in the very open Streets , Revel and Sport on that Holy Day . For this , and his other Provocations , it pleased God so to leave him to the Devil and himself , that he became guilty of such horrid Blasphemy as procur'd ( it is to be fear'd ) his Ruine in both Worlds . The Manner of it take thus . — On the 26th . Day of August , 1694. being Lord's-Day ( the Day of his sinful Excesses ) he gave his Attendance at Church ; and after Service , with the Minister that preach'd there that Day , he went to the Ale-house , where he stay'd not long e're he remov'd to his own House ; in which seeing a Bible lie on a Table , he takes it up , and turning to the 9th . Chapter of St. Matthew , bursts out into this horrid Expression , Christ is a Lyar ! Upon this , says one that was by , How dare you speak such Blasphemous Words ? The Wretch , pointing then to the 16th . and 17th . Verses of that Chapter , ( where our Blessed Saviour saith , No Man putteth a piece of New Cloth into an Old Garment , neither do Men put New Wine into Old Bottles , ) cryes out , Why look here , he proves himself a Lyar in these two things , besides many more places in the Bible . That Night he was struck with much Sadness and Sighing , which grew upon him every Day more than other for that whole Week , in which he kept much upon the Bed , very listless to speak , or indeed , to take any notice of Worldly Concerns . The Lord●s-Day following he seem'd much more Troubl●d in Mind , and Terrify'd in Conscience , and he desir'd a Neighbour's Company all Night : He would have Pray'd , but could not : His Sister , at his Request , read by him , but he appear'd little affected with what he heard . Two Days more he continu'd Tossing about in the Room , keeping much upon his Bed , and Torturing himself . On Wednesday , several Neighbours and Others hearing of his grievous Condition , came into the Chamber to him ; when suddenly he cryes out , Turn , Turn , Turn , ( many times together , ) Shut the Door , Christ is going to leave me . With that , some step'd to the Door and shut it ; but he having his Eyes still fix'd upon it , with a very hideous Noise , cry'd out , It was too late , Christ was quite gone and left him , he was Damn'd for ever ; He is gone , He is gone ; it is too late , it is too late ; I am Damn'd for evermore . This he repeated frequently ; and all that Day he cried out of the Torments of Hell , and that he saw the Flames of Fire there , and that he was hanging over the Flames ; and ( says he ) Hell is a Hundred thousand Fathoms deep , and I am sinking Deeper and Deeper therein . He added , That he saw a Numberless Number there which he knew not , only One particular Person he mention'd , with whom he had been very Conversant , and from whom he was supposed to have contracted abundance of Guilt . His Relations , and the rest with him , were very much affrighted and troubled at his Expressions and Behaviour , but especially to see his Ghastly and Terrifying Looks : They spoke together of sending for the Minister , and some Godly Persons to Pray with him : But he taking notice of what they said , told them , That it was now too late either to Pray for him , or to tell him any thing of Christ ; And for You too ( says he , turning to one of his nearest Relations ) unless you Repent soon . And further , he told them , That if there were Hundreds and Thousands of Ministers to Pray for him , it was all to no purpose , it was too late . After this time , he would not endure to hear of Prayer , or Reading the Bible , nor would so much as suffer any to take a Bible in their Hands ; nay , so great a Torment did the Sight of a Bible , or Hearing of Prayer seem to him , that upon either , he 'd cry out , Let me go , Let me go ; I will not stay here . And the Minister coming to him with a Book in his Hand , he would have struck it out ; and tossing and rouling his Body , he us'd all the means he could to get out of the Room , all along crying out , Do you not see the Fire flaming in Hell , and the Lake of Hell Fire , and the Depth of Hell , which cannot be fathom'd : O Hell-Fire ! Hell-fire ! Fire of Hell ! Fire of Hell ! Oh , how I siak down in it ! Thus he continu'd Crying out , to the great Amazement and Terrour of all the Company , all that Day , and part of the Night ; and the next Day he was Speechless : And upon Friday , the 7th . of September , 1694. he Expir'd , in the Morning . ☞ His Body , for several Hours after his Death , Sweating very apparently . And thus have I briefly made you this fearful Relation , after which I shall but add my hearty Prayers for Our Selves , and for all whose Ears are made to Tingle with this dreadful Report , That we may be preserved continually , by the Grace of God , from Profaning his Holy Day ; and above all , from Villifying the Glorious Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , to forewarn Men of the horrid Danger whereof this Miserable Wretch seems to be set up , by Divine Providence , a Terrible and Speaking Monument ! But here I shall bid you Farewell , and with due Respects to your Self , and the good Ladies your Sisters , in great haste , I subscribe my self , Dear SIR , Yours most Affectionately . Manchester , Decemb. 10. 1694. LONDON , Printed for John Whitlock , near Stationers-Hall , 1694. 
A31061	----	A brief state of the Socinian controversy concerning a trinity in unity by Isaac Barrow ... Barrow, Isaac, 1630-1677. 1698 Approx. 14 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 12 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A31061 Wing B930 ESTC R10201 11673326 ocm 11673326 48063 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A31061) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 48063) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 10:23) A brief state of the Socinian controversy concerning a trinity in unity by Isaac Barrow ... Barrow, Isaac, 1630-1677. 23 p. Printed for Brabazon Aylmer ..., London : 1698. Reproduction of original in British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Socinianism -- History -- Sources. Trinity. 2004-05 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-05 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-07 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2004-07 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Advertisement . A Defence of the Blessed Trinity . By Isaac Barrow . D. D. Price twelve Pence . A BRIEF STATE OF THE Socinian Controversy . Concerning a TRINITY in UNITY . By Isaac Barrow , D. D. Late Master of Trinity-College , in Cambridge . LONDON , Printed for Brabazon Aylmer , at the Three Pigeons against the Royal-Exchange in Cornhill , 1698. Price two Pence . A BRIEF STATE OF THE Socinian Controversy . * THe Sacred Trinity may be considered , either as it is in it self , wrapt up in unexplicable Folds of Mystery ; or , as it hath discovered it self , operating in wonderful Methods of Grace towards us . As it is in it self , 't is an Object too bright and dazling for our weak Eye to fasten upon ; an Abyss too deep for our short Reason to fathom . I can only say , That we are so bound to mind it , as to exercise our Faith , and express our Humility , in willingly believing , in submissively adoring those high Mysteries , which are revealed in the Holy Oracles concerning it ; by that Spirit it self , which searcheth the Depths of God , and by that Only Son of God , who residing in his Father's Bosom , hath thence brought them forth , and Expounded them to us , so far as was fit for our Capacity and use . And the Lectures so read by the Eternal Wisdom of God , the Propositions uttered by the Mouth of Truth it self , we are obliged with a Docile Ear , and a Credulous Heart , to entertain . That there is One Divine Nature or Essence , common unto Three Persons , incomprehensibly Vnited , and ineffably Distinguished ; united in Essential Attributes , distinguished by peculiar Idioms and Relations ; all equally Infinite in every Divine Perfection , each different from other in Order and Manner of Subsistence ; that there is a mutual inexistence of One in All , and All in One ; a Communication without any Deprivation or Diminution in the Communicant ; an Eternal Generation , and an Eternal Procession without Precedence or Succession , without proper Causality or Dependence : A Father imparting his own , and the Son receiving his Father's Life , and a Spirit issuing from both , without any Division or Multiplication of Essence ; These are Notions which may well puzzle our Reason , in conceiving how they agree , but should not stagger our Faith , in assenting that they are true . Upon which we should meditate , not with hope to comprehend , but with disposition to admire , veiling our Faces in the Presence , and prostrating our Reason at the Feet of Wisdom so far transcending us . There be those , who because they cannot untie , dare to cut in sunder these Sacred Knots . Who , because they cannot fully conceive it , dare flatly to deny them . Who , instead of confessing their own Infirmity , do charge the plain Doctrines and Assertions of Holy Scripture with Impossibility . Others seem to think , they can demonstrate these Mysteries by Arguments grounded upon Principles of Natural Light , and express it by Similitudes derived from common Experience . To repress the Presumption of the former , and to restrain the Curiosity of the latter ; the following Consideration ( improved by your Thoughts ) may perhaps somewhat conduce . We may consider , That our Reason is no competent or capable Iudge coneerning Propositions of this Nature . 'T is not sufficient , nor was ever designed to sound such Depths ; to descry the Radical Principles of all Being ; to reach the extream Possibilities of Things . Such an Intellectual Capacity is vouchsafed to us , as doth suit to our Degree ( the lowest Rank of Intelligent Creatures ) as becometh our Station in this inferior Part of the World ; as may qualify us to discharge the petty Businesses committed to our Management , and the facile Duties incumbent on us . But to know , What God is ; How he subsisteth ; what he can ; what he should do ; by our natural Perspicacity , or by any means we can use , farther than he pleaseth to reveal , doth not suit to the Meanness of our Condition , or the Narrowness of our Capacity . These really are the most elevated Sublimities , and the abstrusest Subtilties that are , or can be in the nature of things . He that can penetrate them , may erect his Tribunal any where in the World , and pretend justly that nothing in Heaven or Earth is exempted from his Judgment . But in truth , how unfit our Reason is to exercise such Universal Jurisdiction , we may discern by comparing it to our Sense . It is obvious , that many Beasts do ( by advantage of a finer Sense ) See , Hear , Smell things imperceptible to us . And were it not very unreasonable to conclude , that such things do not exist , or are in themselves altogether insensible , because they do not all appear to us ? Is it not evident , that we ought to impute their Imperceptibility ( respecting us ) to the defect of our Sense , to its Dulness and Grossness , in regard to the Subtilty of those Objects ? Even so may Propositions in themselves , and in regard to the Capacity of higher Understandings ; ( for there are gradual Differences in Understanding , as well as in Sense ) be true and very intelligible , which to our inferiour Reason seem unintelligible , or repugnant to the Prenotions , with which our Soul is imbued : And our not discerning those Truths , may argue the Blindness and Weakness of our Understanding , not any Fault or Inconsistency in the Things themselves . Nor should it cause us any wise to distrust them , if they come recommended to our Belief by competent Authority . It cannot be reasonable out of Principles drawn from ordinary Experience , about these most low and imperfect Things to collect ; that there can be no other kind of Vnions , of Distinctions , of Generations , of Processions , than such as our own gross Sense doth represent to us . Reason it self more forcibly doth oblige us to think , that to sublimer Beings there do pertain Modes of Existence and Action , Vnions and Distinctions , Influences and Emanations of a more high and perfect Kind : Such as our course Apprehension cannot adequate , nor our rude Language express : Which we perhaps , have no Faculty subtile enough to conceive distinctly , nor can attain any congruous Principles , from which to Discourse solidly about them . No Words , perhaps , which we do use to signify our Conceptions about these Material and Inferiour Things , will perfectly and adequately suit to a Mystery , so much remote from the common Objects of our Knowledge , so far transcending our Capacity . Shall we then , who cannot pierce into the Nature of a Peble ; that cannot apprehend how a Mushroom doth grow ; that are baffled in our Philosophy about a Gnat or a Worm , debate and decide ( beyond what is taught us from above ) concerning the precise manner of Divine Essence , Subsistence , or Generation ? I do ( saith St. Chrysostom ) eat Meats , but how they are divided into Phlegm , into Blood , into Iuice , into Choler , I am ignorant . These things which every day we see and taste , we do not know ; and are we curious about the Essence of God ? Wherefore do we stretch our Judgment beyond its Limits , unto Things so infinitely exceeding it ? Why do we suffer our Reason to be Pragmatical , unjustly Invading the Office not belonging thereto ; intruding into Things which it hath not seen , Col. ii . 18. nor can comprehend ; those secret Things , which belong to the Lord our God , Deut. xxix . 29. and the comprehension whereof he hath reserved unto himself ? These Considerations may suffice in some manner , to shew , that St. Chrysostom had reason to exclaim so much against the Madness , as he styleth , it , of those , who are busily Curious in Speculation about the Essence of God ; daring to subject Divine Mysteries to their own Ratiocinations . That St. Basil's Advice was wholsom , not to be meddlesom about things , about which Holy Scripture is silent . That † another Ancient Writer did say no less prettily , than truly , that in these Matters curiositas reum facit , non peritum ; we may easilier incur blame , than attain Skill by nice Enquiry into them . That many of the Fathers do with great Wisdom dislike and dissuade the searching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the manner of Things being true or possible , as a suspicious Mark , or a dangerous Motive of Infidelity . That St. Paul's Rules , Rom. xii . 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be wise so as withal to be sober , and modest ; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not to conceit any thing without warrant of Scripture , 1 Cor. iv . 6. are in this Case most especially to be heeded . That , according to St. Peter's Admonition , we should as new-born Babes ( unprepossess'd with any Notions or Fancies of our own ) long for , and greedily suck in the sincere milk of the Word ; not diluting it with baser Liquors of Humane Device . That where God doth interpose his definitive Sentence , our Reason hath nothing to do but to attend and submit . No Right to Vote , no Licence to Debate the Matter . It s Duty is to listen and approve whatever God speaketh , to read and subscribe to whatever he writeth . At least in any case it should be mute , or ready to follow Job , saying , Behold , I am vile , what shall I answer thee ? I will lay my hand upon my mouth , Job xl . 4. In fine ; The Testimony of God , with a sufficient clearness represented to the Capacity of an Honest and Docile Mind ( void of all partial Respects , and clear from all sorts of Prejudice ; loving Truth , and forward to entertain it ; abhorring to wrest or wrack Things , to use any Fraud or Violence upon any Principle , or Ground of Truth ) the Testimony of God , I say , so revealed , whatever Exception , our shallow Reason can thrust in , should absolutely convince our Judgment , and constrain our Faith. If the Holy Scripture teacheth us plainly , and frequently doth inculcate upon us ( that which also the uniform Course of Nature , and the peaceable Government of the World doth also speak ) That there is but One True God. If it as manifestly doth ascribe to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity , the same August Names , the same Peculiar Characters , the same Divine Attributes ( essential to the Deity ) the same Superlatively admirable Operations of Creation and Providence : If it also doth prescribe to them , the same Supreme Honours , Services , Praises and Acknowledgments to be paid unto them All ; this may be abundantly enough to satisfy our Minds , to stop our Mouths , to smother all Doubt and Dispute about this High and Holy Mystery . It was exceeding Goodness in God , that he would condescend so far to instruct us ; to disclose so Noble a Truth unto us ; to enrich our Minds with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that most excellent Knowledge of himself . And it would be no small Ingratitude and Unworthiness in us , any wise to suspect his Word , or pervert his Meaning ; any wise to subject his Venerable Oracles to our rude Canvasses and Cavils . In fine ; The proper Employment of our Mind about these Mysteries , is not to search and speculate about them , to Discourse flippantly and boldly about them ; but with a pious Credulity to embrace them , with all humble Respect to Adore them . FINIS . Books Printed for Brabazon Aylmer , in Cornhil . A Seasonable Vindication of the B. Trinity . Being an Answer to this Question , Why do you believe the Doctrin of the Trinity ? Collected from the Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson , Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury , and the Right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet , now Lord Bishop of Worcester . Price 12d . A Method of daily Devotion . A Method of Devotion for the Lord's-Day . Likewise several small Books against Debauchery , Profaness , Blasphemy , Cursing , and Swearing , &c. Price two Pence each , and something cheaper to them that give away Numbers . All these by Dr. Ashton . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A31061-e200 * V. Defence of the B. Trinity , p. 5. P. 21. Id. on the Creed , p. 337. V. Defence of the B. Trinity , p. 26. P. 55. † Zeno Veronens . 1 Pet. ii . 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 
A27527	----	Mysteries discovered, or, A mercuriall picture pointing out the way from Babylon to the holy city for the good of all such as during that night of generall errour and apostasie, 2 Thes. 2.3. Revel. 3.10 have been so long misted with Romes hobgoblin / by me Paul Best ... Best, Paul, 1590?-1657. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A27527 of text R9886 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing B2053). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 34 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 10 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A27527 Wing B2053 ESTC R9886 12643368 ocm 12643368 65064 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A27527) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 65064) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 974:6) Mysteries discovered, or, A mercuriall picture pointing out the way from Babylon to the holy city for the good of all such as during that night of generall errour and apostasie, 2 Thes. 2.3. Revel. 3.10 have been so long misted with Romes hobgoblin / by me Paul Best ... Best, Paul, 1590?-1657. [2], 16, [1] p. s.n.], [London : 1647. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Defense against charges of Socinianism and heresy. eng Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. Heresies, Christian -- History -- Modern period, 1500- Socinianism. A27527 R9886 (Wing B2053). civilwar no Mysteries discovered. Or A mercuriall picture pointing out the way from Babylon to the holy city, for the good of all such as during that ni Best, Paul 1647 6023 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 B The rate of 5 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the B category of texts with fewer than 10 defects per 10,000 words. 2006-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-04 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-05 Andrew Kuster Sampled and proofread 2006-05 Andrew Kuster Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion MYSTERIES DISCOVERED . OR A Mercuriall Picture pointing out the way from BABYLON to the holy City , for the good of all such as during that night of generall Errour and Apostasie , 2 Thes. 2. 3. Revel. 3. 10. have been so long misled with Romes hobgoblins . Byme PAUL BEST Prisoner in the Gatehouse , Westminster . Printed in the Yeer , 1647. MYSTERIES DISCOVERED . CHAP. 1. BEing so extreamly necessitated after so manifold a manner , as first for the discharge of my conscience to God , and man ; that woe is mee if like a fearfull or idle servant I should bury that simple talent ; Secondly , for the vindication of my reputation , if I should sitdowne in silence , I might seeme to be an accessory to the false accusation of those that blast we with the most odious infamy of blaphemy ( to deny the heavenly Trinity , and Jesus Christ to be our blessed Saviour , ) and the truth of the sacred Canonicall Scriptures ; Lastly , by my long and excessive indurance , being that I cannot procure by the best friends I have , or of those that are appointed by the Parliament , a Petition to be presented to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament , to omit , that I cannot receive that small Annuity due into me out of Yorkshire , besides the false reports of injurious and ignorant persons , that I am not onely a most debosh'd , and desperate , but a distracted and mad man ; which I hope will be a sufficient plea to indifferent judges for the publishing of my bonds . And I appeale to my Countrey and all good Christians , whether or no by so long imprisonment , without any allowance , or having a determinate hearing , notwithstanding above 100 Petitions printed and written to the House in generall , and the most eminent ( and concerning members ) I be not debarred of Christian , but of the liberty of a Subject contrary to Law , Ordinance of Parliament : equity and humanity . So that without a speedy remedy of such common continuate , and unheard of cruelties our ensuing end is like to be worse then that which we suffered in our late Civill Wars . For it is not the continuance of our mock-fasts that will excuse , so long as our oppression continueth , Isa. 58. 5 , 6. &c. yea , of such as conclude their Fasts like that of January 28th . 1645 , at Westminster , with a consultation how to murther an innocent , and that after a most cruell ( more then Heathenish manner without any legall hearing ) much lesse laudable proceeding : ( being not allowed of the Divines once to oppose , or yet to give an advised Answer by writing ) Lord , lay not this to their charge , being but an intent ( through ignorance ) which by Gods providence , and the more gracious of the Parlament was prevented . For my discovery of two grand mysteries , viz. that anomious or lawlesse mystery , 2 Thess. 2. from the third to the thirteenth Verse , As also Revel. 17. 1 , 5. and its opposite , Revel. 10. 7. the mystery of God , to wit , the Father and Creatour , 14. 17. For the better cleering of which misty mysteries , Imagine some great King like some of the old Persians , that would seldome or never be seen of the people , should send his sonne and heire fully acquainted with his will and pleasure , as his vicegerent plenipotentiary and prolocutor , whether the sonne being equivalent ( to use that terme ) in way of reference , John 14. 9. as 13. 20. 1 Thess. 2. 13. be in himself coequall to the King , for that ( as ) John 5. 23. is an Adverbe of like quality and not equality ; this we know that God the Father is that invisible and indivisible King , 1 Tim. 1. 17. 6. 15 , 16. John 1. 18. 5. 37. 1 John 4. 12. and that the inauguration or anointing of our blessed Saviour was his baptisme , Matth. 3. 17. 4. 17. Acts 1. 22. 10 , 37. which is therefore termed the beginning , viz. of his Gospel , Iohn 1. 1. 1 Iohn 1. 1. and that new creation , 2 Cor. 5. 17. so that Christ is to us both God and his Word , as Moses was to Aaron , and Aaron to him , Exod. 4. 16. not that a word is Christ , or Christ life everlasting , but in a figurative sence after a Scripture manner and meaning , according to the character of that beloved Apostle , as Erasmus observeth in his argument to his Epistles , and Hierome in his Preface to his Gospel sheweth that this Apostle had a speciall intent to confute Corinthus and the Ebionites that affirmed Christ to be but an ordinary man the sonne of Joseph , &c. this Apostle being the best Commentator of his own meaning ; how Christ is said to be that visible God , as Isa. 40. 7. the word , Iohn 3. 34. yea , and palpable word , 1 Iohn 1. 1. life eternall , 5. 20. that Lambe of God , Iohn 1. 36. our Passeover , 1 Cor. 5. 7. the the rock 10. 4. David our King , Ezek. 34. 23. Hosea 3. 5. in them typicall predications , and the like , John 15. 1. Matth. 17. 12. Is . 1. 10. Revel. 11. 8. by a Metaphor , or Metonymy , as Perkins and Alsted in their Tracts of sacred Tropes ; where Alsted expounds that 1 Cor. 15. 28. then shall the sonne also himself be subject , that is acknowledged to be . CHAP. 2. TO come to the Question whether Christ ( after the doctrine of Athanasius in his Symbole ) be coequal with the father ? Wee know what charge the Apostle giveth , Gal. 1. 10. against such setters up of new Creeds without warranty , contrary to the first and great Commandement set forth by proclamation of the great King , expresly testifying not only his unity , Deut. 6. 4. Psal. 83. 18. 86. 10. Isa. 37. 16. &c. &c. &c. but also his supremacy and majority , Psal. 13. 5 , 5. Joh. 10. 29. 14. 28. Ephes. 1. 17. 4. 6. Luke 1. 32. John 17. 3. Mark 13. 32. in exclusive and superlative expressions : Of which see more , Mat 20. 23. 27 , 46. Iohn 20. 17. Heb. 1. 9. 1 Cor. 15. 28. the son being tenant in Capite , to God the Father , 1 Cor. 11. 3. both for his words , works , and honours , Iohn 3. 34. 5. 19. 2 Pet. 1. 17. and therefore not coequall , for without contradiction the lesse is dignified by the greater . Also God and Christ are distinguished , Iohn 14. 1. 1 Thess. 3. 11. it being an observation of the learned Erasmus , that where God is put absolutely the Father is understood , as Iohn 8. 54. To come to the offices of Christ our Mediatour , 1 Tim. 2. 5. as a King , Acts 17. 31. Matth. 25. 34. as a Priest , Heb. 7. 24. of a Prophet , Deut , 18. 18. according to that most usuall epithite of his sanctification , the Son of man , denominations , being for the most part taken from the more worthy , so John 8. 40. Acts 2. 23. 13. 38. Rom. 5. 15. 1 Cor. 15. 21. Col. 1 15. Heb. 2. 16. 4. 15. 2. Esdras 13. 25 , 32. which were to no purpose if the better part of his person were not man : there being but a graduall difference betwixt him and Moses and us , Heb. 3. 5 , 6. 4. 15. Rom. 8. 17. there being not one such word , or any one text tending to that purpose in the whole holy Scriptures , but many to the contrary : If we have respect to the scope , coherence , analogy , and the originalls , in discerning figurative forms and phrases according to the sence and meaning , which is the spirit and life of the two Testaments , Revel. 11. 11. whereas the letter is but the corpes common as the high-way throughout Christendom . Wherefore to speak definitively of the heavenly Trinity . I beleeve the Father to be God himself , as 1 Thess. 3. 11. expressed by these adjuncts , the God of heaven , Revel. 11. 13. the living God and Father , Joh. 6. 57. 69. and that the Son is our Messiah , 4. 26. whom God made Lord and Christ , Acts 2. 36. Prince and Saviour , 5. 31. And that the holy spirit is the very power of God , Luke 1. 35. 24 , 49. as 1 Cor. 2. 11. or the Father God essentially , the Sonne vicentially , the holy Spirit potentially , or the Father God above all , Ephes. 4. 6. the Son of God with us , Matth. 1. 23. the holy Spirit God within us , 1 Cor. 2. 16. but for the Son to be coequall to the Father , or the holy Spirit a distinct coequall person I cannot finde ; and I beleeve that these three are one , or agree and conspire in the substance of the same truth to salvation . See 1 Cor. 13. 13. 1 John 5. 8. of two Trinities without coequalls , or yet persons . * And that of three coequall persons to be but the Chappell of Rome , for the Church of Christ , and that which keepeth the rest of the World in the Popes pownd forth of his fold , both the Jews that beleeve the Old Testament , the Turk , and the Great Mogoll , &c. according to the dictate of common intelligence , not corrupt in this kind by a contrary habit , who cannot be brought to believe in a Trinity implying Polytheosie , or Apotheosie , i. e. many gods or a man-god . So that the denying of a second Deity or Godhead is not destructive of faith , but onely removes it from false foundation to a true , that is God the Father by Christ Jesus , 2 Cor. 5. 19. 1 Pet. 5. 10. for that John 5. 18. was a misprision of the Jews proceeding from their ignorance , as may appeare , 10. 34 , 35 , 36 , 37. by our Saviour his own Comment . CHAP. 3. TO answer objections of Scriptures wrested by that third semipagan Century , and a prepossessed posterity ; as in Gen. 1. 26. Let us make man , which in the next verse , also 5. 1 , 2. six severall times ; and Matth. 19. 4. Mark . 10. 6. is expounded in the singular number like that , Gen. 11. 7 , 8. which were a contradiction , not an exposition , and that Elohim bara , the Gods made in the first Verse , a solecisme and not an Hebraisme , being a figurative consultation with his wisdom , or communication with the holy Angels by way of approbation , as 1 Kings 22. 19. Iob 1. 6. or enallage of the plurall number for the singular , for the more honour , * as Iob 18. 2. Dan. 2. 36. Iohn 3. 11. as Kings write in the style of Majesty after the manner of the holy tongue , see Gen. 24. 9. of Abraham his Masters , Iosh. 24. 19. hee is holy Gods , Is . 19. 4. 54. 5. &c ▪ but to infer three coequal persons from thence , the person of Christ ( according to the flesh ) nor then existing is altogether inconsequent ; of the like sort seems that to be , Eccles. 12. 1. if parents be not implyed . For them high and glorious Epithites , Isa. 9. 6. of a man-child that was to be born , it is granted , they are very great and excellent , yet well beseeming our blessed Saviour , the founder and governour of his Church ; of whose wonderfull birth and works wee have sufficient testimonies ; being of his Fathers most intimate Counsell , a mighty God ( not almighty God ) above all appellative gods , 1 Cor. 8. 5. Revel. 1. 5. the everlasting Father , or of the Age to come , ( as Ierome ) eyther by way of Regeneration , and that by , an excellency or equivalency ; as Iohn 14. 9. of whose government although there were a beginning , Heb. 10. 6. yet shall there be no enduring the term militant , or of mortality , 1 Cor. 15. 26. So that it is not a small thing for Christ to be so dignified by the Father , unlesse hee be deified and equallized with the Father , see Gen. 41. 43. Exod. 34. 14. 1 Sam. 18. 23. Ester 6. 9. as Is . 49. 6. That Jer. 23. 6. is but an argument from the name for some relation to God , as Gen. 22. 14. Exod. 17. 15. Judg 6. 24. 2 Sam. 6. 2. as it may appeare , 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2 Cor. 5. 21. unlesse wee would make Iehovahim gods in the plurall , which were dissonant to that incommunicable name . That Zach. 13. 7. speaketh of a sociall and not a coequall party , as Iudg. 18. 20. Acts 15. 28. God and Christ concurring as sociall causes , to wit , primary efficient , and principall instrument in the businesse of salvation , Iohn 6. 44. 14 6. 1 Iohn 1. 3 , 6. CHAP. 4. THat John 2. 29. is an Enallage of the active for the passive , and is spoken declaratively , as 20. 23. Levit. 13. and 14. &c. of the Priest clensing the Leper , like that , Gen. 41. 13. by the divine power wherewith God endowed him , John 5. 2 , 9 there being so many testimonies to that purpose , Acts 2. 24. 13. 31. Rom. 4. 24. 1 Cor. 15. 19. 2 Cor. 4. 14. Gal. 1. 1. Ephes. 1. 20. Col. 2. 12. 1 Thess. 1. 1. with Heb. 13 10. &c. That Acts 20. 28 . in some Translations is with that peculiar bloud , and not Gods own bloud which is absurd . That Rom. 9. and 5th . is spoken of Christ , as he was an Israelite by kinde , with the like clause to that , Rom. 1. 25. 2 Cor. 11. 31. That Philip . 2. 6. should be tooke not upon him the equality of a God , Lord or Master , as Posselius and Pusor shew ; the Apostle exhorting them by the example of Christ , who being in a twofold form , as John 13. 13. Gal. 4. 1. took upon him the form of a servant , wherefore God hath highly exalted him , as Verse 9th . so that John 20. 28. is as much as Lord and Master , like Elohim and Adonim , for the truth of Christs resurrection was that which Thomas doubted , and not his Deity . That John 8. 58. of Christ his being before Abraham , is to be understood in place and dignity , as Verse 53. and not time ( as appeareth ) by circumstance 57 : like that 1. 15 , 30. of the Baptist . That 1 John 5. 7 , 8. be the same in effect , like that , Mar. 10. 8. one by conspiration , or conjugation , not individuation , as 1 Cor. 6. 17. John 17. 21. Acts 4. 32. Heb. 2. 11. Jer. 32. 39. otherways we should confound the Trinity by such an Unity . That John 17. 5. is a Scripture Prolepsis , in regard of divine anticipation ; as may be gathered from that 13. 31 , 33. Luke 24. 26. according to Revel. 13. 8. so Jer. 1. 5. in regard of Gods sore-knowledge and decree ; Acts 2. 23. Gal. 1. 15. Ephes. 1. 4 , 3. 11. 2 Tim. 1. 9. That 1 Pet. 3. 19. is understood of Noe as in the next Verse , who by the same spirit ( 1 Cor. 12. 4. ) preached whiles the Ark was in preparing ; before Christ began to preach , Mat. 4. 17. That Christ in the Revelation is called Alpha and Omega , so is the Angell , 22. 13. it being usuall to attribute that to the ministeriall cause , which is proper to the primary , Gen. 22. 15 , 16 , 18. 17. Exod. 3. 6. 7. Judg. 2. 1. Josh. 1. 11. 15. 2 Esdras 7. 3. For that which some contend , the first Chapter to the Hebrews to be of the some , they are to observe the manifold transitions ; as first of the Father , 2 , 3 , 4. of the Son , 5 , 6 , 7. of the Angels ; 8. to the sonne ; 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. to the Father according to the 102 Psalme in which not a word of the Son ; 13 , 14 of the Angels again ; so that in the sixth Verse is understood of a secondary and not supreme worship like a shadow to the person it belongeth to , 1 Chron. 29. 20. so that inference of the whole first Chapter to the Hebrews , is a fallacy from a part to the whole . That John 1. 3. All things were made by him , is not meant of this materiall world , as appeareth by the 10 verse , but according to the subject intended , the new creation , 2 Cor. 5. 17. according to that , Heb. 1. 2. which ought to be ages , and not worlds , see 2. 5. concerning spirituall and eternall things , as 2 Cor. 4. 8. Col. 1. 16. That Christ is said to be our Saviour , we may read the like of others respectively in their kinde , Judg. 3. 9. 15. Isa. 19. 20. That Pro. 8. 11 , only argues that Gods wisdome was alwayes present with him , and doth infer his holy spirit , ler. 10. 12. Iob 33. 3. as Wisd. 7. 25. to which actions are attributed , Prov. 8. 1. by a Prosopopie of a person , as Psal. 85. 10 ▪ 11. That Trifagie , Isa. 6. 3. is a reduplication expressing the excesse of the action or affection , as 2 Sam. 18. 33. Prov. 31. 2. Deut. 13. 14. Wherefore let us labour to reconcile Scripture by Scripture , and by no means admit of an absurd sense . CHAP. 5. THat which is objected that Christ were not a sufficient satisfaction if he were not equall to the Father ; is dissonant from the condition of remunerative justice consisting in a Geometricall proportion of acceptance by the partie offended , the party offended being sinfull man , besides that inferreth imminution to Christ his most pretious blood , Mat. 26. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. Heb. 10. 29. 1 Pet. 1. 19. Revel. 12. 11. Iohn 15. 3. For a corollary I will conclude with that , Exod. 34. 14. Because the Lord whose name is Zealous , is a zealous God , and will not give his glory to another . as Isa. 48. 11. having no equall in heaven , as Psal. 89. 6. Isa. 48. 11. for to add or substract to and from equals , maketh them unequall , equals agreeing in the same common measure , as Revel. 21. 16. So that if Christ be equall to the Father , as touching his Godhead he is so much more by the addition of his manhood , which I now doe more then suspect to be that 2 Thes. 2. 4. of that Catholike professor in a Romish sense , according to the Originall at Thessalonia , Hist. Tripart . 9. 7. and if this , that , and another person , be equally God , Almighty , Eternall , &c. ( three ones make three , as well in the greatest persons as least parts , also if the Son be from the Father , and the holy Spirit from both by a personall generation and procession , there must needs follow a Hysteren proteron in the Deity , to say that from God to naturals is inconsequent , it is to be noted that for particular respects , God having a voluntary agent , and that infinite , doth whatsoever he pleaseth , even beyond ordinary means , yet in generall respects , there is good consequence to and from God , with naturals observing the distance that is due to his Majesty , as Malac. 1. 6. Mat. 5. 48. 7. 11. Wherefore to make Christ coequall to his Father , is to mak another or a false Christ ▪ or ( to deal plainly with friends ) an Idoll Christ , or two Gods ( as much as in us lyeth ) the great indignity to his imparalleld Father , which the indignation of his most pious Son , in wounding the Father through his sides , and I feare that which we now , and others hereafter shall suffer for , as Revel. 6. 16 , 17. for as it is high Treason to equallize even the Kings Sonne , with the King himselfe , so it is high blasphemy to equallize the first borne of every creature , Col. 1. 15. with the Creator himselfe , Rom. 1. 25. and I suppose that blasphemy of the Beast , with seven heads and ten hornes , Revel. 13. 1 , 3 , 5 , &c. and that mystery of iniquity written in the forehead of the G. Whore , 17. 5. diametrally opposite to that of the Fathers name , written in the forehead of the 144000 , 14 , 1 , 7 , 7 , 3 , &c. As for that common evasion , applyed to Christ as he is God , and as he is man , it is contrary both to reason and Scripture , to limitate by so great a disparity , as Hos. 11. 9. for I am God and not man , Isa. 31. 3. 40. 17. implying contradiction , as he is , and as he is not , and is but a presumptuous begging of that which is in question , and if it be illogicall to limitate by a superiour , or subordinate ( as the Pope errs , not as he is Pope , but as he is man ) it is much more absurd to limitate by a disparate , and that of infinite disparity , to omit that Luke 2. 40. the grace of God was with him , and Act. 10. 38. for God was with him , which were an idle tautalogie if he were God , onely he is called God by a metaphor , as Gabriell a man , Dan. 9. 21. and Judas a devill , Iohn 6. 70. CHAP. 6. THus we may perceive how by iniquity of time the reall truth of God hath been trodden under foot by a verball kinde of Divinity , introduced by the Semipagan Christians of the third Century in the Western Church , immediately upon the ceasing of the Heathenish Emperours , who for their open hostility were likened to a Lyon , 2 Tim. 4. 17. as their successors to a Dragon , for their serpentine subtilties , continuing 1260 years , begun by the first Nicen Councill about 328 , and made Catholike by the Imperiall decree at Thessalonica , 342 , Hist. Tripart . 9. 7. but that prescription is no plea against God , and God be thanked , the time of this generall Apostasie is expired , the mystery discovered , and the unity of God , Zach. 14. 9. come upon the stage , Covenant . The second particular , that I cannot forbeate but to cry out with the people , it is fallen , it is fallen , Babylon the great , whiles I perceive that first resurrection from Antichristian errour , as Napier , and the calling of the Jews comming so fast on , Rom. 11. 15 , &c. to make one sheepfold , Joh. 10. 16. Wherefore to make the G. Whore stigmaticall , first , by her brand in the forehead , Reveal . 17. 5. by that which is in the very frontispiece of all the Catholiks Confessions concerning the Trinity . Secondly , by prescription ( or marke in her hand ) thereunto Revel. 13. 16. Thirdly , by her seat and place notorious , by seven hils , and ten Kingdoms , 17. 9. Fourthly , by that so well known name Latemos , 13. 18. as Moulin in his accomplishment of Prophecies . Fifthly , by her persecution of the Saints , 12 , 13 , 7 , 17. 6. Dan. 17. 11. Sixtly , by a heathenish Polytheosie of many Gods , and Apotheosie of a man-God . Seventhly , by her Tricotomy of the three Catholike professions , Revel. 16. 19. holding with the Whore in tail generall . CHAP. 7. HOwsoever Constantine by Gods providence was ordained for ceasing the heathenish persecutions , yet had he no commission for setting up a new religion of redivived Ethnicisme , as Mede , Revel. 11. 3. in imitation of the three sons of Saturne , their three major Gods ; the deifying of Hercules , Augustus , &c. their Heroes ; in forcing some more difficult and figurative texts to confirme their inventions ; whereas that which is most plain , common and commanded is the measure of that which is more difficult and obscure ; for which cause they are termed Gentiles in the Revelation ; and the true beleevers Jews . To passe by the reports of Zosimus concerning the conversion of Constantine ; we may observe by those , Iudges 8. 27. 2 Sam. 17. 23. 1 Kings 1. 5. 12. 28. Ier. 44. 17. how Kings , Captains , and Counsellores , ( albeit renowmed ) are not presidents for Religion more the meaner men , as 1 Cor. 1. 27. 2 , 6. so that such servile cattell and men-admirers for advantage , Iude 10. are the very bain of all ingenuity and Christianity . CHAP. 8. TO come to the first Nicen Council ( the Load-star of the three following ) ; besides that humane Councils are but externall and accidentall means of truth ; it was falsified by Sozimus the Civilian concerning the point of Primacy ; and is generally condemned for there-baptization of the Cataphrygians ; their three and ten yeares penance ; that men should pray rather standing then kneeling ; and is reproved by Hierome , for equallizing the History of Iudith with the holy Canon , besides that divers of the best learned of them dissented from the rest and major part , according to that Exod. 23. 2. also Calvine could not endure that very God of very God in their Creed ; for God being a most pure act , a begotten God ( to speak properly ) is a most grosse contradiction : And that begotten not made , contrary to that , Rom. 1. 3. Gal. 4. 4. generation being proper to living and mortall creatures for continuance of their kind ; thus by going forth of mens buildings or systemes , as 2 Esdras 10. 54. transported by some good Angell into the Wildernesse , as Revel. 17. 3. I got a glympse not onely of the G. Whore , but of the Spouse of Christ , 12. 6. 21. 9. which things although they may seeme strange and new , the reason resides in the abolishing of an old errour , see Zech. 14. 7. &c. Isa. 30. 26. 2 Esdras 5. 4 , 6. 22. For mysteries they are either of things more hard to be understood as parables not expounded , Matth. 13. 11. prophesies not fulfilled , Ephes 3. 3 , 4. godlinesse to a sensuall worldly and wicked man , 1 Cor. 2. 14. or that cannot be understood , as meerlyes in believing things that are not , especially expresse contradictions concerning the unity and supremacy of God , as 2 Thess. 2. 11. Revel. 22. 15. For to multiply the Deity , or detract from its unity is blasphemy , as all the Doctors define . CHAP. 9. BUt me thinks I smell a Fox or rather a Wolfe , in the Fable , and unlesse the Lord put to his helping hand of the Magistrate , for the manacling of Satan in that persecuting power , Revel. 20. 2. there is little hope either for the liberty of the Subject , or Law of God amongst us , Psal. 119. 126. so this wo will not depart untill it rest in a poor and terrified remnant , as Revel. 11. 13. And I cannot understand what detriment could redound either to Church or Common wealth by the toleration of religious , not antipoliticall , but rather benefit , as we see by example in Holland and Poland . CHAP. 10. FOr that which was objected concerning Arrius his formidable end , it is rather an argument of his equivocall perjury , &c. Hist. Tripart , 3. 10. like Ananias and Saphira , Act. 5. or Judas 1. 18. then of the cause : As for that which is commonly answered , that God is not divided but distingoished into three equall persons , is as much as if they had not a reall , but only a relative or rationall being or existence , as if essence and existence differed in God , or in any thing whose kind consists in one individuall : for hypostaticall union and communion of properties , they are but reall contradictions , and the froglike croaking of the Dragon , the beast and false Prophet , Revel. 16. 13. by vertue of a Hocus Pocus and a Babylonian mouth , thus after the precipice of this Romish Jezabel , and the death of her two daughters , Homousia and Symousia like Aholah , and Aholibah , Ezech. 23. I perceive how the Western Sun declineth to its period and setting : And as for that third Reformation which succeeded the Calvinian upon the Turkish Territories more remote from the Romish tyranny , especially , about Anno 1560 , in Transilvania , Lituania , Livonia , and Polonia , wee cannot expect to be compleat before the revolution to the East ( where it first began ) Revel. 7. 9 , 9. 14 , 16. 12. ( there being 12 Bishops successively at Antioch , unto the yeer 400 , * Antioch being the Metropolis of Syria , ( famous for that , Acts 11. 6 ; and the ten Persecutions , bounded on the East by Euphrates . CHAP. 11. AS for presumption , to professe that which God commands , yea , that first and great Commandement I aver it to be none , Deut. 18 , 20. and the son of Syrach 3. 23. 5. 10. be it opposed by never so many , or great ; Numb. 14. 44. 16. 2. or never so glorious titles of the orthodox Nicene Fathers , and the Pope his Holinesse , for that Iob 32. 22. therefore , howsoever some object that it is damnable to beleeve no more then what we can comprehend , as Iob 11. 7. yet let them consider that in the precepts necessary to salvation , we are to beleeve what we may apprehend according to our best understanding , Mark 12. 33. Ier. 9. 24. this I say to the shame of such as shut their eyes against the most illustrious and authenticall testimonies of all or the most memorable and approved times , places , and persons ; hardly to be brought that ever they had greater grand Fathers , &c. not allowing any more of authentick and classick testimonies , then the most vain and improbable traditions amongst men ; nor to beleeve the Histories of Moses , Christ , &c. because they had not the happy houre of St. Thomas , or others to be seeing , and sensible witnesses , as Iohn 20. 27. 1 Iohn 1. 1. The Lord God of his most gracious goodnesse grant , that the more able and ingenuous , like true and trusty souldiers of Jesus Christ , whose eyes the God of this world hath not blinded ; would do their utmost endevour to reduce the rest from that long captivity of our spirituall Babylon , under that Man of sin ; and that God would prosper their endevours that are studious of the sincere Truth ; and strive for the same to death , as the son of Syrach , 4. 28 ; and defend justice for their life , to the exaltation of their Nation , as Prov. 14. 34 ; that releeve the oppressed , &c. as Isa. 1. 7 ; that so wee may enjoy the good things of the Land . AMEN . To the Honourable HOUSE of Commons at WESTMINSTER . The humble Petition of PAUL BEST Prisoner in the Gatehouse . Humbly sheweth , THat whereas your Petitioner hath been a close Prisoner ever since the fourteenth of February 1644 , onely for this his premised reasons or opinion committed to a Minister ( a supposed friend ) for his judgment and advice onely ; having at all times shewed himself a liege loving and active Subject to the utmost of his ability : in these and whatsoever else humbly submitting himself to your most serene and able judgments . Your Honours would be graciously pleased in commiseration of his exceeding distressed Estate , with what sufferings hee hath already endured , to grant him his release or judgment , according to the worth and wisdome of this Honourable and independant Court , And your Petitioner shall pray , &c. Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A27527e-130 * Purchas Pilgrimage . Covert's Travels . * Buxtorsii thesaur . 2. 10. Drusius uno Elohim . Sixtinus Amama Gram. annot. * More's Chronoll . Magdeburgs Hist. 
A39354	----	A letter from Edmund Ellis, a minister of the Church of England to John Norris, another minister of the same church in vindication of the Quakers from the charge of being Socinians. Elys, Edmund, ca. 1634-ca. 1707. 1693 Approx. 6 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 3 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A39354 Wing E676 ESTC R41116 19637058 ocm 19637058 109232 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A39354) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 109232) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1685:38) A letter from Edmund Ellis, a minister of the Church of England to John Norris, another minister of the same church in vindication of the Quakers from the charge of being Socinians. Elys, Edmund, ca. 1634-ca. 1707. Norris, John, 1657-1711. 4 p. s.n., [London : 1693] Caption title. Dated: August 4, 1693--P. 4. Imprint suggested by Wing. Reproduction of original in the Bodleian Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Socinianism. Society of Friends -- Apologetic works. 2002-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2002-07 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-08 Mona Logarbo Sampled and proofread 2002-08 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A LETTER FROM EDMUND ELLIS A MINISTER of the Church of England TO JOHN NORRIS Another Minister of the same Church In Vindication of the QUAKERS from the Charge of being SOCINIANS . SIR , HAving been lately informed , that a French Minister now in London , being found Guilty of Spreading the Doctrine of the SOCINIANS , is said to pretend to be a Quaker ; and having a long time thought it my Duty to do what in me Lies , to take off that harmless sort of Men , that are call'd Quakers from that Popular Odium , which by some Persons they have been most Unjustly exposed unto , I make this Address to you , being known to have Writ against them , but a Person of more Learning and Candor than any other that I have yet known to have Written against them ; most earnestly Entreating you by the Love we owe to all Mankind , that you would be pleased to concur with me in my present Endeavours to vindicate these Men , from that unjust Imputation , viz. That they are SOCINIANS . You know R. Barkley , in his Apology , P. 84. says expresly . If ( the Doctrine Concerning the Light within contradicts , overturns , and enervates the false Doctrine of the Pelagians , Semi-pelagians , SOCINIANS and others , who exalt the Light of Nature , [ and ] the Liberty of Mans Will , in that it wholly excludes the Natural man from having any place , or portion in his own Salvation , by any Acting , Working , or moving of his own , untill he be first quickned , raised up , and acted by Gods Spirit . Clement Lake ( one of those they call Quakers ) in one of his Letters ( lately Publisht ) to John Flavel an Independent Preacher has these Words , in Answer to Flavels Charge , That the Quakers lead men to Obedience to the Light within for Salvation : We press Obedience to the Light within , we own who is Jesus Christ the Light of Israel the Light of the World , who is given to be a Covenant to the People , and a Light to the Gentiles , to open the blind eyes Esa 42. 6 , 7. This was Davids Light to his Feet , and Lanthorn to his Paths , Ps. 119. 115. And this Word , or Light , or Jesus was in the beginning , and in him was life , and the life was the Light of men , John 1. 8. Can those Men be SOCINIANS , who acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the True Light In every Man , which he could not be , if he were not Infinite ? I must bear my Testimony to this Crooked and Perverse Generation , That Jesus Christ being the True , and Eternal GOD is IN every Man , Converting or Convincing him in order to his Conversion , or ( in proportion to the Repugnancy he makes against the Divine Illumination ) Tormenting him : I say Tormenting him , not Directly but Consequentially , as the Torment or Vexation of a Spirit , or Rational Soul , is the Natural Result of all Repugnancy to THE TRUE LIGHT , which is the INFINITY of Goodness . I further Testify , and shall be ever ready , by the Grace of God to maintain the Assertion ( which I hope by you will not be denied ) that 't is possible for any man ( that has not made up the full Measure of Iniquity ) at all times , and in all places , by a Sincere Dependance upon the Power and Virtue of the LIGHT WITHIN , MANIFESTING any Action to be Sinful , to conceive an Aversion to it . I desire your Candid Reflections on the Answer I shall here give to one Passage in your First Treatise Concerning the Divine Light , p. 65. I had no Reason to confine it ( as the Quakers do ) to Divine and Spiritual Truths , but to extend it to all Truth without Exception , which I suppose to be equally perceivable in this Divine Light , which as being the very Essence of God , must be equally exhibitive of all . To this I answer , First that the Quakers speaks of the LIGHT with reference to his being INCARNATE , And so 't is mani est , whatsoever Influence he has upon the Souls of Men , it is in Order to their Sanctification , it shews nothing else but Sanctifying Truth . Secondly , I assert , that all Truth is Divine , Sanctifying Truth , which being Rightly apprehended , will most certainly carry the Soul to GOD , the PRIME VERITY , the Fountain of all Being . You say , you suppose all Truth to be equally Perceivable in this Divine Light. We grant that all such Truth , the Consideration whereof is for the Pesent Necessane to our Sanctification , is Perceivable in this Divine Light. There are many things in your Publisht Writings that deserve the thanks of all Men , particularly your Confutation of Mr. Locks Conceit that we have no Innate Idea of God ; For whose sake I beseech you to own the Truth , wheresoever your find it , and I shall ever remain Your Faithful Servant in the love of all Truth , EDMUND ELYS . Totness in Devon. August 4. 1693. 
A38046	----	Some thoughts concerning the several causes and occasions of atheism, especially in the present age with some brief reflections on Socinianism, and on a late book entitled, The reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures / by John Edwards ... Edwards, John, 1637-1716. 1695 Approx. 132 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 76 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A38046 Wing E215 ESTC R18870 12283637 ocm 12283637 58808 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A38046) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 58808) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 182:13) Some thoughts concerning the several causes and occasions of atheism, especially in the present age with some brief reflections on Socinianism, and on a late book entitled, The reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures / by John Edwards ... Edwards, John, 1637-1716. [9], 126 [i.e. 142] p. Printed for J. Robinson ... and J. Wyat ..., London : 1695. The reasonableness of Christianity (1695) is by John Locke. Errata: p. 126 [i.e. 142]. Reproduction of original in British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Locke, John, 1632-1704. -- Reasonableness of Christianity. Apologetics -- Early works to 1800. Apologetics -- History -- 17th century. Atheism -- Controversial literature. Socinianism -- Controversial literature. 2002-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2002-07 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-08 Jennifer Kietzman Sampled and proofread 2002-08 Jennifer Kietzman Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion SOME THOUGHTS Concerning the Several Causes and Occasions OF ATHEISM , Especially in the Present Age. With some Brief Reflections on SOCINIANISM : And on a Late BOOK Entituled The Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures . BY IOHN EDWARDS , B. D. and sometime Fellow of S. Iohn's College in Cambridge . LONDON : Printed for I. Robinson at the Golden Lyon , and I. Wyat at the Role in S. Paul's Churchyard ▪ MDCXCV . TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD , His GRACE THOMAS , By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury , Primate and Metropolitan of all England , &c. MY LORD , YOUR Grace being not only by Your Place and Station , but by Your own Choice and voluntary Act , the Grand Patron of our Religion , it cannot be improper to present You with these brief Papers , which , though in themselves very mean and inconsiderable , and unworthy of Your Grace's View , are a Vindication of that Holy Cause against the repeated Cavils and bold Insults of Atheistical Spirits , who ( as Your Grace with a very deep Resentment and Regret * observes ) are of late grown very numerous . How vigorously Your Lordship hath attacked this sort of Men , is well known to the World ; and that hitherto they have not been able to bring about their impious Designs , is in great part owing to Your Lordship's successful Attempts . I presume , from the Encouragement which so Illustrious an Example hath given me , to engage in the same Cause , that is , to lay open the Folly and Absurdity of their Pretences , and withall to discover some of those Heads and Springs whence the Atheistick Apprehensions of these present Times arise , and whereby they are fed and nourished . Which I hope will be of good use to those who desire to be caution'd against the Venom of this Raging Evil , and will in some measure operate even on those who are infected and corrupted with it already . I am sensible how Precious Your Grace's Minutes are in this time of extraordinary Business and Emergency ; and therefore I will not be injurious to the Publick by any farther Applications to Your Grace . Only I superadd my hearty Prayers for Your Health and long Life , wherein the Common Welfare and Happiness both of Church and State are so much involved : And so I subscribe my self , Your Grace's Most Dutiful Son , and Devoted Servant , Iohn Edwards . THE PREFACE . I Designing , by the Divine Help and Conduct , to defend the Existence and Providence of God by Arguments drawn both from the Greater and the Lesser World ; it is my Request to the Reader , that he would accept of this Brief Essay in the mean time , which I conceive will be a suitable Introduction and Preparative to that other Vndertaking . For as in that intended Discourse I shall carefully trace and discover the Footsteps of the Divinity every where ; so here I make it my Business to shew how frequent an obvious the Occasions of Disbelieving it are . By which means we shall effectually learn how to purge our Minds of those ill Qualities which naturally are subservient to Atheism ; we shall know how to remove those Stumbling-blocks , to answer those Objections , and to clear up those Mistakes which usually betray Men to this Infidelity . And thus there will be a Way made for what I design . Persons will be fitted to receive and retain the Impressions which those Topicks that I shall afterwards make choice of will enstamp upon their Minds : And I hope the Age , which hath lately been stigmatized with Marks of Atheism , will for the future be renowned for these truly illustrious and glorious Characters . I will only farther acquaint the Reader , that some part of what I here offer ( viz. such Particulars as I thought were convenient for an usual and mix'd Auditory ) was deliver'd lately in one of the City-Pulpits ; and the other Heads , with their Enlargement ( which are of somewhat a different strain , and are chiefly adapted to the Curious and Inquisitive ) are an Addition since . But as I have added several things , so I have omitted some , at the Desire of those who are concern'd in both . This is all that I had to advertise the Reader of ; and so I bid him Farewel . SOME THOUGHTS Concerning the Causes and Occasions OF ATHEISM . THAT the World was not void of Atheists in King David's time , may be gathered from his Words in Psalm xiv . 1. The Fool hath said in his heart , There is no God. But it is exceedingly to be lamented , that the number of them is much increased since , yea , that it is the Unhappiness of this Present Age , to be pester'd with not a few of them . Notwithstanding those cogent and incontestable Arguments for a Deity which are suggested from the Holy Scriptures , and the Natural Reasonings of sober Minds , there is still an Atheistical Spirit prevailing in the World. There is a sort of Men ( if I may call them so whole bold Infidelity is so Irrational and Brutish ) that reckon the Notion of a God to be a Melancholick Conceit , and the mere Effect of Credulity and Ignorance . Yea , there are some that pass for Wits , who strive for the honour of being accounted the most Able Atheists of the Age. Wherefore , instead of rehearsing or urging those Topicks which are wont to be produced for the Proof of the Divinity ; my Business at present shall be , to enquire into the Causes of Atheism , which now vaunts it self with an impudent Fore-head , and begins to boast that it hath got Footing in a great part of the World. I will search into the Occasions , either real or pretended ( for I will mention both ) of this Reigning Mischief . I will shew you on what Grounds the Impious do at this Day not only , with the Psalmist's Atheistical Fool , say in their Hearts , but openly and avowedly proclaim to the World , that there is no God , that is , no Supreme Over-ruling Being of Infinite Perfection , no eternally Wise , Intelligent , and Omniscient Substance that at first gave Existence to all things , and ever since upholds them , and takes care of them . I. I assign Ignorance to be one great Spring of this gross Unbelief . As knowing as the World is at this day , there are too many People of inferiour Rank whose Education hath been so unhappy , that they have not been instructed in the Common Principles of Religion ; and they are more unhappy in that they will not allow themselves time and leisure to look into their own Minds , and to rouze those inbred Notions which are implanted there by God , and which would ( if they would give way ) lead them to him . Wherefore it is the Concern of all Persons , to know how to converse with Themselves , and to rifle their own Breasts , that they may find a Deity written there : and besides , they should be careful to acquire such a stock of Knowledge from without , that they may understand their Religion , and not be seduc'd by Atheistical Notions that fly up and down every where . But this first Cause which I assign of Atheism , is not only to be found in some meaner sort of People who have not time ( as they order their Affairs ) to think of a God , but in others of a higher Rank and Quality : for by Ignorance I mean a wilful and sottish stifling of natural Notions and Impressions : And this sometimes prevails in Men of great Parts and Knowledge . Think it not strange that I reckon such Persons in the number of the Ignorant ; for ( to speak impartially ) they are so : and this was the Sense of the * wisest Pagans long since . For to have no Knowledge , and to stifle it , is the same thing ; which is the Case of these Men : they make it their business to choak the innate Principles of their Minds , and to disregard those Notices which their Natures suggest to them . Thus these Persons are stubbornly and obstinately Ignorant . Whatever their Pretences and Boastings be , their Atheism proceeds from want of Learning and Wit. For 't is not the part of a Learned and Ingenious Man to destroy the Notions of Mankind , and pull down what hath been built by the universal Suffrage of the World , and in its place to erect a Conceit of his own . Some may take such for Brainish and Scholar-like sort of Men , but then these are so without Thinking ; for it is the want of this that makes them what they are . Or , to say the best of this kind of Men , and Atheist is but a half-witted Person : He hath perhaps made some Attempts in Science , but to little purpose : He hath attain'd to some slight and trivial Notions ; but hath not penetrated into the heart of Things ; and thence it comes to pass , that he is full of Doubts and Cavils , which he is able to raise , but he hath not Skill and Ability enough to answer them . Wherefore it was excellently said of my Lord Bacon , * A little Philosophy inclines mens minds to Atheism ; but depth in Philosophy brings mens minds about to Religion and a Deity . Thus though this mis-shapen Monster would be thought to be the genuine issue of True Wisdom and Sound Knowledge , yet it is really the daughter of an Affected Ignorance . Wherefore to secure your selves against Atheism , be careful that you blind not your minds ; willingly receive the rays of light into your souls , cherish all sound notions and conceptions , and by all proper methods bring your selves to a right understanding , and steady embracing of all the Fundamental Principles of your Religion . II. There is great Disingenuity and unhandsome Dealing in the case , else we should not have so much Atheism . Here I will prove , that they do not act fairly , but that they are Ungenteel , which perhaps will affect these Persons more than any thing that I can say . What they are willing and forward to grant in other matters , and on other occasions , they refuse to grant here , yea they utterly deny it , though there be the same reason for one as the other . This plainly appears by their Objections . As first , they tell us they have no Sensible Notices of a God , and therefore they can't admit of it ; for all the knowledge ( say they ) which we have of things , is deriv'd to us from Sense . But here we see that these Men are Partial and Disingenuous , for they will not deny that there are many things which they judge not of by Sense ; they grant that the swiftness of Motion oftentimes out-runs the nimblest Sense , and the Observation of the quickest eye ; yet they do not deny the Motion it self : The Element of Air , in which the daily converse , is not seen , nor is it heard or felt ( unless when 't is extraordinarily moved and disturbed , which is but seldom : ) nor will they say they taste it ; and 't is as certain that they cannot smell it , ( for this is only the Vehicle of Smells , but is not it self the object of that sense ) and yet these nice Gentlemen do not deny the Existence of the Air. They can by none of their Senses discern the Motion of the Sun , Moon , and Stars ( or , as perhaps they think it most proper to say , the Earth ) , and yet there is not a man of them that denies that they move . It can't be determin'd by Sense , whether the Sun be bigger than it appears to be , and therefore Epicurus ( who was a great Man for Sense ) held it was of no greater dimension than it seems to the Eye to be ; yea , of no greater heat in it self than it seems to the Feeling to be here on Earth . And the Atheistical Poet , who borrow'd his Notions from him , was of the same mind , Nec nimio solis major rota , nec minor ardor Esse potest nostris quàm sensibus esse videtur . Lucret. lib. 5. This is certain , that the things that are least discernible act most . The Animal Spirits , which do all the great things in our bodies , are themselves Imperceptible . They are the Insensible and Invisible Parts , as Spirits , Wind , Subtile matter , Exhalations , which ( being agitated ) do the chiefest Exploits in Nature . There are Fine Particles and Atoms diffused through all bodies whatsoever ; and these are the cause of Sense and Motion in Animals : by help of these , Minerals , Plants , and all Vegetables , are brought to perfection . These Invisible Agents effect strange things , and act most wonderfully in the World. The Nutritious Iuyce in the Nerves , if we may credit the famous Glisson , is of mighty use and influence : yet ( as he confesses himself ) there are no Cavities to be seen to convey it , and none of this Succus is ever discern'd in the dissecting of Animals . Notwithstanding this , some Physicians of the most piercing Judgment , have granted ( whatever they do now ) the real being of it . And in other Instances it might be shewed , that Sense is not always made a Judge even in sensible Objects , but we gather the being and operation of them from Reason and Discourse . This the persons whom we are now dealing with do not deny , but even practise it themselves , and are willing to allow of it . Why therefore are they so void of Ingenuity and fair-dealing , as not to admit of the same in the case that is before us ? Why do they most irrationally deny a God because they do not apprehend him by Bodily sense , whenas they judge not of some other things by Sense , nay though they be proper objects of it ? This is a plain proof of these mens wilful Prejudice and Partiality , especially if I add , that God is infinitely farther removed from our most exalted Apprehensions , than the Sun ( of which we spoke before ) is from this Earth . This Glorious Sun * dwelleth in that light which no man can approach unto , whom no man hath see , or can see . Secondly , they tell us that there are Great Difficulties in conceiving a God , and they are loth to swallow these down : and more especially the notion of a Spirit ▪ i. e. a Being that is void of Matter and Body is too hard to be conceiv'd by them , and therefore seeing we hold God to be a Spirit , they can form no conception of him . I will reply to both the parts of this Objection distinctly : and first as to the General Cavil , That this notion is accompanied with Difficulties , I answer , there are great Difficulties in other matters , which yet they leap over with ease , and do not disbelieve the things themselves because of the Difficulties that attend them . It is very hard to explain how a little Wheel of two inches diameter , fixed on the same Axil with two greater Wheels of ten inches a-piece , moving together ( the greater ones on the ground , the lesser on a table ) should move over the very same space in equal time , with equal rotation with the greater ones : and yet the thing it self is not denied by any one . And many other puzzling Problems might be mentioned , where the Hardship doth not discourage them from embracing them . But I will instance in one of their own Hypotheses , viz. that of Atoms , which they chuse to solve the Original of the World by , that they may evade the insuperable Difficulties ( as they think them ) of the Acknowledgment of a God. If they say that these Atoms had their Existence from Themselves , then instead of denying one God , they assert many , for Self-existence is of the very nature and essence of a Deity ; wherefore if they were all from themselves , they are all Gods. If they say that other Matter or Atoms were the first Cause of these , then they run to Infinity , and no body is able to trace them . If they say they are of Nothing , then they had as good have begun with that , and have confessed in plain terms , that the World was made out of Nothing , and then they come to us , but they are resolved they will not do that . Thus they are confounded as to the Rise and Origine of their Atoms . Then , as to their Motion , whence had they that ? either of themselves or of an other ? They could not have it of Themselves , for we see it is not of the nature of Matter to move : it is in it self a dull and inert , a lumpish and unactive thing . If this Motion was impress'd on it by an Other , then that was either some other Matter , or Something else . If they hold the former , they run again in infinitum , and he is a distracted man that will run after them . If they maintain the latter , they betray their Cause , and acknowledge a Spirit , for there is no real and substantial thing besides Matter and Spirit . In brief , whether the former or the latter Assertion be held by them , they do in a manner own what they deny : for we will not disagree about the Name , if we can agree on the Thing it self . That Being or Agent which gave the first Motion to things , is God. If after all they say , that Matter had this Motion by Chance , and so was neither from it self or any other , they talk more absurdly and wildly than before ; for Chance is a Word made to signifie only the unexpected happening of a thing , but doth not import that there was no Cause or Author at all of it . But however , if they will stand to this ( as generally they do ) that Matter at first had a strong power by Chance to jump into an Orderly System of Heavens , Earth , Sea , &c. then I ask them , What is the reason that there hath been nothing of this nature since ? What reason can be given why all the Atoms and Effluviums in the several Ages and Successions of Time , ever since this visible World had its being , have not produced some excellent Frame either like this World , or of an other nature ? What! is this Lucky Chance quite ceas'd ? Is this Fortunate Lottery at an end ? Is there no probability of a brave fortuitous hit once again ? Is there no such fine piece of work as that of Sun , Moon , and Stars , to be expected once more ? No : there is an utter despair of it ; for from Eternity ( according to them ) to this moment , we have had no such good Luck , and therefore what reason have we to expect any such afterwards ? yea indeed , what ground have these Chance-Philosophers to think that there ever was any such thing ? What reason have they to declare it to be their firm perswasion that Matter was set into motion from Eternity , and that by the frisking of its Particles , it at last danced into a World ? yet this and all the rest they believe and vouch rather than they will hold that the beginning of things was from an Intelligent and Wise Being . It appears hence , that they will say any thing rather than acknowledge themselves to be in the wrong : they make nothing of talking idly and impertinently , of running into Banter and Nonsense , as we have heard . They can give credit to this extravagant Fancy , that an everlasting Juncto of Atoms did without Counsel and Knowledge club together to make the World. They can tamely submit to this unaccountable Maxim , that these infinite Bodies , after eternal Brushings , Agitations , Encounters , Knocking 's , Tiltings , Justlings , Jumblings , fell by mere Chance into this excellent Frame that we now behold . Thus the Atheist , to avoid some seeming Difficulties , runs into those which are really so , yea into the greatest Absurdities imaginable . If it be difficult to conceive the Self-existence and Eternity of one God , surely it is insuperably so , to conceive infinite Matter moving it self , and giving Being to it self from all Eternity . It is plain then , that these men deal not fairly and uprightly , but wilfully deceive themselves and others . They cry up Reason , and yet maintain things which are repugnant to ordinary Discourse and the Common Dictates of Reason ; and therefore are rather to be exploded than with much industry to be confuted . They cannot only swallow down , but digest Absurdities when they think fit , and at other times they can fancy them where there are none , nor any shadow of any . Then as to that particular Difficulty , viz. That the Notion of a Spirit is inconceivable , and therefore they have no conception of a God ; I return this brief Answer , That if this which they say be true , if it be impossible to apprehend the Idea of a Spirit , then there is no such thing : and if so , then Matter alone must do all things in the World , but particularly , it must have Understanding and Knowledge , is must think and reason , for ( whatever the precarious Hypothesis of Atoms suggests ) the Curious frame of this World could not be erected without Knowledge and Wisdom , and it cannot be kept up and managed without these . Now , I appeal to any considerate man , whether the flat denying of this , and the asserting that the Dimensions of a Body are Intellectual , that to be Long and to be Broad , and to be Deep , are Acts and Exertments of Reason or Will , and ( in short ) that Extension is Thinking , be not far greater Absurdities than any thing they imagine to be in the notion of a God. It is a sign therefore that these men make Difficulties where there are none , and do not take notice of them where they are . I could here prove that our Faculties may form as clear , explicit , and distinct an Idea of a Spirit ( which they so much boggle and startle at ) as they do of their own Existence , or any other Principle in Nature ; but this I have made my task in an other place . Thirdly , they tell us they cannot believe a Deity , because there are no Proper Demonstrations to prove it . For you must know , that there Persons whom we have to do with at present , are great men for Demonstrations . But I answer , The Existence of many things in the World cannot be made out by Demonstration , strictly so called , and yet no man questions the reality of them . The skilfullest Mathematician under Heaven can't demonstrate that the Sun Shines , and yet there is no doubt at all of it , and he would be counted a Mad-man that denies it . We are morally certain of many things which we cannot possibly demonstrate ; but this doth not hinder us from yielding a firm assent to them . And 't is certain , that an Assent is an firm on Moral grounds as on rigid Demonstrations , when the matter is capable of no other grounds ; for the Evidence is proportionable to the Matter to be proved , and that is as much as can be desired by any intelligent man. There can be no greater than a Moral Certainty of a Deity : for there are no grounds of it Mathematically Demonstrative . But by being Morally Certain we are certain enough , and as certain as the nature of the thing will bear . This should content any Rational man , and it is unreasonable to demand any more . Then , as for those Demonstrations which they talk so much of , they cannot but acknowledge , that as they are sometimes managed they yield but little Certainty . For , not to speak now of the old Academicks and Scepticks , who denied Geometrical Principles ; or of Demetrius , Sextus Empiricus , Epicurus , Zeno , and others of the Ancient Philosophers who reason'd against them , I will mention some of our Moderns ( and those of great Skill and Learning ) who have disagreed about Mathematical Proofs , and thereby proclaim to the World their Uncertainty . The greatest Astrologers hugely differ as to the distance of the Sun from the Earth . It is nearer to it ten thousand miles than it was , saith Copernicus . But I. Scaliger would have the Writings of those Authors who hold the Sun is nearer to the Earth than 't was in former days , * to be razed out with sponges , or the Writers themselves to be corrected with stripes . And other very good Astronomers are so far from consenting to this , that they maintain the Sun is farther off from the Earth than it was at first . And yet on both sides they proceed on Mathematical grounds . There is no Mathematical Demonstration for Comets being above or below the Moon , saith * Ricciolus , a very skilful Mathematician : but others of that Faculty have pretended much to the contrary . The Paralax is well known to be a Mathematical business , that by which the Planets are judged to be higher or lower : but the greatest Astronomers have quarrell'd with one another about this Doctrine . Tycho is for it ; but Claramontius is against it ; and Galilaeus even explodes the Proof brought from the Paralax . Dr. Wallis and Mr. Hobbes's Contrasts in Print , shew that Mathematicks are dubious : and this latter ( who was so stiff an Opposer of the Notion of a Spirit , and consequently of a Deity ) finds fault with all Geometricians , old and new , in his Book entituled The Principles and Ratiocination of Geometricians . Cartes's Dioptricks and Geometry are pretended to be baffled by other Learned Mathematicians , as Bourdin , Hobbes , Fermat . Franciscus du Laurens , and Dr. Wallis , scuffle about a Mathematical Problem . So that it seems it is not an Infallible Science . I am certain , saith * Dr. Henry More , that Mathematical Certitude it self is not absolute . There is an Essay of Dr. Pell to shew the Errors and Mistakes of the best and most celebrated Astronomers for want of better Knowledge in Geometry . Even † Monsieur Malebranch , a profound Admirer and Follower of Descarts , acknowledges that in his Geometry there are some footsteps of the weakness of the humane mind . And I will conclude with the Words of One that was known to be eminent in Mathematical Studies , * Even in Geometry and Arithmetick ( saith he ) how many things are forcibly concluded to be true which are inexplicable , unimaginable , incomprehensible ? Thus you see the Mathematical Certainty which some men talk of , is not so easily to be attain'd as they fancy . Disputes have place in Geometry ; Demonstrations sometimes prove to be Paralogisms . But as for a Mathematical Demonstration for the proof of a GOD , it is vainly and unreasonably required , because there can be no such thing , for the matter will not bear it . Wherefore though † Some Divines have been great Philosophers and Mathematicians , yet they never attempted any such thing . A man must not expect to have every thing proved the same way . If we have things evidenced by the Arguments which they are capable of , it is satisfactory , and every wise man rests in it . And these men themselves do so in other things : they acquiesce in that Evidence which the things admit of , and they seek no farther . Which shews , that in the present Case they are Disingenuous , and Cross-grain'd , and act merely out of Prejudice ; which was the thing I undertook to make good . Their Insincerity nourishes their Atheism . Therefore let us have a care that we give way to no such thing . III. Another Cause of this Pernicious Opinion , is , Ostentation of Wit. For you may take notice , that this Mischievous Plant springs from Contrary Seeds . As before this kind of men put on a very grave and solid Countenance , so now they shew themselves to be very Pleasant and Airy , and set up for the Art of Drolling . Before they appear'd like Philosophers , now they come upon the Stage like Buffoons . Then with a Magisterial Grimace they affected Demonstrations ; now nothing will please them but the Comical part . It is observable , that they are a sort of Jesting , Scoffing People , giving themselves to Railery and Burlesque . And it is this Jocular Humour that in part betrays them to Atheism , for they take liberty to jest with their Maker . These witty and facetious Folks must needs play with Heaven , and laugh God out of his being . They are defective in sound Learning and Judgment , and in the place of these have a fanciful way of Jeering , which they addict themselves immoderately to . Democritus was the great Asserter of Eternal Matter , and thought that the Casual Motion of it was the Cause of all things : the influence of which Principle in his Cogitations , made him at last laugh at every thing he saw , and mock at all Actions and Occurrences of humane life ; for 't is certain that if they are all by Chance , they are to be denied . The Followers of this Great Man have learnt from him to be Laughing Philosophers ; and there are abundance of this Sect now-a-days . This I look upon as one Cause of the great Atheism of this Age. They think their Tongues are their own , and they may say what they please ; and they perswade themselves , that what is wittily said is well said . Hence these Sparks venture to ridicule Religion , to scoff at Virtue and Piety , and to mock God himself . Then at last they really believe what they fancy'd , and jestingly utter'd ; and they assert in good earnest what at first perhaps was said only in Merriment . Wherefore , to guard your selves from Atheism , be always very Serious , and abhor the sportful vein , the flashy fancy of these men , who think they can't be men of Parts unless they make a mock of God and Religion . Whereas the Brightest and most Accomplish'd Heads ever exploded this : and in our own Nation we have abundant Instances of this , that even the * Wisest and the Wittiest Men ( tho no Church-men or Divines ) have express'd their deep sense of God and serving him , and defied the contrary Profane Atheistical humour . IV. Pride and Self-conceit may justly be reckon'd another Spring of Atheism . Men in this and former Ages have thought it below them to go tamely along with the generality of Mankind in asserting a Deity . They would be thought wiser than others : and consequently they affect to go against a commonly receiv'd Notion . But more particularly these High-Flyers account it base and sneaking to listen to an Old Story of Religion , and to submit their Belief to the Harangues of the Parsons , as they are pleas'd to word it . Especially Great Men are apt to be possessed with this Pride , and consequently to be Atheistical . They strongly incline to King Alphonsus's impious Bravado , That if he had been present at the Creation , he would have framed the World better than 't is now . There is in many an excessive Desire of a Name and Vogue : and they think to obtain them by scorning the Common way , and going out of the beaten road , by giving the Lye to all Mankind . And though one would think that they might shew the subtilty of their Wit by diving farther into things than the Vulgar , and not by casting off the agreed Sentiments of Mankind ; by refining and improving the Principles of Nature , and not by nulling and evacuating them ; yet they choose the latter , that they may ( as they think ) give the greater proof of their Wit and Parts , and that it may be seen that they are able to weather a Cause be it never so bad . To maintain this all sober Considerations are postpon'd : they superciliously renounce ( when they are in the Humour ) all Reason and Arguments ; they arrogantly resolve to hold the Conclusion , whatever becomes of the poor Premises . Atheism owes its Being much to this , as I apprehend ; as I think it it is sufficiently evident from what I have said before , when I shew'd that they chuse rather to maintain the greatest Absurdities , than to adhere to a Received Truth . Wherefore that we may effectually prevent this Folly in our selves , let us banish Presumption , Confidence , and Self Conceit ; let us extirpate all Pride and Arrogance ; let us not list our selves in the number of Capricious Opiniatours . V. Undue Apprehensions of a Deity joyn'd with Superstition are the high road to Atheism . Those that think amiss of God will easily be enclined to question his Existence . It is too true that men model the Divinity according to their own fancies : the Creature fashions his Creator . Or , like him that engraved his own Image in that of the Goddess , they shape themselves and figure out their own absurd notions and conceits , whilest they pretend to give the Pourtraiture of God. Therefore imposing of false Doctrines concerning the Attributes of God is very pernicious , for they are destructive of his very being and nature . It is no wonder that when these come to be scann'd and examined , men doubt of the very existence of God , because so irrational and absured things are attributed to him . They are loth to think there is such a One , or they wish there were not . So that they endeavour to destroy that which they can't endure . Thus mistakes and misprisions concerning God lead to Atheism . False Conceptions of a Deity expunge at last the belief of one . And so 't was of old in Paganism , Idolatry was the great mother of Atheism : gross Superstition undermined the Godhead . It hath been falsly and blasphemously said that * Fear was it which first introduced a God into the world : but yet it is certainly true that This with some persons hath expelled the notion of him out of the world : for they being Timerous and Melancholick create to themselves strange fancies concerning Him whom they are to worship , and represent him to their thoughts as Severe and Tyrannical . And the Gentile Priests and Rulers laid hold on this passion of Fear , and did what they could to promote and heighten it , that thereby they might keep the people in awe . To which purpose they invented Innumerable Rites and Ceremonies , many of which were harsh , troublesom and afflictive . So that Bigotry and Excess in Religion made way for none at all : and when they were wearied with the intolerable burden of it they cried out , with that Nonsensical Atheist , Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum . Then Religion it self and the Author of it were discarded . This was caused by the Undue Representations which were made of God : the Priests would have the Superstitious Bigots believe that the Divine Numen could not be appeased without those wild Observances . This is that which Plutarch took notice of , telling us that * from such gross , absurd and extravagant Devotion men came to disregard a Diety , and to conclude there is None rather than to believe there can be Such a one , one that is delighted with so unaccountable Ceremonies and Usages . Therefore , to shut out Atheism , let us have right conceptions of the Supreme Being whom we worship and serve . It concerns us to assert rightly the notion of God , lest otherwise we slide into a disbelief of any . Who misrepresenteth the Divine Being is in a ready way to deny him . VI. Corrupt Affections and Lives ( for I will joyn both these together , because they are never asunder ) make men Atheists . Men of depraved minds and manners doubt of all Religions because they Like none , and at last they flatly deny what they Love not . An Atheist first desires and wishes no God , and his desires and wishes work on his Understanding . His Willingness to have it so enclines him to believe it . He easily credits what he longs for : his Affection corrupts his Judgment . Thus the indulging of Lust and Vice dispose a man to Atheism . To which purpose observe the Soil where this Poisonous Weed springs up , grows , and thrives most , viz. in the Courts of Debauch'd Princes , among such Nobility and Gentry , and in Great Cities where vicious and prophane living is most in fashion . They are lewd and dissolute in their manners , and give themselves up wholly to the satisfying of their Lusts : and this naturally prejudices them against the belief of a God and a life to come . Nothing doth so much extinguish all apprehensions of these as Carnal Pleasures . He that lives dissolutely and wickedly can't easily entertain the notion of a God , for 't is counter to his course of Living . Therefore he goes on in his Debauchery , and huffs and swaggers , and perhaps swears by the Divinity that there is none . It is plain that this sort of men decry a God , because they would not be obliged by his Laws . Sensuality makes them desirous to remove all stops of a wicked life , and therefore they whet their wits ( such as they are ) to annihilate Religion , and to extirpate a Deity . An abhorrence of the Practical part of Piety engages them against the Theory . Their Lives influence on their Belief . They are addicted to Atheism by their Lewd and Prophane Courses . For we must observe this , that these two mutually advance one an other . As Atheism is the highway of Wickedness ( which the Psalmist takes notice of when he saith , The fool hath said in his heart , There is no God : Corrupt are they , and have done abominable iniquity , Psal. 53. 1. ) so 't is as true that Wickedness is the original of Atheism and Infidelity . For 't was rightly said by a Great Man , * None deny there is a God but those for whom it maketh that there were no God. For they know that if there be one , he will certainly judg them for their evil doings . They cannot therefore be secure in their sins unless the notion and remembrance of a Deity be blotted out . It is their supposed Interest then , not their Reason , that makes them deny a God ; for it is their Concern to be perswaded , that there is none to punish them . Briefly , they are unwilling to believe any thing but what their Lust shall put into their Creed . Thus you see the true Reason of the Atheism of these times . It is fed and pamper'd by Luxury ; the constant Fumes and Steams of this affect the Brain , and discompose the Intellect . Practical Atheism leads to that which is Dogmatical , i. e. holding and believing that there is no God. Evil and perverse minds , profane and debauch'd lives , strangely byass and incline men to this . Wherefore if you would effectually shut out this Vile Perswasion , take care to suppress your Evil Affections and Practices , for these are wont to court mens understandings to turn Atheists . VII . Atheists take occasion from our Divisions , Broils , and Animosities , from the many Parties and Squadrons of Sects that are in the World , to bid defiance to all Religion ; and they resolve to profess none till they can see them all Agreed . Thus * Tully observed of old , that the Dissentions of Philosophers , the various Sentiments and Opinions that prevail'd among them were a cause of some mens denying a Deity , at least of their staggering about it . And truly this Observator himself , in his Books De Natura Deorum , is so given to the Academical vein of Disputing , that he seems sometimes to be irresolv'd whether there is any God or no. So it hath been among some of those who have taken upon them the external Denomination of Christians . The Differences in Opinion , the Errors and Heresies which they take notice of , cause them to suspect yea to renounce all Truth . A great deal of the Atheism of this present Age may be ascrib'd to this . Some behold the great Scufflings that are about Religion , not only the Single Combates , but the Pitch'd Batelts that are about it , and thereupon they discard all thoughts of any such thing , and become perfect Libertines . And herein they are promoted and push'd on by such persons as the Author of Fiat Lux and the Treatise of Humane Reason , who both design Scepticism , and so Atheism . But though it is thus , though the Different Perswasions about Religious Matters have this ill effect , yet this can be no true Reason why any man should renounce the Belief of a God. For he that is truly rational and considerate , will rather make this an Argument of the contrary : for it was foretold by * Christ and his † Apostles , that Errors and Delusions should be in the World , and therefore the Fulfilling of these Prophecies be as witness not only to the Truth of the Writings of the New Testament , and consequently of Christianity , but of the Divinity it self . For things of this nature , which depend wholly on free and arbitrary Causes , cannot be foretold without Divine and Supernatural help . None but an All-seeing eye could have a prospect of these future Occurrences . The Predicting of such things to come is an Evidence of an Omniscient Deity . And then as to the thing it self , why should any man think it Strange and Unaccountable that there are Dissentions in Christendom ? He may as well wonder that there are Men in the World ; for as long as these retain their nature , i. e. are subject to Prejudice , Love of Interest , Passion , Pride , and the like , there will be Errors and Heresies , for these proceed from some of those ill Principles : and unless God should change the frame of the World , and destroy the freedom of Man's will , i. e. make him another Creature , it cannot be otherwise . How unreasonably then do men question a God , and cry out against Religion it self because they see so many of this sort of Disorders in the world ? Whereas it is certain , that it is not the fault of Religion that things are thus , but they are thus because men have so little Religion . Again , the Cheats and Delusions that are in the world are useful for the Trial of Mankind , that ( as the Apostle saith ) they who are approved may be made manifest , 1 Cor. 11. 19. I do not say they were design'd for this ( for no Evil is design'd by God ) yet it is certain they are expedient for this purpose ; and there is no better way to have an experiment of the Upright Judgment , Sincerity , Faithfulness , and Constancy of Persons , than by their being expos'd to these Impostures . Lastly , God deservedly Punishes men with erroneous and false Doctrines . 2 Thess. 2. 10 , 11. Because they receive not the love of the truth ( yea because they hate it , and oppose themselves to it ) and have pleasure in unrighteousness , for this cause he sends them strong delusion , that they shall believe a Lye , and that they shall defend and maintain it . It is just with God to leave men to the Error and Blindness of their Minds , and judicially to give them over the Atheistical Perswasions when they have wilfully debauch'd and abused their Faculties . This is the dreadful , but just Judgment of God ; and I doubt not but the present Atheism of this Age is such . Thus it is evident that Errors and Dissentions about Religion are so far from being Arguments of the Non-Existence of a Deity , that they are undeniable Proofs of it . Let not then the diversity of Sects and the Disputes of wrangling Heads ( as particularly the late upstart Contrast between the Unitarians and Trinitarians ) prejudice us against our Christian Faith. But let us rather be stirr'd up hence to hold fast the Principles of our Belief , and to own a Deity when there are so many in this degenerate Age that deny it . And withal , let us endeavour to banish Atheism by doing so to our Divisions : let us lay aside our Religious Squabbles , and arrive at last to a happy Agreement in Doctrine , that we may hereby cut off occasion of Atheistick Unbelief on this Account . However , though in some Points we can't fully accord , let us not be hot and firy against one another , as if Charity were no Virtue with us . VIII . There is something more heinous than Divisions , which frequently occasions Atheism , and confirms men in it ; and that is , the Hypocrisie and Evil Practices of too many that make a very fair profession of Christianity . Whilst it is observ'd that they talk Religiously , and pretend to Holiness , but do nothing of what they talk of or pretend to ; whilst it is seen that they have a form of godliness , but deny the power thereof ; whilst it is evident that they cry the Temple of the Lord , the Temple of the Lord , and yet are unhallowed in their Lives ; whilst it is known that they lay claim to the Spirit , but are Carnal and Sensual in their Manners , and enterprize very vile things for their worldly Profit and Advantage ; in short , whilst it is observ'd that the Behaviour of sundry of the avowed Professors of Christianity is unanswerable to their Principles , there is a sort of men that for the sake of these , presently conclude all to be Hypocrites , and Christianity it self to be an Imposture . This then I grant , that the Unbecoming Lives of Christians are an unhappy occasion of Atheism sometimes , but they can never be alledged as a sufficient one . For what though there be mere Pretenders to Godliness ? doth it thence follow that there is none at all ? What though there are great numbers of Religious Impostors ? Must I therefore thence conclude that all Professors of Religion are an errant Cheat ? Then by the same Logick I may peremptorily infer , that there is no such Metal as Silver , because by too noted experience we find at this day that it is generally counterfeited ; and there is no such thing as True Coin , because so much is adulterated amongst us . No man of sense will make these Conclusions : and 't is as certain , that he can with as little reason make the others . Let us not then be abused by unsound and fallacious Inferences : let us not think there is no Religion because there are so many Unworthy Retainers to it . Yea , let us be fully convinced of this , that though Christianity hath been , and is to this day abused and sophisticated , and thereby dishonoured ; yet it is a Reality , and we may venture our Lives upon it . And seeing the Evil Deportment of some that profess Christianity is the greatest encouragement to Atheism and Vice , let us all make it our great business to adorn our Profession with a holy , strict , and exemplary Conversation . Let our light so shine before men , that others seeing our good works may be so far from denying , that they may glorifie God. And let us pray for the arrival of that Happy Day ( and I hope it is not very far off ) when Religion shall universally bear sway upon Earth , and when men shall be throughly convinced of the real Worth of Christianity from the Practices of those that profess it . IX . In the next place , more particularly , the Ill Examples of some who by their Office are Spiritual Guides and Instructors , are mention'd as another great occasion of Irreligion and Atheism . It is necessary to take notice of this , because it is alledged ( but very frequently without ground ) by the sworn Patrons of that Cause which I am now pleading against . They observe of some of this Order of men , that they urge Virtue and Holiness with great Warmth and pathetick Zeal , and yet are very cold , yea wholly neglectful in the Practice of them , and visibly favour those Vices and Enormities which they disswade others from : whence it is no wonder ( say they ) that these Persons are not believed to be in good earnest , yea that they are thought not to believe themselves , i. e. to be really perswaded that those things are true which they discourse of ; for it is seen , that their Lives wholly contradict their Doctrine . Whence this rash Conclusion is made , that Preaching is a meer Trade , that the Ministerial Function is a Cheat , and that Religion it self is so too , and that a Deity is no other . Thus where is there more of Atheism than in Italy , the Pope's own Soil , part of which is call'd Holy Land ? Which the Observing * Author of Europae Speculum ( who had convers'd in his Travels with the Italians , and knew them very well ) attributes to the gross Wickedness of the Roman Clergy , and particularly of the Popes and Cardinals , of whose scandalous Speeches and Actions the people of that Country have a greater knowledge than others . They are not ignorant that several Popes were inclined to be Atheists ; as Paul 3. when he was dying told the Standers by , that he should now know three things , viz. whether the Soul be immortal , whether there be a Hell , and whether there be a God. And Iohn 23. ( as is plain from that Council of Constance by whom he was deposed ) profess'd that he look'd upon Religion as a Fable , and God and the Soul's Immortality as such . And they dayly behold the lewd and dissolute Practices of some of the Cardinals and Prelates , Abbots , Monks , and of their Parish-Priests , which very thing ( as the foresaid Author observes ) makes them the most Irreligious People in the World , yea causes them to defie all Religion for their sakes . Especially they conclude , that there is nothing true and real in Christianity , because so many of the eminent Pretenders to it and Assertors of it , live continually in opposition to all Religious Principles and Practices , and are seen to be guilty of the most horrid Impieties , of the most execrable Villanies that are to be imagined . Their being so near to the Head of that Religion ( as he is stiled ) makes them averse to the whole kind . And this is in some measure the case of People in other Countreys , where even the Protestant Faith is professed , but is accompanied with the Scandalous Lives and Lewd Practices of some that are immediately concern'd in Holy things , and whose Employment it is to direct others in Religion . But to speak impartially to any considerate Person , this cannot yield an occasion of being Atheistical : for though the manners of some of the Sacred Function be offensive , yet 't is irrational and absurd to blast all Religion for their Misdemeanours . We do not read that our Saviour condemned the Iewish Church and Mosaick Law because of the Hypocrisie and Wickedness of the Chief Priests , Scribes , and Doctors of the Law. Nay , he tells the People , All that they bid you observe , that observe and do ; but do not ye after their works , Matth. 23. 3. As much as if he had said , The Moral Law , and all the Offices of Religion , are not in the least discredited by the vicious Manners of some of your Teachers . Be careful that you imitate them not in their Practices ; but be very observant of the Holy Doctrine which they deliver ; entertain no ill Thoughts of it , because of the corrupt Lives of your Guides . The like may be said now ; the Faults and Miscarriages of any Ecclesiastical Persons must not be charged on the Sacred Institution of Christ ; we ought not to think ill of Christianity for the disorderly Behaviour of any spiritual Officers in the Church . We see that there is no man refuses to follow a Learned Physician 's Prescriptions and Rules concerning Health , because he doth not observe them himself . Nor can the Spiritual Patient with any reason reject the Rules of Saving Health and Happiness , though they are not observ'd by the Prescriber himself . But to be yet more plain with the Persons I am now dealing with , they ( of all men ) cannot with any tolerable pretence make use of this Plea : they cannot complain of the Lives of the Clergy as administring to their disregard of Religion , for the more strict and religious any Church-man is , the more is he despised and hated by them . A Pious Clergy-man is reckon'd by them a weak shallow Creature , a fantastick Bigot , and is laugh'd at as such . So that it is evident , that what they alledge concerning the undue Behaviour of some that serve at the Altar , is a more groundless Cavil ; for they would have all men as Wicked and Debauch'd as themselves . It must indeed be acknowledged , that this is a great Scandal , and of very pernicious consequence , and such as is not to be permitted with impunity in the Church : but it is no excusable ground of Impiety and Atheism . However , since it is so heinous in it self , and is made by the perverse minds of many an Excuse for their Atheism , it is the concern of all Christian Guides of Souls to be Examples to the Flock , to conform their Lives with great Circumspection and Exactness to the Laws of Christ Jesus their Master , and to take care to perform themselves whatever they require others to do . X. Unbelief of a God is occasion'd sometimes by the Strange Revolutions and Changes , the Odd Events , and Unaccountable Administrations that are in the World. Especially men are inclined to question God's Existence as well as his Providence when they behold the prosperous state of the most vicious Persons , and on the contrary , observe how miserably sometimes the Best men are treated in this Life , and at Death are not at all differenc'd from the Worst , but perish alike . Then you shall hear one cry out , Quis putet esse Deos ? And another uses the like Language of the Poet , Dum rapiant mala fata bonos , — Sollicitor nullos esse putare Deos. But any understanding man , who will take time to consider and deliberate , will see that nothing of this nature can justly administer matter of Atheism . For is must be remembred , that we are finite shallow Creatures , and are not able to comprehend the Wise Designs and Purposes of Heaven in every Event that we see : and therefore when we meet with obscure and rugged Dispensations , and such as seem to be very disorder'd and irregular , we have no reason to find fault with them , and to think them unworthy of God , and of Divine Providence , because we are not able to make a judgment of them . Those Events which seem to be excentrick and at random , are guided by a steady unerring hand : but we have not depth of Apprehension to conceive it at present . But it may be afterwards , when our minds are more enlightned , we shall know how to solve these difficult Phoenomena . However , at the last Day all these Intrigues , these Knots , these Labyrinths , these Riddles , shall be fully resolved ; and it shall be part of our employment in the other world , to admire and adore the Infinite Wisdom of God in the disposal of the Affairs here on Earth . And particularly we shall then be satisfied , yea we may be now , concerning the foresaid Problem , viz. the Prosperity of the Wicked , and the contrary Circumstances of the Good ; for 't is evident , that these are according to exact Justice and Wisdom . God intended the former should have their portion in this life only ; and he designed the latter to be prepared for Heaven by those rougher dealings here below . Lastly , Learned Times , especially if accompanied with Peace or Prosperity , are reckon'd by a * Judicious Person as another Cause of Atheism . Nor is this inconsistent with what I said before , that Ignorance is the Mother of Atheism . For Learned or Peaceable times are only thus far conducible to this Great Evil , that men are then generally too Inquisitive and Curious , too Nice and Wanton , and over-busily pry into Secrets ; which when they cannot satisfie themselves about , they are inclined to be Atheistical , and to doubt even concerning the chief things of Religion . Wherefore I question not but the starting and keeping up at this day the Debates about the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity are a great advancement to this evil disposition of mind . There are those who push on both Parties to wrangle and quarrel about this Grand Point , and in the mean time laugh at the Combatants on both sides . Whilst they encourage some Writers to baffle the Trinity of Divine Persons , their Project is to destroy the Essence it self . Whilst they put them upon maintaining the Unity of the Godhead , they hope in the close of the Dispute to introduce a Nullity not only of the Deity , but of all Religion . For by these Bandyings backward and forward , they know that mens minds will be unsettled and that they will be apt to waver about the truth and certainty of the main Articles of our Religion . When Persons observe , that the very Divinity of our Blessed Lord and Saviour is toss'd and torn by rude Pens ; when they see so Catholick a Doctrine attack'd with such Violence ; what can they think of the other great Verities of Christianity ? And withall , the Anti-Trinitarians hereby provoke some of their Adversaries to an indecent sort of Language concerning these Holy Mysteries : so that some of these latter have hurt the Cause it may be almost as much by their Defending it , as the others have by their Opposing it . Thus it must needs be when Persons immoderately indulge Curiosity in these Abstruse and Sublime Matters , and will not be content with what the Bible and immediate Inferences drawn thence suggest to us . By this means they lose their hold , and give their Antagonists a clear Advantage against them , and manifestly promote the Design of those who make it their work to make void the Notion of a Deity . Nay , in the very Socinian Doctrine it self there seems to be an Atheistick Tang. Would not a man guess that there is in approach to Atheism in those Reflections which are made on a Sermon preach'd by the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester , * where one of the most receiv'd Notions concerning the Nature of the Deity it self is cashier'd . The Self-Existence of God , which is the Primary , Fundamental , and Essential Property , and is the very Life and Soul of the explicatory part of the Doctrine of the Deity , is peremptorily pronounced by them to be a Contradiction . It is well known , Socinus , and Crellius , and others of this Party , deny God's Immensity , i. e. his being present every where as to his Essence and Nature . All of them agree , that he hath not a Knowledge and Foresight of every thing that happens in the World , for future Contingencies are hid from him . Particularly * Socinus largely argues against this Praescience , and tells us , that he is to be laugh'd at that asserts the contrary . Nay , it is farther observable , that this great Patriarch of the present Cause disowns the Immaterial or Spiritual Nature of God , as may be undeniably gather'd from his † Exposition of Iohn . 4. 24. and other Passages in his Writings . And he is followed by Crellius , as is manifest from that Account which this latter gives of a Spirit , when ‖ he speaks of the Nature of God. He doth not make it to be any thing above a refined body , a substance void of all gross matter , such as the Air or Aether is . So that when these men call God a Spirit , their meaning is , that he is a Fine and Tenuious sort of Matter , not that he is wholly Incorporeal , and altogether free from Matter . This is the same with Mr. Hobbs's Corporeal God. Thus four of the Chief Attributes of the Deity , viz. Self-Existence , Omnipresence , Omniscience , and Spirituality , are either in whole or in part rejected . Whereupon , I ask this Question , Whether these things do not discover a Tendency ( to say no more ) in the Anti-Trinitarians to that which I am charging them with ? For to assert a God ▪ and yet to deny some of his Choicest Properties ( whereby we know him to be God ) is in effect the same with denying a Deity . If they distinguish between the English and Foreign Socinians ( as I perceive they do ) and tell us that the former do not assert the things before mention'd , I answer , the very English Prints avouch the first of those Particulars : and as for the rest , they being the Doctrine of the Chief Patrons of the Socinian Cause , yea and of the Most of them , the English Unitarians are involved in them , because those Foreigners are the greatest and most substantial part of that Body of men call'd Socinians . Thus the Trinitarian Scheme of Religion , drawn up by some English Socinians of late is thought by them to touch all the Trinitarians ( else it could not be stiled the Trinitarian Scheme ) though every individual Trinitarian doth not hold all those things mentioned there . Let them apply this , and they will have nothing to object . And further , I would argue from their own avowed Principle , which is that they are to admit of nothing but what is exactly adjusted to Nature's and Reason's Light , nothing but what is entirely clear and evident : for though it is true some Socinian Writers of late have laid aside this Notion ( and truly we may observe that they are shifting every day their Arguments , and so we know not where to have them ) yet he that is acquainted with the Writings that make up the main Body of Socinianism knows full well that this is a Principle constantly asserted and maintain'd by the generality of them , and upon all occasions insisted upon . This hath been the Stanch Notion of the Great Dons of the Party , and of the famous Socinus himself . And Slicktingius , though he seems indeed sometimes to be otherwise perswaded , yet comes to this at last , that the Trinity is a Doctrine that can't be borne , because it can't be understood . And why do * * Crellius and others argue from Reason and Logical Arguments against the Trinity , if they do not refuse the Doctrine upon the account of Reason ? And it is certain they would not do this if they were not perswaded that these things in Religion must be adjusted to Natural Reason , and that they are displeased with the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation , &c. because these are not exactly squared to their Natural Notions . You see then what is the sentiment of the Greatest Rabbies of this way , and therefore we must make our estimate of the Socinian or Antitrinitarian Doctrine from these , and not from one or two Modern Writers . This I think will be granted by all men of reason . But what if it doth appear that even the very English and Modern Socinians , though they seem to wave this Principle , do yet retain it , and govern themselves by it ? Else why do they complain that * they have no conception of the Trinity as the Trinitarians represent it to them , they cannot form an idea of it ; it is a notion that excites no idea's in their minds ; it is against Reason and Natural Light ? We are advised by the Modern Pen-men † to consult our Reason about the thing in question ; and if we do so , we shall find an absolute impossibility in the Trinitarian Doctrine : our Reason will assure us that an Almighty Father and an Almighty Son are most certainly two Gods , and that two Creators can be no other than two Gods : Therefore we may , and we must infer that the explication of the first Verses of St. John 's Gospel , which advance such a Doctrine , is certainly false . Again , the English Socinians tell us that ‖ the Doctrine of the Trinity clashing altogether with our natural idea's can be no matter of Revelation , and therefore ought not to be believ'd . And hear their Final and Resolute Determination , which fully speaks their absolute adherence to this Principle , † We abide by this Argument , here we fix our foot , never to be removed , that the inconsistence of the Trinity ( as well as the Incarnation ) with Reason and Natural Knowledge being undeniably evident , therefore this Doctrine can have no real foundation in Divine Revelation , that is to say , in Holy Scripture . And we find that our English Unitarians * argue from Reason in this Point , and they declare that they cannot believe it because Reason doth not teach it . Thus we find that the bottom of all is , the Trinity and such like Doctrines are above their Reason , and Natural Idea's , and therefore they are no matter of their Faith. This is it which the Reverend Person before named charges these men with in a great part of his * Sermon : and certainly he would not have done it if there were no such persons in being . It is too plain that there are such , and I think I have proved it from their own mouths . The sum of their Opinion and resolution if this , that there is nothing difficult and abstruse in Religion , and that they will not believe any thing in Christianity but what they can make out by Reason : otherwise it must be discarded presently . Now , to apply this Principle of the Antitrinitarians ; we are assured that we cannot by searching find out God , Job 11. 7. his Infinite Nature and Immense Essence are not commensurate to our Conceptions , are not adjusted to our Idea's , but are far above them : it is impossible that the Apprehensions of finite Creatures should reach these things : therefore according to the foresaid Principle , the Unitarians are not obliged to believe any such things ; they must not admit of the Infinite Nature of God , concerning which our Conceptions will always be obscure and unproportionate ; yea , they cannot but infer from their own Maxim , that God is an impossible Being , at least that His Immense Nature is such . They cannot comprehend and conceive the Manner of the Immense and Infinite Presence or Knowledge of God ; therefore they must disown the things themselves . Thus by vertue of their own profess'd Principle , the Godhead it self as well as the Trinity is shock'd by them : and consequently one would be apt to gather that a Socinian , so far as he is led by this Principle , is an Atheist , or ( lest that should seem harsh ) one that favours the Cause of Atheism . For he may as well quit the belief of a God because of these Difficulties and Abstrusities in the Nature of God , as renounce the Doctrine of the Trinity , because there are some inexplicable and unintelligible things that accompany it . But because all men do not follow the natural Conduct of their Principles ( the Divine Providence over-ruling in these cases ) I do not here pass an Universal Censure , I do not speak of every individual man , nay I hope charitably concerning most of them . However , it is to be fear'd , that some are unhappily under the force and sway of the foregoing Principle ; and these are the Persons I speak of , and no other . These things I freely and openly suggest . Which the Learned and Ingenious Gentlemen of the Racovian Perswasion cannot dislike , unless they disapprove of themselves , unless they disclaim their own Writings ; for they cry up in almost all of them ( and in * one very lately ) a Freedom of Discourse , a Liberty of speaking their Thoughts , which they applaud as a very Generous and Noble thing , and much value themselves upon it . They cannot deny that to me which they allow of and magnifie in themselves , especially when I most sacredly profess to them that I have sincerely delivered my Thoughts , and spoken what I conceive to be the words of Truth and Soberness . Wherefore I expect to be approved of by Persons of their Ingenuity and Free Temper , who ( as I find ) blame others ( even some of the Clergy ) for palliating and dissembling , and not speaking out . I think they will not charge me with this Fault , for I have acted according to their own Generous Principles : and I must tell them there is not a Friend of theirs in all their dear Eleutheropolis that is more disingaged and unbyass'd than I am . But though I have used a becoming Freedom , yet there are some things that I omit , because I would let the World see that I am not eager and lavish in blaming and censuring any Party of Men , especially since it is suggested to me by some that are Learned and Sober of that Perswasion , that it is hard that their Opinion should suffer for the Ill Consequences of it , or for the Insincerity of any that profess it , or by reason of the Rash indiscreet Passages which occurr in some of their late Writers . I do it likewise because I would give the World an Example of Moderation and Temper in this Disputing and Wrangling Age ; that it may be seen , that whilst I remonstrate against the Errors and Mistakes ( as I suppose them to be ) of any Side , I can forbear to publish the Aggravations of them , and that I had rather the Truth should prevail than the Contrary Opinion , or the Maintainers of it should be exposed . Finally , I consider that it is improper and unseasonable to contend among our selves at home whilst our Armies are engaging the Enemy abroad . The Proper Antidote belonging to this Head of my Discourse is this ; Let us make a Difference between Finite Beings and that which is Infinite : for seeing there is such a Vast Difference between them , we ought to observe it . We cannot form the same Conceptions of one and the other ; yea the latter is exalted above our reach and comprehension ; wherefore let us be satisfied , that the Properties of an Infinite Being ( such as God is ) are incomprehensible , and therefore that may be possible in the Infinite Nature of God ( as namely that it is communicable to Three Distinct Persons ) which is impossible in the Finite Nature of Man or other Creatures . Let us attend to that which may be known , and that clearly and distinctly , and not trouble our thoughts and wrack our brains about Unsearchable Mysteries . A Lover of Peace as well as Truth should not be so much sollicitous about the Manner of the Three Personalities or Subsistencies as about the Trinity it self . We are sure of the latter , as sure as the Scripture can make us ; therefore it doth not become us to wrangle about the former ; especially when we find that ill-minded men make use of this Quarrel to promote the Cause of Atheism ; and truly they make advances towards it every day . I proceed to Other Doctrines which administer to this Great Evil which I have been speaking of , and which may justly be reckoned among the Blemishes of these Inquisitive Times . Such is that of a * late Writer , that the Books of the Old Testament were not written by those Persons whose Names they bear , that the Historical parts of the Bible are lame and imperfect , and repugnant to themselves ; that the Writings were not carefully and faithfully transmitted to us , but abound with many faults and mistakes , that the Books of the Prophets are mere scraps and fragments , and taken without order and method from other Writings . All which put together , destroys the Authority of Divine Revelation , and consequently of all Reveal'd Religion , from whence we have the strongest and most pregnant Arguments for a Deity . Again , The same Design is advanced in these Learned Times by thrusting of Opinions and Theories on the world in defiance of the plain Letter and Historical Part of the Bible : as if the Sacred History , which was written by Inspired Men , were not as credible and authentick as that of Prophane Authors . The frame of the Primitive Earth is represented opposite to what Moses tells us it was : the account which he gives of Paradise ( as it is a Particular Place ) is contradicted , yea it is strongly averr'd , that there never was any such thing . What Moses relates concerning our First Parents is laugh'd at as a Romantick Story . The Universal Deluge in Noah's time is attributed to an accidental diruption of the Earth ; which when scann'd , is found to be fictitious and imaginary , and thence the Deluge it self is concluded by many to be so ; and Moses is reckon'd by them as an Impostor . Which is taken notice of , and thus animadverted upon by a Curious Observer , and One who ( as becometh so Learned an Head ) joyns Religion with his Philosophical Researches , * The Atheistical Party had hereby an occasion ( saith he ) boldly to give out that such a Deluge as that described by Moses was altogether incredible , and that there never was , nor could be any such thing . Nothing was talk'd of among them under Mathematical Demonstrations of the falshood of it , which they vented with all imaginable Triumph , and would needs have it that they had here sprung a fresh and unanswerable Argument against the Authentickness of the Mosaick Writings ; which is indeed what they drive at , and a Point they very fain would gain . For if the Pen-man of the first book in the Bible be found tripping , then the Credit of all the rest falls to the ground ; we may justly question their Fidelity , yea deny whatever they say . And so the Bible falls , and with it all our Religion , and with that necessarily a Deity , which is the thing ultimately aimed at , I do not say by the first Hand from whence these Notions came ( for I charitably hope better things of so Learned a Person , especially since he hath shew'd himself not unwilling to retract them ) but by those ill-minded men who make their Markets of these Opinions . All that I will add here is this , that if ( according to a Learned * Doctor of the Sorbon ) it be a very dangerous Paradox to presume to deny that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses , and accordingly Hobbes and Spinosa are condemn'd by him for using Arguments to that purpose , then surely it must be much more dangerous and pernicious to hold that any part of Moses's Writings is mere Forgery and Fiction , i. e. was designed only to comply with the Ignorant Iews at that time , and doth not contain matter of fact . I have said something of this nature in another place , and on another account , but I never had occasion before to represent it as an unhappy Handle which Atheistically disposed Persons may lay hold upon . Wherefore let those who are Philosophically disposed take warning hence , and forbear to prefer their own precarious Hypotheses before the plain Account which this Inspired Historian gives of those first things in the World. Let none presume to represent the Writings of this First Author as false , in order to make their own true , and thereby to gratifie the worst sort of men . I need not say more here , because I have already antidoted against the Infection of these two last Heads , viz. in those Discourses wherein I have treated of the Authority and Perfection of the Scriptures . In the next place , Learned Enquirers are apt to give Encouragement to Atheism by an obstinate endeavouring to solve all the Phoenomena in the world by mere Natural and Corporeal Causes , and by their averseness to admit of the aid and concurrence of a Supernatural or Immaterial Principle for the production of them . The Mechanick Philosophy hath done a great deal of mischief on this account : not but that ( so far as it ought to be made use of ) it is generally the most excellent ( because the most plain and sensible ) way of displaying the Operations of Natural Bodies : and it cannot be denied , that since This hath been revived and entertain'd , there hath been that Improvement in Natural Philosophy which never was thought of before , and which could never have been attain'd by the Aristotelian way : yet this is to be said with truth and reason , that the Great Reviver and Manager of it hath carried it on too far by undertaking to give an account of All Effects and Events in the production of Vegetables and Animals , and in the very Formation and Organization of the Body of Man himself by mere Mechanick Principles , thereby in a manner ascribing Divinity to Matter and Motion . This Great Philosophick Wit over-shot himself here : and though it is true he hath otherways ( viz. by asserting the Notion of Souls or Spirits , and by demonstrating the essential and real Difference from Bodies ) made some part of amends for this , yet there are many at this day who make very ill use of this Doctrine . Some take occasion thence to believe , that Men as well as Brutes are no other than Engines and Machines , mere Neurospasts and Senseless Puppets . Others build upon this Notion the Conceit of Thinking Matter , for if Pores and Particles do all things in the Bodies of Brutes , it is probable they serve instead of Souls to those of Humane Race : and so a Spiritual and Immaterial Principle is excluded . This Philosophy is Vain Deceit , and too many are spoil'd by it . But they should consider that the Noble French Philosopher himself did not believe all that he wrote . Malebranch , who was a great Admirer and Defender of him , tells us , that he never pretended that things were made in that manner that he describes them * . Yea , we have Des Cartes's own word for it , † I require not any one , saith he , to believe that Bodies which compose this visible World were ever produced in that way which I have represented them . It seems by his own Confession , that he was not in good earnest in all the parts of his Philosophy , and therefore we may gather that in some of the Particulars aforemention'd he only propounded his Conjectures . We might carry this Thought yet farther , and observe that the generality of the Modern Philosophers ( not only Cartesians , but others ) have contributed much to Atheism , by referring All things , not only in Organiz'd Bodies but in every part of the World , and all the Phoenomena that we take notice of in it to a Corporeal Principle , and to the Efficiency and Power of this alone . Whereas , it is certain that there are many things which happen in the World that cannot be solv'd any other way than by the Superintendence of a Spiritual Being . There are several wonderful Occurrences which no man can give an account of , but by supposing an Almighty Immaterial Agent , which is no other than God. Thus we must be constrained to repair to an Incorporeal Principle to solve the Cause of the Seas constant Ebbing and Flowing , and the Attraction of the Loadstone , and the Hanging of the Clouds , and many other Phoenomena in Nature : for the Accounts that are given are imperfect and inconsistent , and do no ways satisfie any Serious Enquirer . A man that is not willing to be put off with slight and insufficient Suggestions , cannot rest in them as true Causes of those things . Only Philosophical men will be assigning some Reasons of things , whether they can or no : and this is an Inclination which is incident to the best and wisest Naturalists in all Ages . But they may as reasonably undertake to shew whence it is that the Sun hath its continual Motion from East to West , or ( as they would rather express it ) why the Earth wheels about upon its Axis from West to East : which yet I do not see attempted by any Philosopher whatsoever ; and yet there is as much reason for the one as the other . So for Gravity , that known affection of Bodies whereby they are inclined towards the same Common Center , it seems not to be solved by any Principles of Mechanism that have hitherto been propounded , whether it be from a kind of Magnetism in some parts of the Earth ( as hath been imagin'd by some ) or from the reflected Particles of the Celestial Matter driving down into their places the earthy bodies they find above them , or ( as they at other times are pleased to speak ) from the pressure of the Atmosphere , which moves all Bodies continually downwards , because it doth it self press always towards the Earth : or whether it be ( as the Learned Isaac Vossius holds ) from the Diurnal Motion of the Earth , whereby all heavy Bodies ( which move with greater difficulty than light ones ) tend to the middle or Center , and light Bodies are expelled towards the Superficies or from the Center . But a man that would be very serious in Philosophizing , can hardly acquiesce in any of these Solutions . He is not hereby satisfied how Non-gravitation can be and not be in a thing at the same time , as in Water in the Sea or in a River : for it is heavy and presses down , and yet the parts do not gravitate ; for 't is known that those that dive , and are under so great a heap of Waters , yet feel it not upon them . Here must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , there must be acknowledged an other Cause besides those before mention'd ( if they may be said to be Causes at all ) . And accordingly I find that some of the most Judicious Philosophers of our own Nation have averr'd that a God , a Divine Incorporeal Substance may be evinced from the Phoenomena of Gravity . This is made good by strong and nervous Arguments in an * Undertaking of the Learned Dr. More . † Another Ripe-witted Naturalist positively determines , that the common Phoenomenon of Gravity is impossible to be explain'd by any natural operation of Matter , or any other law of Motion but the positive Will of a Superiour Being , so ordering it . And there is lately risen in our Horizon another Bright Philosophick Luminary , from whom we may expect Great Discoveries : it is his frank Acknowledgment that this wonderful Property of Bodies , whereby the World is tied and link'd together , and all things in it are kept from running back into their First Chaos and Confusion , and which consequently is necessary for the welfare , yea the very subsistence of the Universe , is supernatural . * No power , saith he , of mere Nature can produce it : it surpasses all the Mechanism of Matter . And in several other Instances which might be offer'd , there may be seen a despair of resolving the nature of them by material Causes wholly . No meaner a Person than * Doctor Lower ( who was voted by all the Faculty to be one of the most Accomplish'd Anatomists of this Age ) imputes the wonderful Motion of the Heart , and the Circulation of the Blood , to a Divine and Supernatural Cause . He who was as well skill'd as any man in the Fabrick of the Parts and Vessels of the Body , and knew all the Springs of their Actions and Operations , was of opinion , that these could not be solv'd by any ordinary Principle . I mention this only to let the Reader see that some of the Bravest and Wisest Philosophers are forward to own a Divine Hand even in the Common Works of Nature . They do not think it below a Man of Philosophy to resolve some things into an Immaterial Principle . For a Pious and Christian Philosopher may plainly discern that there are some things above the Efforts of Matter and Motion . It cannot be denied ( whatever some are pleas'd to say to the contrary ) that we live in as Learned Times as ever have been extant . All Arts and Sciences are improved even to a Prodigy ; and particularly the Accessions which are made to Philosophy are very great and astonishing . But yet I must needs concur with that very Thoughtful and Ingenious Gentleman before cited , who hath most truly told the World , that * without the notion and allowance of Spirits our Philosophy will be lame and defective in one main part of it , when it leaves out the Contemplation of the most Excellent and Powerful part of the Creation , viz. those Immaterial Beings . And herein he follows all the Great and Renowned Philosophers of our Age , especially those of our own Country , as Dr. More , Sir Matthew Hale , Dr. Willis , Mr. Boyle , Mr. Ray , &c. who pretend not to solve all things in Philosophy by mere Natural Causes , who look not upon Man as a piece of Clockwork , but have frequent recourse to those Springs and Causes which are Spiritual and Incorporeal , and sometimes to the immediate hand of the Almighty Himself . To conclude then , let not the inestimable Blessing of Knowledge and Learning which is so peculiar to this Age , make us forgetful of the Grand Source and Spring of all operations and effects in Nature . Let us beware of those men who ascribe all the Phaenomena in the world to the power of the modified matter , and will leave nothing for God to do himself . Neither let us think that to Philosophize is to jar with the Sacred Writings , and to deny the very Natural History of it . The Scoffers at a Deity never had a more hopeful Harvest then since these Notions have prevail'd . By this means it comes to pass that Philosophy , which is the Study of Wisdom , affronts the Truest and Highest Wisdom ; and even Natural Philosophy , which is one of the Choicest Accomplishments of humane minds , leads men even to the denial of the Author of Nature . No wise man will disapprove of a Latitude either in Philosophy , or in the dubious and controverted Points of Theology : but then here he must be upon his guard , for there are those that under the pretence of throwing off some precarious things in the Old Philosophy , and discarding the empty Speculations of the Schools cast off those Principles which are useful and sound : under the notion of the Advancements of Arts and Sciences , and the Improvement of the belles lettres , and carrying Learning up to a greater heighth , they in the mean time help to pull these down . Especially in Religion , under the colour of searching further than others have done into Divine matters they abandon some of the choicest Principles : under the pretext of Reason and Good Sense they obtrude any New Conceit upon the world , and regard not the suffrage of the Holy Scriptures or of the Primitive Church . This they call a Rational Religion , and if you offer any thing against it , they cry it down as a Dream , a Romance , a Fable , a Phantom , an Hobgoblin , and ( which is a word which they think comprehends all the rest ) Priest-craft . And here I might observe that among the Opinions which lead to Atheism , the denial of Daemons and Witches , which * of late hath so much prevail'd , is none of the least . For besides that this is an open defiance to unquestionable History , Experience and matter of Fact , and so introduces the worst sort of Scepticism ( which is the high-way to Atheism ) it is evident that this supplants the belief of Spiritual Beings or Substances : for Witchcraft and all Diabolick Transactions are disbeliev'd on the account of the improbability , if not impossibility of Spirits . So that it is plain the rejecting of the being and commerce of Daemons or Infernal Spirits opens a door to the denial of the Deity , of which we can no otherwise conceive than that it is an Eternal Spirit . There are Other Doctrines which advance Atheism , and may be reckon'd among the Dangerous Luxuriances of these Inquisitive Times . Such is the vilifying of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament , the proclaiming it to be faulty and erroneous , in order to establishing the Seventy's Version as only Authentick . Such is the building the Authority of the Books of the Old Testament on the pretended inspiration of certain Publick Scribes or Notaries among the Iews , in imitation of such among the Egyptians ; the avouching that the Leaves or Volumes on which those Books were wrote are misplaced and put out of order ; the professed declaring that the Canonical Books are not the same that they were at first , but that several words and passages are left out . All mere Fiction and Conceit , unworthy of so Excellent a Genius as F. S's . Such also is the maintaining that the greatest part of the Religious Rites and Constitutions which God himself settled among the Iews were a Transcript of those that were in use among the Idolatrous Pagan Nations , and that the All-Wise Lawgiver borrow'd those immediately from these . The two former of these Attempts null the Authority of the Sacred Writings , and the last of them disparages not only them but the Blessed Founder of the Jewish Oeconomy . I speak not this as if any of these Opinions can be thought to be True Reasons on which a man may ground his disesteem of the Scriptures , or of the Holy Doctrines contain'd in them , or of the Sacred Inditer of them ; for they are the Sentiments but of a very few , and of those whose Learning , though it was exceeding great , had not wholly conquer'd their Prejudice , or freed them from Misapprehensions in some things . I cannot charge them with any direct design of favouring the Cause of Atheism , but ill-disposed men have made use of their Notions to that purpose . Wherefore , as we value the Reputation of our Religion , and the Honour of the Divine Author of it , let us be careful that we split not upon any of these Rocks , nor endanger our selves on any of the Shallows before mention'd , and thereby make Shipwrack of our Faith and Holy Profession , or so endanger our selves that we can hardly be brought off again . I might in the last place take notice of a Plausible Conceit which hath been growing up to a considerable time , and now hath the fortune to come to some maturity . Not to speak of its reception , ( if not its birth ) among some Foreign Authors , chiefly Socinians , it seemed among our selves to be favour'd by that Learned , but Wavering , Prelate who writ the Liberty of Prophesying , and afterwards by another of his Order who compos'd * The Naked Truth . Lately it hath been revived by the Author of the Naked Gospel : and since more particularly fully and distinctly it hath been maintain'd by the late Publisher of the Reasonableness of Christianity , as deliver'd in the Scriptures . He gives it us over and over again in these formal words , viz. that nothing is required to be believed by any Christian man but this , that Iesus is the Messiah . He contends that there is no other Article of Faith necessary to Salvation ; this is a Full and Perfect Creed , and no person need concern himself in any other . This takes up about three quarters of his book , for he goes through the History of the Evangelists and the Acts of the Apostles , according to the order of Time ( as he thinks ) to give an account of this Proposition . But yet this Gentleman forgot , or rather wilfully omitted a plain and obvious passage in one of the Evangelists , Go teach all nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , Mat. 28. 19. From which it is plain , that all Proselites to Christianity , all that are adult Members of the Christian Church , must be taught , as well as baptized , into the Faith of the Holy Trinity , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . And if they must be taught this Doctrine ( which is the peremptory Charge and Commission here given to the Apostles , Go teach , &c. ) then it is certain that they must believe it , for this Teaching is in order to Belief . This will be denied by none , I suppose , and consequently more is required to be believed by Christian men , and Members of Christ's Church , than that Iesus is the Messiah . You see it is part of the Evangelical Faith , and such as is necessary , absolutely necessary , to make one a Member of the Christian Church , to believe a Trinity in Unity in the Godhead ; or , in plainer terms , that though God is One as to his Essence and Nature , yet there are Three Persons in that Divine Essence , and that these Three Persons are really the One God : for we can't imagine that Men and Women should be required to be baptized into the Faith and Worship of any but the Only True God. This Epitomizer of the Evangelical Writings left out also that famous Testimony in Iohn 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word ( Christ Jesus ) and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. Whence we are obliged to yield assent to this Article , that Christ is the word of God. And there is added in Verse 14. another indispensable Point of Faith , viz. that the word was made Flesh , i. e. that God was Incarnate , the same with 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh. And it follows in the same Verse of this first Chapter of St. Iohn , that this VVord is the only begotten of the Father : whence we are bound to believe the Eternal , though ineffable , Generation of the Son of God. Our Author likewise takes no notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son , Joh. 14. 10 , 11. and that the Son is in the Father , and the Father in the Son , which expresses their Unity . This is made an Article of Faith by our Saviour's particular and express Command . And other eminent parts of Christian Belief this Writer passes by , without having any regard to them , and yet pretends to present the World with a Compleat and Entire Account of all that is the matter of our Faith under the Gospel . This cannot but seem very strange and unaccountable to any man of deliberate Thoughts , and who expects Sincerity from a Writer who makes some shew of it ? But this is not all ; this Learned Gentleman , who with so much industry amasses together Quotations out of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles , yet is not pleas'd to proceed to the Epistles , and to give an Account of them as he did of the others ; though the Epistles are as considerable a part of the New Testament as the Gospels and the Acts , and the Pen-men of them were equally inspired by the Holy Ghost . Can there be any Reason given of this partial dealing ? Yes , it is most evident to any thinking and considerate person that he purposely omits the Epistolary VVritings of the Apostles because they are fraught with Other Fundamental Doctrines besides that One which he mentions . There we are instructed concerning these Grand Heads of Christian Divinity , viz. the Corruption and Degeneracy of Humane Nature , with the True Original of it ( the Defection of our First Parents ) the Propagation of Sin and Mortality , our Restoration and Reconciliation by Christ's Blood , the Eminency and Excellency of his Priesthood , the Efficacy of his Death , the full Satisfaction thereby made to the Divine Justice , and his being made an All-sufficient Sacrifice for Sin. Here are peculiar Discoveries concerning Christ's Righteousness , and our Justification by it , concerning Election , Adoption , Sanctification , or the New Birth , and particularly Saving Faith , which is so signal a part of it . Here the Nature of the Gospel , and the New Covenant , the Riches of God's Mercy in the way of Salvation by Jesus Christ , the Certainty of the Resurrection of Humane Bodies , and of the Future Glory , are fully displayed . These are the Matters of Faith contain'd in the Epistles , and they are essential and integral parts of the Gospel it self : and therefore it is no wonder that our Author , being sensible of this , would not vouchsafe to give us an Abstract of these Inspired Writings , but passes them by with some Contempt . And more especially ( if I may conjecture ) he doth this because he knew that there are so many and Frequent , and those so illustrious and eminent Attestations to the Doctrine of the ever to be Adored Trinity in these Epistles . Nor is this any uncharitable conjecture , as the Reader may easily satisfie himself if he takes notice that this Writer interprets the Son of God to be no more than the Messiah : he expounds Iohn 14. 9. &c. after the Antitrinitarian mode , whereas generally Divines understand some part of those words concerning the Divinity of our Saviour . He makes Christ and Adam to be the Sons of God in the same senses , viz. by their Birth , as the Racovians generally do , and so he interprets Luke 1. 35. Iohn 5. 26. according to their Standard . When he proceeds to mention the Advantages and Benefits of Christ's Coming into the world , and appearing in the flesh , he hath not one syllable of his Satisfying for us , or by his Death purchasing Life and Salvation , or any thing that sounds like it . This and several other things which might be offered to the Reader , shew that he is all over Socinianized ; and moreover that his design was to exclude the belief of the Blessed Trinity in this Undertaking of his , viz. to prove that the believing of Christ to be the Messiah is the only Point of Faith that is necessary and saying . All the other Articles and Doctrines must fall a sacrifice to the Darling Notion of the Antitrinitarians , namely that Christ is not the True God , and coessential with his Father . For the sake of this one Point they are all dispatch'd out of the world , and are made by him Martyrs to this Cause . One could scarcely imagine that a person of Ingenuity and Good Sense should go this way to work . Which enclines me to think that the Ingenious Gentleman who is suppos'd by some to be the Author of this Treatise is not really so . I am apt to believe that the world is impos'd upon in this matter , for in this present Attempt there are none of those Noble Strokes which are visible in that Person 's Writings , and which have justly gain'd him a fair repute . That Vivacity of thought , that Elevation of mind , that Vein of Sense and Reason , yea and of Elocution too which runs through his Works are all extinct here : only he begins as 't were to recover himself about the Close when he comes to speak of the Laws of Christian Morality . Some may attribute this Flatness to the Ill Cause he manages ; but for my part , I question whether we have the right Author , I can't perswade my self but that there is an Error of the Person : at least I will charitably presume so , because I have so good an opinion of the Gentleman who writ of Humane Understanding and Education . But what is the ground of the foresaid Assertion ? What makes him contend for One Single Article , with the Exclusion of all the rest ? He pretends it is this , that all men ought to understand their Religion . And I agree with him in this ; but I ask him , may not a man understand those Articles of Faith which I mention'd out of the Gospel and Epistles , if they be explain'd to him , as well as that One which he speaks of ? Why then must there be but One Article , and no more ? But he , notwithstanding this , goes on , and urges that there must be nothing in Christianity that is not plain , and exactly level to all mens Mother-wit and common apprehension . For * God considered the poor of the world , and the bulk of mankind : the Christian Religion is suited to vulgar capacities , and hath only * such Articles as the labouring and illiterate man may comprehend . The Writers and Wranglers in Religion fill it with Niceties , and dress it up with Notions , ( viz. the Trinity , Christ's Satisfaction , &c. ) which they make necessary and fundamental parts of it . But the bulk of mankind have not leisure for Learning and Logick : and therefore there must be no such doctrine as that concerning the Trinity , the Incarnation of the Son of God , and the like , which are above the capacity and comprehension of the Vulgar . And in the Entrance of his book he hath the same notion , for he tells us that the Scriptures are a collection of writings designed by God for the instraction of the illiterate bulk of mankind , ( for he is much taken with this phrase , you see , the bulk of mankind ) whereby he understands the Ignorant and Unlearned Multitude , the Mob , as he calls it in another place . Surely this Gentleman is afraid of Captain Tom , and is going to make a Religion for his Myrmidons : and to please them he gives them as little of this kind as he possibly can , he contracts all into One Article , and will trouble them with no more . Now then the sum of all that he aims at is this , that we must not have any Point of Doctrine whatsoever in our Religion that the Mob doth not at the very first naming of it perfectly understand and agree to . We are come to a fine pass indeed : the Venerable Mob must be ask'd what we must believe : and nothing must be receiv'd as an Article of Faith but what those Illiterate Clubmen vote to be such . The Rabble are no System-makers , no Creed-makers ; and therefore away with Systems and Creeds , and let us have but One Article , though it be with the defiance of all the rest , which are of equal necessity with that One. Towards the close of his Enterprise he hath a fling ( and that a Shrewd one ) at the Dissenters , telling them that * their Congregations and their Teachers understand not the Controversies at this time so warmly manag'd among them . Nay the Teachers themselves have been pleas'd to make him their Confessor , and to acknowledge to him that they understand not the difference in debate between them . Why ? because they ( as well as the Conformists ) have Obscure Notions and Speculations , such as Iustification , the Trinity , Satisfaction , &c. terms that all the bulk of mankind are unacquainted with : whereas Religion should have no Difficulties and Mysteries in it . The very Manner of every thing in Christianity must be clear and intelligible , every thing must be presently comprehended by the weakest noddle , or else it is no part of Religion , especially of Christianity , which yet is call'd the * Mystery of Godliness : but this being in the Epistles , it is no great matter ; we are not to mind what they say . Thus we see what is the Reason why he reduces all Belief to that one Article before rehearsed : as if the other Main Points which I produced were not as easily learnt and understood as This ; as if there were any thing more difficult in this Proposition [ The Father , Son and Holy Ghost are One God , or Divine Nature ] than in that other [ Jesus is the Messiah ] . Truly if there be any Difficulty , it is in this latter , for here is an Hebrew word first to be explain'd before the Mob ( as he stiles it ) can understand the Proposition . Why therefore doth this Author , who thinks it absurd * to talk Arabick to the Vulgar , talk Hebrew to them , unless he be of opinion ( which no body else is of ) that they understand this Language better than that ? Or , suppose he tells the Rabble that Messiah signifies Anointed , what then ? Unless he explains that word to them , it is still unintelligible . So that it appears hence that this Article which he hath spent so much time about , is no more level to the understanding of the Vulgar then that of the Holy Trinity , yea it is not so much . To conclude , this Gentleman and his fellows are resolved to be Unitarians ; they are for One Article of Faith , as well as One Person in the Godhead ; and there is as much reason for one as the other , that is , none at all . But it doth not become me perhaps to pronounce this so peremptorily , and therefore I appeal to the Judicious and Impartial Reader ; desiring him to judge of what I have suggested . But this I will say , if these Learned men were not highly prejudiced and prepossessed , they would discern the Evil and Mischief of their Assertion : they would perceive that when the Catholick Faith is thus brought down to One Single Article , it will soon be reduced to none : the Unit will dwindle into a Cypher . The Proper Remedy here is to consider that it is unlawful * to add unto , or diminish ought from the Written Word : yea , a Curse is threatned against those that † add to or take away from the Scriptures ; for if it be criminal , and deserves a Curse to deal thus with the book of Deuteronomy or of the Revelation , then by the same reason those that add to or detract from any other part of the Holy Scriptures are undeniably guilty , and are obnoxious to the Divine Plagues . I hope such as practise the latter will seriously think of it , and for the future believe themselves concern'd to embrace All the necessary and fundamental Articles of Faith , as well as One of them . Thus I have briefly discover'd the Springs and Sources of Atheism , and I have endeavour'd all along ( more or less ) to stop them up , and hinder the current of them . Now , for the close of all , let me add these Inferences from the whole , I. We ought to bewail the spreading Atheism of this Age wherein we live . Of old there were but few that openly profess'd it . There are reckon'd up four several sorts or forms of Atheism by a late * Learned Writer , viz. Anaximandrian , Democritick , Stoical , Stratonical , and yet there was scarcely one of these that was a downright denying of a God. Some have given Diagoras , Theodorus , Protagoras , the title of Atheists , and have thought them to be absolutely such : but others , upon a strict search , are of opinion , that they deserv'd not that infamous Name ; yea , they find that they were great Asserters of a Deity . The first of these was accused of Atheism , and banish'd for it by the Athenians ; not that he denied a God , but because he derided the Feigned Gods of his time , whom the Athenians had such a reverence for . The second passes for an Atheist ; but those who have narrowly enquired into things tell us , that he got that Name because he spoke against the Idolatrous Worship of the Grecians , and had a kindness ( it is probable ) for another Religion : for being a Cyrenian , and acquainted with King Ptolomee , he came to have some Intercourse with the Iews of Alexandria , and had some notice of the True God. The third was reputed and call'd by some an Atheist because he doubted of the Truth and Reality of the Gentile Gods. So Anaxagoras ( another Greek Philosopher ) was arraign'd for Atheism by the Athenians because he denied the Sun to be God , and freely discours'd against the other Pagan Deities . Thus the malicious Accusers of Socrates represented him as an Enemy to the Gods : part of the Crime charged on him , and for which he was condemn'd , was his speaking against the Traditions and Fables of the Poets concerning the Gods , and his declaring them to be lewd and wicked . To give this Great Man his due , he was so far from being an Atheist , that he died a Martyr for a Deity . Only to gratifie the Vulgar , and that he might not go off unlamented , after he had drank his Poison he requested his Friends to offer a Cock for him to Aesculapius . Some put Democritus into the Catalogue of the Ancient Atheists , but if we read his Life in Laertius , we shall find that they have little reason to do so . Lucretius is the most suspicious man of all , and Lucian may be join'd with him , the former a serious , the latter a jocular Atheist . But it is sad to consider that the number of this sort of men hath been exceedingly augmented since . * David Perron undertook in the presence of King Henry the Third of France , to prove that there is no God. Mersennus , in his Commentary on Genesis , tells us , that in the Year when he wrote it , viz. 1623. there was a vast multitude of them in France : there were at least fifty thousand Atheists in the City of Paris at that time , and in one house sometimes a dozen were to be found . A worthy * Author , whom I had occasion to mention before , acquaints us on his own Knowledge , that Atheism was very common and rampant in most parts of Italy . Not to mention Machiavel , Aretine , &c. it cannot be denied that Vanenus openly declared and profess'd himself an Atheist , and died so at the Stake . Indeed I am apt to suspect those who tell us there are scarcely any of this Perswasion in the World. Thus † one declares that he hath travelled many Countries , yet could never meet with any Atheists , which are few if any : all the noise and clamour is against Castles in the Air , i. e. such and no other he fancies them to be . But to come nearer , our Own Nation hath produced too many of this kind . Even in this Civilized Christian Protestant Country there are those that are infected with this Cursed Infidelity , and defie all Religion and a God. It is an unquestionable Truth , that there are in this great City of the Kingdom constant Cabals and Assemblies of Profess'd Atheists , where they debate the Great Point of the Existence of an Infinite Spirit that governs the World , and in the close determine in the Negative . I have sometime accidentally happen'd into the Company of , and held Discourse with some that acknowledge they belong to that Society ; and they have not been ashamed to own whatever is done in it . Mr. Hobbes is their Great Master and Lawgiver . I find that they pay a huge reverence to him . If they acknowledge any Divine Thing , it is He. If they own any Scriptures , they are his Writings . The Language that I lately met with from the mouth of one that was , I suppose , a Well-wisher ( according to his poor ability ) to Mr. Hobbes's Mathematicks , was this , His Leviathan is the best Book in the world next to the Bible : He himself was a Man of great Piety , and is spoken against by none but the Priests . And whom do they ( for this man speaks the sense of the rest ) mean by Priests but the Ministers of Religion ? So they would have a Bible and Piety without these ; which is as much as to say , they would have neither of them . But indeed this man had a way of being something more plausible than his Fellows , and would vouchsafe to mention the Bible and Piety , and thereby seem as it were to allow of such things ; whereas Others are wont to laugh at them as well as at the Persons they call Priests , for they go together . I may say truly , it is grown Fashionable to deride whatever is Sacred , and to talk like an Atheist . In some Companies it shall be question'd whether a Person be a Gentleman if he does not give Proofs of his being Prophane . To defend the wildest Principles , and to ridicule Religion , is counted one certain mark of a Wit. He that doth not shew his Raillery against Virtue and Goodness , and speaks not contemptibly of God and Religion , is not a Man of Parts . This is the Sentiment and Perswasion of a great part of this Nation . I would not libel the Land of our Nativity ; yea , I rather heartily wish that what I have said on this occasion might receive a Confutation . But it is too evident that I speak truth ; it is too manifest to be denied that there are every where confiderable numbers of men who openly renounce the Existence of God. David's Atheist was modest , and only said in his Heart , There is no God ; on which account some Atheistical Spirits now-a-days may think perhaps he deserved the Title of Fool which the Psalmist gives him . But these count themselves a Wiser rank of Atheists , because they say this with their mouths , and speak it aloud , audibly proclaiming their Opinion , and being very zealous to gain Proselytes to it . 2. Let us abhor the Converse and Society of those Persons whom we know to be of this Character . And truly they are very common every where . It is prodigious to see how they daily encrease . There is scarcely a Town where there are not some that may justly be reckon'd in this number . Do not mistake me . There are some deluded People who are apt to censure all as Atheists that are not of their way . The * Primitive Christians were thus stigmatized , and usually called by that name because they did not comply with the Pagan Worship and Usages . If a man discourses not according to some mens fond Notions and Bigotisms ; if he speaks against their superstitious Practices , he presently hath this Brand set upon him . There are those that call all Persons Atheists and Hypocrites that hold not the same Principles with themselves . Yea , if a man be a great Student in Philosophy , some weaker People may be apt to fix this Character on him . As heretofore all that had skill in Mathematicks were said and thought to deal in Art Magick ; so in the opinion of some at this day men of great Art and Learning are voted Atheists by them , and almost every Physician hath this Censure past on him by men of weak minds . But I hope none of those I now speak to are so unwise and weak , or at least not so uncharitable and censorious as to bestow this Ignominious Epither on those to whom it doth not belong . By an Atheist or a person very much disposed to be so , I mean one that hath an Enmity to the very notion of a Divine Infinite Being , a Supreme Immaterial Substance , that is the Soveraign Author of Nature , and the First Cause of all things , from whom all things were , and on whom they depend . I mean such a one as owns no Allegiance to this Divine Ruler and Soveraign , and in his Words and Actions discovers this to the World. And accordingly he is one that acknowledges not the Infinite Power , Wisdom , Goodness , and Justice of God in the Government of all things : he speaks irreverently of all that appertains to Religion and Godliness : he laughs at the profound Mysteries and sublime Doctrines of Christianity : he endeavours always to diminish the esteem of Sacred things : yea , he will be jesting and drolling on them if he hath any Talent that way . If he be open-hearted , and not upon the Reserve , he will tell them that Religion is a mere Invention of Politick Heads to awe the Multitude , and to keep the World in good order . He is one that blasts Religion with the ignominious Title of a Popular Cheat , and labours to perswade others to do the like . Where you find these Characters in any person , you may conclude without breach of Charity , that he is an Atheist . And it is the Company of such that I exhort you to beware of , and wholly to avoid . It is almost incredible that such great numbers should be every day led away with this Ignis Fatuus , and plung'd into Bogs and Mire , never to be pluck'd out thence . Therefore take heed what Society you mingle your selves with in this Dangerous Age. Sit not with the known Despisers of God and Religion , for they will insensibly instill their poison into you . By frequent associating with them you will learn to resemble them . Wherefore fly from them as from a Serpent , and be not prevail'd with by any Entreaties or Threats to hold Correspondence with them . Assure your selves of this , that the Title of Atheist is the most Reproachful and Detestable one imaginable , though some of late who glory in their shame entertain other thoughts . Nay , some of these Persons seem to be partly sensible of it , and change the name into that of Deist . At this day Atheism it self is slily call'd Deism by those that indeed are Atheists . Though they retain the things , yet they would disguise it by a false Name , and thereby hide the Heinousness of it . But let us not be deceived and blinded by pretended Shews , but throughly apprehend the Vileness of this Opinion which some endeavour to palliate . It is a very denying the Creed of Nature , it is a Renuntiation of that which the very Devils believe , and tremble at . It is briefly but fully represented in St. Cyprian's words , * This ( saith he ) is the sum of this most beinous Crime , that those who are guilty of it wilfully refuse to acknowledge Him whom they cannot be ignorant of . For their own Beings and Natures furnish them with Arguments for a God : and if they did not obstinately shut their eyes , they must needs behold a Deity . Therefore to be Atheists , or without God in the world ( as the * Apostle speaks ) cannot but be a Great Prodigy ; it is Unaccountable almost ( if the Degeneracy of Manking were not so great as it is ) that the World it self should not administer to mens Thoughts Convictive Arguments of a Divinity . Whence it hath been observ'd by a very Wise Man , that there never was any Miracle wrought by God to convert an Atheist , because the Light of Nature might have led him to confess a God. This shews how detestable and pernicious Atheism is ; and much more might be said to this purpose . Wherefore I hope I need not multiply words when I call upon you to keep out of the Company of those men who you know are infected with this hellish Poison . 3. Let us labour to work in our selves and others a profound Sense of that Great God with whom we have to do . Generally the Belief of a Deity is from Custom and Education , because it is the Perswasion of the Place and the Persons we converse with : but we should not content our selves with this , but arrive to the Knowledge of the true Grounds and Reasons of this Belief . Seeing this is the First thing in Religion , and no Man can be Religious and Vertuous unless he believes there is a God , let us fortifie our Minds against Atheism by those several Arguments and Considerations which are wont to be propounded by Learned and Religious * Writers : that we may as throughly be perswaded of this Great Truth as of our own Being , which a Great Philosopher makes one of his First and Indubitable Principles . But especially view the Works of the Creation , and perswade your selves of this , that a Material World without an Immaterial Cause of it , is mere Nonsnse . Look abroad , and behold the Heavens and the Earth , and all the Furniture of them ; there you may believe a Deity , because you do as 't were see it . The Creator is made visible by his Works . Every thing in the Sensible World is an † Image , a Picture , a Footstep of the Deity . From this Exquisite Fabrick we infallibly gather the Existence of its All-wise Architect and Moderator . Of which I shall give the Reader a particular Demonstration in a short time And that you may effectually extirpate Atheism out of your minds , frequently peruse the H. Scriptures . Read God in his own Book . There you will certainly inform your selves concerning the Superintendence of Spiritual or Immaterial Agents , viz. Angels , which makes way for the Belief of a God , who is a Spirit . There you will meet with those Wonderful Operations and Events which can no ways be solv'd without granting an Omnipotent and All-wise Disposer of things . And there you will find this Supreme Governour of the World communicating his Will and Pleasure to Mankind . I question not but one great Reason ( and I might have mention'd it among the rest ) why men are so disposed to be Atheists , is because they never , or very seldom , consult this Holy Volume : they refuse to hear God Himself speaking to them in these Writings . Wherefore I recommend to you the serious and frequent reading of the Bible as the most effectual means to confirm you in the Belief of a Deity . Assure your selves that this Book is the best Antidote against Atheism . 4. and lastly , Labour to be truly Religious and Holy ; beg the Divine Assistance to sanctifie you in your Hearts and Lives ; and thereby you will be let into the intimate knowledge of this Grand Verity which I have been discoursing of . You will then more sensibly understand and be convinced of it than by all the Arguments that can be offer'd : or rather , this one will make all the rest effectual . Whereas on the contrary , Men of Unsanctified Minds and Profane Lives despise and scoff at that of which they have no experience , and will not believe the Existence and Power of God which they never felt : Strive then by an Inward Experiment to confute Atheism : so that you may not have any Inclination to say in your hearts ( though you do not utter it with your tongues ) There is no God , but that you may be so strongly convinced of the contrary Truth that you may be able to assert it with a firm and unshaken Belief , and from an internal sense of it on your hearts , to attest the reality of it to the whole World. FINIS . ERRAT . Pag. 104. lin . 8. dele to . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A38046-e160 * Sermon of the Folly of Atheism . Sermon at the Queen's Funeral . Notes for div A38046-e530 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hierocl . * His Essays . * 1 Tim. 6. 16. * Exercitat . 99. * De Cometis . * Preface before his Philosoph . Writings . † Search after Truth , Book 3. Chap. 4. * Bishop Ward 's Serm. † Copernicus , Lansbergius , Clavius , Petavius , Tacquet , Scheiner , Gassendus , Fromondus , Kircher , Ricciolus , Oughtred , Ward , Wallis , More , Glanvil . * Sir Tho. More ▪ , Sir Phil. Sidney , Sir W. Raleigh , Sir Hen. Wotton , Lord Bacon , Mr. Selden , Mr. Cowley , &c. * Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor . — Pap. Stat. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * Lord Bacon's Essay of Atheism . * De Nat. Deorum , Lib. 1. * Mat. 7. 16 . Luke 17. 1. † 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Tim. 3. ● , 6. 2 Pet. 33. Jude 18. * Sir Edwyn Sandys . * Lord Bacon's Essays . * Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity , Page 5 , 6 , 7. * Praelect . cap. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. † Fragment . Disp. de Adorat . Christi . ‖ Deus est Spiritus aeternus : spiritum autem cum nominamus , substantiam intelligimus ab omni erassitie , qualem in corporibus oculorum arbitrio subjectis cernimus , alienam . Hoc sensu Angelos dicimus Spiritus , & Aerem , &c. De Deo & Attrib . cap. 15. * Comment . Vol. 1. page 118. * De Uno Deo P. lib. 2. sect . 1 , 2. * Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity . The Unreasonableness of the Doctrine of the Trinity . † An Accurate Examination of the Principal Texts , &c. chap. 5. ‖ Observations on the Answer to the brief History of the Unitarians , chap. 2. † Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity . * Observations on the Answer to the brief History of the Unitarians , chap. 1. * Of the Mysteries of the Christian Faith. * An Exhortation to a Free and Impartial Enquiry , &c. * Spinosa . Tract . Theol polit . cap. 8 , 9 , 10. * Dr. Woodward's Hist. of the Earth , Part 3. 161. * Du-Pin Hist. of Eccles. Writers . Prelim. Dissertat . * Search after Truth , Book 1. † Princip . Philos. Pars 4. * Enchirid. Metaphys . Cap. 11. † Mr. L●ck concerning Education . * Dr. Woodward's Nat. Hist. of the Earth . Part 1. * De Corde . * Concerning Education . * Mr. Hobbs Leviath . chap. 34. Mr. Websters Display of supposed Witchcraft . Dr. Becker's Enchanted World. * Chap. 1. Concerning the Articles of Faith. * P. 302. * P. 302. * Page . 303. * 1 Tim. 3. 16. * Page 302. * Deut. 4. 2. † Rev. 22. 18 , 19. * Dr. Cudworth's Intellectual System . * L'Histoire d' Henr. 3. * In his Europae Speculum . † An Essay in a Letter from Oxford . * Just. Mart. Apol. 2. * Haec est summa delicti nolle agnoscere quem ignorare non possis . De Vanit . Idol . * Ephes. 2. 12. * Fab. Faventini Disp. 4. adv . Atheos . Tho. Campanella Spizel Scrutin . Atheismi . Muller . Atheismus devictus . Ian. & Ioach. Ian. Disputat . contr . Atheos . Dr. More , Mr. Smith , Sir Charles . Woosley , Dr. Tenison , ( now Archbishop of Cant. ) Dr. Cudworth , Dr. Barrow . † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plato . 
A42050	----	A modest plea for the due regulation of the press in answer to several reasons lately printed against it, humbly submitted to the judgment of authority / by Francis Gregory, D.D. and rector of Hambleden in the county of Bucks. Gregory, Francis, 1625?-1707. 1698 Approx. 128 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 29 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A42050 Wing G1896 ESTC R40036 18665122 ocm 18665122 108129 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A42050) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 108129) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1655:17) A modest plea for the due regulation of the press in answer to several reasons lately printed against it, humbly submitted to the judgment of authority / by Francis Gregory, D.D. and rector of Hambleden in the county of Bucks. Gregory, Francis, 1625?-1707. [54], [2] p. Printed for R. Sare ..., London : MDCXCVIII [1698] Reproduction of original in the Trinity College Library, Cambridge University. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Letter to a member of Parliament, shewing that a restraint on the press is inconsistent with the Protestant religion, and dangerous to the liberties of the nation. Freedom of the press -- England -- 17th century. Socinianism. 2007-10 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-11 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-12 Emma (Leeson) Huber Sampled and proofread 2007-12 Emma (Leeson) Huber Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A Modest Plea For the Due REGULATION OF THE PRESS , In Answer to several REASON● lately Printed against it . Humbly submitted to the Judgment of Authority . Quae est pejor mors animae , quàm libertas erroris ? August . in Epist . 166. By FRANCIS GREGORY , D. D. and Rector of Hambleden in the County of Bucks . LONDON , Printed for R. Sare , at Greys-Inn-Gate in Holborn . M DC XC VIII . A MODEST PLEA For the Due REGULATION OF THE PRESS , &c. SECT . I. Good Reader , IT is not long since I accidentally met with a Printed Paper , Entitled , A Letter to a Member of Parliament , shewing that a Restraint on the Press is inconsistent with the Protestant Religion , and dangerous to the Liberties of the Nation . This Title at the first view did startle and make me wonder ; for I could not imagine how the Contents of this Letter could possibly justifie such an Inscription . But whether this Letter were really sent , or only pretended , and by whom , I cannot tell ; for the Writer of it thought it an act of Prudence to conceal his Name , as well as his Opinion . But if he be not one of the worst sort of Hereticks , I mean a Socinian , it is his great misfortune , and no small fault , that he hath given his Reader just cause to think him so . For , 1. This Author treats our Common People with extraordinary Civilities , he pleads for the full liberty of every Man's Conscience ; and tells us , that every Man hath as much right to Communicate his Thoughts to his Neighbour , as to think them himself ; he tells us , that every Man is to judg for himself , even in the controverted Points of Religion , as well as the ablest Divines of our Church . Nor can we wonder that a Socinian should thus flatter the Vulgar ; for they , who design to instil their Opinions into the Heads of Men , are concerned in Policy by fair words and courtship first to insinuate themselves into their Hearts . 2. This Author treats the Church of England with incivility and scurrilous Language ; he loads its Governours with several Calumnies , which are no way deserved ; he calleth them , Imposers upon the Consciences of Men , Tyrants , Lords of the Peoples Faith ; but 't is not my business to wipe off his unjust Reproaches , but to answer his groundless Arguments . But however , 't is not strange that a Socinian should thus bespatter the Clergy of our Church , to render us odious to the People , because they know that our Divines are the most able Men to defend those great Articles of our Creed , which they oppose ; and to confute those detestable Doctrines , which they promote , but will never be able to maintain , so long as the Church of England shall continue as well stored with learned Men , as now it is . But in the mean time , they make it their business to disparage and vilifie our Divines , in hopes that our People , disesteeming our Persons , may shew the less regard to what we plead in defence of Truth . 3. This Author sheweth himself yet more manifestly to be a Socinian , because according to the known Practice of that sort of Men , he highly magnifies Humane Reason , exalting it far above its proper Sphere , advancing it to that sublime and sacred Office , which , as now it is , it can never discharge . For in that Preliminary Discourse , which he premiseth as an Introduction to the main Body and Substance of his Letter , he tells us , that God hath given Man , His Reason , which is his only light , not only to discover that there is a Religion , but to distinguish the True from the many false Ones . He tell us again , p. 15. That God hath given Men no other Guide , but their Reason , to bring them to happiness ; and yet again , p 17. he saith , That the Peoples common Notions are the Tests and Standards of all Truths . Now , my own Reason , such as it is , tells me , that all these Assertions are as false , as bold and daring ; for , what greater Encomiums could have been given to Humane Reason , were we still in the state of Innocence ? though in that state the Reason of Man might shine , like the Sun in its full glory , not a Cloud interposing ; yet by , and since , the fall of Adam , the Common Reason of Mankind is become like the Moon lying under , though not a Total , yet a very great Eclipse . Solomon , the wisest of Men , hath left our Reason no better Title than this ; the Candle of the Lord. 'T is not stiled a blazing Torch , but a Candle , which is but a diminutive light , and so much the less , because 't is full of Snuff , 't is clouded with mists and fogs of ignorance ; and in nothing more , than in matters of Religion . True it is , that this little light of Nature , being well attended to , is enough to discover to us some Truths , which are a sufficient ground for natural Religion ; the Reason of Man , exercising it self in contemplating the Works of Creation and Providence , is enough to convince him , that there is a God , and that this God ought to be worshipped ; but there are some other Truths , absolutely necessary to Salvation , which the most improved Reason of Man , without some other help , could never have discovered . In all Cases , the Reason of Man is , lumen sine quo non , a light , without which we can discern no Truth at all ; but yet 't is not a light , by which we can discern every Truth , which doth concern us . Our Lord hath truly said ; The light of the Body is the Eye , and yet this Eye , be it never so clear and strong , without the help of some other Light beside it's own , can see very little or nothing ; so here , the light of the Soul is its Reason , and yet this Reason , without some other assistances , in matters of Religion can discern but very little . There were amongst the Heathens many sober , vertuous , and industrious Moralists , Men of raised Intellectuals , Men of excellent Parts both Natural and Acquired ; and yet as to the Matters of Religion , they shewed themselves mere Sots and Dunces ; they became , as St. Paul saith , vain in their imaginations . They exceedingly doted in their Notions concerning the Nature , Will , and Worship of God ; there are several religious and necessary Truths , whereunto their own Reason , though much improved , was , not only a perfect Stranger , but a professed Adversary ; the Doctrine of the Creation stands opposed by that known Maxim , which their Reason entertained as an undoubted Truth , ex nihilo nihil fit , out of nothing , nothing is or can be made . And as for the great Doctrine of the Resurrection , Men of Reason look'd upon it , as Celsus speaks in Origen , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as a thing impossible , and abominable , and according to these Notions they took St. Paul , who preached this glorious , but difficult Doctrine , to be no better than a vain babler . But whence might this gross Ignorance of theirs arise ? How came it to pass , that Men so acute and lucky in searching and finding out many secret Mysteries both of Art and Nature , should be so dull and unhappy , as not to apprehend the Mysteries of Religion ? Doubtless the Reason must needs be this ; their own Understandings , though exercised to their utmost Ability , could not inform them better for want of some other and clearer Light. And what was their Case , would have been ours , had not God enlightened and blessed the Christian Church with Divine Revelation . But withal , this great Blessing of Divine Revelation doth not exclude , but require the very utmost Exercise of human Reason ; for we must employ , not only our Eyes or Tongues , but our Understandings in reading the Word of God ; it must be our great Endeavour by the use of all proper means , to find out the true Meaning of what we read ; and when upon good Grounds we are satisfied that the right Sense of such or such a Text is this or that ; though the Matter therein delivered be above the reach of our Reason , yet the same Reason will oblige us to believe it as an undoubted Truth , because that God , who cannot lie , hath so revealed it . And this , I think , is all , which humane Reason hath to do in Matters of Faith and Worship , unless it be to oblige us to the Practice of what we know and believe . To conclude this Subject , our Lord saith of himself , I am the light of the world , the same thing he said to his Apostles too , ye are the light of the world , so they were not only by their Holy Example , but by their Holy Doctrine too . Why else doth the Apostle mention the Glorious Light of the Gospel ? The Light of Reason is but as the Light of a Glow ▪ worm ; the Light of the Law is but as the Light of a Star ; but the Light of the Gospel is as the Light of the Sun , a very glorious Light indeed . Now , if this be true , if Christ himself , if the Apostles of Christ , if the Gospel of Christ be so many Lights differing in Number , had not this Author strangely forgot himself and his Bible , when he told the World in his printed Paper , that the Reason of Man is the Light , nay , the only Light , which God hath given him to distinguish the true Religion from the false ones ; and again , that God hath given to Men no other Guide , but their Reason , to bring them to Happiness ; and yet a third time , that the People's common Notions are the Tests and Standards of all Truths . If these three Propositions be true , or any one of them , I do confess , that the small Light of my own Reason hath not yet enabled me to discern any difference betwixt the clearest Truths , and the grossest Errors . And verily the exposing such notorious Falshoods to the view of the World by the help of the Press , is a very strong Argument , why its Liberty should be restrained . But to go on . SECT . II. THE main Arguments , which this Author pleads for an universal Freedom of the Press , are drawn from these two Topicks ; First , From the great Usefulness of Printing , which hath been so very beneficial to the Christian Church . Secondly , From several great Inconveniencies , which , as he saith , would follow , were the Press once more restrained and limited . I. This Author pleads the great Usefulness of Printing , as an Argument that the Press should be unlimited . To which I answer Two ways . 1. By way of Concession ; we do easily grant that the Invention of Printing hath proved very beneficial to the Christian Church : 'T is this , which hath diffused the knowledge of useful Arts and Sciences , and all sorts of humane Learning : 'T is this , which hath furnished our Libraries with vast Numbers of excellent Books : 'T is this , which hath furnished our Churches and our Families with great Store of Bibles ; and we easily grant , what this Author asserts , that to this Art of Printing we owe , under God , the happy and quick Progress of the Reformation . But 2. By way of denial , we cannot grant that the usefulness of the Press is a good Argument , that its Liberty should be unlimited . For notwithstanding these great Advantages , which both Religon and Learning have reaped from this curious Art of Printing , may not it , as well as many other things , very useful in their own Nature , be so abused and perverted , as to become Instrumental to the great Detriment of Mankind ? 'T is an old Rule , corruptio optimi pessima ; the better things are when well used , the worse they grow , when corrupted . The Sword is an excellent Instrument , when it defends the guiltless , but it proves an unhappy Tool , when it murders the Innocent . Physick , duly administred by a Learned Physician , may preserve a Life ; but being misapplied by an ignorant Mountebank , it tends to destroy it . 'T is certain that the Art of Printing hath done a great deal of good , and we are to bless God for it ; but withal , it is as certain , that it hath done , and still may do a great deal of Mischief , and we are to lament it . When the Press tends to promote Religion and Virtue , 't is well employed , and ought to be encouraged ; but when the Press tends to promote Vice and Irreligion , it ought to be discountenanced and restrained . 'T is evident that the Press hath been used to publish a great Numbers of such Papers , as tend to debauch the Lives , and corrupt the Judgments of Men ; such are our obscene Poems , our profane and wanton Stage-plays , where Vice is not only represented but so promoted , that we may justly fear , that as all their Spectators lose their Time ; so many of them may lose their Innocence too . For since the Hearts of Men are so prone to evil , and become so like to tinder , apt to take Fire from every little Spark , 't is hard to see those Vices , which are pleasing to Flesh and Blood , represented upon a publick Stage , and yet not be infected by them . And as these are very like to debauch their Spectator's Morals , so are there many other printed Papers as like to corrupt their Reader 's Judgments . Such are those many Volumes printed in Defence of Popery ; and which is worse , such are those Books printed in the Defence of Arianism , Socinianism , and other Heresies justly condemned by the Catholick Church in the first and purest Ages of Christianity . 'T is reported that our modern Socinians have already perverted a considerable Number of Men , not only by their personal Insinuations , but by their printed Papers ; and 't is very probable , that they may yet make many more Proselytes to their dangerous Opinion , if the Press be still permitted to publish whatever they think fit to write . For their Books contain Arguments so plausible , so seemingly strong , that they may pass for clear Evidences and Demonstrations amongst the unlearned Multitude , who are in no capacity to discover the Fallacies that lie in them . Now , since the Press may as well do harm as good , 't is very reasonable that it should be well regulated to promote that good , and prevent that harm ; 't is very fit that no new Books should be published , till they have been first supervised and allowed . But to whom ought the Care of this be committed ? Doubtless to Men of Integrity , Learning and Judgment ; to Men , who are able , at first view , to distinguish Vice from Vertue , and Truth from Error ; and with such Men is the Church of England stored ; Men of such Parts and Piety , that we cannot without breach of Charity , so much as once suspect , that they would , to gratifie any Party , stifle any Book , which might tend to the advantage of the Christian Church , or the common benefit of Mankind . Notwithstanding this , our Author thought fit to tell his Friend , the Parliament-Man , that of all other Persons , the Clergy-men of our Church , are the most unfit to be trusted with the Regulation of the Press ; and for that , he gives this Reason ; namely , because they would allow no Books to be published , save only such as tend to establish their own Opinions ; that is , in plain English , they would permit no Books to be printed , which tend to subvert the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith ; and for that , Who can justly blame them ? That the Articles of the Church of England are Sound and Orthodox , hath been proved over and over by such Scripture Arguments , as Priests and Jesuits , Arians and Socinians , or any other Heretick , never yet could , nor ever can overthrow ; and if any Books , which contradict them , be offered to the Press , 't is fit they should be stifled in the Birth ; and if they chance to be brought forth by stealth , 't is fit they should immediately be cast into the Flames , that being the quickest way to cleanse them from that Dross that is in them . But however , to prevent as much as may be , the further increase of dangerous Books , which by good Words , fair Speeches , and seeming Arguments may do much Mischief amongst the illiterate Vulgar ; 't is very necessary , that all Writings offered to the Press about Matters of Religion , should carefully be examined by Conscientious and Judicious Divines ; and that no general Liberty should be allowed to Men of all Sects to write , and to Printers to publish whatever they please . There are amongst us in this unhappy Age , Hereticks of several denominations , of whom St. Paul saith , Their mouths must be stopped ; and for that he gives a very just Reason , when he tells us , They subvert whole houses , teaching things which they ought not . Now , if there ought to be a Muzzle clapped upon the Hereticks mouth , there is far greater Reason that there should be a restraint upon his Pen and Press . For 't is impossible that any Heretick should do so much Mischief with his Tongue , as he may by his Writings ; words only spoke and heard are transient ; but words written and printed are permanent ; an heretical Tongue can do no harm but by a personal Conference , but an heretical Pen may do much Mischief to Men at a distance ; the wrong that may be done by heretical Discourse alone , can reach but the present Age ; but heretical Books may injure and poyson the Souls of Men in after Ages . And since there are too many such Books published amongst us , it is the great Concern , and should be the great Care of our Governours , to see that there be no more , lest if their Number increase without controul , they may by degrees , considering the ignorance , instability , and credulity of Men , subvert the Faith of the Son of God , and endanger the Souls of Men. But , SECT . III. 2. THIS Author argueth for an unlimited Liberty of the Press , not only for its own great Usefulness , but from the Consideration of several grand Inconveniences , which , as he saith , would follow , should the Press chance to be restrained ; and the first which he names , is this . First . The restraint of the Press tends to make Men blindly submit to the Religion they chance to be educated in , and to take it up without any trial . To this I answer thus ; This Argument may hold in Popish Kingdoms , where the People for want of means , cannot ; and , for fear of their Inquisitors , dare not examine the Principles and Practices of the Roman Religion . But the same Argument pleaded in , and against the Church of England , is of no Force ; for it proceeds upon a false Ground , and hath a Fallacy in it ; for here is , non causa pro causa ; the restraint of the Press is here assigned as the Cause , or at least the great Occasion , that Men take up their Religion upon Trust , though indeed it be not so . The matter of this Charge is true , and as it cannot be denied , so it is much to be lamented , that great Numbers of Men , even amongst us , do indeed take up their Religion barely on Trust . Protestants they are , but why are they such ? only because it was the Religion of their Parents , that wherein they were trained up from their Childhood ; 't is the Religion established by our Laws , generally professed in our Nation , and preached in our Churches . These , I fear , are the only Motives , upon which the far greatest Part of Men do , by a blind and implicite Faith , take up their Religion . There is a vast multitude of Men , who are constrained thus to take up their Religion upon trust , by an invincible Necessity ; Men , who were never blest with a liberal Education , never taught to read ; Men so dull and stupid , that they cannot apprehend , much less remember the Strength of an Argument ; and surely Persons under such ill Circumstances , are in no Capacity to judge for themselves , but must rely upon the Judgment of their Teachers , and upon their Credit and Authority , take up some Religion or other , or else they can take up none at all ; and this is the great unhappiness of many Thousands , I fear , even in the Church of England . But besides these , there is another sort of Men bred up in the Principles of Learning ; Men of compleat Knowledge and good Ability to judge betwixt Vice and Vertue , Truth and Falshood ; and how frequently , how earnestly , do we exhort such Men from our Pulpits , to prove all things , to try the Spirits ; but , alas ! 't is much to be feared , that we lose our Labour , that Men will not spare any time , nor take any pains to examin their Religion , but rather take it up at a venture just as they find it . Now , if a Man takes up his Religion upon trust , when he need not do so , he runs himself both into sin and danger ; a sin it certainly is , because a breach of those fore ▪ named Commands ; and a great danger it is , because instead of a Juno , he may embrace a Cloud ; instead of a true Religon , he may close with a false one . But where lieth the Fault ? Upon whom , or what , must this sin be charged ? Sure I am , that in this case a restraint upon the Press is innocent , and cannot be justly blamed ; For , were not Men obliged to examin the Matters of their Religion long before the Art of Printing was invented ? And was not the neglect of this Duty a sin in former Ages , when there was not so much as one Press in all the World ? And if so , How could the trial of Religions depend upon the Press in those early days , when as yet it had no being ? And because the true Christian Faith is the same in all the Ages of the Church since the Apostles days , we must measure our own Religion by the same Rules , by which the Primitive Saints measured theirs , and what were they ? Not the voluminous Writings of Men , which the Press hath now brought forth , but the sacred Oracles of God. This is the Course , to which the Prophet directs us ; To the law , and to the Testimony . This Course did the Bereans take , when to examine the Doctrines even of the Apostles themselves , They searched the Scriptures daily , whether those things were so ; and for their doing so they are highly commended . And indeed the Scripture is the lapis Lydius , the Touchstone , the Canon , the only Authentick Rule of Manners , Faith , and religious Worship ; a Rule so plain and easie in all necessary points , that in order to the trial of our Religion we have no absolute need of any Book but Gods , though other good Books do well towards the better understanding of some passages in this . 'T is the great Privilege of our Church that we have this Rule of Scripture in such great Quantities , that every Man , who can and will , may , at an easie rate , have it in his custody , and thereby examine his Religion , when he pleaseth . Nor can we justly blame the restraint of the Press , so long as it is permitted to Print our Bibles , and prohibited to publish no Man's Book , but such only , as are contrary to Gods. Indeed , were the Press in England restrained , as it is in Popish Kingdoms , from printing the Bible in our Vulgar Tongue , this Authors Argument would have had much strength in it ; but since it is otherwise ; since we have the Scriptures , those Tests and Standards of our Religion , preached in our Publick Churches , and easily to be had and read , as oft as we please , in our private Families , this Author's Argument against the Restraint of the Press is invalid and unconcluding ; for it doth not prove that , for which he pleads it . But to proceed . SECT . IV. II. THE Second Allegation , which this Author urgeth , as a grand inconvenience , against the Restraint of the Press , is this ; Such a Restraint , saith he , deprives Men of the most proper and best means to discover truth . To which I answer thus ; There is a very close Connexion betwixt this Argument and the former ; a Connexion as between an Antecedent and a Consequent ; or between the Premises and the Conclusion . In the former Argument he mentions the examination of Religions ; and in this , as the end and consequence of that , the discovery of Truth ; for to what purpose should any Religion be impartially examined , were it not to discover , whether it be true or false . And for this reason , the same answer , which I have given to the former Argument , might serve well enough for this ; for since the restraint of the Press doth not , as I have there proved , prevent the due Examination of Religion , it cannot prevent the discovery of Truth . But that so it doth , our Author is very positive ; yea , and he tells us by what means it doth so , namely , By hindering Men from seeing and examining the different Opinions , and the Arguments alledged for them . But let this Author tell us , how this can be true ; can a Restraint of the Press for time to come hinder any Man from seeing and examining the different Opinions of Men , and their Arguments for them ! Are there not already great numbers of printed Books , exposed to common Sale , wherein the different Opinions of Men about matters of Religion are throughly discussed ! May not every Man , that will and can , sufficiently inform himself by Books already extant what Arguments have been pleaded by all Sects of Christians in the defence of their respective Professions ? And since the Press hath already brought forth such a numerous issue of this kind , methinks every future birth of the same sort would be but a Superfetation . I am persuaded , that should all the Presses in the Christian world be absolutely forbidden to print any more New Books of Controversy , and Polemick Divinity , it would be no injury to the Catholick Church , nor to any one Member of it ; for , nihil dici potest , quod non dictum est priùs ; Prints indeed may be new , but Arguments , either for old Truths , or against old Errors , can hardly be so . But when all is done , Religious Truths cannot be discovered by Humane Arguments any further than those Arguments are grounded upon the infallible word of God. 'T is a Rule in Mathematicks : Rectum est index sui & Obliqui . He , that would discover the Rectitude or Obliquity of a Line , must bring it to , and compare it with such a Rule , as is already found to be exactly streight . So in our present Case , he , who would discover the truth or falshood of any Opinion in matters of Religion , must apply them to , and judg them by that infallible Rule , which St. James very deservedly Styles , The word of Truth . And this Rule , in all Points necessary to Salvation , is so plain and easie , that every Man , who hath not lost the use of common Reason , may thereby judg for himself . There are indeed in the word of God , as the Apostle saith , Some things hard to be understood ; but in what Texts do these difficulties lie ? St. Austin answers , Non quoad ea , quae sunt necessaria saluti , &c. The Scriptures are not difficult in any of those Points , which are necessary to Man's Salvation . So thought St. Chrysostom , who thus demands ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; what Man is there , to whom all the necessary Truths of the Gospel are not clear and manifest ? He saith elsewhere ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Husbandman , the Servant , the Widow , the Boy , Persons of very mean Capacities may easily understand what the Scriptures teach about such Points , as are Fundamental . That this was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church before St. Chrysostom's time , is evident from that Testimony of Irenaeus ; Universae Scripturae & Propheticae & Evangelicae in aperto , & sine ambiguitate , & similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt . The whole Scripture , the Prophets , the Evangelists , in such Points as most concern us , are so plain , express , and open , that all sorts of Men may equally apprehend them . Now , if a Man may discover the truth of all those Doctrines , which are necessary to Salvation , by Scripture Rules ; if his Faith be grounded on them , and his Practice be suitable to them ; what hazard would that Man run , should he never see the different Opinions of Men about them , nor weigh their Arguments against them ? Suppose a Man being well informed by the express word of God , do stedfastly believe the Resurrection of the dead ; what were this Man the worse , should he never see nor examine the reasonings of Pagans and Sadducees against this great Article of our Creed . Suppose a Man be convinced , as well he may be , by such Texts of Scripture , as cannot , with any tolerable Sense , be otherwise interpeted , that our Blessed Saviour is truly God , and truly Man ; What need such a Person to see the Opinions , and weigh the Arguments of Arians and Socinians against this fundamental Point of our Christian Faith ? To him , whose Belief is already grounded upon the infallible Word of God being rightly understood , the sight of different Opinions , and the Arguments for them signifieth nothing ; such a Man doth not need the confutation of heretical Cavils to confirm that Faith of his , which is already bottomed upon a Rock , which is immoveable . And as the sight of different Opinions , and the examination of Arguments pleaded for them , is not needful to confirm a strong and well grounded Faith ; so it is dangerous , and tends to impair , and shake a weak one . For , well meaning Christians , bred up in the true Religion , being of too easie Belief , of slender Judgments , and not well acquainted with the Word of God , may probably be perverted by heretical Books , as being unable to discern the Fallacies contained in them , and to cite such Texts as might confute them . But here it may be demanded , Who must judge , whether such or such an Opinion be justified or condemned by such or such a Text ? I answer , where Texts are plain and obvious , every discreet and intelligent Person may judge for himself ; but when Texts are somewhat abstruse and difficult , when knotty Questions and Controversies are raised about them , then the Judge must be no single Person ; no , nor any small Party of Men , who are byassed , prejudiced , and wedded to their own Opinion , but the Judge must be the Catholick Church ; I mean , its Representative in the four first general Councils , which consisted of Men not over-aw'd by Authority , nor tempted by Interest ; but Men as Religious , as they were Learned , as well Versed in Holy Writ , as able Interpreters of Scripture , as any sort of Men , born since those early days . And this , I think , to be the greatest human Authority to warrant the Sense of such and such Texts , and prove the Doctrins grounded on them . Now , Since we of the Church of England are blest with the free use of our Bibles ; and favoured with the judgment of the best Expositors about the sense of those Texts , which tend most to determine those Disputes , which have arose betwixt Protestants and Papists , betwixt Trinitarians and Anti-Trinitarians , we can have no need , of any search for Truth , to consult the printed Papers of this Age , many of which do tend to promote Error much rather than discover Truth . And verily when the Licenser of Books doth reject and suppress Heretical Papers , he doth good service both to God and Men ; and if such Papers chance to Steal the Press , they ought to be treated like other Thieves , who , to prevent their doing any future mischiefs , are Apprehended , Condemned , and Executed . And so I quit this Argument , and proceed to the next . SECT . V. 3. THIS Authors third Allegation against the restraint of the Press runs thus , The Restraint of the Press hinders Truth from having any great influence on the minds of Men , which is owing chiefly to examination ; because that which doth not convince the Understanding , will have but little , or no effect upon the Will. I answer thus . What this Author doth here assert in relation to the influence of the Understanding upon the Will and Affections is true in general ; nor can it be justly denied that a strict examination of Religion is the proper means to convince the Understanding of its Truth . But although the subject matter of this Allegation be true in the general ; yet here it is misapplied and very impertinent to the Case now in hand . For this Argument , as the former did , doth proceed upon a false Hypothesis ; for it supposeth that if the Press should chance to be restrained for time to come , Men would be deprived of all sufficient means for the due examination of their Religion . 'T is St. Paul's Command , Prove all things . 'T is St. John's Command , Try the Spirits , whether they are of God. These Commands must needs suppose , that in those days there was a certain Rule , by which Religions might be tried ▪ and the same Rule , in its full force and vertue , is standing still . Tell me then , are our Bibles out of Print , or taken from us ? Have we no Catechisms , no Systems of Divinity left amongst us ? Nay , are there not Books of Controversies exposed to Sale in our Cities , greater Towns , and both our Universities ? Nay more , are there not Popish and Socinian Catechisms to be had in England ? Do not these Books already Extant , contain the strongest Arguments , which the most learned Men of all Parties were able to urge in favour of their respective Opinions ? And may not Men by weighing these Reasons , which are already made publick , give a judgment which Religion is true , and which is false , as well as by any new Papers yet to be printed ? But although there be a great variety of Books , which may help to guide us in our searching after Truth ; yet I must still mind my Reader that the Scripture is the only Adequate and Authentick Rule , whereby the Truth or falshood of any Religion must be determined . And certain it is , that those Convictions of Man's Understanding , which arise from the Immediate word of God , are like to have a more powerful influence upon the Will and Affections , than any other Convictions arising from any such Arguments , as are no more than the Dictates and Collections of humane Reason , which is fallible , and may deceive us , whereas the word of God , well understood , cannot do so . And this , I think , is a sufficient answer to this Authors third Allegation . SECT . VI. 4. THE Fourth is this , The Restraint of the Press is that , which tends to make Men hold the Truth , if they chance to light on any , Guilty ; and the Reason , which he gives is this ; Because that will not be accepted , if it be not the effect of an impartial Examination . To which I answer thus . I cannot pass by this without observing that this Author hath hitherto much harped upon the same thing , and hath hitherto bottomed all his Arguments upon the same Ground , and a very slippery one too ; he hath proposed his Allegations as distinct in their Number , but in their Proof , there is little or no difference to be found . For he tells ; First , That the Restraint of the Press tends to make Men blindly submit to the Religion they chance to be educated in . Secondly , That it deprives Men of the most proper and best means to discover Truth . Thirdly , That it hinders Truth from having any great influence upon the minds of Men. Fourthly , That it tends to make Men hold the Truth , if they chance to light on any , guiltily . These indeed are very considerable Objections against the Restraint of the Press , were they true ; But how doth our Author prove them so to be ? To prove them all , he hath yet made use but of one medium , and that a false one too ; for 't is nothing else but a groundless supposition that Men would want due means for the examination of their Religion , were the Press any whit restrained . I say , any whit ; for we do not plead for a total Restraint , but for a just and due Regulation . And were the Press so regulated , yet would it not be attended with any of these ill Consequences , with which this Author is pleased to charge it ; for since Men have sufficient means for the trial of their Religion , if they do it not , their fin and folly must be imputed , not to the Restraint of the Press , but to their own Ignorance or Negligence ; for , as some cannot , so others will not . But our Author goeth on , and so must we . SECT . VII . 5. THis Author's fifth Allegation against the Restraint of the Press takes up more than three Pages , but the full Substance of it is this ; It prevents Acts of Charity to the Souls of Men , it invades the natural Rights of mankind , and destroys the common Tyes of humanity ; so he . This is Dogmatically and Magisterially delivered , and since it is such ● grievous Charge , it had need be very well proved ; And how doth our Author make it out ? He tells us That all Men are obliged , especially in Matters of Religion , to communicate to one another what they think is the Truth , and the Reasons by which they endeavour to prove it : To which I answer thus . That we are indeed concerned , not only to profess a Religion , but promote it too ; I think , that he , who hath one jot thereof , will never deny . We are bound by several Obligations to instruct and teach our Neighbour in the Principles of that Religion , which we own our selves . St. Paul commands it , Edify one another ; and so again , Teach and admonish one another . We are engaged by the frequent Commands of God , and that eternal Law of Charity , in our Capacities , and as occasion is offered , to propagate our Religion ; to plant it where it is not , and to water it where it is . But then methinks , before we do this , we should , not only think , as this Author saith , but secure our selves and others too , that the Religion which we advance in the World , be indeed the Religion of God ; we must be sure that we plant not Weeds instead of Flowers , that we sow not Tares instead of Wheat . For to promote a Religion , which may possibly be false , were a desperate Venture indeed , and he that doth it , hazards the Honour of God , and the Souls of Men. I find that our blessed Saviour and his Apostles taught no Doctrine , but what they were sure of ; We speak that we know , saith our Lord ; and thus St. John , We know that we are of the Truth . Certainly , whosoever undertakes , and is obliged to instruct another in matters of Religion , had need be very well informed himself . For if our Directions should chance to prove wrong , What Excuse could we make ? Suppose we instil into the minds of Men Error and Heresie instead of Truth , What were this but to ruin the Souls of Men , though we might think to save them ? It 's true , our good Intention and Ignorance may excuse such an ill Act , à tanto , but though such a mistake may somewhat extenuate the Fault , yet can it no way lessen the fatal Consequence that doth attend it . Suppose a Physician , who really intends to cure his Patient , by a mistake of his Remedy , should chance to kill him , the poor Patient , who dieth only by a mistake , suffers as great an injury , as if his Physician had poysoned him knowingly , and with design . 'T is indeed an Act of Charity to instruct the Ignorant , and lead the Blind ; but withal , the Man who undertakes it , must have Eyes in his own Head , lest if the blind lead the blind , they both fall into , and perish in the Ditch . Certain it is , we are much engaged very strictly to sift the Grounds of that Religion , which we are to propagate in the World , and teach our Neighbours , lest otherwise , through our own mistake , and his confidence , we become guilty of cruel Charity , and prove instrumental to damn that Person whom we should endeavour , as far as we can , to save . And as it is a dangerous thing for private Persons to promote any false Religion , though they themselves being mistaken , do think it true ; so to permit other Men to publish heretical Doctrins cannot be the Duty of those Persons , who have Authority , and should have Zeal , to prevent it . To restrain this unchristian Liberty of the Tongue , Pen , and Press , is not , as this Author doth boldly assert , To invade the natural Rights of mankind , nor to destroy the common Tyes of humanity . For if it be a Man's natural Right to persuade his Neighbour , either by his Tongue or his Pen , to entertain an Opinion really heretical , whether he thinks it so or not ; 't is also his natural Right to draw him into Sin ; for if he prevail ▪ that will be finis operis , though not operantis ; it will be the issue of the Act , though it were not the intention of the Agent . We cannot doubt but that St. Paul very well understood what natural Right every Man hath to use his Tongue , and in what cases he ought to do it , and thereby to communicate his Thoughts to his Neighbours ; but suppose a Man's Thoughts be wild , and his Opinions heretical , must he be left at Liberty to impart such Thoughts , and vent such Opinions , even as he pleaseth ? See what St. Paul saith concerning Hereticks , Their mouths must be stopped ; i. e. they must not be permitted by personal Conferences to communicate their ill Opinions to inform , or , which is all one , to corrupt the Judgments of other Men ; so thought St. Paul. Now , he who pleads for an universal Liberty , as the natural Right of all Mankind , to communicate to other Men , whatever they think to be a Truth , whether it be so or not ; must censure St. Paul as a Man , either ignorant , or else an invader of Men's natural Right , since he so positively declares that some Men's Mouths must be stopped . And in order to this , the same Apostle gave Bishop Titus this Direction , A man that is an heretick , after the first and second admonition , reject ; i. e. excommunicate him , cast him out of the Church ; and certainly , if the Person of an obstinate Heretick must be rejected , his Books may not be admitted ; for , as to his Person , his Breath is infectious . His words eat like a Canker ; and as to his Writings , there is in his Ink more Poysons than one . Now , since there are so many heretical Pens at work amongst us , there is great need now , if ever , that some spiritual Argus should attend and watch the Press , lest more venemous Doctrins should steal from thence to infect and kill the Souls of Men. And this , I think , is a sufficient Answer to this Author's fifth Allegation . SECT . VIII . 6. THis Author's sixth Allegation against the Restraint of the Press is this ; There is no medium between Men's judging for themselves , and giving up their Judgments to others . We grant it , but what then ? His Inference is this , If the first be their Duty , the Press ought not to be restrained ; But why not ? His Reason is again the same , because it debars Men from seeing those Allegations , by which they are to inform their Judgments : That 's his Argument , to which I answer thus : We must distinguish betwixt Man and Man , betwixt such as can judge for themselves , and such as cannot , where the Scripture is express , the Words plain , and the Sense easie ; every Man who hath a competent use of Reason , and can read his Bible , may judge for himself . But when several Interpretations are given of any Texts , when Doubts are raised , when Arguments are produced to defend both Parts of a Contradiction ; there is a vast number of Men , who are no more able to judge which is true , and which is false , than a blind Man is to distinguish betwixt a good Colour and a bad one . 'T is the great unhappiness of such Persons , that in matters of Controversy they cannot rely upon their own weak Reason ; but must either suspend their Judgments , or else give it up to the Conduct of some other Person , and who is so fit to be trusted with it , as their own Ministers ? provided they be ▪ as every Minister should be , Men of Piety and Parts , able to satisfie Doubts , remove Scruples , and convince Gainsayers . But if Men give up their Reason to the Clergy , this Author , who vilifieth our Clergy as much as possible he can , gives our People an intimation , that by so doing , they make us , the Lords of their Faith ; But how doth that follow ? suppose two Persons are engaged in a doubtful Controversie about an Estate claimed by both , these Persons being of themselves unable to determine the Case , appeal to the King's Judges , but do they thereby make those Judges the Lords of that Estate which is contended for ? surely no , the Judge doth no more than according to Evidence and Law , declare to which Person that Estate doth justly belong . So it is in our present Case , several Parties of Men lay Claim to Truth as theirs , and produce Evidences for it : Now , a Man unable to satisfie himself which side Truth is to be found , consults his Minister , who , by Evidence of Scripture , which in this case is the only Law , assures his Neighbour the Truth lieth here or there . And indeed that the Minister is the most proper Judge in Controversies relating to Religion , we cannot doubt , if we dare believe the Prophet , who saith , The Priest's lips should preserve knowledge , and they should seek the Law at his mouth , for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts . This Text doth not constitute us , nor do we pretend to be Lords of our People's Faith ; but as the Apostle speaks , Helpers to the Truth . We do not require any weak Believer's assent to any one Article of Faith , whereunto God requires it not , though the Church of Rome doth so : And how unjustly then , without Modesty or Truth , doth this Man stigmatize us , as Lords of our People's Faith ? But beside those weak Christians , who in controverted Points cannot judge for themselves , there are some other of clearer Heads , and more improved Understandings that can ; and for their sakes this Author saith , that the Press ought not to be restrained , and his Reason is this ; Because the Restraint of the Press debars them from seeing those Allegations by which they are to confirm their Judgments . This Argument , in effect , hath already been offered once and again , and hath as often been replied to ; but for the greater satisfaction of my Reader , I shall again consider and enlarge my Answer to it , and this it is : Not knowing and intelligent Christian , who is well able to judge for himself , can want any new Allegations from the Press to confirm his Judgments in any disputed Points of Faith or Worship , because we have already sufficient Rules to judge by ▪ For , 1. We have the Scripture preached in our publick Churches , and if we please , we may read and consider them in our private Families and Closets . And here I do again affirm that all matters of revealed Religion must be examined , proved , and determined by the written Word of God. This is the only sure balance to weigh , and touch ▪ stone to try all Matters of Faith and Worship . To this our Lord sent his hearers , Search the Scriptures ; and again , How readest thou ? And , which is remarkable , the ignorance of Scripture did he make the only occasion and ground of Error in Points of Faith ; so he told the Sadducees , Ye err , but why ? not knowing the Scriptures ; by which our Lord himself proved that great Doctrine of the Resurrection , which they denied . And when our Lord would prove himself to be a greater Person than David , he did it by that Text , The Lord said unto my Lord , &c. This course took our blessed Saviour , and so did his Apostles too , and so must we ; we must take the Scripture for our Guide in Matters of Religion , for that is the only and infallible Rule and unalterable Standard , to measure all the Doctrines and Practices which such or such a Church doth teach , recommend or require from us . But if it shall be again demanded , who must be the Judg , whether amongst different Interpretations of Holy Writ this or that be the true one ; whether in controverted Points such or such a Text do certainly warrant such or such a Doctrine , as is grounded thereon , I answer again . 2. We have the united Judgment and Decrees of several Councils ; those , I mean , that were convened in the first and purest times , before the Superstitions and Idolatries of Rome had crept in by degrees thro' carelesness , vice , and ignorance , and over-spread the Church . The grand Controversie , now on foot amongst us , concerns the Divinity of Christ , the Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost ; that Christ , in the most strict and proper Sense of that Notion , is truly God ; that the Holy Ghost is a Person , and a Divine Person , we affirm ; but our Socinians , who are the spawn of old Arius , make bold to deny . To justifie our Doctrine we cite such and such Texts ; and to establish their Opinions , as well as they can , they do the same thing ; as for the Scripture , which we produce to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity , because humane Reason cannot comprehend it , they do either question the Authority of such Texts , or else they wrest them to such an intolerable Sense , as every sober Man's Reason may justly abhor . Now , the Question is , Who must judge betwixt us and them ? Who must determine , whether the Scripture be on their side , or ours ? I answer , That Heterodox Opinion , now much contended for , which we call Socinian , did appear under some other Names , very early in the Christian Church : In the first Age the Godhead of Christ was denied by the Jews , and particularly by Ebion ; in the Third Century by one Theodatus , Artemon , and Beryllus , and Sabellius ; in the Fourth Century , by Arius , Eunomius , and some others . And in the same Age , the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost was denied by Macedonius and some others , who were there branded by a particular Name , and called , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Oppugners of the Holy Ghost . These Heterodox Opinions beginning to spread and disturb the Peace of the Christian Church , and some other ill Opinions arising too , several General Councils were summoned by several Christian Emperors ; the Nicene Council , by Constantine the Great , whose main work was to examine the Opinion of Arius ; the Council of Constantinople , called by Theodosius the First , to debate the Opinion of Macedonius ; the Council of Ephesus , called by Theodosius the Second , to consider the Opinion of Nestorius ; and the Council of Chalcedon summoned by the Emperor Martian , to consult about the Opinion of Eutyches . These Councils consisting of some Hundreds of Bishops , having the Glory of God in their Hearts , the Settlement of the Church in their Eyes , and the Bible in their Hands , did after a mature deliberation , pronounce the Opinions of these Men to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel , and the obstinate defenders of them to be Hereticks . And certainly the determinations of these General Councils , which were made up of Persons exemplary for their Piety , and eminent for their Learning , who resolved on nothing without mature Advice and Deliberation , are of as great Authority , and afford as much Satisfaction in Matters of Religion , as any thing of Man can be or do . For the Truths of God , once taught the World by Christ and his Apostles , being unchangeable for ever ; and our Bibles , which are the only Rule to measure Religions by , continuing one and the same for ever ; that , which was an Error in those early days , must needs be an Error still ; and that , which was a Truth then , must needs be a Truth now . And if we cannot think of any more proper means for the right understanding of Scripture , and the discovery of Truth and Error , than the deliberate and unanimous Judgment of so many hundred pious , learned , and unbiassed Men assembled together ; then certainly the determinations of those antient Councils are very considerable Evidences for Truth , and against Error . And the rather , because they consisted of such Persons , who , besides their eminent Piety and Learning , had the great Advantage of living nearer the Apostles age , and thereby were the better able to inform themselves and us , what was certainly believed and done in the very infancy of the Christian Church . SECT . IX . 3. THE Writings of the Antient Fathers , those especially that lived within the first six Centuries , where-ever they agree , and are not since corrupted or maimed by the Frauds and Forgeries of the Roman Church , are of singular use in this Matter too . That Ignatius , Clemens , Origen , Athanasius , Cyril , Nazianzene , Basil , Chrysostom , Hierom , Austin , and many others both in the Eastern and Western Churches , were indeed Persons of great Piety and excellent Parts , our Socinians , without breach of Modesty , cannot deny . And although some of these great Names , in some particular Matters , had their peculiar mistakes , and shewed themselves to be but Men ; yet in all Points where we find an unanimous Consent amongst them , we are to have so much Veneration for their Authority , as not easily to suspect or contradict it . True it is , if we take these Fathers singly , Man by Man , where we find any of them alone in their Opinions , as Origen in reference to the Punishments of Hell ; and St. Austin in reference to Infants that die unbaptised ; we are not in this case much more obliged to accept their Judgment , than the Judgment of some single Person yet alive . But if we take All the Fathers , who lived within six hundred Years after Christ , together and in a lump , where we find them One in Judgment ; they are enough to make a wiser Council than any hath been since their time ; they are enough to inform us what is Error , and what is Truth . But , SECT . X. 4. BEcause Learned Men , whose Fortunes are Mean , cannot purchase ; and unlearned Men , whose Intellectuals are weak , cannot read and understand the voluminous Writings of the Fathers ; we have several Systems of Divinity , Confessions of Faith , short Abridgments of Christian Religion , which are , especially to unlearned Persons , great helps in this matter too . And here methinks those antient Creeds of the Apostles , Nice , and Athanasius , which are so generally received by the Church of God , are of great Authority to settle our Judgment in the main and most necessary Points of Faith. Besides , we have many Choice and Excellent Catechisms , composed by Men that were Pious , Judicious , acquainted with Scriptures , well versed in the Primitive Councils and Fathers . These short Catechisms , compiled by Persons of singular Endowments , and approved by the Church , are little less than contracted Bibles , containing in them whatever Man is obliged to know , and delivering enough in easie Terms to inform us in Matters of Practice , to secure us from Errors , and confirm our Judgments in all the great Points of Faith. In short , the substance of my Answer to this Argument is this ; since we have the written Word of God to be our Rule , and since this Word , in some material Cases , according to the different Fancies and Interests of Men , hath different Interpretations given concerning its true Sense and Meaning ; 't is our safest way , for our better Satisfaction , to betake our selves to the most able , faithful and unbiassed Judges ; and they are the most antient Councils , and the Primitive Fathers , whose Judgments are declared in our several Creeds , in other publick Confessions of Faith , and Orthodox Catechisms set forth or approved by the Church of God. And since we are very well stored with these excellent Helps , I do once more conclude that no Man , whether learned or unlearned , can need any new Arguments from the Press to confirm his Judgment in Matters of Religion . SECT . XI . 7. THis Author's seventh Allegation against the Restraint of the Press runs thus . If it be unlawful to let the Press continue free , lest it furnish Men with the Reasons of one Party as well as the other , it must be as unlawful to examine those Reasons . To this I answer thus ; We must distinguish between Party and Party ; between one , who is Orthodox , and one who is Heretical ; this distinction being premised , I shall resolve this Hypothetical Proposition into these two Categorical ones . That it is not lawful for many Orthodox Christians to Examine those Reasons , which Hereticks may urge in defence of their ill Opinions . And therefore that the Press should not be permitted to furnish such Christians with any such Reasons , 'T is notoriously known that there are amongst us vast numbers of Persons , who are of weak Judgments , not firmly established in their Faith , not able to distinguish Truth from Falshood in a fallacious Argument , and therefore are apt to be Tossed up and down by every wind of doctrine : now , for such Men to peep into Heretical Books , cannot be lawful , because they do thereby run themselves into a very dangerous Temptation . Our Lord hath left us this Caution , Beware of false Prophets ; it seems they are dangerous Men ; so we are told again and again : They creep into houses , and there find success , for , They lead Captive silly women ; and again , They overthrow the faith of some ; nay , They subvert whole houses ; it seems that Heresie is a contagious Disease , apt to over-run whole Families . And doubtless this Poyson may be conveyed in a peice of Paper as successfully , as any other way ; this infection may be received as well by the Eye from a Book , as by the Ear from a Tongue ; for when unlearned Men meet with Socinian Arguments , drawn either from Humane Reason , or abused Scripture , since they themselves cannot confute them ; they are apt to yield up their own Reason , and give up those Truths for lost , which they are not able to defend . And I think that it will be no breach of Charity , if I tell my Reader that I am verily persuaded , that the great Reason , why this Author pleads so many Arguments , though no good ones , for the unlimited liberty of the Press , is this ; namely , that our Socinians may without controul publish their Books full of subtile , but fallacious Arguments to Surprize and Captivate the Judgments of illiterate and undiscerning Men. We know , that in the late Reign an Universal Liberty of Conscience was pleaded for , and granted by a Declaration upon a design to bring in Popery ; so now an universal Liberty of the Press is contended for by those Men , whose design it is to introduce Socinianism , the very worst of Heresies , for it totally subverts the very Foundation of our Christian Faith and Hope . Indeed , to my best observation , this Author hath not , in his whole Letter , so much as once named Socinian , nor drop'd one plain word in favour of it ; but yet , Latet anguis in herba ; This was very prudently done to prevent Suspicion ; but if he be not a Man of that sort , why doth he tell us , that if the Press must be Regulated , it must be done by some Lay-man ; for which he can have no substantial Reason , save only this , namely , because from a Clergy-man no Socinian Book can ever expect an Imprimatur . But this , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only by the way , In short , the substance of my Answer to this Allegation is this , 'T is not lawful for Men of weak Understandings to mind subtile Arguments contained in Heretical Books , lest thereby they might be ensnared ; and for that Reason , the Press should not be permitted to publish any such Books , unless security could be given that they should never come into Vulgar hands . SECT . XII . 8. THIS Authors Eighth Allegation against the Restraint of the Press is this . The Press ought not to be Restrained , because the Reformation is wholly owing to it . I answer , There is no liberty denied to any English Press to publish any Book , which tends to help the Devotions , to reform the Lives , or confirm the Judgments of Men in the true Faith of Christ ; but as for the Established Religion of our Church in matters of Faith , and Worship , it is so well refined already from the dregs of Popery and Superstition , that we do not need another Luther , nor the help of any Press to reform and make it better . He that would reform our Religion in any of its substantial Parts , must reform the Scriptures too ; for our Church teacheth no other Doctrines in the great Points of Faith and Worship than Christ and his Apostles taught the World , if we may believe those Sacred Writings , which they have left us . But since I have already , under another Head given a sufficient answer to this Allegation . I need not here say any more about it . SECT . XIII . 9. THE Ninth Allegation , which this Author urgeth against the Restraint of the Press , is this ; Our Divines condemn the Popish Clergy for not suffering their Laity to read Protestant Authors ; We do so , and very justly too , but what then ? The Inference , which he intends , must be this ; Our Protestant Clergy must be Condemned for not suffering our Laity to Read Socinian Books , and for watching the Press to prevent it . To this I answer thus ; this Inference is , a Non Sequitur , it is wild and extravagant ; for there is a great difference in the Case : the prohibition of Books may be an Act either to be blamed or commended according as the Books prohibited are either really good or really bad ; to forbid Men the use of such Books , as tend to the benefit of Mankind , the advantage of True Religion , and the Salvation of Souls , is an Act Impious and Tyrannical . And this is the known Practice of the Roman Church , which forbids Lay-men to Read the Bible , and the Writings of such Protestant Authors as teach nothing but what the Scriptures teach , and for this do we very justly Condemn them . But on the other Hand , to forbid injudicious Men the use of such Books , as tend to promote Errors and Heresies , to distract their Readers Judgment , and rather to shake their Faith than to confirm it , is an Act laudable , Charitable , and necessary for the Age we live in , for those Predictions of Christ and his Apostles ; false Prophets shall arise ; and again , false Teachers shall be among you , are fulfilled in these times ; for there are amongst us Romish Priests and Jesuits ; yea and some far more dangerous than they : I mean , our Socinians , who cannot corrupt so many Souls by their Personal Conferences , as they may by their Books . And is it not high time to watch the Press , lest any thing steal from thence , which may Poyson the Heads of unwary Men ? Or must the Press be permitted freely to spread that destructive Heresie , which hath been long since Condemned by the Catholick Church and its Representatives met in General Councils ? But here this Author , to justifie his own Opinion , Cites a learned Divine of our own Church , and borrows this Passage from him , They that have a good Cause , will not fright Men from considering what their Adversaries say against them , nor forbid them to Read their Books , but rather encourage them so to do , that they may see the difference between Truth and Error , Reason and Sophistry with their own Eyes , &c. That we may see how little service this Passage doth our Author , let us view it again . They who have a good Cause , but who are they ? We cannot doubt , but this good Man meant the Church of England , of which he himself was a very worthy Minister ; but what saith he of this Church of Ours ? It will not fright Men from considering , &c. but what Men ? This eminent Divine was the Lecturer of Gray's Inn , where his Auditory did chiefly consist of such Persons , as had been blest with a learned Education , and might Charitably be presumed to be well skilled in the Law of God as well as in the Law of Man. Now , that this judicious Divine of ours did mean , that the Church of England would rather encourage than forbid Persons so qualified to read and Examine the Books of our Adversaries as well as our own ; to me seems evident from that reason which he subjoyns as the only end of an impartial Examination , namely this , That they may see the difference between Truth and Error , Reason and Sophistry , with their own Eyes ; This Expression doth plainly import the Persons fit to Read Books of Controversie in matters of Religion are only such as have Eyes of their own , i. e. clear Heads , enlightned Understandings , able to discern Truth from Falshood . And verily could the Books of our Socinians be confined within the Libraries of learned and judicious Men , whether of the Clergy , or of the Laity : could they be surely kept from purblind Eyes and weak Judgments ; that unlimited liberty of the Press , which this Author doth so earnestly contend for , were the more allowable . But since this can never be , since Heretical Books are and ever will be exposed to common Sale ; though the Church of Rome doth ill in restraining their Laity from the use of good Books ; yet the Church of England would do very well in restraining the Press from putting ill ones into the Hands of unskilful Men , where they would be more dangerous than edge-Tools in the Hand of a Child , who knoweth not how to use them . And so much in answer to this Objection . SECT . XIV . 10. THIS Author begins his Tenth Allegation thus : I cannot see how they , that are for tying Men to that Interpretation of Scripture , which a Licenser shall approve , and therefore put it in his power to hinder all others from being published , can with any Justice condemn the Popish Clergy for not Licensing the Bible it self for the Laity to Read. I answer , Here are two Suppositions , both which are either impertinent to us , or false in themselves ; if the Church of England be not the Persons here charged , the Charge is impertinent ; but if they be , it is false . For , 1. The Church of England doth tie none of her Members to that Interpretation of Scripture , which such or such a Licenser of hers shall approve . 'T is well known that we have many Interpretations of the Scripture , which never were under the Inspection of any English Licenser ; the Expositions of the Fathers , Schoolmen , and many other Divines are brought us from beyond the Seas , and the free choice and use of them is allowed us by our Church . And if such Books chance to be Reprinted here in England , the care of the Edition is committed , not to the Licenser of Books to judg of their matters , but to the Composer and Corrector of the Press to see to their Forms , Character , and exact truth of Printing . Now , if this be so , as indeed it is ; if we are allowed to consult various Interpreters of our Bibles , if we may take our Choice of such or such Expositors , and use what Editions we please ; why should this undeserved imputation be cast upon the Church of England , as if she tied all her Sons to such Interpretations of the Holy Scripture , as her own Licensers shall Authorise ? 2. The Church of England doth not give her Licensers a Despotick , Arbitrary , and Absolute Power to reject every Book , every Interpretation of Scripture , which doth not please them . 'T is certain that our Licensers do not act by any immediate and independent Power of their own ; but as Delegates and Substitutes by an Authority derived from their Superiors , and if any of them shall either allow any Book , which tends to mischief ; or suppress any Book , which tends to common good , they do abuse their Power , exceed their Commission , and must answer for it . But is the miscarriage of some few Licensers an Argument that they should all be laid aside ? Some Kings have proved cruel Tyrants . Some Judges have been corrupted , and must we therefore have neither King nor Judg ? Sure I am that in this Age of ours we do sufficiently need a discreet and able Judg of Books : and the Test and Censure of such a Judg no Man need fear more than our Socinian Writers ; for they , being no great Friends to the Scripture , are very odd Interpreters of it , not through Ignorance , but design ; I will not say , through Rancor and Malice ; but I will say , through Partiality and Prejudice . For , because the beginning of St. John's Gospel , and several Expressions in St. Paul's Epistles , being rightly understood , and in the sense of the Catholick Church , do totally overthrow their dangerous Hypothesis ; they fix upon those Texts such Interpretations as are childish , absurd , and even ridiculous ; such , as none of the Fathers , Schoolmen ; or Criticks , so far as I can find , did even think of . And what an ill Cause do these Men manage , who endeavour with handfuls of dirt to stop the Mouths of those Witnesses , who , being permitted to speak their own sense , do so loudly proclaim their united Testimonies against them ? And methinks this one Consideration , were there no more , is enough to justifie our Church in appointing some fit Persons to be the Judges of Books , and the Interpretations of Scripture offered to the Press ; and the rather , because if any Licenser should out of any by ▪ respect , or for any sinister end , Stifle any Papers , which deserve to see the light ; the injured Authors may appeal from the Licenser to the Vice-Chancellors in either of our Universities , or to the Lord Bishop of London , or to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury ; so that the fate of Books doth not ultimately depend upon the pleasure or sole Judgment of a Licenser . Now , Those two forenamed Suppositions , upon which this Author bottoms this Tenth Allegation , proving false , the Superstructure , which he builds upon them , falls to the Ground , and there I leave it . SECT . XV. 11. THE next Allegation against the Restraint of the Press this Author thrusts into the Mouths of other Men , and makes them say what perhaps he himself doth not think : namely this . 'T is no small presumption that the Clergy themselves are Conscious of the falseness of their Religion . How ! the Clergy , what ! the whole Clergy ? Are ten thousand of us at once presumed to be Hypocrites , Juglers , and gross Dissemblers with God and Man ? We , who teach Men that a false Religion leads towards Hell , do we know our own to be false , and yet embrace it still ? The Martyrs of England in Queen Mary's days died for the same Religion , which we now profess , and were they also Conscious that this Religion is false , and yet in the defence of it shed their blood ? Certainly this Presumption is not small , but very strange ; 't is a great breach as well of Charity as of Truth ; for , if the Scriptures be true , and who dares suspect them ? We are abundantly convinced that our Religion cannot be false ; and why then should any Man presume that we have indeed other thoughts concerning it ? The Reason here given is this ; Because the Clergy dare not suffer their Religion to undergo a fair Trial , but do what they can to Stifle all the Reasons that can be urged against it . But , Sir , Pray tell us , can any sound Reason be ever urged against a Religion , such as ours is , Instituted by Christ , Taught by his Apostles , Embraced by the Primitive Church , and Sealed by the Blood of thousands of Martyrs . But 't is not strange to hear Men speak against the very best of things or Persons ; for our Lord told his Apostles , Men shall revile you , and say all manner of evil against you . Thus were their Persons treated ; yea , and their Doctrine too . The Jews spake against those things , which were spoken by Paul. Nay , the Psalmist tells his God , They speak against thee ; and what wonder then if they speak against his Religion too ? But what do they speak ? That , which this Author styles Reason , is but Pretence and Sophistry ; and were such Pretences , though never so plausible , yet being fallacious , buried in perpetual Oblivion , and stifled for ever , what harm were in it ? What one single Soul would be the worse ? But our Author replieth , that when there is a Contest between Men of two different Opinions , they have not fair Play , if their respective Reasons be not heard equally on both sides ; we grant it , what Seneca saith , is true ▪ Qui statuit aliquid , parte inaudita altera , Aequum licet statuerit , haud aequus fuit . Well , the main Parties , now contending , are the Church of England , and our Socinians , and have not these Men very often been heard already ? their Opinion , and their Arguments for it , being much the same with those of the Old Arians , have been frequently debated , all their Witnesses have been heard , all their Evidences have been maturely Considered , Baffled , and Overthrown , and Condemned by several Councils , by many pious and learned Fathers , by a great number of worthy Divines , by Papists , by Protestants , by Calvinists , by Lutherans , by all sorts of Christians ; but themselves . Now , when a Cause Condemned by several able and impartial Judges , at several times , and in several places , is , by a Bill of Revival , renewed and brought upon the Stage again with the self - same Witnesses , and the self - same Evidence ; if the Proper Judges , to free themselves and others from a great deal of needless trouble , should reject and cast it out of the Court without any further Hearing , I think there would be no foul play in doing so . But we have not treated our modern Socinians thus ; For did any of them ever desire a personal Conference with any of our Learned Divines , and was rejected ? Did any of them ever provoke the professours of Divinity in either of our Universities , to a publick Disputation , and was refused ? Are not their Writings and ours to be seen , and had in many Shops in London , Oxford , Cambridge , and other great Towns and Cities ? Have they not received our printed Answers to their printed Objections ? If they have , Why should this Author complain for want of fair Play ? Why should he unworthily tell the World , that we dare not suffer our Religion to undergo a fair Trial , for fear it should prove False ? No , we do not doubt the Truth of our Religion , nor the Ability of our Church to defend it ; but our Lord tells , False Prophets shall deceive many ; and St. Peter saith , They shall bring in damnable Doctrines ; and yet he tells us , Many shall follow their pernicious ways . These Texts do make us jealous that many weak , easie , and credulous Men may be corrupted by the Sophistry and Fallacies of Socinian Arguments , which , for that Reason should not be published . But , may our Author reply , and in effect he doth so , What danger can there be in publishing such Arguments , since , if they be false , we have great store of Divines able to confute them ? We have so , and bless God for it ; But what then ? Must we permit the Souls of Men to be poysoned , because we abound with Sovereign Antidotes ? Must we permit the Church our Mother , or her Sons who are our Brethren to receive Wounds in their Heads , because we have Balsam enough to Cure them ? We would take a better course than so , and follow the old Rule , venienti occurrite morbo , prevent the Poyson , and then we need not use any Antidotes ; prevent the Wound , and then there is no need of Plaisters ; so here , if we can , by a due Regulation of the Press , prevent the spreading of erroneous Doctrines , there will be no need of Confutations . But if Men of restless Spirits be still permitted to disturb the Peace of our Church , and stagger the Faith of weak Believers , by publishing Arguments , which only seem to be plausible , against the Fundamental Articles of our Creed , we shall be concerned to spend more time , and blot more Paper , in returning just Answers to them ; we must not quit the Field , so long as there are Enemies in it . And so I pass from this Paragraph to the next . SECT . XVI . 12. THis Paragraph begins thus ; It may be objected , saith he , ( and very justly , say we ) that by such a Latitude , People may be seduced into false Religions , or into Heresies and Schisms . The Truth hereof , this Author doth not deny ; but though it should be so , yet he insinuates , that there would be but very little or no Danger in it ; for , thus he tell us , If two Persons profess two different Religions , the one a True , the other a False one ; yet if they have been equally sincere in their Examination , they are equally in the way to Heaven . This Assertion , were it true , would be very comfortable to all sober Jews , Turks , and Pagans , who have been serious in examining the Grounds of their respective Religions ; and yet I cannot think them equally in the way to Heaven with all such Christians , as have done as much . And 't is easie to believe , that those Christians , who , after an impartial search into Scripture-Truths , do own the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as fundamental Articles of our Faith , are in a much fairer Capacity of Salvation , than our Socinians , who , after all their Examinations , embrace a Doctrine contrary to the Faith of the Catholick Church , even denying the Lord that bought them ; a Doctrine , which St. Peter stiles , Damnable . St. Paul tells us , There is one Faith , one true Religion , and no more ; and this one true Religion is the only right Path , which leads towards Heaven ; and he , who is mistaken in the Choice of his Religion , is like a Traveller , who , after all his enquiries , mistakes his way ; and if he continue under that mistake , he hath little hopes to attain his desired Journey 's end . But to justifie this strange Paradox , this Author subjoyns this Reason ; two such Persons , the one after a due examination , professing a true Religion ; the other a false one , are equally in the way to Heaven , because in following their Reason , they both have done what God requires . That 's his Argument , but there 's a fallacy in it ; for , doth not God require , and doth not Reason oblige us , in order to our Salvation , to obey one Command as well as another ? One Command is this , prove all things ; another immediately follows , hold fast that which is good . Now , if one Man obey the first of these Commands only , and another obey them both , they do not equally do what God requires , nor consequently are they equally in the way to Heaven . And this is the Case of two Persons , who , after an equal Examination , hold two different Religions , the one a True , and the other a False one ; the Obedience of the one is only , secundùm quid , he obeyeth but this single Command , prove all things ; but the other obeyeth this and that too , hold fast that which is good , which a False Religion can never be . And if so , How can two such Persons be in an equal Capacity of Salvation , except a wrong way do as directly lead to Heaven as the right one ? There is another Assertion in the same Paragraph , which I cannot pass over without some Reflections upon it , and 't is this ; The perverse holding of Religion ; i. e. taking it up on trust , whether it be true or false , is Heresie . This definition of Heresie is to me a new one , and repugnant to many old ones , which I have met with . It is true , the different Opinions of the old Philosophers , whether True or False , are indifferently stiled by Epiphanius , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Heresies of the Philosophers . But in Matters of Religion , this word , Heresie , is very seldom , if ever , used in any Sense , but a bad one ; the Evangelist mentions the Sect , in the Greek , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Heresie of the Pharisees and the Sadducees , an Expression , which doth no way commend them . Nor did the Jews intend the credit of the Christian Religion , when they called it , this Sect , or as it is in the Original , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this Heresie . And as for the Pagans , many of them had as bad an Opinion of it , and stiled it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , an Atheistical Heresie ; so Eusebius . Sure it is , the word is now generally used in an ill Sense , and doth necessarily imply nothing else , but an unsoundness and tenacity of Opinion , about Matters of Religion ; accordingly the old Canon Law of the Greek Church defines an Heretick thus ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one that is not right in his Judgment . The Council of Carthage describes them thus ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Hereticks are they , who have wrong apprehensions about the Christian Faith. Tertullian , defines Heresie thus , quodcunque adversùs veritatem sapit , whatsoever makes against , not the Laws of God , but his Truth ; accordingly an Heretick , in the Language of Hesychius , is this , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one that chuseth some Opinion besides , or against the Truth . These Definitions of Ancient Divines inform us what their Thoughts were concerning Heresie ; namely , that it was nothing else but an Opinion held against some Truth . But this late Author is of another mind , for he tells us , That the taking up a Religion on trust , though the true one , is Heresie , and according as Men are more or less partial in examining , they are more or less heretical . But if this be so , then must the Nature and Essence of Truth depend on the bare act of Examination , which cannot be , because Truth will remain Truth , whether it be examined or not ; the strictest Examination doth not constitute Truth , but only makes it evident . Indeed he , who takes up a true Religion barely upon trust , may be to blame ; but his Fault is not Heresie , but Negligence and Disobedience ; 't is not , as Heresie is , an Errour in point of Judgment , but a Sin in point of Practice ; 't is not the Violation of a Doctrine , but the Transgression of a Command . So that whatever Title we may give such a Man , we cannot justly brand him with the Name of Heretick . But yet our Author , from these foregoing Premises , infers this as an Epiphonema , or granted Conclusion ; so that 't is not , what a Man professeth ; but , how , that justifieth or condemns him before God ; No. Is the what excluded ? And is the , how , all ? Suppose a Man profess the Religion of Mahomet with the greatest Devotion that can be , would not the what condemn him , or would the how excuse him ? Suppose a Jew with the highest Reverence should have offered up a Swine instead of a Lamb , would not the what , the matter of his Sacrifice , notwithstanding its exactest manner , have rendred it abominable ? The Truth is , God considers both the what and the how , the substance of his Worship , and its circumstances too ; and if so , Why doth this Man tell us , 't is not the what , but the how ? And now being wearied with pursuing this Author through so many impertinent Allegations against the Restraint of the Press , I shall take my leave of him when I have propounded two Arguments against that unlimited Liberty of the Press , for which he is so zealous an Advocate , and and that , I fear , upon an ill Design ; and my first Argument is this . 1. Since this unlimited Liberty of the Press would certainly be , as this Author himself doth not deny , an in-let to Schisms , Heresies , and a great variety of Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion ; the allowance of it can never consist with that Command of God , contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints . This Text supposeth that the true Faith , or which is all one , the true Religion , is but one ; and that for that one , we are to Contend , and that Earnestly too : Now , to allow an unlimited Liberty to the Press , which will open a wide Gap to introduce false Religions , is so far from a contending for the one true Faith , that it is indeed a contending against it ; and therefore such an allowance is a direct breach of this Command . 2. Since this unlimited Liberty of the Press would certainly prove an in-let to Schisms , Heresies , and false Religions , the allowance of it would be contradictory to the Judgment and Practice of the universal Church in all Ages . It is true , the Church of Christ in all Ages had not the use of a Press , but if the late Art of Printing , without any due Restraint should prove a means to introduce an inundation of Heresies ; the allowance of such a Liberty , and those numerous Errours , with which it would be attended , would be diametrically opposite to the Judgment and Practice of the Catholick Church from one Generation to another . Now , the Question which relates to the Case in hand , is this ; How did the Primitive Saints deal with those Men , who differed in Opinion from the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church ? They followed St. Paul's Rule , 2 Tim. 2. 25. In meekness instruct those that oppose themselves ; they did so , they used all gentle and rational means to reduce them ; but when this would not do , What course took they then ? Did they indulge them ? Did they give them an universal Liberty of Conscience ? Surely no ; and to prove this , three Things shall be shewed . First , That an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the Matters of Religion , is contrary to the Judgment and Practice of particular Learned Men in the Primitive Church . Tertullian , indeed tells us , Non Religionis est cogere Religionem , quae sponte-suscipi debeat , non vi ; the owning of any Religion ought to be free , not forced ; and 't is best , that it should be so ; but lest this Expression should be made use of , as Pamelius words it , ad sectarum licentiam , as a License to Hereticks ; the same Tertullian saith elsewhere , ad officium Haereticos compelli , non inlici dignum est ; it is fit the Hereticks should be compelled , not allured , to do what becomes them . St. Hierom saith of Heresie , scintilla statim , ut apparuerit , extinguenda est , the very first spark of it should not be cherished , but extinguished ; and how far he was from countenancing ill Opinions , is evident from his Epistle to Riparius , where he calleth his opposing the Heresies of those times , Christi bellum , the War of Christ . And Fevardentius tells us , Gloriatur Hieronymus se haereticis nunquam pepercisse , St. Hierom glorieth , that he never spared any Hereticks . That great Man St. Austin , who was very tender of punishing Men for their Opinions , did yet write several Epistles to the Governours of several Provinces , which bear this Inscription , De moderatè coercendis Haereticis , wherein he doth beseech them to Restrain Hereticks , not by Capital Punishments , but by some gentler Corrections . That Sentence , which Dulcitius pronounced against the Donatists , St. Austin thought too severe , and so do we ; noveritis vos debitae morti dandos , know that ye must die , as ye deserve ; such sanguinary Courses are very improper means to reduce Hereticks ; they are inconsistent with our Lord's Designs , and cannot be reconciled to that Command of his , Compel them to come in , that my house may be filled ; the Compulsion , here required , must be such , as tends to recover Men , not to destroy them ; and certainly to send them out of the World by bloody Laws , were a strange way of bringing them into the Church . That Expression of St. Paul will never warrant such a course , Galathians 5. 12. I would they were even cut off , which trouble you . He doth not wish they were killed with the Sword , but only cut off from the Church by Excommunication . But although sanguinary Laws may not be executed , unless it be in case of professed Atheism , gross Idolatry , or downright Blasphemy , yet for the restraint of other Opinions and Practices , which corrupt the Doctrine , and disturb the Peace of the Catholick Church , some gentler Punishments have been used , and in St. Austin's Judgment , still ought to be . In short , all those Learned and Pious Men , who were so renowned in former Ages , Athanasius , great St. Basil , Irenaeus , and many others , have declared to all succeeding Generations , that they did not approve of a general Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the Matters of Religion . For , why else did they write so vehemently against the ill Opinions of Arius , Eutyches , Nestorius , and other Hereticks , concerning whom Cyril of Jerusalem gave every Orthodox Christian this Advice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , abhor them , avoid them , do not so much as once salute them ; so he . 2. 'T is certain that an universal Liberty of Conscience , an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the Matters of Religion , is directly contrary to the Decrees and Canons of antient Councils , and that we may see in a few Instances ; as , 1. The Decrees and Canons of Councils did not leave Men to the Liberty of their own Consciences , as to the use of both the Sacraments . The Council of Carthage established this Canon in reference to Baptism , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whosoever demeth that little Infants , newly born , ought to be baptised , let him be accursed , or excommunicated . And as to the other blessed Sacrament , there is a Canon , ascribed to the Apostles themselves , which runs thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . All Christians , who come to the Publick Assemblies , and there hear the Scriptures ; but stay not to receive the Holy Communion , ought to be Excommucated , and so thought the Council of Antioch : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . They , who turn their Backs upon the Holy Communion , ought to be cast out of the Church . And the Council of Sardica , as Zonaras tells us , did , by a Canon of theirs , Excommunicate all Persons , who abstained from the Holy Sacrament : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for three Lords Days together . 2. The Decrees and Canons of Councils did not leave Men to the liberty of their own Consciences , as to the observation of the Lords day . Concerning this the Council of Laodicea thus Decreed , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Christian ought to act like a Jew ; and rest upon the Saturday ; but to prefer our Lords days , and rest in them ; and as for such as should transgress this Canon , the Council passed this Sentence upon them ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , let them be accursed of Christ : nor was it left as a thing Arbitrary for Men commonly to Fast upon the Sunday , if a Clergy-man did it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ let him be deposed or degraded ; if a Lay-man did it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , let him be Excommunicated ; so say the Apostles Canons . 3. The Decrees and Canons of Councils did not leave Men to the liberty of their own Consciences , as to the use of Publick Churches , and the frequenting of Sacred Assemblies held therein . The Heretick Eustathius , in the fourth Century , despising Publick Churches , taught his Followers to Pray and perform other Acts of Divine Service in private Conventicles . Against this Practice the Council of Gangra Established their Canons . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. If any Man teach , that the Church and Solemn Assemblies met therein , are to be despised , and if any Man shall set up Private meetings for the Worship of God without Licence from his Bishop , let him be accursed . These Canons , and many more to the like effect , are undeniable Evidences , that the Councils of the Primitive Church were far enough from being favourers of a general Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion . 3. 'T is certain that an Universal Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in matters of Religion is contrary to the Judgment and Practice even of the Roman Church itself . What their judgment is in this case , we are informed from the Learned Men of their Communion ; Lorinus , one of their Jesuites , intimates his Opinion , as well as his Authors , when he saith , Haereticos rectè Clemens exterminandos praecipit : Clemens did justly command Hereticks to be rooted out . Thomas Aquinas , their angelical Doctor , delivers his Opinion concerning Hereticks very roundly thus ; Non solùm ab Ecclesia per Excommunicationem separandos , sed etiam per mortem à mundo excludendos ; Hereticks deserve not only to be excluded from the Church by Excommunication ; but also from the World by Death . Bellarmine , their most illustrious Cardinal , spends a whole Chapter in proving , that Hereticks , posse ac deberi temporalibus poenis , atque etiam ipsa morte mulctari ; that incorrigeable Hereticks not only may , but must , suffer Temporal Punishments , yea and Death itself . But there is no Man , that speaks more fully to this , than Maldonate , another Jesuite , who expresly saith , Comburendi tanquam proditores , & transfugae discedentes Haeretici : Hereticks , who depart from the Church , are to be burnt , as so many Traitours and Renegadoes . And whom he means by these Hereticks , he elsewhere tells us , Calvinistos & Lutheranos Haereticos esse quis non videt ? nullus nunquam Haereticus fuit , nullus Haereticus esse potest , si illi Haeretici non sunt : who doth not know , that Calvinists and Lutherans , Protestants of both Denominations , are Hereticks ? If they are not , no Man ever was , nor can be , such ; 'T is boldly spoken , but never was , never will be prov'd . And 't is worth our Observation , that the same Jesuit hath left the Kings of the Christian Church this advice ; Admoneo non licere illis istas , quas vocant , Conscientiae libertates nimiùm nostro tempore usitatas Haereticis dare . I put Princes in mind , that it is not lawful for any of them to grant Hereticks , i. e. Protestants , any Liberty of Conscience , of which he complains as a thing too often done . These instances are enough to teach us what are the Principles of the Roman Church , whereunto their Practice hath been so sutable that it may be a matter of dispute , whether Rome Pagan , or Rome Papal hath shed the greater quantity of Christian blood . And certainly , their Persecuting , Impopoverishing , Imprisoning , Tormenting , Banishing , and Massacring so many Thousands , in England , Scotland , Ireland , France , and other places , barely upon the score of Religion , are very sorry Arguments , that they do really like any Toleration , what Hand so ever the Men of that Religion may have in ours . 4. 'T is certain that an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in the matters of Religion is directly contrary to the Commands and Edicts of good Kings both in the Jewish and Christian Church . 1. The good Kings of Israel and Judah did not permit all their Subjects to do , what they pleased , in the matters of their Religion . We cannot doubt , but there were in those days many Men of erroneous Judgments , who thought they did well , when they Worshipped God by an Image . St. Paul mentions , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Conscience of the Idol , i. e. a false Opinion , that there was some thing of Divinity in it , and accordingly did such Men Sacrifice to it . But was this Opinion and Practice allowed by any of their religious Kings , because it was sutable to the mistaken Consciences of some of their Subjects ? did Hezekiah , did Josiah , nay did Jehu , grant a Publick Indulgence for the Worship of Idols , because many both Laicks and Priests were for it ? It was so far from this , that , although a great number of their Subjects were too much inclined , and had been too long accustomed to it , they took care to root it out . 2. Nor was such an Universal Tolleration of all Religions ever known in former Ages in the Christian Church , since the Religion of Christ was own'd by Kings and Emperors . It s true , Socrates tells us , that the good Emperor Theodosius did bear with the Novatians , but he bore with none besides ; what he said to Demophilus , an Arrian Bishop , we have from the same Historian . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I command thee to quit the Christian Churches . 'T is also true , that the good Emperor Constantine the Great did once sign a Royal Edict for such a Toleration , the sum of which is thus Recorded by Eusebius , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i. e. Let us give both to the Christians and to all others the free Choice of their Religion . And hereunto he added this Charge ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Let no Man disturb his Neighbour in point of Religion , but let every one do as his Soul desires . This , indeed was Constantine's Act , and a wise Act it was , and all that could then be done , considering in what Circumstances he then stood ; for , Constantine and Licinius were then Co-Emperors ; Constantine favoured the Christian Religion , Licinius favoured the Pagan Worship : Heathenism was the Religion then Established by Law , Christianity was under Hatches ; the Pagan Religion did not need a Toleration , the Christian did . In such a juncture of time as this , it was very worthily done of Constantine to get the consent of his Colleague Licinius to a General Toleration of all Religions , that so the Christian might be Comprehended in it ; and such a present Toleration did he procure in order to a future Establishment of the Christian Faith. And that this was indeed his present Design is Evident from what he afterwards did ; for , when he became the sole Emperor , and was well settled in the Throne , he made it his great business to suppress all false Religions , and Establish that of Christ ; Eusebius tells us , that there was sent out by him a Law. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Restraining the abominable Idolatries , that had hitherto been practised in Cities and Countries ; and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Law Commanded that none should dare to set up any Images . The same Historian saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by his Command the Gates of Idol Temples were shut up : Nay ▪ another Historian tells us that he did , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quite pluck down the Temples of Venus . And as he had no kindness for any ill Religions without the Christian Church , so did he give no Countenance to any Sects and ill Opinions , which arose within it . That he Banished Arius , though Baronius denies it , we have the Authority of Sozomen , who saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Arius was called back from Banishment not long after the Council of Nice : and how he dealt with other Hereticks , the same Historian informs us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By a Law he Commanded that the Oratories of Hereticks should be took from them , and that they should hold no Assemblies either in Publick or Private places ▪ And as this good ▪ Emperor took care to root out all false Worship , and to suppress ill Opinions , so did he by his Royal Authority promote the true Service of God. To that end , he set forth a Law for the observation of the Lords day . So Eusebius tells us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or as the same Historian saith in another place , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . He Exhorted , nay , by a Law he required the universality of his Subjects to cease from all their worldly business upon the Lord's daies , that therein they might attend the Exercises of Religion . Certainly these and the like proceedings of his are infallible Evidences , that although this good Emperor did once , in Christian Policy , and for an excellent end , Sign a Royal Edict for a General Toleration of all Religions ; yet , when it might be otherwise , he did not like it . This Example of Constantine was followed by succeeding ▪ Emperors , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , saith Justinian ; we Condemn every Heresie , and lest the Books of Hereticks should transmit their ill Opinions to Posterity , Theodosius and Valentinian did Command by a Law , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that their Writings should be cast into the Flames . We Read , that they were debarred from the common Priviledges of Orthodox Christians , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , saith the Civil Law , and it instances in several particulars , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , We decree that Hereticks shall be uncapable of any Publick Imployment , whether Military or Civil ; nor might they be admitted as Witnesses in their Courts of Judicature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Let not an Heretick's Testimony be received against an Orthodox Christian : nay more , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ No Heretick shall Inherit the Estate of his Father . In short , we find Hereticks Deposed , Degraded , Banished , and sometimes Fined ; Witness that Law of Theodosius , mentioned by the Council of Carthage , which Enacted , that in some Cases , Hereticks should pay , as the Canon words it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Ten Pounds of Gold. Now , we do not Write this with any design to encourage the Governours of our Church or State to exercise any Severity towards our sober and peaceable Dissenters , who differ from us only in the Circumstantials of our Religion ; but we mention these things to confirm our present Argument ; and to shew , that our present unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion , is quite contrary to the Judgment , Usages , and Laws of the Antient Church , who punished such as held and taught Heterodox Opinions , and would not be otherwise reclaimed . 5. 'T is certain that an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion is directly contrary to the Divine Law , to the Will of God revealed in his written Word . The Jewish Church was never permitted to teach and do , what they pleased , about the things of God ; they were not allowed to serve their Maker , as they Listed ; they were obliged to Sacrifice when , where , and what they were Commanded . It was not left to them , as a matter of Choice , whether they would Circumcise their Infants , or not ; no , the Law was this , the Uncircumcised Man child shall be cut off . Nor were they left to their own Liberty , whether they would come to Jerusalem to eat the Passover , or not ; no , the Text saith of good Josiah , The King commanded all the people , saying , keep the Passover . We do not find any indulgence in matters of Religion granted to the Jewish Church by Almighty God , or any of their good Kings . And as there is no such thing to be found in the Law or the Prophets ; so there is very little or nothing to be met with in the whole Gospel , that gives any Countenance to such a Practice ; the main place , which seems to look that way , is in the Parable of the Tares ; of which 't is said , Let them grow until the Harvest , what means our Lord by this ? Is it indeed his pleasure , that ill Men , and ill Opinions , should be indulged and countenanced in his Church ? St. Chrysostom gives us another Interpretation of our Saviour's words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , our Lord doth here forbid us to kill and slay ▪ Hereticks ; but is there no difference betwixt a Sword and a Rod ? Is a Bridle and a Halter the same thing ? The Heretick must not be destroyed , but may he not be restrain'd ? St. Chrysostom answers thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , our Lord doth not here forbid to curb Hereticks , to stop their Mouths , to check their boldness , dissolve their Conventicles , &c. as he goeth on . Of the same mind was St. Paul , who saith , Their Mouths must be stopped ; but how can that be done , if there may be no Penal Laws ? And if an Universal Liberty of Conscience in Opinion and Practice about matters of Religion be indeed agreeable to the Gospel of Christ , what meant St. Paul by that demand of his , Shall I come to you with a Rod ? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , shall I bring a Rod to whip and scourge you ? So St. Chrysostom . And since St. Paul , who well knew the Mind of Christ , did , upon just occasion , make use of his Apostolical Rod to punish , not only Immoralities in Life , but Errors in Judgment too ; we may thence infer , that an unlimited Toleration of all Opinions in Matters of Religion hath no manner of Countenance from the Law of Christ ; we read , that St. Paul made use of this Rod , to strike Elymas blind ; and why he did so , that Expression intimates , Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord ? It was for his opposing the Gospel , and that in all probability arose from the Error of his Judgment . But the Case is yet more plain in the Example of Hymenaeus and Alexander , of whom St. Paul saith , I have delivered them to Satan ; a severe Punishment , surè futuri judicii praejudicium , 't is a fore ▪ stalling the dreadful Judgment of God. So Tertullian . But why did St. Paul inflict it ? He gives this Reason , Concerning faith they have made shipwrack ; or as he elsewhere expresseth it , They have erred concerning the Truth . It was for their ill Opinion about one Article of our Creed . These Instances are enough to shew that a Toleration of all Opinions and Practices in Matters of Religion was never thought to be lawful , and consequently such an unlimited Liberty of the Press , as tends to bring in , and spread Errors and Heresies , ought not to be allowed . And now I shall take my leave of my Reader , when I have admonished him , that in all this Discourse , I plead for the Regulation of the Press , as to such Books only , as concern Morality , Faith , and Religious Worship , of which , our Learned Ecclesiastical Governours are the most proper Judges . But as to Policy and State Affairs , they fall under the Cognizance of the Civil Magistrate , whose Province it is , and whose Care it should be , to prevent the publishing of all such Pamphlets as tend to promote popular Tumults , Sedition , Treason , and Rebellion . And had this been carefully done some Years ago , it might have happily prevented those dreadful Confusions , under which our Church and State now do , and still are too like to groan . Farewel . FINIS . BOOKS printed for Richard Sare at Grays-Inn Gate in Holborn . THE Fables of Aesop , with Morals and Reflections . Fol. Erasmus Colloquies , in English Octavo . Quevedo's Visions . Octavo . These Three by Sir Roger L'Estrange . The Genuine Epistles of St. Barnabas , St. Ignatius , St. Clement , St. Polycarp , the Shepherd of Hermas , &c. translated and published in English . Octavo . A Practical Discourse concerning Swearing . Octavo . The Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods , in Answer to a Letter to a Convocation Man. Octavo . Sermons upon several Occasions . Quarto . These by Dr. Wake . Epictetus's Morals with Simplicius's Comment . Octavo . A Sermon preached upon the Death of the Queen . Both by Mr. George Stanhope . The Doctrine of a God and Providence vindicated and asserted . Octavo . Discourses on several Divine Subjects . Octavo . These Two by Thomas Gregory Lecturer of Fulham . Dr. Gregory's Divine Antidote , in Answer to an heretical Pamphlet , entitled , An End to the Socinian Controversy . Octav. Compleat sets consisting of 8 Volumes of Letters , writ by a Turkish Spy , who lived 45 Years at Paris undiscovered , giving an Account of the principal Affairs of Europe . Twelves . Human Prudence , or the Art by which a Man may raise himself and Fortune to Grandeur . Twelves . Moral Maxims and Reflections ; written in French by the Duke of Roachfoucault , now Englished . Twelves . The Art both of Writing and Judging of History , with Reflections upon antient and modern Historians . Twelves . An Essay upon Reason , by Sir George Mackenzie . Twelves . Death made Comfortable , or the way to die well , by Mr. Kettlewell . Twelves . The Parson's Counsellor , or the Law of Tythes ; by Sir Simon Degg . Octavo . The unlawfulness of Bonds of Resignation . Octavo . An Answer to all the Excuses and Pretences which Men ordinarily make for their not coming to the Holy Sacrament , Octavo . Price 3 d. By a Divine of the Church of England . Remarks on a Book , entitled , Prince Arthur , an Heroic Poem ; by Mr. Dennis . Octavo . Fortune in her Wits ; or , the Hour of all Men : written in Spanish by Don Fran de Quevedo , translated into English . Octav. Price 1 s. 6 d. A Gentleman's Religion in Three Parts ; the first contains the Principles of Natural Religion ; the second and third , the Doctrines of Christianity , both as to Faith and Practice , with an Appendix , wherein it is proved , that nothing contrary to our Reason , can possibly be the object of our Belief ; but that it is no just Exception against some of the Doctrines of Christianity that they are above our Reason . Twelves . Examen de Ingenios , or the Trial of Wits ; discovering the great difference of Wits among Men , and what sort of Learning suits best with each Genius ; published originally in Spanish by Dr. Juan Huartes , and made English from the most Correct Edition , by Mr. Bellamy ; useful for all Fathers , Masters , Tutors , &c A Compleat List of the Royal Navy . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A42050-e150 Prov. xx . ●● . Matth. vi . 2● . Rom. i. 21. ●rig . adv . Celsus , l. 5. ● . 24. Joh. viii . 12. Matt. v. 14. Notes for div A42050-e1190 Tit. i. 11. Notes for div A42050-e2360 1 Thess . v. 21. 1 Joh ▪ iv . 1. Notes for div A42050-e3140 Jam. i. 18. 2 Pet. iii. 1 Ep. 3. T. 2. ● Orig. in laz T. 1. p. 244 In Mat. Ho● 1. p. 5. Iren ▪ l. 2. c ● Notes for div A42050-e4390 ● Thess . v. 11. Joh. iii. 11. 1 Joh. iii ▪ 9. Tit. i. 11. Tit. iii. 10. 2 Tim. ii . 17. Notes for div A42050-e5170 Mal. ii . 7. ●h . v. 39. ●uke x. 26. ●att . xxii . 29. ●sal . cx . 1. Notes for div A42050-e6590 Matth. vii . 1● 2 Tim. iii. 6 ▪ 2 Tim. ii . 18 Tit. i. 11. Notes for div A42050-e7290 Matth. xxiv . ● 2 Pet. ii . 1 ▪ Notes for div A42050-e8600 Matth v. 11. Act. xiii 45 ▪ Ps . cxxxix . 20. Matt. xxiv . 1 2 Pet. ii . 2. Notes for div A42050-e9600 Pet. ii . 2. ●phes . iv . 54 Epiph. Haer. 8. ●●seb . Hist . ● . c. 18. ●ll . Constitut . ●t . 12 . ●nc . Carthag . ●n . 25 . ●ertull . de ●irg . Velandis . Jude 3. Tertull. ad Scapulam . Pamel . in Locum . Tertull. in Scorp . Hieroymus ● Gal. 5. 9. Fevard . in renaei Praefa August . in E 61. Luk. xiv . 23. ●yril . Hierosol . ●atech . 6. ●ono . Carthag . ●ant . 122. Apost . Can. Conc. Antioc Can. 2. Conc. Laod. Can. ●9 . Apost . Can. 66. Conc. Gangz . Can. 5. & 6. Lorinus in Act. 10. v. 30. Aqu. 2. 2. qu. 11. Art. 3. Maldonat . in Luc. 9. v. 55. Maldonat . in Matth. 13. v. 26. Maldonat . in Matth. c. 13. 26. Cor. viii ▪ 7. Socr. l. 5. c. 7. Eus . Hist . l. 10. cap. 5. Eus . de Vit. Const . l. 2. c. 56. Euseb . de vita Const . l. 2. c. 45. Euseb . de vita Const . l. 4 , c. 23. Socr. l. 1. c. 18. Soz. l. 2. c. 16. Soz. l. 2. c , 32. Eus . de vita Const . l. 4. c. 18 , Justin . in Ep , de fide Orthodoxa . Balsam . in Coll. Const . Ex l. 1. Co● . Blastaris Synt ▪ lit . A. Blast . Syntag. Alphab . lit . A. Idem ibid. Concil . Carth. Can. 96. Matth. 13. 30. Chrysost . in locum . Tit. 1. 11. 1 Cor. 4. 21 , Chrysost . in . locum . Act. viii . 10. 1 Tim. i. 20. 1 Tim. i. 19. 2 Tim. ii . 18. 
A26746	----	An answer to the Brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians by William Basset ... Basset, William, 1644-1695. 1693 Approx. 209 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 90 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A26746 Wing B1048 ESTC R1596 12306118 ocm 12306118 59259 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A26746) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 59259) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 199:11) An answer to the Brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians by William Basset ... Basset, William, 1644-1695. [7], 166, [2] p. Printed and sold by Randal Taylor ..., London : 1693. Advertisement: p. [1]-[2] at end. Reproduction of original in British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719. -- Brief history of the Unitarians. Unitarians. Socinianism. 2006-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-05 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-04 Robyn Anspach Sampled and proofread 2007-04 Robyn Anspach Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Imprimatur , Geo. Royse , RRmo . in Christo Patri , ac Dom. Dom Johanni , Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest . Novemb. 21. 1692. AN ANSWER TO THE Brief History OF THE Unitarians , Called also SOCINIANS . Prov. 18. 17. He that is first in his own Cause seems just ; but his Neighbour comes , and searches him . By William Basset , Rector of St. Smithin , London . London , Printed , and Sold by Randal Taylor , near Stationers-Hall , 1693. TO THE Most Reverend Father in God , JOHN , By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop OF Canterbury , Primate of England , and Metropolitan , and One of Their Majesties Most Honourable Privy-Council . IT is the Design of these Papers to baffle and expose those Little Pleas and Objections which the Late Author of the Socinian Letters hath urged against the Divinity of the Son. My Lord , This Cause doth merit , as well as the Author want your Grace's Patronage ; For which Reason I humbly presume to prefix so Great a Name , not doubting but they will meet with what Favour they may either deserve or want . That that God who hath raised , would preserve , guide and strengthen you in those Undertakings which so great a Place doth call , and so Pious a Mind , more Large and Rich than that Place it self doth dispose you to , for the well-governing the Church , and the Uniting us in the True Faith , and in all the Designs and Interests of Religion , is the earnest Prayer of Your Grace's Most Humble Servant , William Basset . TO THE READER . WHen I first met with these Socinian Letters , and found that words , and fallacy were their whole composition ; I could not but think them so unlike their Patrons , or their Patrons so unlike the Character they affect , which is to be men of Wit and Reason , that I Judged them not Worthy an answer . But since it appears that these , like some other the worst things among us , do not want their admirers , I thought this performance my duty . In it I have answered not only the first of these letters , but divers parts of the rest , as well as some things in more manly writers , as Eriedinus , Crellius , &c. By calling in the other letters to asist this , and other Socinian authors , to supply the weakness of them all , I put the Objections , in their full strength , to the end their overthrow may be the more conspicuos to the world , and the more sensible to themselves . If they venture upon argument , and do any thing , that affects the cause , I am ready to support it , But if they only load me with words , and cavils , I must neglect them . If these labours are succesful in recovering any , whom this Heresy hath infected , and in preserving those , who yet are whole ; and hereby in giving any check to the growing errors , and prophaness of the age , I shall place the time spent upon this argument among my happy minutes . That it may be productive of such blessed effects , was the hope , and design , and shall be the prayers of Yours , W. B. AN ANSWER To the FIRST of the Four LETTERS , INTITULED , A Brief History . SECT . 1. These Letters are Intituled , A Brief History ; yet instead of History you find little , if any , but an abuse of divers Authors in the end of the First . A Title as foreign from the Letters , as the Letters from the Truth , that is , neither to the point . THat term [ Vnitarian ] is put as a distinction between them and us : take it as it signifies him , who believes one only God , exclusive of all others ; and then it makes a distinction without a difference ; for we are as intirely in that Faith , as the Socinian can be : but as they make it signify one , who believes the Father only to be God , exclusive of the Son , and the Holy Ghost , I must declare it a term suitable to these Letters , i. e. full of Error , and Blasphemy . That word [ Socinian ] we leave to the Followers of Socinus , who ( their beloved Sandius saith ) differed from all the World ; which proclaims those under this denomination , Men of Novelty and Error . The Title Page quotes Act. 17. 11. They searched the Scriptures daily , whether these things were so . Answ . St. Basil saith of Eunomius , tom . 1. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Thou seekest , that thou may'st find , not Faith , but Infidelity ; not to discover a Truth , but to establish an Error . This ( I fear ) we shall find too true of our Socinians ; who wrest the Rule of Truth ●o their own prejudicate Opinions . Sure I am , did men sincerely follow this example , we should find but few of this perswasion ; since their Heresy is founded not upon Scripture , but upon those false Glosses , and Sophistical Evasions , which make the Scriptures of none effect . The Preamble to the Letter pretends , that his Friend demands an account of the Socinians . Their Doctrine concerning God ( in which only they differ from other Christians ) the Remonstrants professedly agreeing with them in other points of Faith , and Doctrine . Answer , Their Doctrine concerning God is , That the Father only is God ; P. 4. But that they differ from other Christians in other points beside this , is notorious to the world . They own the Arians to be Christians , and Vnitarians , because they agree with themselves in this Doctrine ; P. 33. But the Arians ascribe to the Son the Creation of the World , while the Socinians deny his Existence before the Incarnation : Therefore either the Arians are no Christians , or the Socinians differ from other Christians in other Doctrines besides this . But he would prove that in other points the Socinians agree with other Christians , because in other points they agree with the Remonstrants : Which implyes , 1. That there is no difference between themselves , and the Remonstrants , but this ; which is well known to be false , And 2. That themselves , and Remonstrants are all the Christians in the World : Because he makes it , that their agreement with these doth prove their agreement with other Christians ; but this is false too : Because these Remonstrants were condemned by the Synod at Dort about the five Propositions . You have then a double falshood in the compass of this one Parenthesis ; the one in inlarging the number of his Friends ; the other in lessening the number of his Errors . The design of which must be to perswade the Reader , That there is but one step between the Orthodox Faith , and this Heresy , to the end he may the more easily decoy 'em into it . According to this beginning you must expect but little , if any truth , and honesty in this Letter , which we shall now consider . SECT . II. He saith , P. 4. That — Christ was a Man , the Son , Prophet , Messenger , Minister , Servant , and Creature of God ; not himself God , they think is proved by these ( as they call them ) Arguments . Answer . I Am glad to find any modesty in a Socinian , for they [ call ] them Arguments ; and they [ think ] they prove : But with better assurances we declare they are no Arguments , nor do they prove the point in Controversy : For though they prove that Christ is Man , yet they do not prove he is no more than Man , or is not God. This will easily appear from our Examination of his Arguments themselves , which are these , Argum. 1. P. 5. If Christ were himself God , there could be no Person greater than him : But himself saith , Joh. 14. 28. my Father is greater than I. Answ . I deny the Consequence : Because though the Son is less than the Father in some respects , yet he is equal to the Father in others . None of the former do destroy his Divinity , but the letter do prove it . For , 1. The Son is less than the Father , in regard of his Humane Nature , and Offices : But these ( we shall prove ) are not inconsistent with his Divinity . And , 2. In regard of his Sonship . For the Father is of himself , but the Son is of the Father . Whence Episcopius infers a Subordination of Persons , but yet establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity . So the Nicene Fathers taught , That the Son is God of God , that is , God of , and from the Father ; but yet withall asserted , That he is of the same Substance with the Father ; and consequently is God , as the Father is . And indeed this Subordination cannot destroy his Divinity , because it doth not destroy his Nature : For the Inequality arises not from the Essence , but from the order , and manner of subsistence . But , 3. In other respects the Son is equal to the Father ; this the Apostle asserts , Phil. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God , thought it not Robbery to be equal with God , viz. the Father . Now if he thought it no robbery , it could be no robbery ; and if no robbery , he must be equal ; and if equal , he must be God by Nature , as the Father is . This leads to the true sence of those words [ Being in the Form of God ] for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of it self strictly signifies not Substance , so much as Accidents ; not so much the Nature , as the Appearance of things ; whence Erasmus , and the Socinians , would have these words to signifie , not that he is God , but that he was like to God. yet however the Apostle must here intend it Substantially : that is , his being in the Form of God , must signifie that he is God ; as his being in the Form of a Servant , signifies , that he was a Servant : And the Reason is , because his equality with God is here inferred from his being in the Form of God ; but there cannot be an equality between a thing , and the mere likeness of it ; between a real Nature , and a bare similitude . Whence Erasmus understood the force of the Word , but not the reach of the Apostle's Argument . Though Erasmus doth not deny the Divinity of the Son , yet because he thinks this Text doth not respect his Nature ; I shall therefore oppose to his sence the Judgment of the Ancients ; as Arnob. & Serap . conflic . l. 2. Novat . de Trin. c. 17. Hilar. Pict . Epist . de Trin. l. 8. & 10. Greg. Nys . tom . 2 cont . Eunom . Ora. 7. &c. Which Judgment of theirs I shall confirm by these Arguments ; viz. 1. By the matter of the Apostle's Argument , he was in the Form of God , and in the Form of a Servant . If this Text speaks him not God , but like to God ; it must also speak him not a Servant , but like to a Servant : But that he was a Servant he saith himself , Mat. 20. 28. I came to minister ; and therefore he must be God ; because the same Phrase , and Sense applyed to each Nature , must import the reality of the one , as well as of the other . 2. The order of the parts speaks our sense : For being in the form of God , i. e. While he was in the form of God , he took upon him the form of a Servant : therefore that form was before this . But there was no such difference in the parts of his Life , or Condition upon Earth , that one should merit to be called the form of God , the other the form of a Servant : Therefore his being in the form of God must be antecedent to his humane Life . 3. This was his choice , and voluntary Act , for he took upon him the form of a Servant : But he had no liberty of choice in this world ; because his condition here was determined and foretold ; whence himself saith , Luke 24. 44. That all things must be fulfilled , which were written in the Law of Moses , and in the Prophets , and in the Psalms , concerning me ; therefore this choice was before this life ; and consequently must be the Act of the Divine , not of the Humane Nature . So evidently doth this Text respect the Nature of Christ ; and therefore declare him to be equal to God the Father , as being God by Nature , as the Father is . This Equality our Saviour himself doth prove , Joh ▪ 5. 17. My Father works hitherto , and I work : whence the Jews concluded v. 18. that he made himself equal to God : Upon which he doth not explain himself , as if they mis-understood him ; which he did in the case of eating his flesh , and drinking his blood : But v. 19. he proves this equality , what things soever the Father doth , these [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] the very same , the Son doth likewise . Whence he must be equal to the Father in Operation , and consequently in Power . So Ambrose de fid . l. 1. c. 13. and Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. Hence he requires v. 23. That all men should honour the Son , even as they honour the Father ; which imports an equality of Honour flowing from an equality of Operation ; for the reason of the duty instructs us in the nature of the duty it self . This Honour is owing from their works , but they both do the same works , therefore they must both have the same Honour . Hence Joh. 10. 30. I , and my Father are one ; that is , not in concord only , as the Socinian pretends , but in power : Because the context speaks not of Wills and Affections , but of keeping his sheep : none shall pluck them out of my hands ; because none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hands ; for which he gives this reason , I , and my Father are one : which must be one in power . And if they be one in power , they must be one in Nature ; unless you make an Almighty Creature , which is not only an absolute contradiction , but also confounds the essential properties of God , and the Creature ; which is a much viler Absurdity , than they can with any shadows of Reason pretend against our Doctrine . That gloss then of Athanasius cont . Ari. Orat. 4. must be admitted , viz. This shows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the sameness of the God-head , and the Unity of Power . For indeed the abscribing to the Son the same Infinite Perfections , and the same Honour , but not the same Nature with the Father , as the Socinian doth , proclaims not only the perverseness of the Disputant , but the Idolatry of the Professors too . In that case of his being the Messias , he sends Men to his works , whose Nature , and agreeableness to ancient Prophecies , do sufficiently declare the point . So here he first asserts his equality with the Father , then improves it to an Unity in Power , and Honour ; and then leaves men to conclude from thence an Unity of Nature . This is the most rational way of teaching ; for positive affirmations tell us things are so ; but Natural , and necessary consequences , such as these are , prove they must be so . Therefore though the Father is greater than the Son , as the Father is of himself , and is God only ; while the Son is of the Father , and is both God and Man ; yet the Son is equal to , nay , One with the Father in Operation ; and if in Operation , then in Power ; and if in Power , then in Nature : and therefore must be God. He proceeds p. 5. to manage this Argument from Joh. 20. 17. I ascend to my God , and your God : whence he fancies , the Son is not God , because another is his God. Answ . As Christ is Man , and we his Brethren , so our God is his God : This proves that he is Man , but cannot prove , he is not himself God , which is the design of this Letter . Nay , as the Son is God of God , i. e. God the Son of , and from God the Father , so the Father may be his God , as well as his Father ; without weakning the Doctrine of his Divinity . So far is this Text from concluding his Point , that it makes nothing against us . He adds , Joh. 12. 49. The Father , which sent me , he gave me a Commandment : The Argument is , the Son is not God , because the Father commands , and sends him . Answ . This hath been answered already . For in what respects the Father is greater than the Son , in the same respects the Father may command , and send the Son : But as the Father's being greater than the Son , doth not destroy the Divinity of the Son , because ( as before ) it doth not destroy his Nature ; so neither can his commanding and sending him ; because this Power flows as a right , or consequence from his Superiority , And if the Father's Superiority it self cannot destroy the Son's Divinity ; that Power , which is implyed , or wrapt up in the very Nature of that Superiority , can never do it . Arg. 2. P. 5 , 6. If Christ were God , he could not be the Creature of God : But that he is the Creature of God , he would sain prove from two Scriptures ; the former is Heb. 3. 1 , 2. The High-Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ , who was faithful to him , that appointed him : In the Greek , and in the Margin it is , faithful to him that made him . Answ . The meaning is , that appointed , or made him High-Priest , respects not his Being , but the Designation of him to that Office. In this sence we use the Phrase of making a Bishop . Yet this ( it seems ) is a Socinian Creation . His other Text is , Colos . 1. 15. which calls him the First-born of every Creature : whence he would have him to be but a Creature . Answ . He is the First-born of every Creature not in kind as one of them , but in regard of an Existence prior to them : Whence V. 17. He was before all things . To this agrees that of St. John Ch. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word , i. e. when all things first began , then this Word , this first-born [ was ] or did exist . And both this Apostle and the Evangelist with one consent declare him not a Creature himself , but the Maker of all Creatures , for Colos . 1. 16. By him were all things created : And Joh. 1. 3. By him were all things made . This drives the Socinian to three most palpable falshoods , viz. 1. These words [ By him were all things created , Colos . 1. 16. ] are spoke ( say they ) not of Christ , but of God , Let. 4. P. 131. Answ . They grant us , P. 130. that V. 15. which runs thus ; the Image of the Invisible God , and the First-Born of every Creature , is spoke of Christ : And consequently , V. 16. must be spoke of him too ; because that word [ him ] by him were all things created , cannot possibly have any other Antecedent , than the Image of the Invisible God , and the First-born of every Creature ; whence immediately follows this , 16 V. For by him , i. e. by this First-born were all things created . They would have indeed the [ Invisible God ] to be the Antecedent , that by him , viz. the Father , were all things created . But Sence , Coherence , Grammatical Construction , and other parallel Texts , can never allow this . Because , 1. The subject of that 15th . Verse , is Christ ; who is called the Image , and the First-born ; but those words [ the Invisible God ] are but an adjunct , designed only to show us whose Image he is : But now the Relative must respect the Subiect , not that , which is but a dependent upon it . 2. These words [ the first-born of every creature ] do follow those words [ the invisible God ] for the Text runs thus ; The Image of the invisible God , the first-born of every creature : Therefore to these , viz. the first born — the Relative [ him ] must immediately refer : that by him , viz. Christ , who is this Image , this first-born , were all things created . Sometimes indeed a Relative may refer to not the next , but a remoter Antecedent : But this is only in two cases : As either for the sake of sence , or for the avoiding that interpretation , which may contradict some other text : but neither of these can be pretended in the case before us . For the sence is as compleat , and natural , as well as the construction more easie , if the Relative refer to the first-born , as if it refer to the invisible God ; and the referring it to this first-born , doth not contradict any text ▪ but concurs with all them , that ascribe creation to the Son. Therefore the Socinian can have no other reason for his construction , but only the support of an Heresy . 2. They say , That all things were made not [ by ] but [ for ] him . Answ . This is totally over thrown by St. John ch . 1. 3. By him were all things made ; and without him was not any thing made , that was made . Where observe that the Evangelist doth industriously secure thetitle of Creator to the Son. 1. By an Universal Affirmative , which includes all things made , in the number of his Creatures , for by him were all things made . And , 2. By an Universal Negative , which denys there ever was any creature , which was not created by him ; for without him was not any thing made , that was made . No Text saith so much in reference to the Father ; therefore they may at least as fairly deny the Father to be Creator , as the Son ; and doubtless the design of the Holy Writer is to obviate and expose all Cavils against this Doctrine . 3. They fly to a Metaphorical Creation , that he did not make , but renew all things after they were made . Answ . This is impossible : for Colos . 1. 16. By him were all things created , that are in Heaven ▪ — whether they be Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers . — By which the Socinian , Let. 4. P. 133. understands Angelick Orders ; but the Holy Angels were not renewed , for they kept their Stations , and therefore did not want it . And the fallen Angels were denyed it . The same Letter P. 132. saith , That all things were modelled , not created by him ; and P. 133. explains it thus , Christ is said to modell and order all things upon carth , because of the great change he introduced . For which sence he quotes Camero , Piscator , Diodate , Dallee , Vorstius , Davenant , and Grotius . Answ . I can find nothing in Camero , Dallee , and Vorstius , upon this Text : Had they spoke to his purpose , I doubt not but be would have given us particular References . Piscator saith , all things were per eum condita , made , or created by him ; as the word usually signifies . But for Argument sake , suppose it may in a remoter , and looser sence signifie also to modell and order : Yet let the Socinian tell me , what reason he hath to tye Piscator's sence to these , exclusive of that : Since that is the common import of the Word , and is agreeable to the mind of this Author , who , upon all occasions , asserts the Divinity of the Son , and ascribes to him the creation of the world . For upon these words John 1. 3. By him were all things made ; Piscator saith , the Evangelist doth here assert the Deity of the Son from the effects , or things , that he hath done , videlicet ex omnium rerum conditarum creatione , from his creating all things made : where himself applies this word [ condita ] to the creation of the World by the Son. Therefore the Socinian is false , and unjust in pretending that this Author understands it not of creation , but of modelling , and ordering things . Diodat is so far from the Socinian sence , that upon these words he asserts the Eternal Generation of the Son , and speaks him with the Father an equal , and co-operating cause of all things . Davenant upon this Text thus , Christus non est creatura , sed creaturis omnibus prior ; quia per ipsum conditae sunt : Christ is no creature , but is before all creatures , because they were all made by him . Where this Author by this word [ conditae ] must necessarily mean a creation properly , because he gives this asareason , why Christ is no creature , but is before all creatures , viz. because he made them all : But he cannot possibly understand by it to [ model ] or [ order ] because he might model , or order , and yet notwithstanding be a creature , and after those creatures too . Therefore the Socinian doth here pervert the sence of this Author , and also totally ruines that Argument , by which he proves that sence : Which is a crime so salse ▪ and malicious , that it can admit no Palliation . As for Grotius , he shows indeed , that the word here rendred to create , doth not always signifie properly to create , but is sometimes applyed to the new creature . We grant it : But by the leave of so great a man , and of this little Socinian too ; this doth not prove it doth not signifie properly to create , in this text . That it is taken improperly in some places is no Argument that it ought to be improperly in this . Though I shall prove in it's place that Grotius was neither Arian nor Socinian ; yet I must say , that he hath not in all places done that justice to this Cause , which he might and ought to have done it . It is worth our while to observe , that to prove that Christ is a creature , these men will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( which signifies to create , in as large , and loose a sence , as the English word [ make ] doth ; as to make the World , to make a Verse , &c. ) to signifie properly to create in Heb. 3. 2. contrary ( as we have shown ) to the evident sence , and design of that place : But to prove he did not make the World , they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Colos . 1. 16. to signifie not to create , but to model and order : Though it doth most properly signify to create , and V. 17. by ascribing to him an Existence prior to all things , ought to lead and determine us to this sence . This is plain shuffling : And indeed where men will take words of a various signification in such a sense as is agreeable to their own Hypothesis , but not to the scope , and design of the place , that uses 'em , they may perplex any truth , and colour over the foulest Heresy in the World ; and in fine , turn ▪ the whole Scriptures into contradictions , and non-sense . That Christ was no creature , I shall further prove against this Letter , and the Arian both , by these two steps ; 1. That he was before all creatures , and 2. That he was from eternity . 1. He asserts his own Existence before the world : for John 17. 5. He had Glory with the Father before the world ; and therefore he must exist before it : for non entis nulla sunt praedicata . They say indeed , this Glory was in decree only , as the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world in decree only : But these are not parallel cases ; for then that Lamb could be slain no otherwise . But the Scriptures do abundantly declare that Christ did actually exist before the world ; and therefore might be actually glorified before it . Necessity requires that interpretation as to the Lamb ; but there is no such necessity in this case ; and therefore no such interpretation is to be admitted : for we must never leave the common , proper , and literal sence of a Scripture ; unless it be for the sake of a concurrence with , or non-contradiction of some other Scripture , which is not in this case ; because no Scripture saith , he did not exist before the world . This is a fallacy à bene conjunctis ad male divisa : when Men put such odd constructions upon a Text taken by it self , which it abhors , when taken together with others . For , in this case , was there no Text but this , which ascribes to him a Being before the World , their gloss might [ perhaps ] seem to have a little colour of probability in it ; and that is the most it could then pretend to : But take this Scripture together with those , that declare he did exist , when all things began , Joh. 1. 1. That he was before all things , Coloss . 1. 17. That he made and created all things Joh. 1. 3. Col. 1. 16. The case is so plain from the light , which one text gives to another , that a Man would think that none , but the wilfully blind , could mistake it . If in this manner we follow this , or some other point in controversy between the Socinian and our selves from one text to another , till we have laid all those together , which speak to the same point ; one would think that either the Scripture is so worded , that it is extreamly apt to lead all plain honest minds into error : or else that the Socinian sence is but mere shuffles , and evasions of the truth . One of these must be ; Judge , & choose , but consider it is on the part of God , and Socinus , who stand here opposed each to other . Upon this Scripture Irenaeus in the next age after the Apostles l. 4. c. 28. Thus , ante omnem conditionem glorificabat Verbum Patrem suum , & glorificabatur ab eo : Before every Creature the Word , i. e. the Son , did glorifie his Father , and was glorified by him . By which this Father doth speak , 1. His Existence before all Creatures : For every thing did glorifie it's maker so soon as it did exist ; but the Son did glorifie his Father before all Creatures , and consequently did exist before them . And , 2. His Divinity . For had Irenaeus numbred the Son with the Creatures , as the first of them in the Arian sence ; or as the last of them in the Socinian ; he must have worded it with some respect to them , as thus , before all [ other ] Creatures : or the first of all Creatures ; the Son did glorifie , &c. but this form distinguishes him from all Creatures , not as one of them , but as being already distinct from , as well as before them all . The Son then was before the World , i.e. before the Creation , and consequently before all creatures , which was the thing to be proved ; whence it follows , that there is no necessity of taking those Texts , which ascribe Creation to him in an improper sense ; and if no necessity , they must be taken in a proper one ; because all Scriptures must be taken properly ; unless that sense doth contradict some other Scripture ; which is not in the case before us , because no Text saith the Son did not , or that the Father only did create the World. 2. Since the Son was before the world , he must be from Eternity ; because the Scriptures no where suggest a creation between Eternity and Time : But on the contrary , Moses declares that the creation of the World was the beginning , viz. of the creature , and consequently there could be no creature before it . Whence in the Scripture-Phrase to be in the beginning , that is , before the world ; and to be from Eternity , are the same thing . For wisdom doth thus express her Eternal Existence , Prov. 8. 22 , 23. He possessed me in the beginning of his ways , before his works of old . I was set up from everlasting , from the beginning , or ever the earth was : and v. 24 , 25. when there were no depths , I was brought forth ; when there were no Fountains abounding with water : before the mountains were setled , before the Hills was I brought forth . Thus to be in the beginning , and to be before the world , are Phrases , which the Spirit uses to express the Eternal existence of wisdom : but the Son was in the beginning , Joh. 1. 1. he was before all things , Colos . 1. 17. and before the world , Joh. 17. 5. therefore the same Phrases must as well express the Eternal existence of the Son too . If the Son then was any where called a creature , it must be restrained to his man-hood , as his descent from Abraham is , Rom. 9. 5. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the flesh : which restriction must imply that there is something excepted , as to which he is no creature ; and as to which he did not descend from Abraham ; which can be no other than the Divine Nature : whence the next words say , he is over all God blessed for ever . Irenaeus l. 3 c. 18. reads it thus , Exquibus Christus secundum carnem , qui est Deus super omnes benedictus in saecula . Of whom Christ was according to the Flesh , who is God over all blessed for ever : and Tert. adv . Prax. c. 13. thus , — who is Deussuper omnia benedictus in aevum omne : God over all blessed for ever : which Reading is farther from the Socinian Conceit of its being a thanksgiving for Christ , Thus , who is over all God be blessed for ever , than our Translation is . From this Text , which the Socinians have so miserably disguised , not these Fathers only , but the first Ages of Christianity too , have always pleaded the Divinity of the Son. He continues his Argument from 1. Cor. 3. 32. Christ is God's : that is ( saith he ) God's Subject ; and this he fansies must be God's creature . Answ . Why not God's Son , since the Scriptures so often call him so ? but if it must be [ God's Subject ] yet it can do him no Service : For he is his Subject in regard of his Humane Nature , and Offices : Nay , his Subordination to the Father , as Son ; the Apostle ( as we shall show ) calls a Subjection : which will appear to be so far from affecting his Divinity , that it gives light , and strength , to this Doctrine . He cites Mat. 12. 17 , 18. behold my Servant . His Argument lyes thus , p. 5. If Christ were God , it could not without blasphemy be ( absolutely , and without restriction ) affirmed of him , that he is the servant of God. Answ . It is not affirmed of him absolutely , and without restriction , but in reference to his Humane Nature , and Offices : and till the Socinian doth prove that it is absolutely affirmed of him , i. e. that Christ is in all respects a Servant , and not in some only ; it hath not so much as the face of an Argument . His next Scripture is Phil. 2. 8 , 9. he humbled himself , and became obedient to death , therefore God hath highly exalted him . Answ . His obedience to death , doth indeed prove that he is man , for else he could not dye : this we all grant : but neither this , nor his Exaltation can ever prove he is not God , which is the thing in controversie . The truth of this will appear from our explication of his next Scripture , which is , 1 Cor. 15. 28. Then shall the son also be subject to him , who put all things under him . Which subjection he conceits destroys his Divinity . Ans . [ Then ] shall the Son be subject ; that is , at the end of the world , v. 24. which implies that till then he is in some respect not subject ; which is a demonstration of his Divinity . For all creatures are in all points his Subjects ; therefore if there is any one respect , in which the Son is not subject , then the Son must be God. Now his non-subjection is this , that now he hath a Kingdom , viz. The Church given by the Father , in which he reigns himself as Mediator , whence V. 25. He must reign . This Kingdom the Church is separate from the Dominion of the Father , which is the World : Therefore so far as he reigns in this Kingdom , so far he reigns separate from the Father , and that is not subject to him . Hence he saith , Matt. 28. 18. All Power is given me : Phil 2. 9. God hath highly exalted him ; and again Psal . 2. 9. I have set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion . But at the end of the World , He shall deliver up this Kingdom to the Father , V. 24. And then he shall reign no otherwise than as subordinate to the Father , as Son ; which the Text expresses by [ subject to the Father ] . Whence it must be granted , that when he saith , the Father commands and sends me , &c. These were spoken , and ought to be understood , antecedent to this exaltation . To close this Argument . On the one hand this exaltation proves no more than this , That the Son hath now a Kingdom , which he had not before ; but it doth not prove that he did not reign before with the Father in the Government of the World : And on the other hand , this subjection proves that the Son shall resign this Kingdom , but it doth not prove , he shall not reign with the Father for ever : Because this subjection is not a subjection of the creature to God , but a subordination of one Person to another in the Sacred Trinity . Argum. 3. P. 6 , 7. The true God is not the Minister , or Priest of any other . But Christ is the minister , and Mediator of God , and Men ; Heb. 8. 6. He hath obtained a more excellent Ministry : ch . 2. 17. He is a faithful High-Priest . — Answ . These Texts respect not his Nature , but his Offices ; and therefore do not deny his Divinity . For the same Apostle applies to him those Scriptures , which can be spoke of none but God ; as Psal . 45. 6 , 7. Thy Throne , O God , is for ever , and ever : Which Heb. 5. 8. declares that God spoke of his Son : And Psal . 102. 25. Thou hast laid the foundations of the Earth ; and the Heavens are the work of thy hands : This also V. 10. applies to the Son. These Texts are sufficiently vindicated by the learned Dean of St. Paul's , Dr. Sherlook , who shows that this word [ God ] Psal . 45. 6. is not a Nominative , and is not spoke of the Father , as the Socinians , and particularly this Letter from Eniedinus , would have it ; who render it [ God is thy Throne ] i. e. The Father is a Throne to the Son : But it is an Attick Vocative , and consequently can be spoke of no other than the Son , whom it stiles [ God ] and to whom it ascribes an Everlasting Dominion : As the other Psalm doth the creation of the World. Those very Socinians , who have read this answer , do yet still insist upon their own sence , without taking any notice of that answer ; which is an evident Argument they do not pursue the discovery of Truth , but only serve their own Hypothesis . Euseb . Praep. Evang. l. 4. c. 15. argues the same thing from the Hebrews , and Aquila's Version . And sure I am that from hence the Apostolick Ages did always assert the Divinity of the Son. Thus Just . M. Dial. Tertul. adv . Prax. c. 7. Orig. cont . Cels . l. 1. Cypr. adv . Judae . &c. And certainly since each Testament , viz. the Old in its Doctrine , and the New in the express application of it to the Son , do joyntly proclaim this Minister , this Priest to be God , as well as man , the Socinian must be extremely unjust in pleading the one in contradiction to the other . He insists , The true God cannot Mediate or Intercede , but Christ Intercedes , 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and Mediator — the Man Christ Jesus . They object elsewhere , that Christ the Mediator is here Distinguished from God , there is one God , and one Mediator , whence they presume this Mediator cannot be God. Answ . The Mediator is distinguished from God , not simply , because ( as we shall prove ) himself is God : But only secundum quid , as Mediator ; for as such he not only is both God and Man ; but also by his Mediatorship stands between both , in order to the reconciling both together ; and consequently , must be distinct from both . But that this Mediator is God as well as Man , will appear : 1. From the Sense of Antiquity , and the Judgment of the Church in all Ages , which ever held that the Mediator must be utriusque particeps , Partaker of both Natures , that there may be some equality between the Mediator , and the Persons between whom he mediates , to the end he may the more powerfully reconcile both together . Upon which bottom Irenaeus , who was Disciple to Polycarp , as Polycarp was to St. John the Evangelist . l. 3. c. 20. thus , adunivit hominem Deo ; whence Theodoret , Dialog . 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he hath United Man to God. And , 2. From the Nature of his Mediatory Kingdom , which requires Omnipotence , whereby he may be able to support and govern it : and Omniscience , whereby he may know all the wants and circumstances of it . Therefore since the Nature of this Kingdom of Christ doth require infinite perfections , which are incompetible to a Creature , it doth evidently declare the Deity of this Mediator ; who is accordingly not only stiled God , but hath likewise the incommunicable Name , viz. Jehovah , and Perfections of God ascribed to him in the Scriptures . 3. The design of this Text is not to declare that the Father only is God exclusive of the Son , and the Holy Ghost ; but to teach us that there is but one God , and one Mediator exclusive of the many Gods , and many Mediators , acknowledged by the Gentiles . But still ( notwithstanding any thing in this Text ) this Mediator may be with the Holy Ghost One God with the Father . They have therefore brought a Text to disprove our Doctrine , which neither as to Letter , or design , makes any thing against us . But this Letter pleads , that God cannot mediate , but Christ doth , therefore Christ cannot be God. Answ . We grant that God cannot intercede with the Creature , because this would imply that he is neither Almighty , nor All-sufficient ; but the Son may intercede with the Father without bringing his Divinity into question . Therefore ( to put the Socinian into a right method of dispute , which he yet seems totally a stranger to , there being nothing proper and concluding in all his Arguments ) let him prove that in this Text these words [ One God ] are spoke exclusive of the Son ; and that the Son's Intercession with the Father is inconsistent with his Divinity : This is to his purpose , and most be done , or else he must give up this Text , and indeed his Cause together . His Argument is fallacious ; for it applies that to God in reference to the Creature , which we apply to one Person in the God-head in reference to another ; and lyes thus , God cannot pray to the Creature , therefore the Son cannot pray to the Father : a Socinian Argument indeed , which all men else would be ashamed of . But it is said [ the man Christ Jesus ] true , but this is not simply man , but man united to the eternal word , or Son of God. So [ the man Jesus Christ ] suffered for us ; but there was such an Union between the two Natures , that what was suffered by the One , was imputed to the other ; whence , Act. 20. 28. We are purchased by the Blood of God , that is , by the Blood of Christ united to the second Person in the glorious Trinity . This Text Tertullian ad Vxor . l. 2. c. 3. quotes without any Anti-Trinitarian gloss upon it ; and indeed these blasphemous Interpretations now in use with these men , were utterly unknown to the Apostolick Ages . Argum. 4 p. 7 , 8. God doth all things in his own Name , and by his own Authority ; he ever doth his own Will : and seeks his own Glory : but Christ saith , John 17.28 . I am not come of my self : John 5. 43. I am come in my Father's Name : John 5. 30. I seek not my own Will : and ch . 8. 50. I seek not my own Glory . Answ . This is true of God in reference to the Creature ; but it is not true of one Person in the Trinity in reference to another . For though God cannot come in the Name , and by the Authority of a Creature , yet the Son may come in the Name , and by the Authority of the Father : because , though the Son is equal to the Father as God , yet the Father is greater than the Son , as Father . For which reason Episcopius , whom this Letter bespatters for an Arian , Institut . Theol. l. 4. c. 32. saith , That the Son refers all things to the Father , as the Fountain of the Deity ; of , and from whom the Son is . By this he rejects a Co-ordination , but asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity : and therefore at the same time both ruins these Objections , and also establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity . He proceeds ; God declares himself to be the prime object of Faith and Worship ; but the Son doth not so , for John 12. 44. He that believes on me , believes not on me , but on him that sent me . Answ . Christ doth in this very Text propose himself as the object of Faith and Worship ; for he saith , He that believes on me , which asserts that men did believe on him , and implys that they ought to do so ; what follows is but a qualification of the thing suitable to his subordination to his Father ; for such an one believes not on me , that is , solely , or ultimately : but on him that sent me , i. e. on him , as well as me ; by which he doth not exclude , but include himself with the Father , as the object of Faith and Worship . This sense must be allowed , else you run into these two absurdities , viz. 1. You make the first clause assert , what the second denyes ; and the second deny what the first asserts , viz. That men do believe on him , and yet do not believe on him : thev do not believe , and yet they believe still . 2. These Scriptures , which make Faith in Christ a condition of Salvation , such as John 3. 36. He that believes on the Son , hath Everlasting Life ; must be razed out of our Bibles . But perhaps he may trifle upon that word [ prime ] object , which hath nothing in it . For if the Father be the prime object as he is the first Person in the Trinity ; yet the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are the One , and only object in regard of Nature . But as the Texts , he here quotes , cannot serve his Hypothesis , so there is One among them , that totally destroys it , viz. John 8. 42. I proceeded forth , and came from God : that is , I am not from the Earth , but from Heaven : this is the Apostles sense , Ephes . 4. 9. That he ascended , what is it , but that he descended first ? Whence he did not first ascend to receive his Doctrine and Authority from God , as Socinus dreams ; but he first descended from God , with whom he was in the beginning , John 1. 1. and with whom he was glorified before the World , John 17. 5. Our sense falls in with variety of Scriptures , which on every side confirm and support it : but theirs labours with endless difficulties in wresting and perverting them ; that is an Argument of truth , but this os falshood . Argum. 5. pa. 9. God was always most wise , but Christ increased in Wisdom , Luke 2. 52. Answ . The Text saith , he increased in Wisdom and Stature , which word [ Stature ] suits not a Divine Nature , but an Human Body , which shews that the Text speaks of him , not simply , as if in his whole Capacity , without any exception , he increased in Wisdom , but only as Man , and consequently this Text proves he is Man ; but doth not prove he is not God , which is the design of this Argument . This is a demonstration of a studied corruption of the truth ; for ( like the Devil ) he quotes but one part of the Text , to the end he may pervert the whole . He proceeds , God was never ignorant of any thing ; but he makes it that Christ was ignorant of two : 1. Of the place where Lazarus was buried , John 11. 34. Where have ye laid him ? Answ . This no more proves that he knew not the place , than Gods asking Cain , Gen. 4. 9. Where is Abel thy Brother , doth prove that God knew not what was become of him ? How can we presume he was ignorant of this , who of himself knew both his death , and the time of it too . That he would not in every thing give demonstrations of his Divinity , is no argument against it . 2. He pleads that Christ knew not the day of Judgment , for Mark 13. 32. Of that day knows no Man ( in the Greek 't is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] none knows ) no not the Angels — neither the Son , but the Father ; St. Matthew , ch . 24. 36. adds , but the Father only . Answ . He knew it not as Man ; but this doth not prove , he is not God , and did not know it as such . For John 21. 17. He knew all things , and therefore must know this , or this must be nothing . In 1 King 8. 39. God only knows the Hearts of Men ; but Joh. 2. 25. Christ knew what is in Man : But to know the Hearts of Men , and to know what is in Man , are the same in Sense ; therefore Christ knows what God only knows ; and consequently Christ must be God , and for that cause Omniscient . Revel . 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart . This Let. 4. p. 154. doth acknowledge that Christ spoke of himself . But this ( as we know ) is proper to God , who alone can search the Heart : Therefore our Savior's Application of it to himself , is a Manifest Assertion of his own Divinity , and consequently of his Omniscience , which is inseparable from the Divine Nature . Whence it must be that he knew it not as Man only , but yet at the same time must know it as God. But here the Socinian pleads , that he knew many things not of himself ; but by Communication from the Father , as the Prophets did , 2 Kings 8. 12. I know the Evil thou wilt do to the Children of Israel : Therefore some extraordinary Knowledges in Christ , do speak his knowledg no more Omniscient and Inherent , than that of the Prophets . So to this purpose p. 155. Answ . These are very unlike Cases . For , 1. This Prophet knew this Man so far as concerned his future Dealing towards this People : But this doth not prove , that he knew this Man any farther , or any other Man at all . Whereas Joh. 2. 24. Christ knew all Men , and v. 25. He knew what was in Man ; and therefore all that is in Man : Which never was affirmed of any of the Prophets . From which alone it appears , that his Knowledge was much more extensive than any of the Prophets . 2. He knew all things Joh. 21. 17. which imports an infinite Knowledge ; But an infinite Knowledge can never be Communicated to a finite Understanding : Because there is an infinite Disproportion between the faculty and the object : Therefore the Knowledge which Christ had , speaks him infinite , and that is God. 3. This Hypothesis , viz. that such a Knowledge can be Communicated to a Creature , doth confound the Essential properties of God , and the Creature , because it makes the Creature infinite , as well as the Creator , and 4. Our Saviour saith , Revel . 2. 23. I am he who search the Heart : Which Phrase [ search the Heart ] was never applyed to any of the Prophets ; but only to Father , Son and Holy Ghost : Yet he saith , not only I do it , but I am he that do it ; which is more Emphatical , and implies , that this is his own Act , and consequently , that his Knowledge of the Heart , is from his own self . Therefore his Knowledge was not like the Prophets ; for their's was Finite , but his Infinite : Their 's Communicated , his Inherent . For which Reasons , as well as others , Antiquity put that Sense upon these Texts , which might not deny , but establish not his Omniscience only , but such as is not Communicated , but Inherent too : For Greg. Naz. Ora. 36. Athanas . tom . 1. Contr. Ar. Ora. 4. &c. he knows this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God : And consequently must know it of himself , but he knew it not , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Man ; hereby making those words [ none knows ] to exclude not what is God , and therefore not the Son as God ; but all the Creatures , and therefore the Son as Man. In the same Sense must we take that of St. Mathew Ch. 24. 36. of that Day , and Hour , knows no Man , no , not the Angels of Heaven , but my Father only . For here [ Father ] must not be taken personally for the Father , in opposition to the Son , and the Holy Ghost : But essentially for God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , in opposition to that word [ Man ] of that Day and Hour , knows no Man — but the Father only ; therefore these words [ the Father only ] exclude the Son from this Knowledge as Man , but not as God. This exposition is cleared , and confirmed from hence . 1. That in the Scriptures [ Father ] doth often signifie God essentially , including , Son and Holy Ghost , who are of , and from , the Father . 2. This Sense must be granted , else you make this one Text , to contradict all those which say the Son knows all things , &c. and 3. These Exclusive Particles [ none ] knows , or the Father [ only ] i. e. God [ only ] knows : Must be so Interpreted in divers places of Scripture , as particularly Luk. 10. 22. No Man [ in the Greek it is here also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none ] knows who the Son is but the Father , or the Father only . Whence they may as well exclude the Holy Ghost from the Knowledge of the Son , as the Son from knowing the Day of Judgment ; because this Particle [ none ] must be as Exclusive in that Text , as in this . But this Word cannot Exclude the Holy Ghost from the knowledge of the Son , because 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things , even the deep things of God : Which word [ search ] doth imply , that this Knowledge is perfect , and from himself , when applyed to the Spirit , as well as when applyed to the Father in the searching the Heart : And consequently by parity of Reason , it cannot Exclude the Son from the Knowledge of that Day . Therefore when I find these Texts cited by the Socinians , confineing these Knowledges to God ; and yet meet with others , which ascribe infinite Knowledge to the Son , and the Holy Ghost , I must conclude , not that the Son and Holy Ghost , are either ignorant of some things , for then I must contradict those Texts , which say they know all things , or that they are Creatures indowed with an infinite Knowledge ; because this ( as is Disputed already ) is utterly impossible : But I must conclude they are God ; and therefore are not Excluded by those Texts , from knowing those things of themselves ; but are included with the Father in the God-Head ; and therefore are with the Father , that One God , to whom all things are open , and naked . He proceeds , Christ ascribed the Infallibility of his Judgment to the Father , Joh. 8. 16. If I Judge , my Judgment is true ; for I am not alone , but I and my Father , that sent me : Which he thinks an Argument against his Divinity . Answ . I am not alone , but I and my Father — that is , the Father hath not left me alone , but bears witness to me by Miracles . This speaks not the insufficiency of his Judgment , but the incredulity of this People , and the abundant means , that he vouchsafed them . Whence he so often appeals to his Works Joh. 10. 25. The Works that I do in my Fathers Name , they testifie of me , and v. 38. though ye believe not me , yet believe the Works . Therefore this proves the Grace of God the Father , but doth not disprove the Divinity of the Son. He insists , God cannot be tempted , Jam. 1. 17. but the Son was Tempted of the Devil . Answ . If God cannot be Tempted , what is the meaning of Mat. 4. 7. Jesus said — thou shalt not Tempt the Lord thy God ? St. James saith , God cannot be Tempted with , or to evil : No more was our Blessed Saviour , for he complyed not with the Temptation . He cites Luke 18. 19. Why callest thou me Good ? There is none good , save One , that is God. On which the Letter saith , he refused to be called Good , because God only is Good. Answ . The true meaning is , he refused to be called good , unless in Relation to his Divinity , implying that himself is good , not by Participation , as Man is ; but essentially as God is : Therefo r he asks , why callest thou me good , viz. as Man , or as God ? That sense he Rejects , this he claims as his due . So Athanastom . 1. de Hum. Nat. Suscept . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If you think me Man , and not God , call me not good . Suppose this Text is of it self capable of those two senses , the one of which speaks him but Man , the other God : Wee may easily determine which Sense to take it in ; for their's contradicts all those Scriptures , which declare his Divinity : But our's comports with them , without Contradiction to any : Therefore not their's , but our's must be admitted , because it must be interpreted in concurrence with other Scriptures , but not in contradiction to ' em . Arg. 6. p. 10. God gives what , and to whom he pleases , but Christ saith , to Sit on my right Hand , and on my left — is not mine to give , Mat. 20. 23. Answ . Is not mine to give , i. e. as Man , not mine Exclusive of the Father , or contrary to the Divine Oeconomy , according to which , something is ascribed as peculiar to every Person in the Sacred Trinity . That this is the meaning , is evident from Joh. 10. 28. I give unto them Eternal Life : Nothing can be greater than this , yet the Son gives this , as well as the Father . Therefore in what Sense the other is not his to give , in the same Sense Eternal Life is not his to give : But in what Sense he gives Eternal Life , in the same Sense he gives the other too , whatever you please to understand by it . This they know is our Doctrine , and therefore ought not only to propose this Scripture , but also to prove an inconsistency between this Scripture , and this Doctrine : This he doth not attempt , not will ever be able to perform . But it seems it is enough for a Socinian to start an Error , and then leave it to the World , in hope some may take it , as the Man did the Snake , into their Houses . He proceeds , God needs no aid of any other ; but Christ saith , he that sent me , is with me . Answ . The thing in Controversie is , whether the Son be God , as well as Man : The Socinian brings this Text against us ; but if we at present only suppose that he is both , which we must do , till it be disproved , he can never tell me , why the Fathers presence with the Human Nature of Christ should necessarily imply a denial of his Divine Nature ; and consequently this Text is no due Medium , whence to conclude his point . He adds , God cannot Pray for himself , and People , but Christ Prays for himself and Disciples . Luk. 22. 42 ▪ Heb. 5. 7. &c. Answ . We Teach that Christ is both God and Man : Now he Prayed for himself , only as Man , Luk. 22. 42. that this Cup , viz. his Passion , now at hand , might pass from him . He Prayed for others , as Priest , Heb. 56. Thou art a Priest for ever , whence v. 7. in the days of his Flesh — he offered up Prayers : Whence the Socinian thinks he cannot be God , that is to say , his Praying must hinder the Human Nature from being united to the Divine ; for which he can produce neither Scripture nor Reason . Nay , as Man he dyed , yet notwithstanding this was United to the Divinity : And if his Death could not hinder this Union , much less can his Praying . But to shew the weakness of this Argument , we will add , though he cannot Pray considered Essentially as God ; for so there is nothing above him , yet he may Pray considered personally , as the Son of God , viz. the Father ; for as Son , he is subordinate to the Father , and consequently as Son may Pray the Father . This is an Argument then no more to his purpose , than if he had told us a Story of Abraham's Travels , or Noah's Planting a Vinyard . He urges farther , Christ Dyed , and the Father raised him from the Dead , Ephes . 1. 19 , 20. Whence also he fancies he cannot be God. He that dyed , and was raised , must be Man ; but his Argument implies , that he who raised him , must be God , which is enough to our purpose : For he raised himself , John 2. 19. destroy this Temple , and in three days I will raise it up ; which v. 21. saith , he spake of the Temple of his Body . Therefore ( according to his own Hypothesis ) the Son must be God , as well as Man ▪ But the Socinian pretends , Let. 3. p. 89. That Christ raised his Body by a Power communicated to him by the Father ; and accordingly his being raised is always attributed to the Father , not to himself . Answ . This is false ; for that Text doth attribute it to himself , I will raise it up . Therefore either the Son must be the Father ; or else his Resurrection is not always attributed to the Father . 2. If he was raised by a power solely from the Father , then he must be raised by the Father : for he raises the dead by whose Power the dead is raised ; and consequently he could not say , I will raise it . 3. This notion makes the Raiser , and the raised , to be the same : which is as incongruous as to speak the Maker , and the thing made to be the same . Therefore when he saith , I will raise it up , he speaks not as Man , for as such he was to be raised : but as God , who alone is the raiser of the dead . And , 4. The ascription of it to the Father doth not deny the co operation of the Son : as the ascription of it to the Son doth not deny the co-operation of the Father ; for then those Texts , of which some ascribe it to the Father , others to the Son , must be contradictory . But the ascription of it to both doth declare the Divinity of both , because now both must be God , or else they could not raise the dead . His next Scripture , which is Mat. 28. 18. All Power is given me ; is already answered in Arg. 2. For this Power here given him respects only the Government of the Church , to which he was now exalted ; which the Psalmist expresses by seting him a King on the Holy Hill of Sion : but this doth not prove that he had not , antecedent to this , a Power with the Father in the Government of the World. This proves he had now a new Government , but doth not prove that therefore he was not God : because the Father had a new Government upon the Creation of the World , but yet was God. Such additionals prove an alteration in the things added , but not in those Divine Persons , to whom they are added . All the difference is , this Power was given the Son. True , but this ( as before ) speaks the Son subordinate to the Father , but doth not destroy his Nature , by which he is God. Argum. 7. p. 11. Christ in the Scriptures is always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God : and is described to be the Son of God , and the Image of God. Answ . He is personally distinct , and therefore is not God the Father : but he is not essentially distinct , and therefore must be God the Son. If the Socinian then would gain his point , he must prove not only [ a ] distinction , which we grant ▪ but [ such ] a distinction , which we deny . But he hath said that Christ is the Son of God , and the Image of God ; whence he concludes , p. 12. thus , it is as impossible that the Son , or Image of the one true God , should himself be that One true God ; as that the Son should be the Father , and the Image be the very thing , whose Image it is . Answ . Profoundly argued , and like a a Socinian ! For he falsly supposes that the Father only is the One true God : when Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are together the one true God. Therefore take the One true God , and the invisible God , personally for the Father only ; and we grant that the Son of that One true God cannot be that One true God , because the Son cannot be the Father : and that the Image of the invisible God cannot be the invisible God , because ( as he saith ) the Image cannot be that very thing , whose Image it is . But take the One true God , and the invisible God , essentially for Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and then the Son with the Father , and Holy Spirit , is that One true God : and the Image of the invisible God , with the Father and Holy Ghost , is that invisible God ; because all three Persons together are the one true and invisible God. Now the Son is called the Image of the invisible God , because as an Image represents that very thing , whose Image it is , so the Son represents the Father , as having in himself all the perfections of the Father flowing from the same Essence common to both . Whence he saith , John 14. 8. He that hath seen me , hath seen the Father ; because as Hilar. Pict . Epist . de Trin. l. 9. glosses , the Father is seen in the Perfections of the Son ; and consequently the Son must be of the same Nature with the Father ▪ Our Doctrine then is not simply impossible , and contradictory to common sense , as the Letter pretends : but theirs is palpably false and absurd ; for all these Arguments ( as he calls them ) run upon these two false suppositions ; viz. 1. That there is but one Nature in Christ : for he proves that Christ is Man , and thence concludes he cannot be God ; when the Scriptures abundantly declare that he is both . 2. That there is but one Person in the God-head : for he often proves that Christ is not God , viz. the Father , as many of his quotations must be understood ; and thence concludes he is not God ; though the Scriptures prove that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are God. Thus he supposes what we deny , that there is but one Nature in Christ , and but one Person in the God-head ; but proves only what we grant , viz. that Christ is Man , and that the Son is not the Father . But let him prove first that there is but one Nature in Christ , and then that Christ is Man : and again , first that there is but one Person , viz. the Father in the God-head ; and then that the Son is not the Father ; from each of which it will follow that the Son cannot be God ; nothing less can conclude his point : but this method of his proves nothing against us , but only betrays the Socinians want either of Honesty or Judgment . However , he concludes his Arguments ( as he calls them ) with a Socinian Confidence ; asserting , p. 13. that there is in Scripture no real foundation for the Divinity of the Son. For proof of which he now flyes above common Argument , and can stoop to nothing below Demonstration . § . Demonst . 1. par . 8. p. 13. — So many Scriptures expresly declare , that only the Father is God. For proof of this he quotes , John 17. 1 , 3. Father — this is Eternal Life , that they might know thee , the only true God , and Jesus Christ , whom thou hast sent . Answ . The Letter saith , that Only the Father is God , which denyes the Son , and Holy Ghost is God : but this Text saith , the Father is the only true God : this excludes the Gentile Gods , but not the Son , and the Holy Ghost , who with the Father are the only true God. He here removes the exclusive particle [ only ] from the praediciate , the [ true God ] to the subject [ thee ] for ( pardon the repetition ) the Apostle saith — thee the only true God ; but the Socinian saith , only thee the true God ; which is such a corruption of the Text contrary to all antient and authentick reading , that utterly perverts the very sense and design of it . You have then a Demonstration indeed , not that only the Father is God , but that the Scriptures and Socinianism are at odds ▪ and that the one or the other must be Reformed . The next words [ and Jesus Christ , whom thou hast sent ] do Distinguish the Son from the Father as to Office , so doth 1 ▪ Cor. 8. 6. there is but one God — and One Lord ; but they do not Distinguish him as to Nature . The same is true of other Quotations under this Head ; and consequently none of 'em prove what he undertakes , viz. that only the Father is God. Demonst . 2. parag . 9. p. 14. If Christ were God as well as Man , it had been altogether Superfluous to give the Holy Ghost to his said Human Nature as a Director , and a Guide : For what other help could that Nature need , which was one Person with ( as they speak ) God the Son , and in which God the Son did personally dwell ? His Quotations are Luke 4. 1. Act. 1. 2 and Ch. 10. 38. Which prove only this , that the Holy Ghost was given to the Human Nature of Christ : Which the poor Man thinks a Demonstrative proof , that Christ was not United to the Eternal Word , or Son of God ; and Consequently was not God. 1. This Demonstration ( as he calls it ) is founded not upon Scripture , but upon a Socinian Presumption . For no Scripture saith , that if the Son was God , he should not have had the Presence and Conduct of the Spirit of God. And certainly it is a Monstrous way of Arguing , that this or that is necessary for God to have done , or not to have done , and then to conclude , he hath , or hath not done it : For this is no better , than to limit the Almighty , to give Rules to Infinite Wisdom , and to make not the Scripture , but our own blind Conceits , the Rule of our Faith. In this way the Romanists Demonstrate an Universal Head of the Church : Some the Divine Right of this , or that Form of Church-Government ; and after the same Methods , others may as well Demonstrate away all Religion , and introduce what they please of their own . 2. His Foundation is utterly false . For the Church is the Body of Christ , which Ephes . 4. 15 , 16. is said to be fitly joyned to him our Head , to intimate that he doth actuate , and guide it ; and yet notwithstanding standing this , the Spirit is sent to lead her into all Truth . Where let the Socinian tell me , why both the Son of God , and the Holy Spirit , may not guide the Human Nature , as well as Myslical Body of Christ . 3. It follows , that the same works of God are ascribed now to one Person , then to another : Thus we find it in this of Conduct , in that of Creation , &c. but this doth not destroy , but rather declare and confirm the Doctrine of a Trinity : Because it proclaims those Powers and Operations , which the Socinian would Limit to one Person , to be common to all three ; whence it follows , that all three must be God. Demonst . 3. parag . 10. p. 15. We have an Instance of this in the Demonstration now before us . For he would not have the Son to be God , because he Ascribes his Miracles to the Holy Spirit , Mat. 12. 28. I cast out Devils by the Spirit of God. Now this doth not prove the Son is not God , any more than the Ascribing Creation to the Son , doth prove that the Father did not Create . But it is a good step toward the proving that the Holy Ghost is God ; For Miracles cannot be wrought but by a Divine Power , therefore if the Holy Ghost hath such a Power of Miracles , that they are wrought by him , if he be a Person which we shall easily prove , he must be a Divine Person , and that is God. Demonst . 4. parag . 11. p. 15. Had our Lord been more than a Man , the Prophecies of the Old Testament — would not Describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman . — Answ . They Describe him as such , but not barely as such ; for they Describe him also as God. Thus Isa . 40. 3. Prepare ye the way of the Lord , make strait in the Desert an High way for our God. This is evidently spoke of the Messias , and the Evangelists with one consent , apply it to Christ , Mat. 3. 3. Mark 1 , 2 , 3. Luk. 3 , 4. and Joh. 1. 23. Where they all agree , that the Voice in the Wilderness , was the Baptist ; and that the way he was to prepare , was the way of the Messias ; therefore according to their Application of Scripture , the Prophet doth Stile the Son , the Lord our God. Observe farther , that this Text calls the Messias Lord , in the Hebrew , it is Jehovah , which ( we shall prove ) is an Incommunicable Name of God , which therefore Asserts the Divinity of him , to whom it is applyed : And consequently the Prophet in this place declares him to be God in a proper Sense . Compare Psal . 46. 6 , 7. with Heb. 1. 8. and Psal . 102. 25. with Heb. 1. 10. and you will find , that according to the Apostle's Application of those Texts , the Psalmist Ascribes to the Son , an Everlasting Throne , and the Creation of the World ; and certainly this Describes him not as the Seed of the Woman , but as God. § . 4. This Pen having thus attack'd the Divinity of the Son , now turns it self against that of the Holy Ghost ; affirming p. 16. that the Holy Ghost — is only the Power and Inspiration of God , at least is not himself God , which they bold is ascertain'd by these Considerations . Consid . 1. The Holy Ghost or Spirit , and the Power of God , are spoken of as one and the same thing , 1 Cor. 2. 4 , 5. Luke 1. 35. Ch. 11. 2c . Mat. 12. 28. Luk. 24. 49. Compared with Act. 1. 4 , 5. Answ . He is here to prove , that the Holy Ghost is only the Power and Inspiration of God , but is not himself God , but these Texts say no such thing , and consequently do not ascertain this Position . 2. The Blessed Spirit is not properly the Inspiration of God , but something distinct from it . For 1 Cor. 12. 8 , 9 , 10. Wisdom , Faith , &c. are given by the Spirit : Whence Heb. 2. 4. they are called the Gifts of the Holy Ghost . Hence each Text Distinguishes between the Spirit , and these Gifts : But neither of them are the Inspiration of God. For Inspiration is the Act , whereby the Holy Ghost Conveighs these Gifts to Men , which v. 11. is called a dividing them . This is clear from 2 Tim. 3. 16. all Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inspired , or given by the Inspiration of God. Here Scripture is the gift or thing inspired , God is the giver or inspirer ; therefore Inspiration can be but the Act , whereby it is given or Inspired . Therefore as the Graces before mentioned , viz. Wisdom , Faith , &c. are the Gifts of the Holy Ghost , so the Holy Ghost , must give them by way of Inspiration . The Socinian then doth here confound the Agent and the Act , making the Giver and the Giving , the same thing ; which is as false and absurd , as to say my Act of Donation is my Person . 3. He Asserts , that the Holy Ghost is only the Power of God , that is , as he often explains himself , is neither God , nor a Person . But this is neither proved , nor ever can be ; because such Power can know no more of God , than a Grace or Vertue can do , which are qualities , not persons : But 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spirit searches all things , even the deep things of God : Whence the Spirit must be not a simple Power , but a Person endowed with an Infinite knowledge , and that can be no other than God. What the Letter opposes , the Scriptures are clear in ; for Act. 5. Ananias did lye to the Holy Ghost , whence v. 4. saith , he lyed not to Man , but to God. Therefore the Holy Ghost must be God. Eniedinus , who is much more Manly in his performances , than this Epistler Parallels this of Ananias , lying to the Holy Ghost , and to God , with the Jews Rejecting Samuel and God : Thus , the Jews Rejected Samuel immediately , who was set over them ; but they Rejected God mediately , who did set Samuel over them : So Ananias lyed to the Holy Ghost immediately , who was given to the Apostles : But he lyed to God mediately , who gave the Holy Ghost to the Apostles ; whence as the Jews did Sin differently against Samuel and God , viz. immediately , and mediately , so did Ananias against the Holy Ghost and God , whence he would have the Holy Ghost and God , as much distinct , as Samuel and God ; and that is essentially . Answ . That place as put by the Objector , is not parallel with this : For that saith ▪ they Rejected not Samuel , but God ; but this doth not say , that Ananias lyed not to the Holy Ghost , but to God. Therefore this Text doth not distinguish between the Holy Ghost , and God , as that doth between Samuel and God : And consequently the Holy Ghost and God , are not here made so distinct , as Samuel and God. But take these Texts right , and we may allow a Parallel . But then it must lye between Samuel and Peter ; and again between God and the Holy Ghost ; thus the Jews thought they Rejected Samuel only , as Ananias thought he lyed to Peter only ; but saith God to Samuel , they Reject not thee , but me : And saith Peter to Ananias , thou hast lyed to the Holy Ghost ; that is , not to Men , but to God. Therefore while that Text distinguishes between Samuel and God , as different , this Unites the Holy Ghost , and God as the same . Consid . 2. p. 17. A Manifest Distinction is made , as between God and Christ , so also between God and the Holy Ghost : So that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself . His Quotations are , Rom. 5. 5. — the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts , by the Holy Ghost , 1 Cor. 3. 36. — ye are the Temple of God , and the Spirit of God dwells in you , and Rom. 8. 27. He ( the Spirit ) v. 26. makes intercession for the Saints , according to the Will of God. Answ . He knows we grant there is a personal Distinction , that as the Son , so the Holy Ghost is not God the Father . This is all these Texts do prove , without which there could not be a Trinity . But none of 'em prove that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God , which is the design of this Consideration . But because Rom. 8. 27. here quoted , Ascribes Personal Acts to the Holy Ghost — he makes Intercession : Therefore , that he may at once destroy his Divinity , and Personality both , he pleads , that the Holy Ghost is spoke of as a Person by the same Figure , that Charity is described as a Person , 1 Cor. 13. 4 , 5. The Argument lyes thus , Personal Acts cannot prove the Holy Ghost to be a Person , because they cannot prove that Charity is a Person . Answ . This doth as effectually destroy the Personality of the Father and the Son , as of the Holy Ghost : For ( according to this Argument ) Personal Acts do not prove the Father or the Son to be Persons ; because they do not prove , that Charity is a Person ; but that Argument which proves too much , proves nothing at all . 2. The Scriptures do Ascribe to the Holy Ghost , not only those Personal Acts which they do not to Charity , or to any thing else , which is not a Person : But a Subsistence to the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , together in the same Text 1 John 5. 7. there are three — the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost , implying , that the Subsistence of the Holy Ghost is as Real and Personal , as that of the Father , and the Son. They Ascribe to him also Life , Understanding , Will and Power ; For 1 Cor. 12. 11. he divides the Manifold Gifts of God , to every one as himself Will : Whence these two Cases are so unlike , that even Biddle the Socinian , was ashamed of it . For ( notwithstanding this of Charity ) he Asserts the Personality of the Holy Ghost , even while he denies his Divinity . 3. Scripture must not be taken figuratively , without a necessity , else you may turn the whole into an Allegory , and loose at once both the Letter and Design in a Cabalistical Sense . Now this necessity doth lye in the Case of Charity , as much as in that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned , Let. 4. p. 159. For all Men do as well know , that Charity can be no Person , as that God can have no Human Parts , as Eyes , Ears , Hands , &c. but this is so far from lying in the Case of the Holy Ghost , that Let. 3. p. 99. doth consess ▪ that all the Arrians , and many Socinians do acknowledge , that the Holy Ghost is a Person . Whence this is a conceit so weak , as well as Novel , that even the Vnitarians themselves ( as he idlely calls them ) are divided upon it . It is plain then , that in the Judgment of their own Party , as well as of the Church in all Ages , here is no necessity of a Figurative Interpretation ; and consequently no such ought to be admitted . The Socinian Arguments ( we see ) are like Ghosts , that appear only to whom they please , since none but a few of their own Party have yet discerned ' em . Consid . 3. p. 18. The Spirit is obtained for us of God by our Prayers , Act. 15. 8. Luk. 11. 13. Whence he thinks the Spirit is not God , because he is given by another . Answ . By the Spirit he here understands the Gifts of the Spirit ; as himself explains it : whence he proceeds thus : but they , viz. the Socinians , say also , That if the Holy Spirit were at all a Person , much more God , his Gifts — would be bestowed by himself . which , 1. Convinces him of contradiction : for he saith , they are the gifts of the Spirit , yet denyes that they are given by the Spirit : which is as much as to say , they are given by the Spirit , and yet are not given by the Spirit , which is a contradiction in terms . And , 2. This utterly destroys his Argument , which is this , that the Spirit doth not bestow his own gifts , therefore the Spirit is not God , but the Spirit must bestow his own gifts , else they could not be his own gifts , but must be the gifts of him that bestows 'em ; therefore the antecedent being false , the consequent must be false too . Now that the Spirit doth bestow these things , which he acknowledges to be the gifts and graces of the Spirit , is expresly asserted by St. Paul , 1 Cor. 12. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. where he saith of these very gifts and graces of the Spirit , that the Spirit divides them to every one as he will ; and if he devides 'em to Men , he must give 'em to Men ; because these are Synonymous Terms , which are both expressive of the same thing . The Texts he quotes , do prove these things are given by the Father , we grant it : but this , and other Texts do prove they are given also by the Spirit ; but those Texts can no more exclude the Spirit , than these can exclude the Father . Therefore they must be given by both , as indeed they are by the whole Trinity ; for which reason they are ascribed now to one Person , then to another ; as Faith , Repentance , &c. which are the gifts of the Spirit , are attributed not to the Spirit only , but sometimes to the Father , as himself proves , and sometimes to the Son , as the Apostle declares , Act. 5. 31. him , viz. the Son hath God exalted — to be a Prince , and a Saviour , to give Repentance ( which implyes Faith ) to Israel ; and Act. 2. speaking of the gift of Tongues , saith , v. 32 , 33. that Jesus , who was raised from the dead , being by the right hand of God exalted , [ he ] viz. the same Jesus hath shed forth this , which ye do see and hear . The result is , 1. That the Socinian is partial and unjust , in quoting one Text of Scripture in opposition to another ; And , 2. He hath not only lost his own Argument , but hath also furnished us with one against himself ; for he argues thus , the Spirit doth not give these gifts to men ; therefore the Spirit is not God ; which implyes that if the Spirit doth give these gifts , then the Spirit is God ; but ( we see ) he doth give these gifts , and therefore must be God. And indeed he can be no other than God , who divides these manifold gifts of God according to his own Will. He proceeds , there is no Precept , nor Example in all Holy Scripture of Prayer made to the Spirit on this , or any other occasion : which ( on the Trinitarian supposition ) that the Holy Spirit is a Person , and God ; no less than the Father , is very surprizing , nay utterly unaccountable . Answ . We deny it , for 2 Cor. 13. 16. we read thus ; The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , and the Love of God , and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all ; which Text we shall first explain , and then apply it to the present Argument . That word [ God ] the love of God , must not be taken essentially for God , as if the Son , and Holy Ghost were not God : but personally for God the Father , and therefore can distinguish them only from the Father . My reasons are these , 1. Other Scriptures ( as we have said ) do not only stile the Son , and the Holy Ghost God , but do also ascribe to them infinite Perfections , which are not competible to any Creature ; and likewise attribute to them the Name Jehovah , which is proper to God , as we shall prove anon . Therefore if you make that word [ God ] in this Text to signifie God essentially , and consequently to exclude the Son , and Holy Ghost from the Deity ; then this Text must contradict all them : but that cannot be the true sense of one Text , which contradicts another . And , 2. St. Paul himself doth thus explain it , Ephes . 6. 23. — Faith from God the Father , and the Lord Jesus Christ : where he distinguishes the Son not simply from God , but from God the Father ; this denyes that the Son is the Father , but still implyes that the Son is God. Now this Text being the more full and perfect , explains that in the Corinthians , by teaching us to supply these words [ the Father ] The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , the love of God , viz. the Father , and the Communion of the Holy Ghost — Now this Text thus supplyed and perfected by that , doth make a distinction of Persons , but not of Essences , that is , it teaches that the Son , and the Holy Ghost , are not the Father , but yet one God. This sense St. Paul expressed to the Ephesians , and therefore must intend it to these Corinthians . Now the Text , thus explained , is not only a benediction to this Church , but also a Prayer to God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost , that this Grace may descend upon it . We never pray to God , but we pray to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , which was the judgment of Antiquity : For Justin Martyr , who florished in the middle of the Age next after the Apostles , saith in his Apologie , we Christians worship Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; and yet against gentile Polytheism in the same Apology declares , that they worshiped God only ; therefore they must necessarily understand it , that all three Persons together are that one God , whom they worshiped , and to whom they prayed , which is one part of Worship . But you will say , what is the reason then , we are not commanded to pray expresly and particularly to the Holy Ghost , as we are to God ? Answ . 1. In divers Scriptures [ God ] is put essentially for Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; therefore in those Scriptures all Commands , and Examples of praying to God , are to be understood inclusively of all three Persons , who are essentially one , and the same God. 2. The Father is the first Person in the Trinity ▪ of and from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost are ▪ therefore as for this reason the Son refers things principally to the Father , but not exclusive of himself ▪ so for the same reasons Prayers are directed principally to the Father , but yet are to be understood inclusive of the Son , and Holy Ghost , but not exclusive of them . 3. The Father is principal Agent in the Government of the World ; and the first mover in all Divine Operations , saying to the Son , and the Holy Ghost , let us make Man : whence the Son saith , John 5. 17. my Father works hitherto , and I works by which he speaks the Father principle Operator , but himself a Co-operator with him . Again , the Son from the Father hath the Government of the Church , whence it is called the Kingdom of Christ , to which the Father Exalted him , and from the Father and the Son , the Holy Ghost is in the Ministration of it . Upon which Accounts , Prayers are directed primarily , and expresly to the Father , but yet are intended as extensive to the Son and Holy Ghost . They are directed most particularly to him from his Priority of Order and Operation ; but yet they belong to all three in regard of the sameness of their Nature . These things are suited to the Rules and Methods of the Divine Oeconomy , and may seem difficulties ; but had our Considerer considered well , he had never made them supports of an Heresie . Consid . 4. p. 19. If the Holy Spirit , and our Lord Christ are — God , no less than the Father , then God is a Trinity of Persons , or three Persons ; but this is contrary to the whole Scripture , which speaks of God as but one Person ; and speaks of him , and to him by singular Pronouns , such as I , Thou , We , Him , &c. Answ . We deny that any one Text of Scripture , doth prove that God is but One Person . He quotes , Job . 13. 7 , 8. Will ye speak wickedly for God ? — Will ye accept his Person ? — Whence he thinks , there can be but one Person , viz. the Father in the God-head . To which we Answer thus . 1. The letter of these Texts doth not say , that God is but One Person : Or that there is but one Person in the Godhead , which is the thing to be proved . 2. The Reason and Design of 'em , cannot possibly import any such thing . For these expressions are used to signifie only the doing unjustly for God , as Men do for others , when said to accept their Persons . For Job hereby accuses his Friends of Injustice and Partiality , in that they justified God's Visitations upon , by Condemning him of Hypocrisie . Therefore these Texts are not suited to the Nature of God , nor designed to Determine , whether there be only one , or more Persons in the God head , but to signifie unjust Censures ; and therefore must import not a Singularity or Plurality of Persons , but only Partiality in their Judgment , between God and himself . Will ye speak wickedly for God ? and talk deceitfully for him ? Will ye accept his Person ? 3. Phrases that are taken from the common ufuages of Men , or as common forms of Speech , are not to be used in an Argument , in which the Holy Pen-man did not intend them to the Contradiction of those Texts , which professedly speak of that point , this all Men of Reason and Judgment , must grant me ; because in expounding Scripture , we are to consider not only Words , but Phrases , together with the Scope and design of the place , and if so , it must be granted in this Case before us , that these Texts in Jobe , which concern not the Nature of God , ought not to be brought to prove , there is but one person in the God-head , when so many Texts on set purpose , declare the Divine Nature of three . He quotes also , Heb. 1. 1. 2 , 3 ▪ God — hath spoken to us by his Son , who being — the express Image of his Person . Answ . 1. God here must signifie the Father , because he speaks to us by his Son , whence the Son is the Image of his Father's Person . But however this doth not reach his Case ; for it proves indeed , that God the Father is but one Person , which we all grant : But it doth not prove there is no other Person in the God-head , which is the thing in controversie . Nay , 2. This Text is not only , not for , but is really against , him . For if the Son be the express Image of his Father , he must duly Represent the Father , as Images duly Represent those things , whose Images they are : And if he , the Living Image of his Father , duly Represents the Father , he must have in himself all the Perfections of his Father , and consequently must be infinite himself , else he could not in his own Person or Nature , Represent infinite Perfections ; and that he doth so , is evident , not only from his being Termed the Image of his Father , but also from those words of his once quoted already , Joh. 14. 8. he that hath seen me , hath seen the Father . So far is this Text from proving , but one Person in the God-head , that it consequentially introduces a second . He cites , Deut. 6. 4 , 5. — the Lord our God is One : the word is Jehovah , whence the Letter saith , Jehovah is one , and that the Jews Morning and Evening Repeated this Verse , to keep it in perpetual Memory , that Jehovah or God , is one only , not two or three . Answ . The meaning is , there is but One God , which is spoke in opposition to Gentile Gods , which the Jews were so much inclined to , not that there is but One Person in the God-head , which was never disputed among them . We say then , that Jehovah or God , is but One , viz. Nature or Substance , that is , there is but one God , which is all this Text can pretend to , and all that our Socinian can prove : But we say likewise , that Jehovah or God , is three Persons , viz. Father , Son and Holy Ghost . That the Father is Jehovah or God , the Socinian grants us , and that the Son and Holy Ghost are Jehovah , or God , we will prove . 1. That the Son is Jehovah , or God will appear from hence . In Exod. 33 , 1 , 2 , 3. the Lord , the word is Jehovah , said , I will send my Angel ▪ but I will not go up into the midst of thee . Now as the Letter supposes , that Jehovah is God , so in this very place , it can signifie no other than God properly . Because , ● . Jehovah is here Distinguished from an Angel , as such , and therefore from every Angel , I will send my Angel , but I will not go . — and 2. He declares his propriety in this Angel , for it is [ my ] Angel : An Angel that is mine , that is , my Creature , and my Servant : Which gloss I found upon this bottom , that we never find in all the Scripture , that one Angel speaks thus of another ; for though there be different orders of Angels , yet they are all Servants of God , not the Servants one of another . Therefore this must speak this Jehovah to have that Right to Propriety in , and that Power over this Angel , which God has to , in , and over his Creatures . Then Gen. 18. 1. The Lord i. e. Jehovah , appeared to Abraham , v. 2. expresses it by three Men ; but v. 3. calls only one of these three Jehovah , or Lord , the same is so called again , v. 13. 20. and v. 22. doth again expresly call these two [ Men ] but this [ Jehovah ] This only was Dignified with these Titles , to this only did Abraham bow himself , and direct his Discourse . Now since this Jehovah is so industriously distinguished from these Men , as he was before from that Angel ; and v. 25. is called the Judge of the World ; which neither is true , nor was ever affirmed , of any created Spirit , it must needs be that this Jehovah is God. But now this Jehovah cannot be the Father , because 1. This Jehovah appeared in humane shape , as , to Joshua , to Moses , so to Abraham , whence himself , and the two with him , are called Men , v. 2 : but the Father never appeared in humane shape ; and the Teaching that he did was antiently , as well as justly , condemned as part of the Patropassion Heresie : and 2. These three are called Angels Heb. 13. 2 , because they were sent , as the Word imports ; but the Father being the first Person in the Trinity , cannot be sent from any . The Result then is , here is Jehovah i. e. God appearing in the likeness of Men , but the Father never did appear in this likeness , therefore this could not be Jehovah , or God the Father ; but must be Jehovah , or God the Son , whom the Father sent in Humane shape as an intimation of his future Incarnation . This is evident from Joshua ; for c. 5. v. 13. he sees a Man with a drawn Sword , and ▪ asks , Who he was for ? The Man answered , v. 14 , As Captain of the Host of the Lord am I come . Here this Man is Captain of the Host of Jehovah the Lord ; and yet c. 6. v. 2. this Man , this Captain , is himself Jehovah the Lord ; for after he had answered Joshua , and commanded him to put off his shooe , because the Place was holy c. 5. v. 15 , then c. 6. v. 2. Jehovah the Lord , i. e. this Man , this Captain , said to Joshua — Therefore the former Jehovah , or Lord , is the Father , whose Host this was ; and the latter Jehovah , or Lord , is the Son , who was sent from the Father as Captain of it . This was the Sense of all Antiquity ; for so Justin Martyr Dial. so Grenaeus l. 4. c. 15. and 23. and so Tertul. de Incar . c. 6. and adv . Marc. l. 3. c. 9. who were followed by Cyprian , Origen , and the rest . Again Gen. 19. 24. the Lord [ Jehovah ] rained down Fire from the Lord [ Jehovah ] in Heaven . The Series of this History shews that the former Jehovah is the very same with Jehovah ch . 18 ; whence , the latter must be the Father , who was in Heaven : This was the Judgment not only of the fore-cited Fathers , but also of the first Council of Sirmium . And indeed as this Appearance in humane shape was a Signification of his future Incarnation , so his raining down Fire from Heaven was a Type of the last Conflagration , when this Jehovah the Son shall come from Jehovah the Father to judge the Quiek and the Dead : for which reason Abraham calls him the Judge of the World , Gen. 18. 25. We shall confirm and conclude our Point in our Answer to Crellius , who , de Nomine Jehovah , objects several things against us with a design to perswade that [ Jehovah ] is not a Name proper to God , but is sometimes given to Angels properly taken ; and consequently , that this Jehovah was not tht Son , but only an Angel of God. Object . 1. These three in Genesis 18. are called Angels Heb. 13. 2. Ans . They are likewise called Men Gen. 18. 2. whence let the Socinian tell me 1. Why one of these Angels may not be the Son of God , as well as these three Men be Angels ? And then , 2. Why the other two should be called only Men and Angels , but this he stiled Jehovah , whom the Scriptures distinguish from Men and Angels , unless to denote the distinction of his Nature from all created Beings : and why he should then be joined with the Father under the same Name Jehovah Gen. 19. unless to declare the sameness of his Nature with the Creator , God blessed for ever ? Object , 2. He who is called Lord [ Jehovah ] in Exod. 3. 7. is expresly said to be an Angel of the Lord , v. 2. Whence he thinks that Jehovah is a Name not proper to God ▪ but common to Created Spirits . Ans . Angel doth note his Office , as being sent from the Father ▪ and Jehovah notes his Nature , as being of the same Substance with the Father : for v. 6. this Jehovah saith , I am the God of Abraham ; and v. 14. he stiles himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I am ; this implies a perpetual Existence from everlasting to everlasting , which is not competible to any Creature . Hence our Saviour saith Matt. 23. 31 , 32. Have ' ye not read , not what God spake to you by his Angel , but that which is spoke to you by God , saying , I am the God of Abraham — Where our Saviour himself , who is the best Interpreter of Scripture , teaches that this Jehovah was not a created Spirit , but even God himself . Upon which Justin Martyr Apol. saith , this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , our Christ . And Tertul. adv . Prax. c. 14. Deum i. e. Filium Dei Visum — Moysi — God , that is , the Son of God was seen by Moses : the same you have again c. 16. See Cypr. adv . Judae . 1. 2. &c. Object . 3. Jehovah is indeed a Name proper to God , but yet is sometimes given to Angels , as they personate God , i. e. bear his Name and Authority . Ans . Here was not only the Name and Authority of God , but also that Honor received which is due to God only ; for Moses by special Command did worship him : but you have not one such Instance of an Angel that any way appeared to be a created Spirit , that bore the Name and Authority of God , and received the Honor due to God. The Angel to the Blessed Virgin spoke otherwise , and that to S. John forbad him to Worship him , and that for a reason common to all created Angels , Revel . 19. 10. See thou do it not , for I am thy Fellow-Servant . As we find no such thing , so neither can any such thing ever be ; for God hath said , My Glory will I not give to another : but this gives a Creature his Name , his Authority , and his Honor ; and these are his Glory . Therefore the matter of this Objection is not only not found in the Scripture , but is even contrary to it . Object . 4. The Law was given by the disposition of Angels , Act. 7. 53. and was spoken by Angels , Heb. 2. 3. whence he presumes that Jehovah , who gave the Law , was not the Son of God , but a created Angel. Ans . This doth not follow : for as it was given by Angels , so it was Gal. 3. 19. in the hand of a Mediator , that is , of Christ ; as Theophylact and others take it . But some say this Mediator was Moses : be it so , it is all one . For if Moses was Mediator , it was only as a Type of Christ , and there must be an exact Agreement between the Type and the Anti-type ; therefore if the Law was given by Moses a typical Mediator , it must be given by Christ the true and proper Mediator . Whence the Result must be , that Moses gave it immediately to the People , but Christ gave it mediately by Moses , and by those Angels , which are ministring Spirits . Therefore when S. John saith , c. 1. 17. the Law was given by Moses , but Grace and Truth , i. e. the Gospel , came by Jesus Christ , he respects the immediate Delivery of both ; the Law was given immediately by Moses , and the Gospel immediately by Christ : which excludes Christ from only an immediate , but not from a mediate Delivery of the Law. But the Difficulty is from Heb. 2. 2 , 3. If the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast , and every Transgression and Disobedience received a just recompence of Reward ; how shall we escape , if we neglect so great Salvation , which at first began to be spoken by the Lord ? Upon which Crellius saith , the Gospel , which is the great Salvation , is preferred before the Law , because the Law was given by Angels , but the Gopel by the Lord : and consequently Jehovah , who gave the Law , was not the Lord , but an Angel. Ans . This Text , which saith the Law was spoken by Angels , doth no more exclude the Son , than Joh. 1. 17. which saith the Law was given by Moses , doth exclude those Angels : for indeed it was given by all three . Therefore the Opposition lies not between Jehovah and the Son , who are the same , and gave both Law and Gospel too , but 1. Between his different manner of giving each : for ( as before ) he gave the Law mediately by Angels ; but he gave the Gospel immediately by himself , as the Eternal Word now made Flesh : Upon which account Sin against the Gospel is a greater Affront to his Person and Authority , than Sin against the Law. And 2. Between the Nature of each considered in themselves : this is a great Salvation in comparison of that . And because Sin doth always arise proportionate to the means it is committed against , therefore upon this Account also Sin against the Gospel is greater than Sin against the Law. Whence this toping Argument of Crellius , which ( he saith ) doth penitus evertere totally overthrow us , doth neither exclude Jehovah the Son from giving the Law , nor yet debase him to a created Spirit ; and consequently doth not at all affect us . In fine , we grant that Jehovah is sometimes called an Angel , as he is sent from the Father ; but we deny that an Angel , which is any way declared to be a created Spirit , is ever called Jehovah . Let the Socinian prove this , and then we will dismiss this Argument : else he faith nothing to the purpose . 2. The Blessed Spirit is also called Jehovah : for Exod. 17. 7. they tempted the Lord , the Word is [ Jehovah ] . This is repeated Psal . 95. whence the Apostle Heb. 3. 7 , 8 , 9. thus , the Holy Ghost saith — When your Fathers tempted [ me ] . Therefore ( according to the Apostles Application of these Seriptures ) the Holy Ghost is this Jehovah . The Result is , Jehovah is indeed but one God , but yet is three Persons ; viz. Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , who are in the Godhead , and therefore are this one God , which was the thing to be proved . Whence his next Scripture , which is Isa . 45. 5. I am the Lord , the Word is [ Jehovah ] there is no God before me , is easily answered . For here Jehovah excludes a Plurality of Gods , but not a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead . He adds ( in his great Wisdom and Judgment ) Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . Where because [ the Lord thy God ] is singular , and that Word [ only ] excludes all others , he thinks he hath found a proof that the Father only is God. Ans . This proves indeed that there is but one God , which we all grant ; but it doth not prove there is but one Person in the Godhead ; or that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not God ; which he undertakes . But because Suppositions grant nothing , we will suppose that this Text proves that the Father only is God ; but then it must be granted upon this Supposition , that it doth also prove , that the Father only is to be worshipped ; for him only shalt thou serve . But the Socinians deny that the Son is God , and yet worship him as well as the Father . Whence it evidently follows , that either their Religion must be an Heresie , or themselves Idolaters ; for if the Son be God , they are Hereticks in denying it : if he is not , they are Idolaters in worshipping him . And certainly these Men are put to an hard shift for Scripture ▪ Proofs , when all the Texts they cite , do either not affect us , or wound themselves . He now proceeds to his singular Pronouns , thus ; No Instance can be given in any Language of three Persons ; who ever spoke of themselves , or were spoken to , by singular Pronouns , as I , Thou , &c. Such speaking is contrary to Custom , Grammar , and Sense . Ans . To this , that of the Learned Dean of St. Pauls , Dr. Sherlock , is the most apposite , viz. There is no other Example in Nature of three Persons , who are essentially one . Whence this is an Impropriety in reference to the Creatures , which is none in reference to God. For he may speak of himself , or be spoken to , singularly , because he is but one God ; and plurally , because he is three Persons , without any ungrammatical Solecism . And sometimes he doth speak plurally , as Gen. 1. 26. Let us make Man : whence we conclude a Plurality in the Godhead . But this cannot be a Plurality of Essences , or Natures , for then there would be a Plurality of Gods , which is contrary to Scripture , for this declares there is but one ; but a Plurality of Subsistences , which we call Persons , united in the same Nature . This Plurality other Scriptures , particularly Psal . 33. 6. do determine to three , viz. the Lord , the Word , and the Spirit , and 1 John 1. 7. the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost : and this we call a Trinity , as the Church ever did from the Apostles time . But to this he saith , God doth here speak of himself after the manner of Princes , p. 21. and therefore is but one Person , though he saith [ Us ] . Ans . 1. He could not speak this after the manner of Princes , for then there was no Prince , nor any Man in the World : nor can he prove any such Custom in the Mosaic Age. Therefore this is an expounding the first Writings in the World after the Custom of later Ages , which we cannot allow . 2. In time Princes spoke [ of ] but not [ to ] themselves plurally , which yet God doth do , if this Gloss be true . Therefore this Exposition , which he pretends is after the manner of Princes , is indeed without all Example . 3. God himself expounds this Text our way , Psal . 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made , and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth ; that is by the Lord , viz. the Father ; by the Word or Son , and by the Spirit . Now St. John c. 1. 1 , 3. teaches that by the Word , viz. that Word which was God , that Word , which v. 14. was made Flesh , were all things made . Which directs us to understand that [ Word ] in this Psalm , not of the Command , but of the Eternal , or Substantial Word , or Son of God : to whom together with that Spirit , who Gen. 1. 1. moved upon the Waters , preparing that indigested Matter for its several forms , the Father said , Let us make Man. This was the Sense of all Antiquity . Just . Mart. Dial. Iren. l. 4. c. 37. he spoke to the Son , and the Holy Ghost , per quos , & in quibus omnia — fecit , by , and in whom , he made all things . Tertul. de Resur . carn . c. 6. and adv . Prax. v. 7. Orig. cont . Cels . 1. 6. and the Constitutions l. 5. c. 6. which pretend to give us nothing but what is Apostolical . He proceeds to 2 Cor. 10. 2. Some , who think of [ us ] — which he saith S. Paul spoke of himself only . Ans . It is not probable that S. Paul spoke of himself after the manner of Princes , when it is evident he lessened himself in almost every thing but Sin and Sufferings . 2. When a Prince speaks plurally , we know he must speak of himself , because he is but one : but the Apostles were many , and under the same Censures : therefore when S. Paul speaks plurally [ Us ] we have no necessity of understanding it of himself only , bu● have reason to believe he spoke of himself and them together . 3. Suppose that S. Paul spoke plurally of himself , as Princes have done for many Ages , yet what Argument is there in either of these to prove that the Father is to be understood thus in Gen. 1 , especially when the Scriptures so frequently ascribe the Creation to the Son , and Holy Ghost , as well as to the Father ? There is therefore nothing manly , or cogent in this Quotation . By this time ( I think ) his singular Pronouns have done him as little service as his Scriptures . Consid . 5. and 22. Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God , this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed , which ( they say ) p. 23. was purposely drawn up to represent all the necessary Articles of Religion : but that the Divinity of each is omitted there he would sain perswade the World. This very Argument had almost perverted two of my Acquaintance ; the one a very ingenious Merchant in this City . I shall therefore ( according to their desire ) give the fuller Answer to it : and shall prove 1. That this Creed under the Apostles name was never composed by the Apostles ; and 2. Though it doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost , yet it sufficiently teaches both . 1. This Creed was never composed by the Apostles . Some with more Presumption than Judgment think Irenaeus and Tertullian against us . But if you consult those famous Places , Iren. l. 1. c. 2 & 19. Tertul. de Virg. Veland . c. 1. de Praes . Haer. c. 2. and adv . Prax. c. 2. you will find these Fathers differ so much from one another , and each from himself , both as to the Order and Points of Faith they deliver ; that they evidently seem to intend not any setled Form , but the Substance of Faith contain'd in the Scriptures , whence themselves might draw the Articles they deliver . Irenaeus saith indeed , that his Rule of Truth , i. e. the Articles there writ , came from the Apostles ; which some have thought sufficient to prove it of Apostolical Composure . But , 1. It s coming from the Apostles is no Argument for them ; for that might be from their Writings in the N. Test . as well as from this Creed , had they composed it . 2. His calling it the Rule of Truth is against them ; for it was not customary , so neither is it so proper to call a Creed the Rule of Faith , as the Scriptures from whence all Creeds are taken , and by which they must be proved . And 3. There is not so much agreement between the Articles in Iren. and this Creed called the Apostles , as between those Articles , and some of those Creeds , which are well known to be the different Creeds of different Churches . Therefore there is nothing in this Father , that can prove the Socinian Assertion ; but something , that may incline to the contrary . As for Tertullian the Case is more clear ; for he saith de Praes . Haer. c. 13. that his Rule of Faith , meaning the Articles there mentioned , were taught by Christ : but Christ composed no Symbol : and adv . Prax. c. 2. his Rule taught the Mission of the Holy Ghost : but this Creed teaches no such thing . Therefore from both he must intend the Scriptures , not a Creed ; or if any , yet however not this . Arius in Epiphanius adv . Haer. l. 2. to 2. Haer. 69. would fain have justified his Heresie against the Divinity of the Son from the Creed of Alexandria ; which differs to much from this under the Apostles name , that none can pretend they are the same . But it must be granted , he would much rather have appealed to this , had it then been , or believed to be theirs , and also thought not to teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost , because a Creed composed by the Apostles themselves would have been of much more force and Authority than one composed by any particular Church whatever . Therefore his Appeal to that , but not to this , is to me a Demonstration that this Creed was then not known , or else not believed either to be theirs , or to import any such Doctrine . It could not come from the Apostles , at least as we now have it , which ought very much to take down Mens Presumptions of its Antiquity , and must totally ruine that of Heylen , aud Ashwel in his F●des Apostolica , who will have it to be unalterable , and therefore to come from them in all Points as it now is . For , 1. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is brought from the Psalms into the Acts of the Apostles , and in each place is rendered Hell ; and tho Irenaeus and Tertullian both speak of Christs going where the Souls of the dead are ; yet the strict Phrase [ He descended into Hell ] is not in any of the antient Creeds or Fathers ; nor yet in the Articles mentioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian , from whom they pretend to take this Creed it self . The first time we find it is in the Interpolat●r and Tral , but this appeared not till the fourth Century ; nor could it be wrote till the Arian Heresie . For ad Magnes . Vas . edit . p. 147. he saith , Christ is the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not spoken , but substantial . For though the Notion is agreeable both to Scripture and the most antient Fathers ; yet the distinction in these very Words was not known till Arian Evasions made it necessary for the securing the sense both of Scripture and Antiquity . 2. The Word [ Catholick ] which this Creed uses , was not in use among Ecclesiastical Writers in the first Ages . For Ignat . Epist . ad Ephes . expresses the thing by a Circumlocution , as the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ends of the Earth . And Iren. l. 1. ● . 2. the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the World over . We find the Word it self first in Cl● . Alex. Str●m . ● . 7. but it is not in any of the Eastern Creeds , till that of Jerusalem . S. Gyprian likewise hath the Word ; but it is in none of the Latin Creeds , till the fourth Age. The Epistles of James , Peter , John and Jude , must therefore be intituled Catholick , not by the Pen-men , but by some later hand . The first time I observe them cited under this Title , is by Cyrd of Jerusalem , who Carech . 6 ▪ wrote seventy years after Manes , who broach'd his Heresie under Probus the Emperor about the year 277. How then to bring Haylen out of the Wood , who places the Apostles with every one an Article of this Creed in his mouth as a Frontispiece to his Book upon this Subject , ascribing the Descent into Hell to S. Thomas , and the [ Catholick ] Church to S. James , I know not . Or whence S. Austin should have that Story of the Apostles bringing every one his Article to the composing it , when the four Ages before him knew nothing of the matter : or why any should quote that Tract under his name as his own , which all learned Men ( unless some Romish Writers ) do now reject as spurious , I can as little imagine . To conclude this Argument ; Had the Apostles composed this Creed , it would have been found first in the Hebrew or Greek Tongues , in which they wrote : it would have been part of the Sacred Scriptures , or at least have been mentioned in the History of the Acts , and have been known to all the Churches founded by the Apostles , it being pretended to be wrote before their Dispersion from Jerusalem . But on the contrary we find it not till the fourth Century , and then known only to the Latin Church , which did obtrude it on the World under the Name of the Apostles ; witness Preuotius , Feu ardentius , Baronius , the Paris Doctors in their Censures of Erasmus , and others , who take up the Cudgels from their old Pope Leo in the fifth Age , as he did from Ruffinus , and Ruffinus from the spurious Clemens in his Epistle to S. James ; which was ever rejected by all considering Men , because it appeared not in the Apostolick Ages ; and also mentions the death of St. Peter , who out lived this James , to whom it is directed . From Rome the Reformed Churches received this Doctrine , and that Rubrick of ours which calls it the Apostles Creed , is taken out of the Roman Breviary ; which our Reformers ( not fore-seeing the advantages the Socinians make of it ) thought of no such moment as to call for an Alteration . But when our Church composed the Articles of our Religion , she expresses her self thus , Article 8. that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed : which doth not only not affirm that it is theirs , but suggests that it is not . Du Pin , who is more judicious and impartial than his Predecessors , grants that it is the Apostles as to the Doctrine it contains , but denies it to be of their composure ; for he faith they ● ' avoient poynt comopsè de formule de foy , comprise en un certain nombrè de mots , have not composed a Formula of Faith comprised in a certain number of Words : he adds , Irenaeus and Tertullian did not intend la formule de foy , mais la foy meme , a Creed , or form of Faith , but the Faith it self . This is the Judgment of Vossius , Erasmus , our Perkins , and others : however some Men , who make a great noise about Antiquity , are pleased to take up an Error from others , instead of understanding the Authors they quote . Had it not been for these Socinian Impudences discovered in this Letter , and in the fifth to the Publisher , as well as in other of their Writings both at home and abroad ; I had rested in that of Calvin Instit . l. 2. c. 16. Ser. 18. Apostolicum nuncupo , de Authore interim minimè solicitus : I call it the Apostles , but in the mean time trouble not my head about the Author . But after all this , What ground hath this Letter for his Confidence ? It saith , pag. 23. this Creed is recited by S. Cyril , S. Cyprian , and Socrates in his Hist . lib. 1. c. 26. Quotations , that are true Socinian ; for they are false , but if true , are yet insufficient for their end . For did these Authors recite this Creed , yet how doth this prove the Apostolical Composure of it ? But Cyril of Jerusalem explains a Creed peculiar to that Church , which differs nothing material from that of Nice and Constantinople , except the Consubstantiality The English Reader may find it at the end of the Life of this Father written by Dr. Cave . S. Cyprian hath it not , unless he means a Piece bound up with him in the Oxford Edition , which is ascribed by some to S. Jerom , by others to Ruffinus . Which ( if so ) must betray either his Ignorance or Sophistry . Socrates indeed hath a Creed in the place quoted , but he there tells us , it was composed by Arius and Euzoius ; and begins thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We believe in one God the Father Almighty , and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son , who was made of him before all Ages , God the Word , by whom all things were made . This , he faith , is the Apostles Creed , which he so earnestly contends for ; where observe , 1. What trust we may repose in Socinian Quotations ; for if he is so false where he makes a particular Reference , what must the Reader expect where he only names an Author ? This Answer will prove what I here assert against the whole Party of 'em , That throughout this Letter , there is not one Quotation in seven , but what is either false , or not to his Purpose . If they will have this an Argument of their Learning , they may ; but I am sure it is no proof of their Honesty . 2. The Socinian denies that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation : but this Creed saith , That he was before all Ages , and made all things . I demand therefore of our Socinians , that they profess this Faith , or acknowledge themselves the Perverters of Truth , and Debauchers of Antiquity . And indeed ( like the Harpies ) they rarely settle upon any place , but they so pollute it , that it wants a laborious Pen to cleanse , and restore it to it self . He hath then Presumption only , but no colour of Proof , that the Apostles composed this Creed . We therefore proceed to the next part of our Argument . 2. Though this Creed , called the Apostles , doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost , yet it sufficiently teaches both . For , 1. It doth stile the Son his [ only ] Son ; which Words indeed in themselves import only this , That he is a Son in such sort as none else is , which the Socinian would perswade respects not his Divinity , but his being born of a Virgin : but take them together with the Scriptures , whence they are themselves taken , and by which they must be explained , and then it will sufficiently appear that his only Son is a Son by Nature . Whence S. Austin in Symb. l. 1. c. 2. Quando Unicum audis Dei filium , agnosce Deum , the only Son of God is God. This some other Parts of our Dispute will evince so far as the Letter hath led us to this Argument . But , 2. As to the Holy Ghost , he thinks nothing can be here pretended to prove him a Divine Person , excepting only the Phrase of believing with the Preposition [ in ] which is set also before the Church , and therefore can ascribe a Divinity to the one no more than to the other . But his Thoughts are very short , and dull . For though this hath been a common Error , which some at this day will hardly be drawn from ; yet we declare that we neither do , nor need for the establishing this Doctrine , hold any such force in this Phrase . See Dr. Hammod's Practical Catechism , lib. 5. Dr. Peirson , and Heylen upon this Article , who absolutely deny it ; because not this Creed only , but all Antiquity apply it to Men , and so do the Sacred Scriptures . They instance in Exod. 14. 31. The People believed [ in ] the Lord and [ in ] Moses ; and 1 Sam. 27. 20. Achish believed [ in ] David . To which we add that of our Blessed Saviour Joh. 5. 45. Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in whom ye believe , or trust , as we translate it . They , with Musculus , and others , impute the Notion to S. Austin and Jerom , whose Translation first omitted the Preposition in these Texts of the Old Testament , which other Translations follow . A little before these Fathers Greg. Naz. acknowledges the Preposition in the Translations of his time , but yet saith this Phrase ought to be applied to none but the Lord ; for the People did believe in Moses not as Moses , but as a Type of the Lord , and consequently this did not terminate in Moses , but did refer ultimately to the Lord. But he did not consider that Achish believed in David , but he could not believe in David as a Type of the Lord , when he knew neither the Lord , nor that David was any Type at all . Hence Ashwel took his Notion of the Peoples believing in Moses as subordinate to the Lord ; but there could be no such subordinate Faith in this Heathen Prince , who yet believed in David . This was therefore an Error growing and setling it self in the Church sometime before Jerom and Austin ; but however it was these two that fixed the Point , and by that Omission in that Translation , as well as otherwise occasioned others to e rt with them . But you will say then , where , or how doth this Creed teach the Divinity of the Holy Ghost ? I answer that the Son , and the Holy Ghost are put into this Creed as equally Objects of Faith and Worship with the Father ; and this is the very thing that declares the Divinity of both . Nor is this from Men , but from God ; for it was so done upon the special Precept of our blessed Saviour in the form of Baptism , which is the Original of all Creeds . I confess the Fathers use this Phrase in their Disputes for a Trinity . So Greg. Nys . to . 2. cont . Eunom . l. 1. if the Holy Ghost be not God , Tì 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Why do Men believe the H. Ghost ? But observe , he doth not here Dispute from the sole force of that Phrase of believing in , but from our believing in the Holy Ghost as well as in the Father , which makes the Blessed Spirit equally with the Father a sharer in our Faith , and Adoration . In this sense is Hila. Pict . Epist . de Trin. l. 9. who teaches that we cannot believe in the Father without the Son ; whence he concludes they must be the same in Nature : But this Conclusion is drawn not from the Form of the Expression that we believe in , but from the Matter expressed , that they are both equally the Objects of our Faith. And indeed there is no such Extravagance in the World as to teach that we believe in God , in a Creature , and a simple Power ; that he , who will not give his Glory to another , should set a meer Creature , and a naked Power , or Inspiration , which is no Person , equal with himself in the Faith and Adoration of his People . So falsly doth this Letter pretend from this Creed , that the Apostles did believe as the Socinians believe ; when neither did the Apostles compose it , nor is it any way servicable to the Socinian Hypothesis . SECT . V. Now , as if he had proved his Point , when he had proved nothing , but what we may safely grant him , he concludes p. 24. parag . 6. Theirs , viz. the Socinians , is an Accountable and a Reasonable Faith. Answ . A Faith just as Reasonable as this Inference : For as this is drawn from no due Premises , so that stands founded on neither Scripture , nor good Argument . A reasonable Faith indeed , which makes a Finite God , and an Infinite Creature ! Which denies the Son to be God , and yet doth Worship him ! A reasonable Faith , which cannot support itself without expunging some Texts out of the Sacred Canon , without transposing the parts of others contrary to the Ancient and most Authentick Reading , and without expounding some contrary to the very Letter , and most evident Design of the place ! Socinus himself was so sensible of the reasonableness of this Faith , that he not only rejects the sense of the Church , but in his Epistle to Balcerovicius he allows the offering any force to the Sacred Scriptures , rather than to their own Sentiments ; in which our present Socinians are his strict Disciples . And de Jesu Chris . Salvat . parag . 3. c. 6. to . 2. he vents himself thus , if I find such things , non semel , sed saepè ▪ — not once , but often in the Scriptures , non id circo tamen it a re● pror●us se habere crederem : I will not for all that belive it . And if this be an accountable and a reasonable Faith , which is founded not on the Scriptures , but on the Wills of Men , then all Heresies must be accountable , and reasonable too . But on the contrary , this must be a most unaccountable , and a most unreasonable , nay a blasphemous , and most dangerous Faith , which makes the Writings of Socinus , as Ma●●met did his Alcoran , the Peoples , Bible , and their Rule of Faith ! But that of the Trinitari●●s ( he saith ) is absurd , and contrary both to Reason , and it self : And therefore is not only false , but impossible . His Reason is , that we teach there are Three Almighty , and most Wise Persons , and yet but one God. Answ . The Scriptures cannot teach any thing absurd or impossible , but the Scriptures doteach there are three , who are but one God ; therefore this Doctrine of ours is not absurd and impossible . Now that there are three , who are but one God , is evident as from other Places , so likewise from 1 John 5. 7 , 8 ▪ There are three that bear record in Heaven , the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost ; and those three are one ▪ And there be three that bear ▪ Witness in Earth ; the Spirit , the Water ▪ and the Bloud ; and these three agree in one . Which Texts I will so clear from all their Cavils ▪ that they shall sufficiently vindicate our Doctrine from being absurd and impossible . Euiedinus , and the rest , would expunge the last Clause in the 7th Verse , these three are one . Because ▪ 1. Some Fathers , who wrote professedly on the Trinity , have i● not : Whence he makes them to be added by some Enemy of the Arians . Ans . 1 St. Cyprian in the middle of the Age before Arius hath this Text intire de Vnit Ecc●es and St. Jerom soon after Arius censures the Omission of this Clause . Now that of Eniedinus is impossible , for these Words could not be added by some Enemy of the Arians , in the time of St. Cyprian , who flourished almost an Age before Arius himself was . But the careless , or designed Omission of 'em is necessarily true , because the 4 th Age wanted them , after St Cyprian in the 3 d Age had ' em . Nor do we find many that quarrell'd with St. Jerome for censuring this Omission , which some would certainly have done , had he not had a ground for this Censure : which is an Argument that St. Cyprian himself had this Clause , and that it was not afterwards foysted in by some other hand . 2 They plead , that V. 7. is not in the Syriac , nor Arabick , whence some reject the whole . Ans . We grant it ; but V. 8. is in both ; which is linked to V. 7. by a Conjunction Copulative [ and ] ; beside which , the Sense , Coherence and Dependance of these with , and upon one another , speak this imperfect without that . Whence Beza ( whom Letter 4 , p. 152 quotes on his side ) saith both must be expunged , or reteined together ; and then concludes for the reteining both . And indeed this Case is so clear , that since the Socinians receive V. 8 , they must receive V. 7. too , or renounce their own reason . We proceed to confirm the whole Verse to be authentick . 1. These words [ I and my Father are one ] are allowed on all hands to be St. John's ; therefore rhose Words [ these Three are One ] from the Likeness both of Stile and Matter , seem to be his too . For such a Likeness between Text and Text , is as good an Argument ( according to the proportion of Matter ) to prove that each have the same Author , as it is between that Gospel and his Epistle ; But all Learned Men allow of this Argument , therefore the Socinian must allow of that , or differ from the World of the Learned , as they do already from the World of Christians . 2. Our Learned Bishop of Salisbury , Dr. Burnet , in his Letter from Zurie , observes that among Ten Copies he had seen abroad , Nine had either the 7 th V. or St. Jerome's Epistle , or Preface , which condems the Omission , while One only wanted both . Therefore among Ten Copies one only was purely Arian , or Socinian ; because the Omissions in them that wanted , are condemned not only by that Epistle , or preface , but by them also who added that Epistle or Preface to those Copies . 3. Suppositions grant nothing ; therefore suppose we , that this Text it self is not authentick ; yet the Matter of it is taught by all those Scriptures , which assert the Divinity of the Father , the Word and the Holy Ghost , and the Existence of but one God ; for they , taken together do assert that these Three are One ; that is , One God , or One in Nature , therefore was the Socinian a Man of that Reason he pretends , he could not think the expunging this Text out of the Sacred Canon , of so much moment , when divers others taken together speak the same thing . He is then imployed about a Work he can never effect ; or if effected , yet can do him but little , if any service . For which reasons they betake themselves to other Methods . For they farther plead , If this Text be Authentick yet it cannot intend one in Nature , but One in Testimony , because each verse speaks of each three as Witnesses . Ans . True , each intend Testimony , as Beza Calvin , Erasmus and others observe : But this doth not prove that v 7. intends no more ; nor do these Authors Exclude an Unity of Nature . But the variation of the Phrase implies a restriction of the matter . For v. 7. saith , the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost , are One ; which is equally extendible to Nature , and Testimony : But v. 8. saith , the Spirit , the Water , and the Blood , agree in One : Which is applicable not to Nature , but to Testimony , especially where Testimony is mentioned , or evidently intended ; therefore we understand the former of One in Nature , and Testimony both : else we do not take the Phrase in its full latitude , nor make it comport with those other Texts , which declare the Divine Nature of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : And yet that these three are but One True , and Almighty God , because that Nature is numerically one , in which they all agree : But we understand the latter of Testimony only , because the phrase designs no more , nor do any other Scriptures declare that the Spirit , the Water , and the Blood , do agree in Nature , as the other do . But they insist thus , The Expounding , v. 7. of Nature , doth lose the design of these Texts , which speak of Testimony . Ans . The Expounding it of Nature only , exclusive of Testimony , would have gave some colour of Reason to his Objection : But we Expound it both of Nature , and Testimony too ; which Exposition doth not lose , but secure the design of this Text. For since they are One in Nature , and that Nature is Divine , they must be One in Testimony , and that Testimony must be infallible too ; because three Divine Persons , who are one in Nature , can neither agree in a false Testimony , nor disagree in that Testimony they give . Can we now think that this Doctrine , which teaches there are Three , who are but one God , is false , and impossible ; when it is so evidently founded on this , and other concurring Texts , which are the Word of Truth ; and which therefore can teach nothing which is false and impossible ? If any thing we teach seems absurd , and contradictory ; or false and impossible ( as the Letter words it ) it is not from the Doctrine it self , but from the Socinians Misrepresentation of it . For , 1. They say we teach that there are but One ; hereby suggesting to others , and arguing themselves , as if we mean in One respect only ; which is indeed impossible . Whereas we teach , that Three in one respect are but One in another ; which ( according to their own Doctrine ) takes away the Impossibility . For the Socinian himself grants us , upon these Words , I and my Father are One , that Two in one respect may be but One in another : And if Two may be One , why not Three ? Since the difficulty lies not between Two and One , but between a Plurality whether they be Two , or Three , and an Vnity . They allow the Thing , it is only the Modus , or Manner , how Two , or Three , can be but One , in which we differ . Therefore since we so far agree , they ought to set forth how we hold Three to be hut One , together with our Reasons for this Doctrine ; which would lead even a prejudiced Reader to some deliberation : and not by a partial and Sophistical Representation , make our Doctrine seem prima facie , absurd and impossible , to the end they may huff off all consideration of it . Indeed their manner of Vnion is common among Men ; but if ours is plainly founded on Divine Revelation , as we maintain it is , the singularity of the thing is not able to destroy the Thing it self ; and therefore ought in Justice to be so proposed , as to leave Men to examine and consider it ; and not to be rejected without either . 2. They say , Let. p. 159. we teach there are Three Persons , who are severally , and each of them the true , and most high God ; and yet there is but One true , and most high God. Ans . We teach , there are Three Divine Persons , who together are the true and most high God. They are every one a Divine Person , or God , as they have every one a Divine Nature ; but they are together the true and most high God ; as that Divine Nature is but One , tho common to all Three . The Distinction arises from the distinct manner of Subsistence ; but the Unity from the Sameness of Essence . This speak Three that are God , but not Three Gods , because these are all within the Godhead , as having but one and the same Substance ; and consequently can be but One God. 3. Their Objections arise from the want of Parallel Instances in Nature ; whence they speak it absurd , and impossible : but the Absurdity lies on their side , who measure Supernatural things by Natural , and will believe nothing of God but what they see in the Creature ; as if an Infinite Nature must be in all things commensurable to the Nature and Thoughts of what is Finite . 4. They declare it absurd and impossible , because we cannot demonstrate the manner of it , how Three can be but One ; when th● thing being matter of pure Revelation we had known nothing of it , unless it had b●en Revealed ; and therefore now can know no more , than is revealed . Now it is revealed that the Father is God , the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost is God ; and yet these are not Three Gods , but One God. But how this is , Revelation doth not tell us . Therefore we are not absurd , who teach what the Scriptures teach ; but they are absurd in demanding more . The Church indeed uses the distinction of Personal and Essential ; that they are Three Personally , and but One Essentially ; that is , they are Three Persons , and but One God. Not that these Terms are fully , and so clearly expressive of this Mystery , as to remove all Cavils and Difficulties ; but that she may ( the best she can ) express her own Sense , the Sense of Antiquity , and the import of those Scriptures that respect a Trinity . Let them give us more proper , and significant Terms , and we will use them ; but let them not reject a Divine Truth for the sake of those Terms which Heresie hath forced us to make use of . 5. This method of theirs implies a whole train of Absurdities , for we are to prove , First , [ That ] a thing is ; and then [ how ] it is : If we prove the former , that must be granted , because proved ; though we should never be able to prove the Latter . But they ( contrary to all the Rules of Art , and method ) require us to prove [ how ] it is ; in order to their believing [ that ] it is : And do reject that part , which is proved , only because the other is not . According to this method they must deny a thousand things , which they see , which all Mankind will say is absurd with a witness . They say p. 158 , that Interpretation of Scripture can never be true , that holds forth either a Doctrine , or a Consequence , that is absurd , contradictory , or Impossible . Ans . We readily grant it , and such is that of the Anthropomorphites mentioned in the next Page . For God is a Spirit , but not a Body . Because body is compounded of parts , is subject to Dissolution , and cannot be in all places at once ; therefore those Scriptures , which ascribe humane parts to God , cannot be true in a literal sense ; but only in an improper one . And when these Men have proved such an absurdity , contradiction , ot impossibility in the Doctrine of a Trinity , we will dispute no more . They may indeed prove that three Men cannot be one ; or one Man three ; but as the Learned Bishop of Worcester , Dr. Stillingfleet , observes , they can never prove that an infinite Nature cannot communicate it self to three different Subsistences , without such a division as is among created Beings : Because a Finite capacity can never comprehend the Powers , and Operations of an infinite Nature . So absurd are these Men as to decry revealed Truths for absurd , and impossible , only because they cannot understand them . Should they do the like in natural things , they would quickly become the contempt of Mankind . We are not ashamed to own a Mystery in the Divine Nature , when we find little but Mystery in common Nature her self . Nor can we think it unreasonable that God should command us to believe that a thing is ; though he hath not told us how it is ; any more than it is unreasonable that Nature should oblige us to assent , where the most refined reason can find no place of Entrance . God hath revealed so much as is fit for us to know ; and ignorance is neither a Sin , nor a Reproach , where he hath not instructed us . But we must declare it not absurd only , but blasphemous too , to deny what God hath told us , only because he hath not told us more ; or not baffled our Cavils by a demonstration ; as if , they dare not believe him any farther than they can see . A right Nicodemus temper , which stumbles at Divine Truths only with an — How can these things be ? Sect. 6. From their Reasonable Faith he proceeds to complement its professors for Learned , and Reasonable Men : Which ( he saith ) is their Character among their worst Adversaries . Ans . We do not envy what Learning , and Reason they are thought to have : But we charge them with the abuse of both ▪ Their Guilt this way will easily appear to any , that can but understand an Author ; their Arguments being fallacious , and their Quotations false . But as for this Epistler ( poor Man ) though we cannot admire his Talents , yet we must declare he misimploys that little he hath . This will abundantly appear as from what he hath done , so likewise from his History of the Sorinians , which we now proceed to . For p. 26 ▪ thus , those , whom we call Socinians , were by the Fathers , and first Ages of Christianity , called Nazarens , by which name St. Paul is accused before Felix , Acts 29. 5. Ans . A Christian signifies a Disciple of Christ ; and Nazaren in this place a Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth : And did then denote nor a Party , but the whole Body of Christians : So Epiphanius adv . Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all Christians were then called Nazarens ; and that by way of contempt from the Jews , as they afterwards were Galilaeans by the Apostate . They are indeed branded for a Sect in the place quoted , but not as a party broke off from the body of Christians , but as the Church of Christ now separated from the Jews . I beseech you then what peculiar honour , and advantage can the Socinians claim to themselves from hence , was the thing they plead true , when , as Christians , they have this honour , but in common with others ; and , as Sorinians , can pretend to but one of the smallest shares of it ? The same Father , c. 7. tells us of a Sect of Nazarens , even before the Incarnation , tho indeed Petavius rejects the Account ; nor can I see any sufficient grounds for it ; but however I mention it to pleasure our Socinians , who are seeking a Pedigree . Therefore take it thus , some of these ( he saith ) professed Christ , but denied his Divinity ; in other things they were Jews still ▪ for they observed Circumcision , the Sabbath , and other Ceremonies ; and therefore stood distinct both from Jews and Christians . Whence Jerom ▪ Epist . ad Aug. gives this Character of 'em ; viz. they are called Minaeans , or Nazarens ; sed dum Volunt & Judaei esse , & Christiani ; nec Judaei sunt , nec Christiani ; While they would pass both for Jews and Christians , they are neither . And if these Men will claim from hence , you have in them this Character of a Socinian , That he is one who is neither ▪ Jew nor Christian . Hence I suppose this Epistler is none of the Reasonable , or Learned among them , since he hath mentioned this either to no purpose , or to his own disadvantage . He there saith , they were also called Ebionites . Ans . These were of two sorts , Euseb . Hist . l. 3. c. 27. the one held , that Christ was born of Joseth and Mary ; the other of the Holy Ghost , and the Virgin. But both observed Jewish Rites , and rejected St. Paul's Epistles , calling him an Apostate . They received no Gospel but Sr. Matthew , and that mutilated too : Epiphan . adv . Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 30. which Petavius observes was depraved by them , and was the same with the Gospel to the Hebrews , which was used by none but Hereticks . Orig. cont . Cels . l. 5. saith , they teach the Law , and reject the Epistles of St. Paul. And Optat ▪ Mileu . l. 4. they held it was not the Son , but the Father that suffered . They were these Men who troubled the Apostles , and drew their Disciples back to Mosaic Rites , under Menander , Cerinthus , and others , whose Heresy was substantially the same for divers Ages . Whence St. Paul brands them for False Brethren , Gal. 2. 4. elsewhere for corrupters of the Word ; and such as he in wait to deceive . This was the Reason they rejected his Epistles , because he so constantly censures them . And Ebion himself was branded by all Antiquity for one of the Gnostic Hereticks , Tertul ▪ de Praes . Haer. c. 33. Yet our Socinian Author makes himself , and Party , the same with these ! No matter what poyson men suck in ▪ so they deny the Divinity of Christ ! This one Bleasphemy sanctifies all ! By this Rule they are the same with Simon Magus , the Father of Hereticks ; and with the Devil , the Father of Lies ; for they both denied the Divinity of the Son ; the one in making himself a Saviour , the other in tempting him ; excepting this , that the Devil afterwards confessed this Truth , which the Socinian still denies . An hopeful Brood indeed , that Glories in such Fathers . He proceeds , the Socinians were also called , Artemonites , Theodotians , Symmachians , Paulinists , Samosatenians , Photinians , and Monarchians . Ans . Grant this , and it must be granted too , that as these Men were always condemned for Hereticks , so the Socinians were always condemned in them . And strange it is they should always be in the right , and yet be always condemned for it ? They were called Artemonites , Photinians , &c. to signifie they were the Followers , not of Christ , but of Artemon , Photinus , &c. And did the Socinians seriously reflect upon their Blasphemies , and their palpable Corruptions both of the Letter and Sense of the Sacred Scriptures , as well as of all Antiquity ; it nearly concerns them to consider how far this is applicable to themselves ; that is , in plain English , whether the Name [ Socinian ] doth not better suit them than that of [ Christian . ] The Monarchians boasted , that they held the World was governed by a Monarchy ; that is , by One God , in opposition to the Orthodox , who ( they say ) introduced Three Gods , by the Doctrine of a Trinity . Whence I grant , that these , and our Socinians are Men of the same Pride and Falshood . In answer to whom the Orthodox always declared ( as we do ) that they held no other than a Monarchy , and that the Doctrine of a Trinity is no way contradictory to this . For when some in Tertullian adv . Prax. c. 3. cried , Monarchian tenemus ; We profess but One God. he proves , that the Orthodox , or ( If he will ) the Trinitarians , did hold but One God too : for Proof of which he argues , c. 4. that he deduces the Son from the Substance of the Father , and the Holy Ghost from both ; which doth no way destroy , but ( as he there pleads ) confirms a Monarchy ; for being all Three but of One Substance , or Nature , they can be all Three but One God. Upon the same bottom the most strenuous asserters of a Trinity did ever maintain this Doctrine . Athanas . To. 1. cont . Ari. Ora. 5. declares , that the Government of the World is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by but One God. Greg. N●z . who triumphed over Eunomius , Ora. 35. observes , that there are Three Opinions about God , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Anarchy , which ( with Epicaras ) denies the Divine Government ; Pelyarchy , which ( with the rest of the Gentiles ) asserts its Government by many Gods ; and Monarchy , which is by but One God. The two first ( he saith ) introduce Confusion , while the last only can keep the World in Order . And Euseb . de Eccles . Theol. l. 1. c. 11. observes , that tho the Church teaches that Form ( meaning in the Nicene Creed ) God of God , yet she designs hereby not Two Gods , but Two persons in the God head . Now had these Sveinians first destroyed this Notion , by proving that a Trinity must import , not Three persons in the God head , but Three Gods ; and then valued themselves upon these Names of Monarchians , and Vnitarians , they had acted like Men : But their insisting upon these terms without disproving our Doctrine , speaks them as wretched as their Cause ; the one Barren , the other Blind , since both are forced to call in exploded Cavils to support them . Hence he proceeds to Glory in some Men of Name among them , as Theodotion and Symmachus , both of whom Translated the Old Testament into Greek , and by Eusebius are called Ebionites , or Nazarens . Ans . Eusebius speaks them Ebionites , but not a word there of a Nazaren ; under which name he vainly strives to sweeten himself , and Party ; that they might seem to appear with some little face of honest Christianity . We acknowledg their Translation of the Old Testament , but being branded for Ebionites , we must presume they denied great part of the New : As for Symmachus , he is expresly said to reject the Gospel of St. Matthew . Therefore since our Socinians so passionately desire to pass for Ebionites , that I may gratify 'em what I can ; I grant 'em there is one good reason why it should be so , and that is , as the Ebionites reject some parts of Scripture , and corrupt others ; so do the Socinians too ; and now at length scoff at the Divine Authority of the Whole . The matter is too plain to be denied ; I have sometimes heard it my self , and know of persons that complain of some under their charge , that are debauched in their Principles and Manners by such Doctrines . But whether these are the strict fort of Socinians , or Socinians at large ▪ viz. Atheists and Deists that now heard among them , I think they ought to acquaint us . But let old Theodotion , and Symmachus be what they will , what is the Glory of having these two on their side , when the whole Church was against them ? It must be a miserable Crap , where such gleanings are their Vintage . But they have a third , it seems , Paulus of Samasatum , p. 27 ▪ a Man both Learned and Eloquent . Ans . He did indeed deny the Divinity of the Son , which is the only thing ( it seems ) that makes him great and good . For Eusebius H. l. 7. c. 27. and the Synodical Letter , c. 30. say , He had neither Wealth , nor Learning , but made himself vastly rich by Sacriledg , and Oppression . His Pride was unmeasurable , be walked the Streets with Guards — He abolished the Psalms Sung in Honour of our Saviour , and had others Sung in praise of himself . He incouraged , and protected the Wicked , gaining to his side the worst of men . Prateolus among other things saith , He was proud and simple . He taught that Christ was more for the Jewish than the Christian Religion ; whence he taught Circumcision : Of a Beggar he became Rich by Sacriledg , Oppression and Knavery . These are the Characters of an Heretie , which neither himself nor Friends could ever Answer , and whom the vilest object would blush to own , unless a Socinian , who would fain Adorn themselves with this mans Glories ; like the wild Savages , who dressed up themselves with the guts of Beasts . His next man i Photinus of Si●mium , who being deposed by the Council , his City would not part from him , till the Emperor sent an Army to Expel him . Ans . 1. Praleonus , Haev l. 14. 25 ▪ saith , Photinus held that Christ was a mere Man , Ex utroque sexu natum , born of both Sexes ; but this the Socinians deny , for they hold he was Born of the Holy Ghost , and of the Virgin ; therefore this letter is false in reckning Photinus one of them . 2. But however an Heretick he was , and therefore a Party with the Socinians ; and ( it seems ) so dear to his City , that the Emperor was obiiged to Expel him by an Army . Suppose it ; yet had this man considered how often Constantius imposed his Arian Creatures by Force and sometimes Established 'em by Blood ; he must have expected to lose more than he thought to have gained by this Plea. 3. This is an Appeal from the Government both Civil , and Ecclesiastical to the Mob ; an Argument that his Heresie had left him but few , if any Friends of Sense and Judgment . He proceeds to Eusebius , H. l. 5. c. 2 and Theodoret. Haer. Fab. c. 2. de Artem. And pretends , they say , that these Nazarens constantly affirmed , that they derived their Doctrine from the Apostles , — And that it was the genenal Doctrine of the Church , till the Popes , Victor and Zepherine , set themselves to root it up . Ans . Neither of these in the places quoted , mention a Nazaren : But the Heresie of Arlemon , renewed by Paulus Samofatensis , who taught that Christ is no more than Man. Eusebius saith indeed , there were some who affirmed that all the Antients , and the Apostles themselves , taught this Doctrine , and that it continued till Victor and Zepherine . But he calls this an impiouse Lye , and proceeds , Perhaps this might seem credible , did not the sacred Scriptures , and the Writings of certain Brethren , more Antient than Victor , contradict them ; I mean Justin , Miltiades ▪ Tatian , Clemens and many others ▪ in all whose Books the Divinity of Christ is taught . For who knows not the Writings of Irenaeus , Melito , &c in which Christ is set forth as both God and Man ? The Psalms and Canticles of the Brethren written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from the beginning — ascribe a Divinity to him . Seeing then this was so long since the Doctrine of the Church , how can it be , that all men to the time of Victor could teach that Doctrine which these men hold ? — Theodoret , in the place cited , saith , that Artemon pretended the Apostles taught that Christ was a mere Man , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Perverting the sense of the Sacred Scriptures . This exactly agrees with that of Eusebius Therefore this Letter wisely refers us to those very places of Antiquity , which declare that Doctrine to be Heresie , and condemn the Maintainers of it of Falshood and Impudence , which yet it self would support . He told us the Socinians are Learned and Reasonable Men , but I hope this is not one of his Proofs of it . However , the Letter proceeds , Victor ( say the Socinians ) began to persecute the Apostolic Doctrine of One God , or ( which is the same ) that God is One in the Year 194 but with little success , till that which was afterwards the Doctrine of the Arians , grew into general credit ; — for Justin Martyr , Origen , and other principal Fathers , teaching ( as the Arians afterwards did ) that the Father is before the Son , and the Holy Ghost , in Time , Dignity , and Power ; yet that the Word , or Son , — was ereated sometime before the World , — and that the Holy Ghost was the Creature of the Son. Ans . The Letter tells us , That the Socinians say this ; and indeed it may pass for a Socinian Story ; for it hath not one Word of Truth in it . For , 1. The Doctrine of One God , or that God is One ; that is , One person , as they explain it , never was the Apostolic Doctrine , as Eus●bius , now quoted by himself , doth declare , both from the Scriptures , and from the most ancient Fathers , as well as from the Hymns composed in honour of Christ , from the beginning of the Cospel . 2. The Doctrine of One God , or that God is One ; that is , not One person exclusive of other persons , but One God exclusive of other Gods , was the Doctrine of the Apostles and Apostolic Men , appears from the same place in Eusebius , and from all the same Topicks already mentioned . 3. That Victor did persecute , and root out the Heresie be contends for , doth not appear from any Monuments of those times , nor is in any reason to be supposed , because that Heresie had not then obtained in that Church ; and what he did was only ( according to the common Rules , and Practice of the Church ) to quash this Heresie in its beginning . 4. The Letter makes it , that that pretended Persecutition did little succeed , till it was assisted by the Doctrine of Justin Martyr , and Origen , which supposes that their Doctrine began under that Persecution , which is impossible : for this Persecution ( the Letter saith ) began A. D. 194. but Justin suffered about 30 years before that time , and Origen did not appear till the middle of the Age after . And , 5. Neither these , nor any other Fathers , from the Apostles , to Origen , did ever teach any such Doctrine , which might be easily proved by an induction of Particulars , so far as their Works are come down to our hands . Justin Martyr saith indeed , Apol. p. 60. that beside the Father , we worship the Son , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the second place ; and the Holy Ghost , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the third . Now here is a Priority of Order or Prace ; but where is that of Time and Power ? Not in this Father , I am sure , but in the Socinian Comment only . We charge him with Falshood ; let him clear himself by a particular Reference . What Justin here saith , ever was , and still is the Doctrine of the Church . So Novat . de Trin. c. 31. Pater qua pater — the Father , as Father , is before the Son , and yet he declares , that the Son is co-eternal and co-essential with the Father ; which speaks ( as we said ) a Priority of Order or Place , but not of Time , because the Father and Son are co-eternal . This must necessarily be the Sense of our Justin ; for in the same Apology , p. 64. he saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We worship God only . Wence any Man in his Wits must conclude , that they held , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are God ; Else how could they worship all Three ▪ and yet worship none but God ? And if they are God , they cannot be after the Father , in Time , or Power , but must be co-eternal , and co-equal with him . Had Justin taught , that the Son , and Holy Ghost are after the Father in time , and yet had worshipp'd them , he would hereby have totally ruin'd the very Reason , and Design of this , as well as of other Apologies ; which were purposely written to justifie the Christians , who suffered any thing rather than worship the Gentile Gods , for this very Reason , that they were not from Eternity , and consequently were not Gods , but Creatures . Our Socinian ( it seems ) thinks it enough to Name an Author , tho he can find nothing in him to his purpose ; having neither Authority , nor Argument for what he saith . Iren l. 3. c 26. Indeavours to prove that the Son is God by Nature , and after some time spent on this Argument , thus diligenter , igitur significavit Spiritus Sanctus , per ea quae dicta sunt , generationen ejus quae ex Virgine , & substatiam quoniam deus . The blessed Spirit diligently signifies by what things are spoken , his Generation , which is of the Virgin , and his substance as he is God. By his Generation he intends his humane Nature , and by his Substance as God the Divine . This ( he saith ) is expressed , Isa . 7. 14. by that word [ Immanuel ] God with us , of God in our Nature . He proceeds ; his humanity appea●s from his eating Butter , and Hony , and his Divinity from his choosing the good , and refusing the Evil , v. 15. This last ( he saith ) is added , least by his eating Butter , and Hony , mude solummodo eum hominem intelligeremus , we should think he is merely Man : And again the Word [ Immanuel ] intimates that we cannot see God in his own Nature , but as he is manifested in our's . It is therefore impossible that Irenaeus should hold that the Son is God as to Title , or Office only , as the Arians afterwards did ; when he so plainly teaches that he understood him to be God in the Trinitarian sense , and that is in Substance , or Nature . This shows what sense we are to take him in , l. 1. c. 2. where he lays down this as one Article in the Christian Faith , that Christ is Lord , and God ▪ which Faith ( he faith ) the Church throughout the World received , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the Apostles , and Apostolic Men : And c. 3. this Faith the Church keeps as if she had but one Soul , and but one Heart ; where observe 1. That [ God ] must here signifie God by Nature , or Substance , because he so explained himself in the place before quoted . 2. It is impossible that the Doctrine against the Divinity of the Son could be the Doctrine of the Church from the Apostles to Victor ; when the Deity of the Son was the Doctrine of the whole Church from the Apostles to Irenaeus ; who was cotemporary with Victor , as appears from the Fragments of his Epistle to this Victor himself in Euseb . H. l. 5. c. 24. Clemens of Alexandria , who flourished under Victor , and Zepherine both ▪ is as clear in this matter , ●as Pen can write , for he not only saith adm . ad Gent. that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . both God and Man ; and Paed. l. 2. he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . which I can render no better than in the Words of the Apostle , 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Fiesh , but he also ascribes those things to the Son , which all Men must grant us , can be true of none , but God : For Strom. l. 7. the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indivisible , removes not from place to place ; but is in all places , but is contained in none . Again he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Mind , all Eye , beholding all things . This sufficiently proves Clemens no Arian , since he so manifestly declares the Divine nature of the Son. Strom. l. 5. he Collects certain Notions out of Plato , which ( he saith ) can signify nothing else , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the Holy Trinity . For he puts the Father as the cause of all things , then descends to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a second , who is conversant about second things , and to a third , who is imployed about third things ; he seems to understand by the former the Son , who continues ; and by the latter the Holy Ghost , who finishes things . This ( he saith ) Plato had from the Hebrews ; which Argument he abounds in , pleading that the Gentiles had their choicest Notions from the Jews mediately , or immediately . But whether this was the sense of Plato or not ; is totally foraign from my Argument . It is enough to me that this Father is so far from being either Arian or Socinian , that he looked upon the Doctrine of a Trinity as so plain a Truth , that he thought an Heathen could spell it out of the Old-Testament . Tertullian wrote under Zepherine , if not under Vict r too ; and yet adv . Prox. c. 2. satih , the Divinity of the Son was taught from the beginning : and what he understands by his Divinity , himself explains c. 3. where he declares that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father . These are most undenyable Proofs of the shameless impudence of this Letter , which will have all the principle Fathers of those times to be Patrons of the Arian Herefy . As for Origen , he not only lived in the Age after Victor , but also upon Revel . 1. 8. I am Alpha , and Omega , , the first , and the last , — the Almighty ; doth declare that in these words St. John asserts the Divinity of the Son. These things so totally ruine this part of the Letter , which would have Arianism the swaying Religion of those times , that I should perswade my self they would never more offer these falshoods to the World ; did I not find , they have the Confidence to revive old rotten Heresies ; and both to adorn , and support their own by them , who were the worst of Men , as well as the most erroneous of Christians . However the Letter proceeds p. 28 , 29 this Doctrine being advanced by Justin , Origen , and others , became the more currant Doctrine of the Church , till in the Council of Nice it was Condemned , and another more popular ( and so more taking ) than that ( as attributing to the Son Eternity , and Equality with the Father ) did generally obtain . Ans . As Justin , Origen , and others of Note in the Church ( as the Letter speaks ) never taught any such Doctrine ; so the Council of Nice did Establish no other , but what had always been the Doctrine of the Church , according to that of Athanasius de Synod . Nicaen . decret . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Faith Established at Nice , is the Faith of the Catholick Church . What this Father saith , we may easily prove both as to the Doctrine it self , and also as to the terms , that express it . 1. The Doctrine Established at Nice is this , that the Son is of the same Substance , Essence , or nature with the Father ; and therefore is properly God as the Father is ; but that this was always the Doctrine of the Church , is sufficiently evident from what we have already cited from Justin Martyr , Irenaeus , Clemens of Alexandria , and Tertullian . To whom I shall add Ignatius , who was cotemporary with the Apostles . That his Epistles are Genuine , is acknowledged by their beloved Sandius ; and is Proved by Doctor Peirson against Dailly , even to the shame of all future doubts , and opposition . These often stile the Son God , Epist . ad S nyr . begins thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I glorifie Jesus Christ , who is God. And p. 7. Vos . Edit . he asserts the Divinity again . But I refer the Reader to one Place , which can never be evaded by any Arian , or Socinian Artifice ; and that in his Epist . ad Ephes . there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In which words the Author doth distinguish between the Humane and Divine Nature of Christ ; for he Catnal and Spiritual ; of Mary and of God ; he is begotten and unbegotten ; i. e. begotten as Man , and unbegotten as God : For his Eternal Generation respects not his Nature , by which he is God , but his Person , by which he is the Son of God. Again , he is passible , and impassible ; that is , passible , as Man ; so not only his Body was peirced ▪ and crucified ; but Mat. 26. 38. his Soul was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , exceeding sorrowful ; or encompassed round with Sorrows ; whence proceeded his Agonies and Bloody Sweat : therefore he is Impossible only as God. This ( I think ) considered together with the whole Quotation , demonstrates , that it is the Design of this Author to assert the Divine Nature of Christ , because nothing but that can be Vnbegotten , and Impassible . 2. The Terms in which this Council doth assert the Divine Nature of the Son , are , that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , consubstantial , or of the same Substance with the Father ; but this was no invention of that Council . For Iren. l. 3. c. 26. but now quoted , saith ▪ that his generation of the Virgin speaks him man ; but his substance speaks him God : And if so , he must be God in substance ; and if God in substance , he must be as the same substance with the Father ; because there can be but one Divine Substance , Essence , or Nature ; as there is but One God. Tertullian is more large in this Point ; for adv . P●ax . c. 2. and 3. he expresly saith , that the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are Three ; — non substantia , not in Substance ; that is , they are not substantially distinct ; but they are Vnius substantiae , of one , and therefore of the same Substance . Now , I pray , what is the difference between the Fa h r and the Son 's being Vnius Substantiae , of our Substance ; and between the Son's being ( in the Phrase of Nice ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantial with the Father ? Even none . For he that is consubstantial with another , must be of the same substance with that other . In the same place the same Father varies the Phrase , but keeps to the matter ; saying , that he deduces the Son de Substantia Patris , from the Substance of the Father ; which implies what is imported by the two other Phrases . And this ( he saith ) was taught ab i●tio Evangelii , from the beginning of the Gospel . Therefore the Nicene Council did determine no more in this partscular , than what was taught by the Church , even from the beginning of the Church it self . So plain is it , that the Nicene Fathers did neither invent any New Terms , nor impose any New Doctrine ; but did only declare and confirm that which was the Doctrine of the ▪ hurch from the Apostles themselves . This gives Credit to not only what we have quoted from Athunasius already , but also to that Passage in his Epistle ad Episc . in Afric . that the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria , did from an hundred and thirty years since condemn those who denied that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father . But the Arian Doctrine , which teaches , that the Son was indeed before the World , but not from Eternity ; and that there was a Time in which the Son was not , is no where found in the First Ages of the Church ; but was condemned as a New Monster in Religion in the Fourth . So Athanas . cont . Art. Or a. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — who hath heard such things as these ? And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . This is not from the Fathers , but is of Yesterday . And Hilar. Pict . Episc . ad Constant . August . l. it is novella lu●s , a New Pest ; a Pest that hath no more of Antiquity , than of Trnth to sweeten it . And indeed it was not any of the ancient Fathers ( as this Letter falsly pretends ) , but Arius , a Presbyter of Alexandria , in the 4 th Age of the Church , that invented that Heresie , from whom it took the Name of Arianism . As he was she first , who in this way sought to undermine , and subvert the Divinity of the Son , so he had somewhat a like Exit with Judas , who betrayed him . For as this Traytor burst asunder , and his Bowels gushed out ; so this Heretic , presently upon his Perjury , whereby he would seem to abjure , but still retain the Poyson of his Heresie , voided his bowels in a common Jakes . This was thought a Warning-Piece to the Arians then ▪ and ought to be considered by the Socinians now ; since they have improved this Heresie , as the Pharisees did their Proselytes , by making it sevenfold more the Child of Hell than it was ; it being in some degrees more gross ▪ daring , and anti-scriptural ; and carried on by no less Falshood , Treachery , and Wickedness than the other ; excepting the Formality of an Oath , and that Blood , and Tortures , which these Men have not the power of . The Letter proceeds , p. 29. But did Superstition stop here ● No. For there shortly arose another Doctrine , that the Son and Holy Ghost , are the sa●e God with the Father , not only ( as the Nicene Fathers explained the Matter ) by Vnity of Wills , and specifick Identity , or sameness of Substance , but by numerical , or true Identity , and sameness of Substance and Nature . Ans . 1. This Council did intend a numerical Unity , or sameness of Substance ▪ that there might be no room left for any Cavils about three Gods. 2. The Church was so far from any new Doctrine , that that Age , as well as the next did celebrate this Creed as the standing Rule of Faith to all the Churches . Epiphan . adv . Haer. l 2. to c. Haer. 72. calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ecclesiastical Rule of Faith. Greg. Nys . to 2. cart . Eunom . l. 1. in our Creed there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word consubstantial , which must be the Creed of Nice ▪ and yet this is Ours . Basil to 3 Epistle 6. recites this , and calls it the Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in use with you . Ambros . de fid . l. 1. c. 8 , 9. quotes part of this Creed about the Consubstantiality , and then saith , this is the Doctrine of the Church , which anathematizes them ▪ that teach otherwise . And Evag. H. l 3. c. 17. this was used in Baptism then , as the Creed called the Apostles is now with us ; and was confirmed by the next General Council at Constantinople . They all kept up to this Rule , and intended the same thing ; though they did not all agree in the manner of explaining , and proving it . What room then there could be here left for any new Doctrine soon after this Council at Nice , I am yet to learn. Sect. 7. Hence he proceds to some Eminent Authors , who ( the Letter saith ) are either Arian or Socinian . 1. Erasmus is thought an Arian , p. 31. to coulour which pretence , he quoates him upon Philip. 2. 6. and Ephes . 5. 5. Ans . The former Text , he thinks , doth respect not his Nature , but the manner of his appearance and behaviour : But yet he grants us that Christ is God , though he thinks this Text doth not prove it . And on Ephes . 5. 5. the Kingdom of God , and of Christ : he declares that these words do not deny the Divinity of the Son. But had this Letter pursued Truth , and not the support of an Error , it would likewise have told the Reader , that upon John 1. 1. The Word was God ; he asserts that there is Divinam Essentiam tribus personis Communem ; a Divine Essence common to three Persons : Which is all we contend for ; and which alone speaks Erasmus himself as true a Trinitarian , as the Author of the Athanasian Creed . His Paraphrase upon this clause [ in the beginning was the Word ] saith , the Eternal Word was with the Eternal Father ] yet by the Word he understands not the Command , Power or Wisdom of God , but a Person , as appears from the last quotation before this ; and consequently he here asserts both the Personality , and Eternity of the Word , which is the very Doctrine we teach . John 8. 5 , 8. before Abraham was , I am , he renders , Pri●squam nasceretur , before Abraham was born ; to the end he might distinguish ( as he saith himself ) : the manner of Abrahams Existence from Christ's . Abraham was in time , but [ semper est Christus ] Christ is always ; which directly contradicts both the Socinian , who denies Christs Existence before his Incarnation ; and also the Arian , who denies his Existence from Eternity . Upon these words he quotes St. Austin , who glosses thus , Abraham was made , but Christ is ; that denotes a Creature , this a being Eternally existing . It is plain then that Erasmus taught a Trinity . And certainly he would not think that the ignorant , and dull side of the question ( as the Letter speaks ) which he teaches for Orthodox Divinity . All the difference between him and our selves is this ; that we agree in the same Doctrine , but differ only in some of those Mediums that should prove it . For which reason he ought to be read with caution and judgment . The Letter saith that this Author in his Scholia on the third tome of St. Jerom's Epistles , denies that the Arians are Hereticks . Ans . Had he told us upon what Epistle these Scholia are , we might have examined the place without much loss of time : But I presume , he thinks himself safe under so loose a Reference , hoping none will turn over a Volume to disprove him . In his Epistle to Bilibaldus thus , I ( saith Erasmas ) could be of the Arian perswasion , if the Church approved it . Ans . The Author thus , cum Arianis , & Pelagianis sentire possim , si probasset eccesia quod illi docuerunt : Nec mihi non sufficiunt verba Christi , sed mirum videri non debet , si sequor interpretem Ecclesiam , cujus Authoritate persuasus credo Scripturis Canonicis . I could be of the same mind with the Arians , and Pelagians , if the Church had approved what they taught : Not that the words of Christ do not satisfy me , but it ought not to seem strange , if I follow the Judgment of the Church , by whose Authority I believe the Canonical Scripture , which place is certainly against him : For 1. He saith the words of Christ do satisfie him , i. e. as to Arianism , and Pelagianism , before mentioned . 2. He puts Arianism , and Pelagianism together , implying that he had no more favour for that , than for this ; which I do not remember he was ever charged with . Therefore 3. His design is not to favour this , or t'other Heresy , but only to shew how far he could give up his Faith to the Judgment of the Church : And consequently his own sense must be much distant from both these Perswasions , else this could be no Argument of his wonderful submission to the Churches Authority . A Romanist may make good advantage of this , and therefore the Paris Doctors never put it among their Censures : But it no more helps the Socinian , than the things he calls his Arguments , and Demonstrations . He proceeds p. 31. Grotius is Socinian all over , and p. 32. there is nothing , in all his Annotations which they , viz. the Socinians , do not approve , and applaud . Ans . Upon Joh. 1. 1. these words [ in the beginning ] Grotius will have to be taken from Gen. 1. 1. and understands them of the Creation properly , or of the beginning of the Creature : As he doth also v. 2. [ by him were all things made . ] For which he quotes the Epistle of Barnabas , Justin , Athenagoras , Tatian , Tertullian , and others . This word [ was ] he renders jam tum erat , then was , or did exist , when all Creatures began : By which Existence before time he understands an Eternal Existence : And yet he holds the [ Word ] or Son not for the Command or simple Power of God , but for a Person . Where observe that Grotius teaches that the Son is a Person eternally existing , who ( in a proper sense ) made , or created the World , and if either Arian or Socinian approve , or applaud this they must each depart from his own Heresy . Therefore when upon those words , Colos . 1. 16. by him ; viz. the Son ; as Grotius himself takes it , were all things , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [ created ] ; he saith , this word is sometimes applied to the New Creature ; we must understand him , as shewing the Various Acceptations of the word , not as designing hereby to deny the Son to be Creator , because he so expresly ascribes Creation to him upon that Text of St. John. 3. In p. 32. he pretends , that Petavius grants , that the Fathers before the Nicene Council , did agree in their Doctrine concerning God , with the Socinian , and concerning the Son , and Holy Spirit , with the Arians . Ans . 1. Petavius saith no such thing . Let the Socinian vindicate himself , by referring us to the places . 2. Had he said so , the Quotations we have given the Readet out of Ignacius , Justin ; Iraeneus , Clemens , Tertullian , and others , would abundantly confute him . 3. Patanius himself was a Trinitarian , as appears from what he hath wrote upon this Argument ▪ And , 4. He did not accuse these Fathers of Arianism , or Socinianism , but only censured some of those Arguments , by which they would establish the Doctrine of a Trinity . 4. The Letter reports Episcopius suspected of Arianism p 34 , 35. he saith , the Father is so first , as to be first in Order ( i. e. in time . ) Ans . 1. Episcopius saith , the Father is first in Order which we all grant : But it is the Socinian Comment , that makes the first in Order to be the first in time , which we deny . Because though the Father is first in Order , yet the Son is Co-eternal with the Father , as before . 2. This Author denies a Co-ordination , and asserts a Subordination of Persons in the Trinity : But this Subordination doth not destroy , but only Explains the Doctrine of a Trinity , as is noted already . And , 3. In his Institut . Theol. l. 4. c. 32. He ascribes a Divine Nature to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and teaches that they are all properly Persons : And if this be Arianism , or Socinianism , we are all such . 5. He Complements his dear Friend Sandius for a Gentleman of Prodigious Industry , and Reading : and no less ingenious than Learned . Ans . Whatever his Industry , and Learning was , I m●st deny both his Judgment and Honesty . 1. His Judgment . For he knows not how to distinguish between the genuine , doubtful , and spurious Writings of the Antients ; but thinks Clemens the Father of the Constitutions under his Name : Which is utterly impossible , because l. 7 ▪ c. 48. the Author mentions three Bishops of Jerusalem made by the Apostles ; James , Simeon , and Judas : But St. John , the last of the twelve Died , and this Clemens himself suffered Martyrdom in the year 100. while Simeon lived about seven years after : How then the Apostles could appoint Judas his Successor , or Clemens , their Scribe Record it , neither their Learned Sandius , nor our Socinians , those Men of Wit , and Reason , can resolve me . They , as well as the Apostolic Canons , were probably written about the end of the Second Century , and seem to owe themselves ( excepting their Corruptions ) to Clemens of Alexandria . He receives likewise the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius ; and de Vet. Script . Eccles . he would prove the Legitimacy of that ad Philip. by this Argument , viz. Origen , who flourished about the middle of the Third Age , hath something upon St. Luke , like something in that Epistle ; where observe . 1. Origen doth not mention either Ignatius , or this Epistle . 2. Ignatius , and Origen might hit upon somewhat like Notions without Communication . And , 3. These ascribed Epistles are not mentioned by Eusebius , Jerom , or any other hefore them ; whence we ought in all reason to reject them . Dr. Peirson , late Bishop of Chester observes , they appeared not till 400 years after Ignatius , whence he declares them spurious Vind. Epist . 8. Ignat. c. 10. 2. By such intolerable Errors he creates difficulties to himself . For the design of his History is to prove that all Antiquity is Arian : Bur the Epis . ad Heron. which is one of the ascribed , saith , that if any asserts that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a mere Man ( which phrase was always used in opposition to his Divinity ▪ Iren. l. 3. c. 26. and Eusebius in the case of Ebion ) the same is a Jew and a Murtherer of Christ . Now had he like a Man of Art , and Judgment , rejected these Epistles , he had removed this Block , at which he must now stumble and fall . 2. I deny his Honesty . For Hist . l. 1. Secul . 1. he will have the Creed called the Apostles , to be composed by them , to be the only Creed used in the Church ; and that very Creed too , which was established at Nice : And that Evag. H. l. 3. c. 17. saying , we are Baptized into a Creed composed by 318 Bishops , intended no other but this : When this was never mentioned in that Council , and the Concert is totally Ruined by the Testimonies we have already produced upon this Argument , Sect. 4. Should I draw out all the instances of weakness and knavery , I ●hould leave but little of that book behind me . A fit man for an Ecclesiastical Historian , whose want of Judgment , and Honesty makes his writings like a sword in some mens hands , dangerous to them , that come in the reach of it . Sure I am , no Student ought to read him till he is well acquainted with the true state , and doctrine of antiquity . His accounts of antiquity , and the brief history of the Socinians , may go together ; and if each will be pretenders to wit , and reason , I matter not , so long as we have on our side better pretensions to truth , and Honesty . Dr. Wallis in one of his letters gives an account of this Sandius's conversion , and his dying in the Trinitarian Faith. I earnestly pray that the same Mercy , and Goodness , would open the eyes of all Arians and Socinians , that they may no longer lye under strong delusions , and the belief of a Lye but may come to the knowledg of the truth , and be saved . FINIS . Boeks Printed for John Everingham at the Star in Ludgate-Street . AN Enquiry into Several Remarkable texts of the old and new Testament , which contain some difficulty in them : with a probable Resolution of them , In two parts . By John Edwards , B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge . A new Discourse of Trade , wherein is Recommended several weighty Points relating to Companies of Merchants . The Act of Navigation , Naturalization of Strangers ; and our Woollen Manufactures , the Ballance of Trade , and the nature of Plantations , and their Consequences in Relation to the Kingdom , are seriously Discussed . And some Proposals for erecting a Court of Merchants for determining Controversies , relating to Maritime Affairs , and for a Law for Transferrance of Bills of Debts , are humbly Offered . By Sir Josiah Child . Miscellaneous Essays : By Monsieur St. Euremont , Translated out of French , with a Character , by a Person of Honour here in England , continued by Mr. Dryden . Monarchia Microcosmi : The Origin , Vicissitudes , and Period of Vital Government in Man. For a farther Discovery of Diseases , incident to Human Nature . By Everard Maynwaringe , M. D. 
A59791	----	An apology for writing against Socinians, in defence of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and incarnation in answer to a late earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance to the learned writers of some controversies at present / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1693 Approx. 58 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59791 Wing S3265 ESTC R21192 12054584 ocm 12054584 53128 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59791) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53128) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 580:2) An apology for writing against Socinians, in defence of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and incarnation in answer to a late earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance to the learned writers of some controversies at present / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [4], 32 p. Printed for Will. Rogers ..., London : 1693. Marginal notes. Advertisement: prelim. p. [1]. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Trinity. Incarnation. Socinianism. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-01 Mona Logarbo Sampled and proofread 2005-01 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion The DEAN of St. PAUL's APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS , &c. Imprimatur , Geo. Royse , R. R mo . in Christo Patri ac Dom. Dom. Johan . Archiep. Cant. à Sacris Domest . Jan. 17. 1692 / 3. AN APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS , IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE Holy Trinity and Incarnation In ANSWER to a Late Earnest and Compassionate Suit for Forbearance to the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present . By WILLIAM SHERLOCK , D. D. Dean of St. Paul's , Master of the Temple , and Chaplain in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES . LONDON : Printed for Will. Rogers , at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet street . 1693. AN APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS , &c. AFTER a long silence , and patient expectation what the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present ( as a late Author calls them ) would bring forth , I intend by the Assistance of the Holy Trinity , and the Incarnate Jesus , whose Blessing I most earnestly Implore , to resume the Defence of the Catholick Faith ; which I shall Publish in some few short Treatises , as I can find Leisure for it , that I may not discourage my Readers by too Voluminous a Work. But before I venture to Dispute these matters any farther , it is necessary to make some Apology for Disputing ; which is thought very Unchristian and Uncharitable , and of dangerous Consequence , especially when we undertake the Defence of the Fundamentals of our Faith , against the rude and insolent Assaults of Hereticks . Sometime since , A Melancholy Stander-by would be a Stander-by no longer , but interposed An Earnest and Compassionate Suit for Forbearance , to the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present . These Learned Writers of Controversy , are the Socinians , who ridiculed without any Learning or Common Sense , the Athanasian Creed , and the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation : The Forbearance he desires , is , That no body should write against them ; though Dr. Wallis and my self are more immediately concerned in this Suit. Who this Melancholy Stander-by is , I shall not enquire , for my Controversy is not with Men , but with Doctrines ; and I know by experience , that common fame is not always to be trusted , much less suspicions ; but if he be a Divine of the Church of England , it seems very strange , that he should profess himself a Stander-by , when the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith are in question ; and a Melancholy Stander-by to see some others undertake the Defence of it . I confess I am always very jealous of men , who are so very Tender on the wrong side ; for observe it when you will , their Tenderness is always owing to their Inclination . But to defend our selves , let us briefly consider what he says . He thinks , The open Dissentions of its Professors a great blemish to the Reformation : That is , that it is a great blemish for any men openly to defend the true Faith , which others openly oppose , or secretly undermine ; but certainly it would be a greater blemish to the Reformation , to have Old Heresies revived , and the true Ancient Catholick Faith scorned , and no body appear in the Defence of it . But we know his mind , That it is for the honour of the Reformation not to Dispute , though it be for the most Important Truths . Surely our Reformers were not so much against Disputing . But if these Dissentions be so great a blemish to the Reformation , whose Fault is it ? Theirs who dissent from the Truth , or theirs who defend it ? This is a very plain case ; for no body would oppose the Truth , if no body taught it : The urging too strict an Union in matters of Faith , begets dissentions : That is , to require an open and undisguised Profession of our Baptismal Faith in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , as the Terms of Christian Communion , is the Criminal Cause of our Dissentions . Well : What shall we do then ? Renounce the Faith of the Trinity , for the sake of Peace ? This he dares not say , for that would pull off his disguise ; but Christianity must be left in that Latitude and Simplicity wherein it was delivered by our Lord and his Apostles . This had been a good Proposal , would he have told us what this Latitude and Simplicity is ; for I am for no other Faith than what Christ and his Apostles taught : But I would gladly know what he means by the Latitude of Faith : For if the Christian Faith be such a broad Faith , must we not believe the whole breadth of it ? Or has Christ and his Apostles left it at liberty to believe what we like , and to let the rest alone ? To believe that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are One Supreme Eternal God ; or to believe that the Eather alone is the True God , the Son a mere Man , and the Holy Ghost nothing but a Divine Inspiration ? To believe that the Eternal Word was made Flesh ; or that Christ was no more than a Man , who had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary ? He can mean nothing else by this Latitude of Faith , but that Christ and his Apostles have left these matters so ambiguous and undetermined , that we may believe what we please ; and then indeed those do very ill , who dispute these matters : But this is such a breadth as has no depth ; for such a Faith as this can have no foundation . Can we certainly learn from Scripture , Whether Christ be a God Incarnate , or a mere Man ? If we cannot , Why should we believe either ? If we can , then one is true , and the other false ; and then there is no Latitude in Faith , unless Christ and his Apostles have left it indifferent , whether we believe what is true , or what is false ; what they have taught us , or what we like better our selves . In the same manner he leaves us to guess what he means by the Simplicity of the Faith. He is very angry with the School-Doctors , as worse enemies to Christianity , than either Heathen Philosophers , or persecuting Emperors . Pray what hurt have they done ? I suppose he means the Corruption of Christianity with those barbarous Terms of Person , Nature , Essence , Subsistence , Consubstantiality , &c. which will not suffer Hereticks to lye concealed under Scripture-Phrases : But why must the Schoolmen bear all the blame of this ? Why does he not accuse the Ancient Fathers and Councils , from whom the Schoolmen learnt these Terms ? Why does he let St. Austin escape , from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtilties ? But suppose these Unlucky Wits had used some new Terms , have they taught any new Faith about the Trinity in Unity , which the Catholick Church did not teach ? And if they have only guarded the Christian Faith with a hedge of Thorns , which disguised Hereticks cannot break through , Is this to wound Christianity in its very Vitals ? No , no : They will only prick the fingers of Hereticks , and secure Christianity from being wounded ; and this is one great Cause why some men are so angry with the School-Doctors ; tho the more general Cause is , because they have not Industry enough to read or understand them . He says , The first Reformers complained of this , and desired a purer and more spiritual sort of Divinity . What ? With respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation ? What purer Reformers were these ? I 'm sure not our English Reformers , whom he censures for retaining Scholastick cramping Terms in their Publick Prayers : He means the beginning of our Litany : O God the Father of Heaven : O God the Son , Redeemer of the World : O God the Holy Ghost , proceeding from the Father and the Son : O Holy , Blessed , and Glorious Trinity , Three Persons and One God : These are his Scholastick , Cramping Terms , which he would fling out of our Liturgy , when the season of such blessed Alterations comes . I hope those Excellent Persons among us , who , I doubt not , for better Reasons did not long since think of some Alterations , will consider what a foul Imputation this is upon such a Design , when such a person shall publickly declare , That they ought to Alter and Reform the Doctrine of the Trinity out of our Prayers . But the whole Mystery of this Latitude and Simplicity of Faith which he pleads for , is that plausible Project ( which has been so much talked of of late : ) to confine our selves to Scripture Terms and Phrases ; to use none but Scripture Words in our Creeds and Prayers , without any Explication in what sense those words are to be understood : As he tells us , Certainly we may Worship God right well , yea , most acceptably , in words of his own Stamp and Coinage . Now at the first Proposal few men would suspect , that there should be any hurt in this ; though it would make one suspect some secret in it , to consider that Hereticks were the first Proposers of it , and that Orthodox Christians rejected it . The Arians objected this against the Homoousion , or the Son 's being of the same Substance with the Father , that it was an Unscriptural Word ; but the Nicene Fathers did not think this a good reason to lay it aside : For what reason can there be to reject any words , which we can prove to express the true sense of Scripture , though they are not found there ? For must we believe the Words or the Sense of Scripture ? And what reason then can any man have to reject the Words , though they be no Scripture-Words , if he believes the Sense contained in them to be the sense of Scripture ? The Homoiousion , or that the Son had a Nature like the Father's , tho not the same , was no more a Scripture-Word , than the Homoousion ; and yet the Arians did not dislike that , because it was no Scripture-Word ; nor are the Socinians angry at any man who says , That Christ is but a meer man , who had no Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary ; tho these words are no where in Scripture : And is it not strange , that a man who heartily believes , or at least pretends to believe , that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are One Eternal God , should be angry with a Trinity in Unity , or Three Persons and one God , which do as aptly express the Faith which he professes , as any Words he can think of ? It is very odd to be zealous for Scripture-Words without the Scripture Sense . If the Scripture have any determined Sense , then that which is the true Sense of Scripture , is the true Faith ; and if we must contend earnestly for the true Faith , we must contend for the true Sense of Scripture , and not merely for its Words ; and when Hereticks have used their utmost art to make the Words of Scripture signifie what they please , is it not necessary to fix their true Sense , and to express that Sense in such other Words as Hereticks cannot pervert ? There are but few words in common speech , but what are sometimes differently used , in a Proper or Metaphorical , a Large or a Limited Sense ; and all wise and honest men easily understand from the circumstances of the place , in what sense they are used ; but if men be perverse , they may expound words properly when they are used metaphorically , or metaphorically when they are used properly ; and there is no confuting them from the bare signification of the word , because it may be , and oftentimes is used both ways ; and therefore in such cases we must consider the Circumstances of the Text , and compare it with Parallel Texts , to find out in what sense the word is there used ; and when we have found it , it is reasonable and necessary to express the true Christian Faith , not merely in Scripture words , which are abused and perverted by Hereticks , but in such other words , if we can find any such , as express the true sense in which the Scripture-words are used , and in which all Christians must understand them , who will retain the Purity of the Christian Faith. We do not hereby alter the Christian Faith , nor require them to believe any thing more than what the Scripture teaches , tho we require them to profess their Faith in other words , which are not indeed in Scripture , but express the true and determined sense of Scripture words . And this is all the Latitude of Faith which this Stander-by so tragically complains we have destroyed , viz. That we have brought the Scripture words to a fixt and determined sense , that Hereticks can no longer conceal themselves in a Latitude of expression , nor spread their Heresies in Scripture words , with a Traditionary Sense and Comment of their own . I would ask any man who talks at this rate about a Latitude of Faith , Whether there be any more than One True Christian Faith ? And whether Christ and his Apostles intended to teach any more ? Or whether they did not intend , That all Christians should be obliged to believe this One Faith ? If this be granted , there can be no more Latitude in the Faith , than there is in a Unit ; and if they taught but One Faith , they must intend that their words should signifie but that one Faith ; and then there can be no Intentional Latitude in their words neither ; and what Crime then is the Church guilty of , if she teach the true Christian Faith , that she teaches it in such words as have no Latitude , no Ambiguity of Sense , which Hereticks may deny if they please , but which they can't corrupt in favour of their Heresies , as they do Scripture words ? It is an amazing thing to me , that any man who has any Zeal , any Concernment for the true Christian Faith , who does not think it perfectly indifferent what we believe , or whether we believe any thing or not , should judge it for the advantage of Christianity , and a proper Expedient for the Peace of the Church , for all men to agree in the same Scripture words , and understand them in what sense they please ; tho one believes Christ to be the Eternal Son of God , and another to be but a mere man ; which it seems has no great hurt in it , if they do but agree in the same words : But if the Faith be so indifferent , I cannot imagine why we should quarrel about Words ; the fairer and honester Proposal is , That every man should believe as he pleases , and no man concern himself to confute Heresies , or to divide the Church with Disputes ; which is the true Latitude our Author seems to aim at ; and then he may believe as he pleases too . But pray , why should we not write against the Socinians ? Especially when they are the Aggressors , and without any provocation publish and disperse the most impudent and scandalous Libels against the Christian Faith. He will give us some very wise Reasons for this by and by , when he comes to be plain and succinct ; in the mean time we must take such as we can meet with . He is afraid pe●●le should lose all Reverence for the Litany , should ▪ we go on to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity : I should not easily have apprehended this , and possibly some of the common people might have been as dull as my self , had he not taken care before he parted , for fear no body else should observe it , to teach people to ridicule the Trinity in their Prayers . Dr. Wallis would not undertake to say what a Divine Person signifies , as distinguished from Nature and Essence , only says , a Person is somewhat , but the True Notion of a Person he does not know : This Author commends this as ever held to by all Learned Trinitarians ; for indeed all the Doctor meant by his somewhat is , That Three Persons signify Three Real Subsistences , and are Real Things , not a Sabellian Trinity of mere Names . And yet in the very next Page he teaches his Readers to ridicule the Litany with the Doctors somewhats : O Holy , Blessed , and Glorious Trinity , Three Somewhats , and One God , have Mercy on us , &c. Was there ever any thing more Senseless , or more Prophane ! That because the Doctor would not undertake to define a Person , but only asserted in general , That a Divine Person was somewhat , or some Real Being , in opposition to a mere Nominal Difference and Distinction ; therefore in our Prayers we may as well call the Three Divine Persons , Father , Son ; and Holy Ghost , Three somewhats . Nobis non licet esse tam disertis . I am sure he has reason heartily to pray , That these Three somewhats , as he prophanely calls them , would have Mercy on him . In the next place he says , He is well assured , that the late ( Socinian ) Pam●●lets would have died away , or have been now in few mens hands , had not divers persons taken on them the labour to confute them . But did his Socinian Friends , who were such busie Factors for the Cause , tell him so ? Did they print them , that no body might read them ? Were they not dispersed in every Corner , and boasted of in every Coffee-house , before any Answer appeared ? However , were it so ; is there no regard to be had to Hereticks themselves ? And is it not better that such Pamphlets should be in an hundred hands with an Answer , than in five hands without one ? I should think it at any time a good reward for all the labour of confuting , to rescue or preserve a very few from such fatal Errors ; which I doubt not but is a very acceptable service to that Merciful Shepherd , who was so careful to seek one lost and straggling Sheep . Heresies and Vices dye by being neglected , just as Weeds do ; for we know the Parable , That the Devil sows his tares , while men sleep . But this is no new Charge ; the good Bishop of Alexandria met with the same Censures for his Zeal against Arius ; for it seems that Heresie would have died too , if it had not been opposed . I doubt this Author judges of other mens Zeal for Heresy , by his own Zeal for the Truth , which wants a little rubbing and chafing to bring it to life ; but Heresy is all flame and spirit , will blow and kindle it self , if it be not quenched . But yet if what he says be true , That by our unskilful way of confuting Heresie , we run into those very Absurdities which our Adversaries would reduce us to ; This I confess is a very great fault , and when he shews me any of those Absurdities , I will thankfully correct them ; for all the Obloquies in the world will never make me blush to recant an Error : But before he pretends to that , I must desire him , that he would first read my Book , which I know some men censure without reading it . Such general Accusations are very spiteful , and commonly have a mixture of spite both against the Cause , and against the Person . His next Argument is very observable : We must not dispute now against Socinians , because these Controversies about the Trinity have been above Thirteen hundred years ago determined by two general Councils ( the Nicene , and first Constantinopolitan ) , which are owned by our Church , and their Creeds received into our Liturgy . Ergo , we must not defend this Faith against Hereticks , because it is the Faith of two General Councils which are owned by our Church . Did Athanasius think this a good Argument against Writing and Disputing against the Arians , after the Council of Nice had condemned Arius and his Doctrines ? Did St. Basil , Gregory Nazianzen , Nyssen , St. Chrysostom , St. Jerom , St. Austin , think this a good Argument , who wrote so largely against these Heresies , which former Councils had condemned ? But this Author thinks the best way is to let the Matter stand upon this bottom of Authority ; that is , let Hereticks ridicule our Faith as much as they please , we must make them no other answer , but that this is the Faith of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils , and the Faith of the Church of England . And can he intend this for any more than a Jest , when he knows how Socinians despise the determinations of Councils , and particularly with what scorn they treat the Nicene Fathers ? Is this an Age to resolve our Faith into Church Authority ? Or would he himself believe such absurd Doctrines as they represent the Trinity in Unity to be , merely upon Church Authority ? For my part I declare I would not . I greatly value the Authority of those Ancient Councils , as credible Witnesses of the Traditionary Sense of the Church before those Controversies were started ; but were not these Doctrines taught in Scripture , were they manifestly repugnant to the plain and evident Principles of Reason , all the Councils in the World should never reconcile me to them , no more than they should to the Doctrine of Transubstantion . And therefore methinks he might have at least allowed us to have challenged the Scriptures as well as General Councils on our side ; and to have vindicated our Faith from all pretended absurdities and contradictions to Reason . But would any man of common sense , who had not intended to expose the Faith of the Holy Trinity , have told the world at this time of day , That we have no other safe and sure bottom for our Faith , but only the Authority of General Councils ? Nay , That the Council of Nice it self , on whose Authority we must rest , had little else themselves for their Determinations but only Authority , That it was Authority chiefly carried the Point . And thus for fear we should have believed too much upon the Authority of Councils , which is the only bottom he will allow our Faith , he gives them a secret stab himself , and makes their Authority ridiculous . That the several Bishops declared , what Faith had been taught and received in their Churches is true ; That this Authority chiefly carried the Point , is false : Athanasius grew famous in the Council for his learned and subtile Disputations , which confounded the Arians ; and what Arguments he chiefly relied on , we may see in his Works : And whoever does but look into the Fathers , who wrote against the Arians in those days , will find , that their Faith was resolved into Scripture and Reason , and not meerly or chiefly into Authority . And thus he comes to be Plain and Succinct , and tells us , That of all Controversies we can touch upon at present , this of the Trinity is the most unreasonable , the most dangerous , and so the most unseasonable . It is the most Unreasonable : 1. Because it is on all hands confess'd , the Deity is Infinite , Unsearchable , Incomprehensible ; and yet every one who pretends to Write plainer than another on this controversy , professes to make all Comprehensible and easy . I perceive he is well versed in Mr. Hobbs's Divinity ; though I can discover no marks of his skill in Fathers and Councils . For this was Mr. Hobb's reason , why we should not pretend to know any thing of God , nor inquire after his Attributes , because he has but one Attribute , which is , that he is Incomprehensible ; and as this Author argues , It is a small favour to request of Persons of Learning , that they should be consistent with , and not contradict themselves : that is , That they would not pretend to know any thing of God , whom they acknowledge to be Incomprehensible , which is to pretend to know , what they confess cannot be known . Now I desire to know , Whether we may Dispute about the Being and Nature of God , and his essential Attributes and Perfections ; and vindicate the Notion of a Deity from those Impossibilities , Inconsistencies , Absurdities , which some Atheistical Philosophers charge on it , notwithstanding that we confess God to be Incomprehensible ? And if the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature does not signifie , that we can know nothing of God , and must inquire nothing about him ▪ ; the Trinity of Divine Persons is as proper an object of our Faith , and modest Inquiries , as the Unity of the Divine Essence , for they are both Incomprehensible . And to say , That every one who pretends to write plainer than another on this Controversy , professes to make all comprehensible and easy , may with equal Truth and Authority be charg'd on all those who undertake to vindicate the Notion and Idea of a God , or to explain any of the Divine Attributes and Perfections . A finite mind cannot comprehend what is infinite ; but yet one man may have a truer and more perfect Notion of the Nature and Attributes of God than another : God is Incomprehensible in Heaven as well as on Earth , and yet Angels and Glorified Spirits know God after another manner than we do . There must be infinite degrees of knowledge , when the object is infinite ; and every new degree is more perfect than that below it ; and yet no Creature can attain the highest degree of all , which is a perfect comprehension : So that the knowledge of God may increase every day , and men may Write plainer about these matters every day , without pretending to make all that is in God , even a Trinity in Unity , comprehensible and easy . This is a spiteful and scandalous imputation , and is intended to represent all those who undertake to write about the Trinity , and to vindicate the Primitive Faith of the Church from the scorn and contempt of Hereticks , as a company of vain-conceited , presuming , but ignorant Scriblers ; who pretend to make the Incomprehensible Nature of God , comprehensible and easy . But the comfort is , we have so good Company , that we are able to bear this Charge without blushing ; even General Councils , and those great Lights of the Church , Athanasius , St. Hillary , St. Basil , the Gregories , St. Chrysostom , St. Austin , and many others , besides all those who in all succeeding Ages to this day , have with equal Zeal and Learning defended the same Cause ; and yet never profess'd to make all comprehensible and easy . All that any man pretends to in vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity , is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture , and that it contains no such Absurdities and Contradictions , as should force a Wise man to reject it , and either to reject the Scriptures for its sake , or to put some strained and unnatural senses on Scripture to reconcile it to the Principles of Reason ; and this , I hope , may be done by those , who yet acknowledge the Divine Nature , and the Trinity in Unity to be Incomprehensible . But here he had a very fair opportunity , had he thought fit to take it , to correct the Insolence and Presumption of his Learned Writers of Controversy ; who will not allow the Divine Nature to be Incomprehensible , and will not believe God himself concerning his own Nature , beyond what their Reason can conceive and comprehend : Who deny Prescience for the same Reason , that they deny the Trinity , because they can't conceive it , nor reconcile it with the liberty of Human Actions ; and for the same reason may deny all the Attributes of God , which have something in them beyond what we can conceive : especially an Eternity without begining , and without Succession , which is chargeable with more Absurdities and Contradictions , than the Trinity it self : For a duration , which can't be measured ; and an eternal duration , which can be measured ; and a Succession without a Beginning , a Second or Third without a First , are unconceivable to us , and look like very plain and irreconci●●ble Contradictions . This is the true use of the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature ; not to stop all Enquiries after God , nor to discourage our Studies of the Divine Nature and Perfections : for we may know a great deal , and may every day increase our knowledge of what is Incomprehensible , thô we cannot know it all ; but to check the presumption of some vain Pretenders to Reason , who will not own a God , nor believe any thing of God , which their Reason cannot comprehend ; which must not only make them Hereticks , but , if pursued to its just Consequences , must make them Atheists , or make such a God , as no body will own , or worship , but themselves , a God adequate and commensurate to their Understandings , which must be a little , finite , comprehensible God. In the next place , to prove how unreasonable it is to Dispute in Vindication of the Trinity , he observes again , That this Matter has been sufficiently determined by due Authority : but having answered this once , I see no need to answer it again . To back this he adds , That the present issue shews ▪ that in this World it never will be better understood : for it seems , as he says , The Master of the Sentences , and some Modern Writers , have made very sad work of it . And yet he does not seem to be very intimately acquainted with the Master of the Sentences , nor some of these Modern Writers . But all that he means is , that no body can say any thing to the purpose for so absurd a Doctrine , as a Trinity in Unity ; and therefore he plainly adds , The more Men draw the disputacious Saw , the more perplexed and intricate the Question is ; and therefore the only secure way is , to leave off disputing for the Trinity and let Socinians Dispute against it by themselves . But such Stuff as this , deserves another sort of Answer than I can give it . But he concludes this Argument of Unreasonableness very remarkably . And Lastly , Hereby our Church at present , and the Common Christianity ( it may be feared ) will be more and more daily exposed to Atheistical Men ; for this being but the result of the former particulars , and such kind of Men daily growing upon us , it cannot be believed , they can over-look the advantages which is so often given them . The sum of which is , That to Vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity against Socinians , will make Men Atheists . This is a very bold stroke for a Christian , and a Divine , and I shall beg leave to expostulate this matter a little freely with him . 1st , I desire to know , whether he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be defensible or not ? If it be not defensible , why does he believe it ? Why should we not rather openly and plainly reject the Doctrine of the Trinity , which would be a more effectual way to put a stop to Atheism , than to profess to believe it , but not to defend it ? If it be defensible , and there be no fault in the Doctrine , but that some Men have defended it ill , would it not much more have become him to have defended it better , than only to quarrel with those who have defended it , as well as they could ? 2dly , Why does he not tell the Socinians , what injury they do to common Christianity , by ridiculing the Faith of the Holy Trinity , and exposing it to the scorn of Atheists ? Does he think that they are no Christians , and ought not to be concerned for common Christianity ? Or does he think , that Atheists will like the Doctrine of the Trinity ever the better , for its being despised by Socinians as an absurd contradictory Faith , without having any Defence made by Trinitarians ? Or does he think , that the Defences made by Trinitarians expose the Faith more than the Objections of Socinians ? I wish I knew his mind , and then I could tell what to say to him . 3dly , How are Atheists concerned in the Disputes of the Trinity ? Or how are we concerned to avoid scandalizing Atheists , who believe that there is no God at all ? Must we be afraid of defending the Faith of the Trinity , lest Atheists should mock at it , who already mock at the Being of a God ? What shall we have left of Christianity , if we must either cast away , or not defend every thing , which Atheists will mock at ? Surely he has a very contemptible Opinion of the Doctrine of the Trinity , that he thinks all the Defences that are , or can be made for it , so ridiculous , that they are enough to make Men Atheists . But I can tell him a Secret , which possibly he may be privy to , though in great modesty he conceals his knowledge , viz. That Atheists and Deists , Men who are for no Religion , or at least not for the Christian Religion , are of late very zealous Socinians ; and they are certainly in the right of it : for run down the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation , and there is an end of the Christian Religion , and with that an end of all Revealed Religion ; and as for Natural Religion , they can make and believe as much , or as little of it as they please . And this is one Reason , and I am sure a better than any he has given against it , why we are , and ought to be so zealous at this time in opposing Socinianism , because it is the common Banner under which all the Enemies of Religion and Christianity unite . This makes that little contemptible Party think themselves considerable , that all the Atheists and Infidels , and licentious Wits of the Town , are their Converts ; who promise themselves a glorious Triumph over Christianity , and particularly over the Church of England , by decrying and scorning the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation . II. Thus much for the Unreasonableness of this Controversie about the Holy Trinity ; in the next place he tells us the Danger of it : and he has thought of such an Argument to evince the danger of Disputing for the Holy Trinity , as , I believe , was never dreamt of before ; and that is , That it is One of the Fundamentals of Christian Religion ; now to litigate touching a Fundamental , is to turn it into a Controversie ; that is , to unsettle , at least endanger the unsettling the whole Superstructure . Now I am perfectly of his mind , that it is a dangerous thing to unsettle Foundations ; But is it a dangerous thing too , to endeavour to preserve and defend Foundations , when Hereticks unsettle them , and turn them into Dispute and Controversie ? Let us put the Being of God , instead of the Holy Trinity , and see how he will like his Argument himself . The Being of a God is the Foundation of all Religion , and therefore it is dangerous to dispute with Atheists about the Being of God , because this is to turn a Fundamental into a Controversie , that is , to unsettle , or to endanger the unsetling the whole Superstructure : And thus we must not dispute against Atheists , no more than against Socinians : And what is it then we must dispute for ? What else is worth disputing ? What else can we dispute for , when Foundations are overturned ? What is the meaning of that Apostolical Precept , To contend earnestly for the Faith ? Jud. 3. What Faith must we contend for , if not for Fundamentals ? What Faith is that which can subsist without a Foundation ? But I would desire this Author to tell me , whether we must believe Fundamentals with , or without Reason ? Whether we must take Fundamentals for granted , and receive them with an implicite Faith , or know for what Reason we believe them ? If our Religion must not be built without a Foundation , like a Castle in the Air , it is certain , that the Fundamentals of our Faith ought to have a very sure Foundation , and therefore we are more concerned to understand and vindicate the Reasons of our Faith , with respect to Fundamentals , than to dispute any less Matters in Religion , for the Roof must tumble , if the Foundation fail . What shall Christians do then , when Atheists , Infidels , and Hereticks , strike at the very Foundations of their Faith ? Ought not they to satisfie themselves , that there is no force in the Objections , which are made against the Faith ? Or must they confirm themselves with an obstinate Resolution , to believe on without troubling themselves about Objections , in defiance of all the power and evidence of Reason ? This is not to believe like Men ; Christianity had never prevailed against Paganism and Judaism upon these Terms ; for they had Possession , Authority , and Prescription on their side , which is the only Reason and Security he gives us for the Faith of the Trinity , That the Established Church is in possession of it . If private Christians then must endeavour to satisfie themselves in the Reasons of their Faith , when Fundamentals are called in question , is it not the Duty of Christian Bishops and Pastors to defend the Faith , and to defend the Flock of Christ from those grievous Wolves St. Paul prophesied of ? Is not this their proper Work and Business ? And when the Faith is publickly opposed and scorned in Printed Libels , ought it not to be as publickly defended ? When Hereticks dispute against the Faith , must we be afraid of disputing for it , for fear of making a Controversie of Fundamentals ? Thanks be to God , our excellent Primate is above this fear , and has now in the Press a Defence of that Faith , which this Writer would perswade all Men to betray by silence ; and I hope so great an Example may at least prevail with him , to let us dispute on without any more earnest and compassionate Suits . III. His last Argument is , The Unseasonableness of this Controversie . He says , all Controversies are now unseasonable ; and I say a little more , that they are always so ; for there is no Juncture seasonable to broach Heresies , and to oppose the Truth : but if Hereticks will dispute against the Truth unseasonably ; there is no time unseasonable to defend Fundamental Truths . But why is it so unseasonable in this Juncture ? Because under God , nothing but an union of Councils , and joyning Hands and Hearts , can preserve the Reformation , and scarce any thing more credit and justifie it , than an Union in Doctrinals . To begin with the last first : Is the Union in Doctrinals ever the greater , that Socinians boldly and publickly affront the Faith of the Church , and no body appears to defend it ? Will the World think that we are all of a mind , because there is disputing only on one side ? Then they will think us all Socinians , as some Forreigners begin already to suspect , which will be a very scandalous Union , and divide us from all other Reformed Churches . Let Union be never so desirable , we cannot , we must not unite in Heresie ; those break the Union , who depart from the Faith , not those who defend it . When Heresies are broached , the best way to preserve the Unity of the Church , is to oppose and confute , and shame Heresie and Hereticks , which will preserve the Body of Christians from being infected by Heresie , and the fewer there are , who forsake the Faith , the greater Unity there is in the Church . But nothing but Union of Counsels , and joyning Hands and Hearts , can preserve the Reformation . Must we then turn all Socinians , to preserve the Reformation ? Must we renounce Christianity , to keep out Popery ? This Stander-by is misinformed , for Socinianism is no part of the Reformation ; and so inconsiderable and abhorred a Party , when they stand by themselves , that all Parties who own any Religion , will joyn Counsels , and Hands and Hearts to renounce them . But what he would insinuate is , that we shall never joyn against a common Enemy , whose Successes would endanger the Reformation , while there are any Religious Disputes among us . I hope he is mistaken , or else we shall certainly be conquered by France , for twenty such compassionate Suits as this , will never make us all of a mind ; and whether we dispute or not , if we differ as much as if we did dispute , and are as zealous for the Interest of a Party , the case is the same . But he has unwarily confess'd a great Truth , which all Governments ought to consider , That every Schisin in the Church , is a new Party and Faction in the State , which are always troublesome to Government when it wants their help . But these Disputes about the Trinity make sport for Papists . It must be disputing against the Trinity then ; not disputing for it ; for they are very Orthodox in this point ; and never admitted any Man to their Communion who disowned this Faith , or declared , that he thought it at any time unreasonable , dangerous , or unseasonable to dispute for it , when it was violently opposed . I doubt this Protestant Church-man has made more sport for Papists , than all our other Disputes ; for it is a new thing for such Men to plead for Socinians , but no new thing to dispute against them ; and new Sports are always most entertaining . But he has himself started an Objection , which if he could well answer , I could forgive him all the rest . But it will be said , What shall we do ? Shall we tamely by a base Silence give up the Point . This is the Objection , and he answers , There is no danger of it , the Established Church is in possession of it , and dispute will only increase the disturbance . But is there no danger that the Church may be flung out of possession , and lose the Faith , if she don't defend it ? No , The Adversaries to the received Doctrine ( Why not to the true Faith ? ) cannot alter our Articles of Religion ; but if they can make Converts , and increase their Party , they may in time change our Articles , and then we shall hear no more of compassionate Suits for forbearance . But they can dispute everlastingly ; and let them dispute on , we fear them not . But they are Men subtil , sober , industrious ; many of them very vertuous , and ( as all must say ) setting aside their Opinions , devout , pious , and charitable . I perceive he is very intimately acquainted with them , though St. Paul commands all Christians , To mark those which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned , and avoid them , 16 Rom. 17. But let them be never so good Men , as some of the Heathen Philosophers were , must we therefore tamely suffer them to pervert the Faith ? But they are very zealous , and the Presses are open , and they will never be silent . They are zealous against the Truth , and therefore we must not be zealous for it ; they will write and print , and speak against the Truth , and will never be silent ; and therefore we must be silent , and neither write , nor say any thing for the Truth . Was there ever such a Reason thought of as this ? Well! how long must we be silent ? Neglect them till a fit time and place : But why is not this as fit a time , as ever we shall have , to prevent their sowing Tares , or to pluck them up before they have taken too deep Root ? Can there be a fitter time to oppose Heresies , and to defend the true Christian Faith , then when Hereticks are very bold and busie in spreading their Heresies , and opposing the Faith ? But when this fit time is come ( for I know not what he means by a fit place ) what shall we do then ? Will he then give us leave to write and dispute against such Hereticks ? This he will not say ; but then let that be done , which shall be judged most Christian and most Wholesome . But what is that ? Will it ever be most Christian and most Wholesome , to dispute for the Faith against Heresie ? If ever it will be so , why is it not so now ? If this never will be Christian and Wholesome , what else is to be done to Hereticks in fit time and place , unless he intends to Physick ' em ? And it seems he has a Dose ready prepared , to lay all these Controversies to an Eternal Sleep ; and it is , what he calls a Negative Belief , a pretty Contradiction , but never the less proper Cure for Heresie . The Project is this , as far as I can understand him , That the Socinians shall not be required to own the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation , but shall so far agree , as not to contradict them , nor teach contrary to them : Now I should like this very well , that they would not oppose the received Doctrine of the Church , but I believe he knows some little clattering Tongues , which all the Opiates he has , can never lay asleep ; and had he remembred what he had just before said concerning their Zeal , and their Eternal disputing , and that they will never be silent , he would never have proposed so impracticable a thing , as the imposing silence on them ; which makes me suspect , that he intends something more than what he says , and therefore to prevent mistakes , I must ask him a Question or two . 1. Whether he will allow us , who , as he grants , are in possession of this Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation , to keep possession of it , and teach , explain , and confirm it to our People : we will answer none of their Books , if they won't write them ; but if he expects that we should say nothing of , or for the Trinity , as he would have them say nothing against it , we must beg his Pardon ; we do not think the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation to be of so little concernment , as to be parted with , or buried in silence . We believe Christian Religion to be built on this Faith , and therefore think ourselves as much bound to Preach it , as to Preach the Gospel ; and if they will oppose the Faith , as long as we Preach it , we can have no Truce with them . 2dly , I hope he does not propose this Negative Belief , as he calls it , as a Term of Communion ; that tho' we know they deny the Trinity and the Incarnation , yet if they will agree not publickly to oppose and contradict this Faith , we shall receive them to our Communion , and fling the Worship of the Holy Trinity , and of a God Incarnate , out of our Liturgies for their sake . I grant there may be such things , as Articles of Peace , when Men joyn in the same Communion , notwithstanding some less material Differences , while the Substantials of Faith and Worship are secure , and oblige themselves not to disturb the Peace of the Church with less Disputes ; but to make the Essentials of Faith and Worship meer Articles of Peace , to receive those to our Communion , who deny the very Object of our Worship , is as senceless , and as great a contradiction to the Nature and End of Christian Communion , as it would be to receive Heathens , Jews , Mahometans into the Christian Church , by vertue of this Negative Belief . This I know he will not allow ; for he says , We are agreed in the other parts of our common Christianity : whereas it is absolutely impossible , that we should agree in any thing , which is pure Christianity , while we differ in the Fundamental Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation , the owning or denying of which makes an essential Difference in Religion . It alters the Object of our Worship , as much as the Worship of One and of Three Persons in the Godhead , and as much as the Worship of a God Incarnate , and of a deified meer Man , differ . It alters the way of our Salvation , as much as Faith in the Blood and Sacrifice of the Son of God , to expiate our Sins , differs from believing a great and excellent Prophet , and obeying his Laws . It alters the Motives and Principles of our Obedience , as much as the Love of God , in giving his Son , differs from his Goodness in sending an excellent Man to be our Prophet and Saviour ; as much as the Love , Humility , and Condescension of the Eternal Son of God , in becoming Man , and in dying as a Sacrifice for our Sins , differs from the Love of a meer Man , in preaching the Gospel , and bearing Testimony to it by his own Blood. It changes the hopes and reliances of Sinners , as much as the Security of a Meritorious Sacrifice offered by the Eternal Son of God for the Expiation of our Sins , differs from the Promises of an extraordinary Man sent as a Prophet from God ; and as much as the Intercession of a High Priest , who is the Eternal Son of God , and intercedes in the Merits of his own Blood , differs from the Intercession of a meer , though of an excellent Man , who has made no Atonement for our Sins , and has no other Interest in God , than what an innocent and obedient Man can pretend to . It were easie to enlarge on this Argument ; but I have directed in the Margin , where the Reader may see it discoursed at large . Now if this Author , for these Reasons , will allow us to instruct our People in the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation , and not desire us to receive Socinians into our Communion , he will do good Service , if he can bring them to his Negative Belief , and perswade them to be silent ; if he can't , we will try to make them so in time , if they have Wit enough to understand , when it is fit to be quiet . In the next place he takes Sanctuary in the Act of Parliament in favour of Dissenters , which he conceives has done very much , if not full enough . But had he considered , how severe this Act is upon his beloved Socinians , he might much better have let it alone . For no Dissenters have any benefit by that Act , who do not renounce Socinianism : But he pretends to give Account of Acts of Parliament , as he does of other Books , without seeing them . But we may see what a hearty good will he has to the Cause : if the Act has excepted Socinians , it is more than he knew , and more than he wished ; for he hoped it had not been done , and endeavoured to perswade the World , that all the Bishops of England had allowed it ; for he cannot believe , that the Body of the Bishops disallowed , or did not with good liking consent to the Act , viz. To give Liberty to Socinians , as he supposed . This is such a scandalous Representation of the Bishops of England , as I 'm sure , they don't deserve , and which in due time they may resent . And here , without any provocation , he sets up the Authority of Bishops , against the Lower House of Convocation , who never differed upon this Point , and I hope never will , nor will ever be tempted by such a forward Undertaker , to dispute the Bounds of their Authority , but content themselves with the Ancient Constitution of the Church of England . But if he understands the Practice of the Primitive and truly Apostolick Church , which he threatens these unruly Presbyters with , no better than he does K. Edw. VI.'s Reformation , which he supposes to be made by the Body of the Bishops , in opposition to the Presbyters ( or else I know not how he applies it ) he is capable of doing no great good nor hurt . Only I can tell him one thing , That had he fallen into the hands of K. Edw.'s Reforming Bishops , they would have reformed him out of the Church , or have taught him another sort of Compassionate Suit than this . He concludes with a heavy Charge upon Myself , and Dr. Wallis , ( for he mentions none else ) as if we had receded from the Doctrine taught even in our own Church , about the Holy Trinity . Do we then deny , that there are Three Persons and One God ? No , our business is to prove it , and explain and vindicate it ? but he thinks we explain it otherwise , than it has been formerly explained . And yet that very Account he gives us of it , out of Mr. Hooker , is owned by myself , and particularly explained by my Hypothesis . He has given us no just occasion to vindicate ourselves , because he has not vouchsafed to tell us , why he dislikes either of us . He has cited some broken passages out of my Vindication , about Three Eternal Minds , which are essentially One Eternal Mind . And what is the hurt of this ? Is not every Divine Person who is God , a Mind , and an Eternal Mind ? Is not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the Eternal and Uncreated Word and Wisdom of God , an Eternal and Uncreated Mind ? Is not the substantial Word and Wisdom of God a Mind ? Is not the Eternal Spirit , which searcheth the deep things of God , as the Spirit of a Man knoweth the things of a Man , a Mind ? And if I can give any possible account , how Three Eternal Minds should be essentially One , does not this at least prove , that there may be Three Divine Persons , in the Unity of the Divine Essence ? And should I have been mistaken in this account , as I believe I am not , must I therefore be charged with receding from the Doctrine of the Church of England ? As for Dr. Wallis , he has nothing to say against him , but his calling the Divine Persons Somewhats , with which he has very profanely ridiculed the Litany , which I gave an account before . And now can any Man tell , what Opinion this Melancholy Stander-by has of the Doctrines of the Trinity , and Incarnation ? He dares not speak out , but gives very broad signs , what he would be at . He discourages all Men from defending these Doctrines , declares , That all new Attempts cannot satisfie the old Difficulties , which he declares to be unsatisfiable , and unsoluble : That when we have moved every Stone , Authority must define it . And yet this Authority extends no farther than to a Negative Belief ▪ which , he says , is all that can reasonably be required of Men , of such Mysteries as they cannot understand : and thus far he professes himself bound by our Church Articles for Peace sake . And this is his Faith of the Trinity , not to believe it , but only not to oppose it . He complains of the Scholastick cramping Terms of Three Persons , and One God , and thinks the Unity of Three Persons in One Essence , to be only a more Orthodox Phrase ; so that he leaves us no words to express this Doctrine by , and therefore it is time to say nothing about it . It is a Controversie which exposes our Liturgy , and is not only unprofitable , but corruptive of , and prejudicial and injurious to our common Devotion : so dangerous is it to pray to the Holy , Blessed , and Glorious Trinity , Three Persons and One God. But then on the other hand , he carefully practises that forbearance , which he perswades others to , towards his Learned Writers of the Socinian Controversies , tho' they were the Assailants : never perswades them to forbear exposing and ridiculing the Faith of the Church , which would have provoked his Indignation , had he any reverence for the Holy Trinity , and a God Incarnate ; but only thinks by the Charm of a Negative Faith , that they may be required quietly to acquiesce in the publick determinations . He tells us over and over , how unseasonable and dangerous it is to meddle with such high matters , or to offer at any Explication of what is Incomprehensible ; but it is no fault in them , to talk of Absurdities and Contradictions in what they do not understand : nay , he all along insinuates , that these Absurdities and Contradictions , which they charge upon the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation , are unsatisfiable , and unsoluble ▪ He bestows high Encomiums upon these Enemies of the Faith , but speaks with wonderful Contempt of those who defend it , as far as he dares ; the Fathers and Councils are out of his reach , but the Master of the Sentences , and the School-men , and all Modern Undertakers , must feel his displeasure : to defend the Trinity exposes our Liturgy , and corrupts our common Devotion ; but to ridicule it , makes them very pious and devout Men. GOD preserve his Church from Wolves in Sheeps Clothing . And now having vindicated our Ancient Rights and Liberties , which the Church always challenged , of defending the truly Catholick and Apostolick Faith , from the Assaults of Hereticks , I shall apply myself , as I have leisure , to the Defence of my Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity , and the Incarnation of the Son of God. THE END . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59791-e290 Earnest Suit , p. 1. P. 2. P. 2. P. 3. P. 3. P. 16. P. 3. P. 4. P. 5 ▪ Page 7. Page 7. Page 8. Page 8. Page 9. See the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation , pag. 256 , &c. Page 11. Page 13. Page 7. Page 6. Page 2. Page 6. Page 17. Page 9 , 10. 
A38042	----	Socinianism unmask'd a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of a late writer's opinion concerning the necessity of only one article of Christian faith, and of his other assertions in his late book, entituled, The reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures, and in his vindication of it : with a brief reply to another (professed) Socinian writer / by John Edwards ... Edwards, John, 1637-1716. 1696 Approx. 190 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 86 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A38042 Wing E214 ESTC R3296 11789813 ocm 11789813 49159 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A38042) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 49159) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 491:13) Socinianism unmask'd a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of a late writer's opinion concerning the necessity of only one article of Christian faith, and of his other assertions in his late book, entituled, The reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures, and in his vindication of it : with a brief reply to another (professed) Socinian writer / by John Edwards ... Edwards, John, 1637-1716. [16], 142 p. Printed for J. Robinson ... and J. Wyat ..., London : 1696. Errata: prelim. p. [16]. The reasonableness of Christianity (1695) is by John Locke. "A brief reply to another Socinian writer, whose cavils bear this title, [The exceptions of Mr. Edwards in his causes of atheism against the reasonableness of Christianity, &c. examined.]" (p. [113]-142) has half title. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Locke, John, 1632-1704. -- Reasonableness of Christianity. Exceptions of Mr. Edwards, in his causes of atheism. Socinianism. 2002-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2002-06 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-07 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2002-07 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-08 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Socinianism Unmask'd . A DISCOURSE Shewing the Unreasonableness Of a Late Writer's OPINION Concerning the Necessity of only One Article of Christian Faith ; And of his other Assertions in his late Book , Entituled , The Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures , and in his Vindication of it . With a Brief Reply to another ( professed ) Socinian Writer . By IOHN EDWARDS , B. D. and sometime Fellow of S. Iohn's College in Cambridge . LONDON : Printed for I. Robinson at the Golden Lyon , and I. Wyat at the Rose in S. Paul's Church-yard . MDCXCVI . THE INTRODUCTION . THE following Discourse ( which was finish'd above two months ago , but by reason of some Intervening Occurrences found not its way to the Press ) is design'd against the undertaking of a late Author in his book which bears the Title of the Reasonableness of Christianity , &c. But the Writer himself is wonderfully pleased with his Lying hid , and being No Body . I grant there may be Reasons why a man may sometimes conceal his Name , and not prefix it to the Book he is Author of . But there are some Reasons that are proper and peculiar to this Writer's circumstances , for this is perfectly after the Mode of our late English Racovian Writers , who constantly appear Nameless , and accordingly herein he shews himself to be of the right Racovian breed . And another good reason is this ( which indeed argues something of Modesty ) he would not set a Christian Name before that book wherein he so grosly abuses Christianity , and renounces the greatest part of it . I will not wast time , and trouble the Reader and my self about guessing who this Writer is . Out of Christian good will and charity I am backward to believe that he who is vogued to be the Father of these Extravagant Conceits , is really so . I will still perswade my self that there is an Error of the Person ; upon which account I shall be more free than otherwise I should have been . But to come to the Book it self ; there was ( to express it in the most Learned and Rhetorical Stile of our Author himself ) a great flutter , noise and buz raised about it , even while it was yet under the Printers hands . There were certain Factors and Emissaries who extravagantly extolled it , and it was observ'd this Applause came from the Racovian quarter . Those of that way knew before it came out that it was in favour of their Cause : whence it was that they so mightily raised the Expectations of those they convers'd with , and highly magnified this Piece before the world had seen it . And as soon as it was blessed with the sight of it , their language ran to an exorbitant heighth : as if Christianity had been never known before the time of the compiling of this book . All that went before this Author were deluded Creatures , and were perfect Strangers to the Articles of the Christian Faith , and to Christianity it self . Now is risen up an Infallible Teacher : all must obsequiously repair to this Great Oracle . Now the Socinians have another Champion , now they look brisk upon it , and the day is their own . Now Converts come in apace , and the Youth begin to have a Polonian Aspect : and in a short time we shall have a Brood of Socinians , we shall be stock'd with Young Racovians . And to let you into the whole Project , this is the short account of it , Socinianism was to be erected at this time ( they can stay no longer ) and in order to that all hands are to be employed , i. e. all that they can get . Among others they thought and made choice of a Gentleman , who they knew would be extraordinarily useful to them ; and he it is probable was as forward to be made use of by them , and presently accepted of the Office which was assigned him . Now , thinks he , I had best to make use of this opportunity , and to set up for a Divine . Not only the Illiterate bulk of mankind , but their Reverences and Right Reverences ( to use the words of a * Writer of our own Brotherhood ) shall come to Me to have their understandings inform'd , for we have but a sorry unthinking sort of Teachers now a-days , whether they be Conformists or otherwise : I could never approve of their Systematick genius , their doating upon Creeds and Confessions , and rendring our Faith cumbersom and burdensom . It may be even these men will give ear to what a Thoughtful Musing Man dictates to them , though they never think themselves , but take all upon trust , and swallow Epistles and Gospel together . I have attained to such a heighth and perfection of knowledg that I am able to instruct these people after another rate . I must tell them ( which I know they will look very strangely upon ) that the Apostles , when they wrote the Epistles to their Christian Converts , designed not to trouble their heads with any Articles or Truths that were necessarily to be believed , they only dropt a few Occasional Documents . And it may be now and then that One Article which I have propounded to the world may be hook'd in by the by : but that is no place to look for any Necessary and Fundamental Truth of Christianity , which is absolutely to be believ'd by us . This seems to be Novel Doctrine , and so indeed it is , for I have the honour to be the first famous Inventer of it ; but I doubt not but in a short time I shall not only propagate this , but the Cause to which it is subservient , in a wonderful manner . To this purpose I will carry it cunningly : whilest the Double-Column'd Prints are openly and in a down-right way advancing the Cause , I will do as much service under-hand . They look directly towards Poland or Transylvania , they publickly profess themselves to be Socinus's Followers , but I 'll be upon the Reserve , and so disguise my self that it shall be very difficult to discover me . I will make the world believe that I never heard of such a man as Socinus : and if they tell me that I speak his very language as perfectly as if I were a Native of Sienna , I 'll face them down that I had it not by fingring of any Socinian Authors , but by a kind of Natural Revelation . Well , this cause must be carried on , and I can do it as well as any man by maintaining that there is but One Article of Christian Faith necessarily to be believ'd to make a man a Christian , necessarily to be believ'd in order to salvation . For if there be but One Point necessary to be believ'd , then the doctrines concerning the Trinity , concerning the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ , concerning his Satisfaction , &c. are rendred unnecessary as to the making us Christians . And this I will shove on under the colour of being serviceable to the bulk of Mankind , of being obliging and merciful to the Multitude and Rabble , and Poor People ; though ( to say the Truth ) I shew my self to be so far from obliging the Multitude that I do them an infinite deal of Mischief . Yet if I compass my End , it is enough , and I care for no more . And my End is this , to hale in Socinianism after a new manner . You see what the Musing of this Gentleman comes to : and I was so unhappy a man as to find it out , to take notice of it , and to discover it to the world in a late Discourse which I publish'd : and thereby I have extremely exasperated this New Undertaker and his Adherents . I do not wonder at it , for now their Intrigues are laid open , their Racovian Plot is detected , and all their Measures are thereby broken . But to keep up their hearts , a Vindication ( as it is call'd ) of this Treachery is publish'd by him who was appointed to be the Chief Tool in this work . Here he makes it his business to defend his New Paradox , and to shore his Notion up again with some crazy props . Throughout the whole he is pleas'd to Criticize with some Magisterialness and Pertness on the Reflections which I made on his book . And now it is my turn again to be Critick , and I shall discharge the Task with all impartiality and integrity . It is true , there is nothing of any Moment , nothing Weighty and Argumentative in what he hath offered , and therefore some in whose Judgment I could confide , would have prevailed with me to add no more on this Subject , which they were perswaded I had before sufficiently cleared : but partly to shew somewhat further the great Danger and Mischief of this Writer's Opinion , partly to prevent the Seduction of some well-meaning persons who may be apt to be led away by his smooth Pretences , ( for though his Cavils and Evasions be weak , yet they may chance to light into the Hands of some Weak Readers , such as are not well establish'd in their notions : Wherefore not on the account of his Petty Objections , but for the sake of these persons I reassume this Argument ) and partly to lay open the Wilful Mistakes and Gross Dissimulation ( as I take it ) of this Writer , and partly to gratifie those Gentlemens expectations who with some impatience seem to long for a Reply , I have once again undertaken to employ the Press upon this occasion . But the Chief and Principal Design , as well as Motive , of my appearing again in this Cause is to assert and defend the Christian Faith which this Author hath misrepresented , maim'd and abused . To which purpose I will set before the Reader the Heads of his pretended Vindication , and in the face of the world make it appear how falsly and perfidiously he hath acted in the Cause of Religion . And may it be the Readers Prayer ( as well as it is mine ) that this Enterprize may tend to the Glory and Honour of God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost ( Three Glorious Persons in One ever to be Adored Deity ) and to the Edification of the Christian Church . Amen . Ian. 27. 1695 / 6. ERRATA . PAge 17. line . 1. read . World. p. 22. l. 18. for Christ. r. Iesus . p. 54. l. 20. r. Sylburgius . p. 85. l. 9. r. Racovians . p. 87. l. 23 after Iesus insert Christ. p. 116. line 3. after done make the other part of the Parenthesis . p. 117. l. 18. after if insert the truth were known , I believe it would appear that . p. 120. l. 17. r. telling . p. 125. l 8. r. him . p. 128. l. 21. after hath insert had . p. 131. l. 13. after religion insert who is so near a-kin to one that is voted a Socinian in the Brief History of the Vnitarians . p. 135. l. 11. r. Socinianiz'd . A Late WRITER's Unreasonable Opinions CONFUTED . CHAP. I. The first General Charge against the Late Writer , viz. That he unwarrantably crowds all the Necessary Articles of Faith into One , with a design of favouring Socinianism . He endeavours to shift off the Enditement , but is cast by his own words . His wilful mistake about the Article of the Deity . He labours in vain to split One Article into Two. It is shew'd that besides the bare believing of Jesus to be the Messias , it is necessary to know and believe the Fall of Adam , whereby Sin and Death entred into the World , and were derived to his posterity . It is necessary to know and believe Who the Messias is ; whether he be God or Man , or both : on which will follow the necessary belief of the Holy Trinity . It is requisite to have a right conception concerning our Recovery and Restauration by the Messias , i. e. to know what he undertook and did for us , and to be acquainted with the Great Privileges bestow'd upon us by him . It is of necessity to believe what the Messias requires of Vs. It is undoubted matter of our belief , that our Salvation springs from the mere Favour and Grace of God through Christ Jesus , and not from any works or merits of ours . It is indispensably requisite , that we believe the Doctrin of the Resurrection , of the Final Judgment , and of Eternal Life . I Will now betake my self to the Task which is before me , after I have told the Reader , that I intend not to imitate our Nameless Author in his Childish Flourishes , in his Spruce and Starched Sentences , and in his Impotent Jestings , which are sprinkled up and down his Vindication . Nor will I follow him in his Impertinencies and Incoherencies , in his trifling Excursions to eke out his two sheets and a half . I will not resemble him in his Little Artifices of evading , in his weak and feeble Struglings with a Strong Truth . I will not personate him in the Confusion and Disorder of his Reply , for it seems he had forgot , that it is one sign of a Well-bred , a Well-taught Man , * to answer to the first in the first place , and so in order . I will not imitate him in his Dry Common Places , in his Set of Words and Phrases , of Sayings and Apothegms , which would have serv'd on any other occasion , as the Intelligent Reader cannot but take notice . Much less will I comply with him in his Angry fits and Passionate Ferments , which , tho he strives to palliate , are easily discernible , for he feels himself Wounded , and is not able to disguise it . I will betake my self , I say , to the present Concern with great application and mindfulness , fully making good my Former Charges against his Book , and clearing my own from those sorry Objections and Cavils which he hath since rais'd against it . In the whole management I will sincerely acquaint the Reader first with his own words , and then offer my Refutation of them : and all along I will be careful to banish all Indecent Reflections ; unless those shall be counted such which are purely grounded on his own expressions , and which his Freedom of Language necessarily and unavoidably administers to me . The Main Charges are these . 1. That he unwarrantably crowded all the Necessary Articles of Faith into One , with a design of favouring Socinianism . 2. That he shew'd his good will to this Cause by interpreting those Texts which respect the Holy Trinity , after the Antitrinitarian mode . 3. That he gave proof of his being Socinianiz'd by his utter silence about Christ's satisfying for us , and purchasing Salvation by vertue of his Death , when he designedly undertook to enumerate the Advanvantages and Benefits which accrue to mankind by Christ's coming into the World. And in the making good of these Particular Charges , I shall ( as I did before ) evidence to the World that this Writer hath not only a design to cherish Socinianism , but at the same time to make way for Atheism . I begin with the First , on which I will enlarge more than on any of the rest ; because it comprehends in it several other Particulars , and because in discussing of this , I shall have opportunity to lay open the Sophistry and Dissimulation of this Vindicator , and likewise to discover to the Reader how Mischievous and Pernicious his Design is . First , it is observable that this Guilty Man would be shifting off the Enditement by excepting against the formality of the Words , as if such were not to be found in his Book . But when doth he do this ? In the close of it , when his matter was exhausted , and he had nothing else to say , Vindic. p. 38. Then he bethinks himself of this Salvo , whereas he had generally before pleaded to the formal Enditement , and had thereby owned it to be True. And indeed he can do no other , for it was the main work he set himself about to find but One Article of Faith in all the Chapters of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles : and accordingly he over and over again declares , that there is but that One Truth ( viz. Iesus is the Messiah ) necessarily to be assented to by Christians , or ( as he sometimes words it ) absolutely required to make a man a Christian , or a member of Christ. This is the SOLE Doctrin press'd and requir'd to be believ'd in the whole tenour of our Saviour's and his Apostles preaching . p. 192. of his Reasonableness of Christianity . And again in the same place . This was the ONLY Gospel Article of Faith which was Preached to them . This he often inculcates , having left out several considerable passage in the very Gospels , and having thrown aside the Epistles , as if they were no part of the New Testament , hoping that some of his Readers would be bubbled by this means . And when I told him of his One Article , he knew well enough that I did not exclude the Article of the Deity , for that is a Principle of Natural Religion ; whereas , I only took notice of his passing by and wholly omitting those points which are Evangelical . Yet he willfully mistakes me in this , p. 27. of his Vindication , and saith he doth not deny the necessary belief of a Deity , or One only True God ; and so the belief of the Messias with that makes Two Articles . Thus he would perswade the Reader , that I misunderstood him , and that I tax'd him with setting up One Article , when he acknowledges two . But the Reader sees his Shuffling ; for my Discourse did not treat ( neither doth his Book run that way ) of Principles of Natural Religion , but of the Revealed one , and Particularly the Christian. Accordingly this was it which I taxed him with , that of all the Principles and Articles of Christianity he chose out but One as necessarily to be believed to make a Man a Christian. And though since he hath tried to split this One into two , p. 28. yet he labours in vain , for to believe Iesus to be the Messias amounts to the same , with believing him to be a King or Ruler , his being Anointed ( i. e. being the Messias ) including that in it . Yet he hath the Vanity to add in great Characters , THESE ARE ARTICLES , as if the putting them into these Great Letters would make one Article two . Such is the fond fancy and conceitedness of the Gentleman , whereas in other places he hath formally declared , that there is but One Article that is the necessary Matter of Faith. This I had just reason to except against ; and now I will give a farther account of my doing so , by shewing that , besides that One Fundamental Principle or Article which he so often mentions , there are Others that are as necessarily to be believed to make a Man a Christian , yea to give him the denomination of a Believer , in the sense of the Gospel . Several of these I particularly , but barely enumerated in my former Discourse , and now I will distinctly insist on the most of them , and let the Reader see , that it is as necessary for a Convert to Christianity to give assent to them , as to that other he so frequently specifies . This Proposition , that by one man sin entred into the World , and death by sin : and this which follows , Death passed upon all men , for as much as all men have sinned , Rom. 5. 12. and that other , that even the Regenerate ( for the Apostle speaks of himself and the Converted Ephesians ) are by nature the Children of wrath , as well as others , Eph. 2. 3. these , I say , are as absolutely necessary to be known , assented to , and believed , in order to our being Christians as this Proposition , Iesus is the Messias , or Sent of God. For I ask , what was the end of his being sent ? Was it not to Help Mankind , to rescue and deliver them from some Evil ? And where can we be inform'd concerning the Rise and Nature of this Evil , but in the Sacred and Inspired Writings ? And do not these foresaid Texts , which we find in St. Paul's Epistles , acquaint us with the true Source and Quality of our condition by nature ? Do they not discover the Root of Mans Misery , viz. the Apostacy of Adam ( for he is that one Man ) and the dreadful Consequences of it , expressed by Death and Wrath ? And is this set down to no purpose in these Inspired Epistles ? Is it not requisite that we should know it and believe it ? Yea , is not this absolutely requisite ? For it is impossible any one should firmly imbrace , or so much as seriously attend to the Doctrin of the Messias , unless he be persuaded that He stands in need of him . And can he be persuaded of this unless he be acquainted with his Degenerate and Miserable State , his universal Depravity and innate Proness to what is Vitious , and with the true Original of it ? viz. The voluntary Defection and Fall of our First Parents , and with that the loss of our Happiness . The word Messias is an insignificant term till we have a belief of this : Why then is there a Treatise published to tell the World , that the bare belief of a Messias is all that is required of a Christian ? Again , it is not only necessary to know that Iesus is the Messias , but also to know and believe who this Iesus , this Messias is , viz. whether he be God or Man , or both . For every one will grant that there is a Vast Difference between the one and the other , as much as there is betwixt Infinite and Finite ; and therefore that we may have a due apprehension concerning the Messias , it is absolutely necessary , that we should believe him to be what he is declared to be in the Infallible Writings , viz. God , as well as Man. The Word was God , John 1. 1. The Word was made Flesh , v. 14. And this Word is the Only begotten of the Father , in the same Verse . God was manifest in the Flesh , 1. Tim. 3. 16. He is called not only God in these places , and in several others , but he is stil'd the True God , 1 John 5. 20. and the Great God , Tit. 2. 13. The Lord of all , Acts 10. 36. God blessed for ever , Rom. 9. 5. Hence we must conclude , that there is a necessity of believing the Messias to be the very God , of the same Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost , for these are the two other Persons included in the Deity . So that hence it will follow , that it is requisite to believe the Holy Trinity , i. e. that there are in the Godhead Three Persons , Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; which is the Doctrin that our Saviour himself taught ( and he taught it , that it might be believed ) Mat. 28. 19. where the Celebration of Baptism , which is a solemn part of Divine Worship , is commanded to be in the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , who are One God , 1 John 5. 7. These Three are One , one Essence or Being , as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports . Those words of the Apostle are observable , 1 Cor. 1. 13. Were ye baptised in the name of Paul ? As much as to say , Baptism is in the name of God , and not of a Man : Therefore when it is said , Go and Baptize in the name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , it is included , that these Three are God , i. e. Three Persons of one and the same Deity . Thus it is manifest , that the believing of Iesus's being the Messias , or Anointed is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian Believer , but he must further believe these Propositions or Articles , viz. that the Son of God was made flesh , i. e. assumed our Human Nature ; that Christ is True God ; that He with the Father and the Spirit are One God ; for these are not only expressed in the Gospels and Epistles ( out of both which we are to gather the Fundamental Articles of Faith ) and consequently are to be assented to by all Christians , but the very Nature of the thing it self dictates that we ought to have a firm belief of these Truths ; for otherwise when a Man professes his belief in the Messias , he is yet ignorant of the Person he pretends to believe in . He doth not know whether he believes in a God or in a Man , or to which of these he is beholding , for the Good he looks for by the Messias's coming . Now , Sir , you with your Reasonableness of Christianity , what do you think of this ? Is it not reasonable that a Christian should ( as the Apostle speaks of himself ) know whom he hath believed ? 2 Tim. 1. 12. Nay , is it not indispensably necessary , that he should know whether it be a Divine , or Human , or Angelical Power that he is obliged to , that so he may accordingly proportion his Affections and Service ? for ( what ever the late Set of Socinians hold ) there must be a difference made between the Homage which is paid to a Creature ( such as they declare Christ to be ) and that which is due only to the Creator . I will refer the Reader to the Incomparable Bishop Pearson on the Second Article of the Creed , where he shews , the Necessity of our believing Christ to be the Eternal Son of God , and God himself , 1. For the directing and confirming of our Faith concerning the Redemption of Mankind . 2. For the right informing of us about that Worship and Honour which are due to him . 3. For giving us a right apprehension , and consequently a due value of the Infinite Love of God the Father in sending his Only-begotten Son into the World to die for us . Thus this Judicious Writer . But our Nameless Author would persuade us , that there is no necessity of believing any such thing . Then in the next place , we are to have a right conception concerning our Recovery and Restauration by this Messias , who is God-Man . And here those several Scriptures will furnish us with Articles , As by the offence of one , judgment came upon all men to condemnation , even so by the righteonsness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life . For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners , so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous , Rom. 5. 18 , 19. He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself , Heb. 9. 26. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many , Heb. 9. 28. Christ hath once suffered for sins , the just for the unjust , 1 Pet. 3. 18. He gave himself a Ransom for all men , 1 Tim. 2. 6. Ye are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ , 1 Pet. 1. 18 , 19. And to it is prefix'd ye know , to let us understand that this Article is to be known and assented to . We are bought with a price , 1 Cor. 6. 20. and 7. 23. We are reconciled unto God by the death of his Son , Rom. 5. 10. By him now we have received the Atonement , v. 11. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified , Heb. 10. 14. It behoved Christ to suffer , and to rise from the dead the third day , Luk. 24. 46. Christ must needs have suffered , and risen again from the dead , Acts 17. 3. He was taken up into heaven , and sat on the right hand of God , Mark 16. 19. These and the like places afford us such Fundamental and Necessary Doctrins as these are , that by and for the Meritorious Righteousness and Obedience of Christ ( the Second Adam ) we are accounted Righteous and Obedient in the sight of God : That Christ was a Sacrifice for us , and suffered in our stead : That he satisfied Divine Justice by paying an Infinite Price for us ; That by vertue of that Payment all the Debts , i. e. all the Sins of Believers are perfectly absolved : That hereby the anger of the Incensed Deity is pacified , and that we are entirely Reconciled to him : That we have an assurance of all this by Christ's rising from the dead , and ascending triumphantly into Heaven . These are Principles of the Oracles of God , Heb. 5. 12. These are part of the Form of sound words , 2 Tim. 1. 13. which are indispensable Ingredients in the Christian Faith , which you may know by this , that if a man be obliged to the belief of the Messias's Coming , it is undeniably requisite that he should know what the Messias came to do for him , and that he should firmly yield assent to it . This I think no Man of Reason will deny : and then it will follow that these Articles which I have last mentioned are the Necessary and Unexceptionable object or matter of the Faith of a Christian Man. And here likewise it were easie to shew , that Adoption , Iustification , Pardon of Sins , &c. which are Privileges and Benefits bestowed upon us by the Messias , are necessary matters of our Belief , for we can't duly acknowledge him for our Benefactor and Saviour , unless we believe , that these Great Prerogatives are confer'd upon us . Moreover , it is of undoubted necessity in order to our being Christians , that we know and believe what the Messias requires of us ; which is contained in such general Texts as these , That ye being delivered out of the hands of your enemies may serve him ( Christ our Deliverer ) without fear , in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life , Luke 1. 75. The grace of God which bringeth salvation , teacheth us , to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts , &c. Tit. 2. 11 , 12. He gave himself for us , that he might re-redeem us from all iniquity , &c. Tit. 2. 14. This is the will of God , even your sanctification , 1 Thess. 4. 3. Without Faith it is impossible to please God , Heb. 11. 6. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord , Heb. 12. 14. Which places yield us such Propositions as these , that the Messias who vouchsafed to come into the world to redeem lost Man , requires of him universal Holiness and Righteousness , and the abandoning of all sin and ungodliness : That it was one grand end and design of Christ's visiting the would to redeem men from their iniquities , to sanctifie their Natures , and to make them entirely godly , sober and righteous in their Lives : That without these there is no Salvation , no Seeing of God in the regions of Glory , no hopes of Everlasting Happiness . The disbelieving of these Articles hath made so many Sorry Christians as we see every where , such as lay claim to that Honourable Title , but are regardless of that Holiness which should accompany it . We must not only believe that Iesus is the Messias , but we must believe this also that we can have no Benefit by this Messias unless we by Faith and Obedience adhere to him . Neither is this enough , it is further matter of our Belief , as we are Christians , that our Salvation springs from the mere Favour and Bounty of God through his Son Iesus Christ , and that this is the only source of that Happiness which we expect . By grace we are saved , through faith , and that not of our selves : it is the gift of God , Eph. 2. 8. Not by works of righteousness which we have done , but according to his Mercy he saveth us , Tit. 3. 5. Where there is not this perswasion and belief , the true notion of Christianity vanishes , and the conceit of Merit comes in its room : Wherefore there is a Necessity that we believe and be perswaded aright as to this matter . We are Worthless Creatures of our selves , but there is a Worthiness derived to us from the Unspotted and Meritorious Righteousness of him that is the Eternal Son of God. He that knows not this , he that believes not this deserves not the Name of a Christian . I should have been glad to have found something of this nature in this Gentleman's Christianity . But he endeavours to seduce his Readers by other apprehensions , he tells them that the bare assenting to this , that Iesus is the Messias , is the Summ Total of the Christian Faith , and the Gospel requires no more . Lastly , The doctrines of the Resurrection of the Final Iudgment , and of Eternal Glory in heaven are contained in such passages of the New Testament as these , Christ will raise up his at the last day , Iohn 6. 44. The Lord Iesus Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing , 2 Tim. 4. 1. Father , I will that they whom thou hast given me , be with me where I am , that they may behold my glory , Iohn 17. 24. And are not these Truths the proper Object of our Faith now under the Gospel , they so peculiarly belonging to the doctrine and belief of the Messias ? Can we believe in him , and yet not believe these Great things which are brought to light by his preaching the Gospel ? For though they were in some measure discovered and revealed before ( i. e. the General Doctrine concerning a Future State , and the Endless Happiness accompanying it was not unknown ) yet Christ's Words and those of the Apostles do more abundantly assure us of the truth of them : especially Christ's Rising from the dead and ascending into Glory have irrefragably confirmed the reality of them , according to that of St. Peter , We are begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead , to an Inheritance incorruptible and undefiled , and that fadeth not away , reserved in heaven for us , 1 Pet. 1. 4. Who but the Vindicator could imagine that these Evangelical Doctrines are not Necessary Matter of Faith to Christian Men ? Who but he could fancy and ( which is more ) publickly assert that the belief of the Messias's being sent from God , without being acquainted with his gracious appointment as to our Future Rewards , is all that is required as necessary to constitute a Christian Believer ? Especially , when it is said , He that comes unto God must believe that he is a Rewarder , Heb. 11. 6. Observe it , he must believe : then it is not indifferent , but a Necessary Article of faith . CHAP. II. The foresaid Articles and Doctrines are proved to be Necessary matter of Christian Faith. Not that a man is supposed Actually to exert his Assent and Belief every moment . That we may be True Christians , All these Fundamental Truths must be imbraced , and none excluded . The late Writer's forgetfulness . It is prov'd that he grounds his notion of One Article upon the Weakness of Vnderstanding and Capacity in the Generality of people . Herein he follows the Steps of the Racovians , who submit the greatest Mysteries to the judgment of the Vulgar ; and , if they will not bear that Test , reject them . The Doctrine of the Trinity how said to have no Difficulty in it . It contains in it no Contradiction . This Proposition , Jesus is the Messias is not more intelligible than any of the Articles before mentioned . THUS I have briefly set before the Reader those Evangelical Truths , those Christian Principles which belong to the very Essence of Christianity . I have proved them to be such , and I have reduced most of them to certain Propositions , which is a thing the Vindicator call'd for , p. 16. If what I have said will not content him , I am sure I can do nothing that will. And therefore , if he should capriciously require any thing more , it would be as great Folly in me to comply with it as it is in him to move it . From what I have said it is evident that he is grosly mistaken when he saith , Whatever doctrines the Apostles required to be believed to make a man a Christian , are to be found in those places of Scripture which he hath quoted in his book , p. 11. The places which he quotes are made use of by him to shew that there is but One Article of Belief , viz. that Christ is the Messiah : but I think I have sufficiently proved that there are Other Doctrines besides That which are requir'd to be believed to make a man a Christian. Why did the Apostles write these Doctrines ? Was it not that those they writ to might give their Assent to them ? Nay , did they not require Assent to them ? Yes , verily , for this is to be proved from the Nature of the things contained in those Doctrines , which , were such as had immediate respect to the Occasion , Author , Way , Means , and Issue of their Redemption and Salvation , as any impartial judg by examining the several Particular Articles and Propositions will readily grant . So that the sum of all amounts to this . The belief of those things without the knowledg of which a man cannot be saved is absolutely Necessary : but the belief of the foregoing Particulars is the belief of such things without the knowledg of which a man cannot be saved ; Therefore the belief of these Particulars is absolutely necessary . None will be so refractory , I suppose , as to deny the first Proposition in this Syllogism ; therefore I am to prove the Second , which is easily effected thus . The belief of those things which have Immediate respect to the Occasion , Author , Way , Means , and Issue of our Salvation , and which are necessary for knowing the True Nature and Design of it , is the belief of such things without the knowledg of which a man cannot be saved : but such is the belief of the preceding Articles , Ergò . Not without good reason therefore I call'd them the Essential and Integral Parts of our Christian and Evangelical Faith : And why the Vindicator fleers at these Terms ( p. 18. ) I know no reason but this that he can't confute the application of them . Surely none but this Upstart Racovian will have the confidence to deny that These Articles of Faith are such as are Necessary to constitute a Christian , as to the intellectual and doctrinal part of Christianity ; such as must in some measure be known and assented to by him , such as must be generally receiv'd and imbrac'd by him . Not that a man is supposed every moment to Actually exert his Assent and Belief , for none of the Moral Vertues , none of the Evangelical Graces are exerted thus always . Wherefore , that Question , p. 16. ( though he saith he asks it seriously ) might have been spared , Whether every one of these Fundamentals is required to be believed to make a Man a Christian , and such as without the Actual belief thereof , he cannot be saved ? Here is Seriousness pretended when there is none , for the design is only to Cavil , and ( if he can ) to expose my Assertion . But he is not able to do it , for all his Critical Demands are answered in these few words , viz. that the Intellectual ( as well as the Moral ) Endowments are never supposed to be Always in Act : they are exerted upon Occasion , and not all of them at a time . And therefore he mistakes if he thinks , or rather as he objects without thinking , that these Doctrine , if they be Fundamental and Necessary , must be always actually believed . No man besides himself ever started such a thing . And why should not every one of these Evangelical Truths ( which is another thing he puts into his Question ) be believed and imbraced ? They are in our Bibles for that very purpose , as I have proved , and therefore I need not undertake it again here . Hence it follows that a man cannot be a Christian without the knowledg and belief of these Truths which are the basis of Religion , the Standard of the Christian Faith , the very Badges and Characters of Christianity . Wherefore for any man to make up Christianity without the belief of these is a Ridiculous and absurd attempt , and consequently we may guess that none would have ventured upon it but this Writer . This is he that sets up One Article with defiance of the rest , ( though he is much displeased with me for saying so , p. 31. ) for what is excluding them wholly but defying them ? Wherefore , seeing he utterly excludes all the rest by representing them as Vseless to the making a man a Christian ( which is the design of his whole Undertaking ) it is manifest that he defies them . But let us hear what this Author pleads for himself . He founds his conceit of One Article partly upon this , that a Multitude of doctrines is obscure , and hard to be understood , and therefore he trusses all up in One Article , that the poor people and bulk of mankind may bear it . This is the Scope of a great part of his book . But his Memory doth not keep pace with his Invention , and thence he saith he remembers nothing of this in his book . Vind. p. 27. This Worthy Writer doth not know his own Reasoning that he uses , as particularly thus , that he troubies Christian men with no more but One Article , because that is Intelligible , and all people high and low may comprehend it . For he hath chosen out ( he thinks ) a Plain and Easie Article , whereas the others which are commonly propounded are not generally agreed upon ( he saith ) and are dubious and uncertain . But the believing that Iesus was the Messias hath nothing of doubtfulness or obscurity in it . This the Reader will find to be the drift and design of several of his Pages . And the reason why I did not quote any single one of them was because he insists on this so long together , and spins it out after his way . In p. 301. of his Reasonableness of Christianity , where he sets down the short , plain , easie and intelligible Summary ( as he calls it ) of Religion , couch'd in a Single Article , he immediately adds , The All-merciful God seems herein to have consulted the poor of this world , and the bulk of mankind . These are Articles ( whereas he had set down but One ) that the labouring and illiterate man may comprehend . He assigns this as a ground why it was God's pleasure there should be but One Point of Faith , because hereby Religion may be understood the better , the generality of people may comprehend it . This he represents as a Great Kindness done by God to men , whereas a Variety of Articles would be hard to be understood . This he enlarges upon , and flourishes it over after his fashion , and yet he desires to know when he said so , p. 29. Vindic. Good Sir , let me be permitted to acquaint you that your Memory is as defective as your Judgment ; for in the very , Vindication you attribute it to the goodness and condescention of the Allmighty that he requires nothing as absolutely necessary to be believed but what is suited to Vulgar capacities and the comprehensions of illiterate men , p. 30. It is clear then that you found your One Article on this , that it is suited to Vulgar capacities , whereas the Other Articles mentioned by me are obscure and ambiguous , and therefore surpass the comprehension of the Illiterate . And yet you pretend that you have forgot that any such thing was said by you : which shews that you are Careless of your Words , and that you forget what you write . What shall we say to such an Oblivious Author as this ? He takes no notice of what falls from his own pen , and therefore within a page or two he confutes himself , and gives himself the Lye. The plain truth is , he Socinianizes here , but will not own it , which makes him run into these Contradictions . He follows the steps of his Good Patron Crellius ( one of the stiffest Racovians that we have ) who throws aside several Articles of faith because they are Dark and Difficult , and not adapted to the Capacity of the Vulgar . This very thing he alledges to set off his Arguments against the Holy Trinity , viz. that * the doctrine which he maintains is according to the understanding of the Vulgar . The Common people ( he saith ) among the Iews , the Fishermen did not apprehend the doctrine of Three Persons in the Deity : neither do the Vulgar Christians at this day form any such notion : therefore away with the doctrine of the Trinity . And this is the guise and practice of our Socinians at this day : it is known that they are wont to propound this Sacred Point to the very School-boys ( very great Judges indeed ) and to demand their Resolution of it , and they pretend that they give it in the Negative . All the appeal now is to Vulgar Capacities , to the judgment of the Multitude . If these please to allow of any more Articles of Belief than One , then our Author will consent to it that we shall have them : but he acquaints us that they are for no more but One , and therefore we must be content with That . This is his New Divinity . And a † Socinian Brother , who undertakes the defence of his Notions , seconds him in this , telling us that the Articles of faith which are generally propounded by Divines are difficult , obscur , unintelligible , abstruse , but the One Article of Mr. Lock ) is not so , but is exactly calculated for the Vulgar Meridian , and therefore is the only Authentick and Necessary Point in the Christian Theology . I think the Reader will bear me witness that I have refuted this wild Conceit by giving a distinct account of the Evangelical Doctrines and Articles before mentioned , and at the same time shewing how Intelligible and Plain they are , and by letting him see the Absolute Necessity of their being assented to and embraced by every Christian. No true Lover of God and Truth need doubt of any of them , for there is no Ambiguity and Doubtfulness in them . They shine with their own light , and to an unprejudiced eye are plain , evident and illustrious . And they would always continue so if some Ill-minded men did not perplex and entangle them , on purpose to render them contemptible , yea , to exclude them wholly from being the matter of our belief . And as to the doctrine of the Trinity , which is the Main Verity which these men set themselves against , there is not any Difficulty , much less any Absurdity or Contradiction ( as they are wont to cry out ) in that Article of our Christian Belief . Indeed there is a Difficulty in this and several Other Truths of the Gospel as to the Exact Manner of the things themselves , which we shall never be able to comprehend , at least not on this side of Heaven : but there is no Difficulty as to the Reality and Certainty of them , because we know they are Revealed to us by God in the Holy Scriptures . Nay , as to the thing it self , thus far we can apprehend that it is not impossible or absurd that the Three Distinct Persons in the Deity should be One God , for there may be a Plurality of Persons in the same Infinite Essence . Every Person doth not require a Single Particular Essence , or if they will call the Three Numerical Subsistencies by the name of Essences , yet they are united in One General Substance or Essence , which is common to them all . And when they say it is a Contradiction that One should be Three , which is as much as to say , One is not One , this is soon taken off by replying ( and that most truly ) that One and not One in the same respect is a Contradiction , but One and not One in different respects is no Contradiction . Any smatterer in Logick know , this . And this is the case here , for tho the Three Personalities be distinguish'd , and that really , yet they agree in One Common Essence , and so the Divinity is both One and Three in different respects , on different considerations . And this is that which is abundantly testified in Scripture , in the Gospels as well as the Epistles ( let our Author remember th●t : ) there we learn that the Divine Essence or Nature is branch'd out into Three Distinct Persons , * Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and that * these three are One. Then as to the Proposition which this New Modeller of Christianity commends to the World as the only Necessary Matter of Faith , although he pretends it is more Intelligible than any of those that I have named , yet any Judicious Man cannot but see the contrary , for this must be explain'd ( as well as those ) before his Vulgar Capacities can apprehend it . Here first the name Iesus , which is of Hebrew Extraction , though since Greciz'd , must be expounded , and so must the Word Messias ( as I said before : ) And when this is done they must be told , even according to the confession of a late * Socinian Writer ( whom afterwards I must discourse with a little ) the manner of his being the Messiah , such as being conceived by the Holy Ghost and Power of the most High , his being anointed with the Holy Ghost , his being raised from the dead , and exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour . And then they must be told for what End and Purpose this was ( or else they can have no true belief of the Messias ) under which several Weighty Truths are comprehended . And if he doth not agree to this , viz. that the Words must be thus Opened and Explained , and fully understood so that Christian Souls may have the true sense of them , then he doth as good as say that the bare pronouncing of these Words Iesus is the Messias is enough to make a Christian. And we shall be apt to think that he intends this for a Charm or Spell , and that the very Syllables will suffice to make one a True Believer , especially if he be one of the Vulgar and Illiterate . But it may be he hath something else to say to an Other Rank of Men : Perhaps he holds that there is one Christianity for , the bulk of mankind , and another for the Finer and Better Sort of People : And then it is likely he will tell us of two Heavens , one very Spacious to hold the Multitude , and the other of a Lesser Compass to receive the rest . These are the Absurdities ( which I confess I delight not in exposing or so much as mentioning ) that this New Notion may produce . Whence it appears that all his jargon and chatter about his One Article are vain and insignificant , and are serviceable only to gull the Unwary Reader , and ( which is worse ) to debauch Christianity it self . CHAP. III. The late Writer's passing by the Epistles , and not collecting any Articles of Faith out of them shew his Contempt of them . His Evasion , viz. that the Epistles were writ to those who were already Believers , is proved to be groundless . If it were true , it is nothing to his purpose . The Epistles teach Fundamentals . His other Evasion , viz. that the Fundamental Articles in the Epistles are mixed without distinction with other Truths discovered to be of no force , and Retorted upon him . The true Reason why he went no further than the Gospels and the Acts. His other Excuses for rejecting the doctrines contained in the Epistles examined , and found to be Sophistical . He travels as far as China for Prudence , and there borrows it of the Missionary Jesuites . The Rom. 14. 1. which he alledges , authorizes him not to impose upon Weak Christians . His Evasions are inconsistent with themselves , and accordingly not well approved of by the Party . His Objection about the Apostles Creed fully answered . Our Church's Iudgment concerning the Articles of this Creed . This Profession of Faith hath several Articles in it which Socinians will not subscribe to . Whilest he is censuring , he commits a great Blunder . He mistakes and misrepresents the Gospel-Dispensation . BUT the Gentleman is not without his Evasions , and he sees it is high time to make use of them . This puts him into some disorder , for when he comes to speak of my mentioning his ill treatment of the Epistles ( which he purposely omitted when he made his Collection of Articles , or rather when after all his search he found but One Article ) you may observe that he begins to grow Warmer than before . Now this Meek Man is nettled , and you may perceive that he is sensible of the Scandal that he hath given to good people by his slighting of the Epistolary Writings of the Holy Apostles : yet he is so cunning as to disguise his Passion as well as he can . He requires me to publish to the World those passages which shew his Contempt of the Epistles , p. 19. But what need I , Good Sir , do this , when you have done it your self ? I appeal to the Reader whether ( after your tedious Collections out of the Four Evangelists ) your passing by the Epistles , and neglecting wholly what the Apostles say in them be not publishing to the World your Contempt of them . But let us hear why he did not attempt to collect any Articles out of these Writings : he assigns this as One Reason , The Epistles being writ to those who were already Believers , it could not be supposed that they were writ to them to teach them Fundamentals , p. 13 , 14. Vindic. Certainly no man could have conjectured that he would have used such an Evasion as this . I will say that for him , he goes beyond all Surmises , he is above all Conjectures : he hath a faculty of Shifting which no creature on Earth can ever fathom . Do we not know that the Four Gospels were Writ to and for Believers as well as Vnbelievers ? Are we not particularly and expresly told by St. Luke that he writ his Gospel to the most Excellent Theophilus ? Luk. 1. 3. whom all grant to be a Believing Christian of some eminent rank . Or if this Author be so singular as to question it , he may be satisfied in v. 4. by the Evangelist himself . And so the Acts of the Apostles we find are dedicated to the same Eminent Believer , Acts 1. 1. By the same Argument then that he would perswade us that the Fundamentals are not to be sought for in the Epistles , we may prove that they were not to be sought for in the Gospels , and in the Acts , for even these were writ to those that believed . And yet it is clear that this Writer did not make use of this Argument , otherwise he would not have confined the Fundamentals to the Gospels , and the Acts. Here then is want of Sincerity in a great measure , which hath been accounted heretofore a good qualification in a Writer . Again , granting that the Epistles were all of them writ to those that already believed , yet what can this be to his purpose ? Must no Believers have any Fundamentals taught them ? What is the meaning then of 1 Iohn 2. 21. I have not written unto you because you know not the Truth , but because you know it . Suppose they have forgot the Fundamentals , or have corrupted and perverted them ? as was the case of the Galatians , who mixed the Law with the Gospal , Legal Works with Faith ; and of the Dispersed Hebrews who had received the Christian Doctrine , but were falling away from it . Might not the Apostle , yea did he not in his Epistles to these Persons remind them of the Great Articles of the Christian Faith ? Did he not , when he writ to the Galatians assert the doctrine of Justification through faith in Christ's Righteousness , without the Works of the Law ? Did he not in his Epistle to the Wavering Hebrews endeavour to establish them in Christianity by displaying the Excellency and Transcendency of the Priesthood of Christ , by convincing them of the Efficacy and Perfection of the One Sacrifice of the Messias on the Cross , whereby the sins of mankind are perfectly Expiated ? So St. Iohn's first Epistle was written on occasion of the Christian Churches ( converted from Judaism ) being endanger'd by certain Seducers that were crept in among them , and labour'd to unsettle their belief concerning the Divinity as well as the Humanity of our Saviour . Whereupon this Apostle , who had clearly delivered the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the beginning of his Gospel , now more especially urges that Principal Article of their Faith the Deity of Christ , chap. 2. v. 22 , 23. and also in express words asserts the Whole Trinity , chap. 5. v. 7. Thus it is manifest that the Apostles in their Epistles taught Fundamentals , which is contrary to what this Gentleman saith , that such a thing could not be supposed : and he would pretend That as a reason why he did not look for any Necessary Articles of Faith in the Epistles . But we see how groundless his pretence is . Hear another feigned ground of his omitting the Epistles , viz. because the Fundamental Articles are here promiscuously , and without distinction mix'd with other Truth . p. 14. But who sees not that this is a mere Elusion ? for on the same account he might have forborn to search for Fundamental Articles in the Gospels , for they do not lie there together , but are dispersed up and down : the Doctrinal and Historical part are mix'd with one another : but he pretends to sever them ; why the did he not make a separation between the Doctrines in the Epistles and those Other Matters that are treated of there ? He hath nothing to reply to this , and therefore we must again look upon what he hath suggested as a cast of his Shuffling faculty . Or if he should excuse himself by saying that Necessary and Fundamental Principles can't be distinguish'd from those other Truths which occur in the Epistolary Writings , any one may discover the insufficiency of such a plea , because Necessary Truths may be distinguish'd from those that are not such by the Nature and High Importance of them , by their Immediate respect to the Author and Means of our Salvation . Besides , I suppose this Flourishing Scribler ( he knows very well why I give him that particular Title ) will not deny that the Epistles contain divers Rules of Holy Living , several Religious Precepts in order to the practise of Godliness ; and that these are not so promiscuously and without distinction mixt with other Truths but that they may easily be distinguish'd from them . Why then may we not expect to find Necessary Doctrines of Faith in these Writings as well as Instructions concerning the practise of Holiness , and the regulating of our Lives ? And why may we not distinguish between these and the Occasional Matters as well as between the Others and them ? Nay , it is certain that those Necessary doctrines of Faith which were but lightly touch'd upon in the Gospels and the Acts are distinctly and fully explain'd in these Epistles . The truth then is that the Gentleman was loth to go any further than the former : these latter affrighted him , for he knew either by reading them or by hear-say , that there were several Other Divine Truths in them , which have been generally thought to be Necessary to be believ'd in order to making a man a Christian ; but our Author had no kindness for them . He commands his Readers not to stir a jot further than the Acts. It is not in the Epistles , saith he , that we are to learn what are the Fundamental Articles of faith , p. 295. They were written for resolving of doubts and reforming of mistakes , ( as he saith in the same place ) and therefore I forbid you to seek for Fundamental doctrines there , you will but lose your labour , and moreover you will meet in these Writings with several Points which we approve not of , and therefore must not admit of , because Faustus Socinus hath given us a charge to the contrary . But let us hear further what this Vindicator saith to excuse his rejection of the Doctrines contain'd in the Epistles , and his putting us off with One Article of Faith. What if the Author ( meaning himself ) design'd his Treatise , as the Title shews , chiefly for those who were not yet throughly or firmly Christians : purposing to work upon those who either wholly disbeliev'd or doubted of the Truth of the Christian Religion ? p. 6. Here he comes with his what if's , and gives another palpable proof of Counterfeiting , and that in Religion . Now , seeing his Book is sifted , and the design of it is laid open , he would make us believe that he intended his Piece for Atheists , Turks , Iews and Pagans , and a few Weak Christians ; for these he must mean by those that wholly disbelieve , and those that are not firmly Christians . And he would bring in his Title to speak for him , but it saith not a word in his behalf ; for how those that wholly disregard and disbelieve the Scriptures of the New Testament , ( as Gentiles , Jews , Mahometans and all Atheists do ) are like to attend to the Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scripture is not to be conceived , and therefore we look upon all this as mere Sham and Sophistry . He is put hard to it , and like one a drowning he fastens on any thing next at hand . That is his case , as any man may perceive . But I ask , Why had we not a hint ( one gentle hint at least ) of this in all his Book ? It would have been very useful to the Reader to have been acquainted with his Design . No : he thinks otherwise , for in the same Page he saith , Would any one blame his Prudence if he mention'd only those Advantages , ( viz. of Christ's Coming ) which all Christians ( especially Socinian Christians ) are agreed in ? He hath bethought himself better since he first publish'd his Notions , and ( as the result of that ) he now begins to resolve what he writ into Prudence . I know whence he had this Method ( and 't is likely he hath taken more than this from the same hands ) viz. from the Missionary Iesuites that went to preach the Gospel to the people of China . We are told that they instructed them in some matters relating to our Saviour ; they let them know that Iesus was the Messias , the Person promised to be sent into the World , but they conceal'd his Sufferings and Death and they would not let them know any thing of his Passion and Crucifixion . So our Author ( their humble Imitator ) undertakes to instruct the World in Christianity with an omission of its Principal Articles , and more especially that of the Advantage we have by Christ's Death , which was the Prime thing design'd in his Coming into the world . This he calls Prudence : so that to hide from the people the Main Articles of the Christian Religion , to disguise the Faith of the Gospel , to betray Christianity it self , is according to this Excellent Writer the Cardinal Vertue of Prudence . May we be deliver'd then , say I , from a Prudential Racovian . He would clear himself by quoting Rom. 14. 1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye , p. 7. as if that Text authorized him to deceive Novices and Weak Christians ; as if because they are Infirm , therefore he must Strengthen them by Imposing upon them . It may be he will say , Children must have but few Lessons given them : but I answer , there is difference between few and only One ; and there is difference between telling them that there is but One , and afterwards hinting that there are More . For that must be the meaning of his What if he design'd his Treatise chiefly for those , &c. What if he first of all tells them that nothing is absolutely requisite to be believed but this that Iesus is the Messias , and what if afterwards he intends to let them know that something else is requir'd of them ? And yet at the same time ( such is the unaccountable humour of the Gentleman ) he declares that Nothing more is requir'd of them . Here is no bottom for any thing he saith . He contradicts himself , and imposes falsities upon mens minds . he would in one place ( I remember ) fancifully please himself by thinking that all his sins which I espie in his book are sins of Omission , p. 9. But if this be not one of Commission ( and that a very Great one ) it is hard to tell what is . He pretends a Design of his Book which was never so much as thought of till he was sollicited by his brethren to vindicate it . But now , ( see how his Pious Frauds prosper ) when he hath attempted it , they are displeased with the way he hath taken . And no wonder , because they cannot but perceive that his Vindication is inconsistent with his Treatise , and that by these last Evasions and Collusions he hath in a great measure betray'd their Cause , as well as that of Christianity . I find that they have only this to excuse him that he did not take Time enough to consider of what he Writ : but for my part , I think that adds to his Fault . But this Author of the New Christianity wisely objects that the Apostle's Creed hath none of these Articles and Doctrines which I mentioned , p. 12 , 13. Nor doth any considerate man wonder at it , for the Creed is a Form of outward Profession which is chiefly to be made in the Publick Assemblies , when Prayers are put up by the Church , and the Holy Scriptures are read . Then this Abridgment of Faith is properly used , or when there is not generally time or opportunity to make any Enlargement . But we are not to think that it expresly contains in it all the Necessary and Weighty Points , all the Important Doctrines of our Belief , it being only design'd to be an Abstract . It is with this Creed as 't is with the Commandments and the Lord's Prayer . If a man doth not more than is expresly enjoyned in the Decalogue , he can't be said to Act as a Christian. If he prays for no more than is expresly mentioned in the Petitions of the foresaid Prayer he can't be said to Pray as a Good Christian. So if a man believe no more than is in express terms in the Apostle's Creed , his Faith will not be the Faith of a Christian. And yet still it is to be granted that as all things to be done and all things to be prayed for are reducible to the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer , so All matters of Faith in some manner may be reduced to this Brief Platform of Belief . But when I call it an Abstract or Abbreviature , it is implied that there are more Truths to be known and assented to by a Christian , in order to making him really so , than what we meet with here . And yet I must take leave to tell our Vindicator that this Creed hath more in it than he and his brethren will subscribe to . If he were not above Catechisms as well as Creeds , I might remind him of Our Church's judgment concerning the Articles of this Creed . Qu. What dost thou chiefly learn in these Articles of thy Belief ? Answ. First , I learn to believe in God the Father , who had made me and all the world : Secondly , in God the Son , who hath redeemed me and all mankind : Thirdly , in God the Holy Ghost , who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God ? These are killing words to a Disciple of Socinus , who acknowledges neither the God-head of the Son , nor of the Holy Ghost , nor the Redemption or Sanctification by either . Yet our Church , with all the Christian Churches in the world , owns these Truths to be contained in the Apostles Creed . And there are other Articles of this Symbol ( let them palliate it as they please , ) which the Racovian Gentlemen are unwilling to give their assent to . They faulter about Christ's Iudging the quick and the dead , they partly deny the Resurrection of the body , they deny Life Everlasting as it respects wicked men , for they hold that these shall be Annihilated , of all which I may have occasion to speak another time . At present I only take notice of their lopping off several Articles from this Creed . But was it not judiciously said by this Writer that it is well for the Compilers of the Creed that they lived not in my days ? p. 12. I tell you , Friend , it was impossible they should , for the Learned * Usher and † Vossius and others have proved that that Symbol was drawn up not at once , but that some Articles of it were adjoyned many years after , far beyond the extent of any man's life ; and therefore the Compilers of the Creed could not live in my days , not could I live in theirs : but I let this pass as one of the blunders of our Thoughtful and Musing Author . Nor had he reason to think that those that made the Apostles Creed would have been censured by me , for I have vindicated and asserted their Articles , whereas he and his friends have new-modell'd the Creed , yea indeed have presented us with One Article instead of Twelve , and in order to that have sunk the Epistles , because they are not Socinianized , all over Socinianized . If this Gentleman had said that the belief of Iesus's being the Messias was one of the first and leading acts of Christian Faith , he had said right , and none would have opposed it . If he had said that the knowledg of the Gospel , and consequently of the Doctrines of it , advanc'd at first by degrees , and shone brighter after our Saviour's Ascension than before , he had spoken truth ; but when he positively and peremptorily declares that neither at first nor afterwards there was any Necessity of believing more than this that Iesus is the Messias , he misrepresents the Gospel-Dispensation , and mistakes the nature of Christiaanity . To stop here , and go no further is unsufferable . This is as if a Breeder up of Children and Youth should carry them no further than the A B C. He is wholly for reducing of Christianity , whereas he should have given it in its Full and Ample Extent ; especially he should not have kept back any thing of the Foundation . CHAP. IV. The Christian Faith which this Gentleman describes is of the same scantling with that of the Mahometans . The Affinity between the Turks and Anti-trinitarians . The Devils are capable of a higher degree of Faith than that which he saith makes a Christian. A brief Idea of the Compleat Faith of a Christian. The Danger of asserting that there is but One Article of Christian belief necessary to be assented to . This is the way to introduce Darkness and Blindness into Christendom ; and to promote the designs of that Church which cherishes Ignorance as the Mother of Devotion and Religion . How far this Writer is instrumental in it . What care he hath of mens Souls , and of their Salvation . It is the practise of Socinian Writers to curtail Christianity , and to cut off as many Fundamental Articles from it as they can . This Writer had his Platform from Crellius . He is approved of and applauded by the English Socinians . Three Reasons assign'd why the Socinians agree to maim the Heads of Christianity , and to reduce all into One Article . The Office of Catechizing was not instituted for the teaching of One Article of Faith only . IT is likely I shall further exasperate this Author when I desire the Reader to observe that this Lank Faith of his is in a manner on other than the Faith of a Turk . For the * * Alcoran acknowledges that the Spirit of God bore witness to Christ the Son of Mary : a Divine Soul was put into him . He was the Messenger of the Spirit , and the Word of God. And in another place God is brought in declaring that he had sent Christ the Son of Mary , &c. And in other places he is mention'd as a Prophet , as a Great Man , one Commission'd by God , and sent by him into the world . This is of the like import with what our good Ottoman Writer the Vindicator saith of our Saviour , and this he holds is the sum of all that is Necessary to be believ'd concerning him . The Mahometans call themselves Musselmen , of rather ( according to the true account of the Arabick word ) † Moslemim , i. e. Believers ; and what difference is there between one of them and our Author's Believer ? The former believes that Christ is a Good Man , and not above the nature of a Man , and sent of God to give Instructions to the world : and the Faith of the latter is of the very same scantling . Thus he confounds Turky with Christendom ; and those that have been reckon'd as Infidels are with him Christians . He seems to have consulted the Mahometan Bible , which saith , * Christ did not suffer on the cross , did not die ; for he and his Allies speak as meanly of these Articles as if there were no such thing . The Alcoran often talks ( particularly see the Last Chapter of it ) against Christ's being the Son of God by Generation . It is one of the First Principles of Mahometism that there is but One God neither begetting nor begot . See Sulburgius's Saracenica . This is it which our Author drives at when he labours to prove the Messias and the Son of God are terms synony mous , as you shall hear by and by . This reminds me of that Affinity and Correspondence which hath been between the Turks and this Gentleman's Party . † Servetus conferr'd notes with the Alcoran , when he undertook to fetch an Argument out of it to disprove the Deity of our Saviour . It is observable that those Countreys of Europe which border on the Sultan's dominions , as Hungary , Transilvania , &c. abound with Socinians and Antitrinitarians . The inhabitants of these places accommodate themselves to their Potent Neighbours , they make some approach to the Conquerer's Creed . Some of these men have lately got footing in England , and because they and the Great Turk disbelieve the Trinity , therefore we must all be Proselytes to their opinion . They are making way for this by taking away all the Articles of the Christian Faith but One. And our late Writer is the Instrument they make use of for this purpose . This Great Mufti hath given us a Hopeful Draught of Christianity ; and it was fit the English Reader should know that a Turk according to him is a Christian , for he makes the same Faith serve them both . Nay , in the last place , let us take notice that this Gentleman presents the world with a very Ill notion of Faith , for the very Devils are capable of all that Faith which he saith makes a Christian man , yea of more , for we read that they believed Iesus to be the Son of God , Mat. 8. 29. They cried out to him , Thou art Christ the Son of God , Luke 4. 41. which latter words in both places denote his Divinity , as I shall shew afterwards . But besides this Historical Faith ( as it is generally call'd by Divines ) which is giving credit to Evangelical Truths as barely reveal'd , there must be something else added to make up the True Substantial Faith of a Christian. With the Assent of the Understanding must be joyn'd the Consent or Approbation of the Will. All those Divine Truths which the Intellect assents to must be allow'd of by this Elective power of the Soul. True Evangelical Faith is a hearty Accepting of the Messias as he is offer'd in the Gospel . It is a sincere and impartial submission to all things requir'd by the Evangelical Law , which is contain'd in the Epistles as well as the other Writings . And to this Practical Assent and Choice there must be added likewise a firm Trust and Reliance in the Blessed Author of our Salvation . But this late Undertaker , who attempted to give us a more perfect account than ever was before of Christianity as it is deliver'd in the Scriptures , brings us no tidings of any such Faith belonging to Christianity , or discover'd to us in the Scriptures . Which gives us to understand that he verily believes there is no such Christian Faith , for in some of his Numerous Pages ( especially 191 , 192 , &c. ) where he speaks so much of Belief and Faith , he might have taken occasion to insert one word about this Compleat Faith of the Gospel . Having thus represented how Defective , how Narrow , how Erroneous , how Mistaken this Unknown Writer's Christianity , and especially his Faith is ; I will now proceed to shew how Dangerous and Pernicious this sort of Doctrine is . Here is a Contrivance set up for the bringing in of Darkness and Barbarism into the Christian world . The only Necessary Point of Belief that the Old Testament delivers , is , according to these Gentlemen , that there is One God : and all the New Testament affords us as matter of Necessary Faith is this , that Iesus is the Messias . Carry but these Two Articles along with you , and you are a True Christian. There is no Necessity at all of being acquainted with the Reveal'd Doctrine concerning the Cause of Mankinds Degeneracy and Corruption , which gave occasion to the Messias's Coming into the world . There is no Necessity of knowing whether this Messias be God or Man , or both : there is no Necessity of understanding whether he came to suffer and dye in our stead , and to satisfie the Divine Justice , and to purchase Salvation for us by his Blood : There is no Necessity of believing that without Faith and Evangelical Obedience we cannot have any Benefit by the Messias : There is no Necessity of being perswaded that our Salvation springs from the mere Grace and Bounty of Heaven : There is no Necessity of believing the Privileges and Rewards ( both here and hereafter ) which are entail'd on Christianity . There is but a Single Article of Belief , and this is a very Short one too , viz. that Iesus is the Messias ; and if you assent to This you are as Sound a Christian and as Good a Believer as this Gentleman can make you . One would think that seeing there are so many Branches of the Evangelical Faith commended to us and urged upon us by the Apostles in their Epistles ( some of which our Saviour himself in the Gospel , had made mention of ) one would think , I say , that a man that hath a True Sense of Christianity , and is a Lover of Souls should endeavour to display before the world these Several Parts of the Christian Belief , and should be earnest with men to embrace them All , and not to omit or neglect any of them , seeing they all so nearly concern their Everlasting Wellfare . But here comes One that makes it his great business to beat men off from taking notice of these Divine Truths , he represents them as wholly Unnecessary to be believed , he cries down all Articles of Christian Faith but One. He at this time of day , when Christianity is so bright , strives to darken and eclipse it ; he hides it from the faces of mankind , draws a thick Veil over it , will not suffer them to look into it , takes the Holy and Inspired Epistles ( which are as much the Word of God as the Gospels ) out of their way , and tells them again and again that a Christian man or Member of Christ need not know or believe any more than that One Individual Point which he mentions . Hear O ye Heavens , and give ear O Earth , judg whether this be not the way to introduce Darkness and Ignorance into Christendom , whether this be not blinding of mens eyes , and depriving them of that Blessed Light which the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles should illuminate mens minds with . Which makes me think sometimes ( and perhaps the Reader doth so too ) that this Writer and the other Confederates are Under-hand-Factors for that Communion ( though they would seem to be much against it ) which cries up Ignorance as the mother of Devotion and Religion . If they had not some such design , why do they labour so industriously to keep the people in Ignorance , to tell them that One Article is enough for them , and that there is no Necessity of knowing any other doctrines of the Bible ? Thus by following their Italian Master Socinus , they trade for that Countrey . And this Vindicator among the rest trafficks very visibly for it whilest he blasteth so substantial a part of the New Testament as the Epistolary Writings are . Would not one be apt to suspect that ( as their Roman Masters have done ) they would afterwards not only keep a part , but the Whole Scripture from the people ? And so we shall travel to Rome by the way of Racovia . And here you may see now what his Pretences of Love to the bulk of mankind come to . See how Sincere he is in taking care of the Salvation of their Souls , which is a thing that he more than once mentions , and with some reflection ( p. 9. Vindicat. ) on me as if I disregarded that Great Concern . But I hope I have in some measure faithfully discharged that part , though the Great Iudg of heaven and earth knows my manifold desiciencies and failings in it ; but I am well satisfied that this Inferior Inquisitor cannot charge me with a noglect in that Great and Important Work , which I have made the business of my life . But behold how this Censorious Gentleman himself manifests his regard to the Salvation of peoples Souls when he puts out their Eyes , when he studies how to nurse them up in Ignorance and Blindness , and thereby to Ruine their Souls for ever . He can afford them but One Article out of the Whole New Testament . That must suffice them now , and perhaps afterwards it will be thought too much . Here , before I proceed any further , I would take notice that the Project of the Necessity of but One Article of Christian Belief is the direct Spawn and Product of Socinianism , but improved by this Author . He that hath convers'd with the Unitarian Writers is sensible how they endeavour to cramp our Belief and Knowledg , and cut off as many Fundamental Articles of Religion as they can . * They insist upon this , that the Points necessary to be known are but Few : they interpret those places of Scripture which directly speak of Knowing of God , i. e. of knowing his Nature and Attributes , and other matters in Religion that are to be believed , concerning a Practical Knowledge . * Socinus leads the way , undervaluing the former sort of Knowledge , and interpreting Acts 17. 27. seeking the Lord , if haply they may feel after him , and find him , concerning a Holy Life ; whereas the plain scope of the place will convince any unprejudiced man that it is spoken of those who being ignorant of God , labour to throw off that Ignorance , and to attain to a Knowledg of him , in order to their right worshiping and serving him . The rest follow this Ring-leader , and accordingly you may observe that in their Definitions of Religion they seldom ( or never ) insert Knowledg as any part of it , but they wholly define it to be a Living according to the Divine Precepts and Promises , or to be the Way to Eternal Life and Happiness . Some of them seem to restrain that place , Iohn 17. 3. that they might know thee the only true God , &c. unto a Practical Knowledg . And in other particulars it might be shewed that they very much disparage the Doctrinal Part of Christianity , and more especially take care to abbreviate and cut off the Fundamentals of it . Crellius is much for diminishing and reducing the knowledg and belief of the Articles of Faith. The Sacred Writers ( saith * he ) when they speak of that knowledg in which Religion , or the way to eternal life consists , speak not of that knowledg whereby any Attribute that is Essential to God or Christ is known . Here is the Platform of our Gentleman's Design , and thence let the Reader guess whose part he takes . Crellius hath given him his Kue , and he very strictly observes it : No Attribute that is Essential to God the Father ( as Father ) or Christ the Second Person in the Deity must come into his Creed , i. e. to be made a Necessary Article of it . And that the World may know that this is acceptable to the Party , one of them is chosen out to vindicate this Attempt of setting up One Article . A * Professed Socinian Writer ( and no Alien , but true English Breed ) undertakes it , and applauds the Author , and defends his Work : that it may publickly appear that this is the doctrine of the Racovians or Anti-Trinitarians , and that it was not only begun to be entertained by the Ancient and Outlandish Socinians , but that now , when it is fully improved , it is vouched by the Modern and Native ones . But what may be the Reason why both the Exotick and English Unitarians agree to maim the Heads of Christianity , to contract its Articles , and to reduce it into so small a compass ? Seeing there are Several Fundamental Truths appertaining to the Christian Religion , why are they not all pronounced Necessary to be believed and assented to ? They have several reasons for this ; first , they are compell'd to do it because otherwise they can't maintain that which so many of them profess to believe , viz. the Salvation of all men , of whasoever Perswasion they are . This is an extravagant Principle which they have taken up , and it is the Modish Opinion at this day , but if they should hold that there is a Necessity of believing a considerable number of Articles in Christianity , they could not possibly entertain this Fashionable Notion . Secondly , they cunningly keep up this Conceit of the necessity of but One Article , because it makes for their own Preservation and Safety , that neither the Magistrate nor Ecclesiastical Power in any Country may take occasion to animadvert upon them : for why should they trouble and molest them for holding such doctrines as are not of the Foundation of Religion , as are of no Necessity to be believed ? This makes them forward to propagate their Notion . And hence also we see what is the reason of their talking so warmly for Liberty : This is done to Secure themselves that though they broach never so Pernicious Opinions they may not fall under the lash of the Magistrate . In brief , they would not be Punish'd here , and they think they have made sure of hereafter by another Tenent of theirs . Thirdly , by vertue of this Expedient they can throw off any Doctrine when they please , especially those Main Articles of the Holy Trinity , of Christ's Satisfaction , &c. for it is but saying that they are not necessary to be believed , ( there being a Necessity of believing but One ) and the business is done . Thus you see how it is their Concern to hold up their One Article . But who sees not that hereby they depress Christianity , and unspeakably injure the Faith of the Gospel ? What is the meaning of Catechizing , which hath been so universally commended and practised by the Ancients ? There were in the Primitive Church particular persons that made it their business to instruct and inform the ignorant in a Catechetical Way : yea , it was a Distinct Office among the Christians of old . Saint Mark in the Church of Alexandria was a Catechist , Pantaenus succeeded him , then Origen had the same Employment there , and Heraclius after him . What! was this only to teach One Article of Faith ? Who but a Socinian can believe this ? Is it not enough to rob us of our God , by denying Christ to be so , but must they spoil us of all the Other Articles of Christian Faith but One ? Who would think that the Popular Man , who pretends to take such care of the Multitude , should do them the greatest Mischief imaginable , whilest he makes a shew of being extraordinarily kind to them ? for a greater Mischief there cannot be than to put them off with One Article of Christian Belief , when there are Many others of absolute necessity . CHAP. V. This Writer's doctrine tends to Irreligion and Atheism . In what terms we may suppose the Atheists congratulate him . The clipping of the Articles of the Creed is a preparatory to the diminishing of the Precepts of the Decalogue , and the Petitions of the Lord's Prayer . Obj. Doth not the frequent mentioning of this Article [ Jesus is the Messias ] in the New Testament ; yea , the sole mentioning of it in some places argue that there is no other Article of Faith which is necessarily to be believed but this ? Answ. No : because 1. the believing of Jesus to be the promised Messias was the first step to Christianity , and therefore is so often propounded in the Evangelical Writings . 2. Though this One Article be mentioned alone in some places , it is to be supposed that other matters of Faith were at the same time proposed , though they are not recorded . 3. We must supply those places of Scripture where this One Article is set down alone from others which make mention of Other Necessary Points of Belief . 4. The clear discovery of the doctrines of the Gospel was gradual ; and therefore we must not think that in the Four Evangelists and Acts are specified all the Necessary Articles of Faith , but we must look for some of them in the Epistolary Writings , when the Spirit of God had further enlightned the Apostles and other Christians . AND now , to prove yet further the Pernicious Nature of his Writings , doth any man doubt of their Tendency to Irreligion and Atheisin ? I charge him not with any such thing as a formal designing of this . ( No : I will not entertain such a thought ) but I only take notice how serviceable his Papers and Opinions are to this purpose . He hath mightily gratified the Atheistical Rabble by this his Enterprize , and accordingly we may suppose them in such Words as these to express their great Obligations and Thankfulness to him on this occasion ; We are beholding to this Worthy Adventurer for ridding the world of so Great an Encumbrance , viz. that huge Mass and unweildy Body of Christianity which took up so much room . Now we see that it was this Bulk , and not that of Mankind which he had an eye to when he so often mention'd this latter . This is a Physician for our turn indeed : we like this Chymical Operator that doth not trouble us with a parcel of Heavy Drugs of no value , but contracts all into a Few Spirits , nay doth his business with a Single Drop . We have been in bondage a long time to Creeds and Catechisms , Systems and Confessions , we have been plagued with a tedious Beadroll of Articles which our Reverend Divines have told us we must make the matter of our Faith. Yea so it is , both Conformists and Nonconformists ( though disagreeing in some other things ) have agreed in This to molest and crucifie us . But this Noble Writer ( we thank him ) hath set us free , and eas'd us by bringing down all the Christian Faith into One Point . We have heard some men talk of the Epistolary Composures of the New Testament , as if Great Matters were contain'd in them , as if the great Mysteries of Christianity ( as they call them ) were unfolded there : but we could never make any thing of them ; and now we find that this Writer is partly of our opinion . He tells us that these are Letters sent upon occasion , but we are not to look for our Religion ( for now for this Gentleman's sake we begin to talk of Religion ) in these places . We believe it , and we believe that there is no Religion but in those very Chapters and Verses which he hath set down in his Treatise . What need we have any other part of the New Testament ? That is Bible enough , if not too much . Happy , thrice happy shall this Author be perpetually esteemed by us , we will Chronicle him as our Friend and Benefactor . It is not our way to Saint people : otherwise we would certainly Canonize this Gentleman , and , when our hand is in , his pair of Booksellers for their being so beneficial to the World in Publishing so Rich a Treasure . It was a Blessed Day when this hopeful Birth saw the light , for hereby all the Orthodox Creed-makers and Systematick Men are ruined for ever . In brief , if we be for any Christianity , it shall be this Author's , for that agrees with us singularly well , it being so short , all couch'd in four words , neither more nor less . It is a very fine Compendium , and we are infinitely obliged to this Great Reformer for it . We are glad at heart that Christianity is brought so low by this Worthy Pen-man , for this is a good presage that it will dwindle into Nothing . What! but One Article , and that so Brief too ! We like such a Faith , and such a Religion because it is so near to None . And is not the Reader satisfied that such language as this hath real Truth in it ? Doth he not perceive that the discarding of all the Articles but One makes way for the casting off that too ? And may we not expect that those who deal thus with the Creed will use the same method in reducing the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer , abbreviating the former into One Precept , and the latter into One Petition ? So that not only our Faith but our Practice and Devotion shall be crampt . There is as much reason to do one as the other : and they that have done the former will in time , it is no doubt , use the same discipline towards the latter , i. e. lop off some of the Precepts of the Decalogue , and diminish that Form and Pattern of Prayer which our Saviour hath left us . Thus this Writer sees how sitly his book of the Reasonableness of Christianity , &c. was brought into my Discourse about the Causes and Occasions of Atheism , which he seems to wonder at , p. 2. It appears also that if I gave his book an Ill Name ( as he complains , ) it doth deserve it , and that it hath not only a Socinian but an Atheistick Tang. I have proved ( and shall yet further do it in this present Undertaking ) that he hath corrupted mens minds , depraved the Gospel , and abused Christianity . And is there no Atheism in this ? To conclude , if after all he will stand to his Proposition , and assert there is but One Article of Faith ( just one and no more , and it is sure there can be no less ) necessarily to be assented to , he may enjoy his Confident Humour , but it is to be hoped that there is not any considerable number of men in the world that will admit of such an Unaccountable Paradox , and forfeit their Reasons merely to please their Fancy . But because I design'd these Papers for the satisfying of the Readers Doubts about any thing occurring concerning the matter before us , and for the establishing of his wavering mind , I will here ( before I pass to the Second General Head of my Discourse ) answer a Query or Objection which some , and not without some shew of Ground , may be apt to start . How comes it to pass , they will say , that this Article of Faith , viz. that Iesus is the Messias or Christ , is so often repeated in the New Testament ? Why is this sometimes urged without the mentioning of any other Article of Belief ? Doth not this plainly shew that this is All that is requir'd to be believ'd as Necessary to make a man a Christian ? May we not infer from the frequent and sole repetition of this Article in several places of the Evangelist and the Acts that there is no other Point of Faith of absolute necessity , but that this alone is sufficient to constitute a man a True Member of Christ ? To clear this Objection , and to give a full and satisfactory Answer to all doubts in this affair , I offer these ensuing Particulars , which will lead the Reader to the right understanding of the whole case . 1. It must be consider'd that the believing of Iesus to be the promised Messias was the first step to Christianity ; and therefore This rather than any other Article was propounded to be believ'd by all those whom either our Saviour or the Apostles invited to imbrace Christianity . If they would not , if they did not give credit to This in the first place , viz. That Iesus of Nazareth was that Eminent and Extraordinary Person prophesied of long before , and that he was Sent and Commission'd by God , there could be no hope that they would attend unto any other Proposal relating to the Christian Religion . This is the true reason why that Article was constantly propounded to be believ'd by all that look'd towards Christianity , and why it is mention'd so often in the Evangelical Writings . It was that which made way for the embracing of all the other Articles , it was the passage to all the rest . But our Anonymous Author not thinking of this , but observing that this One Article was usually required to be assented to in the Gospel-Writings , he thence inconsiderately concludes that this is the Whole of the Christian Belief , and that there is nothing else to be necessarily assented to , to make a man a Christian. I am sorry to see that a person of some Sense can have so little a feeling of the True Nature and Import of Christianity , that he can harbour such a thought as this , that all the necessary part of our Belief is summ'd up in a bare giving assent to this Proposition , Iesus is the Messias . He mistakes a part of Christian Faith for All , and the Entrance and Beginning of it for the full Consummation of it . 2. It is to be remembred that though this One Proposition or Article be mention'd alone in some places , yet there is reason to think and be perswaded that at the same time other Matters of Faith were proposed . For it is confess'd by all Intelligent and Observing men that the History of the Scripture is concise , and that in relating of matter of Fact many passages are omitted by the Sacred Pen-men . Wherefore though but this One Article of belief ( because it is a Leading one , and makes way for the rest ) be expresly mention'd in some of the Gospels , yet we must not conclude thence that no other matter of Faith was requir'd to be admitted of . For things are briefly set down in the Evangelical Records , and we must suppose many things which are not in direct terms related . The not attending to this hath been one occasion of the present mistake . Hence it was that this Narrow-minded Writer shuts up all in belief of Iesus's being the Christ. 3. This also must be thought of , that though there are Several parts and members of the Christian Faith , yet they do not all occur in any One place of Scripture . This is well known to those that are conversant in the Writings of the New Testament , and therefore when in some places only One single part of the Christian Faith is made mention of , as necessarily to be imbrac'd in order to Salvation , we must be careful not to take it alone , but to supply it from several other places , which make mention of other Necessary and Indispensable Points of Belief . I will give the Reader a plain Instance of this , Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt believe in thy heart that God hath rais'd him ( i. e. the Lord Jesus ) from the dead , thou shalt be saved . Here One Article of Faith , viz. the belief of Christ's Resurrection ( because it is of so great importance in Christianity ) is only mention'd ; but all the rest must be supposed , because they are mention'd in other places . And consequently , if we would give an impartial account of our Belief , we must consult those places : and they are not all together , but dispers'd here and there : wherefore we must look them out , and acquaint our selves with the Several Particulars which make up our Belief , and render it entire and consummate . But our hasty Author took another course , and thereby deceiv'd himself , and unhappily deceives others . 4. This ( which is the Main Answer to the Objection ) must be born in our minds that Christianity was erected by degrees , according to that prediction and promise of our Saviour , that the Spirit should teach them all things , John 14. 26. and that he should guide them into all truth , John 16. 13. viz. after his Departure and Ascension , when the Holy Ghost was to be sent in a special manner to enlighten mens minds , and to discover to them the great Mysteries of Christianity . This is to be Noted by us , as that which gives great light in the present case . The discovery of the Doctrines of the Gospel was Gradual . It was by certain steps that Christianity climb'd to its heighth . We are not to think then that all the Necessary doctrines of the Christian Religion were clearly publish'd to the world in our Saviour's time . Not but that all that were necessary for that time were published : but some which were necessary for the succeeding one were not then discover'd , or at least not fully . They had ordinarily no belief before Christ's Death and Resurrection of those Substantial Articles , i. e. that he should die and rise again : but we read in the Acts and in the Epistles that these were Formal Articles of Faith afterwards , and are ever since necessary to compleat the Christian Belief , so as to other Great Verities , the Gospel increased by degrees , and was not Perfect at once . Which furnishes us with a reason why most of the Choicest and Sublimest Truths of Christianity are to be met with in the Epistles of the Apostles , they being such doctrines as were not clearly discover'd and open'd in the Gospels and the Acts. Thus I have , I conceive , amply satisfied the foregoing Objection , and I hope the Reader is convinc'd of the True Grounds why we must not expect all Necessary Points of Christianity in the Writings of the four Evangelists . If our present Writer had thought of this , and had distinguish'd of Times , he had not formed such an Ill Notion of Christianity as we find he hath done . But it is not only upon Mistake that this Author proceeds : his fault is much worse . It is too apparent that by this Abbreviating of Christianity , and by his voluntary neglecting what the Epistolary Writings deliver , he designs to exclude those Fundamental Doctrines which have been owned as such in the Church of Christ. So much for the First General Head which I propounded to insist upon . CHAP. VI. The next General Charge against him is , that the Texts of Scripture which respect the HOLY TRINITY are disregarded by him , or interpreted after the Anti-Trinitarian Mode . This is proved from plain Instances . The latter more especially is evidenced from his interpreting the Messias and the Son of God to be the very same as to signification , and that no more is denoted by one term than by the other . The Weakness of the Socinian Arguing on this occasion fully laid open : and the Texts where these terms are mentioned plainly cleared . A Text produced and urged that confutes the vain surmises of the Racovians about those expressions , and that reduces them to an unavoidable Absurdity . The Messias is a Title of Christ's Office : The Son of God is the Title of his Divinity . The former is founded on his Mission from the Father : The latter on his Peculiar Property as he is the Second Person in the Sacred Trinity ; and consequently they are not synonymous terms . The Gentleman would wind in two Learned Prelates , but his attempt proves ineffectual He is given to Shuffling . He abuses Scripture by quoting it . MY next Charge against this Gentleman was this , that those Texts of Scripture which respect the Holy Trinity were either disregarded by him , or were interpreted by him after the Antitrinitarian Mode . And this he is so far from denying , that he openly avows it , Vindic. p. 22 , 23. By which he hath made it clear that he espouses that doctrine of the Socinians . When I had offer'd those two plain Texts , Mat. 28. 19. Iohn 1. 1. to prove the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity , he takes no care to give any Resolution about them , though he was absolutely oblig'd to do it , because those Texts are not in the Epistles , but in the Gospels , out of which latter he saith he made his Collection of Articles , but he should rather have said ( and that with Truth ) out of which he drew One Article . Nay , which is more strange , though he particularly mentions , p. 9. my taking notice of his omitting these Texts in his Treatise , nay though he sets them down at large in his Vindication , yet he hath the confidence to run presently to another thing , and he shifts it off by one impertinent matter or other , and faith not one syllable with reference to those Famous Texts which are such remarkable testimonies to the doctrine of the Trinity . Who could do this but a Socinianiz'd Writer ? And who could do this but a man that was wholly careless of his Credit , and did not care how he acted ? And this very thing doth moreover shew that this Author ( let him pretend what he will ) is as great a despiser of the Gospels ( when any thing in them doth not serve his turn ) as he is of the Epistles . This will perpetually stick upon him , and he will never be able to wipe it off . If ever he accounts for this , he must at the same time make an acknowledgment of his crazy memory , and of something worse . Again , as it is evident that he rejects the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity , so more especially and particularly he waves that of the Deity of our Saviour . Which appears from this that he justifies the Charge against him , viz. that he made these terms [ the Messias ] and [ the Son of God ] the very same as to Signification , p. 23. Vindic. Which is the very thing that * Slichtingius and other Racovians insist upon , and make a great stir about . And herein they write after † their Master , who largely pursues this Argument ( for so he reckons it to be , ) viz. that there is no difference between the Name Christ or Messias and that other the Son of God. He alledges the very same Text that our Vindicator doth , and some others . He argues from Matt. 16. 16. compared with Luk. 9. 20. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God , saith the former place : Thou art the Christ of God , faith the latter : therefore Christ and the Son of God are not only the same person , but these two expressions signifie the very same thing and no more . What a weak and pitiful Consequence is this ? For it is grounded on this absurd bottom , namely , that when any of the Evangelists speak about the same matter , if one of them adds some words , yea , some material Passages which are not in the other , these must be reckoned to be the very same with what the other said , though they were utterly omitted by him . Then we may argue thus , St. Matthew saith , Christ began to preach , and to say , Repent , Mat. 4. 17. St. Mark saith , He preach'd the Gospel , saying , Repent ye , and believe the Gospel , Mark 1. 14 , 15. therefore Repenting and Believing are the same , and there is no difference between them . Would not a Man be hooted at for such Arguing as this ? Yet this is the very Reasoning of our Racovian , and of this late Proselyte of theirs . In one Evangelist he saith , our Saviour is called Christ , in another the Son of God , therefore the denominations of the Son of God and Christ are identified . Again , they endeavour to prove it from comparing Mat. 26. 63. Mark 14. 61. with Luk. 22. 67. In the former places 't is related that the High Priest asked our Saviour whether he was the Son of God , the Son of the Blessed : in the latter , whether he was the Christ. Whence they roundly conclude that those Names Christ and the Son of God are synonymous . But they do this without any shew of reason , because they cannot ( as * Slichtingius himself confestes ) simply from an Omission infer the identity of the things which are expressed and which are left out , viz in the Writings of the Evangelist : and consequently their Arguing is vain and groundless . The plain and satisfactory Answer to it is this , that St. Luke ( guided by the Holy Ghost in giving the Narrative of what was done relating to our Lord ) omitted the particular words which the other Evangelists have : and this is usual with all the Evangelists at one time or other . But a man can't infer thence that the words and expressions which are used by them are of the same import and signification . After this rate , when I read that Christ fell upon his face , Mat. 26. 39. and that he fell on the ground , Mark 14. 35. and that he fell on his kness for so 't is in the Greek ) Luk. 22. 41. I may conclude that face and ground and kness are the very same thing , and one of them signifies no more than the other . This is the wild Logick of these men . Can there be a more extravagant way of talking than this ? Especially if we remember what Pretences to Reason and Good Sense these men make above the rest of mankind . There are other Texts quoted by our Author to prove that there is no difference between Christ and the Son of God as to the signification of the words , but they may easily be answered from what I have said concerning the interpretation of the foregoing Texts . There is one place ( to name no more ) which confutes all the foresaid surmises of the Socinians about the identity of those Terms : it is that famous Confession of Faith which the Ethiopian Eunuch made when Philip told him that he might be baptized if he believed ; Acts 8. 37. I believe , saith he , that Iesus Christ is the Son of God. This without doubt was said according to that apprehension which he had of Christ from Philip's instructing him , for it is said he preached unto him Iesus , v. 35. He had acquainted him that Jesus was the Christ , the Anointed of God , and also that he was the Son of God , which includes in it that he was God. And accordingly this Noble Proselyte gives this account of his Faith , in order to his being baptiz'd , in order to his being admitted a Member of Christ's Church , I believe that Iesus is the Son of God , or you may read it according to the Greek , I believe the Son of God to be Iesus Christ. Where there are these two distinct Propositions , 1. That Iesus is the Christ , the Messias , 2. That he is not only the Messias , but the Son of God. If you do not own these two Propositions included in his words , you must say that the Eunuch ( though instructed by Philip ) spoke Non-sense , for it to be Christ and to be the Son of God are of the same signification , then his words sound thus , I believe that Iesus Christ is Christ , I believe the Messias is the Messias . This absolutely follows from the foresaid Notion , that the Messias and the Son of God are synonymous . So then here is an Absurd Tautology instead of a Sober confession of Faith from this Eminent Convert : and Philip accepts of it as a good and right profession of his Belief . This you must grant , or else you must acknowledg that the Messias and Son of God are not of the same signification , but are distinctly attributed to Iesus . These words will force you to acknowledg this , for in saying he believes Christ to be the Son of God , or that the Son of God is Christ , he lets us know that these two , viz. to be the Messias and to be the Son of God are different things ( though they meet in the same Person ) and consequently that in all those places ( which are very many ) where the Son of God is added to the Messias , we must understand it as an addition to the Sense : whereas according to this Writer and his Complices these two are identified : and consequently here is a Nonsensical Reiteration in the words , for they amount to no more than this , I believe Iesus Christ to be Christ. This is that Absurdity which they are reduced to . But yet I will subjoyn this , that we are not unwilling to grant that our Saviour is sometimes call'd the Son of God because of his * Miraculous Conception , also because of the Dignity of his † Mission , and sometimes because of his ‖ Resurrection . But then we say that these do not exclude another , and higher cause of this Appellation , viz. his ** Eternal Filiation : he was begotten from Eternity of the substance of the Father by an ineffable Generation . If then we will speak of these two Denominations distinctly and properly , we must say that one is the Name of his Office , the other of his Divinity , and consequently that Christ and the Son of God are not expressions of the same latitude and import . And how indeed can they be ? For they have different foundations , the one hath its rise from the Divine Mission , viz. that of the Father , who sent and anointed him to be a Saviour : the other is grounded in the singular and peculiar Property of the Second Person in the Sacred Trinity , and so is the Name of his Person . Wherefore it is most irrationally and absurdly done of our Late Convert , in a fond Imitation of his Brethren , to confound these two which are really Distinct. I mention'd this as a proof of his being a Socinian , and he lets it remain a Proof , and so do I. But here I would only observe that he and they proceed in a Preposterous manner when they tell us that Christ is called the Son of God , because of his Office and its Dignity , whereas it is evident that he had the Office and Dignity , because he was the Son of God , and because none could perform the Office but he that was so . He was not God ( a Metaphorical God , as the Socinians sometimes make him ) because he was Christ or the Messias : but he was the Messias because he was God , even the True God. He was the Christ of God because he was the Son of God : And this Filiation , in its strictest and properest sense , implies his Divine Nature , and his Coessentiality with the Father . He would here wind in ( p. 23. ) the late Archbishop of Canterbury , as if he understood the foregoing Terms as the Socinians do . But his words that are cited do not necessarily import any such thing , for Nathanael might own our Saviour to be the Messias , and call him the Son of God , and yet it doth not follow thence that the signification of both these Appellations is the same , or that the Archbishop thought so . And he would make use of the Authority of an Other Prelate , now living , of extraordinary Worth and Learning , who speaking only in a general way represents these two as the same thing , viz. that Iesus is the Christ , and that Iesus is the Son of God , because these expressions are applied to the same Person , and because they are both comprehended in one general Name , viz. Iesus . Yet it doth not follow thence but that if we will speak strictly and closely we must be forced to confess that they are of different significations ; for we have different Ideas and notions of them , the one being the Name of our Saviour's Office , the other of his Person and Eternal Filiation . But our Gentleman adheres to his good Patrons and Friends the Racovians , and pronounces them the very same . And we may , for this as well as other reasons , pronounce him the same with those Gentlemen . Which you may perceive he is very apprehensive of , and thinks that this will be reckon'd a good Evidence of his being what he denied himself to be before . The Point is gain'd , saith he , and I am openly a Socinian . p. 23. He never uttered truer words in his life , and they are the Confutation of all his Pretences to the contrary . This Truth , which unwarily dropt from his pen , confirms what I have laid to his charge , that he did read the foresaid Texts with Socinian Spectacles , that he interpreted them after the Racovian Mode , that he passed by Other Texts , yea , the Whole Epistles themselves , because he was sensible how many Illustrious Attestations to the doctrine of the ever to be Adored Trinity are contained in them . It is true , he tells us that he never read the Socinian Writers , p. 22. but we know his Shuffling is such that there is no depending on his word . But suppose he did not read those Authors , yet he doth not deny that he hath Convers'd with some of them , and hath heard their Notions and Arguments : and this indeed he intimates to us when he lets us know that the generality of Divines he more converses with are not Racovians , p. 22. which intimates that there are some Particular Divines he less converses with that are of another way . What shall we say ? The Gentleman is a Racovian , and yet pretends he doth not know it . So we must number him among the Ignoramus-Socinians ( as they tell us in their late Papers of Ignoramus Trinitarians ) which is one sort of those folks it seems . I will only further take notice here of what was truly said , before he was aware , that it was a dull work with him to quote Scripture , p. 25. He hath sufficiently convinced the world , in his numerous Quotations of Scripture , that it was so . He might have added , it is a diabolical work , for in quoting Scripture after that rate which he is guilty of , he doth but follow his Pattern in Mat. 4. 6. His handling of Scripture , and making that use of it which he doth , is an Abusing of it . Such treating of the Holy Book is desecrating it ; and whilest he talks Scripture , he prophanes it . So that a Socinian begins to mend when he leaves this work off , ( p. 25. ) in comparison of what he did before . So much for the Second Charge . CHAP. VII . The last General Charge against him is , that when he professedly enumerates the ADVANTAGES of our Saviour's Coming , he hath not one syllable of his SATISFYING for us . Hence it is rationally inferr'd that he favours Racovianism . He endeavours to evade this by pretending that in other places he uses such terms as import Satisfaction . Herein he is refuted . His Dissimulation discovered . Even whilest he proclaims himself a Socinian , he labours to disguise it . Which argues his Weakness and Insincerity . His Book is unworthy of the specious Title which he prefixes to it . The Author's Conclusion of the foregoing debates . ANother Proof , or rather Demonstration of our Author 's being a Disciple of Socinus is this , that when he mentions the Advantages and Benefits of Christ's Coming into the world , he hath not one syllable of his Satisfying for us , or by his Death purchasing life and salvation , or any thing that sounds like it . He makes nothing of the force of this Evidence , wherefore it will be proper now to set it before the Reader in its true and native light . He that was giving an Account of the Reasonableness of Christianity , and was more particularly making it his business to shew for what End and Purpose Christ appear'd in the flesh , and to let his Readers know what Good and Advantage were brought to them by the Messias , he ( I say ) when he was about this work , and Designedly undertook it in this part of his book , was obliged to declare that one great Advantage of the Messias's Coming was to take away our sins by Expiating them , that one Main End of his Coming was to make Satisfaction for us , and thereby to purchase life and glory . But this New Convert hath not any thing that sounds like it in this place , where he professedly took upon him to acquaint us what are the Advantages which accrue to us by the Messias . Though he hath the confidence to struggle with many other parts of the Charges against him , yet here he submits , and grants ( p. 5. Vind. ) he hath no such thing in the place where the Advantages of Christ's Coming are purposely treated of . And if by his own acknowledgment he hath no such thing when he reckons up the Advantages and Blessings of Christ's appearing in the world , then every intelligent man knows what Inference to make , viz. that this Author was of opinion that Christ came not to Satisfie for us , and to purchase life for us by vertue of his Death , which is one of the Grand Points of Socinianism . The force of this Inference is unavoidable , and it will attack our Adversary , be he never so cunning at Evasions , be he never so closely intrench'd in his Equivocations . For where should we expect this to be mention'd , if it be not expresly taken notice of in that part or division of his Treatise where he Purposely sets forth the Benefits of the Messias's Arrival ? If he doth not make express mention of it here , it is either because he forgot it , ( but he owns no such thing ) or because he was careless ( but he doth not think himself , whatever others do , to be such a Writer ) or because he wilfully left it out , and this indeed is the true Reason : for all the world cannot but see ( notwithstanding his Shifts ) that his Subject engag'd him to reckon This in the number of the Benefits accruing by the Coming of Jesus Christ , if he had thought it to be one . When he was enumerating of those , this could not possibly have been omitted , because by all Writers that are not Socinians this is always put into the Catalogue of those Blessings which we share in by the Undertakings of our Blessed Saviour . Hence it appears how impertinent and ridiculous that is , It was not in the place he ( meaning me ) would have it in , p. 5. He should have said , it is not in the place where every one might reasonably have look'd for it , it was not in the place where his matter necessarily oblig'd him to insert it , so that he was both faithless to his Subject , and false to the True Cause : in brief , it was not in that place where , if he had not been a Pupil of Socinus , it would certainly have been found : for no man but such a one did ever designedly undertake the Enumeration of those Benefits which we are partakers of by our Lord 's Coming , and yet omit at the same time his Redeeming and Purchasing us by his Blood. He pretends indeed , p. 5. that in an other place of his book he mentions Christ's restoring all man kind from the state of death , and restoring them to life , and his laying down his life for an other , as our Saviour professes he did . These few words this Vindicator hath pick'd up in his book since he wrote it . This is all thro' his whole Treatise that he hath dropt concerning that Advantage of Christ's Incarnation which I was speaking of : and they are general terms too , and such as every Racovian will subscribe to ; for they are not backward to own that Christ some way or other ( but not That before specified ) restored us to life , and they cannot gainsay the express words of Christ concerning his laying down his life for his sheep , Iohn 10. 15. but it is well known that ( notwithstanding this ) they deny the Satisfaction of Christ , and his purchasing life and salvation by vertue of his Meritorious Passion and Death . There is not any thing that sounds like this in that part of his Discourse where he peculiarly made it his employment and task to let the Reader know what Advantages we reap by our Saviours assuming our humane nature . But he deridingly cries out What will become of me , that I have not mention'd SATISFACTION ? p. 6. I will tell you , Sir , ( seeing you would know ) what will become of you ; you will ever hereafter be reckon'd by all understanding men an Egregious Whiffler , or in plainterms a Notorious Dissembler . For the case stands thus , ( and I doubt not but the Reader will perfectly agree with me in it ) you believe Christ's Satisfaction , or you do not : if you believe there is such a thing , and this was one of the Advantages we have by Christ's Coming , then you were false and treacherous in omitting it : if you believe it not , you are as false and hypocritical in vouching your self to be no Socinian , seeing this is one known Badg of a person of that Character . Let him take which of these ways he will , he forfeits his Truth and Integrity . Was it not enough to make use of the Chief Socinian Arguments , and to expound Texts in the Racovian way , and to leave out plain and direct places even in the very Gospels that assert the Holy Trinity , and moreover to throw off all the Famous Testimonies to this doctrine in the Apostolical Epistles , and to balk the Satisfaction of Christ for us even when he was purposely telling the Reader what are the Advantages which flow to us from Christ's Coming ? Was it not enough , I say , to do all this ( which loudly proclaims him a Socinian ) but must he also hold the world in hand that he is none ? Can this Writer himself consider this , and not blush ? Who doth not wonder at his Weakness , that he should manifestly take the part of these Gentlemen and yet endeavour to perswade us that he is not of their number ? But who doth not wonder more at his Insincerity , that he should act thus ? Must not this then be his Lasting Character that he hath in his Writings demonstated himself to be not only a Socinian , but a False hearted one ? There are other Passages in his book which I might produce to confirm this Character of him , but those may be taken notice of at another time . At present let it suffice that I have shew'd that he hath not said one word in his Vindication that clears him of this imputation . And as for his book it self of the Reasonableness of Christianity , let it suffice to say that though there have been many Treatises concerning that Subject , yet none ever could imagine that this which he offers could possibly be brought under that Title . He saith some body is good at Conjecturing , but if a man had the best faculty in the world that way , it were impossible to guess and surmise that such a Title should be prefix'd those Papers which are an Unreasonable and False Representation of Christianity , a Lame and Shatter'd Account of the Principles of the Gospel , and , in short , a kind of Libel against the New Testament . Finally , let it suffice that I have demonstrated to the Reader that this Gentleman acts a Part in what he writes ; by which he hath gained this , that he must never be believed for the future . He that is such an Under-hand dealer can't be trusted : there is no heed to be given to what he saith . Thus I thought my self obliged to set before the Reader the state of the Case between this Gentleman and my self , and to give an impartial account of our Sentiments . I am satisfied in my Undertaking , for ( whatever my defects in it otherwise be ) I 'm sure I have aimed aright , at the vindicating the Glory of the Great Majesty of heaven and earth . I have faithfully asserted our Holy Religion , and the Divinity of the Blessed Author and Founder of it . I have maintained the Authority and Honour of the Holy Scriptures . To the pursuing of which Glorious Designs I shall dedicate my whole life : and I hope from what I have written , and shall hereafter write , the World will bear me witness that I do so . CHAP. VIII . The Gentleman insinuates that the Author would represent every one as an Atheist that thinks not as he doth . This Calumny is baffled . He laughs at Orthodoxy , and cries down Systems and Creeds . This Indifferent Writer blames the Author for his Zeal . Is angry with him for penetrating into his Thoughts and Intentions . The Party inure themselves to Sophistry , and yet make a shew of Simplicity and Plainness . The Gentleman 's Uneven Temper observ'd . What is meant by a known Writer of the brotherhood . He is himself of an other Fraternity . Though he pretends to be Grave , he Scosss and Ieers . He cannot be brought to confess himsef to be a Retainer to Socinianism , though he hath given such evident proofs of his being one . The Author shuts up all with seasonable Advice to him , giving him some account of the Freedom which he hath used towards him in the preceding Discourse . HAving now dispatch'd my Main Business , and found the Bill against the Criminal , not by Innuendo's but by Plain Express Proof , I am at leisure to account with him for some Other Passages in his Vindication . He insinuates that I would represent every one as an Atheist , or a Promoter of Atheism that doth not think as I do , doth not just say after me , p. 1 , 2. Which is a groundless Calumny , and might be confuted from that Freedom which I professed , p. 77. even in that Discourse which he excepts against . I have always been averse to Bigotism , I never shew'd my self a Dogmatizer , but always declar'd for an Ingenuous Liberty , such as doth not audaciously encroach upon the Necessary and Fundamental Points of our Religion . Therefore this Vindicator's wilful mistaking of what I said , thereby to represent me as extremely Censorious and Uncharitable , looks like Spleen . But I need say no more than this , that the Reader is convinc'd ( I question not ) from what hath been premised that this Writer will say any thing that comes into his head . This seems to be natural to him every where : and he can be no more without it than a Spaniard without his Guittar . To be Orthodox is a great Scandal , it seems , and he often objects it to me : which , as the Learned know , was the very language and idiom of the Arrians of old , and of that sort of men who are since known by the name of Socinians . He speaks in the very Stile of the Old Antitrinitarians ; though it may be he will say he doth not know it . He publickly prides himself in his Heterodoxy , and hates even with a deadly hatred all Catechisms and Confessions , all Systems and Models , p. 8. He laughs at Orthodoxy , p. 17 , 20. and derides Mysteries , which are infallible marks of a Racovian Brother . And O how he grins at the Spirit of Creed-making ? p. 18. Vindic. the very thoughts of which do so haunt him , so plague and torment him that he cannot rest till it be conjured down . And here , by the way , seeing I have mention'd his rancour against Systematick books and writings , I might represent the Misery that is coming upon all Booksellers if this Gentleman and his Correspondents go on successfully . Here is an effectual Plot to undermine Stationers Hall ; for all Systems and Bodies of Divinity , Philosophy , &c. must be cashier'd : whatever looks like System must not be bought or sold. This will fall heavy on the Gentlemen of St. Paul's Church-yard , and other places . This Author often finds fault with me for my Zeal , p. 5 , 18 , 37. It is likely he hath heard that when the Gospel was heretofore read in the Churches in Poland ( before it was Socinianized , ) it was usual to draw their Swords , to shew that they would defend it against all that opposed it . I do but draw my Pen in defence of the Gospel , yea and the Epistles , and I am censur'd as a Zealot by him . And it is not strange , for he must needs declare against Zeal that is Indifferent . Besides , according to this Judicious Casuist there is but One Point of Christianity that a man can be zealous for , if he would . Queen Mary's Martyrs foolishly threw away their lives , for neither Bonner nor any of their Persecutors did so much as desire them to renounce this Article Iesus is the Messias : and as for all the rest , this Gentleman tells us that they are not necessarily to be believ'd , and consequently not to be acknowledg'd and profess'd ; and then who will shew any Zeal for them , especially such as will carry a man into the Flames ? He often talks of my being in his bosom , and knowing his heart and thoughts , p. 14 , 15 , 24. ( which by the by is more than his Brethren will allow God himself to know , for Free Acts being uncertain they can't be certainly understood by God ( as the Gentleman whom I shall speak a word with anon tells us . ) This sort of Talk argues that he is much troubled that I have penetrated into his Thoughts , and have discovered to the world what his Intention and Design is . And yet he intimates also by this way of speaking that it is an Impossible thing to do this . How impossible then is it for himself to know his heart ? for this is a certain Maxim , It is the Punishment of a Dissembler to deceive himself , for his endeavouring to do so to others . I wish this Writer would consider of it , and learn for the future to be free , open and fair , and then others ( as well as himself ) would have a window into his breast , and see that which they are sorry they find no appearance of now . And I wish this were not too common a fault of the Party , at least of many of them . They inure themselves to Sophistry , Cunning , and Artifice , when they either interpret Texts , or Argue in favour of their Darling Opinions . They then too palpably impose upon other mens minds , as well as upon their own . And yet at the same time they pretend to great Simplicity and honest dealing . Thus you find them applauding themselves in their late Prints : * the Vnitarians ( say they of themselves ) are plain fellows , and have Countrey Consciences , and do not like juggling . You Gentlemen of the City , look to it : these Vnitarians , these Socinians have a very bad opinion of you , for here they would have it believ'd that City-Consciences are false and perfidious , deceitful and juggling . It is a course Complement , and Rustick enough which these Plain Fellows put upon you . It is not the first time they have struck at you : London must be disciplin'd by Racovia . And the Vindicator is one of these Plain Fellows , for as he hath shew'd himself an Vnitarian , so he makes it appear that he hath a Country-Conscience in the sense that these men ultimately mean it in , viz. a knack of Cheating in a Rustical plain way , as when he pretends to make a Religion for the Rabble , an Easie Plain Religion , a Creed with One Article , and no more ; pretending thereby to gratifie them , but under hand subverting Christianity . Nor have I yet done with him . I find him to be a Man of a very Uneven Temper : sometimes he is very Low and Whining , and will be asking pardon , and desiring me , &c at other times he is Imperious and Magisterial , and requires me , &c. Sometimes he talks very demurely , as about being in earnest , p. 9. being serious and grave , p. 24 , 25. and in a Pedantick Humour he undertakes to censure and correct my Stile , p. 24. But this fit of Gravity doth not last long ; he every where shews himself Light and Freakish , Ironical and Abusive as far as he is able , and nibbles at Wit according to his mean Talent . He inveighs forsooth against Declamatory Rhetorick , Wit and Iest , &c. p. 24. Vindic. and yet at the same time is Wanton and Frolick , Starting any thing to sport himself with . In that very place before mention'd where he seems to put on his Gravity , he hath not forgot the Merry time of Rope-dancing and Puppet-Plays , at which he was good in the days of yore . It is likely he had been a little before conducting some of his Young Brood to Bartholomew Fair , and thence this precious idea came into his head . Without doubt he thought he was not a little Ingenious in that waggish expression , p. 6. a Known Writer of the brotherhood : which is meant of the Brethren of the Clergy who have writ against the Socinian Cause , the same with the Popular Authorities and Frightful Names which he speaks of , p. 23. The professed Divines of England you must know are but a pitiful sort of folks with this great Racovian Rabbi . He tells us plainly that he is not mindful of what the Generality of Divines declare for , p. 22. He labours so concernedly to engratiate himself with the Mob , the Multitude ( which he so often talks of ) that he hath no regard to these . The generality of the Rabble are more considerable with him than the generality of Divines , the Writers of the brotherhood . Though truly a Wise Man that hears any one judg thus , will think he deserves as well to be rewarded with a pair of Ears of the largest size as he did who judg'd on Pan's side against Apollo . But there is more yet in this term of brotherhood than this , for here it is implied ( and his thoughts may be suppos'd to be upon it when he wrote ) that he himself is a Writer of an Other Fraternity ; and truly this Stile is very proper , for the men of that Party ( as 't is well known ) have labour'd to signalize themselves ( in the Writings that they have publish'd ) by the Title of Brethren . It is agreed then ; we will for the future take him for a Polonian Brother . And I ask the Reader whether this Brother be not of kin to the Order of Friers in Italy who were call'd Fratres Ignorantiae , viz. because , they professed to teach the people as little as possibly they could , as suppose One Article of Religion , and no more . I might proceed further , and shew that this Author , as Demure and Grave as he would sometimes seem to be , can scoff at the Matters of Faith contain'd in the Apostles Epistles , p. 18. l. 4. &c. To coakse the Mob he prophanely brings in that place of Scripture , Have any of the Rulers believ'd in him ? p. 33. Ridiculously and Irreligiously he pretends that I prefer what he faith to me to what is offer'd to me from the Word of God , p. 25. What is there that this Gentleman will not turn into Ridicule or Falsity ? What is there that he will not take hold of to be Sportive and Gamesome ? We may further see how Counterfeit his Gravity is whilst he condemns frothy and light discourses , p. 26. Vindie . and yet in many pages together most irreverently treats a great part of the Apostolical Writings , and throws aside the Main Articles of Religion as unnecessary . From all which it is clear that he contradicts and opposes himself . Whence by the by we may gather that when he saith he is no Socinian , we must take his meaning to be that he is one , for he is made up of Contradictions . I observed before that the Dissenting Ministers consfess'd to him ( if you will believe * him ) that they understood not the difference in debate among them : but this Gentleman can't be brought to confess any thing , he will not own that he is a Writer of the brotherhood . No : there is some great Reason ( if it may be call'd so ) for this , that he would not be thought to be of Sozzo's side : though the Marks and Tokens are so plain that he may be apprehended without a Hue and Crie . Come , Good Sir , do not act a part any longer : They have been desirous to put you upon service , and you were as willing to be employ'd in it : but now at last Confess it . Appear no more in Masquerade : away with this Mummery , and shew your self what you are . You have let the world see ( and so far we are beholding to you ) that Socinian is a Reproachful Title ; that any one may gather from your being so backward to own it . You would never have taken so much pains to shift off this Character if it were not a very Scandalous One. Throw off your Vizour then , and speak out like a Man. Be free and ingenuous , and dissemble not with Heaven as well as Men. I have , Sir , been very free with you , which you may impute to your not being so with your self . You know the Rule among the Men of Art , The Heart is known by the Pulse . I have made bold to usurp upon the Faculty , I have been feeling your Pulse , and I have found that it strongly beats after the Racovian tone . This I have told you with some plainess , and you are obliged to me for representing you to your self . I know you did not expect an Assault , for it was your self ( however you apply it to me ) that was thought to be one of * the most Priviledged sort of men . But , Sir , in the Reign of Truth Protections are not of any use . It is a laudable way sometimes to fight the Enemy in his Trenches . There are some Criminals that must be snatch'd from the horns of the Altar , especially when they injure the Altar it self , when they abuse that which is Holy , and trample upon our Sacred Faith and Religion . To conclude , I have said nothing out of prejudice or disgust , much less out of bitterness and ill will , for I am in Entire Charity with you , and the more so because I have spoken so freely . If you complain now ( as you did before ) that you are hardly dealt with , I have only this to say , A Plain Down-right Adversary might perhaps have met with another usage , but such a Stubborn Dissembler could not expect fairer quarter . A Brief REPLY To Another SOCINIAN Writer , Whose Cavils bear this Title , [ The Exceptions of Mr. Edwards in his Causes of Atheism against the Reasonableness of Christianity , &c. Examin'd . ] A Brief REPLY To another SOCINIAN Author . THERE came lately to my hand this Writer's Sheets in the true Racovian Print : but I having been so large upon the Vindicator , this Double-Column'd Gentleman , who pretends to be an Examinator , cannot expect I should spend much time about him . In the first place we are to observe that he most humbly and reverentially dedicates his Papers to the New Patron of the Cause , and takes upon him the Defence of what he hath said in his Reasonableness of Christianity . He highly applauds him for his being so serviceable to the Socinian and Antitrinitarian Interest . And it is part of his Panegyrick that he hath happily provided for the quiet and satisfaction of the minds of the honest multitude , p. 3. That is , he hath not troubled and molested them ( as some have done with propounding Several Articles of Christian Belief ) but hath told them that One is enough for them , and bids them rest contented with that , like good honest Ignorant Souls . Thus he hath provided ( but how happily let the Reader judg ) for their quiet and satisfaction . But though the Examinator heaps great Commendations on the Vindicator , yet he professes i● ( you 'll believe him , you may ) that he knows him not , p 4. Only at a venture he takes his part , he now being become one of the Brotherhood , and may prove a very Substantial Tool and Engine in the great Work they are now about , viz. the subverting of our Saviour's Divinity , the laying aside the Apostolical Epistles , the shutting out the Necessary Matters of Faith contain'd in them , and the setting up and idolizing of One Article , with defiance of all the rest as any ways Necessary to be believ'd . This is the New DIANA that is set up by our Ephesians , especially by their late Demetrius . Then he hath a fling at my Booksellers , p. 5. wherein he follows the steps of the Vindicator , p. 37. And in this and other things they jump , which discovers their Correspondence , though he had but just before said he knew him not . And so this gives us an account of the truth of what the Vindicator said , that he knew not that the Socinians interpreted such and such Texts after such a manner . This is said to impose upon the world , and make them believe that he and the Racovians have not been Confederates . But he confutes this in another place , where he owns that he hath particular knowledg of that Gentleman , and knew the circumstances of his Life , p. 13. Col. 2. for he could not say of him that he overcame the prejudices of Education unless he had been acquainted with his Education and manner of life . And if this is the Gentleman of no ordinary judgment , from whom he saith he hath seen a Letter , &c. p. 17. Here still you see is Juggling and sleight of hand , and it is natural and proper it seems to the Party . And further to shew their Conferring of Notes together , it might be observ'd that both agree to say that what I write was writ in hast and in a fit , Examin . p. 5. Vindicat. p. 19. And let it be so , if they will , for thence it will appear that a man need not take up much time to confute either the Vindicator or this Gentleman . But what is this that he hath to say of my Booksellers ? Some great matter without doubt . He put me upon making Exceptions against that Treatise , that so the sale of his own Tract might be the more promoted , p. 5. The Reader may guess from this what is their own Trade ; they and their Booksellers joyntly club to cheat the poor bulk of mankind . That is their practice we may learn from their fastning it upon others . Any man may see that the Rationalist went snips with his Pater-Noster-Men , they fully understood one another , as appears from their not denying him to be the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity , &c. all the time it was in the Press : but when they saw the Sale of it was not according to their High Expectations , they , to buoy up the Gentleman's Credit , began to disown him to be the Author . This was done by the two Shrine-men that before cried aloud for Diana . Now then , I think it appears at last that these people are extremely beholding to my Booksellers if they did any such thing as they surmise , for by this means the sale of their Book was promoted . After the Booksellers , I must be taken to task by the Reverend Examinator , who having flutter'd a little about the formal words which I had said were to be found in the Reasonableness of Christianity ( which no Creature that hath once read it will once doubt of ) he fixes on this ( p. 5. ) as the Vindicator's true sense , yea his own words , that all that was to be believed for justification , or to make a man a Christian , by him that did already believe in , and worship one True God , maker of heaven and earth , was no more than this Single Proposition , that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or the Messias . This man makes a Miserable Entrance to his work , for though he saith these are the Vindicator's words ( for thus he brings them in , It is true he saith ) yet no man alive can find them in his book : and he knew this himself , else he would have set down the page , as we find him paging it afterwards . What shall we say then to such men as these who will vouch any thing ? They can be trusted with no book , no not with one of their own Tribe , for we see here that this Writer's stile is , he saith , and yet this Express Saying no where occurs in the book he refers to . And here by the way , we may observe the bold Partiality of this Writer ; he ( as well as the Vindicator , p. 38. ) would charge me with not quoting the formal words which are in the Reasonableness of Christianity , whilest he is not sensible of his plain misquoting the same Author . Yet here we may observe this , that it is but a Single Proposition ( and no more ) which is to be believ'd , to make a man a Christian. This is the sense of the Vindicator's friend , thus he understands him ; and so indeed every one must , and yet it may be remembred that the Vindicator himself would evade this , and pretends that he means more than a Single Proposition or Article . Now next let us see how this Examinator licks over the Vindicator's Article , and tells us that the belief of Iesus's being the Messias comprehends and implies several other things , p. 3. Here he sweats to bring off his Brother handsomly and with credit by letting us know that his Bold Assertion which runs through his whole book is to be qualified after this manner , 1. All synonymous expressions , &c. and so he sets them down one , two and three . But I ask him this Question ( and let the Reader be pleas'd to observe the issue of it ) Why did not the Gentleman himself make use of these Qualifications when he vented the Proposition , and insisted upon it in the bulk of his book , yea why did he not mention these Qualifications in his Answer to my Exceptions against his book ? He knew what he had asserted , and he defends ( as well he can ) his doing so , but you will find in no part of his Vindication that he betakes himself to these Evasions , though he hath enough of Others of a different sort . How then come you , Mr. Examinator , to invent these things for him ? Do you not hereby proclaim to the world that you will put off the Reader with any idle and groundless Conceit of your own ? When he repeats my words , p. 6 , 7. wherein I took notice of the Gentleman 's willful omitting of plain and obvious passages in the Evangelists ( out of whose Writings he had drawn a Whole Article ) which contain the belief of the Holy Trinity , he saith not a word to excuse his Omission , but by his silence ( for he would have spoken without doubt if he had had any thing to say in his Friends defence ) he owns it to be wilful and blameable . Only he comes with the Trite and Common Answer of the Party to those Texts ; but before he enters upon the Second of them , viz. Iohn 1. 1. he declares there is no such Text in the whole Bible , p. 9. He said rightly that he was bold to say it , for a man shall scarcely hear a more Audacious word , though 't is true he endeavours to mollifie it with an if . As to what he saith about my taking notice of the Gentleman 's slighting the Epistolary Writings , I have fully answered it in the foregoing Papers , and therefore shall add no more here . He proceeds next to those Socinan Authors , whose undue Notions concerning God I glanc'd upon . The Author of the Considerations , &c. in reply to the Right Reverend Bishop who had from the notion of God's Eternity inferr'd that he was Self-existent or from himself , hath these words , What makes him ( viz. the Bishop ) say , God must be from himself , or self-originated ? for then he must be before he was , which this Writer concludes to be a Contradiction . Therefore he would make this Conclusion that God's Self-existence is a Contradiction . I know it will be pretended that this is the Consequence only of the Bishops Notion of Eternity , but it is plain that that Writer makes use of this Arguing to shake the belief of the Eternity and Self-Existence of the Allmighty , and that will appear from what he further adds in way of Exception to what that Reverend Person saith afterwards concerning God's Eternity . This Examinator talks of a false notion of Self-existence , but doth not say what it is . If I have mistaken the Considerer , let him write plainer another time . As to the Examinator's question . How the Second and Third Persons can be Self-existent ? I answer , They are Self-existent as they are eternally from the Self-same Deity . Though according to the Nicene Creed Christ be God of God , yet that doth not infring his Self-Existence , because those words are not spoken of the Essence of Christ which is common to him with his Father , but of his Personality . He being the same with the Father as to the former hath his Existence of himself ; but differing from the Father as to the latter , he is rightly said to be from him , or of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity . This is easily reconciled with what he saith an Other Bishop asserts , if this Vnitarian hath not a mind to quarrel . In the next Paragraph he is quite non-plus'd , for I had charg'd the Sacinian Authors with their denial of God's foreknowing future Contingencies , and consequently denying the Omniscience of God , which is an inseparable Attribute of the Deity ; and he having nothing to reply to the purpose , first tells us he is not concern'd in it , p. 18 , whereas every one knows that he being one of the Party is concern'd . Secondly , assoon as he had as it were renounced the Socinian doctrine by saying he was not Concern'd in it , he presently owns it for Truth , as those words import , p. 18. — to deny his foreknowledg of the certainty of that which is not certain , &c. which is as much as to say that there are some things that are Uncertain and therefore Unknowable , and these God can have no knowledg of . And yet thirdly , he would seem to hint that it is a dishonourable thing to God ( those are his words ) that he should not have a foresight of these things . Thus Confused is our Author , which shews he is not fit to be an Examiner of other mens Writings , when he can't write Consistently himself , but in three or four lines hath as many Blunders . In the next words and what follows he perfectly gives up the Cause , p. 18. for I had laid this to the charge of the Racovians that they denied the Immensity or Omnipresence of God , which is a Property or Perfection never to be disjoyn'd from the Deity ; whereupon he tamely acknowledges that Crellius and the rest of the Fraternity are of this perswasion . Only , because the Gentleman must be wagging his tongue , he gives us a scrap out of a Latin Poet , and just names a Greek Father , who never said any thing to that matter , and so we are rid of them . But he comes on again , and goes off assoon , for he barely mentions the Spirituality of God , which I had asserted to be another Divine Excellency : and it is such an Attribute of God that we can't conceive of him without it , and therefore it is made the short and comprehensive Definition of him that he is a Spirit , Iohn 4. 24. In my Discourse which this Examinator calls in question I took notice that the Socinians denied this Property of the Deity , which I justly tax'd as an Atheistick Tang : and I think it was a mild term , for it is a Rank Sign of a great tendency to Atheism to deny that God is a Spirit , i. e. an Immaterial Incorporeal Being . But our present Author resolves himself into the opinion of those modest Divines ( who by their Blushing can be no other than Socinus's Scholars ) who determine nothing about the Point ; which is as much as to say , he and they deny it . But you must know they are now a little upon their Credit : this Gentleman ( who speaks in the name of the rest ) had before given up the Immensity and Omniscience of God , and therefore it is high time now to be upon the Reserve , and to pause a little , that the world may not see that they reject All those Properties of the Deity which I mention'd . But notwithstanding this cunning practice of theirs , the world may see , yea , it cannot but plainly see that they deny every one of these Divine Attributes more or less , and this particularly which I mention'd last , viz. that God is a Spirit properly so call'd . For whereas I quoted Socinus and Crellius ( their Grand Patriots ) to prove this denial , this Writer takes no notice of my doing so , which lets us see that the opinion of those Great Masters is humbly submitted to by all the rest . So now I hope the Reader is convinc'd that I was not Vnjust to the Socinians , that I did not highly injure them ( as they have cried out ) when I charg'd them with Atheism or a Strong Tendency to it in some Points . I tax'd them with denying these four Attributes , the Self-Existence , the Omniscience , the Omnipotence , the Spirituality of God , and lo ! this professed Son of Socinus ( who was chosen out with great deliberation and judgment without doubt from the rest of his brethren to undertake the Cause , to refute what I had alledg'd against them , and who questionless hath said all that he could in the Case ) lo ! I say , this professed and known Writer of the Brotherhood confirms and ratifies what I have laid to their charge . For he produces the words out of their own Author which I referr'd to , whence it appears that he had a mind to distort the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester's words , and to argue against the Self-Existence of God. This Examinator without any more ado rejects the Second and third Attributes , and by his boggling at the fourth we know what must be the fate of that . Thus he and his fellow-Criminals being conscious to the truth and Justice of the Charge , confess themselves Guilty . They are so far from clearing themselves of the Imputation and Enditement that they Aggravate it . I leave the Reader to give the Sentence . They deserve a Severe one at his hands , but I desire him to be Merciful for the sake of our Lord JESUS CHRIST , who forgave and pray'd for his greatest Opposers . May the All-Merciful God forgive them , and enlighten their minds , that they may be convinc'd of their Errors , and heartily renounce them . The Lord give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the truth , that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil . Then he runs to their Common Place , which hath help'd to fill up their papers many a time , and he thinks he doth great feats . But he only epitomizes Crellius de Vno Deo Patre , and offers a great many Texts which have been answered a hundred times , as he ( but untruly ) saith on another occasion , p. 8. This takes up 18 or 19 whole Pages : and why ? Because this costs him nothing , he borrows it all ( and he might have borrow'd a great deal more ) from the same Author . Here he can afford to be very long and large , but when he undertakes the Examination of what I had particularly objected against the Socinians , he is like the dog at Nilus , he is presently gone : he is not furnish'd with any Answer that he dares insist upon , or trust to . Next , I will observe to the Reader that this Author meddles not with my Argument which I drew from their own Professed Principle , viz. that nothing is to be believed but what is exactly adjusted to Reason , and thence prov'd that upon the same account that they reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity they may likewise quit the belief of a Deity . This I enlarg'd upon in seven pages together , it being ( as I then conceiv'd , and am more confirm'd in it since ) an Unanswerable Proof of what I laid to their Charge . He only grazes on it a little , p. 19. but wheels off presently , and fixes upon that subject before mentioned , God's Vnity , because he knew where to have enough of it , but did not know how to take off the force of that Argument which I propounded and insisted upon . In the next place he will turn Critick , and see whether he can thrive in this employment , seeing he hath so ill success in his former attempts . His nice palate disgusts the word birth , as applyed to Adam , p. 38. but thereby he only shews his want of skill in the Denotation of words . He is so poor a Dabbler in Grammer and Criticism that he knows not that by the Hebrew jalad , and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the Latin nasci , and accordingly our English [ to be born ] are signified in a general way the Origin , Rise , or Beginning of things or persons , and consequently Birth or Nativity is not to be taken always in the Vulgar Sense . He might have read in Genethliack Writers that the word is applied even to Cities and Houses . But I need not go so far to defend the Expression . The use of it , and that in the very way that I have applied it , is to be found in Scripture : Art thou the first man that was born ? Iob 15. 7. Or we may read it , if we please , more exactly according to the Original , Art thou born as the first man , or Adam , i. e. ( as the Context will shew it ) art thou as understanding as the man that was first born , viz. as our First Parent Adam ? By reason of this birth Adam is call'd the son of God , Luk. 3. 38. Whence the Socinians would gather that Christ hath that name upon the like account , because of his Extraordinary Original , because of his Miraculous Birth . Thus we have found that this Gentleman is ignorant of the true meaning of words in Common Authors , that he doth not know the acception of them in Holy Scripture , nay that he doth not know what his own Authors say , which evinces him to be triply a Blunderer , and that he deserves no more to be call'd an Examinator . Then he thinks he doth mighty things , p. 39. by quoting Limborch a very Learned Foreigner ( a System-maker , for he hath compiled a Large System of Divinity , though he gives it another Name ; and why then doth this Gentleman talk so reproachfully of Systems ? p. 44. &c. ) but this his Author is a Second Episcopius ; and therefore it was wisely done to bring him in to tell us what are the Fundamentals of Religion . But it was more cunningly done in the next Paragraph to fetch in the Sixth Article of the Church of England in favour of the Vindicator's Conceit . Surely this his Patron , at whose feet he lays his Papers , will give him little thanks for this , for he jeers him rather than defends his Cause . Thus though they are agreed , and understand one another so far as to Impose upon the world , yet they cannot ( and never will ) agree to speak Truth . And indeed this Worthy Writer foresignified something of this nature . He is a boding sort of man , you may perceive , for thus he speaks in his Humble Dedicatory to the Vindicator , If I have mistaken your sense , or used weak reasonings in your defence ( and behold ! here he doth both ) I crave your pardon . And so you may , and I will tell you for your comfort , he will soon forgive you , for he knows that your heart is right , i. e. for the Good Cause , and therefore a little Mistaking of him out of weakness is pardonable . Then he hales in Mr. Chillingworth by head and shoulders , p. 40. pronouncing him very definitively the ablest defender of the Religion of Protestants that the Church ever had ; which is too high a Character for him , though he was a person of Great Parts and Learning . Why must he be said to be the Ablest Defender when we can name so many Eminent Writers in other Countreys that have perform'd this task ? Or , if he means the Church of England , why must he have the absolute Preference to Others that we can name here , especially that Great Ornament and Glory of our Church , whom I had occasion to mention before , who hath so Learnedly defended the Religion of Protestants ? I , but he writ against Crellius , and therefore he must not be the Ablest Defender . Again , there is a reason well known to the world why Mr. Chillingworth hath the Preheminence in the opinion of this Writer and his Confederates , but of that at some other time perhaps . Let us now go on , and see what this Gentleman gets by his producing of Mr. Chillingworth ; and it is no other than this , a plain confutation of the Vindicator's Project concerning the reducing of Religion to a Point , and no more . For these are that Worthy Man's words , The Bible , the Bible , I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants . And I say so too , but this Gentleman and the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity are of another opinion , for according to them it is not the Bible , but a very Small Portion of it that is the Religion of Protestants . They acknowledg that Some few Verses in several Chapters of the Four Evangelists and the Acts are matter of Faith or Religion , but they do not cry the Bible , the Bible , the Bible , they do not think that All and Every one of the Fundamental Truths in the Whole Scripture are the necessary matter of our Belief . Thus I think this Reverend Scribe might have spared the quoting of Mr. Chillingworth , unless he delights in confuting himself and his New Convert . Afterwards he nibbles at some other passages in my Discourse , but flies off into Impertinencies . Only one thing I meet with that is very Remarkable , and I request the Reader to attend to it . There are ( saith he ) some that-of Deists have been reconciled to the Christian faith by the Vnitarian books , and have profess'd much satisfaction therein , p. 42. You may perceive that they are making of Proselytes as fast as they can , and among the rest some Deists come in to them , and so ( as the Apostle speaks of Seducers and those that are Seduced , 2 Pet. 2. 20. ) the latter end is worse with them than the beginning : for whereas before they owned a Natural Religion , now they become guilty of perverting and prophaning a Revealed one . They are so far from being reconciled to the Christian Faith , that they oppose and contradict it , and even defie the Main Articles of this Religion which is owing to Divine Revelation . Such Converts as these have no reason to profess much satisfaction in the Vnitarian books , unless Corrupting the Christian saith be to be chosen before plain Theism . To speak the plain truth ( and it is the design of these Papers to do so ) and that which every Thinking and Considering Man cannot but discern , the Socinians are but the Journey men of the Deists , and they are set on work by them , for these latter hope to compass their Design , which is to impair the Credit of the Christian Religion and of those Inspired Writings which give us an account of it , they hope ( I say ) effectually to compass this design by the help of such Good Instruments as they find the Socianiz'd Men to be . You see then what ground this Gentleman hath to think that the Deists are Proselytes to the Vnitarians . Then he proceeds to make a long harangue about the Obscurity of Systematical Fundamentals , p. 44. &c. but never was poor Creature so bewildred as he is . Only he happily lights upon the Quakers , p. 44 , 45. where it is worth observing that the man doth not know his Friends from his Foes , nor these from them . He rails against this sort of men ( who he saith would be counted the only People of God ) and yet it is certain that they are his brethren - Socinians . They utterly disown the Scripture as the Rule of Faith , he saith : and doth not our late Socinian Writer symbolize with them when he declares that the Divine Truths contained in the Epistles of the Holy Apostles ( which are a considerable part of Scripture ) are not the Necessary matter of Faith ? He complains that the Quakers turn the Gospel into an Allegory ; but the foremention'd Author doth much worse , for he represents the greatest Part of the Gospel-discoveries as Superfluous and Needless . In giving us the farther Character of the Quakers , he in lively colours represents the Socinians , for these are his words concerning them , Retaining still the words wherein the Christian Faith is expressed , though in an Equivocal Sense , they have made a shift to be reputed generally Christians . Certainly there could not be a better Pourtraiture of the Racovian Writers , for it is known that they are crafty and sophistical , and quote Scripture only to pervert it . They acknowledg Christ to be God , and an Expiatory Sacrifice , but they mean it Equivocally ; they quit the true sense of Scripture though they retain the words , and by reason of this latter have made a shift ( as this Author speaks ) to pass for Christians . These men ( whatever some few English Writers of the Racovian way hold of late ) exactly side with the Quakers in crying down of Water-Baptism ( for so they both call it in derision . ) In the Grand Point of the Trinity they both concur , i. e. to reject it , witness W. Pen's Sandy Foundation , by which he means the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity . In a quibbling manner , wherein he shews both his Ignorance and Blasphemy , he thus speaks , * If God , as the Scriptures testifie , hath never been declared or believed but as the HOLY ONE , then it will follow that God is not an HOLY THREE . Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent , but impertinent distinction , that he is One in Substance , but Three in Persons or Subsistencies . To which all Socinus's followers say Amen . The same Gentleman derides the doctrine of Satisfaction , and scoffingly calls the Asserters of it † Satisfactionists : and who knows not that Transylvania agrees here with Pensylvania ? The Man that suffer'd at Ierusalem is the Socinian as well as the Quakers Stile : And generally as to the main things that relate to our Saviour , they perfectly accord , viz. in making nothing of them . If Quakerism then be no Christianity , as this our Writer reports it in the same place , then we may with much more reason conclude that Socinianism is none . By this it appears that Socinus and Fox are well met , and that they are very Loving Friends . But they must seem to disagree , as here in this Gentleman's Papers . Lastly , let us see the wonderful hand of God in suffering this Unthoughtful Writer to produce a Paper written by a Iesuite in the late Reign , entituled an Address , &c. And in this Address , he saith , he goes about to shew that the Scriptures commonly alledg'd for the Trinity , admit of another sense . He goes the same way in the Article of the Incarnation . What! had he not enough of the Quaker but he must bring in the Iesuite ? And must he tell the world that the Iesuitical Writers take the part of the Socinians ? must he publickly give notice that they both carry on the same work , and joyntly conspire to pervert the Scriptures in order to it ? For the credit of the Cause , it had been better to have placed this under a former head , and to have told the Reader that some Iesuites ( as well as some Deists ) are Converts to Socinianism . But he hath blurted it out that Ignatius Loyola and Faustus Socinus were of kin . Surely this Author must not be employ'd any more to write in defence of the Cause . He must be no longer a Double-Column'd Writer : they must look out for a man that is not so Open-hearted , one that can handle his Weapon with more Cunning , for this man hath stabb'd his own Cause . But because this Writer in the beginning and towards the end of his Papers is pleas'd to use some words of Deference and Respect , I will not be backward to return his Civility in the same kind by letting him know that I suppose him to be a Person of Ingenuity and Learning ( only I wirh he had shew'd it in his late Undertaking ) and that I would not have made opposition to him in any other Points but These which are the Foundation , Basis and Ground-work of Christianity , and the very Life and Soul of our Religion , and therefore none is to be permitted to treat them irreverently and scoffingly , as he and his Associates have lately done . But I entertain some hope that this Unsavoury Tang will wear off in time . And thus I have finished both my Replies to the Gentlemen's Writings against me : and I have wholly confined my self to these , and not ventured to guess at their Persons , or make any Reflections of that kind , for that is a thing which I abhor . Nay , though the Vindicator by his reflecting upon my Degree , p. 24. and 36. and Calling , p. 36 , and before , p. 26 , and before that , p. 9. had given me occasion to enquire into his Quality and Character , yet I purposely forbore to meddle with any such Considerations . And so as to the Examinator , I could easily have traced his Person and Station , and offer'd some Remarks upon either , but I made it not my business to observe Who they were that wrote , but what they had written . And it was necessary to do this latter with some Salt and Keenness , that the levity of their Arguments might be the better exposed , and that I might in a lawful and innocent way retaliate that Liberty which they had taken . And indeed the Socinian Gentlemen must shew themselves very Disingenuous ( which I will not presume of them ) if they be dissatisfied with me for my Freedom of discourse , when in all their Writings they profess to use it . And it is plain that they make use of it : for who sees not that * they have been very sharp upon some of the most Eminent and Venerable Persons of our Church ? They have handled the late Archbishop and some of his Reverend Brethren ( who in their Writings shewed their dislike of the Socinian doctrines ) with no excess of Respect : And they represent them and the whole Clergy as Mercenary , Timerous , and False hearted : They would perswade the world that the doctrine of the Trinity is defended by them merely because they are bribed or forced to it . And others of their Writers have been very severe upon the Trinitarians in their late Prints . And therefore with good reason some of These have been free with them again , especially that Worthy Person who undertook the Defence of the Archbishop and the Bishop of Worcester , and hath with great Vivacity and Sharpness reflected on the Socinian Errors , and with as great Solidity and Composedness establish'd the contrary Truths , and hath not spared that Socinian Author whom he grapples with , no not in the least . I suppose none will grudg me that Freedom which this Gentleman and others have taken in their Replies to the Racovian Writers , especially seeing I have not ( as I conceive ) made ill use of it . But of that let the Reader judg . FINIS . BOOKS written by the Reverend Mr. John Edwards . AN Enquiry into several Remakable Texts of the Old and New Testament which contain some Difficulty in them , with a Probable Resolution of them , in two Vol. 8 o. A Discourse concerning the Authority , Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament , with a Continued Illustration of several Difficult Texts throughout the whole Work. In three Vol. 8 o. Some Thoughts concerning the several Causes and Occasions of Atheism , especially in the Present Age , with some brief Reflections on Socinianism , and on a Late Book entituled , The Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures . 8 o. A Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God from the Contemplation of the visible Structure of the Greater and the Lesser World. In two Parts . The first , shewing the Excellent Contrivance of the Heavens , Earth , Sea , &c. The second , the wonderful Formation of the Body of Man. Socinianism Vnmask'd : A Discourse shewing the Unreasonableness of a Late Writer's Opinion , concerning the Necessity of only One Article of Christian Faith , and of his other Assertions in his Late Book Entituled , The Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures , and in his Vindication of it ; with a brief Reply to another ( Professed ) Socinian Writer . All sold by Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon , and John Wyat at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-yard . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A38042-e170 * The Exceptions of Mr. E. against the Reasonableness of Christianity , &c. examined . Notes for div A38042-e1160 * Mishn. Tract . Avoth . c. 5. * De Uno Deo Patre . l. ● . c. 1. † The Exceptions of Mr. E. &c. examined . * Mat. 28. 19. Iohn 10. 30. * Mat. 28. 19. Iohn 10. 30. * The Exceptions , &c. examined . * Diatr . de Symbol . † De Trib. Symb. * Azoar 1. * Azoar 67. † From the Arabick verb islam , credidit , whence the Mahometan Religion is call'd Islamisinus . * Alcor . Azoar . 11. † De Trin. l. 1. * Socin . de Cognit . Dei. Ostorod .. Instit. cap. 3 , 4. Epifeop . Apol. Remonstr . * Praelect . cap. 5. * De Uno Deo Patre . Sect. 1. cap. 1. * The Exceptions of Mr. E. against the Reasonableness of Christianity examin'd . * Cont. Meisner . de Trin. † Socin . cont . Wiek . cap. 5. * Cont. Meisner . de Trin. * Luke 1. 35. † John 10. 36. ‖ Acts 13. 32 , 33. ** John 3. 16. Rom. 5. 8. 2 Cor. 11. 31. * The Trinitarian Scheme of Religion , page 21. * Reasonableness of Christianity , p. 303. * Vindic p. 20. Notes for div A38042-e14640 * W. Pen's Sandy Foundation , p. 12. † Sandy Foundat . ibid. * Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity . 
A38061	----	A preservative against Socinianism. The first part shewing the direct and plain opposition between it, and the religion revealed by God in the Holy Scriptures / by Jonath. Edwards. Edwards, Jonathan, 1629-1712. 1693 Approx. 202 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 45 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A38061 Wing E217 ESTC R24310 08120939 ocm 08120939 40896 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A38061) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 40896) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1228:14) A preservative against Socinianism. The first part shewing the direct and plain opposition between it, and the religion revealed by God in the Holy Scriptures / by Jonath. Edwards. Edwards, Jonathan, 1629-1712. The second edition. [8], 71 p. Printed at the Theater for Henry Clements, Oxon : 1693. Reproduction of original in the Cambridge University Library. Includes bibliographical references. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Socinianism. 2006-10 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-10 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-05 Emma (Leeson) Huber Sampled and proofread 2007-05 Emma (Leeson) Huber Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Imprimatur , Henr. Aldrich VICE-CAN . OXON . July 10. 1693. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST SOCINIANISM : SHEWING The Direct and Plain opposition between It , and the Religion Revealed by God in the Holy SCRIPTURES . THE FIRST PART . By JONATH . EDWARDS D. D. and Principal of Jesus Coll. OXON . The Second Edition . OXON . Printed at the THEATER for Henry Clements . MDCXCIII ▪ THE PREFACE . THO Custome hath in some sort made it necessary to entertain the Reader with a Preface , before he enters upon the perusal of a Book , shewing the design , and the occasion of Writing of it ; yet in this case I hope there will be no need , either to Court his Favour , or Mollifie his Displeasure , for undertaking the Defence of Christianity against the great and dangerous opposers of it . For this being the common cause in which every man who is called by the name of Christ , hath an Interest , he may I hope without begging pardon , or if he please without shewing any Reason , engage in maintenance of our holy Religion , embraced by the whole Church of God , as well as by that of which he is a Member ; against all such , who shall either openly oppose , or secretly endeavour to undermine it . Here every man is a Souldier , and by his Baptismal Vow , having bin listed under Christs Banner , is obliged to fight under it , against all the Enemies of his Savior ; and such are the pernicious Opinions here represented , which carry in their forehead an open , and declared Hostility , and direct opposition to the Divinity , and the Cross of Christ . The adversaries of our Holy Religion have taken the Confidence to publish their Impious Opinions , not only without Leave , but in Opposition to the just Authority , and the known and standing Laws of this Nation : they have revived the Opinions , reprinted the Books of some former Socinian Writers , which had almost bin forgotten , but they have taken care to refresh our memories ; and all this hath bin done in defyance to the Government , as well as in the Face of it . It hath bin as the occasion of trouble to all Good men , so likewise matter of Wonder and Enquiry to all Considering men , to find the Nation pester'd with such numbers of Socinian Books , which have swarm'd all upon a suddain , and have bin industriously dispersed thro' all parts of the Kingdom , whereby many weak and unstable Souls have bin beguiled , and their minds corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ . Who they are , who have bin the secret abettors and promoters of these Antichristian Doctrines as it is variously discoursed , so I shall not Curiously Enquire ; least by Roaving and uncertain Conjectures , the Innocent may be mistaken for the Criminals . Only this I think is so evident , that it may be taken for granted ; That since there have bin no considerable numbers of men formerly , that we know of , who have openly and avowedly professed the Impious tenents of Socinus ; They must have lain lurking under some other outward name and profession , watching the first and most convenient opportunity to divulge their Opinions , which for some just and weighty reasons no doubt , they thought fit for some time to stifle and conceal . I think there are scarce any among us so foolish as to imagine , that like Cadmus his Off-Spring ( tho' without doubt the Old Serpent hath had no small hand in this Affair ) these men should spring out of the Ground ; or as some have fancyed of Woodcocks , that they have dropped out of the Clouds among us : it is therefore beyond all doubt , that they have lain hid and disguised under the denomination of some other Sect or Party , and Profession . But among other persons or parties concerned in this Affair , it would be a Miracle , greater than any of late years pretended to be wrought in France for the Conversion of the poor Hugonots there , if the Papists should not be engaged in it : who never as yet have stood by as unconcerned Spectators , when any mischief was in contrivance against our Church : But have always watched , and laid hold on the fittest Opportunity , of Sowing and Increasing Divisions among us ; and who have by a late Experiment sufficiently convinced the World , that they have a much better Knack , at Unsetling and Disturbing our Religion , than in Establishing and Defending their own . No question it must afford matter of no small Sport and Entertainment to them , to find a Generation of Men , or Vipers rather shall I call them ? risen up in their stead , who may tho' by different methods , at length perfect that design which they have bin long since projecting ; viz. the Ruine of this poor Church , and the destruction of that Holy and Excellent Religion , which by Gods Right Hand hath bin Established , and hitherto wonderfully preserved among us . But whatever the Causes have bin of this suddain Appearance of Socinianism , or whoever were the Authors that have secretly and in masquerade , abetted and encouraged it ; much of which lies as yet in the dark ; the pernicious effects of it have bin , and are , at this day too Visible . The minds of men , as we said before , throughout the Nation being strangely corrupted ; Infidelity and Scepticism universally prevailing . Some deriding all Religion , which they either laugh at as the effect of Folly and Superstition , or detest as a meer Cheat and Contrivance of some Cunning and designing men . Others profess themselves Enemies to Revealed Religion , speak opprobriously of the Holy Scriptures , deride the Sacred Pen-men of them , and make but a jest of any thing that is said in vindication of their Authority and Inspiration . A Third sort seem to own , and profess to believe the Bible , yet oppose , nay not only so but Ridicule all the Great Mysteries of our Religion ; such as are the Doctrines concerning the Blessed Trinity , the Incarnation of the Son of God , the Redemtion of the World by the Merit of his Death and Sufferings ; the belief of which have bin hitherto looked upon to be the Badge and Mark whereby Christians have bin distinguished from Jews and Mahometans . Lastly , a Fourth sort there are ( for you must know there are several Ranks and Orders of these Enemies of our Religion ) who receive the Holy Scriptures as we do , and Believe , at least they tell us they do so , all the Great Mysteries of our Faith contained there ; but yet at the same time they take care to let us know , that the belief of these is not necessary . So that whether you are a Believer or an Infidel in these matters , it makes no great difference ; forasmuch as the Honour of God , the Welfare of Religion , and the Salvation of your own Soul , is not concerned either one way or other . And if so I am sure no wise man ought to trouble himself , much less to give others any Trouble about such Trifling and Inconsiderable Opinions . And these I look upon to be the greatest and most dangerous of all the forementioned Enemies , forasmuch as by the Observation of all Ages , it hath bin found a much surer and speedier way , to ruin any cause by betraying than opposing it ; and that you may much easier guard your self from the Open Hostility of a professed Enemy , than from the Treachery and falshood of a pretended Friend . To prevent therefore if it be possible ( and I hope it is not too late to Attempt it ) the Growth and Progress of that Infidelity which is to be found in many ; That Coldness and Indifference about the Great and Sacred Mysteries of our Religion , which is to be observed in others ; All which are the blessed effects of Socinianism ; and which seem to have diffused themselves among all Orders and Ranks of men among us , beyond the Example of former times ; It hath bin Judged an advisable course , to shew the plain and direct opposition , that is between the Doctrines of Socinus and those which are revealed by the Spirit of God in the Holy Scriptures , and especially in the Writings of the New Testament . And this , among such especially who have not extinguished all Regard for Religion , may , as it is hoped , be of some good use , to fortify them aaginst the Infection of these pernicious Errors , which have already spread like a Gangrene . Our Writers generally have bin Employed , and that very Commendably , and for the most part with great success , in vindicating our Holy Religion , from the Bold and Impudent Cavils of these Hereticks ; and so have stood upon the Defensive part . Now it may be thought , for many good Reasons , advisable , to make an Offensive War upon these Infidels ; and to bring it into their own Territories . That is , that the charge of Vnreasonableness and Impiety , which they with Equal Falshood and Impudence , have laid at the door of the Christian Religion ; should be retorted upon their New , and dangerous Opinions ; which upon Examination will be found to be Opposite to Piety , Repugnant to plain Reason , and in the conclusion such as will conduce to the Overthrow of all true Religion . And to discover this , ( which I hope in some measure is done in them ) is the design of these following Papers ; viz. That the Religion of Socinus as opposed to Christianity is both Impious and Absurd . So that fairly to represent Socinianism will be the best method that we can take to Consute it ; and rightly to state the Controversy , will be the speediest way to put an end to it . I confess as to the point of Reason , the Socinians have laid such a claim to it , as if they did intend to Engross and Monopolize that to themselves , which yet , tho' in several degrees , is the Right and Inheritance of all mankind . And for their attainments in this , they have so magnified themselves , and have bin so undecently as well as unjustly magnified by others ; that many innocent and well meaning men have bin afraid to enter the Lists with these Sons of Anak , these Champions of Infidelity . But I dare venture to assure the Reader , he needs not fear to encounter these Gyants upon the plain square of Reason , notwithstanding all their Boasts and Brags of it . And I think it may be easily made out , that in Opposition to some Important Articles of our Faith , upon pretence of their Repugnance to Reason , they have advanced some other positions , so contrary to Reason ; that when they come to be compared , I believe it will be found , that there is scarce any thing in Popery , not excepting that Gross Fulsome Doctrine of Transubstantiation ; which contains greater Absurdities , more opposite to , and incomprehensible by natural Reason . Particularly what they say concerning the Factitious Divinity of Christ , is by far more unconceivable then what the Papists aver of the change of the Elements in the Eucharist . And any man that hath abilities to judge of these matters , will upon enquiry find ; that it is less Absurd and Impossible , if there are Degrees of Absurdity in Contradictions , and of difficulty in things that are Impossible ; that a piece of Bread should be Transubstantiated into Flesh , than that a man should be Transformed into a God. In short tho Reason be the Idol of these men , yet I must desire to be excused if I do not stand in any great awe and admiration of it : and truly for my own part , I should much rather fear the Malice then the Reason of a Socinian , at any time . And I am afraid , that if ever these men ( Quod avertat Deus ) should gain strength and numbers among us ; they would prove one of the most Cruel and Sanguinary Sects , that ever yet disturbed the peace of the Church . It is not to be denied , but that they have in their Writings advanced some parts of Christian Morality to a great height , and have spoke many and deservedly great things , concerning forgiveness of injuries and patience under them , in complyance with the commands , and in Imitation of the Example of our Blessed Saviour : But I should be loath to trust a Socinian for all that ; and if we were forced to make the Tryal ( tho I hope we are in no danger of the experiment ) I doubt not but we should find , the forgiveness of these Men more Implacable than the Revenge of others : and that their meekness and moderation would have more terrible effects , than the rage and fury of the Arians and Donatists , in ancient times . And that the Reader may not think I utter this without ground , tho I have a great many , I will at present offer but one reason for my conjecture , and that is taken from their Boysterous , Impudent , Scurrilous way of treating the great and adorable mysteries of our Religion ; which shews what usage the professors of them would in all likelyhood meet , if they ever had them in their power . The Blessed Trinity is by some of them styled Triceps Cerberus , and the doctrine concerning it they have ascribed to the Invention of the Devil , and tell us that it was fetched from Hell. Sometimes they will speak very honourably of our Saviour , but at other times , and upon other occasions so reproachfully of his divine nature , that they treat him worse then either the Jews or Romans who condemned and Crucified him . And tho they pay Divine Honour and Adoration to him , yet that doth not take off the guilt and impiety of their Sacrilegious denyal , and as far as in them lies Despoiling him of his Divinity ; but herein they transcribe the Copy which the Roman Souldiers before mentioned set them after his Condemnation by Pilate , who put a Crown upon his head , and a Scepter into his hand ; and yet at the same time they Spit in his Face and Buffeted him . One would think that the great and venerable mysteries of our Religion , entertained by all the Wisest , and Learnedst , and best Men and Churches , in all ages ever since Christianity was first planted in the World ; tho they had bin Errors , yet had deserved to be treated with a little more Civility and Respect , than these men have shewed in their Writings : who have wanted something else besides a good Cause to defend : for they have wanted Modesty and Civility in the Defence of a very bad one ; have wanted the Candor and Ingenuity of a fair adversary ; and have treated the mysteries of our Faith with such a Prostitute , and Impudent Scurrility ; that we cannot well tell what reply to make to them ; except in Imitation of the blessed and meek Arch-Angel Michael , we should desire God to Interpose in his own quarrel , and to rebuke the Blasphemies of these men , but to have mercy upon the Blasphemers . To Conclude all , as there is no danger at present , God be thanked , that we should be frighted out of our Religion , so I hope we shall not be wheedled out of it , by any of the Artifices of these seducers who lye in wait to deceive ; nor by any other specious pretences that they may make ; no not by the pretence of Peace , which I know hath sometimes bin offered in their behalf . I confess peace is a most desireable thing , the blessings that attend it are so great that we cannot tell how sufficiently to value , and so many , that we can scarce number them . So that all humble and truly pious Christians should be content to part with any thing to obtain it . But I must recal that last word , for upon second thoughts I find it may be too dearly purchased ; as it certainly will be , when bought at the expence either of Truth or Justice ; without which , Peace tho otherwise the most useful and excellent , would prove one of the most pernicious and mischievous things in the World. And when I speak of Truth I chiefly and principally mean those fundamental Truths which are treated of in these following Papers , the Belief of which have hitherto bin looked upon by most Christians , to be necessary to our Salvation : and if there be any Truths of that Importance I hope every man will consider , that tho Peace be much to be desired , yet that it is not advisable for him to hazard his Salvation to secure it . When all is done the reputation of being esteemed a Peaceable and moderate man will stand a man but in little stead when he comes to appear before the Tribunal of Christ , and there to be charged with the guilt of betraying his Religion , and at the same time , the Souls of them committed to his charge , to endless perdition and ruin . In one word , tho Peace be so great a blessing that a man might be content to lay down his Life , yet no man should lay down his Soul for the sake of it . And tho a Pious man might in some cases commendably submit to Death , yet no wise man , nay indeed no man not out of his wits , would venture upon damnation to Obtain it . A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST Socinianism . IN all ages ever since the first planting of a Christian Church in the world , God for many wise reasons hath thought fit to exercise it with various and different sorts of tryals . The Apostles who were immediately commissioned by Christ , and sent to teach all Nations , and thereby to bring them over to the belief and obedience of the Gospel , ( according to the prediction of their blessed Master in the 10 th . of Matth. who had forewarned them of it , ) met with great and violent opposition , and that both from Jew and Gentile , who with an extraordinary zeal or rather fury , set themselves to oppress and stifle this new doctrine , if it were possible , at its first appearance , and before it had gained much ground and footing in the world . But besides the open force with which the enemies of it endeavoured to destroy the Christian doctrine , the Apostles and other Ministers of it , met with another and more dangerous opposition from some false brethren , who did not aime so much at the destruction of the Christian faith , as by some undue mixtures to corrupt the purity of it . Such were the Judaizing Christians , who tho they embraced the doctrine of the Gospel , yet still they retain'd a weighty affection for their old Religion and the law of Moses , to the observance of which they thought themselves under an indispensable obligation , and not only so , but would oblige all other Converts to the like observance ; and their zeal in this matter occasioned no small trouble to the Apostles , and disturbance to the Churches , where they first planted the Christian faith . See Acts 15. and 5. Gal. And tho this was a matter of no small concern , and might in the conclusion have proved of dangerous consequence , yet it was not considerable in a manner , if compared with many other execrable opinions and practices , which began very early to be introduced into the Church , by Ebion and Cerinthus , Menander , Saturninus , Basilides , and Carpocrates . Succeeded afterwards by Valentinus and Marcus , Marcion , and Hermogenes , and a long train of Hereticks shall I call them ? or Hogoblins ; for so I think they might well be styled , if we consider either the darkness and ignorance of all religious matters with which they were encompassed , or the wild pranks which they played , to the great disturbance of all good men ; who were all descended from that son of perdition Simon Magus , who was their Patriarch and Ring-leader . It were a difficult task to muster up the names , but almost an endless attempt to reckon the senseless and extravagant opinions of these Hereticks ; by reason of whose pernicious ways , the way of truth was evil spoken of . For many of the objections of the Heathens against Christianity , tho all of them were false , yet were taken from the execrable opinions and practices of these lewd miscreants , who thereby brought no small disgrace upon the Christian Religion , and put no small stop to the growth and propagation of it . But not to prosecute this matter any farther , if we descend a little lower , we shall find that God had no sooner dissipated the storm that hung over the Christian Church for some Centuries ; and put a stop to the effusion of any more of that blood , ( which without any distinction of Age or Sex , was spilt like water under the ten famous persecutions ) by the advancement of Constantine to the Empire ; but the devil betakes himself to new shifts : who finding his former methods of cruelty so signally baffled by the patience and constancy of the Martyrs , he begins to play a new , or rather to revive his old game , and since he cannot destroy the professors of Christianity , he will endeavour to undermine their Religion . He had indeed made a vigorous effort , to extinguish both the name and memory of the Christian Religion , and to have tore up both the faith and the believers quite by the very roots ; but herein he was disappointed , and therefore he endeavours to compass that by stratagem , which he cannot effect by storm ; and in this method he finds greater success than in the former . For being baffled as we said before , in his attempts upon the disciples of Christ , he attacks the doctrine which they embraced : and here Inimicus homo , the enemy came and sowed tares among the Wheat ; hoping thereby to choke the word , which now he despair'd to extirpate . And herein he found fit instruments for the execution of his design ; for taking advantage of the ambition and curiosity , the discontent and revenge , and other disorderly passions of Arius , Photinus , Nestorius , Eutyches and others , he soon prevail'd with them to assist him in the project which he had laid , for corrupting the doctrine and thereby disturbing the peace of the Church . For they presently broached many dangerous opinions , whereby they did either plainly deny , or some other way pervert the doctrines then generally entertained by the whole Church , concerning the natures and the person of the Son of God. But these errors having long since bin buried in the Western Church , and lay forgotten in a manner with their Authors , were again unhappily revived at the beginning of the Reformation , by the endeavours chiefly of some Polanders and Italians in the last age , and among them principally of Faustus Socinus ; who having gathered up the dangerous errors of Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus chiefly , against the divinity of Christ , he put them together in one body , together with those of Pelagius in the point of original sin , and those other doctrines which are supposed to have a necessary dependance upon it . And herein Socinus seems chiefly to have chosen Pelagius for his pattern . For the other Hereticks , I mean Arius , Photinus , and Macedonius being content with the denyal of those fundamental doctrines , concerning the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost , or with their particular Errors about the natures and person of Christ , as Nestorius and Eutyches ; they did not attend to , or at least did not draw out those doctrines into all their pernicious consequences , which might when clearly understood , overthrow all the other parts of the Christian doctrine . But Pelagius gave us a systeme of his Divinity , and drew out his Errors into a greater length , in opposition to several important parts and branches of our Religion ; chiefly that which concerned the doctrine of Original sin , which naturally lead him into those other dangerous mistakes , which did by consequence overthrow the necessity of the satisfaction made by Christ , and the redemption of the world by the merit of his death and sufferings , as the Fathers , and particularly St. Austin directly charge him . For he was master of reason enough to consider where it was that his first error would naturally lead him , and he was content to follow it , and thereby fell into that Labyrinth of errors , from which with all his skill and sophistry he could not disentangle himself ; for when pressed with the arguments of his adversaries , and the authority and tradition of the Catholick Church ; tho he could and did find as many shifts and tricks as any other , to escape the force and conviction of truth ; yet his former and fundamental error in denying the imputation of Adam's sin , and the original guilt and stain of our natures contracted thereby , hung like a dead weight about him , and sunk him down into those impious opinions which he broached concerning the grace of God , and the liberty and freedom of mans will in religious matters in opposition to that Grace ; concerning the nature and efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism , the merit of good works and the justification of a sinner , the nature of Gods law and the possibility of raising to a state of perfection in this life , by yielding a perfect obedience to it , &c. all which having been picked up by Socinus , together with what was deliver'd by the other Hereticks , against the divinity of the Son of God , and the Holy Ghost , he hath at length given us the most perfect systeme of Heresies , in opposition to the doctrine of the Gospel , in almost all the parts and branches of it , that ever was ushered into the world . And indeed to give him his due , tho in point of time and standing he was inferior , yet in point of skill and management , that is , in the art of Heresie , he was superior to all that went before him , most of whom were but fools and ●unglers in comparison . For many of the ancient Hereticks had several extravagant and incoherent notions , which had no more connexion between one another , then the parts of a rope of sand : so that like a company of mad and hair-brained people , they attacked the Christian Religion with great fury , but it was at randome and without skill ; flinging about their mad opinions like wild-fire , with which indeed they did a great deal of mischief , but it was at all adventures , without order , and as one would imagine , without any certain aim . But Socinus comes more gravely and leasurely to work , and what M. Cato said in another case of Julius Caesar , 2 may be applyed to him , Sobrius accessit ad perdendam religionem . LIke a man that had his wits , tho , as many think , not the fear of God about him , he comes more soberly and with greater deliberation to destroy the Christian Religion : he puts his opinions into better order , his errors are better united , and have as far as the nature of error would allow , for the most part , a good correspondence between one another : like a wary and well disciplined Captain , he puts his arguments into good array , levels his Batteries against the great mysteries of our Religion , and chiefly against the eternal Divinity of the Son of God : as well knowing that if he can succeed in his attempt upon that , he may promise himself an easy and cheap victory over all the rest of our Religion ; and therefore having , as he thinks , effectually overthrown that main and fundamental Article of it concerning the ever blessed Trinity , he is resolved to follow his blow , and to pursue his imaginary conquest in that point , to the overthrow of all the other parts of the Christian doctrine . He saw where Arius , Photinus , Nestorius , &c. were wanting , who having , as was said before , contented themselves with their particular errors concerning the natures and person of Christ , as persons who thought they had done mischief enough , they seemed content with what they had done , and went no farther . But Socinus in imitation of his beloved loved Pelagius , enlarged our prospect into his Religion , and from the principles which he laid down , he drew out his conclusions to a greater length : for having denyed the Trinity , and particularly the eternal divinity of our Saviour , with it he could not avoid denying his satisfaction , and the redemption of the world by the merit of his death and sufferings ; having disowned the personality of the Holy Ghost , the necessity of his grace , and the efficacy of his operations upon the minds of men , must at the same time fall to the ground . Together with these he hath published many dangerous errors concerning the nature and attributes of God ; concerning his prescience and providence in the government of the world ; concerning the creation of man and the fall of Adam , and that corruption of our natures which is the consequence of it ; concerning justification , and faith which is the means of obtaining it ; concerning the Church , its nature and the notes whereby it may be distinguished from all other societies ; concerning the ministry and the persons to whom Christ hath committed the care and government of his Church ; their distinction and authority to preach the Gospel , and to exercise discipline in it ; concerning the Sacraments and the end of their institution , and particularly concerning the nature and efficacy of Baptism and the Lords Supper ; lastly , concerning a future state and the condition of men after this Life . To which may be added some other doctrines , which do not seem to have any connexion with the former , but yet are of dangerous consequence to the peace and welfare of all civil Societies : those I mean which he hath advanced about the power and authority of the Civil Magistrate , the Lawfulness of War and Oaths in a Christian Commonwealth , which have as mischievous an influence upon the order and peace of States and Kingdoms , as his other opinions have upon Religion . So that Socinus having observed what was wanting in the former Hereticks to make their attempts entirely successful against the Christian Religion ; being engaged in the same design , but in order to make it more effectual , he wisely resolved to correct what he thought was amiss in them : wherefore laying aside what was more gross and absurd in the wilder and more extravagnt opinions of the ancient Hereticks , and supplying the defects of the more subtile and refined who came afterwards ; he and his followers have at length given us a body of their divinity , more compleat in its kind then ever the world was blessed with before their time . Not but that in spight of all their art and skill , such being the fate and folly of error , they cannot avoid , especially in the defence and maintenance of their opinions , falling into many and those very plain contradictions . Upon the whole matter I think it may be reasonably doubted whether Socinus , any more than that grand Impostor Mahomet , may be properly called a Heretick , as being the Founder of a new Religion , rather than the Author of a new name and sect among Christians . For as the Alcoran of the former , is , as we are told , a fardel of errors and absurdities arising from the impure mixture of Christianity , Judaism , and Paganism , together with some idle and extravagant notions of his own ; so the doctrine of Socinus , seems to be a composition of the errors of Arius , Photinus , and Pelagius , &c. together with some additions of his own , not indeed so seemingly absurd , as those of Mahomet , but , I am afraid , no less dangerous to the Christian religion ; of which he hath retained only the name together with the empty sound of the words ; but with such false glosses , such forced and malicious interpretations , as have quite destroyed the true notion , as the whole design of the Gospel : in opposition to which he hath given us a kind of natural and new Religion , not such as the spirit of God hath revealed in his word , but such as his own carnal reason suggested to him , in opposition to that revelation . And that this may not be looked upon to be an uncharitable because a groundless charge ; I shall lay before the reader a scheme of the religion revealed by God in Holy Scripture , and particularly that published by Christ and his Apostles in the writings of the New Testament , and which hath bin embraced by all sound Christians in all ages of the Church , from the first planting of one in the world , to this day , together with another of the new , or newly revived opinions of the Socinians : that by comparing of both , he may be able to make a judgment of what is here suggested , which upon examination I hope he will find to be agreeable to truth , and not contrary to charity . And first , as it is fit , we shall begin with the great object of our religion , Almighty God : in the knowledge and worship of whom , together with an obedience to his commands , consists the entire nature of religion . And here upon enquiry I believe we shall find , that what the Scriptures have revealed concerning the nature of God , is widely different from the account which Socinus and his disciples give us of him . As to what concerns the nature of God , the Scriptures propose him to be considered two ways by us . 1. Absolutely in his glorious and essential attributes , or 2 ly , Relatively in the great and adorable mystery of the ever blessed Trinity . First , if we consider God in his Attributes , we shall find that the first great , and , if I may so call it , fundamental attribute which the Scriptures reveal , and indeed natural reason dictates concerning him , is the unity of the Godhead , Deut. 6. 4. Hear , O Israel , the Lord our God is one Lord. Deut. 32. 39. See now that I , even I am he , and there is no God with me . 1 Cor. 8. 5. 6. For tho there be that are called Gods , whether in heaven or in earth , &c. But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things . 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is but one God , and one Mediator between God and man , &c. Here undoubtedly it will be said that the Socinians are beyond all suspition orthodox , all their studies and labors being employed in asserting and vindicating the unity of the Godhead in opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity , which according to their apprehensions must infer a plurality of Gods. But for all their boasts concerning this matter , and assuming to themselves upon that score the name of Unitarians , we must not be too hasty in acquitting them from the imputation of Polytheism ; for tho they deny the eternal generation and divinity of Christ , and say that he had no existence before his being formed in the womb of the Virgin , and appearance in the world ; and that the being which he then had was purely humane : yet after his resurrection from the grave , and his ascension into heaven , they say that God the Father as the reward of his obedience and sufferings , exalted him to the honour and dignity of a God ; not indeed to be the supreme and eternal God , but however deus verus , a true God , distinct and separate from his Father ; and Socinus takes it ill of his adversaries , that they should charge him with denying Christ to be God , 1 , and complains against them that will not be brought to confess and worship him 2 , for their Lord and God , who was once a weak and infirm man : and herein he saith the power and goodness of God was discovered , and his admirable wisdom displayed , in extolling and deifying this man , beyond what we can imagin 3 And to the objection that might be made against this opinion , as that which did unavoidably infer a plurality of Gods , Wolzogenius will tell you , that if by two Gods you mean one of whom are all things and we in him , and one by whom are all things and we by him , we are so far saith he , from being ashamed of worshipping two such Gods , that we rather glory in it 4 But if it shall be farther said , that to do them right , they acknowledge but one supreme God by nature , and that Christ is only a God by Appointment and Office , not , natus but factus , not born but made , and deifyed after his ascension , by a communication of the divine power , wisdom and goodness to him : I Answer that this is so far from abating , that it rather encreases the difficulty , and makes the Socinian notion both absurd and impious , as may be shewn more at large hereafter , when we come to lay the charge of Idolatry at their door . Indeed one would think it should be a debasing of the name and honour that is due to God , to give either of them to any but him that is so from all eternity ; the same Wolzogenius will tell you , you may if you please , reproach them for so doing , but he values it not a rush , nos non erubescimus , we are not ashamed to own that we worship Deum factum vel factitium , a made God ; not made indeed by a Goldsmith or Engraver , ab aliquo sculptore vel aurifabro , but they acknowledge with St. Peter Acts 2. 36. that God hath made Jesus who was crucifyed Lord and Christ , that is , saith he , deum eximium fecerit , hath made him a great and eminent God. Ibid. If this be not enough , if you please to consult Smalcius , he will give you all the satisfaction that you can possibly desire further in this matter . For first , he will tell you , that whereas the Scriptures assure us that there is but one only true God , yet that must be taken sano sensu ; not as if there were no other true God besides God the Father , but that there is none that is God ; eodem prorsus modo , just in the same manner as he is 1 . For otherwise the thing is certain and past all doubt , that there are more true Gods then one ; and let the Inspired writers be never so positive , yet he and his friends can and will with equal confidence advance this contrary position , that the true God is not one only God 2 . Nay it is not an indifferent matter , but a truth which they firmly believe and earnestly contend for 3 . And therefore pronounce it without any haesitation , that there are more true Gods then one . And indeed they have reason to contend earnestly for this opinion , if it be true what he saith in the same place , that to acknowledge and confess , and adore one only chief and supreme God , is purely Judaical , and a renunciation of the Christian Religion 4 . Here he speaks as home to the point as you can possibly desire , and it is enough in all conscience . Thus whereas the Scriptures tell us there is but one God , the Socinians say there are two ; one God by nature , another by grace , one Supreme , another Inferior , one Greater , another Lesser , one Elder and eternal , the other a junior and modern God : and this by Socinus is made the great mystery of the Christian Religion , greater indeed if true , and more incomprehensible than any other , or than all the other stupendous and adorable mysteries of our Faith put together . Now as the Socinians say there are two Gods ; so if you believe Curcellaeus , he will confidently tell you there are three , who tho he be no Socinian , yet he agrees perfectly with them in almost all their other Errors , except that which concerns the doctrine of the Trinity , where he hath a peculiar notion of his own , distinct as he tells you both from Arius and Socinus : for he makes the Son and Holy Ghost to have a divine nature communicated to them from all eternity , but yet such that is different in each of them , so that they are thee distinct divine beings . And to the objection made by Maresius , that this notion must inevitably imply that there are three Gods ; he Answers , that if by three Gods , be meant three specifically distinguished from each other , he disowns any such distinction between the persons of the Trinity ; but if by three , by meant three persons agreeing in the same common nature , yet numerically distinguished in each of them , it is that which he owns and earnestly contends for ; that the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are as much three Gods as Peter , Paul , and John , agreeing in the same common nature are three distinct men . And if you believe him , he will tell you the Ancients were not afraid of the imputation of Polytheism , in this sense ; and to think of the same individual nature being communicated to three persons , was a notion that never entered into the heads of any of the Fathers , in their disputes against the Arians , as being against both Reason and Religion . Curcell . Dissert . prima de vocibus Trinit . &c. cap. 105. & deinceps . And Limburg , who publishes and recommends him to the world , I suppose is of the same opinion . The 2 d Attribute which the Scriptures ascribe to God , is his immensity and omnipresence , assuring us that his nature is infinite , and consequently that it cannot be confined to any place , or circumscribed within any limits . Tho he is peculiarly and eminently resident in Heaven , yet Solomon will tell us that Heaven , and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him , 1 King. 8. 27. and the Psalmist puts the question , Whither shall I go from thy spirit ? or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven , thou art there : if I make my bed in hell , behold thou art there also . Ps . 139. 7 , 8. So St. Stephen , Act. 7. 48. the most High dwelleth not in Temples made with hands , that is , is not confined within those limits , as many of the Heathens thought their Gods were , for , as saith the Prophet , heaven is my Throne , and the earth is my footstool . And indeed not only the infinite nature of God , but the belief of his providence necessarily supposes it . Upon which account we are said in him to live , and move , and have our being , Act. 17. 28. forasmuch as he is above all , and through all , and in all . Eph. 4. 6. Now in opposition to this important Truth , which is not only revealed in Scripture , but dictated by the light of nature , and acknowledged upon that score to be such , by all sober Heathens , as well as by sound Christians ; the Socinians will tell you , that God is not infinite in his Essence , or Nature , but that he is so confined to the Heavens , as not to be substantially present elsewhere , or not to fill any places out of those limits . And therefore when urged with those places of Scripture , which say that God fills Heaven and Earth , and that he is every where present , Jer. 23. 24. Ps . 139. They answer , that they must be Interpreted , only with respect to the vertue , power , and operations of God , which extend to the remotest places where he is not essentially present 1 . As the Sun , which is the Instance some of them give us to illustrate this matter , is confined to the Heavens , and indeed takes up but a small roome there in comparison , yet may be said to be , ubique terrarum , because he diffuses his Light , Heat , and other influences , to the remotest parts of the Earth . But of this Attribute more hereafter . The 3. Attribute ascribed to God in Scripture , is his omniscience , whereby he knows all things past , present , and to come , which knowledge of his extends it self not only to all things and persons , but likewise to all their actions and the effects of them , and together with them views the secret springs and principles of those actions , discerning the designs and contrivances of men , and all the thoughts and intents of the heart , There being no creature that is not manifest in his sight , but all things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have to do , Heb. 4. 13. What our Translation renders open , is more Emphatically expressed in the Greek , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all things are , as it were , diffected and anatomized , the very inside of all things are laid open to his view . What is lodged in the darkest corners and deepest recesses of the Soul , cannot be hid from his sight , whose eies are in every place , like a flame of fire , beholding the evil and the good . Nay this knowledge is of so vast an extent , as to comprehend within its mighty compass , not only things past and present , but likewise all things to come ; for his duration being commensurate to all the parts of time , he doth not measure things as we do , by first and last , but all things present and to come , are open to him at one view , with whom a thousand years are but as one day , and one day as a thousand years , 2 Pet. 3. 8. Nay not only those things which are properly future with respect to any necessary causes of their production , but even those which are most contingent , as depending upon the spontaneous motion of mens free will ; all such actions , together with the most casual events , as well as remote consequences of them , are the objects of Gods knowledge , who doth not only discern our Intentions and designs whilst they are in fieri , in the time of their hatching and framing in the Soul , but antecedently , long before the mind comes to any determination , he understands our thoughts afar of , Ps . 139. 2. And of this besides the plain declarations of Scripture , the predictions that have bin made by God of the most contingent and fortuitous events are an Argument that one would think should place this truth beyond all contradiction : It being that which God Almighty made choice of , to vindicate the honour of his divine nature and perfections , in opposition to the vain claim that was laid to them by the dull Idols of the heathens , and their more stupid worshippers , Esay . 41. 22. Let them bring forth and shew us what shall happen , let them shew the former things what they be , that we may consider them , and know the latter end of them , and declare us things for to come . Shew the things that are to come hereafter that we may know that you are God. It is true this knowledge of God as it extends to things to come , is too wonderful for us , we cannot attain to it : and therefore if we think to measure his knowledge by our own shallow conception of things , we engage in a task more absurd and ridiculous , than if we should attempt to take up the waters of the Ocean and inclose them in the hollow of our hand . And of this absurdity are the Socinians guilty . who will by no means be brought to acknowledge this great truth ; for tho when you come to discourse with them upon this subject , they will tell you , they allow God to be omniscient , and that he knows all things ; yet you must not be too hasty in taking an advantage of that concession . You must give them leave to explain themselves ; God knows all things , That 's true , but with this limitation , quatenus sunt scibilia , as far as they are capable of being known . But future contingencies must be excluded out of that number , having no being either in themselves , or in any certain or necessary causes of their production ; and therefore are no more the object of any , even divine knowledge , then darkness is the object of sight : your eyes may as soon be dazled with one , as your understandings be affected or receive any Impression from the other . For Gods knowledge , say they , is agreeable to the nature of the things known ; which may in some sense be true , but is a truth ill applyed by them , when they tell us , that God knows things that are certain , as such that shall come to pass ; things that are likely , he considers as such that may probably come to pass ; things that are barely possible , as depending upon the arbitrary , and therefore uncertain determinations of mens free will , he knows as possible , that is , they may or may not come to pass , but whether of these two shall happen , that is still a secret even to God himself ; whose divine knowledge cannot arrive to the knowledge of such future contingencies , of which , according to the known maxim , there can be no certain or determinate truth or falshood . Perhaps you will say this maxim is true , with respect to second causes , and any created knowledge , but not with respect to the knowledge of God , to whom the most casual events are present , and therefore certain ; for as much as he foresees which way men will freely determine their own choice , either in acting , or forbearing to act , in doing this , or doing the contrary . And without this prescience we cannot well imagine how God should be able to govern the world , and particularly Angels and Men , in whose actions and the event of them , his own glory is so eminently concerned . The Socinians will tell you all this is a great mistake , and that such a notion of Gods knowledge is so far from being necessary to his providence , that it is derogatory to the freedom of mens will , and thereby leads to the dishonour of God , and the overthrow of all Religion , which Crellius endeavours at large to prove Lib. de Natura Dei cap. 24. de Sapientia Dei. And after he hath taken some pains to shew that this omniscience is opposite to reason , he comes to shew its repugnance , as he thinks , to the plain declarations of Scripture , and what he and his Master say upon this head , and upon that which follows , it will be worth our while a little to enlarge upon , forasmuch as it will help to give us a true Idaea of Socinianism , which tends plainly to the dishonour of God , and in the conclusion to the overthrow of all natural as well as revealed Religion . Now the places of Scripture which he quotes to this purpose , are those which speak of Gods waiting for the amendment and repentance of sinners , as he doth in that remarkable manner , Esay 5. 4. What could I have done more for my vineyard , that I have not already done to it ; and yet when I expected it should bring forth grapes , it brought forth wild grapes ? and v. 7. When he looked for judgment , behold oppression ; for righteousness behold a cry 1 : How saith he could it be said either with propriety or truth , that if God had foreseen their obstinacy , he could have waited and hoped for their amendment . He farther refers us to two other places , to Gen. 18. 21. Concerning Sodom , and to that concerning Abram Gen 22. 12. this is certain saith he , 2 , That God here by a new and an extraordinary experiment , made a discovery of the faith and piety of Abraham , which he was not certain of before he made this tryal of it : And of the execrable Impieties of the Sodomites , which he would scarce believe they could be guilty of , till he came down from Heaven on purpose , and made as it were his own eyes the witnesses of the truth and certainty of those matters . For a further confirmation of his opinion , he cites those places of Scripture where God is said to tempt Abraham , that is , to make a tryal of his obedience , Gen. 22. 1. and so those other Deut. 8. 2. Judges 2. 21. where God is said to have lead the Children of Israel in the wilderness forth years , to prove them , and to know what was in their hearts , and whether they would keep his commandments or no : and to have left of the Canaanites in the land , declaring his resolution not to drive them out thence , that he might prove Israel , whether they would keep the waies of the Lord as their Fathers did or no. From all which he concludes that he must be pertinacissimus , extreamly obstinate that should oppose his opinion , which if you believe him 3 , is supported not only by the evidence and strength of reason , but by the Authority of Holy Scripture 4 . What Crellius here saith against Gods prescience , he learned from his Master Socin . Praelect . Theol. Cap. 8. p. 585. Where the Master goes farther then the Scholar in aggravating the inconveniences that must attend the notion of prescience ; for from hence saith he it must follow , that many things are ascribed to God in Scripture either falsly , or else must suppose him guilty of such imprudence 1 , which we cannot imagine any man could be lyable to , except he were stark mad . And then quotes the places before cited by Crellius , and to them adds Numb . 14. 12. &c. where God sware that the Israelites should not enter into the Land of Canaan , which yet he sware to their forefathers he would give them , and he did once really intend to put them in possession of it , but their murmurings and rebellions caused him to alter his resolution . Now if God had foreseen the disobedience and impieties of the Children of Israel which moved him to change his purpose concerning them , in promising to bring them into the Land of Canaan , and confirming that promise with an oath ; he must have acted , saith this Bold man , so , as we cannot suppose any man to have acted , that was not quite out of his wits 2 . But now against all this , the foretelling of future events , even such as are most contingent , as depending upon the entire freedom of mens wills ; and the numerous as well as plain predictions of these matters which stand upon record in the book of God , one would think should be an unanswerable objection . And it seems it was so with Episcopius , who though he agrees too well with Socinus in many of his other loose and dangerous notions concerning the nature and attributes of God , yet here he leaves him , and declares himself of a contrary Opinion , being chiefly induced thereunto from this Argument of predictions . But yet to mollify the matter ; and to give as little offence as might be , to a party whose favour he courted , he tells them and us 3 , that it was but a small matter about which they differ'd , which should break no squares between friends ; for tho he affirmed , and they denyed , yet the 4 matter of the dispute was purely problematical , which had divided the opinions of the most learned Divines , but never to that day had received any determination ; 1 That there was not one Christian in a thousand had any knowledge of it ; in short , 2 that it was so trifling and inconsiderable a matter , that neither Religion nor the worship of God was at all concern'd in it . But what Episcopius could not do , Socinus hath done , or at least hath attempted the doing of it ; viz. the reconciling the truth of Gods predictions with the denyal of his prescience , and it is worth our while to hear what he saith upon this occasion . 1. Then , sometimes Gods predictions are no more then his warnings , Potius monet quam praedicit , Socin . prael . Th. cap. 10. God dealing with men , as men sometimes deal with children , telling them that they will do such and such ill actions , to deterr and shame them from so doing , Solemus nos cum puerum ab aliquo errore committendo deterrere volumus , &c. Ibid. 2. God foretells some actions , and particularly some wicked actions , not as if he knew they would certainly be committed by evil men , Quia ea certissime futura nosset , sed quia sic plane verisimile erat , Ibid. but because it was very likely they should be so : that is , what we call a prediction , and what the Scriptures without any limitation deliver as such , Socinus accounts but a conjecture , that is a probable guess , of what may likely come to pass ; But what may come to pass , may likewise not come to pass , and so for all their confidence , the inspired writers , and what we cannot think of without horror , the Holy Spirit that directed them might be mistaken . But forasmuch as these two former Answers may serve for some predictions , but cannot give a reasonable Enquirer just satisfaction as to others , which are so plain that the force of them cannot be thus eluded : Therefore once for all to put an end to this objection , and you may well imagine he was hard pressed , before he would betake himself to this last , and in him a desperate shift ; he is forced to take sanctuary at those very decrees of God , which at other times he opposes with all his might : like a Malefactor when close pursued , and finding no other way of escape , he flies for protection to those very Altars , which at other times he hath so often profaned by his crimes . For saith Socinus , the things which God foresees , are either good or evil ; if good , he may absolutely decree what is so 1 , and make that necessary otherwise would be but indifferent : nay he may impose a necessity upon the Wills of men , and make them to do and choose what is good 2 . Now this is downright Calvinism , and if you had a mind to believe it to be true , yet the Socinians themselves , and the Remonstrants their friends , will furnish you with such Objections against the belief of it , that to them at least they must be unanswerable . For it is a known and an avowed Principle among them both , First that where there is necessity , there is no religion ; and consequently neither good nor evil 3 . If our actions proceed not from freedom , they lose their nature , and may be any thing else , but cannot be virtue and vice , forasmuch as necessity takes way the distinction of actions good and bad . 4 . 2. That Freedom and Necessity are so opposite one to another , that Omnipotence it self cannot reconcile them , forasmuch as they are plain contradictions , and terms that destroy each other 5 . That necessity robs you not only of your freedom but of your will itself , to which freedom is so necessary , that without it it is no will , it being an essential property of it , proprium quarto modo ; and to say that the Will can subsist without its property , that is it's essential liberty , is absurditate ipsa absurdius 6 . Now let us put both these things together : there is no Religion , consequently neither Good nor Evil , Virtue nor Vice , where there is necessity ; and yet nihil prohibet , saith Crell . nothing , consequently neither religion , nor the nature of good and evil hinders , but that God may absolutely decree things good to be done 1 , and decree them so as to become necessary by virtue of that decree . Again , the Will cannot be necessitated in any of its actions , forasmuch as this would destroy its freedom , which is a fundamental radical property of it , and cannot be separated from it without destroying the Will itself : And yet God can impose a necessity upon the wills of men of choosing this thing or another 2 : and Socinus will tell you , that God usually leaves the wills of men to their freedom , except it be when the judgements require him to lay them under a necessity 3 . Now how shall we reconcile these sayings , which to us poor Christians seem to be plain contradictions , and therefore impossible to be true . But Socinus is not only a great admirer of reason , but a great master of it too ; and therefore by the help of a distinction , he doubts not but to bring himself fairly off ; for in the forementioned place , having in order to give an account of some of the predictions of Scripture , bin forced to bring in the Decrees of God into his assistance , which could not , one would think , but entrench upon the freedom of mans will , by making all actions subject to these Decrees necessary ; he gravely tells us , and we are beholding to him for the discovery ; That notwithstanding his Decrees , God hath left man entirely to his liberty ; for besides the direction and government of his external actions which indeed God hath reserved to himself , he hath left every thing else in the power of mans will 4 . That is , when you say a man is a free Agent , you must distinguish between the inward and outward Act , between choosing and doing ; in the former sense a man is entirely at liberty , for what can be freer than thought , who can lay a restraint upon mans will , or shackle his desires ? The decrees of God , can put no force upon these , and here Sapiens dominabitur astris ; they only govern mens outward actions , which may indeed become thereby necessary , but that 's no great matter ; animus cujusque est quisque , the mind is the nobler part , let a man but assert the honor and dignity of that ; and he need not be much concerned what becomes of his outward actions . But against this it may be objected , that a great part of Religion consists in the practice of many External actions of Piety towards God , Iustice and Charity towards men ; and if these are not free , they are no longer Acts of Religion , any thing else but not Virtue and Vice as was said before . To this he will tell you , that God measures mens Obedience or Disobedience respectively , not by the External Fact , but by the Internal Actions and consent of the Will 1 . Which tho in some sense , and with a just limitation it may be true ; yet as it is here brought in by him , to serve his present purpose , is a very loose and a dangerous determination ; in short this whole matter , as it is stated by Socinus , is lyable to very many and those unanswerable exceptions . For 1 st . whereas he saith the will even to the last is entirely at liberty , tho the external actions are subject to the decrees of God , and thereby become necessary ; this is a plain contradiction to what both he and Crellius before told us , that God might necessitatem afferre voluntati & necessitatem imponere hominibus hoc vel illud volendi : force even the will , as well as make the outward actions necessary . 2 ly , He asserts a freedom in men to little or no purpose ; for one would think if God gave man a principle of freedom , he did it chiefly for the government of his actions ; and if these are not in his power he had even as good be without his liberty ; and that his will and his actions should run the same fate , and be both equally subject to it . For my part I should think I had as good be shackled and manacled , as to have a full power of moving , and yet not be able to stir either hand or foot . 3 ly , If Socinus should be asked , how it can be imagined that the actions can be necessary , when the principle from whence they proceed is absolutely free , for it is of humane and voluntary actions that Socinus in that place is speaking , I believe it would puzzle him to give a satisfactory answer . 4 thly , Tho Socinus takes care of the freedom of mans will , which he in this place is concerned to vindicate , yet as far as I can perceive he hath little care of Religion ; for if , where there is necessity there can be no Religion , as the Socin . and Remonstrants said before , and that a great part of Religion consists in external as well as internal actions ; I cannot see but that thereby Religion is left in great danger , if not entirely overthrown , and that Vertue and Morality , are for any assistance that Socinus in this place affords them , fairly left to shift for themselves . Well , but however tho Socinus by making good actions subject to Gods decrees , and thereby necessary , may be guilty of contradicting himself ; yet there is no great harm in all that , his opinion may be absurd , but he doth not design to encourage impiety thereby ; for tho he make God the cause of good actions yet he doth not as his adversaries do , make him the Author of Sin. In reference to what is Evil , here man is left entirely to his own freedom , the guilt of which cannot be transferred upon the decrees of God , which are not in any wise concerned in them ; but the shame and blame of all must be laid at mans own door , and imputed only to his own freedom . But soft and fair : there is no general rule but may have some exceptions ; for there are plain predictions in Scripture , not only of some good , but of many evil and wicked actions , such for instance , as were the Treachery of Judas , and the denyal of Peter , &c. Now these according to the Socinians , God could not foresee except they were necessary , and they could not well be necessary without his decree , and therefore to reconcile the prediction and the event , God first resolves to have an ill thing done , and then wisely foretels the doing of it . Read what follows and then you will be further satisfyed in this matter , and that Socinus and his followers are not wronged in having this laid to their charge . For first , saith Crellius , if God finds men ●it and disposed for any mischief , Eorum malitia uti potest ad consilia sua exequenda 1 , he may make use of their wickedness to compass his own designs . Nay not only so , he may likewise decree something to be done by them , Quod sine peccato ab iis fieri nequit , Ibid. which cannot be done without sin . What Crellius saith in general , Socinus gives us an example of in the Egyptians , whose sin in oppressing the Children of Israel , God long before foresaw and foretold , Gen. 15. as having decreed it to be done . But to excuse this matter he saith , God did not put that wicked disposition into the minds of the Egyptians , but found it there , Malam eam mentem in ipsis invenerat , qua ad judicium suum exequendum , quodammodo abusus est . Praelect . Th. cap. 10. p. 547. and what he found there , he made use of for the execution of his judgements . This is something , but it is not full enough , this is but beating about the bush , therefore he will keep you no longer in suspence . Not only an action that could not be done without sin , but the sin it self may be decreed and effected by God , Si quid ab hominibus contra Dei legem committitur id non quidem decernente ac autore Deo fieri asseveramus , nisi raro ac quibusdam de causis , Socin . Prael . Th. p. 544. that is , if God be the Author of sin it is but rarely , and that for very weighty reasons . Here again Socinus to our great amazement , is a downright predestinarian , and if we may judge of the opinions of Calvin even by the representation of his adversaries , he is Calvino ipso Calvinior . What Socinus here affirms , that God sometimes is the Author of mens sins , is confirmed by Smalcius , but with this difference , that whereas by Socinus God is made the immediate Author of sin , Smalcius will bring in the Devil to bear part of the blame , deum quandoque per diabolum homines compellere ad scelera perpetranda 2 . God indeed , saith he , compells men to do evil , but he makes use of the ministry of the Devil , who is the instrument in the Compulsion . What they say thus in general , they do further illustrate , if you think what hath bin said may not be so clear , but that it may want a Comment , by particular instances , and specially that of Peter's denyal of his Master , which was a contingent Event , one would think , as depending upon the freedom of his will , and yet this was foretold by Christ . But how could this be ? why Socinus will tell you this denyal of Peter , was not a matter so contingent as you may imagine ; for God for the punishment of his confidence , decreed to withdraw his Grace from him , upon which substraction of his Grace , that denyal could not but follow 1 . Nay he goes farther ; not only withdrawing his Grace from Peter in the Hour of Temptation , but taking effectual course that he should be tempted . For , saith he , Peter being disposed to commit this sin , and wanting only an Opportunity of putting it into practice , to make good the truth of his prediction , God took care to offer him that occasion . And this he thinks may safely be said , without any absurdity 2 . Here he speaks home and full to the point . Indeed at another time he himself can scarce digest , what he here would have his Readers swallow without straining ; for , saith he , to say that God foresees evil , because he decrees it , cannot be affirmed without impiety 3 . How shall we reconcile this with all we before quoted out of him ? I confess I was in some pain for him , to know how he would come off , but he soon relieved me : by the help of a distinction he can perform wonders , among which one of the greatest is to reconcile contradictions . For saith he , Si certa mali operis praedictio erit , ipsum quidem opus à deo decretum fuerit , non autem cordis malitia , p. 549. That is , you must distinguish between the Act and the Obliquity of it , and then you may reconcile the honour of Gods justice and the truth of his predictions : a very nice and Methaphysical distinction , and which I should almost have despaired to have found any where , but in the writings of a Schoolman or a Calvinist . Upon the whole , I think , we have reason to admire the Judgment of God , upon these men ; in giving them up , as a just punishment of their contempt of his Revelations , to the conduct of their own carnal and corrupt Reason , which when it is not assisted by a Divine Revelation , is but a blind guide in matters of Religion ; and therefore it is no wonder if we find them roving and wandring in a labyrinth and maze of Errors , like men bewildred , going backward and forward , saying and unsaying , and at length growing giddy , and falling back into those very opinions which they have made so much hast to fly from , and upon the account of which , they and the Remonstrants have raised so many , and such tragical exclamations against their adversaries . 4 ly . The next Attribute that the Scriptures ascribe to God , is his Immutability , whereby he is uncapable of Alteration , and therefore not liable to change 1 Sam. 15. 29. The strength of Israel will not lie nor repent : for he his not a man that he should repent . This would argue God to be like our selves , of like weakness , and like passions with men . For whatever Alterations may happen in the world , yet he remains unalterable , with whom is no variableness , neither shadow of turning . James 1. 17. Indeed men upon many accounts , and for many very warrantable reasons , may be obliged to shift and change their Counsels and Resolutions : who for want of wisdom and foresight in laying their projects , or for want of strength of execute them , and by a great many other unexpected accidents , which the greatest prudence could not foresee , nor consequently avoid , oftentimes meet with many and fatal disappointments . But when Infinite Wisdom is joyned with Infinite Power , nothing can hinder such an Agent from bringing his purposes to the desired Event . My counsel , saith the Lord , that shall stand , and I will do all my pleasure , Esay . 46. 10. Who can withstand the power of God ? who can baffle his Contrivances , or resist his will ? For the Counsels and Decrees of God are as Immutable as his Nature ; for be they Absolute , or be they Conditional , as long as he foresees the performance of the Condition , it makes no difference in this case : many devices may be in mans heart , but the counsel of the Lord that shall stand , Prov. 19. 21. however men may alter , and the dealings and dispensations of Gods providence in several acts of mercy and justice upon that score , may be different towards them ; yet this is without alteration or change in his purposes towards them , who remains still the same , yesterday , and to day , and for ever . The Socinians utter many bold and dangerous expressions in opposition to this plain truth , which is the unavoydable consequence of their denyal of Gods Omniscience . Forasmuch as there are many events which depend upon the actions of men , which arising from the freedom of their Will , are therefore purely contingent , and consequently out of the reach of Gods knowledge ; this must according to them unavoidably cause God to alter his counsels , to take new measures , to change his affections towards men , and alter his purposes concerning them : that is , he who is a Reprobate to day , may be an Elect person to morrow , and he who at present is elect , may afterwards be reprobated , and those may finally perish , quos Deus saluti destinavit , whom God once designed for eternal happiness . Socin . de Off. hominis Christiani , cap. 11. Now this one would think should be an Argument of inconstancy , and consequently not fit to be ascribed to God. Crellius will tell you , there is no such matter ; this is only an instance of his freedom ; it shews you only that there is a variety in the acts of Gods will , but no inconstancy . For a man is then said to be constant to his purpose , who persists in it till some good reason obliges him to alter it 1 , and therefore what you would call wavering , he will say is the result of wisdome 1 , God accommodating his decrees to the nature of things , and the actions of men ; so that in short , God is subject to change , but not without good reason , he may alter his purposes as wise men usually do , according to the different circumstances of things , and as the exigence of his affairs shall require . But with the leave of this bold man , another would be apt to think , that tho men may without the imputation of levity alter their counsels , yet this arises from the imperfection of their natures , and particularly of their knowledge of future events , which tho it be no fault , yet it must be acknowledged a weakness , tho such an one as they are no more accountable for , than they are , because they cannot restore sight to a man born blind , or raise the dead . But it cannot be ascribed to God without a derogation to his infinite knowledge , and unerring judgement , and is therefore an argument of weakness , notwithstanding all that Crellius urges very weakly to the contrary , Ibid. Therefore that we may return where we first began , to the Decrees of God concerning the future , and final state of men ; this is certain , that they with relation to their several and respective objects , are fixed and unmoveable ; for be they antecedent or subsequent to his foresight of mens faith or infidelity , it matters not in this case : the Scriptures however assure us , and right reason would confirm the same , that they are immutable , more stable then the Foundations of the Earth , or the Poles of the World , which may and shall be shaken , and stagger out of their places like drunken men , but the Counsel of the Lord that shall stand . For let holyness and perseverance be the cause or the effect of Gods election , yet all sober persons agree in this , that whoever lives an holy life , and perseveres in it , is undoubtedly chosen by God to eternal life , and whosoever lives and dies in his sins and impenitence , is certainly designed and shall be doomed to everlasting punishment : here the foundation of the Lord standeth sure , the Lord knoweth them that are his , and them that are not so . But Socinus , who denies the certainty of Gods knowledge of many future events , viz. those which are contingent , such as are the actions of men , as depending upon the uncertain because free motions of their will ; must in pursuance of this principle , deny the certainty of Gods Election ; because he cannot foresee who will obey his commands and continue to do so , against all the temptations which they will meet with in the world to the contrary : and consequently he must say , what another would account Impiety to think , that God Almighty for want of knowing the determination of mens choice , must likewise be ignorant of the final event of their actions : and therefore he who at present is the object of his Love , and designed by him for the joyes of Heaven , may in the conclusion for ought he knows , merit his displeasure , and be tumbled down to hell . Now that men may make such uncertain conjectures concerning their final state , and thereupon meet with a fatal and terrible disappointment , may be a certain tho a sad truth , and therefore no great wonder : But to think that it should thus happen to the Allwise Creator of men , is to have too mean and dishonourable conceptions of him ; and such the Socinians have , doubting not to aver , that God finds reason to alter not only his dispensations towards men according to their behaviour , but his own intentions of kindness and displeasure , choosing what at first he refused , and refusing afterwards what once he thought worthy of his Approbation and choice , Socin . prael . Th. cap. 7. A fifth attribute in God , and which indeed cannot be separated from him , without overthrowing all Religion , is his Justice : and that not only as it signifies his holiness and righteousness , but as it betokens his anger , indignation , his severity and displeasure against Sin and Sinners . And this the Scripture speaks very often of , Psal . 5. the Psalmist describes God as one not only that hath no pleasure in wickedness , ver . 4. which arises from the holiness and righteousness of his nature , but as one likewise that hates all the workers of iniquity , ver . 5. and particularly , who abhors the deceitful , and will destroy the Lying man. The wicked and him that loveth violence his Soul abhors , Psal . 11. 5. Hence he stiles himself a jealous God , jealous of his authority and honour , and will revenge the contempt of it : he is slow to anger , but yet will not acquit the wicked , forasmuch as he is jealous , and furious , who will take vengeance on his adversaries , and reserves wrath for his enemies , Nahum . 2 , 3. and when God proclaims his name , the name by which he desires to be known , it is the God merciful and gracious , &c. but yet one that will by no means clear the guilty , Exod. 34. 6. Numb . 14. 18. he is Deus ultionum , the God to whom vengeance belongeth , Ps . 94. 1. the God of recompences , Jer. 51. 56. and in short , a consuming fire , Heb. 12. 29. All which expressions seem plainly to denote , that Justice in God is a necessary and an essential attribute , and which you can no more separate from him than you can his nature : I mean that Justice which betokens his severity and indignation against sinners , and moves and enclines him to punish them , tho the punishment it self may in some sense be said to be arbitrary , and subject to the freedom of Gods will ; as are also the Emanations of his goodness , and the effects of his power : but yet all this doth not hinder but that power and goodness may be essential Attributes of God , and are acknowledged so to be by the Socinians themselves : and the like we affirm of Justice , to the terrible effects of which , the sins of men render them necessarily obnoxious : all guilt which is the inevitable consequence of sin being in its own nature an obligation to punishment . But Socinus will furnish you with new notions concerning God in this matter , and quite different from what either Jews or Christians have conceived of him . For he will tell you , that Justice and Mercy in God , not only as to their external effects as they are discovered in rewards and punishments , but likewise in themselves , are not attributes essentially belonging to God , but are things purely arbitrary and indifferent : and particularly that justice , as it bespeaks an hatred of sin and indignation against the workers of iniquity , is not a permanent property , or , as he loves to speak , a quality residing in God , which belongs to him per se , but ex accidente , that is , it is a matter purely contingent , and the effect only of his free and mutable will 1 Now this as it is laid down by the Socinians I take to be not only a false but a dangerous position ; forasmuch as it furnishes us with such a notion of God as is dishonorable to him , and will naturally lead us to a contempt of him . But before I come to prove this , ( forasmuch as I take it to be a matter of great importance in it self , and especially is so in our disputes with the Socinians , who have introduced this notion of God without Justice , in order to destroy the true reason of Christs death and sufferings , which was to give satisfaction to the Justice of God for the sins of mankind , ) I must crave leave to lay down certain positions , which tho I might take for granted , and call postulata , as being commonly known and received Truths : yet I shall as I go along endeavour to prove them so . The first thing therefore which I shall lay down , is , that if there be a Providence , it must be chiefly and principally employed in the care and government of human affairs : for there can be no imaginable reason assigned , nay it would be contrary to all reason to suppose , that God should take care of Beasts and Inanimate Creatures , and neglect one of the noblest parts of the Creation , I mean man , for whose sake chiefly , next to his own Glory , he created the visible world , and to whom as to his Vicegerent he hath given the Dominion over the works of his hand , having put all things under his feet . 2 dly , There can be no providence nor care of human affairs without giving men Laws for the government of their actions : for as his providence towards other creatures is seen , in giving them certain laws of motion and rest suitable to their respective natures , and in guiding and governing them so , as may most tend to his own glory , and the wellfare and beauty of the universe : so his government and care of men consists in giving them certain Laws as Rules of their actions and manners ; it being much more requisite upon many accounts that they should act by a certain direction ; forasmuch as the confusion and mischief that must be the consequence of their disorderly living must be far greater , and more repugnant to the nature and righteousness of God , than if other creatures should swerve from the Laws of their creation ; which yet they inviolably observe , except when God thinks fit to interpose , for the ends of his own Glory , and the good of men . 3 dly , That Laws are so a 1 Rule of Moral actions , as to put us under an obligation of yielding obedience to them , and in this they differ from 2 good counsel and advice , which tho it tend to our advantage , and the promoting of our truest and best interest , yet it puts us under no necessary obligation of complying with it ; every man being left to his liberty to take or refuse it at his pleasure . 4 thly , That the violation of a Law naturally and necessarily upon that very score makes a man lyable to punishment : which is but the same thing tho in other words with the foregoing proposition : for therefore are we obliged to yield obedience to Laws , because if we refuse to do so , we are thereby obnoxious to punishment . This is that which in the civil Law is called , Jus seu obligatio delicti , quo quis ob maleficium ad poenam tenetur . The prescribing of a Law is the act of a Superior , whereby he obliges his Subject to regulate his actions according to that prescription ; which if he refuses to do he may be called to an account as one that deserves to be punished for his disobedience 1 . This is one of the prime dictates of nature 2 , as well as the Language of Scripture , that he who doth wrong not only as that signifies injury , but any evil in general , should receive for that evil that he hath done , Col. 3. 25. Lastly , That there is a necessary relation between punishment and justice , whose office among other things is to distribute rewards and punishments . I do not say that Justice is alwaies obliged to exact the punishment , which the Delinquent is alwaies and necessarily obliged to suffer , I mean is necessarily obnoxious to ; but wherever there is punishment if just , it must flow from that Habit or Attribute which we call Justice ; and that not only as it bespeaks Righteousness and Equity ; but likewise as it signifies that severity and indignation which every Lawgiver is supposed to conceive against him that transgresseth his Laws , who thereby violates his Authority and offends against the publick good . It hath bin doubted indeed whether in human punishments , the Civil Magistrate may aime at the vindicating of his own Authority , consider'd abstractedly from the publick good . And here that famous passage of Seneca 3 , is often cited upon this occasion , and which he translated out of Plato de Leg. no wise man punishes a fault because it hath bin committed , but lest the like should be committed again : for what is past cannot be recalled , but wise and good men in punishment aime at preventing mischief for the future . But tho this may be true with respect to men , yet it is not so with regard to Almighty God , to whom , as Grotius in the formentioned Book and Chapter Sect. 4. hath very truly and judiciously observed , those sayings of Plato and Seneca would be very ill applyed ; forasmuch as God in punishing the sins of men , may very righteously , and oftentimes doth , aime at nothing but the asserting of his own honour , and vindicating the authority of his Laws , and in short , the revenging the contempt and violation of them : as is evident in certain invisible punishments inflicted upon some sinners in this life , such as are obduration and giving them up to a Reprobate sense ; and will be much more evident in those everlasting punishments ( for so we will make bold to call them whatever the Socinians may say to the contrary ) in the life to come , where God can aime at nothing but the satisfaction of his Justice , and thereby the manifestation of his own Glory 1 . But whatever the reasons may be of inflicting punishment either by God or man , yet Justice is the hand that inflicts it : which is called distributive or vindictive , and is therefore defined by an 2 Ancient writer from one of its noblest offices to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , an exacting of punishment : And by Plutarch to the same purpose , to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ultrix in eos qui adversus legem divinam delinquunt . Now these things being thus premised , I proceed to make good my charge against the Socin . in calling that not only a false but a dangerous Opinion of theirs , which makes Justice to be no necessary or essential Attribute in God , but a matter purely Arbitrary and Contingent , as being the effect only of his free will. 1. Then this Opinion I say is false and impious , because it furnishes us with such an Idea of God as is dishonourable to him and will naturally lead us to a contempt of him ; because it teaches us so to conceive of God , as of one that is not necessarily concerned in the Actions of men and the affairs of the World : that is , it gives us a notion of a God without a providence ; for if there be a providence , it must chiefly and principally be imployed ( as was said in our first Prop. ) in the care and government of Human Affairs ; there can be no government without Laws , no laws without the Sanctions of Punishment , either expressed or necessarily implyed in all such Laws ; no punishment without Justice to inflict it ; and consequently ( that we may bring both ends of our Sorites together ) where there is no Justice , there is no Providence ; and where the one is not necessary , the other is not so too . Therefore tho the Socinians do acknowledge Gods providence and that he doth actually govern the World , yet this doth not take off the charge of falshood and impiety from this position of theirs ; because thereby they make his providence to be a contingent and perfectly an Arbitrary matter ; you may notwithstanding all this have a true notion of God and do him no wrong , if you conceive of him as of one that may be unconcerned in the actions of men , who after he hath sent them into the world , may suffer them to live as they please , every man doing that which is right in his own eies : which yet is great Impiety so much as to imagine ; forasmuch as it is repugnant to the infinite perfections of Almighty God , helps to debase him in our thoughts , to weaken that reverence and esteem which arises in our minds when we conceive of him ; and thereby leads us naturally and inevitably from a disesteem to a denyal of him . So that what at first I called a dangerous I am now afraid in the conclusion will prove to be an Atheistical assertion : upon which account Epicurus among the Ancients was generally accounted an Atheist ; 1 Posidonius the Stoick thought him so , and that it was only the Envy and Infamy which attended such persons , which obliged him not to profess himself one : But what in words he affirmed , he did in deed effectually overthrow : For by denying Gods providence , 2 Re sustulit , Oratione reliquit deos . In which charge against Epicurus , Cotta the Academick hath had the consent of all wise men among the Heathens , as well as the suffrage of Christians : whose way of arguing would be of no force , had they not bin of Opinion , that if there be a God who made the World , there must necessarily be a Providence ; and if a Providence , I am sure there must be that Attribute in God which we call Justice , without which that other can never be exercised . But you will say that God may give men Laws for the government of their Actions , and that will be a sufficient vindication of his providence , tho he assigns no punishment to the breach of them . That is , tho we cannot conceive a God without a providence , yet we may conceive a providence without Justice . Indeed Socinus hath told us so , for speaking of the command of God to Adam in Paradise , requiring him not to eat of the forbidden fruit , and the threatning annexed , In the day thou eatest thou shalt dy the death , Gen. 3. which threatning Covet his adversary told him , did flow from that Justice in God which we have hitherto bin speaking of ; he Answers , that this Justice was not any thing in God inhering in him , and therefore nothing could flow from it , as being only an accidental effect of his free will : 1 Cum à me ostensum fuerat , ejusmodi justitiam in Deo non veré residere , nec proprié Dei qualitatem dici posse , sed tantummodo effectum voluntatis ejus ; nihil ex ea fluere potuit : as much as if he had said , non entis nullae sunt operationes , what is not , can have no influence to produce any thing . And for a confirmation of this he adds , 2 that God might have given Adam ( and what God might have done to Adam , he might undoubtedly have done to all the Sons and posterity of Adam ) this law , and not have annexed Death as the punishment of the breach of it , nay if he had so pleased he might have assigned no punishment at all . But this is delivered by Socinus with the same Confidence as are many of his other absurd Errors , in which he stands single by himself , against the constant and uniform suffrage of Divines Ancient and Modern , Fathers and Schoolmen , Philosophers and Lawyers , and those both Canonists and Civilians : among whom it passes for an uncontrolled maxim , That , that is very vainly and impertinently commanded which may be securely neglected . Frustra est aliquid praecipere , quod impuné potest negligi : and this bold position he lays down , and gives us not the least reason for it , but his own affirmation . But tho he gives us no reason for his assertion , I am sure there is very great as well as very apparent reason against it ; forasmuch as such Laws as these will neither secure the honour of God , nor serve the ends of his providence ; being but in the nature of good advice , which , as we said before , every man is at liberty to take , or refuse at his pleasure . So that while he makes the Law precarious , at the same time and for the same reason he makes the Obedience of men so too : in which case God must be beholding not to his own Authority , but to the good nature of his Creatures , that they yield any obedience to his commands . Perhaps you will say there may be other obligations , besides those of punishment which men may be under to practise their duty : such as are those of Honour and Gratitude , and the strong tye of Reason , which will bind a man to comply with his Duty , if there were no other motive to it , but this , that to do otherwise will be to act unsuitably to the dignity of his nature . All this may be fine in speculation , but will signifie little when reduced to practice : the generality of men being governed by sense , the motions of which are too headstrong and furious to be curbed by the bare commands of reason , when they are not enforced with the fear of punishment : the voice of which will be as feeble as that of old Eli to his rebellious Sons , far too weak to master their violence : and therefore that Frantick Woman that some have talked of , who brought fire in one hand to burn up Paradise , and water in the other to quench the flames of Hell , if she had succeeded in her design , instead of promoting would have extinguished all virtue , and soon have rooted it out of the world . In short , to summ up what hath been said upon this subject : if there be no Justice naturally in God , there might have bin no Providence , and if no providence , then men might have bin left to the conduct of their own giddy and unruly passions , which would soon break through the restraints of reason ; and when men were thus left to the government of Lust and Sense , the unavoidable consequence of this must have bin , that the world would have bin filled with Blood and Murders , with Impurity and Vncleanness , with Theft and Rapine , with Injustice and Oppression , and the gentle race of men would soon have become worse then the worst of wild Beasts , preying upon and devouring one another . And to suppose that God could be unconcerned at all this , as if there be no Justice in him which enclines him to punish such wickedness , he might be , is to have such a notion of God as it is reported Lewis the 11 th of France had of his Leaden God which he carried about him , and when he had caused any man to be Murder'd , or done the like mischief , he would take it into his hands , and kiss it , and beg pardon , and then all was well again , and he himself became immediately safe if not innocent . In short at this rate , we should not dishonour God if we so conceived of him , as of one who did not necessarily act according to the eternal and unalterable Rules of Wisdom , Goodness , and Righteousness , that he might be a God not of Order but Confusion , which is not only an Impious , but a Blasphemous assertion . 2 dly , My second reason why I account this Position of Socinus about Gods justice to be false and dangerous , is because it takes away the distinction between Laws Positive and Natural ; which distinction hath hitherto bin looked upon , not only to be true but sacred ; sorasmuch as the contrary would open a Gap to all manner of impiety and wickedness . Now positive Laws are accounted such as owe their original only to Gods free will and pleasure ; and therefore as they cannot be known , so they cannot oblige any but those to whom he hath made such a declaration , and discovery of his pleasure . 1 Natural Laws are those which are discovered by the light of nature , as being the necessary result of our Constitution , and that relation which we hear to God as rational Creatures : many of which tho revealed in Scripture , yet in themselves are obligatory , antecedent to any such revelation . Now these Laws do necessarily suppose Justice in God , without which they would be insignificant : for tho natural Laws owe their Original to the holyness of God , as being but a transcript of those essential Rules of righteousness which make up his nature ; yet all their force and obligation , ( without which they are not properly Laws ) results from his Justice ; that is , from the fear of punishment , which the Law threatens , and Justice inflicts , without which they would be perfectly insignificant . From which by a just and necessary consequence it unavoidably follows , that if their be natural Laws , there must be Justice naturally in God : so on the other hand , if there be no Justice , there can be no Laws of nature , forasmuch as without the former they can have neither Force nor Obligation , nor consequently have the formal reason of Laws . 3 dly And Lastly , This Opinion of Socin . is both false and Impious , because it tends to overthrow all natural Religion , by supplanting that which is the chief if not the only support of it in the world , and that is the fear of God. For take away his Justice as this Socinian hypothesis doth , and then you have left nothing in him which a man governed by the light of nature need to fear : not his unity , nor his eternity , nor immensity , not his holyness , nor his goodness , to be sure ; nor lastly his power which in conjunction with the former , as it necessarily is in God , is as harmless and innocent as either of the former Attributes , when it is not moved nor excited by a just displeasure and indignation . Imagine therefore a Socinian were to discourse a Pagan , I would fain know how upon this principle he could convince him that it were his Duty to worship God , and to live a virtuous life : he might tell him indeed , and tell him with great truth , that the Divine nature and perfections are in themselves a just ground of Esteem and Adoration : That virtue hath many and those powerful though invisible charms , as being both agreeable to our Reason , and at the same time serving to promote our wellfare and happiness in this world ; yet all this would lay him under no obligation to do that , which otherwise would be highly reasonable and fitting to be done : suppose it be honest , suppose it rational , suppose it his Interest , yet he is left to his liberty , and may , and no doubt will , do what he pleases for all that : he may act indeed like a fool and a Brute , yet he is guilty of no sin in the mean time ; for where there is no Justice , there can be no fear of punishment , where there is no punishment , there is no obligation , nor consequently Law ; and where there is no Law , there can be no transgression . So that tho his reason may upbraid him with the folly , his Conscience in this case would never check him for the guilt of his vices ; which if the Laws of his Country did not take some care to prevent , he might securely practice without any fear of Gods displeasure . In short , notwithstanding all the fine discourses about the beauty and amiableness of religion and virtue ; the inclinations of sense would soon bear down the dictates of Reason , and the slightest temptations would prove too strong for these very speculations ; and as to the generality , the conclusion which they would draw from this principle , would be , Let us eat and drink , for to morrow we dye , and after death comes no reckoning or account . Come on let us enjoy the good things that are present , and let us speedily use the Creatures like as in youth : Let us fill our selves with costly Oyntments , and let no flower of the spring pass by us : Let us crown our selves with Rose-buds before they are withered , Let none of us go without his part of our voluptuousness : Let us leave tokens of our joyfulness in every place ; for this is our portion , and our Lot is this . Wisd . 2. ver . 6 , 7 , 8. But tho this notion overturns all natural Religion , yet it is it self effectually overthrown by the dictates of natural Conscience , which are an unanswerable proof both of the existence and the Justice of God : for we must know that Conscience is something more than bare Reason : for Reason may direct , but Conscience will prescribe ; Reason gives us a Rule for the government of our actions , Conscience passes that Rule into a Law , gives it its force and obligation . The 1 prescribing of a Law is the act of a Superior , and no man is properly Superior to himself , and consequently no man can by his own act , peremptorily oblige himself , except that act be enforced by some other and higher obligation . And therefore Conscience is not bare Reason , but reason as it is Gods Vicegerent , cloathed with his Authority , armed with his Justice : and therefore in a more Imperious way it commands our obedience , not only perswading us to our duty , but threatning for the neglect of it : it puts on a Majestick Aire , tells us this must be done , or refuse it at your peril : indeed it executes the office , and sustains the person of a Legislator , a Witness , and a Judge : first prescribes a Law , then accuses for our disobedience , and lastly solemnly arraigns the Sinner for his guilt , and then passes sentence upon him . So that these actions of Conscience and the Tribunal that God hath erected there , are one of the clearest and most uncontrolled proofs of a future Judgement , of which the former are a kind of Anticipation . And indeed if we look back to former times , and consult the History of Ages and Countries , the most ignorant and barbarous , we shall find , that as the Light of Nature hath directed them to the belief and acknowledgement of a God ; so one of the earliest notions that arose in their minds when they have thought of him , hath bin the Apprehension of his Justice : of which among other things , the numerous , tho many of them Impious and Ridiculous rites , which they made use of to appease the anger of their incensed Deities , are an irrefragable Argument . And this apprehension of divine Justice , was , as one of the principal causes , so one of the chiefest , if not the only support of natural Religion in the world . Now to apply this to our present purpose , and to bring the parts of our argument a little closer together : If men by the light of nature could discover this Attribute of Justice in God , it must unavoidably follow , that Justice in him is natural ; for the light of nature can discover nothing in God but what is so : whatever is the effect of Gods meer pleasure , and the result of his free will , can never be known but by Revelation ; and it is impossible it should be otherwise discovered , except we should suppose men to be Omniscient , and that they may know more of God than they can of one another : For what man knoweth the things of a man , save the spirit of man that is within him ? 1 Cor. 2. 11. so much less can any man discern the things of God but the spirit of God. He indeed searches the deep things of God , such as are the results of his free pleasure , and the counsel of his will ; which lay hidden in the breast of God , and must for ever have done so , had not he who lay in the bosom of his Father , revealed them unto us : and therefore if justice were , as the Socinians tell us , the effect only of Gods free will , it must have lain undiscovered to the Gentile world , to whom God vouchsafed no revelation of his will ; which yet is contrary to the account which the Histories of all times and ages have given us of this matter : from whence it is evident that the belief of Gods Justice among men , is coeval with that of their being , written in the same Characters , and engraven by the same Hand , that implanted the notion of a God in the minds of men ; and if so , then the same hand that defaces the notion of Gods Justice , must at the same time and for the same reason erase the belief of his existence out of the Souls of men : and I doubt not if the Socinians had lived in those days , by this Hypothesis of theirs , they would have been extreamly serviceable to Theodorus , Diagoras , Democritus , and Epicurus , in the design they were engaged in , of rooting the belief of a God and Religion out of the world ; for they might have told men not only with great plausibility but truth ( if this opinion were true ) that all those accusations of Conscience , and anxieties of Mind , which were occasioned by the belief and dread of divine Justice , were the effect only of fancy and delusion , and did owe their Original not to a divine Impress , but to the Craft and Contrivance of Priests and Polititians , who instilled into the minds of weak and unwary men , the vain fears of invisible powers ; representing them armed with Thunder and with the Sword of Justice in their hands , whereas really there was no such thing ; But all this they did to keep the world in awe , and thereby to compass the designs of their interest and ambition . What further design Socinus himself might have , or whether he had any other design by advancing this Opinion , than the overturning that great Article of our faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ , I shall not positively determine . Only this I cannot but acquaint the Reader with , which hath bin long since observed likewise by others , that Socinus and his followers in all their books and disputations , have made it their business chiefly to cavil and make exceptions to their adversaries , not careing what became of Religion , so that they might with any colour avoid the Arguments with which they were pressed , as is in some measure made evident by several passages which we have quoted out of their writings in the foregoing discourse . And I have this further to add , that as Socinus , by denying the divinity and satisfaction of Christ , hath plainly overturned the foundation upon which the Christian Church and Religion have bin built : so by this assertion about Gods justice , and by several others dispersed and slily insinuated through his writings , he hath given a shrewd blow to all Religion whatsoever , whether natural , or revealed ; so that an unwary Reader , by perusing his writings , may find himself an Atheist before he well perceives how he comes to be so : as he saith in another case , viz. his opinion against Hell Torments , that he had so contrived the matter , ut lector prius sentiat doctrinam istam sibi jam persuasam esse , quam suaderi animadvertat 1 . And now I should come to a conlusion of this discourse about Gods Justice , ( which I have spun out to a greater length then I at first intended ; ) But that I foresee an objection will be made against all that I have said , by the Socinians and their friends ; who will be apt to say , that I have bin taking a great deal of pains to no purpose , to aggravate the mischiefs of an Opinion , which admit it were false in speculation , yet as it is stated by them can in point of fact and practice , carry no inconvenience imaginable along with it . For whatever God may do when left to his own liberty , yet he hath thought fit to oblige himself by positive promises and threatnings to reward the righteous and to punish the wicked : so that now by the revelation of his will he hath indeed abridged himself of his natural liberty , but hath thereby taken effectual care to secure his own honour , and to establish Religion in the world , and all this is plainly acknowledged by the Socinians . To which I answer , 1 st . that this doth not take off the falshood and Impiety of this Socinian opinion , which I was obliged to discover ; any more than if a man should say , that God hath indeed resolved to act wisely and righteously in the government of the World ; but that neither wisdom nor righteousness are necessary and essential Attributes perpetually residing in him , but are only the effects of his free will : which were a most irreligious and profane assertion , notwithstanding the former acknowledgment . 2. Tho the Socinians hereby take care of revealed , yet they overturn all natural Religion , as we shewed before , where God hath made no such Revelation of his will , or discovery of his intentions how he doth design to deal with men ; and so as far as in them lies , by this principle , they help to make the 1 much greatest part of mankind Atheists . 3 ly . When God hath declared his purpose , and hath accordingly given men Laws for the government of their actions , and hath to those Laws expresly annexed the sanctions of rewards and punishments , yet according to the Socinian principles , this doth not sufficiently encourage men in virtuous practices , nor lay an effectual restraint upon the wicked . 1 st . As to rewards it is true the Gospel affords us , as the Apostle tells us , exceeding great and precious promises 2 Pet. 1. 4. which exceed not only our deserts , but our hopes : But what absolute assurance have we that they shall be made good to us . They are only the effects as Socinus tells us Liberae , or as Vorstius explains it , vertibilis voluntatis , not only of a free , ( for therein we agree with them , ) but of a mutable will : for according to them , as was shewed before , God is liable to alterations , and may change his purpose as he doth the weather , sicut potest pluere vel non pluere : and tho the Morning proves never so fair , yet the Heavens may be overcast ; and the Sun that rose so gloriously , may set in a Cloud . In short , if we believe the Socinians , the promises of God considered barely in themselves are not a sufficient Basis for a Christians hope and security ; forasmuch as God being 2 mutable in his nature , he may repent of what he promised , and change and alter his Resolution . And that the Reader may not think that I have wronged the Socinians in laying this to their charge , I must refer him to a Treatise writ by Crellius , de Causis Mortis Christi ; where he will find this that I have affirmed of them abundantly made good . For there he tells us that the true reason of Christs dying for us , was that thereby he might be a Mediator , and surety of the Covenant which God hath made with men ; for tho God had given men the promise of pardon of their sins , yet that promise was no sufficient security , because he might have receded or started from it : Therefore to fix him as it were to his word , Christ was sent as a sponsor and surety of the New Testament , which , in the name of his Father , he did confirm and ratify , by sealing it with his Blood ; whereupon now God is obliged to make good his promise , so that if he had a mind to revoke it he cannot , the Death of Christ compelling him to preserve it 1 . Indeed he could not but be sensible , that what he had thus delivered , would sound harshly in the Ears of most Readers , those especially who had any concern for the Honour of their Maker , which by this supposition was so highly and scandalously invaded : therefore to mollify this matter he tells us , that the efficacy which he ascribes to Christs Death , was not absolutely necessary in respect of God ; whose own Love , Grace and Mercy , might move and encline him to make good his promise ; yet however this put him under no obligation ; for if it had , there had bin no need of the death of Christ , either in respect of God , or our selves , either to have tyed him to the performance , or to have afforded us security . Therefore he tells us 2 , that we might have a firm bottom for our hope , that if we believed in Christ , that is , obeyed his Gospel , our sins should be forgiven us ; it highly concerned us that God should be obliged to perform what he had promised ; and not only so , but that we might acquire a Right to pardon ; which right he founds not in the promise of God but the Death of Christ , which he saith gives us such an undoubted Title to Mercy , and that supported by such a firm and manifest assurance and proof , as will not suffer God whatever may happen , to break his word , and recall his promise . 3 And this he tells us was the true reason of Christs coming into the world , and of Gods delivering him up to death for our sakes . By all which it is evident , that in the opinion of this man , the promises of God considered nakedly in themselves , do not afford us a sufficient security ; forasmuch as something may intervene , which may cause God to repent of what he promised , and thereby hinder the performance : and that you may not think that he had forgot himself , by making an impious or impossible supposition , he tells us , utimur phrasi sacris literis usitata ; that he used a phrase which was frequently made use of in the Scripture it self , which often mentions Gods sorrow and repentance , and therefore it can be no disparagement to Almighty God to ascribe it to him , it being rather in their opinion an argument of his wisdom , as was shewed before . I must indeed acknowledge that this very Author at another time , Lib. De Deo. Cap. 25. de Sanctitate Dei. p. 241. affirms that the promises of God put him under an obligation , and that both his veracity and faithfulness engage him to make them good . But it is as evident on the other hand , that here he supposes the contrary , and that his Argument proceeds upon that supposition . But by this time I hope the Reader will not be much surprised to find Socinians contradicting themselves , and he need not be concerned at it ; for I can assure him , whether he will or no , they will take the liberty of so doing . And hereby we find the observation which we a little before made concerning them , confirmed ; viz. that in their disputations and writings they care not what they say , having no regard to the honour of God or Religion ; being only concerned for their own reputation , and to defend and maintain their own loose and unwarrantable Opinions . 2 ly , But let us admit that God by his promises puts himself under an obligation to men , so that he cannot go from his word , but is obliged to make it good ; yet he may be at greater liberty as to his threatnings . Indeed these , as the Gospel represents them to us , are very terrible , whether we consider the punishments threatned either as to their Intensive pain , or as to the extent of their duration ; for we are told that the wicked shall go into everlasting punishment ; that the worm that gnaws their Conscience shall not dye , and the fire that torments them shall never be extinguished . This is indeed enough to make the sinner look pale , and to fright him either out of his wits , or out of his wicked course of living . But for all this he need not despair of Mercy ; for tho God hath threatned severely , yet no man living can absolutely tell us , if we believe Socinus , whether he is resolved to execute his threatnings . For as at first God might either not have punished the Sinner at all , or not with eternal death , so now tho he hath declared by his solemn Edict that he will do so , yet for all that he may if he pleases not inflict the punishment . Deus potuisset , idque jure , homines licet peccantes morti aeternae non mancipare , sic postquam eos morti aeternae edicto suo mancipavit , ex illius imperio eximere potest . Socin . de Christo Serv. Lib. 1. p. 124. Eximere potest , saith Socinus , he may exempt the Sinner notwithstanding his Decree of punishing him ; and why may not he hope that he will : the bare threatnings , according to Socinus , do not oblige God to execute them : and the consideration of Gods Mercy and Justice , to which the Torments of Hell , as he may imagine , can scarce be reconciled , may upon that score afford him some ground to hope that he doth not design to do so . We know sinners are apt to allow themselves , as too great liberty in sinning , so to flatter themselves with too great hopes of Impunity ; and if they meet with any such compassionate Casuists as Socinus , who will afford them any encouragement , they are presently apt to run away with it , and never look back , to see that vengeance which pursues , and will at length certainly overtake them . But how comes this man to know any thing of God besides what he hath revealed of himself in his word ? must we have recourse to that exploded distinction of the Calvinists , and for which they have bin so much railed at by their adversaries , concerning the revealed , and the secret will of God ? For tho the question in the case may seem to be about the power of God , yet really and in truth it is about his will ; forasmuch as God cannot do what he hath solemnly declared he will not do ; and that for this plain and irrefragable reason , because God cannot deny himself . And now have we not reason to put the question , and enquire , whither went the Spirit of God from the Inspired writers , to rest upon the head of this Impostor , who makes his exceptions to what they have declared as the peremtory and unalterable decree of God ? Nay who boldly ventures to affirm that , which Balaam could not be hired to utter , tho tempted to it by the wages of unrighteousness ; but makes that pious acknowledgement Numb . 23. God is not a man that he should lie , nor the son of man , that he should repent : hath he said , and shall he not do it ? hath he spoken , and shall he not make it good ? Now if it be Impossible for God to lie , then it is not possible for him to alter the sentence concerning the final state of men ; which is delivered in Scripture in such terms , as plainly evince it to be his peremptory and irrevocable decree : The happiness of the Righteous , and the punishments of the wicked , as to the extent of their duration , being expressed in the same words , and in the same sentence : and if it be possible to know any thing of the Absolute and Immutable pleasure of God ; the wit of man could not contrive any plainer words , then what the wisdom of God hath already made use of , to declare his final and unalterable intentions , concerning the everlasting punishment of the wicked . Besides it deserves to be considered , that this Declaration is not only delivered in the manner of a threatning , but likewise by way of prediction , in the fulfilling of which , the veracity of God may seem to be more particularly concerned , than in the execution of a bare Threatning delivered in a Sermon , or Exhortation , or the like . Now in those glorious visions which were communicated to St. John which he stiles the word of God , the Testimony and Revelation of Jesus Christ , concerning the things which were , and which should be hereafter , Rev. 1. v. 1 , 2 , 19. which are styled the true sayings of God , chap. 19. v. 9. the words that are faithful and true ch . 21. v. 5. I say in these visions are contained , as the state and events of the Church till the final dissolution of all things ; so likewise the condition and fate of the Righteous and Wicked , after the judgment of the last day . Ch. 20. 21. he tells us that he saw the dead , both small and great , stand before God , and they were all judged according to their works , and whoever was not found written in the Book of Life , was cast into the Lake of fire , ver . 15. called ver . 10. the lake of fire and brimstone , where the Devil , and the Beast , and the false Prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever . And what is said in general of the wicked , we are assured shall betide the fearful , and unbelievers , and the abominable and murderers , and sorcerers , and idolaters , and all liars , who shall have their part in that lake , which burneth with fire and brimstone , Rev. 21. 8. this is that Furnace of fire which our blessed Saviour so often mentioneth , Mat. 13. 42. 50. that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his Angels , Mat. 25. 41. That fire , which again and again he assures us Mark. 9. shall not be quenched , no less then five times within the compass of six verses , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48. to declare unto us by this Repetition , the certainty of this thing , as in the case of Pharaoh's Dream , which was doubled to assure him that the thing was established by God. Gen. 41. 32. The wit of man could not ●ind out words more full and significant , to express the eternal duration of these punishments , and Gods unalterable purpose to inflict them . Now to say , notwithstanding all this , that yet in the conclusion , things may happen to be otherwise then what the Son of God hath declared , and this servant of God hath foretold , is with great boldness to contradict them both : and if it be possible that these predictions may not be accomplished , then the words are not faithful and true , that is , are not undoubtedly and absolutely true : so that at the same time , that Socinus puts an end to the certainty of Hell Torments , he doth likewise put an end to the certainty of the writings of the New Testament , and the predictions that are contained there : which is highly derogatory to the Authority of those sacred Writings , and particularly of the Revelation of St. Sohn ; which looks too much like the taking away from the words of the Prophecy of that Book ; which yet I hope it is not , because of that dreadful punishment which attends those that do so , Rev. 22. 19. In short , if things may happen otherwise than St. John foresaw and foretold , some Scepticks and Infidels , which the age we live in doth too much abound with , may be apt to account that a dream , which he calls a vision ; and to think , the holy man was was scarce awake when he pretended to foresee these things . Neither ought the case of Temporal threatnings be objected here in favour of Socinus's assertion : forasmuch as God himself hath told us , that in all such Threatnings , a condition is to be supposed , tho it be not alwaies expressed ; so that tho they are delivered in terms seemingly absolute , yet God without any impeachment of his veracity , may upon the performance of the condition revoke them . At what instant , saith God , I shall speak concerning a Nation , and concerning a Kingdom , to pluck up , and to pull down , and to destroy it : if that Nation against whom I have pronounced , turn from their evil , I will repent of the evil , that I thought to do unto them , Jer. 18. 7. 8. and this was the case of Niniveh , where tho the threatning was seemingly peremtory , yet the execution was suspended upon their Repentance , which was the end of the threatning . But as to the punishments of the life to come , the threatnings of them must be absolute and unconditional , forasmuch as there can then be no room for Repentance and amendment : every mans state will then be finally determined : he that is filthy will be filthy still , without any possibility of change , or hope of pardon : and this is that which fills up the measure of the punishment of the damned : he that sinned without the fear of God in this life , shall be punished without Mercy in the next ; and this despair will be that worm which will feed upon him to all eternity , which shall ever torment , but never devour the sinner , who will then become a terror to himself and an everlasting amazement . In short therefore , and to summ up all that remains to be said upon this subject ; he that goes about to weaken the force of those declarations which God hath made concerning the eternal punishment of the wicked , gives a dangerous blow to all revealed Religion , of which we can have no certainty , if once we undermine the veracity of God , which is the foundation upon which it is built , and by which it is supported . But you will say the hopes which Socinus gives the sinner are but very slender , and those remote ones , which no man in point of prudence or safety should venture to rely upon . I confess I think so too : but for all this sinners will be bold and presumtuous : and you cannot wonder that men should grasp at any thing ; lay hold upon any the weakest twig , rather than sink into Hell. But if this be not enough , Socinus can give the sinner more positive and direct encouragement ; such as will not only put and end to the Torments of Hell , but likewise to his own vain and superstitious fears concerning them , and will extinguish those flames , which our blessed Saviour ( who one would think should best know ) hath assured us are unquenchable : But of this more hereafter . Now if what hath bin hitherto said is not sufficient to shew the impiety and detestableness of these Socinian notions , he that will be at the pains to peruse their writings , or will but have the patience to read what is here transcribed out of them , will find ( if it were possible ) yet greater abominations than these : particularly in the account which they give of those affections and passions which they ascribe to God , and with which indeed the Scriptures represent him to us , but in a quite different sense than they are understood and interpreted by the Socinians ; who give us such a description of Almighty God as is repugnant to piety , and to the general sentiments , not only of all sound Christians , but even of Jews , and many sober heathens , who have had truer and more honourable conceptions of the nature of God , than these men furnish us with ; who cloath him with all the passions and weaknesses of men , ascribing to him love and hatred , mercy and compassion , hope and desire , joy and sorrow , fear and repentance , which they make to be truely and properly in God , tho not exactly in the same manner as they are in men , no more than they are in other created spirits , or the Soul of man it self in its state of separation from the Body : that is , they are there , but without any motion , or sensible alteration of the Blood and Spirits , such as is to be found in men . But our Religion and right reason will inform us , that these things are attributed to God , but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in a figurative sense , representing thereby to us the various administrations of Gods providence towards divers objects , who as they are endued with different qualities and dispositions , so God is pleased to exercise different actions towards them ; which actions in men indeed arise from different principles and passions , but do not so in God , who amidst the variety of the actions and dispositions of men , and his dealings suitably to them , yet in his essence continues still the same , without any perturbation or the least shadows of change . And therefore Divines tell us , and particularly Limburg , that these things are ascribed to God 1 , not with respect to God , but with a regard to those objects about which the acts of his providence are conversant , according to that known maxime of the School-men , affectus in deo notant effectus ; and so far he is Orthodox : but a little after in the same Section he overthrows what but just before he asserted , and so interprets and explains himself , that a Socinian cannot be displeased with his Opinion . For first he makes these affections to be acts , or as Crellius calls them commotions of Gods will , which some have thought could not be properly ascribed to him , without overthrowing the simplicity as well as immutability of his divine nature . But to let that pass . 2 . He makes these passions in God to be Analagous to those in men , without which Analogy , or resemblance , there is no reason , he saith , why the Scriptures should ascribe them to God. Si nihil illis Analogum Deo tribuamus , nulla apparebit ratio , cur iisdem cum affectibus humanis nominibus appellentur . So saith Limburg , Loc. supra citat . sunt enim in nobis affectus commotiones quaedam atque inclinationes appetitus , cui vim facultatemque Analogam voluntas divina in se complectitur . So saith Crellius Cap. 26. p. 197. and here I think they perfectly agree . But for once we will make so bold as to ask these Gentlemen , whether when the Scriptures attribute hands and feet , and eies and ears to God , they think that there is something in the nature of God that is Analogous , and bears any resemblanee to these parts of a mans Body , without which they could not with any reason be applyed to him . Tho I have reason not to be over confident of a Socinian , yet in this case I will take it for granted , they would both answer in the negative , and that there were here no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but what the Fathers , and particularly St. Chrysostome upon many occasions so often mention , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nay there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or , if in imitation of St. Paul you will joyn these two words together , there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; nothing to be supposed in God by way of resemblance , but an exceeding great and adorable condescention in him , who stoops to our capacities , and expresses some properties and operations of his , by such parts , which are the Instruments of the like operations in men . So with the same truth , and for the same reason it should be averred , when human passions are ascribed to God , it is not by reason of any resemblance that is between God and Men in these affections ; but by reason of that Analogy or similitude that is to be found between the operations of God , and these actions of men ; which in them arise from such commotions of the Soul which we call passions , but in God proceed from his simple and uncompounded nature , who is Infinite and unchangable , and therefore as our Church in conformity to the Scriptures hath taught us to believe , is without parts and without passions . Article 1st . The Impiety of this opinion will further appear from a consideration of those particular passions which the Socinians affirm to be in God ; which cannot truly be ascribed to him , without a great disparagement to his Infinite and adorable perfections , and those are Fear and Grief : under which we must comprehend sorrow and repentance , which properly respect things past , whereas grief and trouble which alwaies attend it indifferently respect things either past or present . And these are passions which necessarily infer a weakness in God , such as a Stoick would not allow in his wise and virtuous man. And first for fear , Crellius 1 will tell us that tho at first view this passion cannot without a seeming absurdity be attributed to God , yet he is truly lyable to it , and indeed it is the necessary effect of his wisdom , as it is conversant about creatures prone and lyable to sin . And this he proves from Deut. 22. 26 , 27. I said I would scatter them into corners , I would make the remembrance of them to cease among men , were it not that I feared the wrath of the Enemy , least their adversaries should say , our hand is high , and the Lord hath not done all this . And then refers you to two other places before mentioned , Exod. 32. and Numb . 14. where we have instances , as he tells us , of Gods altering his purpose of destroying the Children of Israel , out of this principle of fear 2 : least the Heathens and particularly the Egyptians , should misconstrue his actions , and for want of knowing the true reasons which moved him to this severity , impute it either to a malicious design , as if he had rescued them out of the hands , and delivered them from the Tyranny of Pharaoh , that he might have the Glory of their overthrow in the wilderness : or else to his Impotence that he was not able to compleat their deliverance , and to bring them into the Land which he had so often promised them . Now God to save his honour which else might have suffered by this action , and to prevent the upbraidings of his Enemies , which he was extreamly afraid of , was prevailed upon by the Entreaties of Moses , and the reasons which he offered , to spare those , whom in his thoughts he had solemnly devoted to destruction . He further refers his reader to several other places where God is said to do something which otherwise he was unwilling to do , or to omit the doing of something which before he was resolved upon , as Gen. 5. 22. Exod. 15. 17. 35. 3. &c. out of a just fear of what might happen : and this is so far from being with him an Argument of Imperfection , that he saith it is the result of wisdom and a just caution , in foreseeing some probable events , and thus wisely preventing them . Ibid. 2. For grief and trouble , these likewise by the same Metaphor are to be ascribed to God , that is , saith Crellius , forasmuch as all Metaphors arise from similitude , something like these must be found in him . And for proof of this he quotes all those places of Scripture , where God is said to be provoked , to be displeased and grieved , Ps . 78. 40 , 46. Ps . 106. 33. Esay . 3. 8. 2 Sam. 11. 27. and particularly that memorable place , Esay . 1. 14. where God is said to hate the New Moons and Feasts of the Jews , they are a trouble to me saith God , I am weary to bear them . Where he hath this remark Cap. 31. p. 319. these things are then said to be troublesome to us , and which we cannot well bear 1 , which bring uneasiness and a certain disquiet along with them . And to say and think this of God , is so far from tending to his dishonour , that the contrary conceit would overthrow all Religion , forasmuch as it would introduce an Opinion concerning God fit only for Stoicks and Epicureans to entertain of him : quis enim , saith he , who can form such a notion of God , as of one that is not affected with pleasure , nor sensible of pain , nisi qui ad Epicureorum vel Stoicorum saltem sententiam de Deo accedere vult ? Loc. citat . 321. a God enjoying pure and unmixed pleasure , perfect rest and an uninterrupted tranquillity , never disturbed with passions , nor disordered by any of the actions of men , or the changes and revolutions that happen in the world ; this doctrine concerning him is fit not to be preached in the Temples of Christians , but to be published in the Schools of Zeno and Epicurus . Indeed we are beholding to him for that liberal concession , that this trouble and grief which he supposes to be in God , doth not arise from any Internal causes , such as are the indispositions of Body or mind which occasion grief in men , and make them uneasy : but only from external motives and reasons , viz. the actions of his creatures 1 So that what God cannot do himself , he hath put it into the power of his Creatures to effect , and that if it were not for the follies and impieties of men he would be entirely happy , perfectly at rest ; all that grief and trouble which affects him , is solely owing to the actions of his creatures , and not to any disorder of his own nature : A very pious acknowledgment ! Lastly , for that sort of grief which respects things past , which we call Repentance , this likewise is to be found in God : and not that only which signifies the alteration of his Counsels , or a change of his will , of which we have spoken before ; ( which may indeed be called Repentance , but that saith Crellius is dilutior Metaphora 2 : ) but as it betokens the passion and affection it self . And for this he quotes Gen. 6. 7. where it is said , that God repented that he made man , and that it grieved him at the heart . This is affectio in deo ingrata , Ibid. an affection that brings molestation with it , arising in God when he sees that those his actions which were so well designed by him , by the folly and malice of men , are so far perverted , as to produce effects so contrary to his Intentions . Now against all this it would be very natural for men to object , and the Socinian easily foresaw it , That what is thus asserted , must be quite contrary to the sense of mankind , and to those notions which naturally arise in mens minds concerning the perfections of Almighty God ; for to suppose such variety of commotions in the mind of God , and these sometime opposite to ane another , which cannot but occasion in him molestation and trouble ; which must be further increased , when he finds his designs baffled , his Councils overthrown , his authority despised ; which obliges him oftentimes to change his own purposes , and revoke his decrees : one would think that all this should really be not only a derogation to his Infinite perfections , but likewise a diminution of his happyness . 1 st . As to what concerns the perfections of God , Crellius will tell you , that nothing of all this that is asserted of the nature of God is an Argument of Imperfection . It is true , he hath not the same notions of the perfections of God as you have . You may perhaps think him Infinite , but that is a weakness in you to think so : he is finite in his being , and consequently must be so in his Operations : he is limited in his presence to certain spaces : his knowledge hath its just bounds ; he is mutable and lyable to change : he is extended ▪ and for that reason must be made up of parts ; in him you may find a composition of substance and accidents , and these oftentimes contrary to one another : he is cloathed with passions , which have such a resemblance to those weaknesses of our nature , that from a 1 consideration of humane passions , we must make a judgement and frame our apprehensions of those motions which are to be found in God. And these motions in God are sometimes more calme , at other times more violent and impetuous , the Impieties of men provoking him to that degree that he is earnestly bent upon their destruction , but afterwards calmed by their prayers : now angry at men for their Sins , by and by appeased by their Repentance . Sometimes you will find him doing a thing , by and by repenting the doing of it ; one while resolved upon one action , and anon resolving the quite contrary : and all this to be found truly and formally in God , and not in that figurative sense in which the Scriptures ascribe them to him . For saith the same Author , separate all impurity from those passions , all corporeal mixture , nay it must be concretio terreni corporis , the mixture of a terrestrial body , that you may not mistake him : for there is a spiritual Body , and Coelestial matter which may belong to God himself : in short exclude all Impotence and Imperfection from these affections , ( and indeed it must be a very nice and Metaphysical abstraction that is able to do it ) and then whatever remains in the true notion and formal conception of these passions , are still to be supposed and must be left there , when applyed to God himself . Sejungenda quaecunque Imperfectionem aut Imbecillitatem resipiunt , caetera , quae in natura cernuntur affectuum illorum , quorum nomina deo tribuuntur , esse relinquenda . Ibid. But however tho this should prove no Imperfection , yet the uneasiness and disquiet , that is the inseparable attendant on grief , and fear , and sorrow , those tormenting passions , must , one would think , interrupt that tranquillity which we suppose God to be possest of , and consequently be an abatement of his happiness . To which he answers first in general , 1 that as we ought not indeed to urge any expressions in Scripture , so far as to oppose the happyness of God ; so neither on the other hand ought we to urge the belief of his happyness , so as to affirm him not to have a true sense of evil , mixt with uneasiness . But more particularly , you must consider in this case that tho men by their Sins 2 may grieve God , yet they cannot hurt him : tho they may disturb , yet they cannot deprive him , of any of his essential perfections . That is something , but not enough ; for among men we are apt to account it an unhappyness to be robbed of our ease and quiet , tho they that do so should not have it in their power to deprive us of any thing else . Therefore 2 ly , tho there are some things of that force as to be able to create dolorem & molestiam , grief and molestation to God ; yet the number of those other things which afforde him satisfaction and pleasure , do so far exceed and overballance them 3 , that they do much abate the trouble and uneasiness that is occasioned by them : a Blessed Apology for the perfections and happyness of Allmighty God! And thus much shall serve to be said upon the first head , concerning the nature of God considered absolutely in himself , and his divine attributes ; by which we may see the difference between what the Scriptures say , and what the Socinians affirme of him : and I doubt not but the pious Reader , will not only be offended , but struck with a just horror and amazement , at the boldness and impiety of these blasphemers , who are thus injurious to their maker , and think and speak thus dishonourably of him . But how little regard , and how mean soever their conceptions be of God , yet they have a good opinion of themselves ; in that they make not only their reason to be the adequate Judge of his revelations , but even their own passions and weakness , the rule by which they measure , at least make an estimate of his infinite nature and most adorable perfections ; an attempt , besides the impiety of it , more ridiculous , then if a man should endeavour to take the dimensions of the Heavens with a single span , or to fathome the depth and reach the bottome of the Ocean with his little finger . In the next place we must consider God Relatively in the great mystery of the Trinity . And that which the Scriptures teach us to believe of this matter , is briefly summed up in the first Article of our Religion established in this Church concerning faith in the Holy Trinity , in these words ; In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons , of one substance , Power and Eternity , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . Or as it is with some alteration of words , but to the same purpose expressed , in the Doxology to be repeated upon Trinity Sunday ; wherein we are taught to make this acknowledgement of Almighty God , That he is one God , one Lord , not one only person , but three persons in one substance ; for that which we believe of the Glory of the Father , the same we believe of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , without any difference or inequality . A brief but comprehensive Epitome , of what is more largely declared and explained , in the Creed , which the Socinians and Remonstrants have so great a spight against , commonly called the Athanasian Creed . This is the Faith of all the Reformed Churches , being herein Agreeable to the doctrine held by the Church of God in all Ages , ever since the first planting of Christianity in the world ; what we and they believe of this matter , being conformable to the plain and express declarations of Scripture , and especially of what Christ and his Apostles have delivered to us concerning this matter , in the writings of the New Testament . For this you may consult the Harmony of their Confessions ; both Lutheran and Calvinist all exactly agreeing in this doctrine , without any the least difference or variety : where you may likewise see the consent of the Catholick Church from the first Ages next to that of the Apostles , from whose inspired writings the Fathers received this Doctrine , which by an uninterrupted Tradition , thro all the successive Ages of the Church , hath bin delivered and brought down to the times we live in : In this Faith we have all bin baptized , being at our first admission into the Christian Church , solemnly consecrated to the worship and service of those three ever blessed and glorious persons , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost Mat. 28. These being the three that bear witness in Heaven , and these three are one , 1 Jo. 5. 7. For that Text we shall not easily part with , notwithstanding the Cavils of the Socinians , and the over officious endeavours of some others , whether Papists or Protestants , who would weaken the Authority of that Testimony , and thereby rob us of the advantage of it . For tho some Greek MSS. want it , yet there are others more approved and of greater antiquity in which you may meet with it . Besides it is to be found in the writings of the Ancients , Tertull. Cypr. Athanasius , and Jerome who quote these very words : and if you have a mind to know more of this matter , without going any further , you may peruse what Mr. Poole in his Synopsis hath quoted out of Gerhard , Dr. Hamond and other Writers in vindication of this Text. From which , I think , it will appear , that the Authority of this place remains clear and in full force , notwithstanding the attempts that have bin made to overthrow it . Tho if we gave up this Text , yet we should not the holy Doctrine contained in it , which is so plainly delivered in other places of Scripture , and shines there with so bright a lustre , that a man had need wink hard , who would avoid the conviction ; or else must have so great a confidence in his Eyes , that he may hope in time to stare the Sun it self out of countenance . For as in some places of Scripture he will find the unity of the Godhead asserted ; so in others he will find the name , and not only so , but to avoid any Cavils and exceptions that may be made about the ambiguous signification of that word : he will find the same divine Attributes , and Operations , on all hands acknowledged to belong to God the Father , ascribed likewise to the Son and the Holy Ghost ; who yet are allwaies mentioned as distinct from one another : from whence by an easie and a necessary deduction , it must unavoidably follow , that since they are really distinguished from each other , and yet agree in the same common nature , as the same properties and the same operations irrefragably evince ; they must be , what we have bin taught hitherto to believe and profess of them , in the Language of the Church , three Persons and one God. And as we pretend to agree in the same doctrine with the Ancient Church , so I think it is highly fitting , and for many just reasons in a manner necessary , to preserve the same words in which it hath bin delivered down to us , in opposition to any new modes of speaking . For the Ancient words by prescription and long use , have obtained both a just Authority among Christians , and a setled and determinate signification : whereas new phrases may be liable to great exceptions , and introductive at long run of new and unwarrantable opinions about these mysteries ; beyond the intention of them who first made use of them . Now against all this the Socinians will tell you , that this doctrine concerning the Trinity is so far from being a fundamental truth , that it is indeed the foundation of all the errors that have crept into the Christian Church ; as being opposite to the Scriptures , and plainly repugnant to reason : it is a Popish doctrine , so saith Socinus Lib. quod Regm Polon . &c. cap. 4. so Welsing . Lib. de O●●ic . Hominis Christiani , and by so saying they do exceedingly advance the Reputation of Popery , by making it of so great and venerable antiquity , embraced by all sound Christians ever since the Apostles days . It is a Paganish opinion , Ethnicismum sapit , so saith Smalcius , Exam. Cent. Err. So opposite to reason , that it is a wonder how any man in his wits could ever have thought of it . So saith Ostorod . he cannot imagine , quomodo homini ulli ratione praedito in mentem venire posset . Inst . Rel. Christianae Cap. 4. that is , sure it could never have entred into any mans head , that ever had any brains there . Nay it is not only a very foolish , but a very dangerous error , that puts a stumbling block , and rub in mens way to Heaven . Strange that that doctrine should be thought an hindrance to mens happiness , the belief of which by all good Christians hath hitherto bin thought necessary to salvation : but so it is if you believe Socinus , Lib. supra cit . eodem cap. And indeed it is no wonder it should hinder men from going to Heaven , if it be true that Volkel . tells us , that this doctrine of the Trinity is not an Error that is owing to the ignorance and mistakes of Men , but to the delusion of the Devil 1 . That it is a blasphemous Doctrine as another of them saith 2 , hatched in Hell , and from thence fetched by the Son of Perdition , and obtruded upon the Church . And if this be so , I I must profess my self to be of the same mind with 3 Smal. and to hope with him , that this absurd and most false doctrine as he calls it , will shortly be chased and hissed out of the World. But farther , particularly concerning Christ , they tell us that he had no existence before his formation in the womb of the Virgin : and the being which he then had was purely humane , and therefore what is said of the Divinity of Christ is a mere fable 4 , owing to senseless and absurd interpretations of Holy Scripture 5 . The Account of his Eternal Generation , is a meer Romance , false , impossible , a plain contradiction 1 ; the 2 contrivance of some idle trifling persons , who had nothing else to do but to invent such absurd and incredible notions . Here by the way , I must desire the Reader to take notice not only of the impiety , but likewise of the unparallel'd impudence and scurrility of these blasphemers , and consequently whether it be fit to entertain any favourable opinion , of the doctrines of these men , and much more to have their Persons and Writings in admiration . 2 ly , Concerning the Spirit of God ; they tell us that he is not a Person , as the Church of God hath hitherto vainly imagined : but only a quality , an accident ; sometimes taken for the Innate power and virtue residing in God , and sometimes for the operations that proceed from that virtue and faculty 3 . Crellius hath written a particular Treatise de Spiritu Sancto , and therein he tells us that the word spirit , in its first and proper signification , denotes 4 that breath which is expired out of the mouths of Men or other Animals ; and from the resemblance that is to be found between them , it is transferred to signify that divine virtue in God which we call the Holy Ghost : and therefore when Christ , Joh. 20. 22. breathed on his Disciples , and thereby conferred upon them the Holy Ghost ; 5 he did thereby give them to understand , that the holy spirit was an Emanation from God , not unlike a vapour or breathing . At this rate the Holy Ghost should it seems be a subtile and tenuious substance , contrary to what he asserts cap. 1. where he plainly tells us that the Spirit of God is not properly a substance but a quality , therefore called in the Scripture the power of the most High , & virtus proprie qualitas est , p. 466. But forasmuch as many things , by his own acknowledgment , are affirmed of , and actions ascribed to the Holy Ghost , which cannot well agree to qualities , but must suppose the thing to which they are ascribed to be a substance ; such as are Local motion , Bodily shape , division and the like : to reconcile therefore these seeming differences he is of Opinion , that the Spirit of God consider'd abstractedly in it self , is a meere quality ; but yet this vertue may be impressed upon , and conveighed into some subtile and coelestial matter , & ejus naturae valde congruae , which is agreeable to its nature , Ibid. As we find the vital energy of the Soul communicated first to the Animal Spirits , and by them to all the other parts of the Body : and as we find the influences of the Coelestial Bodies , and qualities of Terrestrial ones , Heat , Light and Odors , conveighed in some subtile effluvium's , from the Bodies in which they are , into the Air , and some other subjects at a great distance . So saith he , by the Spirit of God is sometimes meant that 1 tenuious matter which contains a divine quality in it , and by which it is conveighed into the minds of men : and in this sense he conceives the spirit of God , may be called a Corporeal substance , which hath extension , and is capable of division , as other Bodies tho spiritual are 2 . And by this notion he thinks he hath found out an easy way , to solve the former difficulties concerning the Local motion of the Holy Ghost , and particularly , his descent upon our Saviour at the time of his Baptism , and upon the Apostles in the day of Pentecost . Of his being poured out , of his being given , sometimes in measure , and sometimes without it : of his being divided and distributed and the like : which tho we interpret of the gifts , he doth of the nature and essence of the Holy Ghost , which according to this account he gives of it , may like other steams and vapors be carry'd here and there , and may be divided and distributed in greater and lesser quantities as there is occasion . And thus God took some part of this Coelestial matter , which contained that divine virtue with which Moses was endued , and put it into the 70 Elders Numb . 11. 25. and in the same sense Elisha had a double portion of the Spirit of Elias , that is , of that divine steam and vapor which enabled him to do wonders . Now if we shall further enquire what that Coelestial matter is , by which this divine quality which he makes to be the Holy Ghost , is conveighed and distributed among men ; he hath not determined , but hath left it to the Readers discretion to conjecture : tho he hath given sufficient intimation how he would have him govern his Opinion . For in the other instances which he produces , the quality and the effluvium's , proceed from the same subject ; and he gives you no limitation , no caution in the least to think otherwise in this case : it is plain that some of his friends as he tell us , were of that Opinion , that the Spirit of God , was nothing but an Emanation , a tenuious steam flowing from the very substance of God , as the breath doth out of our mouths and nostrils 1 : quam sententiam , saith he , in medio relinquimus ; he will not give you his Opinion in this case , it being but fit that in matters of Religion , every man should be left to his own freedom , and therefore he fairly leaves you to your own . It is plain , if he were not himself of that Opinion , yet he thought there was no harm in it ; otherwise he would have given his Reader some caution about it , which he hath not in the least done . And now we are come to the Bottome , or if you please , to the very dregs of Socinianism , and that which is the true cause and sourse of all those extravagant , and indeed Blasphemous Notions which these men have of Allmighty God : who in their most refined and exalted speculations , cannot raise their thoughts to conceive any substance above matter . It is true , they call God a Spirit , but it is as certain that they mean a spiritual Body ; as appears by what Crellius tells us when he comes to describe God , and to give the 2 definition of a Spirit which is contained in that description . When we call God a Spirit , saith he , we mean a substance free from all that thick gross matter which is the object of our senses shall I say ? no that 's too much , but which can terminate our sight ; for a Spirit tho it be invisible , you must know it may be palbable ; and such is the aer saith he , to which the word Spirit is a genus , common to it , to God and Angels 1 : each of which are spirits , but that which is most subtile is likewise most spirituous . And by this explication of the nature of a spirit , Crellius who calls God a spirit , and Socinus who plainly thought he was none , ( as appears by his 2 forced and perverse Interpretation of those words of Christ Jo. 4. 24. which contain as plain and clear a declaration of this great truth , as could be expressed in words , ) may very easily be reconciled . For whereas the Master denies God to be a spirit , he might by spirit mean an incorporeal , immaterial being ; and the Scholar by acknowledging him to be one , did not intend to exclude matter from his constitution ; but that he was not composed of such thick gross parts of matter as our Bodies are , which can terminate the sight ; but of matter of a more tenuious and refined Contexture , more subtile perhaps , but of the same nature with Aer or Aether . And from hence result all their Impious Opinions about God , in opposition to his Immensity , simplicity , Omnipresence : Judging of their Maker by themselves ; of his thoughts by their thoughts , of his waies by their waies , of his dealings with men by their own foolish passions : and in short , measuring all his Glorious and Incomprehensible perfections , by their own narrow and shallow conceptions of sensible objects . Hence it is that we have those bold assertions of Vorstius 4 Deus non est infinitus , nec in essendo nec in operando . Infinita virtus non est in Deo. Immensitas 3 seu infinitas est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . To be Infinite is impossible , and therefore so far from denoting a perfection , that it implies a plain contradiction . And among other Arguments which he makes use of to prove God not to be Infinite , this is remarkable Ibid. p. 237. Because God at present , saith he , is seen by the Angels , and shall be so hereafter by us , with our Bodily Eies ; and therefore not Infinite . For what is so cannot be comprehended by any sense , as he rightly upon this supposition argues : Quia debet esse proportio inter objectum percipiendum , & personam percipientem : and whereas it may be objected that the Beatifick vision respects the inward speculation of the mind , and not the external perception of the Eies ; some indeed so interpret it , saith he , Sed nescio an sacris literis consentaneum sit ; certe magnam futurae nostrae foelicitatis partem hac explicatione tollere videntur . Now if God be finite , it must further follow , and is plainly acknowledged by these men , that magnitude and extension , and a true local presence may and must be ascribed to God : and this is so far from being by them looked upon to be derogatory to the nature and perfection of God ; that the contrary notion is scouted by them , not only as false , but as absurd and ridiculous , which asserts such a presence of God , as obliges us to believe him not be confined to any certain place , neither to have any parts commensurate to the parts of that place in which he is . For this if any thing must be the meaning of 1 Episcopius's Atomica & Atopica essentiae divinae praesentia ; which he rails and exclaims against , and can scarce think of without horror and Astonishment . But further , if Local presence be ascribed to God , I think Local motion may with good reason be so likewise ; forasmuch as it may be more honourable to God to Imagine that he may sometimes change , then that he should allwaies be Immoveably fixed and consined to one certain place . Lastly if extension may be attributed to God , and such an extension as was said before , which hath its certain bounds and limits , by an unavoidable consequence , Figure must be ascribed to him also : forasmuch as figure doth naturally and necessarily result from the termination of extension : this being the definition of a figure , quae sub aliquo vel aliquibus terminis comprehenditur . And now at length we see what a blessed notion of Almighty God the Socinians have furnished us with ; how scandalous and dishonourable to God , how repugnant to piety , how opposite to right reason , and to those sober and just apprehensions which that hath furnished many wise heathens with , who I am afraid may one day rise up in Judgement against these men and condemn them . It may be now time to draw towards a conclusion of this Discourse , therefore I shall briefly summe up what hath been said upon this subject : that the Readers memory may be refreshed with the account which hath bin given him , both of what the Scripture affirms of God , and what the Socinians say of him . The Scriptures have informed us that our God is Infinite , they say he is Finite , ours is Omnipresent , theirs Limited and confined to a certain place : ours Immutable , their 's Liable to change ; ours is naturally just , theirs contingently so : ours necessarily concerned in the government of the World , and taking care of humane affairs ; theirs might , like Epicurus his Deity , sit at ease in the enjoyment of his own happyness , leaving the world to the conduct of chance ; and men to the guidance of that which is equally uncertain , their own giddy and unstable passions ; neither giving them Laws for the regulating of their actions , nor assigning any punishments to the violation of them . Our God is Omniscient , their 's ignorant of future and contingent events : ours without parts or passions , theirs compounded of one , and lyable to the other ; even to those which argue the greatest weakness and infirmity , and which some of the Philosophers thought inconsistent with the bravery and resolution of a wise and virtuous man. In short , our God consists of three blessed and glorious persons , subsisting in the same undivided essence : They deny the divine nature of the Son , and yet by an unpardonable contradiction , say that he is a true God ; and disown the personality of the Holy Ghost . From all which I think it will appear very evident , what we undertook to make out at the beginning of this discourse , that the Object of their Religion and ours is different ; and that will go a great way to prove that the Religions themselves are so too . In short , the difference between us is not so small as some ignorant people may imagine , and some crafty and designing persons may pretend ; among whom I cannot but reckon Curcellaeus , who most falsely and impudently against common sense and reason , and therefore one might be tempted to imagine , against his Conscience , would perswade the world to believe , that the difference between us and the Socinians , in the point of the Divinity of the son of God , was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a contention about words rather then any real difference , in a matter of faith : which is quite contrary to the notion that either the Orthodox or the Socinians have of this matter : who lay a greater and truer stress upon their Opinions , then this man doth , who pretends to bless the world with a discovery of what no body ever knew before . But I believe the Reader who hath perused the foregoing discourse , will be induced to believe that either the Socinians or we are in a very great mistake , the distance between us being wider then that between Heaven and Earth : and indeed no less then between Finite and Infinite . So that upon a true state of things , I believe it will be found that our Opinions are not only seemingly inconsistent , but absolutely irreconcileable ; forasmuch as in order to reconcile them , we must part with the Infinite nature of God the Father , and the Divinity of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . And surely that man must be very fond , nay he must be mad for peace , that can be content , to sacrifice both Truth and the Divine Author of it , in order to purchase it . Once indeed our Blessed Saviour came down among men , and offered up himself upon the Cross in order to reconcile the two greatest Enemies , God and Man : but it is too much in all Conscience which is expected of us , that we should make a new Oblation of our Saviour : and not only as the Jews 1 did , nail his Body to the Cross , but sacrifice even his Divinity , to compose the differences in Religion . But perhaps some may say the Socinians are men of more reason and moderation , then to desire us presently to part with all our Religion to gratifie them : They only plead for liberty , and in order to their joyning with us , that we would remove those obstacles of communion , viz. Articles , Creeds , Confessions of Faith , some useless expressions in our Common Prayer , which contain too plain and uncharitable acknowledgments of the Trinity ; which hinder many pious , useful and excellent persons from coming to our Churches . Why should we not strip our Faith of all those larger and unwarrantable explications which Councils and Fathers have made of it ; and reduce all to the naked expressions of Scripture : that is , content our selves with a few Ambiguous words , ( which the perverse and subtile Interpretations of Hereticks have made so ) and let every man abound in his own sense . They believe Christ to be the Son of God , so as to be true God likewise : what need we trouble our selves or them with the word Consubstantial ; pity it is , that a word , nay a Letter should divide men in their Opinions and Affections . To all which , tho I have a great deal that I could answer , yet at present all that I shall say shall be this : That the Socinians are wise men , persons of a deep reach ; but they must not think that all the rest of the World are fools . It were too much in all Conscience to desire us to part with all at first : but they know what advantage to make of our Concessions : if they can perswade us with that foolish woman Prov. 14. 1. to pull down our house with our own hands , it will save them the toyl and drudgery of so doing : at least if they can prevail with us to demolish our Outworks , then they will be able as with greater ease , so likewise with greater hopes of success , to attack the main Fort. In short , the Ancient Creeds and Confessions , and those Ancient words in which the Doctrine of Faith hath bin conveyed down to us ; are only 1 an Hedge of Thornes , as they have bin truly and pertinently styled , with which the Christian Faith hath bin guarded against the designs of disguised Hereticks , and I hope they will prick their fingers , who shall attempt the removing of them . And thus much shall serve to be said upon the first Head , of the great difference there is between what the Scriptures affirme , and what the Socinians say of the great object of our Religion God Allmighty . And if there were only this in the case , I hope it might prove sufficient to guard any pious well meaning Christian from the Infection of their Impious Opinions , which furnish him with notions so dishonorable and injurious to his maker : and who by denying the blessed Trinity , and the Divinity of our Saviour , have subverted the very foundations of Christianity , altered the whole Oeconomy of mans Salvation : so that they and we must go different waies to Heaven , as having neither the same meanes of Grace , nor the same hopes of Glory . I should now proceede to shew the Opposition between the Socinian tenets , and the other parts of the Christian Doctrine , which are thereby contradicted , and overthrown . But this must be referred till a time of further and better leasure : But by this Taste which I have given the Reader of Socinianism , I may have reason to hope that he will be of the Opinion , that Religion is like Wine , the older , the more excellent and desireable . And therefore that no man of wisdome , or indeed of common sense , who hath not lost all Relish of divine things , when he hath tasted of the old Religion , will straightly desire the New , because he will find that the Old is much better . Now to the Holy Blessed and undivided Trinity , three Persons and one God , be all Honour , Glory , and Praise both now and for evermore . Amen . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A38061-e1750 1 Ad evertendam Rempublicam sobrium accessisse . Suet. in Jul. Caes . 1 Quasi nos Christum verum deum esse negamus , quod tamen à nobis non sit , Socin . oper . Tom. 2. p. 645. 2 Ut pro Deo ac Domino suo venerentur , p. 631. 3 In eo homine supra quam dici potest extollendo & deificando , Ibid. 4 Ut potius id gloriae nobis & laudi ducamus , Wolzogen . Prolegom . in Evangel . Johannis cap. 8. de vera divinitate Christi . 1 Quod vero Deus ille unus qui pater est , solus verus dicitur , id non ideo fieri dicimus quod nemo alius praeter Patrem deus verus sit , sed quia nemo alius praeter Patrem , isto prorsus modo deus verus sit , quo ille est . Smal. Exam. Cent. Err. p. 4. 2 Certissimum est quod non unus tantum verus Deus sit . Ibid. 3 Contendimus & firmissime docemus esse plures Deos praeter unum . Eosque veros . Refut . Smigl . de Novis Monst . Nov. Ar. p. 14. 4 Tantum unum summum deum agnoscere unum tantum natura Deum Colere , unum tantum Independentem Deum confiteri , esse Judaicum quiddam , & abnegationem Christianae Religionis . Ibid. p. 26. 1 Ea verba , speaking of those words Jer. 23. 23. [ Am I a God at hand , and not a God afar off ? ] Suadere videntur , ipsius Dei substantiam non ubique pariter praesentem esse , & sic eam non esse immensam sive infinitam , quamvis ubique tamen sua virtute & providentia sit ipse Deus praesens . Socin . de Dei essentiae Cognitione p. 68. vid. Crellium , cap. 27. de Dei Immensitate & Omnipraesentia . 1 Quo enim pacto potest quispiam dici id expectare , quod non eventurum planissime intelligit , imo jam reipsa videt , Ibid. 2 Deum novum quoddam & insigne experimentum , illic quidem impietatis Sodomicae videre voluisse , hic vero pietatis Abrahamicae vidisse , quod antequam fieret , plane certum & exploratum non erat . 3 Non modo Evidentissima & plane cogente ratione nititur , sed & sacrarum literarum autoritate stabilitur . 4 Crell . Ibid. 1 Quae ne in hominem cadere potest , nisi plane dementem . Ibid. 2 Quis ex hominibus it a amens est , ut juret se aliquid facturum , quod se facturum minime esse jam probe noverit . Ibid. 3 Lib. 4. Inst . Th. cap. 18. 4 Inter Eruditissimos Theologos Lis adhuc sub judice est . Ibid. 1 Vixcredo millesimum Christianum dari qui scientiam hujus rei habeat . 2 Absque hujus scientia , religio cultusque divini numinis apud innumeros hominum Myriadas sartus tectus constat . Idem ibid. 1 Si testimonium loquitur de bonis operibus certo praevisis , sine dubio Deus ipse decrevit . Socit . Prael . Th. cap. 10. p. 549. 2 Crell . cap. 24. de sap . Dei. 3 Hoc est pessundare religionem , quae nulla proprie est ubi est necessitas . Smalc . contra Smigl . cap. 2. 4 Crell . cap. 24. de sapientia Dei p. 204. Ubi talis necessitas est , nec ullum verum peccatum est , nec meritum poenae . Ubicunque necessitas dominatur ibi religioni non est locus . Examen . censurae cap. 7. p. 82. So say the Remonstrants . 5 Quod necesse est , hominis libertatem à se penitus excludit . Socin . Prael . Th. cap. 8. Arbitrium libertatem in se continet quam si demas , arbitrium esse desinet . Crell . de volunt . Dei cap. 21. p. 139. Qui necessario vult & agit , is libero arbitrio praeditus non est , Id. cap. 24. de sap . Dei. p. 206. 6 Exam. Censurae Conf. Remonst . cap. 6. p. 76. 1 Nihil prohibet quin Deus simpliciter bona fieri decernat . Crell . de sap . Dei p. 210. 2 Potest necessitatem homini imponere hoc vel illud volendi . Ibid. 3 Deus voluntatem liberam esse sinit , nisi quando ut ei necessitatem afferat , ejus judicia requirant . Socin . Praelect . Th. cap. 7. p. 544. Volunt as hominis ad extremum usque est plane libera , adeo ut praeter ipsum factum externum , omnia in ejus sint potestate . Ibid. 1 Deus Obedientiam & Inobedientiam hominum , ex ipsa perfecta & consummata voluntate , non autem ex ipso Externo facto metitur . Ibid. 1 Crell . cap. 24. De Sapientia Dei p. 210. 2 Smal. Contra Frantz . p. 416. 1 Negatio ista necessario consecutura erat , Socin . ibid. p. 548. 2 Non alia re opus erat , nisi ut occasio Christum negandi Petro daretur , id quod deum ipsum curasse , i. e. Effecisse , nihil absurdi continet . Vid. Smal. Contra Frantz . p. 431. Ubi asserit voluntatem Petri quodammodo esse coactum & ad breve temporis spacium libertate sua privatam , idque Deum interdum & facere posse & solere . 3 Peccata ita à deo nota fuisse affirmare , quia futura omnino ita decrevisset , impium prorsus videri debet . Ibid. p. 547. 1 Constantis● est persistere in animi proposito , nisi quid intervenerit , cujus ratio non immerito haberi possit , & quod in aliam sententiam voluntatem jure flectere queat . Crell . cap. 25. de Sanct. Dei , p. 265. 1 Quae rebus mutatis ita consilia mutat , ut ea illarum rationi attemperet , Cap. 32. de Decretis Dei. p. 350. 1 Justitia ea , quae severitas vel vindicta , vel ira , vel indignatio , vel simili alio nomine nuncupatur , non est qualitas seu mavis proprietas , nec vere residet in Deo , sed tantummodo effectus est voluntatis ejus . Socin . di●p . de Christo Servatore , p. 123. Nullam ejusmodi in Deo proprietatem , h. e. qualitatem in ipso perpetuo residentem , esse censemus , quae Deum ad peccata punienda simpliciter moveat . Sed id quod in ipso existens eum ad peccata punienda simpliciter movet , iram & severitatem , misericordiae oppositam , esse statuimus ; quae non proprietas est in Deo perpetuo residens , sed veluti affectus quidam ipsius , & liberae voluntatis effectus . Crell . Resp . ad Grot. de Satisf . Christi . p. 1. 1 Lex est regula actuum moralium , obligans ad id quod rectum est , Gr. de Jur. B. & P. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Sect 9. 2 Obligationem requirimus , nam consilia & si qua alia sunt praescripta honesta quidem sed non obligantia , Legis aut Juris nomine non veniunt , Ibid. Ubi consilium datur , osserentis arbitrium est ; ubi praeceptum , necessitas servitutis , Hieron . Lib. 2. contra Jovin . Decretum necessitatem facit , exhortatio liberam voluntatem excitat Gratian. Dist . 4. ad finem . 1 Praeceptum ibi est , ubi est poena peccati , Ambr. Lib. de Viduis . Praecepto quisquis non obtemperat , reus est & debitor poenae , August . Lib. de Sancta Virgin. 2 Inter ea quae natura ipsa dictat licita esse , est & hoc , ut qui male fecit malum ferat : quod Antiquissimum & Rhadamantheum Jus vocant Philosophi Grot de Jure B. & P. Lib. 2. Cap. 20. Sect. 1. 3 Nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est , sed ne peccetur : revocari enim praeterita non possunt , futura prohibentur , Lib. 1. de Clem. Cap. 6. 1 Certe poenas quorundam valde perditorum à Deo non ob aliud ( scil . extra se ) exigi , sacra verba testantur , cum dicunt eum voluptatem capere ex ipsorum malo , subsannari atque irrideri impios à Deo. Tum vero & extremum judicium post quod nulla expectatur emendatio , immo & in hac vita poenae quaedam inconspicuae , ut Obduratio , verum esse quod contra Platonem dicimus evincunt . Ibid. 2 Apud Grot. Ibid. 1 Cicer. de Natura Deo. Lib. 1. Cap. 123. 2 Ibid. 1 Socin Disp . de Christo Serv. pars prima p. 123. 2 Quod verum esse deprehendetur , si consideremus potuisse Deum praeceptum illud homini tradere , neque tamen poenam Mortis , si illud non servasset addere : Immo ne poenam quidem ullam . Ibid. 1 Jus naturale est dictatum rectae rationis , indicans alicui actui , ex ejus convenientia aut disconvenientia cum ipsa natura rationali , inesse moralem turpitudinem aut necessitatem moralem , ac consequenter à Naturae Autore talem actum aut vetari aut praecipi . Actus de quibus tale extat dictatum , debiti sunt aut illiciti per se , atque ideo à Deo necessario praecepti aut vetiti intelliguntur , quà notá distat hoc jus non tantum ab humano jure , sed & à Divino voluntario , quod non ea praecipit , aut vetat , quae per se ac suâpte naturâ aut debita sunt , aut illicita ; sed vetando , illicita , praecipiend● , debita facit . Grot. de Ju. B. & P. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 10. 1 Facultas injungendi aliquid per modum Legis aut praecepti infert superioritatem , quemadmodum obligatio parendi arguit nos inferiores esse eo , qui praecipere nobis potest ; saltem qua Imperium ejus se extendit : Ob eam causam suis decretis immediate nemo potest obligari irrevocabiliter , Puffendorf . Elem. Jur. Lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 4. 1 Epist . 6. ad Volkel . 1 See Breerwoods Enquiries , Cap. 14. 2 Voluntas Dei est principium cujusdam mutabilitatis in Deo , Vorst . Disp . p. 212. 1 Vis atque efficacia mortis Christi ad remissionem peccatorum comparandam tanta est , ut etiam Deum , si forte eum promissionis suae de remissione peccatorum , & liberatione ab interitu nobis concedenda poeniteret ( utimur phrasi sacris literis usitatâ ) movere atque impellere possit , ne promissum suum rescinderet , sed quod pollicitus esset , reipsa praestaret Crell . de Causis Mortis Christi . p. 613. 2 Nam ut nos tanto certius credere possemus , nobis in Christum credentibus peccata remissum iri , plurimum referebat Deum ad id faciendum obligatum esse , & nos jus ad illud obtinendum habere ; jus inquam manifestissimis ac certissimis documentis nixum , quod jam quicquid tandem interveniret , Deum non pateretur promissa sua rescindere , Ibid. 3 Hic revera finis ac scopus fuit , cur Deus Morte Christi se nobis obligare voluerit , ut porro ad Christum morti tradendum impulsus fuerit , Ibid. 1 Non cum relatione ad ipsum Deum , sed in ordine ad ipsa objecta , quae extra deum sunt , circa quae Deus operatur Lib. 2. Cap. 10. 2 See Episcop out of whom Limburg hath transcribed his Divinity , Inst . Th. Lib. 4. cap. 22. Quod non sic accipiendum est quasi affectus nulli proprie ac per se Deo competant : contra enim in Deo credimus affectus esse . Natura divinorum affectuum vix aliter à nobis concipi atque aestimari potest , quam ex natura affectuum humanorum ▪ sive per similitudinem & Analogiam quam habent cum affectibus humanis . 1 Sapientiae ipsius , quatenus circa creaturas versatur in peccata pronas , effectum esse prope necessarium , Cap. 31. p. 324. 2 Moses Deum à proposito perdendi populi Israelitici revocasse dicitur , Argumento metuendi mali Eventûs ; quod scil . Hostes Deum essent calumniaturi , videtur Deus hunc eventum , utpote sua natura possibilem , suo modo metuisse , & propterea à proposito suo recessisse . Vorst . Notae ad Disp . 10. p. 451. 1 Ea Demum molesta sunt , & in illis sustinendis laboramus , quae dolorem aliquem nobis afferunt . 1 Ex rebus extra deum existentibus , quas in creaturarum arbitrio posuit , Ibid. p. 320. 2 Ibid. p. 322. 1 Ex affectuum humanorum natura , à quibus ipse Dei spiritus ob Analogiam , ac similitudinem voces ad Deum transfert , aestimanda nobis erit natura illorum voluntatis Dei actuum . Cap. 29. de Affect . Dei. p. 297. 1 Ut jucundum quendam rerum malarum sensum ei tribuere non liceat . Idem Cap. 31. p. 321. 2 Ea quae voluntati divinae adversa sunt , illius beatitudinem non evertunt aut laedunt . Ibid. 3 Ut vim ingratarum rerum & molestiam quam parere possunt , aut tollant , aut imminuunt , p. 321. 1 Volkel . de Vera Relig. Lib. 5. Cap. 9. 2 Sunt blasphema Dogmata , ex imo Orco , per filium perditionis Ecclesiis Gentium , virtute Satanae obtrusa , Theod. Schimberg . citat . à Gerhardo in Exeg . Loc. 3. de Trin. 3 Propediem Exsibilabitur ista absurdissima simul , & falsissima de dei essentia Opinio . Smal. Contra Franz . 4 Smal. Refut . Smig . Fabula ista mundo tunc non innotuerat . 5 Facessant hae imperitae ac absurdae interpretationes , Socin . in 5. Cap. 1. Epis . Johan . ver . 20. 1 Nugae , falsum , impossibile , contradictionem implicat . Smal. Refut . Smigl . ad Nova Monst . Ar. 2 Idem Refut . Lib. de Incarn . cap. 3. Vanissimum Commentum otiosorum Hominum . 3 Vid Smal. Refut . Lib. de Incarn . cap. 27. Socin . Tract . de Deo , & Contra Wier . & alibi passim . 4 Flatum exore Animalis expressum . p. 455. 5 Indicavit Spiritum Sanctum ejusque à Deo & Christo Emanationem seu Emissionem , a●●latui sive spiraculo esse similem , Proleg . de Spiritu Sancto Ibid. 1 Materia subtilis , quae qualitatem divinam in se habet , & per quam in hominum pectora deferri solet . Ibid. p. 476. 2 Isto modo Spiritum Sanctum substantiam quandam esse , eamque corpoream non est negandum , Ibid. 1 Crell . Proleg . de Spiritu Sancto , p. 1. Substantia subtilissima Halitui Oris Analoga , & quemadmodum ille ab Ore Emanat , ita Spiritus iste à Deo. 2 Deus est Spiritus Aeternus ; Spiritum autem cum nominamus , substantiam intelligimus ab omni crassitie , qualem in Corporibus oculorum arbitrio subjectis cernimus , alienam . Hoc sensu Angelos dicimus spiritus , & aerem licet sensibus quibusdam , ut tactui patentem , & alia corpora huic similia . Lib. de Deo , & Attrib . Cap. 15. 1 Quorum unumquodque hoc nomen tanto magis sortitur , quanto est subtilius , Ibid. 2 Vid. Vorst . Not. ad Disp . 3. de Natura Dei p. 200. 4 Ibid. p. 234 , 235. 3 Non est fortasse eorum verborum sententia , quam plerique omnes arbitrantur , [ Deum scil . esse spiritum : ] neque enim subaudiendum esse dicat aliquis verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quasi vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Recto casu accipienda sit : sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repetendum verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quod paulo ante praecessit ; & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quarto cas● accipiendum , ita ut sententia sit , Deum quaerere & postulare Spiri●um . Frag. Disp . de Ador. Christi cum Christiano Franken ▪ p. 778. 1 Exam. Censurae in Conf. Rem . Cap. 2. p. 43. 1 Curcell . Rel. Christianae Inst . Lib. 2. Cap. 21. p. 78. Quae Confessio , si rem ipsam potius quam verba aut phrases spectes , parum ab Orthodoxorum sententia differre videtur . 1 Dr. Sherlocks Apol. 
A45406	----	A continuation of the defence of Hvgo Grotivs, in an answer to the review of his annotations whereto is subjoyned a reply to some passages of the reviewer in his late book of schisme, concerning his charge of corruptions in the primitive church, and some other particulars / by H. Hammond ... Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A45406 of text R17947 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing H529). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 131 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 26 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A45406 Wing H529 ESTC R17947 11742084 ocm 11742084 48503 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A45406) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 48503) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 533:7) A continuation of the defence of Hvgo Grotivs, in an answer to the review of his annotations whereto is subjoyned a reply to some passages of the reviewer in his late book of schisme, concerning his charge of corruptions in the primitive church, and some other particulars / by H. Hammond ... Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. [4], 44 [i.e. 46] p. Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston ..., London : 1657. "A post-script," p. 31-44 [i.e. 33-46] "Errata," 1 leaf at end. Reproduction of original in Bristol Public Library, Bristol, England. eng Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645. Owen, John, 1616-1683. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. A45406 R17947 (Wing H529). civilwar no A continuation of the defence of Hugo Grotius, in an ansvver to the review of his annotations. Whereto is subjoyned A reply to some passages Hammond, Henry 1657 21045 4 625 0 0 0 0 299 F The rate of 299 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the F category of texts with 100 or more defects per 10,000 words. 2005-12 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-01 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-01 Ali Jakobson Sampled and proofread 2007-01 Ali Jakobson Text and markup reviewed and edited 2007-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A CONTINUATION OF THE DEFENCE OF HVGO GROTIVS , IN AN ANSWER TO The Review of his ANNOTATIONS . Whereto is subjoyned a REPLY to some passages of the REVIEWER in his late Book of Schisme , concerning his charge of Corruptions in the Primitive Church , and some other particulars . By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON , Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston , at the Angel in Ivy. Lane , M. DC . LVII . To the STATIONER . Mr Royston , I Have been so often called on for the Reply to the Review of Grotius's Annotations , that I am at length inclined to change my former purpose , and permie those few sheets ( prepared as soon as the Review came to my hands , but then laid aside , on a perswasion that they might be safely spared ) to follow the former on that subject , rather then deny to any so easie a request . I am Your Friend , H. H. Septemb. 4. 1656. A CONTINVATION OF THE DEFENCE OF HVGO GROTIVS , In ANSWER to the REVIEW of his Annotations . 1. IF he that hath read the Review of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius , which is offered as a Reply to the second Defence of that learned man ; seem from thence to have any new scruples infused into his mind , it will not cost him many minutes to deposite them , by observing with me this method . 2. First , by adverting ( on the first head that of the satisfaction of Christ ) not onely what fair and large characters of his thoughts lie legible to all men in his Book De satisfactione , written on purpose against Sosinus on this subject , but also how those have been since back'd with indubitable evidences of a later and fresher date , taken from his own express words in his Discussio ( the last thing he wrote ) and in a letter under his own hand ( dated after the time of his surmised change ) written on purpose to forest all this surmise , and to assure us of his constant adhering to that sense which he had delivered in his Book De satisfactione . Which two as they are most irresrugable proofs of the matter in hand , being testimonies of him that certainly best knew his own thoughts , whether he were changed or no , so to neither of these is the least word of Reply here offered by the Reviewer , and so stand in full force against all that is here suggested . 3. Secondly , by remembring that from the a beginning of this debate , the posthumous Annotations on the Epistles were expresly renounced and reiected by me , as departing manifestly from the judgment of that learned man , formerly expressed in those writings which he had completed and published in his life time , and consequently as unsufficient arguments , or testimonies of his change , when produced against his own repeted and express declarations to the contrary ; And yet from these are the proofs now principally brought in this Review , and by the contrariety betwixt these and his Book De satisfact : his change concluded , with what appearance of reason the Reader will soon discern , when he hath considered the premisses , and what shall now occasionally be added thereto . 4. For this manner of dealing two things onely are pleaded in the Review , which here must be regarded , before I proceed : 1. That the Accuser having to deal with that book of Annotations that goes under his name , If they are none of his , it is neither on the one hand or other , of any concernment to him . ] 5. To this I reply , first , that it is in the Reviewer a manifest diversion , a course which is sure to render all debates infinitet In my answer to his Preface of Animadversions on Iguntius's Epistles , &c. I inserted , ex abundanti , one , and onely one Digression , A Defence of the learned H. Grotius . And streightwayes the whole stream of the Controversie is diverted into that one narrow chanel , removed from the question of Episcopacy , to the inquiry into Grotius's his opinions ; and that is one compitent diversion . After this , when both in that my Digression , and also in my second Defence , I had confined my plea to Grotius himself , and those writings published by him in his life time , and known to be written , and perfected by him , expresly rejecting this book of posthumous Annotations on the Epistles , the Reviewer is now pleased principally to insist , and found his charge against Grotius , on those his posthumous Annotations ; which is a perfect diversion again , instead of a reply , and to the waving evidently , because changing of the whole question . 6. Secondly , as uneffectual at this plea it , it is yet much more unreasonable , if circumstances be considered , being evidently prevented , and superseded by that which hath past in this debate . For if there were any truth in those words of his Epistle to the Oxford Heads , [ My Defensative as to my dealing with Grotious's Annotations is suited to what the Doctor pliads in his behalf ] then certainly he must be concern'd in this , which yet he resolves to be none of his concernments ; For it is sure that my plea was framed in Defence of Grotius himself , ( not of those incomplete if not false images of him , those parts of the Annotations , which I professed to reject , and not to plead for . ) Accordingly my words in the first proposal of this matter to debate , were these , [ This very pious , learned , and judicious man hath of late among many fallen under a very unhappy Fate , being most unjustly calumniated sometimes as a Socinian , sometimes as a Papist — ] And then how can this Defensative be , according to his promise , conformed or suited to my plea , if it refer not to the same subject , viz. to Grotius , or those Books of his , which are acknowledged to be his completed , genuine writings ? such alone being competent testifications of his sense , and so measures to judge of his perswasions , whether he were a Socinian or no . 7. A second part of his plea is by reflecting again on that evidence , which , saith he , he had formerly offered from the Printers Preface to the volume of Annotations on the Epistles . ] But here , in the very entrance , is a mistake , which , for the clearing of my self , more then on apprehension of any advantage the Reviewer can gain by it , I must first take notice of . The Evidence was by him b cited from some words of the Preface to the last part of the Annotations , beginning thus , Jam vero sciendum est — To those words there found , I gave answer in my second Defence , p. 7. and he now tels me that a slight in spection will serve to manifest how ill it , i. e. my answer or the sense I gave of the words produced ) agrees with the intention and words of the Prefacer , who , saith he , tells us , that Grotius had himself published his Annotations on the Gospel five years before , and so proceeds , reciting the words of the Prefacer for eight lines together ; and concluding , that if the Apologist read this Preface , he ought to have desisted from the plea insisted on ; If he did not , he thought assuredly he had much reason to despise them with whom he had to do . ] Who would not think there were somewhat herein really mistaken by me , which called for this so solemn rebuke ? But the Reader is intreated to consult the place , or if it be not worth his pains , he may believe me , who made the inspection more then slightly , and can assure him , that there is no part of what he thus now recites , to be met with in that Preface , whence he hath formerly drawn his testimony . I say in that Preface to the last part of the Annotations under Gretius's name , from whence it was , that the words [ Jam viro sciendum — ] were ( truly ) cited , and to which Words it was visible , that I gave that answer , which he now pretends to refute from the intention and words of the Prefacer . 9. The short is , There being two volumes of Annotations set out since Grotius's death ; the former on the Acts , and so on through the Epistles of Saint Paul and Saint James , the later on the other six Catholick Epistles and the Revelation , and before the former of these the Printers Epistle , inscribed , Typographus Lectori , before the latter a Praemonitio ad Lectorem : From the latter of these it is that the words formerly by him produced , Jam verò scieudum — and to which ( consequently ) I gave answer , were cited . And I that obediently and diligently read over that to which I was directed , and there finding the words which were cited , gave my answer to them , such as I thought the words capable of , am now unexpectedly rebuked for not reading it , and more then so for despising those with whom I had to do ; when indeed what is now in the Reply cited from it , is not to be found there , but in the Printers Epistle to another volume . By what means he fell into this mistake , and was by that led into this causeless severity , I leave him upon recollection to consider . 10. I need add no more for the vindicating my self in this matter , yet if I shall now ( having till now no occasion ) attend to this other testimony , now newly alledged by him out of that other Preface , it will soon appear that it neither ( as is pretended ) disproves the answer , which I gave to the words formerly cited from the premonition , nor refutes what I had first said concerning the Posthumous Annotations , and then surely I shall not be much concern'd in it : Not the first ; for my Answer being no more but this , that Opus Integrum signified not that volume completed , and so made integrum intire by Grotius's own hand , but the whole volume or volumes which contained all his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Adversaria on the New Testament . ] This is no way refuted , but rather confirmed by these other words of the Typographus Lectori , for there also Opus integrum signifies the whole volume or volumes , as that is opposed to the Magna pars voluminis in the line before , without any respect to its being completed or made intire ; Which alone having been denied by me , my answer is still secured from any force of this Testimony . 11. Not the second ; For if I shall now grant the Printer to have in that Preface delivered the whole and naked truth , ( which I had no obligation to be confident of ) and consequently that Grotius committed to a Friend those Annotations , in order to Printing , yet this no way proves that they were completed and perfected by him ; There is a middle , truly supposable , betwixt these two , viz. that they were by occcasion of the Authors unexpected diversions , delivered to him imperfect . This Remainder of Annotations now by the Reader expected to follow those on the Gospels , and on the Old Testament , and the learned Compiler being now at some leisure to set about it , was suddenly called back from Paris to Sweden , a long voyage , not certain whether ever he should return again ( as indeed he did not ) or whether God would spare him life and vacancy to perfect that work : Having therefore communicated his notes to a learned man ( one by the way , much more addicted to the doctrine of Calvin then Socinus ) going now thence , he left them in his hand , and committed the publishing of them to his care , taking onely with him those sheets which were not legible , which he hastily transcribed in his journey , and , as the Printer tells us , returned them from Hamburge , and these , as by his words appears , belonging to the last volume , that on the Revelation , which therefore had truly thus much of his last hand , as this hasty transcribing comes to ; so hasty that M. who was prepared to write them again for the presse , did almost despair of decyphering them . The rest , those on the Epistles remained in the first rude draught , and are not pretended to have been ( so much as hastily ) transcribed by him , and so never obtained that perfecter growth , that fulness of limbs and lineaments , which I did and do suppose his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , and greater leisure would have afforded them . Which therefore cannot with any justice be balanced against the contrary evidences and plain words either of his Discussio ( the last thing , as I said , written before his death ) or of his later , dated after his reading of Crellius's and the Socinians interpretations ( to which his supposed change is imputed ) and avowing his continued adherence to his former doctrine , much less of the several passages producible out of his undoubted writings , maturely composed , and publisht by him , which positively and professedly set down his sense , and cannot be prejudiced by such uncertain , feeble suggestions as these , drawn from his supposed misunderstanding of some few pages in the Epistles . And let this serve for a second stage in my proposed method . 12. Thirdly , That adhering to my former method , and , upon the grounds premised , abstracting from or setting aside ( as 't is visible I have done from the first rise of this debate ) these posthumous Annotations , upon account of some heterodox mixtures in them discernible , especially in the matter of our justification , and the satisfaction of Christ , and some other particulars , elsewhere noted , and confining our discourse ( more reasonably ) to those Annotations , which he perfected and published in his life time , i. e. to those on the Gospels and on the Old Testament , taking in also all his other writings whatsoever ; There cannot be any ground of suspicion concerning his change , nor want of instances ( which the Reviewer now requires ) to disprove his Vniversal Negative , and to invalidate the charge brought against that learned man , of his wresting to another sense every text of Scripture , wherein testimony is given to that sacred truth , or at least concealing and obscuring the doctrine of them . ] 13. I shall therefore , being now admonished of Quintilians rule of aut negandum aut defendendum , do my duty in observing it , and formally deny his position , of every text , &c. and for contrary instances , begin with Matth. 20. 28. where the son of man is said to give his life a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , or ransome for many . Here , saith Grotius , Puto respici vaticinium , Isa. 53. 10. ubi dicitur , si Christus vitam suam dedisset {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , quod hic rectè {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} vertitur , fore , ut sui cognitione multos justificaret , & postea , ipse peccata multorum tulit . Here first , the parallel is set by Grotius betwixt the Evangelist and the Prophet Isaiah , and to that 53 of that Prophecy is brought this sense , of Christ's giving his life a ransome for many , i. e. of his satisfaction , and yet farther explained by that other phrase of the Prophet there used , his bearing the sins of many , and the like , Heb. 9. 28. his being offer'd to bear the sins of many . 14. Secondly , The {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or ransome here is interpreted by the Hebrew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or sacrifice for sin there , and after more fully , by sacrificium piaculare , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , an expiatorie , propitiatorie sacrifice for sin , victima lustralis — and the giving his life a ransome , the offering it up such a sacrifice for many , and this as the ground or condition of his justifying many by the knowledge of him , which what is it but the founding of our justification in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's death , i. e. in the satisfaction wrought by it for us ? 15. So Mat. 26. 28. Where Christs bloud of the New Testament is said to be shed for many for the remission of sins . Here , saith he , Puto Danielis oraculum respici , in quo de Messiâ dictum est , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , cum praecessisset {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ad expianda peccata . Adde quae Rom. 5. 15. ( it should be 10. ) sic & in Barnabae quae dicitur Epistola , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Adding , Simul autem transit Christus à comparatione foederum ad comparationem sacrificiorum piacularium , in quibus anima pecudis offerebatur , velut succedanea anima hominis qui mortem meruisses , unde victima ferre peccata dicebatur in lege . Hinc mo●i victima pro homine — Here again , i. e. the words of Daniel of making reconciliation for iniquity , and confirming the covenant with many , c. 9. 24. 27. are set as a Prophecy parallel to this Evangelical truth of Christs bloud of the New Testament being shed for the expiating of our sins . So likewise Rom. 5. 10. of our being reconciled to God , when we were enemies , by the death of his Son . And all these three illustrated by the plain words of Barnabas's Epistle , that Christ offered up himself the vessel of the Spirit , a sacrifice for our sins . 2. It is here affirmed of his bloud , that it was an expiatory sacrifice , such as wherein one is offered up in stead of the other which had deserved death , and is accordingly said to bear the sin of the other . And then what could be more expresse to the doctrine of satisfaction , then these three places of Prophet , Evangelist , and Apostle , thus interpreted , which being added to the former , and now laid before the Reviewer ( willing to have perswaded the Reader these were none such , because I formerly thought it needless to produce them ) will sure now passe for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , instances as competent as any Quintilian would exact , to disprove the Vniversal proposition of the [ not one text in the whole Scripture — which is not wrested to another sense , or at least the doctrine concealed and obscured by these Annotations . ] 16. But here on this ocasion the place in his Annotations on Isa. 53. is by the Reviewer resumed , as hopeful to yield some colour to infer his charge ; Where , saith he , he gives such an exposition of the whole Chapter , as is manifestly and universally inconsistent with any such design on the words , as that which he intends to prove from them in his Book De satisfact and in particular tels you in his Annotations on the place , as also on 1 Pet. 2. 24. that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies auferre , which with all his strength he had there contended against . 17. To this I answer , 1. ( as to his exposition of the whole chapter ) that I have already told him , that Grotius endeavoured to find a first sense of the words of that Prophecy , so as to belong peculiarly to the Jews usage of the Prophet Jeremy , and that I acknowledge not to be appliable alwayes to their usage of Christ . But beside this , saith he , there is a more principal and sublime sense , and that oft the more literal of the two , wherein the whole chapter belongs to Christ , but this sense being more vulgarly markt by others , is onely in general , once for all , pointed at by him , in those short Annotations , being also more fully explicated elsewhere , in a set discourse on that subject . 18. This answer being formerly given by me , the Reviewer is now pleased to mistake , and to change it into a distinction betwixt the literal and mystical sense of a place , and then to undertake that his perverting the first literal sense of the chapter , or giving it a completion in any person but Christ , is no lesse then blasphemy . But to this I reply , that my words are misreported by the disputant , and agreeably my sense also . For I distinguisht not betwixt the literal and mystical sense of the place ( or if I had , I must much have wronged Grotius , who resolved the words to belong oft more literally or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to Christ , than to any other ) but betwixt the first and literal interpretation , which had its immediate completion among the Jews , near that time , wherein it written , and the more remote , concerning Christ : that indeed mystical , because veiled under the first , but literal also , because that to which the very words belonged as properly , oft more properly , than to the other ; As when the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or plain word without any figure belongs to Christ , and onely the figurative interpretation of it , the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to Jeremy . Of these two senses Grotius makes frequent mention in his interpretations . See the note on Zach. 9. 9. Behold thy King shall come , which , saith he , primo & maxime obvio sensu , in the first and most obvious sense belongs to Zorobabel , but sublimiore quodam sensu , in a more sublime sense to the Messias ; And many the like . 19. If thus the Reviewer had understood my words ( which I then thought plain enough , till I saw them misapprehended ) I am in charity to think he would not have deemed it little lesse then blasphemy , thus to interpret words of some other in a first , but that lesse principal sense , which belong to the Son of God in the more principal and sublime sense , more remote in time of completion , but not in respect of the propriety of the words . 20. This the instance did evince , which I gave from the words , [ out of Egypt have I called my Son ] which evidently had a first sense in the Israelites , a second , equally literal in Christ , and so 't is applied in the New Testament ; and many more might be brought of affinity with it , if there were need of them . 21. It will be more to the purpose of vindicating Grotius's intention , and clearing the whole matter , that I give the Reader one signall passage from him , by which his sense must in all reason be judged , being by him premised before his interpretation of the latter part of this Prophecy , from chap. 40. which he generally interprets in a first sense , of matters that belonged to the Jews from the time of their deportation , to the Maccabees , &c. but acknowledges to contain also , and that more simply and more clearly the matters of Christ . 22. The words are in the prooeme to Isa. 40. Cum autem omnia Dei beneficia umbram in se contintant corum quae Christus prastitit , tum praecipuè ista omnia quae deincept ab Isaiâ praenuntiabantur , verbis saepissime à Deo sic directis , ut simplicius limpidiusque in res Christi , quam in illas quas primò significare Esaias voluit , convenirent . Whereas all Gods blessings have in them a shadow of those things which Christ performed , this is especially applicable to all those things which in the ensuing chapters ( this of chap. 53. must needs be comprehended in that style ) are foretold by Isaiah ; the words most often being so directed by God , that they agree more simply and clearly to the matters of Christ , than to those which Isaias would first signifie by them . 23. Here is the ground of what I said of the first sense of these prophecies , viz. that which Isaias first meant to signifie by them , supposing that there was somewhat else , belonging to Christ , which in a second sense or later completion he signified also , and the words so directed by God the wise disposer , that they most simply and clearly , i. e. without figures ( which are usual in prophecies ) belonged to him . This being by him said once for all , of all those prophecies that follow , doth by perfect equivalence , ( a collective being as full and ●fficacious as a distributive ) conclude of every particular , and consequently of this fifty third before us ( of which he again gives the same account as hath been said , particularly , when he comes unto it ) and of every verse in it , that it most clearly & literally belongs to Christ , though in Jeremy he supposed it had another interpretation . And so this , I now hope , will be deemed satisfactory , as to the general , to vindicate his exposition of the whole chapter , and the having mention'd it may be in some degree necessary to the preserving of them from misprisions who read not those notes intirely , that they may comprehend the sense of the whole prophecies , ( which is the proper'st use of them ) but cast their eyes upon some particular texts , to satisfie their present wants , or curiosities . 24. But then secondly , for the particular verse 11. I answer , 1. that in the Annotation on 1 Pet : 2. 24. I cannot be concern'd , having oft resolved that , as the rest on the Epistles , to be unsufficient to give us his sense . As for that on Isaiah , if it were true , that he had there interpreted {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} auferet , 1. this could not have been justly charged upon him , as a Socinian interpretation , Tertullian having given him authority for it , as he cites it , on Mat. 8. 17. and indeed that Evangelist too having there applied that prophecy to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the bearing their bodily diseases , which sure was so to be understood , as should denote his curing , ( i. e. his auferet , taking them away ) and not his bearing them in their stead , taking upon him all the diseases which he cured in any . But then 2. 't is clear , that he doth not so interpret it [ auferre to take away ] as to exclude , but expresly to include the ferre , or bearing also ; Auferet , saith he , as applied to Jeremy , by a metonymie , but that founded in the other of bearing , as the literal , quia qui sordes auferunt , solent ●as collo supposito portare ; so that the literal of bearing , or carrying our iniquities , is ( by the former observation ) left to be completed in Christ , who did both bear and take away the sins of the world , and nothing by Grotius is here affirmed , or interpreted to the contrary of that . And so much for the other part of the Objection , and so for the third part of my method . 25. Fourthly , when I had proposed to consideration two things for the preventing all jealousie of any after change in Grotius , and the Reviewer had taken notice of one of them , under the style of my first observation , and offered some semblance of answer to it , pag. 6. before he comes to the second , he cannot , as he saith , but suppose , that he is already absolved from a necessity of farther procedure — ] by that means freeing himself from giving any heed to that argument which I had laid greatest weight on , as that which of all others was most considerable in this business , viz. Grotius's own words ( who certainly knew his own heart , better then any accuser , or diviner can be supposed to do , and ought to be believed , rather then any contrary surmises concerning him ) expresly testifying his constancy in adhering still ( now after the time of his supposed change ) to what he had delivered in his Book De satisfactione . Herein I shall leave the Reader to pass the judgment , whence that absolution was derived to the Reviewer , by which he could not but suppose himself freed from any necessity of considering this evidence , when yet he was at leisure ( by way of commutation ) to heap up contrary appearances from the Annotations on the Epistles , which I profest not to allow to be his , and therefore could not be concern'd in the producing of them . 26. Here onely I had exprest my opinion that the Notes on the Apocalypse , had ( as I still think I have been informed , and have already premised some proof of it ) received from his own pencil the very lineaments , and colours , wherein they appear ; And therefore when he pitches on one Annotation on that Book Rev. 1. 5. Christ's washing us from our sins in his bloud , where he thinks the satisfaction of Christ concealed , and the Socinian interpretation taken up by Grotius , contrary to his manner of explicating and applying it in his Book De satisfactione ; This will require to be a while considered by me . 27. The words of Grotius he hath rightly set down , but I suppose not sufficiently considered the latter part of them , which runs thus , Dicitur Christus suo sanguine nos lavisse , quia & ipse omnia praestitit , quae ad id requirebantur ; Christ is said to have washt us with his bloud , because he performed all things which were required to it , i. e. to the washing of the soule . Which words are certainly of competent largenesse to contain ( and so exclude not ) the doctrine of satisfaction , that being of the number of those things , which in Gods counsel , were appointed , and so required to the washing of our souls ; This being considered , it will be no prejudice to that learned man , that in the former words he took in Socinus's interpretation of [ morte suâ certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat , quae talia sunt , ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos — ] For of that there is no question , but that Christ by his death did give us assurance of the truth of his doctrine , and that this assurance is very apt to purge us from our evil and vitious courses . In respect of which purgation Saint Paul himself saith , Tit. 2. 4. that Christ gave himself ( that is surely even to dye ) for us , that he might redeem us from all in quity ( the power as well as guilt of it ) and purifie unto himself a peculiar people , zealous of good works . And Gal. 1. 4. he gave himself for our sins ( and thereby , I suppose , made a satisfaction for us ) that he might deliver us from this present evil world , from the vices and abominations thereof . And Eph. 5. 25. Christ gave himself for the Church , that he might sanctifie and cleanse it , that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church ; not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing . From whence I conclude that the Socinians errour consists not herein , that they affirm this , but that they say this is all that Christ did by his death , and so exclude his satisfaction ; which can by no means be affirmed of Grotius , who , as he wrote a Book in defence of it , so in this very place ascribes to Christ the performing omnia all things , indefinitely , which were required to the washing of our souls , from which number his expiatory sacrifice was never excluded by Grotius ? 28. And then it may be fit to be remembred , that as the denying the satisfaction of Christ is one great errour justly charged on the Socinians , so the confining the effects of the death of Christ , to that one head of satisfaction , is an errour also , very carefully to be averted by him , that desires to reap benefit by Christs death . 29. After his view of this place he is pleased ( to prevent the Readers farther trouble ) to refer him to Grotius's Annotation on one place more of the Revelation , chap. 13. 9. and I have observed his directions , and can assure him , there is not there one word to this matter . Onely that Arethas rightly applies the phrase [ from the foundation of the world ] to the word [ book ] not to the word [ slain ] evincing it from the parallel place , chap. 17. 8. where so it is joyned [ Whose names are written in the book of life from the foundation of the world ] the book of life , in one place , and the book of life of the lamb slain , or the slain lambs book of life , in the other , being perfectly aequipollent . 30. The remainder of the Catalogue of Texts , that is added , is all again out of the Epistles , and so hath already more then once been accounted for , by denying the Annotations on them to have been perfected by Grotius . And this is all that need to be considered , in reference to the first branch of the suggestion , that concerning the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ . 31. On the second Socinian head of doctrine , that concerning the Deity of Christ , whereon the Disputer had affirmed [ that of all the texts of the Old and New Testament , whereby the Deity of Christ is usually confirmed , — Grotius hath not left any more then one , if one , speaking any thing clearly to this purpose . ] I thought I had given some matter of conviction , by referring to that learned man's . Annotations on John 1. when both that one signal text is left by him speaking clearly to this purpose , and many other places of Scripture are mentioned , and interpreted , and applied to the same sense , as parallel , and answerable to that . To this he replies , that this of John 1. was the one place by him expresly excepted , and therefore this instance would not evade the charge . And for the other places , Prov. 8 , &c. he is pleased to suppose , that on the view of my defence men must needs suppose that in the Annotations on the places repeted ; Grotius must give their sense , as bearing witness to the Deity of Christ ; Hereupon he will turn to the several places , and give the Reader an account of them . ] 32. But before he proceed to that , and to save the pains of many of them , it may be soon considered , that what Grotius doth in the Notes on John 1. is as truly his act , as any thing that is done by him in any other place , much more so , than what is publisht under his name , in the Annotations on the Epistles , and consequently that as many places as he hath there affirmed to be parallel to John 1. 1. so many places he hath left speaking clearly to this purpose . Grotius had not at that time publisht any other Notes on any part of the Bible , but those onely on the Gospels . On the rest of the New Testament he never lived to publish any , yet here on John 1. hath affirmed the words of Saint Paul , Col. 1. 16. [ all things were created by Christ — ] to be agreeable to the words of Saint John , that without him was nothing made that was made . Is it not now as visible , that he hath left that place of Col. 1. 16. speaking clearly to the Deity and creative power of Christ , by which all things were at first made , as if he had lived to set out Annotations purposely on that place , and had therein so interpreted it ? This certainly is so clear , that I cannot yet doubt ( what ever the Reviewers sarcasme would suggest ) of being a successful advocate in this matter . 33. The same is again as clear of 2 Pet. 3. 5. and of the two places brought by him , in concent with it , from the Chaldee Paraphrast on Isai. 45. 12. & 48. 13. to testifie that by this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , i. e. by the word of the Lord , Christ , the whole world was founded ; which again ( though he never should mention them again in all his writings ) are yet solemnly left by him , to testifie clearly to the Deity of Christ ; And so more than that one of John 1. 34. But the place more largely recited by Grotius to this purpose , is that of Prov. 8. from verse 23. A seculo habui principatum , I was set up from everlasting , to verse 27. when he prepared the heavens I was there ; And this the Reviewer thinks fit to examine , by repairing to his Annotations on the Old Testament , and there 1. he finds his first note on the Wisdome there spoken of to be [ Haec de eâ sapientiâ quae in lege apparet exponunt Hebraei , & sane ei , si non soli , at praecipuè haec attributa conveniunt ] and this he thinks a very advantageous discovery , for if they agree solely or principally to the wisdome that shines in the Law , how can they be the attributes of the person of the Son of God ? 35. But I answer , that note of his is on the first verse of that chapter , far enough from verse 23. where the citation in his Note on John 1. begins . And why might not many parts of the character of wisdome be by the Jews duly applied to the Law ( as will appear if you read the former part of the chapter for above twenty verses together ) and yet the latter and sublimer part of its character be competible onely to Christ , the eternal wisdome of the Father ? And why should not Grotius's [ haec ] on verse 1. rather belong to those former 20 verses , than to the 23 &c. which he there ( as in the Notes on the Gospels ) expresly interprets so , as that verse 27. and 30. be all one with John 1. 1. and so Prov. 9. 1. Wisdome built her an house , i. e. saith he , corpus humanum , a mans body , which is not applicable to any thing , but Christ in his incarnation . And so I hope this artifice hath stood the Reviewer in little stead . 36. But then , saith he , On verse 22. Grotius affirmes of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that it is rendred not amiss by the Chaldee {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and by the Septuagint {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arrians , and expleded by the ancient Doctors of the Church . ] 37. To this I answer , That Grotius's words , [ sensu non malo si creare sumas pro facere ut appareat ] signifie not , that that rendring is not amisse , for he had formerly exprest his opinion of that , that Aquila and Symmachus and Theodesian their rendring it by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , was well agreeing or answerable to the Hebrew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but that the other which was not the right rendring , might yet bear a tolerable , or not ill sense , if it were interpreted to signifie no more than that which he there names , viz. [ making to appear ] a sense which the Fathers never exploded , nor was fit to be pretended by the Arrians , or favoured by any in kindness to them . 38. This therefore was but a weak foundation of that confidence , with which the Reviewer concludes , that of the Son of God , the essential wisdome of God , subsisting with the Father , we have not one word ] especially when he had himself confest that [ on verse 27. he addes , aderam , i. e. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} John 1. 1. ] for certainly if those words of wisdome , when he prepared the heavens I was there , and the same again verse 30. ( to which also he refers the Reader , though the Reviewer pleased not to see it ) When he appointed the foundations of the earth , then was I by him ] be all one with [ the word was with God ] John 1. 1. there is then some word of the Son of God , the essential wisdome , in those Notes , and perfectly as much as is proportionable to the manner of those very short Annotations on the Old Testament . 39. To which may be added , that by interpreting the phrase [ his wayes . ] verse 22. by operationes Dei , the operations of God , the sense of that verse ( which the Reviswer thinks perverted or obscured ) must in his rendring run thus , In the beginning of his operations God possessed this eternal wisdome , the Son of God , which will be still to the same sense ; And then the Note on chap. 9. 1. sets down the incarnation of this eternal word , or wisdome ; And what could have been more punctual against the Socinian interest , than all this , being thus briefly amassed together , if the Reviewer would have but the patience to discern it ? 40. What he adds by way of wonderment , that I should add the places of Isa. 45. 12. and 48. 13. to the number of texts interpreted by Grotius to this matter of the Deity , is soon satisfied , by remembring ( what was visible enough before ) that the Chaldee Paraphrast in those and many other places rendring the word [ God ] by [ God and his word ] is fitly brought by Grotius , as a witness , that the world was created by the word of God , as that is God , and that that is the sense of those places . Which if it be , then are those texts of Scripture left by Grotius , to testifie to this truth of the Deity of the word of God , i. e. of Christ . 41. Now for the principal place that of John 1. 1. the Reviewer hath exprest his dislikes also to that , and mention'd some grounds thereof , 1. that Grotius is very careful of ascribing an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ] But if by this phrase he would signifie him unwilling to ascribe an hypostasis to the word , this is misrepresented by him ; for 't is evident , Grotius expresses no dislike to that style , all that he saith that way , is , vecem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} — non à primis Christianis usurpatam , cùm contra {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} dixerit Athanasius , Synodi Nicaena , Sardicensis , & Romanae aliquot , that that word , and some others was not used by the first Christians , that Athanasius , and the Nicene , Sardicene , and some Roman Councels affirmed , that there was one hypostasis . And all these , I hope , are so contrary to the Arrian , that if Grotius should chuse to speak with them , he could with no justice be accused of that heresie , or obscuring the Deity of Christ by so speaking . 42. And yet it is farther clear , that from Origen & others after him , he cites the distinction of hypostases , and what could he have done more to obtain the Reviewers favour , then to cite it from them , that used , and not pretend it from them , that used it not ? 43. That he hath interweaved many Platonick interpretations of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is also in the second place suggested , and at once , that he hath darkened the whole counsel of God in that place . ] But I hope there is no heresie in letting the Christian Reader know , how much Platonists and hethen Philosophers have by groping discoverd of divine truths , and to me it is not imaginable , that when the Christian doctrine is once declared , such additions as these should by being subjoyned ex abundanti , obscure what was once made clear , and so darken the whole counsel of God . 44. Thirdly , It may not be amisse , saith he , to observe , that not onely the Arians , but Photinus himself acknowledged that the world was made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ] And to this I answer , that what is wide of the mark , to which it is directed , no way sufficient to infer the desired conclusion , is ( in the managing of a controversie ) amiss to be observed ; And such will this observation appear to be ; For the matter of the question being a charge against Grotius , of Socinian doctrine , what can be concluded ( to that ) from the bare mention of the Arians , and Photinus his acknowledgments , unless first it be proved , that Grotius was an Arian , or Photinian , and secondly that all Arians and Photinians are Socinians ? Either of which , as they have not the least appearance of truth in them , so are they not so much as attempted here to be proved by the author of this observation . On the contrary , there are these five shrewd prejudices against it . 1. That what the Arians say in this matter , Photinus doth not say , and so they were not fit to be put together . 2. That what the Arians say , Grotius doth not say . 3. That what the Photinians say , neither the Arians , nor Grotius do say . 4 : That the Socinians do in this differ much both from Arians and Photinians ; and yet 5. That Grotius differs as much ( or more ) from the Socinians herein , as he doth from either of the other two . 45. All this will appear by viewing severally the Arians , and Photinians , and Socinians doctrine in this point , and the distance of Grotius's interpretation from each of these . For the first , Arius did indeed acknowledge in his d Epistle , that God did by his onely Son make {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the worlds and the rest , and in the words of the text , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , that all things were made by him , and without him was nothing made that was made . But sure this was no part of his heresie , ( if it were , the Scripture as well as Grotius , must be involved in it , who affirmed it equally ) but that he first affirmed Christ to be himself a creature , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , saith he , he by whom God created the world was a perfect creature of Gods , though created {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , before all ages ; and again saith Epiphanius , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , though they call him a creature , yet they confess him above all his creatures . So again speaking of the Holy Ghost , they will have him to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the creature of a creature , where still that is Arius his heresie , in this matter , that he made Christ a creature , and to that applied the Septuagints rendring of the place Prov. 8. of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , God created me , and consequently would not allow him to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , of the same substance , or equal with the Father . And when Grotius saith any thing in favour of this doctrine , of Christ's being a creature , or denies his equality with the Father , then he must pass for an Arian ; ( Of which he hath not yet had the luck to be accused , that I know of ; ) But 't is certain he hath not done so , nay on the other side , 't is competently evident , if but by the notion which he applies to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in his Annotations on Prov. 8. ( to rescue that rendring from an evil sense ) that he utterly rejects that notion wherein the Arian took it , viz. for creating , and so that he is herein profestly free from that heresie . 46. As for Photinus in the second place , 't is certain his heresie , like that of Paulus Samosatenus , consisted in denying that Christ had a being , or subsistence from the beginning , or before the Holy Ghost's coming upon Mary , so saith b Epiphanius , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} — Now though this heretick was content to acknowledge that the Father made the world {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , by the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which was in him , yet that it was not Christ which he understood by that style , is most clear , both by his denying Christ to have had then any subsistence , and 2. by the similitude , by which he exprest himself , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , as a man by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} doth what he will ( by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} meaning a kind of Idea in the agents mind , by , or according to which he doth any thing ) so by his own {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , or by the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is in him the Father hath made all things ; but especially by Epiphanius's way of confuting him , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} — The {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in man , whether the word of the mind within , or the word spoken cannot be called man , but the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of man , whereas the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Saint John is said to be God . And so as Photinus saying [ all things were made by the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , which was in God ] said quite another thing from what Arius had said ( and therefore this Reviewers observation was in that respect guilty of that fallacy , which Aristotle calls plurium interrogationum ) so is it most certain , that Grotius's interpretation of the Evangelist , it no way consonant to Photinus ( any more then to Arius ) his notion . For when to those words of the Evangelist [ In the beginning was the word ] his note is , Jam ium erat , sic mos est Hebraeis aternitatem populariter describere ] which defines the eternity of his being , he brings for explication of that forme of speech , the words of Justine , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , he was subsistent before the worlds . So again on those words [ the word was with God ] he saith this was in opposition to his being seen in the world in his incarnation , vult enim dicere , antè eum fuisse inconspicuum , he would express that before his incarnation , he was invisible ; adding for proof , Dicitur enim Deus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , 1 Tim. 1. 17. for God is said to be invisible , and to inhabit the light which none approcheth ; by all which it is clear , that by [ the word ] he understands invisible God himself , being or subsisting eternally with the Father , which is in every part contrary to Photinus's doctrine , as hath been shewed . 47. Thirdly , for the Socinians their interpretation is known to differ toto coelo in this particular both from Arius , and Photinus , being after this manner , that c In the beginning of the spiritual world , or the Gospel , the word , that Son of God , which was born of Mary in Augustus's reign , so called in respect of his office , which was to make known Gods word to men , was with God , i. e. before John's preaching , was , as the word , or in respect of this office , known to none but to God : That this word is God , i. e. that Christ was so called ( as Angels and Princes are ) in respect of the great benefits which we receive from him , and the dignity to which he is by God advanced , ( distinctly denying that he is the supreme God , the author of all things , or creator of the world ) that all things were created by him , i. e. all the new spiritual and divine things , which are under the Gospel done in the world , and so on in concerdance with this Foundation . From every part of which Grotius's explications of that text are most remote , as hath already appeared , and have not the least infusion of this leven discernable in them , as will be evident to any , who shall but cast an eye on his Notes on that place . Of the Notes on the Epistles which came out since his death , this cannot be said , for there many of these , or the like Socinian interpretations are crept in , some words of the Epistles expounded in a sense expresly contrary to what he hath here incidentally said of the same words . This I have pointed at in one eminent instance , the place to the Colossians , chap. 1. 16. of the worlds being made by Christ , and thereon founded my resolution , that they were none of his , not consequently did I ever permit my plea for him , to be extended to the justifying of them . Thus much may suffice for the supernumerary observation , which being sure , meant to insinuate somewhat , it now appears with what justice it was produced by him . By the way I suppose my account also given , why the interpretations of John 1. and Prov. 8. of the world being made by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the word of God , were by me formerly produced , as irrefragable evidences , that this learned man inclined not to the Socinians in this matter of the Deity of Christ . The Reviewer may now judge what reason I had for it . 48. Lastly , there being a threefold {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , 't is suggested that nothing but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was by Grotius intended in those Annotations on John 1. 1. but withall 't is confest , that much from some quotations there used may be said against it . ] And if there may , and if those quotations be so clear , as those out of Justine Martyr , and Athenagoras , of Christ's presubsisting before the worlds , of his being God before the worlds , that from the beginning God being an eternal mind , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , had the word in himself eternally , and if the negative [ nothing but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ] be not reconcileable with any one mention of any thing else , such as Christ's being God , and with God from all eternity ; upon these grounds , I say I shall confess it the prudentest course , which the Reviewer here hath taken , viz. to defer the undertaking of this task , and to add no more , than the unproved suggestion , till space of greater leisure . 49. In reproching of me for a triumphant close , he is now pleased to give an Essay of his own humility , in heaping these severals into one period , 1. That he said not Grotius was a Socinian . 2. That in his Annotations on the six verses in the Proverbs , two in Isaiah , one in Saint Peter , one in Saint Paul , added to many in the beginning of Saint John , Grotius speaks not one word to the purpose . 3. That he doth not interpret Christ's eternal subsistence with God , so as to a personal subsistence . 50. To these three I briefly answer . To the first , That the onely thing that in my first Digression ( or second Defence of Grotius ) I undertook in behalf of that learned man , being the injustice of the charge , of his being sometimes a Socinian , sometimes a Papist , sometimes both ; This is by the Reviewer in his Epistle to the Oxford Heads undertaken to be refuted , which can never be done , unless he both say and prove , that Grotius was a Socinian . To the second , That , as hath now appeared , Grotius hath spoken to the purpose of the Deity of Christ , on the eighth of the Proverbs ( as of his incarnation on the ninth ) as well as on John 1. And for the other places , as it is sufficient that he hath recited them to that purpose on John 1. so the account is clear why he is not found to do it elswhere . On Isaiah keeping himself to the literal Hebrew , he had no occasion in those concise notes , to take notice of that , which onely the Chaldee there had said . The other two are in the Epistles , on which the Annotations , which are published under his name , are by me deemed imperfect , and not to carry his full sense with them . To the third as before , That he cites out of Origen , and others after him , the use of the word hypostases , and the distinction of them . Onely he saith the word was not used à primis Christianis , by the first Christians , any more then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. And so it is certain it was not . 51. In the next place , I am reproved that I neither make inquiry into his Treatise , for the places in the Old Testament , wherein the Deity of Christ is testified to , and are corrupted by that learned man , nor yet will look into Grotius's Annotations on those texts , which I remember at all times to be pleaded to that purpose . To this I answer , 1. That I never undertook the vindicaton of all Grotius's Annotations , nor ever said any thing , which should ingage me in such a long task as this . 2. The discouragements , which I mentioned to have already received from making inquiry into this Reviewers former Treatise , were taken from what had appeared from Grotius on John 1 : compared with , and found evidently to supersede this Authors suggestions of [ but one , if one place , in all the Bible , left by Grotius clearly testifying this truth ] For when , beside that of John 1. I found there so many more , put together , particularly Prov. 8. verse 23. — largely set down , and in the Annotations on the Proverbs , found the same sense adhered to , and a reference back again to John 1. where he had spoken so largely on this matter , what need was there of farther inquiry for that , which had thus readily offered it self ? 52. Now to my two suppletory considerations , he hath his replies also ; To the first , by confessing , what I desire , that one express text of Scripture , is sufficient for the confirmation of a divine truth ] but then , denying that five places have been by me produced out of the Annotations of Grotius for the confirmation of the truth pleaded about . ] 53. To this I answer , 1. that if any one be sufficient to confirm this divine truth , then Grotius hath been demonstrated sufficiently to have confirmed it , who hath evidently brought John 1. which is one such text . Secondly , that that text , and Prov. 8. 23 — he hath certainly not depraved , nor kept back from testifying to this truth ; So likewise Col. 1. 18. and 2 Pet. 3. 5. if we may judge by his own words on John 1. and not by the posthumous Annotations , which I deem not competent measures to judge him by , and so there are four of the five . Thirdly , he hath there also applied to it the places of Isaiah , in the Chaldee reading , and these superadded to the former , are very sufficient to confirme a divine truth , and that is all I said in this matter . But then Fourthly , as the conciseness of his Notes on the Old Testament , and his desire to clear the first , and nearest sense of the Prophecies , such as pertain'd to the then approching affairs of the Jews , are a competent account of his not inlarging to the more remote and ultimate completions in Jesus Christ . So his general advertisements , more then once given ( such as hath been produced from his Preface to Isa. 40. and to Isa 53. ) are sufficient to testifie his acknowledgment of Christ's being predicted in those places of the Prophets , where his Annotations on the several verses make no particular mention of him . And so , when he gives a sense of Isa. 9. 6. which immediately belonged ( in his opinion ) to Hezekiah , and according to that , interprets every part of that verse , he yet thus prefaceth it , sic tamen ut multò excellentius haec ad Messiam pertinere non Christiani tantum agnoscant , sed & Chaldaeus hoc loco ] thus giving onely a lower notion of the words to Hezekiah , and reserving the sublimer and more excellent to Christ . So again chap. 11. 1. Redit ad Hezechiae . laudes , sub quibus sensu sublimiore latent laudes Messiae ; and many passages there are to the same purpose : As others also of referring to the Annotations on the Gospels , wherein he hath spoken so largely of this sublimer completion of ohe Prophecies , that he would not repete them in the places of the Prophets , to which they belonged . 54. In the next place he comes to the comparison betwixt Calvin's and Grotius's dealing in this matter , and makes many offers of answer , to which I am concern'd to make particular replies . 55. First , he denies Mr Calvine equally chargeable , or in any degree of proportion with Grotius . To which I answer , that whether he be , or be not truly chargeable , in any degree , I am not concern'd to examine , having not accused him , but onely made the parallel betwixt that learned man and Grotius , in this , that each of them have by some been deemed chargeable . 2. The comparison which I made , was not of the equality , or indeed of the degree of proportion , but exprest with such caution , as sufficiently prevented that reply , my words being these , that it will upon inquiry be found in some degree ; if not equally chargeable , on the learnedst and most valued of the Reformers , particularly on Mr Calvin himself , &c. Here I said , in some degree , but proceeded not to define the equality , or to consider what proportion that degree held with that wherein Grotius was chargeable , not indeed believing that either Grotius or Calvin had given any reasons for that charge , which I see lie heavy on both of them . 56. 3. The comparison of equality , which I made between these two learned men , referred onely to the bitterness and injustice of the accusations and contumelies that fell upon them , on that account , in these words , [ Calvin himself hath been as bitterly and unjustly accused and reviled on this account , as ever Erasmus was by Bellarmine or Beza , or is probably Grotius can b. ] And there will be no way to disprove my comparison in this , but by heaping far more unjust reproches on Grotius , then yet this Reviewer hath done , which if others are resolved to do , yet shall I not thereby be refutable , who , as justice and charity obliged me , affirmed it onely not probable that they would . 57. In the next place he requires me to prove of Mr Calvin that he hath in all his Commentaries on the Scripture , corrupted the sense of any text , giving expresse testimonies to the Deity of Christ , and commonly pleaded to that end and purpose , although he deny not but that he differs from the common judgment of most in the interpretation of some few prophetical passages judged by them to relate to Christ . ] 58. To this I answer , 1. That the latter part of this ( his not denying &c. ) is in effect the confessing all that I had said of Mr Calvin , which was but this , that he was by some charged of disarming the Church of her defences against adversaries , by diverting those places of Scripture which had formerly been used to assert the great mysteries , to other inferior ends ; And then I need undertake no farther tasks of supererogation , such as the proving Mr Calvin to have corrupted the sense of any text &c. which he knows I never affirmed of him . Yet remembring him that I am not now to speak my own sense , but onely to justifie the truth of my report , that Mr Calvin and some of the first Reformers have been severely accused and reviled on this account . I shall now 2. ( instead of g many ) refer the Reader to Schlussetburgius a Lutheran superintendent , in his Second Book De Calvinist . Theolog. and 6. Article ; or to Fr. Fevardentius , a Doctor of Paris , either in his Comment on Saint Paul to Philemon , or in his Excerpta out of that Lutheran . Not : in Iren : Var : Fragm : p. 508 , 509. In the latter of these he will find a Catologue of twenty passages affixt to those eminent first Reformers , especially to Mr Calvin , as 1. that the enmity betwixt the serpent and the seed of the Woman , Gen. 3. is simply to be interpreted of the hostility of Men and Serpents ; that the prophecies of the Scepters not departing from Judah till Shiloh comes , Gen. 49. expounded of Christ , gives the Jews occasion to scoff ; that the words of Balaam , Num. 24. A star shall rise out of Jacob , must not properly be expounded of Christ ; nor that of the Lord by Moses , Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet , which yet Saint Peter Acts 3. 22 , and Saint Stephen Acts 7. 37 : affirmed to belong to Christ ; that Mich. 5. 2. Out of thee Bethleem shall he come forth to me that is to be a ruler in Israel ] must not be expounded precisely and properly of the divinity of Christ . That Zach. 9. 9. Behold thy King cometh lowly — is by interpreters triflingly and in a false manner expounded of his entrance into Jerusalem , which yet Saint Matthew and Saint John have applied to it . These are a few essayes whereby to judge of many others . And the less Mr Calvin and the Reformers are guilty of these , ( as truly in many that I have had the convenience to examin , I cannot but think him guiltless ) the more evident is the parallel betwixt Grotius and them in this matter . 59. Thirdly , he affirmes that what the Papists raved against Mr Calvin , was chiefly from some expressions in the Institutions about the Trinity , ( wherein he is acquitted by the most learned of themselves ) and not from the expositions of Scripture . ] But 1. the truth of this will be judged by what was last said , for all those twenty passages are fetcht from the expositions of Calvin &c. on those so many places of Scripture . And 2. 't is certain I specified not the Book , wherein he had written what was thus chargeable , and so had not been reproveable , if they had been all out of the Institutions , those being as acknowledgedly his , as the Commentaries , and both much more then the Annotations on the Epistles are Grotius's ; and 3. if he stand by learned men acquitted of the charge , then as I said , that may make the parallel more exact betwixt him and Grotius , though I undertake not that every learned man hath been thus just to acquit him . 60. But then fourthly , for Calvino-Turcismus by me mentioned in a parenthesis , he tels me , I have forgotten the design of it , and that Calvin is no more concerned in it than others of the first Reformers , nor is it from any doctrine about the Deity of Christ in particular , but from the whole of the Reformed Religion , with the Apostacies of some , that they compare it with Turcisme , adding , that something indeed in a chapter or two they speak about the Trinity , from some expressions of Luther , Melanchthon , Calvin , and others . 61. To all this I answer , 1. that 't is visible I speak not of Mr Calvin alone , but of the learnedst and most valued of the Reformers , and of Mr Calvin onely , as one of them . 2. That although the forgetting the design of Reynolds and Giffords Book , would be far from a crime in me , had I been guilty of it , ( the subject matter of it is not so much worth remembring ) much lesse any indication that Grotius were insufficiontly vindicated ; yet when the Reviewer confesses , that in a chapter or two it speaks about the Trinity , from some expressions of Luther , Melanchthon , and Calvin , and others : this clearly evidences , that these Reformers were there thus accused in the matter of the Trinity , as now it seems Grotius is ; And 3. if Hunnius's Calvinus Judaizans , which is home to the business , be answered by Pareus , and an account of the calumny given by him ] this still renders the parallel more complete . An account of the calumny and the first author , and grounds of it against Grotius , being happily rendred by himself also in the Discussio , p. 17. 62. The Reviewer concludes this matter with a signification of his constant adhering to his proposition formerly asserted , with one limitation expressed ( of his own observation . ) But I that first gave the occasion of the debate in my Digression concerning Grotius , did never propose it with reference to that limitation , not being able to foresee , how much this Reviewer had read , or observed of Grotius's writings , nor can I yet pass judgment , whether what hath now been offered to him by another , will be yielded to come within the compass of that limitation , or no . And so I must be content to leave it at this time . 63. On the second sort of suggestion , the Reviewer hath chosen to be brief , and hath well prepared for it by expressing dislike and aversation to any such undertaking , that seemed incumbent on him , viz. to prove that Grotius was a Papist . ] But to this I reply , as before , that this task is sure incumbent on him , if , as he said , his defensative be suited to what I pleaded in his behalf . For 't is certain , that in the Digression , I had so proposed the debate , and undertaken to vindicate him from this suggestion , viz. that he was a Papist . 64. That he closed with the Roman interest , he is now willing to infer , from his observation on Rev. 12. 5. To that therefore I have turned , and there find no other premisses toward this conclusion than onely these , 1. that Dispersi ex Judaeis , instrumenta Ecclesiae Catholicae , multos de populo Romano Christo genuere , that those that were dispersed from Judaea — begat to Christ many of the people of Rome , and that these are there called partus masculinus the man-childe or masculine birth , in respect of the great constancy which appeared in the Church of Rome of those times ; then 2. that the Church of Rome hath this above other Churches , that no Church subjected more people to the word of God , so that her victories by the weapons of Christ , were not inferior to the Martial successes of Old Rome : 3. that the regiment of other Churches after the Apostles death belonged to that . Now this being clearly applied by him to the infancy or first ages of the Church , that which is first said of the constancy , is indeed much for the honour of the Primitive Roman Church , but no way for the interest of the present , which having much departed from the Primitive , cannot in any reason partake of those elogies , which he there bestows on that masculine birth , at the first appearing of it in the world . So likewise 2. of the ancient Roman Church it is , that he saith , it converted so many to the faith , which is a truth known , and acknowledged in History , but is not at this day assumed ( witness S. W. ) to be the foundation on which their Supremacy is built . 3. that after the Apostles death Rome being a chief Metropolis , and ( as the Imperial See ) the most eminent of all others , had the dominion aliarum of other ( it is not omnium , of all ) Churches , is not denied by any either ancient , or modern , that I know of . All the suburbicarian Region , and the Churches in that , were under the Primate of Rome , and that Primate was within a while lookt on , as the Patriarch of the West , and the First Patriarch . And the words of Grotius are not , by any circumstance of the place , inclined to any other sense . The aliae Ecclesiae , other Churches , being in no reason interpretable any farther , than those , which Rome had converted to the faith , nor necessarily to all them , but to the oppida minora and Provinciae , the lesser Cities and Provinces , unto which ( as he interprets ) the woman is said to flie ( and so Christianity to be propagated ) when Simon Magus by the favour of the Emperour had opposed and much oppressed it at Rome , and drave the profession out of it , by which means those aliae Ecclesiae were planted . And it may be worthy to be observed , that when the text before him was general , for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} all the nations , he is not thereby moved to interpret it in that latitude of all simply , but ( in a more restrained sence , wherein all in Scripture-style oft signifies but a great many ) onely by the nulla plures , and aliarum , others and none more then that . 65. Here before he concludes , he is pleased to look back on a passage which he had used , [ that if men be drunkards , proud , boasters , &c. hypocrites , haters of good men , persecutors and revilers of them , yea , and if they be not regenerate and born of God united to the head Christ Jesus , by the same spirit that is in him , they shall never see God ] for which , he now saith , he fears not what conclusion can regularly , in reference to any person living or dead , be deduced . ] To this I reply by acknowledging the certain truth of the general Aphorisme , and onely remembring him , that the onely question was , whether in a particular discourse concerning Hugo Grotius , after the mention of his eternal estate , and disclaiming all design of begetting in others any evil surmises of it , or of judging him himself , 1. it were seasonably added , that he was fallen to his own master , when falling in the style of that Scripture ( visibly referred to ) signifies falling under condemnation , and 2. whether the applying this general Aphorisme to this matter , were not apt to beget in others those evil surmises , which he was willing to disclaim : If in these he be not concerned , neither am I , and therefore I shall not further importune him in that matter . 66. To the fragments of Grotius's Epistles to Crellius , I had formerly spoken , though they were not ( possibly ) formerly printed . But having no more in them than was acknowledged , somewhat of civility to a civil adversary , commendation of some things truly commendable ( such sure is the care of good life ) acknowledgment of advantage received by his writings , readiness of performing any office of kindness to him , and finally praying for him ; All these are certainly no more then due , as by Christ's precept to the injurious , so to a learned man , from whom he differed in opinion , and may onely serve to direct us to the Christian manner of dealing with adversaries , that of never labouring their ruine or hurt in any kind , but doing them all possible good . And if in this matter the Reader will be moved with probable arguments ; It is not well to be imagined , in case Grotius had at this time been changed from the opinion which he was of , at the writing of the Book De Satisfact : that having said what these fragments signifie him to have said , he would have concealed that , or that any such passage , had it been in the letter , would have been left out of the fragments , or being in the fragments , would have been supprest by the Reviewer . 67. What in the second Epistle is said of Crellius's notes on the Epistle to the Galatians , that he had very happily found out the occasion , and purpose , and whole contexture of the Epistle , no way concludes his imbracing the interpretation of each brief occasional passage in that Epistle , wherein the Socinian controversies are concern'd , or renouncing that , which he had given in his Book De Satisfact : as his sense of those passages . 68. There is no more remaining now before me , which seems to exact farther reply . Thus much I have once more added , lest the Reviewer may either think his Animadversions despised , or conceive that they have succesfully performed what they attempted ; and moreover lest having once ( though but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ) undertaken the Defence of this learned man . I should now by my silence seem to desert my plea , and be deem'd to have consented to , and in a manner confirm'd those calumnies , which on this score of his defection to heresit , I see from many pens daily cast out upon him . 69. And this , as it is an act of meer justice , and charity to the dead , and no less to those , who by their sin of uncharitable thoughts towards him , are likely to deprive themselves of the benefit of his labours ; so is it but a proportionable return of debt and gratitude to the signal value and kindnesse , which in his life-time he constantly profest to pay to this Church and nation ; expressing his opinion , that of all Churches in the world , it was the most carefull observer , and transcriber of Primitive antiquity , and more then intimating his desire to end his dayes in the bosome , and Communion of our Mother . Of this I want not store of witnesses , which from time to time have heard it from his own mouth , whilest he was Embassadour in France , and even in his return to Sweden , immediately before his death ; And for a real evidence of this truth , 't is no newes to many , that at the taking his journey from Paris , he appointed his Wife , whom he left behind , to resort to the English assembly , at the Agents house , which accordingly she is known to have practised . Which therefore may serve for a competent addition to , and conclusion of the evidences hitherto produced , ( being in perfect accord and harmony with them ) that as far as the English establishment is removed from Socinian , and Popish , so far this learned man stands vindicated from both these aspersions ; which makes me the less wonder , that some others , who have endeavoured to maintain their constancy of adherence , and submission to the Church of England , are in like manner most injuriously aspersed by those who have departed from it ; Lord lay not this sin to their charge . A POST-SCRIPT . 1. HAving lately a sight of a new piece published by the same Author , one of the first things I happened to fall upon , appeared to be mine own concernment . For having cited from some words of Hegesippus , that soon after the death of the Apostles and their auditors , many false doctrines were preached and divulged in the Church , he hath these words . 2. I know who hath endeavoured to elude the sense of this complaint , as though it concerned not any thing in the Church , but the despisers and persecuters of it , the Gnosticks . But yet I know also , that no man would so do , but such a one as hath a just confidence of his own ability , to make passable at least , any thing that he shall venture to say or utter . For why should that be referred by Hegesippus to the ages after the Apostles and their hearers were dead , with an exception against its being so in their dayes ; when if the person thus expounding this testimony may be credited , the Gnosticks were never more busie nor prevalent than in that time which alone is excepted from the evil here spoken of ? Nor can I understand how the opposition and persecution of the Church should be insinuated to be the deflouring and violating of its chastity , which is commonly a great purifying of it : so that speaking of that breaching and preaching of errours , which was not in the Apostles times , nor in the time of their hiarers , the chiefest time of the rage and madness of the Gnosticks ; such as spotted the pure and incorrupted virginity of the Church ; which nothing can attein unto , that is forreign unto it , and that which gave Originall unto Sedition in the Church : I am of the mind , and so I conceive was Eusebius that recited those words , that the good man intended corruptions in the Church not out of it , nor oppositions to it . 3. What iust confidence any man can have of his own abilities to make any thing passable that he shall venture to utter ] unless it be found in a due care never to adventure to utter any thing , which hath not perfect truth in it , I acknowledge my self unable to apprehend . But how unjustly I am here charged of any kind of confidence of my own abilities , and how unsufficiently my answer in defence of the ancient Church-writers is here invalidated , will , I hope , soon appear , by a short view , 1. of my answer , 2. of the words of the testimony it self , on which it was clearly grounded , 3. of that which is here objected against the fitness of my answer . 4. For the first , It must be remembred ( as the original of this debate ) what from this testimony of Hegesippus he had ( a ) formerly concluded , viz. the corruption of the Church as to doctrine , immediately after the Apostles fell asleep , whereof , saith he , whosoever will impartially search into the writings that of those dayes do remain , will perhaps find more cause to complain , thou is commonly imagined . 5. To which my answer was , ( b ) that all that Hegesippus there saith , is onely this , that the poyson of the heretical or Apostatical , or Atheistical Gnosticks , in express words , the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the sect of the Gnosticks falsly so called , and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the Atheistical seducers , did openly set up against the truth of Christ , as soon as ever the Apostles were dead , which being by Hegesippus terminated in the known despisers and persecutors of the true Church , and Orthodox professors , the grievous Wolves that worried the flock , and those constantly resisted and combated with , preacht against and written against by the Fathers and ancient writers , and never observed by any man to have gained of them , or infused any the least degree of their poyson into them , or their writings that are come to us . 'T is a sad condition , that the just and unjust , the false teachers and Orthodox professors should fall under the same envy , that the shepherds which oft laid down their lives for their sheep , should be defamed , aend again martyred by us their unkind posterity , under pretence that they were in conspiracy with the wolves also , 6. In this answer it is not possible I should be subject to any mistake , if this one matter of fact be true , that the Gnosticks and Atheistical seducers were the very persons , of whom alone Hegesippus spake , ( for that those were the wolves , and that the Church-writers have constantly refuted and detested them , and not suckt any of their poysonous doctrines from them , is so evident , that this author hath neither formerly nor now suggested the contrary . ) And for this in the next place , I appeal to the express words of Hegesippus , there at large set down in Greek , but here onely referred to , and more briefly toucht on by this author . 7. The words , as far as this matter is concern'd in them , I shall recite ; They are these , Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 111. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . That there may be no place for doubt in this matter , I shall now give the English Reader a full view of them , thus . But when the sacred quire of the Apostles had severally ended their lives , and the generation of those that had been thought worthy to hear with their own cars the divine wisdome , was now past , then the rout or riotous convention of the Godless seduction or seducers ( {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies a seditious assembling , or military preparation of confederates or conspirators , and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} deceit or seduction , may be used for the men that deceive or seduce ) received its beginning , by the cunning or deceit of false teachers , who , now that none of the Apostles were left , avowed and openly attempted to preach or promulgate the science falsly so called , in opposition to the preaching of the truth . 8. What is here meant by the science falsly so called , no man can be ignorant , that hath compared that phrase used expresly by the Apostle , 1 Tim. 6. 20. with the writings of the Primitive Fathers , or but lightly considered the very nature of plain words . The word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Gnosticks , literally signifies knowing men , so styled by themselves , but upon no grounds of truth , their doctrines being indeed directly opposed to the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , and so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} knowledg or science falsly so called . This therefore must be the meaning of the Apostles words , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the oppositions of the science falsly so called , i. e. the doctrines of the sect of the Gnosticks , in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Apostles , and consequently the same must be the importance of the like phrase in Hegesippus , in consent with the Apostles dialect ; what the Apostle calls science falsly so called , Hegesippus must be believed to mean by the very same words , the science falsly so called , i. e. the Gnosticks ; what the Apostle calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} oppositions or contradictings , Hegesippus expresses by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} opposite or contrary preaching , and these phrases are both farther cleared by a passage in the ancient author {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : c. 6. which tels us of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the contradictory discourses of the dotage or folly or madness of Simon ; by contradictory discourses certainly meaning the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , oppositions and antipreaching , and by the dotage or madness of Simon Magus , the knowledge that he pretended to , and his followers , and which so puss them up in a mad conceit of it , but was indeed nothing else but blasphemous folly , far removed from all degree of true science . 9. From this short representation of this plain matter of fact , thus visible before our eyes , I shall now suppose it cleare , that it was not confidence of my abilities , but a well grounded perswasion , that he that cited these words in Greek , understood the plain meaning of them , upon which I built my hope , that my answer to this passage of Hegesippus would approve it self to him . For if the Gnosticks and none else were the men spoken of by Hegesippus , then was there no place for exception against my answer , and if Hegesippus expresse words might be believed , thus it was . And thus stands this matter betwixt me and my Reprover at this time ; I have laid it before him , let himself now , if he please , be party , witnesse , and judge ; I cannot think it possible I should need other . 10. But then in the third place , he hath an objection against this sense , which at least may have force against me ; For , saith he , if the person thus expounding this testimony ( i. e. I ) may be credited , the Gnosticks were never more busie nor prevalent then in that time , which alone is excepted from the evil here spoken of . 11. To this I answer , 1. that in case I had at several times spoken things incoherent or contradictory , this would be no sufficient proof that what I now recited from Hegesippus's plain words , was not contained in them . But then 2. I have been far enough from having thus ( anywhere ) contradicted my self , or what I affirme in this answer of mine , nor ( if I may be allowed the confidence to believe that I know and speake my own sense ) did I ever let fall any thing which will not be exactly reconciled with it . The short is this . The Ringleaders of the Gnosticks were verry busie in the Apostles times , but did at first more clancularly operate , from whence in my opinion ( of which here it seems I must give an account ) they are in the Apostle exprest by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the mystery of iniquity , iniquity , but that somewhat disguised , till at last in the season most for their turn , some of them put off their disguises ; Simon Magus in the Apostles times , and though he miscarried , yet many of his followers afterwards in a more avowed and profest hostility ( the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Hegesippus ) when they had the advantage of all those being dead who had received the truth from Christ himself : This is the summe of what I have elsewhere frequently , and more largely delivered , and this is exactly the sense of Hegesippus in that place , as will yet more clearly appear by the addition of some other words , not yet recited , and ( I know not why ) omitted by this author in his first producing of them , when yet both the antecedents and consequents were set down by him . They are these , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Till those times he there speaks of , those hereticks , though some there were , that endeavoured to corrupt the wholesome rule of saving doctrine , skulked in darkness undiscernable , but afterwards ( when the senson better agreed with their design ) they did it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , with bare head , or face , putting off disguise or care of secresie , with this , indeed it would not easily be reconcileable to say , that the Gnosticks were never more busie nor prevalent , then in the Apostles times ; And this he is pleased to set down as my saying ; but hath not intimated the place , where I said it ( as easily he might have done , and I suppose would not have neglected to do , if he had known where . ) For my part I remember not , neither believe any such words ever to have past from me ; If he shall produce any that have the least sound that way , I shall not doubt to give him an account of them , such as shall sufficiently supersede the conclusion , which now he is willing to draw from them . 12. Mean while I shall yet farther give thus much over measure of reply to his objection , that in case Hegesippus had not expresly named the Gnosticks , which yet expresly he names , and therefore must mean them if he knew and considered what he said , yet the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Atheistical seduction or seducers , and the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the riotous convention or confederation of these , must needs signifie some known sect of hereticks in that age of the Church , be they Cerinthians , Ebionites , Nicolaitanes , Menandrians , B●silidians , Saturnilians , or after them Valentinians , Marcionites , or who ever else can be supposed ; And then , as it is certain , that all , or most of these , met and agreed in this common notion of the Gnosticks , so from the poyson and taint of all and each of them , t is still equally clear , that the Church of God , and the known Governours and shepherds thereof , by Gods grace and blessing preserved themselves , and exprest their constant opposition and dotestation of them , and markt them out to be avoided of all Christians ; and so cannot be imagined to have been corrupted by them ( but on the contrary whosoever was discerned to be so corrupted , was cast out of the Church ) and by their contrary doctrine , illustriously known in their writings against these heresies , long after the Apostles times , ( Irenaus against the Valentinians &c. Tertullian &c. against the Gnosticks ) have demonstrated themselves to have continued stedfast and immaculate , and not to have been in the least corrupted : And then what can be farther removed from truth , than this whole suggestion from Hegesippus , of the infection being diffused in the Church ? But he further objects , That the opposing and persecuting of the Church , which is a great purisying of it , cannot be insinuated to be the deflouring and violating of its chastity : To this I answer , 1. that if there were the least force in this objection , it would yet be unsufficient to disprove my answer ; It might possibly infer the impropriety of Hegesippus's expression , whereof I undertook not to be the advocate , but cannot conclude him not to have meant those to be the corrupters , whom he expresly names to be so . 2. That in respect of those weak or deceiveable members of the Church , that received the heretical poyson , ( and then fell off from it , or were by just censures cast out of it ) 't is not improper to say , that the Church which once conteined them , was defloured and violated ; though on the other side , in respect of the constant fidelity of others , who were not moved by all their opposition , the Church was still rather purified then defloured , as gold by trial in the fire comes out more pure , whilest yet the drosse is discovered by the same , means , and declared to have no purity in it . The truth is , many visible and temporary professors were infected and defiled by the Gnostick infusions , as in all times of trial befals those that forsake the Faith , rather than they will endure persecution ; And that is the plain meaning of Hegesippus's words , and hath nothing new or strange in it . 14. One thing by the way I shall farther observe , that in this citation he hath made some change in the words , from what before he had represented ; to the Apostles times , adding , the time of the Apostles hearers , and not onely the Apostles themselves , as if Hegesippus included that second generation in the space of the virgin uncorrupted age , after whose decease ( and not till then ) the corruptions by him spoken of came in : But that I suppose will be found to be a mistake also . 15. In his former citing of the passage ( in his Preface of Animadversions ) he understood Hegesippus of the corruption immediately after the Apostles fell asleep . And indeed this is all that the words assure us [ when the quire of the Apostles , saith he , were dead , and the age past of those that were deemed worthy to heare with their own eares , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the divine wisedom , or the wisdome that had divinity in it — ] where that ages being past , ] and the Apostles being dead ] sure signifies the same thing , and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the divine wisdome ] very fitly signifies Christ himself , the wisdome of the Father , and no way appears to be extended to the Apostles also ; and then they that were the hearers of that Wisdome , will be the men of the Apostles age , specially the Apostles themselves , and not the subsequent generation . And that indeed thus it was , appears by the context in Hegesippus , which evidenceth him to speak of Trajanes times , wherein Simeon Bishop of Jerusalem , one of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , seers and hearers of the Lord , being falsly accused by hereticks , ( {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ) was put to death . Now this we know , was but the conclusion of the Apostles age ; ( John , who was one of them , living till that time ) and not of the auditors of the Apostles . But should it be granted according to his desire , that 't was of the latter age that Hegesippus spake , it would , as hath appeared , stand him in little stead ; and therefore I shall not spring new occasion of contention with him on this matter ; Had not the honour of the Vniversal Church of Christ succeeding the Apostles ( so nearly concern'd in this his reinforced objection ) seemed to exact this just tribute from me , I had not here given him this importunity . 16. Whereon seeing I am thus far entred , It will not be amiss to pay him at once what he may expect of return to some other passages of this his last piece , wherein he is pleased to reflect on me . 17. And 1. occurs towards the beginning of it , pag. 33. a discourse of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. which he endeavours to apply to the prejudice of my evidences for the Epistles of Clement , and of St Paul to the Corinthians , being written to all the Churches of Achaia : In return to this I shall note but these four things of very many that offer themselves . 18. First , that there is a double notion of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c. one wherin it is opposed to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , ( and is all one with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , being strangers or sojourners ) in which notion a Pomponius takes it , when by it he expounds the Latin incola , as that is all one with inquilinus a stranger in any place , qui aliquâ , or rather , aliâ regione ( {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} saith Theophilus ) domicilium suum contulit . Of this notion of the word I spake nor , nor could be imagined to speak , nor ( whatever he thinks ) is or can parochia or paraecia to be taken in this sence in any author . Another notion there is of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for accola a neighbour , as in Thucyd. l. 4. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the Spartanes , and the nearest of the neighbouring cities , ( some of those {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , neighbours , it seems , nearer then others ) and so Pomponius also , non tantùm qui in oppido moratur , sed qui alicujus oppidi finibus agrum habet , a borderer that lives and holds lands within the bounds , i. e. in the territories of any city , whether nearer or farther off , or whether that territory be wider or narrower ; wider as the territory of a Metropolis , narrower as of an ordinary city , or yet lower , as of a town or village ; And which of these it is in any author , is not conclusible from the nature or use of the word , which equally belongs to all these , but from the quality of the place , to which in any author it is applied ; If the discourse be of a Metropolis , then the territory , and so the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the whole Province or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , as when Mark is said by Eusebius to have constituted Churches in the plural at Alexandria , the chief Metropolis of Egypt , these are by c him all conteined under the phrase {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , as by Mark committed to Anianus , and to the Churches that belong to the chief Metropolis of Crete , Gortyna , are by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth , called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the Church adjacent to i. e. the Province of Gortyna ; If speech be of an ordinary city , then the territory of that , and so the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is that which we now call a Diocese ( though {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} anciently signified otherwise ) Territorium est universitas agrorum intra fines cujusque civitatis , saith d Pomponius , and is rendred by Theophilus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , all the region which is under a city ; And so farther downward to towns and villages also , as they are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , Paroecia , parishes , the whole territory or bordering neighbourhood is comprehended under it . And so in summe , Corinth , otherwise appearing to be the Metropolis of all Aehaia ( as Achaia was one of the e five {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of Pelopounesus ) and this both in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Notitiae ; in the Civil , as is evident by the Proconsuls keeping his residence there , Acts 18. 12. 15. ( Corinth being before this time f destroyed by Mummius , reedified by Iulius Caesar , and now a g Roman Colony , and having a h Province belonging to it , called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the Corinthian region ) and in the Ecclesiastical , as appeared both by the general {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or conformity between the city and the Church , not onely in after ages , but from the first , cited from a most ancient learned Church-writer , Origen contr. Cels . l. 3. and more particularly as to Corinth , by the express words of i Saint Chrysostome . All this , I say , otherwise largely appearing , and not deduced from the bare style [ {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ] this Church thus styled by Clemens , and compared with Pauls first Epistle , which expresly comprehends the Saints of all Achaia , and yet ( as is granted on all sides ) no greater an extent , then what Clemens wrote to , is by me regularly affirmed to be that whole Province of several Churches , ( for which 't was not yet that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} grew to be the Ecclesiastical word ) and not that single Church of Corinth , but all under that Metropolis . 19. 2. That it is most unreasonable to affirm that either 2 Cor. 9. 2. or anywhere else , Achaia and Corinth are all one , for that is all one as to say France and Paris , a region or nation , and a city in that region , are all one . 'T is true the Church , to which the Epistles of Paul were written , comprehends under it all the Christians of Achaia , but then my pretensions must have place , that those Epistles were written to all the Churches of Achaia , united in Corinth , the Metropolis , not that Achaia , which had many cities in it was all one with Corinth , that but one , though Metropolitical city . 20. 3. That of the Churches of Achaia , beside Corinth , that of Cenchrea is expresly named , and though no other chances to be thus explicitely mentioned in Scripture , which was not obliged to write the full Corography of the Apostles plantations , yet this negative argument gives us no reason to doubt , but there were more cities in Achaia then these two ( all Geographers assure us of many ) and those in some proportion converted to the faith , and formed into Churches , in Saint Pauls time , and before Clements writing to them . However that one of Cenchrea concludes as much , as I want ; Cenchrea being another city-Church , different from Corinth , and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} neighbouring to it , part of its territory , and under it as a daughter under a Metropolis . 21. 4. That Chrysostome , that speaks of Corinth as a Metropolitical Church , speaks of it , not ( as this Author pretends ) onely in the political , but Ecclesiastical notion , and not onely as in his own , but as it was in the Apostles time : Else he could not say of S. Paul , as he doth , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that he wrote to a Metropolis ; T was certeinly to the Church that Saint Paul wrote not the city ; and 2. to that Church , in Saint Pauls age . The testimony is as clear as the Sun , that b Saint Chrysostome speaks of Corinth , Thessalonica , and the Ephesians , and Galatians , to whom the Apostolical Epistles are directed , as so many Metropolitical Churches , to each of which Saint Paul wrote , and thereby in every of those Epistles wrote not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , to one city onely , ( he addes , or to two , or to three ) but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to all every where in each of those regions , relating to those Metropolitical Churches , to all the Churches of Galatia , of Achaia , &c. 22. And so much for that affaire , on which five leaves were providently laid out at the beginning of his journey , to secure some principles which were after to be improved by him , which yet he cannot but know are superseded by many other evidences of Metropolitical Churches planted in the Apostles times , at Jerusalem , Antioch , Ephesus , Thessalonica , Philippi , Alexandria , and Rome &c. every of which requiring his answer , as much as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . 23. P. 87. he minds me of his acknowledging the catholick church , both the invisible body of Christ , his elect , &c , and the Vniversality of visible professors , and consequently of the injury formerly done him , in comparing his expression [ that there was never any Church-Officer instituted in those first times relating to more Churches in his office , or to any other Church than a single particular congregation ] with the author of the Saints beliefe , which instead of the Holy Catholick Church in the Apostles symbols substituted this very hypothesis ; as if I either really believed , or was willing to perswade others , that he denyed the Catholick Church . 24. To this I answer , 1. that I neither entred into his secrets , nor indeavoured to infuse any jealousies into others concerning his talent undiscovered thoughts , but onely considered those words then before me , not being at that distance able to divine , how far he meant to acknowledge the Catholick Church in a tract written two years after . 25. Secondly , That his acknowledging now two notions of the Catholick Church , one of all the elect , the other of all that are called , doth not so certainly difference his doctrine from that of the author of the Saints belief ; there being no reason to doubt , but that he that compiled that , did at that time acknowledge the Catholick Church in those two notions . The thing that he meant to deny , and renounce , implicitely by leaving out the mention of the Catholick Church , and explicitely by what he substituted in stead of it , was ( I supposed ) the several degrees of associations , each known among men by the name of a Church , 1. that of the whole Christian world , the Vniversal Church , either as it by some pretended to be Monarchically , or by others Aristocratically governed . 2. That of each National Church under the Primate thereof . 3. That of each Provincial Church under the Metropolitane . 4. That of every Diocesan Church under the Bishop ; and lastly , of every Parochial Church under the Rector thereof . And all these seem as avowedly to be denied by this author to have been instituted in those ( i. e. in Ignatius's ) times , as by the compiler of the Saints Belief they were ; And some of these being , to my understanding , thus anciently instituted , and express mention made in Ignatius , not onely of the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or multitude under a particular Bishop , which is one of these , but farther of the Church of Syria , i. e. of that whole region , and the Church of Syria which is at Antioch , all joyned under Antioch , the Metropolitical Church , and the Catholick Church , wider then either of these , and comprehensive of both ; this I deemed fit to be confronted to his hypothesis ( and the parallel in the Saints Belief ) of the no other Church , than a single particular congregation , which I supposed narrower than any one of these . And this is a brief , and I hope , inoffensive , account of that particular . 26. Pag. 232. An exception is made to my instance in the Bishop of Oxon , and that from a supposed exemtion of this author , at the time of his writing , from the jurisdiction of that Bishop . But 1. I proceeded not to the naming or specifying the author at all , when I spake of the Bishop of Oxon , much less considered the quality , which was peculiar to him , from other men , or the exemtion consequent to that quality , which whatever it can be pretended , is but temporary , and personal , and so not proper for any special consideration . 2. I answer , The Bishop of Oxon hath a Diocese , or else no man that lives in that , could by any priviledge of his place , be exemt from it . And then what I said of the duty owing to that Bishop ( somewhat more then styling him a reverend and learned person , and being glad of his neighbourhood and acquaintance , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies more than that ) regularly belongs to all such as are in his Diocese , and are not exemt from his jurisdiction , and whatever he please to imagine , I never meant to extend it to any other . 27. Pag. 122. I find a dislike of my way ( he should not have said of justifying our separation from Rome , but ) of defending our Church from the guilt of schisme , charged on us by the Romanists . But this is no news to me ; he had once before signified thus much , and I was not then surprised with it , and shall onely assure him , that now I have seen his new way , I am no whit less pleased with the old , than before I had the confidence to be . 28. The last that I took notice of to be my concernment was pag. 229. where perhaps I may be the person , accused to have charged the doctrines ( there named , as a considerable portion of the doctrine of our Church ) of everting fundamentals . If it be so , I have then two things to say in this haste , and no more , 1. that the doctrines , which I charge in the tract of Fundamentals , I charge not of everting of Fundamentals , but ( as may be seen in the title and contents of the 12 chapter ) of aptness to obstruct and hinder the superstructing of good life upon Christian belief : Of which whether the doctrines by me specified be guilty or no , I appeal to those indifferent Readers that shall impartially view what is there said , and shall be content to be concluded by that , though not by this Vmpirage . 29. 2. That no one of the doctrines thus accused by me are the doctrines of the Church of England , as there ( as far as I ever heard it doubted ) is cleared by me ; whereas on the contrary some of them , that particularly of Christs redeeming none but the elect , are as expresly renounced by our Church , as any branch of Atheisme or Polytheisme is disclaimed by the Creed of the Apostles . 30. And now I may be permitted to take my leave of him at this time . THE END . ERRATA . Pag. 3. l. 11. r. and so . p. 5. l. 33. r. bad been long expected . p. 6. l. 20. r. his letter . l. 27. r. few passages . p. 7. l. 18. r. so that 53. ibid. r. 10 this sense l. 35. r. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} l. 36. r. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 8. l. 5. again , i. the . p. 9. l. 21. r. was written . p. 16. l. 7. r. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} l. 16. r. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 25. l. 8 r. or as . l. 34. r. Schlusselburgius p. 32. l. 13. r. sounded . l. ult. r. on them . p 36. l. 4. r secrecie ; with . p. 39. l. 8. dele to . l. 29. r. And so the p. 42. l. 16. r. symbole . l. 21. r. latent . p. 43. l. 1. r. as it is . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A45406e-320 a See Ans. to Animad. vers : p. 132. b Epist. to the Oxford Heads . d Epiph. l. 2. Haer. 49. Socin. in John 1. g Lutherani penè omnes Ariani smi eum accusant . Grot. Appendi . de Antich , p. 85. Notes for div A45406e-19030 Pref. to his Book Persever . p. 5. Answ . to Animadv. p. 13. a D. verb . sig. c Eccl. hist. l. 11. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . d Ibid. e Pausan : {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . f Pausaen : {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . p. 44. l. 19. g Me . la l. 11. c. 3. h Pausan : {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : p. 44 i To : 3. p. 343. b Tom. 3. p. 343. 
A32802	----	The rise, growth, and danger of Socinianisme together with a plaine discovery of a desperate designe of corrupting the Protestant religion, whereby it appeares that the religion which hath been so violently contended for (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents) is not the true pure Protestant religion, but an hotchpotch of Arminianisme, Socinianisme and popery : it is likewise made evident, that the atheists, Anabaptists, and sectaries so much complained of, have been raised or encouraged by the doctrines and practises of the Arminian, Socinian and popish party / by Fr. Cheynell ... Cheynell, Francis, 1608-1665. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A32802 of text R16168 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing C3815). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 247 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 44 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A32802 Wing C3815 ESTC R16168 11732271 ocm 11732271 48402 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A32802) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 48402) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 21:7 or 245:E103, no 14) The rise, growth, and danger of Socinianisme together with a plaine discovery of a desperate designe of corrupting the Protestant religion, whereby it appeares that the religion which hath been so violently contended for (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents) is not the true pure Protestant religion, but an hotchpotch of Arminianisme, Socinianisme and popery : it is likewise made evident, that the atheists, Anabaptists, and sectaries so much complained of, have been raised or encouraged by the doctrines and practises of the Arminian, Socinian and popish party / by Fr. Cheynell ... Cheynell, Francis, 1608-1665. [8], 75 [i.e.79] p. Printed for Samuel Gellibrand ..., London : 1643. Pages 74-75, 78-79 numbered 70-71, 74-75 respectively. Errata: p. [79]. Reproduction of original in Thomason Collection, British Library. eng Socinianism. Arminianism. Atheism. Anabaptists. A32802 R16168 (Wing C3815). civilwar no The rise, growth, and danger of Socinianisme· Together with a plaine discovery of a desperate designe of corrupting the Protestant religion, Cheynell, Francis 1643 42809 280 235 0 0 0 0 120 F The rate of 120 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the F category of texts with 100 or more defects per 10,000 words. 2004-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-04 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-06 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2004-06 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE Rise , Growth , and Danger OF SOCINIANISME . Together with A plaine discovery of a desperate designe of corrupting the Protestant Religion , whereby it appeares that the Religion which hath been so violently contended for ( by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents ) is not the true pure Protestant Religion , but an Hotchpotch of Arminianisme , Socinianisme and Popery . It is likewise made evident , That the Atheists , Anabaptists , and Sectaries so much complained of , have been raised or encouraged by the doctrines and practises of the Arminian , Socinian and Popish Party . By FR. CHEYNELL late Fellow of Merton College . Vt Judai olim volebant audire Populus Domini cùm essent non populus , Osc. 1. 9. jactabant patrem Abraham cùm essent ex Diabolo , Job . 8. 44. Sic Sociniani quoque titulum Christianorum sibi arrogant , & Fratres nostri Spirituales haberi petunt , cùm unum nobiscum Patrem Deum Trin-unum minimè agnoscant . Vide D. Stegman . Photinianism . Disp. 1. p. 4. 5. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , inquit Philosophus ; parum itaque Rationales sunt Sociniani qui deteriora sequuntur . LONDON , Printed for SAMUEL GELLIBRAND , at the Brazen Serpent in Pauls Church-yard . 1643. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE the Lord Viscount Say and Seale , &c. Peace . NOBLE SIR , LEarned Casaubon assures me that when the Greek Fathers wrote to a wicked man they were wont to salute him with that Apostolicall benediction , Grace be unto you : but when they wrote to a religious man they used the ordinary Hebraisme , Peace be unto you , because Peace doth suppose Grace , and doth comprehend all outward blessings . I am sure your very enemies gave you this testimony at Oxford , that you were a man of Peace , but as it followes in the Psalme , when you spake for peace they were for warre . Psalme 120. 7. All that your Honour desired was , that ( as it became gowned men ) they would take up their bookes , and lay down their armes ; that they would not protect Delinquents any longer , but yeeld them up to a legall tryall . You desired that nothing might be tumultuously attempted , but all things orderly reformed . You engaged your Honour to them that what Plate you found in places fit for Plate , the Treasury or the Buttery should remaine untouched , and most Societies engaged themselves by a solemne promise , that they would never give their consent that their Plate should be put to any other use then what was sutable and according to their oath , and the intention of the Donours , their successors having in all these respects as great an interest in the Plate as themselves ; Nay they generally confessed that they had no more power to aliene their Plate then their Lands . In confidence of their promise you told them you did leave their Plate in their owne custody , which otherwise you would have secured , and in confidence of your Honours promise they brought forth their Plate , and made publique use of it , even whilest the souldiers were in towne ▪ Your Lordship found the University ( as the Reverend Doctours had left it ) groaning under a kinde of Anarchy ; for it was thought fit by the Round-house , that the University should be dissolved , and every man left to doe what seemed good in his owne eyes . It was suggested by a Doctor well read in Politiques , that if they did not dissolve the University , the Parliament would dissolve it ▪ But your Honour made it appear how much you did abhorre an Anarchy , and honour the Vniversity ; you assembled those few Governours of private Colledges which were at home , and the Substitutes of all that were absent , you consulted them how the Vniversity might be put into its right posture : You assured them that it was not the intent of the Parliament to change the Government or infringe the Liberties of the Vniversity , & that though the new Statutes were justly complained of , yet you conceived it fit that the Vniversity should for the present be governed by Lawes that were none of the best , rather then left quite without Rule , or government ; they all confessed that you behaved your selfe more like a Chauncellour then a souldier , for the Vniversity was not over-awed by a garrison , or over-ruled by a Councell of warre . You did not impose any Taxes upon the University , you did not go about to perswade them that Guns were Mathematicall Instruments , and therefore they might buy guns with that very money which was bequeathed and set apart for Mathematicall Instruments ; you did not importune any Scholars to list themselves in your Regiment , nor did you desire that Doctours would turne Commanders , or that any Commanders should be created Doctours , or boyes created Masters , lest there might be an Anarchy even in Convocation by such a Premeditated Confusion ; and yet such counsells and practises have been suggested by some , that are none of the meanest Ranke . When I was commanded by speciall warrant to attend your Honour , ( deputed by both houses of Parliament for the service of King and Parliament to settle Peace and truth in the Vniversity of Oxford , and to reduce the said Vniversity to its ancient order , right Discipline , and to restore it to its former priviledges and liberties ) there was notice given of a pestilent book very prejudiciall both to truth and peace , and upon search made , the book was found in the chamber of Mr. Webberly , who had translated this Socinian Master-Peece into English for his own private use , as he pretended ; to which vain excuse I replyed that I made no question but he understood the book in Latine , and therefore had he intended it only for his own private use , he might have saved the paines of translating it . Besides the Frontispice of the book under Mr. Webberlies own hand did testify to his face that it was translated into English for the benesit of this Nation . Moreover there was an Epistle to the Reader prefixed before the booke ; ( I never heard of any man yet that wrote an Epistle to himselfe ) and therefore sure he intended to print it . Finally , he submits all to the consideration of these times of Reformation , and the Reformers have thought fit that it should be answered and published . I desired at the first Intimation to decline the service , because it were better to confute Socinianisme in Latine ; but I have since considered that 1. The opinions of Abailardus , Servetus , Socinus , are already published in English in a book entitled Mr. Wo●●ns defence against Mr. Walker , and therefore if this Treatise had been suppressed , their opinions would not be unknown , for they are already divulged . 2. The opinions being published in English without a confutation , it is very requisite that there should be some Refutation of the errours published also , for it is not fit that a Bedlam should go● abroad without a Keeper . 3. If there be but just suspition of a Designe to introduce damnable heresies , it is requisite that the grounds of suspition should be manifested , especially if it be such a pestilent heresy a●Socinianisme is ( which corrupts the very vitalls of Church and State ) it is fit the heresy should be early discovered left both Church and State be ruined by it . 4. The Parliament is much blamed for imprisoning the Translatour without cause : and it is much wondered at that his Chamber should be searched by officers : now the cause of both will appear . The Translatour and his work were so famous that there was notice given of his good service intended to this Nation , upon notice given there was a search made , now upon search made the book being found , and the Translatour apprehended , the Parliament is rather guilty of his release then of his Imprisonment . 5. The Translatour cannot complain of the publishing of it , because ( as hath been shewn ) he himself intended to publish it , he submits all to these times of Reformation , and so doe I , let the Reformers judge . This book belongs to your Honour , because it is but a Prodromus or Fore-runner to make way for a full answer to Master Webberlies Translation , and therefore I present it to you , not only because Master Webberlies book was seised on by your Lordships warrant ; but because I know your Honour hath ever patronized the true Protestant Religion , for Protestants doe not place Religion in shadowes and ceremonies ; and because you justly abhorre all superstitious rites , whether old or new , all judicious men will esteem you the stricter Protestant . That you may testify your dislike of Schisme as well as Heresy , you have discovered and refuted the uncharitable and bitter errour of the Brownists . You have studied Nazianzens law of Martyrdome , neither to seek nor fear danger ; the first would be rashnesse , and the second cowardlinesse . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . You are not of the sect of the Elcesaites whereas Eusebius and Augustine testify ) taught men to deny the faith in time of Persecution , and yet to keep it still in their heart , forgetting that of the Apostle , that with the heart man beleeves unto righteousnesse , but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation . Rom. 10. 10. You have learnt to be a good Christian , and therefore a good Subject ; Conscience will bind you to obedience , and no other Bond will hold men close to their duty ( to that Allegiance which is due by the Law of God and the Land both ) in these treacherous times . It was the wisedome of that famous Emperour to banish all Renegado's from his Court , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , as Traytours against God himselfe , for he considered that they who betrayed God for feare , would not stick to betray their Prince for gain . I dare say that you are the Kings sworne servant , and all men say that in your place you doe advance the Kings Income to the highest , nay some have been bold to say that you have lesse care of the subjects profit , then of the Kings . Your devotions speak you a Royalist , none prayes more heartily for the King ; It is your Iudgement that the Kingdome cannot be preserved without an union between the three Estates by which the kingdome is governed , and if you might have been heard you would have petitioned , and sollicited for an happy union between King and Parliament , only you conceive that an union between a Court of Justice and capitall Delinquents , is intolerable , and an happy union between Protestants and Papists altogether impossible : We cannot forget how many leagues the Papists broke in 6. yeares space ; I reckon from 1572. to 1588. Wise Homer and witty Aristophanes were both in good earnest when they said that no man that had either wealth or Innocence could delight in Civill Warre , and Aristophanes shewed himselfe as good a Statesman as a Poet in his sweet lines of Peace , where he advises all men to beware how they enter into a league of Peace with men that are unpeaceable ; and sure Delinquents and Papists are none of the trustiest or meekest men ; What ( saith he ) shall Gulls confide in Foxes ? {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Papists will certainly count us Protestants Gulls indeed ( well we may be as innocent as doves , but we are as simple as Gulls ) if we confide in Jesuited Foxes ; let the woolfe and the sheep be first married , and see how they agree : let us try whether we can make a crabbe goe streight forward , or make a Hedge-hog smooth . — {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , &c. If we say to the Pope as the men of Jabesh said to Nahash , Make a covenant with us and we will serve thee , the Pope will answer like Nahash the Ammonite , On this condition will I make a covenant with you , that I may thrust out all your right eyes , and lay it as a reproach upon all England , all Israel , all the Reformed Churches , 1 Sam. 11. 1 , 2. If wee have lost our eyes already , let us be avenged on the Philistines ; the Lord strengthen us , as Sampson said , that we may overthrow the pillars upon which Rome stands , so shall we be avenged of the Romane Philistines for both our eyes . Judges 16. 28. But there are other Philistines namely Arminian and Socinian Philistines , by which Church and State are much endangered , and it is the businesse now in hand to lay open their mystery of iniquity to the publique view . Wee may say to these pestilent Heretiques as well as to malignant Statesmen , Ita nati estis ut mala vestra ad Rempub. pertineant ; for there are no greater Statesmen in the world then the English Arminians , and Popish Socinians ; for such Monsters hath England nourished as are not to be found in all Africa . Herod and Pilate , the Romane and the Racovian Antichrist , are made friends in England , all the Grand-Malignants , Arminians , Papists , and Socinians are of one confederacy , all united under one head the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , the Patriarch or Pope of this British world , alterius orbis Papa as his Brother-Pope hath given him leave to phrase it , because he saw the Arch-Bishop too proud to acknowledge his Supremacy , but forward enough to maintain any other point of Popery , & ready to joyn with him to suppresse all Pure Protestants . If this Design take effect , there may wel be a reconciliation professed & established between Rome and Canterbury , the two Popes may divide the spoile of the Church betweene them if they can but agree at parting . Whether some have not endeavoured to make such a Reconciliation ; whether all points of Popery almost have not been greedily embraced in England , and that of the Popes Supremacy only rejected , more out of pride then conscience , let the prudent judge , they have light and evidence enough , and new evidence is dayly produced . The Lord unite the King and Parliament , that Truth and Iustice , Piety and Peace may be established in our dayes : so prayes Aprill , 18. 1643. Your Lordships humble servant , Fr. Cheynelz . It is ordered this eighteenth day of Aprill , 1643. by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament concerning printing , that this book intit●led The Rise , Growth , and Danger of Socinianisme , &c. be printed . Iohn White . Chap. I. Of the Rise of Socinianisme . THe Socinians have raked many sinkes , and dunghils for those ragges and that filth , wherewith they have patched up and defiled that leprous body which they account a compleat body of pure Religion . Ever since the world was possessed with the spirit of Antichrist some Malignant Heretikes have been ever and anon desperately striking at the Person , the Natures , the offices , the grace and Spirit of Christ . Cerinthius and Ebion began to blaspheme Christ , even in the Apostles time . I need say nothing of Theodot us Byzont in us , Paulus Samosatenus , Arius and the a rest ; yet it will not be amisse to shew wherein the Socinians have refined or enlarged the ancient heresies , which have been long since condemned to hell . Ostorodus would not have the name of Ebionites imposed upon the Socinians , quia vox Ebion Hebraicé egenum significat , Praef. Iust. pag. 10. 11. it seemes they would not be counted mean conditioned men : and there are some indeed and those no beggers ( unlesse it beat Court ) who are too much addicted to Socinian fancies ; and yet if that be true , which Ostorodus cites out of Eusebius , that the Ebionites were so called because they had a mean and beggerly opinion of Christ , sure the Socinians might well be called Ebionites , for none have baser and cheaper thoughts of Christ , then they . If Ostorodus had thought it worth while to have consulted Eusebius his Ecclesiasticall history , lib. 3. cap. 24. or Epiphanius Haeres . 33. he might have seen another reason why those heretikes were called Ebionites . The Socinians take it no lesse unkindly that they are called Arians . Ex consensu tantùm in principalibus cum Ario de Jesu Christo , Arianismi jure quis argui potest ? saith Smalcius . It is well he confesses that they may be called Arians who agree with Arius in the maine , I deny that the Arians had higher thoughts of Jesus Christ , then the Socinians . The Arians were termed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , because they maintained that Christ was created {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Some Arians did acknowledge that Christ was equall to the Father in essence and nature , though they denyed him to be of the same essence with the Father ; and others of them did only say , that the Son was unlike the Father , and were therefore called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ; yet these also were cōdemned because neither of these sects would acknowledge the Son to be consubstantiall with the Father ; for if they would have confessed that the Father and the Son were of the same essence , they would never have said that their essence was equall , but rather that their persons were equall , and their essence the same ; for equality is ever between two at the least : therefore by saying that their nature was equall , they implyed that they had two different natures . And they who talked of a dissimilitude of nature , must necessarily suppose , that the Father and the Son had different natures , for a nature cannot be said to be unlike it selfe : and if this latter sect by dissimilitude meant an inequality , then they were blasphemously absurd , in fancying that there was majus and minus in the same most indivisible , and single essence . Reverend Beza hath set this forth to the life , in his preface to the description of the Heresy and Perjury of that Arch-heretike , Valentinus Gentilis , Ariomanitae — in duas minimùm factiones divisi sunt , nempe in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . He disputes the the point , whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} did not imply as much as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} — nisi voxilla {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ( sicut de Dionysio Corinthio , Basilius ad fratrem scribit ) commodâ quadam interpretatione ( sed plane ut mihi videtur violentâ ) leniatur , Nam certè in unâ eademque prorsus essentiâ nullus est neque aequalitatineque inaequalitati locus , utpote quae minimùm in duobus cernantur ; ac proinde in hypostasibus , non in essentiâ spectare aequalitatē necesse est . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} — qui Filium Patri faciebant dissimilem , se vel Arianos prodebant vel stolidos , quum in simplicissimâ & singularissimâ naturâ , nempe Deitate , majus & minus quiddam imaginarentur , pag. 4. & 5. By this and much more which might be added , it doth plainly appeare that if the Arians were not more Rationall , yet they were more devout then the Socinians , they had a a more honourable and reverent opinion of Christ . For the Socinians will not acknowledge that God and Christ are equall , or like in nature . The Socinians make Christ , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , the Arians thought him the most excellent of all creatures , and therefore said , that he was created before any other creature , and used by God as an Instrument to create the rest , as Doctor Stegman observes , Disput. 1. pag. 3. Finally the Arians and Socinians agree in this , that both deny Christ to be consubstantiall with the Father , and therefore though they differ in telling their tale , in explaining their errour , yet both agree in the maine , and that 's ground enough to call them Arians , if Smalcius may be Judge . Doctour Stegman usually cals the Socinians , Photinians , and therefore entitles his own book Photinianismus ; and the Socinians doe acknowledge that they agree with Photinus in the maine , yet they say it is not sufficient ground to call any man Photinian because he agrees with Photinus in Fundamental points ; but Smalcius tells us that Socinus was the servant of Christ , they own his doctrine , and own the man as their fellow-servant : Quid Photinus ? quid alii ? nisi servi Christi ? they give him and others that are as bad as he is , the right hand of fellowship ; and it is commonly conceived that Mahumetisme took his rise from Photinianisme . I have no book about me , that fhewes so clearly what the Photinians held , as Iacobus ad Portum Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausannenfi , in its Epistle Dedicatory , Doc●erunt Christum Iesum naturâ esse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , gratiâ divinâ tamen insigniter ornatum , eumque tum demum esse coepisse , cùm in utero virginis Mariae conciperetur ; ac proinde verbum Dei , vel Deum non aliter in ipso quàm in aliis Prophet is habitasse , nec ipsi {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} aut {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} unitum fuisse , sed tantum gratiâ & efficaciâ ipsi assedisse : ipsum denique esse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , sed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , non autens {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ut loquuntur , ex quâ infoelici haeresi postmodum Mahumetismus ortus esse perhibetur . Others call the Socinians Samosatenians , and therefore Thalyaeus calles his booke in which he answers the arguments of Socinus , Eniedinus , Ostorodius , and Smalcius , Anatome Samosatenianismi , in which he shews that the Socinian glosses are of the same colour with Turkish and Iewish blasphemies ; the four Professors of the Theologicall Faculty at Leiden , have given a large commendation of Thalyaeus in their approbation , printed before the book , and signed with the hands of all the Professors , in which they with one voice vote Socinianisme to be Recoct Samosatenianisme ; Impiam Pauli Samosateni sententiam melior & sanctior Ecclesia sub Cruce adhuc militans , ut enata fuit exhorruit , eaque mox publico Episcoporum judicio execrata est . Scriptum illud conscriptum contra renatum & ab infausto illo Socino ejusque asseclis recoctum Samosatenianismum censemus pie docte & solide &c. The Samosatenians did borrow their name from Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of the Church of Antioch , and therefore his practises were the more abominable , because he poysoned that Church , in which Disciples were first called Christians , with Hereticall blasphemies against the Lord Christ , as reverend Beza observes . I find in Augustine that Artimonius did first broach this heresy , and Paulus Samosatenus did revive it ; but I need say no more of the Samosatenians , having said enough already of the Photinians , for Photinus did confirm that heresie which Samosatenus did revive , and therefore the followers of Paulus Samosatenus . were more commonly called Photinians then Paulians , or Samosatenians . And though Philaster reckon Samosatenus his heresy by it self , & Photinus his heresie by it self , yet to shew that they were not different heresies , he saith Photinus did in all things follow Paulus Samosatenus . I do not reckon up all the disorderly Heretikes in order , take them as it happens . Nestorius denyed that the self same person was God and man , he would not acknowledge that the Word was made flesh , only the Word was with that flesh , ( by an effectuall Presence ) which was taken of the substance of the Virgin , Affirmabat enim {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} illi carni ex Mariâ prognatae nonnisi {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} adfuisse , as learned Beza declares it in brief . If any man desire to be further acquainted with the opinion , and the desputes about it , let him reade S. Cyril , and peruse the famous and Orthodoxe ( not the spurious and surreptitious ) Ephesine Councell , and he may receive full satisfaction . The Socinians are farre worse then Nestorius , for they do not onely deny , that the selfe same person who was borne of the Virgin , is the second person in the Trinity , but they utterly deny that there is any second Person , or third Person which is Consubstantiall with the Father . Having mentioned Nestorius , I must not skippe over Eutyches , who in opposition to Nestorius his dividing of the Person of Christ , did vainely imagine , that the natures of Christ were mingled , and so he confounded both natures , and their Essentiall properties : Yet the Eutychians did grant that there were two natures in Christ , which the Socinians deny . The time would faile me , or at least the Readers patience , should I shew how the Socinians agree with the Noetians , who maintained , that there was but one person in the Godhead : with Macedonius , who denied the Holy Ghost to be a Person : with the Pelagians , concerning their deniall of the Image of God in Adam before his Fall , and their maintaining of Free-will , and denyall of originall sinne since the Fall . In a word , how they agree with the Valentinians , Marcionites , Cerdonians , Manichees , Apollinarists , Sabellius , the Donatists , Sadducees , Papists , Anabaptists , Schwenckefeldians , Antinomians , and I know not how many more of the like stampe , hath beene shewen by others already , and the manifestation of their errors in the ensuing Treatise will sufficiently declare . I will passe over many things very observable , because I would willingly discourse at large of some later passages , and subtile inventions by which Socinianisme was introduced into forraine parts , and in some parts established by the suffrage and subscription of too many eminent wits , and great Scholars . But I must not in my haste forget Abeilardus , or as Platina cals him , Baliardus , as Bernard , Abailardus , his name in our English tongue may be Balard ; he flourished about the yeare 1140. he had a very ready discoursing wit , and is by some voiced to be the first founder of Schoole-divinity ; whether he maintained all those heresies which Bernard layes to his charge , I shall not now stand to dispute , there is some cause of doubt ; Abeilard lived to make his Apology , and if it was but an honest Recantation , he hath made some amends . Learned Mr. Gataker in his Post-script to Mr. Wottons Defence , pag. 40. & 41. will direct you to Authors , from whom you may receive better satisfaction then I can for the present give , unlesse I were furnished with a better Library . I shall not doe Postellus so much honour as to take notice of him ; as for Servetus , I will not staine my paper with his blasphemies : Mr. Gataker hath shewen his chiefe assertions in the booke forecited from the 42. to the 47. page ; it is much questioned whether the Senate of Geneva did not deale too severely with him . Samosatenus , Arius and Eutyches did all revive in that Cerberus , he was both admonished and refuted by three learned Divines of that age , Oecolampadius , Melanchthon & Calvin ; he had time enough given him to recant , hee did stubbornely maintaine his cursed blasphemies for thirty yeares together , as Beza shewes ; Ob triginta annorum blasphemias execrabiles & indomitam pervicaciam ex Senatus Genevensis sententiâ justissimo supplici● affectum , quis non tandem nisi planè furiosus & excors abominetur ? The Senate of Geneva were in good hope by this exemplary punishment upon Servetus to crush this Cockatrices egge , and kill the Viper ; but for all this some under hand , and others more boldly and impudently did seduce the people . Bernardine Ochin seemed to be an Academik , a meere Sceptik in Religion , he questioned all things , and determined nothing ; Lalius Socinus carried the matter with such a cleanly conveyance , that he was scarse taken notice of , though he received some checks and admonitions , yet most men thought charitably of him during his life ; his black designes were not fully discovered till after his death ; this is the Grandfather of the Socinians ; but I will say no more of him yet , till I have shewen what pra●kes were played by those bold fellowes , who acted those tragedies openly upon the Stage , which Lelius composed behinde the Curtaine , Valentinus Gentilis practised at Geneva , George Blandrate a Physitian in Poland , and Transylvania . Give mee leave to make but two or three observations by the way , and I shall open the practises of these impudent Hereticks more fully to you . First , the Devill hath done more mischiefe in the Church by counterfeit Protestants , false brethren , then by professed Papists , open enemies . Secondly , observe that vaine curiosity did betray the Churches , and make them a meere prey to these subtile Hereticks ; most men have an itching desire to be acquainted with novelties , and at that time the Churches were very inquisitive after a more Rationall way of Divinity , they began to examine the Articles of faith , especially the Article of the Trinity , by some received Axiomes of Philosophy , and by that curiosity puzled their reason , and lost their faith . Thirdly , though Poland and Transylvania were grievously infected , yet the mischiefe came from Italy , as reverend Beza observes , and therefore cryes out , Sa●è fatalis esse videtur P●lonis Italia . Besides the flame brake out first in the Italian Church at Geneva , though the coales were dispersed and blowne too in other places . The Italian Church had some warning given by the execution of Michael Servetus in the yeare 1553. but that Church was too indulgent for foure or five yeares , yet at last the Elders of the Italian Church , perceiving that some of their flock began to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity , they thought fit to set forth some forme of Confession , unto which they required all to subscribe , upon the eighteenth day of May , 1558. They all protested by that Faith whereby they were oblieged to God , that they would never purposely and malitiously directly or obliquely oppose that Confession , or favour any Forme , or Sect which did make the least appearance of dissenting from it ; and whosoever did violate this Protestation , should be held a perjured and perfidious man . Valentinus Gentilis made no great haste to subscribe , but being called upon , he testified his consent with his owne hand . Yet not long after , he said he was pricked in conscience for subscribing to this Forme , and therefore contemned his Protestation , and endeavoured to seduce the simple people ; whereupon he was convented before the Senate of Geneva , the points in Controversie being rationally discussed , and Valentinus nonplust , he had nothing to say , but that he was not well versed in the art of disputing , which was notoriously false , for he was an acute subtile man , as appeares by his Confessions , Epistles , Replies ; his sublime notions about the Essence , and Subsistences of the Trinity and Quaternity ; that one question did sufficiently discover his subtilty , An Essentia divina ex Semetipsa absque ullâ consideratione Personarum sit verus Deus ; and that Thesis of his , Deus Pater solus verus Deus est Essentiator , hoc est Informator individuorum , nempe Filii Spiritusque . The God of Israel ( saith Valentine ) is the onely true God the Father of Jesus Christ ; and so by opposing the Father to the Son , and affirming that the Father only was the true God , he did clearly deny the Son to be the true God . Clare apparet ( saith the Senate ) quum Patrem opponis Filio & uni duntaxat veram Deitatem tribuis , te excludere alterum , quem cum illo confers — Facessat antithesis inter Patrem & Filium ubi fit Deitatis mentio — In comparatione fingis duo Antitheta , Patrem opponis Filio ac si in solo Patre esset Dei Essentia — Filium essentiatū à Patre dicis , à Seipso esse neg as — Jamsi Essentia divina sit in solo Patre , vel eripies eam filio , vel partibilem finges , utcunque n●nc centies concedas Filium esse verum Deum , spoliatus tamen suâ essentiâ titularis solùm erit Deus . — Individua tibi somnias quorum singula partem Essentiae obtineant — Deus Indefinite est ingenitus , & Pater etiam Personae respectu ingenitus , filius autem respectu Personae à Patre est genitus — Non abstrahimus personas ab Essentia , sed quamvis in ea resideant , distinctionem interponimus . Hoc sensu Individuos Tertullianus vocat Patrem & Filium , non autem ( ut tu stul●e imaginaris ) Individua , quae sub Specie comprehendantur . To this effect the Senate answered Valentines subtilties ; I have put it close together , that I might not be tedious , and yet manifest upon what grounds this great wit was condemned by that grave judicious Senate . He had one question more , which he tooke much pride in , namely , Utrum Essentia concurrat in Trinitatem ? to which the Senate answered , Essentia non concurrit ad distinguendas personas , nec tamen personae sine essentiâ sunt — Veteres ad Personas tantum nomen Trinitatis retulerunt — Quarum rerum dices esse Trinitatem ? Respondes , tria concurrere , Essentiam , Filium , & Spiritum . Hinc verò plane perspicitur te essentiam Filii & Spiritus exinanire . This conceit of Valentinus , that the Essence , Sonne , and Spirit , make the Trinity , did at once deny the Person of the Father , and the divine Essence of the Sonne and Spirit ; for , observe how he puts in the Essence to make up the Trinity , and so left out the Person of the Father , and by opposing the other two Persons to the Divine Essence , he did imply , that they had an Essence different from the Divine Essence . Valentine having received this full answer from the Senate , was much enraged , but upon second thoughts , he fell to his devotions , made some shew of repentance , and seemed to be satisfied ; nay , hee proceeded so far as to write to the Senate , and acknowledge that he was fully convinced by the cleare and solid reasons laid downe by the Consistory , in their answer to his objections : Nay , farther yet , he descended to particulars , and confessed that they had manifestly proved , that those three grounds upon which all his fancies were built , were all most false and absurd . First , saith he , I have offended in that whilest I affirmed , The onely God of Israel to be the Father of Iesus Christ , I considered not that by opposing the onely God to Christ , I denied Christ to be God . Secondly , I was too rash in considering the Divine Essence out of the three Persons , and concluding from thence , that the Essence and the Trinity of Persons made a Quaternity : for now I perceive that the Divine Essence cannot be considered anywhere , but in the three Persons . Thirdly , I have offended , in that I said the Person of the Father was Sophisticall . Upon these rotten ruines ( saith Valentine ) did I build many false consequences , which now I doe abhor and detest , and professe that I beleeve the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense of your Consistory ; O my conscience hath beene wounded for my inconsiderate answers to that excellent Divine and servant of God John Calvin ! but I have acknowledged my fault with hearty sorrow , and I make no question but the searcher of hearts hath forgiven me ; I beseech you likewise to forgive me , for I beleeve that the trouble of my minde will bring forth such fruits of repentance in my future conversation , as will wipe off this offensive blot wherewith now I am bespotted and stained , I hope the clemency of the holy Ministers is such , that they will receive such a miserable stray beast as I am into their fold againe , and triumph at my conversion . Hee proceeded farther yet , made a solemne and orthodoxe confession of his faith , and a Recantation of his errors on the 29. of August 1558. At last having abjured his errors under his hand , the Senate in hope that his repentance was cordiall and sincere , they commanded him to walke bare-headed , bare-legged and bare-foote thorow every street in the City , with a Trumpet blown before him , and a light in his hand , then to kneele downe , aske pardon of the Senate , and burne all his heretical Doctrines with his owne hand , all which he did upon the second of September following . Behold the mercy of Geneva to one that was but hopefull , though he had beene an Heretick , a Schismatick , a Seducer , they forgave him , and gave him leave to come forth of prison , without taking any Sureties , because he pleaded that he was a stranger , and poore , onely they tooke an oath of him , that he should not depart the City without their licence : but he soone brake his oath , and fled not far off to Gribaldus and Alciatus , two of his owne stampe , and faction ; but he met there with a Governour of a resolute spirit , who began to enquire into his dangerous opinions , and being fully informed of their desperate malignancy , he committed him to prison for a while , but not long after released him , and gave him a faire warning , but no sooner he enjoyed his liberty , but he presently published his opinions in print , and abused the Governour with a dedication , as if the book had been published by the Governors consent and Authority . Not long after he travails to Lyons where he was imprisoned for the space of 50. days , but he pretended that he did only oppose Calvin in the carriage of some controversies , and by that meanes the Antichristian spirit , which reignes in the bosome of Papists , did incline them to forgive and release him ; it seems the Papists cares not what Article of faith be denyed , nor how much Jesus Christ be dishonoured , so Calvin be opposed , for by this silly shift he got o●t twice from the Papists . Confessionem it a potuit attemper are ut à Papist is admitteretur , solùm Evangelicas Ecclesias , & nominatim Calvinum perstringens , &c. and by that means he made his first escape ; his second escape was obtained by the selfe same shift . Libellum Antidotorum & confessionem sic potuit attemperare ut judicaretur solum Calvinum impugnare , non ipsam Trinit atem ideoque solutus carceribus dimissus est ; as Aretius relates in his History of Valentine . But hee was not satisfied yet , unlesse he could beguile Protestants as well as Papists , he went therefore over into Poland , and joyned with Alciat , and Blandrate , in seducing the Polonian Churches , he confirmed his Doctrines by Sophistry , some fragments out of the Fathers , and some pieces of the Alcor●● , to shew that he intended to please the Turks , as well as the Papists , and to quarrell only with the Protestants ; his friend Alciat turned direct Mahometist being led to it by his principles ; but Valentine expressed himself in a more reserved and cunning way then Alciat or Blandrate , whereupon there fell out some difference between them , and so by Gods providence they did the lesse hurt in Poland , but there they continued above two years , but at last the King of Poland took notice of them , and intended to have published an edict against their hereticall blasphemies , but then the Antichristian spirit stirred up Cardinal Hosius , to suggest another course to his Majesty : but God moved the King to banish all strangers , Innovatours in Doctrine , and Perturbers of the Peace , out of his kingdome , upon the 5. of March , in the yeare 1566. Being banished out of Poland , and knowing that Calvin was dead , he thought fit to return into the old quarters , never dreaming that he should have faln into the hands of the old Governour , whom he had formerly a bused in so high a nature ; but by divine providence the same person though it was not his turne , was governour of that province , ( vide supra , p. 10. ) as Aretius declares , Gaium ipsum accedens , cui idē adhuc praefectus ( prorogat â forte ipsi extra ordinem ejus provinciae administratione ) praeerat . Valentine thought it his best course , to put a good face upon the matter , and challenge any man to dispute with him , but the Governour well knowing , that he had been often disputed with , and fairly admonished , cryed , Fiat quod justum est , and clapt him up close prisoner , upon the 11. day of June , 1566. The province being under the jurisdictiō of the Senate of Bern , Valentine appealed from the Governor of Gaium to the Senate of Bern , & he was brought thither upon the 19. day of July . When he was examined , the Senate charged him with heresy , Perjury , blasphemy , Schism ; and over and above that , he had joyned with Alciat and Blandrate , in seducing the simple people . To which he answered , that he had nothing to do with either of thē , for Alciat , saith he , is a Mahumetan , and Blandrate is a Sabellian and Samosatenian ; he complained that those Churches which were called Evangelicall , or Reformed Churches , were still too much enslaved to the Pope ; and yet when he was among the Papists he saw his own confession , of that which he called his Faith , passed currant enough . Nostras ecclesias damnari quasi adhuc Papatui servientes , quum interim ipse inter Papistas constitutus posset confessionibus editis elabi . He was questioned for a book which he dedicated to the King of Poland , in which he repeated the confession of his faith , which was confuted at Geneva , and subjoyned his book of Antidotes , in which he indeavours to refute certain Theses collected out of Augustines 15. bookes , de Trinitate , and the 13. chapter of Calvins first book of Institutions , which treats likewise of the Trinity . Finally , he made some sharp Annotations upon Athanasius , and confirmed his own opinion out of the Alcoran . The Senate picked out all his Calumnies , Impostures , blasphemies , heresies old and new . Wherein Valentine agreed with Arius , is shewen by Aretius , in the 8. chapter of his History ; if any man desire to peruse the determinations of Justin Martyr , Ignatius , Tertullian , Augustine in this great article of the Trinity , he may read them at large in the same History , from the 13. to the 17. chapter . I must hasten to bring Valentine to his deserved punishment ; the Senate had treated with him , from the 5. of August to the 9. of September , and he remained still stubborn , and pertinacious in his blasphemies , and therefore the Senate pronounced sentence of death upon him , which was accordingly executed ; for he could not by prayers , teares , arguments , entreaties , be wrought upon to change his mind : he had a faire warning given him before , by the Senate of Geneva , if he had had the grace to have taken it , their Charge ranne high , and their Admonition was Propheticall . Filium Dei quem praedicamus , in Diabolum transfiguras . Deum quem colimus , vocas Deum Turcarum , multaque ejus generis , sed vide miser ne te praecipitaverit tuus furor ut voces emitteres quae per jugulum redeant . It is now time to draw the curtain and look for Socinus who most of this while , played least in sight , till he went quite out of sight , in the yeare 1562. Laelius Socinus was the tutor and unckle , Faustus Socinus was the Nephew and disciple ; Laelius did contribute materials , Faustus added Form and method to that monstrous body of errours and blasphemies which we call Socinianisme . Laelius Socinus was borne in the yeare , 1525. his parents were of good rank and quality , his Father was styled , IC . torum Princeps . The life of Socinus is written by a Polonian Knight , who was tender of his honour , who hath also set forth a dissertation , which he desires may be prefixed before the works of Faustus , or rather the notions of Laelius digested into order by Faustus ; and out of those two treatises we may pick something to give light to the originall of Socinianisme ; but we are most beholding to D. Calovius , who hath handled this argument more distinctly , then any man that I have met with , and he saith that about four yeares after Servetus his death in the year 1557. Laelius Socinus did underhand encourage them who had raked in Servetus ashes , and blowed some coales that were yet alive , and from thence raised a blacker flame . Laelius then , no doubt , favoured Valentine , for about the year 1558. Valentine began to shew himself , and in that year , the Italian Church put forth their orthodox confession about the Trinity at Geneva , as hath been already shewed . Moreover the Polonian Knight saith , that Laelius did take speciall care of his country-men , quodque praecipue suos erudierit Italos : and though Laelius did keep his most usuall residence amongst the Helvetians , yet his letters travelled up and down the world , and he now and then visited his countrymen in person , who were banished into Poland , and Germany ; he went twice on pilgrimage , to gaine some Proselytes in Poland , first in the year , 1551. and afterwards in the yeare , 1557. and there he infected many of the Nobles with his pestilent heresies , which have found such good entertainment ever since , that Poland doth to this very day ( the Lord of heaven be mercifull to them ) labour under that deadly disease . But it was Laelius his chief desire to instruct his three brethren , Celsus , Cornelius , and Camillus , in that which he called his religion ; and though they lived farre asunder , ( Celsus enim Bononiae , reliqui Senis agebant ) yet they held such intimate correspondence , that the seeds of this heresy were mutually cherished by their frequent letters . But his nephew Faustus was his best Scholar , and therefore by divers hints and intimations best acquainted with the secrets of his art . Ingenio Nepotis confisum plura divinanti innuisse , quàm discenti tradidisse ; ( saith the Polonian Knight ) non dissimulato inter amicos praesagio pleniùs haec atque foelicius à Fausto orbi prodenda ; and Faustus Socinus doth acknowledge that he did owe all his mysterious knowledge to his Unckle only , ( for he was never taught of God ) Praeter unum Laelium patruummeum — vel potius praeter paucula quaedam ab ipso conscripta & multa annotata , nullum prorsus magistrum me habere contigit . Epist. ad Maro . Sq. You may read particulars in D Calovius ( pag. 2. & sequ. ) I need not therefore descend to particulars since the confession is so generall ; only be pleased to observe that the heresy doth directly strike at the Nature , Person , Offices , Satisfaction , Sacraments of Christ . And as the Arminians are much offended with the ninth chapter to the Romanes , so the Socinians are as much offended with the first chap. of the Gospel according to Saint Iohn ; it was therefore Laelius one of his master-pieces to pervert that Scripture by a devilish gloss . I dare not give a more gentle Epithet : Faustus doth confesse that his Unckle Laelius did contribute all the stuffe out of which he framed his exposition upon the first part of the first Chapter of Saint John ; Illam verborum Johannis expositionem , & quae ad eandem adserendam produxit , sese magnâ ex parte è Laelii sermonibus , dum adhuc viveret , & post ejus mortem ex aliquibus ipsius scriptis sumpsisse & deprompsisse . V. Frag. duor . script . Socin. & Epist. 1. ad Dudith . pag. 13. But though Laelius Soci●us carried matters thus closely , and did all by sleight of wit and hand , yet about 3. yeares before his death he was shrewdly suspected for a Seducer , his brother Cornelius was apprehended , the rest fled for fear , Faustus his Nephew and disciple , fled quite out of Italy , to Lyons in France , Laelius in the mean time died in the yeare 1562. and the 37. yeare of his age , as Calovius assures me : Cum Faustus aliquandiu Lugduni in Gallia viveret , Laelius interi●s Tiguri extinctus est anno 1562. Aetatis ejus septimo supra trigesimum . All Laelius his notes were I beleeve committed to Faustus , qui patruo suo Laelio emortualis extitit , as the same Author , de origine Theol. Soc. § . 25. and therefore certainly most of his opinions would have died with him , had not this unlucky Faustus poysoned the world with them . For Faustus himself acknowledges that Laelius was very sparing in opening himself , except it were in some lighter controversies . Nolebat ille sententiam suamnisi in levioribus quibusdam controversiis omnibus aperire , ne turbarentur Ecclesiae , & infirmi quorum maximam semper habuit rationem offenderentur , & à vero Dei cultu ad Idola fortasse iterum adducerentur . Frag. F. Socini Disp. de Christi naturâ p. 5. Observe by the way that the Socinians doe not much differ from the Papists in any point in controversie between the Papists and Reformed Churches , unlesse it be in the point of Idolatry . But indeed there was one reason more why Laelius was so wary , he knew how it fared with Michael Serv●tus in the year 1553. & that severe example might well keep him in awe for 8. or 9. years after , about which time he died : and indeed Faustus seems to glance at some such reason , for he saith Laelius had observed that there was a custome which grew in request in some Churches , ut Execrabiles haberentur quicunque adversus receptas sententias vel mutire quidē ausi essent , in the place forecited . Nay I can easily guesse at a third reason yet , because Laelius had in former time before he was poysoned with Servetus his doctrines taught the same truths which are generally received in the Reformed Churches , and if he should have retracted so many opinions , the people would not have beleeved him in any thing he had taught , but would have quite faln off to Popery againe , as he conceived : for the people had a great opinion of his doctrine , though he was neither Doctour nor Pastor in the Church . Neve tandem divina veritas ab eo praedicata ( quineque Pastoris neque Doctoris officio in Ecclesia fungeretur ) ob auctoris non parvam ( I beleeve it should be , though 't is printed magnā ) auctoritatē magna Christiani orbis detrimento passim rejiceretur . Faustus Disp ▪ de Christi natura , pag. 6. It was therefore Laelius his master-plot to propound doubts & questions to such famous men as Calvin , & others in the Reformed Churches , as if he intended to gain some farther light ( when indeed he sought for further advantage ) by their determinations . Quod tamen ut omnem offensionem vitaret addiscendi tantum studio a se fieri dicebat : qua tamen ratione ab initio idem vere ab eo factum fuisse verisimile est , quare etiam Discipulum semper se , nunquam autem Doctorem profitebatur . Faustus ubi supra . Master Calvin did easily perceive his subtilty , and therefore gave him a faire but sharp admonition about the Calends of January , 1552. as the Polonian Knight doth confesse : Si tibi per aereas illas speculationes ( saith Calvin ) volitare libet , sine me quae so humilem Christi Discipulum ea meditari quae ad fidei meae aedificationem faciunt — Quod pridem testatus sum , serio iterum moneo , nisi hunc quaerendi Pruritum mature corrigas , metuendum esse ne tibi gravia tormenta accersas . Faustus saith that his Uncle was snatched away by an untimely death , non sine Dei consilio , that so those great mysteries which God had revealed to none but Laelius , might be made known unto the world . Cùm statim fere post mortem ejus , eorum quae ipse palam docere non audebat pars aliqua & literis consignari , & passim divulgari est coepta ; id quod eo vivente nunquam fortasse contigisset , amicis ex iis quae ipse scripserat non adhuc plene edoctis , & adversus praeceptoris voluntatem aliquid eorum quae ab ipso didicerant in vulgus prodere minime audentibus . Hac scilicet ratione Deus quae illi uni patefecerat omnibus manifesta esse voluit . Faustus ubi supra , pag. 6. & 7. I am at this great paines of transcribing , because Socinian bookes are so deare , every man will not pay a groat a sheete , the price that I am forced to , onely that I may declare the truth ; so much for Laelius . Faustus Socinus the Nephew of Laelius was borne in the yeare 1539 , two houres and three quarters before Sun-rising on the fift of December ; so scrupulous are some in calculating the nativity of this monster ; and he himselfe tooke notice of it in his Epistle Ad excellentissimum quendam virum ; He was of no meane parentage , his father was by name Alexander Socinus , and for his Policie , Subtilitatum princeps , as he was deservedly stiled ; his mother was nobly descended , the Polonian Knight hath shewen her descent , Matrem habuit Agnetem Burgesii Petruccii Senenfis quondam Reipub. Principis ac Victoriae Piccolomineae filiam . He studied the Lawes till he was about three and twenty yeares of age , and then hee betooke himselfe to the great Duke of Hetruria his Court , where he spent twelve yeares , onely he had so much leisure at Court , as to write a booke about the authority of the Scripture , in which he doth slily pervert the Scriptures , and lay a ground for all his hereticall blasphemies . This is all the account that can be given of him for 35. yeares . I doe not heare of any great brags ( though the Socinians doe make loud brags of him ) of his Logique , Philosophy , Schoole-divinity , the learned tongues , onely he spent some two or three yeares in digesting his Uncles Notes , and then thought he had learning enough to contradict all the Fathers and Councels , and undertooke to censure all the Reformed Churches , and to dispute with the greatest Scholars in the world : the presumption of his wit , besides the badnesse of his cause , did betray him to his adversaries , especially in the first prizes he played , and he was so subtile as to seeme ingenuous in acknowledging such oversights as he could not possibly conceale : Quod vero ais ( saith Faustus to Puccius ) supellectilem meam Hebraeam & Graeeam — teipsum latere non potest ejusmodi meam supellectilem non valde curtam modò , sed propemodum nullum esse ; Graecos enim fontes , ut egomet omnibus dico , leviter admodum degus●avi , Hebraeos vix dum attigi , &c. Socin. Resp. ad Def. Puccii , pag. 49. And he confesses that he made a great flourish in the world before he had any Logick , hee had vapoured against Puccius , Palaeologus , Volanus , and divers others , he had composed a Commentary on the first part of the first Chapter of S. Iohn , and on the seventh to the Romans , his Animadversions in Theses Posn . de Trino & uno Deo , & alia quaedam Imperfecta , as he saith , cum nondum Dialecticae ullam operam dedissem , ut post hac non mireris si in meis scriptis multa deprehenderis minus rectè tradita ac conclusa . Epist. ad excellentissimum quendam virum . It was no wonder indeed if a man that understood neither Greek nor Hebrew , nor Logick , should give many interpretations , and draw many Conclusions which will not hold . Now whether after the delicacies of the Court , and 35. yeares of his age mis-spent , he was so apt to mould his stiffe braines , and new-cast them into a Logicall forme , let the world judge . Socinus then was not the greatest Scholar in the world , though hee thought himselfe able to teach all the Church , and all the world . The Polonian Knight acknowledges that he was of an hasty cholerique disposition , praecipitem ad Bilem natura formaverat ; but it seemes his heat did evaporate at Court , In vita a●licâ deferbuisse juvenilem illum Socini astum , qui plerumque magna in magnos lapsus pr●cipitat ingenia ; and yet Marcellus Squarcialupus Socinus his good friend doth often complaine of him for his rashnesse , &c. as Calovius shewes at large : you may reade plentifull testimonies cited at length , Consid. Th. Socin. pag. 13. & 15. to him therefore I referre you . Faustus then had more subtilty then learning ; when he was not able to prove his opinions , he told his Auditours , Haec si vera non sint , verisimilia saltem & probabilia deprehendetis . He was of a ma●ignant wit , hee knew how to disgrace truth by scoffes and slanders , he thought to affright weake spirited men from the Protestant Religion , by telling them that they held opinions ( in particular that Christ is God ) which made Christian Religion ridiculous to Iewes and Turkes , Et exteris denique omnibus , but names none else . Haecque & hujusmodi alia quaedam , quorum ansam illis dedit graeca vox * {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , ingeniose quidem ( ut illis videtur ) & foeliciter comminiscuntur quae omnia — cùm ridicula magna ex parte appareant efficitur ( proh dolor ! ) ut Jesu Christi religio — & Judaeis & Turcis & exteris denique omnibus maximè sit ludibrio . Explicat . cap. prim . Ioh. pag. 9. Our superstitious men of late pressed us to comply with them , in hope of converting Papists from their superstition , by conforming our selves to the selfe same superstition , and now the Socinians would have us to deny Christ to be God , that we may convert Turkes and Iewes to the Christian faith : as if the best way to convert men to the Christian faith , were to deny a prime Article of our Christian faith ; or as if Jews and Turks would have a better opinion of Christ , if the Christians should deny him to be God , and so harden them in their beloved blasphemies ; and yet Faustus Socinus saith his friends did encourage him to write against that inveterate figment of the divine nature of Christ , Hac enim ratione — & Iudaeos & Turcas ad Christianam religionem allici posse , qui portentosis istis opinionibus quae Christianae fidei Axiomata esse creduntur ab eâ amplectenda semper sunt deterriti . Faustus , ubi supra , pag. 2. I should tyre out my Reader , if I should but reckon up the tricks and devices of this Faustus ; for he pretended just as our Translator here , to be a Reformer of the Reformers , nay of the Reformation it selfe ; he makes many glorious pretences in his booke called Solutio Scrupulorum . God ( saith he ) in this last Age intends to make many new discoveries , and to Reforme his Church more thorowly then ever . Luther he confesses hath discovered truths enough to carry us to Heaven ; Zuinglius and Oecolampadius reformed the Church in matters of great weight and moment ; they are justly to be extolled , because they have purged the Church from superstition and Idolatry , and caused all false worships to be abhorred ; but he doth very slily intimate , that it was now left to him to confute all errors which Luther , Zuinglius and Oecolampadius had not observed in the Church ; for saith he , though the Idols Temple is laid levell with the ground , no man hath as yet set up the Temple of Christ : nay he goes farther , Nec caementa & lapides ad illud extruendum parari ; and we may truly say , Socinus lapides loquitur , as the Comedian said ; and he knows full well how to daube with untempered morter . He hath written two other pestilent Books , in which he hath most cunningly vented his poyson , one is a booke which I never saw , De ss. Scripturae authoritate , which Calovius tels is one of his most subtile pieces , and seemes to be one of his first Essayes : Dominicus Lopez a Jesuit was so taken ( or mistaken ) with it , as to print it in the yeare , 1588. The other Pamphlet is a briefe discourse , De causâ ob quam creditur aut non creditur Evangelio Iesu Christi . In this second he speakes plainer then in the former , as they say who have read both , and they conceive that it was purposely put forth as a Commentary upon the other ; for Socinus did speake more freely still every yeare then other , accordingly as hee saw his Discourses entertained and applauded by potent Abettours ; he did not put his name to his Commentary upon Iohn , till he saw how it would take ; Libuit antequam nomen nostrum prodamus aliorum exigui hujus laboris nostri judicius cognoscere . Explic. Ioh. p. 4. And Calovius saith , he did not put his name to it till whole Churches ( Congregations I suppose he meanes ) had subscribed to Socinus his Tenets , Calovius de Origine Theol. Soc. p. 19. He gained very much by his feigned modesty , he saith it was his hearty desire to bring all men to his opinion , yet such was his charity and modesty , that he would account them brethren , who counted him an Hereticke , and held his opinions to be pernicious , upon condition they did their best , to live in obedience to Christs precepts , and sought in a faire way to convince him by Scripture , Explic. cap. prim . Ioh. pag. 4. But though he pretended to be ruled by Scripture , it is most evident that all his Art was to withdraw men from hearkning to the plainest Texts of Scripture which doe contradict blinde carnall reason . He taught the world a new way of disputing in Divinity ; we were wont to argue thus , Whatsoever God saith is true : but God saith thus and thus ; ergo : but he taught us to prove , That such and such a proposition is true by the causes and proper effects first , or else saith he , it is absurd to thinke that God said any thing but truth , and therefore unlesse it can appeare by some demonstrative argument , that such a proposition is true , we must not pitch upon that proposition , as the minde of the holy Ghost in any Text of Scripture ; what ever the words of the Text seeme to hold forth unto us , wee must goe looke out for some other sense which is agreeable to right Reason . Rationis lumen quo Deus nos donavit aperte ostendit non debere nec posse corporalem poenam quam unus debeat ab alio persolvi , idque etiam omnium gentium ac seculorum legibus ac consuetudinibus perpetuo & maximo consensu comprobatum sit , as Socinus in his Tract Deservatore ; Behold how the light of Reason , the Laws , nay the Customes ( and perchance some of them unreasonable ) of Nations must over-rule God , so that God himselfe shall not be believed , if he doe not speake consonantly to my corrurpt reason , and our vaine Customes . It is cleare and evident , that whatsoever Socinus produces against Christs satisfaction , or our Justification , is a meere figment of his owne braine , for he onely urges some colourable arguments , which have but a shew or shadow of reason . But I shall not instance in more particulars now , because I desire to passe on and discover Socinus his subtilty , in scattering his errors abroad in Sarmatia , Transylvania , &c. and therefore this shall suffice for the Rise of Socinianisme . CHAP. II. The Growth of Socinianisme . ILL weeds thrive apace ; Laelius had sowne his errors , as hath beene already shewen , in some five or sixe yeares , within ten yeares space there were whole Congregations submitted themselves to the Socinian yoake in Sarmatia as Doctor Calovius assures mee , Intra decennium integra Ecclesiae accesserunt haeresi ejusdem in Sarmatia , Consid , Th. Soc. Prooemial . pag. 65. And this Heresie did spread so fast in Transylvania , that within twenty yeares after there were some hundreds of Congregations infected , Ut vix triginta elapsis annis aliquot Centuriae Coetuum talium ibidem numeratae fuerint . Ibid. What they maintained upon their first Apostasie , may bee seene in a Booke , De falsa & vera unius Dei , Patris , Filii , & S. Sti. cognitione . It pleased God that Franciscus Davidis the Superintendent of those new perverted Proselytes in Transylvania , did lay some rubs in the way of Faustus Socinus ; for this Franciscus desired to know why Christ should bee worshipped or prayed unto any longer , if hee were not God ? Blandrate and Faustus did lay their heads together to answer this Quere ; but this same Franciscus Davidis maintained stoutly that Invocation and Adoration were parts of divine honour due to God alone ; This hapned about the yeare , 1578. some twenty yeares after the stirres which were in the Italian Church at Geneva , ut supra . But Faustus and Blandrate could not compose the tumults ( or answer the objections ) which Franciscus had raised in Transylvania , and so Faustus Socinus was forced to returne with shame enough into Poland : But when Faustus could not doe what he would , he seemed to be content to joyne with the Davidians , as they were called from Franciscus Davidis , as farre as they would goe hand in hand with him in opposing the Reformed Churches , and he did prevaile very much in a Synod about the yeare , 1588. in other points also which hee did cunningly winde in , and they greedily swallow ; and he prevailed very farre the next yeare in another Synod , and within a matter of foure yeares , as Calovius saith , he brought over all ( them whom he had wrought upon , to deny the Godhead of Christ ) to subscribe to the whole body of Socinianisme : and no marvaile , for though there are many parts of Socinianisme which have no rationall dependance upon the deniall of the Godhead of Christ ; yet when once men come to be sofar blinded as to deny that glorious truth which shines so clearly in the Gospell , it is no wonder if they see nothing at all . Besides he was so wise as to strike in with the Nobles , and the Courtiers , with the most youthfull and sharp witted Pastors , and not only with subtile disputants , but smooth Popular Oratours , men more able to corrupt the people , witnesse Petrus Steinius ; or Statorius , by whose unhappy eloquence the sublimest subtilties of Socinus which transcended vulgar capacities , were so explained and smoothed in a popular , but plausible way , that the most refined notions were made familiar to the common people ; Infoelici Steinii suadâ subtiles & à rudiorum captu remotiores Socini sensus populari ratione tradere & flexanimae orationis genio cunctis probare poterat , &c. This blasphemous wretch did travaile , ab extremâ Silesiae or a in intimam Lithuaniam , that he might spread his errors , though he did thereby often endanger his life : he lived a long time , he was about 66. years of age when he died ; though it was long ere he began to seduce as hath been shewn , yet he had 30. years time to infect a people that were too willing to be infected ; he died , as Calovius informs me , in the yeare 1604. Tandem anno etatis quinto ultra sexagesimum blasphemam exhalat animam , Aerae Christianae 1604. Vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras . CHAP. III. The Danger of Socinianisme . LEarned Grotius may remember that there was a time when he himselfe thought Socini●nisme to be very dangerous , Cum haeresis sit venenum ecclesiae , & quidem praesentissimum , sed tamen haereseos aliqui sint gradus , ut sit hac illâ nocentior priorem aliam non reperiri haresi Socini , ad cujus etiam mentionem pii omnes exhorreant , in his speech to the States called H. G. Pietas . Certain all pious men may well tremble at the very mention of Socinianisme , at the very repeating of their basphemies . For my part I dare not call them Christians , because they deny the Godhead and satisfaction of Christ , they will not be baptized in the name of the Trinity , they labour to pluck up Christianity by the roots , and to overthrow the very foundation of Religion . I cannot but blot out Smalcius his name out of the white roll of Christians , if it were but for that one blasphemy , Christianus esse potest qui divinam Christi essentiam negat . Smal , contr. nova monstra . An errour that takes away all Prayer to Christ , and worship of him , doth utterly destroy Christian religion : but the denyall of the Godhead of Christ doth take away all prayer to Christ and worship of him , ergo . This argument was urged by Franciscus Davidis and Simon Budnaeus , but Fanstus Socinus ( ut supra ) was not able to give any satisfying answer to this triumphing Reason . The Socinians are mad with reason , if they conceive it reasonable to give Divine honour to any save God alone . None pretend to be greater enemies to Idolatry , then the Socinians , and yet they doe clearly maintain this Idolatrous principle , namely that divine Honour may be given to one whom they conceive to be a meer man , Christ blessed for ever . The Socinian Errour is Fundamentall , they deny Christs satisfaction , and so overthrow the foundation of our faith , the foundation of our Justification ; they deny the Holy Trinity , and so take away the very Object of our Faith ; they deny the Resurrection of these Bodies , and so take away the foundation of our hope ; they deny originall sinne , and so take away the ground of our Humiliation , and indeed the necessity of regeneration ; they advance the power of Nature , and destroy the efficacy of Grace . It is an Antichristian errour , because it takes away the very Essence and Person of Iesus Christ , for they deny him to be God , and so take away his Essence ; they deny him to be the second Person in the Trinity , and so destroy his very person also . They doe in effect rob him of all his offices , for if Christ be not God , he is not that great Prophet foretold by Moses , who is Prince and Author of life , Act. 3. 15. 22. ad finem , Act. 7. 37 , 38. Nor can he be a Priest able to save by the offering of himself , because the merit of his sacrifice depends upon the dignity of his person : the offering of a meer man cannot satisfy for so many thousands of men : and therefore the Socinians having denyed the Godhead of Christ , deny that he hath given God full satisfaction . Nor can Christ be a King , who hath an heavenly and eternall kingdome by nature , if he be not God . It is an Anti-spirituall errour , for they deny the Nature and Person of the holy Ghost , the speciall grace and saving efficacy of the holy Ghost ; they say , we can understand the deepest mysteries of faith , and beleeve in Christ without the speciall assistance of the holy Ghost . They overthrow the very nature of Faith , for they confound faith and workes ; Obedience to Gods commands is faith it selfe , or the very substance and Forme of faith . Fides ( quâ justificamur ) obedientiam pr●ceptorum Dei non quidem ut effectum , sed ut suam substantiam & formam continet . Socin. Miscl . p. 162. They destroy the Morall Law which was delivered by Moses , by saying that is imperfect . Christ came to fulfill ( that is , say they ) to make the Law perfect ; and they overthrow the Gospel , by saying that we are justifyed by the workes of the Law , and by their confounding of the Law of Faith , and the Law of workes ; they say as the Jewes say , that the great work of the Messiah is to proclaime and confirme the Law , only they adde that it w●● his in●ent , legem Mosaicam ceu minus perfectam perficere & locupletare , and therefore they say , Christ and his Apostles did so often presse obedience to the Law , to shew that we are to be justifyed by the works of the Law : and hence it is that they call our blessed Saviour , Mosen Mosissimum , as if Christ had not preached the Gospel , the Law of Faith , as the Apostle calls it , Rom. 3. 27. And by this meanes the Law of Justification by faith alone without the works of the Law , which is the scope of the Gospel , is quite overthrown . They set open a wide gap to Atheisme , by denying that the soule of man can possibly so subsist by it selfe after this life , as to be capable of joy or torment , of reward or punishment ; they may when they please speak plain English , and say , that there is neither Heaven nor Hell . Animadvertendum est ( say they ) Christum & Apostolos coactos fuisse quodammodo hominum opinionibus , quae tunc plerunque vigebant , se accommodare , quemadmodum satis aperte docet parabola Divitis & Lazari . Nam aliquem in inferno fuisse & ibi torqueri , in sinu Abrahae decumbere , sunt plane fictitia , & similia illis , quae Poetae de Ixione , Sisypho , Tantalo scribunt : hâc etiam prudentiâ hodie apud vulgus Christianorum in hac materiâ utendum , &c. I have transcribed this out of Doctor Josuah Stegman the Reverend Superintendent of Scawenburg , and when ever I cite Stegman briefly in the margin , I intend that learned Author , and not Ioachimus Stegman the grand Socinian . The Socinians desire to take us off from giving any heed to the received interpretations of a Fathers or Councells , that so they may obtrude their own fancies and conceits upon us as solid , and Rationall , most accurate , but very moderate Interpretations , vide Brev. Disq. p. 7. They of all men doe most affect the conduct of their own private spirit , which they call Right Reason ; and though they pretend that we are more busie in enquiring after the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councels , then the true sense of the Scriptures , yet they doe not endeavour by this out-cry to extoll and enthrone the Scriptures , but to set their own private spirit or b judgement in the chaire , which is indeed to make every man a Pope . This conceit of theirs cannot but take well with the multitude , for every man ( as Luther saith ) is born with a Pope in his belly ; and with a Pope in his braine too , for every one would faine have his reason , his fancy to sit Judge in all controversies , every man is apt to think himself infallible , and that his Private Iudgement ought to be the Publike Standard . Finally , every one desires to give a Toleration or a Dispensation to himselfe , that he may be allowed to maintain such opinions and goe on in such courses as are generally condemned by the judgement of Learned and Pious men . There is another quarrell that they pick with the Reformed Churches , and that is for extolling their Doctours too highly , such as Luther , Brentius , Melancthon , Bucer , Chemnitius , Calvin , Beza , Zuinglius and the rest , but they would pardon this errour , if they did not oblige other men to stand to the Judgement of these and such like Reverend Authours ; if they might have but their liberty of prophecying according to their own private spirit or judgement they would be content , but that the Churches passe their censures upon such as dissent from the most received interpretations of Fathers , Councels and the Reformed Divines , though such interpretations seem unreasonable to the Private Judgement of our acute Socinians . But there is a third fault greater then any of the former , & that is , that the Reformed Divines make the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures ( and shining into the hearts and minds of men by a glorious light to enable them to understand the Scriptures ) the Judge of controversies , for by this means say they , the judgement of sound Reason is made uselesse and of none effect or Authority before the illumination of the Holy Ghost : this is an high fault indeed ; we are it seemes in great danger of being seduced from the dictates of blind carnal reason to follow the light and voice of the Scriptures , & the Holy Spirit . Besides , there is another greater danger , if we follow the Spirit so much , we shal not be able to answer that Seraphique Doctour , Valerianus Magnus , his book , de Acatholicorum credendi Regulâ Iudicio , set forth at Prague , 1628. but it may be the book needs no answer , or they that follow the Spirit and the Scriptures are not at leisure , they have better imployment . But let the Socinians speak their minde clearely , then what is it they would have ? why , they would throw the Pope out of his chaire , and they would sit there themselves by turnes , that so they may be Popes round ; for every man say they hath reason enough before he is inlightned by the Holy Ghost to judge of the authority of Scriptures by Histories , and other principles , and to collect out of the Scriptures compared , and the foresaid principles , not onely all things necessary to salvation , but many profitable truths besides , though not so necessary . I should be very glad to learne what those other Principles are besides the Scripture out of which we may collect truths necessary to salvation ; for this you must look into the seventh Chapter of this Brevis disquisitio , Caterùm ad sacrarum literarum anctoritatem & genuinam mentem dignoscendam principia etiam illa quae Philosophica appellant advocanda esse . But if a man be no Scholar , why , then those principles which are knowne to him by nature , and his owne observation , are the Rules whereby hee must examine ; first , whether the Scriptures be the word of God , and then , what is the true sense and meaning of them ; if such a man have but a good wit , a little experience ( saith hee ) will serve the turne . Nay , he affirmes that it will serve the turne , if by the helpe of those good principles , his owne good wit , and conference with others , he do but heare the summe of those few things which the Socinians conceive necessary to salvation , though he never heare or know , that there is any such booke as the booke of God . Mr. Chillingworth comes very neere this Disquisition-monger in his accurate Treatise , for he saith , The Scripture is not to be believed finally for it selfe , but for the matter contained in it , so that if men did believe the doctrin contained in the Scripture , it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no , chap. 2. pag. 65 , 66. I thought it had beene necessary to have received those materiall objects or Articles of our Faith , upon the authority of God speaking in the Scriptures ; I thought it had beene Anabaptisticall to have expected any Revelation but in the Word of God ; for a Revelation , nay a supernaturall revelation is necessary to help naturall reason , as the same Mr. Chillingworth acknowledges . Knot had very unhappily branded Mr. Chillingworth for a Socinian , because he maintaineth , That nothing ought or can bee certainly believed , farther then it may be proved by evidence of naturall reason , ( where I conceive , saith Mr. Chillingworth , naturall reason is opposed to supernaturall revelation ) and whosoever holds so let him be Anathema . Sect. 28. in his Answer to Knots Direction to N. N. Now let Mr. Chillingworth say that either there is a Revelation to be expected out of the Word , as the Enthyfiasts do , or else let him acknowledge , that God hath ordained the Scriptures as the meanes and instruments to reveale saving truths , and let him teach men to depend upon the Ordinances of God , and not make men stand at a gaze to expect a Revelation in an extraordinary way . Or else let him speake plaine , and say there is truth enough written in the hearts of every man by nature to save him , or that it may be learnt from Philosophers writings ; let him say as Socinus doth , that the substance of the promises is eternall life , that the maine thing God lookes after is practise , that Heathens and Christians have the same practicall rules written in their heart , and so if a man doe but hope for eternall life by observing these practicall rules ( as many Heathens did , witnesse that verse of Phocylides , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , and the Discourses of Socrates , Plato , Hermes , &c. ) hee may be eternally saved ; and then we shall know how free he is from Socinidnisme . Or else let him confesse , that naturall Reason being helped by a supernaturall Revelation in the Word , is not able to discerne saving truths , so as to beleeve them after a saving manner , without the speciall assistance of the holy Ghost , such assistance as is vouchsafed to none but the Elect of God , and then I will acknowledge that he is no Socinian . But otherwise , if either he thinke as he seemes to thinke , that all the materiall objects which are necessary to salvation , may be knowne out of some other booke then Scripture , or by some other meanes ; and that if a man beleeve them meerely as truths probable by reason , and doe not receive those truths as the Oracles of God , but dictates of Reason , then sure he may be a Socinian still ; nay , if he hold a supernaturall Revelation by the Word to be necessary , it being the meanes which God hath ordained , and so is made necessary to us by Gods ordinance ; yet if hee thinke this outward revelation to be sufficient , without the inward and speciall revelation of the Spirit , he may be a Socinian still . But this by the way , I shall say the lesse of Mr. Chillingworth , when I come to touch upon his Booke ; sure I am , such dangerous principles as these , will beate greene heads from the study of the Scriptures , if they be not censured upon every occasion . I know Master Chillingworth protests that he is willing to stand to the judgement of the Catholique Church , of this and former ages , to the consent of Protestants , the Church of England ; but if he put in the Papists into the Catholicke Church , as I beleeve he will ; then he will say the Papists doe not agree , and therefore the Catholick Church of this age is not against the Socinians ; nay the Fathers doe not all agree , and so there is not a Catholick consent of the Ancients , as Mr. Chillingworth I beeleeve did purposely shew at large in the eighteenth Section of his Answer to N. N. that so he might winde himselfe out the better in this 28. Section : Nay , peradventure he will put the Socinians in for to give a vote , if you aske for the consent of the Catholique Church of this Age , for hee cals them a company of Christians in the 29. Section ; and though he saith , They are erroneous in explicating ( he doth not say in denying ) the mysteries of Religion , & allowing greater liberty in speculative matters , ( so the Socinians call the Articles of the Christian faith ) then any other company of Christians doth , or they should doe , yet for their honour he saith , they explicate the Lawes of Christ with more rigour and lesse indulgence to the flesh then the Papists doe , and that is true , but not much for their commendation , because they thereby disgrace the Morall Law of God , and say it was imperfect , till Christ gave new Lawes ; but Mr. Chillingworth was willing to take any occasion to commend them . Moreover if Mr. Chillingworth by the Church of England , meane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his faction , then indeed there will not be a generall consent of the Church of England against the Socinians . Once more , if he take in all the Arminians , and some Iesuited Papists , that ( as Vertumnus Romanus prescribes ) come to Church and heare our Common prayers , and receive the Sacrament in some Congregations in this Kingdome , though they bee of Mr. Fisher , or Mr. Flued his minde , and ranke all these amongst Protestants ( for we have had strange kinde of Protestants for these twelve yeares last past , ) then I beleeve there will not be a generall consent of such Protestants against the Socinians ; and so Mr. Chillingworth may oppose Socinianisme , when all these agree together to oppose it . But indeed hee hath one Argument which makes me beleeve that he and more of that faction who countenance many Socinian errors , doe not agree with the Socinians in all points , because Socinianisme if it be taken in all its demensions , is such a Doctrine by which no man in his right minde can hope for any honour or preferment either in this Church or State , or in any other . Many men do indeed adventure as farre as they dare this way , onely they are afraid of thwarting the great Designe , as I shall hereafter shew . I dare not excuse Mr. Chillingworths dangerous principles , though I account him a very rationall man , yet I beleeve him to be the more dangerous , I dare not therefore give him that liberty which he gives others , and cry , Quisque abundet in sensusuo , because they are not the words of S. Paul , though Mr. Chillingworth father them upon him , chap. 2. pag. 92. the words of the Apostle are , Let every man be fully perswaded , or assured in his own minde , Rom. 14. 5. I goe on to shew the danger of Socinianisme . It is an Hotch-potch of Gentilisme , Turcisme , Judaisme , and I know not what , they have put in some scruples of Christianity to make up the messe . The Centuriatours say , that Mahomet did compose his Alcoran by the helpe of the Iewes , and Iohannes Antiochenus an Arian : and truly Turcisme doth much savour of Iudaisme and Arianisme . Now Socinianisme is compounded of the selfe same ingredients , Socinus borrowed very much from Servetus , and Servetus from the Alcoran , as Wajekus proves , and Socinus doth acknowledge , vide Antiwajek . Soc. pag. 33. They say we hinder the conversion of the Turks , by departing so far from them ; whereas they agree with Turks in denying the Godhead , eternall generation , meritorious satisfaction of Christ , in blaspheming the Trinity : Paul Alciat , and Adam Neuser , two Socinians turned Turks ; nay the Turks discourse more solidly about the Prescience of God , then the Socinians , or Arminians doe . The Resurrection of these very bodies was believed by none but Iewes and Turkes at first , ( as the Socinians would make us believe ) and the Protestants have received it from them . They open a gap to an Atheisticall Libertinisme , by promising salvation to all Hereticks , ignorant persons , if they live but chast , sober , just lives , and expect eternall life , for that is the summe of the promises , and they need not know or beleeve more : all the mysteries of faith are by them counted but meere notions , speculations at best , and it is no great matter if men have diverse and contrary opinions about them they may all fare well enough ; truly I thinke one as well as another , if there be neither heaven nor hell . Socinians are not to be permitted in any Church , for they deny that there is as yet any Triumphant Church above , nor is it necessary that there should be any Militant Church here below . The Arminians jumpe with them in the same conceit , they say , Christ may bee a King without a kingdome , an Head without a body : Neque verò necesse esse credimus ad hoc ut Christus rex & caput maneat in terris Ecclesiam veram semper esse . Their reasons are , because Christs kingdome doth rather consist in his owne Soveraigne Authority , then in the obedience and subjection of any people . Besides , if there were a necessity of it that there must be a Church on earth , then Christs people would not be a free willing people , and so there would be no spirituall Church , if they are not left at liberty , to accept or refuse Christ ; sure that is a rebellious Liberty , for a liberty to reject Christ , is a liberty to rebell . No man they say need inquire after the true Church , much lesse is it necessary that he should be a member of the true Church , Ubinam quaeso est scriptum Christum praecepisse ut unusquisque inquirat , & norit quaenam sit vera Ecclesia ? Socinus de Eccles. Thes. They would not have any marks given of a true Church , I suppose for fear theirs should be discovered to be a false ; but especially they deny , that the pure preaching of the word is a note of the true Church , for with jeasting Pilate they aske , What is Truth ? How shall it appeare , say they , that any Church preaches the saving Truth ? Nay Arminians and Socinians both tell us , that there is no need of preaching : saving Truths are sufficiently manifested they say , and yet it seemes it is not sufficiently manifested to them , for they cannot tell what it is . They doe not see any great use of the Sacraments , they cannot believe that the sprinkling of water upon the body , should have any spirituall effects upon the soule ; they cannot believe that our faith can bee strengthened , our pardon sealed , Christ and his benefits imparted to us by eating of Bread , and drinking Wine . Now sure a Church that is without Ministers , Sacraments , markes or signes of a true Church , would be but an empty Titular Church , and to such a Church onely should Socinians be admitted . Socinians are not to be suffered in any State , for they will not shew any obedience or respect to Magistrates ; they say , they have no power to punish hainous offenders in time of peace , nor have they power to defend themselves or the people by the Sword , in time of Warre . But especially , they charge the Magistrates to beware how they meddle with good honest Hereticks , for all Hereticks in the opinion of Arminians and Socinians ( who speake favourably in their owne cause ) are good pious men . What they say of the Law of Nations , or of a particular State , I had rather you should reade in their Writings then in mine . I beleeve your patience is already tyred with this briefe narration , if any desire to be farther satisfied in particulars let them reade this book . CHAP. IV. Whether England hath been , or still is in danger to be farther infected with Socinianisme . FArther infected I say , for it is too evident that it hath been in some measure already infected with this pestilent heresie . I know the Archbishop of Canterbury did pretend to crush this cockatrice of Socinianisme , but all things being considered , it is to be feared that his Canon was ordained for concealing , rather then suppressing of Socinianisme ; for he desired that none but his own party should be admitted to the reading of Socinian books , it was made almost impossible for any that were not of his party , to take the degree of Batchelour of Divinity ( I can say more in that point then another ) or at least improbable they should have means to pay a groat a sheet for Socinian books . It is well known that the Arch-Bishop did highly favour , and frequently employ men shrewdly suspected for Socinianisme . Master Chillingworth , to speak modestly , hath been too patient , being so deeply charged by Knot for his inclining towards some Socinian Tenets : no man in Saint Ieromes opinion ought to be patient in such a a case , and sure no innocent man would be patient . Mr. Chillingworth hath not yet answered — Christianity maintained . The Protestants doe not own many of those principles which are scattered in Master Chillingworths book , and Knot could observe that he proceeded in a destructive way , just as the Socinians doe . The Reformed Churches abroad wonder that we could finde no better a Champion amongst all our Worthies ; they who travailed hither out of forrain parts blessed themselves when they saw so much froath and grounds ; so much Arminianisme and vanity in Master Chillingworths admired peece : What doth it advantage the Protestant cause , if the Pope be deposed from his infallible chair , and Reason enthroned that Socinianisme may be advanced ? But I am afraid Doctor Potter may take it unkindly that I have named Master Chillingworth before him ; for his Grace employed Doctour Potter first , and he was cryed up as a Patr●ne of the Protestant Profession , but he sowred his Calvinisme with so much Arminian leaven , and sweetned Popery with some such gentle Scruples of Moderate Divinity as they call it , that the Jesuites laughed in their sleeves , and Knot was so pleasant that he could scarce refrain from laughing openly . That these two great Champions doe vent Arminian principles is manifest to any man that hath but peeped into their books . Now that Arminianisme is a fair step to Socinianisme hath been sufficiently proved by Bodecherus , ( though he hath been derided , he hath not been answered ) Peltius , Vedelius and others , so that I need say no more in that point . What Art and care hath been used to propagate the Arminian errours in England , would require a large volume , and I had laid open all their sleights and projects ( had not my bookes and notes been seised on ) to the full : God may give me opportunity to say something to that point yet before I finish my course . The Church of Scotland complains of his Grace , for he first protected Wederburn , when he fled from Scotland for fear of the Church-censures , because this Wederburn had poysoned the young students in Divinity with Arminianisme in the new Colledge at Saint Andrews ; his Grace made the same Wederburn Bishop of Dumblane , that so he might be Dean of the Kings Chappell , and vent all his Arminian errours in the Royall Chappell , in despight of all the Presbyteries . Then his Grace chose out 24. Royall Chaplaines , such as were most likely to preach the Deanes Arminian Tenets to the State when they saw that all preferment did run that way . I will not say any thing of Master Sydserf , Doctor Forbes , &c. You may read the complaint at large in a book entitled Ladens . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , or the Canterburian self-conviction . But that which did most mischiefe , was a large Declaration procured by his Grace , but sent in the Kings name into Scotland , in which their general Assembly was much condemned for passing any censure upon Arminians . Besides , his Grace had two Scouts in Ireland , the Bishop of Derry , and Doctour Chappell : Behold three Kingdomes infected at once with this deadly disease , by the pestilent subtilty of one Arch-Bishop . But I shall make it appear that we have gone nearer to Socinianisme yet . Acontius was ( as learned Peltius calls him ) clandestinus Socinianorum assecla ; now I have wondred often what was the reason that Acontius was new printed in Oxford by Doctour Potters book-binder . Creature I might say , if I did affect the language of the times . They might as well have Printed Bonfinius , for I finde him joyned with Acontius , they were both sneaking Socinians , they followed Socinus just as Nicodemus followed Christ , by stealth & in the dark . Iacobus Acontius & Bonfinius Socini clandestini asseclae . Judicious and learned Pareus not long before his death writ a letter on the first of March , 1613. ad N. N. in which he expresseth himselfe after this manner . Arminium vestrum Sociniani in Polonia expresse ut Suum nuper nominarunt , unà cum quodam Bonfinio & Acontio clandestinis asseclis , quorum authoritate postularunt àfratribus Orthodoxis fraternitatem , isti verò fortiter recusarunt . Acta ad me misit Synodus Lublinensis , cui nuper postridie Natalis Domini respondi , &c. Pareus was a man of a very peaceable disposition , willing to compose all differences which might fairely and honestly be compounded , as appeares by his Irenicum , and therfore his judgement is to be the more valued , but you see he doth not vent his own private opinion , but declares the judgement of the Synod ; I beleeve that every impartiall Reader will think this passage very considerable . The Socinians have one Principle which draws a great party after them of all heretikes , & sectaries . Nothing ( say they ) is Fundamentally necessary to salvation but only Faith or obedience to the commands of Christ , for they make faith & obedience all one , ut supra . Now Acontius was a great stickler in this point , and therefore learned Peltius saith , this opinion did open a wide gap to let in all heresies into the Church , and yet Acontius and the Socinians thought nothing else Fundamentall but obedience to Christs precepts ; men might deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ , and almost any Article of the Christian Faith , and yet be Christians good enough in their conceit . Nihilque tandem fore Fundamentale praeter istud ( scil. Obedientiam mandatorum ) ex mente Acontii & Socinianorum positum . See Peltius his Epistle Dedicatory , prefixed before his Harmony . Well might Acontius his book be intitled Stratagemata Satanae : but sorry I am that Doctour Potter should be thought to have such an hand in publishing of it , that it was known in Oxford by the name of Doctour Potters Stratagems . I know Acontius doth in that book mince the matter , but the book is so much the more dangerous , and cannot but poyson young students more insensibly and irrecoverably . Besides Acontius his pretence of moderation and charity will work much upon men that understand not his Stratagems , they will conceive that he grew every day more moderate and more a Accurate also , and that he complyed so far with the Socinians meerly out of a desire of peace . But though the book be close and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth , yet ever and anon he lets fall some hopes of being saved without the acknowledgement of those mysteries which the Church hath long held for necessary Articles of faith . What did the man that was cured of the palsy beleeve ? why , ( saith he ) he did beleeve as it was fit , that that man who is called Iesus was from God , ( mark he doth not say that he was God ) and in favour with God , and hoped that he should be healed by him , and yet his sins were forgiven . Credebat enim ut par est hominem eum qui Iesus diceretur à Deo esse & apud eum gratiosum , itaque sperabat per eum sanitatem se posse adipisci . Illa verò eum cognita etiam habuisse omnia quae diu pro articulis fidei Necessariis habuit Ecclesia quàm sit verisimile , cuique judicandum relinquo . Sunt & alia multa loca quae eódem prorsus tendunt . Nay he conceives Abraham the Father of the faithfull to have been ignorant of those Heads of Divinity which we count Articles of Faith , Fundamentall Articles . Abraham , saith he , beleeved that he should have off-spring , that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed , that Canaan should be his , Caeterum de Religionis apicibus istis ignorare opinantur ( scil. Reformati ) fas non esse mirum est silentium quin , ipsum etiam Salutis mysterium per ejus semen Tecte admodum obscureque promittitur . I put in ( scil , Reformati , ) for doubtlesse it is a jerk at the Reformed Churches , and so that passage fore-cited , Ecclesia diu habuit , is certainly a jerk for the Nicene Fathers , Athanasius and those ancients which required such a distinct confession of faith . You see he seems to leave it doubtfull whether Abraham did beleeve in Christ or no ; these oblique passages and many such in his third book especially , doe shew what a good mind he had to favour them , who at that time about the yeare 1565. did call the Articles of the Christian faith into question . No marvaile if he wrote so warily when Servetus had been made such an example , in the yeare 1553. Besides Laelius Socinus was now dead , and Faustus not grown up to his maturity . Sabellius he saith was an Heretike for saying that the Father did not differ from the Son , but he is not so forward to call them heretikes who deny that the Son hath the same nature with the Father ; he tells us that * we must beleeve Christ to be the Sonne of God , and to be made man , but he doth not presse us to beleeve that Christ is God . We need not wonder at his moderation , when he is very tender even about Transubstantiation , and unwilling to appear on either side . Magna jamdudum fuit & vere tragica controversia de Interpretatione verborum corum , Accipite , hoc est corpus meum ; non necesse est autem me hoc loco utrarum sim partium aperire , tantum catenus quidem utrarumque esse me profiteor , quod utrosque adveram Dei ecclesiam pertinere nihil prorsus dubitem , lib. 3. — . and a little after , De verborum sententiâ lis est , non de veritate : this is an excellent device indeed to help off the grossest Heretikes , and say that they only differ from us about the meaning of some places of Scripture . Christ saith he bids all come unto him that are heavy laden , and what saith he , will you of your own head say to any man that is comming to Christ , Heus tu ! frustra accedis qui hoc & illud non credas ? But if you reply that Acontius hath not reckoned some points of religion which are of high concernment , and therefore you may safely tell a man unlesse he beleeve them he cannot be saved ; he hath endeavoured to prevent your reply by this excuse ; Si miraris inter ea quae recensuimus cognitu necessaria non numerari quosdam summo quamvis loco habitos Religionis apices , evolve diligenter , Examine saith he whether those high points could be known under the old Testament to the people of Israel , &c. This is just the Socinian Device , I will not trouble you any longer with the unsavory discourse of that rotten Author , whose main Stratageme was a pretended Moderation and feigned Charity . Let us now passe on to some later Authours ; Doctor Francis White was a man countenanced by the Arch-Bishop to write against the Sabbath , and in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Arch-Bishop , well knowing what would please his Graces tooth , he saith that we are beholding to the Testimony of the Bishops , for the weightiest matters in religion , and amongst the rest he saith for the eternall Deity of the blessed Saviour ; It seemes if the Christian world had not given credit to the testimony of Bishops , the eternall Deity of Christ had not been acknowledged by Christians ; what if Bishops had lost their Votes , and credit some ages since , must Christ have lost his Deity , or at least the honour of it ? Is there nothing written in Scripture concerning the eternall Deity of Christ ? this is just indeed as Tertullian saith , Nisi Deus homini placuerit , Deus non erit . This book was printed in the year 1635. I need say nothing of that little Pamphlet about Schisme , printed not long since , because other men have said so much of it , I am credibly informed that when the Author of it was asked by a great person in this Kingdome , what he thought of the Socinians , he answered , If you could secure my life I would tell you what I think ; and truly he hath told us what he thinkes in this little tract , viz. that Arianisme was but a Rent in the Church upon matter of opinion ; p. 9. that those passages in our publique formes which offend the Arians , are but private fancies , and therefore he desires there may be such a Leiturgy as the Arians may not dislike . p. 10. and then the Socinians and Protestants might joyn in one congregation . But must we not say that Christ is very God of very God that he is the great God , the true God , God blessed for ever , for fear we offend the Arians , Socinians , &c. must we not worship the Trinity of persons , in the unity of the Godhead ? His Grace will peradventure thinke it long till he heare what I have to say to his own learned book . I must confesse there is good learning in that book of his , which was printed 1624. I should doe him wrong if I should deny it ; and though there are some passages which sound ill , yet I have charity enough to put a good construction upon most of them ; but if a prudent Reader will but compare that book and the enlargement of it together , which was printed in the yeare 1639. he will find a great deale of alteration in that second Edition , or rather second book , for it is indeed another book . I shall give you a taste of some passages in the latter book which are not in the former , that you may see how much his Grace had altered his Religion in those 15. yeares . In the 76. Page he saith , the Mysteries of Faith doe not contradict Reason , for Reason by her own light can discover how firmly the principles of Religion are true . He doth not say reason by the light of Scripture , or by the light of the Spirit , but reason by her own light can discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true . The Socinians lay this principle as their foundation , and keep so close to it that they reject the weightiest Articles of the Christian faith ; because Reason cannot discover them to be true by her own light , that is reason ( ante Spiritus sancti illustrationem ) before the illumination of the Holy Ghost , as they explain themselves in their Brevis Disquisitio , cap. 3. de Spiritu Sancto . And upon the same ground they doe reject the Received interpretations of Scripture , because Reason cannot discover how firmly they are true . Can the Arch-Bishop make it appeare by the light of Reason , that there shall be a Resurrection of these selfe same bodies ; that there are three persons and one God : that the Word was made flesh ; that God was made man ; that Christ was born of a Virgin ; that God justifies many thousands of the ungodly by the obedience and satisfaction of one man ; must we not beleeve these Articles till Reason by her own light , without the illumination of the Holy Ghost , doth discover them to be true , and how firmly they are to be beleeved because true ? for that I suppose the Arch-Bishop means , when he saith , Reason can discover how firmly these principles of Religion are true : Why doe the Socinians so often challenge us to be tryed by reason , by common sense , by the Judgement of all men , but because they conceive , Reason by her own light can discover how firmly the principles of religion are true ? I know the Socinians doe talk much of the offices of Christ , but they receive nothing from the Scripture , concerning Christs offices , but what is as they say agreeable to Reason . They say likewise that it is necessary to salvation to know the promises of God , but they affirme that it will suffice , if a man be but acquainted with the substance of them , if he doth but hope for a better life after this , which even some Heathens did without the knowledge of Christ or his Gospell . Reason by its own light did discover unto them that the good and great God had prepared eternall happinesse for our immortall soules : if this then be enough ( as the Socinians say it is ) to receive all things as Principles of Religion which Reason by her own light can discover to be true , ( and how neer the Arch-Bishop comes to them , let the Reader judge ) then the Philosophers , especially the Platonists , were in an happy condition , & it will be lawfull for a man to cry out aloud , Sit anima mea cum Philosophis , and he shall never be thought an Atheist , nay shall passe for a good Christian . There was a Sermon preached to Sir Iohn Byron when he was in Oxford , which favoured strong of this Heathenish Divinity , and Sir John gave the Preacher solemne thanks for his paines . Let us then Canonize the Heathens for Saints , and put Hermes , Phocylides , Pythagoras , Socrates , Plato , Plotinus , Cicero , Zoroaster , Iamblichus , Epictetus , Simplicius , into our Rubrike , and let not Aristotle , Alexander or Averroes be left out . The Heathens did endeavour to keep Gods commands in hope of a better life . What doe the Socinians , or indeed Arminians require more ? Now Reason by her own light can discover that I ought to love God , better then the world or my selfe , because he is the chiefest good ; Reason tells me that I must doe as I would be done to ; the Law of nature is written in the hearts of Heathens , the writings of Philosophers doe abound with principles of morality and good life , and Socinus saith , it is sufficient for a mans salvation to know what God hath commanded and forbidden ; and if he erre in other points , he shall not be shut out of Heaven , for such errours as reason cannot by her own light discover to be errors . In like manner the Arch-Bishop , if he will be true to this Principle he hath laid down , must affirm that no man shal be dāned for rejecting any Articles of the Christian Faith , which reason by her own light cannot discover to be true , and so manifestly true that they ought to be firmly beleeved . If this be not Socinianisme in the highest , let the impartiall Reader judge . That the Arch-Bishop hath added this passage to his old book ( perchance upon Master Chillingworths weighty inducements ) will appear if the Reader be pleased to compare the 76. page of his new Book with the 21 page of his old Book . There is another suspicious passage in the 25. section of the Arch-Bishops Relation , he descants upon a place of Epiphanius , pag. 185. and 186. Epiphanius said , that in Peter were found even {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , The very Niceties , and exactnesse of the Christian faith , saith the Arch-Bishop , and presently gives this reason . For he professed the Godhead of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost , pag. 186. How will the Socinians triumph when they heare the Primate of all England discoursing of the Godhead of Christ and the Holy Ghost as Niceties ? I grant the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , is most commonly used in an ill sense , but certainly Epiphanius used it here in a good sense , which the Arch-Bishop could not but see , and therefore used the word exactnesse , but to gratify the Socinians he puts in niceties , as if he had said , If you will be exact , you may say that Christ is God , but that 's but a nicety , somewhat more then needs , a man may be saved without it ; for the Arminians say Athanasius was too bold to prefixe that Proud Preface before his Creed , Whosoever will be saved , &c. and I make no doubt but his Grace was led much by them , he had such high thoughts of the Arminian conceits . The Arch-Bishop doth acknowledge that in the old Latine Edition at Paris , pag. 497. it is thus translated , In hoc omnes Quaestiones ●c Subtilitates Fidei inveniuntur ; therefore hee might have said that all the mysteries of Faith were maintained by Peter , though by the malice of Anti-spirituall men even the Godhead of the Holy Ghost , and such like Mysteries were made Questions , or at best counted subtilties , and Niceties . Moreover when the Arch-Bishop comes to speak of the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne , he perswades the Church of Rome to moderation , and then le ts fall a sweet bit for the Socinians to feed upon , pag. 25. And Rome , saith he , in this particular should be more moderate , if it be but because this Article Filiog was added to the Creed by her self ; and it is hard to adde and Anathematize too . The Socinians are apt enough to say that many of the Articles of our faith were framed at Rome , and it seemes his Grace would confirme them in that opinion . This was added also to his new book , as will appeare , if you compare the 25. page of the new book and the 6. of the old . It is the common practice of men addicted to the Socinian way to speak very favourably in this point . These I call very suspitious passages , you must not expect Demonstrations in this point , for I know the Arch-Bishop was too wise to speak plain , though some of these passages are plain enough . And I must professe that I doe not beleeve the Arch-Bishop ever intended to bring in all points of Arminianisme , Socinianisme , or Popery , but to pick out such points as might stand with the great Desig●e ; he was to humour all these three factions , that all three might joyn with him to suppresse Calvinisme , and then admire him as the Astolike Patriarch , Pope of this other world of Britaine , for he would not have us ignorant that Pope Urbane the second even in a Councel accounted his Graces worthy Predecessour Saint Anselme as his own Compeere , ( or fellow-Pope ) and said he was as the Apostolike and Patriarch of the other world ; so he then termed this Iland . pag. 171. of the new book . But I beleeve his Oecumenicall Grace had such a thirst to be a Governour of this little world , and yet such a liking to the Universall Grace of the Arminians , and the Right Reason of the Socinians , that no man that hath one dram of right reason can possibly free his Grace from contradicting himselfe , and thwarting his own Designe , by crying up some opinions which could not stand with his own Principles in his old book , and his Plot which now & then peeps out in his new , and yet he hath jumbled all together for no other reason that can be imagined , unlesse it were his Master-plot to countenance other mens opinions that they might promote his Designe , and for a copy of his countenance adore him as the Primate and Patriarch of the Britaines , whose Judgement is Finall , and therefore there lies no appeale from him to Rome or Cracovia , no not to Right Reason assisted by Universal Grace ; it seemssuch slaves he had who to satisfy his ambition and their own , would deny both their Principles and his , that the Master-plot might thrive and prosper . For it is observable , that our English Arminians , and Socinians are nothing so true to their own principles , as the Ringleaders of these factions are beyond the Seas . His Grace both in his old book and in his new , saith that Reason and ordinary grace superadded by the help of Tradition , doe sufficiently enlighten the soul to discern that the Scriptures are the oracles of God ; here is the Socinians sound , or right reason before the illumination of the Spirit , but to please the Arminians ; Ordinary or Universall grace comes in also , and the name of Tradition to please the Popish party ; and what all these are like to doe without the speciall Grace of the holy Spirit , I leave it to any Protestant to judge . There is another Rule which his Grace holds fast in both his bookes , namely , That the Churches Declaration can bind us to peace and externall obedience , where there is not expresse letter of scripture and sense agreed on . What , Sir , must there be no deduction , no consequences allowed ? must there be expresse letter of Scripture ? there 's one Socinian rule . Secondly , when the letter of the text is expresse , must not the point contained in the Text , and expressed in the letter , be accounted Fundamentall , because the sense is not agreed upon , but the point called into question by some learned Socinian , or bold Arminian ? is the sense of that place of Scripture which hath been received by so many Fathers , Councels , Reformed Churches , Martyrs , not true , or the point not necessary , because it is now called into question by some wanton wits that can hardly agree upon any point ? Must we then subscribe to that Arminian and Socinian principle , Nullum dogma controversum est fundamentale ? When a point begins to be controverted shall it cease to be Fundamentall ? By this meanes we may bring in an Atheisticall Libertinisme into the Church ; we shall have no more Articles of our Faith , then the Arminians , or Socinians please to leave us . I beleeve we shall have a very short Creed one of these dayes , if this rule be followed : for as fast as they please to question our Articles we must part with them , especially if our great Patriarch interpose his Authority , his Declaration must passe for the Churches Declaration ; if he say such a point is controverted and I command you silence , it is not Fundamentall now , because controverted , then we must be silent and let the truth fall to the ground . This was the old muzle which was put upon the Ministers mouthes to make them lie still , like dumbe dogs , whiles the theeves stole away what they pleased , this and that Commandement , this and the other Article of the Christian faith : we must it seemes for Peace sake , part with our religion , and disobey God that we may obey the Church : sure he that hath the head of a Scholar , and the heart of a Christian , will scarce have any inward Peace if he perform externall obedience in such a case . This may suffice for a taste of the Arch-Bishops Divinity : nor the young Students could not but take notice of such passages , and therefore whet their wits to maintain those opinions which his Grace countenanced . There was a great Scholar who asked one of the Canterburian faction , what he thought of the Primate of Irelands treatise concerning Christs Incarnation , in which he demonstrates that the Word was made flesh , and that therefore Christ is God and man ; the Canterburian answered , that indeed there was as much produced upon that argument as could be said upon it , but under correction ( saith he ) I conceive the Primate hath not cleared the point which he undertook to prove . The men of this strain when they were at their height , began to vary their expressions , they called Christ their great Master , or our Lord and Master , at the highest , so that you could scarce tell by their prayers whether they did respect Christ or their Patrone most , for the Chaplaines styled their Patrone their very good Lord and Master . Dr. Taylour in his epistle Dedicatory to the Arch-Bishop , before the sermon on the Gun powder treason , seems to affect that expression of calling Christ our great Master ; the Socinians will beare them company in such generall expressions , and some have thought of composing such a Liturgy as might give no offence to Arminians or Socinians ; that would be an inoffensive Liturgy indeed , and they may doe well to enlarge their Charity , and make their Liturgy inoffensive to the Turkes and Jewes as well as the Socinians ; for any Liturgy which will please one that is a thorow Socinian , will please Turkes , and Jewes also , if it be but warily composed , and they will keep themselves in such generall expressions as some doe too much affect . But of all that I have met with , none comes neer Mr Webberly , a Batchelour of Divinity , and fellow of Lincolne Colledge , who hath translated a Socinian book into English , for the benefit of this Nation , and prepared it for the presse . Now they think they may own the businesse , they dare appeare in their proper colours , and blaspheme Christ in plaine English . But because some parts of Socinianisme strike directly at the superstition of Rome so highly extolled in our dayes , and at the pompe of the Clergy , which must be maintained by the sword ( for what care they though England swimme in bloud , so they swimme in wealth and pleasure ? ) therefore Mr. Webberly tells us very honestly , that Socinianisme was to be corrected and chastised with respect to the nature of our climate ; What need I adde more ? take all in a word . There are some mysterious parts of Socinianisme that se●m Rationall , these I think in good earnest , the men of this age have too much doted on . Secondly , some parts of Socinianisme they qualify and chastise a little , because there is a little too much quick-silver in them . Thirdly , some parts they doe totally reject , because they thwart the maine Designe . Fourthly , some parts of Socinianisme are instilled into the people , that they might be made a meer prey to their Courts in times of Peace , and to their army in times of warre . Mr. Webberly , for instance , may be so farre irrationall as to be of the Councell of warre , which no strict Socinian would allow ; but then Mr. Webberly would teach the people that they must not defend their possessions against invading enemies , by force of Armes , because God hath not given his people any earthly possessions by Covenant under the Gospell , as he did under the Law . Surely they have heard of Iulian who boxed the Christians on one eare , and bid them turn the other eare that they might be boxed on both sides in obedience to their Masters command . CHAP. V. Shewes that the famous Atheists ( Anabaptists and Sectaries ) so much complained of , have been raised , or encouraged by the doctrines and practises of the Arminian , Socinian , and Popish party . THere hath been a great complaint of late that men are turned Atheists , and surely not without cause , but let us sadly inquire into the reason . The Socinians doe deny Christ to be God to the glory of God the Father , as they use to say , and I beleeve God the Father hath taken it so unkindly at their hands , that he hath given them over to that cursed Atheisme which reignes in the heart of every man by nature , and is much strengthened by the profane wits of this latter age . I remember a story of reverend Amphilochius who had been an importunate suter to Theodosius the Emperour , that the Arians might not vent their blasphemies so freely against the Son of God , because he was as God , equall to his Father ; but he could not obtaine his request ; at last the good old man pitched upon this course , he comes to the palace of Theodosius the great , and salutes the Emperour with all due acknowledgements and accustomed reverence , but as for Arcadius the son of Theodosius , who was created Co-emperour with his Father , Amphilochius passed him by without any respect or reverence at all , & at last very familiarly stroakes the young Emperour upon the head , as if it had been some ordinary boy , and cryed , God save thee good child ; At which the Emperour was extreamly enraged , and commanded them to turne Amphilochius out of doores : but this reverend man replyed , I beseech your Majesty to consider that if you are so much incensed against them who doe not honour your Son as they honour your self , what wil God the Father think of them who deny equall honour to Iesus Christ his Son , who is equall to his Father in nature and power ? The Emperour who was wavering before , was much confirmed in his faith , by this seasonable Admonition , and presently forbad the Arians to dispute any more against the Godhead of Christ . You may read the story at large in Sozomen's Ecclesiasticall History . Now can we imagine that God the Father should take it lesse unkindly at the hands of the Socinians and all who admire their acute blasphemies , that they deny Jesus Christ to be God ? and what punishment is fitter for such blasphemers , then that , Rom. 1. Professing themselves wise , they should become fooles , and denying the Godhead of Christ , and the holy Ghost , they should be given over , not only to deny the power of godlinesse , but to deny that there is any God at all , because they did not like to retaine the knowledge of God ? 1. The Scriptures doe clearly shew that God the Father is no more God then Jesus Christ ; But ( say the Socinians ) Jesus Christ is not God . Who sees not what conclusion will follow ? ergo , if they said true , there would be no God at all . 2. The Socinians doe not worship the same God with the Protestants ; for we worship the Trinity in unity , that is , all the three Persons as one God , they say it is repugnant to common sense , to hold that the three Persons are one and the same God , and therefore they may when they please leave it to common sense to determine whether there be any God at all . 3. The Socinians proceed in a destructive way ; now destroy all Religion , and Atheisme will be embraced in stead of Religion . Mr. Chillingworth hath cleared that point sufficiently , that Popery leads men to flat Atheisme : and it is plaine and evident that if Papists must beleeve neither more or lesse then the Pope thinkes fit , the Pope may lead them all into Atheisme when he pleases . And how pleasing Atheisme hath been to some Popes , I need not stand to declare , the Papists themselves have spoke plaine enough . The Papists have extolled the Pope above all that is called God , and therefore the dullest Papist that can but see that the Pope is not God , will be ready to question whether there be any God at all . If the Pope have more Authority then God , then the conclusion will be easie : but according to the Romanists the Pope hath more Authority then God , for the Church is above the Scripture , the Pope above the Church , he is the head of it : Let Papists though our enemies , frame the conclusion , They who maintaine the Popes infallibility , and yet cannot but see how he takes upon him to correct Gods own Institutions , will conclude that it is possible for God to be deceived , and then I am sure he is no God : and whether the Pope be God , let the Papists judge . What practises there have been by the Popish party for the promoting of the Socinian heresies , I could shew at large if it were not too manifest to be proved . Faustus Socinus writ a most pestilent book de ss. Scriptura Authoritate , and this book he did privatly send about in writing to his friends ; Dominicus Lopez a Jesuite it seemes was a great friend of his , and the book comming to his hand he thought fit to publish it for the common good . I need say nothing of Petavius his notes in Epiphan. Haeres . 69. Cardinall Perron his reply to King James , lib. 3. his book of the Eucharist . lib. 2. cap. 7. Mr. Fisher , or Mr. Floyd . How easily the Racovian and Romane Antichrists would be reconciled , at least so far as to joyn against the Calvinists , is evident to any understanding man . And Mr. Webberly in the Appendix or sixth Book of his Translation , shews that the two great Articles which offend the Romanists and Racovians are , 1. The totall exclusion of all kinde of good workes from justifying a man before God : and 2. The totall negation of mans Freewill in doing good . They are enemies to the grace of God , in justifying sinners freely by faith alone in Christ , and to the powerfull and efctuall grace of God in converting and sanctifying our souls . This is the grand quarrell , the Socinians deny Christ to be God , that so they may deny that the bloud of Christ did fully satisfy for our sins : these errours strike directly at the Covenant of Grace , which is the foundation of all our comfort , and if once we undermine the foundation , and reject the principles of Christianity , it is then an easie matter to be an Atheist : for if the Protestant religion be deserted , there is nothing in any other religion to keep a man back from being an Atheist ; for Popery , to speak strictly , is Antichristianisme , and I have said enough of Socinianisme ; Iudaisme , and Turcisme , are too neer of kin to Socinianisme : let any man that doubts of this truth , read Doctour Calovius his Decas Dissertationum , Vedelius de Deo Synagogae , and he may receive satisfaction without reading others . And for the Arminian Atheisme , I referre you to Vedelius his book , de Arcanis Arminian . Anabaptists are justly complained of , but from whence did they suck their poyson ( I mean the Anabaptists of the last edition , ( the men so much complained of ) but from the Arminians , Socinians and Papists ? from the Arminians they received their doctrine about the Fall and Free-will of man ; are they not pure Armininians in that great point of Predestination ? they oppose the Reformed Churches in their doctrine about originall sin , the Socinians have taught them to deny that Infants are conceived and born in sin , and this is the true reason why they deny Baptisme to infants , though I know they urge many other reasons to colour the businesse : no man need to wonder that Baptisme of Infants is neglected by all those who deny originall sinne , Pelagius of old , about the yeare 420. said that it was a vaine thing to imagine , that the sinnes of infants were washed away by Baptisme , because they have no sin at all , and therefore Heaven was set open to them . The Anabaptists in the conference at Franckendale , maintained that Infants were born without originall sinne , nay without the least spot of sinne , and therefore there was no need of their being washed in the Laver of Regeneration . The Socinians tell us that Originall sinne is a meere fable , a fancy . They that can goe no farther then English , may read a book of Free-will , Predestination , the first transgression ; subscribed in the Epistle or Preface after this manner , Your brethren the Anabaptists falsly so called . But I beleeve the reason why the Anabaptists are complained of at this time , is because they are disobedient to Magistrates ; for it is commonly said that they have lately taken up Armes in rebellion against the King . I must confesse I have wondred often when I have heard of this dayly complaint , because I know that an Anabaptist doth not think it lawfull to be a Cutler , he thinks no sword ought to be made , because he conceives it unlawfull to use a sword . It is well known that the Anabaptists goe to Sea without any Ordnance in their ships , that they travaile without any sword by their side : But if there be any fighting Anabaptist in these days , I suppose the English Socinians have taught the English Anabaptists to deny those principles in practise , which they maintain in dispute . Who are so active in all Counsells of warre at Oxford , as men that are shrewdly suspected for Socinianisme ? If they deny this truth , their letters which are dayly intercepted will testify to their faces that they are not true to their own principles . Yet I commend the Chaplaines for their Designe , they would fain seise upon mens goods without force or violence , and therefore they tell the people that they ought not now under the Gospell to fight for the defence of their goods ; and if they could perswade the people to be Anabaptists in this point , then these Reverend Troopers and meek men of warre , might seise upon all the peoples goods , without force of Armes , and so be as true to their Racovian principles , as the Racovians themselves , they might robbe without weapons , a whole parish might be plundered by one Sermon as well as by two troopes , if the people were but throughly instructed in ( or as we say , beaten to ) this Conscientious slavery . All the spoile of a whole towne would lye no heavier upon the conscience of one of these Chaplaines , then a reare egge upon his stomack , for they are not ashamed to affirme that God hath not given his people any earthly goods or possessions under the Gospell , and therefore plundering is not robbing , they doe but take that from men which God never gave them Mr. Webberly in the third chapter of his Treatise , tells us that God hath not given his people any earthly possessions now under the new Testament , they must not regard earth but look after heaven ; this is they say the Court-Divinity ; but sure the Rationall Lords that have such vast possessions should not be much taken with these raptures ; if they be , it were good for the Lords to turne Chaplaines or step into a Cloyster , and let their own Chaplaines be Lords in their roome . How the Court-Chaplaines will maintain this Doctrine , and not be as Anti-Monarchicall as the very Anabaptists , I professe I know not , they might have done well to have excepted the Crown-lands ; They were wont to preach at the Court , that the Subjects have nothing of their own , but by this doctrine they will leave the King nothing of his owne ; sure they mean to have all to themselves . They must say that our King lives under the new Testament , they will grant him to be a Christian , and therefore he must not regard earthly possessions , &c. The King may perceive by this , what good friends he hath at Court . Nor doe they stick to question the Authority as well as the possessions or Revenues of Kings . The Anabaptists as disobedient to a Parliament as to a King ; any person or Court which hath power to fine or imprison , is by them denyed to be a godly person or a Christian court . It was one of the Seditious lawes enacted by that lawlesse faction at Munster , Magistratibus ac Principibus nullus subjiciatur . The Socinians and Arminians think themselves as lawlesse . The * Arminians say that they can willingly beare with one that conceives it unlawfull for a Magistrate to punish any Delinquent with capitall punishment , though he doe not embrace this opinion out of tendernesse of conscience , but only because he hath been trained up in it from his youth . You see the Arminians give faire quarter to the Papists and Socinians ; if any man hath been nursed up in this opinion they will beare with him though his conscience be not tender . They excuse Socinus in the same Chapter , and say that many honest men were of this opinion before Socinus was born . The Arminians and Socinians make a King of clouts , and put a wooden or painted sword into his hand to affright children , for they say that he must not draw bloud , no not in a legall way , for capitall offences . The * Arminians foresaw this consequence , and are content to let it passe , they will not alter the confession of their faith to avoid this inconvenience . In the confession of our faith say they we use none but this generall expression , the power of the sword , and forbeare to mention any capitall punishment , because say they we doe not require all that embrace our confession to maintain that Magistrates have power to inflict capitall punishments : whereby it appears that they doe plainly equivocate even in the confession of their faith , or rather the declaration of their opinion . Non fidei nostrae confessionem , sed sententiae declarationem exhibemus , they use generall and slippery termes and teach all their Sectaries ( the Socinians and Anabaptists need no teaching ) how to slip their necks out of so wide and loose a collar . Reverend Iunius shewes that the Arminians teach their Sectaries to blot the name of any Prince or Magistrate out of the number of Christians and make him an Infidell , if he punish the greatest offenders with death in a legall way . Doe any Reformed Divines maintain this seditious tenent which will certainly ruine any State where it is generally received ? Did Melanchthon , Bucer , Calvin , Beza , Bullinger , ever preach such doctrine ? nay did they not constantly oppose the Anabaptists in this very point ? Nay was not the faction of Anabaptists raised by the Devil and fomented by Rome , on purpose to hinder the Reformation begun by those worthy Reformers ? read that great Counsellour Conradus Heresbachius his Epistle to Erasmus , and there you will see the Devill raised them up in opposition to the Reformers . I know one of late preached valiantly against blessed Luther , and said that Luthers book de libertate Christiana gave the first occasion to the giddy Anabaptists to be so extra vagant ; Lambertus Hortensius indeed hath a touch upon it , but he addes withall , that though Thomas Muntzer was well read in that book of Luther , yet being an illiterate man he did not well understand , or else did wrest that book to his purpose ; now if the book was not well understood , and worse interpreted , sure the Interpreter was in fault , for if he had no learning he might have had some ingenuity , or at least humility , and left the book to more learned Readers , or candid expositours . Thomas Muntzerus Saxo erat homo ut accepi illiteratus , sed ut apparebat , in hoc libello egregie exercita●us , & scripti interpres parum Candidus , We must distinguish betweene the first tumults of Anabaptisticall men , and Deliberate Anabaptisme . The first tumults were raised above an hundred yeares since , by illiterate dreamers , such as Nicholas Storke , Thomas Muncer , Phifer Ringus and the rest ; yet Muncer at that time laid a faire foundation for Servetus , Socinus and the rest to build upon ; for he denyed the satisfaction of Christ ; and what Doctrine is Fundamentall if the satisfaction of Christ be not ? the Socinians make it their grand designe to perswade men that Jesus Christ hath not truly and properly satisfied for our sinnes . The Heresy of the Anabaptists was not backed with any strength of Argument , nor methodically digested till Servetus and Socinus set to work , I must then look upon Servetus and * Socinus as the maine pillars of Deliberate and Refined Anabaptisme . Luther must be excused , for he was not guilty at all , it was an occasion snatched and not given , snatched by Muncer , not given by Luther , when the Anabaptists urged Luthers authority ; for Luther did utterly disavow any such sense , as they put upon his book , nay he abhorred their Designe and opposed their faction even at their very first rise . When Muncer was stepped aside to Melhusium , Luther wrote against him to the Senate and desired them to beware of the woolf in a Sheeps . skin ; this was very early , in the yeare 1524. and upon the Lords day as Bullinger assures me . In the yeare 1525. and the sixth of Novemb. the Anabaptists were so confident of their own strength , that they challenged any Reformed Minister to dispute with them ; but when they were ready to dispute , one of the Anabaptists cryed out , Sion Sion , rejoyce O Hierusalem , they were presently in such a tumult that they were forced to remove to another place ; yet the Senate , Zuinglius and other learned men were so patient as to argue with them three dayes together , and when the Anabaptists saw themselves confuted by the evident demonstrations which Zuinglius produced out of the word of God , one of them had a designe beyond all the rest , he said Zuinglius was a learned man and could prove any thing , but saith he , O Zuinglius I adjure thee by the living God to speak thy conscience , and tell the truth . I will quoth Zuinglius , thou art a seditious clowne , since milder answers will not serve the turn , I speak plain and home . Upon the 15. day of November , 1525. the Senate made a decree against the Anabaptists , and declared that Zuinglius had convinced them , clearely confuted the Anabaptists , and therefore they would proceed severely against all Anabaptists . Now about this time Servetus the great Grand-father of Faustus Socinus , as hath been shewen , began to perk up , for Servetus was put to death in the yeare 1553. because he had been a blasphemer for thirty yeares together ; so it seemes he began to vent his blasphemies as soone as Thomas Muncer himselfe , about the yeare 1523. Theodorus Strackius ( being to set forth the History of the Anabaptists ) slides on a sudden into a long story of Servetus that monster of Men , and enemy of God , nay ( as he saith ) of the whole true Godhead in the sacred Trinity ; this Servetus that he might shew his good inclination towards the fanaticall sects of these times ( saith Strackius ) hath endeavoured to make the Baptisme of Infants not neglected only , but abominated ; I dare not mention his other blasphemies , at which I think the very Devills tremble . There are so many severall sects , both of Socinians and Anabaptists , who have runne away with their mouths full of Anabaptisticall and Socinian blasphemies , that we must let them all passe for Sectaries of Servetus and Socinus , though some of them are farre more dangerous then others . The Anabaptists maintaine some opinions which are as welcome to the Papists and Iesuited party in England , as other parts are to the Socinians ; the Anabaptists did dreame at first of an unwritten Word , and a very subtile one too , such as the Pope and Jesuites dreame of , and such visions and Revelations as the Priests boast of . The Designe of the Anabaptists pleased the Papists well , because they endeavoured to root out Protestant Princes and Ministers , the Papists knew full well that no Church or State could stand without Magistrates and Ministers . There is one Iohannes Angelius who commends Servetus and saith he spake nothing but what David George and such like Saints have delivered ; this Jesuited Politician you see hath praises to spare for Servetus , one of the most abominable horrible Anabaptists of all others , as reverend Bullinger observes lib. 2. contra Anabaptistas . cap. 12. because there are 12. or 13. sects of Anabaptists in his account , and Servetus was one of the worst sort ; but he saith David George went farre beyond even Servetus himselfe . The truth is , these two were guilty of sublimed Anabaptisme , deadly Socinianisme , though David George differed from Soci●us in a point or two . Now what good friends the Iesuites are to the Socinians hath been already shewen , what Patrons the Arminians are of Anabaptisme the Professours of Leyden declare . This being premitted , let us sadly enquire whether our late writers doe encline to the Anabaptists and Socinians in the great point about the Authority of Princes and Magistrates ; For I know it is commonly said that though the first Reformers did oppose the Anabaptists in this point , yet the men that seeme to be most zealous for a Reformation in these unhappy dayes , are arrant Anabaptists in this point . We live in an angry time , and men will speake passionately when they are provoked , and vexed , I will not therefore take upon me to justify the angry expressions of the most judicious writer , much lesse can I ever mention those bastard-Pamphlets without indignation , which spring from a Licentious and prostituted Presse . Let us single out some that have lately studied this weighty controversy , and it may be it will appear that they who are said to write against the King have setled & established his lawfull Authority upon surer grounds and better principles then those very men who pretend to write for the King . Every man is now accounted an Anabaptist if he doe not maintain Monarchy to be Iure Divino ; heare then what Dr. Ferne saith . We confesse that neither Monarchy , nor Aristocracy , or any other forme is Iure Divino . Nay he saith that that Power or sufficiency of Authority to govern which is the ordinance of God , is to be found not only in Monarchy , but in Aristocracy , Sect. 3. Moreover if we consider the qualification of this governing power , and the manner ofexecuting it even according to Monarchicall government . Dr. Ferne grants that it is the Invention of man , and hath not so much as Gods Permissive approbation till that qualification or Forme is orderly agreed upon by Men ; in the selfe same Sec. Be pleased now to hear Mr. Burroughes : However Princes may be exasperated against Puritanicall Preachers ( sai M. Burroughes ) yet they are as much beholding to them as to any people in their kingdomes for bringing people out of conscience to obey Authority ; You see here the people are pressed to obey the lawfull Authority of the King out of Conscience by such as are counted Puritanicall Preachers . In the answer to the observations printed at Oxford by his Majesties command , I find that Monarchy is not much younger then man himselfe — that Regall Power sprang first from Paternall , a Regall power belonged to the Pater-familias , pag. 3. as if he meant onely to conclude the subjection of the Kings children and family : the Patriarchs were Patres Patriae without a Metaphor , they begat their own Subjects . But how came divers families to be subjected to one King or common Father ? why , reason ( saith he ) did direct the people to choose one common Father . p. 6. Monarchy then is grounded upon the peoples Reason , and yet quite thorowout his book he talkes as if the people had no Reason , for he tells them that there may be reasonable motives why a people should consent to slavery , as the Turkes and French peasants have done : he teaches them how to perish with a great deale of discretion , or else how to be safe by the benefit of slavery . p. 10 , 11. The Observatour saith that Regall dignity was erected to preserve the Commonalty ; It was so , saith the Answerer , p. 8. and when Routs became Societies they placed an head over them to whom they paid the Tribute of Reverence for the benefit of Protection : What if the people be not , protected must they pay no tribute ? God send his Majesty better Protectours then this Champion . Dr. Fern discourses just as wisely when he propounds Davids rewarding of false Ziba as a pattern to our King , he would perswade the King to trust Papists as false as Ziba to seise upon the estates of his good Subjects ; and bestow their estates upon arrant Ziba's , men that abuse his Majesty and seek their own ends , & when the innocency of the Subject and treachery of these Ziba's , Papists or Pickthankes is discovered , yet the King must not reverse his sentence pronounced in favour of the Papists though to the ruine of good Subjects and their posterity , all this Divinity is closely involved by this conscientious Doctour , in the 7. Section . How farre the Divines of this time differ from the doctrine of Papists is clearly shewen by Mr. Burroughes , Mr. Bridge , and therefore it is strange the Papists should be counted the better Subjects . Mr. Burroughes doth acknowledge the Kings Supremacy , The King ( saith he ) is Supreme but not Absolute , because his Authority is limited both by the Law of God and of the Land . For we may and ought ( saith Doctour Ferne ) to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God , yea by the established lawes of the Land ; for in these we have his will and consent given upon goood advice , and to obey him against the lawes , were to obey him against himselfe , his suddain will against his deliberate will , Sect. 1. For instance , it is the Kings deliberate wil that this Parliament shall not be dissolved , or any forces levyed without consent of both houses of Parliament , as appeares by two severall Acts made this Parliament . If then any take up armes either without consent of Parliament , or on purpose to dissolve this present Parliament , they doe certainly take up armes against the King himselfe , ( as Dr. Ferne says ) because against the deliberate will of the King . If any Commissions then should be issued out in the Kings name to any persons to encourage them to take up Armes without the consent of the Parliament , or against the Parliament , such Commissions must be interpreted to proceed from the Kings suddaine will , which is not to be obeyed , saith Dr. Ferne , against the Kings Deliberate Will . They are not the Kings friends who advise him to send forth any Illegallcommands . There is another answer to Dr. Ferne intitled a fuller answer , in which there is much Law and Logick ( viz that in a Mixt Monarchy there is a Co-ordinate Supremacy , and Coordinata invicem supplent ) and a great many things which the common people understand not . This Respondent saith ( as Dr. Fern doth ) that Monarchy is not Gods ordinance , but then he tells the people their duty in plaine English , namely , that it is Gods ordinance that men should submit without Resistance , to that kind of government which they have by consent established , and therefore they must submit to this Coordinate Supremacy , though it be the Ordinance of man for the Lords sake , as Saint Peter saith . pag. 17. Here is Submission out of Conscience for the Lords sake , to all Legall Supremacy ; what can be desired more , unlesse they would make the King an Absolute Monarch ? ( and so give him an absolute Supremacy ) which the King himselfe doth utterly disclaime in his answer to the 19. Propositions . The zealous Divines of this very time doe abhorre the seditious practises and opinions of all Anabaptists , who because the Church had not Christian Kings at first , cry out with open mouth a that the Church cannot be safe if there be any King or Magistrate in the Church ; nay they adde that if a King turn Christian he must cease to be a King , because Christianity it selfe is repugnant to Magistracy , and no b Magistrate ought to look after any thing that concernes Religion . They maintain that Christians ought not to have any Judiciall tryalls before Magistrates , that no Christians ought to punish offendors with death or imprisonment , but with Excommunication only . They would not have Heretikes punished by the Magistrate , c but every man should be left to his liberty to beleeve what he thinks fit , just as the Arminians and Socinians dreame . I would Kings and Princes did seriously consider that the d Arminians have taught Heretikes to rebell against any Prince or Magistrate who goes about to inflict punishment upon them in a legall way ; for , say they , if the Magistrate goes about to punish an Heretike because he thinks the Heretike in an errour , the Heretikes may all joyne together and rise up in armes against the Magistrate because they conceive the Magistrate to be in an errour ; for the Heretikes have as much power to kill the Magistrate , as the Magistrate hath to execute such seditious Heretikes , Par omnium in omnes jus est , is not that pure Anabaptisme in the highest ? Nay they adde farther , that though the Heretikes be seditious , Reipub. Turbones , if they be Apostates , if they turne Iewes and blaspheme Christ , yet they would not have them punished by the Magistrates : these Arminian , Socinian , Anabaptisticall errours are justly abhorred by the Divines of this very time . There is at this very day a great talke of Tubbe-Preachers ; if there be any such , the Arminians and Socinians must defend them as long as they keep in private , but if they preach false doctrine publikely , then indeed the Arminians would have them grievously punished , the Magistrate may if it be needfull ( say they ) make a whippe of Cords and drive them out of the Temple , as our Saviour did the Hucksters : Thus they abuse our Saviour and the Magistrate both in a breath , they will not allow the Magistrate to doe any more . They doe not think it necessary that Ministers should expect a Mission in the first constituting of a Church , for then there can be no order , for order is not yet begun , nor must Ministers expect a Mission when a Church is to be reformed , for then they say all order is quite fallen to the ground , and therefore the Word may be lawfully preached by them that are not sent , so the Arminians ( Exam. Cens. cap. 21. pag. 228. ) state the point . You see if there be any Tubbe-preachers , now our Church is but Reforming , they doe punctually observe the Arminians grave instructions . The Arminians allow a liberty of Prophecying , if any man shall perswade himselfe that he hath received some spirituall interpretations of the Word by the inspiration , suggestion , assistance of the holy Ghost , and any Magistrate shall imprison this man , because the interpretation is contrary to the Spirit of the Reformed Divines , the Magistrate doth imprison the spirit and quench the spirit , and the Church of Rome may as well emprison any Protestant because he brings an interpretation contrary to the Spirit of their Church , which is as the Papists conceive infallibly guided by the Spirit . Here'snothing but Qui sibi persuadet , a strong perswasion required to beare out this Enthysiast , though he seemes to the Reformed Divines to preach nothing but his own brain-sick fancies , nay phrensies , Sed hoc ipsum est Spiritum extinguere , authoritatem sibi arrogare , Spiritum qui cum Spiritu nostro ( by our Spirit they meane the Spirit which enlightens the Reformed Divines ) non convenit , pro insanâ & corrupta mente , libidine contendendi , adeoque mali spiritus suggestione , censendi , eoque nomine vi armata eum opprimendi — Colloca teipsum coram tribunali Pontificio , Reformationem dogmatum , & Articulorum variorum urgentem & orantem ne spiritum tuum quem divinum esse credis extinguat ; quid respondebis si tibi reponat verba tua , an spiritus est quod cuique insana & corrupta mens , contendendi libido , adeoque malus spiritus suggerit ? Exam. Cens. cap. 24. pag. 276. Unlesse we have that infallible Spirit which the Apostles had to discern spirits , the Arminians tell us we must allow men liberty to prophesy contrary to the Spirit of the Reformed Doctours , or else our censure of these Enthysiasts will bee doubtfull , uncertain . Finally ( for I am weary of this subject ) they will admit Anabaptists to be true and lawfull Pastours of Christ . cap. 23. Exam. Cens. de Baptismo . pag. 248. in fine . Sure this is liberty enough , the Socinians need not desire more , the Arminians and Socinians then must patronize these Tubbe-preachers . In the next place there is a complaint of Brownists , to which complaint I shall answer briefly , and yet fully . First , they are to be blamed who gave the first occasion of this Rent : I know between 40. and 50. yeares agoe , there were some followers of Browne , but in the latter end of King James his reigne , the number of Brownists properly so called was much decreased , and it was a rare thing to meet with a Brownist ; but when Bishop Land began to sit at stern , ( and so he did a while even in Arch-Bishop Abbot his time ) then the number of Brownists began to encrease ; the reason was , because ceremonies began to be urged upon the conscience with so much earnestnesse as if they had been necessary to salvation : and about 6. or 7. yeares since when the Arch-Bishop was in his ruffe , and his Priests began to surrogate it , preaching for doctrines the commandements of men , and consequently worshipping God in vaine , Math. 15. 9. men of tender consciences ( and those no weake ones neither ) began to feare , that they should transgresse the Commandements of God , by observing Traditions , Math. 15. 3. and conceived it vain , to joyne with them in worship , who worshipped God in vain . Many were prevailed with by this reason , but there were some of a moderate temper , who if they might have the liberty of their conscience , and not be forced to the use of any Ceremonies , would , and did , communicate even in Parish-Churches : But the Archbishop of Canterbury began to lay on greater burdens ; Crucifixes must be set up at the East-end , that was too plain ; next , the Communion-Table , to colour the Design , or , at least , to add varnish to it , must be advanced into an Altar , & men must by a Tacit consent , ( as we were informed at the Visitation of Merton College ) expressesome outward reverence , by bowing towards the East , the Altar , the Crucifixe , choose which you please , all if you will ; but in no case must we be commanded to bow , & yet we must be censured as disobedient , if we refuse to bow . This was interpreted by Rationall men an asking of our consent to bring in Popery : It was now high time to make Protestations that we would neither bow to East , nor Hoast , nor Altar , for if we held our peace we knew not what might come by Tacite consent . We were sure that our actions would speak aloud , and how tacite soever our consent was , it would be known to God & our conscience . I will not take this faire Hint to tunne into a long story of what censures were passed upon my self or others , for our Protestation against this superstitious Innovation , but sure I am that by degrees there were so many Innovations both in point of Doctrine , and externall worship , that the Papists themselves thought those of greatest worth , learning and Authority in England , knew not well what Religion to be of , or where to fasten . The Jesuite who wrote the directions to N. N. which Mr. Chillingworth endeavours to answer , began to triumph in our complyances with Rome . Heark what he saith . Protestantisme waxeth weary of it selfe , the Professours of it , they especially of greatest worth , learning and Authority , love temper and Moderation , and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten , then at the infancy of their Church . Their Churches begin to look with a new face , their walls to speak a new language , their Doctrines to be altered in many things , &c. Mr. Chillingworth is so vaine as to call this painting of Churches the Beauty of Holinesse , Sect. 22. But to proceed , If the guides of the Church would not endure so much as a Nominall Inconformity with Rome , if they and their Adherents looked so like , and preached so like them , that the Papists themselves took them for Romane Catholiques ; no marvaile if the poore people cryed out that England was turned Babylon , and began to separate ; for that is very observable which Judicious Hooker delivers in his Ecclesiasticall Politie . The people ( saith he ) are not accustomed to trouble their wits with nice and subtile differences in the exercises of Religion — and ( saith he ) in actions of this kinde , ( hee speakes of adoration of the Crosse , it may well be applyed to adoration towards the East , hoast , altar , Crucifixe ) we are more to respect what the greatest part of men is commonly prone to conceive , then what some few mens wits may devise in construction of their owne particular meanings . They then are to be blamed who invented a few cogging distinctions to juggle with God and their conscience , and thought to salve up all with some curious subtilties which the people understood not . If they that should be lights of the Church gave no better light then an Ignis fatuns , which doth seduce them into bogges and ditches , if they puzzeld the people and gave them good cause to doubt whether it was safe to communicate or no , must the people communicate when they are perplexed with such doubts that they cannot communicate in faith ? He that doubts is damned if he eat , Rom. 14. 23. The poore people could not be resolved , and durst not be damned ; sure the Archbishop was rather Schismaticall , in imposing such burthens upon tender Communicants , then the people in separating from externall Communion . Let Mr. Chillingworth be Judge , sure he is no Brownist ; Neither is it alwayes of necessity Schismaticall to separate from the externall Communion of a Church , though wanting nothing necessary . For if this Church supposed to want nothing necessary , require me to professe against my conscience , that I beleeve some error , though never so small and innocent , which I doe not beleeve , and will not allow me her Communion , but upon this condition ; In this case the Church for requiring this Condition is Schismaticall , and not I for s●parating from the Church . Secondly , all Separatists are not Brownists ; it is evident from this very place of Mr. Chillingworth ; for a man may have just cause to separate from the externall a Communion of a Church , though he think that there are all things necessary to salvation in that Church . But no Brownist doth conceive that there are all things necessary to salvation in any of our Parish Churches . They deny that there is any true Church or Ministers of God to bee found in any Parish of England ; or that all the Parishes taken collectively can make one Church of God ; they say our Congregations and Ministers are limbs of b Antichrist , Babylonians , Idolaters ; this Doctrine I have ever preached against , ( I preached against it even at Westminster , where they say there are so many Brownists ) and resolve to preach against it still . 3. There are some reverend and learned Ministers in this Kingdome , who are commonly called the Independent Ministers , and these are all put downe for Brownists , if not Anabaptists , in the Oxford Catalogue , though the Arminians have no reason to censure any that goe from a Congregation that is lesse pure , to one that is more pure . I will therefore briefely shew that these Ministers are neither Anabaptists nor Brownists . They will not say the Magistrate is an Head of the Church , but they say that Every Christian Magistrate is an Head in the Church , which no Anabaptist will say . They say that the Prelates doe not hold from the Head , as all Officers of the Church should doe , Ephes. 4. 15 , 16. and yet they acknowledge that it is possible for a Prelate , and the Diocese under him to hold the Head , as the phrase is , Colos. 2. 19. and this no Anabaptist or Brownist will acknowledge . They will communicate even in a Parish-assembly , where the Minister and people generally desire and labour by all lawfull meanes to procure a Reformation . They protest against Brownisme , as a * bitter error , and full of cruelty ; what can be desired more , to cleare them from being Brownists or Anabaptists ? I heard the same man preach since with much fervency and earnestnesse of spirit against the Brownists for this their error , and among other inconveniencies which arise therefrom , hee mentioned this , that upon the same ground and reason for which they chiefely make the Churches in England no true Churches , nor the Ministers thereof , true Ministers , they must make all those in Scotland , France , and other Reformed Churches , ( whom yet they seeme to acknowledge ) to be no true Churches ; and so no true Churches to have beene in Europe since the Reformation but themselves , which were a horrid opinion to enter into a mans heart . 4. Brownists doe not , that ever I could learne , differ from Protestants , concerning Civill government , and therfore I doe not know why men should cry out , that Brownists are greater enemies to the State then Papists themselves : We have not yet forgot the Powder-treason , and we doe still groane under the Irish Rebellion . 5. If the Brownists be as bad as the Donatists of old , if they conceive that there is no true Church but in parte Brownistarum , as they conceived there was none but in parte Donati : if they should deny the Catholique Church ( which they do not ) and refuse to Communicate with any of the Reformed Churches , or with any Independent Congregation , because they will not communicate with any who are ready to embrace communion with any Parish Church , let their errour , schisme , pride , uncharitablenesse , cruelty , and bitternesse be aggravated to the highest , yet the Papists have no reason to complaine of them ; for Papists deny the Catholike Church as directly as the Brownists can be thought to doe , they confine it to their owne party ; the Socinians and Arminians may hold their peace for shame , for they both tell us , that it is possible that Christ may have no Church at all , neither in this part nor that , hee may bee an Head without a Body , an Husband without a Spouse , a King without Subjects , as hath beene shewen above , pag. 49. The Socinians say that there is not as yet any triumphant Church above , nor is it necessary there should bee any militant Church here below . It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church might bee contracted from a larger extent to a lesser , ( as Mr. Chillingworth observes ) but their error was that they held it done de Facto , when they had no just ground or reason to doe so ; chap. 3. p. 162. But the Author of the Tract concerning Schisme doth quite outleape Mr. Chillingworth . It is ( saith he ) a thing indifferent , the Church may be in any number more or lesse , it may be in any place , Countrey or Nation , it may be in all , and for ought I know it may be in none , pag. 7. Sure the Brownist is more moderate , he saith there must be a Church . 6. But the great quarrell with the Brownist is , that hee would have the Common-prayer Booke taken away ; To which I answer in a word , that they are not all Brownists who desire to have that Law abrogated , by which the Common-prayer Booke is established ; Mr. Chillingworth desires that there might be this triall made betweene us and the Papists , That there might be some Forme of Worshipping God propounded which is wholly taken out of the Scripture ; and herein saith he to the Papists , if we refuse to joyne with you , then , and not till then , may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion . Answer to the Preface . Sect. 23. May not some that are not Brownists say the same to us , we keepe our distance from you , meerely because your Forme of worshipping God is not taken wholly out of Scripture , though for the present then wee joyne not with you , yet doe not say ( till that be done ) that wee doe utterly and absolutely abandon your Communion . The Author of the Tract of Schisme would have such a Forme of service , as Donatists , Arians , Papists , all that call themselves Christians , might joyne in ; p 9 , 10. You see he dislikes the Common-prayer Booke , and sure dislikes the best part of it , the Creeds , he is farre worse then a Brownist . Be pleased to observe that Liturgies were first composed to expell Socinianisme , and now this Author would have a Liturgie composed to let in Arianisme , or at least to humour the Arians , and sooth them up in their Heresie , as if the Articles of our Creed were but private fancies , and it concerned us more to please Hereticks , then preserve our Creed . But there is a learned man of a more moderate opinion , and sounder judgement then either of the former , though they bee both very learned men , it is Dr. Featley , be pleased to heare him speake . There is nothing ( saith he ) in the Protestant Liturgie or Service which the Romanists do , or by their owne Rules can except at ; The Confession , forme of Absolution , Prayers , Hymnes , Collects , &c. are either such as the Papists themselves use , or at least such as they dislike not ; in his Annotations on Vertumnus Romanus , p. 16 , 17. Now this is the very reason the Papists bragge so much , and why some that are not Brownists take offence at our Liturgy . And this learned Doctor tels us , that all who love the truth in sincerity , should with bended knees humbly desire that his Majesty , and the high Court of Parliament , would make some more certaine distinctive signe betweene Papists and Protestants , then monthly comming to Church , and taking the oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy . Now how this present Liturgy which the Papists like so well , can make any such distinction , let the prudent judge . I intend not to run out into the large question , about the necessity or Antiquity of Liturgies ; but let men that are so violent in this point consider ; 1. How corrupt those Liturgies are which are voted for ancient . 2. How much Bishop Hall is forced to grant , when this question was agitated betweene him and the Smectymn●ans . 3. To passe by what is said about the lawfulnesse of a Set-forme , let them consider what Arguments are produced against the Imposition of a Set-forme . 4. If it were granted that a Set-forme may be imposed , yet those many cart-loads of Arguments which are produced against this Set-forme are considerable . 5. It is confessed , that a Minister should be able to pray as well as preach , and should give and even devote himselfe to prayer , he should meditate and study how to pray . 6. It is granted on all sides that wee ought to pray according to the occasion , and how we should foresee all the wants and straits of a Church , and compose a Set-forme for them before-hand , it concernes them to declare . When K. Iames was to advise Prince Henry how to pray , hee did not thinke it sufficient to leave him to the Church-Liturgy , or to any prayers composed by man ; the onely Rule of Prayer , saith he , is the Lords Prayer : he advised him to study the Psalmes of David , because they being composed by a King , hee might collect prayers out of them most sutable to his wants , and so he should be enabled to pray according to the occasion ; he disswaded him from following the common ignorant sort , that prayes nothing but out of bookes , for that would breed an uncouth coldnesse in him towards God : hee bids him take heed that hee be not over-homely in his expressions , for that would breed a contempt of God : nay he counsels him farther , to pray as his heart moves him , pro re natâ , Reade his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , pag 151. 152. Let these things be well weighed and considered , and then our fierce men will not terme every man a Brownist , who desires to have that Law abrogated by which this Common Prayer booke is established and enjoyned . I need not adde what the Arminians and Socinians think of Liturgies , onely observe , that though the Arminians beyond Sea were prevailed with to write something for the Archbishops , Bishops , Archdeacons , &c. in England yet they write but faintly , Exam. Censurae . cap. 21. and they could not be prevailed with to write a word in defence of our Liturgy , they will not admit , no not of the most received Creeds ; there is ( they say ) too much majesty in them , they call the Preface to Athanasius his Creed , Whosoever will be saved must hold , &c. a proud Preface , for this is ( say they ) to give divine Authority to humane Formes , and into the assembly of such bold men let not our soule ever enter : you see what they think of humane Formes . Exam. Censurae Praef. pag. 6. 7. and lastly , the Brownists had beene in the right if the Archbishop of Canterbury could have compassed his Designe , for his project was to root out all that would not comply , which if he had effected , he had made good the Brownists opinion for them , for then there would have beene no true Church of God in England indeed ; not a true governing Church , for his government would have beene tyranicall , not a true practising Church , the practises of his Grace and his adherents are sufficiently knowne : nor a true teaching Church , as shall evidently be demonstrated in the next Chapter . CHAP. VI . The Religion so violently contended for by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents , is not the true pure Protestant Religion . I Intend not to transcribe overmuch out of Bishop Mountague , Shelford , Pocklington , Dr. Potter , Mr. Chillingworth , Dr. Dowe , Dr. Heylin , &c. Their Books are commonly sold , and I have given a taste already in the third and fourth Chapters of some of these Authors ; ex ungue leonem , as they say ; there are a great many passages collected and published already by severall men , so that I am forestalled , and by some happily prevented ; there is a Booke entituled Ladensium {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} closely penned , and never answered , in which their Heresies are filled up by dozens , There will come forth a Booke very shortly , in which the Designe of Reconciling , or rather uniting Rome and Canterbury , ( for there was no great quarrell betweene them ) will be more fully discovered ; for these reasons I may well shorten my journey . Let any man that desires satisfaction , but peruse those Bookes which were Printed in England betweene 1630. and 1639. and compare them with the Harmony of Confessions of the Reformed Churches , and then hee may easily judge . Mr. Chillingworth proves undeniably that the Church of Rome is not Infallible , but to what end and purpose ? why , that Rome and Canterbury may shake hands , the Pope may abate something in point of Supremacy , his Primacy being grounded upon his Infallibility ; but if the Pope , Cardinals , &c. the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents were united , the people would be unwilling to part with their Masse : why for that if they will but yeild thus farre , as to turne their Masse into English , the good men are agreed ; for Mr. Chillingworth tels the Papists , that no Godly Lay man ( that is , an ignorant Papist that is well conceited of the Masse ) who is verily perswaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of their Latine Service shall be damned as he hopes for being present at it ; Excellent Divinity ! A strong perswasion will turne superstition and impiety into godlinesse . Yet he saith there is some danger as long as the Service is in Latine , because the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the offices understood might happily beget in them , the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them , may very probably hinder the salvation of many , which otherwise might have beene saved ; that is , might have beene saved if the Service had beene in English ; this is plaine dealing , the men are likely to agree , the Masse in English may beget such devotion , afford such instruction and edification , as is sufficient for salvation . Can the Papists desire fairer quarter , or a foller acknowledgement ? Is not this doctrine sufficient to effect an Accommodation betweene Rome and Canterbury . I dare say all the Papists in England will fight for such a Protestant Religion . Mr. Chillingworth in his Epistle Dedicatory gives his Majesty to understand , That the Papists allow Protestants as much charity as Protestants allow them ; and therefore such Protestants and true Papists will easily be reconciled , or indeed are already reconciled . I cannot stand to reckon up Mr. Chillingworths principles , consider these that follow . 1. God is not offended with us for not doing what hee knowes we cannot doe . Whiles we are unregenerate God knowes we cannot repent and beleeve ; is not God offended with us even then , for our impenitence and unbeleefe ? besides , he conceives that unaffected ignorance joyned with Implicite faith and generall repentance is not damnable . 2. Mr. Chillingworth is verily perswaded that God will not impute errours to them as sinnes , who use such a measure of industry in finding truth , as humane prudence and ordinary discretion ( their abilities , and opportunities , their distractions and hinderances , and all other things considered ) shall advise them unto , in a matter of such consequence . Sure God will judge men with more then ordinary discretion , and therefore though we may justifie our selves when our opinions and practises are scanned by humane prudence , yet God may justly condemne us for not attending upon him without distraction ; Such loose principles as these will nurse men up in security and ignorance , or else betray them to indifferency in religions , to that * Arminian Libertinisme , which hath been so much admired of late dayes , and cryed up as the only way to maintain peace . For if a man poysoned with this principle be seduced by a Papist , Arminian , Socinian , he need use but ordinary discretion , and therefore take but ordinary care to resist the seducer : Alas his abilities are not great , his distractions not few , and his hinderances many ; besides if he have time to consider the Arguments propounded , yet hee wants opportunity , and therefore all things considered he had as good yeeld as stand out , for it is in the eye of humane prudence , a matter of no great consequence : for Mr. Chillingworth saith a Papist may be saved , especially if he have the Masse in English , and Socinians are a company of Christians , which though they are erroneous in explicating mysteries and take too great a liberty in Speculative matters , yet they explicate and maintaine the Lawes of Christ with lesse indulgence to the flesh then the Papists . 3. Mr. Chillingworth thinkes it sufficient to beleeve all those bookes of Scripture ( to be Gods Word ) of whose Authority there was never any doubt made in the Church : hee cannot in reason beleeve the * other bookes so undoubtedly as those books which were never questioned , and he hath the example of Saints in heaven to justify or excuse his doubting , nay his denyall . Sect. 38. There is no necessity of conforming our selves to the judgement of any Church concerning the rest that were never questioned , for that also he urges the Authority of some Saints in Heaven ; ancient Fathers , whole Churches by their difference about this point , shewed that they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of any Church . Sect. 34. and yet of this controversy whether such or such bookes be Canonicall , the Church is to judge . Sect. 35. And the Churches testimony is , though no demonstrative Enforcement , yet an highly probable inducement , and so a sufficient ground of faith . What kind of faith this is like to prove , I know not , which is grounded upon a probable testimony , to which no man need to subseribe or conform . 4. It is enough to beleeve by a kind of Implicite faith , that the Scripture is true in Gods own sense and meaning , though you know not what God meant , if you use such industry as ordinary discretion shall advise for the knowing of Gods meaning , of which I have said enough already ; this may suffice for a taste . Dr. Potter is very charitable to the Papists , because they receive the Apostles Creed , but whether they receive it in the Apostles sense , is the question . Whether Mr. Rouse or Dr. Potter hath answered that subtile booke most like a Protestant , let the learned judge . I have said enough of Dr. Potter already , I referre the Reader to Ladens . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . I am even ashamed to repeat what Dr. Pocklington hath printed in his Sermon , Sunday no Sabbath , See the first edition p. 48. 50. We must have an Altar with a Crosse upon it , if we will beleeve Dr. Pocklington , Altare Christianum . cap. 21. pag. 143. We may comply with the Jewes in phrase , and other respects . cap. 22. pag. 147. I hope he doth not mean in Caspar Barlaeus his sense , or as the Socinians mean ; he hath a vain conceit that the Christian Church of the Iewes had Altars . I hope they did not bow all , to , or towards the Altar when they met . Act. 15. We must if we will beleeve this Dr. agree with the Iewes in externall Rites & Ceremonies , p. 147. Give me leave to throw away this book ; and Dr. Kellet his Tricenium . When the Arch Bishop of Canterbury was to assigne what errours in Doctrine might give just cause of separation , he would not adventure to set them down in particular , lest in these times of discord , he might be thought to open a doore for Schisme ; he knew full well that some who were countenanced by him had brought in errours enough , which gáve just cause of separation . Knot the Jesuite spoke plaine English to Mr. Chillingworth , when he told him that the Doctrine of the Church of England began to be altered in many things , for which our Progenitours forsooke the Romane Church . For example , it is said that the Pope is not Antichrist , Prayer for the dead is allowed , Limbus Patrum , Pictures ; it is maintained that the Church hath Authority in determining controversies of faith , and to interpret Scripture , about Free-will , Predestination , universall grace ; that all our workes are not sinnes , Merit of good workes Inherent Justice , Faith alone doth not justify , Traditions , Commandements possible to be kept . Your thirty nine Articles are patient , nay ambitious of some sense in which they may seeme Catholique . Calvinisme is accounted Heresy , and little lesse then treason . Men in talke use willingly the once fearfull names of Priests and Altars . What saith Mr. Chillingworth to this bold charge ? Why , some things he excuses , and grants the rest . As for the Popes not being Antichrist , the lawfulnesse of some kinde of prayers for the dead , the Estate of the Fathers soules before Christs Ascension , Free-will , Predestination , universall grace , the possibility of keeping Gods Commandements , and the use of pictures in the Church ; these are not things fit to be stood upon , we must not break charity for such matters , these points have been anciently disputed amongst Protestants , if you will beleeve an Arch-Priest Brearley ; and so he leaves that point ; here is a faire compasse , a long rope for a Papist , Arminian , &c. to dance in . But Mr. Chillingworth saith the Protestants have constantly maintained , and doe still maintain , that good workes are not properly meritorious , and that faith alone justifies ; but either this is false , or else men that are counted Protestants have changed their Religion . Franciscus de Sancta Clara wil inform him of the extravagancies of some in these points , who passed for such Protestants as England hath been guilty of entertaining of late yeares . I have heard it publikely maintained in Oxford by Mr. Wethereld of Queenes Colledge , that Bona opera sunt Causae Physicae Vitae Aeternae , he had said before that they were Morall Causes , by that he meant Meritorious , but that expression would not content him . It is well known what Dr. Duncan maintained at Cambridge ; what Shelford printed there , what Dr. Dow and Dr. Heylin have since maintained , and to their power justifyed ; you may read their words at large in Ladensium {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the fifth Chapter . The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath given us the reason why the Jesuites refused to come to our Churches , ( it seems he had invited them ) since they themselves acknowledge that there is no positive errour in our Liturgy , and it is briefly this . Because though our Liturgy had in it nothing ill , yet it wanted a great deale of that which was good , and was in their Service . I can now give at least a probable conjecture why his Grace altered the Service-book which he sent into Scotland : why , surely to please the Jesuites , for he put in something which the Jesuites counted good , and so in his apprehension made up the defect . Mr. Newcomen in his learned Sermon hath shewen at large how punctuall his Grace was in observing the Jesuites instructions for the alteration of our Religion . How truth hath been sold at a low rate , by the highest Priests , is clearely discovered by Mr. Hill in his accurate Sermon . Revend Dr. Hakewill hath set forth Dr. Heylin to the life , and therefore I will not presume to adde any thing to his happy observations . The Ministers Remonstrance will give sufficient light to this point , I hope it will be published ere long . There is a Book which passeth from hand to hand as a pretious manuscript called Romano-Catholicus Pacificus , in which there are many faire offers made for a Reconciliation between Rome and Canterbury , the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall enjoy the Cyprian priviledge and be subject to no Patriarch , of which you may read at large in the supplement of the Canterburian selfe-conviction , a passage well worthy the serious consideration of all Statesmen . I might make my book swell if I should but reckon up the tithe of Bishop Mountague his Popish expressions , and therefore I leave men to peruse his writings , there are few points of Popery which you may not find in his bookes or in his Articles at visitation ; It seemes our guides were gone so farre that the Papists thought they might accept of all Propositions of Accommodation which were tendered to them by our gentle Reconcilers . Dr. Featley hath excellently discovered what a good opinion the Romanists conceive of some who professe themselves members of the Church of England ; Protestants are now counted Heretiques no longer , if you will speak properly and strictly , saith that Popish Priest , and therefore sure Protestantisme is waxed weary of it selfe , as Knot speaks ; you may well know what Protestants this Vertumnus meanes , such as have been cited in this sixth Chapter : Concerning the book called Jesuitica Negotiatio , the Ministers have said enough already . I admire at the impudence of divers men who have thus freely expressed themselves for the encouragement of the Arminian , Socinian and Popish party , and yet are not ashamed to say that they stand for the Protestant religion . I have seen a letter under Mr. Chillingworths own hand in which he doth excite Dr. Sheldon of All-soules , and Dean Potter , &c. to stand in defiance of the Parliament , and advises them to stir up the youth ( the young laddes of the University as he calls them ) to oppose the Parliament ; Now can I or any man beleeve that Mr. Chillingworth doth intend to maintaine Calvinisme , I mean pure Protestant Religion ? I appeale to the conscience of* Dr. Sheldon whether he hath not reserved more charity for an Infidel then a Calvinist ? he hath expressed himselfe very slily in his Sermons , and yet plainly enough to intelligent Auditours , but I will take the counsell of his Text , and judge nothing before the time . I remember his observations upon that Text , Good Master what shall I doe that I may inherit eternall life ? it is not , saith he , what shall I beleeve , as the Calvinists would have it , ( or to that effect ) but what shall I doe ? Sure the good Dr. forgot the Jaylours question , What shall I doe to be saved ? and the Apostles answer , Beleeve , &c. Is this the Calvinisme he jerkes at ? Knot I beleeve had some ground to say that the infection was so generall that it had overspread All Soules . I would there had been no need of such discoveries , but since things are grown to this passe , it is folly to complement , we are compelled to speak Plain English in Sober Sadnesse . If our faith will be lost except it be kept by a controversy , it is an act both of faith and love for Orthodoxe men to undertake the controversy . Dr. Potter doth acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member of the Church universall , and saith the Church of England hath a true and reall union still with that Church in Faith and Charity : nay pag. 76. We doe not forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome any more then we forsake the Body of Christ , whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member though * corrupted . But it seems in 8. or 9. yeares Dr. Potter had altered his opinion , for in his Sermon preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Carlslie , in the yeare 1628. I find these words ; [ I am confident were the Fathers now alive they would all side with us in our necessary separation from the abominations , idolatry and tyranny of the papacy , with which no good Christian can hold any union in faith , any communion in Charity . ] p. 64 , 65. The learned and reverend Bishop Davenant did maintain that the Church of Rome was Apostaticall in his sad determinations ; if it be Apostatized from faith as Bishop Davenant saith , and hath no more charity then Dean Potter saith it hath , how can we ( especially since our separation from Rome ) be said to have a true and reall union with it still in Faith and Charity ? It is in vaine for him now to distinguish between the Church of Rome , and the Court of Rome , though there was once ground for that distinction , for Rome is all Court now ; if he will have me use Charrons similitude , the Church is the apple , and the C●ur the worme , the worme hath eaten up the apple , the Court hath devoured the Church ; we distinguish between Fundamentalls and superstructions , and some talke as if the Papists were sound in Fundamentalls , but the case is cleare that they have overthrown the old foundation , and all their superstructions are upon a new foundation , or upon no foundation at all . For if their Churches authority be the foundation of all their faith , and their Churches Authority be built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall motives ; as Mr. Chillingworth shewes , cap. 2. pag. 64. Sect. 35. then sure here is a new Foundation , or else their Church is a Castle in the ayre , a Church without foundations . I dare appeale to Master Chillingworth whether the Papists doe not erre grossely ( and therefore Fundamentally ) in those things which belong to the covenant between God and man in Christ ? See whether my inference be not grounded on his Assertion . pag. 17. the answer to the Preface , Sect. 26. Dr. Potter tells us * that their errours and practises for which they have been forsaken of Protestants are not damnable in themselves to men who beleeve as they professe ; but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is more Orthodoxe , or else the man that gave him this note was more Orthodoxe , ( for doubtlesse the materialls of that faire fabrick were brought in by men of different religions , the principles are so crosse ) he saith that errour in points not Fundamentall may be damnable to some men , though they hold it not against their conscience . Sect. 37. Numb. 6. pag. 320. Dr. Potter and some others have a fancy of resting in the profession of such truths as all Christians in the whole world agree upon . Master Chillingworth will put in the Socinians for a company of Christians ; I hope Dr. Potter will not joyn with him ; but the Arch-Bishop dislikes this plot , as it comes from A. C. or at least shewes the danger of it , and would be better advised in this point . He saith he doth not think it safest in a controverted point of faith to beleeve that only which the dissenting parties agree upon , or which the adverse party confesses ; the Arch-Bishop instances in the Doctrine between the Orthodoxe and the Arian ; if that rule be true which was mentioned before , then saith he 't is safest for a Christian to beleeve that Christ is of like nature with God the Father , and be free from beleefe , that he is Consubstantiall with him , &c. His second instance is about the Resurrection . His third about the unity of the Godhead ; if we will rest in the acknowledgement of one God ( he meanes , and not confesse the Trinity of Persons in the unity of the Godhead , for his Grace hath not framed his argument right ) then Iewes , Turkes and Socinians will be as good Christians as we are . The fourth instance is about the verity of Christs Godhead . The Arch-bishops Relat. p. 309 , 310 , &c. You see whither this charitable principle would lead us , we must take in the Socinian first , as a Christian , and then we may turn Turkes with credit . I will conclude all with a part of Dr. Potters prayer ; The Lord take out of his Church all dissention and discord , all Heresies , and Schismes , all Abuses and false doctrines , all Idolatry , Superstition and tyranny , and unite all Christians in one holy band of truth and Peace , that so with one minde and one mouth we may all joyne in his service , and for ever glorify the holy name of the most holy and glorious Trinity . Amen . Amen . Amen . The Printer to the Reader . The Author being called from London to a businesse of higher conc●rnment could not oversee the Presse , but some few sheets being sent to him , he returned some brief Corrections which he hath desired me to communicate that the Reader might blot out those things which are redundant , and rectify such mistakes as alter the sense of the Author . Be pleased to take speciall notice of these that follow . S. G. Errata . In Pag. 2. lin. 6. r. he will not confesse that they pag. 3. l. 19. dele ( if Smalcius be Judge ) in pag. 3. l. 6. marg. dele [ Sociniani ] in pag. 6. l. 18. r. [ with him ] but consider that Samosatenus p. 10. l. 20. dele [ they ] p. 27. l. 7. r. but the cause of the quarrell is that the Churches p. 28. l. penult . r. without the word . p. 33. l. ult. r. let them read my answer to Mr. webberley . p. 37. l. 7. dele therefore . p. 38. l. 10. r. istis quos ignorare . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A32802e-190 Vide Annotat. Casaub. in G. Nys. Epist. ad Amb. & Bas. Pacem ecclesia , pacem Christi amissā quaerere , & turbatā componere , & repertam tenere curavimus Sed hujus ipsius fieri nos vel participes vel autores , nec tēporis nostri peccata me ruerunt — nec Antichristi ministri sunt passi , qui Pace sua , id est , Impietatis sua unitato se jactant , agentes se non ut Christi Episcopos , sed Antichristi Sacerdotes . Hilarius contra Auxentium . Volumus & nos pacem , sed pacem Christi — pacē in qua non fit bellum involutū ; pacē , qua non ut adversartes subjictat , sed ut a mices jungat , Hieronym . Ep. ad Th. contra errores Ioh. Hi●ros . See Mr. Gatak●rs defence of Mr. Wotte● . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , &c. Gr. Na. zimz Orat. 20. Elcesaita fidem in persecutione negādam docebant & in corde servandam . Aug. de Hare sibus ad Quod. vult . Deū . Euseb. de vita Const. l. 1. c. 11. Vide Dinothuw● d● bell● Ga●ico ; cundē de be●o Belgico . Dimetr . Meteran . Hist. Belg. P●pellinier● . Memoires de la ligue . Insidi● sub pacis nomine latebant 1572. Barth. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , &c. At saptens quondam rite ho● pradixit Homerus . Exors ille , domus , pauperque extorris & exlex , Quem bellum civile juvat , crudele , nefandum . Aristop . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Vulpt●bus atque leves voltis confidere Mergi ? {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Mergus , fulica , Ardea , mihi Gavia videtur esse ; a Gull , or Sea . goose , vide observ. Flor. Chr. in locum . Nullâ id ratione queamus Ante lup●s quàm connubio sibi junxerit agnam . At nunquā rectà efficias incedere Cancrum , Non facias unquam ut lavis sict asper Echinus . Petra Romana est Mola Asinaria , demergatur sola in profundum maris , in collo nostro non suspendatur . Barret . d● Iur● Regu . Tacit. A● . l. 4. Vibane the 2d . did account my worthy Predecessour S. Anselm his own Compeer , and said he was the Patriarch and Apostolique of the other world . The Archbishop his Relat. p. 171. The like priviledge offered to this Archbishop by the English Fryar Bar●●si●s ; see the large supplement of Canterburies selfe-conviction pag. 20. What offers were made by Signior Co● , I leave to one more skillfull to demonstrate . Notes for div A32802e-2100 Scribant ● laute & accurate qui ad hoc munus ingenii fiductâ vel officii ratione ducuntur ; me verò sublevanda recordationu , vel potius oblivionu mea gratiâ , Commoniterium mihimet parasse suffecerit . Vinc. Li●in . adv. Har. a Vide Calovium consid. Theol. Socin. pag. 105. 106. & sequ. Vide Stegman Photin . Disp. 1 pag. 1. & 3. Hebionei Christun● tantummodo hominem dicunt . Vti Augustinus de Haresibus . Euseb. Pamph . Hist. lib. 3. cap. Gr. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Lat. 24. Epihanius Hares . 30. Ariani Patrem & Filium & Spiritū Sanctum nolunt esse uniui ejusdemque naturae at que substantiae , aut ut expressius dicatur , essentia . August . de Haeresibus . Ariani omnes dicti antiquitus era●t , licet sententiis inter se discordes , qui in pr●c●puum errotem cum Ario conspirabant ; nempe Filium Dei Patri consubstantialem esse negantes ●ti Smiglecius Probat . D Bez● , Prasatio prafixa Explicat . Val Gentilis Perfidi● & Perjurii . Sociniani cum Aetionis Filiū nō modo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , sed etia {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} di●unt . Stegman . Phot. Disp. 1. pag. 7 , 8. Sociniani insuper Filium De● post munds occasum prorsus non regnaturum cum Ario s●mniant Sociniani . vide Calov . de di . stinct . Theol. S●cin . a priscis haresibus . pag. 116. Noc est ut Photinianum nomen su●terfugiant cum in principalibus se c● Photino convenir● fateantur . D Stegman Photin . Disp. 1. pag 3. Iacobus ad Portum Orthod Fid Defen. advers●● Ostorradium . Martin . Thalyaus Anatom . Samosat . Glossema Samosateniorum est ejusdē●oloris cū Turcismo ac Iudaismo — cum Turcis quidem plus habent affini tatu quàm cum Iudae● — Turcismus en●m ut ex alijs errorum cento nibus , sic ex Samosatenia nismo a Mahume te est conftatus . Pauliani a Paulo Samosateno Christū non semper suisse dicunt sed ej us initiū ex quo de Ma. ria natus est asse verant , nec eum ali quid amplius quā hominem putant . Ista haeresis aliquāao cujusdā Artemonii fuit sed cum defecisset ●staurata est a Paulo , & postea sic a Photino confirmata &c. Aug de Hares . Execrandus ille Samosatenus ejus Ecolesiae conspurcator in quâ primi sunt Christiani nominati . D. Beza ubi supra . August de Hares . Haresis Samosaten ; postea sic a Photino confirmata ut Photiniani quàm P●ultani celebriús nuncupentur — Philaster continuatim ponit ambos ( Samosatenū scil. & Photinum ) sub singulis & propriis numeris quasi haereses duas , cum dicat Photinum in omnibus Pauli secutum fuisse doctrinam . Vide Iacobum ad Portū Orthodox . fid. Defens . Stegman . Disput 1. pag. 4. 7. 8. Calovium Considerat . Theol. Socin. Preoemial . Gloriantur Sociniani selectes quasdam Cōfessions sua vel directe vel oblique de Deo & Christo favisse , Samosatenum Photinum , Baliardum , Basilidianos , Carpocrat , Gnosticos , Marcionites , Montanistas , Noctianos , Arianos , Berillum , Eutych , Donatum , Helvidiū Eunomiū , Miletium , Sabinum , Praxeam , Manichaum , Sabellium , Photinum , & ejusce furfuris perditissimos hareticos , vide Caloviunt de D●uct , Theol. Socin. à priscis haresibus pag. 106. Vide D. Stegman Disp. 1. pag. 4. Learned Mr. Gataker his Postscript to Mr. Wotto●s Defence , pag. 40. 41. Calov . Considerat . Theol. Socinian . Prooemial . p. 120. Beza Prafat. pra . fix . explicat . H●res . Valent . Gen● . Calovins Consid. Theol. Soc. Prooe●ial . pag. 6. Michael , Servetus p●nas luens , Anno 1553. Nonnulli Geneva iterum è favillis Serveti flammas quasdam hareseos ipsius excitare , tum illis quoque inter alios favit Lalius Socinus . Calov . Decas Dis. pag. 7. Impictas Val. Gent. b●evi script● detecta per D. 1. Calvinum vide Valentint Gent. Pro. theses . Confession● . Libellum Antid●torum . Responsum D. Calvini ad Question . Georg Elandratae . Eiusdem Brev. Admonit ad fratres Polonas , nee non confirmat . istius Admonit . Simleri Epistolam Ministris in Polonia & Russia . Theses 1. Hyperii in Acad Marpurg Assert . Doct. Cath. de Trinitate per Alexand. Ale●●um Theses D. Beza in Pra●ect de Trinitate . B. A●etis Histor. Val. Gent. Vide Beza Pr●●●● . Confessi● fidei edita in Italica Ecclesia Genevae habetur in Explicat . perfidia Val. Gentilis pag. 1. Ibid. pag 3. Vide Explicat . Prafidia Valent . Gentilis , p. 14 , 15 , 16. Ubisupra pag. 17. Epistola Valentini Gentilis ad Senatū Genevensem habetur in Explicat . Perfidia Val. Gent. p. 27. Abjuratio Val. Gentilis ipsius manu sponte scripta , et ad Senatum Genevensem missa . vide explicat . perfidia Val. Gentilis p. 28. Er●t in confinio pagus Fargiarum ubi habitabat Gribaldus — aderant ibidem Alciatus — in praefecturâ Gaiensi ditionis mag. Dom. Bernēsium Aretius Histor. Val. Gent. Gratianopoli . Lugduni . Quid interea bonus ille Hosius Cardinalis cum suis Catholieis ? nempe ridere suaviter nostros undique ad extinguēdum hoc incendtum accurrētes probrosis libellu lacessere , Regiam denique Majestatē de coercendis istis blasphemiis cogitantem arectis consiliis provirtbus avoeare ; as merito quidem : Quorsu enim Satanadversus seipsum depugnaret ? Beza Prafat. ubi supra . Neglecta juramŭti religione ad errores abjuratos postlimini● redibat . Aretii Hist. Val. Gent. cap. 2. p 11. August . 1566 : Rescript . Senat. Genev. habetur in Explicat persidiae Val , Gent. p. 20. Ortgo Socinianisma a Lalto fuit ratione Inventiones , a Fausto ratione Dispositionis . Eques Polonus in vitâ F Socini . Dissortatio quam eques Polonus F. Socini ope●bus pramitti voluit . Abraham Calov . Decas Dissertat . I icet Tiguri apud Helvetios sedem fixisses , ad alias tamen Europa regto●es non semelex ●urrebat . Veruntamen ut unicuique sua constet laus — Me & sententiam illam in Iohannis Evangel. Verbis explicandis , & quae ad eam asserendam vel jam dixi vel posthac dicturus sū magna ▪ ex parte ex Laelii Socini Senensis sermonibus dum adhuc viveret , & post ejus mortē ex aliquibus ipsius scriptis quae in manus meas non absque mirabili Dei opera atque consilio pervonerun● & hausisse & desumpsisse non minus libenter quam ingenue fate● or . Frag. 4. duorum S●ript . F. Socini pag. 4. & 5. Vide Calovium de origine Theol. Soci . pag. 6 sect. 16. * Haer●tici Alogi sive Alogiani dict● quia {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} à Iohanne descriptum & proindeipsum etiam Evangeliū , secundum Iohanuē rejiciebant . Vide Aug. de Hares . 30. Vide Petrum Carolinum in Explicat . doctr. de uno vere Deo. p. 16. Nec non Eniedinū Explic. loc. V. & N. T. pag. 136. Viderem Romani quidem Antichristi regnū ab omnibus dirui atque vastari , Idolorumque templ● everti , interim tamen Christi regnum non resurgere , e●usque templum nedum à quoquam extrui , sed ne Caementa quidem & lapides ad illud extruendū ab aliquo parari . Socin. Explicat . Pri●n . ca. Ioh. p. 2. Notes for div A32802e-7810 Vide libellum ministr. . Sarmat . & Transyl . Alba Iulia edit , de falsa et vera , &c. D. Wigandi Servetianismum . In Brestensi Synodo in sinibus Lithuania . An. 1589. in Synodo Lublinensi . Non exigua indiet facta est accesis● , pracipue inobilib●● & in aula educatis — ut & ● lunierum Pastorum ordine , quippe qui propensiores in nova dogmata , n●c adeo in veritate confirmati fuerant , Calov . de Orig Soc. pag. 70. D. calovde dist. Theol. Soc à Theol. SS●i . pag. 73. Notes for div A32802e-8320 H. Grotit Pietas , ad ord. . Hollande . Error Christi Essentiam & personam negaus fidem destruit , & Christianismum tollit . D. Stegm . Photin p 6. Vide Smalci● contra nova monstra . Deum invocamus tanquam omnium bonorum solam ac primariam causam , Christum ver● tanquam secundariam Causam a primaria illâ plane pendentem — à Deo quacunque bona petimus à Christe ea solum qua ad Ecclesiam Christi spectant : Deus enim Christo ea largiendi potestatē concessit , non alia , inquit Socinus , Disp. de Adorat . Christi cum Chr , Frank . Vide D. Stegman . Photin . Disp. 1. pag. 6. Socinianismū Barlaus Pestem & ●verr●culū esse Christiana fidei dudum cred●d●t , vianoque sternere ad {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ejus religionis quam precioso suo sāguine aspersit ater●us aterni Dei silius . Vindis . C. Barlai pag. 8. Ea quae negantur a Socintanu ad duo capita revocari possunt , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seu articulum de ss. Trinitate , & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seu Articulum de humani geueru Salute . vide Cal●v . Dist. Th. Socin , a priscis hares . p. 111. Vide Stegman . Disput. 56. p. 656. a Neque Patres propterea recipiūt , quia cum Scripturâ consentiunt ; sed scripturam ●o mode in intelligendā censen● quia Patres ita ex plicarunt . Ideoque pri●s de unanimi Patrū Conciliorūque consensu , quàm de vero Scriptura sensu sunt solliciti . Brev. Disq p. 7. b Malle se Patribus istis , Conciliisque adh●rere , quàm Privatum , ubi v●cant , Suum de scriptur● sequi iudicium . I● pag. 7. Hoe aut●m ann●● est Ecclesi● ejusque Doctoribus contr●versias cum aliorū obligatione judicādi Potestatem adscribere ? Brev. Disq. cap. 2. pag. 8 , 9. Nimirum iudicem ipsi Spiritū Sanctū statnunt : Saltem fine eo nullum cutquam de sacr● judicium concedere volunt . Quo ipso Rationis Sanae judicium ante Spiritus sancti illustrationem plane tollitur . Disq br . cap. 30. pag. 9. Brev. Disq cap. 4. Vera de judice sententia . Itaque neg andum est nullum c●rto assequi verum . Quare qui istis sive naturali ingenii b●nitate , sive experientiâ vel mediocriter instructus est , is & ●psas Scripturas sacras esse cognoscet &c. Brev. Disq. p. 35. Quid quod princip●orum ●storum ope etiam is qui s●cras literas vel legere non potest , vel nunquam vidit , vel exstare ●●scit , &c. lb. cap. 7. p. 35. Reason is in some sort Gods word saith Mr. Chillingworth . Answer to the Preface , p. 20. Arch-Bishop of Cant. his Relation . pag. — 150. The Church of Rome did promulgate an Orthodoxe truth , which was not then Catholickely admitted in the Church , namely the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son : if she erred in this fact , confesse her error . The generall Councell held at Ariminum , did deny the Sonnes equality with the Father ; the Councell at Ephesus did confound the two natures in Christ . Vide Calovium de Consensu Patrum ante Concilium Nicenum . Sociniani Trinitatem Cerberum , Christum Spurium , Incarnationē Christi monstrum absurditatis , Satisfactionem commentum appellitant . D. Stegman . pag. 22. En Christianos Chillingworthianos . Criminantur Resurrectionem ejusdem carnis esse prorsus Mahometanam & Iudaicam , Calov . Dist. Theol. Soc. à pris . hares . p. 104. Regem ' sine regn● , Caput sine memoris , vitem sine ranis , Christum sine Ecclesiâ somniant : ●idei articulum de Catholicâ Ecclesia ●sque ad finem ●nundi evertunt . Notes for div A32802e-11090 Spreta haud exolesce● ejusmodi calumnia . sed agnita videbitur apud nimis malos , aut nimis credulos , aut minùs ami●os . Vind. C. Barlas p. 7. Naturall Reason ( saith Mr. Chilling . ) then built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches Authority is but the first Inducement ; in the margin . pag. 65. Mr. Chill . counts himselfe no Socinian because he holds Supernaturall Revelation requisite to help naturall Reason . Preface sect. 28. Yet he saith Scripture is not beleeved Finally for it self . pag. 65. that a man may be saved who knowes not whether there be any Scripture or no . pag. 66. It may be humane prudence and ordinary discretion did advise Mr. Chillingworth to use no more industry in finding out the truth ; or he hath not been at leisure because of some hindrances and● distraction ; and then he hopes that none of his errours will be imputed to him . p. 19. Answer to the Preface . I would willingly know whether D. Potter doth not take in the Socinians into his christian world . p. 255. Why he makes the Church of England to take part with the Jesuites against Piscator and Calvin , & implies that Calvinisme is , as the black-mouthed Sorbonist called it , Bestiarum Religio . p. 256 , 257 , 258. Edit. 2. Mangones haresium sub praetextu moderatioris Theologia ● n●stris ecclesiis verè Reformat●s exierunt . Ioh. Peltius . Remonstrantes aiunt sese cum omnibus aliis sectis , imoue Socinianis exceptis fraternitatem posse colere , excepta Reformata Ecclesiâ . Apolog. ad Censur. Prof. Leid . Arminian●s & Socinianes in viginti & ultra articulis per vari●s paragraphos distinctis convenire probatumdedit 1. Peltius . Non n●gamus ( inquiunt Remonstrātes ) esse nonnulla ad salutem creditu necessaria pracise , sed ea pauca esse arbitramur . Et hic etiā ( inquiunt Profess . Leyd ) gentum & spiritū Socinianum animadvertimus — Paucissima ad sal●tem prorsus necessarta sunt ( inquit Socinus ) nempe ut Deus & Iesus Christus divino honore colatur , praesertim verò Chartt as erga proximum exerceatur . Quam fidē & charitatem putant in eo subsistere qui neget Christum esse eund●m cum Patre Deum & Spiritum Sanctum esse personam , &c. vide Pr●fess . Leyd. Censurā Praefationu Re monstr . prefix . Confess . sect. 22. a Caspar Barlaeus Iud●os Deum Abraham● colcre ( quāv● constet eos Iesum Christū blasphemare ) pios esse posse , Deoque acceptos , itemque Dei amicos secundum Accuratioré Theologiam dici posse statuit , uti Vedellus de Deo Synagogae . Dr Po●ter recites some such passages p. 117. of his own book , but will not take any notice of Acontius . Dr. Potter might have corrected these passages out of his own principles , because for want of clear Revelation he frees the Church before Christ , and the disciples of Christ from damnable errour though they beleeved not those things which he who should now deny were no Christian , read from p. 245. to 250. of Dr. Potters book of Charity , &c. See Dr. Page his answer to that Treatise ; and a little box of Antidotes against some infectious passages in a Tract concerning Schisme . Sum●● Religion is Socinian● h●c es● , sub spe alterius vit● observare Mandata Dei , uti Calovi●s consid. Th So●in Prooem p. 86. Sufficit ut s●iamus quae reverae praecipiantur vel vetentur à Deo , adeo ut si in reliquu error occurrat nemo ob eun dē calo excludatur . Socin , Epist. 2. ad Dudithium . Arch-Bishops relatiion see pag. 309 , 310 , 311. The Arch B●shops Relation . pag. 171. The Arch-Bishop calls Socinianisme an hor●id monster of al He●ies , pag. 310. Talis non paucis Declarantium esset Theologia Sociniana in pluribus Articuli● , quam tamen hacten●● publiee el●gere non ausi funt propter scandalum , ide● ab ●is qua minus i●vtdtosa putarunt insidiose in incipientes , viam illā t●tissimam tentarunt . Prefess . Leyd. Censur. Praefat. Rem . Sect. 23. The old Book . p. ●4 . new . 121. The old book . p. 9. The new . p. 31. Ab iis quae minus invidiosa putarunt insidiose incip●entes viam illam suam tutissimā tentarūt , ultertus Progressu●● si pro vot● succesiss●t — non dubiū est quin remonstr. . Soc. & in unam & eandem sectam coaluerint , etsi non in omnibus alits plane conveniant — publice docent unūquemque in sua fide salvari posse , &c. Profess . Leyd. Cens. Prafat. Sect. 23. Notes for div A32802e-15560 The Preface to the Author , &c. Sect. 7 , 8. 11. This is the mother , give her the childe , &c. c. 2. p. 50. The doctrine of Indulgences takes away the fear of Purgatory , the doctrine of Putgatory , the fear of Hell ; the love of God will not be kindled in the hearts of ignorāt mē by Latine service , nor by the masse if it were in English : because some sins are made veniall , the people may well doubt whether there be any mortall ; because the Pope hath struck out the second Commandement , the people may think he hath Authority to strike out the first . The foundation of all the Papists faith , the Churches Authority , is built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall motives ; Ac de Atheis quidem non it a fisissem crediturus unquam nisi me tenellum adhue ipsorum agmina , summo discrimine salutu mea s●l●citavissent ante triginta annos , quum li●●ris humanioribus operam in Gallia darem ● Iunii sac . parallela praefat. Libellum de ss. Scriptura Authoritate Dominicus Lopez Societ . Iesu anno 1588. Hispali edidit D●Calovius de orig. Theol. Soc. pag. 22. Mr. Chilling . Answer to Knots-directio●s to N. N. sect. 18. Ideo di●unt Re●ōstrantes se nolle hareses aut Athelsmū introducere quia nō habent pro hare si id quod revera heresis & Atheismus est , & abomns ecclesia qua Deum in tribus personis adorat pro heresi & Atheismo habetur . Uedel . de Arean . Arminianismi lib. 1. cap 1 lib. 2 c. 10. pag. 86 , 87. Vide Brochmand . de Peccato . c 6. 9. 1. Pelagio auxiliares m●nus prabe●t Anabaptistae &c. Colloqu . Frank●a●t . 4 p. 230 , 231. Peccatum morte Christi it a expiatū & ablatum esse ut infantes naseantur omnis lab●● expertes , ac eapr●pter lavacro Regeneration●● nonindigeant . Smalcius disp. 2. contr. Francium peccatum originis commentum est & fabula . Uide Conrad . Heresb . de factione Monast. Theod. Strack . Hist. Anabapt . pag 56. * Si qui adeo tenera , aut sic à teneru imbutae conscientiae sinc ut credant Christian● nulli ne quidem Magistratum gerenti licere sanguinem fundere , aut capital●bus suppliciis in sontes animadvertere , Remonstiantes eos libenter tolerare paratisunt . Exam. Cens. cap. 12 pag. 141. * Defensio contra injustam vim qu● sine potestate effundendi s●ngu●nem est , non est defensio , sed defensionis larva terrend●s pueris . Rem . ubi supra . Nam vox Gladii quemlibet defensionis modum , etiam quae sine sanguine fi● , significare potest . Ibid. Accedit quod fie●● non possit ut Infirmi isti in quorum gratiā confessi●lus●t Homonymtis magistratus , & justos magistratus tolerēt , cū expungant magistratū v●●d●eantē justū ( ex officio nomine D●●●capitali supplicto impiorum ex numer● Christia norum , & annumerent Infidelibus & Homic●dis . Isac . Iun. Exam. Apol. R●monstrant . cap. 12. p. 311. Satan ejusmodi pestes illum in finem exctavit , ne scil. R●formatio orbis Christiani in doctrin● & moribus jam a multo tempore a piis majoribus nostris desiderata , & à Deo ter Opt. Max. tandem per Lutherum , Zuing. Melan Bucer . aliosque Dei viros suscepta perficeretur . Arg. Epist. Heresbach Conr●dus Heresbachtus principum Iulia Cliviae montium &c. Institutor & Consiliarius qu● notatu digna inter obsidendum occurrebant probe consignavit , utroque insuper principe ju bente retulit , teste Theod Strackeo . Docebat Muncerus falsum esse Christū satisfecisse pro no bis , quicquid tandē molles isti Scribae dicant . H Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas . lib. 1 p. 2. * Socini Defens Tract de ecclesia sub nomine Nicolaidu : Omnes qui Anabaptista vocantur qui in Polonia degunt , — Belgio , Italia & c — ideoque fraternitatem ●●m omnibus illis ( se . Anabaptistis ) inire satagun● ( nempe Socini asseclae ) & quo minus res succedat hactenus per eos nullo medo stat sed per illos penes quos ecclesiarum Evangelicarum regimen est & gubernatio pag. 62. vide Profess . Leydens . Censuram in confession●m Remonstrantium . Censur. Praesationis . sect. 24. Lutherus datis ad Senatum Melhusanum literis monebat lupum hunc perniciosissimum diligentissime cavendum esse . Bullinger adversus Anabaptist . lib. 1 ca. 1. Anno 1525. in Curia Tigurina . Cyprian and the Bishops of ●arthage Councell , are cited by Anabaptists , but they were not pertinacious in their errour , as the Anabaptists now , the Arians and Donatists of old . There is no command for Rebaptization in Scripture , nay not so much as example for it , as the A●●baptists did themselves confesse , when they saw that the place , Act. 19. 5. made nothing for them , See the conference at Frankendale , Act. 36. art . 12. Vide Edictum Amplissimi Senatus urbis Tigurina . Bullinger adv. Anabap. lib. 1. cap. 5. Singuli Anabaptista sufficienter nemine impediente & absquejurgiis sententiam suam exposuerunt denuo tamen firmissimis testimoniis sacrarum literarum declaratum est Zuinglium cum suis sectatoribus Anabaptistas vicisse . Serv●tus vetus ille sacrae Triadis , id est omnis vere Deitatis hostis , adeoque mōs●rū — ne à fanaticis nostroum tē porum Sectis abhorrere videretur , Baptismum Infantium quoque horrendis mod●s flagellavit & abominabilem reddere conatus fuit . Strack Epist. Nuncupat . Reliquos Articulos Muncer● urgebant de Verbo Dei Subtili non Script● , de Vi●ionibus & Reve ●ationibus , &c. Bullinger . adversus Anabap. lib. 1. cap. 4. The Papists allow a Divorce & the change of an Hereticall wife as well as the Anabaptists . Iohan. Angelius Werd in Synopsil Bodini de Repub. nihil a Davide Georg●o & tal●bus optim●s Sanctorum alienum loquutus . Abominandes omnes Anabaptistas superat blasphemus ille David Georgius . Bulling adversus Ana●ap . lib. 2. c. 14. Vide Consuram Professorum Leydensium in Confess . Remo●strantium , & Censur. Prafat. remonstr. . In Arca A●minianorum ut in Arca N●a omnium sp●●ierum animalia , quamus is diverse utentia pabulo , conservantur — politic● stratagemate Libertinis omnibus , Anataptist● etiam professis , aditum prabent , ut utano sibt parent ad eos opprimendos , quos vident suis conatibus obstare . Cens. Pr●fat . Sect. 23 In Synodo sua non obstante Confessione sus Pad●baptismum non esse creditu necessartum statuunt , nec ministros ( Anabapt. ) e● nomine dimovenaos . Cens pag. 305 De coena Domini error et Pontif & Luth. rejictunt , non Anabaptistarum & Soci●ianorum . Censur. in cap 23. Confess . pag 310. Personall defence is lawfull against the suddaine and illegall assaults of Messengers sent from the Prince , nay if the King himselfe strike at any one he may ward the Kings blowes , hold his hands or the like . Dr. Ferne sect. 2. He doth not condemne the people for hindring the execution of a particular , passionate unlawfull command of the King by a loving violence and Importunity . Sect. 2. See the Book entitled Scripture Reason , &c. The Text Rom. 13. doth secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance . pag● . Magistrates must be submitted to by vertue of Gods Soveraignty . Damnation belongs to obstinate resisters of humane laws which are not opposite to Gods law . p. 5. 7. Mr. Burroughes his Sermon of the 1. of Hoasts . pag. 45. Scripture and Reason the book set forth by divers Ministers . The conscience is bound to obey the lawfull commands of Magistrates , Gods wrath is upon the conscience of them that disobey . p. 8. Magistr●tes are to be maintained upon the publike stock . p. 8. read pag. 12 , 13. and judge whether these Divines doe not plead the Kings cause better then Dr. Ferne ; they say that the very houses of Parliament may not resist the Authority of the King commanding according to law . pag. 23. Read the Ministers Epistle to the Reader , and their answer to the 7. Section of Dr. Ferne . The Papists say that although Kings doe governe by the lawes of their kingdome , yet because they are against the Catholique Religion , Subjects may rise up against their King and kill him , this doctrine of theirs we abhorre . Mr. Burroughes Sermon of the ● . of Hoasts . p. 41. See Mr. Bridge his Answer to Dr. Fern . The Papists doe not only hold it lawfull to depose , & thus to depose their Prince , but to kill him also , yea that a private man invested with the Popes Authority may do thus , all which we abhorre . Sect. 5. p. 32. Papists owe subjection to a forraine State , crosse centered to this of his Majesties , in its interest of State , and meritoriously malitious by its very Articles of faith . The fuller Answer to Dr Ferne . p. 23. The name King doth signifie a person invested with different power according to the variety of Lawes in seveverall nations . See an answer to the Observations printed at Oxford by his Majesties command . p. 6. What the Lawes of the Kingdome and Priviledges of Parliament are , the Lawyers books dayly published declare . Nemo potest mutare Consilium suum in altertus injuriam . There would be no end if the King should undoe what he hath done — there can be no appeale from himselfe to himselfe — he is not to passe sentence in a private but in a publique and judiciall way . Answer to the observations , pag. 22. Set forth by his Majesties command . Potestas {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} By Law the King cannot , will not refuse to hearken to his great Councell — Answer to the Observation pag. 28. and pag. 37. he saith that by the happy temper of our government , Monarchy is so wisely ballanced , that as we are not exposed to the dangers which attend the Rule of the many , so we may avoid the inconveniences which might probably flow from the Atbitrary power of one . The same Authour doth readily grant that Parliaments are good Helpes in Government . p. 13. ergo they are somewhat more then Counsellours . a Quemadmodum Anabaptistae opinantur quod nullus Magistratus in Ecclesia esse possit . Bulling adv. Anabapt. lib. 5. p. 157. See Scripture and Reason set forth by divers learned Ministers . b Vide Bulling lib. 5. cap. 2. cap. 2. Magistratum non posse neque debere curare res religionis . c Vide eundem cap. 4 , 5. ejusdem libri . Contendunt A●abaptista in Ecclesiâ unicuique libe rum esse debero ut agat & credat quod ipsi visum fuerit , ubi supra . cap. 7. d Nulla Carnalis coercitio nulla poena err●ntibus constituta à Deo est — omnes in seipsum armat qui in alios quos errare credit armatur . Par omnium in omnes Ius est . Qui sibi jus tribuit coercendi alio● , idem aliis in seipsum Idem justus concedat necesse est . Exam. Cens. cap. 24. pag. 259. Lex ista de Apost●tis à Christianisnio non agi● nedum de Apostatis ad Iudaismum , & c — Religionem Suam liberam Christus esse voluit ; qui ab ea deficiant , suo periculo & damno deficiunt . Ex Censur● cap. 24. p. 264. Tub-preachers . Nihil tamen ali●d colligetur quam ejectionem Hareticorum ex publicis templis ad magistratum pertinētibus licite à magistratu fieri posse , & quidem si necesse sit flagelloè funiculis ei fini facto , ulterius aut plus concludere nemo jure potest . At hoc jus Magistratui plenâ manu tribuunt Remonstrantes ; Hac ergo in parte imitetur Magistratus Christum . Exam. Cens. cap. 24. pag. 269. At in p●imá Ecclesia institutions cū ordo non est , au● in ejus restitutione cum ordo collapsus est , Missionem necessariam esse negant ( Remonst . ) proinde cam de essentia muneris Ecclesiastici , quod in verbi legitimâ praedicatione consistit , non esse habendam . Ex. Cen. c. 21. p. 228 Aut libertas hac communis esse debet & eo usque extendi quo eam quisque sibi Concedi amat , aut vis inferenda aliorum conscientiis Exam. Cens. c. 24. p 277. Remonstrantes causam nullam esse vident cur sententia eorum qu● Padobaptismum necessario in ecclesia Christi necessitate seu Pracepti seu Medii retinendum aut usurpandū esse non arbitrantur , ut entolerabilis in Ecclesia censenda sit , a● proinde cur pastores isti qui eum p●r conscientiam usurpare non audent — proveris a● degitimis p●storibus Christi habendi non sint ? Brownists . Where the eause of Schisme is necessary , there not he that separates but he that is the cause of separation is the Schismatique . Tract concerning Schisme . pag. 4. See Mr. Chilling . preface , Sect. 20. Hookers Ecclesiast . Polit l. 5 sect. 65. Mr Chill . Answer to the Preface . p. 16. Sect. 22. There cannot be any Schisme in leaving Communion with any Church , unlesse we are obliged to continue in it ; man cannot be obliged by man , but to what either formally or vertually he is obliged by God . Was it not lawfull for Judah to reforme her selfe whē Israel would not joyn ? Sure it was or else the Prophet deceives me ; that sayes expresly , Though Israel transgresse , yet let not Judah sinne . The Archb. of Cant. his Relation . pag. 149. See Mr. Chillingworths Preface , Sect. 44. answer to the 2. Motive . There may bee just cause to depart from a particular Church in some doct. in s and , practises , though that Church want nothing necessary to salva●ion . Dr. Petter . 2. Edit. Sect. 3. p. 75. There may be a necessary separation , which yet incurres not the blame of Schism : The Archb. of Canterbury his Relation . p. 133. in margine . a Nor can you say that Israel from the t●me of Separation was not a Church . See the Archb. of Cant. Relat. pag. 149. b See the Defēce of the Churches and Ministery of England by Mr. Iacob ag●inst Mr. Iohnson ; the Publishers Epistle to the Reader prefixed before the Booke . Non enim si ab hisce coetibus ad alios forte discedat , protinus eos quos deserit contemnit aut à spe salutu exclusos judicat , sed tantummodo ab impurioribus ad puriores se confert , ut veritatem omnem saluti nostrae aliquatenus servientem sibi cura & cordi esse ostendat , & Deo ac Iesu Christo suo conscientiam suam probet , Say the Arminians in their Preface to their Confession . * See Mr. Thomas Goodwin his Fast Sermon preached at Westminster . See Mr. Burroughs his S●rmon of the L. of Hoasts . p. 46. The Iesuits have ●eene the Authors and Instruments of all tu●●ults , seditions , &c. as Dr. Potter shewes , Want of Charity , &c. Sect. 1. pag. 9. The present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of salvation they have not to be Christians , as not to bee Roman Catholiques — be absolutely out of the Churches Communion , as be out of her Communion — whether shee bee not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists , and those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law , let reasonable men judge . Mr. Chillingworth . c. 3. Sect. 64. See Dr. Potter Sect. 4. St. Augustine and Optatus did acknowledge the Donatists to bee their brethren , & their Baptisme to be true Baptisme , vide Aug in Psal. 32. Con 2. Epist. 166. Et contra Donat ●post Coll. cap. ult. Optat. l. 1. Aug. contra Crese . lib. 4. cap. 4. de contra Donat. lib. 1. c. 10 , 11. Dr. Potter doth confesse this truth . Sect. 4. p. 107 , 108 , 109. the first edition . Mr. Chillingw . desires that nothing else should be required of any man to make him capable of the Churches communion , then that he beleeve the Scripture , and that only ; and endeavour to beleeve it in the true sense . His Preface to the Author , &c. answer to the last Motive . Ecclesiam nostram in omnibus audiendam esse cōsequttur duo ● us modu , tum quâ mutaverunt pleraque in Divinis Officiis , tum quâ multa retinuerunt : nam in altero se ad Antichristum pertinere declara●unt ; in altero nos esse populum Dei , & se esse simias nostras confessi sunt . Brist . Mot Tom. 2. Mot. 23. p 242. & seq. See BP. Mortons Appeale . Troubles of Frankford . See Dr Featleys Advertisement to the Reader , prefixed before Ver●●m●us Romanus . Quare nil dubitamus profiteri Athanasium limitem jur● huj us pratergressum esse , quando Symbolo suo super●am istam pr●sationē prascripsit . Notes for div A32802e-22730 The Canterburians Selfe-Conviction shewes ; 1. Their avowed Armini●nisme . 2. Their affection to the Pope , and Popery in the grosse , cap. 3. 3. The Canterburians joyn with Rome in her grossest 1. dolatries , cap. 4. 4. Their embracing of Popish heresies and grossest errors , cap. 5. 5. Their Superstitions , cap. 6. 6. The Canterburians embrace the Masse it self , cap. 7. 7. Their Maxims of tyranny , cap. 8. See the third Edition of this Canterb. Self-Conviction , with the large Supplement which containes sundry very materiall passages . Mr. Chillingworths Answer to the Preface of Charity Maintained , which is as it were a second Preface , for it followes the Preface joyned with an Answer to the Direction to N. N. p. 9. Sect. 7. The answer to the Preface p. 19. In the same Freface . The second Preface . p. 19. * Vide Vedelium de Arc●nu Arminianismi : the foure Professours of Leyden in their approbation of that book declare them to be willfully blind who do not see that it was the scope of the Arminians to introduce Libertinisme . Vtnemo deinceps , quinon sponte cacutire velit , de corum ad Libertinismi Introductionem Scopo dubitare possit Approbatio Facultatu Theologica Leydensis . Mr. Chilling first Preface Sect. 29. Cap. 2 pag 64. * The book of Esther , Job , Ecclesiastes , the Epistle of James and Jude , the second of Peter , the third of John , the Epistle to the Hebrews , the book of the Revelation . We live in a questioning age : & no man knows how soon all the rest may be questioned . You may read more of Mr. Chillingworths principles , in a book entitled Christianity maintained : the passage about Henry the 8 , &c. is too famous to be mentioned . Nos in diem vivi● mus ; quodcunque nostros animos probabilitate percussit , illud dicimus . It aque soli sumusliberi hoc est Sceptici , vide Ciceron. Tusc. quast . lib. 5. Answer to the Preface . Sect. 26. The Arch-Bishop himselfe is more sound . A Church may hold the fundamentall point Literally — yet erre damnably in the exposition of it : and this is the Church of Romes case — it hath in the Exposition both of Creeds & Councels quite changed and lost the sense & meaning of some of them . The Arch Bishops Relat. pag. 320. Vide Vedelium de Deo Synagoga . Dr. Kellet his Tricenium . The Laick must trust in his Priest , the Clergyman in his Church . p. 630. The ●u●harist to be adored . p. 637. and received with our hands framed like a Crosse . 655. Altars adored . p. — 644. The Arch Bishop of Ca●t . his Relat. pag. 147. This is the Protestant Religion which the Papists fight for , in thes fighting dayes . Behold the Protestant Religion which the Armiminians maintain . Mr. Chillingworth might have questioned the salvation of the Iesuites as well as of the Dominicans , Ans. to the Preface . pag. 20. First Preface with an Answer to the Directions to N. N. Sect. 26. Mr. Wethereld his Sermon at Saint Maries . The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury his Relat. Sect. 35. punct. . 5. p. 307. A probable conjecture of his Graces Reason why he altered the Service-book . The difference between the Scotch Li●u●gy and the English is exactly set down in the Canterburians selfe conviction p. 97. to 113. See M. Newcomen his Sermon preached on the fifth of Novemb. The large supplement of the Canterburian selfe-conviction pag. 19 , 20. Bishop Mountagu● saith that the ●igne of the crosse is the Instrument of divine power and sufficient to drive away Devills , it is to be made in the breast or forehead , &c. Orig. Eccles. Tom. prioris parte poster ' pag. 80. Scripture and Reason , &c. Set forth by divers ; Ministers . The book called Iesuitica Negotiatio gave Iesuited persons leave to professe the Protestant religion , to keep any office , to passe sentence of death upon any person according to his office , so he was as favourable as possible , and gave timely intelligence of any severe sentence . pag. 74. Just like the Iesuise Dr Potter speaks of , who hoped well of honest Pagans , & rashly dāned the best part of Christians . sect. 2. p. 45. I say nothing of Dr. Sheldon his Latine Sermon in which he did highly advance the Power of the Priest . Dr Potter 2 edit. sect. 3. pag. 68. * Impuritas non in dogmatibus fidei reperitur , sed vel in conclusionibus minus certis , vel in ritibus ; alioqui si impuritas ipsum cor & medullam occupet , actum esse de tali ecclesiâ omnes Orthodo ●i censent . Profess . Leyd. Censur. Praefat. Remonst Praefix confess . sect. 23. That proud and curst Dame of Rome , &c. saith Dr. Potter p. 11. She doth poyson her own children , gives them serpents instead of fishes . p. 14. their charity is contrary to the true nature of Charity . p 16 they have more Charity for a Iew and a Turk then a Calvinist . p. 17. we are persecuted with fire & sword and cursed into eternall fire by the Romane Charity , as Dr. Potter saith . p. 13 * Read the cēsure of Reverend Dr. Twisse upon this passage of Dr. Potter in his treatise of the morality of the fourth Commandement . pag. 34. Damnable i● themselves is in both editio●s , only corrected in the Errata of the second edition , damnable in their issue . D. Twisse gives the reason . See Dr Potter 2d . edition p. 254 , 255. We shall find that in those Propositions which without al controversy are universally received in the whole Christian World , so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a manunto everlasting salvation . p. 255. The Arminians say no man is an Herelike who denies a point which is , or may be controverted , and so they may deny the whole creed . De harcticu quaritur , non qut ea qu● in scrip turis aperte decis● sunt convellere audent , sed qui e● qu● controversa sunt , aut controverti pessunt in dubium vo● cant Exam. Cens. cap. 24. p. 276. The Arch-Bishop of Cant. his Relat. pag. 309 , 310. Dr. Potter his Prayer . 
A59900	----	A vindication of Dr. Sherlock's sermon concerning The danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy in answer to some Socinian remarks / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1697 Approx. 81 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 23 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59900 Wing S3371 ESTC R21027 12048983 ocm 12048983 53116 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59900) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53116) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 823:12) A vindication of Dr. Sherlock's sermon concerning The danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy in answer to some Socinian remarks / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [4], 40 p. Printed for W. Rogers ..., London : 1697. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy. Faith -- Early works to 1800. Socinianism. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-09 Melanie Sanders Sampled and proofread 2004-09 Melanie Sanders Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A VINDICATION OF Dr. Sherlock's SERMON CONCERNING The Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy . IN ANSWER TO SOME Socinian Remarks . By WILLIAM SHERLOCK , D. D. Dean of St. Paul's , Master of the Temple , and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty . LONDON : Printed for W. Rogers , at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet . MDCXCVII . To the Right Honourable Sir EDWARD CLARKE , LORD MAYOR : And to the Honourable Court of Aldermen . MY LORD , I Beg leave to Present Your Lordship with the Vindication of my Sermon lately Published by the Order of Your Court , against the Cavils , Calumnies , and wilful Misrepresentations of a Socinian Writer . The Argument is of that great Consequence that it deserves to be defended ; and this Pamphleteer has so rudely reflected upon the Honour and Sincerity of the Court , for their Order to Print it , that I look'd upon my self under a double Obligation , to Defend so Important a Truth , and in that to justify Your Lordship's Order . I pray God rebuke that perverse Spirit of Infidelity and Heresy which is gone abroad in the World , and secure the Faith of Christians from all the Arts and Insinuations of Impostors . That God would bless Your Lordship's Government , and preserve this Great City from all Temporal and Spiritual Evils ▪ is the hearty Prayer of , MY LORD , Your Lordship's , Most Obedient Servant , William Sherlock . A VINDICATION OF Dr. SHERLOCK'S Sermon before my LORD MAYOR , &c. WHEN I receiv'd the threatning and boasting Message from some busy Factors of the Socinian Fraternity , what work they would make with my late Sermon before my Lord Mayor , concerning the Danger of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy , my greatest Concernment was , how to meet with their Answer , which usually comes last to my hands , and how to bear the Drudgery of reading it ; for their Arguments have been spent long since , and that little Wit they had is now degenerated into Railing . That scurrilous Treatment they have lately given to so many Excellent Persons , especially to that Great Man the Bishop of Worcester , is a fair Warning to all who dare oppose them , what they must expect : And besides the Experience of their many former Civilities , I had more than ordinary reason to expect it now , they being touch'd in a very sensible part , without any other Defence to make : And this Author has not deceiv'd my Expectations ; for upon a Perusal of his Remarks , I find nothing of Argument , a very little Wit , and abundance of Railing . His Wit and Railing be to himself ; but I am sorry I can find nothing that looks so like an Argument , as to administer occasion for any useful Discourse . This there is no help for ; if Men will write Books without any Arguments to be answered , there is nothing to be done , but only to shew that they have offered nothing to the purpose , or that needs an Answer : And this will be done in a few words ; for he has disputed at large against what I never said nor thought , but has not one word against any part of the Argument of that Sermon . His Title-Page pretends a great Zeal for the Doctrine of the Catholick Church , and of the Church of England , concerning the Blessed Trinity : Which is as true , as that Richard Baldwin printed this Pamphlet , who has publickly disowned it in Print : But though a Socinian Conscience can digest such Godly Cheats , as a piece of Wit and Artifice , yet a Wise Man would not venture on them , because Mankind hate to be abused , and grow very jealous of Men of Tricks . And yet had we to deal with Modest Men , it would be thought a little of the latest for a Socinian to talk of defending the Doctrine of the Catholick Church , and of the Church of England , concerning the Blessed Trinity : For their Cant about Real and Nominal Trinitarians , and Three Infinite Minds and Spirits , is too well known to pass for so much as a Jest any longer ; and till they can defend the Judgment of their Disinteressed Person a little better than by scorning the Answer , which they will never be able to make any other Reply to , it were time for them , could they find any thing else to say in the room of it , to let that alone . And yet this is what he would bring this present Dispute to , if he knew how : He often flirts at Three Infinite Minds and Spirits , though there is no such Expression in the whole Sermon ; but still he says I intimate this in asserting a Real Trinity : Now if Three Infinite Minds and Spirits be essential to the Notion of a Real Trinity , ( as his Inference supposes ) it is the best Vindication that could possibly be thought of for that Expression : For not to believe a Real Trinity , is to deny the Father to be a True and Real Father , and the Son to be a True and Real Son , and the Holy Ghost to be a True and Real Spirit ; and this is to deny the Catholick Faith of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , which cannot be a Real Trinity , cannot be really Three , if each of them be not truly and really what is signified by those Names . But though that Phrase of Three Infinite Minds and Spirits was used very innocently by me , only to signify Three Infinite Intelligent Persons , each of which is Infinite Mind and Spirit , and neither of them is each other , which is the Catholick Faith ; yet I freely acknowledge , as I have done more than once , That it is liable to a very Heretical Tritheistick Sense , if understood absolutely , and in that Sense I always disowned it : And it is a sign Men have very little to say , when they make such a noise with an inconvenient Form of Speech , though expounded to a Catholick Sense : But the Margin will direct the Reader where he may find the true State of this Controversy . But what is all this to my Sermon ? which neither explains nor defends any particular Hypothesis about the Trinity , but is a general Vindication of the Christian Faith from the Pretences of Reason and Philosophy . But , The Doctrine of the Catholick Church , and of the Church of England , concerning the Blessed Trinity , explained and asserted ▪ against the dangerous Heterodoxies in a Sermon by Dr William Sherlock , &c And , Remarks upon Dr. William Sherlock ' s ( False and Treacherous ) Defence and Explication of some Principal Articles of Faith , &c. were more specious Titles , and both so good , that they knew not which to chuse , and therefore adorned the Title-Page with one , and the Frontispiece with the other , that if ever a poor Sermon was confuted with Titles ( which have a strange Magick in them ) this is utterly undone . But it is time to consider his Remarks , which exactly answer the Title , that they are nothing to the purpose . I am not at leisure to follow him in all his Harangues ; and his Wit and Buffoonry I despise too much to take notice of it ; and when it appears that a Man has discharged all his Artillery of Witticisms against his own Mistakes , he is witty at his own Cost too . He has made an Abstract or Summary ( as he calls it , P. 4. ) of my Sermon , but in his own Method , his own Words , and directly contrary to my Sense : That is , he has abstracted from every thing that is in the Sermon , that no Man living by his Abstract can tell what the Subject or Drift of the Sermon was , or any one Argument contained in it : I 'm sure I who made the Sermon , knew nothing of it but by mere guess , as I read it in his Abstract ; and would those Men who read these Remarks , be but so fair and honest as to read the Sermon too , there would need no other Answer . The First Branch of my Sermon in his Abstract ( P. 8. ) is this ; Philosophy and Reason are the only things which those Men adore , who would have no God at all . And what makes some Men Atheists and Infidels , even the Philosophick Tincture , and their adherence to Natural Reason , the same makes others to be Hereticks , that is , to be Arians , Socinians , and Pelagians . Now any one would think that this were one of the Heads of my Sermon ; which is so far from truth , that there is no such Proposition to be found there , but the contrary to this is to be found there in express words . In the first Page of my Sermon there are these words : What some Men call Philosophy and Reason ( and there is nothing so foolish and absurd which some Men will no call so ) is the only thing which those Men adore , who would either have no God , or a God and Religion of their own making . And what Attempts some have made to undermine all Religion , and others to corrupt and transform the whole Frame of the Christian Religion , upon a pretence of its contradicting Natural Reason and Philosophy , is too well known to need a Proof . And soon after ( P. 2. ) This vain Pretence to Reason and Philosophy ; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the vain deceit in my Text , which is applicable to all vain spurious Philosophy , as well as Platonism , and is so meant by the Apostle . And P. 7. Truly that which makes some men Infidels , makes others Hereticks , that is , a vain Pretence to Philosophy . Now let any man judge , Whether this be to charge Atheism , Infidelity , and Heresy , upon Reason and Philosophy , or upon what some men call Reason and Philosophy , which may be very foolish and absurd ? Whether the Pretences of contradicting Reason and Philosophy , and the vain Pretences to Philosophy , signify Reason and Philosophy ? This is wilful Misrepresentation ; for it is impossible he should mistake , I having expresly distinguisht between these vain Pretences to Philosophy , and true Philosophy , ( p. 3. ) Whoever considers what an Enemy these vain Pretences to Philosophy have always been to Religion , will see need enough for this Caution ( of the Text. ) True Reason , and the true knowledge of Nature , which is true Philosophy , would certainly direct us to the acknowledgment and worship of that Supream Being , who made the World , and yet we know , there never was an Atheist without some pretence to Philosophy : Though it seems , as this Author tells us , ( p. 9. ) there has been an Arch-heretick , even Socinus himself without it ; and so may all his Disciples be too , and yet be vain Pretenders to Reason and Philosophy ; however , I am as Orthodox in this Point , as my Lord Bacon himself , whom he objects against me , whose Sense I exactly expressed , though not his Words . But nothing can more fully declare my sense in this particular , than what the Reader may find ( p. 10. ) 2dly . Let us now consider what great reason we have to reject all the vain Pretences to Reason and Philosophy , when opposed to a Divine Revelation . For that i● all the Apostle intends in this Caution , not to discourage the use of Reason , or the study of Philosophy , which are great improvements , and a delightful entertainment of Human Minds , and with a wise and prudent conduct may be very serviceable to Religion too ; but we must not set up any Conclusions in Philosophy against the Christian Faith ; nor corrupt the Faith with a mixture of Philosophy ; nor reject any Revealed Truths for want of Natural Ideas to conceive them by . Nothing can be plainer than this ; That I am very far from condemning the sober use of Reason and Philosophy , though with the Apostle , I will not allow them to oppose the Authority of a Divine Revelation . So that our Author need not be so terribly frighted , as if this Innocent Sermon were a designed revenge against the Oxford Heads , the Learning of the Place , and Philosophy it self , ( p. 1. ) ( though the Apostle indeed will not allow Philosophy alone to make Decrees in Articles of Faith ) ; here is no danger of setting up Folly and Falshood ( which would be to encroach upon his Province ) or of writing a second Moriae Encomium , or praise of Folly. Here is no danger , that the Articles of Faith should disagree with true Reason and Philosophy , though a vain appearance , a Socinian Philosophy , may contradict the Articles of Faith. Nay my Lord Mayor , and the Court of Aldermen , ( p. 9. ) notwithstanding this Sermon , may very safely send their Children to Cambridge or Oxford , if they get good Tutors for them , who will reach them no Socinian Logick or Philosophy : And which is more , we may confute Atheists and Infidels by Reason and Philosophy , ( p. 8. ) without being at the charge of buying a massy Quarto Bible , with Clasps , and Bosses , to knock'em down with : As he very wittily , and with great reverence to the Holy Scriptures , expresses it : For Reason and Philosophy may confute Atheists and Infidels , though they have no Authority to make or unmake Articles of Faith , as to matters of pure Revelation . Nay more than this still ( if it be possible to please him ) , we will allow Reason and Philosophy to confute Heresies , though not to judge absolutely in matters of Faith : Which I suppose is the reason , why , as he observes ( p. 9. ) Hereticks , many of them , are no less bitter against this same ( damnable ) Philosophy : They protest , especially in their Latin Works , that 't is this Philosophy that corrupted and debauched Divinity . Damnable is a very fashionable word , and shews him to be well bred , and to have good Acquaintance ; but it is a very great Truth , That though Catholick Christians would never build their Faith on Philosophy , yet Hereticks have always had great reason to rail at true Philosophy , as I observed in my Sermon ( p. 10. ) The importunity of Hereticks did very often engage the Catholick Fathers in Philosophical Disputes ; but this they did , not to explain the Christian Mysteries by Philosophy but only to shew , that as incomprehensible as these Mysteries are , the Philosophy of Hereticks , and their Objections against these Articles , were very absurd . And such Disputes as these may sometimes be absolutely necessary , and of great use to shame these vain Pretences to Philosophy , while we do not put the trial of our Faith upon this issue . And thus much for his first Proposition , ( for it is none of mine ) that Reason and Philosophy are the two Idols of Atheists and Hereticks , and that make Atheists to be Atheists , and Hereticks to be Hereticks , ( p. 12. ) His second Proposition ( Ibid. ) runs thus . That to ascertain the very and true Faith , we must attend only to that meaning of Scripture which the Words and Phrases do imply : Rejecting all mixture of Reason and Philosophy in our Disputes about Religion , and our Inquiries about the meaning of Scripture . Now let any Reader try , whether he can find any such Proposition as this in all my Sermon , either in words or sense . I could not for some time guess , what shadow of pretence he could have for charging such a Proposition on me : I did indeed in some principal Articles distinguish between Faith and Philosophy ; between what is revealed in Scripture , and what Philosophical Disputes , which the Scripture takes no notice of , have been raised about them , and warned all men from mixing and corrupting the Faith with Philosophy ; but does this forbid us Expounding Scripture agreeable to Reason and common Sense , and Philosophy too , where Sense , and Reason , and Philosophy , are proper judges ? They are not the supreme and absolute judges in matters of pure Revelation ; But does it hence follow , that they cannot judge of their proper Objects ? Do I any where say , That we must always expound the Scripture to a literal Sense ? That when Christ is called a Way , a Door , a Rock , we must understand this literally ? And yet this is plainly what he would have to be my Sense , as his beloved instance of Transubstantiation shews . In this Sermon I have given no Rules for Expounding Scripture , which in time I hope I may . But what I assert is this , That when by all those Methods which Wise Men observe in expounding any Writing , we have found out what the true sense of Scripture must be , we must not reject such Doctrines meerly because natural Reason cannot conceive or comprehend them . That Revelation as to such matters as are knowable only by Revelation , must serve instead of Sense , natural Ideas , and natural Reason , ( p. 11. ) This gives a plain Answer to all his Cant about Transubstantiation , from our Saviour's words , This is my Body , ( p. 12. ) For is there no way of knowing what is Bread , and what is Flesh , but by Revelation ? Is not this the proper object of Sense and Reason ? And then it does not come within my Rule ; for Sense and Reason must judge of their proper Objects , though Revelation must serve us instead of Sense and Reason , as to such matters as can be known only by Revelation ; that is , as I expresly add , we must upon the Authority of Revelation believe things which we do not see , things which we have no natural notion or conception of , things which are not evident to natural Reason : As for instance , If it be Revealed in Scripture that God has an Eternal Word , his Only-Begotten Son ; and that in time this Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us ; this Son of God became Man ; that God sent forth his Son made of a Woman , made under the Law : Though neither Sense nor natural Ideas , nor meer natural Reason , give us any notice of it ; yet if we will own a Revelation , we must believe it upon the sole Authority of Revelation : But though Revelation in such cases be Sense and Reason to us , because we have no other means of Knowledge ; yet Sense must judge of the natural Objects of Sense , and Reason of the Objects of natural Reason ; but Revelation was never intended to unteach us what Sense and natural Reason evidently teach , and therefore it cannot teach us , that Bread is Flesh , and Wine is Blood. But this Socinian is got so far towards Popery , that he will not allow Sense to be judge of this matter , whether the Bread be Transubstantiated or not , and that for a very pleasant Reason ; his words are these , ( p. 13. ) He cannot have recourse to Sense in the case , 't is only Reason and Philosophy can help him out : For though the Apostles , who saw and tasted that it was Bread only , and not Flesh , might have appealed also to their Senses ; yet we that never saw or tasted the Substance which Jesus gave then to the Disciples , can know by Reason and Philosophy only , by nothing else , that it was not his Flesh and Blood : That is , I can't know by Sense that Christ gave Bread and Wine , and not Flesh and Blood to his Disciples , because I did not See and Taste my self that very Substance that Christ gave to his Disciples : But can I judge by Sense that what I my self See and Taste in the Lords Supper , is Bread and Wine after Consecration , not Flesh and Blood ? For that is the Question between us and the Church of Rome ; not , whether we receive the same now which Christ gave to the Apostles in the first Institution ( which they take for granted , and to question which , is meer Scepticism ) but what that change is , which the words of Consecration make in the Elements to this day ; and if we cannot judge of this by Sense , the Church of Rome have a better Plea for themselves than I thought they had . And if I can't now judge by my own Senses what it was Christ gave to his Apostles , and what they Saw and Tasted , I fear it will much weaken some other very good Arguments against Transubstantiation . But how will this Socinian , who rejects the Evidence of Sense , confute Transubstantiation ? Why that is easily done by Reason and Philosophy ; as thus , The Text expresly says , it was Bread which he blessed and brake , and called it his Body ; therefore it was his Body in Sign and Signification , not in Reality . All this is Arguing , 't is Reason that convinces us , not Sense , that the Substance he divided to them was indeed Bread , not his Flesh , which he neither blessed nor brake . This is Reasoning indeed ; But did I ever reject Reasoning and Arguing about the meaning of Scripture Words and Phrases , and the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture ? Is there no difference between Reasoning about the Sense of Scripture , and setting up the Conclusions of meer natural Reason and Philosophy against the plain and evident Doctrines of Scripture ? It is certain I made a manifest distinction between them , p. 9. In all these cases we are concerned to enquire what the true sense of the Article is ; for this the Scripture teaches , and so far our Faith is concerned , and these are not only justifiable , but necessary Disputes , if the true Faith be necessary . And such were the Disputes of the Catholick Fathers with the Sabellian , Arian , and Photinian Hereticks , &c. So that I allow of Arguing and Reasoning as much as he does ; and add , But that which we are to beware of , is not to mix Philosophy with our Faith , nor to admit of any meer Philosophical Objections against the Faith , nor to attempt any Explication of these Mysteries , beyond what the Scriptures and the Faith and Practice of the Catholick Church will justify . This distinction he knew very well , but very honestly dissembles it , and endeavours to impose upon his Readers , as if Reasoning and Arguing about the Sense of Scripture , and resolving our Faith into meer natural Reason and Philosophy , were the same thing . He was aware what Answer would be given to this , and therefore in the very next Paragraph he confutes his own Reasoning from Scripture , and proves that the Text does not confute Transubstantiation : But if our Preacher , says he , believes it was only Bread , because the Text it self calls it Bread ( which was his own Argument ) , let him consider , that seeing what was called Bread before Christ blessed it , after the blessing he calls it his Body ; we cannot know by Sense or by the Text , but by Reason and Philosophy only , that it was not changed ( by the blessing ) into what now he calls it , namely , his Body . But if This signifies Bread , then . This is my Body , signifies , This Bread is my Body ; and if Bread be his Body , then his Sacramental Body is not Flesh : But I do not intend to dispute this Point with him , but only observe , That to set up his Reason and Philosophy to be absolute Judges in Matters of Faith , he will not allow either Sense or Scripture to confute Transubstantiation . It cannot but give all sober Christians a just Indignation , to see the most Sacred and Venerable Mysteries perpetually ridicul'd at this Prophane rate ! In the Reign of King James there was a Pamphlet published to reconcile men to Transubstantiation , by representing the Doctrine of the Trinity to the full as absurd , and chargeable with as many Contradictions as Transubstantiation it self : This was then charged on the Papists , and they were sufficiently expos'd for it ; but a Great Man has lately informed us , That it was writ by a Socinian , to make men Papists or Socinians , as it should happen ; which was a Glorious Design at that time of day , for men who take it ill if you will not allow them to be Protestants , and to enjoy the Liberty of Protestants : For they could not but see that Popery was then grown very Fashionable and Tempting by the Favour and Frowns of a Popish Prince ; and that the generality of Christians did so firmly believe the Doctrine of the Trinity , that could they have persuaded them , as they endeavoured , That Transubstantiation was as reasonable a Doctrine as the Trinity , it was much more likely that they would turn Papists than Socinians . Instead of Popery men are now running into the other Extremes of Atheism , Deism , and a Contempt of all Reveal'd Religion , and that upon a pretence of making mere Natural Reason and Philosophy their sole Guide and Judge ; and now our Socinians have a new Game to play ; and if they dare not absolutely deny the Authority of Revelation ( which in many Instances they have shewn a good Inclination to ) , yet they give a superior Authority to Reason , which will serve as well , and make less noise than to reject all Revelation . And if you shew them how absurd this is , to pretend to own a Divine Revelation , and to make Revelation submit to mere Natural Reason and Philosophy , they presently take sanctuary in Transubstantiation , and defend it against the Evidence of Sense , and the Authority of Scripture , to make Reason and Philosophy the Supreme Judge in Matters of Faith ; and in the mean time matter not what becomes of Religion , what advantage they give either to Popery or Deism , so they can but expose the Faith of the Trinity . He has given us a little Specimen of it here ; but the same Author , as far as I can guess from the same Words and the same Thoughts , has with his usual Civility attack'd my Lord Bishop of Sarum upon this Argument , which upon this occasion I shall briefly consider . His Lordship in vindication of the Christian Mysteries , with great reason rejects Transubstantiation out of the number of Mysteries , because it contradicts Sense in the Object of Sense ; his words are these : Transubstantiation must not be a Mystery , because there is against it the Evidence of Sense in an Object of Sense : For Sense plainly represents to us the Bread and Wine to be still the same that they were before the Consecration . Now I cannot think this Author in earnest in the two first Answers he gives to this . His first Answer is , That it is not pretended by the Papists , that the Bread and Wine have received any the least Change in what is an Object of Sense . This is a Discovery worthy its Author , that the Papists don 't deny that they see , and feel , and taste , and smell the sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine : For who ever charged them with such a Contradiction to Sense as this ? But our Senses judge of the Substances of things by their sensible qualities ; judge that to be Bread and Wine , which has all the qualities of Bread and Wine : And therefore to say , as the Papists do , That what our Sight , and Taste , and Smell tell us has all the qualities of Bread and Wine , is not Bread and Wine , does not indeed contradict our Senses as to sensible qualities , but contradicts that Judgment our Senses make of the Natures of things from their sensible qualities : And this is that Contradiction to Sense which the Bishop justly charges upon Transubstantiation ; as is evident in his very words . In his Second Answer he Disputes against the Infallibility of our Senses , as he calls it , by such Common Arguments as every Freshman knows how to Answer ; only I do not remember , that the Delusions of our Dreams used to be objected against the Evidence of Sense ; but suppose our Senses may deceive us in some few instances wherein both Sense and Reason can Correct the mistake , must they therefore deceive in the Nature of Bread and Wine ? Can he prove , that they ever deceive us with Qualities and Accidents without a Substance ? For that is the Cheat of Transubstantiation : It is not pretended , as he observed in his First Answer , That our Senses deceive us in the Colour , or Figure , or Taste , or Smell of Bread and Wine ; and therefore all his instances of the Deception of our Senses are nothing to the purpose ; but let him give us any one instance of the other kind , if he can , and then we will believe Transubstantiation in Contradiction to our Senses . But does he consider , what the Consequence of this Argument is ? He will not allow it a good Argument against Transubstantiation , That it contradicts Sense , because our Senses may deceive us in the Objects of Sense ( which by the way makes his instance of the Delusions of Dreams , which are not the Objects of Sense , very impertinent ; ) now if contradiction to Sense be not a good Objection , because Sense is not Infallible , what will become of his great Argument of Contradiction to Reason ? For all men confess , That Reason is not so Infallible as Sense is , as is evident from all the Disputes and Clashings of Reason , and those Absurdities and Contradictions which contending Parties mutually charge upon each other ; and if a Contradiction to Fallible Sense be not a good Objection against the Truth of any thing , how comes a Contradiction to much more Fallible Reason to be so unanswerable an Objection ? And then we may much more safely believe a Trinity in Unity , notwithstanding all their pretended Contradictions to Reason , than we can believe Transubstantiation in Contradiction to Sense . But in his Third Answer , he seems to be in good earnest , and I shall consider it as such ; and it is this . Transubstantiation is contradicted by Sense , saith his Lordship , in an Object of Sense ; therefore 't is a false Mystery . This is as much as to say , That a Faculty or Power judging of its proper Object , always judges truly , and must determine our Belief . He must say this , or his Reasoning is nothing . I ask now of what Faculty or Power is Almighty God the Object . He will Answer , God is the Object , not of Sense , which discerns him not , but of Reason , which discovers , and sees this most Glorious Being . Therefore Reason , by his Lordship 's own Argument , judges infallibly concerning God , and must determine our Belief about him : We must hearken to Reason , when it finds Contradictions in what men affirm concerning God. Now notwithstanding his vain Brags , and his Triumphant Challenge to the Bishop , a very little Skill will Answer this Argument . For , 1. The Bishop need not say , because it is not true , That every Faculty and Power judges as certainly of its proper Object , as Sense does , and then his Argument is quite lost : For if Sense judges more certainly than Reason , then a manifest Contradiction to Sense is a more unanswerable Objection , than any appearing and pretended Contradictions to Reason . I believe this Author is the first man who ever thus universally equalled the Evidence of Reason to that of Sense ; or that ever affirmed , that Reason could judge infallibly of God. And if Reason may be mistaken ( which I shall take for granted ) especially in the Infinite and Incomprehensible Nature of God , some appearing Contradictions , or what some men will call Contradictions , are not a sufficient reason to reject a Revelation , and to disbelieve what God tells us of Himself , and his own Nature . 2 dly . Whatever certainty we allow to our Faculties in judging of their proper Objects , we must extend it no farther than to what belongs to the judgment of that Faculty : The same thing may be the Object of different Faculties , as it is of our different Senses ; but every Faculty , and every Sense , judges of nothing in any Object , but only what belongs to it self . All the Objects of Sense are the Objects of Reason too ; but Sense judges of nothing but what belongs to Sense , and Reason of what belongs to Reason ; and Reason can judge no farther of any Object , than it is knowable by Reason ; and not only the Divine , but even Created Nature has such Secrets and Mysteries as are not knowable by Reason ; and therefore it is manifest Ignorance or Sophistry , to conclude from God's being the Object of Reason , therefore Reason judges infallibly concerning God : For , not to Dispute about the Infallible Judgment of Reason , God is the Object of Reason , because Reason can know something concerning God ; but God can be the Object of Reason no farther than he is knowable by Reason ; and therefore if there be any thing which Natural Reason cannot know of God ( as I hope this Author himself will own ) , with respect to such matters God is not the Object of Reason , and Reason cannot judge at all , much less judge infallibly concerning God. But as Sense leaves room for Reason in the same Object , so Reason leaves room for Faith. But must we not hearken to Reason when it finds Contradictions in what men affirm concerning God ? Yes , most certainly , as far as God is the Object of Reason , and knowable by Reason , but no farther ; for in such matters as Reason cannot judge of at all , it cannot judge of Contradictions . Sense and Reason can judge of Contradictions only for themselves , or as far as their judgment reaches , but may appear Contradictions themselves to each other . As for instance : Reason assures us that Man consists of Soul and Body , which are closely united to each other , and yet the Union of Spirit and Matter is no better than contradiction to the judgment of Sense ; for Sense knows no Union but by Contact , nor any Contact but between Bodies , which have extended and solid Parts , that can touch each other ; so that an Union without Contact is one contradiction to the judgment of Sense , and a Contact without extended solid parts , which a Spirit has not , is another ; and yet Reason does not matter these Contradictions to the judgment of Sense , because Sense is not the Judge of such things : And it is the same Case between Reason and Faith , which receives its information from a Divine Revelation , concerning such Matters as are not knowable by Natural Reason : should Reason contradict Faith in such Matters as Reason is no Judge of , this is no more an Objection against the Superior Evidence and Authority of Faith , than the Judgment of Sense is against the Evidence of Reason ; such Contradictions are not in the nature of things , but are owing to our ignorance of Nature , and presumption in judging of what we cannot understand . The Example he gives of such a contradiction to Reason , is a Trinity of Persons , every one of which is perfect God , and yet all of them but One God ; but for my life , I cannot see this plain Contradiction , That Three Persons , each of which has all the Perfections of Divinity , and is perfect God , should be so essentially united in the s●me One Eternal and Infinite Nature , as to be but One God. This is not a Contradiction in terminis , it is not Three Persons and but One Person , or Three Gods and but One God , but Three Divine Persons , and One God. If the Unity of the Godhead consisted in the Unity of a Person , I grant it would be a flat Contradiction to say , Three Persons and One God , which would be equivalent to Three Gods and One God ; but if the Unity of the Godhead consists in the Unity of Nature , that there is but One Eternal and Infinite Nature , which is the One God , and this Unity , and Identity of Nature be perfectly and entirely preserved in Three Divine Persons , it is so far from a Contradiction to say , That Three Persons are One God , that it would be a Contradiction to say , That Three Divine Persons , who have the same One Identical Nature , should be more than One God ; for that is to say , That One Divine Nature , which can be but One God , is Three Gods. Now this is all that Natural Reason tells us of the Unity of the Godhead , That there is , and can be , but One Eternal Infinite Nature , which is but One God ; this we expresly teach , and therefore do not contradict Reason ; but then Scripture tells us , That there are Three , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to whom the Name and Attributes of God , and therefore this One Infinite Undivided Nature , belong . This Reason boggles at , and Socinians call a Contradiction ; but it is such a Contradiction , as Sense would judge the Union of Spirit and Matter to be : At most it is an imaginary Contradiction in the Subsistence of the Divine Nature , which Reason knows nothing about , and therefore can make no judgment of ; and such appearing-Contradictions are no Objections , because they may be no Contradictions ; as we are sure they are none , when the Doctrines charged with these Contradictions are taught in Scripture . There is one distinction , which seems to me to set this matter in a clear light , and to answer all the Pretences of Contradictions ; and that is , The distinction between Contradictions in Logick and Philosophy . A Contradiction in Logick , is when two Propositions in express terms contradict each other ; and all men grant that both parts of such Contradictions cannot be true , as that there are Three Gods , and but One God , which is to say , that there are , and that there are not Three Gods ; that there is , and that there is not , but One only God. A Contradiction in Philosophy , is when any thing is affirmed concerning the Nature or Essential Properties of any Being , which seems to contradict all the Notions and Ideas we have of Nature in other Beings , and such Contradictions as these may be both true ; for the Natures of things may be contrary to , and contradict each other and yet both of them be true and real Beings . There are infinite Instances of this in all Nature ; the Ideas of Hot and Cold , of White and Black , of Light and Darkness , of solid and fluid Bodies , of Matter and Spirit , are direct Contradictions , in this notion of a Contradiction , to each other : And had we known but one of these Opposites by our Natural Ideas , and the other had been revealed to us , we might as justly have cried out of Contradictions , as the Socinians now do , when you mention a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature . For Heat contradicts the Idea of Cold , and Fluid of Solid ; as much as Three Persons in the Unity of Nature , contradicts the Unity of Nature in the Unity of a Person : This latter indeed is the natural notion we have , That there is but One Person in One Subsisting Intelligent Nature ; for we have no example of any thing else , and therefore can have no natural Idea of any other Unity ; but this does not prove , that it cannot be otherwise ; for there may be Oppositions and Contrarieties in Nature ; and did we but consider what an infinite distance and unlikeness there is between God and Creatures , we should not think it reasonable to judge of the Divine Nature by the Ideas of Created Nature . This is a very real and sensible distinction between Contradictions in Logick , and in Nature and Philosophy , and there is a certain way to know them : Logical Contradictions are always immediately reducible to is , and is not ; for they affirm and deny the same thing in the same sence : The Contradictions in Nature and Philosophy are only the opposition and contrariety there is between the Ideas of several Beings , which can never be reduced to a Contradiction in Logick , but through Ignorance or Mistake , by changing the sense and use of words . Let any Socinian try the Experiment in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity , and reduce it to such a Contradiction if he can . A Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature , is a Contradiction to that Idea we have of the Unity of Person and Nature in created Beings , but this is no Contradiction in Logick ; for it is not a Contradiction in the same Nature and Being , as all Contradictions in Logick must be , but it is a Contrariety or Contradiction ( if we will so call it ) between the Unity and Personalities of two very different Natures , the Divine and the Created Nature ; and all the Contradiction that can be made of it , is no more than this , That the Unity of the Divine Nature , which is perfect and undivided in Three distinct Persons , contradicts the Notion of Unity in a Created Nature , which admits but of One Person in One Individual Nature : But there are a thousand such Contradictions in Nature , that is , different Natures , whose Ideas are opposite and contrary to each other , and yet all of them real Beings : But could they make a Trinity in Unity contradict it self , that the Trinity should in express terms destroy the Unity , and the Unity the Trinity , this would be somewhat to the purpose ; for it would prove a Contradiction in Logick , when the Terms destroy each other ; but then the Trinity and Unity must be the same ; a Trinity of Persons , and but One Person ; or a Trinity of Natures , and but one Nature : But a Trinity of Persons , true , proper , subsisting Persons , in the Unity of Nature , which is the Catholick Faith , is not a Contradiction in Logick , though it contradicts the Notion of Human Personalities , which it may do , and yet be very true . This is abundantly enough to shew the Weakness and Folly of this Socinian Cant about Transubstantiation ; the Impiety , Prophaneness , and mischievous Consequences of it , let others consider . His Third Charge is , That I say , That as we are Christians , and unless we will be understood to reject the Supreme Authority of Divine Revelation , we must believe those Doctrines which are thought to be most mysterious and inconceivable , notwithstanding any Objection from Reason or from Philosophy against ' em . He that believes no farther than Natural Reason approves , believes his Reason , not the Revelation ; he is a Natural Philosopher , not a Believer . He believes the Scriptures as he would believe Plato or Tully , not as Inspired Writings , but as agreeable to Reason , and as the result of wise and deep Thoughts , p. 14. Here he has taken some of my Words , and so put them together , as to conceal the whole Force of the Argument , which he always takes care to do . My business ( P. 10 , 11 , &c. ) was to prove , That we ought to believe those Doctrines which are thought the most mysterious and inconceivable , notwithstanding any Objections from Natural Reason and Philosophy against them : And this I proved from the Nature , Use , and Authority of Revelation . That Revelation , as to such matters as are knowable only by Revelation , must serve instead of Sense , Natural Ideas , and Natural Reason . That if we believe upon God's Authority ( which is the strict Notion of a Divine Faith ) we must believe without any Natural Evidence , merely because God has revealed it ; and then we must believe such things as are not evident to Sense and Reason . That to believe no farther than Natural Reason can conceive and comprehend , is to reject the Divine Authority of Revelation , and to destroy the distinction between Reason and Faith. He that will believe no farther than his Reason approves , believes his Reason , not the Revelation , and is in truth a Natural Philosopher , not a Believer . Here any man may perceive that our Socinian was plainly baffled , for he has not one word to answer , but only says , that I contradict this my self in my Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity , where I assert , That suppose the natural Construction of the Words of Scripture import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason , I won't believe it : Of this more presently ; but what is this to the purpose ? Is there no difference between what Reason can't conceive , comprehend , approve , and what the Reason of all Mankind contradicts ? No difference between believing what we do not see , what we have no natural notion or conception of , what is not evident to natural Reason , and believing in contradiction to sense , and such natural Notions , and natural Evidence , as all Mankind agree in ? But he is very much troubled , according to his Principle of believing Scripture no farther than Natural Reason and Philosophy approves , how to distinguish between believing Plato and Tully , and believing a Revelation . He says , They look upon Plato and Tully , as great Men , but Fallible ( p. 15. ) and therefore may take the liberty to dissent from them ; and believe them no farther than Reason approves : Very right ; but will he believe the Scripture any farther than Reason can conceive , comprehend , approve ? Have a care of that : But they will do as well ; if Reason will not approve of such Scripture Doctrines , as it can't conceive and comprehend , they will Expound and Torture Scripture , till it submits to Reason : For it is more congruous to think , that an Inspired Writer uses a Figurative , or it may be a Catachrestical ( very Catachrestical ) Expression or Phrase , than that he delivers flat contradictions , or downright impossibilities : That is to say , they must by all means believe , or pretend to believe , the Scripture ; but then they must never own any thing to be in Scripture , which their Reason calls a flat contradiction , or downright impossibility ; which is the very same thing ; for the reason why they will not allow , that the Scripture contains any thing , which their Reason does not approve , is because they must believe the Scripture , but must not believe it beyond their own Reason and Comprehension ; and the only difference they make between Plato and Tully , and the Scripture is , That they can safely reject their Authority , when they please , but must be at the trouble of Expounding away whatever they do not approve in the Scripture . This is what I told them in the Vindication ; and as Impious as this Author thinks it , I will venture to Transcribe that whole Paragraph . But I have not done with our Author thus ; but must give him a little more about Expounding Scripture according to Reason : For I affirm , that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture , no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing . The true and only way to interpret any Writing , even the Scriptures themselves , is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases ; the Connexion , Scope , and Design of the Text , its allusion to Ancient Customs and Usages , or Disputes , &c. For there is no other good reason to be given for any Exposition , but that the words signify so , and the circumstances of the place , and apparent Scope of the Writer requires it . But our Author ( as many others do ) seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine , with the Rules of Expounding a Writing . We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictate of Natural Reason , which all Mankind agree in , whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it ; Well , say they , then you must Expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason : No , say I , that does not follow ; I must Expound Scripture according to the use and significations of the Words ; and must not force my own Sense on it , if it will not bear it . But suppose then , that the Natural Construction of the words import such a sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason ; Then I wont believe it . How ? Not believe Scripture ? No , no. I will believe no pretended Revelation , which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason , which all Mankind agree in ; and were I persuaded , that those Books , which we call the Holy Scriptures , did so , I wou'd not believe them ; and this is a fairer and honester way , than to force them to speak , what they never intended , and what every impartial man , who reads them , must think was never intended that we may believe them : To put our own Sense on Scripture , without respect to the use of words , and to the Reason and Scope of the Text , is not to believe Scripture , but to teach it to speak our Language ; is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture , but to make Scripture submit to our Reason , even in such matters as are confessedly above Reason , as the Infinite Nature and Essence of God is . Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book , yet I must Expound it , as I do other Writings ; for when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language , we must understand his words , just as we do , when they are spoke by men : Indeed when I am sure that it is an Inspired Writing , I lay it down for a Principle , That it contains nothing absurd and contradictions or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason ; but this does not give me Authority to Expound the words of Scripture to any other sense , than what they will naturally bear , to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason ; for if one man has this liberty , another may take it , and the Scripture will be tuned to every man's private Conceit ; and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things , if it be possible to be true , I submit to the Authority of Scripture ; if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility , if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious , and in such matters , as I am sure , I perfectly understand , there I submit again , and conclude it is no Contradiction , though I cannot comprehend how it is ; if I can by no means reconcile it , I will confess , I do not understand it , and will not pretend to give any sense of it , much less to give such a sense of it , as the words will not bear . His Fourth Charge is , that I say , Difficulty of conceiving a thing , nay , the absolute unconceivableness of it , must not hinder our assent to what is contained in Revelation ; because we do not disbelieve what is made known to us by Sense or by Reason , notwithstanding any difficulty or inconceivableness adhering to such things . These are neither my Words nor my Argument . My Argument is this ; That since , as I had shewn , in matters of pure Revelation , which can be known no other way , Revelation must stand in the place of Sense and Reason , we must allow no Objections against revealed Mysteries , but what we will allow to be good Objections against Sense and Reason . Now no man questions the truth of what he sees and feels , or what he can prove to be true by plain and undeniable Reason , meerly because there are unconceivable difficulties in it , as there is in every thing , even the most certain and familiar things in Nature : And if revealed Truths are not more unconceivable than many Natural Objects of Sense and Reason , why should their being unconceivable be a greater Objection against believing a Revelation , than it is against believing our Sense and Reason in matters equally unconceivable ? ( Serm. p. 13. ) This Argument is easily understood , but can never be Answered ; and therefore he wisely resolved not to understand it . In Answer to this he tells us , That he does not always believe his Senses , nor his Reason neither , when it is not clear , but perplext with difficulties , or darkening doubts , but especially when there is a remarkable and manifest inconceivableness . Nor do I require he should ; but my only Question is , Whether he does not believe , both his Senses and Reason , that there are many things in the World , whose Natures are so mysterious , that he cannot conceive or comprehend the Reasons and Philosophy of them ? That though he sees Men and Beasts , Heaven and Earth , Sun , Moon , and Stars , he will not believe , that there are such things as he sees , because he cannot understand the Philosophy of their Natures , and sees a great many things done by them , which are perfectly unaccountable , and would have been thought absolutely impossible , had we not seen them done ? These are all the contradictions and impossibilities , which I say men may make or find , when they know not the Philosophical Natures of things , nor how they act , and yet will be reasoning and guessing at them ; which this wise Author calls a Sermon for Contradictions . But do I require any man to believe Contradictions ? Nay , do I say , that there are any such Contradictions ? But this , I say , that there are such unconceivable Mysteries , in all Created Nature , much more in the Incomprehensible Nature of God , as some Gotham Philosophers ( as he who knows them best calls them ) charge with impossibilities and contradictions ; and yet these Gotham Philosophers are so wise as not to disbelieve their Senses as to the being of those things , how unconceivable and incomprehensible soever their natures are ; and this is all I ask , that in matters of pure Revelation we give the same credit to Revelation , that in the Objects of sense we give to sense , i. e. not to disbelieve what is revealed , As , that God has an Eternal Son , and that this Eternal Son in time was made Man , because the Eternal Generation and Incarnation are inconceivable Mysteries ; as we do not disbelieve , that there are any Men in the World , because Human Generations , and the Union of Soul and Body are inconceivable Mysteries in Nature . Towards the Conclusion of my Sermon , I Answered Two Objections against believing a Revelation as to such Doctrines which are inconceivable and incomprehensible to meer Natural Reason . And here to prepare the way , he first scorns the Objections , as never made before , or however by none but my self . That I pass over known and very dangerous Objections , and Answer only to Chimera's and Follies , never suggested or thought of by any . ( p. 18. ) I am glad to find , that he grows ashamed of these Socinian Chimera's and Follies ; but let us hear what they are . 1. It is thought very unnatural , that when God has made us reasonable Creatures , and therefore made natural Reason to us the measure of truth and falshood , he should require us to believe without Reason , as we must do , if he reveal such things to us , as we do not , and cannot possibly know the reasons of : If we must believe with our understanding , how can we believe things , which we cannot understand ? Now this Socinian does not believe , that any Sect of Religious ever made this or the like Objection ; Let him , as he says , snuff his Candle once more , and look into the late Socinian Pamphlets : What is the meaning of all their Zeal for Reason in this Cause , of their great noise and outcry about Mysteries , Nonsense , Contradictions ? What is the meaning of their Expounding Scripture by Reason , not like Fools , but like Wise men ? Why has this Author shewn such a furious Zeal against believing a Revelation notwithstanding any Objections from meer Natural Reason and Philosophy against it ? If , as he now says , our Reason and Understandings are finite and imperfect , and the Wisdom and Power of God most perfect : Therefore he may reveal many things to us , to be believed by us , though we understand them not , nor have any other cause of our believing them , but only God's Revelation of them , ( p. 19. ) Nothing can be more true , than what he says , that Reason is the measure of truth and falshood , but not the frail Fallible Reason of Men , but the Infallible Wisdom of God. If he be sincere and hearty in this , we are perfectly agreed ; for this is the very Doctrine of my Sermon , which he has so furiously opposed , or would be thought to oppose ; for to speak the Truth , he has not opposed the Doctrine of my Sermon ; but , in his own Language , his own Chimera's and Follies . But here is either a Fallacy in his Words , or he gives up his Cause , which it is plain he never intended : The Question is not absolutely , What is the Rule and Measure of Truth and Falshood , but what is so to us ? Now if he will allow , that Frail and Fallible Reason is not a Rule to us , then we may believe things , which our Reason does not approve ; nay , which it may judge improbable and false : And if the infallible Wisdom of God be a Rule to us , it can be so only in a Revelation , and then we may and must believe the infallible Wisdom of God in a Revelation against the Objections of Frail and Fallible Reason . And one may easily guess , there is something amiss still , notwithstanding all these concessions ; for as silly an Objection , as he says , this is ( which I am glad to hear ) , he will by no means own , that I have Answered it , and then I have very ill luck indeed , to make a silly Objection , which was never made before , and not be able to Answer it when I have done . The Answer I give to this Objection is this , That the Matter of the Objection is not true ; for we do understand both what it is we believe , and the reasons why we believe it ; and this I suppose may pass for an Answer to that Objection : But then it is farther Objected , That we believe such things , whose Natures we cannot understand , and cannot account for by natural Reason : To this I Answer , That Reason is not the judge of the Nature and Phil●sophy of things , nor does it require us to believe nothing but what we thus understand and comprehend : For then , as I had shewn , we must no more believe Sense and Reason , than Revelation : And this I take to be a good Answer too ; but then to shew the reason of this , I add : When we make an Objection against any thing , that it is without Reason , or as we apprehend , contrary to reason , we must first consider , whether it be the proper Object of Reason ; otherwise it is no Objection ; as it is no Objection against sounds , that we cannot see them , nor against colours , that we cannot hear them ; because sounds are not the object of sight , nor colours of hearing . This , I think , is plain Sense , and good Reason too ; but this he says is no Answer to that Objection , Why should reasonable Creatures be obliged to believe things without Reason ? Nor was it ever intended as an immediate Answer to it ; the Answer I give is , That we are not oblig'd to believe without Reason ; but when such Men as this Author Object farther , That to Believe things , whose natures we do not understand , and cannot account for by natural Reason , is to believe without Reason ; it is a proper Answer to say , That Reason is not judge of the Nature and Philosophy of things , and nothing can be said to be without Reason , or against Reason , which is not the object of Reason ; as no man pretends , that the pure Natures and ●ssences of things , or their Essential Reasons , Properties , Unions , Operations , are ; ( Serm. p. 19. ) But herein , it seems , I was mistaken ; for I have met with a Man at last , who makes Reason the judge of all this ; for if these be not the Objects of Reason , Reason has no Object at all ; for our Reason can be no otherwise employed , but either about Substances , or their Unions , Essential Reasons , Operations or Properties , ( p. 20. ) Very right ! we may know something of all this ; but I speak of the Philosophy of Nature : Now can this new Philosopher tell us , What the pure simple Essence and Substance of any thing is ? What naked Matter stripp'd of all Accidents and Qualities is ? How Soul and Body are United , which cannot Touch each other ? How a Spirit should feel Pain or Pleasures from the Impressions on the Body ? How we Think and Reason ? Nay , How we See and Hear ? How Thought moves our Bodies , and excites our Passions ? And a Thousand such like Mysteries ; which could he Unriddle , he would infinitely gratify the Inquisitive world : But Christianity not Mysterious , and the Philosophy of pure simple Nature , are too great Discoveries for one Age ; and yet if ever this happens , they must go together . For as I observed , this is all the incomprehensibility men have to complain of in the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation : The first concerns the pure Nature , Essence , Substance , of God , and the Essential Distinction and Unity of the Godhead , which we neither do , nor can know any thing of ; for all Nature is a Secret and Mystery to us , much more the Infinite Nature of God. And the second concerns the Union of the Divine and Human Nature in the Person of Christ ; which is a Mystery , but what we ought not to complain of , since the Philosophy of all Natural Unions is a Mystery to us . These things are not the Objects of Reason ; and therefore though we believe them upon the Authority of a Revelation , without understanding the Mystery of them , this is not to believe without , or contrary to Reason . And what now does this Socinian say to this ? truly not one word , but falls out with Socinus and Crellius , and some of his best Friends , for talking so much of Mysteries , ( which by the way shews , that this is not such a new and unheard of Objection , as he would pretend ) for now he has found out , that there is no Mystery at all in the Doctrines of the Trinity , and Incarnation ; and he is in the right , if his Socinian Explication of these Doctrines , ( which destroys the Mystery , and the Catholick Faith together ) may pass for the Doctrine of the Church . But there has been enough said of that in the distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined , which the Reader may consult , and this Author answer , at his leisure ; though I am very sensible he can never want such Answers as this for any thing . 2 dly , The Second Objection against such a Revelation , as contains matters which natural Reason cannot comprehend , is , to what purpose such a Revelation serves ? what merit there can be in believing such Doctrines ? and of what good use such a Faith can be to us ? Serm. p. 2● . This is another Objection , which he thinks no Sect of Religious ever made ( p. 24. ) but the Irreligious m●y make this Objection , and there are more than one Sect of these . As to the usefulness of it , I observed , That though neither Natural , nor Revealed Knowledge extends to the Reasons and Causes of Nature , and of Essential Properties and Operations , yet both Natural and Revealed Knowledge is of as much use to us , as if we did perfectly understand all the Secret and Incomprehensible Mysteries of the Nature of God , or of the Natures of Creatures . Both Natural and Revealed Knowledge are alike upon this account , that they only acquaint us what things are , and what ends they serve , and then we know what use to make of them , without understanding the Secret Mysteries of Nature . This I shew'd both in the Knowledge of Nature , and of God , and added ; We may make all the use that can be made of this World , and of every thing in it , without understanding the Essential Reasons and Causes , or Internal Nature of any thing . This last Clause he fixes his Remarks on ; and that he may have something to remark , he changes my Words thus . We may use the World as fully , and every thing in it to as good purpose , as if we understood the Reasons and Internal Natures of things . And then adds , No , Trisler ; not so fully , nor to so good purpose , as if we better understood the Natures of things . Now this fully , and to as good purpose , are not my Words but his own ; nay we can make no use at all of it , but only so far forth as we understand the Nature and Reasons of things in it . We can use nothing to any purpose , till we know or understand something of its nature ; and no farther can we apply it and use it , than we understand its Nature , and know its Properties and Powers . Now this is not meerly trifling , but Knavery : He represents me very ridiculously asserting , That we may as fully , and to as good purpose use every thing in the World without knowing its Nature , Vertues and Properties , as if we knew them ; whereas I expresly assert , That we must first know , what things are , and what ends they serve ( and the better we know this , to be sure the better ) and then we know what use to make of them , without understanding the secret Mysteries of Nature . That is , when by Experience and Observation , we know what things are good for , we know how to use them without understanding the secret Mysteries and Philosophy of Nature : As how God created all things out of nothing ; how the Corn grows , or our Food nourishes us , and the like : And thus I shew'd it was as to the Doctrine of the Trinity , and Incarnation , that how unaccountable soever these Mysteries be , it is the most useful and necessary Knowledge in the world . But there is one thing still behind , which I find nettles this Author ; and I don't wonder at it : To shew how much it became the Goodness of God to reveal these Mysteries of Salvati●n to us , I observed , That the lapsed state of Human Nature makes Supernatural Knowledge necessary : — For though Natural Knowledge must be allowed sufficient to all the ends of Human Life , while man continued Innocent — Yet when man had sinned , he forfeited the Favour of God , and a natural Immortality ; and whether he should be restored or not , and by what means he should be restored , depended wholly on the Sovereign Will and Pleasure of God. And therefore the Light of Nature , though it could direct an innocent man how to please and worship God , and to preserve himself Immortal , it could not teach Sinners how to make Attonement for Sin ; nor give them any certain Hopes that God would for●ive sins , and bestow immortal Life on them : Which makes it necessary , that the Religion of a Sinner be a Revealed Religion . This he imperfectly transcribes , and adds ; True , but not in the least to the purpose : 'T is no Answer to that Objection , but to another : Namely to this ; Why Revelation or a ●upernatural Knowledge is necessary ? Here he had overshot himself , in allowing Supernatural Knowledge necessary , and therefore immediately qualifies it with , or however highly requisite , which declares this Socinian's Opinion , That we might have been saved without the Knowledge of Christ or the Gospel-Revelation ; for I know nothing that can make any thing more necessary , than the necessity of ●alvation : And therefore if it be not necessary , but only highly requisite , we might be saved without it : He adds the Reason why he says this is nothing to the purpose . The Obje●tion was concerning a Revelation and Faith , not intelligible , or not conceiveable ; the Answer is only concerning Revelation or Supernatural Knowledge ) in general , Why it was given to men . But it is neither so , nor so ; the Objection concerns the use of such a Revelation as contains matters which Natural Reason cannot comprehend ; This part of the Answer proves from the lapsed state of Human Nature the absolute Necessity of the Gospel Revelation , which contains these Mysteries . For if Nature can't save us , it can't discover to us the way of Salvation neither ; and if we must be saved by a Supernatural Grace and Power , it must be supernaturally revealed ; and what is Supernatural is the Object of Faith , not of Natural Knowledge . Serm. p. 24. But he adds , There is a great difference between Supernaturally revealed , and unconceivable ; the whole Christian Religion , the Precepts as well as Faith of it , is a Supernatural Revelation , and yet a System so intelligible that it must be taught to the Women , to the Poor , and ●ven to little Children . This is true , but there is a difference between Supernatural Knowledge , as opposed to Natural Knowledge , and Supernatural Revelation : Such things as Nature can teach us , may be supernaturally revealed , and the degeneracy of Mankind may make this , in his Language , highly requisite ; as the Nature and Providence of God , a future State , and the differences of Good and Evil : But Supernatural Knowledge is a Knowledge which Nature cannot teach , but must be learned only by Revelation ; and this is the Knowledge , and a Mysterious Knowledge it is , which the lapsed state of Human Nature makes necessary , as necessary as the Salvation of Sinners by the Incarnation and Death of the Son of God : Which makes a great difference between the Precepts and Faith of the Gospel , though both contained in the same Revelation . He adds , It was not made the matter of Supernatural Revelation , for its Difficulty , Mysteriousness , or Transcendency of the Human Understanding , but to ascertain the Truth of it , and to enforce its Authority in the world . Which is in plain English to say , That the Design of the Gospel-Revelation was not to teach us any thing beyond the Discovery or Comprehension of meer Natural Reason , but only to give greater Certainty and Authority to the Laws and Religion of Nature And here , for a conclusion , I joyn Issue with this Socinian ( and am glad to take the least Hint for some useful Discourse ) , Whether the Gospel Revelation contain any thing which Nature could not teach us , and which Natural Reason cannot comprehend ; or were only intended to give greater Certainty and Authority to the Religion of Nature ? That the Gospel is a New Revelation of what Nature could not teach , nor meer Natural Reason comprehend , I shall prove ; not from the Name or Notion of Mysteries , which these men so foolishly and absurdly ridicule ; but from the express Authority of St. Paul , 1 Cor. 2.14 . But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God , for they are foolishness unto him , neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned . A brief Explication of which Words will be of great use in our present Dispute . The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Natural Man , as Theophilact and other Greek Fathers observe , is the man who judges only by Natural Light and Reason , and will receive and believe nothing beyond what Nature teaches : And the Context proves this to be the true meaning of it . This account the Apostle gives of the Graecian Philosophers , That as the Jews required a sign , so the Greeks seek after wisdom , 1 Cor. 1.22 . nothing would content them but some Philosophical Speculations , and Natural Proofs and Demonstrations of Faith ; which in this Chapter he calls , The enticing words of man's wisdom , and opposes to the demonstration of the spirit , and of power : that is , to the Evidence of Miracles wrought by the Spirit of God ; which are a more certain and infallible Proof than all their Pretences to Reason and Demonstration : For where is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the disputer of this world ? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world ? for after that in the wisdom of God , the world by wisdom ( by natural Reason and Philosophy ) knew not God , it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe , 1 Cor. 1.20 , 21. These are the men who rejected the Faith of Christ , of whom the Apostle here speaks , and gives an account of the reason of their Infidelity in these words , The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God. Which will more fully appear , by examining what these things of the Spirit of God are : And it is evident from the whole Context , that they are matters of pure Revelation , which can be known only by the Revelation of the Spirit , or the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation , by the Incarnation , Death , Resurrection , Ascension , of Jesus Christ , the Eternal Son of God , which is the Subject of the Gospel-Revelation . This he calls , The Wisdom of God in a Mystery , even the hidden Wisdom , which God ordained before the world to our glory , ver . 7. and what this is , immediately follows ; Which none of the princes of this world knew ; for had they known it , they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory ; which can refer only to the Dispensation of Grace by Jesus Christ. This Nature could not teach us , as it is written , Eye hath not s●en , neither ear heard , neither have entred into the heart of man , the things which God hath prepared for them that love him , v. 9. That is , such things as neither Sense , nor Natural Reason could inform us of : But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit , for the Spirit searcheth all things , even the deep things of God ; for what man knoweth the things of a man , but the Spirit of a man which is in him ? even so the things of God knoweth no man , but the spirit of God : Now we have received not the Spirit of the World , but the Spirit which is of God , that we may know those things which are freely given us of God : Which proves that these are properly the things of the Spirit , which could never be known but by the Revelation of the Spirit : For they are the deep things of God , his Secret Counsels and Purposes for the Redemption of Mankind ; the free Results of his own Wisdom and Goodness , the things which are freely given us of God ; and therefore can be known , and can be revealed only by the Spirit ; and these are the things of the Spirit , which the natural Man , the vain Pretender to Reason and Philosophy , receiveth not . Now can any man desire a plainer Proof than this , how incompetent a Judge meer natural Reason is of the Mysteries of Faith , of the whole Oeconomy of Gospel-Grace ? For what the natural Man does not receive , that meer natural Reason does not receive ; for the only Reason why the natural Man does not receive it , is because natural Reason does not receive it ; and what is foolishness to the natural Man , is foolishness to natural Reason ; and what the natural Man cannot know , because they are spiritually discerned , that natural Reason cannot discern . Now can there be a plainer Proof than this ( if we believe St. Paul ) that there are such Doctrines contained in the Gospel , as natural Reason does not receive , or approve , but rejects with scorn : For it is not said , That the natural Man cannot by the mere Light of Nature find out , or discover these things of the Spirit ; that he had asserted before , but these words give a reason of the Infidelity of the Wise Men , the Scribes , the Disputers of this World , who rejected the Faith when it was preached to them by the Apostles ; that the natural Man , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , does not receive or approve the Faith ; and not only so , but rejects it as foolishness , as absurd , contradictious , impossible , unworthy of a Man of Reason , and Philosophy . Like the Philoso●hers of the Epicureans , and the Stoicks , who encountred St. Paul , when he preached at Athens ; and some said , What will this babler say ; other some , He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods , because he preached unto them Jesus and the res●rrection . 17. Acts 18. If then there be such Doctrines as these in the Gospel-Revelation , it is certain , it can be no O●jection against any Article of the Christian Faith , that meer natural Reason does not receive , approve , comprehend it , but accounts it absurd , ridiculous , foolish ; for thus the things of the Spirit of God were to the natural Man in St. Paul's days , and thus they will always be . Nay if the things of the Spirit of God are so far above the comprehension of Human Reason , then such Doctrines as meer natural Reason does not receive , have this Mark and Character of Divinity , if they are contained in the Gospel-Revelation : Nay , let me add farther , That those Doctrines which have been always owned and defended with the warmest Zeal by the Catholick Church , and opposed and rejected with as great scorn and contempt by Pagans , Infidels , and Hereticks , as a contradiction to the Reason of Mankind , and the Philosophy of Nature , are most likely to be the true Christian Faith ; for this proves that the Christian Church always believed them to be Gospel-Doctrines ; and Infidels and Hereticks rejected them as incomprehensible , and inconceiveable , and absurd to Human Reason ; and such the Doctrine of the Trinity , and Incarnation , and Cross of Christ , have always been to such natural Men. Nay , farther : If there be such Doctrines in the Gospel-Revelation , which meer Natural Reason receiveth not , but accounts foolishness ; then it is certain , that is not the true Christian Faith which contains none of these Mysteries , none of this hidden Wisdom , none of these deep things of God. Let the Socinian then tell us , What things there are in their Faith , which the Natural Man receiveth not , which are above the comprehension of meer Natural Reason : They glory that they have no such incomprehensible Mysteries in their Faith ; that they have a reasonable Faith , that they have stript Christian Religion of Riddles and Mysteries , and fitted it to the level and comprehension of Human Reason ; but this very thing wherein they glory , is a demonstration against them , that Socinianism is not the true Christian Faith ; for that contains such Doctrines , as the Natural Man and meer Natural Reason receiveth not . They commonly laugh at that distinction between things contrary to Reason , and above Reason , which Human Reason is no judge of . We assert , That a Divine Revelation can never contradict true Reason ; for a Divine Revelation must be true , and true Reason is true , and Truth cannot contradict Truth : But we assert , that there are many things in the Christian Faith which are above Reason ; which Reason is not a competent judge of , and which Natural Men may call contradictions , if every thing must pass for a contradiction to Reason , which meer Natural Reason does not receive , approve , allow . But after all , they must find something above Natural Reason , if they will believe like Christians ; for such things there are in the Christian Faith , and then let them distinguish as they can between contrary to Reason , and above it . But I must take notice of one thing more in these words , the reason why the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God , and cannot know them , viz. because they are spiritually discerned , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they are to be known and judged of only by Spiritual Arguments and Methods ; and therefore the Natural Man , who rejects all means of Knowledge but Natural Reason , can never know them . The Truth and Certainty of our Faith must be learnt , not from the Evidence of Natural Reason and Philosophy , which was the Evidence the Philosophers expected . The Greeks seek after Wisdom , 1 Cor. 1.22 . But ●t . Paul tells us , That Christ sent him to preach the Gospel , not with Wisdom of words , lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect . v. 17. &c 2.4 , 5. And my Speech and my Preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom ; but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power . I did not confirm my Doctrine by Natural Reasons and Arguments ; but by the Evidence of Miracles wrought by the Power of the Holy Spirit ; That your Faith should not stand in the wisdom of men , but in the power of God. And the true Interpretation , and admirable Wisdom of these Divine Mysteries , must be spiritually discerned also . Which things also we speak not in the words which man's Wisdom teacheth ; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth , comparing spiritual things with spiritual . There is a spiritual Language belongs to spiritual Things ; and we must learn the true Sense and Interpretation of the Faith , not from Natural Ideas , or the Words and Notions of Philosophy , that is , in the Socinian Language , by Expounding Scripture by Natural Reason ; but by studying the Language of Scripture , and the meaning of the Holy Ghost in it , especially by comparing the Old and the New Testament together ; Spiritual things with Spiritual : This is a way of Learning which Natural Men despise , and therefore cannot know the things of the Spirit of God , which must be spiritually discerned . All this I think abundantly proves that there are such Mysteries in the Christian Faith , as meer Natural Reason cannot discover , cannot prove , cannot receive and comprehend , cannot interpret ; which shews what reason we have to distinguish betwen matters of pure Faith and Philosophy ; and what danger there is of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy . And now I think I may conclude ; for I suppose no body will expect , that I should defend my self against his ridiculous Charge , That I am a Socinian ; which had he believed , I should have found better treatment from him : But I shall leave him to rave by himself , and look upon all these Hurricanes of Fury and Vengeance , as a good sign that they feel themselves mortally Wounded . THE END . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59900-e270 The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined , &c. Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity , p. 21 , 22. Vindicatition , p. 150. 
A60471	----	The designed end to the Socinian controversy, or, A rational and plain discourse to prove, that no other person but the Father of Christ is God most high by John Smith. Smith, John, fl. 1673-1680. 1695 Approx. 91 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 34 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A60471 Wing S4103 ESTC R15169 12279670 ocm 12279670 58644 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A60471) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 58644) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 926:10) The designed end to the Socinian controversy, or, A rational and plain discourse to prove, that no other person but the Father of Christ is God most high by John Smith. Smith, John, fl. 1673-1680. 63 p. [s.n.], London : 1695. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library. Advertisement: p. 3-4. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Jesus Christ -- Divinity. Socinianism. 2005-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-05 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-07 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2005-07 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A DESIGNED END TO THE Socinian Controversy : Or , a Rational and Plain DISCOURSE To Prove , That no other Person but the Father of Christ is God most High. By JOHN SMITH . Father , — This is Life Eternal to know thee the only true God. John 17. 3. LONDON , Printed in the Year MDCXCV . AN ADVERTISEMENT . THE Reader is desired to take notice , that these Papers were written at different times , as Matter did offer it self to the Author's Mind ; and for that Reason some Particulars are therein touch'd upon more than once ; for which 't is hoped , however , that there will need little Excuse , since in relation to the whole Design it may be pertinent enough . The Method also , for that Reason , is somewhat unusual ; but I have ventur'd however to let it pass as it is , since not Method but Matter in such Cases is chiefly to be minded : and I doubt not but that in one Part or other thereof , every Part of the Controversy will be found to be both fully and fairly discuss'd : And I wish none that read it may be of that evil Temper as to forbear the Acknowledgment of that Truth , which yet in Conscience they dare not deny ; like those Jews of old , who though they believed in Christ , yet did not confess him , lest they should be put out of the Synagogue ; Joh. 12. 42. A DESIGNED END TO THE Socinian Controversy . That there is a God. THAT there is such a Being as God , ( by which is meant one Eternal Mind , Essence or spiritual Power , who is the Original and first Cause of all other Beings besides ) is manifest ; for 't is not possible that any other Being whatsoever could give a Being to it self : Certainly nothing can be more absurd than to imagine that a thing can act any ways towards its own Production before it is . Hence it follows , that every one of these Beings is but the real Effect of this first Cause that had a Being before it ; and this first Cause of necessity must have been Eternal , and without Beginning : since had there been once no kind of Being at all , there then could never have been such a Being as God , no nor any other Being besides ; for doubtless , of nothing , nothing can be produc'd . That this God is but one in Nature or Essence . And as 't is thus plain that there is a God , so 't is utterly impossible that there can be any more than one God : for whoever is truly God , must be absolutely Infinite or Immense ; that is , His Divine Essence must be boundless , and fill all that endless and inconceivable Space that is without or beyond the Limits of this World , as well as this World. For 't is impossible that any Being whatever can in any respect be greater than God is , or contain him ; for then he himself could not be truly Infinite , nor excel in all Perfections . The Nature or Essence therefore of God is Infinite , and in Extent is without Bounds ; and 't is self-evidently impossible for two or more infinitely extended Beings to subsist together : which demonstrates by Consequence , that God can be but one as to his Divine Essence or Nature . And as right Reason does plainly teach this Truth , so do the Scriptures as evidently declare the same : to instance in a few , — The Lord he is God , there is none else besides him , Deut. 4. 35. See now that I , even I am he , and there is no God with me , Deut. 32. 39. There is none like thee , neither is there any God besides thee , 1 Chron. 17. 20. I am the first , and I am the last ; and besides methere is no God , Isa . 44. 6. We know that an Idol is nothing in the World , and that there is none other God but one , 1 Cor. 8. 4. — To us there is but one God , 1 Cor. 8. 6. I might add a great Number of other Texts that speak to the very same purpose , but I think 't is needless in a Case so plain . That this one true God is but one in Person . Now as 't is thus plain , that God is but one , as to his Nature or Essence ; so 't is evident likewise , that he can in no Sense be any more than one in Person : for if , as some affirm , the Divine Nature did contain in it several Persons , as does the humane Nature , then each of those must be truly Immense , truly Almighty , and truly most Wise , else they could not each of them be truly God , ( as some have unwarily asserted , and the Trinitarian Notion supposes ) ; for whoever is truly God , must be every way thus qualified in all Respects . For if that Person that is supposed to be God , be not truly immense , then some other Being of necessity must be greater than he ; for whoever is not Infinite , must be bounded by some other Being , which in that respect does truly surpass that bounded Being in Greatness : But ( as I said before ) nothing can in any kind or respect whatsoever be greater than God is , or contain him ; and by Consequence he alone is truly Immense . The Person that is truly God , must be also Almighty ; that is , he must be able to do more than any , or than all other Beings together can do : for doubtless none is the most High , but he that in Might and Strength does transcend all others . Touching the Almighty , says Job , he excels in Power , ch . 37. 28. The Person also that is truly God , must be most wise and knowing : 'T is doubtless a Property essential to the true God , to know more than any other Being besides can know : Of that Day and Hour , saith our Saviour , knoweth no Man , no not the Angels which are in Heaven , neither the Son , but the Father only ; Matth. 24. 36. Mar. 13. 32. Now if that Person who is truly God , must be thus Immense in his Person , Almighty in his Power , and most Wise in his Knowledg ; then it follows by direct Consequence , that 't is impossible for more than one Person to be truly God : for nothing can be more absurd , than to believe or affirm , that two or three distinct Beings , such as all personal Beings are , can be each of them unlimited , as to the extent of their personal Beings ; can be each of them able to do more than the rest can do , or that each of them can know more than the others know . Suppose , for Instance , two such Beings as A and B : Now if the Person of A can do more than the Person of B , then the Person of B cannot do more than the Person of A ; for if he could , then would not A be able to do more than B , and by Consequence he could not be Almighty . Again , if the Person of A be most wise , and knows more than the Person of B , then B cannot know more than A ; for if he did , then would not A know more than B , and so by Consequence would not be most wise : which evidently demonstrates , that no more than one Person can be truly God , since no more than one can be truly Infinite in all these afore-mentioned Divine Perfections . That this one Person who is truly God , is him only who is the Father of Jesus Christ . 'T is undeniably evident from the Old Testament , that the God of Israel , or the Lord of Hosts , is the only true God : for thus it is written , Thou art God , and thou alone , of all the Kingdoms of the Earth , 2 Kings 19. 15. There is none like thee , neither is there any God besides thee , 2 Chron. 17. 20. Thou art God alone , Psal . 86. 10. Besides me there is no God , Isa . 44. 6. I am God , and there is none else , Isa . 46. 9. Thou shalt know no other God but me , Hos . 13. 4. Now as this is plain beyond Contradiction , so do all Christians generally acknowledg , that the God here mentioned was him only who afterwards was called the Father of Jesus Christ . And in the New Testament no Truth is more fully and plainly express'd than this is : thus says our Lord himself , Father , — This is Life Eternal , to know thee the only true God , Joh. 17. 1 , 3. The same do his Apostles affirm ; Blessed be God , even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , 1 Cor. 1. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , Eph. 1. 3. With one Mind and one Mouth glorify God , even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , Rom. 15. 6. We give Thanks to God , and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , Col. 1. 3. He shall deliver up the Kingdom to God , even the Father , 1 Cor. 15. 24. Therewith bless we God , even the Father , Jam. 3. 9. To us there is but one God , the Father , 1 Cor. 8. 6. Now it is impossible that any one Article of the Christian Faith can be more fully and plainly express'd in Scripture than this is ; the Words can be understood in no other Sense than what at the first sight they do plainly signify , and they give the most satisfying Answer that can be given to any one that shall ask who God is , namely , that he is only that most Divine Person who is the Father of Jesus Christ : And if in this case plain Scripture is not to be relied on , I see not of what great Use our Bibles can be to us . Yet this so plain and evident Truth is commonly denied . For a very great Number of professed Christians do notwithstanding believe , that in the Godhead there be indeed more Persons than only one ; and that Jesus Christ , the Son of God , is God also as well as his Father . But of this Error the former Arguments are sufficient to convince them : for if none be God but the Father of Christ , then cannot the Son be truly God also , since he in no Sense whatever can be said to be the Father of Christ , that is , of himself . And certainly if Men would resolve faithfully to make use but of common Sense and common Honesty , they could not but be convinced of the Absurdity of this Opinion , by only reading so often as they do in the New Testament of Jesus Christ his being the Son of God : for how can he be God himself , who truly is no other than the Son of God ? If he be the Son only , then 't is plain that he is not the Father also , who alone is God : for 't is impossible , according to the Notion we have of Sons , for any Being whatever to be the Son of himself . No understanding Man , when at any time he hears mention made of the Son of a King , is so idle in his Imagination as to believe , that thereby is meant the King who is his Father ; he certainly then must be very sensless , who can think that by the Son of God is any ways meant God , that is , God most high . Christ not the true God , because he himself has a God above him . 'T is also evident beyond Contradiction , that our blessed Lord cannot be truly God , since both he himself and his Apostles do very plainly acknowledg , that he has a God above him : for instance , My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me ? Mat. 27. 46. I ascend to my God , and to your God , Joh. 20. 17. Him that overcometh will I make a Pillar in the Temple of my God , Rev. 3. 12. The Head of every Man is Christ , and the Head of Christ is God , 1 Cor. 11. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , Eph. 1. 3. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows I lie not , 2 Cor. 11. 31. — That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give you the Spirit , Eph. 1. 17. Therefore God , even thy God , hath anointed thee with the Oil of Gladness above thy Fellows , Heb. 1. 8 , 9. These Texts are very plain , and need no Interpretation to make them be understood . Now if our Lord Christ have thus a God above him , then 't is evident , if any thing in the World be so , that he himself is not God most high . Christ not God , because what he does is by a Power received from God. This Truth Christ himself does plainly declare ; I can , saith he , of my own self do nothing , Joh. 5. 30. All Power is given unto me both in Heaven and in Earth , Mat. 28. 18. When the Multitude saw his Miracles , they marvelled , and glorified God who had given such Power unto Men , Mat. 9. 8. Now these things can in no tolerable Sense be said of him that is truly God : for he that is God most High , hath essentially in himself all kind of Divine Dignity and Excellency , and cannot without the highest of Blasphemies be in any Sense said to receive them of another . But of our Lord it is recorded , that he neither said nor did any thing , especially in the Work of our Redemption , but what he was commanded to say and do by his Father ; I have not spoken of my self , ( saith he ) but the Father which sent me , he gave me a Commandment what I should say , and what I should speak , Joh. 12. 49. Is he able to save the World ? To this Power he was raised by God : Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour , Acts 5. 31. Can he give Power to Believers to become the Sons of God ? This Power he also has received : Thou hast given him Power over all Flesh , that he should give Eternal Life to as many as thou hast given him , Joh. 17. 2. Has he Power to raise from the dead ? Even this Power also he did receive : As the Father hath Life in himself , so hath he given to the Son to have Life in himself , Joh. 5. 26. Has he Power to judg the World ? 'T is God that does enable him to do this : This is he that was ordained of God to be Judg of Quick and Dead , Acts 10. 42. I can do nothing of my self ; as I hear , I judg . Joh. 5. 30. Moreover , 't is thus said , The Glory which thou hast given me , I have given them , Joh. 17. 22. I appoint unto you a Kingdom , as my Father hath appointed unto me , Luke 22. 29. The God of our Lord Jesus Christ hath put all things under his Feet , Eph. 1. 17. Now they must impose strangely upon their own Understandings , that can ( unrequired by the Gospel ) believe him to be truly God , even Infinite in all Perfection , of whom 't is said so plainly , that whatever Power and Dignity he has , is given him by another . Christ not God , because God and He are plainly distinguished . This Consideration alone of it self is a very strong Argument , to prove our Lord Christ not to be really and truly God , since he is every where spoken of as a Person that differs as much from God , as a noble Subject differs from his Prince or King. Thus 't is said of him , that God anointed him , Acts 10. 38. That he offered himself up to God , Heb. 9. 14. That God raised him from the Dead , Acts 2. 24. That he was exalted by God , Acts 2. 33. That he ascended to God , Joh. 20. 17. That he sits at God's right Hand , Acts 7. 56. That God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us , Eph. 4. 32. That he hath redeemed us unto God by his Blood , Rev. 5. 9. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ hath put all things under his Feet , Eph. 1. 22. I might collect a very great Number of other Places that speak to the very same purpose , all which do evidently demonstrate , that the true God is not Jesus Christ : for if Jesus were sent of God , and raised up from the Dead by God , and sits now at God's right Hand , &c. then 't is plain , that there is as great a Difference between the true God and him , as there is between a Prince , and him whom he is said to honour or imploy . 'T would be strangely absurd for a Man to affirm , that God can be sent of God ; that God can pray to God ; that God can ascend to God ; that God can sit at God's right Hand ; and that God shall deliver up the Kingdom to God , that God may be all in all . He that can believe this possible , is fitted for the Reception of the most ridiculous and absurd Errors that were ever found in the World. Of that Account which the Scriptures give of the Person of Christ . As from what has been said before , it appears very plainly what kind of Person Christ our Lord is not ; so 't will be likewise necessary to shew what the Scriptures do declare concerning him as to what he is . Now if we consider well the general Scope and Tendency of those sacred Writings , we shall perceive very plainly that Christ , or the Messiah , according to the Promises , was really to be of the same Nature with them , which he came to redeem ; that as by Man came Death , so by Man might come also the Resurrection of the Dead , 1 Cor. 15. 'T was by the Seed of the Woman that the Serpent's Head was bruised , Gen. 3. 15. To Abraham the Promise was made , that in him and in his Seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed , Gen. 28. 14. Moses tells the Children of Israel , that the Lord their God should raise up unto them a Prophet like unto him , Deut. 8. 15. Of this Man's Seed , ( namely David 's ) saith St. Paul , hath God raised up unto Israel a Saviour , Jesus ; Acts 13. 23. In the Fulness of time God sent forth his Son , made of a Woman , Gal. 4. 4. From all which Places 't is manifest , that as to the personal Nature of Christ , he is the same as were those humane Ancestors from whom he did lineally descend ; In all things he was like unto his Brethren , except in being a Sinner ; Heb. 2. 17. Heb. 4. 15. And accordingly we find him almost every where mentioned by that plain Denomination and Term of A MAN ; Ye seek ( saith he himself ) to kill me , A MAN who hath told you the Truth which I have heard of God , Joh. 8. 40. After me cometh A MAN that is preferred before me , Joh. 1. 30. Jesus of Nazareth , A MAN approved of God by Wonders and Signs which God did by him , Acts 13. 38. He hath appointed a Day in the which he will judg the World in Righteousness by THAT MAN whom he hath ordained , Acts 17. 31. There is one God , and one Mediator between God and Men , THE MAN Christ Jesus , 1 Tim. 2. 5. But THIS MAN , because he continueth ever , hath an unchangeable Priesthood , Heb. 2. 7. But THIS MAN , after he had once offered one Sacrifice for Sins for ever , sat down at the right Hand of God , Heb. 10. 12. I could name a Multitude of others , but I think it is needless . Now to me 't is strange that any should so much as imagine that the believing and asserting of Christ to be truly an humane Person , should derogate from his true Honour and Dignity , when the Gospel does so frequently assert him to be such ; whereas on the contrary , 't is not said so much as once , that he is God most high , or that he is one of that sacred Three which do constitute or make up the true Godhead : These Unscriptural Titles are derived only from the meer Opinions and Traditions of either deceived or deceiving Men , whose Eyes the God of this World hath blinded , so that they cannot see or discern the Truth . The Primitive Confessions concerning Christ were ; Not that Jesus our Lord was God equal to the Father in all kind of Divine Perfections , nor that he was God of the Substance of his Father , as he was Man of the Substance of his Mother , as some have taught in after-times . All that those first Confessions do contain was this , that he was the Christ , the Son of God , and the Saviour of the World , This was the Faith of Martha ; She said unto him , Yea Lord , I believe that thou art the Christ , the Son of God , that should come into the World , John 11. 27. This was St. Peter 's Faith , Thou art Christ the Son of the living God , Mat. 16. 16. This was the Eunuch's Faith , I believe that Christ is the Son of God , Acts 8. 37. This was the Faith of the Mariners ; Of a Truth thou art the Son of God , Mat. 14. 33. And the Faith of Nicodemus was , We know thou art a Teacher come from God , for no Man can do these Miracles that thou dost , except God be with him , John 3. 2. St. Paul is also said to preach Christ in the Synagogues , that he was the Son of God , Acts 9. 20. He is said also to testify to the Jews , not that Jesus was God , but that Jesus was the Christ , Acts 18. 5. We have seen and do testify ( saith St. John ) that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World , 1 Joh. 4. 14. Here 's no Trinity in Unity , nor God-man , nor Hypostatical Union , so much as mentioned , nor any other of those hard and cramping Names with which the Church of God has been since perplex'd . The undoubted Faith on which the Salvation of all Christians does depend , Is no other than this : These things , saith St. John , are written , that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God ; and that believing , ye might have Life through his Name , Joh. 20. 31. If we confess with our Mouth the Lord Jesus , and believe in our Heart that God raised him from the Dead , we shall be saved , Rom. 10. 9. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God , God dwelleth in him , and he in God , 1 Joh. 4. 15. Who is he that overcometh the World , but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ? 1 Joh. 5. 5. These are a plain Account of that Faith which now is indispensably required of every Christian in relation to Christ . The Scripture no where injoins us to believe , on pain of Damnation , either that Jesus is God most High , or that he is indeed both God and Man , or that he was Eternally begotten of the Father . It only teaches us thus much concerning him , that the Man Christ Jesus is the Mediator between God and Men , 2 Tim. 2. 5. That he is the Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World , 1 Joh. 2. 2. That it pleased the Father by him to reconcile all things to himself , Col. 1. 20. That there is no Salvation in any other , Acts 4. 12. That he appears now in the Presence of God for us , Heb. 9. 24. And that he shall judg both Quick and Dead , at the latter Day , Acts 10. 42. These are Fundamentals so plain , and so undoubted , that all Christians do universally agree in the Profession of them , as they likewise would do in all other Truths , were nothing but what is really such imposed on the Faith of Believers . Of the transcendent Dignity of Jesus Christ . And now although from what has been said hitherto , it be plainly evident , that the Godhead does consist but of one Divine Person only , even the Father of Christ ; and that Jesus , called otherways in Scripture the Son of God , is no other than an humane Person : yet 't is plain also that he is not a common Man , but the chief and most transcendently Excellent of all humane Beings , yea in Dignity above even the Angels . For as his Conception in the Womb of a Virgin was miraculous , so were his Life and Actions a Wonder : He made a perfect Conquest both of Death and the Devil ; and in that great Instance of Magnanimity has out-done all the renowned Heroes both of Greece and Rome . And unto which of the Angels said God at any time , Sit thou on my right hand ? but to this Dignity is Jesus exalted , Heb. 1. 13. God has crowned him with Glory and Honour , Heb. 2. 9. And anointed him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows , Heb. 1. 9. Angels , and Authorities , and Powers being made subject unto him , 1 Pet. 3. 22. He is ascended into Heaven in a triumphant manner : and as he now sits there at God's right Hand in Glory , so at the last Day shall he come down from thence , to judg Mankind , with such a surprizing Majesty as shall amaze and confound the World. 'T is doubtless impossible for any humane Understanding to conceive , or Tongue to express this most excellent Man's transcendent Dignity ; his Greatness must needs be very extraordinary , who is thus set even above the Angels , is the Head of every Man , and the Prince of the Kings of the Earth . 1 Pet. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 11. 3. Rev. 1. 5. And now if to those foregoing Considerations we add that of his most admired Love to us sinful Mortals , in making Peace for us by the Blood of his Cross , Col. 1. 20. and in undergoing with invincible Patience all those Indignities and Miseries which did befal him in this the Course of that glorious Work of his , the opening for Men a new and living way to the Regions of Bliss : The Consideration of this , I say , added to that other of his most transcendent Glory and Power , ought evermore to raise up in us that Veneration which is sutable to such most wonderful Instances of unconceivable Majesty and Heroick Affection . Yet it is not any way justifiable to honour Christ falsly . As the Glory of God is not to be advanc'd by Falshood , so neither can we truly honour Christ by Lies ; he desires no such thing at our Hands , neither at the last Day will he reward us for affirming him to be that which indeed he is not : they only give true Honour to Christ who own him for the undoubted Messiah , or the Son of God , and do stedfastly both believe and obey his Gospel . As for the other vain and ungrounded Opinions of Men concerning him , they no ways conduce to the Glory of our Blessed Redeemer . 'T is said indeed that we should honour the Son as we honour the Father , Joh. 5. 23. But that word AS does not import an equal Honour , no more than it does import an equal Holiness and Purity , when we are commanded to purify our selves AS he is pure , 1 John 3. 3. And AS he which hath called you is holy , so be ye holy in all manner of Conversation , 1 Pet. 1. 15. Besides , the word Honour is of a doubtful Import , and doth often-times signify only Obedience , as is evident from Ephes . 6. 1 , 2. where by honour thy Father and Mother is clearly signified , obey your Parents . And accordingly Dr. Clagget , in his Paraphrase on the Place , makes it to be an honouring the Son with the same Faith and Obedience ; implying , that we are as much bound to believe and obey the Gospel of Christ in the New Testament , as we are the Law of God recorded in the Old ; that since he is made Judg of the World , to be certain he will not suffer the Breach of his own Laws to go unpunished . Doubtless we ought to be as careful of ascribing to Christ those Glories which are his , as we are to give to God Almighty that Honour which essentially belongs to himself : and no Man can think or speak too honourably of his Redeemer , so long as he no ways does thereby rob God the Father of that truly Divine Honour which is his indispensible Due . Our Lord who sought not his own Glory , ( John 8. 50. ) will give us no Thanks for such Honours as do naturally derogate from his Father's Dignity : but such is their Honour who make the Son to be God ; for then since but one Person can be truly God , they do assert by Consequence that the Father is not so . God has indeed highly exalted Jesus his beloved Son , and has given him a Name above every Name , and has put all things under his Feet . But when all things are said to be thus put under him , 't is manifest that he himself is excepted that did put all things under him , 1 Cor. 15. 27. So that notwithstanding the great and mighty Dignities to which God hath exalted Christ , yet he has still reserv'd to himself this most supreme Royalty of being the God and Head of Christ . God hath given him indeed a Kingdom ; but when the Intent of this Government of his is accomplish'd , he shall again resign it back , that so God in that after-state of Eternity may be all in all , 1 Cor. 15. 24 , 25 , 28. Answers to the principal Objections made against the Vnitarian Doctrine . AND now tho from what has been already said , no Man whose Understanding is not inslaved by the Tyranny either of Self-conceit , Interest , or Education , can doubt of so great a Truth as this is , namely , that no personal Being whatever , besides the Father of Christ , is God most High ; as also that other Branch thereof , that Jesus our Lord , as to his Nature , is the same with them whom he came to redeem . Yet since there have been many Objections raised against it , I will endeavour as briefly as I can , to give them such reasonable Answers as shall make these Truths beyond Exception . Of the Names of God given to Christ . Some object , that Christ of necessity must be God , since in several Places of Scripture he is expresly called by the Name of God. I answer , a God he undoubtedly is , and a mighty God too , according to the way of Expression used in those antient times ; in which those were called Gods who either represented God's Person , or acted in his Name and by his Authority : but he is not God Almighty . When the Jews did accuse him for making himself God , he thus vindicates his Innocence ; If , saith he , they are called Gods to whom the Word of God came — Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified , and sent into the World , Thou blasphemest , because I said I am the Son of God ? John 10. 35 , 36. Christ had as good a Right to this Title as any of the rest , if not a better ; and therefore it could be no Blasphemy to appropriate the same to himself , had he done so : but they lied , for he did not do it , he only said , that he was the Son of God , calling God his Father . Of the Mediation of Jesus Christ . Others object , that if Christ were not God as well as Man , he could not have been a fit Mediator between God and Man , since in such a Case , say they , he ought no way to be exactly the Person concern'd . A fit Mediator between God and Man must neither be only God , nor only Man , but one who by Nature is between these two , even God as well as Man. I answer ; 'T is not necessary that a Mediator should be of such a middle Nature , nor does the Scripture any where assert it : There is always supposed in the Work of Reconciliation , one offended , another offending , and a third not concern'd in the Quarrel , interposing to make Peace between them . Now in this Sense Christ , though but a Man , was a very fit and proper Mediator : Had he been God , he had been the Party offended ; had he been a sinful Man , he had been one of that Party that gave the Offence ; but being a Man perfectly righteous , he therefore was fit to intercede between God and Sinners . That Christ is our Mediator , is plain and evident ; and 't is as plain that he is only a Man , and not both God and Man , as some assert : There is , saith the Scripture , one God , and one Mediator between God and Men , the Man Christ Jesus , 2 Tim. 2. 5. And 't is most wonderful , that in a Matter so manifestly evident , Men should dare to impose upon the World another Faith , or be induc'd to believe contrary to so plain and evident a part of God's Word . Of the Oneness of God and Christ . Others object , that Christ Jesus must needs be God , because 't is said , I and my Father are one , John 10. 30. And again ; There be three that bear Record — and these three are one , 1 Joh. 5. 7. To these I answer , that though 't is said they are one , yet 't is not said what one they are ; 't is not said they are one God. This is only the ungrounded Assertion either of some easy-minded , or else of some heedlesly bold and daring Men. Doubtless by that Passage , 1 John 5. 7. is meant , that these three are one as to the Record which they are there said to bear ; they perfectly agree in that Witness which they give concerning Jesus his being truly the Christ , as the foregoing Verses do plainly intimate . As for that other Passage , John 10. 30. 't is plain , that the Oneness there meant is a Mystical or Moral , and not a Natural Oneness : And 't is doubtless explained by John 17. 11. where our Saviour prays that his Disciples might be one as he and his Father were one ; that they , saith he , may be one , as thou Father art in me , and I in thee , that they may be one in us , v. 21. which denotes an Oneness only in the same mutual Affection , for Believers can be one in no other Sense but this : and look what Oneness there ought to be between one true Believer and another , the same Oneness there is between Christ and God , an inward Intimacy , like that between real Friends , of whom 't is usual to say , they are all one , one in Heart , and one in Mind ; as those in Acts 4. 32. are said to be . Of the Equality of God and Christ . Some object , that Christ must be God as well as his Father , because 't is said , that he thought it no Robbery to be equal with God , Phil. 2. 6. To this I answer , that Christ himself hath told us , that his Father is greater than he , John 14. 28. Hence 't is plain , that if the Son be any ways equal to the Father , yet 't is really but in some Particulars ; for were the Son equal to the Father in every Respect , then 't were impossible for the Father to be greater than he . Whence 't is clear that the Son cannot be equal to the Father in all things , though in some things he may . For instance , as God can save Believers , so this also Christ can do ; but this Power of Christ is not an essential , but a derived Power ; Thou hast given him Power over all Flesh , that he should give Eternal Life to as many as thou hast given him , John 17. 2. These are our Saviour's own Words ; and 't is plain , that he from whom he receives the Power , must in Power be superiour unto him : he is not therefore Almighty , and so by Consequence not God most High , as the Objection would suppose . Of Christ's being the Maker of the World. Some object , that Christ is said to be the Maker of the Worlds , Heb. 1. 2. and that all things were made by him , Joh. 1. 3. and therefore , say they , he of necessity must be God Eternal . I answer , many things are spoken of Christ figuratively , as he is called a Way , a Door , a Vine ; and the Bread in the Sacrament is said to be his Body . Now these , as those likewise which affirm him to be the Maker of the World , are Figurative or Mystical Expressions , in which one thing is said to signify another , as the Old Creation to set forth the New. There are in the Scripture many dark and difficult Passages , hard to be understood , as St. Peter expresses it , 2 Epist . 3. 16. which are doubtless true in some Sense or other , could we be so happy as to hit upon the right : But in the mean time , till this can be done , 't is certain that that can never be the right Sense which contradicts the clearest and the plainest parts of the Bible , as well as the greatest and most certain Evidences of humane Understanding . The general Current of the Scripture declares plainly , that Christ , or the Messiah , was derived from the Seed of , Abraham ; that he was the Son of David ; that he was made of a Woman . Wherefore 't is self-evident that in a literal Sense he could never be the Maker of the World , whose true Ancestors were humane Persons , and who was born , or whose Being did first begin to be , some thousands of Years after the World was made . All Scriptures therefore that affirm Christ to be the Maker of the World , and to be the Maker of all things , must be supposed to speak figuratively , and are no ways to be understood in their literal Sense and Meaning . In all such Cases as this is , 't is safer to say , that we cannot understand truly in what Sense these Scriptures are to be taken , than it is to conclude , that they mean that which other more numerous and plain Places of Scripture , as well as Reason , do make to be impossible . Of the two Natures of Jesus Christ . When we urge those Scriptures which say that Christ has a God above him ; that he could do nothing of himself ; that he knew not of the Day of Judgment ; that he died to redeem Mankind . The Opposers reply , that this is meant only as to his Manhood or humane Nature , but not as to his Divine Nature : for as he was God , none was his Superiour ; he had all Power essentially in himself , knew all things , and was truly immortal . I answer ; If Christ had really two Natures in him , so that thereby he had been truly God as well as Man , the Person thus constituted or made up of two such Natures , could never have died according to his humane Nature , if by his Divine Nature he had been truly God too : for how could he in Person have been mortal in one Capacity , if he had been on the contrary immortal in another ? He also could not possibly have been ignorant in one Capacity of what he knew in another ; nor could he have wanted any kind of Power , if in any of his Capacities he had had all Power essentially in himself ; one Capacity must needs have supplied the Defects of the other , especially the stronger of the weaker . Of Christ his being the Son of God. 'T is objected , that as Christ Jesus our Lord was begotten by God on the Body of the Virgin ; so he must necessarily be God of the Substance of his Father , as he was Man of the Substance of his Mother . In Answer to this I say , that when the Angel saluted the Virgin with the Glad-tidings of her being designed to be the Mother not of God , but of the promised Messiah , he told her , that the Holy Ghost should come upon her , and the Power of the Highest should overshadow her ; and that therefore that holy thing which should be born of her , should be called the Son of God , Luke 1. 31 , 35. Now in the Relation of this Message these following Particulars are remarkable : First ; That Jesus our Lord is the Son of God's Power only , and not of his Person ; the Power of the Highest shall over shadow thee . 'T was of the Woman only that he was made , Gal. 4. 4. ( He was not generated , as some think , out of his Father's Substance ) and so by Consequence was the Son only of his miraculous and Almighty Power . Secondly ; It is not said that therefore he shall be the natural Son of God in that Sense , as one Man is the natural Son of another ; but therefore he shall be called the Son of God , or he shall so be , and be so reputed , because in this one particular Instance God was to him instead of a Father , not a Father in the way that Men are Fathers to their Children , but a Father in respect of the Virgin 's receiving a Power from God ; thus in an uncommon manner to conceive in her self a Son of Joseph and David , Ver. 31 , 32. From what has been said I think it appears plainly , that Christ his being God of the Substance of his Father , is an ungrounded Conceit . The Generation of our Lord Jesus may be better accounted for another way : for God the Almighty Architect , and most-wise Contriver of the Creation , has reserv'd to himself a Power to alter the Course of Nature whensoever he pleases ; and as of a Rib taken out from the side of Adam he made a Woman , so by the same omnipotent Power he did enable a Virgin Woman to conceive a Son. If God had Power out of mere Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham , Mat. 3. 9. we ought not to think it incredible , that in this miraculous manner he should out of the Posterity of Abraham raise up this Seed so wonderfully to be the World's Redeemer . Of the Power by which Christ did Miracles . Some I find are strongly perswaded that none but a Person truly God could do those wonderful Works that Christ did . To such I answer , that a Man who is no God can do things that are miraculous , when God gives him a Power to perform them . This is evident in those which Moses did , and in those also which were wrought by the Apostles . The Works of Christ indeed were extraordinary , yet not done by a Power inherent in himself , but by a Power derived from God : for himself tells us , that all Power was given unto him both in Heaven and in Earth , Mat. 28. 18. He was a Man approved of God ( saith the Apostle ) by Miracles , Wonders , and Signs which God did by him , Acts 2. 22. This Power God did bestow on Christ , to be only an Evidence of his being the true Messiah : Rabbi , saith Nicodemus , We know that thou art a Teacher come from God ; for no Man can do these things that thou dost , except God be with him , Joh. 3. 2. The Works , saith Christ , which the Father hath given me to finish , the same Works that I do , bear witness of me , Joh. 5. 36. His Works were an evident Proof that he was no Impostor , but a true and most wonderful Prophet ; yet still he is said to be but a Man , a Man whom God was with , a Man by whom God did Wonders . Of the Incomprehensibleness of God's Nature . Some object , that we must not think to comprehend the infinite Nature of God , nor understand fully every Particular that does relate to his Divine Perfections ; for God is Incomprehensible , and may for ought we know be that which yet we cannot plainly understand him to be , namely , three in Person , though but one in Essence . I answer ; Some of God's Divine Perfections are self-evident , and 't is impossible that we can be mistaken therein : We are infallibly certain that he must be Immense in Person , Almighty in Power , and most Wise in Knowledg . And although we cannot know what God is in every Respect , yet at the same time we may know certainly what indeed he is not ; we know certainly that he is not a Man , or that he was made of a Woman , as Christ was : We know certainly that he is not mortal , or that he cannot die , as Christ did ; and we know certainly that he has not a God above him , as Christ had ; and we know certainly that he has not received any kind of Power from another , as Christ Jesus is said to do . And as one Truth naturally infers another , so we do from hence assuredly conclude that the Person of Jesus our Lord is not truly God ; for he was made of a Woman , Gal. 4. 4. He died to redeem us , 2 Cor. 5. 14. He had a God above him , 1 Cor. 11. 3. And he did receive all the Power he had of another , Joh. 5. 30. Mat. 28. 18. We also know certainly that if the Divine Godhead did consist of three Persons , that then neither of the three Persons singly can be God. If all three be but that one God together ( as the Trinitarians assert ) then no one of them can be the true God by himself : for the same Denomination cannot properly fit each Person singly , as does fit them when conjoined in one mutual Relation ; for then they might be said to be indeed three supreme Godheads , which is utterly impossible . We also know certainly that if any of the three Persons , said to be in the Godhead , be God by himself , as we have proved God the Father undoubtedly is , then all the rest are but superfluous and unnecessary , as to the Constitution of a Godhead : for one Infinite , Almighty , and most Wise Person , is as sufficient to all the Purposes of a Godhead , as ten thousand Deities : but if three be but the one true God together , then no one of them can be that one true God by himself alone . Lastly , we may be infallibly certain that if Doctrines grounded on so many numerous and great Evidences both of Scripture and self-evident Reason , as these are , That God is but one in Person ; That the Person who is truly God , is no other than the Father of Jesus Christ ; and that the most excellent of Men , even Jesus Christ , was only a Man , be false ; Then we cannot be certain of the Truth of any other Principle in Religion : If the Evidences here collected do deceive us , 't is in vain to hope by any other Methods to find the Truth . Of the Coming down of Christ from Heaven . Some , as a Proof of our Saviour's Godhead , urge those Texts of Scripture , where 't is said , He came down from Heaven ; came forth from the Father , and ascended up where he was before . To which I answer , that these prove not that for which they are intended , since 't is plainly inferred from other Scriptures , that Christ , some time before he was sent to declare the Glad-tidings of the Gospel , was assumed or taken up from the Earth into his Father's more immediate Presence , ( as St. Paul was some time after into the third Heaven ) there to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God , and to be invested with that great Dignity and Power of being a Prince and a Saviour . To this the Prophet Daniel's Vision plainly alludes ; I saw , saith he , in the Night Visions , and behold one like the Son of Man came to the Antient of Days , and they brought him before him ; and there was given him Dominion and Glory , and a Kingdom , that all People , and Nations , and Languages should serve him , Dan. 7. 13. And from the Words of our Saviour himself 't is plain , that he ascended up into Heaven before he came down to declare his Father's Will to Men ; No Man , saith he , hath ascended into Heaven , but he that came down from Heaven , Joh. 3. 13. But no Man but Christ ever came down from thence , which he never could have done had he not first ascended up thither . And that he was taken up to be instructed in the Doctrine he was to publish to the World , is plain also ; The Father , saith he , that sent me , he gave me a Commandment what I should say , and what I should speak , Joh. 12. 49. The Redemption or Restoration of Mankind was a Work of prodigious Difficulty ; and God , who had fore-ordained our Saviour for the Performance thereof , did for his greater Incouragement present to his View the Glories , which before the World was ( Joh. 17. 5. ) he had designed as a Reward for his Son the Messiah : and 't was doubtless this Fore-taste of the Divine and Heavenly Happiness that animated him with Courage and Fortitude to encounter all the Difficulties that stood in his way . Hence 't is said , that he for the Joy that was set before him , did endure the Cross , and despise the Shame , Heb. 12. 2. Of the Eternity of Christ . Some object , that Christ is said to be before Abraham , before all things , and that he had Glory with God before the World was . This , say they , proves him to be Eternal , and by Consequence God. I answer , 't is impossible that Christ can be the true and living God , since 't is plain from what has been said in the former part of this Work , that no Person is truly God but the Father of Christ , and that Christ has a God above him . 'T is impossible for Christ to be Eternal ; for if God be his Father , as all acknowledg , then there was a time when the Son had not a Being : for to be a Son , and to be equal in Duration with his Eternal Father that begot him , is undoubtedly impossible . Besides , we are told plainly , that the Son was first fore-ordained before he came to have a Being in these latter times , 1. Pet. 1. 20. Now no fore-ordained Being can possibly be Eternal , since he that did ordain his Being , must be before him of Necessity ; and none but the very first of all Beings can be truly Eternal . How could he have a Being before Abraham , since 't is declared he was of the Seed of Abraham ? How could he be before David , when 't was out of David's Posterity that God raised up Jesus according to his Promise ? And since Jesus the Son of God was made of a Woman , Gal. 4. 4. he could not be more antient in time than his Mother that bare him . If follows then that these Scriptures on which the Objection depends , are purely figurative , and are not to be understood in their literal Sense and Meaning : They declare indeed that Christ in some Sense or other was before all things , before Abraham , and had Glory before the World was , but not in that Sense which the Objectors suppose . For 't is not reasonable they should be understood in such a Sense as contradicts both common Understanding , and the greatest and plainest part of all the Bible ; they are Places of the same Nature with those which St. Peter affirms are hard to be understood , 2 Pet. 3. 16. and for that Reason must by Interpretation be brought to such a Sense as is agreeable to the Analogy of Faith , and the most general Scope and Design of the Holy Scriptures : that is to say , that Christ was before Abraham , and before the World , &c. in the Fore-ordination , Decree and Counsel of God , as in very Deed St. Peter interprets them , when he saith thus of Christ , that he verily was fore-ordained before the Foundation of the World , but was manifest in these lust times , 1 Pet. 1. 20. Of the Satisfaction that Christ made to God. Some argue thus ; That if Christ had not been God , the Sacrifice he offered , or the Satisfaction he made for Sinners , would not have been of that Infinite Worth which was necessary to satisfy the Infinite Justice of an offended God. I answer . The Holy Scriptures do not any where declare this Doctrine , but on the contrary they tell us , that as by the Offence of one , Judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation ; so by the Righteousness of one , the free Gift came upon all Men to Justification of Life . Rom. 5. 18. In which Words are contained the whole Doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ ; and they imply thus much only , that God was so infinitely well pleased with the unspotted Righteousness of his Son , that for his sake he entred into a new Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind , wherein he did engage himself to be still their God , and to afford them new Means of becoming his People . Thus did God in Infinite Mercy take all Men again into Favour for the sake of one perfectly righteous Person , as in infinite Justice he had before included all Men under Suffering for their first Father's Sin and Transgression : So that as by Man came Death , the Punishment due to the Breach of the first Covenant , so by Man came also the Resurrection from the Dead , 1 Cor. 15. 21. All which was not the Effect of any equivalent Price which by Christ was given to God , but of the Righteousness or Obedience , which he perform'd to his Father's Command : for as by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners ; so by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous . Rom. 5. 19. Had Christ given to God , or made in our stead such a Satisfaction as had been equivalent to the Transgressions of all Men , in order to redeem them , how then could Eternal Life be the free Gift of God ? How then could we be saved by Free Grace ? and how could our Sins be said to be forgiven ? for Gift , and Grace , and Forgiveness , are not proper terms where an Equivalent hath been received . In the Scripture 't is said indeed , that Christ hath obtained Eternal Redemption for us , Heb. 9. 12. That our Peace is made through the Blood of his Cross , Col. 1. 20. That we were reconciled unto God by the Death of his Son , Rom. 5. 10. But it speaks not so much as one Word of an Equivalent . But is it not said , say some , that we are bought with a Price , 1 Cor. 6. 20. And that the Son of Man has given his Life a Ransom for many ? Mat. 20. 28. I answer , These are but improper Expressions , and are of the same Nature with those which attribute Hands , and Eyes , and Ears to God , which only imply that such Acts are done by God which Men usually perform by these bodily Parts : Even so ▪ Christ is said to ransom ▪ us , and to buy us with a Price , because by his Means we do receive Benefits equivalent to what they do who are set free from any kind of Misery and Bondage , by the Payment of a Price to them in whose Bondage they are . I shall , as a Close to what I have to say on this Head , add , that the Justice of God spoken of is satisfied in a manner different from that which the Adversary supposes : that is to say , the Justice of God is satisfied in the certain Punishment of Adam's Transgression . Adam was commanded not to eat of the forbidden Fruit on pain of Death . This Command he transgressed ; and 't is evident that the Punishment was accordingly inflicted , for Adam died , and all his Posterity do die likewise . Now when the Penalty is thus inflicted , 't is plain that Justice is satisfied , and God in Equity can require no more : but had not Christ obtained the Favour to restore us to Life after the Punishment was thus inflicted , there had then been an End of Mankind for ever . From hence 't is apparent how idle their Fancy is who imagine Christ suffered what all Mankind should have suffered , in order to free them for ever from suffering the same . For 't is plain beyond Contradiction , that we are not freed from Death , the Punishment due to that first Transgression , for we all die ; God does exact the Forfeiture of every one of us , and by Consequence his Justice , as to that Offence , is satisfied in all its Demands . But this , say some , is false , for Hell was our Due as well as Death ; and from that Christ has freed every one that will believe . I answer , 'T is strange that Christ should free Believers from one part of the Punishment and not from the other : The Scriptures no where reveal this Secret , and for that Reason we need not believe it . Hell is the Punishment which is due to the Breach of the second Covenant , and not of the first ; now neither has Christ freed us from this by any thing that he has done and suffered for us . He by his Righteousness did indeed procure for us a new Covenant , and this new Covenant of Grace proposes Life and Pardon on condition that we will believe its Promises , sincerely endeavour to obey its Precepts , and repent of Sin ; and they are truly the Breakers of this Covenant who live in a continued Course of Disobedience thereunto , and die at last in final Impenitence . Now for such Sinners as these there does remain no Sacrifice ; Christ never died for the Redemption of such , and by Consequence can no ways be said to suffer in their stead . Of the Object of Divine Worship . Some object , that Jesus must be God , because 't is recorded that his Name , in the most Primitive Times of the Gospel , was called upon ; see Acts 9. 14. and 22. 16. I answer ; 'T is difficult to understand rightly what is there meant by Calling on his Name : This is certain , that the Scripture no where injoins us to make Christ the Object of Divine Worship ; it does rather expresly intimate the contrary . Our Lord forewarns his Disciples not to ask any thing of him after his Ascension , but bids them ask the Father in his Name , Job . 16. 23 , 24 , 26. And when our Lord taught his own Disciples to pray , he bids them say , Our Father which art in Heaven , Mat. 6. 9. He does not direct them to say , O Christ hear us : He tells the Samaritan Woman , that in the following times the true Worshippers should worship the Father , Joh. 4. 23. 'T was the Doctrine of St. Paul , that in every thing by Prayer and Supplication we should let our Requests be made known unto God , Phil. 4. 6. And his own Practice was according to his Doctrine , I bow my Knee ( saith he ) to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , Eph. 3. 14. and in many other Places , God or the Father , not Christ , is mentioned as the alone Object of Divine Adoration and Petition : And 't is worth nothing , that Christ himself , whose Example and Footsteps we should follow , prayed always to his Father , and never did so much as once petition any other Person of the supposed Trinity . And as to Thanksgiving , 't is plainly said to be the Will of God that we should do all in the Name of the Lord Jesus , giving Thanks to God and the Father by him , Col. 3. 17. And in another Place we are commanded to give Thanks always unto God and the Father , in the Name of Jesus Christ , Eph. 5. 20. And accordingly we read in a great number of Places in the New Testament , how the Apostles gave God Thanks through Jesus Christ . Jesus our Lord is said in Scripture to appear in the Presence of God for us , Heb. 9. 24. to be an Advocate for Sinners , 1 Joh. 2. 1. To make Intercession for the Saints , Rom. 3. 34. To be the Mediator between God and Men , 1 Tim. 2. 5. The Minister of the new Covenant , Heb. 8. 6. All which proves him to be the Person that pleads our Cause , that solicites our Acceptance , the great Transactor and Manager of all Affairs between God and us ; but it no ways intimates any Divine Worship due to himself . And indeed should we put Christ instead of the true God , and make him the alone Object of Divine Prayer and Thanksgiving , in whose Name then shall we approach the Throne of Grace ? and by whom shall we render Thanks to God ? who shall be our Intercessor , our Advocate , our Mediator ? For my part I know but of one Mediator , and that 's the Man Christ Jesus , 1 Tim. 2. 5. and he only is the Mediator between us Men and the one true God , whom I before have proved to be only the Father of Jesus Christ . To make our Lord Christ therefore the Object of our Divine Addresses is as much as in us lies to deprive him of his Mediatory Office , which also by Consequence is to deny him to be the Son of God , even the Beloved in whom alone we are accepted , Eph. 1. 6. Yea , and by this we deny also the Godhead of the Father , in whose stead we do by this Means place Christ , than which there can be nothing in this World that is more truly Antichristian : See 1 John 2. 22. Now from the aforegoing Arguments 't is evident , that whatever the Sense of the objected Places are , yet they cannot mean that which the Objector intends , since in vastly more numerous and plain Places the Scriptures make God and not Christ to be the alone Object of our Divine Addresses . Of the Novelty of the Vnitarian Doctrine . Some object against the Doctrine of God's being but one in Person , the Novelty thereof , that 't is but of Yesterday in comparison to that which asserts a Trinity , which is , they say , of at least 1600 and odd Years standing . I answer , that the Objector is greatly mistaken : for can that be a new Doctrine which has the greatest and the most plain part of the Scripture for its Foundation ? The Doctrine of God's being but one in Person , is in the former part of this Work proved to be expresly and plainly contain'd both in the Old and New Testament , and by Consequence must needs be as antient as the Scriptures are . The long Continuance of the contrary Doctrine , if it were as antient as the Objectors affirm , is yet no Argument of its real Truth . We read that soon after the good Wheat was sown , the Enemy began to sprinkle Tares in the Field ; Mat. 13. 25. And the Mystery of Iniquity began to work even in St. Paul's time , 2 Thess . 2. 7. So that 't is no wonder that some Errors , as suppose this of the Trinity , be almost of equal standing to the greatest Truths : for where God has a Church , the Devil always has a Chappel . 'T is not the long or short Continuance of any Doctrine , as to its Profession , that makes it authentick , but that Foundation of Reason and Scripture on which it is built : A Tenet is not therefore true because of its long or general Belief , if at the same time it contradicts Self-evidence , and the general Current of the sacred Scriptures . Of Scripture-Mysteries . Some object , that much of the Scripture is mere Mystery ; and therefore since all Scripture is the Object of our Faith , we must sometimes believe things which we cannot comprehend . I answer , if we are to believe Mysteries when clearly revealed , yet it does not from thence follow , that therefore we must believe Impossibilities and Contradictions . A just God can never lay on us a necessity of submitting to those Terms and Conditions of Salvation which we cannot possibly understand . Hence it follows that such obscure Mysteries as evidently do contradict other plain Truths , do no ways concern us , so long as we are in the dark as to their true Sense and Meaning . When a Mystery is plainly express'd in Scripture , as when 't is said , a Virgin did conceive a Son , or that all Men shall rise again , or that Christ shall judg the World , and no other plain Scripture contradicts it , neither is it contrary to humane Reason ; we are then to believe it , tho it may be above our Understanding to conceive which way the Power of God should enable a Virgin to conceive , or in what manner our scattered Dust shall be recollected and revived , or how our blessed Saviour can be made fit for so great a Work as an Universal Judg. But if some Places in Scripture had said these things , but others more numerous and plain had affirmed the contrary , or had it contradicted any self-evident Principle of Reason , we might then have rejected the Belief thereof as safely and with as good Authority as we now do that of the Popish Transubstantiation , which by the way is as expresly contain'd in Scripture as is that of the Trinity . But for Mysteries of a more doubtful Nature , such as want the Qualifications before express'd , they can no ways oblige our Faith , so long as their true Meaning lies hid in Obscurity of Expression . There will be a time when all secret things shall be revealed , and all hidden things shall be brought to light , for which we must wait with Patience , and not pretend , as some do , to explain even what is most hard and difficult , by such Notions as are purely unintelligible ; for this is but the more to confound their Minds which were at a loss before . 'T is true , if any Man can rationally explain a Mystery , he then does good Service both to God and Man ; but this we are infallibly certain is never done , when the Sense that is given of a doubtful Place of Scripture is contrary not only to the general Current of the rest of the Word of God , but is also a Contradiction to the most self-evident Sentiments of humane Understanding . But some may say , If such Passages as these are so generally to be overlook'd in the Business of Religion , why then did God cause them to be recorded in the sacred Scripture ? I answer , that it may as well be asked , why God made so many sorts of small , and as we think , useless Insects to live upon the Earth , since we know not what Benefit they are of to the World ? Doubtless God , who does nothing in vain , made them for some great Ends , though our short-sighted Understanding cannot perceive what those excellent Ends of his are : Even so likewise will his Wisdom be manifested some way or other , by what to us is yet hard to be understood in Scripture . And though we are ignorant of the true meaning of many of the most obscure and doubtful Parts thereof , yet the Ends and Purposes of God in causing them to be written , either are or shall in due time be accomplished . In the mean time we ought to magnify that manifest Goodness of God , who hath communicated to Mankind such a number of plain and evident Precepts as will be fully sufficient for Salvation , if we carefully observe them . All are concern'd in the Business of Life Eternal , therefore hath God given us Laws sutable to our common Capacities : The Gospel of Christ was preach'd to the Poor , which intimates that the Glad-tidings of Salvation did not consist of unintelligible Mysteries , but of such plain and evident Notions as did fit the Understandings of the lowest People . Of Faith and Reason . There are a sort of People in the World of several false Perswasions , who when they can no longer maintain their Errors against the Power of true Reason , fly to Faith as their last Refuge , and tell us , that 't is by Faith only that we are made able to overcome the World , 1 Joh. 5. 4. And that therefore 't is necessary for Men to believe what yet they cannot comprehend . To this I answer , That Faith indeed is the chief Duty of the Christian Religion , because 't is the Belief of God's Promises and Threatnings that does ingage Mankind to the Obedience of his Precepts : Few , I doubt , would be religious , were there no Fear of Hell , nor Hopes of Heaven . 'T is said , that all things are possible to him that believes , Mark 9. 23. which in other Words imports that no Difficulty nor Hazard , how great soever , shall be able to stop them in their Christian Race : And in this Sense it only is , that Faith is said to be the Victory that overcometh the World. But though 't is only a firm Perswasion of the Truth of God's Promises and Threatnings that inspires the Faithful with Courage to overcome and conquer the Temptations not only of the Devil , but of the Lusts of this World too ; yet this is no Argument that therefore we must assent to that which we see no Reason to believe ; for then we might be every whit as liable to believe things false as things that are true . Wherefore it behoves us to be very watchful and circumspect in avoiding false Principles ; for Error of any kind will rather make us Slaves to the Devil , than enable us to overcome and conquer him . As therefore thou oughtst to imbrace Truth wheresoever thou dost find it , so be as ready to relinquish Errors , when by carefully examining into Religion thou hast discovered them to be such : for 't is in every respect as Heroick an Act of Faith to believe our selves in the wrong when we really are so , as 't is to adhere stedfastly to a Truth undoubted . Know then that no kind of Faith can be true that is certainly unreasonable , for the Light of Nature is as much God's Law as Divine Revelation ; and none must ever think that God's Law can contradict it self . Right self-evident Reason is the only Touchstone that Men have to distinguish Truth from Error : and 't is the Agreement even of Scripture with this Reason that makes us know it to be the Word of God ; 't is not our Forefathers saying so , but the exact Concurrence of the Witness of our Spirit and that Testimony . And though some would perswade us not at all to trust to Reason in Matters of Religion ; yet 't is observable that those very Men that exclaim most against it , are yet necessitated to give Reasons of their own to prove , if 't were possible , that your Reason is not to be relied on : and certainly that Guide must needs be most safe , whom the whole World , in some kind or other , do find it so necessary to follow . Of the true Nature of Religion . 'T is certain that the Laws of Religion are design'd by God for the only Good of Mankind ; he forbids some things and commands others , only because the one is prejudicial to Man's Well-being , and the other is absolutely necessary to his Peace and Happiness . In order then to the true Happiness of this Life there is required a sutable way of living , even such as respects the Universal Good of the whole Kind ; which , in short , is that which Men call a Life of Holiness , or a Life perfectly free from every kind of Injustice or Mischief both to one's self and others . And as for the Heavenly State , that is a State of perfect Goodness and Purity ; and 't is impossible that any one can take delight in that Divine kind of Life hereafter which he hated here : And for that Reason could the Wicked be admitted into Heaven , yet then would they be unhappy , by reason that there none of those base and ignoble Pleasures would be found which their corrupted Minds on Earth did love and admire . 'T is then only a good Life on Earth that can fit us for the Heavenly Inheritance . Now this Goodness of Life , so necessary to Man's both present and future Bliss , does not consist in Speculation but in Practice . Belief is of no other Use than as it enacts Obedience ; and that 's the Reason that the Day of Judgment is represented as taking no notice of the Opinions , but of the Practices of Men. Have you fed the Hungry ? Have you clothed the Naked ? Have you visited the Sick ? Mat. 25. 36. At that great Solemnity the Inquiry will not be , What had you in the World ? or what did you profess ? but what good Deeds have you done therein ? how has your Care been to promote the Universal Good of rational Beings ? Have you renounced the Lust of the Flesh , the Lust of the Eye , and the Pride of Life ? 1 John 2. 26. and lived soberly , and righteously , and godlily in this present World ? Tit. 2. 12. and done justly , and loved Mercy , and walked humbly with God ? Mich. 6. 8. Now if 't is the Goodness of our Practice that is the one thing necessary to Salvation , then the disbelieving either a few doubtful , or else a few unreasonable Opinions , can never be dangerous . Let us then ( as to the Point now under Examination ) ask our selves but this one Question , Will the Belief of the Doctrine of a Trinity make me a more merciful and righteous Man than I shall be if I did profess the contrary ? Will it make me love and honour God better ? Will it make the Service which I render to his Divine Majesty a more reasonable Service ? And if on serious Consideration you find it will not , then 't is plain that the Unitarian Faith , which denies a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead , is much to be preferr'd , since 't is not perplex'd with such Contradictions to humane Understanding , but depends on more plain and noble Evidences , and does also in all Respects whatsoever effectually secure a good Life ; which , when all is done , is the very Soul and Life of Religion , and will stand by a Man when Hypostatical Vnions , and Mutual Consciousness , and Somewhats , will prove but poor things to depend upon for Salvation . There can be no Danger of Damnation for not assenting to such mysterious Notions as Men can at no tolerable rate understand , such as is that of the Doctrine of a Trinity , ( which makes the Divine Power of the Godhead to reside in three distinct Persons , whose Constitution is like that of a free State , rather than the more Divine Government of a single Monarchy ) if in the mean time they believe heartily the plain Doctrine revealed in God's Word , and live up truly to the undoubted Precepts which the Christian Religion commands , which I am certain does no where say , that unless ye believe that three Persons are truly God , ye shall certainly be damn'd . Salvation and the Belief of the Trinity not inconsistent . 'T is objected as dangerous to believe the Doctrine of God's being but one in Person , because we should hereby , as much as in us lies , exclude from Salvation all those pious and just Men who in former Ages have liv'd and died in the Belief of a Trinity . I answer ; The Wisdom of the Unitarian Doctrine never was so uncharitable as to suppose this ; yet doubtless the Belief of a Trinity must needs much lessen their future Happiness , though not wholly debar them of Salvation : And therefore to persist therein , after due Admonition especially , is very imprudent and dangerous . 'T is plain , that though those who believe a Trinity do believe more than either God or Christ do require as necessary to Salvation , yet together or therewith many Persons do also believe all the chief Fundamentals in Religion that are requisite to save them ; and therefore their Hope and Trust in God's Mercy on one Hand , may out-ballance their Error on the other . If God winked at the Ignorance of the vertuous Gentiles , how can we imagine that he should not be gracious to the heedless and unwitting Errors of the humble and contrite-hearted Christian ? If any Man ( saith the Apostle ) build on the Foundation Hay , and Straw , and Stubble , that is , Doctrine that will not stand the Test of Truth , he shall suffer Loss ; yet he himself shall be saved , but so as by Fire , 1 Cor. 3. 15. that is , with great Difficulty he shall escape Damnation . If God should be extream to mark what is done amiss , no Man could stand in Judgment before him ; as it is in Psal . 143. 2. & 130. 3. All Salvation is of the free Grace and Mercy of God , who pardons Iniquity , Transgression and Sin , Exod. 34. 7. A good Life will make great Abatements upon the account of a bad Faith ; Mercy rejoiceth against Judgment , Jam. 2. 13. and Charity shall cover a multitude of Sins , 1 Pet. 4. 8. But though 't is possible for a Man to be saved in this Faith , who otherwise has lived well , yet 't will doubtless much lessen his future Happiness , for Error of any kind is the fruitful Parent of many Mischiefs ; it betrays us into Absurdities , and involves us in many unwarrantable Words and Actions . As our Faith is , so will our Practice be apt to be , and consequently Error in one respect or other will be apt to make Mens Lives less innocent ; and the less innocent our Actions are , the less doubtless will our Reward hereafter be : For the eternal Glories , compar'd to that of the Sun , and Moon , and Stars , 1 Cor. 15. will be in proportion to the Degrees of our Christian Perfection . They therefore whose Religion is such only as will but just preserve them from Damnation , must not expect so large a share of the Divine Recompences , as by God's Grace is due to the inlarged Capacity of the more exactly knowing and undefiled Soul. But notwithstanding what has been said on the Behalf of those otherwise good Livers who have not been ignorant of the Truth merely out of Malice and Design , I add , that in case Men of false Principles are told plainly that they are in the wrong , and yet they still do obstinately persist therein , and refuse to consider seriously the Arguments both of Scripture and Reason that are offered to convince them ; I see not how in any case 't is possible for such to be saved : for this is truly and plainly to reject the Counsel of God , and to do Despite to the Spirit of Grace . By what Nature the World was redeemed . When Men have argued whatever they can about the Necessity of Christ his being truly God , that so the Sacrifice he offered might be of Merit sufficient to answer the Demands of God's most Infinite Justice ; yet after all it must be acknowledged , that our Peace was made with God , only by the holy Life and Death of an humane Person : for nothing that is truly God can die or shed Blood , but 't is by Blood , even the Blood of a dying Jesus , that we are cleansed from all Sin , 1 Joh. 1. 7. And this his Death for our Redemption is an undeniable Instance to prove , that his Person was truly humane . Christ Jesus our Lord was undoubtedly filled with the Divine Spirit , for in him dwelt the Fulness of the Godhead ; but this did not make him God , any more than a Believer shall be made God by receiving of his Fulness , Joh. 1. 16. or by being Partaker of the Divine Nature promised to such , 2 Pet. 1. 4. It only fitted him for the Work of Redemption : he by that eminent Inhabitation of the Divine Spirit became able to surmount all Temptations to Sin ; and 't was only the underfiled Obedience of his Life , even unto Death , that made the Sacrifice which he offered unto God acceptable . The Blood that was shed to manifest the intire Obedience of Jesus unto God , was no other than the Blood of a most holy and excellent Man ; 't was not the Blood of God , as some Men rashly do affirm : On the Cross he that thus died cried out , My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me ? Now for him to be God that thus prayed to God , is , I think , impossible . Wherefore 't is evident , that he who thus died was not a true Deity ; and yet 't was by him that died that the World was redeemed ; for which blessed be the Lord God of Israel , who hath thus visited and redeemed his People , and hath raised up a mighty Salvation for us , out of the House of his Servant David , Luke 1. 68 , 69. A general Rule for answering all Objections . Having considered and answered the principal Objections urged in favour of the Doctrine which asserts Jesus Christ to be truly God , in opposition to that of his being only the Man who is the Mediator between God and Men , 1 Tim. 2. 5. or that which asserts that none is God but the Father of Christ , 't will be needless to confute those other little Objections which still remain ; since when the chiefest Strength that does uphold an Error is overthrown , 't is not in the Power of some little Props to maintain and support it : nevertheless , lest the Minds of some should thereby be perplex'd , I here lay down one general Rule , by which all other Objections may be easily refuted , and that is this : If any Principle in Religion be true , by the greater and by the plainer Number of Evidences , it can never be false by a few in number , or by them that are dark and doubtful . If then the Arguments to prove the true God to be only the Father of Jesus Christ , are more in number , and plainer to be understood , than those are which are objected in favour of the contrary , you need then only to reply thus , that the Proofs that make for it , are more both in Number and Weight , than those that are against it ; and that therefore 't would be unpardonable to suffer such Trifles to unsettle and shake your Faith. Suppose a Man objects against the Doctrine of God's being but one in Person , this Text , Let us make Man , Gen. 1. 26. and endeavour to prove from thence , that God is more than one in Person , is it reasonable to suffer this to alter your Judgment , when for that one Passage , Vs , urged in favour of the Belief of more Persons than one , you have ten thousand that mention God to be but only one , in such Terms as these , I , thou , me , he , his ? And as for the Terms of we , they , them , &c. they are not mentioned in Scripture so much as once , as applied to God alone . If every single Objection that is started should be admitted to be of Authority sufficient to invalidate the best and clearest Proofs ; or if every hard and doubtful Passage in Scripture were enough to overthrow all them that are clear and plain , then all true Religion would soon be at an end : for some plausible Exceptions may be made against the chiefest and plainest Truths in Religion , otherwise so many false and erroneous Opinions would not have obtained that Authority that they have in the World. Indeed when we are told plainly , that we are in an Error , and Arguments truly considerable are at the same time offered to undeceive us , we ought then to suffer our selves to be convinc'd : for if what is thus urged carries with it so much clear Evidence as makes it undoubted , the changing then of our Opinions will not only be reasonable , but very honourable too , since nothing is more ignoble and base than to be a Slave to Error , from which not any thing in this World but Truth can free us . Of the true Notion of the Holy Ghost . 'T is plain from the general Analogy of true Faith , grounded on Scripture-Evidence , that the Holy Ghost is no distinct Person subsisting of himself ; for then 't is clear , that our Lord could not be the Son of him who is now called God the Father , or the first Person in the supposed Trinity , since 't is plain that the Virgin Mary's Conception was occasioned by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost , Luke 1. 35. which all Trinitarians acknowledg to be the third Person , and not the first : 'T is expresly said , that that which was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost , Mat. 1. 20. And that she was with Child by him , Mat. 1. 18. Wherefore 't is evident from these additional Words , and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee , Luke 1. 35. that the Holy Ghost is only that Divine and Invisible Power of God , by which he works his Will and Pleasure in the World ; and by Consequence , that God , and the Spirit of God , are no more two distinct Persons than Man and the Spirit of Man are ; for to the one the other is compared in the sacred Scripture , 1 Cor. 2. 11. And as the Members of Man's Body do secretly and wonderfully obey the Dictates of his Will or Mind , so , and much more so , do all Creatures act , and are commanded by the Almighty Power of God's Divine and most Wise Will and Pleasure . When therefore all the elect People of God are said to be sanctified by the Holy Ghost , it must be understood of that new Temper and Inclination of Mind which God by his Divine and Invisible Power does work or cause in Men. When he powerfully raises up in them holy Thoughts , and excites in their Minds new Desires , he is then truly said to sanctify them by his Spirit : And when Men wilfully reject those Motions to Goodness , which God by his Power does raise up in them , they are then truly said to resist , and grieve , and quench his Spirit . And whereas the Spirit is said to receive , and to be sent , from whence some would infer its distinct Personality : 't is replied , that these are but improper Expressions , such as are before noted to be spoken of God and Christ ; they are Words fitted to our dull Apprehensions rather than to the true Nature of the Spirit it self , even as God is represented as having the Actions and Passions of a Man , and to come down from Heaven , when yet we know that he is already every where , though our mortal Eyes have not Powers fitted to perceive him : He that filleth all things can no ways be capable of moving out of his Place . Such Expressions as these therefore are plainly improper , and must not be understood literally , or as at first sight they seem to express . The CONCLVSION . TO what has been said on this Subject , I will only add this one solemn Protestation , that as what I here offer is grounded on the Dictates only of plain and positive Scripture , and the most evident and perfect Reason , as I humbly judg : So the Design of this its Publication is the alone Glory of God Almighty , and the Church's Peace , which no ways can be establish'd firmly but on the Foundations of Truth . And though I am sensible the Work is not perform'd with that Exactness as to be in every part without Reproof , yet I am satisfied that in the main I have therein managed the true Cause of God and Religion . Nevertheless , I have a secret Distrust within me , that what I here offer will not be kindly received : for my best Indeavours must not expect to find better Success than did those of my blessed Lord and Master ; who , though he spake as never Man spake , and confirmed his Doctrine with such Miracles as did demonstrate him to be a Teacher sent of God , yet was believed on but by a few : The Praise of Men was then generally much more belov'd than the Praise of God ; Joh. 12. 43. And I doubt the Case is still the same ; Men now seek their own and not the things of Jesus Christ , Phil. 2. 21. They that love Riches will hardly run the hazard of losing any temporal Preferment for the sake of Truth . Others will be averse from acknowledging themselves in a Mistake , who before have been honoured with the Repute both of Orthodox and Learned Men ; and those who have been long prepossess'd with the contrary Perswasion , will hardly relinquish it , though the best of Reasons be offered to convince them of their Error . In short , the Religion of Mankind generally is but a Self-righteousness , a Law rather of their own making than of God's appointing . There are but very few that in all things do either live or believe as the Gospel directs them : the whole World does for the most part prefer some senseless Humour before sacred Truth , and that immortal Bliss to which it would conduct them . THE END . 
A41509	----	The epistle and preface to the book against the blasphemous Socinian heresie vindicated, and the charge therein against Socinianism, made good in answer to two letters / by J. Gailhard ... Gailhard, J. (Jean) 1698 Approx. 223 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 47 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A41509 Wing G121 ESTC R40436 19319966 ocm 19319966 108605 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A41509) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 108605) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1670:28) The epistle and preface to the book against the blasphemous Socinian heresie vindicated, and the charge therein against Socinianism, made good in answer to two letters / by J. Gailhard ... Gailhard, J. (Jean) [2], 90 p. Printed for J. Hartley ..., London : 1698. Includes advertisementi: p. 90. Reproduction of original in the Bodleian Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Gailhard, J. -- (Jean). -- Blasphemous Socinian heresie disproved and confuted. Socinianism. 2007-01 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-01 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-04 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2007-04 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE Epistle and Preface To the BOOK against the Blasphemous Socinian Heresie VINDICATED ; And the CHARGE therein against Socinianism , made Good. In ANSWER to TWO LETTERS . By J. GAILHARD , Gent. Hinc Drances , Thersites inde . If any teach otherwise and consent not to wholsom words , even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ , and the Doctrine which is according to Godliness : He is proud , knowing nothing , but doting about questions and strifes of words , whereof cometh envy , strife , railings , evil surmisings : Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds , and destitute of the truth , supposing that gain is godliness : From such withdraw thy self , 1 Tim. vi . 3 , 4 , 5. LONDON : Printed for J. Hartley , over-against Grays-Inn-Gate in Holborn . 1698. AN ANSWER TO Two Letters . HAving lately publish'd a Book against the present great grievance of the Nation in Matters of Religion , Socinianism I mean , and knowing how the Pen-men of that Party are now fallen in a course of writing from time to time against what comes out in Opposition to them , I indeed looked for an Answer , but thought they would have gone about to refute my Arguments , as 't is the usual way of those who follow the School Rules ; but I therein find my self disappointed , and am apt to believe that these Men do so far depend upon what their great Masters have done , as to think they now may sit still under the shadow of their Works ; for It is plain , say they , that the most polite and rational Modern Sermons and other Moral Discourses , are extreamly beholden to Socinus his Works . Yet instead of what I expected , out comes from behind the Curtain and in disguise , one of those Fancies which our Ideists are so fond of , under the name of An Apology for the Parliament , &c. and this in Two Letters by different Hands . I must need fear what will become of me ! But Sirs , it is not in you the part of generous Enemies , tho' to support a weak Cause , to come Two against One ; yet for what they have done , 't is no matter , for Truth and I against any two or ▪ twenty such Hands : And the Truth now in question , tho' they would have driven it into Corners , hath gotten the upper-hand , and is so strongly settled , that it hath disheartened its Adversaries from making any attempt upon it ; and they have chosen to meddle with other things , and leave that untouched . This Answer no Answer , this Apology or Two Letters , having been sent me down into the Country , I fell on perusing of them , to see what they contained as to Matters in question and the Cause in hand , but 't was not to be found , and so I concluded it to be lost among them , hardly any Steps thereof being left , only instead of it , I lighted upon Reflections and Invectives ( which that sort of Men are full of and very free to bestow ) against the Author of the Book : they fly off from the Point and avoid coming to discuss it : What Notion of theirs , can this way of deciding Controversies , be grounded upon ? No Answer in the least to any of my Arguments , tho' I had given them a large Field : They being a People not usually Mute , may not I reasonably infer , that seeing upon things in question they say nothing , then they have nothing to say , and so yield the Cause , if not positively , yet by a good Consequence ; thus they save me the trouble to refute any thing , or to add to what I said upon the Matter , tho' about it I have many more things to say . The Author of the First Letter gives a convincing and short Reason , why he Answers none of my Arguments , I thought you an unfit Writer on behalf of the Trinity , and therefore did not so much as read over your Book ; tho' in another place he saith , I have dipp'd into it here and there , and have staged it over . This is magisterially enough decided ; but there is in such Decisions more Mercury than Salt : You say I am an unfit writer upon those Matters , and yet you did not so much as read over my Book ; this is wisely and learnedly spoken , 't is an unanswerable Argument , but if you had given any for me to answer , I might well have desired the Reader , by this Paw of yours , to have judged of the Lion , how great a Logician you are to draw Conclusions out of Premises . But what would ye have done if there had been no Epistle nor Preface to carp at ? Then 't is likely you would have taken no notice of my Book , or else why do ye leave the Principal for the Accessary ? Such a Carriage gives me cause to suspect , that seeing you take no notice of it , you look upon 't as a Morsel of too hard a digestion for your Stomach , therefore you meddle not with it : ye Answer it not , but Invectives against the Author must do the work ; for indeed whilst in these Letters I was seeking for what I could not find , I found what I was not looking for , soft Words and hard Arguments from Men who would seem to have engross'd all Reason unto themselves , I sought for , but found very soft Arguments , if any at all , yet hard Words : Truly Sirs , to Answer in your own way , I could almost say , I have happen'd to tread upon a Nest of Wasps , so had cause to expect some of them would come out Buzzing about my Ears , that 's all the harm they can do me , if they intend any thing more , then I hope they lost their Point and missed their Aim . I think that what I said to prove my Assertions , might in some degree have been taken notice of : but seeing they have no mind to meddle with nor remove the Weight , there let it ly for me ; yet tho' as to the Matter they offer'd nothing to Answer , rather than to be altogether silent , we must turn to what they otherwise have started up , tho' not belonging to the Subject of my Book : They act like those who shot at a Man from behind a Hedge , and so think they may with safety to themselves wound their Enemy who cannot well close up with them ; for they , with being nameless and in their holes , have taken sufficient care to provide against it , and none can swear against them . Ye are the Men : However , because such Men would call one dumb , who should say nothing to their Imputations and Misconstructions , tho' never so groundless , I shall by the grace of God take notice of most things in the Letters , and therein hope to clear my self of their Aspersions , also to demonstrate how they are guilty of some things which they would charge me with , or of the same nature , and I shall examine what here and there they say about Matters in question : Sometimes I shall Answer both Letters together in those things which tend to the same purpose , and at other times asunder and as I shall see cause : however I shall not do 't in order , but here and there according as I light upon the things in the Letters , which I intend to examine one after another . With an idle and ridiculous Fancy of an Apology , they would bring me under a necessity of making my own : Fervency of Zeal for the Glory of God , is the first thing and in the first Line , laid to my charge ; but this , Paul brings me off when he said , It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing : And that the thing in question which I appear for , is Good , very Good , I appeal not only to Scripture , but also to the Testimony of the whole Primitive Church , of all Christian Protestant Churches , specially of our Church in this Kingdom ; and if according to their Principles of a private Judge I must have it within me , I want it not ; for in my Conscience I am so fully satisfied it is Good , that thorough God's Grace strengthning me , I am ready to lay down my Life , and that 's for the same Cause for which my blessed Saviour laid down his , and so many more after him , namely that he was truly , that is in a true and proper sense , God's own and only begotten Son : and when upon this Cause of his , Men are neither cold nor hot , he spueth them out of his mouth . After this , out comes a volley of Trash , the product of an elevated Fancy and inflamed Imagination , whereby things of Moment are wrested and ridiculed , tho' may be , the Party takes it for a great piece of Wit : and whether I will or not , he would make me to say that which I never so much as thought upon ; and because he would make of it a Stage-Play , tho' very insipid and profane , he brings me in as Postponing the Glory of God , as he saith , to Temporal Concerns ; how this can agree with what he said just before of my fervent Zeal for that Glory , let him declare : I think by means of the word Postpone , I may understand something of the Writers meaning , and I believe some among them could tell News , how it came to pass that my Book which was intended to have been published by Candlemas Term , for all the endeavours used to hasten it out , came forth only the day before the Prorogation : I have cause to suspect there was some tampering by a sort of Men diligent in their Concerns and of unwearied Endeavours to promote their Cause , for the Children of this World are in their generation wiser than the Children of Light : I doubt some of them plowed with my Heifer , however let none boast before the time , for thorough God's direction that which last Year was not done , as indeed for that reason it could not be , may happen to be done this ; however to God we leave the Success . Yet as in my Preface I gave an account of the effectual Care which the Parliament of Scotland had taken to put a stop to your damnable Heresies in that Kingdom ; so now I must tell that which ye know well enough , but may be every one else doth not , how in Ireland about the beginning of September last , the Committee for Religion having examined the Carriage of one of your Gang , M. Toland , who , no doubt , was gone over to promote the Cause , and made their Report to the House , immediately they passed a Vote , that his Book should be burnt by the hand of the Executioner , and his Person taken into Custody to be proceeded against ; but he finding the Place too hot for him , made a shift to escape and come over , or else he had been laid up , but we hope here he shall either be followed by divine Mercy , or meet with human Justice ; for we have ground to think that the Parliament of England , with as much Zeal as those of Scotland and of Ireland , will appear for the Cause and Honour of God , and as one of the Wolves hath been unkennel'd in Ireland , so that same and others , shall here be so too : and 't is but what all obstinate Leaders of such miserable wretches who deny the Lord that bought them , do justly deserve , to be branded with B , that every one might know them for Blasphemers by reason of the blasphemous , heretical , and impious Opinions , which those despisers of God , with impunity , whereat they grow bolder , do daily publish and spread abroad , and that in so bold and licentious a manner , as was hardly ever allowed in any Christian State. The Emperor Theodosius left a Precedent in such cases , for by a Law he ordered the fifteen Volumes which impious Porphiry had written against the Christian Religion , every where to be burnt and destroyed . And indeed 't is but what the Anti-Christian Writings of such Miscreants as were Celsus , Porphyrius , Julian the Apostate and the like deserve to be : their Works were levelled against the true God in the most Holy Trinity , and against the Person and Divinity chiefly of our blessed Lord and Saviour , and are not the Socinian Books so too ? The like Crime deserves the like Punishment ; this I speak in commendation of the Zeal and Justice of the House of Commons in Ireland : Something more I must say , and tho' I am sure to be disowned by Socinians and Socinianizers , yet I hope not so by those who are really concern'd for the Honour of the glorious Trinity and for their Religion ; 't is this , It were but Justice and Christian Prudence , if the Pen-men of the Antitrinitarian and Antichristian Doctrines were burnt at the Fingers end , to disable them from dropping their Poison upon Paper : if only paring their Nails could do 't , it would be well ; but I am of opinion , that alone will not do 't , nor Gospel-Arguments , but the Authority of the Law must : and this the Parliament of Ireland in their Wisdom have found necessary , and being satisfied how things of that nature come within the compass of their Jurisdiction , tho' M. Toland in his Letter to a Member of the House of Commons there , pag. 32. declares he is a perfect stranger to any such Power claim'd by that Honourable Body , tho' in himself , he was conscious he might not say so in the Original Copy : and his Apologist is of the same opinion , tho' he more cunningly meddles with it , and brings it in as the Judgment , as he saith , of several Members of the Committee , pag. 23. Which are but Reflections insinuated against the Right of Parliaments in general , and so reaches every Parliament wheresover . But there are several Flaws in that Apology . Here I meet with some Apologist whom I know well by the Stile , tho' others of the kind make use of the same Ink ; such are in jest Apologists for Parliaments , but in earnest , against ; indeed I think that to study that common place , and to erect themselves into Apologists , consists with their own Interest ; for on their side , there is more need of Apologies than of Panegyricks . But I must speak of other things . Both Writers come upon me with a Charge indeed , I am a Sanguinary Man , a Brother to Papists , a Bonner , a Persecutor , a bloody-minded Believer , and such other words to the same purpose : I shall not say this is much Dust , but great Thunder-claps , which shall end like crackling of Thorns under the Pot. The ground of all this is my Humble Address to both Houses of Parliament , that they would be pleased to take some care of the Cause of Christ , and to put a curb upon his Enemies ; such I call those who would rob him of his Divine Nature and Attributes , and attempt to overthrow the first Article of our Faith , of One God in Three Persons . There are some Men in the World , that if one doth but look them in the Face , they are apt to cry out , Murther , whether or not at that time a guilty Conscience flies into their Faces , God knows ; That same may happen sometimes to disturb them so far , as to make them grosly mistake in their Judgment as about Things so about Persons , as they are very much in me , who in my Heart and Opinion am as much against Persecution upon account of Religion , and for a due regard to tender Consciences , as any Man in the World. When the Question is about indifferent and not very material things , then for Peace and Charity 's sake , Gentleness and Meekness ought to prevail , but it must be otherwise when Fundamentals are not only shaken but overturned ; and when Religion it self is pulled up by the very root , as 't is when humane Reason is made a standing Rule whereby to judge of Revelation , when the Doctrines of the most Holy Trinity , of the Satisfaction which the Lord Jesus hath by the Sacrifice of himself made for our Sins , with other things thereupon depending , and what Scriptures with the received Creeds of the Primitive Church do affirm about it , and what our Church believes ; I say it ought to be otherwise when all these lie at stake and are blown up at onc● : then or never 't is high time to speak out especially when we see , how boldly and openly these things are carried on : We use to say , There is a difference between mad and stark staring mad ; People distemper'd in their Minds , are dealt withal according unto the nature and degree of their Distemper ; some confin'd to their Chambers , others to their Beds , others bound and chained up : The like we observe in the Distempers of the Politick Body ; he who rashly speaks ill of the Government deserves some Punishment , but not so great as he who violently attempts to overthrow it , or to destroy the Persons in whose hands God hath lodged the Power ; so it must be in spiritual Diseases which affect the Body of the Church ; and these several ways I mean , when I speak of a true and proper Remedy , whereof the applying depends upon the Skill of the Physician ; 't is not any effect of Cruelty , to make Incisions , and cut off dead Flesh out of a Wound to prevent a Gangrene , nor to restrain People that have the Plague from coming among those that are free from it , for fear of infecting them : So 't is no Persecution to take care that Hereticks , ( such all Orthodox Christian Churches take Socinians to be ) do not come in among those that are sound in the Faith : This great Danger may in a due respect and humble way be represented to the superiour Power , whose Office is to prevent and remedy Inconveniences . This I humbly conceive to be a Branch of the Right of the Subject , and it may not be called , To prescribe them what to do ; they cannot be every where , nor know every thing , therefore stand in need of being informed : this is the usual course of Justice ; for no Redress when no Complaint is made ; and I was so far from presuming to prescribe therein , that in my Epistle , pag. 18. I declare against it . All that are no Socinians are agreed how their Tenets about the most holy Trinity are heretical , and consequently contrary to the Doctrine of the Church , as by Law established : Now the Laws of the Land do forbid any thing to be published that is contrary to it ; it is known to all , how Socinians do in Print , and otherwise , daily publish their blasphemous and heretical Opinions , whereby they break the Law , the Consequence is good to say , they deserve to be punished , as do all Law-Breakers ; and I hope they cannot pretend to come in within the Act of Indulgence ; tho they deny their Opinions to be heretical , yet that 's not enough for them to be accounted innocent ; for 't is very rare to see a guilty Man , when he is lyable to , and sure of Punishment , to confess his own Guilt , yet his bare denyal doth not free him from it ; for if to deny was enough to clear , no Man could be found guilty . Both Authors of the Letters are very angry , and much cry out against what I said about a Field of Honour , which is , in relation to the Cause , to be defended against its Enemies , and not to any capital Punishment , which had been an imprudent thing of me , and contrato my inclination , to have suggested against Hereticks ; but these Gentlemen , who often call me hot and fiery , hastily skipp'd from the Second Page of my Epistle to the Seventeenth of the same , to make the Field of Honour to be Smithfield : These two things are written too far asunder , to be joyned together , as indeed there was in my thoughts nothing like Smithfield , when I was insinuating , that as God's Work is glorious , so the occasion offer'd to promote it is as a Field of Honour , as expressed in the place , and what there I mentioned of one who for Socinianism suffered in Smithfield , was not of my own , but in consequence of a Citation out of Sir Thomas Ridley ' s View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws , where he saith , Against such is provided Sentence of Death ; and there I gave two Instances , how what he said had been executed : Let any impartial Man peruse the places , and they shall find it to be as I say , and then may take notice how rash , hasty , and unjust are these Men , who pretend to so much Calmness and Meekness of Spirit , in making Reflections upon others ▪ who , through God's Grace , have a more Christian charitable frame of Spirit than themselves : We indeed hate abominable Blasphemies and Heresies , but neither Blasphemers nor Hereticks , for some of them , God , if he pleases , may shew Mercy , and give Repentance unto ; their Conversion not their Ruin is wish'd for , and also Endeavours are used to preserve others from being infected . The true and short account of the business is this ; Things being in the state and condition as I represent in my Epistle and Preface , I looked upon it as a Duty incumbent upon me as a Christian , with what little strength God hath given me , to lay it out in the Defence of the most just and best Cause in the World , namely , the due Honour of the most holy and adorable Trinity , and the Divinity of our blessed Lord and Saviour , and of the Holy Ghost , which so many Legions of Martyrs have freely shed their Blood , and gloriously laid down their Lives for : I went not about to support it with enticing Words of Man's Wisdom , or with studied , affected , pompous Expressions , which only bad Causes stand in need of ; but as our Faith doth not stand in the Wisdom of men , but in the Power of God , so I endeavoured with good Arguments drawn out of his Word , which hitherto remain unanswered , to confute Heresie and Sophistry : One must not so much mind Words and Stile , when the Question is about Things . Those Men who mind more how they say than what they say , desire their own Glory more than the Good of others : In a Declamation one hath more Freedom of Stile than in difficult and deep Points of Divinity , Philosophy , and Mathematicks ; certain Matters are not adapted to a lofty Stile ; they that are so fond of this more than of the other , are like those who prefer the Shell before the Oyster , or the Stone before the Kernel . Now to come to that which concerns me , I say , it being no evil thing to promote a good Cause by all lawful means , for Right and Favour to countenance it , are not incompatible , not to be wanting in any thing depending upon me ; the Parliament then sitting , and I knowing how there are several honorable and worthy Members who lay to Heart the Glory of God , wherein the good of the Nation doth consist , with all due Respect in an Epistle Dedicatory I humbly commended and offered it to the serious Consideration of both Houses , in hope that this might happen to be a means , amidst their application to the great National Concerns of another nature , to draw their Eyes towards this Cause , thereby to bring a Blessing of God upon their Proceedings ; for the greater the Emergencies and Occasions are , the more need of God's Favour , which may be procured no better than with doing such things as are acceptable in his sight , as is the care of his Honour and Service . After I had done the most , and in my Book about several Points proved the Falshood of Socinianism , I thought I might shew the Necessity of a Remedy , and endeavour to set to work as many Hands as I could ; and as no Man may deny it to be the Concern of a Parliament ( for every new one doth appoint a Committee of Religion ) to look into things belonging to 't ; always necessary , but specially when the most fundamental part of the Doctrine of the Church by Law established , is daily , publickly , and in print stricken at ; so I thought I might humbly address to both Houses , as the undisputably competent Judge of such things , wherein I think I have done nothing contrary to the Laws of God and of the Land , nor to the Rules of Charity , and so deserve not the hard Names nor ill Language given me , by those who have no better Argument to defend a bad Cause , for all their pretended good nature , and to throw Dust into Peoples Eyes , only to shuffle off the matters in question . The truth is , that Society of Men are against all manner of restraint in matters of Religion , they would have every one believe and profess what seems good in his eye ; and so of the Church , which is the House of God , to make a meer Babel and Confusion without Order and Rule , which Frame will at last rend in in pieces and ruin it : In the Church there must be some Authority of the Rulers of it over the Members ; Christ hath formed and given it a Being , and left Rules for the preservation and well-being thereof , the Admiministration of which he hath committed to her Governours ; and to what purpose should those Laws be , if there was no Executive Power , there is an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction with a Coercive and Expulsive Power ; there are Pales and Walls to hinder Wild Boars and ranging Bears from coming in , and Doors to turn out those who offend , infect , dishonour , endanger and would undermine it : And Convocations , which I see they care not for , are necessary from time to time to promote her good , and to remedy or prevent Inconveniences , chiefly those which relate to Doctrine ; and tho' we attribute an Infallibility to none of them , as there is none upon Earth , yet 't is their Province for their own Members to declare about Heresie , Blasphemy , and other things contrary to sound Doctrine and Piety : To me there appears none more competent Judges in such things , than those who have Christ's Commission to feed and to rule over his Flock , and in the right administration of this Office , the Civil Powers called the Nursing Fathers of the Church , are bound to protect and assist them against the Enemies of the holy Trinity , and of the Person of Jesus Christ , such are Socinians . Tho' according to Times and Places , Men have different Notions of divine Truths ; yet a real divine Truth is such at all times and in all places ; 't is not the Opinion which Men have of it that makes it to be Truth or not Truth ▪ nor can the several contrary Interpretations change it ; so if the 39 Articles , specially those that relate to Faith , were true at first , they must be so at last , and no following Convocation can make them not to be what they are , or to be what they are not ; 't is not the stamp of any human Authority that may make a divine Institution to be divine or not ; and tho a new Convocation should repeal what in Fundamentals a former one setled , yet some reasons for it ought to be produced : About doubtful things Advice may be asked , as it was in the Dispute about Circumcision , when Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem for Counsel about it ; nothing must be omitted that may lawfully contribute towards clearing of the matter ; but when after a serious Examination by the Rule of God's Word , according to the true signification of the words in the Original , the scope of the place , and the Analogy of Faith , Articles of Faith once are declared , 't is fit to stand to them , and the Church by which they are received , is enabled to judg of what is or is not contrary thereunto , and to keep from coming in those who would against her mind , and turn out her own Members , which hold Doctrines contrary to the Truth she professeth : So the Church of England being satisfied that the Socinian Tenets are quite contrary to the 1st . and 2d . Articles of Faith she believes , hath right to turn out Socinians that are within her Pales , and hinder those who would come in from without : And if she wants a sufficient Power , she may very well sue for help from the Civil , which is the legal way for Relief ; and when this takes an effectual Course about it , 't is Wrong and Injury to the Right and Liberty of the Subject , no more than 't is Injustice to hinder one Fellow-Subject from hurting another : This is no Popish Principle , nor contrary to those of Reformation : But where a National Church is setled , to allow every Man a liberty to frame unto himself what Notions he pleases of Religion , then to promote , vent and publish it , to the Disturbance of what is already setled by Law , you thereby introduce Confusion into the Church , which may soon become Anarchy in the Government , which to prevent in my humble Address to the Parliament , I thought the Laws now in being about such things might be executed , and , if in their Wisdom they thought fit , new ones be enacted . What Papists believe or do , as to Authority , about Interpretation of Scriptures , is no Rule nor Precedent for us ; there is a sad Experience in the World of the nature of the Spirit which they are acted by , and of the Methods they have taken to support their spiritual Tyranny over the Consciences and Souls , yea , Lives of Men ; they made themselves Parties and Judges , and would admit or hear of no Reasons contrary to theirs , which were grounded not upon God's Word ( tho' in some things they pretend it ) but their own Traditions and Practice to their Church ▪ Now among us you find no such thing , the Law is open for you , if you take Scripture to be it , whereof you sadly wrest the Words , contrary to their natural Sense , without giving any good Reason for it , and you stand by your selves in defiance and opposition of the general Consent of the Universal Church , which condemned those unsound Men , when they appeared against the Person of our Saviour and Lord. And here I must say , we , no more than you , receive the Authority of Antiquity or of Fathers upon their own bottom ; for we agree they were fallible , when they said so and so ; but whether in so saying they spake truth , is well worth enquiry into ; I will compare them with Scripture , and if they agree with it , I will agree with them : And this is to me a strengthning Evidence , that I am not singular , seeing others as well as I , could in the Word of God find those Truths which I do believe : Wo be to him that is alone , abounds in his own Sense , and thinks he knows more than all the World besides ; for the application of Scripture Truths , it may be every ones Right to direct himself by his own Reason enlightned by the Spirit ; as to the Explication , a very great care ought to be had , and still according to the Rule of God's Word , with all the help he can get besides ; but when they have Opinions which they find are generally opposed , People so modest , so quiet , and of the Character they give of themselves , not to disturb others , should keep it within themselves , and not be so servent as ye are , to spread it abroad , whether your Zeal be without or against Knowledg : And if every one who pretends to be a Member of the Church be so busie as ye are to promote their Opinions , and no Curb be put upon Interpretations , then no end of Heresie , Blasphemy , or of all sorts of the worst Opinions . But before I proceed , I think fit to pull down that Strong-hold of theirs , as they take it to be , tho' rather Sandy Foundation of a free liberty for every one to make what interpretations they please : and that I shall the more willingly do , tho' as briefly as I can , because 't is a Matter controverted between them and us , which I had no occasion to meddle with in my Book . To begin , I say , as there is a Right , so there is a false Interpretation of Scripture : The Right is that which gives the true sense and meaning the False on the contrary : Now if every private Man might Interpret Scripture , what monstrous Interpretations would there be , as we see it too much in the World ; and this is the ground of Heresy , Blasphemy and Fanaticism ; which to prevent , the Lord Jesus , as St. Paul saith in those * two places , where he mentions the Offices in the Church , hath settled Prophets and Teachers : Every private Man may Read but not Interpret Scripture , which in this Case , is the first thing to be known ; For , saith the Apostle , knowing this first , that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation , so the Interpretation must come from whence the Revelation came , 't is but one and the same Spring ; therefore in the next Verse he clears the Matter , For Prophecy came not in old time , by the Will of Man ; but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ; which doth exclude as humane private Revelation , so also humane private Interpretation : And herein Paul joineth with Peter , when he puts this Question , Do all Interpret ? Which contains an Exclusive how all do not , no more than all are no workers of Miracles , Furthermore we must know how Scripture hath a binding Power not only directive but also decisive over the Conscience ; so that thereby the Conscience , far from having that free liberty , is tied and bound to the determination of the Word ; or else no Man that believes an Opinion contrary to sound Doctrine and never so heretical and blasphemous , could be guilty of Sin : But we are assured of the contrary , for they who wrest the Scriptures , do so unto their own destruction ; tho' a man must be very cautious not to go against his Conscience , yet where there is a Competition between God and Man , the Word of God and the Judgment of Man ; when each challenge of us a Consent , we must give it the Word which certainly is true and infallible , preferably before the Conscience , which may be seduced and erroneous , which happens often when 't is guided by humane Reason . In Scripture is in matters of Faith a convincing and constraining Power , which in Conscience we are bound to submit to ; in Humane things , the Judge is not properly Judge , except he Judges according to the Law ; for he hath no power to alter or corrupt , but to declare the true sense of it . The Interpretation of the Divine Law which the Question is now about , may happen to be mistaken , but the Law never , for 't is Infallible , as being the Word of the True and Infallible God ; hence is derived its Divine and Undisputable Authority , beyond that of any thing else , and it should work upon men more than Miracles , even than raising from the Dead , which may be called the greatest of all ; for , they that hear not Moses and the Prophets , will not be perswaded tho' one rose from the Dead . The reason is , because therein the Spirit of God speaks , and thereby leads us into all Truth : And indeed , if Scripture was not the end of Debates in matters of Religion , our Conscience could never be settled nor quiet ; for that same thing , no Humane Reason , Power or Judgment , is able to effect ; but we aquiesce to , rest and depend upon the Word of the God of Truth : and if at the Bar of Conscience there was no such binding Rule , but men were left to their own private Judgment , none would be bound to believe Scripture , but always live amidst Doubts , Difficulties and Conjectures , not to say , singular Notions , Fancies and Dreams ; and so we could never be at a certainty : Besides , that after this , there were no Sin in any man to receive any sense of Scripture , tho' never so contrary to the intention of God's Spirit therein ; and , as said before , never so Erroneous and Heretical , only because it is according to a man 's own private Opinion and deluded Imagination ; which is to take away the Obligation whereby Conscience and the whole Soul are bound to believe the Truth of Scripture only , and not false Interpretations . Besides , there is in Scripture some matters of Faith which are not so obvious to the Soul and to Reason , as matters of Fact are to the Eye and Ear ; as also there are others not to be Interpreted according to the plain and literal sense as they seem to be : Out of the number and variety of such afforded in the Word , I shall bring only two Instances : Can they think that this Consequence by our Saviour , God is the God of the living , and not of the dead ; therefore there shall be a resurrection of the dead , is plain and obvious to any man ; or that this is true , Paul is a robber of Churches , because he said , I robbed other Churches : Hence appeareth the danger and inconvenience of allowing of such a particular free liberty of Interpreting Scripture , seeing it can be and is so much abused . We are taught in the word , that we have received the Spirit of God , that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God , and which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; if human Reason were a sufficient Light for a Man to enable him to interpret Scriptures , then Paul's Prayer , that God would give the Ephesians the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledg of him , the eyes of their understanding being enlightned , &c. The like for the Colossians , were in vain ; for 't is frivolous to ask what one hath already , and wants not at all : this Liberty which they allow themselves every day , to search and find out new Interpretations , whereby the Minds of Men are tossed , and never to be setled , cannot consist with the true Faith revealed in the Word of God , which we are commanded to be stedfast in , and to be rooted and built up in Christ , and stablished in the Faith : and not carried about with divers and strange Doctrines : Certainly that freedom of interpreting is herein forbidden , and so are we forbidden to believe those false Glosses and Interpretations ; for saith the Apostle , Beloved , believe not every spirit , but try the spirits whether they are of God ; the reason is this , Because many false Prophets are gone out into the world , who allow themselves a freedom of interpreting Scrpiture according to their own humour and fancy , no ways allowed by the Laws of God , and should not be by the Laws of Men ; a Curb ought to be put upon such wandering profane Thoughts , at least upon the publishing of them . The Adversaries who are so fond and conceited of their human Reason , Learning , and Wisdom , might take notice how the Apostle hits them , when he calls those who give false interpretations of , and wrest Scriptures , both unstable and unlearned ; certainly those Men are unstable , who make use of a pretended Liberty , ever to give Scripture new interpretations , as suggested by their Reason ; so to day they may give one , and the next another different from and contrary to it ; and is not this Change a Fickleness and Unstableness ? These unstable Men would make those different interpretations to be a part and proof of their Learning ; but far from that ; for Peter calls them unlearned , whereby he gives a great blow to that Diana-Idol of theirs . But as I hope hereafter by the Grace of God , to have an occasion of enlarging upon this , I shall for the present forbear saying any more to it What he brings in of Bonner and Latimer , about the Interpretation of the Words , This is my Body , cannot answer his purpose ; that Instance indeed can shew how a Text may differently be interpreted , and that one may happen wrongfully to suffer for a good Cause ; and how the strongest side and most supported , is not always the best : But this cannot prove , that because one has unjustly suffered , the other may not justly suffer ; that sort of Men who are always wholly bent to provide for their safety , would infinuate how no Man should be called to account for any wresting of , or putting false interpretations upon Scripture , tho never so false , blasphemous , impious , and heretical , because he who doth so , believeth them not to be such , which is their own case : it doth not follow , that a Truth , tho made doubtful , because to day 't is supported , and to morrow shall be oppressed , must not be owned , and a Restraint put upon those who oppose it : The Merit of the Cause is impartially to be enquired into , and when Truth is found out , not only it must be exalted , but also its contrary is to be kept under : Tho Queen Mary supported a bad Cause and suppressed a good one , it doth not follow but that Queen Elizabeth did well to suppress a bad Cause and support a good one : Tho an innocent be brought to suffer , yet the guilty must not go free for all that : Because formerly innocent Blood was shed , must not Justice now be executed upon Criminals ? 'T is not the Opinion of Men but the Truth of the Thing which makes any one guilty or innocent ; the Law is judge of it : So in Matters of Religion , 't is not the Interpretation of the Text , nor the Opinion which the Interpreter hath of the Soundness of his Interpretation that makes it Orthodox and sound , but the Word which explains it self ; for what in one place is dark , is plain in some other ; and when some Men , contrary to those Lights , will set up heretical and blasphemous Opinions , and therein grow obstinate , only because they think to be in the right ; upon such account the Word of God authoriseth Men to enact such penal Laws as they shall think most conducing for the glory of God , and to have them put in execution , chiefly when the Parties against the known Laws of the Land do publish , and in defiance of all , at the Parliament Doors , offer their heretical Books with words to this purpose ; I put a most excellent Book into your hand , pray read it with attention , and when you are Converted strengthen your Brethren ; thus profanely abusing God's most holy Word . They are by no means pleased with my way of Writing , but I like it the better for their disliking it : They find fault first with the Matter , Order and Expression ; secondly , with my often using Scripture ; thirdly , with my Sallying , as they call it , into sundry Metaphors . The first of the two ironically talks of depth of Learning , height of Fancy , &c. which is proper to Fantastical Men , who would transform Fancy , yea all Religion into Reason . The other calls it , A World of School Cant , which now adays goes for deep Learning : So both , tho' in a different way , talk of depth of Learning ; that People would have others like themselves , to build upon no Foundation but Humane Reason , which is not allowable , chiefly in things of the nature of those now in question : what they call Cant , is out of Scripture , Writings of Antient Fathers , and out of Schools ; which , as I think , are the proper Store-houses whence to draw our Materials ; but with them every thing is Cant which doth not suit with their Tunes : those Men would have all Notions of things , manner of Expression and Stile , to be but one and the same ; but theirs to be the Original for others to go by ; which , especially in Men who so highly pretend to Reason , is as unreasonable , as if one would have all features in the Face , all shapes of the Body , all humours and inclinations of the Soul , to be alike ; a thing impossible : For every man , saith the Apostle , hath his proper gift of God ; one after this manner , another after that . However , these great Masters of Wit , Learning and Reason , find fault with the way of other Mens Writing , if it be not as they would have it , that they call Nonsense , and what else they please ; for their Tongues and Pens are their own , wherewith they will do what they have a mind to . Their Ironical Expressions may well be retorted upon them ; yet they should know how Truth is better when naked , and needs no painting as doth Falshood ; to Paint is the part of an Harlot , not of a vertuous Woman . I ask ▪ Is not Gold , Gold still , and good , tho' it be not Enamel'd , or otherwise curiously wrought ? If they have their way of Writing , I have mine , which they shall not put me out of , but will keep to 't till I see a Law enjoining others to Conform to theirs : I thank God my ways are different from , and would not change them for theirs , tho' they would set up for Censors and Reformers of other Mens Works , but by what Patent , I cannot hear nor see ; and if I could help it , I would have nothing Common with them , because their Plague is in the Head ; and to give them their due , in what they say there is more of flashy Wit , than of solid and sound Reason ; they prefer the Bark before the Body of the Tree , and the Cloaths before the Person who wears them . They dislike my Quotations or Fragments of Scripture , as one of the two calls them ; and good reason they have , for they are so many strong and destructive Batteries against them ; they would not see the Mouth of that Cannon which shatters their false Opinions to pieces : If to Quote Scripture be a Fault , they are not guilty of it ; they travel not much into that Country , and when they do , 't is with a Cup of Venom in their Hand , if possible to poison the Springs . Their Reason is the God-Idol , for whose sake they slight Revelation ; but , saith he , those Fragments are ill applied : I see you had more Curiosity than your Brother , ( which of the two is Simeon and which Levi , I cannot tell , however one calls himself a Lay-man ) for you read the Book ; but what 's the reason you give not one Instance of these Fragments of Scripture being ill apply'd ; surely you are apt enough to take advantage if any was offered , and I cannot believe you would have so much Charity as to spare me ; for by the sowrness and gall of bitterness which I find in the Letters , I have cause to think so , you cannot so soon have forgotten all those Portions of God's word ill apply'd ; I had been glad to have seen some named , then upon a good account I could have said something to you ; but you give me cause to think those Misapplyings to be the Man in the Moon , I mean your Humane Reason : As for me , about Matters in question , Scripture is my Stong-hold and the Arsenal whence I draw both offensive and defensive Weapons which they would have us to throw away , but they must pardon us for not complying with them ; they themselves cannot and will not do so , for therein they would find their Condemnation : We follow better Examples , those of great Captains in this Warfare , as Paul , who in this same Cause reasoned out of the Scriptures , and at another time he testified concerning Jesus Christ out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets , from morning till evening . He was not weary of it , neither must we be , let Socinians say what they will to the contrary : And tho' he was immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost , yet on all occasions he appealed to the Scriptures for a confirmation of what he said : Thus when he affirmed that Christ died for our Sins , he immediately addeth , according to Scripture ; and in the 11th . Verse he saith , that he was buried , and that he rose again , still according to the Scriptures . His Death , Burial and Resurrection , three Articles of our Faith , he proves by Scriptures , which is a Rule laid before us to prove his Divine Nature and Attributes , which we ought to follow , except we think , we about such things know more than the Apostle . And then Apollos , whose great Commendation is , that he was mighty in the Scriptures , and that he mightily convinced the Jews publickly , shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ . So if we will convince Socinians that Christ is the true Natural Son of God , we must do 't out of Scripture , as out of the same Apollos did mightily convince the Jews that Jesus was Christ : Besides , we have the Example of a number of People , I mean of Berea , said to be more Noble than those of Thessalonica , because they searched the Scriptures ▪ daily , whether those things preached to them , were so . Thus we obey our blessed Saviours Command , to Search diligently the Scriptures , for they bear testimony of him : And accordingly when he was with his Disciples , he taught them out of the Law of Moses , the Prophets and the Psalms , all things written concerning him , as after his Resurrection he put them in mind of it ; then he opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures , without which no knowledge of him to be had ; and in these Matters the Question is about him , his Person : Besides that , 't is usual as with Paul and the other Apostles , so with the Evengelists out of Texts of the Old Testament , to prove what they affirmed in the New ; nay , in the Old we sometimes find one Prophet quoting some Texts of another ; and upon this very account of Sanctifying the Lord of Hosts the Messiah , the Prophet sends the People to the Law and to the Testimony ; if they speak not according to this word , it is because there is no light in them ; without it their natural Reason is but Darkness . I am blamed for using Sundry Metaphors , called , A Flourish of wild Rhetorick ; but if it was transplanted into their Garden , it would be Natural enough there , as indeed it would be in its proper center . If sometimes I make use of Metaphors , I wonder why they dislike it ; in some respect it may be called a Creature of their own , for they are the Metaphorical Doctors of the World , who make bold to turn almost the whole Scripture into Metaphors , even to set up a Metaphorical God : O Sirs , first pull out the Beam out of your own eye , and then ye shall see clearly to cast out the Mote out of your Brother's . Anon we shall meet with some more Cavils of theirs . They appear at the Bar , whereto indeed they deserve to be called , and Plead for themselves thus : The first of the 39 Articles saith , There is but One living and true God , and in Vnity of this Godhead there be Three Persons of one Substance , Power and Eternity , the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost . As to the latter part , which is the main Question , they pretend to come off with mincing the matter , and say , by some of their late Prints , meaning Socinians , I perceive that they for Peace-sake , submit to the Phrase of the Church , and expresly own Three Persons , tho' they think the word Person not so proper as another word might be . The weight of the words of the Article lieth so heavy upon them , that under it they must either break or bend ; this last they chuse to do , and would seem to yield ; not because they believe it , but only for Peace-sake ; Peace to themselves , to avoid the Penalty : They think the word Person not so proper as another might be ; still they reserve a Back-door , why do they not name the word which is in their opinion more proper than that of Person ? that word remains in petto in their Breast , till there be a fair occasion to declare it . Their speaking of Peace is well , if with it they join Truth , for they ought not to be asunder ; no Christian is to betray Truth for Peace-sake . Now if a Person of the Godhead be described as it is by an incommunicable Subsistence of the Divine Essence , the Socinian shall not be acquitted as he pretends : It is not my work , neither is this a place to shew how frivolous that Plea would prove at the Bar of the Law ; but I am sure in my Book I sufficiently demonstrated it to be a vain Subterfuge and against the Gospel . That trimming Spirit in them , which , because they have not the upper hand , one may easily perceive to Rule throughout in both Letters , puts me in mind of the Popish Methods in such Cases , as among other Instances it appears by what passed in 1561 , in that great Assembly at Poissy in France , which the then French King Charles IX . appointed to meet , and in his Presence therein to have free Conference about Religion , between some of the Popish Clergy and some of the Protestant Ministers : Because as yet things were not ripe for their Designs , they by means of those Conferences would try whether some way might be found out to plaister things over , and for the present to compose Differences ; in order thereunto , after some discourses about the Sacraments , which between the Cardinal of Lorrain and Theodorus Beza had happened in the K. of Navarr's Chamber , where they met accidentally ; the Popish Party being not willing to venture their Cause upon Disputes , first by the Doctors of Sorbon , and lastly by the Cardinal of Tournon in the name of the whole Clergy , desired the King and Queen-Mother to give the Protestants no Hearing , who by the Mouth of Beza had already made a Speech in the Assembly , and given an account of their Confession of Faith : So then these Publick Conferences not doing the work , they did set up Private ones ; first between Two and Two , then between Five and Five ▪ of both Religions , and among these for the Protestants Peter Martyr was one ; the Point was about the Lord's Supper : On the Popish side the design was , not to find out the Truth , but only such words as each side might Interpret on his behalf : To that purpose several Formules , which here I need not to insert , were by the Papists offered the Protestants , but being ambiguous , captious , and such as might be understood in a double sense , Beza for Conclusion said , We must say all or nothing , because indeed the Mystery of that Holy Sacrament must be explained . The like was practised in their Council of Trent , where happened great Heats between the Dominicans and Franciscans about several Points , wherein they differ , but to displease neither side , their Canons about those Matters , before they were passed , they shewed to both Parties , and penn'd them in such Words and Expressions , as each side might favourably Interpret for his own Opinion . Thus Socinians would follow the same way , and admit of such words as may be taken in their Sense and ours too ; yet tho' we should agree about the Terms , they know we do not in the Signification ; they for Peace sake submit to the Phrase of the Church , and own Three Persons , yet Interpret it not as the Church doth : Again , They seem desirous to wash their hands of Socinianism , yet defend it as much as they are able : Vpon the prudent Explication which hath been given of some obnoxious Terms , they weave the Dispute and come in as Brethren , yet still believe not as the Church doth ; nay , if we will believe them , we are all of a perfect Agreement ; but if we examine it will be found , if by these pretended last Concessions of theirs we agree , 't is about some Words , when the difference about Things still remains . And as then Papists were only to have things quiet for the present , so I perceive Socinians are now content it should be so between us , to see whether Times may happen to turn for them , then indeed they would declare , by the word Person they mean not an Incommunicable Subsistence of the Godhead , but only an Attribute as Wisdom , Love ; that Christ is God and Son of God by Favour not by Nature and by eternal Generation . But all such Trimmers , to speak in Job's Words , are Physicians of no value , and such Remedies cannot cure the Wound but it will break out again , and this I call daubing with untempered Mortar , 't is not enough to ease of the Pain , but the cause must be removed , which is the only way to cure for certain , and to prevent Relapses : this I bring in to shew how Socinians are not so averse from such Popish Practices as they pretend to be ; and if we narrowly inquire into it , we shall find they are willing to join with them in the Practice of the following Maxim , where they are the weakest , they first pretend for Moderation and Toleration , then for an Equality , afterwards struggle for Superiority , and at last destroy any one that to a hairs Breadth would not come up to what they would have : for as Papists brag of a Spirit of Infallibility intailed upon their Church , so Socinians are of opinion that the Spirit of God , ( if they own any such thing ) is departed from other Christian Societies only to be among them , who look upon themselves as the only true Interpreters of God's Word , as Socinus doth applaud himself in his new fangled Expositions , therefore they despise all Antient Doctors of the Primitive Church , and I think , in Tertullian's Words against Montanus , we may say it to be the Socinians opinion , Truth waited for their Coming , without which it had been quite lost : yet according to their Principles we must all be Scepticks and Pyrhonians always doubting of every thing and never sure of any , then in the Word of God is no Truth that we can be certain of : we know no Man hath dominion over the Faith of another , nor ought to impose his Opinion upon others , neither could they who went before us be Masters of our Faith , nor we of the Faith of those who are to come after . You see I make use of your own Expressions , but withal I must tell you that if any one would in former or present times offer to force things of their own upon us to believe , we would reject it , by their own , we mean any thing different from or contrary to the Word of God , 't is not their offering to us , or of us to others , can bind the Consciences , but the things offered do , if they be the Word of God ; no human Authority doth per se and of it self tye my Conscience , but God's Word doth , therefore if any thing be proposed as an Article of Faith , we must see whether it be contained in the Word of God , which bears Record of it self , and so stands in no need of the Testimony of Man : 't is not the hand that gives Alms which can make Gold to be Gold or Silver to be Silver , nor the Lawyers quoting the Law that can make it to be Law , 't is so in it self , so is Gospel Gospel in it self , without any human help , or else you make the Gloss and Interpretation more than the Text , and as according to your Principles you may alter your Interpretation one to day and another different from it the next , what a Confusion would you leave us in , when you are so sickle and cannot agree with your own selves ? as indeed you make an Alteration in the Questions from what they were in Socinus's days . By what they say of Doctrines which according to circumstance of times may be convenient or inconvenient , I find them inclined to blame the times to excuse themselves : but the Faults which too often are committed , the Times are not to be accused of but the Malice or Weakness of Men , there being no Season so troublesome as can keep a good Judge from doing Justice , or a good Divine from giving a good Interpretation of Scripture , so Mens Faults ought to be chastised , and not the Times , which are as Men govern themselves , to be complained of ; but good and holy Laws ought to be enacted by those whom it belongs to , having the Glory of God , and the Good of the People before their Eyes : new Distempers require new Remedies , and new Laws are necessary against new Crimes , wherefore I lay hold on this new occasion , and once more make bold , to both Houses of Parliament , humbly to commend the Cause of God , and of his Son the Lord Jesus , ( according as I formerly besought them in my Epistle ) in earnest to mind it , or else with David I say , Arise O God plead thine own Cause . However , as to Faith and Practice , they give a good Character of themselves ; as to the first , they believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed , but still they reserve unto themselves to give what Interpretation they please ; but sure we are , 't is not that contained in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds : Still there is a Jesuitical Jugling , Equivocation , and Mental Reservation . Ask them which is the true sense of the Words in Jesus Christ his only Son , they will not say , 't is of his own Nature and Substance and from Eternity ; which Creed , say they , was heretofore thought a full and sufficient Summary of Faith , till some Men perverted the true and Orthodox Meaning , and brought false Glosses upon 't , contrary to the plain and natural Interpretation received by the Universal Church ; then indeed to refute unsound and Anti-scriptural Expositions and wresting of the true Sense , to explain and enlarge was found necessary : 'T is their Principle thankfully to lay hold on the Message of Redemption by Jesus Christ : This seems fair , but is very defective ; for according to them , Christ came into the World as a bare Messenger , a meer Man , to declare the Will of God unto us , which others , tho not so fully and plainly , had done before , to die only for our good , but not in our stead , nor to purchase us by the Merits of his Death : So they say the Lord Jesus is God by Favour , not by Nature , robbing him thus of his Divinity . When we seriously come to the matter , they are full of Quiblings and Cavils : As to the receiving the Message of Redemption , 't is according to them by strength of Reason and not of Faith , for no true Faith in Christ , except Men believe him to be true God as well as true Man. As to Practice , this Character they give of themselves , They fear God , walk humbly before him , hold no Correspondence with any known Sin , &c. This is well , but not enough ; for the moral Virtues of the Heathen carryed some of them as far as this : But a sound ▪ Knowledg in the Mind is required , and no sound saving Knowledg of Christ , except one knows him for such as he is , that is , God and Man , or else he is but half a Christ , an imperfect Mediatour , whole Christ is the true Object of Faith. These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God , as well as the Son of Man. I am glad to find something like the Matters in question ; in the first Letter we are told what ground they go upon concerning their Opinions ; Scripture they own to be the Rule of Faith , but unto themselves they reserve the Interpretation , which is as bad as what they condemn in Papists , to depend upon the Authority of their own Interpretation , and so can turn it which way they please ; so may every Socinian , as well as every Quaker , have their private Interpretation : but to say that Protestants for the interpretation of Scripture do rely upon their own Reason , is without warrant and doth not consist with Truth , except by Protestants they mean Socinians : if this were a fit place I could shew that they have not the same regard as we , for Scriptures , tho they assert it , for they dispute the Truth and Authority thereof : but I must come to human Reason , which in one page is twice asserted to be the onely Guide God hath given us in matters of Religion , for under that head I reduce the three he there mentioneth about Revelation : but this is not the Judgment of true Protestants ; if a Man hath no other Guide but his own Reason , 't is a blind one and very defective , 't is but one part of three and the least too ; for to the end that human Reason may be a fit Guide , it must be first subordinate to Revelation , which is the prescribed Rule and from which it ought not to recede no more than a Judge from the Law , ( as Paul told Ananias ) or else he is in danger of falling into Precipices , that 's the Light it must follow , and as the Soul is guided by Reason , so must Reason be by Revelation : neither can Reason and outward Revelation do the Work without inward Revelation , whereby Reason is supernaturally endowed , and this is Faith a Gift of God : this is the ground of our Blessed Saviour's giving his Father thanks for revealing the Mysteries of Faith and Salvation unto Babes , that is , those who as yet in his Sense were not capable of Reason , and plainly tells Peter that if he knew and confessed him to be the Son of the living God , Flesh and Blood , or his natural Reason , had not revealed it unto him , but his Father which is in Heaven ; When the Lord Jesus was upon leaving this World , he promised his Disciples a Guide , what their own Reason ? no such thing , but the Holy Ghost , the Spirit of Truth , who should teach them all things , and bring to remembrance whatsoever he had said unto them , and he was to abide with them for ever : this Spirit of God is the right Guide whom true Protestants own to lead and guide us in the way of Salvation ; and this he doth not according to human Fancies or private Inspirations , but according to the Rule of the Word , for saith our Saviour , he shall receive of mine , that is my Word , and shall shew it unto you , for he shall not speak of himself , he teaches and applies the Word , and his working is by the Apostle called the Spirit of a sound Mind , which God hath given us ; so that a sound Mind , an Orthodoxy in the Faith is an Effect of God's Gift , not of our Reason or of any thing else in us , wherefore David saith give me Vnderstanding according to thy Word . But these things Socinians have been told over and over , and in the Preface and latter end of my Book I think I said enough to satisfie unbyassed Persons , so have others too : this is the sure and infallible Guide which God hath given us , and not any human Authority different from or contrary to it ; the Pope we cannot own for he is a Party and sets up for himself , nor the antient Writers , if they deviate from the Rule , but 't is a good Argument for the things wherein they follow it : Men must not be so selfish and wilful as to despise others who may have the Spirit of God as well as themselves , and being Witnesses of those Times are able to inform us how things stood in their time , and cannot be partial for this wherein we live . The Author of the first Letter hath a touch upon the matter and that 's all : 't is about the interpretation of what S. John saith , the Word was made Flesh , I confess there is a great difference in the interpretation , we say according to the natural Signification , the Word or Son of God took upon him our human Nature ; they say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate the Word , signifies Reason rather than Word , and they infer that the Reason or Wisdom of God was communicated unto Jesus Christ ; this is a very much forced Interpretation and fetch'd afar off , for all along the Word is spoken of as a Subject , and they would make a shift to turn it into the Predicate . Now what shall we do , of these two Opinions to find out the true one ? for if every Person or Party be allowed such a Latitude as to interpret things after their own Fancy , there will be no end of false Glosses and wrong Interpretations : how doth the Goldsmith do to know true Gold or Silver from that which is false ? he brings it to the Touch-stone , so must we in this case ; between them and us is a Difference , the Party must not be the Judge , 't is not just they should be Judges in their own cause , nor we in ours : then we must agree about a Judge , such as is impartial and infallible , and none but God is such : now God doth not immediatly speak from Heaven , for he doth it in his Word , that is his Will and ought to be our Law and Rule : in matters of Faith I will believe no Man's Assertion , except out of Scripture he proves it to me , the like he may justly expect from me ; but in case of that Text of Scripture he and I give different Interpretations , what 's to be done ? we ought still to keep in the same Court , and wait for a Decision from the same Judge ; then I must prove my Interpretation by some other place of Scripture or else he must not believe me , nor I him except he doth the like : and if Men will but lay aside Prejudices , and be acted by a real and sincere desire to find out the Truth , God will not leave them , but therein afford such Helps as shall answer their Good ; for all Scripture is given by Inspiration of God , and is profitable for Doctrine , for Reproof , for Correction , for Instruction in Righteousness , that the Man of God may be perfect . Now let us come to our Point , and reduce the Rule to a Practice ; the Question is , Whether by the Word is meant a Person as we say , or a Quality as they would have it ? there is a great Difference between Persons and Things ; now to find out the Truth , this Text must be compared with others , we need not to go far , for in the first Verse of the Chapter we read thrice the same Name : in the beginning was the Word ( was , signifieth existed , had a Being , which relateth to a Person , and not to a Thing ) the same Word was with God and was God ; what ? a Quality with God and a Thing God ? doth the Evangelist begin his Gospel in so high a strain only to tell us how Reason was in the beginning , how Reason was with God , and Reason was God , or in plain Words that God was Reasonable , which is a Truth known to every one ▪ so no need to tell it , but he would acquaint the Readers with things before unknown to them ; besides doth this hold any proportion with the Nature and Excellency of the Gospel and great Tidings of Salvation ? this indeed is to exalt Reason , and because they make a God of their Reason , therefore for Name 's sake Reason must be deified : then , according to their Principle , this Reason must be an efficient Cause of all , for all things were made by him , and without him was not any thing made that was made ; to create and make things is the Property and Act of a Person , and not of a Thing , in him , as in a Person and not as in a Thing , was Life ; and the same Apostle calls him the Word of Life , that Life which was manifested , and that Eternal Life which was with the Father first , and then was manifested unto us ; as if he had said , the living God , according to an usual way of speaking in Scripture , when the Abstract is put for the Concrete , thus God is called the Lord our Righteousness ; that same Word that was God , was made Flesh , and dwelt among us , to dwell denotes a Person ; and we Beheld his Glory , not the Glory of Reason or Wisdom , but the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father , here is a Relation of a Son to a Father , and surely a Son is a Person not a Thing ; and of this same John bare witness of him , saying this was he of whom I spake , he that cometh after me is preferred before me , read on till ver . 19. all along the Word is spoken as of a Person , and in ver . 17. he declares who that Word is by a Comparison between Persons , the Law was given by Moses , but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ . This Jesus Christ he hath been speaking of all this while , and his Design is to shew that Jesus Christ is the Word so often by him mentioned , and to that effect he speaks of John's Evidence about him , if the Word be a Thing and not a Person , Christ was so , and so Moses who was a Person , and Christ after he was made Flesh is compared to him : O the Perverseness of some Mens Judgment ! who read Scripture , not to find out Truth or be guided by it , but out of it to wrest some things to support their Prejudices : Papists , to set up the Pope's Supremacy , think after much seeking to have found a Text to serve their turn , he that is spiritual judgeth all things , yet he himself is judged of no Man , with them the Pope is that Spiritual Man : the Socinians , whose Design is not to set up one , as Papists do , but to pull down and destroy the great Work of Incarnation , say , because it serves their turn , no Word or Divine Person , but only the Reason of God was made Flesh . Out of what I have said I think it plainly appears how the Scope of the Place , and the Design of the Evangelist is to speak of a Person and not of a Thing . But to prove our Interpretation , let us further search into Scriptures , Paul speaks to our purpose , for as John saith the Word that was God was made Flesh , so he declares that God was manifest in the Flesh , which he calls the great Mystery of Godliness , and the whole Verse , tho in different Branches , as preached unto the Gentiles , believed on in the World , received up into Glory , do plainly demonstrate the Lord Jesus to be that God or Person of the Godhead manifest in the Flesh : and in another Place he saith , when the Fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son , made of a Woman : that Person which in another place is called God , in this is called the Son of God , and in another God's own Son or proper Son : in these several Texts mention is made of an Incarnation , or of being made Flesh , manifest in the Flesh , made of a Woman , and God sent his own Son in the Likeness of sinful Flesh , and the Subject is called the Word , God , Son of God , God's own and proper Son : is there in all this any Metaphor , or any Ground to say that the Word made Flesh signifieth Reason communicated to Jesus ? all this proves that our Interpretation is according to the Analogy of Faith , and shews a sweet Harmony of several Texts of Scripture , to demonstrate the adorable Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son God. Thus far we proved our Interpretation of that Text of Scripture , we do not perceive they are in a Condition to do the like for theirs , for if they could we should hear of it , they have not one Text to do it : Magister dixit is no Reason with us , the Vnitarian may say , but that is not enough , what he saith he must prove , upon true Grounds and to the purpose : well , for want of Scripture the Author of the Letter gives a Reason of his own , which is this , And we all know that Divine Wisdom may be communicated to Man without the Incarnation of God : Did ever any one read such a pitiful coming off in so weighty a matter as this is ? how sawcy with God are some Men in the World , in setting out their foolish and wandering Fancies , and where is a due Respect for his Holy Word ? hath not God made foolish the Wisdom of these Men , if ever they had any ? doth this Interpretation hold any proportion with that high and noble Idea which the Evangelist would give us of the Person whose History he writes ? first of all we defy them to shew that this is the Sense of any Text concerning this Matter ? Secondly , suppose they could , yet it being against the usual Meaning , they ought to shew reason why in this place it should be taken otherwise , and then must such a silly Reason weigh down the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture ? what will become of all the glorious Attributes and Prerogative of the Lord Jesus over Angels and Men ? what of that Name which is above every Name , God's own , only begotten Son in whom he is well pleased , if all comes only to this , God's Reason and Wisdom were communicated to him , which God in a high degree did to Solomon , and to others of his eminent Servants , whereby he must make them equal with his Son and he with them : we all know that God , if he pleases , can create another World , must we conclude therefore he hath not created this ; God , if he had pleased , could have delivered his People out of Egypt otherwise than by the hand of Moses , must we say therefore he delivered them not by his hand ? Out of what God can do we must not infer that he hath not done what he hath done ; because God can communicate Reason to Man , therefore the Word the Son of God was not made Flesh : Ye great Logicians , is this a good Consequence , risum teneatis , I could almost say , if the thing in question was not of the highest importance . Before I leave this Point , I shall skip over to another place of the Letter ; for tho' he there speaks not to me , but to another , whose Notions I am not concerned for , yet what he saith relating to the Cause , I ought to take notice of , the more because ▪ it belongs to that Text of John , which hitherto we were upon ; 't is said , Tke Incarnation of God is no where expressed in Scripture , it can be no more than meerly a deduction from thence . 'T is well you are so kind , as to grant 't is in 't in some way : As to the first part , if you say in so many Letters , according to your cavilling way , we know 't ; for the word Incarnation is Latin , and so none of the Books of Scripture being originally written in that Language , we must not think to find it in 't , but we say a word altogether equivalent , and which signifies the same thing is in 't : Doth not to be made Flesh and to be incarnate , being made Flesh and Incarnation , signifie the same ? May be you will deny it , 't is but what some of yours do in a thing of the like nature , as that to make and to create the World , signifie not the same thing : If the Word , which as S. John saith , was God , was made Flesh , I think , that according to all Rules of Logick , out of those Premises we may conclude , how God was incarnate or made Flesh , and that Act we may well call Incarnation . As to the other part , that it is only by Deduction , you cannot be ignorant how there are such Deductions as are equivalent or next to the Expression ; for when the chief Assertion contained in Scripture is true , so must also be whatsoever is therein included , and in the Explication of it drawn by a true and right Consequence . Thus , tho' in the Sixth Commandment , to give one Poyson be not expressed , yet by a true and certain Consequence , 't is deduce out of these Words , Thou shalt not kill ; so starving one to death is adjudged Murther , and punished as such : Tho Incest be not expressed in the Seventh , yet none will deny it to be forbidden under these Words , Thou shalt not commit Adultery ; so is Fornication ; and so of every other Precept wherein when a Sin is forbidden , all of the same kind are so , and also the Virtue contrary to the Sin is prescribed : And tho there were some difference in the Nature of the thing , yet hence we infer this certain Truth , that tho some things be not expresly set down in Scripture , yet are therein contained , and thence deduced by a true and lawful Consequence : Of this sort are the words Trinity and Incarnation ; and if the Names , then also the Things ; for the Use of Words is to signifie Things . As to what is added in Answer to the Assertion , that the Son of God was made Man , how the Vnitarian will say , The Son of God doth not always signifie God , 't is thereby implyed that sometimes it doth , and that grants what we desire ; for thus we know , that when it is simply and absolutely attributed to Christ , which is never so to any Angel or Man , we may conclude , that then it necessarily signifies God. As to what is answered to the other Text , The Word was made Flesh ; that the Word doth not plainly signifie God , I only say this , how John saith the word was God , I leave them in his hands , and let them come off as they can : As to the Third Text , the Vnitarian will say , what he said before ; That God may be manifest in the Flesh without being incarnate ; he may say what he pleases if he proves nothing , nay , not so much as go about it ; surely they claim a Priviledge to be believed in what they say upon their bare word ; but seeing they give no reason for what they say , we may suppose those great Masters of Reason have none to give , their Reason fails them , and is succeeded by Passion ; I see they found out a short way to answer all Arguments against them ; either with not taking notice of them , and thus they answer my Book , or with denying every thing without giving any Reason for it : This puts me in mind of a common Saying when I was in the Philosophy School , Plus negabit asinus quàm probabit Philosophus . The dullest Fellow in the World can deny more , than the greatest Philosopher is able to prove ; do but always deny , and at last the Philosopher will have nothing to say : There is no arguing against those who deny Principles ; now this is a great one for Men to give Reason as for what they affirm , so for what they deny ; this is the part of Rational Men : We attack them out of Scripture , and they ought in our way to answer us out of the same , as their School-Arguments we answer in their way . But to return to what the Unitarian saith , that The Son of God doth not always signifie God , I say 't is not always necessary to our purpose it should : And to state the Question well , these two things ought to be observed : First , The Question is not at all about Angels or Men , but about the Person of the Lord Jesus : The Second , The Name God is not improperly taken . This being premised , I say , how the words Son of God when spoken of Christ , do signifie God ; which to prove out of many Texts , I shall bring only two in S. John's Gospel , and if in the whole Bible there was but one , yet it would be sufficient , for every word therein is Truth ; and if once the Holy Ghost therein declares the Son of God to signifie God , 't is not in the power of Men or Devils to make it otherwise : Besides that , the two Texts are so plain , that there is no ground left to Cavil : The first place is about the Interpretation given some words spoken by our blessed Lord , whereby , said the Jews , thou makest thy self God , which our Saviour rendered by these , I said I am the Son of God. So that the words God , Son of God , signifie just the same : The Question between our Lord and the Jews , was not about the meaning of what he had said , they were agreed about it ; but the Dispute was , whether those words were Blasphemy ? which they affirmed , and he denied . Those words in question spoken by our Saviour are in ver . 30. I and my Father are One , which because they are most material to the Question , I shall thereupon observe this , How therein Christ expresses Two Persons , Himself and the Father ; the word I he explains by the name Son , I said I am the Son of God ; and as by the first words of the Verse , he makes a distinction of Persons , so by the last he affirms a Oneness between Him and the Father , when he saith they are One. This Oneness cannot be of a Personality , which already he hath distinguished ; what else then can it be but in Nature , and consequently in the Attributes thereunto belonging . With this Text is to be compared the other , I am in the Father , and the Father in me . It is very idle and frivolous for them to think they are One only in Will and Consent ; for if our Saviour's meaning had been only so and no farther , the Jews would never have branded it with Blasphemy , nor offered to have stoned him for it ; they well knew , how by their Law no Man could be guilty of Blasphemy for saying his Will and Consent was one with God's , for they were commanded to conform their Will and Mind to the Will of God , that thereby might be a perfect agreement between their God and them , between his Law and their Obedience : Therefore to make this in their opinion to be Blasphemy , there must be something of another nature , which they declare plainly enough , because that thou being a Man , makest thy self God. So the Question came to this , Whether the Lord Jesus was God ? Which the Jews denied , as now Socinians do ; but our Lord affirmed , as after him we do ; whence we conclude he is , because he said so ; which if he were not , he had asserted a Lye , spoken Blasphemy , and the Jews had been in the Right ; but seeing he said he was the Son of God , he spoke the Truth , which Socinians denying , they bring the Lye and Blasphemy upon themselves , and as good as say , as the Jews did to Pilate , He ought to die because he made himself the Son of God , John 19 7. The other Text to prove how the Name Son of God when spoken of Christ , signifies God , is this ; Lazarus's Sickness was for the glory of God , that the Son of God might be glorified thereby : We may see how the word God is explained by that of Son of God : So that whether the name God be taken Essentially or Personally , still the Person of the Son is God , for therein is but One Glory of God and of the Son of God , the Father is glorified in the Son ; if they have one equal and common Glory , then they have a common and equal Nature ; for we know the true and eternal Almighty God hath said , My Glory will I not give to another . In my Book I at large have asserted this Divine Filiation of the Lord Jesus , with the manner of it , and thereunto expected an Answer , if they had been willing and able to give it . That Divine and Proper Sonship and his Godhead , John in several places of his Gospel and Epistles , both as his own belief and in the very words of our blessed Lord , in those Comparisons which he so often makes between himself and the Father , lays it so clear , that for an unprejudiced mind there is no ground left to doubt of it ; the Pronoun possessive My in the Singular number , joined with Father , which so frequently he makes use of , doth denote the Singular Nature of his Sonship , and distinguish it from every other Kind : I shall mention only what , when he was but Twelve Years old , upon the occasion of his being found in the Temple asking the Doctors of the Law Questions , and Mary having said , Son , why hast thou thus dealt with us ? He answered , Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? The meaning of which they understood not , as the Evangelist observes , he thereby signified another kind of Filiation that what had any relation to Mary : As according to the Flesh he was her true and proper Son , because begotten of her own Substance , so in relation to the Spirit and Deity , he is God's own and proper Son , because begotten of the Substance of the Father : If there be any such , ( as certainly there is , and in the Chapter about his Eternal Generation I sufficiently proved it ) then ye Socinians cannot deny the Lord Jesus to be He ; and if he be not the proper Son of the Father , as the Apostle affirms he is , then God the Father is not properly a Father ; for the works of Grace do not properly make one a Father , but it must be the work of Nature , of Humane in Men of Divine in God ; Humane Nature may receive some Divine Gifts , but only thus much as it is capable of , within certain bounds and degrees , or else it were to make Humanity to be Deity : But Christ hath not the Spirit by Measure , or by Grace , but by Nature and Infinitely in him , which no Finite being , such is every Creature , is capable of ; the reason is , because in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily . Thus he must necessarily be God primarily , and not derivatively , or in part only ; for Divine Nature is indivisible , either wholly God , with all Attributes of the Godhead , or no God at all : No Creature , Man. Angel , or Arch-Angel , can have all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him , because none of them is the Infinite God : But since all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in the Person of Christ , he must needs ▪ be God Infinite ; for all this fulness of the Godhead is a fulness of Nature , of the Essential Attributes of that same Nature , of Immensity , Power , Eternity , and of any thing else proper to that Nature : If in the whole Word of God there was no other Text but this to prove the Godhead of our Saviour , it were sufficient to do 't , it being so positive , so full , and so plain : All is an Absolute word , to be taken without any restriction or limitation whatsoever : All Fulness , What more can be said ? Of the Godhead , What more Divine and Expressive ? But what upon the matter remains in the same place is this , Whether a God , and a God , and a God , do not amount to more than One God ? To take the thing as I ought , and not as some others do , I say that your Arithmetick in this doth fail and deceive you ; wherefore believe Revelation before your Reason , which indeed may tell you how in humane and finite things One , One and One make Three ; but Revelation , which contradicteth not it self , calls the Father God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God ; the same also saith there is but One God : A Divine Nature common to Three Persons , doth imply Three Persons , but no more than One God , which is One Divine Nature subsisting in Three Persons and Three Persons existing in One Nature : Must I with Scripture conclude , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are but One God , or with your Arithmetick and Reason , that they are Three Gods ; make but your Reason first agree with Revelation , and then you and I shall agree ; so that the Dispute is more between your Reason and Scripture than between you and me : But surely with me Gods Word is of greater Authority than your Reason ; ye must not suffer your Reason , that Ignis fatuus , to wander from the Rule : Do you know what Solomon saith , He that trusteth in his own heart is a Fool ; if you know it not , I tell you and your Partner , he speaks to you when he saith , Cease from thine own Wisdom , or Reason . Now having done with this , I must go back where I left , and there shall find things of another nature , you call Enemies to the common Rights and Liberties of Humane Nature . Those who permit not every one a free liberty to make Interpretations and Inferences for themselves from Scriptures , and this you ground on a false Supposition , that Both the Word of God and the best means of understanding it , are Originally and Vncontroulably given to every Man : For Scripture and Experience convince us , that every Man hath not the Word not Means to understand it , and therefore 't is neither Originally nor Uncontroulably given to every Man ; this is a truth which elsewhere I made good , and shall , by Gods grace , be ready again to do upon occasion : But besides that it would require some time , this is no place to do 't , and I ever avoid going from the Question : However , this I say , that ye go upon a Principle destructive to Order , if every one must be allowed to believe and profess what he pleases , tho' never so Heretical , and to the disturbance of a Settlement made by a Lawful Authority , and to promote it in Discourse , Conversation , Printing , Publishing , and such other ways as ye Gentlemen Socinians are forward to do , what security for the Articles of our Religion as by Law established : We must be governed by an uncertain Tide ; this Year of one Mind and Religion , the next , as occasion is offered , of another ; and those who now are the undermost in Power , and so much plead for a freedom of Opinions and Religion in the greatest latitude , if once they had the upper-hand , they would alter their Tune , and turn Blasphemy and Idolatry upon the Orthodox for setting up a meer Man for a God , and worshipping him : As long as they want Power they are for Moderation , but ye are ruled by a Spirit which might soon happen to make you turn Moderation into Persecution , as all Enemies to Christ are apt to do . Socinians were not twice banished out of Poland , where they were grown strong , and turned out of other places for nothing ; 't is but prudence to tie your Hands and bind you to your good Behaviour ; if ye are so busie when not supported by the Magistrates , what would ye be if once you had gotten the Power in your own hand ; unruly Horses must have Curbs put upon them : Will not a general Toleration , and for every Man in the Land about Religion , introduce Confusion ? That must not be , if it were only for Order sake ; for as the greatest part of the World is the worst of it , so Idolatry , Blasphemy , and all manner of Heresy , must be look'd for at one time or other ; and are ye not of opinion , that Confusion in Church might pass into the State , for ye would not be bound with any thing : No doubt ye would be very angry if the Parliament would either revive old or enact new Penal Laws against you : How far you would give the Magistrate leave to meddle in Matters of Religion we cannot well tell , tho' by thet Title of the Book you commend to our reading about the Power of the Magistrate and the Rights of Mankind in Matters of Religion , which I being in the Country cannot see for the present , yet we must suppose it to favour your Principles , or else you would not commend it as you do . And as you would not have the Magistrates to meddle far in Matters of Religion , nor to punish Hereticks , which was one of Donatus his Errors ; so by what you say , you have no very good opinion of a Convocation , which yet we look upon to be the most competent Judge we have about those Matters : We agree with you how the Convocation which made the Articles , Service-Book and Homilies , was an Assembly of Doctors and Clergy-men that were Fallible ; but for all that Fallibility , many of them were Men of great Piety and Parts ; and as no Infallibility is to be found in this World , next to that , I think the Nation was happy at that time to have Persons so well qualified for the Work : And ye are much mistaken , to say they enacted their Opinions into Articles , for the Articles of our Faith are not Mans Opinions , they extracted them out of the Word of God , which supplied them with the Materials , only they disposed it into the best Order they thought fit , as God enabled them : After this rate you attempt to give our Religion a fatal blow ; you would have us to pin our Faith on Mens Sleeves and Opinions , so they might lawfully be repealed this Year , the next , or at any time : Thus if Popery under King James had prevailed , we had quite been at a loss , our Articles had been declared Heretical , ( tho' if we measure them according to the Rule of God's Word , they are as sound as any can be ) and our Religion in some sense had been lost , and we put to seek for and set up another : But , I say , that tho' the whole Popish , false Christian and Mahometan World , should condemn them , yet still they would be True and Orthodox , not because they were formed by a Convocation , but because they are collected out of God's Word the Rule of Truth : Suppose Socinians here had the upper hand , which I hope I shall never live to see , then they would get a Convocation of their own to wrest and turn our Articles into their Channel , and for all their plea for a private Interpretation , they would set up a publick one of their own , and like another Council of Arimini , which revoked what that of Nice had done before against Arians , have an Assembly to Condemn , or at least to give our said Articles their Socinian Interpretation . As to what you say , that a future Clergy may repeal and declare against the present Articles ; I answer , God forbid that ever he should be so angry against the Nation as to suffer such a thing to be brought upon the Stage , but in case it was , I say , it might happen that such a Convocation could repeal , that is , have a Power , but it might not , that is , should have no right to do 't ; I can , but may not kill a Man. I shall not trouble my self with discovering the Rottenness of your Principles about these things , for that you do your selves , when you say that People may alter their minds , and so their Religion ; so one to day a Socinian , may , if he thinks fit , to morrow be a true Christian , and you give this for a reason , A Man cannot foresee what will come to pass , and so a Doctrine which at one time may be convenient , may be otherwise when Circumstances of Time shall alter : So now , when Socinians are undisturbed , it is convenient for them to be what they are ; but if the Circumstances of Time should alter , then for Conveniency sake they might alter too , to avoid Fire and Faggot , if they were in danger of it : This Policy never enter'd into the Heart of Martyrs ; but after this Principle , yours is a time-serving and unstable Religion , one may alter from the worse to the better ; 't is well and good , and happy ye , If God peradventure will give you repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth of Christ , and not holding it in Unrighteousness . This Principle of yours for Fickleness and Changeableness in Religion , you would demonstrate , and may be justifie , out of what you say , All the Subscription of the Clergy to the Predestinarian-Doctrine contained in the Articles and Homilies , hath not preserved them from contrary Sentiments , such as , when Van Harman first broached them , were universally judged to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England . I like , in a thing that cannot be denyed , to see you own the Truth , how Arminianism is contrary to the Articles , Homilies , and Doctrine of the Church of England . Thus , Habemus fatentem reum ; why then , ye , who pretend to be Members of the Church , do you profess Doctrines contrary to hers , and all along declare for them ? I see you will not stop there , but infer , that as the Clergy of the Church , contrary to their Subscriptions , are departed from the Doctrine . I call it the true , about Predestination to fall into Arminianism , so they may embrace Socinianism , as you say , the majority now doth , and so successively and by degrees pass into any other Heresie ; for which you give this reason , Men cannot help the altering of their Minds : This truly and properly is the Religion of Libertinism , and Atheism is the next step : So Men may plainly see what a kind of Religion you are striving for , and would bring us into . To what hath been said about Convocations , this I shall add , that though ye seem to slight a Convocation , yet let me tell you , either in Quality or Number 't is no despicable Body , it being the Representative of a considerable part of the Nation ; and 't is hoped from the Piety and Wisdom of the Parliament , that in Matters of Religion , upon occasion they will not despise their Advice and Address . In the Disputes about Socinians and us , we are agreed to be judged by the Word of God ; yet they dislike our making use of it against them , too much as they think ; but this Gentleman , who in the beginning of his Letter complains of my numerous Quotations of Scripture Phrases , as he calls it , hath taken effectual care to avoid giving me cause to complain of the like against him ; for in the whole Letter there is but one Quotation , just at the latter end of it , and 't is usher'd in with this Christian Preamble , ' The ill-natur'd turn of your Title-Page , and the malicious and persecuting design of your Preface , convinced me , that ( if we may believe our Saviour Christ ) you know neither the Father nor the Son ; this is what we call To beat a Man with his own Weapons , his own he hitherto used to little purpose , at last he resolv'd to try whether the same I made use of against him , would do his Work ; but he is so unskilful in handling of it , that 't will not serve his end , but is against rather than for him : He saith to me , If we may believe our Saviour Christ , the if may well be turned against you ; out of another Mans Pen it were not questionable , as 't is out of yours ; I wish you would believe him as we do , when he absolutely , and without any limitation , doth call himself the Son of God ; as some times they wrest his Words , so here they would make him say , that I know neither the Father nor his Son , whereupon he quoteth this Text , They shall put you out of the Synagogues , yea , the time cometh , that whosoever killeth you , shall think that he doth God service : and these things will they do unto you , because they have not known the father nor me . But how well applyed let us see , not at all to his purpose ; for there the Lord Jesus foretold his Disciples , that for his sake , and upon his account , Persecutions should befall them ; I ask whether in earnest he looks upon himself and other Socinians to be Disciples of Christ ? May be such as Judas was , who betrayed his Person as they do his Truth ; but true Disciples , that cannot be ; for suppose that Sect were brought under the Rod , it would not be for his Cause : His Apostles , as we read in several places of the Book of the Acts , suffered Persecution for owning Christ to be the true Son of God , the holy one , the Prince of Life , and not for affirming him to be a meer Man , who had no Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary , and denying him to be true Eternal God of the same Nature with the Father ; certainly if God should bring you to Punishment , ye could not have the face to say it is for the same Cause as his Disciples suffered , they suffered for giving him his due , and ye for robbing him of it . Therefore to retort your own Argument upon you , I say , ye know neither the Father nor the Son ; for , the Father ye cannot know but in and by the Son : The Son ye do not know , for ye will not own him to be what he is , namely , true eternal God , blessed for ever ; thus out of our Saviour's own Words I conclude against you , as in this same Cause and upon the same account he did against the Jews , who looked on him as a meer Man , and would by no means own him truly to be God , Son of God , Ye neither know me nor my Father , if ye had known me , ye should have known my Father also : Wherefore since ye know me not , ye know not my Father neither . This weight I farther lay upon you , how as ye know not , so ye have not the Father ; for ye deny the Son to be what he is indeed , of the same Nature with the Father ; and the Apostle saith , Whosoever denyeth the Son , the same hath not the Father ; to deny the Son is not only to deny him to be , but also to deny him to be what he is . And now , since I am upon this , your Words , If we may believe our Saviour Christ , are a Motive for me to go on , and to call things by their Name , to say , ye are a sort of Infidels ; for ye will not believe God , tho' he speaks from Heaven , not only once but twice and thrice , in our Lord's Baptism , in his Transfiguration , and at another time , when the Voice came from Heaven , God the Father from Heaven proclaimed him to be his beloved Son , in whom he is well pleased , with a Command to hear him , Hear ye him ; yet ye will not believe the Father , nor hear the Son , who appeals to that Testimony of the Father , nor when he calls himself God's Son , onely begotten , who is One with the Father , in Power equal with him , For what things soever the Father doth , these also doth the Son likewise ; that the Father sent him out of his Bosom , that he came down from Heaven , he proceeded and came down from God , and so many more things to that purpose : But now he speaks to you as once he did to the Jews , Why do ye not understand my speech , even because ye cannot hear my word : yet him ye will not hear ; but mark what will become of it ; And it shall come to pass , that every soul which will not hear that Prophet in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you , shall be destroyed among the People : Ye would rob him of that Glory and Honour which he received from God the Father , which not only is recorded by the Evangelist , but confirmed by an Apostle with all the necessary Circumstances , what , where , and when ; We were eye-witnesses of his majesty ; for he received from God the Father honour and glory , when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory ; This is my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased ; which he affirms not by hear-say , but as ear-witness ; for he addeth , And this voice which came from heaven , we heard , when we were with him in the holy mount : But ye will hear neither Christ nor his Apostles , tho they speak loud and plainly enough ; whence we may well conclude you to be none of his Sheep , whereof the great Shepherd himself gives this to be the proper Character , that they hear and know his voice only , and not the voice of strangers , and they follow him when he leads them out ; but ye follow him not , only the Devices and Inventions of your own Heart . Thus to return to you , who falsly would bring in your selves as Disciples of the Lord Jesus ; we know , that as there is a Church of Christ , so there is a Synagogue of Satan , and that the Devil hath his Martyrs as well as the Lord Jesus ; some have been so far hardened , as to dye for denying there is a God ; therefore 't is neither the Manner , nor the Place , but the Cause of Death which makes the Martyr ; 't is neither Smithfield in London , nor Campo di Fiori in Rome ; for as the most honest Men , so the greatest Villains may happen to be executed in both ; neither must we believe those who falsly would call themselves Disciples of Christ , and insinuate as if they suffer'd for his Cause , when 't is for their Heresies and Blasphemies : I remember the Apostles words , how false Apostles , deceitful Workers would transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ : and no marvel , for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light. Do not pretend to say , ye are for Christ , when ye are against him . As to your mis-applying of the Text to me , let me advise you to be more conversant with Scripture , and therein you may learn how , at another time , more fitly to adapt your Comparisons , and better to apply Texts , and not as you would so ingeniously screw out of that , how you think me an unfit Writer in behalf of the Trinity ( which you believe not ) and therefore did not so much as read over my Book ; and I to answer ad hominem by a rational and natural Consequence , out of your own Words , that you have not so much as read over my Book of the Trinity , do conclude you to be a rash , giddy , and unfit Judge , whether or not I am an unfit Writer in behalf of the Trinity . Thus go you off the Stage like a Snuff . I answer you in your way , because you answer me not in mine . AN ANSWER TO THE Second Letter . HAVING done with one Antagonist , I must now turn to the other : Between them both they shar'd the Task , to try which of the two could most wrest and mis-represent things , and give a Man ill Language . wherein it must be owned , this last yields it not to the first ( for they writ after the same manner ) and whose steps about my Epistle he follows in his first Page , and part of the next , wherein he would seem to soar high in his politick Enthusiasms , and then falls down right into a Nonsense , which he would father upon me ; certainly a Man hath little to say or do , that stumbles at the Threshold , and falls a gathering Straws , when there are solid and good things to mind ; and instead of examining high Matters of Divinity offered , he to put off the Blow , and for Diversion sake , turns to be a Grammarian , and pittifully falls upon cavilling at Words : This , like the Dog in the Fable , is to snap at the Shadow and leave the Body : My words are these , To time things well , is one of the best parts of Prudence : To say it is the part of a prudent Man to act in due time and Season , is there any thing contrary to Sense and Reason ? By the word Part is not meant any such thing as we call Essential part , as the Soul is to Man , or what we call Integrant part , such are an Arm or a Leg to the Body , but 't is an usual way of speaking to say , 'T is the part of a Wise Man not to be Hasty , 't is the part of a Christian to Forgive , to signifie how 't is proper for , and belongs to a Wise Man not to be Rash , and to a Christian to Forgive : I add , and one of the most Essential Circumstances of our Actions , the meaning is plain , how Timing things well , is one of the chief and most necessary Circumstances of our Actions . This is no just cause for any Man thereupon to entertain such idle and extravagant Fancies as we see him to do : Without being a great Philosopher , one may know there are several Circumstances belonging to every Action : An ordinary Rhetorician can tell the Rule — quis , quid , ubi ▪ quibus auxiliis , cur , quomodo , quando . I take Agent , Time and Place , to be three Concomitants of any Action , and without the three no Action , so then the prudential part of an Agent in the Act , and to make it succeed , is to chuse a fit and proper Time ; to apply a Remedy , take Physick or be let Blood ; if done in due time , is to observe one of the chief and necessary Circumstances If the word Essential joyned to Circumstance doth disquiet you , then by the word most Essential is improperly understood the Circumstance most necessary to be observed ; we use to say a thing most Essential , or most Necessary , most to the purpose , most Important and most Material , to signifie the same thing or near upon 't ; I take the Essence , whether Physically or Metaphysically , to be the same with the Nature of the thing : And do you not think that Circumstances have their Nature , and that there is the Nature of an Accident as of a Substance ? and that to the end one may Act well , there is that which is Necessary and most Necessary . God forbid , when we speak of Gods Nature , or even of matters of Philosophy , we should make no difference between Essence and Circumstance ; but in Discourse 't is usual , as you know too well , to make use of such improper and figurative Expressions . Doth not our Grammar tell us , that Nouns Adjectives are compared , and that there are three degrees of Comparison , have ye so far forgotten it ? Thus the word Essential is an Adjective , whereof the Superlative we call most Essential , and we may say Essential , more and most Essential : Surely ye judicious and acute Sophisters , if ever you learned Logick , were taught , that there is a Predicament called Proprium , and that there is a Proprium not only primô , but also quartô modô ; Quod convenit soli , semper , & omni , which in Grammar words we may call most proper in the Superlative degree : And ye Gentlemen , for so I must call you , ( tho' I would have call'd you by your Names if ye had subscrib'd your Letters ) ye Gentlemen Socinians , who are so much for Tropes and Figures , might know how 't is usual by an Hyperbole to represent things with exaggeration as whiter than Snow , blacker than Pitch ; and if such manners of speaking with exaggeration be admitted in a common Discourse , much more may this improper one now in question : So sometimes a thing which we like well , we call best of all ; thus if instead of saying Essential I said most Essential , I did use the Superlative degree instead of the Positive : But these are but Quibbles of your own , which argues , that seeing you stick at such things , you have little else to say for your selves ; ye leave things for Words , and like drowning Men , lay hold upon any thing that lieth in your way to save a sinking Cause , when no serious Man but would think it below himself to stay upon such things ; all your Observations and Inferences are an effect of a distemper'd Imagination , and not of a sound Reason , whereby you deserve the name of the Ridiculer ridiculed : As well as you , we know Essence to be one thing and Circumstance another ; but that were tolerable , if ye did not as ye do , jest with Holy things . But I think to know where the Sore lieth ; ye do not like the words Essential nor Essence , derivative nor primitive ; and tho' in the Schools of Divinity and Philosophy they be used , yet ye dislike them , because in so many Letters not to be found in Scripture ; but here you might see I use it not in a Religious but Civil account . I own I am at a loss to find a way how to please such nice Spirits as ye are ; for of one side ye would not have us to use the words Essence , Trinity , Person , because you say they are not in the word of God , yet ye both find fault with me for making use of Scripture so much as I do against you in my Book : So ye Gentlemen , prodigies of Learning , may now see , ( which if you do not others do ) how ye sin against very common Rules ; what then will become of the four things you learned , after you put your Wits to the rack to make others pass for Nonsensical Scriblers , who hardly can write three words of good Sense ? Thus if your witty Premises do fall , how can your learned Inferences stand ? These miserable Shifts , which every solid Man would scorn to trouble his head with , do tend only to shew how in you is an earnest desire , but want of power to make others who differ from you , to pass for Silly and Ridiculous : so take to your selves what you had prepared for others : But what 's all this to the Cause , but a putting it off and running away from it ? Having shewed how , when I penned my Epistle , I thank God , I was in my right Senses , the next thing I must do , is to prove my Charge against Socinianism , which he calls false and disagreeing , yet I make no doubt but it will stick . First , I call it Blasphemous , and I shall prove it out of better Authority than that of the Polonian Knight or Bidle's , or what the Reasons to the contrary of the Authors of both Letters , can come to . In order to 't , I say , there is a twofold Blasphemy , one Positive , when Men call or otherwise make God a Liar , and to deny himself , or the like ; and the other Negative , when Men deny him to be Infinite , Almighty , or Eternal ; the first when God is made to be what he is not , the second when he is deny'd to be what he is : That Blasphemy is an abominable Injury , directly against God's Nature , Attributes or Works , is so plainly and frequently set down in Scripture , that I think unnecessary for me to prove it ; and if the same offence committed against God's Nature , Attributes and Works , be called Blasphemy , and that committed against the Lord Jesus's Person be called Blasphemy ; it follows first , that Jesus Christ is true God ; then secondly , that whosoever denies Christ to be God in his Nature , Attributes and Works , he is a Blasphemer : Now Socinianism denieth our Saviour , Divine Nature , and Essential Attributes of that Nature ; therefore Socinianism is a Blasphemous Opinion and Doctrine , as much for denying Christ to be true God by Nature , as by denying Divine Nature , Almightiness and Eternity . Now that the Sin called Blasphemy is sometimes committed against the Lord Jesus , we learn it out of his own mouth upon the occasion of the Pharisees saying he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils , this he called Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost the chiefest of all : And when he was in the hands of the Jews , the things by them done and spoken against him , were by the Evangelist called Blasphemy , and many other things spake they blasphemously against him . Thus when the Jews spake against the things that were spoken by Paul , and what were those things ? That Christ was the Son of God ; which to prove , he made use of the words of Psalm 2. Thou art my Son , &c. in the proper Sense ; their speaking against this is call'd Contradicting and Blaspheming ; upon the same account in another place 't is said , they opposed and blasphemed . Thus Paul saith of himself , he was before his Conversion a Blasphemer , and compelled others to blaspheme , that is to deny and speak ill of Christ ; so to say that Christ is not God of the same Nature and Power equal with the Father , is as great a Blaspemy , as to say he was or is a Sinner , which any one that hath a religious Honour and Love for him , and hopeth for Mercy at his hands when at the last day he shall appear in his Glory , cannot , and as much as in him lieth , must not endure . The next Charge against Socinianism is Atheism and Deism ; he doth couple them thinking to shew a Contradiction , but there is none : I say to worship the true God not in a true manner is Idolatry , as well as to worship a false God : Jeroboam for worshipping the true God in an undue manner , is branded with Idolatry , and provoked God as much as Ahab for worshipping Baal , or a false God , or else with Papists we must take away the Second Commandment : In like manner , I say , not to know the true God in a true manner is Atheism , as well as not to know him at all ; and the true way to know God , is to know him in Christ , without whom no true knowledge of God ; to that purpose the Apostle saith unto the Ephesians , that at that time when they were without Christ , they also were without God in the world : That is , they were Atheists ; and is it truly to know God in Christ , only to know him there in a Creature ? ( seeing the very Heathens can tell us , Praesentemque refert quae libet herba Deum ) and not rather as in him in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily . These fragments of Scripture please not Socinians , for they not knowing God in Christ , as his Eternal and Natural Father , are thereby branded with Atheism . As for Deism , I take it in the Sense wherein it is taken now adays , for a Deist is he who prefers Humane Reason before Faith and Revelation ; so you own my Charge is not a perfect Nonsense , tho' in some degree you would have it still to be a Nonsense ; for you are pleased thus magisterially to decide , Now I confess this sort of Charge is not so perfect a Nonsense as the other ; however I still lay under the Lash , for it is a silly Calumny , as you say , yet 't is no Calumny but a Truth , and that no silly one : ( I shall anon take notice of your Stile . ) Deism is not only an absolute denial of all Revelation , but also 't is a giving the preference to Humane Reason before Revelation ; which is done when you set up your own Reason to be a Judge of Revelation ; and here I hold you fast , for else you would give the Slip. Tho' you have not the face to deny Christian Religion to be of Divine Institution , yet your own Reason , which your Brother calls the only Guide which God hath given us to Judge and Interpret that Revelation , you exalt above it ; Is not this to set up a Tribunal over and above the Word of an Infallible God , and to make your poor silly Humane Reason the Oracle or Revealer of the true Sense of that Revelation ? So I leave you to refute this Charge of Deism as well as you can , the Racovian Catechism shall afford you no help , except you mince it as you use to do other things , which by and by I shall , by the Grace of God , take notice of . A Deist we call him who makes a God of his own reason , as you do , that is , sets up a false God ; now between such a one and an Atheist there is not the direct opposition which you imagine , for in these Times Deist is taken in an ill Sense , and in a way of Reproach ; but to believe a God is no Reproach , and ought to be taken in a favourable Sense ; so 't is the use of the words that shews their signification : Besides , as there are two sorts of Atheists , the one in Theory the other in Practice ; for as there is a Fool , whom David speaks of , who saith in his heart there is no God , so there is a Fool that saith so in his Actions , and lives as if there was no God : The like we say of Deists , some are Speculative , such as believe as you do , their own Reason to be the only guide in Matters of Religion ; others are Practical Deists , who accordingly own no other Sense of Scripture , but what is their own Interpretation . And others through-paced , I may add , who are both Practical and Theorical Deists , and I make no doubt but that ye know well where they live , tho' you question much whether we have any of these Socinians in England . Profaneness and Immorality follow next : Profaneness I call a handling of Holy things without a due Respect , which in a high degree is the guilt of Socinians , as in several places of my Book I made it plainly appear ; how bold and sawcy are they with God's Word ? How contrary to the analogy of Faith , the design of the Spirit of God , and the natural , usual and proper signification of the Words , do they wrest Scripture to make it serve their own turn ? They irreverently use it as a Stalking-Horse to answer their ends , and by forcing unusual and far-off-fetch'd Interpretations , as much as in them lieth , would make it contradict it self : This , and prefering Humane before Spiritual and Heavenly things , like Esau , whom Scripture calleth a profane person , for selling his birth-right for a morsel of meat , I brand with the name of Profaneness ; and shall not I call so the Preference which you give your Humane Reason above Divine Revelation , when you make it to be the Judge of it ? In some places of your Letters , your own Example is a proof of Profaneness attending on Socinianism , let the particular of your Jesting at the Name of Christ's mystical Body to signifie the Church , serve for all ; you cannot be , but wilfully ignorant , how in several places of Scripture an express mention is made of the Body of Christ , whereof we are said to be the Members , and Christ is called the Head of the Church , and the Saviour of the Body . This cannot be spoken of his Natural Body which now is in Heaven , so it must be of another Body of his , and that 's our being in him by Faith , and he in us by his Spirit , which Scripture calls a Mystery , so in Scripture Phrase we may call that a Mystical Body without giving profane Men cause to Jest at it as you do . God's Name , saith David , is Holy and Reverend , but ye make bold to profane it . As for Immorality it consists both in Words and Actions , Carriage and Conversation ; so that tho' one was not an Immoralist either in every Kind or in every Degree , if it be but in one , 't is enough to denounce him an Immoralist : As for Me , who neither have nor desire to have any Society with the professed Enemies or false Friends of Christ , I do not meddle with their Actions , for 't is not my business , but leave every one to God ; besides that , I ever avoid , as much as I can making or medling with Persons , only with Things : But , I say , that Profaneness is usually attended with Immorality , for commonly Sins go by couples , and he who is so profane as to Jest with God and his Word , is soon drawn to that jesting , foolish talking and filthiness , which the Apostle joineth together : And you may know how Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch , one of your first and great Ringleaders , kept young Wenches , and allowed his Clergy to do the like . Tho' the Persecuting Accuser , as I am call'd , have not the Wit of Machiavel nor of his Villains , yet he hath Truth on his side , which is better : And the Negative Argument , how neither the Racovian Catechism nor Socinian Author hath written so , cannot put off the Blow ; indeed Men must wholly have forfeited common Sense and Reason , who in their Writings and in the face of the Sun , will set up for Champions of Profaneness , Immorality , Atheism , Impiety , Blasphemy , or Idolatry . But what they do not plainly express , is often drawn by good and lawful Consequence ; in any of your Books you do not say ye are Profane , but out of what you say in your Two Letters , how that , as to your selves , you are the Judges of Scripture , and that your Reason is your only Guide in giving such Interpretation as ye think fit , is not this to make bold with Holy things ? Tho' I had no other Evidence ( which yet I am full of ) I say , that only is a sufficient ground for me to conclude your Principles to be Profane , which make you prefer your own Reason before the Teaching of the Holy Ghost out of that same Scripture , and those who embraced your Principles , are thereby led into Profaneness . What you say about the Means used by some Men to promote Heresies by high pretences to Piety and Vertue , may be true , and what I say too , every Bait is not proper for every sort of Fish , so Men have several ways to get Proselytes , according to the several Tempers of those whom they would draw to themselves ; do but find the predominant Passion of a Man , and , except God be pleased to strengthen him , ye are like soon to draw him into your Snare , according as they are acted by Worldly Considerations . There is but one true God , and one true Principle of Religion and Piety , but there are many Gods of this World ; give but Riches to the Covetous , Honours to the Ambitious , and Pleasures to the Voluptuous , without God's restraining Grace they will soon be for you ; but you will say , what 's this to us ? we know all that : Then I come to you , and say , how I take you to be zealous for Socinianism as you take me to be against it , and by your carriage we find to be in you a great desire to propagate it : To increase the number of Proselytes , you must draw them out of several Parts , and ye know how in this Corrupt Age , there is abroad a Spirit of Profaneness , Immorality , and of Sin in all kinds ; now for you to make Converts out of all these kinds , ye would think it would tend much to the Honour of your Cause ; and as in the Nation there is also a sort of Witty People , tho' sometimes Profane , to please those too , you study with fine Words , smooth Language , and with such plausible Reasons as you are Masters of , to support it , and 't is known ye are unwearied in your endeavours to promote the Interest of the Cause : I see no reason to hinder me from believing , but that any who will join with you in the main , shall be welcome among you , and this Intriguing Spirit in you , makes you the more dangerous to our Religion , and shews the necessity of a great care required to prevent the ill Effects of it ; thus ye follow the Maxims of Papists , tho' in some things you would seem to be much against them ; for among them do but come to Mass and own the Church , then do what you will , and believe what you please as to your self , you are a good Catholick still ; and the Jesuits , who among them are reckoned to screw up things to the highest , do say , Commit what Sin ye will , and under an easie Penance ye shall from us have a full Absolution ; all this to draw a Throng and get their Churches to be crouded ; so ye will do or say , be but Vnitarian , as to the rest give Scripture what Sense and Interpretation your Reason suggests unto you , and all shall be well ; as to Life and Manners , we shall leave you to that same only guide your own Reason : They which are unsound in the true Faith , without which 't is impossible to please God , 't is very possible for them to be so in their Practise ; tho' Men teach not Atheism , Profaneness and Immorality , yet it being too much the Religion of the Times , some may happen to practise it , and to strengthen themselves , will indifferently receive among them those who do : So this is no new way to promote Heresie , I wish it be not successful , tho' you say 't is not like to be so . Ye may know the true God , yet not as he ought to be known , in and through Christ ; ye know not Christ , and will not own him to be such as he is , true God , Son of God by eternal Generation , and as the Father is glorified in the Son , if ye glorifie not the Son as he ought to be , ye glorifie not the Father ? but what followeth for not glorifying God as he should be ? St. Paul can tell you , how because men when they knew God , glorified him not as God , or as he ought to have been , therefore he gave them over to those dreadful Judgments and abominable Courses , which may be read in the place quoted in the Margin , whereby ye may see Errors in Judgment followed with those in Practise : Hereunto I shall add that which can serve to strengthen what I said about Atheism , and 't is this ; Our Saviour told the Jews , Ye have not known God , the reason is , because they had not known him : To know one is to know him for what he is ; this Reason the Lord Jesus gave his Disciples , If ye had known me , ye should have known my Father also ; and henceforth ye know him and have seen him ; the reason must be this , because ye have known and seen me . For the knowledge of the glory of God is only in the face of Jesus Christ . As to the Charge of Idolatry , he seems willing to save me the trouble to make it good , for he saith , As to what concerns Idolatry , it must be confessed , that Socinus ' s System of Divinity is not absolutely free from it ; and he gives his reason thus , for he maintaineth that Divine Worship is to be given to Jesus Christ , tho' he be not the true Almighty , and the eternal God , but only something I know not what , more than a meer Man ; which is but what themselves make of him and no more . To render the Creature a Religious Worship only due to the Creator , is certainly Idolatry ; But , saith he , I question much whether we have any of these Socinians in England ; he is best able to tell , being no doubt , well acquainted with most Socinians in England : He thereby declares that there is more than one kind of Socinians , and what a kind of them he himself is of , namely a Davidian : Among the promoters of this Heresie , I in my Book took notice of one Francis David , who tho' in every thing else he agreed with Socinus , yet herein he differed from him , that he denyed any Religious Worship should be rendered unto Christ ; and that the Author of the Letter is of that Sect of Socinians , I am confirmed in my opinion by what he said before , how Socinus lies under the suspicion of having contributed to the Persecution of Francis David : Here appears his Partiality for this last against the first ; so Socinus was a Persecutor , so may Socinians be upon occasion : His System was not absolutely free from Idolatry , but David's was ; however that distinction cannot clear him , for tho' according to the Socinian Hypothesis the Davidian Opinion be free from Idolatry , yet according to ours , 't is the worst of the two , for they altogether deprive our Saviour of the Worship which the others yield him in some way : in the mean time he would give us the slip thus , It is not unlikely but that Socinianism may get clear of the Charge of Idolatry , either by the help of her own Logick , or by virtue of the Authority of the Church : as if the Church was bound to defend their Errors . But anon I , by the Grace of God , shall examine it , but before , we must make an end of the Charge . After the Word Idolatry , is in abbreviation an &c. which at large he writes Et caetera : upon such enumerations it is usual for brevity's sake to conclude with that Letter , thereby including other things of the same or like Nature , but he like a weak silly Gnat ( no more than I a Conjurer , as in the place he saith I am not ) sticks at the Cobweb and would make an insipid Jest of it , tho the foregoing things are serious and of moment , and the better to set out that Buffoon's Trick of his , he goes backward to the Dissenters of the last Age , who , saith he , baited the Word unmercifully . I see , as to Time , we must help his M●mory , for that which was about between 40 and 50 years ago , within this same Century , he calls the last age ; then he omits the chief ground of Exception against it which was an Oath in the case , Men were made to swear to an &c. : but here his righteous Conscience , as he calls my Soul , is not put to the Rack ; but seeing he presses me to declare what I meant by &c. after Atheism , Deism , Profaneness , Immorality , Idolatry , whereby I also pointed at Popery , I now fill it up with Davidism , whereunto I might add Ebionism , Cerinthism , Arianism , Photinianism , Sabellianism , Samosatenianism , Macedonianism , Pelagianism , Donatism : ye see how big-bellied was my &c. to contain so many things , and more too ; for Socinianism I look upon as a Sink into which fall all virulent Humours against the Person and Grace of our blessed Lord and Saviour ; as in the Body a diseased and infected Place draws most if not all corrupted Humours to it self : and as your Religion is a kind of Confusion , and ye are great Latitudinarians , so to strengthen your selves you reject none but receive all Comers into your Communion , which you would set up for the only School of Wit , Parts , and Learning , and this in part was my Meaning when I said how to promote your Cause you would be ready to admit among you not only all Excrements of Christian Religion , but even Jews and Mahometans , for you think the way to Heaven broad and easie , there being , as ye say , but very few things necessary to Salvation to be done and believed , contrary to what our Saviour said , Strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leads unto Life , and his Apostle saith the Righteous is scarcely saved . By what I said it may appear whether my Charge was disagreeing , false and incredible , or whether the Attendance I gave Socinianism doth not belong to it . Now I come to the two ways whereby you think Socinianism may get clear of the Charge of Idolatry , the first you say is by the help of her own Logick , the second by virtue of the Authority of the Church ; its Logick is refined enough according to this World , as far as Mode and Figure can stretch , you will ; if Barbara cannot do , may be Celarent , Cesare , Festino , or some Bocardo will , all these are at the command of your Logicians , then Sophism , as Sorites or the like , will come in apace and in course , and when an Argument in its own Mode and Figure cannot do , then you will be mincing , for out of your own Letters I find ye are excellent in that Art ; now your Logick is this , if nothing else can serve , you will say ye are no Socinians , ye take it an Injury to be so called , for ye say ye are very injuriously termed Socinians , yea twice in the same Page ; so ye positively deny your selves to be Socinians , do ye say so out of shame or out of fear ? one would think there is cause for both : Men who call themselves and pretend to be Christians should indeed be ashamed to go about robbing Christ of his due , and afraid of Punishment , if not from Men , yet at last from God , the Avenger of his Honour : not only ( if we may believe him ) he is no Socinian , but saith he , if there be any in England 't is more than I know ; sometimes some Men in the World know not themselves , however they will not confirm their Denyal with an Oath . They will not be Socinians , yet when they are charged with a Denyal of Revealed Religion , they appeal to the Racovian Catechism , which is the Summary of Socinianism : this playing fast and loose in matters of Religion is not to be endured : however they are brought to deny themselves and so they may be allowed to deny their Master Socinus : but why do ye engage in a Cause , if you are ashamed to own it ? hereupon to them we may put the Question , which upon the account of the most holy Trinity they put to us ; a thing is or is not ? ye are Socinians or ye are not ? if ye be , why are ye such Hypocrites as to deny it ? if not , why do you concern your selves for them ? let them maintain their own Quarrel and defend their own Cause , and why do ye take up the Cudgels for them ? why in their Defence , contrary to good Nature , Breeding and Moderation , do ye write so passionatly and angrily , that one would think your Letters to be dated from Billingsgate ? if ye be Davidians ye are Socinians still , and the worst of them too : Sirs , 't is not the Change of Name that can alter the thing , if ye hold Socinus his damnable Opinions , ye are Socinians , call your selves never so much by the Name of Vnitarians , or what other ye please ; so this Sophistical Logick of denying your selves to be Socinians , cannot do the Work. Let us see whether the other which you brag of , the Authority of the Church , will do 't : these Men make use of a great Name with a Design to shelter themselves under it : one of them falsly chargeth me with making , as he calls it , an impudent Reflection ; but here upon good grounds , in his own coin , I might turn it upon him and say , 't is a piece of transcendent Impudence for such Cattel to call themselves Members of the Church , which this doth in as plain Words as can be , For I am no Socinian , but a Member of the Church of England by Law established . So formerly some called themselves the Church which were the Synagogue of Satan , and as our glorified Saviour knew them , so he knows these , I know , saith he , the blasphemy of them , which say they are Jews and are not , but do lye , and are the Synagogue of Satan , he knows them to be Blasphemers : Socinians Members of the Church of England ! then Satan is an Angel of Light , for sometimes transforming himself into one : those who are a scandal to the Christian Name , and would prove a shame to any Church but their own , to be Members of our Church ! then such Members as are rotten and gangreened , ought to be cut off and spued out of the Church , in case they be in , as they pretend they are : Members of the Church are her Sons , but these can be no natural lawfully begotten , but Bastards , who are in only to watch an opportunity and time to bring in Thieves and Enemies , unnatural Sons who rend their Mother , and care not if she were torn in pieces , such Sons to the Mother as the Harlot was Mother to the Child , whom she pretended to be Mother to , tho she was not , content she was that the Child should be divided and cut to pieces . I hear indeed how some of them are in Orders , and actually in the Service of the Church ; and this I meant when I said the Enemy and Plague of Socinianism was gotten into the Bowels of the Church , the more the Pity ; and therefore seeing they will not hide themselves for shame , here I do humbly desire the Heads and Governours of it , to take notice of Socinians boasting to be Members of the Church , and care to weed them out . Good Lord ! Men who overthrow the first Article of our Religion of one God in three Persons , and the second of two Natures in one Person , besides others , the Athanasian Creed , the the first part of the Litany , with several others of the Service Book , yet they have the face to call themselves Members of the Church . However 't is worth the inquiring into , what they ground upon their calling themselves Members of the Church ? we already have taken notice of one place , wherein , speaking of themselves in the third Person , they say , For Peace sake they submit to the Phrase of the Church , and own three Persons : so they seem not to be much concerned for the Truth , to know whether what they or we say be true , but they take care of their Safety , being , as they pretend , alarm'd with fear of Fire and Faggot , and to save their Bacon ; therefore I am apt to believe that what they say , in relation to this , is more out of fear of Punishment than of love for Truth : however for Peace sake they are Members of the Church : but to dive into the bottom of this Title of theirs of being Members of the Church , two Places I am to look into , the first is this , As for those late English Writers sometimes called Unitarians , and very injuriosly termed Socinians , they seem desirous to wash their hand of it : and their disputing some of the Articles of our Church , hath proceeded chiefly from their Apprehension that it would be Idolatry to admit them . Thus still under disguise , and of a third Person , they are those late English Writers who call themselves Vnitarians , who seem desirous to wash their hand of Socinianism , so 't is only seemingly and in appearance , for else what could make them tooth and nail concern themselves so much for Socinians ; let it be taken notice of how these pretended Members of the Church confess that they disputed some of the Articles of it , and these are none of the less fundamental , which they suspected as leading into Idolatry , and therefore they would not admit them : See what Members of the Church these are , who publickly and in Print own that some of the Articles of the Church do tend to Idolatry ; doth not this very thing deserve Punishment according to Law ? and to justifie their disputing of some of the Articles , they would infinuate as if the Church , or some part of it , had owned they were in the right , Therefore upon the prudent Explication which hath been given ( he doth not name by whom ) of some obnoxious Terms , they wave the Dispute and come in as Brethren : This is as good as to say , that in our Articles those that are the most Fundamental , are in terms justly obnoxious , that is to their Cavils : And to shew they had cause to take Exceptions , an Interpretation hath , according to their Sense , been given those Articles , and so , upon their own Terms , they are come in as Brethren ; if they are come in , then they were out before , and so no Members : Thus it seems they had Correspondency in the Church with some who , as they term it , prudently made way for them to come in : Now doth not this Confession justifie what in my Epistle I said , Socinianism is gotten into the Church ; and consequently shew a necessity to turn it out : Thus having , as he thinks , twisted Socinians with the Church , he most judiciously draws this Inference , and Ironically bids me defiance ; I hope Mr. Gailhard , will not in anger against them , impute Idolatry to our Church , as by Law established . Can any thing in relation to the Church , be spoken more insolently in the face of the whole Nation ? A strange thing , indeed , tho' nothing may seem strange from Men whose Principles allow them to say and make themselves any thing : Like the grievous Wolves , which in Sheeps Clothing enter in among the Flock , not to feed but to tare it ; to deceive the blind , they come in with Esau's Hands , but the Voice is Jacob's , yet being known should bring a Curse upon themselves : But 't will be strange indeed , if such ones be once found out , having under the cloak of taking Care of Souls Poisoned them , be not cast out by Suspension or Deprivation , according to the severity of the Penal or at least of the Ecclesiastical Laws . Upon this occasion , the Eyes of the whole Nation are fixed upon my Lords the Bishops . The other Place which I must take into consideration is this ; He tells us , speaking of me , that to deny the Trinity and our Saviours Divinity , is as much as in a Man lieth , to pull our Religion up by the very roots , and quite to overthrow it ; which , saith he , that the Socinians do , he takes it for granted : That they deny the Trinity and Christ's Deity , 't is done in the face of the Sun , and that these Points are the Foundation of Christian Religion , no true Christian will deny ; and my Inference is good , that pulling down the Foundation , the Building doth necessarily fall : Yet , according to the usual way , he would mince the matter thus ; Yet those who are injuriously called Socinians declare , that they only dispute some unscriptural Terms with us , but are well satisfied with the Sense put upon those Terms and Explications , which a considerable majority seem to be agreed in . They cannot leave off the ridiculous juggling in their change of Persons ; for they are those called Socinians , who dispute with us , that is with themselves ; so they act both parts , put the Question and answer it , be the Socinian and Church-men too ; but the worst is , they want Sincerity , that whilst they indeed are the Socinian , yet would pass for the Church-men . Besides , they would have the Dispute to be only about Words , and so of no Importance ; thus whether there be Three Persons in the most adorable Trinity , and whether the Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost be truly God , they make it to be a Dispute only about a Word and a Trifle : What a Confidence is it for such Men so publickly to vent their Impieties ? Thereupon they declare to be satisfied upon this ground , that a considerable Majority of the Church seem to be agreed with them in their Sense ; so according to this , a considerable Majority of the Church is become Socinian : Let him that can , believe this , for my own part I am not so Credulous ; however , I humbly desire of the Church , especially of that lesser part which this Man owneth not to be Socinian , to mind what he saith so openly , and to take it into their serious Consideration , I bring it to their Door and there leave it : They are highly concerned to take in hand their own Cause as 't is now become ; I have done and said what might be expected from a Member , my work being to Vindicate the Honour and Right of my most blessed Lord and Saviour , as far as he will be pleased to enable me , and to pull off the Vizard from these falsly pretended Members of the Church . In the Pamphlet are several Trifles under the Head , how wide Socinianism is spread , which yet in my way I shall take a short notice of , not minding what he saith of my ill-natur'd and malicious Paper , for by this time he hath pretty well used me to ill Language as to an idle foolish talking , and ( which is the worst ) ridiculing and profaning Holy things . In several Parts of Europe where I happened to meet with the dispersed Jews , I sometimes took an occasion to discourse with some of them about our blessed Saviour , but in them all from the highest to the lowest , I found a gall and prejudice against him , and have cause to think those whom we have here in England to be acted by the same Spirit : and by some words heard to drop out of Manasseh Ben Israel's Mouth , when in Cromwel's time he came over , I perceived that if ever they were suffered to stay here , they in Matters of Religion would be as ready to do us harm as themselves good in another way ; and I thought that I being about naming the Enemies of Christ , the Jews we have here might not be omitted : and I am of opinion , that in case among them there be any Man of Parts , Socinians would not be backward to gather out of them what Arguments they could against the Person of our blessed Lord , no not from Mahometans , if any were near and able to afford them : and this I said in relation to Servetus , one of their Ringleaders , who in his Youth being in Africa among Jews and Mahometans , suck'd their Blasphemies and brought them into Europe ; and to shew how , in relation to the Principles of Religion about our Saviour's Person , 't is possible for a Socinian to become a Turk , I prove it by the Example of Alciati , one of their Gang , and Socinus's Companion , who out of Poland fled into Turkey and became Mahometan . Do not think I do you any wrong , when speaking of Socinianism I mention Mahometanism ; for tho' as well as you they deny our blessed Saviour to be God , yet they own him to be a great Prophet sent by God : 'T is observable how Mahomet himself in that part of his Alcoran wherein he relates that notorious Imposture of his having been carry'd up into the highest Heaven , there to see great and strange Mysteries , ( whence may be you borrowed your Dream of an imaginary Ascension of our Lord and Saviour after his Baptism before he began to Teach ) when at his coming to the first Heaven he met with Adam , in the second Noah , Abraham in the third , &c. he saith , they all one after another , commended themselves to his Prayers ; but when he came into the seventh , where he met Jesus , himself he commended to Jesus's Prayers . And if ye will know how in many things about the Trinity and Christ's Divinity Socinians agree with Mahometans , I refer you to Hottingerus in his Histor . Orient . l. 2. c. 3. Yet tho' what I speak upon the Matter be words of Truth and Soberness , he has as good as call'd me Mad , and fell into such a long raving Fig , as I think it would require a strong dose of Hellebore to purge away the Matter which caused it ; and that makes him so often talk of Fire and Faggot , and such other things as he brings in over head and shoulders , and so looks upon me as one who would see all Socinians put to death : Socinianism indeed I would gladly see rooted out , but to have Men put to death , is neither my inclination nor my work ; yet as there is a Sin of concealing what one hath seen or known , so I cannot but take notice of , that , as in the case of a false Swearer , God said thine Eye shall not pity , so the Blasphemer was by his immediate command put to death . He would take advantage of something I said about Arminians , and upon that occasion would act the States-man's part , and shew I have taken wrong measures to gain my Point , and so would ironically give Counsel : By what they say in several places , I see they are free enough to Advise , tho' undesired and unfit ; but they should know we are not used to take the Counsel of our Enemies : Men who stand for the Truth are not byassed by Worldy Considerations and Designs , tho' never so plausible and specious : I thank God , in Matters of Religion I have no squint Eye , I am neither ashamed nor afraid openly to own a Truth , if I was not satisfied it is so , I would not own it , but it being , I will do 't , by the grace of God , as long as I live , till I see cause to the contrary : Therefore 't is but time and labour lost for such Advisers ; their wise Counsels let them keep for themselves , for some things which they call Sense and Reason , others upon better grounds call Sensual Reason . And here , Sirs , I must tell you , how you talk so much of want of Learning in others , as if ye were the only great Doctors of the World ; if , as ye say , I am a Mystery to you , so is your Learning a Mystery to me ; by your Letters I cannot find where it lies , nor no Man else I think : But to speak confidently , to lodge all Brains in the World within your own Skull , to outface Men , to wrest and misrepresent what others say , and to set up for Judges of all good Sense , Wit and Learning , that indeed ye sufficiently learned , and every one may well be satisfied how great proficients ye are in that kind of Learning : But to take my turn to Advise you , do not always trust your own Looking-glass , for it doth but flatter you , and represents not after Nature ; ye would appear unto the World as if all Wit , Parts and Learning were monopolised to your selves , and all besides you lying in Blindness and Ignorance : That Original Sin derived from , and inherent in Socinus's Family , that old Leaven in you ought to be purg'd , but God knows when it will be , if at all , for ye look very big upon all others , like the proud Pharisees , This people who not knoweth the Law are Cursed , but we sit in Moses his Seat. Matters of Grace and Providence I believe to be of the highest Importance , and such as our Salvation depends upon , and in my judgment I am fully satisfied Arminians to be much in the wrong ; but however if a Comparison be made between the Socinian and Arminian Principles , no Man that is acquainted with both can but make a difference ; for tho' in many things they agree , yet in others of the most Essential , as about the Trinity and the Person of our blessed Saviour they differ from them , and therein join with us against that common Enemy , Socinians lay under open Blasphemy and condemned Heresie by the first Oecumenick Council and others following ; the Arminians not so , I mean not Worstius and the like , but such as in comparison of others are Moderate : But still I say , that the Cause against Socinians cannot so effectually be handled upon Arminian Principles , for in some things their Bounds are so near and undiscernable , that sometimes a Man cannot fall upon one but he must tread upon the other , and one blow sometimes hits them both ; so sometimes the Arminian doth not strike home upon the Socinian , for fear of hurting himself . However , to shew you what a difference we ought to make between Adversaries and Adversaries ; we have some Disputes both against Lutherans and Papists , yet much more and greater against the last than against the first ; certainly we will not carry our selves equally towards both , for there is cause to make a great distinction between them , which to shew , upon occasion we keep Communion with Lutherans when we may not with Papists ; yet the former are in a gross errour to think the Substance of the glorified Body of Christ which is now in Heaven , and shall be until he comes to Judge the Quick and the Dead , to be included in , with , and under the Bread and Wine ; yet because they declare they adore not the Bread nor the Wine , we do not look upon them as Idolaters , as we take Papists to be , for they adore a Wafer under the notion that it is turned into the Substance of the Body of Christ , and we are forbidden to have Communion with Idolaters : Thus we ought to make a difference between Lutherans and Papists ; so we must between those who would destroy the Grace of God in Christ ( which is very ill ) and those who impiously fly against his Person , as ye do ; nay I say Socinians in some things are worse than Papists , who own the Article of the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Divine Nature , and the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost , which ye deny : Ye are the worst of all Christian Societies , which Name ye are unworthy of , because ye reject , despise and undervalue the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ , from whom we are called Christians , and will not take his Word nor God the Father's when he is by him and by himself called Son of God. This Man , as well as his Partner , will make use of his Arithmetick ; and because I complain'd of the increase and number of Socinians , he makes a pother about almost all the Church , a moiety of the Presbyterians , Nine parts in Ten of the Quakers ; like a Squirrel in a Cage , which turns again and again , but never the farther on in his way , always within the Circle ; so he , which way soever he turns himself , is ever upon his Dunghil . As to the Number of Socinians ; tho' it was never so inconsiderable comparatively , yet 't is ever too great , tho' never so few yet still too many : One Wolf in a Sheepfold can do Havock enough ; only one that hath the Plague can infect a whole Town ; always Vermin multiplieth too fast ; wherefore to prevent the Growth and Increase of it , 't is necessary a sufficient care be taken by those who are concern'd , ( especially those whose Diocess is much infected with , and made the center of that Vermine ) whom David , a great King and Judge of Israel , and a Prophet too , gives this Charge unto , Be Wise now therefore O ye Kings , be instructed ye Judges of the Earth , Psal . 2. Dignity calls for and commands Duty , and to whom much is given , of them much shall be required . Not only a Disposition but also a Resolution in Magistrates , is necessary , for 't is that which helps to put Life into those Laws , which otherwise languish for want of due and discreet Execution , wherein one is to go to the root of the Evil , if he will extirpate it : In some Distempers the Dose must not be weak , else it will but stir the Humours , and not remove them . But what is it that David would have Kings and Judges of the Earth to learn and be instructed in ? in the next Verse he saith it , to serve the Lord with fear ; in their station to defend his Cause and maintain his Concerns , is part of the Service required here : But whom is this Service due to ? to Christ the Messiah , to whom the Lord hath said , Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee , to whom the Heathen are given for his inheritance , and the uttermost parts of the Earth for his possession , whom he shall break with a Rod of Iron , and dash them in pieces like a Potters Vessel . Certainly such a Potent Lord , Son of God , deserves to be served with fear by all Kings and Judges of the Earth ; and 't is his Cause , not Man's , which now is under debate , his Right and Title being questioned , which if Men in Places and Power do not , as they are bound , Assert and Vindicate , to speak in Mordecai's words to Esther , Deliverance shall arise from another place , some others will do God's Work , but thou and thy Father's House shall be destroyed . For the Lord Jesus himself will in his due time not only do 't , but also require it at the hands of those who neglected it , which is a most abominable Crime , no less than , as much as in them lieth , to set their hands to his Condemnation , and suffer him again to be Crucified for pretended Blasphemy , for affirming himself to be the Son of God , which the Jews did well call making himself God. For the Names God , Son of God , simply , properly and absolutely taken , imply Divine Nature , as Man , Son of Man do Humane ; therefore said the Jews to Pilate , By our Law , that is of Blasphemy , he ought to die , for he made himself the Son of God , which if he was not , then , ( without Blasphemy let it be spoken , and the thoughts make my Hair stand on end ) he had been a Blasphemer , a Lyar , and an Impostor , and such the Socinian Principles impiously make him to be . And because I said , it had been well if at first that necessary care had been taken , especially by those that are most concern'd , to prevent it ; thence he doth infer , that tho' not indeed in plain words , but intelligibly enough , I said it had not been done , which after his usual , calm , and Christian-spirited way , he calls a meer Story , my own pure Invention , and a notorious Slander ; and to prove it so , in his Head he frames an Idea of an Hurly burly and Confusion in opposing of Socinianism , and this he would make a Play of , and without any distinction ridicule all that appear'd against it : The Opposers , saith he , did but scuffle tumultuously with they knew not whom nor what , and in the event it appeared they were more afraid than hurt ; and to ridicule it the more , he saith , This zealous Leader would scower through the dark Vales of Antient Fathers and General Councils ; that learned Author would bustle in the thorny Thickets of the School-men ; here indeed is to be found the flourish of wild Rhetorick sallying into sundry Metaphors , as he speaks of , and he adds , One or two now and then with wondrous Confidence and manly Resolution , would bolt out upon the open Plains of Natural Reason , but they were quickly forced to shelter , not being able to bear the brightness and warmth of the Meridian Sun , which illuminates and gives light to those Plains ; these are high Fancies and true Bombast , if any thing be so , surely the Man hath read Don Quixot : This People , who condemn in others something of Metaphors , allow it to the full themselves , as being privileged Persons who may say and do what they please , and all is well : But , alas , all these opposers of Socinianism were but Fools for their pains , especially those who would talk of Reason with them who are the great Masters of it , and could not stand before them , but-were sent to School with a Rod upon their Back , and all this depth of Learning , height of Fancy , closeness of Reasoning , brightness of Eloquence , and clearness of Stile , are set in form of a Triumphal Cant ; yet for all this , for greater security , he still runs under the shelter , for after he hath talk'd of some of our old School Terms , of which we had no great opinion our selves , ( whether we will or not this Man is always among us ) and kept them only because we could get no better , but then the wisest of our Doctors explained them to a very honest Sense . Speak , said one formerly , that I may know thee ; so this People are known by their talk ; but still I say our Man runs to the shelter when he saith , Oxthodox with us who are the majority of the Church , which if it was true , as 't is not , would be but to follow the Multitude to believe and do Evil. Something he would be picking out against my Citation out of the Book of The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws , wherein without passing Sentence , as he pretends I do , I humbly offer a Precedent of what was formerly done in like cases : And suppose the Book had been written before Socinus was born , yet it may reach him and his Opinions ; as for instance , when a Law is enacted , it doth reach those who break it , tho' born never so long after ; and we know a Law can be broken in several ways , nay sometimes Laws are made not only to restrain present Crimes , but also to prevent others to come ; for 't is the prudence of the Law-giver not only to punish Evils in being , but also to prepare a remedy against those which may happen : therefore if Socinians in the Land do any thing forbidden by some Law , tho' never so old , if unrepealed , they are liable to the Penalty of it : The Law doth more directly regard Things than Persons : When the Law makes a thing to be Treason which was not so before , yet whosoever hereafter , tho' unborn when the Law was enacted , commits it , is no doubt by that Law guilty of Treason ; this truth one may know without Prophetick Inspiration . As to what I add out of King Edward's Letter to Archbishop Cranmer , &c. how according to the Power , Form and Effect of a certain Act of Parliament in the Third Year of his Reign , he had appointed them to compile his Ecclesiastical Laws ; his wresting and unfaithfully representing the thing is clear and palpable , for he would make my Observation thereupon , how in those Laws there is something of a Parliamentary Authority , because he saith , he hath chosen them by virtue of an Act of Parliament in the Third Year of his Reign , to be gainsaid by my next words by him misquoted thus , That something wants a Parliamentary Stamp , when they are thus , and if there be any thing wanting , it lieth in your power to set a Parliamentary Stamp upon 't ; he relates them Absolutely , and I Conditionally with an if ; I take it to be good Sense to say , There is already something of a Parliaments Authority , and in case there be any thing wanting , this present Parliament may supply it if they please : It is great pity that this spoils his Witty Jest in that place of a Something that 's just as good as Nothing : I shall have a farther tryal of their misrepresenting things . I find they are not so much concerned as to what the Gospel saith about Matters in dispute , as they are about what the Law saith when it reaches their Persons ; threaten them with a Parliament , and they are more concern'd , than if you would set the whole Bible in order against them . Therefore they are nettled with the Fourth Canon directly pointed at them by name , of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions by both Convocations in 1640 , and by King Charles the First , straightly enjoyned and commanded to be diligently observed and executed . The King is Supreme Head of the Church within his Dominions ; by virtue of that Supremacy King Charles of his own voluntary Act , and without any violence or compulsion , set upon them his Royal Authority ; and his Memory is not become so odious and contemptible , and in that particular so slighted , that no regard at all should be had for it : and tho' Socinians despise the Authority of those who went before , I dare say in the Nation there be some who are not of their mind ; and as we know the Legislative Power to be lodged in Kings , Lords and Commons , so we hope they will agree in things which tend to the Glory of God , the good of the Nation , and that upon occasion none of the three , through God's influence , will , as I said before , give the Convocation any Repulse about things within their Sphere when represented in Parliament : But I find you are as Angry , Hot and Fiery ( I make use of your own words ) against Convocations as against Calvinism , for you speak of the Ceremonial or Sanguinary Rules and Orders , Canons and Constitutions of the Convocational Clergy ; and let me say , how in the same Page you give the Clergy some other Lashes , which is not Brotherly done , but I hope you will give me leave to think , if not to say , that you or your Partner may be of the Tribe , if so , then in Moses's Words let me tell you , Ye take too much upon you , ye Sons of Levi. The Man seeing he is unable to defend his own Cause , would be suing for help ; in order to 't , he maliciously and fasly would suggest , that I have slurred the Honour of my Lords the Bishops , when I no where have named or so much as pointed at them , only in a place of my Epistle where it was unavoidable , 't is upon the occasion of a Quotation out a Book call'd The Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws , my words are these , According to this , Bishops are to take cognizance , inquire into and declare whether or not the Person or Persons be guilty of Blasphemy , which being clear , he or they ( according to that Law ) are to be delivered into the Civil Magistrate's hand ; but if through neglect or otherwise any of the Bishops happen not to act their part , and thereby stop the Course of Justice , certainly the Magistrate is to look into 't : This Man , who in several places abuses Convocations , would , to serve his turn , in this seem to be much concern'd for the Lords Bishops : Of this false Accusation he gives two Reasons , the first is this , For tho' several of them have written learnedly and angrily against Socinianism , some in the Real , some in the Nominal Trinitarian way , yet Mr. G. takes no notice at all of this ; and for this reason he affirms , he most audaciously and slyly slurs the Honour of my Lords the Bishops . His second Reason is , He often declares his aversion from the Arminians , of which Perswasion most of the Bishops have shewn themselves . Is this good Logick ; I am against Arminianism , therefore against Episcopacy , because , it may be , some of the Bishops are Arminians , it will not stick ; I disprove Arminianism , and honour the Bishops , as , some of their Lordships can witness ; but to aggravate , he falsly and foolishly saith , I have thereby slyly and desperately wounded the Honour of the chief Defenders of the Orthodox Faith. Out of this he would prove me to be a rank Socinian , or else I would not , saith he , have done so ; wherein he confesses Socinians to be desperate Enemies to the Lords Bishops . And to retort it , he being a Socinian , must be an Enemy to the Bishops : But I see the Devil is Devil still , a Slanderer , a false Accuser , tho' hypocritically he pretends much Meekness and Charity : This very same Man who but one Leaf before blames one much better than himself for not taking care of his Language , for his liberal Railing and throwing his Wit and his Foam about he in many places of his Letter doth so against me , slanderously charging me with impudent Reflections ; and again , Is it not the highest Impudence in him ? and in other places they throw such like words upon me : Therefore thou art unexcusable , O man , whosoever thou art that judgest , for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self , for thou that judgest dost the same things . Nay , not only so , but the Man hath from first to last broken not one , but most Rules of Humanity ; it would be a happy thing if every Man could but know the Plague of his own Heart . And were it not that a good Advise , which he doth much want , bestowed upon him , would be so much time and labour lost , I would put him in mind , how by God's command , there was no Sacrifice offered without Salt , an Emblem of Prudence , to shew how God would not have Men rashly to meddle with Holy things , and except , with a serious and humble frame of Spirit , and with an awful Reverence , ( which was the true Preparation of the Sanctuary ) they were qualified for it , otherwise he would not relish or accept , but only ( to speak in Solomon's words ) account it to be the Sacrifice of Fools : This under the Gospel in Matters of Religion , ought to be a Rule for us , as in relation to God , so between Man and Man , for the Apostle saith , Let your speech be always with grace , seasoned with salt , that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man : which being joined with another Apostles Exhortation , Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you , with meekness and fear , or Reverence , as the Greek word doth also signifie , doth teach us how we ought to speak with Grace , Fear and Reverence of Matters of Religion , and with Meekness towards those whom we speak to : But these Men do quite the contrary , for of one side they jest with Holy things , and on the other they injuriously use those whom they deal with ; that is , are profane with God and rude with Men : They cry up Moderation and Mildness , yet with their Railing , ironical and brutish Stile and Language , are ever the first to break the Rules thereof ; to call one Impudent , and at several times too , and to give the Lye , it argues in them neither Breeding nor good Nature , therefore they must expect that Men thus unhandsomly provok'd , will take some notice of it , tho' it be contrary to their natural inclination and practise . Here upon this account I must desire the Reader to take special notice of the Spirit which this sort of Men , whom we now deal against , are acted by , and in particular of the want of Sincerity , Moderation , Modesty and Judgment , and this shall be within a narrow compass , out of what is said by one of the Men ( as I take it ) whom I have to deal with ; in the Apology for M. Toland , are with great approbation quoted some Lines of one of their own , whom he calls that Celebrated Vnitarian in the Agreement , he hath written , of the Vnitarians with the Catholick Church , p. 54 , 55. He highly commends that Man with the name Celebrated , in hopes upon occasion of the same return of Flattery from him , for Asinus asinum fricat . The very Man whose Letter I now am about examining , would charge me with slurring the Honour of the Lords Bishops , and desperately wounding the Honour of the chief Defenders of the Orthodox Faith : Would not one think that this Man is highly concerned for , and hath a great Honour for the Bishops , whom he well calls the Chief Defenders of the Catholick Faith ; but this must needs be either out of Hypocrisie to serve , as he thinks , his present turn against me , or by an Irony , for Socinians love neither Bishops nor Convocations ; for will they sincerely call Defenders of the Orthodox Faith , those who writ against them ? And for proof of this , let us observe how in the fore-quoted place of the Apology , they use one of our most Eminent and Learned Bishops ; when I speak thus , the Reader will presently know I mean my Lord Bishop of Worcester , who by them is named in the place : I know not , saith he , what it was to his Lordship's purpose to fall upon Mr. Toland ' s Book ; but if he knows it not , his Lordship did , and we may suppose it was to some purpose , or else he might as well say , the Lord Bishop knew not what he did : One would think they cannot have the face to teach him what he must do : but here follows that which is worse , but if he would needs attack the Book , he should have dealt fairly . Which plainly enough implies the Bishop hath not dealt fairly ; and to shew herein that I am not mistaken , he adds , and not carp'd only at a few Passages , and those too so mangled and deformed by his representation of them , that I dare to affirm , Mr. Toland doth not know his own Book in the Bishop's representation of it . Is not this a plain demonstration of the great respect which such Men have for the Lords Bishops , and of the Reason this Man hath to accuse me for slurring and desperately wounding the Honour of the Bishops ? But let us turn leave , and see in how different a Stile that Socinian speaks of Mr. Toland and his Book , him he calls the Learned and Ingenious Author , and of the Book he saith , I do not perceive , to speak truly , but that Book still stands in its full strength : and not only so , but , if we believe him , it hath also acquired a farther reputation , by what hath been written against it , which that great Master of Learning doth despisingly call an unsuccessful nibling at it . But this kind of comparison between two so highly different Persons , is odious , for it carries along with it a great disparagement to one of them against whom is given the preference , and is an invincible proof of want of judgment in such Men as pretend to make it : but the commendation or discommendation of that sort of People , being so misapply'd , are insignificant ; and it would be no Credit , rather the contrary , for an Orthodox Person to be commended by them : But to carry on their Confidence to the utmost they challenge the Lord Bishop to answer the Reasons in their own Books against the Trinity . Yet for all this , and after their great Commendation of Mr. T 's Book , those wise and cautious Men being afraid of any thing that smells of the Fire , as that Book doth , they declare about it , in which , and for which , we are not in the least concern'd : But I think they were for one which somewhile ago was burnt , whilst many more of theirs which now are abroad deserve the same Fate . But as we must not expect they will follow the Example of those who brought in their Books ( among which we may well think were no worse than some of the Socinians are ) and burnt them , which these will not themselves do of theirs , for indeed 't is the proper work of the common Executioner , far from it they set them out and commend as much as they can , nay they are so bold as to let the World know there were such Books of theirs abroad , and we find it many times , witness Mr. T 's Apology among the Advertisements in the Post-Boy , and such printed Papers , and this in defiance of Laws and Parliaments , whose Authority in Matters of Religion , as observed before , they deny : So that it were but fit that on this occasion that Illustrious Body would be pleased to assert and vindicate their Right . For that sort of Men if they had Power , would in the denial of this Authority soon pass from Religious to Civil Matters , wherefore 't is the Interest of Church and State to support one another , for they are like the Twain Children , born and bred together , between which was such a sympathy , that when one was Well , Sick , or Strong , the other was so too , and as they were born , so they died together . He who but a little before said that the Socinians will agree to the disputed Article if they may explain it , meant after their own way , is such a stranger to Scripture , that if it be not the Printer's fault , I am apt to believe , because in the Margin I quoted not the place , he knew not whom I meant when to Socinians I apply'd the Character which Scripture gives of Ishmael , whose hand was against every man , and every man's hand against him ; for instead of Ishmaels the word Infidels is in . Tho' I do not mind the nauseous stuff wherewith he hath fill'd up the rest of that Page and the following , yet I well know and take notice how he is not satisfied to misrepresent me to the Lords Bishops , but most maliciously would traduce me as one who makes impudent Reflections on the King and Parliament , thereby to make me obnoxious : To be Impudent were an invasion upon his Property , which I never was nor shall be guilty of . Here I might claim the Law of Retaliation ; he cannot defend his Cause , therefore he would throw his Venom upon me , Si non marte tamen arte ; Now this Calumny of his , he doth ground upon these words of mine ; That to the Toleration of those two transcendent Wickednesses , Blasphemy and Idolatry , we may chiefly attribute the cause of the Chastisements which make the Nation uneasie . I hope none will deny that Sins bring God's Judgements upon Nations , and when we feel them 't is our duty to speak the Truth , our Sins are the cause of this ; Afflictions do not arise out of the Dust , but if we must believe Scripture , Chastisements or Punishments of Nations , Families and Persons , come from the hand of God ; for as he is most Just , so leaves nothing unrewarded ; if in the World there was any Person free from Sin , that very same should also be free from all manner of Pains ; but Punishment is tyed to the tail of Sin , and when we feel God's Chastisements , and we know they are inflicted for Sin , then the most notorious , the greatest and most frequent Sins are obvious to our Eyes , as the two in question must needs be , and thereupon we should say , Lord we have sinned against Heaven and against thee . About this Point , I shall out of Scripture , bring a Precedent of what must be done in such Cases : The Israelites are smitten at Ai , whereupon Joshua rent his Cloths and fell upon his Face , and God said unto him , Israel hath sinned , I will be no more with you , except ye destroy the accursed from among you ; the Accursed , both Person and Thing , at that time were destroyed ; and now if not the Persons , at least the Thing should be , if we will have God among us ; and what things in the World more accursed than Blasphemy and Idolatry ? wherefore I then did , and now do conclude , that all Christian and prudent care ought to be used to remove Blasphemy and Idolatry out of the Kingdom , but how to effect it , 't is to be left to those whom it belongs to , but still the thing ought to be done ; Now I ask , Is this to make an impudent Reflection against King and Parliament ? But they make a real one , for under the notion that he is no Persecutor , they would proclaim his Majesty and the Parliament to favour and protect Blasphemy and Heresie , that is Socinianism . But this Gentleman , according to the Spirit which they all are originally acted by , would profanely ridicule the dispensations of God's special Providence and divest that infinite Majesty of his being the just Judge of the World , who doth execute Justice and Judgment : After this rate the Old World was Drowned by Chance , tho' the Flood had been foretold 120 Years before : Thus Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed by Accident , and without God's special Appointment , tho' he out of Heaven rained Fire and Brimstone : So by Hazard Nadah and Abihu were consumed , tho' Scripture saith , There went out Fire from the Lord and devoured them . Likewise , without a special Providence , the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed up Korah , Dathan and Abiram , tho' it was a special Judgment of God ; as was that of the 14700 Men , who for their murmuring against Moses and Aaron , as we read in the same Chapter , died of the Plague . In the like manner , after their Principles , the Famine in David's days of three Years , Year after Year , came meerly according to a general course of Nature , without a particular Cause , and special Providence ; certainly when David inquired about it , the Lord assigned the particul Cause , and answered , It is for Saul and his bloody House , because he slew the Gibeonites . The Sin , with the Punishment , and by whom inflicted , were all named and expressed , yet against all Right and Reason , they would not have this Case to be a special Providence , for they say there is no such thing in the World. But why should I bring a Candle to light the Sun , and in a thing which God's Word doth so plainly and fully demonstrate , how to punish National , Family and Personal Sins , God sends the Plague , Famine , the Sword , venomous Beasts , the Locust , the Canker-Worm , the Catterpillar , and the Palmer-Worm , which the Lord calls his great Army which I sent among you : Did the Plagues of Egypt come at a venture , or were they inflicted by God to punish that Nation for their Sins ? God threatned the Children of Israel for their Disobedience , to send upon them Cursing , Vexation and Rebuke ; the Pestilence , a Consumption , a Fever , an Inflamation , an extreme Burning , the Sword , Blasting , Mildew , the both of Egypt , the Emerods , with Scabs and Itch , Madness , Blindness , Astonishment of heart , &c. as expressed in Deut. 28. Are not all these Judgments of God upon Men for their Sins ? Have I then spoken any harm , that you should Cavil at what I say , that to the Toleration of Blasphemy and Idolatry , we may chiefly attribute the cause of the Chastisments which make the Nation uneasie through losses by Sea , by Land , by Fire , or any other way you named or can name ? Blasphemy and Idolatry ( 't is a sad truth ) do abound in the Land , and a flood of all Evil in Doctrine and Practise hath overflowed it ; and tho' it be against Gospel and Law , yet no visible effectual care is taken to suppress it : Can we be unconcerned when we hear God by his Prophet speaking thus , Shall I not visit for these things , saith the Lord ? shall not I be avenged on such a Nation as this ? Jer. 5. 29. With such a Warrant in my hand , I am neither ashamed nor afraid openly to declare , that winking at Blasphemy and Idolatry , we may well reckon among the chief Causes which have drawn God's Rod upon the back of the Nation , and the more , because the Sins which there move God to speak by his Prophet , are against Men , but these we now complain against are directly against God : And if God be angry for their not judging for Men , will he not be so if Men neglect to Judge for him ? Do but read the last Verse of the same Chapter , where mention is made of Distempers , if not exactly the same in relation to Persons , yet in Nature much like ours , and take notice of God's Expostulation there , What will ye do in the end thereof ? Now the Misdemeanour they would wrongfully charge me with , I may justly retort upon them : With all due Respect I addressed to both Houses , and humbly represented things as 't is usual in points of Grievances , whereof some are of a Spiritual as others of a Temporal nature : I then said , and now say it again , that according to Divine and Humane Laws , Blasphemy should be rooted out and Blasphemers punished : To ask for Justice is not to prescribe the Judges any thing what they ought to do , and there is nothing like this in my whole Epistle , as these words of mine which the Author of the Letter hath taken notice of , do evidence . Thus having laid open the Disease , I leave it for your Piety and Christian Wisdom to find out , and apply the true and proper Remedy : We know 't is for the Supreme Judges to do Justice in what manner and degree they please : no Man of sense will deny it to be in the power of , and to belong to the Magistrates Office to punish Delinquents against God as well as those against Men , of the first as well as of the second Table , Blasphemers , Idolaters , Profaners of God's Holy Name , as well as Murtherers , Adulterers and Thieves : S. Paul was no sanguinary Man , yet in one place , after an enumeration of several things , whereof some are less grievous than Blasphemy , concludeth , That they which commit such things are worthy of death . For my part , I neither in my Epistle nor in the Preface have said , or designed to say so ; yet if I had , without being a Sanguinary Man , I here have a Warrant for it . But having spoken of my self , I now must come to you and say , Ye both have been much wanting in your due respect for that Illustrious Assembly of Parliament : For one humbly to Address or Petition the Supreme Judges to redress things which are amiss , is no disrespect ; but to pretend to be their Apologist and make use of their Name in an Ironical way , as ye , I may say , saucily have done in the Title of your Pamphlet , is certainly to want a due respect and to deserve Punishment : To call a Libel against the Doctrine of the Religion by Law established by the name of An Apology for the Parliament , most humbly representing , &c. is a great Abuse , and a piece of high Impudence in you , which hangs together with your whole Carriage ; for contrary to the known Laws of the Land , and in defiance of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions , you do print , publish , and most insolently go about to Vindicate your Heretical and Blasphemous Opinions in opposition to and the disturbance of the Church by Law established . And when ye are not able to defend your bad Cause , to give the thing a wrong side , the Superior Power to be your drudges , must by you be brought in , but 't is in you a high presumption to think you can impose upon them : Now for my part I must tell you , that when I am engaged in any Controversie I stick to the Point , beg for no Foreign help , and Answer not with Injuries but with good Arguments , ye do the contrary . But over and above what I have said , to shew how with humbly Addressing my self to the Parliament to ask Justice against you , and towards preventing the growth of Socinianism , I did nothing but what is according to Law , I here lay down an undeniable proof of it , with a Copy of the Presentment of the Grand Jury of Middlesex on the last day of the last Easter Term 1697 , and this according to directions given by the Judges , who must know the Law. The Names of the worthy Persons that were of it , do for their Piety and Zeal deserve to be recorded in Letters of Gold , and 't is hoped this may be a Precedent for others to do the like in other parts of the Kingdom . A Copy of the Presentment of the Grand Jury of Middlesex , the last day of the Term at Westminster , viz. WE the Jurors sworn to enquire on the behalf of our Sovereign Lord the King , of all Offences committed in the County of Middlesex , in consideration of our Duty and in obedience to the Directions given us by Mr. Justice Rookeby in his Charge , do humbly present that , We find by daily experience , that several great and fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion , as they are professed by the Church of England and contained in the 39 Articles , and established as the Avowed Doctrine of the Church of England by several Acts of Parliament , are not only disputed and questioned , but absolutely denyed , and particularly the Doctrine of the Trinity , of the Divinity of Christ , and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost , and Books are daily writ , printed and published , either directly contrary to the said Doctrine , or by consequence in opposition to them , denying all the Mysteries of the Christian Religion , and resolving all into such Notions as are to be made good by Humane Reason , and thereby making void the whole revealed Religion , and destroying the Necessity of Faith in order to Eternal Salvation , by means whereof Arianism , Socinianism , Atheism and Deism do greatly abound : and there are Proselytes to the same daily made , to the great Scandal of the Church of England and the Orthodox Members thereof : For preventing of which for the future , We do present that all care possible ought to be taken for the speedy discovering of all such Books as are so writ , printed or published , contrary to the known Doctrine of the Church of England , and the Authors , Printers and Publishers of the same ; and for punishing the Authors , Printers and Publishers thereof according to the utmost severity of the Laws , and for the suppressing all such Books of that kind as are already printed , and for preventing the printing any more for the time to come : And we do farther present , that a Book Entitled , Christianity not Mysterious : or a Treatise shewing , That there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to Reason or above it , and that no Christian Doctrine can be properly called a Mystery ; supposed to be written by one Mr. Toland : And also another Book Entitled , The Reasonableness of Christianity , as delivered in the Scriptures : And also one other Book Entitled , The Lady's Religion , in a Letter the Honourable the Lady Howard , are Books fit to be suppressed , and the Authors , Printers and Publishers of the same ought to have such Punishment inflicted on them , as by the Laws of the Land they may . Item , We present a Pamphlet lately published , Entitled , A Letter to a Convocation-Man concerning the Rights , Powers and Privileges of that Body , to be Scandalous and against the Constitution of the Government , and ought to be suppressed and the Author punished . Now ye may see by the Agreement of this Presentment , with the things contained in my Epistle and Preface , to which 't is posteriour , how in what I said or did , I was not in the wrong nor out of the way : I faithfully give it as it is , without changing Words or altering the Sense , as some of you have done of some of your Citations out of my Papers ; ye are always sure to give the worst Construction of Words and Things , like Spiders ye turn all things into Poison ; about which , besides what I already observed , I shall on the way take notice of one thing more , when I say no Soldier in an Enemy's Country ought to struggle out of the way , &c. for he that doth so , ventures to be knocked on the head ; you put in ought instead of ventures , is this fairly done ? Certainly 't is a great difference between saying a Man runs the hazard of being knocked , and he ought to be knocked on the head ; so if I should but write or speak Reason , you with adding one Letter , would soon make it Treason ; and if you write or speak Treason with taking off one Letter , you can soon make it Reason ; this is said to shew your Partiality : As to what follows in the same Page and the next after about Dr. Sh — against his Antagonist as against me , I shall not trouble my head about it , only God forgive and give you Grace to mend : I see all that have any thing to do with this Man or lye in his way and are not of his mind , must prepare for the like usage : but , I say , I do not concern my self about Persons so much as about the Cause ; and therefore whosover would in the Godhead set up three Spirits and Substances , is in my opinion fallen into a fundamental Heresie ; and whosoever is against such , in that same thing . I join with , because I always love to be for the Truth . In what follows I desire the Reader to take notice of the Man's want of Sincerity : As well as I , he knows we are not and cannot be agreed upon the very Terms he sets down , for they contain the quintessence of their Error about the Holy Trinity ; for , Sirs , ye would have Jesus Christ to be not a Person , but only an Attribute as the Wisdom of God , so the Holy Ghost to be only the Vertue and Power of God , and not an Hypostasis a Person of the Godhead ; for tho' one of you saith , that for Peace-sake ye submit to the Phrase of the Church , that is to the name Person , yet ye interpret it not as the Church doth . Therefore , tho' you say , the Vnitarians , the Catholick Church , the Translator and I , are at perfect Agreement , and tho' we agree in the Oneness of the Godhead or of one Divine Nature , and , to make use of your words , that there is One Infinite Spiritual Substance , yet we are far from agreeing with you in what follows , with three Properties , unbegotten , begotten and proceeding , &c. except ye explain your meaning otherwise than ye use to do : Arius under a word which if well taken , might be harmless enough , sheltered his Error , so 't is usual with you , ye are meerly for Words , but we do besides Words look for Things , and would have such Words as are proper as much as may be , to signifie the Things ; Now your threefold distinction of Original Mind , reflex Wisdom , and Divine Love , may be sufficient to represent what you mean thereby , but not what we believe : We make a distinction between the Property and the Person of the Godhead , but you do confound them , and would have it to be but one and the same : Now if with us you will say , that in one and most simple Nature of God are three distinct Persons to whom the infinite and singular Nature of one only God is common , and that these three distinct Persons , the Attributes of that one God do belong to , then you say something to the purpose , or else , like the Gibeonites , you come in to us only to deceive us : We assert three Persons and not barely three Properties in the Godhead ; we say the Father is a Person , the Son a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person , and so three Persons ; but we don't say , the Father is an Attribute , the Son an Attribute , and the Holy Ghost an Attribute , thereby of three Persons to make three Attributes : We cannot say the Son of God to be a Property or Attribute ; we cannot say an Attribute of Divine Nature was made Flesh ; we cannot say three Properties appeared in our Saviours Baptism , or that we are baptised in the Name of three Properties : Therefore ye may see we are not so far agreed as you said ; if you will have us to be agreed , you must come to us , for we declare we cannot go to you , that 's the easiest and surest way of the two , for we are tyed by a Revelation , and may go no farther than it doth allow us ; but your Human Reason is a Latitudinarian which can stretch a great way ; we may not , we cannot go beyond the bounds which God in his Word hath prescribed us , but ye are Free-willers and at liberty ; to day your Reason may teach you one thing , to morrow another ; for as you say your selves , a Doctrine which at one time may be convenient , may be otherwise when Circumstances of Times shall alter , but with us , no Circumstances can alter our Heavenly Doctrine . Out of this you may see , how all this while , I have not been fighting against the Man in the Moon , or as you very civilly express it , making a Rod for a foolish Back of my own , or to speak home , a Fagot to roast my own Ribs . But upon a surer ground I may say , he hath been in a Dream or in a hot violent Fit , for he hath been striking on all sides and spared none that lay in his way ; as for me , I am the Man , and therefore in the Fit , having forgotten the Cause he hath at me almost in every Page ; and in one place he admires at my extravagant Zeal , who would have the Socinians burnt for their complyance with the Church of England : If so , then indeed there were cause to admire , but there is true ground of admiration that he thinks it so ; but really nothing is to be admired at , either in or from him , for he calls me a Papist , a Calvinist , and a Zealous one , a Socinian , nay a Real one : He saith he is no Socinian , but I am , when he writes for and I against them ; this is a Hocus Pocus , 't is and 't is not ; surely there is cause to suspect something is out of order within that brains of his , or an extraordinary brazen-fac'dness , however let him as he can secure all this from Contradiction , Et erit mihi magnus Apollo : When I think upon such Men as pretend to alter the Nature of things , I am put in mind of what a famous Popish Author saith , That the Pope can make that to be Sin which is no Sin , and that not to be Sin which is Sin ; so do these Men who would seem to be much against Popery , yet follow several of their Maxims , and would make that to be a Nonsense which is good Sense , and that to be no Contradiction which is , and so on the contrary : If these Men themselves be not Mysteries , as one calls me , their dark Sentences are ; all this while the Cause is safe enough . But Calvin not so , how roughly doth he handle him on all occasions , if he were alive he would not be good to give to Dogs , tho' neither he nor a dosen more such one 's would be worthy to carry his Books : I confess 't is to me , and ought to be a wonder to others , to find how mad some Men in the World are against that faithful Servant of God , once in his Life and Conversation , and now in his Works and Labours an Eminent Instrument in his Hand as for Instruction , so at first in the Work of Reformation : This is a Fit of Rage which several Years since , out of Envy , some in Parts much inferiour to him , began to be possessed of , and by Men of the same Kidney , hath been propagated to this very day , whereof the Authors of the Two Letters are real Instances ; for to speak in Paul's words , they are exceeding mad against him , and as they are against his Memory and Person now far out of their reach , so they are broken loose and so hot and fiery against the Doctrines he taught , that all the Water of the Leman Lake could hardly cool them ; what they call Calvinism they adorn with these Epithets , Proud , sowr , and fiery Qualifications , Calvinistical Impatience , and many such more , whereof this Orthodox is one , The Heresie of the Tritheists is not worse than uncharitable and ill natur'd Calvinism : Therein I shall conclude with this , In truth I think Heylin was over modest to esteem a Presbyterian that is a Calvinist worse than a Papist : Here is your Protestants ; and as if this had not been enough , his own venom he throws out in the same place , for my part I esteem a Christian from whatsoever Sect denominated , not excepting the Socinians , more honourable than a Persecuting Calvinist : Tho' the word Persecuting had been left out , it had been all one to that Christian Righteous Soul of his . But as for Socinus he was a most excellent Man , very sound in the Faith , and who , if we will believe this Man , hath by his Works laid a great Obligation upon the World , and he subscribes to what one of the Gang said of him , That none since the Apostles hath deserved better of the Christian Religion ; so that a Man may more avail himself by reading his Works , than by perusing all the Fathers together , with the Writings of more modern Authors . This People either never read , or care not for what Paul saith , Let your Moderation be known unto all men , for they observe it neither for Socinus nor against Calvin ; but having elsewhere had an occasion in few few words to do this faithful Servant of Christ some Justice , I shall leave off speaking of his Person to take some brief notice of his Works . That which most nettles his Enemies are the Doctrines about Grace and Providence mentioned in the Two Letters , which they call Calvinism : But if they would not so proudly despise all Antiquity , but peruse some of Augustin's Works , who lived 1200 Years before Calvin , they might find he was a Calvinist , so were Hilarius , Prosper , Fulgentius , and others , who so long before he was born , could , as well as he did afterwards , find those same Doctrines in the Word of God ; and accordingly , the beginning , progress and end of our Salvation , and from first to last , we attribute to God's free Grace , which in that matter we can never yield too much nor too little to any thing of our own ; we do not , like the Pharisee , boast in our Prayers , that we Fast twice a Week , give Tithes , and are not Extortioners , Unjust , and make no Comparison with our Neighbours as being better Men than they , but we say , God be merciful to us miserable Sinners ; for we are commanded to trust in the Lord with all our hearts , and forbidden to lean unto our own understanding , which is as good as to say , depend not upon your own Reason ; therefore in any thing we go about , we are to call upon God for his help , and the gracious influence of his Holy Spirit , being sure that without it we can do no good ; and we be sufficiently taught in Scripture to trust to no strength or abilities of our own ; and when in the World we meet with Men of Principles contrary to these , we find it not strange , for we know that there must be also Heresies among us , or those called Christians , that they which are approved may be made manifest among us : Wherefore as long as we have about these Matters such a Foundation as Paul the great Preacher of Free Grace hath laid , we need not to care for all Exceptions or Cavils of Men or Devils : These are such Truths , as we hope through Grace , never to be ashamed or afraid to own unto the end , even to lay down our Lives , as he did his , for so Glorious a Cause . The Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Grace are so linked together , that no Man strikes at one , but the other feels it ; tho' may be in a different degree , they have a common Enemy , so he who is against one is against both , which I positively affirm of Socinians ; Grace and Truth , saith the Evangelist , came by Jesus Christ , who coming into the World brought Grace along with him , for he is the Spring of it , which he manifested in framing and redeeming of his Church , the Foundation whereof and of our Christian Religion lies in this great and fundamental Truth whereof Peter made a Confession , how Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God ; upon the verity whereof , there our Saviour declared that his Church should be built , and at the same time signified that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it : For this is the House built upon a Rock which , tho' the Rain descendeth , and the Floods come , and the Wind blows , yet it falls not , for it is founded upon a Rock . In that Promise of his the Lord Jesus declares two things ; First , The Gates , that is the Power of Devils in Hell , would afterwards make some attempt against that fundamental Truth of his being the Son of the living God. As indeed , it hath from time to time raised its strongest Batteries against it , as not long after his Ascension , even in the life time of his beloved Disciple , and after his death , the Assaults began by Simon the Sorcerer , Ebion , Cerinthus , Menander , and afterwards by other Hellish Instruments : But in Arius's time great strugglings happened with so prodigious a success , that all the World was said to be Arian ; hence came the Saying , All the World against Athanasius , and Athanasius against all the World ; so afterwards for the same Cause against our Saviour's Divinity , several fought under the Banners of Hell , as now , tho' more cunningly , Socinians do , having taken up the Cudgels ; and as those Blasphemous Opinions were exploded out of the World , so shall be , in God's due time , those which are raging for the present , notwithstanding all the Craftiness , Malice and Power of Hell , and all Antichrists , of Devils and Men : This my so positively speaking , is grounded upon Christ's Promise , how the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the truth of his being the Son of the living God , which his Church is built upon ; and this is the Second thing , not only deduced from , but plainly contained in those words of the Lord Jesus , whose Person is a fit Object of Adoration , as his Grace is of Admiration . These Truths one may abundantly be satisfied with out of Scripture , which I much have made use of , because some places prove a Truth directly , others collaterally , and others are brought in to illustrate and give a light to the thing , so that Scripture is of several uses , nothing therein without some use ; 't is of it as of the Rivers in the Garden of Eden , they all did not run one and the same way . But now to conclude , I in the first place put you in mind to Answer my Book , and then take this Occasion which you give me , in case ye knew it not before , to acquaint you , how upon those Matters I have written a Book hitherto Unanswered ; if you have such an aversion for them as you * express , do but give us in Print your Thoughts about it , 't is a fair Field I offer you , but be not afraid , for 't is not Smithfield : but if ye can defend that Cause no better than the Socinian about the Holy Trinity and Person of the Lord Jesus , then it will be in you but Time and Labour lost in vain . And if you go about it , be more Serious in a Business of so high a nature , and less Virulent and Malicious ; For shame leave off Jesting with Holy things , and let it be without giving ill Language , for therein I yield you know to do 't more than my self , and write like Scholars and Gentlemen , without breaking the Bonds of Humanity , with Arguments as hard as ye please but softer Words , and make no more haste than good speed ; if ye come in that way , then by the Grace of God I will fairly Answer you in the like manner ; and tho' already there is Work enough cut for you , I doubt more than ye are well able to compass , yet several new Arguments I have to bring in : but if in the usual Scolding Reviling way , I will leave you to chew your Cud : May be your Bantering way of Writing hath succeeded against some , but be not mistaken , with others it will never do , come with good Arguments and then I am for you ; however come which way you will , I declare I shall not in the least care whether you come asunder or both together . FINIS . BOOKS Printed for J. Hartley . THE Blasphemous Socinian Heresie Disproved and Confuted , &c. With Animadversions on Mr. Toland's Christianity not Mysterious . Dedicated to both Houses of Parliament , By J. Gailhard , Gent. Verdicts of the Learned concerning Virgil and Homer's Heroic Poems . Regular and Irregular Thoughts in Poets and Orators . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A41509-e180 Page 18. Page 15. Page 4. Page 3. Gal. 4. 18. Rev. 3. 15. Page 3. Luke 16. 8. pag. 59. 1 Cor. 2. 4 , 5. Acts 15. Eccles . 4. 10. * 1 Cor. 12. 28. and Ephes . 4. ii . 2 Pet. 1. 20 , 21. 1 Cor. 12. 30. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Luke 16. 31. Luke 20. 38. 2 Cor. ii . 8. 1 Cor. 2. 12 , 13. Ephes . 1. 16 , 17 , 18. Colos . 1. 9. 1 Cor. 15. 58. Coloss . 2. 7. Heb. 13. 9 1 John 4. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Page 8. Page 4. 16 , 18. 1 Cor. 7. 7. Acts 17. 2. Acts 28. 23. 1 Cor. 15. 34. Acts 1● . 24 , 28. Chap. 17. 11. Luke 24. 44. Ver. 45. Isa . 8. 20. Matt. 7 5. Pag. 6 , 7. Job 13. 4. Psal . 74. 22. John 20. 31. pag. 6 , 8 pag. 11. Acts 2● . 3. Matth. 16. 17. John 14. 16 , 17. Chap. 16. 13 , 14. 2 Tim. 1. 7. Psal . 119. 169. pag. 8. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1 John 1 , 2. 1 Cor. 2. 15. 1 Tim. 3 16. Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 32. p. 12 , 13. John 10. 33 , 36. John 14. 10. Chap. 11. 4. Isa . 42. 8. Luke 2. 49. 50. Coloss . 2. 9. Prov. 28. 26. Chap. 23. 4. p. 9 , 10. In 1565. and 1660. pag. 39. p. 6. 13. Page 14 , 2 Tim. 2. 25. pag 30. John 16 2 , 3. Joh. 8. 19. 1 John 2. 23. Matt. 3. 17. and 17. 5. Joh. 12. 28 Joh. 5. 37. Joh. 8. 43. Acts 3. 22 , 23. 2 Pet. 1. 16 , 17 , 18. John 10. 3 , 4 , 5. 2 Cor. 11. 13 , 14. page 17. pag. 19. pag. 18. Matt. 1● . 31. Luke 22. 65. Acts 13. 33 , 45. 1 Tim. 1. 13. Acts 26. 11. Ephes . 2. 12. Coloss . 2. 9. pag. 19. Psal . 53. 1. pag. 22. Heb. 12. 16. pag. 25. Rom. 12. 5. 1 Cor. 6. 15. Coloss . 1. 24. Ephes . 5. 23 , 32. Psal . 111. 9. Ephes . 5. 4. pag. 20. Matt. 11. 27. Rom. 1. 21 , &c. John 8. 55. Chap. 14. 7. 2 Cor. 4. 6. pag. 21. pag. 18. 1 Pet. 4. 18. p. 22 , & 33. p. 33. . ●9 . Rev. 2. 9. & 3. 9. p. 7. p. 22. pag. 33. Lev. 5. 1. Deut. 19. 21. Lev. 24. 16 , 23. p. 25. p. 27. p. 18. p. 4. p. 27. p. 28. p. 29. p. 30. p. 30. Num. 16. 7. p. 31. p. 28. p. 33. p. 40. Rom. 2. 1. Coloss . 4. 6. 1 Pet. 3. 15. pag. 42 , 43. Acts 19. 19. p. 31. Gen. 16. 12. Josh . 7. 2 Sam. 21. 1. Joel 2. 25. Rom. 1. 32. Monday May 17. p. 36. p. 37. p. 14. p. 37. p. 38. p. 26 , & 29. Acts 26. 11. p. 28. p. 35. p. 33. p. 41. p. 18. Phil. 4. 5. Luke 18. 11 , 12 , 13. Prov. 3. 5. John 1. 17. Matt. 16. 18. Chap. 7. 24 , 25. A Plea for Free Grace against Free-will . * p. 9 , 20 , 33. 
A59811	----	A defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for writing against the Socinians in answer to the antapologist. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1694 Approx. 131 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 36 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59811 Wing S3283 ESTC R8168 11902930 ocm 11902930 50617 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59811) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50617) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 512:3) A defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for writing against the Socinians in answer to the antapologist. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [4], 66 p. Printed for William Rogers ..., London : 1694. Attributed to William Sherlock. Cf. Halkett & Laing (2nd ed.). Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Apology for writing against the Socinians. Socinianism. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-02 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2005-02 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A DEFENCE OF THE Dean of St. Paul's APOLOGY FOR Writing against the SOCINIANS . A DEFENCE OF THE Dean of St. Paul's , APOLOGY FOR Writing against the SOCINIANS . IN ANSWER TO THE ANTAPOLOGIST . LICENS'D . LONDON : Printed for William Rogers , at the San over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet . MDCXCIV . A DEFENCE OF THE Dean of St. Paul's APOLOGY FOR Writing against the SOCINIANS . ONE would have thought , that when the Ancient Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity , had not only been contradicted , but openly scorn'd and ridicul'd with as little Modesty as Sense , it had been no unpardonable Crime to undertake the Defence thereof : But it seems a certain Stander-by being a little touch'd with Melancholy , could not bear such an Attempt ; for this is to litigate touching a Fundamental ; and that is to turn it into a Controversy ; that is , to unsettle , at least endanger the unsettling the whole Superstructure . So that when some Learned Writers took upon them to chastise the Insolence of these Busy and Factious Underminers of Christianity , who in the opinion of any one that is not overrun with Melancholy , must be thought by their bold Attempts upon the Fundamentals of our Faith , to have endeavour'd the unsettling the whole Superstructure ; this Stander-by was put into a sudden Fright , to see men so unreasonable , as to write in Vindication of a Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith , which it becomes Peaceable men rather tamely and silently to give up , than to litigate concerning it : And therefore he addresses in An Earnest and Compassionate Suit to the Learned Writers in Defence of the Churches Doctrine , to hold their hands , and forbear at least till a fit time . But it seems All men had not the same Sentiments of this Peaceable Design , as the Melancholy Author of it had ; nor could the Compassiona●e Suit work its hop'd-for effects on the minds of All Learned Writers . 'T is no wonder therefore that the Dean of St. Pauls was not thereby discouraged from resuming the Defence of the Catholick Faith ; but only thought it necessary , before he ventured to dispute these matters any farther , to make some Apology for Disputing ; and to show , that notwithstanding what this Author endeavours to persuade the world , it is neither Vnchristian , nor Vncharitable , nor of Dangerous Consequence . But this Apology of the Dean's did , it seems , stir the Spleen of our Stander-by , and move the Choler of this Peaceable and Modest Person , who would ( but it seems he could not , especially towards the Church of England ) observe the common Rules of Good Manners : And therefore we must not blame him , if in his Reply to the Dean we do ( notwithstanding his designing the contrary , and composing his Mind as far as he was able ) meet with Bitterness , Passion , Cavilling , Insolence , and Ill Language ; for tho he will not pardon such things in himself , ( and therefore 't is to be hop'd will do private Penance for them ) yet it may become us to pardon them , and let it pass , as he says too many do , for a Point of Justice in such case , calcare fastum majori fastu . And besides , since he owns , that 't is not without difficulty that Human Nature forbears rendring an Angry and Disdainful Reply to Haughty and Ill-natur'd Answers , or those which are fancied to be such ; if he does now and then do so himself , we may suppose it was because he could not help it , and therefore it is excusable ; for I hope the Plea which he makes for Hereticks , may serve also for himself ; and if a man must Conceive as he can , and Judge as he can , and Believe as he can , so he must also Write as he can . And this I think will also be a sufficient Apology to our Author , for my not being of his mind ; for since I must conceive as I can , and judge as I can , I find that for my life I cannot judge his Discourse to be either rational or well design'd ; but rather , as he would fain have the world think of the Endeavours of other Learned Writers , Vnreasonable , Vnseasonable , and of Dangerous Consequence : And therefore without any farther Compliment , I shall venture to bestow some short Remarks upon it ; in which I shall also confine my self to the main Design of the Book , which is , ( as we shall hear him confessing himself anon ) To dissuade men from Writing in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity ; and therefore I shall not think my self concerned to enlarge in the Confutation of those Arguments against the Dean's Hypothesis , which ever and anon he gives us into the bargain ; for my business is only to consider what he says in Defence of his Peaceable Design of persuading All men , as well as the Dean , not to write in Defence of the Truth , if he thinks it so . But I must desire one thing of Our Author , That because he falls foul on the Dean for pretending to know his Intent , when he wanted the Gift of discerning Spirits to capacitate him for being a Judge of it , he would take notice , That I do not pretend to know his inward Intentions any more than his Name . And therefore whatever I shall say in my Reflections , let him not pretend that I do it to calumniate and inodiate him , since all I have to do with , is his Book . But now let us come closer to the purpose , and be plain and succinct , as far as our Author 's intricate way of Writing will permit , who begins ( as he also goes on ) with heavy Accusations against the Dean for his Bitterness , Insolence , Ill Language , Indignities , False Imputations , and at least seemingly malicious insinuations against himself : Whether all this be true , and whether the Dean in any place treats him with greater Sharpness than such a Writer deserves , must be left to the Impartial Reader to judge . One of the False Imputations with which he charges the Dean , is , That he says , He called the Socinians learned Writers of Controversy , whom he now protests he did not mean by that Character : And tho his Title-Page be so ambiguous , that it might easily be mistaken either for a Suit to Learned Writers , or for Forbearance to Learned Writers ; yet I am apt to believe him , because he has not dissuaded the Socinians from Writing against the Trinity , but other Learned Writers from Writing for it : A good Orthodox Excuse . But waving this and many Instances of the like Disingenuity , he will present here the main State of the Cause betwixt the Dean and himself ; which in short is this , That the Disputes touching the Controversies of the Holy Trinity , might be at present let alone , till fit time and place ; I suppose he means only by the Orthodox Writers , who defend that Doctrine ; for he himself protests , that by Learned Writers , to whom he addressed his Suit , he did not mean Socinians : And to persuade to this , he had said , This particular Controversy is of all others at present most unreasonable , most dangerous , and most unseasonable . This may pass for a state of the Question ; and I will leave it to the Reader to judge upon the whole , whether the Dean has not quite overthrown this state of his Question , and sufficiently demonstrated the Weakness of all he urged . Now he is desirous to know , Where is the mischief of all this : For all that he designed was plainly no more then , to move for Peace , at least for a Truce , till both Parties were calmed , and might calmly Treat . But , methinks , the fairest way for this had been , to desire both Parties to hold their hands , and not only to beseech one to be silent , and let the others Write , and Talk , and Rail , and Argue on too as well as they can against the Established Doctrine . But methinks this very project of a Truce does not seem very reasonable , for it looks as if he thought the Church and the Socinians to be upon equal terms with one another , which I can by no means grant ; because the Church of England , in this Point at least , has had Sixteen hundred years prescription , besides the Authority of Scripture and Reason on her side . Nor can I think any Treaty lawful in such Fundamental Points , but that all Catholick Christians are bound to do what they can by Reason to convince these men of their Errors , and reduce them into the Bosom of the Church ; for I do not like our Authors way of Compounding with Hereticks and Shismaticks , and I hope Posterity may find better Expedients for Vniting of Protestants , than for the sake of Peace to give up truth . But here though our Author could bear , what he thinks a modest and just reprehension , yet he is very angry with what the Dean says , and looks upon it as imperious beyond measure , especially when the great Argument of all , is no better than a petitio principij , that the Doctrine of the Trinity , as Dr. Sherlock hath stated it , and does defend it , is a fundamental of the Christian Faith. Now this I take to be a false imputation upon the Dean , who does indeed , as the Church of England does , look on the Doctrine of Three Persons and One God , as a Fundamental of the Christian Faith ; and this he endeavours to vindicate from those Absurdities and Contradictions which are charged upon it , and gives such an Explication of it , as though he believes to be true , he does not lay down as necessary to be expresly believed by all ; nor will he esteem any man a Heretick who sincerely believes the Doctrine of the Church , that there is but One God and Three Persons , though he does not subscribe in all things to his Hypothesis . And therefore I think the Antapologist is fallen into a fit of Melancholy when he complains of the Dean , because in his Apology he quits his Adversary , and neglects all that has been said against his Novelties , and falls upon exposing the Peaceable man. Now I should rather have wondred , if in an Apology for Writing against the Socinians , he had entred into the main subject of Debate , when his only business was to show the weakness of such Earnest Suits , as desired that no man should Write any thing in the present Controversy ; so that I cannot but think the Antapologist is a little , if not besides himself , I am sure a great deal besides the purpose , to make it a matter of Accusation against the Dean , that he keeps close to the proper Subject of his Discourse ; for I would here only ask him , Whether in his Suit he undertook a Confutation of the Dean's Hypothesis ? If he did not , then I hope his Book may be pertinently Answered , and solidly Confuted too , without entring into the merits of that Cause . I would ask him also , Whether he did not Address to all Learned Writers against the Socinians in this Conttoversy , as well as to the Dean ? And whether what he urges be not level'd against any man's Writing in Defence of the Established Doctrine , as well as of the Dean's particular Hypothesis ? If so , 't is plain that the Dean did very well , not to run out into a Vindication of his own Hypothesis , or of the Doctrine of the Trinity in general ; but to fall upon exposing the Peaceable man , as our Author terms it ; that is , to show the insufficiency of all his pleas for Forbearance towards the Socinians , and betraying the Christian Faith , under the pretence of Peace and Moderation . But the Dean does not like that the Faith should be stated in Scripture Language , but would have School-terms pass as Fundamental in Faith , as well as his own new Definitions and new Notions . As to the first of these things : The Dean does , and that on very good reasons , desire , whether the Melancholy stander●by can admit it or no , that the true Faith , under what words soever it be expressed , and not merely the sound of Scripture-Words , should pass for Fundamental ; and thus far he is for School-Terms , or any Terms that fix the true sense of Scripture : But as to the other branch of this Accusation , 't is false and ridiculous , and that is answer enough to it . As for the uncertain signification of Philosophical Terms , methinks he should not quarrel at that , which may afford his Friends the better shelter , and permit every one under the same words to couch his own meaning . And it seems in what he writ , he did not contest either of these Points ; and yet in the very Page before , he complains of the Dean , because in his Answer he did not offer one Word to prove his own new Notions ; which yet he owns he did not contest with him , and is still as willing as ever to decline engaging , but only in his own defence he can't forbear declaring , That the Dean has to his power overthrown the True Catholick Faith of the Nicene Creed , as much as Philoponus or Joachim ever did ; nor will his Invention of Mutual Consciousness clear him from the Charge of inferring Three Gods , since that can infer only an Vnity of Accord , &c. This he says , but does not here go about to prove it , because these things require more Words than the present Design admits , and it may be more Reason than he is Master of ; and therefore 't is as easy for me , and as allowable to say , That the Dean's Mutual Consciousness does infer more than an Vnity of Accord , as for him to say it does not : And that it does infer full as great , if not a greater Vnity of Substance and Nature , than the words of the Nicene Creed express ; and if it were not for the Reason which he himself has given , I should not care though I ventured to dispute this matter with him at large . As for his next Section , I do not know well what to make of it ; 't is long and full of Quotations , but to what purpose , he who writ it may possibly know best . In the first place , I think he would have none but Scripture-terms made use of in stating this Doctrine ; but this , whether it were the Invention of Old Hereticks , or New Ones , hath been shewn to be in our Case very foolish and unreasonable , and what none would contend for , but he that either knows not what he asks , or has a mind to overthrow the true Faith. The next thing , as near as I can guess , that he endeavours to shew from Fathers , Schoolmen , and Protestant Divines is , That the word Person is equivocal and uncertain in its signification ; I hope then his Clients may like it the better , as being able to make use of it in a sense agreeable to their own Doctrines . But after all this Vncertainty of the word Person , about which he has shown so much Learning , as far as I can find there is so much of its Signification agreed to on all hands , that the Antitrinitarians are unwilling to use it , as evidently including something that will not go down with them ; and I fear that this is the true reason of our Author's Quarrel against it . But now our Author has shown himself such a Master of Books , he can't forbear stepping a little out of the way again , to show himself as great a Master of Reason , and therefore falls foul upon the Dean for contradicting himself , for making Three Minds and One Mind , and making the Persons Distinct , and not Separate , which is to him an unavoidable Contradiction : And who can help it if it be ? What the Dean maintains , is not so to every body's apprehension ; especially if it be considered in his own words , without our Author's Comment on them ; for it may be understood how Three Minds are One , tho it be something difficult to apprehend that they are three sames , and not three sames : And I can no more understand our Author's arguing , That if they are Distinct , they are Separate also , than he can the Dean's , when he says they are Distinct and yet not Separate ; which I believe will not sound like an Absurdity to any but a Socinian Vnderstanding . But if the Dean has been mistaken , and has fallen short in his Arguing , and has also set up an Hypothesis full of Contradictions , which yet there are a great many Wiser men than our Author do not believe , what would all this be to the Design of our Author's Book ? If Dr. Sherlock does not argue well , must no body therefore write , that can argue better ? If his Hypothesis be unreasonable , is it therefore unreasonable to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity ? Or is the Doctrine it self unreasonable ? Some men we know think so ; and this may be several strokes in his Book be suspected to be the Opinion of our Author . However , he is so great a Lover of Peace ( why then does he quarrel so much with the Orthodox Writers , and the Church of England ? ) that he is willing to admit the old way of speaking , and the Ancient Notion of a Divine Person , as being more consistent and less obnoxious : Which if it had been kept to , he had f●rborn his Suit : 'T is the New Notion then that he quarrels at ; but why then must all men be desired not to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity , even tho they do hold to the old Notion ? But h●re ( that is in the Ancient Notion of a Person ) or rather in that Word , since it has been a long time in use , without ever defending or explaining the thing ) he would have our Divines stop for Peace sake . And I believe they will gratify him so far , as not to enter into any farther Disputes about it , if he will secure that the Socinians shall not oppose this , but subscribe to it , and not write against it . Now he would persuade us , and so it may be he might if we had never seen his Melancholy ●uit , or did not understand English , That all he desired was , that men would stop at the Ancient Notion , &c. when 't is plain to any English understanding , that he desired a great deal more , viz. That no body would write at all in Defence of the Ancient Faith , or Ancient Notion ●f a Person , though our Adversaries do daily affront and ridicule the Doctrine of the Church , and the Ancient Notion too . For I only desire to know , Whether the ridiculing the Athanasian Creed , which was the occasion of Dr. Sherlock's Vindication , be not ridiculing the Ancient Notion . This being all his harmless Design , he is very angry at the Imputation of Disguised Heretick , &c. What he is , I determine not , but I am sure he writes just as if he were such an one ; and since he has not set his Name , I can't apprehend it any ways uncharitable to suspect so much of an unknown Author , of whom we have nothing else to judge by but his Book , which I am sure will never prove that he is any thing better , and does well deserve to have a Brand set upon it , that unwary Readers may not be deceived by it . And this I believe , whatever he doth , very few Orthodox Hearty Asserters of the Catholick Faith , will think a Calumny . Now for the Dean's New Hypothesis again , who did not keep within bounds , and stop where he ought to have done , but must needs be rambling , and therefore he must have a lash or two for that . And for the Reader 's great Edification , our kind Author will give an account how far he had read of the Dean's Book when he writ , which , and several other as weighty Accounts of himself and his private Concerns , I leave to the Reader that has Curiosity enough to peruse them . But the Dean holds that which necessarily infers Three Gods , and in his Apology goes beyond himself , as in his Vindication he went plainly beyond and contrary to the Doctrine of the Fathers , Schools , and Protestant Divines . Pray what 's the matter now ? Why , he calls the Son a God Incarnate , and the Holy Ghost a God ; and therefore infallibly by vertue of this little Particle a , there must be Three Gods , all the world can't help it : For tho he expresly says , These Three are but One God , and proves it too , yet as long as he says the Son is a God Incarnate , there is nothing can vindicate him from the Imputation of Tritheism ; and therefore he must according to his Promise , thankfully correct this Absurdity , now it is so plainly shown him . But does a God Incarnate signify any more , but that he who is Incarnate is God ? Which if we were always to deal with such Criticks , is a much safer way of speaking , than to say he is God Incarnate ; for among those who own a Trinity of Divine Persons in the Godhead , a God Incarnate can signify no more , than that One of the Divine Persons , who is really and truly God , is Incarnate ; but to say God Incarna●e , might be abused by such perverse Criticks to signify , That the whole Trinity , which is the One God , is Incarnate . The next Complaint of our Author is , That the Dean charges him with desiring that no body would write aga●nst the Socinians : And pray is not that the design of his Melancholy Suit ? To most mens apprehensions I dare say it is ; nor do I find that he himself makes any exception against the Truth of the Charge ; he does not say it was not his design , tho it is very iniquitous in the Dean to charge him with it , because whatever his Intent was , he has given us two admirable Reasons why it cannot be concluded from his Book . The first is , That others as well as Socinians are Heterodox in this Point : But the Dean and Dr. Wallis writ only against Socinians , and he owns his Suit was chiefly to them , and no body else is particularly named in his Suit , and therefore the Dean guessed pretty right , and had some reason for his guess . 2dly . These are not the only Points in which they are Heterodox , and therefore the Doctor had liberty to write against them in other Points : But still was not he and every body else desired to forbear them in these their principal Errors ? And did the Dean charge him with any thing more ? For in this present Controversy what had he to do with their other Errors ? And yet I believe many at least of his Reasons for not writing , will hold as well in other Points as in this of the Trinity . In the next place he gives an account why he stiles himself a Stander by , which does not become any Divine of the Church of England in such a Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith. The first Reason he gives , is his mean opinion of his own Skill in the Controversy , but it is modestly express'd with a perhaps , and therefore perhaps it was his ill opinion of the Controversy it self . His next Reason is , That every one who is skill'd at his Weapon must not draw upon every one he meets begirt with a Sword , but if they draw upon him , or to take it out of the Metaphor , assault the Catholick Faith , which every Christian is concerned in , and every Divine concern'd to defend , it does not become him to be a Stander by , but to use his Skill to defend himself and his Faith ; for to be a Stander-by in such cases , in plain English is to be a Neuter ; and when there is a dispute of Faith , if a Neuter be not a Heretick , he cannot be Orthodox , for he is on neither side , if we can suppose a Medium between these two . In the next place he does not like to be thought tender on the wrong side ; but certainly he is so , if he means any thing that he speaks . He readily owns what I believe no body will lay to his charge , That he has shown a Tenderness to the Church of England and the Nicene Faith ; I suppose by those severe Reflections which he makes upon both , and his Burlesque of the Athanasian Creed and the Litany , which as yet stand in our Liturgy , and are like to do so , till it fall into the hands of such Melancholy Reformers , as out of pure Tenderness for the Credit of the Old Reformation , are for changing the Frame of our most Fundamental Articles , or resolving them all into a mere Negative Belief , which is to leave no positive Faith in the Church . And here our Author would know how he is Tender on the Wrong side , when he has only express'd a tenderness for the Church of England , the Credit of the Reformation , and for Peace and Holiness ; and I 'le warrant you , has not said one word in favour of the Socinian Heresy , and therefore the Dean may keep his profound politick Notes , of mens tenderness being due to their Inclinations , for better purposes : What these purposes are , I know not , but certainly 't is no improbable conjecture , that men have some Inclinations to that , for which they express a great tenderness , though t is possible this Rule may sometimes fail , and that tenderness , which our Author saith he has expressed for the Church of England , may not be due to his Inclinations . But now let us go forward to the next Paragraph , and we shall meet with some farther instances of the Dean's disingenuous arts ; who perverts our Author's Peaceable Assertions , and makes what he pleases of them by odious that is's , which the Reader must know , is his common way of dealing . A short but heavy Charge this , if it be true ; but the comfort is , that he who reads the Dean's Book with his own Eyes , rather than the Antapologists , will find no ground for such an Accusation ; for he does no where pervert his Peaceable assertions , nor do his that is's Misrepresent the consequences of our Author's Assertions : And I take it for no disingenuous art , to expose any Assertion by shewing its true m●●ning , and laying open the just consequences of it . A●● as to that publick hate , which he saith the Dean endeavou●s to cast on him , I don't see how that can be , since 〈◊〉 Dean has never mentioned his Name , and theref●●● 〈◊〉 did not know him , or had no mind to expose him . In the next Section he confesses himself an 〈◊〉 ●o such open Disputes between Protestants , as only Pu●li●●●o the common Enemies the Divisions of the Protestants . And so I believe is the Dean too , as also to all such open Disputes among Christians , as have the same ill consequences with respect to the common Enemies of Christianity ; and yet I believe neither he , nor our Author , would from hence conclude , That we must not dispute against any Popish Errors , because this publi●hes to the common Enemies of Christianity the Divisions of the Christians ; or that , if there be any such open Disputes , those who defend the Truth when openly contradicted , must bear the blame of them . As to what he says , That Voluntary Disputings have never suppressed , but rather revived old Heresies ; If he means by Voluntary Disputing , a necessary Defence , as he must mean if it be any thing to the present purpose , 't is very wisely thought of , that disputing against those who revive and propagate old Heresies , is the thing which revives them . How this Projector for the Churches peace , would have those who should Write in this Controversy authorized , he will set down anon , and then 't will be time enough to admire the wisdom of his Contrivance : Let us in the mean time come to his Latitude of Faith , which is another branch of his notable project for Peace , which he still adheres to , though , I think , he has given little or no answer to what the Dean urged against it ; so that the Dean's Arguments hold good still notwithstanding his Exceptions against them : Nor are we one dram the wiser for all that fine Lecture which he here reads concerning Latitude , as a Metaphorical term derived from Astronomy , Geography , Triple Dimensions , or what else you please ; nor yet for his citation from one who , I believe , was far enough from his Latitude of Faith. For I can't yet find what he would be at in the present point , unless it be , what he has been already charged with , That every man should be let alone to believe what he pleases , so he doth but profess to believe the Words of Scripture , though in never so perverse a sense . This I can't believe is that Latitude in which the Apostles left the Faith. He says , To leave Faith in the Latitude in which it was delivered , is to impose no Determinations of such words ( i.e. of such words as may carry with them different Notions ) as necessary to Salvation , but to allow each Person to believe the matter propounded in one of those senses , whatever it be , which the words naturally bear , and which in his Conscience he judges truest . This don't seem either safe or reasonable , because a Word or Phrase may naturally be capable of divers senses , and yet it may be demonstrable that in one place it must be taken in one sense , and in another place in another sense ; so that to take it in the wrong sense in either place , may be Ridiculous , Absurd and Heretical . Now I am persuaded that the Apostles never intended to leave Faith in this Latitude , nor was it reasonable they should , for then we need profess but one General Article , That the Scriptures are true , and every man should be left to make what he would of them ; which would be a pretty and easy kind of Unity of Faith , comprehending all , or at least almost all Heresies , for which some places of Scripture are always urged by their Abettors , which seem to them naturally to signify what they assert , or at least they say so ; and our Author has told us in another place , That we are to believe them in what they constantly profess . But if he means only , That we should not impose any more determinate Signification on such Words , than what the Apostles appear to have design'd them in , nor limit them to such Specialties as they cannot be proved to be limited to in Scripture , we agree with him . But this will not serve his Cause , for here we must take in the Circumstances of the Place , the Coherence with other Texts , &c. and then we will limit them no farther than what evidently appears to be the true sense of them ; and so far we think it reasonable to limit them , and not to leave every one to interpret them as he fancies , and yet be obliged to account him Orthodox , and not to oppose his False and Erroneous Interpretations ; which is to permit all Heresies to go on , and never say a word against them . But I hope he will allow , That all Scripture has some determinate Sense , or else it signifies nothing ; and that this Sense in the great Articles of Faith is obvious and intelligible to Impartial , Diligent , and Unprejudiced Seekers , and that as far as this determinate Sense we ought all to agree : For tho in some lesser matters we cannot easily fix this determinate Sense , nor know certainly what it is , and therefore may without any great danger be ignorant , and may own our Ignorance ; yet as to the Prime Articles of our Faith , we ought certainly to understand them in some determinate sense ; ( tho under that Compass some Specialties may be contain'd , to either of which it is not necessary to determine our Assent ) for else indeed we do not understand them at all , and do only repeat a huddle of words when we confess our Faith. Now if our Author can show me some plain determinate Sense of those Places which we urge , that comprehends under it both what we assert , and what the Socinians maintain , only as such Specialties , either of which may agree with the natural Sense and plain Meaning of the Words in all those places , I will join with him in desiring no body to write against the Socinians , at least not with any Warmth or Zeal , as allowing them to be no Hereticks , nor involved in any dangerous Errors . In the next Paragraph , because the Dean was not good at guessing , he will explain what he meant by Simplicity of Faith , and not any longer leave it to guess , though he first of all gives the Dean liberty to take it in what sense he please , even in that of Foolishness , and thinks that the Apostle would in a sort justify the expression ; but neither the Apostle nor common sense will justify the pertinency of it in this place . He tells us then , that he really meant Plainness , Vnmixedness , Purity ; and I believe the Dean is as desirous as he , that the Faith should be preserved as Plain and as Pure as the Apostles left it , and yet I fancy that will not hinder him nor any man else from defending it against the rude Assaults of Hereticks , nor from using reason in its Defence : For the Dean's design is to keep the Christian Faith Pure and Vnmixt from Heretical Glosses , which make it quite another thing than what the Apostles left it , and not as our Author fears , to vamp Philosophy into Faith. But now the Dean must answer for what he has presumed to say in favour of the Schoolmen , and must be confuted from his own words , for asking such an unreasonable question , as , What hurt have they done ? And here he spends Three Pages to show his own reading , and the Schoolmens Follies , and particularly those of the Master of the Sentences ; but I have more wit than to follow him through all these Particulars . In short therefore , I suppose the Dean did not intend to justify every thing that they said , but only thought they had done no harm by the words Person , Nature , Essence , Subsistence , and Consubstantiality , which the Dean expresly mention'd , and thought them a good Defence against Hereticks concealing themselves under Scripture-Phrases . And that the Dean did not intend to vindicate them in all things , nor to fix on them the Character of Infallibility , is plain from what our Author cites : And that the use of these words hath done more harm than good , I leave our Author to prove at his leisure ; and so pass over all his tedious Harangue against the School-Doctors ; let him bang them about by himself , and vent his displeasure against them as long as he will , it may be a good exercise , and serve to divert his Anger from the Church of England and its Orthodox Defenders : But how he and the Animadverter will agree the matter , I cannot guess . And it may be 't was this that mollified his Displeasure by that time he came to the Fathers , who otherwise were like to have smarted for the same kind of Folly , but now are like to come off pretty well ; and he has given us a reason for it , which I like well , because it argues some Modesty : He owns they are guilty as well as the School-Doctors , but his respect would not let him expose their Venerable Names : He has indeed caught them in a great fault , but he is so kind as to let them escape . I am glad he has so much reverence for the Ancient Doctors , I only wish he had as much for the Ancient Faith , and would let that escape his Lashes too . But the Dean accuses him of not understanding , or not reading the Schoolmen . What the Dean t●ere says , I verily believe may be true , but neither does he affirm it to be our Author's case , nor will I , because he now tells us , he has read them , and thinks he doth generally understand them ; and I had rather take his word , than contest that point with him . But the Dean says , he censured even our English Reformers for retaining Scholastick Cramping Terms in their Publick Prayers ; This he denies , but owns that he did modestly wish that they had observed the same Temper as did the Foreign Reformers ; which implies , that they ought to have done so , and yet did not , which notwithstanding the Modesty of it , I take to be censuring them . Nay , and is not what follows , Censuring our Litany and the Compilers of it ? If it be not , I am sure the Dissenters themselves never censured it . But by these Terms , the Dean says he means the beginning of the Litany . And how comes he to know his thoughts ? A very pretty question : For how should any man with out conjuring know by his own words , that he meant the Litany , which he prophanely and scornfully ridicules ? ●ut he meant not that alone ; a good excuse ; for it seems he meant also the ●reface in the Communion Service before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Trinity - Sunday ; that is , Who art one God , one Lord ; not one only Pers●n , but three persons in one Substance ; for that which we believe of the Glory of the Father , the same we believe of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , without any difference or inequality . And has not that School Divinity enough in it ? And if this be all the hurt in School Divini●y , it will make every good Christian very fond of it , for it contains the true ●hristian Faith. But because the Dean has pitch'd upon the other , he will stick by it . Generously done : Now let us see how he defends his Censure . Luther and Calvin are both called in to help . Luther left out that Petition , O Ho'y , Blessed , and Glorious Trinity , Three Persons and One God : Of which he confesses the Lutherans give another reason , viz. That the German Word did not so expresly signify a Trinity , as to exclude a Triplicity ; but he will not allow this to be currant ; but I suppose they understood I uther's reason better than he . And then Calvin disliked it also ; but so he did Episcopacy ; and will he think that a sufficient ground to censure our Reformers for retaining it ? But to what purpose are these Citations ? Let them be as express as they will , they are no Argument to us , who are no more bound to acquiesce in their Judgment , than our Author is in that of the Compilers of our Liturgy , for whom I think he should have as much Reverence , as either for Luther or Calvin . But other Foreigners also , and our Nonconformist Countreymen , have strong exceptions against this part of the Litany , which he cannot answer as he would . I am sorry for it , but I hope there are some others in the Church who can . How he would have them answered , I cannot tell , but I suppose he can answer them so as to satisfy himself , which sure cannot be without sufficient reason to justify the Lawfulness of these Forms . And if that can be done , which if it could not , he must be a Hypocrite in using them , I am sure 't is no sign of a Tenderness for the Credit of the English Reformation , to endeavour thus to expose it , and to publish what he thinks to be the Infirmities of it , when this publication can serve no other end than to encourage men in their opposition to , and dislike of the Establish'd Church : Certainly it had been more proper to have reserved these Complaints till his fit Time and Place . But he will grant that these Forms may be used without sin , but yet he judgeth it much safer not to come so near dividing the Deity , and so far to distract Devotion . But must we not then lay aside the Apostolical Form of Benediction in constant use among us , the Doxology , and the Form of Baptism , for fear of dividing the Deity , and distracting Devotion ? For in all these there is as express , distinct , and particular mention of Three , I dare not add Persons for fear of offending our Author , as in the Litany . But still he would have these Forms reduced to more Scriptural ones , to bring in our own Dissenters , whom we ought if possible , I hope I may add , by reasonable Methods , to bring in and unite to us . But here I cannot but observe , that this and a great deal more of his Book , is directly Writing against the received Doctrine of the Trinity , and the Established Worship of the Church of England . Now what is this to the design of his Book , to persuade men not to Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity ? Did he do that , only that he might have liberty to Ridicule and Expose it ? I must confess 't is a good Argument to engage men not to Write in Defence of this Doctrine of the Church , if he can make it out , that it ought not to be retain'd . But methinks 't is such a kind of Argument , that bespeaks a man not so much a Peacemaker , as a profest Adversary . And besides , I would ask him , Whether it be less Dangerous and less Vnseasonable at present for him to Write against the Established Doctrine and Worship of the Church , than for others to Write in Defence of them ? In the next Section he tells us , That Vnscriptural Words were complained of by the Fathers , as well as by Hereticks ; and by the Fathers first , for which he cites St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose , whom I am not now at leisure to turn over , nor does it seem very material to the present business . St. Athanasius he owns Apologizeth for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Necessity of it ; and if that will be allowed as a good reason , I suppose the Dean will not desire more in favour of Vnscriptural Terms , and therefore since our Author is willing , I think we had as good let this project stand upon its own merits . Here then he is very liberal , and will allow us to Vindicate Scripture from Heretical Glosses . Why then may we not Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity , and show what is the true sense of Scripture in that Point ? And if we may do this , Why is it not seasonable to do it now Hereticks are so busy in perverting the true sense of Scripture ? And if he will grant us this , the main design of his Book is overthrown . But when we have plainly proved that these words of Scripture contain this sense , why should we ( I suppose he means in our Creeds and Articles ) change the Words ? I will tell him one short reason , if he does not know it already , and that is because , when we have proved this to be the true sense of Scripture , so as to satisfy honest and unprejudiced Minds , yet perverse Hereticks may still take them in their own sense , and so we shall be never the nearer the knowledge of their Minds , nor able to distinguish them , unless we require them to profess they believe them in that sense , which we have proved to be the true sense ; and then it must be in other Words ; for though we have shown to all reasonable men , what is the true meaning of them , and so made the sense of the words plain ; yet the words are the same that they were ; and therefore every one who took them in a perverse sense before , may do so still if he will. Besides , why may not any man , who believes that to be the true sense which has been shown so to be , profess his Belief in those terms when required by the Church , as well as in Scripture Words which he takes in the same sense ? The Dean urges , They ( i.e. Scripture-Words ) may be undetermined , and 't is necessary to fix their true sense . But this , says our Author , is the Difficulty ; They may rationally , at least probably , admit of more senses than one , &c. He gives an example of this , which is not very much for his Reputation , because it can serve no other end , but to overthrow the Personality of the Holy Ghost , and his Intimate Conscious Knowledge of God ; and were my design at present to dispute the sense of particular Texts , it were easy to show , that it is not the Obscurity of the Text , but his own Inclination , which makes him fancy his Latitude of Sense ; but it is a vain thing in such a cause as this to infer a general Rule from a particular Instance : For how many instances soever of this nature he could give , if he will allow that there are any express Texts for the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost , which will not admit such a Latitude of sense , ( as he must acknowledge if he will allow the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Scripture-Doctrine ) there can be no pretence then , to leave such a Fundamental Article in such a Latitude of sense , that men may either own or deny a Trinity as they please . Further , He would be clearly for expressing some fixed true sense of all Controverted Tex●s in such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert , but for two or three Reasons , which are worth hearing : His first Reason is , because he cannot always be sure which sense is most truly affixed . But can he never be sure of this in any Texts that have been Controverted ? If he can , then this is no reason why it should not be done in them . His second Reason depends upon the first , and so must stand or fall with that , for where we can be sure which is the true sense of Scripture , there is no such danger of changing Faith and changing Scripture by fixing the sense , but the greater fear is of having no Scripture , if you have no determined sense of it . His last Reason , as urgent as all the rest , is , that we cannot tell where to find such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert . I grant some Hereticks are so perverse , as to wrest almost any words to their own sense , or else the Socinians could never have wrested such plain Texts of Scripture , and forced them to comply with their Notions . But that some words have been found that Hereticks could not pervert , is I think undeniable , since they have and do frequently refuse to subscribe to them and raise such opposition against them ; as for instance , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which the Arians always opposed . Now if these words did not plainly contain such a sense as doth expressly contradict their Opinions , why should they not profess their Faith in such words ? He could assign many words pitch'd upon from time to time , to guard the Faith and prick the fingers of Hereticks , &c. What then ? This is no proof that all words can be perverted , or that none were ever pitch'd upon that could not . As to the two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Personae , pitch'd upon by him , and so learnedly Criticis'd upon , I shall only say in short , that these and such other words as the Church of England delivers her Doctrine in , have prick'd the fingers of some men , or else what makes the Socinians cry out so ? There is something plainly signified by them , which the Antitrinitarians think not so easily reconcilable to their Opinions as the Words of Scripture are , though it be indeed no more than we say and prove to be contain'd in Scripture ; or else why do they not rest contented with them as well as with the words of Scripture ? Suppose there are some Homonymies , as our Author complains , in some words used in this Controversy ; will these words admit the Heresies against which they are directed ? Will they admit Socinian Opinions ? Or do they contradict them ? If they do , then they serve the end for which they were designed , notwithstanding these Homonymies . Our Author seems to think , That Words cannot be found to fix the Sense of Scripture , unless the same words will exclude All Heresies concerning the Subject to which they are apply'd , which is manifestly absurd . For if I confess that God is Almighty in the most express terms that can be imagined , may I not for all that affirm , that he is not Just or Good ? And must the word Almighty be rejected because it does n●● exclude All Heresies concerning the Divine Nature , though it sufficiently exclude all such Blasphemous Notions as make God a weak and impotent Being . Now though I confess Three Persons in the Godhead , 't is no wonder that I may nevertheless hold Heresy , and Blasphemy , and assert Three Gods too ; but can I under these words mean , that there is not a Trinity of Persons , as Socinians affirm ? But Hereticks may here conceal themselves under a larger Latitude of Expression , and spread their Heresies with a Traditionary Sense and Comment of their own , more exactly and more poisonously then the purity of the Holy Text would have permitted . How shall we be able to deal with this man , who is so well skilled in the versatile wit of Hereticks , that neither Scripture-words , nor all the words made use of by the Antient Fathers with great Caution and Judgment , are able to hold him ? I wonder how he knows , what either Heresy or Orthodoxy is as to the Doctrine of the Trinity ; when , if we may believe him , there are no words that do determinately signify either , but both the words of Scripture and Fathers will equally serve both . But now we must return to the Latitude of Faith , which the Dean tragically complains of him for pleading for , &c. Here our Author is much out of humour at some Questions which the Dean put to him ; and I do not wonder that it goes against his stomach to answer them briefly and plainly , though he says he will. For upon reading his Answers , they appear neither brief nor plain , nor can I well tell what to make of his tedious harangue for some Pages together . The Dean asks him , if there be any more Faiths than One ; to this indeed he answers plainly , That Faith as Truth can be but One. But then in what follows he makes it neither brief nor plain ; for though he owns there is but One Christian Faith , he qualifies it very notably , with And every Truth which Christ and his Apostles taught , ought , if it can be without scruple understood , without scruple to be Believed . Now I would here ask him , if he will not be offended at my presumption , whether there be not some Christian Truths which ought to be expresly believed by all Christians ? this I believe he will grant , because he afterwards says , that what is Necessary to the Salvation of all is plain . This is all we desire , and then let Protestant Divines be as tender as they will in defining the number of Fundamentals : The only question to our present purpose will be , Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity is not one of these few Fundamentals which are necessary to Salvation ? And if it be , certainly we may be allowed to Write in the Defence of it , and to require the Profession of it from the Members of our Church ; and surely what is Fundamental in this Point is but One , and that wherein all ought to agree ; and then the Faith will be but One , and no such Fallacy in the Deans questions as he complains of . If he will not allow the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Fundamental , I think'tis no hard matter to prove it ; but that is not my business , nor according to the design of his Book , is it his : 'T is upon this supposition we argue , and upon this supposition I would fain see him prove that the Church ought not to require an express belief of this Article ; but to leave it in such a Latitude , as that every one may be Socinian , Arian , Sabellian , or what else he please , and yet pass for a very Orthodox Christian. This I take to be the Latitude he pleads for , and which , though in his dialect it be stiled Believing as by Grace we are able , is really Believing only what we please . The rest of this Paragraph concerning different measures of Faith , as to the present purpose , is no more than mere harangue , ad populum phalerae ; for I cannot possibly understand that it concerns the present Controversy , how God will hereafter deal with men , by reason of their different Capacities and Opportunities of Knowledg , and what excuses ●here may be for some mens Ignorance of the most important Truths , &c. And I dare affirm , that all he urges here , mutatis mutandis , will be of as great force out of the mouth of a Turk or Deist , to prove that we urge too strict an Vnity , when we desire them expresly to believe the truth of the Christian Religion . Suppose , though there is no reason for it , that we should grant him his negative Belief , even for the whole Creed , Will that serve his and his Clients turn ? Will his Socinian Friends submit to it ? Will they then not say a word against the Doctrine of the Trinity , nor endeavour to spread their Errors any farther ? or if they do , will he give us leave to Oppose them and Defend the Truth ? But now let us see in the next Section , where he thinks , tho upon very unjust grounds , as will appear presently , he has caught the Dean ●●ipping , how ●itifully ( to use his own Phrase ) and pedantically , as well as unreasonably , he triumphs and exults over him , and endeavours to expose his Subtilty , as he calls it , in saying , That if the Faith be One , there can be n● more Latitude in the Faith , than there is in an Vnit. Now sure this is no such Metaphysical Subtilty ; for if the Faith be One , 't is plain there can be no more Latitude in it than in an Unit. But now for our Author 's great Discovery , without any Subtilty in it , There are , says he , as many sorts of Vnits , as there are of Vnities ; and then he reminds the Dean of Philosophical and Arithmetical Vnits or Vnities , which you please ; and what Latitude there may be in an Vnit. Suppose all this , the Dean doth not , as I can find , say there is no kind of Latitude in an Vnit , but only that there can be no more Latitude in the Faith , than there is in an Vnit ; which if it be One , must be so . But then I pray , what is the Latitude in an Vnit , considered as an Unit ? None , I think ; for in whatever respect 't is One , 't is no more than One , and has no Latitude . A Compositum , which is a thing he imagines the Dean may have heard of in Philosophy , tho , as he says , it has Parts , yet is but One Totum , and in that respect has no Latitude ; and an Hund●ed is but One hundred and no more ; and therefore as an Vnit it is but an Vnit , and has no Latitude . And if the Faith be One , as One , it can have no Latitude : If the Vnity of the One F●ith be only an Vnity of Words , then there is no Latitu●● ●f Words , and we must comply with our Author's Fancy , and never profess it in any other words than the words of Scripture : But if it be an Vnity of Sense , ( as one would think'tis most reasonable and most proper it should be among intelligent Creatures ) then we must agree in the same Sense ; and if we do not agree in some One Sense , we do not agree in the same ●aith , tho we do use the same Words ; and if we do agree in the same sense , 't is no harm tho we happen not to use exactly the same words , and then there may be very good reason sometimes to make use of other than Scripture words . I believe then there is no Latitude in an Vnit. Yes , but there is , and 〈◊〉 the One Faith too , especially as by the One Faith we understand what Churches and Doctors have now made it . What Churches and Doctors have made the One Faith , if any of them have made it more than our Saviour made it , concerns not us , we justify no such things . But what is this to our purpose ? Sure these Churches and these Doctors do still require an Vnity of Faith , and allow no such Latitude as our Author contends for ; nay , I fancy he really thinks they urge too strict an Vnion ; and yet this for want of a better , must be made an Argument to prove , That there is a Latitude in the One Faith ; and is it not a stabbing one ? Some Doctors require more things as Articles of Faith , than really are so ; ergo there is a Latitude in the One Faith. But sure this is no sign that these Churches and these Doctors allow a Latitude in the One Faith , if they make it stricter than Christ or his Apostles made it , much less that Christ and his Apostles allow of any such Latitude of Faith. But have we not whole Systems of Opinions now a-days made up into Confessions of Faith ? Yes , we have several Systems of Arian , Socinian , Pelagian , Calvinistical Opinions , and all of them require a Subscription at least from their Divines to these several Systems , without allowing his Negative Belief , which is a certain proof that they do not allow his Latitude of Faith ; and from hence to prove that the Scripture words have no determine● sense , and are not to be believed in one determined sense , is to prove that the multitude of Heresies destroys the certain and determined sense of Scripture ; and I wonder what he means , who pretends to own One Faith , to object against this One Faith the various and contrary Systems of Opinions in Religion , unless he thinks all these contrary Systems are within the Latitude of the Vnit , or of the One Faith. And now that this Latitude may not pass for his own invention , he tells us , That God is doubly the Author of a Latitude in Faith. 1. In revealing his Truth in such terms as admit of a Latitude of conception ; that is , in not revealing it at all ; for if the terms admit of a Latitude of conception , i. e. two contrary senses ; which is the truth ? Both cannot be , and if both are equally the sense of the words , then the Truth is not revealed , but as far to seek as ever . Now for my life cannot I imagine what else this Latitude of conception should be , unless he means that God has revealed his Truths , and those too the most Fundamental Articles of Christian Faith ( for concerning such our present Controversy is ) in such dubious and ambiguous Phrases , that we cannot understand the true sense of them , or at least that very few can , and that even they few cannot be certain that they understand them in the right sense , that is , in that sense which God meant them ; tho that is improperly said , for it seems God meant them in none , but intended that every man should believe them in what sense he pleases . This he may call a Latitude of Faith , but it is such a Latitude , that if I should tell any Infidels of it , whom I would convert to Christianity , they would presently laugh at me and my Faith too . But in the second place God is the Author of a Latitude in Faith , in giving to men , as he sees fit , such measures of knowledge and persuasion , as leaves them in a higher or lower degree of Faith , and even of Holiness . This is impious ; for in the true consequence of it he charges not only all the Heresies , but all the Infidelity in the world on God Almighty , and justifies both their Heresies and their Infidelity by the different degrees and measures of Faith , or by the No-Faith which God gives them ; but I am not at leisure to dispute this now , for it does not concern our present purpose . But if our Author would say any thing either in defence of what he pleads for , or against what the Dean maintains , he must show that Christians are not obliged to profess and believe one and the same Truth ; that agreeing in Scripture-words , tho understanding them in contrary Senses , is sufficient to make Orthodox Christians ; that we must not defend the true Faith against such as oppose it , especially if they , or any Peaceable men for them , pretend that they believe as they can , and as by Grace they are able ; and that the Church must not require an open and undisguised Profession of the True Faith. Now all this , he says , is far from thinking it indifferent what men believe ; but very far I am sure from being any Proof of what he pleads for ; for there is nothing that can uphold his Cause , but such an Indifferency as will not allow the Church to concern her s●lf what men believe ▪ nor her Members to defend the True Faith. But I must conceive as I can , and judge as I can , and believe as I can too ; I must not believe what I cannot believe . Very well : And I need not believe any more than I can ; and this is true too , if it be not my own fault , that I can believe no more ; but if it be , I shall hardly be excusable before God or Man. I cannot , it may be , believe the true Faith of the Holy Trinity ; or it may be I cannot believe the Truth of the Christian Religion , as I fear too many now-a-days will be ready to tell you ; some Lu●ts and Prejudices hinder me from discerning the clear evidence of it , and so long I cannot believe , and therefore I hope I shall be excused , and no body will be so quarrelsome as to litigate with me about it , nor go about to confute me , for I believe as by Grace I am able ; for though the Gospel be never so true , if God has not given me Grace to understand so much , how can I believe it ? For neither I , nor any man alive , who believes any thing , can believe all that Dictating men will impose upon them . But can't he believe what Reason and Divine Revelation Di●tate ? And who desires him to do more ? If the Doctrine of the Trinity be the Imposition only of Dictating men , let him prove that , and we will no longer desire him or any man to believe it . But if it be the plain truth of the Gospel , we will desire him to believe it , and think the Church has Authority enough to require him to do it , though the Church can't make that an Article of Faith which God has not made so : For I hope she can require the profession of that which God has made so , and that is all we desire . But in Controversies the Church may declare her Sense , and we are bound so far peaceably to submit and accept it , as not to contradict it or teach contrary , under Penalty of her Censures . A very bountiful Concession , for which he deserves her publick Thanks , if he will but stay for them till a fit Time and Place . And this he would be content ( I doubt it not ) to conceive the whole of what our Church requires , as to these things , which are merely her Determinations . Now who can tell what he means by merely her Determinations ? for I never heard that the Church delivered any Doctrines , especially the Creeds , as merely her Determinations , which would be indeed with a bare face to impose upon the Faith of Christians ; but she never pretended to make a Faith , but to teach that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints . But does he really think the Church desires no man to believe the Creeds , and particularly the Doctrine of the Trinity , but only not to oppose them ? Doth she indeed hand them to us merely as her own Determinations ? Can any thinking man say so ? But if this were all , Do our Socinians observe this ? Why does not he first persuade them to comply thus far , before he desires us not to defend the Church's Doctrine ? But let us hear his profound Reason ; For in truth it is to no purpose for her to require such Approbation and Consent , which whether paid or no , she can never come to have knowledge , of which sort is Belief and inward Approbation . Is it then to no purpose to teach men the Truth , because they may put upon us , and say they believe it when they do not ? Is it to no purpose to require men to profess their minds sincerely , because we cannot always be sure whether they do or no ? This is admirable Logick . We must then never administer an Oath , because we can't tell for all that , whether the person speaks the real truth or no. But if this be true , there is no need of disputing a Latitude of Faith , for men may take this Latitude whether we will or no. But to exact this may breed Hypocrisy ; not if his Latitude of Faith be allowed , for then men may sincerely profess their Faith in any Words which have Latitude enough to excuse from Hypocrisy , which , if we will believe him , all words have , whether found in Scripture , or used by the Ancient Church . But must nothing be done , from whence bad men may take occasion to be Hypocrites ? Then I am sure Vertue must not be encouraged , nor Vice punished , because some may hence take occasion to counterfeit Virtue when they are not sincerely virtuous . And I hope he will not say , That requiring an inward Belief makes men Hypocrites any other ways ; it is not design'd for that end , it does not command nor force men to be Hypocrites , and if men will be Hypocrites , who can help it ? Nay , certainly if our Church required only his Peaceable Submission in what she teaches of the Trinity , she might be more justly accused of encouraging Hypocrisy . For what else would it be , to oblige men daily to worship the Trinity , when she does not suppose nor desire them to believe any such thing , and to profess their Faith in Three Persons , when they do not believe one word of that Doctrine ? But it cannot be a Seed of Charity and Christian Concord to exact this inward Belief . But I think 't is great Charity to the Souls of men to exact such a Faith as is necessary to Salvation ; as for Charity to the Bodies of men , writing against their Heresies breaks no bones . And if by Concord he means an Unity of Faith , which is the only Concord we are now concern'd about , such a Latitude as admits of Twenty several sorts of Faith , can't be this Concord ; and whenever there is such a Concord , as an universal Liberty of Faith signifies , which can be only a Civil and Political Concord , I desire him to tell me , whether ever he found a greater Unity in the Faith , or less disputing for it . After some usual Compliments pass'd upon the Dean and his Hypothesis , which deserve to be scorn'd , not to be answer'd , he comes to Dr. Wallis his Three Somewhats . The Dean says , That when Dr. Wallis called the Three Persons Three Somewhats , thereby he only meant , that the true Notion of a Person he did not know : That is , that tho , as the Doctor says , a Person in Divini● is analogous to a Person in Humanis , yet by what peculiar name to distinguish them he could not tell , and therefore calls them Somewhats ; which , as the Dean says , must signify , That Three Persons are Three Real Subsistencies , and Three Real Things , not a Sabellian Trinity of mere Names . And if he can think this a good occasion to ridicule the Trinity in our Prayers and Doxology , by the name of Three Somewhats , he is not a fit man either for the Dean , or any sober Christian to dispute with . But now for his unavoidable consequence of not knowing the true Notion of a Person , that we then worship we know not what ; I have hardly met with any thing more empty and weak . If we have not the true , that is , full Notion of a Person , therefore we worship we know not what , when we worship Three Persons : He might as well have concluded ; That because we have not a compleat Notion of God , nor of several of his Attributes , as Omnipotence , Omniscience , &c. all which we allow to be Incomprehensible , therefore we worship we know not what , when we worship an Omnipotent and Omniscient , that is , an Incomprehensible God. But now since he pretends to own a Trinity , and has ridiculed Somewhats , and done little less for the word Person ; I would desire to know what he worships , when he says that Prayer in the Litany , O Hol● , Blessed , and Glorious Trinity , Three Persons , &c. And what he means , when he owns ●hree that bear witness in Heaven ; whether they be in his opinion Three Somewhats , or Three Nothings ; Three real Things , or only Three Names ? But however that be , he will not blush to press again his desires to all men to let this Controversy rest , as it was above Thirteen hundred years ago determined by ●wo General Councils . Pray who are they that will not l●t it rest ? Are they not his Friends who move these Ancient Boundaries of Peace ? If we must let it rest , persuade them to leave us in quiet Possession of the Truth , and we are content ; which sure he ought to do , or else to let us alone in defending it . For I cannot but look upon it as very partial and iniquitous , to desire us to let the Controversy rest , that is , not to write in Defence of the Ancient Doctrine , while our Adversaries freely spread Libels against it ; and who can imagine that any man who has any Zeal for the true Christian Fa●th , should press this ? As for his Reason , which he thinks stands unshaken , I am of opinion that neither the Dean nor any one else had occasion to shake it , it was weak enough to fall of it self . If some men by the Improvements they have attempted , have , as he says , embroil'd this Do●trine , the fault is theirs ; or if some will draw false Inferences from what is well and cautiously said , there is no help for it , as long as there are men of perverse Minds , and weak Heads : But sure all who have writ on this ●ubject have not embroiled it ; I have read what some Learned Writers of Controversy , besides the present Dean of St. Paul's and Dr. Wallis , have writ on this Subject within less than Thirteen hundred years , which has not embroil'd nor perplex'd my understanding , but given me much Satisfaction , and made several things clearer to me than they were before . But if this Argument were never so true , it does not prove that we ought not to defend the Ancient Doctrine , but only not to give any new Explications of it , lest they should turn the Heads of some men . As for what he quotes out of the Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres , if it signify any thing more than to let us know he understands French , it must be to warn the world against Mathematicians , who it seems are very busy in corrupting the Faith with their Notions of Mathematical Quantities : I never saw the Book , and am not Mathematician enough to be a proper Judge of it ; and therefore must refer it to Dr. Wallis , who i● . But now he is for carrying on his Jest in good earnest , whatever the Dean think of it , and would still have the Doctrine of the Trinity left on its old Foundation of Authority ; i.e. he would have us yield the Point to the Socinians , who he knows value the Authority of Councils no more than he does that of the Church of England . The Dean , he tells us , demands of him , Would he believe such absurd Doctrines as some represent the Trinity in Vnity to be , merely upon Church-Authority ? To which he returns an Answer , by which 't is not easy to apprehend what he means . He says , he is not press'd with any such absurd ●octrines : It may be he is not , for I am not sure ( tho he pretends the contrary now and then ) that he believes any more of the Trinity than the Socinians do : But if he believes what the Church of England teacheth , the Socinians I am sure do press him as well as others with pretended Absurdities . Now as for such forms of speaking , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Conglorified , and the like , he thinks we must receive them only from Church-Authority , and would have those who defend them ( which I think he does not care to do ) urge nothing else . The Fathers indeed , good men , thought the sense of these words was in Scripture , and so doth he , admitting what we judge good Consequents out of Scripture , to be of the same truth with Scripture ; but poor man he confesses he is not able to prove it , nor to convince others who do not think so ; and because he cannot convince them , he thinks no body else can ; which may be true , if he knows his men to be convinced ; for some men will never be convinced , and some others have as little mind to convince them . But he goes on , Demonstrate to the world this to be the Sense of Sc●ipture , and the Controversy is at an end . If he means , prove it by good and sufficient Reason , this we say may easily , and often has been done , and yet the Controversy is not at an end , and I fear never will be , while there are such Peacemakers as he is , fluttering about the world . But when he calls upon us to demonstrate this , I hope he does not mean Mathematical Demonstrations , unless he has a mind to trepan us into the Nouvelles ; and as for any other Demonstrations , if he cannot give them , others can , if he will secure them from his Earnest Suits . Well , but if we can't demonstrate this , we must own this to be the state of our Evidence . We have for the Orthodox side , Scripture interpreted by the Tradition of the Church : This at length resolves it self mainly into Church-Authority . This were true , if there were no other certain way of knowing the true Sense of Scripture , but Church-Authority ; for this sets aside Scripture , and resolves all at last into Church-Authority ; and he himself has made that too contemptible to be a sure Foundation for Faith ; but the Scripture was so writ by the Divine Penmen , as to be understood ; and tho a Traditionary Sense of Scripture be a very good Confirmation of what according to the ordinary rules of expounding Scripture , appears to be the true and genuine Sense of it , yet no Authority ought so far to over-rule us , as ●● persuade us to believe that to be the true Sense of Scripture , which neither the usual signification of the words , nor the circumstances of the place , nor the contexture of t●e Reasoning proves to be so . And this was the Question he ought to have Answered the Dean , Whether he would have believed such things as the Socinians say are very Contradictions and Absurd , and which he himself does not say , are not absurd , merely upon Authority , though this Authority pretends Scripture without any Reason to be on its side . But still he has a farther fetch , which the Dean was so dull as not to smell out , nor I believe would any man else , though he had attended his words never so strictly ; and it is this , that some other Concurrent Power should be called in to end this Controversy , I suppose , by imposing silence on all Parties , This carries a show of greater impartiality than our Author usually expresses , for then the Socinians , as well as the Orthodox , must have their hands tied up . But I doubt this is not such a very fair proposal , when 't is thoroughly considered ; for this must not be done till the Hereticks are first gratified , and the Forms of Worship , which some mens Consciences can't bear , made easy , that is , the Doctrine of the Trinity thrown out of the Liturgy ; thank him for his extraordinary Civility to the Church of England . And then no matter how severe the Laws be against any who shall write or speak more in the Controversy ; that is , I suppose , every man shall be punished who shall presume to speak one word for as well as against the Trinity , and pretend to teach any such Doctrine ; for saying any thing of it , either in the Desk or Pulpit , will be speaking in the Controversy . Now this I think will not amount to much less than determining the Controversy on the Socini●ns side ; for to prohibit the teaching or asserting the Doctrine of the Trinity , or the explaining of those Texts which do assert it , looks very like determining that there is no such thing , or at least that 't is no matter whether men believe it or no , or in what sense they take the Scripture words , so they do but agree to use the words . But to proceed with our Author , he professes a great Reverence for the Council of Nice ( whether in earnest or in jest let the Reader judge ) and speaks a great many fine things in behalf of it , not worth repeating . And then he falls foul upon Athanasius and his Disputations , taking a hint from what the Dean said concerning his Learned and Subtil Disputations , which confounded the Arians ; of which this Author for brevities s●ke , and to keep close to the business in hand , gives us a tedious Historical Account , which is many times a very good way of dropping the main Point ; besides , that it is always easier to tell a story , than to reason well . And to what other purpose all this Account serves , he may guess that can ; for my part I see so little in it , that I think it time lost to consider it any farther . For I cannot understand how it proves , that the Council of Nice did rely chiefly on Authority , as our Author asserts ; and that ●heir Faith was not ( as the Dean says it was ) resolved into Scripture and Reason . When he shows how his Story will prove this , which was the thing in debate , I will seriously consider his Quotations , but in the mean time I shall leave him to read his History-Lectures to the walls , and pass on a Page or two farther , where we shall meet with a Masterpiece of Wit and Reason , in some Learned Remarks on the Athanasian Creed , which may well enough divert a Reader who is disposed for a little Mirth , but will signify little to one that has a mind to be Serious . But however , he cannot forbear an instance or two o●t of that Creed , to shew how apt that Creed is to lead men to mistake the Truth , and to prosess Heresies and Blasphemy . I suppose this was meant for an instance to show his Tenderness for the Church of England , who owns and embraces this Creed . He has found out a way , ( and as far as I know , the Glory of the Invention may be all his own ) to prove from this Creed , that Two of the Three Persons are not Eternal , but Created , because there is but One Eternal and One Vncreated , and therefore Two of the Three must be Created ; tho the Creed expresly says of each of the Three Persons , That he is Eternal and Uncreated . Any man , I think , would rather hence conclude , That these Three are One Eternal and One Uncreated , than that Two of the Three are not Eternal . And I dare venture any man for making such a mistake , tho he hath a less Metaphysical Head than our Author , and less Grammar to direct him how to discern when a word is to be taken adjectively or substantively . And now he tells us , Therefore ( i.e. because of what has been said ) he had reason , as to the Doctrine of the Trinity , not to go beyond the Decisions of the Councils , but to acquiesce in their Authorities ; as if that were all he had urged , when 't is plain that he affirm'd , That it was Authority that chiefly carried the Point in these Councils , and would have us urge nothing but their bare Authority in defence of our Faith ; and whether from what he has said , there be reason for us thus to expose our selves for Fools to our Adversaries , I leave every one to judge , who knows what Reason means . So that the Dean's question was very pertinent , and still retains its first force , for I would fain see this Author show us any man of sense , who would believe such absurd Doctrines , as the Socinians represent the Trinity in Vnity to be , merely upon Church Authority . What farther Authority beyond that of the Church interposed in the Council of Nice , he has no mind to speak : But I think what he does speak , does plainly enough insinuate , that it was not Reason nor Scripture , but Human Force , which carried it , and determined the Point in that Council ; and would any man who did not intend to expose both the Nicene Faith and Council too , insinuate this ? Let the Dean then be as charitable as he will in his Opinion , I am hard to believe that this was writ with any other design than to expose the Doctrine of the Trinity , and the Church of England , as well as the Council of Nice , which no doubt is much beholding to him , because he would not speak all he knew of it , but leave every one to suspect the worst . And after the same manner I find he is willing to oblige the Dean ; for he will also pass by here , as small faults , some Blunders of Mr. Dean's ; but not without naming them , for fear the Reader should be so dull as not to apprehend them without notice . One of them , or rather All , is , That he makes St. Athanasius , St. Hilary , and St. Basil ( tho I cannot find either Hilary or Athanasius named by the Dean in that huddle of Fathers ) to write largely against those Heresies which former Councils had condemned ; whereas they all three died when there had but yet one Council sat . This Blunder may , I hope , pass indeed but for a small Fault , or rather , as I take it , for none at all : For as to Hilary , he is not mentioned by the Dean ; and then for Athanasius , the Dean a line or two before that huddle of Fathers that sticks in our Author's throat , says of him , that he wrote against the Arians after they were condemned by the Council of Nice , which I hope is no Blunder . And then if St. Basil did dye after one Council only had sat , did not the rest there named live and write after more Councils than one had sat ? And therefore if some here named writ after one Council , and others after two or more , what Blunder is it to say in general , They writ against Heresies which former Councils had condemned ? Is not this agreeable to the common form of speech ? And yet it may be they might write against some things condemned by more Councils than one , tho not General ones . But however , these Fathers , he says , are impertinently cited against him ; this I am sure is impertinently said ; for 't is evident enough , that what they are cited for , is directly contrary to what he would persuade us to , for they wrote against Heresies condemned by former C●uncils , and that it is for which the Dean cites them ; and the Antapologist , if I can tell what to make of his Arguments , has all this while been persuading us not to write against the Antitrinitarians , because they were condemned by former Councils : Now on which side the Impertinency lies , let any other Stander by judge . And thus much , and more than enough , as to his adhesion to the Authority of these Councils ; which I can make nothing else of , but that he would have nothing added to the Determinations of these Councils . But all this while how does this prove , That Authority chiefly carried the Point , or that we may not write in defence of what these Councils have determined ? And now our Author after all this tedious Harangue should come to vindicate his Reasons from those Exceptions which the Apologist has made against them ; but that is a Task which does not agree so well with him : He He has not , I suppose , Leisure and Books enough about him , being so many miles from his Study ; and his Adversaria for the proper Month , it may be , are not at hand ; and therefore let his Reasons shift for themselves as well as they can these hard times . As to his Reflections on the Dean ( to whom he now wholly applies what he had formerly said in general , against all who write in Defence of the True Faith , and for whose sake alone I believe indeed he wrote ) for Contradicting and not being consistent with himself , while he says he has made that Point plain and easy , which he confesses difficult and incomprehensible ; they need no very long Answer , for the Dean does not pretend to have made the Doctrine of the Trinity so easy and plain , as that there is now nothing in the Nature of God incomprehensible : Nor doth he say , That so much of the Mystery as he has made plain , is incomprehensible . It is then no Contradi●tion to make it plain , that there are , and how also there may be without any Contradiction to the Nature of an Infinite and Eternal Spirit , Three Persons and but one God ; and yet to confess that the Nature of God is Incomprehensible . But now this Controversy is like to be at an end ; for says our Author , Now I may set my heart at rest as to this Controversy , if Mr. Dean will stand to the profession he has made , That all that any man that he ) pretends to in Vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity , is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture . This , our Author adds , is that which he would be at . And yet I fear the Dean and he would not be at the same thing : The Dean would have it , and has proved it , That the Doctrine of Three Persons and One God , is contained in Scripture . Now if I can guess at the meaning of the Stander●y , this very Attempt put him into a Melancholy Fit , and therefore he desires no man would meddle with this Controversy . This was the design of his Book , to persuade us not to meddle with this Controversy , but to leave every man to take the words of Scripture in what sense he pleases ; and this I take to be different from the Dean's design of proving this Doctrine to be contain'd in Scripture ; and so the Dean's own Profession , tho he stand to it , will not bring the business so near a Compromise . For I doubt , that if we should grant our Author what he says , That Three such Persons as the De●n has defined , are not asserted in Scripture , yet he would not be so kind to the Church of England , as to grant , that Three Real Persons are there asserted , which we know the Socinians deny , and put strained and unnatural senses on Scripture to reconcile it to their Principles of Reason ; and did so long before the Dean gave any Definition of a Person , or said one word in the Controversy . But after all , he has not fairly represented the Dean's words , but has stopped where he thought fit ; as if the Dean had only said , That all any man pretended to , was to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture ; whereas he went farther , and added , and that it contains no such Absurdities and Contradictions , as should force a wise man to reject it , &c This , I doubt , the Stander-by does not love to hear of , That there is no Absurdity , no Contradi●tion in the Doctrine of the Trinity . In the next Page he proceeds to account for his last reason he assign'd for the present Vnreasonableness of some mens agitating this Controversy : He should have cleared his Accounts as he went along , and said something more to the purpose in justification of his other Reasons , before he came to the last ; but it may be he has a good excuse , and therefore we will be contented to attend his motions . Here then he tells us , That the Dean calumniates him , when he affirmeth this to be the Sum of his Argument , That to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity against Socinians , will make men Atheists . Now I desire any man to look upon his words , and see if it be not so ; for he addresses his Suit to All who write in Vindication of the Trinity , to forbear writing ; and to this purpose he tells them 't is unreasonable to controvert this Point ; and the Reason he brings to prove his Assertion , is , That hereby our Church at present is , and the common Christianity ( it may be feared ) will be more and more daily exposed to Atheistical men ; by what , I pray ? by Vindicating the Doctrine of the ●rini●y . This is the plain sense of his words , tho now he is asham'd of it , and would have us believe the Sum of all was only this , Such Vindications as that writ by Dr. Sherlock , he should have added , or by any other Learned Writers of Controversy at present , at least Dr. Wallis , tend rather to make men Atheists , than to convert Socinians . If this be all●he meant , it were to be wish'd he would learn to speak plainer . Why did he not plainly say , he was not against mens writing in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity , but that he only disliked Dr Sherlock ' s Vindication ? But whatever the Doctor 's Vindication will do , I am sure our Antapologists Politick Method for men to agree in the bare sound of words , and no body to know what they mean by them , or to take them in opposite and contradictory Senses , would expose us and our Faith to the just Scorn of Atheists and Scepticks , who by the same Art might subscribe all the Articles of the Christian Creed , and yet believe never a word of the Gospel . In the next Section he comes to the Secret , which the Dean told him , That Atheists and Deists , Men who are for no Religion , are of late very Zealous Socinians ; and which the Dean urges as a good reason why we should at present be Zealous against Socinanism , and so undoubtedly it is , and a far better than any he has urged to the contrary . For the truth of the matter of Fact , 't is notoriously known , and needs no proof . To invalidate this Argument , I can't find that he has said one word ; but instead of this , ( according to his usual way of Digressions ) he puts off the Reader with an Account of his Friendship and Acquaintance , which he holds with no Atheists nor Deists , but only with some Virtuous Rationalists ; and that his Virtuous Rationalists do not ridicule this Faith. This Virtuous Rationalist , is a new Name , and I 'am afraid signifies , either a Deist , or a Socinian , for other Men are not ashamed of their known Characters , and if they do not ridicule the Doctrine of the Trinity , no thanks to their good Nature , nor to their good Manners ; they do their best , as he has done , to ridicule it ; but it is a Doctrine that won't be ridicul'd . Thus much for the unreasonableness of this Controversy about the Holy Trinity . In the next place he objects the Danger of it ; and his Argument for that , is , That it is a Fundamental of our Religion : Now to litigate concerning a Fundamental , is to turn it into a Controversy ; that is , to unsettle , at least endanger the unsetling the whole Superstructure . Now , in Answer to this , the Dean had proved , That there was very great reason to dispute and settle Fundamentals , when Hereticks endeavour to unsettle them ; and ask'd this Author , Whether the Being of a God were not a Fundamental ? And whether that were a good reason not to dispute for the Being of a God , because Atheists denied it ? This made him ashamed to own his Argument , and therefore he charges the Dean with misrepresenting it . His pretended Misrepresentation is , that he did not say , That the Doctrine of the Trinity was a Fundamental in general , but only , if duly stated , and therefore not a Fundamental , as unduly stated by the Dean . This is so trifling an Evasion , that it is hardly worth the while to expose it . Was the dispute , whether the Dean should write in defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity , or whether the Doctrine of the Trinity should be defended ? Was his Argument urged to prove that it was dangerous for the Dean , whom he never named before , to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity by his mistaken Notion of it , or that it was dangerous to dispute a Fundamental ? To show the fol●y of this pretence , let us put his Argument into Mode and Figure , wherein his Fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity , as duly stated , can be only the minor Proposition . 'T is dangerous to litigate touching a Fundamental , or to turn a Fundamental into a Controversy . But the Doctrine of the Trinity , as duly stated , is a Fundamental : Ergo , 'T is dangerous to litigate touching the Doctrine of the Trinity , as duly stated . Now if he will not allow the Major Proposition , his Argument is nothing ; and if he will , then the Force of his Argument consists in the danger of disputing Fundamentals , and i● seems the Dean placed the Force of his Argument right ; and if that Argument be good , it is as good against disputing for the Being of a God against Atheists ; for the Being of a God is as Fundamental as the Doctrine of the Trinity . So that this limitation of duly stated , does not at all concern this Argument of disputing about the Trinity ; but the Argument only prov●s , that we must not dispute about the Doctrine of the Trinity , as duly stated , because it is a Fundamental , and I suppose , whenever we talk of defending the Trinity , we mean it as duly stated . But tho the Stander-by would not allow any man to defend Fundamentals , yet our worthy Primate being not under his Jurisdiction , has ventured to do it . This was then News to him , and welcome Tidings too , if we may believe him ; and he pretends also to pay great Deference to his Authority , tho one would hardly guess so by the Lash he gives him for Licensing by his Chaplain the Dean's Apology . But what has he to answer this Authority ? Why , he hopes in that Piece to find ( as I hope too by this time he has ) plain and perspicuous Scripture-Notions , clear Reason , and genuine Antiquity . Will this justify the writing of that Piece ? If so , then 't is not unreasonable , nor unseasonable , nor dangerous , to write in defence of Fundamentals , and even of the Doctrine of the Trinity ; but farther , he was capacitated by his Publick Station , &c. Very well : And if that will justify him , why will not his approving the Apology , justify the Dean at least in writing that Book ? And why may not his Vindicacion be as well justified by the Approbation of another , who was also capacitated by his Publick Station , either to write , or to License other men to write on this Subject ? His last Argument is the Vnseasonableness of this Controversy ; he says , All Controversies among Protestants are now unseasonable ; the Dean adds somewhat more , that they are always so ; for there is no Juncture seasonable to broach Heresies and oppose the Truth . To this he answers , That there may be Controversies among Protestants , without Heresy ; but it is not easy to conceive any Controversy , but that one side or other must oppose the Truth ; and this I believe the Dean thinks always Vnseasonable ; but the present Dispute was about Fundamental Articles , and therefore he had very good reason to mention only the Vnseasonableness of broaching Heresies . And he seems to me to urge a very good Argument why no Juncture can be unseasonable to defend the Truth when 't is oppos'd ; For if Hereticks will dispute against the Truth unseasonably , there is no time unseasonable to defend Fundamental Truths . But can any thing be more pleasant than his Proof of the Seasonableness of some Controversies , he might have said of all , even of Socinianism it self , in all Junctures , from the University-Exercises in the Divinity-Schools , where men who are all of a mind dispute with one another , not to oppose the Truth , but to learn how to defend it against the common Enemy when occasion serves ? He might as well have proved that Civil Wars are not always unseasonable , because 't is never unseasonable for Fellow-Citizens to learn the use of their Arms in a Martial Scene , without Bloodshed . But his Argument why it is so unseasonable in this Juncture , is this , Because , under God , nothing but an Vnion of Counsels , and joining of hands and hearts can preserve the Reformation , and scarce any thing more credit and justify it , than an Vnion in Doctrinals : Here he complains , that the Dean left out somewhat at the latter end , and therefore I will add it , and it is this , so above all other Controversies none can be well thought of worse timed than this ; let the Reader judge whether this injured the Force of his Argument , especially since it was afterwards particularly considered . In answer to this , in the first place the Dean asks , Is the Vnion in Doctrinals ever the greater , that Socinians boldly and publickly affront the Faith of the Church , and no body appears to defend it ? All that he answers to this is , that he does not love Affronts , especially to the Faith of the Church , and don 't know that the Socinians affront it , and is sorry for it if they do ; it may be he will not allow writing against the Faith , and endeavouring to ridicule it , to be an Affront , which he knew very well the Socini●ns did , if he knew that ever the Dean writ against the Socinians , which was in Answer to as Prophane and as Scurrilous a Libel as ever was writ : But whether he will allow this to be affronting of the Faith or no , I suppose he will allow that it is opposing it ; which argues no great Vnion in Doctrinals , tho no body should defend it , unless , as the Dean adds , the world should think we are all of a mind , because there is disputing only on one side , and then they will think us all Socinians , as some Foreigners begin alrea●y to suspect ; which will be a very scandalous Vnion , and divide us from all other Reform'd Churches . His Answer to this , ( and a very Politick and Grave one it is ) as far as I can guess , amounts to this , That if we live good lives , and let our Adversaries alone , the world will credit our Practice , Articl●s , Homilies , &c. and therefore think us no Socinians . Now if subscribing the Articles be no more than he makes it to be , they cannot conclude us to be no Socinians from our Articles , because a man may subscribe them , and yet believe never a word of them ; in which case the only way to show that we do believe them , is to defend and vindicate them , and then I believe the world will think us no Socinians ; but otherwise , I fear , they will , as the Dean says , think us all Socinians , which will be a very scandalous Vnion indeed . As to what he says of Pamphlets dying away , if they were not opposed ; I am not in all cases of his mind , and see no present prospect of it , especially in this Controversy , which so much gratifies Atheists and Infidels : But if these Heresies would in time dye away of themselves , which yet I much question , as not finding that false Opinions always lose ground by not being opposed , what must be done in the mean time ? must we all pass contentedly for Socinians in the eye of the world , and be afraid to say we are none ? I believe all men would not think this much for the Glory of the Reformation , nor would the Cause of Religion be much beholding to us for it . But his great Argument to prove this Juncture unseasonable to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity is , That it makes sport for Papists ; To which the Dean answers , It must be disputing against the Trinity then , not dis●uting for it , for they are very Orthodox in this Point , and never admitted any man to ●heir Communion , who disowned this faith , or declared that he thou●ht it at any time unreasonable , dangerous , or unseasonabl● to dispute for it , when it was Violently opposed . This he thinks fit to return no answer to , but only to deny that the Dean took any notice of it , but says it was too warm for him , and that he let it slip through his fingers . The Dean observed farther , that if this Argument to prove the unseasonableness of this Controversy in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity in this juncture , from the necessity of Union of Counsels and joining of hands and hearts for the Preservation of the Reformation , have any Force , it must signify , that we shall never join against a common enemy , whose Successes ●ould endanger the Reformation , while there are any Religious Disputes among us ; which is a confession that every Schism in the Church is a new Party and Faction in the State , which are always troublesome to Government when it wants their help . He seems surpriz●d at this , as not aware of this Consequence , the truth of which he has not Confidence enough to deny , nor Reason enough to answer , but only sences a little for his beloved Socinians , as a very small inconsiderable Party , and so quiet and peaceable in their Principles , that there is no danger of their disturbing Government : Now if all this be true , it only proves the Impertinency of his Argument ; for then we may still write against the Socinians , and yet unite Counsels , and join hands and hearts to preserve the Reformation ; of which the Socini●ns , as the Dean before urged , and he thought fit to take no notice of , are no part . And now passing by some poor trifling reflections , we must come to his mind in a passage of more weight ; but pray , What are these trifling Reflections , which he is so good natured as to pass by ? They are only some Reflections on his Answer to an Objection started by himself in these Words , shall we tamely by a base silence give up the Point ? Of which he tells us there is no danger , for a wise Reason , viz. That the Established Church is in possession of it , and the A●versaries of the received Doctrine cannot alter our Articles of Religion . Now this Answer is apparently weak , and the insufficiency of it is shown by the Dean in a few words , as indeed a few are enow to do it ; and I suspect he passes by these Reflections upon a very reasonable account , because he could not answer them . I shall not therefore trouble my Reader with the Repetition of them , nor ask our Author any Question for fear he should say , I fall on Catechising him , which possibly will not agree with a man of a negative Belief . But it may be the Reader will not be angry , if I ask him a Question or two ; Whether because our Articles oblige us to profess our Faith in the Holy Trinity , this be a good reason why we should not defend it ? And if the Socinians , as he tells us , have a Zeal too , no less ardent than that of Church men ; Whether this be a reason why we should by a base silence suffer them to spread their Poyson without contradicting them ? If our Author were to Answer this question , I suppose he would in his Melancholy fit , say , yes by all means ; for if no body Disputes with them , they will leave off Disputing ; But will they leave off Perverting the People ? Will they leave off making Proselytes to their Heretical Opinions ? Nor do I believe after all , that the charms of our Author 's Melancholy Suit and Peaceable Rhetorick , would be able to silence them , though no body should Write against them : For why then did they unprovoked make the first Onset ; and , as soon as they thought the times would bear it , openly Disperse their envenomed Libels , which I don't question but they would have done sooner , if they had thought it safe : If our Author had told us , they had no ardent Zeal , his argument would have been much more to the purpose ; for then indeed there would have been more reason to neglect them , since there would have been less reason to fear the spreading of the infection . Well , but whether they will leave off Disputing or no , 't is fit we should , and neglect them till a fit time and place , which is the weighty passage that the Dean will not understand ; but however , whether he will understand or no , we must wait for this fit time and place before we open our Mouths in Defence of the Truth . I wonder our Author would not stay for them before he writ against the Deans gross pack of Errors , as he is pleased to stile them ; for certainly , according to his own rule , he ought to have remained a Stander-by ( as Melancholy as he pleases ) till what he himself calls a fit time and place were come . For it seems , tho the Dean thought the present a fit time , not upon those Reasons which he himself gives , and which our Author has not Confuted , but as our Author , who , I suppose , by this time has got the gift of discerning Spirits , , faith , because he had leisure and a mind to give the world some new specimen of his skill in Dispute , and for other reasons that the world talk of ; yet all these Reasons are not able to convince him , but that the fittest time and place is a full House of Convocation : And if we grant this , may not the present also be a fit time , till the other can be compass'd , tho not the fittest ? and the fittest persons a Committee chosen by that great and reverend Assembly ? Here I had a great mind to be at the old way of Questions ; but since he is so afraid of being catechis'd , I must , to humour him , put the case Categorically ; and , besides referring him to what the Dean has already said , tell him what exceptions I have against his Proposals , which I look upon as neither reasonable nor practicable ; for certainly there is no great reason why those Doctrines , which have been so long since defined by a Convocation , should never be defended against the assaults of scornful Cavillers and Opposers , till a Convocation can meet and order an Answer to their scandalous Pamphlets , and then overlook it again before it goes to the Press . And I think the Authority lodged in the Archbishop and Bishop of London to License Books , may be sufficient to justify any man , whom they approve , in Writing in Defence of the Established Doctrine , without waiting for a New Convocation ; Or else what was that Authority lodged there for ? I hope , not to license Books against the Doctrine of the Church , nor yet merely to license such as do not at all meddle with the Doctrines of our Religion . And if this Authority be sufficient , we know the Dean was thus far Authorized to Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the ●rinity . It seems very hard , that we may not Vindicate the Fundamentals of our Religion from Absurdities , Contradictions , and Falshoods imp●ted to them , till a Convocation can be called to do it ▪ Which in my apprehension is not easily practicable , unless we could have a Convocation always fitting , which he cannot think either feasible or convenient according to our Constitution : And yet if they are not always sitting , it will be very difficult and troublesome immediately to call them to Confute every Heretical Doctrine that in times of Liberty may be broach'd by Bold and Daring men . When it may be fit to do thus , I leave those , to whom it belongs , to judge ; but I am sure 't is neither reasonable nor practicable every time Hereticks oppose the Truth . Now by this method he says , All Sons of the Church would and must be concluded . And are they not already concluded by the Articles , Liturgy , Homilies , &c. which he says our Adversaries cannot alter ? I suppose he would not have us obliged to Subscribe every Line and Tittle in such a Book revised and approved by a Convocation , as a Fundamental of Christianity , but only the Doctrines there defined as Fundamental . And thus I think in the present Point , All Sons of the Church are already concluded by Subscribing the Articles and Creeds ; and if this would do it , as our Author imagines , there would already be a due end put to these Controversies . But according to his Peaceable Notion of Subscription , by his proposed method , All Sons of the Church would not be concluded any farther then to hold their Tongues , for they might still believe , and inwardly approve the Socinian Doctrines , or any other ; which thou●●● he may think a due end of these Controversies , yet few others will. But after all , How would this put an End to these Controversies ? If a Convocation should meet and determine on the side of our Articles , and Write a Book to justifie the truth , will this put an End to these Controversies ? Will the Socinians be generally Converted any more than they are by Learned mens Writings now ? I doubt they would hardly acquiesce in such a Book , though drawn up by our Author , who though he would be favourable enough to them , yet I hardly believe would be able to satisfy them . Which he thinks will not be , till we can make things plain which are confessedly unsearchable , if not , as some pretend , unintelligible . The plain English of which I take to be , That it is impossible to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity so as to satisfy even rational and sober men : And then I cannot apprehend how his Method would put an End to these Controversies any other ways , than by a Negative Belief ; though I very much question whether even upon such terms he could persuade the Socinians to be silent . But still he cannot see any readier Expedient than this towards such an Vnion , as in the present state of things may be adjudged possible . Indeed I cannot tell whether a real Christian Union in the present state of things , will be adjudg'd possible , or no ; nor whether such an Vnion as our Author pleads for , be necessary for our Affairs ; and would be effectual to keep out Popery , and beat the King of ●rance ; but I hope both may be done without it : But if such an Union as is indeed desirable , and such as there ought to be in the Church of Christ , be not possible , I know the fault is not in the Church , nor only in her professed Enemies who will not comply , but in such pretended Friends as under the colour of Peace do openly affront and condemn the Faith of the Church , and vilify her Constitutions , thereby hardening and encouraging her Adversaries in their Obstinacy , and giving them hopes , that by their means they shall at length obtain the Terms they desire . But of this Negative Belief enough has been said ; only I cannot but take notice of one thing here desired by our Author , That no Pra●tice be imposed upon any , contrary to their Consciences . The meaning of which I take to be , as is plain from several other places of his Book , and particularly from p. 10 of the Earn . Suit ; That no Expressions should be allowed in the Liturgy , which any one professes are against his Conscience ; nor any Rite or Ceremony required , which all men are not satisfied in ; and so we must part with Episcopacy , and all Order and Decency , to satisfy mens pretences to Conscience . This is a brave Protestant Reconciler , and this is admirable arguing for a Church-of - England-man , and one who has read Fathers and Schoolmen . This is such a loose and wild Principle , as if duly adhered to , we must tolerate most , if not all Errors , Schisms , and Vices , that were ever heard of in the world . The next thing we are to answer is a Captious Question , with which he pretends to answer the Dean , who as he imagines had put such an one to him . The Dean had ask'd him , Whether he would allow us , who as he grants , are in possession of this Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation , to keep possession of it , and teach , explain , and confirm it to our people ? Now because he is resolved to be as captious as the Dean , he asks him , Whether he never saw certain Royal Injunctions assigning fit Subjects for Sermons ? No doubt but he has : What then ? Why then , Must they not be obeyed ? Yes . But what of all this ? To discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity , is not there prohibited . But is there not the same reason of it , as of those things that are ? I believe not : For as I take it , the Trinity and Incarnation are more Fundamental Points than the Disputes about Predestination , and more necessary to be believed by Christian People . Besides , the Controversy then was not only with such as wholly denied the Article , but among those who differed in the sense of the Article , while there was something contained plainly in the Article , to which both sides agreed , tho some would have more included in it , than others could find , or would allow to be there asserted . Which Controversy Authority saw fit to silence at that time , since both sides owned the Truth of the Article , which asserted a Divine Predestination ; and would not let every one in their Pulpits run into nice , useless , and hurtful questions ; nor do we desire this should be allowed in the Doctrine of the Trinity . And when he has Interest enough at Court to procure a Royal Injunction , that no man shall write or speak concerning the Trinity , we know what we have to do ; but till then , his Royal Injunctions are no more to the purpose than his own Arguments . But however , he will not stand with us for this Point , for notwithstanding this , he yields that Ministers should at due season preach to their people the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation ; only let them do it plainly , easily , purely , and sincerely , according to Scripture , and not with Innovations of their own . This , if he be sincere and plain in what he says , is all we desire ; and if he will promise never to revoke this Grant , we will be satisfied . In the next place he is for admitting known Socinians into the Communion of the Church . The Dean had said , He hoped he ( the Stander-by ) did not propose this Negative Belief , as he calls it , as a Term of Communion ; that though we know them ●o deny the Trinity and Incarnation , yet if they will agree not publickly to oppose and contradict this Faith , we shall receive them to our Communion . Thus far our Author cites ; but the Dean had said also , and fling the Worship of the Holy Trinity , and of a God Incarnate , out of our Liturgies for their sake . This he very roundly answers , and utterly confutes , with a short Why not ? This is indeed a short Question , and needs no long Answer ; for in the next Page , if he would but look on it , the Dean has given him a sufficient Reason , Why not ? But he thinks to evade all by putting an impertinent Case , too long to be recited here , and indeed not worth it : For it doth by no means reach the Point , which isc Whether the Governors of the Church ought to make the Terms of Communion so large , as that known professed Socinians and Arians may fully communicate with us as compleat and Orthodox Members of the Church ; and not , as our Author gravely puts it , Whether every Preacher should stop when he sees a Socinian come into the Church . Besides , he supposes his Socinian to be a known good liver , and professing the common Christianity ; but it may be we may not agree with him ; and suppose I should not be so happy as to think so well of his Socinian Friend as he doth , will he then give me leave to turn him out of the Church ? But what is all this to the Publick Constitutions of a Church , and the Laws of Communion ? Must they be made so loose as to admit all sorts of Hereticks , because an Heretick of any sort may sometimes appear at least to be a good liver , and profess to believe the Common Christianity , &c. as there have been such Professors of other Heresies , and may be of any as well as of this ? If our Author answers this too with a Why not ? I desire he will subjoin a Reason for what he says , and then he may deserve a Reply . And now our great Champion of wrong'd Innocence , out of his extraordinary Generosity , and love of Peace and Truth , cannot forbear observing , that the Dean wrongs the poor innocent Socinians , and imputes sundry Points very iniquitously stated , to them , which yet they hold not as he states them And first he tells us , If he ( the Dean ) as some in the world , had had Personal Dealing with the generality of his Parishioners as to matters of Conscience , he would say , That the Ignorance of many Church-people , and so the Errors of their Conceptions touching God and the Three Persons in the Godhead , much more alter ( as to them ) the Object of the Christian Worship . The Dean , I believe , tho not so unacquainted with his Parishioners , while he had a Parish , yet never met with such Ignorance as this ; and yet no man doubts but there are some persons very ignorant , who have no distinct Conceptions of God the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but yet have no Heretical Opinions about them ; and I wonder this Stander-by , who is so fond of a Negative Belief , should not see a difference between a Negative Orthodoxy , and professed positive Heresy . By the same Argument he might as well prove , that all other Hereticks ought to be received into the Communion of the Christian Church , because there are a great many Christians that are extremely ignorant in all other Points of Faith. But tho a general , confused , indistinct Knowledge , with a sober and pious Conversation , may qualify men for Christian Communion , yet profest Hereticks ought to be flung out of the Church . The first are the Churches Care to instruct them better , as Opportunity and their Capacities will admit ; the others are her profest Enemies , and must be removed from the Church , to preserve the sound parts from infection ; and I can t imagine what Notion a man can have of Church-Communion , without Unity of Faith ; tho the same Communion may admit of very different degrees of Knowledge . It would be too tedious , and not very pertinent here , to run thorough these things ; but I am sure , for all his haste , the Dean has not in this place imputed any thing to the Socinians , but what they avowedly and in Print maintain ; for it is evident that the Socinians do deny the Meritorious Sacrifice , and the Meritorious Intercession of our Saviour ; that they do also deny that the Eternal Son of God Offered himself ; that God demonstrated his Love to us by sending his own Son in a proper sense , as opposed to a mere Man , or Created Spirit ; and consequently , they do deny the Humility and Condescension of the Eternal Son of God , in becoming Man , &c. and therefore these things are not iniquitously imputed to the Socinians , which yet are the very things which the Dean's Discourse imputes to them ; and therefore he has no reason to add , That some men Write against them without understanding them ; but I am afraid 't is too true , That some men Apologize for them without understanding th●m . As to the Socinians altering the Object of Religious Worship , I refer the Reader to that Discourse of the Dean's , to which he himself has referr'd in his Apology , where he will find that point more largely handled , and fully and clearly Proved . But now we come to a great Point , and which takes up a great many Pages in our Author , about the Authority of Parliaments , Bishops , and Convocations ; on which Head I have some good Reasons not to be so large , and to desire the Reader 's excuse , if I do not follow our Author in all he says on this Subject ; especially , since our proper business doth not require it , and therefore I do not care to ramble like him , unless I had the same advantage as he has , to be on the securer side . 'T is not safe to define what Parliaments can do without Convocation● , or Bishops without Presbyters . But I am sure the Church has no cause to thank our Author , who would first betray her Faith , and then diminish her Authority , even in things purely Spiritual : First , he gives up the Convocation , for what reason is manifest , and for which the Inferior Clergy are bound to thank him : And then he does the same in effect for the Bishops , when he allows so much to the Parliament , for they have not so much as a Negative Voice there , and Articles of Faith may be coined even against the express will of every one of them ; and though he cannot believe the Body of the Bishops disallowed , or did not with good liking consent to the Act of Toleration ; if he does not particularly know this ( which it is certain might have passed without any of their Consents , and how many dissented I never enquired ) his Opinion , Belief or Disbelief , must be owing only to his Inclination . And if we could suppose ( what God be thanked there is no danger of ) the Majority of the Lords an● Commons to have as little understanding of , and Zeal for the Catholick Faith as our Author has , we might have a Socinian Creed made without the Assent of one English Bishop , or at least such Articles of Communion framed , as would admit all manner of Hereticks into the Bosom of the Church , and allow all to be Orthodox Christians , that believe but as well of Christ as the Mahomet●ns do . And this our Author , at least as far as concerns those Hereticks , for whom alone he is Advocate at present , hopes to see done ; for he hopes that Authority , namely King and Parliament , will in time relax what more is necessary for such an Vnion as is possible to be patched up by a Latitude of Faith , and a Negative Belief . I hope they will not , and think there is reason to conclude from some late Proceedings , that they will not . But we must not pass by his Reflections on the Dean's wonted Civility , in Taxing him with pretending to give an account of Acts of Parliament , as he doth of other Books , without seeing them . This is indeed very uncivil not to believe a man except he produces Witnesses that heard or saw him read the Act ; and since he thinks this a hardship , I will not give him the trouble ; but I must needs say there was no reason for the Dean to think otherwise before ; for by the account which he gives of this Act , no man that thought that he had either Sense , or Sincerity , or Modesty , could imagine that he had ever seen it , but was imposed upon by hear-say , or by a hasty conclusion , that because it was an Act of Indulgence to Dissenters , it must certainly Indulge the Innocent and true Protestant Socinians among the rest . This would have been his best excuse , and much more allowable than still to stand to it , That other Dissenters have benefit by that Act who do not renounce Soci●ianism , contrary to the express words of the Act. But let us see how he makes it good , What then , do you think of a t●cit connivance at their stay at home ? I think there is no such Connivance allowed by the Act , nor can I believe it is the meaning of the words of the ●ct , or the design of those who made it . And I am sure this Melancholy Dream of a tacit Connivance , is a very scandalous representation of the Bishops and of the whole Parliament ; for this is to tolerate Atheism , Deism , and Profaneness , and to give men free Liberty , not only to be of what Religion they will , but of none at all , if they like that better . But then , What do you think of a tacit Connivance quietly to come to our Congregations ? This I think is no new favour , but what was always openly allowed to all who were not Excommunicate , and is very far from a Tacit Approbation or ●oleration of their Erroneous Opinions , to let them come thither where they cannot join with us , but they must be supposed to renounce these Errors ; for I am sure there is no allowance in the Act for them to join with us only in such parts of our Worship , as do not expresly relate to the Holy Trinity , any more than to hold separate Assemblies of their own , without declaring their Faith in the Holy Trinity . And then for his Vetuit inquiri , I wonder where he will find it , there is no such thing in the Act , and I believe any Lawyer will satisfy him , that what Law was in force against Socinianism before , is so still , and the same Inquisition may be made after them ; but if any , whose business it is to discover such Offenders , or punish them when known , will neglect their Duty , 't is their Connivance and not the Law that affords Impunity . But I wonder what makes him Dream of a tacit Connivance for Socinians , because they are expresly excepted : ' ●is just as if he should say , the Articles of the Church of England give a tacit Connivance to them , because they require every man to renounce their Errors , and to Confess his Faith in the Holy Trinity . This is an excellent Argument to prove all Hereticks true Church of England men , even though they should Write Earnest Suits , and enter their Protests against Her. But if this will not do , he now has , and then had in his head ( though he had not occasion to out with it ) another favour shown by the Parliament to Dissenters , not by this Act indeed , but by a former Statute ; which took away the Writ de Haeretico Comburendo , which it seems he was afraid might hurt his Socin●an Friends , in case some such of their Friends as Mr. ●ean , were in the place they affect , but now , he says , he hopes this custom here is in a fair way to be aboli●●ed . This is so silly , that I can hardly call it spiteful , for its silliness is an Antidote against its spite ; every one knows that Writ was taken away to secure the Church of England against the fears of a Popish Successor , which was the only danger of reviving that Writ ; which had been so long out of use , that it was hardly known among Protestants : Which argues no great tendern●ss in him for the Church of England to insinuate so vile an Accusation , as if this practice of Burning Hereticks had been so very customary , that he can still only hope that an Act of Parliament can put a stop to it . His Conclusion is so Rambling , and so very Furious , that I begin to fear his Melancholy has some spice of Frenzy in it ; and therefore it is time to leave off Disputing , without returning the Compliments or Advice which he has given the Dean at Parting . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59811-e140 Earn . Su● . p. 7. Antap. p. 1. Ant. p. 11. p. 2. Ant. p. 3. Sect. 2. P. 4. Ant. p. 5. Ant. Sect. 3. Ant. p. 5. Ant. p. 5. P. 8. P. 11. P. 12. Sect. 7. p. 18. Sect. 8. p. 20. P. 2● . Sect. 9. p. 21. P. 23. P. 23. P. 25. p. 27. Sect. 11. P. 27. p. 28. p. 28 , 29. Sect. 12. p. 30. Apol. p. 8. Antap. p. 30. p. 3● . p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. P. 31. Sect. 14 . p. 33 . Sect. 15 . p. 34. P. 3● . p. 39. p. 39. p. ●● . p. 41. p● 42. p. 43. P● 43. P. 44. E●rn . Suit , p 7. Antap p. 44. Sect. 19. p. 45. P. 31. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p 51. Earn S●●● P. 10. Ant. P. 51. Ant. p. 52. P. 52. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 52. P. 53. P. 53. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 53. P. 54. Ant. p. 55. Sect. 25. Ear. Suit , p. 11. Ant. p. 55. P. 54. Sect. 125. P 55. 
A67122	----	Mr. Anthony Wotton's defence against Mr. George Walker's charge, accusing him of Socinian heresie and blasphemie written by him in his life-time, and given in at an hearing by Mr. Walker procured ; and now published out of his own papers by Samuel Wotton his sonne ; together with a preface and postcript, briefly relating the occasion and issue thereof, by Thomas Gataker ... Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626. 1641 Approx. 87 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 33 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A67122 Wing W3643 ESTC R39190 18253003 ocm 18253003 107259 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A67122) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 107259) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1138:22) Mr. Anthony Wotton's defence against Mr. George Walker's charge, accusing him of Socinian heresie and blasphemie written by him in his life-time, and given in at an hearing by Mr. Walker procured ; and now published out of his own papers by Samuel Wotton his sonne ; together with a preface and postcript, briefly relating the occasion and issue thereof, by Thomas Gataker ... Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626. Wotton, Samuel. Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654. [2], 62 p. Printed by Roger Daniel ..., Cambridge (England) : 1641. Imperfect: cropped and tightly bound. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library Includes bibliographic references. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Walker, George, 1581?-1651. -- Socinianisme in the fundamentall point of justification. Jesus Christ -- Divinity. Socinianism. Heresies, Christian -- England. 2005-10 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-01 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-04 Emma (Leeson) Huber Sampled and proofread 2006-04 Emma (Leeson) Huber Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Mr. Anthony Wotton's DEFENCE Against Mr. George Walker's CHARGE , Accusing him of Socinian Heresie and Blasphemie : Written by him in his life-time , and given in at an hearing by M r WALKER procured ; And now published out of his own papers by SAMUEL WOTTON his Sonne . Together with a Preface and Postscript , briefly relating the Occasion and Issue thereof , By THOMAS GATAKER , an eye and eare-witnesse of either . Hieronym . adv . Errores Joan. Hierosol . Nolo in suspicione haereseωs quenquam esse patientem . CAMBRIDGE , Printed by Roger Daniel , Printer to the University . Anno Dom. 1641. The Preface . IT hath ever been and is generally held a breach , not of Charity alone , but even of * Piety too , to insult over and trample upon persons deceased : which if in any sort of men doth well deserve such a censure , surely among Christian men especially it may justly be so deemed for any in that manner to deal with their Christian brethren , such as have lived and died in the profession of the same common Faith in Christ , and in the fellowship of the same Church of God with themselves . Not that it is presumed an act unwarrantable or uncharitable to refute any errour that such have broched while they lived , or to remove any scruple that thereby may remain in the minds of those that yet survive : For * a fond thing were it , not to offer to pull out the shaft sticking yet in the body , or not to seek to close up the wound by it made in the flesh , because the party were gone and had withdrawn himself who had shot the one , and thereby caused the other . Free it is at all times to defend necessary truths , whether the Authours and Patrons of them survive yet or be deceased : but to insult and triumph over any , when they are now dead and departed from us , as if we had convinced and conquered them while they were yet alive with us , when as indeed we have done nothing lesse ; yea , to renew aspersions and imputations of the most heinous and horrible guilt that can be against them long after their decease , when we suppose the memory of things so long before past and gone may be worn out with the most , and buried with the greater number of those that were privy to what was then done , recharging them in most vehement & virulent manner with those crimes which the parties then cleared themselves of , nor were we then able to make any good proof of against them , may deservedly be censured ( if I be not much mistaken ) to argue no small defect , not of piety and charity alone , but even of humanity , ( not to adde , of common honesty it self ) in those that so do . Now this whether M r George Walker have made himself guilty of or no , in his Treatise lately published under the Title of Socinianisme in the Fundamentall point of Justification discovered and confuted , concerning M r Anthony Wotton , a man , by M r Walkers own confession , of speciall note for his piety , life and learning , while he lived , which both the University of Cambridge , and the City of London are able also to give ample testimony unto ; I say nothing my self , but leave it to be tried and judged by the sequele , wherein I shall be only a relatour of that that my self was for the most part either an eye or an ear-witnesse of , leaving M r Wotton to plead his own cause , and M r Walker's own dayes-men by their award under their own hands either to cast or to clear him . The Relation . NOt to hold my reader therefore long in the entry ere I come to the Relation : M r Walker in a letter directed to M r Wotton ( whom he had before bitterly inveighed against both in private and publick ) dated May the second , 1614. yet to be seen under his own hand , chargeth him ( for you shall have it precisely in his own words ) on this wise , The Errours and Opinions which you maintain , and wherewith you have infected divers , are of all that ever were sown by the enemy of God and man amongst Christian people the most pestilent and dangerous , being nothing else but the heresies of Servetus and Socinus those most damnable and cursed hereticks , the greatest monsters that ever were born within the borders of Christ his Church . And after this charge in such hideous terms conceived , in the same letter he subjoyneth this peremptory challenge , Meet me as a Christian before eight learned and godly Ministers chosen equally by both , that they may be witnesses betwixt you and me , and that it may be seen whether I do justly charge you with heresie and blasphemy or no , and whether your writings do not shew you to be a Socinian . Upon receit of this letter containing much other lavish and menacing language , M r Wotton repaired to the Right Reverend , the then Bishop of London , D r King their Diocesan , acquainted him with the businesse , and requested his Lordship to convent M r Walker and himself , and to heare them both together ; not refusing , if M r Walker could make his charge good against him , to undergo such censure and penalty as he should be deemed thereby to have justly deserved ; otherwise requiring due satisfaction by his Lordships means from him who had wronged him in such manner . But the Bishop perswaded M r Wotton rather , according to M r Walkers own Proposition , to referre the matter to such a number of their brethren the Ministers as were by him mentioned , and so to make a private end of the businesse . Whereunto M r Wotton returned this answer , That howsoever he desired rather that his Lordship would be pleased to have the hearing of it himself , yet since that he seemed to like better of the other course by M r Walker propounded , he was well content to condescend thereunto , so be that his Lordship would be pleased to assigne one of his Chaplains then present to be one of the foure to be nominated by him , though a stranger to him ; for that he cared not who they were , acquaintance or strangers , so they be godly and learned , that should heare and judge his cause . And the Bishop accordingly promised that it should so be , assigning M r Henry Mason , a grave and reverend Divine , being then and there present , to undertake that office with such others as were to be adjoyned unto him in the same : who yet surviving in the City is able to testifie of this passage with the Bishop , whether it were according to this relation or no. For I have this onely from M r Wotton's own report ( though nothing doubtfull of the truth of it ) who meeting me accidentally in Pauls Church as he came from the Bishop , having not seen him long before , shewed me M r Walker's letter , told me what speech he had had thereupon with the Bishop , and what by the Bishops perswasion he had yielded unto ; withall requesting me to be one of those that were on his part to be named for the discussing and deciding of this difference . Which motion of his albeit I desired to wave , wishing him rather to make choise of some other , both nearer at hand , and of better abilities , the City affoording such not a few ; yet at his instant request , the rather pressing it upon me , because he had , as he said , so happily light upon me unexpected , and notwithstanding that he knew before my judgement in some particulars to differ from his , having both by word of mouth , and in writing also sometime at his own request manifested to him as much , yet making no reckoning thereof , I was at length induced to condescend thereunto . The persons nominated by M r Walker were M r Stocke , M r Downame , M r Gouge , and M r Westfield ; whereof three is yet living , M r Stock onely is deceased . Those that were nominated by M r Wotton ( because M r Mason by occasion of an extraordinary employment by his Majestie suddenly enjoyned , of surveying a book of D r John Whites ready to be published , could not attend the businesse , another therefore being substituted in his stead ) were these , M r Balmford , M r Randall , M r Hicks , Chaplain to the Earl of Excester , and my self ; who alone ( I suppose ) of all the foure now survive , and am the rather induced to affoord this Christian office to so worthy * a deceased friend . It was thought not so fit to meet in a private house ( which at first we had done , but found therein some inconvenience ) as in some Church that stood out of the way of ordinary concourse . By occasion hereof D r Baylie , afterward Bishop of Banghor , came in as one of us , and made up a ninth , because we desired to make use of his Church . There accordingly we met , and some time being spent , or , if you will , wasted , rather in loose invectives then in orderly disputes , I made bold to propound a course to the rest of the company ( because time was precious , and my self came farthest ) for the better expediting of the businesse undertaken by us ; which was also generally approved of by the rest , and by both parties agreed unto . The Proposition was this , That M r Walker should in a Parallel consisting of two columns set down Socinus his hereticall and blasphemous errours and positions on the one side , and M r Wottons assertions , wherein he charged him to concurre with Socinus , over against them on the other side : upon view whereof it might the sooner appear how the one suited with the other . M r Walker undertook so to do ; and M r Wotton required onely to have M r Walker's said writing delivered unto him some two or three dayes before the set time of our next meeting , that he might against that day prepare a brief answer thereunto , in writing then to be exhibited . The motion was on either side deemed equall ; nor did M r Walker himself mislike it . Now by this means , God in his providence so disposing it ( which at the present in likelihood was little dreamed of ) M r Wotton , as * Abel , though deceased , is inabled to speak in his own defence , and to plead now his own cause as well as then he did . M r Walkers Parallel , and therein his Evidence produced for the proof of his charge above mentioned , you shall have in his own words as it was then given in ; those pieces of it onely that were conceived in Latine being faithfully translated word for word , as near as could be , into English , because in English M r Walker's book with the renewed Charge is abroad . M r WALKER 's evidence . THat it may plainly appear that Socinus , Servetus , Ostorodius , Gittichius , Arminius and M r Wotton do in the doctrine of Justification hold one and the same opinion in all points , I shew by the parts and heads of their doctrine set down in order , and by their own sayings and testimonies paralleled and set one by another . The first errour of Socinus and his followers is , That Justification is contained onely in Remission of sinnes , without imputation of Christ his Righteousnesse . SOCINUS . His own words . 1 For ( as oft hath been said by us ) in remission of sinnes , which is the same w th not-imputation of sins , is our righteousnesse contained : and therefore with Paul , not to impute sinnes , and to impute righteousnesse , or to account righteous are the same . And with this imputation ( as we have said ) the imputation of anothers righteousnesse hath no commerce . Treatise of Christ the Saviour . Part. 4. chap. 4. pag. 463. column . 2. near the end . 2 There is no one syllable extant in holy writ of Christs righteousnesse to be imputed unto us , Chap. the same , pag. 462. 3 It is the same with Paul , to have sinnes covered , to have iniquities remitted , to have sinne not imputed , that it is , to have righteousnesse imputed without works . And this manifestly declareth , that there is no cause why we should suspect mention to be made of anothers righteousnesse , since we reade that Faith was imputed unto Abraham for righteousnesse , or unto righteousnesse , pag. the same . col . 2. 4 God delivered the Lord Jesus unto death , that by him rising from the dead we might hope to obtain justification , that is , absolution from our sins , Pag. 463. col . 2. 5 That is first to be considered , that this imputation can in no wise be upheld , In the same place . WOTTON . 1 Albeit with Piscator I willingly acknowledge that the justification of a sinner is wholly comprehended in the alone pardon of sins ; yet I find no where in Holy writ that there is need of the Imputation of Christs passive obedience unto the attaining of it , Theses in Latine . 2. That Christs obedience is imputed by God to the justification of a sinner , doth not appear by any testimonie of Scripture , or by any argument , or by any type or ceremonie in the Law , or by any signification in the Sacraments of the Gospel , In the same , arg . 1. 3 No necessary use or end can be assigned of the imputation of the obedience of Christ to the justification of a sinner , In the same , arg . 4. 4 I renounce the Law , both in whole and in part , performed by our selves , or any other in our stead , to the justifying of us in the sight of God. 5 I assent to Piscator , that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sinnes . For so doth the Apostle , Rom. 3. & 4. propound and dispute the question , without any mention or inckling of Christs righteousnesse . These are his words in a little English Pamphlet , first published briefly , and secondly by him enlarged . The second point or errour is , That Faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for obtaining of Justification . SOCINUS . 1 The promise was made to Abraham not without a secret condition , to wit , that he should walk before God and be perfect , that is , he should not refuse to obey him . Now to walk before God , and to obey him , are included in faith , and cannot be without it ; yea they flow from it alone , as he himself teacheth after in the same chapter . 2 The confidence saith he ( which he had before affirmed to be faith ) is the cause of our obedience : Therefore a man believeth , because he trusteth . And it is perfected by obedience : because no man is truly said to have trusted , before he do indeed obey , Part. 4. chap. 11. pag. 555 , 556. And a little after , 3 Whereby that appeareth to be most true , which we even now strove to prove , that that faith , which of it self so far as concerneth what is in us doth justifie us , is confidence in Christ , 559. WOTTON . 1 The condition to be performed on our part to justification , is to believe , Sermon 8. upon John , pag. 352. 2 The act of faith or believing bringeth justification and adoption onely and merely by the place and office which the Lord of his own mercie hath assigned it , to be the condition required on our parts for the atchieving of these favours and honours , Serm. 9. pag. 452. The third errour is , That Faith doth not justifie us , as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousnesse , but by it self , in a proper not metonymicall sense . SOCINUS . 1 We are justified by faith in Christ , so farre forth as we trust in Christ , Part. 4. chap. 11 pag. 558. col . 2. 2 The faith of Christ doth justifie us by it self , or ( to speak more rightly ) God doth justifie us by himself , pag. 559. col . 1. WOTTON . 1 Faith in that place ( to wit , Rom. 4.5 . ) is to be taken properly unlesse peradventure it be used for to believe or to trust . For that which is by some alledged of a trope , whereby they suppose that Christs obedience apprehended by faith is signified , I doubt how I may grant . And a little after , 2 What trope should there lie hid , I see not . 3 Also Serm. 9. on John. Abraham believed God ; and it , that is , his believing , was counted to him for righteousnesse , pag. 453. 4 Also in his Purgation , I think that faith in Christ , without a trope , in proper speech is imputed to all believers for righteousnesse . The fourth errour is , That for faith properly taken , and dignified and made worthy , not of it self , but in Gods acceptation and of his mercie , a man is justified , and may lay claim ( as it were ) to remission of sinnes . SOCINUS . 1 For faith we are deemed perfectly just . And a little after , 2 Abraham believed God ; and for that cause he was accounted of him for righteous , Part. 4. chap. 4. pag. 462. col . 2. 3 For one act of faith was Abraham righteous , Servetus , Book 2. of Law and Gospel , as Calvine reciteth in his refutation of Servetus , pag. 903. WOTTON . 1 He that believeth is accounted by God , to all purposes concerning eternall life , to have done as much according to the covenant of the Gospel , as he should have been accounted to have done , according to the covenant of the Law , if he had perfectly fulfilled it , In his first English paper . The fifth errour is , That faith is no firm perswasion , by which men apprehend and lay hold upon Christ and his righteousnesse , and apply them to themselves , as of right belonging to us by our spirituall union : but that it is a trust and confidence in Christ for salvation joyned with obedience to Christs precepts : or ( to speak plainly ) a confidence that Christ , having obtained by his obedience the Kingdome and all power , will certainly give us salvation , if we relie on him , and obey his counsels . SOCINUS . 1 Faith in Christ , which maketh us righteous before God , is nothing else but to trust in Christ , Part. 4. chap. 11. in the beginning : and in the same , page 560. col . 2. 2 To believe in Christ , is nothing else but to trust in Christ , to cleave to Christ , and from the heart to embrace his doctrine as heavenly and healthsome . And a little before , 3 This your apprehension of Christ , is a mere humane device , and a most empty dream . And towards the end of the chapter . 4 He calleth our perswasion of righteousnesse , already obtained and gotten by Christ , vain . WOTTON . 1 As for that perswasion , wherein some would have faith to consist , it followeth him that is justified , not goeth before , as faith must needs do , Ser. on John , p. 392. also p. 338. and 448. 2 To believe in Christ is to trust in Christ , and to rest on him , to have his heart settled , and to relie wholly and onely on him . And what this trust is , he describeth more particularly , pag. 390. where he saith , 3 It is such a Faith , as maketh us rest upon God for the performance of his promise . The sixth errour is , That Christs whole obedience and righteousnesse serve , first and immediately for himself , to bring him into favour and autoritie with God : and secondly onely for us : Not that it might be communicated to us in him , to make us truly and formally righteous , but onely that it might serve for our use in that it maketh him gracious with God , and so both able to obtain that faith might be accepted for righteousnesse , and we for it ; and also powerfull to give those blessings which are promised to those that trust in him . SOCINUS . 1 As Adams offense made him and all mankind procreated by him guiltie of death , so Christs righteousnesse and obedience procured life eternall to Christ himself . Whereby it cometh to passe , that so many as shall by procreated by him become partakers of the same life , Part. 4. chap. 6. and , 2. part . 2. Chap. 8. p. 178. col . 2. and , 3. part . 3. chap. 3. in the end . WOTTON . In a paper written in Latine . 1 All the good will wherewith God embraceth us proceedeth from that grace , that Christ is in with God. Now that is in these things for the most part contained , that he is by nature the Son of God , that he is perfectly holy , that he hath performed obedience exact in all respects , both in fulfilling the Law , & in performing all things belonging to the office of a Mediatour : from whence it followeth , that those that believe are for Christs righteousnes gracious with God. And in the same paper , 2 If question be concerning the formall cause of justification , I exclude from it either obedience of Christ . If of the efficient by way of merit , I maintain it to depend upon both . The seventh errour is , That Christ did not satisfie the justice of God for us , in such sort , that we may be said ( when we truly believe ) to have satisfied the justice of God and his wrath in him : and that God of his mercie without Christs satisfaction made ours , doth pardon our sinnes and justifie and redeem us . SOCINUS . 1 Reade over all the places of the New Testament , in which mention is made of redemption , and you shall find none in which there is evident mention of the paiment of any true price , or of satisfaction , Part. 2. chap. 1. pag. 109. col . 2. And a little after , 2 As we are said to be sold under sinne , that is , enslaved to it , without any true price intervening ; so are we said to be redeemed from the same by Christ , that is , freed , though no price hath truly and properly intervened . 3 Likewise Part. 1. chap. 7. in the end , he denieth Satisfaction . 4 Also Chap. 4. pag. 84. col . 2. That there is no need of any satisfaction , when the offense is not imputed to him that hath offended by the party against whom he hath offended , or the debt is by the creditour remitted . WOTTON . In the paper written in Latine . 1 Neither ( that I speak freely what I truly think ) can I understand what place is left for pardon , if by payment of pains in Christ we be deemed to have satisfied the wrath of God , and to have born the punishment due to our sinnes : for Pardon and Punishment are contraries . 2 Also in his English paper enlarged , the same words are rehearsed , and the same reason given , even , Because Pardon and Punishment are contraries . Thus have you the evidence by M r Walker then given in for the justifying of that his charge : which , for the effect and substance of it , is in as broad and odious terms in print now again renewed , some six and twenty years after the cause according to his own request heard , and some fourteen years after M r Wotton's decease . May it please you now to heare M r Wotton's answer in his own defense , as it was in writing by him then exhibited . Mr. Wotton's Defence . A. W. in the doctrine of Justification holdeth one and the same opinion in all points with Socinus : and therefore is justly charged by G. W. to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy . That he doth hold the same in all points , is shewed by these seven Errours following : The first Errour of Socinus and his followers is , That Justification is contained onely in Remission of Sinnes , without Imputation of Christs Righteousnesse . 1. If you mean without Imputation of Christs Righteousnesse as the meritorious cause of Justification , I grant the Proposition to be hereticall and blasphemous . And so doth Socinus deny Imputation . I. Christ ( saith he ) did not satisfie for our sinnes : Treatise of Christ the Saviour , Part 1. chap. 1. pag. 1. part 2. chap. 17. pag. 245. col . 1. part 3. pag. 306. beginning , and chap. 1. pag. 307. col . 1. II. He could not satisfie , Part 2. chap. 24. pag. 288. col . 2. part . 3. in argum . chap. 6 : pag. 406. III. He did not pacifie God , Part 2. chap. 2. pag. 120. col . 1. Part 1. chap. 7. pag. 76. col . 2. IV. There was no need of any satisfaction to be made , Part 1. chap. 1. pag. 1. V. God would not that any satisfaction should be made , Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 317. col . 2. and pag. 324. col . 1. But I do not so deny Imputation of Christs Righteousnesse : for I acknowledge it to be the meritorious cause of our Justification , and that for it we are accepted of God as fully as if we had fulfilled the Law perfectly , Treatise of the Justification of a Sinner , in explication of the definition of Reconciliation , and in the definition of Adoption , and in the Conclusion . 2. If you mean without Imputation of Christs Righteousnesse , as the formall cause whereby we are made formally righteous , by having fulfilled the Law , and satisfied the Justice of God in Christ , I say the Proposition is neither hereticall nor blasphemous . And that I must be so understood , my writings shew . For , first , I professe that I speak of the formall cause of Justification , Treat . of Justific . of a Sinner , in the State of the Question , in Answer to Argum. for Position 1. and to Arg. 1. for Position 3. and in the Conclusion . Secondly , I expresse that manner of formally righteous , Treat . of Justific . of a Sinner : where I expound what it is to impute to a Sinner Christs Obedience ; and of Justification , where I deliver mine own opinion , Sect. 2. which is the very place that M r Walker alledgeth against me out of the English . Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this first Errour , but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification . The second Errour is , That Faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for obtaining Justification . 1. Socinus defineth believing on Christ to be nothing else then to yield ones self obedient to God , according to the rule and prescript of Christ , and by so doing to expect from Christ himself the crown of life eternall , Treat . of Christ the Saviour , Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 321. col . 1. 2. He maketh Faith to be indeed ( as M r Walker saith ) a confidence in Christ , but he addeth immediately ( which M r Walker leaveth it ) that is , an obedience to Christs precepts , with a firm hope of obtaining those things which he hath promised to those that obey him , Part 4. chap. 11. pag. 559. col . 1. and in the same page he laboureth to prove , That Faith doth signifie obedience to Christs Commandments , Sect. Hinc factum est . 3. He maketh Repentance and Amendment of life the means to obtain that forgivenesse of sinnes which Christ hath brought , Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 321. col . 1. 4. And whereas Faith is added to Repentance , Act. 20.21 . It is not ( saith he ) because Faith in Christ is required unto the obtaining of remission of sinnes , as working somewhat more in us besides repentance it self , that doth hereunto appertain ; but because this Repentance cometh not but by Faith in Christ . In the same columne , Sect. Manifestum . 5. He saith , that whereas John sent the people to Christ , and warned them to believe in him ; it was not as if they should find any other thing besides Repentance in Christ that was requisite unto the obtaining of pardon from God , but , first , that they might be exactly taught of Christ what that Repentance ought to be . Besides , that from Christ they might understand that that was wholly so indeed , which he delivered onely as a messenger . Lastly , that they might not be washed with water onely , but have the holy Ghost poured upon them , Part 3. pag. 320. col . 1. But I never writ , spake , nor conceived so of Faith to the obtaining of Justification . Nay , it is evident that I make Faith not a believing of that which Christ taught , and an assurance of obtaining that he promised upon our Repentance and Obedience ( which is Socinus his confidence , Part 4. chap. 11 pag. 559. col . 1. ) but a resting and relying upon Christ , a trusting to Christ for salvation , Serm. 6. upon John , pag. 286. and Serm. 8. pag. 386 , 389 , 398. yea a means , and , if you will , an instrument to apprehend and receive Christ to our Justification , Treat . of Justific . in explicat . of the Definition of Reconcil . So that , for ought I hold of Faith , Christs Righteousnesse may be even the formall cause of our Justification . Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this second Errour , but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification . The third Errour is , That Faith doth not justifie us , as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousnesse ; but by it self , in a proper not metonymicall sense . This third Errour hath two Propositions , which shall be answered to severally . The former is , That Faith doth not justifie as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousnesse . I hold this Proposition to be false ; acknowledging and confessing that Faith doth not justifie us but onely as it apprehendeth and applieth Christ and his Righteousnesse ; the very condition of the Gospel being , That by Faith we apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnesse to be justified thereby , Treat . of Justifie . in explic . of the definit . of Reconcil . The other Proposition is , That Faith doth justifie us by it self in a proper not metonymicall sense . I never said or thought that Faith doth justifie us by it self . This onely I say , that in this Proposition , Faith is counted for Righteousnesse , the word Faith is to be taken properly , not tropically ; the question being in such Propositions not of the meritorious or formall cause of our Justification , but of the condition required on our part instead of keeping the Law. Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this third Errour , but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification . The fourth Errour is , That for Faith properly taken , and dignified and made worthy , not of it self but in Gods acceptation and of his mercy a man is justified , and may lay claim to remission of sinnes . Neither Socinus nor Servetus ( in the words you bring out of them ) affirm that a man is justified and may lay claim to remission of sinnes , for Faith any way dignified , &c. Nay , Socinus avoucheth , that Repentance and Amendment of life is that by which that forgivenesse of sinnes which is brought by Christ is obtained , Part 3. chap. 2. pag. 322. col . 1. How then am I proved to agree with him in that Errour which he is not proved to hold ? Especially , seeing that I never said that we are justified for Faith , and do renounce all dignity and worth in Faith , and give the whole merit of our Justification to our Saviour Christ and his obedience . That which is alledged out of my papers is no more but this , That the condition of the Gospel being Faith , as the condition of the Law is Keeping of the Law ; he that believeth in Christ hath done as much , that is , performed the condition of the Gospel , as well as he that keepeth the Law hath fulfilled the condition of the Law : so that on his part God requireth no more to his Justification . And that this is certainly my meaning , the words going before in that English paper , and those also that follow in the other English paper , and in the Latine , do manifestly shew . Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this fourth Errour , but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blasphemie for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification . The fifth Errour is , That Faith is no firm perswasion by which we apprehend and lay hold upon Christ and his Righteousnesse , and apply them to our selves as of right belonging to us by our spirituall union ; but that it is a trust and confidence in Christ for salvation , joyned with obedience to Christs precepts : or ( to speak plainly ) a confidence that Christ , having obtained by his obedience the kingdome and all power , will certainly give us salvation if we rely on him and obey his counsels . Whether the three Propositions set down in this Errour , be rightly gathered from the words alleaged by M r Walker out of Socinus or no , I leave to other mens judgement . But whatsoever Socinus held , I have nothing to do with any of these Propositions . Onely of the first I say , That the perswasion , whereof I speak in the place he bringeth , is that particular assurance that every man ( as some define Faith ) must have to Justification ; viz. that his sinnes are forgiven in Christ : Whereas Faith ( being the condition required on our part ) must go before Justification , at least in nature . But this perswasion followeth it , and is bred in us by the Spirit of God after we believe and are justified . For it is given to us , being already adopted Sons , Gal. 4.5 . and Adoption is a Prerogative vouchsafed us upon our believing , John 1.12 . Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this fifth Errour , but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification . The sixth Errour is , That Christs whole obedience and Righteousnesse serve first and immediately for himself to bring him into favour and authority with God ; and secondly , onely for us : Not that it might be communicated to us in him , to make us truly and formally righteous ; but onely that it might serve for our use , in that it maketh him gracious with God , and so both able to obtain , that Faith might be accepted for Righteousnesse and we for it ; and also powerfull to give those blessings which are promised to those that trust in him . The words you alledge out of Socinus prove no more ( at the most ) but the first point of this Errour , That Christs whole Obedience and Righteousnesse serve first and immediately for himself , to bring him into favour and authority with God. There is nothing in this sixth Errour that toucheth me . All that I say , in the former place alledged by M r Walker , is no more but this ; That whatsoever maketh Christ beloved of God is some cause of Gods love to us who are beloved in and for him , Ephes . 1.3 , 4 , 6. Now among other things for which Christ is beloved , his holinesse and obedience have no mean place . Whereupon it followeth that they may be reckoned in the number of those causes that make us beloved of God in and for his Sonne our Saviour Jesus Christ , Treat . of Justific . of a Sinner , in explic . of the Definit . of Reconcil . In the latter I say , That we are not accounted to be Formally Righteous , by having fulfilled the Law and satisfied the Justice of God in Christ . And yet I acknowledge that we are ( for his obedience ) accepted of God as righteous no lesse then if we had indeed performed those things . And this was determined in the first Errour to be neither heresie nor blasphemy . Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this sixth Errour , but am unjustly charged to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy , for holding one and the same opinion with him in all points in the doctrine of Justification . The seventh Errour is , That Christ did not satisfie the Justice of God for us in such sort that we may be said ( when we truly believe ) to have satisfied the Justice of God and his wrath in him : And that God ( of his Mercy ) without Christs satisfaction made ours , doth pardon our sinnes , and justifie and redeem us . Socinus denieth all satisfaction by Christ , not onely with limitation ( as you propound it in this seventh Errour ) but absolutely , as appeared in mine answer to the first Errour : and accordingly he maintaineth that we are pardoned , justified , and redeemed without any satisfaction made by a true price paid to God the Father by our Saviour Christ for us . But I acknowledge and professe that Christ hath made satisfaction for us , by paying a true price to God his Father for us : and that God doth not pardon us but for and in respect of that payment made for us . In the places alledged out of my writings I say no more , but that we cannot be held to have satisfied the wrath of God in Christ , and withall to be truly and properly pardoned . If we have been punished , how are we pardoned ? If we be pardoned , we have not been punished . Christ hath been punished for us ; we are pardoned for his punishment , Esa . 53.5 . Therefore I agree not with Socinus in this seventh Errour , and ( having cleared my self of agreeing with him in any of the seven ) am unjustly charged by M r Walker to be guilty of heresie and blasphemy for holding one and the same opinion with Socinus in all points in the doctrine of Justification . The Issue . THus have you both M r Walker's charge and evidence , and M r Wotton's Answer in his own Defence thereunto . You exspect now ( I suppose ) in the next place to heare what the Issue of it was . Upon the delivery in therefore and view of both compared together , there was by word of mouth further debating of the severall points at large , as well between M r Walker and M r Wotton , as by the parties nominated on either side among themselves . Who albeit they agreed not with M r Wotton in all particulars ; and in some things then debated were not all of one mind , as in that question occasioned by M r Wotton's answer to one branch of the last Article , to wit , Whether in the work of redemption the faithfull be considered as one with Christ , or no : or in plainer terms , Whether our insition into Christ in the order of Nature be deemed to precede the work of our redemption , or the work of our redemption in the order of nature to go before it : concerning which , being somewhat a nice subtiltie , they were divided ; some holding the one part , and some the other : yet so farre were they from condemning M r Wotton as guilty of heresie and blasphemie in the points above mentioned , as that they professed divers of them , and that some of M r Walker's own choice , no one denying or opposing the rest therein , to have oft taught some of them , namely the second , to wit , That faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our part for obtaining justification : which yet M r Walker affirmed to be a most dangerous errour . In conclusion , it was without further question or contradiction of any of the whole eight then present , as well the nominated by the one as those assigned by the other , with unanimous consent generally resolved and pronounced , that there appeared not to them either heresie or blasphemy in ought that M r Wotton was by M r Walker convinced to have delivered or maintained . Which M r Wotton requiring further to be testified under their hands , albeit M r Walker , perceiving it to be deemed equall and meet , began to storm and flie out , and demanded of them , whether they would take upon them to determine heresie ; whereunto such answer was returned as was fit : yet it was accordingly ( as of right it ought ) yielded unto . The writing by all the eight then present subscribed , being committed to the custodie of D r Bayly , upon promise by him made to deliver it to M r Wotton , when it should by two of the parties , one of either side nominated , be demanded of him in his behalf . Now howsoever the Doctour afterward upon some pretences refused to deliver it as he had promised to do , whether pressed by M r Walker to detain it or no , I wot not , himself best knoweth : yet for the truth of this issue , as it hath here been related in the behalf of M r Wotton , it will plainly appear by the attestation of two of those of M r Walkers party yet surviving ( for a third is deceased , and the fourth was absent at the meeting that concluded all ) in the very terms ensuing , written with one of their hands , and subscribed by them both . We whose names are under-written do testifie , that the eight Ministers at the hearing of the foresaid points in controversie betwixt M r Wotton and M r Walker , and continuing till the end of that meeting ( though in every part they assented not to every of those Positions ) under their hands witnessed , that they found neither heresie nor blasphemie in any of them , or to the like purpose . JOHN DOWNAME . WILLIAM GOUGH Thus have you faithfully related , upon ground of proof undeniable , the carriage of the businesse between M r Walker , and M r Wotton , and the issue of the same . You have M r Walker's charge and challenge , together with the evidence produced and given in by him to make his charge good : you have M r Wotton's defence in way of answer thereunto : and you have the verdict and sentence of select parties appealed to by joynt consent , delivered upon diligent view and due hearing both of the one and the other ; who all say in effect , that M r Wotton did sufficiently clear himself from those foul imputations of heresie and blasphemie , that M r Walker then charged him with ; and that M r Walker failed in making good that his charge then , which with so much vehemency and virulency he reneweth now against him , yoking him with Peter Abeilard , and with Servetus and Socinus , as agreeing with them in such damnable and detestable dotages as they held and maintained , and for which they were condemned as blasphemous hereticks . The iniquitie whereof , though it may sufficiently appear by what hath already been related ; yet that the Reader may the better judge how equally these persons are here yoked together , it will not be amisse ( though the matter be but unsavoury ) to acquaint him with some generall and principall heads of those points , that Abeilardus , Servetus , and Socinus stand charged with . Peter Abeilard , or Balard ( for a of his name they agree not ) whom b some affirm to have been one of the first Fathers of the School-men , and first founders of School-divinitie ( for c Peter Lombard , say they , took from him ) is by Bernard d charged , to have savoured of Arius in the doctrine of the Trinitie ; of Pelagius , in the doctrine of Grace ; of Nestorius concerning the person of Christ : to have held e Christ to be no true Redeemer of us , nor to have reconciled us to God by his death : but to have been an exemplary Saviour ; that is , such an one as by his life and death , pietie and charitie , obedience and patience , chalketh us out the way to heaven : and to have broached in his books f a number of sacrilegious errours concerning the soul of Christ ; his descent into hell ; the power of binding and loosing ; g the sacraments of the Church , and by name that of the Altar ; of originall sinne ; of concupiscence ; of sinnes of delight , infirmitie , and ignorance ; of sinne in work and sinne in will. But he telleth us not what they were . Now whether Bernard charge him truly herein or no ( which for divers causes may be justly questioned ; and the rather for that Abeilard in h his Apologie flatly denieth , that he ever wrote taught or once thought the most of those points that Bernard fasteneth upon him , and for that i Bernard's reports concerning others of those times , some whereof were his scholars , are not unjustly suspected ) it is not much materiall to our purpose ; the rather for that the charge granted to be true , the more pestilent and blasphemous his errours are found to be , the greater inequalitie will appear in the collation , unlesse the parties collated can be proved to have maintained opinions as pestilent and as blasphemous as his . But for Servetus and Socinus , the other two , what they held , we have records of sufficient credit . For Servetus , ( from whom M r Walker borroweth onely one small snip , wherewith to piece up his Parallel ) whether his works be extant or no , I wot not ; and the better it is , if they be not . But what he taught and maintained , we have taken out of his writings , from M r Calvine's relation , together with an ample refutation of them adjoyned thereunto . His chief assertions , among a vast heap of other absurd , prodigious and blasphemous ones , are these : That a there is no such Trinitie of persons in the Deitie , as is commonly maintained ; where he brandeth the orthodox tenet and the abettours of it with most hideous terms raked up from Hel it self , and too vile to be related , and fasteneth many uncouth and fantasticall conceits full of impietie and blasphemie upon the names given in Scripture to the second and third Persons . That b God in the beginning of the world produced the Word and the Spirit : and began then as a person to appear in three uncreated elements and communicated of his essence unto all that he then made . That c This Word being the face and image of God , is said then to have been begotten , because God then began to breed it , but stayed for a woman to bear it , untill the Virgin Mary was ; that d then Christ was conceived in her womb , of the seed of the Word and the substance of the Spirit : so that the Word was then first turned into flesh , and then that flesh by the Spirit wholly turned into the essence of the Deitie ; e and that Christ hath now a spirituall body , that filleth heaven and earth . That f The Spirit is a kind of gentle breath , which at first proceeded from the Word , consisting partly of the essence of God , and partly of a created power : which g having moved in the Creation on the face of the waters , and there finding no rest , retired again to heaven , and there stayed , till at the Baptisme of Christ it came down again . That h Man is said to be made after Gods image , because the very essence of God is in every man from his originall , and that not in the soul onely but in the body ; and that though the devil have by a kind of carnall copulation got into , and possessed himself of the body , yet that the divine essence remaineth still in the soul : which notwithstanding it is by sinne become mortall , and is breathed out into the aire , yet in the regenerate by means of the Spirit it becometh consubstantiall and coeternall with God. That i Christ should have come to carie men to heaven , albeit Adam had never fallen ; and that the Tree of knowledge of good and evil was a figure of Christ , whom Adam over-hastily desiring to tast of threw himself and his posteritie into perdition . That k None are guilty of mortall sinne , till they be twenty yeare old ; because they have no knowledge of good or evil till then ; l nor are therefore till then to be catechised : m nor any to be baptized , till they be thirty years old ; because of that age the first Adam was created , and at that age the second Adam was baptized . That n Before Christs coming the Angels onely , not God , were worshipped : o nor were any regenerate by the Spirit : p nor did their faith regard any more then terrestriall good things ; save that some few by apropheticall spirit might aloof off have some smatch of spirituall things . That q From the beginning , as well Gentiles as Jews , that lived well according to natures guidance , were thereby justified ; and without faith of Christ shall thereby at the last day attain to life eternall . That r The Law was given onely for a time ; and ſ that men were then saved by the observation of it ; which was then observed , when men did what they could , who might therefore glorie then in their works , being justified wholly by them : but t that men are not now to be scared with it . That u Faith is nothing else but to believe Christ to be the Sonne of God : and v to justifie , nothing , but to make a man righteous , who was sinfull before : and that x we are now justified , partly by faith , and partly by works . That z On Gods part there is no promise required unto justification : nor doth faith depend upon any promise of God , or hath any respect thereunto : in regard whereof * he scoffeth at those that build their faith upon Gods promises , or that mention them in their prayers . That a There is a perfect puritie in every holy action ; and such as may endure even the extreme rigour of Gods justice . That b Abraham was indeed justified by works : howbeit , that his believing is first said to be imputed to him for righteousnesse , and he said to be just for one act of faith ; ( the place by M r Walker produced ) as if a prince out of his favour regarding his souldiers mind and good will , would be pleased to accept the good endeavour for the thing fully performed : and so Abraham was therefore by God deemed just , because by his believing it appeared that he stood well affected to acquire a commendation of righteousnesse by his good works . Which is all , saith Calvine , that he ascribeth unto faith , either in us , or in him . c Whose faith , also he saith , as of others before Christ was no true faith but a figure of true faith , and the righteousnesse imputed to him no spirituall but a carnall righteousnesse , and insufficient ; not a truth , but a shadow ; and the imputation of it but a type of the great grace of Christ to us . And thus much , if not too much , of Servetus his blasphemous and prodigious dreams and dotages : for I have raked overlong in this filthy sinck , in this stincking puddle , which till upon this occasion I never pried or peered into before , nor , it may be , should ever have done but for it . Socinus remaineth , whose positions what they were , may appear by his writings yet extant , and in the hands of too many ; by means whereof it is to be feared that they do the more hurt . The principall of his tenets , though not so prodigious as those of Servetus , yet blasphemous and vile enough , are these : He denieth not d Christs deity and eternity onely , with e Arrius ; but f his existence at all also before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary , with g Photinus ; and so maketh him h a mere man. He denieth Christ to have been i a redeemer , or to have wrought any redemption , or to have paid any price or ransome unto God for us , truly and properly so termed ; or that k by his sufferings any satisfaction at all was made unto God for our sinnes ; or that l God is thereby reconciled unto us ; or that m thereby he merited ought from God either for himself or for us . That n he is therefore onely called a Saviour , and is said to save , partly o because he teacheth us by his doctrine , and p sheweth us by his practice the way to life eternall , and q confirmeth the same to us by the miracles that he wrought , and r by his dying and rising again from the dead ; and partly , ſ because he hath power given him by God to make the same good unto all that believe in him : That t to believe in him is nothing else but to obey him , or to keep his precepts under hope of eternall life thereby to be obtained ; and that this is the very u form and essence of justifying faith ; and that x for so doing a man is justified and accepted to life eternall ; and that y it is therefore in our power by our good works to attain thereunto . This is the summe of his doctrine concerning mans justification and salvation ; wherein also I am the briefer , because much of it hath been laid down before . Now whether M r Wotton or M r Godwin do conspire and concurre with Peter Abeilard , Servetus and Socinus in these their blasphemous dotages , and are therefore justly yoked with them by M r Walker or no ( it concerneth not me ) let others try and determine . But for M r Wotton his own defence of himself herein , and the censure of others by M r Walker himself appealed to , a which he cannot therefore in equity go from , I have faithfully delivered ; being confirmed by the attestation of those whom he cannot except against , being men of his own choise , and of sufficient credit and good esteem otherwise . And as for M r Godwin , to me a mere stranger in regard of any acquaintance , one whom I never heard or saw to my knowledge , save once of late occasionally at the funerall of a friend , nor know certainly what he holdeth or hath taught , I say no more , but as they sometime of their sonne , b Aetatem habet , he is old enough , and ( for ought I know ) able enough to answer for himself : and he surviveth yet so to do if he see good . But whether Peter Abeilard ever moved this Question which M r Walker saith he was the first mover of , to wit , Whether faith , or the righteousnesse of Christ be imputed in the act of justification , is to me a great question . And M r Walker's reading herein ( as , I confesse , it may well be ) is better then mine , if he can shew where either he did ever handle it , or is reported so to have done . Nor do I find in all M r Calvines large relation and refutation of Servetus his blasphemies , where ever he propounded or maintained any question in such terms , as this by M r Walker is here conceived in . For Socinus , it is true , that in prosecution of his discourses , wherein he laboureth to prove Christ to be such a Saviour onely as was out of him before described , he is inforced to acknowledge , that Faith , such as he meaneth , that is , Obedience to Christs commandments doth justifie , without relation to ought done or suffered by Christ , any satisfaction made by him , or merit of his ; neither of which he acknowledgeth : And the like may be deduced from what Servetus held , ( though his assertions , as Calvine also well observeth , are found oft to enterfere , and to crosse one another ) and from that also that Abeilard is by Bernard charged to have held . But if M r Walker will father this upon him concerning the deniall of the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse , because from his positions it may be deduced , he might have risen a great deal higher , and have fetched in Simon Magus , Ebion , Cerinthus , Marcion , Manes , and a whole rabble of old hereticks ( and out of the ancient stories of the Church made a list as large almost as his book is long ) from whose pestilent positions the same might as well be deduced , as from those things that Abeilardus and Servetus maintained . Again , neither is this sufficient to prove a point to be hereticall and blasphemous , because it may be deduced from assertions of that nature : for if we shall condemn as hereticall and blasphemous , whatsoever by necessary consequence may be extracted from those dotages that some blasphemous hereticks have held , the like censure may then , yea must then be passed upon many orthodox tenets , in the negative especially , maintained by us against the Church of Rome , since that they follow necessarily from those grounds that by such hereticks have been held . For example : That Christs body is not really present in the Sacrament , nor is sacrificed and offered up to God in the Masse , doth necessarily follow from the opinion of c Eutyches and others , who maintained the humane nature of Christ to be swallowed up into his Godhead ; from the dotages of d Simon , e Saturn , f Basilides , and many more , who held that he never suffered at all ; of g Apelles , who held that his body was dissolved into the foure elements ; of h Seleucus , i Manes , k and Hermes , that held it fastened to the starres , or lodged in the sunne : That there is no purgatory , nor use of invocation of Saints , or of singing masses for souls deceased , followeth necessarily from the opinion of l the Sadduces that held no spirits , and from the m Psychopannychites dream of the souls sleeping till the last day ; which in effect therefore , the sequestration of them at least from the divine presence till then , that Chamaelion Spalatensis n pretended the rather to maintain , because by it those Popish errours would be easily and evidently overthrown . For who is so meanly versed in the art of reasoning as not to know , That o the clearest truths may be deduced from the grossest falshoods that may be . As , grant a stone to have life , and a man to be a stone , and it will thence follow , that a man hath life . And yet were it absurd from hence to conclude , that whosoever holdeth the latter must needs either concurre in judgement with those that should maintain the former ; or hold any falshood , much lesse any absurdity , though those positions that inferre it be both false and absurd . And let M r Walker consider this calmly and seriously with himself : He hath put down this in his Parallel for an hereticall and blasphemous assertion , That Faith [ in Christ ] ( for so he must needs mean ) is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for the obtaining of Justification . Now should any man hereupon enter an action against M r Walker , accusing him as guilty of Judaisme , Paganisme and Mahumetanisme , would he not , think we , make grievous complaint , yea with open mouth cry out and exclaim of extreme injury done him ? Yet is it as clear as the light at noon-day , that whosoever shall deny Faith in Christ to be a condition appointed by God to be performed on mans part for the obtaining of Justification , shall have all Jews , Paganes , and Mahumetanes concurring therein with him , as in a point naturally flowing and necessarily following from what they hold . To go yet a step further ; Suppose a man do concurre with such hereticks as have been spoken of in some point , be it a truth or an errour that is held and maintained by them , will it thence follow that he consenteth to them and agreeth with them in all things , or in such blasphemous opinions as they otherwise hold ? And here M r Walker's candour may well a little be questioned . To prove M r Wotton to hold one and the same opinion with Servetus in all points concerning the doctrine of Justification , he produceth onely this one saying of Servetus , For one act of Faith was Abraham righteous . Whether he have proved M r Wotton to have said the same or no , is not now materiall , and I leave it to be judged by what himself hath spoken for his own defence in way of answer thereunto . But should a man , putting in a crosse interrogatorie , demand of M r Walker Whether he hold that Christ hath fulfilled the Law for us or no ? I doubt not but he would answer in the affirmative , That he hath . And the very same thing in the very same words is found by Calvin related out of Servetus , a The carnall people , saith he , might glory in their deeds , but we may not but in the crosse of our Lord Jesus Christ : b We may onely relate the facts of Christ , who hath wrought all our works for us , by fulfilling the law for us when we could not do it our selves . Yet I suppose M r Walker would take it in very ill part , and well he might , if any should thence conclude , That M r Walker therefore doth in all points hold one and the same opinion with Servetus concerning the doctrine of Justification . Again for Socinus ; he maintaineth , that c To justifie is a term of judicature ; that , d it signifieth not to make a man inherently righteous , or to infuse righteousnesse into him ; but e to deem him , repute him , pronounce him righteous ; that f they do amisse that confound justification and sanctification , the one with the other ; that g That faith whereby we are justified is not a bare belief or assent unto the truth of Gods word ; that h Neither faith , i nor works , believing in Christ , or obeying him , are the meritorious causes of justification ; or k do or can , in regard of any worthin them , merit ought at Gods hands : l nor doth faith it self justifie by any force of its own . And all these points do our writers generally maintain against the Papists ; yet never , that I know , was any Papist so shamelesse ( and yet shamelesse enough are they ) as to condemn them therefore for Socinian hereticks , or to charge them to agree with Socinus and his followers in all points concerning the doctrine of justification . Again it is by Socinus held and maintained , that m justification consists in remission of sinnes , which for my part I deem erroneous , and suppose that elsewhere I have evidently shewed it so to be ; howbeit n Calvine , o Beza , p Olevian , q Ursine , r Zanchie , ſ Piscator , t Pareus , u Musculus , x Bullinger , y Fox , and divers others of great note and name , yea z whole Synods of ours are found so to say ; and yet were these men never yet , that I ever heard or read , for so saying condemned as hereticks , much lesse as blasphemous hereticks , but had in high esteem , as their worth , parts and works well deserved , by those that therein dissented from them . I will adde but one instance more , Socinus in the very entrance into his Treatise of Christ the Saviour affirmeth , that a God might if he had pleased , without breach of his justice , have pardoned mans sinne freely , without any satisfaction required : and the same he b after again presseth and prosecuteth in his ensuing discourses . Whether this be an errour or no , I stand not now to discusse . c Vorstius herein concurred with Socinus ; and d is for the same reproved by Tossanus ; Grotius likewise for e affirming the same is f taxed by Ravenspergerus ; g defended by Vossius , who citeth Divines not a few , both old and new , saying the same : And it is maintained , to passe by all others , by h Calvine , i Musculus , k Zanchie , l Grineus , Faius , m Casman , n Tilenus , o Franzius , p Smiglesius , and our reverend D r q Twisse ; yet I am perswaded that no wise or discreet man at least will hence conclude any of these to be therefore Socinian Hereticks . And M r Walker might do well to be better advised before he charge his Christian brethren and fellow-labourers in the work of Gods Ministerie , with these odious imputations of heresie and blasphemie , ( then which what can be more hainous , more hideous , being taints of the deepest die ? ) upon such weak and unjustifiable grounds as these are . To conclude , if any shall demand of me why I have undertaken this office ( which from some , I know , I shall have small thanks for ) and why I thrust my finger needlessely into the fire ? the answer is ready from what already hath been said ; I am the onely surviver for ought I know ( for Whether M r Hicks be still living or no , I am not certain ) of those that were on M r Wotton's part entrusted and employed in this businesse , and I could not therefore do lesse for so worthy a servant of God , and mine ancient acquaintance ; whom I alwayes reverenced while he lived as a man deserving singular respect for his pietie and learning , and zeal for Gods cause , which r his works left behind him do sufficiently manifest , and will testifie to ensuing posteritie , and both do and shall still honour deservedly the memorie of him now deceased ; and at rest , I doubt not , with the Lord , enjoying the reward of his religious pains taken in his Masters work ; then to testifie what I then heard and saw , was a party in , and subscribed to with others ; and to second the pious intents of his sonne , who treadeth carefully in his fathers commendable steps , desirous to publish what in his fathers papers he found for the vindicating of his postumous name and reputation , as dear unto him as his own , with this Preface and Postscript adjoyned thereunto . I say no more , but wish onely Veritatem cum Charitate , that Truth may with Charitie be pursued on all parts . So grant , good Lord , for thy Christs sake , now and ever . Amen . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A67122-e120 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Homer . Od. χ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plut. de serae numin . vindict . Notes for div A67122-e290 The Occasion . Mr Walkers charge His Challenge . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Mortuum etiam haud sustineo amicum prodere , Eurip. apud Dion . Prus . orat . 37 * Heb. 11.4 . Notes for div A67122-e2750 Charge . Errour 1. Answer . Errour 2. Answer . Errour 3. Answer . Errour 4. Answer . Errour 5. Answer . Errour 6. Answer . Errour 7. Answer . Notes for div A67122-e4440 a Fr. Amboesius in Praefat. Apol . pro Petr. Ab. b Beatus Rhenan . ad Tertull. calce Admonit . ad Lect. c Joannes Cornub. apud Quercetan . in Notis ad Abeilard . d Bern. ep . 192. e Idem ep . 190. f Idem Ep. 188. g Idem Ep. 193. h Abeilardus in Apologia operibus praefixa : & Epistolarum l. 2. ep . 20. Et in Apolog. altera apud Berengarium ejusdem discipulum ep . 17. contra Bern. p. 308. i Legantur Bernardi Epist . 195 , 196 , 240. & in Cant. serm . 55 , & 56. sed & Illyric . Catalog . Test. Verit. lib. 15. p. 1531. a Calv. in relat . & refut . error . Servet . Artic . 1. p. 607. col . 2. b Ibid. 657. col . 2. c Ibid. d Ibid. p. 658. c. 1. e Ibid. p. 657. c. 1. f Ibid. p. 658. c. 1. g Ibid. p. 656. c. 2. h Ibid. P. 609. c. 1. art . 29. & pag. 658. c. 1. i Ibid. p. 657. c. 1. k Pag. 609. c. 2. art . 37. & p. 547. c. 1. l Pag. 650. c. 2. m Pag. 649. c. 2. n Pag. 658. c. 1. o Pag. 657. c. 2. p Pag. 658. c. 1. q Pag. 658. c. 2. r Pag. 652. c. 2. ſ Pag. 655. c. 1. t Pag. 652. c. 2. u Pag. 658. c. 2. v Pag. 656. c. 1. x Pag. 658. c. 2. z Pag. 653. c. 1. * Pag. 654. c. 2. a Pag. 651. c. 2. & 654. c. 1. b Pag. 655. c. 2. c Pag. 655. c. 2. & p. 658. c. 1. d Socin . in Evang. Joan . c. 1. v. 1. p. 4 , 5. e Epiphan . haer . 69. & Aug. haer . 49. f Socin . in Joan. 1.1 . p. 7. & ad Cuteni object . art . 8. g Epiphan . haer . 71. & Aug. haer . 44 h Socin . in Joan. 1.14 . p. 35 , 36. i Socin . de Christo Servatore l. 2. c. 1. & 2. per totum . k Ibid. l. 1. c. 1. p. 145 & l. 3. c. 2. p. 317 , & 321. l Ibid. l. 1. c. 7. p. 76. & l. 2. c. 2. p. 120. & de Offic. Christ art . 38 , 39. m De Christ . Servat . l. 3. c. 5. & de Justificat . synop . 1 p 4. n De Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 1. initio . o De Christ . Serv. l. 1. c. 2. de Offic. Christ . art . 5. ad object Cuteni , art . 9. p Ad Cuteni object . art . 14. q De Christ . Serv. l. 1. c. 3. de Offic. Christ . art . 35. r De Offic. Christ. art . 36 , 37. & de Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 5. ſ De Christ. Serv. l. 1. c. 6. & de Offic . Christ art . 45. t De Christ. Serv. l. 4. c. 11. de Offic. Christ. art . 42. ad Cuteni object . art . 17. u De fide & oper . ad q. ● p. 58. & ad q. 3. p. 60. ● in Notis a● Dial. N. N n. 16. x De Christ . Serv. l. 4. c. ● p. 462. c. 2. & p. 463. c. y De fide & oper . ad q. p. 62. a A sente●tia ex co● promisso aditi appelari non posse , saep● rescriptu● est . Anto● Imp. Cod. l. tit . 55. leg . A sententi● arbitri pa●tium volu●tate electi non appellatur , Jo. Al. dicaeolog● l. 3. c. 55. n. 15. Ab electis judicibus appell●re non putamus lic●re , B●rn . ap 180. b John 9. c Aug. haer . ●2 . d Aug. haer . e Epiphan . haer . 23. f Idem haer . 24. & Aug haer . 4. g Epiph. haer 44. & Aug. haer . 23. h Aug. haer . 59. i Aug. ibid. k Epiph. haer . 66. l Act. 23.8 . m Calv. ad● Psychopann● n In concio●ne coram Jacobo Roge . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Arist . Topi● l. 8. c. 4. Ex falsis fa● sum , verúm que aliquando sequetur . Ex veris poterit nil nisi vera sequi a Carnali populo licuit in suis factis gloriari , nobis autem non licet nisi in cruce D. N. J. C. b Solùm licet nobis Christi facta narrare , qui omnia opera pro nobis operatus est , & legem implendo pro nobis , cùm non possemus id praestare , Servet . l. 2. de Leg. & Evang . apud Calv. p. 655. col . 1. c Est verbum hoe justificationis juridicum , in quo jure nemo justus efficitur , sed pronunciatur , Socin . de justif . fragm . sect . 1. p. 45. d In hac disputatione non significat justum facere , Idem ibid. e Justificari nihil aliud est , quàm pro justis haberi , De justif . synops . 1. p. 6. Justificat , i. justos pronunciat , De justif . thes . 4. p. 9. Certissimum est justificationem in sacris literis aliud nihil significare quàm justum pronunciare , & pro justo habere , Idem in notis ad Dial. N. N. n. 18. & n. 55. f Autore Dialogi saepius notat , quia justificationem cum vitae sanctimonia sive justitia & sanctitate , quâ quis praeditus est , confundit , Num. 1. n. 18. & n. 31. & n. 46. & n. 55. & n. 59. g Credere Jesum revera esse Christum Dei Filium , &c. non est revera ea fides , quae nos Deo ad vitam aeternam gratos efficit , De fide & oper . quaest . 1. p. 55. Neutrum horum , Credere Jesum esse Messiam , Et verbis ejus fidem adhibere , est fides illa quâ revera justificamur , Ibid. q. 2. p. 57.58 . Fides , quâ credimus Dei promissa esse vera , non est revera ea fides quâ justificamur , In notis ad Dial. n. 16. h Fides , sive obedientia quam Christo praestamus , nec efficiens nec meritoria causa est justificationis atque aeternae salutis , nec eam per se meretur . De justif . Thes . 5. & ad Cuteni object . art . 8. & de fide & oper . q. 4. p. 62. Credere vera esse quae Deus vel Christus dixit , non est fides quâ justificamur . De Christ. Serv. 1.4 . c. 11. p. 554. c. 1. & p. 558. c. 2. i Ex merito ipsorum operum nequaquam justificamur , De justif . Thes . 5. Non sunt meritoria , & suā vi hominem justificantia , De justif . fragm , sect . 7. p. 50. k Nulla esse opera , quae tanti sint , ut propter ipsorum meritum justificari possimus , De justif . fragm . sect . 7. p. 48. l Fides in Christum non propriâ vi justificat , De Christo Servas . l. 4. c. 11. p. 560. c. 1. m Formalis justificatio nostra coram Deo fuit & semper erit remissio peccatorum nostrorum , Socin . de fide & oper . q. 1. p. 56. Justificatio nostra nihil aliud reipsâ est , quàm peccatorum deletio , Ibid . q. 3. p. 60. n Justitiam Paulo nihil esse , quàm remissionē peccatorum Calvin . in Rom. 4.6 . o Posira est omnis justificatio in in remissione peccatorum , Beza de Coena Dom. p. 175. p Justificatio consistit in gratuita remissione peocatorum , Olev . in Rom. 4.6 . q Idem sunt justificatio & remissio peccatorum , Ursin . explic . catech . q. 60. sect . 3. r Idem sunt , remissionem peccatorum consequi , & justificari , Zanch. miscel . l. 2. de remiss . pecc . thes . 10. p. 329. ſ Justitia imputata nihil est aliud quàm remissio peccatorum , Piscat . Thes . vol. 1. loc . 15. thes . 14. t Consistit in remissione , tectione , non-imputatione peccatorum : haec est ejus forma privativa & positiva , Pareus in Rom. 46. observ . 2. Deus proprié justificat , cúm absolvit gratìs , remittens peccata propter meritum Christi , Ibid. ad v. 5. obs . 3. Justificationis causa formalis est remissio peccatorum , Idem cont . Bellarm. de justif . l. 2. c. 1. p. 365. u Justificatio nihil est aliud quàm remissio peccatorum parta per sanguinem Christi , Muscul . in Joan. 3.18 . x Quid aliud est justificatio quàm peccatorum remissio ? Bullinger . in Rom. 4.8 . y Justificatio constat propriè peccatorum remissione , Fox de Christ . gratìs justif . l. 3. p. 383. z Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione , Confess . Gallicanâ , art . 18. Credimus peccatorum nostrorum remissione unicâ totam nostram justitiam coram Deo contineri , Confess . Belgicâ , art . 23. a Potest Deus de suo jure , quantum velit , dimittere , Socin . de Christo Serv. l. 1. c. 1. p. 4. c. 2. Sicut potuisset homines , licèt peccantes , morti aeternae non mancipare , sic ex illius imperio eximere , & quidem jure , suâ solâ voluntate potest , Ibid. pag. 5. c. 1. b Potuit Deus peccata nobis jure ignoscere , nullâ à quoquam pro ipsis verâ satisfactione acceptâ , Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 1. pag. 306. cap. 1. & pag. 309. cap. 1. c In scripto Poster . ad Tossanum . d In rescript . ad Vorstium . e De satisfactione Christi adv . Socin . c. 3. f In judicio de Grotii libr. G. 2. p. 2. & G. 3. g In Respons . ad judic . Ravensp . cap. 28. h Poterat nos Deus verbo aut nutu redimere , nisi aliter nostrâ causâ visum est , Calv. in Joan . 15.13 . i Si sic justus est Deus , ut sine detrimento justitiae suae misericors esse nequeat ; si sic , inquam , justitiae suae obstrictus est , ut non liceat ipsi , quorum vult misereri & à peccatis absolvere teos , quod tamen permultos sibi principes & magistratus liberè permittere videmus , consequitur , non tantum illi potestatis esse in ipsius creaturas , quantum est homini in suos subditos , quâ re quid potest magìs impium cogitari ? Muscul . in Loc. commun . de justif . c. 3. k Deus servare nos poterat solo suo imperio , peccata simpliciter ex sua misericordia condonando , Zanch. de Incarnat . Christ . l. 2. c. 3. quest . 1. l Though it be not lawfull for a man to justifie the wicked , yet God may do it , that is above all law : and the reason is , because God hath right and power to forgive sinnes , because they are committed chiefly against him . Grineus and Faius , Willet on Rom. 4.5 . quest . 14. n. 2. m Concedimus justitiam punientem peccata , & misericordiam ea condonantem , utramque esse liberrimae Dei voluntatis effectum , Casman . Anti-Socin . part . 2. c. 1. n Restituere five recreare hominem non minùs liberum Deo fuit , quàm creare : peccatum . solo imperio tanquam nubem tollere poterat , Tilen . disput . de Incarn . fil . Dei. o Potuisset omnino Deus primos parentes & omnes homines ex mortis imperio eximere & in gratiam recipere , solâ voluntate citra Mediatoris satisfactionem ullam , nisi priùs & antè protulisset decretum suum comminatorium , Franz . disp . de Sacrif . 14. thes . 63. p Utrumque Deus potuit , & absque ulla satisfactione , & cum satisfactione peccata nobis remittere : de facto tamen eligit hoc posterius , Smigles . de satisfact . Christ. adv . Smalcium cap. 11. q Sine dubio potuit Deus , si sic ei visum fuisset , Adae peccatum , aut ipsi condonare , aut in ipso tantùm ulcisci , posterísque omnibus gratiam salutarem , eo neutiquam obstante , liberè gratificari , Twiss . in Vindiciis Gratiae , Potest . ac Provid . Dei. de Praedest . lib. 1. part . 1. sect . 4. digress . 4. cap. 3. pag. 39. col . 2. r An answer to a Popish Pamphlet , or Articles tending to prove the Protestants Religion to consist of palpable absurdities and notorious errours . A triall of the Romish Clergies Title to the church against A. D. A defence of Mr Perkins his Reformed Catholick , against W B. Runne from Rome , of the necessitie of departure from the Church of Rome . Sermons on part of the first Chapter of S. Johns Gospel . De Reconciliatione peccatoris libri 4. 
A44658	----	A twofold vindication of the late Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and of the author of The history of religion the first part defending the said author against the defamations of Mr. Atterbury's sermon and ... : the charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd ... : the second containing remarks on the said sermon ... : and a word in defence of the ... Bishop of Sakisbury, by another hand. Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698. 1696 Approx. 224 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 95 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A44658 Wing H3006 ESTC R9361 11906437 ocm 11906437 50689 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A44658) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50689) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 816:4) A twofold vindication of the late Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and of the author of The history of religion the first part defending the said author against the defamations of Mr. Atterbury's sermon and ... : the charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd ... : the second containing remarks on the said sermon ... : and a word in defence of the ... Bishop of Sakisbury, by another hand. Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698. [2], 185 p. [s.n.], London : 1696. Reproduction of original in Duke University Library. Attributed to Robert Howard. cf. NUC pre-1956. Part one signed: N.S. [i.e., Howard]. "The author of The history of religion vindicated", and "A reply to the anonymous Edinburgh libeller" have special t.p. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Atterbury, Francis, 1662-1732. Tillotson, John, 1630-1694. Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. 2005-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-06 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-07 Rachel Losh Sampled and proofread 2005-11 SPi Global Rekeyed and resubmitted 2006-09 Ali Jakobson Sampled and proofread 2006-09 Ali Jakobson Text and markup reviewed and edited 2007-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A Twofold Vindication OF THE Late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , And of the Author of The History of Religion . The first Part defending the said Author against the Defamations of Mr. Fr. Atterbury's Sermon , and both those eminent Persons against a Traiterous Libel , titled , The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd . In two Letters to the Honourable Sir R. H. The second containing Remarks on the said Sermon , and a Reply to the same Libel . Wherein some Right is done to that great and good Man Dr. Tillotson , in the Points of the Original of Sacrifices , the Sacrifice of Christ , Future Punishments , &c. And a word in Defence of the Eminent Bishop of Salisbury . By another Hand . London , Printed in the Year 1696. SIR , I Have receiv'd by your favour some Papers written by two very Learned Persons , which you say are ready for the Press , occasion'd by two extraordinary angry Men , Mr. Atterbury and Mr. Monroe , who have express'd their Displeasure against my History of Religion . I dare not give my Opinion of their Writings , I am too much an oblig'd Party ; besides , their own Abilities will much better shew it than I can express it : but I fancy , that if Mr. Atterbury and Mr. Monroe had imagin'd they should have rais'd such a Strength against them , they would hardly have muster'd up their own weak Forces . For Mr. Atterbury , I know him not , but he has made himself known by chusing a very improper place ( the Pulpit ) to vent a Passion unsutable to Christianity , or common Morality ; for such must an injurious Violence be esteem'd , that has no Reason pretended to excuse , or at least to extenuate the Passion : From that place we expect to be taught by Perswasion , not by Railing ; yet he seems to have a Christian Consideration that hinders him from writing some Body's Life ; if he means mine , I will free him from his tender Christianity , and own that I writ the History of Religion ; and if he pleases to use the freedom I give him , I assure him I shall not be displeased at any Truth that he can write : but if his usual Passion guides him other-ways , I shall attend him with such Answers , and make him such sutable Returns , as will be proper for the occasion , and consider his Calling with as little respect as he did the sacred Place where he chose to rail . For Mr. Monroe he is angry at every thing , he sputters at the Government , and will not allow that most excellent Man Dr. Tillotson , late Archbishop of Canterbury , either to have a Title to that , or any Parts or Abilities ; but at a venture , among many other Errors , charges him to be a Socinian , and at the same time discovers he does not know what a Socinian is ; then falls upon the Bishop of Salisbury , and then with an obliging Anger ranks me with those great Men : but his furious Wildness is sufficiently laid open by these two Learned Men. When I writ the History of Religion , I was very much pleas'd to see the Church of England ( which I have fought for , and shall ever defend ) so free from all those Heathenish Rites and Superstitions , retain'd by the Priest-Craft of the Church of Rome , and could not but admire to see any that profest to be a Minister of the Church of England offended at it ; nor can I imagine any Reason for such a Concern , unless they would have the very Name of Priest of what Perswasion so ever , so sacred that it should not be irreverently handled : if this should be the cause , I dare venture to assure them they will find no return , for could any write with such a Disadvantage to the Ministers of the Church of England , the Popish Priests would not shew any Displeasure to see them condemn'd here , that they pretend to believe will be damn'd hereafter . But Mr. Monroe seems to grumble something about Sacrifices , as if I had writ concerning the Original of them . I could not be so dull as not to know the beginning of them was as early as Abel , I only trac'd the use of them , with the Rites and superstitious Ceremonies taught and enlarged from time to time by the Heathen Priests , and how they were still continued and imitated by the Priest-Craft of the Church of Rome , which I thought I had made evident by Matter of Fact. A Friend of mine , of Quality and Learning , told me , he ask'd a Minister why he was displeas'd at the History of Religion ? he answer'd , that they were whipt upon the Backs of the Romish Priests ; I could not but wonder how they got up there to receive the Lashes of the others . I believe that there are some so in love with Power , that they were displeased I inveigh'd against Persecution , by which they exercise it : if that offend any , I shall always persist in receiving their Displeasure ; for I presume I have clearly shew'd that it is contrary to the teaching of the Gospel ; we are there taught to love our Neighbours as our selves , and certainly they would hardly seem such Neighbours that would be Executioners ; they would not seem to love others as themselves , unless they were equally desirous to be their own Hangmen . But Mr. Monroe is yet more severe , and will be the Judg of what I mean ; for being displeased , as it seems , that I writ against Transubstantiation , he says I meant it against the Trinity , though I had not a thought , nor writ a word that could give him the least cause to pronounce so rash a Sentence . I remember a Justice of Peace in a Play that bid his Clerk make the Mittimus while he examin'd the Party ; but of all Men living I would not have him my Arbitrary Judg , for he that makes himself worse than others , would probably condemn me to be worse than I am . But I leave these two angry Men to the Correction of those two Learned Persons , to whom ( as in Gratitude I ought ) I shall ever acknowledg great Obligations , by whose Strength my Weakness is sufficiently supported : I shall only add , that I have read of a wise Philosopher that would not trust himself while he was in Passion ; but these revers'd Philosophers raise all their Confidence from their Passions . I have seen an angry Cur bite at a Wheel because it moved from him ; and I presume that dark keeping is the cause of such a causeless Fierceness . At the latter end of one of these Learned Mens Writings , I find a very charitable Answer for me to Dr. Sherlock , who in his Defence of that excellent Man Dr. Tillotson , late Archbishop of Canterbury , ( in answer to The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered ) is pleased , unprovok'd by any Cause , to call my History of Religion an execrable Pamphlet , and me an Atheist or Deist , which it seems is all one to him , for he says , it matters not which , and that my Design is to ridicule Christian Religion . If these heavy Charges be true , I readily confess 't is an execrable Pamphlet indeed ; but he is not pleas'd to give the least reason to excuse or justify so much undeserv'd Bitterness : if it be Dr. Sherlock's , as generally believ'd , I will not venture to pretend to cope with him in harsh and virulent Expressions , he is more furnish'd than I am with Ammunition proper for such a War , witness the Muster of his angry Forces in that learned Book which charges him with Tritheism ; but I hope he will not be displeased if with an unmov'd Temper I endevour to : free my self from such uncharitable Imputations . But of all Men living , the Doctor seems to me the most improper Man to charge any one with ridiculing Religion , and not accompany his Charge with the least Cause or Reason for it , since he is not only indicted for it , but the Indictment made good upon him ; if the Proof of Idolatry , Impious and Heretical Opinions can do it , and the Charge made out by a Doctor of the Church of England , a Man of most extraordinary Learning and Parts , with strong Reason and Authority , and for ought I can see to the contrary , very unanswerable by Mr. Dean ; and not only charges him for his publick Writings , but for his private Practice , if no regard of Conscience can ridicule Religion . This is set forth by that most Learned Person in his Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's Book , entituled , A Vindication of the holy and ever blessed Trinity , which charges him with Tritheism , tho Mr. Dean is pleased most peremptorily to declare that he has made his Notions plain and obvious , tho by Words and Phrases neither obvious nor plain : but the Charge is made out upon him with strength of Reason and Learning ; neither of which Dr. Sherlock is pleased to bestow on me for his severe Judgment , perhaps he believes ( as indeed he may ) that his only pronouncing makes it as obvious and plain , as his endeavouring to prove it would have been . The Charge of ridiculing Religion in his own Practice , arises from his seeming Contempt of Conscience , one of the chief Rules of Christianity , by professing he would suffer Martyrdom rather than take the Oaths ; but he was easily converted when Interest more prevail'd upon him than such a slighted part of Christianity ; nor stopt there , but ridicul'd Providence it self , to bring it in Aid to justify his contradictory Consciences : for what can more appear the ridiculing of Providence , than to endeavour to make it the Justifier of Mischief and Injustice , if but successful enough ? But if the Doctor can make this good , he will reach a more sublime Art of Priest-Craft , than any that I have describ'd in the History of Religion . But it may be he does not believe that I ridicule the Christian Religion comprehended in the Gospel , but the Religion which he calls Christian , that differs from the Gospel , and is founded upon new and extravagant Notions ; for he is charg'd with Blasphemy by the same Learned Person , in his Book of the Knowledg of Christ ; on such a Religion I confess if I had the Art of ridiculing , I would willingly bestow it . But since he is not pleased to give the least reason for his hard and uncharitable Censures cast upon me at a venture , I will take the opportunity to refer it to any impartial Reader , if he pleases to examine it , whether I have not in my History of Religion pursued the blessed Rules and Precepts of the Gospel with a sacred Veneration , and upon that strong and sure Foundation have endeavour'd to build all my Reasons and Arguments : but the Doctor perhaps would have his Notions receiv'd as true Christian Religion , tho not founded on the Gospel ; and consequently not to believe those dark Notions , is to ridicule Christianity . With the same passionate Liberty he calls me a Deist or an Atheist , it matters not which . I cannot imagine how any Man should venture to pronounce such a blasphemous Indifferency : but seriously reflecting upon what the Doctor has writ , I began to imagine that he had so fully and clearly convinc'd himself , ( since he thought he had made it so plain to others ) that there were three distinct equal and Infinite Beings ; that consequently he presum'd if any did not believe in three Gods , it matter'd not whether they believ'd any at all ; and if his Notion of three Gods equally Infinite and Almighty were true , it seems to follow , that he that does not believe the three , must be guilty of Atheism , tho he believes in one . By this he seems to have reason to make Deism and Atheism of equal respect : So that every one is concluded an Atheist that is not of the Doctor 's Opinion . This adventurous Passion can only proceed from the Opinion of his own Infallibility , and is angry at any that will not believe in him . I know not what Answer to make to his downright calling Names , there 's no Argument can arise from direct railing , and such in the common Method of the World are replied to with nothing but Blows ; but I shall only say that he calls me what I am not , and to wave the harsh word which is due to him , I shall only add , that what I say is true , and leave the contrary to rest upon him . I will conclude with one Assurance , that I shall not take it ill of any one that shall offer Reasons unclogg'd with Passion against any thing I have writ ; and if I cannot clearly answer them , I will submit and acknowledg my Error ; and that any one may have the freer Invitation , I own that the History of Religion was writ by , SIR , Your true Friend , and most humble Servant , Ro. Howard . A VINDICATION OF His Grace , the ( late ) Archbishop OF CANTERBVRY ; And of the ( Honourable ) Author of The History of Religion : From the Defamations and Scandals of Mr. Fr. Atterbury ; and of a ( Traiterous ) Libel supposed to be written by Dr. M — roe , with this Title , The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered , &c. In two Letters to the ( Honourable ) Author of The History of Religion . Printed in the Year , 1696. TO THE PUBLISHER . SIR , I Hear , my Letters to our honourable Friend , the Author of the History of Religion , are in your Hands ; and that you have thoughts of putting them into the Press : if so , I pray , let this to your self go along with them . For I ought to inform you : that I have receiv'd an Answer from our Friend , concerning the great Favours , and Liberalities of King James to him . He avows , that His Majesty , both when he was King , and while he was only Duke of York , never did him any Favour , nor made him the Offer of any : but on the contrary , shew'd to him all the Unkindness , that Occasion and Opportunity ( at any time ) enabled him to express . It appears then , that the Libeller , knowing the great Services of our Friend to the Crown and Royal Family , took it for granted ; that King James had endeavour'd to win him , to the Popish and Arbitrary Interest , by Preforments and Liberalities : and so ( at adventures ) he makes it one part of his Guilt and Naughtiness ; that he would not be bought by Favours , the meaning of which he might so easily guess at . But had his Majesty been as bountiful , as the Libeller supposed ; Why might not our Friend have taken those Favours , either as part of the Reward , due to his Services ; or as His Majesty's Royal Munificence , to Wit and distinguishing Abilities : Why was he obliged to understand them , as Bribes and Corruptions , as the Libeller would have them interpreted ? This Ungrateful Man , says our Popish Accuser , forgot all the King's Bounties to him , and was with the most forward in turning him out . Let us grant to a Fool both his Lies ; yet where ( however ) is the Ungratitude , when never any thing was given to our Friend by the Royal Family , which he might not most justly put to the account either of his Services , or his Abilities ? But King James , Father Petre , and the Nuncio , knew better things , than to fling away their Money on a Person , whom his Vertue , more than his Fortunes , had set so much above the reach of Bribes : they were for a contrary method , to Brow-beat , and Mortify him by Oppositions . But neither would this do , he remained the same to his Religion and Country , as he was to the Crown and Royal Family , when they were attacked by the Republican Faction : that is , he was ( Heroically ) firm to both , while they were the weaker side , without seeking afterwards from either , the Rewards of his Merit to them . You and I , Sir , have nothing so much valued by us , as the Friendship and Esteem of a Fortitude , Constancy , and Vertue so extraordinary ; nor any thing that we desire so much , as the long Life and Prosperity of a Friend , whom with so much reason we value and love . This is all that I need now to say , saving that I am , with the greatest Respect , Your most Obliged , and Assured Friend , N. S. The First LETTER ; Being Reflections on a Sermon , preach'd before her ( late ) most Excellent Majesty , on these words of Solomon , The Scorner seeketh Wisdom , and findeth it not : By Francis Atterbury , Student in Christ-Church , Oxford . To the Honourable and Learned Author of The History of Religion . SIR , AS I had the Honour , to see The History of Religion , before you gave way , that it should go to the Press : So I cannot but wonder , that any should be so rouzed , and even affrighted and scared , by a Book , which seemed to me , not only true and useful , happily thought and as well exprest , but also altogether inoffensive to every true Lover of ( a sincere undisguised ) Piety and Morality . I deny not , that when I began to read the Book ; the Term Priest-Craft , there often used , and the Instances you give of it , made me a while doubtful , what might be the Author's Aim ; whether he might not ( at length ) stretch his Notion of Priest-Craft , not only to the impious Frauds of Pagan Priests , and the pious Frauds ( as you civilly call them ) of some Christian Priests , but even to all Revealed Religion , as if it were an Imposture that has depraved , rather than explained and inforced Natural Religion , that new Mistress of many of our Modern Wits . But when I had gone over the whole , with such an Attention , as I thought was due to the Subject treated of ; and of the Conceptions and Observations of an Author , whose Pen had always hitherto been successful : I perceived , to my great Satisfaction , that the Thoughts in the Book had been conceived in the last Reign ; and by occasion of the danger we were in , from Popery . You draw a Parallel , between the Pagan and the Romish-Priests : you are so impious as to think , nay to say and publish it to the World , that a Popish Priest is as errant a Knave , as Cato thought the ( old ) Roman Augurs : you even dare to add , that their Sin and Guilt is greater , because the latter had not a Rule to direct them , but the other act against a most plain Rule ( a directing Gospel , as you speak ) meerly for Profit . You give so many , and so pertinent Instances of this , that had you published your Book in the last Reigns , when it was thought and written , you had been inrolled among our Confessors : but now that the Danger is past , and the Church's turn is served by you , and ( the few ) such as you are ; Mr. Atterbury is for putting you into the Seat of Scorners . After you had finished the Scenes , in which you expose , first Rome-Pagan , then Rome-Antichristan ; you are so unlucky , as to drop some words against Persecution ; and also to advise the contending Parties of Christians , that , Setting aside their Wranglings about obscure and undecidable Questions and Mysteries ; they would consider the Gospel as a Doctrine ( chiefly ) of Love , Mercy and Charity , and behave themselves accordingly towards one another . Haec tetigit Gradive tous urtica Nepotes : this ( invenom'd ) Sting in the Tail of your Book , has so wounded Mr. Atterbury ; that he could not forbear running up ( immediately ) into his Pulpit , to tell ( no less Persons than ) the Queen of England , and her whole Court , what kind of Man you are . See here , what Characters he has given you . He is so possessed with the Notion of pious Frauds and Priest-Craft , as to apply it ( indifferently ) to all Religions , and to every thing in Religion . Bless me , and deliver me , from the Malevolence of a Student ! as he writes himself . But cholerick and revengeful Men , commonly wound themselves most , when they are endeavouring to wound others : here is a Book written against Popery , and Persecution ; Mr. Atterbury is so angry at it , that he cries out , Men of Israel , help , here is a damnable Book written against all Religion , and every thing in Religion . That is , he owns no Religion , nor any thing as part of Religion , but only Popery and Persecution . Truly , he has been a Student at Christ-Church so long , to good purpose : but was it necessary , he should vomit up such a secret , before the Queen , and the Court of England ; might it not have been better whisper'd , among his Jacobite Friends ? But her Majesty was pester'd with too many such Chaplains : Men that cannot abide to hear , I do not say , our holy Father the Pope , or the sacred College , but not a Romish Priest , spoken disrespectfully of . At Pag. 16. he suggests the writing the History of your Life , in revenge for your History of Religion . He is ( surely ) a pleasant Man ; he would write the History of an Anonymous , or nameless Author ; that is , of one he does not know . But as before he told us his Religion , Persecution and Popery ; so here he lets us know his Wit and Honesty : he would write , he says , of he knows not whom , and he cares not what , provided it be black enough . For that 's the ( only possible ) meaning , of writing a Life in Revenge . But if his blind Rage will permit a third Person , to interpose between him and the Author of the History of Religion ; I intreat him , that when he writes , I may furnish him with some Memorials : better , I assure him , than Malice , and Ignorance of his Adversary , will ever minister to him . I can tell him , that ( the sad Man ) the Author of the History of Religion , has a good degree of Charity to the Poor , and as great of the Vertue of Liberality to the Learned : I can inform him , of your Compositions to the Theater , which made your younger Years so famous ; and of the ( unanswerable ) Defences you have since made for the Nation 's Rights against Arbitrary Power and Tyranny . I dare not , I confess , tell him of your Posts of Trust and Honour : for he will be unreconcileably alienated , when he knows , that to all your other Naughtiness , you are a Williamite too . He takes for his Text , the words of Solomon , Prov. 14.6 . A Scorner seeketh Wisdom , and findeth it not . From hence he would raise an Invective , a Sermon he calls it , against you , and the History of Religion . A Man would wonder , how this Text should make for Popery and Persecution ; or against the Patrons of Sincerity , and Liberty , in Religion . But what is there , so remote , or hid from others , that a Student cannot discover it ? Father Atterbury is able , I doubt not , to prove from this Text , or to disprove any Proposition in Euclid . For Students do not hold themselves obliged , to reason accurately and closely , as other ( common ) Men must ; but by leaping over some ( intervening ) unsutable Propositions , may skip from Tumult to King Pipin , or what is as good , from Historian to Scorner . Yet methinks , since this Gentleman had a mind to declaim ( before the Queen ) against the History of Popish Jugglers and Cheats , he should have shown his Zeal in some other way , rather than in a Sermon , or from a Text of Holy Scripture : for of all Abominations , there is none so detestable ; as to wire-draw , wind , and bow the sacred Text , to argue against it self ; that is , to patronize Impostures and Deceits . In the Prosecution of his Text , so pat ( as every one sees ) to his purpose ; he falls to considering , what may be the Reasons , why the Scorner seeketh Wisdom , and findeth it not . One of the Reasons he offers is very marvellous ; it is this , because the Scorner ( saith he , pag. 12. ) is a Man of quick and lively Parts . Such Men ( saith he further , there ) are apt to give themselves a Loose , beyond plain Reason and common Sense . I know not , I confess , what he means ; nor ( I believe ) can all the Students of Christ-Church , interpret it to me . But be that as it will ; the thing he aims at , in that whole Page , is , that quick and lively Parts are marvellous Hinderances , in the Quest of Wisdom and Truth ; according to him , the only hopeful Candidate of Wisdom , is a Sancho Pancha . But it will not yet go out of my Mind , nor can I keep my Eye off it ; that a Court-Chaplain should have so little Government with him , that , so soon as he had read a Book against Popery and Persecution , he should from the Pulpit and in the Royal Presence , attack the Author in such Terms as these : He has written the History of Religion , and were I not withheld by Religion , I would write his History . What! is it such an Offence , at this time of day , to write a few Sheets against Popery ; that no Person of Honour must put Pen to Paper , on that Subject , on pain of being libelled by her Majesty's Chaplain , for that 's the unquestionable Meaning of writing his Life ? But he is withheld , he says , from writing this Life , by Religion . By what Religion , Sir ? Would you have us to think , after you have defamed him in such Language as this , and to such an Auditory , 't is from Conscience , and Love of your Brother , that you do not libel him to the ( unsignificant ) Rabble ? It is evident then , that you have ( hypocritically ) feigned a religious Tenderness ; to which you are an utter Stranger : must we be obliged to call it your Religion , your Charity , and Tenderness , that you are content not to write his Life to the common Herd ; when you have actually pointed at him , in a sacred Place and Exercise , in the Presence of the Prince , and most illustrious Personages of the Kingdom ? And for whom is it , that you counterfeit this pious Tenderness ? For an Anonymous Writer , for one you do not know . For as to Report , and the Whispers of those sagacious Men , who so certainly know all Authors , they are so oft mistaken : that , except it be here and there a Student , no body heeds them ; or rather , every Body abhors them . I am amazed , that any Man ( especially a Man of Learning and Wit ) should utter so many Follies , and Contradictions , in a Pulpit : and also oversee them all again , when he prepared his Notes for the Press . For Instance . He asperses an honourable Person , in the very highest degree , in the Royal Presence : and yet 't is meer Religion , he says , that withholds him , from writing his Life to the common People . That is , he has swallowed the Camel , and is now grievously straining at the Gnat. Again , He has an Inclination to libel ( or as he calls it , write the Life of ) the Author of the History of Religion : and yet this Author is nameless ; that is , utterly unknown to Father Atterbury , and his whole Fraternity . Again ; He saith , this Book is directed against all Religion , and every thing in Religion : and yet the very design of the Book , is this ; that ' t is a shame , that so many have had no Religion but their Belly and their Profit ; and a Pity , that others are persecuted only for Religion , and Conscience towards God. Once more , He saith ; that the thing which the Scorner seeketh for , is Wisdom : and yet he adds ; he finds it not , because he has quick and lively Parts . That is , according to this Student ; the Scorner seeks , for what he has : and he misses it , because he possesses it . It is well , that the Student's Sermons are so short , as they always ( I observe ) are : for these are such flat and direct Contradictions ; that if there were many of them , they would too much expose the Preacher , to the Contempt of his ( very meanest ) Hearers . I have done with Father Francis , for the present ; only this , Sir , I shall promise you : that when he is disposed to try his Hand in writing Lives ; he shall have the Satisfaction , to see his own Picture , drawn in such lively Colours , as Time shall not easily deface . Sir , I think , I shall not need to mind you ; that you ought not to be in the least disturbed , at the Sawciness of an obscure Academick . For being bred , as they are , among mean Companions ; and comparing themselves only with Under-graduates , Servitors , and Gippoes : when they first appear abroad in the World , the poor Wretches always make themselves ridiculous , by not knowing themselves , and their Rank in the World. They think , that all Mankind has that Reverence for them ; which their Sizers , and College-Servants , are forced to show them : and from hence , when they get into the wooden Box , instead of ( the Apostolical ) Reprove and Exhort ; they fall to ( Porterly ) Reproach and Scandalize . On the contrary ; I doubt not , you will always be pleased and happy , in the Recollection of the immortal Services ; which you have done the Royal Family , the Monarchy , the Liberties of the Nation , the Common-wealth of Learning , particularly Learned Men ; and that nothing may escape your Influences , to the calamitous and poor . I promise my self , that you will not lay Father Atterbury's want of Honesty , good Sense and Government , against such Advantages as these : but rather you will be mindful to give Thanks to God , who has lifted you ( by favourable Providences ) so much above the ( unheeded ) Reproaches , of an unfinish'd Pulpiteer . Sir , I am your most obliged , most assured , and most humble Servant , N. S. April 3. 95. The Second LETTER , In Answer to , The Charge of Socinianism , against Dr. Tillotson , considered ; and to the Appendix , concerning the History of Religion . SIR , SInce my last , here is another weak Brother that has taken Offence , at The History of Religion . I confess , I wish the History had gone to the Press , with that Title , which your self ( in the Manuscript Copy ) gave it ; The History of Religion , as it has been abused by Priest-Craft . The words , as it has been abused by Priest-Craft , might have prevented some Peoples Mistakes : who now seeing in the Title Page The History of Religion ; and meeting with little in the Book it self , but an Account of the various Perversions of Religion by ( Pagan and Popish ) Priest-Craft ; they infer , that by Religion the Author means even all Religion . The Publishers of your Book feared , it should seem ; that if Priest-Craft were not left out of the Title of your Book ; it would raise such a Jealousy in those for whose Use and Good the Book is design'd : that they would never suffer themselves to be undeceived ; that is , they would never read it , and thereby be informed of the Abuses put on them , by Impostors pretending to Religion . Either way , the Book was like to be mistaken ; but the Publishers ( who put it forth , I may add that also , against your Inclination , because you thought it now not so necessary or seasonable ) judged it not advisable , to give occasion of Offence in the very Title . But ( as I said ) it appears by the Event ; that it had been better to keep the Title , given to his Book by the Author himself : for all your Maligners ( that have hitherto appeared ) seem to be misled by the present Title . Because the Title is The History of Religion ; and the Book is only an Exemplification of the Corruptions and Abuses thereof , by some wicked Priests : therefore they cry out , 't is written against Religion , and the Sacerdotal Function . But jacta est alea ; 't is now too late , to recal the oversight of the Title : we must be content , to examine what your Opposers have to object to the Book . Enough ( I think ) has been said to Mr. Atterbury ; you are now attacked by one who does not put his Name to his Book ; but the Title of it , is this . The Charge of Socinianism , against Dr. Tillotson , considered : with a Supplement , by occasion of an History of Religion . In the former Part , that against Dr. Tillotson , late Arch-bishop of Canterbury ; our Author pretends at p. 10. that the Arch-bishop's Design in publishing his four Sermons against the Socinians was , only that he might be soundly answered by them : and further , that they and the Arch-bishop play booty , into one anothers hands . Pag. 9. He adds , The Arch-bishop printed his Sermons , and procured the Recommendation of them by the Court , that he might serve the Socinians , and more reconcile Men to their Principles . But lest the Confederacy between him and the Socinians should be discovered , they agree , ( saith our Author ) like Counsel at the Bar ; to fall foul ( sometimes ) on one another , and even to scold and call hard Names : which to wise Observers ( says he again ) serves only to discover so much the more their Hypocrisy and Deceit . But it is the least part of his Charge against the Arch-bishop , that he is a Socinian ; and wrote only to oblige them , and to betray the Cause into their hands : for he says , pag. 13. Dr. Tillotson is owned by all the Atheistical Wits of England , as their true Primate and Apostle ; in him they glory and rejoice , and make their Boasts of him . He leads them , not only the whole length of Socinianism ; they are slender Beaux who have got no further ; but to call in question all Revelation . He sums up almost his whole Charge against the Arch-bishop , at pag. 32 , and 33. in these words . He exceeds the Theistical Juncto , in the Barbarous Accounts he gives of the Rise of Christian Religion : for they make it to be only the Invention of wicked Men , and of Devils ; he makes it to be a mean Compliance with those Inventions , of Devils and wicked Men. He contends , that all Revealed Religion is good for nothing , but only to preserve outward Peace , in this World. 'T is a Maxim with him , that a Mother's suckling her own Children , is of more necessary and indispensible Obligation ; than to believe in Christ. He disputes openly , and professedly , against the Satisfaction by Christ : and according to him , not only the Eternity , but the Being of Hell , is a precarious Supposition . To add now no more ; he he says at p. 16. that a plain and downright Hobbism appears in the Arch-bishop's Sermons ; and that the same Thread runs thorow all his Works . Besides these ( as every one knows , most false ) Imputations on the Arch-bishop's Books and Doctrine ; our Author speaks of his Person , with like Malevolence and Contempt : he never calls him Arch-bishop , but Dr. Till . or Jo. Cant , or such like . And he concludes his whole Performance , with an Address to the Clergy and People ; to separate from this , and some other Heretical and Impious Bishops : He assures them , that by the Canons of the Catholick Church , they not may , but ought to separate ; and that it is not Schism , to depart from those Guides , who corrupt Religion by their Heresies . After these Compliments to the Arch-bishop ; our famous Author ( for his Book will certainly make him so ) proceeds to sprinkle his Flowers , upon you . At first , he is much in doubt , whether the Arch-bishop was not Author of The History of Religion : but that Doubt he soon dismisses ; and he resolves , that it is written by Sir R. H — d. I suppose , for no other reason ; but that he thought fit , to divide the nauseous Load of his Stomach , between two : it would have seemed too malevolent and implacable , to discharge it all , upon one Man. Besides , as 't is one of the Delights ( as well as Undecencies ) of excessive Anger and Malice ; to repeat the same Charges and Reproaches , over and over : if our Author had wrote but against one , he had missed the Satisfaction of easing his Mind by re-iterating his Scandals ; and saying again and again the same lewd and mad things . When the most learned Writer had fixed in his Mind upon an Author , for the History of Religion ; tho he is content it should not be the Arch-bishop himself , yet of necessity it must be one of his Grace's Disciples and Proselytes . And for this most ( dangerous ) Charge , I confess ( Sir ) your self gave occasion enough , in your Book : by the respectful mention you make of his Grace ; and by your quoting , and ( most wickedly ) applauding some Passages of his Sermons , which recommend a pacifick Temper and Carriage , as the greatest and surest Argument of a right Christian. But here , before we go farther , it will be proper and useful ; seeing our ( immortal ) Author has been so careful , to discover the ( Heretical and Blasphemous ) Writer of the History of Pagan and Popish Cheats in Religion , for you meddle with no other ; to inquire , and ( if we can ) to ascertain our Conjecture , who it is that is thus greatly concerned and angry at their Detection : and whether I rightly guess at the Man , or no ; yet I shall not fail ( I think ) to give his true Character , both as to his Honesty , Principles and Abilities . The Vogue of the Town lays this Libel , to a certain Jacobite Club ; others again to a late Dean , who has quitted his Deanry , because he would not take the Oaths that are required , since his present Majesty was declar'd King. I do not believe , it was written by a Club ; for this , in my Opinion , incontestable Reason : that whereas it consists of three Parts , and ( were it not printed in an extream small Character ) would be a bulky Book , yet the whole is very uniform ; the Language , Thoughts , Theology , are throughout the same , every where of a piece . As to the Dean , having read his former Works , to which his Name is affixed ; I dare to discharge him wholly , from having the least hand in , or liking of , this ( equally silly and wicked ) Trifle . The Dean writes after another manner , Elegantly , Judiciously , Learnedly ; I doubt not , he is a much better Man , than so much as to approve the ( shameless ) Falsifications and Scandals , that appear here in every Paragraph . No , no , the Author came from beyond Tweed , if not beyond the Tay : the many Northern Improprieties and Barbarisms ( both in the Phrase , and the writing particular Words ) never used by any English-man ; and the Calvinism , or rather the Knoxism , in the whole ; are manifest Indications that our Author is a Scot. Nor has Dr. M — roe been able to keep his own Secret : 't is got abroad among a great many , that this late Professor in one of the Scotch Universities , and a Bishop Elect , is the Man that has thought himself qualified , to censure the Doctrine of an Arch-bishop of Canterbury ; and to incounter with the ( Great ) Author of the History of Religion . That he is a Scot , I prove ( I say ) first , by the Northern Improprieties and Solecisms ( as well in the writing of particular Words , as in the Phrase ) which abound in every Page of this Pamphlet : I believe , Sir , you will be of my Mind ; if you cast your Eye but on a few of them . For Positive , he always writes Possitive . For Estimation , our Highland Aristarchus says Esteemation ; and never other ways . When you say Innoscence , the most Learned Professor takes it to be Innocence : and hereupon commits I know not how many Blunders ; and vents his Follies as fast , as elsewhere his Malice . Then , for his Phrase , or improper Application of Words , and Proverbial Expressions ; his Elegances are such as these . The Man above-told . The Reasons above-told . Barbarous Notion of the Christian Religion . Barbarous Account of the Rise of the Christian Religion . It makes all my Flesh to creep . No English-man ever writes so , or uses these words in that sense , or that order . His Theology too , as I observed before , is Knox all over . For tho the Scotch Divines of the Episcopal Party , forsook Mr. Calvin and Mr. Knox in the Question about Church-Government : yet in Points of Doctrine , they have varied nothing at all from Mr. Knox , Author of the Reformation in Scotland ; and Mr. Knox took Mr. Calvin for his Copy . Hence it is , that our present Libeller so often Cants and Calvinizes ; you would think the Bishop Elect were some Speaker in a Quakers , or Anabaptists Meeting-place : of which , I suppose , the Reason is ; because he would pass for an Elect Bishop , as well as a Bishop Elect. For Example . Pag. 15. I compare our Natural Light or Knowledg , to the Creation of the first Day . And it is the Light of the first Day , that we enjoy still ; but not as it was that day created . It was regulated and modelled the fourth Day into the Sun , Moon , and Stars ; and now we have no Participation at all of the Light of the first Day , but what we have from its Regulation on the fourth Day , and convey'd to us from the Sun : which I compare to Revealed , that is , to the Christian Religion . God is Light ( 1 John 1.5 . ) and Christ is called ( Mal. 4.2 . ) the Sun of Righteousness : and tho there is a precedent natural Knowledg of God , like the Light of the first Day ; yet now that Christ is revealed , the true Knowledg of God must be had in the Face of Christ. Pag. 8. As we explain the matter , [ he means the Satisfaction by Christ ] all the Attributes of God stand full and infinite ; they rejoice and exalt together . But this I cite , not for the Divinity , but for the monstrous Impropriety and Cant of the Language : the words full and exalt being altogether senseless here . P. 21. God is not only Just , but is Justice in the Abstract , Justice is the Nature of God. — All the Justice we have , is but a Ray sent down , from the Essential Restitude [ he aimed to say Rectitude ] in God. At p. 7. He affirms , that the Law and Gospel are the same ; and he thinks that St. Paul has so taught us , Heb. 4.2 . At p. 9. he contends ; that it was indispensably necessary , that a full and adequate Satisfaction should be made for Sin , to the Justice of God. At p. 21. he will have it , that Justice will exact the uttermost Farthing , Justice MUST do it , and otherways it were not Justice : and from hence he concludes ; that because God is Justice , and Justice cannot forgive the Debt of Sin , therefore God cannot forgive it . All this is Calvinism , or rather Knoxism . But what Name shall we give to his Impiety , when speaking of our Saviour , he fears not to call him ( p. 22. ) that accursed and devoted Head ? He did not learn this of Mr. Calvin , or of Mr. Knox ; Mr. Calvin makes this judicious Note on Gal. 3.13 . Christus peccati & maledictionis reus erat , non in se , sed in nobis ; sive quatenus nostram Personam susceperat . As who should say , the Lord Christ is not to be called accursed in his own Person , but only as representing or sustaining our Persons , the Persons of Sinners . Therefore Accursed Head , when spoken of our Saviour , is not only harsh , improper and overbold ; but heretical and impious . But of our Author's Divinity , more hereafter ; let us now see , what are his Principles , and how he stands affected toward the Government : it may be , we shall find that all this Cry about Socinianism , Hobbism and Irreligion , is nothing but this ; that they are Charges , very fit for a Jacobite to lay to a Williamite , because they are black enough . He often intimates that the Court , and the King and Queen , did design to countenance the Arch-bishop's Blasphemies , Socinianism , and Super-Hobbism , that 's his word , by their commanding his Sermons to be printed . He will not own the Arch-bishop , the Bishop of Sarum , or any of the new Bishops , to be Bishops , as being set up by an incompetent Authority ; but only Persons bearing themselves to be Bishops : and the peculiar Name he has found for them , because he delights in abusing the words of Sacred Scripture , is , Spiritual Wickednesses in High Places . At p. 15. he discharges his Choler upon those ; who ( as he phrases it ) have deserted , betrayed , and taken Arms against King James . With respect to the Oaths , that are required to the present Government , because he cannot jest but in the words of Holy Scripture , he says , because of SWEARING , the Land mourneth . He was so afraid , that some dull Reader might overlook his Contempt of the Scriptures , and his Treason to the Government ; that he was careful to write the word Swearing in Capital Letters . He compliments the present Arch-bishop , upon his Accession to the Chair of Canterbury , in these words . On Novemb. 16. 1694. Dr. Tillotson was struck with that fatal Apoplexy , that carried him out of the World the 4 th day after ; to make room for another comprehensive Latitudinarian , who look'd over Lincoln , to succeed him . He intended ( without doubt ) to allude to the Proverb , the Devil look'd over Lincoln : but to spoil his Conundrum , the Proverb doth not intend Lincoln Cathedral , but Lincoln College , to which place his Grace never had a Relation . 'T is easy to see , by these Passages , that the late Arch-bishop , the Author of the History of Religion , and other great Men , are out of this Author 's good Graces ; not for any real Socinianism or Hobbism , but only because they are notorious Williamites : Hobbian and Socinian are the worst Names , that we can now give ; so 't is expedient , that all Williamites should be represented as Socinians and Hobbists . A Man that shall thus undertake to reproach his Sovereign , to spit upon the Government , and to accuse the greatest Divines of the Kingdom , as partly not understanding , partly heretically perverting the Doctrine of the Church , ought to be a Person of very great Abilities ; in respect both of Judgment , and Learning . Every one will blame such daring Attempts , in a Man of very mean , or no Wit and Erudition : such a one , let the Grounds of his Opposition and Complaints happen to be never so just , should patiently expect , till a sufficient Head and Hand shall enterprize to manage the Accusation . But the Chitt who at present has ventur'd upon all this , is so utterly unfurnish'd of the Qualities , requisite to such a Work ; that the Care of a Village-Cure , or of a Country-School , is hugely above him . I pray ( Sir ) have the Patience if you can , to take account of some Instances of our Author's Learning , and Judgment . He had heard say , or had read somewhere ; that St. Peter's words , which things the Angels desire to look into , are very emphatical in the Greek ; therefore to seem learned in a Tongue which he can scarce read , with much to do he finds the Text , and sets it down thus ; which things the Angels desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to stoop down with Reverence , and admire . Here first , the High-land Critick instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which last will never be found in any but a High-land Vocabulary . In the next place , he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by to stoop down with Reverence , and admire ; a sense never put on the word by any Lexicographer , no not by the meanest Abcedarian Grecian . Indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( or as the Learned Professor speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) is rendred by some Criticks , se inclinando introspicere ; which ( it may be ) he took for to stoop down with Reverence and admire : but the Criticks meant thereby , to view exactly , after the manner of Persons that stoop or bow that they may observe a thing the more distinctly : the Signification of stooping down to honour and admire , is a discovery that we owe to this great Author only , all the Grammarians and Criticks will reject it . In my opinion , our Author acted prudently , when foreseeing that with the late Revolution in Scotland , the Presbytery would be the Trump-Card ; that he might quit his Station with Credit , he feigned himself a Jacobite , and refused the Oath : he was conscious to himself , that the Presbytery would never continue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Professor's Chair ; much less , allow of this Criticism on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that it denotes stooping down to honour and admire , when ( here ) it so certainly signifies only stooping down to view distinctly and exactly . He falls upon the Bishop of Salisbury , for his Explication of the Incarnation and the Divinity of our Saviour ; he says , this Explication implies both Heresy and Idolatry . He ( kindly ) instructs the ( poor ) Bishop , how the Incarnation is to be understood . 'T is not ( says our Professor ) rightly accounted for , by the Similitude of the Inhabitation of Jehovah in the Cloud of Glory : no less Inhabitation [ of the WORD ] than an Impersonation can declare or truly describe the Incarnation ; for no other sort of Inhabitation can carry with it Communicatio Idiomatum , that is , can make God to be called that thing , or that thing be called God. Mr. Hill and this Author were best to confer Notes , they alike understand the Church's Doctrine about these Mysteries ; and have equal right to censure the Doctrine of this Learned Prelate . If he slights Mr. Hill , yet it may be his Lordship may have so much Charity for his Country-man ; as to inform him , that Impersonation of the Divine WORD , is the Eutychian Heresy . The Catholick Church never says , that the Divine WORD , but the Humane Nature is impersonated by the Incarnation . 'T is the Manhood that is impersonated in the WORD , or as the Athanasian Creed speaks , is taken into God ; not the WORD that is impersonated in the Manhood . The Manhood which is not a Person , is rightly said to be impersonated by being taken into the Person of the Divine WORD ; but the WORD being always a Person , cannot be impersonated by the Incarnation . It was with great Propriety that his Lordship used the word Inhabitation ; as not only not implying any heretical Ambiguity , as Impersonation does , but being the very term used by St. John ; who ( John 1.14 . ) explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( or He was made Flesh ) by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or He inhabited in our Nature , in the Human Nature or Manhood . The Arch-bishop had said ; It pleased God there should be some Mysteries in the Christian Religion , such as , three Persons who are but one God , the Incarnation of God in the Human Nature , God satisfying for Sin in his own Person : probably , saith the Arch-bishop , for this Reason among others ; because it had been found by Experience , that Men have a great Inclination for Mysteries , and are hardly contented with a Religion that has not something in it Sublime , Mysterious , and above Human Capacity . What says Momus to this ? Why , his Answer is not more morose and malevolent , than 't is impious and profane . P. 6. Blessed God , this Man makes no more of the Mysteries of our Religion , than only to satisfy Mens foolish Curiosities . He that will have a May-pole shall have a May-pole ; since you will have Mysteries , here 's one for you , God manifested in the Flesh. This is to satisfy your foolish longing after Mysteries , and to give you your full of Mysteries . Was there ever so impious a Burlesque upon God , and the Religion of Christ ; — as if He was incarnate and crucified , only to out-do Raw-head and Bloody-bones . — What are Mysteries , without any farther Consideration than as Mysteries ; but the height of Folly , perfect Rary-shows . The Arch-bishop said not , that Mysteries are of no other consideration or use in Religion , but only to satisfy the Curiosity and Inclination of Men ; but that this is one Reason , among many others by him assigned , why there are some Mysteries in the Christian Religion : he giveth divers other Reasons of the Incarnation and the Satisfaction , and some Illustrations of the Mystery of the Trinity ; besides this which so much displeases our Professor . Was it becoming of a Man , pretending to Probity and Learning ; to run out into such wild Expressions as these , by occasion of the Arch-bishop's ( inoffensive ) saying , that the Christian Mysteries might be ( in part ) intended to satisfy the general Inclination of Mankind , for Mysteries and sublime things ? Would any but our ( mad ) Author have fallen hereupon , to comparing the Trinity to a May-pole ; the Crucifixion of our Saviour , to Raw-head and Bloody-bones ; and all Mysteries to Rary-shows and the height of Folly ? Is this the Sobriety of a Bishop Elect ; or a Reflection to be prefaced with , a Blessed God ? He that manifestly perverts the words of another , to an impious sense ; or puts innocent Words and Sentences , into profane Terms and Expressions , is guilty of Blasphemy against God , and the highest Injury and Uncharitableness to his Neighbour . And if the Arch-bishop's words had in the Consequences of them , ministred real occasion for such kind of Comparisons ; as the May-pole , Rary-show , Raw-head , and the rest of this Author's Extravagance and Wickedness : yet seeing those Consequences were never intended by the Arch-bishop , but are most contrary to his Mind and Sentiments concerning the Mysteries he defended : this Author out of Reverence to those Mysteries themselves , should have forbore such horrid Terms ; which would have been very foul and black , even in the Mouth of a Socinian . I know not what Excuse can be made for our Author ; unless we should say ; that , poor Man , with his Preferments he also lost his Wits . Not quite to tire you , Sir , with the Specimen ( I promised ) of our Author's Honesty , Wit and Learning ; I will give you but one Example more of it . 'T is the principal design of his Book , to prove the Arch-bishop , the Bishop of Salisbury , and the Author of the History of Religion , are Socinians ; the other Charges of Irreligion and Hobbism , come in only by the by , and only sometimes , when his inflamed Choler wholly disorders his Brain . Therefore now , doth he himself understand what that Socinianism is , which he charges upon others : for 't is not uncommon with malicious Men , to charge others with Socinianism , Popery , Hobbism , and such like , which they have heard ( from divers ) are very bad things ; without knowing ( scarce ) at all what is implied in those words . I assure you , this is ( very much ) our Author's case : he has charged you and others with Socinianism , not as 't is an Heresy understood and detested by him ; but only as 't is a word of Scandal and Reproach . You will believe me , when you know that he says ; P. 32. None were more violent Persecutors than the Arians , that is the Socinians ; when they had Power . When he says here ; the Arians , that is , the Socinians : you know , Sir , he might as well have said ; the Jews , that is , the Roman Catholicks . P. 2. There was no Shibboleth , which all these our Adversaries [ the Anti-Trinitarians ] did refuse ; but that of Consubstantiality , or that the Father , Son and Spirit are Consubstantial : which also this Author [ the Arch-bishop ] does refuse ; and while he does so , he must be reckoned among those Adversaries . First , the Arch-bishop never refused the word Consubstantial . Then , you ( Sir ) who have been so conversant with the antient History of the Church , remember very well ; that neither did all Anti-Trinitarians reject Consubstantial , nor all Catholicks admit of it . It was first advanced by Paul of Samosata ( Patriarch of Antioch ) who held as the Socinians now do ; and was rejected by a Council of 72 Catholick Bishops , assembled at Antioch against the said Paul. Afterwards , it was approved by the first Nicen Council , but refused by the Bishops of Britain , Gaul and Germany ; not because they disliked the thing signified thereby , but because they would not admit of an unscriptural Term in declaring Points of Faith. As for the Arians , they were only the Anomaean Arians who disliked the word Consubstantial , the rest admitted of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( Consubstantial ) as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like Substance . Socrat. H. E. l. 3. c. 25. P. 2. They ( the Socinians ) puzzle Peoples Understandings , tho by very foolish and contradictory Arguments ; how God by his Infinite Power may bestow true and real Divinity upon another , and that from all Eternity : because what he can do to day , he might have done yesterday , and so backwards for ever . All this , Sir , is a Chimera of his own ; and was never held , or said , by any Socinian : they hold , on the direct contrary ; that it implies a Contradiction that Divinity ( or so much as simple Existence ) can be bestowed by one Person on another Person from all Eternity ; they suppose , that bestowing and receiving imply an actual Priority of the Person who bestows Being or Divinity , and that in this case the Giver and Receiver cannot be Co-eternal . In a word , our Anti-Socinian Professor imputes the very Doctrine of the Catholick Church , to the Socinians : 't is the Church ( not the Socinians ) that holds , that God can bestow true and real Divinity on another , and that from all Eternity ; and 't is the Churches , not the Socinians Argument , because what he might have done to day or yesterday , he might also do from forever . When he calls this , a foolish and contradictory Argument ; all Men ( but himself ) know , that he declares himself a Socinian , as often as he says it . P. 30. Of the English Socinians , some say , the Trinity is three , who are one Person : others of 'em say , the Trinity is three Persons , whereof two are Creatures . But if there be any such , as he pretends , neither Party of 'em are Socinians : English they may be , but Socinians they are not . 'T is with like Truth , and Knowledg of our English Vnitaries , that he says in the same Page ; They excommunicate , and depose from their Ministry , those of their own Party , who deny that Divine Worship is to be paid to the Lord Christ. I am certainly informed that the Vnitarians in England have no Ministry at all ; they do not separate from the Church , on the account of their different Opinion from the Church : they never separated in England , from the common Assemblies to worship ; which , in my Opinion , is pious , charitable and prudent ; for it is the Separation , not the difference of Opinion , that begets the Heats among contending Parties . But the occasion of these Mistakes of our worthy Author , is ; that tho ( it should seem ) he hath read the Brief History of the Vnitarians , his ( Northern ) frozen Head perceives not the Subtleties , of this Mercurial Tribe : he knows neither their Discipline , nor Doctrine ; and is of their mind without being aware of it . I know , Sir , you are weary of these Follies : I will therefore draw our Author , in little ; and having so presented him to you , leave him to your Pity and Prayers . He was a Bishop Elect , in that Juncture , when only such were chosen by the King and the Nuntio , to the Episcopal Chairs of England and Scotland ; as would not fail to make those Churches contemptible and ridiculous , by their notorious Unsufficiency and Incompetency . He is a Jacobite ; but made so , by nothing but his ( too certain ) Fears , that the Presbytery would never indure a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Theological Chair . With him , the Arch-bishop , the Bishop of Sarum , and the Author of the History of Religion , are most blasphemous Socinians ; because our Professor mistakes the Doctrine of the Church , and the Arguments she useth , for the Socinian Doctrine and Reasons . He is an Anti-Socinian , who believes that God the Father could not bestow true and real Divinity on another Person , from all Eternity : and that 't is foolish and contradictory , to say , that what God might do to day , he'might do yesterday , and backwards for ever . An Antiquarian he is , who has discovered ( in antient History ) such an only Shibboleth of Orthodoxy , in the Trinitarian Questions ; as was first advanced by one of the Socinians Patriarchs , and rejected by a Council of ( 72 ) Catholick Bishops . He is a Christian , who is not content to think it , but publishes it ( in Print ) to all the World ; that Jesus Christ is an accursed and devoted Head. This is your Man , Sir ; the Critick , Wit , Historian , Divine , who resolves to make an Example of all Latitudinarian Archbishops and Bishops , and all their Disciples and Seconds : of which number , he saith , you are the first and most considerable ; and as such , 't is but just and fit , that you should be treated accordingly . What he objects , is partly against your self , and partly against your History of Religion . As to your self ; he saith . You are a Disciple of ( that late execrable ) Jo. Cant , or ( as he otherwise call him ) John Till . You have copied , he saith , after him , very exactly : insomuch that this Critick himself is sometimes in doubt ; whether The History of Religion were written by you , or by the Archbishop . Elsewhere he saith , your History doth square most exactly with the Archbishop's Notions and Scheme of Religion . Yet he owns , that you are not altogether so profligate , or have more of Art and Address , than that Archbishop of Theists and Hobbists : you are more modest or more cunning , those are his words , than the other ; you do not attack Religion in such broad words , as he . But 't is the endeavour of both of you , of him more openly , of you more secretly , to ridicule all Religion ; and to resolve it wholly into Priest-Craft . And I must confess , Sir ; that your History and the Archbishop's Sermons have a like Thread . He , in most of his Sermons , combats the seven-headed Beast ; as a Divine , by Argument ; you as a Gentleman , in the Historical Way : he shows , how defenceless and weak , Popery is ; you , how ridiculous and foppish it is . And the learned Professor , by exclaiming thereupon against both of you as designing to ridicule all Religion , abundantly intimates ; that to him , there is no other Religion but Popery . He has an obscure Period at p. 31. that you assisted in turning a certain Neighbour out of House and Home , who had not only never injur'd you , but had done more for you than all your Relations and other Friends ever did . The meaning is , you had a share in effecting the late Revolution ; or as our Author elsewhere speaks concerning some others , in deserting , betraying and excluding King James : who ( as this Man says ) did more for you , than all your Friends or Relations ever have done . I am wholly a Stranger , to the Particulars of this Charge ; therefore I can only say : either 't is true , or 't is false . If 't is false , his Lordship Elect is a great Rascal , saving the Reverence belonging to his Coat and Profession ; to devise and publish to the World a Tale , that ( in his opinion ) implies the very foulest and blackest of Crimes and Scandals . But if it is true , that when King James had done a great deal for you ; after all , you concurred with , nay you highly promoted the Revolution : the Charge here brought against you , will amount to thus much . That whereas 't is too well known , that his late Majesty's Favours to any of his Protestant Subjects , were designed only to gain them to the Popish and Arbitrary Interest : you could not be bought , no not by more than all your Friends and Relations ever did for you , to side against the Interests of your Religion and Country . No Money , no Preferments , no Favours ( it should seem ) could bribe you ; to give up the Protestant Religion , or the Freedom and Properties of the Nation . A most terrible Accusation ; and on your part a Treachery not to be purged , with Sacrifice or Offering for ever ! But then after all this , to write a History too against ( the holy Cheats of ) your King's and Friend's Religion : this is such an Aggravation of your former Fault , that our Author will not say , the Lord have Mercy on you ; but in the Highland Phrase , It makes his Flesh to creep . I am of opinion , that an Highlander's Flesh naturally creeps : for our Beggars say , that set a — on a Board or Table , with the Head West , or East , or South , the — will not fail to turn it self , and creep Northward . As to your Book , his general Charge against it , is ; that 't is designed against all Religion , and especially all Positive ( or revealed ) Religion : from whence he takes occasion to Nick-name you Sir Positive ; or as he writes ( according to the High-land Orthography ) Sir Possitive . If you say ; but what Instances can he give out of your History , from whence any sober Man would infer , that you meant to expose Religion in general ; and not , only the pious Frauds of Modern Rome , and the Tricks of Rome Pagan ? I can only answer , that what Collections ( out of the History ) he may have by him , I know not ; but the Particulars which he mentions , are these . P. 27. You set up , he saith , unreconcileable War against all Mystery . How so ; have you dropt the least word against the Doctrines of the Trinity , the Incarnation , or the Satisfaction ? No , you are more modest or else more cunning ( he saith ) than the Archbishop ; you are a Man of more Art and Address , than to expose your Credit by broad words : but this you do . You make Transubstantiation your ( pretended ) Mark ; but your Level ( or Design ) is against the Trinity , and other Mysteries of the Catholick Church . I perceive , Sir , you must never expect ; to be delivered from the Imputations of Irreligion , Socinianism , and such like : for it should seem , when your Mark ( which you openly set up ) is Transubstantiation ; your Design , Level or Aim ( in spight of you ) shall be Religion and the Trinity . I think , I may say ; as what you have done , admits of no Defence , with such Judges as Dr. M — roe : so with others , it can need none . At p. 29. he falls upon the word Priest-Craft , and mauls it most terribly . He saith , that the thing by you designed , ought rather to be called Lay-Craft , or State-Craft ; than Priest-Craft : for Religion has been more corrupted by Lay-men , especially by Parliaments , than by Priests . Yet at length , he is willing to admit ( there ) of the term Priest-Craft ; provided it be applied rightly : that is , to those cursed Priests , the Latitudinarians and Socinians . You manifest your Impiety again , in what you say ( in the History ) concerning the Creeds ; that have been devised by Arians , Photinians , Catholicks , Papists , Protestants , and all the Sub-divisions of these Parties : for you note , that in very deed , Creeds are the spiritual Revenges , of dissenting Parties , upon one another . I must confess , that you but too plainly intimate , in the History ; that according to your ( weak ) Judgment , it had been better to content our selves with the Apostles Creed , as unsufficient as those poor Men were to pen a Creed for the Church , which they had planted : than that every Party should contrive a new Creed , with Anathema's and Damn ' ems to every Clause of it . But the Professor ( a sagacious Man ) doth not at all believe , that you had any pacifick or charitable Aim , in what you offer : no , no , your Intention ( he says , p. 30. ) was this , That Atheists , Latitudinarians and Socinians might get into the Church without swearing , or subscribing to I know not how many Lies . And all to no purpose ; for no subscribing or swearing will ever keep 'em out . Again , he observes ; that you would perswade People , that there is no Condemnation for Error ; because it proceeds ( say you ) from Innoscence , which is to say Ignorance and Weakness . Here he has got a common place , upon which to read : for not having Grammar enough to distinguish Innoscence from Innocence ; he proves largely ( and most learnedly ) that all Ignorance is not Innocence ; or that all Persons shall not be judged as innocent , because they were ignorant . He saith further , that 't is very hard to determine , which are Sins of Ignorance : but be sure , says he , Sins of Intrigue and Design are not Sins of Innocence ; and here comes in your ( black ) Ingratitude in not betraying your Country and Religion , to your great ( Arbitrary and Popish ) Friend , tho you were tempted with such mighty Offers and Liberalities , as he says . His last Instance of your bad Inclination , is ; that you argue so largely against punishing People for meer Conscience , and simple Error . Your Arguments against Persecution , are ; that Force does not convince , it may make Men Hypocrites , but never true Converts : and that the Prescriptions in the Gospel , concerning the erroneous , are all gentle and meek ; not Arms , or Proscriptions , or Mulcts . To the first , he answers ; Punishments are inflicted for other Ends , besides converting the Criminal : they are intended , for vindicating the Honour of God ; and to prevent the Infection of others . Our Author , it would seem , knows not ; that God is honoured , not dishonoured , by every Person 's professing and acting , as his Conscience perswades him that 't is the Will of God he should act and profess : and consequently that to punish such Persons , however erroneous ; is no other , but to punish them for their Loyalty and Obedience to God. But Punishment , he saith , may prevent the Infection from spreading among others . Yes , witness the Persecutions of the Primitive Christians ; which were so successful for suppressing their Opinions : that they begat the famous Proverb , Sanguis Martyrum est semen Ecclesiae , the Seed of the Church is the Blood of its Martyrs . But admitting it were true , what he says , that Persecution may prevent the growth of Opinions and Sects ; yet how will the Inquisitor General help it , if God himself has forbid this means of Prevention ? It is our Saviour that said ; let the Tares grow up with the Wheat , lest with the Tares you pluck up also the Wheat . The Tares are Errors , which therefore in that Parable are said to be sown : yet the Tares must not be plucked up , nay must be suffered to grow up with the Wheat ; lest our ( ignorant ) Zeal mistake the true Wheat for Tares . The Judgment , which are Tares and which Wheat , is reserved ( saith our Saviour there ) to God ; if it were left to Men , while they ( think they ) gather the Tares , they will root up also the Wheat , Mat. 13.29 . But to this , and to your other Argument ; that the Gospel prescribes only gentle means , to be used to the Erroneous : He replies , the Prescriptions against Force , and the gentle Methods hinted in the Gospel , are directed only to Preachers ; not to the Civil Magistrates . Who is no more bound up by those Prescriptions , from punishing the Erroneous ; than the Commands of turning the other Cheek , and give him thy Cloak also , restrain him from punishing the Injurious , or such as steal from others . 'T is only to Preachers , he saith , not to the Magistrate ; that Forbearance and Gentleness is required , toward the Erroneous . On the contrary , it is certain to me ; that not to root up the Tares is a Charge , given wholly to the Magistrate , and not at all to Preachers . Preachers ( as Preachers ) must root up the Tares ; by Argument , Exhortation , and such like Christian Means . 'T is well known to all , that Preachers have no Power ( either from God or Men ) to root up by Force or any external Punishment : it would be a senseless Prohibition , let not Preachers hang , or burn , or sequester Men for their Errors ; because every one is aware , 't is not at all in their Power , nor ever was , but only in the Magistrates . I say , for this reason 't is even self-evident ; that the Prescriptions against Force or rooting up , belong not ( as our Inquisitor contends ) to Preachers , but to Magistrates , who only have that Power . Whereas he adds ; you might as well plead the Charges of turning the other Cheek , and give him thy Coat also , against the Magistrates punishing Violence and Theft : I answer , the Cases are altogether unlike . The Magistrate is permitted , nay required to punish Violence and Theft ; because in such Offences we sin both wittingly and wilfully : but Error and Mistake ( which some call Heresy , and this Author calls Blasphemy ) are involuntary , and pure Innoscence ; which I would not have the Professor mistake again for Innocence , tho it also implies and supposes Innocence . I cannot see any thing more , Sir , in this Libel , that concerns you , or The History of Religion ; I will conclude therefore , with only saying : that as you were somewhat concerned that Mr. Atterbury , a Man of Learning and Wit ( O how unlike , to this other , he ! ) should first mistake the Design of your Book , and then make such haste to scandalize you for it in the very Royal Presence ; so without doubt you will smile at it , that all the Irreligion , Profaneness and Socinianism charged upon it , is resolved at last into only this ( and by Malice it self ) that 't is a perfect copying after the Sermons and Opinions of Archbishop Tillotson . This is the utmost , we see , that your's and the Government 's worst Adversary could make of it . Sir , I am your most assured , most obliged , and most affectionate Friend , N. S. July 17 , 1695. THE AUTHOR OF The History of Religion VINDICATED From the Scandalous and Unchristian INVECTIVES of Mr. F. A. IN A SERMON At WHITE-HALL , On Proverbs xiv . 6 . Buchanan Franciscanus & Fratres . — In sanctos quicquam cave dicere fratres . Printed in the Year , 1696. KING Charles the Second , and James the Just , that waited for the Divine Right , as long as waiting was good , were often nick'd with punishing Texts , which , by being maliciously tim'd , were in meer reading turn'd into downright Satyr : but our Preacher is not for a dry Bob and away , he will serve himself of his Text , before he , and that Part ; and the words are these , Prov. 14.6 . A Scorner seeketh Wisdom and findeth it not . The first thing Mr. Fr. Att. propounds for his Inquiry , is , who is the Person represented under the Character of the Scorner . Solomon , no doubt , design'd a general Reproof , but our Preacher's whole Sermon is levell'd at a particular and honourable Person , Sir R. H. the Author of the History of Religion , him he would have us to understand by the Scorner , let Solomon intend whom he will. Here let me borrow an Allusion from Mr. Bayes in the Rehearsal [ much such a Poet , as Mr. F. A. is a Preacher . ] As dull Mortals fear The Event of such things as shall never appear ; So tho it be hard To find in the Word What was never at first by the Writer put there , Yet a Preacher acute By the help of his Priestcraft-Resentment can do 't . Of the Jewish Scorner in his Text , typical of our English Gentleman [ as he would have us conceive ] he says . The frequent Revolutions in the Jewish State contributed mightily to unsettle the Scorner's Thoughts , and create in him a slight opinion of the eternal Differences of Right and Wrong , Good and Evil : but our Gentleman was , in the Revolutions intimated , fix'd and settled in his Thoughts on the loyal suffering Side , and his unshaken Vertue held out , till it happily reach'd its merited Reward . But there were a sort of zealous Pretenders to Religion among the Jews , [ tho whether typical of any such among us , I know not ] that were never loyal , but when they were caress'd . After the Character of the Scorner , it had been proper for Mr. Att. to have defin'd , and explain'd what was the Wisdom , which he sought , and found not , but that he declin'd , and he had reason ; for had he determin'd the Wisdom mention'd in his Text , to have been true Religious Wisdom , he had been prevented of much of his Malice , and must have been forc'd to allow'd Sir R. H. the Praise of having sought true Religious Wisdom , and had he call'd it profane worldly Wisdom , then his angry Libel had ran into ridiculous Jest ; For what strange thing is it , that a Man who seeks Worldly Wisdom should not find Spiritual ? it's as if I should say Mr. Att. seeks a Prebendary's Place , and cannot find a Captain's . It 's not to be expected that a Man should find what he does not seek . But tho he will not explain the nature of the Wisdom in his Text , yet he will tell us , what is meant by seeking it , i. e. he will tell us what is meant by seeking the Lord knows what . And he makes nothing of broad undisguis'd Contradictions , now affirming that , The Scorner makes freer Inquiries after Truth , shakes off the Prejudices of Education more thorowly , than the rest of Mankind ; and presently after saying of this self-same Scorner , that he is unconcern'd what God and wise Men in all Ages and Countries have said . But great Men can contradict themselves as well as Mr. Att. tho perhaps not reach the just height of such a particular Atterburianism as this . He sets down as a Note of Infamy , that which adorns the Character of a wise Man above any thing else , viz. his examining things to the bottom , taking nothing upon trust , not relying on the Authority of Man. Well , Sir Robert ! if these be the Sins you have to answer for , you have the noble Beraeans to keep you company , and at the day of Judgment St. Paul shall speak a word for you both . But it must be confess'd , that a Church-Pharisee is ten times more civil , than a Heathenish Knight , for he takes all upon trust , all he hears from his Superiors is Gospel , out of Reverence to Authority he examines nothing to the bottom . Thus far I have consider'd Mr. Att 's Preface , and the opening of the Text , as he calls it , and now I come to his Observation , which , what it is , we are to seek , for he has not set it down ; but as when he did not define Wisdom , he explain'd the meaning of seeking it , so now an Observation , which he never made , he will justify , and he justifies it , by as extraordinary a method , as ever ill made or unmade Observation was justified . For he wisely shows how it comes to pass , that Men who set up for a more than ordinary Fame in Wisdom and Goodness by contemning Religion , and Religious Men , do , and must fail of the End they propose , because , as wise as they are in other things , they are uncapable of impartial Inquiries after Divine Truth , in plain English , they fail of the End which they propose , because they do not propose the End which they fail of . Well! go thy ways honest Fr. Att. thou art a shrewd Fellow , I 'll say that for thee , and hast Logick and Wit enough to write against the Socinians . Mr. Att. assigns four things , which render a Man incapable to search successfully after Truth , especially Divine Truth . The first is Pride , this he defines to be , an undue value which a Man has for himself , and his own Opinion , with a Disregard for every thing beside . Having thus defin'd , immediately he starts an Abuse upon old Hobbs , whose Leviathan , tho I hold to be an ill Book , a very ill Book , more impious , tho not more malicious , than the Sermon about the Scorner , yet the Passage cited from his Epistle , by way of Reproach , is ingenious and honest . I will set it in its proper Light , not that Mr. Att. may be asham'd of his Misrepresentation , he is more hardy than so , but that all Lovers of Honesty and Truth among the Clergy , may be asham'd of their Brother Att. Hobbs had said , what he thought proper to recommend his Book to the Patronage of his honour'd Friend Mr. Fr. Godolphin , and supposing that what he had said , was yet hardly enough to furnish Mr. G. with a satisfactory Reply to them who might happen to condemn his Work , he comes off with a witty piece of Railery , thus , If notwithstanding this , you find my Labour generally decried , you may be pleas'd to excuse your self , and say , I am a Man that love my own Opinions , and think all true I say , and that 's more than any Man will be perswaded to say for the Author of the Scorner . But if loving a Man 's own Opinions must be an Instance of Pride , let the Reader consider , whether most loves his own Opinions , Sir R. H. who can indulge a peaceable good Subject to differ from him , and enjoy the present Parliamentary Liberty of Conscience , without envying or censuring him , or Mr. Att. who in bold defiance of the Laws of his Country , reproaches all Men that do not believe , as he does ; and then if this be a piece of Pride , and Pride hinders Knowledg , has not Mr. Att. prov'd himself a Blockhead , which he need not have done neither ? but some Orators will use , in spight of Tully's Caution against it , in re non dubiâ , argumentis non necessariis , in a matter not doubtful , Arguments not necessary . It 's crudely said by him , that Pride is a great Enemy to Knowledg , he ought to have shown how ; for an Inclination to be proud of Knowledg , seems to prompt a Man to Study , and let Mr. Att. say what he pleases , there are more humble Blockheads than proud ones . He reproaches the Gentleman whom he represents under the Character of a Scorner , for a superficial Sciolist , positive in his Opinions , and hardy in his Assertions . Now tho that honourable Person is ever as ready to give , as take a sober Liberty of philosophizing and prophesying , yet Positiveness would be less odious in him , whose excellent Natural Parts , and all desirable Advantages of Study and Conversation , make it as probable for him , as any Man breathing to come to the knowledg of the Truth , whatever is the Object of his Inquiry : But what an insufferable Presumption is it , in young Mr. Att. who translated himself but t'other day , from working on another Man's profane Satyr , to the study of Divinity ? What an insufferable Presumption is it in him , to be positive ? whereas if his Genius had inclin'd him to the search of Religious Truths , and all his Time been spent that way , and no Hours given to wild Joys or soft Delights , he could yet have but slenderly stor'd himself with wise and useful Notices , being yet but a young Man , and a very young Divine : and what sets his Credit still lower , Divinity his Fate , and not his Choice , the Study not which he passionately loves , but comfortably lives by . And then I must tell him , one had better be a half Philosopher , a half Physitian , or a half-bred Man , than a half Divine ; for the half-bred Man is not in so much danger of becoming a Fop , the half Physitian an Emperick , the half Philosopher an Atheist , as the half Divine of becoming a merciless Persecutor of all that differ from his Opinions , pursuing them , when the Law ties his Hands , with an unchristian reviling Tongue . But Mr. Att. has one extraordinary Remark concerning the Mischief of Pride . He affirms that it will harden the Scorner in his way against whatever wise Men can think or say . This pretious Youth that translated Absalom and Achitophel , cannot but have heard of Elkanah Settle , who has two Verses , for whose Character soever they were intended , that agree well with the Translator's . At his wise Thinkings some Diviners guess , But his wise Sayings no Records express . I am sure there are no such in his Libel . As for the humble Duties of the Cross , Sir R. H. does as sincerely own his Obligations to them , as any good Christian can , and needs as little Forgiveness , at least as Mr. Att. Indeed for Mysteries , 't is likely he could wish none impos'd , but such as are clearly reveal'd , which also by being reveal'd cease to be Mysteries , and are then but improperly so call'd . But Mysteries which are not plainly reveal'd , but plainly contradict Sense and Reason , them his Conscience seems not strong enough to digest . 'T is impudent Calumny to intimate , that if Sir R. H. cannot give himself a certain plain account in what manner , and to what end God did a thing , he therefore concludes that God did it not at all . But it really is Sir R. H's Weakness not to believe the Interpretation of a Text given by a Priest , which serves his Priest-Craft . Even any Explication which tends to the increase of the Priest's Honour , or Power , Wealth , or odd Worldly Convenience , he is too apt to suspect ; nay I have heard it said of him , that he thinks it an Instance of subtle Impiety for Priests to twist their Worldly Sensual Advantages with the Honour of God Almighty ; and fancies that they learn'd the Trick of a Heathen Painter , one Phidias , who was hir'd to draw only the Picture of Minerva , but the ambitious Artist so curiously join'd his own in the same Tablet , that his mortal Phyz was not to be expung'd without impairing the Glories of the Goddess . Nay , and which is worse than all this , tho Mr. Att. has strenuously belied Sir R. H. yet he has unluckily charged him with one thing , which I am afraid will stick ; I will be fair , and repeat it in the Preacher's own words , If he has not as clear an Idea of every term in an Article of Faith , as he has of those in a Mathematical Proposition , 't is presently unphilosophical , absurd , and foolish , invented by those whose Interest it is to puzzle Mens Vnderstandings , that they may have their Wills and Affections at their Service . On my Conscience Sir R. is guilty , and he really wrongs Mr. Att. that says there is not one true word in his scurrilous Libel . But the Charge which can hardly be avoided , may admit of some Plea in its Defence , or Excuse , for I do not see how an Article can be believ'd that is not understood , Can a Man believe he knows not what ? if that be in his Power , Sir R. has not only a proud but a stubborn Understanding ; but then also it will be in Mr. Att 's power to believe Transubstantiation , and if in his power , I think it was not well done to refuse it to King James ; for he that can believe a Proposition whereof he has no Idea , ought in Conscience to oblige the chief Magistrate , under whom he lives , with being of his Religion , unless he had before-hand given his Promise to the King of Morocco . But I have another thing to reason with Mr. Att. All Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation are plain and easy to be understood by an ordinary Capacity , the best Preachers have ever profess'd it . Now I would fain know of Mr. Att. whether their being propos'd in difficult Terms , whereof we have no clear Idea , be that thing which makes them plain and easy ; if it be , then we are more beholding to the School-men and their Followers , than to the first Apostles ; but if difficult Terms cannot make an Article of Faith plain and easy , I desire to be acquainted for what end such are made use of , except to puzzle Mens Understandings . To see how some Teachers can vary their Notes ! when they treat of the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion , then all the Doctrines thereof are plain and easy to be understood : but when they plead in defence of Mysteries , whereof we can have no clear Idea , and they that plead for them , have confus'd , and different Idea's , then they may be difficult , inexplicable , and never the worse . The next Particular in the Character of the Scorner is said to be a strange and unreasonable Suspicion . Upon this Head Mr. Att 's Discourse is loose , and undetermin'd ; he will allow an Inquirer to be cautious , but not suspicious : but how these two differ , where wise Caution ends , and where faulty Suspicion begins , as for that , he begs his Reader 's Pardon . Caution and Suspicion are but different words for one and the same thing . A Man may be too cautious , and he may also be not suspicious enough , as the elegant old Man of Ascra notes , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Credulity and Diffidence have both undone Men. Between foolish Suspicion , that is not to be satisfied with good Reasons , and easy Credulity which is satisfied without any at all , there is a certain Vertue [ says Casaubon upon Theophrastus ] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Name , prudentiae velut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which flows from Wisdom , by which we believe them who deserve Belief , and suspect their Honesty who believe well of no body , that is not of their Opinion . The third Topick whence Mr. Att. draws the Character of the Scorner , is , false Wit , which he defines to be bold jesting upon things sacred and serious . Quickness of Wit he commends , coldly indeed , but as well as a poor Pretender could ; but , false Wit , that which exerts it self in Satyr and Drollery , that he inveighs against , and says it betrays a Man into a thousand Errors , for one it discovers to him ; and I believe it , and that 's the reason , himself is so often , and so much in the wrong . He never aim'd at any Wit , but this satyrical , drolling false Wit ; and he made the greatest show of it , when he took upon him to be John Dreyden's Broker , and with a sorry Roman Gloss calander'd for Colleges and Schools , that infamous English Libel of Absalom and Achitophel , which an old canker'd Poet stuff'd with common-place Wit , and mercenary dictated Scandal . Now since Mr. Att. never pretended to any other Wit but this satyrical drolling false Wit , and to this still continues his Pretence ; if his Character of the Scorner represents any Man now living , it represents himself : and therefore all this while what has he been doing , but drawing his own Picture , and like an inverted Narcissus , throwing Stones at it ? It cannot be denied , but that the eminent deceas'd Person , on whom Mr. Att. reflects , p. 12. excell'd in false Wit , with quickness of Thought he would ridicule Religion , and plead surprizingly for Vice ; but then he openly and bitterly repented , which is more than I ever heard that Mr. Att. has done for his vile Journey-work under a hungry rhiming Sinner . As for Miracles , I see nothing in the History of Religion , but that Sir R. firmly believes all which are recorded in the Bible , tho I am indeed apt to suspect he may imagine , [ for I will not tell a Lie for him ] that the counterfeit Miracles of juggling Priests first tempted cautious and suspicious bad Men , to call in question the truth of the Miracles of Jesus Christ. Just so it is the Impudence , Pride , and Lordly ill Nature of such Priests as Att. that makes the Worthy and Reverend Clergy of the Church of England , had in no greater Veneration . If Mr. Att. had censur'd old Hobbs for teaching that Right is founded in Power , or that the Command of the Civil Magistrate makes the Scripture a Law to us , God forbid that I should speak a word in his Vindication : But the Accusation preferr'd against him , p. 13. is so shamefully false , that I much wonder , if this notorious Slanderer can henceforth ever hope the least Credit should be given to what he affirms or denies of any Man whatsoever . The Accusation is this : The great Leader of the Libertines of this Age , thought he had said something very prejudicial to the Divinity of Christ , when he had translated , after an absurd manner , the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and blasphemously told us , that that was as much as to say , the Verb of God. ] But the words of Hobbs in the 36 th Chapter of his Leviathan are these . Our Saviour is called the Word , not because he was the Promise , but the Thing promised ; they , that taking occasion from this place , do commonly call him the Verb of God , do but render the Text more obscure , they might as well term him the Noun of God ; for as by Noun , so also by Verb , we understand but a part of Speech , a Voice , a Sound , that neither affirms , nor denies , nor commands , nor promises , nor is any Substance Corporeal or Spiritual ; and therefore it cannot be said to be either God or Man , whereas our Saviour is both . In this place Hobbs reproves those that called Christ the Verb of God , and Att. says that Hobbs speaks against the Divinity of Christ , whereas Hobbs openly professes that our Saviour is both God and Man. The Jesuits have not with greater Impudence belied Luther and Calvin . With the same hardness of Brow and spirit of Falshood , he affirms , that Hobbs pretended to give a mighty Blow to the Doctrine of Grace , by saying , that Infusion and Inspiration signified in plain English , inpouring and inblowing ; whereas all I meet with in Chap. 34. is , that Inspiration taken properly signifies blowing into a Man [ inblowing is Att 's term ] some thin and subtile Air , &c. but the word is used in Scripture metaphorically only , as where it is said , God inspir'd into Man the Breath of Life , no more is meant , than that God gave unto him Vital Motion : and where it is said , All Scripture is given by Inspiration from God , it signifies , that God inclin'd the Spirit or Mind of the Writers to write that which should be useful to such and such good purposes . I have taken Pains to vindicate Hobbs [ who has Faults enough to answer for , without being unjustly charg'd ] from these particular unjust Charges , that the Reader may understand how convenient it is , to imitate the noble Beraeans , and examine carefully , whether all those things are true which are sometimes told them è Cathedrâ . In the fourth place , Mr. Att. ascribes the Deception [ that is his word ] of the Scorner , to his Sensuality . Now I can hardly believe but that the Translation of Absalom and Achitophel was done by another hand , tho it goes under Att 's Name , who perhaps might be hir'd to father it , because he seems not to have Learning enough to be so wicked ; for here he imagines the word Deception to be synonimous with Error or Ignorance , whereas it signifies Deceit or Cozenage : Sensuality indeed is likely to prevent a Man from Knowledg , but poor Mr. Att. by his Ignorance of Grammar is fall'n into another Doctrine , viz. that Sensuality is the cause of the Scorner's Deceptions , i. e. Sensuality helps him to deceive others . — — Nec te vox barbara turbet , Aut temere erumpens linguâ titubante Solacus : Tot sanctos oppone Patres , Mysteria sacra ; Turpe est grammaticis submittere colla capistris . Buch. Fran. But that which Mr. Att. would have said , had he had Skill to express it , is , that Sensuality does discourage the Scorner from inquiring after , and fatally prevent him from finding Wisdom . Very true : But what will he hence prove ? I know what naturally follows , viz. that Sir R. H. whose Knowledg , whose Observations , and Experience through all the most useful Parts of Learning , are so very considerable , has led a studious Philosophical Life , and that Mr. Att. who does not understand Grammar , has spent his time in Sensuality , when he should have pli'd his Book . But of all the Lines in Mr. Att 's holy Invective , Sir R. ought to forgive him two or three , p. 14. where telling his Reader in what Age of Life the Humour of scorning is most prevalent , he pertinently observes , it is commonly incident to Men at that time of their Lives , when their Lusts are most ungovern'd , and their Blood boils hottest ; it is chiefly the young robust Sinner , that indulges himself in it , while he is in the midst of his Enjoyments . That is as much as to say , that old Age has banish'd from Sir R's Breast , or at least abated the Humour , while young and robust Mr. Att. — But this Humour of the Scorner will in time wear off with him also . But pray how has Sir R. set his Face directly against the Doctrines of Religion ? it does not appear from his late History , unless his Accuser means the false Doctrines of Religion ; and let him set his Face , and his Heart as directly and strongly against them as he pleases , I am afraid he will be able to do little more than save his own Soul. But in truth Sir R. has dealt very sparingly on this Argument , and has chose such particular inoffensive Instances of Priest-Craft , that none but Pagan and Popish Priests have the least reason to be angry : I am sure no Presbyters of the Church of England are concern'd , unless those few , who make it their business to have the Belief of unintelligible , an unexplicable Mysteries , enforc'd by cruel and unchristian Penalties . Let our Preachers be but content , that the People own the Authority of the Sacred Book , particularly , that they agree to those Texts [ whose Sense is so much controverted ] as true , in that sense which the Writer design'd , tho what that is , is not certain , and not compel them to confess something more , something against their Consciences , till a Majority of Convocation-men [ who only pretend to make , I should say declare Articles of Faith ] shall determine what is the true sense of the controverted Texts , and their Credit shall stand fair with the Ages to come , for all that Sir R. has said in his History of Religion . P. 16. l. 1. Mr. Att. has these remarkable words , Some Men who write pretended Histories of Religion , are beholding to the real Religion of others that their Histories are not written . Here we are , first , to inquire how Sir R. H. has provok'd Mr. Att. that he threatens to write his History . 2. How dangerous it is to provoke a Priest to write one's History . 3. Whom is Sir R. H. beholding to , that his History is not written . Of these in their order . 1. How Sir R. H. has provok'd , &c. Has Sir R. H. question'd the Existence of a Deity ? or deny'd the Truth of Revealed Religion ? this were to provoke the generality of Mankind , but by good luck no such thing is laid to his Charge , tho if it were , it might be easily disprov'd from his Writings . What then ? has he slurr'd the Divine Right of Episcopacy , and given the Prelates but a Parliamentary Right in the room ? has he dress'd up the grave Doctrines of Non-Resistance , and Passive Obedience in an odd Disguise , which were ugly enough in their own true Shape , that so they may be laugh'd at , as well as hated by the People ? Has he confounded Arbitrary Power that had well nigh confounded the Nation ? for ought I know , something of this nature he may have done , but it 's no matter , Mr. Att. has swallow'd all this ; that which sticks , and will not down , is a pretended History of Religion : Well then ! what 's the fault of that History ? what Injury is it to Mr. Att. if the World be made acquainted , how the Heathen Priests topp'd false Doctrines upon the People , and by cunning wicked Arts made a Gain of them ? how they puzled their Understandings and stole their Wills and Affections , how they cherish'd their Ignorance , and scar'd 'em from the free use of their Reason ? What hainous Provocation is it against a Priest of the Church of England , if the Nation be told how the Priests of the Roman Communion imitate the Religious Frauds of the Priests of the Heathens ? If Mr. Att. will be concern'd at this , he will tempt Men to believe , that our Religious Guides pursue the same Methods of Priest-craft as the other , but then 't is Att. that libels the Church , and not Sir R. H. for he only in general Terms , and very modestly wishes that Reformed Churches did not violently pursue the same ; nay , in his Preface , he gladly takes occasion [ so studious is he to make his Court to our Church ] to commend the excellent Spirit , and useful Teaching of the late Arch-bishop , whose Life and Learning , whose honest , wise and useful way of plain teaching , sets his Honour far above the most venerable Names in all Antiquity . 2. How dangerous it is to provoke a Priest to write one's History , that 's next to be inquir'd . Luther and Calvin wrote [ tho not under that very Name ] Histories of Religion , widely different from what the Romanists write , insomuch that the incens'd Jesuits have wrote their History ; and never did the famous Society themselves practise more enormous Villanies , than they laid to the Charge of those two famous Reformers . Now if Mr. Att. should look back on his own Life , and charge Sir R. with all the vile Deeds , whereof he himself has ever been guilty , in troth he would make a fine Picture of the old Gentleman , and be fully even with him for his History . It were a good Motto for a Clerical Historiographer , Nemo me impune lacesset ; for I don't think any Man's Innocence a sufficient Security while he exposes Priest-Craft . I shall content my self to give but one Example , but that an illustrious one , to justify my Opinion . When King John began to set his Face directly against the Corruptions , the Priest-craft Corruptions of the Church of Rome , a parcel of ungracious Monks could not bear it , not they , no , not from their Soveraign , therefore they poison'd him with the Sacrament of the Altar ; and when they had done , they wrote his History , and publish'd him for a Wicked and Atheistical , a Foolish and Tyrannical Prince ; yet Protestant Authors give him a better Character , and there are Circumstances which will incline an unprejudic'd Man to believe that this King deserv'd it . I did not think to have given another Instance , but just as I am writing this , there comes into my Head a very remarkable one , which also has a particular Circumstance fit for Mr. Att. to consider , so that I know not how to pass it by . Pausanias in his Baeotics gives an accurate Description of Trophonius's Antrum , and says , that he himself consulted the Oracle there . Now Pausanias was a Grammarian of Caesarea in Cappadocia , and liv'd in the second Century ; so that by Mr. Att 's favour , Oracles did not cease at the coming of Christ , which Anthony van Dal● has prov'd beyond all Contradiction . But to my Instance . Pausanias declares by what Rites and Ceremonies , they prepar'd themselves , who , to consult the Oracle , would descend into the Cave , and how they return'd back , by the same Hole they went down , their Feet foremost . Then has he these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. They say that none ever miscarried in the Cave , but that all return'd that went down , except one only , one of Demetrius's Halbadiers : Now that Fellow had not run thrô the ritual course of Preparation for the Descent , and descended , like an ungracious Fellow as he was , not to consult the Oracle , but to discover the Priest-craft : him therefore for this unpardonable Sin , the Priests of Trophonius made away , knowing that the dead tell no Tales ; his Body was afterwards found the Lord knows how far from the mouth of the Cave , and then they wrote his History , the Substance whereof was this , That he was a profane Scorner , who with much ado , had made a shift to get rid of good Principles , and such stiff Opinions , as he found inconsistent with a Soldier 's Life , and that he knew very little of the Divine Mysteries of the Gods , by reason he was a proud , suspicious , witty , sensual Fellow . The third and last thing to be inquir'd is , to whom Sir R. H. is beholden that his History is not written , i. e. that he is not scandalously abus'd , for that Mr. Att. means ; otherwise , to write his History , were to oblige the Age , and perpetuate an honourable Name to a nobly descended Gentleman , who deserves it , with our latest Posterity : And what a noble Theme were it to a Man that had a Genius capable ! The Roman and Grecian Orators prodigally wasted their Eloquence on meaner Subjects than the unshaken Loyalty of Sir R. H. during the Troubles of K. Charles the First , and Second , his Faithfulness to his Country during the Reign of King James , his Courage and Wisdom in defending the happy Choice of the People , and the Right of our present successful Deliverer , our just and lawful King William . But we are to inquire to whom Sir R. is beholden , that after he has expos'd Priest-craft , he himself is not scandalously abus'd , and defam'd in a virulent and lying sort of a History . Mr. Att. says that Sir R. is beholden to the real Religion of others , meaning , no doubt , of himself and Friends . Now real Religion will certainly restrain a Man from false Reproaches , but nevertheless [ to suppose that Mr. Att. has some Religion ] that was not the thing which restrain'd him from a scandalous History , for then it would have restrain'd him also from a scandalous Sermon ; much less was it any Reverence to Sir R. H. as being a Person of Honour , and a Privy-Counsellor : for Priests have not given such a Divine Right to Kings , but that they dare open their Characters , and will do it , when they find themselves neglected . King William our invited Defender , our successful Deliverer , our rightly chosen , just and lawful Soveraign , has not escap'd from impudent and wicked , unrighteous , and ingrateful Reflections in Priestly Protestations , Prints and Preachments : Was it then Sir R. H's good luck which sav'd him from unchristian Reproaches ? A Man must have very good luck that lives unreproach'd in the midst of a crooked and perverse Generation , the late excellent Arch-bishop could not do it , but was even by Priests reported a Socinian , tho he has wrote against their reputed Heresy , if not with all the Evidence which could be desired , yet beyond any other Trinitarian ; and [ which recommends him to the Esteem of all sincere Christians ] he has wrote with a due Charity to Dissenters , which also is part of the honourable Character of that good Man , the present Bishop of Gloucester . But what do I talk of good luck ? a word which unthinking Men use when the Reason of a thing is not very plain . A little thinking and reasoning will perhaps satisfy the curious why the Author of the History of Religion has not been dress'd up in the San Benito . For , reason we thus : Would Mr. Att. be content that his Character should be open'd , and the History of his Life drawn forth ? he must needs have more Tenderness for his own Reputation than so . He knows it is not Prudence [ or should know so ] to break his Neighbour's Windows , when his own House is made of Glass . Again , we may consider , that tho a Dog may bark , and no body mind him , yet if he bite , he may chance to have his Teeth knock'd out . The railing of Mr. Fr. Atterbury I have reprov'd ; as to the other short part which may be called Sermon , I will remark but one thing , upon one Period . They say , a fair Reasoner ought to represent the full force of his Adversary's Argumentations , but there 's no need he should mend them , unless he begin to be sick of his own Hypothesis ; wherefore I cannot but wonder at one Period of Mr. Att 's Sermon , p. 19. The Jews were a Proverb and a By-word to the rest of the World , the perpetual Subject of Contempt and Reproach ; and who would have thought [ may we suppose one of those wise Heathens to have said ] that Truth should have lain hid , among such an odd sort of People in such a little spot of the World ? Now what Disciple of Spinoza or Hobbs could have put such pointed words into the Mouth of a wise Heathen ? and what Preacher beside Att. would have done it ? there too , where he held not himself oblig'd to make something of a Reply , to take off the ill Influence it might chance to have on young unstable People ? it would have become him , at least to have subjoin'd , that that odd sort of People were God's chosen , and the special care of his miraculous Providence , and the little spot of Ground by them inhabited , blessed above all the Earth . SIR , 'T IS to no purpose to tell the World what mov'd me to write this Pamphlet , yet for my own sake , I am contented that they know what did not : It was not a desire of your Favour , I had that before , and was in no danger of losing it ; it was not any Command from Sir R. H. he hardly knows my Face , needs none of my Defence , and I heartily beg his Pardon for the Sawciness of the Attempt ; it was not to get Bread , but that proves it self , for I conceal my Name , that I may not lose my Curacy ; yet could the Age bear plain dealing as well from a poor Priest , as from a generous Poet , I would soon be known : for tho no Man who has so little , is so little concern'd about getting more , yet I am not of so poor a Spirit neither , but that I could pati divitias , suffer to have my Commons mended . You call'd to my mind t'other day [ I thank you ] this excellent Proverb , Wisdom is good with an Inheritance ; take me a disputing the Inspiration of the Author , and tell my Friends , a kind Wish is too good for me . As to the Reasons and Arguments which I have used against the Libeller , I doubt not but that they will appear to the impartial Reader , plain , strong and convincing ; but whether my Readers be impartial , or biass'd , 't is all one to me , I shall be as well satisfied in angring a Zealot for Priest-craft , as in pleasing an honest Enquirer after , and Lover of Truth . My Stile is careless , but I hope intelligible , it should have been quick and sharp , but you forbad it , wherein you were to blame . For , 1. The lewd Libeller is the most virulent and audacious that ever wrote . 2. His Friends among us , that are most fierce for securing the Trade of Priest-craft , are least concern'd for the Honour of God , in restraining vile Immoralities . 3. I never yet knew nor heard of a Zealot for Priest-craft , but the same was , as the Libeller , an Impugner of the Right and Title of King William to the Crown . Now , Sir , what do you think of your self , that would have me deal gently with Men that blaspheme both God , and the King ? Do you think your good Nature will bear you out ? I hope you are not hedging in an Interest against the Return of Popery and Slavery , which , since the Reduction of Namur , even the Jacobites are grown weary of expecting . I know not what to say to you , but for once , since I have comply'd with the excess of your Humanity , if the World will forgive my fault , I will forgive yours ; nay , and be so liberally obliging to you , as to lend an Ear to your softer Counsels another time . So fare you well . Nov. 4. 1695. A REPLY TO THE Anonymous Edinburgh Libeller , Wherein the Honourable Sir R. H's History of Religion is vindicated from the invidious , and unreasonable Exceptions of Priest-Craft . Also some Right done to that great and good Man Dr. Tillotson , late Arch-bishop of Canterbury . And a Word offer'd in Defence of his surviving Friend , the Eminent Bishop of Salisbury . Printed in the Year , 1696. HAving lately had sight of a Libel , said to be printed at Edinburgh , and forg'd by a true Son of the Church , [ so the Author would have it believ'd ] I congratulate Sir R. H. the being plentifully rail'd at , in so good Company as the late Arch-bishop , a Prelate of the most consummate Worth that ever sat on the Throne of Canterbury , and the learned Bishop Burnet , to whose singular Merits , the English may well forgive the flagitious Attempts of hundreds of his Country-men , provided there be never an Edinburgh Libeller among them . Were I the Praeceptor intrusted with the breeding of a hopeful young Gentleman , to season his tender Mind with the sound and honest Principles of holy Religion , I would have him carefully read Arch-bishop Tillotson's Sermons . To acquaint him with the nature of the English Government , to instruct him in the true Interest of his Country , and to let him into the Differences between the Romanists , and the Reform'd , I would put into his Hands no Book sooner , than Bp Burnet's exact and faithful History of the Reformation : and to teach him to distinguish Truth from Falshood , [ that so he might happily conjoin the Christian and the Philosopher , which is impossible to be done , but by a free use of Reason , and an unaw'd Examination of the Grounds of what is commonly receiv'd ] Sir R. H. should be none of the last Examples , which I would propose for his Imitation ; for as every Man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own Lust , so every Man is cheated , when he is misled by his own Credulity . That part of the infamous Libel , on which I shall chiefly reflect , is call'd a Supplement . A Supplement , bless us ! and yet the two former carried convitiorum plaustra , Waggon-loads of Slander ; such store of Lies quantum in Acheronte mortuorum est , the dead may as easily be numbred : I will make him swallow some , and let things take their course ; for who can forbear his Amen to the Bilbo-prayer , Rumpatur quisquis rumpitur invidia , Let Envy burst the Male-content with its rank poisonous Plethory . When Caiaphas told the Chief Priests and Pharisees , It is expedient that one Man should die for the People , he prophesied , tho he did not know it , and his words were true in a sense which he never intended : So our true Son , but of the Lord knows what Church , [ I am sure of no Church under the King of England's Dominions ] speaks more Truth in his first Paragraph , than in all his Work beside . Some of his words are these , The History of Religion gives a like account of Religion as Dr. Tillotson , and quotes him with great Applause , as the true Pattern of Orthodox Divinity , and much in the Doctor 's Stile and Air. If Sir R. H. in his History gives such an account of Religion as the ABp does in his Sermon , what good Christian , or what but morally honest Deist , would offer to open his Mouth against it ? If the honourable Lay-man quotes the venerable Prelate with great Applause , as the true Pattern of Orthodox Divinity ; who , but an inveterate Schismatical Non-juror , would be so contemptibly foolish , as to accuse him of want of Reverence to Priests because of their Character ? and if the History of Religion be wrote in the Stile and Air of the Arch-bishop , then all ingenious and discerning Men will confess , that it has , beside the usefulness of its excellent Matter , all the happy accession of winning Ornament , which Wit and Words can give it . Naturalists say , that venomous Serpents carry their Antidote with them , but this foolish pestiferous Animal presents his Antidote first ; so that his Poison is like to have no effect on his Readers . Sir R. H. he lastly saith , ridicules all Reveal'd Religion , and turns it into what he calls Priest-craft . Whereas 't is that Gentleman's form'd Design to separate Religion both Natural and Reveal'd from Priest-craft . He is concern'd that there should be any Knaves among the Priests , and so many Fools among the People ; wherefore he does his part , to instruct the one , and convince the other : and tho there be little hopes , that Argument should prevail much upon the latter , who by their Craft maintain their Pride , their Power , and Luxury , yet by making the former wiser , these may chance to be brought to something of Reason . The Libeller hopes to detract from Sir R.H. by accusing him of having borrow'd his History , from a Work of Mr. Blount's : In Answer to this I note , that neither of those Gentlemen pretend to invent their Matter , and since they treat of one and the same Subject , it is not strange , if they make some the same Observations . I wish the former had publish'd none , but wherein the latter does agree with him . As for the latter , he has through a long course of Life , shown a steddy Honesty , in all his Writings , a solid Judgment ; and whosoever has Wit enough to lend , he has no need to borrow . He adorns his Subject with that just reasoning and proper method , with that Manly Stile and agreeable turns of Ingenuity , which must needs win the Heart and convince the Understanding of every Reader , that is not interestedly obstinate , nor naturally stupid : And then , without giving any just cause of Offence , [ which it is to be confess'd Mr. Blount has done ] he entertains us delightfully and usefully on several Topics , that are not to be met with in the Great Diana . Had Mr. Blount but borrow'd from Sir R. H. and confin'd his Wit to Sir Robert's juster reasonings , his Fame also might have defied the impotent Malice of the Libeller . But the Libeller is no Borrower ; what he says of them , whom he has chose to hate , is pure Invention , so false , that no body could have the Impudence to say it before him ; and tho there is a wonderful variety of false Doctrines preach'd up and down in the World , yet he has advanc'd some new , and is gone beyond his best-worst Masters . I shall take notice of the Particulars as I meet them . But when he reproaches Mr. Blount for an Atheist , [ whom I will not vindicate , tho I think him but a Deist , which is no good Character neither for one bred up in the Christian Religion , and capable of examining the Grounds of it ] and tells of his Intimacy with Dr. Tillotson , the Reader cannot but be amaz'd at the senseless Calumny . There 's an ironical way of Commendation , whereby the Person commended is expos'd to Contempt and Scorn ; and there 's a witless way of railing , whereby a spiteful Wretch destroys his own Credit . Machiavel has abus'd the Libeller with his villanous false Axiom , Fortiter calumniare , aliquid saltem adhaerebit ; for 'gainst a Man generally well spoken of , much seen , and long tried , a subtle Whisper might chance to create unjust Suspicions , but heavy loads of odious Calumnies flung at such a one will not leave a Blemish . It is possible that a gawdy Atheist , or a scandalous Non-juror might sometimes obtrude an unwelcome Visit on Arch-bishop Tillotson ; but he must have been a Man truly vertuous , and in all probability not meanly learn'd , that could have an Intimacy with him : for tho his Grace was as easy of Access , as Business , Civility , or Charity requir'd him ; yet he receiv'd none but the best , the bravest , and most knowing into his Bosom . A just Defence of this famous and incomparable Prelate , I wish well to , but have not the happy Leisure , nor just Ability which the Work requires ; yet that the Defamatory Libeller may not triumph in his Iniquity , I will examine his Supplement further than I intended . So then , before I do that Right , which was my first Intention , to Sir R. H. I must reprove the Libeller for his unchristian and injurious Treatment of Arch-bishop Tillotson : and that no just occasion of Offence may be given to any sincere Christian , I must premise , that the Libeller has so twisted his Objections against the Arch-bishop , with those against Mr. Blount , that there 's no avoiding some Defence of that unfortunate Gentleman ; but as for his Theistical , or Atheistical Notions , [ if he has any such ] God forbid that I should offer the least word in Defence of them . If Mr. Blount meant thrô the Heathen Sacrifices , to wound those of Moses , he is to be condemn'd for it ; but this thing he says well , that the Heathen Sacrifices ought no more to be spar'd , for their Resemblance to the Sacrifice of Moses , than a Criminal ought to be pardon'd for wearing the same colour'd Garments as the Judg : I add , than a treacherous Coward ought to be pardon'd for his blew Coat , or a non-swearing Parson pardon'd his cursing the King for his cursing the Unitarians also , under the invidious Name of Socinians . The Libeller affirms , that Mr. Blount builds on the same Foundation as Dr. Tillotson in his Sermon of Sacrifices , &c. tho he does not go the length of his Master Dr. Tillotson . Now what if Mr. Blount does build on the same Foundation as Dr. Tillotson ? I hope he is not to be blam'd for that , unless it can be prov'd , that the Doctor 's Foundation is weak : and if Mr. Blount goes not the same length as Dr. Tillotson , that 's no Reproach to the Doctor , unless it can be shown , that he went beyond the even measures of just reasoning : and to suppose that both these do really look upon Sacrifice as a Human Invention , can the Libeller produce a Divine Command instituting and requiring the same ? if he can , let him rail and spare not , otherwise it is plain , he rails , because it is easier for a Man of his Parts and Principles , to rail than argue . But that Dr. Tillotson speaks of reveal'd Religion , as a Human Invention , that 's a Devilish Invention of the Libeller . There be Religions in the World , the greatest part of which is Human Invention , and the Revelation pretended , a Pretence and no more ; but that the Revelations made to Moses , or those imparted to the World by the Ministry of Jesus Christ , were Inventions of Men , this the Arch-bishop has not said , no , nor so much as intimated : had the Libeller himself but imagin'd , that the Arch-bishop had intimated so much , he would not have fail'd to point out the place ; but the Arch-bishop not giving him the occasion to belie him plausibly , he does it roundly and boldly , not doubting but that a foolish Jacobite of no Faith , will believe a lying Jacobite of no Conscience at any time . But whereas the Libeller reviles the Arch-bishop for what he has taught , now on this Article , now on that , without Order , or Art , after a desultory manner , familiar to frantick Enthusiasts , as his Spirit mov'd him , and ill Language came in his way ; I think it more becoming for me to propose something of Method , and so to consider , 1. What the Libeller in his Supplement objects against the Arch-bishop , concerning the Original of Sacrifice . 2. Concerning the Sacrifice of Christ. 3. Concerning future Punishments . On the first Topic , the Arch-bishop is blam'd for teaching , in his Sermon of the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ , That a very great part of the Jewish Religion which was instituted by God himself , seems to have been a plain Condescension to the general Apprehension of Mankind concerning the way of appeasing the offended Deity with Sacrifices . This the Libeller pronounces a most irrational and blasphemous Account of Christ's Sacrifice and Death ; but , say I , 't is no Account at all of the Sacrifice and Death of Christ , being only a short Digression from that Subject . They that hir'd this Fellow to write against the Arch-bishop , hir'd him for the sake of his Impudence , not for any great Cunning to varnish his Scandal , and give it the Air of Probability . The general apprehension of Mankind concerning Sacrifice , and the Condescension of God to the Jews might properly enough be used by way of Exordium to a Discourse concerning the Sacrifice and Death of Christ , or brought in by way of Similitude , as they are by the Arch-bishop ; the Reader may peruse the whole Paragraph , which begins thus , And indeed a very great part of the Jewish Religion , &c. He that cannot distinguish the general Apprehension of Mankind , and the Condescension of God to the Jews , from the particular Sacrifice and Death of Christ , was never made to decide a controverted difficult Question , but to be laugh'd at for medling with that he does not understand , tho a Malapert Ignoramus should not scape so neither ; and therefore I shall give him some farther Correction before he and I part . In the Paragraph of the Arch-bishop , cited and reprov'd by the Libeller , there are two things to be distinctly consider'd : 1. The general Apprehension of Mankind concerning the appeasing God by Sacrifice . 2. God's Condescension to the Jews , who were , with the rest of Mankind , possess'd by that Apprehension . 1. The general Apprehension , &c. p. 9. the Arch-bishop calls it , a certain Apprehension and Perswasion , which had very early and universally obtain'd among Mankind ; only he will not determine , p. 10. whether it had its rise from Divine Revelation , or otherwise . But the Libeller , like that sort of Person , whose way is to rage , and be confident , positively affirms , that there is nothing more plain , than how the Heathen came to the Knowledg of Sacrifice , viz. that Cain , tho he corrupted the true Religion , yet preserv'd the Institution and deriv'd the Worship of Sacrifices to his Posterity . So pag. 27. and p. 5. in his Charge of Socinianism against the Arch-bishop consider'd , he doubts not to affirm , that Sacrifice was commanded by God to Adam , and that all the Christian World have hitherto believ'd , that God reveal'd to Adam his Pleasure concerning that Worship . Of which two things , the former is at least suspicious , but the latter is notoriously false , and he knows it . To take off all Suspicion from the former , let the Libeller , if he can , produce one Text of Scripture , where the least mention is made of any Law imposing the Worship of Sacrifice given to Adam , Abel , or Cain , Noah , Abraham , his Patriarchal Progeny , or any Man whatsoever , before the days of Moses : but instead of that , he gives his suspicious Assertion all the Air of a presumptuous Boldness , not so much as pretending an Argument , by way of Consequence remote , in favour of it : for it is not enough for him , with the rest of Mankind , to be liable to Mistakes , unless he also lets his Reader see , that he judges of Truth by his vitious Interests , by his Passions and Affections , by his sick Prejudices , and malicious Distaste ; yet I will not take the advantage of his leaving his Magisterial Sayings to shift for themselves , but fairly consider what Men of better Temper , more Sense and greater Learning , who have happen'd erroneously to say the same , were wont to plead in defence of their so doing . 1. They were wont to cite Heb. 11.4 . By Faith Abel offer'd unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain . And hence to plead thus ; Divine Faith relies upon Divine Revelation : if Abel by Faith offer'd , then he , or his Father had an immediate Revelation from God , requiring that Service . But why that Consequence ? for is it not enough to raise the Gift of Abel to the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a greater Sacrifice , i. e. in the acceptation of God , than Cain's ; if it proceeded from a truly pious Affection , and a firm Perswasion that God would amply reward him , for his testifying his Obedience , in such Instances , as he found himself oblig'd to by his Reason . Reason was a Digest or Body of Laws , which we know that God did give to Adam ; but , that God gave him any other , that we do not know . It is not unreasonable to think , that Natural Reason might lead Abel to sacrifice , that Natural Reason might beget in Abel a Perswasion , how God would graciously reward that pious Affection , which he sought to testify by Sacrifice ; such Perswasion is the same thing as Faith , tho not as Mosaical Faith , nor Christian Faith. He that cometh to God , must believe that he is , and that he is a Rewarder : Indeed the Object of Faith grows wider , according to the compass which Revelation gives it , but still 't is Faith in God to believe that , which Reason judges to be highly probable . But further , to show the Weakness of the Consequence drawn from this Text , it may be consider'd , that in the same , Abel's Sacrifices are called Gifts , which intimates , that they were voluntary Offerings , which proceeded purely from his own Inclination and Choice , and not from any express Law , any positive Command which required them at his Hands ; nor is it of small moment to note , that the Acceptation which Abel's Sacrifice found with God in this Text , ascrib'd to the virtue of his Faith , is in 1 Joh. 3.12 . ascrib'd to his righteous Works . 2. That Sacrifices owe their Original to a Divine Command , some would infer from Gen. 4.5 . where it is said , that Cain's Countenance fell , because God had no respect to his Offering . For they argue thus ; If Cain's Countenance fell , [ which was a Token of his dejected Mind ] because his Offering was not respected , then it must follow , that the Offerer offer'd in hopes of Reward , which hope of a Reward he could not reasonably entertain , unless he offer'd in Obedience to a Divine Command , and not upon a Presumption of his own Brain . But why might not the Sons of Adam hope for Reward and Blessings from the Goodness of God , when they sought to propitiate him according to the best of their Understandings , where they had no positive Precept ? I see not but they had all reason for hope in this case , especially if they look'd on their Creator , which they certainly did , as a just and merciful Being . But the Argument drawn from this Text of Genesis , must needs appear of no force , if a Man will but consider , that we find in Scripture , God has accepted of Services paid , nay Services but intended to be paid , [ witness David's purpose to have built him a Temple ] which he never particularly expresly requir'd . 3. Some think that Sacrifice must needs owe its Original to positive Divine Command , because otherwise they know not how to excuse the first Sacrificer from Will-worship , which they think is condemn'd by the Apostle , Col. 2.23 . Now I grant it is not for Man of himself to appoint how , or with what , God shall be worshipped : But when Man , not having receiv'd a positive Divine Command , follows the Conduct of his Reason in the Worship which he pays to God , he of himself does not appoint the same , but God that endow'd him with the Principle of Reason : and tho the way which he chuses of worshipping God , may not improperly be called Will-worship , because he chuses it ; yet , nor does it deserve to be condemn'd , nor does the Apostle condemn it . The Voice of Reason is the Voice of God , as well as miraculous Divine Revelation : we are farthest instructed by the latter , by the latter we are more powerfully encourag'd to our Duty ; but our Obedience to the former , when we are no farther instructed , nor encourag'd , shall be , not only graciously accepted , but also largely rewarded . That the Will-worship mention'd Col. 2.23 . is not condemn'd by the Apostle , I refer to Dr. Hammond , who has made that out beyond Contradiction . Briefly , and plainly , where the Matter of Will-worship is unlawful , there Will-worship is to be look'd on as a Sin ; but where the Matter of it is perfectly lawful , and not forbidden , there Will-worship is not only no Sin , but an Act of Religion , holy and well-pleasing unto God : which is very evident , not only from the natural Reason of the thing , but also from the Letter of Scripture , which bears honourable Testimony to the good purpose of David's Heart , and to the voluntary Abstinences and Austerities of the Rechabites ; also the Practice of our Saviour in observing a Feast instituted by the Maccabees , does abundantly confirm the same . The chief Arguments that have been offer'd by those modester mistaken Men , [ who do not hold Opinions they know not why ] to perswade that Sacrifices were at first instituted by positive Precept from God , I have now answer'd . Let the Libeller , if he can , answer those Arguments , which [ as it appears to me ] do fully evince , that the first Sacrificers sacrific'd , mov'd thereunto by the sole Impulse of their own honest reasoning Minds ; and those Arguments I shall mention . 1. As a Preliminary , it will go a great way , that neither in the Books of Moses , nor of any Sacred Writers , is there the least mention of a Command from God for his being worshipp'd with Sacrifice . But , 2. On the contrary , there are many Texts scatter'd up and down , which declare the little or no Esteem that God sets upon that Worship . God expostulates with the Sacrificers , and asks them to what purpose were the multitude of their Sacrifices , and plainly tells them , that he was satiated with them , that he had no pleasure in them , that he hated them , &c. Psal. 40.7 . Isa. 1.11 , 12 , 13 , 14. To evade these plain words , some are contented to plead , that a weak but inveterate Opinion had possess'd the Minds of the stupid Jews concerning the intrinsick Excellence of Sacrifice , the great Value of it , by it self , without Obedience , and that God did not intend strictly to signify that Sacrifice was an Abomination to him , but to teach those Jews to consider , which it was , Sacrifice or Obedience , that he esteemed most : Sacrifice alone , Sacrifice without Righteousness , that God hated ; but when Sacrifice was offer'd up with clean Hands , he was pleas'd both with the one and the other . Thus may the literal Sense of any Text be paraphras'd away to serve an Hypothesis , but I shall show , that God , who often renew'd his Laws and Commands of Righteousness , has disclaim'd the having spoke unto the Jews , and commanded them to sacrifice : this is a third Argument , and enough alone to determine this Controversy ; Jer. 7.22 . For I spake not unto your Fathers , nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt , concerning Burnt-offerings or Sacrifices . That God might abate the great Opinion which the Jews had entertain'd concerning Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices , he professes he never commanded them in the day that he brought his People out of Egypt . O! but for all that , say our Adversaries , God might have commanded them in the early days of the World , soon after he created Man : but this of all their Evasions is the most weak and senseless ; for it were an impertinent Argument , and not at all fitted to abate the extravagant Opinion which the Jews had of Sacrifice , if God who did not command the same , when he brought his People out of Egypt , should have commanded that Worship in the beginning of the World : Had God commanded Sacrifices in the beginning of the World , that early Command must have made them as sacred and necessary , as any later could do . To abate the extravagant Opinion which the Jews had of Sacrifice , nothing less could be pertinent , than letting the People know that God never commanded it , nor in the days of Moses , nor in the days of the first Men. The Prophet indeed brings in God professing with a seeming Restriction , that he never commanded it , when he brought his People out of Egypt ; but it is accountable that he should so speak , tho he never commanded it before , because we have no account that he did command it before ; and if the Prophet by a decent Prosopopeia , represents the All-wise God reasoning well , he did not . By this time , I suppose , the Reader will grant me that the Libeller was unreasonably angry at the Arch-bishop , for not determining whether Sacrifice ow'd its Original to Revelation , or Natural Reason ; and unreasonably confident to determine the former ; but when he affirms , that all the Christian World have hitherto believ'd , that which he so confidently and unreasonably determines , he says that which is notoriously , false ; for , granting him to be the Ignoramus which he seems to be , yet he must needs have read something : Some few must needs have fallen under his notice , among a crowd of Writers , which declare their Thoughts on our side , viz. that Natural Reason first taught Men to sacrifice , which Service , when in process of Time , it became loaded with Superstition and Fraud , it pleased God to separate from its grosser Corruptions , and indulge to his People , with such Regulations as were proper to distinguish them from the Heathen , and render that innocent , and in some measure useful . Christian Fathers , and others , a good round Number are cited by Dr. Spencer , de legibus Hebr. Ritualibus , and Dr. Outram , de Sacrificiis , who all agree that no Command from God impos'd the Rite of Sacrifice on the first Sacrificers , but that they were led into it by their own Natural Reason , judging it a good Testimony of their Gratitude to God , to present him with something of that all which his Bounty had given them . What should tempt the Libeller to affirm , that all the Christian World have been always perswaded of the contrary , it is not easy to imagine ; but of this I am convinc'd , that he having belied an Arch-bishop of as great Knowledg and Vertue , as ever wore that Dignity , is fitted to say any thing of any Man , to affirm the falsest , and deny the most evident thing in the World. The second remarkable thing in the above-mention'd Paragraph of the Arch-bishop , cited and reprov'd by the Libeller , is God's Condescension to the Jews , who were possess'd with the general Apprehension of Mankind , concerning the way of appeasing him by Sacrifice . What the Arch-bishop hath taught on this Head , may be fairly and chiefly drawn up thus . When Religion ran to decay , and there was no end of numerous Rites and Ceremonies , it pleased God for the restoring that , for the reforming and regulating these , 1. Strictly to forbid his People all Idolatry . 2. To admit no Rites whatsoever into his Service that were immoral or dishonest ; but then as for those borrow'd from the Gentiles , and by long use endear'd to the Jews , which , tho little useful to the nobler Purposes of Religion , were yet of an indifferent nature , and innocent in themselves , those he adopted into the Ceremonial of his own Service by the Ministry of his Servant Moses . But the Libeller , p. 2. of his Supplement , represents the Arch-bishop , together with Mr. Blount , agreeing , that Sacrifice was a Trick , and a barbarous Invention of wicked and foolish Men ; also teaching , that the Jewish Ritual was nothing but a Compliance of God with the barbarous Wickedness of Men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . A little great Grecian , full of the Spirit of his blind Father , bestow'd this Stricture on the Accuser of his Brethren , who has his Name from the business he goes about , viz. slandering and accusing : I apply it not improperly to the Libeller ; for , when the Devil slanderously accus'd Job , it was not by falsly charging him with some vile Wickedness , which his righteous Soul abhor'd ; but by slighting the high Character which God gave of his upright Servant , and objecting , that his Piety , so much commended , was not Affliction-proof . But this Libeller fears not to accuse a Man , little inferiour to Job , save that he had not his numbers of Children and Cattle , to accuse him ( I say ) of blaspheming the Majesty of Heaven , and speaking ill of the ways by which God was content to be worshipp'd . I see a Scholar may out-do his Master , and even a Man , when he gives his Mind to it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , clearly put down the Grand Accuser ; but I will not wonder at it , for the Man that does this , has the Conscience of a non-swearing Jacobite , and out-does his Master only in Impudence not in Cunning . For this is very evident , that tho Sacrifice most probably was invented by the untutor'd Reason of the first good and grateful Men , yet when the Administration of it was restrain'd to peculiar Persons , they quickly plaid Tricks with it , such as sensual and covetous Men are always given to ; but when they brought up Human Sacrifice , that surely was a barbarous Invention , a mischievous Trick of the inhuman Sacrificer , to gratify his own vindictive Spirit : For whom will Calchus nominate to appease the Wrath of his Apollo , but some unhappy envied Sinon ? With such Inventions and Tricks as these , far is it from God that he should comply , and far from the Arch-bishop was the imputing to God such a Compliance : But that God should condescend to indulge the Jews some Heathenish Rites , not wicked nor immoral , that is very agreeable to the Scripture-Accounts concerning Sacrifice , and very probable from the Consequences of unstrain'd Reason . 1. 'T is very agreeable to Scripture-Accounts concerning Sacrifice : that the Rites and Ceremonies in use among the Heathens , gave occasion to the Rites and Ceremonies among the Jews , cannot perhaps be prov'd by plain , full and express words of Scripture ; but neither can the contrary be so prov'd , nay the contrary cannot be fairly inferr'd thence , which this can , being not obscurely implied in several places , and therefore I might well call it agreeable to Scripture ; Deut. 4.7 , 8. For what Nation is there so great , who hath God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in all things , that we call upon him for ? and what Nation is there so great , that hath Statutes and Jugdments so righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day ? This place Jonathan , and the Jerusalem Targum paraphrase thus . 'T is the Custom of the Nations to carry their Gods about on their Shoulders , that they may seem near , tho they are far enough off , for they hear not with their Ears , i. e. they have no Ears to hear ; whereas the Word of the Lord is seated high on his Throne above , and he hears our Prayers whenever we pray before him , &c. Moses therefore , that he might engage the Minds of the Jews to God , and the Ceremonial Ordinances which God had instituted by him , seems in the Text to design this reasoning . I know that you desire a God , a God not cover'd with a Cloud , and to be seen only by the Eyes of the Mind , not a God so far as that is from you , but a God that illustriously manifests his Presence , and by Prodigies , Oracles and symbolical Representations , does as it were set himself before your Eyes plainly to be beheld : Well , I know that you have a very great Opinion of the sacred Rites in use among the Gentiles , and that nothing would please you more than Religion drest up after their Modes , with much busy Ceremony and Pomp , which you look on as Tokens of Divine Presence . Now I would have you consider that God has graciously condescended to your Desires , insomuch that I dare confidently appeal to you , what Nation has their Gods so near , as the Lord you God is unto you ? What Nation has so glorious Testimonies of Divine Favour and Presence as you have ? You that admire the Rites of Strangers so much , tell me what Foreign Nation worships their Gods with Rites so decent , and significant , so innocent , so grave and so becoming , as you do : for you worship not the great and good God with that wild mixture of Gentile Rites , some of which are very ridiculous , some very cruel , some impure and abominable ; no , the Rites which you have borrow'd from Strangers , thrô the Indulgence of your God , are corrected and separated from all their odious , vile and base Pollutions , are so order'd and dispos'd , as to lead you to a right knowledg of God , which brings him near to you , and you to him . If the Reader be really free from all Prejudices and Prepossessions , I am much perswaded , that he will grant me this Paraphrase is unforc'd and very natural . He may please to consider further , that Moses in the Text compares the Rites of the Jews and Gentiles together , to show the Jews how their Rites were preferrable to the Rites of the Gentiles , which implies a similitude between them : and 't is not easy to think , that God of himself would fashion the Jews Rites to a Conformity with the Rites of the Gentiles ; but 't is very reasonable to think that God might indulge the Jews , as much as might be any ways made fitting to be indulg'd . I have been so long on this Text , which I have in great measure interpreted in the words of Dr. Spencer , that I shall but mention what others are quoted for the same purpose , and refer the Reader to that learned Author , who applies them with great Learning , Wit and Judgment , Acts 13.8 . Exod. 20.25 . Levit. 1.2 . Numb . 6.1 . Gal. 4.3 . I pass over the Testimonies of Antients and Moderns , Jews and Christians , who have declar'd their Opinion fully with the Arch-bishop in this matter , viz. that the Rites and Ceremonies in use among the Heathens gave occasion to the Rites and Ceremonies among the Jews , which God indulg'd to his People , when he had corrected , limited , order'd them so , as to prevent Idolatry , and take away several unhappy occasions of Immorality ; these I pass over , because , notwithstanding what some sometimes pretend , I never knew a Man that car'd two straws for Authority when he saw that Authority was against him , and thought that Reason was for him . Wherefore I proceed to show , that the Doctrine I am treating of , appears probable from the Consequences of unstrain'd Reason . 1. Consider the Circumstances of the Mosaick Rites , they were not such as God could take delight in , for any real Excellency in them , they were not perfective of Human Nature , had no Tendency to make Men more just , merciful and temperate . Now it is not reasonable to think that God would load his People with such empty Rites , only to show his Power , only because he would do it ; but very sutable it is to the Notions which we have of God , to believe that he might condescend to the Infirmities of his People , and indulge them Rites to which they were addicted , when he had cleans'd them from Sin. 2. Consider the time when the Rites of the Jews were instituted , for 2000 Years the People of God were unacquainted with those Rites , which pass'd into Law but in the days of Moses ; we read nothing of them in Scripture before that Lawgiver : What! was God's Nature chang'd , was he grown weary of the Purity and Simplicity of the Worship which the best Men of the first Ages paid him ? How vain an Imagination were this ! and how likely therefore [ for new Manners we say need new Laws ] that God , having to do with a People grown refractory , and prone to Idolatry , by their long Converse with the Egyptians , should , to prevent their Idolatry , indulge them some use of Egyptian Rites purg'd from Egyptian Abuse and Superstition ? 3. The Multitude , the Pomp , the Splendor of the Jewish Rites speak them to be of Heathen Original . Had God impos'd the Jewish Rites , either meerly to show his Power , or to adumbrate something of the Gospel-Dispensation , one is apt to think they needed not to have been so numerous , nor so glorious ; numerous and glorious were the Rites of the Gentiles , and there 's a reason for it . Idolatry nakedly and in it self consider'd , has nothing to intice the Minds of Men , therefore that stood in need of making use of those bewitching Rites , which might strike upon the Senses , and tempt the vain Imaginations of Men , such as sumptuous Priestly Robes , solemn Processions , pompous Spectacles , glorious Temples , sweet Musick , odoriferous Perfumes , joyful Dancings , Images shining with Gold and Jewels . But true Religion which is acceptable to God on its own account dwells in the Mind , exerts its self in Praises of , and Prayers to God , in Acts of Temperance , Justice and Mercy , this needs not multitudes of pompous Rites to recommend it : For to consider it well , is all that is requisite to bring Men in love with it . Therefore when God gave the Jews Rites many and pompous , it is most likely he did it , by way of Condescension to their Infirmity , who were so strongly addicted to that , which of it self could not profit . 5. The near Affinity and Resemblance between the Rites of the Jews and the Gentiles , makes it highly probable , that the Rites of the former were borrowed from the latter . But why not as well the Rites of the latter from the former ? I will assign the Reason . The Egyptians long before the days of Moses were a People fam'd for their Learning , and much taken notice of for the solemn Rites and Usages in Matters Civil and Profane ; whereas the Jews grew from an envied Family , to a numerous hated People , whom the Egyptians , jealous of their Numbers , opprest with the hardest Slavery , and us'd with the most contemptuous Scorn , inventing Lies to their Disgrace , and exacting Tasks above their Strength . Now a Man must be stupidly senseless , that can imagine , or impudently partial , that dares affirm , that so celebrated a Nation as the Egyptians , pompously and operosely superstitious , threw off the bewitching Rites of their Ancestors which they had been so long , so much in love with , to follow the strange Rites of their poor miserable misus'd Slaves ; he must be a very obstinate Man , that will not acknowledg the Egyptians to have been as averse to the Rites as the Persons of the Jews , for such is the general Disposition of Mankind , those they have the least love for , their Manners they least imitate : but to give this Argument its full Strength , let it be consider'd , that the Jews were held as a vile and base People in the Eyes of other Nations besides the Egyptians ; few Historians take any notice of them , and they that do , mention them with Scorn and Indignation , give them a Character much worse than they deserv'd , tho they deserv'd no good one ; and would the Egyptians borrow their Rites from such a People think you ? the Libeller's Faith cannot digest it , as for what his Tongue may say , I matter not that , nor he neither . Again , as the Egyptians were fam'd for their Learning , and Antiquity , so were they not meanly proud of these Advantages ; antient Writers describe them very full of themselves , opiniative of their own Ways , and Manners , and utterly averse , not only from all Communication with the despicable Jews , but also with any other Neighbours ; they studiously declin'd Foreign Intercourse and Friendships , and that for this very reason , that they might preserve their antient Rites and Customs sacred and safe from Innovation [ I refer for Authorities to Dr. Spencer , from whom I borrow the most I say in this matter : ] if the Egyptians would have chang'd their Manners , the Jews should have been the last whom they would have follow'd . I need add no more on this Head , when I have noted that the most famous Grecian Philosophers are said to have travelled into Egypt , as the famous School of the World for Knowledg sacred and profane , thence they borrow'd their Rites ; and Plutarch one of the many Authors who tells us so , does likewise affirm of the Jews in his Life of Pythagoras , that they mix'd many things borrowed from the Egyptians with their own holy Rites . I have said enough to justify what the Arch-bishop hath taught concerning the Original of Sacrifice ; and who is there now , that will not be amaz'd at the Impudence of the Libeller , who in his first Libel against the Arch-bishop , is not asham'd to vomit up this ignorant , false and inconsistent Charge , p. 5. This Author [ meaning the Arch-bishop ] would perswade us , that the Devil was the Author and first Inventer of it [ i. e. of Sacrifice ] and that God came in but at the second hand in imitation of the Devil , to graft upon his Stock ? For , as I have shown , the truth is , the Arch-bishop leaves it in doubt , whether Sacrifice took its Original from Natural Reason , or Divine Revelation , and might without any Injury to the Cause of Religion , have determin'd the former : and he asserts but this , that when the sacrifical , and other ritual way of Worship came to be grosly corrupted , God purg'd it from all its gross Corruption ; and because the Jews were incorrigibly fond of it , God having purg'd it from all its gross Corruption , and order'd and dispos'd it wisely , he then in pity to the Infirmity of his People , indulg'd it to them , but always signified that he had no pleasure in Ritual Services for their own sakes , and that what he most esteem'd was Obedience to the Laws of Righteousness . Generally base Men do either find or make some Umbrage for their Calumnies , but never did wicked Wretch with Case-harden'd Conscience vouch such notorious odious Lies , such broad and bare fac'd Calumnies as the Libeller . It 's plain to me , if the Devil be a worse Creature , 't is only because he has the greater Power . 'T is a Note of Varro's , which one would think could not but be true , neque in bonâ segete nullam esse spicam nequam , neque in malâ non aliquod bonum , in the best Field of Corn some bad Ears , in the worst some good ones . But the Libeller's Supplement is a Field which throws up plenty of wild Fancies , gross Mistakes , malicious Reproaches , false Imputations ; yet wherein he quarrels the Arch-bishop , or Sir R. H. not one honest , probable or pardonable Saying arises . How this comes to pass , is to me pure Amazement : if it be Fate , the Libeller is doom'd the most severely of all the Sons of Men ; if Free-will , none e're worse us'd his Liberty , no not the Traitor Judas ; for , 't is true , he betray'd a better Man , but I do not read , he so belied him . On two more Heads , viz. the Death of Christ , and the Eternity of Hell-Punishments , great Out-cries are rais'd against the Arch-bishop , but his Grace's Reasonings are not consider'd , nor answer'd , that 's not the Libeller's way . On the former , both the late Arch-bishop , and the present Bishop of Sarum speak to this purpose , We know no reason but that God might , if it had pleased him , have brought about the Salvation of Mankind by another way than the Death of Christ , his Justice did not necessarily oblige him to redeem the World by the Blood of his Son. I must confess , I think , that the Modern Unitarians have more carefully , judiciously and exactly handled this Subject , than either of these two very learned and good Bishops ; but in Defence of what the latter teaches , these things are plain and obvious . That Lord who punishes his Vassal without a Cause , or more than the Cause offer'd does deserve , is unjust . That Lord who exacts the utmost Penalty of the Breach of a just Law , is just ; but he is not oblig'd to exact it , because then he were oblig'd not to be merciful : this Argument is close , plain , and must conclude the Dispute , unless Justice [ according to the Dream of John Calvin ] be one thing with respect to Man , and another with respect to God. I will prove that the Notion of the word Justice is one and the same , let it be consider'd with respect to God or Man. We read of no other measures of Justice in Scripture than never punishing beyond Demerit ; the Punisher , if a Supream , always having the Power , not to punish so far . Indeed Inferiour Officers are absolutely bound to exact the utmost Penalty of the Law transgress'd , unless their Commission leaves some Cases to their Discretion ; but the supream Governour of a Nation , and the great Governour of the World , may if they please , forgive much , and be never the less just , they may so for all that we read in Scripture , they may so for all that we can discover by Reason . A constant unrelenting Execution of Justice leaves no room for Mercy ; but wise and gracious Acts of Mercy in proper time and place dispens'd are no Blemish at all to Justice . But if we suppose God to be just by other measures of Justice than Scripture and Reason acquaint us with , we mispend our time in talking about his Justice . Again , if we suppose Justice , with respect to God , to be something which we can't understand , or rather something contrary to that which we do understand , and that it always requires full Satisfactions for Sin , the Consequence of this will be , that God can forgive no Sin ; so that what the Libeller disputes for , is the eternal Misery of Mankind . Let him dispute for his own Soul , as being unworthy of the Mercy which he blasphemously reproaches , but 't is an odd Opinion for one that calls himself a true Son of the Church , that neither God , nor the King can be just , while he is on this side Hell and the Grave . To urge Authority here is an Argument little worth , that is , as to the Merits of the Cause , but it will sly in the face of the Libeller , who vends his unintelligible Whimsies for receiv'd Opinions ; wherefore I will cite him one or two Antients and Moderns of that Class who might hope for his good word , if it be possible for any such to come from his Lips. Athanasius , Tom. 1. Serm. contra Arianos , p. 239. Edit . Commel . Aug. l. 13. de Trin. c. 10. Calvin . Instit. l. 2. c. 12. § . 1. Zanchius l. 11. de Incarnatione , c. 3. quaest . 1 : I spare the Reader the trouble of long Transcriptions , and refer him to Grotius against Ravenspergerus in defence of his Book De satisfactione Christi , who has collected many more Authorities for the very same Doctrine which our two Bishops teach concerning the Death of Christ. When I have replied a few words in Vindication of the Arch-bishop's Sermon on Matth. 25.46 . I shall leave the doing him farther Right to an abler Hand . The Arch-bishop propos'd to explain , how it can stand with the Justice and Mercy of God , to punish Temporal Sins with Eternal Punishments . Rejecting the common weak Solutions which pass'd in an Age less inquisitive and wicked than ours , this is the chief thing on which the Arch-bishop insists . Tho he that promises does thereby pass over a Right to another , and is oblig'd in Justice and Faithfulness to make good his Promise , yet he that threatens keeps the right of punishing in his own Hand , and is not oblig'd to execute what he hath threatned further than the Reason and the Ends of Government require . To the same purpose the learned Bp Burnet teaches , That there is a Right of punishing Sinners vested in God , which he may use , or not use , as he pleases . There is not the least Syllable of what is here said by either of these worthy , learned and pious Prelates , which the Libeller pretends to reason against ; indeed their words are plain and carry their Evidence with them : but the Libeller , well knowing how impossible it was to disprove plain and evident Doctrines , conjures up all the Powers of his old canker'd Mind , the Spirit of Envy and of Malice , of Impudence and of Falshood , by the help of which , after he has told his Reader that Mr. Blount argues against future Punishments , at least the Eternity of them , he adds , — Exact Dr. Tillotson's Notion in his Sermon upon Hell. And he goes on thus : — Mr. Blount disputes as Dr. Tillotson does , as if future Punishments were inconsistent with the Goodness of God , when as it was the Arch-bishop's form'd Design , to show how Hell-Punishments did consist with the Divine Justice , and Goodness , &c. and he has done it beyond reasonable Objection . The only thing which can with any shadow of sober reasoning be objected against the Arch-bishop , is , that if God has it in his Power to forbear the executing of Eternal Vengeance on the wicked , yet it is not fit that the People should be told so from the Pulpit , for thereby the Preacher lessens the Discouragements of Sin , and very much weakens the strongest Argument in the World to a holy and vertuous Life . Had the Libeller had but a grain of quick Sense , 〈◊〉 would have insisted on this Charge , but a Bigot always sacrifices his Wit to his Zeal . Yet after all , the Defence of his Grace would have been obvious to an equal Considerer : For , 1. Who is there that observes not , how the many unaccountable Systems of Christianity , which are impatiently contended for , and anathematically impos'd by warm Professors , have given occasion to Atheists to suspect the Grounds of all Religion , and to Theists to question the Truth of our reveal'd . Among the rest of Christian Articles generally receiv'd , which seem at first sight not so very agreeeble to Natural Reason , that of Eternal Punishments is one ; hence arose a necessity of examining the Article , and explaining how much was , and how much ought to be understood by it . 2. The sense of the words for ever and everlastingly , not being always the same in Scripture , the Archbishop found himself not oblig'd to account for the reasonableness of Punishments , which could not but be of eternal Duration . 3. While the Arch-bishop supposes a Power in God to remit of his Sentence , and not punish to the utmost extent of his Threatnings , he does not in the least indulge the Sinner to think , but that future Punishments shall certainly be of that Duration and Intenseness , that it is infinitely more reasonable to prefer the Labours and Hardships of a vertuous and godly Life , before the Liberties and Pleasures , of a sinful , The odious Calumnies against the late Arch-bishop , which the Libeller threw in my way , being thus remov'd , I return to the Justification of Sir R. H's admirable History of Religion , which also I design'd . The Libeller in his Supplement mark'd p. 27. inveighing against the Censurers of Priest-craft in general , has these words . Tho they have no account from the Heathen how their Sacrifices began , yet these Gentlemen are very sure , they were first introduc'd by Priest-craft . I will not deny , but that Mr. Blount does suppose Sacrifice to have been an Heath'nish Invention introduc'd by Priest-craft ; but for all that the Arch-bishop , or Sir R. H. has said , Sacrifice may owe its first Original to the natural Reason of pious good Men in the Infancy of the World ; only they both were perswaded , that a great deal of Priest-craft was early super-induc'd by the Sacerdotal Administrators , of which Sir R. H. has taken but very sparing notice . Upon King Charles his Restoration , a certain eminent Doctor appearing in the Chappel at White-Hall , a Noble Lord ask'd his Majesty , why he would suffer that Person to appear there , who had decypher'd his Father's Letters taken at Naseby ; the King replied , Man ! I ought to thank him for those he did not decypher : And ought not the Libeller to have thank'd Sir R. H. for the many scandalous Instances of Priest-craft , which he has so obligingly past over in silence . As to the Particular of Sacrifice [ which tho the Priests did not invent , yet they early made their Markets on 't ] we read even in the Old Testament , that the Jewish Administrators of it , were not contented with that share of Honour and Maintenance which was legally alloted them ; and the Votaries of the fair Sex , had something to complain of of another nature , witness the Story of Hophni and Phineas : the Romish Priests have copied this lewder Craft , and yet there 's not a word concerning it in all the History of Religion . As to that Accusation , that Mr. Blount and Sir R. H. do not agree in the Accounts which they give of the Original of Idolatry , I ask , will the Libeller prove thence , that Sir R. H. took his History out of Mr. Blount's Diana , or will he prove thence , that Idolatry is neither State-craft nor Priest-craft ? But how do Mr. Blount and Sir R. H. differ in the Accounts which they give of the Original of Idolatry ? Why , he says , that Mr. Blount makes Idolatry to be the Invention of Kings , Sir R. H. of Priests . But , as his manner is , he belies them both : Sir R. H's words , at most , come but to this , that Priests promoted Idolatry , that they got by it , that it seems impossible it should enter into the Minds of Men without some Direction and Design . Now for all that is here affirm'd , Men might be first cheated into the Opinion and Practice of Idolatry by Kings , only to the Satisfaction of Priests , who found their account in promoting it . What he quotes from Mr. Blount , is no more than that the Primitive Institution of Idolatry receiv'd its Birth from Princes , at whose Charge it was afterwards educated by Ecclesiasticks . Now the Invention of Idolatry , is one thing , the Institution , and passing it into a Law , another ; so that , for all that is here affirm'd , Men might be first cheated into the Opinion by Priests , who studied to make their Court to Kings , at the expence of the People . The Libeller has one Line impertinent , and invidious above all the rest , 't is this . Malice to Kings and Priests commonly go together . This joining Kings and Priests together is another Instance of Priest-craft , for the omission of which , the Parties concern'd ought to have been silently thankful . As for Sir R. H. he has given sensible Testimonies of his Affection and Reverence for Priests , Priests of like Sincerity and Vertue as that excellent Prelate , of whose Sermons he makes honourable mention in his Preface , and but with the last necessity was consenting to retire from that impatient Tyranny , which for a while bore down all our Rights , Religious and Civil , before it . But see the Craft of some Men , they flatter Kings , not for any love they bear to a Crown , more than to the Rods and Axes of a Republick ; but that Kings rais'd to Heaven by them , may draw them up after ; they make all to be Law which comes from the Mouth of Kings , that Kings may make all that to be Gospel , which comes from the Mouth of Priests . Let the Name of Kings in God's Name , be for ever honour'd ; but let Priests , that is , if they would deserve Esteem , know their Distance , and their Duty : there 's designing Sawciness in them , when they join their Honour so nearly to that of Kings ; from writing Kings and Priests , they 'll rise to the vain Stile of the Butcher's Son , Ego & Rex meus . Crafty Priests , like Ivy , twist their clinging Arms around the Royal Oak , tenaciously adhere , rob the Root of its nutritive Moisture , and if not timely torn away , o're-top the tallest Branches , nay tear it all to pieces : every adhering part still lives , and every creeping Fibre plots to steal into the decays of the poor dying Trunk , and there a new Root infix ; for it is all one to the Ivy , so it have but a Supporter , whether 't is a vigorous living , or a dull dead one . Reflecting on Sir R. H. and others , the Libeller says , They make Religion to be State-craft or Priest-craft , as it serves their Purpose . I answer for Sir R. H. that he has sufficiently declar'd how true a sense he has of Religion in that just and noble Character which he has given of the Arch-bishop's Sermons . But if this Libeller would fain know distinctly what is State-craft , and what Priest-craft , neither confounding the Terms , nor uniting the Sense , I will tell him . When Kings make use of the learned Sophistry of obsequious Priests to support their illegal Arbitrary Power , that Design in Kings is properly call'd State-craft , or King-craft : bur when Priests preach up Passive Obedience , and Non-resistance , their so doing is Priest-craft ; for such crafty Priests as those would not lavish a poor Prayer for ever a King of 'em all , if it was not in prospect of a mighty Protection to bear them out in all their unwarrantable Clerocatacurieuontisms ; if this cramp word be too hard for the Reader , he may pick the sense of it out of 1 Pet. 5.3 . The next Charge against Sir R. H. is this : He makes use of the Errors of the Church of Rome to undermine Christianity . But sure a Man may reprove the Errors of the Church of Rome without undermining Christianity , unless those Errors belong to the Foundation , which God forbid it should be said ; this I am sure , Sir R. H. has not utter'd , nor does the Libeller charge him to have utter'd the least word against Faith in Christ , Repentance , and good Works . It is usual with Men to be fond of their own Conceptions , and confident that every beloved Error of theirs belongs to the Foundation of Faith ; but for one that calls himself a true Son of the Church , to be so much concern'd at the Reproof of Romish Errors , argues that there 's false fire in his Zeal , or but a cold Indifference in his Protestant Profession , and that for his particular , tho Priest-craft be the thing he chiefly studies , yet he is not his Craft's-Master . But further [ says the Libeller ] Sir R. H. spits his Venom against the Mosaical Institution , and to prove this Charge he cites Hist. of Relig. p. 58. where Sir R. H. has these words , Christ came to redeem us from the darkness of that Condition we were in by strange and puzzling Methods of Religious Ceremonies and Mysteries , various Rites of sacrificing , good for nothing but to confound and distract the Minds of Men. Now if this be to spit Venom at the Mosaical Institution , then the Pen-men of the New Testament spit Venom at it most outragiously ; for they frequently speak of it in their Epistles , after the same manner , as Sir R. H. in his History . Nay , St. Paul in one place , says all our Fathers were under a Cloud , under a Vail ; and if I be not much mistaken , he calls their mysterious Rites and Ceremonies beggarly Elements . But setting aside the Authority of the sacred Pen-men , have not all the Doctors which have labour'd in expounding the Mosaical Ceremonies , acknowledg'd them to be very puzzling ? The Calvinists are generally perswaded , that God instituted the Ceremonial Digest , purely because he would do it ; for no other reason but to prove his People , whether they would obey his Laws , which had no other Goodness in them , but what his Arbitrary Sanction gave them : but the learned Spencer hath satisfied me , that God design'd in all those Laws to distinguish his People from the Heathen , and wean them from Idolatry ; but yet , as Dr. Spencer confesses , it is not so very plain of every Ceremony , what was the natural Tendency thereof to such good End. But as for Mens learning the Duties of Morality from the Ceremonial Law , it was certainly dark as for inclining them to Vertue , it was , without Contradiction , weak , and it were a wonder if the Minds of Men should not be confounded and distracted by such Methods . But now for a dismal Charge ! This Sir R. H. like a meer Infidel , not having the Fear of God before his Eyes , borrows the Socinian Arms against Christianity . To this I answer ; 1. It is a silly Cavil . Such a one borrows Arms or Arguments against this , or that ; whereas the only thing worth noting , is , whether the Borrower understands , and uses them with Skill . 2. Let it be examin'd whether the Libeller does not borrow his Reproaches ; indeed they are so gross and impudent they should be his own , yet were it worth the while , I could show how he runs in debt for them to some of his craftier Brethren , who have rais'd Slander to such a height , that it is not safe , no , not for a Man of the greatest Integrity , to reprove any the most odious Instances of Priest-craft . 3. But has Socinus wrote against Christianity ? The Downfal in Black-fryars upon Father Drury , and his Popish Conventicle , was impudently publish'd beyond Sea , by a bold turn of lying Priest-craft , as a sad Judgment upon an Assembly of Hereticks ; this is the very Picture of the Libeller's Charge : For , not to recount the Books which Socinus has wrote in Confirmation of the Christian Religion , not to mention the honourable Testimony which the Polonian Knight has bore to his Memory , even the Adversaries of that famous Man will vindicate him from the Libeller's base Reproach . Mr. How , as firm a Trinitarian as any Non-jurant Jacobite of 'em all , and much an honester Man , fairly confesses concerning Socinus's Book de Deo , that it is wrote not without Nerves , i. e. in plain English , it was wrote strongly and well ; that , and his other Books have been well worn by the best of our Preachers , and they have mended their preaching by it . But perhaps they read with Judgment , and left all the Antichristian Stuff to Sir R. H. no such matter , for they fought against Christianity too with Socinian Arms , if the Libeller's word may be taken . Time was [ he says in his Postscript , pag. 24. ] that Dr. Sherlock was a rank Socinian in the Doctrine of Satisfaction , tho he grants , that that Doctor has since made some Amends , and I think he is something alter'd , but whether for the better or the worse , I will not take upon me to determine . But Sir R. H. may comfort his Heart , for the better part of the Church-of - England-Clergy , and some of the Dissenting Ministers , as appears by their Prints , are of the Arminian Perswasion in the Quinquarticular Controversy ; and he may well remember how bitterly all those Doctrines were inveigh'd against , under the Name of Socinianism . Now who knows but that Sir R. H's Socinianism may in time come to be good Orthodox Doctrine ? 't is honest and plain , as much of it as he is concern'd in already . And now I expect to be call'd rank Socinian , perhaps Atheist , meer Atheist at least , but that from the Libeller will be no Disgrace ; yet not to create needless Envy to my self , nor bring unjust Suspicion on Sir R. H. I solemnly profess , that I know no more of his Mind in these matters , than from his History ; and that I my self agree with Socinus no farther , than he agrees with the plain and sound Doctrine of the Gospel ; which I think he does not in some Points , particularly in that Doctrine , that a Dignified and Creature-God is capable of Divine Worship . The Trinitarians have undoubtedly the better of the Socinians here ; but then , to deal ingenuously on all Hands , the present Unitarian Writers do not espouse that Error of Socinus . 4. What are the Doctrines of Christianity , against which Sir R. H. has fought with borrow'd Socinian Arms ? they are reckon'd up thus , the Trinity , Incarnation , Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ , and every thing in which is the least pretence of Mystery . But what says Sir R. H. ? why , he allows the Gospel to be a Mystery , a Mystery reveal'd : i. e. the way of Salvation declar'd by Jesus Christ still retains the Name of Mystery , just as Men , who had receiv'd their sight , are call'd blind , in that Expression of the Gospel , The blind see . The reveal'd Mystery of the Gospel Sir R. H. believes and reverences : then for unreveal'd Mysteries , he is not such an Enemy to them , as the Libeller would perswade ; for tho perhaps he does not believe them , because he has no Idea of them , yet neither does he disbelieve them . Of things whereof he has no Idea , neither does he affirm or deny any thing . If any one shall object , that he declares against Transubstantiation , I grant it ; but then that , and some Doctrines akin to it , are falsly call'd unreveal'd , or not fully reveal'd Mysteries ; for they are plain and manifest Contradictions . But I suspect that the Reader may desire I should speak home ; what says Sir R. H. to the Mysteries of the Trinity , Incarnation , Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ ? Why , he says nothing at all to them , he does not trouble his Head about them , yet he may believe more of them than every body is aware on : for all him , the Libeller , and every one else , may believe as much of them as they can ; only he would not have them who are good at believing , force others to believe more than they can , in spite of their Senses . The Imposition of difficult Speculations Sir R. H. has happen'd to censure , perhaps when he was pleas'd with the Consideration of the plainness of our Saviour's Sermons ; but he may defend himself with a Golden Axiom of Dr. Sherlock's — Nothing can be a greater Injury to the Christian Religion , than to render it obscure and difficult . If that Doctor be not of the same Mind still , Sir R. H. can 't help that . I know not how it came to pass , but so it is , he has asserted , that Crafty , Heathenish and Romish Priests do not believe the ridiculous things which they impose . But I hope that the Libeller will not make Mysteries of ridiculous things , to prove that Sir R. H. ridicules Mysteries ; for ridiculous things will be ridiculous , let Sir R. H. or the Libeller either , do what he can . Sir R. H. also seems to hint , that knowing Men may sometimes submit their Practice to crafty Priests , tho they can't their Understanding . The Morocco Embassador was contented to wear a wide Sleeve , tho he never expected to catch the Moon in it : and some say King Charles the Second was a Votary of our Lady , but he had not a word to say to that Embassador , to save the Honour of her flying Chappel , now happily resting [ blessed be the Angel-Carriers for it ] at Loretto . 5. What mean these words , Sir R. H. levels directly at the Trinity , Incarnation , Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ ? I have heard much of the Divinity , Incarnation and Satisfaction of Christ ; but of the Trinity of Christ I never heard before , I believe nor Sir R. H. neither . What new great Mystery's this , that 's come to Town , So long kept silent , and so lately known ? I always thought there was an exuberant Foecundity in Mystery , but never dream'd of such monstrous Superfoetations . P. 28. l. 1. The Libeller would prove , that Religion ought to be mysterious , because God is Incomprehensible . As if he should say , because God has not fully reveal'd his own Nature ; or , because we are not capable , fully to understand his Nature , therefore we are not capable to understand those things which he fully reveals , and which most concern us . — Dîi●te , Damasippe , Deaeque Insanam ob sophiam donent tonsore . Whether the Nature of God may be fully understood or not , affects not the Question concerning the Nature of Religion : thus much we do know of God , that he is Almighty , and All-wise ; and from these two certain Notions , we learn that his Dominion over us is absolute , and exercis'd in ways most agreeable to Reason . 'T is dishonourable to God to assert , that he proposes to our Belief what we cannot understand : and it is impossible for Man to obey God , by believing what he cannot understand ; if there be any thing in Religion which is contrary to , or above our Reason , we may be content to be ignonorant of it , for it does not concern us . But I will set down an entire Period of the Libeller , in answering of which , I shall answer the Substance of his reasoning for Mystery . Pag. 28. l. 3. There are Mysteries irreconcileable to them in their own Natures , and in the Natures of every thing they see before them ; yet they would have every thing in a supernatural Religion reveal'd from Heaven , to be so plain , that their Reason should be able to dive to the very bottom of it : which if it were , it would be no Revelation , or perfectfectly to no purpose ; for what needed Revelation in things that are obvious , and plain without it ? Concerning the Understanding which we have of our own Nature , and the nature of other things , I shall say nothing , because that Subject is now treated of , with so clear and exact a fulness , as must needs surprize , satisfy , and please impartial thinking Men. The Author starts out into the World early and young , but with so vast a stock of Learning , it would be look'd on not without Admiration in the Chair of a Venerable Professor . But whether we perfectly understand our own Composition , whether we have adequate Conceptions of the nature of things , or no , what 's that to the nature of Religion ? In Religion some Propositions are to be believ'd , some Commands to be obey'd ; and it is absolutely necessary that both of them be so very plain , that an honest-minded Man may certainly understand them : for tho it must be confess'd , we do not pay so ready Obedience as we ought to the plain Commands of our Almighty Lawgiver , yet were his Commands wrote in mysterious words , hard to be understood , it would be impossible to obey them at all : So in Propositions to be believ'd , tho our beloved Vices may much retard our Assent , even after we understand the sense of them , and perceive their Probability ; yet if we do not both understand the Sense of them , and perceive their Probability , it is impossible we should believe them , or think them to be true , which is what is meant by believing . If any one should object , that tho we understand the sense of the Article of the Resurrection , yet we do not perceive the Probability , but nevertheless are oblig'd to believe it : I reply , That we not only understand the Sense , but also perceive the Probability of this fundamental Article . For , 1. It is confess'd that the Resurrection of the Dead does not imply a Contradiction . 2. We suppose it possible only to the Power of God , who can do all things , not implying a Contradiction . 3. We believe it will be , because we believe that that is a faithful History , wherein it is recorded , that God who is true , as well as Almighty , hath promis'd to raise the Dead . So now I may venture to tell the Libeller , who with plain dulness pleads not , but betrays the Cause of mysterious Priest-craft , that if our Reason cannot dive to the bottom of an Article in Religion , neither can our Belief dive to the bottom of it : if we understand but in part , we believe but in part , and that part which puzzles our Reason , exceeds our Belief . But why would the Libeller have us believe to the bottom of an Article , when to the bottom we cannot dive ? What is to be got by believing more than we can understand ? nothing , nothing to the poor Believer , neither in this World , nor in that which is to come , but very much for the Man that coins the Article , and imposes it under the Penalty of Hell and Damnation . The Priest gains a sort of Divine Honour to himself by his mysterious Article ; and he that commands our Affections , will one way or other have a Finger in our Purses . The latter part of the Period above quoted carries this sense — That part of Supernatural Religion , to the bottom of which our Reason can dive , is no Revelation , or reveal'd to no purpose , because Revelation is not needful in things which are plain and obvious without it . The wildness and falseness of this Assertion will be clearly seen by Instance . Our Reason can dive to the bottom , that is , plainly understand the sense of this Article — God hath appointed a day , wherein he will judg the World by the Man Christ Jesus ; and yet we could not have div'd to the bottom of it , if God had not plainly reveal'd it : for the vertuous Discourses of the Heathens were enforc'd but with a conjectural and doubtful Supposition of a future Judgment , it was the Man Christ Jesus who openly and assuredly proclaim'd that Doctrine , and God Almighty credited his Testimony with Signs and Wonders , above the ordinary Power of Nature ; nay as a satisfactory Earnest of the general Resurrection , Christ in his Life-time rais'd one or two from the dead , and together with himself , many others also did arise from Death . That we now know , there will be a Resurrection , and a Day of Judgment , does not prove we could have known it without Revelation : but , that we could not have known it without Revelation , plainly proves , that it was reveal'd to good purpose ; and tho Revelation be not necessary in things plain and obvious , yet it was necessary in things not plain , to make them plain ; and it is not the part of a Minister of the Gospel to obscure the Doctrines and Notions which his Master made plain and certain . I did not think to have taken the Libeller to task , for any other of his wild Talk about Mystery , because all the common Mistakes on that Topick are so manifestly discover'd by a very great Master , that I do not expect a Man of Reputation will in haste venture a Defence against him . But one artificial pleasant stroke I must not balk . A Mystery [ says the Libeller , defining it like a Logician ] is not that whereof we know nothing at all . But I will dispute with him this his Negative Definition , and prove , that if that , to which he gives the Name of Mystery , be any thing , it is that , whereof we know nothing at all . I prove it thus . If that which we do know , be not at all mysterious now we do know it ; then the Mystery , if such a thing there be , must consist in that , whereof we know nothing at all : thus his Negative Definition is utterly ruined . I will load his Affirmative with Inconvenience , A Mystery [ says he ] is that , whereof we know something , tho not all . Then , say I , he himself is a Mystery ; for tho we know him for a Slanderer of the best of Men , a Libeller of our just and legal Government under King William , yet this is but knowing him in part , and viewing an imperfect Draught of a very ugly Picture ; no Man living knows how many worse Devils are harbour'd in his mysterious Heart . I am in haste to take leave of this Topick ; yet casting my Eye backward , cannot forbear remembring him of one grave piece of dull false reasoning , 't is this . Is not Heaven a Mystery to us ? Do we understand it perfectly ? Can we describe it ? and is it not reasonable , is it not necessary , that the Methods of fitting us for it , and of conveying us thither , should be very mysterious to us ? I reply , 1. This making Mysteries of the Holiness which God requires , and the Happiness which he promises , is a treacherous giving up the Cause of Religion , and a shameful Temptation to downright Atheism . A very mysterious Promise at most is but a cold Enforcement of Duty , and a very mysterious Duty is in danger to be ill perform'd even by the Man that is well disposed . 2. Heaven is in some measure describ'd in the New Testament , and as far as it is there describ'd it may be understood , and as far as it is understood , it is no Mystery ▪ the Methods of fitting us for Heaven are also describ'd in the New Testament , fully describ'd , and may be perfectly understood by any Person of ordinary Capacity , that honestly applies his Mind to the Consideration of the same ; and if he pursues the Methods there set down , they will certainly convey him to Heaven , for Heaven is plainly promis'd to so doing . 3. Tho the Author of the History of Religion thought it a matter of Astonishment , that the Humour and Affectation of Mystery should continue , when Religion and Faith were by our Saviour's coming alter'd from their former Darkness , yet to me the Reason is obvious and manifest . Crafty Priests pretend that Heaven , and the way to it is very mysterious , that so honest and plain People may be mov'd to take them for their Guides . Indeed a Man would be glad of a good Guide , when the way that leads to the place where his Interest lies is very mysterious , dark , and hard to be found ; but how should a Priest know it better than another Man , whose natural Endowments , and industrious Improvements are as great as his , perhaps greater ? so it often happens . I am sure 't were a hard case , that a Man of Honour and Honesty , Experience and Learning should be led by the Nose by a Priest , who confesses that Himself understands but little of the Doctrine which he preaches . It was a just Complaint which Cario mov'd against Chremylus in Aristophanes , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. in English thus it founds — He has his Eyes in his Head , and follows the Steps of a blind Man ; one that had Brains as well as Eyes , would not do it . I have known a Dog that could see , lend his Eyes to the blind ; but this odd Master of mine santers with his Eyes open after a blind Stroler ; and because I am his Man , I must have no more Wit than to bear him company . 4. But if a Man valued his eternal Interest no more , than to trust the Libeller with directing him the Methods of going to Heaven , what Methods would that Master of Mystery direct him ? why he has set them down , p. 28 , 29. I will put his Methods in method for him , and give them mostly in his very words , exactly according to his sense . 1. The Man that would go to Heaven , and ▪ take the Libeller for his Guide , must have a great care that he avoid the Scandal of good Morality ; for which , tho Sir R. H. has a high Esteem , and cannot forbear his strain'd Encomiums on that late moral Preacher Arch-bishop Tillotson , yet it will never carry a Man to Heaven , any more than his own natural Strength can lift him up to the Skies ; for Morality is not Religion , nothing is Religion but that which is reveal'd . Morality is nothing but believing according to the Light of Nature ; the Adversaries of Priest-craft may suppose it to consist in living up to that Light , tho they do not live up to it neither , nor indeed is there any thing to be got by it . 2. The Man that will be conducted to Heaven by the Libeller , must be content to put himself under the Discipline of Religion , reveal'd Religion ; for reveal'd Religion [ which is a Complex of the Methods of conveying him thither ] differs infinitely from moral Religion , which is falsly so call'd , because nothing is Religion , but that which is reveal'd [ as was above noted ] : for moral Religion [ to allow the Phrase a while ] teaches only to believe according to the Light of Nature ; at most , but to practise according to that Light ; whereas reveal'd Religion puts Men under Discipline , and that manag'd by others , and those others are Priests , and none but Priests , for without Priests there can be no Religion ; and to cry out against Priests , who have the Administration of Religion , is the same thing as to decry Religion it self . 3. The Candidate of Heaven must take notice , according to the Libeller , that a belief of those things which Religion teaches , is sufficient to entitle a Man to a Sect , to be an Epicurean , or a Stoick ; but there goes more to make a good Christian than so : What more ? good moral Practice ? no , no , 't is no matter for that . But when a Man believes the Mysteries which Religion teaches , the next thing he has to do , is to enter himself into a Society or Corporation , which is called the Church ; for Morality having no Promise , entitles Men to no Privileges but what they have by Nature : but unconceiveable Privileges and Promises are annex'd to the Society or Corporation of the Church . 4. That the Candidate of Heaven may not mistake , and enter into a wrong Society or Corporation , [ which would be a damnable Mistake ] he must be sure to take notice , that the right Corporation is govern'd by Episcopal Officers , who have power to expel out , and admit into their Society according to the Rules of their Charter : and the Sentences which they pronounce , they say , Christ has given his infallible Promise to ratify in Heaven . 5. That the Candidate of Heaven may not be tempted to dislike and scruple the Methods above-mention'd , the Libeller assures him , that if he does not submit to these Methods , he sets himself out of all hopes of future Happiness , and there 's an end of him . The Sum and Substance of all in plain English comes to this — A Man need never trouble himself about leading a good Life , let him but believe as his Priest would have him , and submit himself to the Discipline of the Spiritual Corporation , and he need never fear going to Heaven . So then more Athanasiano , Whosoever will be saved , before all things it is necessary , that he makes use of the Methods above-said . Father Poza , a Jesuit , is reported to assert , that an ill Interpretation may be made of those words , I believe in God the Father Almighty : but I defy the wittiest Jesuit breathing to make out a good Interpretation , nay to make out an Interpretation not scandalous , of these the Libeller's Methods . But after all , one thing I will say for him , viz. that I have reason to believe , that the Methods which he commends to others , he himself religiously follows . I am almost asham'd to argue seriously against this ignorant and scandalous Libeller : but that none may say he is only ridicul'd , and misrepresented , not answer'd and refuted , I will reason with him on the chief Topick of all this wild Stuff , of which he speaks in general Terms so extravagantly and falsly . That chief Topick is , his distinction between Morality and Reveal'd Religion , by the means of which he takes occasion to blaspheme God and good Men , and tempts the weaker sort of People to have low Thoughts of true Piety and Vertue , and build their hopes of Happiness on their Assent to they know not what mysterious Propositions . Now I will show that Morality and Reveal'd Religion are much the same , that they are divers Names , under which the same things are denoted . Morality may be defin'd to be the Practice of all those things which Natural Reason , free from Passion and Prejudice , approves as just and fitting to be done . Monroe says , that believing according to the Light of Nature , is Morality : but he minds not what he says , venting what comes uppermost , so that in this Particular it is his chance to be wrong , as when he calumniates 't is his choice . That which is usually call'd the Law of Nature , is nothing else but Convenientia cum naturâ rationali , an Agreement with Rational Nature , or Natural Reason ; Morality is the actual Observance of that Law , the Practice of all those Vertues that are agreeable to Natural Reason . Natural Reason hath been ingeniously compar'd to the changeable Lustre of a Dove's Neck , which appears of other Colours to me , than it does to him who stands not in the same Light that I do : but Natural Reason , free from Passions and Prejudices , is the proper Judg of every thing which can be made the Duty of a Man. Christianity , which is now the only true reveal'd Religion , is a perfect System of all the Laws of Nature , of all those Vertues which Natural Reason , free from Passions and Prejudices , approves ; and all those Laws , all those Vertues , by the general Consent of Men , fall under the Name of Morality . The Gospel of Jesus Christ , is a moral Gospel ; his Errand into the World , was to re-establish the despised Authority of moral Goodness , to teach Men to set aside their vicious Prejudices , and impartially consider the Reasonableness of moral Goodness . In short , the reveal'd Religion of Christ , is the old moral Religion , which careless Neglects , hasty Passions , and evil Examples had almost banish'd out of the World. But now it will be ask'd , why it 's call'd Reveal'd Religion ? that 's the next thing I have to show . And here let it be consider'd , that tho there is not a vertuous Precept in the whole Gospel , which was never heard of in the World before ; yet Christ gave the whole a new Sanction , and a more awful Authority , he establish'd all the Instances of good Morality upon stronger Foundations . The Mosaical Religion , the Morality whereof was encumbred and darkened with a heavy Burden of numerous strange Rites and Ceremonies , did exhibit only Temporal Promises and Threats , to perswade the Jews to Obedience : Or if there were any thing beyond this Life promis'd or threatned , 't was in such obscure Expressions , that 't was uncertain , and not to be made out but by labour'd Reasonings and long Deductions . The wiser Heathens , who discours'd reasonably , and liv'd well , enforc'd their wise Discourses , and good Examples , with but faint and doubtful Probabilities of a Life to come , wherein successful Wickedness should be punish'd , and injur'd Vertue rewarded ; and when they could not demonstrate their Argument , were fain to be content with this harmless Speculation , that Vertue was Reward enough to it self , and a good Man happy , even when he was grievously tormented . Our blessed Lord and Master Jesus Christ was the most consummate Doctor , the most authoritative Lawgiver , that the World ever knew : It was He that brought Life and Immortality to light , which were descri'd before by waving Flashes , by sudden glances of Rays faint and weak : He reviv'd languishing Morality by the Revelation of a Resurrection , and a Judgment to come ; and God gave Testimony to the Revelation of his Son , by Signs and Wonders supernatural , and uncontestable . The Reason of Man could not have attain'd to the certain knowledg of these things , if God had not made them known by the Ministry of his Son. In short ; the Precepts of the Christian Religion , are Moral Precepts , and obvious to Natural Reason ; but the Sanction and Enforcement of them by future Retributions , that 's Divine , reveal'd from Heaven , and confirm'd by Miracles . Having given this account of the nature of Morality , and shown what that is which gives it the Name of revealed Religion , I hope I may have leave to guess why the Libeller undervalues Morality , and extols the Discipline [ as he words it ] of Reveal'd Religion , perhaps the cause may be this ; Morality is a dry , lean business , a crafty Priest can make no Earnings of it , there 's more by half to be got by Discipline . Discipline ! Discipline manag'd by others , by the Administrators of Religion , by Priests , O 't is a fine thing ! for not only may the Laity obtain Salvation by submitting to it , but they may be made to be sav'd whether they will or no , tho not for nothing neither . What a sad thing is it , that this Discipline should be relax'd now ! how will the Gentlemen answer it to God , and their Country , who have laid open the Inclosures of the Corporation ? I know not [ said an Orator of no mean Craft in my hearing ] which is worse , that the People go astray , or that they may do it . This Age is as unhappy by not being kept under Discipline , as the Ages before Moses ; for they living before reveal'd Religion , and nothing being Religion but reveal'd , could have no Religion at all ; and the present Age , tho living under reveal'd Religion , yet not under Discipline , had even as good live under no Religion . The Sum and Substance of Religion consists in Discipline ; for , says Monroe , there can be no Religion without Priests , and they are the Administrators of Discipline . But what shall we do in this case ? He that tells us there can be no Religion without Priests , whereby he damns the first Ages of the World , confesses there never were more Priests without Religion than now , so that it must go hard with this present Age. The Author of the History of Religion had more Honesty and good-Nature , more Wit and good Sense , than to talk at this angry , decretory , censorious , scandalous rate : he meddles not with the numbers of wicked Priests , only , for the Honour of Priests that are truly religious , he taxes the Frauds of the crafty ; and why that should be imputed to him as an unpardonable Sin , the Libeller will never be able to say , who owns , that wicked Priests are no where more severely reprehended than in Scripture . That Man must have no regard to his own Credit , who finds fault with the History of Religion ; for the Author in celebrating the Fame of the late Arch-bishop Tillotson , has sufficiently publish'd to the World , that he has an high Esteem and Veneration for Priests , Priests that are Men of Learning and Vertue , tho they follow their late thrice excellent Metropolitan at a distance , and but as Ascanius follow'd Aeneas , non passibus aequis . The coming in of King William , was a Test upon all Orders of Men , and openly discover'd who had a true Zeal for the Interest of their Country , and the Preservation of their Religion , and who were only jealous of a private and less honourable Interest . The History of Religion , in like manner , is a Test upon all its Readers , no Man can declare his dislike of that Book , but at the same time he proclaims that he esteems the Substance of Religion to consist in that , which is least to be understood , that he is all for Discipline , as the Libeller phrases it , and if it were in his power , would treat all them that do not believe as he does , very scurvily . A great deal of dull , false , railing , idle Stuff , p. 29. and 30. being pass'd over , I note , that he presses the Biddelite Socinians [ as he calls them ] in one Point , with an unanswerable Objection : but those that consent with Mr. Biddle are in no greater an Error than the Trinitarians , and the Unitarians have a Charity for them both , while they live well , and lay not a persecuting weight upon their beloved Error . What the Socinians and present Unitarians hold , in what they agree , in what they differ , the Libeller shows that he does not understand , and 't is not worth the while to lead him into a true sense of the Controversy : for when all is done , his way is to curse , and not to argue ; and they that differ from him , in what Particulars soever , shall be sure to be branded with the vile Names of Cursed Priests , and Latitudinarian Ministers of Satan . One thing in him is very pleasant , he would fain perswade the World , that the Differences between Dean Sherlock , and Dr. South in explaining the Trinity , are not worth speaking of , but only such as may happen between any Men of the same Faith. It is a wonder he did not tell us , that as notwithstanding some slight Differences of Opinion , both those Doctors were still Orthodox in the Faith ; so notwithstanding an angry word or two by chance past between them , they are both the most civil and good-natur'd Gentlemen , the most endearing , faithful , and inseparable Friends that one shall meet with in a Summer's Day . The Libeller advances a new Charge , never before heard of , p. 31. Socinian-Latitudinarian Ministers wrap up the Mystery of their Iniquity in Darkness lest it should be detected : How this can stand with his former Charge , that they would have all things in Religion be so plain , that Reason may be able to dive to the bottom of them , I cannot imagine : But I must confess these contradictory Charges are two or three Pages asunder , and he may defend himself by very great Authorities . As for wrapping up — something — I know not what , in Darkness , the Libeller out-does all his Brethren ; for Instance , pap . 31. l. 4. col . 1. take these words — God dwells in Light inaccessible , in thick Clouds and Darkness , caus'd by Light too strong for our weak Senses . Here he takes Light and Darkness for one and the same thing , or Light to be the cause of Darkness , I can't tell which ; and by the Epithets which he gives to Light and Darkness , he intimates that the greater the Light is , the thicker must be the Darkness . Ocyus Archigenem quaere , atque eme quod Mithridates Composuit — Pag. 96. of the History of Religion there occurs this word Innoscence , instead of which the Libeller reads Innocence . Innoscence being but an uncouth word , I am willing to suppose the Libeller has corrected a false Print , but then his Reflections are unjust , for in that place Sir R. H. speaks of simple Error , Error which proceeds from Ignorance , not faulty Ignorance , but Incapacity : and such Error he deems innocent , because the erring Person could not help it ; nor has such Error of it self any noxious Influence upon other Men ; therefore wholly beside the matter is that Reflection of the Libeller's — when Ignorance is set up to countenance Infidelity and Irreligion , then it is all Innocence . But this forgetful Calumniator having spit his Venom in this Column , licks it up again in the next , professing [ and so far agreeing with the Author of the History ] that he is far from thinking every Error criminal ; and that no body is more for perswasive Methods than he , as to Errors which proceed from Weakness , and have not Malice in them . Tho but a few Lines before , to point a Calumny which he was aiming against Men of Moderation , he determin'd , that Blasphemy , Idolatry , and Treason were but Errors . His Contradictions are thicker sown now , and truly I think the worthy Persons whom he traduces , would do well to forgive him , because he falls out with himself in every other Line , to their sufficient Vindication . Yet one thing I will not forgive him , that is , his blunt and scurrilous Impudence , borrow'd a veteris malevoli Poetae maledictis , when he pretends to set down what Faults Ignorance cannot excuse . The first he notes , are Affectation and Pride . But why this to the Author of the History of Religion ? who , if proud , has more in him to excuse the Fault than most Gentlemen have , and many a Priest that I know , is proud of less . But after all , he never arriv'd at that arrogant height of Positiveness , as to determine thus — Whosoever does not believe as I do , without doubt he shall perish everlastingly : nor do I believe there are any the least Seeds of this Ecclesiastical Positiveness growing in the Mind of that honourable Gentleman . The second Sin which the Libeller notes , that Ignorance will not excuse , is Ingratitude : his Note is just , but his Instance is a notorious , villanous and treasonable Falshood . So that an honest Pagan would say of him as Chrysalus of Archidemides , — Aedepol certè scio Vulcanus , Sol , Luna , Dies , Dei quatuor Scelestiorem nullum illuxere alterum . The Author of the History's share in the Revolution , is so far from blemishing , that it adds a new Lustre to his bright Honour . He that could be content in the prime vigorous Years of Life , to seek his Fortunes with an unhappy dethron'd Prince , has now evidently shown to all the World , that his Soul is devoted to serve the Crown with his private Interest , or any thing else , but the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion , and the utter Ruin of his Country . — But that the late King had laid such Obligations on the Author of the History , as to do more for him than all the Friends he had in the World ; the Libeller rubb'd his Forehead hard when he ventur'd on that Lie ; for nothing was more known through the whole Court , than that the late King number'd him , and us'd him , as one that could not be brought to sacrifice the Religion and Laws of his Country to the Arbitrary Lust of a Priest-ridden Tyrant . This lewd Libeller seems to be of the mind of an old Barretter , who instructing his Lawyer to load their Adversary with a very invidious and scandalous Imputation ; the Lawyer ask'd him , what Proof could be made of it ? to which the litigious Knave replied , Say it , say it , Man , and let them disprove it . But this unconscionable Impudence takes away all Credit from a more plausible Calumny . The Libeller reckons in the last place , for Sins not to be excus'd by Ignorance , Sins of Intrigue and Design : but 't is manifest that here sua vineta caedit , he cuts down the Hedges of his own Vineyard . The plainer the Doctrine , sure the farther from Intrigue and Design ; but between Intrigues and Mysteries , there 's a near and apparent Relation . The Author of the History of Religion rightly and truly observ'd , that the whole Aim of our Saviour in the Gospel , was to use clearness : The Libeller does not love clearness , and yet one would wonder he should not ; for he 's as ill made for the carrying on an Intrigue as any dull Priest of 'em all , who makes such mean Fellows as my self , with a very small stock of Learning , and a little better portion of Humanity , go off at a great rate . Pag. 31. Col. 1. The Libeller crowds into two or three Lines as much Folly and Fury as he is able . For having charg'd the Author of the History , and such as agree with him [ and they are the most Men of good Sense and firm Integrity ] with blaspheming God , and ridiculing Religion , which their Souls abhor , he notes , that God has pronounc'd that Crime to be Death , and then pronounces — nor would these Sons of Belial have escap'd it , had they liv'd in any Christian Country . He that overflows with such audacious , shameless Eruptions of artless Malice , over-does Machiavel's cursed Advice ; for from so profligate and careless a Writer , no Man will expect either Truth or Reason . But why Sons of Belial ? I fancy he had an Eye to Pasor's Descant on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nomen origine Heb. latinè sine jugo , h. e. impatiens jugi , i. e. disciplinae . To be impatient of the Yoke of Discipline , Discipline in which consists the Substance of Religion , Discipline exercis'd by Priests , by Priests without whom there is no Religion , this , this is that which fires the Libeller so , that he terms it Blasphemy and irreligious Jesting ; this , this is Belialism , and to relax this Discipline by Toleration , that 's so unchristian an Act , it provok'd him to declare , p. 29. col . 1. That Kings and Parliaments have corrupted Religion , as well as Priests , and Parliaments more than Priests . I find that even Kings are upon their good Behaviour with crafty Priests , but they make no reckoning at all of Parliaments ; their flattering Oratory is Mercenary , meer Craft , and subtile bargaining . That Human Ordinance , which would be Divine , must execute Temporal Wrath upon the Contemners of Spiritual Discipline : for the neglect of this , both Kings and People fall under Interdict ; and the Life of a Dissenter from Discipline , is an uncontestable Argument , that there 's no Christianity in the Country . One word more ; why is this Libeller angry , that Sir R. H. has shown how Religion has been corrupted by Priest-craft , whenas he himself confesses , that Priests have corrupted it , tho not so much as Parliaments ? I cannot imagine his meaning , unless it be , that he thinks none ought to corrupt Religion , but Priests , and Priests may do what they please with it . Let the Reader now be judg , whether what this lewd Libeller applies to two most learned and pious Bishops , in p. 23. quoted from Hosea 9.7 . does not fitly agree to his own Person , [ for I am told he is a Non-jurant Priest ] The Prophet is a Fool , the Spiritual Man is mad . In the same Section he quotes Jer. 23.10 . Because of swearing the Land mourneth : the Reader may guess what swearing he , that has not sworn Allegiance to King William , meaneth ; but the Prophet meaneth common swearing , and indeed it is that , together with the unquiet Machinations of the Non-jurants , and the Unfaithfulness of them that took the Oaths only to save their Places , which troubles the Land. He aims another Text , Jer. 5.31 . against the Bishop of Sarum , a Priest worthy of all Honour ; but I will better apply it , to crafty wicked persecuting Priests , such as the Libeller , The Prophets prophesy falsly , and the Priests bear rule by their means ; but the People of England , wiser than the Jews , do not love to have it so , and I hope there will be an end thereof . Amen . POST-SCRIPT . NO venerable injur'd Name in all the Catalogue of English Bishops better deserves to be vindicated from the base Calumnies of audacious Libellers , than the incomparable Dr. Tillotson , late Arch-bishop of Canterbury : sure 't is the awful sense which this Age has of the great Honour due to his thrice happy Memory , which makes them who are best able , so slow to do him Justice . There was publish'd t'other day indeed a Pamphlet , stil'd , Reflections upon a Libel , entituled [ The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd , &c. ] but so sad and sorry a Story is that , so coldly does the Writer defend his Grace's most useful and truly Christian Sermons , so perversly does he draw that great Man into the favouring his private , scandalous , indefensible Doctrines , that the Arch-bishop seems worse us'd by the Vindicator , than by any his most spiteful Adversaries . Who this Vindicator should be , does not plainly appear , but he has a mind to be guess'd at , and therefore I will oblige him . He must , at least , be a Friend of the Dean of St. Paul's , because he tells us , p. 10. something , I know not what , how that Dean happen'd to be an eminent Man , and he gives him the honourable Appellations , which that Learned Person seldom forgets when he speaks of himself ; and towards the Conclusion , p. 61. as if he had resolv'd openly to discover himself , he falls upon an honourable Gentleman with more than Billingsgate Rudeness , charges him with ridiculing the Christian Religion , proscribes him for an Atheist or Deist , which he saith is all one , calls his History of Religion an execrable Pamphlet . The Design of the Author of the History of Religion [ says this Nominal Vindicator of the Arch-bishop , who has one word for him , and two for a Friend behind the Curtain ] is to ridicule the Christian Religion , without offering at one reason , why it ought to be ridicul'd . Such Impudence as this ought not to be suffer'd to go off with flying Colours ; therefore let it be noted , 1. That the Design of this Nominal Vindicator , is to calumniate an honourable and honest Christian Gentleman ; for he accuses him of ridiculing the Christian Religion , without offering one Instance wherein he has ridicul'd it . 2. That Gentleman is so far from ridiculing the Christian Religion in that Book of his abovemention'd , that I defy all Persons whatsoever , of Clergy or Lay-Denomination , that have taken Offence at it , to assign any one Instance , wherein he detracts from any of the Practical Duties of our holy Religion requir'd by Jesus Christ. 3. Tho that Gentleman is no Friend to Priest-craft , yet he is the most mild and temperate Adversary , that ever oppos'd the pious Frauds of impious Hypocrites : for he is content that all who please , all who can , believe all the pretended Mysteries now in vogue , which puzzle the most thoughtful and discerning Wits of the Age , and all that shall be devis'd at any time hereafter , by Men that can't employ themselves better ; provided that they who can't believe them , may not be induc'd by perswasive Penalties to profess they do . 4. Tho the Christian Religion is truly Divine , and of all things ought not to be ridicul'd , yet some Priests for twenty Reasons ought not to be spar'd ; I will pay down half the twenty now , this present , and the remainder upon demand . ( 1. ) Some ought not to be spar'd , because they themselves ridicule Religion by the apish Modes in which they dress it ; the most of these are Romanists . ( 2. ) Some , because they make a Gain of it , by superinduc'd false Doctrines . ( 3. ) Some , because they exact the Belief of they know not what . ( 4. ) Some , because they make the Life of Religion to consist in Discipline . ( 5. ) Some ought not to be spar'd , because they teach that there 's no Religion in Morality . ( 6. ) Some , because they teach that there can be no Religion without Priests . ( 7. ) Some , because they can't dispute without bringing against one another railing Accusations . ( 8. ) Some , because they make a very great show , of a very little Learning . ( 9. ) Some not to be spar'd , because they preach up one thing one day , and another the next . ( 10. ) Some , because they indent with Kings , and give and take Divine Right from them , as Offence is given to , or remov'd from themselves . The Nominal Vindicator of the Arch-bishop , when he accuses the Author of the History of Religion for an Atheist , or Deist ; being in running haste , throws in these words — it matters not which : No ? Is a Deist quite as bad as an Atheist ? What will become of his old Friend Socrates , and one or two more generous Heathens , of whom he and many a truly honest , pious , Christian Priest have had a very charitable Opinion ? He that from his Heart sincerely believes there is a God , and that he is a Rewarder , cannot be a very wicked Man , tho it is to be confess'd , he cannot be so good as a true Christian . One word more with this Nominal Vindicator , Why is the History of Religion such an Execrable Pamphlet ? it does not diminish the Authority of the Sacred Writings , it does not detract from any Precept which our Lord Christ has given us , nor from the Revelations wherewith he has enforc'd his Precepts ; it does not prejudice any honest Priest in the faithful Discharge of his Function , no nor in the Recovery of his Temporal Rights , due to him in such a Spiritual Dignity , by English Law ; it is only out of their way , who being devoid of true Religion would make a trade of the outward Form. They are the Men , the only Men who curse the History of Religion , and let them curse on , they will but curse it into greater Credit ; the Bookseller may venture on a second Edition , their Curses will publish it so widely , he need not fear but that a numerous Impression will go off . I beg one for my Advice ; and I promise , seeing I can't set it in my Study where I would , because honest Mr. Johnson tells me the Book of Homilies is the next best Book to the Bible , I will be sure to place it next after the Book of Homilies . FINIS . 
A67141	----	A trve relation of the chiefe passages betweene Mr. Anthony Wotton, and Mr. George Walker, in the yeare of our lord 1611, and in the yeares next following untill 1615 written by George Walker ... ; for the vindicating of himselfe from some imputations laid on him by Mr. Thomas Gataker, in his defence of Mr. Wotton. Walker, George, 1581?-1651. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A67141 of text R22429 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing W367). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 74 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 20 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A67141 Wing W367 ESTC R22429 12621205 ocm 12621205 64519 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A67141) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64519) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 250:E135, no 17) A trve relation of the chiefe passages betweene Mr. Anthony Wotton, and Mr. George Walker, in the yeare of our lord 1611, and in the yeares next following untill 1615 written by George Walker ... ; for the vindicating of himselfe from some imputations laid on him by Mr. Thomas Gataker, in his defence of Mr. Wotton. Walker, George, 1581?-1651. [2], 6 p. for William Branch ..., Printed at London : 1642. An answer to Mr. Anthony Wotton's defense against Mr. George Walker's charge accusing him of Socinian heresie, published by Samuel Wotton ... with a preface and postscript by Thomas Gataker. Reproduction of original in Thomason Collection, British Library. eng Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654. -- Answer to Mr. Anthony Wotton's defense against Mr. George Walker's charge accusing him of Socinian heresie. Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626. -- Mr. Anthony Wotton's defence against Mr. George Walker's charge. Socinianism. A67141 R22429 (Wing W367). civilwar no A true relation of the chiefe passages betweene Mr. Anthony Wotton, and Mr. George Walker, in the yeare of our Lord 1611. and in the yeares Walker, George 1642 14154 14 15 0 0 0 0 20 C The rate of 20 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the C category of texts with between 10 and 35 defects per 10,000 words. 2004-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-11 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-01 Jonathan Blaney Sampled and proofread 2005-01 Jonathan Blaney Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A TRVE RELATION Of the chiefe passages betweene Mr. Anthony Wotton , and Mr. George Walker , in the yeare of our Lord 1611. and in the yeares next following untill 1615. Written by George Walker , out of his owne papers which he hath yet to shew ; for the vindicating of himselfe from some imputations laid on him by Mr. Thomas Gataker , in his defence of Mr. Wotton . Printed at London for William Branch , and are to be sold in St. Olaves Churchyard upon Breadstreete hill . 1642. A true relation of the chiefe passages betweene Mr. Anthony Wotton , and Mr. George Walker , in the yeare of our Lord , 1611. THe foule brand which Mr. Gataker hath laboured to set upon mee in his preface , to wit , breach of piety and charity , and defect of humanity and common honesty , is so scandalous to the person and calling of a living Minister and Pastor in Gods Church , that Mr. Gataker in going about to set it on me , doth manifestly appeare to have printed it deepely in his owne forehead . The words of truth spoken of a dead man , in the defence of a divine and saving truth , and in confuting of a dangerous error can bee no such breach of piety or charity , as the unjust scandall and slander laid on a man living and labouring in the worke of the Lord : For this tends to bring his Ministry and the word of God by him preached into contempt ; to disgrace his person most uncharitably , and to adde affliction to him who hath suffered persecution and bonds for the truths sake , by wounding him deepely in his reputation , which is contrary to humanity and common honesty . Mr. Wotton in his papers which he dispersed in this Citie , and which he acknowledged to be his owne when I brought them to his face before Mr. Gataker and eight other grave Ministers , doth deny the imputation of the whole obedience of Christ , to the Law of God ; both active and passive , both joyntly and severally . He affirmes that there is no end or use whatsoever of the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse for justification . He renounceth the law in whole and part , performed by our selves , or any other in our stead for our justification . In stead of mans owne workes of righteousnesse , performed to the law in his owne person which was the condition of justification , and life in the first covenant , and instead of Christs fulfillng of the law for us which is the condition of justification and life to beleevers in the covenant of grace , he sets up faith , even the Act of beleeving for righteousnesse , affirmes that it is said to be imputed in a proper sense without a trope , and serves for all purposes in our justification under the Gospell , as perfect righteousnesse of workes performed to the whole law did for mans justification in the first covenant . Hee denieth the punishment of our sinnes in Christ , and the satisfaction wch . in him our head & surety was made to Gods justice for purchase of our pardon . For ( saith he ) I see no place left for pardon , if we in Christ be said to have satisfied Gods justice , & to have suffered in him the punishments due to sin ; for pardon and punishment are contrary . Thus he overthrowes our redemption by Christ , and that Christ is our ransome , as Socinus did , ( though hee hold the words of Scripture with Socinus in an improper sense ; to wit , Redeemer , Ransome , Propitiation , and the rest . ) For no man can dreame of any other way by which Christ is said in Scripture to redeeme us , and to be a ransome for sinne , but onely by being made under the Law , and a perfect fulfiller of it in our stead . If faith serves for all purposes to justification , as a mans perfect righteousnesse of workes performed to the full in his owne person would have done in the first Covenant ; then it serves to this purpose to be our formall righteousnesse ; yea our owne inherent righteousnesse by which we are justified . Which is most contrary to the truth of the Gospell , and contradictory to his owne words in other places . These and such like speeches I condemned for Socinian Heresie and blasphemy , as Beza , Paraeus , and Lubertus had done before me , and for this Mr. Gataker did deride me , when I gave in my charge against Mr. Wotton 27. yeares agoe , and now blames it in mee as falshood and dishonesty . I desire no better defence of my innocency but Mr. Wottons owne confession in his Expositions which Mr. Gataker hath published for his defence . For in his answer to the first proposition , he confesseth that the denying of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse as a meritorious cause of justification is both hereticall and blasphemous . And this he himselfe doth in the words which are cited out of his owne papers , to prove him guilty of the first error , as you may see in the 12 page of Mr. Gatakers defence , where they are thus laid downe and translated out of Mr. Wottons Latin Theses . No necessary use or end can he assigned of the imputation of the obedience of Christ to the justification of a sinner . And in an English Manuscript of his , which I also shewed , and he acknowledged for his owne , he useth more peremptory words , saying , I dare not admit of Christs righteousnesse imputed to any end whatsoever . I find no testimony or proofe of it in any part of Gods word , no signification in any Sacrament of the Gospell , no necessary use or end thereof . Which words if we take them as Mr. Gataker hath related them , prove him to be an Heretike and blasphemer by his owne confession . Unlesse Mr. Gataker can perswade us , that to be imputed as a meritorious cause , is to be imputed for no end or use whatsoever . But before I proceede to my narration , I will first lay downe the occasion , by which I have provoked Mr. Gataker to proclame so bitterly against me , and to brand me with breach of piety , charity , and defect of humanity and common honesty . In my discovery and confutation of Socinianisme I perceived that Mr. Goodwins disciples did admire and extoll him as a deepe searcher out and discoverer of divine truth , which none could ever find out before him ; To convince them of folly and ignorance I rehearsed the names of severall persons who had published and taught the same things before Mr. Goodwin , and for them and other errors and Heresies which are therein necessarily included , have beene condemned in former ages ; as Peter Abailard , Servetus , Socinus , Arminius , and Mr. Wotton , out of whose booke De Reconciliatione , Mr. Goodwin stole his opinions . My words are these , The fifth perverse publisher of this heresie , who first openly professed it in England , and in manuscript Pamphlets , and printed bookes dispersed it in London , and from thence into severall places of the Countrie , about twenty eight yeares agoe , was Anthony Wotton . I would gladly know what just offence can be taken at any of these words . That Mr. Wotton was the perverse publisher of this heresie , and the first that openly professed it in England , is a manifest truth ; as my parallell of him with Socinus published by Mr. Gataker now in print , proveth most fully . If he be offended , because I call this errour an heresie , though he and his fellow Subscribers to Mr. Wottons exposition , out of their great love to Mr. Wottons person , and upon his promise of reformation , did thinke it not fit to call any thing in his exposition of his speeches , by the name of heresie or blasphemie : I answer , first , that his speeches which I cited in my parallell are manifestly blasphemous and hereticall by his owne confession ; and of them and his opinion in them published , doe I speake and call it heresie . Secondly , though I rather assent to Beza , Paraeus , Lubertus , and other most learned and orthodox Divines , who condemne some things in Mr. Wottons expositions for heresie , & blasphemie , rather then to Mr. Gataker and his fellowes , who were pleased to thinke otherwise ; I hope I give therein no offence , especially seeing I have Gods Word for my warrant , and have such cleare knowledge and full perswasion of the blasphemie of some of his speeches , That I did ( as Master . Downham , Dr. Gouge and others present at our meeting did heare and see , and if their memories faile them not , will confesse ) challenge Mr. Wotton and Mr. Gataker also , if he would take his part to defend some passages in those expositions , and promised that I would aske Mr. Wotton forgivenesse on my knees , if I did not by convincing arguments in strict syllogismes prove them to be hereticall : which they cowardly then refused with shew of scornfull disdaine . But if Mr. Gataker be so highly offended , because I call Mr. Wotton by the bare name of Anthony Wotton ; I must answer that therein I did him a favour . For under that obscure title , his person might have beene hid , and not made knowne to any , but those who were acquainted with all the passages betweene him and me . But Mr. Gataker by discovering him more plainly , and blazoning his armes , hath exposed his person to much shame , and stained the name and memorie of him long agoe dead and buried in the dust with the brand of Heresie , & hath made all the world see , that he was the man who first sowed these Socinian tares in the faire field of the Church of England . As for my selfe , I am assured , that the goodnesse of my cause , which is the cause of God & his truth , will beare me out , & justifie me against all his misreports . And if any man be forestalled with prejudice and a sinister opinion of my proceedings against Mr. Wotton , let him read this my relation , which I can justifie both by living witnesses , and by my papers , which I have in my custody untill this day . When Mr. Wottons opinions were first made knowne to me upon the occasion mentioned in my letter to Mr. Wotton , which hereafter followeth ; I by meanes of my late reading of the controversies betweene Junius & Arminius , Lubertus , Bertius , Gomarus , and others of the Remonstrants , did easily discerne them to be of the same stampe with the heresies of Servetus , and Socinus , newly revived and set on foote in Holland by Vorstius , Arminius , and those of that faction . I shewed Mr. Wottons papers to Mr. Alexander Richardson a most learned and judicious Divine , to whom for his singular learning in Divinity , and all other learned Arts , and excellent knowledge in the originall tongues of holy Scripture , divers studious young men did resort from Cambridge to his dwelling in the parish of Barking in Essex , to be directed in their study of Divinity , and other arts : among which these proved men of good note in our Church , Mr. Hooker , Mr. Chauncey , Mr. Yates , Mr. John Barlow , Mr. Perry , with others . Mr. Richardson approved my censure of them , and so detested them that he could not read one passage without sighing . He also sent to Mr. Wotton , to meete him in a conference before some judicious hearers , which Mr. Wotton promised , but did not performe . I also sent and desired that he would admit me , to come to him and conferre with him ; but as he was afraid to meete Mr. Richardson , so he disdained my youth and yeares , and referred me to one Spencer a tradesman , a factious Disciple of his , as I have objected to him in my letter : upon this I preached two sermons in the Church of which I am now Pastor , in the one I laid open breifly , the true received doctrine of justification ; in the other I discovered Mr. Wottons opinions to be Socinian heresie , and shewed the danger of them . The next day some of Mr. Wottons friends being startled came to me , and intreated me to goe with them to him , and promised that he should purge himselfe from those errors , and give me good satisfaction : I yeelded to their desire , and went along with two of them to Mr. Wottons house , who welcomed me coldly in words , though his heart seemed by his countenance to be hot with indignation and disdaine . At my first entrance into his Studie he told me very abruptly , that I had untruly affirmed that the whole streame of learned Orthodox Divines did hold the same doctrine which I had taught concerning justification by Christs righteousnesse imputed to beleevers . And withall he shewed a place out of Luther upon the Galatians , in which Luther denyed justification by our owne workes and righteousnesse of the law : but in the words which next followed upon the top of of the next page , ( which Mr. Wotton covered with his fingers as he held the booke in his hand ) Luther in plain words affirmed that Christs fulfilling of the law for us is our righteousnes ; & in the same page also saith , that faith is not sufficient for righteousnes without Gods imputation of Christs righteousnesse . I snatched the booke out of his fingers , read the words , which were directly against himselfe , blamed him before the two witnesses for his dealing d●lo malo , and going about purposely to delude us , and with great compassion and teares in mine eyes professed my griefe to see him , a man of great esteeme ( whom I had never seene before , but had much reverenced for the reports which I had heard of his great learning ) to play the prancke of a deceiver and jugling Sophister . After many words which passed betweene us , but in no strict forme of disputation , which I desired and M. Wotton refused ; he confessed that my doctrine , which I taught concerning imputation of Christs righteousnesse , was sound and saving truth , able to save beleevers , though they went no further : but he had dived more deepely into the poynts of justification , and did goe further , but not a contrarie way ; But I protested against his opinion and told him it was as contrarie to my doctrine and faith , as darknesse is to light . Mr. Standish one of the witnesses who went along with me , desired me to rest satisfied and to breake off ; to which I yeelded , and tooke my leave . And no sooner were we entred into the streete , but the said Mr. Standish brake out into speeches of dislike against Mr. Wottons fraudulent dealing , protested that he would never hearken to his opinion and doctrine in these points any more , and that he was much comforted and confirmed by that acknowledgment of the truth which I at length did wring from Mr. Wottons owne mouth . The second day after this I went to Cambridge & returned not to London till three months after ; in which time what lyes were dispersed in London concerning my apostasie to Mr. Wottons errors , my letter to him sheweth . The next yeare after I came to be setled in my pastorall charge , and because I found some in my parish much inclining to Mr. Wottons opinion out of respect to his person more then any knowledge , being not able to give any reason for it at all , I spent many Sabbaths in preaching the doctrine of justification out of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans ; and in discovering and confuting all errors contrarie to the truth professed in the reformed Churches , and amongst the rest the errors of Socinus : What affronts were offered me in the Church & what clamours raised against me in the citie , my letter to Mr. Wotton will tell you in part . I could rehearse many passages which would move laughter and discover the absurditie and ridiculous folly of divers people who were factiously addicted to admire all things in Mr. Wotton , good or bad ; I will Instance in one example onely . It was this . I was requested to preach at Black-friers on a Wednesday in the absence of Mr. Gouge , some weekes after I had finished my text concerning Justification . In that assemblie , there were many ancient professors of Religion , who knew me not by face , and who were so taken with my Sermon , that they were verie inquisitive to know my name , and hearing that I was Pastor of Saint John Evangelists , and my name Walker , they were so possessed with an evill opinion of me by the slaunders and railings of Mr. Wotton , and his disciples , that they cryed , Hang him , he will be hanged before he come to preach such a godly Sermon as this is , we will never beleeve that this is that Walker which hath preached against that man of God , Mr. Wotton , and belyed him in the pulpit . My Clerke being well acquainted with them , and overhearing , did affirme to them that I was the man , and told them that they themselves might easily come to be hanged in hell , if they did not repent of their wicked railings against me so unjustly : By this you see what wrong I suffered , and what hu●t shamelesse slaunders of wicked hypocrites , may doe to the good name of the most innocent , even among them that are religious . These & such injuries and reproaches heaped on me together with a ridiculous booke written against me by one Spencer a disciple of Mr. Wotton , forced me to write a challenge in my letter to Mr. Wotton , by which I at length brought him to the conference , which is the subject of M. Gatakers invective against me . This letter , because it containes a just complaint and a rehearsall of the ill behaviour of M. Wotton and his Disciples towards me , I have thought good here to insert , that the world may see the intolerable provocations , wherewith I was provoked to call M. Wotton to account , before some brethren in the Ministery equally chosen by both parties . Anthonio Wottono , Georgius Walker resipiscentiam & sanam mentem precatur . SIr , my hearty desire , and prayer to God for you is , that you may repent and be saved . And as I doe , and by the grace of God will continually pray to God for you , so long as there is any hope : So now also I will not spare to exhort you , and in the bowels of Jesus Christ beseech you , ( yea if neede require ) by thunderings and threatnings of Gods heavy judgements , proceed and goe forward to puty ou in feare , that if it be possible you may repent , and recant , and that the errors and thoughts of your heart may be forgiven ; for I perceive that you are in the gall of bitternesse and in the bonds of iniquitie . You will perhaps say , A sharpe and a fierce onset , who can beare it ? To remove and prevent all prejudice I answer , if it be sharpe , it is as it ought to be , for a deepe and festered wound hath neede of a sharpe corrasive , but such I am perswaded in my soule , that yours is ; and upon my conscience , and before God I speake it , whom I know to be the searcher of all hearts . Wherefore though an heart settled in error , and over-runne with perverse affection cannot brooke any sharpe reproofe , but will hate the reproover , according to that saying of the wise man , Reproove a scorner and he will hate thee : yet I will against hope beleeve under hope , though my experience would perswade me the contrarie , and will hope better things of you ; yea I will thus say to my heart , Feare not , neither be affraid of his countenance , though it be as hard as brasse , for if he be ordained to life , and be within the compasse of Gods election , though he be troubled , and frett at the first , yet spare not to rebuke , for by this meanes thou shalt find more favour in the end . I am not ignorant that by my former both writing and preaching against your errors , and by my fervency and vehemency of words I have troubled , and vexed you , neither would I have you thinke , that I have thus dealt with you upon any distempered affection or such like infirmity : I professe ingenuously that I have done it upon good deliberation and of set purpose , because I have judged , & doe yet still deeme that course to be the best for divers reasons . First , because I knew that the errors and opinions which you maintaine , and wherewith you have infected divers , are of all that ever were sowne by the enemie of God and men among Christian people the most pe●●ilent and dangerous , being nothing else but the heresies of Serve●us and Socinus , those most damnable and cursed heretickes , the greatest monsters that ever were borne within the borders of Christs Church , as I can plainly shew by your owne writings and theirs compared together , and would have already shewed , if you had not refused to joyne with me in a Christian conference before eight learned and godly Ministers . Now being perswaded , yea knowing that your opinions are so dangerous , & pe●nicious ; do you not thinke that I am bound before God to lay them open , and to inveigh against them , after the manner of Gods Prophets , whose fashion hath ever beene to brand lesse sinnes then these , and lesse dangerous errors , with the name of abomination , blasphemy sorcery , witch-craft , and such like ? The second reason of my fervency is godly jealousie , because I see that you labour by all meanes to draw mens hearts from the love of the truth of my God generally professed unto your errours , and that many who are grounded in knowledge of good things , are so overcome with a conceit of you , and affection to your person , that rather then they will forsake you , they will forgoe the truth ; this being ( as you know ) the ground upon which all heresies have beene builded , and the speciall meanes by which they have beene dispersed , and have gotten head , and made factions in the world , in all ages heretofore . Can you blame me , whom God hath called to be a watchman over his flocke , if I be jealous over you , and if for love to my God and his truth , and the salvation of his people , I doe bring you , to the utmost of my power , into just disgrace with them , by uncovering your shame , so farre as may stand with equity , and conscience , and by painting out your errours in most ugly manner , for the terrifying of Gods people from medling with them ? The third reason , and indeed the greatest of all , is your obstinacy , arrogancy , pride , perversenesse , fraud ; and dissimulation , the speciall markes of willfull heretickes ; all which I have good reason to suspect in you , yea , ( if we may know a man by his fruites and workes ) I know and have tryed to be deeply rooted in you . And that you may know I speake upon judgement , not in affection , I will name some particulars . First , when I first heard of your errors by one of your near●● disciples , I observed in him such forwardnesse to 〈…〉 before me , being to him a stranger , such 〈…〉 in urging and maintaining them , with no other arguments then your authority , whom he so odiously compared with all learned and godly Divines , chiefe pillars of our Church , as Calvin , Beza , Whitakers , Perkins , and others ; that he was not ashamed to call them foolish boyes in comparison of you ; not worthy to carry your bookes ; whereupon I conceived present suspicion , that these grosse and stinking sins did proceed from some secret sparkes of hellish fire , either by you suggested , or by him foolishly conceived , and that such a malicious and rayling spirit was not free from grosse errour . And therefore for mine owne better information , I desired to conferre with you , and to learne from you the substance of your opinion , and according to my small ability , to reason and dispute the question with you , if so be you held as he affirmed ; the message he willingly tooke upon him , and promised to bring me to you , to conferre in a kinde and friendly manner , ( for that was my desire , for the reverence I did beare to your person , being then , by report of others onely , knowne to me : ) But I found your answer farre differing from that which I expected , I looked for the spirit of meeknesse , humility , love , gentlenesse , and had good hope to be admitted into familiarity , and acquaintance with you ; And you in scorne sent me to one Spencer , a fellow of ill report among all honest men ; who all with one voyce , when I inquired after him , told me , he was a vaine idle giddy-headed fellow , and so I now finde indeed , and his owne hand-writing shall testifie unto the world . If this be not an infallible token of your pride and scornefulnesse , let the world judge , thus to send a Minister of the Gospell in contempt to one of your disciples , to learne of him , as if you thought your selfe too high , and all others too base to be admitted to your presence . This your doing , when I complained to you of it , face to face , you excused , as done out of ignorance of mine intent and desire . Afterwards , you for shame utterly denyed it , and sent about your disciples to disprove my report of it . And now lastly , you have againe so justifyed it , that you are not ashamed to say , you did me no wrong , in affirming that Spencer understands the Doctrine of Justification better then I ; And that your pride , obstinacy , and perversnesse , might shew it selfe to the full ; you still goe on from worse to worse , and now you have set Spencer to confute me , and to make a challenge ; whose writing will ( I hope ) be the utter ruine either of your errours , or of your selves . All judicious men to whom I shew it , are ready to stop their noses at the first sight and smell of the stinking folly , blindnesse , and ignorance , wherewith almost every line is stuffed , so miserably doth he beate himselfe , and eate the flesh of his owne arme , saying , and unsaying , lying and mistaking every point : These courses , and proceedings , whether they argue and convince you of pride , obstinacy , and perversenesse , I leave to the judgement of others . Secondly , when ( after my first Preaching against your errours for the satisfaction of some who were wavering and doubting ) one of your disciples brought me unto you , did not I then shew all patience , love , and good affection towards you ? Did not I beseech you with teares to be silent in these points , till you had further sifted them , and throughly disputed them with others ? Did not you use me scornefully , and goe about to wrest a place in Luthers Commentary on the Galations , and out of it to prove that Luther denyed the imputation of Christs Righteousnesse to us ; and this against your owne conscience ? For by a marke of your owne making in the same page , I was directed to words in the same page , in which he plainely disproved you , and this you would have smothered by covering the place with your fingers , till I plucked the booke from you . Did not I patiently put up this , though it wounded my soule ? and did not this your dealing dolo malo , shew your fraud , and forgery , and that you are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , which sinneth being damned of himselfe ? If you deny this , God is my witnesse and mine owne conscience ▪ Your booke also , and the marke in the marg●● 〈…〉 against you ; and besides , I have another witnesse , 〈◊〉 godly Christian who was there present . Thirdly , after my departing for a time into the Country , your disciples thinking I had quite left the City , did most falsely and abominably report abroad , that you did so put me downe by arguments , that I with teares acknowledged mine errour , and vowed to live and dye in your opinion . How wicked and false this was , you , and I , and they who were present , know ; I am sure that never did the Papists and Jesuites more falsly slander Calvin and Beza , then they did me in this report . If these be not the arts of the devill , the Father of lyers , let all Christians judge . Fourthly , after my returne out of the Country , when they saw their lyes discovered by my open profession , and constancy in the truth which I had Preached ; they and you were so farre from shame and amendment , that you made me amends with all rayling , and reviling speeches , insomuch that in many mens mouthes , I heare your outrageous exclamations , in which you call me in asse , a sot , a boy , an impudent and brazen-faced fellow ; yea , your disciples have not beene afraid to make mowes at me , Preaching in the Pulpit , as mine eyes , and the eyes of divers others did often see and can testifie , and oftentimes have they cryed out in the Church , and derided me , and scoffed at the word of God , by me delivered , and that so loud , that all round about have heard , and been offended . And yet all this I have endured , though the Law was in my hand , to make them be apprehended , brought before the Magistrate , and punished ; and for all this , there is no remorse nor amendment . Shall I , nay , can I ( thinke you ) in this case judge any better of them , then as of wilfull heretickes , and blasphemers , and of your Doctrine , which leades them into this excesse , then as of devillish heresie ? For the Doctrine which I delivered and they derided , did not in one sentence differ from the doctrine of Calvin , and all learned Divines , as by my papers and notes shall appeare . Lastly , for I will not repeate all particulars , ( which were an endlesse worke ) you still goe on in your opinions , and send out pamphlet after pamphlet , full of contradictions , and falsifications , as I can shew you to your face . You will neither conferre before any of our learned Brethren , godly Ministers privately ; nor publiquely before the Reverend Bishop of London . You dare not commit yourselfe to him , because he is a wicked Judge , and will respect persons in Judgement , my friends are too potent with him : these are your excuses ; and I know them all to be false . For so cunningly did you dissemble with that good Bishop , and hide your errours , that he rather blamed me , than you , ( as I heare . ) Can you therefore in conscience blame me , if I , for these , and such like reasons , thinke hardly of you , as of an Heretique , and though my zeale doe burne against you like a fire , though I cannot without griefe looke upon you ? May not a Christian Minister ; nay , is he not bound in conscience being thus perswaded , to cry out against you , and to lift his voyce like a trumpet , and make men know your abominations ? yea , to threaten hell , destruction , and all curses against you , except you repent ? Surely my conscience doth not accuse me of any thing which I have done in this cause ; I have the examples of the Prophets to warrant and encourage me , and to justifie my doings . If you will stop my mouth , you must either by words or deeds perswade me to thinke otherwise ; and I promise you I will ; yea , I desire to be otherwise perswaded , if you will but purge your selfe from the crimes whereof you are openly convicted . Wherefore I will once againe intreate you , and earnestly request you , yea , charge you in the name of Iesus Christ , that if you desire the peace of the Church , and can abide to have the truth tryed , you will cast off those carnall and corrupt , yea hellish affections of pride and disdaine , or at least this show of them which appeareth in you ; and meete me as a Christian before eight godly and learned Ministers , chosen equally by both , that they be witnesse betweene you and me ; and that it may be seene whether I doe justly charge you with heresie and blasphemy or no ; and whether your writings doe not shew you to be a Socinian . The foure Ministers which I will chuse for my part , shall be Mr. Stocke , Mr. Downham , Mr Westfield , and Mr. Gouge . I professe , and take God to witnesse , that I desire your conversion , not your confusion . It is my love and zeale for truth , more then hatred or indignation against you , which makes me so hot and earnest against your errours . The first offence that ever you gave me , was the injurie which you have done to the obedience , righteousnesse and blood of our Saviour Iesus Christ , whom you denye to be so made mine , that his obedience is imputed to me for righteousnesse , and his blood for the satisfaction of Gods justice . For this ( if you obstinately persist in it ) I must hate you with a perfect hatred , as if you were mine enemie , neither shall there ever be peace so long as your errors are so great , and pernicious . God himselfe I am assured , will trouble you , And quickely confound you , except you repent . O consider therefore from whence you are fallen , and suspect your selfe . Cannot that faith be sufficient for you , which hath saved so many Saints of God , and for the which so many godly and noble Martyrs have heretofore shed their blood , even in this place , and in this Kingdome ? Me thinks that the name of Servetus , and Socinus should terrifie your conscience , if it were so tender as you have heretofore professed . Can you hope for any good or pure water , from such foule and polluted Cisternes , full of all heresie and blasphemie ? O that you would but lay these things to your heart , and be moved ! My heart , I assure you , is open to imbrace you with all love , if you would truly repent ; God forbid that I should hate you any otherwise , then as you are the enemy of Christ . And God forbid , that I should give you one {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , or God save you , if you persist in this heresie , which is so contrarie to the wholsome doctrine of salvation . Wherefore , if now you will shew but one signe of amendment by yeelding to my request , and appointing a time and place where we may meete , I will much relent from my Iealousie over you , and I hope that God will give good successe . But if I finde you so incurable , that you will not admit of the least meanes , which tends to the cure of your soule , but will still upon no grounds at all persist in your novelties , and publish them for the seducing of others , to the overthrow of Gods ttuth , and the disturbance of the Church : I doe thinke my selfe bound in conscience to forbeare no longer , but to publish your errours to the world , that all may see those many errours , blasphemies and contradictions , which I have faithfully gathered out of your owne words and writings . And because you doe goe about by your disciple Spencer to challenge me , and to debase my calling and Ministery , by laying false imputations upon me , as ignorance , slander , and the like : I have resolved to draw articles against you , and to collect your errours , and misdemeanours into one supplication , and to present it to the Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury his Grace , and to the High Commission , that there and before them it may be tryed and seene , whether you doe not jumpe with Socinus in his heresie . I know and have traced you in all your Socinian and Arminian trickes , and distinctions , and if you trust to them you are deceived . If you compell me to take this last , and most desperate course with you , and if it turne to the subversion and ruine of your whole estate , and of your selfe and your disciples : blame your selfe , and not me . For you see I admonish you first , and it is in your owne hand to prevent it . I am loath to be a meanes of your open shame and confusion ; but if no better will be , Melius est ut pereat unus , quam unitas . Our Saviour Christ ( you know ) gave this commandement , that when you will not be privately admonished , then we must tell the Church , Sure I am , that if you be once brought in publicke , and persist in your errours ; you shall perish , and your blood shall be on your owne head : But on them that put away shame from Israel , and are instruments to roote out heresie from the Church , and on their seed , and on their house shall be peace for ever from the Lord . The God of power and strength give you an heart to feare his judgements , and to hearken to them that admonish you in his name ; And if it be his will I pray that you may be converted in his good time , that the truth may flourish , and the peace of our Church may be surely established unto the end of the world . Thus you see I have opened my minde freely unto you . If I be deceived in you , it is error amoris , non amor erroris , I will so soone as I perceive it , change my stile , and mine affection towards you . I pray you let me have your answer as shortly as you can ; if you send not quickly , I will take it for granted that you scorne to hearken to me , and despise my Christian admonitions , as heretofore you seeme to have done ; and I will proceed in my resolution against you . God is my witnesse , I desire your good , and the good of his Church . If I were not carefull of your safety , I would not steale this time from my nights rest and sleepe , this Sabbath day at night , after my body is wearyed with reading , Preaching , and administring the Lords Supper . From my study this second of May , past one a clocke in the morning , Anno Dom. 1614. Yours , if you be Christs , George Walker . VPon the receipt and reading of this Letter , Mr. Wotton sent me a Letter of defiance , and therein professed his scorne and disdaine of my threatnings : but the next day he sent me another , wherein he promised to yeild to my motion . And yet to prevent our meeting , he used meanes by Mr. Mason , the Bishop of Londons Chaplaine , an Arminian , to make it knowne to the Bishop , in hope that he would forbid our meeting : Notwithstanding the Bishop gave way , and we did meete upon a day appointed , before the eight Ministers named in Mr. Gatakers defence . I brought for me , Mr. Stocke , Mr. Downham , Mr. Westfield , and Mr. Gouge , now Doctors . He brought for him , Mr. Balmeford , Mr. Randall , Mr. Gataker , and Mr. Hickes , the last of which appeared to be already of Mr. Wottons minde in all points . And both Mr. Gataker and be , bare themselves towards me , as towards an adversary , and as advocates for Mr. Wotton . Dr. Westfield being the onely man with whom I then had any great familiarity , did perceive a generall inclination in them all , to favour Mr. Wotton as much as they could , being all his old familiar friends , and I a stranger of two yeares residence in the City ; after our first meeting , refused to meete any more , fearing what followed , and I chose Dr. Baylie in his place . I being the Plaintiffe and procurer of the meeting , did first shew what I desired , namely , that I might have Mr. Wottons writings , which were come to my hands , viewed ; and by Mr. Wotton acknowledged ; which he could not deny , but did confesse them to be his owne handy-worke . And that I having rehearsed Mr. Wottons words out of his bookes and writings , which I had in my Sermon confuted , under the name of Socinian heresies , and having paralleled them in writing , with the words of Socinus , and made them appeare to be the same , by shewing and comparing the bookes and writing ; They would give me their hands to my parallell , and subscribe that I had not either charged Mr. Wotton with any opinions or words but his owne , or confuted under the name of Socinianisme any words of his , but onely those wherein he did concurre with Socinus . If I had either mis-related his words , or confuted under the name of Socinianisme , any point wherein he did not jumpe with Socinus , I desired them to censure me . The Parallels being read and examined , appeared to some of them so cleare , and my charge so just , that the same day at Mr. Randall Wetwoods table , where Dr. Baylie and Mr. Downham dined with me , the Doctor did protest that I had discovered Mr. Wotton to be as damned an hereticke as ever did tread on English ground : Mr. Downham , Mr. Wetwood , Mr. Taylor , and Mr. Hopkins were eare-witnesses of this , and all yet living , as well as my selfe . Mr. Wetwood asked why they did not justifie me and censure him without more adoe , seeing that was the purpose of our meeting , that they should judge of things accordingly as they were proved . They pretended that they desired to convert , not to confound Mr. Wotton , that they perceived him to be afraid of shame like to fall on him , and that if I would yeeld to let him expound himselfe , he would by a wrested exposition gaine-say , and contradict his former words and opinions and run from them , which being gotten from him under his hand , they would either hold him to it , or shame him for ever , if he did fall backe againe . This course being Mr. Gatakers device , I refused to yeeld unto , because I had never opposed him , but onely in opinions formerly published , and not in future expositions , and because I had fully proved my charge , I desired their verdict and just judgement . But after much importunity I yeelded , and so lost my cause , and was drawne into a new businesse that was to contend with Mr. Wotton , not about his former opinions , which I had formerly confuted ; but about new expositions , which he would make in answer to my parallells . At another day appointed he brought his expositions , which when they had read in my hearing , I did except against divers passages in them , and some contradictions , which I desired to argue against , with Mr. Wotton face to face , in strict syllogismes ; but he refused to answer me , and our Judges refused to heare me , or to suffer me to have a coppy of his expositions , as he had of my parallels . Whereupon I protested against their unequall dealing , and departed , threatning to bring him and them before higher Judges . After that they had read the expositions which Mr. Gataker did plead for most hotly , Mr. Wotton promised to make and publish a large declaration , wherein he would free himselfe from all Socinian errors . In the meane time he begg'd this favour , that they would subscribe to his expositions , that they found no heresie or blasphemy in them . Upon this promise and intreaty , they did subscribe as followeth . Howsoever , we whose names are underwritten , doe differ from Mr. Wotton in some points of the former doctrine of Justification , contained in these his expositions : yet we hold not the difference to be so great and weighty , as that they are to be justly condemned of heresie and blasphemy . Lewes Baylie , James Balmeford , John Randall , Richard Stocke , John Downham , Thomas Gataker , William Gouge , William Hickes . THE Expositions thus subscribed , were commtited to Doctor Baylie , with charge that he should keepe them close , and not suffer me or any other man to see , or read them , untill Mr. Wotton had made a larger Exposition , and fully purged himselfe from Socinianisme . By which it appeared , that they durst not openly justifie their subscription , nor suffer it to come into my hands . And that it was a thing with much importunity wrung from them which the better part of them would never have yeelded unto , but upon promise of a better and larger exposition , and in hope to draw Mr. Wotton wholly from his errors ; some of which he had allready contradicted , and acknowledged to be hereticall and blasphemous , to wit , his denying of Christs Righteousnesse imputed for any use or end whatsoever . Dr. Bayly the first of the Subscribers had ( upon the first reading of those speeches of Mr. Wotton which I shewed out of his owne writings , and did parallell them with Socinus ) condemned Mr. Wotton for an heretike , and his errors for blasphemie . Mr. Downham heard his censure uttered at Mr. Wetwoods table , and by silence assented to it . Mr. Randall did argue verie hotly against Mr. Wottons opinions that same day that they subscribed , and told him before as all , that he had protested against them often in private , and had disswaded him from them ; and that he for his part abhorred them . Dr. Gouge hath publikely confuted them , and in the pulpit condemned them under the name of Socianisme . Mr. Stocke did ever abhorre them , as he often told me in private . And one time , I by a prettie Stratageme brought him before other witnesse , to condemne them for heresie and blasphemie . Mr. Wetwood mine host in whose house I then lodged , having by much importunity obtained of Dr. Bayly the sight of Mr. Wottons expositions subscribed , as you heard before , and committed to his custodie , did lend them to me for the space of two houres , till I had copied out both them , and the subscription word for word with the mens names , which copie I have yet to shew . And one Sunday at night being invited to supper by Mr. Thomas Goodyeare , my parishoner , I brought it with me to shew it to Mr. Goodyeare , who was verie desirous to see and read it . Mr. Stocke and his wife being at the same time invited came in while we were reading it together And seeing me 〈…〉 in my hand , asked what it was . I answered that it was a paper of new and strange opinions , which when he desired to heare , I did read to him that passage in Mr. Wottons Expositions , where he saith ; This I say , that in this proposition ( Faith is counted for Righteousnes , ) the word ( Faith ) is to be taken properly , not tropically ; and I asked him what he thought of it : He not knowing that it was Mr. Wottons Exposition , out of which I read it , did answer that it was Popery , or worse . I asked him whether he did not thinke it to be the heresie and blasphemy of Socinus : he answered , yes verily . I asked him then what hee thought of certaine learned Divines , who had subscribed to this , and other such speeches , that they were neither heresie nor blasphemy : He said he thought none but mad men would doe it , and asked who they were . I presently read the subscription and among the rest his owne name , and withall shewed him the copy . Mr. Goodyeare laughed heartily , and said to Mr. Stocke , O Master , our Parson is too cunning for you , I never saw any man so finely taken in a snare , as hee hath taken you in your owne snare . I have ever told you , that in this controversie you were too partiall for your old friend and familiar Mr. Wotton . Mr. Stocke could plead nothing but this , That Mr. Wotton had promised them to silence himselfe and his disciples in these points , and to write a large declaration ; whereby he would purge himselfe fully from Socinianisme . In hope whereof they did gratifie him with this subscription , for the suppressing of clamours , till he had further cleared himselfe . But Mr. Wotton had broken his promise , and boasted of that which made nothing for him in the maine cause , but onely upon the by ; and had requited their favour towards him , with disgrace to them , and danger to himselfe ; and that it had beene better he had never beene borne , then to trouble the Church of God with his false opinions . By this you see how dangerous a thing it is , even for godly men , to be judges in a cause of controversie betweene a familiar friend ( as Mr. Wotton was to these men ) and a stranger , as I at that time was to the most of them . As for the other three , to wit , Mr. Balmeford , Mr. Gataker , and Mr. Hickes , they were Mr. Wottons advocates , rather then equall Judges : Mr. Balmeford was Mr. Wottons silenced brother ; Mr. Hickes was Mr. Wottons disciple , one who would jurare in verba Magistri ; Mr. Gataker did more angrily and peevishly speake against me , and snarle at me then my adversary Mr. Wotton himselfe , so that I was forced to challenge him as well as Mr. Wotton , and to offer to dispute against them both . What Mr. Wottons intent was in begging such a beggerly subscription , and Mr. Gatakers in procuring it from the rest , the event hath shewed . For Mr. Wotton and his disciples did presently report through London , that I could prove nothing against him , nor bring any thing out of his bookes , or writings to convince him of Socinianisme , and that the eight learned Ministers had justified him , and condemned me for a false accuser . And upon this he grew more bold , and wrote certaine Essaies concerning Justification , a copy whereof I have to shew , wherein he denies the true , reall , and spirituall union of the faithfull with Christ , and Chrits meriting of justification , and salvation for them ; he affirmes that when they are said to be one with Christ , the speech is Metaphoricall , and that there is no mention of Christs merits in all the Scripture . By which his violent breaking out , and going on from evill to worse , I was forced to write my Antithesis Wottonismi , & Christianismi ; wherein I discovered more of his errors , and his factious and Schismaticall behaviour : This I presented to the then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury , who committed it to Doctor Nidd● his Chaplaine , who being himselfe a favourer of Arminians , neglected to make report of it to his Lord . And indeed I never called upon him , because Mr. Wotton having intelligence of it , silenced himselfe and all his disciples , being admonished by his friends of the danger in which he was , unlesse hee and they did forbeare to justifie and maintaine his errors , and further to provoke me by their false reports and calumnies . Thus was the fire quenched , and no man opened his mouth to defend Mr. Wottons opinions ; though I with many others , did often ( as occasion was offered by the Scriptures which we expounded ) confute and condemne them : In the meane time Mr. Wotton wrote his booke De Reconciliatione in Latine , wherein he seemed to recant and to contradict divers of his former writings ; but yet he vented so much poyson in it ; that when it was sent over to Leiden to be Printed , the Professors there rejected it , as being full of Socinian errours ; and ( as I have beene informed ) did also send to Amsterdam to stop the Printing of it , which was there attempted also ; So that Mr. Wottons disciples were forced to Print it at their owne charge by stealth , in some further place beyond the Seas , and to disperse the copies here in England . Upon one of which Mr. Goodwin , a lover of novelties , and strange doctrines unhappily stumbled ; and thence stole his opinions , which his foolish followers receive , and admire , as new revelations from heaven , never heard of before . Thus have I briefly related the chiefe passages betweene Mr. Wotton and my selfe . I have heard of others also , who did privately oppose Mr. Wotton , especially Master Woodcocke , a grave Preacher , Parson or Vicar of Chessam , who did in writing confute Mr. Wotton , and admonished him to forsake his errours . One thing I cannot omit , which was a strong motive to move divers godly people in London , to abhorre Mr. Wottons opinions ; that was the sharpe censure which that holy man of God , Master Alexander Richardson gave against them on his death bed , and which Mr. John Barlow an eare-witnesse thereof , did report to divers from his mouth . Mr. Richardson being ready to leave this world , Mr. Barlow who had often before resorted to him for direction in his study , and resolution of doubts , in many points of Divinity , was at that time present with him , and told him that hee had heard me the Sabbath before , propounding the Doctrine of Justification , to be laid open out of the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans , and to be maintained against Papists , Socinians , and other Heretiques , some of which were of late revived in the City , and withall desired to know his judgement concerning Mr. Wottons opinion , who denyed Christs fulfilling of the Law for justification of beleevers , and the imputation of his Righteousnesse ; and held faith to be imputed in a proper sense without a trope : Mr. Richardson answered and said , Take these words of me a dying man . I have read and well weighed Mr. Wottons papers , and opinions , and I know them to be so pestilent and dangerous , that whosoever liveth and dyeth in the beleefe of them , shall never enter into the Kingdome of heaven . Commend me to Mr. Walker , and desire him from me , ( as being my last request to him ) to be couragious in the cause of God , and for that saving truth which he hath undertaken to maintaine against those dangerous and deadly errours , lately set on foote by Mr. Wotton . This message being delivered unto me before diverse witnesses , some of which are alive to testifie it , did much encourage me , and made me more bold to lay open the abomination of Mr. Wottons opinions publickely in my Sermons , without feare or regard of the slanders and revilings of his factious and furious disciples . This was in the yeare 1613. And I praise God , I am constant in the same minde , and doe pray and hope that God will give me grace to persevere in this beleefe to the end . As for Mr. Gatakers invective against me in Mr. Wottons defence , I doe as little regard it , as Mr. Goodwins rayling Libell , which ( some say ) Mr. Gataker counselled him to write against me . If it were not vaine expence of precious time , I could produce Socinianisme out of Mr. Gatakers Printed workes , and prove him a party . I could prove him to be Thomas of all sides . Sometimes holding that the elect and faithfull are cloathed with the garment of Christs Righteousnesse , and againe , disputing against their communion and imputation of Christs Righteousnesse . But I pray God to give him a more setled judgement in the truth , and a more charitable heart to his laborious neighbours , who spend their time in better studies then writing of Treatises for unlawfull gaming and card-playing , and bedawbing Margents with many quotations to small purpose , but onely for ostentation of much reading . Yet give me leave to aske Mr. Gataker a few questions , which if he cannot answer with any credit , let him for shame hold his peace , and blush to thinke of his defence of Master Wotton , to the accusing and defaming of himselfe . 1. Question , Whether is it truth and honesty , to say that all the eight Ministers , with unanimous consent , generally resolved and pronounced , that there appeared not to them either heresie or blasphemy , in ought that Mr. Wotton was by me convinced to have delivered or maintained ? When their subscription shewes , that they medled onely with his Expositions , and not with his hereticall and blasphemous speeches , in which I paralleled him with Socinus the Hereticke . 2 Quest . Whether Mr. Gataker doth thinke that Mr. Wotton renouncing the Law of God , and the righteousnesse thereof performed by Christ in our stead for our justification , doth not in so doing deny Christ his ransome paid , and satisfaction made to Gods just Law , for our redemption and for remission of our sins ? 3 Quest . Whether mans perfect fulfilling of the Law in his owne person , under the covenant of workes , was not formall inherent righteousnesse , and would have made man worthy of life : And if so , how he can excuse Mr. Wotton , from making faith the formall inherent righteousnesse of beleevers , in the covenant of the Gospel , by which they are worthy of justification , and eternall life , seeing he saith that faith under the Gospell serves to all purposes , for obtaining eternall life , as mans perfect fullfilling of the Law did in the covenant of workes ? 4 Quest . Whether Mr. Wotton professing his dissent from Socinus in those things which are Orthodox and true , to wit , That faith is obedience to Christs Commandements , who commands us to beleeve and repent ; That repentance which commeth not but by faith , is the meanes to obtaine forgivenesse of sins which Christ hath brought , that is to get the sense and assurance of forgivenesse ; And that faith is a beleeving of that which Christ taught , and an assurance of obtaining that he promised upon our repentance and obedience : can therefore be justified from the heresies of Socinus , in the point of justification , when he holds other things which are condemned in Socinus for heresie , as that faith used in a proper sense , not tropically , is said to be imputed for righteousnesse to justification , and not the righteousnesse of Christ , apprehended and applied by faith ; And that Christ hath not redeemed us , and satisfied for our sinnes , and procured our pardon and justification , by fulfilling the Law in our stead ; And that faith , though not for the merit , worth and vertue of it , yet by the place and office which the Lord of his mercy hath assigned , is the condition upon which God doth justifie and adopt us , and is accepted of God and counted for righteousnesse ? 5 Quest . Whether Mr. Wotton doth not deny the free covenant of Grace , when he holds that God doth not covenant to justifie and give life , but upon a condition , performed on our part , equivalent for all purposes , to a mans perfect fulfilling of the Law in his owne person under the covenant of workes ? 6 Quest . Whether Mr. Wotton affirming that if we be freely pardoned , then our sinnes were not punished in Christ our head and surety , doth not deny Christs satisfaction for sinne ? 7. Quest . Whether Mr. Wotton be not guilty of hereticall tergiversation , and grosse contradiction in these passages . First , when he saith , that there is no end or use of the imputation of Christs Righteousnesse , pag. 12. of Mr. Gatakers defence . And againe , pag. 21. That it is hereticall and blasphemous , to say that Christs Righteousnesse is not imputed as the meritorious cause of Justification . And againe , in his Essayes saith , that there is no mention of the merit of Christ in all the Scriptures . Secondly , when he saith , That Faith doth not justifie us , per se , by it selfe , and yet is said properly , and not tropically , to be imputed to us for Righteousnesse , pag. 27. of the Defence ; and is the onely condition which God requires on our part for Justification , pag. 13. Also , when he saith , That Faith doth not justifie us , but onely as it apprehendeth and applyeth Christ and his Righteousnesse , pag. 27. And yet denyeth that Christs Righteousnesse is so apprehended and applyed by Faith , that God counts it our Righteousnesse to Justification , pag. 12. Thirdly , when he renounceth the Law of God , performed by our selves or any other in our stead , for the justifying of us before God , pag. 12. And denyeth that we are punished for our sinnes , in Christ our head and surety , for the satisfying of Gods just wrath , pag. 29. And yet pag. 34. saith , I acknowledge and professe that Christ hath made satisfaction for us , by paying a true price to God his Father . Is not this the same tergiversation , which the Hereticke Socinus useth ? Who in some places confesseth in the Scripture phrases , that Christ is our Redeemer , our Ransome , and the propitiation for our sinnes : And in other places denyeth Christs satisfying and paying of a ransome to God for our Redemption and justification . Fourthly , when he saith , that we are not accounted to be formally righteous , by fulfilling the Law , and satisfying the Justice of God in Christ , and yet saith , that we are accepted of God as Righteous for Christs obedience no lesse then if wee had indeed performed those things , pag. 32. and pag. 26. For ought I hold of Faith , Christs Righteousnesse may be even the formall cause of our Justification . But pag. 22. He confesseth that he denyeth Christs Righteousnesse to be imputed as the formall cause whereby we are made formally Righteous ; which is a flat contradiction of the Apostles words , Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one many shall be made righteous , that is , constituted and made formally righteous , for so the Greeke word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} doth signifie . 8. Quest . Whether Mr. Wotton can with a good conscience by Mr. Gataker be justified and proclaimed free from heresie , when he wil fully and perversely denyeth the very forme , essence , and being of Justification , to wit , the imputation of Christs Righteousnesse , which he first simply rejecteth , as being of no use , and afterwards as the formall cause of justification , seeing he ( the said Mr. Gataker ) hath publickely extolled , and commended for Orthodox , the like Treatise of Mr. William Bradshaw , wherein he makes imputation of Christs Righteousnesse the forme of Justification , and inveighed against some , ( meaning me , who had opposed some errours and contradictions which are in that Booke ) in his funerall Sermon , Preached at Mr. Bradshawes buryall ? 9. Quest . Whether the faithfull being by one spirit united to Christ , and made one spirituall body , and partakers of his righteousnesse , and whole obedience to the Law of God , and thereby constituted righteous before God , can without hereticall perversenesse be denyed againe and againe to be formally , that is , truely and really righteous , by that Righteousnesse , though not inherent in every beleever , but onely spiritually communicated from the head to every member of the body ? 10. Quest . Whether Mr. Wotton might not justly be judged to be possessed with the spirit of Socinian blindnesse , and giddinesse , when he derides Orthodox Divines , For making every beleever justifyed by imputation of Christs satisfactory obedience , a Redeemer and Saviour , and satisfyer for all the elect and faithfull ( for thus he argues . If Christs Righteousnesse and satisfaction , be imputed to every beleever , then must every beleever be counted a Redeemer , Justifyer , & Satisfyer , for all the Elect : But this is absurd , Ergo the Antecedent is false . In one of his written pamphlets ) though they doe not hold that Gods imputing of Christs obedience and satisfaction , is an accounting of it to be performed by them in their owne persons , or imputed as a meritorious efficient cause ; but onely his accounting it theirs by communion from Christ the head to every member so farre as to make him formally righteous . And yet he himselfe contradicting his former absolute denyall of imputation , pag. 12. doth hold imputation of Christs Righteousnesse , as a meritorious , and efficient cause of Justification , pag. 21. Which is a manifest falling into that absurdity , which he would pin upon others . For if it be counted ours , as a meritorious efficient cause , then are we all counted justifyers , who doe justifie the Elect , and merit their justification . I could propound divers other Questions , but when Mr. Gataker sees himselfe seriously to answer these , I hope he shall perceive ( if he hath ever an eye left to see ) that his defence of Mr. Wotton , is worse then standing at his backe , till his head be broken , even a breaking of his head , and a defaming of him by going about to defame me unjustly in this pretended Defence , the issue whereof is , That by publishing in Print , those damnable hereticall speeches , which I in private objected against Mr. Wotton , out of his owne writings ( not one word whereof he could deny ) he hath made Mr. Wottons name to stinke , like the issue of a running Cancer in a most foule body , and like those Sepulchres dogges , which scratch rotten carkasses out of their graves , hee hath raked up Mr. Wottons rotten body of errours out of his grave ; ( as some godly Divines have said , upon the reading of his defence . ) For what true Christian , when he reades those desperate speeches which I objected in my parallel , now Printed by Mr. Gataker , ( viz. That there is no end or use whatsoever of the imputation of Christs obedience , active or passive , for the justification of sinners ; That Faith , taken in a proper sense , is by God counted for Righteousnesse : And is for all purposes , as sufficient to justification under the Gospell , as the fulfilling of the Law by a man in his owne person , was in the covenant of workes ; that he renounceth the fulfilling of the Law by Christ for our Justification : And that our sinnes are not punished in Christ , nor Gods wrath satisfyed thereby ) is not so offended with the ill savour of those rotten heresies , that he is forced to stoppe his nose at the reading of them , as passengers doe , when they passe by the valley of Hamon Gog ? Ezech. 29. 11. If Mr. Gataker be so profuse and prodigall of his Reputation , as to subscribe to them , that there is no heresie or blasphemy in them ; when Beza , Paraeus , Lubertus and others , our betters , have , before me , so proclaymed them to be : Yet he hath with breach of piety and charity , and with greater virulency and defect of humanity , and common honesty than he hath proved to be in me ; most falsely fathered on those dead Saints , Mr. Randall , and Mr. Stocke , and on those living pious men , Doctor Gouge , and Master Downham , a subscription to those errours ; that they saw no heresie , or blasphemy in them . Whereas , indeed and in truth , I have to shew in writing , that their subscription was not to all or any thing , which I produced out of his writings against him ; but onely to his Expositions , wherein he denyed many of his errours , and set a false glosse on the rest . Indeed some things in those Expositions , I did then shew to be already condemned for heresie and blasphemy , by the learned before named ; and thereupon I did blame their subscription , and protested against it , and desired to dispute with Mr. Wotton , and prove those points heresie ; but Mr. Gataker interposed and prevailed so with the rest , that I could not be heard , neither could I by any intreaty obtaine a copy of those Expositions ; but they were committed to Doctor Baylie to be kept ; till Mr. Wotton had more fully in writing purged himselfe , and the Doctor durst never suffer me once to read them , fearing lest I should write a publike confutation of them . Howbeit I wrote a confutation of so much as I could remember , by hearing them once read , at the time when they were subscribed , and on Wednesday , being the second day after , did shew it to Doctor Gouge , and Mr. Downham after the Sermon at Blackfryers . And a long time after , I with much adoe , by Mr. Wetwoods meanes , obtained the sight of them , for two houres , in which space I copyed them out , as is before related ; so farre was I from pressing Doctor Baylie to conceale them , ( as Mr. Gataker would intimate , pag. 37 ) that I never laboured for any thing more earnestly , then to have them published for the freeing of my selfe from the crimes which Mr. Wotton then , and now Mr. Gataker by false reports would lay and fasten on me , pag. 39. of his Defence . As for that testification rehearsed , pag. 38. and subscribed by John Downham , and William Gouge , it was gotten by Mr. Wotton seven yeares after , when the businesse was almost forgotten : And ( as Mr. Downham told me ) it was upon this occasion . Mr. Wotton having written his Booke de Reconciliatione , came to him and told him , that now he had fully purged himselfe from Socinianisme , ( as he promised ) in a Booke which Mr. Mason the Bishops Chaplaine would licence for the Presse , if two or more of them who heard the Controversie , betweene him and me , would testifie that I did not convince him of heresie before them ; and that they all had so subscribed . And upon this suggestion , which was false , they two onely gave that attestation , which Mr. Stocke , and Dr. Baylie , abhorred to doe , repenting of what favour they had shewed him at the first . If this be not so , let Mr. Downham , and Dr. Gouge , speake for themselves : As for the rest of Mr. Gatakers defence , it is so frivolous , that a short answer will serve . His maine charge against me is , that I make Mr. Wotton to hold the same things which have formerly been condemned for heresie in Abailard , Servetus , and Socinus ; for this he accuseth me of iniquity , but the iniquity returnes upon his owne head . First , for Peter Abailard , he held that our sins are not punished in Christ , and that it had beene injustice in God to punish one for another , and to impute the obedience of one to others : And against him Saint Bernard disputes Epist. 190. in these words , It was man who was indebted , and man satisfyed . If one dyed for all , then all dyed in him , that the satisfaction of one may be imputed to all ; for he who offended and forfeited was not one , and he who satisfyed , another ; the head and the body are one Christ . And a little after . I call my selfe righteous , but by his Righteousnesse . Which is that ? Christ , the end of the Law for Righteousnesse to every beleever . And againe , Man is mercifully redeemed , or delivered , yet so as that there Justice executed even in the deliverance . If the heresie of Abailard , thus confuted by Bernard , be not the same which I proved to be held by Mr. Wotton , let the Reader judge . If Abailard did deny in plaine words the eternall Deity of Christ , and after him Servetus and Socinus also : so also did Mr. Wotton in effect , though in words he professed the contrary . For he held that Christs obedience did serve onely to justifie himselfe , and to bring him into high favour with God , so that God justifies us by him as by a favourite , onely upon condition of our trusting in him . Now where is the infi●●●● value of his Deity , if he needed justification and favour for himselfe ? Secondly , that Servetus and Socinus were in the same errour , and that Mr. Wotton in the points of justification holds with them , I have proved out of his owne words . It is a poore defence for Mr. Gataker , to excuse him by naming other heresies of theirs which he professed not ; neither did I charge him with them ; And to plead , that because they were condemned for other heresies , more then this ; therefore this was no heresie . I know it to be heresie and blasphemie , and with the learned before named do proclame it to be so . Yea Mr. Wottons owne conscience told him that his opinions were condemned for heresie and blasphemy , and for feare of shame , denyed them at sometimes ; and most frequently contradicted himselfe , saying and unsaying , as Socinus his Master often did . I am loath to spend more time , to answer to this last part of Mr. Gatakers defence , which one short breath is sufficient to blow away . If he be forward to breake out into a further defence of these errors , and of Mr. Wotton , ( who in his first paper speaking of the Doctrine of justification , as it is held and maintained by all Orthodox Divines of the reformed Church , did not blush to say , I am enforced to dissent from them all ; what spirit enforced him , I cannot conceive unlesse it was the spirit of Abailard , who is condemned by Saint Bernard for saying , Omnes doctores nostri post Apostolos in hoc conveniunt , &c All our Doctors or teachers since the Apostles agree in this point ; but I am of another opinion : sic omnes , non sie ego , all other thinke so , but I doe not think so ) I shall by Gods grace be as ready to resist him still . And I doubt not but the hand of all Orthodox Divines wil be against him who takes part with one against all ; yea against the holy Scriptures , and the holy Pen-men of them . My faith , by which I beleeve that I shall be saved , is a firme beleife that Christ is my head and surety , who fulfilled the whole Law for me , that he might thereby , redeeme , reconcile , and justifie me , and that my sins were punnished in him , and his righteousnesse , is my righteousnesse , in which I stand righteous before God . I know whom I have beleeved . I feare not what any man can say against me . If God be with me , I care not who be against me . If he justifie me , who can condemne ? I will therefore rest on that promise of the Lord , Esay 54. 17. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper , and every tongue that riseth up against thee in judgement thou shalt condemne . This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord ; and their righteousnesse is of me , saith the Lord . FINIS . 
A90286	----	A review of the annotations of Hugo Grotius, in reference unto the doctrine of the deity, and satisfaction of Christ. With a defence of the charge formerly laid against them. / By Iohn Ovven D.D. Owen, John, 1616-1683. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A90286 of text R206587 in the English Short Title Catalog (Thomason E879_1). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 76 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 13 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A90286 Wing O802 Thomason E879_1 ESTC R206587 99865708 99865708 117957 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A90286) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 117957) Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 132:E879[1]) A review of the annotations of Hugo Grotius, in reference unto the doctrine of the deity, and satisfaction of Christ. With a defence of the charge formerly laid against them. / By Iohn Ovven D.D. Owen, John, 1616-1683. [2], 22 p. Printed by H. Hall. printer to the University, for Thom. Robinson., Oxford, : 1656. Annotation of Thomason copy: "May 3d". Reproduction of the original in the British Library. eng Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645 -- Early works to 1800. Jesus Christ -- Divinity -- Early works to 1800. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. A90286 R206587 (Thomason E879_1). civilwar no A review of the annotations of Hugo Grotius,: in reference unto the doctrine of the deity, and satisfaction of Christ. With a defence of th Owen, John 1656 12183 10 495 0 0 0 0 415 F The rate of 415 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the F category of texts with 100 or more defects per 10,000 words. 2007-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-06 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2008-05 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2008-05 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HVGO GROTIVS , In Reference unto the Doctrine of the Deity , and Satisfaction of CHRIST . WITH A Defence of the Charge formerly laid against them . By IOHN OVVEN D. D. OXFORD , Printed by H. HALL , Printer to the UNIVERSITY , for THOM. ROBINSON . 1656. A second Consideration of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius . HAving in my late defence of the doctrine of the Gospell , from the corruptions of the Socinians , been occasioned to vindicate the Testimonys given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ , from their exceptions , and finding that Hugo Grotius in his Annotatios had ( for the most part ) done the same things with them , as to that particular , and some other important Articles of the Christian faith , that booke of his being more frequent in the hands of Students , then those of the Socinians , I thought it incumbent on me , to doe the same worke in reference to those Annotations , which it was my designe to performe towards the writings of Socinus , Smalcius , and their companions and followers . What I have been enabled to accomplish by that endeavour , with what service to the Gospell hath been performed thereby , is left to the judgment of them who desire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Of my dealing with Grotius I gave a briefe account in my Epistle to the Governours of the Vniversity , and that with reference to an Apology made for him , not long before . This hath obtained a new Apology under the name of a second defence of Hugo Grotius ; with what litle advantage either to the repute of Grotius , as to the thing in Question , or of the Apologist himselfe , it is judged necessary to give the ensueing account : for which I took the first leasure houre I could obtaine , having things of greater weight , dayly incumbent on me . The only thing of importance by me charged on those Annotations of Grotius , was this ; that the Texts of Scripture both in the Old Testament and New , bearing witnesse to the Diety , and Satisfaction of Christ , are in them wrested to other senses and significations , and the Testimonies given to those grand truths , thereby eluded . Of those of the first kind I excepted one , yet with some doubt , least his expressions therein , ought to be interpreted according to the Analogy of what he had elsewhere delivered : of which afterwards . Because that which concernes the Satisfaction of Christ will admit of the easyest dispatch , though taking up most roome , I shall in the first place insist thereon . The words of my charge on the Annotations , as to this head of the doctrine of the Scripture are these . The condition of these famous Annotations as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same . Not one Text in the whole Scripture , wherein Testimony is given to that sacred truth , which is not wrested to another sense , or at least the Doctrine in it , conceald and obscured by them . This being a matter of fact , and the words containing a crime charged on the Annotations , he that will make a defence of them , must either disprove the Assertion by instances to the contrary , or else granting the matter of fact , evince it to be no crime . That which is objected in matter of fact , aut negandum est aut defendendum , sayes Quintilian : lib. 5. cap. de refut : and extra haec in judiciis fere nihil est . In other cases , Patronus , neget , defendat , transferat , excuset , deprecetur , molliat , minuat , avertat , despiciat , derideat ; but in matters of fact , the two first only have place . Aristotle allows more particulars for an Apologist to divert unto , if the matter require it : he may say of what is objected , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . ( Rhet. lib. 3. cap. 15. ) all which in a plaine matter of fact may be reduced to the former heads . That any other Apology can or ought to take place in this , or any matter of the same importance will not easily be proved . The present Apologist takes another course . Such ordinary paths are not for him to walke in . He tells us of the excellent booke that Grotius wrote de satisfactione Christi , and the exposition of sundry places of Scripture , especially of divers verses of Isa. 53 : given therein ; and then adds sundry inducements to perswade us , that he was of the same mind in his Annotations . And this is called a defence of Grotius . The Apologist I suppose knowes full well , what Texts of Scripture they are , that are constantly pleaded for the Satisfaction of Christ , by them who doe beleive that doctrine . I shall also for once take it for granted , that he might without much difficulty , have obtained a sight of Grotius Annotations ; to which I shall only add , that probably if he could from them have disproved the Assertion before mentioned , by any considerable instances , he is not so tender of the Prefacers credit , as to have concealed it on any such account . But the Severalls of his plea for the Annotations in this particular , I am perswaded are accounted by some , worthy consideration ; a breife view of them will suffice . The signall place of Is . 53. he tells us , he hath heard taken notice of by some ; ( I thought it had been probable the Apologist might have taken notice of it himselfe , ) as that wherein his Annotations are most suspected ; therefore on that he will fasten a while ▪ Who would not now expect that the Apologist should have entred upon the consideration of those Annotations , and vindicated them from the imputations insinuated : but he knew a better way of procedure , and who shall prescribe to him , what suits his purpose and proposall . This I say is the instance chosen to be insisted on ; and the vindication of the Annotations therein , by the interpretation given in their Author his booke de Satisfactione Christi is proposed to consideration . That others , if not the Apologist himselfe , may take notice of the emptinesse of such precipitate Apologyes , as are ready to be tumbled out , without due digestion , or consideration , I shall not only compare the Annotations and that booke as to the particular place proposed , and manifest the inconsistency of the one with the other ; but also to discover the extreame negligence and confidence , which lye at the bottome of his following attempt , to induce a perswasion , that the judgment of the man of whom we speake , was not alter'd ( that is , as to the interpretation of the Scriptures relating to the Satisfaction of Christ ) nor is others in his Annotations , then in that booke ; I shall compare the one with the other , by sundry other instances , and let the world see how in the most important places contested about , he hath utterly deserted the interpretations given of them by himselfe in his booke de Satisfactione , and directly taken up that which he did oppose . The Apologist binds me in the first place to that of Is . 53. which is ushered in by the 1 Pet. 2. 24. From 1 Pet. 2. 24. ( saies the Apologist ) Grotius informes us that Christ so bare our sins , that he freed us from them , so that we are healed by his stripes . This thus crudely proposed , Socinus himselfe would graunt it , is little more then barely repeating the words ; Grotius goes farther , and contends that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the word there used by the Apostle , is to be interpreted , tulit sursum eundo , portavit , and tells us that Socinus would render this word abstulit , and so take away the force of the Argument from this place . To disprove that insinuation , he urges sundry other places in the new Testament , where some words of the same importance are used , and are no way capable of such a signification . And whereas Socinus urges to the contrary Heb. 9. 28. where he saies {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies nothing but auferre peccata , Grotius disproves that instance , and manifests that in that place also it is to be rendred by tulit , and so relates to the death of Christ . That we may put this instance given us by the Apologist , to vindicate the Annotations from the crime charged on them to an issue , I shall give the Reader the words of his Annotations on that place : it is as followes : {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} &c : ] {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hic est , abstulit , quod sequentia ostendunt , quomodo idem verbum sumi not avimus , Heb. 9. 28. eodem sensu {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Ioh. 1. 29. & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Isa. 53. 4. ubi Graeci {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : vitia nostra it a interfecit , sicut qui cruci affiguntur interfici solent . Simile loquendi genus Col. 2. 14. vide Rom. 6. 6. Gal. 2. 20. 24. est autem hic {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ; non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur , vitia nostra abstulit . Sed causas dedit per quas auferrerentur . Nam crux Christi fundamentum est predicationis ; praedicatio verò poenitentiae , paenitentia verô aufert vitia . How well the Annotator abides here by his former interpretation of this place , the Apologist may easily discover : 1 There he contends that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is as much as tulio , or sursum tulit : and objects out of Socinu● , that it must be abstulit , which quite alters the sense of the Testimony . Here he contends with him , that it must be abstulit . 2 There Heb. 9. 28. is of the same importance with this 1 Pet. 2. 24. as there interpreted : here , as here ; that is in a quite contrary sense , altogether inconsistent with the other . 3. For company {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used Is . 53. is called in to the same signification , which in the booke de satisfactione he contends is never used in that sense , and that most truly . 4. Upon this exposition of the words , he gives the very sense contended for by the Socinians ; non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur vitia nostra abstulit , sed causas dedit per quas auferreretur : what are these causes ; he adds them immediatly , Nam crux Christi fundamentum est praedicationis , praedicatio verò poenitentiae , poenitentia verò aufert vitia . He that sees not the whole Socinian poyson wrapped up and proposed in this interpretation , is ignorant of the state of the difference , as to that Head , between them , and Christians . ( 5 ) To make it a little more evident , how constant the Annotator was to his first principles , which he insisted on in the management of his disputes with Socinus about the sense of this place , I shall adde the words of Socinus himselfe , which then he did oppose . Verum animadvertere oportet primùm in Graeco , verbum , quod interpretes verterunt pertulit , est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , quod non pertulit sed abstulit vertendum erat , non secus ac factum fuerit in epistola ad Hebraeos cap. 9. 28. ubi idem legendi modus habetur , unde constat {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} non perferre peccata , sed peccata tollere , sive auferre , significart . Socin. de Jes . Christ . sat . lib. 2. cap. 6. What difference there is between the designe of the Annotator , and that of Socinus , what complyance in the quotation of the paralell place of the Hebrewes , what direct opposition and head is made in the Annotations against that booke de Satisfactione , and how clearly the cause contended for in the one , is given away in the other ; needs no farther to be demonstrated . But if this instance makes not good the Apologists assertion , it may be supposed , that that which follows , which is ushered in by this , will doe it to the purpose ; let then that come into consideration . This is that of Isa. 53. Somewhat of the sense which Grotius in his booke de Satisfactione contends for , in this place , is given us by the Apologist . The 11th verse of the chapter which he first considers ( in my booke ) page 14 : he thus proposes and expounds : justificabit servus mens justus multos & iniquitates ipsorum bajulabit . in Heb. est : {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} vox autem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} iniquitatem significat , atque etiam iniquitatis poenam . 2. Reg. 7. 9. vox autem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} est sustinere , bajulare , quoties autem bajulare ponitur cum nomine peccati aut iniquitatis , id in omni lingua & maximè in Hebraismo significat poen as ferre , with much more to this purpose . The whole designe of the maine dispute in that place , is , from that discourse of the Prophet to prove , that Iesus Christ properly underwent the punishment due to our sinnes , and thereby made satisfaction to God for them . To manifest his constancy to this doctrine , in his Annotations he gives such an Exposition of that whole chapter of Isaiah 53. as is manifestly , and universally inconsistent with any such designe in the words , as that which he intends to prove from them in his booke de Satisfactione . In particular ( to give one instance of this assertion ) he contends here that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , is as much as bajulare , portare , and that joyned with iniquity ( in all languages , especially in the Hebrew ) that phrase of bearing iniquity , signifies to undergoe the punishment due to it ; in his Annotations on the place , as also in those on 1 Pet. 2. 24. he tells you the word signifies auferre , which with all his strength he had contended against . Not to draw out this particular instance into any greater length , I make bold to tell the Apologist ( what I suppose he knowes not ) that there is no one verse of the whole chapter , so interpreted in his Annotations , as that the sense given by him , is consistent with , nay is not repugnant to , that which from the same verses he pleads for in his booke de Satisfactione Christi . If notwithstanding this information , the Apologist be not satisfied , let him if he please consider what I have already animadverted on those Annotations , and undertake their vindication . These loose discourses are not at all to the purpose in hand , nor the Question between us , which is solely ; whether Grotius in his Annotations have not perverted the sense of those texts of Scripture , which are commonly , and most righteously pleaded as Testimonies given to the Satisfaction of Christ . But as to this particular place of Isaiah , the Apologist hath a farther plea , the summe whereof ( not to trouble the Reader with the repetition of a discourse so little to the purpose ) comes to this head ; that Grotius in his booke de Satisfactione Christi gives the mysticall sense of the chapter , under which consideration , it belongs to Christ and his sufferings ; In his Annotations the literall , which had its immediate completion in Ieremy , which was not soe easily discoverable or vulgarly taken notice of . This is the summe of his first observation on this place to acquit the Annotator of the Crime charged upon him . Whether he approve the application of the prophesie to Jeremiah or no , I know not . He saies , Grotius so conceived . The designe of the discourse seems to give approbation to that conception . How the literall sense of a place should come to be lesse easily discovered then the mysticall , well I know not . Nor shall I speake of the thing it selfe concerning the literall and mysticall sense supposed to be in the same place and words of Scripture , with the application of the distinction to those Prophesies which have a double accomplishment in the Type and thing or person typified , ( which yet hath no soundnesse in it ) but to keep to the matter now in hand , I shall make bold for the removall of this engine applyed by the Apologist for the preventing all possible mistake , or controversie about the Annotators after-charge in this matter , to tell him , that the perverting of the first literall sense of the chapter , or giving it a completion in any person whatsoever , in a first , second , or third sense , but the Son of God himselfe , is no lesse then Blasphemy ; which the Annotator is no otherwise freed from , but by his conceiving a sense to be in the words , contrary to their literall importance , and utterly exclusive of the concerment of Jesus Christ in them . If the Apologist be otherwise minded , I shall not invite him againe to the consideration of what I have already written in the vindication of the whole prophesie from the wretched corrupt interpretation of the Annotator , ( not hoping that he will be able to breake through that discouragment he hath from looking into that treatise , by the prospect he hath taken of the whole by the Epistle ) but doe expresse my earnest desire , that by an exposition of the severalls of that chapter , and their application to any other ( not by loose discourses forraigne to the Question in hand ) he would endeavour to evince the contrary ; if on second thoughts he find either his judgment , or ability , not ready or competent for such an attempt , I heartily wish he would be carefull hereafter of ingenerating apprehensions of that nature , in the minds of others , by any such discourses as this . I cannot but suppose that I am already absolved from a necessity of any farther procedure , as to the justifying my charge against the Annotations , having sufficiently foyled the instance produced by the Apologist for the weakning of it . But yet least any should thinke , that the present issue of this debate , is built upon some unhappinesse of the Apologist in the choice of the particulars insisted on ; which might have been prevented , or may yet be removed , by the production of other instances : I shall for their further satisfaction , present them with sundry other , the most important Testimonies given to the Satisfaction of Christ , wherein the Annotator hath openly prevaricated , and doth imbrace and propose those very interpretations , and that very sense , which in his book , de Satisfactione Christi , he had strenuously opposed . Page 8. of his booke de Satisfactione , he pleads the satisfaction of Christ , from Gal. 2. 21. laying weight on this , that the word , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , signifies the want of an antecedent cause , on the supposition there made . In his Annotations he deserts this assertion , and takes up the sense of the place given by Socinus de servator . lib. 2 : cap. 24. His departure into the tents of Socinus on Gal. 3. 13. is much more pernitious . page 25 , 26 , 27. urging that place and vindicating it from the exceptions of Socinus , he concludes , that the Apostle said Christ was made a Curse , quasi dixerit Christum factumesse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : hoc est poenae à Deo irrogatae , & quidem ignominiosissimae obnoxium . To make good this , in his Annotations , he thus expounds the words : duplex hîc figura ; nam & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} pro {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis : & subauditur {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : nam Christus it a cruciatus est , quasi esset Deo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , quo nihil homini pessimo in hâc vitâ pejus evenire poterat : which is the very interpretation of the words given by Socinus which he opposed ; and the same that Crellius insists upon in his vindication of Socinus against him . So uniforme was the judgment of the Annotator , with that of the Author of the book de Satisfactione Christi . Pages 32 , 33 , &c : are spent in the exposition and vindication of Rom. 3. 25 , 26. that expression {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , manifesting the end of the suffering of Christ , is by him chiefely insisted on . That by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is there intended that justice of God , whereby he punisheth sin , he contends and proves from the nature of the thing it selfe , and comparing the expression with other paralell texts of Scripture : Socinus had interpreted this of the Righteousnesse of Christs fidelity and veracity : Lib. 2. de Servator . cap. 2. ( ut ostenderet se veracem & fidelem esse . ) but Crellius in his vindication of him places it rather on the goodnesse & liberality of God , which is , saith he , the Righteousnesse there intended . To make good his Ground , the Annotator , thus expounds the meaning of the words ▪ vocem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} malim hic de bonitate interpretari , quam de fide in promissis praestandis , quia quae sequuntur non ad Judaeos solos pertinent , sed etiam ad Gentes , quibus promissio nulla facta erat . He rather ( he tells you ) embraces the interpretation of Crellius then of Socinus ; but for that which himself had contended for , it is quite shut out of doors : as I have elswhere manifested at large . The same course he takes with Rom. 5. 10. which he insists on pag. 26. and 2. Cor. 5. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21. concerning which he openly deserts his owne former interpretation , and closes expressely with that which he had opposed , as he doth in reference to all other places , where any mention is made of Reconciliation : The substance of his Annotations on those places , seeming to be taken out of Socinus , Crellius , and some others of that party . That signall place of Heb. 2. 17. in this kind , deserves particularly to be taken notice of ; Cap. 7 pag. 141. of his booke de Satisfactione , he pleads the sense of that expression , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , to be , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : and addes , significat ergoibi expiationem quae fit placando : But Crellius defence of Socinus had so possessed the mans mind before he came to write his Annotations , that on that place he gives us directly his sense , and almost his words in a full opposition to what he had before asserted : {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , hoc quidem loco , ut ex sequentibus apparet , est auferre peccata , sive purgare à peccato , id est , efficere ne peccetur , vires suppeditando pro modo tentationum : So the Annotator on that place ; indeavoring farther to prove his Interpretation . From Rom. 4 last , Cap. 1. pag. 47 , of his booke de Satisfactione , he clearly proves the Satisfaction of Christ : and evinces that to be the sense of that expression , traditus propter peccata nostra : which he thus Comments on in his Annotations : poterat dioere qui & mortuus est , & resurrexit ut nos à peccatis justificaret , id est , liberaret . Sed amans {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} morti conjunxit peccata , quae sunt mors animi , resurrectioni autem adeptionem Iustitia , quae est animi resuscitatio : mirè nos & à peccatis retrahit & ad Iustitiam ducit : quod videmus Christum mortem non formidâsse pro doctrinâ suâ peccatis contrariâ , & ad Iustitiam nos vocanti Testimonio ; & à Deo suscitatum , ut eidem doctrinae summa conciliaretur Authoritas . He that sees not , not only that he directly closes in , with what before he had opposed , But also , that he hath here cou●hed the whole Doctrine of the Socinians , about the Mediation of Christ , and our Iustification thereby , is utterly ignorant of the state of the Controversie between them , and Christians . I suppose it will not be thought necessary for me to proceed with the comparison instituted . The severall bookes are in the hands of most Students , and that the case is generally the same in the other places pleaded for the Satisfaction of Christ , they may easily satisfy themselves . Only because the Apologist seemes to put some difference between his Annotations on the Revelations , ( as having receaved their linedments and colours from his owne pencill , ) and those on the Epistles which he had not so compleated ; as I have already manifested , that in his Annotations on that booke , he hath treacherously tampred with , and corrupted the Testimonies given to the Deity of our blessed Saviour , so shall I give one instance from them also , of his dealing no lesse unworthily with those that concerne his Satisfaction . Socinus in his second booke against Covet , second part , & chap. 17. gives us this account of those words of the holy Ghost , Rev. 1. 5. who hath loved us , and washed us in his owne blood : Johannes in Apocalyp . cap. 1. v. 5. alia Metaphorâ seu Translatione , ( quae nihil aliud est quam compendiosa quaedam comparatio ) utens , dixit de Christo & ejus morte , qui dilexit nos & lavit nos à peccatis in sanguine suo , nam quemadmodum aquâ abluuntur sordes corporis , sic sanguine Christi , peccata , quae sordes animi sunt absterguntur . Absterguntur , inquam , quia animus onster ab ipsis mundatur , &c. This interpretation is opposed and exploded by Grotius lib. de Satisf . c. 10. p. 208 , 209. the substance of it being , that Christ washed us from our sins by his death , in that he confirmed his doctrine of Repentance & newnesse of life thereby , by which we are turned from our sins ; as he manifests in the close of his Discourse , hoc saepius urgendū est , ( saith Socinus ) Iesum Christum eâ ratione peccata nostra abstulisse , quod effecerit , ut à peccando desistamus . This Interpretation of Socinus , being reinforced by Crellius , the place falls againe under the Consideration of Grotius in those Annotations on the Revelations ; which as the Apologist tells us , received their very lineaments and colours from his owne Pencill . There then he gives us this Account thereof , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : Sanguine suo , id est , morte toleratâ , certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat , quae talia sunt , ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos . Humidae naturae , sub quâ est sanguis , proprium est lavare . Id vero per egregiam {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ad animum transfertur . Dicitur autem Christus suo sanguine nos lavisse , quia & ipse omnia praestitit quae ad id requirebantur & apparet secutum in plurimis effectum . I desire the Apologist to tell me what he thinks of this peice thus perfected , with all its lineaments and colours by the pencill of that skilfull man ; and what beautifull aspect he supposeth it to have . Let the Reader , to prevent further Trouble in perusing transcriptions of this kind , consider Rev. 13. 8 , pag. 114. Heb. 9. 25. to the end ; which he calls an illustrious place in the same page and forward : I Iohn 2. 2. pag. 140 , Rom. 5. 10 , 11. page 142 , 143. Eph. 2. 16. page 148 , 149 , Col. 1. 20 , 21 , 22. Tit. 2. 14. page 156. Heb. 9. 14 , 15. pag. 157 , 158. Act. 20. 28. and many others ; And compare them with the Annotations on those places , and he will be farther enabled to judge of the defence made of the one , by the instance of the other . I shall only desire that he who undertakes to give his judgment of this whole matter , be somewhat acquainted with the state of the difference , about this poynt of the doctrine of the Gospell , between the Socinians and us : that he doe not take auferre peccata , to be ferre peccata : nostri causa , to be nostrâ vice , and nostro loco : causa {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : liberatio à jugo peccati , to be redemptio à reatu peccati : Subire poenas simpliciter , to be subire paenas nobis debitas : to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in respect of the event , to be so as to the proper nature of the thing ; offerre seipsum in coelo , to be as much as offerre seipsum in cruce , as to the worke it selfe : that so he be not mistaken to thinke that , when the first are granted , that the latter are so also . For a close of the discourse relating to this head , a breife account may be added , why I said not positively , that he had wrested all the places of Scripture giving Testimony to the Satisfaction of Christ , to another sense : but that he had either done so , or else concealed or obscured that sense in them . Though I might give instances from one or two places in his Annotions on the Gospells , giving occasion to this assertion , yet I shall insist only on some taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews , where is the great and eminent seat of the doctrine of Christs satisfaction . Although in his Annotations on that Epistle , he doth openly corrupt the most cleare Testimonies given to this Truth , yet there are some passages in them , wherein he seems to dissent from the Socinians . In his Annotations on chap. 5. vers. 5. he hath these words , Iesus quidem Sacerdotale munus suum aliquo modo erat auspicatus ; cum semet patri victimam offerret . That Christ was a Preist when he was on the earth , was wholly denyed by Socinus both in his booke de Servatore , and in his Epistle to Niemoieuius , as I have shewed elsewhere . Smalcius seems to be of the same judgment in the Racovian Catechisme . Grotius saies , Sacerdotale munus erat aliquo modo auspicatus : yet herein he goes not beyond Crellius , who tells us : mortem Christus subiit duplici ratione , partim quidem ut foederis mediator seu sponsor , partim quidem ut Sacerdos , Deo ipsum oblaturus : de causis mortis Christi pag. 6. And so Volkelius fully to the same purpose . Partes ( saith he ) muneris Sacerdotis , haec sunt potissimum ; mactatio victimae , in tabernaculum ad oblationem peragendam , ingressio , & ex eodem egressio : Ac mactatio quidem mortem Christi , violentam sanguinis profnsionem continet : de Relig. lib. 3. cap. 47. pag. 145. and againe : Hinc colligitur solam Christi mortem nequaquam illam perfectam absolutámque ipsius oblationem ( de qua in epistola ad Hebraeos agitur ) fuisse , sed principium & praeparationem quandam ipsius Sacerdotii in caelo demum administrandi extitisse , ibid. So that nothing is obtained by Grotius his munus Sacerdotale aliquo modo erat auspicatus , but what is granted by Crellius and Volkelius . But in the next words , cum semet offerret patri victimam , he seems to leave them : but he seems only so to doe . For Volkelius acknoledgeth that he did slay the Sacrifice in his death , though that was not his compleate and perfect oblation , which is also afterwards affirmed by Grotius : and Crellius expresly affirmes the same . Nor doth he seeme to intend a proper expiatory and satisfactory Sacrifice in that expression ; for if he had , he would not have been guilty of such an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , as to say , semet obtulit patri . Besides , though he do acknoledge elsewhere , that this victima was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , yet he sayes in another place ( on ver : 3. ) Sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse prose {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ; giving thereby such a sense to that expression , as is utterly inconsistent with a proper expiatory Sacrifice for sin . And which is yet worse , on chap. 9. 14. he gives us such an account why expiation is ascribed to the blood of Christ , as is a key to his whole interpretation of that epistle : Sanguini ( saith he ) purgatio ista tribuitur : quia per sanguinem , idest , mortem Christi , secuta ejus excitatione & evectione , gignitur in nobis fides , quae deinde purgat corda . And therefore where Christ is said to offer himselfe by the eternall Spirit , he tells us , Oblatio Christi hic intelligitur illa , quae oblationi legali in adyto factae respondet , ea autem est , non oblatio in altari Crucis facta , sed in adyto caelesti : So that the purgation of sin is an effect of Christs presenting himselfe in heaven only : which how well it agrees with what the Apostle sayes chap. 1. v. 3. the Reader will easily judge . And to manifest that this was his constant sense , on those words v. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , he thus comments ; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , Vt peccatum in nobis extinguatur : fit autem hoc per passionem Christi , quae fidem nobis ingenerat , quae cordae purificat . Christ confirming his doctrine by his death , begets faith in us , which doth the worke . Of the 28th verse of the same chapter I have spoken before . The same he affirmes againe , more expressely , on chap. 10. vers. 3. and on ver. 9. and verse 12. he interprets the oblation of Christ , whereby he tooke away sinne , to be the oblation or offering himselfe in heaven , whereby sin is taken away by Sanctification , as also in sundry other places , where the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ on earth , and the taking away of the guilt of sinne , by Satisfaction , is evidently intended . So that notwithstanding the concession mentioned , I cannot see the least reason to alter my thoughts of the Annotations , as to this businesse in hand . Not further to abound in causá facili ; in all the differences we have with the Socinians , about Christs dying for us , concerning the nature of Redemption , Reconciliation , Mediation , Sacrifice , the meaning of all the phrases and expressions , which in those things are delivered to us , the Annotator is generally on the apostate side throughout his Annotations : and the truth is , I know no reason why our Students should with so much diligence and charge , labour to get into their hands the books of Socinus , Crellius , Smalcius , and the rest of that Crew , seing these Annotations , as to the most important heads of Christian Religion , about the Deity , Sacrifice , Preisthood , and Satisfaction of Christ , originall sin , free will , Iustification &c , afford them the Substance and Marrow of what is spoken by them ; so that as to these heads , upon the matter , there is nothing peculiar to the Annotator , but the Secular learning which in his Interpretations he hath curiously and gallantly interweaved . Plautus makes sport in his Amphitruo with severall Persons , some reall , some assumed , of such likenesse one to another , that they could not discerne themselves by any outward appearance ; which caused various contests and mistakes between them . The Poets fancy raysed not a greater similitude between Mercury and Sosia , being supposed to be different persons , then there is a dissimilitude between the Author of the booke de Satisfactione Christi , and of the Annotations , concerning which we have been discoursing , being one and the same . Nor was the contest of those different persons so like on another , so irreconcilable , as are these of this single person , so unlike himselfe in the severall treatises mentioned . And I cannot but thinke it strange that the Apologist could imagine no surer measure to be taken of Grotius's meaning in his Annotations then his treatise of the Satisfaction of Christ doth afford , there being no two treatises that I know , of any different persons whatever , about one and the same Subject , that are more at variance . Whither now any will be perswaded by the Apologist to believe that Grotius was constant in his Annotations to the Doctrine delivered in that other treatise , I am not sollicitous . For the reinforced plea of the Apologist , that these Annotations were not finished by him , but only collections that he might after dispose of ; I am not concerned in it ; having to deale with that booke of Annotations that goes under his name ; if they are none of his , it is neither on the one hand or other , of any concernment unto me . I say not this , as though the Apologist , had in the least made good his former plea , by his new Exceptions to my evidence against it , from the Printers preface to the Volume of Annotations on the Epistles . He saies ! what was the opus integrum that was cōmended to the care of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ? and answers himselfe , not that last part or volume of Annotations , but opus integrum , the whole volume or volumes that contained his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} adversaria on the new Testament . For how ill this agrees with the intention and words of the Prefacer , a slight inspection will suffice to manifest . He tells us , that Grotius had himselfe publisht his Annotations on the Gospells , five yeares before : that at his departure from Paris , he left a great part of this volume ( that is this on the Acts and Epistles ) with a friend ; that the reason why he left not opus integrum , that is , the whole volume with him , was because the residue of it was not so written , as that an Amanuensis could well understand it . That therefore in his going towards Sweden , he wrote that part againe with his owne hand , and sent it backe to the same person ( that had the former part of the Volume committed to him ) from Hamburge . If the Apologist read this Preface , he ought , as I suppose to have desisted from the plea insisted on : If he did not , he thought assuredly he had much reason to despise them , with whom he had to do : But as I said , herein am I not concerned . The Consideration of the charge on the Annotations relating to their tampering with the Testimonies given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ , being an other head of the whole , may now have place . The Summe of what is to this purpose by me affirmed , is , that in the Annotations on the old and new Testament , Grotius hath left but one place giving Testimony clearly to the Deity of Christ . To this assertion I added both a limitation , and also an enlargment in severall respects . A limitation that I could not perceive he had spoken of himselfe , clearly on that one place . On supposition that he did so , I granted that perhaps one or two places more , might accordingly be interpreted . That this one place is Ioh. 1. 1. I expressely affirmed : that is the one place wherein , as I say , he spake not home to the businesse . The defence of the Apologist in the behalfe of Grotius consists of sundry discourses . First to disprove that he hath left more then that one of John free from the corruption charged ; he instances in that one of Iohn 1. 1. wherein as he saith , he expressely asserts the Deity of Christ : but yet wisely forseeing , that this instance would not evade the charge , having been expressely excepted , ( as to the present enquiry ) and reserved to further debate ; he adds the places quoted by Grotius in the exposition of that place as Prov. 8. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27. Isa. 45. 12. & 48. 13. 2 Pet. 3. 5. Col. 1. 16. from all which he concludes , that the Annotations have left more Testimonies to the Deity of Christ untampered withall and unperverted , then my assertion will allow ; reckoning them all up againe Section the 10th . and concluding himselfe a successfull Advocate in this case , or at least under a despaire of ever being so in any , if he acquit not himselfe clearly in this . If his failure herein be evinced , by the course of his late writings himselfe will appeare to be most concerned . I suppose then that on the view of this defence , men must needs suppose that in the Annotations on the places repeated , and mustered a second time by the Apologist , Grotius does give their sense as bearing witnesse to the Deity of Christ . Others may be pleased to take it for granted without farther consideration : for my part being a little concerned to inquire , I shall take the paines to turne to the places , and give the Reader a briefe account of them . For Prov. 8. his first note on the wisdome there spoken of is : Haec de easapientia quae in Lege apparet exponunt Haebraei , & sane ei , si non sol● ; at praecipuè haec atributa conveniunt : Now if the attributes here mentioned , agree either solely or principally to the wisdome that shines in the Law , how they can be the attributes of the person of the eternall Son of God , I see not . He addes no more to that purpose , untill he comes to the 22 ver. the verse of old contested about with the Arrians . His words on that are Graecum Aquilae , est , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , ut & Symmachi & Theodosionis , res●pondetque benè Haebraeo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , & Caldaeus habet {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , & 70 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , sensu non malo , si creare sumas pro facére ut appareat : viae Dei sunt operationes ipsius : sensum hujus loci & sequentium non male exprimas cum Philone de Coloniis : {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . On verse 27 , he addes aderam , id est , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , ut infra Iohn Evang. 1. 1. What clear and evident Testimony , by this exposition is left in this place to the Deity of Christ I professe my selfe as ignorant , as I was , before I received this Direction by the Apologist : He tells us that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is rendred not amisse by the Chaldee {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the 70 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arrians , and exploded by the antient Doctors of the Church . To relieve this Concession , he tells us that creare , may be taken for facere ut appareat , though there be no evidence of such a use of the word in the Scripture , nor can he give any instance thereof . The whole interpretation runs on that wisdome that is a property of God , which he manifested in the workes of Creatiō : of the Son of God , the essentiall wisdome of God , subsisting with the father , we have not one words nor doth that Quotation out of Philo releive us in this businesse at all . We know in what sense he used the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : how farr he and the Platonicks , with whom in this expression he consented , were from understanding the only begotten Son of God , is known . If this of Philo has any aspect towards the opinion of any professing themselves Christians , it is towards that of the Arians , which seems to be expressed therein . And this is the place chosen by the Apologist to disprove the assertion of none being left , under the sense given them by the Annotations , bearing cleare Testimony to the Deity of Christ ; his comparing {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ibi ego , which the vulgar renders aderam , with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seems rather to cast a Suspicion on his intention in the expression of that place of the Evangelist , then in the least to give Testimony to the Deity of Christ in this . If any one be further desirous to be satisfyed , how many cleare unquestionable evidences of the Deity of Christ , are slighted by these Annotations on this Chapter , let him consult my vindication of the place in my late Vindiciae Evangelicae , where he will find something tendred to him to that purpose . What the Apologist intended by adding these two places of Isaiah , Chap. 45. 12. and the 48. 13. ( when in his Annotations on those places , Grotius not once mentions the Deity of Christ , nor any thing of him , nor hath occasion so to do , nor doth produce them in this place to any such end or purpose ; but only to shew that the Chaldee paraphrase , doth sundry times , when things are said to be done by God , render it , that they were done by the word of God ) as instances to the prejudice of my Assertion , I cannot imagine . On that of Peter , 2 Epistle , 3. 5. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : he addes indeed , vide quae diximus ad initium Evangelii Iohannis : but neither doth that place intend the naturall Son of God , nor is it so interpreted by Grotius . To these he addes in the close , Col. 1. 16. in the exposition whereof in his Annotations , he expressely prevaricates , and goes of to the interpretation insisted on by Socinus and his companions , which the Apologist well knew . Without farther search upon what hath been spoken , the Apologist gives in his Verdict concerning the falsnesse of my assertion before mentioned , of the Annotators speaking cleare and home to the Deity of Christ but in one , if in one place of his Annotations : But 1. What one other place hath he produced , whereby the contrary , to what I assert , is evinced ? Any man may make Apologies at this rate as fast as he pleases . 2. As to his not speaking clearely in that one , notwithstanding the improvement made of his Expressions by the Apologist , I am still of the same mind as formerly : For although he ascribes an Eternity {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , and affirmes all things to be made thereby ; yet considering how carefull he is , of ascribing an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , how many Platonicke interpretations of that expression he interweaves in his expositions , how he hath darkned the whole councell of God in that place about the subsistence of the word , its omnipotency and incarnation , so clearely asserted by the holy Ghost therein , I see no reason to retract the assertion opposed . But yet as to the thing it selfe , about this place I will not contend : only it may not be amisse to observe , that not only the Arians , but even Photinus himselfe acknoledged that the world was made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , that how little is obtained toward the confirmation of the Deity of Christ by that concession , may be discerned . I shall offer also only at present , that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , is threefold , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . The {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is Christ , mentioned Iohn 1. 1. his personall or eternall subsistence , with his omnipotency , being there asserted . Whether Christ be so called anywhere else in the New Testament may be disputed , Luk. 1. v. 2. ( compared with the 1 of Iob. 1. 1. ) 2 Pet. 1. 16. and Act. 20. 32. Heb. 4. 12. are the most likely to give us that use of the word . Why Christ is so termed , I have shewed elsewhere . That he is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Psal. 33. 6. is to me also evident . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is better rendred {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Where that word is used , it denotes not Christ : Though 2 Sam. 23. 2. where that word is , is urged by some to that purpose . He is also called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Hag. 2. 5. so perhaps in other places . Our present Quakers would have that expression of , the word of God , used no where in any other sense : so that destroying that , as they do , in the issue they may freely despise the Scripture , as that which they say is not the word of God , nor anywhere so called . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} amongst men is that which Aristotle calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} saies Hesichius . {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is that which we speake in our hearts , saies Damascen . de Orthod. fid. Lib. 1. cap. 18. So Psalm 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . This as spoken in respect of God , is that egresse of his power , whereby according to the eternall conception of his mind , he worketh any thing . So Gen. 1. 2. God said let there be light , and there was light . Of this word of God the Psalmist treats , 147. v. 18. he sedeth out {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & melteth the Ice , and Psal. 148. 8. the same word is used . In both which places the Septuagint renders it by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . This is that which is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , Heb. 1. 2. and Heb. 11. 3. where the Apostle saies the heavens were made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : which is directly paralell to that place of 2 Pet. 3. 5. where it is expressed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : for though {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} more properly denotes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , yet in these places , it signifies plainly that egresse of Gods power for the production and preservation of things , being a persuite of the eternall conception of his mind , which is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . Now this infinite wise and eternall conception of the mind of God , exerting its selfe in power , wherein God is said to speake , ( he said let there be light ) is that which the Platonicks , and Philo with them harped on , nener once dreaming of a coessentiall and hypostaticall word of God , though the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} occurre amongst them . This they thought was unto God , as in us , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . and particularly it is termed by Philo ▪ {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : de agric. . That this was his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is most evident : Hence he tells us {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} : de Mund. opific. and a little after , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} . The whole tendency of his discourse is , that the word of God , in his mind , in the creation of the world , was the image of himselfe ; and that the idea or image of the things to be made , but especially of light . And whereas ( if I remember aright , for I cannot now find the place ) I have said somewhere , that Christ was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , though therein I have the consent of very many learned Divines , and used it meerly in opposition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ; yet I desire to recall it : nor doe I thinke there is any propriety in that expression of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used of Christ , but only in those of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , which the Scripture ( though not in the very termes ) will make good . In this second acceptation , {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} , Photinus himselfe granted that the world was made by the word of God . Now if it be thought necessary , that I should give an account of my feare that nothing but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in this sense decked with many Platonicall encomiums was intended in the Annotations on Ioh. 1. ( though I confesse much from some quotations there used , may be said against it ) I shall readily undertake the Taske ; but at present in this running Course , I shall adde no more . But now , as if all the matter in hand , were fully dispatched , we have this triumphant close attending the former discourse , and observations . If one Text acknowledged to assert Christs eternall Divinity ( which one was granted to doe it , though not clearly , ) will not suffice to conclude him no Socinian ) which I said not he was , yea expressely waved the management of any such charge ) If six verses in the Proverbs , two in Isaiah ; one in St. Peter , one in St. Paul added to many in the beginning of St. Iohn , ( In his Annotations on all which , he speaks not one word to the purpose ) will not yet amount to above one Text ; or lastly if that one may be doubted of also , which is by him interpreted to affirme Christs eternall subsistence with God before the Creation of the world ( which he doth not so interpret , as to a personall subsistence ) and that the whole world was created by him ; I shall despaire of ever being a successfull Advocate for any man ; from which Condition I hope some little time will recover the Apologist . This is the Summe of what is pleaded in cheife , for the defence of the Annotations : wherein what small cause he hath to acquiesce , who hath been put to the labour and trouble of vindicating nere 40 Texts of Scripture in the old Testament , and new , giving expresse Testimony to the Deity of Christ from the Annotators perverse interpretations , let the Reader judge . In the 13th Section of the Apologist's discourse , he addes some other Considerations to confirme his former vindication of the Annotations . 1 He tells us , that he professeth not to Divine , what places of the old Testament , wherein the Deity of Christ is evidently testified unto , are corrupted by the learned man , nor will he upon the discouragement already received make any inquiry into my Treatise . But what need of Divination ? The Apologist cannot but remember at all times , some of the Texts of the old Testament that are pleaded to that purpose ; and he hath at least as many incouragements to looke into the Annotations , as discouragements from casting an eye upon that Volume ( as he calls it , ) wherein they are called to an account . And if he suppose , he can make a just defence for the severall places so wrested , and perverted , without once consulting of them , I know not how by me he might possibly be ingaged into such an inquiry . And therefore I shall not name them again , having done somewhat more then name them already . But he hath two suppletory considerations , that will render any such inquiry or inspection needlesse . Of these the first is That the word of God being all and every part of it of equall truth , that doctrine which is founded on five places of Divine writ ; must by all Christians be acknoledged to be as irrefragably confirmed , as an 100 expresse places would be conceived to confirme it . Ans. It is confessed , that not only five , but any one expresse Text of Scripture , is sufficient for the confirmation of any divine truth . But that five places have been produced out of the Annotations by the Apologist for the confirmation of the great truth pleaded about , is but pretended , indeed there is no such thing . The Charge on Grotius was , that he had depraved all but one ; if that be no crime , the defence was at hand ; if it be , though that one should be acknowledged to be clear to that purpose , here is no defence against that which was charged , but a strife about that which was not . Let the places be consulted , if the assertion prove true , by an induction of instances , the Crime is to be confessed , or else the charge denied to contain a crime : but Secondly he saies , That this charge upon inquiry will be found in some degree , if not equally , chargeable on the learnedst and most valued of the first Reformers , particularly upon Mr. Calvin himselfe , who hath been as bitterly and injustly accused and reviled upon this account ( witnesse the booke intituled Calvino Turcismus ) as ever Erasmus was by Bellarmine and Beza , or as probably Grotius may be . Though this at the best be but a diversion of the Charge , and no defence , yet not containing that truth which is needfull to countenance it , for the end for which it is proposed ; I could not passe it by . It is denied ( which in this case untill further proofe must suffice ) that any of the learnedst of the first Reformers , ( and particularly Mr. Calvin ) are equally chargeable , or in any degree of proportion with Grotius , as to the Crime insisted on . Calvin being the man instanced in , I desire the Apologist to prove that he hath in all his Commentaries on the Scripture corrupted the sense , of any Texts of the old Testament or new , giving expresse Testimony to the Deity of Christ , & commonly pleaded to that end & purpose . Although I deny not , but that he differs from the cōmon judgment of most , in the interpretation of some few propheticall passages , judged by them to relate to Christ . I know what Genebrard and some others of that faction , raved against him ; but it was cheifly from some expressiōs in his institutions about the Trinity ( wherin yet he is acquitted by the most learned of themselves ) & not from his expositions of Scripture , for which they raised their Clamours . For the booke called Calvino Turcismus , written by Reynolds and Giffard , the Apologist has forgotten the designe of it . Calvin is no more concerned in it , then others of the first Reformers ; nor is it from any doctrine about the Deity of Christ in particular , but from the whole of the reformed Religion , with the Apostasyes of some of that profession , that they compare it with Turcisme . Something indeed , in a chapter or two , they speake about the Trinity , from some expressions of Luther , Melancton , Calvin and others : but as to Calvin's expositions of Scripture , they insist not on them . Possibly the Apologist may have seen Pareus his Calvinus Orthodoxus , in an answer to Hunnius his Calvinus Judaizans ; if not , he may at any time have there an account of this calumny . Having passed through the Consideration of the two considerable heads of this discourse , in the method called for by the Apologist ( having only taken liberty to transpose them , as to first and last ) I must professe my selfe as yet unsatisfyed as to the necessity , or suitablenesse , of this kind of defence . The summe of that which I affirmed ( which alone gives occasion to the defensative now under consideration ) is : that to my observation Grotius in his Annotations had not left above one text of Scripture , if one , giving cleare evidence to the Deity of Christ ; of his Satisfaction I said in summe the same thing . Had the Apologist been pleased to have produced instances of any evidence for the disproovement of my assertion , I should very gladly and readily have acknoledged my mistake and oversight . I am still also in the same resolution , as to the latitude of the expression , though I have already by an induction of particulars , manifested his corrupting and perverting of so many , both in respect of the one head , and of the other , with his expresse complyance with the Socinians in his so doing , as that I cannot have the least thought of letting fall my Charge , which with the limitation expressed ( of my owne observation ) containes the truth in this matter , and nothing but that which is so . It was indeed in my thoughts to have done somewhat more in reference to those Annotations , then thus occasionally to have animadverted on their corruption in generall ; namely to have proceeded in the vindication of the truths of the Gospell from their Captivity under the false glosses put upon them , by the interpretations of places of Scripture wherein they are delivered . But this worke being fallen on an abler hand viz. that of our learned professor of Divinity , my desire is satisfied , and the necessity of my indeavour for that end removed . There are sundry other particulars insisted on by the Apologist , and a great deale of Rhetoricke is layd out about them ; which certainly deserves not the Readers trouble in the perusall of any other debate about them . If they did , it were an easie matter to discover his mistakes in them all along . The foundation of most of them , lies in that , which he affirmes Sect. 4. where he saies , that I thus state the Jealousies about H. G. as farr as it is owned by me , viz. that being in doctrine a Socinian , he yet closed in many things with the Romane interest . To which he replies , that this does not so much as pretend that he was a Papist . As though I undertake to prove Grotius to be a Papist , or did not expressely disowne the management of the Iealousy , stated as above ; or that I did at all owne it , all which are otherwise : yet I shall now say , whither he was in Doctrine a Socinian or no , let his Annotations before insisted on , determine : And whether he closed with the Romane interest or no , besides what hath been observed by others , I desire the Apologist to consider his observation on Rev. 12. v. 5. that booke , ( himselfe being judge , ) having received his last hand . But my businesse is not to accuse Grotius , or to charge his memory with any thing but his prevarication in his Annotations on the Scripture . And as I shall not cease to presse the generall Aphorisme ( as it is called ) that no drunkard &c. nor any person whatever not borne of God or united to Christ the head , by the same Spirit that is in him , and in the sense thereof , perfecting Holinesse in the feare of God , shall ever see his face in glory , so I feare not what conclusion can regularly in reference to any person living or dead , be thence deduced . It is of the Annotations whereof I have spoken : which I have my liberty to do : and I presume shall still continue , whilest I live in the same thoughts of them : though I should see — a third defence of the learned Hugo Grotius . The Epistles of Grotius to Crellius mentioned by the Apologist in his first defence of him , giving some light to what hath been insisted on , I thought it not unfit to communicate them to the Reader , as they came to my hand , having not as yet been printed that I know of . Reverendo summaeque eruditionis ac pietatis viro Domino Johanni Crellio pastori Racov. H. G. S. LIbro tuo quo ad eum quem ego quondam scripseram ( Eruditissimè Crellî ) respondisti , adeo offensus non fui , ut etiam gratias tunc intra animum meum egerim , nunc & hisce agam literis . Primò , quod non tantùm humanè , sed & valdè officiosè mecum egeris , ita ut quaeri nihil possim , nisi quod in me praedicando , modum interdum excedis , deinde verò , quod multa me docueris , partim utilia , partim jucunda scitu , meque exemplo tuo incitaveris ad penitiùs expendendum sensus sacrorum librorum . Benè autem in Epistolâ tuâ , quae mihi longè gratissima advenit , de me judicas , non esse me eorum in numero qui ob sententias salvâ pietate dissidentes alieno à quoquam sim animo , aut boni alicu jus amicitiam repudiem . Equidem in libro * de verâ Religione , quem jam percurri , relecturus & posthac , multa invenio summo cum judicio observata . Illud vero saeculo gratulor , repertos homines qui nentiquam in controversiis subtilibus tantum ponunt , quantum in verâ vitae emendatione , & quotidiano ad Sanctitatem profectu . Utinam & mea scripta aliquid ad hoc studium in animis hominum excitandum inflammandúmque conferre possint : tunc enim non frustra me vixisse hactenus existimem . Liber de veritate Religionis Christianae magis ut nobis esset solatio , quam ut aliis documento scriptus , non video quid post tot aliorum labores utilitatis afferre possit , nisi ipsâ fortè brevitate . Siquid tamen in eo est , quod tibi tuique similibus placeat , mihi supra spem●euenit . Libris de jure belli & pacis mihi praecipuè propositum habui , ut feritatem illam , non Christianis tantùm , sed & hominibus indignam , ad bella pro libitu suscipienda , pro libitu gerenda , quam gliscere tot populorum malo quotidie video , quantum in me est , sedarem . Gaudeo ad principum quorundam manus eo● libros venisse , qui utinam partem eorum meliorem in suum animum admitterent . Nullus enim mihi ex eo labore suavior fructus contingere possit . Te verò quod attinet , credas , rogo , si quid unquam facere possim tui , aut eorum quos singulariter amas , causâ , experturum te , quantum te tuo merito faciam . Nunc quum aliud possim nihil , Dominum Jesum supplice animo veneror , ut tibi aliisque pietatem promoventibus propitius adsit . x. Maii. M. DC . XXVI . Tui nominis studiosissimus H. G. TAm pro Epistolâ ( vir Clarissime ) quam pro transmisso libro , gratias ago maximas . Constitui & legere & relegere diligenter quaecunque à te prosiciscuntur , expertus quo cum fructu id antehàc fecerim . Eo ipso tempore quo literas tuas accepi , versabar in lectione tuae interpretationis in Epistolam ad Galatas . Quantum judicare possum & scripti occasionem & propositum , & totam seriem dictionis , ut magnâ cum curâ indagâsti , ita feliciter admodùm es assequutus . Quare Deum precor , ut & tibi & tui similibus , vitam det , & quae alia ad istiusmodi labores necessaria . Mihi ad juvandam communem Christianismi causam , utinam tam adessent vires , quàm promptus est animus : quippe me , à primâ aetate , per varia disciplinarum genera jactatum , nulla res magis delectavit , quam rerum sacrarum meditatio . Id in rebus prosperis moderamen , id in adversis solamen sensi . Pacis consilia & amavi semper , & amo nunc quoque : eoque doleo , quum video tam pertinacibus iris committi inter se eos , qui Christi se esse dicunt . Si rectè rem putamus , quantillis de causis — Januarii . M. DC . XXXII . Amstelodam . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A90286e-140 Grotius ad nocentissimae haereseos atque ●frenis licentiae scyllam , iterumque ad tyrannidis charybdin declinavit fluctuans : Essen . Notes for div A90286e-12310 This booke of Crellius lay unanswered by Grotius above 20 yeares . For so long he lived after the publishing of it . It is since fully answered by Essenius . * That is the body of Socinian Divinity written by Crellius and Volkelius . Let the Reader judge what Annotatiōs on that Epistle we are to exspect from this man . 
A64356	----	The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods in answer to a book written by a Romanist, and intituled, The Protestant's plea for a Socinian. Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715. 1687 Approx. 116 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 33 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A64356 Wing T694 ESTC R10714 12590796 ocm 12590796 63913 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A64356) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 63913) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 676:6) The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods in answer to a book written by a Romanist, and intituled, The Protestant's plea for a Socinian. Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715. 64 p. Printed for Benjamin Tooke ..., [London] : 1687. Attributed to Thomas Tenison. Cf. Halkett & Laing (2nd ed.). Includes bibliographical references. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng R. H., 1609-1678. -- Protestant's plea for a Socinian. Socinianism. 2003-05 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-05 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-06 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2003-06 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-08 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE DIFFERENCE Betwixt the PROTESTANT AND Socinian Methods : In ANSWER to a BOOK Written by a ROMANIST , and Intituled , The Protestants . Plea for a Socinian . LICENSED , Decemb. 14. 1686. Printed for Benjamin Tooke at the Sign of the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard . 1687. THE Introduction . THE Author of a late little Book , which bears the Title of [ Seek and you shall find , ] does , both in his own Name , and in the Name of many Sincere Persons , make open complaint of the Licentiousness of the Press . a If he means by those Persons , such as are so Sincere in their Credulity , that they mixt not one grain of reasonable Inquiry with it , the Complaint will give no pain to judicious People , unless it be by moving them to pity his Weakness . And a Man would imagine , that his ●…ort of Sincere People were so purely Credulous , seeing the Justice of the complaint is on the side of the Reformed . This lesser matter puts me in mind of a greater , yet of a like Nature , in the Circumcellions , one of those Branches into which the Faction , which sprang from Donatus , was divided . They went about doing injury to the Christians , from whom they had made a causeless Separation ; and when their Incivilities were , by those whom they had provoked , turn'd upon them , they took the confidence to call themselves Martyrs . But certainly , those , who are the illegal Aggressors , deserve the Blame . Those who send the Challenge are the Litentious , rather than the modest Accepters . And , when Truth and Innocency are assaulted , such as Honour them and have interest in them , ought to do some just thing in their necessary defence ; and , if need be , draw their Pens in their Service . Provided that it be done ( as , I think , by our Churchmen , it has been generally done ) in a way consistent with decency of Manners , and publick Peace . If , therefore , there appear amongst the Romanists , Misrepresenters and crafty Softners and Colourers of their own Doctrine ; True and Faithful Representers are not unreasonably Officious , when they enter upon the Stage and take off the Disguise . If Artificial Expositions are imposed , and set to Sale in our own Language upon every Stall ; it is very proper for such as are Friends to Sincerity , to take upon them the Office of True Expounders , and to convince the World , that such Sweetners of the Doctrines of the Synod of Trent , have not declared what those Doctrines are , but what , in their Opinion , they ought to be ; or , by what turns of Wit , they may be fenced against the Arguments of Reformed Catholiques . If any Man thinks fit not only to Preach , but to Publish in this Nation , a Sermon of St. Peter , and , in that Sermon , to reproach all Churches besides the Roman , as New Trimmed Vessels , Leaky at the Bottom , and unable to carry those , who Sail in them ; to the Haven ; it cannot be a Crime to set forth a Discourse on the same Subject , ( without any reflexion either on such a Person , or his Performance ; ) and to shew the true Sense of Thou art Peter , and the safety of our Communion , and the Soundness of our Bottom ; whilst some are in a Vessel which has suffer'd so many Alterations and Additions , that it cannot be call'd the same Ship it was , when St. Peter was in it . Again , if such Guides in Controversy offer themselves , as lead Men out of the way , and turn them round in an endless Circle ; the Direction of honest Guides is a debt which they owe to Truth and Charity . If Men in Books , in Pulpits , in Conversation , shall daily ask the question , Where is the Protestant's Judge ? they ought to esteem it a Civility in others , when they give them a full Answer about a Iudge in Controversy . And if Men of like Perswasion revile this Church as the Schismatical party of Donatus , it is out of decency and not want of ability , that Men do not give them an Irene for their Lucilla . In the mean time , they have a Substantial Answer , though not so sharp a Rebuke , as their bold uncharitableness justly merited . Last of all , If a Romanist accuseth the Church of England , as a Patroness of the Heresie of Socinus , though not with a direct and downright charge , yet from the consequence of her Methods ; common Duty to so Good and Venerable a Mother constraineth her Sons to appear in her Vindication ; and to shew that her Plea is very widely mistaken . If she pleads for Arians , Socinians , or any other Faction of Men , who have departed from the true Faith ; she does it no otherwise than in the Words of her Litany . In that Pious Office , she beseecheth God to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived : And may God abundantly favour her Charitable Petition . By such Considerations as these , I have , at last , been moved to write an Answer to the Book which the Author is pleas'd to call The Protestants Plea for a Socinian , and to make that Answer publick . But I must acknowledge , that , upon other Accounts , the Diversion which this Answer has given me , has been very unwelcom : As unwelcom as the trouble was to those of old time , who , when they were employ'd in offering Sacrifice , were forc'd to turn aside , and drive away from the Altar the greedy Fowls , and the impertinent Flies . Now , in this Answer , I shall , for Order-sake , and that I may proceed distinctly , reduce what I purpose to say to certain Heads ; and they are these three which follow . I. Observations touching the Book itself , its Edition , Character and design . II. Considerations relating to the General Argument of it , by which it may appear to be of no real force against the Plea of the Reformed . III. Particular Answers to the Particular Parts of this pretended Protestants Plea , as it stands divided in the Five Conferences of the Author . The Difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian Methods , &c. CHAP. I. Observations touching the Book itself , its Edition , Character and Design . FOR the Book itself , it may be noted in the First place , That it is neither new , nor entire . It is the Fourth Discourse in the Second Edition of the Guide in Controversies , set out in the Year 1673. If this Tract was published before that time , to me it was not ; for then , and not before , it came to my knowledge . But this is not the thing which gives our Ecclesiasticks offence ; for whether the Men of Controversie bring into the Field either their Old or their New Artillery of Arguments , this Apostolical Church is proof against them . The Book , of which this Plea is a part , is believed , by many of the same way , to be of very great Strength and Solidity : And when a Question is moved concerning their Faith , they think it enough to say , The Guide is unanswered * If that be a good Method , a Protestant , upon the like occasion , may take leave to say , The Book against the Popes Supremacy , written by the learned and humble Dr. Barrow , is unanswerable . And , after all this , the Guide is actually answered , though not in the Formality of Word for Word , in a great Volume of Refutation * . The Bottom on which all is built is shew'd to be false ; and if a Workman discovers the unsoundness of the Foundation , he is not oblig'd to tell particularly how every single Brick is dawbed with untempered Mortar . The Guide is sufficiently answered , if it be prov'd , either that the first step he sets is false , or that he wants Eyes , or that he is , by prejudice , blinded . Some such thing seems to be , in some degree , in this Guide in Controversie ; and I may set it down as my Second Observation , That though there is a commendable Temper in this , and his other Writings , yet there is an obscureness in all of them ; and he that is conversant in his Books , is as if he walk'd in a calm , but darkish Night . Part of this obscureness to the Unlearned riseth from Hard Words , which , though they seem not to be affected by the Author , are yet very frequently used by him . Such are , in his other Discourses , a Relative Cult . Salvifical b . Non-clearness c . Inerrability d . Church-Anarchical e . Traditive-Sense f . Decession g . And , in this Plea , Autocatacrisie h , Plerophory i , Cognoscitive Faculties k , Unliteral l , Consubstantiality m . But the plain truth is this , That where the Cause will not bear manifest and sound Sense , it must be darkned with Words , if Men will plead , with Art , for it . Concerning the Sense of the Protestants darkned in this and his other Discourses , he has done it with Art enough ; I cannot say , with equal Sincerity . Little Pieces of their Writings are taken out of their Places , and inlaid in such manner as to serve the Figure of his Work , but to blemish theirs . And it may be a Third Note , with particular reference to Mr. Chillingworth , whom , in this short Dialogue , he has cited more than twenty times , that whilst he has picked out of him many other Words , he has omitted every one of those which do expresly answer this Plea for a Socinian . I will set down these Words afterwards , in their due place , for the Satisfaction of Ingenuous Readers ; * and to shew that great Accomplishments may be attended with great Insincerity . Fourthly , I observe concerning this Writer , That he has not , in this Dialogue betwixt a Protestant and a Socinian , strictly kept the Character of either of them . First , He hath not accurately observed the Character of a Socinian . He introduceth the Socinian as insisting perp●tually upon the Point of the Consubstantiality of th● Son of God , or his being of one and the same E●sence or Substance with the Father : Whereas that ●● properly the Point in Controversie betwixt the ●●rians and the Catholick Christians , rather than betwixt them and the Socinians , who derive them selves from Artemon and Samosatenus more directly than from Arius . It is true , they deny that Christ is of the same Substance with his Father , but their proper Heresie is the denial of his being any thing before he was conceiv'd by the Holy Ghost , and born of the Virgin Mary : For this reason the Extracts out of the Readings of the College of Posnan n against the Socinians , have the Name given to them of Theological Assertions against the New Samosatenians , and not the New Arians ; yet in some respects they are , and may be so called , without absurdness of Speech . Socinus himself will not admit that the true Arians are of his way , further than as they agree with him in affirming the Father to be the only God by Essence o . And Sandius , though he was a professed Arian , and an avowed Enemy of the Nicene Doctrine , yet he wrote against the Socinian Heresies , which affirm , That Christ was a meer Man , and deny that the Spirit of God is a Person p . But the Author may have been moved to select this Point because of its accidental difficulty occasion'd by Scholastick Niceness in their Disputes about this Mystery , and the Controversies which they have carry'd on about the very term of Homousiety . There was artifice , therefore , in singling out this Point as capable of being turned into perplexity . Especially ( as Go●… us q the Socinian notes ) when the Occams and the Durands enter into Questions about Formalities , Quiddities , and Personalities . Other Points ( as about Baptism , the Lords Supper , Orders , and the Church ) would have been too plain for the purpose . Again , This Author brings , or rather forces in his Socinian , and makes him to speak to the Protestant in these words : r — I pray tell me , Whether do you certainly know the Sense of the Scriptures , for the Evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther , requiring Conformity to the contrary Doctrines as a Condition of her Communion ? This is rather the Phrase of a Papist than a Socinian . For , though Socinus believ'd his own Scheme to be new , and distinct from the whole Church , he did not believe that the Lutherans had made such a Separation . Neither would he have disputed with them about the Sense of the Scriptures , for the Evidence of which they separated ( or rather were driven ) from the Church of Rome ; for he did allow that those places were clear . Nor would he have given to the Roman Church the name of the whole Church , or scarce of a Church at all . He did not so much as allow it to be a true Church in the most favourable sense of the Protestants , who distinguish betwixt a true and a pure Church , and compare it to a Mass of Silver embased with Lead . Socinus plac'd the Truth of the Church in the Truth of its Doctrine s , from which Truth he held the Church of Rome to be extreamly departed . He affirm'd concerning the Notes or Signs of the Church , That either they were false ; or , if true , belong'd not to the Church of Rome : And he made particular Instance in the Mark of Holy. He declar'd concerning Luther , t That he drew Men off from false Worship and Idolatry , and brought them to that Knowledge of Divine Matters which was sufficient for the procuring of Eternal Life . He added , That God did afterwards , by Zuinglius and Oecolampadius , reform certain things of very great importance . He repeats it again , That , by the means of Luther , Men were enlightned in those things which were absolutely necessary to Salvation . So that this Author does not exactly personate a Socinian when he speaks thus in a Sonian's Name ; Whether do you certainly know the Sense of the Scriptures for the Evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther ? Again , A Socinian would not have spoken as this Author does in his Name , calling a heinous Iniquity a u very great Mortal Sin. Nor would any accurate Speaker have us'd that improper Expression . Then ( Secondly ) for the Protestant in the Dialogue , he does here and there misrepresent his Sense , and speak , at the same time , as by him , and yet against him . For Example-sake ; the Socinian having said out of Mr. Chillingworth , That his Party had not forsaken the whole Church , seeing themselves were a part of it , ( which , by the way , a Socinian would scarce have said , but rather have own'd his Church to have been a new one upon the whole Matter , and granted a kind of Universal Apostacy * ) the Protestant is brought in as in a manner deriding this Argument in his own Person , or at least as contented with it as , by a Socinian , propos'd : — So then it seems we need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick till a part can divide from itself , which can never be . Whereas a Protestant would have first told them , that there is just fear of a Schism in the Body of the Church Catholick , though not from it : And that they had made a Separation from the sound parts of it , though not from the whole ; whilst the Protestants were both Members of the Universal Church , and in Communion with all particular Churches so far as they are Christian. He would have added , That Mr. Chillingworth's Words were proper in his own Case , but not in the Case of a Socinian Church , which is taken to be a Member in the Universal Church , but unsound and out of its place . Fourthly , It may be noted , that the Author of this Book is not the Inventer , but the Borrower of this Argument call'd The Protestants Plea for a Socinian . It has been used by Valerianus Magnus ; by the Author of the Brief Disquisition ; by Sir Kenelm Digby , in his Discourse x concerning the Infallibility of Religion , ( if he be the genuine Author ; ) by the Iesuite who cavill'd against Dr. Potter's Book call'd , Want of Charity . Which Argument of the Iesuite was long ago answer'd by Mr. Chillingworth y , though this Author , who was under Obligation , by the very Nature of his Undertaking , to have Reply'd , is pleas'd to pass it over in silence . Since that time , Louis Maimbourg ( then a Iesuite ) wrote a Book Intituled , A Treatise concerning the True Word of God z . Four Chapters of that little Book are spent in the managing of this Method . And , If you will take it upon his own Word , he has come into the Field with Invincible Weapons a . About two years after , this Protestants Plea is set to sale among us , after the English manner in other knacks . After the French , comes the English Guide ; after the Foreign Expositor , the English Misrepresenter . We follow when the Mode declines elsewhere . When others molt their Feathers , we take them up and write with them . Yet this is to be acknowledg'd , that our Author , both in his Judgment and Manners , and closeness of Writing , does much exceed that Monsieur Maimbourg , though he may seem to have taken some Hints from him . My Last Observation toucheth the design of this Book , which looks as if it were particularly levell'd against the Established Church of England . It is true , the more general Name of Protestant is used , but the Authors who are cited are not Luther or Calvin ; Cal●…xtus or Daille ; Cartwright or Travers ; but Archb. Laud ; Archb. Bramhal ; Mr. Chillingworth ; Dr. Hammond ; Dr. F●…rn , and Dr. Stillingfleet . Now it has been one of the later Stratagems of evil Men , to Misrepresent the Ministers of this Sound Church , as favourers of the Doctrines of Socinus , and at this very time this Art is in Practice . Otherwise , why d●…es the Paper just now scattered abroad , b style the Socinians the Brethren of Protestants by descent and iniquity ? To what other purpose serveth the beginning of the long Book just now appearing , and call'd , a Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln c ? For the Author complains of the Arian History of Sandius , as publish'd here at London , ( though 't was set sorth in Holland , and in England twice refuted ) and of that Bishops declining an Answer to it ; which ( surely ) he might reasonably do , without any approbation of so ill a Book ; for every Man is not at leasure to do every thing in Learning , which , in the general , is fit to be done . The Title of this Book is Serviceable to the abovesaid design , by way of Insinuation . And who will assure us , that it was not pick'd out of the Guide for this disingenuous end ? That it was gathered meerly as the choicest Flower contain'd in that Book ; and not as the fittest in this juncture for this calumniating purpose ? I do not believe that this was the principal design either of the Author or the Publish●…r . But , if a Man , that goes about to fence himself from his Neighbour , can both dig his Ditch , and cast his durt upon him , he may , perhaps , be so ill natur'd as to think he does well to dispatch two works at a time . However it be with our present Author , this is certain , Socinus himself taking notice of it d , that England and Scotland were not favourable to his Doctrine ; and that it sprang out of Italy . Sozzo the Uncle , Blandrata , Paruta , Alciat , were Italians , and bred in the Roman Church . Ochinus was of Siena , and , some say e , Confessor to the Pope , and General of the Order of the Capucins . Faustus Socinus the Nephew , as well as Laelius the Uncle , was of the same Siena , and nearly related to Pius , the Second , and Third ; and to Paul the Fifth f . And , of the First Chapter of the Second Book of the Reformation of the Church of Poland g , these are the Contents . After what manner the Seeds of Divine Truth were carried out of Italy into Poland , in the Year 1551 by Laelius Socinus . And before his remove in the Year 1546 , he had form'd a Socinian Cabal of Italians in the Territories of Venice h , and especially at Vicenza , amounting to a considerable number . And I find it said elsewhere i , that , in the Year 1539 , the burning of a Lady who had turn'd from the Church of Rome , open'd the Eyes of Men in Poland , and dispos'd them to inquiry into Truth . I have seen some Applications k of the Socinians to the Mahometans , in which they shew what approaches they make towards them . I have read of Conditions of Accommodation betwixt the Socinians and the Romanists l . But Fame it self ( I think ) has not invented any such project betwixt the Socinians and the English Church . I do not offer this discourse , as a proof of encouragement for Socinianism in the Church of Rome , yet it is an Argument sufficient for the Silencing of those of that Communion , who charge it upon Ours . And for other Churches , that which is said already may be a proof of the wonted Sincerity of Monsieur Maimbourg , who tells his Readers with assurance , that the Persons who , after the interval of nigh 900 Years , reviv'd Arianism , were all of them either Lutherans or Calvinists before they became the Disciples of Socinus m . A Man ought to have been Master of their History , before he had pronounc'd so freely of them : But some have an extraordinary Talent in making History . It is true , the Author de Constantiâ Religionis Christianae n , was by Education a Lutheran ; but he was taken young into the School of the Iesuites : And , after having been Ten Years among them , he turn'd Socinian ; as he himself relates his own Story . And Men , who consider the Nature of causes and effects , are inclined to believe that the way to Socinianism has been much open'd and widen'd by the Popish Doctors who have so vehemently urg'd the Obscureness of the Scriptures in the Doctrine of the Trinity ; and who , at this very time , furnish the Hawkers with their little Dialogues , endeavouring to equal the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation , with that of Three Persons in one incomprehensible Essence . For to say , that that invention of Paschasius is as reasonable to be believ'd as the great Mystery of the Trinity , by all good Catholicks , is in effect to say , that neither of them is reasonable . CHAP. II. Considerations touching the General Argument of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian ; shewing the weakness of it , and that it is not of force enough to overthrow the Plea of the Reformed . LET that which hath been said , suffice for the Quality of this Writing , I will proceed to the General Argument of it , which may , in brief , be thus represented . The Protestants and Socinians , agree in their Plea , they alledge Scripture , they measure Faith by it as by a compleat and clear Rule . They reject Councils , and the Major part of Church Authority , if they are not convinc'd that they are founded on the Scriptures , in finding out the sense of which both sides profess due Industry . Both parties excuse themselves , ( whatsoever Doctrines they advance , whatsoever Wounds they open in the Church ) as uninfected with H●…si , and free from Schisan , till their private Spirit be satisfi'd , and , before the Tribunal they erect in their own Heads , they are self-accus'd and self-condemned . Therefore Protestants make Apology for Socinians , and are neither able to confute them , upon these Principles and Methods ; nor to justifie themselves ; but are oblig'd to appeal to the Infallible Iudge , or the Major part of the Bench of Iudges in the Roman Church , where all such Controversies may be effectually ended . The force of this specious Argument will be abated ( as all such Arguments may easily be , whose force lays only in plausible appearance ) by a few plain Considerations . First , the Socinians will not allow their Plea to be perfectly the same with that of the Protestants ; especially those of the Established Church of England . The Socinian Author of the Brief Disquisition proceeds up●…n a supposed difference ; and he endeavours to shew that unless the Evangelical quitted their own way of Resolving Faith , and made use of the Methods of Socinus , they could not Solidly and Evidently refute the Romanists , and particularly the Judgment of Valerianus Magnus , concerning the Protestant Rule of Believing . Secondly , Both Arians and Socinians plead Tradition ; though their Plea is not manag'd exactly after our better manner . And when they plead Tradition , why is not theirs then as much the Popish Plea , as , when they plead Scripture , it is the Protestants ? for neither do they plead that just as this Church does . Two Assertions may be here advanc'd . First , that the Arians and Socinians plead Tradition . Secondly , that some Papists have help'd the more Modern of them to Materials for the making of that Plea. First , Arians and Socinians plead Tradition against the Divine Nature of Christ , as the Romanists plead Tradition for it . Artemon taught the Heresie of our Saviours being a meer Man. And we are assured by an unnamed a , but an antient and ( as appeareth by his Fragments ) a very sagacious Author , that his Party declared that they follow'd Antiquiry ; that their Ancestors and the Apostles themselves were of the same belief ; that , to the time of Pope Victor , the true Doctrine of the Apostles was preserved ; and that it was corrupted in the times of his Successor Zephyrin . These ( how unjust soever ) were their Allegations . Socinus b takes the boldness to affirm , That the Romanists are not able to defend their Principles about the Trinity , by the Authority of the Fathers ; And , on the contrary , that the Earlier Fathers c . who liv'd before the Council of Nice , were firm in his belief . He cites the Council of Ariminum , Iustin the Martyr , and S. Hilary . He promiseth ( upon supposition of leisure ) to write a Tract on this Subject , for the satisfaction of those who are moved with such Authority . Crellius d pretends that , during 300 years after Christ , the Doctors of the Church consented in this Faith , That the Father was the most High God , whilst the Son was a Diety different from the Creator of the World. He says of Grotius , in upbraiding manner , That he must needs know of this Historical Truth , being a Man conversant in the Fathers . He quotes Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho , as Evidence on his side . He has the Confidence to say , That the Men of his Way have demonstrated this ; and that the very Adversaries of the Unitarians have confessed this to be true in Tertullian and Origen . He introduceth S. Hilary as a Patron of that Doctrine which denies the Divinity of the Spirit of God. He presumes to say , That the nearer approaches we make to the Anti-Trinitarians , the higher we come to the Apostolical Faith. Mosc●…rovius * charges his Adversaries with misrepresenting of the first Fathers , when they bring them in as Witnesses of that Faith concerning the Trinity which they profess . And he proceeds in telling of them , That Ignatius , the most antient of those Church-Doctors whose Writings are extant , does openly say the contrary in his Epistle to those of Tarsus , affirming that Christ is not the Deity who is God over all , but only the Son of God. He goes on in citing Iustin Martyr , Irenaeus , Origen ; how much to the purpose , it is not my business here to determine . It is true , Ignatius is not the most antient of those Doctors whose Writings are extant : but when he wrote this e , Mr. Young had not published Clements Epistle , nor M●…rdus that of Barnabas . It is also confess'd that he cites a spurious Piece of Tradition , ( for Ignatius wrote not that Epistle Ad Tarsenses ) ; but , in the mean time , to Tradition , he , in part , appeals . Lubieniecius f spends a Chapter in Demonstrating ( as he imagin'd ) that God had not left his Church , from the Apostles times to his , without Witnesses of the Doctrine which denies the Trinity . He glories in Artemon , Samosatenus , Photinus , and others : for Men are apt , in all Factions , to pretend to Number and Antiquity . Christopher Sandius wrote his indigested Heap of Church-Story with this very design , that , in the several Centuries , he might take especial notice of the Favourers of the Arian Doctrine . And , under the borrowed Name of Cingallus g , he gives himself the Honour of having made a most solid proof concerning all the Fathers of the three first Ages , that they believed as Arius believ'd . Mr. Biddle , in the Appendix to his Book against the Holy Trinity h , endeavours to strengthen his Plea with the Testimonies of Irenaeus , Iustin Martyr , Novatian , Theophilus , Origen , Arnobius , Lactantius , Eusebius of Caesarea , and Hilary of Poictiers . He pretends to the Fathers , though he is guilty of false mustering . Monsieur-Aubert du Versoy tells the World i with great assurance , That all the Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice were ignorant of that Notion of the Trinity which is now commonly embrac'd ; that all of them deny'd the Eternal Generation of the Son of God ; that all believ'd the Father to be the only Sovereign , Omnipotent , Eternal God. The Socinians , who offer'd to make Application here to the late Ambassador of the King of Fez and Morocco , would , in their Epistle k , perswade his Excellency , That Antiquity was on their side from Adam to Christ : and that all the Primitive Christians , in and after Christ and his Apostles times , never own'd any other besides the single and supreme Deity of the Father . This could not be said of all the Fathers from a Judicious Reader of them , but might be borrow'd from the same Person who furnish'd Sandius with his false Witnesses l . This brings to my memory , in due method , the Second Assertion , That some of the Arians and Socinians who put Tradition into their Plea , have fetch'd their Materials from a Roman Storehouse , th●…ugh not directly from the Church herself . The Jesuite Petavius is the Man : And his Second Tome of Ec●…lesiastical Doctrines , is their Magazine m . Insomuch that the Companions of Monsieur Clerc n , having first taken notice of the Citations of Curcellaeus in favour of the Arian Doctrine , do after that , refer us to Father Petau , as to the Author whom he follow'd . The Modern Arians have , also , call'd Huetius in to their assistance , in their Plea from Tradition , against the Divinity both of the Son o and of the Spirit of God p . But the mistakes of Petavius and others in this matter have been publickly shew'd by a Learned Person q of this Church , whose Work , though the Friends of Monsi●…ur Clerc have touch'd upon , they have not refuted r . Mr. Chillingworth urg'd some such thing as this in part of his Answer to the Iesuite who charg'd the Protestant as the Advocate of the Socinian , and he cited only the Notes of Petavius on Epiphanius ; the Ecclesiastical Doctrines of that Father not being then come forth into the Light. I will set down Mr. Chillingworths words , because they are omitted by this Author , who quotes him often where it is less to the purpose , and omits that in which he speaks directly to his point . The Iesuite had thus Misrepresented the Faith of the Reformed , Chap. 〈◊〉 . Sect 2. s The very Doctrine of Protestants , if it be follow'd closely and with coherence to itself , must of necessity induce Socinianism . To this Charge Mr. Chillingworth t makes the following Reply . 16. Had I a mind to recriminate now , and to charge Papists ( as you do Protestants ) that they lead Men to Socinianism , I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence than you have done . For I would not tell you , You deny the Infallibility of the Church of England ; Ergo , you lead to Socinianism , which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this , Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Roman Church ; Ergo , they induce Socinianism , nor would I resume my former Argument , and urge you , that by holding the Popes Infallibility , you submit your self to that Capital and Mother Heresie , by advantage whereof , he may lead you at ease to believe Virtue Vice , and Vice Virtue ; to believe Antichristianity Christianism , and Christianity Antichristian ; he may lead you to Socinianism , to Turcism , — if he have a mind to it ; But I would shew you that divers ways the Doctors of your Church do the principal and proper work of the Socinians for them , undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity , by denying it to be supported by those Pillars of the Faith , which alone are fit and able to support it , I mean Scripture , and the Consent of the antient Doctors . 17. For Scripture , your Men deny very plainly and frequently , that this Doctrine can be proved by it . See if you please , this plainly taught , and urged very earnestly by Cardinal Hosius , De Author . Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus , Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De Verbo Dei C. 19. By Gretserus and Tannerus , in Colloquio Ratisbon . And also by Vega , Possevin , Wiekus , and others . 18. And then for the Consent of the Ancients , that that also delivers it not , by whom are we taught but by Papists only ? Who is it that makes known to all the World , that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian Libraries was an Arian ? Is it not your great Achilles , Cardinal Perron , in his Third Book 2 Chap. of his Reply to King Iames ? Who is it that informs us that Origen ( who never was questioned for any errour in this matter in or near his time ) denied the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost ? Is it not the same great Cardinal in his Book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis l. 2. c. 7 ? Who is it that pretends that Irenaeus hath said those things , which he that should now hold would be esteemed an Arian ? Is it not the same Perron , in his reply to K. Iames , in the Fifth Chapter of his Fourth Observation ? And doth he not in the same place peach Tertullian also , and in a manner give him away to the Arians ? And pronounce generally of the Fathers before the Council of Nice , that the Arians would gladly be tried by them ? And are not your Fellow - I●…suites also , even the prime Men of your Order , Prevarieators in this point as well as others ? Doth not your Friend M. Fisher , or M. Floyd , in his Book of the Nine Questions proposed to him by K. Iames , speak dangerously to the same purpose , in his discourse of the resolution of Faith , towards the end ? Giving us to understand , that the new reformed Arians bring very many Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers to prove that in this point they did contradict themselves , and were contrary one to another , which places whosoever shall read , will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see , that to common People they are unanswerable ; yea , that common People are not capable of the Answers that Learned Men yield unto such obscure passages . And hath not your great Antiquary Petavius , in his Notes upon Epiphanius in Haer. 69. been very liberal to the Adversaries of the Doctrine of the Trinity , and in a manner given them for Patrons and Advocates ? First Iust in Martyr , and then almost all the Fathers before the Council of Nice , whose Speeches , he says , touching this Point , Cum Orthodoxa Fidei regulâ minimè consentiunt ? Hereunto I might add , That the Dominicans and Iesuites between them in another matter of great importance , viz. Gods Prescience of future Contingents , give the Socinians the Premises , out of which their Conclusion doth unavoidably follow . For the Dominicans maintain on the one side , That God can foresee nothing but what he decrees ; The Iesuites on the other side , That he doth not decree all things ; and from hence the Socinians conclude , ( as it is obvious for them to do , ) That he doth not foresee all things . Lastly , I might adjoyn this , That you agree with one consent , and settle for a Rule unquestionable , That no part of Religion can be repugnant to Reason , whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in saying , From Truth no Man can by good Consequence infer Falshood ; which is to say in effect , That Reason can never lead any Man to Errour : And after you have done so , you proclaim to all the World , ( as you in this Pamphlet do very frequently , ) That if Men follow their Reason and Discourse , they will ( if they understand themselves ) be led to Socinianism . And thus you see with what probable Matter I might furnish out and justifie my Accusation , if I should charge you with leading Men to Socinianism . Yet I do not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious Imputation . And much less should you have charged Protestants with it , whom you confess to abhor and detest it ; and who fight against it , not with the broken Reeds , and out of the Paper-Fortresses of an imaginary Infallibility , which were only to make sport for their Adversaries ; but with the Sword of the Spirit , the Word of God ; of which we may say most truly , what David said of Goliah's Sword , offered by Abimeleck , Non est sicut iste , There is none comparable to it . Thirdly , Though the Modern Arians and Socinians do speak of Tradition , and not of Scripture only , yet our Plea and theirs is not perfectly the same . Touching the Holy Scripture , we have a greater Veneration for it than many of them ; and for Tradition , though we make it not the very Rule of our Faith , nor place Infallibility in it ; yet , in concurrence with Scripture , it weigheth not so much with them as with us . We have a greater Veneration for the Holy Scripture itself , than the right Socinian : For such a one makes Reason the Rule of that Rule ; and though he thinks a Doctrine is plain in Scripture , yet , if he believes it to be against his Reason , he assents not to it . Whereas a Man of this Church believes the Scriptures to be written by Inspiration from God : And , upon that account he assures himself that nothing contrary to true Reason can be contained in the Scriptures . Therefore when he finds any thing in Holy Writ which to him is incomprehensible , he does not say he believes it though it be impossible and irrational ; but he believes it to be rational though mysterious ; and he suspects not Reason itself , but his own present Art of Reasoning whensoever it concludes against that which he reads , and reads without doubting of the sense of the words : And by Meditation he at last finds-his errour . The Socinians u challenge to themselves Petrus Abailardus as one of their Predecessors : For this they cite St. Bernard ; and they strengthen their challenge with the Testimony of Baronius , who says of Abailardus , That he made Reason the Judge of Articles of Faith. It is true , a Protestant judges whether his Faith be rational , or whether it be founded on Divine Revelation ; but he will not allow his Reasonings to oppose any Principle in Holy Writ : For that were either to deny it to be of God , or , with blasphemous irreverence , to reproach the Almighty Wisdom with a Contradiction . Yet after this manner Socinians argue , though some of them use great caution , and few make open profession of it : Nay , they sometimes tell us , That the Scripture contains nothing contrary to manifest Reason x . However , by their manner of objecting against the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity , the Sagacious are convinc'd , that they first think it to be against plain Reason , and then , rejecting it as an errour , they colour their Aversion with forced Interpretations of Holy Writ . The words of Ostorodius y hint to us at what end they begin . If Reason ( said he ) shews expresly that a Trinity of Persons in God is false , how could it ever come into the Mind of an understanding Man to think it to be true , and that it can be proved by the Word of God ? And further , They own , with us , from the Principles of Reason , that God is just and good ; but then , with the Platonists , they measure Justice and Goodness by particular Notions , which are their Reasonings , but not the Reason of Mankind . And when any thing is said in the Scripture which is contrary to such measures , they are ready to depart from it . Upon this account it is , that many of them deny the Doctrine of the Eternal Torments of the finally Impenitent ; not because it is not plain enough in Scripture , but because it seems contrary to their Notions of Justice , Goodness and Mercy ; though to the true Notions of them it may be reconcil'd . Thus Ernestus Sonnerus lays it down z as his Principle in the first place that the Eternal pains of the Wicked are contrary to Gods Justice ; and being prepossessed with this prejudice , he can , thenceforth , find nothing in the Scripture which may over-rule his Opinion . All this is not my private , and ( as some Socinians may call it ) uncharitable conjecture ; there is a Romanist a who has said the same thing , and in very plain terms . The Socinian ( saith he ) judgeth the Bible to be the wisest and most Authentical Book that ever was Written ; such a one , as no other humane Writing can contest with it ; yet not such a one as no slip nor errour may fall into it , even in matters of importance , and concerning our Salvation : And therefore , that where reason is absolutely against it , he may leave it ; though for Civility sake , he will rather choose to put a wrong Gloss upon it , than plainly refuse it . — It cannot be pretended that Scripture is his Rule : for , seeing he supposeth Scripture to be Fallible , and that , upon all occasions , he correcteth it by his discourse ; it is not Scripture but his discourse , and his reasoning , that is his true and Supreme Rule . Which is the cause that they , or some of their party did denominate themselves Sanarations from right reason . And as we have a greater Veneration for the Scriptures than most Arians and Socinians ; so have we a truer regard to real Tradition , which they use , not so much as a witness of any great value , as a fit weapon for the encountring those who dispute out of Antiquity ; to the end that they may overcome them with their own Arms. Socinus b had consulted some of the Antient Writers . He was one of the first in his Age who suspected some of those Epistles to be spurious , which went under the Venerable Name of Ignatius the Martyr . But I have not observed in any of his Writings , that he puts a value upon any such Authority , nay , he writes in Divinity in such manner as if no Church-Writers had so gone before him as to give any considerable light to him . He promiseth a Tract for the satisfaction of those , c who were moved ( in his opinion ) more than was fit with the Authority of the Fathers . And though , in this one point of the Father as the one Creator , he cites the Antients by way of Argument to the Men who esteem them ; yet in other Articles he confesses that he stands divided from them d , and rather Glories that he gives light to all the World , than borrows from it . The Author of the Brief Disquisition e blames the Protestants for the great deference they pay to unwritten Tradition , meaning by it that which is not Written in the Scriptures , but in the Fathers ; although , at the same time , he makes them to ascribe to Councils and single Fathers a greater Authority than they really do , notwithstanding they are very just to them . Ruarus f though he was a Man of extraordinary Candor , yet , in his Letters to Bergius , he does not barely refuse , but reject with derision , his Catholick Interpretation of Scripture according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis which admitteth , That Sense which was every where , always and of all beleived . [ A Rule by which we help our selves . ] And he further professeth that he should be much concern'd , if the Interpretations of Calvin and Luther were not more solid and acute than those of the Fathers . We of this Church consider in the Interpretations of the Fathers , not so much the acuteness ( though in S. Chrysostome , for instance sake , and in Theodoret , it is not wanting ) as we do the History , and the light which they may give us into the consent of the Churches in the Primitive times . We are not apt to believe that there was such an Universal Corruption and Apostacy g as Socinians speak of immediately after the Apostles times . We are not Strangers to the Testimony of Hegesippus h of which they make use for the blackning of the Primitive Church He does not say that the Leprosy was spread throughout the Church , but that it began early . We do not undervalue the Fathers , but proceed in the method of the Antients who begun first with the Holy Scriptures i and then descended to those who wrote next after the Holy Pen-Men . The Calvinists themselves , Radon and Silvius , in a Disputation at Petricow in Poland k did not plead just after the manner of the Socinians . They pleaded the Scriptures together with Councils and Fathers as Subordinate Witnesses . Their Socinian Adversaries , Gregorius Pauli and Gentilis , mock'd at their way of arguing . They profess'd they would admit of nothing but the pure Word of God as shiing sufficiently by its own Light. And they denied that there was contain'd in formal terms in the Holy Scriptures , the Doctrine of Three Persons in one Divine Essence . Again , the Members of our Church do not imitate the Socinians in traducing l Constantine the Great and preferring Constantius the Arian before him . They celebrate his Memory as a Defender of the Faith , so far are they from reviling him as a Perverter of it . They do not joyn with Socinians in reproaching the Fathers of Nice as Mercinary and Flexible Men , whom Constantine had gained to his party by interest or force m . They do not , with Gregorius Pauli n call the Explication of the Nicene Faith the Creed of Sathanasius . They hate the irreverence as much as they despise the jingle . They do not beleive that the Nicene Creed is forg'd , as some Socinians do * , though at the same time they take this upon the modern Authority of Laurentius Valla , whom they make to say , that he read it in very Antient Books of Isidore , who in his time was a Collector of Councils : Such a Collector of Councils as Varillas of History ; a Father and a Collector together . The truth is , it is Valla's business to elude the sense of Isidore , and to ascribe a twofold Creed to the Nicene Fathers , the Apostolical , and that which bears their Name . Whereas Isidor●… distinguishes betwixt their Creed and that of the Apostles o . The Protestants repeat in their Liturgy the Creed of Nice in the form agreed on in the Council of Constantinople , and would not do so , if they did not beleive it Orthodox . They do not say with some modern Arians p that it was framed by Marcellus Ancyranus a Heretick , or joyn with those Spanish Iesuites , who ( it seems ) charg'd this Creed with the Heresie of Photinus the Master of Marcellus . They pay a more just Duty to the Emperour and the Nicene Fathers , than to say with the Enemies of the Holy Trinity , that , setting Council against Council q , they chuse rather to follow those of Sirmium and Rimini than those of Nice . Our Church-Men do not , with the Socinians , disregard the Fathers who liv'd after that famous Council , and acknowledge that those Fathers are against it , and bid defiance to their opposition . But so does Socinus n , so does Crellius s , so does Pisecius t , for thus he discourseth . Do they say Theology knows nothing of this ? It is enough if the Apostles do . S. Austin damns this . Christ approves it . The same Pisecius is more severe in his censure than Socinus himself ; and he agrees with Scaliger ( if Scaliger be by him rightly cited ) in accusing all the Fathers up to S. Austins time , of ignorance in another Doctrine about the Receipt of departed Souls not Martyrs ; and in affirming that the Errours of the first Fathers prepared the way for Antichrist . In fine , Though the Church of England does not make the Councils her Rule of Faith , or make her last Appeal to them ; yet she believes that , in times of Controversie , when the Heads of Men are apt to be disturb'd even in Matters otherwise plain enough , by the Heats and Distempers of the Age they live in , they are of special use . The Authority of them tends to the quelling of the Party : And then , when the Faction cools , it tends to the fixing and further strengthning of the weak and interrupted Faith of many . For , as in a Ballance one Scale may descend more or less below the Level ; so there may be Faith and Assent without adding the weight of Fathers and Councils ; and yet ( in unquiet Times especially and disputing Ages ) such Testimonies may give some further strength to Minds made feeble either by publick Distractions , or the private Attacks of Crafty Seducers . Thus our Church gives to the Scripture the things that belong to the Scripture ; and to Tradition the Dues of Tradition : And it gives more even to the former than generally Socinians do ; and more also to the latter , though with just Caution and Subordination . So that their Plea and ours is not , in a strict way of speaking , the very same . But Fourthly , If we admit that the Plea of the Protestant and Socinian is the same , for the general nature of it ; we cannot be truly said to plead for them , unless the general Plea be , with Truth and Pertinence , as well as Boldness , applied to the very merit of the Cause . If two Men will plead the same thing with equal Assurance , but not with equal Reason , in Truth and Merit 't is not the same . If the Confidence of Men in pleading might weigh against the Right of others , they that were in the wrong would be in the right : For what was wanting in the Reason of the Case , would be supply'd by Impudence . But is it said by any of the Robe , that when the Counsel on either side pleads Presidents , and Statutes , or Equity , the Plaintiff pleads for the Defendent , and the Defendent for the Plaintiff ? Both pretend to the same Rule , but he that is in the right measures his Case by it ; the other would bend it towards his illegal Interests . One has a Plea , the other a Pretence . If a Socinian will plead Scripture , and plead it falsly , it is so far not ours , but his . If Confidence in pleading may either carry or ballance a Cause , then Pleas of Laws , Scriptures , Oral Tradition , Fathers , Councils , may be urged contrary ways , and each side be equally justifi'd : For all such Pleas have been made by contrary Parties . Mr. Lilburn pleaded Law as much as Judge Ienkins , though not as well . Some Dissenters in the Queens time wrote down their Arguments , and gave their Book the Title of Sions Plea. It may be their Adversaries might call it the Plea of Babylon . Whether it was the one or the other , was to be tryed not by the Name of the Plea , or the Persuasion of the Advocates , but by the Merit and Nature of the Cause itself . The Apostles pleaded before Magistrates of another Faith , that it was better to obey God than Man. All Parties who dissent from the Establish'd Religion , use the same Plea , and generally in the same Words . But does this make the Pleas equal ! Must they not joyn Issue upon the Reason of the Case , and compare their Circumstances and those of the Apostles , and observe wherein they agree , and wherein they differ ? If Men , who plead Scripture as their Rule of Faith , make Apologie , by so doing , for all others who pretend to the same Rule ; then Catholick Councils themselves plead for Socinians : For ( to give an example , ) the General Council of Chalcedon ( and after it Evagrius ) testifies u , That the Intent of the Second Council was , to make it appear by Scripture-Testimony , That such as Macedonius err'd in that Opinion which they had advanc'd against the Lordship of the Holy Ghost . The Council here us'd the like Plea with Socinus , but to a contrary End , and upon surer Reason . In such Cases there will be no satisfactory Conclusion , till the moment of the Scriptures be particularly weigh'd . For Tradition , that was pleaded x by Valentinus , Basilides , Marcion , who boasted of their following the Apostle S. Matthias . And Irenaeus y observ'd concerning Hereticks , that , being vanquish'd by Scripture , they accused it , and took Sanctuary in Tradition . Thus , after his time , did the Nestorian Hereticks z : Their Epistle to the People of Constantinople begins on this manner , The Law is not deliver'd in Writing , but is placed in the Minds of the Pastors . And when the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Third Council ( that of Ephesus , ) had confuted Nestorius out of the Scripture , in stead of answering , he foam'd against them . S. Cyprian a pleaded Universal Consent against Appeals to Rome ; and that is part of our Plea too . Yet the Romanists will not allow that he either pleads for our Church , or against their own . The Plea is to be consider'd , and not meerly offer'd . If , for example sake , a Church-man quotes the same S. Cyprian in favour of the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity , and Sandius the Arian cites the same Father as being against it , are we not to have recourse to the Book itself , and to examine the Pretences on both sides ? Or can any Man believe a Quotation is made good by the meer quoting of it ? And may not one Party be confuted without the Spirit of Infallibility ? It is evident it may be done , for it is done on this manner . Sandius b cites the Book De Duplici Martyrio , as not owning the Text in S. Iohn's Epistle , There are three that bear Record in Heaven . Now that Book is not S. Cyprians . It would be a very Extraordinary Birth , if he should be the Father of it ; for it makes mention of Dioclesians c persecution . And yet that spurious Book does not reject the place in S. Iohn , though it does not exactly set down the Text d . And for the Genuine S. Cyprian e he mentions the Text directly , in his Book of the Unity of the Church . And of this how are we sure ? Why ! Let us open the Book and read plain Words , and their unwrested sense gives us satisfaction . I conclude , then , that notwithstanding the Protestants and Socinians do , both of them , plead Scripture as the rule of Faith ; yet because Protestants plead the rule rightly in the point of the Divinity of the Son of God , and the Socinians very falsly ( even in the opinion of the Arians and Romanists themselves ) f ; the Plea of the former does not justifie the Plea of the latter ; and [ justifie ] is our Authors word . For the Tryal of the Plea we must come to dint of Argument ; and Truth is great , and will , in time , prevail . CHAP. III. Particular Answers to the particular Branches of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian , divided into five Conferences by the Author of it . THIS Third Chapter needs not to be drawn into any very great length ; for after the general Considerations which answer the general Argument , there wants little more than the Application of them to the respective Heads in the Dialogues . Of the First Conference this is the Sum , both Protestants and Socinians plead Scripture as the sole Rule of Faith. Both say , the Scripture is sufficiently clear . Both say , it is clear in the Doctrine of the Nature of the Son of God. The Socinian professeth himself to be as Industrious in finding out the sense of the Scripture as the Protestant ; and he is as well assur'd in his persuasion ; therefore the Protestant , in this Plea , Iustifies the Socinian , the latter saying the same thing for himself that the former does . I answer , First , ( as before , ) That though they pretend to the same Rule , they Walk not alike by it . One follows it , the other wrests it . And this ought not to be turn'd to the prejudice of him who is true to his Rule . Let both Opinions be brought to it , and then it will appear which is strait and which is crooked . If Two men lay before them the same Rule of Addition , and one works truly by it , and the other , either through want of due attention , or out of unjust design , shall cast up the Sum false , there is no man who will tell us in good earnest , that the first justifies the Second ; or that both of them needed an Infallible Arithmetician to be their Judg. Secondly , Though this Author picks out this one point of the Divinity of Christ , and represents it in the term of Consubstantiality , which to the Vulgar here , is more difficult than that of Homonsiety was to the Greeks ; and passes by many more easie Socinian Doctrines , yet so it is that we find in St. Iohn this very Article plainly revealed . For that Apostle ( who certainly was conscious of his own design ) wrote the History of his Gospel to this very purpose , That we might believe that Iesus is the Son of God : By which each Romanist , who owns ( what his Church does , ) the Catholick sense of St. Iohn's first Chapter , can understand no other Article than that of Nice , that Christ is God of God. Thirdly , Though the Socinians do pretend that the Writings of St. Iohn are to them as clear as to any Protestant , and that they cannot discern in them the Divinity of Christ ; yet Confidence in saying a thing is not clear , is not an Argument that it is not . The House is not naturally made dark , because the Blind will excuse their Infirmity upon it . Men will say Doctrines are obscure , even when they are secretly convinc'd of their evidence . For Pride and Prejudice are not very yeilding . My Adversary here ( says a Learned and Good Man * ) seems to object as elsewhere , that some who seem to follow the Letter of the Scriptures deny this , [ that is , the Divinity of Jesus Christ , ] as do the Socinians . What then ? This is not for want of Evidence in Scripture , but from making or devising ways to avoid this Evidence . Will this Author say , that there was no Evidence of there being Angels and Spirits , amongst the Jews , because the Sadduces , who had opportunity of observing all such Evidence , beleived neither Angel nor Spirit ? And will he say that there was no clear Evidence from the Word of Christ and his Miracles , that they were from God , because the Pharises and other unbeleiving Jews , who conversed with him , and saw his Miracles , and heard his Word , did not acknowledge him for God ? [ I suppose not ] . Fourthly , It does not become the Author ( who is a Romanist ) to say of the Protestant pleading Scripture , that , in so doing , he justifies the Plea of the Socinian ? For that supposes that the one has as much reason on his side as the other . Whereas a Romanist is oblig'd to own that the Protestant , so far as it is oppos'd to the Socinian Creed , is the true Catholick Faith ; and that the Nicene Creed which is common to us and them , is founded on the Scripture , though the bottom on which it stands is by the Church to be discover'd ; whilst his Church condemns the Doctrines of Socinus as Haeretical , and therefore as such as cannot at all , either plainly or obscurely , be contain'd in the Holy Canon . Fifthly , This Author seems to magnifie the Industry of the Socinians , saying , That none have us'd more diligence in the search of the Scriptures , as appears by their Writings . This is true in part , and but in part ; for somtimes they have been in haste enough . Slichtingius a made quick dispatch , writing many Commentaries in a few Months , and doing this amidst the Heats and Interruptions of War. But , I will allow Socinus himself to have been very industrious , and Crellius also . Some of the rest have been industrious rather as Scriveners than Commentators , transcribing the sense , and , in part , the words of those who went before them . But if Men are ingag'd in new Conceits , they are under a necessity of being diligent . A Text cannot be wrung and squeez'd with a dead Hand , and there is more study requir'd for the perverting of Truth , than for the declaring of it . For the true Interpretation of Scripture , much more is requir'd than Industry and Study . The Protestant therefore , in this Author b , speaks of a due Industry , void of Pride , Passion , and other Interest ; and such Industry has not been always acknowledg'd either in the Arians , or Socinians . For the Arians , the Antients look'd upon them not so much as idle and ignorant , as mad and impious . The Fathers of the Sixth Synod c were gathered together against Arius the Distracted Presbyter . And the Latins call'd his Doctrine the Arian Frenzie d Vincentius Lirinensis e calls that Heresie the Poyson of the Arians , as if it was some venemous and enchanted Liquor . And the Leudness of the Arian Manners f discover'd the Evil of their Temper ; and there was Fierceness in it as well as Leudness . A Disposition more fierce than that of their Adversary Nicholas g , who , they say , gave Arius a Box on the Ear , in the midst of the Council . Arius exercis'd the Office of an Expounder h of Scripture in the Church of Alexandria : But his Fundamental prejudice is well understood ; that is , be falsly imagin'd that Alexander was teaching the Doctrine of Sabellius , who confounded the Three Persons and made them but One ; and he ran headily from thence , and fell into his own extream i . It is true , the Temper of the Socinians ( especially that of their Master Socinus , and of Crellius and Ruarus ) seems much more Virtuous than the Disposition of the Arians , less sensual , less fierce and bloody : For they were almost always bred in the School of Affliction , whilst the Arians were sometimes an Imperial Party . Notwithstanding which , all Romanists have not allow'd the Socinians to be very well qualifi'd for the reading of the Scriptures . Vuje●…us chargeth them with beginning at the Alcoran , before they came at the Holy Bible k ; though I believe that Charge has a grain of the Misrepresenter in it . Cichovius the Jesuit has spoken as severely as Vujekus , accusing the Secinians l of making such a progress in blaspheming the Son of God , as to seem to have fallen from a desire either of speaking or thinking rightly of Divine Things . Let a Romanist consider of the Qualifications of a Protestant and a Socinian by the effect of their Labours in Matters of Christian Faith , and if he be not blinded with very gross Partiality , he will acknowledge a difference . The Protestant finds in the Scripture the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost , and the Merit of Christ's Sacrifice ; the Socinian pretends the contrary . If the Protestant and Socinian were equally dispos'd , how comes the One to Interpret as a Catholick , the Other as a Heretick ? And how can a Romanist believe , that God gives an equal Blessing to the Industry of the Protestants and Socinians , whilst the latter do not so much as pray for Grace to the Spirit of God , nor apply themselves to God the Father , through the Meritorious Sacrifice of his blessed Son ; nor to Christ himself as God , but as to the highest of Creatures ? Cichovius m therefore , has accus'd the Socinians as making Christ an Idol . Socinus thinks n those unfit to make such an Objection , who add to the end of the Books they write , Praise be to God and the Holy Virgin. And Moscorovius o mentions a Polish M●…ssal , in which Prayer to the Holy Ghost was exprelly forbidden . And before the Conference betwixt a Carmelite and Stoienski p a Minister of Lublin , the One prays for success first to the Virgin , and then to Christ as God ; the Other to Christ , though not as the only God. But let those Parties look to this matter whom it so particularly concerns . The Question I here ask is this , Whether these following Doctrines proceed from an industrious search of the Scriptures , by a Mind humble and free from Prejudice , Passion , and Worldly Interest ? As , ( ex . gr . ) That Christ was not at all , till he was conceiv'd in the Body of the Virgin : That the Question q , Whether Christ was before the World , or after it , is of no moment . That his Blood is not a proper Sacrifice . That the Holy Spirit is not any Person at all , either Divine or Created . That those who are not Ordained by others may step forth and preach the Gospel , and administer the Sacraments r . That although Officers are generally employ'd in those Functions ; yet other Christians are not under Obligation to forbear the performance of them . That Baptism is none of Christ's perpetual Precepts in his Church . That it may be used in admitting those of riper years into a Church , but not as a necessary Christian Rite . That to hold it to be such is to add to the Scriptures s . That it is an indifferent Ceremony , and , if to be us'd , it is to be us'd in the admission of those who come from some other Religion to Christianity t . That in the words of Christ u , [ This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood which is shed for you , ] there is a Solaecism , or false Grammar , and that there are many such Incongruities in the New Testament x That it is an abuse of the Lords Supper to believe that it confers any benefit upon us , conveighs any Grace from God , or give us any further assurance of his favour y . That it is Idolatry to kneel at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper , and that it may be Celebrated with the Head cover'd . If these Doctrines be the results of due Industry in searching the Scriptures , Prejud●…ce and Negligence may likewise put in their Plea as Preparatives to true Interpretation . But farther , in the very manner of Socinian Exposition , there is apparent failure . For , though the Holy Writers express the same thing very differently , and without respect to nicety of Words , ( as is evident from the several forms of Words us'd in representing Christs Institution of the Lords Supper ) ; yet the Socinians make Interpretations of places which relate to the great Articles of Christian Faith , to turn upon subtleties of Grammatical construction . For Example sake , they perplex the most comfortable Doctrine of Christs satisfaction with curious observations about the Particle For z . Whereas our Churchmen make the Old Testament , the Key of the New ; and finding plainly that the Sacrifices of Attonement under the Law , were the Types of the Offering the Blood of Jesus upon the Cross ; they conclude that God , with respect to Christs Death in the quality of the great Expiation , did admit the guilty World into a reconcileable Estate . I might add that , by coming to particulars , the Socinian Prejudice and insincere Artifice , in expounding such places of Holy Writ as concern their Scheme , will appear to all unbyassed Readers . I will instance in the Interpretation of that place in S. Iohn a , No Man hath Ascended up to Heaven , but he that came down from Heaven , even the Son of Man which is in Heaven . Socinus , for the avoiding a twofold nature in Christ , by which he might be both in Heaven and in Earth , and exist before he was born of a Virgin , sets down a twofold Evasion in the place of an Explication . First , he interprets Ascending into Heaven , by seeking after Heavenly things , and Descending from Heaven , by having Learned such Celestial things . And , to make all sure , he takes the hardiness to say , in the Second Place , that as S. Paul was snatch'd up into the third Heavens , and let down again ; so the Man Christ Jesus , was taken up into Heaven , somewhile before his Death , and made some stay there . And by his coming down again he explaineth his going forth from the Father , his Ascending into Heaven , his being in Heaven . If this be Interpreting , what is Perverting ? Sixthly , Whereas ( in the end of this first-Conference ) the Author himself speaks as a third Person and a Romanist , and raises a doubt about the certainty any Man can arrive at in having rightly used his Industry ; I would only ask him , Whether a Man cannot be as sure of his industry in consulting his Reason and the Scriptures , as in attending on Councils , Fathers , Decrees of Popes , and the Method of the Major part of Church-Governors , in the Universal Church of all Ages ? For the Argument of the Second Conference , this is the Substance of it . THE Socinians Plead , that they ought not to receive the Article of the Divinity of Christ , from the Major part of Church-Governors : That it was not originally in the Creed : That no Article ought to be receiv'd from Church-Authority , till Men are convinc'd that it is grounded on the Scripture , which Conviction they want . Now , unless the Church were Infallible in all she determin'd , or at least in distinguishing those necessaries in which she cannot err , from Points which are not of such necessity , she cannot justifie her self in putting her Definitions into a Creed . Protestants , not withstanding they own the Article of Christs Divinity , and urge the whole Creed into which it is put , do yet argue after the manner of the Socinians against Church-Authority , and plead the Scripture as their Ground , and a necessity of Conviction ; therefore ( whilst they continue this kind of Plea ) they cannot by Church-Authority either justifie themselves or confute their Adversaries . All this reasoning may be confuted by these distinct Answers . 1. We have no need of confuting Arians and Socinians , by Church-Authority , seeing we can do it more effectually out of the Scriptures ; and if they say , that the Scriptures are on their side , their saying so does not alter the Nature of Truth . And the Romanists allow that they say not true , and they may be confuted when they are not silenc'd . Protestants decline not a disputation with Socinians , by the Rule of Primitive Church-Authority . But if they undervalue this rule , it is discretion in Protestants to debate the matter with them in a way which they themselves best like of , seeing that is also a more certain , as well as a more speedy way , to Victory . 2. Protestants do not well understand what Romanists mean by Church-Authority , for some of their Doctors . b , can by a new figure of their own , make a part and the whole of the Church to be the same ▪ They do not think that the present Major part of Church-Governors throughout the Church can be their Rule , because the People cannot always know which is that Part ; or that it ought to be their Rule , because , in some Ages the Minor part is the wiser and better . Let not the Roman Church be griev'd at this , as said from me ; Vincentius Lirinensis said it long ago , that in the Arian times c there was a general darkness even over the face of the Latin Church . In the mean time they are made to suppose by this Author what they do not suppose , that the judgment of the Catholick Church is not Infallible , in judging what points are necessary , what are not . For though this or that Church or party of Christians may fail , yet all cannot at once ; for then the Church would fail . 3. This Article of the Divinity of the Son of God was originally in the Creed ; for that the Fathers meant when in the Apostolical Creed they confessed Christ to be Gods only Son. And this they grounded on the Gospel of S. Iohn , who wrote his Gospel ( which begins with Christs Divinity , ) with this intention , that Men should beleive Jesus to be the Son of God. 4. Protestants admit of no Article of Faith which is not grounded on the Scripture , which was never known before , and never oblig'd before ; yet , in the mean time they see no reason , why an Article assaulted by Hereticks and Sophists may not be explained ; or why the form of Confession design'd for Baptism , might not be enlarged for the benefit of the Church , and made a Sum of the Necessaries to be believ'd . It sufficed at the first Incorporation of Persons to be Baptiz'd , that they profess'd to believe the Religion which owneth Father , Son and Holy Ghost . 5. A particular Church may put an Article of Faith into a Creed , without pretending to Infallibility . She has Ability to do it , because she has an Infallible Rule by which she can go . But she ought not to say it is impossible any Church should do otherwise ; because a Party of Men may do that which they ought not to do , and to which they were not constrain'd . Prejudice , Mis-attention , Corruption may so prevail as to clap a false Byass upon Makers of Creeds : Else how came we by those of Sirmium and Rimini ? And for instance sake , in the Infallible Science of the Mathematicks , the perverseness of the Temper of the Leviathan , would not permit him to agree with a Learned Professor of that Science , even in the first Elements of Geometry ; and a Controversie was maintain'd not only about the squaring of the Circle , but about the Dimensions of a Point and a Line . The Force of the Third Conference may be set down on this manner . A Protestant submits to the Decrees of a Council , no further than he is convinc'd that the same Council is rightly constituted , and that her Definitions are founded on the Word of God. He believes that it may err in things not Necessary , and in Necessaries too if it be not a truly General Council . He can scarce give to it the Obedience of silence in that which he believes contrary to the Scripture . The Socinian says the same things , and denies the Council of Nice to be constituted rightly ; Therefore the Protestant justifies the Socinian . Our Author should have gone on , and said , ( for so a Romanist is by the Tenor of his Faith oblig'd to say ) That the Protestant , with reference to the Council of Nice , has the Reason on his side . A Son of the Church of England reverenceth the Four General Councils , of which Nice is the First . He believes its Faith to be bottom'd on the Scriptures , and so did the Council itself , and so does the Church of Rome . He receives it as a General Council rightly Constituted , though no Pope call'd it , or otherwise confirm'd it than the rest of the Patriarchs , Metropolitans and Bishops . He believes its D●…ctrine to be , in the Phrase of Vincentius 〈◊〉 , well-founded Antiquity , and he offers to prove it . A Socinian therefore , if he has retain'd him , will , as soon as he hears such a Plea as this , desire him to return his Fee. But what if a Socinian be found perverse , and , being a Disputer of this World , will have his own way of arguing ? May not the Protestant wave the Council of Nice , and enter the Lists , with Reason and Scripture ? He that will not have him do it , is not of the same mind either with the Fathers of Nice , on with the Celebrated Latin Doctor S. Austin . The Council of Nice disputed with the Arians out of the Scripture , and confuted them by it . The Bishops of it , by Eusebius , cite against them the words of St. Iohn , In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. They argue from the words themselves , as words clear and plain in their signification : They take notice of the [ Word was , ] as contrary to [ was not , ] and [ was God , ] as contrary to [ was not God. ] S. Austin observing the perverseness of Maximine , lays aside Councils , not as useless , but as of lesser Authority than the Holy Scripture , the force of which his Adversary could not , with the same ease and readiness , have avoided . Neither ought I ( saith S. Austin ) to alledge the Council of Nice , nor you that of Ariminum ; for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one , nor you to that of the other . Let us both dispute with the Authorities of Scripture , which are Witnesses common to us both . Our Author puts this Citation into the Socinians Mouth , and takes it from Dr. Taylor 's Diss●…asive from Popery ; but , seeing it is the Method of S. Austin , why does he not justifie a Protestant in using of it ? The Sum of the Fourth Conference is this . A Protestant excuseth himself from Heresie by saying , A Heretick is ( what he himself is not ) an Obstinate Maintainer of a Fundamental Error . None can be such Hereticks to whom the Truth is not sufficiently proposed . Councils may not always rightly distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and not Fundamentals . He is not oblig'd to receive their Definitions till he is convinc'd of the truth of them . He himself is Judge whether the Article be sufficiently propos'd , and whether he is convinc'd by that which is offer'd to him . The Socinian says the same thing for himself . Our Author should have added , that he says it with equal Reason , if he would have made the one plead for the other . But the Protestant , in this point of the Divinity of the Son of Gon , ( which is the Authors Instance ) does acknowledge that the Doctrine is sufficiently propos'd ; does receive the Council of Nice ; does own that he is convinc'd . And the Romanist confesseth that , thus far , he is in the right , and the Socinian in the wrong . This comes to the same thing which was said before , and the Answer is repeated , because the Objection is brought again . And indeed there is but one Argument , strictly so call'd , in all the Five Conferences which turn upon the same Hinge ; and one Answer suffices : viz. That when Two say the same things concerning contrary Doctrines , one of them only can have Truth on his side : And that if both be equally confident , the Confidence of the Persons does not make the Contradiction true . The Plea is his , not who barely offers it , but who can make it good . In this Point of the Divinity , the Protestant makes his Plea good by the Scripture and the Council of Nice , as a true General Council : And if his Plea be true , surely it does not cease to be so , because he has not had it allow'd before a Roman Judge : A Man is sure that all the Articles in the New Covenant are genuine , though they be not confirm'd under the Lead of the Fisher. I come to the last Conference , where our Author reasons to this effect . THE Protestants imagine they excuse themselves from Schism , by alledging , that they left a Corrupt part of the Church , ( meaning the Roman ) and Reform'd themselves . That the Schism is theirs who caus'd it , that they are united to all Churches in Charity , and in the unity of the Catholick Church , being with them in all things in which they are obliged to be with them . And in the rest they are hindred from external Communion by the sinful Conditions which a particular Church puts upon them . The Socinians say the same thing for themselves , with reference to other Communions besides the Roman , therefore the Protestant justifies the Plea of the Socinian in Relation to Schism . The same Answer serves for the same Objection . Socinians say as Protestants do , but the reason is on the side of the latter , and not on the former . And our Author himself , with respect to his Instance of the Divinity of the Son of God , will , by no means , say , that the Soci●…ians , who make that Article , where impos'd , a sinful condition of Communion , can by saying so , excuse themselves from Schism , whilst they any where refuse external Communion upon the pretence of that Article as not Christian. A Romanist cannot say that it is not sufficiently propos'd to the Socinians , and that it was never in their power to be convinc'd . If they will turn this upon us with reference to our not separating from them but standing where we were , after having in Christian , and Legal manner also , thrown off the Corruptions which were unagreeable to the Primitive Christianity , we will try it over again with them by Scripture , Antiquity and Reason ; and the Impartial World shall judge , if it pleases , Whether the Additional Articles in the Creed of Pope Pius are of God or Men. For this point of Schism , as here manag'd , the reasoning of this Fifth Conference was long ago confuted by Mr. Chillingworth . But our Author did not condescend to take notice of it , though he cites many other Words of Mr. Chillingworth not far from these . But a Cunning Marks-Man will not put that into his Gun which may make it Recoil . However I shall be bold to produce the Words , which he , in all probability , did studiously omit * . — Whereas D. Potter says , there is a great difference between a Schism from them , and a Reformation of ourselves : This ( you say ) is a quaint Subtilty , by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused . It seems , then , in your Judgment , that Thieves and Adulterers , and Murtherers , and Traytors , may say with as much probability as Protestants , that they do no hurt to others , but only Reform themselves . But then methinks it is very strange , that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism : And that , to this day , never any Thief or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apology ! And then for Schismatiques , I would know , whether Victor Bishop of Rome , who Excommunicated the Churches of Asia , for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter ; whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius , upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome , when indeed he was not ; whether Felicissimus and his Crew , that went out of the Church of Carthage , and set up Altar against Altar , because , having fallen in persecution , they might not be restored to the Peace of the Church presently , upon the Intercession of the Confessors ; whether the Donatists who divided from , and damned all the World , because all the World would not Excommunicate them who were accused only , and not convicted , to have been Traditors of the Sacred Books ; whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others , which they might and ought to Tolerate , or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony , or for some Error in Doctrine , neither pernicious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety , separate themselves from others , or others from themselves ; or lastly , whether they that put themselves out of the Churches Unity and Obedience , because their Opinions are not approved there , but reprehended and confuted ; or because , being of impious Conversation , they are impatient of their Churches Censure ; I would know ( I say ) whether all or any of these , may with any Face or without extream Impudency , put in this Plea of Protestants , and pretend with as much likelyhood as they , that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves ? But , suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own Defence falsly , doth it follow by any good Logick , that therefore this Apology is not to employ'd by Protestants who may say so truly ? We make ( say they ) no Schism from you , but only a Reformation of ourselves : This ( you reply ) is no good justification , because it may be pretended by any Schismatique . Very true , any Schismatique that can speak may say the same Words , ( as any Rebel that makes Conscience the Cloak of his impious Disobedience , may say with S. Peter , and S. Iohn , We must obey God rather than Men : ) But then the Question is , whether any Schismatique may say so truly ? And to this Question you say just nothing : But conclude , because this defence may be abused by some , it must be used by none . As if you should have said , S. Peter , and S. Iohn did ill to make such an Answer as they made , because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their Disobedience and Rebellion , against the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority . The Conclusion . AFter all this causeless finding fault with the Plea of the Protestant , what is it that the Romanists aim at , and after what manner would they mend this Plea ? They will tell you , This seems to be the Consequence of the late way taken up by many Protestants , viz. That in stead of the Roman Church her setting up some Men ( the Church-Governors ) as Infallible in Necessaries ; here is set up by them every Christian , if he will , both Infallible in all Necessaries ; and certain that he is so . They will endeavour to persuade you , that the Great Ends they aim at are , Truth and Peace : And that these Blessed Ends are never to be universally attain'd without an Infallible Church to which all may submit their Judgments in Religion , and , by such submission , preserve Unity . They will continue their discourse , and say , Without such a Judge , every Mans Reason is Reason , and every Mans Scripture is Scripture , and he is left to run wild after his own Imaginations . And though a Man is not in the right , he will not yield he is so , till it is given against him by an Infallible Judge . But Men must first be satisfi'd that there is such a Judge , and who he is , and where and how to be found , and how far Men will follow him . When there was such a Judge on Earth , ( the most Infallible High-Priest , the Blessed IESUS ) prejudic'd and perverse Men would neither be of One Faith , nor of One Heart . The Wisdom of God will not , by forcing of Assent , destroy the Nature and Virtue of it ; and he hath declar'd that he will permit Heresies , that those who are approved and excellent Christians may be distinguished from those who are not . This Expedient of the Romanists is like that of the Atheist Spinoza , who has left the following Maxim to the World as his Legacy for Peace , viz. That the Object of Faith is not Truth but Obedience , and the quiet of human Society . And they say in effect , Shut all your Eyes , and agree in one who shall lead you all , and you will all go one way : But the difficulty lies in getting them to agree . It is not difficult to say a great deal more upon this Subject ; but , in stead of that which might be here offer'd from myself , I will refer the Reader to a Book lately publish'd , and call'd , A Discourse concerning a Iudge in Controversies ; if he be not satisfi'd with that which Mr. Chillingworth hath said long ago , and to which this Author has here said nothing . You say again confidently , That , if this Infallibility be once impeach'd , every Man is given over to his own Wit and Discourse . By which if you mean Discourse , not guiding itself by Scripture , but only by Principles of Nature , or perhaps by Prejudices and popular Errors , and drawing Consequences not by Rule but by Chance , is , by no means , true . If you mean by Discourse , Right Reason , grounded on Divine Revelation and common Notions , written by God in the Hearts of all Men ; and deducing , according to the never-failing Rules of Logick , consequent Deductions from them : If this be it which you mean by Discourse , it is very meet , and reasonable and necessary , that Men , as in all their Actions , so especially in that of greatest importance , the choice of their way to Happiness should be left unto it : And he that follows this in all Opinions and Actions , and does not only seem to do so , follows always God ; whereas he that followeth a Company of Men , may oft-times follow a Company of Beasts . And in saying this , I say no more than S. Iohn to all Christians in these words , Dearly Beloved , believe not every Spirit ; but try the Spirits , whether they be of God or no : And the Rule he gives them to make this tryal by , is to consider , whether they Confess IESUS to be Christ ; that is , the Guide of their Faith , and Lord of their Action ; not , Whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar . I say no more than S. Paul , in exhorting all Christians , To try all things , and hold fast that which is good : Than S. Peter in commanding all Christians , To be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them : Then our Saviour himself , in forewarning all his Followers , that if they blindly followed blind Guides , both Leaders and Followers should fall into the Ditch . And again , in saying even to the People , Yea , and why of your selves judge ye not what is right ? And though by Passion , or Precipitation , or Prejudice , by want of Reason , or not using what they have , Men may be , and are oftentimes , lead into Error and Mischief ; yet , that they cannot be misguided by Discourse , truly so called , such as I have described , you yourself have given them security . For , what is Discourse , but drawing Conclusions out of Premises by good Consequence ? Now , the Principles which we have setled , to wit , the Scriptures , are on all sides agreed to be Infallibly true . And you have told us in the Fourth Chapter of this Pamphlet , That from Truth no Men can , by good Consequence , infer Falshood ; Therefore , by Discourse , no Man can possibly be led to error ; but if he erre in his Conclusions , he must of Necessity , either err in his Principles , ( which here cannot have place ) or commit some error in his Discourse ; that is , indeed , not Discourse , but seem to do so . 13. You say , Thirdly , with sufficient confidence , That if the true Church may err in defining what Scriptures be Canonical , or in delivering the sense thereof , then we must follow either the private Spirit , or else natural Wit and Iudgment ; and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or false Doctrine , and in that respect ought to be received or rejected . All which is apparently untrue , neither can any proof of it be pretended . For though the present Church may possibly err in her Judgment touching this matter , yet have we other directions in it , besides the private Spirit , and the Examination of the Contents ( which latter way may conclude the Negative very strongly , to wit , that such or such a Book cannot come from God , because it contains irreconcileable Contradictions ; but the Affirmative it cannot conclude , because the Contents of a Book may be all true , and yet the Book not Written by Divine inspiration ; ) other direction therefore I say we have , besides either of these three , and that is , the Testimony of the Primitive Christians . 14. You say , Fourthly , with convenient boldness , that this Infallible Authority of the Church being denied , no Man can be assured , that any parcel of the Scripture was Written by Divine Inspiration : Which is an untruth , for which no proof is pretended ; and besides , void of Modesty , and full of Iniquity . The First , because the Experience of Innumerable Christians is against it , who are sufficiently assured , that the Scripture is Divinely inspired , and yet deny the Infallible Authority of your Church , or any other . The Second , because if I have not ground to be assured of the Divine Authority of Scripture , unless I first believe your Church Infallible , then can I have no ground at all to believe it . Because there is no ground , nor can any be pretended , why I should believe the Church Infallible , unless I first believe the Scripture Divine . 15. Fifthly and lastly , You say , with confidence in abundance ; that none can deny the Infallible Authority of your Church , but he must abandon all infused Faith , and True Religion , if he do but understand himself : Which is to say , agreeable to what you had said before , and what out of the abundance of the Heart you speak very often , that all Christians besides you are open Fools , or concealed Atheists . All this you say with notable Confidence , ( as the manner of Sophisters is , to place their Confidence of Prevailing in their Confident manner of Speaking , ) but then for the Evidence you promis'd to maintain this Confidence , that is quite vanished and become invisible . Hitherto I have been arguing against our Author ; but now , in the close , I cannot but joyn with him in his Protestants Exhortation to Humility . It is an Admirable Virtue ; and may God grant to me , and to all Men , a greater Measure of it . It is a Virtue proper even for Guides in Religion , that they may humbly help the Faith of others , and not exercise Dominion over it . And , because a late Writer has been pleas'd to suffer this severe censure to drop from his Pen , [ it is the less to be admir'd that [ our Author ] is such a stranger to that Spirit [ of Meekness and humble Charity , ] because among all the Volumes of Divinity , written by the Protestants , there is not one Original Treatise , at least , that I have seen or heard of , which has handled distinctly and by itself , that Christian Virtue of Humility . ] I will tell him of one Book ( as I could of many others ) written singly upon that Subject . I mean a late Treatise by Mr. Allen , a Man who had considered many ways , but long before his Death , approv'd of that of the Church of England , as the most safe and Apostolical . He was a Lay-Man , a Citizen , a Man of little skill in Languages or Scholastick-Learning , yet , by Gods Blessing upon his Industry and Sincerity , and the Ministeral helps he met with in our Communion , I will be bold to say he understood the Scriptures as judiciously as many Learned Romish Commentators , who have got a Name in the World , and stand pompously , in several Volumes , upon the Shelves of Students . The End. ERRATA . PAg. 3. lin . 7. for mixt , read mix . Pag. 13. lin . 6. for Fourthly , read Fifthly . Pag. 34 , lin . 22. for Queens time , read unquiet times . A Table of Contents . THE Introduction , shewing , That this Tract , and most of those which have been lately written in the Controversies betwixt Romanists and Churchof-England-Protestants , have been occasion'd by the former . P. 3. to p. 7. Chap. 1. Observations touching the Book itself call'd the Protestants Plea , &c. It s Edition , Character and Design . P. 7. to p. 17. Chap. 2. Considerations touching the General Argument of the Protestants Plea , &c. shewing the weakness of it , and that it is not of force enough to overthrow the Plea of the Reformed . P. 17. to p. 38. Chap. 3. Particular Answers to the Particular Branches of the Protestants Plea , &c. divided into Five Conferences by the Author of it . P. 38. to p. 57. Sect. 1. The Argument of the First Conference , with the Answer . P. 38. to p. 46. Sect. 2. The Argument of the Second Conference , with the Answer . P. 46. to p. 49. Sect. 3. The Argument of the Third Conference , with the Answer . P. 49. to p. 51. Sect. 4. The Argument of the Fourth Conference , with the Answer . P. 51. to p. 53. Sect. 5. The Argument of the Fifth Conference , with the Answer . P. 53. to p. 56. The Conclusion , shewing that the Roman Plea does not mend that of the Reformed of this Church , but come short of it ; and that every Protestant is not wholly left to the private guidance of his own Imagination . THE END . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A64356-e110 a In the Epistle to the Reader , p. 9. See Dr. Godden's Ser. on St. Pet. day , p. 39. Notes for div A64356-e820 * See Resp. ad 〈◊〉 Ep. D. 〈◊〉 . * See D. Still . sev . Discourses in Answer to the Guide in Contr. &c. p. 326 , 327 , &c. a Disc. 3. p. 〈◊〉 . b P. 3●…2 . c Disc. of 〈◊〉 . of Ch. Guides , p. 8. d Dis. 3 p. 169 e Disc. 1. p. 9 f Disc. 2. p. 138 g Disc. 1. p 47. h Prot. Plea , p. 24 , 28. 29 , 30 i P. 13. k P. 10. l P. 11. m P 4. 14 , 16 , 26 , 32 , 37. * See M. Chill . Pref. to the Author of Char. maintain'd , Sect. 16 , 17 , 18. and , in this Answer , p. 13 , 22 , 54 , 58. n See Bibl. ●…tr . Pol. in Vol. 2. Op. See. p. 422. o Socin . Contra 〈◊〉 , Vol. 2. p. 618. p Script . S. Trinit . Revelat●…ix , p. 173 , &c. & Proh●…m . Paradox . de Sp. S. p. 3. &c. q Gos●… . in 〈◊〉 ad Disp. de Personâ . r Prot. Plea , p. 5. s Socin . de Ecclesiâ , Op. Vol. 1. p. 341 , 342. t Socin . Solut . Scrupul . Resp. ad 23. Vol. 1. Op. p. 332. u Prot. Plea , p. 43. * Prot. Plea , p 37. Soc. Though I stand separated from the present unreformed Churches , or also ( if you will ) from the whole Church that was before Luther . Prot. Plea , Conf. 5. p. 33. x Chap. 16. p. 199. y See Chill . Pref. to the Author of Char. Maint . Sect 16. 17. 18 And here p. 9 , 22 , 54 , 58. z Traité de la Vraie Parole de Dieu , à Pari●… , 1671. c. 7. p. 47. c. 8. p. 62. c. 9. p. 71. c. 10. p. 87. Seepartic . p. 82. 87. 88. a P. 380. Par des Raisons invincibles . b Request to P●…ot p. 〈◊〉 . c See P. II●… . fourth Letter , p. 129 , 130 , 131. d Socin . Solut . Scrup. Vol 1. p. 332. e Biblioth . Anti-Trin . p. 2. & Bzovius , A. 1542. f Ibid. p. 64. g Hist. Refor ▪ Polon . p. 38. h Bibl. Anti-Trin . p. 18. & H. Ref. Pol. p. 38. i Excerpta MS. è Lib. Annal. Polon . p. 1. k MS. Ep. of English Unitarian●… to Ameth Ben Ameth Amb. of Fez and 〈◊〉 . l Bibl. Anti-Trin . p. 149. Conditiones Unionis Christianorumcum Catholico-Rom . in Poloniâ . m Maimb . Hist. de l'Arianisme . Liv. Douz . p. 360. n MS. in Praef. p. 1. Dialogue between a new Cath. Convert and a Prot. a A●…on . ap . Eus. Eccl. H. E. l. 5. C. ult . p. 195. b Soc. de Eccles . Op. Vo●… . 1. p. 323. c Socin . Resp. ad Va●…m , p. ●…18 . d Crell . Praes . ad Lect. Lib. de Satisfact . p. 4 , 5. * Hieron . Moscorov . in R●… Append. Mart. S●…glecii , p. 19. e R●…v . 1611. f Lubien . first . Ref. Po●… . 〈◊〉 . 1. c. 2. p 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. g Cingal . Script . S. ●…rin . Re●…trix . p. 30. h Bid●…e's Apostol . Opin . conc . the holy Trin. reviv'd and affor●…d , Lond. 1653. i Protestant Pacifique , part 2. p. 25. k Tp. o●… S●… 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . l V. Sand. 〈◊〉 1. S●… . 4 , 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 156●… 〈◊〉 . m See Petav. 〈◊〉 . c 5 Sect. 7. de 〈◊〉 . &c. & ap Sand. N●…l H. E. 12. l. 1. p. 217 , 218. l. 2. p. 30. & ap . Cingal . p. 35 , 36 & p. 31. quomodo enim illud queat esse ex Trad. Apostol . qu●…d de●…um quarto 〈◊〉 . patefact . & constitut . ait Dionysius Petavius . See Sand. in Ind. H. Lit. P. Petavius probat omnes Patres ante Conc. Nic. Eadem cum A●…io ante doc●…isse n Desense des S●…ntimens , p 〈◊〉 . A●…es le P. Pe●…u Jesuite . o Cingall . p. 35 , 36. p P. 16. P. 66 , 67. ex Huet . Origen . q D. G. Bull. Def. Fid. N●…c . r Defense des Sentimens , &c. p. 78 , &c. See here p. 9 , 1●… , 54 , 58. s In Chill . Pref Sect. 9. p. 6. 17 , 18. p. 9 , 10 , 11. t Chill . Pref. to the Author of Charity Maintain'd , Sect. 16 , u Hist. Res. Polon . l. 1. c. 1 p. 7. x Slicht adv . Meisn. de SS . Trin. p. 67. Smalc . Cont. Frans. Disp. 4. y Ostor. c. 4. Instit. z Ern. Sonn . Demonstr . Theol. & Philos. p. 36. a Disc. of Infallib . in Religion . p. 200. p. 20●… . b Resp. ad Vujek . p. 618. c Socin . ibid. — in illorum gratiam qui istorum Patrum Authoritate plus quàm deceat moventur . d Soc. ibid. p. 618. Col. 1. Neque enim ( arbitror ) ex Script . nostr . hom . ostendetur unquam , eos afferere aut exstimare . Scriptores ante Conc. Nic. qui hodiè extant , nostrae sententiae fuisse , &c. nisi nostrae sent . nom . intelligatur simpliciter id , quod sentimus de Uno illo Deo , &c. e Brev. Disqu . c. 5. de Trad. p. 22. See c. 2. p. 6 , 7. &c. f Ruar . Epist. Vol. 1. p. 116. to 139. partic . p. 132 , 134. g See Slicht . contra Cicohov . p. 181 , 182. h Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 32. p. 104 , 105. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i V. Frag. ap . Eus. E. H. l. 5. c. 28. p. 195 , &c. k A. 1566. See Maimb . Hist. Vol. 3. p. 355 , 356 , 357. l Maimb . ibid. Biddle's Pref. to Cat. p. 23. After Constantine the Great , together with the Council of Nice , had once deviated , &c. this opened a Gap , &c. m See Disp. in Maimb . H. Arian . p. 357. n Id. ib. p. 361. * See Slicht . cont . Cicov . p. 184. and his mistake followed by Sandius , H. E. l. 1. p. 100 , Octavo . o Is●…l Deer . Sub hoc 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . Constantino ) juxta fidem 〈◊〉 ▪ post etiam sancti Patres in Concilio Niceno de omni orbe terr . convenientes , Evangelicam & Apostolicam secundum ( Vall●… from MS. A. C. reads it Apostolos symb . tradiderunt . p Chr. Sand. Nu●… 〈◊〉 . 1. p. 100. Oct●… . q See Maimb . H A. 357. n Resp. ad V●…iek . p. 618. Col. 2. s Crell . Praef. ad lib. de Satisfact . p. 5. t Pisec . An Doct. de Trin. sit M●…st . In Ep. Ded. u Evagr. H. F. l. 2. c 4. p. 293. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . x See Clem. Alex. Str. l. 5. y Iren. l 3. z See Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. c. 18. Tom. 3 c. 17. Socr. H. E. l. 〈◊〉 . c. 32. a S Cypr. Ep. 55. Pam. 59. Oxoh . p 136. Na●… 〈◊〉 statutum sit omnibus nobis , & aequum sit pariter ac justum , ut uniuscujusq●… 〈◊〉 audiatur , ubi est Crimen admissum , & sing . Pastor . portio Gregis sit ads●… 〈◊〉 ●…egat , &c. V. P. Nicaen . Can. 5. b Chr. Sand. Append. ad Interpr . Parrad . p. 376 , &c. 379. c De Dupl . Mart. Ed. Ox. p. 40. d De Dupl . Mart. p. 594. Ed. Goulart . Sect. 4. 5. Commemorat & Joh. Evang. Triplex in terrâ Test. Sp. Aqu. & Sang. &c. quanquam hi tres unum sunt , &c. e S. Cypr. de Unit. Ecclesiae , p. 109. Ox. dicit dominus , Ego & Pater unum sumus , & iterum de Patre & F. & Sp. S. scriptum est , Et hi Tres Unum sunt , V. Annot. Oxon. f Editor . Diss. Anon. de Pace & Conc. Eccl. p. 3. ad Lect. Ingenuè fateor , Socini de Chr. personâ dogma — In eo mihi maximè improbari quod Christum ante suam ex Mariâ Virgine Nativitatem extitisse , neget . Sect. 1. Arg. 1. Prot. Plea , p. 1. to p. 12. Answer to Arg. 1. S. Joh. 20. 31. * D. F. Answ. to the Author of Sure-Footing , p. 346 , 347 Prot. Plea , p. 1. & p. 4. &c. a Lubieniec . Historial . p. 6. b Prot. Plea. p. 8. c Auct . Incert . de 6. Syn. Oec . ap . Instell . p. 1161. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d Tit. c. 8. l. 1. E. H. Bedae , ut , &c. utque ad temp . Arianae Vesaniae . e V●… . Li●… . 〈◊〉 . 6 p. 13. f V. Li●… . p. 15. Temeratae Conjuges , &c. g V. Sand. Append. ad Nucl . H. E. p. 22. Quarto . h Theod. H. E. l. 1. c. 1. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i V. Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 2. c. o. & Niceph. Call. H E. 〈◊〉 S c. 5. k V. Resp. 〈◊〉 . p. 535. l V. Conf. Christ. Vind. p. 3. in Resp. ad Ep. Ded. 〈◊〉 . m V. Resp. ad Ep. Cicho●… . p. 3. n Resp. ad V●…k . p. 534. o Moscor . Refut . Append. M. Smigle●… . p. 21. p De Jesu Chr. Divin . &c. Disputat . Relatio , p. 3. 3. q Slicht . in 1. Tim. 6. p. 258. r Socin de Eccl. p. 325 , 326. Ep. 3. ad Radec. p. 384. Cat. Rac. de Eccl. p. 306 , 307. s Socin . Op. Vol. 1. Ep. ad P. Sophiam Siemichoviam , p. 431 , 432 , 433. t Socin . Vol. 1. Ep. ad P. Stator . p. 433. u S. Luk. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . x Socin . de usu & fine Coenae Domin . p. 773. y Socin . de usu Coen . Op. Vol. 1. p. 775. Hales of Sacr. p. 59. Op. Vol 2. p. 185 , 186. z See Crell . de Sat. p. 6. 190 , &c. about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. a S. Joh. 3. 13. Soc. Exp. Loc. Script . Vol. 1. p. 146. 〈◊〉 . Pl●… , Di●…ession , p. 9 , 10. Sect. 2. Arg. 2. Prot. Plea , p. 12. to 16. Answer to Arg. 2. b J. Richard Apho●…ismes de Controverse . Instr. 34. p. 223. Le Concile de Trente , c'est à dire , toute l'Eglise . c Vinc. Lirin . adv . Haereses . cap. 6. p. 13. - propè cunctis Latini Sermonis Episcopis , partim vi , partim f●…aude deceptis , caligo , &c. Prot. Plea , p. 15. Sect. 17. Sect. 3. Arg. 3. Prot. Plea , from p 1●… . to p. 24. Answer to Arg. 3. Vinc. Lir. adv . haer . c. 6. De Arianorum ●…eneno , p. 15. ●…enè fundata Antiquitas . V. l. 3. Conc. Nic. Ed. Pis. Prot. Plea. p. 18. Sect. 4. Arg. 4. Prot. Plea , p. 24. to 32. Answer to 4 Arg. Arg. 5. Sect. 5. Prot. Plea , p. 32. to p. 45. Answer to 5 Arg. * See here p. 9 , 22 , 58. Chill . part . 1. Chap. 5. p. 255. Sect. 8c . ☞ Prof. Plea , Digress . p. 9. Chill . Pres. to Char. maintain'd , p. 8 , 9. Sect. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15. See here p. 9. 13. 22. 54. Prof. Plea , p. 45. A Defence of the Papers , &c. p. 126. A Practical Discourse of Humility , by W. A. Lond. 1681. 
A38033	----	The Socinian creed, or, A brief account of the professed tenents and doctrines of the foreign and English Socinians wherein is shew'd the tendency of them to irreligion and atheism, with proper antidotes against them / by John Edwards ... Edwards, John, 1637-1716. 1697 Approx. 357 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 147 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A38033 Wing E212 ESTC R17329 13372408 ocm 13372408 99330 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A38033) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 99330) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 787:23) The Socinian creed, or, A brief account of the professed tenents and doctrines of the foreign and English Socinians wherein is shew'd the tendency of them to irreligion and atheism, with proper antidotes against them / by John Edwards ... Edwards, John, 1637-1716. [24], 264 p. Printed for J. Robinson ... and J. Wyat ..., London : 1697. Caption and running title: The tendency of the Socinian doctrines to irreligion & atheism. Errata: p. [24] "A postscript, being brief reflections on a late book entituled A short discourse of the true knowledge of Christ Jesus, with animadversions on Mr. Edwards reflections on the reasonableness of Christianity, and on his book entituled Socinism unmask'd, by S. Bold, rector of Stedple, Dorset". (p. [237]-264) with half title. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Bold, S. -- (Samuel), 1649-1737. -- Short discourse of the true knowledge of Jesus Christ. Edwards, John, 1637-1716. -- Socinianism unmask'd. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. 2002-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2002-07 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-08 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2002-08 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE Socinian Creed : OR , A Brief Account Of the Professed Tenents and Doctrines OF THE Foreign and English Socinians . Wherein is shew'd The Tendency of them TO Irreligion and Atheism . With Proper Antidotes against them . By JOHN EDWARDS , B. D. sometime Fellow of St. John's College in Cambridge . 2 Tim. iii. 9. They shall proceed no further : for their folly shall be manifest unto all men . LONDON , Printed for J. Robinson at the Golden-Lion , and J. Wyat at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-yard , 1697. TO THE Right Reverend Father in God EDWARD , Lord Bishop of Worcester . MY LORD , I Presumed to dedicate my former Writings to two Eminent Persons of your High Order in the Church : and now this present Undertaking comes to find shelter under your Lordships Patronage . Which I despair not of because you have let the world sufficiently know how greatly you disapprove of the Sentiments of those Men whose Character is offer'd in the following Treatise . It was observ'd that even in your Early Years you chose to encounter the Pontifician and Racovian Impostors ; not unlike Hercules ; that in his very Minority grappled with Serpents and Monsters . Crellius felt the Strength of your Arm , and hath laid a Baffled and Prostrate Foe ever since , for there never yet appear'd any thing that had the face of an Answer to your Book . And lately , when Socinus's followers began to take heart again , and to lift up their bruised heads , your Lordship successfully struck at them , and publickly vindicated the Mysteries of the Christian Faith from the bold and blasphemous insults of these persons . In your former Attempts you were wont to exceed Others , but now you outvied your self ; such were the extraordinary Acuteness and Sagacity of your Thoughts on this subject , such the inimitable Pregnancy of your Reasons , such the matchless Weight and Nervousness of your Arguments , such your close application of Scripture every where . Which the Adversaries were sensible of , and accordingly ( that they might not be thought to be Idle ) advanced some Feeble Considerations against your Lordship's Excellent Discourse . Here , to support their Tatter'd Cause , they made a stir with trifling sallies and excursions , with faint shews of Criticism , with Pedantick flourishes of Wit , with mean and languid Efforts of Seeming Logick . But chiefly these Socinian Sharpers endeavour'd to run down the Truth by their unparallell'd Confidence , and by treating your Lordship , as well as it , with disrespect and disdain . But so it is , they have shew'd themselves Rude to their immortal shame . And yet at the same time , by attempting to Lessen your Worth and Deserved Fame they have inhansed them ; as all Envious and Malicious Persons do when they detract from those of Great Merit . All the Learned World unanimously vote your Lordship to be the Chief of this number : even those who disagree in all other things , agree in your Lordships Praises . For without the least Shew of Adulation it may be most truly said , that your Name is now not so much the Name of a Person or Family , as it is the Name of Profound Learning and Solid Religion . But I shall offend against your Lordship's Modesty , and call forth Blushes from those Reverend Cheeks , which have so boldly look'd your Adversaries in the face , if I proceed any further thus ; wherefore I am forced here to a Period . Only let me be permitted to add my Hearty Wishes and Prayers , viz. That the Allmighty would vouchsafe to bless Your Lordship with Long Life , Health , and Vigour , to accomplish those Great Things which You have designed against the Church's Common Foes , Papists and Socinians ; that You may be a Terrour and Scourge to Rome and Racovia ; that You may give an effectual check to the Sly pretences of Deists , that You may bridle the Insolence of Atheists , and be successful in mortifying all such Sworn Enemies of the Christian Faith and Practise . So prayeth Your Lordships most Humble and entire Servant and Honourer John Edwards . THE PREFACE . SOME Eminent Persons of our Church having been pleas'd to honour me with their Approbation of what I have lately writ against the Socinians in defence of the Orthodox Faith , I presume once more to assert and vindicate this Noble Cause . And I am further animated and encouraged to such an Undertaking from what I meet with in the Learned Bishop of Worcester 's Preface to his Discourse concerning Christ's Satisfaction lately reprinted , where he directly charges the Socinians with the promoting of Deism , and promises to make good his Charge against them in a Discourse . And in the close of his Preface he tells us that he will let the world know that he is no stranger to the Pamphlets of the Modern Racovians . Thus we see the Cause doth not die : nor indeed can it , when so Able a Person is willing to uphold it , and hath engaged himself to do it ; one whose Name is as terrible to the Socinians as that of Duke D'Alva heretofore to the Dutch. Till this Great Champion shews himself anew , I will make bold to enter the Lists , and to attack our Common Foe , and thereby prepare the way for the Conquests of so Renowned a Pen. But let me declare this , and that with the greatest sincerity imaginable , that it is not from any pleasure I take in contending with any Party of Men , or from a desire to provoke and exasperate them ( for I bear a hearty Charity and Good Will to all mankind , and especially I love and honour all Sincere and Good Men , all that have the impressions of a Christian Spirit upon them ) nor is it from any other undue Principle , but wholly from a sense of my Duty , and that alone , that I appear again in this Cause . At first I purposely check'd my self , and forbore to produce all those Arguments and Proofs whereby I might have evinced the Inclinableness of the Socinians to Irreligion and a spirit of Infidelity . And this I did for several Reasons , partly to suit my self to the then present Juncture , partly to let the world see that I was not Hasty and Forward in censuring any sort of persons , and partly to allow my self time to enquire further into the matter , both to satisfie my self and others . Because what I then suggested , was design'd to be in the way of an Essay or Introduction , I only offer'd some few Heads of my Charge against them : but now I intend to give the Reader a Farther Account of some of them ; and likewise to superadd Several Articles to the former Charge and Indictment . I will set before him Other Different-Demonstrations of that Atheistick Tang , that Irreligious Genius which I tax'd them with . So then , I believe , they will have little occasion to say that * I mollifie that in a Treatise , which was much more Harsh when preach'd in a Sermon . Though I must profess to the world that I loath all Harshness and Severity which are inconsistent with the Candor and Meekness of a Christian , and which are not absolutely requisite for the vindicating of the indispensable Truths of Religion . Our Racovians may remember that they lately presented the world with a Paper entituled . The Trinitarian Scheme of Religion : and now I hope they will not be offended ( I am sure they ought not ) when I publish the Anti-Trinitarian Scheme of Religion ( if I may so call it , ) or rather ( to speak plainly and impartially ) of their Irreligious Opinions and Placits . They had no Credible Authors to vouch their Scheme , but fill'd it up with what they thought fit . But I have taken another course , and have all along annex'd the Particular Authors whose Assertions I mention , and I have set down the particular places in their Writings . I have been very exact and faithful in rehearsing their words , that I might neither wrong them nor the Truth . And in order to this I have perused the Authors themselves , and have taken nothing on trust . Nor have I gather'd their Opinions from some few or dubious expressions in their Writings , or from some Scraps and Sentences , but from the plain Tenour and Scope of what they write . So that the Reader may absolutely depend upon what I offer to him concerning their Sentiments . All the Socinian Writings ( till some few of late ) being in Latin , the Learned can consult the places which I have cited when they please , and bear witness to my faithfulness in alledging them . But I knew it would be of no use to the mere English Reader to transcribe the quotations in that Language : wherefore I chose rather to give him them in his own Tongue . And besides , it is to be supposed that the Learned are not unacquainted with these things : but because Others , who are the greatest numbers , are in great measure ignorant of them , I thought it requisite to publish them to the world , that it may be known what are the Wild and extravagant Notions which are wafted over to us from Racovia . If I had not read their Books , I might peradventure have entertain'd a more favourable opinion of them than I now have , saith the * Excellent Bishop before mention'd . And so without doubt many others would have entertain'd a tolerable opinion of these Gentlemen if they had not perused their Writings , and found what a numerous train of Unsound Propositions are there upheld , and if they had not observ'd that pernicious tendency and drift of them . People hear Socinianism much talk'd of of late : and one or two of the most Vulgar Points of it are partly known to them , and they are sollicited perhaps to give their assent to them . But if they had a discovery of all the rest of their Opinions , it is probable they would be moved by them to disapprove of those others . Most men may think perhaps that the Socinians fail only in their disbelief of the Trinity , and particularly their disowning the Deity of the Son of God , but that as to other Principles of Christianity they believe and profess the same Divine Truths which are embraced by the generality of Christians . For as in the late Reign Popery was misrepresented , all its Doctrines were dress'd up in a very specious and plausible garb by the Bishops of Meaux and Condom , and other dexterous Penmen , in so much that it did not seem to be what it was said to be before , ( for they knew that Popery truly represented would never go down with us ; therefore when the Roman Catholicks had hopes of gaining this Nation once again to their Church , it was thought requisite to set their Religion before us in a wrong posture : ) so hath it fared lately with Socinianism , the English Racovians have given us such a Character of it that it appears to be quite different from what it was , yea and what it really is : they have given it such a gloss and varnish that many are thence perswaded to have a good opinion of it : for they were sensible that if it were set forth and known in its true nature , few Wise and Considerate persons would imbrace it : therefore they found it necessary to give us a False Account of it , to render it ( if possible ) plausible and acceptable . But if we narrowly look into it , we shall find it to be another thing than it is pretended to be : we shall see that it is a Dreadful Compound of Errors and Heterodoxies , a Detestable Farce of Exploded Heresies , a Horrid Perverting of the Christian Faith , and the Nurse of Irreligion and Prophaness . To be plainer yet , he that hath any close thoughts and remarks of things at this day must needs be sensible that the great Indifferency and Scepticism which reign among us have open'd a door to Socinianism , which is a sure Project for Deism , and this for Atheism . For it is apparent that the Atheists of our times politickly make use of this Engine to compass their designs , that is , to banish the Deity and Religion out of the world , and to introduce universal Licentiousness , Immorality and Debauchery . I appeal to any Thoughtful , Serious and Observing Man whether this be not a true and right View of our present affairs with relation to the matter in hand . I apprehended therefore it would be good service to my Countreymen to represent this Monster to them in its true and genuine Colours , in its native and proper features ; which will certainly acquaint them with its Deformity , and ( as the effect of that ) render it Loathsome and Abominable , as it ought to be to all that are concerned for Religion . This is the design of the following Discourse , and the Holy and Blessed Trinity ( whose Cause I defend ) knoweth that herein I intend not the aspersing of any sort of men , I aim not at the exposing of or reflecting upon any Party : but my whole business is to assert and vindicate the Truth which hath been owned by the Catholick Church in all ages of Christianity , and to obviate the growing Evil and Mischief of Socinianism . In undertaking of this , I will suggest nothing out of heat and passion : I will labour to refute , not to reproach our Adversaries : I will endeavour to approve my self an Advocate for Truth without being an Enemy to Civility and Candour . But yet I shall by the Divine Aid ( which most heartily I implore , and beg the Reader to joyn his earnest Devotions with mine ) use that Freedom and Plainness which become the Truth and an Unprejudic'd Asserter of it . My faults in my former book , it seems , were Wit and Eloquence , if he who wrote the * Vindication of the late Treatise concerning the Reasonableness of Christianity be a Judg of either . Now , I hope , I have mended these faults , or chang'd them for two others , viz. Argument and Down-right Language , which yet will be as much disliked by that Gentleman and his Partisans . However , I will venture it , and perhaps this Free and Open dealing may have some good effect even upon the minds of our Adversaries , at least on some of those that are in part tinctur'd with their Opinions : especially when they shall see that it is not my intention to represent the Disciples of Socinus worse than they are ( which as to some things can hardly be done ) but to give an Impartial Account of them in such Particulars wherein it is plain and evident that they swerve from the Truth , and profess such doctrines as have a direct tendency to Irreligion and Impiety . Nor do I comprehend all Socinianized persons in this Character : I entertain some hope that there are some Innocent and Well-meaning people among them , who being inveigled by the plausible pretences of their Leaders have taken up some of their Notions , but are ready , upon a discovery of the Falshood and Perniciousness of them , to lay them down , and wholly to abandon them . Those that are of this sober disposition , will , I question not , find this Present Undertaking beneficial to them ; and will be so far from censuring them , that they will thankfully acknowledg my setting them Right in Perswasions of so great moment and importance , such as are either of the Foundation of Religion , or have a near alliance to it , or have a necessary influence on our Christian Practice . In short , when Principles and Truths of the Highest Nature are struck at by bold Assailants , when the Main Doctrines of Religion are depraved and perverted , and when Christianity it self is endanger'd , shall we sit still , and not be concern'd ? * If these foundations be destroy'd , if these Forts , these Bulwarks , these Strong-holds ( as some render the word ) be demolish'd , what can the righteous do ? if these Fundamental Principles be overthrown , what a wretched state will Religion and the Professors of it be reduced to ? Which is the very thing which we may justly fear at this time , when we behold such a great and signal Defection from the Truths of Christianity , from the Faith of the Gospel , even in the Christian World. How few are there at this day that can endure sound doctrine ? how many are there that call themselves Protestants , and yet grow weary of those Main Articles of Religion which have been owned ever since the Reformation , and have been defended and vindicated by the Pens of the Religious and Learned ? And shall we silently and tamely permit this ? No certainly , That Charity which beareth all things , endureth all things , cannot suffer this . Yea , it is the highest Charity in such a dangerous juncture to acquaint persons with the true State of affairs , to discover the Methods and Artifices of Seducers , to lay open before the world their Cheats and Delusions , and to shew what Errors they substitute in the place of Truth . And this is that which is design'd in my present Performance ; wherein I have all along discover'd the Poyson of our Adversaries Doctrines in the first place , and then I have been careful to administer an Antidote . ERRATA . PAge 6. line 1. before is insert it , p. 29. l. penult . for to the first of r. first to , p. 35. l. 10. place ‖ before Episcopius . p. 95. l. 13. f. of r. or . p. 103. l. 7. r. needs . p. 108. l. 13. r. deletion . p. 123. l. 14. r. strange . p. 125. l. 3. before it insert in . p. 126. l. 6. before And begin the parenthesis . p. 183. l. 5. f. professed r. pretended . p. 184. l. 24. f. this r. that . p. 197. l. 16. after as insert to . p. 214. l. 13. r. Looks . p. 243. l. 5. after it make ) . THE TENDENCY OF THE Socinian Doctrines TO Irreligion & Atheism . CHAP. I. There is an obligation on the Author to give the World an account of the Irreligious Sentiments of the Socinians . Their Abusing of the Holy Scriptures is a proof of their Prophane genius . They hold there are Mistakes and Errors in the Bible as to lesser matters . They disparage the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes , the Epistle to the Hebrews , and the Writings of St. John. They are wild and extravagant ( though very crafty and subtile ) in their interpreting and expounding of Scripture . A particular instance of it in their interpretation of I John 1 , 2. Other instances of their false and perverse dealing . Their notion of a Double Ascension of Christ confuted , and the Texts which they alledge for it explain'd . Their vilisying , wresting and perverting of Scripture are tokens of their Irreligion . I Am obliged to let the World see that I did not reproach and injure the Socinians when I laid to their charge the favouring and promoting of Atheism , and consequently that what I said of them was not ( as they have suggested ) hastily and rashly spoken , or written without due premeditation : And thence it will appear that I am not to be represented as a Censorious or Uncharitable person , which are imputations which I always abhorr'd , and have carefully laboured to avoid . Thus then I make good what I said , Some of this sort of men cannot well be thought to have any true and right Sense of God and Religion , especially the Christian , because they have in their Publick Writings renounced some of the most Considerable things relating to Doctrine , Worship , Discipline , and Practise in the Church of Christ. These are the four General Heads of my following Discourse . I begin with the First . As to the Doctrinal part of Religion , these men are very faulty , and upon examination will be found to be favourers of very Irreligious and Prophane Opinions . And here I will reduce what I have to say unto these five Particulars , viz. Their Notions concerning the Scriptures , concerning God , concerning the First Man , concerning the Future State , and concerning Christianity it self . First , It is no mean proof of their Prophane genius that they delight to vilifie and abuse the Holy Scriptures . As to some lesser matters , and such as are of small moment , the Bible hath Repugnancies and Mistakes , saith the Great * Founder of Socinianism , i. e. He from whom it takes its denomination . And herein he is follow'd by † Volkelius , another Great and Admired Writer among those of the Racovian perswasion . Smalcius grants ‖ some depravation in Scripture as to things of no great moment . * Episcopius , ( who is owned to be a Socinian by the ‖ Party themselves ) tells us that the Penmen of the Scriptures were left to their own humane frailty in delivering those things which appertain to circumstances of Fact , as time and place , and the like . And in the same place he attributes these Mistakes and Errors in the Bible to the want of Knowledge , or weakness of Memory in the Writers . Where then is their Infallibility , which hath been owned by all Christian Churches ? Or , can they be Infallible , and yet Err ? What is the difference between these Writers and others but this , that they were Immediately Inspired by the Holy Ghost , and consequently are not liable in the least to Mistakes and Misapprehensions ? Those then that deny this must needs deny the Writers of the Holy Scripture to have been Inspired , and to have been Infallible , yea they must say that they were ( like other men ) faulty and erroneous in their Writings . This , you will say ( and that justly ) is an Ill Beginning , here is a Bad specimen of their Sentiments concerning the Doctrinal part of Religion , of which our Right Conceptions concerning the Holy Scriptures is a considerable Branch , not to say Root . But this is but mean and inconsiderable in respect of what they further hold and maintain . For they not only find fault with some passages here and there , but they question the Authority of whole Books , and even vilifie the Old Testament it self . What think you of those words of the ‖ Ring-leader of the Party ? The Precepts of the Old Testament are for the most part such , that it is hard to believe that they proceed from God , they are either so Light , or Vain , or Superstitious , or even Foolish , and Ridiculous ; and , in sum , they seem not to be worthy of God. Is this the Language of one that hath a due respect and reverence for the Scriptures ? And in an * other place you will find him particularly disparaging the Book of the Proverbs of Solomon . And † one of his Friends declares , that when Solomon in his Proverbs speaks any thing concerning Manners , if it be not expresly spoken , that is , either commanded or forbid by Moses in the Law , is no more obligatory than the wise advice and doctrine of any other man. What is this but bringing down this Inspit'd Author to the same level with Plato and Seneca , or any other honest Moralist ? But would you know what is the true reason of their slighting and undervaluing this Royal Penman who dictated all by an Infallible Spirit ? It is this without doubt , because there is in that Book so Remarkable a Confirmation of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity , chap. 8. v. 22. to 32. where any unprejudic'd man cannot but see that by Wisdom is meant the Son of God Christ Jesus , whose Eternal Being and Godhead are there in plain terms express'd . I might observe how an * other Celebrated Racovian disparages those Writings of Solomon which bear the Title of Ecclesiastes , but I shall have occasion to mention this more particularly afterwards . Then for the New Testament , we are rightly told by an Excellent Pen that ‖ our Unitarians undermine the Authority of these Books , and so introduce Deism amongst us . There are some of these Writings either slily carp'd at , or more positively call'd in question by them . The Subtilty of Enjedinus ( an Overseer of the Socinian Churches in Transilvania ) is to be taken notice of in his Explication of the Epistle to the Hebrews , who though he saith he hath an esteem for this Book , and will not detract from the Authority of it , yet thus speaks , It is to be known that this Epistle is very much suspected among the most , nor hath it obtain'd the same repute and dignity with the other Writings of the New Testament . And then he assigns his Reasons why he questions the Authority of this Epistle : one whereof is this , The things which this Author writes concerning the Tabernacle , chap. 9. v. 1. may be confuted out of the Old Testament . An other is , that he seems to use foolish Arguings , and to assert some things which are manifestly false . And lastly , this Epistle seems to favour certain Heretical and Erroneous Opinions . All this , and much more he rehearses in contempt of the Divine Authority of this Epistle , and saith not one syllable to shew his dislike of it , or to let the World see how these Cavils may be confuted . The true reason is because this part of St. Pauls Writings is such an Eminent and Illustrious Attestation of the Divinity of our Saviour , and of his making Satisfaction unto God the Father by the offering of himself a Sacrifice upon the Cross for us . Again , the Writings of St. John the Evangelist and Apostle have been struck out of the Canon of Scripture by these men . It is the frank acknowledgment of our New English Unitarians ( as may be seen in one of their * late Prints ) that the Antient Unitarians generally disregarded the Gospel and Epistles which are ascribed to this Author , and held that they were writ by Cerinthus an Heretick in those days . But this must be said , they pitch'd upon a very unlikely man to be the Author of those Writings ; for this Cerinthus ( as Irenaeus , Eusebius , and others of the most Credible Writers of the Church inform us ) was the Chief Man in those days that opposed the Divinity of Christ , and held him to be a Mere Man , whereupon St. John drew his Pen against him . Can we think then that the Gospel of St. John was writ against Cerinthus , and yet that Cerinthus writ it ? Besides , it is easily proved that both the Gospel and the First Epistle which bear this Apostle's name were universally held to be Canonical Scripture , and written by him , as ‖ Eusebius testifies : nay , a professed * Unitarian Writer firmly vouches this . Wherefore it is probable that the only reason why any of the Old Unitarians disallow'd of St. John's Writings was because there are such passages as these in them , In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him , and without him was not any thing made that was made . The Word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the Father . I and my Father are one . He that hath seen me , hath seen the Father . I am in the Father , and the Father in me . Whosoever denieth the Son , the same hath not the Father . There are three that bear record in Heaven , the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost , and these three are one . In brief , because these Writings assert the Holy Trinity , and more especially the Divinity of Christ , thence they are resolved to defame the authority of them : thence our very † Modern Unitarians publickly declare that St. John makes use of certain terms and phrases ( as life , light , fullness , only begotten , &c. ) by chance ; and by other crafty insinuations they would diminish the esteem of those Writings . Nay , they endeavour to blast the Credit of All the Canonical Books , by telling us that some have been modelling the Common Bibles far above twelve hundred years . So saith the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity , and he speaks in the name of all the rest . Thus they would make the World believe that the Whole Sacred Volume is corrupted , and thereby our Religion and Faith are rendred Uncertain and Dubious , which is the thing aimed at . Moreover , their vilifying and abusing of the Holy Scripture are seen in their Wild Interpretations of it , merely to evade plain Texts which are against them , and to establish their own fond Principles . I deny not that some of them have very laudable descants on several passages of the Bible . Faustus Socinus hath excellent Discourses and Commentaries on sundry Texts ; he treats excellently of the Authority of the Scriptures , and very admirably and judiciously of the Truth of Christianity . But at other times he generally dodges and higgles , and uses quirks and subterfuges to support his Cause . So true is that of our Learned Stilling fleet , * F. Socinus seeing the bent of the Scripture so much against him , sets himself to the finding out ways to avoid the force of them . It is granted likewise that some of Socinus's followers are very useful in their Expositions of the New Testament . They settle the sense and scope of the words , and furnish the Reader with several Criticisms of good use . He that denies this is to be suspected of causeless Prejudice and ill-will against them . But then , it must be said that they too often pervert the native sense of the words , and force the Texts to speak what they please : and generally the Arguments they offer are weak and unmanly , groundless and precarious : but they have a way of shoving them on with some craft and subtilty . They are all very dexterous at this , but Enjedinus , Crellius , and Slichtingius's Comments on Texts are of this sort especially . It would create wonder sometimes to see their Elaborate Sophistry in finding out Trajections and Transpositions in several places , in altering the genuine and obvious sense of Texts , in their subtile ways of perverting and wresting of some clear passages of the Bible . It must be said they have exercised the height of their Wit and Parts in this performance . But as it was said of old of the Dice-player , the better he was at the Game , the worse he was ; so here it is most true , the more these men excel in this way of Cheating and Imposing upon mankind , the more is their Badness discover'd , and the greater is their Crime . And our Domestick Socinians agree with the Foreigners in this , for they use the same little Arts and Tricks to deprave the sense of Holy Writ , and to render it serviceable for their turn . If I should instance only in their strange and unaccountable interpreting of the first verses of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel , that would be sufficient to let us see what a marvelous talent they have of misinterpreting and wresting the Holy Book . In the beginning , say * they , is as much as in the beginning of the Gospel , or the Gospel-state , though there is not the least colour for any such Gloss from the whole Context , and though all Expositors both Antient and Modern have understood it otherwise . The Word was with God , i. e. when Christ ascended into Heaven , viz. some time before his Publick Ministry , though there is no foundation for any such surmise , as I shall immediately shew . And the Word was God , or a God , ( for so these nice Criticks will have us read it , though it is well known to the Learned that the omission of the Article is not argumentative ) i. e. he was appointed to be a kind of God , or God's Representative , as Magistrates are call'd Gods. All things were made by him , i. e. all things were not made by him , but only reform'd and renew'd . The world was made by him , i. e. it was new modell'd : or , the Spiritual World , the World of the Messias was made by him . From these and such like Conceits , which their Writings abound with , you may discern the Air and Genius of these Men : you cannot but take notice that they love to play upon words and phrases , they delight in coining sophistical Evasions , they study artifice and shifts . By which they shew themselves to be no Spurious offspring , but the true Sons of Arius , who ( as the Ecclesiastical Historian acquaints us ) * was not unskill'd in Logical Querks . And an † other of the Antients observes that the Arian Cause was managed by Old Subtile Disputants , such as had been bred up to Controversies , and knew how to make the best of their Ill Arguments , and to Dissemble when they thought there was occasion for it . Our late Revivers of the Cause are furnish'd with the same Skill , and use it as advantageously . They will pretend to own Christ's Divinity , they will say Christ is God , and True God ; and yet if you come to the trial , they wholly renounce it , and tell you ‖ Christ is only God's Minister , his Messenger , his Embassador . This is all you can get from an other of their Writers , * Only the Father , saith he , is true God , and the Lord Christ is his Prophet , his Embassador , his Messenger : so that Christ is no more than what the Turks confess Mahomet to be . Though our Blessed Saviour be so often stiled God and Lord in the New Testament , yet the Antitrinitarians would needs persuade us that the meaning of it is no other than this , that he was a Great and Eminent Man : whence it follows , that they hold Christ to be Lord and God in the same sense that the Papists talk of their Lord God the Pope . So they will tell you that the Death of Christ is an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of mankind , and yet , whatever they pretend , they really own no such thing , as the Reverend Bishop Stillingfleet rightly remarks , and irrefragably proves , beyond all Exceptions , in his Admirable Treatise against Crellius . And in several other Instances it might be shew'd that they intolerably abuse and deceive the world . In brief , never was Prejudice more rampant , never were Fallacies so often placed in the room of Arguments , never was Reason so grosly abused , never was Logick so ill employ'd , never were Grammer and Criticism so scandalously thrown away as in the Writings of these men : and all is done to distort the Word of God , to elude the meaning of the Holy Ghost , to plead against the Lord of Life and Glory , and against the only way and means of their Salvation . Here , under this First Head , viz. their Abusing of Scripture , I will take notice of One Particular Instance of it , which to the Common Reader perhaps may be a Rarity . They thinking it necessary that Christ , being but a mere Man , ( for they hold him to be no other ) should be extraordinarily instructed by God as to his Office of the Messias , and therefore it would be requisite that he should ( like St. Paul ) be taken up into the third Heaven , and there be taught particularly how to discharge his Office , and how to teach men upon Earth ; Accordingly they were to find out some Texts of Scripture which might be strained to support this Fiction , viz. That Christ went up into Heaven in the time of the forty days Fast , or some time before he began to Preach , that he might receive Instructions from God concerning the Gospel-dispensation , and concerning the things that he was to deliver upon earth . To this purpose they pitch upon John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into Heaven , but he that came down from Heaven , even the Son of Man who is in Heaven , and they would persuade us that these words are spoken concerning that Ascension which they fancy . But this meaning cannot be fastned upon them , because we are here plainly inform'd that Christ came down from Heaven first , and then afterwards ascended thither ; whereas it is their assertion that he first ascended , and then came down thence . It is impossible therefore to stretch these words so as to make them serviceable to the foresaid Conceit . But they alledg another Text , What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascended up where he was before ? John 6. 62. but this is as wide from their purpose as the other , for these words were spoken after Christ began to preach , and therefore can't be understood of that Ascension which they dream of , because they suppose that to have been before his Publick Preaching , whereas our Saviour here speaks of something to come , What and if ye shall , &c. His Ascension therefore was not past at that time . And further , our Saviour acquaints us here that he was in heaven before his Ascension thither , which is a plain and undeniable proof of his Divinity : for he was not there before as to his Humane Nature ; that these Gentlemen themselves acknowledg , and consequently the words must be meant of his being in heaven with his Father from all eternity , and of having the same Glory which he had with him before the World was , as he speaks himself , John 17. 5. And the other forecited place confirms this , for 't is expresly said he came down from heaven ( and he could not do that unless he were before in heaven ) yea and is in heaven , which both passages are meant of his Divine Eternal Nature , as to which he always was and is in heaven . He is said to come down thence when he undertook to assume our human nature , to be made flesh , and with this ascended a short time after his Resurrection , and not before . Thus they have unwarily made choice of these Texts , from which the very Deity of Christ is so plainly deduced , a doctrine which they can't endure to hear of . Besides , from what hath been said it appears that these Texts are nothing to that purpose for which they alledg them : and particularly this latter is spoken of the Ascension of Christ which was then to come , and therefore can't be meant of that which they talk of . Yet notwithstanding this the Socinian Writers hold a Double Ascension of our Saviour ; and they had it from their * Great Master , who was the first Inventor of this Figment . † Smalcius ( a Racovian Minister , the Author of the Racovian Catechism , ) ‖ Crellius ( a German , but resident at Racovia ) ** Slichtingius ( a Polonian Knight ) †† Volkelius and others publish it as a very Great Truth , nay they fancy it to be the First Step to all Christ's Undertakings , and therefore must be of mighty Concern . The New Set of Socinian Writers hold the same , Before Christ enter'd on his office , he was taken up into heaven , say ‖‖ they , to be fully instructed and inform'd in the nature and quality of his Office , and of that whole charge which he was to deliver to men . Yet , this Invention hath nothing in the whole Evangelical History to favour it . If there had been any such thing , the New Testament would not have been silent : it would have been mention'd by the Evangelists , or one of them at least , as a very considerable part of Christ's Transactions . Yea , the Apostles Creed without doubt , which mentions his Ascension into heaven after his resurrection , would have particularly mention'd this , if he had before ascended , it being ( as they say ) of such eminent importance , viz. to fetch down from heaven a Religion for us , as they are pleas'd to speak . This Ancient Symbol would have taken notice that our Saviour went up twice into heaven , once to take his Instructions from God the Father , and afterwards to sit at his right hand . But neither here , nor in the whole Narrative of his Actions in the Gospels do we meet with any thing concerning the former Ascension . If the Reader is desirous of a farther confutation of this Antecedent or Preparatory Ascension , let him consult the Admirable * Bishop Pearson , who excellently shews the improbability , unreasonableness and absurdity of it . I will only add this as observable , that they confute their New Doctrine themselves , for concerning the very Texts which they alledg for it , which speak of Christ's being in heaven , and coming down from heaven a late Writer of the Socinian Perswasion saith thus , † These Texts amount to no more than this , that the Lord Christ is a Messenger , really come forth from God to Men : as much is true of every Prophet . And so every Prophet ascended up to heaven as much as our Saviour did . Thus they baffle themselves : and they must needs do it , it cannot be help'd because they make use of Scripture to such evil purposes , because they study to pervert and distort the sense of it . Their business is to bring the Bible to their Sentiments and Opinions , and not to form these by that . Nay , if Scripture be so express against them that they know not how to evade it , they abandon it rather than they will quit their own Conceptions . This is the way of them all : and one of them who was more open-hearted than the rest , le ts us know by his own practice what those of his Perswasion should do on the like occasion ; * I would not , saith he , believe that the Son of God was Incarnate , though I should find it in express words in Scripture . And † Socinus hath something like this concerning the Satisfaction of Christ : For my part , saith he , though it were extant in the Sacred Monuments of the Scripture , and there written not only once , but many times , I would not for all that believe it . To summ up all then that hath been said , I ask whether the Socinians asserting of Repugnancies in the Holy Scripture , whether their questioning the Authority of some of the Books , and representing the whole as deprav'd , whether the wilful wresting of particular places to establish their own Opinions , whether ( I say ) these be not plain Marks of Irreligion , and such as directly tend to make men Atheists . CHAP. II. The Writings of some of the Socinians , as well as of Vaninus and Machiavel , who seem to assert a God , prove them not to be no Atheists . They have a Licence to Dissemble . Socinus allows not of the proof of a Deity either from any inward dictates in a mans Mind , or from any outward operations in the World. Some of the Chief of Gods Attributes are question'd , if not denied , by the Racovians . They admit not of his Spirituality . The Absurdity of which Opinion is discovered . They reject his Omnipresence . Which doctrine of theirs is shew'd to be repugnant to Reason and Holy Writ . They deny his Foresight of future Contingent Actions . Which Perswasion is evinc'd to be inconsistent with the Nature of God , the discoveries made by the Inspired Writers , the Predictions recorded in the Holy Scriptures , the Providence of God which extends to future events which depend on the Free Will of man. Their notion concerning God's Eternity is Unscriptural , and unworthy of his Excellent Nature . Therefore no Learned Writer allows of a Successive Duration in God , properly and strictly speaking . SEcondly , we will see what their Opinions and Apprehensions are concerning God , which is the next Particular I propounded to speak of . It is true , some of them in their Writings have laudably asserted and maintain'd the Being of a God. * Crellius is the only man among them that hath professedly and designedly undertaken this task , and he hath done it learnedly and substantially , and I verily believe heartily , for I count it an Injury to detract even from an Adversary . But there is another sort of men who act under a Disguise , and cunningly undermine that Cause which they seem to promote . An example of this was Vaninus , who was an arrant Atheist , and was burnt for being so , and yet writ for the Existence of a God , declaim'd against the most Pestilent Sect of Atheism , as he calls it in his Amphitheatrum Divinae Providentiae . Machiavel often hints that there is a God , he talks very favourably in behalf of Religion , he makes it the very basis and foundation of all Civil Government , and the cause of all that Success and Prosperity which attend Commonwealths , * Where Religion is , saith he , there good laws and good discipline take place , from whence the fortunate and happy Events of things , especially in Warlike Expeditions , proceed . As on the contrary , if you take away Religion , the Commonwealth must needs sink , for where the fear of God is taken away , there follows Impiety , and from that the ruine of Governments . And afterwards he professedly shews that it is necessary for the preservation and flourishing of Kingdoms and Common-wealths that Religion and the Worship of God should be maintain'd . And yet hear what the foresaid Crellius saith of this man , † It appears from many passages in his Writings that , notwithstanding what he seems to say sometimes , ( for it was necessary to cover his Atheism in some manner ) he did not acknowledg any Religion at all . And again afterwards thus , ‖ He plainly enough shews that he really acknowledges that there is no God , and ( notwithstanding this ) that he hath no excuse to alledg why he doth not acknowledg a God. If a Socinian Author ( and one of the Learnedest and Ablest of them ) thus censures this Writer , then there may be ground to suspect that some of those of the Party who defend the Being of a God , are not sincere in doing so , but make that a Pretext and Shew to disguise the Badness of their other Opinions : and it may be thought that as Machiavel and Socinus were Countrymen , so in other respects they are more nearly allied . The Racovians will patiently suffer a man to dissent , or seem to dissent from them in many things , if they know him to be right as to the main . They will permit him to use his Pen against some of their Beloved Doctrines , and yet at the same time they will own him as theirs . There is a plain proof of this in those two Eminent Persons , Grotius and Episcopius . The former seem'd to be a great Abhorrer of Socinianism , as appears from an * Oration which he pronounced before the States of Holland , where he calls it the Poison of the Church and the Worst of Heresies , at the mentioning of which all pious men are horribly afraid . And it is well known that he defended the Satisfaction of Christ ; and yet he is reckon'd and acknowledg'd by the Socinians to be of their Perswasion . The latter hath in his Writings seemingly oppos'd some of the Points which Socinus's followers adhere to , at least he doth not throughly comply with them , and yet our Modern Undertakers for the Cause put him into the Catalogue of their Writers . Whence we may infer that the Party have a Licence to Dissemble ; their Words and Profession do not always correspond with their Apprehensions ; and consequently when some of them assert a Divine Being , we cannot thence conclude their real Belief of it : or when they seem to confute the contrary opinion , we can't certainly infer that they are in good earnest . Wierus , some say , was too well acquainted with Diabolical Magick , though he writes against it , and defies it . Our Hopkins , the Witch-finder , some think , was vers'd in the Black Art himself , and practis'd it . I would offer it to the consideration of Wise and Discerning Men whether Socinus hath not gratified the Atheists ( not to say , that he hath shew'd his own inclination to be one ) when he not only tells us that there is no proof of a God from any innate apprehensions of his being and nature , ( The notion of God , * saith he , is not written in mens hearts , there is no inward principle in their breasts whereby they can by the use of Reason come to the knowledg of God. ) But adds likewise that he cannot be proved from without , that is , from any of the Works of the Creation ; though these have been always voted by the Wisest Men ( both Pagans and Christians ) to be a Sufficient Topick whence we may argue a Deity . Yet he stiffly denies it , and will not admit of the Argument , nay though his denial be a direct opposing of St. Pauls words , Rom. 1. 20. The invisible things of God , from the creation of the World , are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made , even his eternal power and godhead . The Being and Attributes of God , though they are Invisible , are understood , and as it were seen by the visible things of the Creation . This is the plain meaning of the Text , and yet he will not by any means acknowledg it , but by an unaccountable forcing of the words labours to pervert the Sense of them , against all the evidence of Grammar , Criticism , Reason , the Context , &c. This looks very ill , that we have no notice of a Divine Being from our own Natural Reasons , nor from the Make and Structure of the World. Who but Faustus Socinus would have believ'd this ? and who but a Well-willer to Atheism would have broach'd it ? Especially seeing it is so groundless and senseless an Opinion , and so easily to be confuted , for if there be no inward impressions of the being of God on Mens Minds , and no arguing from the outward and visible works of the Creation , then it is certain no Pagans could have arrived to the notion of a God , which yet we see they have , and there is no Man denies it . Wherefore one would suspect that the foresaid Gentleman had a great Mind to maintain and divulge a Paradox which he could not but be sensible would be very grateful to the worst sort of Men , if Atheists are such . But I wave this , and will consider the Socinian Opinions concerning God with respect to the first of his Properties and Attributes , and after that to the Trinity of Persons , and then particularly to the Godhead of Christ. I taxed these Me●… ( in my Discourse concerning the Causes 〈◊〉 Occasions of Atheism ) with denying of the Self-existence , Spirituality , Omnipresence , and Omniscience of God. As to the first , I know very well the Discipl●… of Socinus generally uphold the Self-existence of the Deity , chiefly to make us●… of it for forming of an Argument against the Divinity of our Saviour , but the * Author whom I cited was unmindful o●… that in his hot pursuit after his Lordship of Worcester , and by the ambiguous matching of Self-existent with Unoriginated labours to fetch his Lordship into the noose which he thought he had prepar'd for him . But because this Modern Racovian may make some shew of evading my Charge by pretending his Words were spoken in another's Person , and not his own , I will not any further insist upon it , because the Reader shall thereby be made apprehensive that I am averse from contending in any dubious matter . I proceed therefore to the next Attribute , viz. the Spirituality of God , the denial of which I tax'd the Racovians with . And here I will first prove the Charge , and then briefly represent the Unreasonableness and Absurdity of this notion which the Socinians frame of God. For the sake of the English Reader I will translate out of the Latin the very Words of one of their Principal Authors , * When we ( saith he ) name a Spirit , we understand a Substance void of all Grossness , such as we behold in visible bodies . Thus we say that Angels are SPIRITS , and so we call our Diviner Part ( which Philosophers rather call a SOUL ) and the Air ( though it lie open to some of our Senses , as the Touch ) and other bodies like to this : Every one of which hath so much the more this name ( viz. SPIRIT ) allotted to it by how much it is the more subtile . Again he expresses it thus , † Spirit or Spiritual Essence is that which is opposed to that Essence which is Corporeal , that is , which is Crass , viz. of such things which we behold with our Eyes , especially of those that are Terrene . And a ‖ third time he vouches this , for he reckons God and Angels and the Souls of Men in the same rank with Air and Subtile Bodies , telling us that these are Spirits in the proper and strict sense . Our Home-Socinians think and speak the same , as is apparent from * J. Bidle , who openly declares that God is of a Visible and Corporeal Shape . Thus it is plain that the Immaterial Nature of the Deity is discarded by them , and the best Notion that they can frame of him is that he is a Thin Airy Body . Which how disparaging it is to the Divine Being cannot but be conceiv'd by every Serious Thinking Man. For let Matter be never so fine and subtile , yet still it is Matter . The Animal Spirits ( as they are generally call'd ) are bodies as well as any others : and when they are never so Agile and Brisk , they have still a Corporeal Nature : and being such they are Finite and Circumscribable , which is unworthy of the Nature of the Supreme Being . Therefore this was the rational dictate of Improv'd Minds that God is Incorporeal : this was the sense of Plato ( as † Tully tells us ) and of the all Ancient Philosophers , by whom he was acknowledg'd to be an Incorporeal and Infinite Mind . Again , all Matter of it self is Unactive and Dull , because it hath no inward Principle to act and inform it . Whatever motion and agitation it hath is from without first of all : all its Influence is put into it by another . Which to conceive of God is the greatest Blasphemy , as well as Absurdity . Further , all Matter or mere Body is in its own Nature void of Sense and Perception : and it is not the Fineness and Agility of it that will make it Think and Apprehend . The reason is , because Cogitation or Apprehension is another distinct thing , and quite different from a Material Being : and therefore it is ridiculous to imagine that what is merely Corporeal hath a faculty of Thinking or Conceiving , of Understanding or Willing . To be Cogitative is far different from being Divisible or Extended : and the notion of Cogitation doth not in the least involve in it the notion of Division . There is such a disparity between the Ideas of these things that no rational man can bring it into his thoughts that Matter is capable of Perceiving or Performing the acts of the Mind . There is an absolute necessity therefore of asserting God to be Incorporeal ; we must be forced to subscribe to what our Infallible Instructer ( who was also God himself ) hath taught us , that God is a Spirit , John 4. 24. Which Words , it is observable , * Socinus most grosly depraves , merely to avoid the acknowledgment of this Attribute . Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in the Greek , he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accusative Case , and will have it refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the foregoing verse , as much as to say , Go●… seeks a Spirit . This extravagant work doth he make , although the words are a plain Proposition , and the Grammer of them is easie and obvious . But I have already taken notice of these mens palpable Abusing of Scripture for their own Ends. The next Attribute of God which Socinus's Scholars disallow of is his Omnipresence . I had leisure only just to mention this before : now I will produce some Evidence of what I said . It is not necessary to believe that the Essence of God is Immense , saith their Great † Patriarch . And he hath these strange words in a Fragment of his Catechism , [ Though God's power and wisdom be not circumscribed by any limits , yet it follows not thence that his Essence is infinite , ] as if his Essence and Attributes were not alike as to Infinity . He hath more of this nature in another place of his Catechism , and in other parts of his Writings . * Smalcius and † Crellius ( two of his fast Friends ) deny that God is present every where by his Nature and Essence . ‖ Vorstius limits the presence of God by absolutely denying the Ubiquity of his Essence . And Episcopius ( who is to be taken into the number of the Racovians , as I observ'd before from their own words ) enclines this way , telling us that it is not necessary to believe that God is present every where as to his substance and entity , and he proceeds to bring Arguments ( such as they are ) to maintain what he saith . And other Authors ( not excepting the ** Moderns ) might be alledged to the same purpose , but I think it will not be required , because their Opinion in this case is so well known . But how derogatory is it to the Excellent and Perfect Nature of the Deity ? It is no other than limiting and confining the Divine Being , and making that Finite which is Infinite . If God's Ubiquity be denied , his Infiniteness must be so too . And yet ( which shews the Absurdity and Inconsistency of their notions ) these foresaid Writers pretend to acknowledg that his Wisdom and Power are infinite , as if Infinite Perfections could be seated in a finite subject . Or rather , these Perfections may be said to be God Himself , and therefore if they be Infinite , the Nature of God must needs be such . His Transcendent Nature is of that kind that it hath no bounds , no dimensions ; and what is so , is Every where , and in all places , though not circumscribed by any . But they have such a kind of notion concerning God as Pliny had of him , who denies the Universal Presence of God in the World ( as also his Concern for it ) because , saith he , * the Divinity must needs be polluted by so base and manifold a Ministry . This is the very reason which some of them assign why they refuse to acknowledg the Divine Ubiquity . But it is the grossness of their conceptions that makes them think thus , for the nature of God is such that he is incapable of being defiled and polluted by being any where . The most filthy places cannot annoy his Person and Essence . Wherefore here ( as at some other times ) they have very unphilosophical apprehensions , and are palpably mistaken about the nature of God. I might shew likewise how repugnant their Assertion is to that discovery of the Divine Nature which we have from the Inspired Writings . The heaven , and heaven of heavens cannot contain him , 1 Kings 8. 27. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ? or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven , thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell , behold , thou art there . If I take the wings of the morning , and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea , even there shall thy hand lead me , and thy right hand shall hold me . Psal. 139. 7. &c. Which excellent variety of expressions is made use of on purpose to signifie this grand Truth , that it is impossible to assign any place where God is not present . And this necessarily results from his Infinite Nature , which is without measure and quantity : yea , it is the very result of the Concessions of the Socinians themselves , for seeing they grant the Power of God is inseparable from his Essence , it must needs follow that this is Immense ( and consequently Omnipresent ) as well as that . Notwithstanding this , the Socinians represent God as confined , and , as the Epicureans did , shut him up in Heaven . If this in them was counted an approach to Atheism , why may it not be reckon'd as such in the persons I am speaking of ? And is not the same Atheistick Tang discernible in their denying God's Foreknowledge of future Contingencies ? which was another thing I charg'd them with ; and now I stand ready to make it good against them . * Smalcius and † Crellius are peremptory in asserting that things of this nature cannot possibly be foreknown , for they are not the object of Knowledg , therefor●… God doth not know them . The latter o●… these Authors designedly undertakes the defence of this , and is very large upon it . And in his Comment on the ‖ Epistl●… to the Romans he stands to this Proposition , that God hath no foresight of future Contingencies . This doctrine they borrow from their * Italian Instructor , who spends two whole Chapters in the asserting and maintaining of it , and two more in taking off ( as he thinks ) the Objections against it . Our English Writers of the Racovian Way are of this Strain , Witness Bidle's Catechism , Chap. 2. and the Examiner of my Exceptions against the Reasonableness of Christianity , p. 18. But doth not any unprejudic'd person see that such a notion and belief are very injurious to the Deity , who by vertue of the Excellency and Transcendency of his Nature cannot but know and foresee all things ? The Perfection of the Divine Understanding is such that it is able to penetrate into the Wills of Men , be they never so free , and can infallibly discern and foresee which way they will incline , yea which way they will certainly turn . For the nature of all Futurities , whether they be Necessary or whether they be Contingent , is the same as to God. Who can read those Words in Deut. 31. 21. and not acknowledg this ? Concerning the Israelites and their future behaviour thus God himself speaketh , I know their imagination which they go about , even now before I have brought them into the land which I sware . Which is meant of Free and Voluntary Actions , as appears from what is said in the foregoing Verse , When I have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers , then will they turn unto other Gods , and serve them , and provoke me , and break my Covenant . Whence it is evident that the most Contingent Events are foreseen by God. Who can read that remarkable passage of the Psalmist , and not believe this ? Thou knowest my down-sitting and my up-rising , thou understandest my thought afar off . Thou compassest my path , and my lying down , and art acquainted with all my ways . For there is not a word in my tongue , but lo , O Lord , thou knowest it altogether . Psal. 139. 2 , 3 , 4. Here are the Ways or Actions , here are the Words , here are the Thoughts of Men distinctly specified ; and they are all pronounced to be the object and matter of God's Foreknowledg . And I desire the Reader to observe this further , that this Holy Man owns the doctrine of God's Omniscience though there were Difficulties in it , though he could not reach the Manner of it . Such knowledg , saith he , is too wonderful for me : it is high , I cannot attain unto it , v. 6. As if he had said , How God knoweth and foreseeth all that I think , speak , and act , I am not able to determine : it is too sublime a matter for me to search into ; I am not able to give an account of it . But , however , I am satisfied concerning the truth and reality of it , because God can do more than I can comprehend . But Socinus was of another strain , he professedly declares that he disowns the Divine Prescience because he sees unanswerable difficulties in it , and he can't understand how it is : and his Brethren speak after the same rate . But how can they deny God's Prescience of Futurities when it is made the Peculiar Character of the Deity ? or otherwise we can't make sense of those words Isa. 41. 22 , 23. Let them shew us what shall happen , and declare us things to come : shew the things that are to come hereafter , that we may know that ye are Gods. This sort of Knowledg , viz. of those things that depend on the free actions of men , of which the Prophet here speaks ( as appears from v. 25 , &c. ) distinguishes the True God from false and counterfeit ones , whereas the knowledg of some other Future things is vouchsafed to Men , to finite creatures . But this is here propounded as an infallible Argument and Evidence of the Deity , and this is to be found in Him alone . It is strange therefore that the Socinians should deny that to be in God which is Proper to him only , which is His Sole Prerogative . This certainly is a great eclipsing of the Divinity , and it can be resolv'd into nothing but this that they have a design to impair and affront the Essential Attributes of the Godhead as well as the Persons belonging to it . But then , how wild a thing is it to assert that God can have no knowledg of these things , when we plainly see it confuted by the manifold Predictions concerning Future Contingencies which the Sacred Scripture hath recorded ? It is to be wondred at that , notwithstanding this , these men should be so blind : it is strange and unaccountable that they take no notice of their being baffled by the Fulfilling of those Predictions . Likewise , who sees not that the Providence of God extends it self to this sort of future actions and occurrences ? for he manages these for great and excellent ends in the world . But how can he do this if he hath no knwledg of them ? Can his Care and Providence be exercised about them , and yet he be wholly Ignorant of them ? Thus it is evident that at the same time that these men deny the Divine Prescience , they do also take away Providence , for it is impossible that God should dispose , order and take care of those actions and events which he knows nothing of . Which shews how absurd and ridiculous that passage in Socinus is , viz. * that this Prescience ( which we assert to be in God ) doth in some part take away and obscure that continual Care which he takes of humane affairs , and renders him in a manner Idle . One would not imagine that such an Inconsistent Thought should come into a mans head , and much less that it should be propagated , as we see in † Vorstius and others . If they had not a strong propension to diminish and disparage the Divine Nature , and to foster Atheism , certainly they could not thus discourse , certainly they could not maintain that God is ignorant of what any Man will say , think or do the next moment , and that he hath no notice at all of such Future Occurrences as depend on the free will of man , till they actually come to pass , i. e. when every intelligent creature hath a knowledg of them . There is yet another Attribute of God , concerning which they have a very unbecoming notion , and such as is inconsistent with the Perfection of the Divine Nature . God's Eternity is represented by them to have in it a Succession of Duration , as there is in Time. They are the very words of * Socinus and † Crellius . And the ‖ English Socinians shew themselves to be of this mind , placing the nature of Eternity in a Continual Succession . And as for the contrary notion , it is laught at by ** some of them as a Whimsical Paradox . But certainly this is no other than confounding of Finite and Infinite , and making Time and Eternity the same . Where there is a Succession there was a Beginning or First Moment , which plainly demonstrates that there is no Succession in God's duration , because all things are Together and at Once ; those things which are past , present , and to come are always coexistent and present with him . One day is with the Lord as a thousand years , and a thousand years as one day . Psal. 90. 4. Which denotes that there are not in God those three differences of Time before mention'd , which are in the duration of other things ; and consequently there are no Parts , and no Succession in the Eternal Duration of God. This I think no man will deny to be rational , that the Permanency of the Existence of God should be differenced from that of Creatures , and accordingly that he should not be measured by Time as they are , I go upon this ground , that we ought to attribute the most Excellent things to God , and on the contrary that we must not ascribe any thing to him that hath the least Shew of Imperfection , and will diminish his Divine Nature . This is a safe and sound bottom , and on this I build my Assertion , viz. that a Temporal and Successive duration ought not to be attributed to God. If the persons I am now dealing with had attended to this Rule , had built on this basis , they would not have pronounced such strange things as they do concerning the Deity , they would have had more reverent conceptions of him , they would not have vented such undue Opinions and Surmises concerning the Divine Nature . But they , having taken up these Perswasions , endeavour to defend them : and it hath happen'd that some persons of good Parts have undertaken the Cause , and have rendred it very plausible to such as have not an eye to the Infinite and Superlative Excellency of God , the Supreme Being . I grant that there are some Learned Me●… that are no Socinians who seem to allow 〈◊〉 a Successive Duration in him , but if we duly weigh what they say we shall find tha●… they chiefly set themselves against the nice speculations of the Schoolmen concerning Succession , but they apply no●… this way of Duration in a proper and strict manner unto God. They ow●… some kind of resemblance of it in Eternity , but there is no such thing formally and really . The reason is , because Succession implies in it Parts , Divisibility , Motion , and Change : but an Eternal Undivide●… Being is not capable of these , and by consequence not of such a Duration . Wherefore it follows that the Eternity of God is in a manner denied by the Socinians . 〈◊〉 leave it to the Reader to apply the Censure . CHAP. III. The Socinians renounce the doctrine of the Trinity , though it be attested by the Scriptures and Fathers . They prophanely ridicule it . They are demonstrated to be Atheists from St. John's Words Epist. 1. ch . 2. v. 23. The Argument thence is reduced into an unanswerable Syllogism . The doctrine of the Trinity intended to be particularly treated of hereafter by the Author . Christ's own words evince his Divinity . The Socinians denying him to be God , consequently deny his Satisfaction . That Text Rom. 3. 25. is urged against them . Whence are inferr'd the Unreasonableness and Impiousness of their Cavils . Christ's Satisfaction proved from Isai. 53. 5. &c. From those Texts which speak of Reconciliation made by him . From other places which mention his Suffering and Dying for us , his being a Propitiation , an Atonement , a Sacrifice , his Redeeming us . Both the former and present Socinians agree in reviling , deriding and blaspheming the Merits and Satisfaction of our Saviour . THUS far we have seen how defective they are in their Notions concerning God , as he is considerd in respect of his Attributes . We will in the next place observe how faulty they are in their Conceptions concerning Him as he is to be considered in regard of the Persons contain'd in his Godhead . The Holy Scriptures , especially of the New Testament , bear witness that though there is but One Living and True God , yet in Unity of this Godhead there is a Trinity of Persons , of one substance , majesty , power and glory , viz. the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost , and that these are the very Eternal God. There is abundant proof of this from a vast number of Plain and Obvious Texts : and yet the Disciples of Socinus stubbornly disown this Clear Truth . They have but a Text or two on which they pretend to build their belief of Christ's Ascending into heaven before he preach'd the Gospel , and yet these ( though distorted and misapplied ) they think a sufficient basis for that Conceit of theirs : but behold , there are above fourty Clear places of Scripture that express the Plurality of Persons in the Deity , and yet they refuse to attend to them . Which shews that their eyes are blinded , and that they wilfully give themseves up to Mistakes . The Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church ( who may well be supposed to have some knowledg and insight into this Catholick Doctrine ) unanimously assert the Distinction of Persons or Subsistencies in the Godhead . Which is freely acknowledg'd by their * Great Master , who expresly tells us that the Fathers both before and after the Nicene Council asserted the same doctrine that we do . And this hath been the constant profession of the Orthodox Churches of Christ in all ages . But notwithstanding this , there have been † some since ( unmindful of what their Master had acknowledg'd ) that have endeavour'd to make the Writings of those Ancients speak for them , therein both contradicting Socinus and the Truth it self . Nay , even among the late Tracts published by the Socinians there is a formal Collection of the Testimonies of Greek and Latin Fathers against the Doctrine of the Trinity . So contradictory are these men to one another . There is no need of quoting any Particular Authors under this Head , for they all appear in a full body against the doctrine of the Trinity . Here the whole Posse of the Racovians shew themselves , unanimously and without exception declaring that there is but One Person , viz. the Father in the Deity , and that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God. As for the Blessed Son of God , who is the Word of the Father , begotten from everlasting by him , they affirm him to be no other than a Man , dignified with the title of God. And as for the Holy Ghost , who is co-essential with the Father , some of them ( who adhere to Bidle ) hold he is an Angel or Messenger of God , and consequently a Person ; but the rest of them deny his Personality , and averre him to be only the Power or Influence of God , and so is only a Quality or Operation : as if the Apostles were commanded to baptize all Nations in the name of an Operation , and at the same time were enjoyn'd to baptize in the name of Two Persons . This is very harsh , yea it is very inconsistent and absurd . However , these Gentlemen are resolv'd to adhere to it , and they bid open defiance to the Contrary Doctrine . One of the New Racovians tells us that the doctrine of the Trinity * hath been partly the direct and necessary Cause , and partly the unhappy occasion of diverse Scandalous and Hurtful Errors and Heresies . And in an * other place he declares that this doctrine is as little consistent with Piety towards God as it is with Reason . But this is very mild and gentle in respect of what some other Unitarians belch forth . † Servetus , when he speaks of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God , ridicules it in such blasphemous terms as are not to be mention'd ; and he often calls the Trinity the Three-headed Cerberus . Others of them stile it a Monstrous Idol , a Fiction of Antichrist , an Infernal Imposture . Nay , our very Modern Socinians , our English Unitarians discover a very Prophane Spirit when they speak of this Sublime Point . The language of the Church , say ‖ they , concerning the Trinity is BARBAROUS , the faith of it is Monstrous . And how elegantly do they express themselves when they tell us that the doctrine of the Trinity is ** a dry and empty notion , a bone without marrow or meat ? What can be more prophane than their stiling the Three Divine Persons a * Trinity of Cyphers , a † Club or Cabal of Gods , a ‖ Council or Committee of Gods , where sometimes one is President , and sometimes another is in the Chair ? and in another place , a ** Castle in the air . Let any one peruse their late Prints , and observe the freedom of their Stile , and he will find it light and frothy ( as one of their late Converts expresses it , ) he will find them irreverently deriding this Profound Mystery , in such terms as I forbear to rehearse , because they are most unworthy of Christian and Pious Ears : he will find that there was reason to tax them with Irreligion and Prophaneness , and that I did not reproach them when I laid these to their Charge . But more especially as to the imputation of Atheism ( which is yet a more Heinous Crime ) I request the Reader to consider and weigh 1 John 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son , the same hath not the Father . Take it thus with the preceding verse , which will lead us to the true sense of it , Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. As much as to say , if there ever was a Person that might be truly call'd a Liar , if ever any one deserved that name , then certainly he that gainsays so plain a Truth as this ( that Jesus is the Messias ) is an egregious Liar and Falsifier , and merits to be call'd so . Yea , to such a one belongs not only the Title of a Liar but of Antichrist , because he is a direct Opposer of Christ as he is the Son of God the Father , and therein he denies both the Father and the Son. For it follows , Whosoever denieth the Son , the same hath not the Father , i. e. he denieth the Father as well as the Son : for not having the Father is the same with denying him , as is most evident from the preceding clause , where it is call'd the denying of the Father . Now , I suppose the Socinians will grant that the denying of the Father is Atheism : wherefore they must also acknowledg that the denying of the Son is Atheism , because in this is included ( according to these words of St. John ) the denying of the Father . This is a Text which it may be they never thought of , i. e. of the force and influence of it : therefore I intreat them to ponder it now , and therein to see a Character of themselves . There were , in St. John's days some of their Perswasion , some that opposed the doctrine of the Trinity , and especially the Deity of the Second Person : they labour'd to perswade the People ( as their Successors do in our days ) that the Father only was God , and that the Son was excluded wholly from the Divinity . Against these this Apostle writes , and lets them know that the Son as well as the Father is God , and that he who hath the confidence to deny the Deity of the former , doth also deny the Deity of the latter . For such is the nature of the Godhead that one of these cannot be Alone . The Father is not without the Son , neither can be , as this latter cannot be without the other . They are so mutually joyn'd together that they cannot be separated . This Coherence is inviolable , and therefore he that denies the Eternal Son of God , denies the Father : he that holds Christ is not the Son of God by Eternal Generation , in effect disowns the Godhead of the Father : and if he doth so , he is an Atheist . This is a Text that is not question'd by the Socinians , though the next clause in the verse hath been doubted of by them and some others . These are Words of the Beloved Disciple , who lay in his Master's Bosom , and had extraordinary communications of the Spirit , and was favour'd in a peculiar manner with Divine Discoveries and Revelations . This is he that may be called the Great Eagle ( and that name was given him by the Ancient Christians , and much more deservedly than Maimonides was called so by the Modern Jews ) because he soared so high , and was so quick-sighted in the Mysteries of the Gospel , and had so piercing and sagacious judgment . Therefore on all these accounts I urge this Text upon Socinus's followers , wishing them to be sensible of the force of it . The denyal of the Son , i. e. the denying of his Divinity , which consists in his being the Eternal Son of God , is a denyal of the Father also . They that deny the Deity of the Second and Third Persons , in whom the Divinity as truly subsists as in the First , deny the Deity of the First Person . Whence it irrefragably follows that a Socinian is an Atheist . He is so if this Syllogism will prove him to be one , He that denies the existence of the True God is an Atheist , the Socinian doth the former , therefore he is the latter . The Major is the definition of an Atheist , and therefore can't be question'd . The Minor therefore must be proved , which is easily done thus , He that denies Christ to be the True God , i. e. of the same substance with the Father , denies the existence of the True God : but a Socinian denies Christ to be the true God , i. e of the same substance with the Father , Ergò . The Second Proposition will not be denied by these Gentlemen , therefore I am to clear the Major , and that is soon done thus , If the denying of the Divinity of the Son be the denying of the Divinity of the Father , then he that denies Christ to be the True God , &c. denies the existence of the True God : but the denying of the Divinity of the Son is the denying of the Divinity of the Father , Ergò . The first Proposition will be yielded , I conceive therefore I am to take care of the second , and that is soon done from the forecited Text , which is the very substance of it , Whosoever denieth the Son , the same hath not the Father . The Socinians do the former , therefore they are guilty of the latter . There is such a Connection between these two , the Father and the Son , they being Co-essential and Co-eternal , that if you deny the Divinity of the one , you deny that of the other . Therefore they are Atheists that deny the Divinity of our Saviour : therefore in the interpretation and accounts of the Apostle St. John Socinians are such , for they deny the Divinity of Christ , and in denying of that deny the Divinity of the Father . And this was the Sense of the Primitive Christians , and Pious Professors of that Holy Religion , for we find that Baptism is called * the renouncing of Atheism , and the acknowledgment of the Deity , because in the Form of Baptism the Trinity is professed and owned , or the Deity as it contains in it Three Distinct Persons . Those therefore who deny these are chargable with Atheism ; more especially according to the tenour of St. John's Words , and the acception of the Gospel those are to be taxed with it who deny the Divinity of our Saviour . Perhaps it may be expected here that I should maintain the contrary Truth , and formally prove and defend the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity : but because there have been so many Treatises lately published on this subject , and because I design a Just Discourse upon it my self , among others which I intend to offer to the world upon the Articles of the Creed , I will dismiss this Point at present , after I have made this one request to the Reader , that he would vouchsafe in the most serious manner to consult the Writings of the New Testament , and studiously to compare those places together which refer to this Sublime Matter ; and then he will clearly discover the Truth and Reality of it . Nay , he will be convinced of this from what our Saviour himself saith concerning it : for though ( for certain good reasons ) he was not forward to declare his Divine Nature and Dignity , yet he often uttered such words as implied that he was the Eternal Son of God ; as when he said , Before Abraham was , I am , John 8. 58. I and my Father are one , John 10. 30. ( which the Jews well understood , when they laid this to his charge , Thou makest thy self God , v. 32 , 33. ) He that hath seen me , hath seen the Father , because we are but One. John 14. 9. I am in the Father , and the Father in me , v. 10. And to the very last he owned this , Mat. 26. 63 , 64. Mark 14. 62. whereas the Socinians as resolutely persevere in the denial of it . And denying him to be God , they consequently disown his Satisfaction , which is another Black Crime chargable upon them , and that very justly . They allow Christ to be a Saviour , but on this account only because * he shews us the way to Salvation , and will afterwards bestow it upon us . As to his death , they acknowledg that it was to confirm the New Covenant : by shedding of his blood he ratified it , as before under the Law the Old Covenant was made by effusion of blood . But that there was any thing Meritorious and properly Expiatory in his Death , they stiffly deny : for it is the peremptory decision of † Socinus himself that Christ did not merit by any thing that he did ; and ‖ Volkelius expresly saith the same . Nay , the former of these , to explain himself , undertakes to shew that ** Christ had nothing in him that was singular , and that he neither did or suffered any thing that was so . And †† elsewhere he hath these very words , Whatsoever Christ suffered can have in it no greater vertue than if any mere man whosoever had suffered the same . This is the opinion they have of the Passion and Death of our Blessed Lord. And to propagate this they endeavour by all means to vilifie his Priesthood . They manifestly confound his * Sacerdotal and Regal Office. And they would perswade us that his † Priestly Office did not commence here on Earth , but was first exerted in heaven . And such like Inventions they have to evade the Satisfaction of Christ , which they resolve never to admit of . Accordingly Socinus hath no less than fifteen Chapters against it in one ‖ book : and the three first Parts of an ** other Treatise are wholly spent on the same subject , and are indeed but a Repetition of what he said before . And he again insists upon this in his Disputation with Francken . His †† Friends unanimously assert the same doctrine , and professedly declare that Christ did not by his death satisfie the Divine Justice for our Sins , and thereby reconcile God to us . And in the same places of their Writings where they assert this , they also add that God remits the sins of men without any Compensation to his offended Holiness and Justice , for this they say is contradictory to the other . Nay , they tell us that * there is not in God that Justice whereby he is moved to punish Sin. But shall we believe the Racovian Catechism or St. Paul's words ? God set him ( i. e. Christ ) forth to be a Propitiation , to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins . Rom. 3. 25. and in the next verse , to declare his righteousness , that he might be just , i. e. to make it appear that God would not pardon sin without Satisfaction made to his Justice . The Holiness and Righteousness of God's nature , and the opposition of them to Sin oblige him to animadvert upon it . Wherefore Sin cannot go unpunish'd , and consequently it cannot be forgiven without Satisfaction ; that is , either the guilty person must suffer , or the fault and punishment must be transferr'd on another . And whereas these Great Masters of Reason alledg that Christ could not be punish'd because he was an Innocent Person ( for it is injustice to punish the Innocent , ) they cannot deny this to be a Maxim of clear Reason that an Innocent Person may voluntarily undertake to suffer for one that is Guilty as a man may take another's Debt upo●… him , and oblige himself to discharge i●… for him . This is an act of Mercy an●… Generosity . And much more such w●… Christ's undertaking to discharge o●… debts , to expiate our sins by suffering fo●… us . And seeing he gave himself for 〈◊〉 Tit. 2. 14. i. e. willingly offer'd himself seeing it was an act of his Choice an●… Consent , we may conclude that the●… was no Injustice done him when the gui●… of our sins was laid upon him , and whe●… he bore the Punishment which was primarily due to us . This is so plain a thin●… that any man of correct thoughts m●… needs discern it . The Case then is thi●… God would not pardon the sins of me●… committed against him without som●… Recompence and Satisfaction : but we●… could not make Satisfaction for our selves therefore an Other did it . Christ underwent the Punishment which we deserved , and which should have been inflicted on us , and thereby he fully satisfied God's Justice , which , as he is Absolute and Supreme Governour of all the world , requires that Sin should be punished . How unreasonably then do the Socinian Writers cry out against this Just and Wise Dispensation of Heaven ? Yea , how Irreligious and Prophane are they in exploding and scoffing at that which is the Only Way of Man's Salvation ; I may justly take up the words of an Ancient and Pious Father on the like occasion , * I doubt not but if God had taken another way to effect our Salvation , they would also have found fault with that , for they are fastidious , and hard to please , and are only skill'd to Cavil at the Mysteries of the Divine Dispensation . So far as we know , this Particular Method of Redeeming lost Man was Necessary , because Satisfaction could not otherwise be made to the offended Majesty of Heaven , nor could the Injury done to him be fully repaired . But we are sure of this that this Satisfaction and Reparation were really made by Christ the Son of God. This is evident from those Texts of Scripture which acquaint us that he took the Guilt of our Sins upon himself . He was wounded for our transgressions , he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon him , and with his stripe●… we are healed . — The Lord hath laid o●… him the iniquity of us all . — For the transgression of my people was he stricken . Isai. 53. 5 , 7 , 8. In which words it is as eviden●… as any thing possibly can be that the Penalty which was due to us for our sins and transgressions was transferr'd on him , and he thereby Satisfied for us . And this is the meaning of Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offer'd to bear the Sins of many : and of Gal. 3. 13. He was made 〈◊〉 Curse for us , he underwent the Punishment for sin which we in our own persons should have undergone , and particularly he suffer'd that Cursed death of the Cross. His Satisfying for us is plainly denoted by the frequent mention of Reconciliation , i. e. doing some Great thing whereby he purchased the favour of God for us , when we were enemies to him . When we were enemies , we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son , Rom. 5. 10. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ , 2 Cor. 5. 18. Or , in other terms , v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself . It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell , and ( having made peace through the blood of his cross ) by him to reconcile all things unto himself , Col. 1. 19 , 20 , 21. And accordingly , you hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death , v. 22. And in several other places this Reconciliation is expresly mention'd . And whereas they acknowledg ( being convicted by these plain Texts ) that Christ reconciled us unto God , but then object that it is not said , He reconciled God to us , it is a vain and childish suggestion , and a mere playing upon words , and therefore is not worthy of a serious man , for our being reconcil'd unto God and his being reconcil'd to us amount to the same : one is included in the other , or one at least follows upon the other . If we are reconcil'd to God , it is a natural consequence that God is so to us : and therefore these Objectors shew themselves here ( as they do upon several other occasions ) to be very Triflers . The Satisfaction made by our Saviour is likewise manifest from those places of the New Testament which make mention of his sufferings for us , dying for us , laying down his life for us , Mat. 20. 28. John 10. 11 , 15. Rom. 5. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 , 15. 1 Thess. 5. 9 , 10. Heb. 2. 9. 1 Pet. 2. ●…1 . 3. 18. and many other places which inform us that Christ freely substituted himself in the room of lost men , and suffer'd in their stead . And this doctrine is undeniably proved from those Texts which represent Christ as a real * Propitiation and † Atonement for our sins , and consequently as a true and proper Expiation for them , I say proper , because Socinus and his brethren are not backward to acknowledg that he expiated for Sin , but then they mean it not in the proper sense , i. e. that he deliver'd us from the guilt of Sin by the efficacy and merit of his Blood. This likewise is plainly set forth to us in those Texts , 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passover ( i. e. our Paschal Lamb ) is sacrificed for us . Ephes. 5. 2. He hath given himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice for a sweet-smelling savour : especially those in the ‖ Epistle to the Hebrews , which speak of Christ's Offering himself , and being a Sacrifice , and thereby making an Atonement unto God for us upon earth : which destroys that Senseless Fiction of theirs , that he was not a Priest till he came to Heaven . This is undeniable that where the Oblation of the Sacrifice is , there is the Priest ; now , it was here upon Earth that he was a Sacrifice , he offer'd his own blood upon the Cross , and therefore he was a Priest upon Earth . Therefore it is said , When he had by himself purged our sins ( viz. here by his blood ) he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high , Heb. 1. 3. He first offer'd himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for us , and then appear'd in glory and triumph in heaven . Other Texts speak of Christ's ransoming us , Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. and of redeeming us , Rom. 3. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 30. And this Redemption was by his Blood , Eph. 1. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 18. call'd the Blood of God. Acts 20. 28. This was the Price that was paid for us , and so it was a Proper Redemption . This Price was paid to God's Justice , to free us from the Penalty which was due by the Law , to rescue us from eternal wrath and misery . This is the doctrine which the Holy Scripture teacheth us , and this is the faith of all who rightly understand those Writings , viz. that Christ suffer'd and died to satisfie the Divine Justice in our stead , and thereby to expiate for our sins , and to redeem us from death and hell , and to purchase life and salvation for us . The Socinians deny this , and thereby subvert the whole Gospel , turn Christianity upside down , ruine the very foundations of our Religion , and pluck it up by the roots . According to the doctrine of these Men we are yet in our sins , for there is no True Expiation for them ; we are in a State of Misery , we are overwhelm'd with our own Guilt , we are hopeless helpless creatures , and our condition is deplorate , for there is no Satisfaction made to God for our transgressions . Nay , they are not content barely to renounce the contrary doctrine , but they explode it with great derision and reproach . First , as to Christ's Merits , we are told by * Smalcius that it was taught by Socinus and Ostorodus that the opinion of those is false , absurd and pernicious who have invented and feigned that there is any such thing as Merit in Christ. And Smalcius himself is bold to call it † the Fictitious Merit of Christ : and in another place , ‖ that Dream of Merit . Then , as to the Satisfaction it self , he is not afraid to stile it ** a Fiction that hath its rise from the brains of curious men . And in his * Catechism he hath these reproachful words , Though now it is vulgarly thought by Christians that Christ by his death merited Salvation for us , and fully satisfied for our sins , yet it is a deceitful opinion , erroneous and very pernicious . Yea , this doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is termed Absurd and Impious by † Socinus . I appeal now to the Reader whether I need prove that those who use such language deserve the last of these Epithets themselves . But are the English and Modern Gentlemen of the same opinion ? Yes ; as you may see in Mr. Bidle's Scripture Catechism as he calls it , but very unjustly ) Chap. 12. where he shamefully corrupts the sense of Scripture to render his Opinion plausible . If you consult ‖ one of their Later Writers you will find him in a deriding manner thus representing the doctrine of the Trinitarians , viz. that God the Son being incarnate in our nature fulfill'd for us all obedience by his active righteousness , and by his passive one he more than exhausted all that Punishment that is or can be due to Sin. Whatever he did , was for us , and what he suffer'd was in our stead : and one drop of his blood was sufficient to ransom a thousand worlds from the demerit of their Sins . And then they labour to shew that the belief of such doctrine is of very ill consequence , it 〈◊〉 the cause of the decay of Piety , and it is tha●… which bolsters men up in their wicked courses Afterwards in way of derision they thus express the doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction , Because they ( i. e. the Trinitarians ) pretend that God was incarnate and suffer'd in our stead , they are forced to this conclusion , that God hat●… freely pardon'd , and yet was infinitely overpaid for all our transgressions and sins ; that of his mere Grace , the abundance and riches of his grace ( forsooth ) he will pardon and save the peniten●… because he hath received for them ( 〈◊〉 you 'll believe it ) a price of Redemption , &c. These Tenents they scoff at a●… branches growing upon the Trinitarian Stock , these they brand as scandalous , absurd , and heretical doctrines , p. 11. 12 , 14. I●… an * other place they declare that the Oblation which Christ made of himself , was not made to the Justice of God , or by way of a full reparation to it , but as all other Sacrifices ( of beasts ) formerly were , an oblation or application to the mercy of God , and ( as 't is added ) by way of humble suit . In the same place they represent Christ's Satisfaction as a Monster , and scoffingly call it the Trinitarians Fetch-back , though presently after they seem to retract this Jargon . In a pretended * Letter to the Clergy of both Universities these New Racovians again ridicule this doctrine , and so they do in some others of their late Pamphlets ; which makes their Character very wretched and dismal , and to be abhorr'd by all Good Men and sincere Lovers of Christianity , for it is too manifest that † they tread under foot the Son of God , and count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing , and do despite unto the Spirit of grace . Thus you see how the doctrine of Socinianism , as it respects God in general , and more particularly the Persons of the Godhead , and in a more especial manner the Second Person or Lord Christ Jesus and his Undertakings , you see ( I say ) how extremely vitiated it is , and fitted to the conceptions and notions of Prophane and Atheistical Spirits . CHAP. IV. They maintain that the First Man was not created in a State of Uprightness ; notwithstanding the Writings of the Old and New Testament expresly assert the contrary . Original Sin , though attested in the same Holy Writings , is pronounced a Fable by them . Their groundless notion concerning the Spirit and Divine Assistance . With the Pelagians they hold that Man 's Natural Strength is sufficient in order to faith and obedience . What are vain and lying words according to Slichtingius . Their strange conceptions concerning the Future State. It is their opinion that the Souls of the deceased are void of all Perception and Sense ; that they Live not , yea that they Exist not . Which notions are proved to be contrary to Scripture and Reason . The Immortality of humane Souls is shock'd by these Men. Which shews their Irreligious and Atheistical Propension . Some of them disbelieve the Resurrection of the Wicked . They deny that the dead shall rise with the same Bodies . It is unreasonable to deny this merely because of some Difficulties that attend it . Though we should suppose an Annihilation of human●… bodies , yet God can raise them the same . Much more may we conceive the same bodies to be rais'd out of something . The very notion of Resurrection implies the rising again of the same Individual Body . This doctrine is founded on the eviden●… testimony of Scripture . It is shew'd i●… what respects the contrary opinion is an argument of Impiety . THirdly , I proceed to consider the Groundless and Irreligious Sentiments of these Men concerning the First Man , and the State he was in at his first Creation . They all agree in this , tha●… though Adam had a natural ability to do what God enjoyn'd him , yet he was not created in a State of Uprightness . He is said , to be made upright , Eccl. 7. 29. because he was not created depraved , but if we speak properly , he had no Natural Rectitude or Righteousness . So * Socinus . And therefore he gives us his judgment very decisively thus , Let us conclude that Adam even before he transgressed the commandment of God , was not truly Just. † Ostorodus hath the very same thoughts of him : and another * Warm Gentleman ( who is much applauded and admired by the Party ) tells us plainly , but in no very clean language , that it is an old , stinking Fable that the first Man was adorn'd from his very creation with holiness and supernatural gifts . But what if this Fable be in Scripture ? Yes most certainly : that which he in such vile terms represents as such , is the doctrine of the Old and New Testament . God created man in his own image , Gen. 1. 27. And that we may be more ascertain'd of it , it is repeated in the very same place , in the image of God created he him . And that this Image consists in Holiness and Righteousness is clear from Eph. 4. 24. and Col. 3. 10. where the Apostle speaking of the Image of God in which man was at first created , places it in Righteousness and true holiness , as well as knowledg . How then can it be said by these Writers that the Image of God wherein our first Parents were created did not consist in Sanctity and Righteousness ? how can it with truth be said by them that there was no Positive Moral Goodness and Rectitude in them ? This is directly contrary to what the Inspired Writers deliver concerning them . Let the Reader now judg on which side the Fable is , and at the same time let him judg how impiously the foresaid Writer represents the Word of God as an Old stinking Fable . To proceed , There being according to these New Theologists no Original Righteousness in the first Man , his posterity can't be deprived of it , and accordingly they deny Original Sin , i. e. though they hold man's nature is corrupted and depraved , yet they say it was not at all derived from our First Parents : there is no defect , blemish or depravity , propagated to their posterity . * Socinus frequently vouches this , and so do † several of his Partizans , who appear in great throngs upon this occasion , and with one consent profess that by Adam's Apostacy the nature of man is not depraved : men are not born with a propension and inclination to that which is Vitious by reason of that First Defection . The contrary opinion is according to Socinus an arrant Cheat and Imposture , for these are his own words , * Whatever evil effects in mankind the EVANGELICKS ( i. e. the Protestants ) and PAPISTS attribute to the first sin of our First Parent , it must needs be that they are Vain Fictions and Dreams of men . Whatever Divines dispute about Original Sin , it is all of it clearly to be reckon'd as the mere invention and forgery of humane wit. And then he pretends in another place to trace its Pedegree , and to give you the Rise of it , † That Device of Original Sin is a Jewish Fable , and brought into the Church from Antichrist . If this be true , then St. Paul's doctrine is fabulous , By one man sin enter'd into the world , Rom. 5. 12. By one man's disobedidience many were made Sinners , v. 19. And this Great and Infallible Apostle himself must be reputed Judaical and Antichristian when he adds that death enter'd by sin ( i. e. by that One Man's Sin spoken of before ) and so death passed upon all men , for that all have sinned , viz. in that first Man. And again , v. 17. By one man's offence death reigned by one . Hence it is evident that Adam and his race became Mortal because of this First Transgression . But Socinus is of another opinion , for it is the first thing you meet with in his Pr●…lections , that the first man before his f●… was by nature mortal . * Smalcius will by no means grant that Adam was created in a state of Immortality , but that he was naturally Mortal , and though he had not sinn'd , yet he should have died . With whom agrees † Volkelius , confidently asserting that Mortality is not the effect and punishment of the Fall. And the rest of them hold that Adam's Sin endamaged himself , but no body else : his posterity suffer'd not ; they derived no Infection , no Stain , no Depravity from him . But are the English Socinians of this mind ? Yes , for the Effects and Consequences which we ascribe to Adam's Fall are flatly denied by Bidle in his Scripture-Catechism , chap. 3. And in ‖ one of their late Prints the Natural Depravity of man , i. e. his propensity to evil and his aversness to good are represented as false and absurd . And a little before they peremptorily deny that Adam's race have any sin derived , much less imputed to them , and that they are punish'd for it . God cannot possibly do this , they say ; yea they have the confidence to add these horrid words , * that this is the just character of an Almighty Devil . Accordingly they cry down Original Sin as a mere Sham and Imposture . And hence issue a great many Unsound Assertions , which are in great vogue with all Socinians . If there be no Corruption convey'd to Adam's race , if they receiv'd no hurt by his Fall , then they have ( as he had ) a natural power to do all that God requires of them . They still have an ability by nature to imbrace all good , and to avoid all evil ; which are the express terms used by their † Writers . And hear what their ‖ Catechism saith : Qu. Is there not need of the inward gift of the Holy Spirit that we may believe the Gospel ? A. Not at all . And the reason is assigned afterwards , namely because this is a gift that is confer'd upon such as already believe the Gospel . Here you see what is the Racovian Divinity , It is not the Spirit of God that enlightens mens minds , and enables them to receive the Truth : the Spirit of God is not the original of all Grace in us . This is clear from that notion which they form concerning the Holy Spirit , by which is meant , say * they , in the writings of the New Testament , first the Gospel , secondly a firm and certain hope of eternal life . This is the only acception of the word Spirit in the New Testament so far as we that are under the present dispensation of the Gospel are concern'd . As for the former , all Christians enjoy it ; as to the latter , it is given only to those that believe and obey the Gospel ; whence it necessarily follows that it is not requisite before our belief or obedience . There is no such thing as the Spirit in order to these , i. e. in order to the producing of them in our hearts and lives . But though they thus in plain terms renounce the Spirit , is there not some Divine Help necessarily requisite for the begetting of faith and holiness in us ? Yes , † they grant there is an Outward Help vouchsafed , viz. the Promises and Threatnings in the Scripture . And there is an Inward one , but what is that ? It is no other than this , * God's sealing what he hath promised , in the hearts of those that obey him : which is the same with what was mentioned before , viz. a certain hope of eternal life , and this is wrought in those that already believe and obey . So that it is manifest when they speak of the Spirit and Divine help , they mean no previous assistance or operation in order to believing and obeying . These spiritual acts according to them are not the product of Divine Grace , and the Help of the Spirit , for they do not follow these , but go before them . This is the exact account of the Racovian Perswasion concerning this matter . The present Set of Unitarians hold the same : they scoff at the particular aids and efficacy of the Spirit in order to Conversion ; † they mock at the inward word which God speaks to the heart , whereby the word written or preach'd is rendred effectual , whereby Sinners are first convinc'd , and then reclaim'd . They , with Nicodemus , profess that * they know nothing of this marvellous doctrine , they can't imagine what kind of thing this inward word is . They will not by any means allow † that all is done in Religion by the Grace of God and the assistance of the Spirit , beginning , continuing and perfecting good actions in us . This was the very Heresie of Pelagi●…s ; he and his abettors held it was in every man's natural power to believe and repent , without any inward operation of the Grace of God , or influence of the Holy Ghost . In this the Socinians agree with the Old Pelagians , if the Writers of those times give us a true account of them . These let us know that it was confidently affirmed by them that it is in the power of man to choose spiritual good without the special assistance of God : yea , that it is possible to keep the Commandments so strictly and exactly that they shall not stand in need of Pardon : that they may arrive to such a Perfection in this life that they shall be able to live without sin , as ‖ St. Jerom and ** St. Augustin ( who narrowly inquir'd into the Sentiments of these men ) expresly inform us . That the Socinians have a Touch of this last ( to say no more ) might easily be proved from what is said by * Smalcius and † Crellius , and ‖ Bidle , and others of them ; and indeed it partly follows from the abovesaid Principle . But the falseness and impiety of it are discernible by those who regulate their thoughts and apprehensions by the Holy Scriptures , and who attend to that ** Article of our Church , The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God , without the grace of God by Christ preventing us , that we may have a good will , and working with us when we have that good will. There is nothing plainer and clearer in the New Testament than this , that man can do nothing without the particular assistance of God that will be available to his Salvation . And if any man asserts the contrary , he makes void the Undertakings of Jesus Christ , for he came to redeem us and save us because we were not able of our selves to effect any such thing . Wherefore to say we that can of our selves and by our own natural strength do the things that are acceptable to God , and will be conducible to our Eternal Salvation , is to render the Redemption of Christ useless and unnecessary . And this is that which the persons I am speaking of drive at , and thereby undermine Christianity it self . In brief , judg of the Doctrines of the Socinians from what we find in * one of the Heartiest Souls of them all , who in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians reckons these following Particulars among Vain and Lying Words , i. e. Groundless and False Doctrines , viz. Justification by the grace of God , and not by good works ; Christ's Obedience , and his dying for our sins , Faith in Christ , Confession , Repentance , Remission of Sins , Baptism and the other Sacrament . Also he reckons up among these the Fall of Adam , Divine Predestination and Election , and afterwards false opinions concerning God , and Christ , and the Holy Spirit , i. e. ( according to his meaning ) the believing of the Sacred Trinity . Need I now come with my old Charge ? Do not these men talk like Infidels ? Fourthly , I proceed to display their strange conceptions concerning the Future State , and those things which relate to it ; and to examine whether upon that account they deserve the Character that was given them . I will reduce all to these Four Heads , viz. their perswasions concerning the Souls of the deceased , concerning the General Resurrection , concerning the Last Judgment , and concerning the Punishment that follows it . And the Reader will soon perceive that their apprehensions about all these speak them to be Irreligiously disposed . Nay , it will be as plain and evident as any Demonstration in Mathematicks that these Writers promote the Cause of Atheists in the world . First , As to the Souls of those that are dead , * Socinus holds that till the Resurrection they are devoid of all perception and sensation . In these formal words he speaks , The Soul of Man , after this life doth not so subsist of it self as that it is sensible of any rewards or pains , or that it is capable of feeling them . And he adds that this is his firm opinion . And that we may not mistake him , he adjoyns this , It sufficiently appears that my sentiment is this , viz. that the soul of man doth not so live after his death , as that of it self it is capable of rewards and punishments . His friend Smalcius is more positive and down-right , for these are his words , * We firmly believe that the deceased Saints exist not : for ( as he explains himself ) the body perishes , and the soul hath no life and perception ; therefore it may be said that the Saints exist not at all ( null●… modo . ) In an † other place he asserts that Souls departed live not the life of Spirits , and adds that it is contrary to Scripture to assert otherwise . And further , If souls lived thus , it could not be said , that the dead ARE NOT , because they ARE as is their chief part . If you would know the ground of this opinion , it is this , The Soul ( they say ) can't live without the Body , and therefore when this dies , the other doth so too . The foresaid Author expresses it thus , ‖ As the body without the spirit is a carkase , so the spirit without the body can exert no actions , i. e. is as it were a carkase , is dead : and in an * other place he is as peremptory . † Slichtingius labours to prove that humane souls live not on this side of the last and general Resurrection , which appears from their not having a Sense of any thing between the time after their departure hence and the Resurrection . The dead are not sensible , saith he , and accordingly Separate Souls having no sense and perception are concluded to have no life . Again in an ‖ other place in his Commentary he saith the Souls of the just are not sensible of Happiness till after the Resurrection . ** Volkelius would seem at first to be a Trimmer , for he tells us the Soul neither dies nor lives , it is neither mortal nor immortal . But when he comes to explain himself , he lets us see that he is no dissenter from his brethren , but concludes with them that the Souls of the departed are insensible of any thing before their re-union with the bodies . Nay , as you shall hear afterwards , he improves this Insensibility into an Extinction . I will mention * Crellius in the last place , though he is a Racovian of the first Rate ; he gives it us as his perswasion that the souls of the dead have no perception , no knowledg of any thing . And in an † other place he determines that the departed Saints enjoy not the Happiness of Heaven before the End of the World. And ‖ afterwards he undertakes the Proof of this , and produces Eight Arguments for this purpose ; but he generally founds it on this Hypothesis , that there is no Perception without the Body , and therefore till there be a Reunion of soul and body the deceased can have no feeling of Celestial Joys , they remain destitute of all s●…se . Thus they all agree that Humane Spirits after death have no Life or Activeness ( for one is synonymous with the other ) no capacity of exerting themselves . But what can be more contrary to those discoveries which are made to us in the Sacred and Inspired Writings ? Our Blessed Saviour saith , God is not the God of the dead , but of the living Mat. 22. 32. which words are spoken of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob who are long since departed this life , wherefore it is undeniably evident that these Patriarchs live . But they do not live as to their bodies , therefore it must be meant of their Souls . The same Infallible Instructer ascertains us that he who hears his word , and believes in him who sent him , is passed from death to life , John 5. 24. Which words though they may be interpreted concerning a state of spiritual death and spiritual life in this world , yet they have a fuller meaning , and comprehend in them the passing of believers at their death into a better life than they had before , viz. that which is Everlasting , of which he speaks in the very same verse . And such are said to be passed ( as if it were already done , which is usual in the Scripture-stile ) because of the Certainty of the thing hereafter . But the Socinian Theology runs counter to this , they say believers pass from life to death , to a state that is wholly uncapable of sense , life or action . Those words of our Saviour , this day shalt thou be with me in paradise , Luke 23. 43. prove that the Soul enjoys it self immediately after death , and is in a state of Bliss and Happiness . The Apostle had a desire to depart , and to be with Christ , Phil. 1. 23. and assigns this as a reason , which is far better , that is , far better than to abide in the flesh , to continue in this world , which he speaks of both before and after these words . But according to Socinus's followers it is far worse , for after the Soul's departure from the body it hath no understanding , no perception at all of Christ , or any thing appertaining to him . Again , these men confront not only Scripture but reason : they shew themselves as bad Philosophers as Divines , for if they had a right apprehension of the Nature of Humane Souls , they would not talk after this rate . Their notion destroys the very Soul of man , for it deprives it of its Essential and Inseparable Quality , which is Thinking . And besides , they grosly imagine that the Body helps the Soul in its operations , yea that this cannot subsist without the assistance of that ; whereas according to the best notions we can form of the body , as it is now corrupted , it is a hindrance to the operation of the Soul. And as for the Soul , it is so far from being worsted by its Separation that it is in a much better condition as to its actings than it was . Death is but snuffing of this Candle ( so 't is call'd Prov. 20. 27. ) it makes it shine the brighter . When the Soul leaves the Body , it becomes more brisk and active than ever , being freed from that fleshly clog and luggage which depressed it . This is True Philosophizing , but the other is the very dregs of Epicurism . It degrades the Rational Part of Man , especially that of Good Men , for all Separate Souls according to them go to the same place , the wicked and the godly are alike as to that , there is no difference between them till the Resurrection and Last Judgment . Which is a great deal worse than the doctrine of the Church of Rome , which assigns different Limbus's to the good and bad . And then , they are all equal as to this , that they are Senseless , and uncapable of knowing or acting , or any ways exerting themselves . Though the Soul exists , yet it is as if it were not , it hath nothing of its True Nature , which is in a manner thrusting the Rational Spirit out of its being . Who doth not see that the belief of the Insensibility and Inactivity of the Soul makes way for the belief of its Non-subsistence after the death of the body ? And so all Religion is dampt , and the hopes of a Future State are quite laid in the dust . The Socinian Writers verge upon this : thus from the pen of one of the Authors before mention'd we have such words as these concerning the Soul , * Properly speaking , it neither dies nor lives , but only causes Life as long as it is joyn'd to the Body : wherefore properly speaking , it can't be said to be Immortal , for Immortality belongs only to those beings which themselves actually live . And speaking another time concerning the Souls that are separated from their bodies , he intimates their Non-Existence for a time , for he applies those words to this purpose , † for to be rais'd from the dead is no other than to exist again after a ceasing to be . And you heard before what another of their Writers said , viz. that the Saints departed exist not . Why is this said but to shake the belief of the Soul's Immortality , and to make men stagger about this Important Point ? It is said that Servetus held the Soul to be Mortal , and ‖ One of their late Writers ( a German Noble Man who left his Countrey , and came over to Racovia , one that hath a Great Encomium from the Party ) makes way for this Epicuréan notion by publishing to the world that though it be easily granted that the Soul is not made of bone or flesh or muscles , or nerves , &c. yet it remains doubtful whether it be not a very Thin Body consisting of Vapour , or Air , or Ether diffused through this Crass Body . And indeed if God himself be but a Finer Sort of Body ( as these Racovian Writers represent him ) it is no wonder that they imagine the Soul of Man to be such , for why should they exalt it above the nature of the Supreme Being ? So the everlasting subsistence both of God and of the Souls of Men is hereby shock'd . As to the latter of which I desire it may be observed that though Smalcius ( one of their Great Scribes ) will by no means be thought to deny the Immortality of them , because that may seem a little too gross , yet he industriously and purposely evades , yea opposes ( and so do some others of the Perswasion ) those Texts of Scripture which are made use of by Divines to prove the Soul's Immortality and Subsistence after the death of the body . This shews what they are inclinable to , this acquaints us that they have but an indifferent opinion of the Immortality of Humane Souls , which the very Pagan Philosophers with great earnestness and concern asserted . Is not here then 〈◊〉 great defect of Religious Principles ? i●… not here a demonstration of the Impio●… Disposition of their Minds ? Do they no●… discover a tendency to that receiv'd doctrine of the Atheists , that the Soul is of 〈◊〉 perishing condition , and survives not th●… funerals of the body ? Which opens 〈◊〉 broad door to all Licentiousness and Prophaneness . Then as to the Resurrection , which i●… the next thing I am to speak of , the●… have been some of the Socinian Way tha●… absolutely denied the Resurrection of th●… Wicked , and in order to that their subsisting after this life . Let any man impartially scan what their Adored * Patriarch●… and what † Ostorodus saith , and he wil●… suspect them to have enclin'd this way . But it is true the former of these professes himself unwilling ‖ to give offence to some , and therefore doth not wholly deny that the Impious shall rise at the last day . I confess I find not any of their Celebrated Writers plainly and expresly asserting this ; yea , one or two of them very expresly declare against it . But this is that which may unexceptionably be laid to their Charge , that though generally they own a future Rising from the dead both of the just and unjust , yet they deny that they shall rise with the same bodies . They are the express words of Smalcius , * We believe not that these bodies , which we now carry about us , shall rise again , Volkelius expresses the sense of the rest when he tells us that our bodies which shall be raised at the last day † shall have not only other qualities , but another matter of substance , and in plainer terms , Other bodies shall be substituted in their room . And what is the reason ? because , saith he , these bodies which we now have shall vanish , perish , and consequently we shall never more have any thing to do with them . These Great Pretenders to Reason cannot digest the Identity of the Dying and Rising body , because they think it is a doctrine too hard to be conceiv'd , it contains many Difficulties in it which it is not easie to solve . But what then ? must it therefore be counted Unreasonable and Incredible ? I deny the Consequence , for there are many things which are hard to be understood , and yet we freely give assent to the truth of them . We meet with several Occurrences , of which we can't give an exact and punctual account . Some Secrets in Nature are inveloped with an impenetrable Veil . God hath done more than we are in a capacity to comprehend . He is pleas'd to reserve some things from our clear and distinct knowledg , and yet every wise man believes the reality of them . It is so here , a Christian man believes that the same flesh which was dissolved by death shall be united to the soul at the last day , although he is not able to assign the Manner and Way of it . But he looks upon the thing it self as very Reasonable , because raising of the Same Flesh is possible with Him with whom nothing is impossible . Suppose the bodies of the dead to be reduced to nothing ; notwithstanding this , he can bring them again into being , for this was the case of all things at first : they were not , and afterwards they were by God's Almighty Power . Shall we then think it impossible for him to resuscitate the same body , though we should grant it to have been for a time annihilated ? It is true , God cannot make the same body to be , and not to be at the same time , because this is a plain Contradiction , but he can make the body to exist at the last day which had lost its existence for a time . And so all the Objections about humane bodies being eaten and devour'd by men or beasts , and those beasts eaten by Men , &c. are easily removed . But we need not go so high to solve the Phoenomenon , for supposing no Annihilation , it is sufficient to say that * He that made the body of nothing will much more raise it again when it is something : or with another of the Ancients , † He that made all things with a Word can easily Restore Man's body , for it is much easier to renew what is decay'd than to make those things which are not , without Materials . And , as another Primitive Writer argues , ‖ It is more difficult to begin that which is not , than to iterate that which was . And again in the same place , that doth not perish with God which is taken out of our Sight . The body is chang'd this and that way , and seems to disappear , but ** it is kept safe by the Great Guardian of the Elements , he that takes care of all bodies . And thence he concludes that there shall be a Resurrection of the same individual body at the last day . And truly this is so Reasonable a thing that , if we deny it , we deny the Resurrection it self , for if the rais'd bodies at the last day shall not have the same substance that they now have , they will not be Our Bodies , and consequently there is no Rising again of our bodies . For nothing is rais'd but what fell or was laid down ( for Rising answers to these , ) but that Matter which is supposed to be substituted in the room of our bodies did not fall , was not laid down , therefore it cannot Rise , and consequently there is no Rising again at all . This Argument is thus represented by a * Great Man , The Identity of the body rais'd from death is so necessary , that the very name of the Resurrection doth include or suppose it ; so that when I say , there shall be a Resurrection of the dead , I must intend thus much , that the bodies of Men which lived and are dead , shall revive and rise again . For at the death of man nothing falleth but his Body : the spirit goeth upward , and no other body falleth but his own ; and therefore the body , and no other but that body , must rise again , to make a Resurrection . So that it follows hence that those who disbelieve the Resurrection of the same body , in effect deny the Article of the Resurrection of the body , for the same body must rise , or none at all . This is evident from 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ , that every one may receive the things done in his body . The same individual body that died must revive , that the same bodies wherein sin was committed may be punished for sinning . And who can resist the force of those plain words , Rev. 20. 13. which are spoken of the general Resurrection at the last day ? The sea shall give up the dead that are in it , and death and the grave deliver up the dead which are in them . What means this giving and delivering up the dead in those places , unless the very same bodies that fell are to rise ? For bodies might be made and shaped out of matter in any other Places , if the dead were not to appear at the day of Judgment in their own bodies , in the very bodies they laid down in the grave , or in the sea , or any other Place . It is true , they shall not be the same as to their condition and quality , for this corruptible must put on incorruption , and this mortal immortality , but their identity shall be preserv'd in respect of their nature and substance , these being the same that they were at their fall . This doctrine ( saith that Excellent Writer before named ) is most agreeable to the language of the Scriptures , to the Principles of Religion , to the constant Profession of the Church . And being so , it is no wonder that it is disrelish'd by the Persons I am speaking of , who are wont to disregard the Sacred Writings , to subvert the Principles of Christianity , and to slight the suffrage of the Universal Church . In all which they manifest an Irreligious temper : and more especially in disbelieving and opposing this Explication of the Article of the Creed they have shew'd an Atheistical Spirit , which always disgusts that Truth which flows from the Scriptures , and is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit in them ; for herein they let us see that they are backward to give credit to the Supreme Truth God himself . And besides , there is a farther Tang of Impiety in this Opinion of theirs , because it bereaves God of the Glory of his Infinite Power in reuniting the same bodies to the same souls at the last day : it eclipses the honour of his Mercy in rewarding believers in the same flesh wherein they serv'd and worship'd him in this life : it obscures his Justice in punishing sinners in those very fleshly Vehicles which they had here on earth , and wherein they did so much mischief in the world . And lastly , it being such a Diminishment of the doctrine of the Resurrection , it is to be fear'd it will have too great an influence on the lives and conversations of men . They being dissetled as to the full belief of this , they will waver in their Faith of the Future State , they will be regardless of that Mighty Concern , and they will be backward to fit themselves for it . Thus the Racovian doctrine is an impediment to Religion , and a nourisher of Vice and Ungodliness . CHAP. V. Their false apprehensions concerning the Last Judgment are detected . They are not consentaneous to the design of that Great Transaction . They are contrary to that Description which is given of it in Scripture . They are a gratification to Atheists . It is their belief and profession that the Ungodly after the Resurrection shall not suffer Torment , but shall be Annihilated . This is disproved from Luk. 10. 14. Mat. 18. 8. Mark 9. 44. 2 Cor. 5. 10. An Objection answered . The Perniciousness of this doctrine , and its tendendency to Atheism on several accounts . I●… is no wonder that Socinianism , for the sake of this doctrine , is plausible . Nevertheless the doctrine is irrational and groundless , and exploded by some of the Wisest Pagans . THIS will be further discover'd in their notion concerning the Last Judgment : which , say they , consists not in any Trial or Judging of the World , in any calling them to Account , but only in assigning them their different lots and conditions . To be judg'd , saith * Slichtingius , is to be rewarded or punish'd . † Volkelius makes no distinction between the Judging and Punishing of the wicked . The Judg knows who are to be saved , and who to be damn'd , and therefore need not use any Formal Citation , or lay open mens lives . But those who talk thus should remember that human actions are to be exposed at that day , not because God hath not a perfect knowledg of them , but because it is his Pleasure that Men should be acquainted with them , that the Good Actions of the righteous may be applauded , and that the Evil ones of the unrighteous may be condemned in the face of the whole World. That this is the will of God we learn from the Sacred Writ : and where can it be learnt but there ? Therefore for these men to Argue , and reason the matter , notwithstanding the express will and appointment of God , is a sign of a very perverse and irreligious frame of mind . Is not the Transaction of the Last day represented to us as a Formal Judiciary Process ? Doth not the Scripture speak of the Judg , Acts 10. 42. 2 Tim. 4. 8. Heb. 12. 23. Jam. 5. 9. of the Judgment-seat , Rom. 14. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 10. or the Throne or Tribunal for Judgment , Rev. 20. 11 ? and yet will there be no Judging ? Is it not said with particular respect to that day , that God will bring to light the hidden things of darkness , and make manifest the counsels of the hearts ? 1 Cor. 4. 5. Is it not said , he will bring every work into Judgment , with every secret thing , whether it be good , or whether it be evil ? Eccl. 12. 14. And do we question then whether there will be this Judicial Action , which we properly call Judging or Trying ? I●… there shall be this Manifestation of the Hearts and Actions of Men , can we imagine that rewarding and punishing at that day are the very same with Judging ? Further , it is said expresly that then Men shall give an Account , viz. of their words and actions , Mat. 12. 36. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Pet. 4. 5. and can any but Volkelius imagine that * this Form of Speech signifies that they shall be punished , if they be guilty of such and such Crimes ? Again , in the Description of the General Resurrection and Last Judgment it is said , The Books were opened , and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books , Rev. 20. 12. which imports that there shall be a Scanning of their Lives ; their Thoughts , words and deeds shall be plainly Discover'd : these as well as the Persons of Men shall appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ , they shall be manifested and laid open . Thus the Socinian Error , as it is repugnant to Good Reason and Common Sense , so it contradicts the Holy Book of God , and the Revelation made to us there . But this is not all , can there be a greater Gratification ( excepting what I shall mention next ) to all Atheists than this , that none of their actions shall be accounted for ? Let men blaspheme , curse God and Man , abjure Religion , persecute the faithful Professors of it , give themselves up to all manner of Debauchery and Immorality , and live and die in the commission of all that is impious and execrable : yet they shall never hold up their hands for this at the Last Bar , there shall be no particular Account given or taken of any thing of this nature . Yea , let Men live all their Days in a course of Dissembling , in a mere form of Godliness , in an external Shew of Religion , whilst they inwardly abhor all that is Good and Vertuous : nay , let them be guilty of the most horrid villanies and impieties in secret , let them privily commit murder , adultery , incest , and whatever fact is Horrid and Detestable , and let them descend into the grave with the guilt of these upon them , without the least motions of Godly Sorrow and Repentance ; yet be it known to them that they shall never be Examined concerning any of these past actions , no not concerning the most secret of them . Whatever Enormities they have been guilty of here , they shall be passed by in silence hereafter , and never be mention'd to their Shame and reproach . Surely this doctrine was calculated for the Meridian of those whom I before named . Surely none but persons of Atheistical Principles could , o●… would vent such Conceptions as these , and none but those who are Lovers of them can embrace them . The last thing which I propounded to speak of under this Head of my Discourse is the Punishment which is awarded at that Final Close of the world . And here I shall shew that the Socinians have wretchedly perverted the Holy Scriptures , and have thereby gratified those persons who live without God in the world , and make their Lusts the only Rule of their actions . Though they generally grant that the Ungodly shall rise at the last day , yet they tell us that immediately after that they shall be Annihilated , or , which is the same thing , they shall utterly cease , and eternally perish , * as Socinus expresly saith . This Perishing of the wicked was at first but hinted by this Writer , and therefore a † Judicious Author calls it the Covert Doctrine of the Socinian : but afterwards ‖ he and others were plain and open enough : for according to him the Punishment of the wicked is a Total and Eternal Dissolution ; not a Perpetual Torment , but a perpetual Extinction . ** Smalcius interprets Mat. 10. 28. where Christ threatens destruction both of soul and body in hell , of the utter Perdition of them , and not of the Tormenting of them . †† He propounds it as credible that Ungodly Men , as well as Devils , are to be utterly destroyed and annihilated , and that the Righteous only shall survive . And if he did not believe it , why did he make Reply to those places of Scripture which are produced to prove the contrary , as you may see in his Disputation concerning the Last Judgment ? In the * same place he hath these words , The Soul or Spirit can't be cast into hell , because according to Solomon it returns unto God. † Slichtingius is positive that all the future Punishment of the Reprobate is that they shall be eternally destroyed or consumed . According to ‖ Crellius the punishment of Christ's Enemies after the day of Judgment ends in the Delection of them . I 'll mention ** one Writer more , whose words are these , God will inflict upon 〈◊〉 man a Punishment that is greater than his Demerits : now , there can be no Sins so grievous as to equal Eternal Torments . Eternity is a long time , and this is the Greatest Punishment that can be to be deprived for ever of eternal happiness , and to perish for ever . As for the English Socinians , they are presumed to write after the Copy of their †† Countryman , who hath publickly told the world that all the Wicked are to be burnt up , and to perish eternally , and never to be any more . And I have lately receiv'd it from a Professed Friend of the Gentleman whom I have had to do with about the One Article , that he hath sometime express'd his thoughts to this purpose concerning the Eternity of Hell-Torments , when it hath been propounded to him : but he knows best whether he hath given occasion for such a Report . It is certain that this is a doctrine disallow'd of by the Church of Christ in all ages , and therefore disallow'd because repugnant to those discoveries of God's will which we have in the infallible Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles . Our Saviour told the inhabitants of Cho●…azin and Bethsaida that it should be more tolerable for those of Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for them , Luke 10. 14. And again , he saith , It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrain that day than for that city which receiv'd not his Apostles , Mat. 10. 15 But could he thus speak if the Racovian Position be true , that the Punishment allotted to the wicked at the last day is their Utter Dissolution ? Can the condition of some persons be more tolerable than that of others , if their Punishment be the very Same ? And must it not be the same if it be Annihilation ? This makes the punishment of all Equal , for one can't be more Annihilated than another , and consequently it can't be more tolerable for one than another . But if we embrace the other Assertion , viz. that the Wicked being raised to life at the last day shall be continued i●… that life for ever , that thereby they may suffer that Torment which they deserve for their Sins , then we may understand what our Saviour saith , then we may apprehend how it shall be more tolerable for some than others at the day of Judgment : that is , the Misery of the damned shall be proportion'd to the●… Crimes , they shall be punish'd according to the Heinousness of their Enormities mighty men shall be mightily tormented . But there can be no such thing as this , if there be an utter Extinction of the wicked at the last day ; If their very persons perish , they are uncapable of any Punishment ; and if that be true , it can't be said it shall be more tolerable for one than another , which yet is the determination of our Saviour himself . Again , is it reasonable to believe that the Reprobate shall perish and be extinct when the Holy Scriptures assure us that they shall be cast into everlasting fire ? Mat. 18. 8. which is call'd Hell-fire in the next verse ; and when we are ascertain'd they shall at the last day depart into everlasting fire , Mat. 25. 41. which in the last verse of that chapter is call'd everlasting punishment ; Is it the meaning of this Direful Doom that they shall cease to be ; and sink into Nothing ? Is it the punishment of the Cursed at that day that they shall be void of all sense of pain and misery , i. e. that they shall be uncapable of any Punishment ? yes , this is the interpretation which the Socinians put upon the words . Particularly * Smalcius and † Crellius urge this notion of Everlasting Fire , and make it to be of the same signification with Eternal Perdition , Destruction , or Annihilation . But how absurdly is this done , when this Everlasting Fire , to confirm us in the belief of the Endless Perpetuity of it , is in other places of the Gospel term'd Unquenchable fire , as in Mat. 3. 12. and in ‖ five verses ( which is exceeding remarkable ) in Mark 9. it is call'd the fire that is not quenched , and that never shall be quenched . I argue then thus , That Fire which is unquenchable , which shall never be extinguish'd is of Endless duration : but Hell-fire is such , therefore it is of endless duration . It is impossible to withstand the force of this Argument . I do not say it is impossible for a Whiffling Disputer , one that delights in Cavelling , to raise an Objection against it , for what Truth is there ( though never so Great ) which the Wit and Sophistry of wrangling heads cannot suggest something against ? But this I say , it is impossible that any one who is serious and in good earnest , and hath a reverence for the Holy Scriptures should not acknowledg that the Eternity of the Infernal Torments is fully declared and confirmed by this foresaid expression of Unquenchable Fin. And we are to reckon all the forementioned Texts as so many different and distinct Proofs of the eternal duration of that Punishment which the wicked shall undergo . And this is call'd not only fire that is not , and shall not be quench'd , but the Worm that dies not , Mark 9. 44 , 46. which cannot with any shew of sense or reason be synonymous with Annihilation . Shall these men then be call'd Rational ( tho I know none call them so but themselves and their Admirers ) who assert the contrary ? Do they not shew themselves Masters of Great Reason when they tell us that the Worm which dies not , is that which utterly ceases to be , when they hold that not to be at all is being in everlasting fire or punishment ? Those that can assent to these Propositions are Reasonable Men indeed : Yes , in their own esteem , but not otherwise . Whence perhaps it was that Volkelius ( who in other matters sticks close to the Racovians ) by reason of the gross Inconsistency of this Opinion was offended at it , as appears from Socinus's Sixth Epistle to him : and we do not find in his Writings ( as is noted by * Bishop Pearson ) that he ever assented to it . I might alledg 2 Cor. 5. 10 , a place which not only shews that the same body rises ( for which I made mention of it before ) but also that the wicked shall be punish'd afterwards in their bodies , for the receiving the things in their bodies ( the word done being not in the Original , nor need it be in the Translation ) is their being dealt with in way of Punishment or Reward as to their bodies , which cannot be unless they subsist both in body and soul , to endure that Punishment , or to enjoy that Reward . This I conceive is very clear , and it is impossible to reconcile it with their being reduced to Nothing , with their perishing for ever . But it is Objected that in the Scripture it is often said of the Wicked , that they shall be destroyed , they shall perish , they shall die , which is as much as to say , they shall be Annihilated , they shall be deprived of their Essence . I Answer briefly , they mistake the meaning of those expressions , for it is plain and manifest from what hath been premised that these terms , destruction , perdition , death denote not the Privation of Existence , but of the former state and condition which they were in , and their Changing it for one that is eternally Miserable . To an unprejudiced and discerning eye , and that attends to the Stile of Scripture , it is evident that these expressions signifie the utter Separation of the damned from God ; and the undergoing of his Wrath to eternity ; and consequently they imply Pain and Torment , yea the never-ceasing infliction of them unto endless ages . This is that which is meant by the second death threatned to the Wicked , Rev. 20. 14 , 15. 21. 8. for in those places we find that the lake of Fire and the second death are synonymous , which shews that the death of the Damned is no other than their Everlasting Punishment , their being tormented in the flames of the everlasting fire before mentioned . But notwithstanding this , the Socinians persist in their Opinion , and flatly deny the Perpetuity of Hell-Torments . Which is that which the Atheist would have , that which he constantly professes as his belief , that after death the Soul perishes ; or if it chances to hold out in its Subsistence some time , yet at last it will vanish into a Non-entity . There cannot be a more Pernicious Doctrine than this , for first it diminishes the Guilt of Sin , as if it did not deserve Eternal Torments , as if these were above the demerits of the Greatest Sins and Enormities , for so the Racovian Writers speak . Again , this gives Men occasion to deny the Wisdom and Justice of God , which is a considerable Step to Atheism . To what end and purpose do Reprobates rise again , and are brought to Judgment , if there shall immediately follow an utter Extinction of them ? Doth the Great Ruler of the world shew himself Just if they be neither punish'd in this life ( as often it happens ) nor in another ? Shall not the Judg of all the World do right ? And can he do so if they that have done all the Mischief imaginable to others , shall feel none themselves here or hereafter ? Moreover , this encourages men in the commission of Sin , for they chear themselves with this that they shall presently have an end of their Misery , there shall be a speedy release from their Pains , their Torments ( if there be any ) shall quickly have an end , for they are told by Socinus's disciples that Everlasting Fire wil●… soon be extinguish'd , that the Worm which never dies is Mortal . This , I say , mu●… needs animate men in their sinful and vitious enterprizes : for they will not be backward to make such Conclusions as these , we may venture to live as we list seeing there will be no Penalty inflicted upon us that will last long , seeing the Punishment of our sins will soon have a period . Indeed such an Inference from the Doctrine is genuine , and no other could be expected to be made by these persons . Wherefore as long as the Premises are entertain'd , we must look for no other Deductions . It is true , it hath happen'd sometimes that their own Principles and Maxims have not had an immediate influence upon them in their Acting , they do not follow the natural conduct of them . But this is certain , the nature of their principles promotes a vicious life : these are in themselves apt to excite men to all sin and wickedness . As on the contrary , the belief of the Endless Punishment which is denounced against Impenitent Sinners quickens men in their Repentance , is an Effectual Motive to them to forsake their Sins , is a Powerful Incitement to the performance of all Christian Offices , and whatever is pleasing unto God. Take away this , and what a Damp is there to Vertue and Religion ? Shall the worst and vilest men live here in splendor and in a fruition of all things according to their hearts desire , and shall they afterwards meet with no Penalty for all their cursed actions ? Must they only be deprived of their beings , and at the same time of the sense of all that is painful or hurtful ? In short , shall they neither be punish'd here , nor hereafter ? Or is this all their Punishment , not to suffer any ? Then Hell is but a Fable ( as some of the Poets represented it , ) then Damnation is but a Fiction . And who will not add , that this is the high Road to Atheism ? These are the things that make Socinianism so plausible at this day , this makes all men of Atheistical Principles and Debauch'd Lives cry it up , for it quenches the flames of Hell-Fire , which men have been so much affrighted with . Hence we may guess that Racovianism will be a Fashionable Doctrine , if there be no Check put to it . It is no wonder that so many persons favour it , that those who defend it are Applauded . The reason of this is plain , They present them with such a Scheme of Religion ( for it is likely they 'll call it so ) as is grateful to their Vicious Inclinations , and assures them of Impunity after all the most heinous and enormous actions of their lives . These men truly are to be pitied , for they can discourse and argue very well if they please ; some of them have a good Talent that way , only they abuse it . They are great Admirers of Reason , and yet they are so far misled as to imbibe such an irrational and groundless notion as this , that not only the bodies but the souls of all the Wicked shall perish and be annihilated . Some of the Wise Pagans express'd their belief of the Immortal State even of the Worst Men : but these Rationalists absolutely renounce it , and thereby shew themselves worse than Pagans , ( and which is worst of all ) miserably plunge themselves and others into that lake of everlasting fire which they scoff at . CHAP. VI. These men have dangerous assertions concerning Christianity , as 1. That there is but One Single Article of Christian Faith necessarily requisite to be believed , viz. that Jesus is the Messias . Some Reflections on the Writer that lately maintain'd this Opinion . Remarks upon those that applaud his sentiments . His unhappy enterprize briefly described and condemned . He and his friends by their Publick Silence confess their Inability to return an Answer . But yet they are heard to rage , and thereby discover an impotent Passion , which argues Guilt . 2. They hold that all doctrines in Christianity are to be subject to the strictest Test of Humane Reason . This shew'd to be the Sense of the very English Socinians . How the Rule of Reason is to be applied . What the Foreign and English Unitarians assert at one time , they deny at another . Thereby they give proof of their Changeableness . At the same time they betray their Cause , and against their wills befriend the Truth . 3. They hold that there are no Mysteries in Christianity . The late Asserter of this Opinion reflected on . It is against Reason and Scripture . Some Exceptions answered . Christianity 〈◊〉 self is endangered by this doctrine . FIfthly , their notions concerning Chr●…anity it self are very unsafe and dangerous . I will take notice here of three of them : The first is an Assertion lately vented , or rather lately furbush'd up , and in some formality presented to the world by one that is a Well-willer to the Racovian way . I mean Mr. Lock : for now it is the Catholick belief and vogue of his very Friends and Favourers that he is the Author of the late Treatise concerning the Reasonableness of Christianity . And seeing his own Friends and Admirers call it by his name , I hope it is no offence in me to do so . The Summ of it is this , that in all the books of the NEW TESTAMENT there is but One Single Article of Christian Faith necessarily requisite to be believed and assented to by us : and this Article is no other than this , that JESUS IS THE MESSIAS . I have elsewhere proved this to be a Socinian doctrine : and it is well known that a Professed Unitarian ( of a considerable standing in the world ) hath publickly asserted this Proposition in terminis , and hath labour'd to defend it , and dedicates his undertakings to Mr. Lock . They both confidently aver that the sole believing of this constitutes a Christian , and a Member of Christ ; and there is no necessity , in order to salvation , that any thing more should be the object of our belief . This is the doctrine which they industriously maintain : but how Unreasonable and Groundless it is , I have made evident in another place ( to which I refer the Reader ) where I have shew'd that this is one way to extirpate the Christian Religion out of the world , and to introduce Infidelity . Only at present I insert it here to make up the Socinian Farce . It was not proper to leave it out of the Rhapsody of Heretical Opinions which those men are Professors of . Having spoken so largly of it already . I will now only make two or three Reflections on it and its Author , and so dismiss it . It may be observ'd that * he began first to deny the Natural Notions and Principles that Mens Minds furnish them with : and this was an Introduction to his late enterprize . He by no means allows of Connate Idea's , those Treasuries of all Natural Knowledg . It is remarkable that he that is so much against the Scholastick Way , and Systems , yet maintains the Old Maxim of the Schools , that the Understanding is a mere Blank , with nothing written in it . Where it might be noted further that herein he exactly agrees with † Socinus , whose words I quoted before . Though these Natural Impressions in all mens minds are the foundation of Religion , and the Standard of Truth as well as of Morality , yet he wholly renounces them . But if this Gentleman had followed Socinus in nothing but this , or matters of the like nature , I should never have mention'd it , for though it is my perswasion that there are these Innate Notices and Idea's in humane souls , yet I censure no man for his mere dissenting from me in this Speculative Point . That which I only observe now is that from his laying aside those Natural Principles he proceeds to slight the Christian ones , to curtail the Articles of our Faith , to ravish Christianity it self from us . And whereas he tells us he designed his Book for Novices and Weak Christians , he cannot but be ashamed of such an Evasion ; for whether Christians be weak or strong , the Necessary and Indispensable doctrines of Christianity must not be conceal'd from them , much less must they be denied for their sake . This were to make a Double Christianity , which is a strong and unaccountable representation of it , not unlike the Conceit of some Jewish Doctors , who say there is a Messias the Son of Joseph , and a Messias the Son of David , a humble and poor Messias , and a glorious or pompous one . Surely the Gentleman cannot forbear blushing at such pitiful Inventions as these , which are so like his own . I know nothing can excuse him but what his own Pen hath suggested in another place , where he cries out * Is there any thing so extravagant as the imaginations of men's brains ? where is the head that hath no Chimaera's in it ? Here I would observe likewise what sort of people admire his Notions , and applaud his late enterprize about One Article of Christianity only . There is very much to be gathered from this , viz. what kind of persons are eager to imbrace his Sentiments , and to commend them to the world . The Author of a late little Piece , entitul'd a Letter to the Deists , declares that * all that Jesus Christ made essential to Christianity is evidently a●… improvement of Natural Religion , in which words he comprises the Summ of Deism , and consequently lets us know what he is , and that he writ that Letter to himself . To give us a farther insight into his own Character , he falls upon Preachers , and stiles their Sermons pedantick forms of Pulpit-speeches , Pag. 133. and in the same place talks of tricking the Priests out of their Trade which is so much complain'd against . And then , within a few pages after comes Mr. Lock 's Encomium , pag. 136 , &c. Though the Priests and Pulpit-men of this age be so intolerable , yet Mr. Lock makes amends for their defect . This Great Figure compounds for those Cyphers . Wherefore in a religious fit ( as it were ) he blesses God for this Writer's Reasonableness of Christianity , and professes he finds it an evidence that he is not able to resist , because ( poor Gentleman ) he is not willing . Then he rehearses Mr. Lock 's beloved Proposition , and vouches it , viz. that * Nothing but this alone , namely that [ Jesus Christ is the Messias ] is required absolutely to denote and characterize a man a Christian. And this Zealous Proselyte adds further that all are Sectaries that offer other notions than Mr. Lock hath in that book , that draught of Christianity , as he calls it . Thus we see who are Mr. Lock 's Admirers . Deism and an Antipathy against Priests ( i. e. all Professed Ministers and Guides in Religion ) are necessary qualifications in order to being his Converts . An † other Writer compares him to David , Good King David ( so he words it ) and me to Shimei , as if the Reasons I had offer'd against his late writings had been no other than Cursing of him . But would you know what manner of man this is that is such an Abettor of the Author of the late Reasonableness of Christianity , and so severe upon the Animadverter on it ? You may partly learn it from this Position which he publickly maintains , that in the beginning of the book of Job there are odd , if not impossible passages told of Satan and the sons of God , of Job himself , his wife , his children and friends . And he determines it to be a mere F●…k made by some idle Jew : and afterwards he calls it a Monstrous Story . And abundance of such like impious stuff you may me●… with in the Pamphlet he hath published to the world . This may in some p●… satisfie the Reader what kind of men they are that defend and patronize Mr. Loc●… late Assertions . A man may for the most part make a judgment of an Author by those that approve of and extreamly magnifie his undertakings . And generally those that publish them are of the like kidney . If these be for Divine Machiavel , it is probable the Writer proves so too . I am apt to think well of the Gentleman himself who was the Collector of the Reasonableness of Christianity , but I pity him for his unhappy choice of his Notion , and his more unhappy and successless defending it , wherein he strains upon his Reason and Conscience , to support his Cause : otherwise he would not have used such Arguments as he doth , and repeated them . He had got some credit by his former attempts concerning Humane Understanding and Education ; and now his Name being up , he is further tempted to shew his Parts , and to discover his great antipathy against Systems , which he every where strikes at ; the design of which is to establish one of his own , or to foster Scepticism by beating down all others . He unfortunately ingages in a Province above his capacity , and boldly attempting to correct and amend Christianity , overthrows it . He makes our Saviour a Coward , he turns the Epistles of the Apostles into wast paper , he perverts the plain words of the Gospels , and he misrepresents and doubts of the most Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion . One would wonder that such wild conceptions should possess any thinking head . It is strange that any serious man can believe these things , and frame such thoughts of Christianity . It is true , the Fundamental Articles of our Belief are few ; but there is a difference between a few and but one only , which is the thing that this Writer maintains , even with the hazard of his judgment , and the forfeiture of his formerly acquired reputation . But he and his Friends ( the One-Article-men ) seem to have made Satisfaction by their profound Silence lately , whereby they acknowledg to the world that they have Nothing to say in reply to what I lately laid to their charge , and fully proved against them , both with relation to this Gentleman in particular , and to the Professed Socinians in common . Some of them faintly give out that I have mistaken Mr. Lock ; If so , then they would oblige the world by shewing the Mistake , and letting men see wherein and in what instances I have misapprehended his sense and meaning . He that pretends to bear such a Love to the bulk of mankind , should now shew it : and so he would , if he could . If their case had not been desperate , I should have heard from them before this , for 't is well known that our Modern Unitarians court all opportunities of setting the Press on work . And they had time to do it before his Majesty's Injunctions were publish'd : not to say , that some of them have ventured to the Press since . Besides , these Injunctions , I conceive , debar them not not from clearing themselves ( if they could ) from those substantial Objections and Exceptions which have been made against their Assertions . Wherefore I take it to be an unquestionable verity , that these men , who were voted such Champions by the Party , are vanquished , and that they have not Answered because they could not . But from all hands I hear that their more retired language and countenances speak their extraordinary disturbance and disorder of Mind . It is observed that some of them cannot conceal their great Regret and Passion , but in a Raving Manner express their dislike of what I have writ . Which I take to be an Infallible Argument that they are baffled , that they are wounded under the fifth rib . For they having no supports from Reason and Arguments , therefore they fly to down-right Raillery . Thus they let their Cause die , because they cannot keep it alive . And indeed , as it is observ'd of less perfect Animals , which are hastily form'd and produced , that they are short-lived ; so fares it with Opinions that are defective and imperfect , and found out of a sudden , they are generally exploded in a short time , and scarcely survive their Chief Authors . This , it is probable , will be the fate of the foresaid Deficient and Maim'd Opinion about One Article : this Mushrom Notion that hath no root and foundation , will soon decay and come to nothing . Another Dangerous Notion relating to the Christian Religion is , that every thing in it is to be submitted to the exactness of Reason , and what will not bear that Test , is no part of Christianity . Socinianism was first of all founded on this basis , this was the main thing that was insisted upon . Socinus makes it his business to destroy the doctrines of Original Sin , of the Holy Trinity , of Christ's Satisfaction , of Baptism , &c. by force of Reason . Demonstrations are to be required in all things that concern our Salvation , saith * Smalcius . And even at this day this Suggestion of theirs is as useful to the New Socinians as the Rain-deers of Lapland to the inhabitants of that Country , which serve them for all uses . They can evade plain places of Scripture , they can overturn the foundations of Religion , they can settle their own Opinions , they can impose upon the belief of mankind by this one Artifice . It is but setting up this Idol , and then presently they sacrifice all the Great Mysteries and Truths of Christianity to it . When the Trinitarians assert the doctrine of Christ's Divinity , when they maintain the Incarnation of the Son of God , when they affirm that there are Three Personalities or Subsistencies in the Deity , and when they profess their assent to other the like Articles of the Christian Faith , they are cried out against because they are not level to humane conceptions , no Idea can be formed of them , they contradict our Natural Notions ; and for this reason alone they are laid aside by them as Contradictions , Absurdities , Impossibilities , Pure Non-sense , for so they are wont to express themselves in their late Writings . They boast that * theirs is an Accountable and Reasonable Faith , when they deny the Trinity . In an † other place they reject this doctrine because it is against the dictate of Reason : and they argue from this against the Incarnation , or the Union of the Two Natures in Christ. At an ‖ other time they are for reducing all things to Common Sense . And lastly , they peremptorily determine that * what is above our Reason to apprehend , is also above our belief ; and consequently because the doctrine of the Trinity ( as well as some other sublime Points ) is above their Reason , it staggers their belief , nay ( which is more ) it is utterly renounced by them . I thought fit to add these passages ( out of their Modern Prints ) to those which I had occasion to mention before in my Discourse concerning the Causes of Atheism , that it may appear , whatever the Late Unitarians pretend , that they own this Maxim , that every thing in Religion is to be submitted to the searches of Reason . But certainly this is a Principle that destroys Christianity , for a great part of this is founded on mere Revelation , and the discoveries of God's will which transcend our reasonings : and therefore it is a vanity to think that Reason must determine all in the Christian Religion . It is true , Natural Reason was placed in us by Him who is the Father of Lights , and we must not attempt to extinguish it : but neither must this Candle presume to take upon it the office of the Sun , to act beyond its proper strength and power . Reason is like the Rule with which we measure things : to know the length or breadth of them we apply the Rule to them , and so find out the just dimensions of them . But then we undertake to measure Bodies , which are of a certain length and breadth , such as our Rule will serve to measure : else there is no use of the Rule . In a resembling sort , what we would measure and comprehend by the Rule of Reason must be Finite , i. e. proportioned to our Reason . The things which are Infinite and Immense are not to be measured by this Scanty Rule ; such are the Divine Nature , the Sacred Trinity , the Union of God and Man , &c. Reason must act according to its due Measures , and be employed according to the Strengths which are allow'd it . It must not determine in those things which are not of its cognizance , and such are Supernatural and Divine Mysteries . There are no Demonstrative Arguments in things of this nature , neither are they necessary . We are to acquiesce in God's Word : that is sufficient Reason . And accordingly all the Great and Wise Men of this age , ( as well as of former ones ) all persons of the most penetrating judgment , of the most extraordinary sagacity rest in this , and are satisfied . But the New Disciples of Socinus pretend to be men of greater sense and understanding , and demand of us to make out every thing in the Christian Religion , even the profoundest matters of it , by strict rules of Reason and Logick . Thus ( as I had occasion not long since to observe ) they joyn with the Deists to root out Christianity , and use the same methods and art that they do . They irrationally extol humane Reason , and extravagantly oppose it to Reveal'd Religion , so as to exclude this latter , and to vilifie the Author of it . And thus it will appear at last that Atheism lurks under the refined name of Deism . This very Notion of the excessive sway of Natural Reason in matters of Religion , hath had a great and malignant influence upon some Others , who are not Profess'd Socinians , as a * Learned Writer ( though of a different perswasion from the Church of England ) hath observed , In pursuit ( saith he ) of the same Principles with those of the men of this way , not a few begin absolutely to submit the Scripture and every thing contain'd in it to the judgment and sentence of their own Reason , which is the true Form and Spirit of Socinianism visibly acting it self with some more than ordinary confidence . What is suited unto their Reason they will receive ; and what is not so , let it be affirmed an hundred times in the Scripture , they will reject with the same ease and confidence as if they were Imaginations of men like themselves . Both books that are written to this purpose , and the common discourses of many do fully testifie this advance of the Pride of the minds of men . And he is careless about these things who seeth not , that the next Stage is downright Atheism . This is that Dunghil which such blazing exhalations of Pride at last fall into . It seems there are Others , besides me , that have had an apprehension that Socinianism tends directly to Atheism . But see the mighty Prevalency of Truth ! It will forcibly make its way , even from the mouths of its professed Adversaries . The Old and New Socinians ( as you heard before ) agreed in this that Reason is the sole Judg in matters of Faith , and that what is above Reason is not the object of our belief . And yet both these sorts of men at other times abjure these Propositions as false and erroneous , and thereby palpaby contradict themselves , * Smalcius expresly avers that Faith is above ( though not contrary ) to Reason . And in his † Catechism he lets us know the knowledg of the way to immortal life and happiness far exceeds humane Reason ; and he quotes 1 Cor. 2. 14. for it . Again , he grants that ‖ there are things which we ought to believe , though we cannot render any reasons of them . And in the Margin , things expresly written are to be believed , although the reasons of them appear not . And more fully yet , in the name of the Racovian Brethren he makes this Confession , ** We freely acknowledg that there are many things in the Christian Religion which surpass Reason , but yet they are of necessity to be believ'd by us , on this very consideration , that though they exceed Reason , yet they are deliver'd in Sacred Scripture , and they are very agreeable to that Reason which they exceed . But how do our late Penmen approve of this ? Very well , for they declare that * Revelation is to be preferred before the clearest Demonstration of our Reason . Whence it appears that the Unitarians deny what they have in other places affirm'd , they disown what at other times they assert . And so they betray their own Cause , and patronize ours : so Truth discovers and defends it self , though for a while stifled or disguised . And thus it is manifest that We are in the right , even our Enemies themselves being judges . Only here it is worth observing how fli●…ting , how shifting , how changeable Sozzo's Pupils are . Are they not to be deem'd very slippery Gentlemen when they thus say , and unsay ? They have alter'd the Racovian Catechism more than once , and they may do it again when they see occasion . And it is visible how our English Socinians vary their Note , and affect to differ from themselves . Whereby they let us know that they are unmindful of the Jewish Proverb , When occasion serves we may gainsay others , but at no time must a man contradict himself . The Third Beloved Conceit of theirs concerning Christianity is , that there are no Mysteries in it . Which indeed follows upon the former Opinion , for if nothing is to be believ'd in the Christian Religion but what is made out by Exact Reason , then there is nothing Mystical and Obscure in it . This is a Point mightily urg'd of late by our homebred Racovians and their Adherents , who have publish'd a small Essay entituled [ An Impartial Account of the word Mystery as it is taken in the Holy Scripture , ] where they cantingly tell us that MYSTERY is the Tutelar God of the New Systems framed by Worldly Christians : and it is the Vail of Absurdities , and such like foolish representations they make of it ; and think themselves very Witty and Piquant when they call the Trinitarians Mystery-men , as doth the Examiner of the Exceptions against Mr. L's Reasonableness , &c. But ( which is far worse ) they pervert the meaning of the Sacred Writ , and wilfully ( I fear ) represent the word Mystery otherwise than it is used in the New Testament , of which I hope to give the Reader an account some other time , and to settle the true sense and import of the word as it is applyed in those Holy Writings . All that I will say at present is that True and Substantial Reason informs us , if we attend to it , that God's bare Word is sufficient to determine our assent and belief : and the Holy Scriptures acquaint us that there are Unsearchable * Mysteries in the Christian Religion ; that there is hidden wisdom , 1 Cor. 2. 7. that there are deep things of God , v. 10. that there are things hard to be understood , 2 Pet. 3. 16. that we know in part , and see through a glass darkly , 1 Cor. 13. All which , and many other passages in Sacred Writ assure us that there are Unfathomable Depths , Unconceivable Abstrusities in Christianity , and that it is out of our ken and reach to apprehend them . Therefore we are obliged to believe some things which are unaccountable to our knowledg and reason . Yea indeed , the proper matter of Faith are those things which we cannot have any notice of by the mere natural exercise of our faculties . Revelation here is enough , as was said before , and we ought ( and that with the greatest Reason ) to depend upon it entirely , because we know it is Infallible . But because I intend at another time to insist particularly on the proof of this Proposition , that Christianity not only was , but is a Great Mystery , I will not prevent my self here . Let it only suffice at present that I have caution'd the Reader against our Adversary's groundless Assertion , that there is nothing dark and obscure in the Christian doctrines , that there is no such thing as Mystery in any of the Articles belonging to this Holy Institution . They pretend to oblige the world by divulging and laying all open to the Vulgar . Others are dark , intricate , perplex'd and muddy , but they only are the Authors that are Clear and Bright , and write with shining Japan Ink. In brief , they and the Deists talk much of the Oracles of Reason , and brag of their making all things out by these , though generally they prove as vain and idle as the Reasons of Etymologists , and the common Rationale's of the Roman Service and Rites . But here perhaps it will be Objected that I have in this and the foregoing particular misrepresented these men , for it will be said that in one of their Writings it is positively asserted that * there are some Mysteries and incomprehensible Secrets in Religion . To which I answer , This Author explains his meaning afterwards , and thereby shews what he holds , for this is one of his Propositions , that we must not give the name of Mystery to those doctrines which are contrary to the light of Nature or Reason , and he means by these doctrines all those Divine Truths in the Gospel which are above our Natural Reason , and which we cannot comprehend and discern by the light of Nature ; and so it appears that this Writer , though he seems to allow of Mysteries , yet in reality he disowns them , which is no infrequent thing with them . But it will be said that another of their Authors is of opinion that * there are some things to be believed which we cannot comprehend . I answer 1. Whatever he and some of late assert , it is certain that it was a receiv'd and acknowledg'd opinion among the Socinians heretofore that nothing is to be believed but what we can comprehend . It was a Standing Principle with them all , Not to admit any Article into their Creed but what they could make out by exact Reason ; and therefore it is well known that they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and other Great Articles of the Christian Faith because they could not fathom them by Reason . This was the approved Notion in Socinus's days , and in Crellius's ( as hath been shew'd in another place ) . 2. I answer that this very Author himself in that place where he throws off this Old Socinian doctrine , takes it up again , and falls to proving that there is nothing in Religion , be it never so high , but may be comprehended ; he is so bold and confident as to say that we have as clear , distinct and adequate a conception of what is Infinite and Unbounded as of a spire of Grass , and that the nature of one is as comprehensible as the other . 3. I add this , that though this Writer and some others of the Party endeavour at other times to shift off that foresaid Principle , yet it is plain that it is Good Socinianism at this very day , as I have proved from some express * quotations out of the Writings of the New English Racovians . But it will be said again , that the same Author tells us that the men of his Party deny the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ , &c. not because they are Mysteries , or because they do not comprehend them , but because they are Contradictions , Impossibilities , and pure Non-sense . But who sees not that Mysteries and Contradictions , &c. are the same with these persons , and that therefore they call them by that former name , because ( as they would make us believe ) they can't comprehend them , they have no idea , no notion of them ( as they speak at other times : ) and what is this but to say , They are Mysteries ? only they choose to cloth it in a more bold and prophane sort of language , calling them Non-sense , Contradictions , &c. Thus it is evident that they impose upon the world , and whilst they cry out of Contradictions , are guilty of them themselves , and whilst they make a shew of believing some things above Reason , are really of another perswasion . It is plain then that it is their business to lift up Reason , so as to depress Christianity : it is to be fear'd that some of them are very eager against Mysteries , thereby to extirpate that which is deservedly stiled by the Apostle the Mystery of Godliness : especially they are inraged against the main branch of it ; God manifest in the flesh . One who is no Over-valuer of Mysteries , no not of that he treats of , tells us that * he hath no small reason to believe there are several who strike at Christianity it self , under the pretence of bringing down the value of Mysteries : much more than by the downright denying of all Mysteries in Christianity . By this Polonian Stratagem they undermine all Religion , yea , the Being , Nature and Attributes of God himself , which contain great Abstrusities , depths , and mysteries in them : and so in the sequel of this their Opinion which they so warmly defend and stickle for there is a strong biass to Atheism . CHAP. VII . The Foreign Unitarians hold that Divine Worship may be given to a Creature . The English ones do in effect assert the same , though they pretend the contrary . Reason and Scripture are against them . They can't blame either Pagan or Popish Idolatry , being Idolaters themselves . Their Idolatry is absurd and contradictious . They deny Prayer to have been a part of God's Worship commanded under the Old Testament . The contrary proved from the Writings of the Old Testament . Their Evasions and Objections particularly answered , and found to savour of Impiety . The Observation of the Lord's day is held by them to be a Ceremonious Rite , and therefore abolish'd . And yet they allow of the keeping it as lawful . The observing of the Seventh day is in some respect Moral . The Lord's day is of Evangelical Institution , and therefore we are obliged to celebrate it . The Sacraments were appointed to be Signs and Helps of some spiritual good things . The Socinians oppose this , and most Abusively treat those Sacred Ordinances . Whence we are not to wonder at their deriding and renouncing of other parts of Christianity . Water-Baptism ( as they call it ) is voted by them to be unlawful . Yet they hold it not unlawful to retain the practice of it in the Church . This argues a Double Irreligion . AND now I come to the next General Head of this present Discourse , viz. to give an account of the Socinian Worship . We found their Doctrines to be very bad : I believe I shall make it appear that they are as faulty as to their apprehension concerning Religious Service and Adoration . For they deny the Divinity of Christ , and yet they assert that he is to have the same Honour and Worship given to him that ought to be given to the Father , the Eternal , Allmighty , All-Wise and Infinite God. It is said in the * Brief History of the Unitarians that the Socinians generally not only grant , but earnestly contend that Christ is to be worship'd and pray'd to . The Polonian Unitarians were so zealous in this matter that they excommunicated and deposed from their Ministry such of their own party as denied that Christ might be prayed to , and worship'd with divine worship . Socinus ( de Invocatione Christi ) peremptorily asserts the Invoking and Worshiping of Christ , though he be a created thing , as he speaks . In an * other place he largely defends the lawfulness and necessity of it . And so he doth more amply yet in his Answer to Francis David's Defence of the contrary opinion . In † one of his Epistles he contends that our Saviour should be worship'd with Divine and Religious Worship , and that for this Reason , because such Worship may be given to an other besides God : Nay , not only to an other Person , but to an other Thing , for his opinion is that ‖ God may command a Log or a Stone to be worship'd if he pleases : and if he commands these to be worship'd , he is ready to do it . He defends this ** again with great zeal and earnestness against his Adversaries that wrote against this doctrine . And to render this the more plausible , he blesses the world with this strange notion , that †† the First Commandment concerning Worshiping of God and him alone , doth not take away from God the Power of commanding us to worship some other besides himself , but it only forbids us to do so of our own heads : And again in the same place , he hath the confidence to aver that the Commandment concerning worshiping of God only was Temporary , and belong'd only to the times of the Old Testament . This is the summ of Socinus's Divinity , concerning Divine Worship , and certainly it cannot but create Astonishment in any sober Reader . * Volkelius agrees with him in both the latter Propositions , but a Man may from that ( as well as from other Passages in his Book ) gather that he had little cause to entitle that Book [ Of the True Religion . ] An † other of Socinus's Abettors tells us that he may be worship'd for a God. i. e. with divine worship , who by nature or Essence is not God ; and particularly that God can command that any man ( even Socinus himself ) shall be acknowledg'd as God , and worship'd as such . And he adds that such a one is a True God. He largely insists on this , that there may be more Gods worship'd than One. And at an ‖ other time he undertakes the Defence of this again . Nay , he advances thus far , * It is possible for a created being to be equal to God , nor doth it imply any contradiction and absurdity , yea it is most worthy of God : and consequently the power of a created thing may be equal to that of God , and so there is no infinite disproportion between the power of God and the power of a creature . These are the Extravagancies he runs himself into . And this he and others of the Party are forced to do , that they may maintain their worshiping of Christ , notwithstanding he is but a Creature . It is true , one of the † Modern Prints saith , They have not these seven years in any book professed that the like or the same honour is to be given to Christ as to God. But this New Gang of Unitarians is not the Standard of Socinianism . There 's no reason to listen to these Upstart Pretenders in this present case , for we know that all the Arians , and all the followers of Socinus have held it lawful , nay necessary to worship Christ with Divine Worship . Nay the Gentleman himself , whom I have quoted , soon after confesses that there is a Classis of Unitarians at this day who pay Divine Honour to our Saviour , who put up their Prayers to him : and Prayer is a signal act of Divine Worship . And a * late Writer who very well knows what the Socinians are , and what they hold , finds fault with them for this at least , that they worship a Creature-God , which he condemns ( and that justly ) as not reconcileable to Reason . And hear what a profess'd Unitarian of this Age writ about two or three years ago , † That our Lord Christ is to be worship'd , was never made a question by the Unitarians . The question is concerning the kind or sort of Worship : Trinitarians say , he is to be worship'd as God : we say , he is to be worship'd as one whom God hath exalted to be a Priest and a Saviour , one whom God hath given to be head over all things to the Church . This distinction is to no purpose , for even the New Socinians hold that Christ is God ( and they will not stick to say , truly God ) as he is thus exalted , and as he is the Head over all things ; therefore according to them he is to be worship'd as he is truly God. This is very plain , and though they may make use of their shifts and subterfuges to evade it , yet any Discerning Man may discover the vanity of their attempt . An * other of their late Writers asserts the Worshiping of Christ with Religious Worship , and particularly tells us that † the Father hath given Christ authority and dominion which makes him a fit object of worship . This is the same that the other Gentleman said , he is made a God by his being exalted ; by his being Head over all things he is constituted a God , and is truly so , and as such is to be worship'd by all Christian Men. Thus the Old and New Socinians agree , though these latter pretend to dissent from the former about this Point . I will here add what an ‖ other of their Moderns saith , Christ is our God by reason of his Divine Sovereignty over us , and Worship due to such Sovereignty . They are the very words of one of the late Prints , which was first extant in the year 1648 , but was reprinted in 1691 , and therefore vouch'd by this present Set of Socinians . Their reprinting it is a plain owning of it , and yet they say they have not been of this Opinion these seven years . It seems these men are not acquainted with their own Authors , and know not what their own People say . It was unadvisedly said that they had not , for so long a time professed a Parity of Worship due to the Father and the Son , for it is evident that they in effect own it . But from that saying of theirs they would hint this , that once in seven years or thereabouts Socinianism changes , and we must expect some new discoveries . This is to prepare us against the next Climacterical Year of it , when it is likely they will agree to present us with more refined notion concerning the Worshiping of Christ. For truly this which comes down from the Old Unitarians is very gross and inconsistent . It is very strange and surprizing that Persons who lay claim to a greater share of Reason than the rest of mankind , should assert that a Creature is the proper object of Divine Adoration , that Christ is to be worship'd with Sacred and Religious Worship , and yet that he is not a God. These are unaccountable Positions , and such as destroy the very nature of the Deity , for God is to be worship'd because of his Transcendent Nature , which is such that no Creature , no Finite being hath it communicated to it . This makes God the sole object of Divine Worship ; according to what we read , Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . It is express'd exclusively : therefore a mere man cannot be exalted to the honour and worship which are due only to God. And consequently the foregoing Assertions null the nature of God , and make the Creatures equal with him . We find that when Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet and worship'd him , Peter took him up , saying , Stand up , I my self also am a Man , Acts 10. 25 , 26. Which one place vacates all their Adoration of Christ , for if Peter would not let Cornelius worship him because he was but a Man , as himself was , then neither ought any one to worship Christ if he be but a Man. The Reason is the fame here that it was there . Or if he had an Angelick Nature , that doth not make him capable of being worship'd , for as St. Peter forbids Cornelius , so the Angel would not suffer St. John to give this Divine Honour to him : See that thou doest it not , Rev. 19. 10. Though he was God's Minister and Messenger , and was a God in the very same sense that these men say Christ is God , yet he was not to be worship'd . It appears hence that Adoration is founded only in Divinity , and that what is but Humane or Angelical is not Adorable . Are these the men that talk and write against the Superstition and Idolatry of the Church of Rome as well as that of Pagans ? Yes , some of them have done so , but can it be believed that it was in good earnest , when it is one of their Grand Articles that the Divine Honour which is due to God may be derived to another who is not God ? According to this Principle neither Pagan nor Popish Idolatry can be condemned , nay they must be allowed of . If Creatures may have Divine Adoration given them , then Angels and Saints , and the Images of these latter may be adored , which is the doctrine and practice of the Roman Catholicks , and then that Text , I will not give my glory to another , Isa. 42. 8 , which all the Protestant Writers make use of against the Papists to prove their foresaid practice unlawful , is to no purpose . And why then do the persons I am speaking of , whilst they follow the Example of the Romanists , seem to condemn them ? They give Divine Worship to one whom they acknowledg not to be God , strictly and properly speaking : and the Papists do no other . These may as well adore the Saints and Angels as the Socinians do Christ , if he be but a fellow-creature , as they assert him to be . This was the sense of the Ancient Fathers , who charg'd the Arians with Idolatry . And there is the same , nay greater reason ( as I could easily demonstrate , because the Arians exalted the nature of Christ to a higher pitch ) to tax Socinus and his followers with this Crime , seeing they assert and defend the giving of Divine Worship to Christ , though he be not God , i. e. the Infinite Eternal Omnipotent Being , but only a God by Office and Institution , by Place and Dignity , as Kings are said to be Gods. It is plain then that whilst the Socinians stigmatize the Papists as Idolaters , they cannot shift off the charge of Idolatry themselves : for how that Worship which is peculiar to God can be given to a Creature ( i. e. one that is acknowledg'd to be so ) and yet no Idolatry be committed , is impossible to reconcile . Wherefore we conclude that the Socinian Worshipers are Idolaters . This is another proof of their justly lying under the imputation of Irreligion , yea and such as is mix'd with those Absurdities that can never be enough exploded . They first deny Christ to be God , and then they pay the Adoration to him which is due only to God. They abjure his Divinity , and degrade him into the state of a Creature ; and then , to make amends as it were , worship him as a Creator . They destroy his Deity , and then think to repair it by this means . Orestes was not half so wild when he kill'd his Mother Clytemnestra , and then celebrated a Feast in her honour . What strange Contradiction is this , to reckon our Saviour as a Fictitious God , and yet to pretend to venerate him as a True one ? One would scarcely imagine that such Extravagancies should be entertain'd by men that boast of their faculty of Reasoning . But they having once admitted so Great an Error as the denial of Christ's Divinity , it is no wonder that they plunge themselves into innumerable others , it is no wonder that they run themselves into Idolatry it self , that most hateful and abominable Enormity , that worst of Prophanations , which by degrees will extinguish the notion of the True God , and bring in direct Atheism . Surely then here is more than a smack of Irreligion , more than an Atheistick Tincture . Prayer is an eminent act and part of Divine Worship , and therefore it is proper under this Second General Head of my Discourse , where I treat of Worship , to observe what thoughts the Gentlemen have concerning this . They are agreed that the First Table of the DECALOGUE , which prescribes the Worship of God , requires not PRAYER , and that in no part of the Old Testament this act of Worship is mention'd as a Duty , but that it was added afterwards by Christ , and not till then . These are the express terms of * Socinus , of † Volkelius , of ‖ Smalcius , and of his * Racovian Catechism . But can any man that forms right thoughts concerning the Jewish Dispensation , and their Religion of which God was the immediate Author , think that it contain'd not in it the Precept of Prayer , which is so natural a part of Religion and Worship ? Was not that First Commandment Thou shalt have no other Gods but me , and that Comment upon it Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God , and serve him , Deut. 6. 13. a General Precept for God's Worship , and can any man conceive that Prayer , which is so signal a part of it , and appropriated only to God ( though it seems the Socinians are not of that mind ) is not comprehended in it ? Can we think it is not necessarily included , though it be not expressed ? Nay , Who can imagine that there were not Particular and Plain Injunctions for Praying when the Publick Worship of the Jews and their Sacrificing was always attended with this part of Devotion ? as is clear from 2 Chron. 6. 19. 7. 12. Prov. 15. 8. Luke 1. 10. But they will say , their meaning is that there is no Express Command for Praying in the Old Testament . If this be it that they mean , then lo an Express Confutation in Psal. 50. 15. Call upon me in the day of trouble , and I will deliver thee , and thou shalt glorifie me . Here is not only Invocation but Thanksgiving or Praising of God ( which is an other part of Prayer ) in plain and explicit terms commanded . But have they nothing to reply ? Yes , for they never want some Evasion . But certainly there never was any so silly , so impertinent , so foreign as that which one of their Great Penmen makes use of . * He flies to Socinus's ( I might have said to Bellarmine's ) distinction of Counsels and Precepts , and hath the boldness to tell us that these words of the Psalmist , or rather indeed of God himself , are only a Perswasion or Counsel , but not a Command . You will think , I suppose , he was put hard to it when he was forced to give such an answer as this , which is not only founded on a Gross Conceit of the Romanists , but is no way applicable to the present purpose , for the foresaid words concern all men at one time or other , but Counsels have respect only to some particular persons , and some peculiar emergencies . It is true , this Author adds concerning this passage of the Psalmist , that if it be not admitted that it contains a Counsel only , then he is willing to grant that a Command is comprehended in it , but with this Proviso , that the Command be not counted Equal with the other Precepts contain'd in the Law. Which is as bad an Exposition as the former , and shews what sorry apprehensions they have concerning the Great and Solemn Office of Prayer , as if this were not of equal importance with the rest of the Precepts of the Law , or ( which is yet worse , and yet is implied in his words ) that some Precepts of the Divine Law comprised in Holy Scripture are to be observ'd , but others may be dispens'd with , as not being of equal Authority with the rest . This favours of Impiety as well as the other Evasion before mention'd . But let us hear what Other Reasons these Men pretend to give of that which they thus fondly dream of , viz. that there was no Precept for Praying under the Law. First , they tell us that * whatever good things the Israelites had and enjoyed , were due to them by Right , because they were promised them by the Law , and therefore there was no need that they should pray for them . It seems it was superfluous to Ask those mercies and blessings of God , which he was Bound to give them . They were a Debt , and therefore were to be Claimed without any Imploring of God. Is not here again a plain siding with the Roman Doctors , and their Device of Merit and Perfection ? for they suppose that the blessings which those people enjoy'd were the Deserved Wages of their Work , and might be demanded of God as their Right , not ask'd as a Favour : and also this is supposed that they perfectly and without the least defect and fault obey'd all the Divine Laws ; otherwise their very Imperfection and Failing would have been cause sufficient why they should Pray unto God for pardon and forgiveness . But it seems they wanted not these , and therefore it was needless to make their Addresses to him . These are the Rare Notions of the Racovian Divines : or , to speak more plainly , these are the Prophane Sentiments of these persons . Another Reason assigned in the same place is to this effect , Those who were under the Old Law had no Precept given about Praying , because those Duties which the Law prescribed them and required of them were of that nature that they might be performed without any singular help and assistance from God : why therefore should they invoke the Divine Aid ? And an other of their Writers joyns with him , The Commandments ( saith he ) that were in the Law did not in themselves surpass humane strength : and the Earthly Happiness which was promised was not so great that there was need of Prayers to obtain it . The former Reason was ill enough , but this is much worse , and hath more than a Tang of that which I objected to them . It is indeed the common and frequent usage of these Writers to admire and cry up the Natural Strength and Abilities of Man , asserting him to be such a Creature as can do all his work of himself , and by his own Native Power . Nay , under the Law it seems ( when man had not those helps and advantages which he hath now ) he was able to keep all God's laws , and entirely and perfectly obey all his Commandments without the Divine Aid , for God gave no Precept about Praying to him and asking his assistance . And if there was no Precept then there was no Obligation upon them to do any such thing ( nay , as some of these Gentlemen seem to confess , it had been a Sin to pray to God , because there was no Law or Command for it . ) Consequently since they were commanded to observe all the Divine Precepts and Rules , they had power enough of themselves , without any assistance from God , to do it fully . Therefore Prayer was an idle impertinent piece of Devotion ; and when Abraham , Isaac and Jacob , Ezra , Nehemiah , David , and the other Holy Men whom we read of in the Old Testament , poured out Prayers and Petitions unto God , it was more than they need have done , more than they were obliged to , because there was no Command for it . What shall we think of these Socinian Writers that discourse after this rate ? Can it be believed that they have any great Reverence for the Scriptures , that they have a sense of the Weighty and Important Duty of Prayer , that they have due thoughts concerning the Weakness and Imperfection of Man's Nature , that they have becoming apprehensions concerning the Divine Help and Power ? In a word , can it be thought that they speak and think of God as if they had a real belief of him ? Unto Worship without doubt belongs the Solemn Time appointed by God himself for his Service . Wherefore let us see what the judgment of the Unitarians or Socinians is concerning this matter . The Observation of a Seventh Day is not of Divine Right , neither is it to be celebrated as such by Christians , say * Volkelius and the Author of the † Racovian Catechism . And the latter of these adds that it is a Ceremonial Observance , and therefore not obligatory under the Gospel , for the Religion of Christ , saith he , as it utterly takes away all Ceremonies , so the choice of Days , for which he quotes Col. 2. 16. And yet see how consistent these Men are with themselves : though this and all Ceremonious Observances are quite abolished by an express Command and Authority , yet in the next clause they are pleas'd to be so indulgent as to suffer the observation of the Lord's day , Since it was celebrated of old by Christians , we grant the same Liberty to all Christians . It is very graciously done of them to grant that which they before asserted to be contrary to the Word of God , for if it be utterly taken away by that Word , it is now contrary to it , and is no longer to be permitted . Whence then have these Men Authority to suffer the observation of the Lord's day , since they themselves vouch the utter Abolishing of it ? They are very great folks , you must know , and can do what they please . They have a Power , a Prerogative above others , and by vertue of this they can give a Licence to observe that Day which St. Paul in the forenamed place , they say , utterly condemned . Who knows where to have this People ? First , they pronounce the keeping of this day to be unlawful , and then they tell us it is lawful to keep it . It is evident from this Contradiction that they have nothing of solidity and consistency to alledg in behalf of their Opinion . To vote the Seventh Day to be Part of the Ceremonial Law is ridiculous , because the observing of it was practised before the Ceremonial Law was given , and therefore is none of that Law. It hath a Generally Moral and Perpetual Foundation , because Right Reason ( which is in all Men , and is immutable ) dictates the Celebration of it , in as much as it is Reasonable that we should imitate God in whatever he commands us . He resting from the works of the Creation on the seventh day , thereupon instituted a Cessation of all worldly labour and business among all mankind on that day , and so dedicated it to his honour and worship , Gen. 2. 2 , 3. whereby the observance of it becomes , on that account , and in that respect Moral . It is not strictly Moral , but because the devoting some Certain and Peculiar Time to God's Service is Moral , therefore so far the observing of a Seventh Day is Moral . And as for that particular seventh day , or that one day in Seven which we now keep , it was separated and hallowed by the Apostles ( who had Authority from Christ to do it , ) and so it became an Evangelical Institution , and consequently is more than Moral . Wherefore the Socinians who , with the Quakers and some other High-flown Sects , hold that * there is no obligation to keep the first day of the week more than any other , despise the Gospel . Institution , prophane the Time which was particularly destined to the Service of God , and more especially of the Eternal Son of God , our Blessed Saviour and Redeemer , who by his Miraculous Resurrection consecrated this day , and set it apart for holy and religious duties . He therefore that accounts it not a Holy Day , and keeps it not as such , plainly manifests a spirit of Impiety and Prophaneness . It is not to be question'd that the Evangelical Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper appertain to Religious Worship . Therefore in the next place we are to examine how piously the Racovians express themselves with regard to these Divine Institutions . It hath been , and is the general belief of the Orthodox Professors of Christianity that the Sacraments ordained of Christ ( as † Our Church well expresses it ) are not only badges or tokens of Christian mens profession , but that they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will toward us , by which he doth work invisibly in us , and doth not only quicken , but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him . And particularly , as to Baptism , they agree with ‖ our Church , that it is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference , whereby Christian Men are discerned from others , but whereby , as by an Instrument , they that receive Baptism rightly , are grafted into the Church . The promises of the forgiveness of Sin , and of our adoption to be sons of God , by the Holy Ghost , are visibly sign'd and seal'd , faith is confirmed , and grace increased by vertue of Prayer unto God. And indeed this hath been the constant perswasion of all Understanding and Religious Men : this hath been their firm and grounded belief concerning the Sacraments , that these Ordinances were appointed for Great and Excellent Purposes , viz. that they should be , when rightly and effectually administred , Chanels of Grace and of the Holy Spirit , Pledges of God's good will in the Gospel , and Signs of the Remission of our sins : and more particularly that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be a help to our Faith and all our other Graces , and a solemn Seal and Assurance of the Divine Favour to us , as well as a Memorial of the Death of our Saviour . But the Gentlemen whom we are now giving an account of are of another mind , for * they with one consent declare that there is no collation of any Grace , no Confirmation of our Faith , no bestowing of any Spiritual Blessing in the use of the Sacraments . And generally they hold with † Volkelius that there is no other end of instituting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper but Thankfulness . The ‖ Racovian Catechism teaches that this Sacrament is of no use to ratifie and seal the Benefits purchas'd for us by our Saviour ; yea that it is not useful to put us in mind of his Death , notwithstanding his own words , Do this in remembrance of me . An * other Writer peremptorily determines that there is no other use of the Lord's Supper but to stir up our Thankfulness for Christ's Death . It is falsly said ( saith he ) that it is a Seal of Grace and Divine Favour , a Confirmation of the Promises and of our faith in them . It is erroneously said that it was instituted to be a Memorial of Christ's Death : though he had in express terms said a little before , There is no other end of this Sacrament than that the remembrance of Christ together with giving of thanks and setting forth his cruel death should perpetually remain in the Church . Whereby it appears he had forgot what he had said : but he was not forgetful to disparage this Sacrament . But can we be so uncharitable as to think that the Unitarians of our times are guilty of this ? Verily it is no breach of Charity to think so of them since they have expresly declar'd as much . First , they tell us * they like not the word [ Sacraments ] because it is no Scripture-word , for which profound reason some of them have profess'd that they dislike the word Trinity : then they declare that neither of the Sacraments work ought in us , and particularly as for the effects and consequences ascrib'd to the right partaking of the Lord's Supper , they can find them no where but in the Books and Sermons of the Superstitious admirers or idolaters of External things , i. e. the Books and Sermons of all Protestants . And here it will not be amiss to take notice how both the Sacraments are most Abusively treated by these English Socinians , which will further evince that they have a right to the Character which I have given them . Their language is as follows , p. 24. Let a man in black sprinkle you with some of the Church's Water , or give you a bit of Bread , or a sup of Wine , over which he hath pronounced the Wonder-working words prescribed in Mother Church's Ritual ; though by nature you are as bad as the Devil , you shall presently be inclin'd to as much good as will save you from Hell , and qualifie you for Heaven . And this no less certainly , if you are one of the Elect ( for else the Churches Incantation produces only a momentary effect and a false appearance of good ) no less certainly , I say , than by tying the Norman Knot you may gain the love of the person you desire , or by other Devices recorded in the learned books of Magick you may cause Hatred , raise Winds , and do a thousand other Feats which have no more natural and real agreement with those Causes that are said to produce them , than Faith and Obedience have with a bit of Bread or with a sprinkling of water . It can't be said he speaks this of the way of administring Baptism and the Eucharist in the Church of Rome , for in this place he is designedly speaking of the Protestants , and especially of the Church of England in her Prayers and Offices of the Service-book , and in her Articles and Homilies : so that it is plain he means the celebration of both Sacraments according to the custom and manner of Reformed Churches , and more particularly of Ours . And that he makes himself merry with the Protestant , not Popish manner of administring the Lord's Supper is evident further from this , that he mentions not only the giving a bit of Bread , but a sup of Wine , which latter is not given to the People in the Church of Rome , as is well known , and this Author knows as well as any man. Wherefore he must of necessity speak of the Sacraments as they are administred in the Protestant Churches , and you see what jolly work he makes of it . Mother-Church is with him a term for any Eminent Reform'd Church : as it is indeed the Style of these men , they in their late Writings usually call any Church of Note that differs from them , Mother-Church . The Lawful Minister that attends on the Sacred Institutions of Baptism and the Lord's Supper hath no better Title with them than the man in black . Baptism forsooth is the Churches Water , and the other Sacrament cannot be more decently express'd by him than by a bit of Bread and a sup of Wine : and the words of Institution pronounc'd by our Saviour himself are scoffingly call'd the wonder-working words , and ( which is yet more prophane and impious ) an Incantation , a Charm , a Spell . Then he scandalously uses the terms of Devil , Hell and Heaven , as if he believ'd no such things : and to confirm us in this perswasion concerning him he proceeds ( after he had jeer'd the Elect ) to compare the Solemn and Evangelical Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to the Lewdest , Vilest , and most prophane things imaginable , yea to the Feats of Magick Art. It is no wonder that the most Sacred matters of our Religion are derided by this sort of men , who by such passages as these discover themselves to be of a very unsanctified temper . It is no wonder that those who give themselves up to this wild and prophane way of talking , blaspheme even the Son of God and the Holy Ghost , vilifying the blessed undertaking of the former , and disregarding the powerful assistance and aids of the latter , and denying the Divinity of both . It is no wonder that they abuse and debauch Christianity , and all the Excellent Principles of it , when they give themselves this Liberty , and let fly against all that is Sacred and Venerable . Who will not say ( and that on just grounds ) that here is more than a Vergency to that cursed genius which I have before mention'd ? But let us go on , and enquire more particularly into their apprehensions about Baptism . Concerning this they have espoused this groundless conceit , that now among Christians it is an Insignificant Rite . The determination of their * Great Master is this , Baptism was prescribed to none but Heathens : among those who make publick profession of Christianity there is no need of it : at this time it doth not concern the Church at all , but is a mere indifferent thing . Most of his followers represent it after the like manner , and say † there was no Command for Water-Baptism , as they call it . Baptism is ceas'd , saith ‖ Volkelius , it belonging only to those First Times . And if you urge the express words of the Institution of it , Mat. 28. 19. Go teach all nations , baptizing them , * Socinus answers that it is not meant of the Baptism of Water . And in the same place he undertakes to prove that this was not enjoyn'd by Christ , but was only freely taken up by the Apostles , and was a Temporary Rite . To which their Chief † Doctors say Amen . And if you ask the Reason why it is not obligatory now , they will put you off by saying , the Christian Religion is Internal and Spiritual , and admits not of such an external and corporal Ceremony as Baptism . And yet these Sons of Reason apply not this to the Other Sacrament , but acknowledge it to be perpetual in the Christian Church , though it be an Outward Sensible Rite : this interferes not with the Spirituality of the Christian Religion . Which lets us see how Partial they are in their Arguing . Further , let us mark the inconsistency of these men : notwithstanding there is no Precept for this Sacrament , notwithstanding it is a mere Ceremonial Rite , notwithstanding it is abolish'd ( for all this they hold and maintain ) yet they defend the Lawfulness of retaining it . It may be used , they say , in the Christian Church , especially when they have any Turkish or Jewish Proselytes ( for ‖ they mention these particularly ) for because they are come over to the Turks in the point of the Trinity , they expect I suppose that some of them will return the kindness , and be Converts to some parts of their Religion . So , it seems , the Sacrament of Baptism is kept up only for the sake of some Mahometans and Jews , who are expected to honour Socinianism with their Conversion . But though Baptism , as it hath respect to Adult Persons , is in some sort tolerated by these men , yet the Baptizing of Infants is utterly condemned by them † all , as a practice founded on no Precept or Example . They agree with the Old Pelagians and Anabaptists that Children have nothing to do with this Rite , and they give the same Reasons ( if we may call them so ) for their Tenent that they did , as appears from the very words of the * Racovian Catechism , which excludes Infants because they cannot themselves , by reason of their age , acknowledge Christ for their Saviour . And † one of their Chief Rabbies determines in brief thus , Infants not knowing what they do , or what is done to them , are not to be baptized . And therefore an * other calls it a Vain and Childish action . And he thinks he is facetious when a little after he stiles it the Childish Baptism of Children . And this is the sense of the Unitarians of the last Edition , The Baptists or Anabaptists , say † they , worthily labour in the vindicating of Baptism to those that are capable of it , from those that are uncapable of it . ‖ They determine that Baptism was appointed by Christ to initiate Jews and Heathens into the Christian Church , and consequently none but these are to be enter'd into the Church by this Rite : herein exactly following their Master * Socinus , who tells us that if any heretofore left their Judaism or Paganism , they were to be baptised ; but those that are born of Christian Parents are not to be baptised . Then they add ( in the same place ) that no person is capable of baptism but such as can profess and intend the thing signified by Baptism , viz. a clean conscience and a new life : consequently all Infants are excluded . And now who would not think that Paedobaptism were wholly discarded by the Socinians , and that they cannot with a safe Conscience allow of it ? But behold yet a farther proof of their Repugnancies , of their jarring with themselves as well as with the Truth , of their contradicting their own sentiments as well as those of the Christian Church . Though they have spoken so contemptibly of this Sacred Institution , though they openly confess that Children are not capable of it , though they publish to the world that there is neither Command nor Practice for it , yet some of their Authors whom I have mention'd hold it may be practised in the Church . What therefore is it that these men will not say or do , if they have a mind to it ? The whole Sect of Anabaptists are against Paedobaptism , and so far they are to be commended that they approve not of that in others which they are perswaded is unlawful in it self . But here is a sort of Religionists that cry down the Baptising of Children as an empty and childish Ceremony , as void of all Allowance from Scripture , and unreasonable and absurd in it self , and yet the practice of it is not unlawful in the Church . He that hath a Talent of solving Contrarieties , let him use it here , for here is great occasion for it . But this must be said indeed , that * some of the High-fliers among them , who are most consistent with themselves and their own principles , cry out against the Baptising of Children as Anti-Christian , and not to be tolerated by any means in the Christian Church : for truly if it be of that nature which we have heard it represented to be , there is no reason it should be suffer'd any longer . Wherefore those of the Party before mention'd are guilty of a double Irreligion , first in slandering this Sacrament , in prophanely scoffing at this Institution , this Evangelical Rite ordain'd by our Lord himself ; Secondly in allowing the administring of it in the Church , notwithstanding they have thus reproach'd it , and represented it as a thing utterly unlawful . What will the Impious Despisers of Religion , what will the Atheists say to this ? Are they not hereby confirm'd in their dislike and contempt of what is Sacred ? Are they not taught to open their mouths against God and whatever is Religious , and yet ( notwithstanding that ) to make some shew of outward allowing them ? Is not here an Example set them for this purpose , and do we not see it daily followed ? Thus it appears that these men strike at Religion , yea strike it down , and then would pretend to raise it up as it were : but this is only adding Dissimulation to their gross Impiety , which renders their Guilt the greater , and mightily aggravates their Crime . CHAP. VIII . The Socinians deny that there is any Distinct Order of men in the Christian Church . This is disproved from the Evangelical Writings . Though they are for Gather'd Churches , yet they contradict this in their practice . They can give no account of this , and of their censuring other Congregations . Their Indifferency in Religion is inferr'd from their having no Publick Assemblies . As also from their concealing their Names and Persons . Something worse than Cowardize is taken notice of in them . They hold Officious Lies to be lawful . The ground of this Opinion is shewed to be unreasonable . Socinus's Explication of Mat. 5. 28. justly censured . They assert that Immodesty , Intemperance , Wantonness , Impure Desires and Lusts were not forbid under the Law : The Badness of this assertion laid open . They are enemies to the Civil Powers . They will not permit them to punish any Offenders ( no not Murderers ) with death . Herein they oppose themselves to the authority of the Old and New Testament . The reason guess●…d at why they take the Sword out of the Magistrates hand . They condemn all going to War as unchristian and unlawful . HAving dispatch'd Two of the General Heads which I propounded , I pass to the Third , viz. Ecclesiastical Discipline or Government . The Socinians deny that there is any Distinct Order of Men in the Church , to whom it peculiarly and solely belongs to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments . * Socinus indeed grants that one Man may be chosen out of the rest to preach the Word of God , and he sees no reason to the contrary , he saith . But neither he nor his followers admit of any Call or Mission requisite in order to this . The † Racovian Catechism positively determines it so : for though it seems to grant that it is more fitting and decent that professed and set Ministers should perform the publick offices in the Church , and the Primitive Churches they grant observed this , yet they assert that it is not Necessary , because the Scripture doth not require it . * Smalcius expresly maintains this . † Volkelius gives us his judgment in these words , That the Pastor or Minister should dispense to the rest the Supper of the Lord , is wholly an indifferent thing , seeing it is not commanded us by Christ , nor can there be any reason given why it ought to be done at all . It cannot be proved , saith an ‖ Other , that it is lawful for no man to do those things ( which he mention'd just before , viz. preaching , baptizing , administring the Lord's Supper ) unless he be call'd , and sent for that purpose , and he endeavours to prove it by alledging several Arguments . The ** Racovian Catechism hints that the Eucharist may be administred by the hands of Private Christians , and such as are not devoted to the Ministry . And what saith their famous Master ? †† As to the Lord's Supper , there is no reason why we should suspect that it may not be celebrated by any one that professes the Name of Christ. And again , * Any Christian Man may exercise the office of Preaching and administring the Sacraments . And the rest of them agree with him that there is not a necessity of a Distinct Order of persons in the Church , and that a Layman may administer the Sacraments . What their opinion concerning Preaching is , may be learnt from the Racovian † Catechism , which tells us that there is no use of it since the Conversion of the Gentiles , and since Christianity is setled in the world . There is no Necessity of it , saith an ‖ other Friend of theirs . And yet in the Evangelical Writings ( which are the infallible Rule we are to direct our selves by , and whence we are to learn what Ecclesiastical Constitutions are to take place ) we find that the Distinction and Peculiarity of the Ministerial Office , and its Peculiar Function are settled , 1 Cor. 12. 28 , 29. Eph. 4. 11 , 12. A peculiar Mission is expresly required , Rom. 10. 15. 1 Tim. 5. 5. Tit. 1. 5. A Particular Call is made necessary , Acts 14. 23. Heb. 5. 4. Upon which that Article of our Church is grounded , It is * not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of Publick Preaching or Ministring the Sacraments in the Congregation , before he is lawfully call'd and sent to execute the same . But this is disregarded by our New Modellers of Religion . And who could expect any other thing ? for they who have so abused and perverted Christianity it self , would not fail to treat the Ministers of it with contempt and disgrace , yea wholly to make void their Office and Charge . This is a fresh evidence of the truth and reality of what I formely tax'd them with . One thing further I will observe that according to the Socinian Writers there is a † Necessity of openly adhering to some Congregation professing Christ's discipline ; and that Congregation must be such as they think to be purer than the rest . This is the whole design and subject of Socinus's book De Officio hominis Christiani , to shew that they must be of some Church , and particularly of those who were then call'd Arians or Ebionites . That is in plain terms , those who are of the Anti-Trinitarian perswasion must have a Gather'd Church , and there make publick profession of their belief , and openly teach those Doctrines which they are perswaded to be true . And yet I offer it to be taken notice of that though this be profess'd in their Writings to be an Indispensable Point of Religion , &c. yet they regard not the practising of it . None of our English Socinians have any Set Meetings for the propagating of their doctrine , as men of other perswasions have at this day . We cannot but take notice that all Parties who think their Way to be True and Good hold distinct Congregations on the Lord's day , or at other Solemn times , and then make profession of their particular Way and Worship . It is well known that this is the usage and practice of all the different Parties of Religion . They did it even when they had a Prohibition from the Government , but now much more openly when they are not restrained by Publick Authority . But there is not so much as one single Meeting in the way of Religion and Worship upheld by the Socinians , tho it is certain that their way of worship differs from that of all Other Parties , because the very Object of Worship is different , I mean as to their consideration of it , for they look upon our Saviour as a Creature , and no other . Which one thing should make them assemble together in a distinct place and manner from all other Professors of Religion . They should , if they acted according to their own Principles , have a peculiar Church , and openly preach up their Perswasions , and declare against the false and Idolatrous Worship of all Professors of Christianity but themselves , for so it seems they esteem it . Thus , I say , they are obliged to do , if they will be consistent to themselves . They must form an Assembly of their own , and if they want Members , they know where to have them : it is but sending for some more of their brethren in Transylvania , Poland , &c. and so they may be stock'd . I do not see how they can possibly omit the Meeting together as a Church , suppose in London or some other convenient place , for their Principles of Ecclesiastical Government or Discipline oblige them to this . If they say that some Prudential Considerations prevail with them to do otherwise , then it is clear that their Prudence is of such a sort that it outweighs , yea wholly excludes their Duty : and surely men of their Reason and Judgment will not boast much of such a Prudence . Besides , if they pretend Discretion and Prudence for their not Assembling together , then in so doing they tax all the Meetings and Congregations of other Perswasions as herds of Imprudent and Impolitick Men : and whether such a Charge as this savours of Prudence I leave it to themselves to judg . To say the truth , these Gentlemen can be as smart upon the Dissenters ( when they think fit ) as upon Church-men : we are told in the * Trinitarian Scheme of Religion that the former have separated from the Church of England for small and inconsiderable causes . And in an † other of their late Essays they rattle all Dissenters at a high rate , charging them with great inconsistency to themselves and their own principles : and afterwards they call them Wi●…-Worshippers , telling them that their worship is without any warrant of Scripture , either by precept , or so much as one example , nay against the full current of Scripture-Worship . Then they add , their Worship i●… , of their own invention , and soon after they call it , a Popish Invention . Now , one would think that these men who thus condemn all Dissenters , and declare for●… Purer Congregation and Worship than other men , should have Particular and Distinct Assemblies of their own : but they have not , they mix with others , and particularly sometimes with the Churches of the Conformists : yea , some of them have been , and are still professed Members of the Church of England , joyning in that Service ( particularly the Li●…any where the Three Persons of the God-head are invoked , and the Doxology which is so frequently repeated ) wherein the Deity not only of the Father , but of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is publickly professed and owned . Socinus had other thoughts when he endeavour'd to prove that * the people of the kingdom of Poland and of the Great Dutchy of Lithuania ought to joyn themselves to the Assemblies of those that were call'd Arians , that is , those who profess'd Socinus's doctrine . Now , will not any rational and considerate man infer hence that our English Socinians are very cold and unconcerned in their Religion ? for though according to the Scheme of their Church-Government they ought to Meet together in a visible and solemn manner , yet they are so Indifferent that they will not , or so Cowardly that they dare not do it . Which breeds a suspicion of them that they only act a Part , and that at another time they will be at something else . Which appears from this likewise that , tho they under hand manage their Cause , and write in defence of it , yet they conceal their Names and Persons . They are against Mysteries , but they keep in the Clouds , and will not let the world know who they are . This evidently convinces us how Indifferent they are , for if they were verily perswaded that their doctrine is really True , and that it contains in it Substantial and Necessary Points of Faith and Religion , they would not , they could not act thus under a disguise ; but they would be sensible that it is absolutely requisite to discover themselves , and to deal above board , and to be plain and free in their owning of the Cause ; for if they be Verities of Necessary Concern in Religion ( as they sometimes pretend ) then they are worth the Publick owning , and these persons may glory in the defence of them . But we see they dare not ( even in this Juncture when Liberty was allow'd them , and they might safely speak their minds ) appear with open face , and set their Names before their Writings . This shews that they have no true Zeal for their Cause , yea that at the bottom they are but little or not at all concerned . And if they be not deeply concerned for that which is their Darling Point , what can we think of them as to the rest ? But it is not only Cowardize , but something of a worse nature that makes them thus mask themselves . These Knights Errant ( who come not like those of old to do kindnesses to the distressed ) will not vouchsafe to lift up the beavers of their helmets , and let us see who they are , because by this concealment they are abler to do the greater mischief . They lie hid , and publish not their Names , that thereby they may have the advantage of saying what they please , and aspersing whom they will with their audacious pens ; that by this means they may have free liberty to disturb the world , to unsettle men in their Opinions , to beget Disputes and Wranglings , to bring in Scepticism and Indifferency in Religion , and at last Atheism . I could moreover add , under this Third General Head , their unscriptural Notion concerning the Church , viz. that , like other Societies , it may be extinct . Whereas it hath been the constant profession of all Protestants ( as well as those of the Roman Communion ) that the Church of God is perpetual , and shall never be wholly extirpated , these men vouch that there is no necessity of asserting any such thing . So * Volkelius and † Ostorodus : and Smalcius against Frantzius holds the same : and the reason they give is because it is in every man's power to Apostatize and deny the Faith , and consequently it may so happen that there may be no Church in being in the world . As much as to say , God's Word , and his Faithfulness on which it is founded can be superseded by Man's will and pleasure . We are ascertain'd of the contrary from such expres●… and direct Promises as these , God is i●… the midst of her , she shall not be moved , Psal. 46. 5. God will establish her for ever , Psal. 48. 8. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it , Mat. 16. 18. I am with you always even unto the end of the world , Mat. 28. 20. From these and several other plain passages in the Writings of the Old and New Testament it is evident that this is a Truth impregnable , that the True Church of Christ shall never fail , that God's special Providence attends it , that it hath been and shall be preserved in all Ages , and that it shall endure to the World's End. But their contrary perswasion shews us what a mean esteem they have of what is delivered in the Holy Scriptures , and how Indifferent they are as to the duration or extinction of the Church of Christ. Fourthly and Lastly , I come to consider what their Sentiments are in reference to Practice and Morality . But I sincerely declare I intend not here any reflection upon their Persons or Actions , for I am a perfect stranger to them : I know nothing of the Gentlemen but their Books : or if I knew any thing that were a blemish in their Conversation , if I were able to rake up materials to represent them blameable in point of Morals , I should think it an unworthy act so much as to mention it , for those are Weak and Feeble Arguers who make use of such Methods . It is irrational to judg of Opinions from the Personal miscarriages of any men . My business at present is to set before the Reader the thoughts and apprehensions of some of their Chief Writers concerning some Points of Morality . Officious Lies were never forbidden either by Moses or Christ in the Old or New Testament , & consequently are lawful saith * Volkelius . And he adds this reason , because they are profitable to some : as if that would render them Lawful , when the Apostle hath instructed us in the contrary , Rom. 3. 8. We are not to be induced to do evil , that good may come of it . The consideration of Advantage and Profit cannot render that lawful which is otherwise in it self , as all Lying is ; and the reason is because it is a Transgression of the Divine Law. To prove that this Profitable Lying is not unlawful , they alledge Examples out of the Old Testament ; but we may observe that at other times they make nothing of Examples thence , because ( say they ) the Gospel requires of persons greater perfection than the Law did , as their Gloss upon Mat. 5. evidences . But now , though they must not swear at all , yet they may lie , i. e. if it be in an officious and serviceable way , notwithstanding those General Prohibitions of all Lying , Exod. 23. 7. Lev. 19. 11. Prov. 6. 17. 12. 22. 13. 5. Eph. 4. 25. Col. 3. 9. If this Doctrine were generally preach'd ( as it is by these men ) it would have a pernicious effect in the world , and all Lies would be reckon'd some way or other Officious , and Truth and Sincerity would soon leave the earth . I might mention Socinus's Explication of Mat. 5. 28. Whosoever looketh on a Woman to lust after her , hath committed adultery already with her in his heart ; which he restrains to looking on a Married woman , not on any other : and he favourably speaks of the motions of Concupiscence , even when he is discoursing of the Perfection of the Christian Law above that of Moses , which looks very strange . And besides , he strikes in with the Doctors of the Church of Rome who determine Concupiscence to be no Sin. * Some of them hold that Polygamy and Concubinate were not forbid by the Divine Law , whereas the contrary is evident from our Saviours words , Mat. 19. 8. From the beginning it was not so ; for the Institution of God in the beginning was this , They two shall be one flesh , Gen. 2. 24. by which Primitive Law is condemn'd the Plurality of Wives . Bernardinus Ochinus and David George , both of them fierce Anti-Trinitarians , held Polygamy under the Gospel lawful . But I will not make use of their Opinion against the main body of the Anti-Trinitarians , because I verily believe they approve not of it : and some of them have particularly shew'd their dislike and abhorrence of it . What their thoughts are as to some other Acts of Immorality , we may learn from † one of their Writers , God commanded nothing , saith he , at all by Moses that concerns Modesty , Temperance or Sobriety , but granted them leave to seek out pleasures in meat and drink , in apparel and the like . And again , The Law did not forbid unprofitable words , jests , gibes , no nor lying , swearing , railing . This he saith notwithstanding what we read in Prov. 23. 31. Look not thou upon the Wine when it is red , &c. and in Isa. 5. 11. Woe to them that rise up early in the morning to follow strong drink &c. ‖ Socinus himself avers that Drunkenness was not forbid under the Old Testament , nor was it punishable by God on its own account . And ( that you may know what thoughts these men have concerning the Penmen of Holy Scripture ) a * famous Unitarian pronounces thus concerning Ecclesiastes , It is too certain that he doth not only in his way permit those things which belong to the pleasures of the flesh , but he also in a manner exhorts to them . And he further adds in the same place his opinion concerning this and other Writers of the Old Testament , Whatever precepts appertaining to Morality are alledged out of Ecclesiastes and other such like books ( as the Psalms , the Proverbs , &c. ) they indeed belong to the making of a well-moraliz'd and religious man , but no person under the Law was necessarily bound to observe them , nor did he lose the name of a Worshipper of God who observ'd them not . This is the mean and low esteem they have of the Sacred Writings of the Old Testament : it was , according to them , indifferent whether what they enjoyn'd , was observ'd or not : and particularly Sobriety and Moderation were no Set Vertues under the Law. This is the doctrine of an * other of them , Obscene words , saith he , revelling , luxury , excess in eating and drinking mere tolerated , and permitted to the Israelites . And he further adds that the Patriarchs of old , the Jews , and all the people under the Old Testament , sinn'd not in living licentiously , in indulging of all manner of Riot , Gluttony , Drunkenness , Wantonness , Turpitude , all but downright Adultery and Fornication . The Law did not forbid these , for Christ , he saith , was the first that by his law forbad them . Therefore they might indulge themselves in all beastly pleasures of the body , and impure desires and lusts , and all immoderation in eating and drinking , and the greatest provocatives of the most filthy lusts . These are his very words , and it would scarcely be thought that they could fall from the pen of a Writer who professedly treats of the True Religion . But when we consider that it is the Socinian Religion ( whatever he calls it ) which he means , our wonder may cease . And yet it will rise again when we remember what shew of Piety and Exactness in Religion these men make , and would have us believe that they are a perfecter sort of Christians than others . Yet they are not ashamed to give this account of the Religion of the Holy Patriarchs and Saints till the coming of Christ. How high an affront is this to the Divine Majesty , that he should allow and approve of these Impurities and Immoralities ? for this they must necessarily hold because they declare that these were no Sins , nor were they disliked by God , otherwise he would have forbid the practice of them . If I have any understanding in Theology , these are vile notions , and vented to corrupt the minds and manners of men . Though the very law of Nature and Reason forbids these gross Enormities , yet they have the face to assert that they were not Sins under the Law. Under Gentilism they were Vices ( as appears from their being inveighed against by the Pagan Moralists ) but not under the Old Testament . Mens Natural Consciences condemn these flagitious practices , but God doth not . This is the Divinity of the Socinians , and who can expect any Moral Truths from them when they discourse after this manner ? when they vouch the most Immoral actions to have been lawful all the time till our Saviour's coming ? when those very things which were judged to be Vices by the Pagans ( their very natural Reason dictating so much to them ) are said to be Lawful practices among God's own people ? Certainly these mens Notions which are so corrupted as to Natural Religion , must needs be very Unsound as to that which is Reveal'd . If their Ethicks be so depraved , what can we think of their Christianity ? We can think nothing less than this that the former Charge is to be renewed here , and that with very great and apparent reason . To their perswasions referring to Practice I will here annex what they say concerning the Civil Power , and the executing of it . It is true , Sli●…htingius is of opinion that Magistracy is lawful , and he speaks of it with some respect and deference , as you may see in his Questions concerning Magistracy . But others express themselves in a different strain and stile , representing the Civil Powers as unlawful under the Gospel . No Christian can with a good conscience be a Magistrate , saith * Wolzogen . It is not to be tolerated in the kingdom of Christ that one should rule ov●… others , and exercise power and dominion . This he pursues with great warmth . And in an † other place he tells us that the Magistrate's Office is Useless ; which he backs with divers Arguments , and accordingly explodes that Punishing and Rewarding which are generally annex'd to the Magistratick Office. And ‖ again , he asserts and defends that Christ in those words , Mat. 20. 26. It shall not be so among you , &c. condemns all Earthly Dominion and Superiority : and he labours to prove from this place that all Civil Power is utterly forbid under the Gospel . Others indeed are not so rigid and fierce , they do not hold Magistracy to be altogether unlawful and unchristian ; but yet that which is really a great part of it is voted to be so by them , for it belongs not to the Higher Powers , they say , to punish any Offenders with death . * Socinus asserts this without any limitation . It is not lawful in the times of the Gospel for a Magistrate to shed any man's blood , and bereave him of life , saith an † Other . The Magistrate ought not to use any Capital or Deadly Punishment , saith a ‖ third . And a ** fourth designedly undertakes to prove that according to Christ's laws no Malefactors , no not Murderers , are to be punish'd with loss of Life . Would you know the Reason of it ? †† One of the foremention'd Authors assigns it in these words , It is now a time of grace : the most perfect love towards our neighbour is commanded . He that doth not see that it manifestly follows hence that it is not lawful to take away the life of Criminals , that man is blinded by his own flesh , or by the spirit of Antichrist , and 〈◊〉 long accustoming himself to do evil . But if we consult what this Author saith a little before , we shall find that he was blind himself , for he saith , It is not lawful for a Christian Magistrate to shed blood , and to deprive any of life , but by some other ways which are more severe to restrain and punish them . Observe it , he would prescribe a more severe penalty , yet he rejects the other way because it is so severe and harsh , and because the Gospel-dispensation is loving and gentle . If these be not Contradictions , tell me what are . But I will briefly shew that both Socinus and these his followers herein oppose themselves to the Authority of the Holy Scriptures , and the Appointment of the Universal Lawgiver of the world , which is no mean Instance of their Irreligious inclination . That Ancient Law , Gen 9. 6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood , by man shall his blood be shed , is not abrogated , and therefore is still in force . The Magistrate hath here a Commission to put to death persons for Murder . Here is a Divine Warrant for this Bloody Execution . And our Saviour's words have been applied this way by very Judicious Interpreters , They that take the sword , shall perish with the sword , Mat. 26. 52. i. e. they that use the sword unlawfully , they that unjustly shed humane blood , are worthy of Death , and this generally is their portion . St. Paul's words to the Roman Governor , Acts 25. 11. shew plainly that it is lawful for Magistrates to put to death those whose Crimes deserve it . If I be an Offender , saith the Apostle , or have committed any thing worthy of death , I refuse not to die . Both Capital Judicatures and Punishments are authorized by the same Apostle , Rom. 13. 4. where speaking of the Magistrate , he saith , He beareth not the sword in vain , i. e. he beareth it so as strike with it , to do execution with it , when there is occasion . So ridiculous is that Exposition of the place which * One of the Socinian Writers gives , viz. It is said , He bears the sword , but yet he must not use it . It is evident from this Text ( as well as from those before mention'd ) that God himself hath put this Weapon into the Magistrate's hand , and why then should any presume to disarm him ? I acknowledge a Christian Ruler ought to be very Cautious and Tender in the point of mens Lives , and perhaps it would be better to be sparing of them in some cases , where generally according to the Laws , as they are now in force , there is a forfeiture of Life . It was very rare heretofore among our Ancestors to inflict death for some of those Crimes which now are made Capital . The Executioner had not so much work when Banishment and Confiscations were more in use . But it is certain that there are such flagitious enormities , such heinous and detestable villanies as require no less a recompence than Death it self . Especially in the case of Blood-shedding a Retaliation is due , for blood calls for blood . This fatal Retribution is founded not only on the foremention'd Positive Law given to the Patriarchs , and never since repeal'd , and also on the Allowance of the New Testament ( as you have heard ) but on the Common Law of Equity and justice . Wherefore the Magistrate hath authority , when publick Justice and Necessity require it , to take away mens lives . Which our Church thought fit to make * one of her Articles . The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian Men with death for heinous and grievous offences . Nay , the Publick Ministers of Justice are so far from offending in doing this , that they are extraordinarily guilty if they omit it , especially if they suffer Murderers to go thus unpunish'd , for blood-shed is the way by Gods appointment for the avenging of willful homicide and murder . I mention these things that we may see how injurious the Unitarians are both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Ministers . They not only null the function and Jurisdiction of the former ( as I shew'd you ) but they rob the latter of a great and considerable part of their Office. They will not allow them a power to punish Offenders , especially Capitally . With the Donatists of old and some Anabaptists afterwards they agree to defend this Proposition , that no man ought to be put to death , let his Crime be never so black and bloody : they hold that the Effusion of humane blood is in all cases unlawful . They had this immediately from the Italian Innovator , who knew it would serve his followers to very considerable purposes . For it was convenient to begin first with the Magistrate , l●…st he should have begun with them . They take away his Punitive Power , and then they know he can't hurt them . They are against all Capital Inflictions , lest they should tast of them themselves . The design of these Opposers of Magistracy is that they may have a Licence to vent what Doctrines they please , that they may even expel out of the world some of the Fundamental Truths which have been embraced in all ages of the Church . It is to be fear'd that the design at the bottom is that all Magistrates should throw away their Swords , divest themselves of their power to Punish , that hereby there may be a Liberty to do what they please ; and then at last it is likely they will usurp the Sword , and take upon them that Office which they denied to the Magistate . Though they despoil the Praetor of his Axe as well as Rods , yet they will make use of them themselves . Here I might let you see likewise that it is their opinion that * it is not lawful for a Christian Man to go to war. Thus their Great Casuist determines , and in † other places he saith We may not repel force with force by taking up Arms , though we are justly assaulted . And he is back'd by * Smalcius , who peremptorily asserts the same . But I believe the Reader would think it loss of time to insist here , and to shew the unreasonableness of this Opinion , and therefore I dismiss it . CHAP. IX . The Socinians agree with the Papists in the doctrine of Evangelical Counsels , and several other Tenents . The Author 's designed Brevity . The Socinian Creed summ'd up , and faithfully represented in its several Articles . An Objection Answered . Another Objection more particularly and distinctly answer'd . THUS I have gone through the Several Particulars and Members which make up the Body of Socinianism : and I have now only this further to adjoyn , that both as to some of the Instances before mention'd , and as to one or two which I have not yet taken notice of , they apparently symbolize with the Papists . They joyn hands with them in asserting Evangelical Counsels , as we may satisfie our selves from what their Great Doctor and Dictator saith on Mat. 5. 43 , 44. It is true , in his Explication of v. 17. of that Chapter he rejects the Popish Distinction of Precepts and Counsels , as it is there on that occasion applied . But behold his shifting ! In this place he makes out his Opinion by using that Distinction , only he disguises it under the term of Monitions , instead of Counsels . He holds that of Solomon , Prov. 25. 21. If thine enemy be hungry , give him bread to eat , &c. to be of this sort ; it is an Advice which we may follow , or not , as we please : it is not a Command , no man is enjoyn'd to do this . But after this rate any of the Plain Commands in Holy Scripture may be evaded , for we may alledg this which Socinus here starts that though the words are propounded in the way of a Precept , yet they have not the force of one , but only are Admonitions or Counsels , which a man may observe if he thinks fit , else not . And so in other Particulars I have hinted their Correspondence with Rome , as in their vilifying of the Scriptures , and holding them to be Corrupted : likewise in their notion of Divine Worship , which they say is not proper and peculiar to God ; the Papists excuse the Worship which is paid by them to Angels and Saints by alledging that this Honour may be communicated to others besides the Deity ; and so doth Socinus stiffly maintain that this Divine Honour is not appropriated to him that is by nature God. Both parties agree in the doctrines of Merit and Perfection . Both accord in this likewise that the Magistrate must not meddle with the Church , that he hath no Authority to punish Offenders in point of Religion . Moreover , they agree in the distinction of Venial and Mortal Sins . See Crellius , Eth. l. c. 5. and Volkelius , l. 4. c. 23. * Smalcius peremptorily asserts that those are Venial Sins which do not merit eternal death , and that there are such sins . But the rest only say God hath not constituted Eternal Punishment as the just recompence of all Sins . † Volkelius's express words are , Venial Sins are those for which God hath not appointed the penalty of eternal death , so that of themselves they deprive no man of eternal life . But this contradicts the Apostle , who speaks without any reserve and limitation , The wages of sin is death , Rom. 6. 23. And you may be satisfied that even Eternal Death is included in that general term , for death in this former clause of the verse is directly oppos'd to eternal life in the latter one . That they symbolize in the doctrine of Praying for the dead may be gather'd from what a Great Man among them saith , * It is no wonder that those who believe no middle state of the dead , pray not for them . But those that believe this , do well in praying for them . He adds , There is a much more certain succour and aid in the prayers of the living for the dead , than in the prayers of the dead for the living . They affect the way of the Church of Rome in the manner of excusing their worshiping the Son of God , although they hold him not to be God , but a Creature : for as the Romanists palliate their Idolatrous Worship in praying to Saints and Angels , &c. by saying that this Adoration is paid ultimately to God himself , so not only the Old but the New Socinians use the same language , telling us that * the worshiping of the Son is not terminated in him as its utmost scope , but passes by and through him to the Father . Lastly , I might add that the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity speaks favourably of Transubstantiation . All these things evidence that there is no such great gulf fixed between the Papists and Socinians but that they can hold commerce with one another , and in time , if there be occasion , come closer together . I charge not these latter with any formed intentions of promoting the Roman Cause ; but they may be Factors for Rome , though perhaps they know it not . However , I desire it may be consider'd how Inconsistent these men are when they make a shew sometimes of being great Enemies to the Roman Religion , and yet at other times abet and befriend it . Would not a Thinking Man be induced to believe that they are at the bottom Favourers of the Pontifician Interest ? Lastly , I appeal to any considerate man whether this be not more probable than what the Socinians charge the Trinitarians with , viz. that * they are the Causes and Occasions of those Errors and Heresies which compose the gross body of Popery . Thus I have offer'd a Brief Scheme of the Anti-Trinitarian and Socinian Doctrines . These things might have been further enlarged upon , but I was willing to bring all into a narrow compass , for the sake of the Meanest Readers , such as have not time and leisure to peruse Great Volumes , or are not able to purchase them . I hear that there is a Reverend and Worthy Person of my Name , of the University of Oxford , who hath undertaken to give a Larger Account of matters referring to this subject ; but for my own part , I purposely design'd Brevity , for the reasons aforesaid , and because I have other work of Greater Importance upon my hands ; for though the handling of the foregoing Points be of great use ( otherwise I should not have employ'd my self about them ) yet I give Practical Theology the precedence to them . That the Reader may have a Summary View together of all the preceding doctrines of the Socinians , I will be yet briefer , and couch the whole in a Narrower Draught , which you may call , if you please , the Creed of a Socinian . It may be drawn up in this Form and Manner : I believe concerning the Scripture that there are Errors , Mistakes and Contradictions in some places of it : that the Authority of some of its books is questionable , yea that the Whole Bible hath been tamper'd with , and may be suspected to be Corrupted . I believe concerning God that he is not a Spirit , properly speaking , i. e. Immaterial and Incorporeal , but that he is such another sort of Body as Air or Ether is : that he is not Immense and Infinite , and every where Present , but is confined to certain places : that he hath no Knowledg of such future events as depend on the free will of man , and that it is impossible that these things should be foreknown by him : that there is a Succession in God's Eternal Duration as well as there is in Time , which is the measure of that Duration which belongs to Finite beings . I believe further concerning God , that there is no distinction of Persons or Subsistencies in him , and that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God , the former of these being only a Man , and the latter no other than the Power or Operation of God : that there was nothing of Merit in what Christ did or suffer'd ; that therefore he could not make Satisfaction for the sins of the world : and the contrary Assertion is deceitful , erroneous and pernicious . I believe concerning the First Man that he was not created in a state of Uprightness , that the Image of God in which he was made , consisted not in Righteousness and Holiness , and consequently that he did not lose these by his Fall , for he could not lose what he had not : that Adam's Posterity have receiv'd no hurt , have had no stain or blemish derived to them by his Apostacy , and the contrary Opinion is a fable , a dream , a fiction of Antichrist : that Mankind ( having receiv'd no damage by the fall of our First Parents ) have still an ability by nature to desire and imbrace all Spiritual Good , and to avoid all that is Sinful and Vitious : that therefore there is no need of the help of the Holy Spirit , and that men may believe and repent and perform all religious acts without his operation and influence ( yea indeed the Spirit is but an Operation it self : ) that men are counted righteous before God , not for the Merit of Christ Jesus ( for he had no Merit ) but for their own good works . I believe concerning the Future State that the Souls of the deceas'd have no knowledg , no perception of any thing , they are not sensible of any rewards or pains , neither are they capable of feeling them , so that in a manner they may be said not to Exist , for their life , activity and sensibleness are vanish'd , and their very Nature is absorpt . I believe that we shall not rise with the Same Bodies , which we have now , at the last day , but that another Matter or Substance shall be substituted in their place . I believe that men shall not at the day of Judgment be required to give an Account of their actions : the most Flagitious Sinners shall not be Examined concerning any thing of their past life , they shall not be Tried or Judged . Only they shall be Punished , and their Punishment is this , To utterly eease and perish for ever : the Unquenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation . I believe , as to Christianity it self , that every thing in it is to be submitted to the dictates of Humane Reason , and what cannot be explain'd and made out by this is no part of the Christian Religion : and consequently that there are no doctrines appertaining to it which are Mysterious and Superiour to our Reason . I believe , as to Divine Worship , that it may be given to another besides God , that a Creature may ( if God thinks fit ) be the object of Adoration , and consequently Christ ( who is but a Creature ) may be worship'd with Divine Worship , even the same that is paid to God the Father . I believe that Prayer ( as eminent an act of Worship as it is ) was not required in the Old Testament , for God's people had no need of Praying then , they were able to do all that was commanded them in their Religion without the Divine Assistance , and therefore the Invoking of God became not a Duty till Christ's time . I believe the Lord's day ( commonly so call'd ) is a Ceremonious Observance , and abolish'd by the Gospel , which takes away all Choice of Days . I believe that there is no Spiritual Blessing convey'd or conferr'd in the use of the Sacraments ; and particularly that Baptism is an useless Rite which the Christian Church under the Gospel hath nothing to do with , but more especially the Baptizing of Children is insignificant , vain and childish , and hath neither Precept nor Example to commend it to us . I believe there is no Distinct Function or Office of Ministers in the Christian Church , and that the Lord's Supper it self may be administred by any private Christian or Brother . As to Moral Points I believe that Officious Lies are lawful , that the Motions of Concupiscence are not Vitious , that idle or obscene words , gluttony , drunkenness , riot , luxury , and all impure desires and lusts were not forbidden till Christ's time , and consequently were no Sins . I believe , concerning Magistrates , that they have no power of Life and Death , it is not lawful for them now under the Gospel to inflict Capital Punishments on any Offenders or Malefactors , no not Murderers and Cut-throats . Concerning some other Articles , I believe as the Church believes , I mean the Church of Rome , for we symbolize with them in several points of doctrine . Lastly , after all I believe that though the foresaid Articles are necessary to make a man a Socinian , yet the belief of only One is enough to make a Man a Christian : and that One Article is , that Jesus is the Messias ; in which it is not included whether he be God or Man , whether he satisfied the Divine Justice for our sins , and by vertue of his Death purchas'd Life for us . But when I say , I believe Jesus is the Messiah , I mean only this that such a Man of Nazareth was Anointed , Ordain'd , and Sent of God to be a Saviour , and that this is He who was foretold and promis'd to be sent by God. This is all I believe , and there is no Necessity of believing any thing more . This is the Socinian Creed , and I have faithfully drawn it up out of their own Admired and Applauded Writers . I know it will be said here that some besides professed Socinians hold some of these things . To which I answer , I made it not my present business to observe what Others say , but to represent what that body of men , who are known by the name of Socinians , profess and own . Again , it is not one of these Opinions alone ( excepting that concerning the Blessed Trinity ) which can give the denomination of Socinian : it is the Complication of them that must do it . Therefore Iinsist not on any one Single Opinion of lesser importance . Those that bear upon them the General and Complex Characters which I have layd down in the preceding Discourse are the Persons that I design'd . In short , I write not ( and never will by God's assistance ) to humour and gratifie any Party of Men , but to assert and vindicate the Truth , which is pleasing to all Good Men. And therefore if any sort of persons shall censure my freedom , I shall have recourse to my own Innocence and Integrity , that is , my hearty designs and indeavours to advance that Cause which I verily believe hath Truth on its side , because it hath the Scriptures on its side . If they shall say ( and what will they not say ) ? that the English Socinians give not their suffrage to all these Particulars , which I have produced and named , and therefore my Charge against the Foreigners doth not reach them , I desire these following things may be considered , and then this Evasion will be found to be very weak and useless , and nothing to their purpose : and it will appear that this Scheme of Socinianism belongs to them as well as to the rest . First , we are not sure that some of those who go under the name of English Socinians are not Foreigners . Is not Crellius's Stock somewhere harbour'd among them ? Have there not been seen strange Outlandish Books at the Press of late ? May we not suspect some Transylvanians and Polanders employ'd in the work lately ? Are we not sure that there are some Irish as well as English ingaged in the service ? Why then are we nice in distinguishing , when they are not differenc'd as to their work and design ? Secondly , as for our very English and Native Socinians , they borrow'd their Opinions from those Foreigners , they fetch'd them from those Writers , and they maintain them by the same Arguments that they did . They use the very same Texts , and urge them after the same manner : they follow them step by step , vouch their Reasonings , applaud their Discoursings ; only they dress up their notions in an English garb , and give them a more Modish Turn than they had before . That 's all the difference between those Authors and these of late in England . Thirdly , though some of the Moderns are so politick as to be silent about some of the Points that I have mention'd , yet we have no reason to gather thence that they are not inclin'd to imbrace them . It is a remarkable hint of a very * Observing Person , There is reason to suspect ( saith he ) that the Socinians have some other odd Tenents ; which they think fit rather to conceal than to deny . For we must consider this , that they would first gain their Main Point , the overthrow of the Trinity , and all the Maxims that relate to that . This is the Leading Card with them , and therefore they chiefly insist on this , intending ( we may suppose ) to urge the rest afterwards . For it would be too much to undertake at one time to defend all the other doctrines . And besides , it would be too odious to reject so many receiv'd Propositions at once . Therefore they go not this way to work , lest they should be universally cried down . It is their cunning to proceed gradually , and to undermine Christianity by steps . That is the reason they have not in their Writings touch'd upon some of the foresaid Opinions . But it is not to be question'd but that they have a good esteem of them , and will in time ( when they have dispatch'd their Main Business ) betake themselves to the hearty defence of them . But , fourthly , if I were to give a Scheme of the Roman or Popish Religion , should I not discharge that Province sufficiently if I gave a true account of it from the Writings of the generality of Divines of that Communion and Profession in other Countries , though I had not consulted every individual Papist in England about the Points ? Yes surely . And so it is here , Socinianism was not begot in Britain , it is of Foreign Breed , and therefore the Writings of those Foreigners who were profess'd Socinians are to be consulted and produced when we are to give a True Pourtraiture of Socinianism , and accordingly this Method I have taken . It was not necessary to ask every Little Pretender or Retainer to it in every corner of this Countrey whether he was exactly of the same Cut with the Outlandish Writers in every thing , as if Socinianism were to be measured altogether by their sentiments and perswasions . No : Socinianism is not to be defined by what one or two Upstart Writers dictate : this , as Popery , is to be judged and estimated according to the Generality of the persons that profess it . And that is it which I have been doing , I have been giving an estimation of it according to the Greatest Numbers of those who own themselves to be Socinians . In this I have dealt fairly , and no man can blame me for it . Nay , fifthly , I have decipher'd Socinianism not only according to the judgment of the Most who own and profess it , but of the Chiefest and Learnedest . I have not only brought upon the Stage the Opinions which are held by the Main Body of them , but I have consulted the Choicest Writers on the several subjects . There are other Socinian Writers , whom I have not mention'd , as Goslavius , Voidovius , Gittichius , &c. but I chose out those that are renowned among them . I could have produced the Assertions which are to be found in Servetus , Valentinus Gentilis , Bernardinus Ochinus , Franciscus Davidis , Sommerus , Georgius Blandrata , who made way for the reception of Socinus's doctrine against the Holy Trinity . I could have quoted a later Author , one Pr●…ovius who in his * Writings hath said something concerning most of the Points before mentioned . Yea , this Volume of his is order'd by the Party to be adjoyn'd to the Bibliotheca Patrum Polonorum . And besides , the Reprinting of it in the year 1692 shews that it is Authentick among the Modern Socinians . But I have omitted this Polonian Knight ( for such they tell us he was ) he being not so well known to the world as the rest that I have named . I chose rather to make use of those Names which are of general Repute and Credit among the Unitarians , and whose Writings they have a great and universal regard for , so great and universal that they take all they say from them . If I had always listned to the Majority of Voices , to only what the Biggest part of them say , ( though that were sufficient ) it is likely they would have blamed me : but now seeing I have likewise attended to the determination of those who are reckon'd the most Eminent among them , I 'm sure they can have nothing to object against me . They must not think to shuffle us off by saying the Foreign and English Unitarians are not the same , for you see that these latter are included in the former , and both of them make up One Body of Men who are known by the name of Socinians , and who are all of them profess'd and sworn Opposers of the Sacred Trinity . Thus , I suppose , I have fully answer'd what was Objected , and it is manifest that our own Countreymen no less than Foreigners are concern'd in the Character which I have given of these men . CHAP. X. The Author concludes with Inferences from the whole , viz. 1. Socinianism is a Complication of Old and New Errors . Quakers and Muggletonians sprang thence . 2. It is strange boldness in the Socinians to pretend to ground their Opinions on Scripture . 3. What hath been said gives us a right Idea of these persons . It appears they are no Christians : but great favourers of Judaism and Turcism , especially of the latter . 4. We must entertain none of their Principles . 5. We are to take notice of the tendency of them to Irreligion and Atheism . Socinians and Atheists at this day friendly agree . Yet the former have the confidence to charge the Trinitarians with Idolatry and Atheism . The Author writes nothing in way of Recrimination , but from a sense of the Reality of the things themselves . He appeals to the judgment of the Sober and Religious . He thinks not himself concern'd to take notice of every scurrilous or trifling Opponent . NOw from the whole I will make some brief Remarks and Reflections , and so conclude . First , see how faulty , how erroneous , how dangerous , how pernicious the Theology of the Socinians is . It fails not in one or two Points only , but in a vast number , as I have let you see . It is patch'd up of several different Opinions fetch'd from sundry quarters , it is a Fardle of mix'd and disagreeing Notions , it is a Nest of Heterodoxies , a Gallimafrey of Old and New Errors , a Medley of Heresies taken from Ebion and Cerint●…us , the Sabellians , Samosatenians , Arians , Photinians , Macedonians , who corrupted the doctrine of the Holy Trinity . They joyn with Jews , Pagans and Mahometans in disowning and denying this Great Mystery of Religion . Other false opinions they have borrow'd from the Pelagians , ( a sort of Antient Hereticks ) concerning Adam's fall , and the Effect of it , and man's Natural strength and ability in spiritual matters : so that these men deal in Brokers ware , Old Opinions trimmed up anew . Again , They comply with the Papists ( as I have shew'd ) in several of their sentiments and perswasions : and if there be any Idolatry in the Church of Rome , it is certain the Socinians cannot clear themselves of that crime . They tread in the steps of the Old Sadducees , and of the Epicureans , and of several Antient and Modern Libertines about the nature of Spirits , of Separate Souls , of the Resurrection of humane bodies , of the Last Judgment , and of Hell. They espouse the cause of Anabaptists , they follow those Enthusiasts who disallow of the solemnizing of any special Time , particularly the Lord's day , who disbelieve the benefit and use of the Sacraments , and deride the Office and Call of Ministers in the Church . It is observable that in their late Pamphlets they with great rudeness and incivility speak of Preaching . In one place , I remember School-boys and Preachers Rhetorick are joyn'd together by them : and in five or six other places they have a fling at the Pulpit , which they mention with great disdain . It seems the Profess'd Instructors of the people are very much out of their favour . They laugh at the Orthodox ( as they call them ) for thundring it from their Pulpits , that matters of Faith are above Reason . So the Letter to the Clergy of both Universities , chap. 10. And those that will not reject the Trinity and other doctrines exploded by the Socinians are Priest-ridden . Letter of Resolution , p. 19. They adhere to other Enthusiastick Spirits as to their mistaken conceits concerning Magistracy and the Secular Sword. They perfectly accord with the Quakers in their opinions about the Trinity , Christ's Satisfaction , Original Corruption , concerning the Ministerial Function and Mission , concerning Infant-Baptism , the Observation of the Christian Sabbath , going to War , &c. So that any considerate man may observe that Quakerism is the spawn of Socinianism . Nay , they seem to have given rise to the wild Sect of Muggletonians , who from them have learnt to hold but One Person in the Godhead , viz. God the Father , and to call the Trinity or a God of Three Persons ( as they speak ) a Monster ( as our Gentlemen are pleas'd also to express themselves . ) They have been taught from them to renounce the Power of the Christian Magistrate , and the Office of a Christian Minister : they are instructed by them in their Tenents concerning the Spirits or Souls of men , viz. that they can't act without the body , and that therefore they are extinct as soon as they are separated from it . They are the very words of this late Party , and they are taken from the Racovians . An other detachment is that the Bodies of the deceased , wherein they lived and died , shall not rise again , shall not appear any more . This is their language : whence it is evident that Reeve and Muggleton suck'd their Principle from Faustus Socinus and his Adherents . And thus you see that as the Socinians borrow from several Sects , so they set up others : they receive and distribute Poison , and thereby doubly endanger mankind . Lastly , it is apparent that they borrow from Deists and Atheists , and thereby yet further bring mischief upon the world . And from the whole it is evident that these persons are corrupted not only in some matters of lesser moment , but in those that are of the highest concern : not only in merely Speculative doctrines , but such as immediately relate to Practise : not only in some Principles that respect the Circumstances of Christianity , but in those that are Substantial and Fundamental , those that are of the very Essence of the Christian Faith. Let this be seriously thought of , that we may have a true apprehension of the mischief of Socinianism . Secondly , Observe the strange boldness , as well as falshood , of these men . They are often in their Writings insinuating into their Readers that they build all their Assertions on the Scriptures , and thence they require their assent to what they deliver . But from the several Particulars which I have insisted upon it is clear that they have no ground to require or claim it upon that account , for I have manifestly discover'd the opposition of their Tenents to the plain dictates of the Holy Spirit in the Bible . There they are condemned as spurious and adulterate Notions , there they are rejected as Pernicious and Poisonous doctrines . And yet they have the confidence to ground these on the authority of the Inspired Writings , the Sacred Oracles of Truth , yea * One of them tells the world that he was brought to these Perswasions by reading the Scripture ; that hereby they may the more effectually impose upon the minds of men , who they think will be ready to attend to that which they pretend is bottom'd on the Word of God. Thirdly , These things which have been suggested may be serviceable to give us a Right Idea of the persons I have been dealing with . Surely those who have thus mangled and abused Religion , cannot be thought to have a Good Intention in the work which they are about at this day , yea they must be thought to have a very Bad one . We may argue thus , It is no wonder that they that pervert and deprave so many doctrines of Religion , do more especially enervate the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity . If it were only on the account of all their other wild notions , we might have reason to suspect , yea to condemn their blasphemous Opinion concerning our Lord Jesus Christ , viz. their flat denial of his Godhead , and of his Satisfaction , &c. It is not to be marvel'd at that they proceed thus far , having done so much besides , having in other Points of Christianity shew'd what a faculty they have of perverting and distorting the Truths of the Gospel . What I have said therefore will be useful to enlighten the Reader , that he may understand what manner of persons these are ; that ( to speak plainly ) he may be convinced that they are no Christians . Whatever pretences they make to that Title , it is impossible they should with reason lay claim to it , for they neither are baptised into the Christian Faith , nor do they make Profession of it , as you have heard : but on the contrary they subvert Christianity it self , and deny the Divine Author of it . How then can these men challenge the name of Christians ? Nay , I could observe that they industriously comply with Jews and Turks , in opposition to and defiance of all Sober Christians . To gratifie the former , they think fit to renounce the avowed Principles of the latter . Herein they follow their Old Friend Servetus , who had convers'd a long time with Jews and Mahometans , and had espoused many of their Opinions , and was a great Admirer of them . Especially he declar'd his approbation of the Alcoran , and thought it reconcileable with the New Testament , if the doctrine of the Trinity were laid aside . It is often mention'd by Socinus and other Racovian Writers that this doctrine and that of the Incarnation hinders Jews and Turks from embracing the Christian Religion . And even the * late Socinian Penmen in their New Tractates talk much of this , that the doctrine of the Trinity puts a stop to the conversion of Jews , Mahometans , and Heathens : and thereupon they are very earnest with their Readers to abandon this Great Point of Christianity , in mere complacency with those Infidels . And more particularly it is observable how favourably they speak of Mahometism or Turcism : they profess themselves forward to believe that * Mahomet had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet , but to restore the belief of the Unity of God , which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation . Mahomet meant not his Religion should be esteemed a New Religion , but only the Restitution of the true Intent of the Christian Religion . Therefore the Mahometan Learned men call themselves the True Disciples of the Messias . They further ( in the same place ) insinuate their approbation of the Mahometan Religion above that of Christianity , they magnifie the Alcoran , and the more plausible Sect of Mahomet , as the Saracens call'd it ; and at the same time they represent the Modern Christianity ( which professes the doctrines of Christ's Incarnation and the Trinity ) no better or other than a sort of Paganism and Heathenism . These are their very terms , P. 19. and they are answerable to what was said by them before , viz. that the Trinitarian doctrines are of Heathen descent and original , P. 15. and afterwards ( to vary the phrase ) of Paganick Extraction , P. 16. I appeal now to the Reader whether this be not right Sclavonian , whether it be not the very language and dialect of the Polonian Divines ; which shews that these are identified with the English Unitarians as to this matter ; and at the same time it yields us a true Pourtraiture of the persons I have been representing to the Reader . Fourthly , we should be very careful that we entertain none of their foresaid Opinions . I question not but the Reader would have made this Inference , though I had not . But this I request of him , that he would out of Choice and Judgment do this , as being throughly apprehensive of that Evil and Danger which attend those Principles . For this purpose I have display'd them , and I hope that Special Hand of Providence ( for I cannot but acknowledg it as such ) which directed me to it , will back it with a Blessing . Fifthly and lastly , see the tendency of the Unitarians , and of the whole mass of the Socinian Points to Atheism . They vilifie the Scipture , they adulterate the true Meaning of it , they introduce unbecoming sentiments concerning God and Religion , they decry the great and necessary Truths of the Gospel , they baffle the apprehensions which we ought to have of a Future State : and what doth all this drive at but the undermining of Religion , yea and Divinity it self ? So fitly was this Question inserted by a * Learned Man , above sixty years ago , among his other Enquiries at the end of his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History , Whether Socinianism be not an Introduction to Atheism ? So truly was it said lately by an Observing Pen , † In several respects our Socinians seem to be serving the designs of the Atheists . I wish the Christian world would open their eyes , and see this betimes , and thereby prevent the unexpressible Danger which otherwise will unavoidably follow . I offer it to be taken notice of that the Socinian and Atheistical party joyn hand in hand at this time , and agree together in a very friendly manner to laugh at and defie the Fundamental Principles of Religion . Such a Reflection methinks should be dismal to those of the Modern Penmen of the Socinian Perswasion who are sober and considerate . They write ( whether they know it or no ) to please and humour the Wild Gallants , those in city and countrey that are of Lewd Principles , or of none at all . Nothing is more evident at this day than that the Socinian Writings are highly acceptable to those that espouse the Cause of Atheism , to the profes●…edly Prophane and Irreligious . These are the men that applaud them , and cry them up , and think they are fraught with great Wit , Argument and Reason . I appeal to Impartial Judges whether this doth not shew the near Affinity , if not Identity between these persons and those I am mentioning . He that doth not see this , sees nothing . To conclude , if what I have said sound harsh in these Gentlemens ears , I request them to call to mind how severe they have been in censuring the Trinitarians , and particularly in charging them with Idolatry . Though Slichtingius and one or two more are unwilling to say in express terms that we are Idolaters , yet both he and all the party assert that which is equivalent , for they say we worship a mere Figment , a Fancy of our own ( for so they blasphemously stile the Holy Trinity ) we set up an Idol of our own brain for an object of Divine Worship . But our Home-bred Unitarians are yet bolder , and speak it out without any mincing that * the Trinitarians are Idolaters , and Pagans , and much worse , and this they often inculcate . But certainly , to tax us with Idolatry when they themselves professedly worship a Creature ( as hath been observ'd before ) is the wildest Conceit that ever enter'd into any man's head : the Boldness , Inconsistency and Non-sense of it are so great that we can't sufficiently stand amazed at it . Nay , not only Idolatry but Atheism is laid to our charge . I find that † Servetus calls the Trinitarians Atheists very frequently . And even the Modern Unitarians in their late writings expresly fix this Crime upon them , for their words are these concerning the doctrine of the Trinity , ‖ By its natural absurdity and impossibility it did not only at first give a check and stop to the progress of the Gospel , but ever since it hath served to propagate Deism and Atheism . The doctrine it self cannot do this without its being urged and managed by those that assert it : therefore it is as much as if they had said , Those who defend the Trinity propagate Atheism . Now , it will not be denied , I think , that those who propagate Atheism are Atheists . Wherefore according to these men a Trinitarian is an Atheist . In an * other place they say , he may be justly suspected of Atheism , and they mention on what account . Others of them tell us that † Whatever Zeal the Trinitarians may pretend to have for Religion , they take the right way to make men Scepticks and Atheists . And the last man that wrote in defence of the Socinian Cause complains of us , that ‖ we make that a Fundamental of Religion which contradicts the best reasonings of mankind whereby they prove the existence of God. — Thence loose men deny there is any God at all . Thus you see what the Socinian Charge is against us . Whence you may perceive that Mine is but a Counter-Charge , and therefore they have no reason to find fault with the foregoing Retaliation , especially when with the utmost Sincerity I declare that my Charge against them was not founded upon theirs , or occasion'd by it , for it was since the time that I drew up mine against them that I found this Accusation in some of their Papers . Which may convince any unprejudiced person that what I have said with reference to the Anti-Trinitarians is not in way of Recrimination , for I did not know that their Writings had any thing of that nature against those that defend the Trinity . But it was and is from a sense and perswasion of the truth of the thing it self , and that alone that I have , and do at present thus tax them , and turn their Obloquy upon themselves . And truly I have done it with a sensible compassion all the while , for I cannot rejoyce ( as some seem to do ) at finding an occasion of Censuring and Blaming others . I submit what I have said to the Consciences of all Sober , Faithful and Judicious Men , all Sincere Lovers of God and Religion . Let these judg between us and our Adversaries . And now , to shut up all , if any one with calmness and sobriety , laying aside all levity and scurrility , all artifice and sophistry , shall offer any thing as substantial in way of Reply to what I have said , I shall not be backward to meet him with a Rejoynder . Otherwise I shall not think my self concern'd to attend to what he saith . If he appears like a Generous Man of War , I will engage him : but if I see him come on in a Privateering way , I tell him before hand , I will make off from him . I will not refuse to encounter any Fair Adversary , but if any man shall make it his business to cavil and raise trifling Objections against what I have said , I will take no other notice of him than to despise him . He must not think that I will throw away my Time and Arguments upon every Squib that is flirted . I have something else to do than to mind the wagging of every Goose-quill . In a word , I think not my self obliged to write a Vindication every time a Perverse Scribler will be dashing Ink against me . A POSTSCRIPT : BEING Brief Reflections On a late Book Entituled , [ A short Discourse of the True Knowledge of Christ Jesus , With Animadversions on Mr. Edwards 's Reflections on the Reasonableness of Christianity , and on his book entituled , Socinianism Unmask'd . By S. Bold , Rector of Steeple , Dorset . ] REFLECTIONS ON Mr. Bold's SERMON . WHEN half of the sheets of my foregoing Discourse were printed off , my Bookseller sent me a little Piece with Mr. Bold's name to it : but I presently cast my eye upon the bottom of the Title-page , and there saw that these Papers came from the lower end of Pater-Noster-Row , and thence I gather'd who had a hand in them . I found that the Manager of the Reasonableness of Christianity had prevailed with a Gentleman to make a Sermon ( I thank him for doing me that honour ) upon my Refutation of that Treatise and the Vindication of it . Indeed it was a great Master-piece of Procuration , and we can't but think that that Man must speak the Truth , and defend it very impartially and substantially who is thus brought on to undertake the Cause . But truly I am exceedingly oblig'd to the Penman for the course he hath taken , for he hath saved me the labour of a Formal Confutation in Mode and Figure , he having himself contradicted the very Proposition which he lays down , viz. that there is but One Point or Article necessary to be believ'd for the making a Man a Christian. This he pretends to maintain as an undeniable Truth , and yet he declares that Other Points are necessary to be believ'd . Serm. page 32. And again , There are Many Points ( besides this ) which Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed , and which every sincere Christian is indispensably oblig'd to endeavour to understand . p. 29. And afterwards , There are particular Points and Articles , which , being known to be reveal'd by Christ , Christians must indispensably assent to . p. 33. And he reckons up several of these Articles and Propositions , which are the very same which I had mention'd in my * Discourses against the Conceit of One Article . Now , if there be Other Points and Particular Articles , and those Many , which a sincere Christian is obliged , and that necessarily and indispensably to understand and believe and assent to , then this Writer doth in effect yield to that Proposition which I maintain'd , viz. that the belief of One Article is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian , and consequently he runs counter to the Proposition which he had laid down . For I bring the business to this issue , If the believing of one single Article be enough to constitute a Man a Christian , yea a Sincere Christian , then the belief of something more is not Necessary and Indispensable , for though the knowing or believing of more may be some ornament and embelishment to him , yet it can't be said that it is Necessary and Indispensable , because nothing is so in Christianity but what contributes to the making a Man a Christian , a Sincere Christian. Wherefore it undeniably follows that when this Gentleman acknowledges that there are More Articles , than this One , proposed to be believ'd , and that Necessarily and Indispensably , he must needs grant that those Articles , which are thus necessary and indispensable , are necessary to make a Man a Christian , and consequently the assenting to that Single Article Jesus is the Messias , doth not constitute a man a Member of Christ , or a True Christian. For if More Propositions and Articles are Necessary , Indispensably Necessary , then that One is not sufficient . This is a plain case , and none but such as are master'd with Prejudice can possibly resist the evidence of it . He goes on still to confute himself , saying , A True Christian must assent unto this , that Christ Jesus is God , p. 35. Observe it , he MUST , he owns here that there is an absolute Necessity of this belief . Whereupon I ask him , is this belief necessary to make a Man a Christian , or not ? He cannot say it is not , because to believe Him to be God who really is so is no indifferent thing in Christianity , it is absolutely requisite to constitute a Man a Christian , a True Christian , for a Man can't be such unless he hath a knowledg of Him that is True God. This surely none will undertake to deny . Hence then it inevitably follows that this Author must hold that the assenting to this Proposition , that Christ Jesus is God , is necessary to make a Man a Christian. And if this be necessary , then something else besides the believing of Jesus to be the Messias ( as the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity and ●…his Abettors understand and explain that Proposition , for they include not the Divinity of Christ in it ) is absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian. Which is the thing that Mr. Bold denies , and yet we see it is a natural and unavoidable Consequence from what he asserts in his Sermon . So that in effect he positively saith , The believing of more than that One Article before mention'd is absolutely requisite to make a Man a Christian. In another place speaking of the account which the Scripture gives of the Holy Spirit , viz. that he is God , he adds that a true Christian is as much obliged to believe this as to believe that Jesus is the Christ , p. 40. See here the force and energy of Truth , it will make its way through the teeth of those that oppose it . He that had professedly asserted and maintain'd that the knowledg of this One Point , that Jesus is the Christ , constitutes a person a Christian , now as plainly and professedly contradicts this Position , by declaring that we are as MUCH obliged to give assent to this , viz. that the Holy Spirit is the True God , as to that One Point . For this is the case , if a True Christian be as MUCH obliged to believe one as the other , then 't is certain that Christianity is as much concerned in the belief of one as of the other : and if so , then a Man can't be a Christian without this belief ; whence it irrefragably follows that the One Point he speaks of is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian : unless he will submit to this Nonsense that a man can be a Christian , a True Christian though he believe not those things without which he can't be a Christian . This is sufficient , I suppose , to give you a tast of Mr. Bold's Self-Contradiction , and at the same time of the Unreasonableness and Groundlessness of the Notion which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity hath publish'd to the world . I wish for the sake of this our present Penman , who seems to be a Man that hath some relish of Religion and Piety , that he had not thus expos'd himself and his Friend together . There hath been a Pair of Advocates for this Conceit of a Christian of One Article : the one a Layman , the other a Churchman : the first a Professed Socinian , and , having little to say for his Friend , stuff'd his Pamphlet with what Crellius afforded him : the latter , you see , ( after great study and deliberation ) hath made as inconsiderable advances in the Cause ; and though he appears in the form of a Preacher , yet he hath said nothing answerable to the Specious Title of his Sermon , The true Knowledg of Christ Jesus ; but on the contrary hath said very ill things , to the lessening and impairing , yea to the defaming of that knowledg and belief of our Saviour , and of the Articles of Christianity which are necessarily required of us . From what he hath delivered we may infer that there hath been one Vain Effort more in the world than there was before . And this is his just and deserved Character that he hath betrayed the Cause he undertook , and hath dispatch'd himself and it with his own Weapons unwarily handled . But let me address my self to this Gentleman a little more closely ( if I can speak more closely than I have already : ) Verily , Sir , it is strange that a Man of your Sobriety and Temper should be thus easily drawn off , that you should so far debase your self and the Post you are in , as to be Mr. L's Journeyman , ( he having himself it seems , given over working at the Trade ) that you should accept of the Office of an Under-Puller for Racovianism . Was it not enough that the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity had been publickly defended by Deists and Scepticks , that he had been approved of and vindicated by the profess'd Votaries and Disciples of Socinus , that he had the good word of all the Indifferent and Neuters in Religion , that he was caressed and admired by the Men of Wit about the Town who make it their business to banter Christianity , and ( in a word ) that he was cried up by the Atheistical and Debauched , who as concernedly railly all Religion as the late Field-Officer doth Priests ; was it not enough , I say , that the Rationalist found all these to be his Patrons , but must Mr. Bold strike in with this Company , and vote this Writer to be the Christianissimo ( next to LOUIS ) of this Age ? Not that I would be thought to detract in the least from the Gentleman's Worth , for ( to give him his due ) it is most readily granted that he hath a'great share of Metaphysicks ( as his first book he publish'd sufficiently demonstrates ) and of Oeconomicks ( as his next book testifies ) and of Politicks , as some late Papers assure us , wherein he hath abundantly shew'd how acute and ingenious a Projector he is in the point of Trade and Money , especially Guinea's and the Lowering of them . But I am not obliged to think that his Talent lies so advantagiously towards Theology , especially Christianity . I can't approve of his introducing a Clipt Christianity , and thrusting upon us a False Coin , a Counterfeit Stamp in Religion . I cannot ( and never will ) conceal my dislike of his teaching the men of this too Giddy Age to truck their Old Christianity for a New Notion or Fancy of the pretended Reasonableness of that Christianity which he shapes to himself . And yet , Sir , you are pleas'd to take part here , and that with no common Zeal . Which strange behaviour , or rather unaccountable Fascination hath stagger'd not a few of your Friends and Admirers , who ( with my self ) own that you have done much Good by your former Writings , but fear now that you will do as much Harm . The Devout and Pious had other apprehensions of you when they look'd into your Practical Sermons , Invitations , and Meditations ; and therefore they stand amazed since they have perus'd your late Productions , and observing there that you are come to the Necessity of but One Article of Faith , they expect that you may in time hold that None is Necessary , which is the scope and design ( whether you take notice of it or no ) of those that have lately influenc'd upon you . Let me be free with you , and tell you that it is the sense of your Friends that , if your Pen runs for the future in this strain , you will write rather like a Turkish Spy than a Christian Preacher . I beseech you therefore , Sir , by all that is good and sacred , and by that Repute which you have heretofore gain'd among the Religious and Pious , that you would not dissemble with your self , and choak your inward Perswasions , and abuse your self and the world too . I wish with all my heart that you would account with your self for this late Backsliding , and consider how scandalous it will be when your Auditors and Readers shall find that you are sailing to Racovia with a side-wind . I beg of you by the bonds of our most Holy Christianity that you would , whilst it is time , prevent a final Apostacy . Wear not the detestable Character of a Renegade . Sir , I most passionately request you to ponder that smart and upbraiding Query which our Blessed Saviour used to some of his Disciples , when he saw that they went back , Will Ye also go away ? John 6. 67. Remember , Good Sir , that going away ended in Betraying . REFLECTIONS ON THE Animadversions . LET us come next to the Animadversions which are tack'd to the Sermon . And truly I am inclined to clear the Gentleman under whose name this Pamphlet goes from being the Composer of this part of the book . I can scarcely believe that Mr. Bold would offer such a Crude and Shallow thing to the publick : but I am partly of the mind that these Animadversions were transmitted to him , and he was desired to publish them as his own , that it might be said ( which was never said before ) that a Man with a Name , and with Open face , that one without a Vizour warranted the late Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity ; that it might be said that a Clergy-man , the Reverend Rector of Steeple vouched these strange notions . But I must needs say I do not take him to be the Animadverter : one reason of which Conjecture is because I have heard that these very Objections and Cavils which are here used were made use of by the Party , and therefore it is probable that though they appear under the name of S. B. yet they might more truly have had J. L. or A. & J. C. ( who took care to send them ) prefix'd to them . I will likewise offer other probable Reasons which may induce any Considering man to think that the person who made the Sermon was not the Author of the Animadversions : for first I appeal to any man that knows the Difference of Stiles , whether this be not observable in these two Pieces . Indeed when Different matters are treated of by the same Writer , there may be a great inequality in the Strain , but it is never or very rarely observ'd when the same Subject is handled by the same Author , as is pretended in the present case . Secondly , There is this Mark to distinguish the first part of the book from the latter , the one is printed in two different Characters , all along the words and sentences which Mr. B. thought were more Emphatick or Remarkable than the rest are put in a Letter which distinguishes them from the other words and sentences in his Discourse . But you may observe that there is not this Distinction in the Animadversions , they ( like the Reasonableness of Christianity and its Vindication ) are ( excepting a very few places ) all in the same Character . It is not the way of that Author in his Writings to distinguish words , or express their Emphasis by the difference of Letters . This to me is no inconsiderable thing , for you scarcely find any Author of late that writes after that manner . However , we may be almost sure that this part of the book is not Mr. Bold's , for the same Author in the same book would not Vary as to this thing we are speaking of , as we see here done . Again , Thirdly , you can't but take notice that the Animadversions are printed in a Larger and Fairer Character than the Sermon : which thing you will seldom or never find in the same book , written by the same Author , and upon the same Subject , and printed together . This discovers Mr. B to have no title to the latter part of this Undertaking , and it likewise discovers the Imprudence of the Publisher who would suffer those Papers to come into the world with such apparent marks whereby they may be known to be composed by two different persons , and yet at the same time would have but One Author's Name to the whole . Add to all this that unsufferable Blunder in the Epistle to the Reader before the Animadversions ( which we may suppose was made for Mr. B. ) When the book against the Reasonableness of Christianity fell into my hands ( faith this Writer ) I thereby came to be furnish'd with a truer and more just notion of the main design of my own Treatise or Sermon than I had upon my looking over it cursory ( I suppose he would have said cursorily ) presently after it was publish'd : as if the design of his own Treatise could be made known to him by an other Man's Writings . Which carries that Inconsistency and even Nonsense with it which I believe Mr. B. will not own himself to be the Author of , and therefore I cannot but impute it to that Jumble of two Writers in this Volume , which confounded the Epistolizer's notions , and made him discover , before he was aware , that Mr. Bold was not the True Parent of this off-spring to which the Epistle is prefix'd . No , no : he that drew up this Epistle had some acquaintance with the King of Ham. Here is strong Fancying and Personating , here is direct Counterfeiting and Falsifying . They have made a Tool of Mr. B. and under the shelter of a Clergyman's Name have impos'd their notions upon the Reader . But whoever was the Author of the Animadversions , I will make a few Remarks upon them , and with that Calmness of Temper which the Epistolizer acknowledges to be in my former productions , but insinuates is wanting in my latter ones . As to which I have only this to say to him , I can be Deemed to be too warm a writer by none but such as are too Cold and Phlegmatick . The The Animadverter hints that I give vent to something to which he will not adventure to assign a proper name p. 32 : but though he will not do this latter , I will , that is , I sincerely protest to him and the Reader that I intend to give vent to Truth ( and that only ) which hath been smother'd and stiffled by him in his late undertakings for the One Article . My business shall be to shew in brief by what Weak and Impertinent Methods he hath done this . The Proposition which he would be thought to patronize is this , that Jesus and his Apostles did not teach any thing as necessary to be believ'd to make a man a Christian but only this One Proposition , that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or the Messiah . Animadv . p. 1. but he maintains this Post with as little success as the foremention'd Gentleman did , for afterwards he declares it his opinion , that a Convert to Christianity ( i. e. a Christian , as he explains it in another place ) must necessarily believe as many Articles as he shall attain to know that Christ Jesus hath taught . p. 21. which wholly invalidates what he had said before , for if a Christian must give assent to all the Articles taught by our Saviour in the Gospel , and that necessarily , then all those Propositions reckon'd up in my late Discourse , being taught by Christ or his Apostles , are necessarily to be blieved , and consequenly One Point only is not necessary . But he will say , the belief of those Propositions makes not a man a Christian. Then I say , they are not necessary and ( as the other Gentleman adds ) Indispensable : they may be said to be Useful and Convenient , but he can't pronounce them Necessary and Indispensable , for what is of absolute Necessity in Christianity is absolutely requisite to make a Man a Christian. Whence it is evident , and that from his own words , that there is no foundation for this Proposition , Jesus and his Apostles taught nothing as necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian , but only this One Article that Jesus was the Christ : and therefore this Animadverter contradicts himself . And who can expect any other , when he takes no care of what he saith himself , and minds not what others suggest in this matter . It is worth the Readersobserving that notwithstanding I had in * twelve pages together ( viz. from the 8th to the 20th ) proved that Several Propositions are necessary to be believ'd by us in order to our being Christians , yet this Sham-Animadverter attends not to any one of the Particulars which I had mention'd , nor offers any thing against them , but only in a Lumping way dooms them all in these Magisterial Words , I do not see any Proof he produceth , p. 21. This is his wonderful way of Confuting me , by pretending that he can't see any Argument or Proof in what I alledg ; and all the world must be led by his Eyes . Thus , though I had in five or six pages together evinced this Truth , that the Son of God , and the Messias are not terms of the very same signification , nay that among the Jews they were not reckon'd so ( as I made appear from several Texts ; especially Acts 8. 37. ) yet after all I have this for my pains , I do not perceive , saith he , that he ( meaning me ) pretends to offer the least proof that these Terms were not synonymous among the Jews , p. 47. yet he doth not so much as offer one syllable to disprove what I had deliver'd and closely urg'd on that head thro' the greatest part of a Chapter . This is the guise of our Sagacious Animadverter . He out-doth the famous Gladiator ( whom Olaus Magnus tells us of ) that was wont to blunt the Edg of all his Adversaries Weapons only with looking upon them , but this Marvelous Fencer doth it without seeing or perceiving . So when I had reduced the sum of my Discourse into a Syllogism , he tells me I there stop , whereas I should have proceeded to prove that Jesus Christ or his Apostles taught that no Man can be a Christian , or shall be saved unless he hath an explicit knowledg of all those things which have immediate respect to the Occasion , Author , Way , Means and Issue of our Salvation , and which are necessary for our knowing the true nature and design of it , p. 23 , 24. And yet the Reader may satisfie himself that this is the very thing that I had been proving just before , and indeed all along in the foregoing Chapter : and therefore it was not necessary to add any Farther Medium , and to proceed to another Syllogism , I having secured my Proposition before . Yet the heedless Gentleman tells me , I here stop : which may convince the Intelligent Reader that he eares not what he saith . It may be guess'd from what he hath the confidence to say p. 31 , viz. There is no enquiry in the Reasonableness of Christianity concerning Faith subjectively consider'd , but only objectively , namely , with what sort of Faith the Articles of Christianity are to be believed , I say it may be guessed from this what a Liberty this Writer takes to assert what he pleases ; for let any man consult p. 191 , 192 in that Treatise , and he shall find that the Subjective Faith is spoken of ( though not there call'd Subjective ) but it is very much mistaken and perverted . Again , how can this Animadverter come off with peremptorily declaring that subjective faith is not enquir'd into in the Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity when in another place p. 35 , 36 he avers that Christian Faith and Christianity consider'd subjectively are the same . What a Mighty Arguer doth he shew himself to be when , to what I said and fully proved in my fourth Chapter of Socinianism Unmask'd , he most gravely and profoundly replies , I think it needless for me to say any thing to it . p. 30. And further this Great Disputant shews his Parts in another very clever way that he hath of dealing with me , and that is this , when he finds something that he dares not Object against , he thus shifts me off , His Reasoning is to me , saith he , so ●…ouded by his way of expressing himself , that I am too Dull to perceive what his Reasons are , and wherein the Strength of them doth lie , p. 9. And again , concerning a whole Chapter he thus pronounces , I shall say no more of it , saith he , but that my Dullness is such I can't discern the least appearance of reasoning in it , p. 49. Here is nothing tolerable or excuseable in all this but this one thing , his Truth and Modesty in confessing himself to be Dull , which yet the Reader was convinc'd of before this Acknowledgment . The Reader cannot but take notice that in the other parts of this Author's Animadversions he makes it his whole business either merely to Repeat what he pleases in the Reasonableness of Christianity or the Vindication of it , and to vouch it with much confidence , or else when he alledges any thing that I have asserted to throw it off by barely denying what I say . This is the great Excellency which this Gentleman is admirable for . Thus you see the genius of this Writer , you see what weak and sorry Stuff ( to return him his own words ) he troubles the Press with . He doth not make any offers of Reason , there is not the least shadow of an Argument ; he scorns to pretend to any thing of that nature . One would think a man might be ashamed to appear in the world with such Poor Tackling . As if he were only hired to say something against me , tho not at all to the purpose . And truly any Man may discern a Mercenary Stroke all along . I seriously advise him ( whoever he is ) not to enter the Lists again unless he be better provided : for I find that persons are more confirm'd than ever in the Truth of what I have writ , since such Dablers as himself , set on by a parcel of Polonian Squires and a few Town-Sparks , have attempted to oppose my Assertions . If a Score of such Easie Writers as this were all upon me at once , I could bear it very well . A Man need not fear being hurt by such Feeble Scribes , who make it their main business to confute themselves , not me . And hereby ( we thank them ) they promote our Cause ( which is that of Truth ) and even with their own Pens baffle those Errors which they are the Authors of , as Scorpions and Vipers afford Antidotes against the mischiefs they cause . It may not be amiss to take notice of some things in the Close of the Animadversions , for here seems to be a parting blow of Wit in our Author ; which being a mighty Rarity ( i. e. in the stile of Pater-Noster-Row a Black Swan ) with this sort of Writers , it must not be omitted . And out of respect to Mr. B. I will the rather take notice of it , because though this Reverend Author was not the Compiler of the Animadversions , yet it is probable ( they coming into his hands ) he might prick in here and there a fine flower . The Reasonableness of Christianity , saith he , will as certainly be the cause of much mischief as Tenterton-Steeple was the cause of Goodwin Sands , p. 49. Look you what a dainty piece of Ingenuity is borrow'd from an Old Thread-bare Saw. But it is quite spoilt when I have told him that it is an Other Steeple ( that in Dorsetshire ) from whence we may justly fear such Sands and Shelfs on which the Christian Faith will be endanger'd to be shipwrackt . But there is another Ingenious Touch , p. 52. The Men of Art in all the Parties are agreed not to speak favourably of the Reasonableness of Christianity . But who are these Men of Art ? Ay , there lies the Conceit . Not to hold the Reader in suspense , these Men of Art ( written in Letters different from the rest , and thence we may guess the Author of the Sermon , which is mark'd and distinguish'd after this manner , had a hand in it ) are University Men , or Men of University-Education , whom a late Writer exposes because they are not adjusted to his , * Thoughts of Education . Again , These Men of Art are the General Body of the Clergy of this Nation , and they are the far Greatest Part of those that dissent from our Church in the point of Discipline and Ceremonies . They are all the Sober Heads of both these Perswasions , who unite in the Main Articles of Religion profess'd and subscrib'd to by the Church of England . Nay , they are the Whole Body of the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad as well as at home . These are the Men of Art , who by this Gentleman's friends are at other times call'd Systematick-Men , and sometimes Mystery-Men , and by way of derision Orthodox . These are the Men of Art who are also so called you must know in Contradistinction to the Plain Fellows , for so the Racovians stile themselves in their Treatise of the Trinitarian Scheme of Religion . But when this writer saith these men of Art are in an Evil Conspiracy , what is the meaning of that ? It is no other than this , that they joyntly agree to disallow of and condemn a late upstart Conceit , viz. that the belief of One sole Article of Christianity is sufficient not only to denominate but to constitute any Man a Christian. Now , would not a Considerate Man perswade himself that this Unanimous Concurrence of all the Learned , Wise , Sober and Religious in this matter is rather to be deemed a Happy Union than a Conspiracy , and that an Evil one ? And whereas this Writer tells us that the book of the Reasonableness of Christianity is of eminent use to overthrow and ruine Faction , p. 51 , I must needs declare that I 'm of the contrary opinion , and I conceive I have abundantly proved , in a late * Discourse I publish'd , that the Notions which the Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity is fraught with administer to Faction , and something Worse amongst us , which I have been warning the Reader of in the preceding Discourse . The short is , this Gentleman and I can't agree about Mr. L.'s Book , for he at least saith ( for we are not certain of his Thoughts ) and that without any Proof , that it is one of the best books that hath been publish'd for at least these sixteen hundred years , p. 52 : but I 'm of opinion , and I 'm sure I have Proved it , that it is one of the Worst that hath appear'd in the world since the date of Christianity . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A38033-e600 * Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity , p. 3. * Preface to his Discourse concerning Christ's Satisfaction . * P. 33 : Psal. 11. 3. Notes for div A38033-e1780 * Socin . de Author . S. Script . cap. 1. † De Vera Relig . l. 5. c. 5. ‖ Cat. Racov. de Scriptura cap. 1. * Institut . Theolog. lib. 4. ‖ A brief History of the Unitarians . ‖ Socin . Epist. 2. ad Dudith . * Explicat . 5. Mat. 4●… . † Ostorodus in Institut . cap. 30. * Smalc . cont . Frantz . ‖ Bishop Stillingfleet's Pref. to the Discourse of Christ's Satisfaction . * Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity , p. 49 , 50. ‖ Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 24. lib. 5. cap. 8. * Sandius de Script . Eccles. † Considerations on the Explications , &c. p. 49. * Preface to the Discourse of Christ's Satisfaction . * An Accurate Examination of the Principal Texts alledged for Christ's Divinity , p. 24 , 25 , 26. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Socrat. hist. l. 1. c. 3. † Sulpit. lib. 2. ‖ An Answer to a Letter touching the Trinity . * An Accurate Examination of the principal Texts alledg'd for Christ's Divinity , chap. 5. * Socin , in Catechesi . † De Divin . Christi . cip . 4. Cont. Frantz . Exam. cent . errorum . ‖ In Epist. ad Hebr. cap. 1. v. 6. ** Commentar . in Heb. 1. 6. †† De V. R. l. 3. c. 5. ‖‖ An Accurate Examination of the principal texts alledg'd for Christ's Divinity . chap. 5. * On the 2d Article of the Creed . † Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity . * Smalc . Hom. 8. in cap. 1. Johan . † De Servatore . cap. 6. * De Deo & Attributis . * Disp. de Repub. l. 1. c. 11. † De Deo & Attrib . cap. 5. ‖ Cap. 6. * H. Grotii Pietas , ad Ordines Holland . * Praelect . cap. 2. * Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity . * Crellius de Deo & Attribut . cap. 15. † Commentar . in Johan . 4. 24. ‖ Comment . in 1. Epist. ad Corinth . cap. 15. v. 45. * Scripture . Catechism . Chap. 2. † Sine corpore ullo Deum vult esse , ut Graeci dicunt , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . De Nat. Deor. l. 1. * Tractat. breves de diversis materiis , &c. † Socin in Catechismo . * Cont. Frantz . Disp. 1. de Trin. † De Deo & Attrib . cap. 27. ‖ Institut . l. 4. c. 13. ** Bidle , Scripture-Catechism . Chap. 2. The Exceptions of Mr. Edw. in his Causes of Atheism examined . p. 18. * Plin. Nat. Hist. l. c. 7. * Cont. Frantz . Disp. 1 and 12. † De Deo & Attrib Cap. 24. ‖ Cap. 9. 11. * Socin . Praelect . cap. 8 , 9 , 10. * Praelect . cap. 8. † Not. ad Disp. 5. de Deo. † De Deo. cap. 18. ‖ Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity . ** The Trinitarian Scheme of Religion . p. 4. Praelect . cap. 8. * Socin . cont . Wiek . cap. 9. † Moscorov . cont . Smiglecium . Slichting . cont . Meisnerum . * A Letter to the Clergy of both Universities . p. 11. * P. 5. † Lib. 1. de Trinit . Error . ‖ An Answer to a Letter touching the Trinity . ** A Postscript to the Answer to a Letter touching the Trinity . * Letter to the Clergy of both Universities , p. 15. † P. 24. ‖ P. 26. ** Of worshiping the Holy Ghost , p. 12. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Naz. Orat : 32. * Socin . de Servat . par . 1. c. 2 , 3. † De Servat . par . 3. c. 5. ‖ De V. R. l. 5. c. 20. ** Praelect . cap. 18. †† De Christo Servatore . par . 3. cap. 4. * Cat. Racov. de Prophet . Christi munere . † Socin . de Servat . par . 2. c. 15. Praelect . cap. 24. Cat. Racov. c. 8. de Prophet . Christi munere . Item , de munere Christi Sacerdotali . qu. 8. ‖ Praelect . Theolog. ** De Christo Servat . †† Smalc . de Satisfactione contr . Smiglec . Cat. Racov. de Prophet . Christi mun . cap. 8. Crellius contr . Grotium . * Cat. Racov. cap. eod . * Theodoret. de Provid . Serm. 6. * Rom. 3. 25. 1 John 22. 4. 10. † Rom. 5. 11. ‖ Chap. 9. 26. 10. 10 , 12. and other places . * Cont. Frantz . Disp. 4. † Ibid. ‖ Disp. 6. ** Homil . 4. in 1. Johan . * De Morte Christi . qu. 12. † De Servatore . ‖ A Letter of Resolution concerning the doctrine of the Trinity . p. 7. * The Antitrinitarian Scheme of Religion . p. 18. * Chap. 6. and 8. † Heb. 10. 29. * Pr●…ct . cap. 3. † Instit. cap. 1. * Smalc . contr . Smiglec . de Dei filio . cap. 7. * Praelect . cap. 4. De Christo Servatore . par . 4. cap. 6. De Officio viri Christiani , cap. 5. † Volkelius de V. R. l. 5. c. 18. Smalc . Disp. 4. de Justificat . De Pecc . Orig. disp . 2. De Poenitent . disp . 2. Catech. Racov. de libero Arbit . qu. 2. Slichting . Comment . in Rom. 5. 12 , 13. Comment . in Johan . 9. 3 , 34. Episcop . Instit. l. 4. §. 5. c. 2. * Quòd Regn. Polon . &c. cap. 5. † Di●…g de Justificat . * De Div. Christi . cap. 7. † De V. R. l. 3. c. 11. ‖ The Trinitarian Sche●…e of Religion . p. 21 , 22. * P. 11. † Socin Praelect cap. 5. Smalc de Justific . disp . 4. ‖ De Prophet . Christi munere cap. 6. qu. & resp . 9. * Cat. Rac. de proph . Christi mun . c. 6. Resp. 8. † Ibid. cap. 10. qu. & 〈◊〉 . 8. * Resp. 9. † Trinitarian Scheme of Religion . p. 24. * P. 26. † P. 21. ‖ Epist. ad Cresc . ** Lib. 2. de Peccat . Merit . * Cont. Frantz . disput . 12. † Eth. l. 2. c. 6. ‖ Scripture . Catechism . chap. 16. ** The 10th . * Slichting . in Eph. 5. 6 * Epist. 5. ad Volkel . * Exam. cent . Errorum . † De vero & nat . Dei filio cap. 6. ‖ Cont. Frantz . disp . 7. de extremo judicio * De Div. Christi . cap. 13. † Comment . in 〈◊〉 C●… . 20. ‖ In Heb. 11. 40. ** De V. R. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 * In Epist. 1 Petr. cap. 1. v. 5. † In Epist. ad Hebr ●…p . 11. v. 40. ‖ In Epist. ad Hebr. cap. 12. v. 22. * Volkel de V. R. l. 3. c. 11. † Lib. 3. cap. 19. ‖ Wolzogen in 6 Meditat. M●…phys . C●…rtes . * Epist. 6. ad Volkel . † Instit. cap. 41. ‖ Epist. praedict . ad Volkel . * Exam. cent . ertorum . † De V R. l. 3. c. 35. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Isidor . Pelus . Epist. l. 2. † Theodoret. de Provid . Orat. 9. ‖ Difficilius est id quod non sit incipere quàm id quod fuetit iterate . Minut. Felix . ** Deo elementorum custodi reservatur . Ibid. * Bishop Pearson on 11th . Article of the Creed . * In Heb. 9. 27. † De V. R. l. 3. c. 33. * De V. R. l. 3. c. 34. * In Johan . 1 11. † Bishop Pearson on the 12 Article of the Creed . ‖ Resp. ad defens . Puc . cap. 8. ** Cont. Meisner . †† Disp. de Baptismo . Disp. 7. de Extremo Judicio . * Cont. Frantz . disp . 7. de extremo judicio . † In Hebr. 10. 27. ‖ Comment . in 1 Cor. 15. ** Wolzogen Comment . in 25. chap. Matth. v. 46. †† J. Bidle . Script . Catech. chap. last . * Cont. Frantz . disp . 7. † Comment . in 1 Cor. 15. ‖ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48. * On the 11th . Article of the Creed . * In his Treatise of Humane Understanding , book 1. † Praelect . cap. 2. * Essay of Humane Understanding , book 4. chap. 4. * P. 151. * P. 149 , 150. † See Miscellaneous Letters for the Month of September , 1695. page 465. * Refut . lib. de Verbo Incarnato . cap. 3. * History of the Unitarians , pag. 24. † A Defence of the brief History of the Unitarians . ‖ Some Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trinity . * Letter to the Clergy of both Universities . chap. 10. * Dr. Owen , of Apostacy . * Refut . lib. de Verbo incarnato . cap. 9. † De via salut . cap. 1. Qu. & Resp. 7. ‖ Refut . lib. de V. J. cap. 8. ** Cont. Frantz . disp . 3. de Sacrament . * A Letter of Resolution concerning the doctrine of the Trinity . p. 1. * Mat. 13. 11. 1 Cor. 2. 7. Eph. 6. 19. Col. 2. 2. 1 Tim. 3. 16. * An Impartial Account of the word Mystery , &c. * Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity . * Some Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism p. 71 , 72. * Some Considerations concerning the Trinity . p. 7. * P. 33. * Respons . ad Johan . Nievojev . † 3. ad Radec. ‖ Examinat . Argument . pro Trino & Uno Deo. ** Disp. cont . Francken & Wiek . †† Disp. praedict . * De V. R. lib. 5. c. 29. † Smalc Exam. cent . error . ‖ De Errorib . Arianorum . * Exam. cent . error . † Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity . * Christianity not Mysterious . † An Accurate Examination of the Principal Texts alledg'd for Christ's Divinity , chap. 10. * Of Worshiping the Holy Ghost , &c. † P. 7. ‖ A Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity according to the Scriptures , p. 12. * Explicat cap. 5. Matth. † De V. R. l. 4. c. 9. ‖ De Divin . Christi . * De Prophet . Christi mun . cap. 1. * Volkel . de V. R. l. 4. c. 9. * Smalc . de Div. Christi cap. 5. Volkel . l. 4. c. 9. * Lib. 4 c. 14. † De Prophet . Christi mun . cap. 1. * Barclay's Apology . † Article 25. ‖ Article 2●… . * Socin . in Paraenesi cap. 4. Epist. 3. ad Radec. Volkel . l. 4. c. 12. l. 6. c. 14. Smalc . cont . Frantz . disp . 5. de Ministr . Eccles. Item , Disp. 9. de Hypocr . Item , Disp. 3. de Sacramentis . † Lib. 4. c. 22. ‖ De Coena , qu. 5. * Wolzogen Comment . in Mat. 26. 26. † Trinitarian Scheme of Religion . p. 25 , 26. * Socin . 2 Epist. ad Radec. † Volkel . l. 6. c. 10 , 14 , 19. Smalc . Disp. de baptismo . ‖ Lib. 3. cap. 9. * De Baptismo aquae , cap. 2. † Volkel . l. 6. c. 14. Smalc . disp . de Baptismo . ‖ Socin . de Baptismo aquae . Volkel . l. 6. c. 14. Ostorod . Instit. cap. 39. † Socin . de Bapt. aquae . Smalc . cont . Frantz . Cat. Racov. de Prophet . Christi munere . cap. 4. Moscorov . de Baptismo . Slichting . cont . Meisner . * De Proph. Mun. Christi . cap. 4 , qu. 2. † Slichting . Comment . in 1 Pet. 3. 21. * Wolzogen Compend . Relig. Christianae . † Of Wor shiping the Holy Ghost . p. 5. ‖ Trinitarian Scheme of Religion . * De Baptismo aquae . * Lib. Ministrorum Transylvan . de unius Dei cognitione . * Epist. 2. ad Radec. ‖ De Ecclesia . cap. 2. qu. 15. * Cont. Frantz . Disp. de Ministr . Eccles. Item , Disp. de Ord. Eccles. † Lib. 4. cap. 22. ‖ Ostorod . Instit. cap. 42. ** De Coen . Dom. qu. 2. †† Socin . Epist. 2. ad Radec. * Tractat. de Ecc●…esia . † De Eccles. cap. 11. ‖ Episcop . Disp. 28. par . 3. * Art. the 23. † See Socin . Epist. 3. ad Radec. * P. ●…8 . † Of worshipping the Holy Ghost . p. 4 , 5. * Lib. de Officio hominis Christiani . * V. R. l. 5. c. 4. † Inst. cap. 42. * De V. R. cap. 19. * Ostorod . Instit. cap. 4. Smalc . contra Frantz . † Ostorod . Instit. cap. 30. ‖ Explicat . cap. 6. Matth. * Smalc . cont . Frantz . disp . 7. * D●… Volkel . l. 4. c. 17. * Instructi●… ad utilem lection . N. T. cap. 7. † Commen●… , in Mat. 5. ‖ Comment . in Mat. 20. * Epist. ad Arcisse●…ium . † Smalc . cont . Frantz . Disp. 〈◊〉 de robus civilibus . ‖ Ostorod . Instit. cap. 28. ** Wolzogen Instruct. ad util . lection . N. T. cap. 4. †† Smal●… disp . 6. de rebus civilibus . * Smalc . cont . Frantz . disp . de rebus civisib . * The 37th . * Socin . Epist. 7. ad Lublin . † Quod regni Polon . &c. cap. 3. Them. 24. de Offic. Christi . * Disp. 6. de reb . civilib . * Cont. Frantz . disp . 9. de Hypocr . † Lib. 4. cap. 23. * Slichting Comment . in 2 Tim. 1. 16. * Of worshiping the Holy Gh●…st , &c. p. 8. * A Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity . p. 1●… . * Dr. Wallis . 4th . Letter concerning the Trinity . p. 5. * Cogitata Sacra Varii Tractatus . * J. Bidle in the Pref. to his Scripture-Catechism . * A Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity , p. 17 , 18. * The same Letter , p. 18. * In his Introduction for the reading of History . † Bishop of Sarum's Letter to Dr. Williams . * A Letter to the Clergy of both Universities . † De Trinit Erroribus . ‖ A Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity . p. 17. * Trinitarian Scheme of Religion . † A Letter to the Clergy of both Universities . cap. 6. ‖ The Exceptions of Mr. E. &c. examin'd . p. 43. Notes for div A38033-e29190 * The Causes of Atheism . Socinianism unmask'd . * In Socinianism Unmask'd . * P. 145 , 158 , 162 , 164. * Socinianism Unmask'd . 
A42456	----	An answer to Mr. George Walkers vindication, or rather, fresh accusation wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton, besides his former foul aspersions of heresie and blasphemy, with Arianism, Mr. Gataker with Socinianism, Dr. Gouge and Mr. Downham with a fase attestation, Dr. Baylie and Mr. Stock with self-condemnation, all the eight ministers employed in the busines between himself and Mr. Wotton with partiality and unjust judgement : upon occasion of a relation concerning that busines / written by the said Thomas Gataker and by him now again avowed, wherein the said M. Walkers vindication is in many things shewed to be an untrue relation. Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654. 1642 Approx. 297 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 70 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A42456 Wing G310 ESTC R14600 13589255 ocm 13589255 100644 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A42456) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 100644) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 843:14) An answer to Mr. George Walkers vindication, or rather, fresh accusation wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton, besides his former foul aspersions of heresie and blasphemy, with Arianism, Mr. Gataker with Socinianism, Dr. Gouge and Mr. Downham with a fase attestation, Dr. Baylie and Mr. Stock with self-condemnation, all the eight ministers employed in the busines between himself and Mr. Wotton with partiality and unjust judgement : upon occasion of a relation concerning that busines / written by the said Thomas Gataker and by him now again avowed, wherein the said M. Walkers vindication is in many things shewed to be an untrue relation. Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654. [2], 130 p. Printed by E.G. for F. Clifton ..., London : 1642. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. "Some few things to be supplied or amended": p. [2] Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Walker, George, 1581?-1651. Dissenters, Religious -- England -- Early works to 1800. Dissenters, Religious -- Early works to 1800. Arianism -- Early works to 1800. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. 2004-08 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-08 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-09 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2004-09 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion AN ANSWER TO Mr. George Walkers VINDICATION , OR RATHER FRESH ACCUSATION : Wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton ( besides his former foul aspersions of Heresie and Blasphemy ) with Arianism ; Mr. Gataker with Socinianism ; Dr. Gouge , and Mr. Downham , with a false Attestation ; Dr. Baylie , and Mr. Stock , with Self-condemnation ; All the eight Ministers employed in the busines between himself and Mr. Wotton , with Partiality and Unjust judgement . Upon occasion of a Relation concerning that busines , written by the said Thomas Gataker ; and by him now again avowed . Wherein the said M. Walkers Vindication is in many things shewed to be An Untrue Relation . LONDON , Printed by E. G. for F. Clifton , in New-fish-street . 1642. Some few things to be supplied or amended . PAg. 2. after line 13. ad , for words spoken of a dead man , himself being . p. 5. l. 16. read , hath at any time ex . p. 6. l. 28. pressure . p. 14. l. 27. he then did , p. 16. l. 28. wrote . p. 38. l. 18. crave leave of . p. 42. l. 14. put in the margine against pointing . See Cameron Myrothec . p. 25. p. 53 marg put out , * Ibid. p. 9● . l. 32. read have past . p 98. l. 26 sift q. p 115. l. 28. Post script . p. 119. l. 3. he deemes . HAd M. Walker either dealt more fairely at first , with his Christian brother and fellow-Minister of Christ , M. A. Wotton ; or upon second thoughts ( a which are wont to be the wiser ) better considered of what before he had unadvisedly attempted ; he had therein peradventure in part at least , either saved or salved his owne credit : sure I am , he had eased me of some labour , that I had little lust unto . He traduced M. Wotton in the Pulpit as a vile hereticke , while he lived , what time he knew Master Wottons tongue , through the iniquity of the times , to be so b tied up , that he could not in publique plead his owne cause . Long after his decease he reneweth his revilings of him , and brandeth him againe for the like in print ; when being hence translated , he cannot now either in publique or in private personally appeare for himselfe . A true relation of the carriage of the maine matter in controversie between them , in a meeting of M. Walkers owne procuring , wherein M. Wotton was acquitted , being hereupon published ; he proceedeth , after his wonted guise , in violent and virulent manner , not onely to charge him , as before , with heresie and blasphemy in the doctrine of justification , but ( yet further to expresse his extream malice and rancor against him ) c with the deniall of the eternall Deity of Christ ; how soundly , yea or seemingly , for any shew or shadow of reason , let any intelligent Reader judge . And over and besides that , ( hoping thereby to help himselfe , where he sticketh fast in the mire ) he sticketh not to d cast foule aspersions upon all those that had any hand in that hearing , not sparing them therein whom himselfe had made choise of . His Vindication ( as he tearmeth it ) he beginneth with a preamble , consisting of two parts . In the former whereof , he complaineth grievously of me , and e chargeth me with breach of piety and charity , and defect of humanity and common honesty , in labouring to set upon him foul brands of the like nature , being a Minister yet living in Gods Church ; and in adding thereby affliction to him , who hath suffered persecution and bonds for the truths sake . Which passage , when I read , minded me of the Italian professor of the Civill-law at Oxford , who having in some things carried himselfe , neither so religiously , nor so respectively towards divers worthy Divines , as had been to be wished ; and being therefore by Doctor Rainolds in a private Letter freely told of it , and withall admonished f to have more regard of piety and modesty in his writings for time to come , then in some formerly he had shewed ; in way of answer to his Letter , taketh on and stormeth not a little against that mirrour as well of modesty as of learning , as g having done him no small wrong , in taking upon him so to checke and controle him , who had left his own countrey for his conscience , and was for Religion sake content to live as an exile : tho meane while , it may be , enjoying as plentifull an estate here , as ever he had , or might have attained , had he stayed still where before he was . But to come more directly to M. Walkers exceptions against me , or prescriptions rather for himselfe , as a sacred person , or a Sanctuary man ; and not therefore to be so dealt with , as I have herein dealt with him ; and to discusse them briefly apart . I suppose a little selfe-love , and selfe-respect proceeding from it , had h drawn a filme over M. Walkers eyesight , or cast a mist at least before his eyes , when he entered these pleas ; that kept him from considering what the party was whom himselfe had so despightfully dealt with . For first , is M. Walker a Minister of Gods Word ? and was not M. Wotton the same ? and that peradventure nothing inferiour to M. Walker in ought ; however M. Walker may please to esteem or deem of him . i At whose doom yet , well it is that he neither stands nor fals . Secondly , as concerning survivorship , I have ever held it , and so still shall , having k votes therein with me , I am sure , not a few , untill M. Walker shall be able to convince me of errour in it ; that it is a worse matter to traduce the dead , then the living . Since that the one may , the other cannot now make apologie for himselfe . Besides that it is generally held an argument of l no ingenuous disposition , to insult over , or deale● igorously with the deceased . And it may well be questioned whether an injury done to a Saint in Heaven , have not the greater guilt , in regard o● his present estate . Sure I am , that against those of the Romish party , m our Writers use it as an argument , and n the Apostle may well seeme to adde strength thereunto , that it is a greater wrong to offer any indignity to Christs body now glorified in Heaven , then it had been to do the like unto him then , when in the state of humiliation he conversed with men here on earth . Nor see I ought , why it may not hold as well in the other limmes , as in the head ; that the greater sinne it is to offer any wrong or contumely to them , the more highly they are now honoured and advanced by God. And what greater wrong or contumely can be done to them , then to blast their reputations , to charge them with inexpiable crimes , to damn them to Hell , that now reigne with God in Heaven ? So o sacred hath the condition of the deceased been deemed , that it hath been accounted a point of p sacriledge , to disturbe their remaines , or to meddle with the monuments wherein their corps lie inclosed . But the godly deceased , q had they sense and understanding of what is here done , ( as they had wont to speake , and r we well may ) would without all doubt , account it , as well they might , a far greater wrong , to have their names tainted with foule aspersions , of this nature especially , even of the highest and most hainous guilt against the divine Majesty , then to have their Sepulchers defaced , their graves laid open , their bodies digged up , their bones burnt , and their ashes either dispersed into the ayer , or scattered upon the surface of the waters ; or whatsoever other indignity and insolency the vaine rage and fond outrage , not of humane , but of inhumane spite and malice hath exercised upon their remains . Let not M. Walker therefore deeme his offence in this regard the lesse hainous , because the man is dead , or s deceased rather , whom he thus dealeth with : wherein peradventure , as t he said sometime of Sylla , he had dealt more wisely , had he been lesse eager . Nor hath he any just cause to complaine , because he surviveth ; if in the necessary vindication of the deceased so wronged , his inconsiderate carriage therein be discovered . If any blemish accrew to himselfe or his ministery thereby , he may blame himselfe rather then any other , who by these violent and outragious courses much impeacheth and impaireth his owne estimation in the minds of all moderate men . For his third plea , in regard whereof he claimeth an immunity from being thus dealt with , to wit. u His persecution and bonds sustained for the truth . Of M. Walkers restraint for some time , I have heard . During which also I sometime visited him at his brothers house . And that he suffered for the truth , I hope also is true , though it be more then I know ; because I know not for what he suffered . Of his bonds , I never heard till now . If he were ever in bonds , ( God be thanked ) he is now free . But however , he might do well to remember , that M. VVotton , upon occasion of a passage used in his prayer , when the setling of Church-matters with us was in agitation , ( which as things now stand , I suppose would not be so hainously taken ) that His Majesty who then was , might in that weighty businesse , not be swayed with prejudice of long or pretended antiquity , but proceed according to the rule and direction of Gods VVord , had for some good space of time before been deprived of the exercise of his ministery , and of the means thence arising for the maintenance of him and his ; his charge then depending upon him being greater , then I suppose M. VValkers either then was , when he so suffered as he saith , or now is . And that he lay still at that very same time under that heavy presure , ( which he was never wholly quit of to his dying day ) when M. Walker pursued ( I may well say , x persecuted him ) with those hideous imputations of teaching y divellish heresie and z blasphemy , and a the most pestilent opinions that ever Satan sowed among Christians . Now whether this his demeanure toward M. VVotton in such times , were to b adde affliction unto affliction , or no , I leave to any man , not of c brasse bowels , and iron entrals , to determine . This am I sure of , that if M. VValkers troubles , past and overblown now , may aggravate ought here , the storm still continuing might much more aggravate there . But this is the common guise of humane weaknesse , that men are rather prone to tender d their own griefes , then the grievances of others ; and to deny that priviledge of e sanctuary to their adversaries , under which they require yet to finde shelter for themselves . Howsoever , a fond thing it is for any man to imagine , that his sufferings for the truth , either should seale him a Licence to rave against , and raile upon his Christian brethren at pleasure , whether surviving yet , or deceased ; or should protect him against all Apology upon such occasions , made either by themselves or by others for them , in their behalfe . For as for all that , which in the next place * he subjoyneth , in his declamatory way , concerning M. Wottons assertions ; how sincerely they are extracted from M. VVottons writings , or how depraved with M. VValkers own glosses and fillings ; as also how by M. VVotton himselfe in writing answered , where they might seem to sound somewhat harshly by collating place with place , and reducing them to the state of the point there in question ; and lastly , what was thereupon concluded , when these things were at large long since debated , in a way that M. VValker himselfe pressed M. VVotton unto ; you have fully laid down in the Relation before mentioned : which M. VValker also here referreth himselfe unto ; and to transcribe againe therefore , would be but lost labour , both to me and to my Reader . That which the rather also I here wave , because I shall be constrained , treading M. VValkers wild maze ; as now I must do , to meet with them againe more then once or twice , where fitter occasion wil be to consider further of them . After this complaint commenced of me , M. Walker proceeds e to lay down the occasion , by which he hath provoked me to proclaim so bitterly against him , and to brand him with breach of piety and charity , and defect of humanity and common honesty ; and to enquire what the cause of my so doing should be . Where , first , how I have proclaimed ( as he speaks ) against him , or what bitternesse I have used , either in my Preface or Postscript , I am well content that others indifferently affected judge . Howbeit I see none forwarder to complaine of bitternesse in others , then f those that are most troubled with the overflowing of the gall themselves , and who write ordinarily , as if their pennes were dipped and steeped in no other but that bitter liquor . Secondly , I demand of M. Walker , where I have thus branded him . True it is , that I do indeed directly and expresly charge him with g unequall dealing ; and h want of candor in his carriage toward M. Wotton . And this he returnes never a word unto , nor will be able ever to wash off . With those other defaults here mentioned I doe not my selfe charge him . I affirm only that such carriage as I there describe , i hath been ever generally held a breach of piety and charity , and may well be deemed to argue no small defect of humanity , not to adde of common honesty . And what I therein say , no man , I suppose , will deny ; not M. Walker himselfe . But whether M. Walker in his late dealing with M. Wotton have so carried himselfe , as to contract such guilt , or no , I pronounce not ; * I say nothing , but leave it to be deemed and determined by others , upon that which afterward is related , under the hands , either of M Walker himselfe , or of those whom he himselfe chose , and by his own choise of them made competent Judges in his cause . The Proposition therefore there alone is mine ; which M. Walker himselfe doth not , nor I assure my selfe , will deny . The Assumption is , either his own or theirs . Yea in effect all his own , because the verdict of those , whom he referred himselfe unto . And the conclusion consequently ( which i followeth ever the weaker side ) as it toucheth M. Walker , not mine , but theirs ; yea , in very truth , his own . That he charged M. Wotton with heresie and blasphemy , he denieth not : that he referred himselfe for the truth of his charge to the hearing of eight grave Ministers , his own Letter * relateth : that he failed in his proofes , * they testifie under their own hands , whom he referred himselfe unto : that notwithstanding that faile , he hath now so long after that , since M. Wottons decease , in print renued that his charge , his booke evidently sheweth . The imputation therefore of such guilt , if all that hath been related do not proove M. Walker faulty in such cariage , he remaineth free enough still from , for ought that I say . If it do evince him so to have caried himselfe ; it is not I , but his own cariage , and the verdict of his own Judges , that fast●eth the imputation upon him . For , what he here addeth of i my misrep●rts , he hath not hitherto , nor shall ever be able to convince me of misrelation in ought . But come we to his enquiry . Where first he moveth doubt , k whether therefore ●be so offended , because he calleth the errour , that he chargeth M. Wotton to have been the publisher of , herefie . And if that be the matter he telleth me , that howsoever I and my fellow-subscribers ( that is the scornfull title that now he giveth us ) did not thinke fit ( for some causes , of which hereafter ) to call any thing in his Exposition of his speeches by the name of heresie and blasphemy : yet some of them cited in the Parallel , are by his own confession manifestly hereticall and blasphemous . And that he rather assented to Beza , Pareus , and Lubbertus , who condemn some things in M. Wottons expositions for heresie and blasphemy , then to me and my fellows ( D. Bayly , M. Balmford , M. Randall , M. Stock , M. Downhum , M. Gouge , and M. Hickes ) who were pleased to think otherwise . And he hopeth that therein he giveth no offence ; especially having Gods Woudfor his warrant . Where first , I wonder how the matter against M. Wotton cometh so much to be aba●ed , that from so many pretended hereticall and blasphemous errours , whereof seven horrible heads at least were represented in the Parallel , it should be brought down now to one single errour , to one heresie . M. Walkers heart here , it may be , did misgive him ; suspecting that some of them might be generally by all votes acquired of heresie at least , if not of errour . And he thought it therefore the wisest and wariest course to pitch upon some one ; and yet not to tell us , which that one 〈◊〉 ●eant , was , that so he might be free to fasten where he should thinke fittest , if either his proofes concerning any of the other should faile ; or those , whom he calleth in for Advocates in his own behalfe , and for witnesses to give evidence against M. Wotton , as condemning his opinions for hereticall and blasphemous , should be found voting in some of them rather for him then against him . 2. Whereas he telleth us , that there are somethings in M. Wottons Expositions ( of which tearme here more anon ) which Beza , Pareus and Lubbertus condemn as hereticall and blasphemous ; neither yet doth he shew what those things are , nor where they so stile them . Yea , if to avoyd the former exception , he shall say , that the errour he meant and called heresie is this , that l Faith , and not Christs righteousnesse is imputed for righteousnesse in the Act of justification ; because he saith that his new adversary hath so stated the question ; ( with whom yet , or his stating the question , I have nothing here to do ) he must be minded , that in the proposition so conceived there are two positions included ; both which he condemneth as two pestilent and blasphemous heresies , and in m his Parallel pointeth at either of them apart . 1. That faith is imputed for righteousnesse . 2. That Christs righteousnesse is not so imputed . Now for the former , to wit , that Faith is imputed for righteousnesse ; besides the Apostle n S. Paul more then once averring it , ( whom neither these men nor M. Walker , I hope will so charge ) two of them are expresse and peremptory for it . For so Beza , writing on those words of the Apostle , o Abraham beleeved God , and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse . p Here , saith he , is entreated of that which was imputed to him by God , to wit of his faith . And againe , q Paul relating passively , what Moyses spake actively , omitteth the affix , which he might have rendered , that thing , to wit , Abrahams faith it selfe : but he afterward twice plainely expresseth it in the fifth and ninth verses . And Pareus reconciling the Greeke with the Hebrew : r These two are all one , God imputed faith , and faith by God was imputed . As for the sense , this speech concerning Abraham conteineth two things : first , his faith ; Abraham beleeved God. Then the fruit of his Faith ; And ( faith ) was imputed to him for righteousnesse . And againe , s And ( faith ) was imputed to him for righteousnesse . The fruit of Abrahams Faith is hereby signified , even free justification . t That the Verb should be rendered , not impersonally , but passively ; that , to wit , Faith was imputed ; it is manifest , both by the Hebrew Text , and by the Apostles declaration in the fifth and ninth verses . Which to observe is of much moment for the right understanding of that Scripture . And for the latter position , that Christs righteousnes is not imputed in the act of justification ; if by Christs righteousnesse be understood his habituall holinesse , or his actuall righteousnesse consisting in the perfect observation of the Law morall : here also two of M. Walkers Authours must of necessity leave him , unlesse they will condemne themselves for blasphemous heretickes . For both Pareus and Lubbe●tus , going Ursines and Piscators way , hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sinnes . For so Pareus expresly ( besides what out of him v elsewhere ) in his Commentaries before mentioned ; u The Apostle placeth justification in the Remission of sinnes alone . Nor doth * Lubbertus herein depart from him . And both therefore also herein concurre ; that they ground our justification , not upon the Righteousnesse of Christ , so understood , as hath been said ; but on the merit of , and satisfaction made by his sufferings . That which , as for Pareus , by a whole x Treatise written of purpose by him about that Argument , doth most evidently appeere ; so for Lubbertus is also cleere enough , by divers y passages , even in those works which were written by him professedly against the errors of Socinus . Yea so far doth Pareus proceed herein , that he sticketh not to avow that , z Those that ascribe the merit of righteousnesse unto Christs active obedience or his native holinesse , c do thereby derogate from the death of Christ , and do undoubtedly make it vain , or superfluous . Now I would gladly understand from M. Walker what he thinketh of Pareus , and whether he count not him a blasphemous heretike , as well as M. Wotton . As for me & my fellows , as in scorn now he calleth them , ( tho peradventure as good men as M. Walker himselfe ) I hold it no disgrace to me , to be yoaked with such ; and to have deemed rather as they , then as M. Walker either then did , or now doth . Mean while how little cause M. Walker hath to crake so much of these Authors , by what hath been said , may easily be deemed ; and muchlesse to affirm , what so confidently * elsewhere he doth , that he hath all learned Divines agreeing with him in what he holds : and that “ the whole stream of learned Orthodox Divines hold the same Doctrine with him concerning justification by Christs righteousnesse imputed to beleevers . Which in such sense and manner as he maintaines it , he cannot but know to be most untru● ; unlesse he will expunge Pareus , Piscator , and I know not how many more , generally so esteemed , on● of the List of learned and Orthodox Divines . 3. Yea but M. Wotton ▪ 〈◊〉 M. W●lker , is * proved a blasphemous 〈◊〉 by h●…●onf●ssion . I answer in a word . How M. 〈◊〉 ●…th the deniall of Christs righteousnesse imp●… to be here●icall and blasphemous ; he plainely ex●resseth himselfe in his a defence ; whence M. Walker produceth it . To which therefore , and M. Bradshawes Preface to his English Treatise of justification , I referre the Reader : yet so , that of the one , and out of the other , somewhat hereafter also shall be said . 4. How farre forth M. Walker hath Gods Word for his warrant , in condemning M. Wotton , not of errour ( for that neither was , nor is the question ) but of heresie and blasphemy ( for that was the point in controversie , when time was ) he hath not yet made to appeare , no more then he did . For what here fondly and ridiculously in that kind he presumeth , by the sentence of his owne delegates , he was not then able to make good . What else is b here ferced in , concerning the cariage of the businesse at that meeting , shall in its due place ( by Gods assistance ) be discussed . The other doubt he moveth concerning the cause of my proclaiming so bitterly against him , and being so highly offended with him , is , c Whether it be , because he calleth M. Wotton by the name of Anthony Wotton . And if that be the cause , he telleth me , that d therein he did him a favour . For that under that obscure t●●le , his person might have been hid , and not made known to any but those , who are acquainted with all the passages between him and M. Walker . But M. Gataker is the man , that hath exposed his person to much shame , and stained his name and memory with the brand of heresie , &c. Sure he must be some , not merry , but very sad person , not grave and sage onely , that can read this passage without laughing , or smiling at least . Which to shew , let me entreat M. Walker to make M. Wottons case a while here his owne . M. Walker , as by his Parallell plainly appeares , e denieth Faith to be a condition on mans part required unto the attaining of justification . Now suppose that some one of his own spirit should thereby take occasion , in a Treatise of his published many yeeres after M. Walkers decease , to traduce him for the same , by the name of George Walker , as the first publisher in this Land of a most pestil●●t heresie ; and thereby charge him to have made himselfe f guilty of Paganisme , Ind●is● and Mahumetanism . Would it not be ridiculous , for the party having so dealt with him , to demand of one that should write in his defence , Why he is so highly offended with him , and whether it be for this cause or no , because he calleth him George Walker ? &c. For were it not all o●… , as if some rude fellow , having c●st a shovell of du●t or two upon a man , as he passeth in the street , should aske the party so misused , contesting with him about it , what he aileth to be so offended with him ; and whether it be , because he did not make him a legge , or give him , as we use to say , the time of the day . He might as well have moved question , whether I were not so offended , because he stileth him barely Anthony Wotton , and not Mr. A. Wotton : Or whether because he calleth him Anthony and not Antonie , as he usually and rightly wrote his name , save that by the Printers correction , or corruption rather , he found it so also in my relation . But that that followeth , is yet more ridiculous , that herein he did M. Wotton a singular favour . For under that obscure title he had lien hid and unknown to any , but those alone that had been acquainted with all that had passed between M. Walker and him . Is the name of Antonie Wotton then so obscure a title ? or are there so many of note so named , that this our A Wotton may lie hid in the heap , among the multitude of them , unlesse be be by some speciall notes and marks otherwise deciphered ? And yet any man , not utterly crackt-brained , would have thought , that g Anthony Wotton , one that some 28. yeeres agoe lived in London , and there in Manuscript Pamphlets and Printed bookes dispersed his opinions concerning justification , and h by the fame and opinion , which men had of his great learning and no lesse piety , drew many zealous professours into the liking of his errors ; and afterward i ●rought a booke De Reconciliati●…e , in Latine , &c. Any man would thinke , I say , unlesse he wanted his ●its that thus much were sufficient to discover , who the man were , that M. Walker meant , though they that read him were not privy to all M. Walkers either revilings of him in publique , or baitings of him in private . Suppose M. Walkers adversary before assigned him , had onely stiled him , George Walker , one that so many yeeres agoe had in the City of London out of the Pulpit inveighed and declamed oft against M. Wottons writings and M. Bradshaws works , as containing much heretical and blaspemous matter , &c. were it not enough to let men know who the man were that be meant ( notwithstanding I suppose there be and have been about the City more Walkers then Wottons ) unlesse they had been acquainted with all things , that either at the solemne meeting of Ministers , or in private otherwise , had passed between him and M. Wotton . But that , which herein exceedeth all the rest ; is , that i M. Gataker by his relation of the businesse that passed between them , and thereby blasoning his Armes , hath exposed him to sh●me , and stained his name with the brand of here●ie . I never knew that I had any skill in Heraldry before ; nor have heard of staining with brands till now . Two new trades M. Walker hath here put upon me , both which I must needs professe my selfe utterly unskilfull in . But to let these things passe ; whether of the two , staine a mans name , and expose him to shame ; he that publikely chargeth him with heresie and blasphemy ; or he that publisheth his acquitall from such horrid imputations , by the verdict , and under the hands of those , whom the same party appellant himselfe had made therein his Judges ; I am well content that any , not wholly in k Orestes his mood , whatsoever else he be , determine . After this Preamble thus premised , M. VValker proceeds to his Narration . l The former part whereof is spent in such stories , as M. Walker is pleased to entertain his Reader withall , of matters foregoing the Meeting of the Ministers before mentioned , concerning m himselfe and his reading and preaching , n M. Richardson and his approbation of M. Walkers censures passed upon M. Wottons opinion ; o M. Wottons dealing , and p the cariage of some of his followers . All which yet I suppose no man is bound to make any part of his Creed . Such of them especially as are grounded upon other mens reports ; as the frivolous and ridiculous tale , that q his Clarke , he saith , told him , concerning some of M. Wottons Disciples and himselfe ; and may the rather be questioned , because in the ensuing Discourse are found some very palpable untruths ; and such as were to be charged upon M. Walker himselfe , were they not salved with a some say . And what he reporteth r of M. VVottons jugling repeated againe s in his Epistle , and * elsewhere , is by M. VVotton very confidently and peremptorily denied , as shall hereafter be related . As for that he relateth of M. Richardsons censure , both t here , and u hereafter , be it true or no ; I say only thus much to it : that if M. Richardson shall condemne all those for blasphemous heretiks , who deny the imputation of Christs righteousnesse consisting in the perfect observation of the Law Morall unto justification ; and hold justification to consist wholly in remission of sinnes : ( which I conceive to be M. VVottons principall error , and wherein I dissent both from him and them ) he shall together with M. Wotton exclude from life eternall Olevian , Piscator , Ursinus , Pareus , Scultetus , Altingius , Cameron , and many other Worthies , who were as famons and bright lights in the Church of God here , as ever M. Richardson was , while he lived ; and ( if the Prophet x Daniel may be believed ) doe now shine as Starres in the Kingdome of heaven , and so shall doe for ever and ever ; whatsoever doom M. Richardson , or M. Walker shall passe on them . For my part I deem this their censure not unlike that other conceit , that I remember to have heard M. Walker sometime maintain , and is fathered likewise upon the same party , ( concerning whom , I forbeare to speake my mind , lest I undergoe the lash of M. Walkers tongue ) that , The fall of our first parents proceeded not from the mutability of their will : and that all that hold it to have thence proceeded , by so holding , make God the Autour of sinne . By which censure all the Divines in the World ( for ought I know , M. Walker , and M. Richardson , if he at least so also held , only excepted ) are condemned of extream impiety ; yea of Atheisme , or worse , ( if y M. Walkers manner of arguing by deduction may go for currant ) since that z it is much at one , to hold God to be wicked , and to hold him no God at all . But this former part of M. Walkers Narration , be it what it will , nothing at all concerneth me , who begin my Relation at M. Walkers Letter , and the meeting that thereupon ensued . Out of his Letter , wherewith he beginneth the latter part of it , I a relate only M. Walkers charge and his challenge . Which that they are there found , among much other lavish and menacing language , in as many words as I relate them ; by M. Walkers owne b Transcript of it may evidently appeare . With the main substance whereof , ( being such as sufficiently discovereth by what spirit it was endited ) I shall not much meddle ; but shall only relate what I find written in the margent of a copie of it ( testified to be a true copy by the attestation of M. Stephen Egerton , and M William Gouge thereunto annexed ) with M. Wottons own hand . Against those words , c If you had not refused to joyn with me in a Christian Conference , &c. I never had any such offer made me from you . Against those words , d You in scorn sent me to one Spencer , &c. The party will be deposed , that this is altogether false , Against those words , e This your doing when I complained to you of face to face , you excused as done in ignorance of mine intent and desire . This is most false . Against those words , f Did I not then shew both patience , love , and all good affection ? How true the report of this conference is , they that were by can witnesse : and to them I appeale . Upon g that passage , before h also mentioned , and yet before that at large related and pressed , in his Epistle prefixed before his Socinianisme discovered and confuted , concerning a place of Luther , that M. Wotton should alledge , covering with his fingers some part of it in the same page , that made against him , against those words , i If you deny this , God is my witnesse , and mine own conscience . God is my witnesse against you , that this is most falsely reported by you . Against those words , k They and you were so far from amendement , that you made me amends with all railing and reviling language . If you speake of me , it is most untrue : for others I cannot answer . Against those words , related as M. Wottons , concerning the Bishop of London , l You dare not co●…it your selfe to him , because he is a wicked Iudge , and will respect persons in judgement : my friends are too potent with him . The Lord let me find no mercy with him , if ever I said so , or thought so of the Bishop of London . Other notes I let passe , being lesse materiall , or concerning other men rather then M. Wotton him selfe . But for the further and fuller clearing of this last clause , I shall subjoyne out of a letter of M. Egertons written to M. Wotton , dated May 23. 1614 under his own hand , the very words that M. Wotton used concerning the Bishop . * Among some other passages , you had this speech in effect , that you thought that my Lord of London would not willingly do any thing , that might impeach M Walker , because ( as you had heard ) his brother of Cheswick was very gracious with my Lo●d . Thus much in effect , and not a jot more , did I signifie to M. Walker onely by way of demand , &c. How soundly and charitably M. Walker collected hereupon , that you either said or intimated , that you durst not commit your selfe to the Bishop of London , because he is a wicked man , &c. I leave it to others to determine . This I professe , that neither when I received it from you , nor when I told it to his eare , I did so much as conceive or imagine , that you had any such conceit of my Lord of London . Thus that reverend Divine , now with the Lord : by whose testimony may appeare , how prone M. Walker is to tenter out mens words , beyond all , not charitable onely , but even reasonable , construction . From his Letter , M. Walker proceedeth to the Meeting or Conference therein required ; which he saith is n the subject of mine invective against him . In relating whereof yet I use no Invective at all . I report onely what was done and exhibited on both parts : & what resolved by the parties on either side deputed to heare and decide . Neither of which M. Walker either doth or can deny . But M. Walker must give me leave , to deale here a little more freely with him ; and to tell him in plainer tearmes , that many things delivered in this part of his Narration , are either utterly untrue , or such as may justly be suspected of untruth . 1. He maketh his very entrance into it with a manifest untruth , tho a matter of no great moment . He saith , that o Upon the receit and reading of that his Letter , M. Wotton sent him a Letter of defiance , and therein professed his scorn and disdaine of his threatnings : but the next day he sent him another , wherein he promised to yeeld to his motion . Which , tho not much materiall , whether so or no , yet is not true . For M. Wotton sent him but one Letter with a Postscript of diverse date added thereunto : which must needs therefore come to M. Walkers hands both at once ; and not the one this day , and the other the next , as M. Walker here relates it . M. Wotton had indeed begun and gone on a good way in a large Answer to M. Walkers whole Letter ; which is yet to be seen ; and I could well have been content to afford it room here , save that I found it unfinished , and withall was loath to make this discourse overlong . But therein it seems he altered his mind , and sent him this shorter . Which , if but to shew the difference of these two mens spirits , I have thought good here to insert . To Mr. George Walker , peace of conscience , by true zeale with Sobriety and Charity . SIR , if you have any true d●sire of my good , especially testified by prayer to God for me , the Lord requite your love , and uphold me in the continuance of the like duty for you now and ever . But I must plainly professe , that I can hardly be perswaded of the truth of your protestation : because I finde your present Letters , being the first that ever I received from you , so full of bitternesse . Yet could I have been contented to have made some Answer to them , but that I see it would be to small or no purpose . For a great part of your vehement accusation concerns other men , and not me : who am not ( in any equity ) to be charged with their faults , ( if any have so faulted ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The things , which touch my selfe , are all , either utterly untrue , or misreported by you . And to what purpose were it , for me to deny , and you to affirme ; and so as it were out-vy one anothers credit ? Concerning the offer you make of putting the points in question , whether first you doe justly charge me with heresie and blasphemy ; and whether secondly , my writings do not shew me to be a Socinian ; I could happily have yeelded thereunto , without excepting against any one whom you name , if you had not so violently sought it , by frighting me ( as you imagined ) with complaining , to my L. of Canterbury his Grace and the Commission , of me , if I refused . Good M Walker do not think me so childish or foolish , that I can be scared with such terrours and menacings . I am so throughly resolved of the truth I hold , differing immane quantum from Socinus blasphemy , and so well perswaded of my Lords soundnesse in judgement , and the equall hearing I shall have in that Court , that I am not afraid to put the matter there to triall . Wherefore use your discretion , either in this , or in any other course , that shall best please you : I will alwaies be ready to maintaine the truth I know , and to acknowledge that , I yet know not , whensoever it shall be discovered to me by the Word of God. To whose gracious blessing I commend the pardoning and reforming of this and all other wrongs you have done me , and rest , Towerhill , May 5. 1614. Yours as it becomes a Christian to be ANTONY WOTTON . Postscript . Since the writing of this Letter , I have been perswaded by them , by whom I am willing to be advised and ruled , to yeeld to your motion , which by this Postscript I now signifie unto you ; Conditionally , that all things , wherewith you charge me in your Letter may also be heard , and the Letter it selfe scanned , as they , that shall be and are chosen , shall thinke meet . The manner of this tryall , with the time and pl●ce , must ( in reason ) be left to their wisedomes and liking . Whom I will choose , you shal understand from me , upon signification that you accept of this condition . The expectation of your former Messenger , who said he would call for an Answer , hath made me to put off the writing of this till now . May 12. Thus have you M Wottons Letter of defiance , as M. Walker is pleased to stile it , so full of scorn and disdain ; nothing sutable indeed to M. Walkers Invective , nor savouring at all of his furious spirit . And you have withall in the Postscript the reason of the delay of M. Wottons answer , returned thereunto not without the Postscript because detained by him till then . That which also is testified by M. Walkers own Letter written in answer hereunto ; wherein he professeth himselfe to have been at the first sight of M. Wottons Letter much troubled , as in some other respects , so in regard of the refusall of his motion , and the defiance ( as there also he tearms it ) of his threatnings ; untill he found at last to his comfort , an acceptance of his motion , upon the advice of his friends . 2. That which next followeth , hath as little truth in it as the former , being a matter of more moment ; to wit , that p M. Wotton , After that by Letter to M. Walker he had promised to yeeld to his motion about a conference , did by M. Mason the Bishops Chaplen use meanes to make it known to the Bishop , in hope that he would forbid the meeting . Whereas M. Wotton had not yet written to M. Walker , that he would accept of that his offer , ( desirous rather of a publike hearing , then a private conference ) untill he had been with the Bishop , q whom he importuned for an open and judiciary tryall ; and being pressed by him rather to condescend to the course by M. Walker propounded , had thereupon consented and yeelded thereunto ; upon condition that the Bishop would assigne one of his Chaplens to be a party in the hearing ; who to satisfie M. Wottons request therein , appointed M. Mason then present , to M. Wotton otherwise a meere stranger , to undertake that imployment . After which therefore M. Wotton added the Postscript above recited , to his Letter , lying yet by him , because not yet called for by M. Walkers messenger , according to M. Wottons expectation and his promise . 3. It is not true , that r M. Hicks and my selfe bare our selves at the meeting , towards M. Walker as an Adversary , or as Advocates for M. Wotton : Unlesse to require the forbearance of railing and reviling terms , and endevouring to have the businesse fairely and calmly caried , without Invectives and Declamations , which M. Walker , if let alone , would never have made an end of , may beare such an interpretation . And yet M. Hicks ( a man whom to my knowledge I never saw before or since , nor know I how M. Walker knows to be s of M. Wottons mind in all points ) spake least in the businesse of the most there present , being the yongest among us , and a man of very modest and moderate cariage . But somewhat must be fastned on a man least known ; because of the better known it would not be so easily beleeved . 4 It is not true that t D. Westfield was the onely man there , with whom M. Walker had then any great familiarity . For M. Stock and he , as they were next neighbours in their charges , so were very familiar ; tho for his kindnesse he have been but ill rewarded by M. Walker in some u passages here ensuing . For I leave it to M. Walker to reconcile his owne relations ; wherein he telleth us , here , that x he was but a stranger of two yeeres residence in the City at the time of our meeting Anno 1614. and yet before in the very entrance , that y the controversie between M. Wotton and himselfe began Anno 1611. He was belike very busie in the City , before he had any residence in the City . But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in his owne acts , himselfe , I hope , will some way assoll . 5. Nor is it true , that the parties designed , were a all of them M. Wottons old familiar friends . What any of the rest might be , I cannot certainly say ; tho of few of them , I suppose , M. Walker is able to make it good . But for my selfe , I was then but lately grown into acquaintance with him by occasion of my removall from Lincolns-Inne to Rederith . Besides that there had much strangnesse grown before that time ( as b between the best and holiest sometime it falleth out ) betweene M. Stock and M. Wotton , a thing too well known to , and much lamented by , many interressed in either . 6. It is not true , that c I derided him , when he gave in his charge of Socinian heresie & blasphemy against M. Wotton . For I never so did . Tho I confesse , I could not forbeare smiling at the reading of d the second point in his Parallel condemned as a blasphemous Socinian heresie . And I suppose that scarce any sound and judicious Divine will be able to read it sine risu aut stomacho . 7. Nor is it true , that e Dr. Baily came in amongst us , as by M. Walker designed to succeed in the roome of D. Westfield . For D. Westfield was expected that very day , that D. Baylie intruded himselfe into our company , tho very likely indeed ; not without M. Walker● privity and procurement , to disturb our proceedings . Yet not pretending to appeare in D. Westfields roome , however afterward he supplied it , to make up the number ; but making bold forsooth to associate himselfe with us , f because we met in his Church . The most of the rest misliking , and muttering at it among themselves , as desirous rather of his roome then his company . And that , as for some other reasons not so fit to be here related ; so the rather for that no sooner almost he was set down among us , but he began to quarrel with M. Wotton about his ap parrell , because he went not in a Ministeriall habit . 8. Whereas it is added , that g D. Westfield refused after our first meeting , to meet any more , ( which yet unto the rest of us he never once intimated ) because he perceived a generall inclination in us all to favour M. Wotton , as foreseeing and fearing what followed . As therein M. Walker taxeth not me alone , but the whole company of open partiality : so it may rather justly be surmised , that D. Westfield being of a mild and moderate disposition , forbare further to present himselfe among us , being wearied out with M. Walkers furious and intemperate cariage , sufficient to have tired us all : and this I suppose they will the more incline to , that know the mans temper . 9. It is not true , that h M. Walker did at first desire of us , that having in writing paralleld M. Wottons words with Socinus his , we would give our hands to his parallel , and subscribe , that he had not charged M. Wotton with any opinions or words but his owne ; or consuted under the name of Socinianisme any words of his , wherein he con●urred not with Socinus . For i neither was there at first any mention of a Parallel ; nor came the motion of it , when it was afterward mentioned , from M. Walker ; but was after some wast of time spent to no purpose in clamorous declamations and invectives , by my selfe propounded ; that we might thereby the better discerne , how the case stood concerning the matters controverted , and bring the businesse to some good issue : nor was any such subscription ever on M. Walkers part required ; who as he now seoffeth us by the name of Subscribers ; so could not after due hearing endure to heare of any subscribing ; well wotting by the verdict of the whole company , what the subscription was like to be . 10. He frameth k his narration , as if his Parallels had been read alone without M. Wottons Answer : and that l upon the reading and examining of them , they appeared to some of them so cleere , and his cause so just , that the same day at dinner Dr. Baylie did protest , that M. Walker had discovered M. Wotton to be as damned an hereticke as ever did tread on English ground : and after againe , that m the said Doctor upon the first reading of M. Wottons speeches so paralleld , condemned M. Wotton for an hereticke , and his errors for blasphemy . To wit , at a private table , as before he had related . Now whether D. Baylie spake thus or no , I will not call in question ; because M. Walker saith he hath sufficient witnesses of it . But this I say : 1. That his Parallel was not delivered in before or without M. Wottons Answer . For so n it was agreed . Nor were all the Parallels or points paralleld read over at once ; but severally related , considered of , and examined , together with M. Wottons answer thereunto , and both withall debated , as they stood in order , and came to hand , some one day , and some an other . 2. For the Doctors speech , ( howsoever his judgement , I suppose , so rashly given especially , will beare no great weight with those that throughly knew the man and his manner ) if it were such as M. Walker saith ; and were delivered , as he implieth , upon the very first hearing of M. Walkers charge onely read , before he had heard M. Wottons defence : it may seem , he was of that mind , that o the Stoike sometime was , who held it a ridiculous thing to heare any defendant or second party : tho most wise men have ever been p of a contrary judgement ; requiring q the one eare at least to be reserved for the defendant ; and condemning those of r unjust and unequall dealing , albeit the sentence they passe be agreeable to right , that condemne a man unheard . But , if the Doctor then said , as M. VValker saith he did ; and yet afterward did under his hand acquit M. VVotton of heresie and blasphemy , as it is acknowledged that he did ; one of the two must of necessity follow , either that he altred his judgement therein upon the hearing of M. Wottons defence , considering better of the businesse then before he had done ; or that he gave sentence and subscribed directly contrary to his owne judgement , and so s in acquitting M. VVotton condemned himselfe . Of either whereof let M. VValker choose which he please , and make the best use of it for his owne advantage . 11. Howbeit to afford the Doctor a plaister , wherewith to salve his credit , herein somewhat impeached , M. VValker bringeth in the party , at whose house they dined , demanding , t VVhy they did not then without more adoe justifie M. VValker , and censure M. VVotton . M. VValker might much better himselfe rather have askt the Doctor , why he said not so much openly at the meeting ; or how it came to passe that he did not there utter any one syllable or title tending thereunto ; whenas at the table now ( whereby any man may deem of the Doctors discretion , if all that M. VValker tels of him be true ) he so freely and fully passed and published his censure . Now to this question of his hoasts M. VValker shapeth this answer , ( in whose person uncertaine ; for M. VValker is nothing cleere in these his dramaticall discourses ) u They pretended , that they desired to convert , not to confound M. VVotton ; that they perceived him to be afraid of a storm like to fall on him : and that if I would yeeld to let him expound himselfe , he would by a wrested exposition gainsay and contradict his former words and opinions , and run from them : which being gotten from him under his own hand , they would either hold him to it , or shame him for ever , if he did fall back again . Such a passage , as I know not , nor any man else , I thinke , what to make of . For first , who be the They , that he speaketh of ? was it the Doctor alone , that told all this faire tale , and pretended all this ? how cometh he then to say , They ? Or if M. Downham be included , who is related to have dined at the same time with them ; how doth M. Walker , in his ensuing Discourse make him x a mute Actor in this Scene , one that y by silence only assented to , what the Doctor then said ? Again , where , think we , meaneth he , that all this was pretended ? was it pretended at the Table ? or was it related only there ; but pretended before at the meeting among our selves ? But I shall leave it to any man of ordinary understanding to conceive , how likely it is ; either that M. Wottons friends ( for such M. Walker saith they were all ) should thus conspire to ensnare him ; or that such a consultation should be had among us in the presence of M. Wotton himselfe . For we did nothing at our meetings but in the presence of M. Wotton and M. VValker ; who were neither of them ever excluded , or required to withdraw themselves upon any occasion , during the whole hearing . But M. Walker it may well seem , was somewhat distracted in mind , when he writ this ; studying how to bring in handsomely what himselfe had invented , and uncertaine whom to father and fasten it upon . For marke , I pray you , what immediately follows . 12. a This course , saith he , being M. Gatakers device , I refused to yeeld unto : because I had never opposed M. Wotton , but onely in his opinions formerly published , and and not in future Expositions : and because I had fully proved my charge , I desired their verdict and just judgement . But after much importunity I yeelded ; and so lost my cause , and was drawn into a new businesse ; that was , to contend with M. Wotton , not about his former opinions , but about new expositions , which he would make in answer to my Parallel . In which words are couched many grosse falshoods : nor was the former passage so intricate , but this is much more untrue . 1. He affirmed before , that They pretended this and that ; and thereupon plotted to get I know not what under M. Wottons hand . Now he telleth his Reader , that This course was M. Gattakers device . b Where at length shall we have him ? 2. True it is indeed , I was the first mover , that M. Walker might be requested to make such a parallel ; as c in my relation I acknowledge . But that I ever had any such pretence , as M. Walker here talketh of , or ever made any motion for ought under M. Wottons hand , is most untrue . M. VVotton onely himself moved , ( as I d elswhere relate ) that he might have the Parallels sent him from M. Walker a day or two before the next hearing , that he might subjoyn his answer and defence thereunto . 3. That M. Walker refused to yeeld thereunto , and was by meere importunity drawn to admit it , is likewise most false . For it was presently deemed most equall on all sides : nor did M. Walker in the least manner make any shew of dislike . 4. It is a like true , that upon the giving in of his parallel , he required our verdict ; that course being not as yet condescended unto , which he tearmeth my device . When as the course mentioned , and by M. VVotton himselfe motioned , was agreed upon before his parallel was composed , and much more then , before it was exhibited . So that by M. Walkers relation a verdict should have been past by his Judges , while the parallel , containing the evidence , was as yet , if as yet at least , in the Actors brain only . But to take the businesse , and discusse it a while , as M. Walker here relateth it . First , I referre it to any indifferent mans judgement to determine , whether it were agreeable to equity , for M Walker to require a verdict of his Iudges , ( as he termeth them ) or for them to give it in his behalfe , against M. Wotton , upon a bare sight of some positions found as well in M. Wotton , as in Socinus , ( supposing it so to be ) before M. Wottons defence were either exhibited or heard . And here let me crave leave to shew the unreasonablenesse of such a request , and it be but by one instance . M Walker in his Parallel chargeth this Position upon M. Wotton , as a point of Socinianism , an hereticall and blasphemous assertion , that e Faith is a condition appointed by God to be performed on our parts for obtaining of justification . Now , it being granted , that the very same words were by M. Walker exhibited , ( which yet precisely they are not ) as well out of Socinus his works , as out of M. VVottons writings : had it not been , thinke we , a very discreet part of them whom the businesse was committed unto , to have without more adoe , so censured it , as M Walker had charged it , and in so censuring it , to have condemned themselves , ( who openly to M. Walkers face * professed , that they had oft taught it ) and not themselves alone , but all orthodox Divines ( for ought I know ) in the whole world ; yea the Apostle S. Paul himselfe to boote too , if some of them may be beleeved ; for Socinians and blasphemous heretiks ? For I would fain know of M Walker , how this differeth that he so chargeth , from what Pareus saith , and avoweth to be S. Pauls , that f Faith is the condition , under which Christ is given us for a propitiation . Or , not to looke out abroad , but to keep our selves at home ; I should desire to understand from him , what he thinketh of these passages in some writers of our own ; and those men of no mean note neither . First , that of M. Fox , g The condition whereby we are properly justified is this , that we beleeve in Christ. And againe , * The Evangelicall promise requireth no other condition to the attaining of salvation , besides Faith onely , whereby we beleeve on the Sonne of God. Secondly , that of M. Perkins , in his Reformed Catholique ; h In the Covenant of Grace , two things must be considered : the substance thereof , and the condition . The substance of the Covenant is , that Righteousnes and life everlasting is given to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is , that we for our parts are by faith to receive the foresaid benefits . And this condition is by grace as well as the substance . Or if these men be not of that esteem with M. Walker , but that he can be content to let them go for damned heretiks , to beare M. VVotton company in the same condemnation , I should crave to be informed , what he deemeth of M. Pemble , i some of whose works he hath deigned to honour with a Dedicatory Epistle ; wherein he commendeth him , as k a righteous and faithfull servant of Christ , excelling in grace and vertue , abounding in all wisdome , and in all knowledge , lively sense and utterance of heavenly and supernaturall mysteries , far above all that could be expected from , or is ordinarily found in one of his age and yeers . l Nor doubteth therefore , nor is afraid to say of him , that he is ascended up into that supercelestiall glory , towards which he had ever bent all his studies and desires . This M. Pemble then , whom M. Walker thus extolleth , and not altogether undeservedly , in another of his works hath these words : m There are two covenants that God hath made with man : by one of which salvation is to be obtained . The one is the Covenant of works , thè tenor whereof is , Doe this , and thou shalt live . The other is the Covenant of Grace , the tenor whereof it , Beleeve in the Lord Iesus , and thou shalt be saved . The condition of this Covenant , n ( required in them that shall be justified ) is faith . The performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Covenant . Doe this and live , is a compact of pure justice ; wherein wages is given by debt ; so that he that doth the work obeying the Law , may in strict justice for the work sake claim the wages , eternall life , upon just desert . Beleeve this and live , is a compact of freest and purest mercy ; wherein the reward of eternall life is given us in favour for that , which beares not the least proportion of worth with it : so that he that performs the condition , cannot yet demand the wages , as due unto him in severity of justice , but onely by the grace of a free promise , the fulfilling of which he may humbly sue for . And againe , o Altho the act of justification of a sinner be properly the onely work of God , for the onely merit of Christ : yet is it rightly ascribed unto faith , and it alone ; for as much as faith is that main condition of the New Covenant ; which , as we must performe , if we will be justified ; so by the performance whereof we are said to obtaine justification and life . Thus M. Pemble : in which passages ( tho I will not justifie all therein contained ) he fully and cleerely expresseth M. Wottons meaning not as his owne judgment only , but p as the doctrine of the Reformed Churches by them so explained . Now I demand of M. Walker , whether for this damnable and detestable position , we shall doe well , without further search or triall , ( the rather since that the same , he saith , is found in Socinus ) to condemne M. Pemble of heresie , and require , if not his bones to be digged up againe and committed to the fire , yet his books at least containing such blasphemous stuffe , to be burnt . Which if he shall deem fit , sure Pauls Epistles , unlesse Pareus be much mistaken , must goe the same way . Or if he shall be of another mind concerning these blessed men , whether it be not extreame partiality , to let that goe for sound doctrine in M. Fox , Perkins , Pareus and Pemble , that in M. Wottons writings without further adoe , upon M. Walkers bare relating of it , must be condemned for blasphemous heresie . Secondly , I desire to have it considered , whether it were equall to censure a man for an heretike , upon bare positions or sayings extracted out of his writings , without any regard had to , or notice taken of , his own Expositions of them ; or his Reasons alledged to prove his dissent in them from the errors of those whom he is charged to concurre with ; confirmed by collation of place with place in his writings , and by consideration of the maine scope and drift of the dispute , course and tenor of the discourse , and the different sense and meaning of the words and terms used by either . For example , M. Walker in his parallel alledgeth a saying of Servetus , ( and that is all that he hath out of him throughout his whole Parallel ) that q For one act of Faith was Abraham righteous . And presuming that M. Wotton saith the very same , ( though he alledge not any one place at all out of M. Wotton , where these words are found ) from hence concludeth , that M. Wotton and Servetus do in the doctrine of justification hold one and the same opinion in all points . Now suppose wee that the very selfesame words were found in M. Wottons wrirings : and againe , that that saying in Servetus were condemned , yea and that justly , for hereticall : yet were it therefore agreeable to equity , without further disquisition , to passe sentence thereupon , that M. Wotton & Serv●tus do in all things hold the same opinion in the point of justification ? yea or , that in those very words they speake the same thing ? when it may easily be made evidently to appeare , that Servetus speaketh of justification in one sense , and M. Wotton intreateth of justification in another sense : and that neither the Faith , nor the Righteousnesse , nor the manner of imputation of Righteousnesse , that they speak of in their writings are the same . That which any may soon see , that shall read r the summe of Servetus his discourse , related out of Calvin in my postscript . Surely by the same reason might M. Walker prove S. Paul and Servetus to be both of them in all things of one mind concerning the doctrine of justification ; because s Servetus saith , that Abrahams beleeving was imputed unto him for righteousnes : and S. Paul expresly in so many t words saith the same . Or that Musculus agreeth with Servetus in all things for the matter of justification ; because he saith in neerer terms to Servetus , then any M. Walker alledgeth out of M. Wotton ; that u Abraham for that faith of his was of God reputed just . Yea take away all benefit of Exposition , and who almost may not be condemned of heresie and blasphemy ? For example : He that shall mention Gods x hands and y feet ; as concurring with the Audians , z who held that God had the shape , limbs , and lineaments of a man : he that shall affirme , with the Evangelist , or with Christ himselfe rather , that a the Father is greater then he ; as consenting to the Arians ; b who maintained an inequality among the Persons in the Trinity . And here I shall crave of M. Walker and my Reader to tell a story or two : it is the humour of old men ( such as M. Walker and my selfe ) to be now and then telling of tales . I remember , that , while I aboad at Lincolns-Inne , the night before Legate the Arian appeared in the Bishops Consistory at Pauls , ( of whose being in trouble I then knew nothing ) there came to my chamber there , at a very unseasonable houre , a Gentleman-like man ; who having knockt at the doore , ask'd to speake with me ; and entrance afforded him , reacht me a little scrole , wherein were these words written , Whether was the Godhead of Christ begotten of the Godhead of the Father from all eternity ? and withall desired me to give mine opinion , whether that were not an error ? I required to know first what the meaning of the party was , that held or affirmed it . He answered me , According to that in the Creed , c God of God , light of light . I told him , that these were not the words there used : and that to speake properly , the Godhead was not said , either to beget , or to be begotten . If the parties meaning were , that Christ being God was begotten of the Father , who is likewise God from all eternity ; the sense were sound , but the speech improper . Then belike , as it is there written , quoth he , it is an error . As the words sound , replied I , it is : yet it may be not , in his sense that spake it . He requested me to give him that under my hand . I craved his name . He told me , I must excuse him for that . I told him , he should likewise excuse me for this . And so we parted . But the next day , hearing Legate in the Consistory , as I past thorow Pauls , I began to surmise , that this party might be some friend of his ; and that some Divine or other , in conference with him having let some such speech slip from him , this party his friend might beate about to get under some other Divines hands the censure of it as an error . Whence I then gathered , that a man had need to be wary , how he condemne a man of error , of heresie much more , upon a bare relation of words , before he understand what his meaning is . Againe , I remember , that a busie Separatist being committed to Newgate , and there arrogantly challenging to dispute with all commers , and scornfully playing upon and gibing at such as dealt with him ; M Bradshaw ( whom we shall find M. Walker anon grinning at ) was by some friends brought to him ; who perceiving the mans spirit , and having had some discourse with him , the issue whereof he caused to be set down in writing under both their hands , that he might not talke of this and that , after they were parted ; M. Bradshaw a little to represse his insolency , told him , that for all his prating so much of the Constitution of a Church , ( the common subject of such mens disputes ) yet his skill peradventure might be but mean in the maine principles of religion . And being by him provoked to make triall , if he pleased ; he demanded of him , whether Christs Deity assumed the Person of man or no. To which question the bold bayard without stop or stay returning an affirmative answer , that it did , M. Bradshaw told him , it was grosse heresie . And so left him . And indeed , if the words alone be regarded , so it is ; even the heresie of Nestorius , d who maintained two-persons in Christ , not two natures in one person . And yet neither doe I , nor did M. Bradshaw hold the silly fellow to be an heretik ; no more then e those that beare the name of Nestorians in the Eastern parts , are deemed so to be at this day . And indeed take mens words apa●t from their meaning , and how many shall be ranked , though in judgement never so sound and orthodox , among heretiks , as concurring with such , because the same words and sentences are found in either ? To cleere this a little , consider we an instance or two , Salvian Bishop of Marseiles , a very pious and learned ancient Writer , saith , that f Our Saviour Christ is the greatest begger in the World. Meaning it of the poverty , which he sustaineth g not in himselfe , but in his , in the severall members of his body mysticall , or spirituall rather , here upon earth . shall he be hold therefore to concurre in opinion with Pope Nicolas 3. and those other h who maintained , that our Saviour Christ was a very beggar indeed , and lived here in the very lowest degree of beggary that can be ; which Pope Iohn 22. i condemneth for an heresie ? Againe Luther , in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians , saith , that k Christ was the greatest sinner in the World ; meaning it , in regard of l the sinnes of all the faithfull , which he took upon himselfe , and were reckoned as his . And we read of one Austen of Rome , Archbishop of Nazareth , who maintained some assertions , not unlike that of Luther , to wit , that m Christ sinneth daily , and ever so did . Understanding what he sp●ke , n of the body of the faithfull , who being o in Christ , and p one with Christ , have the Name of Christ sometimes given them q in Scripture . The speeches , I confesse , are both overharsh ; and the Archbishop was for his taxed in the r Councel of Basil. Yet were it no lesse harsh or hard , to condemne either of them , as concurring in judgement with those blasphemous Pharisees , that s said our Saviour Christ was a sinner ; tho the words were the same with either . Yea to ad onely one instance more : S. Iohn himselfe faith , that t No regene rate man doth sinne ; u nor can sinne . And yet who dares be so bold as to say , that S. Iohn therefore concurreth either with the old x Cathari , or with the late Familists , who dreaming of an absolute perfection in this life , do y of their illuminate and regenerate ones say the same ? In regard hereof , a man may precisely relate an other mans words ; and yet be a slanderer , a false accuser , a false witnes . For example ; that I may refresh my Reader a little with some matter of more abstruse learning , ( yet other mens , not mine own ; lest M. Walkers tongue again lash me ) and a season therewith somewhat this not very savoury discourse . Suppose we , that those persons , b that were deposed against our Saviour , had given in his precise words , as he himself spake them , without addition , detraction or alteration of ought , Dissolve this Temple , and within three daies , I will reedifie it ; understanding and affirming it ( as it seems they did , and as d the Jewes that heard him tooke it ) to have been spoken not as he meant and intended it ( pointing in likelihood , when he spake , to it ) f of the Temple of his body , g wherein his Deity dwelt ; but of the Temple of Lime and Stone , built by Herod , of which they spake when they said , h Forty and six yeeres hath this Temple been building , as the words may well be translated : and i so long by just computation it is by some deemed , that it had then been in building , and k the former . And indeed it may seeme by n was not yet fully finished : and of which l some understand , not without some good ground of probability , those words of the Prophet , m Silver is mine , and Gold is mine ; or , Of Silver and Gold I have store enough ; The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the glory of the relation of those that saw it , that the o second house , as the Jewes tearme it , ( which tho demolished by Herod , yet still bare that name , because there was no interruption or intermission by occasion thereof of p the daily solemne sacrifice ) was by that q magnificent King built up againe in more stately manner , then by Salomon it was built at first . Now suppose , I say , these men , that were suborned to accuse our Saviour , had in their evidence to a syllable given in his owne words , and had agreed in their testimony , as r they did not ; had they been ever a whit the lesse false-witnesses therefore ? I trow , not . And here I cannot let passe , as notorious , and yet as grosse and palpable a calumny as ever I read or heard of , of that Romish sycophant , that wrote against that acute and nimbleheaded defender of The safe way to salvation by Protestants Religion ; a worke , which for the main substance of it , as it opposeth Popery , I looke not to see answered by that side in hast , however they nibble at some passages here and there in it , and snarle at the Author . He renders you the Authors words to an heire , not a word , not a syllable , not a letter , not a point , not a title , detracted , added , altered , or displaced . No man that reads the Jesuite , having not M. Chillingsworths booke by him , but would verily beleeve , he had uttered and meant , the thing spoken , of himselfe . For thus they runne in his Relation , s This man ( to wit , M. G. C. ) speakes so irreligiously sometimes , that it may give just occasion for men to enquire what he beleeves concerning the Divinity of our Saviour Christ ; as when he saith , t that the doctrine of Transubstantiation may bring a great many others , as well as himselfe to Averroes his resolution ; Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt , sit anima mea cum Philosophis ; seeing Christians adore what they eate , my soule be with the Philosophers . Which having recited , he begins to debate the matter with the Authour , as having said thus of himselfe . u Is this matter of eating our Saviour such a pill to your understanding , that rather then disgest it , you will turne Turke or Infidel ? If you beleeved indeed that our Saviour Christ is truely God , you would not be scondalized , that Christians adore him who would and could be eaten , no more then him who stood in need of eating , and whom the Iewes might have eaten , even in a Capharnaiticall and savage manner if it had been his will to permit it : x Perhaps for these reasons , having subjected Faith to reason , you wish with Averroes a prosessed enemy of Christians , My soule be with the Philosophers . Whereas let any man but lightly cast his eye upon the Authors owne discourse ; and the knavery will at the very first sight , without further enquiry , evidently discover it selfe . His words are these , y I should desire you to tell me ingenuously , whether it be not too probable , that your portentous doctrine of Transubstantiation , joynd with your forementioned perswasion of , No papists , no Christians , hath brought a great many others as well as himselfe to Averroes his resolution , Quandoquidem Christiani adorant , quod comedunt , sit anima mea cum Philosophis . You see the Authours own words exactly retained , precisely reported ; and yet that resolution thence gathered , and therein fathered and fastned upon the Author , then which he nothing lesse there either uttered or intended . Which the rather I recite here , partly to shew the desperate shamelesnes of those of that faction , not regarding what lies and falshoods they report as out of our Writers , tho the books repaired to may presently convince them of grosse untruth ; ( of which their practise examples not a few might be produced ) and partly to manifest how exactly for words men may cary themselves in this kind , and yet not escape the just censure of fals-witnesbearers , and unjust slanderers of their brethren . Lastly , to come full home to our selves ; as he may be a false-witnes , who yet relateth a mans own words : so Iury and Iudge may both be unjust , tho upon a mans own words , the one cast him , and the other condemn him ; excluding his exposition , and either perverting or mistaking his meaning ; witnes ( to go no further , but content our selves therewith ) those * that cast and condemned our poore Countreyman , a Citizen and Grocer of London , one of M. Walkers name , in King Edward the fourths time , as guilty of no lesse then high treason ( for which also he was executed ) for saying , he would make his child , if he plied his booke , heire to the Crown : thereby meaning no other then his own dwelling house at the signe of the Crown in Cheapside , commonly known and called by that name . Nor , I suppose , could we justly have escaped that censure ; should we , as M. Walker here would have us , upon his bare reading of M. Wottons words to us , without all further examination of them , or hearing of him , have proceeded to condemn him of heresie and blasphemy ; that is , no lesse , as I take it , then high Treason against the highest Majesty . But thus much may suffice , if not more then sufficient , to evince the iniquity and inequality of M. Walkers here pretended request . Which yet he was not so unreasonable then as to motion or mention ; much lesse to presse upon us , being then somewhat more reasonably minded , then ( it seemes ) he now is : and which , had he pressed upon us , as now he saith that he did , had been most unequall and unjust for us to have granted . 13. As far from truth as the former , are those things that in M. Walkers narration next follow : to wit , that a at an other day M. Wotton brought his Expositions ; whereas in truth his Answers which he cals his Expositions ( the same word for word that by his sonne have since been published ) were delivered in at the same time together with M. Walkers Parallels , as at first was appointed , that b he desiring to argue with M. Wotton face to face against them in strict Syllogisms , he refused to answer him ; and their Iudges refused to heare him , or to suffer him to have a Copy of them , as M. Wotton had of his Parallels . All which is most untrue . For neither did M. VVotton ever refuse to answer M. Walker , offering any orderly dispute : ( which how well M. Walker is acquainted with , those that have had dealings with him in this kind , or have read his writings , may soon see ) nor did their Iudges ( as he calleth them , but very partiall and unjust ones , it seems , all of them ; and it is well , that herein we suffer all alike from him ) refuse to heare him alledging ought , whereby he might make his charge good . Nor was he by them ever denied a Copy of M. VVottons answer ; which neither we had our selves , no more then his Parallel , nor was at any time by him demanded of us . 14. Yet what he addeth here , I confesse , is in part true ; that when he saw he could not have his owne will , nor deterre us from acknowledging under our hands , that we found neither heresie , nor blasphemy , in ought , that he had evinced M. Wotton to hold ; c he went away in a rage ; yet , not threatning ( as here he reporteth ) to bring him and us before higher Judges ; ( he came not as yet to so high tearms with us ; and is herein therefore not unlike some debauched persons , who to encrease their owne shame , will d vaunt many times of more evill then ever they did ) but not without intimation , that we did more then we could answer in taking upon us to determin heresie ; ( or to tell , belike , what we thought to be , or not to be such ) having forgotten , it seems , his own motion at first , and what himselfe had requested us to meet about : just as if a party appeaching his neighbour of wrong doing , and having pressed him to referre the matter betweene them to Arbitrators joyntly agreed on ; should , when he perceived them enclining to acquit his neighbour of the pretended wrong , demand of them , whether they would take upon them to decide right and wrong : and yet why might not we do as much as Walker himselfe had done ? for how did not he take upon him to determine what was heresie , when he charged M. Wotton with it ? Nor again , is it untrue , that afterward he endeavoured to have us called in question for our meeting , tho by himself procured . Insomuch that the Bishop of London , in regard of his importunate exclaiming against us , did at first pretend to doubt of , yea in a manner deny his giving way to it ; untill being minded of the e motion made for one of his Chaplens to be a party in the businesse , and his condescending thereunto , he could not but agnize it . But that which followeth ; and , if M. Walker in his Narration observe any due order , should be done after his departure , and so in his absence ; to wit ; that f M. Wotton should promise to make & publish a large Declaration , wherein he would free himselfe from all Socinian errors ; and in the mean space begged this favour , that they would subscribe to his expositions , that they found no heresie or blasphemy in them ; and that upon this promise and entreaty they did subscribe , as followeth , &c. To which is a little after added , that g M. Wotton begged this beggerly subscription ; ( which sticketh shrewdly in his stomacke ; as well it may ) and that M. Gataker procuredit . All this , I say , hath little or no truth in it . Neither did M. Wotton make any such promise . Nor did he beg our censure to be given under our hands , as a favour ; but required it , as a thing just and equall . Nor was it by me procured ; unlesse giving my vote among the rest for the grant of it , may be so construed . Nor was it upon any such promise condescended unto , as is here pretended . And M. Walker certainly had very long eares , if being absent at the doing of it , he could heare what was then and there said : or a quicker eare then the rest of the company , if being present , he heard that , that some , I am sure , and the rest , I verily beleeve , never heard , and yet might have heard as well as he , had it been spoken . Howbeit I must here request the reader to take notice of one point of cunning conveyance , in the relation of the forme subscribed , whether committed by the Doctor , from whom he saith he had it , ( tho he might have seen it , and had it from us , if he had pleased to stay our subscribing ) or by M Walker himselfe , I know not ; and I would be loath to charge him further then I have good ground : He telleth his Reader , that h M. Wotton begged of us to subscribe to his Expositions , and the subscription it selfe he thus layeth down i Howsoever we whose names are underwritten , doe differ from M. Wotton in some Point of the former Dectrine of justification conteined in these his Expositions ; yet we hold not the difference to be so great and weighty , as they are to he justly condemned of heresie and blasphemy . And againe he subjoyneth , k The expositions thus subscribed . Whereas it is testified l under the hands of two of his own Delegates , that in the subscription given under our hands , it was not Expositions but Positions . Howsoever Positions come now to be turned into Expositions ; by what or whose hand I wot not ; and this latter be now pressed , to give some sory colour to m M. Walkers late devised shift before mentioned , and there sufficiently discussed , of dealing with M. Wottons Positions , and not his expositions . Which , albeit it wil litle avail M. Walker , unles he can shew , that his Expositions are such , as either his words wil not beare , or are not consonant to the scope and tenor of his discourse ; yet what was then subscribed , the subscribers themselves witnes . And as for the Copy , which n he saith , he hath yet to shew ; unles he can produce the originall , that their own hands are too ; I hope , this yet to be seen under the hands of some of them , and those of M. Walkers own party , ( the like whereunto also can be produced under the hands of some of the other side ) wil with any man indifferently affected carry the more credit : especially considering , that M. Walker would make men beleeve that they did very unwillingly , what therein they did ; and were afterward ashamed of what they had done : and had reason therefore to mince it all that possibly they might . 15. It is o the usuall manner of delinquents , ( for under that head may be comprehended , as wel those that unjustly appeal others , as those that by others are justly appealed ) when they fail and are found faulty , to complain of their Iudges , and exclaim against them , for their iniquity and partiality in the cariage of the businesse ; by impairing their credit , seeking to salve up their own . The very same course doth M. Walker take throughout this whole , not so much Vindication of himself , as Crimination of those , whom himselfe had referred his cause unto . He vilifies them in tearms of scorn and reproach , p M. Gataker and his fellows , and his fellow subscribers . He accuseth them of iniquity , partiality , unjust and unequal carriage , against their own judgment , and consequently against their own conscience . Or , if a man would speak in M. Walkers wonted language , as q wicked Iudges , that have respect of persons in judgement ; yea , worse then r the unjust Judge in the Gospel , that neither feared God , nor regarded man : for s he by the poore widows importunity was drawn to do her right ; whereas t they by M. Wottons importunity were induced to do M. Walker wrong , and to acquit him of heresie & blasphemy , whom M Walker had justly accused of either ; and that against their own knowledge , yea their own acknowledgement , when they both knew and acknowledged him to be guilty of either . Howbeit a little to wipe off these foule aspersions again , he saith , u they did it , out of their great love to M. Wottons person : and x the better part of them , notwithstanding M. VVottons importunity , would never have yeelded thereunto , but upon his promise of reformation . Concerning which I shall not need to repeat what I have formerly related . Tho what reformation M. Walker here speaketh of , I do not well understand . For , as for those points , wherein M. Wotton and they differed , which they pronounce to be neither hereticall nor blasphemous ; neither did they require M. Wotton to renounce and revoke his opinion therein ; nor did he promise so to doe . And what else it was , that he should promise to reform , I know not . This may wel therefore go among M. Walkers owne fancies ; and so let it passe . Onely , for what he saith of y their great love to M. Wotton ; I will presume , they did all beare a Christian affection , as well to M. Wotton as to M. Walker , and to M. Walker as well as to him . Nor is that any sufficient ground to induce any man to beleeve , that they should therefore encline rather to the one then to the other . Howbeit M. Walker must be remembred , that Dr. Baylie at the very first shewed little good will to M. Wotton , by his quarelling with him about his habit , as before was shewed . And much lesse , by his rash and overhasty ●ensure and sentence passed ( if M. Walker may be beleeved ) upon him yet unheard . As also that there had been a breach and interruption of friendly correspondence between M. Wotton and M. Stock , as was before intimated ; which grew upon occasion of some difference , that rose first between them at a meeting of divers London Ministers and some others about the beginning of King James his Raigne , and as yet continued ; nor indeed was ever wel peeced up again : whereas between M. Walker and M. Stock , it was then otherwise . Nor have I heard of any great familiarity , that ever was between M. Wotton and M. Randall . Which then also the rather might be the lesse : for that at the Conference above-mentioned , that occasioned the breach between M. Stock and M. Wotton , M. Wotton and M. Randal were likewise divided . And little reason therefore there is to presume , that these men out of great love to M. Wotton should be so partiall in his cause : much lesse , that they should therefore give a sentence in favour of him , directly against their own judgments , and that either privately or publikly professed to the contrary . 16. But this is the salve for those , whom M. Walker would excuse . As for the rest , it is not to be mervelled , if they were partiall in the busines . For a M. Balmford was M. Wottons silenced brother . ( a fit squib to fall from the pen of him , that b erewhile complained so of his owne persecution ) c M Hicks was one of M. Wottons Disciples ; one that would jurare in verba magistri ; that is in plain English , One that would sweare whatsoever M. Wotton his Master would say . ( a most uncharitable censure , sure enough , for the latter part ; whither true or no , for the former ) and d M. Gataker did more angerly and peevishly speake against him , and snarl at him , then his Adversary M. Wotton himselfe . So that he was forced to challenge him as well as M. Wotton , and to offer to dispute against them both : that which once e before also he vaunted of , calling in some to witnes it : ( whom yet because he doubted of , as well he might do , whether they would say with him somewhat more then was true ; he thought good by way of caution , to insert that exception , if their memories faile them not ; as belike in delivery of the Attestation they did ) and withall adding , that we both ( daunted it seems , and dasht cleane out of countenance , as conscious of our owne weaknes and inability to encounter such a Champion , either severally or joyntly ) did cowardly refuse it , not without shew of scornful disdain . It is true indeed , that M Wotton ( whom M. Walker is yet content in part to acquit , so be he may thereby the deeper wound me , whom his spite , it seems , is more eagerly bent at for the present ) demeaned himselfe very moderately , throughout the whole hearing ; with great patience enduring much reproachful and despiteful language , whereof M. Walker was no whit sparing . And , I suppose , it was fit , that those whom that office was committed unto , should endeavour to represse such clamorous ballings and barkings , as neither beseemed him that used them ; nor did any way further , but hinder rather the issue of that for which we met . In which kind , not I alone , but the rest also , laboured with M. Walker what they could ; tho to smal purpose . But that I snarled at him otherwise , is altogether untrue . It is likewise true , that M. Walker challenged me once to dispute . ( for , as for dispute with M. Wotton , so he would keep to the point , it was never denied him ) upon this occasion . Some speech coming in the way , in discussion of the first pretended error , concerning the imputation of Christs Righteousnes consisting in obedience to the Law ; and justification consisting wholly in Remission of sinnes ; * M. Walker in his heat told me , that it was reported ( for he buildeth much upon reports ) that I was wholly therein of Piscators mind : and if I would maintain Piscators opinion , he would dispute it out with me . Whereunto I then answered , that whether it were so , or no , was nothing to him ; nor was it time for him and me then to dispute ; being met for an other end . And this is also all the scornful disdain then used , or made shew of . As for the report , I shall make bold now to tell M. Walker , if he heard so , that he heard an untruth ; as e what I have published , may enform him . Against which , if he shall think good to dispute , I hope I shall be as wel able to answer him , as I have done some others already . Howbeit suppose we , that M. Walker ( f another Hercules , or one rather more valiaut then he , that durst not deale g with two at once ) could by dint of Argument , wherein ( it seems ) he supposeth himselfe to excell ; though some deem him , ( as one sometime of another , whom M. Walker would seem much to admire ) h a man more eager then argumentative , have been able to silence both M. Wotton and my selfe ; and to have proved against us both , not those Points alone that he charged M. Wotton with , ( which yet if he had done , he must have confuted us all , and many more then us all ) but all the Positions that ever he had produced , or could produce out of M. Wottons writings , to be erroneous and not agreeable to truth : yet would not all this have been sufficient to make good his charge against M. Wotton , and to prove him a blasphemous hereticke . How many mens writings may more then seven times seven errors be found in , whom it were yet most uncharitable therefore to censure for such ? 17. But that divers of the Subscribers subscribed against their own judgements and consciences ; and all of them were ashamed of what they had done ; he endeavoureth further to shew : the former , by some relations that may justly be questioned ; the latter by avouchment of things altogether untrue . The former concernes others not me , whereof some are deceased ; some yet survive : and is to this effect : 1. That h D. Baylie , the first of the subscribers did upon the very first reading of M. Wottons speeches in M. Walkers Parallel , condemn him ( not at our meeting , but at a private Table at dinner ) for an hereticke , and his errors for blaspemous . Of which sufficient hath been spoken already ; and but for M. Walkers repetition of it here , to descredit the subscription , or the subscriber himselfe rather , had for me no more been mentioned . 2. That l M. Downham , who heard this his censure uttered at the Table ; did by his silence assent thereunto . Of which somewhat also before . 3. That k D. Gouge hath publiquely confuted M. Wottons opinions ; ( but which or what of them he talleth us not : * one of them at least , I am sure , he professed to have taught . ) and in the Pulpit condemned them of Socinianism . These two latter survive ; and I leave to answer , as they shal see good and thinke fit , for themselves ; the Attestation for the Subscription to the contrary being under their owne hands . 4. That l M. Randal did argue very hotly against M. Wottons opinions that same day that they subscribed , and told him before us all , that he had protested against them often in private , and had disswaded him from them ; and that he for his part abhorred them . All which men may , if they please , beleeve , upon the bare word of him , who hath told his Reader so many untruths here before . For my part I beleeve no one tittle of it to be true , as it is by M. Walker here related ; that is , affirmed to have been then and there by M. Randal delivered ; but a meere fiction of M. Walkers own invention , * spun like a spiders web out of the bowels of his own brain . Besides , I desire to have it considered how probable it is , that M. Wotton should make choice of one to be for him in this busines , who had in private formerly professed unto him , not a bare dissent from , or a simple distast , but so deep a dislike of his opiniōs . True it is , that there was that day a dispute among us about a nice question mentioned in my m Relation , concerning the worke of Redemption performed by Christ , and the worke of our Insition into Christ and our union with him , whether of the twain hath the precedency in the order of nature . Wherein some were with M. Wotton on the one side for the precedency of the work of redemption ; some were on the other side ( among whom M. Randal ) for the precedency of the Insition of the faithful into Christ and their union with him . But neither was the point argued with any heat at all on either side ; among our selves at least . Nor did either M. Randal , or any other of the company , no not D. Baylie himself , ( tho forward enough , if M. Walker may be believed , to censure M. Wotton deep enough behind his backe , and over prone , as I have shewed , to pick a quarrell to him otherwise ) at any time , that ever I can remember , during our whole meeting , use any such distastful speeches unto M. Wotton , as M. Walker is here pleased to attribute to M. Randal , being now gon , and not able to deny or avow , what he fastneth thus upon him . The figure n Prosopopaeia , it is to be feared , is with M Walker here too frequent . 5. That o M. Stock did ever abhorre M. Wottons opinions , as he oft told M. Walker in private . That he did in divers things dissent from him , I doubt not ; that which I also professed in private to him concerning my selfe ; shewing wherein I dissented from M. Wotton , as wel to him , as to M. Wotton himselfe , having sometime required it of me in writing ; which to M. Stock also I imparted . But such terms of abhorring them , I never heard from him ; tho being as intimate , I suppose , as ever M. Walker was , with him . The phrase sure better suteth with M. Walkers own spirit , then either with M. Randals or M. Stocks ; both whom he maketh here to speake in the same tone with himselfe . But p by a pretty stratagem ( for so he slileth it ) he brought M. Stock before other witnesses to condemn M. Wottons opinions for heresie and blasphemy . For at a supper time in a neighbours house , reading as out of some other paper containing new and strange opinions , that assertion of M. VVottons , that in this proposition , Faith is counted for Righteousnesse , the word Faith is to be taken properly , not tropically ; and demaunding of M Stock what he thought of it , M. Stock acknowledged it to be heresie and blasphemy ; and that none but mad men would subscribe that it was neither . Whereupon he shewed him his own hand to the subscription before mentioned . Now whether M. Stock was thus overtaken or no , to make his tongue and his hand jarre , I know not . If he were , it had been a more friendly part of M. Walker , to have concealed his and my friends oversight . But q Tros Tyriusve , friend or foe ; Advocate or Adversary ; all is one with M. Walker ; another Aristides , one that hath no respect of persons , as his partiall Judges had . how he disgraceth either any way to help himselfe , he little regardeth . as if the discrediting of them either would suffice , or might well serve to salve his own credit , when it lieth bleeding , and is in danger not to escape without some scar. Howsoever , 1. I shall desire any indifferent reader to consider , whether ought rather to sway , a censure drawn from one by a wile , and suddenly shot out , before he were well aware , and well advised ; or a judiciary sentence ( for r Iudges M. Walker himselfe will have us ) considerately signed ; and that after serious debate , and advice taken with other s grave Ministers ( as he is also pleased yet to stile us ) concurring with him therein . 2. I would demand not of M. Stock , ( for he is gone ; nor is it certain to me , whether he ever passed that censure so directly contrary to his own subscription ) but of M. Walker , what he thinks of these words , Faith is that alone wherewith we are by it selfe and properly justified : whether they containe heresie and blasphemy or no ; and what difference he can find between M. Wottons words , and these . Yet are they M. Bucers own t which he ascribeth also to Saint Paul ; as a principall part of his main Argument , concerning the doctrine of justification . And if those other upon the bare recitall appeare to be manifestly hereticall and blasphemous ; then these surely no lesse : and so M. Wotton yet shal have one other at least to goe along with him for an heretick , yea a blasphemous heretick : whom yet none I suppose , other then ranke Papists ever condemned for such . Howbeit M. Walker should have done wel , to have delivered M. Wottons Exposition ( as he tearmeth it ) all out . and not to have hackt it off ( as he hath done ) by the hams . For his words are entire thus , a I never said , or thought , that Faith doth justifie us by it selfe . ( and yet had he so said , he had said no more then Bucer long before him had done ) This onely I say , that in this Proposition , Faith is counted for Righteousnes , the word Faith is to be taken properly , not tropically ; the question being in such propositions , not of the meritorious or formall cause of justification , but of the condition required on our part in stead of keeping the Law. To which I may well ad out of his Animadversions , which I have by me , on the dispute between Lubbertus and Bertius , these sayings of his to the same essect . b Faith doth not justifie us , as a quality , habitually ; neither is it either the matter , or the forme of our Righteousnes ; in that regard alone it is to justification available , as it relieth upon Christ , to the obtaining of forgivenes of sins for his obedience . And againe , c Faith surely doth not justifie , but onely by and for the obedience of Christ. When it is said to be imputed unto righteousnes , it is thereby signified what we must perform , that we may be justified . And a little after , d By faith we are said to be justified , not in a tropicall , but in a proper manner of speaking ; whereby is signified , that Faith is that , which God requireth of us to the obtaining of justification for the obedience and sacrifice of Christ. For as for those words that M. Walker putteth into his third Error , that he chargeth upon M. Wotton , e That Faith doth not justifie us , as it apprehendeth Christ and his righteousnes ; they appeare not in any passage at all by M. Walker out of M. Wottons writings alledged . So that M. Walker maketh M. Wotton speak , not what he doth , but what himselfe pleaseth ; and then pronounceth him an hereticke , not for what he saith , but for what himselfe would have him say . To make this evident to the meanest understanding . Should a man say , The word hand in this proposition , my hand feeds my body ; or in this , This child is fed by hand , is taken properly not tropically ; would it by any reasonable consequence thence be inferred , that the party so saying should therefore affirm , that the hand doth not feed by putting meat into the mouth ? And what M Calvins judgment is of that trope in the Apostles words of Faith , put for Christ , may appeare by these words of his in confuting of Osiander , the first man ( for ought I can find ) that broached that Exposition of them , and brought in that strange trope : f I admit not this Sophisters writhing or wrigling some figures , when he saith , that faith is Christ. g Whereby Faith , which is the instrument onely of obtaining righteousnesse , is confounded with Christ , who is the materiall cause , and both the Autor and minister of so great a benefit . h Thus is the knot also unknit , to wit , how the tearm of Faith ought to be taken where the point of justification is handled . Howbeit as it would justly be deemed unequall , to charge all that hold Faith there put for Christ , with Osianders monstrous opinion , as Calvin well tearmeth it , of I know not what essentiall righteousnes , by which Christian men are justified : so no lesse unequall is it , to condemn all of Socinian heresie and blasphemy , that hold Faith to be taken for Faith in those i passages of S Paul. But of this and some other things concerning that argument , I may peradventure being by divers importuned thereunto , if God shall please to afford life , liberty , ability and leisure , entreat further more largely hereafter ; unlesse I shall find my selfe prevented by some fuller satisfaction given by others , whose labours either are abroad already , or may before that time come abroad . for then my paines will be superfluous . and whether by my weak helps , or the more able work of others , the truth of God either in this , or in any other point be cleered , to me it shall be all one . And thus much for the point , concerning which by M Walkers own relation , M. Stock upon the very reading of it , should in direct contradiction to his own subscription , passe such a censure . As for the l speech he frameth in the words following , for M. Stock to excuse himselfe by : and his inference thence , m how dangerous a thing it is , even for godly men to be Judges in a controversie between a familiar friend , as M. Wotton was to these men , and a stranger , as himself was to the most of them . As the latter intimateth M. Stock , & M. Wotton to have been at that time familiar friends , and so D. Baylie and the rest ; and on the other side M. Stock ( for of him principally here the speech is ) with the most of the rest , and M. Walker to have been meere strangers either to other : which is the one of them as true as the other : so it adds little credit to the excuse pretended to be made then by him ; which may well be questioned , considering M. Walkers minting and dilating faculty n before shewed , whether much , if not all , of it , came not out of his own forge . And this shall suffice for the suggestions concerning some of M. Walkers partiall and unjust Judges as he deems them , to prove that they subscribed in favour of M. VVotton against their own consciences and judgements elsewhere , either in publike or in private , delivered directly to the contrary of that they then signed unto . Which I might well have leaft to be answered by those whom they concerne ; save that some of them are now deceased : for me they touch not at all , nor my Relation , who report only , what they subscribed to ; and that firmed with the Attestation of such of them as survive . 18. But for that , which concerns them all , and my selfe among the rest , to prove , that o they durst not openly justifie their Subscription ; ( which makes me the rather now to beleeve what I have formerly been informed , that M. Walker oft in his Table-talk should not stick to give out , that we were all of us ashamed of what we then did . ) he saith that p the Expositions ( for so we will now call them , since that M. VValker will have them so stiled ) thus subscribed , were committed to D. Eaylie , with charge that he should keep them close , and not suffer M. VValker or any other man to see or read them , untill M. VVotton had made a larger Exposition , and fully purged himselfe from Socinianism . A strict charge , you see , as M. VValker delivers it , of men wondrous cautious , and as may seem , no lesse timorous of displeasing M. VValker ; for what else the matter should be , I , for my part , am not able to conceive . And I merveil why he doth not adde , that we conjured one another , to tell no body what we had done . For that was as needfull to prevent our feares , as the keeping of our subscription from sight ; and he might as well have said or written the one as the other . For this also in truth is as farre from truth , as M. VValker is from faire dealing in the whole carriage of this busines . And here I would crave leave to demand of M. VValker , whether he were present at the very act of our subscribing or no. If he were present , he might easily heare , what that was , and in what manner it was conceived , that was agreed upon to be subscribed unto ; yea he might have seen our subscriptions to it . For it was not done in any concealed way , but in the view of all then present . And to what end then should such a charge be given to the Doctor , that M. VValker should by no means be admitted to the sight of it ? If he were absent , ( as it is likely enough that he was , wanting patience to endure any longer stay , after he perceived once what was resolved upon ) I would faine know of him , how or from whence he knowes , that it was with such caution committed to the Doctors custody . True it is , that it was indeed in some sort committed to his custody ; or rather detained by him , having once gotten it into his hands , in favour of M. VValker , for ought else could be discerned . The delivery of it or a Copy of it to M. VVotton , according to his just request , being not at present resolved on , because it grew late ; but put off to another day . On which meeting again , ( but now without M. VValker , who came no more at us ) after long expectation the Doctor at length presented himselfe to us ; but could not be induced to deliver , either the subscription , or any Copy of it to M. VVotton ; upon pretence that he held it not safe so to do ; for that having been lately at Lambeth , at the High Commission , some ( I know not who ) had cast out some words there to him concerning our meeting , and that we might peradventure be questioned for it , as a Conventicle ; especially if our subscription should come abroad under our own hands , and use made of it as an evidence against us . That therefore for the present he durst not part with it : But yet withall promising , that after some time , the noise of the busines being once over-blown , it should be delivered to M. Wotton , whensoever it should be demanded of him by two of the parties , one of either side , nominated in his behalfe . And this I do the more confidently avow , being holpen therein for some particulars , by a memoriall leaft in writing under M. Balmfords hand and mine own , and made while the businesse was yet fresh in memory ; which I find in the same paper , in which the Attestation formerly published is extant , being afterward ( but how long after , I know not ) underwritten . But return we to M. Walker , who having thus rather Poetically described , then q Historically related our meeting and the manner of it , embelished with many meere fictions of his own invention ; ( all which yet never will be of might or weight enough either to take of , or beare down the truth of my Relation concerning the issue of it , acknowledged in precise tearms by men of his owne choise ) he proceeds in the next place to tell us , that r Upon this it was bruited abroad in the City by M. Wotton and his Disciples that M. Walker could prove nothing against him ; ( and like enough ; of that he charged him with , to wit , heresie and blasphemy ) nor bring any thing out of his bookes or writings to convince him of Socinianism : and that the eight learned Ministers had justified him , and condemned M. Walker for a false Accuser . And might they not justly so report , when in effect the Ministers under their hands had all joyntly so done ? For sure it is , that he that acquitteth any man of that wherewith he is charged , ( be he faulty otherwise , or no ) doth by necessary consequence condemn him as a false accuser , that so charged him . As for what s he addes , concerning M. Wottons Essays afterward written , wherein he saith , that M. Wotton denies the true , reall , and spirituall union of the faithfull with Christ , and Christs meriting of justification and salvation for them , &c. ( which collections of M. Walkers from M. Wottons words may well be as sound as some other above recited ) and his owne Antithesis Wottonismi & Christianismi ; ( a worke in likelihood well suiting with the spirit of the Autor ) of M. Nids neglecting to make report of it to the Archbishop ; ( who , it may be , would have past the like censure upon him , that he did upon M. Broad , at the tender of his book ) his own neglect of calling upon him : because t the tidings of it comming to M. Wottons eare , strooke such a damp into him , that for feare of afterclaps he silenced both himself and his Disciples . ( and yet to silence a man already silenced was no such great matter ) so that now all was husht , & the fire quencht , and no man durst open his mouth to defend M. Wottons opinions , tho he ceased not in the Pulpit stil to confute and condemn them . This all nothing concerns me , or any relation of mine . But howfarre forth therein he discovereth his own vanity , and his restles disposition , I leave it to the judgement and censure of others . As little concerns me that , that followeth , u concerning M. Wottons booke De Reconciliatione , written in Latine ; wherein he saith , that M. Wotton hath vented so much poyson , ( for all is such , that M. Walker himself doth not relish ) that the Professors at Leiden , would not suffer it to be there printed ; ( which whence he hath , or how he knows , or is able to prove , I know not ) yea that at Amsterdam also it could not get out ; ( which few will beleeve , that know how free the Presse there is ) but was fain to be printed farther off , at the charge of some of his Disciples . As also what he x addes of some others , who did privately oppose M. Wotton ; as M. Woodcock of Chessam , who in writing consuted him , and admonished him to forsake his errors . I am not indeed ignorant , that between M. Woodcock M. Wottons ancient Collegue , and M. Wotton , disputes passed in writing , with Objections and Answers , Replies and Rejoynders , much whereof I have by me , in a faire friendly manner . As also the like did between D. Brooks , then reader of Divinity in Gresham College , ( the place that M. Wotton also sometimes held ) which I have seen sometime with a friend ; and gave occasion of writing the book in Latine above mentioned : between M. Bradsh●w and M Wotton ; and in part also between M. Wotton and my selfe . But none of these that ever I saw or heard , tho dissenting from him in opinion , did in any of their writings charge him with heresie or blasphemy , or damn him to Hel ; as M. Walker from M. Richardson here doth , y unlesse there be any medium between Heaven and Hel. Neither doth that fierce Thunder-bolt , thrown out by M. Richardson , any whit scare me ; wherein , as by a Pop like Anathema , o● a Rabinical Maranatha , he peremptorily pronounceth , upon his own certain knowledge , that whosoever lives and dies in the beleefe of M. Wottons opinions shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven , for so M. Walker , as a from M. Barlows mouth , being M. Richardsons messenger b here reports it . Tho , whether M. Richardson were in his sentence so peremptory , or no , may be doubted ; the rather becaus● M. Walker in his relations of it agrees not all out with himselfe . For whereas here he telleth us , that M. Richardson should in a more rigid manner ●ffirm , that he KNEW M. Wottons opinions to be so pestilent and dangerous , that whosoever lives and dies in the beleefe of them shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven . In his second letter to M. Wotton he relates it a remisser way , that he protested , that he THOVGHT no man living and dying in his opinion should be saved . And you know , what is wont to be said and thought of those that are taken in two tales . But be M. Richardsons doom never so precise and peremptory , it nowhit affrights me : since that neither I live , as I hope , in any such opinions of his , muchlesse looke to die in them , whatsoever else I may concur● with him in , nor do I conceive any whit the lesse hope of M. Wottons being in Heaven for this his horrid and hideous doom . Onely if M. Richardson did then passe such a censure , when he was now at point of death , as c M. Walker saith he was , I could have wisht more charity , and lesse presumption concerning other mens estates , in a man so neere to the giving up of an account for himselfe . That M. Wotton lived and died in some errors I doubt not . Nor do I make account , but that I doe live , and looke to die , in many my selfe . If M. Walker deem , or hope , otherwise of himselfe ; he presumeth of , and promiseth more to himselfe , then I suppose , ever befell any sonne of Adam , our blessed Saviour alone excepted . But that any opinion , which M. Wotton held was so pestilent and pernitious , as to cut him wholy off from Christ , and all interest in Christ , who so shall affirme , had need looke to himselfe , lest he bring thereby a greater guilt upon his own soule , then M. Wotton contracted by any error that he held . Meanwhile , well it is , that the Keyes of Heaven are not , either in M. Richardsons hands , or at M. Walkers disposition . were they so , it might well be deemed , that many an one should have been excluded , who I doubt not but have found entrance ; many should be shut out , who I hope , yet shall get in , notwithstanding M. Walkers peremptory sentence past upon them for hereticks , and that blasphemous ones too ; such as have no right in Christ here , nor shall ever reign with him hereafter . Howbeit this fiery Thunderbolt did so enflame M. Walker , as he telleth us , that d it encouraged him to go on the more boldly in laying open M. Wottons abominations , without all feare or regard of his factious and furious Disciples , persons belike of the same stamp and temper with himselfe ; if by his writings he may be judged of . From this he passeth to M Godwins railing Libell ; which he telleth his Reader , that e some say , M. Gataker counselled him to write against M Walker ; which if M. Walker will avovch as a truth , I must tell him , that he telleth a notorious untruth ; and such as he could not but know to be most untrue , unlesse I had wittingly in my Postscript told a loud lie ; where I professed , f that till of late I had never to my knowledge heard or seen the man ; and then onely but once ; which was not onely much later then the birth of M. Godwins worke , but even after M. Walkers own booke was come abroad , at what time hearing him named , whom else I had not known , I told him indeed smilingly , that if he were such an one , he was an heretick in print ; alluding to M Walkers discovery , which I had not long before lighted on . But whether M. Godwins book be a rayling libell , or no ; for my part , I know not , having never read two lines of it , onely seen the Title of it in the Stationers shop . But let this goe among the bundle of untruths , which M Walker hath sluft this his Pamphlet with ; that M Gataker counselled one , whom he had never seen to his knowledge , nor changed two words with , to write a rayling libel against M. Walker . whereas any reasonable man would rather imagine , that M Godwin wrote that , whatsoever it be that he wrote , provoked by M Walkers own writing against him and railing upon him ; which , it seems , therein he returneth answer unto , and is printed and published by him together with it , and according to the truth , yea , or likelyhood of this report , I am very well content , that credit be given to his other relations ; those at least that g he builds upon the credit of other mensreports ; if not to more then a few , that must rely upon his own . With M. Godwins Libell he joyneth h M. Gatakers Invective . for so he is pleased to stile my relation , as i before , so here again . which being abroad , I leave to others to judge , whether it deserve that Title , or no ; or , if M. Walker so please , whether of the two , that my Relation , or this his Vindication , may lay better claime to such an Inscription . But there is another Invective , that he challengeth me for . and it shall not be amisse , by way of anticipation , hereto take it in , and consider of it , as being a branch of the same generall Enditement , that in this kind M. Walker commenceth against me . He telleth his Reader therefore in his ensuing discours ; k that he , the said M. Gattaker hath publiquely extolled and commended for Orthodox the like Treatise ( to those of M. Wottons ; hereticall belike and blasphemous , as his ) of M. William Bradshaw : and inveighed against some , meaning me , ( saith M. Walker ) who had opposed some errors and contradictions , which are in that booke , in his Funerall Sermon preached at M. Bradshaws buriall . Wherein M. Walker sheweth himselfe no changeling , but still like himselfe . Nor am I sory , that M. Walker hath thus mentioned M. Bradshaw , and thereby given me occasion to speake somewhat of the man , and somewhat also of his worke : that I may thereby further vindicare him a little from M. Walkers obloquies ; as I have already in part , from the slanderous calumnies of an other foul mouthed railer , a leader of Separatists at Amsterdam my Rejoynder to whom in defence of M. Bradshaw , and his answer to M. Fr. Iohnsons reasons for separation from the Church-Assemblies in England , although it came abroad without my consent ; having been advertised by some wel-wishing friends , of somethings in M. Bradshawes discourse , that seemed to trench upon the government then established ; and desiring therefore , for better security , to print mine owne apart without it ; which might safely have been done here without more adoe : yet being by that railing and reviling Replier required to tell whether it were mine , or not ; I returned him by the messenger who delivered me his Letter , this Answer , That I had sometime written a Defence of M. Bradshaw against him . which if it were published according to my copy , I would not refuse to owne . And indeed published it was ; but as without my privity , so exceeding corruptly , whole lines in some passages left out , and the sense in many places perverted and mar●ed ; as by a large list of Errata , which I caused to be printed , and annexed to it , so soon as some copies of it came to my hand , may appeare . Since which time I finde the rest of that scurrilous worke ( for I dealt onely with the last Chapter , that concerned M Bradshaw , ) very solidly and learnedly refuted by one M. John Ball , a reverend and judicious Divine ( who had formerly written in defence of set forms of prayer ) in l a Treatise since his decease published by M. Simon Ash Lecturer here in the City . But to returne to M. Walker , and his charge here against me . True it is that I preached at M. Bradshaws buriall . The worth of the man , though not so commonly known , in regard he lived in a mean and obscure estate , through the iniquity of the times , having his chiefe dependance , and main means of maintenance from a private family , and being naturally not prone to put himselfe forth ; yet highly valewed by those that throughly knew him , and inwardly conversed with him ; and the entire affection and streightest band of friendship , that held inviolably firm unto the very last between us ; deservedly challenging for him from me , not that onely , but much more then my weake ability was ever able to reach to . And I did what I then did , with as much griefe and regret of heart and mind , as ever I performed any office in that kind . The losse of so worthy , and so intimate a friend , ( besides the common losse of one so qualified and endowed , to Gods Church ) inwardly piercing with me more deeply , then everyone was aware of , or my selfe able easily or suddenly to shake off . But how in my Sermon then made , I inveighed against M. VValker or any other , I shal leave to the equall and indifferent consideration of others , when I shall have precisely related what then I delivered , and subjoyned the occasion , whereupon I spake it . In a short speech , that I had , before I entred upon my Text , concerning the occasion of mine appearance at that time in that place ; and of the party deceased , to whose remains that office of Christian sepulture was then to be performed ; having spoken somewhat , but very briefly , and over-scantly rather than otherwise , concerning his singular dexterity , as in resolving cases of conscience , so in clearing of controversed points in Divinity ; ( in either of which kinds he did so excell , that I have seldome , if ever , known his match ) I added these words concerning the latter ; Wherein his labours , tho uncharitably taxed and traduced by some , yet have been , as myselfe can testifie , not onely reverently esteemed by divers of good note in both the Universities , professing some of them in my hearing to have profited much by them , and to have been thereby better informed in some particulars , which they conceived not so well before ; but even by some strangers of eminent place and profession beyond the Seas , very highly extolled , as by some of their Letters to him is yet to be seen . And this , 〈◊〉 protest , is all that I then said ; which M. VValker here , ( a man it seems , of a very tender eare , tho of too tart a tongue ) terms inveighing against him . But , if it may not be over-troublesome , I shall request my Readers patience a while , to receive from me some not overlong relation , concerning the occasion of that short clause , consisting but of foure words at most , that M. Walker taketh so much offence at ; that he may thereby be the better enabled to judge aright whether I spake any more , then M. Walker had given over-just occasion to speake . M. Bradshaw had published , a succinct indeed , but very accurate , ( if sundry men of good parts may be beleeved ) Treatise concerning the Justification of a sinner before God. In the Preface whereunto , having given intimation of some difference among our Divines in some particulars concerning this head of Divinity ; Whence , saith he , many weake minds have been somewhat perplexed ; and some strong ones ( at least in their own conceits ) exceedingly distempered , as th● there were amongst us , which overturned foundations , teaching blasphemous heresies about this matter ; whereas all of us with one mouth professe this , That a sinner is justified not by any formall inherent Righteousnesse in himself , but onely by the free and meere grace and mercy of God , through the meritorious satisfaction of our Saviour Christ , the onely mediator between God and a sinner . Wherein we all give all the glory of our justification and salvation to God in Christ Iesus , and therein hold the main Foundation . We differ onely in certain circumstances ; wherein nothing is derogated , either from the mercy of God , or merits of Christ , or arrogated to our owne workes . Now the former part of this speech M VValker taking to himself ( as , tho not named , yet conscious to himselfe of his own guilt , he well might ) inveighed fiercely and furiously ( after his wonted guise ) in a Serm●n preached in Paul , Church , against the whole ●…ffirming it to be a booke full of centradictions and heresies ; of the same nature as he had before averred M. Wottons writings to be , m to which also he here likeneth it . And withall , by a Stationer , whose shop I frequented , he sent me a challenge , that such a book be understood to be mine , ( as true as that n I set M. Godwin on worke to write a railing libell against him ) tho it came out in another mans name , ( not unlike that of the Amsterdam railer , that o he should father another mans worke written against Iohnson ) and that , if I would undertake the defence of it , he would prove it to consist of contradictions and heresies . Unto which I returned him this answer , that M. Bradshaw was able enough to defend his own worke . That , if he had ought with me , he knew where mine aboad was ; if I ought with him , I knew ( I thought ) where he dwelt , but that I had no desire to have dealings with one of that spirit , of which I perceived him to be . Herewith not content , he wrote a booke against M. Bradshaw so vile and so virulent , that tendring it for allowance at London-house , he could not obtaine passage for it to the presse . Howbeit a Copy of it came to M. Bradshaws hands , who had also answered some good part of it in a modest manner ; as among the remains of his imperfect writings is yet to be seen . But M. VValkers Pamphlet not comming abroad , it seems , he gave over . The Title of M. Walkers work was this : A Woolfe in a Sheeps cloathing . And to give you some small taste of his manner of dealing in it ; ( for p a few drops of Sea-water tasted , will sufficiently shew , what relish the whole Ocean hath ) he thus begins his onset upon the main body of the Book . Having before examined the Preface word by word , and discovered plainly and largly the impudent calumnies , open lies , desperate errors , and grosse contradictions therein conteined ; I will now proceed to examine and censure the Treatise it selfe : wherein he sheweth himself still one and the same man ; to w●t , one of a factious spirit , a desperate maintainer and justifier of our new upstart Socinian Hereticks , the blasphem●us disciples of Servetus Socinus & Arminius , an horrible and prosane abuser of the Word of God , citing it contrary to all sense ; one speaking like the old Oracles of Apollo , sometimes without any sense , sometimes so ambiguously , as that his words may beare divers & contrary senses , sometimes affirming boldly strange things , without rendring any reason ; as if he were a second peremptory Pythagoras , or a new purified Pope , whose words or sayings must be received against all reason , as if they were Oracles of God ; and in a word , as in the Preface , so in the Treatise , he doth by his fruits , and his proofes contrary to his pretended Titles in every Chapter , discover himselfe to be A Woolf in Sheeps cloathing . And that he may end in no better manner then he began , he thus enters upon the last Chapter : This Chapter , tho it treat onely of things humane , such as we daily heare and see , and have experience of , yet it hath divers errors : As if the Author had vowed to erre in all things ; and to infect Heaven and Earth , and all things sacred and profane , with his Treatise . Now whether such a censure as this might not wel beare out as much , if not much more , then I then spake , I am well content , that any man , not wholy forestalled with extream prejudice , be judge . Yea but Mr. Bradshaws Treatise , it may be , wel deserved such a censure . I wil not , for satisfaction herein , send you ( tho I wel might ) to the worke it selfe . It may not be at hand ; or you may suspect , if you have it , and shall be pleased to peruse it , that some ranke poison lieth so closely couched in it , that an ordinary sight is not able easily to descry it . And yet , as M. Bradshaw well answereth him concerning the Preface ; If the calumnies be impudent , the l●es open , the errors desperate , the contradictions grosse , they are such as sufficiently discover themselves ; and M. Walkers discovery is therefore in vain , being as tho he should say , he hath discovered the Sunne , when it shines out in his brightnesse in every mans face : so that either M. Walker hath discovered no calumnies , lies , errors and contradictions at all ; or they are not open , grasse , desperate and impudent . In like manner may I say of the Treatise it selfe ; if the errors in it be so p grosse , palpable , abominable , and contrary to all sense , that they doe not onely discover , but even judge and condemne themselves , as M. Walker affirmeth of them ; surely any dim sight will suffi●● to discerne what the worke is . Nor will I offer to obtrude upon you mine own conceit of it . I might peradventure be deemed partiall , both in regard of mine own opinion ; albeit I concurre not in all things with him ; and in regard of mine entire affection to my friend ; q which I grant may sometime also somewhat oversway . But I shall enforme you , as before I intimated , how it hath been censured by others , men no way engaged ; and that , far otherwise then M. Walker hath been pleased to pronounce of it . And here I might entertaine you , with the judgement of r a great Lawyer and Councellor of State , one in his time reputed a man of some judgement : who in regard of some neere affinitie visiting the Gentlewoman , whom M Bradshaw made aboad with , in the time of his sicknesse , and lighting accidentally upon this short Treatise , after he had runover some good part of it was very much taken with it ; and demanding who was the Anthor of it , professed , that he had seldom read a thing more pithily and pregnantly written . But because it may be objected , that this was out of his element ; and yet let me tell you , that some s Lawyers have in Divinity dealt to good purpose ; and that the tearm of justification being t a Law tearm , ( as our Divines , with good warrant from u Gods Word , constantly maintain ) a discourse of that subject is to that profession no stranger . I shall leave him , and in roome of him present you with the judgement of a Divine of special note M. Lodowik , or Lewis , Cappel , one of the Professors of Divinity in the University of Salmure in France ; a man among the learned wel knowne by his works . This M. Cappel , having received this Treatise of M. Bradshaws , from M. Aaron Cappel his kinsman , one of the Ministers of the French Church here in London , returned backe to him many thanks for it ; requesting him withall to enquire after the Autor , and either to deliver , or convey to him his Letters inclosed : the superscription whereof was this ; Doctissimo atque ornatissimo clarissimoque viro , Domino Guilielmo Bradshaw . The Subscription : Tui , non studiosus modo sed cultor & admirator , Ludovicus Cappellus . I translate them not , because the English phrase in such forms , will not so wel fit them . The contents are word for word in part thus : Missus est ad me Londino à D. Capello , Ecclesiae Gallicanae quae Londini est Pastore , mole quidem exiguus , sed doctrinâ atque ingenio & acumine grandis , de justificatione libellus , Anglicè conscriptus , autore G. Bradshaw . Is quia perplacebat , & mihi cum D. Gomaro exemplar illud erat commune , statim à me in privatum usum Gall●cè est redditus . Anglicanum exemplar D. Gomaro reliqi . Dicam ingenuè . Nihil in humanis scr●ptis dogmati●is hactenus â me lectum est , quod tam vebementer mihi placuerit Ita doctè , acutè , pressè , solidè , nervose , apertè s●…l & mirâ brevitate totum hoc argumentum plenissimè à te est comprehensum atque pertractatum . Verba attem quibus illud dignè pro merito suo collaudem atque extollam , mihi non suppe●unt . Saepius ille mihi lectus est ; nec unqam ejus satias me cepit . quin eo vehementius sui in me excitavit desiderium quo frequentius repetitus atque relectus : tantus in eo doctrinae , artis atque ingenii splendor & lumen refulget . But thus he , a meere stranger , to a man , whom he had never seen or heard of before ; judging of him onely by that vile , abominable , absurd , senselesse booke , that M. Walker ( I hope I may now be somewhat the bolder to speak it ) doth so uncharitably tax and traduce . Give me leave a little further to trespasse upon thy patience , good Reader . To give M. Cappel further satisfaction , and to save much writing at large to and fro ; M. Bradshaw resolved to review the work , and having a little better cleered some things , to translate it into Latine . That which also he did , and sent a copy of it to M. Cappel . who in a second Letter after the receipt of it , wrote back to him in these words : Scripsi jam antehaec , vir clarissime , me accepisse libellum tuum de justificatione verè aureum , à te auctum Latinumque factum , eumque à me extemplò , sed raptim , perlectum esse : ita vehemens me ejus ceperat desiderium , ex priùs lectâ Anglicanâ ejus editione . Inde à me non semel , sed saepius , & cum otio , perlectus est . quem quo saepiùs relego , eo magis mihi arridet probaturque . ita ad unguem à te exactus est . Pacatis & moderatis ingeniis , ab utralibet sint parte , quique non nimio partium studio aguntur , spero probatum iri istum tui ingenii partum atque faetum : licet non omnia utrisque concedas , quae ipsi vellent . Ita medius inter utramque incedis sententiam , ut neutris displicere debeas , si verè sint pacis & concordiae amantes . Now how this agreeth with M. Walkers censure of M. Bradshaws book , that thereby he hath shewed himself to be one of a factious spirit , and a desperate maintainer and justifier of blasphemous hereticks , he may easily soon see , that either is not blind , or doth not wilfully winke . I might adde , that if M. Walkers censure of M Bradshaws booke be admitted , the like must be past upon the writings of some others , publikely allowed , and generally well esteemed of among us ; and by name on M Pembles large Treatise of justification before-mentioned , and M. Torsels briefer discourse of the same subject : both which build mainly on Brad●…●…ounds ●…ounds , the latter precisely treadeth in his Thus much concerning my deservedly deere friend , who neither living , nor deceased , could scape the scourge of M. Walkers tongue ; which a without feare or regard ( to use his own words of himselfe ) he lets flie both at living , and at dead ; and concerning that worke of his , by other pious , learned and judicious so praised and apprised ; which shall ( I doubt not ) survive with its due and deserved approbation from such ; when M. Walkers railing Pamphlet , wherein he so traduceth it , shall either lie buried in perpetuall oblivion ; or , if ever it come to see open light , shall stinke in the nostrils both of God and good men . But M. VValker hath not so done with M. Gataker . For , If it were not vain expence of precious time , b he could first of all produce Socinianism out of his works ; and so make him a party . And so I presume he could also out of Bucer , Pareus , Pemble , Piseator , and I know not how many more , as well as out of M. Gataker , if he would set himself to it . For M. Walker hath a very singular dexterity herein ; as in part hath already been shewed . But I answer him briefly . That c generall charges are generally deemed deceitful ; and will not hold either in Law or in conscience . And again , that d if to accuse be sufficient , no man is sure to goe guiltlesse , be his cause never so good . And yet , what were this , could he prove it by M Gataker , to Dr. Gouges and M. Downhams Attestation , which directly avoweth , that M. Walker could not prove it by M. Wotton , when time was , and he had undertaken so to doe ? unles this be a good argument ; Socinianism may be produced now out of M. Gatakers works : and therefore Dr. Gouge and M. Downham with the rest did not so determine , as that they did , under their own hands they doe witnesse . Besides , e he could prove M Gataker to be Thomas of all sides Sometimes holding that the elect and faithfull are cloathed with the garment of Christs righteousnesse ; and again disputing against their communion and imputation of Christs righteousnesse . Whereunto I answer . 1. For that scurrilous tearm better beseeming some scoffing jester , then a grave and sage Minister of Christ. It thal never trouble me by M. Walker so to by stiled ; nor by any other either so to be esteemed , if thereby be intimated , that I am such an one , as refuse not to imbrace all truth that I meet with on any side , be the side what it will : no more then I would forbeare , to take up a Pearle , wheresoever I should find it , whether in the mother of Pearls shell , or with Esops cock , either f on the dunghil , or in the durt . Or if he intend thereby to note me for such a one , as have in some particulars altered my judgement from what sometime formerly I held ; nor do I refuse in many things so to be deemed . I suppose , that holds not in me alone , but in many others , which g a Divine , as well of good , as of great , note , is reported to have said in the Councell of Dort , when it was objected unto him , that something spoken by him differed from some clause in the Catechism ; h We are taught many things when we are yong , that we make doubt of , when we are old . Who is he , that is careful to make diligent enquiry into the truth of things , who doth not oft alter his former opinion ? For my part , I freely professe , with that worthy ancient , that i my desire and endeavonr is to be one of those , who write as they profit , and profit as they write . And I may peradventure , following * that pious pattern , if God please to grant me longer life , with strength and leisure , take some time and paines to review those weake works , that I have sormerly sent abroad , to satisfie other men more then my selfe ; and to amend what therein I deem my self to have been mistaken in ; to explain what I doubt may be mistaken by others . Nor do I account it any k shame or staine to me , to alter in ought for the better . I hold it a point rather of l pride and solly ( shameful enough either of them ; both together much more ) for any man , to thinke his works blemished , by dashing out of ought in them , that he finds he was deceived in ; when as the standing of it still there is rather a blemish to his bookes . I am , and shal ever be , of that famous , tho Heathen , Emperours mind : m If any man , saith he , can in ought better inform me , and discover to me mine error , I shal readily yeeld to him . For I seek nothing but the truth , which never wrongs him that finds it . True it is , that in this point of Justification , I went sometime another way then now I do ; the same that Gomarus and some other still do , and before me did ; untill upon occasion of some Lectures of Dr. Grey , who succeeded M. Wotton at Gresham-Colledge , I fell into conference and disceptation with M. Bradshaw about it ; and after many disputes , that passed to and fro in writing between us , wherein I strove stiffely to maintain what then I held ; being at length by force of Argument beaten from my hold , I yeelded not so much to my friend , as to the truth ; ( as I was then , and am stil , certainly n perswaded ) which to be overborne by , I shall ever account the best valour , o to be overcome by the fairest victory . And yet thar phrase of being cloathed with the robe of Christs righteousnesse , whether I used it before or since , is not materiall . For neither do I now reject it , nor doth it crosse ought , that either I or they , with whom I now concur , hold ; being found frequently in their writings , and p acknowledged by them : since that I maintaine still with them , as alwaies I did , q no other righteousnes , whereby we are justified , that is , discharged of the guilt of our sins in Gods sight , but what accrueth unto us from Christ , and the satisfaction made by him unto Gods justice for them : according to that of the Apostle , r Him that knew no sin , did God make sin for us ; that we might become the righteousnesse of God in him . As for communion and imputation of Christs righteousnes , how farre forth I either maintaine or deny either ; ( for M. Walker runs on still in generalities , and after his blundering manner jumbles things together , as if communion and imputation were either the same , or of equall extent , and the not acknowledgment of the one therefore a deniall of the other ) my s works shew , that are extant : wherein if either M. Walker , or any other , shal in friendly manner convince me of any mistake , t he shall do me no small pleasure ; as conceiving it u a greater benefit to my selfe , to have mine own errors by others discovered to me , then to be an instrument of discovering other mens ●rrots to them ; since that , ( as he said sometime of things amisse x between man and wise ) y by the one I may help to amend my brethren , but by the other I may be amended my self . Mean while , so far am I from being Thomas of all sides in some sense , that I professe and shall desire rather in some kind , to be Thowas of no side . For I love not siding in Gods Church ; among Christs Ministers especially . I love not , I am for this man ; and I am for that man : I am for this side , and I am for that side . a The Apostle himselfe liked it not . I love not holding the faith of Christ with respect of persons . b an other Apostle forbids it . I love not , that any be tied to follow any one man , or any number of men whatsoever , in all things . c The Apostles themselves required it not , in matter of fact ; nor may any now living in matter of faith . Hence proceed d schismes and factions , and uncharitable censures , many times of those as unsound , that are , it may be , more sincere , have at least as good a share in Christ , as those that so censure them . And surely , if the words heresie and hereticke were rightly understood , or if they be so taken ( as I suppose them to be constantly used in Scripture ; nor do I thinke that the contrary can be easily evinced ) the one for e faction , the other for f a factious person ; none , I feare , will be found more truly guilty of heresie , or better to deserve the title of hereticke , then those , who ( therein concurring with the Papists , whom yet they professe most to abhorre ) are so prone to condemne all as hereticks and tainted with heresie in their sense , that is , as men cut off from Christ , and having no interest in him , who do not in al matters of practise comply , or in all points of doctrine concur with thēselves . Of their side , Lord , let me never be : g let my soul never enter into their secret . Neither is it , nor shall ever be my desire , either so to pin my faith upon the sleeve of any part or party , or to engage my judgment to any meere mans or mens opinion , ( the Pen men of holy writ onely excepted ) as h to admit hand over head whatsoever he or they shall hold and maintaine : nor yet again ro refuse or reject any truth , which by the light that God shal be pleased to lend me , I shal be able to descry in the writings of any , tho otherwise never so erroneous or unsound . In the next passage yet M. Walker is somewhat more charitable . For though he hold me an hereticke , yet he wil pray for me . He prayeth , that i God wil give me a more setled judgment in the truth ; and a more charitable heart to my laborious neighbours . And I willingly put mine Amen to his prayer . for m●ne hearty desire and daily prayer to God is , to have mine heart daily more and more k established in the truth . Nor do I lesse desire , to carry a charitable affection towards my Christian brethren , either laborious , or other ; tho more especially towards those , whom l for their labours sake , I do deservedly the more love . Wherein yet , as in other graces and offices , I doubt not but that I may many waies m faile and fall short , during this state of imperfection and humane frailty : and wherein had not M. Walker much fayled toward a brother very laborious , while he had liberty to labour in publike ; and no loiterer then , as by n his writings appeares , when he was restrained from his ministeriall employments ; but then also labouring , tho not in publike , which was not permitted him , yet for the publike , what he might ; this expence of pretious time , ( which u he would elsewhere seem so dainty of ) of necessity now wasted in debating these matters , might very wel have been sp●red , and much more profitably been spent otherwise . Howbeit M. Walkers charity even in his prayer eould not keep it selfe from discovery of some inward rancor mixt with a little tang at least of vain-glory . For p his laborious neighbors , ( saith he , meaning himself ; for I know no other that complaine of any defect or default in me in this kind towards them ) who spend their time in better studies , then writing of Treatises for unlawful gaming and carding , and bedaubing margents with many quotations to smal purpose , but onely for ostentation of much reading . To either of which imputations , I shal severally and respectively return some short answer . For the former , 1. I doubt much , whether M. Walker spent his time b●…ter in this and the like railing and reviling Invectives against his laborious brethren , then I did mine in writing of that Treatise q which yet had I not published , had not the iniquity of some , therein not wholy unlike M. Walker , enforced me thereunto . 2. The Treatise is of the nature and use of lots in general : and the scope of it , to remove , as wel the superstitious practice of them in one kind , as the superstitious conceit of them in another . 3. If any game therein defended , as not simply evil in regard of a Lot in it , yea or otherwise , be by M. Walker deemed utterly unlawful , let him by evidence of argument evince the same so to be ; and he shal therein r doe more then by any other , that I know , hitherto hath been done . Mean while , let M. Walker give me leave to tell him , that I do not believe him , nor beleeve that he is able to make his word good . tho I am not ignorant , what he hath bragged of his abilities so to do . For the latter , to wit , my course of quotation : 1. I may wel , I presume , defend my selfe , by the examples of many , of much more worth and esteem , as wel for godlines as for judgement , then either my selfe , or M. Walker ; that s living Library of all good literature , Dr. Raynolds , among the rest : unlesse M. Walker be able to prove the practise unlawful . But 2. I say onely , that howsoever for the use and end of it ; he be pleased to censure it ; I hope , there wil not want others , whose judgements may wel weigh a little more at least with me , that wil approve of it as useful ; and make a better and more charitable construction of it , ( if not thank me for it ) then he doth . And 3. it may be , if some quoted the Authors they alleadge , and pointed to the places they relate to in them , their evil usage of those they deale with , would the more easily be discovered . Howsoever , I shal choose rather to have my Margent so bedaubed , then my Text so stuft as M. Walkers is , as wel in this as in some other his writings . Lastly , I demand , what either this or the former is to the matter in hand , or the cariage of the businesse between M. Walker and M. Wotton : or what occasion M. Walker had to be girding here at either ; unlesse it be that his fingers itch to be picking of new quarrels , tho they nothing concerne him or the present occasion . Or that t being conscious to himself of the badnesse of the cause he here deales in , he is loath to keep close to it , and willing rather to run out into any other thing , tho it have no relation at all thereunto . Howbeit , notwithstanding M. Walkers laborious employments , he wil yet , it seems , filch a little time from them , to examine M. Gataker upon a few interrogatories ; a which unles he can answer with credit , he must of necessity for ever hereafter hold his peace , and blush as of● as he thinks , how by his defence of M. Wotton , he hath accused and defamed himself . But here M. Walker much mistakes his marke , and shoots at randome . For my Relation , which he pretends to refute , is not M. Gatakers Defence of M. Wotton , but M. Wottons Defence of himself : nor did either I , or any of those that were joyned with me in the meeting related , undertake to defend M. Wotton as one free from all error , but delivered onely , what we thought of M. Wottons own Defence of himself in regard of ought that M. Walker had laid to his charge . Nor doe I therefore conceive , either that I stand upon me credit engaged to answer to all M : Walkers Interrogatories ; or that M. VValker hath any du power thus to bind me over to silence and shame , upon my refusal so to do . Yet let us see what they are . The first is , b Whether it be truth and honesty to say , that c all the eight Ministers with unanimous consent generally resolved and pronounced , that there appeared not to them either heresie or blasphemy in ought that M. Wotton was by M. Walker convinced to have delivered or maintained : when their subscription shews that they medled onely with his Expositions , and not with his hereticall and blasphomous speeches , in which he paralleld him with Socinus the heretike , To all which I shall easily answer in a word , that if that which he here relateth as mine , be the same in effect with what is d testified under the hands of D. Gouge and M. Downham ( as it is evident that it is ) the untruth and dishonesty must be charged upon them : who , I hope , wil be better able to acquit themselves in this busines of either ; then he that so shamelesly chargeth them therewith . As for that , which he addeth , to disprove it , of Expositions ; ( which word how it came into the subscription , I suppose , no man surviving , unles himself , now knows ; ) and of speeches heretical and blasphemous , ( words of course with M. Walker ) wherein he paralleld M. Wotton and Socinus ; enough before hath been spoken to satisfie any reasonable Reader ; tho not , it may be , M. Walker . The second question is , d Whether I think , that M. Wotton renouncing the Law of God and the righteousnes thereof performed by Christ in our steed for our justification ; doth not in so doing deny Christs ransome paid , and satisfaction made to Gods just law , for our redemption and for remission of our sinnes . To which I answer as briefly , as to the former ; that it appeared not to the eight Ministers by ought M. Walker produced , that M. Wotton held ought in this particular , that did necessarily infer , what M. Walker thence concludeth . And let M. VValker give me leave here , if I may be so bold to minister a crosse interrogatorie to him ; to wit , whether Pareus , Piscator , Ursine , Olevian , and the rest of them , who deny Christs righteousnes in fulfilling the Law morall to have been performed by him in our steed , for our justification , do therefore deny all ransome paid and satisfaction made to Gods just Law for our redemption and the ●emission of our sins , or no. and whether they be therefore all of them blasphemous hereticks . But more especially , what he thinks of that speech of Pareus above mentioned , that e those that ascribe the merit of our righteousnes thereunto , ( that which directly crosseth what M. Walker here avoweth ) do doubtlesly make Christs sufferings of no use or effect . Surely , if M. Wotton speak no more then Pareus , ( and he hardly speaks so much ) Pareus must as wel , if not much rather then M. Wotton , passe with M. Walker for an heretike . And if those that hold as M. Walker doth , make Christs sufferings of no use or effect , they , one would thinke , should rather go for heretikes , then M. Wotton , who , it seems , is of an other mind . The third question is , f Whether mans perfect fulfilling of the Law in his own person , under the covenant of works , was not formall inherent righteousnesse ; and would have made man worthy of life . And if so , how he can excuse M. Wotton for making faith the formall inherent righteousnes of beleevers , in the covenant of grace , by which they are worthy of justification and eternal life . Seeing he saith , that faith under the Gospel serves to all purposes for obtaining eternal life , as mans perfect fulfilling of the Law did in the covenant of works . Let me give you but M. Wottons own words , out of M. Walkers own Parallel ; and there shall need to this no further answer . g He that beleeveth , ( saith M. Wotton ) is accounted by God to all purposes concerning eternal life , to have done according to the covenant of the Gospel , as he should have been accounted to have done according to the covenant of the Law , if he had perfectly fulfilled it . For not to stand upon strict terms concerning the word Worthie : what doth M. Wotton say more here , then that which he saith else-where ? objected also to him by M. Walker , as an heretical and blasphemous speech ; h The act of Faith , or beleeving brings justification and adoption , ( which what is it other then what the Apostle saith , Rom. 3. 28. & Gal. 3. 26. ) Onely and meerly by the place and office , which the Lord of his mercy hath assigned it , to be the condition required on our parts for the atchieving of these favours and honours . thereby excluding all matter of worth in Faith. which yet , whosoever is possessed of , beleeving in Christ , that is relying upon him for justifycation and life eternall , may wel be said to be accounted by God to all purposes ( to wit on our parts required , and therefore to be necessarily by us performed ) to have done as much according to the covenant of the Gospel , as he should have been accounted to have done according to the covenant of the Law , had he perfectly fulfilled it . But of this also enough before out of our own Writers ; and by name out of M. Pemble ; whom M. Walker having so highly commended , as one i by his writings most useful and powerful to confirm mens minds against the Wolves af this age , the Disciples of blasphemous Servetus and Socinus ; wil not now , I hope , condemn him for a Socinian and blasphemous heretike ; and having k formerly made no doubt , but that he is ascended up into heaven , wil not ( I presume ) for M. Wottons sake now damn him , and throw him down , to send him packing for company with M. Wetton , to hell . The fourth question is in effect the same with the two next before going ; onely , to make some shew of variety , usherd in with a list of l true and orthodox te●ets , wherein he saith M. Wotton professeth his dissent from Socinus ; and wherein indeed M. Walker manifesteth his extream partiality , and malignant disposition against M. Wotton ; thereby shewing too apparently , that his pretended zeale is not so much against Socinus and Socinianism it self , as against M. Wotton , and against the things taught by him , as coming from him . This he hath too too manifestly discovered in this interrogatory ; spite and malice so blinding him , that m he minded not what he did . For those tenets of Socinus , though unsound and containing in them ranke venome , as he meaneth them , and manifesteth himselfe so to doe , wherein M. Wotton professeth to dissent from him ; these M. Walker , setting a faire glosse on them , contrary to Socinus his own intendement in them , alloweth and avoweth them for orthodox and true . For example , the first of them is , n that Faith is obedience to Christs commandements ; who commandeth us to beleeve and repent . And it is true , that Socinus , as o elsewhere I cite him , p maintaines as M. Walker here saith that he doth . But what saith Lubbertus to him for it ? a man whom M. Walker would seem much to admire , and told us at our meeting , that he was by I know not whom stiled Orthodoxorum ocellus . q Whereas he ( to wit Socinus ) saith ( saith Lubbertus ) that Faith is to do those things that Christ hath enjoyned , it is false : r to affirme it to be so , is to be stark mad . So by Lubbertus his censure , not Socinus onely , but M. Walker also should be no better . Again , s He teacheth , that to beleeve Christ and his words , is to obey him . We deny it . For obedience is an effect of faith . he erreth therefore , that holds Faith and Obedience to be all one . And yet again , t Firm stands that , which Beza writes , that Faith cannot signifie Obedience to the Commandements . Thus Lubbertus , one of M Walkers own Oracles . And indeed what did Socinus hereby intend , but to cut off all relying by Faith on Christ , as having paid a price to God for our sinnes , or satisfied for them by his death ? yet this is M. Walker pleased to blanch over ; as if he conceived his meaning to be nothing else , but that in beleeving and repenting , we obey Christs commandement , who u commandeth us to repent and beleeve . And so is content to let it passe for currant , as a true and orthodox tenet in Socinus , because M. Wotton dissented therein from Socinus ; though condemned by Lubbertus ( yea by whom not ? ) for a grosse error , and in his intendement very dangerous . The second point , wherein M. Walker affirmes M. Wotton to depart from Socinus , and which he affirmes to be true and orthodox , is q that Repentance , which comes not but by Faith , is the means to obtain forgivenes of sinnes , which Christ hath brought . But he deales here with Socinus , to help him out , as he is wont to do with M. Wotton , to procure prejudice to him . For he takes part out of one passage , and part out of an other , ( as M. Wotton hath b cited him , not expressing how far forth in every particular he concurs with him , or dissents from him ; but onely shewing , how in general he speaks not that , that himself doth ) and so pieces up a proposition , which he would have deemed sound ; withall paring of , what might serve to discover Socinus his grosse error , wherein M. Wotton intended to imply his departure from him . For , c It is manifest , saith he , that God requireth nothing of us in the obtaining of salvation procured by Christ , but repentance and amendment of life . And , d Whereas Faith is sometime added to repentance ; it is not because Faith in Christ is required to the obtaining of remission of sins , ( directly contrary to what the Apostle e professeth ) as working somewhat more in us besides Repentance it selfe , that doth hereunto appertain ; but because Repentance comes not but by Faith in Christ. Thus he clips Socinus in favour to him ; as he doth M. Wotton els-where to a contrary end . And yet further , because Lubbertus , Socinus his Antagonist , in refuting him , beates every where upon this , that f Conversion & Repentance do not in order of nature go before , but follow remission of sin , and justification ; and g are not causes , but effects of either ; nor the cause of expiation , but a consequent of it : and supposing Socinus his meaning to be , h that our Repentance is the cause of the remission of our sins ; i This , saith he , we disallow , for , as hath a thousand times been shewed , Remission of sins , that is justification , is in nature before repentance : and it is impossible therefore to be the cause of it . k For it is not Repentance , but Christs sacrifice , that is the true cause of the remission of our sins : l God indeed promiseth pardon to the repentant ; but we deny repentance to be the cause for which God doth pardon . Here M. Walker strikes in to help Socinus at a dead lift , and telleth us , contrary to his Text , sure without any warrant at all from it , m that by obtaining forgivenes of sins , Socinus means getting the sense and assurance of forgivenesse . a glosse wel-beseeming him , that professeth such a detestation of the very least sent or shadow of Socinianism in others . The third point is , n that faith is a beleeving of that which Christ taught , and an assurance of obtaining that he promised upon our repentance and obedience . Which whether it be a just definition of justifying Faith ; ( for of that here the question is ) or do fitly expresse the office of it in the worke of justification , I leave to be discussed by others . M. Wotton relateth it , o to shew how that in laying down the nature and office of justifying faith , he goes an other way then Socinus doth ; and further then Socinus either doth , or can , holding his own grounds , follow him . who indeed thus defines Faith , to bring all home to Repentance and obed●enee , as in the former point ; and to exclude Christs merit , and ought done or endured by him , as satisfactory for mans sin : as appeares plainly by the whole context of his discourse in that Chapter , out of which these words are alledged . And I would demand of M. Walker , how he can free himself from Socinianism , when he maintains such points as these for sound and orthodox in Socinus : and what censure himself would hape past upon an other , that should have thus blancht and vernisht over such Assertions of Socinus . As also I would know of him , with what face he , that condemns in M. Wotton as hereticall and blasphemous positions , these propositions , p To beleeve in Christ , is to trust in Christ , and to rest on him ; to have his heart setled , and to rely wholy and onely on him ; and , This trust is such a faith as makes us rest upon God for the performance of his promise ; doth now pronounce Socinus his definition of faith , such as you have heard , to be true , Orthodox and sound . But hereby any party , not extreamly partiall , may easily judge what spirit this man is caried with throughout this whole busines . For as for his twenty times sodden Coleworts , so oft served in , of q M. Wottons taking the word Faith in the Apostles words in a proper sense ; Christs fulfilling the Law for us in our steed ; Faith being the condition of the Gospel , &c. taking out M. Walkers fillings and glosses set upon them , which concern M. Wotton no more then himselfe ; enough before hath been said . and , if M. Walker can prove them to be heretical opinions , many illustrious stars , besides M. Wotton , will by a blast of M. VValkers breath , as by r the Dragons tail in the vision , be thrown out of Heaven , and not struck down to the ground only , but even hurld into Hel. His first question is , s Whether M. Wotton deny not the free covenant of Grace , when he holds , that God covenants not to justifie and give life , but upon a condition performed on our part , equivalent for all purposes to mans fulfilling of the Law in his own person in the covenant of works . To which briefly . 1. To covenant to give a thing upon some condition may nothing impeach the freenesse either of the covenant , or of the gift . as to covenant with one to give him a shilling , that you have let fall , lying on the ground , if he will but stoop and take it up . And here by the way to satisfie some , who cannot endure to heare of any condition in the promises of the Gospel ; which yet are t every where so propounded : let it be considered , that a gift or a promise may be said to be free , or not free divers waies and in divers respects : 1. Free in regard both of condition and of consideration . By consideration understanding some valuable consideration , as in common speech we use to speak . and so it is absolutely , every way free . as if I promise one to bestow a book upon him and to send it home to him , and so do . Here being neither condition nor consideration interposed . 2. Free in regard neither of condition , nor of confideration , as if I promise one to give him such a book of mine , if he will give me another of his in lieu of it . for here is both condition and consideration ; which both concurring destroy the freenes of it . 3. Free in regard of consideration , tho not free in regard of condition . as if I promise to give one such a book gratis , if he wil but cal to me at mine house for it ; supposing that I dwell at next dore , or neer to him . Nor doth it derogate ought from the freenes of a gift , if it have been promised upon such a condition ; and the promise made good upon the performance of it . no more then a Princes pardon would be deemed lesse free , were it granted upon condition of taking it out , and that free also for any to do , that wil , of free cost , without fee. or his alms , were they propounded and published to all , that would but repaire to the Court for them . Nor doth M. Wotton therefore necessarily denie the freenesse of Gods gratious covenant , if he hold justification and life eternal not to be promised therein but upon condition . So M. Fox answering those that might object that to him , that M. Walker here to M. Wotton . * If Gods promise be restrained to certain conditions , how shall we maintain with Paul the freenes of Gods mercy , whereby he freely justifyeth a sinner ? u Yes , saith he , I deem and determine Goas mercy to be most free in Christ. albeit this salvation by the merit of Christ be not derived unto us but upon a certaine condition . And M. Perkins before recited : w The condition of the covenant is by grace , as wel as the substance . Whereunto ad M. Pembles reason : that therefore * this covenant is a compact of freest mercy , because therein life eternal is given to that , that beares not the least proportion of worth with it . 2. That this condition is x Faith , the performance whereof is as availeable for our good , as perfect obedience at first had been , if it be an heresie ; why doth not M. Walker require M. Pembles , if not bones , yet books to be burnt , as containing in them hereticall and blasphemous doctrine ? at least why doth he not arraign and condemn him for an heretick as wel as M. Wotton ? for he hath , as hath been shewed , the same . As for the word Equivalent here , it is not M. Wottons , but M. Walkers tearm . whose spite and rancor against M. Wotton is such , that nothing of his can fairely passe through his fingers . To be equivalent , that is , equall in worth , and value , is one thing ; ( and yet I might tel M. Walker that y Chrysostome sticks not to affirm , yea stiffly maintains , that Faith in Christ is of it self a more excellent thing and of greater worth , then the keeping of Gods Commandements ; as I shew , but disallowing , elsewhere ; and yet is he not therefore deemed or condemned for an heretick : ) to be reckoned or counted by God unto man in the covenant of grace to all purposes , in regard of ought that God requires on his part to be performed , for attaining of life eternal , as if he had in the other covenant kept the whole law , is another thing . I suppose M. Walker is not to learne a difference , and that a vast one too , between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek . The sixt question is , a Whether M. Wotton affirming , that , If we be freely pardoned , then our sins were not punished in Christ our head and surety , doth not deny Christs satisfaction for sin . To this I answer . he must shew first , where M. Wotton so saith . For these words out of M. Wotton he never yet produced . Read b the Parallel Error 7. & out of M. Wotton what is there alledged ; and c M. Wottons Answer to what is there alledged by M. Walker out of him : and you shal soon see how M. Walker here deales with M. VVotton . His seventh question is , d Whether M. VVotton be not guilty of heretical tergiversation and grosse contradiction in some passages . The man , you see , can not speak of M. VVotton , but he must needs spit Fier and Brimstone . Every thing is either heretical or blasphemous in him . But am I , or is any man else bound to reconcile whatsoever contradictions are , if any be , or may be found in M. VVottons writings ? Or is every one that is taken in grosse contradictions , of necessity thereupon to be condemned for an heretick ? But in this also M. Walker may as wel be beleeved , as e where he pronounces the like of M. Bradshaws book . Were M. VVotton alive , he were best able to reconcile his own seeming differences . and indeed , for the most of them , if not all , he then did it himselfe . For the first , which f he citeth out of my Defence , as he tearms it , though out of his own Parallel , and M. VVottons own defence indeed . he might , if he had but put on his spectacles , have found it g in the very same place assoiled ; that his dispute being of the formall cause of justification , or that whereby we are made formally righteous , h he denieth any end or use of Christs righteousnes imputed to that purpose . but i he denieth not the imputation of it , as the meritorious cause thereof . Whereunto , tho sufficient to take away the seeming contradiction , I ad yet further what I touched upon out of k M. Bradshaw before , and I find in him elswhere ; that tho he deny Imputation of Christs righteousnes taken in a stricter sense , as many in this argument would have it ; yet taken it in a larger sense , for that which is reckoned to a man for his benefit , so far forth as it may in that kind be useful unto him , so he denies not the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse to mans justification . For thus I find in certaine Theses of his written in Latine of this subject . 1. l If any man hold Christs Righteousnes to be by way of merit the efficient cause of justification , I am wholly of his mind . 2. m If any maintain not Christs Righteousnes to be our formal Righteousnes , I have no controversie with him . 3. n The imputation of Christs Righteousnes to our benefit , I acknowledge and professe . 4. o It never came into my mind , not so much as in dream , to deny , that we are justified for the righteousnes of Christ. As for what M. Walker p addes out of M. VVottons Essaies ; they were written after our meeting , as q himself acknowledgeth ; and therefore nothing concern either us or our censure ; nor for my part did I ever see them , nor know what is in them . and yet what is it , that M. Walker thence here alledgeth ? That in Scripture there is no mention of Christs merit . Which if he speak of the word merit , who wil , or can deny the truth of it ? yet it will not thence follow , that M. VVotton therefore denies the thing thereby signified , ( the rather since that he useth the tearm of meritorious cause applied unto Christ and his Righteousnes so frequently himself ) no more then , that Calvin denied the Doctrine of the T●init● , because r he acknowledgeth that tearm not to be found in Gods VVord To the next s likewise he might have found the like solution , in the very place t whence he had it ; if he had been pleased to deal but half so kindly with M. VVotton , as he dealt with Socinus . For , why may not Faith , tho taken properly , be said to justifie , not per se , or of it self ; ( tho Bucer , as I have shewed , u so also say ) albeit the word Faith be there properly taken , where it is said to be imputed for Righteousnes ? not for it self , as x M VVotton himself expoundeth himself , but for Christ , on whom it relies ; as hath formerly been at large related . For , what y is added of Imputation , is coincident to the former : but that M. Walker with his z cole so o●t new dressed and dished in again , tires out h●s Readers , and may wel overturn their stoi●ck● . The a third consists of the b second and c sixt Queres ; ( for M. Walker loves to turn round ) wherein nothing is truely alledged out of M. VVotton , that any way crosseth Christs satisfaction made , or the price by him paid , for us : and shal thither therefore be returned again ; least by running round in a circle after M. Walker , we grow turn-sick with him . The d fourth is not so much a contradiction found in M Wottons writings to ought of his own , as to the words of the Apostle , Rom. 5. 19. which yet unles they be understood of formal and inherent Righteousnes , ( however e M. Walker tax M. Bradshaw for confounding these terms ) M. VVottoh contradicteth not at all . And yet is it not sufficient to prove a man an heretick , because he contradicts somewhat conteined in Gods Word . since that every error whatsoever in any point of Divinity must of necessity so do . and M. Walker therefore , unlesse he dare professe himself free from all error , must by the same ground withall granted confesse himself to be an heretick . But from his Contradictions return we to his Questions again . His eighth question , wherein he thinks he hath me now on the hip , is f How M. Gataker with a good conscience can justifie and proclaim M. VVotton free from heresie , when he wilfully and perversely denies the very form , essence , and being of justification , to wit , the Imputation of Christs Righteousnes , first simply rejecting it , as being of no use ; and afterwards , as the formal cause of justification ; ( where you have the same colie served you in againe ) seeing he , the said M. Gataker hath publikely extolled and commended for Orthodox , the like Treatife of M. VV. Bradshaw in his funerall Sermon at his buriall , wherein he makes the imputation of Christs Righteousnes the form of justification . In which words , as g he sometime said of the people of Athens , M. Walker blowes and blusters much , but does little . For first , I might demand of him , where I so extolled M. Bradshaws book ? What I spake of it in a short Speech before my Sermon at that time , I have formerly word for word related . But in M. Walkers hyperbolical language , every mole-hil is a mountain ; every rivelet or drilling ril , a flood or a faire river ; every but scanty or sleight commemoration or commendation , an extolling ; every light touch , an Invective ; every error , at least an heresie . Secondly , whether every one that commends a book in such manner as I there did , must of necessity approve it as wholly free from all error . I was by a * worthy Knight sometime demanded mine opinion in a point concerning the seat of conscience , wherein two Divines of special note , run two divers and cros waies , h the one denying it a place in any natural Facultie of the soul , usually assigned ; the other affording it a room in each of them : and professing my self to dissent from either , it was objected to me , that I had by an Epistle prefixed commended the worke of the one , wherein that opinion of his was found . to which I then answered that Gentleman , and so shal now M. VValker , that a book may warrantably for the main substance of it be cōmended as useful , yea as excellent ; albeit the party so commending it suppose the Author of it to have been mistaken in some things therein contained . So did M. Cappel with the same M. Bradshaws book ; albeit in some things therein he dissented then from him , when so highly yet he indeed did extoll it , as you formerly have heard : and my selfe did somewhat the like sometime with M. Eltons Catechetical work to my cost ; though withall k professing , that in divers things contained in that part of it which I had read , I was my selfe of another judgement . Thirdly , what if M. Wotton and M. Bradshaw do not herein at all differ , or crosse either other ? but may very well be reconciled ? may not M. Gataker then at least with a good conscience commend M. Bradshaws booke , and yet pronounce M. Wotton free from heresie , when he saith herein nothing that contradicts that , which M. Bradshaw is here said to affirm ? And that it is so indeed , and in M. Bradshaws own judgement was so , may be easily made to appeare . For doth not M. Bradshaw in his Preface plainly shew , that the word of Imputation is overstrictly taken by some Divines , in which sense M. Wotton seems to him to have denied it ; whereas the word might wel be understood in another , and a larger sense , professing himself so to use it ? So that the bare word rejected by the one , and admitted by the other , doth not necessarily imply any contradiction between them . no more then S. Pauls words , that l A man is justified by faith without works , doth any way contradict what S. James saith , that m A man is justified by works , and not by faith onely . And here I shall again crave leave of my Reader , to insert a short passage out of some writings enterchanged between these two Christian brethren ; both , I hope , now with God , and agreeing in all things ; though in some particulars they dissented , while they lived here . M. Wotton in his Animadversions , which I have by me , on M. Bradshaws book , thus excepts . The third opinion denying all imputation of Christs righteousnes is said to be somewhat erroneous . Yet the same opinion held onely in that strict sense of imputation , which the Autor himselfe rejecteth , and that upon good ground , as he acknowledgeth , is therefore cleered from all erroneousnes . For how can that be erroneous , that is held on good ground ? To which M. Bradshaw thus answereth : Tho upon good ground , as to me seems , you deny imputation in that sense only ; yet your denial of all imputation may notwithstanding that be erroneous ; being grounded upon a supposal of that which I think is erroneous , that there is no other kind of imputation but that , which is answerable to that strict sense aforesaid . By which words it appeares , that the difference herein between them was rather in words , then in points : and that M. Wottons error , as M Bradshaw apprehended it , was only concerning the use of a word , not concerning any point of faith . Fourthly , suppose the difference were not verball , but reall , not in words onely , but in sense and meaning too ; yet would it not therefore necessarily follow , that M. Wotton denieth the very form , essence , and being of justification , because he denies that , which M. Bradshaw affirms to be the Formall cause of it ; or that M. Gataker must therefore of necessity pronounce M. Wotton an heretick ; unles first it be proved that that is indeed and truth the formal cause , of justification , which M. Bradshaw hath assigned : ( which being found onely in a short Summary annexed to his Treatise , n M. Walker himself deems to contradict what is averred in the book ; nor is it at all in the Latine edition , ) and that M. Gataker also is therein of the same mind with M. Bradshaw , which for ought M. Walker knowes , he may not be . Fiftly , I should desire to know of M. Walker , whether he hold not the imputation of Christs active obedience to be the formall cause of our justification : and if he so do ; which , I suppose , he wil not deny ; whether he can with a good conscience pronounce Pareus free from heresie ; notwithstanding that o he denies the imputation of it unto justification , as derogatory from the al-sufficiency of Christs suffrings and his sacrifice ; and consequently ( by M. Walkers inference ) takes away the very form , essence and being of justification . if he cannot , how comes it to pas , that he reckons him here so oft among his Orthodox Writers , that condemn M. Wottons opinions as heretical and blasphemous ? if he can , I see not , why M. Gataker may not do the like by M. Wotton , forought here objected . the argument being as strong ( if not stronger ) against the one as against the other . Sixtly , suppose it were an error , and a dangerous one to , that M. Wotton maintains ; whence knows M. Walker ? or how is he able to prove , that he holds it n wilfully , that is , against his own knowledge , ( for that seems to be intimated ) and perversly , that is , as I conceive him , obstinately ? to make him * a damned heretick . For I suppose , he wil not assume to himself any o extraordinary gift in discerning of spirits . and if he will pretend , that he discernes it by his deeds ; which is hard to do in a point of meer Theorie ; let him take heed , what manner of spirit by his carriage in this busines , being matter of practise , he gives men ground , to suspect or conclude himself to be led by . Lastly , suppose M. Walker to be so sharpsighted , and that he can pierce and peere so narrowly into M. Wottons conscience , as to discern that he doth wilfully and perversely maintain what he holds : yet unlesse that M. Gataker be as quicksighted herein as M VValker , and that he be able to descry in M. Wotton that wilfulnes and perversnes that M. Walker doth , he may still with a good Conscience justifie M. Wotton , and pronounce him ( for proclamations he makes none ) free from heresie ; as wel as the rest of his reverend brethren have done , notwithstanding all M. Walkers evidence given in against him . since that * no man is bound to pronounce or deem of his Christian brother , on the wors part especially , further then himself can see . His ninth question ( to cut it somewhat shorter , that the readers stomack may be the les troubled in taking it ) is this , p How the faithful united to Christ , as their head , and made thereby partakers of his righteousnes and whole obedience to Gods Law , and thereby constituted righteous before God , can without hereticall pravity be denied to be formally righteous by that righteousnes . To which I answer : that first he presumes some things here that are to be proved ; and are ( as he wel knows , ) by Divines not a few of the best note not acknowledged ; as , that Christs Righteousnes consisting in his active obedience is part of that whereby the faithfull are made righteous . Besides , that many things have the faithful interest in by vertue of their union and communion with Christ ; which yet are not imputed unto them for the justifying of them , or for the making of them to stand righteous in Gods sight . The Wife by vertue of her union and conjunction with her Husband , hath a right to , and interest in , all that he hath , yea and in himself to . Yet is it not necessary , that whatsoever she hath joint interest in with him , should therefore go to the payment of her debts formerly contracted : especially , if sufficient be found in any part of it . And that without hereticall-pravity therefore , that which M. VVotton is here charged with , may be held ; especially , unles we wil question the sufficiency of Christs death for the discharge of our sins ; Pareus q his words ( if he be at least of any credite with M. Walker ) above-mentioned wil intimate ; yea the whole discourse , whence they are taken , wil evidently shew . For his tenth and last question , the contradiction is the very same concerning Imputation , that was r formerly propounded , the first in the seventh question . For M. Walker doth but roll s Sisyphus his stone up and down here , until he tire , if not himself , yet his Reader . The question it self is , t Whether M. Wotton be not possessed with the spirit of Socinian blindnes and giddines , when he derides Orthodox Divines , for making every beleever justified by imputation of Christs satisfactory obedience , a Redeemer , Saviour and Satisfier for all the Elect and Faithful . What by Socinian blindnes and giddines M. Walker meanes , I wean not . We use to ask , who are blinder then they that wil not see ? and in this kind M. Walker hath bewrayed too much blindnes in this book . As for giddines , I know not , who are more likely to be possessed of it , then such as run round , like an Hors in a Mil. But how , or where , doth M. VVotton thus deride our Orthodox Divines ? This crime thus fastned upon M. Wotton , M. Walker thus makes good . u For in one of his written papers thus he argues : If Christs Righteousnes and Satisfaction be imputed to every beleever , then must every beleever be accounted a Redeemer , Justifier , and Satisfier for all the Elect. But this is absurd . Ergò , the Antecedent is fals . Where first , I might demand of M. Walker , whether a man must of necessity be deemed to deride him , whom he disputes with , if he shal affirm something to follow from that he holdeth , which he pronounces to be absurd , 2. Whether this speech of M. Wotton were given in to us at our meeting by M. Walker , as part of his Evidence , to make good his Plea against M. VVotton . which unles it were , as it was not , which may appear by his Paralel ; albeit it should contain rank heresie in it ; yet concerns it not us , nor our sentence in clee●ing M. VVotton . For x what Iudge is bound to sentence any man upon evidence not produced ? 3. As for the matter it self , if M. VVotton doe not understand aright , what those Orthodox Divines mean ; as y M. Walker affirms : sure the mistaking of another mans meaning , and thereupon supposing therefore , or pretending , that some absurdity follows from what he saith , doth not in my weak apprehension make a man guilty of heresie . or if it be pre●umed that it doth , I doubt much , whether M. Walker himself may not be deemed one of the greatest hereticks under the Sun. Thus much for M. Walkers questio●● . whereunto he saith a he could ad divers others . But if they be as little to the purpose as these ; ( which howsoever , one only excepted , concerning mine extolling of M. Bradshaws book , do no more concern me to answer , then any other of the eight ) he may do wel to keep them where they are : unles he be desirous to acquaint the world further with his restles spirit ( which he hath sufficiently done here already ) albeit he have neither new matter to enquire of , nor any matter of moment , whereby to take of the truth of that , which under good hands and of oredit sufficient ; hath been related . And the rather may he be advised to conceal them , unles they be more savoury , then what here next ensueth , of b a stinking issue of running cankers in a most foul body , and rotten carcose , that M. Gataker , like a sepulchres dog , hath scratched and raked out of the grave , in writing and publishing of his Relation : ( in which passage also he shews himself turn-sick again : ) otherwise his Readers ( to return his own words ) may wel be forewarned , to stop their noses , ere they offer to read them . Hence he proceeds to charge me ; first , as c profuse and prodigal of my reputation , in subscribing to M. Wottons positions , that they contain neither heresie nor blasphemy . wherein if my reputation●ly at the stake , theirs must lie together with mine , that subscribed together with me . And secondly , with d breach of piety and charity , virulency , defect of humanity and common honesty , in falsly fathering that on those dead Saints , M. Randol , and M. Stock , and those living pious men , D. Gouge and M. Downham , a subscription to those errors , that they saw no heresie or blasphemy in them . All which foul imputations , which herein he would make me guilty of , light full upon those , whom he pretends to be wronged by me , rather then upon me , who relate but their testimony under their own hands . For if ought be falsly fathered upon the deceased , whither of the twain stand guilty of it , they that witnes the thing under their hands , or he that barely relates what they witnes ? Besides I would fain know , what virulency is , or can be , in a precise relation of an other mans words , if there be no virulent matter or manner of speech in them : or if ought be in them of that nature , who ought to beare the burden of it , the Relater , or the Autor . As for his old Cuckows song , e of his blaming our subscription , protesting against it offer to dispute , and mine interposing so , that he could not be heard , nor obtaine a copy of M. Wottons answers , with such other idle repetitions ; they have been before heard and answered : and do here serve onely to raise the bulke of the book ; but do no whit help to prove , what M. Walker here intends , that I have falsly fathered ought upon those Saints deceased . Yea they are of much weight to evince the truth of that , which M. Walker here so eagerly opposeth . For what needed M. Walker to have kept all this coil , and have made all this ado if no such thing had then been , or were about to ●e done ? As little to the same purpose , or to any purpose at all , is it , what he telleth f of a consutation of so much as he could remember of M. VVottons answers , which he shewed to D. Gouge and M. Downham . who I hope , wanted no baiting by him , for what they had done . and that afterward he obtained liberty by a friend to copy them out , labouring for nothing ever more earnestly then to have them published ; which they may beleeve him that list : for who or what hindered him from publishing of them , when he had them ? and that he desired so much the publishing of them , to free himself from those fals reports , that M. Gataker would now lay & fasten upon him , p. 39. in which whole page there is nothing but a short sum of what was before delivered ; of M. Walkers charge and chalenge , and his evidence given in , all under his own hand ; M. Wottons answer , as himself penned it ; the verdict and sentence of the persons appealed to , testified under the survivours hands , and M. Walkers renewing of his charge in print , which himself wil not deny ; and what fals reports of mine can there be in all this ? or if the publishing of M. VVottons answer wil free M. Walker from fals reports , I have therein done M. VValker , it seems , no smal pleasure , and fulfilled , if we may beleeve him , his earnest desire . So far , he saith , he was from pressing D. Bayly to conceal them , as M. Gataker would intimate , p. 37. where I say no such matter , but say onely of the Subscription , that the Doctor refused to deliver it , whether pressed by M. Walker to detaine it or no , I wot not , M. VValker himselfe best knoweth . And indeed what was it to any of us , whether M. Walker had had M. Wottons answers , or no ? This is therefore all but g smoak and dust , raised to dim or dasel mens eyes , that they may not see that , that M. Walker would fain have concealed , and kept ( were it possible ) from their sight . Which having thus made some way to , as he supposed , ( therein overflattering himself ; as h what men earnestly desire , they are easily induced to beleeve ) he falleth now again more directly upon it ; and i tels us upon what occasion , M. VVotton by a fals suggestion , drew D. Gouge and M. Downham some yeers after to give a fals attestation : ( for that is it , that he laboureth throughout this whole Pamphlet , wel knowing how neerly it concerns him , to prove ) k which M. Stock and D. Bayly abhorred to do , repenting what favour they had shewed M. Wotton at first . But here stil l Aqua haeret , the water stayes , and doth not run cleerly away . Nor is M. Walker with all his shifts , able to wind himself out . For is the attestation by M. Gataker related , and by M. Sam. Wotton published , truly related , or no ? If it be truely related , then M. Gataker in relating it , hath delivered nothing but what is true ; to wit , that two such men have under their hands given such an attestation . Again , is the attestation it selfe true , or no ? they that gave it , I hope , wil maintain it to be true . and then have I averred nothing concerning the issue of that meeting , but what is avowed by the testimony of two witnesses , beyond all just exception , and whom M. Walker of all other m cannot with any reason reject , being men chosen to heare and sentence the cause by himself . Who therefore , if he shall stil persist to affirm it to be fals ; I wil say no more , but as that Noble Roman sometime accused by a mean fellow of a very unlikely crime , n Varius affirms it ; Scaurus denies it . Whether of the two do you credit ? so I here , M. Walker the party interressed saies it ; D. Gouge and M. Downham two of his Iudges ( for * so himself tearms them ) men indifferent and unpartial ( however M. Walker is pleased to tax them ) deny it : you may choose whether of the two you wil be pleased to beleeve . Thus at length M. Walker hath dispatched himself , as concerning our meeting , by himself procured and the issue of it . wherein he hath so laboured to vindicate himself , by many falshoods inserted into his report of it ; and , not so much by recharging M. Wotton , as by traducing his Iudges , as men partiall and unconscionable , and such as in favour of M. Wotton did what they were even then ashamed of when they did it , and by all means therefore contended to have it concealed and kept from the light and sight of others after they had done it ; and lastly by heaping on me a whole load of opprobrious terms , for having a hand in the publishing of it ; that in seeking thus to salve his credit , he may wel therein be deemed , to have done no more then to have o washt over a raw brick but , or to have p covered miry durt with reeking dung . Howbeit , tho he have thus rid his hands of our meeting , yet his spite and malice against M. Wotton and me is not yet at an end . For , as for my Poscript , it is q so frivolous , that a short answer wil serve : r one short breath is sufficient to blow it away . And yet let M. VValker who thus here vaunteth himself , like an other s Pyr gopolinices , know , that with all his boisterous blusterings he hath not stirred it one jot , much les blown it away , as he brags ; having not so much as blown upon a good part of it ; because , it seems , he was loath to spend so much breath in vain , that might better be kept for some other use . My t main charge here against him , he saith , is iniquity ; and indeed so u it is , for yoaking M. Wotton with Peter Abeilard , and with Servetus and Socinus , as agreeing with them in such damnable and detestable dotages , as they held and maintained , and for which they were condemned as blasphemous hereticks ; and that upon such slight grounds , as hath formerly been shewed . But w the iniquity , M. Walker tels me , shal return upon mine own head . And why so ? first , for Abeilard , x because S. Bernard ( whose Saintship yet I suppose , need be no part of our Creed ; especially , if all be true that our Walter Mapes y reports of him ) saith he held , that our sins are not punished in Christ , and that it had been injustice in God to punish one for another , and to impute the obedience of one to another . I demand not of M. Walker , where Abeilard saith ought of the imputing of the obedience of one to another , or where Bernard charges him with the deniall of it , as a thing unjust . tho I suppose , he would not easily be able to shew either . But I aske , where M. Wotton ever said , what Abeilard is here reported to have held , that our sins are not punished in Christ ; or , that it were injustice in God to punish one for another . If he cannot shew this ( as hitherto he hath not done ) he is ( and may be deservedly so censured ) a malicious slanderer of his brother . Howbeit , if these words of M. VVotton , which M. Walker could not be ignorant of , do not speake the direct contrary ; let some part yet of this imputatiou be taken of , if you so please . a Christ , saith M ▪ VVotton , hath been punished for us ; we are pardoned for his punishment , Esay 53. 5 What can be spoken more plainly ? M Walkers iniquity therefore herein , is not wiped of , much lesse returned upon me . Besides I find in his Latine Theses before mentioned this Assertion : b This I beleeve , that Christs sufferings are imputed to us ; and we for them obtain from God , pardon of our fins , and freedom from the guilt of them . Then which I maintain , that nothing can be spoken or conceived more true , or more apt for the unfolding of Scripture . Which how wel it sorts with what M. Walker charges on Abeilard , let any man judge . But against M. Wotton c the worst comes last . For M. Walker wil prove him to conspire with Abeilard , Servetus and Socinus in a wors matter than all this ; and that is in the denial of Christs deity . For , d if they denied in plain words the eternal deity of Christ ; so also M. VVotton did in effect . For he held that Christs obedience did serve only to justifie himself , and to bring him into high favour with God : so that God justifieth us by him as by a favourite , only upon condition of our trusting in him . Now where is the infinite valour of his Deity , if he needed justification and favour for himself . Did ever man read a charge more malicious , or more slenderly backt ? For not to question again , whether Abeilard , ( e which M. Walker expresly by name affirms apart of him ) did ever deny , and that in plain tearms too , the eternal deity of Christ ; or where Bernard , or any other saith , that he so did . Tho it be a sin ( we say ) even to bely the devil ; any man much more and so far is Peter Abeilard from denying it in plain terms , that in precise and ful words he affirms it ; ( f I beleeve , saith he , that the Sonne is in all things coequal with the Father ; to wit , in Eternity , Power , or Autority , &c. g condemning withal and detesting Arius ( whom Bernard was pleased to say he had some h smach of ) as one i led by a perverse disposition , and led aside by a devilish spirit , for k making degrees in the Trinity , and teaching the Father to be greater than the Son , and the Son lesser than the Father . That , which it is true indeed , that l Bernard chargeth Peter to have done ; ( and were it true , yet were not in plain tearms to deny the eternal Deity of Christ , ) but Peter flatly denies to be found in any writings of his ; yea m professing to abhor it , not as heretical onely , but as devilish ; nor refusing to be pronounced , n not an heretick simply , but an Arch-heretick , if it could out of any work of his be produced . But to let this passe , I say ; which little concerns us , howsoever it were with Abeilard ; save that o the rule of Iustice and equity requires to do every one right ; and p that we deale with others as we would be de●lt with our selves . First , suppose that a denial of Christs deity might be necessarily deduced from some Positions by M. Wotton maintained . would it thence follow that M. VVotton denies the Deity of Christ ? It is no good consequence . For some thing may follow truly and necessarily from what a man holds ; and yet he not hold it , but deny it ; yea strongly and stifly not in dispute only , but even in judgement oppose it , because he deems the consequence , wherby it is thence deduced , unsound , For example : That which the Lutherans hold concerning the corporall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament , together with the bread , doth by necessary consequence overthrow the truth of Christs humanity . Do any of our Divines therefore charge them , ( tho q they walk along with M. Walker in the way he here takes , in their writings against us ) with the deniall of Christs humane nature ? Or wil M. Walker therefore dare to pronounce Luther an heretick , as denying the truth of Christs humanity ? albeit we know that every true , naturall , and humane body is confined to some one certain individuall place or other , and limited with such dimensions as all men we see are ; which of Christs cannot be truely said , if that be admitted . Yea to turn the edge of M. Walkers argument the other way . By the same reason , from some consequences of M. Richardsons , ( whose authority M. Walker I am sure , wil not waive ) a man may prove , that Turks , Iews and Pagans hold a Trinity of Persons in the Deity , and the Evangelical doctrine of Christs Incarnation . For what Turke , Iew , or Pagan , of any but ordinary apprehension in intellectuals , if he acknowledge a God , doth not hold , that that God doth most perfectly understand himself ? Now M. Richardson in some Essaies of his ; wherein ( directly contrary , as I take it , to what r the Apostle averres ; and yet do I not therefore account him an hereticke , no more then that other Noble s Lord of great note , that hath laboured in the like Argument ) he endeavours to prove , that men by the very light of nature and use of reason alone , may attaine to the knowledge of those two main mysteries of Faith and grounds of the Gospel ; and that they may thereby be demonstrated to those who never heard of or knew them before ; he doth from this Position as generally granted and agreed on , by a continued chain of consequences , as so many links or rundels necessarily depending each on other , thus argu : God understandeth himself most perfectly , ergò he is understood of himself most perfectly : ergò there is a most perfect understander , and a most perfect understood ; and both these are one essence . Again , a most perfect understander , and a most perfect understood : ergò a most perfect conceiver , and a most perfect conceived : ergò a most perfect begetter , and a most perfect begotten : ergò a production of that which is of the same kind : ergò of a most perfect Sonne : ergò by a most perfect Father : which are the Father and the Sonne . Again , God understandeth himself most perfectly : ergò to be the most perfect being : ergò he willeth himself as the most perfect good : ergò from the understander and the understood proceeds a mutuall desire of their essence : ergò a spirit or anhelitus to the same : which is the holy Ghost proceeding from both . Again , what man is there Turke , Iew , or Pagan , that hath any regard of conscience to God ward , but holds that he hath at some time or other offended God by doing unjustly in some one kind or other ? now hence doth the same Autor by a Stoical Sorites , or heap of Ergoes , deduce a necessity of our Saviour Christs Incarnation , for that mans salvation , on this wise . Mans conscience telleth him , that he hath done unjustly : ergò transgressed the rule of justice : ergò the eternall Law : ergò the Law of the eternal God : ergo he is obnoxious to the eternal justice of God : ergò to an infinite punishment : ergò he must be answerable to the same : ergò by suffering eternally , if he answer it in himself , or by any other finite : ergò , he must perish eternally , unles an infinite person undertake the same ; who being infinite can infinitely satisfie with finite sufferings : ergò he must perish eternally , or beleeve an infinite person satisfying for him , as an infinite person offended by him ; and that ( in conclusion ) is Christ , God and Man. For to avoyd prolixity , I wil cut off the residue of this train . Thus from M. Richardsons grounds , by M. Walkers help , there is an incomparablo benefit befaln the whole world , for by this means great part of it , though they never heard of Christ , are sodenly become Christians . For they hold the main Principles of the Gospel as certainly , nay more certainly then M. Wotton denies Christs Deity . Since that the one follows , you see , necessarily ( unles M. Richardson be much mistaken ) from what they hold ; whereas the other by M. Walkers good leave , hath not as yet been shewed to follow so from ought by M. Wotton maintained . and yet , I doubt much , that if trial be taken , we shal scarce find them sound in the Christian faith for all this . In the next place therfore , let us see , what it is , that M. Walker , here tels us , that M. VVotton maintained , whereby he hath brought upon himself so heavy a guilt as the denial of the eternal deity of the Son of God. He held , saith he , that Christs obedience did serve onely to justifie himself , and to bring him into high favour with God : so that God justifies us by him as by a favourite , onely upon condition of our trusting in him . Where M. VVotton saith all this , M. Walker tels us not : and he that twits M. Gataker for his frequent quotations , might justly be taxed both here and elsewhere for a defect , if not default , herein ; and that such , as rendreth him , not without good cause , suspected of some jugling . For that Christs obedience serves to justifie himself , I suppose , no man can deny . since that s our Saviour himself doth thereby usually justifie himself against the false aspersions of his slanderous adversaries . Howbeit to give M. Walker herein the more satisfaction , we wil present him with two testimonies , the one a strangers , the other our own Countreymans . Thus then Gomarus , one of the greatest and eagerest Anti-arminian . t Christ , had he not performed perfect Obedience , had himself been a sinner , and to be punished for himself . And thus M. Dearing in his Lectures upon part of the Epistle to the Hebrews , u Our Saviour Christ , being the eternall Sonne of God , through the work of the holy Ghost , was made man of the Uirgin Mary , and born without original sin ; and by the same spirit filled stil his manhood more and more with grace , til the fulnes of all righteousnes was within him , that so his manhood might inherit salvation , according to the promise , Do this , and thou shalt live . but hitherto as he is righteous , so he is righteous for himself ; and only that man is blessed , who was conceived by the holy Ghost , and born of the Uirgin Mary . What more pregnant ? Again , that Christ for this his obedience was in grace and favour with God , both the Evangelist witnesseth , and himself professeth . * The Father loves me , saith he , because I lay down my life ; as w my Father hath willed me to do . and why not also , x because I do alwaies those things , that are pleasing to him ? And that Christ 〈◊〉 a favourite , helps to bring us into grace with God , I hope no true Christian , either doubts or denies . y God himself so oft implying and intimating the same , and the Apostle so expresly telling us , that z God hath graciously accepted us in his beloved . For as for the condition of trusting in Christ , enough hath formerly been said : and he must needs wilfully wink , that refuseth to take notice of that which so a frequently he must needs meet with in the Gospel , if he but superficially turn over the Books of the New Testament . not to ad , that hence Christian Writers , as wel b ancient as c modern , confirm the Deity of Christ , because we are d willed , and e said to beleeve in him , and pronounced f happy for so doing ; the very * Papists themselves , tho against themselves , applying the same also to this purpose . But that M. VVotton any where hath affirmed , that Christs obedience serves for this end ONELY to justifie himself , ( which comes short of what Socinus himself acknowledgeth ) or to bring him into favour with God ; ( as if he had not been in favour with him before ) is more , I beleeve then M. Wotton ever writ or sayd : sure I am , more it is , then M. Walker gave in in Evidence against him , when he laid as mach in his charge as he was able to reach to , no les then Heresie and Blasphemy . And I am the rather enduced to beleeve that herein he wrongs M. Wotton , because no such restrictive particle is found in that passage of M. Wotton , out of which M. Walker seemeth to have pickt this vile calumny . His words are in a Latine Discourse g cited thence by M. Walker himself , these . All that good will , wherewith God imbraceth us , proceeds from that favour that Christ is in with God. Now in these things is that for the most part contained , that he is by nature the Sonne of God ; that he is perfectly holy ; that he hath performed obedience every way perfect , both by fulfilling the Law , and by perfect performance of all things belonging to the Office of a Mediator . Whence it follows , that those that beleeve are gracious with God also for the Righteousnes of Christ. Whereunto I ad , what follows in the same Discourse a little after . Now Faith is , as a mean , a condition , and , if you please , an instrument of partaking this goodwil of God in Christ. So the part ( or office ) of Faith is no other , then by beleeving in Christ and receiving of him , to perform that which God requires of us to the reconciling , that is , the justifying and adopting of us ; that we may be partakers of the Redemption and life eternal procured for us by Christ. And towards the end : Although I grant , that the justification of a sinner , that is , the Remission of his sins , is to be fetcht properly frō Christs Obedience in the suffering of death : yet by his Righteousnes also in fulfilling the Law , I suppose that we obtain fauour with God. Which words of M Wotton , how they sute and agree , with what M. Walker would here fasten upon him , I leave to be deemed by any one , that hath not his eyes , either blood-shot , or gallshot , as it is to be feared M. Walkers were , when he either read that , or wrote this . Yea but , how doth M. Walker , from what he either finds in M. Wotton , or fathers on him , extract a denial of Christs Deity ? A man had need of a quick fight indeed to discern that , as himself hereafter delivereth himself of it . h Now where , saith he , is the infinite valew of Christs Deity , if he have need of justification and favour for himself ? And is not such a question as this , think ye , enough to stop any mans mouth , or to open it rather , and enforce him to condemn M. Wotton without more ado for an Arian ? But let us put M. Walkers Argument into form and figure , that we may the better descry and see the force of it . Thus then it must be . Whosoever saith ; that Christ hath need of justification and favour for himself , denies his eternal Deity , for he denies the infinite valew of his Deity . But M. Wotton holds , that Christ had need of justification and favour for himself . Therefore he denies Christs eternal Deity . The Proposition of this Syllogism may very well be questioned . For doth not the Word of God say expresly , that i Christ was , and is justified ? doth not the same word say , that k he was in favour , yea that l he grew in favour , both with God and man ? or was not either of these for himself ? Yea but , peradventure he had no need of either for himself . Surely those things , without which Christ as man , could not be , either accepted with God , or entirely happy ; those it cannot be denyed but that be had need of , and need of for himself . But Christ as man , unlesse he had been in a justifiable estate , could not have been accepted with God ; nor could he have been entirely happy , had he not been in favour with God. And what wil hence follow , M. Walker may easily conceive , if he be pleased so to do . Which if to acknowledge be a denial of the infinite valew of Christs d●ity , I know not how any sound divine , exactly herein treading in the track of Gods Word , can be acquitted of Arianism . Nor could M. Walker do the Arians or Socinians a greater pleasure , then if he were able to prove and make good what herein he affirmeth . True it is indeed , that a man may be said to have need of a thing two waies : first , when a man wants somewhat , that is requisite for him to have , when he should have use of it . and so our Saviour Christ had need of meat when he was , m hungry ; and of drink , when he was n athirst . but so he never needed any spirituall grace , or favour with God. Secondly , when a man can not wel be without somewhat , the continuance whereof with him is useful and requisite for him . And so Christ , as man , may wel be said to have had need even for himself of such Righteousnes as might justifie him ; ( else he must have been o guilty of some sin , and p such a sinner , as the Pharisees unjustly charged him to be ; ) and of such favour with God , as should make him , and whatsoever he should do , acceptable unto God. But some question here may wel be made , what should move M. Walker thus to shape his Argument , when he comes to conclude it . For in his Proposition here , wherein his Conclusion lies couched , he qualifieth that , which in his Charge against M. Wotton that should make up his Assumption , with a note of restriction there inserted , but here omitted , he had made to sound much more harshly and hainously , then as here he repeats it . For there it was that M. VVotton should hold , that Christs Obedience served ONELY to justifie himself : whereas here the word onely is wholy left out , as no part of his Argument . Was it , think we , because his conscience gave him some after-check , and told him that he had charged more upon M. VVotton then he was able to make good ? Or was it because his own heart suggested unto him , that this was too gros and palpable a falshood to fasten upon him , who every where professeth his opinion to the contrary , affirming the merit and benefit of Christs obedience to redound also unto us ? so in the very same place , as M. Walker himself also q cites him , he saith , If question be concerning the formal cause of justification , I exclude from it either obedience of Christ. ( to wit , both active and passive . ) If of the Efficient by way of merit , I maintain it to depend upon both . And his false dealing therefore therein might by his own allegations be easily discovered . But whatsoever it was that made him thus to stagger , is not greatly materiall , onely it may not be unusefully observed , to disclose in M. Walker that , wherewith r formerly he taxed M. Wotton ; to wit , such agiddines , procured by his so oft turning round , that he forgetteth the medium of his Argument , wherein the pith of it should consist , tho laid down but two or three lines before , when he comes to conclude it . As for the charge it self , to cleare M. Wotton of Arianism ( that which the divel himself , I suppose , would never have charged him with ; but s tho in words , saith M. Walker he professe the contrary , yet in effect he maintains ; ) I shal not need to say much : his Sermons extant , on the first of S. Johns Gospel wil superaboundantly plead for him , and shew it to be a most shameles slander : unles that M. Walker , by his Chymical faculty , by which he is able to extract every thing out of any thing , can pick Arianism out of those * Discourses , wherein the same is very eagerly opposed , and as substantially refuted . From this fresh Charge , which had it been given in , when time was , and that so strongly backt , and cleerly demonstrated , we could not possibly have avoided it , but must of necessity have found M. Wotton an heretick , Socinian or Arian , no great matter whether if not both : he proceeds to t the poornes of M. G●takers defence ; thinking to excuse M. VVotton , by naming other heresies of Servetus and Socinus , that M. Wotton held not , nor did M. Walker charge him with : and pleading , that , because they were condemned for other heresies , therefore this was no heresie : which yet M. Walker knows to be heresie and blasphemy ; and other learned proclaim it so to be : yea M. Wottons own conscience told him that his opinions were condemned for such ; which for fear of shame therefore he sometimes denied ; and frequently contradicted himself , saying and unsaying , as Socinus his Master often did . To all which punctually in few words . 1. It would deservedly have been expected , that M. Walker having charged M. Wotton , with t maintaining , teaching , and infecting divers , with the most pestilent and dangerous errors and opinions of all that ever the devil sowed among Christian people , the heresies of Servetus and Socinus , those most damnable and cursed hereticks , the greatest monsters that ever were born within the borders of Christs Church ; I say , that having thus charged M. VVotton , he should have proved him to consent with them in those monstrous and most pestile●t errors of all , that ever were by them held and taught : otherwise his evidence falleth far short of his Charge . And surely one of these two M. Walker by vertue of that his charge stands bound to maintain and make good ; either that those prodigious ●●tages and detestable blasphemies of Servetus related by Calvin , ( to let pas Socinus and his denial of Christs deity ) yea not those of him alone , but the like of u the Ophites , the Cainites , the Nicolaitans , the Basilidians , the Valentinians , the Carpocratians , the Marcionites , the Manichees , and the whole rable of abominable old hereticks , whose positions and practises were so hideous and horrible , or so unclean and obscene , that they are not almost to be related ; yet are not so vile and pestilent as are those errors , that either M. Wotton indeed held , or were by M. Walker ( truly , or falsly , shal be all one ) objected unto him ; or els , that , tho these are not so vile and pestilent as those ; that those were none of them by the devill sown among Christian people , but these were . Otherwise , if he wil be but judged by his own words , he must acknowledge himself a most notorious sycophant ; that chargeth so deeply , and so poorly and slenderly makes his charge good . And this , unles he wil eat his own words , how he can avoid , I see not . 2. It is most fals , that I use any such plea , that therefore , what M. VVotton held , concurring ( as M Walker pretended ) therein with them , was no heresie ; because they were condemned for other heresies . For which assertion , I here charge M. Walker with a manifest and palpable untruth : which together with divers others herein avowed by him , until he disclaim and acknowledge , I shal not desire to have further dealing with one that regards no more what he saith . Among other things indeed , which he glides by , I question x his candor , in charging M. VVotton to concur with Servetus in all points concerning the doctrine of justification ; when he produceth y but one short saying of Servetus concerning Abrahams Faith : wherein yet M. Wotton , neither in expresse tearms , and in sense and meaning much les , ( as I have above shewed ) concurreth with him . and withal z I shew by an instance M. Walkers iniquity and unequal dealing therein ; such as himself would by no means admit , or endure in his own case . That which M. VValker being altogether unable to wipe of , he slily slips away , and a insteed thereof shifts in a supposititious absurdity , a brat of his own brain ; to delude his reader , and to make him beleeve , that M. Gataker so argues as himself too oft doth . 3. Whereas he saith , he knows this ( I know not what , of M. Woitons ) to be heresie and blasphemy : what need I say more , but ( as he sometime ) that herein I beleeve him not ; no more then M. Richardson , if ( as c before he told us ) he affirmed on his knowledge , that whosoever lived and died in it should be damned . What he knows , I know not . but what he was able to make proof of , when time was , I know ; and men of as good credit every inch ( what if I said , of as great knowledg to in matter of divinity ? ) as M. Walker , do give testimony thereunto . 4. What he jangles , so much , and so d oft , of other Autors , I leave him to try it out with e him , whom he affirms f to have renewed M. VVottons opinions , and to have filcht all out of his writings . Onely making bold to tel M. Walker , that , when he hath read over a few of Pareus his works , one of the Autors he so oft mentions , and by name that * of his concerning Christs Active and Passive obedience , out of which I have presented him with one or two small snips ; I am half of the mind , that he wil pas the like censure on him also for an heretick , that he hath done upon M. VVotton . And it may not without good ground , of probability at least , be conjectured , that therefore he waived medling with the latter part of my Postscript ; because I therein g evidently shew , that a man may hold not a few points held by Socinus , and yet not be therefore a Socinian heretick . And I would but request of M. VValker , to tel his mind plainly , what he thinks of those , who stifly hold and maintain ; that justification consists wholly in Remission of sins ; that Christs Righteousnes in fulfilling the morall Law is not imputed unto us for justification ; and that God without breach of his justice might have pardoned mans sin , requiring no satisfaction at all for the same ; whether they be Socinian hereticks , as wel as M. Wotton , or no. to which demand if he shal return an affirmative answer , he may be pleased to take notice by h my Postscript , if at least he list so to do , what a large list of new hereticks , never before taken among us for such , must upon his doom now be taken in and ranged in that rank . 5. For his peering so narrowly into M. VVottons conscience , as i before , so here ; I shal leave him to render an account unto him , who k challengeth unto himself that Prerogative , to see into mens souls ; and whose l power therefore M. Walker therein usurps . 6. For M. VVottons pretended contradictions , enough already hath been answered . tho neither is it my part to make them all good ; nor doth it either make him an heretick , albeit they be not all made good ; or prove him conscious to himself , of what M. Walker would thence infer . Howbeit if M. Wottons feare of shame , as M. Walker here saies , induced him unto them ; then had M. Wotton that , which I feare M. Walker too much wants ; since that otherwise he would have been afraid to expose himself so to shame , as by his cariage in this very Pam●hlet , besides what elswhere he hath done . As for Socinus M. Wottons master , as he p●… here to call him : it is no new thing with 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 to enlarge Socinus his schoole , and to assigns him schollers , whom he lists , more then a few , who yet abhor Socinus , it may be , as much as M Walker himself doth . For his close , wherein he tels me , thinking thereby to stop my mouth , that m if I wil break forth into a further defence of M Wotton , he wil be as ready to resist me ; taxes M. Wotton , n for professing himself in some things concerning the point of justification , to dissent from them all , whom he speaks of ; wherein he compares , him to Peter Abeilard , who in some things professed to dissent from all the Divines that went before him ; and lastly professes , in some generall and ambiguous tearms , o what his faith is . For all this a short answer ( as himself p elswhere ) wil serve . 1. I never undertook , nor do undertake , any Defence of M. Wotton , as holding no error : whom in my former Relation q I professed in somethings to dissent from , that which himself also wel knew ; and mine Animadversions upon his Book De Reconciliatione in some marginal notes ( wherewith , after my wonted manner , in reading of Autors , for mine own private use , I have ( to use M. Walkers r words ) be daubed my margent , and so marred my book ) wil easily and evidently shew the same . All that I have said , and do stil say , is this ; having witnesses beyond exception to beare me out therein ; that M. Walker was not able to convince M. Wotton of heresie and blasphemy , much les ( as he had charged him ) of the most ●estilent here sies that ever were sowen by the devil , or had sprung up in Gods Church , in that meeting , which he himself had procured for that purpose . And this , let M. Walker shuffle and shift what he can , * like a Foul in a snare , or Fish in a net , or a wild Bull in a toil ; the more he stirres , and strives and struggles , the more he may mash and entangle himself , but he wil never be able to expedite or wind himself out of . For as for his Golias like menacing to resist me ; I shal so s Ulysses ▪ like shelter my self under their sheild , whose attestation I have delivered , that he must first beare them and their credit down before him , ( which I assure my self he wil never do ) ere he shal be able either to lay me on my back , or to maintain his own ground , and keep himself standing in this encounter . 2. For M. Wottons professing to dissent from them all ; wherein he yoakes him with Abeilard . who those all are , I wot not , for I have none of that writing , out of which M. Walker relates this . nor do I find that of Abeilard , that Bernard in this kind charges him with , in any writing of his now extant . that work of his , wherein he had it , ( if at least he had it in any , for some books are by t Bernard cited as his , u which he professes he never wrote ) may be lost . Howsoever , I suppose it no such hainous matter , in something to depart from all Writers known to us , that have gone before us . Sure I am that Iunius and Tremellius , in translating and expounding some passages of Scripture , departed from all known Interpreters that had gone before them : as in that x place of Malachy ; for which those of the weaker sex are beholden to them ; that in all , even the best , translations ever before ran ; If thou hate her , put her away . tho y some indeed of the Jewish Rabbines directed to that , which those famous and worthy men , never sufficiently commended , admitted , against all that had before them taken pains in that kind . and they might wel therefore have said , as Bernard sayes that Peter Abeilard did ; All Interpreters before us thus translated this place : but we cannot therein concur with them . yet is not their interpretation , that I know , therefore deemed the les sound Yea I suppose , that if all M. Walkers own , either Sermons or Assertions were sifted , the like , Omnes alii sic ; Ego verò non sic ; would be more then once found in them . He that to prove , the Swedes to be the people designed by Gods word for the destruction of the Romish Babylon , should affirm that that prophecy , wherein people are willed to a come from the utmost border , or end ( understanding it , of the world ; which yet is not necessary ) to destroy Babel ; was never fulfilled in the destruction of the Chaldean Babylon ; should therein , I suppose , cros all Interpreters of holy Writ that are commonly in hands . Which whither M. Walker , as some report , have affirmed or no , is best known to himself . But sure I am , as I have formerly touched , concerning the ground of mans fall , I have heard him profes himself to dissent from all our Divines ; laying withal a very foul aspersion upon all that therein dissented from him . Howsoever since that in these latter times , it hath been by Gods Spirit foretold , that b knowledge should encrease ; yea reason it selfe , besides dayly experience telleth us the self-same : for , notwithstanding the diligentest searches of all foregoing ages . c truth much of it remaines stil undiscovered , and d it is an easier matter to ad to former discoveries , then to discover things at first : they may see most , that come last : and we find it in all other learning and knowledge , that those things have in these latter days been brought to light , which in former ages , for ought that can be discryed , were utrerly unknown ; I suppose , under correction , that it ought not to be deemed any just cause of aspersion , if a man shal , with modesty , rendring at least some reason of good probability for his so doing , profes himself compelled in some things to depart from all those , that to his knowledge have dealt in some argument before him : especially if he shall withall ( as the same Peter in the very entrance to his Introduction unto Divinity doth ) profes himself g ready to give satisfaction in ought said amisse by him to any man ; who either by force of reason , or by authority of Scripture , shal thereof convince him ; either by altering , or by expugning it . That so , saith he , tho I be not free h from the evil of ignor●ne ; yet I may not incur the crime of heresie . i For it is not a mans ignorance , but his proud obstinacy , that makes him an heretick . Nor , may I wel ad , were the bare profession of dissent in some particulars from all other Orthodox Divines presumed in either , sufficient to make , either M. VVotton , or Peter Abeilard an heretick . Lastly , as concerning M. Walkers profession of k his Faith , that l he purposes to live and die in , tho I know not what authority M. VValker hath to compose a Creed for every one to subscribe to : nor do I deem it necessary unto salvation , that every one should in all things be of his belief . Yet this his form , ( like m a Yragik buskin , that may be drawn on either leg ) is in such generall and ambiguous tearms conceived ; ( lest he should exclude from it some of those Writers , whom he crakes so much of , as concurring with him in condemning M. Wottons opinions for heretical and blasphemous ) that M. VVotton himself , I verily beleeve , were he alive , would not refuse to subscribe to it . And M. Walker wel knows , that , were he put to explaine it , and to declare more distinctly , what he means by Christs righteousnes , and the fulfilling of the whole Law for him , one at least of those worthies , whom he hath so oft in his mouth , ( to say nothing of another of them , whom yet so highly he extols ) would not only refuse to subscribe to , but condemn some part of his Faith o as a vain refuse and subtilty , not agreeable to Scripture ; but such as taints the purity of Orthodox doctrine , rends in pieces that righteousnes , whereby we stand just hefore God , p derogates from the death of Christ , and q makes his Cros and his satisfaction by death for our sins , wholy needles and superfluous . Which speeches of his ( and Pareus his they are ) if , to M. Walkers eare they sound not as hereticol and blasphemous , I wonder how ought should in M. Wottons writings . And so I shal take my leave of him ; leaving him to reconcile himself to Pareus , since that M. Wotton is now departed , who yet herein jumpeth not wholy with him ; and wishing him a little more sobriety and modesty toward his Christian brethren , that have not so ill deserved , either of him , or of Gods Church , as to be thus scandalously taxed , traduced , railed upon , and reviled , as by him they are , both here and elswhere . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A42456-e330 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact. ep . 34. c Vindica● . p. 34. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nicet . in Andron . l. 1. c. 6. e Vindic. p. 1. f Ut in eis duarum rerum majorem babeas rationem , pietatis & modestiae . 10. Rainold . ad Alb. Gentil . ep . 1. g Quod me modestiae laesae facis tu reum , — non vides te cum eo fic agere imperiosè , qui Papae imperium contemp●it , & exulare patriâ potuit & universo regno papali ? Alb. Gentilis al 〈◊〉 . Rainold . ep . 2. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plut. de amie . & adul . & de util . ex inimic . ex Platone de leg . lib. 5. i Rom. 14. 4. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Moschio . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dionys. trag . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Archiloch . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripi● . Antigon . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Idem Phaeniss . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Sophocl . Ajac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor . Stasim . in carm . Schol. ad illud Aristoph . Paco . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Et Suidas . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hinc diverbia illa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Aristoph . Avib . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Soph. Ajac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Laert. Menedēm . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Lucian . de sect . Et vulgare illud , De mor●…is nil nisi bonum . Quod 〈◊〉 Solonis lege tractum est , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plut. Sol. è Demosth. in Leptin . et in Baeot. Et Chilo Sparta . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Laert. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . P ato politic . l. 5 Ael●aao Sopb●stae , qui in lmp●ratorem defu●ctum Stylum strinxe ▪ rat , Phil●stratus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hinc Antholog . l. 1 , c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Audet vel lepus exanimi ●●sultare lconi . Hectorique jacenti insultat Danaûm ignavissimus quisque Iliad . 〈◊〉 . Et Quamlibet ignavi praecipitata premunt . Naso trist . lib. 3. eleg . 11. Nec Plancus illepidè , eum diceretur Asini●s Pollio orationes in eum parare , quae post mortem P ▪ anci ederentur , ne respondere posset , cum mortuis non nisi larvas luctari : quo apud eruditos nihil impudentius judicatur . Plin. praefat . Hist. nat . Itaque Maro AEn . l. 11. Nullum cum victis certamen & aethere cassis . Deest , esse oportet . Serv. m See Pet. Moulins of the Eucharist . chap. 13. n Hebr. 12. 25. o Terra novissimè complex● gremio , tum maximè ut mater operiens , nullo magis Sacramento , quam quod nos quoque sacros facit . Pl●… . Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Pl●t . de ●olon . leg . p Uhi corpus homi●is demortui co●aas , sacer esto . Numae lex . Sep●●chrorum sanctitas in ipso solo est , quod nul â vi mov●ri nequ● dele●i potest . C●c . Philip 9. Ebustis defurctorum lapidem movere , terram evertere , cespitem evellere●proximum Sa●rilegio majore , nostri semper habu●runt . Iulian. Cod. l. 9. tit . 19. leg . 5. ●nde emen●andus Cod●x . Theodos l 9. tit . 17. l 4. Defunctorum cineribus violentiam inferre , sacrilega praesum●●● . Valent. novel , tit . 5. Ne Sepu●●hra quidem dirip●r● & ca●avera ●poliare illicitum ducebant ●a●rilegae v●…pilatorum manus . Eu●eb . Hist. Lat. vers . l. 3. c. 4. Sacrilegae bus●is abstinuere manus . Senec. epigr. 4. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Homer . Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plato Menex . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Isocr● Euag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Polyb ▪ l 8. Siquis est sensus in morte . Cic. Phil. 9. Siquis inferis sensus est Sen ad Po●yb . 6. 18. Siquis vit● digressis est dolor . Ammian . l. 30. r Sic enim & nostri . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. in Iul. 1. Idem in Cae●ar . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Idem in Pasc● . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . s Abiit , non obiit . Ambr. Theodos. t 〈◊〉 reliquias dissipari ▪ jussit , acerbiore odio , quam si tam sapiens fuisset , quam v●●emens fuit . Cio . de leg● l. 2. u Pag. 1. x Galat. 4. 29. with Gen. 21. 90 y Letter to M. Wotton Vindic. p. 15. z Ibid. p. 16. a Ibid. p. 10. & Relat. p. 4. 5. b Psal. 69. 26. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Homer . O●ys . 〈◊〉 . & Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Odys ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Pindar . N●m . 1. Gr●gor . Stasim . in Iul. 1. & Greg. Pr●●b . in vit . Stas . e Res est sacr● , miscr . Sen. c. epigr. 4. * Pag. 2. e Pag. 3. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Apud Suidam N. Q. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Sext. Empir . Pyrrhon . l. 1. c. 29. Alex. Aphrod probi . l. 1. q 101. Alarcus lmper . co●mert . l. 6. § 57. Greg. Stas . desed ▪ constant . g Relat. P●st●c● . P. 40. h ●…d . p. 55. i Relat p. 1. 3. * Relat. p. 3. i Conclusio partem sequior●m sequitu● . * Relat. p. 5. & Vindic. p. 16. * Relat. p. 38. i Pag. 5. k Pag. 5. l Socsnianisme discovered , p. 1. 4. m Parall . Error . 1. & 3 Relat. p. 11. 14. n Rom. 4. 3 , 5 , 9 , 22 , 23 , 24. o Rom. 4. 3. p Agitur hîc de eo , quod ipsi d De● imputatum est , nempe de lpsius side . Beza in Rom. 4. 3. q Paulus activam locutionem passivè convertens , praetermittit affixum Hebraeum , quod vertere potuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ipsam videlicet s●…m Abrahami . Sed hoc ipsum p●stea disertè bis expri●it . nempe versu 5 & 9. Ibid. r Idem valent , Deus imputavit fidem , & sides a Deo est imputata . Quantum ad sensum duo continet hoc eloquium ; Primò fidem Abrahae ; Credidit A. Deo. deinde , fidei fructum , & imputata est ei ( fides ) ad justitiam . Par. in Rom. 4. 3. s Et imputata est ei ( fides ) pro justitiâ . Fructus fidei Abr. significatur , gratuita justificatio . Ibid. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , non impersonaliter reddi debere , imputatum est , sed passive , imputata est , nempe fides , ex Hebrae● textu , & Apostoli declaratione . Vers. 5. & 9. manifestum est . quod ad sensum Scripturae recte intelligendu●… refert observare . Ibid. v Relat. Postscript . p. 58. u Apostolus justificationem in solâ remissione peccatorum constituit . P●ran Rom. 4. 7. Dub. 5. * Manifestum est , non imputar● peccatum , poni pro justificare , Lub . ad Socin . l. 2. c. 2. p. 124. col . 2. Saepe ostendimus justificationem contineri gratuitâ peccatorum remissione . Ibid. l. 4. c. 10. p. 551. col . 2. x De justitiâ Christi Activâ , & Passiva Epist. ad Com. Lud. Witgen . y In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est justitia duplex , divina & humana . Humana est inhaerens , & acquisita , illam vocant habitualem ; hanc meritoriam . de illa loquitur Apus . Heb. 7. 26. & 1 Pet. 3. 18. de hac Rom. 5. 9. per unam satisfactionem . v. 19. Lubb. c●ntr . Socin . l. 3. c. 5. Sanguine , srve obedientiâ Christi justificamur formalite● ; fide instrumentaliter . Ibid. c. 2. p. 355. Duo ad justificationem reqiruntur ; unum , ut Christus pro peccatis nostris mortuus sit , atque ita pro eis satisfaciat : alterum , ut nos hanc Christi solutionem five satisfactionem vera fide recipiamus . Ibid. l. 4. c. 9 p. 547. Haec justitia , s●ve obedientia , iive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi , sive denique sacrificium , sive sanguis Christi , sive solutio pretii redemptionis nostrae à Christo sacta , absolvit nos 〈◊〉 reatu , constituit nos justos , justificat nos , &c. Ibid. c. 1. p. 445 , 44● . Christi enim obedientia , quam Patri in morte pro nobis praestitit , est vera illa justitia , quâ Patri reconciliamur . Ibid. c. 4. p 472. z Qui obedientiae activae , aut sanctitati nativae , meritum justitiae ascribunt , mortem Christi sine dubio inanem reddunt . Par. de justit . Christi activ . & pass . pofit . 5. p. 181. c M●rti Christi justificationem contra Scripturas derogant . Ibid. p 182. * Letter to M. Wotton . p. 15. “ Pag. 6 , 7. * Pag. 3 , 4. a Answer to error 1. Relat. p. 22. b Pag. 5. c Ibid. d Sic scil . beare solet ami●os . e Relat. Paral. error 2. p. 13. f See Relat. p 54. g M. Walkers Socinianism discovered and confuted . p. 6. h Ibid. Epist. p. 2. i Socin . disc . p. 7. i Pag. 5. k Nec saui esse ●…is non●…nus jaret Orestes Pers. sat 3. l Pag. 5 9. m Pag. 5 , 6. n Pag. 6. o Pag. 6 , 7. p Pag. 8. q Pag. 8 , 9. r Pag. 7. s Pag. 13. * Epist. before his discovery p. 5. t Pag. 6. u Pag. 25 , 26. x Dan. 12. 3. y See Vindicat. p. 34. 35. z Quid interest Deos neges , an infames ? Senec. ●p . 133. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. de . supers●it . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Porphyr . de abstin . l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Epiphani aneor . §. 9. a Relat. p. 4. 5. b Vindic. p. 9. 18. c Vindic. p. 10. d Pag. 12. e Pag. 12. f Pag. 13. g Pag. 13. h Pag. 7. i Pag. 13. k Pag. 14. l Pag. 15. * M. Eg●rtons Letter to M. Wotton . n Vindic. p. 9. o Pag. 19. p Vindic. p. 19. q See Relat. p. 56. r Vindic. p. 19. s Ibid. t Ibid. u Pag. 22 , 23. x Pag. 19. y Pag. 1. a Pag. 19. b See of Pavl and Barnabas , Acts 15. 39. Chryso●●ome & Ep●…mus , S●crates Hist. Eccl. 〈◊〉 . 6 c. 13. Hierome and Aug●stine in then Ep●stles to either Hierome & Ruffine , in Hieromes Epistles and Invectives . c Pag. 〈◊〉 . d Relat p. 13. e Vindic. p. 19. f See Relat. p 8 , 9. g Pag 15. h Pag. 19. 20. i See Relat. p. 9. k Pag. 19 , 20. l Pag. 20. m Pag. 22. n See Relat. p. 10. o Zeno Phocylidis dictum illud notabat , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plut. de Stoic . contradict . §. 4. p John 7. 51. Act. 15. 16. Neminem praedamnare incognità causa licet . Lactant l. 5. c. 1. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plut. Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Anton. M●… . 〈◊〉 . c. 53. r Qui statuit aliquid . parte i●auditâ aliera ; AEquum licet fiatu●rit , ●aud aequs fuit . Sence . Med. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Menand . s Iudex damnatur , cum nocens absolvitur . P. Syrus . t Pag. 20. u Ibid. x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Muta persona . y Pag. 22. a Pag. 20. b Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo ? c Relat. p. 9. d Relat. p. 9 , 10. e Prallel . Er●or . 2. Relat. p. 13. * Relat. p. 36. f Fidem inserit , ut d●ccat Pidem esse conditi●…m , sub qua Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium . Pareus in Rom. 3. 25. g Conditio , qua propriè justificamur , ea est , ut in Christum credamus . Fox de Christ. grat . justif . p. 244. * Promissio Evangelica nullā exigit conditionem aliam , praeter fidem duntaxat , qua credimus in filium Dei. Ibid p. 240. h Reform . Cathol . Point . 4. of Justificat . the manner , Differ . 2. Reason 1. i M. Wil. Pe●bles Uindiciae . Or , Plea for grace , that especially of faith . k M. G. Walker Epist. to the Christian Reader . l Ibid. m M. W. Pemble , Vindiciae Fidei , or , Of justification by Faith , Sect. 2. chap. 1. p. 23. n Ibid. p. 22. o Ibid. p. 24. p The Reformed Churches thus explaine themselves . Ibid. p. 23. q Parall . Error . 4. r Relat. Postsc● . p. 46. s Relat. postscr . p 46. t Rom. 4 3. 9. u Ubi promittenti Deo f●…miter credidit , est illi ejusmodi si●●s loco justitiae imputata ; hoc est , Ob ca●a Fidem justu● est a Deo reputatus . Muscal . in Gen. 16. 6. x Psal. 8. 3. 6. y Psal. 74. 3. z Epiphan . haer . 70. §. 2. Aug. de haeres . c 49. a John 14. 28. b Epiph. haer . 69. §. 17. Aug. de haeres . c. 49. c Creed of Constantinople , commonly called the Nicene Creed . d Isidar . Origin . l. 7. c. 5. Socrat. bistor . l. 7. c. 23. Euagr. l. 1. c. 7. e Onuphr in vita Ius 3. Pp. Dr. Field of the Church , l. 2. c. 9. & l. 3. c. 1. Breerwood of Relig. & Langrug c. 25. p. 183. f Aio . Christian non solum egere cam caeteru sed multo plus egere quam caeteros . sunt enim quibus et si desiat multa , non desunt omnia . Chris●us tantummodò solus est , cui nihil est , quod in emni humano g●n●re non desit . Salvi an . ad Eccl. Cathol . l. 4. g Non eget mi●●riâ , sed eget misericorata ; noo eget ●eitate prose , sed eget pietate pro suis. Ibid. h Sext Decretal . de verb. si●g 〈◊〉 . exi● t. i Extr. de ve● sign . c. Ad condi &c. Quia quorard●… . k Christus summus & maximus peccator . Luth. in Gal. 3. 13. p. 459. quo nullus major in mun . do . Ib. p. 453. l Omnium hominum peccata omnia in se suscep● . lbid . p. 458. & 453. P●rsonam 〈◊〉 ●●ndam gerendam ●…pit ; ●…que reus factus est peccaterum totius mu●di . 〈◊〉 . p. 4●6 . m Christus quatid●● peccat : & ex quo fuit Christus , quotid●… p●… it . Aug. d. Rom. de sacram . Christ. & Eccles. l. 1. n Nod , ●e capite , sed de membris , que cum Christo capite , sunt unus Christus . Idem . o Rom. 8. 1. & 16. 7. p 1 Cor. 6. 17. Omnes Sancti & fideles cum homine Christo sunt unus Christus . Aug. de pecc . mer. & rem . l. 1. c. 31. Caput enim & corpus unus est Christus . Idem de Trmit . l. 4. c. 9. & in Ps. 54. & de verb. Dom. 49. & 65. Bed. in Ioan , 17. Bern. ●p . 190. Christus cum totâ suâ Ecclesia , una persona est . Greg. in Ps. paen 5. q Gal. 3. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 12. r Conc. Basil. sess . 22. s John 9. 24. t 1 Joh. 5. 18. u 1 Joh. 3. 9 x Epipban . her . 59. § 6. y H. N. Terri Pacis c. 34. & 36. I. R. of Family of Love , D. 5 , 6. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Platone Plut. Symp●s . l. 7. c. 5. & 8. & de esu carn . l. 2. & Greg. Stas . de Ma●tyr . & ad Iul. exact . b Math. 26. 61. Marke 14. 58. d John 2. 10. f John 2. 21. g John 1. 14. Col. 2. 9. John 2. 19. h John 2. 20. i Uideantar Ios. Scaliger de Emendat . Temp. l. 6. p. 534 , 535. Phil. Lansberg . Chronol . sacr . l. 3. c. 18. Tho. Lydiat . Emend . Temp. A. M. 3991 , & 4037. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Ioseph . antiq . l. 20 c. 8. Gr. 17. Lat. ad Albinum abitu●…ntem , circiter quadriennium ante excidium . n Math. 24. 1. Marke 13. 1 , 2. Ios●ph . antiq . l. 15. c. 14. & belli 1. l. 7. c. 26 , 27. Gr. Lat. 12. vide Ri●…n . 45. &c. l Hieron . in Hagg. 2. Chrysost. in 1 Cor. orat . 34. Fr. Ribera in Hagg. 〈◊〉 . n. 37-52 . m Hagg. 2. 8 , 9. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dan. 8. 11 , 〈◊〉 ▪ q Ios. ant . l. 15. c. 14. r Marke 14. 59. s I. H. Christianity maintained chap. 9. § 3. p. 66. t Preface n. 8. u I H. Ibid. p. 66 x Ibid. p. 67. y G. C. P●eface to the Author of Charity maintained , num . 8. * Io. Speed in Ed●… . 4. § 3. a Vindicat. p. 20 , 21. b Pag. 21. c Pag. ●1 . d Fingunt , que vera negarent , Dum credi , quod non contigit esse , volunt . e Relat. p. 6. f V●… . p. 21. g Pag. 24. h Pag. 21. i Ibid. k Ibid. l See Relat. p. 38. m Vindic. p. 20. n Pag. 22. o Damna●i ubi jam jure sese sense●…t sontes , iniquos conqueruntur judices . Sons nemo sese jure damn●tum volet . p Vindic. p. 4. q G. W. Letter to A. W. Vind. p. 15. r Luke 18. 2. s Luke 18. 5. t Pag. 21. u Pag. 4. x Pag. 22. y Pag. 4. a Pag. 24. b Pag. 1. c Pag. 24. d Ibid. e Pag. 5. * Ibid. e In Elench● disput . Fr. Gomari : & Disceptatione cum Lud. Lucio . f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Aristot. Ethic. E●…dem . l. 7. c. 12. Pausan. Phocic . Plut. Thes. Laert. Cleanth AElian . Hist. var. l. 12. c. 22. Hephaest . nov . Hist. l. 5. apud Phot. cod . 190. Ephipp . Pelt . apud Athen. l. 7. Zenob . adag . 548. Varro . satyr . g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ne Hercules quidem adversus duos . Zenob . adag . 549. Suid. 1116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plat. Phaed. & Euthyd . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Idem . leg . 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Aristid de ●betor , 2. Eccles. 4. 12. h Guil. Tilen . de Si●r . Lub . h Pag. 22. l Ibid. k Ibid. * Paralel . Point . or Error 2. Relat. p. 13. 36. l Ibid. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plut. de Isid. & Osir. m Relat. p. 35 , 36. n Fictio personae . o Pag. 22. p Pag. 22 , 23. q Maro AE● . l. 1. r Pag. 21. s Pag. 2. t Illo per se ac propriè justificamur , quod dum adest nobis , & Deus & homines nos justos pronunciant , dum abest , injustos . Fides illud unum est , quo si polleamus , Deus & homines n●s inter justos numerant ; sin minus , inter injustos . Ergo , &c. Bucer . praefat . Enarrat . Epist. Paul. c. 7. § 1. Syllog . 1. a Ans. to Err. 3. Relat. p. 27 , b Fides , tanquam qualitas , habitualiter non justificat ; ncque m●teria est justificatīonis nostrae , neque forms : e● solâ ratione ad justificationem valet , quod in Christum recumbat , ad veniam delictorū propter ipsius obedientiam adipiscendam Ad dissert . 1. § 9. c Fides certè non justificat , nisi tantum per & propter Christi obedientiam . Cum dicitur ad justitiam imputari , quid nos praestare oporteat , ut per Christum justificemur , significatur . Ibid. d Fide justificari dicimur , non tropicâ , sed propriâ l●cutione : qu● significatur , fidem illud esse , quod Deus à nobis flagitat , ad justificationem conseqendam propter Christi ●bedientiam & sacrificium . Ibid. e Parall , Error . 3. Rela● p. 14 : f Neque tamen interea tortuosas bujus Sophis●● figurat admitto , quum dicit Eidem esse Christum . Calvin , Iastitut . l. 3. c. 11. § 7. g Inscitè sidem , que instrumentum est duntaxat p●rcipiendae justitiae , dic● misceri cum Christo ; qui materiaris causa , tantique beneficii autor simul est & minister . Ibid. h Iam expeditus est nodus quomodo intelligi debeat vocabulum fide i , uhi de justificatione agitur . Ibid. i Rom. 3. 28. & 5. 1. & . 4. 5 , 〈…〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ma●c . Imp. l. 10. § 13. l Vindic. p. 23. m Ibid. p. 23 , 24 n See M. Egertons Letter before produced : and his peicing up of M. Wottons assertions . o Vindic. p. 21. p Ibid. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Tim●us . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Polyh . l. 12. r Vindic. p. 24. s Ibid. t Ibid. p. 24 , 25. u Pag. 25. x Ibid. y Nul'us reli●tus est ●edius locus , Nisi sit vita aeterna , extra r●gnum caelorum ; qui●q●i● ad regnum Dei non pertinet , ad damnationem sine dubio pertinet . Aug. de verb. Ap. 14. Credite mihi fratres . duo sunt loca ; & tertius non est ullus . Idem . de temp . 232. Tertium penitas ignoramus : nec in Scripturis Sanctis inveniemus . Idem hypognost . l. 5. a Pag. 25. b Pag. 26. c On his death-bed , Pag. 25. a dying man. p. 26. d Pag. 26. e Ibid. f Relat. Postsc . p. 50. g Pag 8. h Pag. 24. i Pag. 9. k Pag. 30 : l Answer to two Treatises of M Io. Can. m Pag. 30. n Pag. 26. o Io. Can of necessity of separation from non-conformists principles . p. 127. of which see Preface to Rejoinder , p. 11. p Ex pauculis guttis dignoscitur maris 〈…〉 non ebibatur . 〈◊〉 . l. a. c. 34. p Chap. 2. & Chap. 9. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Psal. ●●irac . c●●ib . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Naz. ep . 13 & 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ide● . apolog . Fallit enim affectus . Pli●… . l. 4. ep . 44. & amantium caeca sunt judicia . Hieron . ad Ioan. Hierosol . r Sir Edward Cook then Lord chief Justice . s See M. Prinnes p●eface to his Treatise of the perp●tuity of Faith. t ●orense vocabulum . Calviu . iustitut . l. 3. c. 11. § 3. Chemnit . exam . Conc. Trid. part . 1. de vocab . justif . Pet. Mart. in Rom. 8. 33. Bucer . praefat . in Epist. Paul. c. 8. Par. in Rom. 3. 28. & resp . ad dub . 7. Chamier . Pa●strat . tom . 3. l. 21. c 14. § 10. Bellarm. de justif . l. 2. c. 3. except . 1. & 2. u Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 82. 3. Prov. 17. 15. Esay 5 23. & 43. 26. That is in English. There hath been sent me from London by M. Cappel Pastor of the French Church there , a little book of justification , small in bulke , but in learning , wit and acutenesse very great , written in English by William Bradshaw . This because it much pleased me , and Gomarus and I had but one copy between us ; I translated out of hand for mine own use into French , and left the English copy to Gomarus . I will speake ingenuously . I never hitherto read ought in any humane writing of dogmaticall Divinity , that so exceedingly liked me . So learnedly , acutely , closely , solidly , pithily , both plainly , and yet with ●dmirable brevity , is this whole Argument most fully comprased , and thoroughly handled by you . I want words , wherewith to commend and extoll it according to its desert . I have oft read it over ; and yet never had enough of it , but the oftner I repeate it and reade it over againe , the more eagerly is mine appetite stirred up unto it so great splendor and light of learning , of Art and wit shineth forth in it . And so forth . For the rest is a discours concerning some particulars , wherein he desired further satisfaction , treading wholy then in Piscators steps . That is in English : Right worthy sir , I wrote before to you , that I had received your truely golden little book of justification , enlarged by you , and turned into Latine ; and that presently , but hostily , I read it over , so eager an appetite had I to it , by reading the other Edition of it in English before . Since that I have read it over againe , not once but often , and taking leisure thereunto . Which the oftner I reade over againe , the more it pleaseth me , and is approved of by me : so accurately and exactly is it composed by you . I hope this birth and issue of your mind will find approbation with peaceable and moderate dispositions , on whether side so ever they are ; albeit you condescend not to them in all things that they require . You pace so in the middest between either opinion , that you ought not to displease either of them , if they truly love peace and concord . a Pag. 26. b Pag. 26 , 27. c Dolosus vers●tur in universalibus . Reg. Iur. d Ecquis innocens esse pote●j●● si acousasse sufficiet ? Iulian. apud Ammian . l. 18. e Pag. 26. f Sicnt ex Ennii stercore aurum V●rgilius . g Math. M●…inius . h Multa discimus p●eri , de quibus dubitamus senes . i Fat●or me ex corum rum●ro esse co●ari . qui s●ribendo pr●fi eiunt & pro●fiendo scr●…t . Aug ●p . 7. * Opuscula me● retractanda suscepi , ut nee meipsum in o●…ibus me secutum demonstrem . Aug. de persever . c. 21. k Nullus mihi pudor est , ad meliora transire . Ambr. Ep. 31. Turpe est n●…tare are sententiam ; sed veram & rectā . nam stultam noxia●ve & laudabile & salubre est . Aug. ep . 210. Optimi enim est propositi , laudandique consilii , facilè ad veriora traduci . Victor apud Aug. de orig . anim . l. 2. c. 16. l Non est levita● ab errore jam cognitodiscedere . h●ec verò superbae stultitiae persevera●tia est , Quod semel dixi , fixumratum sit . semel placita semper maneant , nec ulla in libris meis litura fit . Sen. de benef . l. 4. c. 38. & de beat . c. 8. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . M. Anton. l. 6. n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Epictet . Stob. c. 5. n Est virtus summa veritati cedere . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Phi●onid . A jure vinci praecluis victoria est . Grot. A veritate vinoi res pulcherrima . A veritate ●in . ●i , lau● est , baud probrum . p See Pareus de Ast. & Pass . Chr. Ohed . Pofit . 1. p. 180. q See before M. Bradshaws Prefac . r 2 Cor. 5. 21. s Elenchus Disput . Fr. Gomari : & Disceptatio cum Lud. Lucio . t Debere me multum profitebor , amicè decteque potior a suggerenti . Lud. Vr●es praefat . in Aug. de Civ . Dei. In aere me ejus futurum profiteor , qui candidè caftigarit . Zinzerlin . promiss . erit . u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . De●…crit . & Isocrat . Stob. c. 13. & Anton. 〈◊〉 . l. 1. ●78 . x Vitium ●xoris aut tollendum , aut f●rendum est . qni tollit vitium , uxorem commodioreet praestat . qui fert , sese meliorem facit . Varro . Gel. l. n. c. 17. y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plato Gorg. Method . apud Epithan . haeres . 84. § 43. Gregor . Naz. apud Max. c. 31. a 1 Cor. 1. 12. Rom. 16. 18. b Jam. 2. 1. c 1 Cor. 11. 1. d 1 Cor. 3. 3. & 11. 18 , 19. e Act. 5. 17. & 15. 5. & 24. 5 , 14. & 26. 5. & 28 , 22. 1 Cor. 11. 18 ; 19. Gal. 5. 20. f Tit. 3. 10. g Gen. 49. 6. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plato Gorg. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magist●i . Flac. epist. 1. i Pag. 27 : k 2 Pet. 1. 12. l 1 Thes. 5. 13. m Charitas , quandiu hîc vivitur , augeri p●test . quamdiu autem augeri potest , profectò iilud quod minus est quam d●bet , ex vitio est . ex quo vitio non est , qui non p●●cet . Aug de perfect . just . c 15. n See a list of them Relat. Posts● . p. 61. u Pag. 26. p Pag. 27. q See the Preface prefixed to the Reader . r Legatur Antidiatribe Ame●●o Voeti●que r●po●●ta : & Responsio Balmfordo reddit● . s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . âe Dionys. Longino Ennap . in P●rphyr . oui & in AEdes . Socrates . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Arifla . thet . l. 3. c. 14. a Pag. 27. b Pag. 27. c Relat. p. 36. d Relat. p. 38. d Pag. 27. e De Act. & Pasio . Chr. Obed. possit . 5. p. 181. f Pag. 27 , 2● g Error . 4● Relat. p. 15. h Error . 2. Relat. p. 13. i Epist. prefixed to M. Pembles Plea for grace . k Ibid. l Pag. 28. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Democrit . Sto● . c : 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Cyro Xenoph . instit . l. 1. Quâ noceat , ira videt ; quâ caveat , non videt . Sen. de irâ . l. 2. c. 12. n Pag. 28. o Relat. Poscr . p. 48. p De Christ. Servat l. 4. c. 11. q Quod dicit , Fidem esse ea sacere , quae Christus praecepit , falsum est . Lubb. ad l. 4. c. 11 p. 561. col . 2. r Dicere , fidem esse ea facere , quae Christus praecepit , est idem quod , iasanire . Ibid. s Docet , Christo ejusque verbis credere idem esse quod Christo obedire : negamus . Obedientia enim est effectum sidei . errat igitur , qui contendit fidem & obedientiam idem esse . Ibid. p. 582. col . 2. t Firmum est , quod Beza soribit , Fidem non posse mandatorum obedientiam significare . Ib. p. 574. col . 2. u Mark. 1. 15. q Pag. 28. b Answer to Error . 2. § 4. Relat. p 34. & to Error 4 p. 28. c Manifestum est , in salute per Christum partâ , Deum nihil aliud à nobis requisivisse quam paenitentiam & vitae correctionem . d Poenitentiae addita alicubi est fides , non quia praeter ipsam poenitentiam fides in Christū , tanquam aliquid amplius , quod huc pertineat in nobis efficiens , ad peccatorum remissionem consequendam requiratur , sed quia non nisi per fidem in Christum ista poenitentia contingit . Socin . l. 3. c. 2. p. 321. col . 1. e Rom. 3. 25. f Peccatorum veniam conversio naturae ordine sequitur , non praecedit . Lubb. ad l. 1. c. 5. p. 156. c. 2. Naturae ordine justificatio est prior . Ib p. 157. c. 1. g Resipiscentia justificationis effectum est . Ib. p. 58. c. 2. h Paenitentia non est causa expiationis , sed ejus consequens . Ib. ad l. 2. c. 12. p. 213. c. 2. i Reprobamus hanc sententiam , nam , ut jam millies osten sum est , remissio p●ccatorum , hoc est justificatio nostri , est naturâ prior poenitentiâ . quam obrem hanc ejus causam esse est simpliciter impossibile . Ib. p. 216. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 2. p. 348. c. 2. & p. 349. c. 1 , 2. k Non nostra resipiscentia , sed ipsius sacrificium est vera causa remissionis pee●aterum . Ib. l. 2. c. 1. p. 274. c. 2. l Deum promittere veniam resespiscenti non negamus : tantum negamus resipiscentiam nostram esse causam , quare Deus nobis peccatorum veniam largiatur . Ib. l. 3. c. 2. p. 338. c. 2. m Pag. 28. n Ibid. o Answer to Error . 2. § 5. Relat. p. 252 , 6. p Parall . Error● 5. Relat. p. 17. q Pag. 28. r Apoc. 12. 4. s Pag. 2● . t Marke 16. 16. John 3. 15 , 16 , 18. 26. Acts 16. 31. Rom. 10. 9. * Si ad certas conditiones restring●… Dei promissio , quomodò gratuitam Dei miseri●ordiam cum Paul● constituemus , quâ gratis per gratiam justificat impium ? De Christ. grat . Iustif. p. 237. u Imò verò quam maximè gratuitam Dei misericordiam in Christo & censeo & statuo . cum tamen salus haec per Christi meritum , non nisi sub certa quadam conditione ad nos derivetur . Ibid. w Reform . Cathol . Point . 4. of means of justif . Differ . 2. Reas. 1. * Plea for grace Sect. 2. chap. 1. p. 22. x Mark. 16. 16. Acts 16. 31. y Videatur in disceptatione cum Lud. Lucio part . 1. sect . 9. Luc. script . n. 2. p. 32 , 33. & T. G. Animadv . n. 7. p. 35. Luke 20. 35. & 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5 , 11 which places the papists abuse to build merit and worth of works upon . Bellarm , de justific . l. 5. c. 2. and Remists notes . a Pag. 28 , 29. b Relat. p. 19. c Ibid. p. 34. d Pag. 29. e In his Woolf in Sheeps clothing . f Pag. 29 : g Relat. p. 21 , 22. h Ib. p. 22. n. 2. i Ib. p. 21. n. 1. k Preface to Treat . of justif . l Si justificationis efficientem dicat quis justitiam Christi per modum meriti , ego planè cum eo sentio . m Si qui● Christi justitiā nostram formalem esse justitiam non contendat , nulla mihi cum illo de imputatione est controversia . n Iustitiae Christi ad beneficium imputationem ego agnosco & prae me fero . o Non mihi unquam in mentem ne per somnium quidem , venit neg tre , nos propter Christi justitiam justificari . p Pag. 29. q Pag. 24. r Calvin . Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. § 3. s Pag. 29. t Answer to Error . 3. Propos. 2. Relat. p 27. u Prae sat . Comment . in Ep st . Paulin. x Ad di cept . Lub . cum Bert. y Pag. 29. z Occ●… miseros crambe● epe●…●●acc . art . a Ibid. b Pag. 27. c Pag. 18. d Pag. 30. e Woolf in sheeps cloathing . chap. 1. § 23. f Pag. 3. g ●…ibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Democrates apud Stob. c. 22. s●●e , ut Plut in m●nit . polit . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * Sir Maurice Bartlet . h M. Rob. Harris in S. Pauls exercise . M Sam Ward , in Balm from Gilead . k In that Preface prefixed . l Rom. 3. 28. m Iam. 2. 24. n Woolf. chap. 2. Error . 8. on chap. 2. n. 11. The form is the pleading of the said righteousnes or innocency , &c. o De activ . & pass ▪ Chr. Obed. p. 181. n Pag. 30. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Titus 3. 11. o 1 Cor. 12. 10 ▪ * Rom. 14. 13. 1 Cor. 4. 5. & 13. 5. 7. p Pag. 30. q Ex de Act. & Pass . Chr. Obed. p. 181. r Pag. 29. s ●ingens quod Sisyphus versat Saxum , sudans nitendo , neque p●●ficit hilum . Ex Epico aliquo ●ic . Tuscul. l. 1. t Pag. 31. u Ibid. x Iudex procedere debet secundum allegata & probata . Reg. Iur. y Ibid. a Pag. 31. b Pag. 32. c Pag. 3● d Ibid. e I●g . 33. f 〈…〉 . g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chrysost. ad Olympiad ●p . 13. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dem●…h . Olyath . 3. i Pag. 33. k Pag. 34. l Dicit ille multa quidem multis locis : sed aqua ●eret , ut aiunt . Cic. Offic. l. 3. Et ad Q. fratr . l. 2. ep . 7. Quod dictum fuerat actum iri , non vst actum : in hac causd mihi aqua heret . Quod Erasm. adag . 1300. malè cepit & accepit ; cum in aqua haerere dictum voluit . quem nec H. Steph. expedivit . Est Graecorum , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Suid m Adversus propri● nulla est exceptio . Chamier . pa●sirat . tom . 3. l. 3. c. 3. § 4. n Varius Sucro●e●sis AEmylium Scaurum regiâ m●rcede corruptum imperium papuli Roma●i prodi●isse ●i● : AE●ylius Scauru● huic se affinem esse culpae negat . ●iri creditis ? Val. Max. l. 3. c. 7. ex . 8. Fab. instit . l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉 . in Ci● . pro Scaur . * Pag. 21 , 24. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Zenob . ad . 648. Diog. 750. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theocr. idyl . 16. quod Erasm. ad . 1441. nigrum silicem , malè vertit , cum luteum laterem debuisset . Ter. pborm . 1. 4. Purgemme ? laterem lavem . Hier. ad . Pelag. l. 1. Nugaris , nec meministi illius Proverbii , in eo . lem luto volutaris , imò laterem lavas . crudum scil . qui lavando fit lutulentior . p Quod est plus , quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ut Philostr . Epist. Lutum lut ▪ purgare . q Pag. 34. r Pag. 35. s Qui legiones difftat spiritu , ut ventus fo●… , au● panniculam tectoriam . Plaut . Milit. 1. 1. t Pag. 34. u Relat. p. 19. w Pag. 34. x Ibid. y In Epistolis nondum editis . a Answer to Error . 7. R●lat . p 34. b Iilud 〈◊〉 , & Christi p●rp●●siones no●is imp●t●● , & not p●opt●r illas ●●nia●u peccator●m & absolution●m 〈◊〉 reat d Deo ●…sequi . quo uno 〈◊〉 ●…us , ni●il ad Script●r as explicandas accommodatius , aut di●i , aut c●g tariposse conteu . 〈◊〉 Th●s . 5. c Furore pestis p●…ma in ●…simo . Prad●nt . in Rom. d Pag. 34 , 35. e Pag. 34. f Credo filium per omni● Patri esse coaequalem ; scil . aeternitate , potestate , &c. Petr. Abeilard . conses . sid . ●d Hel. g Nec audis Arium . Ibid. h Sapit Arium . Bern. ep . 192. i Perverso ingenio actus , imò daemoniaco seductus spiritu . Abeilard . ubi supr . k Gradus facit in Trmitate : Patrem majorem , Fi●ium d●gmatizans min●rem . Idem ibid. l Ponit in Trinitate gradus , constituit Deum Patrem esse plen●m p●…tiam : I i●●um , quandam p●…tiam : Sp. sa●ctum , n●ll●m potentiam . B. 〈◊〉 . ●p . 190. m Hec verba per ma●tiam 〈…〉 , 〈◊〉 tam ●…tica quam di●…ca , d●t●stor , 〈◊〉 : eaque cum autore suo p●rit●r 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 in Ap●l●g . n ●…riat criptis , nen solu●… hereticum , verum etiam heresiarcham 〈…〉 . o Ibid. Iustitiae est , 〈…〉 cuiqu● trib●ere Cicer●… Iuvent . l. 2 Cornif . ad Heren . l. 3. p Ma●h . 〈◊〉 . 32. Qu●…ri non vis , alterine ●…is . Alex. Se●●r . Hicron . ad Algas . Bern. de 〈…〉 . l. 1. q Legantur Alb. G●…eri Abs●r●●rum absurdissima , absurda Calvinistica . aliaque ejusmodi istorum scripta . r 1 Cor. 2. 9. s Phil. Mornaeus Dom. de P●essis lib. de verit . Re●●g . Christian. s John 3. 21. & 8. 46. 38. & 18. 23. t Nifi perfecta ad fuisset obedientia , ipsemet peccator esset , & pro se puniendus . Fr. Gomar . disput● elenct . de justif . mat . & form . thes . 12. u M. Edw. Dearing on Hebr. Le●● . 2. p. 26. in 8. * John 10. 17. w Iohn . 10. 18. & 14. 31. x John 8. 29. y Math. 3. 17. & 17. 5. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Epes . 1. 6. a John 1. 12. & 3. 15 , 16 , 18 , 36. & 6. 35 , 40 , 47. & 7. 38 , 39. & 9. 35 , 36. & 11. 25 , 26. & 12. 36. Acts 10. 43. & 13. 39. & 16. 31. Rom. 4. 5 , 24. & 9. 33. & 10. 11 , &c. b Origen . in Io●● . hom . 32. Gregor . Naz. ●rat . 37 : Athanas. cont . Arian . orat . 3. Cyril . de Trindial . 4. c Vrsin . Catech. explic . quaest . 33. § 3. rat 5. Stegman . disput . 5. quaest . 13. d John 12. 36. & 14. 1. e Rom. 15. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 10. f Psalm 2. 12. * Bellarm. de Christ. l. 1. c. 5. loc 1. Et Catechism . Trident. Pii . 5. jussu editus . p. 107. g Parallel . Error . 6. n. 1. Relat. p. 18. h Pag. 〈◊〉 . i Math. 11. 19. Luke 7. 29 , 35. 1 ▪ Tim. 3. 16. k Math. 3. 17. l Luke 2. 52. m Math 4. 2. n John 4. 6 , 7. & 19. 28. 〈◊〉 o John 8. 46. p Joh. 9. 16 , 24. q Parall . Error 6. n. 2. Relat. p. 18. r Pag. 31. s Pag. 34. * Sermons 1 , 2 , 3. t Pag. 35. t Epist. to M. Wotton , Relat. p 4. & Vindic. p. 10. u Of all which Epiphanius and Augustine , with others may be seen . x Relat. Poscr . p. 55. y Paral. Error . 4. n. 3. Relat. p. 15. z Relat. Posc . p. 56. a Tuus est iste syllogismus , non m●us . Fingis enim me diccre , quod non dico : concludere , quod non concludo . Aug ad . Iulian. l. 3. c. 7. Alteri●s adversus ipsum convicia rescrenti , Tudicas , me illi non credere . c Pag. 26. d Pag. 3 , 4 , 32. e The Socinian Iohn . Socinianism discovered , p. 8. f Ibid. Epist. p. 9. Answ. to Pref. p. 8. & Vindic. p. 25. * Epistola ad D. Lodovicum Witgensteinium . Oper. Tom. 2. & in Opuscul . Catechet . V●sini Explic. Cat●ch . subjunctis . g Relat. Poser , p. 55 , 60. h Pag. 58 , 60. i Pag. 38. k 1 Sam. 16. 7 : Jerem. 17. 10. Apoc. 2. 23. l 1 Kings 8. 39. Acts 1. 24. & 15. 9. Rom. 1. 12 , 13. 1 Cor. 4. 5. m Pag. 35. n Ibid. o Pag. 36. p Pag. 34. q Relat. p. 7. r Pag. 27. * Ut●●e suum 〈◊〉 is , quos call●…us 〈◊〉 auc . ps , Crus ubi co●… 〈◊〉 volucris , sensitque t●…ri , Plangitur , tc tr●pi●la●s assring it vincula motu , Externata fagam frustra dum tentai . N●… fabul . l. ●1 . s Cui ●jax 〈◊〉 Nasonem fab . l. 13. Opposui molem clypei , texi 〈◊〉 Et mox . Post clyp●umque late , & mecum contende sub illo . quod & de Teucro Arist●les in Pana●hen . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ex Homero , qui. Il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Et mox . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . t Haec Capitula partim in libro Theologiae magistri Petri partim in libro sententiarum ejusdem reperta sunt . Bern. ep . 190. u Nun● quā liberaliquis , qui senteniiarum dicatur , à me scriptus reperitur . Petr. Abeil in Apolog. x Mala. 2. 16. y Ita enim Abraham Esdr●… silius in hunc vatis locum . a Jerem. 50. 26. b Da● . 12. 4. c Ve●itas ( 〈◊〉 nondum est occupata : multuus ex illa futuris relictum est . Sencc ep . 33. d Crescit indies . & inventuris inventa non obstant . Idem . ep . 79 e Vltimi conditio est optima . Ibid. f Videatur Guido Pancirola de Novis repertis . g Paratus semper ad satisfactionem de malè dictis vel corrigendis vel delendis , cum quis me fidelium vel virtute rationis , vel autoritate Scripturae correxerit . h Vt si nondum ignorantiae vitio caream , haeresis tamen crimen non incurram . i Non enim ignor antia haereticum facit , sed magis superbiae obstinatio . k Pag. 35 , 36. l Pag. 26. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ●●tharunus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . calceamentum pedi utrique aptum . tam virisi quam & muliebri sexui usurpatum . Svid . n Sib. Lubber●us : de quo sup . p. 13. o Hanc distractionem justitiae nostrae coram Deo , quod ea vec sacris literis esset consentanea ●adcò odit , ut saepenumerò commotior diceret , mera haec esse inanium subtilitatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quae puritatem doctrinae Orthodoxae imm●ne quant●… msiccrent . Phil. Par●us in vità Dav Parei patris sui . p Morti Chris●i d●rogat . Dav. Pareus de ●ct . & Pass . ●hr . 〈◊〉 . Pr p. 5. q . 
A51837	----	Christs eternal existence, and the dignity of his person asserted and proved in opposition to the doctrine of the Socinians : in several sermons on Col. I, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 verses / by the Reverend Tho. Manton. Manton, Thomas, 1620-1677. 1685 Approx. 306 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 129 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A51837 Wing M520 ESTC R33496 13415300 ocm 13415300 99480 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A51837) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 99480) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1552:19) Christs eternal existence, and the dignity of his person asserted and proved in opposition to the doctrine of the Socinians : in several sermons on Col. I, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 verses / by the Reverend Tho. Manton. Manton, Thomas, 1620-1677. [8], 248 p. [s.n.], London printed : 1685. Dedication signed: Tho. Jacomb. Error in paging: p. 135-150 repeated in numbering. Reproduction of original in the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Jesus Christ -- Person and offices. Jesus Christ -- Divinity. Socinianism -- Controversial literature. Sermons, English -- 17th century. 2003-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-05 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-06 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2003-06 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-08 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion CHRISTS ETERNAL EXISTENCE , AND THE DIGNITY OF HIS PERSON Asserted and Proved . IN OPPOSITION To the Doctrine of the SOCINIANS . In several SERMONS on Col. 1.17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21. verses By the Reverend THO. MANTON , D. D. London , Printed in the Year , 1685. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER . HEre are presented to thy view , some of the further profitable and pious Labours of that eminent Divine Dr. Manton ; ( now with God ) : who though like a Tree full of fruit , he has already yielded much fruit , yet still more and more falls from him . Since his much to be lamented Death , two very large Volumes ( with some lesser ) of his Sermons , have been published ; which give a clear discovery to the World of his great Abilities for , and great diligence in , the Office and Work of the Ministery . Now this small piece succeeds ; which in comparison of the former , is but a poor Stripling , but as the shaking of an Olive Tree , as the gleaning Grapes when the Vintage is over . Yet let it not be rejected or slighted upon that account ; for though 't is not so bulky as they , yet ( according to its proportion ) 't is of equal value , and shews the same Head and Heart which they do . My Pen , ( upon this opportunity , ) would fain be launching forth into the commendation of the worthy Author , but I will not suffer it ; considering , how little he needs that from any , and how much he is above it as from me . Neither will I suffer it to run out in the commending of these Sermons ; for I hope , to impartial and judicious Readers they will commend themselves , ( the best way of commending . ) I only recommend them , as judging them worthy of the perusal of all who are desirous of a fuller knowledge of our Lord Jesus . For he is the grand subject treated of in them . His Person , Offices , Works , Blesssings , are here described , asserted , vindicated , and improved . Our Redemption by his blood ; his being the Image of the invisible God , the First-born of every Creature ; his Creating and Sustaining all things ; his Headship over the Church , Prae-existence before all Created Beings , his being the First-born from the Dead , the Union of the two Natures in his Person ; his Reconciling of Sinners to God through the blood of his Cross , these are the Heads insisted upon in these Sermons , ( the Author following the Apostle , Col. 1.14 . ad 20. ) And are not these great Points ? of a very sublime nature ? containing the very vitals of Gospel Revelation ? can Ministers Preach , Print , too much of them ? can private Christian Hear , Read , Meditate too much of them ? Oh they are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the deep things of God! in which is manisfested the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the manifold Wisedom of God ; which the Angels desire to look into : which are the wonder and astonishment of Heaven , which put such a transcendent excellency upon the knowledge of Christ. Should we not therefore thankfully receive and diligently peruse all discourses , that may clear up our light in and about these profound Mysteries . I hope the consideration hereof will make these Sermons acceptable to many gracious Souls . They all hanging upon this string , and pointing to this Argument ( of what Christ is , has done , suffered and procured for Believers , ) they are not unfitly put together , and printed by themselves , in this small volume . Several of the Points mentioned are Controversial ; for a long tract of time there has been hot disputes about them ; what Volumes pro and con have been written , both by Antient and Modern Divines about them ! but our Reverend Author does not so much concern himself in what is Polemical and Controversial , but chose rather in a plainer way ( as best suiting with Sermon-work ) , to assert and prove the Truth by Scriptural Testimonies and Arguments : and that he has done to the full . Reader , whoever thou art into whose hands these Sermons shall come , let me assure thee , they are the genuine Work of the person whose name they bear . They were copyed out from and according to his own Notes , by one who I am sure would be as exact therein as possibly he could . But how earnestly could I wish , if God had not seen it good to order it otherwise , that the Author himself might have lived to have reviewed and polished them ! ( for what hand so fit to polish the Stone as that which cuts it : ) but now what is amiss , must be left to the understanding Reader to discover , and to the candid Reader to pardon . Christian , I commit thee to God ; he bless thee , and all the Labours of his Faithful Servants ( whether living or dead ) to the promoting of thy Spiritual and Eternal good . Which he ardently desires who is , Thine to serve thee in our Lord Iesus , Tho. Iacomb . REDEMPTION BY CHRIST . SERM. I. COL . 1.14 . In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins . THE Apostle in the former verse , had spoken of our slavery and bondage to Satan , from which Christ came to deliver us ; now because sin is the cause of it , he cometh to speak of our Redemption from sin : In whom we have redemption through his blood , even the forgiveness of sins . Here is I. The Author . II. The Benefit . III. The Price . The Point is this . Doct. That one Principal part of our Redemption by Christ is remission of sins . Here I shall shew you , 1. What remission of sins is . 2. The Nature of Redemption . 3. That Remission of Sins is a part , and a principal part of it . 1. What Remission of Sins is . Both terms must be explained , what sin is , and what is the forgiveness of sin . For the first . Sin is a violation of the Law of the Eternal and Living God. 1 Ioh. 3.4 . Whosoever committeth sin , transgresseth also the law , for sin is the transgression of the law . God is the Law-giver , who hath given a righteous Law to his Subjects , under the dreadful penalty of a Curse . In his Law there are two things ; the Precept and the Sanction : The precept is the Rule of our duty , which sheweth what we must do , or not do . The Sanction or penalty sheweth what God will do , or might justly do , if he should deal with us according to the Merit of our Actions : Accordingly in sin , there is the Fault and the Guilt . ( 1. ) The Fault . That man who is Gods subject , and so many ways obliged to him by his benefits , instead of keeping this Law should break it upon light Terms , and swerve from the Rule of his duty , being carried away by his own ill disposed will , and base Lusts. It is a great and heinous offence , for which he becometh obnoxious to the Judgment of God. ( 2. ) The Guilt : which is a liableness to punishment , and that not ordinary punishment , but the vengeance of the eternal God , who every moment may break in upon us . Where there is sin , there will be guilt ; and where there is guilt , there will be punishment , unless we be pardoned and God looseneth the Chains wherewith we be bound . Secondly , Forgiveness of Sin , is a dissolving the obligation to punishment , or a freedom in Gods way and method , from all the sad and woful Consequences of sin . Understand it rightly . 1. 'T is not a disanulling the Act , as it is a natural Action ; such a fact we did , or omitted to do ; Factum , infactum fieri nequit : That which is done , cannot be undone . And therefore though it be said , Ier. 50.20 . The iniquity of Iacob shall be sought after , and the sins of Iudah , and they shall not be found ; for I will pardon them whom I reserve . Yet that must not be understood as if God would abolish the Action , and make it , as if it had never been , for that is impossible . But he would pass by , and overlook it as to punishment . 2. Nor is it abolished as a faulty or criminal Action , contrary to the Law of God , the sins we have committed are sins still , such actions as the Law condemneth . Forgiveness is not the making of a fault to be no fault ; an accused person may be vindicated as Innocent , but if he be pardoned , he is pardoned as an offender . He is not reputed as one that never culpably omitted any duty , or committed any sin , but his fault is forgiven upon such termes as our offended Governour pleaseth . I will be merciful to their unrighteousness , and forgive all their sins , Heb. 8.12 . They are pardoned as sins . 3. Nor is the merit of the sinful Act lessened : In it self it deserveth condemnation to punishment . Merito operis , it is in its self damnable , but quoad eventum , Rom. 8.1 . There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus , &c. Because the grace of the Gospel dischargeth us from it , we must still own our selves deserving the wrath of God , which maketh for our constant Humiliation and admiration of grace : So that he that is pardoned , still deserveth punishment . 4. It remaineth therefore that forgiveness of sin , is a dissolving the obligation to punishment , or passing by the fault , so as it shall not rise up in Judgement against us to our confusion or destruction : The fault is the sinners Act , the punishment the Judges , which he may forbear on certain Termes stated in the Law of Grace . He passeth by the fault so far , that it shall not be a ground of punishment to us . I prove it 1. From the nature of the thing : For there is such a Relation between the fault and the guilt , the sin and the punishment , that the one cannot be without the other : There can be no punishment without a preceding fault and crime : Therefore if the Judge will not impute the fault , there must needs be an immunity from punishment , for the cause being taken away , the effect ceaseth ; and the sin committed by us , is the Meritorious cause of punishment . If God will cover that , and overlook it , then forgiveness is a dissolving the obligation to punishment . 2. From the common Rule of speaking used among men ; for surely the Scripture speaketh intelligibly . Now in the common way of speaking , he cannot be said to forgive or remit a fault , that exacteth the whole punishment of it . How can a Magistrate be said to forgive an offender , when the offender beareth the punishment , which the Law determineth ? And what do men pray for to God , when they pray for the forgiveness of sins , but that they may be exempted from the punishment which they have deserved . 3. It would seem to impeach the Justice and Mercy of God , if he should exact the punishment where he hath pardoned the offence . His Iustice , to flatter men with hopes of remitting the Debt , where he requireth the payment . His Mercy , in making such fair offers of Reconciliation , when still liable to his vindictive Justice ; there may be indeed effects of his Fatherly Anger , but not of his vindictive wrath . 4. The Phrases , and way of speaking in Scripture by which forgiveness of sin is set forth , shew , God doth blot out our sins ; Psal. 51.2 . Wash me throughly from my iniquity , and cleanse me from my sin . And cover them ; Psal. 32.1 . Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven , whose sin is covered . To cast them behind his back ; Isa. 38.17 . Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back . And cast them into the bottom of the Sea ; Micah 7.19 . Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depth of the Sea. To remember them no more ; Ier. 31.34 . I ●ill forgive their iniquity , and I will remember the●r sin no more . By such emphatical Metaphors doth it express Gods free and full forgiveness , if we seriously enter into his Peace : And do clearly shew , that if God punisheth sins , he doth remember them ; if he avenge them , he imputeth them ; if they are brought into the Judgement against us , they are not covered ; if he searcheth after them , he doth not cast them behind his back : If he bringeth them into light , he doth not cast them into the depths of the Sea : Much more if he punish us for them . Secondly , The Nature of Redemption . What is Redemption by the blood of Christ ? In opening it to you , I shall prove six things . 1. A Captivity or Bondage . 2. That from thence we are freed by a Ransom , or Price paid . 3. That none but Christ was fit to give this Ransom . 4. That nothing performed by Christ was sufficient , till he layed down his life . 5. That thence there is a liberty resulting to us . 6. That we do not actually partake of the benefit of this Ransom , till we be in Christ. 1. Our being Redeemed , supposeth a Captivity and Bondage : All men in their unrenewed Estate are slaves to sin and Satan , and subject to the Wrath of God : That we are slaves to Sin , appeareth by Scripture and Experience ; Titus 3.3 . Serving divers lusts and pleasures . Ioh. 8.34 . Whosoever committeth sin , is the servant of sin . Men imagin a life spent in vanity and pleasure , to be a very good life ; it were so , if Liberty were to be determined by doing what we list , rather than what we ought . But since it is not , Experience sheweth that they are convinced of their brutish satisfactions as mean and base , yet they cannot leave them , for that true , and solid happiness offered by Christ : Now as they are under sin , so they are under Satan , who worketh in the children of disobedience , Eph. 2.2 . and hath a great power over wicked men in the world , who fall to his share , as the Executioner of Gods Curse , and are taken captive by him at his Will and Pleasure , 2 Tim. 2.26 . This is the woful captivity and servitude of carnal men , that they fall as a ready prey into the mouth of the roaring Lion : Now for this they are liable to the Curse and Wrath of God : Therefore called children of wrath even as others , Eph. 2.3 . that is , obnoxious to his righteous displeasure and punishment : Thus were we lost in our selves under Sin , Satan , and the Wrath of God , from which we could no way free our selves , and if Grace had not opened a way for us to escape what should we have done ? 2. To recover us , there was a price to be paid by way of Ransom to God. We are not delivered from this bondage by prayer or intreaty , nor by strong hand or meer force , nor yet by the sole condescension and pity of the injured party , without seeking reparation of the wrong done ; but by the payment of a sufficient price , and just satisfaction to provoked Justice . This Price was not payed indeed to Satan who detaineth souls in slavery as a rigid usurping Tyrant , or merciless Gaoler ; ( from him indeed we are delivered by force ) but the price was paid to God. Man had not sinned against Satan , but against God , to whom it belongeth to condemn or absolve : And God being satisfied , Satan hath no power over us , but is put out of office . As the Executioner hath nothing to do , when the Judge and Law is satisfied . Now that Redemption implyeth the paying of a price is clear , because the word importeth it , and the Scripture often uses this Metaphor , Matth. 20.28 . The son of man came not to be ministred unto , but to minister ; and to give his life a ransom for many . 1 Tim. 2 : 6. Who gave himself a ransom for all , to be testified in due time . Redemption in the general , is a recovery out of our lost estate . God could have saved men by the Grace of Confirmation , but he chose rather by the Grace of Redemption . This recovery was not by a forcible rescue , but by a Ransom . Christ in recovering his people out of their lost estate , is sometimes set forth as a Lamb , sometimes as a Lion : In dealing with God , we consider him as the Lamb slain , Rev. 5.5 , 6. In dealing with Satan , and the Enemies of our salvation , he doth as a Lion recover the Prey . But why was a Ransom necessary ? Because God had made a former Covenant , which was not to be quit and wholly made void , but upon valuable consideration , least his Justice , Wisdom , Holiness , Veracity , Authority should fall to the ground . 1. The Honour of his governing Justice was to be secured and freed from any blemish , that the awe of God might be kept up in the World ; Rom. 3.5 , 6. And Gen. 18.25 . That be far from thee , to do after this manner , to slay the righteous with the wicked : and that the righteous should be as the wicked , that be far from thee : shall not the judge of all the earth do right ? If God should absolutely pardon without satisfaction equivalent for the wrong done , how should God else be known and reverenced as the Just and Holy Governour of the World ? Therefore , Rom. 3.25 , 26. 't is said , whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood , to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past , through the forbearance of God : To declare I say at this time his righteousness ; that he might be just , and the justifier of him which believeth in Iesus . 2. His Wisdom : The Law was not given by God in jest , but in the greatest earnest that ever Law was given : Now if the Law should be recalled without any more ado , the Law-giver would run the hazard of Levity , Mutability and Imprudence in constituting so solemne a Transaction to no purpose . Paul was troubled when forced to retract his Word , 2 Cor. 1.17 , 18. that his word should be yea to day , and nay to Morrow : Therefore when God had said , Thus I will govern the World , he was not to part with the Law upon light Termes . 3. His Holy Nature would not permit it . There needed some way to be found out , to signifie his purest Holiness , his hatred and detestation of sin , and that it should not be pardoned without some markes of his displeasure . His soul hates the wicked , and the righteous God loveth Righteousness , Psal. 11.6 . 4. His Authority . It would be a derogation from the Authority of his Law , if it might be broken , and there be no more ado about it . Now that all the World might know , that it is a dangerous thing to transgress his Laws and might hear and fear , and do no more presumptuously , God appointed this course , that the penalty of his Law should be executed upon our surety , when he undertook our Reconciliation with God , Gal. 4.4 . 5. The Veracity and Truth of God. It bindeth the Truth of God which sinners are apt to question ; Gen. 3.5 . Hath God said ? And Deut. 29.19 , 20. We look upon the Threatnings of the Law as a vain Scare-crow , therefore for the Terror and warning of sinners for the future , God would not release his Wrath , nor release us from the power of Sin and Satan , which was the consequent of it , without a price and valuable compensation . Thirdly , None was sit to give this ransom but Jesus Christ , who was God man : he was man to undertake it in our name , and God to perform it in his own strength : a man that he might be made under the Law , and humbled even to the death of the Cross for our sakes , and all this was elevated beyond the worth of created actions and sufferings by the divine nature which was in him , which perfumed his humanity and all done by it , and in it . This put the stamp upon the mettal , and made it current Coin , imposed an infinite value upon his finite obedience and sufferings . By taking humane Nature a price was put into his hands to lay down for us , Heb. 10.15 . and His divine Nature made it sufficient and responsible , for it was the Blood of God , Acts 20.28 . Feed the Church of God , which he hath purchased with his own Blood. And Heb. 9.13 . For if the Blood of Bulls and Goats , and the ashes of an Heifer , sprinkling the unclean , sanctifyeth to the purifying of the Flesh ; how much more shall the Blood of Christ who through the spirit offered himself without spot to God , purge your Conscience from dead works to serve the Living God. It was that Flesh and Blood which was assumed into the unity of his person ; as a slip or branch grafted into a stock is the branch of the stock , and the fruit of it is the fruit of the stock . A naked Creature without this Union , could not have satisfied the Justice of God for us : This made his blood a precious blood , and his obedience a precious obedience . In short God-man the Son of God , and the Son of Adam , was he that Redeemed us . So in short there were different parties to be dealt with before the fruit of Redemption could be obtained . God , Satan , Man ; God was an Enemy that could not be overcome but must be reconciled ; Satan was a usurper and was to be vanquished with a strong hand ; Man was unable and unwilling to look after the fruits of Redemption , and our obstinacy and unbelief could onely be overcome by the Spirit of Christ. Fourthly , Nothing performed by Christ could be a sufficient ransom for this end unless he had crowned all his other actions and sufferings , by laying down his life and undergoing a bloody and violent death . This was the compleating and crowning act . Partly to answer the Types of the Law , wherein no Remission was represented without a bloody sacrifice . Partly from the nature of the thing , and the fulness of the satisfaction required untill all that was finished , Iohn 8.20 . death was that which was threatned to sin , death was that which was feared by the sinner . Many ignorant people will say the least drop of Christs blood was enough to save a thousand Worlds , if so his circumcision had been enough without his death , but Christ is not glorified but lessened by such expressions . Surely his death was necessary or God would never have appointed it , his bloody death suited with Gods design . Gods design was to carry on our recovery in such a way as might make sin more hateful , and obedience more acceptable to us . 1. Sin more hateful by his Agonies , Blood , Shame , death , no less remedy would serve the turn , to procure the pardon and destruction of it , Rom. 8.3 . By sin he condemned sin in the flesh , that is by a sin offering . God shewed a great example of his wrath against all sin by punishing sin in the flesh of Christ , his design was for ever to leave a brand upon it , and to furnish us with a powerful mortifying argument against it , by the sin-offering and ransom for souls . Surely it is no small matter for which the Son of God must dye ! At Golgotha , sin was seen in its own colours . There he shewed how much he hateth it , and loveth purity . Secondly , To commend obedience : Christs suffering death for the sin of man at the command of his Father , was the noblest piece of Service , and the highest degree of Obedience that ever could be performed to God ; beyond any thing that can be done by Men or Angels . There was in it so much love to God , Pity to Man , so much Self-denial , so much Humility and Patience , and so much Resignation of himself to God , who appointed him to be the Redeemer and Surety of Man , to do this office for him , as cannot be parallel'd . The great thing in it was obedience ; Rom. 5.14 . By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous . So ' Phil. 2.7 . God was not delighted in mere blood , but in blood offered in obedience . All his former actions together with his Death and Sufferings make but one intire Act of eminent obedience ; but his painful and cursed death so willingly and readily undergone , was the crowning Act. The formal reason of the merit , was that Christ came to fulfil the will of God ; by which will we are sanctified . Heb. 10.10 . therefore his death was necessary . Fifthly , From this Ransom and act of Obedience , there is a Liberty resulting unto us , for the redeemed are let go , when the ransom is paid . Now this Liberty is a freedom from sin that we may become the Servants of God , Rom. 6.22 . Being made free from sin ye became servants of righteousness . Christ came not to free us from the duty of the Law , but the penalty and Curse thereof ; to free us from the duty of the Law , is to promote the Devils Interest . No , he freed us from the Wrath of God that we may serve him chearfully , to establish Gods Interest upon surer and more comfortable Terms , to restore us to Gods favour and service : To Gods favour by the pardon of sin , to his service by writing his Laws on our Hearts and Minds . Sometimes our Redemption from the Curse is spoken of , Gal. 3.13 . Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us . Sometimes our Redemption from Sin. Tit. 2.14 . Who gave himself for us , that he might redeem us from all iniquity . And so by consequence from the power of the devil , which is built on the curse of the Law , and reign of Sin. Satans power over us doth flow from the sentence of the condemnation pronounced by the Law against sinners , and consists in that dominion sin hath obtained over them : If the curse of the Law be disanulled , and the power of sin broken , he is spoiled of his Power , Col. 2.14 , 15. Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us , which was contrary to us , and took it out of the way , nailing it to his cross . And having spoiled principalities and powers , he made a shew of them openly triumphing over them . Sixthly , That we are not partakers of this Liberty , nor of the benefit of this Ransom , till we are in him , and united to him by Faith ; for the Text saith , in whom we have redemption by his blood . Certainly we must be turned from Satan to God , before we are capable of receiving the forgiveness of sins ; Acts 26.18 . We do not actually partake of the priviledges of Christs Kingdom , till we be first his Subjects : Who hath delivered us from the power of Satan , and hath translated us in the kingdom of his dear Son ; in whom we have redemption through his blood , the forgiveness of sins . Christ and his people are an opposite state to the Devil and his Instruments : while we are under the opposite power , we belong not to Christ ; and the priviledges of his Kingdom belong not to us : but as soon as we are translated , and put into another estate , then we have the first priviledge , remission of sins . Look as in the fall , there was sin before guilt ; so in our reparation , there must be conversion , Renovation , or Repentance , before Remission : We are first effectually called or sanctified , and then justified and glorified . Mans recovery to God is in the same method in which he fell from him . It is first brought about by a new nature , and communication of life from Christ. He regenerateth , that he may pardon , and he pardoneth that he may farther sanctifie , and make us everlastingly happy . Thirdly , That remission of sins is a part , and a principal part of Redemption . I. How is it a part or fruit of Redemption ? I Answer , Redemption is taken either for the Impetration , or Application . 1. The Impetration or laying down the price , that was done by Christ upon the Cross. So it is said , Heb. 9.12 . Christ by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for us . Then was God propitiated , the deadly blow given to the Kingdom and Power of the Devil , and the Merit and Ransom interposed , by the virtue of which we are pardoned ; the obtained redemption and remission of sins is a fruit flowing from it , and depending upon it as an effect upon the cause . 2. The Scripture considers Redemption in its Application . Besides laying down the price there is an actual deliverance and freedom by virtue of that price . This is either begun or compleat : The compleat redemption , or freedom from sin and misery is that which the Godly shall enjoy at the last day . Rom. 8.23 . We which have the first fruits of the spirit , even we our selves groan within our selves , waiting for the adoption , to wit , the redemption of our body . Eph. 4.30 . Grieve not the holy spirit of God , whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption . Eph. 1.14 . In whom also after ye believed ye were sealed with that spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession . The inchoate , or begun deliverance , is that measure of deliverance , which believers enjoy now by Faith ; which consists of two parts ; Iustification and Sanctification . Sanctification , 1. Pet. 1.18 . Tit. 2.14 . Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purifie unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works . When we are free from the power and weight of sin . Iustification ; so it is in the Text , and Eph. 1.7 . When sin is freely pardoned , and our debt cancelled , and we are delivered from evil and wrath to come . II. As it is a part , so it is a principal part . This will appear , if you consider the evil we are freed from . As 1. The power of the Devil is destroyed : All the advantage which he hath against us is as we are sinners , guilty sinners before God : For we are put into his hands when we have forfeited the protection of our righteous Lord ; but forgiveness of sins gives us a release from him , Acts 26.18 . When Christ came to procure it , he destroyed the devils Power ; when we are converted we are interessed in the priviledge . 2. The reign of sin is broken : for sanctifying Grace is inseparable from pardoning Grace ; yea , I will venture to say , that the gift of the sanctifying Spirit is a part of our pardon , executed and applyed for a part of the punishment of sin was spiritual death , or the loss of Gods Image ; Col. 2.13 . He hath quickned you together with Christ having forgiven all your trespasses . When God pardoneth , he sanctifieth and createth us anew , that we may be fit for his service ; so that we are renewed by the Spirit , as well as recovered out of the s●ares of the devil . 3. We are eased of tormenting fears in a great measure . Man can have no firm peace and comfort in his own soul , while sin remaineth upon him , our case is dangerous , whether we be sensible of it or no ; because our condition is not to be valued by our sense and feeling , but by the sentence of the Law of God , which we have broken and violated ; if there be any difference in the case , the more insensible we are , the more miserable : The generality of men indeed are senseless and careless , put far away the evil day from them , and so make light work of reconciling themselves to God , but are they the more safe for this ? No , if they will dance about the brink of Hell , and go merrily to their execution , it argues not their safety , but their stupidness : The thoughts of danger is put off when the thing it self is not put away ; but if they be serious they cannot be without trouble . Rom. 1.32 . Knowing the judgement of God , they conclude that they that do such things are worthy of death . The very light of Nature will revive many unquiet thoughts within them . The justice of the supream Governour of the World will still be dreadful to them , whose law they have broken , and whose wrath they have justly deserved . They may lull the soul asleep by the stupifying potion of carnal Delights , and while Conscience is asleep , please themselves with stoln waters , and bread eaten in secret , which is soon disturbed by a few serious and sober thoughts of the world to come . God is offended , and what peace can they have ? 4. Death is unstinged . That 's the usual time when Convictions grow to the height , and the stings of an awakened Conscience begin to be felt , 1 Cor. 15.28 . Then the thoughts of Death and Judgement to come , are very terrible to them : and men begin to see what it is to bear their own sins , and how happy they are , who are sure of a pardon . 5. The obligation to Eternal punishment ceases : Pardon is dissolving and loosing that obligation . Now the punishment is exceeding great ; Hell and damnation are no vain Scare-crows . Eternity makes every thing truly great ! the poena damni , an everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of the Lord , Matth. 25.41 . Go ye cursed . Luk. 13.27 . Depart ye workers of iniquity . When God turned Adam out of Paradise his case was very sad , but God took care of him in his Exile , made him Coats of skin , gave him a day of Patience , afterwards promised the seed of the woman , who should recover the lapsed estate of mankind , intimated hopes of a better Paradise . That estate therefore is nothing comparable to this , for now man is stripped of all his comforts , sent into an endless state of Misery , whence there is no hopes of ever changing his condition . So for the poena sensus , the pain , Mark 9.44 . Where their worm never dieth and their fire is never quenched . The worm , is the worm of Conscience , reflecting on past folly and disobedience . See here a man may run away from the rebukes of Conscience by many shifts ; sleeping , sporting , distracting his Mind with a clutter of business ; but there , not a thought free , but is always thinking of slighted means , abused mercies , wasted time , the offenses done to a merciful God , and the curse wherein they have involved themselves : the fire is the wrath of God , or these unknown pains that shall be inflicted on body and soul , which must needs be great when we fall into the hands of the living God! If a little mitigation , a drop to cool your Tongue , be thought a great matter , oh what a blessedness is it , to be freed from so great an evil ! Perhaps you coldly entertain the offer of a pardon now , but then to be freed from wrath to come , oh blessed Jesus ! 1 Thes. 1.10 . 2. The good depending on it , Luk. 1.77 . To give us the knowledge of salvation by the remission of sins . Eternal life dependeth on it , for you are not capable of enjoying God , till his wrath be appeased . As all evil was introduced by sin , so all happiness by pardon . This is an initial blessing , which maketh way for the rest . VSE . Of Exhortation : To perswade you to seek after this benefit : All of us once needed it , and the best of us till we are wholly freed from sin , still need it . 1. We all of us once needed it ; for we are not onely criminal persons liable to condemnation , but actually condemned in the sentence of Gods law , Ioh. 3.18 . He that believeth not is condemned already . Now should not a condemned man make means to be pardoned , and should not we accept of Gods terms especially when there is but the slender thred of a frail life between us and execution ? He that securely continues in his sins , despiseth both the curse of the Law , and the grace of the Gospel . Oh consider , nothing but a pardon will serve the turn , not forbearance on Gods part , not forgetfulness on yours . 1. Not forbearance of the punishment on Gods part : God may be angry with us , while he doth not actually strike , as the Psalmist saith , Psal. 7.11 , 12 , 13. God is angry with the wicked every day , if he turn not , he will whet his sword . He hath bent his bow and will make it ready . God who is a righteous Judge , will not dispense with the offences of wicked men , by which he is continually affronted and provoked : though in the day of his patience he doth for a while spare , yet he is ready to deal with them cominus , hand to hand ; for he is sharpening his sword , eminus at a distance , for he is bending his bow . The Arrow is upon the string , and how soon he may let it fly we cannot tell . We are never safe till we turn to him , and enter into his Peace , and so the obligation to punishment be dissolved . 2. On our part ; our senseless forgetfulness will do us no good . Carnal men mind not things which relate to God , or the happiness of their immortal Souls , but they are not happy that feel least troubles , but they that have least cause . A benummed Conscience cannot challenge this blessedness , they put off the thoughts of that which God hath neither forgiven nor covered ; and so do but skin the wound , till it festers and rancle into a dangerous sore ; our best course is to see we be justified and pardoned . 2. The best of us still need it , partly because though we be justified , and our state be changed , yet renewed sins need a new pardon . We are still sinning against God , either we are omiting good , or committing evil , what will we do if we be not forgiven ? renewed sins call for renewed repentance : We do not need another Redeemer , or another Covenant , or another Conversion , yet we do need renewed Pardon . Partly , because our final sentence of pardon is not yet passed , nor shall be passed till the last Judgment , Act. 3.19 . Repent ye therefore and be converted , that your sins maybe blotted out , when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. We are now pardoned and justified constitutively by the tenour of the New Covenant , and there by description . The sincerity of our Faith and Repentance is not presently evident ; it is possible , but difficult to know that we are sincere penitent Believers ; but at last when our pardon is actually pronounced by our Judges mouth sitting on the Throne , then all is clear , evident , plain and open . And partly because daily infirmities call for daily repentance . We do not carry our selves with that gravity and watchfulness , but that we need to cry for pardon every day . SERMON . II. COL . 1.15 . Who is the Image of the invisible God , the first born of every creature . THE Apostle having mentioned our Redemption , doth now fall upon a Description of the Redeemer . He is set forth by two things : First , His Internal Relation to God. Secondly , By his External relation to the Creature . Doct. It is a great part of a Believers work to have a deep sense of the Redeemers excellency imprinted upon his Mind and heart . Here I shall shew , I. How it is set forth in this verse . II. Why this should be much upon our minds and hearts ? I. How it is set forth in this Scripture . 1. That he is the Image of the invisible God. 2. The first-born of every Creature . For the first Expression , there I shall consider , 1. What belongs to an Image . 2. In what respects Christ is the Image of God. 3. How he differeth from other persons . 1. What belongeth to an Image , and that all this is in Christ. In an Image there are two things , impression and representation ; both are in Christ. There is a divine impression upon him , and he doth represent God to us . 1. For impression : There is ( 1. ) Likeness ; for an Image must be like him whom it representeth . An artificial Image of God , or such as may be made by us , is forbidden upon this account , Isa. 40.18 . To whom then will ye liken God ? or what likeness will ye compare unto him ? what is there among all the Creatures that can be like such an infinite and almighty essense ? or by what visible shape or figure would they represent or resemble God. ( 2. ) Deduction and derivation : The Image is taken from him whom it is intended to represent , it is not some casual similitude between two men that have no reference or dependance one upon another ; but such as is between a father and his onely begotten Son ; as it is said of Adam , Gen. 5.1 . He begat a son in his own Image , and so it is verified in Christ because of his Eternal Generation . Like him , because begotten of him . ( 3. ) There is not a likeness in a few things , but a compleat and exact likeness , so Christ as the second person is called , Heb. 1.3 . The express image of his person . There is not onely likeness but equality . God cannot make a creature equal to himself , nor beget a Son unequal to himself . 2. Representation : For an Image it serveth to make known and declare that thing whose Image it is : If light produce light , the light produced doth represent the light & glory producing ; & the more perfect and immediate the production is , the more perfect is the resemblance ; a lively expression of the pattern and exemplar . And this is the reason why the word ( invisible ) is added , because God who in his own Nature is invisible , and incomprehensible to man , revealeth himself so far as is necessary to Salvation , to us by Christ : Visible things are known by their visible Images with more delight , but not with more accuracie . The Image is not necessary to know the thing ; but here it is otherwise , we cannot know God but by Christ , Ioh. 1.18 . No man hath seen God at anytime , the onely begotten son which is in the bosom of the father he hath declared him . God is invisible , and incomprehensible by any but Jesus Christ , who being his onely Son , and one in essence with the Father , he doth perfectly know him , and reveal unto mankind all that they know of him . Thus you see what belongs to an Image . 2. In what respects Christ is the Image of God. ( 1. ) In respect of his Eternal Generation . So , Christ is the express Image of his ' Person : not substance , but subsistence : We do not say that Milk is like Milk , nor one Egg like another , because they are of the same substance ; so Christ is not said to be of the same substance , but of the same subsistence . He is indeed of the same substance with him whom he doth resemble , but the Image is with respect to the subsistence ; so he resembleth the father fully and perfectly . there is no perfection in the Father , but the same is in the Son also ; he is Eternal , Omnipotent , Infinite , in Wisdom , Goodness and Power . ( 2. ) As God Incarnate , or manifested in our flesh : so the perfections of the Godhead shine forth in the Man Christ Jesus , in his Person , Word and Works . 1. In his person : They that had a discerning eye might see something divine in Christ , Iohn 1.14 . We beheld his glory , as the glory of the onely begotten of the Father . There is the as of similitude , and the as of congruity , as if a mean man taketh state upon him , we say he behaveth himself as a King , but if we say the same of a King indeed , we mean he behaveth himself King-like , that is becoming the Majesty of his High calling . So we beheld his glory as , &c. that is such a glory as was sutable and becoming Gods only Son : So Christ was angry with his Disciples because they were too importunate to see the Father , though they saw him ordinarily , conversing with him : Iohn 14.7 . If ye had known me ye should have known my Father also , and from henceforth ye know him and have seen him . The F●ther is no otherwise to be known , but as he hath revealed himself in Christ , and having seen and known Christ , who was his Image , they might both see and know him : and when Philip saith , shew us the Father and it sufficeth us ; this will convince us all without farther argument ; Christ answereth , verse 9. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father . They might see the Fathers infinite power acting in him , his wisedom teaching by him , his goodness in the whole strain of his life : so that in Christ becoming Man , God doth in and by him , represent all his own Attributes and Properties ; his Wisdom , Goodness and Power . 2. In his Word : where God is revealed to us savingly , so as we may be brought into Communion with him , so it is said , least the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ , who is the Image of God , should shine unto them , 2 Cor. 4.4 . As God shineth forth in Christ , so doth Christ shine forth in the Gospel : there we have the Record of his Doctrine , Miracles , and the end for which he came into the World ; and this is the great instrument by which the virtue and power of God is conveyed to us , for the changing of our hearts and lives , 2 Cor. 3.18 . ' Beholding the glory of the Lord as in a glass , we are changed into his Image and likeness from glory to glory . Some sight of God we must have , or else we cannot be like him : the knowledge or sight of God , with mortal or bodily eyes is impossible , the external manifestations and representations in the creature is imperfect , and sufficeth rather for Conviction , then Coversion , or to leave us without excuse , then to save the soul , Rom. 12.1 . ( they have not the excuse of faultless ignorance . ) To know him in the Law , or Covenant of works doth but work wrath , Rom. 4.15 . or revive in us a stinging sense of our hopeless condition . To know him in Person , or to see his glorious works , or hear his glorious words , was a priviledge vouchsafed but to few , and to many that made no good use of it ; therefore there is onely reserved his Word , to bring us into Communion with God. Or the glass of the Gospel to represent the glory of the Lord , that we may be changed into his likeness from glory to glory . There the knowledge of God is held out powerfully in order to our Salvation . 3. His Works : All which in their whole tenure and contexture shewed him to be God man. If at any time there appeared any evidence of humane weakness , least the World should be offended and stumble thereat , he did at the same time give out some notable demonstrations of his divine power : when he lay in a manger at his birth a Star appeared , and Angels proclaimed his birth to the Shepherds : When he was swadled as an Infant , the Wise men came and Worshipped him : When he was in danger of suffering Shipwrack , he commanded the Winds and the Waves , and they obeyed him : When he was tempted by Satan he was Ministred unto by Angels : Matth. 4.11 . When they demanded Tribute for the Temple , a Fish brought it to him , Matth. 17.26 . When he was deceived in the Fig-tree , ( which was an infirmity of humane ignorance ) he suddainly blasted it , discovering the glory of a divine power : When he hanged dying on the Cross , the Rocks were rent , the Graves opened , the Sun darkned , and all nature put into a rout . Though he humbled himself to purchase our Mercies , yet he assured our Faith by some emissions and breakings forth of his divine power : Well then , though it be our duty to seek and find out Gods track and foot print in the whole Creation , and to observe the impressions of his Wisedom , Goodness , and Power , in all the Saints ; especially this is our duty to admire his Image in Jesus Christ ; for his humanity , the perfections of the Godhead shine forth in the highest lustre . What ever perfection we conceive to be in his Person , Word or Works , the same may we conclude to be in the Father also . Did the Winds and Seas obey Christ ? The whole Creation is at the beck of God , did Christ shew himself to be the wisdom , goodness and power of God , surely God is infinitely Wise ! Was Christ Holy and undefiled , surely so is God , light in whom is no darkness at all : Was Christ Loving , Pityful , and Compassionate , not abhorring the most vile and miserable , whether in Soul or Body , that came to him for relief , surely God is Love , and he will not be strange to those that seek him in Christ. 3. How he differeth from other persons : For the Saints also are made after the Image of God , Col. 3.10 . And have put on the New Man which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him , Eph. 4.24 . And that ye put on the New man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness ? I answer , There is a great difference between the Image of God in Man , and the Image of God in Christ. 1. Man resembleth God but imperfectly , Man was made , and is new made after the Image of God , but with much abatement of this high perfection which is in Christ , for he hath all the substantial perfection which his Father hath . In other Creatures , there is some resemblance but no equality , other Creatures are made like God , but he is begotten like God. 2. It is derivative from Christ : God would recover man out of his lapsed estate , by setting up a pattern of Holiness in our Nature , Rom. 8.29 . Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Son , that he might be the first-born among many Brethren . None was fit to restore this Image of God that was lost , but God Incarnate , for thereby the glory of God was again visible in our Nature ; God is a pure Spirit , and we are Creatures , that have indeed an immortal Soul , but it dwelleth in Flesh , therefore to make us like God , the Word was made flesh , that he might represent the perfections of God to us , and commend holiness by his own example . Secondly , The next thing ascribed to Christ is , that he is the first born of every Creature , that is , born of God before any Creature had a being ; or begotten of the Father of his own proper Essence , and equal with him before any thing was created : and brought forth out of nothing . But here , the Adversaries of the Eternal Godhead of Christ , triumph , and say , the first born of the Creatures is a Creature , one of the same kind . I Answer , if we grant this that they alledge they gain nothing , for Christ had two Natures , he was God , Man , as God he is the Creator , not a Creature ; for the Apostle proveth , that by him all things were made : but as Man so he is indeed a Creature : This double consideration must not be forgotten , Rom , 1.3 , 4. Our Lord Jesus Christ was made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh , but declared to be the Son of God , with power according to the Spirit ; therefore we must distinguish between Christ and Christ , what he is according to the Spirit , and what he is a according to the flesh . 2. I answer , That Metaphors must be taken in the sense in which they are intended ; now what is the Apostles intention in giving Christ the Appellation of the First-born . Four things are implyed by this Metaphor . 1. Identity of Nature . 2. Likeness of Original . 3. Antiquity . 4. Dignity . Nothing else can be insinuated into the mind of man by such a form of speech , but Identity and sameness of nature between the brethren which is true as to Christs humanity , Heb. 2.14 . For ●smuch then as the children are partakers of Flesh , and blood , he also took part of the same , or else sameness of stock , which is true also ; fo● the same reason , Heb. 2.11 . For both he that sanctifieth , and they who are sunctified are all of one , for which cause he is not ashamed to call them Brethren , or priority of time , for the first born is before all the rest , or else , dignity authority and preheminence : Now which of these doth the Apostle intend , the two last : The preexistence of Christ before any thing was made as appeareth by this reason , v. 16. For by him all things were made , whether they be in heaven or in earth ; And also his Dignity and Authority above them , as appeareth by the frequent use of the word . For the first-born in Families had Authority over the rest : When Iacob had got the Birth-right this was a part of Isaacs blessing , Gen. 27.29 . Let people serve thee and Nations bow down to thee , be Lord over thy brethren , and let thy mothers sons bow down to thee . Soveraignty was implyed in the Birth-right , so David is called the first-born of the Kings of the earth , Psal. 19.27 . as the most glorious amongst them . So here nothing else is intended but that Christ is in time and dignity before all Creatures . Thirdly , Though Christ be called the firstborn of every Creature , it doth not imply that he is to be reckoned as one of them , or accounted a Creature . It is true , when he is said Rom. 8.29 . That he is the first-born among many brethren , it implyeth that he is head of the renewed estate , that he and all new creatures are of the same kind , allowing him the dignity of his rank and degree , for God is his God , and their God , his Father and their Father : but here it is not the first-born amongst the creatures , but the first-born of every creature . And for farther confirmation , here is not Identity of Nature , for he is not at all of the same nature with the Angels , those Principalities and Thrones , Dominions and Powers spoken of in the next verse , nor issued of the same stock with any of them : mark , he is called the first-born , not first created , which must be understood of his divine nature , and eternal Generation of the Father before all creatures . The creatures are not begotten and born of God ▪ ●ut made by him : so Christ is primogenitus , that unigenitus the first-born , that onely begotten . In the following verse he is brought in not as a creature , but the Creator of all things . The first-born is not the cause of the rest of the Children : Peter was the first-born , yet may be a Brother to Iames and Iohn , but not a Father to them . Now all the rest of the creatures are created , and produced by him : he is not reckoned among them as one of them , he is the Image of the invisible God. 2d . Why this Excellency of our Redeemer should be so deeply impressed upon our minds and hearts ? for many reasons . 1. This is needful to shew his sufficiency to Redeem the world , the party offended is God , who is of infinite Majesty , the favour to be purchased is the Everlasting fruition of God , and the sentence to be reversed , is the sentence of Everlasting punishment . Therefore there needed some valuable satisfaction to be given to reconcile these things to our thoughts ; that we may be confident that we shall have Redemption by his blood , even the Remission of sins : there are three things that commend the value of Christs sacrifice , the dignity of his Person , the greatness of his sufferings , and the merit of his obedience . But the two latter without the former will little quiet the heart of scrupulous men : His sufferings were great but temporary and finite , the merit of his obedience much , but how shall the virtue of it reach all the World : And if he be but a meer creature , he hath done what he ought to do . I confess a fourth thing may be added Gods institution , which availeth to the end for which God hath appointed it ; but the Scripture insists most on the first , the dignity of his person , which putteth a value on his sacrifice , Act. 20 , 18. Heb. 9.13 , 14. at lest there is an intrinsick worth , this answers all objections . His sufferings were temporary and finite , but it is the blood of God ; he hath offered up himself through the Eternal Spirit . 2. To work upon our love , that Christ may have the chief room in our hearts : there is no such argument to work upon our love , as that God over all blessed for ever , should come to relieve man in such a condescending way , 1 Iohn 3.16 . Hereby we perceive the love which God hath to us in that he layed down his life for us , that very person that dyed for us was God. There was power discovered in the creation , when God made us like himself out of the dust of the ground , but love in our Redemption , when he made himself like us . The person that was to work out our deliverance was the Eternal Son of God. That God that owes nothing to man , and was so much offended by man , and that stood in no need of man , having infinite happiness and contentment in himself ; that he should come and dye for us ! hereby perceive we the love of God. When we consider what Christ is , we shall most admire what he hath done for us . Thirdly , That we may give Christ his due honour . For God will have all men to honour the Son , as they honour the Father , Iohn 5.23 . he being equal in power and glory : the setting forth of his glory , is a rent due to him , from all creatures : We are to praise him both in word and deed : in mind , and heart , and practise , which we can never do , unless we understand the dignity of his person : We are apt to have low thoughts of Christ , therefore we should often revive the considerations , that may represent his worth and excellency . Fourthly , That we may place all hope of Salvation in him , and may make use of him , to the ends which he came to accomplish : We can hardly consider the work of Redemption , but some base thoughts arise in our minds , nor entertain this mistery with due respects to the truth and greatness , and admirableness of it , whithout raising our thoughts to the consideration of the dignity of the person who is to accomplish it , Heb. 3.1 . Therefore brethren , consider the Lord Iesus the great High Priest and Apostle of our profession . Fifthly , That we may the better understand two things . 1. The Humiliation of the Son of God. 2. The way how we may recover the lost Image of God. 1. The humiliation of the Son of God : certainly he that came to Redeem us , was the brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the express Image of this Person ; now how did he humble himself ? was he not still the Image of God in our nature ? yes , but the divine glory and Majesty was hidden under the vail of our flesh , little of it did appear , and that only to those who narrowly did observe him ; the brightness of his glory did not conspicuously shine forth : was this all ? no , his dignity was lessened , there was capitis diminutio , the lessening of a mans estate or condition . As of a man degraded from the Senatorian Order to the Degree of Knight , thence to the Plebian . Thus was the Eternal Son of God lessened , less then God , as Mediator , Iohn 14.28 . My Father is greater then I. As God incarnate he took an office designed to him by God , and obeyed him in all things : They were one in essence , Iohn 10.30 . yet with respect to his Office to save Souls , he was lessened : nay not only less than God , but lesser than the Angels , Heb. 2.7 . He was made a little lower then the Angels . Not born so , but made so . Man is inferiour to an Angel as a Man in the rank and order of beings ; the Angels dye not , therefore his Incarnation and liableness to death , is a great lessening of his dignity ; so not in respect of Office only , but humane nature assumed . 2. It sheweth us how the Image of God may be recovered : If we be changed into the likeness of Christ , for he is the Image of God ; his merit should not onely be precious to us , but his example ; it is a great advantage not only to have a rule , but an example : because man is so prone to imitate , that an example in our nature maketh it the more operative : his execuse is ready at hand , we are Flesh and Blood what would you have us do ? therefore Christ came incarnate to be an example of Holiness : he had the interests of Flesh and Blood to mind , as well as we ; and so would shew that a holy Life is possible to those that are renewed by his Grace : he obeyed God in our nature , therefore in the same nature we may obey , please and glorifie God , though still in a self-denying manner : the foundation of it is layed in the new birth : the Spirit that formed Christ out of the substance of the virgin , the same Spirit is ready to form Christ in you : he maketh new creatures , so that there is not onely Christs example , but Christs power . Use 1. then let the excellency and dignity of Christs Person be more upon your minds and hearts , think often of those two notions in the Text ; that he is the Image of the invisible God , that therein you may be like him . You cannot be the Image of God so as he was , but you must be in your measure , the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily , but you must be partakers of the divine nature . He shewed himself to be the Son of God by his works , when the Jews said he blasphemed , when he said he was the Son of God , Ioh. 10.27 . If I do not the works of my Father believe me not , he allowed them to doubt of them , if he did not those works which were proper to one sent from God , certainly this is the glory of man , to be the Image of God : there is no greater perfection then to live in the nearest resemblance to his Creator : Christ is more excellent because he hath more of the Image of God upon him . 2. Consider again that he is Lord of the whole creation , and therefore calle● the first-born of every creature . Well th●n we should he subject to him , and with greater diligence apply our selves to the obedience of his Holy Laws , and use the means appointed by him to obtain the blessedness offered to us . There is in us a natural sentiment of the authority of God , and we have a dread upon our hearts if we do what he hath forbidden , but we have not so deep a sense of the authority of Christ , and play fast and loose with Religion , as fancy , and humour and interest lead us : Now from this argument you see we should honour the Son , as we honour the Father , and be as tender of his Institutions , as we are of the Commandements evident by natural light ; for he is not onely the messenger of God , but his express Image , and the first-born of every creature : Not to believe him , and obey him , and love him is to sin not only against our duty , but our remedy , and the Law of our recovery . SERMON III. COL . 1. 16. For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth , visible and invisible , whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers , all things were created by him and for him . THE Apostle had told us in the former Verse , that Jesus Christ is the first-born of every Creature : The Arrians thence concluded that he himself was created out of nothing in order of time before the World : But it is not the first created of any creature , but the first-born , which noteth a precedency , not only in point of Antiquity , but Dignity ; and is as much as to say , Lord of every creature . For the first-born was the Lord of the rest , and the Title may be given either Relatively or comparatively . 1. Relatively ; when the rest are of the same stock , or have the relation of Brethren to him that hath the preheminence . So it is given to Christ with respect to new Creatures , Rom. 8.29 , That he might be the first-born among many brethren . 2. Comparatively onely : When several persons or things be compared , though there be no relation between them ; So David is called the first-born of the Kings of the earth , Psal. 89.27 . That is superior in Dignity and Honour . So here it is taken not relatively , for so Christ is primogenitus , the first-born ; that he is also unigenitus , the onely begotten : none went before , or come after him , that are so begotten of God. What he asserteth in that verse , he now proveth by the creation of all things , in this 16th . verse , and the conservation of all things , verse 17. We are now upon the first proof : Surely he that created all things , is supream Lord of all things ; or hath the right of the first-born over them . Two ways is Christ said to have a right to the Creatures : As God , and as Mediator . His Right as God , is natural and perpetual ; his Right as Mediator is by grant and donation . It is a power acquired and obtained ; his natural right is Antecedent to his actual susception of the office of Mediator ; for it comes to him by Creation . He made all , and it is fit that he should be soveraign and Lord of all ; but the other power and soverainty is granted to him , as a part of his Reward , and recompense for the sorrows of his Humiliation ; Phil. 2.9 , 10. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him , and given him a name above every name , that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and ●hings in earth and things under the earth . The Apostle speaks not of this latter now , but of the former ; his right as the onely begotten Son of God ; he is the first-born , that is , Lord of the whole Creation . And good reason , for by him were all things created that are in heaven , and that are in Earth , &c. In the words , the Creation of the World is ascribed to Christ : Take notice 1. Of the Object of this Creation . 2. Christs Efficiency about it . 1. The Object of Creation , is spoken Collectively and Distributively . 1 Collectively ; By him were all things created . 2 Distributively : They are many ways distinguished . ( 1. ) By their place : Things in heaven , and things in earth . ( 2. ) By their Nature : Things visible and invisible . ( 3. ) By their Dignity and Office : Thrones , dominions , principalities and powers : Words often used in Scripture to signifie the Angels whether good or bad . The good Angels ; Eph. 1.21 . Far above all principality and power , and might and dominion : Ep● . 3.10 . That unto principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church , the manifold wisdom of God. Sometimes this Term is given to the bad Angels : We wrestle not against flesh and blood , but against principalities and powers , Eph. 6.12 . And Rom. 8.38 , Nor angels , nor principalities , nor powers . So that the meaning is , the Angelical Creatures together with their degree and dignity as well among themselves as over the lower World , of what rank and degree soever they are , they are all created by him : he insisteth more on them then on the other branches , because some cryed up the dignity of the Angels , to the lessening of the Honour and office of Christ ; and because they were the noblest and most powerful Creatures ; and if the most glorious Creatures were created by him , surely all others had their being and life from him . Well then , there is a gradation notable , in setting forth the object of the Creation . Christ made not onely things in Earth , but things in Heaven ; not onely the visible things of heaven , the Sun , Moon , and Stars ; but the invisible , the Angels : Not the lower sort of Angels onely , but the most noble and most potent Thrones , Dominions , Principalities and Powers . 2. Christs Efficiency about them ; in these words , they were created by him and for him . 1 By him ; as an equal co-operating cause , or co-worker with God the Father : Ioh. 5.19 . Whatsoever things the f●ther doth , those doth the son likewise . To bring a thing out of nothing , belongeth unto God : The distance of the Terms is Infinite , so must the Agent be : Creation is an act of Divine Power . 2 They are for him : They are by him as their first cause , they are for him as their last end . God is often represented in Scripture as first and last ; Isa. 41.4 . I the Lord the first and the last , I am ●e . Isa. 44.6 . I am the first and the last , there is no God besides me , So Isa. 48.2 . I am the first , I am also the last . Now all this is repeated and applied to Christ ; Rev. 1.17 . He said unto me , fear not , I am the first and the last , I have the keyes of death and hell . Rev. 2.8 . These things saith the first and the last , which was dead and is alive . Rev. 22.13 . I am alpha and omega , the beginning and the end , the first and the last . Now these Expressions do imply his Eternal Power and Godhead : He hath been before all things were made , and shall be when all things in the world are ended : He is the first Being , from whom all things are , and the last end to whom all things are to be referred . He is the Efficient and final cause of all the creatures . Doct. That all Creatures , Angels not excepted , o●e their very Being to Christ the Son of God , our Blessed and Glorious Redeemer . I shall take the method offered in the Text , and shew you , First , That all things were created by him . Secondly , Why the Creation of Angels is so particularly mentioned and insisted upon ? Thirdly , That all things were created for him . First , For Creation by him : This is often asserted in Scripture , Ioh. 1.3 . All things were made by him , and without him was not any thing made that was made . Iohn begins his Gospel with the dignity of Christs Person , and how doth he set it forth ? by the Creation of the World , by the Eternal Word ; and what he saith , is an answer to these questions , When was the Word ? In the beginning ; where was the Word ? with God ; what was the Word ? He was God : What did he then do ? All things were made by him : What , all without exception ? Yes , Without him nothing was made that was made : be it never so small , never so great , from the highest Angel to the smallest worm , they had all their Being from him . Two things are to be explained ; 1. How he made all things ? 2. When he made the Angels ? 1. How he made all things ? Freely , and of his own will : Rev. 4.11 . Thou art worthy , O Lord to receive honour and glory and power for thou hast created all things , and for thy pleasure they are and were created . They use three words to set forth the honour that is due to Christ for creating the World ; Glory , because of his Excellencies discovered ; Honour , which is the ascription or acknowledgement of those Excellencies ; and Power , because the invisible things of his Godhead and power are seen by the things that are made , Rom. 1.20 . For in the creating of the World , he exercised his Omnipotency , and this they do not express their Affection but his own due desert : Thou art worthy O Lord : The reason they give , is because he hath created all things for his own pleasure , or according to his own Will , not out of necessity , there was no tye upon him to make them , but onely he of his good pleasure thought fit to do so . He might have done it in another manner , or at another time , or in another order . There is nothing in the World that hath a necessary connexion with the Divine Essence , so as if God be , that must be ; nothing external commeth from God by necessity of Nature , but all is done according to the Counsel of his own Will. Some thought all created things did come forth from the Creator , by way of emanation , as Rivers flow out of their Fountain , but there is no stream floweth out of any fountain , but it was before a part of that fountain while it was in it ; but that cannot be said of any Creature in respect of God , that it was any part of God before it came out from him : Others say the Creatures came out from God by way of representation , as an Image in the glass from him that passeth by or looketh on it ; b●t before the world was made , there was no such glass to represent God : others would express it thus , that the world cometh out from God as a shadow from the body , but yet this will not fit the turn neither ; for the shadow doth not come out from the body , but follows it : because of the deprivation of light from the interposition of another body . Others say , all cometh from God as a foot-print , or tract in Clay or Sand , from one that passeth over it ; but there was nothing on which God by passing might make such an impression : What ever good intention they might have by setting forth the Creation by these expressions , yet you see they are not proper and accurate . These expressions may have their use to raise mans understanding to contemplate the excellency and Majesty of the Creator ; for they all shew his incomparable Excellency and Perfection , together with the vanity , nothingness , or smallness of the Creature , if compared with him , as great a bulk as it beareth in our eye . They are but as a Ray from the Sun , a stream from the fountain , or a drop to the Ocean ; an Image in the Glass , or a shadow to the substance , or like a foot-print of a ma● in the Clay or Sand ; and so are but certain signs leading up to the thing signified ; or Letters and Syllables out of which we may spell God. As the streams lead us to the fountain , the image to the man , the shadow to the body , or the track to the foot that made it . But the Scripture leaving those comparisons , sheweth us that the World came out from the Creator , as the Workmanship from the Artificer , the building from the Architect , Heb. 11.10 . Now every Artificer and builder worketh merely out of the Counsel of his own Will , and herein they resemble God , but onely what they do with great labour , God doth with the beck of his own Will and Word : Psal. 33.6 . By the word of the Lord the heavens were made , and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth . A bare word of his immediately created all the World ; the Heavens and Earth and all that is in them . 2. When did he make the angels ? For in the History of Moses , there seemeth to be a great silence of it . I Answer , We read Gen. 1.1 . that in the beginning , that is , when God did first set himself to create , that then he created the Heaven and the Earth ; but we read again in the 20th . Verse , that in six dayes the Lord made heaven and earth and the sea , and all that in them is . I argue that if within that compass of time , the Lord made Heaven and Earth , and all things that are in them , Angels are included in that number ; being the inhabitants of Heaven , as Men and Beasts are of the Earth , and Fishes of the Sea : As here by things in Heaven the Apostle principally understands the Angels , and by things on earth Men : Therefore as things on earth were not made , but after the earth ; so things in heaven were not created but after the heavens were created : The heavens were not created till the second day , nor perfected and fitted till the fourth . Therefore as God did furnish the Earth with Plants and Beasts before men , so did he adorn the Heaven with stars , before he filled it with Angels : for he first framed the House and adorned it , before he brought in the inhabitants . Therefore probably they were made the fourth day . Is this seemeth too short a time before the fall of the Apostate Angels , you must remember how soon man degenerated : some think he did not sleep in innocency quoting that Psal. 49.12 . Man being in honour abides not , but is like the bea●ts that perish . The word signifies a nights Lodging in an Inne ; shall no● Lodge or stay a Night : others make his fall on the next day , the Sabbath : For at the end of the sixth day , all was good , very good . The Angels fell from their first state as soon as they were Created : so short and uncertain is all created Glory . Secondly , All things were created for him ; that is , for the honour of the Son , as well as for the honour of the Father , and the Holy Ghost : Now this is necessary to be thought of by us , because there is a Justice in the case that we should return and imploy all in his service , from whom we have received all , even though it be with the denial of our nearest and dearest Inte●est . He is worthy of this Glory and Honour from us , and that we should trust upon him as a faithful Creator , in the midst of all dangers . 1. I will prove , that the gre●t●st Glory the Creature is capable of , is to serve the Will , and set forth the Praise of its Creator : for every thing that attaineth not its end is vain . What matter is it whether I be a Dog or a Man , a Beast or an Angel , if I serve not the end for which I was made ? and that is not the personal and particular benefit of any Creature , but the glory of the Creator : for God made all things for himself ; Prov. 16.4 . whether he made Beasts or Man or Angels , it was still with a respect to his own glory and service . God is independent , and self-sufficient of himself , and for himself . Self-seeking in the creature is monstrous and incongruous : 'T is as absurd , and unb●seeming , to seek its own Glory , as to attribute to its self it s own being ; Rom. 11.36 . Of him and through him , and to him are all things . Gods glory is the end of our being , and doing ; for being and doing are both from him , and therefore for him alone . Above all it concerneth man to consider this , who can glorifie God not onely objectively , by the impressions of God upon him , and passively as God will overule all his actions to his own Glory , but actively as he is the mouth of the Creation , not onely to honour God himself , but to give him the praise which resulteth from all his works : It was well s●id of a Heathen , si essem lus●inia ; If I were a Nightingal , I would sing as a Nightingal , si alauda : If I were a Lark , I would pere as a Lark . When I am a man , what should I do but know , love and praise God without ceasing and glorifie my Creator . Things are unprofitable , or mis-placed , when they do not seek or serve their end ; therefore for what use are we meet , who are so unmeet for our proper end ? Like the wood of the vine that is good for nothing , not so much as to make a pin whereon to hang any thing , Ier. 20.15 . Good for nothing but to be cast into the fire , unless it be fruitful . What are we good for , if we be not serviceable to the ends for which we were created . 2. The design of God was , that the whole Creation should be put in subjection to the word Incarnate : Not onely this lower world , wherein man is concerned , but the upper World also . Our R●●eemer who hath bought us , hath an Interest in all things that may concern us ; that they may be disposed of to his own glory , and our good and advantage : All are at the making and at the disposal of our Lord Jesus Christ : Therefore it is said , Heb. 2.10 . For whom are all things , and by whom are all things . God that frameth all things , ordereth all things to their proper end . His works are many , and some are more excellent and glorious than others , and one of the chief of them , is the salvation of man by Jesus Christ. Therefore all things are subordinated thereunto , to the Glory of the Mediator , by whom this is accomplished ; 1 Cor. 8.6 . But to us there is but one God the Father , of whom are all things , and we in him , and one Lord Iesus Christ , by whom are all things , and we by him . Thirdly , Why the Creation of Angels is so particularly and expresly mentioned ? I Answer , for three Reasons : 1. To shew the Glory and Majesty of the Redeemer . The Angels are said to excel in strength ; Psal. 103.20 . and else-where they are called Mighty Angels : This potency they have from their Creator , who giveth power and strength to all his Creatures as it pleases him ; their strength may be conceived by that instance , that one Angel in a night slew one hundred and eighty five Thousand in Senacheribs Camp. Now these potent Creatures , are infinitely inferiour to our Redeemer , by whom , and 〈◊〉 whom they were made : Though they are the most excellent of all the Creatures , yet they are his Subjects , and Ministers at his beck and command ; both by the Law of their Creation , as Christ is God : and also by the fathers donation , as he is mediator and God Incarnate : 1 Pet. 3.25 He is set down on the right hand of God , Angels , Authorities and Powers being made subject to him . And again , Eph. 1.22 . He hath set him far above all principality and power and might and dominion , and every name that is named , not onely in this world , but in that which is to come . They have a great name , but Christ hath a more excellent name than they , Heb. 1.5 . for they are all bound to worship him , ver . 6. and serve him ; for he employeth them for the defence and comfort of the meanest of his people : They are subject not onely to God , but to Christ , or God incarnate . Look , as it is the glory of Earthly Kings to command mighty and powerful subjects ; are not my princes altogether Kings , Isa. 10.8 . that so many Princes held under him as their Soveraign , and served him as their Commander ; and when God speaks of the Assyrian , he calleth him a King of Princes , Hos. 8.10 . Namely , as he had many Kings Subject and Tributary to him , so is this the Majesty of our Redeemer , that he hath these powerful Creatures the mighty Angels in his Train and retinue : These heavenly hosts make up a part of that Army which is commanded by the Captain of our Salvation . 2. This is mentioned to obviate the Errors of that Age : Both the Iews and the Gentiles had an high opinion of Spirits and Angels , as Gods Ministers and Messengers . For he doth not alwayes immediately administer the affairs of Mankind . Now as they were right in the main , as to their service , so they added much of curiosity and superstition to the Doctrine of Angels , and by their vain speculations infected the minds of many in the Christian Church , who were but newly come out from among them , insomuch that they fell to the worshipping of Angels as mediators to God. As the Apostle intimateth , col . 2.18 . Now because this was to the disparagement of Christ , the Apostles did set themselves to check this curiosity of dogmatizing about Angels , and the superstition or Idolatry of Angel-worship , thence growing apace . Now this they did , by asserting the dignity of Christs Person and Office : As Paul , Col. 2. and the Author to the Hebrews , chap. 1.2 , 3. Hath in these last dayes spoken unto us by his son , whom he hath appointed heir of all things , by whom also he made the worlds , who being the brightness of his glory , and the express Image of his person , and upholding all thing by the word of his power , when he had by himself purged our sins , sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high . It is true , Christ was sent from Heaven as the Angels are , and he came in a despicable way of appearance , to promote our Salvation and recovery , as they assumed bodies sutable to their Message ; yet his superiority and preheminence above the Angels is clear and manifest : He was not onely equal to them , but far above them , Heb. 1.3 . Seven things are observable in that verse , 1. Christ came as the Eternal Son of God ; He hath spoken unto us by his Son. When he cometh to the Angels , he sai●h , they as servants and ministring spirits . For a short while he ministred in the form of a servant in the days of his Flesh , they continue to be so from the beginning to the end of the World. 2. He was heir of all things : That is , Lord of the whole creation : They onely Principalities and Powers , 〈◊〉 certain ends , to such Persons and Places , over which Christ sets them . 3. He was the Creator of the World : By whom also he made the worlds , saith the Apostle , they are noble and divine creatures indeed , but the work of Christs hands . 4. He is the brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the express Image of his person : that is , the essential Image of God. They onely have some strictures of the Divine Majesty . 5. The upholding all things by the word of his power ; that is , the conserving cause of all that Life and Being that is in the creature . The Angels live in a continual dependance upon Christ as their Creator , and without his supporting influence , would be soon annihilated . 6. By himself he purged our sins . He was sent into the world for that great and glorious work of Mediation , which none of them was worthy to undertake , none able to go through withall , but himself alone . They are sent about the ordinary concernments of the Saints , or the particular affairs of the World ; he is the Author of the whole work of Redemption and Salvation , and they but subordinate Assistants in the particular promotion of it . 7. He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high . They are Spirits near the Throne of God , ever in his Presence , attending on him like Princes . God never made any of them universal and eternal King for he set Christ at his right hand , not the Angels . To sit at Gods right hand , is not only to be blessed and happy in enjoying those pleasures which are there for evermore , not onely to be advanced to the highest place of Dignity and Honour next to God ; but to be invested with a supream and universal Power above all Men and Angels . Take these , or any one of these , and he is above the Angels , though they be the most noble and excellent creatures that ever God made . 3. Because Christ hath a ministry and service to do by them . He makes use of them partly to exercise their obedience , without which they forsake the Law of their creation and swerve from the end for which they were made ; Psal. 103.20 . They do his commandments , hearkening to the voice of his word . They do whatsoever he commandeth them , with all readiness and speed immaginable , and therein they are an example to us . Matth. 6.10 . Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven . They are our fellow-servants now in the Work , hereafter in the Recompence ; when we are admitted into one Society , under one common Head and Lord , Heb. 12.27 . who shall for ever rejoyce in the contemplation of Gods infinite Excellencies . Well then , if these Excellent creatures , so great in power , be alwayes so ready and watchful to do the Will of God and count it their honour to assist in so glorious a work as the saving of Souls , or do any other business he sendeth them about ; how should we that hope to be like the Angels in happiness , be like them in obedience also . 2. Because the Churches safety dependeth upon it . We stand in need of this Ministry of Angels . The service of the Angels is protection to the people of God , vengeance on their Enemies . 1. For protection ; Christ hath the heavenly host at his command , and sendeth them forth for the good of his People , Psal. 68.17 . The chariots of the Lord are twenty thousand , even thousands of Angels , the Lord is among them in Sinai in the holy place . Mark , that thousands of Angels are his Chariots , conveying him from Heaven to Earth , and from Earth to Heaven ; and mark , the Lord is among them ; that is , God incarnate ; for he presently speaketh of his ascending up on high . Thou hast ascended up on high , and led captivity captive , thou hast received gifts for men , ver . 18. Among them in his Holy place , that is , in heaven : It is added as in Mount Sinai ; that is , as at the giving of the Law , they were then there , and still attend on the propagation of the Gospel . For more particular Cases , see Heb. 1.14 . Are they not all ministring spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation . So Psal. 34.7 . The angel of the Lord incampeth round about them that fear him , and delivereth them . All that obediently serve and wait on God , have the promise of his protection . 2. The other part of this Ministry and Service , is to restrain and destroy the Devil and his Instruments . The Scripture often speaks of Gods executing Judgements by the Angels : Their influence doth not always personally appear , yet it is great and powerful . Though the Powers and Authorities on Earth , and their Messengers and Forces be of●en imployed against the Saints , yet the Captain of our Salvation is in Heaven , and all the mighty Angels are subject to him , and at his disposal . By this means the Prophet Elisha confirmed himself and his servant , when the King of Syria sent Chariots and Horses a great host to attacque him in Dothan , ● King. 6.14 , 15. And when his serva●t saw it early in the morning , he said , Alas my master ! what shall we do ? The Prophet answered , Verse 16. They that ●e with us , are more than they that be against us . And then Verse 17. he prayed , Lord open his eyes that he may see . And the Lord opened his eyes , and behold the mountain was full of chariots and ●orses of fire , round about Elisha . These fiery Horses and Chariots were nothing else but the Angels of God. Here is force against force , chariots against chariots , horse against horse , if we could open the eye of Faith , and shut that of Sense . We read Acts 12.23 . that an Angel smote Herod in the midst of his Pride and Persecution : The Angel of the Lord smote him . VSES . I. Let us more deeply be possessed with the Majesty of our Redeemer : He is the Creator of all things , of Angels as well as Men , and so more excellent than all the Men in the World , whether they excel in power or holiness , which the Psalmist expresseth thus , fairer than the children of men , Psal. 45.29 . But also then the most excellent and glorious Angels , he is their Creator as well as ours , head of principalities and powers , as well as of poor worms here upon Earth . Surely the representing and apprehending of Christ in his glorious Majesty , is a point of great consequence . 1. Partly , to give us matter for praise and admiration , that we may not have mean thoughts of his Person and Office ; he is a most glorious Lord and King , that holdeth the most powerful Creatures in subjection to himself . If Christians did know and consider how much of true Religion consists in admiring and praising their Redeemer , they would more busie their minds in this work . 2. Partly , To strengthen our Trust , and to fortifie us against all fears and discouragements in our service . When we think of the great Creator of Heaven and Earth , and all things visible and invisible , Angels , Men , Principalities , &c. Surely the brightness of all creature-glory should wax dim in our eyes ; Our God is able to deliver us , Dan. 18. and will , as he did by his Angel. This was that which fortified Stephen , Acts 5.55 , 56. He saw Iesus standing at the right hand of God. It is easie for him who made all things out of nothing to help us . See Psal. 121.2 . My help standeth in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth . The Almighty Creator , Ruler and Governour of the World , what cannot he do ! As long as I see those glorious monuments of his power standing , I will not distrust he can afford me seasonable help by his Holy Angels through the intercession of his Son who hath assumed my Nature . 3. Partly , To bind our duty ; all Creatures were made by him and for him , therefore we should give up our selves to him , and say with Paul , Acts 27.23 . His I am and him I serve . His by Creation and redemption , therefore every thing we have and do , ought to have a respect to his glory & service . There is ● variety of Creatures in the World , of different kinds and different excellencies : In the whole and every kind there is somewhat of the glory of God and Christ set forth . Now this should strike our hearts ? shall we onely who are the persons most obliged , be a disgrace to our Lord both Creator and Redeemer , when the good Angels are so ready to attend him at his beck and command , and that in the meanest services and ministries . Shall poor worms make bold with his Laws , slight his doctrine , despise his benefits ? Heb. 2.2 , 3. If the word spoken by angels was stedfast , and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward , how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation . 4. And lastly , to make us more reverend in our approaches to him , for he sits in the Assembly of the Gods , the holy Angels are round about him . Psal. 138.1 . Before the Gods will I sing praise to thee : That is , in the presence of the holy Angels ; 1 Cor. 10.10 . Eccl. 5.6 . Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin , neither say thou before the angel that it was an Error . The Angels in heaven observe our behaviour in Gods worship ; what vowes we make to God , what promises of obedience . But above all , there is our glorious Redeemer himself , Heb. 12.28 , 29. with what reverence and godly fear should we approach his Holy Presence . II. Use. Is to quicken us to Thankfulness for our Redemption ; that our Creator is our Redeemer . None of the Angels did humble himself as Christ did do , to do so great a piece of service , and yet he is far above them . There is a congruity in it , that we should be restored by him , by whom we were made : but he made the Angels as well as men , but he did not restore them . No , they were not so much as in a condition of forbearance and respite : he assumed not their nature , he created all things , but he redeemed mankind . His delights were with the sons of men ; he assumed our nature , and for a while was made a little lower then the Angels , Heb. 2.9 . We cannot sufficiently bless God for the Honour done to our Nature in the person of Christ , for it is God incarnate that is made head of Angels , Principalities and Powers . God in our nature , whom all the Angels are called upon to adore and worship . The devil sought to dishonour God , as if he were envious of mans happiness , Gen. 3.8 . God doth know that in the day that ye ●at thereof ye shall be a● Gods. And he fought to depress the nature of man , which in innocency stood so near to God , now that his humane nature should be set so far above the Evangelical , in the person of Christ , and be admitted to dwell with God in a personal Union ; this calleth for our highest love and thankfulness . III. Use. Is an encouragement to come to Christ for sanctifying and renewing Grace . I have three Arguments . 1. The Person to whom we come : To whom should we come , but to our Creator , God infinitely Good , Wise and Powerful . The creation sheweth him good , and whatever is good in the Creatures , is wholly derived from his goodness : It is but like the odour of the sweet Ointments , or the perfume that he leaveth behind him where he hath been , Iam. 1.19 . He is infinitely wise when he created and setled the World. He did not jumble things in a Chaos and confusion , but setled them in a most perfect order and proportion . Which may be seen , not only in the Fabrick of the World , but in the disposition of the parts of Mans Body ; yea or in any Gnat or Fly. Now cannot he put our disordered souls in frame again ? If the Fear of God be true Wisdom , to whom should we seek for it , but from the Wise God ? His Infinite Power is seen also in the Creation , in raising all things out of nothing . And if a Divine Power be necessary to our Conversion , to whom should we go , but to him who calleth the things that are not , as though they were , Rom. 4.17 . According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness , 2 Pet. 1.7 . 2. From the work it self , which is a new Creation , which carrieth much resemblance with the old ; Eph. 2.10 . For we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus unto good works . 2 Cor. 4.6 . For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness , hath shined into our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Iesus Christ. It is such an effect as comes from a Being of Infinite Power , Wisdom and Goodness ; that man may be in a capacity to love , please and serve God. What was lost in Adam , can onely be recovered by Christ. 3. From the relation of the Party that seeketh it . Psal. 119.73 . Thine hands have made me , and fashioned me , give me understanding that I may learn thy commandments . We go to him as his own Creatures . This plea hath great force because of Gods goodness to all his Creatures . Not onely the Angels , but every worm and fly , had their being from Christ ; there is a great variety of living things in the World , but they are all fed from the common fountain : therefore we may comfortably come to him for life and quickning , Ioh. 1.4 . We need not be discouraged by our baseness and vileness , for the basest worm had what it hath from him . 2. That Christ as Creator beareth such Affection to man as the work of his hands : Is it good unto thee that thou shouldst despise the work of thy hands ? Iob 10.3 . Artificers when they have made an excellent work are very chary of it , and will not destroy it , and break it in pieces , Iob 14.15 . Thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands . As Creatures , beg relief and help ; if you cannot plead the covenant of Abraham , plead the covenant of Noah . 3. God forsakes none of the faln creatures , but those that forsake him first ; 2 Chron. 15.2 . The Lord is with you while you be with him , and if ye seek him he will be found of you , but if ye forsake him he will forsake you . 1 Chron. 28.9 . If thou seek him , he will be found of thee , but if thou forsake ●im he will cast thee off for ever . 4. Especially will Christ be good to man seeking after him for Grace , that we may serve and obey him . For he is no Pharaoh , to require brick , and give no straw . Creating Grace layed the debt upon us , and his redeeming Grace provideth the power and help that we may discharge it . Now when we acknowledge the debt , and confess our impotency to pay it , and our willingness to return to our duty . Will Christ fail us ? A conscienc● of our duty is a great matter , but a desire of grace to perform it is more : Therefore come as creatures earnestly desiring to do their Creators will , and to promote his Glory . God will not refuse the soul that lyeth so submissively at his feet . SERMON . IV. COL . 1.17 . And he is before all things and by him all things consist . THE Apostle had asserted the dignity of Christs Person , by ascribing the work of Creation to him : now the work of Conservation and Providence : By the same divine power by which Christ made all things , he doth preserve and sustain all things . In this verse two things are ascribed to Christ. First , His precedency in point of Time , or his Antiquity before all creatures : And he is before all things , that is he had an Eternal being before any thing that now is Created . Secondly , His sustaining all things by his Almighty Power , and by him all things do consist . All creatures owe their continua●ce and preservation to him . The first point is his Precedency and Pre-existence before all creatures whatsoever . Doct. That Iesus Christ had a being before any of the creatures were made . 1. That he had a being long before he was born of the Virgin , for he was in the time of the Patriarchs , as Ioh. 8.48 . Before Abraham was I am , to say nothing of that Godlike way speaking I am ; not I was but I am , that which I now plead for , is that he was before Abraham : the words are occasioned by Christs saying that Abraham saw his day and was glad : which the Jews understood not of a Prophetical , but of a real vision , and therefore objected the impossibility , that he was not yet fifty years old and how could he see Abraham ? or Abraham see him ? Christ doth not answer to their ill interpretation , but sheweth that their very objection contained no absurdity , if taken in their own sense ; for he was not onely in the time of Abraham , but long before , and so affirmeth more then that objection required : The Jews thought it absurd that Christ should be in the time of Abraham , but Christ affirmeth more , and that with a strong asseveration ; he was not only by the constitution of God , but really existing before Abraham : For the Predestination not only of Christ but of Abraham and all the Elect was before the foundation of the World. If in respect of special prediction , mark then what must follow , then Cyrus must be in the time of Isaiah , Iosiah must be in the time of Ieroboam . The calling of the Gentiles must be in the time of Moses , for they Prophesied of these things . 2. That he had a being at the time of the creation that is also clear : for it is said in the beginning was the word , Iohn 1.1 . that is when Christ set himself to create all things , the word beginning signifies many things ; but chiefly the beginning of all time , especially when it is put absolutely without any limitation to the matter in hand . So Iohn 8.44 . The Devil was a murderer from the beginning , that is almost as soon as created , Matth. 19.4 . He that made them at the beginning made them male and female . So Heb. 1.10 . And , Thou in the beginning hast layed the foundations of the Earth , and in many other places . Therefore Christ had a being when the World and all creatures were made , visible and invisible : So Prov. 8.22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31. The Lord p●ssessed me in the beginning of his way , before his works of old . I was set up from everlasting , from the beginning , or ever the Earth was . When there was no depths , I was brought forth : when there were no fountains abounding with water . Before the mountains were settled ; before the hills was I brought forth : While as yet he had not made the Earth , nor the fields , nor the highest part of the dust of the World. When he prepared the heavens I was there : when he set a compass upon the face of the depth : When he established the clouds above : when he strengthned the foun●ains of the deep : When he gave to the Sea his degree , that the waters should not pass his commandement : when he appointed the foundation of the earth : Then I was by him , as one brought up with him : and I was daily his delight , rejoycing always before him : Rejoycing in the habitable parts of his earth , and my delights were with the sons of men . There the wisedom of God or the eternal Word describeth the Antiquity of his person , all the question is what this wisdom is , that is there spoken of . 1. It is not humane but divine : for the wisdom there spoken of was before the World was . 2. Whatever it be it is not a divine attribute , but a divine person : for those things which are there ascribed to wisdom cannot properly belong to an Attribute , to be begotten , brought forth , verse 23 , 24. To have the affections of love , verse 27. Delight , verse 31. all along the expressions agree onely to a person . That wisdom which inviteth sinners , promises the Spirit , threatens eternal destruction to those which hearken not to him , commendeth not the Lawes of Moses , but requireth obedience to his own Laws , what can this wisdom be but a person : If the intent were only to express that God is wise , what strange expressions would the●e be , to what purpose were it to give us notice that he was wise from the beginning , if there were no other mistery in it . 3. This person was Christ who is the wisdom of God , 1 Cor. 1.24 . And in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge , Col. ● . 5 . Thirdly , That Christ was before the World was , from all eternity : Micah 5.2 . His goings forth are from everlasting . The Prophet there speaketh of his birth at Bethlehem : and his eternal Generation , and distinguishes the one from the other , but thou Bethlehem Ephratah , though thou be little among the many thousands of Iudah , yet out of thee shall come forth to me he that is to be Ruler in Israel , whose goings forth have been from old , from Everlasting , or from the dayes of Eternity . This last clause is added least any should look upon this Ruler as only man , and begin●ing to be at his Incarnation , he that was born at Bethlehem was also true God , begotten of the Father from all Eternity . Fourthly , That Christ was God s●bsisting in the divine Nature , I shall bring two places to prove that , the first , Phil. 2.6 . Who being in the form of God , thought it no robbery to be equal with God , but empted himself and made himself of no reputation , he was first in the form of God before he appeared in the form of a Servant , the form of God is his divine glory and blessedness , every way equal to God. The form of a Servant is either his coming in the similitude of sinful flesh . or his subjecting himself to the curse of the Law , or his humble and mean condition while he lived among men , it consists in one of these or in all three , now before he submitted to this he existed in the form of God , that is , was cloathed with divine Majesty and in all things equal with God the Father , his being and existence which he then had was truly divine . The form of God is the very divine essence , as cloathed with Glory and Majesty , this did justly and naturally belong to him , and was not usurped by him : the other place is Christs prayer , Iohn 17.5 . And now O Father glorifie thou me with thy own self , with the glory which I had with thee before the World was . God is said to glorifie any person when he giveth him glorious qualities and powers ; or by revealing and manifesting those glorious qualities which he hath ; or when he doth receive him and treat him agreeably to his Glory . The meaning of Christs prayer then must be of one or other of all these senses : when he prayeth that the father would glorifie him with that glory that he had with him before the world was , if you take it in the first sense , he d●sireth that God would bestow upon him as Mediator or God Incarnate a Glory sutable to that Glory he had with him from all Eternity . If in the second sense , he desireth his Glory may be revealed , or become conspicucus in his humane nature . If in the third , that God would receive him honourably and agreeably to that Glory , which sense is the chiefest , for it containeth the other two . The meaning then in short is , that he might be received to the full enjoyment of that glory which he had before the World was . Christ was from all Eternity the glorious God , this Glory of his Godhead by his humiliation was not diminished and lessened , but obscured and hidden : and therefore prayeth that he may be received by the Father , and openly declared to the World to be the Son of God. Or that the Glory of his Godhead might shine forth in the person of Christ God-man . Well then before any creature was Christ had a divine Glory , how had it he ? The enemies of this Truth say by decree , or designation not by possession , but that cannot be , he that is not hath nothing : if he had not a divine being , how could he have divine Glory before the World ? None can say Paul was an Apostle of Christ before the World was , because he was appointed or designed to this work , yea none can say he had Faith and brotherly love when he was yet an unbeliever and persecutor , yet it pleased God to separate him from his Mothers Womb , and predestinated him to have these things . Again , then all true believers may thus pray to God , glorifie me with , &c. for they are thereunto appointed , but this is absurd . Besides , if he had it then how could he want it now ? The decree is the same , it remaineth then that Christ had a being and substance in the Godhead before any of the Creatures were made . VSE . 1. This serveth for the confutation of those Atheists that say , Christ took upon him the appellation of a God to make his Doctrine more authentick and effectual ; they confess the morals of Christianity are most excellent for the establishment of Piety and Honesty , but mens inclination carrying them more powerfully to vice then vertue , this doctrine would not be received with any reverence if it came recommended to them by a mere man , and therefore Christ assumed the glorious appellation of the Son of God , or pretended to be God : A blasphemy very derogatory both to the honour of Christ and Christianity : and quite contrary to the drift of the Scriptures , both of the Old and New Testament . The Messiah promised in the Old Testament was to be God all the Prophets agree , in that Jesus Christ proved himself to be God both by his Word and Works : and the Apostles still assert it : Could they that lived in so many several Ages , as the Prophets and Apostles did , lay their heads together and have intelligence one with another , to convey this Imposture to the World ? Surely if Christ be the Messiah promised in the Old Testament as clearly he is , then he is God , for that describeth him to be such : and if Christ usurped this honour , how did God so highly favour him with such ex●raordinary Graces , by i●spiring him with the knowledge of the best Religion in the World , to authorise him with miracles , to raise him from the dead . And must this Religion that condemneth all frauds , and doing evil that good may come of it be supported by a lye ? or cannot God govern the World without countenancing such a deceit ? or is it possible that such Holy persons as our Lord Jesus and his Apostles were , could be guilty of such an Imposture ? Did they do this by command of God ? No surely , for God which is the God of Truth would not command them to teach a lye , or to make use of one : He hath power enough to cause the Truth to be embraced by some other means ; and a greater injury cannot be done him , then to go about to gratifie him with what he hateth , much less would God have commanded a mere man to call himself his Eternal Son , and God equal to him , which is a blasphemy and sacriledge as well as a lye , the greatest of the kind , for mortal man to take upon himself to be the eternal God. If it were not by his express commandment , would he suffer such an attempt to go unpunished ? would he witness from Heaven this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased ? would he have raised him from the dead , and so ingaged the World to believe in him and adore him , Acts 17.31 . 2. If Christ were before all things , let us prefer him above all things : This consideration is of great use to draw off our hearts from all created things , and to lessen our respects to wordly vanities , that they may be more earnestly fixed on what is eternal and glorious . He that was before the world was , will be when the world shall be no more : Christ is from Everlasting to Everlasting , Psal. 90.2 . to him should we look , after him should we seek , he is first and last , the beginning and ending . It is for an Everlasting blessedness , for the injoyment of an eternal God that our souls were made . He that was from the beginning , & will be when all things shall have an end ; it is he that should take up our minds and thoughts : How can we have room for so many thoughts about fading glories , when we have an Eternal God and Christ to think of ? What light can we see in a Candle when the Sun shineth in his full strength ? All things in the World serve onely for a season , and then wither ; and that season is but a short one . You glory in your Riches , and preeminence now , but how long will you do so ? To day that House and Lands is thine , but thou canst not say it will be thine tomorrow : but a believer can say my God , my Christ , is mine to day , and will be mine to all eternity . Death taketh all from us honours and riches , and strength and life , but it cannot take God and Christ from us , they are ours and everlastingly ours . Secondly , We come now to the second point , his sustaining all things by his Almighty power , and by ●im all things consist . Doct. II. That as Christ made all things , so he doth sustain them in being and working . Let me explain this how the creatures are preserved by Christ. 1. This is to be understood not only meritoriously as a moral cause , but efficiently as a natural cause of the creatures sustentation : for the Apostle doth not consider here so much what Christ doth as a Mediator , as what de doth as God. It is true Christ as Mediator hath reprieved the World from that ruine ▪ which might come upon it for mans sin , but here his merit is not considered , but his power , Heb. 1.3 . He upholdeth all things by the word of his power . The weight of the whole creation lyeth upon his hands , as Daniel telleth Belshazzar , that his breath and his wayes were in the hand of God , Dan. 5.23 . so is the being , life , and operation of all the creatures ▪ If he should withdraw his withholding hand , they would quickly return to their first nothing , which sheweth the great power of our Redeemer . Moses complaineth , Numb . 11.11 , 12. Thou hast layed the burden of all this people upon me , have I conceived this people ? have I begotten them that thou shouldst say unto me , carry them in thy bosom , but Christ hath the care and charge of all the world , not to rule them only , but to sustain them . A King or a Governour hath a moral rule over his subjects , but Christ giveth them being and existence ; and doth preserve and keep them in their present state and condition from dissolution . 2. Not only indirectly but directly : Indirectly Christ may be said to sustain and preserve the creatures , as he keepeth off evil or removeth those things that may be destructive to them : As he preserveth a Town that repelleth their enemies , but directly he preserveth them as he continueth his providential influence , Acts 17.28 . For in him we live , and move , and have our being . As the root feedeth the fruit , or the breath of the musician maintains the sound , Psal. 104.29 . Thou takest away thy breath and they dye , and return to their du●t . Life and all the joyes and comforts of it every minute depend upon God. It is by his providential influence and supportation we subsist . The greatest creature cannot preserve it self by its power and greatness , and the lest is not neglected , both would sink into nothing without this continued influence . Thirdly , He doth this not only mediately by means appointed , but immediately as his efficacy pierceth through all . God preserveth the creatures by means , for he giveth them those supplyes , which are proper for them : as to man food and rayment : for other creatures what may relieve them . And the wise dispensing these supplies without any care and solicitude of the creatures , is a notable part of his Providence . But here we consider his intimate presence with all things by which he upholdeth their beings ; which all the means of the World cannot do without him . God doth as it were hold the creatures in his own hand , that it may not sink into its old nothing , as a man holdeth a weighty thing . This is supposed to be alluded unto , Iob 6.9 . Let him loose his hand and cut me off . If he doth but loose his Almighty grasp , all the creatures fall down . Fourthly , Christ doth this so , as that he doth not overturn their nature : he worketh by natural and necessary causes necessarily , with voluntary causes voluntarily : he that inlightneth the World by the Sun , causes man to discourse and reason ; the Sun would not shine if Christ were not the light of it , nor man discourse if he did not continue the faculty , Ioh. 1.4 . In him was Life , and this Life was the light of man. It is man seeth , man heareth , man talketh , man acteth , but yet the seeing eye , and hearing ear , is of the Lord , Prov. 20.12 . as God hath made both , so he sustaineth both in their operation and exercise : All that we do naturally and spiritually we have from Christ. Fifthly , He is not the bare instrument of God in sustaining the creature , but as a coequal Agent . As he made the World , and with the father created all things , so he doth support and order all things . It is as well the work of the Son as of the Father ; for he is God equal with him in glory and power , Iohn 5.17 . My Father worketh hitherto and I work , and he hath a command of all the creatures , that they can do nothing without him , how much soever they attempt to do against him . 2. Let me give you the reasons of this , why all things must subsist by him . 1. Because preservation is but a kind of continued creation , or a continuance of the being which God hath caused : Gods will in creation maketh a thing to be , his will in preservation maketh it continue to be : the same omnipotency and efficacy of God is necessary to sustain our beings , as at first to create them . Therefore it is said Psal. 104.2 . Thou stretchest out the Heavens like a curtain , which noteth a continued act , God erected them at first and still sustaineth them by his secret power in this posture : so that with respect to God it is the same action to conserve as to create . That the creature may have a being the influence of God is necessary to produce it , that the creature may continue its being , it is necessary that God should not break off that influence , or forsake the creature so made : for the being of the creature doth so wholly depend on the will of God , that it cannot subsist without him . Nothing can be without the will of God , which is the cause both of the being and existence of all creatures : Therefore their being cannot be continued unless God will : therefore it belongeth to the same power to make any thing out of nothing , and to keep any thing that is made from returning to its first nothing . 2. It is impossible to cut off the dependance of the creature upon the first cause , for no creature hath a self sufficiency to maintain and support it self . Things of Art may subsist without the Artificer , as a Carpenter maketh a House and then leaveth it to stand of it self ; the Shipwright maketh a Ship , and then leaveth it to the Pilot to guide it : but all things of Nature depend upon God that made them , because they have their whole being from him , matter , and form : which be continueth no longer then he pleaseth , whether they be things in Earth , or things in Heaven , visible or invisible . No impression of the Agent remaineth in the effect when his action ceaseth ; when the effect wholly dependeth on the cause : as when the Air is inlightned which receiveth light from the Sun , but when the Sun is gone the light ceases : So when God withdraws the creature vanishes : for they have no other being then God is pleased to bestow upon them . 3. If it were not so many absurdities would follow , as for instance 1. If things do subsist by themselves then they would allwayes be : for nothing would destroy it self . 2. Then the creature would be independent , and whether God will or no they would conserve their being , and then how should God Govern the World ? therefore it undenyably followeth , thou hast made all things , and thou preservest them all . 4. It would destroy all Worship , and our Piety and respect to God would be cold and languid . The service we owe to God is reducible to these Four heads . 1. Adoration of his excellent nature above all other things . 2. Affiance in his goodness , with expectation of relief from him . 3. Thankfulness for his benefits . 4. Obedience to his Precepts and Commands . Now unless we acknowledge his intimate presence with , and preservation of all things ; these necessary duties will either be quite abolished or degenerate into a vain and needless superstition . 1. The Adoration we owe to his excellent nature above all other things in the universe , alass , we see how little reverence and respect we have for the great Potentates of the Earth whose fame we hear of indeed , but are not concerned in their favour or frowns , or have no dependance on them at all : the least Justice of Peace or Constable in our Neighbourhood is more to us then all these mighty forreign Princes , with whom we have nothing to do but onely to hear and read the reports of their greatness , when we have no other business to divert us . So cold and careless would be our respect to God if we did not depend on him every moment , and were neither concerned in his wrath nor love : those practical Atheists that were settled on their Lees , and lived in a secure neglect of God , they sos●ered it by this presumption , tush he will neither do good nor evil , Zeph. 1.13 . Fine things may be told us of the Excellency of his Nature , but what is that to us , he hath so shut up himself within the curtain of the Heavens , that he takes no notice or care of things here below . How soon would such a conceit dispirit all Religion , and take away the life and vigor of it ; but if you would plant a reverence and due veneration of God you must do it by this principle , In his hands is the soul of every living thing , and the breath of all mankind . No Creature can subsist without him for a moment : now this respect is due not only to God the Father , but our Lord Jesus Christ. 2. As to Trust and dependance on his goodness for relief in all our streights and necessities : This is the grand principle that keepeth up an acknowledgment of God in the World , by Prayers and Supplications , Psal. 62.8 . Trust in the Lord at all times ; ye people , pour out your heart before him . When you retire your souls from all secular considences , and repose all you trust in him , you will be instant in Prayer , and earnestly beg his relief : you see all things subsist by him , and it is in vain to expect any real assistance from the creatures , but what God will communicate to us by it ; Now if it be not so , but the creatures could stand of themselves , and live of themselves : this would blast all devotion , and prayer be withered and dryed up at the root , humbling our selves to God in our streights and necessities would look like dejection or poorness of Spirit , whining to no purpose . 3. For Thank fulness for benefits received , which is the great means to knit the hearts of men to God , and the bellows which bloweth up the fire of love , and Religion in our hearts : how can we ascribe our deliverances to God , if he hath not a hand in all things , but when we acknowledge his sustaining and governing power , we see God in the face of the creature , and every benefit we receive representeth his goodness to us . But alass , they have no thought or care of Praise and Thanksgiving that think not themselves obliged to God for the least hair of their heads : God is banished out of their sight , because they look for all from the creature ; but they cannot enough Praise and bless God who is the strength of their lives , and the length of their days : They acknowledge that every good gift cometh from him , that he heareth their Prayers , relieveth their necessities , continues their lives to them every moment ; therefore God is all in all with them , but to others he is a shadow or nothing . His memory is kept up in the World by his benefits , Acts 14.17 . 4. For Obedience and Service to him : certainly dependance begets Allegiance and observance . We are obsequious to those from whom we expect our dole and portion , Psal. 131.2 . as the eyes of Servants look to the hand of their Masters , and the eyes of a maiden unto the hands of her Mistress , so do our eyes wait on the Lord our God. The Masters give the Men-servants their portion and allowance ; and the Mistriss to the Maid-servants , they looked for all from their hands , and therefore to them they performed their service , so do the people of God. What reverence do we owe to him who is our Creator and Preserver as well as Redeemer ? as he made all things so he supporteth all things . Did we see God in us and in all things round about us , these thoughts would be more frequent in us , and we will still be considering what we shall render unto the Lord for all his benefits towards us ? but obedience soon languisheth where men think they subsist of themselves without God , Psal. 55.19 . Because they have no changes , therefore they fear not God. They are not interrupted in their sinful course , and therefore have no reverence and respect to God. VSE . This doth strengthen our dependance and reliance on our blessed Redeemer , by him all things do subsist , therefore he can hear all Prayers , relieve us in all our straits , supply us in all wants , preserve us in all dangers . All nations are in his hands , our whole Life is in his keeping and upheld by his intimate presence with us , our dayes cannot be longer nor shorter then he pleaseth , if he were absent from us he might forget us or neglect us , but he is within us , and round about us in the effects of his power and goodness ; since he is so near us , why should we doubt of his particular care and providence . All Nations are in his hands , the lives and hearts of Friends and Enemies , therefore our eyes should be upon him , Psal. 16.8 . I have set the Lord alwayes before me , he is at my right hand , I shall not be moved , we set the Lord before us both in point of reverence and dependance , for fear and trust agree in their common nature , and so it may note our care to please him or our trust and quietness in him , all means are nothing to us , can do nothing for us without him . 2. It teaches us a lesson of humility . We depend on him every moment , can do nothing without him , either in a way of Nature or Grace ; not in a way of nature , for God hath not left us to stand by our selves on the first foundation of our Creation , the Creatures are not capable of subsistence without dependance on the first cause , but meerly live and act by his power , In him we live and move and have our being , Psal. 104.29 . Thou takest away their breath and they dye , and return to their dust , the withdrawing his concurrence and supportation is the cause of all our misery , when he sees fit all the Creatures soon return to the Elements of which they are compounded ; all the strokes and judgements which light upon them are dispensed according to his pleasure . In a way of Grace we are nothing , can do nothing without him , Iohn 15.5 . He must have all the praise , Luke 16.14.1 Cor. 15.10 . Gal. 2.20 . The more perfections we have , the more prone we are to fall if he sustain us not : witness the faln Angels , and Adam in innocency . 3. It teaches us a lesson of reverence and Obedience , if God be so near let us observe him , and take notice of his presence : He knoweth what he doth , when he sustaineth such a creature as thou art . This thought should continually affect us , that God is with us , still by us , not onely without us , but within us , preserving our Life , upholding our Being . It should be a check to our sluggishness , and mispense of Time : doth God now continue me ? to what end and purpose ? If God were absent or gone , it were more justifiable to loiter , or indulge the ease of the flesh ; but to spend my time vainly and foolishly , which he continueth for service , what have we to say ? SERMON . V. COL . 1.18 . And he is the Head of the Body the Church , who is the beginning , the first-born from the dead , that in all things he might have the preheminence . THE Context is spent in representing the Dignity and Excellency of Christ : He is set forth by three things . 1. By the excellency of the Benefits we have by him : the greatest the faln Creature is capable of for the present , verse 14. 2. By the excellency of his Person : so he is set forth as the eternal and only begotten Son of God , verse 15. and proved by his being the Creator and Preserver of all things : The Creator , verse 16. The Preserver , verse 17. Now the Apostle cometh to the third thing . 3. The excellency of his Office : This is done in the Text ; where observe that next after the Son of God , there is nothing more venerable & August then Christs being Head of the Church : And again that Christ hath another title to us then that of Creator , he is Redeemer also : the same God that created us by his power hath Redeemed us by his Mercy . By the one he drew us out of nothing , by the other he recovered us out of Sin : Therefore after he had declared what Christ is to the World , and the Church too ; he sheweth what Christ is particularly to the Church . He hath a superiority over Angels and all creatures , but he is our head , Eph. 1.22 . He hath put all things under his feet , and gave him to be head over all things to the Church . Christ is the Sovereign of the World , but by a special relation to his people , he is the Head of the Body the Church , who is the beginning , the first-born from the dead , &c. In which words Observe , 1. The Titles which are given to Christ with respect to the Church , he is the Head , the Beginning , The First-born from the dead . 2. The consequence of it : That in all things he might have the Preheminence . 1. The Titles ascribed to Christ , they are three . The first is , the Head of the Body the Church : Where observe two correlates , the Head , and the Body ; the head is Christ , the Body is the Church : the Head is the most eminent part of the Body , the noblest both as to nature , and place , or situation : As to nature , the Head is the most illustrious Throne of the Soul , as being the seat not only of the Nerves and Senses , but of the Memory and Understanding : In place , as nearest Heaven : The very situation doth in a manner oblige the other parts to respect it , these things agree to Christ who as to his essence is infinitely of much more worth then the Church , as being the only begotten Son of God : As to Office , in him there is a fulness of perfection to perform the Office of an Head , to such a crasie and necessitous body as the Church is . All the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge are in our head for the use of the body , Col. 2.3 . and he is also the fountain of Life , and Grace to every particular member , Ioh. 1.16 . and for place he Reigneth in Heaven with his Father , and from thence he vieweth all the necessities of the Body , and sendeth forth such influences of Grace as are needful to every particular member . 2. For the other correlate , The Church is the Body : by the Church is meant the Church Mystical , or all such as are called out of the World to be a peculiar people unto God. Now these considered collectively , or together they are a body , but singlely and separately every Believer is a member of that body , 1 Cor. 12.29 . Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular , all the parts and members joyned together are a spiritual body , but the several Persons are members of that Body . Yea though there be many particular Churches , yet they are not many bodies , but one body , so it is said 1 Cor. 12.12 . As the body is one and hath many members , and all the members of that body being many are one body , so also is Christ. He is the Head , and the many and divers members of the universal Christian Church are but one Body . The universal invisible Church of real Believers is one Mystical Body knit by Faith , to Christ their Head ; and by love among themselves : And the visible universal Church is one politick Body conjoyned with Christ their Head , and among themselves by an external entring into Covenant with God , and the serious profession of all saving Truths . They have all the same King and Head : the same Laws the Word of God , the same Sacraments of admission and nutrition , which visibly at least they subject themselves unto : and have a grant of the same common priviledges in the Gospel , but of this more anon . 2. The next Title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Beginning ; I understand it that he is the root and the beginning of the renewed estate , the same degree which Christ hath in the order of nature , he hath in the order of grace also : he is the beginning both of Creation , so also of Redemption ; he is origo mundi melioris : still the beginning and ending of the New creature as well as the old , Rev. 1.8 . He is called in short the beginning , with respect to the Life of Grace , as in the next Title , the First-born from the dead , with respect to the Life of Glory . 3. The third Title is , the First-born from the dead : he had before called him the first-born of every Creature , now the first-born from the dead , Rev. 1.5 . The first begotten from the dead , because those that arise from the dead are as it were new-born , whence also the Resurrection from the dead is called a Regeneration , Matth. 19.20 . And St. Paul referreth that Prophesie , Psal. 2.7 . Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee . In Acts 13.33 . To the Resurrection of Christ. Things are said to be when they are manifested to be , compare Rom. 1.4 . Declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead : He was declared to be the true and Everlasting Son of God and Head of the Church : so the Adoption of Believers shall appear by their Resurrection , Rom. 8.19 . and 23. The earnest expectation of the Creature waiteth for the manifestation of the Sons of God , verse 23. We our selves groan within our selves , waiting for the Adoption , to wit , the redemption of the body . 2. The sequel and consequent of these things , That in all things he might have the preheminence , that is as well in the Spiritual estate of the Church , as in the creation and natural estate of the World , Rom. 8.29 . That he might be the first-born among many Brethren . I begin with the first . Doct. I. That this is the honour appropriate and peculiar to Iesus Christ , to be head of the Church . 1. Here I shall shew what the Church is , to which Christ is an Head. 2. How is he an Head to this body . 3. The Reasons why this body must have such an Head. 1. What the Church is : A Society of men called out of the World by Gods effectual Grace , according to the purpose of his Election , and united to Christ by Faith and the participation of his Spirit , and to one another by the band of Charity , that after Remission of sins obtained in this World , together with Regenerating grace , they may at length be brought to eternal Life . Let us a little open this description , by Effectual Calling God worketh Faith , which uniteth us to Christ , and that Effectual calling is the fruit of Election , and the effect of this union is Remission of sins , and the necessary consequence of this Communion is Salvation or Eternal Life : This Society of Men is called a Church in the Text : The word Church is taken in divers acceptations . First and most properly , it signifies these whom I have now described , the universal collection of all , and every one of those , who according to the good pleasure of God , are or may be called out of a state of Sin into a state of grace to obtain eternal Glory by our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the Church of the First-born , whose names are written in heaven , Heb. 12.22 . That chosen Generation , that Royal Priesthood , that Holy Nation , that peculiar People , whom to shew forth his praises , God hath called out of darkness into his marvelous light : 1 Pet. 2.9 . This Church most generally and properly taken , is the Kingdom of God , the Body and Spouse of Christ , Cant. 6.9 . My dove , my undefiled one , is but one . This is that one fold under one Shepherd , Ioh. 10.16 . And it was Prophesied of Christ that he should dye to gather together in one the Children of God that were scattered abroad , Iohn 11.5 . Secondly , Of this universal Church there are two parts , one of Travellers , the other of Comprehensors : or the Church Militant , and Triumphant : they both belong to Gods Family , Eph. 3.15 . Of whom the whole Family whether in Heaven and Earth is named , so Col. 1.10 . That part of the Family which is in Heaven triumpheth with God there , that which is in Earth is yet Warring against sin , satan , and the World. Thirdly , This part which is the Military comes in the 2d . place , to be called by the name of the universal Church ; because being scattered & dispersed throughout the whole World , it comprehendeth all and every one that belongeth to Christs flock , which are found in several Folds : known to God they are , and to themselves , and do indeed belong to Christs Body and his Kingdom , this is often and not undeservedly called the invisible Church : because so far as it is the Church of God their reality and sincerity is rather believed by Faith , then seen by the eyes of the body . This Church , This Kingdom of God , though it be yet in this World , yet it is not of the World , neither doth it come with observation : for the Faithful have this Kingdom of God within them ; Luke 17.20 . The World knows them not , other believers know them not , but God knoweth those that are his , 2 Tim. 2.19 . Fourthly , The universal visible Church , While they are in the way , and in the midst of their conflicts it is possible many hypocrites may take up the profession ; as in the great house are many vessels , some to honour , some to dishonour ; from these ariseth an external promiscuous multitude , who also are called the Catholick Church for the sake , and with respect to those Holy ones among them who truly belong to Christs Mystical Body . We read often the Kingdom is like to a net wherein are good and bad Fishes , Matth. 13. To a Threshing floor wherein is chaff and Wheat . To a Field wherein groweth good Corn and also Tares , Matth. 13.24 , 25. Now all these wayes is the universal Church taken . Fifthly . There are particular Churches wherein the Ordinances and means of Grace are dispensed as the Church of Corinth , Cenchrea , Galatia , Greek , Roman : None of these particular Churches contain all believers or the Elect of God , that out of them or any of them there should be no Salvation : Again the universal Church may remain in the World total and intire though these particular Churches are , or other of them may successively be destroyed , as it hath often faln out . And it is a great sin so to cry up a particular Church , as to exclude all the rest from saving Communion with Christ ; and for any one particular Church to arrogate power over the others , they being but members . 2. This Church is called a Body in two respects . 1. In regard of the union of all the parts . 2. Dependance upon one and the same head . 1. With respect to union , as in man all the members make but one Body , quickned by the same soul , so in the Mystical body of Christ all the parts make up but one body , animated by the same vital principle which is the spirit of Christ , and are joyned together by certain bonds and ligaments , Faith and Love , and all is covered with the same skin , the profession of the Faith of Christ. Look what the soul is in man , the form in the subject , life in the body , and proportion in the building ; that in the universal Church of God is the Union and Communion of the several and single parts , with the head among themselves . Take away the Soul from man , the form from the subject , life from the body , proportion and conjunction from the parts of the building , and what will man be but a Carkass , and the building but ruine & confusion ? So take away union and communion from the universal Church , then Ierusalem will become a Babel , and Bethel a Be●haven , and for Life there will be death , and for Salvation eternal destruction . How else shall all that come out from one , return again to one , and all and every one have all things in one ; that at length they may acquiesce in the injoyment of one , that is God , as their chiefest good . Alass , without this union with the head , and among themselves in necessary things , what can they expect but wrath and the curse , and Everlasting destruction . 2. With respect to dependance on one head , Rom. 12.5 . We being many are one body in Christ , and every one members of one another , that is , all things make up one body of which Christ is the Head ; and are fellow members in respect of one another . As necessary and as desirable as it is to be united to God , to Life and Glory Everlasting , so necessary and desirable it is to depend upon Christ the Head : for no man after the entrance of sin can return to God , or enjoy God , without Christ the Mediator , Iohn 14.6 . I am the way , the truth and the life ; no man cometh to the Father but by me , Acts 4.12 . There is no other name under Heaven by which we can be saved but only Iesus Christ , 1 Cor. 3.11 . Other foundation can no man lay but that which is layed Iesus Christ , 1 Iohn 5.12 . He that hath the son hath Life , and he that hath not the son hath not Life . God proclaimed from Heaven , Matth. 3.17 . This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased , he being one God with the Father and the Spirit , of the same substance and essence , he only can procure , merit , and effect our union with God : He first assumed our nature , and united it to his own Person , and so became one flesh with us , but then all those that belong to that nature , if they believe in him , and enter into his Covenant , are not onely literally one flesh , but Mystically one body , and so also one Spirit , 1 Cor. 6.17 . That is , by the bond of the spirit he hath brought them into the state and relation of a body to himself . To gather up all : Mans return to God is necessary to his blessedness , that he may be inseparably conjoyned to him as his chiefest good , to this purpose the son of God assumed our nature in the unity of his person , and thereby bringeth about the union of the Church with himself as our Head , and our communion with one another in Faith and charity , if we desire to be blessed , and so is according to Christs Prayer , Iohn 17.21 . That they may be all one , as thou Father art in me and I in thee , that they also may be one in us , verse 23. I in them and thou in me , that they may be made perfect in one , so that as there is one God , and one Mediator between God and Men , and one Church united to Christ as his body ; to this Church we must every one of us be united if we mean to be saved , and in the Church with Christ , and by Christ with God , therefore out of this Mysticall body there is no Salvation . 2. How is Christ an Head to this Body ? This must be explained by answering two question . 1. What are the parts of his headship ? 2. According to what nature doth this office belong to him , divine or humane . 1. The parts and branches of this headship : he is our head with respect to Government and sovereignty ; and in regard of causality and influence : he governeth , he quickneth . 1. It implyes his Authority to Govern as is manifest , by Eph. 5.22 , 23. Wives submit your selves to your own husbands as unto the Lord , for the husband is the head of the Wife even as Christ is the head of the Church . So that to be the Churches Head , implies superiority or right to govern . 2. For the other notion in regard of influence , that is evident in Scripture also , Col. 2.19 . Not holding the head from which all the body by joynts and bands , having nourishment ministred and knit together increases with the increase of God , the head is the root from whence the vital faculty is disfused to all the members . We use to say 〈◊〉 arbor inversa , a Tree turned upsided 〈…〉 if this be so , the Head is the 〈…〉 Tree . So doth Life flow from 〈…〉 the Church , the spirit is from 〈…〉 begin the union or to con●●nue the 〈…〉 But let us speak of these branches apart . 1. His Authority and power to govern : his excellency gives him fitness , but his Office right to rule and govern the Church : When he sent abroad his Officers and Embassadors to Proselyte the World in his name , he pleadeth his right , Math. 28.18 . All power is given to me both in heaven and in Earth . Now the acts which belong to Christ as a Governour may be reduced to these heads . 1. To make Laws that shall universally bind all his people . 2. To institute Ordinances for Worship . 3. To appoint Officers . 4. To maintain them in the exercise of these things . 1. The first power that belongeth to a governing head , is Legislation or making Laws : now Christs Headship and Empire being novum jus Imperii , a new right which he hath as Mediator for the recovery of lapsed mankind , his Law is accordingly : It is lex remedians a Law of grace which is given us in the Gospel of our Salvation . The sum of his own proper remedial Laws are Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ , and Repentance towards God , Acts 20.21 . Without Repentance our case is not compassionable , without Faith we do not own our Redeemer , by whom we have so great a benefit : yet because this new right of Empire is accumulative not privative , beneficial to us indeed , but not destructive of our duty to God : therefore the whole Law of God as purely moral hath still a binding force , upon the consciences , as it is explained in the Word of God. Now to these Laws of Christ none can add , none diminish , and therefore Christ will take an account of our fidelity at the last day , 2 Thess. 1.8 . 2. He hath instituted Ordinances , for the continual exercise and regulation of our worship , and the Government of his people that they may be kept in the due acknowledgement and obedience to him : such as the preaching of the Word , Sacraments , and the exercise of some Government : now all the Rules and Statutes which Christ hath made for the ordering of his people must be kept pure until his coming : his institutions do best preserve his honour in the World : great charges are left , 1 Tim. 5.21 . I charge thee before God and our Lord Iesus Christ and his Elect Angels that thou observe these things , where he speaketh of Ecclesiastical Censures and Disciplines he conjureth him by all that is sacred and holy , that it be rightly used ; 1 Tim. 6.14 . Keep this commandment without spot and unrebuka●le unto the appearing of Iesus Christ. The Doctrines are so determined by Christ , that they cannot be changed , the Worship not corrupted , the Discipline not abused to serve partial Humors and private or worldly Interests . 3. God hath appointed Officers who have all their ministries and services under Christ and for Christ ; Eph. 4.11 . He gave some apostles , some prophets , and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers , for the perfecting of the saints , for the work of the ministry , for the edifying of the body of Christ. Mark there , he doth not describe all the Officers , for the Deacon is not mentioned , but onely such as labour in the Word and Sacraments ; and observe , he mentioneth ordinary and extraordinary ; Apostles to write Scripture , Prophets to attest it , Pastors and Teachers to explain and apply it . And mark , [ Christ gave some ] it is his Prerogative as Head of the Church to appoint the several sorts of offices and officers . He gave them at first , and will raise up some still , according as the exigence of the times requireth it . The end why , to perfect the saints ; that is , to help them on to their final perfection , and for the work of the ministry . All Offices under Christ are a ministry , not a power ; and imply Service , not Lordship or Domination over the Flock of Christ. Lastly , The great end is to prepare and fit men more and more to become true members of Christs mystical Body . 4. To maintain and defend his people in the exercise of these things , to preserve the verity of Doctrine and purity of Worship : Alass , many times where neither Worship nor Government is corrupted , yet the Church may be in danger to be dissipated by the violence of persecutions : Now therefore it is a part of Christs office as Head of the Church , to maintain verity of Doctrine , purity of Worship and a lawful order of Government , for all which he hath plenty of Spirit . The Papists think this cannot be without some universal visible head to supply Christs Office in his absence ; and so are like the Israelites , Exod. 31.1 . Make us Gods that shall go before us . They would have a visible head that should supply Christs room in his absence , an external infallible Head , but that is a vain conceit , for since the Pope hath his residence in Rome , and cannot perform these functions but by the intervention of ordaining Pastors , why should it be more difficult for Christ in heaven to Govern the Church , than for the Pope in Rome ? when he sitteth at the right hand of God , till he hath made his ●oes his Footstool ? Is he less powerful to Govern the Church , and to preserve and defend his People against the violence of those that would root out the memorial of Religion in the World ? Who is more powerful than Jesus Christ , who hath all Judgement put into his hands , 1 Iob. 4.4 . 2. In regard of influence . So Christ is an head to the Church as he giveth us his Spirit : That Spirit which gives Life to Believers is often called Christs Spirit , Gal. 4.6 . God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts . It is purchased by his Merit , Tit. 3.6 . conveyed to us by his Power , Ioh. 15.26 . I will send the comforter from the father . The communication is by his Ordinances : The Word , 2 Cor. 3.18 . Beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord , we are changed into the same Image from glory to glory , even as by the spirit of the Lord. Sacraments : 1 Cor. 12.13 . For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body , whether we be Iews or Gentiles , whether we be bond or free , and ●●ve all been made to drink into one spirit . To ●●omote the Religion which he hath est●●●●●hed , Ioh. 16.13 , 14. When the spirit 〈◊〉 ●ruth is come , he will guide you into all tr●● 〈◊〉 for he shall not speak of himself , but wh●● 〈◊〉 ever he shall hear that he shall speak . And he will shew you things to come and he shall glori●ie me , for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you . He comes to us as his Members , and by influence from him , as in the natural body the animal spirits are from the head , are by the members conveyed to all the parts of the body ; so Christ in this spiritual Union worketh in us a quickning Spirit ; Eph. 4.15 , 16. We grow up to him in all things which is the head even Christ : From whom the whole body joyned together maketh increase , &c. The spirit is not given to any one Believer , but derivatively from Christ to us . First it is given to Christ as Mediatour , and to us onely by virtue of our union with him . He is in Christ as radically inherent , but in us operatively , to accomplish certain effects ; or he dwelleth in our Head by way of radication , in us by way of influence and operation . 2. According to what nature doth this office belong to Christ , Divine or Humane ? I answer , both ; for it belongeth to him as God incarnate . 1. He must be man that there may be a conformity of nature between the head and the rest of the Members ; therefore Christ and the Church have one common nature between them ; he was man as we are men ; bone of our bone , and flesh of our flesh ; Eph. 5.30 . We read of a monstrous Image that was represented to Nebuchadnezzar in a dream , where the head was Gold , the breast and arms of Silver , the belly and thighs of Brass , and the Legs and feet part of Iron , and part of Clay , Dan. 2. All the parts of a different nature . In every regular body there is a proportion and conformity , so it is in the Mystical body of Christ ; because the brethren took part of flesh and blood he also took part of the same . The Godhead which was at such a distance from us , is brought down in the person of Christ in our nature , that it might be nearer at hand , and within the reach of our commerce ; and we might have more incouragement to expect pity and relief from him . 2. God , he also must be . None was sit to be head of the Church but God , whether you respect Government or Influence . 1. For Government ; to attend all cases , to hear all Prayers , to supply all wants : defend us against all Enemies , to require an absolute and total submission to his Laws , Ordinances and Institutions , so as we may venture our Eternal Interests upon his Word , Psal. 95.11 . He is thy God worship thou him . 2. For Influence ; none else hath power to convey the spirit , and to become a vital principle to us , for that is proper to God to have life in himself , and to communicate it to others , 1 Tim. 6.13 . I charge thee in the sight of God who quickneth all things , &c. Whatever men may think of the life of Grace , yet surely as to the life of Glory he is the onely life-making Spirit ; 1 Cor. 15.45 . Now this honour is not given to the Angels , much less is it due to any man , nor can it be imagined by him , for none can influence the heart of Man but God. 3. The Reasons why this body must have such an Head. 1. Every society must be under some Government , without which they would soon dissolve and come to nothing : Much more the Church , which because of its manifold necessities , and the high ends unto which it is designed , more needs it than any other Society 2. The Priviledges are so grea●●hich are these ; Pardon of sins , and 〈◊〉 Grace , and at length Eternal Glo●● . ( 1 ) Pardon of Sins . By this Union with him , he is made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him , 2 Cor. 5.21 . A sacrifice for sin , that we might be justified and accepted with God. ( 2. ) Sanctifying Grace by the communication of his Spirit . We not onely agree with him in the same common humane Nature , but the same holy Nature may be in us that was in Christ , Heb. 2.11 . We are doubly a-kin , ratione incarnationis suae , & regenerationis nostrae . ( 3 ) At length Eternal Glory followeth ; for what is the condition of the Head , that is also the condition of the Members ; first Christ , then they that are Christs . And also Christ is set up as a pattern , to which the Church must be conformed , Rom. 8.29 . Bating the preheminence due to the Head , we are to be Glorious as he is Glorious . 2. The Duties are far above bare humane power and strength ; therefore we need the influence of our Head , Ioh. 15.5 . To obey God , to believe in his name , to deny our selves in what is most dear and precious to us in the world , to be fortified against all Temptations , are duties not so easily done as said . 2. We have so fouly miscarried already that he will no more trust his honour in our hands ; but hath put the whole treasure of Grace into the hands of Christ for our use , Ioh. 1.16 So Ioh. 3.35 , 36. The father hath put all things into his hands : He that believes on the son hath overlasting life , and he that believes not the son hath not seen life . God would not leave us to our selves to live apart from him , but hath put all things that belong to our happiness into his hands , that being united to him vertue might be communicated to us , even all the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit . They are not intrusted with us , but with him ; and we shall have no more of Pardon , Grace and Glory , but what we have in and from the Son of God. VSES . Use I. Is Information : To shew how much we are bound to God for putting this honour upon us , that Christ should be our head . Christ is over the Angels in point of Superiority and Government , but not properly said to be an head to them , in that strict notion which implies relation to the Church : As to influence , he is not an head to them : You will say they are confirmed by him ; but the Mediation of Christ presupposes the Fall of Adam , for Christ had not been Mediator , if Adam had never fallen . Now if Christ should come to confirm Angels , if this had not been , is groundless ; besides Christ merited for those that have benefit by him , and the consummate act of his Merit is his Death ; but where is it said that he died for Angels . II. It informs us of the shameless Usurpation abetted by the Papists , who call the Pope head of the Church . None can be a Head of the Church , to whom the Church is not a Body ; but it would be strange to say the Church is the Popes body . None can be a governing head of the Church but he who is a Mediatorial Head of Vital influence . The Papists indeed distinguish these things , ascribe the one to the Pope , the other to Christ , but the Scripture allows not this Writ of Partition ; None can be the one but he must also be the other . But they say he is a ministerial head ; but a ministerial Universal Head , that shall give law to other Churches and christian societies , and if they depend not on him , shall be excluded from the Priviledges of a Christian Church , this is , as to matter of Right , Sacriledge ; for this honour is too great for any man , and Christ hath appointed no such head , and therefore it is a manifest Usurpation of his Royal Prerogative without his leave and consent . And as to matter of Fact , it is impossible the Church being scattered throughout all parts of the World , which can have no commerce with such an head in matters essential to its Government and Edification . They that first instituted such an universal Head , besides that they had no Authority or Commission so to do , were extreamly imprudent , and perverters of Christianity . Therefore let us consider how it came up at first , and how it hath been exercised : It came up at first for the prevention of schisms and divisions among Christians , they thought fit the Church should be divided into certain Dioces●es , according to the secular division of the Empire , which at first were thirteen in number under the names of Patriarchs and Bishops of the first See , who should join in common care and counsel for the good of the christian common-wealth : Among these , some , who in regard of the cities wherein they resided , were more eminent than the rest , and began to incroach upon the others Jurisdiction , till at length they were reduced to four . The Bishop of Rome being the Imperial City , had the precedency , not of Authority super reliqous , but of place and order inter reliquos . It was potestas honoraria , a difference or authority by courtesie , afterwards ordinaria , an ordinary power , then what was de facto given , was afterwards challenged de jure . 2. Let us consider how this power hath been exercised to the Introduction of Idolatry , and divers corruptions and superstitions , to the destruction of Kingdoms , the blood of the Martyrs , and tumults and confusions , too long to relate . II. Vse . To perswade you to accept Christ as your head , we are to preach him as Lord , 2 Cor. 4.5 . you are to receive him as Lord , Col. 2.6 . our consent is necessary . God hath appointed him , and the Church appointeth him : God by authority , the Church by consent . We voluntarily acknowledge his dignity and submit unto him , both with a consent of dependance and subjection . Some God draweth to Christ and gives them to him , and him to them ; Ioh. 6.44 . All that live within hearing , have means to seek this Grace , and if they so do , they shall not lose their labour . Gods set not men about unprofitable work , mind but the duties of the baptismal covenant , and the business is at an end , Acts 2.39 . III. Vse . To put us upon self-reflection . If Christ be your head , 1. You must stand under a correspondent Relation to Christ ; be members of his mystical body , which is done by faith and repentance . 2. None can be a true Members of Christ body who doth not receive vital Influence from him ; Rom. 8.9 . It is not enough to be members of some visible church , they that are united to him , have life ; there is an influence of common Gifts according to the part we sustain in the body . A common Christian hath common Graces , those gifts of the spirit which God gives not to the Heathen World ; as knowledge of the Mysteries of Godliness , ability of utterance about heavenly things , Heb. 6.4 . 3. If Christ be our head , we must make conscience of the Duties which this Relation bindeth us unto : As obedience , and self-denial . 1. Obedience to his Laws , and the motions of his Spirit . His Laws ; Luke 6.46 . Why call you me Lord , Lord and do not the things which I say . The motions of his Spirit , Rom. 8.14 . As many as are led by the spirit of God , they are the sons of God. 2. Self-denial . Christ spared not his natural body to promote the good of his mystical Body , he exposed his life for our Salvation , we should hazzard all for his Glory . Nature teaches us to lift up the hands to save the head . 4. There must be sutableness and imitation , 1 Ioh. 2.6 . He that abideth in him , ought to walk as he walketh . 5. If you be planted into his Mystical body , you will make conscience of Love and Tenderness . IV. Vse . Let us Triumph in this Head , depend on him . There are two Arguments , his Ability , and his Sympathy . 1. His Ability : He can give us Life , Strength , Health , Eph. 3.16 . That he would grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthned with might by his spirit in the inner man. Col. 1.15 . Strengthned with all might , according to his glorious power unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness . 2. His Sympathy : He is touched with the feeling of our Infirmities : Heb. 4.15 . We have not an high priest , which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities ; but was in all points ●empted like as we are , yet without sin . The Head is concerned for the Members . SERMON VI. COL . 1.18 . Who is the beginning , the first born from the dead . I Come now to consider the first particular Title which is given to Christ : There are two other Titles given to Christ ; the one respects the state of Grace , the other the state of Glory : And First , With respect to the state of Grace , he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the beginning ; that is , Origo mundi meli●ris , the beginning of the new Creature , as well as the Old ; for the same place and dignity which Christ hath in the order of Nature , he hath in the order of Grace also . Therefore he is called the beginning of the creation of God , Rev. 3.14 . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not taken there passively , as if it were the first thing that was created , but actively , that he giveth a being and beginuing to all things that are created ; and by the Creation of God is meant the new Creation . So that the Point is . Doctrine . That Iesus Christ is the Author and beginning of the new Creati●● . I shall briefly explain this , and pass to the next branch . Christ is the beginning two wayes : I. In a way of Order and Dignity . II. In a way of Causality . 1. In a way of Order . As first and chief of the renewed state . This is many ways set forth in Scripture . Two things I shall take notice of . 1. That he is the builder of the Church . 2. The Lord and Governour of it . 1. As Founder and Builder of the Church , Matth. 16.18 . Thou art Peter , and upon this Rock will I build my Church . Christ challenges it to himself as his own peculiar prerogative to build the Church . More fully the Apostle , Heb. 3.3 , 4 , 5. For this man was ●●unted worthy of more glory than Moses , in as much as he that builded the house , hath more honour than the house , for every house is built by some man , but he that buildeth all things is God. And again Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant , but Christ as a Son over his own house . The scope of the Apostle is to prove that Christ must have the preheminence above all others that have been imployed in and about Gods House : Moses was one of the chief of that sort , that had greater familiarity with God than others , and intrusted by him in very great and weighty matters ; yet Christ was not onely equal to Moses , but far above him : he proveth it by a comparison taken from a Builder , and an House ; and from a Lord of the House , and a Servant in the House ; but Christ is the builder of the House , and Moses but a part of the House : Christ is the Lord , and Moses but the servant ; therefore Christ is more excellent and worthy of greater honour . One of the Nobl●st works of God is the Church of the First-born ; none could build , frame and constitute this but the Son of God coming down in our flesh , and so recovering the lost world into an holy society , which might be dedicated to God. For the materials of this house are men sinful and guilty ; neither Men nor Angels could raise them up into an holy Temple to God ; none but the Eternal word , or the Son of God Incarnate , ●e that buildeth all things is God : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all these things ; the things treated of , he doth not speak of the first creation , but the second ; the restoring of the lapsed World to God. 2. The other Honour is , that Christ is Lord of the new creation , as well as the founder and builder of it ; for the World to come is put in subjection to him , not to the Angels , Heb. 2.7 . By the World to come is not meant the state of Glory , but the state of the Church under the times of the Gospel . It is made subject to God , the Redeemer , it is solely and immediately in his Power , and under his Authority , and cast into a dependance upon him . II. In a way of Causality . So he is the beginning , either as a Moral , or efficient cause . 1. As a moral Meritorious cause : We are renewed by Gods creating power , but through the intervening Mediation of Christ : Or Gods creating power is put forth with respect to his Merit . The life of Grace , is purchased by his death : 1 Ioh. 4.9 . God sent his onely begotten son into the world , that we might live by him . Here spiritually , hereafter eternally . For life is opposite to death incurred by sin . We were dead legally , as sentenced to death by the Law ; and spiritually , as disabled for the service of our Creator . And how by him ? that he speaketh of verse 10. by his being a propitiation . We were in the state of death , when the doors of Mercy were first opened to us , under the guilt and power of sin ; but we live , when the guilt of sin is pardoned , and the power of sin broken ; but this life we have not without Christs being a propitiation for our sins , or doing that which was necessary , whereby God without impeachment of honour might shew himself placable and propitious to Mankind . 2. As an efficient cause by the efficacy of his Spirit , who worketh in us as Members of Christs Mystical Body . Wherefore it is said , 2 Cor. 5.17 . If any man be in Christ he is a new creature . And Eph. 2.10 . We are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus unto good works . Whatever Grace we have , cometh from God , through Christ as Mediator , and from him we have it by virtue of our union with him . It is first applied by the converting Grace , and then continually supplied by the confirming Grace of the Spirit . The influence we have from him as our head , is life and likeness . 1. Life : Gal. 2.20 . I am crucified with Christ , nevertheless I live , yet not I , but Christ liveth in me , and the life which I now live in the flesh , &c. Christ is the beginning of the new life ; therefore he is called the Prince or Author of Life . All life is derived from the head to the body , so we derive life from Christ , Ioh. 6.57 . As I live by the father , so he that eateth me shall live by me . We derive life from Christ as he from the Father . 2. Likeness : Gal. 4.19 . My little children of whom I travel in birth till Christ be formed in you . And 2 Cor. 3.18 . It is for the honour of Christ that his Image and superscription should be upon his Members to distinguish them from others . In short , as to Life he is the Root : Ioh. 15.1 , 2. I am the true vine , and &c. As to Likeness , he is the pattern , Rom. 8.29 . Whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate , to be conformed to the Image of his son , that he might be the first-born among many brethren . Secondly , The Reasons of this . 1. It is for the honour of the Son of God that he should be head of the New World. In the Kingdom of Christ all things are new . There is a new covenant which is the Gospel , a new Paradise ; not that where Adam enjoyed God among the Beasts and Trees of the Garden , but where the Blessed injoy God amongst the Angels . A new Ministry , not the Family of Aaron , or Tribe of Levi , but the Ministry of Reconciliation whom God hath qualified and fitted to be dispensers of these holy Mysteries . New ordinances , we serve God not in the oldness of the Letter , but the newness of the Spirit ; new Members , or new creatures , that are made partakers of the benefits ; therefore also a new head , or a second Adam that must be the beginning of this new Creation ; and that is the Lord Jesus Christ who is made a quickning spirit to all his members , 1 Cor 15.45 . The first Adam was made a living soul , the second a quickning Spirit . Adam communicated natural life to his posterity , but from Christ we have the spirit . 2. It is suited to our lost estate . We were in a state of Apostasie and defection from God , averse from all good , prone to all evil : Now that we might have a new being and life , the Son of God came in our Nature to rectifie the disordered creation : The scripture representeth man as blind in his Mind , perverse in his Will , rebellions in his Affections , having no sound part left in him to mend the rest ; therefore we must be changed ; but by whom ? who shall make us of unclean to become pure and holy ? Not one amongst all the bare natural sons of Men , Iob 14.4 . of carnal to become spiritual . We must be new made and new born , Ioh. 3.6 . That which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the spirit is spirit . That we may mind the things of the spirit , and not of the flesh ; of worldly to become heavenly : he that formeth us for this very thing is God , 2 Cor. 5.5 . He that is the framer and maker of all things ; a God of infinite Wisdom , Power , and Love , he frameth and createth us a-new . VSES . I. To shew us the Necessity of Regeneration . II. The Excellency of it . I. The Necessity . We must have another beginning , than we had as bare creatures ; it is one thing to make us men , another to make us Saints or Christians . We have Understanding , Will , Affections and Senses as Men , but we have these san●●●●d as Christians : The World thinketh Christianity puts strange names upon ordinary things , but is it an ordinary thing , to row against the stream of flesh and blood ? and to raise men to those inclinations , and affections to which nature is an utter stranger ? to have a Divine Nature put into us ? 2 Pet. 1.4 . the necessity is more bound upon us , if we look upon our selves not onely as Men , but Christians : for whosoever is in Christ is a New Creature . Some are in Christ by external Profession , de jure , they are bound to be new Creatures , that they may not dishonour their Head. Others by real internal Union ; they not onely ought to be , but de facto are , new creatures , because they are made partakers of his Spirit , and by that Spirit are renewed and sanctified . Little can they make out their recovery to God and interest in Christ , who are not sensible of any change wrought in them , who have the old thoughts , the old discourses , the old passions , and the old affections , and their old conversations still : The same deadness to holy things , the same proneness to please the flesh , the same carelessness to please or honour God ; and the drift and bent of their lives is as much for the world , and as little for God and heaven as before . II. The Excellency of Regeneration , or renewing Grace . What a benefit it is , it appeareth in two things . 1. That it is the fruit of Reconciling Grace ; 2 Cor. 5.18 . All things are of God , who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ , and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation . God gives Grace , onely as the God of Peace , as pacified by the death of Christ , the holy Spirit is the gift of his Love , and the fruit of this Peace and Reconciliation which Christ made for us . Our Lord Jesus Christ merited this Grace by the value of his sacrifice and bloody sufferings , Tit. 3.5 , 6. 2. It is applyed to us by the Almighty power of his Spirit . Christ is first the Ransom for , then the fountain of Life to our souls , and so the honour of our intire and whole recovery is to be ascribed onely to our Redeemer , who as he satisfied the Justice of God for our sins , so he also purchased a power to change our hearts , and he purchased this power into his own hands , not into anothers , and therefore doth accomplish it by his Spirit , 2 Cor. 3.18 . We should often think what a foundation God hath layed for the dispensation of his grace and how he would demonstrate his infinite love in giving us his son to be a propitiation for us , and at the same time sheweth forth his infinite power in renewing and changing the heart of man , and all to bring us back to him to make us capable of serving and pleasing him . I come now to the other Title which respects the life of Glory : The first-born from the dead . The same appellation almost is given to Christ when he is called , Rev. 1.5 . The first begotten from the dead . The reason of both is because those that arise from the dead are as it were new born , and therefore the Resurrection from the dead is called a Regeneration , Matth. 19.28 . And as to Christ in particular , the Grave , when he was in it , is represented as being under the pains and throws of a woman in Travel , Acts 2.24 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God having loosed the pains of death , for it was not possible that he should be holden of it . But which is not onely a Metaphor , but an higher Mistery , St. Paul referreth that Prophesie , Psal. 2.7 . Thou art my son , this day have I begotten thee ; in Acts 13.33 . to the Resurrection of Christ : God hath raised up Iesus from the dead , as it is also written , thou art my son , this day have I begotten thee . Things are said to be done , when they are manifested to be done . Compare , Rom. 1.4 . Declared to be the son of God with power , according to the spirit of holiness , by the resurrection from the dead . So the Adoption of Believers shall appear by their Resurrection ; Rom. 8.19 . The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Verse 23. And not onely they , but our selves also , which have the first fruits of the spirit , even we our selves groan within our selves , waiting for the adoption , to wit the redemption of our body . 1 Joh. 3.2 . It doth not yet appear what we shall be , but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him , for we shall see him as he is . This for the Title of First-born from the dead . Doctrine . That Christs rising from the dead is the evidence and assurance of a Christians happy Resurrection . 1. Let me open the Terms . 2. Vindicate the Notion . 3. Shew you how this is an Evidence and Assurance to all good Christians of their happy and joyful Resurrection . 1. For the Terms . He is here called The first-born from the dead . If the Grave was as the Womb to him , and his Resurrection as a Birth , then Christ was in a manner born when he rose again . Onely he hath the precedency , he is the first-born , he rises first , and surely others will follow after him . So we read , Acts 26.23 . That he should be the first-born that should rise from the dead ; as he saith elsewhere , first Christ , then they that are Christs . Christ hath the primacy of Order , and the principality of influence . So again , he is said to be the first fruits of them that slept , 1 Cor. 15.20 . As in the consecrating of the first-fruits , the whole harvest is also consecrated ; so Christ by rising himself , raises all others with him to Eternal Glory and Happiness . And so his Resurrection is a certain proof that others shall have a Resurrection also . 2. Let us vindicate the Notion here used by the Apostle . How was he the first-born ? the first-fruits ? the first-raised from the Dead ? Two Objections lye against it . 1. That many were raised from the dead before Christ. 2. Concerning the Resurrection of the Wicked . They are not parts of his Mistical body , and in respect of them how could Christ rise as the first-born , and the first-fruits . 1. For the first objection , how was Christ the first , since many were raised before him ? As the Widow of Sarepta's Son , that was raised to Life by Elijah , 1 Kings 17. The Shunamites son by Elisha , 2 Kings 4. A dead man by the touch of Elisha's bones , 1 Kings 13.21 . Our Saviour in his Life time raised the Widow of Nains only Son , Luk. 7.15 . Iairus's daughter , Luke 8.55 . Lazarus , Iohn 11.44 . Some others at his death Matth. 27.52 . how was he then the first , I answer we must distinguish of a proper and an improper Resurrection : Christ was the first-born from the dead , because he arose from the dead by a proper Resurrection which is to arise again to a life immortal ; others were raised again to a mortal estate , and so the great disease was rather removed then cured . Christs Resurrection is a Resurrection to immortality not to dye any more , as the Apostle saith , death hath no more power over him , they onely returned to their natural Life , they were raised from the dead but still mortal ; but he whom God raised again shall see no corruption , Acts 13.34 . 2. Others are raised by the power and vertue of his Resurrection , but he hath risen again by his own power , Ioh. 10.18 . I have power to lay down my life , and power to take it up again , raising the dead is a work of divine power , for it belongs to him to restore life who gave it at first . Therefore Christ is said not only to be raised again , but to rise from the dead , Rom. 4.25 . He dyed for our offences , and rose again for our Iustification , as the Sun sets and rises by his own motion . 3. All those that rose again before Christ arose onely by special dispensation , to lay down their bodies once more when God should see fit , and rose only as private and single persons , but Christ rose as a publick person . His Resurrection is the cause and pattern of ours , for head and members do not rise by a different power , he rose ato gain shew the vertue that should quicken our mortal bodies , and raise them at length . 2. The second objection is concerning the raising of the wicked , Christ cannot be the first-born or the first-fruits to them , they belong not to his mystical body , the first-born implyeth a relation to the rest of the Family , and offering of the first-fruits did not sanctifie the Tares , the Cockle or the Darnel , or the Weeds that grow amongst the Corn , but only the Corn it self . I answer , 1. Certain it is that the wicked shall rise again , there is no question of that , Act. 24.15 . I believe a Resurrection of the dead both of the just and unjust , all that have lived whether they have done good or evil , Matth. 5.45 . He makes his Sun to rise on the evil and the good , and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust , and it is said Iohn 5.28 , 29. All that are in their graves shall hear his voice , and shall come forth , they that have done good to the Resurrection of Life , and they that have done evil to the Resurrection of damnation , both must rise that both may receive a full recompence according to their several wayes , and though it be said Psal. 1.6 . The ungodly shall not stand in the judgement , nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous , it doth not infringe this truth , the sense is those unhappy miscreants shall not be able to abide the tryal , as being self condemned : To stand in the judgment is to make a bold defence , and whereas it is said also they shall not stand in the congregation of the righteous : you must know that at the day of doom , there is a congregation or a gathering together of all men , then a segregation , a separating the Sheep from the Goats , then an aggregation , he shall set the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left , so that they make up two distinct bodies , one of the good which is there called the congregation of the righteous ; the other of the wicked , who are to be judged by Christ as a just and righteous Judge , assisted with his Holy Angels and the great Assembly and Council of Saints : Not one of the sinners shall remain in the company of the righteous , nor appear in their Society . 2. The wicked are raised , ex officio Iudicis , not beneficio Mediatoris : they are raised by Christ as a Judge , but not by him as a Redeemer : The one sort are raised by the power of his vindicative Justice , the other by the Holy Ghost by vertue of his Covenant , Rom. 8.11 . He shall quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you : The one by Christs power from without , put forth by him as Judge of dead and living ; The other by an inward quickning influence that flows from him as their proper head . When the Reaper gathers the Wheat into his Barn , the Tares are bound in bundles and cast into unquenchable Fire , Matth. 15.30 . 3. The wicked are forced to appear ▪ and cannot shift that dreadful Tribunal , the other go joyfully forth to meet the Bridegroom , and when the sentence of condemnation shall be executed upon the one , the other by vertue of Christs Life and Resurrection shall enter into the possession of a blessed and Eternal Life , wherein they shall injoy God and Christ , and the company of Saints and Angels , and sing Hallelujahs for ever and ever . Thirdly , How is this an evidence and assurance to all good Christians , of their happy and glorious Resurrection ? 1. The Resurrection of Christ doth prove that there shall be a Resurrection . 2. That to the faithful it shall be a blessed and glorious Resurrection : 1. There shall be a Resurrection , it is necessary to prove that ; partly because it is the foundation of all Godliness , if there were not another Life after this , there were some ground for that saying of the Atheists , Let us eat and drink for to morrow we shall dye , 2 Cor. 15.32 . If there be no future estate nor being after this Life , let us enjoy the good things of the World whilst we can , for with in a little while death cometh , and then there is an end of all . These Atheistical discourses and temptations to sensuality were more justifiable if men were annihilated by death , no , the soul is immortal and the body shall rise again , and come into the judgment , and unless we live Holily , a terrible judgement it will be to us . Partly because we cannot easily believe that the same body shall be placed in heaven , which we see committed to the Grave to rot there . Of all Articles of Religion this is most difficultly assented unto , now there is relief for us in this business in hand , Christ is the first-born from the dead . There were many praeludia resurrectionis , foretokens and pledges of the Resurrection given to the old World , in the Translation of Enoch , the Rapture of Elijah , the reviving of these few dead ones which I spake of before , but the great and publick evidence that is given for the assurance of the World , is Christs rising from the Grave ; this makes our Resurrection 1. Possible . 2. Easie. 3. Certain and Necessary . 1. Possible , the least that we can gather from it is this , that it is not impossible for dead men to rise , for that which hath been may be . We have the proof and instance of it in Christ , see how the Apostle reasoneth , 1 Cor. 15.13 . If there be no Resurrection from the dead , then Christ is not risen , and then our whole Faith falleth to the ground , For all Religion is bottomed on the Resurrection of Christ , if therefore Christ be risen why should it seem an incredible thing to us , that others should be raised also . 2. It is Easie , for by rising from the dead he hath conquered death and gotten the victory of it , 1 Cor. 15.57 . A separation there will be of the soul from the body , but it is not such as shall last for ever . The victory over sin is the victory over death , and the conquest of sin makes death an entrance into immortality : The Scriptures often speak of Christs destroying the power of death , Heb. 2.14 , That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death . The devils design was by tempting men to sin , to keep them for ever under the power of death , but Christ came to rescue men from that power by a Resurrection from Death to Life . Again it is said he hath abolished death and brought Life and Immortality to light in the Gospel . He hath voided the power of death by taking a course for the destruction of sin , and made a clear Revelation of that Life and Immortality which was not so certainly known before . We look to the natural impossibilities , how what is turned to dust may be raised again , because we do not consider the power of God , but the moral impossibility is the greater , for the sting of death is sin , and the strength of sin is the Law , that which makes sin able to do us hurt is the guilt of sin , otherwise it would be but as a calm sleep , and this guilt is bound upon us by the Law of the righteous God , which threatneth eternal Death to the sinner . Now get free from sin and it is easie to believe the conquest of death : I will prove two things , that Christs R●surrection shews both his victory over sin , and his victory over death . 1 , His victory over sin : That he hath perfectly satisfyed for sin , and appeased the wrath of God , who is willing to be reconciled with all those that come to the Faith and Obedience of the Gospel , which could not be if Christ had remained under the power of death , for the Apostle saith , 1 Cor. 15.17 . If Christ had not risen ye are yet in your sins , that is , God is not pacifyed , there is no sufficient means of atonement or foundation layed for our Reconciliation with him but his Resurrection declareth that he is fully satisfyed with the ransom paid for sinners by Jesus Christ , for it was in effect the releasing of our Surety out of Prison , so it is said , Rom. 4.15 . He was delivered for our offences , and raised up for our Iustification : he dyed to expiate and do away sin , and his Resurrection sheweth it was a sufficient Ransom , and therefore he can apply the vertue of it to us . 2. His victory over death : For he got out of it , which not only shews there is a possibility for a man by the power of God to be raised from Death to Life , but a facility ; as a second Adam , he brought Resurrection into the World ; there were two Adams : the one Man brought Death , and another brought Resurrection into the World. The sentence of death is gone out against all the children of Adam as such , and the Regenerate Believers that are recovered by Christ shall be raised to immortal Life , he hath gotten out of the power of death , so shall we . 3. Certain and necessary . For several Reasons . 1. Our relation to Christ , he is the head of the body , now the head will not live gloriously in Heaven and leave his members behind him , under the power of death : Believers are called the fullness of him that filleth all things , Eph. 1.23 . Head and Members make up one perfect Man or mystical Body , which is called the fullness of Christ , Eph. 4.13 . Otherwise it would be a maimed Christ , or a Head without a Body , and therefore we should not doubt , but he will raise us up with him . Secondly , The charge and office of Christ which he will attend upon and see that it be carefully performed , Iohn 6.39 . This is the Fathers will which hath sent me , that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing , but raise it up again at the last day : as none so nothing in the Prophets expression concerning the good Shepherd , not so much as a leg or a piece of an ear , that he should be carefull to preserve every one who belongs to his charge , and what ever befalls them here , he is to see them forth coming at the last day , and to give a particular account of them to God. Now certainly Christ will be very careful to fulfill his charge and make good his office . Thirdly , There is the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ towards his faithful ones who have hazarded their bodies , and their bodily interests for his sake , 1 Thess. 4.14 . If we believe that Iesus dyed and rose again even those also which sleep in Iesus , will God bring with him . Upon the belief of Christs death and Resurrection depends also the raising of their bodies that dye for the Testimony of Christ , or by occasion of Faith in Christ , and that so certainly and speedily , that they that dye not at all shall at the day of Judgment have no advantage of those that have layen in the Grave so many years , the raising of the one being in the same twinkling of an eye with the change of the other , for the Apostle saith , they that are alive shall not prevent them that are a sleep . So 2 Cor. 4.14 . Knowing that he that raised up the Lord Iesus , shall raise us up also with Iesus , and present us with you . He gives it as the reason why he had the same spirit of Faith with David , who in his sore afflictions professed his confidence in God , because he believed he spake . So they do profess the Faith of Christ , though imminent death and danger is always represented to them , as before their eyes : because they stedfastly believed that God would raise them to a glorious estate through Christ , therefore did they openly proclaim what they did Believe concerning him . To the same purpose to confirm Timothy against all danger of death , 1 Tim. 6.13 . I give thee charge in the sight of God who quickneth all things , that is , as thou believest that God is able and will raise thee from the dead , that thou hold out constantly unto the death and do not shrink for persecution . 2. It proveth that to the faithful it shall be a blessed and a glorious Resurrection : 1. Because Christs Resurrection is not only a cause but a pattern of ours ; there is not onely a Communion between the Head and Members in the Mystical Body but a conformity . The members were appointed to be conformed to their Head as in obedience and sufferings , so in happiness and glory here in the one , hereafter in the other , Rom. 8.29 . He hath predestinated us to be conformed to the Image of his Son : As Christ was raised from the dead , so we shall be raised from the dead , God raised him from the dead , and gave him glory and honour , that your Faith and hope might be in God , 1 Pet. 1.21 . So God will raise us from the dead and put glory and honour upon us . There is indeed a glory put upon Christ far surpassing the glory of all created things ; but our glory is like his for quality and kind , though not for quantity , degree and measure , as to those prerogatives and priviledges which his body in his Exaltation is endowed withall . Such a glory it is that Christ shall be admired in his Saints , the World shall stand gazing at what he means to do . 2. By the grant of God. They have a right and title to this glorious estate , being admitted into his family ; they may hereafter expect to be admitted into his presence . The Holy Spirit abideth in them as an earnest , till it be accomplished , Eph. 1.14 . Ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise , which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession . The Spirit of Holiness marketh and distinguisheth them as Heirs of Promise from all others : The mark or seal is the impression of Christ's Image on the soul ; this seal becomes an earnest or part of payment , which is a security or assurance to us that more will follow , a fuller conformity to Christ in the glorious estate , and this earnest doth continue till the redemption of the purchased possession ; the purchased possession is the Church , and their redemption is their final deliverance , Eph. 4.30 . when their bodies are redeemed from the hands of the grave . See Rom. 8.28 . VSES . I. Vse . Is to perswade you to the belief of two grand Articles of Faith ; the Resurrection of Christ , and your own Resurrection . 1. The Resurrection of Christ. The raising of Christ from the dead is the great prop and foundation of our Faith , 1 Cor. 15.14 . If Christ be not risen , then is our preaching vain , and your faith also is vain . All the Apostles preaching was built upon this supposition , that Christ died and rose again . Partly because this is the great evidence of the truth of the Christian Religion ; for hereby Christ was evidenced to be what he gave out himself to be , the eternal Son of God , and the Saviour of the World , whereof he hath given assurance to all men , in that he raised him from the dead , Acts 23.31 . that is the ground of Faith and Assurance . So Acts 13.33 . God hath raised Iesus from the dead , for it is written , Thou art my son , &c. Partly to shew , that he is in a capacity to convey life to others both spiritual and eternal ; which , if he had remained under the state of death , could not be : The life of Believers is derived from the life of Christ , Ioh. 14.19 . Because I live , &c. If he had been holden of death , he had neither been a fountain of Grace nor Glory to us ; 1 Pet. 1.3 . He hath begotten us unto a lively hope , by the resurrection of Christ from the dead . Partly , because the raising of Christ is the pledge of Gods omnipotency , which is our relief in all difficult cases ; the power which raised Christ , exceedeth all contrary powers , Eph. 1.20 , 21. Now the resurrection of Christ , besides the veritableness of the report , manifested by the circumstances , when a great stone was rolled at the mouth of the Sepulchre , a guard of Souldiers set to watch against all fraud and impostures , yet he brake thorow ; his frequent Apparitions to the Apostles , yea to 500 disciples at once ; 1 Cor. 15.6 . a great part of which were alive to testifie the truth of it , for some competent space of time ; his pouring out of the Spirit ; the Apostles witnessing the truth of it in the teeth of opposition ; his appearing from Heaven to Paul ; the prophesies of the Old Testament foretelling of it ; the Miracles wrought to confirm it ; the holiness of the Persons who were employed as chosen Witnesses , their unconcernedness in all temporal Interests ; their hazarding of all , their success : It would make a volum to give you the evidences . 2. Your own Resurrection , what may facilitate our belief and hope of it ? 1. Consider it is a work of Omnipotency . We are apt to say , how can it be , that when our bodies are turned into dust and that dust mingled with other dust , and hath undergone many transmutations , that ●very one shall have his own body and flesh again ? Why consider the Infinite and Absolute Power of God , and this will make it more reconcileable to your tho●ghts , and this hard point will be of easier digestion to your Faith. To an Infinite power there is no difficulty at all , Phil. 3.21 . According to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself . He appeals to Gods power , how much Gods power out-works our thoughts ; for he were not infinite if he might be comprehended . We are not fit Judges of the extent of his power ; many things are marvellous in our eyes , which are not so to his , Zech. 8.6 . Therefore we must not confine God to the limits of created b●ings , or our finite understandings . Alass ! our Cockel-●hell cannot empty an Ocean ; we do no more know what God can do , than a worm knoweth a man. He that made the world out of nothing , cannot he raise the dead ? He that brought such multitudes of creatures out of the dark Chaos , hath he forgotten what is become of our dust ? He that gave Life and Being to that which before was not , cannot he raise the dead ? He that turned Moses Rod into a Serpent , and from a Serpent into a Rod again , cannot he raise us out of dust into men , and ●u●n us from men into dust , and from the same dust 〈◊〉 us up into the same men and women ●●ain ? 2. We have a releif from the Justice of God. All will grant that God is , and that God is a rewarder of good and bad . Now in this Life he doth not dispense these rewards : Many times here , instruments of publick good are made a sacrifice to publick hatred , and wicked men have the world at will ; therefore there is a Judgment , when this life is ended ; and if there be a Judgment , men must be capable to receive reward and punishment . You will say , so they are by having an immortal Soul ; I , but the soul is not all of a man , the body is a part ; it hath had its share in the work , and therefore it is most equal to conceive it shall have its share in the reward and punishment . It is the body which is gratified by the pleasure of sin for a season , the body which hath endured the trouble and pain of Faithful obedience unto Christ , therefore there shall be a Resurrection of just and unjust that men may receive according to what they have done in the body . God made the whole man , therefore glorifies and punishes the whole man. The Apostle urgeth this as to the Godly , 1 Cor. 15.29 . 3. Gods unchangeable Covenant-Love , ●●●ch inclines him to seek the dust of his ●onfederates . God hath taken a believer into Covenant with himself , body and soul ; therefore Christ proveth the Resurrection from Gods Covenant-Title ; Matth. 22.31 , To be a God , is certainly to be a Benefactor , Gen. 25.26 . Not blessed be Shem , but blessed be the Lord God of Sem. And to be a Benefactor , becoming an Infinite Eternal Power . If he had not Eternal Glory to bestow upon us he would not justifie his Covenant-Title , Heb. 11.16 . To whom God is a benefactor , he is a Benefactor not to one part onely , but to their whole Persons : Their bodies had the mark of his Covenant upon them , their dust is in Covenant with him , and where-ever it is dispersed , he will look after it . Their death and rotting in the Grave doth not make void his Interest , nor cause his Care and Affection towards them to cease . 4. We have relief also from the Redemption of Christ , which extendeth to the bodies of the Saints , as it is often interpreted in Scripture ; as where Christ speaks of his fathers charge , this was a special Article in the Eternal Covenant ; Ioh. 6.39 , 40. This is the will of my Father , that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing , but raise it up at the last day . Christ hath ingaged himself to this , he is the Guardian of the Grave , as Rispah kept the dead bodies of Sauls sons , 2 Sam. 21.10 . Christ hath the keyes of death and hell , he hath a charge of the Elect to the very day of their Resurrection that he may make a good account of them , and may not lose so much as their dust , but gather it up again . What shall I say ! when the intention of his death is spoken of , 1 Thes. 5.10 . That whether we wake or sleep , we should live together with him ; that is , whether dead or alive ; for they that are dead in the Lord , are said to be fallen asleep . Whether we live or die we should live a spiritual life here , and eternal life in Glory hereafter : So where the obligation , 1 Cor. 6.20 . Ye are bought with a price . There would be no consequence if Christ had not purchased the body as well as the Soul , and Christ will not lose one jot of his purchase , if he expect duty from th● body , you may expect glory for the body ; so redemption is particularly applyed to the body ; Rom. 8.23 . Waiting for the Adoption the redemption of our bodies . Then is Christs Redemption full , when the body is exempted from all the penalties induced by sin . 5. The honour which is put upon the bodies of the Saints . 1. They are members of Christ , 1 Cor. 6.15 . Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ , shall I then take the Members of Christ and make them members of an harlot , God forbid . No Members of Christ can for ever remain under death , but shall certainly b● raised up again . When a Godly Man ●●eth , the union between Soul and Body is dissolved , but not the union between him and Christ , as Christs own natural body in the grave was not separated from his Person , and the Hypostatical Union was not dissolved ; it was the Lord of Glory which was crucified , and the Lord of Glory which was l●yed in the Grave , so the Mystical 〈◊〉 is not dissolved between Christ and 〈…〉 , who are his Mystical Body , 〈◊〉 they are dead . 2. They are Temples of the holy Ghost ; therefore if they be destroyed they shall be built up again , 1 Cor. 6.19 . Know ye not that your bodies are temples of the holy Ghost . As Christ redeemed not the soul onely , but the whole man , so the Spirit in Christs Name takes Possession both of body and soul ; the body is cleansed and sanctified by the spirit , as well as the soul ; and therefore it is quickned by the Spirit ; Rom. 8.11 . If the spirit of him , that raised Iesus from the dead , dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit which dwelleth in you . The Holy Ghost will not leave his Mansion , or dwelling-place ; the dust of Believers belongs to them who were once his Temple . So it is a pledge of the Resurrection . Now therefore labour with your selves , think often of it . SERMON . VII . Col. 1.19 . For it pleased the father that in him should all fulness dwell . With Chap. 2.9 . For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily . THese words are produced to prove , that there is no defect in the Evangelical Doctrine , and therefore there needeth no Addition to it from the Rudiments of men . That there is no defect , he proveth from the Author of it Jesus Christ , who was not onely Man , but God ; and beyond the Will of God , we need not look : If God will come from heaven to teach us the way thither , surely his Teaching is sufficient , his doctrine containeth all things necessary to salvation . This is the Argument of these words , For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily . In which words observe three things : First , The House , In Him. Secondly , The Inhabitant , All the fulness of the Godhead . Thirdly , The manner of dwelling in the Word Bodily . First , The House , or place of Residence , in Him. In the Man Christ Jesus ; or in that Humane Nature in which he carried on the business of our Salvation : As despicable and abject as it was in the eyes of men , yet it was the temple and seat of the Godhead . Secondly , The Inhabitant : The fulness of the Godhead . Not a portion of God onely ; or his Gifts and Graces ( as we are made partakers of the Divine Nature , 1 Pet. 1.4 . ) but the whole Godhead . Thirdly , the Manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Bodily . The word may relate , 1. To the shadows and figures of the Law , and so it signifieth Essentially , Substantially ; God dwelt in the Tabernacle , Temple , or Ark of the Covenant ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because of the figures of his Presence . In Christ , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , bodily . As his Humane Nature was the true Tabernacle or Temple in which he resid●th . Christ calls his Humane Nature a Temple , Ioh. 2.19 . Or else , 2. With respect to the intimacy and closeness of the Union ; so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred personally : For body is often put for a person ; the two Natures were so united in him , that he is one Christ. Doctrine . That Iesus Christ is True God , and True Man in one Person . I shall prove the Point . I. By Testimonies of Scripture . II. By Types . III. By Reasons taken from Christs Office. I. By Testimonies of Scriptures . I shall pass by those that speak of the reality of either nature apart , and onely alledge those that speak of both together . Now these do either belong to the Old Testament or the New. I begin with the former , the T●stimonies of the old Testament , because this union of the two Natures in the Person of Christ ; is indeed a Mystery , but such as was foretold long before it came to pass ; and many of the places wherein it was foretold were so understood by the ancient Iews . The controversie between them and Christians was not whether the Messiah were to be both God and man , they agreed in that ; but whether this was fulfilled , or might be applied to Jesus of Nazareth . But the lat●er Iews finding themselves not able to stand to the issue of that plea , say that we attribute many things to Jesus of Nazareth , which were not foretold of the Messiah to come ; as namely , that he should be God-man in one person : Therefore 't is necessary that this should be proved , that the old Testament aboundeth with predictions of this kind . Let us begin with the first Promise touching the Messiah , which was made to Adam after his Fall , for the restoring of Mankind , Gen. 3.15 . The seed of the woman should bruise the serpents Head. That is to say one of her seed , to be born in Time , should conquer the Devil , Death , and Sin. Now when he is called the seed of the woman , 't is apparent he must be Man , and made of a woman : And when 't is said that he shall break the serpents head , who can do this but onely God : 'T is a work of Divine Omnipo●●ncy , for Satan hath much more power than any bare man. Therefore 't is said , Rom. 16.20 . The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly . Come we next to the Promise made to Abraham , Gen. 12.3 . In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed . In thee , that is , in thy seed , as it is often explained , Gen. 22.18 . In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed . This seed was Christ the Messiah to come . Now he was to be God-man : He was to be Man , for he is the seed of Abraham ; God , because that blessedness is remission of sins or Justification : For 't is said , Gal. 3.8 . The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith , preached before the Gospel unto Abraham , saying , In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed . Regeneration , and the Renovation of our natures is also included in it , as a part of this blessing , Acts 3.25 , 26. Ye are children of the prophets , and of the covenant which God made with our fathers , saying unto Abraham , in thy seed , shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed . Therefore unto you first God , having raised up his son Iesus , sent him to bless you , in turning away every one of you from his iniquities . There is also Redemption from the curse of the Law , and the gift of Eternal Life , included in it : Now all these are works proper to God alone . Let us come to the Promise made to David , 2 Sam. 7.12 , 13. I will set up thy seed after thee , and I will establish the throne of thy kingdom for ever . 'T is spoken in the Type of Solomon , but in the Mystery of Christ , who is true Man as Davids seed ; and true God , for his Kingdom is everlasting : And so David interpreteth it , Psal. 45.6 . Thy throne , O God , is for ever and ever . The Kingdom of the Messiah is never to have an end . And the Apostle affirmeth expresly , that those words are spoken to Christ the son of God , Heb. 1.7 . Let me next alledge Iobs confession of Faith , which was very Ancient , Iob 19.25 , 26. I know that my Redeemer liveth , and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth , and though after my skin , worms destroy this body , yet in my flesh I shall see God. His Redeemer was true Man as appeareth by his Title Goel ; and because he shall stand on the Earth , and be seen by his bodily eyes . True God , for he calleth him so , I shall see God. Go we on in the Scriptures , Isa. 4.2 . Christ is prophesied of ; In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful , and glorious , and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely . When he is called the Branch of the Lord , his Godhead is signified ; when he is called the fruit of the earth , his Manhood . So again , Is● . 7.14 . A virgin shall conceive and bear a son , and thou shalt call his name Imm●●uel . That is to say , God with us ; which can agree to none but to hi● that is God and Man. So that this Mystery of God Incarnate , was not hid from the Church of the Old Testament , for his very Name did import God with us , or God in our Nature reconciling us to himself . So Isa. 9.6 . To us a child is born , to us a son is given , and the government shall be upon his shoulders , and his name shall be called The wonderful Counseller , the mighty God , the everlasting father , the prince of peace . Who can interpret these speeches and A●●ributes , but of one who is God-Man ? How could he else be a child , and yet the Everlasting Father ; born of a Virgin , and yet the Mighty God. So Isa. 11.1 . with the 4th . Verse . A rod out of the S●em of Iesse , and a branch out of his roots : Therefore Man. And verse 4. He shall smi●e the earth with the rod of his mouth , and with the breath of his lips shall be slay the wicked : Therefore God. So Isa. 53.8 , He shall be taken from prison and judgement ; therefore Man : yet who shall declare his generation ? therefore God. So Ier. 23.5 , 6. A branch raised unto David , from his dea● stock ; therefore Man : yet the Lord , or Iehovah our righteousness ; therefore God. Shall I urge that speech , whereby Jesus did silence divers of the Learned Pharisees ; Psal. 110.1 . The Lord said to my Lord , sit thou on my right hand , until I make thy foes , thy footstool . He was born in the mean Estate of humane Flesh , and King Davids seed , and yet Davids Lord ; which he could not be , if he were not God himself , the King of Kings , and Lord of Lords . Well then , he was Davids Son as Man , but Davids Lord as he was God. And so do many of the Ancient Iewish Rabbins interpret this place . So again , Micah 5.2 . Thou Bethlehem Sphratah , Though thou ●e little among the thousands of Iudah , yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me , that is to be ruler in Israel : whose goings forth have been from old , from everlasting . He is born in Bethlehem , yet his goings forth are from everlasting . He came out of Bethlehem , and therefore Man ; his goings forth are from everlasting , and therefore God. So Zech. 12.10 . I will pour out the spirit of grace and supplication , and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced . He is God because he giveth the spirit of grace ; Man because he is pierced or crucified : So Zech. 13.7 . Against the man my fellow . A man he was , but Gods companion , his only begotten son , and co-essential with himself , and so God. Secondly , Come we now to the New Testament , in which this mystery is more plainly and fully demonstrated : There often the son of Man is plainly asserted to be also the Son of God. Thomas calleth him his Lord , his God , Ioh. 20.28 . We are told that the word was made flesh , Ioh. 1.14 . That God purchased the Church with his own blood , Acts 20.28 . which can be understood of no other but Christ ; by whose blood we are redeemed , and who being Incarnate , hath blood to shed for us ; But God as a pure Spirit , hath not flesh , and blood , and bones as we have . So Rom. 1.3 , 4. Iesus Christ was made of the seed of David , according to the flesh , but declared to be the son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness , &c. In respect of his Divine subsistence , he was begotten not made ; in regard of his humane Nature , made , not begotten . True Man as David was , and True God as the Spirit and Divine Nature is . Again , Rom. 9.5 . Whose are the fathers , and of whom as concerning the flesh , Christ came , who is over all , God blessed for ever . Than which , nothing can be said more express , as to that nature which is most apt to be questioned ; for surely he that is God over all , cannot be said to be a mere Creature . The Jews confessed him to be Man , and one of their blood , and Paul asserteth him to be God over all : They accounted him to be accursed , and Paul asserteth him to be blessed for ever : They thought him inferiour to the Patriarchs of whom he descended , and Paul over all ; so that no word is used in vain : and when he saith according to the flesh , he insinuateth another Nature in him to be considered by us . The next place is , 1 Cor. 2.8 . They Crucified the Lord of Glory . He was Crucified , there his humane nature is acknowledged , but in respect of the Divine nature he is called the Lord of Glory , as in the 24th . Psalm , The Lord or King of Glory , is Iehovah Sabaoth , The Lord of Hosts . Go we farther , Phil. 2.6 , 7. Who being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with Gon , but made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a Servant , and was made in the likeness of men . By the form of God is meant not only the divine Majesty and Glory , but also the divine essence it self : for without it there can be no true divine Majesty and Glory . Now this he kept hidden under his humane nature , letting onely some small Rayes sometimes to shine forth in his Miracles : but that which was most sensible and conspicuous in him , was a true humane Nature in a low and contemptible estate . Again 1 Tim. 3.16 . Great is the Mystery of Godliness , God manifested in our Flesh. That is the Eternal Son of God became Man , and assumed the humane nature into the unity of his person . Once more 1 Pet. 3.18 . He was put to death in the flesh , but quickned in the spirit . That is dyed according to his humane nature , but by his divine nature raised from the Dead : 't is not meant of his soul : quickned , signifies not one remaining alive , but made alive ; that power belongeth to God. Secondly , By Types . Those that come to hand are these . 1. Melchisedec : Gen. 14.18 . Melchisedec King of Salem , brought forth bread and wine to Abraham . Which Type is interpreted by the Apostle , Heb. 7.2 , 3. First being by interpretation King of Righteousness , and after that also King of peace . Without Father , and without Mother ; having neither beginning of dayes , nor end of Life , but made like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually . What Melchisedec was is needless to dispute . The Apostle considereth him only as he is represented in the story of Moses , who maketh no mention of his Father or Mother , Birth or Death . Certainly he was a very Man , but as he standeth in Scripture , there is no mention of Father or Mother , beginning or end , what he was or of whom he came . So is Christ as God without Mother , as Man without Father : As God without beginning ; as God Man without ending of Life . 2. Another Type of him was Iacobs Ladder . The top of which reached Heaven , and the bottom reached Earth , Gen. 28.12 . And the Angels of God were ascending , and descending upon it . This Ladder represented Christ the Son of Man , upon whom the Angels of God ascend , and descend Iohn 1.51 . The bottom which reached the earth , represented Christs humane nature , and conversing with Men : The top which reached Heaven ; his heavenly and divine nature ; and in both his mediaation with God for Men : Ascende per hominem , & per venies ad Deum , Christ reaches to Heaven in his divine original , to Earth in his Manhood , and him the Angels serve . By his dwelling in our nature , this commerce between Earth and Heaven is brought about . The third Type is the Fiery cloudy pillar , Exod. 13.21 . And the Lord went before them in the day in a pillar of a cloud , and by night in a pillar of Fire to give them light , to go by day and night , this figured Christs guidance and protection of his Church , travelling through this World to his heavenly rest : The cloud signified his humanity , the fire his divinity : There were two different substances , the fire and the cloud , yet but one pillar . So there are two different natures in Christ , his divinity shining as fire , his humanity darkning as a cloud ; yet but one Person . That pillar departed not from them all the while they travelled in the Wilderness ; so while the Churches pilgrimage lasteth Christ will conduct us , and comfort and shelter us by his presence . His Mediatory conduct ceaseth not . The fourth Type is the Tabernacle , wherein God dwelt symbolically , as in Christ bodily : There God sat on the mercy seat which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Heb. 9.5 . so Christ Rom. 3.25 . A propitiation . He there dwelt between the Cherubims , and did exhibit himself graciously to his people , as now he doth to us by Christ. The next shall be of the Scape Goat on the day of expiation , Lev. 16.10 . One Goat was to be slain , the other kept alive . The slain Goat signified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , his Flesh , or humane nature suffering , the Live Goat , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , his Immortal Deity , or as the Apostle expresseth it , 2 Cor. 13.4 . That Christ was to be crucified through weakness , yet to live by the power of God , or as we heard before , 1 Pet. 3.18 . Put to death in the Flesh and quickned by the Spirit . Because these two things could not be shadowed by any one Beast , which the Priest having killed could not make alive again ; and it was not fit that God should work mir●cles about Types ; therefore he appointed ●wo , that in the slain Beast his death might be represented ; in the Live Beast his immortality . The like mystery was represented also in the two birds for the cleansing of the Leper , Lev. 14.6 , 7. Thirdly , I prove it by Reasons taken from his office ; which may be considered in the general . And so it is expressed by one Word Mediator , or in particular according to the several functions of it , expressed by the terms of King , Priest and Prophet : or with respect to the persons that are to be considered and concerned in Christs Mediation . 1. His Office considered in the General , so he is called , Iesus the Mediator of the New Testament , Heb. 12.24 . It was agreeable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Mediator should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a middle person of the same essence with both parties , and that his operative Mediation , should presuppose his substantial Mediation , that being God Man in the same person he should make an atonement between God and Man : Sin hath made such a breach and distance between us and God , that it raiseth our fears , and causeth backwardness to draw nigh unto him , and so hindreth our love and confidence in him . How can we depend upon one so far above us , and out of the reach of our commerce , therefore a Mediator is necessary ; one that will pity us , and is more near and dear to God then we are . One in whom God doth condescend to man , and by whom Man may be encouraged to ascend to God , now who is so fit for this as Jesus Christ , God manifested in our flesh : The two natures met together in his person , and so God is nearer to Man , then he was before 〈◊〉 the pure Deity ; for he is come down to us in our flesh , and hath assumed it into the unity of his person , and man is nearer to God , for our nature dwelleth with him , so closely united , that we may have more familiar thoughts of God , and a confidence that he will look after us , and concern himself in our affairs and shew us his grace and savour , for surely he will not hide himself from his own flesh , Isa. 58.7 . This wonderfully reconcileth the heart of Man to God , and maketh our thoughts of him more comfortable and doth encourage us to free access to God. 2. Come we now to the particular offices , by which he performeth the work of a Mediator ; and they all shew the necessity of both natures : these offices and functions , are those of Prophet , Priest , and King. 1. Our Mediator hath a Prophetical office belonging to his Administration , that he may be made Wisdom to us , and therefore he must be both God and Man : God that he may not onely teach us outwardly , as an ordinary Messenger or Minister , but inwardly putting his Law into our minds , and writing it upon our hearts , Heb. 8.10 . and 2 Cor. 3.3 . Ye are manifestly declared to be the Epistle of Christ ministred by us , written not with Ink , but with the spirit of the living God , not in Tables of stone , but in the fleshly Tables of the heart . Men may be the instruments , but Christ is the Author of this Grace , and therefore he must be God : To convince mens understandings of their duty , and to incline their hearts to perform it , requireth no less then a divine power . If such an infinite vertue be necessary to cure the blindness of the body ; how much more to cure the natural blindness and darkness of the mind ! And man he must also be ; for the great Prophet of the Church was to be raised up among his brethren , like unto Moses , Deut. 18.15 . Till such an one came into the World they were to hear Moses , but then they were to hearken to him : he that was to come , was to be a Lawgiver as Moses was , but of a far more absolute and perfect Law : a Lawgiver that must match and overmatch Moses every way . He was to be a man as Moses was in respect of our infirmities , such an one as Moses was whom the Lord had known face to face , but of a far more divine nature : and approved to the World , by Miracles , Signs , and Wonders as Moses was . Again 't was prophesied of him , that as the great Prophet of the World he should be anointed , that he might come and Preach the Gospel to the poor , Isa. 62.1 . Which could not be if he had spoken from heaven in thunder , and not as a man conversed with men : Again he was to approve himself as one who had grace poured into his lips , Psal. 45.2 . That all might wonder at the gracious speeches that came from his mouth , as they did at Christs . In short that wisdom of the Father , which was wont to assume some visible shape for a time , when he would instruct the Patriarchs concerning his will , that he might hide his Majesty and put a vail upon his glory , was now to assume our nature into the unity of his Person , not a temporary and vanishing appearance . That God who at sundry times , and in divers manners speak in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets , might in these last dayes spake to us by his son , Heb. 1.1 , 2. Then God delivered his will by parcels , now by him he would settle the whole frame of the Gospel . 2. Jesus Christ as he is the Apostle of our profession ; so also he is the High Priest , Heb. 3.1 . and so must be both God and Man : Man , that he might be made sin for us : God , that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him , 2 Cor. 5.21 . Man to undertake our Redemption ; God to perform it : Man , that he might suffer , God that he might satisfie by suffering , and make our attonement full . We are purchased by the Blood of God. Man , that he might have a sacrifice to offer , God , that the offering might be of an infinite price and value , Heb. 9.14 . Man , that he might have a Life to lay down for us ; God , that the power of laying it down and taking it up again , might be in his own hands , Iohn 10.17 , 18. I lay down my Life , that I may take it agai● , no man taketh it from me , but I lay it down of my self , I have power to lay it down , and I have power to take it again . This was sit , that his suffering should be a pure voluntary act , required indeed by God , but not enforced by Man : he had a liberty at his own pleasure , as to any thing men could do , and thereby commendeth his love to sinners . What shall I say ? he was man that he might dye , he was God that by death he might destroy him that had the power of death . He was Man , that by his death he might ratifie the New Covenant ; God , that he might convey to the heirs of Promise these precious Legacies of pardon and Life . Man that he might be a merciful High Priest touched with the feeling of our infirmities ; God , that we coming boldly to the Throne of Grace , might find mercy and grace to help in every time of need , Heb. 9.15 , 16. 3. His Kingly office , he that was to be King of kings , and Lord of lords , needed to be both God and Man : God that he might cast out the Prince of this World , and having rescued his Church from the power of darkness , might govern it by his Word and Spirit , and finally present it to himself , a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle , or any such thing . Man he needed to be for his own glory , that he might be the First-born among many brethren . And Head and Members might suit , and be all of a piece ; and for our consolation that we might be heirs of God , and joynt heirs with Christ , Rom. 8.17 . And for the greater terrour and ignominy of Satan , that the seed of the Woman might break the Serpents Head. In short , God that he might govern and influence a people so scattered abroad upon the face of the Earth , and raise them up at the last day : Man , that our nature ( the dignity of which was so envyed by Satan , ) might be exalted at the right hand of Majesty , and placed so near God far above the Angelical . Thirdly , With respect to the persons who are to be considered , and concerned in Christs Mediation : God to whom we are Redeemed , Satan from whom we are Redeemed ; and we our selves who are the Redeemed of the Lord. And you shall see with respect to God , with respect to Satan , with respect to our selves : our Mediator ought to be both God and Man. 1. God he need to be , with respect to God ; that he may be appeased by a valuable compensation given to his Justice : no meer man could satisfie the Justice of God , appease his wrath , procure his favour , therefore our surety needed to be God to do this . And with respect to Satan , that he might be overcome ; now none can bind the strong one , and take away his goods , but he that is stronger then he , Luk. 11.21 . Now no mere man is a match for Satan , the Conqueror of the devil must be God , that by strong hand he may deliver us from his Tyranny . And with respect to Man , that he may be saved : Not onely because of the two former respects must he be God ; but also there is a special reason in the cause , the two former respects evince it : For unless God be appeased , Man cannot be reconciled , and unless the Devil be overcome , Man cannot be delivered : If a God be needful for that , man cannot be saved unless our Redeemer be God : but there is a special reason , because of our own obstinacy and rebellion , which is onely overcome by the divine power . 'T is necessary Man should be converted and changed , as well as God satisfyed , and Satan overcome . Now who can convert himself , or chang● his own heart ? That work would cease for ever unless God did undertake it by his all conquering Spirit . Therefore our Mediator must be God , to renew and cleanse our hearts , and by his divine power to give us a divine nature . 2. Man also he ought to be with respect to these Three parties : With respect to God , that the satisfaction might be tendered in the nature which had sinned : That as by Man came death , by man also might come the Ressurection from the Dead , 1 Cor. 15.21 , 22. That as in Adam all dye , so by Christ shall all be made alive . So with respect to the Devil ; that he might be overcome in the nature that was foiled by his Temptations . And with respect to us , That he that sanctifyeth and they that are sanctifyed , might be of one , Heb. 2.11 . The Priest that wrought the expiation , and the people for whom 't was wrought were of one stock : the right of Redeeming belonged to the next Kinsman : Christ is our Goel who Redeemed us , not onely jure propreitatis , as his creatures : to God as God : but Iure propinquitatis , as his Kinsmen : So as Man , we are of Kin to Him , as he came in our nature , and as he sanctifieth : doubly a kin , not only by vertue of his incarnation but our Regeneration ; as he was made of a Woman , and we born of God. These are the Reasons , VSE . Let me press you to admire this Mystery of Godliness : The Man Christ Jesus in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily . The life and strength of our Faith depends upon it , for as he is true Man , flesh of our flesh , and bone of our bone , he will not be strange to us : and as he is God , he is able to help us . Two things I will press you to . 1. Consider what a fit object he is for your Faith to close with . 2. Own him as your Lord and your God. 1. To raise your trust and confidence , consider what a fit object he is for your Faith , how he is qualified for all his offices , of Prophet , Priest and King : 1. As your Prophet : consider how necessary it was that God dwelling in mans nature should set a foot the Gospel : Partly because when ever you come seriously to consider this matter ; this thought will arise in you , that this blessed Gospel could not be without repealing the Law of Moses , given with such solemnity by God himself : and it was not fit it should be abrogated by any but him who was far above Moses , to wit , by the Son of God himself , not any fellow servant equal to Moses . The Apostle telleth us that Moses was Faithful in Gods House as a servant , but Christ as a Son over his own House , Heb. 13.5 , 6. The servant must give place when the Son , and Lord himself cometh , but rather take it from what Moses foretold himself , Deut. 18.18 , 19. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee , and I will put my words into his mouth , and he shall speak unto them all that I command him , and it shall come to pass , that he that will not hearken to my word which he shall speak in my name , I will require it of ●im . Now these words cannot be verified in any other Prophet after Moses untill Christ , for that of these Prophets there arose none in Israel like unto Moses , Deut. 34.10 . They had no authority to be Lawgivers as Moses had , but were all bound to the observation of his Law till Christ should come , whom Moses calleth a Prophet like unto himself , that is a Law-maker , exhorting all men to hear and obey him . None of the Prophets did take upon them that priviledge , they must let that alone till the Messiah should come , whose office it is to change the Law given upon Mount Sinai , and instead thereof to propagate or promulgate a new Law to begin at Sion , Isa. 2.3 . The Law shall go forth of Sion , and the word of the Lord from Ierusalem . And in another place , the Isles shall wait for his Law , Isa. 42.4 . Well now this is a mighty confirmation of our Religion , and bindeth both our Faith and Obedience , to consider Christs Authority , that a greater then Moses is here . Partly because it concerneth us to receive the Gospel as an eternal Doctrine that shall never be changed ; For 't is called an everlasting Covenant ; and nothing conduceth to that so much , as to consider that it is promulgated by the eternal God himself : by him in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily . Partly because the Gospel , if we would profit by it , is to be received by all Believers , not only as an everlasting Covenant ; but as certain , perfect , and saving . Now if the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him , who gave this Covenant , we cannot deny either the certainty or the perfection or the savingness of it ; for if we receive it from him who is Truth it self , we cannot be deceived . 'T is certain if he Taught us in person , surely all his works are perfect : ( subordinate Ministers may mingle their weaknesses with their doctrine , ) if we have it from a Saviour , surely it is a Doctrine that bringeth Salvation . 2. Consider what a fit object here is for your Faith , as Christ is a Priest : so his great business is to reconcile us to God , in the body of his flesh through death , who once were strangers and enemies , Col. 1.21 . consider how fit he was for this , God and Man were first united in his Person , before they were united in one Covenant . If you consider the fruits of his Redemption and Reconciliation . The evil from whence we were to be delivered , the good that was to be procured ; Christ is every way a commodious Mediator for us , as God man : If you consider the evil from whence we are delivered , he was man : that the chastisement of our peace might be put upon his shoulders : God , that by his stripes we might be healed , Isa. 53.5 . Or if you consider the good to be procured ; he doth it as God-man : He was a man , that as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners , so by the obedience of one many might be made righteous : God , that as sin reigned unto death , so Grace might reign through righteousness unto Eternal Life by Jesus Christ our Lord , Rom. 5.19 , 21. As he is God , his merit is full ; as he is Man , we are partakers of the benefit of it . 3 , Consider how fit an object he is for our Faith as King : For as the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily , he is the greatest and most glorious person that ever was in the World : Infinitely superior above all power that is named in this World or in the World to come . The Man who is our Shepherd is fellow to the Lord of Hosts . The thought of Immanuel , maketh the Prophet startle , and brake out into a Triumph when Senacherib break in with his forces , like a deluge in the Land of Iudah . They fill thy Land O Immanuel , Isa. 8.8 . Then verse 9 , 10. Associate your selves and ye shall be broken in pieces , gird your selves and ye shall be broken in pieces , take counsel together it shall come to nought , speak the word it shall not stand : For God is with us . Or because of Immanuel . Surely Christ is the foundation of the Churches happiness , and may afford us comfort in the most calamitous condition : we are in his hands , under his Pastoral care and protection , Ioh. 10.28 . I give unto them eternal Life , and they shall never perish , neither shall any pluck them out of my hand . Neither Man nor Devil can break off totally and finally their union with him . In short , he that assumed our nature to himself , will communicate himself to us . All union is in order to communion , here is a commodious and a blessed Saviour represented unto you . Secondly , Own him as your Lord and your God. This was the Profession of Thomas's Faith , Iohn 2● . 28 . My Lord and my God , I shall insist on that Scripture . In the History there are these remarkables . 1. Thomas his absence from an Assembly of the Disciples , when Christ had manifested himself to them , verse 24. Being absent he not only missed the good news which many brought , but also the comfortable sight of Christ ; and was thereby left in doubts and snares . 2. When these things were told him , he bewrayes his incredulity , v. 25. when they told him he said unto them , except I see in his hands the print of his nails ▪ and put my finger into the print of the nailes , and thrust my hand into his side , I will not believe . This unbelief was overruled by Gods Providence for the honour of Christ. His in●redulity was an occasion to manifest the certainty of Christs Resurrection : If credulous Men , or those hasty of belief had only seen Christ , their report had been liable to suspicion ; Solomon maketh it one of his Proverbs , the simple believeth every word . Here is one that had sturdy and pertinacious doubts , yet brought at last to yield . However this is an instance of the proneness of our hearts to unbelief ; especially if we have not the objects of Faith under the view of the senses : and how apt we are to give Laws to Heaven , and require our terms of God. 3. Christs condescension in two things . 1. In appearing again verse 26. on the first day of the next week , to shew how ready he is to honour and bless his own day ; and to give satisfaction to poor doubting souls , by coming again to them : and it was well Thomas was there at this time . 2. In giving Thomas the satisfaction of sense , verse 27. reach hither thy finger , and behold my hands , and reach hither thy hand , and thrust it into my side . With what mildness doth our Lord treat him , though under such a distemper ! unbelief is so hateful to Christ , that he is very careful to have it removed ; and in condescension grants what was his fault to seek . 4. The next thing is Thomas his Faith , verse 28. And he answered and said my Lord , and my God. He presumeth not to touch Christ , but contents himself onely to see him , and having seen him makes a good confession , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 1. Observe , The two Titles given to Christ : God and Lord : He is God the Fountain of all our happiness , and Lord , as he hath a dominion over us , to guide and dispose of us at his own pleasure . 2. Observe , The appropriation or personal application to himself . My God and my Lord. Hence we may observe , 1. That God leaveth some to themselves for a while , that themselves and others may be more confirmed afterwards . Thomas his Faith was as it were dead and buried in his heart , and now upon the sight of Christ quickned and revived : we must not judge of men by a fit of Temptation , but stay till they come to themselves again . Who would have thought that out of an obstinate incredulity , so great a Faith should spring up suddainly . 2. We may observe Thomas , that is with much ado awaken'd , makes a fairer confession then all the rest . They call him their Lord , but he his Lord and God. 3. We may observe again that true believing with the heart , is joyned with confession of the mouth , Psal. 116.10 . I believed therefore have I spoken . 4. Hence you may take notice of the reality of the two natures in the unity of Christs person , for he is both Deus & Dominus . But how cometh he to acknowledge Christs Godhead , he did not feel the Divinity of Christ in hands , or side , or feet . Videbat , tangebatque hominem , & confitebatur Deum , quem non videbat , neque tangebat , saith Austin . Herein his Faith was beyond sense , he felt the manhood , and acknowledgeth the Deity . 5. Hence we may observe , that those that are rightly conversant about Christ and the mysteries of his Death and Resurrection , should take Christ for their Lord and their God : Thomas saith my Lord and my God , and his confession should be the common confession of all the Faithful . I shall quit the three first , and insist only on the two last . I therefore begin with the fourth observation . 4th . Hence you see the reality of the two Natures in the unity of Christs person : The name of God is joyned with the Title of Lord ; therefore the name of God belongeth to him , no less then the title of Lord : Thomas when he saith my Lord , he seemeth not to have satisfyed himself till he had added this other name and title my God : now this importeth the reality of his Divine Nature , for these three reasons . 1. Those things which are proper to God , cannot , ought not , to be transferred to a meer Creature ; but this title of my God is a Covenant title , and so often used in Scripture , and therefore Christ was God. 2. To whom truly and properly the Names and Titles of things do belong , to him that which is signified by those Names , and Titles doth belong also : For otherwise this would destroy all certainty of speech , you cannot speak or write , unless words signifie what in vulgar use they are applyed unto : there could be no reasoning a signo ad rem significatum , from the sign to the thing signified . If I should call a brute a Man , or a creature God , how can we understand what is spoken or written : the argument is the more cogent , because a name is an implicite contracted definition , as a definition is a name explained and dilated , As when I say a man is a reasonable creature , so a God is one that hath power over all blessed for ever . 3. The greater any person is , the more danger there is of giving him titles that do not belong to him ; for that is to place him in an honour to which he hath greater pretensions then others : but no right , especially doth this hold good in Religion , it is true in Civils . ( To give one next the King , the Title of King , would awaken the jealousie of Princes , and breed much inconvenience ) but especially doth this hold good in Religion , where God is so jealous of giving his glory to another , Isa. 42.80 . Therefore the greater the dignity of Christ was above all other creatures , the more caution was necessary , that the name of God might not be ascribed to him , if he were only mere Man , and it did not properly agree to him : for the more dangerous the error the more cautiously should we abstain from it . 4. Consider the person by whom this title was given ; by a Godly Man : No godly man would call an Idol , or a Magistrate , or a Teacher , or a King or an Angel , or any created thing above an Angel , His Lord , and his God. But this was done by Thomas , one bred up in the Religion taught by Moses and the Prophets ; and the chief point of that Religion was , that God is but one ; Deut. 6.4 . Hear O Israel , the Lord our God is one Lord. This was one of the sentences written on the fringes of their garments , and 't is quoted by Christ , whose disciple Thomas also was , Mark 12.29 . And explained by a learned Scribe which came to him , Mark 12.32 . Well master , thou hast said the truth , for there is but one God , and there is none other but him . Now Thomas knowing this , and the first Commandment , Thou shalt have no other Gods before me . If he were not perswaded of it , would he say to Christ , My Lord , and my God ? 5. The Person to whom he spake it ; He said to him : Not to the Father , but to Jesus of Nazareth ; My Lord , and my God. Surely as the Saints would not derogate from God , so Christ would not arrogate what was proper to his Father . Therefore as his disciples would have been tender of giving it to him , so he would have refused this honour being so holy , if it had not been his due . But Christ reproved not , but rather approved this Confession of Faith ; therefore it was right and sound . Christ had said to him , be not faithless but believing , and then Thomas saith , My Lord and my God. And Iesus saith to him , Thomas , because thou hast seen me , thou hast believed , blessed are they that have not seen , and yet have believed . There is no rebuke for ascribing too much to him . 6. The conjunction of the Divine and Humane Nature is so necessary to all Christs functions and offices , that less would not have been sufficient than to say , My Lord , my God. The Functions and Offices of Christ are three , to be a Prophet , Priest and King. 1. To be a Prophet , Matth. 23.10 . One is your master even Christ. Now to be our master and teacher , 't is necessary that he should have the humane nature and divine conjoyned : The humane nature , that he might teach men by word of mouth , familiarly and sweetly conversing with men ; and also by his Example , for he perfectly teacheth that teacheth both wayes , by word , and deed . And 't is a mighty condescension , that God would come down , and submit to the same Laws we are to live by : His divine nature was also necessary , that he might be the best of teachers ; for who is such a teacher as God , and that he might teach us in the best way , and that is , when God taking the nature of man , doth vouchsafe to men his familiar conv●rse , eating and drinking and walking with them , offering him●●●f to be seen and heard by them . As he of ol● taught Abraham , Gen. 18. accepting his entertainment , nothing more profitable , or honourable to men can be thought of . In Christs prophetical Office , four things are to be considered : 1. What he Taught . 2. How he Taught . 3. By what Arguments he confirmed his Doctrine . 4. How he received it from the Father . 1. What he Taught : Christ preached , but chiefly himself : He revealed and shewed forth God , but by revealing and shewing forth himself , Ioh. 14.9 . He called men , but to himself ; he commanded men to believe , but in himself ; Ioh. 14.1 . He promised eternal Life , which he would give , but to men believing in himself : He offered Salvation to miserable sinners , but to be had by himself : He wrought a fear of Judgement to come , but to be exercised by himself : He offered remission of sins , but to those that believed in himself : He promised the Resurrection of the dead , which he by his own Power and Authority would bring to pass . Now who could do all this but God ? A meer man , if faithful and holy , would have turned off men from himself to God : 2 Cor. 4.5 . For we preach not our selves , but Christ Iesus the Lord , and our selves your servants for Iesus sake . They designed no honour to themselves , but onely to Christ ; they were loth to transfer any part of this glory to themselves : so would Christ if he had not been God. Therefore what should his disciples say , but my Lord , my God. 2. How he Taught . There is a twofold way of teaching ; one Humane , by the mouth , and sound of words striking the Ear ; the other Divine , opening and affecting the Heart . Christ used both wayes : As the humane nature was necessary to the one , so the divine to the other . As the Organs of speaking cannot be without the humane nature , so the other way of teaching cannot be without a Divine Power . When the Disciples came to Christ , Lord increase our Faith , Luk. 17.5 . he did not answer as Iacob did to Rachel , ( when she said , Give me children or I dye ) Am I in the place of God ? Christ after his Resurrection , did not onely open the Scriptures as was said before , but Luk. 24.45 . He opened their understandings , that they might understand the scriptures . And he opened the heart of Lydia , Acts 16.14 . And poured the Holy Spirit on the Apostles , on the day of Pentecost ; Acts 2. and by the same efficacy teacheth the Church , wherever it is scattered . 3. If you consider , By what Arguments he confirm'd his Doctrine , By many , and the greatest Miracles , not done by the power of another , but his own ; and her required men to believe it , Matth. 9.28 . Believe ye that I am able to do this ? Whence had he the power to know the Thoughts of Men , to cure all sorts of diseases in a moment , to open the Eyes of the blind , to raise the dead , to dispossess Devils ; but from that Divine Nature which was in him ? Was it in his Body and Flesh , then it was finite , and in some sort Material : Was it in his Soul , Understanding , Will , or Phantasie , or Sensitive Appetite ? how could it work on other mens bodies . Therefore it was from his Divine Nature ; My Lord , my God. 4. How he received this Doctrine from the Father ? Did God ever speak to him , or appear to him ? Is there any time , or manner , or speech noted by the Evangelists when God made this Revelation ? None at all . If he were a mere Creature , or nothing but a Man , surely , that should have been done . He revealed the most intimate Counsels and D●crees of God , as perfectly knowing them ; but when , or how they were revealed to him by his Father , is not said , which if he had been mere Man , would have conduced to the Authority of his Message and Revelation . But all this needed not , he being a Divine Person of the same essence with his Father : Therefore , My Lord , my God. 2. His Priestly Office : The Humane Nature was necessary for That , for the reasons alledged by the Apo●●le , H●b . 2.14.17 . And also the Divine Nature , that there might be a Priest a● well as a Sacrifice : There had been no Sacrifice i● he had not been Man : and no P●●●●t , if he had not been God to offer up hims●lf through the Eternal Spirit , Heb. 9.14 . The sacrifice must suffer , the Pri●●t Act ; and besides , he could not ●nter in●o the H●●venly Sanctuary to present himself b●for● God for us , Heb. 9.24 . Th●n ●he H●●venly Sanctuary and Tabernacle , need 〈◊〉 to be made , before he entred : For as the Earthly Priest made the Earthly Tabernacle before he ministred in it , so the True Priest was to make the Heavenly Tabernacle , as the Author to the Hebrews saith in many places . But to leave that ; the Priest was to expiate sins , by the offering of a sacrifice instead of the sinner : So Christ was to satisfie the Justice of God for sinners by his Mediatory sacrifice : Now this he could not do unless he had been God as well as Man. The Dignity of his Person , did put a value upon his sufferings ; without this , how shall we pacifie Conscience , representing to us the evil of sin , and the dreadfulness of Gods Wrath , And the exact Justice of the Judge of all the World ? Rom. 3.25 , 26. especially when these apprehensions are awakened in us by the curse of the Law , and the stinging sense of Gods Threatnings , which are so absolute , universal , and every way true and evident ; unless we know a sufficient satisfaction hath been made for us . If you think the promises of the Gospel are enough ; alass , when the threatnings of the Law are so just , and built upon such evident Reason , the soul is exposed to doubtfulness : And if the threatnings of the Law seem altogether in vain , the promises of the Gospel will seem less ●irm and valid . The Truth and Honour of Gods Government , must one way or other be kept up , and that will not be unless there be a fair passage from Covenant to Covenant , and that the former be not repealed , or relaxed , but upon valuable consideration , as it is , when our Mediatour and surety beareth our sorrows and griefs , and satisfieth for us . But now if he were mere Man , it would not have that esteem and value , as to be sufficient for so many men , and so many sins as are committed against an holy God. Therefore he needeth to be God also . 3. His Kingly Office : How can that be exercised without an Infinite Power ? Because by our King and Judge , all our Enemies are to be overcome ; the World , Sin , Death and the Devil : And what is necessary to do this , every man may soon understand . And as an Infinite Power is necessary , so an Infinite Knowledge ; that all things in Heaven and Earth may be naked and open to him , and that he search the heart , and try the Reins ; and then , that he may subject all things to himself , raise all the dead to life , govern and protect the faithful in all the parts of the world ; that he may be present with them , in every Age and Place , to help and relieve them . In short , to do all things both in Heaven and in Earth , that fall within the compass of his office . Now what is a divine , and infinite Power if this be not ? What can the Father do which the Son cannot do also ? yea what doth the Father do which the Son doth not likewise ; Ioh. 5.19 . Is there any work which the one doth , but the other cannot do ? Besides there needeth infinite Authority and Majesty , therefore the King of the Church must be infinite . But how is he infinite , if he hath onely a finite Nature , such as a mere Creature hath ? Or how could his finite Nature , without change and conversion into another Nature , be made infinite ? For without doubt , that nature is infinite , which hath an infinite power of Understanding , Willing and Acting . Well then , Christ cannot be truly owned , unless he be owned as Lord and God. 5. Those that are rightly conversant about Christ , and the Misteries of his Death and Resurrection , should take Christ for their Lord and their God. Every one of them should say my God , on whom I depend ; my Lord , to whose use I resign my self . I shall 1. Explain in what sense these words may and ought to be used . 2. Give you the Reasons , why it becomes Christians to be able to say My Lord , my God. 1. In what sense these words may , and ought to be used , My Lord , and my God. There are two things considerable in those words : ( 1. ) An Appropriation , or a claim and challenge of Interest in him . ( 2. ) A Resignation or Dedication of our selves to his Use and Service . Both are implyed in these Titles , My Lord , my God. Christ was his God , or Benefactor ; and also his Lord and Master . However that be , in the mutual stipulation of the Covenant 't is evident , Cant. 2.16 I am my beloved , and my beloved is mine . There is the appropriation of Faith , and the resignation of Obedience . Ezek. 36.28 . Ye shall be my people , and I will be your God. Zech. 13.9 . I will say 't is my people , and they shall say the Lord is my God. 1. The one is the fruit and effect of the other . God saith , I am thy God ; and the Soul answereth , I am thy servant : As when Christ said Mary , she presently said Rabboni . God awakeneth us by the offer of himself , and all his Grace to do us good , and then we devote our selves to his Service , and profess subjection to him . If he will be our God , we may well allow him a dominion and Lordship over us , to rule us at his pleasure . We choose him , because he chooseth us , for all Gods works leave their impression upon our hearts : He cometh with Terms of Peace , and we with Profession of Duty . God loveth first , and most , and purest ; and therefore his love is the cause of all . 2. The one is the Evidence of the other : If God be yours , you are his . He is yours by gift of himself to you : and you are his , by gift of your selves to him . The Covenant bindeth mutually . Many will be ready to apply , and call God their God , that do not dedicate and devote themselves to God. If you be not the Lords , the Lord is not yours . He refuseth their claim , that say , Hosea 8.2 . Israel shall cry unto me , my God we know thee . Israel hath cast off the thing that is good . In their distress , they pleaded their Interest in the Covenant , but God would not allow the claim , because they denied obedience . 3. The one is more sensible and known to us than the other . A believer cannot always say God 〈◊〉 mine , but he will always say , I am his ; Psal. 119.94 . I am thine save me . I am thine , and will be thine , onely thine , wholly thine , and always thine . Appropriation hath more of a Priviledge in it , Resignation is onely a Duty . We have leave and allowance to say God is my God , but we cannot alwayes say it without doubt and hesitancy , because our Interest is not alwayes alike evident and clear . When you cannot say my God , yet be sure to say my Lord. We know God to be ours , by giving up ou● selves to be his . His choice and election of us is a secret , till it be evidenced by our choice of him for our God and Portion : our Act is more sensible to the Conscience . Be more full , and serious in the resignation of your selves to him , and in time that will shew you your Interest in God. 4. Gods Propriety in us , by Contract and Resignation , speaketh Comfort , as well as our Propriety and Interest in God. You are his own , and therefoe he will provide for you and care for you ; 1 Tim. 5.8 . If any provide not for his own , he hath denied the faith , and is worse than an Infidel . Interest doth strangely endear things to us : The world will love its own , Iob. 5.19 . and will not God love his own , and Christ love his own , Iob. 13.1 . you may trust him , and depend upon him , and serve him chearfully for you are his own : So that if we had no Interest in God established by the Covenant , if God had not said to us I am yours , yet our becoming his , would make it comfortable ; For every one taketh himself to be bound to love his own , provide for his own , and to defend his own , and do good to his own : Indeed God is ours , as well as we are his ; but our being his , draweth along with it much comfort and blessing . But to speak of these apart . 1. The Appropriation , or claim of Interest is a sweet thing . If God be your God , why should you be troubled ? ' Psal. 16.5 , 6. The Lord is the portion of my inheritance , and of my cup. Thou maintainest my lot . The lines are faln unto me in pleasant places , yea I have a goodly heritage . You have a right to God himself , and may lay claim to all that he hath for your comfort and use . His Attributes yours , his Providences yours , his Promises yours , what may not you promise your selves from him ? Support under all Troubles , relief in all necessities . You may take hold of his Covenant , Isa. 56.4 . and lay claim to all the priviledges of it . 'T is all yours . 2. This dedication , this resignation of our selves to Gods use , to be at his disposing , without reservation , or power of revocation is often spoken of in Scripture ; Isa. 44.5 . One shall say I am the Lords , another shall call himself by the name of Iacob , and another shall subscribe with his hand to the Lord , and surname himself by the name of Israel . The meaning is , to give up their names to God , to be entred into his Muster Roll , and to be listed in his service , Rom. 6.13 . Yield up your selves to God , as those that are alive from the dead . 'T is the immediate fruit of Grace and new life infused in us : A natural man liveth to himself , to please himself , and give satisfaction to his own Lusts. Grace is a new Being and Life , that inclines us to Live and Act for God ▪ As soon as this life is begotten in us , by the power of his Spirit , our hearts are inclined towards God , and you devote your selves to serve and please him . As your work and business was before to serve the Devil , the World and the Flesh ; so now to please , serve and glorifie God. Secondly , The Reasons why it becometh Christians to be able to say , My Lord , my God. 1. Because our interest in him is the ground of our comfort and confidence . 'T is not comfortable to us that there is a God , and that there is a Lord , that may be terrible to us : The Devils believe , and the damned spirits feel there is a God , and there is a Lord ; but their thought of God is a part of their Misery and Torment , Iames 2.19 . The more they think of God , the more their Horrour is increased ; to own a God , and not to see him as ours , the remembrane of it will be troublesome to us , 2 Sam. 30.6 . David comforted himself in the Lord his God. There was the comfort , that he had a God to go to when all was lost , and that God was his God. So Heb. 3.18 . I will rejoyce in the Lord , I will joy in the God of my Salvation . If God be our God , we have more in him , then trouble can take from us . So Luk. 1.47 . My Spirit hath rejoyced in God my Saviour . When you make particular application to your selves , it breeds strong comfort . 2. Because nothing strikes upon the heart with such an efficacy ; as what nearly concerns us , affects us most . The love of Christ to sinners in general , doth not affect us so much as when 't is shed abroad in our own Hearts by the Spirit ; Gal. 2.20 . He loved me , and gave himself for me ; that draws out our hearts to God again , and is quickning motive to stir us up to the life of Love , and Faith. So Eph. 1.13 . In whom ye trusted after ye heard the word of truth , the Gospel of your salvation . 'T is not sufficient to know that the gospel is a Doctrine of Salvation to others onely ; but to find it a doctrine of Salvation to themselves in particular . That they may apply the promises to their own heart . A Christian is affected most with things according as he is concerned in them himself . It bindeth our obedience the more firmly , when we know that we are particularly ingaged to God , and have chosen him for our God , and our Lord. 3. Bacause without a real , personal entring into Covenant , the Covenant doth us no good unless every one of us do choose God , for our God and Lord , and particulary own him . Every man must give his hand to the Lord , and personally ingage for himself . 'T is not enough that Christ ingage for us in being our surety , but we must take a bond upon our selves : Something Christ did for us and in our name , he interposed as the surety of a better Testament , Heb. 7.22 . Something must be done personally by us before we can have benefit by it . You must give up your selves to the Lord. It is not enough that the Church ingage for us , but every man must engage his own heart to draw nigh to God , Ier. 30.21 . Who is he that ingageth his heart to d●●●●igh to me . 'T is not enough that our Parents did engag● for us ; Deut. 29.10.11 , 12. They d●d in the name of their little ones avouch God ●o be their God ; as we dovote , dedicate and ingage our Children to God in Baptisme : But no man can savingly transact this work for another . We ratifie the Covenant in our own persons , 2 Cor. 9.13 . by a professed subjection to the gospel of Christ. This is a work cannot be done by a Proxy , or Assignes ; unless we personally enter into Covenant with God for our selves , our dedication by our Parents will not profit us , we shall be as Children of the Aethiopians unto God , Amos 9.7 . though Children of the Covenant , all this will not serve ; these are visible external priviledges . But there is something required of our Persons ; every one must say for himself , My Lord , and my God. And this must not onely be done in words , and by some visible external Rites , that may signifie so much : As for instance coming to the Lords Supper ; that is the New Testament in Christs Blood ; Luk. 22 . 2● . 'T is interpretativè , a sealing the New Covenant , between Christ and us : God giveth , and you take the Elements as a pledge and Token that God and you are agreed . That he will give you himself , his Christ and all his Benefits ; and you will walk before him in newness of life : Now to rest in the Ceremony , and neglect the Substance , is but a mockery of God : As many rend the Bond , yet prize the Seal ; care much for the Sacram●n● , that never care for the Duty it bindeth them unto . If your hearts be hearty and well with God , you come now personally ●o enter into Covenant with him : But this business must not be done onely exter●ally , but internally also : 'T is a business done between God and our Souls , though no outward witnesses be conscious to it . God cometh speaking to us by his Spirit in this Transaction ; Psal. 35.3 . Say unto my soul , I am thy salvation . And we speak to God , Lam. 3.24 . The Lord is my Portion saith my soul. There is verbum mentis , as well as verbum oris . This Covenant is carried on in soul Language ; Psal. 16.21 . O my soul Thou hast said unto the Lord , thou art my Lord. So Psal. 27.8 . When thou saidst seek ye my face , my heart said , thy face Lord will I seek . The Lord offereth , or representeth himself as our Lord , and we prosess our selves to be the Lords . No eye seeth , or ear heareth , what passeth between God , and the Soul. Now without this Personal inward Covenanting , all the priviledge of the Covenant will do us no good : And this Personal inward covenanting amounts to full as much as My Lord , my God. Therefore it concerneth every one of us see whether we have thus particularly owned Christ , if there hath been any Treaty between God , and our Souls ; and whether it came to any conclusion , and particular Soul engagement . That you could thus own Christ. Not only as God , and Lord , but as your God , and your Lord. SERMON . VIII . Col. 1.20 . And having made peace by the blood of his Cross , to reconcile all things to himself , by him I say , whether they be things in earth , or things in heaven . IN these words observe , First , What Christ was to do . Secondly , The manner how he did it . Or , First , The End for which he was appointed . To be our Mediator and Redeemer , and accordingly promised and sent into the world to reconcile all things to God , Whether they be things in heaven , or things in earth . Secondly , The means by which he accomplished it . Having made peace by the blood of his Cross ; that is , by his bloody sacrifice on the Cross , thereby answering the sacrifices of Attonement under the Law. In the first branch take notice of 1. The Benefit , Reconciliation with God. 2. The person procuring it , by him ; and it is repeated again , I say by him . 3. The persons to whom this Benefit is intended , expressed ( 1. ) Collectively , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all things . ( 2. ) Distributively : Whether they be things in earth or things in heaven . As they are Collectively Expressed , it teaches us that grace is revealed and offered in the most comprehensive expressions that none may be excluded or have just cause to exclude themselves . As it is distributively expressed , the latter clause is of a dubious Interpretation ; some , by things on earth , understand Men ; but by things in heaven , the Angels : Surely not the fallen Angels , for they are not in Heaven , neither was Christ sent to reconcile them , nor relieve them in their Misery , and reduce them to God , Heb. 2.16 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , what then shall we understand by things in heaven ? Some think the holy Angels ; others the glorified Saints . 1. Those that assert the first , argue thus ; that the Angels are properly inhabitants of Heaven , and so fitly called things in Heaven ; and they are Enemies to Men whilst they are ungodly , Idolatrous and Rebels to God ( as good Subjects hold with their Prince , and have common Friends and Enemies with him ) but are reconciled to them as soon as they partake of the Benefits of Christs Death ; as we are told of joy in heaven among the angels of God , at the conversion of one sinner , Luk. ●5 . 10 . Now if there be so much joy over one Sinner repenting , how much more when many sinners are snatched out of the Jawes of Hell. They make the sense to be thus ; before , for the sins of men they we●● ali●nated from them , but then reconciled : but this Scripture speaks not of the Reconciliation of Angels and Men , but the Reconciliation of all things to God ; for so it is expresly in the Text to reconcile all things to himself . Now the good Angels cannot be said to be reconciled to God , for there was never a breach between them ; s● nunquam cum matre in gratiam rediisse . 2. Therefore I interpret it of the glorified Saints : See the like expression , Eph. 1.10 To gather together in one all things to Christ which are in heaven , and in earth : And more clearly Eph. 3.15 . Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named . Meaning thereby , the Faithful , who are already in Heaven , and those who are now remaining upon Earth . This is a comfortable note , and tea●h●s ●s , 1. That the Apostle Paul knew no Purgatory , or third place for Souls after Death . 2. That the Saints departed are now in Heaven as to their Souls , and gathered to the Rest of the Spirits of just men made perfect . 3. The souls now in Heaven once needed the Merit of Christ , even as we do . None come thither but they were first reconciled to God. By him their peace was made and they obtained Remission of sins by the blood of his Cross as ye do . In short all that go to Heaven go thither by the Mediation , Sacrifice and Meritorious Righteousness of the same Redeemer . Doct. One great benefit we have by Christ , is Peace and Reconciliation with God. Here I shall shew , 1. What this Reconciliation is . 2. How it was obtained . 3. What Assurance we have that it is obtained . 4. How and upon what terms it is applied to us . 1. What this Reconciliation is ? I Answer , It is not an original Peace , but a returning to Amity after some foregoing breach : Now the breach by sin consisted in two things ; an aversion of the Creature from God , and an aversion of God from the Creature ; so before Peace and Reconciliation can be made , two things must be removed ; Gods Wrath , and our sinful Nature ; God must be pacified and man Converted . Gods Wrath is appeased by the blood of Christ , and our Natures are changed and healed by the Spirit of Grace . First Gods Wrath is appeased , and then the Spirit is bestowed upon us ; for while God is angry and offended , no saving benefit can be expected from him . This Text speaks not how he took away our enmity , but how he appeased God for us , not so much of the Application as the impetration of this benefit . The Application is spoken of verse the 21. how it is applied to us , but here the Apostle more directly speaks of the impetration , how it was procured and obtained for us ; namely by Christs satisfying Gods Justice for that wrong , which caused the breach or the dying of the Son of God for a sinful World. Now this hath an influence on Gods pardon , and our Conversion , for by vertue of this Reconciliation we are justified and pardoned . Therefore we are said to be justified by his blood , Rom. 8.9 . that is the price is paid by Christ and accepted by God , there needeth nothing more to be done on the Mediators part , by virtue of the same peace made we are also sanctifyed , and converted unto God , 2 Cor. 5.18 . The gift of the sanctifying spirit is given us as the fruit of Christs death . 2. How it was obtained , by the blood of his cross he made peace . This implyeth death , and such a death as in appearance was accursed ; for the death of the cross is the vilest and most cruel death , Gal. 3.13 . Christ hath Redeemed us from the curse of the Law , being made a curse for us , for it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree . Now we must see the reasons of this course or way of Reconciling the world , that we may not mistake Gods design , nor be possessed with any imaginations which are derogatory to Gods honour ; as suppose if we should hence conceit that God is all wrath and justice , unwilling of himself to be Reconciled to man , or that he delighteth in blood , and is hardly drawn to give out grace . Oh no these are false misprisions , and misrepresentations of God. Therefore let us a little inquire into the reasons why God took this way to Reconcile all things to himself , and ordained Christ to bear the chastisement of our peace . I answer , That the Justice of God might be eminently demonstrated , the Lawgiver vindicated , and the breach that was made in the frame of Government repaired , and God manifested to be a hater of sin , and yet the sinner saved from destruction ; and that the love of God might be eminently and conspicuously discerned , and our peace the better secured . As let us a little see these things more particularly I begin . 1. With the holyness of Gods nature , who is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity , Hab. 1.13 . that is so as to approve of it , or altogether connive at it , so as to let it go without punishment or mark of his displeasure : therefore some way must be found out to signifie his purest holiness and his hatred and detestation of sin , and that it should not be pardoned without some testimony of his displeasure against it , we are told God hateth the workers of iniquity , Psal. 5.5 . and the Righteous Lord loveth Righteousness , Psalm 11.7 . and therefore when God was to grant his universal pardon he would not do it without this propitiatory atonement . 2. The honour of his governing Justice was to be secured , and freed from any blemish , that the awe of God might be kept up in the World. In the mystery of our Redemption we must not look upon God onely as pars laesa , the wronged party ; but as Rector Mundi , God was to carry himself as the Governour of the World. Now there is a difference between a private person and a governour : private persons may pass by offences as they please , but a governour must do right , and what conduces to the publick good . There is a twofold notion that we have of publick right , Iustum est quod fieri debet , and justum est quod fieri potest . That which ought to be done or we are unjust , as for instance to punish the righteous equally with the wicked , that Abraham pleadeth , Gen. 18.25 . That be far from thee to do after this manner to slay the Righteous with the wicked , and that the Righteous should be as the wicked , that be far from thee , shall not the Iudge of all the earth do right . Not that Abraham mindeth God of his Office but he was confidently assured of the nature of God , that he could not do otherwise . But now there is justum quod fieri po●est , which if it be done or if it be not done , the party is not unjust , the first part of Justice is paying of debts , the second exacting or requiring of debts . Now the Judge of the World doth all things wisely and righteously , the question is therefore whether God passing by the offences of the World without any satisfaction required doth deal justly ? As a free Lord he may make what Laws he pleases , but as a just Judge with respect to the ends of government , he doth that which is for publick good . The right of passing by a wrong , and the right of releasing a punishment are different things , because punishment is a common interest , and is referred to a common good to preserve order and government , and for example to the future . The Government of the world required it that God should stand on the satisfaction of Christ , and the submission of the sinner : that he may be owned and reverenced , as the just and holy Governour of the World a valuable compensation is insisted on for this end , Rom. 2.25 , 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Fa●th in his blood , to declare his Righteousness for the Remi●●ion of sins that are past through the forbearance of God. To declare I say at this time his righteousness , that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Iesus . 3. To keep up the Authority of his Law. God had made a former Covenant which was not to be quitted and wholly made void but upon valuable consideration ; therefore if it broken and no more ado made about it , all respect and obedience to God would fall to the ground . The Law may be considered either as to the precept or sanction : the Authority of the precept is kept up by Christs submission to the Law , and living by the same rules , we are bound to live by , and performing all manner of obedience to God , for it behoved him to fulfill all Righteousness , Matth. 3.15 . being set up as a pattern of holiness in our nature , to which we are to be conformed . But that which is most considerable in this case is the sanction or penalty ; if this should be relaxed , and no satisfaction required , it might leave upon God the blemish of levity , mutability and inconstancy : the Law was not given in jest but in the greatest earnest that ever Law was given ; and so solemn a Transaction was not constituted to no purpose , therefore God will not part with the Law upon light terms , Gal. 4.4 , 5. When the fulness of time was come God sent forth his son made of a woman , made under the Law , to Redeem them that were under the Law. That men may k●ow that it is a dangerous thing to transgress his Law , and that they may fear and do no more presumptuously : p●rtly that it might not foster in us hopes of impunity which are very natural to us , Gen. 3.5 . The devil s●●ks to weaken the truth of Gods threatning● , Deut. 29.19 , 20. We are apt to look upon the threatnings of the Law as a vain scare-crow . Therefore for the terror and warning of sinners for the future , God would not release us from the punishment , till our surety undertook our Reconciliation with God by bearing the chastisement of our peace . 4. Christ death was necessary to make sin odious , and obedience more acceptable to us . 1. Sin more odi●us or hateful , no other remedy would servé the turn to procure the pardon and destruction of it , then the bloody death of th● cross , Rom. 8.3 . Surely it is no small thing for which the Son of God must dye , when you read or hear of Christs sufferings , you should never think an extenuating and favourable thought of it more . 2. To commend obedience : for Christs suffering death at the command of his Father was the noblest piece of service , and highest act of obedience that ever could or can be performed unto God : It is beyond any thing that can be done by Men or Angels . There was in it so much love to man , so much self-denyal , humility and patience , so much resignation of himself to God who had appointed him to be our Redeemer that it cannot be parallel'd . The great and most remarkable thing in Christs death was obedience , Rom. 5.18 . Phil. 2.7 , 8. God delighted not in more blood , but blood offered in obedience as the best way to impress upon man a sense of his duty , and to teach him to serve and please God at the dearest rate . 5. This death commendeth the love of God to us , for it is the great demonstration of it . Many draw a quite contrary conclusion as if he were with much a do brought to have mercy on us , but they forget that he is first and chief in the design , 2 Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ Reconciling the World unto himself , Christ came from heaven to declare to us the greatness of Gods love . God thought nothing too dear for us , not the Son of his love , nor his death , ignominy and shame , Rom. 5.8 . God commendeth his love in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us . When we had alienated our hearts from God , refused his service , and could expect nothing but the rigour of his Law and vindictive Justice , then he spared not his own Son to bring about this Reconciliation for us . 6. As God is pacifyed , so it gives us hopes : our business lyeth not with a God offended , but with a God Reconciled : if we had not to do with a pacifyed God , who could lif● up his face to h●● , or think a comfortable thought of him , but this gives us hope , Rom. 5.10 . For i● when we were Enemies , we were reconciled to God by the death of his son , much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life . We were enemies by sin in us which God hateth , and declareth his wrath against it in the Law. Then by the satisfaction wrought by Christ , we were restored to his favour , so far that free and easie conditions were procured in the Gospel , and his spirit is offered to prepare and fit us for a Life of Glory . We have heard what Christ hath done . Thirdly , What assurance have we that this peace is obtained . Consciences are not easily settled , therefore some visible evidences are necessary that God is pacifyed , I shall name three or four . 1. Christ Resurrection and Ascension into glory , this shews that God was propitiated and hath accepted the ransom that was given for Souls . We read Rom. 4.25 . that he dyed for our offe●ces and rose again for our Justification , his dying noteth his satisfaction , his rising again the acceptance of it . God by raising him up from the dead shewed that he had received the death of his Son , as a sufficient ransom for our sins ; for he dyed in the quality of a surety , and in that quality was raised up again : By his death he made the payment , by his Resurrection the satifaction of it was witnessed to the World , for then our surety was let out of prison , Isa. 53.8 . He shall be taken from prison and from judgment , in his death he was in effect a prisoner , under the arrest of divine vengeance , but when he rose again he was discharged , therefore there is great weight layed upon it as to our acquittance , Rom. 8.34 . yea rather that is risen again , who is even at the right hand of God. There is some special thing in his Resurrection comparatively above his death which hath influence on our Justification ; that is , it was a visible evidence given to the World , that enough was done for the expiation of sins , and to assure us of our deliverance if we be capable , and his ascension into glory doth further witness it , he being exalted to the greatest dignity is able to defend and protect his people , and hath the advantage of interceding with his father for the supply of all our wants . 2. The grant of the New Covenant which is therefore called the Covenant of his peace , Isa. 54.10 . The Covenant of my peace shall not be removed , Ezek. 37.26 . I will make a Covenant of peace with them , it is so called not only because thereby this peace and Reconciliation is offered to us , but the terms are stated and the conditions required are far more equitable , gracious , and commodious for us then the terms of the Law Covenant : Man as a sinful creature is obnoxious 〈◊〉 Gods wrath for the violation of the Law of nature , and so might perish without remedy , and no impeachment to Gods goodness can happen thereby , but when God will give bounds to his soveraignty over him ▪ and c●ter into terms of Covenant wit● him , and give him a bottom to stand upon , whereon to expect good things from him , upon the account of his faithfulness and righteousness ; this is a condescension , and so far condescended in the first Covenant , that after that man hath cast away the mercies of his creation , and his capacity to fulfill that covenant , this was mere mercy and grace ; that God would enter into a second Covenant , it is not from any mutableness in God , but from the merit and satisfaction of a Redeemer . Surely there must be some great and important cause to change , alter and abrogate , a covenant so solemnly made and established , to lay aside one covenant and to enter into an other , especially since the former was so Holy , Righteous and Equal , fit for God to give , and us in the state we then were in to receive . Now what was the important reason ; Christ came to salve Gods honour in the first covenant , and to secure the ends of his Government , though a second covenant should be set up , the blood of his cross hath made this Covenant everlasting , Heb. 13.20 . and upon gracious terms doth convey great and precious priviledges to us . 3dly . The pouring out of the spirit , which certainly was the fruit and effect of Christs death , and also an evidence of the worth and value of it : The Apostle telleth us , That Christ was made a curse for us , that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles by faith in Iesus Christ. And what blessing was that ? the gift of the Spirit , Gal. 5.13 , 14. And in another place when he interpreteth the Types of the Law. He telleth us , that the Fathers did all eat of the same spiritual meat that we do , and did all drink of the same spiritual drink , for they drank of the Rock that followed them , and that Rock was Christ. If the Rock was Christ , the water that g●shed out of the Rock was the spirit , often compared to waters in Scripture , Iohn 4.14 . And Iohn 7.38 , 39. And the Rock yielded not this water till it was smitten with the Rod of Moses : a figure of the curses of the Law Christ was stricken and smitten of God , and so procured the spirit for us , Iohn 7.39 . The Holy Ghost was not yet given , for Iesus was not yet glorifyed . That is had not finished his passion , and the acceptance of it was not yet attested to the World , till he was advanced at the right hand of God ; and then this effect declared it . The spirit was given before , but more sparingly , because it was given upon trust , and with respect to the satisfaction that was afterwards to be made , and accepted : And then it was witnessed to the World by a more copious and plentiful effusion of the spirit . Therefore 't is said , Acts 2.33 . Therefore Iesus being by the right hand of God exalted , and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost , he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear . The merit and value of the sacrifice is thus visibly attested , therefore this is one of the witnesses , Acts 5.30 , 31 , 32. The God of our Fathers raised up Iesus whom ye slew , and hanged on a Tree , him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince , and a Saviour , for to give repentance to Israel , and remission of sins . And we are his witnesses of these things ; and so is also the Holy Ghost , whom God hath given to them that obey him . And what was the evidence given to the Church in general , is the evidence given also to every particular believer . 4thly . Some have obtained the effects and fruits of Christs death , this peace begun here hath been perfected in heaven . The Text saith he hath Reconciled all things to himself , whether they be things in Heaven or things in Earth . Here many are pardoned and accepted with God , and have the comfort of it in their own Souls . Others are gone home to God , and have the full of this peace . All were by nature children of wrath , under the curse as well as others . Now if some in all generations have injoyed the love , favour and friendship of God in this World and upon their departure out of it have entered into glory ; upon this account it is evident that Christ is accepted to the ends for which God sent him ; thus Abraham the Father of the faithful , and all the blessed souls who are gathered into his bosom , and are alive with God in Heaven . Certain it is they were all sinners by nature , for there is no difference between any of the children of men , and yet God admits them into his peace . Was it a personal priviledge peculiar to them only ? No the Apostle tells us , Rom. 4.23 . It was not written for his sake alone , and Paul obtained mercy for them that should hereafter believe on Christ , for life everlasting , 1 Tim. 1.16 . Therefore all penitent believers may be assured that this sacrifice is sufficient , and will avail for their acceptance with God. We take it for a good token of a healing Water , when we see the Crutches of Criples that had been cured , all the blessed Saints in Heaven are witness to a sincere soul ; they all obtained this blessed condition through the blood of his Cross Reconciling them to God. There is none in glory but had his pardon sealed through the blood of Christ. 4. How and upon what terms is it applyed to us : for we have considered hitherto onely how Christ hath made peace or made the atonement . Yet if we receive not the atonement we may perish for ever , for all that , besides the work done on the Cross by Christ alone , there is a work to be done in our hearts , the work of making peace is sufficiently done by Christ , there needeth nothing to be added to it , no other ransom , nor sacrifice , nor propitiation : Christ hath so fully satisfyed divine Justice , that he hath obtained the new Covenant , but we are not actually admitted 〈◊〉 this peace till we have personally accepted the Covenant . Now here it sticketh : God hath been in Christ Reconciling the World unto himself , there was the foundation layed ; but therefore we pray you to be Reconciled , 2 Cor. 5.20 . There is our Title , Claim , actual Right , security . But how do we receive this atonement ? or how are we interessed in it ? the conditions and terms are gracious , such as the nature of the business calleth for : as to our entrance into this peace , no more is required but Faith and Repentance . The Gospel is offered to all , but the penitent Believer as being onely capable is possessed of it . 1. Faith is required that we Believe what the Son of God hath done , and purchased for us , Rom. 5.1 . Being justified by Faith , we have peace with God , through our Lord Iesus Christ. If we sincerely embrace the Gospel , we are Reconciled to God , and accepted with him . The Faith that justifieth , is partly an assent to the Truth of the Christian Religion , especially the fundamental Truth , that Jesus is the Son of God , and Saviour of the World. And partly an acceptance of Christ as God offers him , a serious , thankful , broken hearted acceptance of Christ as your Lord and Saviour , serious because of the weight of the business , broken hearted because of the condition of the person accepting : a self-condemning sinner , or one that hath an awakening sense of his sin and misery . Thankful because Reconciliation with God and fruition of them in Glory is so great a benefit , and you take him as Lord , for every knee must bow to Christ , he is a Saviour by merit and efficacy . By his meritorious Righteousness you obtain all benefits , by the efficacy of his spirit , you perform all duties ; the last thing is trust and dependance , Eph. 1.13 . Trust is such an expectation of the benefits offered by Christ , that forsaking all other things you entirely give up your selves to the conduct of his Word and Spirit . 2. The next thing is Repentance which is a turning from sin to God , we turn from sin by hatred , and we turn to God by Love. We turn from sin by hatred ; hatred of sin is the ground of all mortification , there is a twofold hatred , of abomination and of enmity . We turn to God by Love which is the great principle to incline us to God , and is the bottom of vivification or living to God. Now all this is necessary to actual peace , for our refreshing begins in conversion , Acts 3.19 . there is no peace allowed to the wicked , we must take Christs yoke , or we shall find no rest for our souls , Matth. 11.29 . we are not reconciled to God till our enmity be broken and overcome , then of enemies we become Friends , of Strangers , intimates ; then we are reconciled . This then is required of you , onely let me add this caution , what is at first Vows and Purposes , must be afterwards Deeds and Practises , and having ingaged your selves to God to live to him , to keep your selves from sin , and to follow after Holiness ; This must be your business all the dayes of your lives . For so you continue your peace and interest in God , Gal. 6.16 . And as many as walk according to this rule , peace be on them , and mercy , and on the Israel of God. VSE . 1. To Exhort you to enter into this peace that you may be partakers of the fruit of Christs Blood , and the virtue of his cross may be effectual in you . 1. Let me reason a periculo , from the danger , consider what it is to be at odds with God , and how soon and how easily he can revenge his quarrel against you , and how miserable they will be for ever , that are not found of him in a state of peace , Psal. 7.11 , 12 , 13. God is angry with the wicked every day , if he turn not , he will w●et his sword ; he hath bent his bow , and will make his Arrows ready . There the Psalmist representeth God and man as in a state of hostility against each other . The wicked man affronts his holiness , questions his justice , slights his wrath , breaks his Laws , wrongeth his people , and saith tush , I shall have peace though I add drunkenness to thirst . God for a while giveth time and warning , but every moment can break in upon us , for he is able easily to deal with us , Cominus hand to hand , for he hath his sword ; Eminus at a distance , for he hath his bow : he is not only able to deal with them but ready , for he is whetting his Sword and hath bent his Bow , the Arrow is upon the string though not as yet sent or shot out , what remedy then is there . There is but one exception if he turn not ; if he be not reduced and brought home to God by a timely Repentance , he falleth into the hands of the living God. Now no persons are in so dangerous an estate as those that have peace offered and despise it , Isa. 27.4 . Let him take hold of my strength . When God is ready to strike . A man that is faln into the power of his enemy will take hold of his Arm , we are always in Gods power , his vengeance may surprize us before we are aware , what is our business but to be found of him in peace . 2. Ab utili , from the happiness of being at peace with God : your great work is over , and you have a World of benefit by it , you stop all danger at the fountain head . When you are at peace with God , you are at peace with the creatures , Ezek. 34.25 . I will make with them a Covenant of peace and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the Land , danger might way-lay us at every turn : Then for Men , Prov. 10.17 . When a mans ways please the Lord he makes his enemies to be at peace with him . Then peace in your own Consciences , Rom. 15.13 . Now the God of hope fill you with joy and peace . In believing to have a mans Conscience settled on sound terms is a great Mercy . Peace with the Holy Angels instead of being instruments of vengeance , they are ministring Spirits , Heb. 1.14 . Lastly Communion with God himself , Rom. 5.1 , 2. Therefore being justified by Faith we have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ , by whom also we have access by Faith , &c. Eph. 2.17 , 18. Preaching peace by whom also we have access by one Spirit unto the Father . 3. I Reason from the confidence we may have of this benefit if we submit to Godly terms . 1. God is willing to give it , verse 19. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell , there is Gods authority and good pleasure in it . The first motive came from God who received the wrong , not from him that gave it . God was in Christ , 2 Cor. 5.14 . Among men the inferiour should seek to the superior . The party offending to the party offended , the weaker to the stronger , they that need the Reconciliation to him that needeth it not , but here all is contrary . 2. You may be confident of it upon another ground , the sufficiency of Christ to procure all fullness . The whole divine nature did inhabit and reside in the man Christ Jesus , and so he is compleatly fitted , and furnished for this work : he hath paid a full price for this peace when he bare our sins and carryed our sorrows , and by his Spirit he changes our hearts as well as pacifies the wrath of God. And then he preserveth this peace by his constant intercession , Heb. 2.17 , 18. Now shall we doubt of it ? But that we may get it . 1. Let us take the way of entrance by Faith and Repentance . It concerns us much to see whether we be in peace or trouble , if in trouble you see the cure , if in peace the next question is , is it Gods peace ? That 's had by the blood of Christ , the merit of which we must depend upon and devote our selves to God , break off our old league with sin , and bind our selves with a Bond to live unto God , to be the Lords for evermore . 2. When this peace is made be very tender of it , that no breach fall out between you and God , Psal. 85.8 . He will speak peace to his people and to his Saints , but let not them turn again to folly . 3. Let us be thankful to God for this fruit of Christs death , it is an act of free and undeserved mercy , and to be imputed to nothing but his mere grace that God hath appointed such a way : It pleased the Father to bruise him , Isa. 53.9 . That he sendeth Ambassadors to publish it , Acts 10.36 . the word which God sent unto the Children of Israel Preaching peace by Jesus Christ he is Lord of all , and that he appointeth a ministery . It is a great priviledge in it self ; for by this peace we have not onely the beginnings but the increase of grace till all be perfected in heaven , Heb. 13 . 2● , 21. Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus , make you perfect in every good work , to do his will working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight , 1 Thess. 1.23 . The God of peace sanctifie you that you may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Iesus Christ. This peace doth encourage us in all temptations from the devil , Rom. 16.20 . The God of peace shall bruise satan under your feet shortly . From the World , Eph. 6.15 . shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace . Fears of the wrath of God , and doubts about our eternal condition , Rom. 14.17 . The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness , peace and joy in the Holy Ghost , here are three words , Comfort , Peace and Ioy , these succeed one another as so many degrees , Comfort is support under trouble , Peace a ceasing from trouble , joy a lively sense of the love of God. FINIS . 
A52291	----	An answer to an heretical book called The naked Gospel which was condemned and ordered to be publickly burnt by the convocation of the University of Oxford, Aug. 19, 1690 : with some reflections on Dr. Bury's new edition of that book : to which is added a short history of Socinianism / by William Nicholls. Nicholls, William, 1664-1712. 1691 Approx. 382 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 72 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A52291 Wing N1091 ESTC R28145 10432963 ocm 10432963 45010 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A52291) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 45010) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1388:11) An answer to an heretical book called The naked Gospel which was condemned and ordered to be publickly burnt by the convocation of the University of Oxford, Aug. 19, 1690 : with some reflections on Dr. Bury's new edition of that book : to which is added a short history of Socinianism / by William Nicholls. Nicholls, William, 1664-1712. Bury, Arthur, 1624-1713. Naked Gospel. [23], 108 p. Printed for Walter Kettilby, London : 1691. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Bury, Arthur, 1624-1713. -- Naked Gospel. Socinianism. 2006-05 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-05 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-06 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2006-06 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion AN ANSWER TO AN Heretical Book Called the Naked Gospel , Which was condemned and ordered to be publickly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxford , Aug. 19. 1690. With some Reflections on Dr. Bury's New Edition of that BOOK . To which is added a short HISTORY of Socinianism . By William Nicholls , M. A. Fellow of Merton College in Oxford , and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Ralph Earl of Mountague . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Phot. Nomoc. Tit. 12. c. 2. LONDON , Printed for Walter Kettilby , at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard , 1691. TO THE Right Honourable RALPH EARL of MOUNTAGUE , &c. My Lord , I Am induced to lay these Papers at your Lordship's Feet , both from the Relation I bear to your Lordship , which does exact all my Labours as a Tribute and Acknowledgment of my Duty and Obligation , as also from the Knowledge of the great Affection and Zeal You have always continued to shew for the True Religion ; assuring my self that whatsoever shall be offered in Defence of that , especially against the now growing Heresie of the Times , will find no small Acceptance in your Lordship's Favour . It is sufficiently known , my Lord , what a signal Example of True Christian Piety and Courage , against the Anti-trinitarian Heterodoxes , was shewn by the excellent Sir Ralph Winwood * , your Lordship's Grandfather , when he was Embassadour in Holland for King James I. in so strenuously opposing Vorstius the Socinian's Accession to the Professorship of Leyden ; whose Advice , if the States had then been so prudent as to have taken , the Socinian Heresies had not made the Progress in the World as now they have , from the Lectures of him and his Successours in that Chair . And therefore , my Lord , I am encouraged to think that your Lordship , who does possess all the Noble Endowments of that great and good Statesman , your Ancestor , will favourably look upon that which is designed against those Heretical Tenets , the Seeds of which have been mostly sown in this Nation by the Books of Vorstius and his Successours , though often under Colour of Opinions of a more specious Name . May it therefore please your Lordship to accept these my poor Endeavours in Defence of the True Faith , which I have here presumed to entitle to your Lordship's Protection ; and be pleased to look on them as a small Token of the Duty and Service which shall be always owing to your Lordship , from , My Lord , Your Lordship 's Most Dutiful Chaplain , and most Obedient Servant , W. Nicholls . THE PREFACE . THE occasion of writing this Treatise was to hinder the mischief that the Book it is designed to Answer was like to do , which having lain so many Months without an Answer , I did reasonably presume there was none design'd , and therefore I thought such a one as I could supply , would be better than none at all . I should never have troubled the World with this , if I had had the least Item of Mr. Long 's design ; but that was perfectly unknown to me till these Papers were wrote out fair for the Press . As to the Method I have taken in the answering this Book , I have followed the Authour in his own , and have given his Titles to each of the Chapters . In those Chapters , in which he most impugns our Saviour's Divinity , I have traced him step by step , and given an Answer to every Shadow of an Argument that he brings . In other Chapters , where there are only oblique stroaks against the Doctrine of the Trinity , or which are only Introductory to his main Design , I have only summed up the Substance of them , and so given an Answer to them in general ; or at least to so much of them as seemed to make against the Truth of this Doctrine , or any other important Truth of our Religion . Now , it may , by some perhaps , be thought unfair , when I use these Expressions , The Authour would insinuate , would pretend , &c. when he does not , in express Terms , assert that thing in his Book . But it must be considered , That it was the Authour's design , not to let his Book appear with too Heretical a Face , but to lay his Premises so , that the Reader should often draw his Consequences for him , without his setting them down in express Words . This is a Subtilty which is common to all such sort of Writers , that dare not speak out their full Minds ; though , by the way , I think this Authour has as little minced the matter as any . But however , I have carefully endeavoured not to pervert his Sense ; but to take his words in that meaning , which any indifferent Reader would think the Author designed they should be understood in . If I have any where mist his Meaning , 't is thro' Mistake , and not thro' Wilfulness . And in truth , I am not absolutely sure , after the greatest Diligence , that I have always hit his Sense : for he has a peculiar way of Writing , different from all the Writers of the age , his Periods are long and uneven , filled with odd sort of Similes and affected Phrases , broken with unnatural Parentheses , and almost constant Hyperbatons ; which , to be sure , will occasion Obscurity in his Book : so that if I have mistaken his Meaning upon this account , he is to charge that upon himself , and not upon his Answerer . In short , I have performed this Task , with all the fairness I could , with a design , not to triumph over my Adversary , but to evince the Truth ; to vindicate the Honour of my Blessed Saviour , which was here so highly calumniated , and to assert the Doctrine of the Holy , undivided Trinity , into the belief of which I was baptized , and in which I hope , by God's grace , to die . THE CONTENTS OF THE ANSWER to the PREFACE . THE Doctrine of the Trinity could give no incouragement to Mahometanism . The true Reasons of the great prevailing of Mahomet's Religion . Animadversion upon the Authour's mistake about the establishment of Image-worship . — Vpon his saying Mahomet professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith. The Heterodox greater furtherers of Mahometanism than the Orthodox . That the belief of the Trinity is very consistent with the simplicity of the Christian Religion . That the requiring a belief of this Doctrine does not suppose unlearned Men to understand all the disputes about it . The Socinian Doctrines much fuller of niceties than the Orthodox . CHAP. I. Necessary to be believed , and necessary to Salvation , not the same . The chief Rules of Christianity , not easily discernible by the light of nature , by instance of Tully and Aristotle . Doctrine of the Trinity not contrary to the fewness of Christian Precepts . How all the Gospel is Faith and Repentance ? CHAP. II. That we are justified by Faith alone , proved by Scripture , Antiquity , &c. This Faith ought to be Orthodox in all fundamentals . The reason why Faith is so pleasing to God , as to justify Men by it . CHAP. III. What natural Faith is ? Faith under the Gospel is an inspired habit or grace , proved by Scripture , Antiquity , &c. The Faith of Abraham and the Fathers , the true Christian justifying Faith. CHAP. IV. Credulity not an excess of Divine Faith. What deference is to be paid to General Councils . That they cannot err , à piè Credibile . They are the best expedients of Vnity . CHAP. V. The belief of Christ's Divinity , one of the difficulties in the planting the Gospel . The belief of this frequently incouraged by our Saviour . The belief of Christ's Divinity useful to Religion . 1. By gaining Authority to his Laws . 2. By improving our love and gratitude . 3. By assuring us of pardon . CHAP. VI. Our Saviour's Titles not Hyperbolical . Not called the Son of God , as a great Mountain is called the Mountain of God , &c. He is not the Son of God as Angels are . The splendor of his Nature no bar to our being certain of his Divinity . CHAP. VII . The Authour's Testimony of Constantine , concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity , examined . Constantine ' s judgment of Arianism . The supposition of a plurality of Worlds , no Argument that the Eternal Son of God should not dy for the sins of this . No Argument against the Trinity , because it is not said expresly in Scripture , that every one to be baptized must believe in it . The Ancient Christians , before Baptism , always instructed in this Doctrine . A Testimony out of Justin Martyr examined . A Testimony of Leonas in Socrates examined . CHAP. VIII . Another Testimony of Constantine examined . In what sense our Saviour's Original is unknown . How Melchizedeck is a Type of Christ. The Authour 's saying , that the Evangelists do confound the Genealogies , on purpose to puzzle us , considered . A Vindication of Bishop Alexander's contest with Arius . A Citation out of Socrates concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , examined . Athanasius's explication of the Trinity defended . Not absurd to believe a mystery . Account of the proceedings of the Council of Syrmium . No necessity , that Christ having two Natures , should have two Persons . His being but one Person does not make him have but one Nature . An account of the Condemnation of Eutyches . An account of the Heretical Council at Ephesus that restored him . The wickedness of the Eutychians in that Council . The reason of the honour done to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon . The favour granted to the Eutychians by Basiliscus , no Argument against the Orthodox Doctrine . Monothelitism not owing to the Doctrine of the Trinity . An Account of the rise of it . CHAP. IX . To assert our Saviour's Divinity , does not dishonour him by making him comprehensible . An Account of the saying of the Council of Antioch , which the Authour alledges . The Arians were never the less such for all their subscriptions to the Council of Nice . A Vindication of Athanasius's flying to Julius the Roman Bishop , and of Julius . An account of the Council of Sardica . Athanasius purged from his pretended Crimes . A Schism between the two Churches did not arise from the disagreement of the Arians , with the Orthodox at Sardica . The troubles in the Church , not imputable to the Orthodox Doctrine . The prevailing of the Orthodox Doctrine did not proceed from the greatness of the Bishop of Rome . Nor from the ignorance of the Ancient Roman Church . A Vindication of Theodosius's Decree for the establishing the Orthodox Doctrine . Of Charity to Hereticks from the example of Alexander . The ill consequences of Heresies , though not foreseen , yet imputable to it . Arian and Socinian Expositions of Scripture unreasonable to make the greater compellations of Christ stoop to the smaller . CHAP. X. Of the Authour's Reflection on Dr. Hammond's Treatise of Fundamentals . The Doctrine of the Trinity agrees with the Authour's first qualification of matter of Faith , viz. To be sufficiently understood by the meanest capacity . His second qualification considered that it must be the express word of God. The Trinity proved by Scripture . His third qualification considered . Eternal Life promised to the belief of our Saviour's Divinity . The use and necessity of Creeds in the Church . The promise of eternal Life , not only made to the belief of the Resurrection . Why this promise was made so expresly to that . CHAP. XI . The necessity of Mens rising with the same numerical Bodies evinced , from Reason , Scripture , and Antiquity . The Authour 's first Argument answered . — His second . His third . His fourth . ENQUIRY II. The Orthodox extend Faith no further than the Scripture does . They do not exalt Faith above holiness . Taking hold on Christ by Faith , imputed righteousness , &c. not phrases purely Calvinistical , but used by the Ancients . We do not advance Faith above Charity . How far our Charity to Hereticks is to extend . The behaviour of the Ancient Christians to Hereticks . We do not advance Faith above Reason . The use of the word mystery in prophane Authours , in Scripture and Fathers . We use the word in the same sense it is used in Scripture . ENQUIRY III. The unfairness of the Authour in laying his charge against the Orthodox , and making it out against the Papists . The Doctrine of the Trinity not prejudicial to our Lord's honour , in hindring the progress of the Gospel . Not prejudicial to the Tranquillity of Christians Minds . — nor to the peace of the Church . Conclusion . That the Church of England does recommend the three Creeds to our Belief . The Authour's Arguments to the contrary answered . His reflection on the late Convocation considered . CONTENTS OF THE REFLECTIONS ON THE New Edition . THE Authour's excuses for his first Book considered . His new Explication of the Trinity . The Council of Alexandria did not condemn the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia , proper words to explain what is meant by them ; and the Latins did understand by one what the Greeks did by the other . The same shewn of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Persona . None but the Hereticks refused these words . The Doctor 's Explication of the Trinity downright Sabellianism . How Sabellius Explained the Trinity . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not explained by the Ancients by being the Wisdom of the Father . Nor the Holy Ghost by being an Energy . Neither St. Austin , nor Dr. Sherlock of our Author's Opinion . AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE . THE Authour in this , by as much as can be gather'd from him , goes upon two Arguments to overturn the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity ; the first is , Because , as he pretends , the Disputes about this have been the decaying of Christianity , and the prevailing of Mahometanism in the East : the second is , Because , as he says , this Doctrine is contrary to the great Simplicity in which the Gospel was deliver'd , and , which it does recommend . In the proof of the first of these he spends half his Preface , and indeed has got through four of his long Columns , before he comes to any thing that looks like a Conclusion from his Premises . Soon he is admiring the swift Progress of Christianity through the World , notwithstanding the Power and Malice of its Adversaries , and the Meanness of its Propagators ; and soon again he is as humble an Admirer of the good fortune of Mahomet's Religion ; and withal , makes this most Christian conclusion , That the wonderful Progress of the Gospel was not a more powerful evidence of its Divine Authority , than the Progress of Mahometanism was for that of the Alchoran . But then again , upon second thoughts , he is a little for recalling himself , and gives the Advantage somewhat on the Gospel side , from the power of Arms , which the Arabian Doctor used , and something from the imparity of his Doctrines themselves , and the life of their Authour , whom he calls a lewd , brain-sick Scoundrel , with much more good manners and reverence than he termed our Saviour , just before , a crucified Vagabond . And then , a little after , he is so just to Christianity again , as to grant , that Mahometanism had not the advantage against her in truth of Doctrine , but only by permission of Divine Providence , which had predicted the removal of the Candlestick out of its place ; but the great occasions of this removal , he tells us , were the great Innovations made in Christianity , and the hot Disputes , especially concerning the First and Second Persons of the Trinity ; which had so changed the Gospel , that were an Apostle to return into the world , he would be so far from owning , that he would not be able to understand it ; and so leaves it as a moot Point , whether Mahomet or the Christian Doctors have more corrupted the Gospel . Though at last he seems to determine it against the Doctors , and for Mahomet ; because he allows him to have professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith , which the Doctors it seems had destroyed , and because their Doctrines ( of the Trinity ) had provoked our Lord to divorce himself from his Churches , and so did incourage , and impower the false Prophet to seduce and ruin them . This is the substance of half his Preface , the parts of which hang so loose , without any connection , and are so odly jumbled together , that I dare say , hardly ever any Man of Letters , before our Author , drew a Conclusion from premises so loosely laid ; and I am afraid his Friends , the Socinians , are too great Lovers of Reason to hope for much credit or advantage to their Cause , from one that is so little a Master of ordinary Logick . For in all this ●●ddle of words , here is not one tittle of proof of the thing he would be at ; and what is worse , 't is somewhat difficult to know what that is ; all that one can guess from what he has been saying , is , That the determinations of the Councils , and the Writings and Disputes of the Fathers , concerning the blessed Trinity , against the Hereticks , were the chief causes of the prevailing of the Mahometan Religion . He mentions indeed with these the Doctrine of Image-worship , but that is only to shew the Doctrine of the Trinity in bad Company ; for 't is plain , by the tenour of his Book , that his design was not against the worship of Images . I shall therefore shew , First , That the Doctrine of the Trinity could give no occasion to the progress of Mahometanism . Secondly , What were the occasion of the prevailing of it ; and this , I presume , will be a full Answer to the first half of his Preface . First , That the Doctrine of the Trinity could give no occasion to the progress of Mahometanism . As for the Doctrine it self , I cannot see how that should gain Mahomet Proselytes , any more than any other Doctrine of Christianity : the Impostor himself disliked it , 't is true ; because as long as this Doctrine was believed , his pretended Revelations would never be received ; for 't would be in vain for him to offer to the World his Doctrines , which were contrary to those that were before delivered by the Eternal Son of God. He pretended to be no more than a meer Prophet , and therefore could never presume to undo what was believed to be setled personally by God himself . Besides the silliness of his arguing against the Generation of the Son , shewed , that he little understood the merits of that Cause , one of whose Arguments is , what Servetus * the Reviver of this Authour's Heresy , borrowed from him , because God , forsooth , † has no Wife . So that there is the same reason why this Deceiver should condemn this Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity , which obstructed his Ambition , as he did that of Christian Mortification and Self-denial , which obstructed his Lust . And the Author , with the same reason , might arraign all the admirable Lectures the holy Scripture gives us of Abstinence and Chastity for false Doctrine too , only because they were condemned by this Impostor . But as for the disputes about this Doctrine , at the time of Mahomet's appearing , they were well-nigh laid asleep ; the Arian Doctrines were almost forgot by the eager disputes in the Apollinarian , Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies , and the Council of Chalcedon had fully determined the last Controversy nigh 200 years before the World heard any thing of Mahomet . The number of the Arians at this time was very small , and they were chiefly at that time , according to * Sandius himself , in Spain † , and their Disputes there could not give any great scandal to the Saracens on the other side the World. The greatest Controversies now on foot were in the East , the Monothelites , or the Assertors of one Will in Christ ; in the West was still remaining the Controversy about the Celebration of Easter . And these the Impostor takes no notice of , unless he includes them in the general , amongst the Divisions which he did condemn amongst the Christians . * 2. Now secondly , As to the certain reasons why Mahometanism should with such a violent inundation of a sudden over-run the Eastern World , they can be known only to God himself , the great Disposer of all Events , whose Judgments are unsearchable , and his ways past finding out . But if we turn our Eyes upon second Causes , we may find several at this time , which either of themselves helped the spreading of this false Prophet's Impostures , or at least provoked God to permit this contagion to prevail . Which were first , The Calamitous Estate of Christendom at that time ; nay , the whole World was under that commotion which it never felt before , and by God's Grace never may again . The Goths , and Hunns , the Avares , Lumbards and Bulgarians , were ravaging all the Western Empire , the Saxons not long before had over-run Britain , and the Persians were making as great devastations in the East ; so that the Christians were not in a Capacity of resisting their other Enemies , much less of hindering the Incursions of the Saracens . Secondly , The Negligence of the Popes and Patriarchs , who lay wrangling in the defence of their Errours , and in gaining Privileges and Precedencies to their Sees † , and did not lend any assistance towards the securing their Flocks from this Wolf , till 't was past all recovery ; and even the holy Wars which the Popes were so zealous for afterwards , seem'd designed more to keep the hands of active Princes a-work , least they should attempt any thing against their See , or out of an odd Superstition to the Holy Land , and our Saviour's Sepulcher , than out of any truly pious design to revive Christianity . Thirdly , The Method he took to propagate his Religion by Fire and Sword ; for he had no sooner Conquered any City or Country , but the poor wretched Inhabitants were forced to abnege their former Religion , and to embrace his Forgeries , or * else were immediately to be butcher'd by his Souldiers . Fourthly , But the great causes of all which provoked God to suffer the Candlesticks to be removed from these Churches , were , the great decay of Piety in the World , and the many Errours and Superstitions which had then crept into the Church , whose Doctrine and practice had then so vastly degenerated from those of the Christians in the first Ages . That Love and Charity , which was so exemplary in the Primitive Professors , was turned into Pride and Contention , and a pertinacious obstinacy in disputes and desire of Innovations , the former strictness and circumspectness of Life , was changed , after the peace in the Church under Christian Emperours , into dissoluteness and Luxury , and the other concomitants of those Vices . Errours and Superstitions were every day crowing into the Church , the Sacrifice of the Mass , Prayers for the Dead , Reliques , Doctrine of Merits , Prayers in an unknown Tongue , Purgatory , Prohibition of Marriage in the Clergy , Monastick Life , Superstitious Meats , Vests , Tonsures , &c. all which were brought in before , or in some measure used by this Age ; and Image-Worship , which our Authour mentions , began a little to appear † , though it was far from setling till the second Council of Nice , A. D. 787. So that our Authour is a little out in his Chronology , when he says , the then late establishment of Image-worship , gave a tempting opportunity to the Impostor , &c. For that Impostor set on foot his Doctrines above 150 years before the estblishment of Image-worship . For from the year 622 , the year of Mahomet's slight , sometime after he had disseminated his Doctrines , to the year 787. are precisely 165 years , and so much the Authour is out of his Argument and his Chronology ; unless he will allow the Arabian Doctor , by his prophetick Spirit , to have foreseen so far the determinations of this Council . And now , I hope , I have made it appear , that the determinations of the first Council of Nice , about the Trinity , which was 300 years before Mahomet , gave no more incouragement to his Imposture , than the second Council of Nice did , which was 150 years after ; and if I have done so , I am very well contented . I have but one word more to say in vindication of the Orthodox Belief from this aspersion , which is , That I do not find any of her Professors to have been Abettors of Mahomet's Doctrine ; but I wish our Authour's Friends , among the Heterodox , could say so much ; for we read , that there assisted him in his Forgeries , one Sergius a Nestorian , and Johannes Antiochenus an Arian . * Nay , 't is a report commonly received , that Servetus borrowed his Heresy from the Mahometans in Africa † so that it seems a Professor of the Arian Doctrine did assist in composing the Alchoran , and the Alchoran did conduce to the reviving of Arianism ; and now let the Reader judge which have contributed more , the Orthodox or the Hereticks , to the propagation of Mahomet's Religion . As to his Vnchristian assertion , that Mahomet professed all the Doctrines of the Christian Faith , which the Vniversity have Condemned in their Decree , it may be expected I should say something to that ; but that is an expression so horrid in all Christian Ears , that it needs no Antidote ; 't is a Blasphemy so loud and palpable , that it exacts rather the Iron of the Hangman , than the Answer of a Christian. Blessed Jesus ! that ever thy holy Religion should be thus vilified ! that a Christian should assert , that such a profligate Wretch , that carried on his Impostures by Villainy and Lewdness , that tolerated in his Followers , Murders and Thefts , Rapes and Sodomies , and was himself most eminent in all these wickednesses , that he should be said by a Christian to profess all the Articles of thy holy Religion , which commands the utmost goodness and purity , both of Body and Soul. II. The second Argument which our Authour goes upon to invalidate the Doctrine of the Trinity is , because , as he would insinuate , it is contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel . And in proving of this he uses as much prevarication and shuffling , as if he had been trained up in a College of Jesuits . For when he should shew his Reader , how much the Doctrine of three Persons , being one God , is contrary to the Gospel simplicity , he runs off from this to several other corruptions which have happened to the Gospel , and which the maintainers of this Doctrine are not the least concerned to answer for . 'T is one of the excellencies of the Christian Religion , as he well observes , that the poor have the Gospel preached unto them ; that is , that the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are such , as the meanest capacities may understand ; the Truths which it does deliver are not strange Philosophical notions , or expressed in high , Rhetorical strains , or ( as the Apostle speaks ) in enticing words of Mans Wisdom . But how does he prove that it may not be so for all the Doctrine of the Trinity ? Why , the Authour is pretty civil as to that point , and because he would not be too hard upon the Orthodox , turns the point of his Argument against the old Gnosicks , and fetches a Text or two out of St. Paul to confound them . If any one preach another Jesus whom we have not preached — you might well bear with him , or as the Authour translates it , could you well bear with him ? 2 Cor. 11. 1. Which , by the way , is a false translation : for there is no Authority for any such reading by way of Interrogation . The words in the Text are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye might well bear , without the word him . And if our translation were to be altered , it ought rather to be , you might well bear with me ; for that is most agreeable to the Apostle's design : for he is desiring the Corinthians to excuse his boasting , as v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and I pray bear with me . The like he endeavours to prove from Gal. 1. 6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel , which is not another . If an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel , let him be accursed . From all which he draws these four Theses . First , 'T is possible the Gospel may be so disguised by Innovations , that though it still retain its genuine Principles , it may appear another . Secondly , 'T is possible such Innovations may be so obvious , that people may discover them . Thirdly , Those that depart from such Innovators are not Schismaticks , but faithful Believers . Fourthly , Be the Innovators never so high in Authority , we must be so far from paying them Implicit Faith , that we must not pay them ordinary Charity , but hold them accursed . The Author has been here at a great deal of pains to lay his matter in order , though I believe it will make little to his purpose . For we will grant all that he has been here saying is true , if he lets the matter lie , as the Apostle left it , against the Gnosticks . Nay , but perhaps the Trinitarians will not so easily get off here . And truly any one that understands the design of the Authour's Book , would expect from these Propositions some wonderful confutation of the Trinitarian Doctrines . But our Authour very cunningly lets that alone , and by a Hocus-Pocus trick , claps before our Eyes some Romish corruptions , which were occasioned , he tells us , by people that heaped to themselves Teachers , having itching Ears , and those Teachers heaped to themselves Doctrines to scratch that itch ; and so the Monks by scratching and clawing one another , scratched themselves into all the errours of the School-Divinity . Therefore he concludes , that there being such errours that destroy the Gospel simplicity , and we being not to be saved by the greatest humane authority ( he means general Councils ) or to put our Souls in a Lottery ; we must therefore see what those Doctrines are , which destroy the Gospel simplicity ; which cannot better be managed , he tells us , than by the three enquiries of his Book . Now though for all the Authour has said to this point , the Doctrine of the Trinity is very safe , yet because he would slily insinuate , that this Doctrine is one of those Romish Errours that destroy the simplicity of Christianity , I think fit to make him this Answer . First , That the belief of the blessed Trinity is very consistent with the simplicity of the Christian Religion . For if there be nothing in that Doctrine , but what a Man of ordinary capacity may understand , as much at least as is requisite for his belief , and as far as his judgment tells him 't is reasonable to suppose such a thing should be understood ; I cannot see why this Doctrine should derogate from the simplicity of Christianity . Now First in this doctrine there is nothing but what a Man of mean parts may understand , as far as is requisite for his belief ; for 't is not requisite that such a Man ( or indeed any Man ) should fully understand all that he does believe ; for that would not be belief but science : 't is enough for belief , that a Man has undoubted Testimony that such a thing is so , whether he understands the manner , or perhaps the possibility of its being so or not . We are wont to take many things upon Trust from the Mouths of Men learned in their respective Sciences , the reasons of which we are far from understanding ; and Mathematicians can demonstrate many Truths , and which Men unlearned in their Science take upon their words , though to them they seem otherways impossible . Now if it be reasonable , that a plain unlearned Man should believe many things which he does not understand from the testimony of wiser and more knowing Men , I think it a less imposition upon the understandings of plain Men , to require them to believe a revealed Truth from the Testimony of the All-wise and All-knowing God. Secondly , A plain Man understands as much in this Doctrine , as his judgment tells him it is reasonable he should understand in a matter of that nature ; and 't is highly unreasonable for any Man to expect more . If any one indeed , how wise soever , should tell the plain Man that Bread is Flesh , the plain Man would think this unreasonable to believe ; because he knows the difference between Bread and Flesh , as well as any one can tell him ; and because then he is required to disbelieve his Senses in a matter of which they are the properest Judges . But if this plain Man be informed , by an undoubted Testimony , of something which indeed he does not understand concerning God , whose nature and essence his reason tells him is not to be understood , or any one else , though of the greatest learning or reason ; this he is with an humble submission ready to believe , and when he has full assurance of the undoubtedness of the Testimony which confirms this , his belief does not in the least boggle at what ' is so delivered . For a Person of the ordinariest reason that believes a God and his Attributes , must be sure , that in that infinite being there are infinite mysteries , that is , Truths which are not to be understood by finite capacities ; and if it has pleased God's Wisdom , to reveal the Esse of one of these mysteries to us , that there are Father , Son and Holy-Ghost , three Persons and one God ; though the Modus of this Truth does surpass our understandings , yet he acknowledges , that this belief is reasonable , because 't is irrational for him to think his finite understanding should comprehend all the mysterious Truths in an infinite Deity . Secondly , 'T is not requisite that every plain simple Man , of whom the belief of the Trinity is required , as being a divine Truth revealed in Scripture ; that he should understand all the Questions , which are controverted by learned Men about this Doctrine : All the disputes about Hypostasis's and Personalities , Generations and Processions ; for there were thousands of good Christians went to Heaven before these Controversies were started in the World , or before these terms were ever heard of . So that 't is a great mistake of the Adversaries of this Doctrine , to think that we impose it as necessary to every ordinary Man's Salvation to understand , and to give an express assent to all the determinations of these Questions : 't is enough for him to believe the Doctrine in general , as he finds it revealed in Scripture ; and to leave the more particular disquisition of it to more learned Men. And besides , 't is not the fault of the Orthodox in the Church , that ever these Disputes happened , or that ever these names were coined : we may thank the Hereticks for all this , for they began first to oppugn the received Faith by new Doctrines and strange glosses upon Scripture , and then the true Christians , in their own defence , were forced to vindicate the Orthodox Faith ; and so because by reasoning upon supernatural Truths , which never came into so strict disquisition before , they had occasion to invent new words to express these Truths by , to prevent long ambages and circumlocutions in discourse ; or otherwise the World had never been troubled to this day with Hypostasis's , Homoousios's , or Consubstantiality . But after all this clamour against the Orthodox , the Socinians themselves ( not to mention the Arians ) build their points of Faith upon greater niceties , or else how come they to bring in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Divinity ? that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify the supream God , but not with it ; which is a false as well as a foolish Criticism . Or else how come they to make use of that pretty distinction of a God by Nature , and a God by Office ? Then follow his three Queries , in which he promises to act no less sincerely than courageously , but I am afraid he has failed in the former ; for if , I mistake not , his Confidence has generally the transcendent of his Sincerity , which is the common fate of all Hereticks . His Queries are these . 1. What was that Gospel which our Lord and his Apostles preached as necessary to be believed ? 2. What alterations or additions have after Ages made in it ? 3. What Advantage or Damage hath thereupon ensued . Now as to these Queries , I am willing to follow him in the search of them ; and I pray God to give him grace to be better resolved in them hereafter , than he was , or at least would be thought to be , when he was writing this Book . And so I shall take my leave of his Preface . AN ANSWER TO THE Naked Gospel . CHAP. I. What was the Gospel our Lord and his Apostles preached , as necessary to Salvation . HERE the Authour shews a little Sophistry , whilst in his Query at first he says necessary to be believed , but in his transcribing it in the Front of this Chapter , he says necessary to Salvation . The first expression he uses , as the more soft , to make his Queries , as they lie together , seem more reasonable ; the second he makes use of , as the more harsh , thereby to insinuate the uncharitableness of the Orthodox , who make a right Belief of the Trinity necessary to Salvation . Now , though we will not quarrel with the Authour about this change of his Terms , which is never to be allowed in fair Disputes , especially in the Question it self which is to be discussed ; yet we must allow a great deal of Difference between a thing 's being necessary to be believed , and being necessary to Salvation . A thing may be necessary to be believed , when it is a certain Truth plainly revealed in Scripture ; so that a man cannot , in all points , believe aright without the belief of that too , and the belief of that Point is necessarily required to make him a full , compleat , Orthodox Believer ; but then , a thing is necessary for Salvation , when it is so of the very Fundamentals of Religion , that the Scripture does not allow of Salvation without the belief of this ; but whether the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity be of this necessity is another dispute : only from hence it appears , That necessity of believing , and necessity in order to Salvation are not equivalent Expressions , and which , I am persuaded , the Authour did not use without design . The Authour , in the beginning of this Chapter , gives an account of the excellence of the Christian Religion , and that it was propagated by our Saviour , to deliver us from the discipline of the Ceremonial Law , and to exalt natural Religion to its utmost perfection : and so far right — Then he goes farther to tell us , that its Doctrines were the same which were so legibly imprinted in the most ignorant minds , that every one , without any Instructer , might read and understand . And so , with this notion of the Christian Religion in his head , and this Test , as he calls it , in his hand , very champion-like , as he safely may 〈…〉 . 1. What was the Gospel which our Saviour and his Apostles preached ? And here our Authour , to make short work , at first dash reduces the Doctrines to Two , Faith and Repentance ; and then to Faith and no Repentance ; and then again to Repentance and no Faith ; he might as well have rung the changes once more , and have reduced it to no Faith and no Repentance , and then he had cut the Gospel short enough . Now from all this he would make us believe , That the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity , which the Orthodox require to be believed of good Christians , is contrary to what our Saviour required of his Followers . Now here are Three things which lack a little animadversion . First . His saying that the Doctrines of Christianity were so legibly imprinted in the most ignorant Men's minds , that every one , without any ●●structor , might read and understand them . Secondly , That the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to this Plainness . Thirdly , That this Doctrine is contrary to the sewness of the Christian Precepts . As to his First assertion , I will readily acquit our Authour of Socinianism as to this point ; for the Gentlemen of that persuasion are generally so civil to our Saviour , notwithstanding their depriving him of his Divinity , as to allow him to be a distinct * Legislator from Moses , not only to have rectified and improved the old Law , but to have given new precepts , and to have advanced Morality to that height and perfection , which it could never have come up to without such Revelation . But our Authour here would have our Blessed Saviour , who , himself tells us that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to fill up the Law , and to compleat it ; and of whose Doctrines the Apostles give the great Eulogiums of a spiritual Law , and a perfect Law ; only to have told the World something which they knew well enough before , and which any Ignorant Man , in our Author's phrase , could understand without an Instructor . Who the Authour calls ignorant Men I know not ; I am sure , some Men of the greatest natural Knowledge have not been able , by the light of Nature , to come up to the Knowledge of some of those Laws which our Saviour does recommend in his Sermon upon the Mount. The Jews , who one would think should be most knowing in these Truths , as having the assistance of so many particular Revelations , yet they lived in opinions contrary to them all , as appears by the whole tenor of that Discourse of our Saviour : and even the most Learned of the Heathen were far from embracing the generality of them . 'T would be too long here to shew the great defect of the Heathen Philosophy , in respect of this admirable Lecture of our Saviour : But to let our Authour know how far ignorant Men are from coming up , by the pure light of reason , to the Knowledge of these Laws , let him consider how much Aristotle and Cicera , two Men of the greatest strength of natural Reason , perhaps , that ever were in the world ; how much , I say , these great men were mistaken in the Rules of Charity which our Blessed Saviour does deliver . He commands us to love our enemies , to do good to them that hate us , Matth. 5. 44. But * Aristotle tells us , that That man is void of all sense ▪ and pain , that , though he does forbear to be angry , does not seek revenge . But 't is the part of a Slave , being contumeliously used , to bear it . So Cicero , among the rights of Nature , places Revenge , † by which , says he , we propel an Injury or an Affront . And again in one of his Epistles to Atticus he shews his Prectice as well as his Opinion . ‖ I hate the man , and I will hate him , and I wish I could be revenged of him . Now I suppose Cicero and Aristotle were none of the most ignorant men ; and , if they could not search out these Truths without an Instructor , I cannot imagine how our Authour 's ignorant Men should . So that , in short , this opinion of our Authour 's is not Socinianism , but 't is Socinianism revers'd ; 't is a Heterodoxy of his own coining ; 't is such an odd piece of stupid Heresie , as not only his beloved Rationalists , but even his ignorant Christians will be ashamed of . Secondly , As to what he would inferr , That the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to the plainness of the Gospel , I have given an Answer already to that when I considered his Preface . I shall only add , That the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity should , I think , give greater Credit and Authority to his Laws ; and ordinary Christians should sooner believe and practise them upon account of their having so admirable and divine an Authour . Thirdly , As to the Doctrine of the Trinity its being contrary to the fewness of the Christian Doctrines , which our Authour would have but Two at most , Faith and Repentance : I answer , 'T is true , Faith and Repentance , in a large acceptation , are the Summ of the Christian Religion : and 't is as true , That the Doctrine of the Trinity is neither Faith nor Repentance by way of Identical Predication ; but , I hope , it may be contained under one of them as a species under its Genus . Faith and Repentance , in a large sense , do take in all Christianity ; under one are contained the Credenda , and under the other the Agenda of our Religion . But then , what is this to our Authour's purpose ? If it be any thing it must be this , Our Saviour has reduced all his Religion to Faith and Repentance ; nay , sometimes to each of them : Ergo , the Doctrine of the Trinity ought not to be believed , or those that teach that Doctrine preach another Gospel . Now , how glorious a piece of Logick is this ! Would not this be as good a Conclusion to all intents and purposes ? Aristotle tells us , That all things in the world are Substance or Accident ; nay , he has reduced both these to Ens ; therefore there is no such thing as Homo or Brutum ; or therefore he that says so teaches another Philosophy than Aristotle . Certainly every one that understands any thing of his Religion must know , That Faith , in this general acceptation , must take in a firm Belief of all things necessary to Salvation , a stedfast Trust and Reliance upon God , and an undoubted Hope in all his Promises , and an express Assent to all Truths he has revealed in his word , &c. and that Repentance does contain not only a bare turning from Sin , but a constant Practice of all Christian Vertues . So that our Authour , by this Argument , might have as well proved Hope and Charity to be no Christian Graces , that there is no such Vertue under the Gospel as Temperance or Chastity , because our Saviour has only preached Faith and Repentance . CHAP. II. Of Faith , in what Sense it justifies . OUR Authour , in the beginning of this Chapter , is of a sudden turned pretty Orthodox , and falls a-disputing very shrewdly against the Gnosticks and Antinomians : and then he applauds himself mightily , in his bringing an Illustration out of Act. 27. 18. of St. Paul's saying to the Centurion , Except the Mariners stay in the ship , we cannot be saved , when he had told them before , that there should not be the loss of any Man's life ; now , by this Instance , he illustrates the Necessity of good works to Justification ; and tells us , that by this all the Questions about Justification may be solved ; though he knows not of any one before him , which has honoured it with a mention . I shall not go about to disturb him in his dispute against the Antinomians , though I think 't is a little unseasonable in this Place ; nor shall I go to rob him of the honour of his Instance , nor that place of Scripture of the honour of his Mention : for I don't remember I have read it used in this Controversie before ; though I am sure it has been urged with greater Advantage against the Patrons of absolute Predestination . And now one would think the Authour had a mind to have a little Controversie with Luther , or Calvin , or Bellarmine , or to state the Question of Justification among the Moderns ; but truly he leaves it just as he finds it , and runs off to a long Indictment he has drawn up against Faith , by which , I suppose , he would prove its Ineffectualness to Justification . Which , in short , he brings to this Dilemma : Either by Faith , we believe what is reasonable , and so we can't help it , and then we have no pretence to a Reward ; or else , we believe without Reason , and then we are Fools : Ergo , We are not justified by Faith. One may be apt to wonder to what purpose the Authour should bring in this Question into his Book ; for one would think , at first sight , that the decision of it for Works , would make more for the Papists than the Anti-trinitarians : But yet , upon second thoughts , one may easily find , that the Authour was aware that the usual Solution of this Question , by the merits of Christ who is our Righteousness , would too far advance his Satisfaction , and consequently his Divinity ; and that , for a true Justification by Faith , there would be required a full , Orthodox Belief in all Fundamentals : and therefore , this Chapter was , I suppose , to obviate these Objections . Though , for ought I can see , there is nothing proved against any but the Anti-nomians , unless he would have all such that are not Socinians . But because the Authour does here endeavour to destroy the Effectualness of this divine Grace , the express Attestation of God's word , the constant Suffrage of the Church , and the Satisfaction too of our Saviour's sufferings . I shall give him an Answer , by shewing these three things ; which , I suppose , will be a compleat Answer to this whole Chapter . First , That we are justified by Faith alone . Secondly , That this Faith must be Orthodox in all Fundamentals . Thirdly , To give a Reason why Faith is so pleasing to God , as to justifie men by it . First , We are justified by Faith alone . There cannot be any thing more expresly asserted in Scripture , than that we are justified by Faith onely . The righteousness of God , which is by Faith in Jesus Christ , is revealed unto all and upon all that believe , Rom. 3. 22. And ● . 24. Being justified freely by his Grace . And v. 30. It is one God , that justifieth the circumcision by Faith , and the uncircumcision by Faith. And so chap. 5. v. 1. Being justified by Faith , we have peace with God , through our Lord Jesus Christ . And so Eph. 4. 8. By grace ye are saved through Faith , and not of your selves ; it is the gift of God , and not of works , least any one should boast . And our Church informs us , * That to be justified by Faith onely , is a wholsome Doctrine , and full of Comfort . Besides , this has been the constant Doctrine of † Learned Men in the most uncorrupted Ages . From which 't is plain , That 't is Faith alone that does Justifie , and not works ; yet not Faith exclusive of good Works : for a true justifying Faith cannot be without them , they do ( as our Church speaks ) ‖ spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith , in so much that a true and lively Faith may be known by them , as a Tree is discerned by its Fruit. But still it is Faith , not works that do justifie : for they , having no intrinsick value of their own , cannot conferr it on any , but Faith alone , which takes hold , as some speak , of the all-sufficient merits of our Blessed Saviour ; Or as our Church speaks , * sends us directly to Christ for the remission of our Sins , and by which we embrace the Promise of God's Mercy and of the remission of our Sins ; which thing none other of our Vertues or Works properly doth , therefore the Scripture useth to say , That Faith without Works doth justifie . Not that even Faith it self is a proper and necessary cause of Justification ; but that it has pleased God to accept it as a cause or means , by embracing or taking hold of the merits of Christ , which are the true , proper , meritorious cause of Justification . Which justification or righteousness , which we so receive of God's mercy and Christ's merits , embraced by Faith , is taken , accepted , and allowed of by God as our perfect and full Justification . And this is the reason that the Gentlemen of the Authour's persuasion are so unwilling to have Faith onely to justifie . Secondly , This ought to be an Orthodox Faith , in all Fundamentals at least ▪ All the admirable Effects , which the Scripture does attribute to Faith , must be understood of a true Faith , such as is agreeable to God's word , which is to be the rule of our Faith , and not of a false or Heterodox Faith , which any one takes up from a Party of Men , or from his own Imagination . A Heterodox Faith is no more Faith than a dead man or a painted man is a Man , they agree in one common equivocal Name , 't is true , and in nothing else . So that an Heterodox Faith can no more pretend to those supernatural Effects , which a true Faith , by God's grace , does produce , than a dead Man can pretend to all the Properties and Operations of a live one . There is but one Faith as well as one Baptism ; so that to hope to be justified by a false or another Faith , is as unreasonable as to expect to come into the Church by another Baptism . So that they that teach a Justification by works , or any other Faith than an Orthodox one , do themselves , for ought as I see , teach another Gospel . Thirdly , The reason why Faith is so pleasing to God , as that he should make this the great Means of Justification . And here I hope to give an Answer to the Authour's Dilemma ; and to shew that our Faith in Christ is not irrational , and then we are no Fools , and as for our merit by Faith , we are far from pretending to it : we acknowledge it as an infinite mercy of our gracious God , that he will accept our Faith in Christ's blood for our Justification , and do not go about to argue the worth of it , which is none . And as for the grounds of our Faith in Christ for Justification , I know not what can be more reasonable , than to expect only to have our weak Performances accepted , for the sake of his all-sufficient Merits . And of all our Actions that we can perform , I know not what can be more pleasing and acceptable in the sight of God , than for an humble and desponding Christian , considering his own unworthiness and the insufficiency of his Repentance it self , and all other Vertues , to incline God to mercy , so far as for their sakes to accept him for just and innocent , he , as the last refuge he hath , quitteth all worth and merit in himself and fleeth with a full and undoubting Faith in all God's revelations , and a firm confidence in all his promises , unto the free grace of God revealed in Christ Jesus , and hopes , for the sake of his Righteousness alone , that he will justifie his imperfect Performances . This certainly , when we have done the utmost of our Endeavours , is more pleasing to God than any action we can do more . For if we could be justified by our works , it would tempt us to reflect with Pride upon our vertuous Actions ; but this teaches us a pious despondency in our selves , and to cast all our hopes upon our blessed Saviour . And this is the summ of the Apostles Arguments , Eph. 2. 8. For by Grace ye are saved through Faith , not of your selves , nor of works , least any one should boast . And the learned * Cassander , though a Papist , says thus much in favour of this Doctrine of the Protestants , that in this Question , by the word Faith , they mean only the grace of God which is correspondent to faith ( quae fidei ex adverso respondet ) ; and to be justified by faith alone , signifies the same as by grace alone , in opposition to all kind of works . CHAP. III. What figure Faith made in natural Religion ? OUR Authour , in the beginning of this Chapter , lays down Faith as a duty in natural Religion , that it is a branch of Justice , by which we pay to God what is due to his Veracity ; that this was before all positive Law , and that upon this the Gospel is built ; because the Faith of Abraham ( which is recommended for our pattern , Rom. 4. ) was nothing else but this Justice ; that the lack of this Faith was reproved by the Angel in Sarah , and was punished in Lot's Wife , Gen. 18. and in the incredulous Lord , 2 King. 7. And that this is the Faith lastly which is commended in the Worthies mentioned , Heb. 11. And last of all he endeavours to shew the excellency of Abraham's Faith , to consist in believing God against so many difficulties , from this natural notion of his Veracity . Any one that understands the nature of the Authour's Book , will easily see into his design here ; which is to bring down all Faith to be a meer Creature of Reason , to be no longer that which the Schools call an infused Habit , or the inspiration of God , but only a bare rational belief upon divine Testimony . Now as to his notion of Faith , its being a branch of Justice , and that by the light of nature we are taught to believe God upon his Testimony ; this is in some measure most certainly true , as appears by the practice of the Heathens themselves † , who had nothing but the light of nature to walk by , in their believing their Oracles , Auguries , Prophesies , &c. and in suiting their actions according to them . So that 't is plain , that natural Religion tells us , God is to be believed upon his Testimony ; so that when a Man under natural Religion does believe any thing upon God's Testimony , our Authour may , if he pleases , call this Faith. But Theological Faith , or Faith under the Gospel , is quite of another kind ; this is not only an assent of the understanding , but a divine Grace , or Habit infused , though our Authour would have them the same , by saying the Gospel is built upon this : and moreover , That Faith in Abraham , which the Scripture does recommend for our Pattern , was not this bare rational assent but an inspired Vertue , that was founded and excited in him by the preventing and co-operating Grace of God. 1. For first , Faith under the Gospel is a spiritual Grace , or an inspired Habit , 't is a true and stedfast belief in , and reliance upon God , through the merits of Jesus Christ , and the sanctification of the holy Spirit , not by the bare assent only of our reason , but by the co-operating Grace of God. I know not for my part any truth in all our Religion more expresly revealed , than that Faith is a Grace inspired by God. It is said to be the gift of God , Eph. 2. 8. And again , for unto you is given in the behalf of Christ , not only to believe on him but to suffer for him , Eph. 1. 29. Upon Peter's confessing our Saviour's Divinity , Christ tells him , flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee , but my Father which is in Heaven , Matth. 16. 17. We are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves , but our sufficiency is of God , 2 Cor. 3. 5. It is God that worketh in us both to will and to do , Phil. 2. 13. No man can come unto me except the Father which sent me draw him , Joh. 6. 4. And so Gal. 5. 22. Faith is reckoned among the gifts of the Spirit . And the Father of the Demoniack , Mark 9. 24. cries out , Lord , I believe , help my unbelief . Now if all our Vertues and good thoughts are the effects of God's Grace , most certainly this eminent Vertue of Faith must ; if the Inspiration of God be requisite , even for St. Peter's Faith , it must surely likewise be so for ours ; if we are to be drawn to the belief of the Gospel by God , we cannot come then upon our own pure accord ; if the belief of one that was an Eye-witness of our Saviour's Miracles , did lack help and improvement from God , ours likewise cannot stand in need of less . I do not say , that God inspires this belief into us without any concurrence of our own judgments , that he moves our Assents as if we were meer Machines ; but his preventing Grace does first excite our belief , and his assisting Grace does still further it , by giving a blessing and effectualness to the word ; and without this divine assistance , according to the present measures of God's dispensations , it is impossible we should ever attain it . For the certainty of this divine truth we have Scripture , * Councils , † Fathers and Learned Men in all Ages , the ‖ Doctrine of our own Church , and all sober Christians ; but only a few * Socinians and Remonstrants that are for levelling all Scripture and Revelations to their own sense and humour . Nay , I am apt to think that this Doctrine will be look'd upon as too Calvinistical by some , since the Systems of the † Remonstrants , which condemn this Doctrine are so admired in the world ; but 't is not Systems , but God's word , we are to be governed by ; and from hence we have proof enough to maintain this Doctrine against all the Remonstrants and Socinians in the World. 2. Now as to his making the Faith of Abraham , by which he is said in Scripture to be justified , to be only a natural Faith ; I answer , First , Though we should not allow this Faith of Abraham to be the true Christian Justifying Faith , or a Faith in Christ Jesus ; yet we cannot allow it to be only a plain moral Act or Habit : for if it were only a bare credence out of Justice to God's Veracity , that too must be allowed to come from God , because without him we are not able to think a good thought , much less to do a good action . Though by the light of Natural Religion a man might be covinced that it was his duty to believe God in all his promises ; yet when these promises , by their difficulties , seem strangely incredible , Flesh and Blood will be apt to shrink and give way , and rather to fall a disputing the possibility of them , than readily , upon God's Authority , to believe ; unless their Faith be strengthned by the assisting Grace of of God's holy Spirit . And so * Philo the Jew says in this case of Abraham , That 't is not so easie a matter to believe in God alone , by reason of that cognation we have with that Mortal part we are yoked to , which is the cause that we trust in Money and Glory , in Honours and Friends , and the like ; but to be purged from all these , and to distrust all created things , which are unfaithful in themselves , and to trust in God alone , who is always faithful , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is the work of a great and heavenly Mind , that is , an inspired one . Secondly , But besides , this Faith of Abraham was a formal , Christian , justifying Faith , or a Faith in Christ Jesus . It was the opinion of the Ancients , That all the Patriarchs and all other Good Men , both before and under the Law , were saved by an express Faith in Christ . * Eusebius tell us , That all the Fathers before Abraham were Christians , though not in Name , yet in reality ; and that they followed the Faith of him whom we now follow . And † St. Hierom , That the Saints that were of old , were justified by Faith in Christ . And ‖ St. Gregory , That as we are saved by Faith in the past Passion of our Saviour , so the ancient Fathers by Faith in his Passion which was then to come . Nay * Cyril goes farther , and makes Abraham , from the seeing of the three Angels , to have believed in the Consubstantial Trinity . And if we look into Scripture , we shall find that these great Men had reasons enough to ground them in this Opinion : for our Saviour tells the Jews , Joh. 8. 56. Your father Abraham , rejoiced to see my day , and he saw it and was glad . Now , what should all this gladness and rejoicing be for ? but that from the Promise which God had made him , Gen. 11. 35. that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed : he was fully persuaded , That God , in his good time , would send such a Person as Christ into the world , that should save the People from their Sins , that should die for the Sins of the whole world , to reconcile them to God ; now the consideration of this was matter of the greatest Joy to him then , as it is now to all good Christians : so that ( as St. Gregory says ) there is little difference in this between his Faith and ours , but that ours is after and his before Christ's Passion . So likewise St. Peter tells the Jews , Act. 4. 12. Neither is there Salvation in any other but Christ , for there is no other Name under heaven given among men , whereby we must be saved . Now , whereas 't is certain , by Scripture , that these good Patriarchs were saved , as appears by God's declaring himself to be their God , and by making a lying down with Abraham , and Isaac , and Jacob to be an expression for Everlasting Happiness ; it from hence follows , That they must be saved by a Faith in Christ , or else they would be saved by Faith in another Name . I say , They must be saved by Faith in his name ; for that is the onely Means of Salvation God has proposed . That was one of the express terms of Reconciliation agreed upon with the Father to be performed on Man's part ; so that they could reap no benefit from this Covenant , without performing that condition . As to his other Instances to prove Faith in the old Testament , to be only a natural Faith , as of Enoch , Moses , Josuah , Rahab , &c. I answer , First , 'T is very certain that the word Faith , in Scripture , is taken in very diverse acceptations , sometimes for the Profession of the Gospel , sometimes for a belief of Christ's being able to cure Diseases , sometimes for a trust and reliance upon God's promises in general , which are all distinguished from the particular reliance upon God's mercy and Promises through the Merits of Jesus Christ , which is the only true justifying Faith. Now , 't is true , the Apostle , in the eleventh of the Hebrews , where he reckons up all those eminent examples of Faith , does not understand by Faith here , strictly the justifying Faith ; but only a firm reliance upon God's promises , that he will , in his good time , deliver his Servants ; and therefore he urges these precedents of Faith and trusting in God , to encourage the Christians to a chearful undergoing of their Sufferings , and a perseverance in their Belief , that God will shortly deliver them , by destroying the Jews , which were their bitterest Enemies : for in the Verses immediately preceding this Chapter , he comforts his fainting Converts in these words , Yet a little while , and he that shall come will come , and will not tarry . Now the just shall live by Faith , but if any Man draw back , my Soul shall have no pleasure in him . By which it is plain , That the Examples that are afterwards brought to comfirm those wavering Christians in this sort of Faith or Perseverance in their Sufferings , must be famous for their Perseverance in Afflictions , upon account of this Faith or reliance upon God's promises to deliver them ; and that this sort of Faith is that which is chiefly recommended here . But then , Secondly , It no ways follows that these good men , whose examples are here proposed , had no other Faith but this . These , and all other good men under the old Testament , had a formal Faith in the Messias or Christ Jesus , which is the true justifying Faith. Moses wrote of Christ , Act. 3. 2 , to the end , as our Saviour tells the Jews , that they might believe on him , Joh. 5. 46. And many Prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which they saw , Matt. 13. 17. and that many Kings have desired it , Luk. 10. 24. Jacob , when he was dying said , that he had waited for the Salvation of the Lord , Gen. 49. 18. Anna the Prophetess spake of Christ to all them that looked for redemption at Jerusalem , Luk. 2. 38. Philip said that he had found him of whom Moses in the Law , and the Prophets did write , Joh. 1. 45. The Samaritan Woman knew that Christ cometh , Joh. 4. 25. St. Paul speaks in his Oration to Agrippa , of the Promise made unto the Father , unto which the Twelve Tribes instantly serving God day and night , hope to come , Act. 26. 6. From all which it is plain , That all these good Servants of God did believe in Christ the Saviour of the World ; and that this Faith of theirs was imputed unto them for Righteousness . And so now what is become of our Authour 's natural Faith which he makes to be the Mother of the Evangelical ? The Faith of these good Men was the gift of God as well as ours , they were justified by Faith , and so are we , Gal. 3. 8. they live by Faith in Christ Jesus as well as we , they disclaimed all righteousness in works as well as we ; so that if theirs be a natural Faith , ours must be so too . And so now by our Authour 's natural Faith , and other Mens moral grace , we are in a fair way to have all Christianity dwindled into downright Paganism . CHAP. IV. That Credulity is not Faith , but an opposite Vice. OUR Authour being resolved to carry on his notion of natural Faith , and to make it a compleat Heathen Virtue , has resolved to bring it to the test of the Heathen Philosophy ; and to make it to suit the better with the Aristotelian Vertues , has gotten it two extream Vices to surround it , Infidelity in the defect , and Credulity in the excess . But 't is Credulity is the Vice that our Authour has the pique against ; and therefore spends all this Chapter to prove , that Credulity is not Faith. And this we could readily have granted him , without all his pains of proving it . Now one would think , that this was easy enough to prove , and yet he has unluckily failed in the attempt . For instead of proving , that Credulity is not Faith , which is easy enough of all Conscience to do , he first goes to prove , that Credulity is an excess of Faith , as Fool-hardiness is of Valour , or Prodigality of Bounty . And secondly , That they that believe contrary to reason , are guilty of Credulity . Now one would think , that when our Authour had before laid down , that Faith was only Justice to God , he would make Credulity , which he would have the excess of this Justice , to be summum jus , and so consequently , to be summa injuria towards him ; and this he should do , if he kept up to his own Rules , and the analogy of these moral Vertues . But he very fairly lets that alone , and falls again to proving , that which no body will deny ; That Men must not believe , in contradiction to their reason , in compliance with any humane Authority . Now for ought that the Authour has gained of his point in this Chapter , he might as well have proved , that a Bear was not a Man , or a Man was not a Mouse ; all that ever he could propose to himself , was , to insinuate into his unwary Readers , that our Faith , in the Blessed Trinity , is not Faith but Credulity ; and that we are therefore Credulous , because he would suppose we ground that Faith only upon humane Authority , by which 〈◊〉 means chiefly the Authority of ancient Councils . Therefore what 〈◊〉 shall say to this Chapter , I shall reduce to two heads , and shew , First , That Credulity is not excess of divine Faith. Secondly , That an acquiescence in the determinations of General Councils in matter of Faith , is not Credulity . First , That Credulity is not an excess of divine Faith. Credulity is a Vice by which we easily give our assent to the relation of another , without just reasons and motives for it . Now this Vice , in its ordinary notion , is only opposite to that just humane belief that is owing to one another , as we are Men. For humane Faith or Belief of what another Man says , when neither the matter it self , nor the Relater , is liable to any just exception , is a social duty ; and which any Man that speaks truth , and has not justly lost his reputation , may claim from us , as Fellow Creatures . But when the matter related is incredible , or which my Reason tells me is not enough probable , or when the Relater is sufficiently exceptionable , or if any thing else accompany the Relation , which will give sufficient suspition of falsity to a prudent Man ; then if I believe such a Relation , I am truly said to be Credulous ; because there I make my Belief exceed its just bounds , I give more credit to the Relater than he ought to have : whereas my Faith in this case ought to stop at the confines of probability , I let it pass over them , and believe things improbable . But there can be no such thing in a divine Faith , for taking that in our Authour's sense to be only a piece of justice to God , there can be no excess in believing what he reveals or relates to us : 't is impossible there should lie any exception against him as a Relater , for he is most true , and cannot deceive us : as to whatever difficulty there lies in the matter related , he is most powerful , and can make good what he promises ; his Wisdom is infinite , and knows exactly the express Modus of those Truths he had revealed to us ; which our finite understandings cannot comprehend . It is impossible for us to believe too much what God affirms , unless we could suppose , that our Belief could be greater than God's Veracity , or that God could say something was so which we knew impossible to be so . So that to make Credulity an excess of Faith , is to prescribe bounds how far Men should believe God , and to give them caution , that they should not credit him any farther than they saw reason for it ; but when his Relations began to them to seem unreasonable , that then they should choose whether they would believe him or no , that then they should stand upon their own guard for fear of being censur'd for easy Men , and being thought the worst of all Fools , the Credulous . So that in short , whatever Credulity is , 't is not an excess of divine Faith , unless we could believe God too true , or that God could tell us something was true which was manifestly false . Secondly , That an acquiescence in the determinations of General Councils , though in matters of Faith , is not Credulity . I would not have our Authour think , that we ground our Faith in the Blessed Trinity , upon the determinations only of general Councils , which he means by his greatest humane Authority , as if we had nothing in Scripture to urge for it ; we have Arguments enough from thence to confound all the force and subtilties of our Heretical Adversaries , and several learned Men in the beginning of this Age , have brought so much from thence , as perfectly silenced this Heresy for a time , and has baffled their Cause for ever ; I am sure , at least , against all such espousers of it as this Authour seems to be . And as for Councils , when we rely upon their determinations , in asserting and explaining the Ancient Faith , I do not think we are so much credulous , as these fort of Gentlemen are saucy , to say no worse , when they bespatter these August Assemblies , with so much Contumely and Buffoonry as they use to do . There are none of our Church , that look upon the determinations of general Councils , to be the infallible Oracles of God ; they are , as our Authour speaks , humane Authorities , but then they are the greatest humane Authority upon Earth , they are the Representatives of the Church Universal ; and if our judgments are apt to be inclined by the Authority of single Doctors , they ought to be much more so , by the Authority of such a number of good and learned Men , convened from all the parts of the Christian World. We do not run up the Authority of Councils so high , as to give them power to constitute new Articles of Faith , as the Papists do ; but then we look upon them to be the best Judges in the World of old ones , and of what was the true , ancient and Catholick Faith ; to declare what Doctrines , according to * Lirinensis's Rule , have Universality , Consent , Antiquity , when they come to be contested by Hereticks . † For the Members of these Councils being Bishops drawn from all parts of the World , are able to give an account of the Belief of the Faithful , in their Districts , and of the uncorrupted Writings and Traditions of their Fore-fathers . Neither yet do we allow them , if they shall oppose their Opinions or Traditions against the express word of God ; but only when they declare the truth of their Doctrine , as Theodoret ‖ speaks of the Nicene Fathers , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , out of Scripture words piously understood ; of which there is no o●e but must allow them to be the most excellent and the most authentick Expositors . And yet though we cannot grant it to be an Article of our Christian Faith , That general Councils cannot err , because there is no such proposition found in Scripture , nor by any necessary consequence to be deduced from thence ; but most good Men look upon it as a Theological Verity , for which there are some probable Arguments out of Scripture alledged , as Mat. 18. 20. When two or three are gathered together in my name , I will be in the midst of them , and Joh. 16. 3. When the spirit of Truth is come , he will guide you into all Truth : and the most good and learned Men in all times , have generally thought , that the inerrability of a general Council , that was fairly called , and duly celebrated , was one of the piè credibilia , which a good Man , though he is not necessitated , is yet well disposed to believe . For if we consider the great love which God does bear to his Church , and the peculiar Providence he does exercise over it ; if we consider the promises that he has made to it , that it is his desire , that all Men should be saved , and should come to the knowledge of all necessary Truth ; there is no good Man but will be inclined to believe , that God out of his infinite love and goodness , which he has declared to bear to his Church , will not suffer the Representatives of it in these sacred Assemblies , to err in any important matter of Faith ; that he will not permit any deadly poison thus to sink into the bowels of his Church , when they use all the fair and honest means they can to avoid it ; but that he will give his holy Spirit to direct them in settling the true Faith , as may be best for the edification of his Church . But though general Councils have not a divine inerrable Authority , yet they have in matters of Religion , the greatest humane and coercive one ; especially when owned and confirmed by the secular Power : therefore though we were certain , that they had determined something erroneously , and which our own reason and judgment told us was so ; yet we ought to keep this reason to our selves , and not to oppose the concurring judgments of so many great and holy Men , with our private sentiments : 't is more probable , that we should be deceived than they , and though God might pardon our mistakes when we take care they should go no farther than our selves , yet we cannot be so sure of that , when we endeavour to bring others likewise into our errours ▪ A good Man , though he could not be convinced of the truth oft heir determinations , yet out of duty and respect to so great an Authority , would not go openly to condemn them ; for though he looked upon their determinations not as inerrable Declarations of Faith , yet he would take them for the best expedients of Unity ; so that if he happened to be mistaken in his Sentiments , which are contrary to their Declarations , and should withal endeavour to corrupt others by diffusing them ; this would be to make breaches in the Church , which would be more prejudicial to him than his own errour ; this might make him guilty , at the same time , of Heresy and Schism too . So that I take an acquiescence in the determinations of general Councils , or any such like humane Authority , to be so far from Credulousness , that 't is a great part of prudent Caution and Wariness ; and that we should be far the more credulous and conceited Fools , if we could believe , that our private opinion was sufficient to weigh down theirs ; or that God would suffer the establishments of these great and holy Men , to be pulled down and destroyed by the propagation of our conceptions . CHAP. V. Why Faith made a greater Figure under the Gospel , than it did under the Law ? THE Authour spends this long Chapter in shewing , what a greater necessity there was in the Primitive Times of Christianity of a strong Faith , than there is now ; which made our Saviour to recommend it then so much to his Disciples . Which he illustrates by the instance of Loyalty ; which is but mean and inconsiderable in peaceable times , and not worth a reward from the Prince : but in time of danger , when a Man ventures his Life to serve him , 't is then a Virtue of a larger extent , and ought to be encouraged by the greatest rewards . He proceeds to shew the particular necessity of Faith at that time . First , From the difficulties which hindred the believing of the Gospel , to the Gentiles who despised the meanness of the Gospel , to the Jews who were prejudiced by the fond opinion they had of their own Law , and by the expectation of a pompous Messias . Secondly , From the danger which the Gospel brought , in exposing its Professors to Persecutions , &c. Thirdly , Upon account of the Methods of the Gospel , which was to be Preached to the whole Heathen World. These are the extraordinary means , he says , why Faith was so much recommended at that time ; the ordinary were , the serviceableness of this Vertue to Religion and Holiness , which do continue still , so that God does not load his Servants with more Faith than is absolutely necessary to Salvation ; for if he should do this , he says , he must do it with reason or without reason ; if without reason , that would contradict his Wisdom ; if with reason , that can be no other but in order to the piety and happiness of Man. And this is the sum of this Chapter . Now any one may see what the design of all this is , to make the belief of our Saviour's Divinity , and the Doctrine of the Trinity , to be no part of the Faith delivered to the Saints ; and that those great exhortations to Faith the Scripture gives , had no relation to the Faith of our Saviour's Divinity ; and that they were not urged to strengthen them against any difficulties they might conceive in this Doctrine , but only to confirm them against those other difficulties and dangers , which he there mentions . Now though 't is very true , that these difficulties which the Author mentions , were such as did deter many from espousing Christianity ; so that there was need of a greater Faith than ordinary at that time to conquer them , yet he does not enumerate all the difficulties their Faith was to superate , but leaves out that principal end of Faith , which was to give life to all the rest , that Jesus Christ was the eternal Son of God. This Doctrine was so strange and wonderful , both to Jews and Gentiles , that it frighted many Proselites away from Christianity ; so that how much soever the fondness of the Jews , to their own Law , and the meanness of our Saviour's appearance , might hinder them from complying with his Religion ; yet this Doctrine of his , being the Eternal Son of God , and equal with his rather , was such a hard saying , a truth so difficult to mens natural reason at first appearance ; that they ought to have had as great incouragement to confirm their Faith in this point , as to support them against any of those difficulties which our Authour mentions . And this we find to be the great scandal all along to the Jews . For Joh. 5. when our Saviour declares to them his original , his being the Son of God , and his co-operating with the Father : My Father worketh hitherto and I work , therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him , because he not only had broken the Sabbath , but said also , that God was his Father , making himself equal with God. And so Joh 6. 58. when our Saviour declares himself to be the Bread which came down from Heaven , many of his Disciples when they heard this , said , This is a hard saying , who can bear it ? And so likewise , v. 52. What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before ? It follows , that from that time many of his Disciples went back , and walked no more with him . And again , Joh. 8. upon our Saviour's declaring to the Jews , that he was the Son of God , they are all so enraged , as to tell him , that he is a Samaritan , and hath a Devil , Joh. 8. 15. And so likewise v. 58. upon his saying , before Abraham was I am , they took up stones to cast at him . The like offence they took at his forgiving sins , Mat. 9. 11. or at any other word or action of his , which did any ways seem to infer his Divinity . So that there was a great deal of need of a very strong and vigorous Faith , to believe in the Divinity of Christ at that time , especially when they had so many prejudices to deterr them from it . And besides we find , that our Saviour does greatly incourage and commend those , that did heartily believe , and make a ready profession of it . Thus Mat. 16. when Peter made that eminent confession of our Saviour's Divinity , Thou art the Son of the living God , he immediately gives him his blessing , and entails that great Promise upon him , Thou art Peter , and upon this Rock will I build my Church , and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it , Joh. 16. 18. And so Joh. 20. 28. when Thomas made that most express confession of our Lord's Divinity , upon occasion , of his being certified of the Resurrection , My Lord and my God , our Saviour gives his blessing , not only to him , but to all those that shall believe this , without being Eye-witnesses of his Resurrection to confirm them in it : Blessed are they which have not seen , and yet have believed . And thus we find our Saviour did many of his miraculous Cures , in requital of their Faith , and their ready confession of his Divinity ; as on the blind Man , Mat. 20. that cryed out so vehemently , have mercy on me , O Lord , thou Son of David : and Luke 17. when the blind Man cries out Jesus , thou Son of David , have mercy on me , our Saviour tells him upon his Cure , thy faith hath saved thee , v. 4. * Where by the Son of David is meant the Messias , who according to the Jewish Doctors was to be God. So that this Confession of his being the Son of David , was a Confession of his Divinity , which was a great means to incline our Saviour to work their Cure ; and to tell one of them that his Faith had saved him . And thus we have let our Author know there was some other use of Faith , at the beginning of the Gospel , than what he mentions ; and that there was not only a need of Faith to strengthen them against the dangers , &c. which the Gospel brought on them ; but to make them believe in Christ's Divinity , and to profess that most important Article of our Christian Faith. 2. The next thing which the Authour in this Chapter would have , is , That Faith in the Gospel has no relation to Christ's Divinity ; because , he says , God like a good Prince , would not load his good subjects with unnecessary burdens , but only such as there was reason for , and which were necessary to Piety and a good Life . Now I hope that our Authour and his Friends , for all their pretence to reason , will not be so bold with God Almighty , as to give the Rationale of all his Commands , and exactly to shew the motives that inclined his Eternal Will , whose Judgments are unsearchable , and his ways past finding out . I confess I have always lookt upon it as a very daring piece of Confidence in these sort of Authours , to say in case of a positive Command , That God has not Commanded such a thing ; or , This Command must not be understood in this manner , because there is no reason that he should thus command us : or as our Authour says , 'T is to dishonour God , to believe him to require Faith for any other reason , than because it is necessary for our incouragement to Holiness ; or as he says afterwards , For its serviceableness to the Divine Life . For though we could see no reason for such a Command , yet God may : and 't is but reasonable as well as modest to think , that God understands the reason of his own Laws best , and that he that gave us these Precepts , best understood the ends for which he designed them . But because the Authour should not triumph too much over us poor dull Trinitarians , or think there is no reason to be given , why Faith in the persons of the Blessed Trinity , should be commanded us ; or in particular , that the Belief of the Divinity of our Saviour ( which it is our Authour 's chief design to impugn , as appears by his following Chapters ) least I say he should think , this Belief does contribute nothing to Religion and Piety , let him be pleased to take with him these considerations . First , That to believe the Divinity of our Saviour is necessary to Religion , because by it there is gained a greater Authority to his Laws . For we find that Men are more and more inclined to respect Rules and Laws from the dignity of the person that gives them . The Rules and Injunctions of ordinary persons are usually contemned and slighted , though if the same came from a great and magnificent Person , they would be embraced with a great deal of eagerness and veneration . Therefore in compassion to this infirmity of Mankind , it has pleased the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God , to let a Person of the Divine Nature , the Son of his Bosom , to take our nature upon , him to be himself the propounder of these Heavenly Rules of his holy Gospel , to be himself the Promiser of all those glorious Rewards , which he vouchsafes to propose to those that shall obey his Precepts . Now such a Person as this could be liable to no exceptions , though a Prophet might be mistaken in his Revelation , might outgo or misapply his Credentials ; yet when God himself undertakes the Embassage , malice it self can except nothing here ; so that this will be proof against the utmost Infidelity . Secondly , This Belief does further Religion because it improves our Love and Gratitude to God upon consideration of so immense a benefit . Indeed it had been a great token of God's love to Mankind any ways to have contrived our Redemption , to have rescued us from that forlorn miserable Estate into which we were fallen ; and to have placed us in a Capacity of attaining Everlasting Happiness . But then his love is far greater to us , when he hath sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins , and to purchase our Redemption by such an unvaluable price . And we may take notice , that the Apostles do place the choisest mark of God's love , in chusing such extraordinary means to work Mens Salvation by , as the Incarnation and Death of his own Son. God so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son , Joh. 3. 16. God spared not his own Son , but delivered him up for us all , Rom. 8. 32. Herein is love , not that we loved God , but that he loved us , and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins , 1 Joh. 4. 10. And truly this consideration , that a Person of the glorious Trinity , one that is God blessed for ever , should for the sake of us wretched Sinners , undergo such an exinanition , as to take our nature upon him , to live a miserable Life , and to die a shameful Death , to reconcile us unto God ; this consideration , I say , is of all most apt to work upon generous Minds , to hinder them from offending so good and gracious a God , after such an unparallel'd Mercy ; and nothing can be so effectual to make Men ashamed of the ingratitude of their Sins , if they have any the least spark of Generosity or Vertue , when they reflect upon this so inexpressible goodness . Thirdly , Because this Belief does secure us of the remission of our sins , by an assurance we now have of the compleat satisfaction which Christ has made for the sins of all Men. We know our Saviour came into the World , that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name . Now we are certain , that it is not possible for the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin , Heb. 10. 4. and we are as certain , that the blood of meer Man would be as far from doing it as the other ; so that we could have no assurance of our Redemption at all , unless we were redeemed by the blood of God , Act. 10. 28. For because our sins had received an infinite aggravation , by being against a God of infinite Dignity , as all offences are increased proportionably as the person offended is of greater worth ; and therefore these sins had entailed upon them an infinite punishment ; it was impossible that any satisfaction could be made by any thing less than an infinite Person , because none but such an one could pay the infinite price that was due ; and he might do it , because the temporary punishment in the infinite dignity of his Person , was a full equivalent to the infinity of punishment which was due to us . So that this belief of our Saviour's Divinity , is necessary to the believing the remission of our sins , and so to be sure is necessary to Piety . CHAP. VI. Of Faith in Christ as the Saviour of the World. THE Authour here divides the Faith of Christ into two objects of Belief . I. The Person in whom we believe . II. The Word in which we believe upon the credit of the Person . In treating of the first of these , he declares , First , What kind of Person our Lord requires us to believe him to be . Secondly , What is meant by believing in him . And when he comes to shew what kind of Person our Saviour declares himself to be , he makes a fine Company of Socinian glosses upon Scripture , which it will be worth our while a little to consider . For whereas he is mightily afraid , that the titles of the Son of God , &c. would be a pregnant proof of our Saviour's Divinity , he is resolved to distinguish them of by a few Polish Criticisms . For first he says , that God in Scripture is used to express something which is indefinite , and which implies more than we can readily express . From whence he would inferr , that the Title of Son of God , is no Argument for Christ's Divinity ; but only that he is some extraordinary remarkable Person . But let us a little examine the Instances he brings . The first is God do so to me , and more also . Now can any mortal Man conclude from hence , that the word God is used to signify something indefinite ? The word more does signify something indefinite indeed , but the word God signifies no more than it does in other places , and the Authour might as well have transcribed all the Texts in the Bible , in which he found the word God as this ; and they would have been as much to his purpose . I know not what particular Text the Authour does refer to for this expression , for 't is in many ; and as far as can be collected , 't was a form of Cursing in use among the Jews , about the time of Samuel , and some time after ; for 't is found only in the Historical Writers of those times , 1 Sam. 3. 17. and 4. 44. and 25. 22. 2 Sam. 3. 9. and 35. 2 Sam. 19. 3. 1 Kings 2. 23. 2 King. 6. 13. Sometimes by way of adjuration to another , as of old Eli to Samuel , God do so to thee , and more also if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee , 1 Sam. 3. 17. that is , I charge thee to tell me all the threatnings which God tells thee ; or else may all , and more than he threatens , light on thee . Other times by way of imprecation of mischief on ones self , as in the case of Solomon , 1 King 2. 23. God do so to me , and more also , if Adonijah have not spoken this against his own life ; i. e. I will for this Crime take away Adonijah's Life , or else may God take away mine , or punish me worse than I intend to punish him . And so in the other places , where the word God has not an indefinite Sense ; but there is only a wishing of some Evil or Punishment which is indefinite , greater than the Evil there pointed at , but not expressed of how large a Degree of Greatness . His Second Instance is out of Joel 4. 12. Because I will do this unto thee , prepare to meet thy God , O Israel . Now , I don't see what more indefinite signification there is in the word God here , than in other places . Indeed there is the severest denunciation of God's Judgments upon an irreclaimable People , after Famine , Pestilence , Sword , and Fire ; so that God tells them , seeing they are proof against all these scourges , he will try what they can do against him , when he personally becomes their Adversary , and see if they are able to cope with him too . Prepare then to meet thy God , O Israel . 'T is not the word God , here , that does signifie any indefinite number of Evils ; but that God does Sarcastically upbraid their Obstinacy , after all his Judgments having been ineffectual upon them , by proposing his infinite Power as a Match for them , if nothing else can be . Prepare , &c. A bitter Sarcasm , says the excellent * Dean of Paul's , as if a man could be a match for God , and a poor weak creature be , in any wise , able to encounter him to whom Power belongs . Another Notion the Authour has got , Why Christ should be called the Son of God , is , because he is a considerable Person , one of great Note and Eminence ; it being the Scripture Idiom , to advance things , by entitling them to God ; as the Mountains of God , and the Rivers of God , were those that were most eminent in their kind . It is true , That this sort of Expression is usual in Scripture , to denote something that is great ; as the Mountain of God , the Cedar of God , Nimrod was a mighty Hunter before the Lord , or a Hunter of God. With great Wrestlings have I wrestled with my Sister , says Rachel , or with the Wrestlings of God , Baptholi Elohim , Luctationibus Dei. But it does not follow from hence , That our Saviour was called the Son of God , because he was a great Person . By this way of speaking , he might well enough be stiled the Man of God , or the Prophet of God , to denote him a great Man , or a great Prophet , but in no propriety of speech the Son of God : for the word Son does not denote the Person but Relation ; so that the Son of God is one to whom God does bear the relation of a Father . Therefore 't is not his Greatness that entitles him thus to God , but his Filiation ; for if it was only his Greatness that entituled him to this Character , the mighty Nimrod , or the great Mountain might , upon this account , be called the Sons of God as well as he ; because they were great in their kind as well as he . Well , but , says the Authour , Daniel makes the Son of God be a Character of one of great Beauty and Majesty , by calling the Fourth Person in Nebuchadnezzar's Furnace by that name . There is no reason to assert , That this Fourth Person here , was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity : for , as the Authour says , we can't suppose Nebuchadnezzar to have seen the Son of God before , and , upon that account , to have known him . All that Nebuchadnezzar or Daniel , who relates this matter , understood by the Son of God , was an Angel , who from their nigh Conversation with God , from the great Portion of Happiness and Glory he communicates to them , and their so resembling him by their Purity and the Spiritualness of their Nature , and from their living in Heaven with him , like Children under the wing of their Parent ; from these and the like circumstances , they were , and not improperly , called the Sons of God ; as we find in many places of Scripture , as Psal . 82. I said ye were Angels , or the Children of the Most High. So Job 1. 6. There was a day when the Sons of God , or Angels , presented themselves before the Lord. And the LXX . translate this very place in Daniel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the form of the Fourth was like the Angel of God. So that we must grant , That the Son of God , here mentioned , was an Angel of God. But our Blessed Saviour was the Son of God in another manner than his : for his Sonship is not founded upon any such Analogy as theirs is ; but upon the eternal generation of the Father ; for he being made so much better than the Angels , as he hath by Inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they , Heb. 1. 4. In short , 't is impossible , that our Saviour's Sonship should be such a Sonship as that of the Angels ; because the Apostle spends this whole Chapter to prove him a Person distinct from and above the nature of Angels , and does besides set the Son of God in direct opposition to the Angels of God. And of the Angels he saith , &c. v. 7. But unto the Son he saith , &c. v 8. When he bringeth in his first begotten into the world , he saith , Let all the Angels of God worship him , v. 6. So that Christ's Sonship must be of another kind than that of the Angels : or else there would be no ground for their contradistinction , unless he was in a peculiar manner the Son of God , in a supereminent extraordinary way not at all common to them . The Authour having made these Remarks upon this Title of our Saviour , The Son of God , he proceeds to reckon up some others , as the Messias or Christ , Onely begotten Son of God ; which Characters he allows to speak a Person of unmeasurable Greatness , a Person like his Emblem , the Light so glorious , that by our most intent view we cannot discover any thing of it , but this , That we cannot discover . Now for all our Authour's haste , one would imagine that something was discoverable in our Saviour , by these Eulogies ; that God did design to manifest or discover something to us of him , by these Revelations , and not to make Revelations of things that were not revealable . 'T is not to be expected indeed , that , by the help of Revelation , we should dive into the Nature of our Saviour's eternal Essence : for we are so far from a possibility of doing that , that we are ignorant of the Essential Constitutions of the most inconsiderable Being we are conversant with . But though we are ignorant of this , yet we can tell , when 't is revealed to us by God , what kind of Nature our Saviour's is , whether finite or infinite , whether divine or humane . The Gloriousness of his Nature does not so dazzle our Eyes as to make us confound distinct and express Idea's . I have a certain , though not an adequate Idea or Notion of God , as a Being infinite , incorporeal , &c. And when I am informed by Revelation t●at such a Person is that infinite , incorporeal Being ; or that he has , in such Revelation , those Characters ascribed to him , as are inseparable from the Divine Nature ; I must conclude , That such a one is a Person of the Divine Nature , such an infinite , incorporeal , &c. Being , which is my Notion of God. Indeed the gloriousness of this Being keeps Men from discovering its Essence , and from prying into its Nature ; but yet we may observe such Marks and Properties in it , so as to have a distinct Conception of it , from all other Beings in the World. The Sun is a glorious Body , and the more we strive to pry into its Constitution by gazing on it , the more we are blinded ; and what then ? don 't we know the Sun when we see it for all this ? because our Eyes are so weak that we cannot stare into the Furnace of the Sun , must we therefore take it for a Candle ? The Person of our Saviour is glorious , and if it were a thousand times less glorious than it is , I might not understand its Nature ; but when I am told , that this Person is God , that he is one of the Persons of the Divine Nature , my Understanding tells me very clearly , That all the marks and properties I have in my Mind of the Divine Nature must be attributed to this Person , and though I understand nothing of his Essence , or the precise modus of his Hypostasis ; yet I am sure he is that Being , which I have a certain Idea of , and which I call God. So that 't is a great Fallacy in the Authour to say , we don't know what our Saviour is , because we cannot dive into his Essence : for our discriminative Knowledge of one thing from another , is not by discovering the Essences , or internal Constitutions of them , but by regarding their outward marks and properties ; and these every one has a Knowledge of : for a Child knows a Rose from a Stone as well as a Philosopher , though it knows not the Qualities and internal Constitutions of either . Therefore when I am infallibly informed , that such a Person is God , I am infallibly assured he is that kind of Being I have the fore-mentioned Idea of : though I am infinitely short of understanding its Nature . II. Our Authour now comes to shew what is meant by believing in his Person , which he branches into Two Parts . First , Believing in him with respect to his word . Second , In respect to his Person . The First of which onely he speaks to in this Chapter , and says that Christ is to his Followers as the Sun to Travellers . 'T is no matter what they think of its magnitude , or whether they think it be no bigger than a Bushel , it guides them all alike ; and thus it is , he says , with the Sun of Righteousness , 't is no matter what we believe him to be , if we have but a Practical Faith ; which is all our Saviour , he says , requires . And this he attempts to prove out of Joh. 10. a place , than which , one would have thought , he should rather have chosen any Text in the New Testament besides , How long dost thou make us to doubt , if thou be the Christ tell us plainly ? Jesus said , I told you ( by calling God my Father ) and ye believe me not , Joh. 10. 24 , 25. And presently after he tell them , I and my Father are one , v. 30. at which they took up stones to stone him , saying , thou being a man makest thy self God. Now , what can the Authour draw from this ? Why , he says , our Saviour , upon so pressing an occasion as their endeavouring to stone him , did not assert his right of Divinity ; but contented himself with this Answer , Is it not written , in your Law , I have said ye are Gods ? If he called them Gods to whom the word of God came , and the Scripture cannot be broken , say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World , thou blasphemest , because I said I am the Son of God. Let the Authour make out of this place what he can for his Opinion ; I am sure this place is as pregnant a proof of our Lord's Divinity , as most places in the Bible are ; and whatever the Authour thinks , he does exactly Answer to the Jews Question , and tells them plainly , he is what they expected the Messias to be , the Son of God , and very God. For First , in this place he tells them , I and my Father are one , v. 30. We two Persons are the same God : and 't is plain , That the Jews understood that to be his Meaning , by their great rage which followed , and their Answer to his Question , why they should so barbarously use him , after so many of his kind and saving Miracles . For a good work we stone thee not , but for Blasphemy , and because that thou being a Man makest thy self God. And Secondly , he gives them a reason why he might claim the title of God , without Blasphemy ; whereas Rulers to whom the word of God came , or who had their Power and Authority from him , are called Gods in Scripture , Psal . 2. 1 , & 6. Why has not he whom the Father has sanctified , &c. a better claim to this Title ? But besides , he farther tells them , That he was God in a more peculiar manner than they , and in a proper and not metaphorical sense , by a personal Union with the Father ; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me , and I in him . This cannot be , as the Socinians pretend , by the Power of God , co-operating in Christ : for though 't is true that then God would be in him , yet he could not be in God. And besides , to say he is in the Father and the Father in him , denotes an Equality in each , and his being in the Father in the same manner that the Father is in him . And thus much to shew , That our Saviour did assert his Divinity , and prove it too , upon this occasion ; and so consequently , did not only require them to believe in his Word , but in his Person also . CHAP. VII . Of Belief , with meer respect to the Person of Christ . Inquisitiveness concerning his Incarnation censured . First , Because Impertinent . THE First Argument which the Authour uses to prove the Belief of Christ's Divinity to be impertinent , is drawn from the Testimony of the Emperour Constantine in his Letter to Alexander and Arius . I shall not now dispute , whether this Letter in Eusebius be exactly the same which Constantine sent by Hosius into Alexandria , though 't is certain many of these things were feigned or interpolated , and though the same Letter be in Socrates , yet , probably he might have it only out of Eusebius ; and so it still may rely upon his sole Authority , who was too great a Friend to the Arian cause to suffer any very favourable opinion to be passed upon its Adversaries . But after all , the Emperour does not here condemn the Belief of the Orthodox as impertinent ; but writes chiefly to temper the Hearts of Bishop Alexander and Arius , who might be both perhaps something too warm ; and therefore exhorts them so affectionately to mutual Peace and Reconciliation , because of the Quarrels , and Schisms , and other Evils , which this hot and pertinacious Disputing was like to bring into the Church . Indeed the Emperour calls the Controversie Arius had raised , * a little part of a Question , and † a Question not very necessary ; for truly the shuffling of Arius , and the ambiguous terms he used , made the Emperour think 't was only a Controversie about Words . But however the Emperour looked upon Arius to be in the wrong , as appears by what he says in his Letter to him ; And you Arius have inconsiderately asserted ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) what you ought not so much as to have thought of at first , or when you had thought of it , you should have passed it over in silence . But what , after all , though the Emperour thought 't was no matter who was in the right , Arius or Alexander and though he was of our Authour's Opinion , That a right Belief of our Saviour's Divinity signified nothing ? Yet this is but the single opinion of one , who was but a Novice in Christianity ; and 't is most reasonable to think , that Alexander and the other Learned Bishops , better understood the Importance of that Question , than the Emperour , whose Arms and other business of the Empire drew his Thoughts another way . But besides , afterwards when Constantine was better informed , of the mischievous Consequences of the Arian Tenets , he quickly alter'd his Sentiments of their Cause , and did not then treat them with such soft and favourable Expressions . After the conclusion of the Nicene Council , in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria , he triumphs mightily that Truth has at last prevailed , and blesses himself at the Thoughts of the Arian Blasphemies . ‖ * How great , says he , and how execrable Contumelies , ( Good God! be thou propitious and merciful to us ) do they irreligiously and wickedly cast upon our venerable Saviour , our Hope and our Life ; and have not only impudently asserted things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures and our holy Faith ; but have openly professed , That they believe them too ? In this Epistle he calls Arius , impudent Minister of the Devil , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and in his other Letter to the Bishops and People , he says , it seems to him requisite , that Arius and his Followers should be called Porphyrians , that they may be known by their Name , whose Manners they follow . And there orders , if any Book be found of Arius's , that it be immediately burned , That not only his Execrable Doctrine may be throughly rooted up ; but that there may be no Monument left to Posterity . And now let the Authour make the best he can of Constantine's Judgment ; and if his other Arguments will support him no better than this , his Cause , I am afraid , will soon come to the ground . His next Argument is drawn from the similitude of the Sun , That 't is not necessary the Traveller should understand the Dimensions of that Body , when he goes by its Light ; so it is not at all necessary to know what our Saviour is , to practise his Commands . But this Argument I have already answered in the Fifth Chapter ; when I shewed what Influence the Belief of our Saviour's Divinity had upon Men's Lives . But his Argument which follows , is very fine and Philosophical . That when he considers the great disproportion between our Earth , and so many Worlds , which he fansies to be from the innumerable Stars we discover with and without the Telescope , each Star being the Sun or the Center of a World , from this consideration he cannot imagine , that our great Creatour should be so greedy of a little of our corrupt breath , as to purchase it with a fall from Heaven . This would be to disgrace our Lord from the dignity of a Benefactor , to the vileness of an unskilful Tradesman ; who buys vile ware , and pays for it infinitely more than it is worth . Indeed I have hardly patience to answer this abominable Blasphemy ; to see a foolish Philosopher thus horridly to affront his Creatour , and in this witless Buffoonry to ridicule the infinite satisfaction of his blessed Redeemer ; because he cannot make it agree with his system of Physicks . But pray let him consider , that we do not think , the dignity of our nature , or the beauty of our World inclined God , who has no respect of persons , to work our Redemption : this was only the effect of his infinite mercy , which we can never enough admire and praise . And besides , what signifies the largeness and gloriousness of the Heavenly Bodies , in comparison with Mens Immortal Souls ? The Sun is the most glorious Body we see ; and yet a Fly is a more noble Creature than that . The sensitive Soul , that this is endowed with , advances its excellence far above any the most glorious inanimate being , that can be imagined . But the immortal Soul of one Man is of more dignity than all the Corporeal Creation , and if there had been no other way to redeem Mens Souls that were lost , but by the destruction of all the other Creation , 't would not have been unbecoming the divine Wisdom to have destroyed all them , to have redeemed these ; because these are of infinitely more value than they . But it may be that the Authour thinks , there are an infinite number of Worlds , all stocked with rational Creatures , of , it may be , much more dignity than we ; so that it was not worth God's while to take care of such insignificant Creatures as we are . Now we know nothing of these great Bodies , and for what use Providence designed them , besides for the benefits we receive from them ; and therefore Men talk at random when they ascribe any other to them . But supposing there were rational Creatures in ten Millions of Earths , that were moving round their respective Suns , must God less take care of our World , because he has a great many more to take care of ? This is to attribute a foolish weakness to the Deity , and to think it is with him as it is with some Parents , who when they have a great number of Children , do not love any particular Child so well , as if they had but that alone , or but fewer . Certainly God bears a Fatherly Love to all his Creatures , and will provide whatsoever is necessary for them ; 't is not his providing for innumerable other Creatures , that can hinder him from providing for us : his Omniscience cannot be distracted by innumerable Operations , and his infinite Power and Love can , and will do all things that are necessary for us . So that if it be requisite to repair the forfeited Souls of Mankind ; that a Person of the Godhead should make an infinite satisfaction , for sins against an infinite Majesty , and which do deserve an infinite punishment ; 't is not the gloriousness of the other Worlds which should hinder him from doing it ; for his Fatherly compassion reaches to us as well as them , and he would not stick to use these means for our Redemption , if no other could effect it . But the Authour says , that then Christ has paid infinitely more than the ware was worth , like an unskilful Tradesman , as he calls him . I shall not now dispute , whether God could have pardoned the sins of the World , any other way than by the blood of God ; 't is enough for us to know , that God has done it only by these means , and to be sufficiently thankful to him for it . And when the Authour , or any of his Party , shall think fit to engage upon a dispute of satisfaction , the Pens of those excellent Defenders of our Religion of late against Popery , will not be silent in this dispute , if they shall think fit to begin it ; though all the Tribe down from Servet to this Authour , will not be able to shake any part of the Treatises on this subject , by the most Excellent Grotius , and the Bishop of Worcester . But because the Authour here offers nothing but his bare assertion , and because I have in part answered this objection already in the fifth Chapter ; I shall proceed to his next Argument , which is , That it is not supposable that our Lord should require a belief in his Divinity , because it was not required of some of the first Embracers of Christianity , such as Philip's Eunuch , and the like ; who were baptized into the Christian Faith , he says , without any knowledge of his Divinity . It is very certain , we do not find in Scripture any set Form , to be recited by all Persons to be baptized , that declares an express belief in our Saviour's Divinity ; but such a Declaration has been the Custom of the Church in the most early times , and therefore though the Scripture do not assert any such Declaration , yet such a silence , especially considering the compendious way of writing in the Authours of these Books , cannot conclude , that there was no such form used by them , or that all that were to be baptized did not give an express assent to , and belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity . It is most certain , they were baptized with a form of words which does imply that Doctrine , viz. In the name of the Father , of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . So that unless we will suppose , that they were baptized into names which they did not understand , which we cannot suppose any reasonable Men should ; they must understand the meaning and purport of these names , and so have a belief in the person as well as in the Doctrine of our Saviour : For how can we suppose , but that when any new Converts to Christianity , should see others baptized before them into these three names of Father , Son and Holy Ghost , they should never trouble themselves to know who they were ? If they were Jews , they would by this be afraid of running into the Gentile Polytheism , and would be sure to be well instructed in this matter , for fear of Idolatry . If they were Gentile Converts to hear this form without any farther Instruction , they would be apt to think this was but to keep in their own Religion still , and only to retrench the number of their Gods from 300 , to 3 ; which would be still as much contradiction to the Principles of their Conversion , as their former Tenets . So that we must needs think , that the Apostles did explain this form of Baptism to all that were baptized , how suddenly soever , and did inform them , what these three Persons , into whose names they were baptized were , and how they were consistent with the unity of the Deity ; which would give them the full notion of the Doctrine of the Trinity . And though all that is recorded of the belief of this Eunuch is , that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God , yet it is to be supposed , that he believed in God the Father too , or else Philip would not have baptized him ; and 't is also very reasonable to think , that he that was so inquisitive about the sense of the Prophecies , would not be less exact in endeavouring to understand the meaning of this strange form of his Baptism , a Ceremony which was of so grand import . But we find in latter times , when History and Relations are more distinct , that persons to be baptized were to recite their Creed , into which they were throughly instructed before by a full explanation of all its Articles ; and if in case of extream danger , they were like to die before they were sufficiently instructed , * though they were then baptized , yet they were obliged to be sufficiently instructed afterwards , if they recovered . They were also particularly obliged to give their assent in Baptism to each single person of the Trinity † , upon each of the three immersions . Now this trine immersion , in token of the Faith in the Trinity * , St. Jerom says , was observed by ancient Tradition in the Church , and that they were thrice immerged , that there might appear one Sacrament of the three Persons . Nay the same † Father tells us farther in another place , that 't was a Custom in the Church , for the forty days before Baptism , that in the days of Lent , ( they being baptized at Easter ) the Persons to be baptized , should be throughly instructed in the Doctrine of the Trinity . So that whereas it was the use of the Church , in the most early times , to instruct Persons to be baptized in the Doctrine of the Trinity , and this Custom was deliver'd down to them by Tradition , and it being not to be supposed , but that Men of sense would enquire , of their own accord , into the meaning of the form of their Baptism , which would lead them into the knowledge of this Doctrine ; for to be baptized into the name of any one , is to be baptized into the belief and worship of him , so that this does necessarily inform them of three Persons to be believed in , and worshipped , which three Persons they are sure can be but one God ; therefore these primitive Proselytes were instructed in the Mystery of the Trinity . The next Argument the Authour urges , is from a place in Justin Martyr , in whose days the Authour acknowledges the Doctrine of our Saviours Divinity to be the Doctrine most received ; but because Justin says in a very soft expression , there are some my Friends among us , who profess him to be Christ , and affirm him to be Man born of Men ; therefore they that did believe so were reckoned true Believers . I know not but that the Authour was helped to this Argument by Faustus Socinus † , who brings this Authority of Justin to prove , that many in that Age held Christ only to be meer Man. But however ; if by Unbelievers the Authour means perfect Infidels , that did not own the Doctrine of Jesus Christ , or that he was sent of God , but looked on him as a downright Imposter ; I do not think that those persons Justin speaks of were such , or were reputed such in the Church at that time : yet though they were not reckoned Unbelievers in that sense , they were reckoned false Believers , or Heterodox ; they were probably Ebionites , or some such Hereticks , that looked upon Christ as meer Man , or else an Angel incarnate , or something of that nature : and though they were reputed Christians , it was never as Orthodox ones ; though they might be thought to be in a state of Salvation , yet they were always lookt upon to be in very gross Errours . But it does not follow , that their Opinions were harmless , because Justin calls them Friends , he undoubtedly had Friends among the Heathens as well as the Hereticks ; and I suppose our Authour would take it very ill , if all Orthodox Christians should commence Enemies to him for his Opinions in this Book . So that the good nature and charitableness of this good Man , could no more palliate the guilt of these Mens wicked Heresies , than their Blasphemies could lessen his Vertues . The Authour afterwards begins to be very gay and florid , and says , that the Orthodox belief of our Saviour's Divinity , which he pretends to be contrary to that of the Ancients , is like Diamonds , costly , hard , and useless , that our Saviours being brought into Questions of this nature , is like Gold being made into a Pin , which is only to debase his dignity , and to employ it at Boys-play . But who ever said , that our Lord's name , being in any Proposition , gave truth or dignity to it purely as such ? Our Authour may be as merry with his Push-pin simile , as he pleases , but I think there is as little sense in this Declamatory stuff , as there is ( to use his expression ) of that noble Metal in the point of his Pin. But though the Question of our Saviour's Divinity does not receive its importance , by having our Saviour's name in it , yet it may from the Command of God , who has obliged us to believe aright in this point ; it may from the conducibleness of such a belief to a good Life , as we have proved before , and then all these fine simile's are not to much purpose . But our Authour as he began this Chapter with the Testimony of an Emperour , he ends it with one of a Lord ; though perhaps he had plaid the Orator better , if he had given out his least Testimony first , and have begun with the Lord and ended with the Emperour . Though this Testimony I believe will stand him in no more stead than the former , as upon examination will appear . Now this Testimony is of one Leonas a Courtier in Constantius's Court , who was sent by that Emperour to preside in the Council of Seleucia , who seeing the Bishops fierce and endless ( he says ) at this push-pin Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity , dismissed them with this reprimand , Go and play the Fools at home . The Authour quotes Socrates for this , though these words are not in him : there are indeed these words , * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Get you gone , and play the Fool again in the Church , or in Church matters . But I cannot imagine why the Author should translate it as he does , unless perhaps he has met with some latin translation of Socrates , or some latin Authour , that quoted this place out of him , which led him into this errour . And this in all probability is the true case . He finds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , translated by abite domum , or ite domum , and so thinks the word [ domum ] belongs to the latter part of the Sentence ; not to [ abite ] , but to [ nugas agite ] the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so renders it into English , play the Fool at home . But whether this be the case or no , it is no great matter , the Testimony is not very considerable ; and besides , it does not make any thing against the Orthodox Believers . Leonas himself , was in all probability an Arian , as being such a Favourite of Constantius , and being sent to preside in that Council which did mostly consist of Arians : and if any plaid the Fool in this Council 't was the Arians ; for the two quarrelling Parties here were both Arian , both agreed against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the Nicene Creed : the Opinion of the Acacian Party we may see at large in Socrates * , in their Creed which they set forth , when they met again at Constantinople , An. 364. and the other Party † subscribed the Creed , set out by the Council of Antioch , which was Arian too . So that Leonas might well think them to play the Fools , when they were both agreed upon the point , and were very unanimous , as to the main of their Heresy , that they should wrangle , and squabble , and fall to Loggerheads about nothing . For all their bustle was , whether they should express their Arian Notions , by altering an old Creed to their purpose , or by framing a new one . CHAP. VIII . A belief , with respect to the Person of Christ , fruitless towards the Inquirers own satisfaction . THE Authour begins this Chapter with a Testimony from the Emperour Constantine again , who , in his * Letter to Arius and Alexander , says , that the Question they were disputing about was so abstruse , that they could make few among the Multitude to understand it . And what then ? the matter of Alexander's Belief might be plain enough , and yet they , by their disputes might render it abstruse and puzzling . I have known ordinary Questions in Logick and Morality drawn into such fine Threads by Argumentation , that both the Disputants have lost the sight of the Question , and have hardly at last understood their own meaning . And this might be the Case of Arius and Alexander , for ought I know . But the Reason why the Emperour thought the Question it self so puzzling , was , because he could see little difference between their Opinions ; for he could not so well understand their distinction of a Generation and a Production out of nothing , he thought this was only a Metaphysical notion too transcendent for vulgar Brains , but was not aware of the Consequence which Arius drew from the Son 's being produced out of Nothing , that this must make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Creature . Then he proceeds to shew , That the Messias was a Person of whom the Scripture did foretel that his Generation should not be known . But he does not produce any of these Prophecies , and therefore I shall not be obliged to answer those ; which some others have brought to our Authour's purpose . All that he brings is a Text out of John , and another out of the Hebrews ; the first is , we know whence this man is , but when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is , Joh. 7. 27. This place does not prove , That Christ is not the eternal Son of the Father ; nay , it rather makes for it than against it ; because , by the Phrase , no man knoweth , it supposes a Generation above all humane understanding . But it no ways proves , That we cannot tell whether Christ be the Son of God or no ; and this it must prove , if it will do the Authour any kindness . All that this Text proves , is , That the Jews thought , that Christ was to be of no earthly Extraction , not the Son of any Man , but of God. But we know , say they , whence this Man is , that he is born of Joseph and Mary ; this is the Carpenter's Son , and therefore he cannot be the Messias , who is to be of a heavenly original , the Son of God in a manner we cannot tell : for if it was not to be known whether the Messias were to be the Son of God or no , why does our Saviour call himself so , and require others to believe him such ? and if he was the Son of God , then it was to be known whence he was , in this Sense ; so that all that can be drawn from this Text , is , That Christ is not of an earthly Original ; and this we would have granted him , without his pains of proving it . The other Text is out of Heb. 7. where Melchizedeck being brought as a Type of our Saviour , and being there declared to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without Father , and without Mother , without Descent , therefore Christ's original is not known . Indeed Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without Mother , in respect of his Divinity ; but he is not without Father , unless that we suppose him falsly to call God his Father , in so many places . But neither was Melchizedeck without Father , and without Mother , as not being of an earthly extraction ; he was without Father , without Mother , without descent , in relation to the Aronical Priests , whose Fathers , and Mothers , and all their Pedigree was exactly set down and preserved in the Jewish Records ; but there was no constat of Melchizedeck's Pedigree ; the Scripture is perfectly silent of his Original , and no other Records give an account of it . But our Saviour's Original , according to the flesh , is set down by the Evangelists , an exact Catalogue given us of all his Progenitors : therefore Melchizedeck is no Type of our Saviour , in this respect . His being like unto the Son of God ( as the Apostle speaks ) in his abiding a Priest continually , v. 3. that is , being of that blessing kind of Priesthood , which shall always continue , when the other of the Jews shall be abolished . Well , but the Authour says , That the Evangelists derive Christ's Pedigree from a wrong Father , and two different ways , on purpose to amuse us . This is a bold stroke , to tax these inspired Writers with Errour and Deceit , and to make the Holy Spirit of God the Spirit of Delusion . But what though the Evangelists do shew Christ's descent two different ways , they may be both true for all that ; the intermingled Marriages of Families , in our modern manner , where all nigh degrees are prohibited , do often occasion one Person to descend from another two ways , which must be much more so among the Jews , who were often to marry their nighest Relations to keep up their Families . Therefore 't is no wonder if the Evangelists relate this Pedigree divers ways , where as it might have been related several other ways and all true : for 't were easie to draw his present Majesties descent only from William the Conquerour , in it may be seven or eight different Branches . But if any one has a mind to see the difficulties of this Genealogy explained , he may see it at large in those excellent Men * Grotius and † Bochartus ; for it would be too long to enter upon a Discourse of this nature here . So that 't is a most impudent Falsity in the Authour to say , That it is left impossible to prove our Saviour deriv'd from David , when the Evangelists have written these Genealogies for that end . Next the Authour quarrels with the Bishop of Alexandria , for offering to explain the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity ; or , as he speaks , for boldly answering , I will declare his generation . We know not at this distance , what this Explication of that Bishop was ; Socrates tells us , that * he acted the Divine something Philosophically , and with a desire of Honour concerning the Trinity , asserting an Vnity in Trinity . But this had been done often before Alexander's time ; Tertullian had wrote a Book of it against Praxeas , and we may see as curious Disquisitions , probably as this was , of our Saviour's Divinity , in many of the Fathers before Alexander : nay , the Authour allows the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity to be mostly received in Justin Martyr's time . Therefore we cannot suppose that it was this curious Disquisition of Alexander that so offended Arius ; for if so , he might as well be offended with Tertullian and several others : But Theodoret gives us the true state of the Case , * Arius was nettled at Alexander's Advance to the Bishoprick , but could not vent his spleen against him by any Accusation of him , though he watched him narrowly , by reason of the excellent Circumspectness of his Life , and therefore took this Opportunity to cavil at his Doctrine , only for saying , The Son is of equal honour with the Father , and of the same substance . This Arius had the confidence to contradict in the Face of the Congregation , and to say , what was never said before , ( says Sozomen ) † That the Son was produced out of nothing , That there was a time when he was not . So that let Alexander be as wary in his Expressions as he could , 't is ten to one but some time or other he had been catched up by Arius , who only waited for an opportunity to oppose him ; and probably it would have been indifferent to him to have broached any other Heresie , if he could , with any plausibility , have contradicted Alexander . But notwithstanding this Insolence of Arius in the midst of the Congregation , and his ‖ endeavouring to gain Proselytes to his Opinion , by disputes open and private ; notwithstanding all this Boldness , his Bishop Alexander desires only that he would come to a fair Dispute , to try the Truth of his Doctrine : and there was a dispute held , in which the Bishop supplied the Moderator's part very calmly ( as the Historian says ) * encouraging each side as they deserved commendation ; but in the end of the dispute he determined it against Arius , and forthwith commands him to renounce his Errour , which he and his Followers pertinaciously refusing , he at last excommunicates them . And truly I think the Bishop had patience enough to suffer so long the Pride and Heresie of this haughty Presbyter ; and I cannot but admire his Clemency , in allowing him a Conference before Excommunication , after so impudent an Affront to his Diocesan : and one would be apt to think , that when the Authour blames Alexander so much for this action , he had some little Foresight of his own Case . Then followed the great Council of Nice , which excommunicated Arius , and those Bishops which would not subscribe to its Determinations in this Point ; and truly the Authour is so civil to let this Council pass over without reflection , but runs off again to the Bishop of Alexandria , whom he censures for his Disobedience to the Imperial Letters for the restoring of Arius , upon account of his being excommunicated by the Council , and his wanting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Confession . But 't is not the same Bishop of Alexandria now as was before , which the Authour's Words do imply ; for Alexander , whom he was so fierce against before , was dead , he living but * five Months after the Nicene Council , and Athanasius was chosen Bishop in his room , to the great grief of the Arians . Neither was this excellent Person , whom all the Arian Party strove to load with the most heavy Accusations , and which the Authour would make guilty of great disobedience , any ways to be blamed in the matter of restoring Arius . Before this matter happened , Eusebius of Nicomedia , and Theognis , two famous Arian Bishops , that had been deposed by the Council and banished by the Emperour , were restored , upon their exhibiting a fraudulent and dissembling Libel to the Emperour , in which † they pretend to be sorry for what they had done , to consent to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and promise to live peaceably for the future , without any further contradiction ; and add , that they do not this , to be freed from their Banishment , but only because they would not be thought to be guilty of Errour : but as soon as ever they were restored , they made very little of all these Promises , but were as violent in propagating their Arianism as ever ; and as Socrates says , ‖ abusing the Favour that was granted them , raised a greater Tumult in the World than they had before . * They labour earnestly to get Arius restored , especially Eusebius , who deals with an Arian Priest , who was Chaplain ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) to Constantia the Sister of Constantine , to use his Interest for his Restoration : This Priest makes the Lady believe , that Arius's Opinions were not such as were reported , but she does not dare to tell the Emperour so much ; but the Emperour visiting her oft in her Sickness , she recommends this Priest to him for his Piety and Loyalty . This Priest having thus gained an Interest in the Emperour , he tells him what he had done to Constantia before ; and besides , that Arius would willingly subscribe to the Decrees of the Nicene Council . Upon this relation the Emperour declares , That if this be true , † if he join with the Council , and be of their Opinion , that he will not only suffer him to approach his Presence , but will send him back honourably to Alexandria . Upon which , the Emperour writes to Arius , to wait on him at Constantinople ; which accordingly he does , with his Friend Euzoius , who was in the same Circumstances ; and , upon the demand of the Emperour , they jointly give him in a Summ of their Belief , which is to be seen in the Historians , cunningly enough worded , it seems , to impose upon the Emperour ; which Creed , Sozomen says , did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , look both ways , might be either Orthodox or Arian , as 't was interpreted . Upon this the Emperour is willing they should be restored ; ‖ but did not think fitting to do it of himself , without the Judgment and approbation of those who are the proper Declarers of this matter according to the Law of the Church . And therefore he writes to the Synod of Bishops which were then congregated at Jerusalem , to take the matter into their consideration , and to inspect their Creed , which he sent with them to the Synod . But this Synod consisting mostly of Eusebius's Creatures ; * for most of the Orthodox Party had retired after the Solemnity of the Dedication of the Temple was over ; they that were diligent Favourers of Arius [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] taking an Opportunity [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] took off his Excommunication . Upon this the same Faction in the Council writ a Synodical Epistle † to the Church of Alexandria , the Bishops and Clergy of Aegypt , Thebais and Libya to receive Arius and Euzoius with willing Minds as being restored , they say , by so great a Synod ; and they write another to the Emperour , to give him an account of what was done , and to desire him to see them actually restored . Arius then comes to Alexandria ; but Athanasius , who understood all the Fraudulence of the proceeding , looking on him still as excommunicate , ‖ avoided him as an execrable Person , and would not restore him . Then Arius strives , by infusing his Heresie into the People of the City , to raise a Tumult , thereby to attain his end that way , but this not succeeding , Eusebius procures a Letter from the Emperour , to command him to it . This Athanasius civilly answers , and informs him , That Arius being anathematized by a general Council , he cannot be restored by him again . This very much inflames the Emperour , not well understanding the merits of the Cause , and occasions an angry Letter from him , in which he threatens his deposing him from his Bishoprick , upon refusal . This Opportunity Eusebius gladly improves , and suborns one * Ischyras , a rascally Fellow that had usurped the Priesthood without Ordination in the Diocess of Athanasius , but being detected by him , flies to Eusebius in Nicomedia , who receives him as a Priest , and promises him a Bishoprick if he would accuse Athanasius , which having done he did afterwards procure him . Then were trumpt up the Forgeries of the broken Chalice , and the cutting off Arsenius's Hand , and using it for Magick , &c. which were the subject of the Debates of the Arian Council at Tyre , and have , of late , made such a noise in our Socinian . Pamphlets . Now in all this , here is no real Disobedience at all of the Bishop to the Emperour , as the Authour would pretend ; for the Emperour will not have him restored , unless he be of the opinion of the Nicene Council ; and besides , he does not think it a Point in which he ought to meddle , but leaves it to the Council , which he thought Orthodox when it was mostly Arian . But Athanasius finds that Arius's Creed was drawn up so ambiguously , that any one might see he designed nothing but shuffling ; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which was the Test of Arianism , was left out , and Arius still as fond of his Doctrines as ever ; and moreover , that the Council which pretended to restore him , was but Provincial at best , and most of the Orthodox in it retired , and the Eusebian Party taking off his Excommunication by a trick , and therefore thinks , he may very well , upon these considerations , refuse to restore him , notwithstanding the Imperial Letters . And truly he , or any other Bishop , that would take into his Flock such a Wolf as this upon these terms , would little deserve the name of a good Pastour ; and he that should refuse to do so , might justify himself from disobedience to any Earthly Authority whatsoever . He that will see more of Athanasius's Vindication , may see it in his own Apologies . I have been more full in the Vindication of this good Man , because the scurrillous Pens , of late , have made it their business , after so many hundred years , to calumniate him again . The next thing that the Authour offers , is against the word Consubstantial , and this from a saying of Socrates , Lib. 1. Cap. 18. ( not Book the 2. as he quotes it ) in which the Authour would have him to condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as a word which did trouble Mens Minds , and which the Bishops themselves did not understand . Now Socrates is Friend enough to the Orthodox Cause , every one knows , which makes the Authour brand him with the name of partial , and in many places shews , he had no dislike to the word Consubstantial : but he has one fault which is common to many Historians , that he makes too many remarks upon his Relations , and oftentimes in matters , the true reason of which we was far from understanding . But 't is no great matter what the Historians remarks are , 't is their Relations , and not their reflections which we are to value ; and yet after all , Socrates does not in the least reflect upon the Orthodox Doctrine , or the test of it , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . He shews his dislike indeed to those that made too nice explications of it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , those that crumbled this question into many little Cavils , and raised upon it some nice disputes , and therefore they that did so were to blame ; but they might believe what was signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without any of these Cavils , and they might without any of these Niceties stand up for the word , as being thought , by the wisdom of the Council , to be the best Test to discover the Arian Heresy . Then the Authour applauds himself mightily , in fansying that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the same now , as it was in Athanasius's time ; because he in his Dialogues explains this Mystery by the similitude of three Men , who are one in their common nature , and three in their individual Capacity ; this the Authour would have to infer a Tritheism , and as well to justify the Heathen Polytheism as the Trinity . Now these Dialogues , though bound up with Athanasius's Works , are not his , but according to the Opinion of most learned Men , are Maximus's : but however , there is nothing in them which would infer any thing like that which the Authour pretends to . He and several other of the Fathers , give many Illustrations , to explain , as far as possible , to humane understandings , this Mystery ; but yet they , as all other similitudes , must not be strained farther than the Authours designed them ; 't is enough if they bear that Analogy or likeness which are there singled out , not that these should have , in their whole nature , an uniform similitude . Now Peter , James and John , three Individual Men , and yet agreeing in one common nature Man , are a very good illustration of the Blessed Trinity ; for as Peter is Man , James is Man , and John is Man , and yet there is but one Man ( that is ) one common nature of humanity ; so the Father is God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , and yet there is but one God , that is , one common Divine Nature ; but yet this illustration does not bear an universal Analogy with the Trinity ; for Peter , James and John , agree only in the same common collective nature , and are only collectively one , but Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are essentially one . So that I say , this illustration of the Trinity , may be very good , though it does not hold universally : 't is enough if the three Persons in each agree in a general Unity , though they differ in the specification of this Unity ; 't is enough if both are three and yet one , though one be by a collective , and the other an essential Oneness . So Bishop , Priest , and Deacon , agree in one common Office of Ministry in general , and this is brought by the same Father , as a farther illustration of this Mystery : and so may any other three Species of a Genus , or any three Individuums of a Species ; but then they must be carried no further than it was meant this illustration should go ; for to expect an universal similitude , is rather to expect a sameness than a likeness . And now if Men should take the boldness to rack , and tenter , and sport themselves with the Similes and Parables in the New Testament , of our Saviour's Church , Doctrines , Kingdom and the like , as our late Socinian ▪ Pamphlets have done these of the ancient Fathers , I dare say they might , with as great ease , ridicule the whole Christian Religion , as they do this Doctrine of the Trinity . As to what the Authour says of the word Mystery , which he calls an impregnable Fort , and the Papists Cock-Argument for Transubstantiation , and his saying , the contradictions are no less in Transubstantiation than the Trinity ; this is all bold and impudent Assertion , without proof , and therefore requires no Answer : but if any one has a mind to see all these Objections for ever silenced , let him read the two incomparable Dialogues printed in the time of the late Popish Controversy , and Entituled , the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared . Well , but the Authour says , if the Trinity be a Mystery , why should we dispute any longer about it ? To dispute concerning a Mystery ( says he ) and at the same time acknowledge it a Mystery , is a contradiction , as great as any in the greatest Mystery . I see our Authour is all for contradictions , and will have no Mystery without them . I thought a Mystery had been an unintelligible Truth , and not a contradictious falsity . But however , why should we not dispute concerning a Mystery ? If the Mysterious Truth be denied , it is to be defended as well as other truths : it is not the less a Truth because it is mysterious , any more than a Conclusion in Algebra is not true because I do not understand it . But besides , such a truth has more reason to be contended for , as it is of greater importance , and such we have proved this Doctrine of the holy Trinity to be . Indeed if Men did dispute about a Mystery as a Mystery , there would be something in the Authour's Objection ; for then Men would pretend to understand something by their Disputes , whose name imported it was not to be understood . But there is no such thing in the Arguments of the Orthodox , for the defence of the Trinity : they do not dispute this Doctrine as a Mystery , but as a Truth , which in some measure may be understood ; they do not dispute about the modus of the Trinity , which is unintelligible , but about the existence of it , which is a Truth can be understood ; they do not pretend to shew how they are Three in One , but that they are Three in One. There is a vast difference between understanding how things are , and that they are ; for a Man may understand there is such an Arts as Algebra , by seeing Oughtred , or Diophantus , and yet understand nothing of the way of Reduction of Equation , nor one tittle of the Rules of that Art. But still the Authour will have this Doctrine a Mystery in his sense , that is , a falsity full of contradictions , from the contrary determinations of Councils , and the various expositions of others , and by the wavering , as he calls it , of the Council of Sirmium , which changed their Opinion , and would have called in the Copies of one of their Creeds . As to the contrary determinations of Councils , that to the grief of the Christian Church is but too true , if we may call the Arian Synods by that name ; for the Arian Heresy , by God's Permission , did so much prevail , that by the Countenance of an Arian Emperour , the World almost became Arian ; and then 't was an easy matter for the Bishops of that perswasion to form themselves into Assemblies , and to declare what ever Orthodox Opinions they pleased for Heresy . The Authour , if he had said any thing to his purpose , should have proved , that the determinations of Orthodox Councils , had been contrary one to another , but what are the contradictions of the Hereticks to them . Truth can be but one and the same , though errour may be infinite ; and therefore the Conformity of the Orthodox Doctrines to one another , shew their verity , whilst the disagreement and clashing of the Heretical Creeds , are an infallible proof of their falsity . The Orthodox always very fairly stick to their old Test , the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but the Hereticks are soon for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and soon for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and sometimes for neither . Well ; but the Council of Sirmium has contradicted it self . 'T is very true , and 't is the misfortune or many Heretical Opiniators to do the same . But by the way , I am afraid the Arian Cause has but a very poor Patron of this Authour ; for when ever he has a mind to charge any slip or misdemeanour upon a Council , he always singles out an Arian one for it . He lately blamed the Arian Council at Seleucia for Tumult , and now he charges one of the same stamp at Sirmium for Contradictions . Now the matter at Sirmium stands thus . The Arian Heresy about the year 357. had gotten large footing in the World , and * they began now to disdain the name of a Sect or Heresy , and to affect the name of Catholicks ; and to this end would congregate in Councils , not only to defend their own particular Tenets , but also to condemn Heresies . † And upon this account 't was , that they met at Sirmium in the foresaid year , to condemn the Heresy of the Photinians , who following Sabellius and Samosatenus , would have Christ to have no being before the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. This Heresy therefore they condemn , and frame a Creed in opposition to it , where are these words ‖ , Those that shall say , that the Son was from a no being before , and from another substance , and not from God , or that there was a time when he was not , those the holy and the Catholick Church , doth esteem Aliens from her , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And this Creed , Socrates says , was drawn up by Marcus Arethusius , who was a notorious Arian . Now these words 't is true were very pat against the Photinians , and served to excellent good purpose for the condemnation of this Heresy : But when they came to renew their quarrel against the Orthodox , they found too late , that they had in a manner given up their cause ; for here , at one dash , they had confounded all that Arius had been contending with his Bishop Alexander , about Christ's being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from a no being , and that there was a time when he was not ; which though it served to silence Photinianism , yet it totally would ruin the Cause of the Arians . Therefore they set themselves to work anew to frame another Creed , that might be more Arian , which they publish in Latin , in which every thing relating to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. is left out , and in which they declare , they are ignorant what our Saviour is , and bring as a proof of this , that Text of Isai . 53. Who shall declare his generation ? But then , upon second thoughts , least the People should laugh at their Inconstancy , they themselves revoke this second Creed , and strive to get in all the Copies of it , and procure an Edict from the Emperour , which threatens all those that shall detain them . Now indeed we may see here a very foolish inconstancy in these Hereticks , and that they had a very ill hand at making Creeds , to oblige all the World , under the pain of an Anathema , to believe such a thing at one time , and the next day to disbelieve it themselves ; but this is nothing to the Orthodox Faith , which stood always firm and unchangeable . After the Authour has been spitting his Venom against the union of the three Persons , he now begins to do the same against the union of Christ's Divinity , with his humanity . For he would have , that upon supposition there are three persons in the same Individual nature , that either the Nestorian , or the Eutychian Doctrine was the true . For , says he , there are but two ways imaginable in reason : either Christ must be two Persons , because he has two such different natures ; or he must have but one nature , because he is but one Person . But for all our Authours hast , why can't we imagine a third way , that he should be two Natures , and but one Person ? This is as easy to imagine , and I am sure as reasonable too . For first , It does not follow , that because he has two Natures , he must be two Persons , for Nature and Personality , are not reciprocal terms , for there may be two or three , or more Natures , where there is but one Person . The Athanasian Creed most excellently expresses this , As the reasonable Soul and flesh is one Man , so God and Man is one Christ . There is the sensitive nature in Man as well as the rational , there is the rational Soul , one distinct substance united to the Body , another distinct substance ; and yet these two so distinct Natures , are but one Person . Now what more contradiction does it imply , that there should be a Personal Union between Divinity and Humanity , than there does between Rationality and Sensibility ? If there be any more difficulty in one than the other , it is this , That in the former , the union of the Divinity , with the Humanity , there is an union of two reasonable Natures , which are distinct Persons of themselves as all rational Individuals are ; and therefore they must be as distinct Persons after the union as before ? But why so ? If they are united they are not distinct , for all union is a negation of distinction or division . Two single pieces , or pounds of Gold are two distinct Substances or Bodies , but if these be united by melting down into one , they are still two pounds , but yet they are but one Individual Body . And so it is in the Union of all other Bodies . Well , but what is this to the Union of Spirits , or rational Beings ? Yet it is something ; for if Spirits be united , they must follow the Laws of Union as well as other Beings . If they be united , they must be one in something , for to be one in nothing is no Union at all . Now in the Union of the Divinity with the humanity , wherein possibly can their Oneness consist , but only in their personality ? Their Natures are most certainly distinct , for Gods is one Nature , and Mans is another ; and therefore if they be one in any thing , it must be in their Personality . Upon this Union they acquire an Oneness , which they had not before ; and as the two distinct pounds of Gold , upon their melting become one Individual piece , which is the Oneness they gain ; so the Divinity and Humanity upon their Union , gain one Individual Personality , which is the Oneness they acquire . Well , but here are two rational Natures united , which must have two Reasons and two Wills , and therefore must be two Persons . It does not therefore follow , that because there are two Reasons and two Wills , there must therefore be two Persons , any more than it follows , that a Man is three living Creatures , from the Union of the Vegetative , the Sensitive and the Rational Soul in his nature . For as the Subordination of these Souls one to another , make him but one Vivens , so the Subordination of these rational Natures , one to the other , make them but one Person , or rational Suppositum . The Divine Nature is indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or governing Principle in the Union of the Godhead with the Humanity , as the rational Soul is in the Union with the two other Souls ; and therefore though there are two Reasons , and two Wills , yet those of the Inferiour Nature are subordinate to the Superiour , and therefore are determined by the operations of that . Nor , Secondly , is it necessary that if he be one Person , he should be but one Nature ; because Nature and Person are not reciprocal terms ; and because , as we have already shewn , that more Natures may be united into one Person : for 't was the Person of the Godhead that took upon him the Humanity , so that he has no other Personality than what he had from all eternity ; but yet he has another Nature than what he had from all eternity : because he likewise took upon him our Nature , which he had not from eternity , but took it upon him at that time , when he was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. Though he still continued one Person , yet he had two Natures , the Nature of God , which he had from all eternity ; and the Nature of Man , which he assumed at that particular time ; and this without any change , but only in the manner of his subsisting which was before in the pure Glory of the Son of God , and afterwards in the habit of our Flesh . All the Properties of each Nature , are as distinguishable now , as before , the Properties of the Humanity are incommunicable to the Divinity , and those of the Divinity to the Humanity . 'T is proper only to the Divinity to be the cause of all things , to be immense , eternal , omnipresent , &c. and 't is proper only to the Humanity to have a beginning , to be circumscribed in place , to be passible &c. If , therefore , they have these distinct and incommunicable Propertie , they must have distinct Natures , from which these Properties flow , though they be united into one Person . And thus I think I have answered every thing that is material in this Chapter , and I could very willingly have done with it , but only because it may be expected I should say something to those invidious Remarks he makes upon some of the first holy Councils , for the Determinations they made in matters of Faith , and the condemnation of Hereticks . As to what he says about the Heresie of Nestorius , 't is not worth considering ; but he has a little too grosly represented the matter of Eutyches , which I must not pass over without a little Reflection . He would insinuate , that Eutyches was first condemned by a Provincial Council , and restored by a General one , which is false . The Council indeed at Constantinople — which condemned Eutyches , was but Provincial , convened by Flavianus Bishop of that place , but it did consist of Orthodox Members , and their Determinations were very free ; wherein Eutyches had a fair hearing , to answer every thing he would , that was objected against him by Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum , his Accuser ; who , before the meeting of this Council , did kindly endeavour to reclaim him ; but when nothing would do , he impeaches him in a * Letter to Flavianus , who cites him to the Council ; but he resolutely , at first , there avows his Heresie , That Christ had but one Nature after the Union ; and , at last when he began something to abate of his Stiffness , he would by no means recant his Opinion : therefore the Council , who , after several Sessions , could get nothing from him but shuffling , Nemine contradicente , condemn him ; to which Condemnation not only the present Bishops subscribe , but 23 of the Archimandrian Clergy that were there . But this so General a Council , as the Authour calls it , which restored Eutyches , was that , which , for its goodnes , has been all along entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Thievish Council , or the Synod of Robbers , that packt Conventicle at Ephesus , which was obtained by this means . Eutyches , vext at his Condemnation by the Council , flies to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria , and of Eutyches's Opinion , and persuades him to espouse his Quarrel : He readily complies , and forthwith procures him an Interest in the Eunuch Chrysaphius , President of the Palace , that was a late Proselyte to the Eutychian Heresie , and was very angry with Flavianus , for his procedure in the late Council at Constantinople ; so he , by his own , and the Interest of the Empress Eudocia , obtains of the Emperour Theodosius , that there might be a Council held at Ephesus ; upon pretence , to give Eutyches a fairer Tryal , but in reality to be revenged on Flavianus , and to establish Eutychianism . Dioscorus gets to be President of this Council , and brings with him a great number of Egyptian Bishops of his Opinion : and obtains an * order from the Emperour , That none that were Judges of Eutyches before should be so now , in this Council ; that though they were present , yet they should not vote as Judges , but only expect the Suffrages of the other Fathers ; because this was to be a Judgment passed upon what they had judged before . What followed after this practising may easily be imagined : the Faith of Eutyches is approved , and Eusebius and Flavianus are condemned . But yet it was not easy neither to get the Subscriptions of the Bishops to this , till they were frightened to it by the Arms and Threats of the Souldiers : † and after all , they set their names only to blank Paper , to which the Abdication of those Bishops was afterwards affixed . For thus some of the Bishops complain afterwards in the Council of Chalcedon . ‖ We subscribed only to the pure paper , with compulsion and violence , having suffered many ill treatments , we did unwillingly , and forced by power , set our hands . They kept us even till night shut up in the Church , and being sick they would not suffer us to rest , nor would grant us any refreshments ; but the Souldiers , with Swords and Staves , stood over us , and made us subscribe . The Authour indeed grants , that Dioscorus was accused in the Council of Chalcedon of some Uncanonical Proceedings , and in truth they were Uncanonical with a Vengeance . For besides all this underhand dealing , and tumultuous proceeding in the Synod , he was accused of no less than the Murder of Flavianus ; to whom he gave a * kick in the Synod , upon which he died three days after ; that he had † contrived the Death of Theodorus , and used several other illegal proceedings against him , only because he was the Friend of Cyril his Predecessour ; of no less than notorious Incontinency , of keeping Company with one Pansophia , an infamous Woman , and according to the information of Sophronius , of downright Adultery ; of ‖ Blasphemy against the Trinity ; of being an Origenist ; of usurping the Imperial Authority ; and if all these Crimes can be wiped off with so soft a word as Uncanonical Proceedings , I know not what things in the World those are , which Men call Lewdness and Villaniny ; unless Hereticks by a special Title , can claim an immunity from these names , where they are guilty of the Crimes . This Council in which these things were made out against Dioscorus , the Authour says was procured by Leo , because his Letters were slighted in the last , though Zonoras † tells us , that Leo , and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople , intreated this Council of the Emperour , least the blasphemous Opinions of Eutyches should be left uncondemned . This Council the Authour does endeavour to render vain and tumultuous , by crying out , This is the Faith of the Fathers , Apostles , &c. Leo believes so , Cyril believes so . Now I think it a very laudable occasion for Christian Mens exultation , when their Faith is defended against the poison of Hereticks ; for to be still and unconcerned upon such an occasion , would shew they had little love or regard for the Faith they profess . But the reason why they used Leo and Cyril's name so expresly , was , because of their excellent Explications of Faith , which were publickly read in the Council , and universally approved ; and such Defenders of Orthodoxy do in all Ages deserve as great commendation . But the Authour would pretend the Council did not understand their own meaning , when they propounded the Question , whether they would agree with Dioscours , who said Christ consisted of two , or with Leo , who said there were two Natures in Christ ; which Question the Authour says is a Mystery , and was designed only to advance the dignity of the Roman See. But yet this is no very great Mystery to any one that considers Dioscorus , or Eutyches's Doctrine , who held indeed but one nature in Christ , but yet in compliance with the Orthodox , would say Christ consisted of two natures . They would allow Christ at first to be compounded [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] of two natures , but then upon the Union or Composition , they ceased to be two ; but the Orthodox held , There were two distinct natures after Union , which did both retain their distinct properties without confusion . So that there is a great deal of difference between saying , Christ does consist of two natures , and , There are two natures in Christ ; for the first does suppose them two only before Union , the latter two before and after . But the reason why Leo is put in opposition to Dioscorus , is to confront that Heretick with a sound Orthodox Believer , and to do an Honour to Leo for taking such pains , to defend the true Faith , which Dioscorus had used so much Artifice to destroy . Well , but the Emperour Basiliscus did not own this Council , but sent Circulatory Letters to burn its Decrees . This is very true , and several other Eutychians , as well as Basiliscus , had as little kindness for it . But what disgrace is it to this Council to be Condemned by an Heretick and an Usurper , as Basiliscus was both ? For he had drove his Master , the Emperour Zeno , from his Throne , and had embraced Eutychianism , by the Instigation of his Wife Zenodia . But the Authour need not lay any great stress upon Basiliscus's Circulatory Letters ; for within a little time after ( his Usurpation continuing but two years , after which Zeno was restored ) he sends other Circulatory Letters to Countermand the former , and to condemn Eutyches and his Followers ; and what 's most pleasant is , he entitles them in the front the * contrary Circulatory Letters of Basiliscus . Now this fickle temper of the Usurper , the Heretical Clergy , that had subscribed his first Circulatory Letters , were much afraid of , which made them desire him to send no other contrary to them , for fear the World should be over-run by Sedition , the Council of Chalcedon having occasioned infinte blood-shed : which expression the Authour would make advantage of against the Council , though it comes to nothing at all . For what can we suppose those Men to say or do , which out of base compliance to a wicked Emperour , had denied their Faith ? To be sure they would do all they could to keep up his present resolution ; for if he should alter it , and encourage again the Orthodox , they knew very well what a condition they would then be in , after so scandalous a condescention . To hear these Men rail against the Council of Chalcedon , would signify as much , as to hear one of our Clergy , that had read the Declaration in the late Reign , to exclaim against the Sanguinary Laws of the Nation , and the Spirit of Persecution in the Church ; which no one to be sure would believe any thing the more for their saying so ; because every one must expect they would have something to say , to justify so infamous a compliance . As to what the Authour mentions farther about the dispute of the two Wills in Christ , this was in no ways owing to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity , but altogether to the Innovations of the Hereticks . The Authour gives us some short account of the rise of this Heresy , but neither so fair nor so clear as he ought ; for as for the name Catholicus he mentions , I cannot imagine whom he should mean , unless Athanasius the Patriarch of the Jacobites , who is the Person , I suppose , he must aim , at , though I cannot find he was ever called by that name ; indeed he pretended to be a Catholick , and * Baronius in the Margin of his Annals , when he relates something of this matter , writes in large Letters , Athanasius simulat se Catholicum , and perhaps this might lead him into this Errour . But in short , the rise of † Monethelitism , which was only a Spawn of the Eutychian Heresie , was this , as Paulus Diaconus informs us . When the Emperour , that is Heraclius , was at Hierapolis , Athanasius ( the Authour 's Catholicus ) Patriarch of the Jacobites , a subtil Man and of a shrewd Wit , coming to the Emperour , and talking of Religious Matters ; Heraclius perceiving his Parts , promises him he should be Patriarch of Antioch , if he would subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon , That there were two Natures in Christ . He , greedy of the Prey , pretends to subscribe ; but then , to beguile the Emperour , he subtilly subjoins , But what think you of the Wills and Operation in Christ ? are there Two Wills , and Two kinds of Operations , or but One ? The Emperour , no understanding these Subtilties , sends to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople , and Cyrus Bishop of Phaselis ; who , as they were of a corrupt Judgment ( that is Eutychians ) answer , That he had but one Will. In this manner the Emperour being entangled , he desires to draw others into his Opinion . This was the Rise of Monothelitism , which is no ways owing to the Doctrine of the Orthodox , it being only a Corollary of the Eutychian Heresie ; and was propagated only by those that were poisoned with Eutyches's Tenets . What the Opinions of these Hereticks particularly were , is no great matter ; or what was determined for them in some little by-Synods of their own packing ; it is enough to know , that the Catholick Church condemned this Heresie , as soon as it began to gain Footing in the World , by a General Council , the Second of Constantinople . CHAP. IX . It is dangerous . AND when the Authour comes to shew this , he is for a home charge at first onset , and makes this danger we incur , by the Orthodox Belief of our Saviour's Divinity , to be no less than that of Blasphemy . This is a hard Accusation ; but the best on 't is , 't is difficult to prove ; and the Author is so civil , as far as I can see , not to attempt it . He has in this Paragraph a Quotation out of Socrates , not much to the purpose , and a little talk about Precipices , and Children's walking upon the top of high and narrow Walls , but not a tittle of the Blasphemy business ; unless this be something , when he says , That this Doctrine makes us have so mean an opinion of our Lord's Person as to think it comprehensible . But , by the Authour's Favour , who ever , of the Orthodox , said , our Lord's Person was comprehensible , or ever pretended to comprehend it ? He was just now charging us for flying to the word Mystery , as an impregnable Fort in this Doctrine ; and now he is angry because he fansies we don't think it enough mysterious . This is a pleasant way of arguing the Authour has got , to talk thus backwards and forwards , and within a Page or two ; so that I am sure if the Authour cannot believe , he can write Mysteries . But why must every explication of the Possibility of the existence of a thing make it comprehensible ? Indeed every thing that is explained , is so far comprehensible as it is explained , and so may any thing that is infinite be so far comprehensible . I can comprehend the possibility of an infinite division of Quantity , but yet I cannot comprehend the modus of such a Division farther than the numbers guide me , which I have a perfect notion of . I can comprehend the necessity of God's being eternal , tho' 't is impossible I should have an adequate Idea of his particular duration , or of that infinite time he has already been , or is to be . That our Saviour is God , is all the Orthodox pretend to comprehend , but not the manner of his being God. They endeavour to make this Truth as intelligible as they can , which the Hereticks would make both false and unintelligible . 2. The Second Danger of this our Belief , he would have to be , because , he says , We have no firm ground to go upon . As for Scripture , he says , the Arians capt Texts with the Orthodox ; Antiquity they claim'd with equal Confidence ; and Councils determined sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other , according as Emperours influenc'd them ; so that the only Advantage of the Catholicks , is , long Prescription and that after Sentence . Now this is all bold Assertion without one word of Proof , and I hope the Authour does not expect his Reader should take his word for it all . But what though they did cap Scripture ? they might do it just as the Authour does , nothing at all to the Purpose : their confident Claim to Antiquity does not give them any just Title to it : neither does our Authour's saying the Councils determined according to the Influence of Emperours , any ways prove they did so . When he can prove that the Arian Arguments from Scripture , were as good as the Orthodox ; That the Arian Belief was Apostolical ; That the Four first Councils were Conventicles pack'd of Emperour's Creatures ; then he will say somewhat : but till then he had better hold his Tongue , than to talk thus impiously against the Catholick Faith , and so irreverently against these August Assemblies , and yet offer nothing at last but impudent Assertion . For there is nothing of these Three things made out , or so much as pretended to be so ; but instead of making out these Charges , he falls a giving a History again , after his manner , of the Controversie of the Orthodox with the Arians , with a few of his Heretical Remarks upon it . He says , This Controversie was decided first by the great Council of Nice , and this every body will allow , the Authority of which Council has ever been esteemed equal to Scripture , even by those who in other things reneg its Authority ; which by the way is more than most will allow . Well ; but he says the Authority of this Council is to be waved rather in this Point , than in any thing else it did . But why so ? One would have thought that their Authority had been most significant in this point , especially because they were called together to settle it . Now certainly this must be some very great Reason , which must invalidate the Authority of this Council , even in this Matter above all the rest . And truly the Authour has brought a notable one ; one of his own I dare say : for no Mortal Man , I believe , ever thought on 't before . This is a Reason which he draws from a Saying of an Arian Council that of Antioch , which he says confirmed the Decrees of the Council , of Nice , which Saying was this : We do not follow Arius , but receive him when he cometh to us ; for how can it be said , that we that are Bishops , follow Arius , who is a Presbyter ? I believe the Reader does not see the Reason yet . But 't is the Authour's Gloss upon it , which makes it one . If this have any sens ( says he ) it must be of as good force at Nice , as at Antioch ; and thereby we may judge of the Sentence which first determine the Controversie ; not by the Merit of the Cause , but by the Interest of the Parties . Now suppose we should say this Saying of the Bishops in this Council has no sense at all , then I am afraid our Author's reason has none at all neither . Nay , I will undertake to make out that there is no sense at all in this Saying , or one that is as good as none at all to our Authour's purpose . But to shew how this Case stands , and how fairly he has represented the Matter , I will give a short Account of this Council , and of the occasion of this Expression . There was a Design , that this Council should be called in another place , in the Western Parts , but this the Eusebian Party * would not agree to , as not being willing to have a Council where no Count should be present , no Guards at the Door , and where all things should not be done according to the Prescript of Caesar ; and therefore feign some foolish Excuses that they cannot come to it , by reason of the Persian War , &c. upon which occasion Athanasius , in this Epistle , wittily asks the Question , What have Bishops to do with the War ? Afterwards they get an Opportunity to meet at Antioch , A. Dom. 341. in which Synod there were Bishops , according to Sozomen † , who reckons almost ninety seven , and only thirty six profess'd Arians . But then he does not reckon the Eusebians , who were Arians in their Judgments , and would , by their Practice upon all occasions , declare it , though they would often protest against the Name , as appears in many Instances , and most particularly by their Actions in this Council . Besides , 't is evident enough that the Majority of this Council were of the same Heretical stamp , by their chusing Georgius to be Bishop of Alexandria , in the place of Athanasius , who was a notorious Arian , and , as Athanasius says * , hardly a Christian , but only for his advantage . This Council resolving to establish Arianism , though they carefully avoid the Name , as being too odious ; they preface their Confession of Faith with this Sentence , which the Authour alledges . Now what sense is there generally in Mens Excuses , when they are resolved to do an ill thing , and want something to say for the doing of it ? Here the Synod is resolved to make an Arian Confession of Faith , but yet they will not own 't is Arian ; though 't is plain enough 't is such , by the Tenour of it ; which we may see at large in Socrates † Upon this account they can't say , They do not follow that Doctrine which Arius professes ; but that they do not follow Arius , or the Doctrine for Arius's sake , as being Men of a greater Character themselves in the Church than Arius , they being Bishops , and he but a Presbyter : which , at best , is but a simple Evasion , to make their Heretical Confession , among unwary People , to go down the better . But what is this idle Excuse of an Arian Conventicle to the great Orthodox Council of Nice ? Though they were so vain , as to value their Determinations upon the Interest of Parties , this does not found the Nicene Decrees upon this Bottom ; though the Arian Faith was established upon pure telling of Noses , yet the Orthodox might be grounded upon Scripture and Antiquity : and till the Authour makes it otherways appear , we shall presume to take it for granted . 2. The Progress of this Controversie , the Authour says , was of the piece ; from Athanasius's refusing to restore Arius upon his Submission ; so that the Controversie was transplanted from Bishop against Presbyter , to Ecclesiastick against Secular Authority . But the main of this Matter we have consider'd in the last Chapter . But one thing the Authour adds more than he said before , which is , That Athanasius's pretences , in this Matter , were mere Evasion ; because many , who had subscribed to the Council of Nice , seconded the Emperour against Athanasius , and condemned him in the Council of Tyre . Now 't is very true , that many Bishops subscribed to Athanasius's Condemnation , who had before subscribed to the Decrees of Nice : but they did not do this out of point of Justice , to secure the Emperour against the pretended Contempt of Athanasius , as the Authour would have it , but chiefly to be revenged of such an Adversary . For every one knows with what Equivocations Subscriptions were made by the Arians to the Nicene Determinations , as particularly in the Case of Eusebius of Caesarea ; so that of all the Arians in the Council , there was none but did subscribe to the Confession then made , and but Five * that did refuse to subscribe to the Condemnation of Arius . So that their Subscriptions to that Council did not make them the less Arians , because 't is plain they were as zealous for Arianism afterwards as before ; this did not make them to act what they did to vindicate the Emperour's Honour , but only to get a fair Riddance of such an excellent Defender of the Orthodox Doctrine as Athanasius was . And to find here Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea , and the other of Nicomedia , Theognis of Nice , Maris of Chalcedon , Patrophilus of Scythopolis , &c. will never make one think them ever the more equitable Judges to Athanasius , for their subscribing to the Nicene Council ; when their Practices , both afterwards and before , did so manifestly contradict it . Next the Authour proceeds to give a farther Account of the Suffering of Athanasius , all which I shall not trouble the Reader to animadvert upon ; only what he says concerning Athanasius's flying to the Bishop of Rome , deserves a little Reflection . The Matter , in short , was this : When Athanasius was frightned away the second time from Alexandria , by the Threats of the Emperour † upon the feigued Story of obstructing the coming of the emperour's Fleet ; he flies to his Friend ‖ Julius Bishop of Rome , as any one would to a Friend that would receive him in distress , especially being so kindly invited by him . Julius then writes a second Letter to the Bishops of Antioch in favour of him , accuses them , That they had in a clancular manner innovated in the Nicene Faith ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) that , contrary to the Laws of the Church , they had not called him to the Council , there being an Ecclesiastical Canon that pronounces void those things which are done without the Consent ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) of the Bishop of Rome . In this he reprehends them for the Calumnies they had cast upon Athanasius , without good Proof . This is the Substance of Julius's Letter in favour of Athanasius and Paulus this second time , which the Historians give , and in this there is not a word of any Threatning , which the Authour would have ; though there was indeed in his 〈◊〉 , which the Authour confounds with this : where he cites some of them , in the Name of the rest , to give an Account of the Justice of their Proceedings ; and for the rest , he threatens he shall not * abstain from them , unless they leave off their Innovation . But here is not one word neither of his threatning Deprivation which he talks of . Now when Julius saw that this second Letter prevailed no more with the Greek Bishops than the other he had sent before , which they answered only , as the Historian speaks , by a Letter full of Ironies ; he relates the whole matter to the Emperour Constans , who writes to his Brother Constantius , that he might send some Bishops to Rome , to answer for the Abdication of Athanasius and Paulus . And to this end Three are sent , * Narcissus Bishop of Irenopolis , Theodorus of Heraclea , and Marcus of Arethusa . But these being found shuffling in giving an account of their Faith , and to have delivered in a Form of Belief , contrary to the Nicene . Constans easily perceived that they had persecuted Athanasius and Paulus , not for any Fault , but only for the matter of their Belief ; and therefore sends them back as they came . Notwithstanding all the Intreaties of Constans to his Brother , Athanasius and Paulus could not yet recover their Sees , and therefore they desire of the Emperour Constans that a Council may be called , and accordingly there is one called to meet at Sardica in Illyrium . The † Western Bishops meet , as appointed , at Sardica but the Greeks meet at Philopopolis in Thrace ; and from thence write to the Western Bishops that they drive the Excommunicates , Athanasius and Paulus , from the Council , or otherwise they will not come thither . But at last , to Sardica they come , but then they resolutely protest ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) that they will not enter into the Church , in which those Persons they had excommunicated were . To this the Western Bishops answer , by Letter , That they never avoided Communion with them , neither would they do it ; especially since Julius the Roman Bishop had diligently inspected their Cause , and had not condemned them ; and besides , That they came thither to justifie themselves , and to answer the Accusations brought against them . So , at length , nothing coming of this Epistolatory Dispute ; the Eastern Bishops being chiefly Arian , will not associate with the Western on these terms , and therefore are resolved to act separately . These Bishops being , in all , but Seventy six , according to Sozomen , put on a Conciliar Authority , and the First thing they do , is to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome , and Hosius , &c. for communicating with the Abdicates They are nevertheless invited to the Council , by a Letter wrote by ‖ Hosius , but they still refuse to come ; therefore the Fathers , in the Council , without them , proceed to the Examination of the Crimes objected against Athanasius ; which having considered , they pronounce him innocent ; and send their Letters into Egypt , Alexandria , and Libya , that Athanasius and his Friends were wholly innocent , and that their Accusers were ill men , Sycophants , and any thing rather than Christians . † Now the Bishops that subscribed to this Absolution of Athanasius , were , as appears , 284. After these so contrary Proceedings of the Bishops , the ‖ Historian , indeed , makes this Remark , That the Bishops of the East and West did not use that Familiarity with one another as before ; and from hence the state of the Church , as in all probability it would , was disturbed by Dissentions , and lay under Calumnies . But here did not from hence arise an immortal Schism in the Church , as the Authour would pretend : for the Orthodox held a good Correspondence still with their Brethren in the West , however averse to their Friendship & Communion the Arians might be ; and we may see , in many Councils after this , their mutual Friendship and Agreement . But what though there did arise some Troubles in the Church , upon this dispute of our Saviour's Divinity ? are the Orthodox to blame that asserted it , or the Hereticks that denied it ? Certainly these Troubles are owing to those only , whose Blasphemous Assertions denied so important a Truth , and not to those that defended it , though their Defence might accidentally occasion some Troubles to ensue . For the Person that does the Wrong is answerable for all the accidental Damages that follow upon it ; or otherwise the honest Possessor may be blameable for the defending his own goods to the damage of the unjust Aggressour . And in good truth , Thieves may , with as good a Face , charge honest Men with the Tumults they may accidentally raise , in defending themselves or their goods ; as the Hereticks to charge the Orthodox with making Distractions in the Church , by defending their Faith which was thus Heretically opposed . The Authour next gives two pretty reasons why the Latin Bishops were more easily lead by the Bishop of Rome than the Greeks were , ( he supposing their Zeal for the Orthodox Doctrine to be only in compliance with that Bishop ) which are , First , by reason of the Greatness of his City ; and , Secondly , the Smallness of their Understandings . I believe he brought in this Great and Small rather for a Witticism than a Reason . But why should they be lead by the Greatness of his City ? Men are wont to be jealous of every over-grown Power , and are sooner apt to oppose than assist it . But why should not the Bishop of Constantinople , by the same rule , have as many always at his command ? And why should not poor Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria , a mighty City too , draw as many of his Neighbours of his side ? But the Authour is afraid that this Argument from the Greatness of the City wo'n't do much , and therefore he don't much insist upon it ; but that from the Smallness of the Latin Bishops Understandings , he thinks , is a good one ; and this he endeavours to back with some proof , viz with a Story of the Latin Bishops not apprehending a captious Question , which was put in the Council of Ariminum . Now , every one knows how easie it is for designing Knavery to impose upon well-meaning Honesty . A little Subtilty , with a great deal of Dishonesty , will over-reach a great number of wise and honest Men. Several of these tricks all that have read this History know , were used in this very Council . The Question was put , whether they believed in Homo-ousium or in Christ ? If the Orthodox had said they believed in Homo-ousium , the Arians would have scoffed at them for believing only in a word . And when they said they believed in Christ , and not in Homo-ousium , they pretended they had given up their cause by discharging the Homo-ousium . Now 't is but too frequent to find in many great Assemblies , that the Espousers of the true side are cheated out of their Voices by the fraudulent putting of the Question , and that possibly might be the case here . But besides , there was another reason for their then refusing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because the Hereticks had gotten a sense of the word which favoured their Heresy ; so that the * Fathers did not reject the word , but only their sense of it . This long and mischievous Controversy ( as he calls it ) he says was at last setled by Theodosius , which according to his compute in his last Paragraph , was ( as he expresses it ) after a hundred and fifty years strugling . But I am afraid he is a little out of his Chronology again , for he is mistaken but the odd hundred years , or thereabouts . For set the contest of Arius with Alexander the highest in the year 315 , from that time to this Edict of Theodosius , in the year 379 , are but 64 years , which are much short of his 150. But to pass over this , what though this Controversy was setled by Theodosius ? Oh! the Authour has an abundance to say to that in his reflections at last upon his whole relation . That this Doctrine now established ( i. e. the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity ) was advanced by gross partiality of the most guilty kind , and at last imposed by a Novice Emperour , upon implicit Faith , in two Bishops , &c. and so on with a long ranting period of some twenty lines . But to consider this a little . A Novice in Christianity , it is true , this Emperour was , because he received Baptism that year , or the year before he published this Edict , and yet the Edict might be never the worse for all that ; but to be sure he sufficiently understood the Christian Religion before he was admitted to Baptism ; and generally persons that come into the Church at those riper years , do take better care to inform themselves before Baptism , than others do after it . But why must this be an implicit Faith in two Bishops ? He draws his Consequence from what * Sezomen says , when he gives an account of this Edict , that the Emperour wills , that all his subjects should embrace that Religion , which Peter , the Prince of the Apostles , had from the beginning deliver'd to the Romans , and which Damasus Bishop of Rome , and Peter Bishop of Alexandria , held . If here be an implicit Faith here is one in three Bishops , for Peter the Apostle was as good a Bishop as the other two , and the same Faith is said to be of all three . But how can he draw from these words , that he had an implicit Faith in the other ? One certainly may use anothers Summary of Faith , having found it conformable to God's word , without believing implicitly as that other does ; as well as I can use another Mans Form of Devotion , without praying implicitly with him . Now the reason why these two names are used by the Emperour is , because these Bishops were eminent Professours of the Orthodox Faith , amidst the many Heretical Doctrines then in the World , and were particular Defenders of it against Arianism . If any Man should say , he is for believing as the Ancient Fathers believed , for continuing in that Faith , in which the Athanasius's Cyrils , Chrysostoms , Nazianzens did ; that Faith which is still embraced and defended by the great and learned Men of our Church , and not for believing as the little heedless Authour of the Naked Gospel does . This would not be to believe implicitly on these great Men right or wrong , but only to shew 't is more probable , that their Faith is better grounded , than that of every little trifling Heretick . 'T is not worth while to examine all the Declamatory stuff he has brought towards the end of this Chapter , for 't is a sure sign that Men want reason when they begin to declaim in such subjects ; but in truth the Authour has no very good hand at this neither ; for his strokes will raise no Mens Passions , unless their Anger , to see their Religion abused by such impudent , and withal witless scurrility . And indeed 't is enough to raise a Christians Zeal to an unusual Temper , to hear him at the end of his false and patch'd relation of this Controversy , to plume himself and vaunt , as if he had struck the Orthodox Cause for ever dead . Behold now the ground ( says he ) on which one of our fundamental Articles of Faith is built . Behold the justice of that Plea , which from such a possession would prescribe to our belief . This , and what after he says , that the Athanasian are to be numbred with the Roman Doctrines , is but common-place talk , and what may be said upon any thing a Man has a mind to vilify , though it be never so sacred . The Authour , in the close of this Chapter , has hooked in some Arguments to make us have a favourable Opinion of the Arians , and their Tenets , though 't is nothing at all , as far as I can see , to his design in this Chapter . The first is a very good one . If Alexander himself , the head of the Party , could tolerate the Arians , we can ill pretend to Charity , if we allow them no title to God's Favour , or the Churches Communion . What Alexander's thoughts were of the Arians , as to God's favour , I believe our Authour can't tell , nor any one else at this distance , and therefore he can be no rule to us as to this matter . That he did Excommunicate some of these Hereticks , Arius himself , and some others mentioned by the Historians , are sufficient Instances ; that he did not more was owing to their numbers , and not to his Opinion of their not deserving it . But as to his saying , we allow them no title to God's Favour ; I suppose few will prescribe rules to that , any further than they find them prescribed by God himself . God Almighty may save , for ought as we know , thousands of Hereticks and Schismaticks , but he has not in any ways let us know so much in his holy word : we find but one Faith there that we can be saved by , but one Church to communicate in , and to both which the promises of the Gospel are made ; whatsoever God may do more is unknown to us , 't is possible that he may do it , but he has no where declared he will. If he does afford Salvation to such Persons , 't is not by the ordinary Methods of the Gospel , and what his extraordinary Methods are , God himself only knows . The ordinary way he has marked out to us there , is the rule for us to judge by , and those that do not walk by this , we may with Charity say , they are out of the common way of Salvation . The next excuse the Authour makes for them is , because they may not see the ill consequences of their Doctrines , for he says , if this make them Hereticks it is only in Logick . As for the Arian Doctrine , that was not Heresy by consequence , but a downright denial of our Lord's Divinity , and that was plain enough by Arius's disputes at first , though his Followers afterwards began to mince the matter , and to spin their Heresy a little siner when it became too odious to the vulgar , after the Nicene Determinations . But however , Heresy by deduction is still Heresy , as the Conclusion is vertually contained in the Premises , and the Corollaries in a Proposition . The Heretical Consequence is not less Heresy , because it is a little further removed than ordinary ; for whatsoever is true after a thousand deductions , is true still , and 't is the same in all manner of falsities . Nay there is a guilt contracted from this reductive Heresy as well as from the other ; though such Heretical Person may not observe himself these Heretical , or other wicked consequences . For as in matter of practice , if a Man does a thing unlawful , though he may not apprehend all the ill consequences that may attend such an Action , he is answerable for these consequences when they come to pass ; because he has entred upon an ill Action at first , and therefore must bear himself off afterwards as well as he can : thus it is in Heresy , though the Heretick denies a Truth in God's Word , the denial of which , at first sight , does not seem to have so much of Impiety ; yet for this first fault , he is chargeable with the other impious Consequences , which are drawn from it . Thus when the Arians said , there was a time when Christ was not , though they did not expresly deny his Divinity , yet they are guilty of this too : though they pretend to abhor Idolatry , yet they are guilty of this , if they believe Christ to be a Created Being , and yet do worship him . A third excuse for the Arians is upon account of their expounding Scripture , because , he says , they reconcile places , seemingly contrary , by the fairest Methods ; and so because 't is not the Custom of Writers ever to diminish , but generally to advance the Character of the Person they write of ; therefore 't is reasonable , that those places which make Christ equal to the Father , should stoop to those that make him inferiour . This would be very true , if the Persons here spoke of had but one nature . If a Poet or Oratour , should call Achilles , or Alexander , a God , and in other places a Man , 't would be but reasonable for the Reader to take the latter compellation to be the truest , and the other title of God to be only an Hyperbolical expression ; because these persons , according to their Characters , could not be Gods and Men too , because they had only one humane nature , but were only stiled Gods from some great and godlike qualities , which were inherent in them . But our Saviour having two Natures , the Divine and the Humane , united into one Person , both compellations , in a Grammatical sense , might agree to him , without any Figure or Hyperbole . But besides , our Saviour does not claim the name of the Son of God , as a great magnificent Title , to aggrandize his Office ▪ as Princes use to emblazon their dignity by great swelling Characters ; he came with another design into the World , than to make a fine glaring shew here ; he came to preach up Meekness and Humility , and was the most perfect Instance of them that ever was in the World. Therefore if Christ was not God really and essentially , and should withal take upon him this Title of God , which is the greatest of all Titles , on purpose only to raise him an esteem in the World , as all Hyperbolical Titles are assumed for ; he would be then far from maintaining his Character of being a Person of the greatest Humility ; as he most certainly is , if being by Nature really God , he has condescended to take upon him our Flesh . So that here is no need of running to a Figure to interpret these places , we may understand them easily enough in their bare Grammatical sense ; for there is a thousand times more to be said for this , than for any of the Socinians Figurative Constructions . And so I think I have spoke to every thing material in this Chapter . CHAP. X. Of the Word or Matter which is the Object of Faith. THE Authour begins this Chapter with a Discourse about Fundamentals of Belief , and by the way casts an odd sort of censure upon the Excellent Treatise of Dr. Hammond on that subject ; which he says , is like an Advertisement in a Gazette , which however cannot secure one from mistake , if he meets the Man described . I am sure that is an Excellent Treatise , whatever the Authour thinks of it , and I am sure too , that admirable Man , has handled this subject a thousand times more learnedly and honestly , than the Authour has done it in this Chapter . 'T is certain , that the Authour's Heresy will not stand with the Doctor 's Enumeration of Fundamentals , and that 's the reason , in all probability , that he speaks so slightingly of it ; and moreover , to say , the Doctor 's Enumeration every one will not receive for adequate , for I believe he is one of that number : but certainly it is no defect in that Discourse , that it cannot secure every one from mistake that will blind his own Eyes ; for the Fundamental Doctrines of Religion are plainly enough described there , but if the Authour wo'n't see them , the Doctor can't find him Eyes and description too . But let us see how the Authour has mended the matter in his handling the point . But instead of giving us an enumeration of the particulars , he has given us only some marks and qualifications of things to be believed , which too , if he had done it fairly enough , would have been pretty well . 1. And now the first qualification he makes for matters of Faith , is , That they be easily understood by the meanest capacity . I hope the Authour does not mean , that Men must understand every thing as far as they believe them , and to believe nothing but what they have a perfect knowledge of ; for this would be to exclude all Faith out of the World , and to make Men Scepticks in every thing , but of which they had demonstrative Science . If he means that there are no Fundamental Truths to be believed , but what the meanest capacity can adequately comprehend the express modus of them , this , I am sure , is more than ever he will be able to make out , however he may attempt it . As for what he brings of the poor having the Gospel preached unto them , and that the light of the Gospel cannot be hid , but to those whose eyes are blinded , and of the simplicity which is in Christ ; these Texts the Authour has foisted in to no purpose , and contrary to their intent and meaning ; for they are spoke only to shew , that the Christian Religion did not consist in Pharisaical Glosses , or deep Philosophical niceties , knowable only by a few learned Men ; but in plain truths , which any one of a mean capacity might perceive , as far as was requisite for his Salvation . And one of these I have shewn the Doctrine of the holy Trinity to be , as to the belief of its existence , in the Answer to the Preface . But the Authour will have the Apostle St. Paul , Rom. 10. 9. to judge it a great defect of Faith , if there were any difficulty in it . For my part , I see nothing like such a judgment in this place of the Apostle , that it argues a defect of Faith to have the matter of it difficult to believe . Nay the reasoning of the Apostle there seems to be grounded upon the contrary to this . If thou shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Christ from the dead , thou shalt be saved . That is , if thou shalt believe such a wonderful thing as Christ's Resurrection , which is so strange and difficult to be believed by all carnal Men , thou shalt be saved . But why should difficulty make a defect of Faith ? it has been generally looked upon as a great increase and exaltation of Faith , when the matter has been hard to believe , as in Abraham , who believed against hope , and whose Faith , for this very reason , the Authour did extraordinarily celebrate a Chapter or two before , however he may have forgot himself now . The calling of the Gentiles indeed , he allows to be something of a Mystery , and difficult to believe under the Gospel , but he is very positive , that in no other word of Scripture we meet the least intimation , that Faith hath any hard task for the understanding to perform . But I thought there might have been some difficulty in the belief of the Gospel it self ; by reason of our Saviour's calling his Religion a Yoke , wherein Mens Carnal Reasons were to be subjugated as well as their Affections , by his being set for the fall of many ; by reason that the Gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews , and to the Greeks foolishness , &c. all which plainly shews , there is at least some intimation of a difficulty for Faith under the Gospel . 2. His second Qualification , is , That matter of Faith must be the express word of God. This rule of the Authour holds well enough , yea so well , that I am afraid he will never stand by it , when it comes to the Issue . For if the Socinians , or other Opposers of Christ's Divinity , would once come to be determined by express Texts of Scripture , that controversy would quickly be at an end . For there are so many express Texts against them , that we cannot desire more ; and these they will own are express , as to the word and letter , but then are forced to put false and strained Interpretations upon them , to make them look another way . For our Saviour is expresly called God , Joh. 1. 1. The word was God. Of whom , as concerning the flesh , Christ came , who is God over all , blessed for ever , Rom. 9. 5. Thomas calls him my Lord and my God. So Heb. 1. 8. Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever . So the Divine Attributes are ascribed to him . Omnipresence Joh. 14. 23. Matth. 28. 20. and 18. 20. Omnipotence Phil. 3. 21. Rev. 1. 8. Immutability Heb. 1. 11 , & 12. Omniscience Joh. 21. 17. Joh. 11. 25. Rev. 11. 23. So likewise the Holy Ghost is called expresly God , Act. 5. 4. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost , — thou hast not lied unto men , but unto God , v. 4. So are the Divine Attributes ascribed unto him . As Omnipresence Psal . 139. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 16. & 6. 19. Eternity 1 Cor. 11. 10. Joh. 15. 26. Omniscience 1 Cor. 11. Omnipotence Luk. 11. 20. Luk. 1. 35. 1 Cor. 1. 11. These are not the tenth part of the places in Scriture which may be alledged for the proof of the Trinity , besides that express one to prove a Trinity in Unity , 1 John 5. 7. though without that , there is enough to establish this Doctrine in the minds of all unprejudiced Men. And to see what work the Socinians make to invalidate these proofs , what jejune and foolish interpretations they pass upon them , so contrary oftentimes to the whole design and tenour of the Authours , this would make any one think , that they had taken up a Paradox to defend , and were resolved to say any thing to maintain it , rather than to be perfectly silent , Well! but what if the relation between the written word and the rational consequence , be so remote , that none but a skilful Herald can drive its Pedigree ? Why this is not the case of the Doctrine of the Trinity , for all the Authour's hast . For first , this is plainly asserted in that famous place of St. John , 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the Authority of this Text is good for all our Adversaries appeal to some Manuscripts to the contrary ; and we have * St. Cyprian to vouch for it , who is older than any Manuscripts they can pretend to . But secondly , supposing this Text was wanting in Scripture , the Doctrine of the Trinity is plain enough for all that . We have express assertion there , that each of the three Persons are God , by the places for instance we just now alledged ; and we are likewise assured , as well from natural reason as from Scripture , that God is but one , Hear , O Israel , thy God is but one God , Deut. 6. 9. Now any Man , without any great skill in Heraldry , or Logick either , can from hence conclude , that God is in some manner , he does not understand , three and yet one , which is all the notion any one can have of the Trinity . Here is no such remote distance between the word and the consequence , but any one of the meanest Capacity may find out ; for Men in their ordinary business every day make conclusions at a wider distance from their premises than this , or else I am sure they are not fit to live or deal in the World. As to what he instances in the consequence , which the Papists draw from Christ's bidding Peter seed his Lambs , the Papists , when they think fit , may answer that for themselves . 3. The Third Qualification he gives for Matter of Faith , is , That it be expresly honoured in Scripture with the promise of Eternal Life . Now 't is a little arbitrary methinks in the Authour , to lay down a Rule here as he does , and give no reason for it , especially such a one as he might reasonably expect would be contested : and 〈◊〉 one should make bold to deny it , he would , I believe , have a difficult Task of it to prove , That every particular Article , of only the Apostles Creed , had the Promise of Eternal Life expresly annexed to it in Scripture He first tells us a wonderful thing , That every thing in Scripture , though it be equally true , yet it is not equally Gospel ; and for the Proof of this , he brings in the business of Paul's Cloak , which he left behind him . But , I hope , the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity is of something more Importance , to those that believe it especially , than the Relation of Paul's Cloak . And if we should ask any Socinian in the World , whether , supposing it true , it was not of greater Importance than this ; I believe the Vnitarian himself would give such an Answer , as would make the Authour ashamed of such an impudent and saucy Comparison . And now one would think , that the Man that would be so bold , as to make this Comparison , would bring something to prove , That the Belief of Christ's Divinity had not Eternal Life promised to it ; or that all other Doctrines , which were required to be believed , had . But , instead of this , he brings one Text of Scripture which makes perfectly against the Doctrine he designs to establish ; and that is Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature . He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved , and he that believeth not shall be damned . Now if the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity be revealed in the Gospel , as we have shewn it is , and the Belief of the Gospel have Eternal Life promised to it ; then the Belief of Christ's Divinity has a Title to this Promise , as well as the Belief of the Resurrection , or any other Christian Doctrine ; because it is revealed in the Gospel as well as that . From this Rule , thus firmly established , he draws four Corollaries . First , There is no need of an Interpreter of Scripture , or Determiner of Doubts in Matter of Faith. Secondly , The Scriptures cannot be denyed to be sufficient . Thirdly , We need not , ought not to be uncharitable to any , who differ from us in other Doctrines , to the Belief whereof the Promise is not appropriated . Fourthly , There is no need of a Catalogue of Fundamentals . How well these Corollaries follow from his Proposition , I shall not now dispute ; though upon examination , I believe , the Consequence would not be so genuine , and there might be some occasion for one of the Authour's Heralds to derive it ; but as for the Two first of them , they make nothing at all against the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity , which the Authour knows well enough we do not ground upon Infallibility and pure Tradition ; but only he has a Mind to give us a Cast of his Heretical Malice , by blackening this Doctrine as much as he could , and by making it look something more of a Romanish Complexion . As to his Third Corollary . First , That is grounded upon Supposition , That the Belief of Christ's Divinity has not the Promise of Eternal Life annexed to it . Now I wonder with what Confidence the Authour can go about to invalidate a Truth , which is so firmly established even upon his own Principles . How often in one Chapter of St. John's Gospel , Joh. 3. is Eternal Life promised to Belief in the Son ? God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son , that whosoever believeth on him should not perish , but have everlasting life , Joh. 3. 16. He that believeth on him is not condemned , v. 18. He that believeth on the Son hath eternal Life . By all which believing is meant a believing in Christ's Divinity , and not a believing the Truth of his Doctrine : for believing in is only attributable to God , as implying an unlimited Trust and Relyance in him ; which it is Idolatry to afford to any Creature . * For there is a great deal of difference between credere Deo , believing God , and credere in Deum , believing in him ; which is a Distinction which is made great use of by some of the Latin Fathers and the School-men ; they allowing bare believing to be applicable to a Creature , but that none is to be believed in but Almighty God. But besides there are other Texts of Scripture , which do promise Eternal Life , namely and expresly to the Belief of Christ's Divinity . This is life eternal , that they may know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent , Joh. 17. 3. Now what can be meant by knowing Jesus Christ , but knowing or believing his Divinity ? That he was Man they could not chuse but know , that he was a Prophet his Miracles shew'd ; so that they could know him no other way truly , but only by knowing his Divinity . And this was the Purport of our Saviour's Prayer just before , That God would glorifie him , that is , would make his Divinity conspicuous to the World , v. 1. which he puts out of all doubt , by his explaining his meaning , v. 5. And now , O Father , glorifie thou me with thy own self , with the glory which I had with thee before the World was . Now that Glory which he had before the World , could be only the Glory of his Divinity ; therefore the Promise of Eternal Life was made , to the knowing or believing Christ's Divinity . The same thing is as plainly expressed , 1 Joh. 5. 20. And hath given us an understanding , that we may know him that is true : and we are in him that is true , even in his Son Jesus Christ . This is the true God , even eternal life . Where he that is the true God is said to be Jesus Christ , and the knowing him to be the true God ( i. e. ) believing him to be such , is promised to be rewarded with Eternal Life . Secondly , As to his saying we ought not to be uncharitable to those , that differ from us in Points which have not this Promise ; this depends upon the Truth of his Assertion , that those Truths , he means , have not such a Promise in Scripture , which we have proved the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity to have . So that , upon our Authour 's own Principles , we may reason thus . If Eternal Life be promised to those , and to those only , that believe Christ's Divinity , then those that do dis-believe it have no Title to Eternal Life . But we have proved that Christ has promised it to those , and to those only , that believe his Divinity , therefore , &c. For Christ's promising Eternal Life to those that should believe his Divinity , supposes the Promise is to them only ; for if it were to be given to others , it were no kind of Invitation and Encouragement to them for to believe it ; seeing then they might attain it without it . If the Consequence , which is naturally drawn from this , be uncharitable , 't is what results from the Author 's own Principles , which he himself has laid down ; and then he may thank himself for that . As to his Fourth Corollary , That then there is no need of a Catalogue of Fundamentals ; this is a stroke too of his usual Confidence , by which he taxes no less Men than the very Apostles themselves , of a foolish uncessary labour . For if there was no need of a Catalogue of Fundamentals , why should the Apostle exhort Timothy so earnestly to hold fast the form of sound words , which was undoubtedly in our Authour's Phrase , a Catalogue of Fundamentals , or some brief Summary of Faith , probably that Creed which we have now under the Apostles Names ? Why should the Apostles , or some other Apostolical Men set themselves to collect together the Chief Heads of our Christian Faith , for the Instruction of their new Converts , if it were nothing but a needless Work ? The Apostles hands were then too full of business , to do any thing but what was absolutely necessary ; and the Holy Spirit , which was to guide them into all Truth , would certainly keep them from writing what was unnecessary , as well as what was false ; for Impertinence , though it is not a Contradiction to , yet , is a Hindrance of Truth as well as Falshood . I shall not insist here how he reflects by this upon the Actions of so many Venerable Councils ; for 't is the usage of this Gentleman's Tribe to be saucy with those Sacred Assemblies ; but methinks he should be more civil to his beloved Friends , the Arians and Socinians . Will he allow , that Arius , and Euzoius , and Eusebius of Caesarea , &c. were only playing the Fools , whilst they were drawing up their Creeds ? Will he own his celebrated Arian Councils of Antioch , Ariminum , Seleucia , &c. to be only at his Push-pin , whilst they were contriving their Heterodox Forms of Faith ? And had the Socinian Brethren nothing to do , when they wrote their Summaries of Religion , which are Catalogues of their Fundamentals ? I am afraid this is something more than , upon second Thoughts , he will readily grant . But for all our Authour's Positiveness , a Creed is no such unnecessary Work as he may think . What though the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith , a Creed may not be a needless one for all that . Though the Scripture contains every thing necessary to Salvation , yet Comments upon Scripture , and Sermons and Catechisms , I hope , are not wholly impertinent . All the necessary Points of Faith , 't is true , are found somewhere or other dispersed through the Bible , but 't is too difficult for Children and Novices , and many others , who have not so much leisure to search them out there ; therefore 't is very necessary , for these , to have a brief Summary of Faith to be drawn up out of them for their use ; which they may quickly read over , and easily remember . Besides Creeds are of great advantage in the Church , to shew us the Belief of the Primitive Ages ; which as they were nigher to the Apostolick times , so they could know better the Apostolick Faith , than others , that were at a remoter distance ; and therefore by these we have a better Knowledge of the Primitive Faith , than if we had the Assistance of the Scripture only . Though the Scripture it self is a good and sufficient Rule , yet these Ancient Creeds are useful Explanations of it : though the Scripture be the great primary Rule of Faith , yet the Creeds of the Ancient Church may be secondary ones , as being formed by the first , and more adapted to some particular Capacities , and some peculiar Circumstances . The Authour next , I find , is afraid that he has not laid his first Proposition firm enough , upon which he has been building all these Corollaries ; and therefore he is for butteressing it afterwards , as well as he can . But instead of this he has unluckily made his Foundation weaker than it was before ; for whereas at first he allowed some Truths to be honoured with the Promise of Eternal Life , here he will allow but one in all the Bible to be so ; and that is the Belief of our Saviour's Resurrection . And now having brought the Q. of the 10th . of the Romans , v. 9. to prove this , If thou shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised [ Jesus ] from the dead thou shalt be saved ; he very triumphantly asks the Question , Do we in the whole New Testament find any other Doctrine so honoured ? Yes , we have proved the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity to be so honoured ; and I wonder what the Authour thinks of the Doctrine of Repentance ; whether any Man can be saved without that , or whether Eternal Life be not promised to it ? Whether it is not promised to the Belief of the true God ? This is life eternal , to know thee the onely true God , &c. Joh. 17. 3. In short , Eternal Life is promised , either expresly or vertually , to every Article of the Christian Belief , and to the Practice of every Christian Precept , but not to one singly without the other . The Apostle tells us , Rom. 8. 24. We are saved by hope : and yet undoubtedly he requires the Exercises of other Vertues with it : and though Salvation is promised to the Belief of Christ's Resurrection , yet , to be sure , God expects our Assent likewise to all other Articles of the Christian Faith. Bare Hope will as well save a Man without Faith and Charity , as a bare Belief of our Saviour's Resurrection without a Belief of his Divinity ; for one is revealed in Scripture as well as the other , and each of them have the same Promises of Eternal Life annexed to them . But suppose one of them lacked this Promise expresly made to it , it were not less to be believed for all that ; any more than we do not think our selves at liberty to neglect the Practice of Charity , because we are not in Scripture said to be saved by it , as we are by Hope . The Reason why the Scripture , particularly the Epistles of the Apostles , does often back the Belief of the Doctrine of the Resurrection with this Promise , is , because this Point , of all others in the Christian Religion , was the most difficult to go down with the Heathens which the Apostles had to do withal ; it was so contrary to the received Principles of their * Philosophy , and the avowed Opinions of the great Masters in the Grecian Schools ; and therefore 't was but reasonable , that the Apostles should give the greatest Encouragement they could , to further the Belief of it , when it lay under so many Prejudices amongst them . CHAP. XI . Of the Manner of the Resurrection ; whether in the same Body , or another . I cannot imagine why the Authour should single out this Heterodoxy alone , out of all the Socinian Errours , to join with his Denial of our Saviour's Divinity . One would have thought , He might rather have contested the Doctrine of the Satisfaction ; or the Divinity of the Holy Ghost ; which would have made his Book look more of a piece , than now it does . But why he should single out this , above all the other Points of the Socinian Controversie , I can give no reason for , unless having talked about Resurrection in the last Chapter , that gave him a hint to make a ramble into a discourse of it here . How ever the Case stands , I shall give an Answer to what he says against the received Doctrine of the Church , in this Point , as short and as plain as I can . And , in order to this , I will shew , First , the Necessity of Mens rising again in the same numerical Bodies . Secondly , I shall answer those Arguments which this Authour brings against the Truth of this Doctrine . First , The Necessity of Mens rising again with same numerical Bodies they laid down in the Grave . 'T is not easie to guess , what 't is these Socinian Gentlemen would have to rise again , if not the Body ; 't is impossible that the Soul should be said to rise again because that never fell ; for all Rising supposes a Falling . Resurgere non est nisi ejus quod cecidit , Nothing can rise but what has fell , says Tertullian , in the same case , adv . Marc. lib. 5. cap. 9. Therefore it does necessarily follow , That 't is the Body must arise , if there be any Resurrection . Besides , our Saviour , who is the great * Original and Archetype of our Resurrection , or , as the Apostle speaks , the first fruits of them that sleep ; he arose in the same Body that he deposited in the Grave ; and therefore our Bodies that are to be fashioned like to his glorious Body , must be the same Bodies , as his was the same ; or else they will not be conformable to their Original : but farther , I know not what Truth can be revealed plainer than this is , in the holy Scripture . Not to insist upon Job 19. 26. I know that my Redeemer liveth , &c. nor on Dan. 12. 2. Many of them that sleep in the Dust , &c. though these are evident Proofs enough of this Doctrine , yet several Texts in the New Testament are unexceptionable , as particularly , Joh. 5. 28 , 29. For the Hour is coming , in which all that are in the graves , shall hear his voice , and shall come forth : they that have done good unto the Resurrection of Life , and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Damnation . † Now what is that which is in the graves , but only the Bodies of Men ? to be sure , their Souls are not there ; therefore if these Words have any propriety of speech it must be , that then the Bodies of Men that are in their Graves shall arise . The consequence of this is so plain , that ‖ Smaltzius the Socinian will have this to be understood only in a figurative sense , that nothing is meant here but the Calling of the Gentiles ; that by the Dead are meant Aliens from the Faith ; that by hearing the Voice of the Son is understood the Hearing the Gospel preached : but how foolish this Interpretation is , may be known from the Distinction which is here made , of those that are to arise , into Good and Bad. For if here be meant only such a Resurrection as he means , from Sin to Grace , then all were Bad , because they all were in a state of Sin ; and so there is no room for the other Branch of the Distinction , those that have done good , so that this must be perfectly superfluous . And so again , this is as plain from Rom. 8. 11. He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you : Where those Bodies which are to be quickned or revived , are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the mortal or dying Bodies , and therefore the Bodies to be quickned or raised cannot be any other Bodies , than those which did die . Besides , those Bodies are said to be quickned , in which the Holy Ghost dwells ; now they are these very Bodies which are the Temples of the Holy Ghost , 1 Cor. 3. 16. cap. 6. 15. therefore they are these very Bodies which are to be quickned or raised again . To this may be added the constant Consent of the Catholick Church . The Latins understood this by their Carnis resurrectionem in their Creed , and the Greeks by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in theirs ; but of all , the * Aquileian Creed was most particular , for this had hujus Carnis resurrectionem , the Resurrection of this very Flesh . This was the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers of the Church , Justin , Tertullian , Anaxagoras , Cyprian , Austin , Hierom , and all others , till the Socinians began to turn all the Articles of the Christian Faith upside down , and , among the rest to overthrow the Orthodox Belief of the Resurrection . This is enough to shew , that this was the belief of * learned Men in the first Ages of the Church ; not was it less the belief of other Christians . Or else what should be the cause that this Doctrine of the Resurrection should seem so difficult † to be believed , if the Ressurrection was nothing but the Soul 's being cloathed with another Body , why should that be more hard to be credited , than that God could cloath it with a Body at first ? For he that gave it a Body at first , could with as great ease give it another Body , when that was gone . Here is no difficulty at all here : but this was the thing that confounded their Faith , ‖ how a Body should be raised again , that had so long lain rotten in the Grave , that had passed through so many Transmutations , that was turned into the substance of so many different Bodies , how all these scatter'd parts should leave the Bodies , they should then help to make up , and be ranged together into their old form . This indeed would be apt to strain the Faith of a great many , but no one could be so foolish to stand out against Christianity , upon the incredibility of the other opinion . Besides , if this was not the Faith of the Ancient Christians , what meant those malicious exprobrations of the Heathens to them , by shewing them the Bodies of their Martyrs , half devoured by Lyons , by burning their Bodies , and then scattering their Ashes into Rivers ? but only because they thought this did make the Resurrection they believed utterly impossible . What else could be the meaning of the great care which the Primitive Christians took of the Bodies of their deceased Friends ; upon which * Tertullian says , they were more prodigal , than the Heathens were in incensing their Gods. If they thought their dead Friends Souls would never have any further relation to their Bodies , they would certainly never have treated them with that extraordinary respect and honour , as they did . Secondly , As to the answering of the objections which the Authour makes against the truth of this Doctrine , I shall consider them singly as they lie in his Book , which I shall do within a little compass ; for though his Chapter is long , his Arguments are but few , and what is somewhat better , those not over-strong neither . His first Argument is grounded upon the words of the Apostle , Thou Fool thou sowest not that body which shall be , but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him . Doth not this ( says the Authour ) plainly deny a Resurrection of the same numerical Particles ? As plain as this is , no one can see it without a pair of Socinian Spectacles , and how clear sighted they may make a Man , I thank God I do not know . But let us see a little , how plain this is . This place alledged is at best but a similitude the Apostle uses , to explain the Resurrection by , and therefore it must not be drawn further than the Apostle designed it should ; we must not extend it beyond his purpose , which was only to inform us of the quality of the bodies we are to arise with , and not to assert a substantial diversity . But to keep to the instance ; the Body which is here sown is not the Body which arises in respect of the quality indeed , but yet it is in respect of the substance ; the substance is the same still , though it be changed by alteration of quality , or augmentation of quantity ; it does not arise such as it was sown 't is true , but yet it does arise the same ; it arises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the Apostle speaks , though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . For Augmentation does not make a thing not the same , it only increases the Bulk , but does not diversify the Individuum ; as a Tree , which is grown to a fathom or two about , is the same Tree ; as when it was but an inch or two over . But however , it is not necessary that this simile of the Seed should hold universally , as to the matter of the Resurrection ; for there is no need of that extraordinary addition of quantity to our Bodies which are to arise , as there is to the Grain to be changed into the Blade . 'T is not necessary that our Bodies should be larger than they are now , that there should be need of growth to increase them , as there is to increase the Grain : therefore our Bodies will be more the same , than the Bodies the Apostle instances in are ; for they need not so great an Addition of matter as the Grain does and so may be the same as to quantity too . His second Argument is , that there is no reason , that the same numerical Body should arise upon that account , which many of the Ancients have given ; that those Bodies which were sharers in the Sin , should be sharers in the Punishment : * because Matter ( says he ) has no share in either ; it neither acts nor perceives , and therefore is not liable to punishment . This indeed is an Argument which several of the Ancients use to prove a Resurrection of the same Body , which they do not lay such stress upon , as if the whole Truth of this Doctrine was built on this : they use it as a probable Argument , which though by it self is not of so great weight , yet when joined with others , it may add some strength to them . But to examine this a little . It is true , matter in its own nature is not capable of being punished , because it has no perception ; but yet matter is capable of undergoing the divine Malediction , God may set a mark of his displeasure upon it , or in the Scripture Language Curse it , and that in inanimate beings is analogous to punishment in sensible ones . And thus we find God frequently Curses inanimate things , for some relation they have or had to guilty persons ; thus he is said , Gen. 3. 17. to curse the ground for mans sake . Thus the places where the wicked Inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah dwelt , lie under such a Malediction , suffering the Vengeance of eternal fire , Jud. 7. Thus the Prophet tells the People of Judah , because of the Abomination they have committed , their land is become a Curse , Jer. 44. 22. Now though the Body , being considered purely as matter , cannot undergo punishment , properly so called , because it cannot suffer pain ; yet it may undergo the Divine Execration , as other inanimate Bodies do , and so be raised up to suffer this in lieu of a proper punishment , for being so nighly related to a wicked Soul. But however the Body is not to be esteemed as only pure insensible Matter , and only an instrument of pain and pleasure ; for the Body it self is sensible by an internal principle of its own , and not by the rational Soul , though that be the governing Principle ; and is therefore of its self capable of suffering pain , and enjoying Corporeal Pleasure , without relation to the Soul. Now though the Body , in this sense , cannot be said to deserve punishment , because it cannot contract guilt , as wanting reason , yet as being an essential part in the composition of a Man , it is reasonable , that that should partake of all the rewards and punishments , which the Soul doth : and because it was the whole Man , the Compositum of Body and Soul that sinned , so likewise it is reasonable , that the whole Compositum should suffer . And upon this account * Tertullian would have the Body , in a manner , to undergo a judgment ; because it is not so much an instrument of the Soul as a Servant ; which though it does not act of it self , is yet a portion of that which does act . His third Argument is , that though God might by his Omnipotence , raise up the same numerical Bodies , yet it would argue a defect in his Wisdom , to exercise his Omnipotency when less means will serve . I am sure the Authour , by this Argument , does undervalue the Divine Nature a thousand times more than that opinion he endeavours to overthrow by it . For he supposes things are difficult and easy , in respect of God , which is a manifest absurdity . For to be difficult and easy , for any thing to do , does suppose an imperfection , because it supposes a limited power . For a thing is then difficult to be done by any person or thing , when the power that resists is almost equal to the power which acts ; and a thing is easy to be done , when the power which acts is much greater than the power which resists ; but this always supposes a limited Power . But in an infinite Power there is no proportion with any thing that is finite , and therefore nothing can be difficult or easy in respect of that . God does every thing by his Omnipotent Power , he does one thing with as great ease as another , because the greatest thing he does , is as far from setting his Omnipotent Power as the smallest ; his Power to act is infinitely greater than any Power to resist , and though one thing may seem more difficult than another to us , because we find their resistibility to be so much greater or less than our limited Power of acting , yet God's Power is infinitely greater than the most difficult of them ; and therefore can do one as easily as the other . It seems to us indeed , that have a finite narrow understanding , that can attend to and discern only a few things that are just before us , very difficult , to find out so many scatter'd Atoms , that lie it may be in so many Millions of different places ; because we cannot discern different things lying in different places , and therefore all such disorder confounds our understandings ; but God , who is Omniscient , and knows exactly all things every where , nothing can lie disorderly to him ; he knows where every such Atom lies , as well as when it possessed its place in the Organized Body ; and can , with as great ease , make them return to their former station , as to make the new separated Soul go back to the Body , that lies yet entire . Nay 't is not so great an act of God's Power to range all this scattered matter together , as to create another Body for the Soul to be united to ; for 't is possible , that all this matter might be gathered together from never so many different places , by a finite Power only ; and 't is not improbable to think God may do this by the Ministry of his holy Angels : but 't is God alone that can create another Body , and therefore this would be rather ( in our Authour's phrase ) to make God unaccountably exercise his Omnipotency ; because it would put God to the expence of a new Creation , to make a Body to be united to the Soul , when the old one would do as well . His fourth Argument is against those that make it some advancement of the joys at the Resurrection , that we shall be united to our old Bodies , which will be like the joyful meeting and embracing of old Friends ; which he says will not be of old Friends but of old Enemies , because of the War between the Flesh and the Spirit , Rom. 7. and therefore the Soul cannot rejoice at her being united to her former Body . 'T is true indeed , that several Ancient and Modern Writers have made use of this , as a Rhetorical Argument , to set forth , in some part , the joy of that happy day ; and truly I think not without some reason . For we find the Soul has a great love to the Body , both by reason of its being so loth to part with it , and because it is found to hanker after the Body , after its separation ; which is the account which some give of Spectrums . But besides , we find in Men a secret love and esteem for every thing that has any relation to themselves ; they love their Relations , as being born of the same stock , they have an esteem for every thing belonging to their native Country ; they have an extraordinary kindness for their nutriculi Lares , the House in which they were born and bred : and this Love seems always greater , after a considerable time of absence from them . Now when a Mans Body is the most nighly related to him , as being an essential part of himself , he cannot but be more joyed to be united again to that which is so near to him than to see his native Country , or the House he was born in after a long time of absence from him . As for the enmity between the Flesh and the Spirit he mentions , that is only an Enmity Metaphorically so called ; because all proper Enmity is between two rational beings , which are endowed with free wills , which the Soul and the Body are not ; nay , that reluctancy of the sensual nature to the dictates of the understanding , which is Metaphorically expressed , by War or Enmity , between the Flesh and Spirit , that is very well appeased in the regenerate Man ; so that he has no reason to hate his Body for that , especially now he has master'd it ; for these inward strugglings of the Flesh , have made his Vertue greater to overcome them , and therefore he may reasonably expect for this a greater Reward in proportion to his Vertue . ENQUIRY II. What Changes or Additions latter Ages have made in Matters of Faith ? OUR Authour has been hitherto giving us a Hodge-podge of Arianism and Socinianism , and some Heresie of his own which wants a Name ; and this he calls giving us an account , What was the Gospel our Lord and his Apostles preached , as necessary to Salvation , which was the first Enquiry . And now , when he enters upon his second , What Additions latter Ages have made in Matters of Faith , one would expect , that , according to the Tenour of his Book , he should give an account , how the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the World ; what Platonick Notions gave rise to the Opinion of our Saviour's Divinity ; that Plato's Doctrine of the Logos came from the Greeks to the Hellenistical Jews , and so from them to the Christians ; one would , I say , have expected something of this matter , which is used to fill up the Books of the late Socinians and Atheists , when they have a mind to blaspheme the ever Blessed Trinity . But our Authour , I find , either wants Courage , or Reading , or something else to set upon this Enterprize , and therefore contents himself only with a little nibbling at this Doctrine ; but turns the whole Current of his Argument against the Papists , and their Innovations . Indeed his Charge of Innovations seems to lie against the Orthodox in general ; but when he comes to make good his Challenge , he shams us off with an Instance or two against the Popish Errours . But let us consider what these Innovations are , he so boldly charges us with . 1. He says , We extend the Empire of Faith as far as possible ; and this he proves very strenuously , by that vast Army of new Doctrines of Faith , which the School-men have got , by the Bishop of Rome's setting up for an Oracle to declare that Matter of Faith , which was before Matter of Curiosity ; by implicit Faith in the Church , &c. But what does all this stuff signifie to us of the Church of England ? or who else does he mean by this We ? If he means We Papists , and so reckons himself one of that number , his Brethren will give him little thanks for thus exclaiming against their Corruptions . If he means We Protestants , or Church of England , here is not one Tittle of Proof of the Charge against us ; we abhorr all these Romish Corruptions , as much as the Authour possibly can do . We extend Faith no farther than the Holy Scripture does ; what that tells us we ought to believe , that we readily do believe ; but do not take into our Belief anything , but what the Scripture does expresly assert , or but what may , by manifest deduction , be drawn from it . And when the Authour shall offer any proof that we do , he shall not want an Answer . But I hope he does not take this for proof , to lay down Propositions against the Orthodox in general , and make his proof only against the Papists . 2. His second Charge of Innovation is , That we exalt Faith above Holiness , and against it too . But here he lets the Papists alone , and turns his Pen chiefly against the maintainers of Justification by Faith alone , and those that hope to be justified by the Application of Christ's Merits to themselves : And is very angry with some modern Authours , for using the Expressions , of application of Christ to our selves , the Hand of Faith , imputed Righteousness , &c. There is no intimation , says he , of any such Doctrine as this in the Scriptures , but it was invented by false Apostles . This is a bold Charge , in good truth ; and if the Authour's Arguments were as good as his Confidence , he would make something of it . But instead of Argument he gives us nothing but a simple Parable about a Physician and his Nostrum ; which as it proves nothing , so 't is not worth reciting . As to Justification by Faith alone , I hope I have made that Point good , in Answer to the second Chapter , and there too we shewed how the Doctrine of our relying on Christ's Merits , for our Justification , was founded on Scripture . I know not how some Men may abuse this Doctrine , by talking so much of , and infusing such Notions of Christ's imputed Righteousness into their Disciples , as to exclude all good Works of their own , and to make them take little Care , what Wickedness they do themselves , if they have but Confidence enough to think they shall be saved by Christ's Righteousness . This is a wretched Abuse of a good and comfortable Doctrine ; but after all , 't is by Faith , and not by Works we are justified : 't is Christ's Infinite Merits that God does accept as the true meritorious Cause of our Justification , and 't is Faith only can apply these Merits to our selves ; I say apply these Merits to our selves : for these terms of applying and taking hold of Christ's Merits are not only to be met with in Calvin and Amesius , &c. but in several of the greatest Men of Antiquity . But to consider a little who those Persons are , which the Authour thus entitles with the Name of false Prophets . And truly these false Prophets are no less Persons than St. Chrysostom , St. Basil , Theophylact , Oecumenius , with several others of the Latin Church . * St. Chrysostom , in his second Homily upon the Romans , on these words of St. Paul , I thank my God , &c. He does not say , I thank God , but , I thank my God , who , as the Prophets , makes that proper to himself , which is common to all . And so on the words of St. Paul , who hath loved me , &c. he thus comments . What say you , O blessed Paul ? You said just before who spared not his own Son , now you say who loved me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and apply to your self , or make your own the common benefit . Id. Hom. 34. in Gen. St. † Basil says , 'T is the Son of God that is Righteousness , and that we are righteous , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by change of his Righteousness for ours . If you desire to attain Righteousness , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , lay but hold upon Christ by Faith , and you shall have all . Now if these great Men must be branded with the Name of false Prophets , for asserting that we are justified by applying God's Promises to our selves , by Faith ; by ‖ taking hold on Christ for Righteousness , that we are justified by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his Righteousness . I know not who in God's Church were true Pastours , for I think very few , if any , have bore a greater Character than these . His third Charge is , That we advance Faith above Charity . If he means by this [ we ] the Church of England , he has answered himself a page or two further ; where he says , * She is the best constituted Church in the World , because in her departure from the Church of Rome she departed not from Charity . But besides , we extend our Charity as far as we can with our Duty ; we make the Terms of Salvation as large as the Gospel allows them ; but we must not , with our Charity , make other Terms of Salvation , than what our Saviour has done : We may hope , and have a charitable Opinion that a Man does perform these Conditions of Salvation ; but we can never hope that a Man can be saved without them . We hope that such a one has repented , and is therefore saved ; but 't is unreasonable to hope he can be saved without Repentance . Now Faith is as much necessary to Salvation as Repentance ; and therefore we cannot hope that any one can be saved , without such a Faith as the Gospel does require . What God may do by dispensing with his own Laws is nothing to us ; but 't is his revealed Will that is to govern our Thoughts and Actions , and not his hidden and unrevealed one , which we know nothing at all of . And thus much I have to say , as to the Charity of our Thoughts to Hereticks . As to the Charity of our Actions ; we are to allow them all the courteous treatment that the Laws of the Church and Realm will allow , and to converse with them , if occasion require , so far as to avoid Scandal and Contagion . We ought not , to be sure , to make a bosom-Friend of a Heretick when St. Paul bids us to reject him : we are to do him any good turn we can ; but he has no Right to our ordinary Conversation , as other good Christians have , till he returns again to the Catholick Faith. The Ancient * Writers tell us , That St. John the Evangelist , when he entered into a Bath where the Heretick Corinthus was , he hastened out again , and desired his Friends to do the like , least the Bath should fall upon them , whilst such a wicked Heretick was there . The Apostolick Canons prohibit all Communion with them † , and the Council of Laodicea ‖ forbids to pray with them , or to * contract Marriage with them ; and certainly Heresie , in this Age , is not grown more Innocent than it was then , to deserve our Charity so much the more . As to the punishing of Hereticks , which the Authour makes another Breach of Charity against them ; whatever the Romanists do , our Church contents her self with Punishment purely Spiritual , and leaves all the other to the Secular Power : Or to speak in the words of Photius , † We are taught to cut off Hereticks from the Body of Christians , but otherwise to punish them we have not learned ; but when they grow incorrigible we deliver them over to the Civil Power , that sentence may be passed on them by the Magistrates . Neither is our Secular Power in the least to be taxed with Severity now , the Act de Haeretico comburendo , to the Authour's comfort , has now for some time been repealed , or else perhaps , — taedâ luceret in illâ Quâ stant arden● — and might as deservedly , it may be , have followed his Friends ‖ Gentilis and Servet out of the World the same way . Nor can it reasonably be thought , that any Sanctions can be too severe , to maintain such important Points of our Faith against the Blasphemy of Hereticks ; and it would shew our State to have too little regard for Religion , to punish the defacing of our Coin with Death , and to have no Punishment for those that shall presume to adulterate our Faith. Fourthly , His next charge of Innovations upon us , is , That we advance Faith above Reason , and against it . But here is not a word of the Proof of this . He tells us indeed that we must not believe God's word any further than we have reason to believe it is God's word ; and that it is unreasonable to believe a Mystery ; and that is all he says to this Point . 1. Now , as to the Believing in God's word , we never say , but that our Belief is grounded upon better Reason than that of the Anti-trinitarians is , for all their great pretence to it ; and I am sure our Arguments , from Scripture , are a thousand times more rationally deduced than our Adversaries are ; and as to Antiquity , they have not the least pretence to that . Indeed we do not pretend to understand all that our Reason tells us we ought to believe ; and I think it is more reasonable to think we should not understand God's Nature , than that we should . 2. As to our believing a Mystery , that is not less to be believed upon that account , if we are sure it is true ; for we do not believe it because it is a Mystery , but because it is a Truth , Well , but he says , this word Mystery has not the same sense in the Scripture , and other ancient Authours as we put upon it . As to the use of this word among prophane Authours , they understand by it , a Truth , which is known only to some few Men , and is not further to be divulged . And so principally the Rites of Ceres and Proserpine were called Mysteries , because they were esteemed to be of so great Sacredness , as in no ways to be revealed . And therefore * Suidas derives the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from shutting the Mouth . But then , by Analogy , all other things that were kept secret were called Mysteries . So Tully , speaking of his Letters , says , † which have so much of Mysteries in them , that I ought not to trust them to my Amanuenses . And in the holy Scripture there are other senses of the word than what the Authour mentions ; for every thing that is called a Mystery there , is not a spiritual Truth wrapped up in a sensible , nor yet only a Truth hidden from some Ages ; which two senses only the Authour will allow . For sometimes a thing altogether incomprehensible , as the Trinity is , is called a Mystery . 1 Tim. 3. 16. Without controversie great is the Mystery of Godliness , God manifest in the flesh , &c. Where the incomprehensible Truth of Christ's Incarnation is called a great Mystery . And therefore says an ancient Father admirably well , ‖ Great is the Mystery of Godliness ; not that it is unknown , but because it is incomprehensible ; for it exceeds all power both of Expression and of Vnderstanding . This perhaps the Apostle calls a great Mystery , in allusion to the Ceremonies of those Deities , that were called Great , far inconsiderable Mysteries in respect of this . Thus Diana who was worshipped with these Mysterious Rites , is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Act. 19. 27. and Proserpine and Ceres , that were worshipped with the Eleusinian Mysteries , were stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and their Rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Athen. Now , whereas these Mysteries and Deities were great only by their not being discovered ; this Mystery of our Saviour , in a more peculiar manner , is great , by its being incomprehensible . Now the definition which St. Chrysostom gives of a Mystery , takes in all these notions of the Word , * A Mystery is that which is unknown and secret , and has also a great deal wonderful in it , and a great deal incomprehensible . But the Authour says 't is more than a hidden Mystery , that is , in his phrase , a plain contradiction , that the same thing should be hid and open to the same Persons ; and who denies it , if he mean in the same respect ? But a thing may be hid in one respect , and open in another : 'T is open and reveal'd to us , That our Saviour's Divinity is , de facto , united to his Humanity ; but the express modus how this Union is performed is hid to us . That Father , Son , and Holy-Ghost are one God , is revealed or open to us , but the manner of their Hypostatical Union is altogether hid . That these things are so , is plain and open to us ; but how they are so is altogether unintelligible . And this I think is no Contradiction . ENQUIRY . III. What Damages or Advantages have ensued upon the Changes and Additions which latter Ages have made in the Gospel . THere need little be said to this Chapter , because I hope I have made it , in some measure , appear , That the Doctrine of the Trinity , and particularly of the Divinity of our Saviour , is no Addition made to the Gospel ; but is that which was first delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles : and therefore this Supposition of the Authour 's being false , whatever Conclusions he draws from it , without any more ado , will fall of themselves . But because he has before reckoned the Doctrine of the Trinity among the Papal Corruptions , or , as he speaks , the Athanasian among the Romish Doctrines ; and , by the Tenour of his whole Book , has been proving this Doctrine an Innovation , though he do not particularly mention it here , but only Innovations in general : I shall therefore follow him in his Method , and shew , That this Doctrine has in no ways occasioned those Damages and Corruptions in the Church , which he would seem to lay to its charge ; and which 't is apparent those Papal Doctrines he mentions have . He tells us there have ensued upon these Changes and Additions , I. Damages . II. Advantages . The Damages which have ensued he says are . 1. To our Lord's honour . 2. To private Christians . 3. To the Christian Church in general . The Damages which he would have to proceed from these Innovations to our Lord's honour . First , Because they make him Capricious and humoursome , by commanding things to be believed without reason . Secondly , Because they hinder the progress of the Gospel . Now how far the Romish Corruptions deserve this censure , I shall not examine ; but I am afraid the Authour will have a difficult task to prove this upon the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity , or the Divinity of our blessed Saviour . I have before shewn , how unreasonable it is to expect we should be able to give an account of the true Reason of all God's positive Laws , and how impudent it is for Men to refuse their Obedience to them , because they do not understand those motives , that inclined his Eternal Wisdom to command them . It no ways follows , that he is a humoursome or capricious Being , because we do not understand the Reason of his Commands ; because he may have reasons that lie far beyond the fathom of our finite understandings . A wise Statesman , or a Mathematician , is not therefore capricious and humoursome , because he does several things which the ignorant Spectator can give no account of . And certainly God may have commanded us several things for our belief , which we cannot imagine how they should any ways conduce to our good and happiness , ye he himself may know it , as his Providence does several things for our benefit , by means to us seemingly contrary . But besides we have proved , that the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity is an admirable motive to our Piety , and it were as easy to do the same , if it were not too long here , as to the Divinity of the holy Spirit . So that it is so far from Capriciousness , that it shews the inexpressible Wisdom of the Deity , that every person of the Blessed Trinity should be particularly concerned in the Salvation of Mens Souls in our Creation , Redemption and Sanctification , and each of them should lay the strictest obligation upon us to Piety . 2. Neither does the Doctrine of the Trinity hinder the progress of the Gospel , though the Romish Doctrines may . The Idolatry of that Church is an Eternal Bar to Jews and Mahometans , but the Doctrine of the Trinity is not such . We worship one God as well as they , and acknowledge only in that unity of essence , a Trinity of Persons , which was a truth the Ancient Jews had something of a notion of in their Doctrine of the Logos , or Word , as appears from their Rabbins , and other Writers ; nor can we suppose , that the Mahometans should so stand out against this Truth , unless they had been prejudiced against it by their false Prophet , whose Interest it was to have it denied . But when ever it shall please God to call home the Jews , and to bring in the fullness of the Gentiles , this Truth will be no obstacle to it , this Divine Mystery shall be believed in , and adored , when all the Romish Hay and Stubble shall be burnt up . 2. He makes the Damages which have proceeded from Innovations , pernicious to private Christians . First , By hindring Godliness . Secondly , Inward Joy and Tranquillity of Mind . Now we have proved often enough , that the Orthodox Doctrine is so far from hindering Piety , that it does extraordinarily improve it . If there happen what the Authour mentions , too much eager disputing about it , then the fault is not in the Doctrine , but in the undue managing of it ; if Men have taken more care to contend for the Faith , than against their Lusts , and endeavoured more to confound Hereticks , than to obey God's Commands ; they are to answer for that themselves , but their faults are not to be charged upon this Doctrine . So secondly , If the Joy and Tranquillity of the Church has been disturbed by the defending of this Doctrine , that is a thing purely accidental to it , it does not make it less true , because it has cost the Orthodox so much pains to vindicate its Truth against the Fraud and Violence of so many Hereticks . Whatever damages good Men have suffered in this Controversy , that is , to be charged upon those wicked Hereticks that have denied this Doctrine , and not upon the Doctrine it self , or the Defenders of it . Thirdly , He makes these Innovations prejudicial to the Church of Christ in its general Capacity . But in the proof of this , he only tells us some stories of the Slaughter of the Albigenses , and Waldenses , and the Cruelty of the Duke D' Alva , &c. which have no relation at all to the Doctrine of the Trinity . He cannot say , that the Orthodox , in the Primitive Times , butchered the Hereticks , as the Papists have done the Protestants , and therefore the Orthodox Doctrine has nothing to answer for upon this Account . II. He then proceeds to shew the Advantages which have accrued by the Changes which latter Ages have made in the Gospel . But here is nothing offered , as to the Doctrine of the Trinity , nor which can any ways conclude against this , and therefore I shall spare my self and my Reader , the trouble of saying much to this Paragraph . He tells us here a great deal of the Pope's Merchandise , and by the honour and power which he has got , by pretending to be Christ's Vicar , and brings some sayings from the Papists , that the Pope is as much better than the Emperour , as the Sun than the Moon ; that a Priest is as much better than a King , as a Man than a Beast ; that Catholick Kings are Asses with Bells , &c. with some other proofs of the Roman Clergies aggrandizing themselves by their Doctrines ; which would have done well enough in a Controversy in the late Reign , but are something impertinent in a Book designed against the Trinity . But what though the Popish Doctrines of Pardons and Indulgences , Merits , &c. have for so many years kept up the Apostolick Chamber , though the Doctrine of Purgatory has gained them so many stately Monasteries , tho' the pretended Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope has raised his Authority so high , though Transubstantiation and the being able , as they sometimes blasphemously call it , to make a God , has raised the esteem of their Priests among the People ; yet the Doctrine of the ever Blessed Trinity , never brought any advantage to the Clergy , and therefore this can never be justly censured upon this Account , as a humane Invention , and the product of Priestcraft , as those others justly are . The Conclusion . AND here the Authours says , the end of all , what he has been saying , I suppose he means , is to determine between Faith and Love , to give unto Faith the things that are Faiths , and unto Love the things that are Loves . But I wish he had made his words good throughout his Book , for that had saved me all this trouble , and the World all the mischief that his Book has done . As to Love he has not said much to that , but as for Faith , he has given so little to that , that granting his Principles , it would be hard to find such a Christian Vertue in the World. For all that belongs to Faith he has given to Reason , and what would not go down with his Reason , he is resolved shall neither belong to Faith nor Reason , but shall pass for downright contradiction . But now at last for a parting blow , to shew how little Faith is to be esteemed , especially in respect of Love , he brings the Opinion of our own Church , that in her Offices of Baptism and Visitation of the sick , declareth , that our Faith is not to extend beyond the simplest of the Creeds , and therefore if she says any thing elsewhere , that seems to contradict this , it is her Charity , in becoming a Papist to the Papist , that by all means she might gain some of the Papists . Of the admirable Charity of our Church , I am very well convinced of , but I never heard of her Hypocrisy before , or at least to have it commended too . And truly if what our Authour would make us believe , be true , that she entertains the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds , only in complaisance to the Papists , when in reality she disbelieves them , she is guilty of the most abominable Hypocrisy in the World. 'T is true indeed , she uses the Apostles Creed only in those Offices he speaks of , because they are the most ancient , and the shortest , and therefore the fittest for these occasions , but yet by the words of the Apostles she understands the substance of what is contained in the other , which she looks upon as Comments upon this . But however , to be sure her use of it in those Offices , does not shew her to disbelieve the other Creeds any more , than the use of the Athanasian or Nicene in the other Offices of the Prayer-Book shews , that she disbelieves the Apostles . One would have thought , that her using all three , did shew her belief of all three , for that I am sure is the more natural consequence , and not that her using one in one place , does shew that she does not believe the other two she uses in other places . Well , but this may be in compliance with the Papists that she uses them . But how does he prove that ? Has he any 〈◊〉 , that the Compilers of the Common-Prayer designed any such thing ? Do the Rubricks , Canons , Articles , or any other Publick Authority of the Church say any thing like it ? Till the Authour could have found some such grounds to have gone upon , he had better have kept his foolish surmise to himself , and not so senslesly have taxed the best Church in the World with such a wicked compliance . But what more ample satisfaction could our Church have given to the World , of her believing these two Creeds , and the Injunction of the same to all her Members , than by what she has done ? She recommends all the three Creeds in her Articles , and tells us , * they ought throughly to be believed : for they may be proved by most certain warrants from holy Scripture . In her Rubricks she has ordered the Athanasian Creed to be used upon all the great Festivals of the year instead of the Apostles , by which it is plain , she looks upon it , at least , an Equivalent to it . And this is to be said by the Minister , not as something Declaratory to the People , but as something they do assent to , and in his words do they openly profess ; as appears by the Rubricks , ordering the People to stand at this Creed , as at the Apostles , which is a token of their assenting to , and of their making an open profession of what is then read . Now can we suppose , that the Church should exact so solemn a profession of the Faith contained in this Creed , upon these great days , if she did not expect they should believe what they so solemnly profess ? If the Authour can believe this , he should never tax the Orthodox again with the Absurdity of their Faith. The Nicene Creed is ordered to be said every Sunday and Holiday , and in the Communion Service just before the receiving the Blessed Sacrament , if a Sermon does not intervene , in the same manner the other Creeds are recited . And can we suppose , that the Church should oblige her Members to make such an Hypocritical Confession , at a time when she supposes them to have the best thoughts , and the most pious Resolutions , and to seal this their Hypocrisy with no less than immediate Perjury ? If she did do this , instead of being the best , she would be the most wicked Church in the World , this one Injunction would serve to set against forty Romish corruptions ; but in truth the Romanists had never Forehead enough to object this against her , so that it seems the Hereticks , upon occasion , can outdo the Jesuits in this qualification ; for this Authour , by this one Calumny against the Church , has said enough to silence all the lying Slanders of the Jesuits , down from Sanders and Parsons , to the little Scriblers in the late Reign . As to his saying ( speaking of the Convocation last year ) that it will be a great disappointment to his Majesty , and his good People , if such an opportunity prove fruitless , I cannot so well understand what he means ; if he means fruitless towards the incouraging his Opinions , or for the taking away of these Creeds ; I believe it was more than his Majesty , or any of his good People ever thought of , or would have been satisfied with , if it had been done ; nor could any but the Authour be so simple to imagine , that when the State , so lately , by an Act of Parliament , had excluded the Anti-Trinitarians , even from the Benefit of Toleration , that they should be let into the Church by an Act of Convocation . THE END . SOME REFLECTIONS UPON THE Naked Gospel . As it is last Published and Owned , By D r BVRY . SInce these Papers were in the Licensers hands , the Bookseller told me , it would be expected , I should say something to the Book Dr. Bury has since Published , under his name , so much altered from what it was before . I do not think this is absolutely necessary to do in point of justice to the Authour ; for I have not concerned my self at all , who was the Authour of that Book : I only took care to Answer the False and Heretical Doctrines I found there , which were like to do any mischief in the World , which might still do harm enough , for all its Authour's retractation . It is his first Book that requires an Answer , and not this last ; for that is such a poor Toothless Adder , the poison of which is so much drained out , that we may venture it any where without an Antidote : Indeed 't is easy still to discern here the Tracts of the Heresy in his former Book , but now they appear so thin and discoloured , that the Reader , whose gust lies the Socinian way , will throw aside this insipid Heterodoxy , for something of the same kind that is more substantial . Here is still , for the most part , the old Heretical Body , with here and there an Orthodox Limb ; so that his Book looks now like one of our old Saxon Idols , half Man , and half Monster . Now whatever of his Erroneous Opinions he has altered , or retracted in this last Book , I shall not concern my self with them at all ; and truly , I am glad he is come to own them to be such ; I shall only make a transient Remark or two upon those places in this Edition , where instead of recanting , he has multiplied his Heterodoxies . But by the way , it will be worth while a little to consider the Apology , the Doctor makes for his first Book , in his Preface to this . He says this was drawn up against the sitting of the late Convocation , at a time he had not patience to be silent in , to enlarge some of their minds with a more comprehensive Charity , with an intention to communicate what , he had wrote to the members of that Convocation , and therefore he penned it with less caution , than was necessary , for what was to be exposed to every vulgar Eye . Now is not this a pretty excuse after so long hammering out ? The Doctor writes a Socinian Book , wherein he condemns the belief of nineteen parts in twenty of all the Christians in the World , only to enlarge the minds of the Convocation with a more comprehensive Charity . This would have been a pretty piece of comprehensive Charity indeed , to have damned all the Members of the Catholick Church for so many Ages , for worshipping a Creature for God , out of pure tenderness to Socinian Consciences . Well , but he penned it with less caution than if it had been to be exposed to every vulgar Eye . Now I should have thought it had been requisite to be more exact in composing what was to be viewed by the more judicious ; and that it had been a little too presuming to offer a parcel of uncorrected stuff to so learned an Assembly . I am sure 't is but a course Complement of the Authour 's to those learned Gentlemen , to write what was to be read by them at that rate , as he would not care should be view'd by every vulgar Eye . But though we should let this Excuse pass for some of his uncouth Expressions , or little slips in his Quotations and Chronologies , &c. I am afraid it will never bear him out for all the premeditated Heresy of his Book . Though he be ready to own , that there are some scattering Sphalmata in that Treatise , yet I believe he would be loth to have it thought one Total and Uniform Erratum . Are all his Chapters about the Socinian Notions of Faith nothing but slips in the penning ? Are so many Arguments against our Saviour's eternal Generation nothing else ? Are all his scandalous Reflections upon the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Assertors of it , his malicious Censures upon so many good and holy Counsels only owing to the want of a little caution in the writing ? If this be so , 't is impossible to know any Author's mistakes from his general Design ; for if ▪ it was not the Doctor 's design to invalidate the Truth of Christ's Divinity , he designed nothing at all ; for there is not one Chapter in his whole Book , but some how or other , tends that way . But he designed , he says , only to communicate his Book to the Members of the Convocation ; this is a very fine excuse indeed , to make that venerable Body , whose business it was to detect and condemn all Heresies , to become Patrons to his : but however , this is but an usual piece of Socinian Confidence , not unlike that of the Editor of the Racovian Catechism , who dared to dedicate so Heretical a piece to so Orthodox a Member of the Church , as King James the First . But , why this to the Convocation ? Whom of his stamp did he find there , that he could dare to communicate such a Book to ? This is such an infamous scandal to those great Representatives of our Church , that he can never atone for ; to presume that ever they would steer their Actions by the direction of such an Heretical Treatise as that . What would a Foreigner upon reading this Plea be apt to think of the Members of that August Assembly , that the Doctor should design that Book for their use , which the University as soon as detected , condemned to the Fire ? But after all , What constat is there that he designed this to be handed only to those Members ? Which by the way can be no excuse neither ; for such a private handing to all the Members of such a publick Body gathered from all the different parts of the Nation , is as effectual a spreading of his Heresy as any publication whatsoever . But I say , What constat is there that he designed only this ? Why , truly none at all , but only his saying so ; and how far his word will go in this matter , I cannot tell . 'T is plain , the Copies of his Book were not essayed to be spread , till the Lent after the Convocation was broke up . The Gentlemen in Oxford to whom he delivered Copies were not all Members of that Body ; and the 500 which * Litchfield in his Deposition said he printed , were more far than the number of which the Convocation did consist . Those Copies which were sent to the Bookseller , and afterwards upon the dislike of the Book recalled , were not I presume all designed to be sold to Convocation Men. Nay , if the good Providence of God and the watchful Care of some of our excellent Governours in the University had not interposed , we might have had every yound Lad in the University to have gotten one of these wicked Books into his Study . So that 't is ridiculous evasion , for the Author to say in the Title page of this Edition , that the Book is now first published by him ; for he published it , as much as he could , before he put the Copies of it into the Publishers hands , which was all he could do for his part ; and that they were stopped there , was owing to the Intervention of other Authority . And so much for the Doctor 's excuses ; to pass by his saucy Treating of the late Convocation by the reproachful names of Uncharitable , Stubborn , Stiff , &c. which is such Billingsgate stuff , as is like calling Whore first ; to fasten those ill names upon them to avoid , if he can , the deserved one of Heretick upon himself . I now come to speak a word or two to the Errors of this New Edition : And those I think mostly lie within his * Chapter of the Trinity , which is the only New one in his Book ; for all his others are but the old Heresy pared away , and something better varnished over than before . And indeed in this Chapter there is something New , for there is such an explication of the Trinity , as no mortal ever heard before . Here is a mixture of Platonism , Hobbism and Sabellianism , with some other peculiar Notions of the Doctor 's own , jumbled together . Quantum mutatus ab illo ! Is this the Author that has been declaiming so much against Mysteries , and the explaining of Mysteries , and has at last stuffed us out a Chapter with so much mystical Jargon ? But after all , this second Notion of the Doctor 's is no farther distant from Socinianism , than a Trinominal Deity is different from him that is personally one , without such nominal Distinction ; or just so much as the Doctrine of Sabellius differed from that of Samosetanus or Photinus . Now the first thing that the Doctor does to advance this Notion , is to be angry with the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Substance and Person . He says , † it was proposed in the Council of Alexandria , That all Persons should forbear those Terms ; tho' I do not find any such thing was proposed there . There were indeed some Rules given for caution in using them ; because they said the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used in Scripture ; and the Apostle used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon necessity of his matter ; but otherways , they ‖ decreed that these words were to be admitted because they do explode the Opinion of Sabellius ; that we may not through want of words call God under three Names , but that every Name of the Trinity should signify God under a distinct or proper Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And what other use do we desire to make of them than this ? Indeed we will allow the Doctor , that some of his celebrated Councils in his other Book , to have done as much as he would have this Council to have done , or more . His good Council of Sirmium * published an Impious or Atheistical Exposition of Faith , which forbid Nature or Essence to be predicated of God ; and the famous Council of † Ariminum did the like . Next , he is much displeased that the Latin Schools have over-translated the first of these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by rendring it Substance , which bears too great a Cognation with matter . But whatever Substance signifies in its primitive acceptation is no matter at all here ; it is enough if we understand what is meant by it in its Philosophical or Divine Sense . We know as well the precise signification of a word used Metaphorically , when we know 't is used so , as we do when it is used properly ; so that 't is a silly exception against this word , to say it is Metaphorical ; for unless some words were to be used Metaphorically , ten times as many words as we have , would not serve us . But if the Latins mean the same by Substance as the Greeks do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Where is all the harm that is done then ? Now the only way of knowing the sense of words is by their Definitions ; and both the Latins and the Greeks define the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia alike , and therefore they must have the same signification . Aquinas * defines Substance to be a thing which has a Being , by which it is by its self , and is neither in a subject nor is predicated of a subject , and * Cyril defines a Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a thing that subsists by its self , which wanteth not any thing else to its Constitution or Subsistence ; and so ‖ Suidas to the same purpose . So that if the Latins and the Greeks , understand the same thing , as 't is plain by these Definitions that they do , then there is no injury done by rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substantia . So again , I can see no harm in translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Persona , if the same thing be understood by both Words , as 't is plain the later Authors in both Languages do understand . Indeed the Latins at first , did very much except against the word Hypostasis as the Greeks used it , because they generally translated that word by Substantia , ( who * by the scantiness of their Language , could not distinguish Hypostasis from Essence or Substance ) and not by Persona or Substantia ; and therefore to assert three Hypostasis , was the same with them as to make three Gods. Now this mistake indeed about the sense of the word , did occasion some contention for a while , till the Council of Alexandria was celebrated in the Year 372 , and then they came to a right understanding , and † ever after , both Latins and Greeks used the word alike . Indeed the Arians did always except against the word Hypostasis , as Acacius ‖ and his Faction in the Council of Constantinople , and the Eusebians in the Synods of * Ariminum and Seleucia ; but that I hope will be no prejudice against it , for they excepted against the word and the sense of it too . So that we have no reason to quarrel with these terms which serve so excellently to express these Divine Truths of this Holy Mystery : we only ought to take care to understand and them aright , which is easy enough to do by their so long and constant use in the Church ; and not to run off from these to any new whimsical Explications . Next the Doctor sets to work to his exposition of the Trinity , which because he will not have it be mysterious , he is resolved to have it demonstrable by the Light of Nature ; for he says , the Light of Nature doth demonstrate what St. John affirmeth , There are Three Persons that bear witness , &c. There are a great many in the world that the Doctor would oblige with a little of this Demonstration ; but whatever we may expect from him hereafter , since this wonderful Illumination ; I am sure , what he has given us in this Chapter , is far enough from it . He tells us , That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Mind , Reason , and Power ; the Reason , or the Logos is begotten or conceived of the Mind , the Father , both which are imperfect , unless perfected by Power , or Action , which is the Holy-Ghost . Now , is this the Explication that agrees to a Syllable , both to the Holy Scripture , and the Church of England ? is this the putting the old Materials into a new and better Frame , which he so boasts of ? They are old Materials indeed , as old as Sabellius and the other Hereticks of his stamp , but neither older nor newer than their Heresies . For , I pray , what difference is there between Sabellius's Explication of the Trinity and the Doctor 's ? The * Sabellians taught , That the Father , Son , and Holy-Ghost were the same ; so that there were Three Names in One Person ; and as in a Man there is Body , Soul , and Spirit or Mind , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So the Body is , as it were , the Father ; the Soul , the Son ; and that which is the Spirit in Man , is the Holy-Ghost in the Deity . All the Difference between these two Notions of the Trinity , is , That Sabellius's inclines a little more to the Epicurean , and the Doctor 's to the Platonick Philosophy ; but both of them are far enough from Truth and Scripture . Nay , the Doctor 's Explication is the more Sabellian of the two , because his Distinction of the Persons is the more nominal ; for Body , Soul , and Spirit , are more distinct than Mind , Reason , and Operation . So that by striving to avoid Sabellianism , as he pretends , he has out-done Sabellius himself in his own Heresie . But , after all , what can we make of our Author's Trinity , which any Vnitarian will not agree to ! Mind , Reason , and Action — why , are not all these in every Man , and every rational Being , as well as in God ; and I hope he will not make as many Trinities as there are intelligent Beings . Besides , Mind , Reason , and Energy or Action , are but divers Modus of the same thing . Mind , is the rational Principle , simply considered ; Reason , is the same Soul , considered Discursive or Reasoning ; and Action or Energy , is the Soul putting the determination of such Reasoning into act : but still these are but distinct Modus's of the same Soul. But what are these to Three distinct Persons in one Essence ? There every Person is , by a proper personal difference , distinguished from each other , not by any particular modality , but by a true and real subsistence . But when the Doctor makes the Son to be only Reason , he can only make him an accident , or at best but a Modality of the Father . For if he only be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or what answers to it , the internal Conception of the Father's Mind , he would be only an Accident , or Attribute , or Mode , or what else you 'll please to call it , but would be far enough from that which the Church has all along called a Person . And therefore the learned Fathers in the Church have been always careful , to distinguish between this * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , between the prolative , or enunciative word , and the essential and substantial one . For the Son is not therefore called the word , because he is the Reason of the Divine Mind , or the Father , but because he is generated of the Father † without Passion . For they explained this Generation by the production of a thought or word , which was not produced by ‖ division or separation of parts , which implies Passion ; but in a certain manner incommunicable to all Corporeal Beings . So when the Doctor makes the Holy Ghost to be only the Power , or Energy , or Action of God , what is this more than what the Socinians contend for , and the Samosetanians and Followers of Simon Magus were Condemned for ? Nazianzen says , that * the Simonians thought the Holy Spirit was only an Energy ; and Leontius tells us , † that Paulus Samosetanus held the like . Besides , if the Holy Ghost be only an action , with what propriety of speech can he be said to act or do ? With what tolerable sense can an action be said to speak ? and the Spirit said unto Peter , Act. 10. 20. The Holy Ghost said uno them at Antioch , Act. 13. How can an action or energy be said to search all things , to make intercession for us , to divide to every man severally as he will , to reprove the World , to guide us into all truth ? 'T is the nature of an Action ‖ to be acted , but it can in no propriety be said it self to act . But the Doctor says , this Doctrine is stated by the * Fathers , as he has done it . I hope , by his Fathers , he does not mean such as the Ministers of Alba Julia † call so , the famous Fathers Berillus , Samosetanus , Photinus , &c. and indeed some of these we have shewn to have explained the Trinity something at this rate , but none of the Orthodox ones , that I know of , say any thing like it . But he says , St. Austin , the Oracle of the Schoolmen , states it thus , whom Dr. Sherlock follows , in his Book of the Trinity . I know St. Austin in his Books de Trinitate ( if he means those ) has a great many strange Platonick Notions , which I confess I do not understand , and which perhaps St. Austin himself had no clear conceptions of when he wrote them ; but however there is enough in those Books to shew , that St. Austin never designed such a nominal distinction in the Trinity , as this Authour does . What Dr. Sherlock says on this matter , I have not time now to consult ; though when I read his Book , I don't remember he gave any Countenance to this Opinion ; nay , on the contrary , some have been displeased * with that Learned Doctor , for making too great a distinction between the Persons of the Trinity ; not for making them three Names , or Modus's , as our Doctor does , but for making them three distinct Minds or Spirits , which are one by mutual Consciousness . But what though these great Men should speak more nicely than ordinary of these Mysteries , though they should wade deeper into them than other men , The great Genius's of these admirable Persons , and the strength of their natural reason will help to bear them out ; but I would advise our Authour to a little more cautiousness ; he poor Gentleman may be out of his depth before he is aware , and therefore I am sure 't is his best way to keep within the ordinary Compass . FINIS . A Short HISTORY OF SOCINIANISM . THE Heretical Persuasion of our Blessed Saviour's being only mere Man , and the consequent Doctrines which ensue thereupon , have , of late Years , been called Socinianism ; from the two Socinus's , the most famous Inventors and Propagators of this Doctrine , in the last Age : for though the Heresie it self , as to some parts of it , was much older , yet it had been altogether unknown for many Ages , till by the Books of Servet , the Socinus's , and some other Hereticks in the last Age , it was revived . The first that set up this damnable Doctrine , was the Heretick Cerinthus , who lived in the Apostlick times , and was Contemporary with St. John the Evangelist . He asserted , a That Jesus was mere Man as others were , and that he did not excell the rest in Justice , or Wisdom , or Prudence . The Confutation of this Heresie b was a special motive to St. John to write his Gospel , or at least to be more express than the rest of the Evangelists , in asserting our Lord's Divinity . Ebion , the Scholar of Cerinthus , c followed after his Master in this Heresie , and propagated his Doctrines in Asia , Cyprus , Rome , and elsewhere ; he asserted , That Christ was but [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] d pure Man , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] only common and mere Man. This Heresie , in the Second Age , was propagated by one Theodotus Scytes , or the Currier , who taught likewise , That Christ was [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] e mere Man ; and was excommunicated by Victor Bishop of Rome f for this Blasphemy . Artemon followed Theodotus , who said , g That Christ was mere Man , only more excellent in Vertue or Power [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] than the Prophets . Against this Artemon there was a famous Book wrote , which h Eusebius mentions , in which it was proved , That the Ancient Christians did not believe his Doctrine as he pretended ; and , in which the Authorities of Justin Martyr , Miltiades , Tatian , Clemens , are brought to confute him . Sixty years after his Death , i in the Third Age , about the Year 270 , Paulus Samosetanus disseminated this Doctrine ; and asserted , k That Christ had only the common Nature of Man. He was condemned in the Council at Antioch 272. Much about this time , or somewhat before , Sabellius broached his Heresie , not much unlike the rest of these ; he held , l That there was but One Person in the Deity , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , under Three Names , which does , in effect , ( as l St. Basil says upon this account ) deny Christ's Divinity . Arius who followed after , and made such a noise in the World with his Heresie , whatever his thoughts might be , yet he did not expressly assert Christ to be mere Man ; but only to be a Creature produced in time ; yet one that had a Being long before his conception in the Womb of the Virgin : and therefore he cannot so properly come into the List of these Hereticks . But soon after the Nicene Determinations against Arius , Photinus , one of the old Cerinthian Race , starts up , who was Bishop of Sirmium , and asserts again , That Christ was mere man , and m had no Being before the Ages , and , n That he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , had his sole Beginning from the time he was conceived in the Virgin 's Womb. These were the chief Propugners of this Heresie in the Primitive times , there being none of any considerable note after these ; for then almost all the Heresies ran into Arianism , Nestorianism , Eutychianism , &c. the prevailing Heresies of the succeeding Ages : And indeed this Heresie seemed to be quite lost , till Petrus Abelardus , in the Twelfth Century , did revive it . He , about the Year 1140 , was a famous Philosopher and Divine , and Professor at Paris ; he asserted o That he could comprehend the Godhead with humane Reason , totum id quod Deus est humanà ratione comprehendere ; p and wrote such things of the Trinity , of the Generation of the Son , and the Procession of the Holy Ghost , and innumerable things of the like nature , as were unheard of , by Catholick Ears : he affirmed , q The Holy-Ghost not to be of the Essence of the Father , and denied r Original Sin , and ſ the Satisfaction of Christ . Which are all the true Characteristicks of the Socinian Heresie . These were the most remarkable of this sort of Vnitarian Hereticks till the time of the Reformation : and the first then that stood up for this Heterodoxy was Michael Servetus a Spaniard , by Profession a Physician , who having travelled into Africa , and being instructed in the Principles of Mahometanism , t set up for the Vnitarian Doctrine in Europe . He in the year 1531 , published his Book , Entituled , Lib. 7. de Error . Trinitatis , which was printed at Basil . This Book was filled with innumerable Blasphemies and impious Mockeries upon the Holy Trinity ; upon which account most of the Copies of it were soon after publickly burnt at Frankford . But notwithstanding this , they were privately handed about , so that many that were inclinable to a separation from the Romish Errours , were poysoned by this Book into worse . And therefore Philip Melanchton u writes a Letter from Lipsick , 1539. to have the Senate of Venice put in mind of suppressing his Heresy . But Servet in the mean time uses all imaginable diligence , to disseminate his Doctrines ; and to this end , goes from place to place , practising Physick under the feigned name of Michael Villonovanus ; when he wrote a Book of Syrops , and as Munster says , a Comment on Ptolemies Geography . He afterwards wrote some other Heretical Pieces alike blasphemous with the other ; as one Entituled , A Dialogue de Restitutione Christianismi , quoted by Bullinger , an Apology to Melanchton and the Ministers of Geneva , Calvin , &c. in which Books Calvin in his Confutation , says , plus centum , &c. he more than a hundred times over , calls the Holy Trinity , the three headed Cerberus , a Diabolical Phantasm , the Monster Gerion , the illusion of Satan , &c. His Book of the Restitution of Christianity , which was a large Volume , he published at Vienna Allobrogum , where for the same , he was cast into Prison ; but he escaped from thence to Geneva , where he was discovered , and afterwards condemned and burned in the year 1568. by the desire of the Evangelick Cantons . The next follower of Servetus , and the fore-runner of Socinus , was Valentinus Gentilis , born at Consenza in Italy , who agreed with Servetus in his Doctrine , that the Father was the only Divine Essence ; but asserted that the Son was essentiated by him , and made another God , as likewise the Holy Ghost : So that there were not three Persons in one Essence , but three distinct Essences in the God-head , or rather one Primary God , and two Secundary or Deisied Ones . These Blasphemies he having for some time vented in the World , particularly at Geneva , he was by the Magistrates of that City thrown into Prison , where not having staid long , he of his own accord , promises amendment , recants his Errors , and desires to be freed . But the Magistrates resolved not to free him , unless he will undergo the Pennance they prescribe him , which accordingly he did , y to be stripped to his Shirt , and barefooted and bareheaded to kneel down and beg pardon for his Crimes , and with his own hands to throw his Heretical Writings into the Fire , to be prepared for that purpose , and in this Habit to be led through all the Streets of the City , declaring his Repentance before all the People . This having performed , he petitions again for his enlargement , which would not ye be granted , unless he would swear not only to forbear the spreading of his Heresy , but that he would never go out of the City without leave from the Senate . And this too he readily did . But no sooner was he freed , but he little valuing his Oath , flies from Geneva to his Friend Gribaldus , living at a place called Farges in the Canton of Bern ; where he had conference with Alciat a famous Vnitarian in order to the spreading their Heresy . From thence he went to Lyons to diffuse his Doctrine there ; from thence to Grenoble ; from thence to Cambray , and so to Farges again ; where the Governour of Gaia , to whose Jurisdiction Farges does belong , imprisons him again ; but upon promise of living quietly , releases him . From thence he goes again to Lyons , and was there imprisoned a third time by the Governour of that City ; but he perswading the Papists there , that his Controversy was only against Calvin ; they thinking thereby to do Calvin a spight , forthwith release him . Afterwards , he having spread his Poyson in France and Italy , flies to Poland , where he joyns with Blandrata and Alciat to infect the Polish Church . Here not having staid more than two years , these Heresiarcks fall out among themselves ; Blandrata turning down-right Arian , and Alciat , Mahometan ; so Gentilis passes to Moravia , and strikes in for some time with the Anabaptists there , from thence he goes for Austria , and afterwards for Savoy ; and so roving from place to place , and disseminating his Blasphemies , he came at last again into the Province of Bern , where being discovered , he was tried for several blasphemous Positions there and being convicted , was executed , persisting in his Heresy to the very last ; blasphemare simul & vivere desiit . Georgius Blandrata , who was another Zealous Vnitarian about this time , was a Physician by Profession , and propagated his Doctrines at Geneva , where he had several Disputes with Calvin , in whose Work is extant Responsum ad Quaestiones Blandratae ; but he flew from thence presently after Gentilis did , suspecting that the Magistrates had a design against him too . From thence he went and practised Physick in Poland and Transylvania , thereby to have the better covert for his Heresy ; and the more easily to instill it into Persons of the highest Quality . He wrote a Book in Answer to Georgius Major , against the Trinity , full of blasphemous Expressions , such as Symbolorum de Patre & Filio figmenta , Deum confusum & tripersonatum , ex tribus Personis compositum ; and calls the Orthodox Tritheites , and Athanasius , Tritheitarum Antesignanum . He got a great sum of Money by his Practice in the Polish Court , but was at last , as a signal Example of God's Vengeance , a murdered in his Bed by his Nephew , whom he designed to make his Heir . Paulus Alicatus , who was the intimate Friend of Blandrata , and a busy Vnitarian of this time , was born at Millain a Souldier by Profession , a Man of fiery Zeal for his Opinions , as appears by those blasphemous Expressions he used against the Trinity . For Calvin relates that he was wont to say , That we worshipped in our Trinity three Devils , worse than all the Idols of the Papists . So that the Divine Judgment was very Remarkable , in suffering him to fall away into the Mahometan Infidelity after so great Impiety . Franciscus Stancarus , a Mantuan , was now likewise a violent asserter of the same kind of Heresy ; who tho' he began his Heterodoxy at first , by denying only Christ's Mediatorship as to his Divine Nature , yet he proceeded at last to deny the Persons of the Trinity , and with Sabellius to make God only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one Person under three Names . He was , as Zanchius says , a Learned Man , but only unquiet and proud , and too curious , which lead him into these Errors . Franciscus Lismaninus , was another Heretick of this time of the same stamp , he was Doctor of Divinity , and formerly a Franciscan Monk , who after a pertinacious spreading of his Opinions , died mad . Bernardus Ochinus , was another promoter of the Anti-trinitarian Doctrine ; who , as f Beza says of him , was something cunninger than the rest of the Vnitarians , and like the Academicks , would seem rather to doubt of , than to define any thing . For in his Dialogues against the Trinity , he makes his other Collocutor to oppose the Trinity , and himself to defend it ; tho' by such mean Arguments , as always gave away the Victory to his Antagonist : He was a favourer of Polygamy too , as appears by his 21 Dialogue ; which has this Title thus made up of mirth and prophaneness ; To all Husbands that complain of their Wives , and all Wives that complain of their Husbands , Bernardus Ochinus wishes patience in Christ Jesus . In which Dialogue , he lets his Antagonist , Telipolygamus , strenuously make good his point against himself . Franciscus Davidis , was another very Famous one of these Hereticks , who assisted Blandrata in his Book against Major ; he was Superintendent or Bishop , as Sandius says , of the Vnitarians in Transylvania ; but tho' he agreed with the rest of the Vnitarians in denying the Divinity of our Saviour , yet he dissented from most of them about the Invocation of him , and did to his Death maintain , that as he was not God , so he was not to be worshipped . There were besides these several others , that were fore-runners to Socinus , or else contemporaries with him , who did not agree to all the System of his Heresy , which now the Vnitarians do generally maintain . Such as were Nicolaus Parula an Italian , a great Friend of Laelius Socinus ; Andreas Tricicius Modrevius , a Polish Knight ; Adam Pastor , who had several Disputes with the Anabaptists ; Gregorius Paulus , who was first a h Tritheite , and afterwards an Vnitarian ; Petrus Statorius , formerly Beza's Scholar ; Paulus Latomirskius , and Simon Budnaeus a violent man afterwards in the anti-adoration Faction ; with several others i . But however , these at best were but Labourers or Coadjutors in the building up the Socinian Heresy ; but the two great Master-builders were Laelius and Faustus Socinus , of whom now we come to speak . Laelius Socinus , k was born A. D. 1525. at Siena in Tuscany of a Noble Family ; his Fathers Names was Marianus Junior , a famous Lawyer in Italy at that time ; his Mothers Name was Camilla , the Daughter of Paulus Salvettus . He was an Auditor of Servetus when he was in Italy , and before he was of Age , he began to model a New System of Divinity upon the Vnitarian Principles . He as the * Author of the Life , says , l reading the Scriptures chiefly to further him in the Study of the Laws , and relying only upon his own Judgment , finds many of the Doctrines of the Church contrary to the Divine Testimony , as he thought , and therefore explains them , without farther search , according to his own Judgment . He , having thus for a considerable time been laying the Grounds of his Heresie , travelling into England , France , Holland , Germany , he fixed his seat , at last , at Zurick in Helvetia ; yet not so , but that after this he goes twice into Poland , A. D. 1551 , and again 1557 ; where he infected many of the Polish Nobility . He infected also his own Brothers Celsus , Cornelius , and Camillus , and Faustus his Brother Alexander's Son. And Zanchius in his Preface to his Book de Tribus Elohim , further says , He , for many Years pursued the Samosetanian Heresie , and drew as many as he could into the same Errour , and those were not a few : He endeavoured likewise by many Temptations to pervert me into the same Errour , and to involve me in the same eternal Destruction with himself . Whilst he lived at Zurick , or in his Travels , he contracted some Familiarity with Melancton , Brentius , Musculus , Bullinger , and Calvin ; and therefore Calvin , when he heard of his audacious Curiosity in Divinity , wrote to him , to dissuade him from it , Si tibi per aëreas illas Speculationes volitare libet , sine me quaeso humilem Christi discipulum ea meditari quae ad fidei meae aedificationem faciunt . You may , if you please , fly through these aereal Speculations , but suffer me , an humble Disciple of Christ , to meditate upon those things which serve to the Edification of my Faith. And now so many of the Family of the Socinus's being perverted by Laelius , the whole Family began to be suspected for Heresie ; which brought a storm upon all the House ; so that , as the Authour of the Life says , the Harvest was spoil'd in the springing Blade , Cornelius being imprisoned , and the rest being either forced to fly , or afraid to profess their Opinion . This Fear drove young Faustus , being now but Twenty Years old , not only from his place of abode but from Italy ; who went to live for some time at Lyons in France , in the same Year , in which the Magistrates of Basil digged up the Body of David George , after he had been dead Three Years , and burned it . Laelius continued still to study at Zurick , till he died , which was in the Year 1562. on the 16th . of May. He was the first that brought to light that notion of the Person of Christ , and his Sufferings , &c. which the Socinians do since maintain , and was forming some great Designs for the furthering his Heresie , but did not live to perfect them . The only Books that he published , were the Dialogue between Calvin and Vaticanus , against the persecution of Hereticks upon the occasion of Servet's execution , in which he makes Calvin a great Instrument : which Book was reprinted in Holland , by some of the Remonstrant Party 1612. and has commonly been attributed to Castellio ; though 't is apparent it is not Castellio's by the Reflection that is made upon his Translation of the Scripture . He wrote likewise a Treatise of the Sacraments , and a Book de Resurrectione Corporum , published by Crucellaeus . Whatever other Designs he had projected , and whatever Books he wrote fell into his Nephew Faustus's hands ; who made all the possible haste he could to Zurick , to secure his Books and Papers , fearing least it should fare with Laelius , as it had done before with David George . Faustus Socinus , the Nephew of Laelius , was the Son of Alexander Socinus , and of Agnes , the Daughter of Burgesius Petruccius Prince of Siena ; by which he was related to Three Popes , Pius II. and III. and Paul V. He was born December 5. 1539. at Siena , being but Fourteen Years younger than his Uncle : and he being now dead , and Faustus having gotten his Books and Papers into his hands , he returns into Italy , being now at the Age of Twenty Three Years , and spends Twelve Years in the Court of the Duke of Florence . And now whilst Faustus kept close in Italy , the Vnitarian Cause was carried on by others , and not a little by Castellio , by publishing to the World Ochinus's Dialogues ; of which Faustus Socinus says , * His sense of our Saviour Christ was plainly expressed and inculcated ; though Castellio , in his defence , said , he only published them as a Translator , being wont to get his Livelihood by translating Books . Neither were the Vnitarians themselves wanting to carry on their design ; for in the Year 1566 , there was a Book printed at Alba Julia , with this Title , Demonstratio falsitatis Docrina Pauli Melii , & reliquorum Sophistarum , per Antitheses , unà cum refutatione Veri & Turcici Christi . And afterwards another , entitled , De falsâ & verâ unius Dei , Pat. Fil. & Sp. Sanct. Cognitione , supposed to be wrote by Laelius Socinus , though Sandius denies it , from the difference of the style , &c. And about the same time , Jacobus Acontius published his Book , call'd Satane Stratagemata , which did considerable Service to the Vnitarians . In the Year 1568 , there came out a Book , set out by the Ministers and Seniors of the consenting Churches in Transylvania , De Mediatoris Jesus Christi hominis divinitate aequalitatéque ; in which , speaking of the Trinity , they say , The Three-One God of Antichrist is buried , and say , It was wickedly done of the Roman Church to condemn those famous Fathers Berillus , Samosetanus , Arius , Donatus , Helvidius . Artemon , &c. And in the Year 1569 , They publish another , of the Kingdom of Christ and Anti-christ , with a Treatise of Paedo Baptism and Circumcision ; the Conclusion of which Book is this , Whosoever does truly believe that the Pope is Anti-christ , does truly believe that the Trinity , and Infant Baptism , and the other Sacraments of the Papists , are the Doctrines of Devils . The next Year , being the Year 1570 , Faustus Socinus published his first Book of the Authority of the holy Scripture , in Italian , afterwards turned by himself into Latin , and set out under the Name of Dominicus Lopez , at Sevil , 1588. and again set out by Vorstius at Steinfort , 1611. in which Book says a * Learned Man , instead of making good the Scripture's Authority against Atheists , he weakens it among Christians . In the Year 1574 , he leave the Duke's Court , and comes to live at Basil , where he spends three Years in furbishing up that Model of Divinity , which was left him by his Uncle Laelius ; for he himself , by his own Confession , was able then to add but little to them . For in his Answer to the defence of Puccius , he says , he understood not much of ‖ Greek , and but little or nothing of Hebrew . And indeed , Forterus's Lexicon was his whole Treasure of Hebrew Knowledge , which he was forced to recur to , upon all Occasions , His Knowledge in Logick was but small at best , and he had wrote † several of his Books before he had any Knowledge at all of it . In the Year , 1577. He published his Disputation de Jesu Christo Servatore , which he had with Jacoc●bus Covetus , Pastor of the French Church at Basil . And in the Year 1578. he published another Disputation , of the state of the First Man before the Fall , against Francisus Puccius . In his Book de Christo Servatore , he revived first of the modern Vnitarians , Abelardus's Heresie of the Redemption and Satisfaction of Christ ; making the Merits of Christ to be purely exemplary . In the Year 1578. he sets out Castellio's Dialogues of Predestination , Election , Free-will , and Faith , and writes a Preface to them , under the feigned name of Faelix Turpio Vrbevetanus . His Explication of the first of St. John , was wrote about the Year 1562. as he himself says * ; though not published till afterwards . In the Year 158● . he sets out his Synopsis of Justification ; from which the Remonstrants since have borrowed so much . But in this Year there happened the great Schism among the Vnitarians , concerning the Adoration of Christ ; especially between Blandrata and Franciscus Davidis ; the Ministers of Alba Julia siding with the one , and those of Claudiopolis or Clausburg with the other . Upon this , Blandrata invites Socinus into Poland , to be Moderator in this difference , and gets Socinus to lodge in the same house with Fr. Davidis Blandrat , during his stay , bearing all his Expences . So that within a few Months afterwards followed that famous Conference held at Clausburgh , concerning the Invocation of Christ , which was afterwards Printed in the Year 1594. After the end of which Conference , Franciscus Davidis being very stiff in his Opinion , and his Antagonists exaggerating the Wickedness of it , he was forthwith imprisoned by Order of the Prince of Transylvania , and afterwards in a few Months was either made away there , or died . From hence was raised a great Clamour by the Anti-Adoration Party against Socinus and Blandrata , that they had been the Authours of this Persecution , which was so much credited , that they lost their Esteem with many . This forced Socinus to write an Apology to the Transylvanians , the Followers of Franciscus Davidis , to shew that Franciscus drew this Calamity upon himself , That contrary to his Promise given to him and Blandrat , he had procured several things in the Synod of Thord , to be decreed against the Invocation of Christ ; and once , when he preached in the great Church , he expresly asserted , That it was the same thing to pray to Christ , as to pray to the Virgin Mary , or any other of the dead Saints . After the Death of Franciscus Davidis the Anti-Invocation Party in Transylvania were not quiet , but did resolutely maintain , That as Christ by Nature was not God , so without Idolatry he could not be worshipped ; and for this side of the Controversie there appeared strenuously Franciscus Davidis's Son , Palaeologus , Glirius , Sommerus , and others , who in their Books and Discourses did grievously accuse Socinus and Blandrata . Socinus not being easie under all these Contradictions and Accusations , forthwith leaves Transylvania , and being now 40 Years old , goes for Poland , and there joyns himself to the Congregation of them , that following Servet , do pray to Christ as the Son of the Eternal God , but not the Eternal Son ; Who , as * Socinus says , in Poland , and in the great Dukedom of Lithuania , are called Arians and Ebionites . And here he formed the remaining part of his Heresie , which differs so much from that of the other Vnitarians before Socinus . For whereas Servetus and his Followers were content only to destroy the Doctrine of the Trinity , and to retain the other Points of Religion , he was for innovating in all , and in a strict sence , for teaching another Gospel . Thus he taught that the Principle and Foundation of Faith was in a Man of himself , Soc. Tract . de just . That justified Persons are in a State of unsinning Perfection , Syn. 2. de just . & Dial. de just . p. 14. That Mortality was necessary to Man if he had not sinned , Part. 3. de Serv. Chris . c. viij . That Adam had not the Promise of Eternal Life , nor could he avoid his Fall , Resp . ad def . Pucc . de prim . Hom. stat & Lib. Suas . quod regn . Pol. &c. p. 56. That Christ was a new Legislatour , and gave Moral Laws , which were not so before , de Offic. Chr. p. 4. de Conv. & Diff. V. & N. Test . p. 33. That Christ abrogated all the Judicial Precepts of the Law , as well as the Ceremonial , de Off Chr. p. 5. that notorious Offenders are not to be punished with Death , ibid. That the Lord's Supper is not a Conveyance of Grace , but only an Act of Commemoration , Tract . de . Coen . Dom. That Baptism is not necessary for Christians , that it was a Rite only of John and not of Christ , de Bapt. Aq. c. xvi . That it is a thing indifferent whether Children be baptized or no , or any other , that it is not a sin if they be , but it ought not to be enjoined , ibid. cap. 17. That the Messias was not promised to all the Jews , Frag. de justif . jux . fin . nor were they at all obliged to believe that the Messias should come , ibid. That Christ did not suffer and die for us , to rescue us from Punishment , but only to shew us an Example how we ought to suffer for Righteousness sake , Rel. Chr. brev . Inst . p. 87 , 88. & brev . Disc . de rat . Sal. p. 15. That Christ was called our Saviour , because he manifested the Terms of Salvation to us , de Chr. Serv. c. 1 , & 5. That he is called a Mediatour , not because he reconciles God and us , but because he was Embassadour from God to us , to reveal his Will , Rel. Chr. Inst . p. 85. That Christ ascended up into Heaven , before he entered upon his Prophetick Office , to be informed of God's Will , and therefore in Scripture when 't is said Christ came down from Heaven , 't is to be meant of his Descent after this Ascension , Rel. Chr. Inst . p. 127. in Disp . cum Erasm . Joh. Christ was not God before his Glorification , which was after the Ascension , and then he was so only by Office and Immortality , Anti-Wiek . cap. 6. Rel. Christ . Inst . p. 25. That Christ was mere Man , and the Holy Ghost only an Attribute , Ibid. These and many more are the Heterodoxes of his Books , which the Socinians do at this day maintain , and others there are which are more covertly delivered in Socinus's Books , though more expresly asserted by his Followers ; such as the denying an Eternity of Torments , and the rising again with the same Bodies , the Hints of which also they took from Socinus ; so that in him , was in a manner wholly perfected the Heresie which does still go under his Name . 'T is true , the Anti-Adoration Faction , who were the Followers of Franciscus Davidis and Symon Budnaeus , did a long time stifly oppose him , but in the Synod of Brest in the Confines of Transylvania , he so cunningly managed the Matter , that though he chiefly pretended a Dispute for the Adoration , he brought the adverse Party to receive his Notions of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ , of Justification , and of the Corruption of Mens Nature , which they had lately condemned . Afterwards he drew over to his Opinion the famous Vnitarian Petrus Statorius , a Man of a great Popular Eloquence , who made Socinus's Doctrines go down more easily with the People by his Pulpit Harangues . He himself too , by a strange artifice , brought over to his Heresy , every day , many of the better quality , several the Courtiers and Nobility that happened to abide at Lubernick , and several of the younger Clergy , that were not well grounded in their Religion . And none of the Vnitarians , after a while , objected against this new mode of Socinus , but only Nemojevicius , and Czechovicius , who resisted him strenuously for a time , and Nemojevicius , after a while too , assented to him , and Czechovicius , though he held out to the last , seeing no body to abett him , was forced to be still . So that within four years time , all the whole Church of the Vnitarians , did subscribe to the Doctrines of Socinus , which they had so lately almost universally Condemned . Thus was this Heresy perfected , after so many struglings among the Vnitarians themselves , which is swallowed down so crudely , and without consideration , by many in our Ages , that make pretence to the greatest Reason and Cautiousness . Socinus lived several years after the general Reception of his Doctrines , and died in the year 1604. The other Vnitarians that have been famous since Faustus Socinus , have been but as the Schoolmen to Lumbard , have commented only upon his Text , and only more audaciously sometimes explained his notions . The first Vnitarian of note , after Socinus had formed his Heresy , was Georgius Enjedinus , an Hungarian , Superintendant of the Socinian Churches in Transylvania , and Moderator of the Gymnasium at Clausburg . He was a follower of Socinus in most of his Doctrines , only in the matter of Invocation , which Socinus endeavours to disswade him from , in a long Letter to him A. D. 1596. He wrote the celebrated Socinian piece upon the Texts of the old and new Testament , upon which the Trinity is grounded , though the other Tracts attributed to him are doubted . Ostorodus was another Disciple of Socinus ; he was a Saxon by Birth , the Son of a Lutheran Minister ; he was Master of a School for some time in Pomerania , but being found to be heretical in his Principles , he was deprived of that , and so in the year 1585. he came into Poland , where he was some time Minister of the Vnitarian Church of G●dan . His most famous piece is his Institutions which he wrote in Dutch. Next was Johannes Volkelius born in the Province of Misnia in Saxony . His chiefest piece is his five Books de verâ Religione , or his Institutions of Socinianism , which was excellently answered by Maresius . Ernestus Sonerus , a Norimberg Physician , Professor of natural Philosophy and Medicine at Altorf , he was the Master of Crellius . He wrote the famous Heretical piece against the Eternity of Hell Torments , Entituled Demonstratio Theolog. & Philosophica , quod aeterna impiorum supplicia non arguant Dei justitiam , sed injustitiam . He died 1612. Valentinus Smaltzius , by Birth a Saxon , of the Province of Thuring , Rector of the School of Smigla , afterwards of Lublin , and at last Minister of the Congregation of Racow , born A. D. 1572. He was most famous for his two pieces , the one de Divinitate Jesus Christi , in which he took away our Lords true Divinity , and gave him a Metaphorical one , such as the old Divi were supposed to have , after their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : the other the Racovin Catechism , in which he had the chiefest hand , though assisted somewhat by Moscorovius , and by the Catechism put out before by Sacinus and Statorius . This was wrote first in Polish , and Printed at Racow , 1605. which afterwards Moscorovius translated into Latin , and had the confidence to Dedicate it to King James I. An. 1612. His chiefest Adversaries were Smiglecius , and Frantzius , and Schopperus . He died , Crellius says , 4 Decem. 1622. Johannes Crellius , born at Helmetzhelm in ...... 1590. He was first Rector of the School at Racow , and afterwards Minister of the Congregation . His Life may be seen , as it is wrote by Joachimus Pastorius , and bound up among the Fratres Poloni . He is most famous , besides for his Comments on Scripture , for his Book de uno Deo Patre , answered by Bisterfield . His Book of Satisfaction , in answer to Grotius , which was since admirably answered by the Bishop of Worcester . He died 1633. Samuel Przipcovicius , a Polish Knight , born about the year 1590. and died 1670. He wrote several pieces which were never published , vid Sand. Biblioth . but the most famous piece is the Life of Faustus Socinus . There is attributed to him a celebrated Piece , Printed at Eleutheropolis 1630. Anonymi dissertatio de pace Ecclesiae , thought at that time to be wrote by Simon Episcopius , Professor of the Remonstrants in Holland . Jonas Slichtingius , a Bukowiec , a Polish Knight , was the next Socinian of note , his most famous Pieces are , his Confession of Faith , and his Book of the Trinity and the Sacraments , against Meisnerus , besides his Comments in the Fratres Poloni . He died at Zelichow in the Dutchy of Brandenburg , 1661. Johannes Lodovicus Wolzogenius , was another late famous Socinian ; he was a Nobleman in Austria , but turning Protestant , he left his Country , and setled in Poland , where , after a time , he embraced the Doctrines of Socinus . His Works are many , the most considerable of which are bound up with the Fratres Poloni . He died 1658. Florianus Crusius , a Physician , Petrus Morscovius , and Andreas Wissowatius , were famous Socinians likewise at the same time . The Socinian Doctrines had hitherto contained themselves within Poland and Transylvania , and there was only some little Colony of them lurking among the Remonstrants in Holland , but other parts of the World were generally free from this infection , especially our Nation , till in the time of the late Rebellion and Usurpation it became the sink of all Heresies . And then John Bidel , Master of Arts of the University of Oxford ▪ brought in this Heresy here , and held a Congregation of Socinians in London . He wrote two Socinian Catechisms , a large one , and a shorter for the use of the more ignorant ; which were translated into Latin by a young Scholar of his , one Nathaniel Stuckey ▪ the Son of one Mr. Stuckey a Cloathworker in London . He wrote likewise a Treatise against the Diety of the Holy Ghost , wherein he does not follow Socinus in making him only an Attribute , but a Person , and one of the higher rank of Angels . There were several Books of the Socinian stamp published about that time , by some of the other Sectaries , as one against the Eternity of Torments , entituled , The twelve Pillars of Hell Torments shaken , &c. and some other Papers of the same nature sent abroad , which occasioned Dr. Hammond to write his Excellent Treatise of Hell Torments . Soon after this , in the year 1658. came out the Edict of John Casimire , King of Poland , against the Socinians , wherein he Ordered the Statute of his Predecessour Vdislaus to be revived , and put in 〈◊〉 force against the Vnitarians ; that no one , under pain of Death ▪ should teach of profess that Religion : but if any one would continue in that Communion , they must within three years leave 〈…〉 , which time should be allowed to dispose of their Effects 〈◊〉 Possessions . But for some considerations or other this time was shortened , and in the year 1660. they who would not renounce their Heresy , were forced to leave Poland and Lithuania , which accordingly many did , and setled , some in Prussia , some in Silesia , others in the Marquisate of Brandenburg , and some in Holland . Since which time Christoph . Sandius has been the only Vnitarian of note , famed most for his Nucleus Hist . Ecclesiasticae , his Tractatus de origine Animae , and his Problema Paradoxum de spiritus Sancto . Though in most points he was a Socinian , yet as to the matter of our Saviour's Person , he was a violent Arian . He was the Son of Christopherus Sandius a Prussian and Vnitarian , who was Counsellour and Secretary to the Elector of Brandenburgh , but discovering his Perswasion , was deprived of his Offices 1668. He was born at Koningsberg in Prussia , 1644. and died at Amsterdam , 1680. In England we have since that time been free from this infection , till Mr. F — n's Papers of late came out , and the Book called the Naked Gospel ; but God be thanked , the strength of these pieces is not so great , as to fear from them any mighty Contagion : For though they have all the Malice and Heresy , they have little enough of the Wit and Reason of the former Socinians . ERRATA . PAg. 51. lin . antepenult . pro almost leg . most . Pag. 68. dele Q. of the. Pag. 78. Not. † leg . Bas . Hom de Poen . Pag. 79. leg . stantes ardent . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A52291-e270 * S r Ralph Winwood's Remonstrance and Protestation to the States against Vorstius's Election , in Wilson's Life of K. James . Notes for div A52291-e2710 * Debuissent ergo dicere , quòd habebat uxorem quandam spiritualem ; vel quòd solus ipse Masculo-soemineus , aut Hermaphroditus , &c. Serv. de Err. Trin. Lib. 1. † Alch. cap. 15. * Sand. Nucl . Eccl. ad annum . † Where they were Condemned by the first Council of Toledo . An. 587. * Alch. Cap. 20. † A little before this time , according to Bede , A. D. 1612. the Supremacy and Title of Oecumenical Bishop , was granted to Boniface the Third , by the wicked Parricide Phocas , who murdered his Master and Predecessour in the Empire , Mauritius . * Joh. de Oppido . Vincentius . Alch. Cap. 52. † And Miracles pretended to be done by them . Niceph. Hist . Lib. 18. cap. 41 , & 42. * Zonaras Tom. 3. Paul. Diac. Lib 18. Vincent . lib. 23. † Vid. Stegmanni Photinianismum . Disp . 1. Q. 4. * Socinus in Matt. 5. ejusd . Respons . ad Jac. Palaeol cap. 4. Crell . in Matt. 5. Ludo. Walsengenii Compend . Christ . Relig. p. 2. in edit . Fratrum Pol. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Arist . de Mor. ad Nicom . † Per quam vim aut contumeliam defendendo aut ulciscendo propulfamus . Cic de Inven . lib. 11. ‖ Odi hominem & odero : utinam ulscisci possem . Cic. Epist . ad Att. lib. 1. * Art. 11. Vid. Hom. of Justification . † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Bas . Hom. de Humil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chrys . Hom. 2. in Rom. Vid. Orig. ad Rom. lib. 4. Hilar. can . 8. in Matt. Ambros . in 3. Rom. Theod. Therap . 7 o. Hieron . in 4. Rom. August . cont . ep . Pelag . Chrysol . serm . 34. Theophyl . 9. Rom. Oecum . in 1. Rom. p. 250. ‖ Article 12. * Homil. Salv. part 3. Homil. Salv. part 1. * Georg. Cassand . in Consul . de Art. 4. Aug. Confess . p. 18. † Testimoniorum quae sunt genera ? Divinum & Humanum . Divinum ut Oracula , ut Auspicia , ut vaticinationes & responsa Sacerdotum , Aruspicum , Conjectorum . Cic. Orat. Partit . * Concil . Melevit . cap. 4. & Conc. carth . 7. Concil . Araus . cap. 6 , 7 , & 25. † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chrys . lib. de Virgin. cap. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theophyl . in 1 Cor. 2. Orare Deum gratia spiritualis est . Amb. citante August . contra 2 Ep. Pelag. cap. 11. Munus in fide manendi à Deo esse . id . Com. in Matt. Vid. Com. ejusdem in Psal . 123. Theophyl . in 1 Eph. Clem. Alex. strom . 2. Chrys . 1 Cor. cap. 4. v. 7. And indeed this was the unanimous Doctrine of the ancient Church , and none were for our Authour's Opinion of Natural Faith , that I can find , but only the Followers of the Heretick Basilides ; who , as Clemens says of them , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , did look upon Faith as only natural . Clem. Alex. strom . 2. p. 362. ‖ Cum Homo assentiendo his quae sunt fidei elevatur suprà naturam suam , oportet , ut hoc insit ei ex supernaturali principio ipsum movente , quod est Deus ; & ideo fides quatenus ad assensum , qui est principalis actus fidei , est à Deo interiùs movente per gratiam . Thom. 22. Qu. 6. Art. 1. Vid. Schol. omnes in lib. 3. sent . * Vid. Socin . Crellium , &c. in Fratr . Pol. & libros Remonstr . † Vid. Episc . Instit . lib. 4. cap. 11. Curcellaeum & Limbourg . in cap. de Fide. * Philo lib. quis rerum divinarum Haeres . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Euseb . Eccl. Hist . lib. 1. c. 4. † Hier. in Gal. 2. ‖ Greg. M. in Ez. 1. Hom. 6. * Cyril . contra Julian . lib. 1. * Vinc. Lirin . contr . Haer. Cap. 3. † Quid unquam aliud Conciliorum decretis enisa est Ecclesia , nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur ? — hoc , inquam semper , nec quicquam praeterea Haereticorum novitatibus excitata Conciliorum suorum decretis Catholica perfecit Ecclesia , ut quod priùs à majoribus solâ traditione susceperat , hoc deinde posteris etiam per Scripturae Chirographum consignaret . Id. cap. 32. ‖ Theod. Hist . Lib. 1. Cap. 8. * Vid. Chald. Paraph . in Gen. 49. 18. & Targum Hierosol . in loc . eundem , & Phil. de Agr. Lib. 2. * Dr. Tillotson's Ser. vol. 2. Serm. 1. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Euseb . Vit. Const . lib. 2. & Socr. lib. 1. † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. * Soc. Eccl. Hist . lib. 1. cap. 6. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Binius ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Conc. Laod. Can. 47. Cyril . Catech. Ambros . de Sacram. Lib. 2. Cap. 7. † Non semel , sed ter ad singula nomina in personas singulas tingimur . Tertul. adv . Praxeam . cap. 26. Baptizandi ter ad quamlibet immersionem , interrogati Articulos fidei confessi sunt , viz. Se credere in verum Deum Patrem omnipotentem ; se credere in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum & carnem ejus : se credere in spiritum sanctum . Ambr. de Sacr. L. 2. Cap. 7. * Multa sunt quae per traditionem in Ecclesiis observantur , velut in lavacro ter mergitare . Hier. adv Lucifer . Ter mergimur ut Trinitatis unum appareat Sacramentum . Id. in cap. 4. Eph. 2. This custom of the trine mersion seems to be very ancient in the Church , if not Apostolical . 'T was a Custom before the writing of the Apostolick Constitutions , which depose any Bishop or Priest that shall Baptize without it . Can. Apost . Can. 49. And the Authour under the name of the Areopagite mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Dionys . Areop . Hierarch . Eccl. Cap. 1. p. 2. p. 217. And Eunomius an Anti-Trinitarian Heretick was the first that dared to alter this custom , and bring in the simple immersion . Soz Lib. 6. Cap. 26. And it continued in the Church generally till about the year 600 , when the Orthodox in Spain began to disuse it , because the Hereticks had taken it up . Vid. Greg. Magn. Ep. ad Leandr . Ep. Hisp . & Concil . Tolet. Can. 5. † Consuetudo apud nos istiusmodi est , ut his qui baptizandi sunt per quadraginta dies publicè tradamus sanctam & adorandam Trinitatem . Hier. ad Pamach . adv . er . Joh. Hierosol . † Faust . Socini Resp . ad Jac. Wickam . * Socr. His . Ecc. Lib. * Socr. Lib. 2. Cap. 32. † Id. Cap. 31. * Euseb . de vitâ Const . Lib. 2. * Grot. Annot . in Luk. 3. † Sam. Bocharti Phaleg . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Socr. lib. 1. cap. 3. * Theod lib. 1. cap. 14. † Soz. lib. 1. cap. 14. ‖ Theod. lib. 1. cap. 2. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Soz. lib. 1. cap. 14. * Theod. lib. 1. cap. 26. † Soz. lib. 2. cap. 15. ‖ Socr ▪ lib. 1. cap. 18. * Id. cap. 18. † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Socr. ib. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Soz. lib. 2. cap. 20. * Baron . Annal. An. 335. Soz. † Athan. de Syn. Soz. ib. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * Socr. lib. 1. cap. 20. * Epiphan . Her. 37. † Athan. Lib. de Syn. ‖ Socr. Lib. 2. Cap. 25. * Liber . Brev. cap. 11. Niceph. lib. 24. Act. 1. Conc. Chalced . * Evag. † Evag. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. ‖ Con. Chalced . Act. 1. * Evag. Lib. 2. Cap. 2. † Con. Chalced . Act. 3. ‖ Ib. † Zon. in Marcian . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evag. Lib. 3. Cap. 7. * Baron . Annal. An. 629. † So called as some would have it ( Niceph. ) from Jacobus the Syrian a great Eutychian , or for that they pretended to be converted by James the Apostle . Before the Council of Chalcedom , they belonged to the Patriarch of Antioch ; but afterwards they set up a distinct Patriarch of their own , schismatically professing the Doctrine of Eutyches . Their Name has remained long since in the Greek Church , having changed their Opinions , as appears by the Confession of the Jacobites . * Athan. ad Solitar . † Soz. Lib. 3. Cap. 5. * Athan. Lib. de Synod . † Socrat. Lib. 2. Cap. 7. * Soc. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. † Ib. lib. 2. cap. 14. ‖ Soz. lib. 3. cap. 9. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * Soz. lib. 3. cap. 9. † Id. cap. 10. ‖ Athan. Ep. ad Solitar . † For Athanasius says , Apol. 2. The Bishops that signed to his Innocence , in and out of the Synod , were 344 ; and that 60 , before the Synod , subscribed it , therefore there must be , at least , in this Synod 284 Bishops ; the remainder of the former Number by deducting 60. There are some Objections against this Computation . Vid. Causab . ex . Bar. and D r Comber's Roman Forgeries . ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Soz. ib. * Vid. Soc. lib. 1. cap. 23. & Soz. lib. 2. cap. 11. * Soz. Lib. 7. Cap. 4. * Vid. Cypr. Cum notis Episc . Oxon . * Nunquam aliquis Apostolorum dicere auderet , Qui credit in me . Credimus Apostolo , sed non credimus in Apostolum Tract . 54 in Psal . And again , Credimus Paulo , sed non credimus in Paulum ; Credimus Petro , sed non credimus in Petrum . And so again , in another place , he distinguishes between credere Christium , & creder in Christum . Multum interest utrum credat ipsum esse Christum , & utrum credat in Christum . I lle credit in Christum , qui & sperat in Christum , & diligit Christum . Tract . 29 in Joh. Vid. Aq. Sum. 2. 22. q. 2. §. 2. Durand . in 3. sent . disp . 23. q. 7. §. 6. * This was a Point so difficult to be believed , that Synesius the Philosopher could not be perswaded of the Truth of it , not only till after he became a Christian , but till he had for some time been Priest . Evag. lib. 1. cap. 15. * Si ad exemplum Christi resurgemus qui resurrexit in Carne ; jam non ad exemplum Christi resurgemus , si non in Carne & ipsi resurgemus . Tertul. de Resur . Car. cap. 18. † Nemo poterit aliud mortuos interpretari qui sint in monumentis nisi Corpora & Carnem , quia nec ipsa monumenta aliud quam cadaverum stabula . id . ib. cap. 37. ‖ Contr. Frantz . p. 414. & 170. * Pro eo quod caeteri dicunt Carnis Resurrectionem , nos dicimus hujus Carnis Resurrectionem . Ruff. Apol. adv . Hier. * Justin . Mart. Resp . 53. ad Orthodox . & Resp . 60. Athanag . de refut . Mort. prope finem . Tertullian . loc . citatis . Cypr. expos . Symb. Hier. Com. in Job . 19. Aug. in Ps . 62. Theophyl . in 1 Cor. 15. Chrysost . in Job . &c. † The Valentinians were the chief , if not the only Hereticks that denied the Resurrection of the same numerical Body in ancient times . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ep. Haer. 31. ‖ Durius creditur Resurrectio carnis qudm una Divinitas . Tertul . de res . Carnis Cap. 1. * Si Arabiae queruntur , sciant Sabaei pluris & carioris suas merces Christianis sepeliendis profligari , quam Diis fumigandis . Tertul Apol. Cap. 23. Quid sibi saxa cavatae , Quid pulchra volunt monimentae ? Nisi quod res creditur illis , Non mortua , sed data somno . Prud. Hym. 10. circa exeq . 〈◊〉 * Omne praemium emnisque poena vim eatenus reverâ habet quatenus sentitur , spiritu autem fieri , ut sentiamus , non corpore quâ Corpus est ; Corpus instrumentum tantum esse nec per se puniri . Says Crellius on the 1. Cor. 15. and from whence probably the Authour has his Argument . * Natura carnem non instrumentum praestat in operationibus , sed ministerium . Ita & ministerium tenebitur judicio etsi de suo nihil sapiat , quia portio est ejus quae sapit , non supellex . Tert. de Res . Car. Where the word Ministerium , signifies a Servant , not Service . or the Act or Office of serving . As Publica ministeria dicimus etiam quae extra urbem nobis ministrare consueverunt . Paul. Ic. Quindecim convivarum ac ministerii capace triclinio . Plin. Lib. 12. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chr. 2 Hom. Rom. † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ‖ Vid. Hom. of Salvation , of the Pas . where are used the Terms of embracing and taking hold of Christ's Merits . * Pag. ult . * Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Euseb . Hist . lib. 4. cap. 14. Theod. Haer. Fab. lib. 2. cap. 3. † Can. Apost . ‖ Can. 45 , 46 , &c. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Conc. Laod. Can. 33. id . Can. 30. † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Phot. in Nomocan . Tit. 9. ‖ Servetus was burnfor Blasphemy against the Holy Trinity at Geneva , by the Advice and Desire likewise of the Switz-Cantons , An. Dom. 1553. And Valentinus Gentilis was executed for the same at Berne , An. Dom. 1558. * Suid. in verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . † Quae tantum habent Mysteriorum ut nè Librariis quidem committamus . Cic. Ep. At. l. 3. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Isodor . Pelus . Ep. 192. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chrys . Hom. 19. in Rom. * Eccl. Ang. Artic. 8. Notes for div A52291-e19880 * Litchfield , the Printers Deposition in the Account , &c. Exeter Coll. &c. * Chap. 7. of the New Edition . † p. 44. ‖ Soc. lib. 3. cap. 5. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Libel . Syn. in Bib. Jur. Can. Tom. 2. p. 182. & Socr. Lib. 2. Cap. 30. † Athan. de Syn. Arim. Theod. Hist . Lib. 2. Cap. 17. * Substantia est res habens quidditatem , cui debetur esse per se & non in alio scilicet subjecto . Aq. 1 Part. qu. 3. Art. 5. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Cyr. Expos . Orth. Fid. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Suid. in verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. † Greg. Nazian . Or. 39. ‖ Soc. Lib. 2. Cap. 41. * Athan. de Syn. Arim . & Seleuc. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. Epiph. Haer. 62. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ign. Ep. ad Magn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theod. Therap . Ser. II. So Athanasius calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Athan. de def . Tom. 2. Ed. Par. p. 53. Vid. Dam. Orth Fid. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dam. Orth. fid . Lib. 1. Cap. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theod. Ep. Div. Decr. Cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Bas . Mag. in 1. Joh. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chrys . Hom. 116. Id. in Psal . 45. ‖ See this at large in St. Chrysostom's 116. Hom. Tem. 5. p. 747. * Greg. Naz. Or. 37. † Leont . de Sect. Act. 3. ‖ So Theoph in 1 Cor. 1. says of the Holy Ghost , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So Nazianz. Or. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * P. 50. † See the History of Socinianism which follows . * Dr. Wallis's Letters . Notes for div A52291-e22000 a Iren. lib. 1. cap. 15. b Iren. lib. 3. cap. 11. Hier. in Prol. Joh. Augus . Haer. 1. Theophyl . Prol. in Joh. c Epiph. Haer. 30. Euseb . Eccl. Hist . lib. 4. d Ign. Ep. Phil. e Euseb . Hist . Eccl. cap. ult . f Euseb . ib. Niceph. Hist . lib. 4. cap. 21. g Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 2. c. 5. h Hist . Eccl. lib. 5. cap. ult . i August . Haer. 44. k Eus . Hist . lib. 7. cap. 24. Theod. Ep. 104. l Bas . Mag. Ep. 64. l Bas . Mag. Ep. 64. m Soz. lib. 4. cap. 5. n Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. o Samson . Rhemensis Epist . in Liter . ad Pont in Oper . Abelardi ad Car. p. 296. p S t Bern. Epist . ad . Ep. & Card. Cur. q Id. Ep. ad Innoc. r Abel . Com. in Rom. 5. p. 597. ſ Bern. Ep. ad Innoc. Abel . in Rom. 3. 14. Servetus 1530. t This Wiekus objects out of Lindanus , and Socinus in his Answer does not deny it . Vid. Socin . Anti-Wiekum cap. 1. u Epist . Phil. Melan . Lib. 1. p. 335. Valentinus Gentilis . y Vid. Aretij vit . Val. Gentilis . Idem . Georgius Blandrata . a Socin . in Anti-Wiek . Paulus Alciatus . Franciscus Stancarus . Franciscus Lismanin . Bernard . Ochinus . f Bez. Ep. 81. Franciscus Davidis . h Bez. Ep. 81. i Vid Sand. Biblioth . Anti-trin . k LAELIUS SOCINUS . * Vit. Socin . per Eq. Polon . l Id. p. 10. 1559. FAVSTUS SOCINVS * Sententiamsuam de Christo Servatore apertè expressam in illis esse & inculcatam . Ep. ad Marc. Vadovit . 1570. * Hornbeck Soc. Conf. ‖ Graecos enim Fontes , ut egomet omnibus dico , leviter admodum degustavi , Hebraeos vixdum attigi . Resp ad Def. Fran. Puccii . † Disputationes meas quarum quadam sunt editae , cum nondum Dialecticae ullam operam dedissem , cujusmodi est Disputatio de Servatore , adversus Puccium Palaeologum , Fr. Davidis , &c. * Socin . Ep. ad Dudithium . 1579. * In the Title of his Book , Quid Regni Polon . &c. 1588. Ostorodus . Volkelius . Flor. 1595. Flor. An. 1603. Smaltzius . Crellius . 1630. Przipcovicius . Slichtingius . Wolzogenius . 1650. M r Bidel . 1658. Vid. Edictum in vitâ Wissowatii . 1660. 
A62866	----	Emmanuel, or, God-man a treatise wherein the doctrine of the first Nicene and Chalcedon councels, concerning the two natures in Christ, is asserted against the lately vented Socinian doctrine / by John Tombes ... Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. 1669 Approx. 294 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 119 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A62866 Wing T1803 ESTC R5748 12527345 ocm 12527345 62675 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62866) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 62675) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 949:13) Emmanuel, or, God-man a treatise wherein the doctrine of the first Nicene and Chalcedon councels, concerning the two natures in Christ, is asserted against the lately vented Socinian doctrine / by John Tombes ... Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. [8], 227, [1] p. Printed for F. Smith ..., London : 1669. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Table of contents: p. [5]-[7] Errata: p. [1] at end. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Jesus Christ -- Divinity. Nicene Creed. Socinianism -- Controversial literature. 2004-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-12 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-01 Andrew Kuster Sampled and proofread 2005-01 Andrew Kuster Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion EMMANUEL ; OR , God-Man . A Treatise wherein the Doctrine of the first Nicene and Chalcedon Councels , concerning the two Natures in Christ , is asserted against the lately vented Socinian Doctrine . By John Tombes , B. D. Isa. 9. 6. For unto us a Child is born , unto us a Son is given , and the Government shall be upon his shoulder : And his Name shall be called Wonderful , Counsellour , the Mighty God , the Everlasting Father , the Prince of Peace . London , Printed for F. Smith at the Sign of the Elephant and Castle without Temple-Bar . 1669. Imprimatur , Ex Aed . Lambethanis Martii 8. 1668. Tho. Tomkyns R. R in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Gilber ▪ to Archi-Ep . Cant. a Sacris domesticis . TO THE READER . WHereas this Treatise begins with mention of Christs words , Mat. ●6 . 10 , 33. which carry a shew of impertinency , I think it fit to advertise thee that indeed this is but a s●red of a Treatise concerning the Kingdom of God , and licensed under the Title of Theocracy , and because of a writing against the Divine Nature of Christ not long afore vented ( which I was not aware of when I composed it ) I yielded to the motion of publishing this by it self , it being suggested to me , that so Printed it would be useful and seasonable , which having told th●e of , I crave thy Prayers for him who is Thine in the Service of our Lord Christ. JOHN TOMBES . THE CONTENTS . Sect. 1. THe God whose Kingdom is to be sought is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Sect. 2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the sense professed in the Nicene Creed . Sect. 3. Christs being God in the sense of the Nicene Creed , is proved from John 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9. 10 , 14 , 15 , 18. Sect. 4. The Exceptions against the proof of Christs God-head , from John 1. 1 , &c. are set down . Sect. 5. The sense of John 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 18. given by the Adversaries , is reselled . Sect. 6. The reasons of the Adversaries Exposition of John 1. 1 , &c. are shewed to be insufficient . Sect. 7. Christs Generation before the world was is proved , from John 8. 58. Sect. 8. Christs being before the world was , is proved from John 17. 5. Sect. 9. Col. 1. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17. is urged to prove the God-head of Christ. Sect. 10. The proof of Christs God-head , from Col. 1. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17. is vindicated from Exceptions . Sect. 11. Heb. 1. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. are urged to prove the assertion of Christs God-head . Sect. 12. The Argument from Heb. 1. 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. is vindicated from Exceptions . Sect. 13. Heb. 7. 3. is urged to prove the Eternal Son-ship of Christ. Sect. 14. Christs Kingdom is the Kingdom of the Son of Man , so termed according to his excellency above all men . Sect. 15. Christs Consubstantiality with the Father , according to his Deity , with us , according to his Humanity , as the Chalcedon Councel determined , is asserted and proved from John 1. 14. Acts 2. 30. Rom. 1. 3 , 4. and 9. 5. Sect. 16. The Exception against the Argument , from Acts 2. 30. Rom. 1. 3 , 4. Rom. 9. 5. is set down . Sect. 17 This Exception against the Argument is refuted . Sect. 18. The consubstantiality of Christ with the Father and us , is proved from 1 Tim. 3. 16. Sect. 19. The Exceptions against this proof . Sect. 20. These Exceptions are refelled . Sect. 21. The same consubstantiality of Christ is confirmed , from 1 Pet. 3. 18 , 19 , 20. Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 3. 1 John 4. 2. Heb. 2. 14. and 10. 5. John 16. 28. Sect. 22. Christs consubstantiality with the Father and us , is proved from Philip. 2. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. Sect. 23. The Exception against this Argument is recited . Sect. 24. The Text is explained in order to the refelling of the Exception . Sect. 25. Some Objections against the proof , from Philip. 2. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. are answered , particularly Objections against expounding the form of God , Philip. 2. 6. Of the state of Empire . SECT . I. The God whose Kingdom is to be sought is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. BEing taught by Christ to pray , Mat. 6. 10. Thy Kingdom come , and ver . 33. to seek first the Kingdom of God ; it is necessary we know what is meant by the terms [ God the Father , the Son. ] For explaining whereof we are to consider that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated God answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( as I shew in my Oath-book lect . 1. sect . 5. ) in its common notion , notes any Numen , divine power , which is worshipped , whether real or nominal : Agreably to which St. Paul tells us , 1 Cor. 8. 4 , 5 , 6. As concerning therefore the eating of th●se things that are offered to Idols , we know that an Idol ( though worshipped as God by deluded Gentiles ) is nothing in the world ( hath no power to do good or hurt ) and that there is none other God but ons : For though there be that are called Gods , whether in Heaven or upon earth ( as there be Gods many and Lords many ) but to us there is but one God the Father , of whom are all things , and we in or for him , and one Lord Jesus Christ , by whom are all things , and we by him : where it is observable that the term [ one God ] is attributed to the Father , to wit of Christ , who as he is stiled Ephes. 1. 2. our Father , so v. 3. the God , and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who is therefore frequently termed in the writings of the Evangelists , especially St. John by our Lord Christ the Father and his Father , and distinction is made between one God and one Lord , as in this place , so also 1 Cor. 12. 5 , 6. Ephes. 4. 5 , 6. ( it is 1 Tim. 2. 5. one God , and one Mediatour between God and men ) and accordingly the Apostolical salutations , benedictions , prayers , and valedictions run thus , Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 2. Ephes. 1. 2. Philip. 1. 2. Col. 1. 3. 1 Thes. 1. 1. 2. Thes. 1. 2. Grace to you , and peace from God our Father , and the Lord Jesus Christ with addition of mercy , 1 Tim. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 2. Tit. 1. 4. From God the Father . 2 Cor. 1. 3. Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 13. 14. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , and the love of God , Ephes. 1. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ephes. 3. 14. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Col. 1. 3. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , praying alwaies for you . 1 Thes. 1. 2 , 3. We give thanks to God alwaies for you all making mention of you in our prayers , remembring without ceasing your work of faith ; and labour of love , and patience of hope , in our Lord Jesus Christ , in the sight of God and our Father . James 1. 1. James a servant of God , and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Pet. 1. 2. Grace and peace be multiplied unto you , through the knowledge of God , and of Jesus our Lord. 2 John 3. Grace be with you , mercy and peace from God the Father , and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father in truth and love . And accordingly where the word [ God ] or [ Father ] is put simply it is distinctly applyed to the Father of our Lord Christ , Rom. 1. 1 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 9 , and 3. 25 , 26. and 5. 1 , 2. 8. 10 , 11 , 15. and 6 , 4 , 11 , 23. and 7. 4. 25. and 8. 3. 17. 33 , 34 , 39. and 10. 9. and 14. 17 , 18. and 15. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9. 16. 17 , 19 , 30. and 16. 20. 26 , 27 , 1 Cor. 1. 1 , 2 , 9. 24 , 30. and 3. 23. with many more both in the Epistles and other writings of the New Testament in which God is distinguished from the Lord Christ , and is therefore meant of the person of the Father , concerning whom the Apostle doth expresly say , 1 Cor. 11. 3. I would have you know , that the head of every man is Christ , and the head of the woman is the man , and the head of Christ is God. In like manner Arch-Bishop Usher in his Diatriba about the ancient Apostolical Creed of the Roman Church , and other forms of faith wont to be propounded in Catechism and Baptism both by the western and eastern Christians tells us , pag. 13. out of Rufinus , that almost all the eastern Churches do thus deliver their faith : I believe in one God the Father Almighty , and in the following speech , whereas we say , and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord , they deliver it thus , and in one Lord our Lord Jesus Christ his only Son , which he shews in the shorter and larger Cre●ds Hierosolymitan , Alexandrian , that of Eusebius Caesariensis recited at the first Nicene Councel , and with some addition assented to as their Creed Dr. Pearson Exposition of the 8th . Article , we have already shewn that the Father is originally that one God , which is deried by none . Hereby we may understand who is meant by [ the Father ] to wit , the Father of Christ , and therefore the Kingdom is termed by Christ the Kingdom of his Father , Matth. 26. 29. because it is appointed or delivered to Christ by the Father , Luke 22. 29. Matth. 11. 27. and 28. 18. John 3. 35. and 5. 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27. and 13. 3. Act● 2. 33. 36. 2 Pet. 1. 17. and in all his administrations Christ expresseth his aim not to be his own , but his Fathers glory , John 8. 50. 54. and 14. 13. Sometimes it is termed the Kingdom of their Father , Mat. 13. 43. because God appoints it to the Saints , Luke 22. 29. and 12. 32. and therefore Christ saith , Mat. 20. 23. To sit on my right hand , and on my left is not mine to give , but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father , Mat. 25. 34. Then shall the King say to them on his right hand , come ye blessed of my father , inherit the Kingdom prepared for you , from the foundation of the world . Acts 1. 7. It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power : For which reason it is said . 1 Cor. 8. 6. Of him are all things , and believers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or to him , in the sense in which it is said , Rom. 11. 36. For of him , and through him , and to him are all things ; to him be glory for ever , Amen : And concerning Christ it is aid , Phil. 2. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. Because he humbled himself and became obedient unto death , even the death of the Cross , therefore God also hath highly exalted him , and given him a name , which is above every name , that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in Heaven and things in Earth , and things under the Earth , and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is the Lord , ( that is ) God's King , King of Kings , and Lord of Lords , at his appearance and in his Kingdom , and this shall be ) to the glory of God the Pather : And more fully St. Paul expresseth it , 1 Cor. 15. 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God even the Father , when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power : For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet : The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death : For he hath put all things under his feet ; but when he saith , All things are put under him , it is manifest that he is , excepted which did put all things under him , that God may be all in all ; Whence you may observe that the term [ God ] is distinctly put for the person of the Father , in contradistinction to the Son , and that it is the Father who appoints the Kingdom to the Son , that he puts his enemies under his feet , that the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father , that the issue or end is , that God to wit the Father , may be all in all , that is , in all the management of this Kingdom from the begining to the end the Father may be glorified by the Son , and by all others to whom the Kingdom is given . SECT . 2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the sense professed in the Nicene Creed . THis leads us to enquire concerning the terms [ Son of God , of Man , Christ , the Lord Jesus Christ ] which are the titles by which he is expressed , whose the Kingdom is said to be , and therefore we cannot rightly conceive of this Kingdom without understanding these terms : That the title the Son of the living God , given to Jesus Christ the Son of Man is a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith , is manifest from Christs approbation of Peters answer to Christs question to his Disciples Matth. 16. 13. Whom do men say that I the Son of man am ? To which St. Peter answered , verse 16. Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God , whereto it is said Jesus answered and said unto him , Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona , for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee , but my Father which is in Heaven : And again , when Jesus said to the twelve , Will ye also go away ? Simon Peter answered him , Lord , to whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life , and we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ the Son of the living God , John 6. 68 , 69. And when the Eunuch said to Philip , Acts 8. 36. See here is water , what doth hinder me to be Baptized ? Philip said , If thou believest with all thine heart thou maist , and he answered and said , I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God , verse 37. St. Paul Acts 9. 20. preached Christ in the Synagogues at Dimascus , that he is the Son of God. and John 1. 49. Nathanael said to Christ , Rabbi . thou art the Son of God , thou are the King of Israel . 1 John 2. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. verse 23. Whosoever denieth the Son , the same hath not the Father . 1 John 4. 15. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God , God dwelleth in him , and he in God. 1 John 5. 5. Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ? verse 11 , 12. And this is the record ▪ that God hath given to us eternal life , and this life is in his Son : He that hath the Son hath life , he that hath not the Son hath not life . Nevertheless there is great difference about this appellation [ the Son of God ] whether it import Divine Nature distinct from Humane , or Humane Nature , yet by Divine operation , not by the ordinary way of natural generation as other men are begotten , but by the supernatural operation of the Holy Ghost according to that of the Angel to Mary , Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee , and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee , shall be called the Son of God. Whence the Samosatenians and Photinians of old , so the Socinians in this last age deny that Jesus Christ had Being afore his conception by the Holy Ghost in the Virgins womb , but the Arians granting him to have a Divine Nature , say , that he was created by God the first creature out of nothing , and then that by him God the Father made all things else : In opposition to whom the Creed of the first Nicene Councel , as it is in Eusebius his Epistle to the Church of Caesarea set down by Arch-Bishop Usher in his Diatriba de Symbolis pag. 16. out of At hanasius operum tom . 2. pag. 48. edit . Commelinian Socrates lib. 1. Hist. c. 5. Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 12. and Gelasius Cyricenus in Act. Concil . Nic. part 3. c. 35. is thus : We believe also in one Lord Jesus Christ born the only begotten of the Father , that is of the substance of the Father , God of God , light of light , very God of very God , begotten not made , of the same substance with the Father , by whom all things were made , both the things in heaven , and the things in the earth : In which there are these propositions included , 1. That Jesus Christ was before any creature was made . 2. That he was begotten of the substance of the Father , not made of nothing , as the Arians held . 3. That he was very God of very God , of the same substance with the Father . 4. That by him all things were made , whether in Heaven or in Earth , which propositions are proved by these Texts of Scripture . SECT . 3. Christ's being the Son of God in the sense of the Nicene cre●d is proved from John 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 18. THe first Text of Holy Scripture which I shall produce to prove them is , John 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 18. where it is thus said , In the begining was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God , the same was in the begining with God : All things were made by him , and without him was not made any thing that was made , in him was life and the life was the light of men : And the light shineth in darkness , and the darkness comprehended it not : verse 9. He was the true light which enlightneth every man that cometh into the world , vers . 10. He was in the world , and the world was made by him , and the world knew him not , verse 14. And the Word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the Father , full of grace and truth . verse 15. John bare witness of him , and cried , saying , This is he of whom I spake , He that cometh after me is preferred before me , for he was before me . verse 18. No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father , he hath declared him . It is agreed on , that by [ the word ] is meant Jesus Christ , as appears from verse 17 , 29. and other passages in the Text , and therefore thence I argue : He who was in the beginning of the Creation with God , was God , by whom all things were made , whose life was the light of men , the true light inlightning every man that cometh into the world , by whom the world was made , who was made flesh , was the only begotten of the Father , in the bosom of the Father , before John the Baptist was , before any creature was made , begotten of the substance of the Father , not made of nothing , very God of very God , of the same substance with the Father , by whom all things were made : But such was Jesus Christ , therefore he was , before any creature was made , begotten of the substance of the Father , not made of nothing very God of very God , of the same substance with the Father , by whom all things were made : The minor is almost the express words of the Text , the major is evident from the equivolence of terms , it being all one to be God in the beginning by whom all things were made , the world was made , the only begotten of the Father in his bosom before John Baptist as to be before any creature was made , begotten of the substance of the father , not made of nothing , very God of very God , of the same substance with the Father , by whom all things were made . SECT . 4. The exceptions against the proof of Christs God-head from John 1. 1. &c. are set down . NEvertheless the major proposition of the argument is denied , and for a reason of the denial it is said . 1. That the scope of the Apostle , is to set forth by whom the Gospel began , as appeareth by the very appellation of [ the Word ] here given to Christ in regard of his Prophetical office in publishing the Gospel . 2. That by [ in the beginning ] is not meant the creation of Heaven and earth at first , but of the preaching the Gospel and the new creation , as is meant Mark 1. 1. Luke 1. 2. John 6. 64. and 8. 25. and 15. 27. and 16. 4. Acts 11. 15. Heb. 2. 3. 1 John 1. 1. and 2. 13 , 14 , 24. 2 John 5. 6. which note a special term of beginning , which was the time of Christs preaching , in respect of which he is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning , Luke 3. 23. to wit to preach the Gospel when he was about thirty years of age , not as it is translated , began to be about thirty years of age . 3. That he was with God in Heaven about that time , being taken up into the third Heaven , as Paul was , 2 Cor. 12. 2. and so was in the bosom of God , as is gathered from Iohn 3. 13 , 31 , 32. and Iohn 6. 62. 4. That he was a God as Moses is said to be Exod. 7. 1. because of the power he had to work miracles , and therefore Iohn 1. 1 , the Word is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and should be rendred [ a God ] not [ God or the God. ] 5. That by [ all things made by him ] is not meant the Heaven and Earth at the first creation , but the things or persons belonging to the new creation by Iesus Christ expressed in these places , 2 Cor. 5. 17 , 18 , 19. Ephes. 2. 10. Ephes. 3. 9. 6. That when it is said , the world was made by him ] the meaning is , the Church was reformed by him , or life eternal was revealed by him , called Heb. 2. 5. the world to come . 7. That his life was the light of men by his preaching : or that in him was life upon his Resurrection , and that this life was the light of men by saving them , and raising them up from the dead . 8. That it should not be read Iohn 1. 14. he was made flesh ; but the Word was flesh , that is , a man of humane weakness after he was a man , and so not meant of his humane nature at his incarnation , but his after condition in his life . 9. That as Isaack is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11. 17. by reason of his being Abraham's Heir , and extraordinary birth , not because he was the only begotten of the substance of Abraham : So Iesus Christ is termed the only begotten of the Father , not from his peculiar generation of the substance of the Father before the Heaven and Earth were made , but so other peculiarities , 1. Because he was by peculiar operation of the Holy Ghost generated in the Virgins womb , which is the reason of this title of the Son of God given to Christ by the Angel himself , Luke 1. 35. 2. Because of his special sanctification and mission , which is the reason given by Christ himself , Iohn 10. 36. 3. Because of his resurrection from the dead , which is the reason given by St. Paul Acts 13. 33. and therefore termed the first begotten from , or of the dead , Col. 1. 18. Rev. 1. 5. 4. Because of his singular exaltation and office , which is agreeable to what is said , Psal. 89. 27. and whereby he is termed the first born among many brethren , Rom. 8. 29. and by reason of his calling to the office of chief-Priest-hood that is applied to him , Heb. 5. 5. which is written , Psal. 2. 7. Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee . 10. That he was before Iohn Baptist , not in him , but in power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mightier , or stronger than him , which is the word used concerning the same speech in the other three Evangelists , Matth. 3 , 11. Mark 1. 7. Luke 3. 16. SECT . 5. The sense of John 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 18. given by the Adversaries , is refelled . I Reply , 1. That Irenaeus lib. 3. Adv. Heresies , c. 11. and others near the Apostles time , say , that the scope of the Evangelist Iohn in writing this Gospel was to oppose the Heresies of the Gnosticks , Ebion , Cerinthus , Marcion , Valentinus , and such others , as whether from Platonick Philosophy , or other fancies , corrupted the doctrine of the God-head , made Christ a meer man , contrary to which St. Iohn asserts his divinity in the beginning , and thence got the name of the Divine , and his Gospel to be that part of Scripture which doth most plainly deliver Theology or speech of God , and thereby as also in relating many Acts and Sermons of Christ omitted by other Evangelists which makes a supplement to their Histories . 2. That the series of the Apostles words , the expressions compared with Gen. 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. of [ in the beginning was the word with God , all things were made by him , the life was the light of men , the light shineth in darkness , and the darkness comprehended it not ] are so correspondent to each other , that none but will say , that at least St. John did allude to Moses his description of the first creation , and that he did use Moses his expressions , and therefore meant the same thing , hath been conceived not only by Christians , but also by A●relius the Platonist , as Eusebius , in his book of Evangelical preparation , lib. 11. c. 19. relates ; nor is it to be slightly passed over , which John Cameron observes in his answers to questions on the Epistle to the Hebrews , ch . 1. v. 2. concerning Gods manner of delivering mysteries in the Old Testament , that it was to be but dusky , as in the twi-light , until the Messias his time , who should fully discover the things of God as the Sun , when it is risen , doth things before obscured , and that the Apostle knew Christs creating the world in the beginning even from Gen. 1. For wherefore , saith he , I beseech you , should Moses ( which no where else is done in the whole Scripture ) so often bring in God speaking , let this and that be made , and after it was made ? For certainly God then used no speech as when he spake to the Prophets . It is but a cold answer , that Moses did so write , that it might be signified after a humane manner , that God made all things by his beck . For who doubts of that , or doth not indeed know , that to make the frame of the world God used no tools or engines ? Besides , if that were the intent , why is not also else-where God brought in using like speech , when he did some great work or miracle ? I do no whit doubt but John had an eye on that place , when he termed Christ the Word , as if he had said , that Christ was pointed out by those expressions ; He said , and it was made , although obscurely indeed , as befitted those times , even as also obscurely mention is made of the Holy Spirit , in the same chapter , when Moses said , and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters . For indeed at first view he seems to speak of some wind and so the Chaldee Paraphrast expounded that place . But because no reason can be given whence that wind should arise , or fit cause why it should move upon the waters , men might be inclined to conjecture that Moses in that place had respect to another thing . In the same manner plainly , sith no reason of so diligent and heedful an observation fit enough can be given , that God spake of each thing severally , Let it be made and it was made , there must be some mystery couched under those expressions : When therefore in the New Testament we are taught , that all things were made by Christ , let the Jews either open and explain to us that Mystery , or let them not shew themselves stiff in this matter . I confess indeed , that without the light of the Gospel , we should be hesitant here with the Jews ; but sith Christ is called the Word , and said to be he by whom God made all things , no man hath any more cause of doubting left , but that Moses would intimate it by that diligent observation which the words of the Psalmist , [ Psal. 33. 6. 9. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made , and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth : He spake and it was done , besides those word● Psal. 136. 5. to him that by wisdom ( which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as well as speech ) made the Heavens , Psal. 148. 5. he commanded and they were created , did so far intimate that the Chaldee Paraphrast , Isa. 45. 12. reads ; I in my word have made the earth , and created man upon it and Isa. 48. 13. By my word I have founded the earth , and Philo the Jew besides other sayings in his book of allegories shewing his inklings of his knowledge of this mystery , though dark saith , the word or reason , ( for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both ) made the world : These with many other allegations , which might be produced out of Jewish Writers , and others do evince , that the Evangelist means the same creation , when he saith all things were made by him , and the same beginning when he saith , In the beginning was the word , as Moses meant , when he said , In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth . Gen. 1. 1. 3. The sense of the words in which the force of the argument consists is according to the plain and obvious use of the words and phrases ; the other for the most part without example , and so streined , as that it may easily be perceived , they studied rather to wrest , than to interpret them ; as will appear by comparing the allegations and senses on both sides given in the particulars as they are in order examined in the next Section . 4. The Adversaries acknowledge , that the intent of the Evangelist in that which is said of Christ , was to set out Christ in what he was singular , and was excellent in him : But to expound his words as they do , is to make the Evangelist deliver things common to him with others , as to say , in the beginning was the Word , that is , preaching the Gospel , or in the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel the Word Christ was , that is , had a being , that he was with God , that is , was known of God , is to say no more than might be said of John Baptist ; to say he was with God to learn Mysteries is the same which St. Paul saith of himself , when he was rapt into Paradise , or is true of Moses when he conferred with God in the Mount ; to say all things were made by him , that is , by his preaching the Gentiles were become new creatures , is no more than might be said of Peter , Paul , and other Apostles ; to say he was a God in office , that he had Divine Power to work Miracles , is to say no more of him than might be said of Moses , of the Apostles , nor do they or can they give any good reason , which may agree with the Majesty and Wisdom of so divine a writing and Writer as this of John , to deliver things so obvious in so obscure Phrases , as are not congruous to a divine Historian , when the same might be , and were by other Evangelists delivered in plainer expressions ; nor why he should prefix those sacred Aphorisms before his History , if they contained no Mystery , but things easily perceivable by sense ; nor is such an end , as is imagined by some , to shew that John Baptist was not the Messias , any thing probable to have been propounded by John the Evangelist , who wrote long after John Baptist was dead ; nor could be , or was by any conceived to be the Christ : Such things as these can hardly be imputed to the Evangelist without some note of dotage . 5. To expound the words [ in the beginning was the Word ] that is , in the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel was the Word , that is , Christ was preaching of the Gospel , or the preaching of the Gospel was , is more like an inept tautology of a trifler , than the holy , wise saying of a Divine Writer . 6. The sense given by the Adversaries is in sundry things not true ; for in the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel Christ was not with God in Heaven , as they expound , verse 1. 2. his being with God , but was come from Heaven , and conversed familiarly with men ; nor is it true , that in the beginning of the Preaching of the Gospel ( be the beginning at John's beginning to preach , or Christs , or his Apostles , or the continuing of it in the daies of his flesh ) all things belonging to the new Creation , the new Covenant , the reconciling the world , the preaching and propagating of the Gospel were done by him . For the many Miracles of Christ were not done in the beginning of the Preaching of the Gospel , nor was his dying for us , nor the sending his Apostles , and their impowering by the coming of the Holy Ghost to them till after his Resurrection and Ascention : Yea those men who expound the words , John 1. 3. All things were done by him of divine and marvelous works , yet many divine marvelous works , as , the opening of the Heavens , the descent of the Spirit in the form of a Dove , the transfiguration and glory in the Mount , the rending the veil of the Temple , the Earthquake , cleaving the Rocks , opening the Graves , darkening of the Sun at his death , his Resurrection from the dead , they deny to have been done by Christ or the concurrence of his power or operation ; nor is it true in their sense , that without him was nothing done that was done ; For in the business of the preaching of the Gospel afore Christs manifestation to Israel , Iohn did preach and Baptize , and in the working of Miracles there were some that did cast out devils in Christs name , who followed not Christ , Luk. 9. 49. Nor is it true , that in their sense the world was made by Christ , that is the Gentiles reconciled by Christs Preaching or the world reformed ; for that was done by the Apostles after his Ascention : And if it be said , that after Christs Ascention all things were done by him , that the world was made by him , that was not in the beginning , in which they say , he was the Word , that is , did preach the Gospel , was a God , that is , did work Miracles , was with God , that is , was taken up into heaven , and therefore the making of all things , John 1. 3. cannot be understood according to their own exposition of [ in the beginning ] of Christs care in ordering and moderating all things belonging to his Church after his ascention , nor had any more been said of him as then done than may be said now , which is contrary to the adversaries grant , that some more than ordinary remarkable things is related of Christ by St. John in the first verses of his Gospel : Whence may be justly inferred that the Exposition given by them neither is consistent with the truth of things , nor the Evangelists words , nor their own sayings . SECT . 6. The reasons of the Adversaries Exposition of John 1. 1 , &c. are shewed to be insufficient . BUt besides other absurdities , which are in the Exposition of the Adversaries , the reasons they give are mistakes and insufficient for what they produce them : For in the first there is a great mistake , as if the Evangelist used the term [ Word ] to intimate by whom the Preaching of the Gospel began ; For Christ is not termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which we translate [ the Word ] because he was Gods Messenger to declare Gods mind to us in the Gospel ; the term [ Word ] is not fit to expresse a deputy , but the term [ Ambassador , Lega●e ] but because it signifies Reason , and Wisdom , and therefore fitly expresseth Christ , who was the Wisdom of God , by whom he made all things at the beginning of the Creation , Psal. 136. 5. Prov. 3. 19. with whom he was when he prepared the Heavens , Prov. 8. 27. to which the Evangelist alludes , when he saith , John 1. 2. the same was in the beginning with God , and the Authour of the Book of Wisdom , ch . 9. 2. alluding to that , Gen. 1. 26. Let us make man in our Image , saith , who hast framed man in thy Wisdom , or , because all things are said to be made by the Word of God , as in the places before alledged , Psal. 33. 6. 9. Psal. 148. 5. alluding without doubt to the expressions , Gen. 1. 3 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 20 , 24 , 26 , 28. and accordingly the holy Writers in the New Testament , expresse the first Creation , as done by the Word of God. St. Paul 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness . Heb. 11. 3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God. 2 Pet. 3. 5. For this they willingly are ignorant of , that by the Word of God , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the heavens were of old , and the Earth standing out of the water , and in the water , or as it may be read , consisting of water , and by water ; for which reason the Chaldee Paraphrast in abundance of places , especially where Gods creating of Heaven and Earth is signified , useth this expression , I have done it by my Word , as Isa. 45. 12. and 48. 13. Hos. 1. 7. whence it is apparent that St. John used the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Word as a title known to the Jews , answering to the Chaldee , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and that , as Heinsius Arist. sac . exercit . in non . c. 3. observes , it undoubtedly comes from the East , not from the Greeks , and that by reason of his relating Gods acts , especially the Creation , as done by the Word , it is not given by the Evangelist to Christ , to signifie his preaching of the Gospel , but his creation of the World at first , and consequently to be understood of his Divine Nature , in which he created all things in the beginning of the world ; nor doth the speech , 1 John 1. 1 , 2. that what was from the beginning which he and other Apostles had seen with their eyes , and their hands handled of the Word of Life , prove , that the term [ Word of Life ] imports only Christs humane nature , or that he is so termed from preaching the Gospel : For it is not said , that they handled or saw the Word of life , but they heard , saw , handled , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Word of life , that is as verse 2. And the life was manifested and we have seen , and witness , and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father , and was manifested unto us , that is , as is expressed , 1 Tim. 3. 16. God was manifested in the flesh ; so that what they heard , saw , handled , concerning the Word of Life , or Divine Nature was manifested in the flesh by his words of command to unclean Spirits to depart , to the Winds and Seas to be still , by his Miracles which they saw , felt , tasted , whereby he manifested his glory , Joh. 1. 14. and 2. 11. and 11. 40. whence Christ argues , John 10 , 37 , 38. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not , But if I do , though ye believe not me , believe the works , that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me , and I in him . John 14. 10 , 11. The words that I speak unto you I speak not of my self , but the Father that dwelleth in me , he doth the works : Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me ; or else believe me for the very works sake ; nor is Christ described , Rev. 19. 13. where he is called [ the Word of God ] as a Prophet to shew that the title [ Word of God ] imported his preaching , but as a Warriour to shew his power ; not as the Essay on Rev. 19. 13. Because he came immediately from the Divine Majesty in Heaven to publish the Gospel to the world , and had full power to do whatsoever miracles he pleased . 2. It is true that [ in the beginning ] is wont to be restrained to the matter in hand , nor is it denied but that in many of the places alledged in the second exception [ in the beginning ] is meant of the preaching of Christ , nor is it material in this point , whether [ beginning ] Luke 3. 23. be referred to Christs age , or the preaching of the Gospel , though the latter be lesse probable , because then when Christ was Baptized of John he had not begun to preach the Gospel till after his temptation in the Wilderness . But the thing to be proved is , that the preaching of the Gospel is the matter in hand , Joh. 1. 1 , 2. The word [ the beginning ] is used John 8. 44. 1 John 3. 8. Mat. 19. 4 , 8 ▪ and 24. 21. Mark. 10. 6. and 13. 19. Heb. 1. 10. 2 Pet. 3. 4. for the beginning of the Creation , and the very expressions , John 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 〈◊〉 , 5 , 10. and other evidences before alledged shew it , answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 1. 1. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as John 1. 1. and in both places are delivered with the like agreableness to Gods Majesty in creating , that even as Longinus the Philosopher magnified Moses his description of the Creation , so Franciscus Junius that eminent Divine was taken with the reading of John 1. 1. &c. and from his inclinations to Atheism was by it brought to the knowledge of Christ , as he relates in the narration of his own life . As for the sense the Adversaries give , In the beginning was the Word , that is , in the beginning of the Gospel was the Word , that is , the man Christ Jesus called the Word , in that he was the immediate Interpreter of God , by whom he revealed his counsel touching our salvation , as we are wont to disclose our secrets by our words , which reason , it is said , may not obscurely be collected from the 18. v. of the same chapter , and the Word was with God , being taken up into Heaven , that so he might talk with God , and be indeed his Word , or the immediate Interpreter of his Will , and receive the most certain and absolute knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven which he was to propound to men , it hath no colour from the Text ; For neither is it said , in the beginning of the Gospel , nor the appellation of [ the Word ] is given to Christ in regard of his Prophetical Office , nor is it said in the beginning the Word was preaching , but simply was , noting his existence , not his acting ; nor will the order of the Apostles Propositions consist with the sense they give , for then St. John should have said thus : In the beginning the Word was with God , and after he had been with God , he came down from Heaven and was the Word , that is , preached the Gospel , and then he was a God , as being endued with divine Power and Empire , to cast out Devils , and to do great works , as Moses did ; whereas the first thing he sets down in the being of Christ in the beginning , and then his being with God , and his being God , and the making of all things by him , which can be applied in this order to no beginning , but that of the Creation , and therefore [ in the beginning ] must be understood of the first Creation of all things , and not of the publishing the Gospel , as they would have it . 3. This consideration also overthrows their sense of the words [ was with God ] of his being taken up into Heaven , that so he might talk with God , and be indeed his Word . For if it were meant of his taking up into Heaven in a humane body ( as 2 Cor. 12. 2. is said of Paul ) then it should have been put first , whereas it is the second and fourth Proposition , John 1. 1 , 2. and being repeated , v. 2. and then it following , verse 3. all things were made by him , and without him not one thing was made that was made , it plainly shews that the meaning is , that he was with God in the work of Creation of the Heaven and Earth , so as that all things were made by him as the Son of God , or God with the Father : As for the words , verse 18. of his being in the bosom of his Father , they do not shew his receiving instructions from God , as a Messenger , taken up into Heaven , that he might be sent down again to deliver his Message perfectly and amply , but the love ▪ and intimacy and nearness to his Father , in that he was his only begotten Son , and therefore was perfectly acquainted with him , and his mind : And it seems to me that the Evangelist alluded , John 1. 1 , 2 , 18. to the passages which are Prov. 8. 29 , 30. When he gave to the Sea his decree , that the waters should not passe his commandement , when he appointed the foundations of the Earth , then I was by him as one brought up with him , ( Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Foster Child , Aquila , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nursed as a Child in the bosom ) and I was daily his delight , rejoycing alwaies before him , which is the opinion of Grotius annot . ad J● . 1. 1. Prov. 8. 27. and many others , and shews , that the being in the bosom was not as a Servant to be imployed , but as a Son , in whom he delighted , as is said , Matth. 3. 17. and 17. 5. As for that which hath been immagined concerning the meaning of the words , The Word was with God , John 1. 1 , 2. as if it were thus , He was known to God , though unknown to men till he was manifested by John , as it is partly false , sith he was known to Mary his Mother , Zecharias , Elizabeth , Simeon , Anna , Joseph , to the Wise men of the East , as the Son of God , King of the Jews , a horn of Salvation out of the house of David , the Lord , the rising from on high , the light of the Gentiles , the glory of the people Israel , the Lords Christ , as may be perceived by reading Luke 1. and 2. ch . Mat. 1. and 2. so is it frivolous , as being without any example of such use of the expressions , and contrary to the use of the phrase , which still notes presence of being , or subsist●nce , or cohab●●ation , as Mat. 13. 55 , 56. Mark 6. 3. and 9. 19. Luke 9. 41. 1 Cor. 16. 6. &c. and signifies Joh. 1. 1 , 2. his being with God in the beginning of the Creation , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with thee , Joh. 17. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Prov. 8. 30. which the Chaldee Paraphrast reads , at his side , and Exod. 20. 19. Let not the Lord speak with us by the Word which is before the Lord , and the Wisdom of Solomon as it is stiled , ch . 9. 9. saith thus : And wisdom was with thee which knoweth thy works , and was presen● when thou madest the world , where the translators in the margin not unfitly place Prov. 8. 22. Joh. 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 10. as parallel Texts to shew the presence and co-operation of the Word in the making of the World ; which shew the Jews had some ●nkling of the Words subsistence at the Creation , though the writing be Apocryphal , nor doth his being with the Father John 1. 1 , 2. signifie objective presence , but essential . As for the device of Christs being taken up into heaven in his humane body , as it is a late invention , so it is improbable , sith no certain time or other circumstance is expressed in the Evangelists , in which it should be , which in so remarkable a thing it 's not likely would have been omitted any more than in Paul's narration of himself , 2 Cor. 12. 2. if such an ascention had been ; nor is the reason given that he should be taken up to Heaven that he might talk with God , and receive the most certain and absolute knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven , which he was to propose to men , probable , sith another reason is given of his knowledge , John. 3. 34. For he whom God hath sent , speaketh the words of God : For God giveth not the Spirit by measure to him ; nor is he any where said to go from the Earth , and to return thither ; and when Christ speaks of his going to Heaven , he saith , Luke 24. 26. Ought not Christ to suffer these things , and to enter into his glory ? Which intimates his going to Heaven , to have followed his sufferings , and Heb. 9. 12. the Authour of that Epistle saith , By his own blood he entred in once into the holy place , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be read once , or for once , or at once , it notes but one time entring into heaven with his blood , as his offering was but once , Heb. 10. 10. and not often as the High-Priest Aaronical did . As for what is alledged , [ that John 6. 38 , 46 , 51 , 62. Christ affirmeth that he came down from Heaven , and had seen God , and that he was the living bread which came down from Heaven , whereof whosoever did eat should live for ever ; so the bread which he would give was his flesh , which he would give for the life of the world : And afterwards asketh the Jews , what if they should see the Son of man ascending up where he was before ? namely , before he began to preach the Gospel , as he himself intimateth , John 8. 42. Where he saith , if God were your Father , you would love me , for I went out from God , and came : for neither came I of my self , but he sent me : And John 16. 28. Where he saith , I came out from the Father , and came into the world : Again ( or rather on the contrary ) I leave the world , and go to the Father : which going forth from the Father , every one may easily perceive , by the opposition of the following clause , is meant of a local procession of Christ from God , and that before the discharge of his Embassy : for to come , or to come into the world signifieth to treat with men in the name of God , and to perform a publick Office among men , See Iohn 1. 15. 27 , 30. and Iohn 1. 5 , 20. Mat. 11. 3 , 18 , 19. Ioh. 17. 18. compared with chap. 16. 21. and chap. 18. 37. ] it evinceth not a bodily ascent into Heaven of Christ to learn of God afore his publishing the Gospel , For it is not said whither he ascended before , but was before , which notes presence there , but not local motion ; nor is it said in his humane body ; though it be said , the Son of man was there before ; yet this may be understood by the figure of communication of properties very frequent in speeches of Christ , according to his Divine Nature ; nor is he said to be there before his preaching the Gospel , restraining the time to it ; it may be meant of his being in Heaven afore the World was , as it is said , Iohn 17. 5. nor is it said , Christs flesh came from heaven , or that he came from Heaven by local motion , or saw God by his eyes of flesh ; his coming and seeing God , may be understood of his Divine Nature in respect of which he was of Heavenly Original , though his being bread be meant of his flesh and humane nature in which he suffered , and his coming out from God , and coming John 8. 42. is expounded of his receiving commission from God , as the words shew , neither came I of my self , that is , I have not taken upon me this Office , I now administer of mine own motion only , but he sent me ; nor is coming out from the Father necessarily understood , of coming out from the Father , and coming into the world by local procession ; but the coming out from the Father may be meant of receiving commission from his Father , or his original being , and his coming into the world either of his humane birth , or as the allegation expresseth it , his treating with men in the Name of God , and performing a publick office among men , unto one of which , the Texts produced lead us , and not to the sense of local procession in his humane body , nor doth the opposition prove it , for the sense may be right thus : I came out from the Father by generation , and taking my commission from him , and came into the world by humane birth , or as it is , Iohn 12. 46. A light into the world by my preaching the Gospel , and again , or on the contrary , I leave the world by death , or removing from the Earth , and go by my bodily ascent to the Father : As for Iohn 3. 13. neither is the coming down from Heaven , nor his being in Heaven necessarily understood of removal from Earth to Heaven , and back again by bodily motion , but may be meant of his being in Heaven in his Divine nature , and coming down from Heaven by being made flesh , or receiving his commission from God , in respect of one or both of which he is said , verse 31. to come from Heaven , from above , in opposition to being of the Earth by humane generation , or authority . And verse 32. he is said to have seen and heard by his intimacy with his Father , and the communication of the Spirit . verse 34. not by his bodily eyes or ears upon a supposed personal humane presence and conference with God in Heaven . 4. The Apellation of God given to the Word , Job . 1. 1. is not from his Office as altogether Divine , as being above Prophets , whose Office , if compared with Christs , was humane ; For Moses was a Prophet of whom God said , Numb . 12. 8. With him will I speak mouth to mouth , even apparently , and not in dark speeches , and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold : and St. Paul was rapt into the third Heaven , and heard words unspeakable , 2 Cor. 12. 4. and yet neither of them termed God ; yea , St. Paul abhorred it with indignation , Acts 14. 11 , 15. such persons may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine men , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods : nor is the Word termed God , as endued with Divine Power : For then Moses might be so termed , for he was a Prophet endued with Divine Power and Empire , so as to controul Pharaoh and to work Miracles : But Moses is not termed God , though God said to him , I have made thee a God to Pharaoh , Exod. 7. 1. and thou shalt be to Aaron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or instead of God , that is , as a Prince or Master to command or direct him Exod. 4. 16. But the Word , it 's said , Iohn 1. 1. was God absolutely , noting what he was in himself , not relatively what he was to another , shewing what he was in nature and power , not what he was designed for , or what his imployment or work should be , or what he was in Office , no whit expressing from whom , to whom , for what he was sent , or what he did , but what he was : And his being God is said to be in the beginning , not in the progress of his preaching in which he did Miracles , nor after his Resurrection when all Power was given him in Heaven and in Earth , Mat. 28. 18. nor after his ascention , when he was exalted by the right hand of God , Acts 2. 33. God made him both Lord and Christ , verse 36. But in the beginning of the Creation , when he made all things , and therefore was God the Creatour , as the Authour to the Hebrews ch . 3. 4. asserts , He that built , or framed all things is God : where it may be observed , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is put without the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and yet by God is there meant not a substituted God by Office , but God the Creatour , and Iohn 1. 6 , 12 , 13 , 18. and in a great number of other places it is likewise used ; and therefore notwithstanding this exception the Word is to be believed to have been God Creatour , very God of very God in the beginning of the Creation at first , as v. 3. is asserted . 5. That the making of all things by the Word is not meant of the new Creation is proved before Sect. 13. and that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Iohn 1. 3 ; 10. translated by us made , are used of the first Creation is manifest from the use , Heb. 4. 3. and 11. 3. 1 Cor. 15. 45. as Gen. 2. 7. and Gen. 1. 3 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 20 , 24. and 2. 4. and therefore the creation of all things of the world at first , is fi●ly expressed by those words , Iohn 1. 3 , 10. and so the universal Creation at first ascribed to the Word : Nor is it any deminution to Christ , that it is said , all things were made by him , and without him was nothing made which was made , and the world was made by him . For the expressions by him , not without him do not note alwaies an instrument , even Rom. 11. 36. It is said , all things are of him , and by him , and for him , who is the Lord , to whom glory belongs for ever ; but shews the order and co-operation of the Father and the Word in the Creation . As for the passage , 2 Cor. 5. 17. it is granted to be meant of the new state of things by Christs reconciling the world to God , verse 18. but it is not like the words , Iohn 1. 3 , 10. where all things are said , to be made , not made new by him , and old things past away , and all things are said to be made by him in the beginning ; Whereas the making all things new by reconciling the World to God , was by Christs being made sin for them , ver . 21. by his death , and therefore not in the beginning of his preaching the Gospel , and therefore cannot be meant of the same creation , Ephes. 2. 10. The Ephesians are said to be created in Christ Iesus unto good works , not by Christ Jesus , but to be Gods Work. The words Ephes. 3. 9. may be more rightly understood of the first Creation , in which Christ was co-worker , which the words from the beginning of the world seem to intimate ; however they are not like Iohn 1. 3. in expressions , and therefore evince not , that they are to be both understood of the same thing . 6. The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signifie no other than either the frame of Heaven and Earth , or the Inhabitants in it , as Iohn 17. 5 , 17. Iohn 1. 9 , 29. and 3. 16. and many more places , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can have no other signification , than was made by him , at the first creation . For the World was made by him afore he was in it , and it knew him not , it being put as an aggravation of their perverseness , that the world that was made by him , knew him not , which can be verified of no time , but the first creation ; which is confirmed by the two next verses : For verse 9. Coming into the World is meant , of appearing among men , whether by birth or other manifestation , and therefore the world must signifie , verse 9. the Earth or Men , and so , verse 10. which is apparent in that , when it is said , the world knew him not , it must be expounded , men knew him not , and the words following , he came unto his own , and his own received him not , verse 11. must be understood of men , whether his own be meant of men simply , or men that he had special relation to as Country men , or Kinsmen . And for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate [ was made ] as here put , it never signifies any other thing than was , or was made , or was begotten , not revealing , preaching , or renewing . Nor does the Word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World ] signifie , being put without any further addition or expression , heaven , or immortality , or eternal life . The place , Rom. 4. 13. that Abraham should be heir of the World , if meant of his own natural posterity inheriting , is to be conceived meant of the Promised Land ; if of Christ , of the Empire of the world , as Psal. 2. 8. is foretold ; if of his seed by Faith , to be co-heirs with Christ , Rom. 8. 17. if ( as it is most likely from the connexion with the 11th . and 12th . verse ) of the world of Believers Jews , and Gentiles of whom he is Father , still it is meant of mens persons , not their meer state and condition , Heb. 10. 5. the coming into the world , is coming among men , and that to offer himself in Sacrifice , and the preparing of his body is not making it immortal , but fitting it for death , as verse 10 , 12. do plainly shew ; Neither of the places , Heb. 2. 5. or , 6. 5. have the word translated World , John 1. 10. in the one the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desart , in the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and notes the course of time , place , or generation future ; neither the state it self of eternal life , which is distinct from the world to come , Luke 18. 30. and cannot be meant of the world made by Christ , John 1. 10. which is not future , but was existent when Christ was in it . For the same reasons , by the world made by Christ , cannot be meant the Church reformed by him ; For if by the world be elsewhere meant the Church of the Elect , or world of Believers reconciled to God ( as is conceived to be meant , Iohn 6. 51. 2 Cor. 5. 19. &c. ) yet here it cannot be meant , because it is said , the world knew him not , received him not , even that world which was made by him ; but the Church of the Elect , or , Believers reconciled to God , knew him , and received him : Nor doth any where the word [ was made ] put as here , signifie was renewed , enlightned , reformed ; nor if it were so used , could it be here , sith the world knew him not , nor received him , which is said to be made by him : And to say that the meaning is , the world was made by him , that is , the world was so far as concerned his action , as much as in him lay , enlightned , renewed , reformed , though not in the event , so as to note Christs study and endeavour , not the effect , is without all example ; sith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth note being , and effect of the thing , not intention or action of the agent , and so the Church of Elect would be no more made by him than others , and it would be clean contrary to the Apostles intention to shew the event of his being in the world , that notwithstanding the world was made by him , yet they were so averse from him , as not to know him , and so perverse as not to receive him ; understanding Synecdochically , the greater part ( as 2 Pet. 2. 5. and elsewhere the world is put for the multitude , or greatest part ) distinct from them that received him , verse 12 , 13. 7. The life which is said was in the Word , was in him in the beginning , not restored to him at his Resurrection , and it is said was in him , not as John 11. 25. and 14. 6. he was the life causally and relatively to others , but in him , that is in himself , and so notes what he had in respect of his Essence , and natural Being , not by his Office , or communicated Power in that respect . And when it is said , the life was the light of men , it is not said , the life shall be the light of men , but was so in the beginning ; Nor is it said , it was the light of men as dead or fallen , but of men simply as men , and so cannot be understood of the light infused by regeneration , or restored by raising from the dead , but communicated by Creation , and notes the natural light of reason and understanding wherewith Christ inlightens every man which cometh into the World , verse 9. of which more may be seen in my Book of The true old Light exalted , Serm. 1. on Joh. 1. 9. Nor is it to the contrary , that ver . 5. it is said , and the light shineth in the darkness , and the darkness comprehended it not : For taking the shining by enallage of tense ( as it must be , whether it be meant of shining by creation or Preaching ) for the time past , and the sense be , and the light shined in the darkness ; it may be meant of the beginning of the Creation allusively to Gen. 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. and in the sense of the Apostle , 2 Cor. 4. 6. God spake , to wit , by the Word , that the light should shine out of darkness , and the darkness did not comprehend it ; or if the sense be , Christ the true light when he came into the world , shined among dark men , and they did not comprehend him , or his Doctrine which he taught ; it proves not that verse 4. is not meant of Christs life by nature , and his life being the light of men , by creation of them with understanding in the beginning . For as ver . 9 , 10 , 11. the stupidity and perversness of men is shewed , that notwithstanding Christ made the world , and enlightens all men , yet when he was in the world , and preached to them , they knew not , nor received him ; so in like manner , v. 4. 5. to the same purpose with good congruity of sense and reason the Evangelist , to shew the great alienation of men from their Creatour , saith , that though in the Word was life in the beginning , and his life was the cause of mens natural light in the creation of Adam , and Eve the Mother of all living , yet when he the true light shined by his preaching among men , who were by sin and ignorance in darkness , and the shadow of death , the dark Spirits of men did not comprehend , understand , and receive him and his Doctrine . 8. That Flesh is as much as a man simply as man , is obvious out of many passages in holy Scripture , and particularly , John 17. 2 , &c. and that it notes Christs humane nature or humane body as such is manifest from John 6. 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , &c. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred was made , as John 1. 3 , 10. and the sense , as in Rom. 1. 3. Gal. 4. 4. Heb. 2. 14. and such places , is , that he was incarnate or made a man , and that this was a voluntary act in taking a humane nature , not a part of his sufferings is manifest from what is added , he was made flesh , and dwelt among us , which notes an act of his will or choice , and imports his assumption of a humane body , that it might be an everlasting habitation for his Divine Majesty , and therein converse with man ; And that he was made flesh , not under the notion of weakness but humane nature , is evident from the words following , and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the Father , which shews that in his flesh , which he was made , his glory , that is , his Divine Majesty was beheld in the great works he did in his humane body , and that he dwelt in or among us , full of grace & truth ; which shew [ that he was made flesh ] notes not his weakness but humane Nature having Power and Excellency . Adde hereto that the Being of the Word was expressed before , John 1. 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 , 10. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was , therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , verse 14. must be meant of his being made a man besides his being the Word . And to say the Word , who was a man , was a man ; had been to trifle , to say nothing but what might be said of every man ; yea , and that which was discernable by sense , and so needless to be testified by John , who intended to express Divine Mysteries concerning Christ in things that were singular and excellent , and could be known but by revelation from God : and this reason overthrows this sense , the Word that is the Interpreter of Gods Will , was flesh , that is , a man of infirmities ; for then no more had been said of him , than might have been said of John Baptist , and other prophets ; The sense then must be this and no other , The Word which was in the beginning , was with God , was God , by whom all things were made , and without whom nothing was made that was made , in whom was life , and the life was the light of men , enlightning every man that someth into the world , by whom the world was made , was in the fulness of time made a man in a humane body having his Divine Majesty dwelling in him full of Grace and Truth , so that we beheld his Glory in his Miracles , his Grace and Truth in his Holy and Wise Doctrine such as manifested him to be the only begotten of the Father . 9. The terms , John 1. 15. the only begotten of the Father , verse 18. the only begotten which is in the bosom of the Father , must be understood of Generation , before the World was made , of the substance of the Father . For the term notes Generation , and so subsistence from his Substance , not Creation out of nothing , or created matter as Adam , nor can he be said to be the only begotten Son of the Father , from his peculiar forming as man , expressed Luke 1. 35. for Adam who was formed without the help of man , and called the Son of God , Luke 3. 38. was so , as much the only begotten Son of God , as the Word , or Jesus Christ. Nor is he said to be the only begotten of the Father by reason of his peculiar love : for the peculiar love is from his peculiar Sonship , not that the form or cause of it : nor is he said to be the Son of God by regeneration , as they that believe in Christ are the Sons of God , John 1. 13. for so many are Sons of God ; nor from his peculiar mission , resurrection or exaltation . For though these proved him the only begotten of the Father as evidences thereof , yet not as causes of his Son-ship . But he is intituled the only begotten Son of the Father from his proper generation and Sonship , whence he is stiled his Son , Rom. 8. 3. his own proper Son , verse 32. not adopted but natural , otherwise Adam might be from his original as well stiled his own proper Son. That Christ Jesus is in respect of his natural generation , before the world was , the only begotten Son of God may be evinced , 1. From Mat. 16. 13 , 16 , 17. Christ asking , whom do men say that I the Son of man am , it being answered , verse 14. Some say John the Baptist , others Elias , others Jeremias , or one of the Prophets ; our Lord Christ further presseth them to tell him , whom they said him to be , verse 15. plainly intimating , that these opinions of him were short of what they were to esteem him , whereupon Simon Peter answered and said , verse 16. Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God , to whom Christ replies , verse 17. Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona , for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee , but my Father which is in the Heavens . which plainly shews , 1. that the confessing him to be the Son of God , was more than to be the Son of Man , John Baptist , Elias , Jeremiah or one of the Prophets . 2. That this being the Son of God , was such a thing as was not to be revealed by flesh and blood , but by his Father in Heaven , therefore it was not his being Gods Son , by the supernatural conception of the blessed Virgin , for that she could tell , both by her own knowledge of her Virginity , and the Angels revelation ; nor by special mission , for that had been , but as one of the Prophets , as Moses , and had been discernable by flesh and blood upon the sight of his great works , to which he often appealed , as demonstrating him to be sent of his Father as the Messiah , John 14. 10 , 11. nor as Mediatour only ; for then there had been no more acknowledged by Peters confessing him to be the Son of the living God , than by confessing him to be the Christ , therefore he was the Son of the living God by generation of his Fathers Substance before the world was , which his Father onely could reveal . 2. This is further proved from these Texts of Scripture which make it the demonstration of the greatest love of God in giving his only begotten Son , John 3. 16. not sparing his own Son , but giving him up for us all , Rom. 8. 32. But this had not been such a commendation of his love , if Christ had been only a supernaturally conceived man specially commissionated as Mediatour , if he had not been the Son of God by generation before the world was , of his Fathers substance , it had not been more than the not sparing holy Angels but giving them for us ; therefore he must be the Son of God , by such generation of the Fathers substance , as he had before the world was . 3. Heb. 3. 4 , 5 , 6. our Lord Christ is preferred before Moses , as being a Son over his own house , and this house built by himself , who built all things , and therefore God , whereas Moses was but faithful as a Servant in Gods house , not his ow● , therefore Christ is the Son of God , as he is God with his Father , building or framing all things , and consequently the Son of God by generation of his Fathers substance , before the World was . 4. It is said Heb. 5. 8. Though he were a Son , yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered , which shewed a singular demission of himself in his obedience ; but if he had been only a Son by creation as the Angels , or as a meer man , by supernatural conception in the Virgins womb , there had been ▪ no such demission of himself by agreement or accord as here , and Heb. 10. 7. is set forth ; his subjection had not been free but necessary as being Gods creature , if he had not been the Son of God by natural generation of his substance before the world was . If he had been the Son of God , only as sent by God , to be Mediatour , there had been a tautology , to say , although he was sent by God to be Me●ia●our , yet he did obey as Mediatour , and being consecrated or perfected became Authour of salvation to them that obey him ; which is as if he had said , though he were Mediatour , yet he was Mediatour , which had been ●ugatory . As for that which is chiefly objected , that the reason of this title [ the Son of God ] given to Christ is from the peculiar Generation he had by the operation of the holy Ghost : Besides that which is already said , that such a forming was of Adam at first , who was not the Son of God in that singular manner that Christ was , and if there were no other reason of his being the Son of God , but this , he should be termed peculiarly the Son of the Spirit , whereas he is stiled the only begotten of the Father , it is said , that holy thing which shall be born of thee , intimates that what should be born of her was holy , and had being before that birth of the Virgin , and that his being called the Son of God , was not for that as the cause , at least not the sole cause , and that his being called the Son of God , was a consequent of being that holy thing , God with us , as it is Mat. 1. 23. The other Texts , John 10. 36. Acts 13. 33. Heb. 5. 5. &c. do only prove , that his singular mission , resurrection , and Priest-hood demonstrated him to be the Son of God , not made him such ; for then he had not been the Son of God before these , whereas the Angels words shew , Luke 1. 35. and the Adversaries yeild , he was the Son of God from his Generation and Birth of the blessed Virgin . 10. It is true the speech John 1. 15 , 27 , 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being translated , is prefered before me , may be well conceived to be the same , or to answer to that which is Mat. 3. 11. Mark 1. 7. Euke 3. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is stronger than I , or is more prevalent , or more powerful than I : But the words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for he was before me , must note priority of time : For 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was , notes his actual existence , what he was in Being , not what he was to be in Gods Intention . 2. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first , note not only priority of order , but also of rule and power , and is sometimes as much as the chief , yet it cannot be so meant , John 1. 15 , 27 , 30. For 1. That was before expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , rendred well , was preferred before me , noting chiefdom , preheminence or power , and therefore must note something distinct from it , otherwise it would be a tri●ling tautology , and therefore it must be understood of priority of Essence , in duration and excellency of being before him , which alone may well be conceived as the cause of his praelation . 2. If Christ had not being before John Baptist , it could not be well said as it is , v. 16. by him including himself , And of his fulness we all have received , and grace for grace , sith John had his being as man before Christ , and was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb , Luke . 1. 15. SECT . 7. Christs Generation before the world was , is proved from John. 8. 58. CHrists being the Son of God afore his incarnation is proved from his words , John 8. 58. verily , verily I say unto you , Before Abraham was I am . The occasion of which words was from that which our Lord Christ in the Temple , spake to the Jews , ver . 51. verily , verily , I say unto you , if a man keep my saying he shall never see death : Which the Jews conceived so notorious an untruth , that they inferred he must be possessed by the Devil , sith Abraham , was dead , and other holy men . To which our Lord Christ replied , that he honoured , not himself , but his Father honoured him , that Abraham rejoyced to see his day and saw it and was glad , which did intimate that he had seen Abraham , and Abraham him , else how could he say , he rejoyced to see his day and saw it , and was glad ? This was accounted by the Jews for a greater untruth , so that they reply to him , thou art not yet fifty years old , and hast thou seen Abraham , dead near two thousand years before ? to whom Christ returns this constant asseveration no whit revoking or mincing his former speech , Verily , verily , I say unto you , Before Abraham was , I am ; which both the occasion , the manner of expression , and the words plainly shew to have this sense , Before Abraham was a man in rerum naturâ , before Abraham was conceived in the womb , or born , I am , that is , have and had a being ; which can be understood of no other than his divine Nature , far exceeding the time of Abraham's being ; which the Jews conceived , he meant as they did , when he said , John 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto and I work ; that he said also that God was his Father , making himself equal with God , ver . 18. and when he said John 10. 30. I and my Father are one , that being a man he made himself God , ver . 33. which they accounted Blasphemy , and would have stoned him for these sayings : Yet did not Christ revoke his speech , but hid himself , and after went out of the Temple , going through the midst of them , and so passed by , verse 59. and therefore his words have this assertion , that he had a Being before Abraham , which can be no other than his Divine Nature by Generation , of the substance of his Father before the world was . The exceptions against this inference , are 1. That it should be read , being in the Aorist . before Abraham , is to be , or shall be , or is made Abraham , that is , the Father of many Nations by the calling and graffing in the Gentiles , into the true Olive : I am as it is ver . 12. the light of the world , or the Messiah ; as when he said , verse 24. If ye believe not that I am , that is , the Messiah , ye shall dye in your sins ; and verse 28. when ye have lift up the Son of man ye shall know that I am , that is , the Messiah . 2. That Jesus was before Abraham by Divine constitution , which Grotius annot . on John 8. 58. makes the sense as John 17. 5. Apocal. 13. 8. 1. Pet. 1. 20. and Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase of John 8. 58. thus expounds it : Jesus answered that objection of theirs ; You are much mistaken in my age . For 1. I have a being from all Eternity , and so before Abraham was born , and therefore as young as you take me to be , in respect of my age here , I may well have seen and known Abraham . But then 2. In respect of my present appearance here on Earth , though that be but a little above thirty years duration , yet long before Abraham ' s time , it was decreed by my Father , and in kindness to Abraham revealed to him , while he lived ; in which respect it is true that he knew me also . To which I reply . 1. That the words either way expounded had been impertinent , as not answering the objection , verse 57. of Christs age not exceeding fifty , and therefore he could not see Abraham ; For his being a man before the Gentiles were called , Gods Constitution and Decree , and the Revelation of it to Abraham , that in his seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed , was altogether besides the thing Christ was to do , to wit , the verifying of this , that he had seen Abraham , Abraham being a person , not signifying any where the calling of the Gentiles , and Christs seeing him , an Action , which presupposeth an existent substance , in which it must be . And therefore if Christs words had imported no more than this , that before the Gentiles should be called , Christ was the Messiah , or God had decreed and revealed his being the Messiah to Abraham , Christs speech might have been false , that he had seen Abraham : Yea , it had been nugatory , for Christ had said no more of himself than might be said by any of the Jews , that he was in Gods Decree before the calling of the Gentiles ; and it had been also false , that before Abraham was Father of many Nations , Christ had a being , or was the light of the world , if he had no being afore his Incarnation , sith Abraham was Father of many Nations , Israelites , Ishmaeli●es , Edomites , and in some sort a spiritual Father of many Nations , by the adjoyning themselves to the people of the God of Abraham , Psal. 47. 8 , 9. afore Christ was born . And it had been delusory , and aenigmatical to understand the words before Abraham's being of the future time , when the objection was of his being long before ; and to make the answer to be of Abraham under a spiritual consideration , when the objection was of him as the natural Progenitour of the Jews , and of Christ in respect of his Office or Imployment , when the objection was of his natural duration , which had been contrary to Christs manner of teaching , averring and vindicating his speeches : For though sometimes he answer obliquely , and teach by consequences , leaving his auditors to consider his words , yet still his replies are solid , pertinent and convincing . And though the Exposition of some of them have no small difficulty , yet his speeches are not in such an aenigmatical and dark manner as this , by allusion to the Etymology or derivation of a Name , when other expressions were obvious : Besides , if Christ did at any time use such dark expressions or manner of answering , yet he cannot be conceived rightly to have done so in this answer , in which his preface , Verily , verily I say unto you , shews his answer to have been direct and plain , and was taken by the Jews in the sense importing his priority of Being , which Christ gainsaid not , and all Interpreters till this last age , have so expounded them . 2. The words cannot by any instance of the like use of them be shewed to have the sense put on them . For however the Aorist may signifie the future time , yet as the occasion , so also Christ's averring his own Being , antecedent to Abraham's , shews it must be understood here of the time past , and be read before Abraham was , not Abraham shall be . And if he had alluded to Abrahams Name changed , he should have said , Before Abraham , shall be Abraham : And the objection being about Christs age , and so the impossibility of his seeing Abraham , the answer is an assertion of his existence , without any thing added : It is granted , that the words , verse 24 , 28. need a supply , yet neither there , nor ver . 58. can the supplement be conceived to be taken from , vers . 12. so as that the meaning should be , unless ye believe that I am the light of the world , ye shall know that I am the light of the world ; Before Abraham was , I am the light of the world . For the words , v. 20. do shew that the speech he made before was interrupted , and he began a new conference with them , verse 21. and therefore the supplement to be added , v. 24 , 28. is more likely to be from verse 23. Unless ye believe that I am from above , ye shall know that I am from above , in which verses the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that shews it to be an object of Faith , which requires something to be known and believed besides his Being , which was obvious to their senses ; But ver . 58. the particle is not , nor any thing required of them ; but there 's a plain and direct assertion of his Being without any other supplement ; Nor is there any difficulty in expounding I am , by I was , the present tense being like manner used for the time past , John 6. 24. and 14. 9. and 15. 27. and , as Grotius well observes , there is the like expression in the Greek , Psal. 90. 2. Before the Mountains were brought forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou art , that is , thou wast , noting time past continued , and therefore by the Syriack Interpreter , and No●●us his Paraphrase , rightly it is rendered John 8. 58. Before Abraham was born I was ; Nor is it unlikely that he used this expression in the sense in which it is said by God , Isa. 43. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am he , to which John 13. 19. is consonant : The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither Joh. 17. 5. nor Revel . 13. 8. and that neither are understood of Gods Decre● , is shewed in the next Section , Vide Plac. disp . 11. § . 21. &c. SECT . 8. Christs being before the World was , is proved from John 17. 5. TO these passages in the Gospel of St. John for confirmation of the same thing , I shall adde the words of Christ in his prayer to his Father , John 17. 5. And now , O Father , glorifie thou me with thine own self , with the glory which I had before the world was with thee ; which words do evince , that Christ had glory with his Father before the world was , which is the description of Eternity , Psal. 90. 2. Prov. 8. 23 , 25. whence it follows , that before the world was , Christ had a Being in glory with his Father , which could be no other than his Divine Nature , as he was Son of God , and therefore is to be acknowledged to be begotten of the substance of the Father before the world was . To this it is answered , that the glory here is not Divine Majesty , but glory of immortality and honour to him as man , such glory as was given to him , verse 24. and which he saith he had given to his Disciples , ver . 22. as it is said , 2 Tim. 1. 9. that God had saved them , and called them with an holy calling , not according to their works , but according to his own purpose and grace , which was given them in Christ Jesus , before the world began ; to wit in Gods predestination . And in the same respect the Apostle saith , 2 Cor. 5. 1. We have a building of God , an house not made with hands eternal in the Heavens , Heb. 10. 34. That they had in Heaven a better and enduring substance , in the sense in which Christ is said to be fore-ordained before the foundation of the world , 1 Pet. 1. 20. to be the Lamb s●ain from the beginning of the world ; So Believers are said to have everlasting life , John 3. 36. & 5. 24. 1 John 5. 12 , 13. not in possession but predestination . To which I reply that it is somewhat difficult to explain what the glory is with which Christ prayes his Father to glorifie him , and how he would have him glorifie him , by reason of the various meanings of the term glory and waies of Gods glorifying . The Petition implies it was such glory as he had before the world was , now had not : This may be best understood by considering how he had it with the Father before the world was ? Two waies are conceived , one by actual possession , the other by predestination or fore-ordaining : For the former , and against the latter are these Reasons . 1. From the tense , [ which I had ] in the preterimperfect tense , which if meant of having in purpose only it should be , which I have with thee , sith Gods purpose or fore-appointment was still the same . 2. Which reason is strengthened from the time , now glorifie me , which intimates he had it not then ; but he was then glorified in purpose . 3. Before the World was , which shews when he had it , and how he would have it again , but he doth not petition to have it again only in purpose , but in actual possession . 4. He desires that he may have that glory with his Father 's own self . which he had with him : Now with his Father 's own self , in the one part must be meant of his Presence , and that in Heaven , as when it is said , 1 John 2. 1. We have an Advocate with the Father , that is , in his presence in Heaven , therefore also in the other part , with thee , cannot be meant , in thy Purpose , but in thy Presence in Heaven . 5. Christ had the glory with his Father before the world was in a peculiar manner , such ●s none of the Elect have , with such love before the foundation of the world , as was singular , verse 24. But , if it were no more than in purpose had by him , it was no otherwise , then all the Elect had it before the world was , therefore he had it in actual possession with peculiar imbracing and delight , as John 1. 18. and 3. 35. Prov. 8. 30. 6. There is no place of Scripture , wherein such an expression of our having , as here , is meant of having only by Gods purpose for the future in predestination . The giving , John 17. 24. is not to be understood of an intention for the future , but a present actual collation . The giving , 2 Tim. 1. 9. of grace is not meant of Gods purpose but donation according to his purpose , which donation was by grant , or promise as it is expressed , Tit. 1. 2. where and 2 Tim. 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well rendered before the world began , but before the times of ages , noting the times of the ages following the creation , and should be so rendered , Rom. 16. 25. as the parallel places , Ephes. 3. 9. Col. 1. 26. do shew , and so the giving of the grace , 2 Tim. 1. 9. is most likely meant of the Promise made , Gen. 3. 15. as Dr. Twisse conceives Vindic. grat . l. 1. part . 1. sect . 4. digress . 2. c. 5. However though the grace of God might be said to be given in Gods purpose , yet not Christ be said to have had glory in Gods purpose , because giving notes only the act of the donor , but having the act of the possessour , 2 Cor. 5. 1. the having a building not made with hands , cannot be meant of having in Gods purpose , for it is consequent on the dissolving of the earthly house of this Tabernacle , to which , having in Gods purpose is antecedent , and therefore notes actual possession , the present tense being put for the future , as Grotius rightly notes , Heb. 10. 34. The having , cannot be meant of having in God's purpose , it being having in your selves , or your selves , and therefore must be understood of possession for the future , by the same enallage , or of right , or assurance for the present , or of present possession , though not full possession , John 3. 36. & 5. 24. 1 John 5. 12 , 13. Believers are said to have eternal life , not by predestination only , afore the person is in being , but by real actual possession , inchoate and continued , though not consummate , as appears by the expressions Iohn 5. 24. and cometh not into condemnation , but is passed from death into life , 1 John 3. 14. We know that we have passed from death to life , opposite to verse 15. We know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him , and John 3. 36. shall not see life , but the wrath of God abideth on him , 1 Pet. 1. 20. shews not what Christ had , but how he was fore-known , Revel . 13. 8. From the beginning of the world may as well or better be joyned to written as it is Revel . 21. 27. than to s●ain , Iohn 17. 24. doth not prove , that Christ had the glory mentioned , verse 5. only in purpose before the foundation of the world , but rather the contrary . For the love there is a love not onely of benevolence , but also of complacency and delight , as Iohn 1. 18. and 3. 35. Prov. 8. 30. and so supposeth his being before the world was , and the possession of his glory , which he now desires to repossess ; which cannot be his Divine Essence , for that he was never emptied of , nor his Humane Excellency , for that he had not in being before the world was ; but the state and condition of a Son , of which he emptied himself , taking the form of a Servant , Phil. 2. 7. that riches which he had before he became poor for our sake , 2 Cor. 8. 9. which was not the relation of Sonship to God , for that he still had in his lowest debasement , but the enjoyment of the pleasure he had with his Father in his Presence , which was in some sort with-held from his person while he was on Earth , and the exercise of command and empire over Angels afore the world was compleated ( if the Angels were created in any of the former daies of the first Creation ) and which he now laid aside , and was to pray to his Father for the Angels Ministry ; Either of which , or any other ( which we know not of ) communicable in its proportion to our condition with him , according to the words , Iohn 17. 22 , may be the glory which he prayes for , Iohn 17. 5. to repossesse , and enjoy with his Father after the finishing of the work he gave him to do on Earth , verse 4. into which he came to glorifie his Father , humbling himself therein really , and therefore would be really re-glorified with his Father 's own self ; and not only in manifestation to men , as he had it really with him before the world was . SECT . 9. Col. 1. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17. Is urged to prove the God-head of Christ. TO those foregoing Texts in the Gospel of St. Iohn , I shall next adjoyn the words of the Apostle Paul , Colos. 1. 12 , 13 , 14. 15 , 16 , 17. where he mentions his thanksgiving to the Father , who had translated the Colossians into the Kingdom of his dear son , or of his love , who is the image of the invisible God , the first-born of every Creature . For in or by him were all things created that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth , visible and invisible , whether they be Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers ; all things were created by him , and for him , and he is before all things , and by him all things consist . Whence I thus argue : He who is the Son of the Fathers love , the Image of the invisible God , the first-born of every creature , in or by whom all things were created that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth visible and invisible , whether they be Thrones or Dominions , or Principalities or Powers , by whom , and for whom all things were created , who is before all things , and by whom all things consist , was before any creature , was made , begotten of the substance of his Father , not made of nothing ; very God of very God , of the same substance with the Father , by whom all things were made . But such was Jesus Christ : Therefore , &c. The minor is the express words of the Text : But the major proposition is denied : and for a reason of the denial , it is said ; 1. That he is termed the Image of the invisible God , not as a Child that is begotten by natural generation is the substantial Image of his Father of the same substance ; But as he resembles God in his Wisdom and Power , and excellent Holiness of Life ; wonderful Revelation of the Mysteries of his Counsel , and the great works he did , as the man , in respect of his Superiority and Authority over the woman , is said to be the Image and Glory of God , 1 Cor. 11. 7. or as Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase is , in whom God who is invisible is to be seen , and his will clearly declared by the Gospel ( so that ●e that seeth him , seeth the Father , Joh. 14. 9. ) which is confirmed by the words following , ver . 10 , 11. Believest thou not that I am in the Father , and the Father in me ? the words that I speak unto you , I speak not of my self , but the Father that dwelleth in me , he doth the works : Believe me that I am in the Father , and the Father in me ; or else believe me for the very works sake : Which words make Christ to be in the Father , and the Father in him , whereby the Father is to be seen , and so he is his Image , in his Words and Works . Conformable to the same sense are the words of Christ , Iohn 5. 19 , 20 , 30 , &c. 2. That he is termed the first-born of every creature , and therefore is of the rank of creatures , as the first-born is taken , Heb. 11. 28. as man , the first-born among many brethren , Rom. 8. 29. or as it is Rev. 1. 5. the first-born from the dead , and the Prince of the Kings of the Earth . The first ( saith Grotius annot . on the place ) in the Creation , to wit , the new , of which , 2 Cor. 5. 17. Rev. 21. 5. Heb. 2. 5. more amply Dr. Hammond in his annot . on Col. 1. 15. saith thus : The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , beside the ordinary notion of first-born ( which cannot so well here refer to Christs eternal generation , because of that which is added to it , the first-born of every Greature , which only gives him a precedence before all other Creatures , and doth not attribute eternity to him ) is used sometimes for a Lord , or person in power , who hath the priviledge of the first-born , dominion over all his brethren , and according to this notion ' ●is used commonly in Scripture , for a Prince , or principal person , So Psal. 89. 27. David is called the first-born of the Kings of the Earth , i. e. the most glorious among them ; and Job 18. 13. we have the first-born of death . And so among the Civilians , haeres , Heir , signifies dominus , Lord , Justinian Instit. l. 2. tit . 19. de hae●●d . qualit . & diffe . § . ult . And thus may it fitly be a title of Christ in●arnate , in respect of his power over his Church , the key of the house of David is laid upon him : But it is possible it may peculiarly refer to his Resurrection , in which he was the first-born from the dead , verse 18. the first which from the grave was raised and exalted to Heaven , and being so risen , all Power was given unto him , in Heaven and in Earth . 3. That Thrones and Dominions , Principalities and Powers , th●ngs Visible and Invisible , in Heaven and Earth ; all things may be meant of Jews and Gentiles : These several titles here rehearsed , saith Dr. Hammond Annot. on Col. 1. 16. may possibly be no more but the expressions of several degrees of dignity among men ; So Thrones may denote Kings , or Monarchs and Princes , Dominions ( or Lordships ) may be the Reguli , the honours ( whether of Dukes or Earls ) next under Princes ; Principalities , the praefects of Provinces and Cities ; and Powers , inferiour Magistrates ; and if so , then may they be here set down to denote all sorts and conditions of men in the Gentile world , by the chief dignities among them here on Earth . And Annot. on Col. 1. 20. And in the like phrase verse 16. All things that are in the Heavens , and on the Earth , shall signifie no more than what is in other places expressed by the world , as 2 Cor. 5. 19. The creation , the whole creation , or all creatures , the whole world of creation , or the whole world without restriction , which signifie all the Gentile world in opposition to the Jewish enclosure ; not all the creatures absolutely , but all men of all Nations . 4. That verse 16. is to be understood of the new Creation mentioned , 2 Cor. 5. 17. Ephes. 2. 10 , 13. and 3. 9. and 4. 24. Jam. 1. 18. The things which go before , saith Grotius Annot. ad Col. 1. 16. shew these things meant of Christ , which is the name of a man ; more rightly is [ were created ] here interpreted were ordained , go● a certain new state ; Angels to Men , Men among themselves were reconciled under Christ ; Others that Angels were reformed as being brought to a new state of acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord , and acting at his beck as being Gods instrument for the bringing of that reformation to pass , and therefore it is said they were all created in him and by him , as the mediate cause . 5. That Christ is said to be before all things , is meant of the new Creation , and that in respect of Dignity , not of Time. 6. That in him all the new Creation consists , or are reformed . SECT . 10. The proof of Christs God-head from Col. 1. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17. is vindicated from exceptions . 1. I Reply , It is true that in respect of other resemblances than of his Father's person according to his D●vine Nature Christ might be termed the Image of the invisible God , yet in this place he is not said to be the Image of the Invisible God in respect of his Office as declaring his Counsel , or representing his Power and holy Qualities by his Conversation and Works ; but as Adam's Son is said to be begotten in his own likeness after his image , Gen. 5. 3. may be proved by these Reasons . 1. Because his being the Image of God is an●ecedent to the Creation ; verse 16. therefore he was the Image of the invisible ▪ God before it , and consequently , in respect of his Divine Nature . 2. What Christ was to his Church is expressed after ver . 18 , 19 20. therefore v. 15. 16 , 17. what he was and did in respect of his Divine Nature , it being not to be conceived that he would repeat that ver . 18 , 19 , 20. which he had said before , ver . 15 , 16 , 17. 3. An Embassadour , though he represents his Princes Counsels , yet is not said to be his Image , an Image being a resemblance of a Person , not of his Counsels . 4. It is not said , that Christ was the Image of the invisible God to us , but is the Image of the invisible God absolutely and simply even then when he was not on earth to declare Gods will , and therefore shews what he is in himself throughout all Generations . No● is it of any force which is urged : that because he is said to be the Image of the invisible God , therefore he must be a visible Image ; Fo● man that was made after the Image of the invisible God , and is renewed after his Image , as Ephes. 4. 24. Col. 3 , 10. is not after Gods Image in respect of any visible Resemblance , but in respect of Wisdom , Holiness and Righteousness of Truth , which are invisible qualities . 2. If the reading which Isidor Pelusiota insists on Epist. l. 3 , Epist. 31. be right , that it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the first bringer forth of every creature , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-born of every creature , which may seem probable , because it is said verse 16. For by him were all things created , and so it should note not passively his birth , but actively his causality , in which he is said to be the beginning of the Creation of God , Rev. 3. 14. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 princip●um , or the beginning notes not termination of time , or initiation , but signifies ●fficiency ; as when we say from the Latins , the principle of a thing . as Col. 1. 18. the word is used ( of which more may be seen in Sixtin●s Amama Antibarb . Biblic . l. 3. ) the answer were easie , that though he be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he is not in the rank of creatures , which the Arians did object from this place . But however Erasmus like it , yet Beza rejects it , for reasons set down by him , Annot. ad Col. 1. 15. which though they be not all allowed by Heinsius Exercit. sacr . l. 12. c. 1. yet the reading not agreeing with most Copies , nor necessary , that answer is not to be insisted on . That other sense which Beza and others embrace , [ he is said to be the first-born of every creature ; that is , he that was born before any creature , conceiving in answer to the Hebrew verb , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it may be as well applied to the Fathers generation as the Mothers bearing , and so it be all one , as the begotten before all th● creatures ] would pass for current , if there were an example of so using the word as including the preposition governing the Genitive Case , and referring to the Fathers act of generation : In which methinks there should not be much difficulty , sith James ▪ 1. 18. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render hath begotten , and is the act of the Father of lights , verse 17. and so notes the Fathers act of generation usually , and most properly signifies the act of the Mother bringing forth , who is said therefore to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Luke 2. 5. when she is great with Child , and is used James 1. 15. as of the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , bringeth forth and so rendered . And when Christ is said , Col. 1. 18. to be the first-born from the dead , or Revel . 1. 5. the first-begotten of , or from the dead , the act of the Father in raising him from the dead is implied , to which his resurrection is ascribed , Acts 2. 30 , 32. and 3. 15. and 4. 10. and 5. 30. and 10. 40. Rom. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 6. 14. Ephes. 1. 20. Gal. 1. 1. and herein St. Paul doth in some sort place his ●egetting of Christ , when he said , Acts. 13. 32 , 33. God hath fulfilled the Promise made unto the Fathers unto us their Children , in that he hath raised up Jesus again ; as it is also written in the second Psalm , Thou ar● my Son , this day have I begotten thee . And although the preposition from , be in those places because of the change or translation from the dead , yet the term first noting priority must needs include also the preposition before , as it doth manifestly , John 1. 15. so that it is easie to conceive this to be the meaning , he was the first begotten before all the creation , or every creature , and therefore the Image of the invisible God , and he by whom , and for whom all things were created ; which cannot be meant of his rising from the dead , sith that is mentioned ver . 18. and this title is put before his creating of all things , ver . 16. and as the reason of it : But must be meant of his generation before all times out of the substance of the Father , by which eternity is given to him , the precedency in being before all the creation , being in Scripture language all one with Eternity . And so Christ will not be put in the rank of creatures made out of nothing , but the word is to be taken negatively , as the word first applied to God , Revel . 1. 11. which is expounded , Isa. 44. 6. I am the first , and I am the last , and besides me there is no God , or Isa. 43. 10. Before me there was no God formed , neither shall there be after me . And when the Law appointed the first-born male to be Gods , Exod. 13. 2. Numb . 8. 16. by the first-born was understood that which opened the womb though no other were born after , as the Mother of Christ understood the Law , Luke 2. 22 , 23. who is called her first-born , notwithstanding she had-no other , Mat. 1. 25. But if this exposition of the Title [ the first born of every Creature ] be not received , but that it note only Christs dominion or inheritance of every creature , yet will this sense prove his Generation before all Creatures , and his being exempt from the rank of creatures , sith the reason of his being the first-born of every creature , and so Lord or Heir of them , is ver . 16. Because by him and for him they were all created , which must needs prove that he is not one of the creatures , sith he created all things , therefore not himself created , and he must needs have a being before every creature by whom , all were created , and confequently was begotten before all time . Nor can this title be applied to Christ as man or incarnate as if it , noted that he was first in the new Creation or ▪ in respect of his power over his Church : For ▪ John Baptist , Luke 1. 15. was before him in the New creation in time , and it is no● said he was designed or appointed to be the first-born of every creature , but that he is the first-born , not made the first-born of them , but he by whom all were created ; nor can the Church peculiarly be meant by every creature , or the new Creation , sith it is not said of the Creation , or of the new Creation , but of every Creature , even those that are invisible , as verse 16. shews ; And therefore he cannot be said to be the first-born of every creature as the first-born of man is , because the Angels are some of the creatures , verse 16. but not of the same kind with man. 3. That by Thrones , and Dominions , and Principalities and Powers , verse 16. are not meant several degrees of dignity among men , and no more , may appear , not only as Dr. Hammond saith , because they may also signifie the several degrees of Angels , and because there follows mention of visible and invisible , and the Angels may most probably be contained by the latter of them , as this lower world of men by the former , and because it is the creation that is here referred t● , and the creating of Angels as well as men , &c. belongs truely to Christ as God , therefore it will be most reasonable in this place to interpret it in the greater extent to comprehend Angels and Men too , the highest and most eminent of both sorts : But also because it is necessary for these Reasons . 1. Because these terms do elsewhere signifie in the same Apostles writings , invisible beings , powers of the world to come , Ephes. 1. 21. Principal●ties and Powers in Heavenly places , Ephes. 3. 10. Spiritual beings in High or Heavenly places , opposed to flesh and blood , Ephes. 6. 12. Angels , Principalities and Powers , are reckoned among the most potent beings of most force to separate us from the love of God , Rom. 8. 38. Angels , and Authorities and Powers are said to be subject to Christ now on the right-hand of God , 1 Pet. 3. 22. Nor can the spoiling of Principalities and Powers be understood otherwise than as Dr. Hammond's own Paraphrase of Col. 2. 15. explains it , of devesting the evil Spirits of their power , Grotius Annot. ad Eph. 1. 21. Intelligunt quidam de imperiis terrenis . Sed locus Col. 1. 16. & quod in his infra est , 3. 10. evincit agi hic de eximiis Angelorum clasibus . Similis ordinum distinctio etiam in Satanae Regn● infra , 6. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 24. Rom. 8. 38. 2. If by them Angels were not meant , there should be no invisible beings said to be created , Col. 1. 16. whereas the distributive particle [ whether ] is put next after invisible , to shew the Thrones , Dominions , Principalities , Powers to be invisible beings . 3. Several degrees of Dignity and Rule among men , neither in this Epistle , nor elsewhere , are said to be things in Heaven , or Invisible . 4. Angels may be said to be reconciled , Col. 1. 20. and gathered together into one with the Church , Ephes. 1. 10. Christs blood reconciling the Gentiles to God by expiating their Idolatry , and so reducing them to God , and thereby to the good Angels , who rejoyce at their conversion , Luke 15. 7 , 10 , observe their order in their Church meetings , 1 Cor. 11. 10. are their Angels , Mat. 18. 10. But it could not be said in S. Paul's time , when he wrote to the Colossians , that the Rulers on Earth were created by , and for Christ , that is , reformed and made new creatures in Christ , they were not brought to the obedience of the Gospel by Christ , but were enemies to it , Acts 4. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 26. James 2. 6 , 7 ▪ nor were they ordered by Christ according to the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by us translated Ordinance , Heb. 9. 11. 1 Pet. 2. 13. that is , constituted or appointed by Christ as Mediatour in order to his Church for their help , in St. Paul's time ; and therefore cannot be said to be created in the sense some would expound creation , Col. 1. 16. and meant by Thrones , Dominions , Principalities and Powers . 4. Hence also may appear that no other sense but of the Creation at first out of nothing , can be rightly meant by the creating , Col. 1. 16. For the words are general , including all things simply , and that twice expressed , which shews it comprehends all things universally that were created ; and left any thing should be excepted , there 's a threefold division . 1. Of things in Heaven , and things on the Earth . 2. Of visible and invisible . 3. Of the invisible Thrones , Dominions , Principalities , and Powers . Of which Principalities , the unclean Spirits are a part , Col. 2. 15. Ephes. 6. 12. who cannot be said to be reformed , or constituted , or appointed by Christ in the sense , in which creation is taken , either Eph. 2. 10. Jam. 1. 18. 〈◊〉 Cor. 5. 17 , Gal. 6. 15. or Heb. 9. 11. 1 Pet. 2. 13. In the good Angels nothing was to be reformed , or new created ; in the evil nothing was , nor were they , o● other things constituted , or ordained by Christ as man ; nor is it true , that all things in Earth were reformed , or constituted for the Church . And for the New Creation , which consists in renovation of mind , it was done in many before Christs Incarnation , Ezek. 36. 26. Psal. 51. 12. and therefore that Creation cannot be meant , when it is said , All things were created by Jesus Christ , by them who suppose him not to have been afore his Incarnation . Lastly , Neither is there any place brought by them , by which it may be proved , that the work of Creation absolutely put is meant of renovation , or reformation , meant by the New Creation : Nor do the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by him , prove Christ only a mediate or instrumental cause of the Creation . For it is said of him , who is the principal cause , Rom. 11. 36. All things are of him , and by him , and for him , as Col. 1. 16. and therefore the particles note a principal concurrent or consociate cause : And the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through is applied to God the Father , Gal. 1. 1. Heb. 2. 10. and in is used as by , Heb. 1. 1. and applied to God , Acts 17. 28. yet it is not to be denied , that there is a priority in the Father to the Son in respect of being , not of time , but original , as Bishop Davenant saith , Com. on Col. 1. 15. Christ hath principium originis , a beginning of original , to wit , his Father from whom he was begotten , but not a beginning of time , or to use Dr. Pearsons words in his Exposition of the first Article of the Creed , p. 36. of the second Edition , the Father hath that essence of himself , the Son by communication from the Father . From whence he acknowledgeth that he is from him , John 7. 29. that he liveth by him , John 6. 57. that the Father gave him to have life in himself , and generally referreth all things as received from him ; so as that the Father is by the Antients termed the fountain , root , authour , origin , head , cause of the Son and the whole Divinity , p. 41. whence the Son is termed in the Nicene Creed ; God of God , very God of very God , light of light , and this origination in the Divine Paternity , hath antiently been looked upon as the assertion of the Unity : and therefore the Son and Holy Ghost have been believed to be but one God with the Father , because both from the Father , who is one , and so the Union of them . For if there were more than one , which were from none it could not be denied , but there were more Gods than one , p. 44. And answerably here●o there is an order in the operations of the Father and the Son , so as that there is a priority , if not in some sense a majority in the Father , whom some of the Antients , cited by Dr. Pearson , p. 37. understand to be greater than Christ as the Son of God , John 14. 28. with reference not unto his Essence , but his Generation , by which he is understood to have his being from his Father , who only hath it of himself , and is the original of all Power and essence in the Son , and consequently some preheminence in working ▪ whence Christ saith , I can of mine own self do nothing ; The Son can do nothing of himself , but what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever he doth , these also doth the Son likewise , which intimate a priority of order in the Fathers operation , if not a dependance of the Son on him therein . And so as Mr. Gataker in his Advers . mis●el . c. 17. saith from Col. 1. 16. Christ both in making the world , as also in instructing his Church is said to exhibit ministery to God the Father , and the Father by him to have performed and to perform both those things , Heb. 1. 2. in which place he is said to have spoken to his people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Son , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom also he made the worlds . 5. Christs priority in dignity is expressed before verse 15. where he is said to be the first-born of every creature , and in respect of the Church , vers . 18. where he is termed the head of the body the Church , that in a 〈…〉 things he might have the preheminence : therefore he is said to be before all things , ver . 17. in time , and that not only before Angels , but all things created , it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same latitude with all things , v. 16. and that not only in the New Creation , for so he was not in time before David , Psal. 51. 10. John Baptist , who was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his Mothers womb , Luke 1. 15. but in respect of the first Creation . 6. The consistence of all things by Christ , is to be understood of all things created , ver . 16. and not only things belonging to the new Creation , and of a consistence by sustaining and preserving all things simply by his power and providence , as it is said , 2 Pet. 3. 〈◊〉 . By the Word of God the Heavens were of old , and the Earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consisting , which is no where meant of Evangelical reformation , but of powerful sustentation , as Heb. 1. 2 , 3. To which I pass SECT 11. Heb. 1. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , are urged to prove the assertion of Christs God-head . THe same Articles of Faith concerning Christ are confirmed from Heb. 1. where Christ distinct from the Prophets , is termed the Son of God , whom he appointed Heir of all things , by whom also he made the Worlds , verse 1. 2. being the brightness of his glory , and the express Image of his person , and upholding all things by the Word of his power , verse 3. by so much being more excellent , or better than the Angels , by how much he inherited a more excellent name than they , verse 4. of whom God said that which he said not of the Angels , thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee ; And again , I will be to him a Father , and he shalt be to me a Son ; And again , when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world , he saith , And let all the Angels of God worship him , verse 5 , 6. Unto the Son , or of the Son he saith , thy Throne O God is for ever and ever : a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom , thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; therefore God even thy God hath annointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy follows : And thou Lord , in the beginnings hast laid the foundation of the Earth ; and the Heavens are the work of thy hands : They shall perish , but thou remainest , they all shall wax old as doth a garment , and as a vesture shalt thou sold them up , and they shall be changed , but thou art the same , and thy years shall not fail . But to which of the Angels said he at any time , sit on my right hand , until I make thine Enemies thy Foot-stool ? verse 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. Whence I argue , He , of whom all these things are said , was before any creature was made , begotten of the substance of the Father , not made of nothing , very God , of the same substance with the Father , by whom all things were made : But of Jesus Christ all these things are said , therefore , &c. The minor proposition is the express words of the Text , but the major is denied ; and as a reason of the denial , it is said . 1. That Christ is said to be the Son , the first-begotten , this day begotten in respect of his Incarnation , Resurrection , Exaltation as before . 2. That he was the brightness of his glory , Ray or Beam of Gods Majesty , that in Christ men might have a kind of sight of Gods Majesty , that he was the express Image of his person in respect of his qualities resembling his Father , the latter words interpreting the former . For God did as it were imprint his person on Christ , that Christ might be his Substitute upon earth to personate , represen● and resemble the person of God ; to be in wisdom as God , by publishing the Mysteries and secrets of God , and by knowing the thoughts of men , and discovering them ; to be in holiness as God without all stain of sin , to be in power as God , having dominion over all Gods Creatures , over Winds , Seas , Devils . 3. That he was brought into the world , not as being before the world , but being in the world was sent as the great Prophet of the Church among men , or at his Resurection he was raised from the dead , and brought into the world , or it is to be applied to his great exaltation at the last day , when he shall be brought into the world to come , as it is termed , Heb. 2. 5. which refers to Heb. 1. 6. and so without trajection the word [ again ] shall be read as it stands in the Greek Text , and the verb of the second Aorist of [ bringing into ] be read as of the future time , not as the vulgar , Beza , our translation , of the time past , and [ again ] noting another citation out of the Psalms : And therefore Mr. Mede in his opus●ula Latina in answer to Ludovicus de Dieu , would have our English version corrected thus [ And when he bringeth again the first-begotten into the world ] or shall bring , &c. For what things are from thence cited out of the Book of Psalms to the end of the Chapter [ concerning the adoration of Angels , the Scepter of the rectitude of God , the changing the World , the treading of enemies under his feet ] all , if we believe the Apostle , are to be referred to the second coming of Christ. To which agree Cameron resp . ad quaest . in Heb. 1. 6. Heinsius exercit . sac . l. 16. c. 1. Dr. Homes Resur . revealed . l. 3. c. 2. &c. 4. That he inherited or possessed a more excellent Name than the Angels by grant from his Father , being appointed Heir of all things , not by vertue of his generation before the world , but because of his office , by reason of which the Angels were to worship him , as Peter did Christ as man , Luke 5. 8. and all the Disciples , Luke 24. 52. 5. That he was God by Office , and not by Nature ; as it appears in that God is said to be his God , he to be annointed by God with the oyl of gladness , and others his fellows , ver . 8 , 9. 6. Grotius would have , ver . 2. read , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whom , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom ; But if it be to be read by whom , it is meant of the new world , not of the Heavens and Earth , or Ages , or Times of this world : And v. 10 , 11 , 12. are but accommodated to him in respect of his dissolving the world , and duration of his Kingdom , not in respect of the Eternity of his person , or operation in the first Creation . 7. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated upholding is to be translated ruling with the word , that is at the command of his Father , mannaging all things as personating his Father , and following his command . Gr 〈…〉 in his Annotation on the place , saith thus : The manuscripts in which those Grammatical spirits are distinguished , have also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( his , the Fathers , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own , as we read it ) and so reads Cyril in his 8th . against Julian ; The sense is , Christ governs all things by the Word of his Fathers Power ( that is Command ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often to govern , and which Chrysostom here adds , with some easiness . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears to be put for command , Luke 5. 5. and Heb. 11. 3. So also 1 Kings 1. 27. more to the same purpose hath Heinsius Exercit. sacr . l. 16. c. 1. and Dr. Hammond in his annot . on Heb. 1. 3. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies two things , fero to bear , and rego to rule , and from the latter of them it is , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the ordinary word for a Prince ; Agreeably to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] which is sometimes the rendering of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as Numb . 11. 14. Deut. 1. 9. may accordingly signifie , to Rule , to Govern , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Administer , as a Commander , or Governour , or Procurator of a Province , and so 't is here taken , to denote the Regal Power of Christ , to which he is advanced by his Resurrection . 8. That verse 13. is spoken of Christ as man exalted to sit on Gods ●igh●-hand . SECT . 12. The Argument from Heb. 1. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13. is vindicated from Exceptions . TO the first I reply , that none of those reasons are sufficient to verifie the titles given to Christ , Rom. 8. 32. where he is termed Gods own Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper or peculiar to him . John 3. 16. his only begotten Son , and here the Son , verse 2. as is before shewed Sect. in reply to the 9th . Exception : By the same Arguments the Reasons also of the nameless Authour of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews , intituled The expiation of a Sinner are shewed to be short of what the appellation of the first-born or first-begotten , Heb. 1. 6. imports , whereof the first is , Christ is the first-begotten Son of God , because God begot him before all his other Sons , who are called the Brethren of Christ ; for God first begot Christ , in that manner wherein God is said to beget Sons ; for those he begets whom he assimilates and makes like unto himself , and so Christ was the first that was assimilated , or made like unto God in holiness ; in such holiness as he require in the New Covenant . I reply . 1. This Reason is given without proof , and if allusion be to Rom. 8. 29. neither is it said there that Christ is the first-born by reason of his assimilation to God in holiness before others , nor is the Image of Christ , to which others are conformed , expressed to be in qualities , it is more likely to be in estate and condition , to wit , of glory . 2. Nor is it true , that Christ in this respect is the first-begotten , John Baptist was before him made like unto God in such holiness as he requires in the New Covenant , he was great in the sight of the Lord , and filled with the Holy Ghost , even from his Mothers womb , Luke 1. 15. that I omit to say any thing of Abraham , David , Mary , Simeon , Anna , &c. 2. Secondly , saith he , Christ is the first-begotten of God by his resurrection , because by the power of God he was raised and brought in again from death to an immortal life ; for which he is called the first begotten from the dead , and the first fruits of them that slept , 1 Cor. 15. 20. I Reply . 1. It is true , Christ is said to ●e the first-born , or begotten from the dead , Col. 1. 18. Revel . 1. 5. But Heb. 1. 6. he is termed the first-begotten simply without relation to the dead , and Col. 1. 15. the first-born of every creature , and the reason thereof is , because all things were created by him , verse 16. 2. If this reason were sufficient , Enoch might as well be termed the first-begotten , of whom the Scripture saith , Heb. 11. 5. By Faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death , and was not found , because God had translated him ; for before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God. Lastly , Saith he , he is the first-begotten in all things , whereby the faithful of Christ become the Sons of God : For Christ hath preceded them all , that ( as St. Paul speaks ) he in all things might have the preheminence , Col. 1. 18. I Reply . 1. What those all things are , in which Christ preceded all the Faithful , whereby they become the Sons of God , is not expressed , not do I think he can give an instance distinct from his Holiness , and Resurrection , except his preaching or fulness of the Spirit ; wherein and in other things it is true , Christ exceeded all the Faithful of Christ ; but no where is he said to be begotten , or the first-begotten by reason hereof , or any other thing besides his generation before the world : Sure Col. 1. 18. there is no such thing said ; though it be true that he is said to be the Head of the Body the Church , who is the beginning , the first-born from the dead , that in all things , or among all he might have the preheminence ; Yet not that therefore he is the first-begotten , but he is termed ver . 15. the first-born of every creature ; and the reason is given , ver . 16 , 17. because all things were created by him and for him , and he is before all things , and by him all things consist ; which she 〈…〉 s his generation before the Creation , and so no time wherein he was not . The reasons of Christs Son-ship from the begetting him the day of his Incarnation , Luke 1. 32. his Sanctification , John 10. 36. his Resurrection , Acts 13. 33. his having all power in Heaven and Earth given him , Mat. 28. 18. his Exaltation to be an immortal and universal Potentate ; though they may be reasons of his Appellation [ the Son of God ] as shewing it , and being consequent on it , yet there is an higher reason shewed before , and confirmed from the titles given him , Heb. 1. 3. 2. The term [ the brightness of Glory ] doth not express what Christ was to others as a Looking-glass ; that had been better expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but what he was in himself , and from whom , to wit , his Father , as the Beam from the Sun. And in the same term wisdom is termed in the Book intituled the Wisdom of Solomon , ch . 7. 26. the brightness of the everlasting light , the unspotted myrror of the Power of God , and the Image of his Goodness : And thence it is to be conceived that in the Nicene Creed Christ is termed light of light : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , saith Sr. Norton Kna●chbul in his animad version on Heb. 1. 3. is as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the shining out brightness , or splendor , relucency , or as it were beam of Gods Glory , that is his Substance , Nature , or Being , who is light , 1 John. 1. 5. and Glory is often put for Light , 1 Cor. 15. 41. Mat. 17. 2. compared with Luke 9. 32. 2 Pet. 1. 17. which shews that he is said to be the brightness passively as receiving it from his Father , and brightness of his Glory , as having his Glory communicated to him ; not actively , as shining to others : And the same is to be conceived of his being the character of his person passively , as having it engraven on him , not ingraving it on others . The Metaphor is most likely to be from a Seal of a Ring or some other thing by which there is an ingraving of a figure . Now we shall best understand what is meant here by it , if we know what it is that is meant by his Hypostasis , and when it was that he was the character of it : The word comes from a verb that signifies to stand under , or to be settled , and so notes some settled thing , that doth not flinch or vanish , opposed to emphasis or appearance , as Aristotle in his Book of the world ( if it be his ) So the cloud is said to be an Hypostasis , the bow in the cloud but an appearance . Physitians use it for the sediment , or that which settles in the bottom , as in Urine , for the consistence , state or concretion of humours that should be purged . In the Greek of the old Testament it hath many significations , as Deut. 1. 12. your burden is your Hypostasis . Deut. 11. 6. Job 22. 20. that which we read substance , that is goods , is in Greek Hypostasis : A military station , rendered by us a Garrison , is in Aquila's translation , saith Grot. Annot. ad ▪ 1 Reg. 13. 4. Hypostasis . In the Psalms it hath various acceptions , as Psal. 39. 5. my age , verse 7. my hope . Psal. 69. 2. there is no standing . Gr. Hypostasis . Psal. 89. 47. Remember how short my time is , Gr. what my Hypostasis is . Ps. 139. 15. the LXX . reading as it is likely , instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which we render was curiously wrought , the word signifying to be wrought with a Needle , either , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius conceives , or as to me seems likely , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , have rendered it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nahum 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Latin Et substantia mea , and my substance . In the New Testament it is onely 2 Cor. 9. 4. and 11. 17. where it is rendered by this confidence , that is , subsistence , settledness , or fi●mitude , which being applied to the mind , notes confidence , unshaken boldness , or security , Heb. 3. 14. where we read the beginning of our confidence , used as it is likely , as in the Greek , Psalm . 39. 7. Heb. 11. 1. where it is rendered the substance of things hoped for , by others , the ground , or confidence , I conceive , the assurance or security meant by it : And here , Heb. 1. 3. In none of which places , or any other that I can find , Hypostasis signifies wisdom , power , and holiness , of a person ; and therefore I see not how it can be expounded the character of his Hypostasis , that is the resemblance of his Fathers attributes , or his supremacy or soveraign Majesty ; But that he is as it were the Print , Impression , stamp , or as we translate it , express Image of his Person , or Subsistence , or Substance , which comes nearest to the use of the word , as it is in the Greek version , Psal. 139. 15. and that by reason of his being his Son by whom he made the worlds ; which will be better understood by considering when he was the brightness of his glory , and the express ▪ Image of his person : The participle we translate [ being ] cannot be expounded of being such consequently to his sitting on the right hand of the Majesty in the heights , but antecedently thereunto , and to his bearing or upholding all things by the Word of his Power in order of nature at least , and to his purging our sins in time ; which appears , 1. From the order of the words , he is first said to be the brightness of Glory , the character of his Person , next to bear all things by the Word of his Power , than to have purged our sins by himself , and then to have sate on the right hand of the Majesty on high , therefore he was a●●ecedently to all the rest the brightness of Glory , and character of his Person . 2. The connexion between being the character of his Person , and up-holding all things by the copulative particle shews these were together , but the up-holding all things was before his sitting on the right hand , therefore also the being the character of his Person . 3. Then he was the character of his Person when he purged our sins , but that was before his sitting on the right hand , therefore also was his being the character of his Person . 4. From the use of the participle which is to be interpreted , either of the present or past time , as Heb. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although he were , Philem. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being such with many more : whence it follows that these things cannot be said of Christ as man , ●ith as such he up-held not all things by the Word of his Power , but of his Divin● Excellency in which he is a radiature from God , and is the character or print of his Person , before his ascention , or executing his office on Earth : Besides the titles are so transcendent as exceed the Excellency of the Angels , and therefore express the Divine Nature : And the Emphasis is put in them that being so excellent he purged our sins ; And if he had been termed the brightness of Glory , and character of his Fathers Person , only in executing the office of Mediatour , and representing God to us by his preaching , no more had been said , than was verse 2. That God had spoken to us by his Son , and might be said of some of the Prophets , specially Moses who did reveal Gods mind to the people of Israel , with whom God spake face to face , his face did shine and was glorious , represented Gods Majesty , Power , Wisdom , Goodness in bringing Israel out of Egypt , doing Miracles , whence he is said to be made a God to Pharaoh , Exod. 7. 1. 3. Notwithstanding the opinion of so learned men , yet I conceive the bringing into the world is not a thing fu●ure to be done at the last day for these reasons . 1. Because if the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 migh be expounded as of the future time ( the contrary whereof seems true to me ) yet the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith must be expounded of a time past , and the sense be this , when he did bring his first-begotten into the world he said ; And let all the Angels of God worship him . 2. Because a determination or purpose concerning a thing future had not been a fit argument to prove his present meliority or superiority above Angels . 3. If it had been meant of a future bringing into the world I conceive he would have said , into the world to come , as he speaks , Heb. 2. 5. and 6. 5. 4. Because where he u●eth the like expression , though not the same words , to wit , Heb. 10. 5. when he cometh into the world he saith , it is meant of the time when he had a body prepared for him , which was at his birth : For which reason , and because we find not any mention of the Angels of God worshipping after his Resurrection , as we find done , Luke 2. 13. it is ●o be applied to the time of his Birth ; and if it be objected that he was not to be worshipped by the Angels till his exalting at the right hand of God , as Rev. 7. 10 , 11. the contrary is to be held , ●ith the Wise-men , Mat. 2. 11. Peter , Luke 5. 8. the Apostles , Mat. 28. 17. Luke 24. 52. worshipped Christ ; and no doubt but the Angels did and were to do the like . As for the words Heb. 2. 5. that they referre to Heb. 1. 6. and so Heb. 1. 6. meant of the world to come , because no where else had he spoken of the world to come , I conceive they do not evince what is gathered from them . 1. Because he doth not say , Heb. 2. 5. of which we have , but of which we do speak . 2. If he did say , of which we have spoken , it might very well refer to Heb. 1. 12. which mentions the change of the Heavens and Earth , which are the same thing with the world to come , though the same word be not used in both places : For which reasons I conceive it better to make a transposition in the word again , and to expound the words thus ; Again he saith , when he did bring his first-begotten into the world , using again as he did verse 5. to express another citation ; Nevertheless , were Mr. Medes reading yielded , it must shew a former bringing into the vvorld , and so a being of Christ afore his coming into the world , and consequently his being the Son of God begotten before the world began . 4. It is true Christ had a more excellent name by grant as appointed Heir of all things , yet was not the Son of God because Heir of all things , but Heir of all things because his Son , by whom he made the worlds , v. 1. 2. which is the reason also given , Col. 〈◊〉 . 15 , 16. as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because shews : It is true the Angels were to worship Christ , because of his office , and his exaltation , yet not barely because of his office and exaltation , but also because of his generation , as the Son of God , and the union of his two Natures in one Person , by reason of which he was worshipped afore his Resurrection , Mat. 2. 11. in his minority . 5. Jesus Christ is not termed God in respect of his office , but nature , as being the Son of God the Creatour , by whom he made the worlds , ver . 2. and in respect of his generation , God the Father is said to be his God , and he God of God , as in the Nicene Creed . And being made a man was anointed , and other men were his fellows , or Partakers with him , though not in the same measure as he , who had the Spirit without measure , Job . 3● 34. 6. Grotius his change is without any warrant of Copy or Example , and therefore is too bold an alteration to be allowed ; nor had the Apostles assertion of Christ , that for him he made the worlds , been so full to his purpose to set out Christs Excellency , as to say , that by him he made the worlds : Besides , sith Col. 1. 16. it is said , by him were all things created , and for him , and that made the reason of his being the first-born of every creature , ver . 15. it is in like manner to be conceived , Heb. 1. 2. that 〈◊〉 appointed his Son Heir of all things , because by him he made the worlds : By the worlds is not meant the future world , or blessed immortality , not the making them , the renewing of them ; But the worlds signifie either the frame of Heaven and Earth at first Creation , or the times and generations of men , and their making the creating at the beginning of time , or the forming and continuing of them in their successions . The former sense of making Heaven and Earth , and their Inhabitants , as it is confirmed by the parallel place , Col. 1. 16. so it is put out of doubt by the words of the same Authour , Heb. 11. 3. By Faith we understand that the worlds ( the word used , Heb. 1. 2. ) were framed by the Word of God , so that things which are seen were not made of things appearing , which doth evidently refer to Gen. 1. 1 , 2. and Heb. 9. 26. the end of the worlds , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to the foundation of the world ; and in conformity to this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 9. 32. is as much as from the beginning of the world : nor can it be meant of a future world , sith the word of making notes a thing already done , and to say he made that which was not yet in being , or which was not yet made , had been to say , that he made that which he did not make , and to say , he made by him the worlds , if he were not then existent had been to say he made the worlds by a not being ; Nor can it be shewed that making , that it have various senses , is put for revealing , or that said to be made , which is only made known . Heb. 1. 10 , 11 , 12. are a testimony cited concerning Christ , as verse 8. the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto , or of the Son , shew as v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he saith of the Angels , and the copulative conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 10. shews it to be a distinct testimony from the former , and the words cited together shew all meant of Christ ▪ Ifs the latter part of them belong to Christ it follows , that also the former belongs to him : for it belongs to the same person and power which dissolves or changeth the Heavens to lay the foundation of them : Nor is there an instance produced either , Mat. 12. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21. or Acts 2. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21. in which words are cited , whereof part only belong to the matter for which they are cited , although Mat. 12. 19. alone had fitted the occasion ; Nor are there , or any where else words cited as spoken part of one person , part of another , as they would have them , who use this evasion : Nor are the words , Heb. 1. 10 , 11 , 12. cited only to prove ver . 4. that Christ was made so much better tha● the Angels , as he hath inherited a more excellent Name than they ; But to prove , that by him God made the worlds , verse 2. Nor can there be good sense in making the first part , verse 10. to be directed to God , and the other ver . 11 , 12. of Christ , when it is the same Lord who is spoken to ver . 10 , 11 , 12. Nor can that which is spoken of an eternal duration , à parte antè , on the part before , as well as à parte post , the part after , be applied only to the duration of his Kingdom which is only eternal à parte post , on the part after , and which is also to be resigned to the Father , 1 Cor. 15. 24. 7. Grotius is still too bold to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his meaning the Fathers Word or Power , instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own , me●ning the Son without any extant Copies named by him , and clean against the Apostles scope to set out Christs Excellency : Now to Rule at his Fathers command had noted his obedience , and subserviency , not his excellency ; For so do all holy Angels and good Magistrates , they rule at Gods command : Nor is the expression , suitable to his sense : If he had meant , as Grotius conceives the sense , he should have said , ruling all things at the command of his Fathers authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power , and not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Word ; which notes the means of effecting , as Heb. 11. 3. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his Word , as the rule of administration , or as it is Luke 5. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at thy command : Besides , Heb. 11. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Word of God , notes not a command to the Son to do it , but the powerful word to the world , by which it was made , Gen. 1. And the all things he upholds , Heb. 1. 3. comprehend not only the Church , but the world 's made by him , or all creatures , as Heb. 2. 8 , 10. Col. 1. 16 , 17 must be understood . It is true , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Prince , nor will I deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( as Grotius , Dr. Hammond , Heinsius exercit . sacr . l. 16. c. 1. conceive ) signifies to rule or Govern , Numb . 11. 14. Deut. 1. 9. yet it signifies not only to Govern , or Order them , but also to sustain them by provision , as both the occasion of the peoples desire of flesh , and the words of Moses , ver . 11 , 12. [ Wherefore host thou affl●cted thy Servant ? And wherefore have I not f●und favour in thy sight , that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me ? Have I conceived all this people ? Have I begotten ( or born , as the Greek hath it ) them , that thou shouldest say unto me , Carry them in thy bosome ( as a nursing Father beareth the sucking Child ) unto the Land which thou swarest ●●to their Fathers ? ] shew ; It is true , Deut. 1. 9. bearing notes rule , but not it only , but also provision and sustentation , as the words verse 12. shew ; How can I my self alone bear your ●●mbrance , or wearisom molestation , trouble , as Isa. 1. 14. and your burden ; Greek , and your Hypostasis , that is your subsistence or sustentation by provision , and your ●trif● , in Greek , your antilogies , gain-sayings or contradictions . And v. 31. In the wilderness the Lord thy God bare thee , as a man doth bear his Son , in all the way that ye went until ye came to this place : Where saith Ainsworth , in his Annotation , this word meaneth not the bearing of the body only , but bearing of their infirmities , and suffering the evils and troubles in the education of them , as a Father doth in his children which the Greek explaineth by etrophophorese a word that Paul useth in Acts 13. 18. Where the Syriak expoundeth it nourished : or , as some copies have it , Etropophorese , he suffered their manners : Dr. Hammond Ann●t ▪ on Acts 13. 18. carried as a Nurse : Whence I infer , that if Heb. 1. 3. the word bearing be used as Numb . 11. 14. Deut. 1. 9. yet it doth not signifie meer ruling or ordering the Church by wisdom and authority , but up-holding , sustaining , maintaining the worlds , or ages which he made , or all things created by the Word of his Almighty Power , by which they were framed at first , Heb. 11. 3. which bearing or upholding all things is not limited to the time after Christs Resurrection , but is antecedent to his death : For so the words are , He by whom God made the worlds , being the brightness of his glory , the character of his subsistence , and bearing all things by the Word of his Power , having by himself made purgation of our sins , sate at the right ●and of the Majesty in the heights : This order of words shews that he was the brightness of Glory , and character of Gods subsistence , and bare a 〈…〉 things by the Word of his Power , and made purgation of our sins by himself afore ●e sa●● at the right hand of the Majesty or greatness in the heights . 8. It is true that Heb. 1. 13. is spoken of Christ as man exalted ; yet as Christ argued against the Pharisees from the same passage of Psal. 110. 1. ( which the Chaldee renders , the Lord said unto his Word , meaning Christ , saith Ainsworth Annot. ) Mat. 22. 42 , 43 , 44 , 45. that Christ must be a greater person than David's Son , because David in spirit calls him Lord , and therefore to have an higher nature than himself being then his Lord ; so we may argue from Heb. 1. 13. The Scripture proves Christ to be Lord of Angels , because God said , Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool , therefore he had a nature above Angels , and consequently Divine : For Christ supposeth in that place , that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be David's Lord , which was not denied , and thereby p●oveth that he must be denied than David , and of another nature than his ▪ ●orasmuch as he that was no more than his Son , could not be his Lord , the Father being Superiour to the Son in Nature , who hath no other Nature than what he derive● from himself . SECT . 13. Heb ▪ 7. 3. Is urged to prove the Eternal Son-ship of Christ. TO what is said , Heb. 1. I shall add what is said Heb. 7. 3. concerning Me●chizede● , that he is mentioned without Father , without Mother , without Genealogy , that is without speech of his descent or pedigree , neither having beginning of daies , nor end of life ; but made like unto the Son of God , remaineth a Priest for ever : Which intimates , that the Son of God , was without Father , without Mother , without Genealogy , neither having beginning of daies , nor end of life , that is , as he was the Son of God he was Father or Mother among me● ▪ in which respect there is no Genealogy of him , that he is without beginning of daies , or end of life , therefore he was before any creature was made , begotten of the substance of his Father , not made of nothing , very God of the same substance of the Father , by whom all things were made : For as the Son of man and according to his office he had beginning of daies , and had a Mother : Nor can the sense be right , that the beginning of daies is meant of the Priest-hood of Melchizedec , for the other part , nor end of life , is to be expounded of his Being , not of his Priest-hood ; and therefore also his not having beginning of daies must be meant of his Being , as the Son of God , not of his Priesthood . SECT . 14. Christs Kingdom is the Kingdom of the Son of Man so termed , according to his Excellency above all men . THe Kingdom we are to seek is termed sometimes the Kingdom of the Son of man , Mat. 16. 28. Verily I say unto you , there be some standing here , which shall not taste of death , till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom : which title Christ often takes to himself , Mat. 16. 13. whom do men say , that I the Son of man am ? and upon this consideration , he hath the Kingdom given to him , according to what our Lord Christ saith , John 5. 27. That the Father hath given him authority , and to do judgment , because he is the Son of man : Accordingly , where Christ fore-tells his chief act of reg●lity he useth this title , Mat. 25. 31. When the Son of man shall come in his glory , and all the Holy Angels with him , then shall he sit upon the Throne of his glory , and ver . 34. 40. terms this Son of man the King. Whence it is apparent that this title of the Son of Man is to be considered , that we may have right intelligence of this Kingdom . Now this title of the Son of man may be understood . 1. As noting him to be a man of the same kind with other men : And in this sense ●he Son of man is no more than a man , as Numb . 23. 19. Psal. 4. 2. & 144. 3. & 146. 3. Eph. 3. 5. &c. In which sense it is conceived , that Ezekiel is often spoken to by the title of the Son of man , as Ezek. 2. 1 , 3 , 6 , 8. not importing any excellency above other men , but nature and infirmities common to other men : Mr. Gataker in his Cinnus , l. 2. c. 12. whereas it was said by Nebuchadnezzar , Dan. 3. 25. as we read it ; Lo●● see four men loose walking in the 〈…〉 idst of the fire , and they have no hurt , and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God , it ▪ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some will have it translated a Son of the Gods , as meaning by it an Angel , as vers . 28. or a man of excellency and dignity , who were usually stiled Sons of the Gods , as Psal. 89. 7. according to P●gni● , concludes , that according to the profa●e Kings mind in our language , if we would rightly render it , we should say , not like the Son of God , but like a Son of the Gods , that is , a person of a most beautiful , and as it were divine form : Also in like manner when it is said , Daniel 7. 13. Behold one came with the clouds like the Son of man , it is no more than a certain person indued with human● form , and should be termed like a Son of man ; not as it is commonly rendered , like the Son of man : as if Christ were designed man as well as God , as Junius in explaining hath noted ; Because he is in the New Testiment most frequently named the Son of man : For how ●ould the form of the Son of God , to be represented in our flesh be then set before Daniels eyes , that whom he had seen descending from heaven , he should declare him seen as like to him , whom it is not probable that himself foresaw of what shape ●e should be ? For although it may seem in very deed that he was the Son of God , whom the Prophet had beheld in that vision to have approached to God the Father , the ancient of dayes ; yet nevertheless it should not be therefore said he was like to the Son of man , to wit Christ ; For this had been as if it were said he was like to himself , but like to a Son of man , that is to a man , as Ezekiel is often termed Son of man , and sons of men for men , then which nothing is more frequent . So also the Apostle , made in the likeness of men , and found in fashion as a man , Philip. 2. 7. saving that these things are said of him according to what he was , that according to what was represented . In like sort that of the Evangelist John is to be taken , which is Rev. 1. 13. like to the Son of man ; which also the most famous man Theodore Beza saw , when he turned it , I saw ( some one ) like to a Son of man , and in his notes , to a Son of man , that is to a man , or who resembled a man ; after the Hebrew Idiotism . For although he was Christ , yet that this is to be taken in general concerning the shape of a man , appears from hence , that the Article is not added : Also from Daniel 10. 5. Where a vision altogether like is described : So ●e : To which may be added the parallel place respecting the same person in the same book , c● . 14. ver . 14 One sitting on a cloud like to a Son of man , that is a man ▪ 2. He may be said to be stiled the Son of man by excellency , as when the Philosopher a common name to many is by excellency appropriated to Aristotle , or the Orator to Cic●ro , or the Poet to Homer ; In which sense Christ is termed the seed of the woman , Gen. 3. 15. the Son of David , Mat. 20. 30. and 22. 42 , And in this sense he is termed the second Adam , because as the first earthly Adam was a common person , comprehending all that from him are propagated by natural generation ; so Christ is the second , heavenly Adam , 1 Cor. 15. 45. the second man , verse 47. because all are comprehended in him , , that are by spiritual regeneration the Sons of God. And in this respect it is said , that Adam was the type , or figure of him that was to come , Rom. 5. 14. and hereupon the parallelism of one to the other is made by the Apostle , ver . 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21. and 1 Cor. 15. 21 , 22. and all the members of the Mystical body termed Christ , 1 Cor. 12. 12. and of Christ it is said , Ephes. 2. 15. that he might make , or create in himself two unto one new man making peace ; which new man is said to be put on , Ephes. 4. 24. Col. 3. 10. as elsewhere Christ is to be put on , Rom. 13. 14. Gal. 3. 27. and Christ is said to be all things , and in all , Col. 3. 11. without discrimination of Greek , and Jew , circumcision and uncircum●●sion , Barbarian , Scythian , bond and free , and all the members of Christ , when they meet together are a perfect man , according to the measure of the stature of th● fulness of Christ , Ephes. 4. 13. which is expressed to be his body , verse 16. and this is called the Church , which is his body , the f●lness of him that filleth all in all , Ephes. 1. 22 , 23. In like manner Christ is termed the seed of Abraham , Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the Promises made ; he saith not , And to his seeds , as concerning many , but as of one ; And to thy seed , who is Christ : Which is meant of Christ personal primarily , and secondarily of Christ Mystical ; to wit , all Believers , who are termed , verse 7. Abraham's Children , and verse 26 , 27 , 28 , 29. Ye are all the Sons of God through Faith in Christ Jesus : For as many as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ : There is neither Jew , nor Greek , nor is there S●rvant , nor free , nor is there male and female , for ye are all 〈◊〉 one man in Christ Jesus , and if ye be Christs then are ye Abraham's seed , and Heirs according to the Promise . And thus it is more probable to me , that Daniel 3. 5. is not to be read a Son of the Gods , to note only a person of a more excellent visage , as the Gentiles called men of rare Beauty and Majesty ; but the Son of God , whom he calls the Angel , verse 28. who was known in the Church of God by the title of the Angel of the Covenant , Mal. 3. 1. the Angel of Gods Presence , Isa. 63. 9. on which Mr. Gataker in the Annotations of sundry Divines in English hath this note : Certain it is that this Angel here spoken of , is that Angel , of whom God spake unto Moses , Exod. 23. 21 , 23. termed both Jehovah , Exod. 13. 21. and 14. 10 , 24. and his Face or Presence , Exod. 33. 14 , 15. and an Angel , Exod. 33. 2. who that he was no other , than the Messias Jesus Christ , the conducter of them in the Wilderness , holy Stephen informeth us , Acts 7. 38. the eternal Son of God , the resplendency of his Fathers Majesty , and exact Image of his Person , Heb. 1. 3. in whom therefore his Name is said to be , Exod. 23. 22. he that appeared unto Moses in the bush , Exod. 3. 2. Styled Jehovah there , verse 4. and by Jacob , the Angel that delivered , or rescued him out of all evil , Gen. 48. 16. and by Malachy lastly , Jehovah , the Angel of the Covenant , Mal. 3. 1. termed an Angel , or Messenger , in regard of his Mediatourship , Heb. 8. 6. of Gods face ; either because he doth exactly resemble God his Father , John 14. 9 , 10. Col. 1. 15. or , because he appeareth before the Face , or in the Presence of God , for us , Heb. 9. 24. See Rom. 8. 34. Revel . 8. 3. this Angel secured and safeguarded them all the way thorow the Wilderness , from Egypt to Canaan , Deut. 8. 2 , 4. and 32. 10 , 12. which it 's not unlikely Nebuchadnezzar somewhat understood , as well as that God sent an Angel to deliver his Servants that trusted in him , verse 28. by Daniel , whom God used to reveal to Nebuchadnezzar the succession of the four Monarchies , whereupon he acknowledged Daniels God to be a God of Gods , and a Lord of Kings , and a Revealer of secrets , Dan. 2. 47. And I judg the opinion of Cameron in his praelection on Mat. 16. 27. to be right , that the term Son of man , Dan. 7. 13. notes the Messiah , and that the title of Son of man is given to him , not as importing any diminution , but his excellency , and that in allusion to that place in Daniel , Christ , when he speaks of himself , Mat. 16. 27. Mat. 25. 31. John 5. 27. useth that title of the Son of man to shew , that he was meant therein , and that we need not either alter the pointing , as some of the Antients , nor make that the reason of committing judgement to him , John 5. 27. because he only of the three Persons in the holy Trinity is man ; as Dr. Pearson conceives in his Exposition of the seventh Article of the Creed , but that Christ intimates , that all judgment was committed to him , because he was the son of man meant Dan. 7. 13. which is also the opinion of Grotius Annot. ad Johan . Evang. c. 5. 27. because he is that Son of man , of whom Daniel foretold , that to him should be given dominion and a Kingdom over all Nations without end . Dan. 7. 13 , 14. Nor is it of force to enervate this opinion , that it is said , that he who came before the Antient of daies , was as the Son of man : For the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only the likeness of a thing , but also the verity of it , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth , John 1. 14. 2 Cor. 2. 17. And if it should note only likeness and not identity , both there , and Revel . 1. 13. and 14. 14. it should intimate as if he whom Daniel and John saw were not Christ , but one like him , and so the person to vvhom dominion was given , and the person described should not be Christ : But the words being conceived aright , Daniel saw Christ the Son of man in the apparition ; Nor is it absurd to say so of Daniel , though Christ were not then Incarnate . For he had by the Spirit Christ represented to him , as he was to David when in Spirit he called him Lord , Mat. 22. 43. And Abraham rejoyced to see his day , and saw it , and was glad , John 8. 57. And if in the apparations of the Angel , that spake to Abraham about Sodom , to Joshua about Jericho it were Christ that appeared , and so at other times Christ appeared in humane shape , as sundry Arguments evince ; then Daniel could not be ignorant , who the Son of man was ▪ Nor is the defect of the Article , Rev. 1. 13. and 14. 14. a sufficient reason to shew the Son of man there to be no more than a man ; For the Article is also wanting , John 5. 27. and yet the Son of man is meant peculiarly of Christ : And so is Dan. 10. 5. though it be only read a man. It is to be considered that the term Son of man is still given by Christ to himself , not as Maldonat the Jesuite conceived , as debasing himself , or speaking of himself diminutively , as Psal. 22. 6. But I am a worm , and no man : a reproach of men and despised of the people : For he doth give himself the title of the Son of man not in his prayer to God , as Psal. 22. 6. but in his speeches to the people , and then when he expresseth his Power , Mat. 9. 6. Mat. 12. 8. Mat. 26 64. & 13. 37 , 41. nor do the places alledged prove that the title of Son of man is taken by Christ to himself , to shew his debasement by it , but to imply , that though he were that Son of man to whom dominion over all Nations did belong , yet he had not then where to lay his head : And the like is to be said of that Mat. 12. 40. that even he who was the Son of man by excellency , should be three daies and three nights in the heart of the Earth : Nor is there Mat. 12. 32. a lessening of Christs person below the Holy Spirit implied by the title Son of man ; the sin is less which is against the Son of man , than the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit , not because of the excellency of the Spirits Person above the Person of the Son of man , but because of the property of that sin , being against the conviction of the Spirit by his operation , John 12. 34. The Jews enquire , Who is this Son of man ? not meaning , that the Son of man was a diminitive term , but doubting how that Son of man should be the Messiah , of whom he had said that he should be lifted up , verse 32. And for that place , Psal. 8. 6. Heb. 2. 6. the Son of man doth not express an abject condition , though an inferiour low nature in comparison of Gods , but rather Christs high dignity ; the Authour of that Epistle proving , that to no other man were all things made subject , but to him , who being made little lower than the Angels , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a little time ; to wit , the time of his suffering , verse 9. ( as Cameron expounds it , praelect . in Mat. 16. 27. ) was made Superiour to Angels , and had all things subjected to him . SECT . 15. Christ's Consubstantiality with the Father according to his Deity , with us according to his Humanity , as the Chalcedon Councel determined , is asserted and proved from John 1. 14. Acts 2. 30. Rom. 1. 3 , 4. and 9. 5. HOwever , whether the reason of the appellation be this latter or no , it is certain , that thereby is signified , that Christ hath an Humane as well as a Divine Nature ; and according to the Doctrine of the Councel of Chalcedon I determine , that the Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ , is truely God , and truely man , the same , of a reasonable soul and body , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , consubstantial with the Father , touching the God-head , and consubstantial , or of one essence or substance with us , according to the Man-hood : Which it were unnecessary to prove , sith his composition of Body , Birth , Growth , Properties , Actions , Sufferings , and what ever else prove a Person to be a man , as we are , as plainly are related , and were as fully manifested to have been in Christ Jesus , as in any other man ; but that as of old Valentinus , Marcion , and some others denied his body to have been of humane seed as the matter ; holding it to have been imaginary , not real , or Coelestial , and to have passed through the Virgins womb : So others of late have denied the truth of Christs Incarnation , and the reason of his being termed the Son of man , contrary to the holy Scriptures , as shall be shewed by these Texts following , which ascribe both a Divine and Humane Nature to one and the same Person , the Lord Jesus Christ , both while he was on Earth , and as he is now in Heaven , and shall appear at his future coming to Judgement . To this purpose are the words alledged before , out of John 1. 14. which shew that the same Person who is the Word , was Flesh ; which , because I have before vindicated Sect. 6. I shall not insist on here , nor on such proofs as may be made from Col. 1. 18. or Heb. 1. 3. in which that is ascribed to the Son ( whom I before proved , Sect. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. from those chapters to be God ) which proves him a man , to wit his being head of the body the Church , the first-born from the dead , who by himself purged our sins , and is sate down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heights : But consider other places , where both natures in one Person are declared : Among which I shall chuse to insist on first , those places , which speak of Christ as descending from the Fathers according to the Flesh , as Acts 2. 30. Therefore David being a Prophet , and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him , that of the fruit of his loins , according to the flesh , he would raise up Christ to sit on his Throne . Rom. 1. 3 , 4. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord , which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh , who was declared or determined the Son of God , in , or with Power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection of , or from the dead . Rom. 9. 5. Whose are the Fathers , and of whom Christ according to the flesh , who is over all , God blessed for ever . Which Texts do expresly teach , that Jesus Christ had a humane nature , which is termed the flesh , as it is frequent by [ Flesh ] to understand a man or Humane Nature , Rom. 3. 20. and 11. 14. Isa. 58. 7. Gal. 2. 16. For he was of the fruit of Davids loins ▪ according to the Flesh , which being a restriction cannot limit [ raising up ] but [ Christ ] and so notes another part , according to which Christ was not raised up out of the loins of David , which must be understood of his Divine Nature ; according to which he was Davids Lord , Mat. 22. 44 , 45. He was of the seed of David , and of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as to that which was according to the Flesh ; restrictively after it , implying another Nature , according to which , he is of an higher original , even the Son of God , Rom. 1. 3 , 4. God over all , blessed for ever , Rom. 9. 5. Whence it is inferred : He who is so Davids Son according to the flesh , raised up out of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh , made of the seed of David according to the flesh , of the Fathers according to the Flesh , as that he is also Davids Lord , the Son of God , God over all blessed for ever ; is consubstantial with the Father as touching the God-head , and consubstantial with us as touching his Man-hood : But such is Jesus Christ. Therefore , &c. SECT . 16. The Exception against the Argument from Acts 2. 30. Rom. 1. 3 , 4. Rom. 9. 5. is set down . AGainst this it is thus excepted : When the Apostle saith , that Christ came of the Fathers according to the flesh , who is over all a God blessed for ever ; the opposition is not entire and exact as wanting the other Member : What that Member is , another passage of the Apostle , wherein you have the same opposition in describing Christ , will inform you ; It is Rom. 1. 3 , 4. concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord , who was made ( or rather born ) of the seed of David according to the flesh , and declared to be the Son of God with Power ( Gr. determined , or ordained Son of God in Power ) according to the Spirit of Holiness , by the Resurrection from the dead : Here you see that to those words , according to the flesh , are opposed these , according to the Spirit of Holiness : Again , What this Spirit of Holiness is , will be no hard matter to find out , if we consider that as the flesh signifyeth a constituting part of Christ , namely his fleshly body ; so also must the Spirit of holiness , opposed thereunto , signifie a constituting part : If so , then it is not the holy Spirit , as every one will confesse , nor the reasonable soul of Christ , because he is intimated to have had this Spirit by means of the resurrection from the dead , whereas he had a reasonable Soul before his death : Nor the Divine Nature , for that is no where in Scripture designed by the name of Spirit , or Spirit of holiness : Besides , the adversaries hold , that Christ had the Divine ▪ Nature , whilst he was yet cloathed with flesh . It remains therefore that by the Spirit of holiness , which Christ had by means of the resurrection of the dead , and is a constituting part of him , is to be understood his Holy , Spiritual Body , whereby he is excepted from other men , being the first-born from the dead , or the first that so rose from the dead , as that he never dyed again , but was cloathed with a Spiritual body , and made like to God , who is a Spirit . And now the sense of that passage beginneth to appear , Heb. 9. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ , who through the eternal Spirit ( Gr. through an eternal Spirit , for no Article is prefixed ) offered himself without spot to God ; Purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God ? By eternal Spirit is here meant the spiritual body of Christ , which lasteth to all eternity ; and this expression is opposed to what the same Divine Authour speaketh of Christ , Heb. 5. 7. who in the daies of his flesh , &c. For eternal is contrary to dayes , and spirit to flesh : Neither will that which we have here spoken seem strange to him , who having penetrated into that profound Epistle to the Hebrews , knoweth ( what is there frequently intimated ) that Christ then made his offering for our sins ; when , after his Resurrection , he entered into Heaven , and being endued with a spiritual and immortal Body , presented himself before God : For so the Type of the Levitical High-Priest making the yearly Atonement for the si●s of the People ( Levit. 16. ) did require : For as the Atonement was not then made , when he slew the Beasts , but when having put on his linnen Robes , he brought their blood into the Sanctuary before the Mercy-Seat : So neither did Christ offer his sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross , but when after his Resurrection , being cloathed with Robes of Immortality and Glory , he entered into Heaven , the true Sanctuary , and presented himself to God. ( Wherefore to return to the foresaid passage , Rom. 9. 5. ) When it is there said , of whom according to the flesh ( for so the Greek hath it ) Christ came , who is over all a God to be blessed for ever ; we ought ( by the authority of the Apostle himself ) to supply in our mind the other member of the opposition , and to understand the place , as if it had been said ; who according to the Spirit of holiness by the Resurrection from the dead , is over all a God blessed for ever : But if Christ be according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead ( that is ) according to his spiritual Body , which he received by means of the Resurrection from the dead the Son of God in Power , and accordingly a God over all ; he is not the Son of God in Power , and accordingly a God over all , by having the Divine Nature personally united to his Humane Nature , but by the Glorification and Exaltation of his v●ry Humane Nature . SECT . 17. This Exception against the Argument is refuted . I Reply , that in this passage there are many errours . 1. That Rom. 1. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendered [ born ] rather than made : For though I deny not that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie [ born ] yet here it is not so fitly thus rendered , as [ made ] because it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly used for birth or generation , as Mat. 1. 16. Luke 1. 35. 57. & 23. 29. Joh. 3. 41. & 18. 37. Rom. 9. 11. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as Gal. 4. 4. nor is it said born of the Mother , or Woman , as in expressions of birth is usual , Job 14. 1. Mat. 11. 11. Luke 7. 28. and the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth note , not the womb from whence he came , but the matter out of which he was formed : For doubtless [ of the seed of David according to the flesh , Rom. 1. 3. ] is the same with [ of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh , Acts 2. 30. ] now [ of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh ] notes the matter out of which he had flesh or a humane body ; and therefore the Father or antient Progenitour David is mentioned , and his seed , and the fruit of his loins ; as the Jew is said to come out of the loins of Abraham , and Levi to be in his loins , Heb. 7. 5 , 10. in respect of the matter out of which they came , not the Mother or her Womb , as the place from whence : And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the Act of God answerable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 2. 30. raise up , not the act of the Mother in bringing forth , and therefore Rom. 1. 3. it is rightly translated [ made ] or as Piscator [ orti raised ] answerably to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprang up , Heb. 7. 14. 2. It is granted , that [ according to the flesh ] notes a constituting part , but that it notes a constituting part , which Christ had only afore his Resurrection , and not after his Resurrection , is not to be granted : For as it is now , the humane body of Christ , or humane nature is made of the seed of David , and raised of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh , sith it is the same numerical body , and Christ is still the same man which was made , or descended , or sprang out of David , notwithstanding any alteration in the outward estate , or inherent qualities in his humanity or humane body ; it doth not become a constituting part in its humiliation , and not a constituting part in his exaltation : That very being which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh , which was raised of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh , was to sit on his Throne , Acts 2. 30. and to reign , Luke 1. 32 , 33. And therefore as the Exceptor argues , that by the Spirit of Holiness cannot be meant the Soul or Divinity of Christ , because he had both ( in our opinion at least ) in the daies of his flesh , though the Soul were not then glorified ; I may argue , by the Spirit of Holiness is not meant his glorified body , because he had it , though not then glorified , even in the daies of his flesh . 3. Which is more amply confirmed by shewing , that [ according to the flesh ] notes not his fleshly body as he speaks , that is Christs humane body in its debasement only , but his humane nature : For according to the flesh , Rom. 1. 3. signifies by the same Authours opinion , and the evidence arising from comparing the place , the same that it doth , Rom. 9. 5. now it signifies Rom , 9. 5. the same which it doth ver . 3. where Paul calls the Israelites his Brethren , Kinsmen , according to the flesh , but he means not , they were his Brethren or Kinsmen according to the flesh , that is restrictively to their weakness , debasement , or mortality , in opposition to their glorification , and excluding that as inconsistent with their being his Brethren or Ki●smen according to the flesh : But he means by according to the flesh , their humane nature as men , and as men descended from the same Ancestors , and so in like manner , when it is said , Christ was from the Fathers according to the flesh ; the meaning is not , according to his weak , or inglorious condition precisely , and exclusively to his glorified condition , but simply according to his humane nature , as descended from them , whether in the daies of his flesh , or exaltation , without any discrimination : Which is confirmed by our Saviours own speech to his Disciples , Luke 24. 39. Behold my hands and my feet , that it is I my self ; handle me and see , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have ; Therefore Christ supposed atter his Re●urrection that he had flesh , that his humane Body was a fleshly Body , the same according to the flesh that it was before ; which is also strengthened by the expressions , Acts 2. 3 〈◊〉 . that God raised him ●p of the fruit of Davids loins according to the flesh bu● God did not raise him up of the fruit of Dav●ds loins according to the flesh , barely ●s weak , mortal , and deb●sed , but simply as man descended from him , therefore [ according to the flesh ] imports Christs humanity or humane body as from David without restriction to his low estate : And v. 31. when it is said , his flesh did not see corruption ; his body is still termed flesh , the same flesh , and not considered as weak , for as such it saw a change ( which may be termed in some sort a corruption , to wit , a change from that weakness it had to a better form , but as the constituting part of his humane nature . 4. By [ the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1. 4. ] whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note a constituting part , or an efficient cause , cannot be meant Christs holy Spiritual Body in the Exceptors sense . For 1. It would imply that his Spiritual Body were another constituting part than his fleshly ▪ body , which is already refuted . 2. It would imply that his fleshly body were not his holy body ; whereas that which was born of Mary was that holy thing , which should be called the Son of God , Luke 1. 35. 3. No where is the body of Christ termed a Spirit , or the Spirit of Holiness in any estate : For though it be true , that 1 Cor. 15. 44. mentions a Spiritual body ; yet 1. That is there contradistinguished not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fleshly , but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natural , or ●oulary . 2. No where termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit . 3. Nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit of Holiness . 4. After his Resurrection Christ denies his body to be a Spirit , as having flesh and bones , Luke 24. 39. and he is said to enter into the holy place by his own blood , Heb. 9. 12. and to have consecrated for us a new and living way to enter into the holiest by his blood , through the Veil , that is to say his Flesh , Heb. 10. 19 , 20. It is an errour , that by the eternal Spirit , Heb. 9. 14. is meant Christs Eternal Spiritual Body ; For [ the Eternal Spirit ] there must be of something distinct from himself ; Else the meaning should be , he offered himself by himself , which is tautological and absurd ; but by himself must be meant his body , as Heb. 1. 3. Having purged our sins by himself , is by his own body : For the thing offered was his own Body , or his Life or Soul , Isa. 53. 10. In the Type , the thing offered is some body , gift or sacrifice Heb. 5. 1. and 8. 3. and 9. 7. 9. and 10. 1. and 11. 4 , 17. whence the body offered is termed the oblation , Heb. 10. 5 , 8. In the antitype Christ is said to offer himself , that is , his body called his oblation , Heb. 10. 10. and this offering is termed , Heb. 9. 25 , 26. the Sacrifice of himself for the putting away of sin , and this to be not often , but once in the end of the world , ver . 26. he was once offered to bear the sins of many ; verse 28. He needed not daily , as those High-Priests , to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins , and then for the peoples : For this he did once when he offered up himself , Heb. 7. 27. By the which will we are sanctified , by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . Heb. 10. 10. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins , for ever sate down on the right hand of God , verse 12. which must be afore he sate down on the right hand of God , and therefore on earth , and this was by his suffering or dying , Heb. 9. 26 , 27 , 28. and therefore cannot be referred to his appearing in Heaven , but to his blood-shedding , Heb. 9. 22. in the daies of his flesh : whereby it appears to be false , that Christ did not offer his Sacrifice for our sins , on the Cross , there being no other time meant by that once when he offered up himself for the sins of the people , Heb. 7. 27. and whereas it is sa●d , Heb. 9 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many . St. Peter tells us , 1 Epistle 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree , that we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness ; by whose stripes ye were healed : Which doth evidently refer to Isa. 53. 4 , 5 , 6. whence the last clause is taken , and shews the bearing of our sins by the offering of himself to have been on the Cross or at the time of his suffering on Earth . And hereby it appears to be false , that Christ made not atonement till he came to Heaven : For Col. 1. 20. It is said , And having made peace through the blood of his Cross he reconciled all things to his Father , ver . 21 , 22. Now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death . Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh , and for sin ( or by a sacrifice for sin , as Heb. 10. 8. ) condemned sin in the flesh , which is all one with making atonement . That which is alledged , that the atonement was not then made , when the High-Priest slew the Beasts , but when having put on his linnen Robes , he brought their blood into the Sanctuary before the Mercy-Seat , is partly false , there being atonement made for himself and his house , Levit. 16. 5 , 6. before he entered into the holy place ; and partly impertinent , sith the point in question is not where the atonement was made , but where Christ offered himself , Heb. 9. 14. though both the offering and the atonement are resolved to have been afore his sitting at the right hand of God , Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12. Nor doth it appear , that [ Eternal Spirit , Heb. 9. 14. ] is put in opposition to the daies of his flesh , Heb. 5. 7. For it is not said , Heb. 5. 7. flesh that hath daies , as if it noted a distinction of his body mortal , from his Spiritual Immortal Body ▪ but daies of his flesh , only to note the time of his offering prayers , not the quality or adjunct of his body : Nor is it said , he offered by the daies of his flesh , as here by the Eternal Spirit , but in the daies of his fl●sh , to note the time , which is not intimated , Heb. 9. 14. by that term , by the Eternal Spirit , for then it should rather have been said , by or in the Eternity of the Spirit : The offering being an act of Christ on Earth , is no other than the act of his Deed and Will , whereby he did present himself as a Sacrifice to God , as the phrase is , Rom. 12. 1. or as it is Eph. 5. 2. Gave himself for us , an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour ; by reason of such acts Abraham is said to offer up Isaac , Heb. 11. 17. and we are said to offer the Sacrifice of Praise , Heb. 13. 15. Spiritual Sacrifices , 1 Pet. 2. 5. which is plainly expressed , Heb. 10. 10. By which Will we are sanct●fied by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once , or for once ; which was no other than that which he expressed in that prayer , which Armi●●●● termed rightly the Canon or rule of Christs Sacrifice , John 17. 19. And for them I sanctifie my self , that they also may be sanctified in truth : Which being considered , I see not what good sense can be made of it , as many Divines expound it , of the Divinity of Christ making the Sacrifice of Christ of value to satisfie for sins : For the words [ through the Eternal Spirit ] have not respect to himself , who was offered , as enhauncing the price of the thing offered , by reason of the union of it to himself , neither the place of it before himself , nor the Preposition used , being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through or by , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with or in conjunction , do sute with such a sense ; but it is in construction annexed and referred to the offering , and notes the cause and means of offering : Besides the reason of Piscator is good in his Scholie on the Text , that it belongs not to the Deity to offer Sacrifice , but that is it to which it is offered by a man as a man : And indeed it is not good sense to say , Christ offered himself by his God-head to God , it being not easily conceivable what notion the God-head should have in such a speech , which is not absurd or inept : Nor do I think Piscators opinion good , that by the Eternal Spirit is meant Christs Immortal Soul , partly because no where is Christs Humane Soul called the Eternal Spirit , partly because I think it should rather be said in than through the Eternal Spirit , if Christs Immortal Soul were meant by it , the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noting the efficient cause , not the subject in which the act of offering was : And therefore I rather pitch upon it to understand by [ the Eternal Spirit ] the holy Spirit answering to the fire , which kindled the Sacrifice , and moving or inflaming the heart of Christ with love to us and obedience to God , to give himself an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for us , Ephes. 5. 2. The holy Spirit is fitly resembled by fire , Mat. 3. 11. and he well termed the Eternal Spi●it in opposition to the temporary fire kindling the legal Sacrifices : But if the allusion be not thereto , yet the sense is good and right : For as it is said that Christ had not the Spirit by measure , John 3. 34. and that he was full of the Holy Ghost , Luke 4. 1. that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him , that it anointed him , verse 18. So it is said , that he was moved by the Spirit to be Tempted to Preach , in the same places , and to cast out Devils by the Spirit of God , God putting his Spirit on him he shewed Judgment to the Gentiles , sent forth Judgement to victory , Ma● . 12. 18 , 20 , 28. gave Commandements through the Holy Ghost , Acts 1. 2. And accordingly here is said to offer himself to God by the Holy Eternal Spirit : Nor is the want of the Article any more against the expounding the Eternal Spirit , of the Holy Ghost , than against the expounding it of Christs Spiritual Immortal Body , it being as requisite in respect of use to design the one as the other ; But the truth is , it is not requisite , that it should be prefixed to shew it to be meant of the holy Spirit , sith it is omitted Rom. 9. 1. and 14. 17. &c. and even in this E●●stl● H●b . 2. 4. and 6. 4. So that the sense may be , notwithstanding any thing I find to the contrary that Christ willingly , obediently offered , or yielded , through the holy Spirits incitation or operation in him , himself a Sacrifice without spot or blemish to God : And as executing the function of Priest-hood to which he was anointed above others , Heb. 1. 9. And this sense is most agreable to the Apostles intent , which is to set forth the efficacy and validity of Christs Sacrifice above the Legal ; which he doth here from the obedience and readiness of will to offer himself as he doth . Heb. 10. 10. and the holiness of his person , or his being without spot or blemish , as he doth Heb. 7. 26 , 27. 1 Pet. 1. 19. no where that I find from the Hypostatical Union , or the spirituality , immortality , and glory of his humane body , or the immortality of his Soul. 5. The term [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 1. 4. ] is not rightly rendered [ determined or ordained Son of God in Power ] For though it be true , that the verb signifies appointment , ordination , or predestination , and that this last is used by the Latin vulgar translation , and by sundry of the Antients , and the verb is used so in the New Testament , Luk● 22. 22. Acts 2. 23. and 10. 42. and 17. 26 , 31. in which places the appointment , or determination is by God of a thing future : yet that cannot be the meaning , Rom. 1. 4. For then the sense should be , that Christ should be appointed , or ordained , or determined by God , either that by power , according to his Spiritual body by the resurrection of the dead he should be the Son of God ; Or else that his appointment , ordination or determination that he should be the Son of God , was by power according to the Spirit of holiness , that is his holy spirituall body , by the Resurrection from the dead . This latter sense is most absurd ; it would intimate , as if Gods determination were in power according to Christs Spiritual body by the Resurrection of the dead ; whereas the determination of Gods purpose , or his ordaining of things future , hath no cause but his will , his ordaining is not an act of power , though the execution of it be ; Nor is the former sense true : For then the meaning should be , that Christs being the Son of God was consequent on the power , the spirit of holiness , and resurrection of the dead , sith ordaining or fore-appointing his Sonship to be thereby supposeth them to be before , as the cause is before the effect , and his Sonship to be future to them , or after them : But this is contrary to what is confessed by the adversaries , that he was the Son of God before his resurrection , and is proved from , Luke 1. 35. Mat. 16. 16. John 6. 69. and Heb. 5. 8. Although he were a Son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered , which shews he was a Son afore he learned obedience by the things which he suffered : For which reasons I like not to say as Dr. Pearson doth in his Exposition on the second Article of the Creed , that he was defined , or constituted , and appointed the Son of God in Power by the Resurrection from the dead ; Nor that of Grotius , that he was made a celestial King after his Resurrection , and also before destinated to that Kingdom by so many Miracles done by Divine Power proper to him and dwelling in him , where the term Son of God standing in contradistinction , to being of the seed of David , according to the flesh , is as much as a Celestial King , and the Participle determined is expounded by two other , made , and before destinated , the one noting a thing past , the other a thing future , so as that the same word in the same place shall signifie being made a Celestial King after Christs resurrection , and being aestinated before to that Kingdom , and in Power according to the Spirit of holiness , shall be Divine Power proper to him ▪ and inhabiting in him by that Spirit of holiness , that is force of Divinity by which from the beginning of his conception he was sanctified , and by which he did Miracles , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , shall be after the Resurrect on from the dead : None of which are made good by Heb. 5. 9. Acts 2. 30. or Acts ●6 . 23. or any other which he produ●eth in his Annot. on Rom. 1. 4. Nor do I conceive can be ; Nor do I think D● . Hammond his Paraphr●se right [ but according to the Spirit of holiness , or in respect of that other Nature in him , called his Eternal Spirit , Heb. 9. 14. ] ( far above all that is flesh and blood ) that , I say which shone in him most perfectly , after , and through , and by his Resurrection from the dead , 2 Cor. 13. 4. was set at Gods right hand , the Son of God in Power , to whom accordingly as to a Son , all Power was given by the Father ] For besides what before and after is , or will be said about the Spirit of holiness , and Eternal Spirit , there is nothing of Gods right hand in the Text , nor doth [ set at Gods right hand the Son of God in Power ] well explain [ determined the Son of God in Power ] nor is he rightly said to be set at Gods right hand according to the Spirit of Holiness , or in respect of that other Nature in him , called his Eternal Spirit , Heb. 9. 14. For his being set at the right hand of God is not precisely according to that other Nature , but rather according to that which he had of the Seed of David according the flesh : Nor is it fitly said that other Nature did shine most perfectly after , through or by his resurrection from the dead , 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though his being the Son of God was proved by it , yet how the Divine Nature did shine in him through , by , after his Resurrection from the dead is hard to understand , nor do any words in the Text countenance such a Paraphrase : Wherefore not mis-liking Dr. Hammond's translation ▪ demonstrated or defined the Son of God i● Power ; Nor that of the Syriak Interpreter who turns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by , who was known ; I stick to that sense , which our Translators have chosen , declared , or as Chrysostom , In 〈…〉 t s it [ shewed , demo●strated or manifested to be the Son of God over and above what he was of the seed of David according to the flesh ] and sundry others with him : And so [ determined ] notes not an act of the Will of God concerning the futurity of a thing , but Gods sentence as it were , setling the understanding by way of certification of what was surely so , or evidence of it as of a thing already , being to take away doubting , in the sense in which in the Schools their resolutions concerning things in question , are called their determinations : In which sense I conceive it taken , Heb. 4. 7. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our Translators rendered [ limiteth ] is the same which he expresseth , verse 8. he had not spoken of another day : And likewise that which declareth what a thing is , in Logick is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a definition of it , and the Mood which is Indicative , is termed by Grammarians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the boundaries of Lands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because they shew what is belonging to a person , and in composition Hyppocrates his Determinations , or Declarations about Medicines are entituled his Aphorisms , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a distinct explication of a thing : According to which Exposition the meaning is , Rom. 1. 4. that God had determined as it were by sentence in the Resurrection of him from the dead , that Christ Jesus had another nature above that he had of the seed of David , to wit , that he was the Son of God. 6. The Resurrection of the dead cannot be meant of the general Resurrection , as if the sense were , he is predestinated or fore-appointed that he shall be the Son of God in Power when he shall raise the dead , but of Christs particular Resurrection : For though the general Resurrection shall most fully demonstrate the glory of Christ , yet the determination being of a thing past , must be understood of his own Resurrection : Nor is it a sufficient exception against this , that the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Resurrection of the dead not from the dead , and that it is not by his Resurrection from the dead , but the Resurrection of the dead : For Acts 26. 23. there is in St. Paul's speech the same expression , where speaking of what the Prophers fore-told of Christs Resurrection , he useth this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , word by word , that he the first by rising of the dead , that is as he should suffer , so he should be the first or chief risen from the dead , who should shew or publish light to the people and the Gentiles . 7. In Power , Rom. 1. 4. cannot be referred to the Power of Christ , whereby he did Miracles , but to the Power of God by which he was raised from the dead , of which the same Apostle speaketh , 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through , or by reason of weakness , yet he liveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of , or by the Power of God , 1 Cor. 6. 14. And God hath both raised up the Lord , and will also raise up us by his own Power , Rom. 6. 4. like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory ( that is the Power ) of the Father : Which is confirmed in that he is said to be determined the Son of God in Power , which determination is referred to the Fathers , and therefore the Power is the Fathers by which he is determined to be the Son of God. 8. I confess the Divine Nature of Christ is no where that I find , termed the Spirit of holiness , or the holy Spirit , nor the glorified body of Christ , although God be termed a Spirit , John 4. 24. and 2 Cor. 3. 17. the Lord is that Spirit , which to me seems most likely to be meant of Christ , who is in the Epistles of Paul most commonly meant by this title [ the Lord ] and in the verse before meant , where it is said [ Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord ] that is Christ ; and the next verse following [ But we all with open face beholding the glory of the Lord ] that is Jesus Christ distinguished in the same verse from the holy Spirit , termed the Spirit of the Lord , if it be not to be read , as from the Lord the Spirit , and so applied to Christ : It is said that Christ knew in his Spirit , Mark. 6. 8. that he grew , and waxed strong in Spirit , or was strengthened by the Spirit , Luke 2. 40. that he groaned in Spirit , Joh. 11. 33. which may , or are to be understood otherwise than of his Divine Nature , John 6. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing , the words which I speak unto you are Spirit , and are life , are meant otherwise than of Christs Divine Nature , and 1 Tim. 3. 16. Justified in Spirit , or in the Spirit may be meant otherwise than of his Divine Nature , and so may quickened by the Spirit , 1 Pet. 3. 18. of which in that which follows : The Spirit of Christ is , Rom. 8. 9. termed the Spirit of God , and if the Holy Ghost , 1 Cor. 2. 13 , 14. and 12. 3. And that which was born of Mary is said to be that Holy thing , which shall be called the Son of God , Luke 1. 35. and Dan. 9. 24. he is termed the Holy of Holies , or as we read , the most Holy , but no where the Spirit of Holiness . And therefore if the Spirit of Holiness note not the Divine Nature of Christ , because it is no where in the Scripture designed by the name of Spirit , or Spirit of Holiness , the reason is as good against the interpretation of [ the Spirit of Holiness ] by [ the Holy Spiritual Body of Christ : ] Nor is there likelehood that by [ Spirit ] should be meant [ Body ] sith Spirit and Body are opposed , or contradistinguished , 1 Cor. 6. 20. and 7. 34. James 2. 26. 1 Thes. 5. 23. &c. as well as Flesh and Spirit : And if by [ Spirit of Holiness ] be meant a constituting part of Christ distinct from Flesh , which he had by means of the Resurrection , it cannot be meant of his body , which is the same in substance it was in the daies of his flesh , and so the same constituting part , differing only in quality and external condition , as having an alteration , not another Generation or Creation , and therefore cannot be rightly termed another constituting part : And this reason with the Texts alledged do better countenance the understanding the Deity of Christ by [ the Spirit of Holiness ] than his Holy Spiritual Body : Yet for my part , I incline to neither , but rather to the opinion , that conceives by [ the Spirit of Holiness ] is meant the Holy Ghost , or third Person of the sacred Trinity , and that for these reasons . 1. Because the term [ Spirit of Holiness ] is all one in sense with [ the Holy Spirit ] which is the usual title given to that person , Mat. 28. 19. 2 Cor. 13. 13. 1 John 5. 7. and is according to usual manner of expressing the Adjective by the Genitive case of the substantive , as the Children of Wisdom are wise Children , Children of obedience , 1 Pet. 1. 14. obedient Children , the Children of l 〈…〉 , enlightned Children , Eph. 5. 8. 2. Because the Resurrection is ascribed to the Spirit , Rom. 8. 11. If the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead , dwell in you , be that raised Christ from the dead , shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you , 1 Pet. 3. 18. Being put to death in the flesh , but quickened by the Spirit . 3. Because the sense thus seems to be easiest , and most agreeable to the Apostles scope , who having said , that the Son of God was made of the seed of David according to the flesh , noting a being beyond this , adds , that he was declared , determined , defined or resolved to be the Son of God beyond his being the Son of David with power , by his rising from the dead , which was by Power , according to the Spirit of holiness , that is the holy Spirit , to whom acts of power are usually ascribed , as Luke 1. 35. Mat. 12. 28. which was an undoubted evidence of his being the Son of God , or having a Divine Nature , sith he foretold it as a thing to be done by himself , John 2. 19. and 5. 25 , 26. and 10. 17 , 18. Nor is it necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should note a constituting part , Rom. 1. 4. For it may note an efficient cause mediate , as when it is said Mark. 1. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with authority he commandeth the unclean Spirits , which is , Luke 4. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Authority and Power , so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by might , or mightily , Heb. 7. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power , is by vertue or reason of the power or proportion and congruity to the agent , as when it is said , Rom. 1. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much as in me lies , and the sense be , in power according to the Spirit of Holiness , that is , with or through the holy Spirit , or congruously , proportionably to the holy Spirit ; which if it do not so fully answer the use of the preposition , yet we may say as Dr. Hammond in a like case , Annot on Mark. 9. 3. though the preposition do not favour this Interpretation , yet the promiscuous uncertain use of prepositions among sacred Writers is so observable , that it may take off much of that one objection . So far as my observation hath hitherto attained in the Apostles and other Writers Greek Expressions , if the Apostle had intended that the Spirit of Holiness should note another constituting part , he should have put next to [ the Son of God ] according to the Spirit of Holiness , as he did ver . 3. according to the flesh next to of the seed of David , but being put between with Power and the Resurrection of the dead , it seems not to note a constituting part , but the efficient cause of the Resurrection , or subject of that power , by which Christ was raised . 9. The distinct mention Rom. 9. 5. of Christs being of the Fathers according to the flesh , that is his humane nature , and then adding , who is over all God blessed for ever , shews that he is over all God blessed for ever , according to his Divine Nature or deity : Nor is the defect of the Article a sufficient reason to the contrary , sith it is very frequent to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Article , where it is meant of God in Nature , as 1 Cor. 3. 16. 23. and 1. 24. and 2. 5. 7. &c. 10. In that God said to Christ , Psal. 110. 1. and he was then Davids Lord , Acts 2. 34. when he knew , verse 30. that God had sworn with an oath to him , that of the fruit of his loins he would raise up Christ to sit on his Throne , it proves that Christ was in being and was his Lord afore he was his Son , and so had a Divine Nature , though he was his Son according to the flesh . SECT . 18. The consubstantiality of Christ with the Father and us , is proved from 1 Tim. 3. 16. THe next Text of Scripture I shall insist on to prove the consubstantiality of Christ to God and us , is 1 Tim. 3. 16. where St. Paul saith , And without controversy great is the Mystery of godliness ; God was manifested in the flesh , justified in the Spirit , seen of Angels , Preached unto the Gentiles , believed on in the World , received up into Glory : This passage is undoubtedly meant of the Lord Jesus , sith of no other are these things true , that ●e was manifested in the flesh , &c. And they are true of him : He was manifested in the flesh being made flesh , justified in , or by the Spirit at his Baptism , by his Miracles , and at his Resurrection to be , that which he said himself to be , the Son of God , against the false accusations of the Pharisees as a Deceiver , confederate with Satan ; seen of Angels at his Birth , Temptation in the Wilderness , Agony in the Garden , Resurrection from the Grave , and Ascension into Heaven , Preached to the Gentiles by his Apostles , believed on in the World even by the Gentiles , and received up in , or into Glory at his Ascension into Heaven : Now he of whom these things are said is God , therefore the same Person , Christ Jesus is both God and Man ; or consubstantial to the Father in respect of his God-head , to us in respect of his Man-hood . SECT . 19. The Exceptions against this Proof . THe Exception against this Argument is : 1. That the reading God was manifested in the flesh , is suspected to have been altered by Nestorians , because the vulgar Latin , the Syriak , Arabian Interpreters , and Ambrose all read [ which was manifested ] and refer it to the Mystery of Godliness , and so this sense is given of it , that the Gospel was first made known not by Angels , but by mortal men , and according to their outward appearance weak , Christ and his Apostles , as flesh , Col. 1. 26. notes a mortal man , 2 Cor. 2. 16. 1 John 4. 2. was justified in Spirit ] that is , that truth was approved by many Miracles , for Spirit is Miracles by a Metonymy , which is , 1 Cor. 2. 4. and elsewhere . And to be justified here is to be approved , as Mat. 11. 19. so he is said to be justified , who in a contention is a Conquerour , because his cause is approved , Deut. 25. 1. add Psal. 21. 6. ( I imagine Grotius means , Psal. 51. 4. ) [ Seen of Angels ] to wit , wi●h greatest admiration : Angels le●rned this secret by mortal men , Ephes. 3. 10. 1 Pet. 1. 12. To see with the Hebrews is translated to all manner of knowing : Was preached to the Gentiles ] that truth was not only declared to the Jews , but also to the Gentiles , who were most estranged from God , Eph. 2. 12. Col. 1. 21. believed in the World ] that is in a great part of the world , Rom. 1. 8. Col. 1. 6. received up in Glory ] it was very gloriously exalted , to wit , because it brought much more holiness than any Doctrines formerly : To be taken up is to be lifted up on high , and answers to the Hebrew Verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in glory gloriously , Phil. 4. 19. Col. 3. 4. See al●●o , 2 Cor. 3. 8. so they glorified the word of the Lord , Acts 13. 48. 2. Others thus : God the Father was manifested , that is , his Will made known in the flesh , that is , with or by the infirmity of Christ and his Apostles , justified in Spirit , taken or acknowledged for true by Divine vertue which shined in Christ as well as his Apostles , or put forth it self powerfully by them ; was seen of Angels , the good will of God towards men , was revealed to Angels , received up in glory , the will of God was by many chearfully received and constantly retained , or the holy Religion of Christ was gloriously admitted and received . SECT . 20. These Exceptions are refelled . TO which I Reply : 1. That the reading of [ which ] instead of [ God ] should be followed against all Copies of the Original now extant is unreasonable , and not to be yielded to : The Syriak , Arabian , and Latin are not to be put in the ballance with the Greek Copies : The Latin translation is found and confessed even by Romanists to be so faulty , as that it is not of itself to be rested on , much less are Ambrose and Hin 〈…〉 arus , who were mis-led by it : That Nestoria●s should foyst in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is not likely , sith it is against their opinion , and was used by Chrysostom before Nestorius , and by Cyril against the Nestorians , as Dr. Pearson shews in his Exposition of the Creed , Artic. 2. page 142. of the second Edition . 2. By [ God ] cannot be meant , either God the Father , or his Will , or the Gospel , or the truth of it . 1. Because the words cannot be expounded so in either of the senses given : Neither is God the Father any where said to be manifested in the flesh , justified in the Spirit , received up in Glory : Nor doth God manifested in the flesh signifie God , or his Will , or Gospel , or truth manifested in infirmity , or Christ and his Apostles in their infirmity , nor justified in , or by the Spirit approved by Miracles , nor seen of Angels , learned by them from mortal men , nor received up in Glory , admitted or received in mens minds : None of all the Texts alledged countenance these Expositions ; Though flesh sometimes signifies mortal weak man , it being a word of very various acceptions , and the Gospel is said to be manifested as Col. 1. 26. and 2 Cor. 2. 14. and Gal. 4. 13. St. Paul saith , he preached the Gospel at first to the Galatians through the infirmity of the flesh , yet no where is the Gospel said to be manifested in the flesh , or flesh put simply for infirmity . That 1 Joh. 4. 2. that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh , is against his sense of preaching the Gospel in infirmity , it plainly noting his coming into the world in a humane nature , in the sense in which he said , John. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh , and dwelt among us . Though I deny not , that words of sense do often note other knowledge than by sense , yet these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are scarce ever found to be applied to any thing but that which is descernable by sight : However if they were , yet the sense imagined hath no colour , sith it is not said , seen of Angels by the Church : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not receiving by men that glorifie it , but the glory of the person or thing manifested , Phil. 4. 19. Col. 3. 4. are not meant of such glory , or alacrity , or rejoycing , as is made the meaning of Glory , 1 Tim. 3. 16. Nor do we find in the Greek Bibles such language as answers to the pretended Exposition of it in that place : And for receiving the Gospel , the usual word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 1 Thes. 1. 6. and 2. 14. Acts 2. 41. not the word there used . 2. According to that Exposition it would be an in●pt tautology to say , he was believed on in the world , and received up in glory if meant of receiving in mens hearts : For what is it to be believed on , but to be received in mens hearts ? which is not to be conceived of the Apostle in these concise Aphorismes . 3. There would be no Mystery much less a great Mystery without contradiction in that which the Apostle saith , if the meaning were as it is made , sith Gods will was often manifested by mortal men , even by all the Prophets , who testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ , and the glory that should follow , 1 Pet. 1. 11. and approved by Miracles done by Moses , Elias , Elisha , known by Angels who brought Messages to Daniel and others , preached to the Gentiles by Jonah at Niniveh , believed in the world by the Ninivites , received with alacrity ; as by David and others . 3. The words in the plain obvious sense , are truely and rightly expounded of Jesus Christ who is said to be God , John 1. 1 , 2. to come in the flesh in his humane nature , to be made flesh , John 1. 14. to be manifested in his works , John 2. 11. and his preaching , Mark 1. 27. Luke 7. 16 , 22. justified in the Spirit , or by the Spirit , either by the Spirits descent on him at his Baptisme John 1. 33 , 34. whereby he was proclaimed and proved to be the Son of God , or by his Miracles , as Mat. 12. 28. against the accu 〈…〉 on of colluding with the Devil , or at his Resurrection as I conceive , Rom. 1. 3 , 4. or by giving the Holy Ghost , Acts 2. 33. Seen of Angels , Luke 2. 11 , 12. Mat. 4. 15. Luke ●2 . 43. and 4. 4 , 5. Acts 1. 10. Preached to the Gentiles , 1 Cor. 1. 23. 2 Cor. 1. 19. Believed on in the World , Rom. 1. 8. 1 T 〈…〉 . 1. 7 , 8. received up , the word used 1 Tim. 3. 16. in glory , Acts 1. 2 , 11 , 12. Mark 16. 19. Luke 9. 51 and 24. 26. 4. It being said God was manifested in the flesh and this meant of Jesus Christ proves he was ( before ) God , and then he had flesh , and therefore a Humane and Divine Nature , and consubstantial to the Father and to us SECT . 21. The samething is confirmed from 1 Pet. 3. 18 , 19 , 10. Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 3. 1 John 4. 2. Heb. 2. 14. and 10. 5. John 16. 28. TO this I shall subjoyn for Confirmation and Explication , 1 Pet. 3. 18 , 19 , 20. where Christ is said to be put to death in the flesh , but quickened by the Spirit : Where flesh must note a constituting part , and yet the Spirit note the efficient : For quickened noting his Resurrection , cannot note his Eternal Holy Spiritual Body , as was conceived meant by the Eternal Spirit , Heb. 9. 14. and the Spirit of Holiness , Rom. 1. 4. For that was not till he was quickened , and therefore he not quickened in or by it ; nor his Humane Soul , for that dyed not , and therefore the Spirit must note an efficient , and that must be either the Divine Nature of Christ , or , as I conceive , the Holy Spirit , to whom his Resurrection is ascribed , Rom. 8. 11. called the Power of God , 2 Cor. 13. 4. as what is done by the Spirit ; is said to be done by the Power of God , Luke 1. 35. Mat. 12. 28. Luke 11. 20. and he was quickened by the Spirit by which he preached , verse 19. which was the Holy Spirit , Gen. 6. 3. in the preaching of Noah , 2 Pet. 2. 4. and this was the Spirit of Christ , 1 Pet. 1. 11. the Holy Ghost , 2 Pet. 1. 21. In that Spirit he went and preached to the spirits in Prison , which were sometimes disobedient in the daies of Noah , which those that deny Christs Divine Nature , will not say to have been done in the th●ee daies of his death afore his Resurrection , therefore in the da●es of Noah , and consequently he had then a being , to wit a Divine Nature , otherwise he could not be said then to go and preach by the Spirit by which he was quickened , nor the spirits in prison to have been disobedient , when once the long-suffering of God waited in the daies of Noah , while the Ark was a preparing . To these Scriptures I add , Gal. 4. 4. Rom. 8. 3. The sending his Son supposeth the Sons being before , and so his Divine Nature , Made of a Woman , in the likeness of sinful flesh his Humane , therefore he had both . To the same effect are those Texts which speak of his coming in the flesh , as 1 John 4. 2. his taking part of flesh and blood , Heb. 2. 14. where he that was Superiour to Angels antecedently , was made little lower than the Angels , or debased below the Angels , partaking flesh and blood , not ashamed to call them Brethren , ver . 7 , 11. whom in respect of his native greatness he might have been ashamed to own as such , and therefore is supposed to have a being above man , afore he was a man : His coming into the world with a body prepared for him , out of obedience and compliance of will to his Fathers , Heb. 10. 5. John 16. 28. shews his being with his Father before he was a man , and so a Divine Nature antecedent to his Humane . SECT . 22. Christs consubstantiality with the Father and us , is proved from Philip. 2. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. THere yet remains that Text , which is , Philip. 2. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. where the Apostle speaks thus : Let this mind be in you , which was also in Christ Jesus , who being in the form of God , thought , or counted it not robbery , or a spoil , or prey to be equal to God , or as God : But made himself of no reputation , or emptied himself , and took upon him the form of a Servant , and was made in the likeness of men , or when he had been made like to men ( as Meric . Casaubon diatriba de usu Verborum p. 66. ) and being found in fashion , or habit as man or a man , and became obedient , or rather being or becoming obedient unto death , even the death of the Cross : In which I confess are sundry unusual expressions needful to be cleared , yet sufficient to prove him to have a Divine and Humane Nature , sith he is said to have been in the ●orm of God first , and then to empty himself , to take on him the form of a Servant , to be made in the likeness of men , to be found in fashion as a man , to humble himself to death , whence I may argue : He who be●ng in the form of God , counted it no robbery or prey that he was as God , emptied himself , taking the form of a Servant when he was made in the likeness of men , and being found in fashion as a man , humbled himself , becoming obedient unt● death , had a Divine and Humane Nature ; But this is true of Jesus Chr●st , therefore he had both Natures . SECT . 23. The Exception against this Argument is recited . TO this Argument the Exception is thus made : The words and sense being thus : Let this mind be in you , which was in Christ Jesus ; who being in the form of God ( for the exercise and demonstration of Divine Power , whereby he wrought Miracles in as free and uncontrouled a manner as if God himself had been on the earth ) thought it not robbery ( or a prey ) to be equal with God ( that is did not esteem this equality of his with God , consisting in the free exercise of Divine Power , to be a prey , by holding it fast , and refusing to let it go , as Robers are want to do when they have got a prey or booty ) but ( Gr. ) emptied himself ( in making no use of the Divine Power within him to rescue himself out of the hands of the Officers sent to apprehend him ) and took upon him the form of a Servant ( in suffering himself to be apprehended , bound and whipt as Servants are wont to be ) being made in the likeness of men ( that is ordinary and vulgar men , who are endued with no D●vine Power ) and being found in fashion ( or habit ) as a man ( that is , in outward quality , condition and acting , no whit differing from a common man ) he humbled himself , and became obedient unto death , even the death of the Cross. SECT . 24. The Text is explained in order to the refelling of the Exception . TO clear this Text , and Argument , and so to refel the exception , it will be necessary to enquire what is meant : 1. By the form of God. 2. By being in the form of God. 3. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 4. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 5. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 6. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 7. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 8. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 9. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 10. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 11. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 12. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 13. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 14. By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 15. By found . 16. By humbled himself . 17. By becoming obedient . 18. When he was in the form of God. 19. When he emptied himself ▪ 20. When he took the form of a Servant . 1. It is true that form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is most commonly applied to signific something outward which is the object of sight , and therefore Grotius conceives , that by the form of God is meant the glory of his Miracles . But as Dr. Casa●bon in the place before cited , rightly observed , where it is used for something which appears to the sight , it is never used for Excellent Power , or Divine Power in working Miracles , but for the outward visage , when it hath splendour , beauty and excellent lustre , attractive of the eyes , and moving desire or lust , or giving occasion to conceive in the person Majesty , or an heroical Spirit within , and so awing others , or procuring dread or reverence of him . Now it is certain Christ had not in the daies of his flesh such a form , but as the Prophet foretold , Isa. 53. 2. He grew up before God as a tender plant , and as a root out of a dry ground : He had no form nor comeliness : and when he was seen there was no beauty that they should desire him , but in outward appearance he was poor and despicable ; Nevertheless the verbs simple and compound do signifie something inward and not conspicuous to the eyes . Thus it is meant when St. Paul saith Gal. 4. 19. My little Children of whom I travail in birth until Christ be formed in you , Rom. 12. 2. Be ye transformed in the renewing of your mind , 2 Cor. 3. 18. we are transformed after the same image . And if in the Holy Scripture the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 form signifie not that which is inward and hidden , yet in Aristotle and other Authours , the word signifies the essence or that constitutive essential part of a substance , which differenceth one substance from another , which is defined by Aristotle 2d . Physick . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reason of its being such a thing : And indeed many understand by the form of God , the essence or nature of God. But to the contrary is . 1. That form hath the same notion , Phil. 2. 6. in the term form of God , as it hath verse 7. in the term form of a Servant ; But in that notion of the essence or nature of a Servant , it cannot be said Christ took the form of a Servant , for that is a m●er relation , and if he had taken the essence of a Servant by being incarnate it had been the same with being made in likeness of men , and so he could not have put off the essence of a Servant , no more than the essence of a man , if his taking the form of a Servant had been by being made a man : Besides the nature of man is not the essence of a Servant ; man may be Lord as Christ man is Lord of all , Acts 10. 36. and yet hath the essence of man , and Angels are Servants and yet have not the essence of man. 2. It is said , Christ emptied himself , to wit , of the form of God in which he was , which notes some lessening or laying aside of the form of God , in wh●ch he was ; But that could not be the Divine essence , therefore it is not here meant . Nor is it to be conceived , that by the form of God is meant the power of doing Miracles : For neither is the power of Miracles any where termed the form of God , and if that were all that is meant , it might be said of Moses and Elias that they were in the form of God : Besides he did not empty himself of the power or exercise of it whereby he did Miracles at any time , no not when he was apprehended , for even then the Souldiers at his word went backward and fell to the Earth , John 18. 6. and he restored Malch●s his ear cut off by Peter , Luke 22. 5● . although he did not use his power to rescue himself . Therefore it is more likely that by form of God is meant the state or Majesty of God , that glory which he had with his Father before the world was , John 17. 5. the Exercise of his Empire , which he had opposite to the state of a Servant which he took , and to the obedience which he yielded to his Father , ver . 7 , 8. For the estate of God is an estate of Empire and Command exercising Power and Dominion , giving of gifts to friends , helping Subjects , subduing Enemies , which Christ did with the Father before he took flesh , but emptied himself of it in his humiliation : which is the more confirmed in that his superexaltation , verse 9. restored that which he emptied himself of : Now that was his Glory and Majesty , all things being made subject to him . And this seems best to agree with the use of the term form , as here it seems to be used : For as the form of a Servant notes that which made him appear to others to be under the command of another , to wit , of his Father , which was that he should lay down his life and take it again , John 10. 18. which was undoubtedly conspicuous to the Angels , and also to those who knew him to be the Son of God ; So the form of God notes that Majesty , Glory , exercise of Empire which he had with his Father , which was apparent to the Holy Angels , and to Abraham who saw his day , and to Jacob and other holy persons afore his Incarnation , and is the same with his being as God , or equal to God. 2. From hence then we may understand what is meant by his being in the form of God , to wit his possession and enjoyment of that glory he had with his Father before the world was , John 17. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the subsistence or being of his person , and the form of God notes his estate of Glory and Majesty , which I conceive expressed by that of the Apostle , 2 Cor. 8 , 9. Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , that though he were rich , yet for your sakes he became poor , that ye through his poverty might be rich . 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be expounded either as an adjective as our translatours render it , equal with God , or as an adverb , and so it is used twelve times in the Greek ve●sion of the Book of Job , Wisdome 7. 3. in Homer , and else-where , and answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew , and notes likeness , and may be translated , as God : Now whether of these two waies it is to be read , is in my apprehension difficult : I incline to the latter . 1. Because nothing is expressed that may be as a substantive to it , whereas if it were an adjective , either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself , used ver . 7 ▪ or as Came●arius in his note observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his things , should be added : As for that which is by Pasor in his Lexicon voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Zanch. de incarnatione Filii Dei , lib. 1. c. 2. imagined , as if there were an ellipsis of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the sense were , that he was equally God , as God , that is the Father ; it is a bold supplement , that hath not any thing to countenance it in the Text , and gives much advantage to them that say , he is not the same God. In that which he mentions out of Posselius his Syntaxis , p. 134. [ that it is an Hellen●sm , and it is put for the noun substantive equality , as if by the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Infinitive Mood were turned into a Noun , and the sense were as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives it , he did not snatch , or catch by rapine equality with God ] the interpretation doth suppose , that he counted it not rapine , is all one with , he did not take by rapine , and the verb substantive of the Infinitive Mood , to be turned into a Noun , whereas it is drowned in his sense , and if it were made a Noun , it should be thus read , he did not take by rapine being equality with God , whi●h hath no good sense , and the Adjective or Adverb is made a Noun Substantive , not the Infinitive Mood , and the Noun of equality is made to govern a D●tive case without any Example , when according to that sense by rule God should be in the Genitive : I confess where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used adverbially it doth most commonly note simili●ude of action , yet similitude of being is sometimes expressed by it , as Job 11. 12. in the Greek , and elsewhere , and though it note equality , yet also it notes likeness ; and in the same chapter , v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated like minded , and this doth best answer to the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ver . 6 , 7 , 8. which note likeness of estate or condition , yet comprehending withall reality of Nature . 2. If it were to be read to be equal with God , it would intimate , that he emptied himself of it as the adversative ; But verse 7. shews , and the phrase , he counted it not a prey , do evince ; but equality with God he could not empty himself of , but must hold it as a prey not to be let go , the contrary whereof the Text doth propound for our imitation . 4. Whence it seems most likely , that the thing he means by his being as God , was his commanding as God , his like doing with his Father mentioned , John 5. 17 , 19. which he did in his presence , and such glory as he had then , and now had not as before , but prayes for its restitution , John 17. 5. Of which see what is said before , Sect. 16. Zanchius parte secunda de tribus Elo●im , l. 3. c. 2. § . 4. quasi filius hominis cum nubibus C●li venit , hoc est Christus pervenit ad gloriam De●tatis post resurrectionem , sicut ego cum m●gnis viris intelligo . 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a rare word , yet seems to have the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. and notes either rapinam or raptum , the act of taking or carrying away , or the thing taken , or ca 〈…〉 d away , both which are expressed by the Greek word , and by the word [ robbery ] which our t●anslators use to answer it , yet I rather render it prey , or spoil , as expressing only the thing gotten , not the act of getting . 1. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be meant of the acquisition , but the thing possessed . 2. It is more agreable to the phrase of emptying himself , which presupposeth a thing had or possessed , which was the form of God , and being as God , and the thing possessed as Robbers or Beasts of prey get what they have . 3. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so used by the Greek Interpreters , Job 29. 17. Isa. 42. 22. Isa. 61. 18 , &c. for the thing gotten , although in the latter place it be translated robbery , and the term robbed is as well meant of the person from whom , as the thing gotten by robbery : So also it is used Levit. 6. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that which he took violently away , Ezek. 19. 6. Ezek. 18. 7 , 13 , 16 , 18. Ezek. 23. 25 , 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by the vulgar Latine arbitratus est , by Beza duxit , by ours thought , may either note an act of judgement , or affection , or purpose , or use : In the first sense to think it not a prey is as much as he did not judge , that the being as God was a thing stoln or gotten by any force or fraud , usurped , or plundered from another , but his own whether by inheritance or free donation : But this is not likely , partly because the inward act of judgement or cogitation is not here propounded to be imitated , but some act of will or affection manifested by outward action or patent fact , which is apparent by the Exhortation , verse 5. where the Apostle saith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Let the same mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus , that is have the same will , purpose , resolution , action as he had , who was so far from doing any thing through st●●fe and vain-glory , that he preferred others before himself , not looking at his own things , but the things of others , which he shewed by his not holding fast his Excellency , but emptying himself ; partly also because the act of thinking here denied must be opposite to his emptying himself : For the particle [ but ] being adversative shews the thinking it robbery to be equal with God , or to be as God to be contrary to the emptying ; Now if the not thinking were as much as not judging , then the emptying must be an alteration of his thoughts , or a privation of it , which hath no congruous sense : For the emptying was of himself , or that which he was in being , not of his thoughts of himself , or having other thoughts of himself : Besides the not thinking it robbery or a prey is not an act of sentence determining what was his own or right he had to a thing , but an act of purpose , that notwithstanding his right or possession , yet his resolution was not to retain it , but ( as the emptying , verse 7. shews ) tending to a dereliction of it for a time in obedience to his Father whom he would glorifie on earth , by finishing the work he gave him to do , though by abasing himself , as he saith in his prayer to his Father , John 17. 4. where he relates the event of his errand and business for which he came into the world , and for which he took on him the form of a Servant : which ●eason evacuates that sense which is given by Grotius , Heinsius , and if there be any other , that imagine the sense to be according to a speech of John Baptist in the Syriak Liturgy , that he would not assumere rapinam , that is , do such an injurious thing as to pretend to have greater authority than Christ , that Christ did not think it a wrong to his Father that he was equal to him , or had power of Miracles , and was beheld as God , as Grotius his phrase is : For his act did suppose his ●ight , but expresseth his intent notwithstanding his right , and this antecedent to his emptying himself , taking the form of a Servant , being made in the likeness of men , and ●ending thereto removendo prohibens by removing that which might hinder his emptying himself , not disclaiming his right , but relinquishing his possession of what he had , not doing as Robbers or others , who hold what they have gotten by violence as long as they have any power to keep it , but freely and voluntarily in dutiful subjection to his Father , yielding it up to his hands from whom he received it , in order to the accomplishment of his Will , as it is expressed , Heb. 10. 9. And this also helps to shew that Piscator and those who follow him do mistake in the notion of this phrase , as if it were , as if the Apostle had said , he did not as men that have gotten a spoil by victory , triumphantly make shew of it , but did rather conceal , or hide it at least , for the greatest part of his life forbidding the divulging his Miracles , and that confession which Peter made , Mat. 16. 20. and the Vision in the Mount at his transfiguration , Mat. 17. 9. For then his not thinking it a spoil should be after his emptying , which was when he took the form of a Servant , being made in the likeness of men , whereas it was before , and in his not thinking should be no act of obedience , whereby he took the form of a Servant , nor can be rightly made as tending to the act of emptying himself , which was not in the opinion of others , but in his own diminution , nor did he conceal or hide himself , but both by Miracles and expresse speeches shew himself to be the Son of God , John 1. 14. and 2. 11. and 10. 30 , 32 , 36 , &c. although for some time he inhibited his Disciples to divulge some peculiar Revelations , that no impediment might be to the great design of his suffering and rising from the dead , which he should accomplish at Jerusalem , according to Moses and Elias their conference with him , Luke 9. 31. nor could these inhibitions to some persons be indeed his emptying himself , or making himself of no reputation , or not thinking it robbery or spoil gotten by conquest that he was as God , by not triumphantly boasting of it , but concealing it : For in the event notwithstanding those prohibitions his glory was so known , that immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the Region round about Galilee , Mark 1. 28. and he who was forbidden to speak of his curing him , yet went out and began to publish it much , and to blaze abroad the matter , insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the City , but was without in desart places , and they came to him from every quarter , Mark 1. 45. Wherefore I conceive , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a denial of an act elicite of the mind and affections , in esteeming , valuing , affecting , or making account of his being as God , as men do of a prey gotten by violence , which they do so affect or rejoyce in it that they cannot part with it . 2. Of an act imperate of the members in retaining it by claiming or asserting of it , and contending to keep it as a thing which they will not yield up but by force ; and the sense is , Christ being in the form of God , that is the glory of his Father as associate with him in his Empire , did not esteem or hold that his being as God , as if it had been a prey gotten by violence , which he would not relinquish without force ; But &c. Which importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is agreable to the use of it in this Epistle , Philip. 2. 3. and 3. 7. 8. where his accounting all things as loss and dung notes his esteem and dereliction of them as such , and the like use is elsewhere , 1 Thes. 5. 13. 2 Thes. 3. 15. 1 Tim. 1. 12. and 6. 1. Heb. 10. 29. and 11. 26. James 2. 1. besides what occurs in other Authours . And hereunto I may accommodate some of the words which Dr. Merick Casaubon cites in his Diatriba de usu verborum p. 52. out of Cornelius a lapide the Jesuite , As Chrysostom and Vatablus observe , rapere to catch or take by violence signifies by a Metalepsis studiously and contentiously to retain something as if it were snatcht or caught by violence 〈◊〉 rapine , as if he said , Christ did not catch , nor ambitiously sought , as Lucifer , Isa. 14. 13. the equality of God , not as Robbers are wont ( while they being guilty of their evil doing , fear least they should lose it ) studiously ke●p and ambitiously defend the thing caught by them ; but rather of his own accord as a lawful Lord deposed it , or let it go and emptied himself : For the adversative particle [ but ] which follows , when he saith , but he emptied himself requires this : Otherwise it will not be so much an adversative as an explicative , and will be taken improperly , sed , pro , veruntamen , but , for , nevertheless : which leads us to the consideration of verse 7. 7. Where I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as an adversative rightly rendered [ but ] not [ yet ] or [ nevertheless ] to which answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek , and it notes something contrary to what it is said he did not , verse 6. which being the holding of his being as God , that which he did is to be conceived contrary to it , expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which our Translators render made himself of no reputation , and that is by many conceived to have been by concealing or hiding from men his being as God ; But this , as I shewed before , is not right , sith Christ did manifest his glory so as that they beheld his glory as of the only begotten Son of God full of grace and truth , John 1. 14. and by his words and works did indeed what did , and might make him of great reputation , so that he was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people , Luke 24. 19. and is contrary to what is said , 1 John 3. 5 , 8. 1 Tim. 3. 16. God was manifested in the flesh ; and also must restrain this act to the time of his converse with men , whereas the Text makes it to have been either antecedent or coincident with his taking the form of a Servant , being made in the likeness of men : Nor is it said , he diminished his esteem , or begat in others a low opinion of him , but he emptied or evacuated himself , that is , became less full than he was ; which is not rightly referred by Grotius , to his living a poor life , but notes some act antecedent to his conversing with men : Heinsius likes it better to render it humbled , than emptied himself , alledging Chrysostom Exercit. Saer . l. 11. c. 2. But sith the Apostle useth that word , verse 8. as a further act of Christs submission of himself beyond that of emptying , verse 7. they are not rightly confounded , but the emptying is to be taken as an act of privation in some sort of somewhat he had , and the humbling to subjection to what was appointed him to suffer . Rightly saith Dr Hammond in his Annotation on Philip. 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to lessen , diminish ; so Pharorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer or undergo diminution , so the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Jerem. 4. 4. ( it should be 2. ) and 15. 9. is ●rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to empty , is Joel 1. 10 , 12. Nehem. 1. 4. ( mis-printed for Nahum 1. 4. ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to diminish , and Hos. 4 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to make little : A diminution then or lessening , or priva 〈…〉 is expressed by it , which is to be conceived to be the form of God , his being as God , the glory he had in possession with his Father , when he commanded with him , but now in respect of use and enjoyment laid it aside , lessened himself from the condition of being Lord of all , to that of a subject and ordinary man , as Dr. Hammond speaks in his Paraphrase , which is confirmed in that it is expressed in the words following , Taking the form of a Servant , being made in the likeness of men , wherein this emptying of himself did consist . 8. The form of a Servant cannot be interpreted merely of Christs v●sage or outward aspectable form : For 1. There is no such outward form which doth distinguish a freeman from a Servant or Slave , but that the one is often as comely and beautiful as the other . 2. Though it be true that by reason of his suffering , his visage was so marred more than any man , and his form more than the Sons of men , as the Prophet fore-told , Isa. 52. 14. yet he took not this form , but it was put on him by his enemies : His whipping , binding and leading away was not the form of a Servant , but of a Prisoner , and he took not these , but under-went them when they were inflicted on him : His Crucifying it is true , was Servile supplicium , the punishment of Slaves , but it was inflicted on others also ; even then when he was Crucified others were Crucified with him , not as Servants , but as Thieves and Robbers , and upon him it was inflicted as on a Malefactor , so that it was written in the title of his condemnation , The King of the Jews , and he was numbered with the Transgressors , Mark 15. 26 , 28. and he was made a curse for us , as it is written , Cursed is every one that ●angeth on a Tree , Gal. 3. 13. Nor is taking of the form of a Servant referred only to his outward poverty , as Grotius conceives , that he took on him the form of a Servant , in that he had nothing of his own , as he said of himself , Mat. 8. 20. For that is not the form of a Servant , it may be the estate of a Son in minority , Gal. 4. 1. And though it were true , that he had no certain dwelling place , yet he had a Bag kept by Judas , out of which distribution might be made to the poor , John 13. 29. Nor is it his Humane Nature , for then it had been the same with being made in the likeness of men : Nor are all mens Servants , and he by his super-exaltation , verse 9. left the form of a Servant , not his Humane Nature : Besides the form of a Servant which he took was not to men , but to God , as appears , from verse 8. where it is said , he became obedient unto death : His obedience was to God his Father , as appears from verse 9. therefore God , that is God the Father , verse 11. highly exalted him , for his obedience to him , Heb. 5. 8. Though he were a Son , yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered , Now Rom. 6. 16. his Servant any one is to whom he obeys : And therefore Christ obeying his Father is often stiled his Servant , Isa. 52. 13. and 42. 1. Mat. 12. 18. 9. His taking then the form of a Servant was his submission of himself to his Fathers command , according to that which he saith , John 6. 38. I came down from Heaven , not to do mine own will , but the will of him that sent me , and this was his emptying himself : For it is rightly observed by Dr. Pearson Explic. of the Creed , art . 2. p. 135. of the second Edition , that the Apostle explains the emptying of himself , by adding the taking the form of a Servant , not by way of conjunction , but by way of apposition , though I do not conceive , that signifies a clear identity , as he speaks : But that which follows is right , that it is necessary to observe , that our translation of that verse is not only not exact , but very dis-advantagious to that truth which is contained in it : For we read it thus : He made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a Servant , and was made in the likeness of men : Where we have two copulative conjunctions , neither of which is in the original Text , and three propositions without dependance of one upon the other ; whereas all the words together , are but an expression of Christs exinanition , with an explication shewing in what it consisteth : And this also sheweth what was the form of God , and his being as God , like , or equal to God , to wit his Dominion and Empire with his Father , that fulness which he emptyed himself of by taking the form of a Servant , which was restored to him when he was highly exalted , made universal head over all , Ephes. 1. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23. 1 Pet. 3. 22. Heb. 1. 13 , 14. and by his being made universal Judge , Philip. 2. 9 , 10 , 11. compared with Rom. 14. 9 , 10 , 11. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by us translated of men , is without ground conceived to note , not the Nature of man simply considered , but the state of men in an abject condition : For , 1. There is no example in the Apostles writings of the use of it in that notion . 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness of men , is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the likeness of flesh , Rom. 8. 3. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , fashion or shape as a man , which notes humane nature or feature simply considered : Nor do the two Texts alledged for the interpreting of men as noting an abject condition , serve for that purpose : Psal. 82. 7. where it is said , ye shall dye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as men , is so far from noting an abject condition that it plainly notes the condition of mortality common to all ; and the Emphasis is , that though God said , verse 6. they were Gods , and all the Sons of the most High , in respect of their office and dignity , yet they should dye as common men , and fast as one of the Princes ; Ainsworth's note is [ as earthly men ] as Adam ; that is as any other mortal man : So after , as one of the Princes , that is , of the other Princes of the world : See the like , Judges 16. 7 , 11 , 17. which also shews us how to understand the expression , Judges 16. 7 , 11. that Sampson said of himself , that he should be weak and be as one of men , where men notes not the state of abject serv●le men , debassd below other men , or peculiar to some men in such a rank or estate , but a state common to other men , not elevated above ordinary men by an heroical Spirit , and excellent strength , which is apparent from the expressions , verse 13. I shall be weak as one of men , and verse 17. I shall be weak and be as all men , or as Tremellius reads it , sicut unus aliquis homo , as some one man , and so notes this , that then he should have but the strength of one man : Nor is that conceit of Grot●us in his note on Philip. 2. 7. any better , made in the likeness of men ] when he was like to men , to wit , those first men , that is without sin , 2 Cor. 5. 21. which hath no example of using [ men ] for [ the first men ] and the Apostles expression like to that here , Rom. 8. 3. rather ins●nuates the contrary , that he was like to sinful men , when he said , God sending his own Son , is the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh : Therefore in the likeness of men is to be expounded of them as men according to their humane nature . 11. Likeness of men notes not a bare image or representation , or resemblance as in a vision or picture , but as a Child is said to be begotten in his Fathers likeness , Gen. 5. 3. And so the Authour to the Hebrews , ch . 2. 17. saith , in all things it behoved Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made li●e unto his brethren , that is , to have the same humane nature in all parts that they have : Thus it is said , Rom. 9. 29. And as Esaias said before , except the Lord of Sabboth had left us a seed , we had been as Sodom , and been made like as Gomorrah , from Isa. 1. 9. where to be , and to be like are the same : More to the same purpose may be seen in Heinsius Aristar . sac . in nonnum c. 19. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendered made in the likeness of men , but it is without Example or reason referred to an act of men , as if they by their injurious usage had thus made him to be as ordinary and vulgar men , who are endued with no Divine Power , or he had by an act of will made himself in his sufferings as such , but it was by the act of Gods Power , that he was made in the likeness of men , and it was when he assumed a humane Nature , or to use the same Apostles words , Gal. 4 4. But when the fulness of time was come , God sent forth his Son , made or born of a Woman made ( the same word which is used , Philip. 2. 7. ) under the Law , or as it is Luke 1. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon the● , and the Power of the most High shall over-shadow thee : And therefore it is expounded as expressing the time of his taking the form of a Servant , and to be read , when he was made in the likeness of men , or as Dr. Pearson's Exposition hath it , he took the form of a Servant by being made in the likeness of men , that is as he after expresseth it , when Christs body first was framed , even then did he assume the form of a Servant : In which expression he doth rightly make this place parallel to that of Heb. 10. 5. A body hast thou prepared me , which answers to Psal. 40. 7. concerning which I shall use the words of Mr. Gataker in his Cinnus l. 2. c. 11. Junius , and after him Pis●ator would have the Kingly Prophet to have had respect to that right of boaring the Servants ear , and fastning it to his Masters post , who was willing to be still a Servant , mentioned Exod. 21. 6. when under the person of the Lord Christ , he said , Psal. 40. 7. Thou hast boared mine ears , as if he had said , thou hast addicted me to service and perpetual Ministry : Whence Isa. c. 42. verse 1. Behold my Servant , &c. For which the Greeks , and the Apostle following them , Heb. 10. 5. but a body hast thou made up for me , because to wit , then he put on the form of a Servant , when he assumed humane flesh , and even the likeness of sinful flesh , Rom. 8. 3. Philip. 2. 7. So that the Apostle shews not the identity ▪ but the coincidency of these , the taking the form of a Servant , being made in the likeness of men : Nor can the taking the form of a Servant be referred either to the servile or mean condition he had , when he conversed among men ; or his being made in the likeness of men to any subjection of himself consequent on his Apprehension , Binding and Scourging . 13. The word we translate in fashion , signifies the outward habit of the body , in Aristotles Categories the shape or figure of it , in Geom 〈…〉 the various sc 〈…〉 uations of lines and angles , in Rhetorick the various modes or manners of expressions in speech , the gestures of the body , the affections of the mind , the accidents , occurrences , order of things subl●nary , 1 Cor 7 31. Here it notes the shape or fea●ure of a man , and that with reality of humane nature , as form and likeness were also used . 14. A man notes not either a man in his dejected 〈◊〉 , so as that the sense should be , being found in fashion ( or habite ) as a man ( that is in outward quality , condition , and acting , no whi● differing from a common man ) it being the same with the likeness of men , verse 7. nor as Grotius in his Note , Schema is here axioma , conspicuous dignity , as often with the Greeks , which word also the Syriak Interpreter here used : And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was seen , As a man , as Adam , that is with dominion over all the creatures , the Sea , Winds , Bread , Water : For which cause that which was said of Adam in Psal. 8. is applied mystically to Christ : For neither is [ man ] put any where in the New Testament that I find , for [ Adam ] but still either Adam , or the first man , nor is it here put with the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as if it noted a special or singular man by excellency , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man , that is a man simply considered according to humane nature : Nor is the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here used as noting only likeness without reality of Nature , but as Sect. 22. is shewed it to be used , John 1. 14. and elsewhere , as a confirming and assuring particle noting certainty : And surely where that in Psal. 8. is applied to Christ mystically , Heb. 2. 6. it notes not man in conspicuous dignity , but rather as contemptible , as the words , what is man that thou art mindful of him ? and thou hast lessened him for a little time below Angels shew , nor is it peculiarly meant of Adam , but of men , as men , as the word Son of man shews , although it be mystically fulfilled in Christ alone , and he be by excellency stiled man , or the Son of man. 15. Found notes not apprehension of him , when he was betrayed by Judas , and laid hold on by the Souldiers ; for it was afore his humbling himself and obedience to death , and if the form of a Servant did note his whipping , and servile usage which was after his apprehension , and yet is set down by the Apostle as antecedent to being found in fashion as a man ; his finding cannot be referred to his apprehension : Nor is his being found appropriated to the time of his conspicuity in the exercise of his Dominion over the creatures , but the fashion as a man being the same with the likeness of men , it notes only his appearing or being as a man , simply considered among men , the word found frequently noting only being or appearing to be , Phil. 3. 9. Gal. 2. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 3. and 11. 12. 1 Pet. 1. 7. Rom. 7. 10. Luke 17. 18 , &c. 16. That of Grotius , he humbled himself ] he did not behave himself according to that dignity , but very humbly , so as to wash his Disciples feet , John 13. 12 , 13. As he emptied , so he humbled , are of the form Hiphil , but signifie to exhibit or shew himself such : So also the Latins say , to make himself courteous ] is not right , the humbling noting not an exercise of the vertue of humility , but patient subjection to affliction , and that not by shewing humility only but by patient undergoing of it : And thus is it used , Phil. 4. 8. I know how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be abased or humbled , as appears by the oposite term to abound , and by other places , where he useth the same of himself , 2 Cor. 11. 7. and 12. 21. and is apparent in that the humbling himself is in the Text opposite to his superexaltation , verse 9. Now that doth not oppose the vertue of humility and the exercise of it , which consists with his exaltation but the state of a person debased , which is removed by his super-exaltation : Besides this very place is parallel with that , Acts 8. 32. out of Isa. 53. 7. where of Christ , Philip expounds the words of that Prophet , He was led as a Sheep to the slaughter , and like a Lamb dumb before the shearer , so he opened not his mouth ▪ in his humiliation ( the Noun in the Greek derived from the verb Phil. 2. 8. and so explains it ) his judgment ( or right ) was taken away , and who shall declare his generation ? For his life is taken away from the earth . Lastly , the Text shews wherein his humiliation consists , which was in his being obedient unto death , even the death of the Crosse , which is not rightly translated by our Translators , and became obedient , putting a conjunction copulative without cause as they did , verse 7. and so obscure the meaning of the Apost●e , but it is to be read by apposition , becoming obedient , and so shewing wherein the humbling of himself was . 17. Grotius his note here is not right : He was made obedient to wit to men , Jews as well as Romans : He opposed not that Divine Power to them that took him , condemned him , slew him : So great injuries he patiently underwent for the good of men ; For it was shewed before that the obedience was to his Father , otherwise there had not been such reason of his super-exaliation , as is expressed , vers . 9 , 10 , 11. 18. By this which hath been said , it may appear , that Christs being in the form of God ; and not accounting it as a prey to bb equal or as God was afore his being a man , and consequently , that he had a Divine Being as God afore he was incarnate , and therefore consubstantial to the Father as touching his God-head . 19. It may appear that then Christ emptied himself , when he took the form of a Servant , who was antecedently in the form of God , when he came not to be ministred to but to minister , and to give his life a ransom for many , Mat. 20. 28. 20. That then he did this when he was made in the likeness of men , had a body prepared for him , which proves him to be consubstantial to us according to his Man-hood , which thing was to be demonstrated . SECT . 25. Some Objections against the proof from Philip. 2. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. are answered . NEvertheless I meet with some Arguments to the contrary , which I think fit to set down in the Authours words . 1. He setteth before them Christs Example exhorting to humility , and therefore the act of Christ which he doth exemplify must be manifest : But to whom was , or could that incarnation , which Christians commonly talk of , be manifest , when they themselves say it passeth the understanding of Angels to comprehend it ? To which I answer : It was manifest by the Angels and others Revelation , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was so was comprehensible , as is proved before , although the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or manner how it was be incomprehensible , we are to imitate God in many of his works , the manner of which is incomprehensible by us , as being performed immediately , or by invisible Agents , in secret manner ; As Magistrates are to imitate God in his righteous judgement , though it be unsearchable in respect of the manner ; Parents are to imitate God in his providence for his Creatures , though the manner of doing it be indiscernible , and therefore the incomprehensibleness of the incarnation hinders not , but that it being revealed may be propounded as an imitable pattern : Yet in this of our Apostle it is to be observed that he propounds not only Christs incarnation , but also his humiliation in becoming obedient unto death , as an example to be imitated by the Philippians . 2. The Apostle speaketh of our Lord as a man , in that he giveth him the Titles of Christ Jesus , both which agree to him onely as a man : For he is called Jesus as he was a child conceived of the Holy Spirit in the Virgins womb , and brought forth by her , Luke 1. 27 , 30 , 31 , 35. and Christ signifieth the anointed , John 1. 41. and accordingly Jesus is expressly called the Christ of God , Luke 9. 20. But he was anointed ( as the Adversaries themselves will confesse ) as a man , and not as God ; See Acts 10. 38. Whereto I answer , The Title Philip. 2. 5. is given to him , who being in the form of God , took on him the form of a Servant , being made in the likeness of men , and therefore as God-man : And though the name Jesus was given to him upon his conception , or birth , yet it follows not , therefore only as a man : Yea the Exposition of the Appellation as the same with Immanuel , Mat. 1. 23. the Son of God , Luke 1. 35. doth intimate the Title given to him as God , rather than only as man : It is true , his anointing was as man , and that it may be gathered from Acts 10. 38. yet he who was anointed had a Divine Nature , and under both these is considered , Philip. 2. 5. where he is propounded for an example , to wit , in that being in the form of God , he emptied himself , being made in the likeness of men : He who is propounded as an example , was a Saviour , and anointed , but yet not to be imitated in his saving and anoi●ting , but in his obedience to his Father and condescension to us , by laying aside his Glory and Maj●sty , and becoming as a Servant to his Father for us , in which God was with him , and he also God with us , consubstantial with his Father afore , with us at his Incarnation . 3. Had the Apostle here spoken of an assumption of the Humane Nature , he would not have said , that Christ became in the likeness of men , and was found in fashion as a man : For if men ( as the Adversaries must hold , when they alledge this place to prove that Christ assumed a Humane Na●ure , and became man ) be here considered according to their Essence and Nature , this would imply that Christ had not the Essence and Nature , but only the likeness and fashion of a man , and so was not a true and real man : By men therefore are here meant vulgar and ordinary men ; for so this word is elsewhere taken in the Scriptures , as Psal. 82. 6. I have said , ye are Gods ; and all of you are Children of the most High : But ye shall dye like men , and fall like one of the Princes : and Judges 16. 7. Then shall I be weak , and be as one of men ( So the Hebrew Ekadh Haadam signifieth ; ) See also ver . 11. of the same chapter . I answer hereto , that likeness agrees to substance or essence , and not only to quality or condition , and that in neither of the places alledged men is taken for men as abject , is shewed before : If this objection were of force it would prove Christ was made not a really weak man , but in the likeness or fashion of weak men , if [ men ] be considered not as men , but as weak and abject men , Philip. 2. 7 , 8. which it concern'd the Objector to have heeded as well as the Adversaries : Notwithstanding then this Objection men and man , Phil. 2. 7 , 8. may and must be understood of humane Essence and Nature , not restrainedly as applied only to men of a vulgar , ordinary , low or weak condition , and Christ hence proved to be Incarnate , and to have both Natures , Divine and Humane . Other Arguments against the understanding by the form of God the condition or state of Empire , which Christ had with his Father before his Incarnation are in the first part of the disputation of Josue Placeus of Saumur concerning the Arguments by which it is evinced Christ to have been before his conception , disp . 5th . out of Philip. 2. 6. § . 18. in these words , yet in very deed the form of God seems not to us to be placed in commanding : For we dare not affirm that God was not in that infinite time , in which he lived blessed before any creature was made , in the form of God ; But neither also dare we deny that he shall be in the form of God after the last day , in which time perhaps there will be no need , that he command the creatures : He is no less in the form of God when he ceaseth from commanding , then when he commands as a King sitting on his Throne attended by his Guard , Crowned with Majesty and Glory , is in the form of a King , even when he commands nothing . To which I answer , if [ the form of God ] noted only the essence of God , not the state and appearance , it might as well be said of Christ , when he did not rule as well as when he did , when he shall not as well as when he shall , that he was in the form of God : But sith the term emptying himself notes a diminution in something of what he was , and this is expressed ●o be the form of God , in which he lessened or emptied himself , and that was by taking the form of a Servant , and that as a Servant to his Father , to whom he was obedient , it seems plainly to be intimated , that his being in the form of God , or as God , was his commanding as God with his Father : Now as the form of a Servant notes not the essence of a man , but the state and appearance of a Servant , though it presuppose the being of a man , he taking the form of a Servant being made in the likeness of men : so the form of God also is to be conceived to note not the essence of God , but the state and appearance of being God as God , or equal to God in his Rule , though it presuppose the essence of God which he had ; And he might empty himself of the form of God in this sense , it being only a relative condition supervenient to his essence from the respect to subjects to be ruled , which might be taken or laid aside without alteration in essence : As the assumption of an humane body , contract with his Father , Heb. 10. 9. are ascribed to the second Person in the God-head peculiarly without subtraction from , or addition to his essence as God : So we say , that Christ is Mediatour according to both Natures , so as to interceed with his Father according to his Divine Nature , and this had a beginning and shall have an end , and yet his Divine Essence invariable . As for the similitude of a King as it is used , it is not apposite to the point : The King on his Throne that is guarded hath some to command ; Yet if he do not Rule , but only be in the Gesture , and wear the Habit , and hold the Ensigns of a Ruler , may be said to be in the Habit , not in the Form of a King ; as he that hath the Place and Cloaths of a Servant doth not take the Form of a Servant , without taking the Work of a Servant , although he be in the Habit of à Servant . It is added § . 19. It is indeed Divine to command , not to command simply , but effectually to rule all things : For Masters , and Lords , and Magistrates command also : Yea to command seems not to belong to God as God , but as he is Lord : There is some difference between God and Lord ; For from all Eternity God was actually God , but he seems not to have been actually Lord , but when he had Servants or Subjects , to wit Creatures : For it is known that a Lord and a Servant are relatives , whose nature is that they exist together in time ; But although it be a Divine thing to command , yet not whatsoever is Divine is the Form of God. § . 20. For Form is conceived as some permanent thing to command as a transe●nt action : Form as something absolute inherent in the thing informed , to command as an action passing from the Commander to another : Form as that by which the thing is that which it is ; Inward indeed as that by which the th●ng is such essentially , but outward as that by which the thing is what outwardly appears : But to command neither is that by which God is God , neither as that by which he is such as he appears to bé . Lastly , a form is conceived as that which is before action , for the inward produceth action , the outward the manner of the action : For each thing acts according to its form , and the actions of a King are wont to be agreeable to the form of a King , of a Servant to the form of a Servant , of a Merchant to the form of a Merchant , and so in others : To command therefore is an action agreeing to the form of God , not the form of God it self : Otherwise Christ had in like sort taken and deposed the form of God ; taken it as oft as he commanded either Diseases or Devils , or the Sea , deposed it as often as he ceased from commanding : To end , Is it not manifest , that the Apostles words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existing or when he was in the form of God , signifies a state or condition , not action ; a state I say in which he then was when he emtied himself , and which by emtying himself either he deposed or hid , the form of a Servant being taken ? To which I answer , If the word [ Form ] note a state or condition , as it is granted , and the term [ form of a Servant ] also implies ; and it be a Divine thing to command or rule all things , then by these grants it may well be expounded [ he was in the form of God ] that is , in the state or condition of an Emperour , or co-ruler with his Father ; which being a relative state , he might empty himself of , as he may of the state of Mediatour ( which yet belongs to his Divine Nature ) as being a distinct Person from the Father , although consubstantial or co-essential ; And this state and condition he actually had as soon as any creature was made , the Divine Essence he had afore any creature was , but the form of God , when there was ; and it might be termed the form by which he appeared to be God , by whom and for whom all things visible and invisible were created , Col. 1. 16. though not a permanent or absolute form , as the form of a Servant is so termed though not a permanent , or absolute state , or the form of a King or Merchant , as he speaks : Which being rightly understood answers the four things , by which § . 40. he takes it that he hath proved the form of God to be the Divine Essence . For , 1. Saith he , In what form of God could he be Lord afore he was made a man , but in the very Nature and Divine Essence ? To which I answer , In none , yet the form notes not the Essence of God but the State or Condition of a Lord or Commander , as the form of a Servant notes not the Essence or Nature of a Man , but the state or condition of a Servant , although he were so in no other Nature , than that of a Man. 2. Saith he , In the Nature of God it self sith he is most simple , the external form cannot be separated from the internal . Answ. This I suppose is not true , he had the internal Form or Essence of God afore he was Creatour , and shall have it when he shall cease to be actual Judge of all . 3. Saith he , The truth of this form proves it : For that form of God in which Christ was , was either the true form of God , or the false : If the false , Christ was a false God , which even to pronounce my mind abhors : If true , it was not severed from the internal , and essential Form of God : For what the external form of any thing as of Gold or Silver without the inward , that is commonly called false . To which I answer ; It was the true form of God , and yet might be severed , as the form of a Mediatour or actual Judge of all : Nor is his proof right ; For though that which hath the outward form without the inward be alse , yet that which hath the inward without the outward may be true , as Gold and Silver covered with dirt or drosse , as it is in Mines afore it is refinened , is true Gold or Silver , though the outward form be wanting . 4. Saith he , The equality of Christ with God proves it : For the external form of God separated from the internal , if any can be , makes him not equal to God , as neither the outward and appearing form of a King alone , makes one equal to a King. Answ. That being in the form of God , Christ was equal to God , or as God , may be gathered from the Text , Philip. 2. 6. But not , that the form of God makes him equal to God , which therefore may be though the form of God be laid afide for a time . Plaeceus himself in the same place , Sect. 24. saith , when therefore Christ was in the form of God , equal to God , ●e emptied himself by taking the form not of an inferiour simply , but of a Servant ; So as that whether you look on his Humane Nature , or his condition , or manner of living , or his Office , or Obedience , he plainly se●med not equal to God ; not the Son of God , but the Servant , no otherwise than if as heretofore , when there were two Emperours at the same time , one the Garment of a Servant being taken , and Commands being reco●ved from the other , should apply all his endeavour in executing th●m , it might be al●owable to say , that he when he was in the form of an Emperour emptied himself , the form of a Servant being taken ; which is the same with the sense I give : More to the same purpose he wri●es in his second Book , Disp. 9. Sect. 15 , 16. where he makes his obedience mentioned Philip. 2. 8. to have been in his Divine Nature voluntary and undue , and his superexaltation answerable . By this explication the form of God , Phil. 2. 6 , 7. and Christs exi●an●tion , and the glory he had with his Father before the world was , John 17. 4 , 5. may be understood without that imaginary pre-existence of Christs Soul united with the Word and resplendent with celestial Glory and Beauty among the Angels in Heaven , fancied by Dr. Henry Moor in his Mystery of Godliness , first Book , chap. 8. p. 23. which would infer that Christ was not made an entire man at his Incarnation , but only imbod●ed or cloathed with flesh , which is inconsistent with that which is said in the same place , 〈◊〉 emptied himself , being made in the likeness of men , so that he was the second Adam , or second Man , or Son of man , the man Christ Jesus . And how those expressions of Christs coming down from Heaven , John 3. 13 , 31. John 6. 38. where he was before , ver . 62. coming forth from the Father , and coming into the world , John 16. 28. may be understood without a bo●ily descen● afore his publick Preaching , or pre-existence and descent of the soul of the Messiah from Heaven into an earthly body is shewed before Sect. 14. FINIS . ERRATA . PAge 6. line 14. read said . p. 11. l. 5. r. C●zicenus , p. 14. l. 5. r. eq●ivalence , p. 17. l. 5. 1. of , I. ult . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 19 l. 1. dele which , p. 17. l. ult . r. being , p 19. l. 16. r. Am●tius , p. 29. l. ●3 . read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 32. l. 2. r. Christ , l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , P. 34. l. 6. r. is the being , p. 35. l. ul● r. imagined , p. 36. l. 17. 1. subsistence , p. 39. l. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 66. 1. 26. r. asser — p ▪ 88. l. 26. r. ●lassibus , 〈◊〉 . 122. l. 1. r. without , p. 148. l. 21. dele or . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A62866-e3950 Psal. 148. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Isa. 43. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes priority of duration . Notes for div A62866-e8000 Isa. 46. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Notes for div A62866-e9140 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Deut. 15 , 16. is spoken of a Servant cohabiting . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Numb . 22. 9. 1 Sam. 22. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ver . 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Grot. Annot. ad Rom. 16. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est longissimo tempore , ut 2 Tim. 1. 9. Notes for div A62866-e10670 Athanasius , Bazil , Nazianzen , Epiphanius , Chrysostom , Hilary , Augustin , &c. John 5. 19. 30. Notes for div A62866-e13710 Acts 22. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 1 Sam. 13. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jud. 6. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sustenanc● . So Eze 〈…〉 26. 11. The Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o●rs ; thy strong Garrisons . Wisd. 16. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Substantia tua , Grot. natura mannae Junius , s●●stantia man a te crea●● : Sic m●lim ac●iper● quàm referre ad naturam Dei. R 〈…〉 th 1. 1 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , hope , 〈◊〉 . 10. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ●e● . 23. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , junius ▪ in consiliò meo . Ezek. 19 5 ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , her hope . Job 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ezek. 43. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notes for div A62866-e17350 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chrysost. hom . 12. in Jo. 1. 14. Annot . on Job 24. 14. ( As ) sometimes in Scripture language sets not out the similitude , but the thing it self , Hos. 4. 4. and 5. 10. John 1. 14. Notes for div A62866-e19850 Rom. 15. 16. The Offering of the Gentiles is sa d to be accepted being sanctified by the Holy Ghost . Job 22. 28. Additions to Esther ch . 14. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Numb . 30. 8. Exod. 8. 12. 2 Mac. 12. 25. Prov. 16. 30. Epiphan . panar . l. 1. tom . 1. impress . 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petav. istud diserte significat . Grot. in Rom. 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic idem est quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Solent enim ist● particulae permisceri , ut 1 Cor. 12. 8. ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habetur . Ephes 3. 3. & alibi in 1. Cor. 12. 8. Idem ●i● valet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sequentibus . Notes for div A62866-e25950 Vide Danielis Heinsij Arist sac . in Non. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ●ob 13. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ●sa . 51. 23. Job 13. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Job 19. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Psal. 137. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ez●k . 5. a. 12. Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Ezek. 28. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa. 51. 7. Vide Gatakeri Cinnum l. 2. c. 10. p. 288 , &c. Vide Gataker ad Antonin . l. 9. Sect. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip. ch . 2. ver . 7 , 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem valent . 
A50867	----	An account of Mr. Lock's religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words together with some observations upon it, and a twofold appendix : I. a specimen of Mr. Lock's way of answering authors ..., II. a brief enquiry whether Socinianism be justly charged upon Mr. Lock. Milner, John, 1628-1702. 1700 Approx. 378 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 97 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A50867 Wing M2075 ESTC R548 13167054 ocm 13167054 98257 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A50867) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 98257) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 428:18) An account of Mr. Lock's religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words together with some observations upon it, and a twofold appendix : I. a specimen of Mr. Lock's way of answering authors ..., II. a brief enquiry whether Socinianism be justly charged upon Mr. Lock. Milner, John, 1628-1702. Locke, John, 1632-1704. Selections. 1700. [4], 188 p. Printed and sold by J. Nutt ..., London : 1700. Written by John Milner. Cf. BM; Halkett & Laing (2nd ed.). Errata: p. [2]. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Locke, John, 1632-1704. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. 2000-00 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2001-12 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-01 TCP Staff (Michigan) Sampled and proofread 2002-01 TCP Staff (Michigan) Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. LOCK's Religion , Out of his Own Writings , and in his Own Words . Together with some OBSERVATIONS upon it , and a Twofold Appendix . I. A Specimen of Mr. LOCK's Way of Answering Authors , out of his ESSAY , l. 1. c. 3. where he takes upon him to Examine some of the Lord Herbert's Principles . II. A brief Enquiry whether SOCINIANISM be justly Charged upon Mr. LOCK . LONDON , Printed ; and Sold by J. Nutt near Stationers-Hall . M DCC . Mr. Lock 's Treatises out of which the following Account is Collected . 1. HIS Thoughts of Education , Edit . An. 1693. 2. His Essay of Humane Understanding , An. 1695. 3. His Reasonableness of Christianity , An. 1696. 4. His Vindication of it , An. 1695. 5. His Second Vindication of it , An. 1697. 6. His First Letter , An. 1697. 7. His Second Letter , An. 1697. 8. His Third Letter , An. 1699. ERRATA . PAge 4. Line 9. for Conquently r. Consequently . p. 42. l. 12. for Preceeded r. Preceded . p. 45. l. 33. after limits r. it . p. 50. l. 37. for 384. r. 284. p. 57. l. 7. dele of . p. 77. l. 11. for Certainly r. Certainty . p. 80. l. 33. for Heb. r. Hab. p. 105. l. 12. for Memorio r. Memoria . p. 112. l. 5. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and l. 15. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . A Premonition to the Reader . IN his Preface to his Reasonableness of Christianity , Mr. Lock tells us , That the little Satisfaction and Consistency that is to be found in most of the Systems of Divinity that he had met with , made him betake himself to the sole reading of the Scripture ; and what he receiv'd from thence he deliver'd to his Reader in that Treatise . And as the little Satisfaction and Consistency which he found in some Systems of Divinity , was the Occasion of his Writing and Publishing that Discourse ; so , the little Satisfaction and Consistency which I found in his System , ( viz. his Reasonableness of Christianity foremention'd ) was one Occasion of my drawing up the following Account and the Observations upon it . When Mr. Lock says , The little Satisfaction and Consistency to be found in most of the Systems of Divinity that he had met with ; these Words Most of the Systems imply , that he had met with some Systems in which more Satisfaction and Consistency may be found ; and he would have oblig'd the World , if he had pleas'd to acquaint us what Systems those are . In giving an Account of his Religion , that neither He might have Cause to complain , nor the Reader to suspect that I have misrepresented him ; I judg'd it necessary to do it out of his own Writings , and in his own Words . I thought this would be the most effectual course to satisfie both him and others , that I had no Design to represent him to his Disadvantage . It was also necessary to set down that which Mr. Lock hath deliver'd agreeably to the Form of found Words , and to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness , as well as that in which he departs from the Truth , and from the Words of wholsome Doctrine ; for otherwise the Account would have been imperfect ; and withal , if I had omitted that which is good and justifiable , and presented the Reader only with that which is to be dislik'd and disapprov'd in his Religion , I should have incurred the Guilt of disobeying the Charge given 1 Tim. 5. 21. to do nothing by Partiality , or inclining to one part more than the other . I am so far from envying Mr. Lock the Honour of having said some things well , that I heartily wish he had said all so ; and that there had been nothing reprebensible , or deserving Censure , in his Religion . Besides , there may be those who will more willingly learn some Truths from Mr. Lock than from others , embracing them more readily upon the account of his Approbation or Recommendation ; and for the sake of these I thought it not amiss to transcribe that which was consonant to Truth , as well as that which I found dissonant from it . By this means also the Reader may better perceive the little Consistency that there is in Mr. Lock 's Writings , how he destroys that which he had built up , asserts the Truth in one place , and seeks to obtrude on us the contrary Errour in another . The Account is divided into Chapters , and in every Chapter I first set down what Mr. Lock says upon those Heads that are mentioned in the Contents of it , and then subjoin some brief Observations upon it . And that the Reader may more readily find any Passage transcrib'd out of Mr. Lock , I have directed him to the Book , Chapter , and Section of his Essay , and to the Page in his other Treatises ; as I have also signified what Editions of them I have made use of . I am very sensible , how little Encouragement there is from without , for any Man to appear in the Maintenance of those weighty Truths which are treated of in the following Account and the Observations upon it . The Consideration of which may perhaps incline the Reader more firmly to believe , that it is only a desire to be useful and serviceable while he is in the World , and a real Concern for the Truth and for Religion , that put the Author upon this Work , upon which Account he hopes that his sincere , though weak , Endeavours will be more favourably accepted . The Result of those Endeavours he here presents to publick View , humbly commending it to the Blessing of Heaven ; and if by it he hath done any acceptable Service to God and his Church , he hath his Desire ; and may that Holy and Blessed Trinity , the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , have the Glory . AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. LOCK's Religion , Out of his Own Writings , &c. CHAP. I. Of GOD. TO come to the being certain that there is a God , I think we need go no farther than our selves , and that undoubted Knowledge we have of our own Being . I think it is beyond question , That Man has a clear Perception of his own Being ; he knows certainly that he exists , and that he is Something . In the next place , Man knows , by an intuitive Certainty , that bare Nothing cannot produce any real Being . If therefore we know there is some real Being , and that Non-entity cannot produce any real Being , it is an evident Demonstration , that from Eternity there has been Something ; since what was not from Eternity had a Beginning , and what had a Beginning must be produc'd by something else . Next it is evident , That what had its Being and Beginning from another , must also have all that which is in , and belongs to its Being , from another too : All the Powers it has must be owing to , and received from the same Source . This eternal Source then of all Being , must also be the Source and Original of all Power ; and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful . Again , a Man finds in himself Perception and Knowledge . We have then got one step farther ; and we are certain now , that there is some knowing intelligent Being in the World. There was a time then , when there was no knowing Being , and when Knowledge began to be ; or else there has been also a knowing Being from Eternity . If it be said , There was a time when no Being had any Knowledge , when that eternal Being was void of all Understanding ; I reply , That then it was impossible there should ever have been any Knowledge : it being impossible that things wholly void of Knowledge , and operating blindly , and without any Perception , should produce a knowing Being . Thus , from the Consideration of our selves , and what we infallibly find in our own Constitutions , our Reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident Truth , that There is an eternal , most powerful , and most knowing Being ; which whether any one will please to call God , it matters not ; the thing is evident . Mr. Lock , Essay l. 4. c. 10. § . 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6. There is no Truth which a Man may more evidently make out to himself , than the Existence of a God , Essay , l. 1. c. 4. § . 22. We have a more certain Knowledge of the Existence of a God , than of any thing our Senses have not immediately discover'd to us . Nay , I presume I may say , that we more certainly know that there is a God , than that there is any thing else without us . The being of a God is so fundamental a Truth , and of that consequence , that all Religion and genuine Morality depend thereon . Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 6 , 7. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Though the Essay says so much of our certain Knowledge of the Existence of a God ; yet it also tells us , that he hath given us no innate Ideas of himself ; he has stamp'd no original Characters on our Minds , wherein we may read his Being . So l. 4. c. 10. § . 1. It also informs us , that Navigation hath discover'd whole Nations , amongst whom there was to be found no Notion of a God ; adding , that perhaps if we should with attention mind the Lives and Discourses of People not so far off , we should have too much reason to fear , that many in more civiliz'd Countries have no very strong and clear Impressions of a Deity upon their Minds . See l. 1. c. 4. § . 8. Now as to the second of these , The Discovery of whole Nations , amongst whom there was to be found no Notion of a God ; some think that Mr. Lock had done better if he had not urg'd it : for they judge that it tends to the invalidating the Argument which is made use of , not only by Christians , but also ( as they tell us ) by the wisest and greatest Men among the Heathens , to prove the Existence of a Deity . The Argument is drawn from the universal Consent of Mankind , as to the Being of a God. What says Mr. Lock to this ? He denies that he doth invalidate it , and it concern'd him to deny it ; for he who had said in his first Letter , that no Arguments that are made use of to work the Persuasion of a God into Mens minds , should be invalidated , granting it to be of ill consequence ; should be very careful that he do not invalidate any such Arguments . But I ask , Doth not Mr. Lock invalidate the Argument from the universal Consent of Mankind , who says expresly , that besides the Atheists , taken notice of amongst the Ancients , and left branded upon the Records of History , Navigation hath discover'd whole Nations , amongst whom there was to be found no Notion of a God ? Can there be an universal Consent , when besides particular Persons , there are whole Nations that do not consent ? Yea , so far they are from consenting , that they have not so much as any Notion of a God : Yet notwithstanding all this , Mr. Lock asserts , that he hath not said one word that does in the least invalidate the Argument for a God , or does at all tend to the invalidating it . For ( says he ) I think that the universal Consent of Mankind , as to the being of a God , amounts to thus much , That the vastly greater Majority of Mankind have in all Ages of the World actually believ'd a God ; that a Majority of the remaining part have not actually disbeliev'd it ; and conquently , those who have actually oppos'd the Belief of a God , have truly been very few . See his Third Letter , p. 447 , 448. Where some perhaps would ask , 1. What Mr. Lock means by the vastly greater Majority of Mankind ? If he had said , A very great Majority of Mankind , he might have been understood ; but , The vastly greater Majority of Mankind , implies that we may divide Mankind into two Majorities , the one of which is vastly greater than the other . 2. They may perhaps also ask , Whether all that do not actually oppose the Being of a God , or not actually disbelieve it , do consent to it ? If they all do not , then though they that actually oppose be truly very few , yet they that consent not to it may be many : and though it should be granted to be true , that the majority of those that believe not that there is a God , do not yet actually disbelieve it , it will not follow that the Majority of them do consent to it : for I am prone to think , that none do truly and inwardly consent to it , who do not believe it . And therefore that which Mr. Lock says of not disbelieving , and the fewness of those that oppose , doth not help the matter at all . 2. The Question then is , Whether ( to use his own Words ) in respect of the incomparably greater Majority of those who have own'd the Belief of a God , it may be said to be the universal Consent of Mankind ? Or , Whether that can be said to have the universal Consent of Mankind , to which , besides particular Persons , whole Nations do not consent . Now I think there are very few that will not answer it in the Negative . I cannot imagine that they who have urg'd the universal Consent of Mankind as an Argument , did believe that , besides particular Persons , whole Nations did not consent . And therefore it this which Mr. Lock urgeth be true , the Argument from universal Consent seems to be totally invalidated . Wherefore it will be necessary to examine how he hath acquitted himself in the proof of it ; viz. That there have been not only particular Persons Atheists , but also whole Nations who had no Notion of a God. 1. He mentions the Atheists taken notice of amongst the Ancients , and left branded upon the Records of History ; but this only in general : if he had descended to Particulars , perhaps it would have been found , that at least some of them were branded with Atheism , because they did not favour the Heathen Polytheism ; or , because they thought those that were accounted Gods , not to be Gods : which was the Accusation against Socrates . See Diog. Laert. in vit . Socrat. And 't is very observable , that Cicero , De Natura Deorum , l. 1. names only two that thought there were no Gods ; viz. Diagoras Melius and Theodorus Cyrenaicus : and Clemens Alcxandrinus defends them , saying , that they were Men of a sober Life ; and expressing his Admiration how it came that they call'd them Atheists . See him in Admonit . ad Gentes , p. 11. 2. He brings Testimonies to prove , that Navigation hath discover'd whole Nations , amongst whom there was to be found no Notion of a God ; so far were they from consenting to the existing of a Deity . He alledges the Relations of several Writers , but he should have been so kind , as to have transcrib'd their Words for us , ( for I find that they are not to be met with every where , ) whereas he hath only given us the Words of two of them , or three at the most . The Words which he sets down out of Nicolaus de Techo's Relatio triplex de rebus Indicis Caaiguarum , are these ; Reperi eam gentem nullum nomen habere quod Deum & hominis animam significet , nulla Sacra habet , nulla Idola . See the Essay , l. 1. c. 4. § . 8. Out of Mr. Ovington's Relation of his Voyage to Surat , he gives us these Words , They are sunk even below Idolatry , are destitute of both Priest and Temple , and saving a little shew of rejoycing , which is made at the Full and New Moon , have lost all kind of Religious Devotion . Nature hath so richly provided for their Convenience in this Life , that they have drown'd all Sense of the God of it , and are grown quite careless of the next . He adds , That Coore , an Inhabitant of the Country , who could speak English , assur'd Mr. Terry , that they of Soldania had no God : See the Third Letter , p. 450. Now as to these Testimonies , 1. It must be remembred that Mr. Lock would prove from them , that there are whole Nations amongst whom there is found no Notion of a God : whereas it is not said in any of these Testimonies , that the Nations spoken of had no Notion of a God. Nicolaus de Techo tells of a People that have no Idols or Images , no Sacred Offices or Services , no Name for God : but he doth not say , that they had no Notion of him . He says likewise , That they had not a Name for Man's Soul ; but it doth not follow thence , that they had no Notion of something within them that did Think , Understand , Will , Reason , &c. Coore says , That they of Soldania had no God ; i. e. They had no particular God ( as other Heathens might have ) which their whole Nation worshipp'd : but it cannot be inferr'd hence , that they had no Notion of a God. Mr. Ovington says , That they are sunk even below Idolatry ; but he doth not say , That they are sunk so low , as that they have not so much as any Notion of a Deity . 2. Yea , Mr. Ovington's Testimony is clearly against Mr. Lock ; for , when he says , Saving a little shew of Rejoycing which is made at the Full and New Moon , they have lost all kind of Religious Devotion ; it is manifest that , according to him , they express'd some Religious Devotion every Full and New Moon . And when he says , that they have drown'd all Sense of the God of it ; doth not this necessarily imply that they had a Sense of him before they drown'd it ? Not to add , That too many among us seem to have drown'd all Sense of a God , and are grown quite careless of a future Life ; though they profess the Belief of a God , and of the Life of the World to come . Besides these three , Mr. Lock names Sir Tho. Rhoe apud Thevenot , p. 2. and Jo. de Lery , c. 16. Sir Tho. Rhoe apud Thevenot , I have not met with . Of Joannes Lerius his Historia Navigationis in Brasiliam , c. 16. I can give some account . It is true that he says of his Tououpinambaultii , that they are ignorant of the true God ; and also , that they acknowledge no false Gods , whether Celestial or Terrestrial . But afterwards he proposes the Question , Whether these Americans liv'd without any Religion ? Where though he first answers , that they want but a very little of it ; yet he adds , that they believe the Immortality of the Soul , and that the Souls of the Vertuous shall live in perpetual Pleasure and Delights , but the Souls of the rest in everlasting Torments after this Life . He tells also , that they had their Priests , and their Assemblies once in three Years , in which they believ'd that a Spirit talk'd with them . He takes notice also of their Trembling at the hearing of Thunder , which ( says he ) argues a dread of some Power . And finally , he makes frequent mention of a Cacodaemon which they said was seen by them , sometime in one shape , sometime in another , and did most miserably vex them . From all this he concludes , that Religion was not quite extinguish'd , but some sparks of it remain'd among them . Thus I have examin'd all Mr. Lock 's Testimonies , ( except Sir Tho. Rhoe's , which I could not meet with ; ) and now the Reader may judge how firmly he hath prov'd , That amongst some whole Nations there is found no Notion of a God. And if it appear that he hath not firmly prov'd it , then not only the Argument for the Existence of a God , drawn from the universal Consent of Mankind , is left in full force , and that holds true which Tully saith , de Legibus , l. 1. Nulla gens est , neque tam immansueta , neque tam fera , quae non etiamsi ignoret qualem habere Deum debeat , tamen habendum sciat ; but also Mr. Lock 's principal Argument to prove his darling Notion , that we have no innate Ideas of a God , falls to the ground . His principal Argument that he urgeth for proof of that Notion , is this which I have insisted upon , that whole Nations are found to have no Notion of a God : And we see how far he is from evincing this . As to the Argument which follows in the same place , ( viz. Essay , l. 1. c. 4. § . 8. ) whereby he would prove that beloved Notion , that we have no innate Ideas of a God , drawn from the Atheism which is among us , which ( says he ) some profligate Wretches do barefacedly own , and others would , if the fear of the Magistrate's Sword , or their Neighbour's Censure , did not tie up Peoples Tongues , it signifies nothing ; unless Mr. Lock could assure us ( which he cannot ) that their Atheistical Discourse is the Language of their Hearts , as it is too plainly the Language of their Lips and Lives . For any thing that he knows , their Hearts may give their Tongues the Lye , and there may be inward Fears and Whispers that there is a God , at the same time that they most stoutly deny it : or if not at the same time , yet afterward Sickness , or the Approach of Death , may awake the Sense of a Deity , which they hop'd they had laid asleep , never to awake ; and make the Notions and Characters which they had labour'd to obliterate , as legible as ever . Before I leave this , I cannot but observe , that , though in his Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 7. Mr. Lock would not examine how far the Idea of a most Perfect Being does or does not prove the Existence of a God , yet in his First Letter , p. 119. he clearly determines it in the Negative , saying , That the Complex Idea , for which the sound [ GOD ] stands , will not prove the real Existence of a Being answering that Idea , as p. 121. he tells us , that he thought it would not prove it when he writ his Essay . I take notice of this , because hereby he invalidates another Argument for proving the Existence of a Deity , when but a little before , viz. p. 114. he had affirm'd it to be of ill Consequence to invalidate any Arguments that are made use of to work the Persuasion of a God into Mens Minds , and when otherwhere , viz , Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 7. he blames others for endeavouring to invalidate such Arguments . Why then doth he that himself , which he condemns in others ? He tells us , in his First Letter , p. 115. That when he writ his Essay , he was unwilling to shew the Weakness of the Argument from the Idea of God ; but when he writ that Letter , he had taken Courage , and pronounceth roundly , that the Idea mentioned will not prove the Existence of a God. But to conclude , how blame-worthy soever Mr. Lock may be for weakening these two Arguments made use of to prove the Existence of a Deity , the one from the universal Consent of Mankind , as to the Being of a God , the other from the Idea that we have of him ; yet we should not judge charitably , if we concluded thence , that he doth not believe a God. CHAP. II. Of the Attributes of God. I Do not pretend to say how the Attributes are in God , who is infinitely beyond the Reach of our narrow Capacities . They do , without doubt , contain in them all possible Perfection . Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 2. c. 17. § . 1. His Wisdom , Power , and Goodness . His Power , Wisdom , and Goodness , are inexhaustible , incomprehensible , &c. Essay , l. 2. c. 17. § . 1. I judge it as certain and as clear a Truth as any can any where be deliver'd , That the invisible things of God , from the Creation of the World , are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made , even his eternal Power and Godhead , Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 7. He has in his Hand Rewards and Punishments , and Power enough to call to Account the proudest Offender , Essay , l. 1. c. 3. § . 6. What God can do , must not be limited to what we can conceive of it : This would be to make our Comprehension infinite , or God finite . If you do not understand the Operations of your own finite Mind , do not deem it strange that you cannot comprehend the Operations of that eternal , infinite Mind , who made and governs all things , Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 19. God is truly above all passive Power , Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § . 2. He knows our Frailty , pities our Weakness , and requires of us no more than we are able to do ; and sees what is , and what is not in our Power , and so will judge as a kind and merciful Father , Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § . 53. His Knowledge , Happiness , and Veracity . The Eternal Being must also be Knowing , and all other Knowing Beings must depend on him , and have no other Ways of Knowledge , or Extent of Power , than what he gives them : And if he made those , he made also the less excellent Pieces of this Universe , all inanimate Beings ; whereby his Omniscience , Power , and Providence , will be established , and all his other Attributes necessarily follow , Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 12 , 13. God sees Men in the dark , Essay , l. 1. c. 3. § . 6. Perception and Knowledge in that One Eternal Being , where it has its Sourse , 't is visible must be essentially inseparable from it , the Third Letter , p. 410. God Almighty is under the Necessity of being Happy , Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § . 50. The Veracity of God is a Demonstration of the Truth of what he hath revealed , the Third Letter , p. 420. An infinitely Powerful and Wise being cannot but be Veracious . Besides , I speak in more Places than one of the Goodness of God , another Evidence , as I take it , of his Veracity , Answ. to Remarks , p. 3. He cannot deceive , nor be deceiv'd , the Third Letter , p. 147. His Immateriality , Eternity , and Ubiquity . 'T is past all doubt , that every one that examines and reasons right , may come to a Certainty , that God is perfectly Immaterial , the Third Letter , p. 147. The Idea of an Eternal , Actual , Knowing Being , hath a Connexion with the Idea of Immateriality , the First Letter , p. 139. God fills Eternity , and 't is hard to find a Reason why any one should doubt that he likewise fills Immensity . His Infinite Being is certainly as boundless one way as another , Essay , l. 2. c. 15. § . 3. We can conceive the Eternal Duration of the Almighty far different from that of Man , or any other Finite Being . His Duration being accompanied with Infinite Knowledge , and Infinite Power , he sees all things past and to come , and they are no more distant from his Knowledge , no farther removed from his Sight , than the present . They all lie under the same View : And there is nothing which be cannot make exist each moment he pleases , Essay , l. 2. c. 15. § . 12. We apply our Idea of Infinite to the First and Supreme Being , primarily in respect of his Duration and Ubiquity , Essay , l. 2. c. 17. § . 1. Motion cannot be attributed to God , not because he is a Spirit , but because he is an Infinite Spirit , Essay , l. 2. c. 23. § . 21. His Infinity , and other Perfections . The great God , of whom and from whom are all things , is incomprehensibly Infinite ; but yet , when we apply to that First and Supreme Being our Idea of Infinite , in our weak and narrow Thoughts , we do it primarily in respect of his Duration and Ubiquity ; and , I think , more figuratively to his Power , Wisdom , Goodness , and other Attributes , which are properly inexhaustible and incomprehensible , &c. For when we call them Infinite , we have no other Idea of this Infinity , but what carries with it some Reflexion on and Intimation of that Number , or Extent of the Acts and Objects of God's Power , Wisdom , and Goodness , which can never be supposed so great or so many , which these Attributes will not surmount and exceed , let us multiply them in our Thoughts with all the Infinity of endless Number , Essay , l. 2. c. 17. § . 1. Whatsoever is first of all things , must necessarily contain in it , and actually have at least all the Perfections that can ever after exist , Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 10. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . When Mr. Lock says , that God is truly above all passive Power , I shall not trouble my self to enquire whether the Expression , Passive Power , be proper or no : His Meaning is , that he can receive no Change. That is most true which he saith of the Eternal Duration of God , That we can conceive it far different from that of Man , or any other Finite Being ; for his Duration hath not either Beginning or End of Days , which agrees to no Finite Being , neither to Man nor Angel. But as to the Difference which Mr. Lock assigns , it is manifest , that it is not in the Duration it self , but in the Knowledge and Power which accompany it : God sees all things past , present , and to come , they all lie under the same View ; and he can make any thing exist each moment that he pleases : But this cannot be said of any Finite Being whatsoever . So that Mr. Lock shews that there is a great Difference between the Knowledge and Power of God , and ours ; but as to the Eternal Duration of God , of which he was here speaking , that is a distinct Attribute . When he saith , That when we apply to God our Idea of Infinity in our weak and narrow Thoughts , we do it primarily in respect of his Duration and Ubiquity , and , I think , more figuratively to his Power , Wisdom , and Goodness , and other Attributes , which are properly inexhaustible and incomprehensible , &c. It may be enquir'd what he means by more figuratively : Is it his Meaning , that we apply it to him less figuratively , in respect of his Duration and Ubiquity ? If so , we apply it to him figuratively , even in respect of them ; and consequently we do not apply Infinity to God properly in any respect ; which Conclusion surely Mr. Lock will not own . Besides , if it be true which Mr. Lock says , that the Power , Wisdom , Goodness , and other Attributes of God , are properly Inexhaustible and Incomprehensible , why is it not as true that they are properly Boundless or Infinite ? It may be enquir'd also what Mr. Lock means when he speaks of our multiplying the Acts and Objects of God's Power , &c. in our Thoughts , with all the Infinity of endless Number . If our Thoughts can multiply them with all the Infinity of endless Number , how are they narrow Thoughts , as Mr. Lock often saith they are ? Besides , he says they may be surmounted and exceeded , which they cannot be , after that we have multiply'd them with all Infinity of endless Number ; for Infinity cannot be exceeded . Lastly , I am not satisfied , that we can have no other Idea of the Infinity of God's Power , Wisdom , and Goodness , but what carries with it some Reflexion on the Number and Extent of the Acts and Objects of those Attributes ; for those Perfections of Infinite Power , Wisdom , and Goodness , would have been in God , though there had been no Acts or Objects of them . CHAP. III. Of the Idea of God. THAT of a God is such an Idea as is agreeable to the common Light of Reason , and naturally deducible from every Part of our Knowledge : For the visible Marks of extraordinary Wisdom and Power appear so plainly in all the Works of the Creation , that a rational Creature , who will but seriously reflect on them , cannot miss the Discovery of a Deity . Thus Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 1. c. 4. § . 9. OBSERVATIONS . I am far from questioning the Truth of any thing of this . I only take occasion here to intimate , That I cannot but agree with those that think , that Mr. Lock and others , had done better , if they had not amus'd the World so much with the Term Idea as they have done . And Mr. Lock 's using it so much in his Essay , seems not to be very consistent with his Promise and Profession in the Preface or Epistle to the Reader , p. 4. where his Words are these , My appearing in Print being on purpose to be as useful as I may , I think it necessary to make what I have to say as easie and intelligible to all sorts of Readers as I can . Now there are that think , that Mr. Lock had made his Essay more easie and intelligible to all sorts of Readers , if he had made use of other Terms , and not fill'd every Page almost with the mention of Ideas . Yea , not only others are of that Opinion , but I might appeal to Mr. Lock himself , if he be of the same Mind that he was when he writ his First Letter , where , p. 127. speaking of his Essay , l. 4. c. 10. he hath these Words , I thought it most proper to express my self in the most usual and familiar way , to let it the easier into Mens Minds by common Words , and known Ways of Expression : And therefore , as I think , I have scarce us'd the Word Idea in that whole Chapter , but only in one place . Here Mr. Lock says plainly , that he therefore scarce us'd the Word Idea in that Chapter , that he might let things the easier into Mens Minds : And then why did he not likewise forbear the use of it in other Chapters , especially when he had engag'd to his Reader , that he would make things as easie and intelligible to all sorts of Readers as he could ; and here also confesses , that things are let more easily into Mens Minds by common Words , and known or familiar Ways of Expression . CHAP. IV. Of the Worship of God , and of the Heart . GOD is to be worship'd in Spirit and in Truth , with Application of Mind , and Sincerity of Heart . In publick Assemblies , where some Actions must be open to the View of the World , all that can appear and be seen is to be done decently , and in Order , and to Edification . Decency , Order , and Edification , are to regulate all the publick Acts of Worship . Praises and Prayer humbly offer'd to God , is the Worship he now demands , and in these every one is to look after his own Heart . Mr. Lock Reasonab . of Christian. p. 286 , 287. 'T is his peculiar Care of Mankind , most eminently discover'd in his Promises to them , that shews his Bounty and Goodness ; and consequently engages their Hearts in Love and Affection to him . This Oblation of an Heart fixed , with Dependence and Affection on him , is the most acceptable Tribute we can pay him , the Foundation of true Devotion , and Life of all Religion . Ibid. p. 248. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Mr. Lock says very well , That in Publick Assemblies all things are to be done decently ; but it is also true , that in Private or Secret Prayer , a Decent or Reverent Gesture is to be used . St. Peter kneeled down , and cried , or pray'd , Acts 9. 40. I bow my Knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , says St. Paul , Ephes. 3. 14. Yea our Lord himself , St. Luke 22. 41. did the same . In like manner , when Mr. Lock says , that Praises and Prayer are the Worship which God now demands , it is true that they are Parts of it ; but there are other Parts of it , as sitting at his Feet , and hearing his Word , and so devout receiving the Sacrament , swearing by his Name , when we are lawfully call'd to it , &c. In all which we must chiefly look after the Heart , it being that which God principally regards : Indeed he regards nothing where it is wanting . The Heart must bear the greatest Part in every Service , though ( as I said ) a Reverent outward Gesture is to be used also . CHAP. V. Of the Works of God ; of the Creation particularly ; also of the Image of God. THE Works of Nature shew the Wisdom and Power of God. Mr. Lock Reasonab . of Christian. p. 248. The infinite omnipotent Creator of all things out of nothing , &c. The Third Letter , p. 152. You will say , Is it not impossible to admit of the making any thing out of nothing , since we cannot possibly conceive it ? I answer , No ; because it is not reasonable to deny the Power of an infinite Being , because we cannot comprehend its Operation . We do not deny other effects upon this ground , because we cannot possibly conceive the manner of their Production . We cannot conceive how Thought ( or any thing but Motion in Body ) can move Body : and yet that is not a Reason sufficient to make us deny it possible , against the constant experience we have of it in our selves in all voluntary Motions , which are produc'd in us only by the free Thoughts of our own Minds . 'T is an over-valuing our selves , to reduce all to the narrow measure of our Capacity , and to conclude all things impossible to be done , whose manner of doing exceeds our Comprehension ; Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 19. When the thing is wholly made new , so that no part thereof did ever exist before , as when a new Particle of Matter doth begin to exist in rerum natura , which had before no Being , we call it Creation ; Essay , l. 2. c. 26. § . 2. Adam being the Son of God , S. Luke 3. 38. had this part also of the Likeness and Image of his Father , viz. that he was immortal ; Jesus Christ being also the Son of God , was , like his Father , immortal . The great Evidence that Jesus was the Son of God , was his Resurrection , Acts 13. 32 , 33. Then the Image of his Father appear'd in him , when he visibly enter'd into the state of Immortality . And that Immortality is a part of that Image wherein these ( who were the immediate Sons of God , so as to have no other Father ) were made like their Father , appears probable , not only from the places in Genesis concerning Adam , above taken notice of ; but seems to me also to be intimated in some Expressions concerning Jesus the Son of God , in the New Testament . Reasonab . of Christian. p. 202 , 203 , 207. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . I agree with Mr. Lock , That Immortality is part of that Image of God in which Adam was created ; but as to Christ , he , as Man , was not made like his Father in that part of his Image , till he was raised from the Dead : for before that , as Man , he was was mortal . As Man he did partake of our Infirmities , and was in all things made like unto us , only without Sin ; and so he was made like us , in being mortal . He was indeed made Man for the suffering of Death , Heb. 2. 9. which he did ; for it follows in the same Verse , that By the grace of God he tasted death for every man ; wherefore God highly exalted him , and crown'd him with Glory , Honour , and Immortality . The first place in the New Testament which , according to Mr. Lock , intimates that Immortality is a part of that Image wherein Christ , as Man , was made like his Father , is Col. 1. 15. where he is call'd The Image of the invisible God , and the first-born of every Creature . But how appears it that he is call'd so as Man ? Certainly , as God , he is most properly the Image of the invisible God. But you will say it follows , the first-born of every Creature ; and so he is spoken of in this place as a Creature , i. e. as Man. To which I answer ; 1. Suppose I should grant that the Apostle speaks of him as a Creature in this latter Expression , doth it follow that he must speak of him as such in the former ? Might he not call him the Image of the invisible God , as God ; and the first-born of every Creature , as Man ? 2. I do not grant that the Apostle in these words , the first-born of every Creature , speaks of him as Man. The Meaning may be , that he was begotten of the Father before any Creature whatsoever did exist ; and therefore it immediately follows , ver . 16 , 17. By him were all things created , that are in Heaven , and that are in Earth , visible and invisible , whether Thrones or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers , all things were created by him and for him . He is before all things , and by him all things consist . Which agrees with S. John 1. 2 , 3. The Word was in the beginning with God. By him all things were made , and without him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as much as any one thing was made that was made . And we are told , ver . 1. that this Word was God. These words therefore , The first-born of every Creature , do not hinder but that the former words , Who is the image of the invisible God , were spoken of Christ as God ; and then they make not for Mr. Lock 's purpose , who would have him here call'd the Image of the invisible God as he is Man. I know that Mr. Lock saith , that the words The first-born of every Creature are explain'd ver . 18. where he is term'd The first-born from the dead . But I conceive that these are distinct things , and that we need look no farther for the Explication than ver . 17. He is the first-born of every Creature , ver . 15. i. e. He is before all things , v. 17. CHAP. VI. Of Christ. THE Son of God whilst cloath'd in Flesh was subject to all the Frailties and Inconveniences of Humane Nature , Sin excepted . Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 3. c. 9. § . 23. Christ , after a Life illustrious in Miracles and good Works , attended with Humility , Meekness , Patience , and Suffering , and every way conformable to the Prophecies of him , was lead as a Sheep to the slaughter , and with all Quiet and Submission brought to the Cross , though there were no guilt or fault found in him . Reason . of Christian. p. 61. Christ's coming into the World was not for such an end as the over-turning the measures of Right and Wrong , and thereby introducing and authorizing Irregularity , Confusion , and Disorder in the World ; but , on the contrary , to reform the corrupt State of degenerate Man , and out of those who would mend their Lives , and bring forth fruit meet for Repentance , erect a new Kingdom . Ibid. p. 215. The chief end of his Coming was to be a King ; and as such , to be received by those who would be his Subjects in the Kingdom which he came to erect . Ibid. p. 217. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . What means Mr. Lock when he says , The Son of God was cloath'd with flesh ? Is it his Meaning , that the eternal Son of God , the second Person in the Trinity , was cloath'd with Flesh ? If so , it was to be wish'd that he would do that Justice to himself , plainly to declare it , and thereby remove out of mens minds the Jealousies they have of him as to this Point . It may be enquir'd also , what he means by that Expression , Whilst cloathed in Flesh ? As there was a time before the Son of God was incarnate or cloath'd with Flesh , so hath he after his Incarnation ceas'd to be cloath'd with it ? Particularly , Will Mr. Lock say that he was not cloath'd with it after his Resurrection ? If so , I ask whether he will not plainly contradict our Blessed Saviour , who told his Disciples , after his being risen from the Dead , that he had Flesh and Bones , S. Luke 24. 39. It may then concern him to explain himself as to this also . Mr. Lock 's Meaning also is not very plain , when he says , that the chief End of Christ's coming was to be a King , and to be receiv'd as such . It is most true , that the Prophets foretold that he should be a King ; and it may be said , that he came to fulfil the Prophecies that had been of him , as it is also true that he was a King. But I do not remember that it is said , that the chief End of his coming was to be a King. It is written , that he came into the World to save Sinners , to seek and to save that which was lost , that whosoever believes in him should not perish , but have everlasting Life ; that he was manifested to take away our Sins , and to dissolve the works of the Devil , 1 Joh. 3. 5 , 8. that he appear'd to put away Sin by the sacrifice of himself , Heb. 9. 26. And when Pilate ask'd him , whether he was a King ? he did not answer , For this cause came I into the World , that I might be a King ; but , For this cause I came into the World , that I should bear witness to the Truth , S. John 18. 37. Among these several Ends , I do not find the being a King expresly mention'd for one ( as every one of these is ) much less is it call'd the chief End. Finally , Mr. Lock himself , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 241. mentions something else as the great End. His words are , Pardon and Forgiveness of Sins , and Salvation by him , was the great End of his coming . CHAP. VII . Of our Advantages by Christ. IT will possibly he ask'd , What Advantage have we by Jesus Christ ? Answ. 1. He found the World in a state of Darkness and Error , in reference to the true God ; but the clear Revelation he brought with him dissipated the Darkness , made the one invisible true God known to the World. 2. A clear knowledge of their Duty was before wanting to Mankind ; but now there needs no more , but to read the inspired Books : all the Duties of Morality lie there clear and plain , and easie to be understood . There is not , I think , any of the Duties of Morality , which he has not somewhere or other , by himself and his Apostles , inculcated over and over again to his Followers in express terms . 3. The outward Forms of worshipping the Deity , wanted a Reformation : to this also our Saviour brought a Remedy in a plain , spiritual , and suitable Worship . 4. Another great Advantage receiv'd by him , is the great Encouragement he brought to a vertuous and pious Life , great enough to surmount the Difficulties and Obstacles that lie in the way to it , viz. by bringing Life and Immortality to light , and by putting into the Scale , on the side of Vertue , an exceeding and immortal weight of Glory . 5. One Advantage more we have by Jesus Christ , is , the promise of Assistance ; If we do what we can , he will give us his Spirit to help us to do what and how we should . Thus Mr. Lock , Reason . of Christian. p. 257 , 263 , 267 , 284 , 285 , 286 , 287 , 290 , 291 , 292. See also p. 234. OBSERVATIONS . Here where Mr. Lock is treating purposely and largely of the Advantages that we have by Christ , it is justly thought strange , that he should not once make mention of his being a propitiation through faith in his blood , Rom. 3. 25. A propitiation for our Sins , yea also for the sins of the whole World , 1 Joh. 2. 2. Our having Redemption through his Blood , the forgiveness of Sins , Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. Such an unconceivable Advantage as this that we have by him , should not have been forgotten . If Mr. Lock say , that otherwhere in his Reasonableness of Christianity he doth mention our Redemption by Christ , I grant it ; but , 1. I do not at present remember that he any where in it mentions Redemption through his blood . 2. If he do speak of it otherwhere , how easie had it been for him to have nam'd it here among other Advantages , and to have referr'd his Reader to the places where he had spoken of it ? If Mr. Lock say again , that he set down as much as his Argument requir'd ; I answer , That he did not : Having moved the Question , What Advantages we have by Christ ? and making it his business to answer it , his Argument requir'd that such a transcendent Advantage as this should not have been omitted . The truth is , innumerable are the Advantages that we have by Christ ; so that it would not have been expected that he should give an account of them all . To instance in some ; Beside the Benefits mention'd above , we have by him Vocation , Repentance , Justification , Peace with God , Adoption , Sanctification , Audience of our Prayers , Acceptance of our Persons , Victory over Persecutions , Afflictions , and Death it self ; Salvation or Glorification , &c. And therefore that Mr. Lock , though he intimates that our Advantages by Christ are great and many , should insist only upon four or five , and overlook all the rest , especially that he should take no notice of that which is the foundation of many of the other , viz. Christ's redeeming us by his Blood , and being the Propitiation for our Sins , is thought strange by others , whatsoever he himself may think of it , CHAP. VIII . Of the Death and Satisfaction of Christ. HE that hath incurred Death by his own Transgression cannot lay down his Life for another , as our Saviour professeth he did : Mr. Lock Reasonab . of Christian. p. 208. He declares , Joh. 10. 1. — 21. the laying down his life for both Jews and Gentiles , Ibid. p. 118. He freely gave up himself to Death for us , Second Vindicat. of Reason . of Christian. p. 400. The Design of his coming was to be offer'd up a Lamb blameless , and void of offence , Ibid. p. 75. Satisfaction may plainly be collected out of several places in my Reasonab . of Christian. Some whereof , which I took out of the Gospels , I mention'd in my Vindication , p. 5. and others of them which I took out of the Epistles , which I shall point out to you now . As , I say , the design of our Saviour's coming was to be offer'd up , and again I speak of the work of our Redemption , words which in the Epistles are taken to imply Satisfaction . Second Vindicat. of the Reasonab . of Christian. p. 157. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . It had been taken notice of , that Mr. Lock mentioning the Advantages of Christ's coming into the World , hath not one Syllable of his Satisfying for us . Mr. Lock , in Vindication of himself , among other things says , that Satisfaction may be plainly collected out of his Reasonableness of Christianity , where he alledges some Passages out of the Gospels , and some out of the Epistles ; and he adds , that those in the Epistles are taken to imply Satisfaction . He doth not say that he himself takes the Words in the Epistles to imply Satisfaction , but only They are taken to imply it ; and those that do so take them to imply it , may collect Satisfaction from them : But Mr. Lock doth not declare plainly that the Words do imply Satisfaction , or that Satisfaction may be rightly and firmly concluded from them . In Defence of himself he saith farther , that none can blame his Prudence , if he mention'd only those Advantages which all Christians are agreed in . The Reason then of his not mentioning Satisfaction , is , because all Christians are not agreed as to it . But , 1. Are all that call themselves Christians , agreed as to all the other Advantages which he mentions ? 2. If this was the true Reason , Why did it not restrain him from mentioning other things wherein he , and some that are called Christians , do not agree ? Mr. Lock will not deny that more Points than one are mention'd in his Reasonableness of Christianity , in which the ordinary Systems and he disagree : And I hope he will allow the Authors of those Systems the Name of Christians . CHAP. IX . Of Redemption by Christ ; also of his Precepts and perfect Sanctity . THey that think there was no Redemption necessary , and consequently that there was none , make Jesus Christ nothing but the Restorer and Preacher of pure Natural Religion , thereby doing Violence to the whole Tenour of the New Testament . Mr. Lock Reason . of Christian. p. 2. The Doctrine of Redemption , and consequently of the Gospel , is founded upon the Supposition of Adam's Fall , Ibid. p. 1. Admirable is the Contrivance of the Divine Wisdom in the whole work of our Redemption . Ibid. p. 160. Our Saviour was the Just One , Act. 7. 57. and 12. 14. who knew no Sin , 2 Cor. 5. 21. who did no Sin , neither was guile found in his mouth , Ibid. p. 208. In the Precepts of Christ there is nothing too much , nothing wanting , but they are such a compleat Rule of Life , as the wisest men must acknowledge tends entirely to the good of Mankind ; and that all would be happy if all would practise it . Ibid. p. 285. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Both the places out of the Acts in which our Saviour is stil'd the Just One , are misquoted ; whether through the Author's Fault , or the Printer's , I know not . Instead of Act. 7. 57. read Act. 7. 52. and Act. 3. 14. instead of Act. 12. 14. Mr. Lock speaking of the Advantages that we have by Christ , largely sets forth the Excellency of the Precepts , or Rule of Morality , which he hath left us in the New Testament . Such a Body of Ethicks I think no body will say the World had before our Saviour's time : So Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 273. Again , Where was there any such Code that Mankind might have recourse to as their unerring Rule , before our Saviour's time ? Ibid. p. 275. And certainly this is a Subject which Christian Writers , both Ancient and Modern , have insisted much upon ; I mean , the Excellency of the Precepts of Christ : but I conceive that we are to understand them so , as that they had no design to disparage the Precepts or Rules for holy living which are left us in the Old Testament . The Jews were not without their Code of excellent Laws , to which they might have Recourse as to an unerring Rule . None will have the Confidence to deny that the Writings of Moses and the Prophets , and other inspired Persons , do contain many excellent Instructions for the regulating Mens Lives and Manners . Yea , doth not our Saviour himself , and likewise the Apostles , urge several Duties in the Words of the Old Testament , and making use of its Authority ? I shall instance only in the two great Precepts of Doing as we would have others do to us , and Loving Enemies . All things whatever ye would have Men do to you , do ye also to them ; for ( says our Saviour ) this is the Law and the Prophets , S. Matt. 7. 12. And then for Loving Enemies , If thine Enemy hunger feed him , if he thrist give him drink , for doing this thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head , says S. Paul , Rom. 12. 20. transcribing the words of Prov. 25. 21 , 22. as they are faithfully translated by the Septuagint . Here then S. Paul , in the very words of Prov. 25. presseth upon his Romans this great Command to love Enemies , to love them not in Word and in Tongue , but in Deed and in Truth , to testifie it by relieving them in their Necessity ; and then to encourage them to do this , he sets before them the Benefits of it : 1. They would perform an act of Charity to their Enemy , melt him , and reduce him to a better Mind . 2. They would gain a Friend instead of an Enemy ; instead of Hatred Returns of Love. 3. Solomon adds , That God also would reward them ; Thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head , and the Lord shall reward thee , says Solomon . And this excellent Lecture he here reads us , may , I think , be call'd ( in the Words of an ancient Writer ) the top of Philosophy . I only add , That there are the like Commands to love Enemies , and testifie that Love by doing them good , in Exod. 23. 4 , 5. CHAP. X. Of the Name Christ ; also of his Offices and Kingdom . CHrist is us'd by the Evangelists and Apostles , in several places , for a proper Name , particularly by S. Luke , as Act. 2. 28. 3. 6 , 20. 4. 10. 24. 24 , &c. In two of these places it cannot , with good sense , be taken otherwise ; for if it be not in Act. 3. 6. and 4. 10. us'd as a proper Name , we must read those places thus ; Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth . And I think it is plain in those others cited , as well as several other places of the New Testament . Mr. Lock , Second Vindicat. of the Reasonab . of Christian. p. 374. The three Offices of Priest , Prophet , and King , are in Holy Writ attributed to our Saviour , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 217. Christ publish'd the Kingdom of the Messiah , that is , his own Royalty , under the Name of the Kingdom of God , and of Heaven , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 73. He spake of the Kingdom of Heaven , sometimes in reference to his appearing in the World and being believ'd on by particular Persons ; sometimes in reference to the Power should be given him by the Father at his Resurrection ; sometimes in reference to his coming to judge the World at the last day , in the full Glory and Completion of his Kingdom , Ibid. Christ's Obedience and Suffering was rewarded with a Kingdom , Ibid. p. 208. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Whether Christ be us'd in Scripture as a proper Name or no , is not material ; but because Mr. Lock insists upon it , it may not be amiss to examine briefly how he proves it . He says , that Christ is us'd as a proper Name , Act. 2. 28. 3. 6 , 20. 4. 10. 24. 24. &c. But I ask , How does that appear ? 1. In two of these places ( says he ) it cannot with any good sense be taken otherwise ; for if it be not in Act. 3. 6. and 4. 10. us'd as a proper Name , we must read those places thus ; Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth . 2. I think it is plain in the other places cited . Thus Mr. Lock . But to the former I say , What if we read those places thus , Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth , i. e. Jesus the Messiah that was of Nazareth ; is not this good sense ? Besides , these Texts might have been produc'd rather to prove the contrary , for in them his proper Name is express'd , viz. Jesus , to which is superadded this of Christ , given him from his Unction . As to the latter , it is enough to say , that Mr. Lock 's Word will scarce pass for a sufficient Proof . But farther , the other places are Act. 2. 38. ( not 28. as it is misquoted in Mr. Lock ) 3. 20. 24. 24. Now it is so far from being plain that Christ is us'd in them as a proper Name , that there is no ground at all to think that it is : yea , as to Act. 2. 38. and 3. 20. there is ground to think the contrary . That which Mr. Lock adds ( Second Vindicat. p. 375. ) that long before the Acts were writ the name of Christ did denote the Person of our Saviour as much as Jesus , is nothing but what every one knows ; and therefore in vain doth he trouble either Chronologers , or Suetonius and Tacitus , about it . But how doth he prove that it denoted the Person of our Saviour as a proper Name ? or if it did , doth that prove that it is us'd as a proper Name in those places of the Acts ? When Mr. Lock says , that Christ's Obedience and Suffering was rewarded with a Kingdom , it must be understood of that Kingdom or Power which was given him by God the Father at his Resurrection ; for , that he was a King before his suffering Death , Mr. Lock does not deny . CHAP. XI . Of the Son of God , and the Messiah . BElieving Jesus to be the Son of God , and to be the Messiah , was the same thing . The Jews , Luke 22. 70. asking Christ , Whether he was the Son of God ; plainly demand of him , Whether he were the Messiah : which is evident by comparing that with the three preceding Verses . They ask him , ver . 67. Whether he were the Messiah ? He answers , If I tell you , you will not believe : but withal tells them , that from henceforth he should be in possession of the Kingdom of the Messiah ; express'd in these words , Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit at the right hand of the Power of God. Which made them all cry out , Art thou then the Son of God ? i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah ? To which he replies , Ye say that I am . This was the common Signification of the Son of God. Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 34 , 35. Confessing Jesus to be the Son of God , is the same with confessing him to be the Messiah ; those two Expressions being understood among the Jews to signifie the same thing . Ibid. p. 96. Messiah and Son of God were synonymous Terms at that time among the Jews . Ibid. p. 50. The Son of God and the Messiah are one in Signification . Second Vindicat. of the Reasonab . of Christian. p. 353. The Answer of our Saviour , set down by S. Matthew chap. 26. 64. in these words Thou hast said ; and by S. Mark chap. 14. 62. in these I am ; is an Answer only to this Question , Art thou then the Son of God ? and not to that other , Art thou the Messiah ? which preceded , and he had answer'd to before ; though Matthew and Mark contracting the Story , set them down together , as if making but one Question , omitting all the intervening Discourse : Whereas 't is plain out of S. Luke , that they were two distinct Questions , to which Jesus gave two distinct Answers . In the first whereof , he , according to his wonted Caution , declin'd saying in plain express words , that he was the Messiah ; though in the latter he own'd himself to be the Son of God. Reasonab . of Christian. p. 144 , 145. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Here I conceive it will not be very easie to reconcile that which Mr. Lock says p. 34 , 35. and otherwhere , with that which he hath p. 144 , 145. He says p. 34 , 35. That the Jews asking Christ whether he were the Son of God , plainly demand of him whether he was the Messiah ; and again , They cry out , art thou the Son of God ? i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah ? So that here Mr. Lock plainly makes Art thou the Son of God ? and , Art thou the Messiah ? one and the same Question . And yet p. 145. he says expresly , that they are two distinct Questions , to which Jesus gave two distinct Answers . Yea , he appeals to one and the same Evangelist , S. Luke , for the truth of both these . It is evident by comparing Luke 22. 70. with the three preceding Verses , that the Jews asking whether he were the Son of God , demanded of him whether he were the Messiah ; says Mr. Lock p. 34. It is plain out of S. Luke , that they are two distinct Questions , says he p. 145. And indeed it is very plain out of S. Luke , that they are two distinct Questions , not only from our Saviour's giving two distinct Answers to them , but also from hence , that they ask'd the former Question touching his being the Messiah of their own accord ; the latter , whether he was the Son of God , upon occasion of his mentioning his sitting at the right hand of the Power of God , S. Luke 22. 69. I might add , That I question whether they would have accounted it Blasphemy , if he had answer'd affirmatively to the former Question , as they did when he own'd himself to be the Son of God. This directly overthrows all that Mr. Lock saith about the Son of God , and the Messiah , as being synonymous terms , or one in signification ; for if they be Expressions of one and the same signification , these two , Art thou the Messiah ? and Art thou the Son of God ? cannot be distinct Questions , as ( according to Mr. Lock ) 't is plain out of S. Luke that they are . No man will say that Art thou the Christ ? and Art thou the Messiah ? are two distinct Questions , because Messiah and Christ are known to signifie the same thing ; and if the Son of God and the Messiah did likewise signisie the same thing , those other could not be said to be two distinct Questions . And therefore Mr. Lock must either retract this , that 't is plain out of S. Luke that Art thou the Messiah ? and Art thou the Son of God ? are two distinct Questions ; or else renounce his beloved Notion , which takes up a great part of his Reasonableness of Christianity , that the Son of God , and the Messiah , are synonymous terms , and one in signification , though not in sound . The truth is , the account which Mr. Lock himself gives of the signification of the Son of God , and of the Messiah , is sufficient to overthrow that Notion of his . In his Reasonah . of Christian. p. 30. Mr. Lock having alledg'd those word , The Messias , which is , being interpreted , the Christ , John 1. 42. tells us , that Christ is but the Greek name for the Hebrew Messiah , and that both signifie the Anointed . So p. 216. he says , The Faith required was , to believe Jesus to be the Messiah , the Anointed . He was anointed to three great Offices , viz. of Priest , Prophet , and King ; see him p. 217. Concerning the other Title , the Son of God , he says , p. 303. Who being conceiv'd in the Womb of a Virgin ( that had not known Man ) by the immediate Power of God , was properly the Son of God ; for which he cites Luk. 1. 35. According to Mr. Lock then , the Son of God signifies our Saviour's having been conceived in the Womb of a pure Virgin by the immediate Power of God , whereas Messiah signifies his being anointed to the Offices of a Priest , a Prophet , and a King. Since then , by his own confession , these Titles have two so different Significations , how he can say , and defend , that they are one in signification , I know not . If when he says that they are synonymous Terms , Expressions of the same thing , one in Signification , &c. his meaning was only this ; that the same Person is express'd or signify'd by them ; that both these Titles agree to the same Person ; or , that the same Person is both the Son of God and the Messiah ; there would be no Controversie as to it : for , it is that which was never question'd . But Mr. Lock will not be satisfied with this , as appears from his Reasonableness of Christianity , and the two Vindications of it , especially the latter . For it was acknowledg'd more than once , that the Titles agree , or are apply'd to the same Person ; and yet he is so far from acquiescing , that he disputes the Point as earnestly as ever . See Second Vindication , p. 349 , &c. CHAP. XII . Of two Natures in one Person , and of the Trinity . I Do not remember that I ever read in my Bible either of these Propositions in these precise terms , There are three Persons in one Nature , or There are two Natures and one Person . I do not here question their Truth , nor deny that they may be drawn from the Scripture ; but I deny that these very Propositions are in express words in my Bible ; for that is the only thing I deny here . Mr. Lock , Third Letter , p. 224. OBSERVATIONS . It is well known how much Mr. Lock complains that he was join'd with the Unitarians . See his Second Letter , p. 7. The World ( says he ) will be apt to think , that I am the Person who argue against the Trinity , Ibid. p. 24. That I am one of the They and Them that oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity , p. 27. I might transcribe much more to this purpose : But might not Mr. Lock do well ( instead of complaining of others ) to consider whether he himself hath not given the World reason to suspect that he is no Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity ? As by taking no notice of S. Matth. 28. 19. in his Reasonableness of Christianity , where our Saviour being about to leave the Apostles , and to be taken from them to Heaven , and instructing them what they should teach the Unbelieving Nations , and how they were to admit them into his Church , says , Go teach all Nations , baptizing them in ( or into ) the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . This lay directly in Mr. Lock 's way when he was acquainting us what the Apostles were to preach to Unbelievers ; so that it may be justly suspected , that there was some special reason of his omitting it ; and particularly , that the reason was , because these three , the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost , are mention'd here . So whereas it is believ'd that this Title , the Son of God , doth in sundry places include or denote that Christ is God ; Mr. Lock very studiously and industriously opposeth this : and by so doing , hath likewise given Persons reason to think that he is no Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity . Thus he contends , that in S. Luk. 4. 41. S. Mar. 3. 11 , 12. S. Matth. 16. 16. S. Job . 11. 27. S. Luk. 22. 70. S. Matth. 27. 54. Act. 8. 37. the term the Son of God doth not denote our Saviour's being God. See his Second Vindication , p. 361 , 362 , 363 , 364 , 366 , 367 , 368 , 369 , 374. I shall not consider all that he saith of these Texts , but with reference to S. Luk. 22. 70. I would ask him , Whether the Jews understood not this Appellation , the Son of God , so as that it denoted the Person so call'd to be God ? And therefore as soon as he had own'd himself to be the Son of God , v. 70. they said , What need we any farther witness , for we have heard from his own mouth ? ver . 71. We have heard , viz. his Blasphemy , as S. Matthew and S. Mark expound it ; Then the High Priest rent his cloaths , saying , that he had spoken Blasphemy , what farther need have we of witnesses ? behold ye have now heard his Blasphemy ? S. Matth. 26. 65. See also S. Mar. 14. 63 , 64. If they had not understood that by owning himself to be the Son of God he had made himself God , how could they say that he blasphem'd ? This matter is fully clear'd by S. Job . 10. 33 , 35 , 36. The Jews said , For a good work we stone thee not , but for Blasphemy , and because thou being a man , makest thy self God. Jesus answer'd , If your Law call'd them Gods to whom the word of God came , and the Scripture cannot be broken , say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world , Thou blasphemest , because I said I am the Son of God ? Here it is plain , 1. That the Jews made Christ to be a Blasphemer , because being a Man he made himself God. 2. That according to them , he made himself God , by saying that he was the Son of God. 3. That our Saviour doth not blame the Jews for making this Inference ; but contrarywise , maintains that he did not blaspheme in saying that he was the Son of God , and so God , by alledging the Psalmist's words , I said Ye are Gods. If the Psalmist did not blaspheme in recording these words , I said ye are Gods ; how say ye that he whom the Father hath set apart and sent into the World , doth blaspheme , because he said that he is the Son of God , and so God ? But Mr. Lock most especially gives the World just reason to suspect that he is not a Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity , in his Third Letter : As , 1. By refusing to follow the friendly Advice that was given him for removing all Jealousies and Suspicions of him as to this particular . He was told , that the way to clear himself , had been by declaring to the World , that he own'd the Doctrine of the Trinity as it has been receiv'd in the Christian Church . But this he would not be persuaded to do , alledging , That he needed not to reply to what was never objected , and clear himself from what was never laid to his Charge . 2. That what was laid upon him , was what he could not do without owning to know what he was sure he did not know . For ( says he ) how the Doctrine of the Trinity has been always receiv'd in the Christian Church , I confess my self ignorant . Thus Mr. Lock , in his Third Letter , p. 7 , 9. To the former of which I say , Suppose it was not objected that he did not favour the Doctrine of the Trinity , yet if it was only insinuated , this was a sufficient Reason why he should clear himself . No Man should be silent in the case of such Insinuation . Now Mr. Lock was not ignorant that this had been insinuated , being so well acquainted with two Discourses , one intituled Some Thoughts concerning the several Causes and Occasions of Atheism , the other Socinianism Unmask'd ; both publish'd before that he was put in mind to clear himself . The very Title of the latter doth insinuate it ; and if he would see it plainly objected , he may consult p. 82. where are these words : My next Charge against this Gentleman ( i. e. Mr. Lock ) was this ; that those Texts of Scripture which respect the Holy Trinity , were either disregarded by him , or were interpreted by him after the Antitrinitarian Mode . And this he is so far from denying , that he openly avows it . By which he hath made it clear , that he espouses that Doctrine of the Socinians . Here it is plainly laid to his Charge ; and yet Mr. Lock did not think fit , either in his Reply to this Socinianism Unmask'd , nor any where else , to clear himself , by declaring to the World that he owns the Doctrine of the Trinity . As to the latter , that he is ignorant how the Doctrine of the Trinity has been always receiv'd in the Christian Church , it is not to the purpose : for it was not requir'd of him that he should declare his owning the Doctrine of the Trinity as it has been Always receiv'd in the Christian Church , ( the word Always is Mr. Lock 's addition ; ) it was only mention'd that he should declare his owning it as it hath been receiv'd in the Christian Church : and if he had only declar'd his owning it as it hath been receiv'd in the Church of England , it would have been judg'd sufficient . Therefore both these are apparently mere Shifts and Evasions . 2. Mr. Lock gives the World just reason to suspect that he doth not favour the Doctrine of the Trinity , by his disputing so largely and earnestly about the Terms Nature and Person , and his ridiculing that which had been said for clearing the Sense or Signification of them . This Dispute takes up no small part of his Third Letter , ( see p. 253 , &c. and again p. 352 , &c. ) after that he had enlarg'd so much upon them in his two former Letters : see his First Letter , p. 148 , &c. and the Second Letter , p. 98 , &c. Lastly , In the Words that I have transcrib'd out of this Third Letter , p. 224. he gives the World just cause to doubt that he is no Friend to this Doctrine . The words are ; I do not here question the Truth of these Propositions , There are three Persons in one Nature , or There are two Natures and one Person , nor deny that they may be drawn from the Scripture ; but I deny that these very Propositions are in express Words in my Bible . For that is the only thing I deny here . If Mr. Lock had said , I do not question the Truth of these Propositions , nor deny , &c. he might have given some Satisfaction . But here is a dead Fly that makes his Ointment to send forth no good savour , viz. the Word Here added , and that twice . He doth not Here question their Truth , and that is the only thing he denies Here : i.e. for this time , and upon this occasion , he did not think fit to express his questioning the one , or denying the other : but he doth not absolutely say that he doth not question or deny the one or other . He saith , For that is the only thing I deny here ; whereby I perceive that Mr. Lock has his priviledg'd Particles , as he says that others have theirs : for what the Particle For doth here I know not . CHAP. XIII . Of the Scriptures , particularly of the Epistles ; also of the Interpretation of them . THE Holy Scripture is to me , and always will be , the constant Guide of my Assent ; and I shall always hearken to it , as containing infallible Truth , relating to things of the highest Concernment . And I shall presently condemn and quit any Opinion of mine , as soon as I am shewn that it is contrary to any Revelation in the Holy Scripture . Mr. Lock , First Letter , p. 226 , 227. Every true Christian is under an absolute and indispensible necessity , by being the Subject of Christ , to study the Scriptures with an unprejudiced mind , according to that measure of Time , Opportunity , and Helps which he has ; that in those Sacred Writings be may find what his Lord and Master hath by himself , or by the mouths of his Apostles , requir'd of him either to be believ'd or done . Second Vindicat. of the Reason . of Christian. p. 446. I think it every Christian's Duty to read , search , and study the Holy Scriptures , and make this their great Business . Ibid. p. 201. All that we find in the Revelation of the New Testament being the declar'd Will and Mind of our Lord and Master , the Messiah , whom we have taken to be our King , we are bound to receive as Right and Truth , or else we are not his Subjects . But it is still what we find in the Scripture ; what we , sincerely seeking to know the Will of our Lord , discover to be his Mind . Where it is spoken plainly we cannot miss it ; where there is Obscurity , either in the Expressions themselves , or by reason of the seeming contrariety of other Passages , there a fair Endeavour , as much as our Circumstances will permit , secures us from a guilty Disobedience to his Will , or a sinsul Errour in Faith. If he had requir'd more of us in those Points , he would have declar'd his Will plainer to us . Ibid. p. 76. The Holy Writers of the Epistles , inspired from above , writ nothing but Truth , and in most places very weighty Truths to us now , for the expounding , clearing , and confirming of the Christian Doctrine , and establishing those in it who had embraced it . But yet every Sentence of theirs must not be taken up and looked on as a Fundamental Article necessary to Salvation , without an explicit Belief whereof no body could be a Member of Christ's Church here , nor be admitted into his eternal Kingdom hereafter . If all or most of the Truths declared in the Epistles were to be receiv'd and believ'd as Fundamental Articles , what then became of those Christians who were fallen asleep , ( as S. Paul witnesses , in his first to the Corinthians , many were , ) before these things in the Epistles were revealed to them . Most of the Epistles not being written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension , and some after thirty . Reasonah . of Christian. p. 300. The Epistles resolving Doubts , and reforming Mistakes , are of great Advantage to our Knowledge and Practice . I do not deny but the great Doctrines of the Christian Faith are drop'd here and there , and scatter'd up and down in most of them : But 't is not in the Epistles we are to learn what are the Fundamental Articles of Faith , where they are promiscuously , and without distinction , mixed with other Truths . We shall find and discern those great and necessary Points best in the Preaching of our Saviour and the Apostles , to those who were yet Strangers and ignorant of the Faith , to bring them in and convert them to it . Ibid. p. 298. Many Doctrines proving and explaining , and giving a farther light into the Gospel , are published in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians : These are all of Divine Authority , and none of them may be disbeliev'd by any one who is a Christian. Second Vindicat of Reason . of Christian. p. 319. Generally , and in necessary Points , the Scriptures are to be understood in the plain direct meaning of the Words and Phrases , such as they may be suppos'd to have had in the mouths of the Speakers . Reasonab . -of Christian. p. 2. He that will read the Epistles as he ought , must observe what 't is in them is principally aim'd at , find what is the Argument in hand , and how managed ; he must look into the drift of the Discourse , observe the Coherence and Connexion of the Parts , and see how it is consistent with it self , and other parts of Scripture . The observing of this will best help us to the true meaning and mind of the Writer . Ibid. p. 294. The Scripture gives light to its own meaning , by one place compar'd with another . Vindicat. of Reasonab . of Christian. p. 22. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . How happy would it be , if Mr. Lock , and I , and all of us , could presently condemn and quit any Opinion of ours , so soon as it is shew'd that it is contrary to any part of Scripture . I do not know any one that affirms that all or most of the Truths contain'd in the Epistles are Fundamental Articles , so necessary , that without an explicit Belief of them , none can be a Member of Christ's Church here , or admitted into his eternal Kingdom hereafter . Mr. Lock , without any necessity , takes upon him to determine a Chronological Question , and is very positive in his Determination . Most of the Epistles ( says he ) were not written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension , and some after thirty . But there are who refer our Lord's Ascension to his thirty third Year , and the Date of the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians to An. Dom. 53 , that of the First to the Thessalonians to An. Dom. 49 , ( making the Second to the Thessalonians to have been writ shortly after it , ) the Date of S. Peter's First Epistle to An. Dom. 44 , as there are who refer that of the First Epistle to the Corinthians , and of both the Epistles to the Thessalonians , to An. Dom. 50 ; so that according to them , here are five Epistles of which it cannot be said , that they were not written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension . If Mr. Lock say , Suppose it were so , that these five were not written above twenty years after the Ascension , it is true still that most of the Epistles were not written till above twenty years after it ; I reply , That a Person that is so positive should not barely say it , but also prove it . How knows he , that there are not some other Epistles which were not written after twenty years after Christ's Ascension ? As to that which he adds , That some were written after thirty years from our Saviour's Ascension ; it may be observ'd , that he is so prudent as not to let us know what Epistles they are . And farther , the Martyrdom of S. Peter , S. Paul , and S. James , is supposed by some not to have been after thirty years from our Lord's Ascension , and their Epistles were certainly all writ before their Martyrdom ; and therefore it is impossible that their Epistles should be writ later then the thirtieth year after Christ's Ascension , it being suppos'd that that their Martyrdom was not later then that year . According to Jos. Scaliger , the Martyrdom of the two great Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul was exactly thirty years after the Lord's Assension , according to Syncellus nine and twenty , according to Lydiat eight and twenty ; and S. James's Martyrdom , according to all of them , preceeded theirs : so that if we follow the account of these three great Masters in Chronology , the Epistle of S. James , the two Epistles of S. Peter , and those of S. Paul , could not be writ after the thirtieth year from Christ's Ascension . There remain the Epistles of S. John and S. Jude , and how will Mr. Lock prove that those were writ after thirty years from our Saviour's Ascension ? One that spent much time and pains in the Study of the Chronology of the Old and New Testament , says , That among all the Apostolick Epistles , there is none about whose time of writing we are so far to seek , as about those of S. John. If Mr. Lock say , That there are who give other Accounts of the time of the writing the First Epistle of S. Peter , and of those to the Corinthians and Thessalonians , as also of the time of S. Peter's suffering , and S. Paul's , different from those that are given here of them , I grant it ; but what can be inferr'd from this Disagreement of Expositors or Chronographers , but the Uncertainty of the time of the Date of the Epistles , which should caution Men not to be so positive in such things , as too many are . Many of the things which Mr. Lock saith of the Epistles , may be apply'd also to the Gospels . For instance , All or most of the Truths contained in the Gospels are not to be look'd on as Fundamental Articles , so necessary that without an explicit belief of them , none can be admitted into Christ's Church here , or his eternal Kingdom hereafter . Also Fundamental Articles are promiscuously , and without distinction , mixed with other Truths in the Gospels . So he that will read the Gospels as he ought , must observe what 't is in them that is principally aim'd at , find what is the Argument in hand , and how managed ; must look into the drift of the Discourse , observe the Coherence and Connexion of the Parts , and see how it is consistent with it self and other parts of Scripture . Finally , There are some Fundamental Articles that are distinguish'd from other Truths in the Epistles : As in Rom. 10. 9. If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus , and believe with thy heart that God rais'd him from the dead , thou shalt be saved . So 1 Tim. 1. 15. It is a faithful saying , and worthy of all acceptation , that Christ Jesus came into the World to save Sinners . And so Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God , must believe that he is , and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him . CHAP. XIV . Of the Preaching of Christ ; as also the Commission he gave to his Apostles , and the LXX Disciples , and their Preaching . THE Religion our Saviour and his Apostles proposed , consisted in that short , plain , easie , and intelligible Summary , which I set down in my Reasonab . of Christian. in these words ; Believing Jesus to be the Saviour promised , and taking him now raised from the Dead , and constituted the Lord and Judge of Men , to be their King and Ruler . Mr. Lock Vindicat. of the Reasonab . of Christian. p. 28. As to our Saviour and his Apostles , the whole aim of all their Preaching every where was to convince the unbelieving World of these two great Truths : First , That there was one eternal invisible God , Maker of Heaven and Earth ; and next , That Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah , the promised King and Saviour . Second Vindicat. of the Reason . of Christian. p. 237. Our Saviour preach'd every where the Kingdom of God , and by his Miracles declar'd himself to be the King of that Kingdom . The Apostles preach'd the same ; and after his Ascension , openly avow'd him to be the Prince and Saviour promised . Ibid. p. 252. By these and the like places we may be satisfied what it was that the Apostles taught and preach'd ; even this one Proposition , That Jesus was the Messiah . Ibid. p. 282. This one Doctrine , That Jesus was the Messiah , was that which was propos'd in our Saviour's time to be believ'd as necessary to make a Man a Christian : The same Doctrine was likewise what was propos'd afterward in the preaching of the Apostles to Unbelievers , to make them Christians . Ibid. p. 318. There is yet one Consideration remaining , which were sufficient of it self to convince us that it was the sole Article of Faith which was preach'd ; and that is , the Commissions of those that were sent to preach the Gospel . Our Saviour's Commission , or End of his being sent , and the Execution of it , both terminated in this , That he declar'd the good News , that the Kingdom of the Messiah was come , and gave them to understand by the Miracles he did , that he himself was he . So the Commission that he gave the Apostles was , that they should acquaint their Hearers that the Kingdom of the Messiah was come ; and let them know , by the Miracles they did in his Name , that he was that King and Deliverer they expected . And his Commission to the Seventy whom he sent to preach , was so exactly conformable to that which he had before given to the Twelve Apostles , that there needs but this one thing more to be observed to convince any one that they were sent to convert their Hearers to this sole Belief , that the Kingdom of the Messiah was come , and that Jesus was the Messiah . Ibid. p. 289 , 290 , 296 , 299. Accordingly , the preaching of the Apostles every where in the Acts tended to this one Point , to prove that Jesus was the Messiah . Reasonab . of Christian. p. 31. What that Word was through which others should believe on Christ S. Joh. 17. 20. we have seen in the preaching of the Apostles all through the History of the Acts , viz. this one great Point , that Jesus was the Messiah . Ibid. p. 186. OBSERVATIONS . It is strange that Mr. Lock should say in so many places , without any Restriction or Limitation , that this , that Jesus is the Messiah , is the sole Doctrine , that one Point or Article , which was preach'd ; when he himself otherwhere puts so many Restrictions and Limitations upon it : As , 1. When in his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 195. he says , This was the only Gospel-Article of Faith which was preach'd to them . He doth not say , The only Article of Faith , but the only Gospel-Article . He grants that the Apostles preach'd the Article of one true eternal and invisible God , Maker of Heaven and Earth , ( see Reasonab . of Christian . p. 43 , 44. ) but he doth not call this a Gospel-Article . 2. When he says that it was the only Article necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian , the sole Doctrine , upon their assent to which , or Disbelief of it , Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers , and accordingly receiv'd into the Church of Christ. Ibid. p. 195. 3. He limits to the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles , to those who were yet Strangers and ignorant of the Faith , to bring them in , and convert them to it . Ibid. p. 298. See also p. 295. and 297. It is strange also that he should contend so much that this was the only Article of Faith that was preach'd , when he acknowledges that several other Articles were preach'd . Indeed now after his Death , his Resurrection was also commonly required to be believ'd as a necessary Article . So Mr. Lock , Ibid. p. 31. Their great business was to be Witnesses to Jesus of his Life , Death , Resurrection , and Ascension ; which , put together , were undeniable Proofs of his being the Messiah . So the same Mr. Lock , Ibid. p. 188. speaking of the Apostles , who certainly did not fail to execute their great Business , which was to preach , or bear witness to the Articles of Christ's Life , Death , Resurrection , and Ascension , and not only that of his being the Messiah . In the next Page , ( viz. 190. ) he hath these words , We see what it was that was to be preach'd to all Nations ; viz. That he was the Messiah that had suffer'd , and rose from the Dead the third day , and fulfill'd all things that was written in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah , and that those that believ'd this , and repented , should have remission of Sins through this Faith in him . And p. 191. he tells us , that S. Paul preached that Jesus was the Messiah , the King who being risen from the Dead , now reigneth , and shall more publickly manifest his Kingdom in judging the World at the last day . Surely nothing can be more plain , than that by Mr. Lock 's own Acknowledgment , the Apostles preach'd the Articles of our dear Lord's Suffering , Rising the third Day , fulfilling all the Prophecies of the Old Testament concerning him , now reigning , and future coming to judge the World , and that those who truly believe and repent , shall receive remission of Sins through Faith in him ; and not one Article only . And therefore he very fitly calls them concomitant Articles ; since the Apostles , in their preaching , often join'd them with that Article , that Jesus is the Messiah . The belief of Jesus of Nazareth reth to be the Messiah , together with those concomitant Articles of his Resurrection , Rule , and coming again to judge the World , &c. Thus Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 293 , 294. To reconcile these Acknowledgments with his Doctrine of one Article , he tryeth many ways , but all in vain . 1. As to the Article of the Resurrection , he would persuade us that the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah and it are but one . These two important Articles are inseparable , and in effect make but one . For believe one and you believe both , deny one of them and you can believe neither . So Mr. Lock in his Second Vindication , p. 309. But every one sees , that all he could say is , that in effect they make but one ; and that with the same breath he expresly calls them two Articles . There is therefore no necessity of our insisting upon this , they that please may see what he himself saith in the same Vindication , p. 25 , 26. 2. He insists much upon it , that our Saviour's Crucifixion , Death , and Resurrection , are mentioned and made use of as Arguments to persuade men of this Fundamental Truth , viz. That Jesus was the Messiah ; they were not propos'd as Fundamental Articles , which the Apostles principally aim'd at , and endeavour'd to convince men of . Second Vindicat. p. 268 , 269. So again , p. 323. he urges that his Death and Resurrection were Matters of Fact , which happen'd to him in their due time , to compleat in him the Character and Predictions of the Messiah , and demonstrate him to be the Deliverer promised ; they were no more necessary to be believ'd to make a man a Christian , than any other part of Divine Revelation , &c. Thus Mr. Lock . But the Question is not , Whether the Crucifixion , Death , and Resurrection of Christ were propos'd by the Apostles as the Fundamental Truths which they principally aim'd at , and endeavour'd to convince their Hearers of ; but whether they were not propos'd by them as Fundamental Truths . Whether this , That Jesus is the Messiah , be the principal Article ; and , whether it was the only Article preach'd by the Apostles , as necessary to the making Men Christians , are different Questions . Mr. Lock , in his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 31. says expresly of the Article of Christ's Resurrection , that it was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article . Where we may observe the Word Also ; which denotes , that not only the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah , but also this of the Resurrection , was commonly requir'd as necessary . And accordingly the same Mr. Lock says presently after , That our Saviour's Resurrection is necessary now to be believ'd by those who would receive him as the Messiah . It is true , that in a place lately cited , viz. his Second Vindication , p. 323. he says , That the Articles of Christ's Death and Resurrection are no more necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian , than any other part of divine Revelation ; but then it immediately follows , But as far as they have an immediate Connexion with his being the Messiah , and cannot be denied without denying him to be the Messiah : And so he plainly grants , That so far as they have such a Connexion with his being the Messiah , they are necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian : which is as much as we need desire ; for thence it follows , that this , that Jesus is the Messiah , was not the sole Doctrine that was preach'd as necessary to be believ'd to that end . I must not forget that Mr. Lock also saith , That our Saviour's Crucifixion , Death , and Resurrection , were mention'd and made use of to prove that Jesus was the Messiah . If so , these Articles , that Jesus was Crucify'd , that he Died , and that he Rose from Death , were the Premisses ; and this , that he was the Messiah , the Conclusion . Now it must be acknowledg'd , that the Premisses are necessary to be believ'd before we can believe the Conclusion : and therefore this makes against Mr. Lock , not at all for him . If we cannot believe that Jesus was the Messiah unless we believe that he rose from the dead , ( which Mr. Lock confesses , ) then the Article of the Resurrection was necessary to be preach'd and believ'd to make a man a Christian. 3. He says that his Resurrection and some other Articles , are put for his being the Messiah , and proposed to be believ'd in the place of it ; but I shall ●●ve occasion to examine this very shortly . To proceed then , How can Mr. Lock say , that this , that Jesus was the Messiah , was the only Gospel-Article preach'd by the Apostles to Unbelievers , to bring them to the Faith ; when he grants , that in some of their discourses it was omitted , yea and other Articles at the same time insisted on ? Thus , in his Reasonab . of Christianity , p. 31. he says , that Christ's Resurrection was sometimes solely insisted on . So in his Second Vindication , p. 284. he plainly confesses , that in the Story of what Paul and Barnabas said at Lystra , the Article of the Messiah is not mention'd ; tho' at the same time they preached the Article of the one living God. See also Ibid. p. 307. where he says , that 't is not at all to be wondered , that his Resurrection , his Ascension , his Rule and Dominion , and his coming to Judge the quick and the dead , should sometimes in Scripture be put alone as sufficient Descriptions of the Messiah . Thus Act. 10. our Saviour , in Peter's discourse to Cornelius , when he brought him the Gospel , is described to be the Messiah by his Miracles , Death , Resurrection , Dominion , and cocoming to judge the quick and the dead . Here he grants in express words , that our Lord's Resurrection , Ascension , Dominion , and judging the quick and dead , are sometimes put alone ; and if they be sometimes put alone , then the Article of his being the Messiah is sometimes omitted . To the same purpose he says , Ibid. p. 308. These , where they are set alone for the Faith to which Salvation is promised , plainly signifie the believing Jesus to be the Messiah . Here he grants again , That the four Articles just now mention'd are sometimes set alone , and that the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah is only signified ( viz. by those four Articles ) and not express'd . And indeed this is Mr. Lock 's usual Evasion , that tho' other Articles are only insisted on in some places , yet the Article of our Saviour's being the Messiah is signified by those Articles , the believing them is put for believing him to be the Messiah , they are proposed to be believ'd in the place of it ; see his Second Vindication , p. 307 , 327. Where we may be sure , that his Meaning is not , that the other Articles were to be believ'd , and the Article that Jesus is the Messiah was not to be believ'd ( tho' the words , Proposed to be believ'd in place of it , are capable of that sense : ) but if I do not mistake , his Meaning is , that those Articles were propos'd to be believ'd , that believing them they might believe also , that Jesus was the Messiah , because those were convincing Proofs of this . But whatever his Meaning is , this is manifest , that they were proposed by the Apostles to Unbelievers , as necessary to be believ'd to make them Christian : And this is sufficient for the Confutation of those who say , that only one Gospel-Article was preached as necessary to be believ'd to that end . Before I leave this , I must not omit to take notice , that Mr. Lock doth assign a Reason why Paul and Barnabas did not mention the Article of the Messiah , which I shall set down in his own words , Having ( says he ) begun their preaching with that of one living God , they had not time to proceed farther , and propose to them what yet remain'd to make them Christians , but they were by the instigation of the Jews fallen upon , and Paul stoned , before he could come to open to them this other fundamental Article of the Gospel ; Thus Mr. Lock , Second Vindication p. 384 , who certainly rely'd very much upon his Reader 's Credulity when he writ this , presuming that he would never consult the History of the Acts. For this , that the Apostles had not time to proceed to the Article of the Messiah , is his mere Fiction , there is no ground for it , nor the least footstep thereof in that History ; tho' he hath the Confidence to say that it is apparent ; yea the quite contrary appears , that they had time to finish their Discourse , and did finish it . For S. Luke , Act. 14. having set down their words , or the sum of them , v. 15 , 16 , 17 , says v. 18. And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people , that they had not done sacrifice to them . This shews that they had finished their Discourse ; as it also shews what effect it had , it did restrain the Multitude from sacrificing to them , but with difficulty . The People were at that time so far from stoning them , or giving them any disturbance or interruption , that they looked upon them as Gods come down to them in the likeness of Men , and would have honour'd them as such . Tho' after this ( and how long after , Mr. Lock , with all his Skill in Chronology , cannot tell us ) Jews came from Antioch and Iconium , who persuaded the People , and they stoned Paul. See Act. 14. 19. Lastly , Is it not strange that he should say , that this , that Jesus is the Messiah , was the only Gospel-Article preached by our Saviour and his Apostles ; and yet maintain that the Apostles did not in plain and direct words preach this Doctrine , of his being the Messiah , till after his Resurrection , and that our Saviour did not in plain and direct words declare himself to the Jews to be the Messiah , till near the time of his Death ? Thus in his Reasonableness of Christianity , p. 55 , &c. having observed that there is a threefold declaration of the Messiah , 1. by Miracles , 2. by Phrases and Circumlocutions , that did signify and intimate his coming , tho' not in direct words pointing out his Person ; he comes , p. 59. to the third or last , which is , by plain and direct words declaring the Doctrine of the Messiah , speaking out that Jesus was he ; as we see the Apostles did when they went about preaching the Gospel after our Saviour's Resurrection . This was the open clear way , and that which one would think the Messiah himself , when he came , should have taken , especially if it be of that moment , that upon Mens believing him to be the Messiah depended the Forgiveness of their Sins . And yet we see that our Saviour did not , but on the contrary , for the most part made no other discovery of himself , at least in Judea , and at the beginning of his Ministery , but in the two former ways , which were more obscure . Thus Mr. Lock . So that according to him , as our Saviour did not take the open clear way of discovering himself to be the Messiah , so his Disciples did not speak out that he was so , till after his Resurrection . Yea he insists largely upon our Saviour's concealment of his being the Christ. Now I say , Is it not strange that he should dwell so long upon his concealing his being so , and yet maintain at the same time , that his being the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preach'd by him ? Since Mr. Lock appeals so confidently to the History of the Evangelists , and of the Acts , and abounds so much in Citations out of them to make good his Pretentions , insomuch that some have computed that this takes up about three quarters of his Reasonableness of Christianity , it might have been expected that I should have examined the Texts by him alledg'd ; but that would have swell'd this Tract too much ; withal , I may have an opportunity hereafter of doing this , ( tho' that which hath been said might save that labor ) for it will be easie to shew that many of the places he produceth make indeed against and not for him . As to the Commission given to the Apostles , how comes it that he takes notice of that which they had when Christ sent them to preach to the Jews , and makes no mention of that which he gave them when taking his solemn Farewel of them , he sent them to preach to all Nations ? He ought certainly to have taken notice of the one as well as the other . This Commission we have S. Mat. 28. 19 , 20. Go teach all Nations , baptizing them in the name ( or , into the name ) of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , teaching them to observe all things what soever I have commanded you . The Apostles were to teach adult Persons before they baptiz'd them ; and what were they to teach them ? surely the necessary Doctrine concerning those in or into whose Name they were to be baptiz'd ; and so concerning the Holy Ghost , as well as touching the Father and the Son. If Mr. Lock will translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples , it comes to to the same ; for they could not be made Disciples without being taught . We see then what their Commission was , viz. to teach the Doctrine of the Holy , Blessed , and Glorious Trinity , the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and so to admit Men into the Church by Baptism . And we are sure that they faithfully executed their Commission , and did that which their Lord and Master gave them in charge . Whence it is clearly manifest , what the Apostles were to teach all Nations ; and consequently , what they did teach them . CHAP. XV. Of the Fall of Adam . WHat Adam fell from , was the state of perfect Obedience . By this Fall he lost Paradise , wherein was Tranquility and the Tree of Life , i. e. he lost Bliss and Immortality . The Penalty annex'd to the Breach of the Law stands thus , Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die . How was this executed ? In the day he did eat he did not actually die , but his Life began from thence to shorten and waste , and to have an end . Death , i. e. a state of Death and Mortality , enter'd by Sin : Mr. Lock , Reason . of Christ. p. 3 , 4. By Death here , I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be , the losing of all Actions of Life and Sense . Such a Death came on Adam and all his Posterity by his first Disobedience in Paradise , under which Death they should have lain for ever , had it not been for the Redemption by Jesus Christ : Ibid. p. 6. As Adam was turned out of Paradise , so all his Posterity was born out of it , out of the reach of the Tree of Life ; all like their Father Adam , in a state of Mortality , void of the Tranquility and Bliss of Paradise . Ibid. p. 7. Though all die in Adam , yet none are truly punished but for their own Deeds . Ibid. p. 9. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Expositors are not agreed what Death it is which God threatned to Adam upon his eating the forbidden Fruit. Mr. Lock ( if I mistake him not ) can by Death here understand nothing but that which we call the Death of the Body , or a natural or temporal Death : And I believe few will deny that this Death was threatned in the words Thou shalt surely die , Gen. 2. 17. The great Objection against this , is that which Mr. Lock intimates , viz. that it is said , In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die ; whereas it was above nine hundred years after his eating , that Adam died this Death . But hereto it may be answer'd , 1. That in the day that he did eat ( taking the words in the strict sense ) this Death became due to him , or he became a Child of Death . God might have said to him as Solomon to Abiathar , 1 Kings 2. 26. Thou art worthy of death , but I will not at this time put thee to death . 2. In that day he became liable to Diseases , which were Harbingers of this Death , which did by degrees weaken the strength of Nature , and at last introduce Death . 3. St. Hierom and Theodoret do testifie that Symmachus , instead of Thou shalt surely die , translates Thou shalt be mortal ; and the rendring is approv'd and commended by S. Hierom in Tradit . Hebr. in gen . Now according to it there is no difficulty , for Adam did become mortal that day . 4. Some say that Adam repented , and that upon his Repentance the Execution of the Threatning was respited ; as others say that it was respited upon the account of the Remedy which God had prepared , viz. The Seed of the Woman . Lastly , There is no necessity that the words In the day be taken so strictly , we may understand them more largely ; viz. At what time thou shalt eat thereof , know assuredly , that thou shalt die the death . As Solomon says to Shimei , On the day thou goest out , and passest over the Brook Kidron , thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die , 1 Kings 2. 37. It could not be Solomon's Meaning , that Shimei should surely die the very same day that he passed over Kidron ; for he could not foresee that Shimei would return to Jerusalem the self same day , or that word would be brought to him the self same day that he had passed over ; he only tells Shimei , that if he should pass over , he would forfeit his Life , and be certainly put to Death , whensoever he should please to give order for the execution of the Sentence . Therefore , notwithstanding the foremention'd Objection , we may conclude , that Adam was to die that Death which we call the Death of the Body , or a natural Death : and thus far Mr. Lock is in the right . The Question is , Whether he be in the right , when he says that by the Death threatned Gen. 2. 17. he can understand nothing but this Death . What thinks he of a Death of Afflictions , outward Sufferings and Calamities ? May not this be comprehended under the word Death , Gen. 2. ? Is not the Word Death taken in this Sense in other places of Scripture ? When S. Paul says of himself , that he was in Deaths oft , may we not interpret it in Sufferings oft ? See 2 Cor. 11. 23. In like manner , when he says 1 Cor. 15. 31. I die daily , may we not suppose that he had respect to the Afflictions and Sufferings that came daily upon him for the sake of Christ ? But most plainly the Word is thus to be understood Exod. 10. 17. where Pharaoh says to Moses and Aaron , Intreat the Lord your God , that he may take away from me this Death only . Here by Death is understood nothing but the Plague of Locusts . With respect to these Afflictions and Calamities , one says , Incipimus enim , si forte nescis , tum mori , cum primum incipimus vivere , & mors cum vita protenditur . And thus Adam begun to die , i.e. to be liable to the Afflictions and Miseries of Life , that very day that he sinn'd . But Mr. Lock informs us more particularly what he cannot understand by Death Genesis 2. saying , 1. Some will have it to be a state of Guilt , wherein not only he , but all his Posterity , was so involv'd , that every one descended of him deserv'd endless torment in Hell-fire . 2. They would have it be also a state of necessary sinning , and provoking God in every Action that Men do : see Reasonab . of Christianity , p. 4 , 5. whereas he cannot subscribe to either of these significations of the Word Death . But I must acknowledge my self so ignorant , as not to know the Authors of these two Interpretations . It would have been more satisfaction to his Readers , if Mr. Lock had given us the Names of them , together with their express Words , and directed us to the places where we might have found them . But he not having done this , it cannot be expected that any notice should be taken of what he says concerning them . There are who say , that by Death , Gen. 2. we are to understand not only that natural Death , and that Death of external Afflictions and Sufferings of which we have spoken , but also a spiritual Death , ( so they call the loss of so much of the Image of God as consisted in perfect Righteousness and true Holiness , and of that Light and Strength which Adam had before his Fall , ) and likewise of everlasting Death . They conceive that all these are comprehended under the Penalty threatned Gen. 2. And if Mr. Lock had disputed against these , I should perhaps have consider'd his Arguments . It may be said , that he doth argue against those who make everlasting Death to be comprehended in that Threatning ; for , that which we call eternal Death , he calls eternal Life in Misery . His words are these : It seems a strange way of understanding a Law , which requires the plainest and directest words , that by Death should be meant eternal Life in Misery . Could any one be suppos'd by a Law that says for Felony you shall die , not that he should lose his Life , but be kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments . Thus Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 5. labouring to expose those who make a double Death both of Body and Soul , not only temporal but also eternal , to be threaten'd to Adam ; but it cannot be said that he argues against them , for here is nothing that looks like an Argument . 1. He says , It is strange that by Death should be meant eternal Life in Misery ; but instead of Eternal Life in Misery , he should have said Eternal Death in Misery ; for a Life in perpetual exquisite Torments and Misery , is more truly a Death than a Life . The Margin of our Bibles , Gen. 2. 17. instead of Thou shalt surely die , hath , Dying thou shalt die ; which Words seem very properly to express Mens dying everlastingly . 2. I cannot say that he doth say , but I believe that he would have said , that he who says for Felony thou shalt die , cannot be suppos'd to mean ( not that he should lose his Life , but ) that he should be kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments . But the cases are not parallel , for they that expound the Words Thou shalt surely die , of a double Death , say that he should both lose or depart out of this present Life , and also after his Departure suffer those perpetual exquisite Torments . Besides , an earthly Lawgiver , who can only kill the body , when he says Thou shalt die , cannot be supposed to mean that the Person should suffer such Torments ; but it cannot be inferr'd hence , that when the heavenly Lawgiver , who after he hath kill'd is able to destroy both Soul and Body in Hell , says Thou shall die , he may not fitly be suppos'd to threaten Eternal Death as well as Temporal . But that which gives greatest Offence is still behind ; and that is , that he describes that which we call a natural or temporal Death , not only by losing all actions of Lise and Sense , but also by ceasing to be . His words are these ; By Death here I can understand nothing but ceasing to be , the losing of all actions of Life and Sense , see Reasonab . of Christian. p. 6. And so again p. 15. This being the case , that whoever is guilty of any Sin should certainly die , and cease to be . That when Men die their Bodies lose all actions of Life and Sense , we need not be told ; but ceasing to be is a quite different thing , and according to the known sense of the words can signify nothing but the being annihilated . It will therefore concern Mr. Lock to find out some other Sense of the Words which we know not of , for it seems very strange that he should make Death an Annihilation . When Mr. Lock says , that none are truly punished but for their own deeds , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 9. we may gather from that which immediately follows , that his Meaning is , that there will be no Condemnation to any one , at the great Judgment , but for his own Deeds ; but that Persons have suffer'd otherwise for the Sins of others , there are sundry Instances in Holy Writ , and Mr. Lock here alledges the Words of the Apostle , affirming that in Adam all die . CHAP. XVI . Of the Law of Nature , and of Moses's Law. THe Law of Nature is a Law knowable by the Light of Nature ; i. e. without the help of positive Revelation . It is something that we may attain to the knowledge of , by our natural Faculties , from natural Principles : Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 1. c. 3. § . 13. The existence of God is so many ways manifest , and the Obedience we owe him so congruous to the Light of Reason , that a great part of Mankind give Testimony to the Law of Nature : Ibid. § . 6. Every Christian , both as a Deist , and as a Christian , is obliged to study both the Law of Nature and the revealed Law , that in them he may know the Will of God , and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent . Second Vindication , p. 77. The Civil and Ritual part of the Law delivered by Moses obliges not Christians , tho' to the Jews it were a part of the Law of Works ; it being a part of the Law of Nature , that Man ought to obey every positive Law of God , whenever he shall please to make any such Addition to the Law of his Nature . But the moral part of Moses's Law , or the moral Law , ( which is every where the same , the eternal Rule of Right ) obliges Christians , and all Men , every where , and is to all Men the standing Law of Works : Reasonab of Christian. p. 21 , 22. No one Precept or Rule of the eternal Law of Right , which is holy , just and good , is abrogated or repeal'd , nor indeed can be , whilst God is an holy , just and righteous God , and Man a rational Creature . The duties of that Law arising from the Constitution of his very Nature , are of eternal obligation ; and it cannot be taken away , or dispens'd with , without changing the nature of things , and overturning the Measures of Right and Wrong : Ibid. p. 214. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . It is known to be Mr. Lock 's darling Notion , That there are no innate Ideas , and no innate Law , and consequently , according to him , the Law of Nature is not innate ; but he tells us , that the knowledge of it is attain'd by the light of Nature , or by our natural Faculties from natural Principles . But I would ask him , Whence we have these natural Principles , from which , by our natural Faculties , we attain to the Knowledge of the Law of Nature ; for he denies all innate Principles . Will he say then , that we owe them to the Superstition of a Nurse , or the Authority of an Old Woman , or our Educations ? for these he mentions Essay , l. 1. c. 3. § . 22. and 26. where he is giving an account how Men commonly come by their Principles . If he say this , I would know why he calls those which are taught us by Old Women , or our Nurses , Parents , and School-Masters , natural Principles . If Mr. Lock please to satisfie us as to these Queries , I may possibly farther consider his Description of the Law of Nature . Farther , I believe that there have been many that have not made use of the Light of Reason , and the natural Faculties which God hath given them , as they should have done , and withal have not had the advantage of any Revelation , or of being taught , who yet have had some Knowledge of the Duties and Dictates of the Law of Nature , and have assented to them as just and good , as soon as they were proposed to them . CHAP. XVII . Of Natural and Revealed Religion , or of the Light of Reason , and that of Revelation . IT is not to be wonder'd , that the Will of God , when cloath'd in words , should be liable to that Doubt and Uncertainty which unavoidably attends that sort of Conveyance . And we ought to magnifie his Goodness , that he hath spread before all the World such legible Characters of his Works and Providence , and given all Mankind so sufficient a light of Reason , that they to whom this written Word never came , could not ( whenever they set themselves to search ) either doubt of the being of a God , or of the Obedience due to him . Since then the Precepts of Natural Religion are plain and very intelligible to all Mankind , and seldom come to be controverted , and other reveal'd Truths which are convey'd to us by Books and Languages , are liable to the common and natural Obscurities incident to Words ; methinks it would become us to be more careful and diligent in observing the former , and less magisterial , positive , and imperious , in imposing our own Sense and Interpretations of the latter . Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 3. c. 9. § . 23. Whatsoever Truth we come to the discovery of from the Knowledge and Contemplation of our own clear Ideas , will always be certainer to us than those which are convey'd to us by Traditional Revelation : for the Knowledge we have that this Revelation came from God , can never be so sure as the Knowledge that we have from our own clear and distinct Ideas . The History of the Deluge is convey'd to us by Writings which had their Original from Revelation ; and yet no body , I think , will say he has as certain and clear a Knowledge of the Flood as Noah that saw it , or that he himself would have had , had he then been alive and seen it . For he has no greater Assurance than that of his Senses , that it is writ in the Book suppos'd writ by Moses inspired ; but he has not so great an Assurance that Moses writ that Book , as if he had seen Moses write it ; so that the assurance of its being a Revelation is less still than the assurance of his Senses . Ibid. l. 4. c. 18. § . 4. A man ought to hearken to Reason , even in immediate and original Revelation , where it is suppos'd to be made to himself ; but to all those who pretend not to immediate Revelation , but are requir'd to pay Obedience , and to receive the Truths reveal'd to others , which by the Tradition of Writings or Word of Mouth are convey'd down to them , Reason hath a great deal more to do , and is that only which can induce us to receive them . Ibid. § . 6. Whatsoever is divine Revelation , ought to over-rule our Opinions , Prejudices , and Interests . Whatever God hath reveal'd is certainly true , no doubt can be made of it . But whether it be a divine Revelation or no , Reason must judge , which can never permit the Mind to reject a greater Evidence for that which is less evident , or preser less Certainty to the greater . There can be no Evidence that any Traditional Revelation is of divine Original in the words we receive it , and in the Sense we understand it , so clear and so certain , as those of the Principles of Reason . Ibid. § . 10. No Proposition can be received for divine Revelation , or obtain the Assent due to all such , if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge . Ibid. § . 5. No Proposition can be receiv'd for divine Revelation , which is contradictory to a self-evident Proposition . The Third Letter , p. 230. Give me leave to ask your Lordship , Whether where there be Propositions , of whose Truth you have certain Knowledge , you can receive any Proposition for divine Revelation which contradicts that Certainty . Ibid. p. 218. There is one sort of Propositions that challenge the highest degree of our Assent upon bare Testimony , whether the thing proposed agree with common Experience and the ordinary Course of things or no. The Reason whereof is , because the Testimony is of such an one as cannot deceive or be deceived ; and that is of God himself . This carries with it Certainty beyond Doubt , Evidence beyond Exception . This is call'd by a peculiar Name , Revelation ; and our Assent to it , Faith , which has as much Certainty as our knowledge it self , and we may as well doubt of our own Being as we can whether any Revelation from God be true . Only we must be sure that it be a Divine Revelation , and that we understand it right . Essay , l. 4. c. 16. § . 14. I think it is possible to be certain upon the Testimony of God , where I know it is the Testimony of God. The third Letter , p. 133. All Divine Revelation requires the Obedience of Faith , and all the parts of it are to be receiv'd with a Docility and disposition prepared to embrace and assent to all Truths coming from God. Reasonab . of Christan . p. 302. Natural Religion , in its full extent , was no where that I know taken care of by the force of natural Reason . It should seem that 't is too hard a thing for unassisted Reason to establish Morality , in all its parts , upon its true Foundation , with a clear and convincing Light. Ibid. p. 268. 'T is no diminishing to Revelation , that Reason gives it Suffrage too to the Truths Revelation has discovered . The Apostles delivered no Precepts , but such , as tho' Reason of it self had not clearly made out , yet it could not but assent to when thus discover'd , and think it self indebted for the Discovery . Ibid. p. 281 , 284. I gratefully receive and rejoice in the Light of Revelation , which sets me at rest in many things , the manner whereof my poor Reason can by no means make out to me . I readily believe what ever God has declared , tho' my Reason find Difficulties in it which I cannot master . The Third Letter , p. 443 , 444. Though the Light of Nature gave some obscure glimmering , some uncertain hopes of a Future state ; yet humane Reason could attain to no Clearness , no Certainty about it , but it was Jesus Christ alone who brought Life and Immortality to light through the Gospel . Ibid. p. 439. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Every one must observe how much Mr. Lock in his Essay , speaks on the behalf of Natural Religion ; telling us , that the Precepts of it are plain and very intelligible to all Mankind , and seldom come to be controverted ; whereas ( says he ) reveal'd Truths are liable to the common and Natural Obscurities and Difficulties incident to Words , and therefore he recommends the Precepts of natural Religion to our careful and diligent observation . God ( says he farther ) hath spread before all Mankind such legible Characters of his Works and Providence , and given them so sufficient a Light of Reason , that they to whom this written Word never came could not ( whenever they set themselves to search ) doubt of the being of a God. Thus Mr. Lock . But how doth this last , that they could not doubt of the Being of a God , agree with that which he says other where ( viz. Essay . l. 1. c. 4. § . 8. ) concerning the Atheists among the Ancients , and those at the Bay of Soldamia in Brasil , &c. who ( if he might be believed ) had not as much as any Notion of a Deity ? Mr. Lock perhaps will say of them of the Bay of Soldamia and Brasil , that they did not set themselves to search : but surely he will not say this of those reputed Atheists that were anciently , among the inquisitive Greeks . In like manner , how can Mr. Lock say that the points of natural Religion were so seldom controverted ? Were there no Controversies among the ancient Greeks about things relating to Ethicks or Morality , as well as about those that appertain'd to other parts of Philosophy ? Were not the several Sects of Philosophers divided about these things as well as about others ? Will he say that there were no Controversies among the inquisitive Heathen , about the Nature and Immortality of the Soul , and that the sufficient Light of Reason ( of which he speaks ) made all clear as to this ? No ; for contrariwise , he tells us , that Cicero enumerates several Opinions of the Philosophers about it , and also how uncertain Cicero himself was about it , and that Christ alone brought Immortality to light : See the Third Letter , p. 438 , 439. So as to Man 's chief Good or Happiness , were there no Controversies , no diversity of Opinions , about that ? Doth not the same Cicero , Tuscul. Quaest. l. 5. vers . fin . take notice of the various Sentiments about it ? Yea , doth not Varro apud S. August . de Civit. Dei , l. 19. c. 1. speak of two hundred eighty eight Sects or several Opinions concerning it ? I might add , That the legible Characters of God's Works and Providence spread before all the World ( of which Mr. Lock speaks ) have not prevented all Controversies among Heathens about God himself ; and therefore Cicero , in the very beginning of his Books de Natura Deorum , takes notice of the different Opinions about that Subject ; De qua tam variae sunt doctissimorum hominum , tamque discrepantes sententiae , &c. I may conclude therefore , that we have little reason to say that the Principles and Precepts of Natural Religion are so plain and very intelligible to all Mankind , and so little controverted , as Mr. Lock would make them to be . And we have as little reason to be satisfied with that which Mr. Lock says of the Obscurity of the Truths of Revealed Religion . His only reason here is , because they are convey'd to us by Books and Languages , and so liable to the common and natural Obscurities and Difficulties incident to Words . And so a little before , that it is not to be wonder'd that the Will of God , when cloath'd in Words , should be liable to that Doubt and Uncertainty which unavoidably attends that sort of Conveyance , Essay , l. 3. c. 10. § . 23. So then , according to Mr. Lock , Doubt and Uncertainty , Obscurities and Difficulties , unavoidably attend Words ; they are not only common , but even natural to them . And so all the Will of God , all Revealed Truths , since they are convey'd by Words , according to him , are obscure , difficult , and uncertain . So that Love God and Love thy Neighbour , Fast and Pray , Do as you would be done unto , would have been , according to him , dark or obscure Instructions , if they had all of them been reveal'd only , and none of them also Precepts of the Law of Nature . So Love your Enemies , Bless them that curse you , Do good to them that hate you , Pray for them that persecute you , and Blessed are ye when men shall reproach and persecute you , and speak all evil against you fulsly for my sake , for great is your reward in Heaven ; are all dark and obscure . Yea finally , all that Mr. Lock hath writ is obscure , if this be true , that Doubt and Uncertainty , Obscurity and Difficulty , do unavoidably attend Words , and are natural to them ; for in Writing he makes use of Words . Doth not Mr. Lock himself confute this Notion concerning the Obscurity of Words , when he faith that Christ brought Life and Immortality to light by the Gospel ? ( see his Third Letter , p. 439. ) for Christ and his Apostles made use of Words in preaching the Gospel , as the Evangelists also did in writing it . And when ( Ibid. p. 443. ) he so gratefully receiv'd and rejoic'd in the Light of Revelation , I suppose he did not judge Revealed Truths to be so dark and obscure as he did when he writ his Essay . If any would be satisfied about the Law of Nature , and that of Scripture , and the Plainness or Clearness of them , I should advise them to read Mr. Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 1. § . 12. As to the Question , Whether , and how far , Reason is to judge of Revelation , we need not dispute it , since now there is no new Revelation expected , and it is certain that nothing which is already reveal'd in Holy Writ is contrary to Reason . As to Mr. Lock , he expresses himself very variously in this matter : as , 1. No Proposition can be receiv'd for Divine Revelation , if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge , Essay , l. 4. c. 18. § . 5. 2. Nothing that is contrary to , or inconsistent with , the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason , has a Right to be urg'd or assented to as a matter of Faith. Ibid. § . 10. 3. No Proposition can be receiv'd for Divine Revelation , which is contradictory to a self-evident Proposition . The Third Letter , p. 230. Perhaps he will say that Contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge , and to the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason , and to a self-evident Proposition , are in effect the same , only different Expressions of the same thing . To which I answer ; Suppose it be so , yet if , descending to Particulars , we are uncertain whether such or such Propositions be self-evident or no , of what Use is this Rule to us ? According to some , such Propositions are self-evident ; but others will not allow that they are : as for instance , this , that the essential Properties of a Man are to reason and discourse , which others reckon among self evident Propositions , yea Maxims , is flatly deny'd to be such by Mr. Lock in his Third Letter , p. 263. Mr. Lock , in his Essay , l. 4. c. 18. § . 3. distinguishes between Original and Traditional Revelation . The former he also calls Immediate , because it is reveal'd immediately by God ; the latter is that which is deliver'd over to others by Word or Writing . He also tells us ( Ibid. § . 6. ) that a Man ought to hearken to Reason even in Immediate and Original Revelation , and in Traditional Reason hath a great deal more to do . But I would ask him , Whether Abraham ought to have hearken'd to Reason in that Revelation concerning the offering Isaac . It was Faith , ( Heb. 11. 17. ) not Reason , that induced him to receive it as a Divine Revelation . Had he consulted Reason , that would have told him positively , that it could not come from God , since it commanded that which was so clearly forbidden , not only by the Laws which God himself had given to Noah , and before him to Adam , but also by the Law of Nature . There could not be any thing more contradictory to the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason , than this Injunction which Abraham so readily obey'd was . In his Essay , l. 4. c. 18. § . 4. he hath these Words ; No body , I think , will say that he has as certain and clear a Knowledge of the Flood as Noah that saw it , or that he himself would have had , had he then been alive , and seen it . And I readily grant , that no Man , who understands what he says , will affirm that he has as clear a Knowledge of the Flood , and of the Circumstances of it in every Particular , as Noah had that saw it : but this I shall be bold to say , that I know not but that there may be some who as firmly and certainly believe that there was such a Flood as is describ'd in the Book of Genesis , as if they had been then alive and seen it ; as I hope that there may now be some of those blessed ones , who though they have not , with the Apostle Thomas , seen the Print of the Nails , yet do as certainly and firmly believe our Lord's Resurrection , as if they had seen it . In the same Essay , l. 4. c. 16. § . 14. he writes thus , The Testimony of God is call'd by a peculiar Name Revelation , and our Assent to it Faith , which has as much Certainly as our Knowledge it self . Where I would have these last Words observ'd , Faith has as much Certainty as our Knowledge in self , because otherwhere Mr. Lock denies all Certainty of Faith. CHAP. XVIII . Of Mysteries , or Things above Reason . I Wish I could say there were no Mysteries in the Holy Scripture : I acknowledge there are to me , and I fear always will be . Mr. Lock , in his First Letter , p. 226 , 227. Things are distinguish'd into those that are according to , above , and contrary to Reason . 1. According to Reason are such Propositions whose Truth we can discover by examining and tracing those Ideas we have from Sensation and Reflexion , and by natural Deduction find to be true or probable . 2. Above Reason are such Propositions whose Truth or Probability we cannot by Reason derive from those Principles . 3. Contrary to Reason are such Propositions as are inconsistent with or irreconcilable to our clear and distinct Ideas . Thus , the Existence of one God , is according to Reason ; the Existence of more than one God , contrary to Reason ; the Resurrection of the Body after Death , above Reason . Above Reason also may be taken in a double Sense ; viz. above Probability , and above Certainty , and in that large Sense also , contrary to Reason , is , I suppose , sometimes taken , Essay , l. 4. c. 17. § . 23. There being many things wherein we have very imperfect Notions or none at all , and other things of whose past , present , or future Existence , by the natural Use of our Faculties , we can have no Knowledge at all ; these are beyond the Discovery of our natural Faculties and above Reason , and Reason hath directly nothing to do with them . Thus , that part of the Angels rebelled against God , and therefore lost their first happy Estate , and , that the Bodies of Men shall rise and live again ; these , and the like , are beyond the Discoveries of Reason . Ibid. c. 18. § . 7. OBSERVATIONS . Mr. Lock , in his Second Letter , complains that he is join'd with Unitarians , and the Author of Christianity not mysterious , p. 7. and that therefore the World would be apt to think that he is the Person who argues against the Trinity , and denies Mysteries , p. 24. Wherefore that he might clear himself from this latter Imputation of denying Mysteries , he says , That there are Mysteries in Holy Scripture to him , and he fears that there always will be . But if hereby he only means , that there are some things in Scripture hard to be understood , and which he fears he shall never understand , I know not but that the Author of Christianity not mysterious may say the same . However , he distinguisheth very well of things according to , above , and contrary to Reason ; but when in his Essay , l. 4. c. 18. § . 7. he had reckon'd this , that the Bodies of Men shall rise and live again , among things above Reason ; in his Third Letter , p. 210. he tells us , that in the next Edition of his Essay he shall change these words , The Bodies of Men shall rise , into these , The dead shall rise . But I shall take farther notice of this , when I reflect upon his Doctrine of the Resurrection . CHAP. XIX . Of the Law of Works , and the Law of Faith ; also of Justification . THE Law of Works , is that Law which requires perfect Obedience without any Remission or Abatement ; so that by that Law , a Man cannot be just , or justified , without an exact performance of every tittle . The Language of this Law is , Do this and live , Transgress and die ; no Dispensation , no Atonement . Under the Law of Works is comprehended also the Law of Nature , as well as the Law given by Moses . Nay , whatever God requires any where to be done without making any allowance for Faith , that is a part of the Law of Works . So the forbidding Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge , was part of the Law of Works . The Civil and Ritual part of the Law delivered by Moses , was to the Jews a part of the Law of Works ; but the moral part of Moses's Law , or the Moral Law , obliges all Men every where , and is to all Men the standing Law of Works . But Christian Believers have the Privilege to be under the Law of Faith too , which is that Law whereby God justifies a Man for believing , though by his Works he be not just and righteous ; i. e. though he come short of perfect Obedience to the Law of Works . God alone does or can justifie or make just those who by their Works are not so ; which he doth , by counting their Faith for Righteousness , i. e. for a complete Performance of the Law. The Difference between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith , is only this ; that the Law of Works makes no allowance for failing on any occasion . Those that obey are righteous , those that in any part disobey are unrighteous , and must not expect Life , the reward of Righteousness . But by the Law of Faith , Faith is allowed to supply the defect of full Obedience , and so the Believers are admitted to Life and Immortality as if they were righteous . Were there no Law of Works , there could be no Law of Faith. For there could be no need of Faith which should be counted to Men for Righteousness , if there were no Law to be the Rule and Measure of Righteousness which Men fail'd in their obedience to . Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22. The Rule therefore of the Covenant of Works was never abolished , tho' the rigour were abated . The Duties enjoyn'd in it were Duties still . Their Obligations never ceased . Ibid. p. 225. The Law of Faith is for every one to believe what God requires him to believe , as a Condition of the Covenant he makes with him , and not to doubt of the Performance of his Promise . Ibid. p. 24 , 25. Righteousness or an exact Obedience to the Law , seems , by the Scripture to have a Claim of Right to Eternal Life . Ibid. p. 11. OBSERVATIONS . Mr. Lock , who thinks it our Duty , as far as we deliver any thing for Revelation , to keep close to the Words of the Scripture , ( see his third Letter , p. 210. ) doth not observe his own Rule when he says , that God justifies a Man for believing ; this not being the Scripture-Language , as far as I remember . We are often said to be justified by Faith , and if he will also , just by Faith , as Faith is oft said to be impated to Men for Righteousness , and God is stil'd the justifier of him that believes ; but I do not find that the Scripture useth these Words , that he is the justifier of any Man for believing . Having said that exact Obedience to the Law seems to have a Claim of Right to eternal Life , Mr. Lock alledges for it Rom. 4. 4. and Revel . 22. 14. see his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 11. In Rom. 4. 4. 't is said , To him that worketh the reward is not reckon'd of grace , but of debt . In Rev. 22. 14. the Words in our Translation are Blessed are they that do his Commandments , that they may have right to the tree of Life . Mr. Lock adds in the same Character , Which is in the Paradise of God ; but nothing of this is in the Text. Besides the Word that is here translated Right is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which ( as is well known ) signifies License or Power , as well as Right , and not only by the Vulgar , but also by the Syriack , Arabick , and AEthiopick , it is rendred Power . And this Signification agrees exactly with the Text , Blessed are they that do his Commandments , that they may have Power or Licence to eat of the tree of Life . In this place therefore there is nothing concerning any Claim of Right , and consequently it is not at all to the purpose : I might have added , that Mr. Lock speaks of exact Obedience to the Law , and perhaps he would not find it an easie matter to prove that by Doing his Commandments here is meant such exact unsinning Obedience . But tho' Rev. 22. 14. will not prove his Claim of Right , yet if he use those words in a larger sense , as they may denote a Right by Promise , I do not deny that his former Text , viz. Rom. 4. 4. may prove it . To him that worketh , the reward ( which God is suppos'd to have promised in the Covenant of Works ) is reckon'd as debt ; he may lay claim to it as his Right by virtue of that Promise . But if he take them in the strict sense , as if exact Obedience had properly merited the Reward , and might have claim'd it of Right , tho' no such Promise or Covenant had interven'd , he will hardly prove that from Rom. 4. Yea our Saviour seems to have determin'd very plainly against such a Claim , S. Luke . 17. 10. When ye shall have done all things which are commanded you , say , We are unprofitable servants , we have done that which was our duty to do . CHAP. XX. Of Faith in general . FAith is nothing else but an Assent founded upon the highest Reason . Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 4. c. 16. § . 14. The Matter of Faith being only Divine Revelation , and nothing else , Faith , as we use the Word ( call'd commonly Divine Faith ) has to do with no Propositions but those which are suppos'd to be divinely revealed . So that I do not see how those who make Revelation alone the sole Object of Faith , can say that it is a matter of Faith and not of Reason , to believe that such or such a Proposition , to be found in such or such a Book , is of divine Inspiration ; unless it be reveal'd that that Proposition , or all in that Book , was communicated by divine Inspiration . Without such a Revelation , the believing or not believing that Proposition or Book to be of divine Authority , can never be matter of Faith , but matter of Reason , and such as I must come to the Assent to only by the use of my Reason . Things beyond the discovery of our natural Faculties , and above Reason , are , when revealed , the proper matter of Faith. Whatever Proposition is reveal'd , of whose truth our Mind , by its natural Faculties and Notions , cannot judge , that is purely matter of Faith. Where the Principles of Reason have not evidenced a Proposition to be certainly true or false , there clear Revelation , as another Principle of Truth , and ground of Assent , may determine ; and so it may be matter of Faith. Ibid. c. 18. § . 6 , 7 , 9. Faith has as much Certainty as our Knowledge it self . Faith is a settled and sure Principle of Assent and Assurance , and leaves no manner of room for Doubt or Hesitation . Essay , l. 4. c. 16. § . 14. To talk of the Certainty of Faith , seems all one to me , as to talk of the Knowledge of Believing ; a way of speaking , not easie to me to understand . Bring Faith to Certainty , and it ceases to be Faith. When it is brought to Certainty , Faith is destroy'd ; 't is Knowledge then , and Faith no longer . The Second Letter , p. 95 , 96. My Bible , Heb. 10. 22. expresses the highest degree of Faith , which the Apostle recommended to Believers in his time , by Full Assurance . I find my Bible speaks of the Assurance of Faith , but no where , that I can remember , of the Certainty of Faith ; though in many places it speaks of the Certainty of Knowledge ; and therefore I speak so too , and shall not , I think , be condemned for keeping close to the Expressions of our Bible . The Third Letter , p. 122 , 123. I say with Mr. Chillingworth , c. 6. § . 3. that I do heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our Faith to be in themselves Truths , as certain and infallible , as the very common Principles of Geometry and Metaphysicks . But that there is not requir'd of us a Knowledge of them , and an Adherence to them , as certain as that of Sense or Science ; and that for this Reason , ( among others given both by Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Hooker ) viz. that Faith is not Knowledge , no more than three is four , but eminently contain'd in it : so that he that knows believes , and something more ; but he that believes , many times does not know ; nay , if he doth barely and merely believe , he doth never know . These are Mr. Chillingworth's own Words , c. 6. § . 2. That this Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty , and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind , I have so plainly declar'd ( Essay , l. 4. c. 17. § . 16. ) that no body , I think , can question it . There I say of some Propositions wherein Knowledge ( i. e. in my sense , Certainty ) fails us , that their Probability is so clear and strong , that Assent as necessarily follows it , as Knowledge doth Demonstration , Ibid. p. 124. Herein lies the Difference between Probability and Certainty , Faith and Knowledge ; that in all the parts of Knowledge there is Intuition , each immediate Idea , each Step , has its visible and certain Connexion ; in Belief , not so ; Essay , l. 4. c. 15. § . 3. To say that Believing and Knowing stand upon the same grounds , would be , I think , to say that Probability and Demonstration are the same thing . The Third Letter , p. 223. He that says he barely believes , acknowledges that he assents to a Proposition as true , upon bare Probability , Ibid. p. 159. I think it is possible to be certain upon the Testimony of God , where I know that it is the Testimony of God ; because in such a case , that Testimony is capable not only to make me believe , but , if I consider it right , to make me know the thing to be so : and so I may be certain . For the Veracity of God is as capable of making me know a Proposition to be true , as any other way of Proof can be ; and therefore I do not in such a case barely believe , but know , such a Proposition to be true , and attain Certainty . Ibid. p. 133. Faith , as contradistinguished to Reason , is the Assent to any Proposition not made out by the Deductions of Reason , but upon the Credit of the Proposer , as coming immediately from God. Essay , l. 4. c. 18. § . 2. Faith is nothing but a firm Assent of the Mind , which , if it be regulated as is our duty , cannot be afforded to any thing but upon good Reason , and so cannot be opposite to it . He that believes without having any Reason for believing , may be in love with his own Fancies , and seeks not Truth as he ought . Ibid. c. 17. § . 24. Where I want evidence of things , there yet is ground enough for me to believe , because God hath said it . The First Letter , p. 227. S. Paul , in his Epistles , often puts Faith for the whole Duty of a Christian. Reasonab . of Christian. p. 199. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . When Mr. Lock says that the Matter or Object of Faith is only Divine Revelation , and nothing else , if by Divine Revelation be meant the whole Scripture , the Historical part of it together with the rest ( for all Scripture is given by the Inspiration of God , 2 Tim. 3. 16. writ by Men inspired and guided by his infallible Spirit ) it is very true . And as to that which he infers , that then it cannot be said , that it is matter of Faith and not of Reason , to believe that such or such a Proposition to be sound in such or such a Book is of Divine Inspiration , unless it be reveal'd that that Proposition or all in that Book was communicated by Divine Inspiration , we need not contend much with him about it , since in the place just now alledg'd viz. 2 Tim. 3. 16. we have a Divine Testimony or Revelation that all the Books of Scripture which were writ and receiv'd before the writing of the Second Epistle to Timothy ( which as is concluded by all was writ very late ) are divinely inspir'd . Mr. Lock sometimes saith , that Faith hath as much Certainly as our Knowledge it self , and that it leaves no manner of Doubt or Hesitation ; yet other where he declaims against the Certainty of Faith. Now I would know how he can reconcile himself to himself in this . He says that to talk of the Certainty of Faith seems all one as to talk of the Knowledge of Believing , that Certainty destroys Faith , when it is brought to Certainty Faith is destroyed , 't is Knowledge then and Faith no longer . For to him to know and be certain is the same thing ( see his Second Letter , p. 93. ) and Certainty the same thing with Knowledge ; see his Third Letter , p. 122. Now if this be so , if Certainty and Knowledge are the same thing , then as he says , that to talk of the Certainty of Faith seems all one as to talk of the Knowledge of Believing ; so he might have said , that to talk of the Certainty of Knowledge seems all one as to talk of the Knowledge of Knowing , and that to talk of certain Knowledge seems all one as to talk of known Knowing ; a way of speaking not easy to be understood . Yea , as often as Mr. Lock useth these Expressions Certainty of Knowledge and Certain Knowledge , so oft he confutes this Fancy of his , that Knowledge and Certainty are the same thing . As when we say a certain Persuasion or a certain Truth , these Expressions imply that there may be a Persuasion or a Truth not so certain ; so when we say Certain Knowledge , it seems to imply that there may be a Knowledge not so certain . And so when Mr. Lock says , We certainly know , and We have a more certain Knowledge , Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 6. doth he not plainly imply , that there is a Knowledge less certain ? So that it is clear from his own Expreshons that Knowledge and Certainty are not the same thing . But that which I chiefly desire to know is , How Mr. Lock will reconcile his denying Certainty to Faith with his saying that Faith hath as much Certainty as our Knowledge it self . Whereas , Mr. Lock , says that he finds his Bible speaks of the Assurance of Faith , but no where that he can remember of the Certainty of Faith ; I desire that he would please to let us know the difference between Assurance and Certainty , or between Full Assurance and Certainty . As to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Heb. 10. 22. which is translated Full Assurance , I suppose the Translators ( if they had pleased ) might have rendred it Full Certainty , or Full Persuasion , or Certain Persuasion , as Erasmus and others render it by Certitudo . As Mr. Lock craves leave to use the Words of Mr. Chillingworth , so he ought to crave his Reader 's Pardon for not transcribing his Words so largely as he ought to have done . For though it sufficiently appears from so much as he hath cited from him , that Mr. Chillingworth makes against , and not for him ; yet it would have been more apparent , if he had alledg'd him more fully . Mr. Chillingworth , as Mr. Lock cites him , says , that there is not requir'd of us a Knowledge of the Articles of Faith , and an Adherence to them as certain as that of Sense or Science . In which Words , if by an Adherence to them be meant an Assent to or Belief of them , Certainty is plainly ascrib'd to Belief or Faith , ( which Mr. Lock will not allow ) though not a Certainty equal to that of Sense or Science . But let us take a view of Mr. Chillingworth's Words at large ; I do ( says he ) heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our Faith to be in themselves Truths as certain and insallible , as the very common Principles of Geometry and Metaphysicks . But that there is requir'd of us a Knowledge of them , or an Adherence to them , as certain as that of Sense or Science ; that such a Certainty is requir'd of us under pain of Damnation , so that no Man can hope to be in the state of Salvation but he that finds in himself such a degree of Faith , such a strength of Adherence : this I have already demonstrated to be a great Errour , and of dangerous and pernicious Consequence . Thus Mr. Chillingworth , c. 6. § . 3. We see now , what it is that this great Man saith ; viz. That a Certainty equal to that of Sense or Science is not requir'd of all Men under pain of Damnation , so that no Man can be in a state of Salvation that hath it not . But God may grant that degree of Certainty to some which he doth not require under pain of Damnation of all . Mr. Lock farther tells us , that there is not required of us a Knowledge of the Articles of our Faith , and an Adherence to them as certain as that of Sense or Science , and that for this reason among others ; viz. that Faith is not Knowledge , no more than Three is Four , but eminently contain'd in it ; so that he that knows believes , and something more , but he that believes many times does not know ; nay , if he doth barely and merely believe , he doth never know . These are Mr. Chillingworth's own words . Thus Mr. Lock . And I grant that the words Faith is not Knowledge , &c. are Mr. Chillingworth's ; but these , And that for this reason among others , are not his , but Mr. Lock 's own . Mr. Chillingworth would never have offer'd such a Reason to prove that there is not requir'd of us a Knowledge of the Articles of our Faith , and an Adherence to them as certain as that of Sense and Science . He , and other worthy Men of our Church who writ in his time , were not wont to argue so loosly ; and withal , he gives it as a Reason of something else : see him cap. 6. § . 2. There every one may also see , that when he says Faith is not Knowledge , he takes the word Knowledge in a different Sense from that in which he takes it § . 3. where he speaks of the Knowledge of the Articles of our Faith. When he speaks of Knowledge of the Articles of Faith , he , by Knowledge , understands only an Apprehension or Belief ; but when he says Faith is not Knowledge , he takes the Word properly and exactly in the Sense in which he uses the Word Science . By this time Mr. Lock may see what the Task is that he hath set himself ; viz. He is to prove this Consequence , Faith is not Knowledge , therefore there is not requir'd of us under pain of Damnation , an Apprehension or Belief of the Articles of Faith as certain as that of Sense or Science . But , since Mr. Lock mentions Mr. Hooker together with Mr. Chillingworth , as if they countenanced his Notion of Faith and Certainty ; I have consider'd that which they say of this Matter , and find that he hath no countenance at all from those excellent Persons . He makes Knowledge and Certainty to be the same thing , and Faith to be only Probability : let him shew where either Mr. Hooker or Mr. Chillingworth doth either of these . He distinguishes between Assurance and Certainty ; yea , he makes full Assurance of Faith to come short of Certainty : I would know where those excellent Persons do this . He ridicules the Certainty of Faith , but Mr. Hooker and Mr. Chillingworth ascribe a Certainty to Faith. They both of them speak of a Certainty of Evidence , and a Certainty of Adherence ; and when Mr. Hooker ( in his Sermon upon Heb. 1. 4. ) says , that this Certainty of Adherence is greater in us than the other , he plainly implies , that both the one and the other Certainty is in us , but not both in the same degree . And as to Mr. Chillingworth , when he says of this Hypothesis , that all the Articles of our Faith were revealed by God , we cannot ordinarily have any rational or acquired Certainty more than moral , ( see him c. 1. § . 8. ) he grants that we may have a moral Certainty of that Hypothesis . But § . 9. he adds , Yet this I say not , as if I doubted that the Spirit of God being implor'd by devout and humble Prayer and sincere Obedience , may and will , by degrees , advance his Servants higher , and give them a Certainty of Adherence beyond their Certainty of Evidence . But what God gives as a reward to Believers is one thing , and what he requires of all Men , as their duty , is another ; and what he will accept of , out of Grace and Favour , is yet another . To those that believe , and live according to their Faith , he gives by degrees the Spirit of Obsignation and Confirmation , which makes them know ( though how they know not ) what they did but believe : and to be as fully and resolutely assur'd of the Gospel of Christ , as those which heard it from Christ himself with their ears , which saw it with their eyes , which look'd upon it , and whose hands handled the Word of Life . If Mr. Lock will say thus much with Mr. Chillingworth , more will not be requir'd of him . I said that Mr. Lock makes Faith to be only Probability ; and I have in this Chapter transcrib'd sundry Passages from him which make this out . Herein lies the Difference between Probability and Certainty , Faith and Knowledge , says he in Essay , l. 4. c. 15. § . 3. where as Knowledge is in his Sense Certainty , so Faith is Probability . So again , He ( says he ) that says he barely believes , acknowledges that he assents to a Proposition , as true , upon bare Probability . And again , To say that Believing and Knowing stand upon the same grounds , is , I think , to s●y that Probability and Demonstration are the same thing . See his Third Letter , p. 159 , 223. Mr. Lock ( in his Third Letter , p. 124. ) ha●h these Words : That this Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty , and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind ; I have so plainly declar'd ( Essay , l. 4. c. 17. § . 16. ) that no body , I think , can question it . If you ask in what words he declares it , he tells us , that speaking of some Propositions wherein Knowledge ( i. e. in his sense Certainty ) fails us , he says , that their Probability is so clear and strong , that Assent as necessarily follows it , as Knowledge does Demonstration . Thus Mr. Lock . But how does he so plainly declare that the Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty , and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind , when neither in the Words which he cites , nor in that whole Section out of which he cites them , there is any mention either of the Assurance of Faith , or of Faith it self . He speaks indeed of probable Mediums , the probability of some of which may be so clear and strong , that Assent necessarily follows it ; and perhaps he would have us to apply this to the probable Grounds of Faith , for he will not allow the Grounds of Faith to be more than probable . But as he saith of probable Mediums , that they cannot bring us to the lowest degree of Knowledge , so probable Grounds of Faith cannot bring us to the lowest degree of Certainty ; and so , according to him , our Faith cannot advance it self above Probability , as was observ'd before . When Mr. Lock says in his Third Letter , p. 133. I think it is possible to be certain upon the Testimony of God , where I know that it is the Testimony of God , should he not rather have said , It is impossible for him who knows that God is true , yea Truth it self , not to be certain upon the Testimony of God , provided he know that it is the Testimony of God ? And after all , what is this to us who live now ? since , according to Mr. Lock , it is impossible for us ( unless we had an immediate Revelation from God himself ) to know that it is the Testimony of God ; and so by this Proviso he makes it impossible for us ( without such an immediate Revelation ) to be certain upon the Testimony of God , though we should be suppos'd to have a certain knowledge of his Veracity . CHAP. XXI . Of Abraham's Faith , and the Faith of those that liv'd before our Saviour's time . THE Faith for which God justified Abraham , what was it ? It was the believing God when he engaged his Promise in the Covenant he made with him . The Faith which God counted to Abraham for Righteousness , was nothing but a firm Belief of what God declar'd to him , and a stedfast relying on him for the accomplishment of what he had promised . Abraham believ'd that tho' he and Sarah were old , and past the time and hopes of Children , yet he should have a Son by her , and by him become the Father of a great People which should possess the Land of Canaan . The thing promis'd to him was no more but a Son by his Wife Sarah , and a numerous Posterity by him which should possess the Land of Canaan . These were but temporal Blessings and ( except the Birth of a Son ) very remote , suchas he should never live to see . But because he question'd not the performance of it , but rested fully satisfied in the Goodness , Truth , and Faithfulness of God who had promis'd , it was counted to him for Righteousness . The Faith whereby those Believers of old ( i. e. before our Saviour's time ) pleased God , was nothing but a stedfast reliance on the Goodness and Faithfulness of God , for those good things which either the light of Nature or particular Promises had given them grounds to hope for . This was all that was requir'd of them , to be persuaded of and embrace the Promises which they had . They could be persuaded of no more than was propos'd to them , embrace no more than was reveal'd . They had a Belief of the Messiah to come ? they believ'd that God would , according to his Promise , in due time send the Messiah to be a King and Deliverer . All that was requir'd before the Messiah's appearing in the World was , to believe what God had reveal'd , and to rely with a full Assurance on God for the performance of his Promise , and to believe that in due time he would send them the Messiah , this anointed King , this promised Saviour and Deliverer , according to his Word . Thus Mr. Lock p. 23 , 24 , 247 , 249 , 252 , 253 , 254. of his Reasonab . of Christianity . OBSERVATIONS . Here in Reasonab . of Christian. p. 23. Mr. Lock says , This Faith for which God justified Abraham , as p. 24. he says Ahraham was justified for his Faith , and in like manner p. 22. God justifies a Man for believing : Now ( as it was observ'd above , Chap. 19. ) this is not the Scripture-Language , he constantly reads in his Bible Justified by Faith , not for it . It may therefore be justly wonder'd that Mr. Lock , who is so much for keeping close to the Expressions of his Bible , and thinks it our Duty to do it ( see his Third Letter , p. 123. and 210. ) should affect to say so often that God justifies for Faith. But perhaps he will correct it in his next Edition . It is also just matter of Wonder , that he should say , that no more than temporal Blessings were promis'd to Abraham , and that the Faith which God counted to him for Righteousness was nothing but his believing those Promises , and resting fully satisfied of their Performance ; ( See Reasonab . of Christian . p. 24. and 249. ) especially when speaking of those Believers of old mention'd Heb. 11. ( of whom Abraham is one ) he says expresly , that they had a Belief of the Messiah to come , and that they believ'd that God would , according to his Promise , in due time send the Messiah : see Ibid. p. 253 , 254. And he that consults the New Testament , will find , that as to the Promise of the Messiah , and the Belief of it , there is more said of Abraham than of the rest . Abraham saw Christ's day , and rejoyc'd , S. John 8. 56. In thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the earth be blessed , Act. 3. 25. To Abraham were the Promises made , and to his Seed , which is Christ , Gal. 3. 16. CHAP. XXII . Of our Faith under the Gospel . THE Belief of one invisible eternal omnipotent God , Maker of Heaven and Earth , &c. was requir'd before the Revelation of the Gospel as well as now . The Gospel was writ to induce Men into a belief of this Proposition , that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah ; which if they believ'd , they should have Life . After his Death , his Resurrection was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article , and sometimes solely insisted on . Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition , That Jesus was the Messiah . I mean , this is all is requir'd to be believ'd by those who acknowledge but one eternal and invisible God , the Maker of Heaven and Earth . For , that there is something more requir'd to Salvation besides believing , we shall see hereafter . All that was to be believ'd for Justification was no more but this single Proposition , that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ , or the Messiah . This , that Jesus was the Messiah , was all the Doctrine the Apostles propos'd to be believ'd . Above three score years after our Saviour's Passion , S. John knew nothing else requir'd to be believ'd for the attaining of life , but that Jesus is the Messiah , the Son of God. Whoever would believe him to be the Saviour promised , and take him now rais'd from the dead , and constituted the Lord and Judge of all Men , to be their King and Ruler , should be saved . Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 25 , 29 , 31 , 43 , 47 , 93 , 194 , 304. That this , that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah , is the sole Doctrine pressed and required to be believ'd in the whole Tenour of our Saviour's and his Apostles preaching , we have shew'd through the whole History of the Evangelists and the Acts. And I challenge them to shew that there was any other Doctrine upon their Assent to which , or Disbelief of it , Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers , and accordingly receiv'd into the Church of Christ , or else kept out of it . Ibid. p. 195. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Mr. Lock challenges others to shew any other Doctrine , when he shews it himself . He says , that our Lord's Resurrection was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article , Reasonab . of Christian . p. 31. What can be more plain ? So The Belief of one invisible , eternal , omnipotent God , Maker of Heaven and Earth , &c. is requir'd . Ibid. p. 25. We must believe him to have been raised from the dead , and constituted the Lord and Judge of all Men , and to be our King and Ruler ; for if we do not believe these , how can we take him now rais'd from the dead , and constituted the Lord and Judge of all Men , to be our King and Ruler , which he expresly requires ? Ibid. p. 304. He says , Ibid. p. 30. that we may gather what was to be believ'd by all Nations , from what was preached to them by the Apostles . Now he expresly tells us , that the Apostle S. Paul preached that Jesus being risen from the dead , now reigneth , and shall more publickly manifest his Kingdom in judging the world at the last day . Ibid. p. 191. In like manner , p. 190. We see what it was our Saviour preached to the Apostles , and what it was that was to be preached to all Nations ; viz. That he was the Messiah that had suffer'd , and rose from the dead the third day , and fulfill'd all things that was written in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah ; and that those who believ'd this and repented , should receive Remission of their Sins through this Faith in him . Here Mr. Lock plainly testifies , that beside this one Article , That Jesus is the Messiah , the Apostles preach'd , that he suffer'd , rose again , fulfill'd all things that were written in the Old Testament concerning him , that he now reigneth , shall judge the World at the last day , and that those that repent , and believe the Gospel , shall receive Remission of Sins . Is it not then matter of greatest Admiration , that the same Person should tell us that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition , that Jesus was the Messiah , Ibid. p. 43. that all that was to be believ'd for Justification , was no more but this single Proposition , p. 47. that this was all the Doctrine the Apostles propos'd to be believ'd , p. 93. that for three score years after our Saviour's Passion , S. John knew nothing else requir'd to be believ'd for the attaining of Life but this , p. 194. and that this is the sole Doctrine requir'd to be believ'd , p. 195. especially when in his Vindication of his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 29. he seems to complain of those that blam'd him for contending for one Article ? Having ( says he ) thus plainly mention'd more than one Article , I might have taken it amiss , &c. And so in his Second Vindication , p. 26. he hath these words , That there is one God , and Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord , who rose again from the dead , ascended into Heaven , and sitteth at the right hand of God , shall come to judge the quick and dead , are more than one Article , and may very properly be call'd These Articles . Now in the foregoing Page he refers us to places in his Reasonab . of Christian. where he makes the Belief of all these necessary , which ( says he ) is evidence enough that I contended not for one single Article , and no more . All that I can say is , that it is not easie to reconcile Mr. Lock to himself , or to make out that sundry Passages in his Reasonab . of Christianity do not clash with each other . He says , in Reasonab . of Christian. p. 31. that Christ's Resurrection was sometimes solely insisted on , and yet he will confess that we cannot thence conclude that to be the sole Article that is necessary to be believ'd . Why then doth he urge so much that this , that Jesus is the Christ , is the sole Doctrine , the only Article , that one Proposition , that is requir'd to be believ'd , because perhaps it is sometimes solely insisted on ? Mr. Lock , Ibid. p. 43. having said that S. Paul tells the Jews at Antioch , Act. 13. 46. It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you , but seeing you put it off from you , we turn to the Gentiles , adds , Here 't is plain that S. Paul's charging their Blood upon their own heads , is , for opposing this single Truth , that Jesus was the Messiah , that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition : Thus Mr. Lock . But I would know how all this is plain from the Words which he alledges from Acts 13. 46. for 't is certain that it is not said in express terms , either that the charging their Blood on their own Heads is for opposing this single Truth , that Jesus is the Messiah , or that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition . It is true , when the Apostle says , Ye put it from you , he intimates , that it was wholly their own fault that they did not receive Benefit by the Words being spoken to them , and that may look something toward the charging their Blood upon their own Heads ; but as to all the rest , there is not the least ground or footstep of it , Act. 13. 46. Perhaps Mr. Lock will say , that by the Word of God there is meant no more than this one Proposition , That Jesus is the Messiah : But who will not rather believe , that when St. Paul said , It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you , he thereby meant that Word of God which he had preach'd to them of Antioch in Pisidia , ( as is recorded in that Chapter , ) and which the Jews contradicted . He had preached , That God had of the Seed of David , according to Promise , raised up to Israel a Saviour Jesus , v. 23. That the Jews at Jerusalem had condemn'd him , and desir'd Pilate to put him to Death , and in so doing , fulfill'd the Voices of the Prophets , and the things that were written concerning him , v. 27 , 28 , 29. that he was also buried , and that God rais'd him from the dead no more to see Corruption , according to the Prophecies of him , and that he was seen for many Days after his Resurrection , v. 29 , 30 , 31. usque ad 38. and that every one that believes should receive Remission of Sins by him , and be justified from all things , from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses , v. 38 , 39 All these are more than one single Truth , or one Proposition , and are all comprehended under the Word of God , mention'd , v. 46. And it may be observ'd , that in all that Sermon , from the beginning of v. 16. to v. 42. there is not express mention as much as once made of Jesus's being the Messiah , or King , tho' there is of his being a Justifier and Saviour . In his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 47. Mr. Lock hath these Words , So that all that was to be believ'd for Justification , was no more but this single Proposition , That Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah . The Words , So that , import , that he deduceth this from one or more of the Texts of Scripture which he there alleadges , and , if I mistake not , from the last of them , viz. Act. 10. 43. where 't is said , To him ( i. e. Jesus of Nazareth ) give all the Prophets witness , that through his Name whosoever believeth in him shall receive Remission of Sins . Here indeed is mention of Remission of Sins , or Justification ; but that all that was to be believ'd for Justification , was that single Proposition which he so often mentions , will never be prov'd from that Text. Yea , Mr. Lock , speaking of St. Peter's Sermon to Cornelius , Act. 10. ( of which that Text is a part ) doth not say that there is in it any express mention of our Saviour's being the Messiah , but ( says he ) he is described to be so by his Miracles , Death , Resurrection , Dominion , and coming to judge the quick and the dead : See him in his Second Vindication , p. 307. In his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 93. he alledges the Words of Act. 8. 4. They that were scattered abroad , went every where preaching the Word . Which Word was nothing ( says he ) but this , that Jesus was the Messiah : But if you ask how he proves this , he only says , As we have found by examining what they preach'd all through their History . Where , by their History , he means , undoubtedly , the History of the Apostles ; and when he says , they preach'd , that they must be the Apostles , whereas they that are said to have preach'd the Word , Acts 8. 4. were not the Apostles ; for we are told , v. 1. that the Apostles were not scatter'd abroad as those were that are mention'd , v. 4. But to wave this : Whereas Mr. Lock so often saith , that by examining what the Apostles preach'd all through their History , he had found , that the Word preach'd by them was nothing but this , that Jesus was the Messiah , I have just now shew'd , that it is easie for any one to find the contrary , by examining only that part of the History of the Apostles , which we have , Acts 10. from v. 34. to v. 44. and Acts 13. from v. 23. to v. 42. where , by Mr. Lock 's own Confession , they treated of the Miracles , Death , Resurrection , and Dominion of our Saviour , and of his coming to judge the World , as also of Remission of Sins by him . See him in Reasonab . of Christian , , p. 41. and Second Vindication , p. 307. In his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 194. Mr. Lock says , Above threescore Years after our Saviour's Passion , St. John knew nothing else required to be believ'd , for the attaining of Life , but that Jesus is the Messiah , the Son of God. But will he hold to this , that St. John knew nothing else requir'd to be believ'd , and admit of no Limitation , or Exception ? Did he not know that it was necessary to believe One Only True God ? St. John 17. 3. Did he not know that it was necessary to believe , that God rais'd the Lord Jesus from the dead ? But what shall we say to the Words of St. John 20. 31. which Mr. Lock alledges , Ibid. p. 193. and from which he inferrs this , These are written , that ye may believe that Jesus is the Messiah , the Son of God ; and that believing , ye may have Life in his Name ? I answer , That it may be said , 1. That here it is as much required , that we believe Jesus to be the Son of God , as 't is to believe him to be the Messiah . 2. That these , that Jesus is the Messiah , and that he is the Son of God , are two principal Articles , and therefore mention'd by St. John ; but he does not say , These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God , and only this ; neither does he say , And that believing this alone , ye may have Life : But , And that believing in general , i. e. believing all that the Holy Ghost makes necessary to be believ'd . If thou believe in thine Heart , that God rais'd the Lord Jesus from the dead , thou shalt be saved , Rom. 10. 9. Because in these Words our Lord's Resurrection is solely insisted on , Mr. Lock will not conclude , that St. Paul knew nothing else requir'd to be believed for attaining Life but that : And then why should he conclude , concerning St. John , that he knew nothing else requir'd to be believ'd but these two Articles , that Jesus is the Messiah , and that he is the Son of God , because St. John 20. 31. he mentions only these ? I know that Mr. Lock does not allow us to call them two Articles ; but I am so little moved with his saying ( and not proving ) that Messiah and the Son of God are two Expressions signifying one and the same thing , that I make bold to do it without his License . Mr. Lock , perhaps , will think that I neglect him , if I do not take notice of his Chronology . He says , That above threescore Years after our Saviour's Passion , St. John knew nothing else required to be believ'd . His Reason is , Because St. John's Gospel was written so long after , as ( says he ) both Epiphanius and St. Jerom assure us . I shall grant , that St. John's Gospel might , perhaps , be writ so long after our Lord's Crucifixion ; for St. Hierom , in Catalogo , and in Lib. 1. con . Jovinian , says , That Ecclesiastical History makes St. John to have liv'd threescore and eight Years after the Lord's Passion . But I cannot but take notice of Mr. Lock 's Caution ( some may call it his Prudence ) in not referring us to the Places where Epiphanius , and St. Hierom , assure us , that it was writ so late . As to Epiphanius , it is true , that in Haeres . 51. he says , that St. John writ his Gospel after the ninetieth Year of his Age ; and if he had also told us how old St. John was at the time when our Saviour was crucified , we might have known whether , according to Epiphanius , St. John writ his Gospel above threescore Years after our Lord's Passion ; but I do not remember that Epiphanius hath any where told us St. John's Age at the time of our Saviour's Suffering . And as to St. Hierom , I have not found that he doth acquaint us , either in what Year of his own Age , or how long after his Lord's Passion it was that St. John writ his Gospel . CHAP. XXIII . Of Saving Faith and Vnbelief . THey that believe Jesus to be the Messiah , their King , but will not obey his Laws , and will not have him to rule over them , they are but greater Rebels , and God will not justifie them for a Faith , which doth but increase their Guilt , and oppose diametrically the Kingdom and Design of the Messiah , who gave himself for us , that he might redeem us from all Iniquity , and purifie to himself a peculiar People , zealous of good Works , Tit. 2. 14. And therefore St. Paul tells the Galatians , That that which availeth is Faith ; but Faith working by Love , and that Faith without Works , i. e. the Works of sincere Obedience to the Law and Will of Christ , is not sufficient for our Justification , St. James shews at large , Chap. 2. Only those who believe Jesus to be the Messiah , and take him to be their King , with a sincere Endeavour after Righteousness , in obeying his Law , shall have their past Sins not imputed to them , and shall have that Faith taken instead of Obedience . Mr. Lock 's Reasonab . of Christian. p. 213 , 214 , 215. None are sentenced or punish'd for Unbelief , but only for their Misdeeds . They are Workers of Iniquity on whom the Sentence is pronounced . Every where the Sentence follows doing or not doing , without any mention of believing or not believing : Not that any , to whom the Gospel hath been preach'd , shall be sav'd , without believing Jesus to be the Messiah ; for all being Sinners , and Transgressors of the Law , and so unjust , are all liable to Condemnation , unless they believe , and so through Grace are justified by God for this Faith , which shall be accounted to them for Righteousness . But the rest wanting this Cover , this Allowance for their Transgressions , must answer for all their Actions , and being found Transgressors of the Law , shall , by the Letter and Sanction of the Law , be condemned for not having paid a full Obedience to that Law , and not for want of Faith : That is , not the Guilt on which the Punishment is laid , tho' it be the want of Faith which lays open their Guilt uncover'd , and exposes them to the Sentence of the Law against all that are unrighteous . Ibid. p. 243 , 245 , 246. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Of the Expression , Justified for Faith , whereas the Scripture-Language is Justified by Faith , I took notice before Chap. 19. and 21. Here I cannot but observe how apt Men are to run into Extremes . There are some that say that Unbelief is the only Sin for which Men shall be condemn'd ; they shall be condemn'd not for their other Sins , but , solely , for this . Mr. Lock , on the other hand , would persuade us , that Men shall not be condemned at all for Unbelief : The Sentence ( says he ) follows not doing , without any mention of not believing . He alledges for this , St. John 5. 28 , 29. St. Matth. 7. 22 , 23. 13. 14 , 49. 16. 24. 25. 24 , &c. St. Luke 13. 26. But , 1. In many of these Places , as St. John 5. 28 , 29. St. Matth. 13. 41. ( not 14 , as it is in Mr. Lock , ) and 49. St. Matth. 16. 27. ( not 24. as Mr. Lock , ) there is not the least mention of any Sentence , therefore it is manifest that they do not tell us for what Men shall be sentenced . 2. Those who are mention'd , St. Matth. 7. 22 , 23. and St. Luke 13. 26 , 27. were Believers , and so could not be sentenc'd for Unbelief . I do not say , that they believ'd to the saving of their Souls , or with a saving Faith , a Faith working by Love , and bringing forth the Fruits of good Works ; for the contrary is most manifest , they were Workers of Iniquity , or Unrighteousness : But I say , that they were Believers , they should say unto Christ , Lord , Lord ; yea , they were such Believers as not only own'd him for their Lord , but also prophesied , cast out Devils , and did many mighty Works in his Name ; and therefore , if they were not sentenced for Unbelief , but only for their Misdeeds , it cannot be thought strange . 3. Let it be suppos'd that they were Unbelievers , all that these Texts say , is , that Workers of Iniquity shall hear that Sentence , I tell you , I know you not , depart from me . And if it may be hence inferr'd , that they are to be condemn'd only for working Iniquity , then from St. Mark 16. 16. where it is said , He that believes not , shall be damn'd , it may be concluded that he shall be condemn'd only for Unbelief ; that the Sentence shall follow not believing , without any mention of not doing . But this Inference Mr. Lock will not allow . They are Workers of Iniquity , on whom the Sentence is pronounced , says Mr. Lock , out of St. Matth. 7. 23. They are Unbelievers who shall be condemned , say I , out of St. Mark 16. 16. And if from St. Mark 16. Mr. Lock will not conclude that Men shall be condemn'd only for Unbelief , and not for working Iniquity , why does he conclude from St. Matth. 7. that they shall be condemn'd only for working Iniquity , and not for Unbelief ? 4. As to St. Matth. 25. 24 , &c. which may seem to be more to Mr. Lock 's Purpose than the former ; for this tells us expresly for what Men shall be sentenced to Punishment , which the other do not , ( the Judge shall say to those on his Left Hand , Depart from me , ye cursed ; for I was hungry , and ye gave me not to eat , &c. ) it is enough to say , That if , because the Sentence of extreme Malediction shall be pronounced upon Men , because they did not feed the hungry , give drink to the thirsty , take in the Strangers , cloath the naked , visit the sick and imprison'd , he can inferr , that Men shall be condemn'd only for their not having done these things , and not for their Unbelief ; then certainly , because St. John 3. 18. it is said , He that believeth not , is now condemned , because he hath not believ'd in the Name of the only begotten Son of God , we may inferr , that Men are and shall be condemn'd only for their not believing , and not for their not doing . If Men shall be condemn'd only for the Sins mention'd St. Matth. 25. then they must be condemn'd only for Sins of Uncharitableness . Impenitence is not expresly mention'd in these Places of Scripture , produced by Mr. Lock , any more than Unbelief . Will he say , that Men shall not be condemn'd for their Impenitence ? The Truth is , that he may with as much Reason say That , as say that the Sentence shall not be pronounced on them for their Infidelity . Why should Mr. Lock think it strange that Men should be condemn'd for not paying Obedience to the Command of Christ , who hath commanded all Men every where to believe and repent ? Unbelief is a Sin which is the Cause of all our other Sins , which would be prevented , if we did unfeignedly , and with a lively Faith , believe the Gospel : It is also that which , as it were , binds and fastens the Guilt of our other Sins upon us ; they will not be forgiven , unless we believe and repent : And yet , according to Mr. Lock , Men shall be condemn'd for their other Sins , and not for this . I have perhaps dwelt too long upon this , yet I think it not amiss to give a brief Account why I render St. John 3. 18. He that believeth not is now condemn'd , whereas in our Translation it is , He that believeth not is condemn'd already . The Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is now condemned , or is now judged , as most worthy of Condemnation . Now that God hath express'd such wonderful Love to the World , by sending his only begotten Son into it , not to condemn it , but that by him the World might be saved , ( see v. 16 , 17. ) and now that he is come into the World , and hath wrought such Miracles , he that believes not must be most justly worthy of Condemnation , because he believes not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God , being given , that every one that believes in him should not perish , but have everlasting Life . Now that Light is come into the World , if Men will not believe in the Light , every one will judge that they are justly worthy of Condemnation , as our Saviour says in the very next Words , v. 19. This is the Condemnation , ( i. e. that which chiefly deserves Condemnation , ) that Light hath come into the World , and Men have loved Darkness more than the Light. If this Rendring and Exposition of the Words be receiv'd , Commentators will not need to trouble themselves so much as they have done , with enquiring in what Sense the Unbeliever is said to be already condemn'd , since this which I offer is a plain and easie Interpretation , He that believes not , is now condemn'd , ( now , after the Son of God's being actually come into the World , after Miracles wrought , and the Gospel preach'd by him , ) because he believes not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. This Text then plainly shews the Danger and Desert of not believing , and therefore it concerns us to beware , lest as the Israelites , of whom the Apostle speaks Heb. 4. did not enter into the promised Land , by reason of Unbelief , v. 6. so we be excluded the Heavenly Canaan for our Unbelief , v. 11 , CHAP. XXIV . Of Repentance , Baptism , and Remission of Sins . REpentance is as absolute a Condition of the Covenant of Grace as Faith , and as necessary to be perform'd as that . This was not only the Beginning of our Saviour's preaching , but the Summ of all that he did preach , viz. That Men should repent and believe the good Tidings which he brought them . Believing Jesus to be the Messiah , and repenting , were so necessary and fundamental Parts of the Covenant of Grace , that one of them alone is often put for both . Repentance is not only a Sorrow for Sins past , but ( what is a natural Consequence of that Sorrow , if it be real , ) a turning from them into a new and contrary Life . It is an hearty Sorrow for our past Misdeeds , and a sincere Resolution and Endeavour , to the utmost of our Power , to conform all our Actions to the Law of God. It does not consist in one single Act of Sorrow , ( tho' that being the first and leading Act , gives Denomination to the whole , ) but in doing Works meet for Repentance , in a sincere Obedience to the Law of Christ , the remainder of our Lives . It is in other Words well express'd by newness of Life : And sometimes turning about is put alone to signifie Repentance . Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 197 , 198 , 200 , 201. To be baptized into his Name is to enroll our selves into the Kingdom of Jesus the Messiah , and profess our selves his Subjects . By Baptism we are made Denizons , and solemnly incorporated into that Kingdom , Ibid. p. 212 , 213. Baptism was made use of by our Saviour to be that solemn visible Act whereby those who believ'd him to be the Messiah receiv'd him as their King , and profess'd Obedience to him , were admitted as Subjects into his Kingdom . So Peter began , Acts 2. 38. Repent , and be baptiz'd ; these two things were required for the Remission of Sins , Ibid. p. 199 , 200. God propos'd to the Children of Men , that as many of them as would believe Jesus his Son to be the Messiah , the promised Deliverer , and would receive him for their King and Ruler , should have all their past Sins , Disobedience , and Rebellion forgiven them ; and if , for the future , they liv'd in a sincere Obedience to his Law , to the utmost of their Power , the Sins of Humane Frailty , for the time to come , as well as all those of their past Lives , should for his Son's sake , because they gave themselves up to him to be his Subjects , be forgiven them : Tho' in consideration of Mens becoming Christ's Subjects by Faith in him , whereby they believe and take him to be the Messiah , their former Sins shall be forgiven , yet he will own none to be his , nor receive them as true Denizons of the New Jerusalem , into the Inheritance of Eternal Life , but leave them to the Condemnation of the Unrighteous , who renounce not their former Miscarriages , and live in a sincere Obedience to his Commands . Ibid. p. 211 , 212 , 241. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Believing Jesus to be the Messiah , and Repenting , are so necessary and fundamental Parts of the Covenant of Grace , that one of them alone is often put for both ; so Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 198. But I would know why they are the more necessary and fundamental Parts of the Convenant of Grace , on this account , that one of them alone is oft put for both ; or how this , that one of them alone is oft put for both , doth prove that they are necessary and fundamental Parts of it . Withal , how appears it , that one of them alone is oft put for both ? All the Proof that he tenders for it is in the Words immediately following : For ( says he ) St. Mark , chap. 6. 12. mentions nothing but their preaching Repentance , as St. Luke in the parallel Place , chap. 9. 6. mentions nothing but their evangelizing or preaching the good News of the Kingdom of the Messiah . Thus Mr. Lock . But how will he hence make good this Inference , Therefore , of these two , Believing and Repenting , one alone is oft put for both ? There is no mention of believing in either Place : St. Luke says , that the Apostles preach'd the Gospel ; St. Mark says , that they preach'd , that Men should repent ; of believing here is not a Word . But from both Texts we may gather that this , That Jesus is the Messiah , was not the only Article which the Apostles preach'd : For in St. Mark 6. 12. they preach'd , that Men should repent , or that they should have their Sins remitted upon their Repentance , as St. Peter afterward preach'd , Repent , and be baptiz'd for the Remission of Sins , Acts 2. 38. and , as our Saviour says , St. Luke 24. 47. that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preach'd ; so that it is clear , that the Apostles preach'd this Article of Remission of Sins upon our repenting . And then , in St. Luke 9. 6. they preach'd the Gospel , which comprehends more than that one Article , That Jesus is the Messiah , as the good News , that a Saviour was born into the World , &c. Mr. Lock , in Reasonab . of Christianity , p. 201. having said , that sometimes turning about is put alone to signifie Repentance , cites St. Matth. 13. 15. and St. Luke 22. 32. where the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and why that should be rendred to turn about , rather than to convert or turn , I am to be taught . Ibid. p. 212. he says , That to be baptiz'd into the Name of Christ , is to enroll our selves in the Kingdom of Jesus the Messiah . But as we are said to be baptiz'd in or into the Name of the Lord Jesus , so we are also said to be baptiz'd in or into the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , St. Matth. 28. 19. Now to be baptiz'd in the Name of the Holy Ghost , cannot signifie the enrolling our selves in the Kingdom of the Holy Ghost ; for we do not read in Holy Writ of the Kingdom of the Holy Ghost , as we do of the Kingdom of the dear Son of God : And why then should we make In or into the Name to signifie one thing when it is spoken of the Son , and another when it is spoken of the Holy Ghost , or of the whole blessed and glorious Trinity ? As then to baptize in or into the Name of the Father , of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , is to baptize , 1. by Authority and Commission from them ; 2. into the Worship and faithful Service of them all the Days of our Life : So I conceive we are to interpret the being baptiz'd in or into the Name of the Lord Jesus . Ibid. p. 241. Mr. Lock says , In consideration of Mens becoming Christ's Subjects by Faith in him , whereby they believe and take him to be the Messiah , their former Sins shall be forgiven . But other where he makes Men become the Subjects of Christ by Baptism as well as by Faith , and both Repentance and Baptism to be required for the Remission of Sins , ( alledging Acts 2. 38. ) and not Faith only . And therefore he might have express'd the Gospel-Terms , or the Conditions of Forgiveness , more fully , by saying , that if Men repent , and believe the Gospel , and be baptized , they shall , through the Merits and Death of their blessed Saviour , have their former Sins forgiven . CHAP. XXV . Of the Immortality of the Soul , and the Signification of the Word Spirit . IF that will not serve his turn , I will tell him a Principle of mine that will clear the Soul's Immortality to him , and that is the Revelation of Life and Immortality by Jesus Christ , through the Gospel . Mr. Lock , Answer to Remarks , p. 5 , 6. Perhaps my using the Word Spirit for a thinking Substance , without excluding Materiality out of it , will be thought too great a Liberty ; but the most enlightned of all the ancient People of God , Solomon himself , speaks after the same manner . Nor did the way of speaking in our Saviour's time vary from this . I would not be thought hereby to say , That Spirit does never signifie a purely immaterial Substance : In that Sense the Scripture , I take it , speaks , when it says God is a Spirit ; and in that Sense I have proved , from my Principles , That there is a Spiritual Substance , and am certain that there is a Spiritual Immaterial Substance . The First Letter , p. 68. 71 , 72 , 73. OBSERVATIONS . Mr. Lock , in his Answer to Remarks , p. 5. hath these Words , I suppose this Author , ( i. e. the Author of the Remarks ) will not question the Soul's Immateriality to be a Proof of its Immortality : Doth he not then , by taking so much Pains to persuade us that its Immateriality cannot be demonstratively prov'd , manifestly weaken one Proof of its Immortality ? Mr. Lock , in Essay , l. 4. c. 3. § . 6. says , That he would not any way lessen the Belief of the Soul's Immateriality : But he cannot expect that we should believe Words against the Evidence of Deeds . Yet , in his Essay , l. 2. c. 23. § . 18. he hath let fall some Words , from which I think the Soul's Immateriality may be prov'd : The Ideas we have belonging and peculiar to Spirit , are Thinking and Will. Thus Mr. Lock . Now ( say I ) if Thinking and Willing are peculiar to Spirit , then the Soul which thinks and wills is a Spirit . And that by Spirit he in that Chapter means an immaterial Substance , is evident ; for he opposeth Spirit to material Substance . Besides the complex Ideas we have of material sensible Substances , we are able to frame the complex Idea of a Spirit . So Mr. Lock , § . 15. And so what he in the very next Sentence calls immaterial Substances , in his Margin he calls spiritual Substances . If then Thinking and Willing are peculiar to Spirit , the Soul which thinks and wills is a Spirit , or spiritual immaterial Substance . I cannot reconcile the Immortality of the Soul with Mens ceasing to be when they die . Mr. Lock , who useth that Expression of ceasing to be , more than once , ( see above , Chap. 15. ) must invent some unknown Sense of it , which may reconcile them . I shew'd , just now , That Mr. Lock , in Essay , l. 2. c. 23. did by Spirit understand an immaterial Substance ; and indeed he doth own that he doth so , in his Third Letter , p. 430. I shall transcribe his Words at large : From the Ideas of Thought , ( says he , ) and a Power of moving of Matter , which we experience in our selves , there was no more difficulty to conclude there was an immaterial Substance in us , than that we had material Parts . These Ideas of Thinking and Power , of moving of Matter , I in another Place shew'd , did demonstratively lead us to the certain Knowledge of the Existence of an immaterial Thinking Being , in whom we have the Idea of Spirit in the strictest Sense , in which Sense I also apply'd it to the Soul , in that 23d . Chapter . Thus Mr. Lock . And yet , in his First Letter , p. 68. he tells us of his using the Word Spirit ( not in that which he calls the strictest Sense , but ) for a thinking Substance , without excluding Materiality out of it . He sets himself also to defend his using it thus . This he doth , first , by the Anthority of Cicero and Virgil , ( Ibid. p. 69 , 70. ) who ( as he says ) call the Soul Spiritus , and yet do not deny it to be a subtile Matter . But supposing this which he says , to be true , we may return Answer in his own Words , in his Third Letter , p. 126. That Latin Sentence , Nil tam certum est quam quod de dubio certum , being objected , he taking it to be a Saying of the Romans , answers thus , As I take it , they ( i. e. the Romans ) never use the English Word Certainty ; and tho' it be true , that the English Word Certainty , be taken from the Latin Word Certus ; yet that therefore Certainty in English is us'd exactly in the same Sense that Certus is in Latin , that I think you will not say . The very same say I , As I take it , Cicero and Virgil never us'd the English Word Spirit ; and tho' our Word Spirit be from the Latin Spiritus , yet that therefore Spirit in English , is us'd exactly in the same Sense that Spiritus is in Latin , Mr. Lock I think will not say . If he thought this a sufficient Answer to others , why should it not be a sufficient Answer to him ? But farther , Mr. Lock having said in his First Letter , p. 69. that both Cicero and Virgil call the Soul Spiritus , in answer hereto it was suggested concerning Cicero , That in his Tusculan Questions , in the Entrance of the Dispute about the Soul , he takes Animus for the Soul , and neither Anima nor Spiritus ; and that Spiritus is taken by him for Breath . Now if this be true , that is not which Mr. Lock says , that Cicero calls the Soul Spiritus . What says he in his Third Letter to this ? Not a Word , nor doth he take the least notice of it , neither doth he in that long Reply in his Third Letter , p. 431 , &c. produce one place out of Cicero , wherein he useth Spiritus for the Soul. If it be said that he had done that in his First Letter , I answer , that he there cites only one place , where he takes the Words on trust , and sets them down thus : Vita continetur corpore & spiritu ; see him , p. 70. But if he had consulted Cicero himself , he would have found ( in Orat. pro Marcello , vers . fin . ) the Words to be these : Nec haec tua vita dicenda est , quae corpore & spiritu continetur , illa , inquam , illa vita est tua Caesar , quae vigebit memorio . Saeculonum omnium , quam posteritas alet , quam ipsa aeternitas semper intuebitur . Let Mr. Lock himself now judge whether Spiritus here must be necessarily understood to signifie the Soul , and whether it can be more fitly interpreted than in the Sense in which Cicero most constantly useth it , as signifying Breath , even the Breath of our Nostrils , without which the Body cannot live , and which is so necessary to preserve this mortal Life , which the Orator tells Caesar was not his Life . As to Virgil , Mr. Lock only cites these Words out of him , Dum Spiritus hos regit artus , saying , that he speaks of the Soul ; see his First Letter , p. 70 In answer to this , he was told , that Spiritus is there taken for the Vital Spirit ; and that Virgil did believe the Soul to be more than a mere Vital Spirit , and that it subsisted and acted in a separate State : To all which , Mr. Lock , in his Reply in his Third Letter , p. 440 , 441. says nothing at all , nor does he take the least notice of it . But Mr. Lock , to justifie his using the Word Spirit in such a Signification , alledges the Authority of one greater than Cicero or Virgil , or the most enlightned Person of the Heathen World , viz. Solomon himself , Eccles. 3. 19 , 21. That which befalleth the Sons of Men befalleth Beasts , even one thing befalleth them ; as the one dieth , so dieth the other ; yea , they have all one Spirit . Who knoweth the Spirit of a Man that goeth upward , and the Spirit of a Beast that goeth down to the Earth , See Mr. Lock 's First Letter , p. 71. To which I answer , 1. How appears it that these are Solomon's Words , and not the Sayings of others , which Solomon only repeats ? Is it probable that Solomon would affirm absolutely , as his own Sense , that Man hath no Pre-eminence above a Beast ? Which Words we have , v. 19. tho' they are omitted by Mr. Lock . If they be not Solomon's Words , then it is clear that he hath not the Authority of Solomon ; yea , then he hath not the Authority of our Translators , who ( this being suppos'd ) applied not the Word Spirit to Beasts ; but they , whose Words the Preacher repeats , apply'd the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them , which Word our Translators render Breath , v. 19. and Spirit , v. 21. 2. But let it be supposed ( tho' not granted ) that they are Solomon's Words and Sense , I need only borrow once more Mr. Lock 's Words : As I take it , Solomon never us'd the English Word Spirit ; and tho' it be true that the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred Spirit , yet that therefore Spirit in English hath exactly the same Signification that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath in Hebrew , I think Mr. Lock will not say ; for then Spirit must signifie the Wind , Breath , &c. since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is apply'd to these . In vain therefore doth he pretend that he hath the Authority of Solomon . And yet he seeks to justifie his use of the Word also by the Authority of one greater than Solomon . When our Saviour ( says he ) after his Resurrection stood in the midst of them , they were affrighted , and suppos'd that they had seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit , S. Luke 24. 37. But our Saviour says to them , v. 39. Behold my hands and my feet , that it is I my self , handle me and see , for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have . See Mr. Lock , First Letter , p. 71 , 72. who forgot to tell us who the They and Them are ; but they are the Apostles : and from our Saviour's words to them he here argues . And if he would argue directly , he must do it in this or the like form ; If our Saviour say that a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones , then he useth the word Spirit as signifying something from which Matter is not excluded . But Mr. Lock must have invented a new Logick before he could have made good this Consequence : He therefore goes another way to work both in his First and in his Third Letter . I shall briefly examine what he says in both . In his First Letter , p. 72. he says , that these words of our Saviour's put the same distinction between Body and Spirit that Cicero did in the place above cited , viz. That the one was a gross Compages that could be felt and handled , and the other such as Virgil describes the Ghost or Soul of Anchises : Ter conatus ibi collo dare brachia circum , Ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago , Par levibus vent is , volucrique simillima somno . Thus Mr. Lock . So that in short , according to him , in those words of our Saviour an Image is call'd a Spirit . And can we not conceive an Image that doth not include Matter ? I may instance in those Ideas or Images which are the immediate Objects of Mr. Lock 's Mind in thinking , are they material ? Likewise in the Images that we see in our Dreams , which latter Instance I the rather mention , because Virgil , in these very Verses , compares the Image of which he speaks to Sleep , or to an Image appearing in Sleep , ( formam apparentem in somnis ) as some interpret it . In his Third Letter , p. 444 , he says , that from these words of our Saviour , a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones , it follows , that in Apparitions there is something that appears , and that that which appears is not wholly immaterial : Thus Mr. Lock . In Answer to it , I shall remind him , that in his Second Vindication of the Reasonab . of Christian. p. 228. he mentions a Request which Mr. Chillingworth puts up to Mr. Knot , and I think it no less necessary to be put up to him : Sir , I beseech you , when you write again , do us the favour to write nothing but Syllogisms : for I find it an extreme trouble to find out the concealed Propositions which are to connect the parts of your Enthymems . As now , for example , I profess to you , that I have done my best endeavour to find some Glue , or Sodder , or Cement , or Thread , or any thing , to tie the Antecedent and this Consequent together . Thus Mr. Chillingworth . Here Mr. Lock 's Enthymem is this , A Spirit hath not flesh and bones , ergo , In Apparitions there is something that appears , and that which appears is not wholly immaterial . If Mr. Lock can find some Glue or Sodder to join the Antecedent and this Consequent together , it is well : but if he cannot , I shall make bold to add , that no body else can . Neither can he evade by saying that it was not from those words only , ( viz. A Spirit hath not flesh and bones , ) but from the whole Text S. Luke 24. 37 , 39. that he draws that Consequence , that what appears is not wholly immaterial ; for the case is the same . This may suffice as to his Authorities , which are found to do him no service at all . He subjoins in his First Letter , p. 72 , 73. I would not be thought hereby to say that Spirit never signifies a purely immaterial Substance . In that Sense the Scripture , I take it , speaks , when it says God is a Spirit ; and in that sense I have us'd it , and in that sense I have prov'd , from my Principles , that there is a spiritual Substance , and am certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance . Thus Mr. Lock . But might he not have left out those words I take it , and affirm'd positively that when the Scripture says God is a Spirit , the word Spirit signifies a purely immaterial Substance ? He tells that he is certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance , and I therefore hope that he is certain that God is such : and if it be a certain Truth that God is a spiritual immaterial Substance , in what sense can the Scripture be judged to say that he is a Spirit but in this ? God is a Spirit , and the Worshipers of him ought to worship in Spirit , S. John 4. 24. i. e. with their Minds ( or , with application of Mind , as Mr. Lock interprets it in his Reasonab . of Christ. p. 286. ) which Minds are likewise spiritual immaterial Substances . CHAP. XXVI . Of Conscience , Consideration , and Freedom . COnscience is nothing else but our own Opinion of our own Actions , Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 1. c. 3. § . 8. 'T is a Mistake , to think that Men cannot change the displeasingness or Indifferency that is in Actions into Pleasure and Desire , if they will do but what is in their Power . A due Consideration will do it in some cases . Any Action is render'd more or less pleasing only by the contemplation of the End , and the being more or less persuaded of its tendency to it , or necessary connexion with it . This is certain , that Morality , establish'd upon its true Foundations , cannot but determine the choice in any one that will but consider ; and he that will not be so much a rational Creature as to reflect seriously upon infinite Happiness and Misery , must needs condemn himself , as not making that use of his Understanding he should . Ibid. l. 2. c. 21. § . 69 , 79. By a due Consideration , and examining any Good propos'd , it is in our power to raise our Desires in a due proportion to the value of that Good , whereby it may come to work upon the Will , and be persued . The Mind having in most cases , as is evident dent in Experience , a Power to suspend the Execution and Satisfaction of any of its Desires ; and so all , one after another , is at liberty to consider the Objects of them , examine them on all sides , and weigh them with others . In this lies the Liberty Man has , and from the not using it right comes all that variety of Mistakes , Errours , and Faults , we run into in the Conduct of our Lives , and our Endeavours after Happiness ; whilst we precipitate the Determination of our Wills , and engage too soon before Examination . Were we determined by any thing but the last Result of our Minds , judging of the Good or Evil of any Action , we were not free . If we look upon those superiour Beings above us who enjoy perfect Happiness , we shall have reason to judge they are more steadily determin'd in their choice of Good than we ; and yet we have no reason to think they are less happy or less free than we are . Even the Freedom of the Almighty hinders not his being determin'd by what is best . The constant desire of Happiness , and the constraint it puts upon us to act for it , no body I think accounts an Abridgment of Liberty , or at least an Abridgment of Liberty to be complain'd of . The suspending any particular Desire , and keeping it from determining the Will , and engaging us in Action , is standing still , where we are not sufficiently assur'd of the way ; Examination is the consulting a Guide ; the Determination of the Will upon Enquiry is following the direction of that Guide ; and he that hath a power to act or not to act according as such Determination directs , is a free Agent ; such Determination abridges not that Power wherein Liberty consists . The Care of our selves , that we mistake not imaginary for real Happiness , is the necessary Foundation of our Liberty , and the stronger Ties we have to an unalterable Persuit of Happiness in general , which is our greatest Good , and which , as such , our Desires always follow , the more are we free from any necessary Determination of our Will to any particular Action , or from a necessary Compliance with our Desire set upon any particular and then appearing greater Good , till we have duely examin'd whether it has a tendency to , or be inconsistent with our real Happiness . Let not any one say that he cannot govern his Passions , nor hinder them from breaking out and carrying him into Action ; for , what he can do before a Prince , or a great Man , he can do alone , or in the presence of God , if he will. Ibid. § . 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53. God having reveal'd that there shall be a Day of Judgment , I think that Foundation enough to conclude Men are free enough to he made answerable for their Actions , and to receive according to what they have done . The Third Letter , p. 444. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . When Mr. Lock writ his Essay , he had not tied himself so strictly to use the Scripture-Language in speaking of matters of Religion , as he had when he writ his Third Letter . This appears , as from other Instances , so from his Definition or Description of Conscience . If he had been so much for the using Scripture-Language then as he was afterward , he would not have describ'd Conscience to be nothing else but our own Opinion of our own Actions . He had spoke more consonantly to Scripture-Language , if he had put the Word Knowledge , or Testimony , or Judgment instead of Opinion . For , according to Scripture , Conscience is that within us which knows , and also witnesses , and judges of our Actions , Conversations , &c. as it also judges of the Actions and Conversations of others . 1. Knowledge is in Scripture attributed to the Heart or Conscience . Thus Eccles. 7. 22. Thine own Heart knows , that thou thy self hast cursed others . The Vulgar reads , Thy Conscience knows , &c. Heart is frequently put for Conscience ; see 1 Sam. 24. 5. and 2 Sam. 24. 10. and 1 Joh. 3. 19 , 20 , 21 , &c. The Hebrew Word which both the Seventy and also our Translation in the Margin renders Conscience , Eccles. 10. 20. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes Knowledge , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word which the Chaldee Paraphrast there useth also doth , they both coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Curse not the King , no not in thy thought : so our Translation hath it in the Text ; but in the Margin , instead of Thy Thought we have Thy Conscience ; and so the Meaning is , Curse not the King , though thou do it so secretly that none but thine own Heart or Conscience can know it . And it is observable , that Gen. 43. 22. where Joseph's Brethren say We know not who put our money in our sacks , instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We know not , the Vulgar hath Non est in nostra Conscientia . 2. Conscience is frequently said in Scripture to bear witness ; My Conscience bearing me witness , so the Apostle Rom. 9. 1. who also , 2 Cor. 1. 12. speaks of the Testimony of his Conscience ; and Rom. 2. 15. says of the Heathens , that their Conscience did bear witness . 3. Judging is also attributed to the Heart or Conscience in Scripture . Thus 1 John 3. 20. If our Heart ( i. e. our Conscience ) condemn us : and so again , If our Heart ( or Conscience ) condemn us not . So S. Paul , 1 Cor. 8. 7. Some with Conscience of an Idol to this hour eat of somewhat as offered to an Idol . With Conscience of an Idol , i. e. their Conscience judging that an Idol was something . And so S. Peter , If a man for Conscience toward God endure grief , 1 Pet. 2. 19. For Conscience toward God , i. e. because his Conscience judgeth that he ought to obey God. Thus we read of Conscience its knowing , witnessing , and judging ; but where will Mr. Lock find any thing that favours his Description , viz. that it is nothing else but our Opinion , & c. ? In his Essay , l. 4. c. 15. § . 3. he makes Opinion to be the receiving a Proposition for true , without certain Knowledge that it is so : But Conscience both knows , ( as we have seen , ) and also certainly knows . There is one indeed that is greater than our Consciences , and knows all things , and with such Certainty as that nothing can compare with him : But that transcendent Certainty of the Divine Knowledge being excepted , there is no Knowledge that can pretend to greater and more absolute Certainty than that of Conscience . And therefore , even according to Mr. Lock , it is impossible that Conscience should be an Opinion . But this is not the only Fault in Mr. Lock 's Description of Conscience : It is ( says he ) our own Opinion of our own Actions ; as if Mens Consciences had to do only with Actions , yea , only with our own Actions . But Conscience will not have its Authority or Jurisdiction confin'd within so narrow Limits : It will sit as Judge , not only upon Mens Actions , but also upon their Speeches , yea , upon our Thoughts , Affections , Aims , Purposes , or Intentions , and the Sincerity of them . None of these is or can be hid from the Eye of Conscience , which knows them all , and is thereby qualified to be both Witness and Judge of them . St. Paul , Rom. 9. 1 , 2. appeals to his Conscience as witness of his speaking the Truth , and of the great Affection he bare to his Country-men : I say the Truth in Christ , I lye not , my Conscience bearing me witness , that I have great Heaviness and continual Sorrow in my Heart , &c. And in like manner , 2 Cor. 1. 12. he tells of his Conscience's bearing Testimony of his Conversation and Sincerity : Our Rejoycing is this , the Testimony of our Conscience , that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity we have had our Conversation in the World. I add , That tho' Mr. Lock only mentions our own Actions , yet it is apparent , even from Scripture , that Conscience also judgeth of the Actions and Conversations of others . We commend our selves to every Man's Conscience , says the Apostle , 2 Cor. 4. 2. i. e. We endeavour to order our Speech , Actions , and Conversation so , as that every Man's Conscience cannot but judge and think well of them . So , 2 Cor. 5. 11. We ( says he ) are made manifest to God , and I trust that we are also made manifest in your Consciences ; q. d. God knows and is Witness of our sincere Purpose , and I hope that your Consciences are also satisfied of it , and ready to bear Testimony to it . Add to these 1 Cor. 10. 28 , 29. If any Man say to you , This is offer'd in Sacrifice to Idols , eat not for his sake that shew'd it , and for Conscience sake : Conscience , I say , not thine own , but the others ; for why is my Liberty judg'd of another Man's Conscience ? In this Case , tho' I am satisfied in mine own Conscience , that I am at liberty , and may lawfully eat ; yet I must forbear , for the sake of the other Man's Conscience : For , why should my Liberty be judged by another's Conscience ? i. e. Why should I use my Liberty , and eat then , when another Man's Conscience will judge that I have sinn'd in eating , and entertain Jealousies or hard Thoughts of me . This may suffice for Mr. Lock 's Description of Conscience . He might have express'd himself more plainly than he has done , when he says , That Morality establish'd upon its true Foundations , cannot but determine the Choice in any one who will but consider . He hath not plainly told us what those true Foundations are ; but if he mean by them that infinite Happiness and Misery , those Rewards and Punishments of another Life , which he mentions in the Words following , I would ask , whether it be not rather the Consideration of those Foundations which so effectually determines the Choice , than the Consideration of the Morality that is established upon them . I the rather ask this Question , because Mr. Lock , in this very Place ( Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § 70. ) says expresly , That the Rewards and Punishments of another Life , which the Almighty hath establish'd as the Enforcements of his Laws , are of weight enough to determine the Choice against whatever Pleasure or Pain this Life can shew . He speaks also of the Foundations of Morality , in Essay , l. 4. c. 3. § . 18. but there likewise he doth not acquaint us what those Foundations are . His Words are these , The Idea of a Supreme Being , Infinite in Power , Goodness , and Wisdom , whose Workmanship we are , and on whom we depend , and the Idea of our selves , as understanding rational Creatures , being such as are clear in us , would , I suppose , if duly considered and persued , afford such Foundations of our Duty , and Rules of Action , as might place Morality amongst the Sciences capable of Demonstration ; wherein I doubt not but from Principles as incontestable as those of the Mathematicks , by necessary Consequences the Measures of Right and Wrong might be made out . Mr. Lock says , ( in Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § . 48. ) Were we determin'd by any thing but the last Result of our own Minds , judging of the good or evil of any Action , we were not free . Now if this be true , that the last Result of our Mind judging of the good or evil of any Action , determines us , and nothing else , how comes it that he affirms , ( Ibid. § . 31 , 33 , 34. ) That Uneasiness determines the Will , and also takes so much Pains to prove it , Ibid. § . 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ? I would know whether Uneasiness doth determine the Wills of those who enjoy complete Happiness , as the Spirits of Just Men made perfect do . Tho' I do not deny that too many Mens Desires and sensual Appetites causing uneasiness in them , do determine them to act contrary to the last Result of their Minds , judging the Action to be evil : And so ( to use Mr. Lock 's Words , Ibid. § . 35. ) they are from time to time in the State of that unhappy Complainer , Video meliora proboque , deteriora sequor ; which Sentence is allow'd for ●rue , and made good by constant Experience : Therefore in the Heathen Poets we meet with many such Complaints . The Words immediately preceding those , Video meliora , &c. are these , Sed trahit invitam nova vis , aliudque Cupido Mens aliud suadet : That unhappy Wretch , ( viz. Medea ) complains , that tho' her Mind saw , and approv'd , and persuaded her to the better , yet the Vehemence of her Desire persuaded , yea , even hurried her to the worse , and made her unwillingly follow it . In like manner , in Euripides's Medea , Act 4. vers . fin . she complains that her Passion overcame her Reason , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Yea , we find the like Complaints in Holy Writ , I delight in the Law of God after the inward Man : But I see another Law in my Members , warring against the Law of my Mind , and bringing me into Captivity to the Law of Sin. So then I with the Mind indeed serve the Law of God , but with the Flesh the Law of Sin , Rom. 7. 22 , 23 , 25. And so he in Lactantius , l. 4. c. 24. Volo equidem non peccare , sed vincor : Sentio me peccare , sed necessitas fragilitatis impellit , cui repugnare non possum . I readily grant , that Men in this State are not free , ( for the Apostle tells us , that they are Captives and Slaves , sold under Sin , and have Reason to cry out , Wretched Man that I am ! who shall deliver me ? ) and that ( as Mr. Lock says in Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § . 47. ) 't is the Perfection of our Nature to desire , will , and act , according to the last Result of a fair Examination ; and therefore it would be a great Happiness , if we were determin'd by nothing else but the last Result of our Minds , judging those Actions to be good or evil which are really so . But , alas ! too frequent Experience evinceth , that Mens sensual Desires , and the Uneasiness which those Desires do cause in them , do determine them many times to do contrary to the right Judgment of their Minds ; and so , tho' with their Minds they serve the Law of God , i. e. their Minds judge that they should do that which the Law of God requires ; yet with their Flesh they serve the Law of Sin , i. e. their fleshly Desires prevail and determine them to act contrary to the Law of God. CHAP. XXVII . Of the Securing our Future State , and the Punishment of those that would not follow Christ. SInce our Natural Faculties are not fitted to penetrate into the internal Fabrick and real Essences of Bodies , but yet plainly discover to us the Being of a God , and the Knowledge of our selves , enough to lead us into a full and clear Discovery of our Duty , and great Concernment ; it will become us , as rational Creatures , to employ those Faculties in those Enquiries , and in that sort of Knowledge which is most suited to our natural Capacities , and carries in it our greatest Interest , i. e. the Condition of our Eternal Estate . No Man is so wholly taken up with the Attendance on the means of Living , as to have no spare time at all to think on his Soul , and inform himself in Matters of Religion . Were Men as intent upon this as they are on things of lower Concernment , there are none so enslav'd to the Necessity of Life , who might not find many Vacancies that might be husbanded to this Advantage of their Knowledge . Mr. Lock , in Essay , l. 4. c. 12. § . 11. and c. 19. § . 3. The Punishment of those who would not follow him , ( i. e. Christ , ) was to lose their Souls , i. e. their Lives , Mark 8. 35 — 38. as is plain , considering the Occasion it was spoke on . Reasonab . of Christian. p. 15. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . When Mr. Lock says , That the Punishment of those who would not follow Christ , was to lose their Souls , i. e. their Lives . This is usher'd in with the Words , And therefore ; and yet it is not easie to perceive how this is inferr'd from that which Mr. Lock had said before , or how it proves or illustrates it ; so that perhaps these Conjunctions , And therefore , are here to be look'd upon as some of Mr. Lock 's privileged Particles . But to wave that , he alledgeth for this , St. Mark 8. 35 — 38. whereas , in v. 38. there is not that Expression of losing their Souls , but it is said , that the Son of Man will be asham'd of them when he cometh in the Glory of his Father with the Holy Angels ; and consequently he will not then own them , but contrariwise say , I know you not , depart from me into everlasting Fire prepar'd for the Devil and his Angels . This may help us to understand what is meant by the losing the Soul , v. 35. Mr. Lock understands by it their losing their Life , or ( as he expresses it a little before ) their dying , and ceasing to be : But how can ceasing to be consist with the suffering the Torment of the everlasting Fire prepar'd for the Devil and the other lapsed Angels ? They shall lose their Souls , i. e. their Lives , as is plain , considering the Occasion it was spoke on . Thus Mr. Lock . We must therefore look back to find on what Occasion this was spoken . We are told , St. Mark 8. 31 , 32 , 33 , 34. that our Saviour having openly foretold that he should be put to death , and rise again , Simon Peter rebuked him for it ; but he , when he had rebuk'd Peter , call'd to him the Multitude , together with his Disciples , and said , If any one will come after me , let him deny himself , and take up his Cross , and follow me . Then follows the mention of the losing their Souls , v. 35. Whosoever ( says he ) will save his Soul , shall lose it . We see now the Occasion of Christ's speaking these last Words ; and I would know how it makes it plain , that by losing the Soul here is meant losing the Life , in Mr. Lock 's Sense , i. e. as it signifies dying , and ceasing to be . For my part , I cannot but think that we may most safely rely on St. Luke's Exposition : He , c. 9. v. 24. hath these Words , Whosoever will save his Soul , shall lose it , i. e. his Soul ; but , v. 25. instead of lose his Soul , he hath lose himself : What is a Man profited , if he gain the whole World , and lose himself ? Thus St. Luke . Nothing is more usual in Scripture than for the Soul to be put for the whole Person ; and so St. Luke teaches us to expound it here . When other Evangelists say , And lose his own Soul , ( see St. Matth. 16. 26. St. Mark 8. 36. ) St. Luke says , And lose himself . The Punishment then of him that will not deny himself , and follow Christ is to lose his Soul , i. e. himself , both Body and Soul , to have both Soul and Body destroy'd in Hell. Hi corpus & animam perdunt pariter in Gehennam , says Origen , Homil. 36. in S. Luke . CHAP. XXVIII . Of the Church , also of Infallibility , and Transubstantiation . IT was upon this Proposition , That Jesus was the Messiah , the Son of the living God , owned by St. Peter , that our Saviour said he would build his Church , Matth. 16. 16 , 17 , 18. The Confession made by St. Peter , Matth. 16. 16. is the Rock on which our Saviour has promis'd to build his Church . Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 27. 48. The Romanists say , 'T is best for Men , and so suitable to the Goodness of God , that there should be an infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth ; and therefore there is one . And I by the same Reason , say , 'T is better for Men that every Man himself should be insallible . I leave them to consider , whether by the Force of this Argument they shall think that every Man is so , Essay , l. 1. c. 4. § . 12. I know no other infallible Guide but the Spirit of God in the Scriptures ; Second Vindication of Reasonab . of Christian. p. 341. The Ideas of one Body and one Place , do so clearly agree , and the Mind has so evident a Perception of their Agreement , that we can never assent to a Proposition that affirms the same Body to be in two distant Places at once , however it should pretend to the Authority of a Divine Revelation : Since the Evidence , 1. That we deceive not our selves in ascribing it to God ; 2. That we understand it right , can never be so great as the Evidence of our own intuitive Knowledge , whereby we discern it impossible for the same Body to be in two Places at once , Essay , l. 4. c. 18. § . 5. OBSERVATIONS . Mr. Lock often repeats it , That the Confession made by St. Peter , St. Matth. 16. 16. was the Rock on which Christ would build his Church . We have it in his Reasonab . of Christian. not only in the Places already alledg'd , but also in p. 102 , 103 , and 104 , 105. If he would inferr thence , that this Article alone , That Jesus is the Messiah , is necessary to make Men Christians ; or , that only these two Articles , That he is the Messiah , and , That he is the Son of God , are so necessary , he may know that this cannot be deduced from it . If he argue thus , The Church is founded upon these Articles , as upon a Rock , therefore only the Belief of them is necessary to make a Man a Member of the Church ; I deny his Consequence , for more than the believing the first Foundation of the Church may be necessary to make a Man a Member of it . As to the Words , This Rock , it is acknowledged that sundry of the ancient Expositors have interpreted it to be the Faith which St. Peter confess'd . Upon this Rock will I build my Church , i. e. the Faith which thou hast confess'd ; so St. Chrysost. in St. Matth. Homil. 55. Christ called this Confession a Rock , &c. For it really is the Rock of Godliness ; so St. Basil. Seleuc. Orat. 25. What is this , upon this Rock I will build my Church ? Upon this Faith on that which is said , Thou art Christ the Son of the living God ; so St. August . Tract . 10. in primam Joannis . I may add Theophylact : Peter having confess'd the Son of God , he ( i. e. Christ , ) saith , This Confession which thou hast confess'd shall be the Foundation of Believers . Thus Theophyl . in loc . But tho' these and other ancient Writers do by this Rock understand the Faith which was confess'd , yet there want not among them those who make it to be the Author and Finisher of our Faith , viz. Christ. Upon those Words , 1 Cor. 3. 11. Other Foundation no Man can lay , than that which is laid , which is Jesus the Christ. Theodoret says thus , Blessed Peter laid this Foundation , or rather the Lord himself : For Peter having said , Thou art the Son of the living God , the Lord said , On this Rock I will build my Church : Be not ye therefore denominated from Men , for Christ is the Foundation . The Interlineary Gloss in St. Matth. 16. 18. says , This Rock , i. e. Christ , in whom thou believest . And our Anselm , Ibid. as plainly , On this Rock , i. e. upon my self I will build my Church , q. d. Thou art so Peter , from me ( Petra ) the Rock , as that yet the Dignity of being the Foundation is reserv'd for me . But St. Austin , tho' he was alledged as favouring the former Exposition , yet is otherwhere as clearly and fully for this as you can desire . Therefore the Lord saith , On this Rock I will build my Church , because Peter had said , Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Therefore , says he , on this Rock which thou hast confess'd , I will build my Church . Christ was the Rock upon which Foundation even Peter himself was built ; for other Foundation no Man can lay than that which is laid , to wit , Christ Jesus . The Church therefore which is founded on Christ , &c. St. August . Tratat . 124. in Joannem . And again , Thou art Peter , and on this Rock which thou . host confessed , on this Rock which thou hast known , saying , Thou art Christ the Son of the living God , I will build my Church , i. e. upon my self , the Son of the living God , I will build my Church ; I will build thee upon me , not me upon thee . Men that were willing to be built upon Men , said , I am of Paul , I of Apollos , I of Cephas , i. e. Peter ; but others who would not be built upon Peter , but upon Petra a Rock , said , I am of Christ. Thus St. August . de Verbis Domini ; see Matth. Serm. 13. These plainly make this Rock to be Christ himself . Besides these already mention'd , there occurrs in the Writings of some of the Fathers a third Interpretation of the Rock here spoken of , viz. That which makes St. Peter to be the Person to whom Christ makes Promise of so great a Dignity , that he would build his Church upon him . The Romish Writers abound with Citations to this purpose , and tho' because some of them are out of Writings that are not judg'd to be of sufficient Authority , and in others of them they have not shew'd that Fidelity they ought to have done , many of them are of no weight , yet it is granted that some of the Ancients have inclin'd to this Sense of the Place ; and therefore there is no Necessity that I should give my self the trouble to transcribe their Words . Mr. Lock may perhaps say , that this Exposition is so much for the Advantage of the Papal Interest , and in favour of the Bishop of Rome's Universal Pastorship , that Protestants must not admit of it . But I answer , Why is it more for the Advantage of the Papal Interest that St. Peter should be the Rock on which Christ would build his Church , than it is that he would give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ? Why do they who say that these Words , On this Rock I will build my Church , were spoken personally of Peter , more favour Popery than they who will have those Words , To thee I will give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven , to be said personally to Peter ? For why may we not argue as strongly for the universal Pastorship from the latter Words , as from the former ? And yet Mr. Lock himself tells us expresly , that the latter Words were said personally to Peter ; see his Reasonab , of Christian. p. 105. I think it not amiss here to transcribe the Words of Episcopius , in loc-Concedi atque indulgeri posse putaverim Pontificiis , quod per Hanc Petram intelligatur ipsa persona Petri , idque quia probabilibus valde nituntur argumentis . At vero dicet quis , sic datur Pontificiis quod volunt . Id vero pernegatur consequi . Etsi enim Petro hic aliquid promittatur , aut de eo aliquid futurum affirmetur , id tamen non fit cum aliorum Discipulorum aut Apostolorum exclusione . Aliud enim longe est Petro hoc dici , aliud soli Petro ea dici quae aliis non competant , aut eodem saliem jure aliis Discipulis tribui nequeant . Prius concedi posse putamus , posterius vero negamus , id enim sufficit plusquam satis ad Primatum Petri , & quae ei ( si quis fuisset ) ridicule admodum & stolide superstruitur Pontificis Romani Praerogativa , evertendum . Thus Episcopius . And there are Protestant Divines of great Esteem for their Learning and Judgment , and who have engaged as zealously as any other against the Papal Interest , who have gone farther , have not only made the Person of St. Peter to be meant by the Rock , but also somewhat peculiar to be granted him , and yet shew that this affords not the least Advantage to the Pope's Pretensions that he is Universal Pastor . To omit some of our English Divines , they that please may consult Cameron either in his Praelections , in St. Matth. 16. 18. or in the great Criticks . Episcopius says that this , That the Church should be built on him as on a Rock , was granted to Peter in common with the other Apostles . And to the same purpose speaks Origen , Tractat. 1. in Matth. If thou thinkest that the whole Church was built upon Peter alone , what wilt thou say of John the Son of Thunder , and every one of the Apostles ? Shall we dare to say that the Gates of Hell could not prevail against St. Peter only , but could prevail against the rest ? And a little after , If that saying , To thee I will give the Keys , was common to the other Apostles , why was not the rest which was then said as to Peter common to them too ? So that this may be a fourth Exposition , that by the Rock is meant St. Peter , not alone but together with the other Apostles . As he made that Confession , Thou art Christ the Son of the living God , not for himself only , but also in the Name of the other Apostles ; so , according to this Sense , he receiv'd this Grant for the rest of the Apostles as well as for himself . I have alledged the foresaid Testimonies to satisfie Mr. Lock , That Persons of approved Piety as well as Learning , have judged our Saviour's Words , On this Rock I will build my Church , capable of other Interpretations than that which is mention'd by him , viz. That the Faith which was confessed by St. Peter , 〈◊〉 those Articles , That Jesus is the Christ , and , That he is the Son of the living God , are the Rock on which the Church is built . This is the only Interpretation that can do Mr. Lock any Service , and therefore he takes no notice of the rest . But he should not be himself guilty of that which he condemns so much in others , i. e. the imposing his Interpretations of Scripture upon us . And therefore he must not be displeas'd , if we do not grant that which Mr. Lock here affirms without any Proof , that this Proposition , That Jesus is the Messiah , the Son of the living God , was that Rock on which our Lord said that he would build his Church . Mr. Lock says , that the Evidence that we deceive not our selves in ascribing a Revelation to God , can never be so great as the Evidence of our own intuitive Knowledge ; where , if his Meaning be , that we can never be so certain that any Revelation ( suppose the Scripture ) is from God , as we are of the Object of our intuitive Knowledge , I must deny it ; for I firmly believe that there have been and may now be those , who are as certain that the Scriptures are the Word of God , as they can be of that which they clearly see , and distinctly perceive by any other of their Senses . And I am confirm'd in this Belief by the Words of Mr. Chillingworth , c. 1. § . 9. To those ( says he ) that believe and live according to their Faith , God gives by degrees the Spirit of Obsignation and Confirmation , and to be as fully and resolutely assur'd of the Gospel of Christ , as those which heard it from Christ himself with their Ears , which saw it with their Eyes , which look'd upon it , and whose Hands handled the Word of Life . CHAP. XXIX . Of Fundamentals , and the Apostles Creed . GOD alone can appoint what shall be necessarily believ'd by every one whom he will justifie ; and what he has so appointed and declared is alone necessary . No body can add to these Fundamental Articles of Faith , nor make any other necessary , but what God himself hath made and declared to be so . And what these are which God requires of those who will enter into and receive the Benefits of the New Covenant , has already been shewn . An explicit Belief of these is absolutely requir'd of all those to whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached . Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 301. The Primitive Church admitted converted Heathens to Baptism upon the Faith contain'd in the Apostles Creed . A bare Profession of that Faith , and no more , was required of them to be receiv'd into the Church , and made Members of Christ's Body . How little different the Faith of the ancient Church was from the Faith I have mention'd , may be seen in these Words of Tertullian : Regula fidei una omnium est sola immobilis , irreformabilis , credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem , mundi conditorem , & Filium ejus Jesum Christum , natum ex Virgine Maria , crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato , tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis , receptum in coelis , sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris , venturum judicare vivos & mortuos , per carnis etiam resurrectionem . Hac lege Fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis : Tert. de Virg. Velan . in princip . This was the Faith that in Tertullian's time sufficed to make a Christian. And the Church of England only proposes the Articles of the Apostles Creed to the Convert to be baptiz'd ; and upon his professing a Belief of them , asks whether he will be baptiz'd in this Faith ; and upon the Profession of this Faith , and no other , the Church baptizes him into it . The Apostles Creed is the Faith I was baptiz'd into , no one tittle whereof I have renounced , that I know . And , I heretofore thought that gave me title to be a Christian. Second Vindicat. p. 177 , 178 , 182. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . Mr. Lock tells us , in Reasonab . of Christian. p. 301. that it had been already shewn what the Fundamental Articles of Faith are . But I ask , How had it been shewn ? He had sometimes affirm'd positively , that this , that Jesus of Nazareth is the only Gospel-Article of Faith that was requir'd , Reasonab . of Christian . p. 195. that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition , that Jesus was the Messiah . Ibid. p. 43. that this was all the Doctrine the Apostles propos'd to be believ'd . Ibid. p. 93. At other times he had said , that it was also requir'd for the attaining of Life , that they should believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Ibid. p. 194. He had also spoken of concomitant Articles , viz. Christ's Resurrection , Rule , and coming again to judge the World , saying , that these , together with Jesus of Nazareth's being the Messiah , are all the Faith requir'd as necessary to Justification . Ibid. p. 293 , 294. Otherwhere he mentions his Suffering , and having fulfill'd all things that were written in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah ; adding , that those that believ'd this , and repented , should receive Remission of their Sins through this Faith in him . Ibid. p. 190. Thus Mr. Lock had shewn what the Fundamental Articles of the Faith are , or rather , had shew'd how wavering and uncertain he himself is concerning them , assigning sometimes only one , sometimes two , sometimes more . He brings the Words of Tertullian . de Virg. Velan . to shew how little different the Faith of the ancient Church was from the Faith he hath mention'd : but , 1. It would have been more for his Reputation , if the Faith which he mentions had not been at all different from that of the ancient Church . 2. Tertullian's Words there do not shew that the Faith of the ancient Church differ'd little from his . For by comparing the Rule of Faith which he lays down here with that which he gives us in Lib. de Praescript . adv . Haeret. and in Lib. adv . Praxeam , it fully appears , that he did not design this for a complete Account of the Faith of the ancient Church ; for , some things that are in this are omitted in the other ; as , Omnipotentem ( a Word certainly very material ) is left out in both of them : and more things are added ; as , Universa de nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum . Id Verbum Filium ejus appellatum , &c. Carnem factum , &c. Misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti , is all added in Lib. de Praescript . and so Sermo ejus per quem omnia facta sunt , & sine quo factum est nihil . Ex ea ( i. e. Virgine ) natum hominem & Deum , mortuum & sepultum ; Qui miserit Spiritum Sanctum , is all superadded in Lib. adv . Praxeam . Tertullian therefore will not be found to be a Friend to Mr. Lock , who might rather have said , that it may be seen in Tertullian , how far different the Faith of the ancient Church was from the Faith he hath mention'd . He tells us , that the Apostles Creed is the Faith he was baptiz'd into , and that he hath not renounced one tittle thereof that he knows . But hath he not renounced the Article of the Resurrection of the Body , when he tells us , that in his next Edition of his Essay of Humane Understanding he will have the Word Body blotted out , and change these Words of his Book , The dead Bodies of Men shall rise , into these , The dead shall rise ? See his Third Letter , pag. 210. CHAP. XXX . Of Vertue and Vice , Self-denial and Education . GOD hath , by an inseparable Connexion , join'd Vertue and publick Happiness together , and made the Practice thereof necessary to the Preservation of Society , and visibly beneficial to all with whom the vertuous Man has to do . Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 1. c. 3. § . 6. The Laws that Men generally refer their Actions to , to judge of their Rectitude and Obliquity , seem to me to be these three ; 1. The Divine Law. 2. The Civil Law. 3. The Law of Opinion or Reputation , if I may so call it . By the relation they bear to the first of these , Men judge whether their Actions are Sins or Duties ; by the second , whether they be criminal or innocent ; and by the third , whether they be Vertues or Vices . By Divine Law , I mean that Law which God has set to the Actions of Men , whether promulgated to them by the Light of Nature , or the Voice of Revelation . Vertue and Vice are Names pretended and suppos'd every where to stand for Actions in their own nature right or wrong ; and as far as they really are so apply'd , they so far are coincident with the Divine Law above-mention'd . But yet whatever is pretended , this is visible , that these Names of Vertue and Vice , in the particular Instances of their Application through the several Nations and Societies of Men in the World , are constantly attributed only to such Actions as in each Country or Society are in Reputation or Diseredit . Thus the measure of what is every where call'd and esteem'd Vertue and Vice , is this Approbation or Dislike , Praise or Blame , which by a secret or tacit Consent establishes it self in the several Societies , Tribes , and Clubs of Men in the World ; whereby several Actions come to find Credit or Disgrace among them , according to the Judgment , Maxims , and Fashions of that place . By this Approbation and Dislike they establish among themselves what they will call Vertue and Vice. Esteem and Discredit , Vertue and Vice , do yet in a great measure every where correspond with the unchangeable Rule of Right and Wrong which the Law of God hath established ; there being nothing that so directly and visibly secures and advances the general Good of Mankind in this World , as Obedience to the Laws he hath set them ; and nothing that breeds such Mischiefs and Confusion as the Neglect of them . And therefore Men , without renouncing all Sense and Reason , and their own Interest , which they are so constantly true to , could not generally mistake in placing their Commendation and Blame on that side that really deserv'd it not . Nay , even those Men whose Practice was otherwise , fail'd not to give their Approbation right , few being deprav'd to that degree , as not to condemn at least in others the Faults they themselves were guilty of ; whereby even in the Corruption of Manners , the true Boundaries of the Law of Nature , which ought to be the Rule of Vertue and Vice , were pretty well preserv'd . So that even the Exhortations of inspir'd Teachers have not fear'd to appeal to common Repute , Whatsoever is lovely , whatsoever is of good Report , if there be any Vertue , if there be any Praise , &c. Ibid. l. 2. c. 28. § . 7 , 8 , 10 , 11. The Foundation of Vice lies in wrong measures of Good. Ibid. l. 4. c. 19. § . 16. Reputation is not the true principle and measure of Vertue , for that is the knowledge of a Man's Duty , and the satisfaction it is to obey his Maker in following the Dictates of that Light God has given him , with the hopes of Acceptation and Reward . I place Vertue as the first and most necessary of those Endowments that belong to a Man or a Gentleman , as absolutely requisite to make him valued and belov'd by others , acceptable or tolerable to himself ; without that I think he will neither be happy in this nor the other World. Of Education , p. 61 , 157. It seems plain to me , that the Principle of all Vertue and Excellency lies in a Power of denying our selves the Satisfaction of our own Desires , where Reason doth not authorize them . This Power is to be got and improved by Custom , made easie and familiar by an early Practice . He that has not a Mastery over his Inclinations , he that knows not how to resist the Importunity of present Pleasure and Pain for the sake of what Reason tells him is fit to be done , wants the true Principle of Vertue and Industry . This Temper therefore , so contrary to unguided Nature , is to be got betimes ; and this Habit , as the true foundation of future Ability and Happiness , is to be wrought into the Mind as early as may be , and so to be confirm'd by all the Care and Ways imaginable . Ibid. p. 37 , 38 , 46. Christ commands Self-denial , and the exposing our selves to Suffering and Danger , rather than to deny or disown him . Reasonab . of Christian. p. 224. As the foundation of Vertue , there ought very early to be imprinted in the Minds of Children a true Notion of God , as of the independent supreme Being , Author and Maker of all things , from whom we receive all our Good , that loves us , and gives us all things , hears and sees every thing , and does all manner of Good to those that love and obey him , and consequent to it a Love and Reverence of him . They must be taught also to pray to him . The Lord's Prayer , the Creeds , and ten Commandments , 't is necessary they should learn perfectly by heart . The Knowledge of Vertue all along from the beginning , in all the Instances they are capable of , being taught them more by Practice than Rules , I know not whether they should read any other Discourses of Morality but what they find in the Bible . Of Education , p. 157 , 158 , 185 , 220. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . When Mr. Lock , in Essay l. 2. c. 28. § . 7. having nam'd three distinct Laws , the Divine Law , the Civil Law , and the Law of Opinion or Reputation ( as he calls it ) says , that by the first Men judge whether their Actions are Sins or Duties , by the second whether they be criminal or innocent , by the third whether they be Vertues or Vices , doth he not plainly distinguish Sins and Duties from Vices and Vertues ? For , 1. He makes Men to judge of Vices and Vertues by one Law , of Sins and Duties by another . 2. They judge by an infallible Rule of the one , by a very fallible one of the other . 3. Criminal and Innocent , are plainly distinct from Sins and Duties ; and so we cannot but judge , that according to Mr. Lock , Vices and Vertues are distinct from both . Now if so , it might not be amiss , if he would inform us where the Distinction between them lies ; for I have always thought that there is a very near Affinity as between Vice and Sin on the one hand , so between Vertue and Duty on the other hand . But tho' , according to Mr. Lock , Men do judge of Vertue and Vice by his Law of Opinion and Reputation ; yet he will not say that they ought to do so . He tells us here , § . 11. that the Law of Nature ought to be the Rule of Vertue and Vice , and expresses it more largely in his Epistle to the Reader : The Law of Nature , says he , is that standing and unalterable Rule by which Men ought to judge of the moral Rectitude and Pravity of their Actions , and accordingly denominate them Vertues or Vices . But I had rather say , that the Law which ought to be the Rule whereby Men judge of Sins and Duties , ought also to be the Rule by which they are to judge of Vices and Vertues , and that is the Divine Law , which ( Mr. Lock himself being Judge ) comprehends more than the Law of Nature . By the Divine Law ( says he here , § . 8. ) I mean that Law which God has set to the Actions of Men , whether promulgated to them by the Light of Nature , or the Voice of Revelation . So ( say I ) the Law of God comprehending both the Law of Nature and his revealed Law , is the Rule whereby Men ought to judge of Vertues and Vices . But Mr. Lock will prove , that his Law of Opinion or Reputation , or ( as he also expresses it ) Approbation or Dislike , Praise or Blame , is the common measure of Vertue and Vice. This ( says he ) will appear to any one who considers that every where Vertue and Praise , Vice and Blame , go together . Vertue is every where that which is thought praise-worthy , and nothing else but that which has the Allowance of publick Esteem is call'd Vertue . Thus Mr. Lock here , viz. l. 2. c. 28. § . 11. But I would know whether he speaks of true and real , or of reputed Vertue : if of reputed , it is not to the purpose , since every one will grant , without Proof , that his Law of Reputation is the Rule of reputed Vertue ; and it signifies no more than this , that that is reputed Vertue which is reputed such . Besides , how can it be worth the while to enquire after the Rule of reputed Vertue ? If on the other side , he speak of true real Vertue , I believe that no Man before him ever said that true Vertue and Praise every where went together . Constant Experience may teach every Man the contrary . It is very rarely that true Vertue hath met with such Entertainment in the World : but , on the other hand , it would fill large Volumes , if we could set down all the Instances of reproach'd and despis'd Vertue , which the several Ages of the World have afforded . Mr. Lock goes on , and tells us , that Vertue and Praise are so united , that they are call'd often by the same name . His Meaning is , that Vertue is call'd often by the name of Praise ; but he gives us only two Instances of it . The one is out of Virgil. AEneid . l. 1. Sunt sua praemia laudi ; where laudi is by some interpreted virtuti , by others factis laudabilibus , or gestis bellicis : but the whole Verse is this ; En Priamus , sunt hic etiam sua praemia laudi : and why may not laudi have here the usual Signification ? Certainly , though I shall not be confident that it is the right Interpretation of the Verse , yet if referring sua to Priamus I should construe it thus , Lo Priamus , here also are his rewards to his Praise , I believe Mr. Lock would not find it very easie to confute it . The other Instance is out of Cicero , Tusc. Qu. l. 2. whose Words Mr. Lock hath transcrib'd , but I shall do it more fully : Nihil habet praestantius , nihil quod magis expetat ; quam honestatem , quam laudem , quam dignitatem , quam decus . Hisce ego pluribus nominibus unam rem declarari volo , sed utor , ut quammaxime significem , pluribus . Volo autem dicere illud homini longe optimum esse , quod ipsum sit optandum per se , a virtute profectum vel in ipsa virtute situm , sua sponte laudabile ; quod quidem citius dixerim solum quam summum bonum . Thus Cicero , who himself declares what that one thing is which he would signifie by all those Names , viz. the chief or rather only Good , which is praise-worthy and desirable for it self , proceeds from Vertue , or is placed in Vertue . We need then no other Commentary but Tully's own . That which he signifies by Honestatem , Laudem , Dignitatem , Decus , is the chief Good , concerning which he would not determine whether it proceed from Vertue , or consists in it . It doth not appear then by these Citations out of Virgil and Tully , that they call'd Vertue and Praise by the same Name . But I shall be so liberal to Mr. Lock , as to suppose that those two great Persons , and other good Writers , have call'd Vertue by the Name of Praise , it will do him no Service after all , unless they did this for the Reason which he assigns , viz. because Vertue and Praise are united , and every where go together ; and therefore it is incumbent upon him to prove that they did it for this Reason , which is a very difficult Task . I on the other side can easily assign more probable Reasons why they might do it . If any call Vertue by the Name of Praise , they had good ground for doing it , because true Vertue is always praise-worthy , and Men ought evermore to praise and celebrate it , tho' it too often meets with a contrary Reward from the World , is reproached and despis'd ; as Vice on the other hand is too frequently magnified and extolled . But Mr. Lock endeavours to persuade us that reputed and true Vertue are in a great measure the same . For so he says here , that Esteem and Discredit , Vertue and Vice , do in a great measure every where correspond with the unchangeable Rule of Right and Wrong , which the Law of God hath established . And again , Men without renouncing all Sense and Reason and their own Interest , could not generally mistake in placing their commendation and blame on that side that really deserved it not . Again , In the corruption of manners the true Boundaries of the Law of Nature , which ought to be the Rule of Vertue and Vice , were pretty well preserved , for which he alledges , Phil. 4. 8. He had said in the words immediately preceeding , that even those Men whose practice was otherwise fail'd not to give their Approbation right , few being deprav'd to that degree as not to condemn at least in others the faults they themselves were guilty of . Thus Mr. Lock , in Essay , l. 2. c. 28. § . 11. And in his Epistle to the Reader he says , that Men in that way of denominating their Actions did not for the most part much vary from the Law of Nature . For answer to this , 1. How doth that which Mr. Lock says ( viz. that few were deprav'd to that degree as not to condemn at least in others the faults they themselves were guilty of ) agree with Rom. 1. 32. and other places of Scripture ? In Rom. 1. 32. it is said , that they ( i. e. the Gentiles ) not only did the same ( viz. the things that are mentioned in the foregoing Verses ) but took pleasure in them that did them . They were not ignorant , that they who commit such things are worthy of Death , and yet practis'd them themselves , and not only so but they also approv'd of others that practis'd them . For so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered Comprobant . St. Chrysostome , in loc . expounds it by Praising , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and is follow'd by O●●umenius . Theophylact interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they patronize or defend others that do them , appear as Advocates for them , so far they are from condemning them . So they that forsake the Law will praise the wicked Man , Prov. 28. 4. Those that keep the Law ( as it follows there ) will contend with wicked Men , but those that forsake it will be so far from contending with them , or condemning them , that contrarywise they will praise them . The Apostle also tells of some whose Glory is in their Shame , Phil. 3. 19. How then can Mr. Lock say that there are few deprav'd to that degree as not to condemn in others the faults they themselves are guilty of ? When the Scripture speaks of those that make their Shame matter of glorying , and of so many that instead of condemning did praise , approve , and take pleasure in those that live in the practice of most heinous Sins . Also , how can he say as he doth , that Vice and Blame every where go together ? when we are so plainly told in Holy Writ , that Vice and Praise so often go together , that Vice in this World meets with the Reward due to Vertue , is approved , applauded , commended . 2. How can he say that reputed Vertue and Vice , in a great measure , every where corresponds to that which the Law of God hath establish'd to be Vertue and Vice ? when he tells us , that what is counted a Vertue in one Country , passes for Vice in another : For the Opinions of these Countries being directly contrary the one to the other , it is impossible that both of them should in any measure correspond with the Law of God. If the Divine Law have determin'd on the part of that Country which esteems such a thing to be a Vertue , then the Opinion of the other Country in which it is reputed to be a Vice cannot be agreeable to that Law ; and if it hath not determin'd either way , either that it is a Vertue , or that it is a Vice , then neither of the two Opinions can pretend to agree with it . I know what Mr. Lock saith , Though what was thought praise-worthy in one place escaped not censure in another , and so in different Societies Vertues and Vices were changed ; yet as to the main , they for the most part kept the same every where . But , 1. We may observe how cautiously and timorously he expresseth it ; As to the main , and for the most part : it seems the one Expression would not secure him , without superadding the other . 2. It will be no difficulty to shew that as to the main , and for the most part , they were not the same : for , all that is necessary to this is , to make it appear , that the Opinions of the Philosophers among the Heathens concerning Vertue and Vice , were not the same ( as to the main , and for the most part ) with the Opinions of those who judged of them by the Rule of the Law of God. Aristotle Politic. l. 7. c. 16. teaches it to be lawful to procure an Abortion before that which is conceived hath Life and Sense . Diogenes Laertius , in the Life of Zeno , tells of some that taught not only the Lawfulness of Self-murther , but also the Reasonableness of it . Cicero de Invent. l. 2. vers . fin . joins Revenge with Religion , Piety , Veracity , &c. and refers them all to that which he calls Natura jus ; and it is a known Speech of his , ad Attic. l. 9. c. 14. Odi hominem & odero , utinam ulcisci poscem . And Aristotle , Ethic. l. 4. c. 11. will scarce excuse him from being faulty that doth not revenge himself . They that please , may see how much Cicero in Orat. pro M. Coelio says in defence of Meretricii amores , Si quis est qui etiam Meretriciis amoribus interdictum juventuti putet , est ille quidem valde severus , &c. The Community of Wives , and murthering such Infants as were weak and sickly , or deformed , was taught by the Laws of Lycurgus ( see Plutarch , in Lycurgo ; ) and Community of Wives by Xenophon , de Republ. Lacedaem . We are told also by Tertullian Apologet. c. 39. that Socrates among the Greeks , and Cato among the Romans , lent their Wives to others ; and Strabo , l. 11. with several others , testifies the same of Cato , and adds , that this was the ancient Custom of the Romans . Yea Diogenes the Cynick , and Plato , and the Stoicks Zeno and Chrysippus , were all of Opinion that Wives ought to be common , as Diogenes Laertius in Zenone informs us ; and they that desire to see Plato's Judgment , may consult him de Republ. l. 5. and other where . As these that I have mention'd agreed with Lycurgus as to the Community of Wives , so there were too many that were for the Lawfulness of exposing or murthering Children , as he was . We may justly admire that Seneca , de Ira , l. 1. c. 15. should give such Advice as he does . At corrigi nequeunt , nihilque in illis bonae spei capax est . Tollantur e coetu mortalium . Portentosos foetus extinguimus , liberos quoque si debiles monstrosique sint editi mergimus : so he . Cicero , de Natur. Deor. l. 3. vers . fin . counted it a fault to acknowledge that we owe any Vertue to God ; that ( says he ) is not a Gift from God , we have it of our selves . His Words are these ; Virtutem nemo unquam acceptam Deo retulit , nimirum recte . Propter virtutem enim jure laudamur , & de virtute recte gloriamur , quod non contingeret , si id donum a Deo non a nobis haberemus . I shall add only one Instance more out of Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhon . Hypotyp . l. 3. where he shews that the Stoicks allow'd Paedaresty , together with the foulest Incests , citing the Words of Zeno and Chrysippus . The very same is charg'd upon that Sect by Theophilus Antioch , ad Autolyc . l. 3. And as to Paedaresty , the Words of Tatianus , con . Graecos , p. 164 , 165. are most apposite to our Purpose , especially if the Latin Interpreter hath rendred them right : Barbari puerorum amores damnant , iidem apud Romanos praerogativa dignantur . Much more might have been added , but this is more than enough to confute Mr. Lock 's strange Assertion , That Esteem and Discredit , Vertue and Vice , do in a great measure every where correspond with the unchangeable Rule of Right and Wrong , which the Law of God hath established ; or ( as he expresses it in his Epistle to the Reader ) that Men in denominating Vertue and Vice , did not , for the most part , much vary from the Law of Nature . But Mr. Lock will prove this from Scripture : Even the Exhortations of inspired Teachers have not fear'd ( I suppose he means even inspir'd Teachers in their Exhortations have not fear'd ) to appeal to common Repute . Whatsoever is lovely , whatsoever is of good Report , if there be any Vertue , if there be any Praise , &c. Phil. 4. 8. Thus Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 2. c. 28. § . 11. But in what Words doth the Apostle appeal to common Repute ? Not in the Word Vertue , for by that he undoubtedly means real Vertue ; not in the Word Praise , for by it is understood that which is truly Praise-worthy , ( sua sponte laudabile , as Tully says ; ) not in the Words , whatsoever is lovely , for Oecumenius in loc . teaches us to understand thereby whatsoever is amiable in the Eyes of God , or of the Faithful , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ) Is it then in the Words , whatsoever is of good Report , that he appeals to it ? It must be in these if in any . But , 1. As Oecumenius teaches us to understand the former Words , whatsoever is lovely , not in the Eyes of all Men but of the Faithful ; so why may we not restrain the latter Words thus , What soever is of good Report , i. e. with good Men , or with those who know how to make a right Estimate of things , who have their Senses exercis'd to discern between good and evil ? 2. Or may not the Words be expounded thus , Whatsoever is in it self , or of its own Nature , such as deserves that we should be well spoken of for it , or such as Men cannot but speak well of us for it , whosoever they be , whether Christians , or those that are without . St. Paul would have us to do all such things as Men ought to speak well of , but not every thing which any one may speak well of , for some may speak well of the Covetous , whom the Lord abhorreth , Psal. 10. 3. and that may be highly esteemed with Men which is an Abomination in the Sight of God. It is then a great Mistake to think that the Apostle here appeals to common Esteem and Repute ; which is so uncertain , that if it was the Measure of Vertue and Vice , by reason of the different Temper , Education , Fashion , Judgment , Maxims , and Interest of Men in several Ages and Places , it would fall out , that what is Vertue in one Age would be Vice in another , as Mr. Lock confesses , that what is accounted Vertue in one place , passes for Vice in another . That which is so uncertain and changeable cannot but vary much from the certain and unchangeable Rule of Right and Wrong , viz. the Law of God , let Mr. Lock pretend to the contrary what he will , and plead as much as he will for his Law of Opinion and Reputation . When Mr. Lock says , that Men are so constantly true to their Interest , he cannot surely mean their chiefest Interest , viz. the Interest of their Souls ; for he must needs be sensible how regardless Men are of that , and how ready to betray it . Tho' in his Treatise of Education , p. 61. he says , That Reputation is not the true Principle and Measure of Vertue , yet he adds , That it is that which comes nearest to it . But it may do well , if he please , to explain what he means by its coming nearest the true Principle and Measure of Vertue . When in his Treatise of Education , p. 185. he says , the Lord's Prayer , the Creeds , and Ten Commandments , &c. doth he by the Creeds understand those Three Creeds which we have in our Liturgy , call'd the Apostle's , the Nicene , and Athanasian ? Or is Creeds put for Creed by the Mistake of the Press ? CHAP. XXXI . Of the Resurrection of the Body , the Day of Judgment , and Eternal Rewards and Punishments . THE Resurrection of the Body after Death is above Reason : That the Bodies of Men shall rise and live again , this being beyond the Discovery of Reason , is purely a Matter of Faith , with which Reason has directly nothing to do , Mr. Lock , Essay , l. 4. c. 17. § . 23. and c. 18. § . 7. Divine Justice shall bring to Judgment at the last Day the very same Persons , to be happy or miserable in the other , who did well or ill in this Life . He who at first made us begin to subsist here sensible intelligent Beings , and for several Years continu'd us in such a State , can and will restore us to the like State of Sensibility in another World , and make us capable there to receive the Retribution he has design'd to Men according to their Doings in this Life , Ibid. l. 1. c. 4. § . 5. and l. 4. c. 3. § . 6. We groan within our selves , waiting for the Adoption , to wit , the Redemption of our Body , Rom. 8. 23. whereby is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies into the spiritual immortal Bodies at the Resurrection , when this Mortal shall have put on Immortality , 1 Cor. 15. 54. Reasonab . of Christian. p. 206. This being the Case , that whoever is guilty of any Sin should certainly die and cease to be , the Benefit of Life restor'd by Christ at the Resurrection , would have been no great Advantage ( for as much as here again Death must have seiz'd upon all Mankind , because all had sinned ; for the Wages of Sin is every where Death , as well after as before the Resurrection ) if God had not found out a way to justifie some , Ibid. p. 15. The Scripture is express , that the same Persons shall be rais'd and appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ , that every one may receive according to what he has done in his Body . The Third Letter , p. 196. In the New Testament I find our Saviour and the Apostles to preach the Resurrection of the Dead , and the Resurrection from the Dead in many Places ; and the Resurrection of the Dead , I acknowledge to be an Article of the Christian Faith. But I do not remember any Place where the Resurrection of the same Body is so much as mention'd . Nay , I do not remember in any Place of the New Testament ( where the general Resurrection of the last Day is spoken of ) any such Expression as the Resurrection of the Body , much less of the same Body , Ibid. p. 166. When I writ my Essay , I took it for granted , as I doubt not but many others have done , that the Scripture had mention'd in express Terms the Resurrection of the Body ; but looking more narrowly into what Revelation has declar'd concerning the Resurrection , I find no such express Words in the Scripture , as that the Body shall rise or be raised , or the Resurrection of the Body . I shall therefore , in the next Edition of it , change these Words of my Essay , l. 4. c. 18. § . 7. The dead Bodies of Men shall rise , into these of the Scripture , The Dead shall rise . Not that I question that the Dead shall be rais'd with Bodies , Ibid. p. 210. Tho' I do by no means deny that the same Bodies shall be rais'd at the last Day , yet I see nothing said to prove it to be an Article of Faith. Ibid. p. 195. The Apostle tells us , at the great Day , when every one shall receive according to his Doings , the Secrets of all Hearts shall be laid open . The Sentence shall be justified by the Consciousness all Persons shall have , that they themselves are the same that committed those Actions , and deserve that Punishment for them , Essay , l. 2. c. 27. § . 26. Christ himself , who knew for what he should condemn Men at the last Day , assures us in the two Places where he describes his Proceeding at the great Judgment , that the Sentence of Condemnation passes only on the Workers of Iniquity , such as neglected to fulfil the Law in Acts of Charity , Matth. 7. 23. Luke 13. 27. Matth. 25. 42. That Men may not be deceived by mistaking the Doctrine of Faith , Grace , Free Grace , and the Pardon and Forgiveness of Sin , and Salvation by Christ , ( which was the great End of his Coming , ) he more than once declares to them , for what Omissions and Miscarriages he shall judge and condemn to death even those who have own'd him , and done Miracles in his Name , when he comes at last to render to every one according to what he hath done in the Flesh , sitting upon his great and glorious Tribunal at the end of the World ; see John 5. 28 , 29. Matth. 13. 14. 16. 24 , &c. Reasonab . of Christian. p. 9. 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245. I am going to a Tribunal that hath a Right to judge of Thoughts . The Third Letter , p. 98. The eternal Condition of a future State infinitely outweighs the Expectation of Riches , or Honour , or any other Worldly Pleasure we can propose to our selves . The Happiness of another Life shall certainly be agreeable to every one's Wish or Desire . The Rewards and Punishments of another Life , which the Almighty has establish'd as the Enforcements of his Law , are of Weight enough to determine the Choice against whatever Pleasure or Pain this Life can shew , when the eternal State is consider'd in its bare Possibility , which no body can make any doubt of . He that will allow exquisite and endless Happiness to be but the possible Consequence of a good Life here , or the contrary State the possible Reward of a bad one , must own himself to judge very much amiss , if he does not conclude that a Vertuous Life , with the certain Expectation of everlasting Bliss which may come , is to be preferr'd to a vicious one , with the Fear of that dreadful State of Misery which 't is very possible may overtake the Guilty , or at best the terrible uncertain Hope of Annibilation . This is evidently so , tho' the vertuous Life here had nothing but Pain , and the vicious continual Pleasure , which yet is for the most part quite otherwise , and wicked Men have not much the odds to brag of , even in their present Possession , nay , all things considered rightly , have I think the worst part here . But when infinite Happiness is put in one Scale against infinite Misery in the other , if the worst that comes to the pious Man if he mistake , be the best that the wicked Man can attain to if he be in the right , who can without madness run the Venture ? Who in his Wits would chuse to come within a Possibility of infinite Misery , which if he miss , there is yet nothing to be got by that Hazard : Whereas , on the other hand , the sober Man ventures nothing against Happiness to be got if his Expectation comes to pass . If the good Man be in the right , he is eternally happy ; is he mistake , he is not miserable , he feels nothing . On the other side , if the wicked be in the right , he is not happy ; if he mistake , he is infinitely miserable . Must it not be a most manifest wrong Judgment that does not presently see to which side in this Case the Preference is to be given ? I have forborn to mention any thing of the Certainty or Probability of a future State , designing here to shew the wrong Judgment that any one must allow he makes upon his own Principles , laid how he pleases , who prefers the short Pleasures of a vicious Life upon any Consideration , whilst he knows and cannot but be certain that a future Life is at least possible , Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § . 38 , 65 , 70. Nothing of Pleasure or Pain in this Life can bear any Proportion to endless Happiness or exquisite Misery of an immortal Soul hereafter . Let a Man see that Vertue and Religion are necessary to his Happiness , let him look into the future State of Bliss or Misery , and see there God the righteous Judge ready to render to every one according to his Deeds ; to them that by patient Continuance in well-doing , seek for Glory , and Honour , and Immortality , eternal Life ; but to every Soul that doth evil , Indignation and Wrath , Tribulation and Anguish : To him , I say , who hath a Prospect of the different State of perfect Happiness or Misery , that attends all Men after this Life , depending on their Behaviour here , the measures of Good and Evil that govern his Choice , are mightily changed , Ibid. § . 60. Our Saviour requires the Obedience of his Disciples to several of the Commands of the Moral Law he afresh lays upon them , with the Enforcement of unspeakable Rewards and Punishments in another World , according to their Obedience or Disobedience , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 234. The Son of God would in vain have come into the World , to lay the Foundation of a Kingdom , and gather together a select People out of the World , if ( they being found guilty at their Appearance before the Judgment-Seat of the righteous Judge of all Men at the last Day ) instead of Entrance into eternal Life in the Kingdom he had prepared for them , they should receive Death , the just Reward of Sin , which every one of them was guilty of . This second Death would have left him no Subjects , Ibid. p. 211. Open Mens Eyes upon the endless unspeakable Joys of another Life , and their Hearts will find something solid and powerful to move them to live well here . The View of Heaven and Hell will cast a Slight upon the short Pleasures and Pains of this present State , and give Attractions and Encouragements to Vertue , which Reason and Interest , and the Care of our selves , cannot but allow , Ibid. p. 291 , 292. Thus Mr. Lock . OBSERVATIONS . As to the Article of the Resurrection , the first Enquiry must be , Whether there are to be found any such express Words in the Scripture , as that the Body shall rise or be raised , or the Resurrection of the Body , where the general Resurrection is spoken of . If , when Mr. Lock denies that such express Words are found in the Scripture ( see his Third Letter , p. 210. ) his Meaning be , that those very express Words are not found , I grant that they are not ; but if he mean farther , that express Words which signifie the very same thing are not to be found , the contrary will easily appear . In Rom. 8. 23. there are these express Words , the Redemption of our Body ; and Mr. Lock , in Reasonab . of Christian. p. 206. tells us , that thereby is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies into the spiritual immortal Bodies at the Resurrection , when this Mortal shall have put on Immortality . In the same Chapter , v. 11. we find these express Words , Quicken your mortal Bodies . He that raised up Christ from the dead , shall also quicken your mortal Bodies , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , shall make them to live , restore them to Life after Death , as he restor'd the crucified Body of Christ to Life ; so that to quicken our mortal Bodies , is the same with raising them . And Mr. Lock , in his Third Letter , p. 199. saying , that in the New Testament it is said , Raise the Dead , Quicken or make alive the Dead , the Resurrection of the Dead , clearly makes to Quicken and to Raise to signifie the same . And St. Chrysostom ( not to mention Occumenius and Theophylact , who follow him , ) gives a Reason why St. Paul says , Quicken or give Life to our mortal Bodies , rather than raise them , viz. Because he here speaks only of those who should be raised to Life , ( i. e. a blissful or happy Life , ) viz. the Faithful , who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them ; not of the Wicked , who shall also be rais'd , but ( says he ) unto Punishment , not unto Life . There is a third Text which hath so near a Resemblance to these , that it may well be join'd with them , viz. Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body , that it may be conformed to his glorious Body . When shall the Saviour the Lord Christ effect this wonderful Change , that our vile Body shall be made conformable to his glorious Body ? Surely then , when he shall quicken or raise it , and that will be when he comes from Heaven to judge the World , see v. 20. Here is not indeed the Word Raise , but it is plainly imply'd . The Blessed Jesus when he comes from Heaven will raise our vile Body , and make it conform'd to his own glorious Body . Will Mr. Lock say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in these Places ? He cannot say it of the first , viz. Rom. 8. 23. without retracting his own express Words in Reasonab . of Christian. p. 206. He cannot say it of the third , viz. Philip. 3. 21. because the immediately foregoing Verse points us to the Time of Christ's coming from Heaven to judge the World. He may perhaps say it of the second , viz. Rom. 8. 11. because some before him have said that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in that Text , particularly Calvin and Piscator . Calvin in loc . hath these Words , Mortalia corpora vocat quicquid adhuc restat in nob is morti obnoxium , ut mos illi usit at us est crassioram nostri partem hoc nomine appellare . Unde colligimus non de ultima resurrectione quae momento fiet haberi sermonem ; sed de continua Spiritus operatione , quae reliquias carnis paulatim mortificans caelestem vitam in nobis instaurat . He tells us , that by mortal Bodies is understood whatsoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death ; which we may grant him , for our Souls are not obnoxious to Death ; and therefore our mortal Bodies contain all that remains in us liable to Death . He tells us also , that it is the Apostle's usual manner to call the grosser part of us by that Name , i. e. by the Name of Body ; and we may likewise grant him this , for every one grants that the Body is the grosser part of us . But now what would he gather from this ? Whence ( says he ) we collect that the last Resurrection is not spoken of . His Argument put into Form , is this , The Apostle by mortal Bodies understands whatsoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death ; therefore the last Resurrection is not spoken of . Mr. Lock may try , if he pleases , whether he can find out any thing to tie this Antecedent and Consequent together , but I can pronounce that it will not be very easie for him to do it . Piscater's Words are these , Quum certum sit Apostolum hic non lequi de resurrectione corporum sed animarum . Tho' our own Eyes tell us , that the Apostle uses the word Bodies , ( not Souls , ) yet , if we will believe Piscator , it is certain that here he speaks not of the Resurrection of Bodies , but of Souls : And how is it certain ? Mr. Calvin hath said it , that is all the Assurance that I know of . He that raised up Christ from the dead , shall also quicken your mortal Bodies , these are the Apostle's Words . If when he says he raised up Christ from the dead , he speaks of the Resurrection of his Body , not of his Soul , how can we be certain that when he says , Shall quicken your mortal Bodies , he speaks of the Resurrection , not of their Bodies but of their Souls ? We see then , that if Mr. Lock fly to this , to say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of , Rom. 8. 11. he will not be much help'd either by Calvin or Piscator . I confess that there is one who makes the Words to be capable of a two-fold Sense , and that is Crellius . According to him they may be interpreted either of the future raising or quickening our mortal Bodies , or of the spiritual quickening them , which consists in this , that they live unto Righteousness and unto God. But he makes the former the principal Sense , the latter only secundary . As Mr. Lock says of the Resurrection of the Body , so he says of the Resurrection of the same Body , viz. That he does not remember any Place in the New Testament where it is so much as mention'd ; see his Third Letter , p. 166. And my Answer will be the same , viz. That these very express Words , The Resurrection of the same Body , are not to be found , but there are Words that signifie so much , or from which it may be clearly and necessarily inferr'd . I may instance in the three Places above-cited , Rom. 8. 11 , 23. Phil. 3. 21. where St. Paul by our Body , our vile Body , and our mortal Bodies , certainly understood the Bodies which he , and the Romans , and the Philippians , then had , and says of these , that they should be redeemed , quickned , changed . Who shall change our vile Body , that it ( i. e. that vile Body ) may be conformed to his glorious Body , Philip. 3. And ( as I have observ'd before ) Mr. Lock , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 206. says , That by the Redemption of our Body , Rom. 8. 23. is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies into spiritual immortal Bodies at the Resurrection , when this mortal shall have put on immortality , 1 Cor. 15. 54. Thus he . It is observable also , that in his Third Letter , p. 197. when the Words of that Text , 1 Cor. 15. 53 , 54. were urged to prove the Resurrection of the same Body , he returns no Answer to them , and did very prudently in returning none : For doth not St. Paul expresly affirm , that this corruptible must put on incorruption , and this mortal must put on immortality ? i. e. this corruptible , this mortal , must be rais'd to a Life of Incorruption and Immortality . And doth he not also repeat it , When this corruptible , & c. ? What can be more plain ? This corruptible , this mortal , ( which are the Apostle's repeated Expressions , ) these frail mortal Bodies , ( which is Mr. Lock 's own Expression , ) shall be rais'd , the Light of the brightest Day cannot be more clear . Some perhaps will say , that Mr. Lock does by no means deny that the same Bodies shall be raised at the last Day ; they are his own Words in his Third Letter , p. 195. To which I answer , 1. If he do not deny it , why doth he dispute so earnestly against it ? Why doth he endeavour , to the utmost of his Power , to baffle the Arguments that are urged for the Proof of it ? A great many Pages of his Third Letter being taken up in the discussing this one Point . 2. He says he does by no means deny it , but does he believe it ? If he do believe it , it is not upon the Account of any Argument drawn from Reason , for he tells us more than once in his Essay , that the Resurrection of the Body is above Reason ; Reason has directly nothing to do with it , but it is purely Matter of Faith ; see his Essay , l. 4. c. 17. § . 23. and c. 18. § . 7. He must then believe it upon the Account of some Arguments drawn from Scripture , or being convinced by some Texts of Scripture which teach this Truth . If so , he deserves to be sharply reprehended , for that he would not acquaint us what Texts of Scripture they are that teach it so clearly : Especially having taken so much Pains to shew that the Places of Scripture alledged by others did not prove it , he ought to have directed us to those Scriptures which did , and by the Cogency of which he was brought to believe it . But the Truth is , he says plainly , that there are no Scriptures that do prove it ; affirming that the Scriptures propose to us , that at the last Day the Dead shall be raised , without determining whether it shall be with the very same Bodies or no ; see his Third Letter , p. 168. Tho' therefore he does say , that he by no means denies that the same Bodies shall be rais'd at the last Day , yet it clearly appears that he does not believe that they shall ; for , according to him , there are no Arguments either from Scripture or Reason to induce him to believe it . Mr. Lock 's Doctrine concerning Adam's Fall , and our Redemption by Christ , is this : God told Adam , that in the Day that he did eat of such a Tree he should surely die ; where , by Death , Mr. Lock can understand nothing but a ceasing to be , the losing all Actions of Life and Sense . Such a Death came on Adam and all his Posterity by his first Disobedience , under which Death they should have lain for ever , had it not been for the Redemption by Jesus Christ , who will bring them all to Life again at the last Day ; see for this , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 3 , 6 , 11. But then he tells us , p. 15. that this being the case , that whoever is guilty of any Sin , should certainly die , and cease to be , the Benefit of Life restor'd by Christ at the Resurrection , would have been no great Advantage , if God had not found out a way to justifie some . The Reason of which he gives in a Parenthesis , For as much ( says he ) as here again ( i. e. after the Resurrection ) Death must have seiz'd upon all Mankind , ( all Mankind must have died and ceas'd to be the second time , ) because all had sinned ; for the Wages of Sin is every where Death ( which Death is a ceasing to be ) as well after as before the Resurrection . This Death after the Resurrection is that which , p. 211. he calls the second Death ; which ( says he ) would have left Christ no Subjects , if God had not found out a way to justifie some . As to those who at the Resurrection shall be found unjustified , that second Death shall seize upon them , and sweep them away ; so that , according to Mr. Lock , they shall cease to be , i. e. be annihilated , for I can find out no other Sense that these Words , Cease to be , are capable of : Tho' I confess I do not see that this Sense can be consistent with several other Expressions which he uses , viz. that dreadful Estate of Misery , the infinite Misery , the exquisite Misery of an immortal Soul , the perfect Misery , the Indignation and Wrath , Tribulation and Anguish , which shall be after this Life . But it may be Mr. Lock can put such a Sense upon these Expressions , and the like to them , viz. Everlasting Fire , and Everlasting Punishment , in the Words of our Saviour cited by him , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 244 , 245. as may consist with ceasing to be , or being annihilated . When Mr. Lock says , in Essay , l. 2. c. 21. § . 60. that the measures of Good and Evil govern the Choice ; and § . 70. that the Rewards and Punishments of another Life are of weight enough to determine the Choice against whatever Pleasure or Pain this Life can shew ; this seems to be not very consistent with that which he had said in the same Chapter , § . 30. that the greater Good in view is not that which determines the Will , in regard to our Actions ; and again , § . 35. that Good , the greater Good , tho' apprehended and acknowledged to be so , does not determine the Will : For what is the meaning of the Measures of Good and Evil , their governing the Choice , but that it is govern'd by the greater Good and greater Evil ? Or why are the Rewards of another Life of weight enough to determine the Choice against the Pleasures of this , but because they are the greater Good ? So that in the Expressions which he uses , § . 60. and 70. he seems to say that the greater Good doth determine the Choice ; whereas , § . 30. and 35. he is of the contrary Opinion , that it is not of sufficient weight to determine the Choice , until our Desire rais'd proportionably to it , makes us uneasie in the want of it . Let a Man ( says he ) be never so well persuaded of the Advantages of Vertue , that it is as necessary to a Man who hath any great Aims in this World , or Hopes in the next , as Food to Life ; yet till he hungers and thirsts after Righteousness , till he feels an uneasiness in the want of it , his Will will not be determined to any Action in persuit of this confessed greater Good. Thus Mr. Lock . And I readily grant that a bare View or Prospect of future Rewards and Punishments is not of Force to determine the Choice against present Pleasure and Pain ; but it is necessary that we firmly believe them , and be fully convinced of the Certainty of them ; as also , that we have them frequently in our Thoughts , and seriously meditate upon the transcendent Happiness of the one , and the unspeakable Miseries of the other , that so our Souls may be inflamed with an hearty Desire of the Rewards , and possess'd with a real Fear and serious Dread of the Punishments , before we shall apply our selves in good earnest to work out our Salvation from the Unhappiness of the one , and to secure our Enjoyment of the Felicity of the other . As to that which he says , that Vertue is as necessary to a Man who has any great Aims in this World , as Food to Life , tho' it will seem a Paradox to some , yet I shall not contradict it ; for I know that it is necessary for all Men , yea , as necessary as Food is for our Bodily Sustenance ; but I wish that Mr. Lock could persuade those that aim at great things in this World , that Vertue is so absolutely necessary for them . A SPECIMEN OF Mr. LOCK's Way of Answering Persons : Out of his ESSAY , l. 1. c. 3. §. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. MR. Lock , in the Third Chapter of the First Book of his Essay , hath twice set these Words in his Margin , Lord Herbert's innate Principles examin'd , perhaps because he would have it taken notice of that he durst undertake to grapple with so great a Person . I have therefore taken more especial Notice of that which he saith against that Excellent Writer , and also represented it at length to the Reader 's View , that he may likewise take the more Notice of it ; the rather , because it will afford him a Specimen of Mr. Lock 's Way of Answering Authors . Mr. Lock , in his Essay . l. 1. c. 3. § . 15. When I had writ this , being inform'd that my Lord Herbert had in his Books de Veritate assign'd these innate Principles , I presently consulted him , hoping to find in a Man of so great Parts something that might satisfie me in this Point , and put an end to my Enquiry . In his Chapter de Instinctu Naturali , p. 76. Edit . 1656. I met with these six Marks of his Notitiae Communes , 1. Prioritas , 2. Independentia , 3. Universalitas , 4. Certitudo , 5. Necessitas , i. e. as he explains it , faciunt ad hominis conservationem , 6. Modus conformationis , i. e. assensus nulla interposita mora . And at the latter end of his little Treatise de Religione Laici , he says this of these innate Principles , Adeo ut non uniuscujusvis Religionis confinio arctentur , quae ubique vigent , veritates . Sunt enim in ipsa mente caelitus descriptae , nullisque traditionibus five scriptis five non scriptis obnoxiae , p. 3. And Veritates nostrae Catholicae , quae tanquam indubia Dei effata in foro interiori descripta . Thus having given the Marks of the innate Principles or common Notions , and asserted their being imprinted on the Minds of Men by the Hand of God , he proceeds to set them down , and they are these : 1. Esse aliquod supremum numen , 2. Numen illud coli debere , 3. Virtutem cum pietate conjunctam optimam esse rationem cultus divini , 4. Resipiscendum esse a peccatis , 5. Dari praemium vel poenam post hanc vitam transactam . These , tho' I allow them to be clear Truths , and such as , if rightly explain'd , a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to , yet I think he is far from proving that they are innate Impressions in foro interiori descripta : For I must take leave to observe , § . 16. First , that these five Propositions are either not all , or more than all , those common Notions writ on our Minds by the Finger of God , if it were reasonable to believe any at all to be so written . Since there are other Propositions which even by his own Rules have as just a Pretence to such an Original , and may be as well admitted for innate Principles , as at least some of these Five he enumerates , viz. Do as thou wouldst be done unto , and perhaps some Hundreds of others when well consider'd . § . 17. Secondly , That all his Marks are not to be found in each of his five Propositions , viz. his first , second , and third Marks agree perfectly to neither of them ; and the first , second , third , fourth , and sixth Marks agree but ill to his third , fourth , and fifth Propositions : For besides that we are assur'd from History of many Men , nay , whole Nations , who doubt or disbelieve some or all of them ; I cannot see how the third , viz. That Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God , can be an innate Principle , when the Name or Sound Vertue is so hard to be understood , liable to so much Uncertainty in its Signification , and the thing it stands for so much contended about , and difficult to be known . And therefore this can be but a very uncertain Rule of Humane Practice , and serve but very little to the Conduct of our Lives , and is therefore very unfit to be assign'd as an innate practical Principle . § . 18. For let us consider this Proposition as to its meaning ( for it is the Sense , and not sound , that is and must be the Principle or common Notion , ) viz. Vertue is the best Worship of God , i. e. is most acceptable to him ; which is Vertue be taken , as most commonly it is , for those Actions , which according to the different Opinions of several Countries are accounted laudable , will be a Proposition so far from being certain , that it will not be true . If Vertue be taken for Actions conformable to God's Will , or to the Rule prescribed by God , which is the true and only Measure of Vertue ; when Vertue is us'd to signifie what is in its own Nature right and good , then this Proposition , That Vertue is the best Worship of God , will be most true and certain , but of very little use in Humane Life , since it will amount to no more but this , viz. That God is pleased with the doing of what he commands ; which a Man may certainly know to be true , without knowing what it is that God doth command , and so be as far from any Rule or Principle of his Actions as he was before . And I think very few will take a Proposition which amounts to no more than this , viz. That God is pleased with the doing of what he himself commands , for an innate moral Principle writ on the Minds of all Men , ( how true and certain soever it may be , ) since it teaches so little . Whosoever does so , will have Reason to think Hundreds of Propositions innate Principles , since there are many which have as good a Title as this to be receiv'd for such , which no body yet ever put into that Rank of innate Principles . § . 19. Nor is the Fourth Proposition , viz. Men must repent of their Sins , much more instructive , till what those Actions are that are meant by Sins are set down : For the Word Peccata , or Sins , being put , as it usually is , to signifie in general ill Actions , that will draw on Punishment upon the Doers , what great Principle of Morality can that be to tell us we should be sorry , and cease to do that which will bring Mischief upon us , without knowing what those particular Actions are that will do so . Indeed this is a very true Proposition , and fit to be inculcated on and receiv'd by those who are suppos'd to have been taught what Actions in all kinds are Sins ; but neither this nor the former can be imagin'd to be innate Principles , nor to be of any use if they were innate , unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were engraven in Mens Minds , and were innate Principles also , which I think is very much to be doubted : And therefore I imagine it will scarce seem possible that God should engrave Principles in Mens Minds in Words of uncertain Signification , such as are Vertues and Sins , which amongst different Men stand for different things : Nay , it cannot be in Words at all , which being in most of these Principles very general Names , cannot be understood , but by knowing the Particulars comprehended under them . And in the practical Instances , the Measures must be taken from the Knowledge of the Actions themselves , and the Rules of them abstracted from Words , and antecedent to the Knowledge of Names ; which Rules a Man must know what Language soever he chance to learn , whether English or Japan , or if he should learn no Language at all , or never should understand the use of Words , as happens in the Case of dumb and deaf Men. When it shall be made out , that Men ignorant of Words , or untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country , that it is part of the Worship of God not to kill another Man , not to know more Women than one , not to procure Abortion , not to expose their Children , not to take from another what is his , tho' we want it our selves , but on the contrary to relieve and supply his Wants ; and whenever we have done the contrary , we ought to repent , be sorry , and resolve to do so no more : When , I say , all Men shall be proved actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules , all which come under these two general Words made use of above , viz. Vertues and Sins , there will be more Reason for admitting these and the like for common Notions and practical Principles ; yet after all , universal Consent ( were there any in Moral Principles ) to Truths , the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise , would searce prove them to be innate : which is all I contend for . Thus far Mr. Lock , and this is all that he answers to the Lord Herbert ; it remains that I briefly reply to it . Ad. § . 15. Here in his Text Mr. Lock speaks of the Lord Herbert's assigning innate Principles , giving Marks of these innate Principles , and saying so or so of them : Also in his Margin he hath these Words , Lord Herbert's innate Principles examined ; and the very same Words are found again in his Margin ad § . 19. And yet I do not observe that the Lord Herbert , either in his Treatise de Veritate , or in that which he intitles Religio Laici , doth as much as once mention either the Expression Innate Principles , or the Word Innate ; nor doth Mr. Lock direct us to any Place in either of those Treatises where he doth mention them . 'T is true , that in his Treatise de Veritate there is frequent mention of Communes Notitiae , and in his Religio Laici of Veritates Catholicae , and we may suppose that Mr. Lock took these common Notions or Notices , and Catholick Verities , to be the same with his innate Principles : In which , if he be mistaken , he both makes the Lord Herbert to say that which he doth not ; and withal , while he goes about to prove that those Catholick Verities are not innate Principles , he says nothing at all against that Honourable Person , who never affirm'd them to be so . If it be said that the Lord Herbert affirms these Catholick Verities to be written by God upon the Hearts of all Men , which is the same with their being innate ; I answer , that it is very true that he doth say more than once , that they are in foro interno , or in foro interiori descriptae , & in mente humana a Deo O. M. descriptae ; but I question whether it will be for Mr. Lock 's Advantage to say , that the being written by God in the Heart , and being innate , are the same ; for it may endanger the Overthrow of all that he says concerning innate Principles , and force him to quit his darling Opinion that there are none : For if the Question be put whether there be any Principles written in the Hearts of Men , St. Paul seems to resolve it affirmatively that there are , Rom. 2. 14 , 15. When ( says he ) the Gentiles not having the Law do by Nature the things of the Law , these not having the Law are a Law to themselves ; who shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts , their Conscience bearing witness , and their Thoughts accusing or excusing one another . By the Work of the Law here may be understood either , 1. That Work which the Law prescribes , or the Duties that are required by it ; or , 2. The Effect of the Law , or that which it effecteth , i. e. the Knowledge of our Duty , or of that which we ought to do , as also of the contrary , i. e. of that which we ought not to do , as the Apostle says expresly , Rom. 3. 20. By the Law is the Knowledge of Sin ; or , 3. By the Work of the Law we may understand ( as Origen , Theodoret , and several others , seem to do ) the Law it self , i. e. not the Letters and Syllables of the Law , but the Sentence , Summ and Substance of it . Which soever of these Expositions we follow , the Sense is in effect the same ; so that when St. Paul says that the Gentiles had the Work of the Law written in their Hearts , his Meaning is , that they had the Sentence and Substance of the Law , or many of the Duties prescribed by it , and the Knowledge of them ingraven or imprinted in their Hearts . And is it not as clear from hence as any thing possibly can be , that they had some Principles or Communes notitiae written in their Hearts ? And therefore if the Lord Herber . only say that there are some common Principles or Catholick Truths written in the Hearts or Minds of Men , he says no more than the Apostle doth ; and Mr. Lock , from the Apostle's saying that the Work of the Law was written in the Hearts of the Gentiles , may infer , that he held innate Principles , with as good Reason as he doth from the Lord Herbert's affirming some Truths to be written in the Hearts or Minds of Men , that he held such Principles . And the Truth is , there have not wanted some Prudent and Learned Persons who have expounded these Words of the Apostle of innate Notices or Principles . Quod inquit Paulus Opus scriptum in cordibus , significat has notitias naturales dona esse attributa naturae , & nobiscum nascentia ; they are the Words of Melancthon in loc . Mr. Lock having transcrib'd five of the Lord Herbert's Notitiae Communes , adds , These , tho' I allow them to be clear Truths , and such as , if rightly explain'd , a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving Assent to ; yet I think he is far from proving them innate Impressions in foro interiori descriptae : Where I shall not stand to ask Mr. Lock what answers to the Word These , but I must desire the Reader to bear in Mind that he allows all the five Notitiae Communes to be clear Truths , and such as , if rightly explain'd , a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to : For this intimates that there is something of them written in the Heart , which is the Reason why we can hardly avoid assenting to them so soon as they are propos'd to us , and we understand the Terms of them . To that which he says farther , that he thinks that the Lord Herbert is far from proving them innate Impressions , I briefly answer , that as Mr. Lock hath not shewn , so I have not found that the Lord Herbert any where uses the Phrase Innate Impressions . It is true that he says that his Catholick Verities are in foro interiori descriptae ; and if it be said that Mr. Lock thinks that he is far from proving them to be so , I reply , that it will best appear whether he be far from proving it or no , by examining the Reasons of Mr. Lock 's thinking so ; which we may expect to find , if any where , in the following Sections . Ad § . 16. Here Mr. Lock observes , that the Five Propositions set down by the Lord Herbert are either not all , or more than all the common Notions writ on our Minds by the Finger of God , if it were reasonable to believe any at all to be so written . To which I answer , If Mr. Lock could prove that the five Propositions mention'd by the Lord Herbert , are more than all those common Notions writ in our Minds by the Finger of God , it would follow , that some of them are not such Notions , and that would make directly against the Lord Herbert . But Mr. Lock hath not proved this , and if he had , it would not be for his Advantage , unless he could prove farther that none of them are such Notions ; for his known Tenet is , that there are no Notions or Principles at all that are so written in Mens Hearts . On the other hand , if Mr. Lock can prove that these Five are not all those common Notions writ in our Minds by the Finger of God , this makes not at all against the Lord Herbert , who never said or thought that they were all ; as Mr. Lock might have seen if he had given himself leisure seriously and deliberately to peruse his Treatise de Veritate . He would have found that he very frequently names other common Notions , and particularly he takes notice that there are many Notitiae Communes in Mathematicks , which they call Postulata , ( p. 181. Edit . 1633. ) and speaks of tota notitiarum communium series , p. 206. He would also have found , that where the Lord Herbert sets down those five Propositions , he is not speaking of common Notions in general , but of those only which concern Religion ; Notitiae communes circa Religionem is the Title : Yea , in setting down those five he did not design to give us all the common Notions that concern Religion . He himself plainly tells us this , Notitias communes solenniores circa Religionem praemittendas curavi , says he , p. 207. he did not take care to premise all the common Notions that concern Religion , but only the Solenniores . Yea , p. 227. he makes all the Ten Commandments to be Notitiae communes . Mr. Lock says , that this , Do as thou wouldest be done unto , and perhaps some hundreds of others may as justly pretend to be Notitiae communes , as at least some of those five . To which I answer , 1. The Lord Herbert never design'd to exclude Do as thou wouldest be done unto from being Notitia communis , for he more than once mentions it as such , viz. p. 54 , and 57 , and 106. 2. When Mr. Lock says Perhaps some hundreds of others , tho' possibly he intended it only as a Rhetorical Flight , yet I question whether the Lord Herbert would have deny'd that there are hundreds of Notitiae communes . However , I think it is plain that there is nothing in this Section that makes against that honourable Person , and if Mr. Lock had carefully read his Treatise de Veritate , I believe he would have wholly omitted it . Ad § . 17. This Section begins thus , All his ( i. e. the Lord Herbert's ) Marks are not to be found in each of his five Propositions , viz. his first , second , and third Marks agree perfectly to neither of them . Thus Mr. Lock . Now 't is impossible to make Sense of these last Words , To neither of them ; and therefore I conclude that it is a false Print , but know not what Words to substitute instead of them . Perhaps in the Copy it was thus , His first , second , and third Marks agree perfectly to neither of the two first . If this was his Meaning , that we may judge the better of the Truth thereof , we are to know that the six Marks assign'd by the Lord Herbert , are to distinguish the common Notions which we have by natural Instinct from those that we have not without the Help of Discourse . The former are distinguish'd from the latter by , 1. Priority , 2. Independency , 3. Universality , 4. Certainty , 5. Necessity , 6. The Manner of Conformation . Thus the Lord Herbert . Now ( if I do not mistake in correcting the Errour of the Press ) Mr. Lock says , that the three former Marks do not perfectly agree to the two first Propositions , viz. 1. That there is a God , 2. That he is to be worship'd : Whereby he more than seems to intimate that the three latter Marks do agree perfectly to them . And if so , yea , if only the last of all , i. e. the manner of Conformation , doth agree perfectly to them , the three first Marks must agree likewise to them . If the Minds of Men assent to them without delay as soon as they hear them , and consequently without the Help of any Reasoning or Discourse , this Assent must be , 1. before Discourse , 2. independent upon it , 3. there must be an universal Consent to them . It follows in this Section , that the first , second , third , fourth and sixth Marks agree but ill to his third , fourth and fifth Propositions . As before he did not say that the first , second and third Marks do not agree at all to the first and second Propositions , but only that they do not agree perfectly ; so here he does not say plainly the first , second , third , fourth , and sixth Marks do not agree to the three last Propositions , but only that they agree but ill with them . But I would ask Mr. Lock whether the fourth Mark , viz. Certainty , doth not perfectly agree to them ? Did he not , § . 15. allow them to be clear Truths ? And can they be clear Truths , and yet not certain ? But Mr. Lock gives a Reason why five of the six Marks agree so ill to the three last Propositions : For ( says he ) besides that we are assur'd from History of many Men , nay whole Nations , who doubt or disbelieve some or all of them , I cannot see how the third , viz. that Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God , can be an innate Principle , when the Name or Sound Vertue is so hard to be understood , liable to so much uncertainty in its Signification , and the thing it stands for so much contended about , and difficult to be known . Thus Mr. Lock . Now to the former part of this Reason there needs no other Answer than this , that tho' Mr. Lock says that we are assur'd from History , yet he doth not acquaint us what or whose History it is that gives us the Assurance . If he had given us the Names of the Historians , or their Words , and the Places where they are to be found , we might have examin'd them , and so judged whether they were to his Purpose or no , as also of what Authority his History-writers were . The Lord Herbert , in his Treatise de Veritate , p. 214. tells of one that had said that in a certain remote Country there was no Form of Religion to be found , but adds , that he was confuted by another , who objected to him his Ignorance of the Language of that Country ; and certainly if a Man be not skill'd in the Language of a Country , it is not an easie thing for him to know the Religion and Manners of it . But let us suppose that which Mr. Lock says to be true , that History assures us that many Men , nay whole Nations , doubt or disbelieve some or all of the three last Propositions , what will he gain by this ? For the Question is not whether some Men may doubt of , or disbelieve these Truths , or some of them ; but whether there be any that have not some Notion of them : Even of those that profess themselves Christians , some may possibly doubt of or disbelieve these Truths , but it cannot be said that they have no Notion of them . Lastly , if nothing else could be said against this Part of the Reason , it only shews that the third Mark , viz. Universality , doth not agree to the three last Propositions , it doth not at all affect the other Marks . I pass to the latter Part of the Reason , and that is , that Mr. Lock cannot sec how the Third , viz. that Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God , can be an innate Principle . And I do not see how this can be any Reason of that which hath gone before , tho' the word For ( unless it be here one of Mr. Lock 's privileged Particles ) plainly tells us that it was intended for such . Should it be put into Form , how strangely would it look ? The third Proposition , viz. That Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God , cannot be an innate Principle ; therefore the first , second , third , fourth , and sixth Marks agree but ill to his third , fourth , and fifth Propositions . What Cement can be found to join this Antecedent and Consequent together I know not . But let us hear the Reason why Mr. Lock cannot see how the third Proposition fore-mention'd can be an innate Principle . It is because the Name Vertue is so hard to be understood , liable to so much Uncertainty in its Signification , and the thing it stands for so much contended about , and difficult to be known . Now tho' it is true that the Word Virtus hath various Significations , ( which may be seen in our Dictionaries , ) yet in the Proposition so often mention'd it is easie to be understood , its Signification is certain , and the thing it stands for is easie to be known , and there can be no Contention about it . Yea , Mr. Lock himself , who here speaks of its being hard to be understood , could understand it easily enough when he writ the 15th . Section of this Chapter . There he allows this Proposition to be a clear Truth ; but how could he pronounce it to be a clear Truth , if he did not understand the Terms of it ? He saith farther , that it is so clear a Truth , that , if rightly explain'd , a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to it ; which clearly shews that he knew then the right Explication of it , or when it is rightly explain'd : How then comes that which he understood so easily then , to be difficult to be understood now when he writ the 17th . Section ? Mr. Lock concludes this Section thus , And therefore this can be but a very umcertain Rule of Humane Practice , and serve but very little to the Conduct of our Lives , and is therefore very unfit to be assign'd as an innate Practical Principle . But I must conclude contrariwise , seeing the Signification of the Terms of this Proposition is so certain , it cannot but be a very certain Rule of Humane Practice , and of excellent Use for the Conduct of the Lives of Men , and very fit to be assign'd ( if not as an innate Practical Principle , yet ) as a Practical Principle written in Mens Hearts , which is as much as the Lord Herbert affirms . Ad § . 18. When the Truth of a Proposition is so clear , that the Answerer cannot but see and acknowledge it , the usual way is to add to it , or leave some Words out , or substitute others in the Place of them , and so to mould it into another Form , till he thinks that he can say something to it which may pass for a Confutation with the unwary Reader . Mr. Lock thought it necessary to take this Course , and so he here leaves out the Words join'd with Piety , and represents the Proposition thus , Vertue is the best Worship of God , i. e. ( says he ) is most acceptable to him . But this , according to the Lord Herbert's Sense of the Word Vertue is most false ; for Vertue join'd with Piety is more acceptable to God than Vertue alone , not having Piety its Associate , is . Let the Proposition then stand as it ought to do , and as it is in the Lord Herbert , Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God , and let us see what Mr. Lock offers . 1. If ( says he ) Vertue be taken for those Actions , which according to the different Opinions of several Countries are accounted laudable , the Proposition will not be true ; i. e. If Vertue be taken for that which is not Vertue , the Proposition will not be true ; but if it be taken for that which really is Vertue , ( and so the Lord Herbert took it , as Mr. Lock knew very well ) it is most certainly true , and confess'd by him a little before to be a clear Truth . How vain then is it ( if not contradictious ) here to make a Supposition of its being taken in a Sense , which would render the Proposition not true . He says here , that Vertue is most commonly taken for those Actions , which , according to the different Opinions of Countries , are accounted laudable ; but he only says it , he does not alledge as much as one Author who takes it so . Withal , if it was true that it is most commonly taken so , yet it is not to the purpose , since Mr. Lock knew that the Lord Herbert did not take it so . 2. If ( says he ) Vertue be taken for Actions conformable to God's Will , or to the Rule prescribed by God , then this Proposition will be most true and certain : And I do readily grant that it is here taken for Actions conformable to the Will of God , and Rule prescrib'd by him ; but it is to be observ'd , that in this Proposition it is distinguished from Piety , and therefore as the Actions conformable to God's Will , and the Rule prescrib'd by him , which relate to God , are comprehended under Piety , so under Vertue are comprehended all other Actions that are conformable to the Divine Will and the Rule prescrib'd us , whether they relate to our Duty towards our Neighbour , or that toward our selves . And this being manifestly the Sense of the Word which the Lord Herbert intended , the Proposition , Vertue joined with Piety is the best Worship of God , must be acknowledged to be most true and certain : But ( says Mr. Lock ) however true and certain it may be , it is of very little use in Humane Life ; and therefore I think very few will take it for an innate moral Principle writ on the Hearts of all Men. To which I answer , that if it depend upon this , I must look upon Mr. Lock 's Cause as desperate ; for I am so far from granting that this Proposition is of very little use in Humane Life , that contrariwise I positively assert that it is impossible that any general Rule should be of greater use than it is . I challenge Mr. Lock to name any general Rule which is of greater Force to incite Men to the Study and Practice of true Piety and Vertue than this , That Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God. But what Reason doth Mr. Lock give of this his strange Assertion , that the fore-mention'd Proposition is of very little use in Humane Life ? His Reason is as strange as his Assertion , because it amounts to no more than this , that God is pleas'd with the doing of what he commands . To which I answer , 1. Suppose this was true , that it amounts to no more , it would not follow that it is of very little use in Humane Life : For ought not this , that God is pleased with it , be an especial Motive to and Enforcement of that great Duty of taking care to do God's Commandments ? 2. We may admire that Mr. Lock should say that it amounts to no more than this . Doth this , that it is the best Worship of God , amount to no more than this , that God is pleased with it ? Surely it can amount to no less than this , that it is the Worship that best pleases him ; as also , that by it we best express our inward Veneration of him , our Belief of his Promises , and Desire to please him , and by it most honour him , &c. He that offereth Praise honoureth me , Psal. 50. ult . and so he that performeth any other Action of Piety , or any vertuous Action , honours or glorifies our Father which is in Heaven ; as also , he provokes others , and gives them an Occasion to glorifie him , St. Matth. 5. 16. We see then that it amounts to much more than this , that God is pleas'd with the doing that which he commands . Mr. Lock adds , A Man may certainly know this to be true , ( viz. that God is pleas'd with the doing of what he commands , ) without knowing what it is that God doth command , and so be as far from any Rule or Principle of his Actions as he was before . But whether this be true or no , I am not at all concern'd to enquire ; it is certain that we cannot know this Proposition ( Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God ) to be true , without knowing something of what it is that God commands , for he commands the Practice of the very things express'd in it , viz. Vertue and Piety ; yea , these two are the greatest and weightiest things of the Law , or , if you will , the two Commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets , St. Matth. 22. 40. And we may observe that the Lord Herbert in his Appendix ad Sacerdotes de Religione Laici , sets down this third common Notion or Proposition more largely thus , Virtutem & Pietatem una cum fide in Deum amoreque ejus intimo conjunctam , esse praecipuam partem cultus Divini . So that here is added express Mention of Faith in God , and an hearty Love of him , which are also things commanded by God. Here is nothing more in this Section that deserves Consideration . As to his Rhetorical Flight concerning Hundreds of Propositions , it hath been touch'd upon before . Ad § . 19. Here Mr. Lock passes to the Lord Herbert's fourth common Notion or Proposition , That Men must repent of their Sins if they expect or desire to have them forgiven . He grants that it is a very true Proposition , and fit to be inculcated ; and otherwhere , ( viz. in Reasonab . of Christian. p. 256. ) he tells us , that the Light of Nature reveal'd to the Heathens this way of Reconciliation , this Hope of Atonement , that God would forgive them , if they acknowledged their Faults , disapproved the Iniquity of their Transgressions , begg'd his Pardon , &c. So that even according to Mr. Lock 's Doctrine , this Proposition , Men must repent of their Sins if they would have God atoned and their Sins forgiven , bids fair for being a common Notion or Principle writ in the Hearts of Men. But Mr. Lock says that this fourth Proposition is not much more instructive than the third . To which I answer , That if it be but as instructive as the third , it is very fit to be receiv'd as a common Notion writ in the Hearts of Men : And then surely it is fit to be receiv'd as such when it is acknowledged by Mr. Lock to be more instructive , yea much more instructive when it is set down what those Actions are that are meant by Sins . I took notice a little before , that Mr. Lock says that this Proposition is fit to be inculcated : But on whom is it to be inculcated ? His Words are these , Fit to be inculcated on and received by those who are suppos'd to have been taught what Actions in all kinds are Sins . But if it is fit to be inculcated on and receiv'd by none but those who are taught what Actions in all kinds are Sins , I fear that it is fit to be inculcated on and received by very few : For I doubt there are few that know what Actions in all kinds are Sins . Perhaps Mr. Lock himself has not attain'd to know this ; there are perhaps some Actions that are Sins , and yet he doth not think them to be so . But he proceeds farther , and asserts confidently enough , that neither this ( fourth Proposition ) nor the former ( i. e. the third , ) can be imagin'd to be innate Principles , nor to be of any use if they were innate , unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were engraven in Mens Minds , and were innate Principles also , which I think is very much to be doubted . Thus Mr. Lock . Now this seems very high , that no Man can imagine them ( or either of them ) to be innate Principles , when according to him the Lord Herbert did imagine them to be such ; and that they should be of no use , when he himself had intimated before that they are of use : For when , § . 18. he says of the third Proposition that it is of very little use in Humane Life , and that it teaches little , this implies that it is of some use , and teacheth something . And § . 19. when he saith of the fourth Proposition , that it is not much more instructive than the third , he grants that it is more instructive , tho' not much more . Mr. Lock says , that they cannot be imagin'd to be of any use , unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were engraven in Mens Minds , and were innate Principles also . But uppose the particular Measures and Bounds of some Vertues and Vices only were engraven on Mens Hearts , and innate Principles , would not these Propositions be of excellent use for inciting us to practise those Vertues , and eschew those Vices ? And therefore is not Mr. Lock too severe in pronouncing them to be of no use at all , unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were innate Principles ? But the Truth is , he will not allow that any Measures of Vertue and Vice are innate Principles . Mr. Lock 's next Words are , And therefore I imagine it will scarce seem possible that God should engrave Principles in Mens Minds in Words of uncertain Signification , such as are Vertues and Vices , which amongst different Men stand for different things . But how the Words And therefore come here I know not ; for I cannot see how this can be drawn as a Conclusion from that which hath gone before . He had said a little before , that the word Sins is usually put to signifie in general ill Actions that will draw on Punishment upon the Doers . So that here he makes the Signification of the word Sins to be certain , and can he inferr thence that it scarce seems possible that God should engrave Principles in Mens Minds in Words of uncertain Signification , as the word Sins is ? As to the other word Vertue , I have shew'd above in answering the 17th . and 18th . Sections , that the Signification of it is not uncertain . But does not Mr. Lock give a sufficient Proof that both the Words are of uncertain Signification , when he says that among different Men they stand for different things ? I answer , No ; for tho' some may say , This is a Vertue , when others may account it a Vice ; and this is a Sin or Vice , when others may say that it is a Vertue ; yet by the words Vertue and Sin they mean the same thing , viz. by Sin an ill Action , by Vertue a laudable one . Mr. Lock proceeds , and says , Nay it cannot be suppos'd to be in Words at all , viz. that God engraves Principles in Mens Minds : And to the same Purpose he had said before , in the Beginning of § . 18. It is the Sense and not the Sound that is and must be the Principle or common Notion . But against whom doth he say this ? Not against the Lord Herbert , who is for our having little regard to Words and Names as much as he can be : Non tam nomina ( quae si neglexerimus , magnum in sapientia progressum faciemus ) quam res ipsas respicientes consensum illum universalem tanquam veritatem indubiam amplectamini ; so he de Veritate , p. 40. And therefore he much varies the Words of these two Propositions , viz. the third and the fourth . In the third Proposition , instead of Virtutem cum Pietate conjunctam , ( as he expresseth it in his Religio Laici , ) he in his Appendix ad Sacerdot . de Relig. Laici , hath Virtutem & Pietatem una cum Fide in Deum , Amoreque ejus intimo conjunctam ; and in his de Veritate , p. 215. Probam facultatum conformitatem ; and in the same de Veritate , p. 220. Vitae sanctitatem . So his fourth Proposition , in his Religio Laici he expresses thus , Resipiscendum esse a peccatis ; but in his de Veritate , p. 217. more largely thus , Vitia & scelera quaecunque expiari debere ex poenitentia . Hence it most plainly appears that the Lord Herbert made not Words but the Sense to be the Notitia communis . We are come at last to Mr. Lock 's Conclusion , which he begins thus , When it shall be made out that Men ignorant of Words , or untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country ; but he doth not tell us what is to be made out concerning them ; for there is no Verb for this Nominative Case , Men ignorant of Words , &c. But I suppose that it is to be supply'd out of that which follows ; so that his Meaning is this , When it shall be made out , that Men ignorant of Words , or untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country , and all Men whatsoever , do actually know and allow that it is part of the Worship of God not to kill a Man , not to know more Women than one , not to procure Abortion , not to expose their Children , not to take from another what is his , tho' we want it our selves , but on the contrary relieve and supply his Wants ; and whenever we have done the contrary , we ought to repent , be sorry , and resolve to do so no more : When , I say , all Men shall be prov'd actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules , all which come under these two general Words , Vertues and Sins , there will be more Reason for admitting these and the like for common Notions and practical Principles . Thus Mr. Lock , who seems to deal very hardly with the Lord Herbert's third and fourth Propositions , in that he will not admit them to be common Notions , or as much as practical Principles , until it be prov'd that all Men in the World , even those that are ignorant of Words , and untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country , do actually know and also allow of all these and a thousand other such Rules . Methinks if all Men did actually know these , and but half a thousand other such Truths , we might see very great Reason for admitting those two Propositions to be of great use for directing our Practice , and consequently to have a good Title to be accounted practical Rules or Principles . St. Paul , Rom. 1. instanceth in many things , which the Gentiles actually knew to be ill Actions , that will draw on Punishment upon the Doers , and consequently ( according to Mr. Lock ) Sins ; for having enumerated them , from v. 24. to v. 32. he says v. 32. that they knew that those who do such things are worthy of Death . Now must not every one confess that the Lord Herbert's fourth Proposition , That Men must repent if they would have those Sins forgiven , and escape the Punishment due for them , would have been of very great use to them ? Yea , if Men have but Means to know that many things are Vertues or Vices , the two fore-mention'd Propositions must not be deny'd to be practical Principles , and such as might be very useful in Humane Life , because through their own Default many do not actually know that they are Vertues or Vices . The Lord Herbert makes that golden Rule , St. Matth. 7. 12. Whatsoever things ye would that Men should do unto you do ye so to them , to be a common Notion writ in the Hearts of Men ; and would they but call it frequently to mind , and apply it to particular Actions , by the Light of this they might know whether they have the Nature of Sin or no. The Application of this Rule to particular Actions would help us to the Knowledge of a great part of our Duty toward our Neighbour ; and therefore our Saviour says , that this is the Law and the Prophets : All my Duty toward my Neighbour depends upon it , the whole Law concerning that is fulfill'd in it ; it is the Foundation of all Justice and Charity to Men. Hence it was that the Emperour Severus Alexander having heard this Sentence from the Jews or Christians ( we may rather think Christians ) caus'd it to be proclaim'd by the Cryer , and to be writ on the Palace , and on Publick Works ; see Jul. Capitolinus in Alexandro Severo . To conclude then according to the Lord Herbert , as that Proposition , They must repent of their Sins , if they would have God aton'd to them , is writ upon the Hearts of Men ; so also is this Sentence , All things whatsoever ye would that Men should do to you do ye likewise to them : By which ( if they be not wanting to themselves ) they may know in a great measure what particular Actions are Sins , and what they ought to do ; so that if that Proposition be not useful and instructive to them , it is their own Fault . Mr. Lock having said , that when all Men shall be prov'd actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules , there will be more Reason for admitting these for common Notions , lest this Concession should be too liberal , adds , Yet after all universal Consent ( were there any in Moral Principles ) to Truths , the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise , would scarce prove them to be innate ; which is all I contend for . Thus Mr. Lock . But I do not well understand the meaning of the last words , which is all that I contend for . Doth which relate to that which is here express'd , viz. that universal Consent to Truths , the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise , will scarce prove them to be innate , so that this is all that he contends for ? Or doth it refer to something not express'd , Mr. Lock having a Privilege to use Words otherwise than ordinary Persons are allow'd to do . To this latter I incline , that it is his meaning , that he contends for no more than this , that the Lord Herbert's Propositions are not innate , tho' this is not express'd . But let the one or the other be his meaning , unless we were certain that by his Notitiae communes or Catholick Truths written in the Minds of Men , the Lord Herbert meant the same that Mr. Lock doth by his innate Principles , we cannot say that that honourable Person is at all concern'd , or that Mr. Lock 's Conclusion doth contradict any thing that he hath deliver'd . Thus I have consider'd all that Mr. Lock hath said in these five Sections , wherein he hath to do with the Lord Herbert . And now must it not seem strange that he should take upon him to examine what is written by a Person so eminent for his Parts as well as his Quality , and after all have so little to say against him ? He only toucheth very slightly upon three of his Propositions , or Notitiae communes , viz. the first , second and fifth ; and as to the third and fourth , he had done better if he had pass'd them by as slightly , unless he had said something more to the purpose . Yea , he is so far from confuting , that he comes very far up toward the confirming all that the honourable Person design'd . For he says plainly , § . 15. that all the five Propositions are such Truths , as , if rightly explain'd , a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to . Now of such things , as so soon as they are alledged , all Men acknowledge them to be true or good , they require no Proof or farther Discourse to be assured of the Truth or Goodness of them , we need not fear to say , that they seem to have a good Title , to be receiv'd for common Notions or Catholick Truths written in the Hearts of Men ; which is all that the Lord Herbert contends for . The Reader may also observe Mr. Lock 's way of Answering Persons . How often doth he complain of others , that they make him to say that which he doth not , bidding them shew where it is that he says or pretends such a thing ? And may we not likewise ask him where it is , that the Lord Herbert mentions Innate Principles or Innate Impressions ? Another way very frequently us'd is , to single out one or two Particulars , and pretend to say something to them ; and then the unwary Reader must believe that the whole is answer'd : So Mr. Lock singles out the third and fourth of the Lord Herbert's Propositions , pretending to say something to them , but takes little or no notice of the other three . A third way is , to say the same thing that their Adversary doth , and yet to pretend that he is confuting him all the while : And thus doth Mr. Lock , § . 18. and 19 , when he inculcates that it is the Sense ( and not the Words ) that is the Principle or common Notion . There is a fourth way , which I have set down at large in the Beginning of my Answer to § . 18. and shall not need to repeat . The last way , most usual with Mr. Lock , is , to pretend that he doth not understand that which he doth ; as here it is apparent , that when he writ the 15th Section he knew well enough the Signification of the Word Vertue in the Third Proposition ; and yet § . 17. he says it is hard to be understood ; and § . 19. pretends it may either have this or that Sense . Concerning SOCINIANISM . Whether it is Justly Charged upon Mr. Lock . IT is well known , that some have publickly , in plain and express Words , charged Socinianism upon Mr. Lock ; and that others conceive that there is too much reason to suspect that he is leaven'd with many of the Doctrines of Socinus , and his Followers . Mr. Lock , on the other hand , seems to be much displeas'd that he should be loaded with such an Imputation , yea that he should be so much as join'd with those that are Enemies of the Doctrine of the Trinity . He seems also to plead Not Guilty ; says , that there is not one Word of Socinianism in his Book , ( i. e. in his Reasonab . of Christian. ) See his Vindication , p. 13. He professes that he never read the Racovians , Ibid. p. 22. And his Words in his Second Vindication , p. 350. are these ; I never read a Page in either of those Socinians : he means Slichtingius and Socinus ; though how he can call Socinus a Socinian , I know not . Yea , in that Second Vindication , p. 214. he gives the Socinians a parcel of not very good Language : I shall transcribe his Words at large . As far as I can observe ( says he ) the same Genius seems to influence them all ( i. e. all the differing Sects ) even those that pretend most to Freedom , the Socinians themselves . For when it is observed how positive and eager they are in their Disputes , how forward to have their Interpretations of Scripture receiv'd for Authentick , though to others , in several places , they seem very much strain'd ; how impatient they are of Contradiction , and with what Disrespect and Roughness they often treat their Opposers ; may it not be suspected that this so visible Warmth in their present Circumstances , and Zeal for their Orthodoxy , would ( had they the Power ) work in them as it doth in others ? They in their Turns would , I fear , be ready with their Set of Fundamentals , which they would be as forward to impose on others , as others have been to impose contrary Fundamentals on them . Thus Mr. Lock , expressing some Dislike of the Temper and Carriage of the Socinians . But our Question is about their Doctrine , and whether he doth as much dislike that . That we may the better judge of this , the way will be , to enquire first what the Socinians hold ; then , how far Mr. Lock doth maintain or disclaim their Doctrines . As to the Doctrines of the Trinity , the Incarnation of the Son of God , and his Satisfaction , it is so well known what the Socinians hold , that it is wholly needless to cite or set down the Words of any of them : And if Mr. Lock had been pleas'd to let the World know plainly what he held as to these weighty Points , he would have done a great Kindness to others in freeing them from their Jealousies of him , and certainly no small Kindness to himself . But he hath not been willing hitherto to do himself and others this Favour , as I have largely shew'd above , Chap. 8. and 12. But it is not too late to do it still ; and therefore I will hope that he may at last condescend so far , as to declare his Thoughts plainly as to these Particulars . Whereas our Saviour is frequently , in Scripture , call'd the Son of God , the Socinians deny that he is so call'd with respect to his Eternal Generation , or being Begotten of his Father before all World's ; as also they deny that his Divinity can be prov'd thence . Thus Enjedinus in Joh. 5. 18. Non sequitur , si Christus alio modo sit filius Dei quam homines & Angeli esse naturalem Filium & ex essentia Dei natum ; and he had said the same before in Joh. 1. 14. So in the Racovian Catechism de Persona Christi , the Answer to the 74th Question is , Ex iis omnibus attribut is Christi nullo modo probari posse naturam ejus divinam . Those Attributes or Appellations are , The Son of the living God , his own Son , his onely begotten Son : from these ( says the Catechism ) Christ's Divine Nature cannot be prov'd . And Socinus himself , contra Wickum , cap. 5. throughout his long Answer to the first Argument , makes it his Business to shew , that the Generation of Christ from the Substance of the Father , and that he is the True God , cannot be prov'd from those Appellations ; and at last concludes it thus , Arbitror me satis dilucide ostendisse , quomodo Christus sit Dei filius , & quidem unigenitus , quamvis ex ipsius Dei substantia generatus non fuerit : And again , Videre possunt pii ac cordati omnes qualem vim habet ad probandum quod Christus sit ille unus verus Deus , adversariorum argumentum , ab eo ductum quod Christus sit Dei filius : Thus Socinus . They all agree in this . See Slichtingius Comment . in Joh. 1. 50. and 20. 31. Wolzogenius Comment . in Matth. 16. 16. ( Neque inde sequitur Petrum agnovisse Christum pro tali Filio Dei , qui ab omni aeternitate ex essentia Patris generatus sit , & ipse nihilominus sit Deus altissimus : so he . ) Crellius Comment . in 1 Pet. 1. 3. ( Necesse non est , says he , vocis Filii Dei significatum ab aeterna quadam ex substantia , Patris generatione arcessere ; ) not to mention many others . In like manner Mr. Lock , though this Appellation The Son of God occurs so frequently in the Texts which he cites in some of his Writings , yet never expounds it as importing the Deity of Christ , but draws it to another sense . In his Second Vindication , p. 360 , &c. he alledges S. Joh. 1. 34. and 3. 35 , 36. also S. Joh. 1. 50. S. Luk. 4. 41. S. Mar. 3. 11. S. Matt. 16. 16. S. Joh. 11. 27. S. Luk. 22. 70. S. Matt. 27. 54. ( not Luke 27. 54. as by the Fault of the Press it is in Mr. Lock ) and of all these Texts he says , p. 369 , that we must give up this Argument ( viz. from Christ's being call'd the Son of God ) and allow that this Phrase in these places do's not necessarily import the Deity of our Saviour , and the Doctrine of the Eternal Generation ; unless we think that the Eternal Generation of Jesus the Son of God was a Doctrine that had entred into the Thoughts of John the Baptist , Nathaniel , S. Peter , S. Martha , the Sanhedrim , yea even of the Roman Centurion and the Soldiers that were with him watching Jesus : and he supposes that few think this . It do's not necessarily import , says Mr. Lock , just as Crellius says , Necesse non est . And particularly of S. Luk. 22. 70. he says , that if the Son of God be to be taken for a Declaration of his Deity , common and coherent Sense will hardly be made of it . As to S. Luk. 4. 41. and S. Mar. 3. 11. he asks , Who can entertain such a Thought , as that the unclean Spirits had a mind to acknowledge and publish to the People the Deity of our Saviour ? And as to S. Matth. 16. 16. he says , that S. Peter can be taken in no other sense , but barely to signifie that Jesus was the Messiah ; as he also saith , that the Phrase of the Son of God is us'd by S. Martha Joh. 11. 27. to signifie the Messiah , and nothing else . Farther , the Socinians make these Expressions , the Messiah , and the Son of God , to have the same Signification . Saepissime in Scripturis Filius Dei & Christus idem denotant ; so Crellius in 1 Pet. 1. 3. Ut adeo nomen Christus seu Messias & nomen Filius Dei ex usu Judaeorum pro eodem sumeretur . Wolzogenius in S. Matth. 16 , 16. comparing this place with Mar. 8. 29. and Luk. 9. 20. and also alledging Joh. 1. 49. and Luk. 22. 67 , 68 , 69. Idem est Messiam seu Christum & Filium Dei esse . Enjedinus in S. Mat. 28. 19. So Slichtingius in S. Joh. 1. 50. Ex Nathanaelis confessione videmus Filii illius Dei & Regis illius Israel , i. e. Christi titulum , idem significare . Usitatum enim erat apud Hebraeos Messiam vocare Filium Dei. Again , in Comment . in S. Joh. 20. 31. Christi & Filii Dei titulus pro synonymis usurpantur . Thus also Socinus himself cont . Wickum , cap. 5. in Resp. ad Argum . 1. Perspicuum est idem reipsa esse Christum & illum Dei Filium . Idem est esse illum Regem Israelis quod esse Christum . Caiaphas & alii Judaei aliud nihil Filii Dei nomine intellexerunt quam Christum ; so he , alledging Matth. 26. 63. Mar. 14. 61. S. Joh. 20. 31. together with the places above-cited by Wolzogenius . I shall only add Volkelius de Vera Religione , l. 5. c. 12. where having compar'd Matt. 16. 16. with Mar. 8. 29. and Luke 9. 20. he concludes thus , Ut facile appareat in locis istis Filium Dei & Christum esse eandem habere significationem : and he also adds , that the same is manifest ( viz. that they are Expressions of the very same thing , or that have the same signification ) from Luke 22. 67 , 70. Joh. 1. 50. and sundry places in S. Joh. being compar'd . And thus Mr. Lock , The Son of God and the Messiah are one in signification , Second Vindicat. p. 353. Messiah and the Son of God were synonymous Terms at that time among the Jews , Reasonab . of Christian. p. 50. Confessing Jesus to be the Son of God , is the same with confessing him to be the Messiah ; those two Expressions being understood among the Jews to signifie the same thing , Ibid. p. 96. And therefore almost everywhere in his Reasonab . of Christian. when he alledges any place where Christ is said or confess'd to be the Son of God , he interprets it of his being the Messiah . Finally , he proves that these Titles have the same Signification , by comparing S. Matt. 16. 16. with S. Mar. 8. 29. and S. Luke 9. 20. and by those other Texts which are made use of by Socinus , Wolzogenius , and Volkelius , to that purpose : See Reasonab . of Christian. p. 102. and otherwhere . Please to see also what I have said above , Chap. II. Enjedinus , in Matth. 28. 19. saith , That no other Faith was requir'd of the Gentiles when they were Baptiz'd , than to believe that Jesus is the Messiah or Son of God. Nulla alia fides fuit requisita a gentibus cum baptizabantur , quam ut crederent Jesum esse Messiam , seu Christum , vel Filium Dei. He also tells us , that this is that which all the Writers of the New Testament urge , yea , that it was the Scope and Design of writing the History of the Gospel , alledging S. Job . 20. 31. and that this is the Faith by which the Gentiles were made the People and Children of God. Thus Enjedinus . Now the Reader needs not be admonish'd of how near Affinity hereto that is which Mr. Lock so earnestly and frequently inculcates ; viz. that all that was to be believ'd for Justification , was no more but this single Proposition , that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah . Reasonab . of Christian. p. 47. that S. John knew nothing else requir'd to be believ'd for the attaining of life , but that Jesus is the Messiah , the Son of God. Ibid. p. 194. that this is the sole Doctrine pressed and requir'd to be believ'd in the whole Tenor of our Saviour's and his Apostles preaching . Ibid. p. 195. and that the Gospel was writ to induce Men to believe this Proposition , that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah ; for Proof of it alledging S. Job . 20. 31. as Enjedinus doth . Some of the Socinians ( as Crellius Comment . in 1 Corinth . 15. 14. and Welzegenius in Acts 8. 37. ) make this Proposition , Jesus Christ is the Son of God , to be a brief Summary of the Christian Faith or Profession , comprising many things in few words : And if they who say that this is all the Faith that is requir'd , had plainly declar'd that they took it in this comprehensive sense , as a brief Summary of all that we are requir'd to believe concerning Christ , as that he is the only Son of God , our Lord , was conceived by the Holy Ghost , born of the Virgin Mary , &c. ( as in the Creed ) it would not have given so much Offence . Therefore it would not be amiss if they would make such a plain Declaration of their Meaning now . Socinus , in his Praelectiones Theologicae , cap. 2. says , that there is not any Opinion or Notion of a Deity naturally implanted in the Mind of Man. Receptior hodie sententia est homini naturaliter ejusque animo insitam esse Divinitatis alicujus opinionem , quam sententiam nos falsam esse arbitramur . And one Reason why he thought thus , was , because not only some single Persons , but also whole Nations , are found , which have no sense or suspicion of a Deity . He instances in the Province of Brasil ( or Bresil , as he calls it ) and appeals to Historians for the Truth of it . How near Mr. Lock comes to this , the Reader may judge , who in his Essay , l. 4. c. 10. § . 1. says expresly , that God hath stamp'd no original Characters on our Minds , wherein we may read his Being ; and his first and principal Reason for this , l. 1. c. 4. § . 8. is , because besides the Atheists taken notice of among the Ancients , there have been whole Nations amongst whom hath been found no Notion of a God. He instances , as in other places , so in Brasil , and appeals to Navigators and Historians for the Truth of it . The Socinians say , that the Soul , separated from the Body , hath no Sense , cannot perform any Action , or enjoy any Pleasure , till the Resurrection . Smalcius frequently inculcates this , Spiritus a corpore separatus nullo sensu praeditus est , & nulla voluptate fruitur ante adventum Christi . And again , Spiritus sine corpore nullas actiones exercere potest . So Smalcius de extremo judicio , § . 3. and in Examine Errorum , Error . 88. Non credimus Spiritum qui ad Deum redit aliquid sentire , aut beatitate aliqua frui ante Christi adventum . In like manner , Socinus himself , in his 5th Epistle to Volkelius , declares it to be his firm Opinion , Post hanc vitam animam hominis non it a per se subsistere , ut praemia ulla poenasve sentiat , vel ista sentiendi sit capax . See also to this purpose , Crellius in Heb. 11. 40. And Slichtingius in 1 Cor. 15. 32. As to Mr. Lock , they that have leisure may enquire whether his words in his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 6. do not look toward this , when he says , that Death is the losing of all Actions of Life and Sense . For it is not easie to conceive how this can be true , unless when Men die the Soul lose all Actions of Life and Sense as well as the Body doth . Socinus and his Followers deny Original Sin , and the Corruption of our Nature , because of Adam's Transgression . Concludimus nullum peccatum originale esse , i. e. ex peccato illo primi parentis nullam labem aut pravitatem universo humano generi necessario ingenitam esse sive inflictam quodammodo fuisse : So Socinus in his Praelectiones Theolog. cap. 4. He is follow'd by the Racovian Catechism , Cap. 10. Quaest. 2. Peccatum originis nullum prorsus est , nec e Scriptura id peccatum originis doceri potest : Et lapsus Adae , cum unus actus fuerit ; vim eam quae depravare ipsam naturam Adami , multominus vero posteriorum ipsius posset , habere non potuit . To the same purpose are the Words of Volkelius , De vera Religione . l. 5. c. 18. Mr. Lock is not so positive as they are ; but he says , that the New Testament doth not any where take notice of the Corruption of Humane Nature in Adam's Posterity , nor tells us that Corruption seiz'd on all because of Adam's Transgression , as well as it tells us so of Death . The Socinians say , that the same Bodies shall not arise at the general Resurrection . Corpora haec , quae nunc circumferimus , resurrectura non credimus , sed alia nobis danda esse ab Apostolo edocti statuimus : So Smalcius in Examin . Errorum . Err. 89. Corpora in quibus reviviscent & venient mortui non ea sunt corpora in quibus mortales vixerunt , & quorum corruptione mortui sunt , sed illa sunt longe istis praestantiora , Slichtingius Comment . in 1 Cor. 15. 37. Illi vim argumentationis Apostolicae convellunt , qui in eisdem numero corporibus nos aliquando resurrecturos statuunt , Crellius Comment . in 1 Cor. 15. 13. They that please may also consult Volkelius De vera Religione , l. 3. c. 35. As to Mr. Lock , a large Account hath been given above , Chap. 31. of what he saith as to this Particular ; viz. the same Bodies being rais'd . Where we may also see that he proceeds farther than perhaps the Socinians do , saying , that he finds no such express words in the Scripture as that the Body shall rise or be raised : See the Third Letter , p. 210. To which something hath been said in the forecited Chap. 31. and now , by way of farther Answer , I desire that 1 Cor. 15. 42 , 43 , 44. may be consulted . It is sown in Corruption , it is rais'd in Incorruption ; it is sown in Ignominy , it is rais'd in Glory ; it is sown in Weakness , it is rais'd in Power ; it is sown a natural Body , it is rais'd a spiritual Body . Now I ask , What is it that is rais'd in Incorruption , in Glory , in Power , and a Spiritual Body ? Mr. Lock will surely answer , that it is the Body . And if the Body be so necessarily understood , it is the same as if it was express'd . Besides , the words v. 44. may be rendred , The Body is raised Spiritual ; and so we have the express words , that the Body is raised . The Wicked's suffering eternal Torments after this Life , is deny'd by the Socinians . Impios futuros immortales , nempe in aeternum opprobrium , nec usquam sacrae Literae comprobant , nec quicquam ex illis afferri posse videtur , unde sententia illa probari possit : So Smalcius in Refut . Frantzii , p. 415. Ut Deus in omnibus justitiae tenax est , ita hic quoque super neminem extendet paenam meritis ejus majorem . Nulla autem esse possunt peccata tam gravia , quae sempiternis cruciatibus possunt aequari . Wolzogenius Comment . in Matth. 24. 46. The like hath Ernestus Somnerus in his Demonstration , intituled , Demonstratio Theologica & Philosophica , quod aeterna impiorum supplicia non arguant Dei justitiam , sed injustitiam . As to Socinus himself , that he was of the same Opinion , appears sufficiently from his Disputation with Puccius , and the Letters which past between Volkelius and him about it . What Mr. Lock 's Opinion is as to this , I shall not determine : On the one hand his making the Death which was threatned to Adam , and which he says is the Wages of Sin as well after as before the Resurrection not to be an eternal Life in Misery , or the being kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments , but a Ceasing to be , may incline us to think that in this great Point he holds the same that the Socinians do : See his Reasonab . of Christian. p. 5 , 6 , 15. On the other hand , How far his mentioning infinite Misery , exquisite Misery , unspeakable Punishments , perfect Misery , Tribulation and Anguish , Indignation and Wrath which shall be after this Life , and his transcribing the words of our Saviour in which he speaks of everlasting Fire and everlasting Punishment , may argue that he doth not hold with them , I know not . FINIS . 
A67126	----	Socinianisme in the fundamentall point of justification discovered, and confuted, or, An answer to a written pamphlet maintaining that faith is in a proper sense without a trope imputed to beleevers in justification wherein the Socinian fallacies are discovered and confuted, and the true Christian doctrine maintained, viz. that the righteousnesse by which true beleevers are justified before God is the perfect righteousnesse and obedience which the Lord Iesus Christ God and man did perform to the law of God, both in his life and death / by George Walker ... Walker, George, 1581?-1651. 1641 Approx. 344 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 182 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A67126 Wing W365 ESTC R3923 12084997 ocm 12084997 53694 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A67126) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53694) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 588:2) Socinianisme in the fundamentall point of justification discovered, and confuted, or, An answer to a written pamphlet maintaining that faith is in a proper sense without a trope imputed to beleevers in justification wherein the Socinian fallacies are discovered and confuted, and the true Christian doctrine maintained, viz. that the righteousnesse by which true beleevers are justified before God is the perfect righteousnesse and obedience which the Lord Iesus Christ God and man did perform to the law of God, both in his life and death / by George Walker ... Walker, George, 1581?-1651. [14], 355, [2] p. Printed by R.O. for Iohn Bartlet ..., London : 1641. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Socinianism. 2004-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-12 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-01 Andrew Kuster Sampled and proofread 2005-01 Andrew Kuster Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion SOCINIANISME in the Fundamentall point of Justification discovered , and confuted . Or , an Answer to a written Pamphlet maintaining that faith is in a proper sense without a trope imputed to Beleevers in justification . Wherein The Socinian fallacies are discovered and confuted , and the true Christian Doctrine maintained , viz. That the righteousnesse by which true beleevers are justified before God is the perfect righteousnesse and obedience which the Lord Iesus Christ God and man did performe to the Law of God , both in his life and death . By George Walker B ▪ of Divinity , and Pastor of S. Iohn the Euangelists Church in Watling-street London . A man that is an Hereticke , after the first and second admonition reiect , knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himselfe . Tit. 3.10 , 11. LONDON , Printed by R. O. for Iohn Bartlet , at the Signe of the gilt Cup in Pauls Church-yard , neare S. Augustins Gate . 1641. To his Reverend Brethren , the Godly , Orthodox Pastors and Preachers of Gods Word , in and about the City of London : the Author of this brief discovery and confutation , wisheth all increase of Grace , peace and happinesse ; with the abundance of blessings from God on their faithfull labours . MY Reverend , and dearely beloved Brethren , it is not unknown to divers of you , what great conflicts I have had with the adversaries of this Socinian Faction about this main fundamentall point of Justification , what pains I have taken to vindicate the truth above six and twenty yeares agoe , from the opposition and subtile Sophistry of a cunning adversary , who by the fame and opinion which men had of his great Learning , and no lesse Piety , had drawn many zealous Professors of Religion into some liking of his Errours . His written Pamphlets went currently through the City and were to be found in the hands of many men , in which he First utterly renounced the Law , in whole and part performed by our selves , or any other in our stead , for the justifying of us in the sight of God. Secondly , rejected as a meere device of our late Divines , the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and satisfaction , not onely his habituall righteousnesse , but also his whole obedience , both active and passive ; and affirmed it to be a thing wherof there was no testimony or proof in Scripture , nor any necessary end or use thereof . Thirdly , he professed and undertook to prove , thot Faith , even the act of beleeving and trusting in Christ for salvation after a generall and confused manner , as a favourite of God , and not as a perfect satisfyer of his justice and just Law ; is that which God accounts and accepts for righteousnesse to justification , in stead of righteousnesse and perfect obedience performed to the will and Law of God , either by Christ or our selves . These and divers other errors which were here and there interlaced , I did at the first discover in some sermons , to be no Doctrines of sacred Truth by him digged out of the deep mines of holy Scripture ▪ and newly brought to light ( as his seduced Disciples proclaymed them to be ) for the inlightning of the blind world in these last dayes of darknesse and perillous times : but the old errors and Heresies of Servetus and Socinus , newly revived and raked out of hell by Arminius , Bertius , and others of their Faction . Divers of his Friends who had begun to imbrace his opinion , were not a little terrified at the hearing of these things ; and earnestly besought me to give him a meeting , who at that time was to me unknown by face ; I condescended to their desire : but wheras I came with an heart full of tender compassion , and with Prayers in my mouth , and teares in mine eyes , layd open before him the danger of his errors , and the evill and mischiefe which by meanes of his obstinate persisting in them , might accrue to himselfe and those who were by him seduced and misled ; he on the contrary hardened his heart to maintain per fas , et nefas , and dolo malo his foresaid erroneous opinions ; shewing out of Luther on the Galatians , some words which seemed to favour his error , and to exclude the righteousnesse of the Law from justification ( which words he applyed to the righteousnesse of the Law performed by Christ for us , and did most stiffly so urge them : ) but the words which immediately followed , to wit , that God justifies us by the righteousnesse of his Son Jesus Christ , and by his fulfilling of the Law for us , he covered with his fingers , till I pluckt the Book out of his hands , and read them to those that were present , whereby he was much confounded . Now the issue of my fair and Christian dealing with him and of my modest and mild opposing of him , without such sharpnesse as the cause and his carriage did require , was the same , which the gentle behaviour of Orthodox Divines towards perverse Hereticks , hath commonly had in all former ages : For his Factious disciples did impute it to the weaknesse of my Cause , and to his arguments convincing my Conscience , that his opinions were not so dangerous as I had censured them to be : but rather unreprovable , yea and laudable . And upon my departure out of the City , immediately after to Cambridge , whither my occasions called me ; in my absence they reported , that at our meeting he did so convince and confound me with strong arguments , that I humbled my selfe , to him confessed my ignorance , imbraced his opinions , and promised to hold and maintaine them till death . This wicked and Jesuiticall policy which they used to retaine divers of his disciples , who wer ready to fall off from him ; & to recall those who were fallen off already , did produce a quite contrary effect : For when I returned again to the City , and was saluted as a Socinian onvert , and informed of their false reports & lying forgeries ; I was inflamed with a double desire to vindicate both the truth of God , and mine own reputation from their slanderous aspersions ; and hereupon I betook my selfe to handle and expound that place of Scripture , Rom. 5.17 , 18 , 19. which doth most pithily and plainly set forth the Doctrine of Justification by the communion of Christs righteousnes and obedience . And because I discerned in mine Adversaries a perverse Hereticall spirit , and that they had made lyes their refuge , and did sinne being condemned of themselves ; I did with all zeale confute their errours , lay open the deadly poyson and malignity of them , and cloath them with such reproachfull titles as divers grave and learned Divines of the best reformed Churches had before shaped and fitted to them . I proved them to be profane and abominable Doctrine , even the damned Heresie of Servetus and Socinus , as Sibrandus Lubertus had before stiled them . And that their denying of the reciprocall imputation of Christs righteousnesse and satisfaction to the faithfull , and of their sinnes to Christ , was impiety and blasphemy , as learned Beza calls it . Though by this meanes my adversaries were enraged , and did suggest into the eares and minds of many godly people in the City , to whom as yet I was unknown , that I was a green headed novice carryed away with anger and passion , rather then zeal : yet divers of you , my learned Brethren , did judge otherwise of me , and my labours ; and God blessed them , and made them and your assistance of me therein , powerfull and effectuall to the quelling of those errors , and to the suppressing of them at that time , by putting the Author of them to silence . And now for 20. yeares , and more , they have been buryed in oblivion , untill this new Adversary hath raked them up , as coales out of ashes , and out of a surreptitious Booke ( which the First Adversary had composed , Printed beyond the Seas , and procured to be brought in by stealth , and sold underhand ) did bring them into the pulpit , and from thence with a tumultuous noyse proclaymed them most confidently . Now because I have sufficiently acted my part heretofore in opposing these errors ; and also divers of you have entered into the lists , and with zeale and courage have begun to fight against the reviver of them , I should have refrayned my selfe from further medling : but because this common adversary hath singled me out , and provoked me by a proud challenge , to answere his writings . I have once more undertaken to answer his challenge , which Answer being sent to him privately , might there have rest●d , if his most reproachfull and rayling reply , full of lyes , absurdities , contradictions , blasphemies , and intollerable scoffes and reproaches , had not forced me to send it abroad into the world to justifie it selfe from the rayling and slanderous clamours which he and his disciples , and factious followers have raised against it , I here commend it to your grave censure , in hope that the goodnesse of the cause which herein I maintaine , will cover mine infirmities , and will stirre you up to perfect and finish what I have begun . The Truth for which you shall fight is strong , and will prevaile ; all power , might , glory and victory is Gods , for whose cause you stand ; and our Lord Jesus Christ , on whose perfect rigteousnesse you strive to keep the Crown , hath all power given him in heaven and in earth . To this God eternall and omnipotent , and to his eternall Sonne our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , and to the most holy and blessed Spirit , three persons in one God , I commend you and your holy and faithfull labours in my dayly Prayers , humbly supplicating to his Majesty for this Grace , that I may continue till death Your fellow Soldier and labourer in his Vineyard GEORGE WALKER . THE ANSWERERS PREFACE To the first Chapter . THE question which is propounded and the state and drift thereof laid down in this first Chapter , is ( in the Authors own words ) this , whether the faith of him that truely beleeves , or the righteousnesse of CHRIST be imputed for righteousnesse in the act of justification . In this question the imputing of Faith is opposed to the imputing of Christs righteousnesse , for righteousnesse to justification , which no Orthodox Christian durst atten●● to doe at any time : for the godly learned in the Scriptures , and acquainted with the writings of Orthodox divines both ancient and Moderne from the time of the Apostles to this day , doe alwayes joyne Faith with Christs righteousnesse in the act of justification , and do never account them such opposites as doe the one exclude the other , and cannot both stand together , and be reputed for righteousnesse to beleevers in justification . Though the Apostle doth oppose justification by faith , to justification by works of the Law performed by every man in his owne person , as two opposites which cannot stand together in GODS justification of sinners ; And this all true Christians receive , imbrace , and hold for a solid truth , and a fundamentall article of Christian Religion : Yet they abhorre and detest the opposing of Faith , and Christs righteousnes in GODS imputing of righteousnes to beleevers ; and doe with an unanimous consent teach , that in this justifying act of GOD , Christs righteousnesse of which all true beleevers have communion , is that which GOD in a proper sense is said to accept , and repute for righteousnesse ; and Faith as it receives and applies Christs righteousnesse , is said to be imputed , but in an improper speech ; the name of the act being used to signifie the object , which we see frequently in Scripture , as for example , Gal. 3.2.25 . where the name ( Faith ) is used to signifie the thing beleeved , that is , the doctrine of the Gospell , and Coloss. 1.5 . where the name [ Hope ] is used , to signifie the thing hoped for ; that is , the inheritance and reward laid up for us in Heaven , of which kind many more instances may be produced . But as for them who have called into controversie the imputation of Christs righteousnesse ; and having propounded this question , whether Faith or the righteousnes of Christ is imputed in the act of justification , have set up Faith and thrust out Christs righteousnesse , they have ever beene branded by all true Churches of Christ for pestilent Heretikes , and enemies of GODS saving truth . The first mover of this question was one Petrus Abilardus , a pestilent and blasphemous Heretick , who being full of the spirit of pride and error , did in disputing and writing , deny the communion of Christs perfect satisfaction , obedience and righteousnesse ; and the imputation of them for righteousnesse in the justification of true beleevers . This filthie wretch was gelded for corrupting and defiling of a Maid , and for his blasphemous heresies , Saint Bernard , and the Bishops of France caused him to be excommunicated and condemned for an Heretike , and his blasphemous books to be burned publikely . The next instrument of the Devill after him mentioned in former Histories was Servetus that blasphemous Heretike , who for heresies and blasphemies which hee dispersed as a vagabond in several Countries , in divers books , was by Master Calvin discovered & apprehended at Geneva , condemned and burned , and dyed blaspheming Christ most horribly , as Beza testifieth , in vita Calvini . The third notorious Heretike who in writing and bookes published , did maintaine this wicked errour , and by his Disciples dispersed it in Transilvania , Polonia , and other adjoyning Countries , was Faustus Socinus , whose blasphemous faction and sect still continueth , and infesteth those Countries at this day . The fourth Grand Master and propagatour of this heresie , who brought it into Holland nearer unto us was Arminius ; He did first secretly teach and instill it into the eares and hearts of many disciples ; and afterwards did openly professe it , as we read in his Epistle ad Hyppolytum de collibus , wherein he confesseth that he held , Faith to be imputed for righteousnesse to justification , not in a Metonymicall , but in a proper sense : And although this and other errours held by him are condemned in the late Synod of Dort : yet his disciples the Remonstrants doe obstinately persist in this errour , though some of that sect , would seeme to decline and disclaime it . The fift perverse publisher of this heresie , who first openly professed it in England , and in manuscript Pamphlets and Printed Bookes , dispersed it in London , and from thence into severall places of the Countrie about 28. yeares agoe , was Anthony Wotton , who being discovered and hotly opposed by the Author of this answer was by his zeale , and the industrie of some other Preachers in London quickly quelled , and his opinion suppressed : but yet because he would uphold a secret faction , he wrote a booke in Latine , wherein he seemed to retract , or rather to run from some desperate opinions and speeches , which are to bee seene in his private manuscripts given by him from hand to hand , and formerly dispersed . For whereas in divers of them he professeth in plaine words , his dissent from all our Orthodox Divines , which had beene before written of Justification , saying , I am inforced to dissent from them all ; He in that booke laboured to make a shew of consent with them , and did wrest some of their doubtfull speeches to countenance his Socinianisme . This booke intituled De Reconciliatione some of his fiery factious , and zealous disciples with much difficulty , after it was rejected at Leiden and Amsterdam , procured it to be printed at their owne cost , brought over the Copies and sold them under hand in London . And out of it ( wee may justly suspect , that this Scribler and babler hath stollen the most part of his conclusions , arguments and distinctions , for I am informed that he is a great admirer of that book , and of the Author also . So that if this Socinian Iohn will and must needs have , and usurpe that high Title which our Saviour gave to Iohn the Baptist , and will bee called ( as his disciples stick not to stile him ) the shining light of the Church in these last dayes : Surely he is but a borrowed light or rather a wandring light , like that ignis fatuus which in darke nights leadeth the followers into ditches , loggs , praecipces , and breakneck downfalls , as the Philosophers write of it . For the recalling of the ignorant who are by him seduced , for the confounding of them who are by him perverted , and for the stopping of the foule lying , and slanderous mouthes of those factious sectaries his followers , of a scarred conscience , who as they have his person in high admiration , so also are bold to revise and defame all godly and learned Preachers , who oppose his errours and preach against them . I will spend a few spare houres to sift his written discourse , at least so much of it as is come to my hands ; hoping by evidence of truth , plaine Scriptures , solid reasons , and testimonies of the best writers , to make it manifest to GODS people , that he is a mere Socinian Sophister , and dangerous seducer , and that his discourse is an hotch potch of pestilent errours , and full of ●e●giversations , contradictions , and perverse wrestlings of Scriptures , and of the words and writings both of Ancient and moderne Divines . And that neither he himselfe ▪ nor his clamarous disciples may have the least colour , or occasion to complaine , that I have not dealt fairely with him . I will first set downe his Socinianisme , word for word out of his owne writings , without concealing any word or sentence . And to every part thereof I will oppose the contrary doctrine of Christ under the name of Christianisme . And first I begin with his preface , with which he begins his first Chapter . The Preface to Socinianisme . FOr the cleare understanding of the state and drift of the question , something would be premised , which for the evidence sake might be privileddg and exempted , from passing under much dispute and contradiction : yet if any thing be not sufficiently prepared for assent in the briefe proposall of it , the ensuing discourse will labour to reconcile the disproportion ; And in the progresse make satisfaction for what it shall receive upon curtesie in the beginning . The Answer to the Preface . THis short Preface doth by the affected stile , and phrase of it discover the Author to bee one , who hath studied to preach himselfe more then Christ , and to set forth his owne absurd conceits in the entising words of carnall wisedome , not to declare the Testimony of GOD in Apostolicall plainenesse , nor in demonstration of the Spirit , and of power as Saint Paul did . The loftie words , and short cut speech which hee useth here , and in this ensuing discourse , are so farre beyond the capacity of his rude unlearned followers , that his wooden pulpit shall assoone as they understand them , unlesse he first teach them his Grammaticall skill , before hee admit them into his Theologicall auditorie . But belike hee knowes the ready way to catch the wavering , unstable , and giddie multitude , those wandering Starres of these last times , who are like clowdes without water ▪ carried about with windes of every new and strange Doctrine , and of all people are the fittest to bee his disciples . For the mouth which speaketh great swelling words , is admired of them who have mens persons in admiration ; and farre fetcht phrases are fine fooleries to tickle the itching eares , and win the hearts of such as desire to seeme and bee counted something , when indeed they are nothing but bubbles , and empty bladders , who as they admire every bewitching Simon Magus , as the great power of GOD , and extoll to the Skies his most cursed errours : So they abhorre and revile all sincere and godly Preachers , rebukers of their madnesse , blaspheme GODS word in their mouthes , and speake evill of the good things , which they understand not , untill in the gainsaying of Core they utterly perish . Moreover , to give him his due , he appeares to mee in his stile and phrase , a very skilfull Artist in his owne way , as cunning as the subtle Serpent , in cloathing and trimming his strange Doctrines , with strange conceited words fited to them , by which they who affect strange novelties , may easily be allured and insnared . But when the children of truth hunt him by the smell , and strong savours of his rankling errours ( which stink as well as fret like an eating Cancer ) and are ready to catch him ; hee doth by his inkhorne termes so obscure and darken his meaning , that onely they who have a sharp , quick and strong sight , can lay fast and sure hold on him . Wee may well resemble him to the crafty fish Sepia of which we read , that when she is pursued and ready to be taken , she spueth forth a black inke wherewith she darkneth the waters round about , and so escapes away in thick darknesse , through which she cannot be seene and discerned . But to omit his stile , and to come to the matter of his preface , it is a promise and pretence of somewhat by him premised , which shall serve for the cleare understanding of the state of the question , and for evidence sake might be priviledged , from passing under much dispute and contradiction ; but hoc aliquid nihil est , this something is nothing , we find no performance of promise nor truth , in what hee pretendeth ; neither his briefe proposall , nor his ensuing discourse gives us any satisfaction ; neither can his beginning , progresse , or ending receive from us any thing upon curtesie . For if any come to us and bring not the true Doctrine of Christ , but damnable Socinianisme , errour , and heresie , we must not show so much curtesie , as to bid him God speed . 2 Iohn 10. The Analysis of his first Chapter in generall . THe first Chapter of his Socinianisme , which he cals his premising of somewhat for cleare underderstanding of the state , and drift of the question , consists of sixe parts . In the first part he goeth about to rehearse the severall significations of the words justification and justifying , and to determine in what sense the words are used in those Scriptures , which speake of the justification of a sinner before GOD. In the second he layes downe 4. Propositions , which he takes for granted on all hands , and by none denyed but Heretikes . In the third he comes to speak of imputation of righteousnesse , for justification , or rather of somewhat which God in the act of every mans justification doth impute , for or instead of righteousnesse , to invest him in all priviledges of a man perfectly righteous ; and withall to shew the reason of this imputation , and afterward to determine that Faith is that somewhat imputed . In the fourth part hee shewes first negatively , how Faith is not imputed , and excludes out of his question fiue severally quaeres . Secondly affirmatively , that Faith ( as he holds it to be imputed ) is opposed to the righteousnesse of Christ , as to a competitor which receives the repulse . In the fift part ( to cover the shame and scandall of his Hereticall opinion ) he doth admit Christs righteousnesse into part of the honour for peace , and fashion sake , as Esau was admitted unto some vanishing participation ▪ of some temporary blessings with Iacob . For he forgeth a strange and false kind of imaginary imputation of Christs righteousnesse , unto which he laboureth to wrest the words of Luther , Calvin , and the Homilies and Articles of our English Church . In the last part hee undertaketh to shew more light , that it may be seene to the bottome clearely , what he affirmes and what he denyes in the question propounded ; The particulars whereof we shall see when I come to the answer of them . But first I will begin with the first part , and will proceed to answer the rest in order . Socinianisme . THat the termes of Justifying , Justification , &c. are not to be taken in this question , ( nor in any other that are usually moved about the Justification of a sinner ) either 1. Physico sensu , in a Physicall sence ; as if Justification signified to make just with any habituall , actual , or any positive , or inhaerent righteousnesse . 2. Sensu forensi proprie dicto , in a juridicall , or judiciary sense , properly so called , when the Judge hath onely a subordinate or derived power of judging , and is bound by oath , or otherwise , to give sentence according to the rule of the Law ; as to justify were to pronounce a man just ▪ or to absolve him from punishment , according to the strict termes or rules of that Law wherof he was accused , as a transgressor , though this sense be received , and admitted by many . But 3. and lastly , Sensu forensi improprie dicto , in a Iudiciary sense lesse properly , and usually so called . viz. Where he that sits Judge , being supreme Magistrate , hath an Independency , and Soveraignety of power , to moderate , and dispense with the Law , as reason and equity shall require : So that justifying in this question , imports the discharging or absolving of a man from the guilt , blame , and punishment of those things , whereof he is or might justly be accused ; not because he is cleare of such things , or justifiable according to the letter and strictnesse of the Law , ( for then he could not be justly accused ) But because the Judge having a sufficient , and lawfull Soveraignety of power , is willing upon sufficient , and weighty consideration , knowne unto himselfe , to remit the penalty of the Law , and to deliver and discharge him , as if he were an Innocent , and righteous man. As for that Physicall sence of making just by inhaerent righteousnesse , though Bellarmine and his Angels , earnestly contend for it , yet till the Scriptures be brought low , and Etymologie exalted above them ; til use and custome of speaking , deliver up their Kingdome into the Cardinalls hand ; that sense must no way be acknowledg'd , or receiv'd , in this dispute : yet , ( to give reason and right , even unto those that demand that which is unreasonable ) Its true , that GOD , in , and upon a mans Justification begins to justifie him Physically , that is to infuse habituall , and inhaerent righteousnesse into him . But here the Scriptures , and the Cardinall , are as far out in termes , as in 1000. other things they are in substance and matter : That which hee will needs cal Justification , the Scripture will as peremptorily call Sanctification . Concerning that other sense of judiciary Justification , usually so called ; wherein the Iudge , or justifier , proceeds upon legall grounds , to acquit , and absolve the party guilty , and accused , neither can this be taken in the question propounded , except the Scripture be forsaken , because the Scripture constantly speakes of this act of GOD , Iustifying a sinner , not as of such an act whereby he will either make him , or pronounce him legally Iust , or declare him not to have offended the Law , and hereupon justifie him , but as of such an act whereby he freely forgives him all that he hath done against the Law , and acquits him from all blame , and punishment due by the Law , for such offences : So that in that very act of GOD , by which he justifies a sinner , as there is a discharge from all punishment due unto sinne , so there is a profession withall , or plaine intimation of the guiltinesse of the person , now to be justified , according to the Law , and that he is not acquited , or discharged , upon any consideration that can be pleaded for him according to the Law : but that consideration upon which GOD proceeds to justifie him is of another order : the consideration of somewhat done for him in this case , to relieve him out of the course or order and appointment of the Law. He whose Justification stands ( whether in whole or in part , it 's not materiall here ) in the forgivenesse of sinne , can in no construction be said to be Iustified according to the Law , because the Law knowes no forgivenesse of sinne , neither is there any rule for any such thing , nor the least intimation of so much as any possibility of any such thing there . The Law speakes of the curse , death , and condemnation of a sinner ; but for the Justification of a sinner , it neither takes knowledge nor gives any hope thereof . Christianisme . IN this first part here are onely three significations of the word Justification , and Iustifying , rehearsed . The first is Naturall , or Physicall ; that is , making a man just with habituall inhaerent righteousnesse . The second is a Iudiciary sense , properly so called , when a subordinate Iudge doth according to the strict termes , and rules of the Law , acquit , and absolve a man from punishment ( which is due by the Law to him being a transgressor ) and doth pronounce him just . The third is a Iudiciary sense , lesse properly so called , when a supreme Iudge , by soveraignety of power , doth acquit and absolve a man , and remit the penalty of the Law , which he deserves , upon weighty consideration , knowne to himselfe , and doth deliver him , and discharge him , as if he were an innocent , and righteous man. The first Physicall sense , he rejects , and playes upon Bellarmine , for reteining , and using the word Iustifie , in that sense : And yet he himselfe immediatly acknowledgeth , that GOD upon a mans Iustification , begins to Iustifie him Physically , by infusing into him habituall , and inhaerent righteousnesse : But this ( he saith ) is in Scripture called Sanctification . The second sense he also disclaimes , and in this dispute embraceth the third sense , to wit , that Iustification signifies GODS forgiving a man freely all that he hath done against the Law ; and his acquiting , and discharging of a man from the guilt , and punishment , due by the Law , for such offences ; not for any consideration which can be pleaded for him , according to the Law , but for somwhat done for him in this case , to relieve him out of the course , order , and appointment of the Law : His reason why he embraceth this sense , is because he conceives Iustification to stand in forgivenesse of sinne , which belongs to the Law in no respect at all . In all this part , and passage , I find not one particle of solid truth , but many grosse errors , and falshoods ; for of all the three significations , of the word Iustifie , by him here named , onely the first may passe in some tollerable construction , but not in his sense : for though GOD in the creation made our first Parents after his owne Image and similitude , in perfect righteousnesse , indued with a naturall , and habituall uprightnesse , conformable to his revealed will , and Law ; and in this respect may be said to have Iustified , that is , made them upright , as the wise Preacher saith , Eccles. 7.29 . GOD made man upright : Yet whether this act of creation was a Physicall act of GOD , or rather a voluntary act of his will & of his wisdome , and counsell , and so may be called Artificial , is something disputable . As for the framing and making of the man Christ , the blessed seed , by the power of the holy Ghost , pure , holy , upright , and iust from his first conception ; this was a spirituall and supernaturall act , and the holinesse and righteousnesse was a supernaturall gift given from above , not introduced by naturall generation , nor raised from naturall principles . That making of men righteous in their sanctification , which Bellarmine speaks of , is not iustification in a naturall , but in a spirituall sense ▪ For the spirit of GOD worketh those habits , and graces of holinesse in men , whom GOD hath begotten of his owne will in the word of truth . And therefore when Bellarmine or Goodwin , or any other call this a Physicall iustifying , they erre grossely . For if it be any iustification at all , it is spirituall and morall . But for my part , I finde not that by the Spirit of GOD in Scripture , any habituall holinesse of men begun in this life , is called righteousnesse simply in it selfe . But as the Saints regenerate , and faithfull are called righteous in respect of their communion with Christ , and participation of his righteousnes : So their sanctity or habituall holinesse , is called righteousnesse , not simply in it selfe , but by coniunction with the righteousnesse of Christ , the head of the body : which as it iustifies them by constituting and making them righteous : so also it iustifies their rectified holy actions , which they performe by the mo●ions of the spirit , and by Faith in Christ , ( as learned Beza well observed , and truth affirmeth . Lib. contra Anonymum , ) and their sanctification cannot be called iustification , but by reason of coniunction with iustification in the same person . For if it were possible for a sinfull man to be made perfectly holy , and conformable to GODS Law , in his owne person : yet having formerly transgressed the Law , and failed in many things ; ●his n●w conformity to the Law , by reason of those sinnes , and failings will prove a lame righteousnesse , not fit to satisfie the Law , and to be accepted for perfect righteousnesse to justification , because if a man keepe the whole Law , and faile in one point , he is guilty of all . Iam. 2 , 10. No righteousnesse can justifie , which is not a perfect obedience , and conformity of the whole man , to the whol , law in his whole life , frō the beginning to the end . Secondly , that signification of the word Iustification , which hee calls a judiciary sense , properly so called , is , ( as he describes it ) a foolish fiction of his owne braine : for never did any but a mad-man dreame of Iustifying sinners by a subordinate Judge , absolving them from punishment , according to the strict termes , and rules of the Law ; for that were to give a false sentence , and to pronounce a man free from all transgression of the Law , and a perfect fulfiller of it in his owne person . All our learned , and Iudicious Divines , doe hold that the full satisfaction and obedience of CHRIST being communicated , and imputed to true believers , they are absolved , and have their sinnes pardoned , and are counted , and iudged righteous by GOD : as men who have satisfied the Iustice , and iust Law of GOD , by CHRIST their head , and surety , not in their own persons , which the Law in strict termes requires , & this is justification in the Iudiciary sense , which is approved by the learned . Thirdly , that Iudiciary sense , improperly so called , which he approves , & allows in this dispute , is an Hereticall , and Socinian conceipt ; for so long as GOD the supreme Iudge of all the world , is immutable , and infinite in Iustice , he neither can , nor will dispense with his eternall iust Law , in any iot , or tittle , but will have it perfectly fulfilled either by our selves or some sufficient surety in our behalfe , and will forgive no sinner , without a full suffering , and satisfaction , made to the Law in the same kind which the law requires , though not in every mans person ; and this full satisfaction must be communicated to every one , and made his owne by union , with CHRIST his head ; before that GOD will iudge or account him righteous , and pardon al his sinnes . To imagin a somewhat , in consideration whereof GOD forgives sinners , and accepts them as if they were righteous ; besides , the full satisfaction of GODS Justice , and just law , is to conceive GOD to bee mutable , and not the same in his infinite justice at all times ; and to affirme it , is Samosatenian , and Socinian Blasphemy . Fourthly , in arguing against the second sense by him propounded , he wrestles with his owne shadow , and fights against a fiction of his owne braine , and discovers his blindnesse , and ignorance of the dictinction , and difference betweene Legal , and Evangelicall justification , and righteousnesse : Legal righteousnesse is the condition of the first covenāt of works , and consists in perfect conformity , and obedience to the law , performed by every man in his owne person , and no man can be legally justified but by his owne personall righteousnesse . Evangelicall righteousnesse , is CHRISTS perfect righteousnesse , and fulfilling of the Law in the behalfe of all the elect and faithfull : It was not the Law , nor our works of the Law , which moved GOD to give CHRIST to be our surety and redeemer ; but he of his owne free love and bounty gave Christ , and Christ the Sonne of GOD out of his love , humbled himselfe to become man , and to fulfill the law for us . Neither doe wee obtaine Communion of Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse , by the workes of the Law ; but by the Gospell preached & believed as the Apostle teacheth , Gal. 3.2 . And therefore though Christ his righteousnes be a perfect fulfilling of all obedience , which the law requires of man ; & GOD did exact of him every farthing , of our debt , both in active , and passive obedience , and in respect of the matter and substance , his satisfaction may be called after a sort legall , and is so called by Luther : yet as it was for us , not for himselfe , and performed by him our head , not by every one of us in our owne persons , and is received and applied by Faith , not by our workes of the Law , and is brought unto us by the Gospell , not by the Law , and is given to us freely by GODS grace , not merited or procured by any thing in our selves ; so it is not legall but Evangelicall , and GODS justifying of us , and counting us righteous by it , is not a proceeding upon legall grounds , nor pronouncing us legally just , as this calumniator doth , either foolishly imagine , or falsely slander and misreport our Doctrine . Fiftly in arguing for his owne false , and forged sense of the word Justification , he hath three reasons all which are for us , and prove our Doctrine not his opinion . For if this make a sense of the word Justification , good , because it doth intimate the former guiltinesse of him that is justified , as wel as it doth discharge him from all punishment , ( which is his first reason ) then is our Doctrine of justification by imputation of Christs satisfaction for all our sinnes , very good and sound , for it intimates a guiltinesse in him who is to bee iustified , as well as a discharge from punishment . Secondly we doe not plead for our iustification , any consideration according to the Law , that is , wee doe not plead our owne innocency , nor satisfaction and righteousnes performed in our own persons ; but we plead more then somewhat done for us , even all Christs obedience active and passive , by GODS free grace communicated to us , not obtained , or merited by our works of the law . Thirdly though the law iustifies no sinner , but threatens the curse , death ▪ and condemnation as the due reward of the transgressors of it : Yet it iustifies all who are free from all sinnes committed against it , and are made righteous by the perfect fulfilling of it to the utmost . And therefore when the Gospell hath brought us to the Communion of Christs full satisfaction , by which we are made free from all sinne , and perfect fulfillers of the law in him our head ; as GOD doth forgive us our sinnes , and counts us righteous : so the law is no more against us , 1 Tim. 1.9 . but is witnesse for us , that in Christ we are worthy of remission and iustification . By this are manifest the grosse errours , and absurdities which he uttereth in this first part of his preparative Chapter . But that his ignorance in the Doctrine of justification , may more fully appeare , I will lay downe the severall significations of the words , justification , and justifying , wherein the Spirit of God doth use them in the holy Scriptures . First the word iustifie , and iustification signifie , making men righteous , or constituting or seting them in the state of righteousnesse . This signification is justified by several testimonies of Scripture , as Rom. 5.19 . Where many are said to be made , or constituted righteous by the obedience of Christ , even as by Adams disobedience many were made sinners , and 1 Cor. 1.30 . and 2 Cor. 5.21 . Where Christ is said to bee made unto us righteousnesse , and wee are said to be made the righteousnesse of God in him . And Rom. 3.24 . and 4 , 5. Where we are said to be iustified freely by his grace , through the redemption which is in Christ. And God is said to justifie the ungodly , which cannot be meant of counting judging , and pronouncing , but of making them righteous by the Communion of Christs righteousnesse . For to iustifie the wicked by judging and pronouncing them righteous , without making them such , is ao●mination to the LORD , Prov. 17.15 . And in this sense Preachers of GODS Word are , as instruments under GOD , said to iustifie many by bringing them unto righteousnesse , and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifiers , Dan. 12.3 . This iustifying wee may very fitly call radicall , or fundamentall iustification . This Luther and other learned Divines call actionem individuam , because it is GODS action of communicating Christs righteousnesse in a moment , and not by degrees successively , and in it men are mere patients , and do not worke with GOD , no more then Adam did in GODS first creating of him upright , in his Image : Even regenerate Infants may thus be iustified , and are iustified before they actually beleeve . Secondly the word iustifie , signifieth GODS iustifying of men by Faith , that is , his counting and reputing them righteous , upon their actuall beleeving , and his enableing them to feele themselves partakers of the righteousnesse of Christ , and to enioy it by Faith , in this sense the word is used , Rom. 4. Where GOD is said to iustifie us by imputing righteousnesse , and counting Faith for righteousnesse , that is , counting a true beleever a righteous person . And thus the word is to bee taken , where we are said to bee iustified by Faith , without the workes of the Law. The Apostle doth much urge , and presse this iustification , Rom ▪ 4 and Gal. 3. because though in this taken actively , GOD onely acteth : yet taken passively as it is received of us , and we by Faith feele and discerne in what account we are with GOD , and by beleeving enioy Christs satisfaction for remission of sinnes , and for righteousnes , wee may be said to worke with GOD , by way of receiving , as a begging hand doth in receiving gifts freely given , and put into it . This iustifying doth necessarily presuppose the former , and doth assure us of it . For the iust GOD , whose iudgement is according to truth , cannot r●pute us righteous , till we have communion of Christs righteousnesse , and be thereby truly righteous . And this Justification Divines call imputative . It springs from the former as from the root , and is builded on it as on the foundation . Thirdly , this word iustifie , signifies a manifesting and declaring of men to be righteous and iustified , and that three wayes . First in foro conscientiae , in the court , or iudgement of our own conscience , when a man being troubled in his conscience with the sight of his sinnes , and his want of righteousnesse , after humble prayer , and poenitent seeking , receives either the inward testimony of the Spirit , and is enlightned by GOD , to see that he is in the state of righteousnesse absolved and iustified ; or by inward sense of his sanctification , Faith , and other graces proper to the righteous iustified ; is declared and made manifest to his owne conscience , that he is justified and righteous , and hath all his sinnes pardoned , and is accepted of GOD for a righteous man. This is that which wee are taught by Christ to pray for in that petition , forgive us our debts or trespasses , that is , pacify and cleare our consciences , by manifesting to us that we are justified , and have remission of all our sinnes by thy free grace , and by communion of Christs full satisfaction ; and thus wee are to understand the word , wheresoever it is opposed to the accusations of Satan , and the horrours and troubles of conscience , as a remedie against them , as Rom ▪ 8.33 . Secondly it signifies declaring , and proving men righteous in foro humano , in the judgement and sight of men openly , and that by outward fruites of Faith , and externall workes of righteousnes , and holinesse . When GOD enableing us , and moving us to doe such workes , and bring forth such fruites as are by his word continually pronounced , and proclaimed to be righteous , and holy works and evidences of justification , doth thus declare , and prove us to be faithfull and righteous , hee is said to justifie us before men . In this sense the word is used , Iob 13.18 . where Iob saith that if hee may plead before GOD the integrity of his life , he knoweth hee shall be justified : as afterward he did cap. 31. and was thereby declared to be righteous , and so justified . And Iam. 2.21 . where it is 〈◊〉 that Abraham was justified by workes , that is , declared to be a righteous man. Thirdly it signifies judging , and declaring men to bee persons justified , and righteous in the universall judgement at the last day , when the LORD Christ shall by the evidence of their workes of love and charity , done to him in his members , declare them to bee his faithfull servants , and children of his Father , justified by the communion of his righteousnes , and in him worthie of eternall life ; and also adjudge them unto the inheritance of the kingdome of Glory . In this sense the word is used , Rom. 5.16.18 . where it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justification of life , and is opposed to the sentence of everlasting condemnation . These are all the significations of the word ( iustifie ) recorded in the Scriptures ; And this great promiser here sheweth himselfe ignorant of them all : and therefore how little satisfaction he hath given to any , but such fooles as delight to fill themselves with huskes , let the learned iudge . Socinianisme . THat Iesus Christ the naturall sonne of GOD , and supernaturall sonne of the Virgin Marie , ran a race of obedience with the Law , ( as well Ceremoniall as Morall ) and held out with every letter , iot and title of it , as farre as it any wayes concerned him , dureing the whole continuance of his life in the flesh ; no mans thoughts ever rose up to deny ; but those that denyed him the best of his being , ( I meane his God-head ) which of you can convince mee of sinne ? was his chalenge to the nation of the Iewes , whilst he was yet on earth , Iohn 8.46 . And remaines through all ages , as a challenge to the whole World. He that can cast the least aspersion of sinne upon Christ , shall shake the foundation of the peace and safety of the Church . That this Christ offered himself as a Lamb , without spot in sacrifice upon the Crosse , to make an atonement for the World , and to purge the sinnes of it , I know no spirit at this day abroad in the world that denyes , but that which wrought in Socinus formerly , and still workes in those that are baptized into the same spirit of errour with him . I conceive it to bee a truth of greater authority amongst us , then to meet with contradiction from any , that Iesus Christ is the sole entire meritorious cause of every mans iustification , that is iustified by GOD ; or that that righteousnesse or absolution from sinne , and condemnation which is given to every man in his iustification , is somewhat , yea a principall part of that great purchase , which Christ hath made for the world : even as GOD for Christs sake freely forgave you . Forgivenesse of sinnes , or iustification is from GOD for Christs sake , hee is worthie to be gratified or honoured by GOD , with the iustification of those that beleeve in him . It 's a truth which hath every mans iudgement concurrent with it , that Faith is the condition appointed by GOD , and required on mans part , to bring him into communion and fellowship of that iustification , and redemption which Christ hath purchased for the children of men , and that without beleeving no man can have part , or fellowship in that great and blessed businesse . Christianisme . IN this second part he doth promise foure severall propositions , which hee conceives to bee out of question , and undenyable . By the first proposition hee makes a faire shew in words , but his heart is farre removed , and his meaning is wicked , and so will appeare , if we observe how hee in another place afterwards explaines himselfe . First though hee seemes to acknowledge Christ to bee GOD , yet he takes away the use of his being , GOD as well as man in the worke of our redemption . For if GOD by his supreme sovereigne power can dispense with the law of his iustice , and instead of Christs full satisfaction made for us to the law , and imputed to us , and made ours , can and doth accept our weake Faith for the perfect righteousnesse of the Law ; what use is there of Christs being GOD in our nature ? For all Orthodox Divines doe give this reason , why it was necessary that Christ should be GOD in our nature . viz. That his suffering and righteousnesse performed in our nature , might be of value to iustifie all the sonnes of men , who have communion of them , and to whom they are imputed . This communion and imputation while he denyeth , hee takes away the use of Christs being GOD in our nature . Secondly , in affirming that Christ obeyed the whole Law in every letter , jot , and title , he doth mock , and delude his hearers , and readers ; for he doth not hold , that he fulfilled the Law onely for us , but primarily for himselfe ; his words imply so much , for he saith , he obeyed the Law , as far as concerned himselfe , while he continued in the flesh : and he dorh hereafter roundly affirme , that Christ was bound to fulfill the Law for himselfe , which is in effect , a denying of his eternall God-head : for if he be GOD , infinite in glory , and excellency , his God-head must needes exempt the Manhood personally united to it from all bondage of the Law , and make it worthy of glory at GODS right hand , from the first assumption of it . He continued in the flesh , and obeyed the Law , onely for us without all doubt , as the Prophet foretold , Esa. 9.6 . saying , To us a Child is borne , and to us a Son is given . Thirdly , as he denies the satisfaction of Christ to be imputed to us , so he denies the imputation of our sinnes to Christ ; and that very closely , and cunningly , under colour of that challenge which Christ made to the Iewes , which of you can convince me of sinne ? For our Saviour speakes of sinne committed by himselfe , and such aspersion none can say upon him ; But all our iniquities GOD laid upon him , and he bare all our sinnes , Esa. 53. And was made sinne for us , 2 Cor. 5 , 21. and to cast this aspersion of all our sinnes on him , is a sure foundation of the peace , and safety of the Church . In the second proposition , hee doth most notoriously aequivocate , and play the Hypocrite ; First in that he seemes to acknowledg the sacrifice of Christ to be an attonement , and satisfaction for the world , and a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinne of it . Secondly , in that he denyeth his Lord , and Master Socinus , and calles the Spirit which wrought in him a Spirit of error ; whereas indeed he himselfe is lead by the same Spirit , and doth deny Christ to be the propitiatory sacrifice for our sinnes , as far as Socinus ever did : For in a propitiatory sacrifice , offered to purge sinne , and to make attonement , there were three necessary requisits : First , the thing offered , must be of his owne proper goods , for whom it was offered , so the Law required , and therefore David durst not offer for his sinne , that which was not his owne , Purchased with his money , 2. Sam. 24 , 24. Secondly , the owner , whose expiatory sacrifice it was , did lay his hand upon the head of the Beast which was to be offered , and thereby in a type imposed all his sinne , and guilt upon it , so that it became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his sin , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his guilt , Levit 5 , 6. and Exod. 30.10 . and did beare upon it all his sins , Lev. 16.22 . Thirdly , this sacrifice offered up by the Priest in that manner which GOD praescribed in the Law , GOD accepted as a propitiation for him , it was set on his skore , and covered his sinne , as the Hebrew words signifie , Levit. 1.4 . He who denies any one of these , overthrowes the sacrifice of attonement . Now this dissembler doth with Socinus deny all these things in Christs offering of himselfe a sacrifice of attonement to purge sinne . First he denies the true reall Spirituall union betweene Christ , and the persons pardoned , and justified ; by which Christ , and they are made one body , and hee is their head , and they his members ; For if he , and the faithfull be one , then all his goods are theirs , and their debts are his , and his satisfaction , and righteousnesse is theirs , and is set on their skore , which he denyeth , and altogether opposeth , and so denyes their interest , and propriety in Christ , and their union with him , as his Master Wotton did , in expresse word : In his Essayes of Justification . Secondly , he also denieth that the sinnes of the faithfull , were layd on Christ , and imputed to him ; and in this he chargeth GOD , with notorious injustice , who laid the punishments of all our sinnes on Christ , without the sinnes : For he saith , that Christ bare the punishmēts , though hee had no share in our sinnes by any imputation . Thirdly , he denyeth that the sacrifice of Christs suffering , and obedience offered up by him , is imputed to us , set on our skore , and accepted for us . And thus in the doctrine of Christs sanitisfaction , and attonement , he declares himselfe a true disciple of Socinus , lead by the same spirit of error , and of the same opinion , though in words he denyes it . And what he here seemes to grant , is no more but what all Socinians yeeld unto . In the third proposition , viz. that Christ is the sole , and entire miraculous cause , of every mans justification , &c. Hee doth aequivocate , and delude the simple , and while hee deceives them , hee is deceived himselfe , as the Apostle saith of wicked seducers , 2 Tim. 3 , 13. For if he doth understand his owne words , that Christ is the sole meritorious cause of every mans justification , that is justified by GOD , he must needs grant that Christs satisfaction , made to GODS justice , and his perfect righteousnesse , as it is meritorious , and of great value in it selfe ; so it is appropriated , communicated , & imputed to him ; that is , it is made actually meritorious for him , and makes him worthy to be counted righteous , and to be iustified ; for his words signify so much , though hee is in his purpose and meaning , as contrary , as darknesse is to light : for he meanes no more , but that Christ meritted for himselfe , that GOD should gratifie , and honour him with the justification of those that believe in him , so hee explaines himselfe in the last words . It is certaine that a thing may be merritorious in it selfe , for the worth of it , but it cannot be meritorious to any particular person , till it be appropriated to him ▪ and set on his skore . Wotton his Master , ( this point being proved to his face with undeniable arguments ) was driven to disclaime the word ( merit ) denyed Christs meritting , for the faithfull , and rejected it as a thing not named in Scripture , in his Essayes of Justification . Besides this deceiving of himself● , and misconceiving of his owne words , I find here much absurdity : First , in that he is wavering , and not setled in his Iudgment , for in many places he holds faith to be the righteousnesse of a man justified ; and here he calles absolvtion from sinne , and condemnation , the righteousnesse which is given to every man in his justification : I grant that in a man iustified , there is no righteousnesse inhaerent , but his cleanenesse from guilt of all sinnes , both of commission , and omission , and in this sense , Calvin , Luther , and others say that all the righteousnesse , in a man iustified , is the remission of his sinnes , that is , his cleanenesse from the guilt of them , but this is not the righteousnesse which iustifieth him , and which is communicated to him , to make him cleane , and to worke this cleannesse from the guilt of his sin , that is , the righteousnesse inhaerent in Christ , which makes him cleane , and puts him in a stare of righteousnesse before GOD : but this profound Doctor , with that stamp , and superscription of rationall authority , which hee conceiveth to be set on him , hath not yet searched into the deep things o● GOD. Secondly , he is most absurd in imagining that Christ hath purchased favour , and honour , wit● GOD , that he might iustifie the●… that believe in him by Procuring , that faith in a proper sense should be accepted for righteousnesse : For Christ as he was GOD , & man , was infinitely of himselfe in favour and honour with GOD , and humbled himselfe onely for us ▪ and in our behalfe fulfilled the Law ; not to purchace honour , and favour , to himselfe , nor to make himselfe worthy to be gratified , and honored by GOD , as hee affirmeth . Thus wee see his absurdities , and his deceiving of himselfe . The fourth proposition is , that faith in the judgement of every man , is the condition required by GOD , on mans part , to bring him into that communion of justification , and redemption , which Christ hath purchased &c. In which I finde delusion , and falshood : First hee doth not meane a gift , grace , or Spirituall qualification , appointed by GOD , by which as by the hand of the soule stretched out , wee must lay hold on Christs satisfaction , and righteousnesse ▪ for justification , and redemption , ( though his words pretend so much ) but hee meanes that faith is the condition of the new covenant , which man must on his part performe , in stead of all righteousnesse , which the Law requires ; and so it is in the new covenant , the condition of life ; as workes of the Law , and of righteousnesse , were the condition of the old covenant : This is the very haeresie , and damned error of Socinus . Secondly , he doth here make the covenant of grace , a covenant of life , not freely , but upon a condition ▪ performed on mans part , and so a covenant of workes , contrary to Scripture , Rom. 11.6 . Thirdly , hee erres grossly , in imagining faith not to be a free gift of grace , but a worke performed on mans part , as workes were required in the old covenant . Fourthly , hee falsely chargeth all honest , and godly men , to be of his judgment . I know that all Orthodox Divines , abhorre and detest this opinion . Fiftly , hee affirmes a manifest untruth , in saying , that without beleeving , none can have part in justification , and redemption ; for no regenerate Infants , which die in their Infancy , do actually believe ▪ and yet being by the Spirit of regeneration engraffed into Christ , they have communion of his ransome and righteousnesse , are justified before GOD , and saved . Socinianisme . IT 's evident from the Scriptures , that GOD in the act of every mans justification doth impute , or account righteousnes to him , or rather somewhat for , or in stead of righteousnes , by meanes of which imputed , the person justified passeth in account as a righteous man ( though hee be not properly , or perfectly such ) and is invested accordingly with those great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous , deliverance from death and condemnation , and acceptation into favour with GOD. The reason of which imputation , or why GOD is pleased to use an expression of righteousnesse imputed , in or about the justification of a sinner , seemes to be this , the better to satisfie the naturall scruple of the weake , and feeble conscience of men , who can hardly conceive , or thinke of a justification or of being justified , especially by GOD , without a perfect legall righteousnesse . Now the purpose and counsell of GOD in the Gospell , being to justifie men without any such righteousnesse : the better to salve the feares of the conscience touching such a defect , and to prevent and stay all troublesome thoughts , or quaeres which might arise in the mindes of men , who when they heare of being justified , are still ready to aske within themselves , but where is the righteousnesse ▪ conceiving a legall righteousnes to be as necessary to justification , as Isaac conceived of a Lamb for a burnt offering , Gen. 22. He ( GOD I meane ) is graciously pleased so far to condescend to men in Scripture treatie , with them about the weighty businesse of justification , as in effect to grant and say to them , that though hee findes no proper or perfect righteousnes in them , no such righteousnesse as passeth under the name of righteousnes with them : yet if they truely beleeve in him as Abraham did ; this beleeving shall be as good as a perfect compleat righteousnes unto them , or that hee will impute rihteousnes to them upon their beleeving . Christianisme . THe first thing in this passage , to wit , GOD imputing righteousnesse to every man in his justification , is a thing evident by the Scriptures , and I willingly grant it . But I abhorre and detest as heresie , that which he adds out of his owne conceit , to wit , that GOD doth rather impute somewhat in stead of righteousnes , which cannot make a man properly or perfectly righteous . This is a blasphemous imagination , that GOD can iudge falsly , and account a thing for righteousnes which is not , and esteeme a man righteous who is not properly righteous . Secondly that which immediately followes is no lesse blasphemous , to wit , that a man may be invested by GOD , with the great priviledges of a man perfectly righteous , namely deliv●rance from sinne and condemnation , and acceptation , into favour with GOD , though he be no such man. For hereby GOD is charged either with injustice and iniquitie , or with errour in his judgement . Thirdly his taking upon him to give a reason of GODS purpose , and counsell , is Luciferian pride and presumption . For who knoweth the minde of GOD , or hath beene of his counsell , Rom. 11.34 . Saint Paul who was taken up into the third heaven , could never finde out any such counsell of GOD , neither durst give a reason of GODS purpose and counsell , but onely the good pleasure of his owne will. Fourthly in the declaration of his reason I find many errours , and untruths , as first , that a mans conscience can hardly thinke of being justified by GOD , without a perfect legall righteousnesse . Every regenerate man and true beleever can upon his owne knowledge , and experience give him the lye , and tell him that the weakest conscience of any , who hath true Faith , being taught by the Gospell , can very easily thinke and beleeve , that GOD justifies him by an Evangelicall righteousnesse , even Christs perfect fulfilling of the Law , which is farre more perfect then that legall righteousnesse , which the Law requires of every man in his owne person . This Abraham beleeved , and was fully perswaded of it , this David professes , and Saint Paul preached , and I know no true Christian , who doth not both thinke and beleeve it . If any man be found doubting of this , it is because the spirit of Antichrist and Socinus doth worke strongly in him . Secondly the thing which he imagineth , being so notoriously false there can be no reason given of it , but a reason as false as the thing it self . And indeed so it is here . For first hee assure , most falsely that GODS purpose in the Gospell , is to justifie men without any such righteousnesse , as the Law requires in every man , that is the perfect fulfilling of the Law. For though GOD doth not purpose to iustifie men by their owne fulfilling of the Law , every one in his owne person : yet by Christs righteousnesse and his fulfilling of the Law in their stead , and by communicating and imputing that righteousnesse to them , he purposeth in the Gospell , and professeth that men shall bee and are by him iustified , and this is in Christ such a righteousnes as the Law requires , for proofe of this see Rom. 8.4 . and 10.4 . Secondly the fathers upon GOD his own false and wicked conceits , to wit First , that GOD goeth about to cure an infirmity in his people , which is not to be found in any of them , after they are called to beleeve in Christ , and to be his people ; for then they bid their owne workes of the Law adiew , and do no more dreame of iustification by them . Secondly , that GOD for the cure of their weak consciences tells them in the Gospell , that if they beleeve in Christ , this beleeving shall bee as good as a perfect compleat righteousnesse : by this hee would make GOD a pure Socinian , one who takes the Crowne from Christ , and the righteousnes from GOD and man , and sets it on the head of mans Faith , which in the best beleevers , and even in Abraham himselfe was mingled with much doubting , and many infirmities . In a word , though all Orthodox Divines doe according to the Scriptures , acknowledge that upon a mans beleeving truly in Christ , GOD doth impute to him the perfect , and compleat righteousnes of Christ , which is made his before he can truly apply it by Faith. Yet it can never enter into the heart of a true Christian , but his soule will abhorre to thinke , that any mans beleeving should bee to him as good , as perfect compleat righteousnes , or that GOD should accept it in stead of perfect righteousnesse , and rather then the righteousnes of Christ GOD and man , who is made unto us of GOD righteousnes , 1 Cor. 1.30 . and in whom we are found to have the righteousnes of GOD by faith , Philip. 3.9 . To conclude this passage , let me adde this as a foule absurdity . For if hee speake by experience , that conscience leads men naturally to thinke that there can be no iustification without righteousnesse , which is a perfect fulfilling of the Law. Which I confesse my conscience and my reason tell mee , and GODS word teacheth ▪ mee plainely : Then what is become of his conscience , who contrary to all truth and reason , and the common conscience of all men , will teach iustification , without any true righteousnesse at all either of Christ , or our owne , and will crowne mans weak Faith with the Crown of righteousnesse , which onely belongs to Christ and his perfect obedience . Socinianisme . SO that now the state and drift of the question is , not either First whether Faith without an object or as separated from Christ , bee imputed for righteousnesse ; for such a Faith ( doubtles ) in the point of justification was never dreamt of by any man , that kept his 〈◊〉 company ; men may as well fancy a living man without a soul● , or a wise man without his witts , as a Faith without an object ; much lesse was such a Faith conceived by any man , to bee imputed for righteousnesse . Christianisme . IN the fourth part , or passage , he first propounds five foolish quaeres , which he denieth to concerne the state of the question . Secondly , he propounds a sixt quaere , and that in plaine , and precise termes hee affirmes . I will first particularly answere the 5. quaeres : and after lay downe the ●i●t at large , and addresse my selfe to the confutation of his discourse upon it . And first , whereas he pronounceth him a mad man , who dreames of faith without Christ the object , or thinks that faith which believes not in Christ , should be imputed for righteousnesse : Here I must be bold to put him in mind ; that thus he dreames in the next Chapter , where he boldly affirmes and by divers arguments laboureth , to prove that the Faith of Abraham which was imputed to him for righteousnes , was not a beleeving in Christ , neither was Christ and his righteousnes the object of it . And therefore by his owne confession and his owne wordes ; hee doth there play the mad man , and keepes not his wits company , but his fancy runs wild , while he strives to prove that Abrahams Faith imputed to him for righteousnesse was not a beleeving in Christ. The second Quaere . NEither is it any part of the intent of the question , to enquire , whether Faith bee the meritorious cause of a mans justification . For both they that affirme , and they that deny the imputation of Faith for righteousnes ; deny the meritoriousnes of Faith every way ▪ how ever it is true , that they tha● would seeme most to disclaime it , and cast it further from them , doe yet in some of their most beloved tenets draw very neare unto it ( as will afterwards appeare . ) Answer . HEre behold either grosse ignorance or wilfull lying against knowledge , and conscience . For all the learned know that Faith and beleeving are held by the Church of Rome , to be a principall part of mans righteousnesse , and workes which GOD imputes and accounts meritorious , of justification , and of eternall life ex condigno . Yea he himselfe in the passage next before hath plainely affirmed , that Faith to him that beleeveth as Abraham did , is as good as perfect and compleat righteousnes ; which if it be true , then Faith must needs be , ( as perfect and compleat righteousnesse is ) the meritorious cause of justification . And therefore that which he here saith is verified in himselfe , though he would seeme most to disclaime the merit of Faith , and to cast it furthest from him , yet in some of his most beloved tenets , hee drawes very neare to it , yea hee embraceth it with his heart in his whole discourse , the maine drift whereof is to exalt Faith into the place of Christs most meritorious righteousnesse , and to put the Crowne upon it . For what can be imagined more meritorious of justification , then that which GOD in a proper sense judgeth and counteth for righteousnes , and for which he doth justifie men , and counts them righteous . The third Quaere . NEither is it the question , whether faith be the formall cause of justification , that is , whether GOD doth justifie a man with his faith , as a Painter makes a wall white with whitenes , or as a Master makes his Scholler learned with knowledge , or learning conveyed into him ; for both parties make the forme of justification to be somewhat really different from Faith ( which is the genuine tenet of Arminius ▪ ) Answer . THis quere is very ridiculous , for to imagine a quality or act in man , to be the formall cause of justification which is GODS act , is the fancy of a distempered braine , and the conceit of a mad man. His exposition of his quaere shews his want of Logicall skill . For the whitenesse wherewith the Painter makes a wall white , is a forme introduced into the wall , it is not the formall cause of his action of painting ; and so learning produced in a scholler , is forma docti , the forme of a Scholler as hee is made learned , not the formall cause , of his masters teaching , surely his expounding of his quaere , by such dissonant similitudes , sheweth that hee had need of a Master to teach him some better knowledg , and learning , and to set on him some better stamp , and superscription , of rationall authority . His phrase ( of learning conveyed ) is somewhat improper , for learning is not conveyed , into a Scholer , but produced , and begotten , in him . Let him not therefore condemne tropes of speech , seeing he himselfe can , and doth often speak tropically , and improperly . But to come home to his quaere . If by justification hee meanes imputative justification , in which GOD justifies a man , by imputing righteousnesse to him ; and man is justified by believing that GOD counts him righteous in Christ ; then wee deny not that faith in some respect , is the formall cause of justification : For in this justification taken passively , as it is mans receiving by faith , that which GOD imputes to him ; that is , as it is a mans believing , that God reckons him among the righteous , and counts him to be in the state of a justified person ; so his actuall faith , and believing , is the forme of his justification : But take Justification , according to his owne opinion , for GODS imputeing faith in a proper sense , for righteousnesse ; Then is faith that somewhat , by which a man stands in the state of a person Justified before GOD , even his formall righteousnesse , or that at least , which is in stead of formall righteousnes . Thus he is every way taken , and entangled in his owne words . Lastly , what that is , which hee saith is the genuine tenet of Arminius ; hee doth not expresse whether it be , that faith is really different , or not different , from the forme of Justification ; for his words are included in a parenthesis , which might very well be left out : onely this I know , that Arminius professeth this to be his genuine tenet ; That faith is imputed to the beleever , for righteousnes . sensu proprio , non m●tonymico , in a proper sense , without a trope , In Epist. ad Hippolitum de Collibus , If elsewhere hee alters his tenet , and writes otherwise ; It is but the common disease , the vertigo , and giddinesse of the Socinian faction , to doe as here their fellow disciple doth in this his hovering , and wavering discourse ; that is , to say , and gainesay , affirme , and deny , the same things , through the inconstancy of their windy braines , and mindes unsetled . The 4 Quaere . NOr yet doth the question make any quaere at all , whether Christ be the sole meritorious cause of justification of a sinner , for both they that goe on the right hand of the question , and they that goe on the left hand , are knit together in the same mind , and iudgment concerning this . Answere . WHosoever denyeth such a Spirituall union , & communion between Christ , and the penitent , and believing sinner iustified , as doth make Christs righteousnesse , and satisfaction to become his ransome , and righteousnesse , and to be imputed by GOD to him , and to make him accepted by GOD , as one cleane from the guilt of sinne , and righteous in his sight , This man denyeth Christ to be the meritorious cause , of the Justification of a sinner : For till Christ with his satisfaction , be communicated , and appropriated to the faithfull , yea , till his righteousnes be so made theirs , and set on their skore , that they have a right , and interest in it : Christ is no more meritorious of Justification to them , then hee is to Infidels , and reprobates : for it is as impossible for Christ to be actually meritorious of Justification to any man who hath not an interest in him , as for one mans money to ransom another , who is a captive , upon whose skore it was never set , no● so much interest therein given to him , that it is paid for him and accounted for his ransome . 5 Quaere . NEither doth the question as it is here propounded , int●nd any dispute at all , whether the active obedience of Christ , falling in with the passive , and considered in coniunction with it , be that whereby Christ merited the Justification of sinners , or that which GOD hath a principall respect , and recourse unto , in the Justification of sinners , for this also is acknowledged on both sides ( at least by the greater partie of both ) Answere . BVt while he denyes GODS communicating , and imputeing Christs whole obedience ▪ hee denies the merit of them in our Justification ; and when hee affirmes , that faith , and not Christs righteousnesse , is the thing imputed for righteousnesse , to iustification , he denies Christs obedience active , and passive , to be that which GOD hath a principall respect , and recourse unto in the iustification of sinners , and therefore here he contradicts himselfe , and saith untruely ▪ that all sides hold the merit of Christs whole obedience , when in his Doctrine he utterly overthrowes it . The 6 Quaere , which he alloweth , and affirmeth . BUt lastly the question in plaine tearmes is this , whether the faith of him that truly beleeves in Christ , or whether the righteousnesse of Christ himselfe , that is that obedience that Christ performed to the morall Law ( consisting of all those severall and particular acts of righteousnesse , wherein he obeyed in the letter and propriety of it ) bee that which GOD imputes to a beleever , for righteousnesse in his justification , so that he that beleeves is not righteous onely by account , or by GODS gracious reputing and accepting of him for such : but is rigidly , literally , and peremptorily righteous , constituted and made as perfectly and compleatly , and legally righteous as Christ himselfe , no difference at all betweene them , quoad veritatem , but onely quoad modum , the justified every whit as righteous as the iustifier , both righteous with the selfesame individuall righteousnes , onely this difference betweene one and the other ; the iustified weares i● as put upon him by another by imputation ; the iustifier weares it as put upon him by himselfe , or by inherency . That the Scriptures no where countenance any such imputation of the righteousnes of Christ , I trust ( the spirit of truth directing and assisting ) to make manifest in the sequele of this discourse , and to give good measure of truth to the Reader , heaped up by testimonies from the Scripture , pressed downe by the weight of many arguments , & demonstrations running over , with the cleare approbation of many Authors learned and sound , and every way greater then exception . Multa fidem promissa levant . Answere . TO this question laid downe in plaine , and precise termes , I answer . First that to move this question , except with purpose to discover and oppose Socinus , and his followers who affirme it , and stand for imputation of faith in a proper sense ; for righteousnes is not to be tolerated among true Christians : but to dispute for that damned errour , which takes the Crowne from the all-sufficient righteousnes of Christ , and sets on the head of mans weake faith , is most hereticall impudency ( as in my whole answere I shall prove aboundantly . Secondly his absurd expounding of Justification by Christs righteousnes imputed ; and how in this question the righteousnes of Christ , and the iustifying of men by it , are to be understood ; is a notable point either of calumny in slandering our doctrine , and reporting it corruptly , or of subtilty , that when his opinion is proved to be blasphemous , hee may have some starting holes , through which hee may shift away , and make an escape , pleading that hee mistooke our Doctrine of being righteous by Christs righteousnesse imputed , and ignorantly did oppose it . First no man standing for the imputation of Christs righteousnes , doth affirme that every particular act of Christ which hee performed , was necessary to make up a perfect and sufficient righteousnes : but that his righteousnesse containes in it all his acts of obedience , none denyeth . For suppose our Saviour by reason of imprisonment , or some other restraint and impediment , had beene hindered from doing divers of those workes of mercy , charity and piety , which hee did performe being at liberty , this had not diminished his righteousnes , so long as he had a ready will to doe good upon all occasions , and did good workes when liberty and opportunity served . Secondly none of our Divines doe thinke or write , that Christs righteousnes imputed , and communicated to beleevers , doth make them rigidly , literally , and peremptorily righteous , constituted and made us perfectly compleatly and legally righteous , as Christ himselfe , for though they are iustifi●d by the Communion of Christs satisfaction , and have so much interest in it , as to make them truely righteous , yet they have it not as Christ hath it performed legally by himselfe in his owne person ; neither have they power to give the Spirit , whereby they may communicate it to others to justifie them , & to make them righteous . The Wife is endowed with her Husbands honours and riches , and made honourable and rich , but she is not endowed with her Husbands Lordship and dominion over them , so far that she may give them away at her pleasure : but onely posseseth them in him and with him , for her owne use . And so it is betweene Christ and the faithfull , he is righteous rigidly and legally , according to the letter of the Law ; They are righteous Evangelically by the Communion of his righteousnes , that is , originally righteous , as the head in a naturall body is sensitive , and hath sense and motion in it as the root and fountaine : They are righteous by Communion from him , and possesse his righteousnes as all the rest of the members , in a living body possesse life by derivation from the heart , not in the same degree as the heart doth , to communicate it to others ; but every one so far as to be a living member . Therefore all that hee here saith is but subtilty , calumny , and falsehood , neither Scriptures nor any sound and learned Authors will minister arguments , or demonstrations to him to prove any thing contrary to our Doctrine , concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnes for iustification . The more he strives to wrest and abuse testimonies of Scripture , and learned Authors , the more evident demonstrations will he give of his wickednesse , and wilfull contending against GODS sacred truth . Socinianisme . GIve me leave here to mention that by the way , which prevents many mistakes ( yea and offences too ) in reading the writings of many later Divines ( especially of other Churches ) touching this point of Justification . If we take the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnes unproperly , and out of the usuall and formall signification of it ( as Luther and Calvin , and other Divines of the reformed Churches sometimes doe in their writings ) viz For the giving out and bestowing ( as it were ) the righteousnes of Christ in the returne of it , that is , in the priviledges , blessings and benefits , that are procured and purchased by it for men : So a beleever may be said to be justified by the righteousnes of Christ imputed . But then the meaning can be no more but this . A beleever is justified by the imputation of Christs righteousnes . That is , GOD justifies a beleever for Christs righteousnes sake , and not for any righteousnes of his owne . Such an imputation of the righteousnes of Christ as this is , is no wayes denyed or once questioned . And thus such passages as those in Calvin , GOD freely justifies us by imputing the obedience of Christ unto us , Instit. 1. c. 3.11 , and againe a man is not righteous in himselfe , but because the righteousnes of Christ is communicated , or imparted to him by imputation , these and such like expressions in this Author , are to be interpreted by such passages as these ( which are frequent in the same Author ) Christ by his obedience , procured and merited for us , grace and favour with GOD the Father , and againe Instit. 1.2.17 . and againe , 1.3 . c. 11.12 . Christ by his obedience procured , or purchased righteousnes for us . And againe , in Gal. 3.6 . All such expressions as these import the same thing , that wee are justified by the grace of GOD , that Christ is our righteousnesse ; and that righteousnes was procured for us by the death , and resurrection of Christ. By all which passages and many more of like importment , that might be produced out of the same Author , it s fully evident , that where he mentions any imputation of the righteousnes of Christs in justification , the meaning is onely this , that the righteousnes of Christ is onely the meritorious cause of our justification , and hee hath procured and purchased this for us at GODS hand ; that upon our beleeving we should bee accounted righteous by him ; or ( which is but the same ) that our faith should be imputed for righteousnes to us . To which purpose hee speakes more significantly , and expressely in the place last mentioned , Gal. 3.6 . men not having righteousnes lodged in them , they obtaine it by imputation , which imputation he thus explicates and interprets . Because GOD doth impute or account their faith unto them , for righteousnes . Divers like passages might be drawne together out of other Authors , which must be seasoned with the same salt of interpretation , to bee made savorie and meet for spirituall nourishment . In the Homilies of our Church , there are severall passages that mention the imputation of Christs righteousnes in justification , for the genuine sense whereof if wee consult with the 11. article of Religion ( which is concerning justification ) and is framed with all possible exactnes this way ( that so few words are capable of ) that will lead us directly to the same interpretation of them . Wee are accounted righteous before GOD , ( saith our Article ) onely for the merit of our LORD , and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith , and not for our owne workes or deservings . Where it s to be observed , that we are not said to bee constituted , or made righteous before GOD in justification , but onely that we are accounted or reputed such . 2. It s not said that wee are accounted righteous with the righteousnes , nor yet with the merit of Christ , but onely wee are accounted righteous before GOD , onely for the merit of our LORD Christ by faith . The merit of Christ or of his righteousnes , hath so farre prevailed with GOD on our behalfe , that by our faith we shall bee accounted righteous before him ; which is in effect the same truth wee maintaine . viz. that GOD for Christs sake , or for Christs merits sake doth impute our faith for righteousnes unto us . And thus Musculus expresseth himselfe roundly . Faith is accounted for righteousnes for Christs sake ; And againe Loc. com . de justifica . This faith ought to be esteemed of us , as that which GOD purposeth for Christs sake , to impute for righteousnes to those that beleeve in him . So Luther also ad Gal. 3.6 . GOD for Christs sake accounts this imperfect faith for perfect righteousnes . And Chamier calls remission of sinnes , the righteousnes which is imputed to us . Therefore wheresoever , whether in the Homilies of our Church ▪ or in other Authors we meet with any such expressions of the righteousnes of Christ imputed in justification ; wee must not understand this righteousnesse of Christ in the letter , propriety , and formality of it , but in the Spirit , or merit of it to be imputed . And this manner of speech to put the name of a thing in the propriety of it , instead of the value , worth , benefit , and returne of it , is both usuall , and familiar in ordinary passage , of discourse amongst us , and very frequent in the Scriptures ; when we say , a Merchant grew rich by such , or such a commodity , our meaning is , that hee grew rich by the gaine , or returne of it , hee may be made rich by the commodity , and yet have never a whit of it with him ; so when we say , such a man grew rich by his place or office , our meaning is , that he grew rich by such gaine , or profit , as his office afforded him ; we do not meane that the place it selfe , or office , were his riches ; so it may be said , that wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ , and yet not have the righteousnesse it selfe upon us by imputation , or otherwise , but onely a righteousnesse procured , and purchased by it , really , and essentially , differing from it , viz. remission of sinnes , as will appeare in due time : Thus in the Scriptures themselves there is no figure , or forme of speech more frequent , then to name the thing it selfe in the propriety of it in the stead of the fruite of it , good or bad , benefit , or losse , vantage or disadvantage , merit , or demerit of it . Thus Iob 33.26 . GOD is said to render unto man his righteousnesse , the fruit and benefit of his righteousnesse in the favour of GOD , and manifestation of it in his deliverance , and restauration ; the righteousnesse it selfe in the propriety of it , cannot bee rendered unto him : So Ephes. 6.8 . Whatsoever good thing , any man doth , the same hee shall receive of the LORD : hee shall receive benefit , and consideration from GOD for it ▪ so Reve. 14.12 . and 13.10 . here is the patience and faith of the Saints , that is , the benefit , and unspeakable reward of the faith , and patience of the Saints to bee seene ; when the Beast , and all that worship him shall bee tormented in fire , and brimstone for evermore , and those that have constantly suffered for not worshiping him , shall be delivered from drinking of that bitter cup : so Psal. 128.2 . Thou shalt eate the labour of thy hands , that is , the fruite of thy labour . So on the other hand Heb. 9.28 . To those that looke for him , hee shall appeare the second time without sin ; without the guilt or punishment of sinne charged upon him . Gen. 19.15 . Least thou be destroyed in the iniquitie of the citie : that is , in that judgement which fell upon them by meanes of their iniquity : In such a construction of speech , as the holy Ghost himselfe useth in these , and such passages in Scripture , the righteousnesse of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes by which we are justified , or which is imputed unto us in justification . Christianisme . THis fifth part , or passage , is nothing else , but first the propounding of a new , and strange imputation of Christs righteousnesse contrary to sense and reasō , & to the common signification of the phrase of imputing righteousnesse , or counting a thing for righteousnesse . Secondly , a wresting , and abusing , of some speeches of Scripture , and learned writers , that hee may father on them , an opinion , which they abhorred , and in expresse words , disclaimed , and confuted . First , hee saith , that the phrase of imputing Christs righteousnesse , is by Luther , Calvin , and other Divines , taken unproperly , and out of the usuall , and formall signification , for the giving , and bestowing of the returne , that is , the priviledges , blessings , and benefits , which are purchased by Christs righteousnesse , for men ; and the meaning can be no more but this ; that GOD justifies a believer , for Christs righteousnesse sake , and not for any righteousnes of his owne . To this I answere , First , that this signification of the phrase , is so unproper , unusual , & deformed , that it is never found in all the Scriptures , nor any approved Author ( as hereafter I shall make manifest ) onely Socinus , & they of his faction are coiners , and forgers , of such strange barbarismes . Secondly , it is so contrary to common sense , and reason , that if any man should say , the Sun , the ayre , or other Elements are imputed to us by GOD , because GOD hath given us the benefit of them ; every man would laugh at such a barbarisme , even the most simple would discerne it to be ridiculous . If Master Goodwin , or any of his disciples , comeing into some country house for shelter from some cruel tempest , which overtooke him as hee travelled on his journy , should for the benefit which hee received under the mans roofe , presently chaleng , that the house is imputed to him , and is to be counted his , and set on his skore , it is a thousand to one , that the owner of the house , would take him for a mad man , and put a fooles feather in his cap , or cast him out of the doores , by the head and shoulders , for a sawcy companion : hee had not best therefore use such speeches , nor write such phrases with his pen , for if they once proceed out of his mouth , and come to other mens eares , hee will thereby purchase to himselfe much scorne and derision . But let us proceed to examine the instances , by which hee goeth about to proue this strange signification , of the word imputing righteousnesse , wherein righteousnesse is put for the fruit of it by a metonymie of the cause for the effect ; imputing is put for bestowing by a new Socinian trope , and GODS bestowing , for mans receiving , by a monstrous metonymie , of one opposit for another : I wonder here by the way , how this man ( who disclaimes in the next Chapter , the Apostles using of tropes and figures in the waighty Doctrine of justification , and calles it a monster of speech to use two tropes in one phrase ) dares here make in this one phrase , so many tropes , and monstrous figures . The first instance , which hee brings to prove that Calvin did use the phrase in this signification is this ; GOD freely justifies us , by imputing Christs obedience to us : and againe , a man is not righteous in himselfe ; but because the righteousnesse of Christ is communicated , and imparted to him by imputation . I might here blame his false quotations , to wit , Instit. 1. c 3.1.11 . and 1.2.17 . and 1.3.14.17 . In which places no such wordes are to be found ; but I willingly embrace these words as Calvins , for they are most cleare , and manifest to prove that GOD not onely give us the returne or benefits of Christs righteousnesse , but also doth by imputation communicate , and impart to us the righteousnesse it selfe : so that if this man had studied all his dayes , to contradict his owne opinion , and to confute his forged signification , hee could not have found more ful , plaine , and p●rspicuous words then these of Calvin ; for if a man bee not righteous in himselfe , then is hee not righteous by faith in a proper sense , for his faith in a proper sense , is in himselfe . But let us not bee too hastie to insult over his folly ; it may bee his impudency will catch at some other words of Calvin , which do not so expressely contradict him , but are more obscure , and them hee will wrest , and abuse to expound Calvins plaine words in a contradictory sense . It is even so indeed , for hee cites in the next place , some more generall and obscure speeches of Calvin , to expound his plaine words , and to make them contradictory to themselves . I have heard absurd fellowes derided for going about to shew obscurum perobscurius , that is , to make men see dark things through greater darknesse , and for running ( as the proverb is ) out of GODS blessing , into the warme sun : But that any should goe about , to make others see the sun , when it shineth in full strength , by the dimme light of a candle , and to perswade them that the sun is the moone ; this is madnes , & deserves that the Lunatike , & Melancholike person so doing should be sent to the Iland of Hellebore , there to inhabit till hee recover his wits . And doth not he so who seekes to make Calvins plaine words , to contradict themselves by citing words , wherein he speakes neither so plainely , nor so fully as in them . But let us see those other speeches of Calvin , which hee brings for this purpose : one is , that Christ by his obedience hath merited , and procured for us favour with GOD his Father . These words doe not prove that the imputing of Christs obedience , and righteousnesse signifies the bestowing of the benefit of it on us , that is GODS favour : but shew clearely the contrary to that which he intends , namely that Christs obedience is made ours , and imputed to us , because it procures to us the favour of GOD , which we cannot enjoy , nor appeare gracious in his sight , unlesse wee bee cloathed , with Christs rich robe of righteousnes , and washed cleane from the guilt of sinne , by his satisfaction imputed to us . Another is , Christ by his obedience hath purchased righteousnes for us ; the true and plaine sense of which wordes , is no more but this , that Christ by his obedience hath fulfilled the Law of GOD for us , and we by that obedience are constituted & made righteous , as the Apostle expressely affirmes , Rom. 5.19 . Another is that , when we are said to be justified by the grace of GOD , and that righteousnes was procured by the death , and resurrection of Christ : these expressions import the same thing with those , that Christ is our righteousnes , that is by union with him and communion of his righteousnes , which he purchased by his death and resurrection , and which GOD graciously gives to us , wee are justified . Another is , men having not any righteousnes in themselves , they obtaine it by imputation , that is , neither a mans owne workes , nor faith taken in a proper sense , for a gift grace or worke in him , can be his righteousnes , but onely that which is obtained by imputation , to wit , Christs righteousnes apprehended by faith , which when true beleevers have laid hold on , then GOD doth account them righteous , and in this improper sense GOD is said to impute faith for righteousnes . Thus every speech of Calvin which he brings against Calvin himselfe , is like a stone cast against a brasen wall , and rebounds against the caster , and dasheth out the braines of his hereticall opinion . And therefore it was his safest course , onely to tell us of more such passages , but not to recite any more out of Calvin , or other Authors . For being seasoned with the salt of their owne interpretation , they will prove gravell in his mouth , choake him , ( and if it be possible ) put him to shame and silence . From Calvin hee comes home to the Homilies allowed in our Church , and they by his owne confession teach , that we are justified by the imputation of Christs righteousnes . But to prove that by the righteousnes of Christ , they meane faith taken in a proper sense , that is , as it is the gift of faith in us , and the operation of it in us , even our beleeving : hee brings the words of the 11. Article of Religion allowed in our Church by Law. viz. we are ac , counted righteous before GOD onely for the merit of our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith , not for our owne workes or deserts ; where note , that whereas the Articles send us to the Homilies , as being very profitable , & plaine expositions of them ; hee on the contrary sets the cart before the horses to draw them after it . Hee brings the text to expound the commentary or plaine exposition of it . But hee gets no advantage by doing so , for the words of the Article are very exact indeed , and make much for us against his opinion , they shew that the merit of Christ apprehended by faith , is that for which wee are accounted righteous before GOD , and that faith is not our righteousnes , for then wee should bee accounted righteous for a grace in our selves , and for a worke of our owne , performed by us , even our owne beleeving . Oh but the Article doth not say that wee are constituted , and made , but onely accounted righteous : True indeed , the Article doth not speak of fundamentall justification mentioned , Rom. 5.19 . but of imputative justification , of which the Apostle speakes , Rom. 4 , 3. which necessarily presupposeth the other : For GOD whose judgement is according to truth , cannot judge , and count us righteous , till hee hath communicated Christs righteousnesse to us , and by it , constituted , and made us righteous ; which when we by faith , receive , and apply by the assistance of his Spirit , which dwells in us , and makes us one Spirituall , and mysticall body , with Christ ; then GOD accounts us righteous , and by our faith , and believing , we obtene , as Abraham did , this testimony from GOD , that we are righteous , as Iustine Martyr saith in the words cited in the next Chapter . From the Article , and Homilies , hee proceedes to Musculus , Luther , and Chamier , who , though in their Doctrine they are opposit to his opinion , as heaven is to earth , yet hee snatcheth here , and there , some improper speeches out of their writings , which hee wresteth to his purpose ; though they doe most plainely expound their owne meaneing to bee contrary to his mind . The words of Musculus are these , Faith is accounted , for righteousnesse for Christs sake : That is , faith is accounted for righteousnesse , and the true believer is counted a righteous man : not sensu proprio , nec per se , sed propter Christum . That is , by reason of Christ , and his righteousnesse , whom the believer apprehendeth , and by faith possesseth his righteousnesse ; and againe , this faith ought to be esteemed of us , as that which GOD purposeth for Christs sake to impute for righteousnesse , to those that believe in him , in which words Musculus folowing the phrase of the Apostle , intends no more but this , that wee are not to seeke righteousnes by our owne workes , but by faith in Christ for if wee can obtaine grace to believe in him , and to lay hold on his righteousnesse ; wee are for Christ and his righteousnesse sake , upon our believing counted righteous before GOD , because by our communion which wee have with Christ by the Spirit dwelling in us , and enabling us to believe , The righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in us imputatively , by the righteousnesse of another , even of Christ , which is also ours , for we are flesh of his flesh , that is ▪ one with him ; these are Musculus his owne words , in which , hee roundly expresseth himselfe in Rom. 8.4 . and 10.3.4 ▪ Luthers words , at which hee catcheth in vaine , are to the same purpose , in Gal. 3.6 . GOD for Christs sake , accounts this imperfect faith , for perfect righteousnesse . Here Luther doth not charge GOD with error , or iniquity in judgement , by judgeing , and accounting , that for perfect righteousnesse , which is imperfect ; for his speech is tropicall imitating the phrase of the Apostle ; by imperfect faith hee meanes a true believer , by a weak faith , laying , hold on Christs righteousnesse , and by perfect righteousnesse a man set in a state of perfect righteousnesse by communion with Christ ; and this is the sense of the words , that if a true believer doth lay hold on Christ by faith , which in the best of us , is but weake , and imperfect ; yet GOD accounts him perfectly righteous , with the righteousnesse of Christ , which is most perfect , and compleat . Thus Luther expounds himselfe , 1 Tom. pag 32. Editionis Ienensis : Christ ( saith hee ) is in us by faith , yea , one with us , but Christ is righteousnesse , and a fulfiller of all GODS commaundements , therefore wee also doe by him fulfill all GODS commandements , when hee is by faith made ours : And 2 Tom. pag. 515. Faith puts us upon Christs workes of righteousnesse , without our owne workes , and translates us out of the exile of our sinnes into the Kingdome of his righteousnes ▪ And Tom. 1. pag 106. By faith , our sinnes are made no more our owne , but Christs , upon whom GOD hath laid the iniquities of us all ? and againe , all Christs righteousnesse is made ours , for he layeth his hand on us : If a man had the tongue of men and Angels , hee could not speake more fully for the communion , and imputation of Christs righteousnes to believers , for justification , and of their sinnes to Christ for remission : then Luther doth in these , and divers other places , as I shall more fully shew in the second Chapter . As for Chamiers words , who calles remission of sinnes , the righteousnesse which is imputed to us ; they shew that faith is not that imputed righteousnesse , for faith , or believing , is our act ; remission is GODS act ▪ who can forgive sinnes but ▪ GOD ▪ But indeed ▪ the meaning of Chamier is the same with Calvin , to wit ▪ that our cleannesse from the guilt of sinne , which is Passive , remission , or justification , is that which GOD lookes upon in us , when hee counts us righteous in Christ , as I have before shewed : wherefore I conclude with the contradictory of his conclusion ( which hee inferres upon the speeches of our Homilies , and of other learned Authors ) to weet thus ; That wheresoever we find in the Scriptures , or any Authors of sound learning ; this phrase of faith , or believing , imputed for righteousnesse , we must not understand faith in a proper sense , but the righteousnesse of Christ , even his fulfilling of the Law for us , which together with the power , and merit of it , so far as every believer hath need , is communicated to him , and imputed to him for justification : For as a Merchant cannot be , said to be enriched by the gaine of a commodity , which never was his owne , and in which hee never had any interest , or propriety , nor any man by an office which was never his owne , nor by him executed : So none can have the merit , and benefit of Christs righteousnesse , nor be said to bee thereby justified , neither can any such thing be imputed to them , except they have a propriety in it , and communion of it . Thus his instances , and similitudes , are turned against himselfe , to the confusion of his haereticall opinion . But that his sinne may appeare out of measure sinfull , hee doth not content himselfe , with his abusing , wresting , and perverting of the godly sayings of other Authors , and using similitudes which are most contrary to his purpose ; but hee also layeth profane hands , on the holy Scriptures . That excellent saying , Iob 33 , 26. which Master Perkins learnedly expounds to be meant of Christs righteousnesse , which when men humbly seeke to GOD , by repentance , and faithfull prayers , GOD renders unto them by renuing their sense and assurance of their communion with Christ in his whole satisfaction . This Doctor novice most Popishly applyes to a mans owne righteousnesse , and saith , that GODS rendring to a man his righteousnesse is giving him the benefit of it , not the righteousnesse it selfe : And yet if wee should grant what hee perversely seekes , it will availe him nothing ; for as the fruite , and benefit , which GOD renders to a man , is not the fruit of a righteousnesse , in which he hath no propriety , or interest , but is his righteousnesse , so the fruite , and benefit , which we receive of Christs righteousnesse , GOD renders to us when that righteousnesse is become ours in the propriety of it : That place Ephes. 6.8 . whatsoever good a man doth the same hee shall receive of the LORD : it is for us , and against himselfe , for as the good which a man receives from GOD for well doing , is the good fruite of his owne well doing , so is the fruite , and benefit which wee receive in our justification ▪ the fruite of Christs righteousnes made ours , and imputed to us : Those speeches Revel . 13.10 . and 15.10 . here is the faith and patience of the Saints , &c. are not to be understood of the fruite , and reward of their patience ( as the circumstances shew , which are killing , and slaying , and leading into captivitie ) but of the patience , and faith themselves , that in such times they are seene , tride , and proved , and GOD at such times gives them patience , and faith , by threatning , and foretelling the finall destruction of their enemies ; as learned Brightman truely expounds the wordes . Besides if patience and faith were here used to signifie the fruit , and benefit of patience and faith : yet he cannot say it is the fruit of any patience , or faith , but of the Saints themselves who receive the benefit . Likewise if wee grant , that in the other places Psal. 128.2 . Labour signifies the fruit of labour , and Heb. 9.28 . Sin signifies the punishment of sinne , and Gen. 19.15 . iniquitie signifies the judgement of GOD on Sodom for iniquitie , by a trope or Metonymie of the cause for the effect . This proves that faith which is the hand , or instrument of the soule , receiving Christ with his righteousnes , may by the same trope be used to signifie that state of righteousnes , which we receive by it as by an hand or instrument . Thus while he runs against the invincible rocke of the holy Scriptures , and seekes to turne them like a rowling stone against a barke , they rowle and rebound back , and tumbling upon him grind him to powder· For if hee had ten thousand instances of Scripture , wherein the fruite and benefit which men receive , are signified by the names of the things which are the causes , and meanes of them ▪ yet still it will appeare that the fruite is not received except men have first an interest , and propriety in the causes and meanes of it . And thus you see his fift part , or passage proved to bee a rotten heap of stinking lyes , absurdities and grosse errors . Socinianisme . WHerefore to draw towards the close of this first Chapter , and withall to give a little more light , that it may bee seene to the bottome cleerely , both what wee affirme , and what we deny in the question propounded : First when we affirme the faith of him that beleeveth to be imputed for righteousnes ; The meaning is not either , 1o. That it should be imputed in respect of any thing it hath from a man himselfe , or as it is a mans owne act , nor yet in respect of any thing it hath from GOD himselfe , or from the spirit of GOD producing , & raising of it in the soule ( though it be true , it requires the lighting downe of the mighty arme of GOD , upon the soule to raise it . Neither 3 o is it imputed for righteousnes in respect of the object , or as , or because it layeth hold upon Christ , or his righteousnes ( though it be also true that that faith that is imputed for righteousnes must of necessity lay hold upon Christ ; and no other faith is cable of this imputation besides ) because if faith should justifie or be imputed as it layes hold upon Christ , it should justifie out of the inhaerent dignity & worth of it and by vertue of that which is naturall and intrinsecall to it , there being nothing that can be conceived more naturall , and essentiall to faith , then to lay hold upon Christ : this is the very life , and soul of it , and that which gives it its specificall being , and subsistence . Therefore to make the object of faith , ( as such ) the precise , and formall ground of its imputation , is to make hast into the midst of Samaria , whilest men are confident , they are travailing towards Dotha● . It s the giving of the right hand of felowship , to the Romish justification , which makes faith the meritorious cause of it ( in part . ) But lastly , when with the Scriptures we affirme that faith is imputed for righteousnesse : our meaning is simply , and plainely this , that as GOD in the first covenant of workes required an absolute , and through obedience to the whole Law , with continuance in all things , for every mans justification , which perfect obedience had it beene performed had beene a perfect righteousnesse to the performer , and so would have justified him : So now in the new covenant of grace , GOD requires nothing of any man for his justification , but onely faith in his Sonne , which faith , shal be as availeable , & effectuall to him for his justification , as a perfect righteousnes should have beene under the first covenant : this is that which is meant when faith is said to bee imputed for righteousnes , which is nothing but that which is taught generally by Divines , both ancient and moderne . Sic decretum dicit a Deo , ut cessante lege solam fidem gratia Dei posceret ad salutem . Ambrosius . In Rom. 4. that is , that the Apostle saying , that to him that beleeveth his faith is imputed for righteousnes , affirmeth that GOD hath decreed that the Law ceasing , the grace of GOD will require of men onely faith for salvation : and again upon Chap. 9. of the same Epistle , Sola fides posita est ad salutem , onely Faith is appointed to salvation . Calvin writing upon Rom. 10.8 . hath wordes of the same importance , and somewhat more cleare , and full , ex hac distinctionis nota colligimus , sicut lex opera exigit , Evangelium nihil aliud postulas , nisi ut fidem afferrent homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam : that is , from this distinction we gather , that as the Law exacted workes ; so the Gospell requires nothing else , but that men bring faith to receive the grace of GOD. If GOD requires faith in the Gospell , for that same end for which he requireth workes , or perfect righteousnes in the law ; it necessarily followes that he shall impute this faith for that righteousnes , that is accept from men upon the same termes , and bee countable unto them the same favours , rewards , and priviledges upon it , that should have beene given unto men , in regard of that righteousnes , had it beene performed or fulfilled : otherwise he should require it for such an end , or upon such tearmes as hee would refuse to make good unto it , when the creature hath exhibited and tendered it unto him . To require it for righteousnes , or in stead of righteousnes , and not to accept it for righteousnesse , when it is brought to him , should bee as apparant a breach of Covenant with GOD , as it would be in a rich creditour , that should compound and agree with his poore debtors for 1. in the pound , or the like , but when they brought the mony to him , should refuse to take it upon any such tearmes , or to discharge them of their debt , and give them out their bonds . Christianisme . IN this last part or passage which is a meere confusion , and distraction of wordes , hee gives more then a little light , that his Socinian heresie in this point of justification maintained with much non sense , may bee seene to the bottome cleerely . First , hee takes upon him to shew that faith is imputed , and how it is imputed . Secondly hee strives to shew that Christs righteousnes is not imputed . The first is in the wordes before recited . The second followes hereafter . First I will sift his wordes already rehearsed , And after proceed to the second . The summe of his speech last recited , may be reduced into a Syllogisme of non sense , without forme mood or figure . The proposition and assumption whereof are contradictory . And the conclusion damned Socinian heresie , so that here I may say with the Poet. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici ? His proposition runnes thus . Faith is neither imputed for righteousnes , in respect of any thing which it receives from man , the proper subject of it , nor as it is mans act who useth it , and performes the acts of beleeving , nor in respect of any thing which it hath from GOD , or his spirit in the production of it , nor in respect of the object Christ and his righteousnes , nor in respect of the life and soule of it , which gives to it the specificall being , and subsistence , to wit , the application of Christ , and laying hold on him . The Assumption . BVt faith is imputed to men , and is counted , and accepted as sufficiently for justification , and upon the same tearmes under the Gospell , as perfect righteousnes of workes and of obedience to the whole Law , was in the first covenant and under the Law : So all Divines hold both ancient and moderne . The Conclusion . THerefore upon mens beleeving , GOD shall bee as countable to them , to give them the same favour , rewards and privileges , that should have beene given unto them in regard of the perfect righteousnesse of workes , and of the Law , if they had fulfilled it . First for his negatives heaped up in the proposition , wherein wee have a narration of what he holds not : if we lay them altogether , they will conclude , that faith is no way at all imputed for righteousnes , for neither in respect of the subject in which the habit of it resteth , nor in respect of the actes which man performes by it , nor in respect of any thing , which GOD by his spirit gives it in the production of it , that is , for no quantity quality , or vertue in it , nor in respect of the object Christ , nor in respect of the life , soule , or forme which gives it the specificall being , and subsistence , so hee plainely professeth , and besides these there is no other respect in which it may bee imputed , as al reasonable men do know . Therefore the conclusion is , that it is not imputed at all . But yet in affirming nothing , but denying all respects , which reason can conceive in faith , and in roming from himselfe and us , he kicks at us , and by the way snarls and bytes at the truth . For it is most certaine , that faith is said to be imputed in respect of GODS production of it by his spirit , and in respect of the object Christ , and his righteousnes which it doth lay hold on and apply . For the spirit of regenerarion being shed on us through Christ , dwelling in us , and making us one body with Christ , & partakers of his whole satisfaction , doth worke iustifying faith in us , and this union and conjunction , which in order of nature , goeth before faith and concurres to the production of it , is the ground , and reason , of the imputation of it . If Christ were not made ours , and his satisfaction communicated to us , faith could not truely believe in Christ , nor truely apply his righteousnesse , therefore the two last of his negatives are false , and haereticall . Besides , it is not to be passed over in silence , that here againe he contradicts himselfe , and grants that Christ , with his righteousnesse , is the object of faith , and laying hold on him , is the life , and soule of faith ; which hee utterly denyeth , and disputes to the contrary in the next Chapter , as I have touched before . As for his assumption , the sum whereof is , that faith is imputed , and accepted of GOD , for righteousnesse , upon the same termes , that perfect righteousnes of works should have beene in the first Covenant ; This is Socinian haeresie , in the highest degree ; so grosse , and palpable , and so openly , and expressely affirmed by him , that no salt of interpretation can keepe it from stinking in the nostrills of any true Christian. Here also wee may note his ignorance , absurdity , and nonsense ; for instead of shewing in what respect faith is imputed , hee affirmes , that hee holds it to be imputed instead of perfect righteousnesse of our owne workes , and that it is in the new Covenant a condition answerable and every way as sufficient and availeable to procure all favours , rewards , and priviledges , to us from GOD , as the righteousnesse of workes , was in the Covenant of workes : and both here , and in the conclusion , hee makes faith as meritorious , and as strong a bond to tye GOD , and make him countable for all favours , rewards , and priviledges , under paine of being counted a covenant breaker ; as the perfect fulfilling of the Law , by every man in his owne person , was in the covenant of workes , and here doth more then give the right hand of fellowship , to Popish justification , for hee transcends them , and makes GOD more obliged to men for them , and more countable then any Papists ever did . As for the testimonies which hee brings , out of Ambrose , and Calvin , they are nothing to his purpose ; they onely affirme , that as the Law was mans onely guide to salvation , and the rule of righteousnesse in the old covenant ; So faith in the Gospel , is the onely way to salvation in the new covenant , and the meanes by which we receive the grace of GOD ▪ and the righteousnesse of Christ offered to us for justification , and salvation . Socinianisme . SEcondly , when we deny the imputation of Christs righteousnes in justification , we neither deny the righteousnesse of Christ in it selfe , we rather suppose and establish it , neither 2º doe wee deny the absolute necessity of it , both to the justification , and salvation of a sinner : neither 3º do wee deny a meritorious efficiencie , and causalitie in that righteousnes in respect of the justification of a sinner , but verily believe and conceive , that GOD justifieth all that are justified , not simply or barely , for Christs sake , or for his righteousnes sake ( for a man may doe a thing for his sake whom he much loves , and respects , though he hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands ) but for the righteousnesse of Christ , his death being taken into the consideration with it , why GOD should justifie those that believe in him . But 4º and lastly , that which we deny in denying the imputation of Christs righteousnesse , is this , that GOD should looke upon a believing sinner , and account of him , as one that hath done in his owne person , all that Christ did in obedience to the morall Law , and hereupon pronounce him righteous : or : ( which is the same ) that GOD should impute unto him those particular acts of obedience which Christ performed in that nature , and property of them , so that hee should stand as righteous before GOD , as Christ himselfe , or ( which is the same ) righteous with the selfe same righteousnesse wherewith Christ was righteous , and so GOD make himselfe countable to him for such obedience imputed in as great matters of rewards as he would have beene for the like obedience personally performed by himselfe ; in a word , this is that which we deny , and this is that which we affirme , concerning the righteousnesse of Christ , in the justification of a sinner , that GOD cloathes none with the letter of it , but every man that believes with the spirit of it . 1. that this righteousnes of Christ , is not that , that is imputed unto any man for his righteousnesse ; but is that for which righteousnes is imputed to every man that believeth : a justified person may in such a sense be said to be cloathed with Christs righteousnesse , as Pauls necessities were relieved , and supplied by his hands . Act. 20.24 . these hands ( saith hee ) have ministred to my necessities . Paul neither eate his fingers , nor spun out the flesh of his hands , into cloathing , and yet was both fed , and cloathed with them : So may a believer be said to be cloathed with the righteousnesse of Christ , and yet the righteousnes of Christ it selfe , not to be his cloathing , but onely that which procureth his cloathing unto him , and so Calvin calls that clothing of righteousnes wherewith the beleever is cloathed in his justification , Justitiam morte & resurrectione Christi acquisitam , a righteousnes procured by the death , and resurrection of Christ. This righteousnes of Christ may be said to be the righteousnes of a beleever , in such construction of speech , as the knowledge of GOD and of Christ , is said to be eternall life . Iohn 17.3 . viz. in way of causality , not in that formality of it , and againe the righteousnes of a beleever in his justification , may be tearmed the righteousnes of Christ in such sense , as the favour of GOD in deliverance of a man out of trouble , is called a mans righteousnes . Iob. 33. verse 26. or as the nation and people of the Jewes are often in the Scriptures called Iacob , they were not Iacob in the propriety of his person , but in his descent and propagation ; so may the righteousnes of a beleever bee called the righteousnes of Christ , because it is a righteousnes descended from it , and issuing as it were out of the loynes of it . What hath been affirmed , and what hath beene denyed in the question , wee come now to prove and demonstrate the truth of both . 1 o From the authority of Scriptures . 2 o From the grounds of reason ; as for the third way of proofe and confirmation by consent of Authors , we shall not assigne a peculiar place for that by it selfe , but interlace our other proofes occasionally with such testimonies as we have received from learned , and judicious men for confirmation of our point to be discussed . Christianisme . THe second thing in this last part or passage is a profession of his meaning in denying Christs righteousnes to be imputed in justification . First because he would have an adversarie for him to triumph over , and least his admired sophistry should be idle , for want of an opposite against which it might magnifie it selfe in the eyes of senselesse sectaries ; hee suffers Christs righteousnes to have a being , and doth not deny it in it self , but doth approve and establish it , and so by good hap hee escapes one base absurdity in his disputing , to wit , denying of the subject of the question . Secondly , because he would have his competitor , or corrivall to be of some great note , the more to glorifie his victory over him , hee doth not deny an absolute necessity of Christs righteousnes , both to the justification and salvation of sinners ; we thanke him , that for saving of himselfe from the hatred and skorne of the world , he would grant so much of truth openly testified in Scripture . Thirdly he doth not deny a meritorious efficiency , or causality of Christs righteousnesse in respect of the justification of a sinner . In this hee comes somewhat neere to us , but I doubt it is not in sincerity and truth , but rather in show , to make the ignorant to conceive better , or at least , not to judge so hardly of his opinion , for marke his slubbering , and dawbing , with untempered morter , I verily believe ( saith hee ) that GOD justifieth them that are justified , not simply , or barely , for Christs sake , or for his righteousnesse sake , but for the righteousnesse of Christ , his death being taken into consideration with it : here you see a plaine contradiction , for Christs righteousnesse , his death , being taken into consideration with it , is no more but his perfect righteousnesse , because his active obedience , without his passive obediēce to death , is no perfect fulfilling of the Law ; so that here is a contradiction , even an affirmation , and negation of one , and the same thing , in one continued sentence . The parenthesis also , which hee inserts to trouble the reader , is false , and frivolous , to wit , ( for a man may doe a thing for his sake , whom hee much loves , and respects , though hee hath not otherwise deserved it at his hands . ) First let mee aske him what is his drift in these words ? It seemes to mee , either to be wholly superfluous , or to intimate that Christs righteousnes did not deserve our justification at GODS hands , but that GOD out of love and respect to Christs person , without the merit of his righteousnesse , doth accept us , and count us righteous . Secondly , let mee tell him , that when a man doth any thing for another out of love , without desert , hee doth it for his owne loves sake , and for the magnifying of his kindnes , and free bounty ▪ and thus GOD did in giving his Sonne for us , undeserving sinners : But when justice doth stand up in strength and pleades for right , as in the justification of sinners , then a full satisfaction must come between , & love can no otherwise be rightly , and lawfully shewed , but by making a satisfaction , or by apposing one who is sufficient to make satisfaction , that no evill but good may be done to the party loved , and respected : and thus the case stands in justification of sinners . Thirdly , though a man out of his corrupt , and carnall love , may doe a thing for his favorite , without desert , or just consideration , yea contrary to justice , yet it is not so with GOD , who is no respecter of persons , in matter of justice , and justification : Hee doth never out of his free love decree to doe any thing , but withall , hee decrees , and ordeines a just consideration , why hee should doe it ; so that this is a frivolous parenthesis , both false and from the matter . In the fourth place hee sheweth what hee denies in denying the imputation of Christs righteousnesse , viz. That GOD lookes upon a believing sinner , and accounts him as one that hath done in his owne person , all that Christ did in obedience to the morall Law , and hereupon pronounceth him righteous , so that he doth stand as righteous before GOD , as Christ himselfe , because righteous with the same righteousnesse ; and so GOD makes himselfe countable to him for such obedience imputed in as great matters of reward , as hee would have beene for the like obedience , particularly performed by himselfe . In this expression of himselfe , here is much calumny , error , and untruth . First he doth calumniate , and slander the true Doctrine of Christ professed by us concerning the imputation of Christs righteousnesse ; for no man in his right wits did ever hold that imputation of Christs righteousnesse to believers , is GODS accounting them to have performed in their owne persons , every act of obedience , which Christ performed to the Law ▪ This is a manifest contradiction , fitter for a giddy fancy to imagine , then for any true Christian to professe . The truth which wee professe is this , that true believers being by that one spirit which workes faith in them , united to Christ , and made partakers of his righteousnesse , and believing , and applying by faith to themselves , his satisfaction particularly are accounted truly righteous before GOD by communion , and imputation , not by legall performance in their owne persons : And though the righteousnesse by which they are justified , is the very same which is in Christ , and which hee performed , yet it doth not follow , that they thereby are as fully righteous as Christ himselfe , for he is originally righteous , by his owne personall righteousnes , as the justifier ; they are righteous by communion , and imputation , as justified : And as the hands and feet , and other inferior members , live by the same life , and are sensitive by the same sense which is originally in the heart , and head of the same body ; yet they are not so lively , and sensitive , as the heart and head , but in a competent measure , and proportion , fit for every one of them . So it is in the mysticall body of Christ , betweene him the head , and them his believing , and justified members , as I have before touched . So that here we have an intollerable calumny , and slander , laid upon GODS sacred truth , and the true professors of the same . Secondly , he utters a notorious untruth when he saith , that to bee righteous by the same righteousnes which Christ performed , is nothing else , but to be performers of every act of his obedience in our persons . Thirdly , it is a wicked error to thinke ( as hee doth ) that obedience and righteousnes , ether performed by ourselves or communicated to us , should make GOD countable to us ▪ that is , bound to give us the greatest rewards . For the righteousnes of justification and the holynes , and obedience of sanctification , are onely free gifts which GOD gives to make us capable of eternall life , and fit to stand in his presence , and to see and enjoy his glory ; not bands to tye himselfe , and to make him countable to us ; for if we be righteous what give we to him , or what receiveth he at our hands ? Iob 35.7 . eternall life , though by Christ purchased for us ; yet is the free gift of GOD in Christ. Rom. 6.23 . Here therefore this sublimate Doctor doth bewray his owne ignorance in the maine mysteries of salvation , and is as David saith , Psal. 14. become filthy , stinking , and abominable in his thoughts , and imaginations , concerning GOD himselfe , while hee doateth after Socinian subtilties , and sets himselfe to be singular , by preaching his fond errors , and heresies . Lastly , after all this , in conclusion , hee takes upon him to elude , and evacuate those most plaine testimonies of holy Scripture , wherein Christ is sayd to cloath , and cover us with the garments of salvation , and the robe of his righteousnesse Isa 61.10 . that our sinnes and staines , being thereby covered , Psal. 32.1 . sinne might no more be imputed to us ; but we in the robes of his righteousnesse may stand cloathed as with long white linnen robes , Revel . 19.8 . And like Iacob in the garments of the first borne , yeelding a sweet smelling savour , may be accepted of GOD our heavenly father . First hee saith , that GOD in the justification of sinners , cloathes none with the letter of Christs righteousnesse , but every man that believes with the Spirit of it : that is , not with the righteousnesse it self , but with the fruite and benefit of it : that is , with faith counted for righteousnesse , where note , that ( in his conceipt , ) the righteousnesse of a justified man , is a thing inhaerent in himselfe , and a worke performed in his owne person , not communicated to him from another , ab extra , as garments are , and so no cloathing : here is one grosse absurdity , like as if one should say , a mans cloathes are not on him , but in him . That speech of Paul , these hands have ministred to my necessitie , Act 20.34 . are nothing to the purpose , for he doth not say his hands were his necessary meat , and cloathes , but by working did get him necessaries ; and so Christ by his obedience procured righteousnesse for us , which he doth communicate to us , and cloathes us with , and by GOD it is imputed to us : and this Calvin calles righteousnesse gotten by Christs death and resurrection : and all this is for us , and against himselfe . The other instances which hee brings from Scripture to prove that Christs righteousnesse is by a metonymie of the cause for the effect , used to signifie the fruite and effect of it in us , prove no such thing at all . The first of them Iohn 17.3 . ( this is eternall life , to know thee the onely true GOD , &c. It is mistaken , for to know GOD , and Christ ( that is , to have experimentall knowledge of GOD , and Christ , and to enjoy GOD in Christ , as the word ( know ) by an Hebraisme signifies ) is not there mentioned , as the efficient cause of eternall life , but as the thing wherein it doth formally consist : So also that speech , Iob 33 , 26. ( as Master Perkins truely expounds it ) doth not speake of the fruite of a mans righteousnesse , which GOD renders to him ; but of the righteousnesse of Christ , which GOD renders to a man a fresh , and after temptation , doubting , and distresse , makes him feele and enioy it in himselfe , when by repentance , and humble and faithfull prayer hee seekes it . And although the nation of the Israelites are often ( as hee alledgeth ) called by the name of Jacob in Scripture , because he was their Father , and they his naturall progeny : yet this proves onely , that the Scripture useth tropes of speech many times , which we acknowledge willingly , and in the next Chapter will prove fully . Where hee forgetting , and contradicting himselfe , utterly disclaimes tropes and figures , and exclaimes against all the learned , who hold that Saint Paul useth a trope in saying that faith is imputed for righteousnesse : Well , for the present wee will grant him , that our cleannesse from the guilt of sinne , and the state of righteous , and justified persons , wherein we stand before GOD , being the issue and fruite of Christs satisfaction communicated to us , may very well be called by a trope the righteousnesse of Christ ; but this doth not overthrow , but rather strongly prove the communion , and imputation of Christs righteousnes to us . Thus we see how hee labours in the fire , and in vaine beats his braines , and out of the confusion , and distemper of them , doth say , and gainsay , affirme and deny the same things oftentimes ; being like a clowd without water , carried about with winds , sometimes one way , and againe the contrary way , and never settling upon solid truth , nor building upon a sure foundation . Now what he promiseth in the conclusion of this Chapter ▪ you shall see how hee performeth by my answer , to his second Chapter , wherein as he begins here , so he goeth on entangling and beating himselfe , forging and falsifying , and in every passage discovering his ignorance and folly , mingled with much impudency & hereticall perversenesse and pravity , which that it may better appeare , and that we may see his Socinian heresie to the bottome clearely , I will lay downe the chiefe heads of the Doctrine of Justification , as it is taught in the Scriptures , and maintained by all Orthodox Divines , both ancient and moderne . Justification taken in a full sense is that act of GOD , by which he justifies his elect , and faithfull in his son Iesus Christ by the communion of his spirit ; that is , doth make them righteous by Christs perfect righteousnes , and full satisfaction spiritually made theirs , and doth count them righteous by imputing the same unto them , and doth declare them to be righteous inwardly to their owne consciences by the inward testimony of his spirit , and the inward sense and experience of inward grace ; and outwardly in this life before men , and publiquely in the last judgements by their good workes , which are evidences of their faith , and of their union and communion with Iesus Christ , and of their regeneration by his spirit , and adoption unto GOD in him . First GOD the father is the primary efficient cause of our justification . Rom. 3.26.30 . and 4.5 . and 8.33 . Secondly the inward moving cause is GODS owne free grace favour and love Rom. 3.24 . Tit. 3.7 . The outward moving or impulsive cause is Christs mediation Isa 53.11 . Iohn 1● . 21 . 1 John 2.2 . The instrumentall cause is Christ the mediatour communicating his whole obedience to us , when by the spirit which GOD sheds on us through him , wee are made one body with him , 1 Cor. 12.13 . Tit. 3.6 . The meanes by which wee come to bee justified are , either principall ; viz. the lively operation of the spirit , spirituall union with Christ , the pure and holy humanity of Christ , or lesse principall ▪ the word and ministery thereof , the Sacraments , faith and the like , as appeares , Rom. 3.25.28 . and 10.14 . Gal. 3.8 . Heb. 9.14 . 1 Iohn 1. ● . Dan. 12.3 . The materiall cause , that is , the righteousnesse it selfe by which they are justified , that is , made , counted , and declared to be righteous , is Christs perfect righteousnes obedience and satisfaction , which he , GOD and man performed in our nature , in the state of humiliation , Rom. 3.24.25 . Rom. 5.19 . and 8.4 . The formall cause of justification is that communion between Christ and us , and that reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ , and of his righteousnes , and full satisfaction to us , which communion ariseth , and floweth from the spirit which GOD sheds on us through Christ , which spirit dwelling in us ( in some measure , so as he dwelleth in the man Christ , from whom hee is derived to us ) doth make us one spirituall body with Christ , and works in us faith and all holy graces , & affections by which we adhere and cleave to Christ , and apply and inioy his righteousnes , so that it is our formall righteousnes not inherently , but imputatively , and by spirituall communion , for it is that which doth constitute , and make us righteous , Rom. 5.17 , 18 , 19. and 8.4 . and ●0 . 4 . and 2 Cor. 5.21 . The immediate fruit and benefit of our iustification , is the state of righteousnes and of cleanenesse from the guilt of sinne , and acceptation with GOD , Rom. 3.25 . and 4.2 . also peace with GOD , Rom. 5.1 . The end and use of our iustification is the satisfaction and declaration of GODS iustice , in that he iustifieth us by the full satisfaction of Christ , and not otherwise , neither by it till he communicates it to us and makes it ours ; Also the manifestation of his mercy , free grace and bounty , in that he would give his sonne to become man , and to make satisfaction to the full , when no other could bee found able to satisfie for us , neither could his iustice by any other meanes be satisfied , also in that hee would give us his spirit to unite us to his sonne , and to bring us to a true communion of his righteousnes , and to worke faith in us by which we receive and enioy Christ with all his benefits , Rom. 3.24.26 . Tit. 3.4 . Ephes. 1.6.12 . The contrary Doctrine of Socinus ▪ and his faction . THough they grant that GOD is the chiefe efficient cause , and his free grace , mercy , and love , the inward moving cause ; yet they erre in the impulsive and instrumentall cause , and make Christ and his righteousnes no otherwise meritorious , but by procuring that GOD should count faith in a proper sense , for righteousnes to them that beleeve , neither any other way an instrument of iustification , but by bringing faith to this honour , to be accepted for , or in stead of righteousnes . Secondly they deny all causality of Christs righteousnes in justification , except onely by way of efficiency : whereas indeed and in truth it is the matter about which justification is exercised , for what is justification but the communicating of that righteousnes to men , and the imputing of it , and declaring of them to be thereby righteous ? the very name of justification signifies so much : and what is the forme of a justified man as he is righteous , but righteousnes ? to imagine a righteous , and justified man without righteousnes , is as if one should dreame of a living man without life or soule . Thirdly they deny the principall ground of justification , to wit , spirituall union and communion with Christ , which cannot stand without imputation of Christs righteousnes ; for communion and union doe necessarily bring with them imputation . If wee have communion of Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse , GOD must needs judge and count them to be ours , for his judgement is according to truth . And faith which is an inferiour and subordinate meanes , they set up in the place of Christs righteousnes . Fourthly as they deny the materiall cause of iustification , by reiecting Christs righteousnes from being the proper matter about which it is exercised ; so also the forme or formall cause , even the mutuall communion , and reciprocall imputation of our sinnes to Christ , and Christs satisfaction and righteousnes to us , whereby it is made our formall righteousnes not inherently , but spiritually and imputatively , for they acknowledge no formality , but inherency . Fiftly they deny the immediate fruit and benefit of justification , to wit that state of righteousnes , cleannesse from the guilt of sinne , and acceptation with GOD , wherein the justified are firmely established before GOD , and stand in his sight , which is the chiefe honour and prerogative of GODS Saints , and their greatest comfort in all their afflictions , and temptations . Lastly , they take away the true end , and use of justification , to wit , the revelation of GODS infinite justice , mercy , bounty , and free grace ; for they overthrow his infinite justice , while they teach that GOD by his soveraign power puts his justice to silence ; and without Christs full satisfaction , made to it , for us , and made ours by communion , and imputation , doth accept our weake faith in stead of it , and makes himselfe as countable for it in all rewardes , as hee would doe for the perfect fulfilling of the Law by our selves , or by Christ in our stead . They extenuate and vilifie GODS mercy , bounty , and free grace ; by setting up faith in stead of Christs perfect righteousnes , and making it the condition of the new covenant . For whatsoever is given or promised to us , upon a condition to be on our part performed , is not a gift of free grace and bounty . And when justice may bee turned out of doores , without a compleat satisfaction ; there is nothing left for mercy wherein to shew the power of it . The infinite mercy of GOD doth appeare in this , that , when his infinite iustice required that wee should all be damned without a full satisfaction ( which none could make but the sonne of GOD in our nature ) and that performed for us , and made ours ; Hee would give his onely sonne for us to satisfie in our stead , and his holy spirit to unite us to his Sonne , and to bring us to communion of his satisfaction . Thus wee see that they shut up the doore of Heaven , and stop that onely way to eternall life , by overthrowing justification , which is the making and accounting of men righteous , by that onely righteousnes of Christ , besides which there is not any other to be found sufficient , and able to beare us out before GODS tribunall of justice . Now let all true Christians well weigh and consider the difference , betweene truth and errour , life and death , true Christianity and Antichristian infidelity ; for such is the damned Socinianisme before discovered . And if any man in the midst of the light of the Gospell shining so clearely , and discovering so plainely cursed heresie , will be blind ; let him bee more blind still ; and if any will be filthie , let them bee more filthie still . And if any love not the LORD Jesus , but hate and blaspheme his truth , let him be Anathema Maranatha . Amen . THE SECOND CHAPTER , OF Socinianisme . Wherein the imputation of faith for righteousnesse ( in a proper sense ) is undertaken to be proved from the Scriptures , and the interpretation of those Scriptures confirmed both by reason , and authority , as well of ancient , as moderne Divines . THE PREFACE . WHat it is that should be imputed for righteousnesse in justification ; all the wisdome , and learning under heaven , is not so fit or able to determine , as the holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures , being the great Secretary of heaven , and privie to all the wayes , and counsels of GOD : and therefore there is none to him , to take up any difference , or to comprimise betweene the controverters , about any subiect in Religion . All the difficulty , and question is , because though hee speakes upon the house top , yet hee interprets in the eare : all the Christian world either knowes ( or readily may know ) what hee speakes in the Scripture : But what his meaning and intent is in any thing , he leaves unto men to debate , and make out amongst them . To some indeed hee reveales the secret of his counsell , the Spirit of his letter , in some particulars ; but because these are not marked in the forehead , therefore their apprehensions and thoughts ( though the true begotten of the truth ) are yet in common esteeme , but like other mens , till some stamp or superscription of rationall authority be set upon them to make the difference , yea many times , the nearer the truth , the further off from the approbation of many , and sometimes , even of those , that are greatest pretenders to the truth . The Answere . THe first part or speech , is a solid truth , to wit , that no wisdome , and learning under heaven , is so fit or able to determine what is imputed , for righteousnes in justification , as the holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures . But this truth he contradicts in the next words which follow immediately , where he saith , that the holy Ghost leaues his meaning , and intent to men to debate , which if it be true , then men are to determine , and to take up every difference about any subject in Religion . This beginning with contradiction is very ominous , and prodigious : and from hence we may gather , what we are likely to find in his ensuing discourse . The rule by which men are to judge of , the Spirits meaning is the stamp , and superscription of rationall authority , set upon them : so hee here expressely affirmes , and in this hee openly professeth himselfe , to be of the faction of the Socinian , and Arminian remonstrants , who doe teach that the best judge of the meaning , of the Scriptures is , recta ratio , that is , their owne carnall reason , rectified by the art of Sophistrie . Againe , hee affirmes , that all the Christian world knowes , or readily may know , what the holy Ghost speaks in the Scripture . If this be true , then they are all taught of GOD , and the Spirit leaues not his meaning to men to debate , and to promise betweene controverters . Here is another contradiction . Hee proceeds yet further in his absurdities , and tells us that the holy Ghost reveales not to all the Christian world , but to some , the secret of his counsell , the Spirit of his letter : this is a contradiction to that which went next before . And whereas before hee saith , that all the Christian world knowes what the holy Ghost speakes in Scripture , that is all saving truth : here hee saith , that hee reveales the secret of his counsell , but in some particulars : thus in every thing he contradicts himselfe , and like a lunatick broken out of Bedlam , he raves , first saying , and affirming , and immediately denying , and gainesaying , in the same things . But yet a lunatick persons have high conceits of themselves , that they are of noble , and royall blood , right heires to Crownes , Kingdoms , and Empires : or if not the holy Ghost himselfe , yet persons wonderfully illuminated , and inspired by him . And many times they will not utter their conceits in expresse words , but tell you of such great persons , and complaine of your blockish dulnesse , and stupidity , if you doe not presently discerne that they speake of themselves , and they are the men . So here doth this illuminated Doctor deale with us : He tells us of some speciall ones , to whom the Spirit interprets in the eare , and reveales the secret of his councell , the Spirit of his letter , who are the true begotten of the truth : and that hee takes himself to be a chiefe among these , it appeares , first by his undertaking to give a reason of the counsell and purpose of GOD in his former Chapter , ( as I have there noted . ) Secondly , by his taking upon him , here to determine this question , which none but such illuminated ones can be able to do . And hee breakes off his prologue with a kind of complaint , and exprobration full of disdaine , namely this , that because they , ( meaning himselfe , and his fellowes ) are not marked in the forehead , by the Spirit of illumination ; therefore their thoughts , and apprehensions , are yet in common esteeme like other men ( you see , non sapit humanum , nec est mortale quod optat ) till some stamp , and superscription , of rationall authority , be set upon them to make the difference . Here hee seemes in this last clause , to take courage , and to conceive some hope , that by the rational authority , of his new coined Logick , ( of which he lately gave us a tast , whē he told us , that causes are opposit , ex diametro & therefore the efficient , impulsive instrumentall materiall , formall , and finall causes , of mans justification , and salvation , cannot all , or the most of them concurre in one person Christ , though GOD and man ) hee will make the difference knowne betweene his excellency , and other mens ignobility , and obscurity . The last clause of his complaint , wherewith hee concludes his Preface , is an overthwart blow to some , where speaking of those first begotten of the truth , he saith , yea many times the nearer the truth , the further off from the approbation of many ; and sometimes even of those , that are the greatest pretenders to the truth . A shrewd nip ( if you marke it ) to you learned Doctors , & Preachers of the Citie of London , who are great pretenders to the truth : and yet the nearer that hee is come to the truth , and makes his unlearned followers able to see it to the bottom ( as he hath often told us ) the further off hee is from your approbation . If hee be thus bold , and ready to nip you who doe not approve his opinion , it is no marvaile that his rude followers , doe lay all slaunders , reproach , and aspersions on us , who oppose him , and charge him with Socinian haeresie , and blasphemy , whom they admire , and proclaime to bee the great light of GODS Church in these last dayes . Socinianisme . Foure things there are especially , which much commend an Interpretation , when they are found in conjunction , and establish , it like that King upon his Throne Prov. 36.31 . against whom there is no rising up . First if the Letter , or Grammar of the Scripture will fairely and strongly beare it . 2º If the scope of the place will close directly and intirely with it . 3º When the interpretation which is set up against it , cannot stand before the circumstances of the text . 4º And lastly , when the judgement of able , learned , and unpartiall men are found in concurrence with it . If these foure be sufficient to furnish out an interpretation with authority , and power , then shall wee need no more Scriptures , to prove the innocency of our affirmative . viz. the imputation of faith for righteousnes ( the truth of the negative inseparably accompanying it ) but that one Chapter onely , Rom. 4. Christianisme . IN these wordes hee makes his enterance , into the disputing of the point before propounded , to wit , faith in a proper sense is imputed for righteousnes in justification ; which speech excludes the righteousnes of Christ from being the onely righteousnes by , which being communicated , and imputed to true beleevers , they are justified and stand righteous before GOD. First he propounds foure things , which when they are found in coniunction , with an interpretation of any Scripture , they commend and establish it ( as he saith ) like that King upon his Throne against whom there is no rising up , Prov. 30.31 . These foure things . First the literal sense strongly bearing it . Secondly the scope of the place concurring . Thirdly the inconsistence of the circumstances of the place , with the interpretation which is contrary . Fourthly the Judgement of able learned men agreeing with it , these I say may passe for current . But whether that one place of Scripture , in the interpretation whereof these concurre , bee alone without more Scriptures , sufficient to prove the innocency of an assertion which is agreeable to that interpretation , is a question , many interpretations seeme to have all these , and yet are contradicted by other Scriptures , as that place Hosea 11.1 . When Israel was a child , out of Egypt have I called my Sonne , being interpreted of the Nation of the Israelites , was borne up by the letter , concurred with the scope , and circumstances more then many contrary expositors , and all the learned and able Jewes so understood it : and yet the Gospell expounds it another way , Mat. 2.15 . The place of Scripture upon the interpretation whereof established by these foure things , hee intends to build his whole dispute in this Chapter , is the fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans ; so that his proofes by which hee goeth about to set the royall Crowne , which is due to Christ and his righteousnes , on the head of mans imperfect faith , are according to these foure things , divided into foure rankes . First he undertakes to prove , that the Letter of that Scripture , Rom. 4. doth beare up his interpretation , to wit , that faith in it selfe , and in a proper sense is said to bee imputed for righteousnes in justification . Secondly by the scope of the place . Thirdly by shewing that the circumstances of that Scripture , cannot beare the Doctrine of Christs righteousnes imputed . Fourthly by the judgement , and testimonies of able learned and unpartiall men . But how poorely he performes his undertakings , and how pitifully hee faileth in them , wee shall in the progresse shew . That his disputation is like to be very Illogicall , we may gather from the foule flaw which appeares in his Logicke , in this his first enterance , where hee saith wee need no more Scriptures , to prove the innocency of our affirmative , viz. the imputation of faith for righteousnes ( the truth of the negative inseparably accompanying it ) but that Chapter onely , Rom. 4. First it is against all true reason and Logicke , that the affirmative should be innocent from untruth , and that the negative which is opposed to it , should have truth accompanying it . If his affirmative ( faith is imputed for righteousnesse , in a proper sense ) be true , then the negative must needs be false , to wit , faith in a proper sense is not imputed : But perhaps by the negative , he doth not meane the negative of his affirmative , but some other negative proposition , the subject whereof , is different from the subject of his affirmative . His hatred and envy , against Christs righteousnesse , least it should get the Crowne from faith , is so great , that wee may well conceive , that by the negative hee in heart meanes , this ( Christs righteousnes is not imputed in justification ) which if hee doth , wee cannot but blame him for speaking ambiguously , which Logick in a disputation abhorreth . But I leave his trifling , and come to the ground and foundation of his discourse , even that fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans , on which he labours to build his hereticall opinion . The words of that Chapter which seeme most to favour him are these . Verse 3. Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was counted to him for righteousnes , and verse 5. To him that beleeveth , his faith is counted for righteousnes , and verse 9. For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnes . That the truth may more plainly appeare , and the contrary falshoode , and errour be made more fully manifest , I will first lay down the true orthodoxe exposition of the words , which is according to the common judgement of the most godly , learned , and judicious Divines , of the best reformed Churches . Secondly I will truely rehearse the corrupt exposition of the Apostles wordes , made by the hereticke Socinus , and his followers the Arminians , and other fanaticall Sectaries , unto which this adversary adheres , and grounds his whole disputation upon it . The orthodox exposition I will illustrate and confirme by the scope , and circumstances of the rext , and by arguments drawne from other Scriptures . The corrupt exposition also I will prove to be false , and hereticall . And afterwards I will proceed to answer this adversaries discourse in every particular . The true Exposition explained . FIrst these wordes , that Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was counted to him for righteousnes , are generally held to be improper , and tropicall , and that the meaning of them is not , that Abrahams faith , or act of beleeving by it selfe in a proper sense , was counted to him for righteousnes : but that the object of his faith even that which he beleeved , to wit , Christ promised for righteousnes and salvation , was that which by GOD was ( upon Abrahams beleeving ) counted to him for righteousnes . It was not his faith simply considered in it selfe , but his faith embracing Christ promised , and possessing him with his righteousnes , and satisfaction which was reckned to him for righteousnes , and as to him , so to every one that beleeveth his faith is counted to him for righteousnes . For all true beleevers who by faith lay hold on Christ , the promised seed of Abraham , and beleeve GOD to be their shield , and exceeding great reward in him , they are by one spirit baptised into one spirituall body with Christ , united to him their spirituall head , and made his lively members , and sensible partakers of his perfect obedience , righteousnes and full satisfaction , for redemption , remission of sinnes , justification , and perfect salvation ; and need not any more to seeke the reward of blessednes , by the righteousnes of their owne workes ▪ performed according to the tenour of the Law , by every man in his owne person ; but in the LORD Iesus Christ ( who is Iehovah Zid-kenu the LORD our righteousnes , Ier. 23.6 . and the end and fulfilling of the Law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth , Rom. 10.4 . ) they have perfect righteousnes . And in him GOD is become their reward , and the lot and portion of their inheritance , Psal. 16.5 . And that gracious and free favour which GOD shewed to Abraham , when hee beleeved in Christ promised , and firmely without staggering applyed to himselfe , the blessing promised , being fully perswaded that GOD who of his free grace promised , was by his power able to performe , though by the course of nature , and by reason of the deadnesse of Sara's wombe he himselfe seemed to bee , and indeed was uncapable of that blessing ; The same hee will shew to all true beleevers , who are Abrahams faithfull seed , and children of promise , that is , as hee reckoned Abrahams faith for righteousnes ; so hee will count their faith to them for righteousnes ; that is , he will accept and account them for righteous persons ( as indeed they are ) not for any workes of their owne , nor by any righteousnesse performed according to the letter of the law in their owne persons , but by the righteousnes , which is through the faith of Christ , and is called the righteousnes of faith , because it is the righteousnes of Christ GOD and man , given to them of GOD , and of them apprehended , and applyed by faith . For being thus justified by faith , and having communion with Christ of his full satisfaction and righteousnes , GOD whose judgement is according to truth doth certainely judge and count them ( as truly they are ) righteous in his sight , & becomes in Christ their shield , and exceeding great reward . This is the Orthodox exposition of the Apostles wordes in this Chapter , generally received by all , both ancient and moderne Divines , famous for learning and godlinesse . The corrupt and hereticall exposition of the Apostles words , made by Socinus , and maintained by his followers the Arminians , and other fanaticall Sectaries . THey of the Socinian faction , doe generally hold and obstinately affirme , that Abrahams beleeving and his faith , taken in a proper literall sense without any trope , is here said by the Apostle to be counted to Abraham for righteousnes , in stead of all righteousnes which either Abraham himselfe , was by the Law bound to performe in his owne person , or any surety could performe for him . And in like manner to every one that beleeveth , his faith is in a proper sense said to bee counted for righteousnes , even his faith by it selfe , and not the righteousnes of Christ with it . This is their exposition . And upon these wordes of the Apostle thus falsly , and corruptly interpreted , they build all their hereticall opinions , and doctrines concerning justification of the faithfull before GOD , namely these following . First that faith , as it is in every beleever , even as it is inherent in him , and is his owne faith and beleeving ; is the onely thing which GOD of his grace and mercy , and out of his absolute soveraigne power and dominion , is pleased to ordaine , appoint , and account for all the righteousnes , which a man shall have for his justification ; though in truth , and according to Law and the rule of justice , it is not righteousnes , being weak oftentimes and full of imperfections . Secondly that the Spirit of GOD in these wordes of the Apostle , did not intend or meane any communion of the righteousnes , and perfect obedience performed by Christ to the Law , as our surety , and in our stead , nor imputation of that righteousnes to every true beleever for justification , nor GODS accepting of the faithfull for righteous by that righteousnes communicated to them , and of them applyed possessed and enjoyed by faith . By faith , and believing , they do not understand that applying faith , which is a gift and worke of GODS Spirit , in the elect , regenerate , and sanctified , by which they do believe and are perswaded , that they are in Christ , and Christ is their head , and they as lively members of his mysticall body ▪ have communion of all his benefits , even of his full satisfaction and perfect righteousnes , for justification , and full remission of all their sinnes . But by faith , and believing , they understand onely a confidence in GOD , that hee will performe his promises made in Christ , and an assent unto his word that it is true . The tenour of which word , and promises , they conceive to be this ; That Christ in his pure unspotted humane nature , hath by his righteousnesse , suffering and obedience , unto death , meritted , such high favour with GOD ; that GOD in honour to him is pleased to accept and account the faith of them that believe in him , and rest on him for their Saviour , for perfect righteousnesse , and requires no other righteousnesse to constitute , and make them in any sort formally righteous in their justification . When they acknowledge that the perfect righteousnesse , and satisfaction of Christ , is the meritorious cause of our justification : they do not meane that they are communicated to us , and so apprehended , and possessed of us by faith , that we are thereby indeed , and in GODS account righteous before GOD , and justified ; or that they deserve and are worthy , that GOD should so account us for them . But their mind , and meaning is , that Christ by his righteousnesse hath merited , that GOD for his sake , and in favour to him should account faith to us for righteousnesse , without either our owne workes , of the Law , or Christs righteousnesse imputed to us and made ours by communion . And when they say that faith is imputed for righteousnes as an instrument , they doe not meane as the instrument or spirituall hand , applying Christ his righteousnes to bee after a sort , the formall righteousnesse of the believer , but that faith , as it is the instrument by which the believer doth believe that Christ hath purchased this favour , that his believing should be the only thing , accounted to him for righteousnes ; so onely and no other way , GOD reckons to him for righteousnes . The orthodox exposition I will in the first place prove , and confirme , frō the words of the Apostle himself , & by other strong reasons ▪ & afterward confute & overthrow the Socinian , hereticall exposition . The true Exposition proved and confirmed . FOr the right understanding of the Apostles wordes , three things come first to be considered , and explained . 1. What is here meant by faith , and believing . 2. What righteousnes is here meant . 3. What is meant by imputation . First , by faith in this text , wee must not understand , that naturall habit and power , which is common to all reasonable men ; who upon their apprehension , and knowledge of things spoken , and promised , do give willing assent unto them that they are true , either for the authority of the speaker whom they doe respect and judge to bee faithfull , or because they see good reason in the things spoken and promised : And if the things spoken and promised bee such as tend to their owne good ; they rest upon them confidently , and perswade themselvs , that they are sure and certaine of them already , or shall receive and enjoy them in due time without faile . But here by faith we are to understand that supernaturall gift , and grace of beleeving wrought in the elect , regenerate by the spirit shed on them abundantly through Iesus Christ , Tit. 3.6 . which is therefore called most holy faith , Iud. 20. verse . This faith agreeth with the other in foure points . First as that is an habit and power of beleeving , so is this . Secondly as that containes in it , notitiā in intellectu , and assensum in voluntate , that is , both a notice and knowledge of the things spoken and beleeved , and an assent of the will , so doth this also . Thirdly as that faith when it goeth no further then knowledge and assent is called hlstoricall ; so this also . Fourthly as that faith when it reacheth to good things promised to our selves particularly , to apply them , and to rest on them , hath also fiduciam in corde et affectionibus , a trust and confidence of the heart and affections in it ; so hath this also , and is called a firme perswasion , trust and confidence . But they differ in divers things . First that is a naturall power or habit , this is a spiritual wrought in men by the spirit of GOD dweling in them , and uniting them to Christ in one mysticall body . Secondly , that hath in it no knowledge , but naturall , arising from light of naturall reason , nor any assent of the will , or confidence in the heart and affections , but such as are drawne , stirred up and wrought by meanes of naturall light , and common causes . This hath in it a spirituall knowledge arising from the spirit of GOD , inlightning the understanding ; the spirit also inclines and moves the will to give assent , and confirmes the heart with confidence , and firme perswasion . Thirdly that is common to all reasonable men ; This is proper to the elect regenerate and sanctified by the holy Ghost , shed on them through Christ , and is the first and as it were the radicall grace and vertue of renovation . Fourthly that hath for the object or things beleeved , either naturall and worldly things onely ; or things heavenly and supernaturall , seene , and discerned through the dimme mist of naturall reason , and assented to and rested on with a carnall and unsanctified will and heart . This hath for the object things supernaturall , heavenly and spirituall , discerned by supernaturall light , assented to with an holy and sanctified will , confirmed to the heart by a spirituall sense , and sweet taste of the things promised , wrought by the holy spirit in the true beleever apprehending and applying them . But to come nearer to the text , the believing which the Apostle speakes of in 3.9 . and 22. verses , is the faith and believing of Abraham , who divers yeares before this act of believing , which it here said to be counted to him for righteousnesse , was called out of his owne country , and by faith obeyed GOD calling , and went and soiourned in the land , promised to him , and his seed , as appeares , Heb. 11.8 , 9. He had overcome and slaughtered foure mighty Kings , and their victorious armies , by faith and confidence in GODS promises . And Melchizedek , King of Salem , the Priest of the most high GOD , had blessed him , as we read , Gen. 14. And after these things , the LORD appeared to him , and sayd , feare not Abraham ▪ I am thy shield , and thy exceeding great reward ; and withall hee renued the promise of the blessed seed , by meanes of which seed , all the families of the earth should be blessed in Abraham , and should become his faithfull Children ; besides , his naturall seed , and posterity , which should come of the Son , and heire of his owne bowels , as appeares , Gen. 15. verse 1.4 . These were the promises which GOD made to Abraham , and which Abraham believed to be true , and resting upon the LORD by firme faith , and beliefe , for the performance of them , the LORD counted it to him for righteousnesse . Gen. 15.6 . or as the Apostle expresseth the same sentence , in the same sense , though in words somewhat different , it was counted to him for righteousnesse . verse 3. even faith was reckoned to him for righteousnes , verse 9. Now this faith was first an holy and spiritual beliefe , and the faith of a man , long before called of GOD , sanctified by his Spirit , and made obedient to GOD and his word . Secondly , it was a beliefe not onely of the promise of Christ the blessed seed in generall , but more specially , that Christ the blessed seed , should according to the flesh come out of his owne bowels , and that by Christ the Son of GOD , made man of his seed , the redemption both of him , and of his faithfull seed , all true believers should be wrought , and performed , GODS wrath appeased , the Law fulfilled , and justice satisfied , and perfect righteousnes brought in for their justification ; and by his , and their union with Christ by one spirit , and communion of all his benefits , they should have GOD for their portion , and reward , and for their shield and defence , and should not need to seeke the blessing and reward from their owne workes , or their righteousnesse , and fulfilling of the Law in their owne persons , but merely from the free grace of GOD , and of his free gift in Christ as a reward of Christs righteousnesse , freely given to them , and of them apprehended by faith , and believing . Thirdly , this faith of Abraham was not a weake , but strong faith and beliefe , without staggering , even a full perswasion that GOD who quickeneth the dead , and calleth those things which be not , as if they were , was able to make good , and to performe what hee had promised , yea , it was a believing in hope , against hope , that GOD could out of a dead body , and womb raise up a lively seed , and make them spiriritually righteous , which are by nature , and according to the Law wicked sinners . All these things are manif●st by the place before cited . Gen 15. and by the expresse words of the Apostle in this Chapter , from the tenth verse , to the end of the Chapter . And thus it is plaine what is meant by faith , which is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse . Secondly , the righteousnesse here meant , is not the righteousnes which is according to the strict termes , and tenour of the Law , that is , righteousnes of a mans own workes , performed by every man in his owne person to the whole Law of GOD , for the Apostle doth dispute altogether against that righteousnes , and proves that neither Abraham was justified , or counted of GOD righteous for it , as appeares in the 2.5.6 . and 13. verses ; nor any other at any time , as he shewes in the Chapter next before , and in the Chap. 8.3 . and 9.32 . and 10.3 . But here is meant an Evangelical righteousnes which doth not consist in any worke , or workes performed by man himselfe in his owne person , nor in any grace or vertue , inhaerent in himselfe , but is a righteousnes which GOD of his owne free grace , doth impute to the true believer , who by one spirit is united to Christ , and hath communion with him , and which is called the righteousnes of faith , ( because by faith men lay hold on it ) and doth exclude legal justification by righteousnes of a mans owne workes ▪ as appeares by the Apostles whole discourse in this and the former Chapter , and in divers other places of this Epistle , especially verse 13 , of this Chapter , and in Chap. 3.27.28 . Thirdly the phrase of imputing or counting a thing to one , signifies both in the old and new Testament , an act of judgment and estimation , by which a thing is judged , esteemed , reckoned , and accounted to be as it is indeed , and then it is just according to truth ; or else judged thought , and esteemed to bee as it is not , and then it is unjust and not according to truth . GODS thoughts are alwayes right and just , and his judgement is according to truth . Rom. 2.2 . And therefore a just counting and imputing is here meant , for GOD doth account , and judge of persons , and things so as they are . Of uniust counting , and imputing falsely , we have some instances in Scripture , as 1 King 1.21 . where Bethsheba saith to David , I and my sonne Salomon shall bee counted offenders , that is usurping Adoniah , and his wicked company will esteeme and iudge us , and use us accordingly , Of reputing and counting truely as the thing is , wee have examples also , as Nehem. 13.13 . where it is said of the chosen Levites that they were counted faithfull , viz. upon former experience of their faithfulnesse , and therefore the office of distributing to their brethren was committed to them . And Levit. 17.4 . where it is said , blood shall be imputed to that man , he hath shed bloud , and shall be cut off from among his people , and Psal. 22.30 . a seed shall serve him , it shall be counted to the LORD for a generation . Moreover this word impute , or count , signifies sometimes in the most proper sense , a bare act of judgement and thought . Prov. 17.28 . where a foole is said to bee counted wise , when hee holdeth his peace , that is , men for the present so thinke , and judge him to be at least in that point of silence . Sometimes it signifies in a more full sense not onely thinking , counting and judging persons to bee good , or bad , just or unjust , innocent or guilty ; but also dealing with them , and using them accordingly , as in the place before named , I King 2.21 . Neh. 13.13 . Psal. 22.30 . and 1 Sam. 22.15 . where Ahimilech purging himselfe before Saul , from the offence of conspiracy with David against him , as Doeg had falsely accused him , saith , let not the King impute any thing to his servant , that is , let him not count his servant guilty , nor use him as a conspiratour . Sometimes it signifies by a Metonymie of the cause , for the effect condemning , and punishing an offence in a guilty person as hee hath deserved , and to deale with him as hee is justly thought and judged to have deserved , as Shimei said , 2 Sam. 19.19 . Let not my LORD impute iniquitie to mee , hee doth not desire that David would not thinke , nor count his iniquitie to bee no iniquitie , that had beene against all reason : but that for the satisfaction which hee had made in comming , first before all the house of Joseph to meet David , and to bring him againe to his Kingdome , David would graciously pardon his offence , and not proceed against him and punish him according to his fauit , though guilty and worthy of punishment . Sometimes it signifies by a Metaphore to count one thing , as if it were another , or no better then another , or of the same value , as Prov. 27.4 . where a flattering salutation , or blessing given with a loud voice is said to be counted a curse , that is , esteemed no better then a curse . Sometimes to use one as if he counted him of another condition , as Gen. 31.15 . where it is said that Laban counted his daughters strangers , that is , used them as he had counted them strangers , and Iob 31.10 . where Iob saith that GOD counted him for his enemy , that is , afflicted and plagued him as if he had counted him his enemy . Sometimes the word signifies to skore up , or put upon a mans account , either the offence or debt which he runs into himselfe , as Rom. 5.13 . where it is said , that sinne is not imputed where there is no Law , that is , it is not so skored up , that they are punished for it , it is not judged and punished in them ; Or the debt which he takes upon him for another , as Philemon verse 18. If hee hath wronged thee or is indebted to thee , put that on mine account , that is , impute and count it to me , set it on my skore . Now the severall significations of the severall wordes being thus laid open , I proceed more particularly to every word to shew the true sense , and meaning of it in these speeches of the Apostle , and to shew how farre the speeches may bee extended . And first by faith and beleeving which is counted to every true beleever , and was counted to Abraham for righteousnes ; I here understand ( according to the judgement of the most Orthodox Divines ) the true holy , spirituall faith and beliefe , which is before shewed to have beene in Abraham , and which is proper to the elect regenerate , and is said to be imputed for righteousnes . By righteousnes is here meant Evangelicall righteousnes ( which is opposed to the legall righteousnes of workes , which is inherent in every man , and is every mans fulfilling of the Law in his owne person ) even the righteousnes and perfect satisfaction of Christ , GOD and man , our mediatour and surety , which he the sonne of GOD in mans nature performed to the Law , and which is apprehended by every true beleever , and applyed to himselfe by a lively faith , whereof also he hath true communion , and is truely made partaker by his spirtual union , with Christ , of whose mysticall body , hee is a member , being thereinto engraffed and baptized by one spirit . By the imputing , and counting of that faith for righteousnes to Abraham , and to every one of his faithfull seed , is here meant GODS setting of Christs righteousnes on every true beleevers skore , and putting it on his account , and judging , counting , and esteeming him no more guilty of sinne , but perfectly righteous by that Evangelicall righteousnes , which is called the righteousnes of GOD , 2 Cor. 5.21 . because GOD performed it in mans nature ; and the righteousnes of faith , Rom. 4.13 . and not of workes , because it is applyed and enjoyed by faith , Philip 3.9 . For the confirmation of this exposition and iustifying of this truth , wee need seeke no other arguments , but such as may bee gathered from the Apostles owne words as in other of his Epistles , so especially in this to the Romans . argument 1 The first argument is drawne from the 2. Chapter of this Epistle ; v. 26. where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifies to bee imputed or counted , is first used by the Apostle in the very same phrase , as here in this Chapter 4.3.5 ▪ 9. If ( saith he ) the uncircumcision keep the righteousnes of the law , shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? By uncircumcision , in the first clause , we must necessarily understand a Gentile uncircumcised ( as learned Beza in his notes observes ) and that by a trope of speech which is called Metonymia adjuncti , for with some reason it may be supposed that an uncircumcised man , may observe the precepts of righteousnes contained in the law ; but it is against common sense , to suppose that the fore-skin of any mans flesh not cut off , should performe the righteousnes of the Law , no man in his right wits will father such a senseles meaning upon the learned Apostle . The same word in the second clause ( as Beza also well observes ) cannot with any reason bee thought to signifie the foreskin of mans flesh not cut off , that is uncircumcision in a proper sense , for that cannot but most falsely be reputed , and counted for circumcision , because they are contradictories one to another . But here by a trope or Metonymie ( called Metonymia signipro re signatâ ) the word uncircumcision signifies the state of Gētilisme . Neither doth it signifie that state barely considered by it selfe , but as comprehending in it the righteousnes of the Law , which the uncircumcised man hath kept and performed in that state , as the wordes necessarily imply , for the Apostle doth not say that uncircumcision simply , but uncircūcision which hath kept the righteousnes of the Law , shall bee counted for circumcision . So that here is a Metalepsis or double trope , to wit , first uncircumcision put for Gentilisme , of which it is a signe or adjunct , and secondly put not onely for that state of a Gentile , but also for the righteousnesse of the Law , kept by the man in that outward state of a Gentile , uncircumcised which is a Metonymie of the subject containing for the thing contained . Yea if wee looke thoroughly into the phrase , wee shall see that the state of the man uncircumcised , or the man in that estate , put for that which hee hath done , and performed even the righteousnes of the Law. By circumcision we cannot with reason understand , the outward cutting away of the foreskin of mans flesh , neither taken literally and carnally as the corrupt & blind Iewes did take it , for a worke of righteousnesse and obedience to the Law for justification . The Apostle affirmes , Galatians 5.3 . that so taken it was an obligation , by which the circumcised was bound , under paine of cutting off for ever , to performe the whole Law. And for a righteous Gentile to bee brought under this bondage was no benefit , but a miserable condition an ill reward of his keeping the Law. Neither can circumcision be here taken sacramentally as it was an outward signe and seale of the righteousnes of faith , and of mortification , and all vertues of holynesse by which men are sanctified to GOD , and become his peculiar people . For Ishmael , Esau , and all the Sonnes of Belial in Israel , even Elies wicked Sons , and the rest were partakers of the outward signe and sacrament of circumcsion , and yet being destitute of the inward grace , signified , their circumcision was no reward to them , but was a witnes to condemne them . But the circumcision here mentioned by the Apostle is an honour , benefit , and a good condition , and therefore undoubtedly signifies , the inward circumcision of the heart in the Spirit , and not in the letter , so the Apostle doth expound himselfe , verse 29. that is true mortification , and sanctification . The word ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) shall be counted , signifies here in a full sense , judging , counting , approving , accepting , and using accordingly . Now all laid together , the meaning of the Apostle must necessarily be this , without any contradiction . That if a man uncercumcised , do keep and observe with all holy endeavour the commandements of GODS Law , and the righteousnesse thereof , his state of Gentilisme , and of outward uncircumcision comprehending in it a conscionable observing of GODS holy commandement , shall be accounted , and judged by GOD and by all who judge aright , ( as it is indeed ) the state of mortification , and sanctification , which by the Prophets is called circumcising of our selves to the LORD , and puting away the foreskin of our hearts Ier. 4.4 . And this man though uncircumcised in the flesh and a Gentile in outward estate , shall be counted of GOD for a true Israelite , without guile , circumcised with circumcision of the heart in the Spirit , whose praise is not of men , but of GOD. This sense and meaning of the words of this phrase is so cleare , and manifest , and so perfectly agreeable to all true reason , that no man can deny it , unlesse hee will set himselfe to rebell against the light And this phrase being the same with that which is made the ground of this dispute , Rom. 4. where the same Apostle saith , that faith , and believing , were counted to Abraham , and so are to every true believer , for righteousnes : yea , being the onely place in all this Epistle wherein the Apostle useth the phrase of imputing , or counting , except onely in this 4. Chap. and once in the 5. Chapter , where hee saith , sinne is not imputed , it must needs give light to these speeches , and words , in controversie , and as it hath the first place in this Epistle , so it deserves to goe before as a guide to lead us to the understanding of the rest . Wherefore if we will follow the Apostle himselfe , and tread in the same steps after him , being the surest guide , and best expounder of his owne meaning : we must by Abrahams believing , by a Metalepsis , or double trope ( with our learned Divines ) understand Abraham setled in the state of a true believer , united by one Spirit unto GOD in Christ , and having communion of his satisfaction , and righteousnes , which were of force and efficacy from the beginning , to save & justifie all the faithfull , and to make GOD their reward . And by faith imputed we must not understand faith by it selfe in a proper sense , but the state and condition of a faithfull man , and also that which faith comprehends , and includes in it , even the perfect righteousnesse , and full satisfaction of Christ , GOD and man ( for there is a metalepsis or double trope , as in the place before expounded ) By righteousnes we must understand the state of a man justified , and made righteous by the communion of Evangelicall righteousnesse , and by counting , and imputing , we must understand , the accepting , approving , esteeming , and judging of Abraham and every true believer , to bee in the state of a man justified , and GODS setting on his skore , and imputing to him being faithfull , the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith , which no man can truely by faith lay hold on untill by one spirit he be united to Christ , and have communion with him . Heare then the true sense and meaning of the speeches in question , parallelled with the sentence and speech before expounded Chap. 2.26 . which I thus lay down paraphrastically . Abraham upon a true inward spirituall sense of his union , and communion with Christ did believe and was surely perswaded that GOD was his reward , and this beliefe , and faith apprehending Christ , and after a sort containning in it , as by a fast holding and possessing hand of the soule , Christs righteousnesse , GOD counted it to him for righteousnes , that is , set it on his skore , and reckoned to him for justification , and judged , esteemed , and accepted him for a man truely righteous , as indeed hee was by Evangelicall righteousnes . And so , whosoever doth not rest on his owne workes for justification , nor seeketh thereby to be iustified , but by faith feeling himselfe by nature ungodly , fleeth to Christs righteousnesse , and by faith feeles himselfe to have communion of it , and holds it fast , and applies , and enioyes it . His faith is to him an evidence of his righteousnes , and GOD ▪ who iudgeth according to truth knowing him to have share in Christs righteousnes , doth accept it for him , and counts him righteous , and useth him as a man truely iustified . Thus you see how the Apostles former using of this phrase in the second Chapter , doth shew the true meaning of it here where it seemes to be more doubtfull . The summe of the argument reduced into a short syllogisme is this . That exposition of a doubtfull phrase , which is most agreeable to the manifest sense and meaning of the same phrase used by the same Author , in the same discourse , is the best : Our exposition of the phrase in question , to wit , faith and believing is imputed for righteousnesse , is most agreeable to the manifest sense of the same phrase of speech used by this same Apostle Cap. 2.26 in this same Epistle . Therefore undoubtedly , our exposition is best . argument 2 Secondly , wheresoever the Apostle useth the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is , of imputing one thing for another , there the thing imputed differeth from that , for which it is imputed , and cannot in any proper sense be called the same , as in the place before cited , Rom. 2.26 Rom. 9.8 . and so it is , Psal 106.31 . where Phineas his executing of judgement , is said to bee counted to him for righteousnesse . And wheresoever a thing is said in a proper sense to be counted , or imputed , or set on ones skore , it is said simply to be counted , imputed , set upon a mans account , as Rom 4.4 . where the reward is said to be counted of debt to him that worketh , and verse 6. and 8. where GOD is said to impute righteousnes , and not to impute sinne ▪ and verse 11. that righteousnes might be imputed unto them . and Rom. 5.13 . sinne is not imputed when there is no Law. & 2 Cor. 5.19 . not imputing their trespasses to them , & 2. Tim. 4.16 . I pray GOD it may not be laid to their charge , or counted to them ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Philem. 18. put that on my account . Now here in the speeches controverted faith and believing are not said simply to be imputed to believers , but to be imputed for righteousnes , and therefore faith is not said to be imputed in a proper sense , neither can it truely be counted or called righteousnes by it selfe , and in a proper sense ; but the speech is tropicall , and improper . A third argument is drawne argument 3 from the Apostles words in the 4. verse where hee saith to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace , but of debt ; these words imply , that the righteousnesse here said to be imputed brings the reward of blessednes to the believer , which reward is of grace , and not of debt . Now there is nothing which can bring the reward of blessednesse in eternall life to him unto whom it is counted and set on his skore , but the perfect righteousnesse , and satisfaction of Iesus Christ. That all do grant to be meritorious of eternall life to all that are partakers of it , and because the communion , and imputation of it is of GODS free grace , and the faith by which we receive and apply it is GODS free gift , therefore the reward of it , to wit , eternall life is of free grace , and not of debt , as the Apostle here saith , whereupon the conclusion followes , that the righteousnes which GOD accepts , and imputes , is properly the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith . Fourthly , the Apostle teacheth , argument 4 expressely , verse 6. and 7. that the thing imputed simply , and properly , by GOD , is righteousnes , and such a righteousnes , as being imputed , brings forgivenes of iniquity , & covers sinnes , and so makes the believer blessed . Now there is no righteousnes to be found among all mankind but Christs perfect righteousnes , and satisfaction , and that is a perfect propitiation for all sinnes , and an expiation of all iniquity to them , who by faith have put on Christ , therefore it is the righteousnes which is imputed to every believer for justification . Fiftly , that which is said to be imputed to Abraham , and to every true believer , is righteousnes , argument 5 to justification : for the discourse of the Apostle both here , and in the Chapters next going before , & that which next followeth is altogether of justifying , as appeares , Chap. 3.24 25.26 , 28 , 30. and Chap. 5.1 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. in all which places , he names expressely justification , & justifying : and here in this 4. Cap. he brings Abrahams example , and Davids testimony , to shew how we are justified . Now there is nothing which doth serve to us for justification , but that which is found in Christ our mediator , even his righteousnes and perfect fulfilling of the Law , so he plainely affirmes and teacheth Chap. 5 , 19. and 8 , 3 , 4. and 10.3 , 4. and therefore his righteousnes upon the true believing of Abraham , and the faithfull , is counted , and imputed to them , and set on their skore , and they by it are justified . argument 6 Lastly , as the imputing of any thing for righteousnes , is to be taken in other places of Scripture , wheresoever it is mentioned , so undoubtedly , it is here to be taken . For the Scripture is the best expounder of it selfe ; and the spirit of God therein speaking doth best understand & shew his own meaning . Now the onely place in all the Scripture where any thing besides faith , and believing is said to be counted to man for righteousnes , is that place of the Psalmist , Psal. 106. and 31. where the godly zealous act of Phinees , in executing just judgement on Zamri , and Cosbi is said to be counted to him for righteousnes . Now the meaning of the wordes there cannot be , that this act of Phinees was accepted of GOD , and counted to him for righteousnes to justification . For then it will follow that a man may bee justified before GOD by one act , or worke of his owne . Which the Apostle here utterly condemneth as a grosse errour , and bends his whole discourse against it . The true sense and meaning of the phrase is no more but this , that Phinees performing such an act of godly zeale , as is proper onely to a faithfull righteous man , who by the spirit of regeneration , dwelling in him is so united unto Christ , that by faith he was a true partaker of his righteousnes . GOD upon this act gave him the testimony of righteousnes , and declared and judged him to bee a righteous man truly justified . Therefore the Apostles phrase of counting faith to the beleever for righteousnes , which he often useth in this Chapter , signifieth after the same manner , GODS counting a true beleever for a righteous man , and giving him the testimony of righteousnes , because he is righteous indeed by communion of Christs righteousnesse which hee hath apprehended , applied , and enjoyeth by faith . The confutation of the false hereticall exposition of the Apostles wordes maintained by the Socinian faction . FIrst whereas they hold that faith considered by it selfe in a proper literall sense , without consideration of the object , or laying hold on Christ , and his righteousnes , is counted to the beleever for righteousnes to justification , and GOD requires in and of us , no other thing for righteousnes , neither our owne workes performed in our owne persons according to the Law , nor Christs perfect righteousnes and fulfilling of the Law made ours by spirituall union and communion with Christ , and accepted of GOD for us . This I prove to bee false hereticall and blasphemous , by these arguments following . First faith taken in a proper sense is a part of our conformity , and argument 1 obedience to the Law of GOD , which above all things requires that wee give honour to GOD by beleeving him and his word , and by trusting in him as our onely rock , & the GOD of our strength , and salvation . They therefore teaching that faith in a proper sense is counted for righteousnes , doe teach that wee are iustified by a worke of obedience , to the Law performed in our owne persons , and GOD requires on our behalfe , no other righteousnes for justification , which Doctrine the Apostle utterly condemnes . Therefore their opinion and exposition is hereticall , and more impious then the Pelagian and Popish heresies concerning iustification . Secondly that which was properly argument 2 imputed to Abraham , and is so imputed to true beleevers is righteousnes , so the Apostle in plaine wordes expresseth , verse 6. and 11. but faith in a proper sense is not righteousnes . For righteousnes is perfect conformity to the Law , as sinne is transgression of the Law , yea humane righteousnes is a mans keeping of the whole Law , and his observing to doe all GODS commandements with his whole heart all the dayes of his life , as wee read Deuteronomie 8. Thirdly that which chargeth argument 3 GOD with errour and falshood , in his iudgement is blasphemous . This opinion that GOD counts faith for righteousnes , that is , thinketh , iudgeth , and esteemeth it to bee righteousnes , in a proper sense , chargeth GOD with errour and falshood in his iudgement . For faith is not any true righteousnes properly . Therefore this opinion is blasphemy , If they plead that GOD by his absolute soveraignty of power , may accept and repute that for righteousnes which is not true righteousnes : This doth but more entangle them and involve them in errour . For GOD and his soveraigne power are all one : as GOD cannot lye , nor make contradictories true , so his sovereignty of power , cannot either make that to bee righteousnes which is not , or truely iudge it so to bee . Neither can his infinite iustice bee satisfied without perfect fulfilling of his Law , nor allow any man to bee iustified without righteousnes , nor will his truth suffer him to count any iust who is not iust . Therefore by this base shift , and wicked pretence devised to hide , and cover their blasphemy , they do runne further into blasphemy , and make his soveraigne power , a tyrant and oppressour of his iustice and truth . argument 4 Fourthly that opinion which taketh away , and denyeth the meanes by which GOD is revealed to be infinitely iust , mercifull and wise , and makes the satisfaction of Christ , and his perfect fulfilling the Law , a vaine and needlesse thing , is most hereticall , impious , and blasphemous . This opinion , that GOD by his sovereigne power can , and doth accept and count imperfect faith for perfect righteousnes , takes away the meanes by which GODS iustice , mercy , and wisdome are revealed to be infinit , yea it extenuates and vilifies GODS iustice , mercy , bounty , and wisdom , and makes Christs full satisfaction , a vaine , superfluous and needlesse thing . Therefore it is an impious and blasphemous opinion . First that which reveales GOD to be infinitly iust is , that he cannot be reconciled to men that have sinned without execution of iustice to the full , and a full satisfaction made according to his iust Law , if not by men in their owne persons , which is impossible , yet by their mediator and surety , in their behalfe , and by him communicated to them , and made theirs , as truly as if they had fulfilled the Law in their owne persons . And though this satisfaction be of infinit value , yet it cannot profit them , nor actually merit for them till they be partakers of it truely , and really by spirituall communion . This is that meanes by which GOD is known to be infinitly iust . Secondly , when GODS infinite iustice was so strict , that nothing could satisfie it , nor redeeme mankind , but a satisfaction of infinite value made for them . And when all the world was not able to find such a satisfaction ; that his wisedome should finde one out , and have it ready before hand in her eternall treasures , even a full satisfaction performed in mans nature , by GOD the eternall son , and also the meanes to make it truely and really the satisfaction of every man truely beleeving , that is , by the Holy Ghost shed on them through the Sonne Christ , and making them one spirituall body with him . This reveales GOD to be infinite in wisedome . Thirdly in that GOD the Father would in this case give his onely begotten sonne , to be humbled in our nature , and to obey , suffer , and make such a satisfaction for poore miserable men , in that the sonne would willingly take all this upon him ▪ to doe and suffer whatsoever iustice could require , and in that the holy Ghost , when this satisfaction could not otherwise profit men nor bee made theirs , doth not disdaine to take up for his constant dwelling , the earthly tabernacles of mens bodies , and to worke in them all graces needfull , to conforme them to Christ , and to make them sensibly to enjoy him with all his benefits . This most wonderfully shewes GODS infinite mercy , bounty and free goodnesse . And all these meanes which are manifested and maintained by our Doctrine of justification , this wicked opinion of the Socinians doth utterly take away . First it denies GODS justice to require mans communion of such an infinite satisfaction made by Christ for him : it treads GODS justice under foote by his soveraignty of power , and maugre justice , it makes mans imperfect faith to go current for righteousnes , and to be accepted for perfect righteouses , to justification . Secondly if GOD by soveraignty of power can beare downe justice , and make any weak and imperfect thing such as mans faith is ; serve in stead of Christs full satisfaction and perfect righteousnes : Then hee might by the same power have appointed the sacrifice of a Lamb , or any cleane beast , or the satisfaction of any mere man , and so it will follow that the giving of his son to bee made man , was no point of wisedome , but a going farre about , and spending much , even Christs blood , when lesse might have served the turne . As for GODS goodnesse mercy and bounty , they are hereby made painted shewes and shadowes , yea needlesse prodigality , and Christs satisfaction is made vaine and superfluous . Therfore this opinion which brings in such impious consequences , is blasphemous and hereticall . Fiftly , that opinion which overthrowes the sacraments of the Gospel , and takes away the true use of them , is heriticall , prophane , and impious . This opinion that Christs righteousnesse is not imputed to the faithfull , doth so . For the sacraments are seales of our union , and communion with Christ : Baptisme seales our engraffing into Christ in our new birth , by which we become one with him . The LORDS Supper is such a lively seale of our communion with Christ , in the benefits of his death , passion , and full satisfaction , expressed under the termes of eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , that it is commonly called , the communion of the faithfull , when it is rightly received . But these Hereticks while by imputing faith in a proper sense , they exclude the imputation of Christs righteousnes to the faithfull , they deny their communion , and union with Christ , they take away the truth and the use of the Sacraments , for if the faithfull are regenerate , and by one spirit ingraffed into Christ , and united unto him , as Baptisme signifieth , and sealeth : and if they have spiritual communion with Christ of his righteousnes , and all other benefits which the LORDS Supper signifieth , and is thereof a seale to them : Then GOD whose judgment is according to truth , cannot but impute Christs righteousnes to them , and accept it for them , and account it theirs . They who deny GODS imputing of it do either charge GOD with injustice , and error of judgment in not counting , and iudging that to be theirs in which they have communion , and interest , or else they deny the union and communion of the faithfull with Christ , and make the sacraments lying signes , and seales of false things , and things which are not . Therefore their opinion is most abominable , profane , impious , and blasphemous . argument 6 Sixtly , that opinion which is invented , and maintained by Heretiks , who deny the eternall Godhead of Christ , and tends mainely to perswade that there is no use of Christs being GOD , and man , in one person , is Hereticall and blasphemous . Such is this opinion of the Socinians , it is an invention of Haretiks , and tends to take away the use of Christs being GOD , and to perswade men that there is no necessary use of his being GOD , and man in one person . For all Orthodox Divines give this reasō , why it was necessary that Christ the mediator should be GOD in our nature , even that the obedience & suffering which he did under goe in mans nature , might be the obedience and suffering of GOD , and so of infinite value , and though of him alone , and but for a time , yet of more worth , then if all men in their owne persons had obeyed as much as hee did and suffered for ever in Hell. They teach also , that first for the removing of so great evils , as the infinite wrath of GOD , eternall death , and torment in Hell : and secondly , for purchase of so great a good , as is the state of righteousnesse , and of grace , and also of eternall glory in Heaven . GODS justice could require no lesse satisfaction , and righteousnes , nor be satisfied with any other , but that which is performed by him , who is GOD and man , in one person , that is the perfect righteousnes and satisfaction of Christ which alone by the infinite value which it receives from his God-head , is fit to remove so infinite an evil , and to procure so infinite a good to men ▪ But the maintainers of this Socinian opinion by denying that GODS infinite justice stands in strength to exact such a satisfaction being over-ruled , and oppressed , by absolute soveraignty of power ; and by teaching that mercy , and bounty run beyond reason , freeing men from all need of such an infinite satisfaction to be communicated & imputed to them , and justifying them freely without righteousnes , they do take away the use of Christs God-head in his mediation , and the causes , and reasons , for which it was necessary that he should be GOD as well as man : And in conclusion , in places where they dare be bold to disclose the secret thoughts of their hearts , they roundly deny Christ to be the Sonne of GOD , of the same substance with GOD the Father . Therefore this their opinion is most impious , blasphemous , and Hereticall : And indeed it is never found in Histories , to have been maintained by any but Samosatenian Heretiks , deadly enemies to Christs deity . Lastly , that opinion which is builded upon an Hereticall , and blasphemous ground , and is upheld , and maintained by blasphemous arguments , which do shake , and even raze the maine foundations of true Religion , must needs be most wicked and blasphemous : and such is this opinion ; for it is builded upon this blasphemous ground , that GOD by his soveraigne power may do and will , things contrary to his justice , that is , count and accept that for righteousnes , which is no righteousnes , nor worthy to be accounted an act of perfect righteousnes , for such is the faith of fraile man taken in a proper sense . The arguments by which it is commonly maintained are also blasphemous , and wicked ; to wit ▪ First they argue , that Christs righteousnes is not imputed to true believers , neither can be made or counted theirs by GOD. Because Christs righteousnes is the righteousnes of another far different from them : and GOD cannot iustify one , by anothers righteousnes , and therefore we are not iustified by Christs righteousnesse , neither is it imputed in iustification . Now what is this but a denying of the union , of the faithfull with Christ , for if he be one with us , and we one with him , then are our sinnes made his by communion , and in him satisfied , and his righteousnes and satisfaction is made ours , and we thereby are pardoned , and iustified , by it as it , is made ours , and is not the righteousnes of a stranger , nor of one who is another so different from us , but that he and we are one spirituall body , and all his benefits are ours , and we have an interest in them , and possesse them , and enioy them ; so far as every one hath need of them . As this argument tends to overthrow our union with Christ , so A. Wotton in a manuscript of essayes , doth professe that our union with Christ is onely metaphoricall . Secondly , they argue that the righteousnes of Christ cannot be sufficient for the elect , nor counted to them for all righteousnesse which is in effect a denying of Christ to be GOD and man in one person , for if they acknowledg him to be GOD , they must needs hold that his righteousnes and fulfilling of the Law , is of more worth and value , then if all men in the world had fulfilled the Law , in their owne persons without failing in one point . Thirdly , they argue that if Christ his righteousnes , and satisfaction be so made ours , and imputed to us that the Law may be said to be fulfilled in us , & we may said to have satisfied GODS iustice , in him our head , and by him our surety , then is there no place left for pardon , and free forgivenesse of our sinnes , for pardon and satisfaction are contrary . By which they overthrow the Doctrine of redemption , and of Christs satisfaction for us , and deny Christ to be our redeemer , and to have paid our ransome , and made a full satisfaction to the justice of GOD for our sinnes , contrary to the Scriptures , and the judgement and beliefe of all Christian Divines , who teach that Christ hath paid our ransome , is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our redeemer . And though GODS justice exacted of Christ our surety a full ransome , and did not abate him the least farthing of our debt , yet we are freely pardoned , and have free forgivenesse , and are freely iustified by GODS grace , because hee did freely give his owne son to satisfy & fulfill the Law for us , & doth freely by his grace , and the free gift of his spirit unite us to Christ , and make us partakers of his satisfaction , & imputing his satisfaction freely to us doth for it freely forgive our sinnes , and justifie us . Fourthly while they argue that faith in a proper sense is all the righteousnes which the faithfull have for justification ; and yet faith is not any formall righteousnes , by their owne confession , yea they deny that any formall righteousnes is required in justification ; hereby they deny the Saints justified to be righteous contrary to the Scriptures which call them the righteous , and the generation of the righteous , Psal. 1.6 . and 14.5 . and the righteous nation , Isa. 26.2 . and in many other places , which title GODS spirit would never give to them , if they were not formally righteous , by righteousnes , communicated to them after a spirituall & heavenly manner . For to hold as they doe , that men are justified and counted righteous without any formall righteousnes , which doth constitute and give being to a righteous and justified man , as he is righteous and justified , is a monstrous opinion contrary to reason . Fiftly while they deny that the faithfull are constituted and made formally righteous by the obedience of Christ communicated , and imputed to them , which the Apostle in expresse wordes doth affirme , Rom. 5.19 . and 8.4 . and Rom. 10.4 . they in heate of argument fall into the Pelagian heresie , and are forced to deny , that Adams sinne and disobedience is communicated and imputed to his posterity , so as that they are formally sinners by it . And rather then they will yeeld that infants which dye before they commit actuall transgression in their owne persons , are punished with death , because they are guilty of Adams sinne ; they doe blasphemously affirme , that GOD being offended and moved to wrath , by the sinnes of parents , will out of the magnificence of his judgement , and rage of his iustice , destroy innocent babes with their sinfull parents , for terrour to others ; which is contrary to GODS word , and Law which teach that children shal not dye for the sinnes of their parents , unlesse they bee partakers with them , either by communion and imputation , or by imitation and approbation . Whereas they bring for instance , that the children of Korah were destroyed with their father , though they were innocent , and not partakers in the sinne ; herein they contradict the Scriptures , which expressely affirme that the children of Korah dyed not . numb . 26.11 . For they undoubtedly upon Moses his threatning of sudden destruction , fled from their fathers tents and escaped , and onely they perished who would not be admonished by Moses , to separate themselves from the congregation of Korah , but adhering to him were partakers of his conspiracy , and sinne of rebellion . Sixtly when they to colour their heresie , proclayme Christs righteousnes to bee the meritorious cause of iustification , and yet deny communion and imputation of it to true beleevers ; what is this but to hold that Christs righteousnes is meritorious to them , who have no interest in it ? which being granted it , will follow , That Christs righteousnes doth merit for infidels and damned reprobates , and doth as much for the justifying of them , as it doth to justifie the Elect and faithfull . For true reason can conceive no cause , why Christ doth merit more , or conferre more to the justification of the elect and faithfull by his righteousnesse , then hee doth to Infidels and reprobates ; but onely this , that he communicates it to the elect , gives them a proper interest in it , and makes them truely partakers of it , so that it is imputed to them , and made their meritorious ransome : this while these men deny , they deny Christs righteousnes to merit any more for the faithfull , then for damned reprobates . And thus their bent is to set up Pelagian and Arminian free will , and to make this the onely difference betweene them that are justified and them that are damned , that whereas both alike have equall share in Christs merits , and Christ hath merited as much for the one , as the other , and given as much grace for iustification : the one having power of free will doth use it , and will beleeve , and so is iustified by his faith imputed for righteousnes ; the other will not use the universall grace given to him , nor beleeve , which he might doe if he would ; and therefore is damned : which is a most horrible and abominable Doctrine , and hereticall opinion . Lastly they argue , that as in the first Covenant , GOD required workes of the Law performed by every man in his owne person , and this was the condition which man was to performe for iustification , and eternall life , and so that Covenant was not free , but conditionall . So in the new Covenant GOD requires faith and beleeving , which wee on our part must performe for iustification , life and salvation . And hereby they abolish the freedome of the new Covenant , and make it a Covenant conditionall , and not of free grace . For what soever is covenanted-and promised , upon a condition to be performed , is not absolutely free nor freely given ; and so according to their Doctrine , they that are iustified by faith are not freely iustified by grace , whereas they plead Scripture for their errour , and alledge that iustification and life is promised upon condition of beleeving . If you beleeve , you shall be saved . I answer that , this is a grosse and absurd mistake . For every conditionall proposition doth not propound the conditition of a Covenant , which the party to whom a thing is promised , must performe , that the promise may bee made good to him ; for such a condition whensoever it is performed , makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the promiser is bound to give . ) But oftentimes a conditionall proposition propounds the meanes , by which a free gift is received ; or the qualification by which one is made capable , and fit to receive , and enjoy a free gift , as for example , it is often said in Scripture . if yee will heare and hearken , yee shall eate the good of the land , and shall live , and not be destroyed . Isay 1.19 , Ier. 26.3 . and many other places . If we love one another , GOD dwelleth in us . 1 Iohn 4. If we walke in the light , we have fellowship one with another . 1 Iohn 1.2 . If we confesse our sinnes , hee is faithfull , and just to forgive . 1 Iohn● . 9 . If a man be just , and do that which is right he shall surely live . Ezech 18.5.21 In all which , and the like places , there is no condition of the Covenant propounded , but onely the way and meanes to receive blessing , or the quality & condition , by which men are made capable and fit to enjoy the blessing , and somtimes the signes , tokens , and effects of them , that are in a blessed estate . And even so when GODS word saith , If you believe , yee shall be saved , There is no condition of the Covenant , propounded to be performed on our part , for justification , and salvation , but onely the qualification ; by which GOD of his free grace doth qualify , and fit us to be iustified , and saved , and the meanes by which hee enables us to receive righteousnes , and to lay hold on salvation , which is freely given to us in Christ. Vpon these particulars severally observed out of their owne words , and writings , I strongly conclude , that this opinion being builded upon such a blasphemous , and Hereticall ground , and upheld , and maintained by such blasphemous arguments , must needs be most impious , Hereticall , and blasphemous . Having already proved the Socinian and Arminian opinion , to be most false , and abominable , I proceed to answere the particular arguments , contained in this 2. Chapter , which was by the Authors owne hand delivered unto me to be answered : And because he and his followers shall not complaine , of misrelating any of his words ▪ I will ( as I have done in the former Chapter . ) first lay downe his owne words . Socinianisme . THe first argument brought to prove that faith and believing are in a proper sense , Rom. 4. said to be imputed to the believer for righteousnes in justification , and not the righteousnes of Christ. First , the letter of this Scripture speakes what we affirme plainely , and speakes no parable about it : yea , it speakes it once , and twice , yea , it speakes it the third , and fourth time , and is not ashamed of it . Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was imputed to him for righteousnes verse 3. Againe to him that worketh not , but believeth in him that justifieth , the ungodly his Faith is counted to him for righteousnes , verse 5. And yet againe verse 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousnes . The same phrase and expression is used also verse 23.24 . Certainely there is not any truth in religion , not any article of our beliefe , that can boast of the letter of the Scripture more full , expresse and pregnant for it ; what is maintained concerning the imputation of faith , hath all the authority , and countenance from the Scriptures , that wordes can lightly give , whereas the imputation of Christs righteousnes ( in that sense which many magnifie ) hath not the least reliefe either from any sound of wordes , or sight of letter in the Scripture . Christianisme . HIs first argument reduced into the forme of a syllogisme , runs thus . That opinion which hath the Letter of the Scripture , more full expresse and pregnant for it , then any truth in religion , or article of our beliefe , and hath all the authority and countenance from the Scripture , that wordes can lightly give , is certainely true . This opinion concerning the imputation of faith in a proper sense is such . Therefore it is a true and sound opinion . That this imputation of faith , may boast of the letter of Scripture , and of all the authority and countenance that wordes can give , hee proves , because the letter of the Scripture speakes it once , twice , yea thrice and foure times , to wit , in this Chapter , Rom. verse 3.5 . 22 , 23 , 24. to which I will adde a fift time verse . 9. The more true that the proposition is , the more false is the assumption , wherein hee assumes most falsely to his opinion , that which in no wise belongs to it , and thereupon inferres a most false conclusion . I answere therefore that his assumption is an heap of impudent lyes . First the killing letter of the Scripture may give some countenance to it , that is , speeches of Scripture understood , and urged literally , which are spoken by GODS spirit tropically and in a figure . This Saint Austin calls the killing letter , because they who take the words properly , and so urge them obstinately , they slay their owne soules . But the true literall sense of the wordes , which are improperly literall , will never give any countenance to this hereticall opinion , as I have shewed before most fully . 2 I cannot but accuse him here of most intollerable impudency in that he affirmes , that this most Hereticall opinion hath more full expresse , and pregnant testimony from the letter of the Scripture , then any truth in Religion , or any article of Religion , and hath all the authority and countenance from the Scripture , that words can give , when as in all the Scripture , faith is not once said to be imputed for righteousnes , in a proper sense , in all the word of GOD , and is onely seven times said to be counted , or imputed for righteousnes , and that tropically ; while the Apostle useth the phrase borrowed from that improper speech which is spoken of Abraham , Gen. 15.6 . That when Abraham believed GOD , he counted it to him for righteousnes . For it is manifest that in this . Chapter , he altogether insists upon that speech , and doth but repeat it six times : and so likewise Gal. 3.6 , Saint Iames also once useth it , speaking of declarative justification , to prove that Abraham was justified by workes , Iam. 2.23 . that is , declared before men to be righteous , because the Scripture saith , Abraham believed GOD , and it was imputed to him for righteousnes . So that of Saint Iames may be believed , faith is not the righteousnesse for which man is accepted with GOD , ( as the Socinians teach ) but that by which man obteines the testimony of righteousnes , as Iustine Martyr understands this phrase . Now that Christ , and his fulfilling of the law is truely , and properly , the righteousnes by which all believers are justified , constituted , and made righteous before GOD : the Scriptures do in proper literall speech , as well as improperly more often affirme , as Isa. 61.10 . Rom. 3.24 . Rom. 4 ▪ 6. Rom. 5.17 , 18 , 19· Rom. 8.4 . and 10.3.4 . and Phil. 3.9 . and 1 Cor. 1.30 . and 2 Cor. 5.24 . these twelve places do plainely teach and affirme , that the righteousnes by which men are made and constituted righteous in iustification , is Christs obedience and satisfaction , made to the Law , for our redemption , and nine of them are proper speeches ; so that here wee see the communion of Christs righteousnesse which hee opposeth , hath more authority , and countenance from the Scripture , and more full expresse , and pregnant testimony from the letter of it . If I should instance in other truths of Religion , as that there is one true GOD , even Jehovah , and none beside him ; or that hee created all things , or concerning the deity of Christ , and of the holy Ghost , or concerning redemption by Christ , or the last Iudgment , resurrection and life eternall : ten expresse , and pregnant testimonies of Scripture might be brought to prove any one of them ; for every one wherein imputation of faith is named . So that here we see what he cannot proue by argument , he goeth about by impudent outfaceing to impose upon his hearers , and readers . But let us examine the proofe of this bold assertion even his assumption , which certainely is as poore weake , and begerly , as his forehead is strong , like brasse , in impudent affirming it . The letter of the Scripture , ( saith hee ) affirmes it plainely once and twice , yea a third and fourth time . Therefore it is most certainely true . To this I answere , that the letter of the Scripture affirmes that faith and believing was counted to Abraham , and is to other believers , but not in a proper sense , but tropically ; and so many things are often affirmed by the letter of the Scripture , which if we understand them in a proper sense , are most false , as for example . GOD is said to repent Gen ▪ 6. two severall times , to wit ▪ ver . 6.7 . and Ier. 26. three severall times , viz. ver . 3 , 13.19 . and Amos ▪ 7.3 , 6. and Iud 2.18 . and 1 Sam. 15.11 . Psal. 135.14 . Ier. 18.10 . with many more . So likewise an hand , and armes , and eyes , and mouth , are often attributed by the letter , of the Scripture to GOD , which speeches if wee should understand in a proper sense they would prove a killing letter to us ; therefore this is a most absurd and ridiculous proofe well beseeming the thing which it is brought to prove . And as he falters in his Logick and his reasons , so he shewes ignorance of rhethorik , for he takes it for a certaine truth , that one phrase foure times used must needs be taken in a proper literall sense . But rhetorik would have taught him that to use divers tropicall speeches together , is an Allegory , and elegancy of speech often used in Scripture , as the places last cited shew . To which let me add one most pregnant instance , Gal. 3. where the word faith in a discourse of justification is used ten times in an improper sense , for the Gospel which is the word of faith , and teacheth iustification by Christ , and by believing in him , and not by our owne workes , which the Law requires , to wit , verses 3 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 14 , 22 , 23 , 25. Now it may be he perceived little strength in his argument brought for his imputation of faith , notwithstanding , his great braggs , and therefore he shootes one fooles bolt against the imputation of Christs righteousnes , which is an argument or syllogisme , consisting of an assumption without a proposition , or a conclusion expressed : but I can coniecture what he meant to conclude , namely , that the imputation of Christs righteousnes in iustification , is a mere faction , and ought not to be believed . The imputation of Christs righteousnesse , ( in that sense which many magnifie ) hath not the least reliefe , either from sound of words , or light of letter in the Scripture . To which I answer , first that if this were granted ( which is most false ) yet it doth not follow that faith alone in a proper sense is imputed . Ridiculum caput ( saith he in the Comedie ) quasi necesse sit , si justitia Christi non dicitur imputari , fidem reputari pro justitia . It is a ridiculous conceipt , to thinke that if Christs righteousnes be not imputed , therefore faith alone in a proper sense must be said to bee imputed . David tells us that Phinees his executing of iudgement , was imputed to him for righteousnes , and Saint Iames saith that Abraham was iustified by works , & not by faith alone : why then are not works as well as faith imputed ? But secondly I answer that his assertion is most false , and I prove it from the very wordes of the Apostle in the 4. Chapter , verse 6. where he saith that to the blessed man righteousnes is imputed without workes , and verse 11. where he gathereth that to the beleeving Gentiles , though uncircumcised , righteousnes shal be imputed . Now faith is not righteousnes ( as hee himselfe confesseth ) for righteousnes is perfect conformity to GODS law ; & this is not to bee found in all the world , but only in Christ , he alone hath in mans nature fulfilled the law . As for faith , evē in Abrahā himselfe it was stained with many doubtings , and feares at some times as when he called his wife his sister for better safety : and so it is in the best beleevers . Beleeving also is but a dutie and a worke of obedience to the Law ; but this which is here said to bee imputed , is a righteousnes without workes , or any thing performed in our owne persons ; therefore faith is not the righteousnes which is here said to be imputed ; but the righteousnes of Christ apprehended by faith , and couched under the name of faith and beleeving . Socinianisme . SEcondly the scope of the place rejoyceth also in this interpretation , that faith should be taken properly in all those passages cited , and from tropes and metonymies it turneth it selfe away . It is apparent to the circumspect Reader , that the Apostles maine intent and drift in this whole discourse of justification , was to hedge up with thornes ( as it were ) that false way of justification which lay through workes , and to put men from attempting any going that way , and to open and discover the true way of justification , wherein men shall not faile to attain that Law of righteousnes before GOD : that is , in plaine speech , to make knowne unto them what they must doe , and what GOD requireth of them to their justification , and what he will accept at their hands this way , and what not ? Now that which GOD precisely requires of men to their justification , in stead of the works of the Law , is their faith , or to beleeve ( in the proper and formall signification . ) He doth not require of us the righteousnes of Christ , for our justification , this hee required of Christ himselfe ; that which hee requires of us for this purpose is our faith in Christ. Therefore to certifie or say unto them , that the righteousnes of Christ should be imputed to them for righteousnes , would fall short of his scope and intent this way , which was plainely and directly this , to make known unto them the counsaile and good pleasure of GOD , concerning that which was to be done and performed by them to their justification , which he affirmeth from place to place , to be nothing else but their faith in Christ or beleeving , whereas to have said thus unto them that , they must be justified by Christ , or by Christs righteousnes , and withall not to have plainely signified , what GOD requires of them and will accept at their hand to give them fellowship in that righteousnes . For justification which is by Christ , and without which they could not be justified , had beene rather to cast a snare upon them then to have opened a dore of life , and salvation unto them . Christianisme . His second way of arguing to proue his opinions from the scope of the place , and the intent of the Apostle in this discourse of justification . His maine argument reduced into forme runs thus . The scope of the place , and intent of the Apostle is to hedg up with thornes , the false way of justification which lay through works , and to turne men from it ; as also to discover the true way to them , to wit , what they must do , and what GOD requireth of them , to their justification , and what hee will accept at their hands , instead of the workes of the Law : and that is it which he here saith is imputed for righteousnesse . But faith , and believing ( in a proper and formall signification ) is that which they must do , and performe to their justification , which also GOD requires of them , instead of workes of the Law , and will accept at their hands instead of them . Therefore faith in a proper sense , is here said to be imputed To this argument I answere , First , that in the first proposition there is some truth affirmed , but immediately contradicted , and many falsehoodes intermingled . That the Apostles scope and intent is to hedge up the false way of , justification , which lay through workes , and to discover the ture way , we grant for truth . But like a mad , or drunken man , he immediately contradicts the truth which he had affirmed , and tels us that the right way is doing , and performing , something which GOD requires at our hands to our iustification . And what is this , but the way which lyes through workes ? For to doe and perform somthing required of us , that it may be accepted of GOD at our hands to our justification , is to seek justification by the way of working in the judgement of men , that are sober and in their wits . Besides this manifest contradiction , I find also much falshood and evill meaning . 1. In saying the truth , that the false way lyeth through works , that is , works performed in obedience to the Law by every man in his own person ( which is the true intent and meaning of the Apostle ) he hath a further wicked meaning , namely , that our seeking after the righteousnesse of Christ , which consists in his works of obedience to the Law , is the way which lyeth through works to justification , and therefore the false way . And this he declares to be his meaning in that he immediatly after labours to beat men off from Christs righteousnesse . Wherfore , I justly tax him here , not onely of blasphemy , in calling the righteousnesse Christ ( who is the way , the truth , and the life ) and seeking justification through it , a false way : but also of stupidity and blindnesse , in that he cannot see the difference between our seeking justification by the righteousnesse offered to us in the Gospel to be apprehended by faith , even Christs righteousnesse ; and our doing works of the Law for our justification ; or Christs performing works of the Law in his own person . For Christs righteousnesse as it was performed by himselfe , was legall and according to the strict termes of the Law : but as it comes to us by communion , and is applyed by faith , it is Euangelicall . 2. In that he saith God requires somthing to be done of men for their Justification , which God imputes to them , and accepts at their hands instead of the works or righteousnesse of the Law. Hereby he sets up justification by some thing which a man doth , and performeth , which the Apostle altogether opposeth in this discourse and his whole scope is bent against it ; and his whole intent and drift is to shew , that we are justified , not by giving or doing , but by receiving that which is freely given of GOD , and reputed for righteousnes , even the righteousnesse of him , who is GOD , and is called therfore the righteousnesse of God , Chap. 3.21 . and 10.3 . Hereby also he brings in a doing and performing of somthing by men , which is accepted of God , over and above that which the Law requireth , which is a meere Popish fiction , tending to dishonour the Law , and to make it an imperfect rule of mans wel doing . And withall he makes the new Covenant a condicionall Covenant , and not of free Grace , promising justification and salvation upon condition of mens doing . In the second place , his assumption , wherein he affirms that faith and beleeving in the proper and formall signification , is that which men must doe and performe , and which God requires and will accept at their hands instead of works of the Law for justification : it contains in it most grosse Socinian errour , and much absurdity and untruth . First , in that he calls faith and beleeving a thing done and performed by men , this is directly contrary to the Apostle , who teacheth , that faith is not of our selves , but is the gift of God , Ephes. 2.8 . and that we of our selves are not sufficient to think much lesse to do that which God can accept : but our sufficiencies of God , 2 Cor. 3.5 . and it is God which worketh in us both to will and to doe of his good pleasure , Phil. 2.13 . so that faith and beleeving are not a condition performed by us to oblige God ; but a part of the Grace freely promised in the Covenant , and given to us , even the worke and motion of his Spirit in us . Secondly , in that he sets up faith instead of all righteousnesse and perfect fullfilling of the Law : hereby he doth professe himselfe a Socinian Hereticke in plain terms , and conspires with those Heretickes to overthrow the justice of God in our justification , and to make Christs satisfaction vaine and needlesse , as I have before shewed . After his arguing for the imputation of faith , he proceeds here in his second way of arguing , as he did in the former , to dispute against Gods imputing of Christs righteousnes in iustification . His reasons are 3. First , because God required Christs righteousnes of Christ himselfe , and therefore it is not required of GOD for our righteousnesse , to iustification . Secondly , because the scope of the Apostle is to shew what must be done , and performed by us , and what GOD requires at our hands , to iustification , and Christs righteousnesse is not any thing performed by us , and therefore is not here said to be imputed . Thirdly , if the Apostle had said that we must be iustified by Christ and his righteousnesse , without any other thing performed by us , this had beene to cast a snare upon us , rather then to open to us a dore of life , and salvation . To which I answere , that as his denying of Christs righteousnes to be imputed , is Hereticall , so also are his reasons brought to confirme his opinion . First in that he saith GOD doth not require of us the righteousnes of Christ , for our iustification ; this phrase is not onely harsh , and unsavory , but also full of calumny , and close slander . It is harsh and absurd , like as if one should say , that GOD requires the same particular , and individuall act , done by another , to be not done by him , but by us , which implies a grosse contradiction . It is also full of close calumny , for hereby he goeth about to make men beleeve , that the orthodox doctrine of iustification by the communion , and imputation of Christs righteousnes , is a teaching , and supposing , that GOD requires of us for iustification , that we be performers of the same individuall works of the law , in the propriety , and formality of them , which Christ performed , and so he openly expresseth his mind in another place , which is a base slander , as I have before shewed . Secondly , in that he saith , God required Christs righteousnesse of Christ himselfe , and not for our iustification ; This implies , that Christ had need of iustification , and was bound to fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law , as a thing requisit for himselfe , and it savours very rank of the Samosatenian , and Socinian heresie , which denyeth Christs eternall deity , for if Christ his humane nature , being from the first conception most pure , upright , and holy , was personally united to the eternall Son God , equall with the father , and so was the Son of God , and heir of all things : who can doubt but that he in himselfe was worthy of glory at Gods right hand from his birth ; as his taking of our nature upon him was altogether for us , so his infirmities , sufferings , death , and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteousnes and obedience to the Law was for us , and for all the elect , both them who of old before his comming beleeved in him promised and to come ; and also for them who now doe beleeve in him already come exhibited and exalted to glory in his humanity . To say or thinke that he had need to iustifie , and make righteous himselfe by his workes , and to merit glory in heaven by his righteousnes ; is in effect to deny that hee is GOD infinitely worthy of all glory , as he was the onely begotten sonne of GOD , and heire of all things . His second reason is a manifest falshod , to wit , that the scope of the Apostle is to shew what is to be done , and performed by us , which GOD may accept at our hands to our justification . For the Apostles scope is to shew that wee are justified freely by GODS grace , by the things which Christ did for our redemption , cap. 3.24 ▪ and that obedience , righteousnes , and satisfaction of Christ , we must not obtaine by any workes of our owne according to the Law , it is freely given us of GOD , and faith is the hand by which wee receive it , and our evidence , that we are justified by it . His third reason is blasphemy , and contradiction of Christs owne words . For our Saviour professeth and affirmeth that he alone is the dore , John 10.7 . & the way , Iohn 14.6 . and hee who makes him the way and dore , and seeks justification life and salvation by the way of his righteousnes , hee is a true disciple of Christ , and his Apostles . But to call the teaching of men in this way , the casting of a snare upon them is blasphemy . Far be it from me , and from all true Christians not to detest and ▪ abhorre such impiety , and not to thinke him worthie of the curse of Anathema Maranatha , who with his mouth proclaimeth , and with an obstinate heart maintaineth , that teaching of iustification by Christ and his righteousnes is casting of a snare on men , and not of the dore of life and salvation to them . Socinianisme . THirdly that interpretation which is set up against it , and contendeth for the imputation of Christs righteousnes , is cleerely overthrowne by severall circumstances , and passages in the context ; First it hath no appearance of a likelyhood in it , that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification , wherein ( doubtlesse ) he desired , if in any subject besides , to speak with his understanding , as his owne phrase is , that is , that what hee himselfe conceives and understands may bee clearly understood by others , should time after time and in one place after another without ever explaining himself , or changing his speech throughout the whole disputation , use so strange & harsh and uncouth an expression , or figure of speech , as is not to be found in all his writings besides , to say that faith and beleeving is imputed for righteousnes , but to meane that indeed it is the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed ; were to speake rather that he might conceale his mind then reveale it . Christianisme . IN this third way of arguing he layeth downe his arguments against the true Orthodox interpretation of Saint Pauls speeches , concerning imputation of faith for righteousnes ; which interpretation he goeth about to overthrow by severall circumstances , or passages in the context . I will first sift his first argument here laid downe , and then propound and answer the rest . Answer to the first argument . IN this argument there are more impudent lyes then full pauses , or sentences . The first impudent lye is , that the Apostle expressing the state of righteousnes , or of a man justified by Christs righteousnes ; by the name of faith , and beleeving imputed for righteousnes to him , should use an harsh strange and uncouth speech , and expression : what is the man so ignorant of the first grounds of Rhetorick , that a trope or figure of speech , is harsh strange and uncouth with him ? It is but a Metonymie to expres by the name of Faith , and beleeving , the state of a beleever or a faithfull man , or the object of faith , which faith hath laid hold on so fast , that they cannot be separated , but he who hath the one hath the other also , and by righteousnes to expresse the state of a righteous man justified . And when we say faith is imputed for righteousnes , to meane that the state of a beleever is counted the state of righteousnes , or of a man justified ; or that faith as it comprehends Christs righteousnesse , is counted to him that hath it righteousnes : and Christs righteousnesse which the beleever by faith possesseth , is set on his skore for iustification . A second notorious untruth is , that such a figure of speech as this , is not to be found in all the Apostles writings besides . For the same expression and figure of speeches used by this Apostle , Cap. 2.26 . as I have before plainely shewed . Yea foure times in the foure last verses is the same trope used , uncircumcision first for a man uncircumcised , and secondly for the state of an uncircumcised Gentile , and circumcision for a circumcised Iew , and againe for inward sanctification whereof circumcision was the signe and Sacrament , and ten severall times doth he tropically by faith meane the Gospell , and Doctrine thereof , which is the obiect of faith , Gal. 3 ( as I have before noted , where he discourseth about this weighty point of iustification . A third impudent lye , and manifest falshood is that the Apostle time after time , and in one place after another useth the word faith or beleeving imputed , without ever explaining himselfe , or changing his speech . For that which he calls faith and beleeving , and faith it is imputed for righteousnes , vers . 3. and 5. he explaining himselfe , and changing his speech , v. 6.11 . calls it righteousnes , and saith GOD imputeth righteousnes , and righteousnesse is imputed . In a word I doe challenge him to shew one place in all the writings of this Apostle , wherein he useth this phrase of faith , or beleeving , imputed for righteousnes , except onely here in this Chapter , and in Gal , 3. In both which places he cites that testimony of Moses , concerning Abraham , that GOD counted faith to him for righteousnes , and urgeth it in the phrase of Moses , but in all other places , where he writes of iustification , he useth his owne expressions , and saith that wee are iustified by Christs satisfaction made for our redemption , as Rom. 3.24 . and by his obedience and fulfilling of the Law Rom. 5.19 . and 8.4 . and 10.3.4 . and that Christ is made to us righteousnesse , 1 Cor. 1.30 . and we are made the righteousnes of GOD in him , 2 Cor. 5.21 . If he cannot shew any place besides these , then let him bee ashamed of his doings , in that he hath bent his tongue and pen like a bow for lyes , and shootes out in every passage so many notorious untruthes , that hee may bee suspected to have full furnished his quiver , from the armorie of the father of lyes , the Prince of darknesse . The second Argument . SEcondly verse 5. it is said , that to him that beleeveth his faith is imputed to him for righteousnes . From which clause it is evident , that that faith ( whatsoever we understand by it ) which is imputed is his , somewhat that wayes truely , and properly called , his , before such imputation of it bee made unto him . Now it cannot be said of the righteousnesse of Christ , that it is any mans before the imputation of it to him , but faith properly taken is the beleevers before it be imputed ( at least in order of nature , though not in time . ) Therefore by faith which is here said to be imputed , cannot be meant the righteousnesse of Christ. Answer . THe righteousnes of Christ by spirituall union , and communion , which every true beleever hath with Christ , is as truely his , as his faith . For Christ is made unto him righteousnesse , 1 Cor. 1.30 . and he is made the righteousnesse of GOD in Christ , 2 Cor. 5.22 . and that in order of nature before it is counted his righteousnesse . For GOD whose judgement is according to truth , doth not count that to the beleever , which he hath not before communicated , or at the same time doth communicate to him . Secondly I answer , that if faith which is here called his faith , be faith in a proper sense , and be imputed for righteousnesse to justification , then is man justified by his owne inherent righteousnesse , and by a worke done and performed in his owne person , which every Orthodox Divine will tell him is flat popery or worse . The third Argument . THirdly granting a trope , or Metonymie in this place , and that by faith is meant the object of it , or the thing beleeved ; yet it will not follow from hence , that the righteousnesse of Christ should be said to bee imputed here , but either GOD himselfe , or the promise of GOD made to Abraham For it is said verse 3. that Abraham beleeved GOD , not that he beleeved Christs righteousnes , except we set up another trope to maintaine the former , and by GOD will say is meant the righteousnes of Christ , which would bee not a trope or figure , but rather a monster of speech . Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is not here said to be imputed for righteousnesse , but faith properly taken . Yea whereas the object of faith as justifying , is expressed with great variety of words , and termes in Scripture , in all this variety there is not once to bee found the least mention , of the righteousnes of Christ : as if the holy Ghost foreseeing the kindling of this false fire , had purposely withdrawne , or withheld all fuell that might feed it . Sometimes Christ in person is made the obiect of this faith , Iohn 3.16 . besides many such expressions . Sometimes Christ in his Doctrine , or the Doctrine and word of Christ , Iohn 5.46 . had yee beleeved Moses , yee would have beleeved mee . Sometimes Christ in the relation of his person , and that either as he stands related unto GOD as his father , Iohn 20.31 . or else as hee stands related to those ancient promises of GOD made unto the Iewes concerning a Messiah , to be given and sent unto them , Iohn 8.24 . except yee beleeve that I am hee , yee shall dye in your sinnes . Sometimes the raising up of Christ from the dead , as Rom. 10.9 . Sometimes GOD himselfe is made the obiect of faith . 1. Pet. 1.21 . Sometimes the record or testimony of GOD concerning his sonne , is made the obiect of faith , 1. Ioh. 5.10 . In all this variety or diversity of expressing the obiect of faith , as iustifying , there is no sound or intimation of the righteousnes or active obedience of Christ. Not but that the righteousnesse of Christ is , and ought to bee beleeved as well as other things revealed , and affirmed in the Scriptures : yea it is of nearer concernment to the maine to beleeve it , then the beleeving of many things besides comprehended in the Scriptures as well as it , but the reason I conceive ) why it is not numbred or reckoned up among the obiects of faith , as iustifying is , because though it ought , and cannot but be beleeved by that faith which iustifyeth , yet it may be beleeved also by such a faith , which is so farre from iustifying , that it denyeth this Christ ( whose righteousnesse notwithstanding it beleeveth ) to be the sonne of GOD. Thus some of his owne nation ( the Iewes ) have given testimony to his righteousnesse and innocency , who yet received him not for their Messiah , nor beleeved him to be GOD. And this is the frame & constitution of the Turkish faith ( for the most part ) at this day . Answere . IN this third argument he undertakes to prove , that if faith were said to be imputed by a trope or metonymie , and that by faith were meant the object of it , yet Christs righteousnesse cannot be meant , because the object of that faith which is said to be imputed , is GOD himselfe , or the promise of GOD : But to understand , that by GOD is meant Christs righteousnes , would be not a trope or figure of speech , but a monster of speech . To which I answere , that Abrahams faith which was imputed , was a believing that GOD in Christ was his shield , and his exceeding great reward . Gen. 15.1 . Now no man can in believing by a true faith separate the righteousnes , and full satisfaction of Christ GOD and man , from Christ himselfe . To beleeve GOD to be our reward is to believe that GOD is become our righteousnes , and so our reward ; for the reward of blessednes is the reward of righteousnes , and is called the Crowne of righteousnes . 2. Tim. 4. So that the argument may be turned thus against himselfe . Whosoever truely believes GOD to be his reward , he believes that GOD is righteousnesse , and so Christ as he is IEHOVAH , his righteousnes . Abraham when his faith was counted to him for righteousnesse , believed that God was his reward : Therefore hee believed that God was his righteousnes , and so Christ as hee is IEHOVAH our righteousnes , was the obiect of his justifying faith . Secondly , he hath here one most grosse and absurd speech , which shewes either his palpable ignorance in Rhetorick , or desperat impudency . That is , that if one should speak of believing God , and meane believing Christs righteousnes ; this were not a trope or figure , but a monster of speech . Here I will intreat him to tell me ingenuously whether he doth hold the Lord Christ ( who appeared , and spake to Abraham , and the Fathers , and whom they believed ) to be the true God. If he denyeth him to be the true God , then wee shall take him to be in all points of heresie a compleat Socinian : if hee grants that Christ is God , and his righteousnes performed in our nature , is the righteousnes of God and inseparable from his person ; then hee who truely believes in Christ , and enjoyes him , must needs believe his righteousnes , and enjoy it , and to speak of believing in Christ God our shield , and reward , and to meane not his Godhead barely or his naked person , but his righteousnes also , and that he is IEHOVAH our righteousnes ; this is but a metonymie of the subject , which non cane call a monster of speech , but hee who is ignorant in the grounds of Rhetorick . Thirdly , in his denying , that Christs righteousnes is the object of justifying faith , he doth most openly contradict that which hee hath writ in the former Chapter , in the 6 part , where hee professeth that Christ and his righteousnes , is the object of that faith which is imputed ; and if it doth not lay hold on Christ , it is not capable of imputation . His rehearsing of the variety of the objects of faith , mentioned in the Scripture , and denying Christs righteousnes to be any object , or thing beleeved : hee doth notoriously delude and gull his readers , and shewes great impudency ; for what more often required in the Scripture to be beleeved , then that Christ is our true sacrifice for sinne , and our sacrifice of righteousnes , and that he is the end and fulfilling of the Law , for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth ? yea , he gives himselfe the ly , and by his owne argument overthrowes his conclusion : For among the things which the Scriptures require that we should believe , he reckons Christ himselfe , and the doctrine of Christ , and the promise of Christ , the testimony which GOD hath given of his Son , and the resurrection of Christ , every one of which includes in it Christs righteousnes ; for if wee believe in Christ aright , wee believe him to be the righteous servant of GOD , in whom his soule delighteth , who hath fulfilled all righteousnesse , is the end of the Law , for righteousnesse to every beleever , and is Iehovah , our righteousnes ; such a one he was promised to be . The Gospel which is his doctrine , teacheth him to be such a one . The testimony which GOD hath given of him , is that in him we have eternall life , which is the crowne of righteousnes . His resurrection is the evidence of his righteousnes , and that the Law was fulfilled by him , and death therefore could not hold him captive : so that by rehearsing these as the objects of faith , hee confuts himselfe , and confirmes our doctrine . And lastly , he professeth vaine tergiversation , openly , by granting that Christs righteousnes is to be believed . But whereas hee saith that Turkes , and Iewes , believe not Christ , and yet believe his righteousnes ; this is a monster in speech , sense , and reason ; For how can a man beleeve that a person which is not is righteous , and that righteousnes may subsist without a subject . None can beleeve Christs righteousnes to be , as the Scripture calles it , the righteousnes of GOD , unlesse he believe Christ to be GOD. Some Turks acknowledg Christ to have beene a Prophet , but his perfect righteousnes performed to the whole Law for us , they do not believe . And the Iewes to this day blaspheme Christ and call him a lyar , an Impostor , a deceiver , and malefactor , justly crucified for his wickednes . And therefore in this argument he sheweth that his tongue and pen are applied to ly , and forge , to contradict himselfe , and to be constant in nothing but in holding obstinately his hereticall conclusions . 4 Argument . FOurthly , that faith which is said to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse ver . 3. is that faith by which he believed in God , that quickeneth the dead , and calleth the things which are not as if they were . ver . 17. But the righteousnesse of Christ can in no tollerable construction or congruity of speech be called that faith by which Abraham beleeved in God , that quickeneth the dead . Therefore the righteousnes of Christ is not that faith which is here said to be imputed for righteousnesse . Answere . I Answere , first that a true believer may truely say , my righteousnes which I have in Christ is this , that I believe in God , who quickneth the dead , and graciously calleth and counteth me ( who am not righteous in my selfe nor by my owne righteousnes ) a righteous and justified person . Secondly , that God did not quicken and raise up Christ , till he had perfectly fulfilled all righteousnesse , and satisfied the law for us as our surety . Neither doth hee quicken any dead but through his righteousnes and by his spirit communicating it to them , the debtor or his surety , layd up in prison , cannot be released , til the debt be fully discharged . And therefore Christs righteousnes is comprehended by that faith which believeth in God who quickeneth the dead , because quickning the dead , necessarily presupposeth their communion of the righteousnes of Christ , and under the name of that faith may by a metonimie be truely said to be imputed to justification . 5 Argument . FIftly , the faith imputed to Abraham , ver . 3. is that faith wherein he is said not to be weak , ver . 19. and is opposed to doubting of the promise of God through unbeliefe ver . 20. But the righteousnes of Christ cannot be conceived to be that . wherein Abraham was not weak , neither doth the righteousnes of Christ carry in it any opposition to doubting of the promise , through unbeliefe , being a thing of a differing kind and nature from it ▪ But betweene faith properly taken , or a firme beleeving , and doubting through unbeliefe , there is a direct and perfect opposition . And therefore it is faith in this sence , and not the righteousnes of Christ which is said to bee imputed for righteousnesse . Answer . I Answer , that though Christs righteousnesse bee a thing different from the beleevers faith : yet when the beleever by a strong faith , and without doubting possesseth Christ , and his faith doth spiritually comprehend in it Christs righteousnesse ; then GOD counts it to him for righteousnes , that is , judgeth him a righteous man by communion of Christs righteousnesse , but doth not iudge his faith and Christs righteousnes to be one the same very thing . This argument is not to the matter . It may bee turned against himselfe thus . The more strong a man is in faith , and farre from doubting of the promise through unbeliefe , the more firmely he is united to Christ , and the more full communion hee hath of Christs righteousnesse , and with more reason may hee being so faithfull be counted righteous , and Christs righteousnes under the name of faith be imputed to him : This was Abrahams case he was strong in faith and doubted not , and therefore having firme union with Christ , and communion of all his benefits , GOD justly imputed faith to him for righteousnesse , and counted him so beleeving iustified , and righteous by Christs righteousnesse , and so in like case GOD will deale with other beleevers . The sixt Argument . SIxtly , that faith which was imputed to Abraham was that by which he was assured , that he who had promised , was able also to doe it , verse 21. and 22. But the righteousnesse of Christ is not capable of any such description as this , that by it Abraham was fully assured , &c. Therefore it is not that , which was imputed to Abraham . Answer . I Answer to this , as to the former . It is not to the matter , untill he first prove that the name of one thing , may not bee used by a Metonymie to expresse another , except these two things be both one , & the same thing ; we wil deride such foolish arguments . Though Christs righteousnesse be not one and the same thing with faith : yet the more it doth assure us of the performance of GODS promise in Christ , the more closely it comprehends Christs righteousnes , and the more iust cause there is ▪ that under the name of faith , Christs righteousnesse should be imputed by a Metonymie . The seventh Argument . SEventhly that which shall be imputed unto us , for righteousnesse is said to be our beleeving in him , that raised up Christ from the dead . verse 24. But the righteousnesse of Christ is not our beleeving on him that raised Christ from the dead , therefore it cannot be that , that is said to bee imputed for righteousnesse unto us . Answer . THere is no faith under the name whereof Christs righteousnesse may so fitly bee expressed , as that which is a beleeving on him who raised up Christ from the dead , for we cannot truely beleeve GODS raising of Christ from death , but withall wee must beleeve that GODS justice is by him our surety fully satisfied , and his Law fulfilled in our behalfe , and we being partakers thereof and enjoying it by faith , GOD may justly impute this faith to us for righteousnesse . Thus his arguments being all from his matter ; are easily turned upon himselfe . 8 Argument . EIghtly whereas the question , or point of imputation in justification , is handled onely in this passage of Scripture ( for those other places Gal. 3. and Iames 2. onely mention it , but insist not at all upon any declaration , or explication thereof ) it is no wayes probable but that the Apostle should speake somewhat distinctly , and plainely of the nature of it , otherwise hee might seeme rather to lay a stumbling block in our way , then to have written any thing for our learning and comfort . If wee take the word faith or beleeving so often used in this Chapter in the proper and plaine signification of it , for that faith whereby a man beleeves in Christ then the tenour of the discourse , is as cleere and full as may be , the streame of the whole Chapter runnes limpid and untroubled ; but if wee bring in a tropicall , and metonymicall signification , and by faith will compell Paul to meane the righteousnesse of Christ , we cloath the Sun with sackcloath , and turne Pauls perspicuity into a greater obscurity , then any light in the Scripture knoweth how to comfort or to relieve . The word faith being a terme frequently used in Scripture , is yet never found to signifie the righteousnesse of Christ , the holy Ghost never putting this sword into that sheath , neither is there any rule of Grammar or figure in Rethorick , that knowes how to salve up the inconsistence of such an interpretation . Answer . THis argument is no more but his owne bare affirmation , that it is probable the Apostle in this place where he handles the point of imputation , would speak plainly , and it is more plaine to speak of faith , imputed in a proper sense : the tropicall and metonymicall sense or interpretation brought in , is a compelling of Paul to meane by faith the righteousnesse of Christ , and thereby we cloath the sun with sackcloath , in which multiplicity of words , wee finde much vanity . As for imputation in justification , it is not the maine and principall point which the Apostle insists upon , the maine and principall points of justification are in the 3. and 5. Chapter handled plainely , and in the 8 , 9 , and 10. Chapters , where he plainely teacheth that the righteousnes by which wee are constituted , and made righteous before GOD , is Christs obedience and fulfilling of the Law. The imputation of faith comes in onely by the way , being occasioned by that testimony of Moses concerning Abraham , which the Apostle brings to prove that iustification is not by our owne performance , or workes of the Law , but by a righteousnes which GOD gives , even the fulfilling of the Law by Christ for our redemption , which wee receive and enioy by faith so certainely , that if we bee faithfull beleevers in Christ , then are wee righteous euen in GODS account ; for true faith cannot be nor subsist in any who hath not communion of Christs righteousnesse . This to all iudicious men is more plaine , and limpid and cleere , then to take faith in a proper sense , and to set on it the Crowne of Christs righteousnesse , especially seeing the Apostle in the 6. and 11. verses sheweth that the thing properly imputed is righteousnesse , and therefore not faith , which cannot properly be called or counted righteousnes : yea he tells us , it is a propitiation to cover our sins , which in no case can bee properly said of faith . As for his words wherein he affirmes , that there is more comfort in faith imputed , then in the righteousnesse of Christ imputed ; they are most wicked and more hatefull then any poperie , yea blasphemous in exalting mans faith into the royall Throne of Christs righteousnesse , and calling the teaching of the imputation thereof , the laying of a stumbling block in our way . It is to be feared that he who thus speakes and writes hath stumbled at Christ the precious stone , which GOD hath laid in his Zion , as the Apostle intimates , speaking of them who make the righteousnes of Christ a stumbling block , and stone of offence . Rom. 9.33 . In the next place after these frivolous arguments , hee takes upon him to answer some places of the Apostle which are produced by us and objected against him , wherein faith and hope are used to signifie their obiects , that is , the things beleeved and hoped for , as Gal. 1 . 22· and 3.23 . and Colos. 1.5 . And here he doth use notable trifling , and most absurd tergiversation . First hee grants the Apostle doth use in his writings such tropes of speech , which is a thing so manifest , that impudency it selfe is ashamed to deny it . And by granting this , he contradicts what hee hath before affirmed , to wit , that in all the Apostles writings such a trope is not to be found . Secondly hee opposeth what before hee granted , by a forged and false distinction , affirming that the habit of faith may bee used to signifie the obiect , but not the act , Cujus contrarium est verissimum . For in the places obiected , the act as well as the habit , and especially the act of faith and hope are to be understood , for the habit is ordained to be exercised about the proper obiect , but it never is exercised about it , nor reacheth to it but by the act , faith by believing comprehends Christ and his righteousnes , and so doth hope by the acts of it , reach that within the vaile . And indeed , if wee observe it , we shall see in this discourse , that faith which signifies the habit , as well as believing which is the act , is here said to be imputed for righteousnes , as ver . 5. and 9. and therefore this distinction helpes him nothing at all . Thirdly , hee contradicts himselfe againe , and grants that the act may be used to expresse the object , but then he flees to his old shift saying that Christs righteousnesse is not the object of justifying faith , or of faith as justifying , which error I have before confuted , and indeed it is contrary to all reason ; for the proper object of faith , as it is an instrument of justification is nothing else but righteousnes . Fourthly , he utters a notable untruth , when he saith , that the Scripture where it speakes of faith as justifying , makes not the least mention of Christs righteousnes , and fulfilling of the Law. Let him read Rom. 3.24 . and 10.4 . and tell me whether the believing of the man , to whom Christ is the end or fulfilling of the Law , for righteousnes be not justifying faith , & when we are said to be justified by the redemption which is in Jesus Christ , whether our beleeving of that our redemption be not a true justifying faith . Lastly , he argues without reason , that though Christs righteousnes be a thing which is to be belived , & so is a partial object of faith , yet it is not the object of justifying faith , because creation of the world , & Christs being born of a virgin , and his ascention are partiall objects , and yet not of faith as it is justifying ; but either Christ himselfe , or the promies of God , concerning the redemption and salvation of the world by him . To which I answere , 1 that his sylogism is without mood or figure : it is as if I should thus reason , That Master Goodwin , though he be a living creature , yet because some living creatures , as Asses , and Apes , are not reasonable creatures , therefore he is not a reasonable creature . 2. I must tell him there is but one true saving faith , and that is iustifying faith : and he who can by true holy faith beleeve aright the creation , or the nativity of Christ borne of a virgin , or his ascention , he hath iustifying faith , though when faith is acting about iustification , the proper obiect is righteousnes , even Christs full satisfaction for our redemption , and salvation , and the iustifying act , is beleeving that Christ is made unto us of God righteousnes , and we are made the righteousnes of God in him . And faith imputed for righteousnes , ver . 3. is righteousnes imputed . ver . 6. and 11. Thus you see all circumstances in the context stand up in contestation with his exposition , which by faith here said to be imputed , understands faith in a proper sense , and per se , not faith in respect to Christs righteousnes . But that I may not seeme to conceale any thing , nor give any thing for his upon trust , I will set downe these tergiversations in his owne words . Socinianisme . IF it be obiected , that faith is sometimes put for the obiect of faith , as Gal. 3.23 before faith came , and Gal. 1.22 . he preacheth the faith , &c. And may be so used with a good propriety of speech , ( marke this bull , that faith put for the obiect of it , is a proper speech ) as hope is put for the thing hoped for , which is an expression usuall in Scripture . To this I answere , first by concession , it is true , the name of the faculty is sometimes put for the obiect appropriated to it , neither is there any hardnes or cause of offence ▪ or mistake in such an expression , but it rather addes a grace and countenance to the sentence wherein it is used seasonably , and with iudgement , as might be exemplified by severall Scripture instances , if it were pertinent . But 2. by way of opposition , I answer ( Here observe how he playes Jack a both sides . ) First though the faculty bee sometimes put for the obiect , yet the act is seldome or never ( to my remembrance ) the act or exercise of hope , is never put for the things hoped for ; but hope it selfe is sometimes found in that signification , as Col. 1.5 . for the hope which is laid up in heaven , so Tit. 2.13 . looking for the blessed hope . Now that which is here said to bee imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse was not the habit of his faith , but Abraham beleeved GOD , that is exercised or put forth , an act of faith , and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse . Secondly though it should bee granted , that as well the act , as the habit or faculty may be sometimes put for the object , yet when the act and object have beene named together , and the act expressed and specified by an object proper to it , and somewhat immediately ascribed to the act under that consideration , all which is plainely seene in this clause ( Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse ) in this case to conceive or to affirme , that what is so ascribed is neither ascribed unto the act it selfe , there mentioned ( which is here Abrahams beleeving ) nor to the obiect mentioned likewise with it ( which is here GOD , Abraham beleeved GOD ) but to something really differing from them both , & not so much as once mentioned in all the discourse ( as namely to the righteousnes of Christ , what is this but to turne a mans back upon the text , to looke out an interpretation & to exchange that which is plainly affirmed , with what is not so much as is obscurely intimated , or implyed , & to make the Apostle to speake as never man spake besides , not for the wisedom and excellency of his speech , but for the uncouth abstrusenes of his meaning . Doubtlesse no instance is to be found of any Author whatsoever sacred , or prophane , who so farre abhorred to be understood in what he spake , as to put his mind into wordes of such a construction . Thirdly and lastly , neither is the righteousnesse of Christ the object of faith , as justifying ( as hath bin said ) nor doth the Scripture where it speaks of faith , as justifying , which are places not a few , make the least mention , or give the least intimation of such a thing . It is true the Scriptures often propound the righteousnes of Christ , or his obedience to the law , as that which is to be beleeved , and so it may be termed a partiall object of faith , somewhat that is and ought to be beleeved : but so the creation of the world is propounded to bee beleeved , and that Cain was Adams sonne , is somewhat to bee beleeved . And generally whatsoever the Scriptures affirme , may be called a partiall obiect of faith . But the obiect of faith properly as it iustifieth , is either Christ himselfe , or the promise of GOD concerning the Redemption and salvation of the world by him . The righteousnes of Christ is no more the object of faith as iustifying , then either his being borne of a Virgin , or his ascending into heaven , or the like , and either the one or the other might as well be here said , to be imputed to Abraham for righteousnes , in that respect as his righteousnesse . Thus you see at large how many passages and circumstances in the context , stand up in contestation with that exposition which by Pauls faith in this Chapter , will needes understand Christs righteousnesse . Answere . THat which I have noted before gives light to see many tergiversations , and much trifling in this passage . Let mee onely here desire him to repeat the wordes which he chiefly stands upon , to wit , Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse , and tell mee whether righteousnes bee not named , which was imputed to Abraham ▪ and all who truely beleeve , as appeares , verse 6. and 11. and what righteousnesse can bee found fit to justifie a man before GOD , besides Christs righteousnesse ? Socinianisme . FOurthly and lastly , this interpretation we contend for , according to which the word faith , or beleeving is to bee taken properly in all the passages mentioned , and not tropically or metonymically ) was the common interpretation anciently received , and followed by the Church of GOD from the primitive times , and for 1500. yeares was never questioned or contradicted , neither did the contrary opinion ever looke out into the world , till the yesterday of the last age , I speak this somewhat above the analogie , and proportion of mine owne reading in matters of antiquitie , ( which I confesse will not amount to any such confidence ) but I am confident in this behalfe upon the undertaking of another , who searched diligently what interpretation of this Scripture ruled amongst the learned and Orthodox writers from time to time , so that it is but a calumny of evill report brought upon the opinion and interpretation of this Scripture which we maintaine , unworthy the tongue or pen of any learned or sober man , to make either Arminius or Socinus the Authors , or first founders of either . And for the last hundred yeares and upward , from Luther and Calvins times , the fairest streame of interpreters so runs , as to water and refresh the same interpretation : you will easily incline ( I presume ) to beleeve both the one and the other , that both former and latter times have beene friends and favourers to the interpretation given ; if you will please with diligence , and without partiality , to examine these few testimonies , and passages following , as they stand in their severall Authors respectively . Christianisme . HEre he enters into his fourth & last way of confirmation , that is , to confirme his opinion , and interpretation , by testimony of learned Divines , both ancient and moderne writers , even from the Primitive times , to the yeare 150. after Christ. His beginning is with great swelling words , and with wonderfull confidence , though builded not upon any reading , or knowledg , of his owne , but upon the testimony of another , doubtles of some Socinian braggadogo , or impudent Arminian , whom hee is ashamed to name , who are all of this spirit , that when they build upon weakest ground , and are most strongly convinced by testimonies of Scripture , and unanswerable arguments , then they affirme and outface most impudently , and brag and ly , as if they contended to winne the whetstone : Nay , we think that this confession of his small reading , is out of modesty , or out of Satanicall subtilty ? that as the Divel in the person of the Serpent vented his lies to our first Parents , so he may belch out desperate lies and forgeries under the person of another concealed Author , verily I feare the latter . because on anothers word , hee doth so boldly , and impudently , charge all the learned of the best note in this age with calumny , and false report , raised upon his opinion , ( unworthy the tongue and pen , of sober and learned men ) in that they make Arminius or Socinus , chiefe and first Authors of it , and with out blushing affirmes that the fairest streame of interpreters from the time of Luther , and Calvin runnes as water to refresh his interpretation . In both which I find such manifest falsehood , that no man of any reading can so speake and affirme , without a brasen face , maintaining wilfull and manifest lies against his owne conscience . First to the bold charge of our learned Divines with calumny , for taxing Socinus , and Arminius , as chiefe and first Authors of his opinion , I answere , That although that infamous heretick , Petrus Abailardus , who was gelded for his incontinence , by a man whose daughter hee had abused ) laid the first ground of this opinion , that Christs satisfaction is not imputed to iustification : ( as Saint Bernard shewes , Epist. 190. ) Yet the first Authors who expressely affirmed that fides per se , that is , faith by it selfe in a proper sense , without a trope , is by the Apostle said to be imputed , for righteousnes , were Servetus , as Calvin shewes , in opusculis , Socinus , part 4. cap. 4 and 11. de Christo Servatore . And Arminius in Epist. ad Hippolitum de collibus . thes . 5. Secondly to his false pretence of the maine streame of writers , since Luther , and Calvin : so running as water to refresh his interpretation , I do answere and confidently affirme , that there is not one Orthodox writer to be found since that time , which ever held , that faith in a proper sense is imputed for righteousnes , and denyed the imputation of Christs righteousnes . Servetus , Socinus , Arminius and the rest of their sect , branded for hereticks , are the onely maintainers of that opinion . To his testimonies and his impudent boasting of the generall consent of interpreters , I answere , First joyntly and in generall , That of all the testimonies which hee hath cited , there is not one which either affirmes that faith taken in a proper sense is imputed for righteousnesse , or denies the imputation of Christs righteousnes . Moreover , that all Divines who are the most zealous opposers of his interpretation , may say the same words which he cites out of Authors : and yet hold justification by Christs righteousnes imputed , yea and in proving that truth may with good reason presse and urge the same words rightly understood . Soe that a more odious example of folly and impudency cannot be shewed then hee here shewes himselfe by , making his folly strive for Mastery with his impudency . Secondly , for the particular testimonies which he brings both out of ancient and moderne writers . They say no more but what Saint Paul saith , and wee all acknowledg and embrace for truth , viz. That Abraham beleeving that in Christ , and through his satisfaction , GOD was become his reward , was thereupon counted righteous , and GOD counted faith to him for righteousnes , and so are we all iustified , not by our owne righteousnes of workes performed to the Law in our own persons , but by faith laying hold on the righteousnes of Christ , which is counted for righteousnes , not in a proper sense , but relatively , as it comprehends Christ and his righteousnes , which Calvin calls apprehending the goodnes of GOD , and trusting in it . First for Tertullians words , I take them , as he doth render and rehearse them , and so the rest in order , and will take a light view of them , that wee may see his vanity , in citing testimonies which make nothing for him , but some directly against his opinion . Tertulian Lib. 5. c. 3 against Marcion . BVt how the children of faith ? and of whose faith , if not of Abrahams ? for if Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was deputed to him for righteousnesse , and hee thereby obtained the name of the father of many nations ; wee by beleeving GOD are therefore much rather iustified , as Abraham was . And lib. de patientia cap. 6. Abraham beleeved and was deputed by him to righteousnesse ; but hee tried his faith by patience , when he was commanded to sacrifice his sonne . All this wee grant , for here is not a word of imputing faith in a proper sense , onely an affirmation that Abraham by beleeving , obtained this at GODS hands , that he was accounted and reputed to be in the state of a righteous man , which we all professe . Origen in Epist. ad Romanos , Cap. 4. verse 5. IT seemes in this present place , that whereas many beleevings of Abraham werk before , now in this beleeving his whole faith was gathered together , and so was reputed to him for righteousnesse , and againe in the same place Abraham was not by GOD testified to bee righteous , for his circumcision , but for his faith , for before his circumcision , hee beleeved GODS and it was counted to him for righteousnesse . If Origens meaning be , as Beza gathered from these , and other wordes in that place , that Abrahams faith and all his acts of beleeving made up a perfect righteousnesse , and conformity to GOD , will and law ; then is hee in as great an errour , as the Papists who set up iustification by a mans owne inherent righteousnesse , and his testimony is to be abhorred . But if his meaning bee that by his beleeving , and not by his circumcision , he obtained from GOD this testimony , that he was righteous by a righteousnesse beleeved , then he is full for us , and against his interpretation . Justine Martyr Dialog . with Trypho . ABraham not for his circumcision , but for his faith obtained the testimony of righteousnesse : for before he was circumcised , it is said of him , Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was counted to him for righteousnesse . Wee grant that Abraham beleeving GOD to bee his reward in Christ ; this faith was the evidence of his being righteous by apprehension of Christ , and his righteousnesse , and therefore by it he obtained a testimony from GOD , that he was in the state of righteousnes . And Justine Martyres words say the same , and so he is cleare for us against them , who make faith the righteousnes imputed in a proper sense , and not the evidence of righteousnesse . Chrysostome on Rom. 4.23 . saith that the Apostle HAving spoken many and great things concerning Abraham and his faith , saith , wherefore is it written but that wee might learne , that we also are justified as hee was , because wee have beleeved the same GOD ? and on Gal. 3.6 . For what was he the worse for not being under the Law ? nothing at all , for his faith was sufficient to him for righteousnesse . All this we grant . For as Abrahams faith laying hold on GOD , as his reward in Christ by communion of his righteousnesse , was sufficient to him for righteousnesse , so is our faith also sufficient for us to iustification , because by it wee possesse Christs righteousnesse . Augustine on the 148 Psal. saith , FOr by beleeving wee have found what the Iewes lost by not by unbeleeving , for Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse , and on Psal. 140. for I beleeve in him who justifieth the ungodly , that my faith may be imputed to mee for righteousnes , and in his book de natura & gratia . For if Christ dyed not in vaine , the ungodly is justified in him alone , to whom beleeving in him that justifieth the ungodly , faith is accounted to him for righteousnesse , and in his 68. sermon de tempore , Abraham beleeved GOD , and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse . See that without any worke hee is iustified by faith , and whatsoever was possible to be conferred on him by his observation of the Law , his beleeving alone gave it all unto him , where note that beleeving gives righteousnes , and is not the righteousnes given in iustification . Primasius on Rom. 43. saith . ABrahams faith by the guift of GOD was so great , that both his former sinnes were forgiven , and this faith alone is said to be accepted before all righteousnes : that is , before all righteousnes of his owne , not instead of Christs righteousnes . For if it had not laid hold and possessed the full satisfaction of Christ , it could not have gotten pardon of his sinnes . Beda's words which he citeth concerning the faith which is imputed , are onely these , not every faith , but that onely , which worketh by love . This is a certaine truth , for no faith can bring to us a true sense and assurance of our communion with Christ , but that which worketh by love . Haymo on Rom. 43 , saith , Quia credidit Deo , &c. Because hee beleeved GOD , it was imputed to him for righteousnesse , that is , for remission of sinnes , because by that very faith by which hee beleeved , he was made righteous : These wordes shew that faith by way of efficiency , and as an instrument makes men righteous , even as it brings remission of sinnes by applying Christs satisfaction to them . Anselmes wordes are , that hee beleeved so firmely , this was by GOD counted to him for righteousnesse , that is , by this beliefe he was reputed righteous . And I say there was good reason , that he who by firme faith is partaker of Christs righteousnesse , should bee reputed righteous before God. These are his testimonies which he cites out of the Ancients whose maine streame , as he boasted , did so runne as to water his opinion . But we see they so run as to overwhelme and wash away his muddie , and slimie opinion and interpretation . Not one syllable of faith in a proper sense counted for righteousnesse : Thus the mountaines have travelled of a child , and have roared out , and have made a terrible sound , and bustling , and when it comes forth in the birth , it is ridiculus mus , nay not so much as a poore drowned Mouse , in the eyes of judicious readers . I proceed to his testimonies of moderne Divines . LVther on Gal. 3.6 ▪ Christian righteousnes is an affiance or confident resting on the Son of GOD , which confidence is imputed for righteousnes , for Christs sake , and a little after , GOD counts that imperfect faith for perfect righteousnes for Christs sake , in whom I have begun to believe . We cannot desire plainer words to prove that faith is not the righteousnes by which we are justified , nor so in a proper sense counted , but propter Christum , that is , by reason , of him which it possesseth with all his benefits and full satisfaction . Bucers wordes are , Abraham beleeved God , & he accounted this faith to him for righteousnes : & therefore ( saith he ) by beleeving he obtained this , that God esteemed him for a righteous man. These words shew , that his faith was not his righteousnes , but the thing by which he obtained the estimation of a righteous man. Peter Martyrs words are , To be imputed for righteousnes in another sense , signifieth that by which we our selves are reckoned in the number of the righteous , and this Paul atributs to faith onely , marke the words , hee doth not say , that faith properly is our righteousnes , but the onely thing by meanes of which we com to be reckoned in the number of the righteous Calvin on Rom 4.3 . Abraham by beleeving , doth embrace the grace offered to him , that it might not be frustrate : If this be imputed to him for righteousnes , it followes , that he is no other way righteous , but because trusting in Gods goodnes he hath boldnes to hope for all other things from him . And againe ▪ on verse 4. Faith is counted for righteousnes , not because it brings from us any merit unto GOD , but because it apprehends the goodnesse of GOD. These and such speeches of Calvin affirme no more , but that faith is imputed for righteousnes , not properly in it selfe , nor for any merit or worth of it , but meerely for that which it apprehendeth and embraceth when it is tendered . That is , GODS goodnes in giving Christ with all his benefits , and righteousnes . Musculus in his common places . ss . 5. This faith ought to be commended , not in respect of any proper quality , but in respect of Gods purpose , by which he hath appointed , that it , to believers in Christ , should for his sake be imputed in the place of righteousnes . These words cut the throat of his interpretation ; for they tell us , that faith is imputed for righteousnes , not for it selfe , or any proper quality in it , but for Christs sake , which is his righteousnes sake . Also on Gal. 3.6 . What did Abraham that should be imputed to him for righteousnes , but onely this , that hee believed GOD ? Indeed , believing is the onely meanes to receive Christs righteousnes , and therefore by beleeving onely we come to be counted righteous . Also on Gen. 15. Hee so speakes of Abrahams faith , that it is plaine hee disputes of that faith by which men do not simply believe GOD , but believe in him . That is , trust onely in GOD , and rely on the righteousnes of Christ , God and man. Again afterwards : But when he firmely believed GOD , promising , that faith was imputed to him in the place of righteousnes , that is , he was reputed of God righteous for that faith , and absolved from all his sinnes . It is true , it must be an holy faith , and a firme beliefe which must so receive Christ and his righteousnes , that it may be reputed to us for righteousnes , and we may be reputed righteous , and absolved from our sinnes . Bullinger on Rom 4. Abraham committed himselfe to God , and that very thing was imputed to him for righteousnes . These wordes shew , that faith in a proper sense , is not imputed , but our committing of our selves wholly to GOD , by faith , and relying on his righteousnes , is that which is counted for righteousnes . He addes also on Gal. 3.6 . That same faith of Abraham by which hee beleeved on GOD was imputed for righteousnes : And very well it might , for by that he laid hold on GOD , as his reward , and his righteousnesse , and shield . Gualthers words on Rom. 4.4 . are no more but the bare words of Moses Gen. 15.6 . Abraham believed God , and it was counted to him for righteousnes . You see hee is put hard to it , when hee cites the bare words themselves to prove his interpretation of them . Aretius his words prove , that faith is so acceptable to GOD , that he counted Abraham righteous upon his believing , by the righteousnesse of Christ , imputed and set on his skore , not inherent in him : For thus his words run , ( as he here cites them ) Rom. 4 He imputed righteousnes , that is , he so far accepted his faith , as thereupon to account him righteous , by a righteousnes which is imputative . That is , not by any righteousnes of faith , or other workes or graces inherent in him , but by Christs righteousnes , which is imputative , such as may be communicated spiritually , and set on the beleevers account . Also on verse 22. A faith so firme and pious , was imputed to Abraham for righteous . Hereby he notes that it must be a firme and godly faith which is accepted of GOD , for no other but a firme and pious faith can possesse Christs righteousnes , by reason of which it may be imputed to the believer for righteousnes . Illyricus on Rom. 4.3 . That same beleeving was imputed to him for righteousnes , yea , for true righteousnes . These words shew that the righteousnes for which faith is said to be counted is true righteousnes , that is , onely the righteousnes of Christ onely , for faith of it selfe is no true righteousnes . The wordes cited afterwards are directly against himselfe . That begging faith laying hold on Christs righteousnes , was imputed to him in the place of his own inherent righteousnes : It is not therefore faith per se proprio sensu , but faith holding fast Christs righteousnes , which is counted for righteousnes . Pelican in Gen. 15.6 . Hee simply believed GODS word , and asked no signe of the LORD , and hee did impute that very faith unto Abraham himselfe for righteousnes , by which GOD is believed to be propense or ready for our good . Hunius also saith , The faith by which Abraham believed GOD promising was imputed to him for righteousnes . Beza saith , Here the busines is concerning that which was imputed to him , namely , his faith ▪ Inius , and Tremellius on Gen. 15.6 . GOD esteemed or counted him for righteous , though wanting righteousnes , and reckoned him to be in the state of righteousnes , because by firme faith he embraced the promises . Paraus Rom. 4.3 . Wee understand by the word faith , which is said to be imputed for righteousnes , Abrahams resting , not in himselfe , or his owne merits , but in the promise and good will of GOD. These testimonies are brought to begge the question , for they onely affirme , that faith is imputed : and by believing , men come to be counted righteous : but there is not in any one the least intimation , that faith is imputed in a proper sense , but their owne words in the same places shew , That faith by reason of that which it beleeveth , and apprehendeth , that is , Christ with all his merits , and benefits , is counted for righteousnes , which is our true , genuine & Orthodox exposition of the Apostles words . And thus I have answered all whatsoever hee hath said for his interpretation , onely his severall falshoods , and manifest untruthes in severall phrases , and boasting wordes prefixed before the testimonies , of every Author whom he nameth . I leave to the Reader to observe ; For indeed they are most palpable , that every man of understanding may run and reade them . But because I will not have such a forger , and false suborner of witnesses escape away without the iust brands of forgery , and notorious impudency . I will bring in the best learned of the Ancients and also of late Orthodox Divines , even those whom hee calls to witnesse for him ; and will make them speake in their owne wordes , and testifie to all the world , that by faith imputed for righteousnesse , they understand not faith by it selfe in a proper sense ; but the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Iesus Christ GOD and man , performed according to the Law , in our nature and in our behalfe , that through him the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us , who beleeve in him , and are lead by his spirit . First Iustin Martyr testifieth that we being in our selves transgressors , and ungodly , cannot possibly bee iustified but in the onely sonne of GOD : now if onely by being in him , and by that union and communion which all have with him who are in him , then onely by his righteousnesse . For as the same Author saith in the same place , It is his righteousnes and nothing else , which can cover our sinne . Iustin Martyr in Epist . ad Diognetum . and in exposit● fidei , hee saith that Christ as well by his exact conversation of life ( that is , his perfect righteousnes ) as by his undeserved death hath abolished and covered our falls and failing which came in by Adam . Irenaeus is so strict for our communion with Christ in his obedience unto death , and for our reconciliation and iustification therby , that he imputes Christs obedience to us , and saith . Jn secundo Adamo reconciliati sumus , obedientes usque ad mortem facti . In the second Adam wee are reconciled , being made obedient even unto death . lib. 4. c. 14. adversus haereses . Athanasius in his 2 Tom. pag. 270. of Cornelius edition , saith that it is most necessary for us to beleeve the Scriptures , that Christ who hath freed us from the curse , is the first fruites of the masse of mankind who are by him redeemed , and that the perfect fulfilling of the law by him the first fruites , is imputed to the whole masse , his wordes in greeke are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And in his booke de incarnat . verbi , hee affirmes that we shall live , and bee saved , because wee are partakers of the righteousnes without spot , which Christ GOD in the flesh brought into the world . Gregory Nyssen Orat. 2. in Cantica saith , Christ having the filth or guilt of my sins transferred upon himselfe , hath communicated his perfect purity to mee , and made mee partaker of that beauty which is in himselfe . Ambrose saith , as Adam is the patterne of death because of sin , so Christ is the patterne of life , because of his righteousnesse , in cap. 7. Lucae lib. 5. And our iustification by faith , and not by workes , he saith was prefigured by Jacobs getting of the blessing in sweet smelling garments . Iacob was a type of every true beleever under the Gospell , Rebecca of the Church . The garments of the first borne Christs righteousnesse . The Iewes of the elder testament , like Esau , sought righteousnesse by their owne workes , and true beleevers put on the righteousnes of Christ by faith , being so taught by the Church their mother , and obtaine by the merit of it the blessing . Ambrose lib. 2. c. 2 de Iacob & vita beata . CHrysostome saith , If a Iew aske thee how can all the world be saved by the righteous doings of one Christ ? thou mayest answer him , even as all the world is condemned by one Adams disobedience , on Rom. 5. homil . 10. And in his booke de recta fide , It is absurd ( saith he ) to thinke that wee should bee made heires of the punishment of the first Adam , by his disobedience , and should not bee partakers of the righteousnesse of the second Adam , who doth bring us to life by his most perfect obedience , Theodoret . Serm. 10. de curand . Graec. affect . saith , It is very convenient that he who highly praised righteousnesse , should in his comming in the flesh fulfill righteousnesse for men . Augustine Enchirid. ad Laurent . c. 41. saith , he was made sin , that we might be made righteousnes , not our owne , but GODS righteousnesse ; not in our selves but in him : even as he was sinne , not his owne sinne , but ours ; not in himselfe , but in us . And serm . 6. de verb. Apost . he saith , GOD the father made him sinne , that wee might bee made the righteousnesse of GOD in him . Behold here two things : the righteousnesse of GOD not our own● 〈…〉 not in our selves . Leo the 〈◊〉 , Epist. 70 ▪ saith ▪ that , by the innocency of one we are all made innocent , and that by righteousnesse from him , derived unto men , who hath taken mans nature upon him . Bernard . Epist. 190. as one hath borne the sinnes of all , so the satisfaction of one is imputed to all . It was not one which forfeited , and another which satisfied : for the head , and the body is one Christ. Also in serm . ad Milites templi he saith , Death is made to flee away in the death ▪ of Christ , and Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us : and a little after , Hee who hath willingly beene incarnat , willingly suffered , and willingly crucified , will hee keep back his righteousnesse from us ? and againe one man sinned , and all are made guilty , and shall the innocency of one ( Christ ) bee imputed onely to one ? Anselme on Rom 5. saith , that by the righteousnes of one , comming upon all the elect , they come unto justification , that they may bee justified by participation of Christs righteousnesse . These with many other testimonies which might easily bee gathered out of the Ancients from the primitive times , untill Luther , doe abundantly shew the impudency of this man , who so peremptorily affirmeth , that the communion and imputation of Christs righteousnesse for iustification , was never dreamed of among ancient writers , but onely faith imputed for righteousnesse in a proper sense , all these Ancients before named testifie the contrary . But to descend to Orthodox writers , of this last age since Luther : It is well knowne that they generally hold imputation of our sinnes to Christ , and of Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse to us for iustification , to bee the forme of iustification , by which beleevers are iustified . Luther acknowledged , that it was the doctrine of Saint Bernard , concerning iustification by Christs righteousnesse imputed , and not by our owne workes ; which moved him to suspect the popish doctrine , and to grow into dislike , and loathing of their religion . And in his commentary on Galat . where he doth debase the righteousnesse of workes , and doth most highly extoll the righteousnesse of faith , he telleth us , that faith being weak in many of GODS children , cannot be accepted for righteousnesse of it selfe , that is , in a proper sense , and therefore there is necessarily required imputation of righteousnesse for iustification , on Galatians 3.6 . In editione Jenensi . Tom. 1. pag. 32. hee saith , faith obtaines what the Law commands , and what is that but obedience and righteousnesse ? and againe , by faith Christ is in us , yea one bodie with us ▪ but Christ is righteous and a fulfiller of the Law ; wherefore wee all doe fulfill it , while Christ is made ours by faith . Also Tom. 3. p. 539. when Paul ascribes iustification to faith , wee must of necessity understand , that hee speakes of faith laying hold on Christ , which makes Christ of efficacy against sinne and the Law. Also Tom. 2. pag. 515. Faith settles us upon the workes of Christ without our owne workes , and translates us out of the exile of our sinnes , into the kingdome of his righteousnesse . And Tom. 1. pag. 410. Sinne is not destroyed unlesse the Law be fulfilled , but the Law is not fulfilled , but by the righteousnes of faith , and page 437. To keepe the Law is to have and possesse Christ the fulfiller of the Law. And Tom. 4. pag. 44. Faith iustifieth because it comprehendeth and possesseth that treasure , to wit , Christ and page 45. wee say that Christ doth forme faith , or is the forme of faith . And Tom. 2. upon Genesis The laying hold on the promises is called sure and firme faith , and doth justifie , not as it is our work . These speeches shew plainely , that Luther conceived Christs righteousnes to be after a sort the formall righteousnes of the believer , though not formally inherent , yet formally possessed , and enjoyed by faith . Concerning this justifying righteousnes Luther also teacheth , that it is not in our selves , but in Christ , even his fulfilling of the Law , for us , made ours ▪ and imputed to us . Tom. 1. pag 106. By faith ( saith hee ) are our sinnes made no more ours , but Christs , upon whom GOD hath laid the iniquities of us all , and he hath borne our sinnes : And on the other side , all his righteousnes is made ours , for he layes his hand upon us . And pag 178. The righteousnes of a Christian is the righteousnes of another , and comes to him from without . It is even Christ , who is made unto us of God righteousnes ; so that a man may with confidence glory in Christ , and say , Christ his living , doing , and suffering , is mine , no otherwise then if I had lived , done , and suffered , as he did : as the married man possesseth all that is his wives , and the wife all the goods which are her husbands , for they have all things common , because they are become one flesh : and so Christ and the Church are one spirit ; by faith Christs righteousnes is made ours , and all his are ours , yea , himselfe is ours . And Tom. 2. pag 86. The righteousnes by which we are justified before GOD , is not in our owne persons , but without our selves in GOD , because man shall have no cause to boast of his owne proper righteousnes before GOD. And Tom. 2. pag 385. A Christian is not formally righteous , by reason of any substance or quality in him , but relatively in relation to Christ , in whom hee hath true righteousnes . Melancthon in Epist. ad Rom. 8.4 . saith , wherefore Pauls meaning is thus to be taken ; that Christ is given for us , that we may be counted to have satisfyed the Law , by him , and that for him we may be reputed righteous ; Although we our selves do not satisfie the Law , anothers fulfilling of it is freely given to us , and is imputed to us , and so the Law is imputatively fulfilled in us . And so when the Apostle saith that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes , that is , hee who hath Christ is righteous , hee is reputed to have satisfied the Law , and hee imputatively hath that which the Law requires . And on chap. 10.4 . upon these wordes ( Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnes , &c ) hee saith , this is the simple meaning , Christ is the fulfilling of the Law to the believer , and hee who hath Christ , that is , believes in him , is righteous , and hath imputatively , what the Law requires . The Booke of concord subscribed by so many hundreds of Evangelicall Ministers , of the reformed Churches in Germany , in the Articles of justification saith , that when we speak of justifying , it is to be knowne that these three objects concurre , which are to be believed . 1. The promise of the benefit , that is , mercy for remission of sinnes , and justification , 2. That the promise is most free , which excludes our merits . 3. The merits of Christ , which are the price and propitiation , and a little after , faith doth not justify , because it is a worke worthy by it selfe , ( that is , in a proper sense ) but onely because it receives the mercy promised . And againe , How shall Christ be our mediator , if in justification we do not use him for our mediator : that is , if we do not feele that for him we are reputed righteous . The Divines of the Augustane confession , condemned Osiander , who held that the righteousnes of faith , was the essentiall righteousnes of GOD , and also them who taught that Christ is our righteousnes , onely according to his humane nature . And in the Epitome of the Articles , controverted by some , they with one consent affirmed ▪ that the righteousnesse of faith , is remission of sinnes , reconciliation , and adoption to be Sons of God , for the obedience of Christ onely which by faith alone of meere grace is imputed to all beleevers . Artic 3. de fidei justitia . And this obedience of Christ which is imputed for righteousnes , they affirme to be the obedience which hee performed both in his death and passion , and also in his fulfilling of the Law , for our sakes . Ibid. Artic 3. And concerning faith , they teach that in justification before God , it trusteth neither in contrition nor love , nor any other vertues but in Christ alone , it is the onely meane and instrument which receives the free grace of GOD , the merit of Christ , and remission of sinnes , and resteth on Christs most perfect obedience , by which hee fulfilled the Law for us , which obedience is imputed to beleevers for righteousnes . Ibid Artic. 3. Calvin is so zealous , and so plaine and perspicuous in teaching and maintaining the doctrine of justification , by the communion and imputation of Christs perfect obedience to the Law , even his full satisfaction , and righteousnes , that among Christians who read Calvins institutions , one would think the very Father of lyers , the Divel himselfe should , if not blush and be ashamed , yet in policy and subtilty be afraid , to call Calvin for a witnes on his side , in this point , least the most simple should see and discerne him for an open lyer , and forger , and abhorre and hisse him out with derision . The Doctrine of Calvin concerning justification , I will lay downe in certaine Articles , gathered from his owne writings , especially his Institutions . Lib. 3. cap. 11. and 12. First hee affirmes in plaine wordes ▪ that justification consists in remission of sinnes , and the imputation of Christs righteousnes . cap 11. ss 2. As for the word remission of sinnes , hee useth it two wayes ; somtimes in a large sense , for that act of GOD , by which he doth communicate , and impute the full satisfaction of Christ unto his elect , and faithfull , so that the whole guilt of all sinnes , both of commission , and omission , is thereby taken away , and they are no more accounted , nor appeare in his sight as sinners . In this sense he calls remission of sinnes in his comment on Rom. totum justificationis , and in his Instit. 3. cap. 11. sect 4 totam justificationem . For indeed when the guilt of all sinnes of omission , and commission are taken away by that part of Christs satisfaction imputed , which is called his passive obedience , or voluntary suffering of the penalties of the Law , and the defects which come in by the sinnes of omission , supplied by his active obedience , in fulfilling the righteousnes which the Law requires , which is the other part of Christs satisfaction imputed ; so that now the elect are reputed , and esteemed as righteous men , who have the defects which came by omission supplied , and , have no more the sinnes of commission or omission imputed , the guilt being taken away : this is perfect and whole justification , and is very fitly called by the name of remission , to distinguish it from justification by our own workes , and by our owne inherent righteousnes . But sometimes hee useth this word remission , in a more strict sense , for that part of GODS act of communicating , and imputing Christs satisfaction , which respects the passive obedience of Christ , which takes away the guilt of sinnes committed , but doth not supply the omission of righteousnesse , and in this sense he makes remission of sinnes , but a part of justification . And GODS imputing of the active part of Christs satisfaction , and counting the faithfull righteous by it imputed ; hee makes the other part of iustification in the wordes before cited , Lib. 3. cap. 11. ss . 2. Secondly he constantly teacheth , and affirmeth that there is no righteousnesse , by which a man can stand before GODS tribunall , and bee accepted for righteous in his sight : but onely the full satisfaction of Iesus Christ , and his perfect righteousnesse , which he GOD and man performed in our nature . For that which is not intire and absolute , and without all staine , and spot of sinne , such as never hath beene nor shall bee found in any meere man , can never be accepted of GOD , but is with him sleighted and vilified beyond all measure . And whosoever prate of any righteousnes in mens owne workes , or doings , they have no true thought , nor least sense of the justice of GOD , but make a mock of it . Instit. lib. 3. cap. 12. ss . 1.3 . and 11.16 . Thirdly he affirmeth that man is justified by faith , when hee is excluded from the righteousnesse of workes , and by faith layeth hold on the righteousnesse of Christ , with which hee being cloathed doth appeare in the sight of GOD , not as a sinner but as a righteous man , Instit. 3. cap. 11. ss . 1. And the same chap. ss .. 11. This is that admirable way of justifying , that being covered with Christs righteousnesse , men doe not feare the iudgement of which they are worthy , and while they deservedly condemne themselves , they are reputed righteous without themselves . Fourthly concerning the office of faith in iustification , he teacheth , that faith being in it selfe weake , imperfect , and of no dignity , worth , price or value , is never able to iustifie us by it selfe , but by bringing Christ unto us , who is given to us of GOD for righteousnesse , it is not our righteousnesse , but it makes us come with the mouth of the soule wide opened , that we may bee capable of Christ. And it is as a vessell or pot ; for as the pot full of money enricheth a man , so faith filled with Christ and his righteousnes , is said to iustifie us , and to bee counted for righteousnesse . It is a foolish thing to mingle our faith , which is onely the instrument of receiving righteousnesse , with Christ who is the materiall cause , and both the Author and minister of this great benefit , cap 11. ss . 7. And againe , ss . 17. Faith is hereupon said to iustifie , because it receiveth and embraceth righteousnesse offered in the Gospell . Fiftly hee affirmeth that the righteousnesse by which beleevers are iustified , and stand righteous before GOD , is not in themselves , but in Christ , even his perfect obedience , and righteousnesse communicated to them by imputation . ss . 23. Lastly hee sheweth how this righteousnesse comes to bee the righteousnesse of beleevers , and to bee so communicated to them , that GOD doth justly impute it to them for justification , and accepteth it as if it were their owne , to wit , by meanes of their spirituall union , and conjunction with Christ , by which they are made partakers of Christ , and with him and in him , possesse al his riches , Sect. 10.20.23 . This is the summe of Calvins Doctrine , concerning iustification briefly comprised , and collected out of his wordes in the places before cited , where the Reader may bee fully satisfied . Beza in the doctrine of iustification , by faith doth fully agree with Luther , and Calvin , in all the former articles . First he saith , that faith is not any such virtue as doth iustifie us in our selves before GOD , for that is to set faith in the place of Christ , who alone is our whole and perfect righteousnesse . But faith iustifieth , as it is the instrument which receiveth Christ , and with him his righteousnesse , that is most full perfection , and we say , that wee are iustified by faith onely ; because it embraceth Christ , who doth iustifie us , with whom it doth unite and couple us , that wee may bee partakers of him and all his goods , which being imputed to us , are sufficient that wee may bee absolved before GOD , and deemed righteous . Confess . cap. 4. ss . 7. in notes on Romans 3.22.24 . Secondly , that faith sends to Christ for perfect righteousnesse , to justification , and that it assures us of salvation through his righteousnesse alone , because whatsoever is in Christ is imputed to us , as if it were our owne , if so bee wee embrace him by faith : The righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed , hee describeth to bee the greatest , and most absolute perfection of righteousnesse , consisting in these two things . First that he hath no sinne in him . Secondly that hee hath fulfilled all the righteousnesse of the Law. confess . cap. 4 ss . 8. in his notes on Rom 3.22.26 . and Rom. 4.5 . and 5.12 . and Phil. 3.9 . Thirdly hee sheweth that wee come to have communion of Christs righteousnesse , by spirituall union , and mariage with Christ. If ( saith he ) wee bee united , and ioyned together into fellowship with Christ by faith , nothing is more properly ours then Christ , and whatsoever is Christs , confess . 4. ss . 9. Fourthly hee pronounceth that it is no lesse then wicked blasphemie to denie the mutuall and reciprocall imputation of the sinnes of beleevers to Christ , and of Christs perfect satisfaction to beleevers , Lib. contra Anonymum de justificatione . Fiftly hee affirmes , that righteousnesse which iustifieth men before GOD , must bee both a full satisfaction for sinne , and also a perfect fulfilling of GODS commandements in every part , on Rom ▪ 3.20 . Our learned Whitakers in his answere to Campions 8th . reason , pag●8 ●8 . and in the 8 Book against Duraeus pag 177.182 183. doth pithily dispute , and stoutly maintaine the Doctrine of the righteousnes of Christ imputed , which he proves to be the onely perfect righteousnes , able to justifie us before GOD. Master Perkins also in his Golden Chaine . Chap. 37. makes the translation of the beleevers sinnes , to Christ , and Christs righteousnes to the beleever , by a mutuall & reciprocall imputation , the very forme of iustification . Polanus in Syntagmate Theolog l. 6 c. 36. doth maintain the same d●ctrine with Luther , Calvin , Melācthon , Beza , & Whitakers , & proves every point fully by plain testimonies , & invincible argumēts out of the holy Scriptures . And in his Symphonia catholica , he brings testimonies of the ancients affirming every article of our doctrine , and in his Theses de iustifi . hee shewes the consent of the most famous Orthodox Divines of the reformed religion since Luther . As for Musculus and Junius , whom hee brings as favourers of his errour , with other later D●vines , let their owne writings speake , and declare how wickedly hee doth abuse them in bringing their wordes to overthrow the imputation of Christs righteousnes . Musculus on Rom. 8.4 . expounds the Apostles wordes , ( that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us ) to be meant , first of all imputatively by the righteousnesse of another , even of Christ , which is also ours , for wee are members of his body , of his flesh and of his bones , and Rom. 10.3.4 . and by the righteousnesse which iustifieth beleevers , hee understands Christs perfect righteousnesse imputed to us . Also Iunius , thes . 35. and 36. doth affirme that the righteousnesse of faith imputed to beleevers , is the righteousnesse which the Law requires , performed by Christ , differing onely in this , that legall righteousnesse is every mans fulfilling of the Law , in his owne person ; but this Evangelicall is the fulfilling of the Law by Christ , GOD and man , our surety and mediatour . And for this Socinian hereticall opinion of faith , imputed in a proper sense , for righteousnesse in iustification , No man can shew greater enmity against it , nor with greater detestation oppose and condemne it , then Paraeus in his commentary on the Romans , and in other his workes . Thus much for the vindicating of the best learned both Ancient writers , and moderne Divines from the foule slanders , most falsly belched out against them by this most impudent forger of false witnesses without any feare of GOD , or shame of men . And by their owne testimonies , and plaine wordes rehearsed out of their owne writings , I have made manifest their unanimous consent in the true Doctrine of iustification , by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to true beleevers , and of them apprehended , and applyed by faith . Now I leave it to all indifferent readers , and zealous Christians to consider whether it bee not their dutie , both to take heed to themselves , and also to admonish others , that they have no fellowship with so openly profest Socinian sectaries , as this man and his followers are : you see the Doctrine which they maintaine is wicked , and blasphemous heresie . And after many admonitions given by grave , & learned Divines & divers publick cōfuatations , & censures often passed in publique , against this errour , they still persist in their pestilent heresie , and are more mad to disperse it then before . And when truth cannot help them , they flee for aide to the father of lyars , and make lyes their refuge , and in forging lyes they sinne being condemned of themselves , even against their knowledge , and conscience , as the Apostle foretold of heretikes , Tit. 3.11 . How wilfully against the known truth , and his owne conscience , this desperate man hath proclaimed Luther , Calvin , Beza , Musculus , Iunius , and others to bee of his opinion , I have sufficiently proved ; & if ever he hath looked into the writings of any of them , his own eyes have taught him how opposite they are to his heresie . But it is no new and strange thing for heretikes to sin being condemned of themselves , when they are once subverted . The Apostle hath foretold us that we must expect no better from such , in that place before named . Tit. 3 11. Now in conclusion , I appeale to all Christian readers , and desire their opinion and judgement , in the particulars following . First whether I have not in all this answere declared , and expressed what I meane by the righteousnesse of Christ , which I have proved to be imputed to beleevers for justification . If I have made manifest by plaine profession , that by the righteousnes of Christ , I understand his perfect fulfilling of the whole Law of God , and performing whatsoever the Law requires of man for righteousnesse , even a full satisfaction made in mans behalfe , to the Law of justice ; Then I appeale to the judgement of all reasonable men , whether my adversary hath not most wickedly belyed me in word and writing : for he hath both wayes charged me , that I neither hold Christs habituall holynes , and uprightnes , of his humane nature , nor his active obedience to the whole Law , or any righteousnes of workes by him performed , nor both these together , to be the righteousnes of Christ imputed , and thereupon he clamours against me , that I hold and teach a righteousnes of Christ , which never was in Christ : I confesse I have ever taught and held , That neither the habituall nor actuall righteousnes of Christ , alone nor both together , without his satisfaction of justice , by bearing our sinnes , and suffering the punishments due to them , are a sufficient ransome to redeeme us , nor a compleat and perfect obedience and fulfilling of the whole , able to justifie us , in the sight of GOD , and to reconcile us to him . Now to affirme that all three together are imputed , is not to deny the imputation of the two first , though they that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calumniators may so wrest the words . Secondly , whether hee who hath beleeved and preached , and in writing maintained , for 28 yeares last passed to this houre , what hee in this answere hath professed , held and maintained , can without wilfull lying , and more then Jesuiticall forging , be reported abroad , & confidently charged for a turnecoat , whom this Adversary by this his Socinian learning , and Sophistry hath so confounded , and convinced him , that hee is wholly turned to be of the same opinion , and hath vowed to maintaine his Socinianisme , both publikely , and privatly , to the utmost of his power . So this mans followers have reported , and have withall added , that so many as have come within his breath , are all illuminated by him , and being converted to his opinion , do rejoyce in the light , by which he hath shined into their hearts . Thirdly , whether this Answer to his Socinianisme be such , that both it , and the Author of it have nothing in them but words and passion , and that herein hee is strangely , and monstrously metamorphosed from a Minister of Christ , into an Angell of darknes , besmearing the brightnes of his face , with the foot and grease of Hell , that the words and phrases of this answere , are the black Princes coine , and there is little in it besides cursing , and rayling . For many such fiery darts hath this Adversary throwne against the Answerer in a scurrilous Libel fraught with lies , forgeries , absurdities , contradictions , and blasphemies , and sent forth under the name of a replie ; which is also confuted by the Answerer , and the filthynesse thereof so plainely discovered , that all true Christians , and modest men , will say of it , that the reciting of it , is a full confutation . From all such wicked spirits , the GOD of truth defend his Church and People , and grant a free passage to his Gospel , and to his faithfull Ministers , a doore of utterance , that they may preach among all men every where , the unsearchable riches of Christ. To this GOD of truth , let us consecrate our tongues , and pens , and resolve with both to maintaine his truth , by his grace , and the assistance of his Spirit , so long as strength , breath , and life shall last . And to him let us give all glory , now and ever , Amen . FJNJS . December . 8. 1640. Jmprimatur THOMAS VVYKES . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A67126-e240 Epistolica Collatio cum Bertio , pag 1. & 2. Lib. con . Anonymum . Wotton de Reconciliatione . Notes for div A67126-e1000 1 Cor. 2.12 . 1 Part. 2 Part. 3. Part. 4. Part. Notes for div A67126-e9550 Ans. Answer Answere Answere 
A61548	----	A discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity with an answer to the late Socinian objections against it from Scripture, antiquity and reason, and a preface concerning the different explications of the Trinity, and the tendency of the present Socinian controversie / by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1697 Approx. 512 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 188 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A61548 Wing S5585 ESTC R14244 13589086 ocm 13589086 100626 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61548) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 100626) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 851:30) A discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity with an answer to the late Socinian objections against it from Scripture, antiquity and reason, and a preface concerning the different explications of the Trinity, and the tendency of the present Socinian controversie / by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. [2], lxii, [4], 292 p. Printed by J.H. for Henry Mortlock ..., London : 1697. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Trinity -- Early works to 1800. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. 2004-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-04 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-05 Olivia Bottum Sampled and proofread 2004-05 Olivia Bottum Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity : WITH An ANSWER To the Late Socinian Objections Against it from Scripture , Antiquity and Reason . AND A PREFACE concerning the different Explications of the Trinity , and the Tendency of the present SOCINIAN Controversie . By the Right Reverend Father in God , Edward , Lord Bishop of Worcester . LONDON , Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in S. Paul's Church-yard , 1697. THE PREFACE . WHen I was desir'd , not long since , to reprint the Discourse lately published , concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction , I thought it necessary to look into the Socinian Pamphlets , ( which have swarmed so much among us within a few years ) to see how far an Answer had been given in them to any of the arguments contained in it ; but I found the Writers of them thought it not for their purpose to take any notice at all of it ; but rather endeavour'd to turn the Controversie quite another way , and to cover their true Sense under more plausible Expressions . Of which I have given a full account in the Preface to the late Edition of it . But among those Treatises which ●or the general good of the Nation are gather●d into Volumes and dispers'd abroad to make either Proselytes or Infidels ) I found one , wherein there is p●etended to be an Answer to my Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith , ( reprinted with the former Discourse ▪ ) and therein I meet with a passage , which hath given occasion to this Vindication . For there are these Words , That I had utterly mistaken , in thinking that they deny the Articl●s of the new Creed , or Athanasian Religion , because they are Mysteries , or because , say they , we do not comprehend them ; we deny them , because we do comprehend them , we have a clear and distinct Perception , that they are not Mysteries , but Contradictions , Impossibilities and pure Nonsense . Which words contain in them so spitefull , so unjust , and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general , and our own in particular ▪ that I could not but think my self concerned , especially since they are addressed to me , to do what in me lay ( as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit ) towards the clearing the fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion , as they call it , viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity , ( which is chiefly struck at by them ) without running into any new Explications , or laying aside any old terms , for which I could not see any just occasion . For however thoughtfull Men may think to escape some particular difficulties better , by going out of the common Roads ; yet they may meet with others , which they did not foresee , which may make them as well as others judge it , at last , a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way , which the Christian Church hath used , ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms , which were thought most proper for that purpose . For in such cases , the Original and Critical Signification of words is not so much to be attended , as the use they are applied to , and since no other can be found more significant or proper for that end ; it looks like yielding too great advantage to our Adversaries , to give up the Boundaries of our Faith. For although there be a difference between the necessary Article of Faith it self , and the manner of expressing it , so that those may truely believe the Substance of it , who differ in the Explication ; yet since the Sense of the Article hath been generally received under those terms , there seems to be no sufficient reason to substitute new ones instead of the old , which can hardly be done , without reflecting on the Honour of the Christian Church , and giving occasion for very unreasonable Heats and Disputes , among those , who , if we may believe their own words , agree in the same fundamental Doctrine ; viz. a Trinity in Unity , or three Persons in the same undivided divine Essence . I am so little a Friend to any such Heats and Differences among our selves especially when we are so violently attacked by our common Adversaries , that were there no other reason , I should for the sake of that alone forbear making use of new Explications ; but there is another too obvious , which is , the mighty advantage they have taken from hence to represent our Doctrine as uncertain , as well as unintelligi●le . For as soon as our Unitarians began to appear with that Briskness and Boldness they have done now for several years , some of our Divines thought themselves obliged to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity . Thence came several Answers to them , and in several Methods , as the Persons thought most subservient to the same end ; but whatever their intentions were , our Adversaries were too much pleased to conceal the Satisfaction which they took in it . For soon after , we had the several Explications set forth and compared with each other ; and all managed so , as to make the Cause to suffer by the disagreement of the Advocates for it . And from hence they have formed a fivefold Trinity . 1. The Ciceronian Trinity , because Tully had used the Word Personae for different Respects ; Sustineo ego tres Personas ; and according to this Acceptation , Three Persons in the Godhead are no more than three Relations , Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatures , which say they , is downright Sabellianism : and is no manner of Mystery , but the most intelligible and obvious thing in the World. 2. The Cartesian Trinity , which maketh three divine Persons , and three infinite Minds , Spirits and Beings to be but one God. 3. The Platonick Trinity , of three divine Co-eternal Persons , whereof the second and third are subordinate or inferiour to the first in Dignity , Power , and all other Qualities , except only Duration . 4. The Aristotelian Trinity , which saith the Divine Persons are one God , because they have one and the same numerical Substance . 5. The Trinity of the Mobile , or that which is held by the common People , or by such lazy Divines , who only say in short , that it is an unconceivable Mystery ; and that those are as much in fault who go about to explain it , as those who oppose it . But that which hath made the most noise , and caused the greatest Heat and Ferment among us , hath been a difference first begun between two learned Divines of our Church , about the second and fourth ; and the account which our Unitarians give of both is this , That the one is a rational and intelligible Explication , but not true nor Orthodox ; the other is true and Orthodox , but neither rational , intelligible nor possible . I do not mention this , as though their words were to be taken as to either ; but only to shew what advantage they take from both , to represent that which is set up for the Churches Doctrine , either not to be truly so , or to be neither rational nor intelligible . The design of the following Discourse , is to make it appear , ( 1. ) That the Churches Doctrine , as to the Trinity , as it is expressed in the Athanasian Creed , is not liable to their charges of Contradiction , Impossibilities and pure Nonsense . ( 2. ) That we own no other Doctrine than what hath been received by the Christian Church in the several Ages from the Apostles Times : ( 3. ) And that there are no Objections in point of reason , which ought to hinder our Assent to this great point of the Christian Faith. But the chief Design of this Preface , is to remove this Prejudice which lies in our way from the different manners of Explication , and the warm Disputes which have been occasion'd by them . It cannot be denied , that our Adversaries have taken all possible advantage against us from these unhappy differences ; and in one of their latest Discourses they glory in it , and think they have therein out-done the foreign Unitarians : For , say they , We have shewed , that their Faiths concerning this pretended Mystery are so many and so contrary , that they are less one Party among themselves , than the far more learned and greater number of them are one Party with us : this is spoken of those they call Nominal Trinitarians ; and for the other whom they call Real , they prove them guilty of manifest Heresie ; the one they call Sabellians , which they say is the same with Unitarians , and the other Polytheists or disguised Pagans , and they borrow arguments from one side to prove the charge upon the other ; and they confidently affirm that all that speak out in this matter , must be driven either to Sabellianism , or Tritheism . If they are Nominal Trinitarians , they fall into the former , if Real , into the latter . This is the whole Design of this late Discourse , which I shall here examine , that I may remove this stumbling Block , before I enter upon the main business . 1. As to those who are called Nominal Trinitarians . Who are they ? And from whence comes such a Denomination ? They tell us , That they are such who believe three Persons , who are Persons in Name only ; indeed and in truth they are but one subsisting Person . But where are these to be found ▪ Among all such , say they , as agree that there is but one only and self-same divine Essence and Substance . But do these assert , that there is but one subsisting Person , and three only in Name ? Let any one be produced who hath written in defence of the Trinity ; for those who have been most charged , have utterly deny'd it That learned Person , who is more particularly reflected upon in this Charge , is by them said to affirm , That God is one divine intellectual Substance , or really subsisting Person , and distinguished and diversified by three relative Modes , or relative Subsistences . And Mr. Hooker is produc'd to the same purpose , That there is but one Substance in God , and three distinct rela●ive Properties , which Substance being taken with its peculiar Property , makes the distinction of Persons in the Godhead . But say they , These Modes and Properties do not make any real subsisting Persons ; but only in a Grammatical and Critical Sense , and at most , this is no more than one Man may be said to be three Persons on the account of different Relations , as Solomon was Son of David , Father of Rehoboam , and proceeding from David and Bathsheba , and yet was but one subsisting P●rson . This is the force of what they say . But then in a triumphing manner they add , That the Realists have so manifest an advantage against them , that they have no way to de●end themselves but by Recrimination , i. e. by shewing the like Absurdity in their Doctrine . And thus they hope either side will baffle the other , and in the mean time , the Cause be lost between them . But in so nice a matter as this , we must not rely too much on an Adversaries Representation ; for the leaving out some expressions , may make an opinion look with another Appearance , than if all were taken together , it would have . We must therefore take notice of other passages which may help to give the true Sense of the learned Author , who is chiefly aimed at . 1. In the very same Page he asserts , That each of the divine Persons has an absolute Nature distinctly belonging to him , though not a distinct absolute Nature ; and to the same purpose in another place . 2. That the eternal Father is and subsists as a Father , by having a Son , and communicating his Essence to another . And elsewhere , that the Relation between Father and Son is founded on that eternal Act , by which the Father communicates his divine Nature to the Son. 3. That the foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity is this , 1. That there can be but one God. 2. That there is nothing in God but what is God. 3. That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such positive real Being , distinct from the Deity it self . But the Church finding in Scripture mention of three , to whom distinctly the Godhead does belong , expressed these three by the Name of Persons , and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence , allotted to one and the same Godhead , and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations . What do these men mean , to charge one who goes upon these grounds with Sabellianism ? Doth he make the three Persons to be mere Names , as S. Basil in few words expresses the true nature of Sabellianism , that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One thing with different Denominations ? Can the communicating the divine Essence by the Father to the Son , be called a Name , or a Mode , or a Respect only ? And these Men of wonderfull Subtilty , have not learnt to distinguish between Persons and Personalities . Where is the least Intimation given , that he look'd on the divine Persons as Modes and Respects only ? That is impossible , since he owns a Communication of the divine Essence , and that each of the divine Persons hath the divine Nature belonging to him ; could it ever enter into any Man's head to think , that he that owns this should own the other also ? But the Personality is a thing of another consideration . For it is the reason of the distinction of Persons in the same undivided Nature . That there is a distinction , the Scripture assures us ; and withall , that there is but one divine Essence . How can this distinction be ? Not by essential Attributes , for those must be in the divine Essence , and in every Person alike , otherwise he hath not the entire divine Nature ; not by accidents , as Men are distinguished from each other , for the divine Nature is not capable of these ; not by separate or divided Substances , for that would be inconsistent with the perfect Vnity of the Godhead ; since therefore there can be no other way of distinction , we must consider how the Scripture directs us i● this case ; and that acquaints us with the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , as having mutual Relation to each other ; and there is no Repugnancy therein to the divine Nature , and therefore the distinction of the Persons hath been fixed on that , as the most proper foundation for it . And these are called different Modes of Subsistence , on which the distinct Personalities are founded , which can be no other than relative . But a Person is that which results from the divine Nature and Subsistence together ; and although a Person cannot be said to be a relative , consider'd as such , yet being joyned with the manner of Subsistence , it doth imply a Relation , and so a Person may be said to be a relative Being . But say they , If the three Persons have all the same individual Substance , then they are truly and properly only three Modes ; and therefore a●though among Men , Personalities are distinct from the Persons , because the Persons are distinct intelligent Substances , yet this cannot hold where there is but one individual Substance . The question is , Whether those they call Nominal Trinitarians , are liable to the charge of Sabellianism ; the answer is , That they cannot , because they assert far more than three Names , viz. That each Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him . But say they , These Persons are but mere Modes . No , say the other ; We do not say that the Person is only a Modus , but that it is the divine Nature , or Godhead subsisting under such a Modus , so that the Godhead is still included in it , joyned to it , and distinguished by it . Grant all this , the Vnitarians reply , yet where there is the same individual Substance , the Person can be only a Modus . To which it is answer'd , That this individual Substance hath three distinct ways of subsisting , according to which it subsists distinctly and differently in each of the three divine Persons . So that here lies the main point , whether it be Sabelliani●m , to assert the same individual Substance under three such different Modes of Subsistence . If it be , the most learned and judicious of the Fathers did not know what Sabellianism meant ( as I have shewd at large in the following Discourse ) for they utterly disowned Sabellianism , and yet asserted , That the several Hypostases consisted of peculiar Properties in one and the same divine Substance . But it is not the authority of Fathers which they regard , for they serve them only as Stones in the Boys way when they quarrel , viz. to throw them at our Heads . Let us then examine this matter by reason without them . Persons among Men , say they , are distinguished from Personalities , because they have distinct Substances , therefore where there is but one Substance , the Person can be only a Mode , and therefore the same with the Personality . I answer , that the true original Notion of Personality is no more than a different Mode of subsistence in the same common Nature . For every such Nature is in it self one and indivisible ; and the more perfect it is , the greater must its Vnity be . For the first Being is the most One ; and all Division comes from Distance and Imperfection . The first foundation of Distinction is Diversity ; for if there were no Diversity , there would be nothing but entire and perfect Vnity . All Diversity comes from two things , Dissimilitud● and Dependence . Those Philosophers ( called Megarici ) did not think much amiss , who said , That if all things were alike , there would be but one Substance or Being in the World ; and what we now call different Substances , would be only different Modes of Subsistence in the same individual Nature . The difference of Substances in created Beings , arises from those two things . 1. A Dissimilitude of Accidents , both internal and external . 2. The Will and Power of God , whereby he gives them distinct and separate Beings in the same common Nature . As for instance , the Nature or Essence of a Man consider'd in it self , is but one and indivisible ; but God gives a separate Existence to every Individual , whereby that common Nature subsists in so many distinct Substances , as there are Individuals of that kind ; and every one of these Substances is distinguished from all others ▪ not only by a separate internal vital Principle and peculiar Properties , but by such external Accidents , as do very easily discriminate them from each other . And the subject of all these Accidents is that peculiar Substance , which God hath given to every Individual , which in rational Beings is called a Person ; and so we grant that in all such created Beings the Personality doth suppose a distinct Substance ; not from the Nature of Personality , but from the condition of the subject wherein it is . The Personality in it self is but a different Mode of Subsistence in the same common Nature , which is but One : but this Personality being in such a subject as Man is , it from thence follows ▪ that each Person hath a peculiar Substance of his own ; and not from the Nature of Personality . But when we come to consider a divine Essence , which is most perfectly one , and is wholly uncapable of any separate Existence or Accidents , there can be no other way of distinction conceived in it , but by different Modes of Subsistence , or relative Properties in the same divine Essence . And herein we proceed , as we do in our other Conceptions of the divine Nature , i. e. we take away all Imperfection from God , and attribute only that to him , which is agreeable to his divine Perfections , although the manner of it may be above our comprehension . And if this be owning the Trinity of the Mob , I am not ashamed to own my self to be one of them ; but it is not out of Lazyness or affected Ignorance , but upon the greatest and most serious consideration . They may call this a Trinity of Cyphers , if they please , but I think more modest and decent Language about these matters would become them as well as the things themselves much better . And they must prove a little better than they have done , that different Modes of Subsistence in the divine Nature , or the relations of Father and Son are mere Cyphers , which is so often mentioned in Scripture , as a matter of very great consequence ; and that when we are baptized in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , we are baptized into a Trinity of Cyphers . But our Unitarians proceed , and say that the same Author affirms not only the Personalities , but the Persons to be merely Relative . For he saith , That every Person , as well as every Personality in the Trinity , is wholly Relative . But it is plain he speaks there , not of the Person in himself , but with respect to the manner of Subsistence , or the relative Properties belonging to them . But if the Notion of a Person doth besides the relative Property , necessarily suppose the divine Nature together with it ; how can a Person then be imagined to be wholly Relative ? But they urge , That which makes the first Person in the Trinity to be a Person , makes him to be a Father , and what makes him to be a Father , makes him to be a Person . And what follows from hence , but that the relative Property is the Foundation of the Personality ? But by no means , that the Person of the Father is nothing but the relative Property ? The instance of Solomon is not at all to the purpose , unless we asserted three Persons founded upon those different Relations in his individual Nature . Who denies , that one Person may have different Respects , and yet be but one Person subsisting ? Where doth the Scripture say , That the Son of David , the Father of Rehoboam , and he that proceeded from David and Bathsheba were three Persons distinguished by those relative Properties ? But here lies the foundation of what we believe as to the Trinity ; we are assured from Scripture , that there are three to whom the divine Nature and Attributes are given , and we are assured both from Scripture and Reason , that there can be but one divine Essence ; and therefore every one of these must have the divine Nature , and yet that can be but One. But it is a most unreasonable thing to charge those with Sabellianism , who assert , That every Person hath the divine Nature distinctly belonging to him , and that the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son. Did ever N●etus or Sabellius , or any of their Followers speak after this manner ? Is the divine Essence but a mere Name , or a different respect only to Mankind ? For the asserting such relative Persons as have no Essence at all , was the true Sabellian Doctrine , as will be made appear in the following Discourse . And so much is confess'd by our Unitarians themselves , for they say , That the Sabellians held , that Father , Son and Spirit are but only three Names o● God given to him in Scripture , by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature , and so he is but one subsisting Person and three relative Persons ; as he sustains the three Names of Father , Son and Spirit , which being the Relations of God towards things without him , he is so many relative Persons , or Persons in a Classical Critical Sense , i. e. Persons without any Essence belonging to them as such . But those who assert a Communication of the divine Essence to each Person can never be guilty of Sabellianism , if this be it , which themselves affirm . And so those called Nominal Trinitarians , are very unjustly so called , because they do really hold a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead . 2. Let us now see what charge they lay upon those whom they call Real Trinitarians : and they tell us , That the Nominals will seem to be profound Philosophers , deep Sages in comparison with them . These are very obliging expressions to them in the beginning . But how do they make out this gross Stupidity of theirs ? In short it is , That they stand condemned and anathematized as Hereticks by a general Council , and by all the Moderns , and are every day challenged and impeached of Tritheism , and cannot agree among themselves , but charge one another with great Absurdities ; and in plain terms they charge them with Nonsense in the thing , whereas the other lay only in words . Because these assert three divine subsisting Persons , three infinite Spirits , Minds or Substances , as distinct as so many Angels or Men , each of them perfectly God , and yet all of them are but one God. To understand this matter rightly , we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad , some years since , a learned and worthy Person of our Church , who had appear'd with great vigour and reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign ( which ought not to be forgotten ) undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians , and the Notes on the Athanasian Creed ; but in the warmth of disputing , and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible , he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods which the Church hath used to express her Sense by , still retaining the same fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence , but explaining it in such a manner , as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own . This gave so great an advantage to the Author of those Treatises , that in a little time , he set forth his Notes with an Appendix in answer to this new Explication . Wherein he charges him with Heresie , Tritheism and Contradiction . The very same charges which have been since improved and carried on by others ; I wish I could say , without any unbecoming Heat or Reflections . But I shall now examine how far these charges have any ground , so as to affect the Doctrine of the Trinity , which is the chief end our Adversaries aimed at , in heaping these Reproaches upon one who appear'd so early , and with so much zeal to defend it . We are therefore to consider these things : 1. That a Man may be very right in the Belief of the Article it self ; and yet may be mistaken in his Explication of it . And this one of his keenest Adversaries freely acknowledges . For he plainly distinguishes between the fundamental Article and the manner of explaining it , and affirms , That a Man may quit his Explication without parting with the Article it self . And so he may retain the Article with his Explication . But suppose a Man to assent to the fundamental Article it self , and be mistaken in his Explication of it , can he be charged with Heresie about this Article ? For Heresie must relate to the fundamental Article to which he declares his hearty and unfeigned Assent ; but here we suppose the mistake to lie only in the Explication . As for instance , Sabellianism is a condemned and exploded Heresie , for it is contrary to the very Doctrine of the Trinity ; but suppose one who asserts the Doctrine of three Persons , should make them to be three Modes , must such a one presently be charged with Heresie , before we see whether his Explication be consistent with the fundamental Article or not ? For this is liable to very obvious Objections , that the Father begets a Mode instead of a Son , that we pray to three Modes instead of three real Persons , that Modes are mutable things in their own Nature , &c. but must we from hence conclude such a one guilty of Heresie , when he declares , that he withall supposed them not to be mere Modes , but that the divine Essence is to be taken together with the Mode to make a Person ? Yea , suppose some spitefull Adversary should say , That it is a Contradiction to say , That the same common Nature can make a Person with a Mode superadded to it ▪ unless that be individuated , for a ●erson doth imply an individual Nature , and not a mere relative Mode . Is this sufficient to charge such a Person with the Sabellian Heresy , which he utterly disowns ? Is not the like Equity to be shew●d in another though different Explication ? Suppose then a Person solemnly professes to own the fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity as much as any others ; but he thinks , that three Persons must have distinct Substances to make them Persons , but so as to make no Division or Separation in the Godhead , and that he cannot conceive a Communication of the divine Essence without this ; must this presently be run down as Heresie , when he asserts at the same time three Persons in the same undivided Essence ? But this is said to be a Contradiction ; so it was in the other case and not allow'd then and why should it be otherwise in this ? I speak not this to justifie such Explications , but to shew that there is a difference between the Heresie of denying an Article , and a mistake in the Explication of it . Even the greatest Heresie-makers in the world , distinguish between Heresies and erroneous Explications of Articles of Faith , as any one may find that looks into them . And even the Inquisitors of Heresie themselves allow the distinction between Heresie and an erroneous Proposition in Faith , which amounts to the same with a mistaken Explication of it ; and they all grant that there may be Propositions that tend to Heresie or savour of it , which cannot be condemned for Heretical . And even Pegna condemns Melchior Canus for being too cruel in asserting it to be Heresie to contradict the general Sense of Divines , because the Schools cannot make Heresies . 2. It is frequently and solemnly affirmed by him , That the Unity of the Godhead is the most real , essential , indivisible , inseparable Unity ; that there is but one divine Nature , which is originally in the Father , and is substantially communicated by the Father to the Son , as a distinct subsisting Person , by an eternal ineffable Generation , and to the Holy Ghost by an eternal and substantial Procession from Father and Son. Do the others who maintain a Trinity deny this ? By no means . For we have already seen that they assert the same thing . So that they are fully agreed as to the main fundamental Article . And even the Unitarians yield , that from the beginning he asserted , That the three divine Persons are in one undivided Substance . Wherein then lies the foundation of this mighty Quarrel , and those unreasonable Heats that Men have fallen into about it ; to the great scandal of our Church and Religion ? In short it is this ; that the same Author asserts , ( 1. ) That it is gross Sabellianism to say , That there are not three personal Minds , or Spirits , or Substances . ( 2. ) That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person . But he owns , that although there are three distinct Persons , or Minds , each of whom is distinctly and by himself God , yet there are not three Gods , but one God , or one Divinity ; which he saith , is intirely , and indivisibly , and inseparably in three distinct Persons or Minds . That the same one divine Nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son and by the Father and Son to the eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation ; and so it remains one still . This is the substance of this new Explication , which hath raised such Flames , that Injunctions from authority were thought necessary to suppress them . But those can reach no farther than the restraint of Mens Tongues and Pens about these matters , and unless something be found out to satisfie their Minds and to remove Misapprehensions , the present Heat may be only cover'd over and kept in ; which when there is a vent given ▪ may break out into a more dangerous Flame . Therefore I shall endeavour to state and clear this matter so as to prevent any future Eruption thereof , which will be done by considering how far they are agreed , and how far the remaining difference ought to be pursued . 1. They are agreed , That there are three distinct Persons and but one Godhead . 2. That there are no separate and divided Substances in the Trinity ; but the divine Nature is wholly and entirely one and undivided . 3. That the divine Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son , and from both to the holy Spirit . So that the charge of Sabellianism on those who reject this new Explication is without ground . For no Sabellian did or could assert a Communication of the divine Essence . Which being agreed on both sides , the Dispute turns upon this single point , whether a communicated Essence , doth imply a distinct Substance or not . On the one side it is said , That there being but one God , there can be but one divine Essence , and if more Essences more Gods. On the other side , that since they own a communicated Essence necessary to make a distinction of Persons in the Son and Holy Ghost , if the Essence be not distinct , the foundation of distinct Personalities is taken away . But how is this clear'd by the other Party ? They say , That it is one peculiar Prerogative of the divine Nature and Substance , founded in its infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection , whereby it is capable of residing in more Persons than one , and is accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost . So that the Communication of the divine Nature is owned to the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost . But how then comes it not to make a distinct Essence , as it makes distinct Persons , by being communicated ? The answer we see is , That it is a peculiar Prerogative founded on the infinite and therefore transcendent Perfection of the divine Nature . But they further add , That when the Son and Holy Ghost are said to have the same divine Nature from the Father , as the Origin and Fountain of the Divinity ; not by the Production of a new divine Nature but by a Communication of his own ; which is one and the same in all three without Separation , Difference , or Distinction ; that this is indeed a great Mystery , which hath been always look'd upon by the greatest and wisest Men in the Church , to be above all Expressions and Description . So that the greatest difficulty is at last resolved into the incomprehensible Perfection of the divine Nature ; and that neither Man nor Angels can give a satisfactory answer to Enquiries about the manner of them . And the Author of the Animadversions saith , That in the divine Persons of the Trinity , the divine Nature and the personal Subsistence coalesce into one , by an incomprehensible , ineffable kind of Union and Conjunction . But do those on the other side think , that the asserting three distinct Substances in one and the same individual Substance tends to clear and explain the Notion of the Trinity and make it more easie and intelligible ? The Divinity , they say , is whole , intire , indivisible , and inseparable in all three . But can one whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into three Substances ? For if every Person must have a peculiar Substance of his own ; and there be three Persons , there must be three peculiar Substances , and how can there be three peculiar Substances , and yet but one entire and indivisible Substance ? I do not say , there must be three divided Substances in place , or separate Substances , but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind , which must introduce a Specifick Divine Nature , which I think very inconsistent with the divine Perfections ; but of this at large in the following Discourse . I do not lay any force upon this argument , that there can be no ground of the Distinction between the three Substances , if there be but one Substance in the Godhead , ( as some have done ) because the same Substance cannot both unite and distinguish them ; for the ground of the distinction is not the Substance but the Communication of it , and where that is so freely asserted , there is a reason distinct from the Substance it self , which makes the Distinction of Persons . But the difficulty still remains , how each Person should have a Substance of his own ; and yet there be but one entire and indivisible Substance , for every Person must have a proper Substance of his own ; or else according to this Hypothesis , he can be no Person ; and this peculiar Substance must be really distinct from that Substance which is in the other two : so that here must be three distinct Substances in the three Persons . But how then can there be but one individual Essence in all three ? We may conceive one common Essence to be individuated in three Persons , as it is in Men ; but it is impossible to conceive the same individual Essence to be in three Persons , which have peculiar Substances of their own . For the Substances belonging to the Persons , are the same Essence individuated in those Persons : and so there is no avoiding making three individual Essences and one specifick or common divine Nature . And Maimonides his argument is considerable against more Gods than one ; If , saith he , there be two Gods , there mu●t be something wherein they agree , and something wherein they differ ; that wherein they agree must be that which makes each of them God ; and that wherein they differ must make them two Gods. Now wherein doth this differ from the present Hypothesis ? There is something wherein they differ , and that is their proper Substance ; but Maimonides thought that wherein they differ'd sufficient to make them two Gods. So that I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling three individual Essences with one individual divine Essence , which looks too like asserting that there are three Gods and yet but one . And the Author of this Explica●ion doth at last confess , that three distinct whole inseparable Same 's , are hard to conceive as to the manner of it . Now to what purpose are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them , if after all , the main difficulty be confess'd to be above our Comprehension ? We had much better satisfie our selves with that Language which the Church hath receiv●d and is express'd in the Creeds , than go about by new Terms , to raise new Ferments , especially at a time , when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries . No wise and good Men can be fond of any new Inventions , when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them . And on the other side , it is as dangerous to make new Heresies as new Explications . If any one denies the Doctrine contained in the Nicene Creed , that is no new Heresie ; but how can such deny the Son to be consubstantial to the Father , who assert one and the same indivisible Substance in the Father and the Son ? But they may contradict themselves . That is not impossible on either side . But doth it follow that they are guilty of Heresie ? Are not three Substances and but one a Contradiction ? No more , say they , than that a communicated Substance is not distinct from that which did communicate . But this whole dispute we find is at last resolved into the infinite and unconceivable Perfections of the Godhead , where it is most safely lodged ; and that there is no real Contradiction in the Doctrine it self , is part of the design of the Discourse afterwards . But here it will be necessary to take notice of what the Unitarians have objected against this new Explication , viz. That it was condemned by the ancients in the Person of Philoponus ; in the middle Ages , in the Person and Writings of Abhor Ioachim ; but more severely since the Reformation , in the Person of Valentinus Gentilis , who was condemned at Geneva , and beheaded at Bern for this very Doctrine . To these I shall give a distinct answer : 1. As to Joh Philoponus , I do freely own , that in the Greek Church , when in the sixth Century he broached his opinion , That every Hypostasis must have the common Nature individuated in it , this was look'd upon as a Doctrine of dangerous consequence , both with respect to the Trinity and Incarnation . The latter was the first occasion of it ; for as Leontius observes , the dispute did not begin about the Trinity , but about the Incarnation ; and Philoponus took part with those who asserted but one Nature in Christ after the Vnion , and he went upon this ground , That if there were two Natures there must be two Hypostases , because Nature and Hypostasis were the same . Then those on the Churches side , saith Leontius , objected , That if they were the same , there must be three distinct Natures in the Trinity , as there were three Hypostases ; which Philoponus yielded , and grounded himself on Aristotle's Doctrine , that there was but one common Substance and several individual Substances , and so held it was in the Trinity , whence he was called the leader of the Heresie of the Tritheius . This is the account given by Leontius who lived very ●ear his time , A. D. 620. The same is affirmed of him by Nicephorus , and that he wrote a Book on purpose about the Vnion of two Natures in Christ , out of which he produces his own words concerning a common and individual Nature , ( which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) which can agree to none else . And the main argument he went upon was this , that unless we assert a singular Nature in the Hypostases , we must say , that the whole Trinity was incarnate ; as unless there be a singular humane Nature distinct from the common , Christ must assume the whole Nature of Mankind . And this argument from the Incarnation , was that which made Roscelin , in the beginning of the disputing Age , A. D. 1093 , to assert , That the three Persons were three things distinct from each other , as three Angels or three Men , because otherwise the Incarnation of the second Person could not be understood , as appears by Anselm's Epistles , and his Book of the Incarnation written upon that occasion . But as A●selm shews at large , if this argument hold , it must prove the three Persons not only to be distinct , but separate and divided Sub●●ances , ( which is directly contrary to this new Explication ) and then there is no avoiding Tritheism . But to return to Joh. Philoponus , who , saith Nicephorus , divided the indivisible Nature of God into three Individuals as among Men : Which , saith he , is repugnant to the Sense of the Christian Church ; and he produces the Testimony of Gregory Nazianzen against it , and adds , that Leontius and Georgius Pisides confuted Philoponus . But in that divided time . there were some called Theodosiani , who made but one Nature and one Hypostasis ; and so fell in with the Sabellians ; but others held , That there was one immutable divine Essence , but each Person had a distinct individual Nature : which the rest charged with Tritheism . Which consequence they utterly rejected , because although they held three distinct Natures , yet they said , They were but one God , because there was but one invariable Divinity in them . Nicephorus saith , that Conon's Followers rejected Philoponus ; but Photius mentions a conference between Conon and others , a●out Philoponus , wherein he defends him against other Severians . Photius grants , that Conon and his Followers held a consubstantial Trinity and the Unity of the Godhead , and so far they were Orthodox : but saith , They were far from it , when they asserted proper and peculiar Substances to each Person . The difference between Conon and Philoponus about this point , ( for Conon wrote against Philoponus about the Resurrection ) seems to have been partly in the Doctrine , but chiefly in the consequence of it ; for these rejected all kind of Tritheism , which Philoponus saw well enough must follow from his Doctrine , but he denied any real Division or Separation in those Substances as to the Deity . Isidore saith , That the Tritheists owned three Gods , as well as three Persons ; and that if God be said to be Triple , there must follow a Plurality of Gods. But there were others called Triformiani , of whom S. Augustin speaks . Who held the three Persons to be three distinct parts , which being united made one God ; which , saith he , is repugnant to the divine Perfection . But among these Severians , there were three several opinions : 1. Of Philoponus , who held one common Nature and three Individual . 2. Of those who said there was but one Nature and one Hypostasis . 3. Of those who affirm'd there were three distinct Natures , but withal , that there was but one indivisible Godhead ; and these differ'd from Philoponus in the main ground of Tritheism , which was , that he held the common Nature in the Trinity , to be only a specifick Nature , and such as it is among Men. For Philoponus himself in the words which Nicephorus produces , doth assert plainly , that the common Nature is separated from the Individuals , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by a mere act of the Mind ; so that he allow'd no individual Vnity in the divine Nature , but what was in the several Persons ; as the common Nature of Man is a Notion of the Mind , as it is abstracted from the several Individuals , wherein alone it really subsists ; so that here is an apparent difference between the Doctrine of Joh. Philoponus and the new Explication , for herein the most real , essential and indivisible Unity of the divine Nature is asserted ; and it is said to be no Species , because it is but one , and so it could not be condemned in Joh. Philoponus 2. We now come to Abbat Joachim , whose Doctrine seems to be as much mistaken , as it is represented in the Decretal , where the Condemnation of it by the Lateran Council is extant . But here I cannot but observe what great Authority these Unitarians give to this Lateran Council , as if they had a Mind to set up Transubstantiation by it , which they so often parallel with the Trinity . Thence in their late Discourse they speak of it as the most general Council that was ever called , and that what was there defined , it was made Heresie to oppose it . But by their favour , we neither own this to have been a general Council , nor that it had Authority to make that Heresie which was not so before . But that Council might assert the Doctrine of the Trinity truly , as it had been receiv'd , and condemn the opinion of Joachim justly But what it was , they do not or would not seem to understand . Joachim was a great Enthusiast , but no deep Divine ( as Men of that Heat seldom are ) and he had many Disputes with Peter Lombard in his Life , as the Vindicator of Joachim confesses . After his Death , a Book of his was found , taxing Peter Lombard with some strange Doctrine about the Trinity , wherein he called him Heretick and Madman ; this Book was complained of in the Lateran Council , and upon Examination it was sound , that instead of charging Peter Lombard justly , he was fallen into Heresie himself , which was denying the essential Vnity of the three Persons , and making it to be Vnity of Consent . He granted that they were one Essence , one Nature , one Substance : but how ? Not by any true proper Unity , but Similitudinary and Collective , as they called it , as many Men are one People , and many Believers make one Church . Whence Thomas Aquinas saith , that Joachim fell into the Arian Heresie . It is sufficient to my purpose , that he denied the individual Vnity of the divine Essence , which cannot be charged on the Author of the new Explication , and so this comes not home to the purpose . 3. But the last charge is the most terrible , for it not only sets down the Heresie , but the capital punishment which follow'd it . Yet I shall make it appear , ( notwithstanding the very warm Prosecution of it by another hand ) that there is a great difference between the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis , and that which is asserted in this Explication . 1. In the Sentence of his Condemnation it is expressed , That he had been guilty of the vilest Scurrility and most horrid Blasphemies against the Son of God and the glorious Mystery of the Trinity . But can any thing of this Nature be charged upon one , who hath not only written in Defence of it , but speaks of it with the highest Veneration ? 2. In the same Sentence it is said , That he acknowledged the Father only to be that infinite God which we ought to worship , which is plain Blasphemy against the Son. But can any Men ever think to make this the same case with one , who makes use of that as one of his chief arguments , That the three Persons are to be worshipped with a distinct divine Worship ? 3. It is charged upon him , That he called the Trinity a mere human Invention , not so much as known to any Catholick Creed , and directly contrary to the Word of God. But the Author here charged , hath made it his business to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be grounded on Scripture and to vindicate it from the Objections drawn from thence against it . 4. One of the main Articles of his charge was , That he made three Spirits of different Order and Degree , that the Father is the one only God , by which the Son and Holy Ghost are excluded manifestly from the Unity of the Godhead ; But the Person charged with his Heresie saith , The Reason why we must not say three Gods , is , because there is but one and the same Divinity in them all ; and that entirely , indivisibly , inseparably . But it is said , that although there may be some differences , yet they agree in asserting , That there are three distinct eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity ; and Genebrard is brought into the same Heresie with them But Genebrard with great indignation rejects the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis , because he held an Inequality in the Persons , and denied the individual Vnity of the Godhead in them ; but he saith , he follow'd Damascen in asserting three real Hypostases ; and he utterly denies Tritheism , and he brings a multitude of reasons , why the charge of Tritheism doth not lie against his opinion , although he owns the Hypostases to be three distinct individuals , but then he adds , That there is an indivisible and insep●rable Union of the divine Nature in all three Persons . Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be , I do not think our understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis ; but that it is liable to as great difficulties as any other , and therefore none ought to be fond of it , or to set it against the general Sense of others , and the current Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries ; nor to call the different opinions of others Heresie or Nonsense , which are provoking Words , and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions , because their Faith and Vnderstanding are both call'd in question , which are very tender things . But on the other side , a difference ought to be made between the Heresie and Blasphemy of Valentinus Gentilis , and the opinion of such who maintain the individual and indivisible Unity of the Godhead ; but withal , believe that every Person hath an individual Substance as a Person , and that Sabellianism cannot be avoided otherwise . Wherein I think they are mistaken , and that the Fathers were of another opinion ; and that our Church owns but one Substance in the Godhead , as the Western Church always did , ( which made such difficulty about receiving three Hypostases , because they took Hypostasis for a Substance ) but yet I see no reason why those who assert three Hypostases , and mean three individual Substances should be charged with the Heresie of Valentinus Gentilis , or so much as with that of Abba● Joachim or Philoponus , because they all rejected the individual Unity of the divine Nature , which is constantly maintained by the Defenders of the other Hypothesis . But it is said and urged with vehemency , that these two things are inconsistent with each other ; that it is going forward and backward , being Orthodox in one Breath and otherwise in the next ; that all this looks like shuffling and concealing the true meaning , and acting the old Artifices under a different Form. For the Samosatenians and Arians , when they were pinched , seem'd very Orthodox in their Expressions , but retained their Heresies still in their Minds ; and there is reason to suspect the same Game is playing over again , and we cannot be too cautious in a matter of such Consequence . I grant very great caution is needfull , but the mixture of some Charity with it will do no hurt . Why should we suspect those to be inwardly false , and to think otherwise than they speak , who have shew'd no want of Courage and Zeal , at a time when some thought it Prudence to say nothing , and never call'd upon their Superiours then to own the cause of God , and to do their Duties as they have now done , and that in no very obliging manner ? And if the same Men can be cool and unconcerned at some times , ( when there was so great reason to be otherwise ) and of a sudden grow very warm , and even to boil over with Zeal ; the World is so ill natur'd , as to be too apt to conclude there is some other cause of such an alteration than what openly appears . But there is a kind of bitter Zeal , which is so fierce and violent , that it rather inflames than heals any Wounds that are made ; and is of so malignant a Nature , that it spreads and eats like a Cancer , and if a stop were not given to it , it might endanger the whole Body . I am very sensible how little a Man consults his own ease , who offers to interpose in a dispute between Men of Heat and Animosity ; but this moves me very little , when the interest of our Church and Religion is concerned , which ought to prevail more than the fear of displeasing one or other Party , or it may be both . I do heartily wish , that all who are equally concerned in the common Cause , would lay aside Heats , and Prejudices , and hard Words , and consider this matter impartially ; and I do not question , but they will see cause to judge , as I do , that the difference is not so great as our Adversaries for their own advantage make it to be . And since both sides yield , that the matter they dispute about is above their reach , the wisest course they can take is to assert and defend what is revealed , and not to be too peremptory and quarrelsom about that which is acknowledged to be above our comprehension , I mean as to the manner how the three Persons partake of the divine Nature . It would be of the most fatal consequence to us , if those Weapons , which might be so usefully imploy'd against our common Adversaries , should still be turned upon one another . I know no manner of advantage they have against us , but from thence , and this is it which makes them write with such Insolence and Scorn towards those who are far their Superiours in Learning and Wit , as well as in the Goodness of their cause . And is it possible that some of our most skilfull Fencers should play Prizes before them , who plainly animate them against each other for their own Diversion and Interest ? Sometimes one hath the better , sometimes the other , and one is cried up in Opposition to the other , but taken alone is used with the greatest Contempt . One Man's work is said to be learned and accurate , and the more , because it follows , that he concerns not himself with the Socinians . The wiser Man no doubt , for that Reason . At another time it is called the Birth of the Mountains , and the Author parallel'd with no less a Man than Don Quixot , and his elaborate Writings with his Adventures , and they ridicule his Notion of Modes as if they were only so many Gambols and Postures . And then for his Adversary , they hearten and incourage him all they can ; they tell him , He must not allow to the other the least Title of all he contends for , least their sport should be spoiled ; and to comfort him , they tell him , that his Adversary is a Socinian at bottom , and doth not know it ; that all his Thingums , Modes , Properties are only an Addition of Words and Names , and not of Persons properly so called , and that his whole Scheme is nothing but Socinianism drest up in the absurd Cant of the Schools . That his Book hath much more Scurrility than Argument , that his usage of him was barbarous , and a greater Soloecism in manners , than any he accuses him of in Grammar or Speech ; and in short , That his Explication of the Trinity is a great Piece of Nonsense , ( though it comes so near to Socinianism . ) But how doth the other Antagonist escape ? What , nothing but good Words to him ? In this place they had a mind to keep him in heart , and only charge him with a Heresie which they laugh at ; but in another place , they set him out with such colours , as shew they intended only to play one upon the other . They charge him not only with Heresie but Polytheism , Which , they say , is next to Atheism ; that his Vindication is a supercilious , disdainfull and peevish Answer : that he had neither Humanity nor good Manners left : that there is nothing considerable in his Books but what he borrow'd from Them. These are some of the Flowers which they bestow on these Persons of Reputation in Polemick Squabble as they call it , which plainly shew , that their aim is , as much as may be , to divide and then to expose us . And shall we still go on to gratifie this insulting Humour of theirs , by contending with one another , and afford them still new matter for Books against both ? As we may see in their late Discourse about Nominal and Real Trinitarians , which was intended for a rare shew , wherein the two Parties are represented as combating with one another , and they stand by and triumph over these Cadmean Brethren , as they call them . Neither are they the Socinians only , but those who despise all Religion ( who I doubt are the far greater number ) are very much entertained with such encounters between Men of Wit and Parts , because they think , and they do not think amiss , that Religion it self will be the greatest sufferer by them at last : And this is the most dangerous , but I hope not the most prevailing Party of Men among us . The Socinians profess themselves Christians , and I hope are so , ( especially if but One Article of Faith be required to make men so ) but I cannot but observe that in the late Socinian Pamphlets , there is too strong a biass towards Deism , ( which consideration alone should make us unite and look more narrowly to their steps . ) I do not charge their Writers with a professed design to advance Deism among us ; but their way of managing their Disputes , is as if they had a mind to serve them . And such men who are Enemies to all revealed Religion , could not find out better Tools for their purpose than they are . For they know very well , that in such a Nation as ours , which is really concerned for the Profession of Religion one way or other , there is no opening professed Schools of Atheism ; but the design must be carried on under some shew of Religion . And nothing serves their turn so well , as setting up natural Religion in opposition to Revealed . For this is the way by degrees to loosen and unhinge the Faith of most Men , which with great reason is built on the Scripture as the surest foundation . But here it is fit to observe the several steps they take in order to this advancing Deism , and how our Unitarians have complied with all of them . I. The first point they are to gain is , The lessening the Authority of Scripture , and if this be once done , they know Mens Minds will be left so roving and uncertain , that they will soon fall into Scepticism and Infidelity . II. The next is , to represent Church-men as Persons of Interest and Design , who maintain Religion only because it supports them ; and this they call Priest-Cra●t , and if they can by this means take away their Authority too , the way lies still more open for them ; for it is more easie to make a Prey of the Flock , when the Shepherds are suspected only to look after their Fleeces . Since such a suspicion takes away all Trust and Confidence in their Guides ; and they know very well , how little others will be able to defend themselves . III. Another step is , to magnifie the Deists as Men of Probity and good Sense ; that assert the just Liberties of Mankind , against that terrible thing called Priest-Craft ; and that would rescue Religion from false Glosses and absurd Notions taken up from the Schools and taught in the Universities , on purpose to keep under those Principles of universal Liberty as to Opinions , which those of freer Minds endeavour to promote . But especially they are great Enemies to all Mysteries of Faith , as unreasonable Impositions on those of more refined Vnderstandings , and of clear and distinct Perceptions , as they have learnt to express themselves . These they account intolerable Vsurpations on Men of such Elevations as themselves ; for Mysteries are only for the Mob , and not for Persons of such noble Capacities . IV. The last thing is , to represent all Religions as indifferent , since they agree in the common Principles of natural Religion , especially the Vnity of God , and all the rest is but according to the different Inventions of Men , the skill of the Contrivers , and the several Humors and Inclinations of Mankind . These are the chief Mysteries of Deism in our Age ; for even Deism hath its Mysteries , and it is it self a Mystery of Iniquity , which I am afraid is too much working already among us , and will be more if no effectual stop be put to it . I call it Deism , because that Name obtains now , as more plausible and modish ; for Atheism is a rude unmannerly Word , and exposes Men to the Rabble , and makes Persons shun the company and avoid the Conversation and Dealing with such who are noted for it . And this would be a mighty Prejudice to them , as to their Interests in this World , which they have reason to value . But to be a Deist , seems to be only a setting up for having more Wit , than to be cheated by the Priests , and imposed upon by the common Forms of Religion , which serve well enough for ordinary People that want Sense , and are not skill●d in Demonstrations ; but the Deists are so wise as to see through all these things . And therefore this name gains a Reputation among all such as hate Religion , but know not how otherwise to distinguish themselves from prosessed Atheists , which they would by no means be taken for ; although if they be pressed home , very few among them will sincerely own any more than a Series of Causes , without any intellectual Perfections , which they call God. A strange God without Wisdom , Goodness , Iustice or Providence ! But I am now to shew , how in all these points the present Unitarians have been very serviceable to them , in the Books which they have lately published and dispersed both in City and Country . 1. As to the Authority of Scripture : They have been already justly exposed for undermining the Authority of S. John's Gospel , by mustering up all the Arguments of the old Hereticks against it , and giving no answers to them . And what defence have they since made for themselves ? No other but this very trifling one , that they repeat their Reasons but do not affirm them . What is the meaning of this ? If they are true , why do they not affirm them ? If they are false , why do they not answer them ? Is this done like those who believe the Gospel of S. John to be divine , to produce all the arguments they could meet with against it ; and never offer to shew the Weakness : and Vnreasonableness of them ? Doth not this look like a design to furnish the Deists with such arguments as they could meet with against it ? Especially , when they say , That S. Iohn doth not oppose them Why then are these Arguments produced against his Gospel ? Men do not use to dispute against their Friends , nor to tell the World what all People have said against them , and give not a word of answer in vindication of them . But they say , The modern Vnitarians allow of the Gospel and other Pieces of S. Iohn . A very great favour indeed , to allow of them . But how far ? As of divine Authority ? Not a word of that . But as ancient Books which they think it not fit for them to dispute against . But if the ancient Ebionites were their Predecessors , as they affirm , they can allow none but the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; and must reject the rest and all S. Paul's Epistles ; and in truth , they make him argue so little to the purpose , that they must have a very mean opinion of his Writings . But of these things in the Discourse it self . As to Church-men , no professed Deists could express themselves more spitefully than they have done , and that against those to whom they profess the greatest respect . What then would they say of the rest ? They say in general , That it is natural to Worldlings , to mercenary Spirits , to the timorous and ambitious ; in a word , to all such as preferr not God before all other , whether Persons or Considerations , to believe as they would have it . But although the words be general , yet any one that looks into them may s●e● find that they were intended for such Church-men who had written against their opinions . And the Insinuation is , that if it were not for worldly Interests , they would own them to be in the right . Whereas I am fully perswaded , that they have no way to defend their Opinions , but to reject the Scriptures and declare themselves Deists ; and as long as we retain a just Veneration for the Scripture , we can be of no other Opinion , because we look on their Interpretations as unreasonable , new , forced , and inconsistent with the circumstances of Places and the main Scope and Tenor of the New Testament . But their Introduction to the Answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons about the Trinity and Incarnation , shew their Temper sufficiently as to all Church-men . He was the Person they professed to esteem and reverence above all others , and confess that he instructs them in the Air and Language of a Father , ( which at least deserved a little more dutifull Language from them . ) But some Mens fondness for their Opinions breaks all bounds of Civility and Decency ; for presently after , mentioning the Archbishop and other Bishops who had written against them , they say it signifies nothing to the case , That they are great Pensioners of the World. For it is certain we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Turn and Interest . And soon after , that their Opposers are under the power of such fatal Biasses , that their Doctrine is the more to be suspected because it is theirs . For the reason why they maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity is , because they must . The plain meaning of all this is , that the late Archbishop ( as well as the rest ) was a mere self-interested Man , ( which none who knew either the outside or inside of Lambeth could ever imagine ) that if he were really against them ( as none could think otherwise , who knew him so well and so long as I did ) it only shew'd what a strange Power , Interest hath in the Minds of all Church-men . But what Bias was it , which made him write with that Strength and Iudgment against their Opinions ? Let us set aside all Titles of Respect and Honour as they desire , let Reason be compared with Reason ; and his Arguments with their Answers ; and it will be soon found that the advantage which he had , was not from any other Dignity than that of a clearer Iudgment , and a much stronger way of Reasoning Whereas their Answers are such , as may well be supposed to come from those , who had some such Bias , that they must at least seem to answer what in truth they could not . As hath been fully made appear in the Vindication of him , to which no reply hath been given , although other Treatises of theirs have come out since . In the Conclusion of that Answer they say , That they did not expect that their Answer should satisfie us , and in truth they had a great deal of reason to think so . But what reason do they give for it ? A very kind one no doubt ; because Prepossession and Interest have taken hold of us . As though we were Men of such mean and mercenary Spirits , as to believe according to Prepossession without Reason , and to act only as serves our present Interest . But we never made mean Addresses to Infidels to shew how near our Principles came to theirs , nor made Parallels between the Trinity and Transubstantiation , as some did , and defended them , as well as they could , when Popery was uppermost . But enough of this . 3. We have seen how much they have gratified the Deists by representing Church-men in such a manner , let us now see in what manner they treat the Deists . It is with another sort of Language ; and which argues a more than ordinary kindness to them . In one place they say , That the Deists are mostly well-natured Men , and Men , of Probity and Understanding ; in effect that they are sincere honest-hearted Men , who do good by the impulse of their natural Religion , Honesty and good Conscience , which have great Influence upon them . What another sort of character is this from that of the greatest , and in their opinion the best of our Clergy ? This must proceed from some Intimacy and Familiarity with them ; and it is easie to imagine from hence , that they are upon very good Terms with one another , because they must be Unitarians , if they believe a God at all . But where else are these honest , conscientious Deists to be found ? It is rare indeed for others to find any one that rejects Christianity out of pure Conscience , and that acts by principles of sincere Virtue . I never yet could meet with such , nor hear of those that have . And I would fain know the reasons on which such conscientious Men proceeded ; for truly the Principles of natural Religion are those which recommend Christianity to me ; for without them the Mysteries of Faith would be far more unaccountable than now they are ; and supposing them , I see no Incongruity in them , i. e. That there is a just and holy God , and a wise Providence , and a future State of Rewards and Punishments ; and that God designs to bring Mankind to Happiness out of a State of Misery ; let these be supposed , and the Scheme of Christianity will appear very reasonable and fitted to the Condition and Capacity of Mankind . And the sublimest Mysteries of it are not intended to puzzle or amuse Mankind , as weak Men imagine ; but they are discover'd for the greatest and best purposes in the World , to bring Men to the hatred of Sin and Love of God , and a patient continuance in well-doing , in order to a blessed Immortality . So that this is truly a Mystery of Godliness , being intended for the advancement of real Piety and Goodness among Mankind in order to make them happy . But as to these Unitarians , who have such happy Acquaintance with these conscientious Deists ; I would fain learn from them , if they think them mistaken , why they take no more pains to satisfie and convince them ; for I find they decline saying a word against them . In one place they compare the Atheist and Deist together ; and very honestly and like any conscientious Deists , they impute all the Deism and most part of the Atheism of our Age to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation . Is it possible for Men that live in our Age to give such an account as this of the Growth of Deism and Atheism among us ? What number of Atheists is there , upon any other account than from a looseness of Thinking and Living ? Where are those who believe God to be an incomprehensible Being , and yet reject the Mysteries which relate to his Being , because they are incomprehensible ? Suppose any reject spiritual Substance as Nonsense and a Contradiction , as they do the Trinity on the same Pretences . Is this a sufficient reason or not ? They may tell them , as they do us that they can have no Ideas , no clear and distinct Perceptions of immaterial Substances ? What answer do they give in this case ? Not a Syllable ; although they take notice of it . But I hope they give some better satisfaction to the Deist ; No , for they say , This is not a place to argue against either Atheist or Deist . By no means : some would say , They were not such Fools to fall out with their Friends . And it cannot be denied , that they have been the greatest Incouragers of such kind of Writings , which serve their turn so well ; and in pure Gratitude they forbear to argue against them . IV. To shew how near they come to an Indifferency in Religion , they speak favourably of Mahometans , and Jews , and even Tartars , because they agree with them in the Vnity of the Godhead . What an honest-hearted Deist do they make that Impostor Mahomet ? One would hardly think such a character could have come out of the Mouth of Christians . But these are their Words , Mahomet is affirmed by divers Historians to have had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet , but to restore the Belief of the Unity of God , which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation . Who are those Historians who give this character of him ? Why are they not named , that their authority might be examin'd ? Was the Morocco Ambassador one of them ? Or Paulus Alciatus , who from a Unitarian turned Mahometan ? But by the best accounts we can meet with , we find that he was a very cunning Impostor , and took in from the Jews and Ishmaelites his Countrymen , Circumcision ; from the Christians , an honourable mention of Christ , as a Prophet , and as the the Word and Spirit of God , and owned his Miracles ; from the ancient Hereticks he denied his Suffering , but owned his being taken up into Heaven . Yea , he owned , That he had his Gospel from Heaven ; but that his Disciples changed it after his Death , and attributed more to Christ than he assumed to himself . Which shews that he had so much Sence , as to discern , that if the Books of the New Testament were genuine , more must be given to Christ , than either Mahomet or the Unitarians do allow . Let any indifferent Reader compare their character of Mahomet with that of Athanasius , which these Men give , and they will easily find that they take as much care to blacken one , as they do to vindicate the other . What Christian Ingenuity is here ? But Mahomet was a Deist , and Athanasius a Trinitarian . But they go on . Whatsoever the design of Mahomet was , its certain , that Mahometism hath prevailed over greater Numbers and more Nations , than at this day profess Christianity . But how ? Was it not by force of Arms and the Prevalency of the Saracen and Turkish Empire ? No , say these learned Historians , It was not by the Force of the Sword , but by that one Truth in the Alcoran the Unity of God. It were endless to quote the Historians , who say , That it was Mahomet's Principle , to subdue all by Force of Arms who opposed his Religion ; but the authority of Elmacinus alone is sufficient ; for in the beginning of his History he owns that it was his Principle , To make War upon those that would not submit to his Law. And others say , that in remembrance of this , Their Law is expounded by their Doctors , with a Sword drawn by them , and that it is the Law of the Alcoran to kill and slay those that oppose it . What liberty the Turkish Empire allows to Christians in the conquer'd Provinces is not to this purpose , but by what means Mahometism prevailed in the World. But say they , The Jews as well as Mahometans are alienated from us , because they suppose the Trinity to be the Doctrine of all Christians . And what then ? Must we renounce the Christian Doctrine to please the Jews and Mahometans ? Must we quit Christ's being the Messias , because the Jews deny it ? Or the suffering of Christ , because the Mahometans think it inconsistent with his Honour ? But if this be the truth of the case , as to Jews and Mahometans ; no Persons are so well qualified to endeavour their Conversion , as our Unitarians ; which would be a much better imployment for them , than to expose the Christian Doctrine by such Writings among us . I am ashamed to mention what they say of the Tartars , when they call them , The Shield and Sword of that way of acknowledging and worshipping God. So that Mahometans , Jews and Tartars are fairly represented because they agree in the grand Fundamental of the Vnity of the Godhead ; but the Christian Church is charged with believing Impossibilities , Contradictions , and pure Nonsense . And thus we find our Unitarians serving the Deists in all their methods of overthrowing Revealed Religion and advancing Deism among us . And if this will not awaken us to look more after them , and unite us in the defence of our Common Cause against them , I do not think that other Methods will do it . For it is become a Restless and Active , although as yet , but a small Body of Men , and they tell the World plainly enough that they are free from the Biasses of Hopes and Fears ; and sit loose from the Awes and Bribes of the World. So that there is no way of dealing with them , but by shewing the falsness & weakness of the grounds they go upon ; and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture , Antiquity or Reason : which is the Design of this Vndertaking . Worcester , Sept. 30. 1696. E. W. THE CONTENTS . CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse . Pag. 1. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest . p. 10. CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea , for the Antiquity of their Doctrine , Examined . p. 15. CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church . p. 29. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity . p. 54. CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature . p. 68. CHAP. VII . The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions . p. 101. CHAP. VIII . The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined . p. 121. CHAP. IX . The General Sense of the Christian Church , proved from the Form of Baptism , as it was understood in the first Ages . p. 177. CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity , in point of Reason , Answer'd . p. 230. ERRATA . PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one . p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5 . for unto which . p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius . p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated . p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not . p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were . p. 211. l. 1. dele that . p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis . p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission . p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as . A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity : WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections . CHAP. I. The Occasion and Design of this Discourse . IT is now above twenty years since I first published a Discourse about the reasons of the Sufferings of Christ , ( lately reprinted ) in answer to some Socinian Objections at that time . But I know not how it came to pass , that the Socinian controversy seemed to be laid asleep among us for many years after ; and so it had continued to this day , if some mens busie and indiscreet zeal for their own particular Opinions ( or rather Heresies ) had not been more prevalent over them , than their care and concernment for the common interest of Christianity among us . For it is that which really suffers by these unhappy and very unseasonable Disputes about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith , which could never have been started and carried on with more fatal consequence to all revealed Religion , than in an age too much inclined to Scepticism and Infidelity . For all who are but well-wishers to that , do greedily catch at any thing which tends to unsettle mens minds as to matters of Faith , and to expose them to the scorn and contempt of Infidels . And this is all the advantage which they have above others in their writings . For upon my carefull Perusal of them ( which was occasion'd by re●rinting that Discourse ) I found nothing extraordinary , as to depth of Judgment , or closeness of Reasoning , or strength of Argument , or skill in Scripture or Antiquity , but the old stuff set out with a new dress , and too much suited to the Genius of the age we live in , viz. brisk and airy , but withal too light and superficial . But although such a sort of Raillery be very much unbecoming the weight and dignity of the subject ▪ yet that is not the worst part of the character of them ; for they seem to be written , not with a design to convince others , or to justifie themselves , but to ridicule the great Mysteries of our Faith , calling them Iargon , Cant , Nonsense , Impossibilities , Contradictions , Samaritanism , and what not ? any thing but Mahometism and Deism . And at the same time they know , that we have not framed these Doctrines our selves ; but have received them by as universal a Tradition and Consent of the Christian Church , as that whereby we receive the Books of the new Testament , and as founded upon their authority . So that , as far as I can see , the truth of these Doctrines and authority of those Books must stand and fall together : For from the time of the writing and publishing of them all persons who were admitted into the Christian Church by the Form of Baptism , prescribed by our Saviour , were understood to ●e received Members upon profession of ●●e Faith of the Holy Trinity ; the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church were to Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; and those who openly opposed that Doctrine were cast out of the Communion of it : which to me seem plain and demonstrative arg●ments , that this was the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning , as will appear in the progress of this Discourse . The chief design whereof is to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity , as it hath been generally received in the Christian Church , and is expressed in the Athanasian Creed , from those horrible Imputations of Nonsense , Contradiction and Impossibility ; with which it is charged by our Vnitarians ( as they call themselves ; ) and that in the answer to the Sermon lately reprinted , about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith : which I first preached and published some years since , upon the breaking out of this controversie among us , by the Notes on Athanasius his Creed , and other mischievous Pamphlets one upon another . I was in hopes to have given some check to their insolent way of writing about matters so much above our reach , by shewing how reasonable it was for us to submit to divine Revelation in such things , since we must acknowledge our selves so much to seek , as to the nature of Substances , which are continually before our Eyes ; and therefore , if there were such difficulties about a Mystery which depended upon Revelation , we had no cause to wonder at it ; but our business was chiefly to be satisfied , whether this Doctrine were any part of that Revelation . As to which I proposed several things , which I thought very reasonable , to the finding out the true sense of the Scripture about these matters . After a considerable time , they thought fit to publish something , which was to pass for an answer to it ; but in it , they wholly pass over that part which relates to the sense of Scripture , and run into their common place about Mysteries of Faith ; in which they were sure to have as many Friends , as our Faith had Enemies : and yet they managed it in so trifling a manner , that I did not then think it deserved an Answer . But a worthy and judicious Friend was willing to take that task upon himself , which he hath very well discharged : so that I am not concerned to meddle with all those particulars , which are fully answer'd already , but the general charge as to the Christian Church about the Doctrine of the Trinity , I think my self oblig'd to give an answer to upon this occasion . But before I come to that , since they so confidently charge the Christian Church for so many ages , with embracing Errors , and Nonsense , and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith , I desire to know ( supposing it possible for the Christian Church to be so early , so generally and so miserably deceived in a matter of such moment ) by what light they have discovered this great Error . Have they any new Books of Scripture to judge by ? Truly they had need , for they seem to be very weary of the old ones ; because they find they will not serve their turn . Therefore they muster up the old Objections against them , and give no answer to them ; they find fault with Copies , and say , they are corrupted and falsified to speak the Language of the Church : they let fall suspicious words , as to the Form of Baptism , as though it were inserted from the Churches Practice ; they charge us with following corrupt Copies and making false Translations without any manner of ground for it . And doth not all this discover no good will to the Scriptures , at least , as they are received among us ? And I despair of meeting with better Copies , or seeing a more faithfull Translation than ours is . So that it is plain , that they have no mind to be tried by the Scriptures . For these exceptions are such , as a Malefactor would make to a Jury , he is afraid to be condemned by . But what then is the peculiar light which these happy men have found in a corner , the want whereof hath made the Christian Church to fall into such monstrous Errors and Contradictions ? Nothing ( they pretend ) but the mere light of common sense and reason ; which they call after a more refined way of speaking , clear Ideas and distinct Perceptions of things . But least I should be thought to misrepresent them ; I will produce some of their own Expressions . In one place they say , We deny the Articles of the new Christianity , or the Athanasian religion , not because they are Mysteries , or because we do not comprehend them ; we deny them , because we do comprehend them ; we have a clear and distinct Perception , that they are not Mysteries , but Contradictions , Impossibilities , and pure Nonsense . We have our reason in vain , and all science and certainty would be destroy'd ▪ if we could not distinguish between Mysteries and Contradictions . And soon after , we are not to give the venerable name of Mystery to Doctrines that are contrary to nature's and reason's Light , or which destroy or contradict our natural Ideas . These things I have particular reason to take notice of here , because they are published as an Answer to the foregoing Sermon about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith : and this shews the general grounds they go upon , and therefore more fit to be consider'd here . To which I shall add one passage more , wherein they insinuate , that the Doctrine of the Trinity hath been supported only by interest and force . Their words are ( after they have called the Doctrine of the Trinity , a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction ) This is that , say they , which because all other arguments failed them in their disputations with the Photinians and Arians , they at last effectually proved , by the Imperial Edicts , by Confiscations and Banishments , by Seizing and Burning all Books written against it or them , by capital Punishments , and when the Papacy ( of which this is the chief Article ) prevailed , by Fire and Faggot . This is a new discovery indeed , that the Doctrine of the Trinity , as it is generally receiv'd in the Christian Church , is the chief Article of Popery ; although it were embraced and defended long before Popery was known ; and I hope would be so , if there were no such thing as Popery left in the world . But if every thing which displeases some men must pass for Popery , I am afraid Christianity it self will not escape at last : for there are some who are building apace on such foundations as these ; and are endeavouring what they can , to remove out of their way all revealed Religion , by the help of those two powerfull Machines , viz. Priest-craft and Mysteries . But because I intend a clear and distinct Discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity , as it hath been generally received among us ; I shall proceed in these four Enquiries . ( 1. ) Whether it was accounted a monstrous Paradox and Contradiction , where Persons were not sway'd by Force and Interest ? ( 2. ) Whether there be any ground of common reason , on which it can be justly charged with Nonsense , Impossibilities and Contradiction ? ( 3. ) Whether their Doctrine about the Trinity or ours , be more agreeable to the sense of Scripture and Antiquity ? ( 4. ) Whether our Doctrine being admitted , it doth overthrow all certainty of reason , and makes way for believing the greatest Absurdities under the pretence of being Mysteries of Faith ? CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not received in the Christian Church by Force or Interest . AS to the first , it will lead me into an enquiry into the sense of the Christian Church , as to this Doctrine , long before Popery was hatched , and at a time when the main force of Imperial Edicts was against Christianity it self ; at which time this Doctrine was owned by the Christian Church , but disowned and disputed against by some particular Parties and Sects . And the question then will be , whether these had engrossed Sense , and Reason , and Knowledge among themselves ; and all the body of the Christian Church , with their heads and governors , were bereft of common Sense , and given up to believe Nonsense and Contradictions for Mysteries of Faith. But in order to the clearing this matter , I take it for granted , That Sense and Reason are no late inventions , only to be found among our Vnitarians ; but that all Mankind have such a competent share of them , as to be able to judge , what is agreeable to them , and what not , if they apply themselves to it ; That no men have so little sense as to be fond of Nonsense , when sense will do them equal service ; That if there be no Biass of Interest to sway them , men will generally judge according to the evidence of reason ; That if they be very much concerned for a Doctrine opposed by others , and against their interest , they are perswaded of the truth of it , by other means than by force and fear ; That it is possible for men of sense and reason to believe a Doctrine to be true on the account of divine Revelation , although they cannot comprehend the manner of it ; That we have reason to believe those to be men of sense above others , who have shew'd their abilities above them in other matters of Knowledge and Speculation ; That there can be no reason to suspect the integrity of such men in delivering their own Sense , who at the same time might far better secure their interest by renouncing their Faith ; lastly , That the more Persons are concerned to establish and defend a Doctrine which is opposed and contemned , the greater evidence they give , that they are perswaded of the truth of it . These are Postulata so agreeable to sense and common reason , that I think if an affront to human Nature to go about to prove them . But to shew what use we are to make of them ; we must consider that it cannot be denied , that the Doctrine of the Trinity did meet with opposition very early in the Christian Church , especially among the Iewish Christians ; I mean those who strictly adhered to the Law of Moses , after the Apostles had declared the freedom of Christians from the obligation of it . These ( as I shall shew by and by ) soon after the dispersion of the Church of Ierusalem , gathered into a body by themselves , distinct from that which consisted of Iews and Gentiles , and was therefore called the Catholick Christian Church . And this separate body , whether called Ebionites , Nazarens , or Mineans , did not only differ from the Catholick Christian Church , as to the necessity of observing the Law of Moses , but likewise as to the Divinity of our Saviour , which they denied , although they professed to believe him as the Christ or promised Messias . Theodoret hath with very good judgment placed the Heresies of the first ages of the Ch●istian Church , under two distinct heads , ( which others reckon up confusedly ) and those are such as relate to the Humanity of Christ , as Simon Magus , and all the Sets of those who are called Gnosticks , which are recited in his first Book . In his second he begins with those which relate to the Divinity of Christ ; and these are of two kinds : 1. The Iewish Christians who denied it . Of these , he reckons up the Ebionites , Cerinthians , the Nazarens , and Elcesaitae , whom he distinguished from the other Ebionites , because of a Book of Revelation , which one Elxai brought among them ; but Epiphanius saith , he joyned with the Ebionites and Nazarens . 2. Those of the Gentile Christians , who were look'd on as broaching a new Doctri●e among them : of these he reckons Artemon as the first , then Theodotus ; whom others make the first Publisher of it , as Tertullian , and the old Writer in Eusebius , supposed to be Caius , who lived near the time , and of whom a considerable Fragment is preserved in Eusebius , which gives light to these matters . The next is another Theodotus , who framed a new Sect of such as set up Mel●hisedeck above Christ. Then follow Paulus Samosatenus , and Sabellius , who made but one Person as well as one God , and so overthrew the Trinity ; with whom Marcellus agreed in substance , and last of all Photinus . But Theodoret concludes that Book with this passage , viz. That all these Heresies against our Saviour's Divinity were then wholly extinct ; so that there were not so much as any small Remainders of them . What would he have said , if he had lived in our age , wherein they are not only revived , but are pretended to have been the true Doctrine of the Apostolical Churches ? Had all men lost their Senses in Theodoret's time ? And yet there were as many learned and able Men in the Christian Church then , as ever were in any time . CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine examined . BUT this is not the age our Vnitarians will stand or fall by . They are for going backward ; and they speak with great comfort about the old Ebionites and Nazarens as entirely theirs ; And that they had considerable men among them , as Theodotion and Symmachus , two Translators of the Hebrew Bible . And among the Gentile Christians , they value themselves upon three Men , Paulus Samosatenus , Lucianus , the most learned Person , they say , of his age , and Photinus Bishop of Sirmium . As to the Vnitarians at Rome , ( whom they improperly call Nazarens ) they pretended that their Doctrine was Apostolical , and the general Doctrine of the Church till the times of Victor and Zepherin . This is the substance of their Plea , which must now be examin'd . I begin with those Primitive Vnitarians , the Ebionites , concerning whom , I observe these things : 1. That they were a distinct , separate body of men from the Christian Church . For all the ancient Writers who speak of them , do mention them as Hereticks , and wholly divided from it , as appears by Irenaeus , Tertullian , Epiphanius , Theodoret , S. Augustin , and others . Eusebius saith of them , That although the Devil could not make them renounce Christianity , yet finding their weakness , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he made them his own . He would never have said this of any whom he look'd on as Members of the Christian Church . But wherein is it that Eusebius blames them ? He tells it in the very next words ; that it was for the mean opinion they entertained of Christ ; for they look'd on him as a meer Man , but very just . And although there were two sorts of them ; some owning the miraculous Conception , and others not ; yet saith he , They at last agreed in the same Impiety , which was , That they would not own Christ to have had any Pre-existence before his Birth ; nor that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God the Word . It 's true , he finds fault with them afterwards for keeping to the Law of Moses ; but the first Impiety he charges them with , is the other . That which I inferr from hence is , that Eusebius himself ( to whom they profess to shew greater respect than to most of the ancient Writers , for his exactness and diligence in Church-History ) doth affirm the Doctrine which overthrows the Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ to be an Impiety . And therefore when he affirms the first fifteen Bishops of the Church of Ierusalem who were of the Circumcision , viz. to the Siege of it by Hadrian , did hold the genuine Doctrine of Christ , it must be understood of his Pre-existence and Divinity ; for the other we see he accounted an Impiety . And he tells us the Church of Ierusalem then consisted of believing Iews , and so it had done from the Apostles times to that of Hadrian 's Banishment of the Iews . Which is a considerable Testimony to two purposes : 1. To shew that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem did hold the Doctrine of Christ's Pre-existence and Divinity . But say our Vnitarians , this doth not follow . For what reason ? When it is plain that Eusebius accounted that the only genuine Doctrine . No , say they , he meant only the miraculous Conception , and that they held that , in opposition to those Ebionites who said that he was born as other men are . This is very strange ; when Eusebius had distinguished the two sorts of Ebionites about this matter , and had blamed both of them , even those that held him born of a Virgin , for falling into the same Impiety . What can satisfie such men , who are content with such an answer ? But say they , Eusebius only spake his own sense . Not so neither : For he saith in that place , that he had searched the most ancient Records of the Church of Ierusalem . Yes , say they , for the Succession of the first Bishops ; but as to their Doctrine he had it from Hegesippus , and he was an Ebionite himself . Then Eusebius must not be the man they take him for . For if Hegesippus were himself an Ebionite , and told Eusebius in his Commentaries , that the Primitive Church of Ierusalem consisted of all such , then Eusebius must suppose that Church guilty of the same Impiety with which he charges the Ebionites ; and would he then have said , That they had the true knowledge of Christ among them ? No , say they , Eusebius spake his own opinion , but Hegesippus being an Ebionite himself , meant otherwise . But Eusebius doth not use Hegesippus his words , but his own in that place ; and withal , how doth it appear that Hegesippus himself was an Ebionite ? This , one of their latest Writers hath undertaken , but in such a manner , as is not like to convince me . It is thus , Hegesippus was himself a Iewish Christian , and made use of the Hebrew Gospel , and among the Hereticks which crept into the Church of Jerusalem , he never numbers the Ebionites or Cerinthians , but only the Gnosticks . I will not dispute , whether Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian or not . Grant he was so , yet how doth it appear that all the Iewish Christians were at that time Ebionites or Cerinthians ? It seems they were neither of them Hereticks , although they were opposite to each other ; the one held the World created by inferiour Powers , the other , by God himself : the one , we see , made Christ a mere Man ; but the Cerinthians held an illapse of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon him , and so made him a kind of a God by his Presence , as Nestorius did afterwards . But honest Hegesippus took neither one nor the other for Hereticks , if our Vnitarians say true . But yet it doth not appear , that Hegesippus was either one or the other . For he speaks of the Church of Ierusalem , as is plain by Eusebius , and the Cerinthians and Ebionites , were in other parts ; the former in Egypt and the lesser or Proconsular Asia ; and the latter about Decapolis and Coelesyria , from whence they spread into Arabia and Armenia , as appears by Epiphanius . But Origen saith , That all the Iewish Christians were Ebionites . What! no Cerinthians among them ? Were not those Iewish Christians ? Or were they all turned Ebionites then ? No such thing appears by Origen's saying . But we are not enquiring now , what they were in his time , but in the Church of Ierusalem . Doth Origen say all the Iewish Christians there were such ? And as to his own time , it is not improbable that those who then made up the separate Body of Jewish Christians were Ebionites . But what is this to the first Christians of the Church of Ierusalem ? Very much , say they , because the first Christians were called Nazarens , and the Nazarens held the same Doctrine with the Ebionites . But the title of Nazarens did not always signifie the same thing . It was at first used for all Christians , as appears by the Sect of the Nazarens in Tertullus his Accusation of S. Paul ; then it was taken for the Christians who stay'd at Pella and setled at Decapolis and thereabouts , as Epiphanius affirms ; for although all the Christians withdrew thither before the Destruction of Ierusalem , as Eusebius saith , yet they did not all continue there , but a great number returned to Ierusalem , and were there setled under their Bishops ; but those who remained about Pella kept the name of Nazarens , and never were united with the Gentile Christians , but kept up their old Jewish customs , as to their Synagogues , even in S. Ierom and S. Augustine's time . Now these Nazarens might be all Ebionites , and yet those of the Church of Ierusalem not so at all . 2. The next thing observable from this place of Eusebius is , that while the Nazarens and Ebionites were setled in Coelesyria , and the parts thereabouts , there was a regular Christian Church at Ierusalem , under the Bishops of the Circumcision , to the Siege of Hadrian . Eusebius observes , that before the destruction of Ierusalem , all the Christians forsook not only Ierusalem , but the Coasts of Iudea . But that they did not all continue there , is most evident from what Eusebius here saith of the Church and Bishops of Ierusalem ; between the two Sieges of Titus Vespasian and Hadrian , which was in the 18 year of his Empire , saith Eusebius . Who produces another Testimony out of Iustin Martyr , which shews that the Christians were returned to Ierusalem . For therein he saith , That Barchochebas in that War used the Christians with very great severity to make them renounce Christianity . How could this be , if all the Christians were out of his reach , then being setled about Pella ? And although Eusebius saith , That when the Iews were banished their Country by Hadrian 's Edict , that then the Church of Ierusalem was made up of Gentiles ; yet we are not so strictly to understand him , as though the Christians who suffer'd under Barchochebas , were wholly excluded . Orosius saith , That they were permitted by the Emperor's Edict . It is sufficient for me , if they were connived at , which is very probable , although they did not think fit to have any such publick Persons as their Bishops to be any other than Gentiles . And Hegesippus is allow'd after this time , to have been a Iewish Christian of the Church of Ierusalem : so that the Church there must consist both of Iews and Gentiles ; but they can never shew that any of the Ebionites did admit any Gentile Christians among them , which shews that they were then distinct Bodies . 2. They were not only distinct in Communion , but had a different rule of Faith. This is a point of great consequence , and ought to be well consider'd . For , since our Vnitarians own the Ebionites as their Predecessors , we ought to have a particular eye to the rule of Faith received by them , which must be very different from ours , if they follow the Ebionites , as I doubt not to make it appear . They say , The Ebionites used only S. Matthew 's Gospel . But the Christian Church then , and ever since , have receiv'd the four Gospels , as of divine authority . Eusebius , one of the most approved Authors in Antiquity by our Vnitarians , reckons up the four Evangelists and S. Paul 's Epistles , as writings universally received by the Christian Church ; then he mentions some generally rejected as spurious ; and after those which were doubted , among which he mentions the Gospel according to the Hebrews , which the Iewish Christians follow'd . Now here is an apparent difference put between the Gospel according to the Hebrews , and S. Matthew 's Gospel ; as much as between a Book receiv'd without controversie , and one that was not . But if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were then acknowledged to be the true Gospel of S. Matthew ; it was impossible a man of so much sense as Eusebius , should make this difference between them . But it is worth our observing , what our Vnitarians say about this matter . And by that we may judge very much of their opinion about the Gospels . I shall set down their words , for fear I should be thought to do them wrong . Symmachus and the Ebionites , say they , as they held our Saviour to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary ; so they contended that the first Chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel was added by the Greek Translators . S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew , when it was translated into Greek , the Translator prefaced it with a Genealogy and Narration that our Saviour was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God , and was not the Son of Ioseph , but this Genealogy and Narration , said Symmachus and the Ebionites , is not in the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew , nay is the mere invention of the Translator . As for the other Gospels , the Ebionites and Symmachians did not receive the Gospel of S. Luke : and for that of S. Iohn , they said it was indeed written by Cerinthus , to confirm his Platonick Conceits about the Logos or Word , which he supposed to be the Christ or Spirit of God , which rested on and inhabited the person of Jesus . Let us now but join to this another passage , which is this , Those whom we now call Socinians , were by the Fathers and the first ages of Christianity called Nazarens ; and afterwards they were called Ebionites , Mineans , Symmachians , &c. If this be true , they must have the same opinions as to the Books of the New Testament ; and hereby we see what sort of men we have to deal with , who under the pretence of the old Ebionites , undermine the authority of the New Testament . As to S. Matthew's Gospel , I see no reason to question its being first written in the Language then used among the Jews , which was mixt of Hebrew , Syriack , and Chaldee : since this is affirmed , not merely by Papias , whose authority never went far ; but by Origen , Irenaeus , Eusebius , S. Ierom , and others . But I must distinguish between S. Matthew's Authentick Gospel , which Pantaenus saw in the Indies , and that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews , and the Nazaren Gospel . S. Ierom in one place seems to insinuate , that S. Matthew's Gospel was preserved in the Library of Pamphilus at Caesarea , and that the Nazarens at Berrhaea in Syria had given him leave to transcribe it . But if we compare this with other places in him , we shall find , that he question'd whether this were the Authentick Gospel of S. Matthew or not ; he saith , it is so called by many ; but he confesses it was the same which the Ebionites and Nazarens used . In which were many interpolations , as appears by the collections out of it in S. Ierom's Works and other ancient Writers ; which some learned men have put together . And S. Ierom often calls it the Gospel according to the Hebrews . And so do other ancient Writers . From the laying several passages together , Erasmus suspects , that S. Ierom never saw any other than the common Nazaren Gospel , and offers a good reason for it , viz. That he never made use of its authority to correct the Greek of S. Matthew , which he would not have failed to have done in his Commentaries ; and he produces the Nazaren Gospel upon sleight occasions . But how came the Preface to be curtail'd in the Ebionite Gospel ? Of which Epiphanius gives an account , and shews what was inserted instead of it : No , say the Ebionites , the Preface was added by the Translator into Greek . From what evidence ? and to what end ? To prove that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit . This then must be look'd on as a mere Forgery ; and those Ebionites were in the right , who held him to be the Son of Ioseph and Mary . What do these men mean by such suggestions as these ? Are they resolved to set up Deism among us , and in order thereto , to undermine the authority of the New Testament ? For it is not only S. Matthew's Gospel , but S. Luke's and S. Iohn's which they strike at , under the pretence of representing the arguments of these wretched Ebionites . If their arguments are mean and trifling and merely precarious , why are they not slighted and answered by such as pretend to be Christians ? If they think them good , we see what we have to do with these men ; it is not the Doctrine of the Trinity , so much as the authority of the Gospels , which we are to maintain against them : And not those only , for the Ebionites rejected all S. Paul 's Epistles ; and called him an Apostate and a Transgressor of the Law. What say our Vnitarians to this ? Why truly , This comes from Epiphanius , and because he quotes no Author , it seems to be one of his malicious Tales . This is a very short way of answering , if it would satisfie any men of sense . But they ought to have remembred that within a few Pages , they alledge Epiphanius as a very competent Witness about the Ebionites , because he was born in Palestine , and lived very near it . But we do not rely wholly upon Epiphanius in this matter . For those whom they allow to be the best Witnesses as to the Doctrine of the Nazarens , say the same thing concerning them . As the most learned Origen , as they call him , who lived a long time in Syria and Palestine it self ; and he affirms , that both sorts of Ebionites rejected S. Paul 's Epistles : and Theodoret , who they say , lived in Coelesyria , where the Nazarens most abound , affirms of them , That they allowed only the Gospel according to the Hebrews , and called the Apostle an Apostate : by whom they meant S. Paul. And the same is said by S. Ierom who conversed among them ; That they look on S. Paul as a Transgressor of the Law , and receive none of his Writings . Have we not now a very comfortable account of the Canon of the New Testament from these ancient Vnitarians ? And if our modern ones account them their Predecessors , we may judge what a mean opinion they must have of the Writings of the New Testament . For if they had any concernment for them , they would never suffer such scandalous insinuations to pass without a severe censure , and a sufficient answer . But their Work seems to be rather to pull down , than to establish the authority of revealed Religion ; and we know what sort of men are gratified by it . CHAP. IV. Of the considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church . I Now come to consider the men of Sense they pretend to among these ancient Vnitarians . The first is Theodotion , whom they make to be an Vnitarian . But he was , saith Eusebius from Irenaeus , a Iewish Proselyte , and so they may very much increase the number of Vnitarians , by taking in all the Iews as well as Proselytes . But must these pass for men of Sense too , because they are against the Doctrine of the Trinity , and much upon the same grounds with our modern Vnitarians ? For they cry out of Contradictions and Impossibilities just as they do ; i. e. with as much confidence and as little reason . Symmachus is another of their ancient Heroes ; he was , if Epiphanius may be believed , first a Samaritan , and then a Iew , and Eusebius saith indeed , That he was an Ebionite , and therefore for observing the Law of Moses . S. Augustin saith , that in his time the Symmachiani were both for Circumcision and Baptism . S. Ierom observes , that Theodotion and Symmachus , both Ebionites , translated the Old Testament in what concerned our Saviour , like Iews , and Aquila who was a Iew , like a Christian ; but in another place he blames all three for the same fault . Eusebius goes somewhat farther : for he saith , Symmachus wrote against S. Matthew 's Gospel to establish his own Heresie , which shew'd he was a true Ebionite . The next they mention as one of their great Lights , was Paulus Samosatenus , Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch . But in another place , they have a spiteful Insinuation , that men in such places are the great Pensioners of the World ; as though they were sway'd only by interest ; and that it keeps them from embracing of the truth . Now Paulus Samosatenus gave greater occasion for such a Suspicion than any of the persons so unworthily reflected upon . For he was a man noted for his Affectation of excessive Vanity and Pomp , and very unjust methods of growing rich . It is well we have Eusebius his Testimony for this ; for they sleight Epiphanius for his malicious Tales , and S. Ierom for his Legends ; but they commend Eusebius for his Exactness and Diligence . And I hope Theodoret may escape their censure , who affirms , that Paulus Samofatenus suited his Doctrine to his interest with Zenobia who then governed in those parts of Syria and Phoenicia , who professed her self to be of the Iewish Perswasion . Athanasius saith , She was a Iew and a Favourer of Paulus Samosatenus . What his opinions were , our Vnitarians do not take the pains to inform us , taking it for granted that he was of their Mind . Eusebius saith , He had a very mean and low opinion of Christ , as having nothing in him above the common nature of Mankind . Theodoret saith , he fell into the Doctrine of Artemon to oblige Zenobia , and Artemon , he saith , held that Christ was a mere Man born of a Virgin , but exceeding the Prophets in Excellency . Where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to express the opinion of Artemon , which ought to be taken notice of , because our modern Vnitarians say , That those words among the ancient Writers were taken in opposition to the miraculous Conception of our Saviour . But Paulus Samosatenus was universally disowned by the Christian Church of that time ; although as long as Zenobia held her Power , he kept his See ; which was for some time after he was first called in question for his Heresie . But at first he made use of many Arts and Devices to deceive the Christian Bishops of the best Reputation , who assembled at Antioch in order to the suppressing this dangerous Doctrine , as they all accounted it . For hearing of his opinions about our Saviour , they ran together , saith Eusebius , as against a Wolf which designed to destroy the Flock . Now from hence it is very reasonable to argue , that the Samosatenian Doctrine was then look'd on as a very dangerous Novelty in the Christian Church . For , although the Ebionites had asserted the same thing , as to the Divinity of our Saviour , yet they were not look'd on as true Members of the Christian Church ; but as S. Ierom saith , While they affected to be both Iews and Christians , they were neither Iews nor Christians . Artemon whoever he was , was but an obscure person ; and Theodotus had Learning , they say , but was of no place in the Church ; but for such a considerable person as the Bishop of Antioch to own such a Doctrine must unavoidably discover the general sence of the Christian Church concerning it . Paulus Samosatenus wanted neither parts , nor interest , nor experience ; and he was supported by a Princess of great Spirit and Courage , enough to have daunted all the Bishops , at least in those parts , from appearing against him . But such was the zeal and concernment of the Bishops of the Christian Church in this great affair , that they not only assembled themselves , but they communicated it to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria , and to another of the same name , Bishop of Rome , and others ; and desired their advice and concurrence , who did all agree in the condemnation of his Doctrine . The former said , He would have gone himself to Antioch , but for his extreme old Age ; and he died soon after the first Council , which met at Antioch on this occasion ; but he sent his judgment and reasons thither , which we find in an Epistle of his still extant , whereof mention is made in the Epistle of the second Synod of Antioch to Dionysius Bishop of Rome , and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria , and all other Bishops , Priests and Deacons of the Catholick Church , wherein they give an account of their proceedings against Paulus Samosatenus , and they say , They had invited the Bishops of the remoter parts to come to Antioch for the suppression of this damnable Doctrine ; and among the rest Dionysius of Alexandria , and Firmilian of Cappadocia , as persons of greatest reputation then in the Church . Firmilian was there at the former Synod , ( of whom Theodoret saith , that he was famous both for divine and humane Learning ) and so were Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus , and Helenus Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia , and Nicomas of Iconium , and Hymenaeus of Ierusalem , and Theotecnus of Caesarea ; who all condemned his Doctrine , but they spared his person upon his solemn Promises to retract it ; but he persisting in it when they were gone home , and fresh complaints being made of him , Firmilian was coming a third time to Antioch , but died by the way : but those Bishops who wrote the Synodical Epistle do all affirm , That they were Witnesses and many others , when he condemned his Doctrine , but was willing to forbear his person upon his promise of amendment , which they found afterwards was merely delusory . Dionysius Alexandrinus , they say , would not write to him , but sent his mind about him to the Church of Antioch . Which Epistle is mention'd by S. Ierom , ( as written by him a little before his death ) as well as by Eusebius and Theodoret ; and I do not see sufficient reason to question the authority of that , which Fronto Ducaeus published from Turrian's Copy , although it be denied by H. Valesius and others . It 's said , indeed , That he did not write to him , i. e. he did not direct it to him , but he might send it to the Council in answer to his Letters , which he mentions . How far it differs from his style in other Epistles , I will not take upon me to judge ; but the design is very agreeable to an Epistle from him on that occasion . It 's true , that it seems to represent the opinion of Paulus Samosatenus after a different manner from what it is commonly thought to have been . But we are to consider , that ●e made use of all the Arts to d●sguise himself that he could ; and when he found the making Christ to be a mere Man would not be born , he went from the Ebionite to the Cerinthian Hypothesis , viz. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did dwell in him , and that there were two Persons in Christ , one Divine and the other Humane ; and two Sons , the one by Nature the Son of God , who had a Pre existence , and the other the Son of David , who had no subsistence before . This is the opinion which Dionysius sets himself against in that Epistle ; and which therefore ●ome may imagine was written after Nestorius his Heresie . But that was no new Heresie , as appears by the Cerinthians ; and it was that which Paulus Samosatenus fled to , as more plausible ; which not only appears by this Epistle , but by what Athanasius and Epiphanius have delivered concerning it . Athanasius ▪ wrote a Book of the Incarnation against the followers of Paulus Samosatenus , who held , as he saith , Two Persons in Christ , viz. One born of the Virgin , and a divine Person , which descended upon him and dwelt in him . Against which opinion he disputes from two places of Scripture ; viz. God was manifest in the Flesh ; and the Word was made Flesh : and from the ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church , and the Synod of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus . And in another place he saith , that he held , That the divine Word dwelt in Christ. And the words of Epiphanius are express to the same purpose ; That the Logos came and dwelt in the Man Iesus . And the Clergy of Constantinople charged Nestorius with following the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus . And Photius in his Epistles saith , That Nestorius tasted too much of the intoxicated Cups of Paulus Samosatenus ; and in the foregoing Epistle , he saith , That Paulus his followers asserted two Hypostases in Christ. But some think , that Paulus Samosatenus did not hold any subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before , but that the Word was in God before without any subsistence of its own , and that God gave it a distinct subsistence when it inhabited in the Person of Christ ; and so Marius Mercator and Leontius understand him ; who say that he differ'd from Nestorius therein ; who asserted a Divine Word with its proper subsistence . But according to them Paulus by the Word unders●ood that Divine Energy whereby Christ acted , and which dwelt in him ; but Dionysius saith he made two Christs , and two Sons of God. But the Doctrine of the Christian Church , he saith was that there was but one Christ , and one Son , who w●s the Eternal Word , and was made Flesh. And it is observable , that he brings the very same places we do now to prove this Doctrine , as In the beginning was the Word , &c. and Before Abraham was I am . It seems that some of the Bishops who had been upon the examination of his Opinions before the second Synod , which deposed him , sent him an account of their Faith and required his answer ; wherein they declare the Son not to be God , according to God's Decree , ( which he did not stick at ) but that he was so really and substantially ; and whosoever denied this , they said , was out of the Communion of the Church , and all the Catholick Churches agreed with them in it . And they declare , that they received this Doctrine from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament , and bring the same places we do now , as , Thy Throne O God was for ever , &c. Who is over all , God blessed for ever . All things were made by him , &c. And we do not find that Paulus Samosatenus , as subtle as he was , ever imagin'd that these places belong'd to any other than Christ , or that the making of all things was to be understood of the making of nothing ; but putting it into mens power to make themselves new Creatures . These were discoveries only reserved for the Men of Sense and clear Ideas in these brighter Ages of the World. But at last , after all the arts and subterfuges which Paulus Samosatenus used , there was a Man of Sense , as it happen'd , among the Clergy of Antioch , called Malchion , who was so well acquainted with his Sophistry , that he drove him out of all , and laid his Sense so open before the second Synod , that he was solemnly deposed for denying the Divinity of the Son of God , and his Descent from Heaven , as appears by their Synodical Epistle . It is pity we have it not entire ; but by the Fragments of it , which are preserved by some ancient Writers , we find that his Doctrine of the Divinity in him by Inhabitation was then condemned , and the substantial Union of both Natures asserted . I have only one thing more to observe concerning him , which is , that the Arian Party in their Decree at Sardica , ( or rather Philippopolis ) do confess that Paulus Samosatenus his Doctrine was condemned by the whole Christian World. For they say , That which passed in the Eastern Synod , was signed and approved by all . And Alexander Bishop of Alexandria , in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople affirms the same . And now I hope , I may desire our Men of Sense to reflect upon these Matters . Here was no Fire nor Faggot threatned , no Imperial Edicts to inforce this Doctrine , nay the Queen of those parts , under whose Jurisdiction they lived at that time , openly espoused the cause of Paulus Samosatenus , so that here could be nothing of interest to sway them to act in opposition to her . And they found his interest so strong , that he retained the Possession of his See , till Aurelian had conquer'd Zenobia , and by his authority he was ejected . This Synod which deposed him , did not sit in the time of Aurelian , as is commonly thought , but before his time , while Zenobia had all the power in her hands in those Eastern parts , which she enjoy'd five years ; till she was dispossess'd by Aurelian , from whence Ant. Pagi concludes , that Paulus kept his See three years after the Sentence against him ; but upon application to Aurelian ; he who afterwards began a Persecution against all Christians , gave this rule , That he with whom the Italian Bishops , and those of Rome communicated , should enjoy the See , upon which Paulus was at last turned out . By this we see a concurrence of all the Christian Bishops of that time against him , that denied the Divinity of our Saviour ; and this without any force , and against their interest , and with a general consent of the Christian World. For there were no mighty Awes and Draconic Sanctions to compell , of which they sometimes speak , as if they were the only powerfull methods to make this Doctrine go down . And what greater argument can there be , that it was then the general sense of the Christian Church ? And it would be very hard to condemn all his Opposers for men that wanted Sense and Reason , because they so unanimously opposed him . Not so unanimously neither , say our Vnitarians , because Lucian , a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch , and a very learned man , joyned with him . It would have been strange indeed , if so great a Man as Paulus Samosatenus , could prevail with none of his own Church to joyn with him , especially one that came from the same place of Samosata , as Lucian did ; and probably was by him brought thither . He hath an extraordinary character given him by Eusebius , both for his Life and Learning ; and so by S. Ierom , without the least reflection upon him as to matter of Faith. But on the other side , Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in his Epistle concerning Arius to Alexander of Constantinople , doth say , That he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus , and held separate Communion for many years , under the three following Bishops . He doth not say that he died so , when he suffer'd Martyrdom under Maximinus at Nicomedia ; neither doth he say the contrary . Upon which learned Men are divided , whether he persisted in that opinion or not . Petavius and Valesius give him up ; on the other side Baronius vindicates him , and saith , The mis-report of him came from his zeal against Sabellianism ; and that Alexander wrote that of him before his Books were throughly examin'd ; that Athanasius never joyns him with Paulus Samosatenus ; that the Arians never produced his authority in their debates , as they would have done , since the Emperor's Mother had built a City in the place where he suffer'd Martyrdom . It cannot be doubted that the Arian Party would have it believed that they came out of Lucian's School , as appears by Arius his Epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia ; but on the other side , the great argument to me is , That this very party at the Council of Antioch , produced a Creed , which they said , was there found written with Lucian's own hand , which is directly contrary to the Samosatenian Doctrine . Now , either this was true or false : if it were true , then it was false that he was a Samosatenian ; if it were false , how came the Arian Party to give it out for true ? Especially those who valued themselves for coming out of his School . They were far enough from being such weak men to produce the authority of Lucian at Antioch , where he was so much esteemed , for a Doctrine utterly inconsistent with that of Paulus Samosatenus , if it were there known , that he was his Disciple , and separated from three Bishops on that account . For therein the Son is owned to be God of God , begotten of the Father before all Ages , perfect God of perfect God , &c. Suppose they had a mind to subvert the Nicene Faith by this Creed under the name of Lucian , ( only because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was left out ) yet what an improbable way did they take , when they supported the main points by his authority , and that at Antioch , where it was greatest ? If Philostorgius may be credited , the great men of the Arian Party had been his Scholars , as besides Eusebius of Nicomedia , Maris of Chalcedon , Theognis of Nice , Leontius of Antioch , and several other leading Bishops , and even Arius himself pretended to it . Which makes me apt to think , that Alexander knowing this , and at first not being able so well to judge of Lucian's opinion , charged him with following Paulus Samosatenus , from whence the odium would fall upon his Scholars . For his design is to draw the succession down from Ebion , and Artemon , and Paulus Samosatenus , and Lucian to Arius and his Associates ; and charges them with holding the same Doctrine , wherein he was certainly mistaken ; and so he might be about Lucian's separation from the following Bishops on that account . The last our Vnitarians mention among their great men , is Photinus Bishop of Sirmium . They take it for granted that he was of their opinion . This is certain , that whatever it was , it was generally condemned , as well by the Arians as others ; and after several Councils called , he was deposed for his Heresie . The first time we find him condemned , was by the Arian Party in a second Council at Antioch , as appears by the profession of Faith drawn up by them , extant in Athanasius and Socrates . There they anathematize expressly the Disciples of Marcellus and Photinus , for denying the Pre-existence and Deity of Christ. But by Christ , they understood , The Person born of the Virgin , who was the Son of God ; but they did not deny the Pre-existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and never dream'd that any could think that Christ was to be called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from his Office of Preaching , as our modern Vnitarians assert . But Photinus his opinion was , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was before all Ages , but not Christ , or the Son of God , which divine word was partly internal , and so it was ever with God , and partly external , when it was communicated to the Person of Christ , whereby he became the Son of God. But the Arians there declare their Belief , That Christ was the living Word , and Son of God before all Worlds , and by whom he made all things . The next time he is said to be condemned , was in that which is called the Council at Sardica , but was the Council of the Eastern Bishops after their parting from the Western . This is mention'd by Epiphanius and Sulpitius Severus , the latter saith he differ'd from Sabellius only in the point of Vnion , i. e. because Sabellius made the Persons to be merely Denominations which was then called the Heresie of the Vnionitae ; and therefore Photinus must assert an Hypostasis to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or else he did not at all differ from Sabellius . And it appears by Epiphanius , that Photinus did distinguish between Christ and the Word . In the Beginning was the Word , said he , but not the Son , which title was promised and foretold , but did not belong to Christ till he was born of the Holy Ghost and Mary , so he expresses it . Herein , saith Epiphanius , he follow'd Paulus Samosatenus , but exceeded him in his Inventions . In answer to him , he saith , that S. Iohn's words are not , In the Beginning was the Word , and the Word was in God , but the Word was with God , and the Word was God. Little did either side imagine that this was to be understood of the beginning of the Gospel , as our modern Photinians would make us believe they think ; but Photinus himself was a Person of too much Sagacity to take up with such an absurd and insipid sence . I pass over the fresh condemnations of Photinus in the Councils at Milan and Rome , because his opinion is not to be learnt from them ; and come to that at Sirmium , where it is more particularly set ●orth , as well as condemned . But here we must distinguish the two Councils at Sirmium ; in the former , he was condemned , but the people would not part with him ; but in the second , he was not only condemned , but effectually deposed , the Emperor Constantius a professed Arian , forcing him to withdraw : But it was upon his own Appeal to the Emperor against the Judgment of the Council , who appointed Judges Delegates to hear this cause : and Basilius Ancyranus was the manager of the debate with him , wherein he is said to have been so much too hard for Photinus , that the Emperor himself order'd his Banishment . And I can find nothing of his return ; but our Vnitarians have found out ( but they do not tell us where ) that the people recalled him , and so he planted his Doctrine among them , that it overspread and was the Religion of the Illyrican Provinces , till the Papacy on one hand , and the Turk on the other , swallow'd up those Provi●ces . This looks too like making History to serve a turn , unless some good proof were brought for it . But instead of Photinus his returning , and his Doctrine prevailing and continuing there , we find Valentinian calling a Council in Illyricum , and establishing the Nicene Faith there : and a Council at Aquileia against the Arians , where the Bishop of Sirmium was present , and declared against Arianism , and joyned with S. Ambrose , who condemns Photinus for making Christ the Son of David , and not the Son of God ▪ Paulinus saith in his Life , that he went on purpose to Sirmium to consecrate an Orthodox Bishop there ; which he did , notwithstanding the power of Iustina the Empress , who favoured the Arians . S. Ierom in his Chronicon saith , that Photinus died in Galatia which was his own Country ; so that there is no probability in what they affirm of Photinus his settling his Doctrine in those parts , till the Papacy and the Turk swallow'd those Provinces ; for any one that looks into the History of those parts may be soon satisfied , that not the Pope nor the Turk , but the Huns under Attila , made the horrible Devastations not only at Sirmium , but in all the considerable places of that Country : So that if these mens reason be no better than their History , there is very little cause for any to be fond of their Writings . But as though it were not enough to mention such things once ; in their answer to the late Archbishop's Sermons , they inlarge upon it . For he having justly rebuked them for the Novelty of their Interpretations , they , to avoid this , boast of the concurrence of the ancient Vnitarians , the followers of Paulus and Photinus , who , they say , abounded every-where , and even possessed some whole Provinces . This passage I was not a little surprized at . Since Theodoret , who , I think , was somewhat more to be credited than Sandius , doth so expresly say , That the Samosatenians and Photinians were extinct in his time , in a place already mentioned . But upon search I could find no other ground for it , but a passage or two in Sandius , who is none of the exactest Historians . In one place he saith from an obscure Polish Chronicle ( extant in no other Language but of that Country ) that the Bulgarians when they first received Christianity embraced Photinianism . And is not this very good Authority among us ? From hence he takes it for granted , that they all continued Photinians to the time of Pope Nicolas , who converted them . But all this is grounded on a ridiculous mistake in Platina , who in the Life of Nicolas saith , that the Pope confirmed them in the Faith , pulso Photino ; whereas it should be pulso Photio ; for Photius at that time was Patriarch of Constantinople , and as appears by his first Epistle , assumed their Conversion to himself ; and insisted upon the right of Jurisdiction over that Country . Sandius referrs to Blondus ; who saith no such thing , but only that the Bulgarians were converted before ; which is true ; and the Greek Historians , as Ioh. Curopalates , Zonaras , and others , gives a particular Account of it ; but not a word of Photinianism in it . So that the Archbishop had very great reason to charge their Interpretation with Novelty ; and that not only because the Photinians had no such Provinces , as they boast of ; but that neither Paulus Samosatenus , nor Photinus , nor any of their followers , that we can find , did ever interpret the beginning of S. John , as they do ; i.e. Of the New Creation , and not of the Old ; and so , as the Word had no Pre-existence before he was born of the Virgin. I do not confine them to the Nicenists , as they call them ; but let them produce any one among the Samosatenians , or Photinians , who so understood S. Iohn . And therein Sandius was in the right ( which ought to be allow'd him , for he is not often so ) when he saith , that no Christian Interpreter before Socinus ever held such a sense of the Word , as he did ; and therefore his followers he saith , ought to be called Socinians only , and not Ebionites , Samosatenians , or Photinians . But to return to Photinus his Opinion . It is observable , what Socrates saith , concerning his being deposed at Sirmium , viz. that what was done in that matter was universally approved , not only then , but afterwards . So that here we have the general Consent of the Christian World , in that divided time , against the Photinian Doctrine . And yet it was not near so unreasonable as our Vnitarians ; for Photinus asserted the Pre-existence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and its inhabiting in Christ from his Conception ; wherein he differ'd from Paulus Samosatenus who asserted it to have been upon the Merit of his Virtue . In the Anathema's of the Council of Sirmium against Photinus , one is against any one that asserts that there is one God , but denies Christ to have been the Son of God before all Worlds , and that the World was made by him in obedience to the Will of the Father . Others , against him that asserts that there was a Dilatation of the Divine Substance to make him the Son of God , who was a Man born of the Virgin Mary ; this appears from Anath . 6 , 7 , 9. put together . Which is best explained by Hilary himself in another place , where he mentions this as the Photinian Doctrine , That God the Word did extend himself so far , as to inhabit the person born of the Virgin. This he calls a subtle and dangerous Doctrine . And therein he saith Photinus differ'd from Sabellius ; that the latter denied any difference between Father and Son , but only in Names ; but Photinus held a real difference , but not before the Nativity of Christ ; then he said , The Divine Word inhabiting in Christ made him to be the real Son of God. The only doubt is , whether Photinus held , the Word to have had a distinct Hypostasis before or not . Marius Mercator an Author of good credit , who lived in S. Augustin's time ( and to whom an Epistle of his is extant in the new Edition of his Works ) gives a very particular account of the Opinion of Photinus with relation to the Nestorian Controversie , in which he was very well versed . In an Epistle written by him on purpose , he shews that Nestorius agreed with Photinus in asserting , That the Word had a Pre-existence ; and that the name of Son of God did not belong to the Word , but to Christ after the inhabitation of the Word . But he there seems to think , that Photinus did not hold the Word to have had a real Hypostasis before the Birth of Christ : but when he comes after to compare their Opinions more exactly , he then affirms , that Photinus and Nestorius were agreed , and that he did not deny the Word to be Con●substantial with God ; but that he was not the Son of God till Christ was born in whom he dwelt . By which we see how little reason our Vnitarians have to boast of Photinus as their Predecessor . As to the boast of the first Unitarians at Rome , that theirs was the general Doctrine , before the time of Victor ; it is so fully confuted by the ancient Writer in Eusebius , who mentions it , from the Scriptures and the first Christian Writers , named by him , that it doth not deserve to be taken notice of ; especially since he makes it appear , that it was not heard of among them at Rome , till it was first broached there by Theodotus , as not only he , but Tertullian affirms ; as I have already observed . Thus I have clearly proved , that the Doctrine of the Trinity , was so far from being embraced only on the account of force and fear , that I have shewed there was in the first Ages of the Christian Church , a free and general Consent in it , even when they were under Persecution ; and after the Arian Controversie broke out , yet those who denied the Pre-existence , and Co-eternity of the Son of God were universally condemned ; even the Arian Party concurring in the Synods mention'd by Hilary . But our Vnitarians are such great Pretenders to Reason , that this Argument from the Authority of the whole Christian Church , signifies little or nothing to them . Therefore they would conclude still that they have the better of us in point of Reason , because they tell us , that they have clear and distinct Perceptions , that what we call Mysteries of Faith , are Contradictions , Impossibilities , and pure Nonsense ; and that they do not reject them , because they do not comprehend them , but because they do comprehend them to be so . This is a very bold Charge , and not very becoming the Modesty and Decency of such , who know at the same time that they oppose the Religion publickly established , and in such things which we look on as some of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity . BUT I shall not take any Advantages from thence , but immediately proceed to the next thing I undertook in this Discourse , viz. To consider what Grounds they have for such a Charge as this , of Contradiction and Impossibility . In my Sermon which gave occasion to these Expressions ( as is before intimated ) I had undertaken to prove , that considering the infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature , which are so far above our reach , God may justly oblige us to believe those things concerning himself which we are not able to comprehend ; and I instanced in some Essential Attributes of God , as his Eternity , Omniscience , Spirituality , &c. And therefore , if there be such Divine Perfections , which we have all the Reason to believe , but no Faculties sufficient to comprehend , there can be no ground from Reason to reject such a Doctrine which God hath revealed , because the manner of it may be incomprehensible by us . And what Answer do they give to this ? They do not deny it in general , that God may oblige us to believe things above our Comprehension ; but he never obliges us to believe Contradictions , and that they Charge the Doctrine of the Trinity with ; and for this they only referr me to their Books , where they say it is made out . But I must say , that I have read and consider'd those Tracts , and am very far from being convinced that there is any such Contradiction in this Doctrine , as it is generally received in the Christian Church ; or as it is explained in the Athanasian Creed . And , I shall shew the unreasonableness of this Charge from these things . 1. That there is a Difference between a Contradiction in Numbers , and in the Nature of things . 2. That it is no Contradiction to assert three Persons in One Common Nature . 3. That it is no Contradiction to say that there are three distinct Persons in the Trinity and not three Gods. If I can make out these things , I hope I may abate something of that strange and unreasonable confidence , wherewith these men charge the Doctrine of the Trinity with Contradictions . 1. I begin with the first of them . And I shall draw up the Charge in their own words . In one of their late Books they have these Words . Theirs , they say , is an Accountable and Reasonable Faith , but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self ; and therefore not only false but impossible . But wherein lies this Impossibility ? That they soon tell us . Because we affirm that there are Three Persons , who are severally and each of them true God , and yet there is but one true God. Now , say they , this is an Error in counting or numbring , which when stood in is of all others the most brutal and inexcusable ; and not to discern it is not to be a Man. What must these men think the Christian Church hath been made up of all this while ? What ? were there no Men among them but the Vnitarians ? none that had common sense , and could tell the difference between One and Three ? But this is too choice a Notion to be deliver'd but once ; we have it over and over from them . In another place , they say , We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three ; we are most certain that One is not Three , and Three are not One. This it is to be Men ! But the whole Christian World besides are in Brutal and Inexcusable Errors about One and Three . This is not enough , for they love to charge home ; for one of their terrible Objections against the Athanasian Creed is , That here is an Arithmetical , as well as Grammatical Contradiction . For , in saying God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost , yet not three Gods but one God , a Man first distinctly numbers three Gods , and then in summing them up brutishly says , not three Gods but one God. Brutishly still ! Have the Brutes and Trinitarians learnt Arithmetick together ? Methinks such Expressions do not become such whom the Christian Church hath so long since condemned for Heresies . But it may be with the same Civility they will say , It was brutishly done of them . But can these Men of Sense and Reason think , that the Point in Controversie ever was , whether in Numbers , One could be Three , or Three One ? If they think so , I wonder they do not think of another thing ; which is the begging all Trinitarians for Fools ; because they cannot count One , Two and Three ; and an Vnitarian Jury would certainly cast them . One would think such Writers had never gone beyond Shop-books ; for they take it for granted , that all depends upon Counting . But these terrible Charges were some of the most common and trite Objections of Infidels . St. Augustin mentions it as such , when he saith , the Infidels sometimes ask us , what do you call the Father ? We answer , God. What the Son ? we answer , God. What the Holy Ghost ? we answer , God. So that here the Infidels make the same Objection , and draw the very same Inference . Then , say they , the Father , Son and H. Ghost are three Gods. But what saith S. Augustin to this ? Had he no more skill in Arithmetick than to say there are Three and yet but One ? He saith plainly that there are not three Gods. The Infidels are troubled , because they are not Inlightend ; their heart is shut up , because they are without Faith. By which it is plain , he look'd on these as the proper Objections of Infidels and not of Christians . But may not Christians have such doubts in their minds ? He doth not deny it ; but then he saith , Where the true foundation of Faith is laid in the heart , which helps the Vnderstanding ; we are to embrace with it , all that it can reach to ; and where we can go no farther , we must believe without doubting : which is a wise resolution of this matter . For there are some things revealed , which we can entertain the notion of in our minds , as we do of any other matters , and yet there may be some things belonging to them which we cannot distinctly conceive . We believe God to have been from all Eternity ; and that because God hath revealed it ; but here is something we can conceive , viz. that he was so ; and here is something we cannot conceive , viz. How he was so . This Instance I had produced in my Sermon , to shew that we might be obliged to believe such things concerning God , of which we cannot have a clear and distinct Notion ; as that God was from all Eternity , although we cannot conceive in our minds , how he could be from himself . Now , what saith the Vnitarian to this , who pretended to Answer me ? He saith , If God must be from himself , then an Eternal God is a Contradiction ; for that implies , that he was before he was ; and so charges me with espousing the cause of Atheists . I wish our Vnitarians were as free from this Charge as I am . But this is malicious cavilling . For my design was only to shew , that we could have no distinct conception of something which we are bound to believe . For upon all accounts we are bound to believe an Eternal God , and yet we cannot form a distinct and clear Idea of the manner of it . Whether being from himself be taken positively , or negatively , the matter is not cleared ; the one is Absurd , and the other Unconceivable by us . But still I say , it is a thing that we are bound to believe stedfastly , although it is above our comprehension . But instead of Answering to this , he runs out into an Examination of one notion of Eternity : and as he thinks , shews some Absurdities in that , which are already answer'd . But that was not my meaning , but to shew that we could have no clear and distinct Notion of Eternity ; And if his Arguments were good they prove what I aimed at , at least as to that Part ; and himself produces my own Words to shew , that there were such Difficulties every way , which we could not master ; and yet are bound to believe , that necessary Existence is an inseparable Attribute of God. So that here we have a clear instance of what S. Augustin saith , That we may believe something upon full Conviction , as that God is eternal ; and yet there may remain something which we cannot reach to by our understanding , viz. the manner how Eternity is to be conceived by us : which goes a great way towards clearing the Point of the Trinity , notwithstanding the Difficulty in our conceiving the manner how Three should be one , and One three . But S. Augustin doth not give it over so ; Let us keep stedfast , saith he , to the Foundation of our Faith , that we may arrive to the top of Perfection ; the Father is God , the Son is God , the Holy Ghost is God ; the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father , nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son. And he goes on . The Trinity is one God , one Eternity , one Power , one Majesty , Three Persons one God. So it is in Erasmus his Edition ; but the late Editors say , that the word Personae was not in their Manuscript . And it is not material in this Place , since elsewhere he approves the use of the word Persons , as the fittest to express our meaning in this Case . For since some Word must be agreed upon , to declare our Sense by , he saith , those who understood the Propriety of the Latin tongue , could not pitch upon any more proper than that , to signifie that they did not mean three distinct Essences , but the same Essence with a different Hypostasis , founded in the Relation of one to the other ; as Father and Son have the same Divine Essence , but the Relations being so different that one cannot be confounded with the other , that which results from the Relation being joyned with the Essence , was it which was called a Person . But saith S. Augustin , The Caviller will ask , if there be Three , what Three are they ? He answers , Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But then he distinguishes between what they are in themselves , and what they are to each other . The Father as to himself is God , but as to the Son he is Father : the Son as to himself is God , but as to the Father he is the Son. But how is it possible to understand this ? Why , saith he , Take two men , Father and Son ; the one as to himself is a Man , but as to the Son a Father ; the Son , as to himself is a Man , but as to the Father , he is a Son : but these two have the same common Nature . But saith he , Will it not hence follow , that as these are two Men , so the Father and Son in the Divine Essence must be two Gods ? No , there lies the difference between the humane and Divine Nature . That one cannot be multiplied and divided as the other is . And therein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty , as will appear afterwards . When you begin to count , saith he , you go on , One , two and Three . But when you have reckon'd them what is it you have been Counting ? The Father is the Father , the Son the Son , and the Holy Ghost , the Holy Ghost . What are these Three ? Are they not three Gods ? No , Are they not three Almighties ? No , They are capable of Number as to their Relation to each other ; but not as to their Essence which is but One. The substance of the Answer lies here , the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God , that can be but One , and therefore there can be no more Gods than one . But because the same Scripture , which assures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence , doth likewise joyn the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes , Operations and Worship , therefore as to the mutual Relations , we may reckon Three , but as to the Divine Essence , that can be no more than One. Boëthius was a great Man in all respects , for his Quality , as well as for his Skill in Philosophy and Christianity ; and he wrote a short but learned Discourse to clear this Matter . The Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity , saith he , is this ; the Father is God , the Son God and the Holy Ghost ; but they are not three Gods but one God. And yet ( which our Vnitarians may wonder at ) this very man hath written a learned Book of Arithmetick . But how doth he make this out ? How is it possible for Three to be but One ? First he shews , That there can be but one Divine Essence ; for to make more than One must suppose a Diversity . Principium enim Pluralitatis Alteritas est . If you make a real difference in Nature as the Arians did , then there must be as many Gods , as there are different Natures . Among men , there are different individuals of the same kind ; but , saith he , it is the Diversity of Accidents which makes it ; and if you can abstract from all other Accidents , yet they must have a different Place , for two Bodies cannot be in the same place . The Divine Essence is simple and immaterial , and is what it is of it self ; but other things are what they are made , and consist of Parts , and therefore may be divided . Now that which is of it self can be but One ; and therefore cannot be numbred . And one God cannot differ from another , either by Accidents or substantial Differences . But saith he , there is a twofold Number ; one by which we reckon ; and another in the things reckoned . And the repeating of Units in the former makes a Plurality , but not in the latter . It may be said , that this holds where there are only different Names for the same thing ; but here is a real Distinction of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But then he shews , " That the difference of Relation , can make no Alteration in the Essence ; and where there is no Diversity , there can be but one Essence , although the different Relation may make three Persons . This is the substance of what he saith concerning this Difficulty , which , as he suggests , arises from our Imaginations , which are so filled with the Division and Multiplicity of compound and material things , that it is a hard matter for them so to recollect themselves as to consider the first Principles and Grounds of Vnity and Diversity . But if our Vnitarians have not throughly consider'd those foundations , they must , as they say to one of their Adversaries , argue like novices in these questions . For these are some of the most necessary Speculations for understanding these matters ; as what that Vnity is which belongs to a perfect Being ; what Diversity is required to multiply an infinite Essence , which hath Vnity in its own Nature : whether it be therefore possible , that there should be more divine Essences than one , since the same essential Attributes must be , where ever there is the divine Essence ? Whether there can be more Individuals , where there is no Dissimilitude , and can be no Division or Separation ? Whether a specifick divine Nature be not inconsistent with the absolute Perfection , and necessary Existence which belongs to it ? Whether the divine Nature can be individually the same , and yet there be several individual Essences : These and a great many other Questions it will be necessary for them to resolve , before they can so peremptorily pronounce , that the Doctrine of the Trinity doth imply a Contradiction on the account of the Numbers of Three and One. And so I come to the second Particular . CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for three Persons to be in one common Nature . II. THat it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in one common Nature . I shall endeavour to make these matters as clear as I can ; for the greatest difficulties in most mens minds have risen from the want of clear and distinct apprehensi●ns of those fundamental Notions , which are necessary in order to the right understanding of them . 1. We are to distinguish between the Being of a thing , and a thing in Being ; or between Essence and Existence . 2. Between the Vnity of Nature or Essence , and of Existence or Individuals of the same Nature . 3. Between the Notion of Persons in a finite and limited Nature , and in a Being uncapable of Division and Separation . 1. Between the Being of a thing , and a thing in Being . By the former we mean the Nature and Essential Properties of a thing ; whereby it is distinguished from all other kinds of Beings . So God and his Creatures are essentially distinguished from each other by such Attributes which are incommunicable ; and the Creatures of several kinds are distinguished by their Natures or Essences ; for the Essence of a Man and of a Brute are not barely distinguished by Individuals , but by their kinds . And that which doth constitute a distinct kind is One and Indivisible in it self : for the Essence of Man is but one and can be no more ; for if there were more , the kind would be alter'd ; so that there can be but one common Nature or Essence to all the Individuals of that kind . But because these Individuals may be or may not be , therefore we must distinguish them as they are in actual Being , from what they are in their common Nature ; for that continues the same , under all the Variety and Succession of Individuals . 2. We must now distinguish the Vnity which belongs to the common Nature , from that which belongs to the Individuals in actual Being . And the Vnity of Essence is twofold : 1. Where the Essence and Existence are the same , i. e. where necessary Existence doth belong to the Essence , as it is in God , and in him alone ; it being an essential and incommunicable Perfection . 2. Where the Existence is contingent , and belongs to the Will of another ; and so it is in all Creatures , Intellectual and Material , whose actual being is dependent on the Will of God. The Vnity of Existence may be consider'd two ways . 1. As to it self , and so it is called Identity ; or a thing continuing the same with it self : the Foundation whereof in Man is that vital Principle which results from the Union of Soul and Body . For as long as that continues , notwithstanding the great variety of changes in the material Parts , the Man continues entirely the same . 2. The Vnity of Existence as to Individuals may be consider'd as to others , i. e. as every one stands divided from every other Individual of the same kind ; although they do all partake of the same common Essence . And the clearing of this , is the main point , on which the right Notion of these matters depends . In order to that , we must consider two things . 1. What that is , whereby we perceive the difference of Individuals ? 2. What that is , which really makes two Beings of the same kind to be different from each other ? 1. As to the reason of our Perception of the difference between Individuals of the same kind , it depends on these things . 1. Difference of outward Accidents , as Features , Age , Bulk , Meen , Speech , Habit and Place . 2. Difference of inward Qualities and Dispositions ; which we perceive by observation , and arise either from Constitution , or Education , or Company , or acquired Habits . 2. As to the true ground of the real Difference between the Existence of one Individual from the rest , it depends upon the separate Existence which it hath from all others . For that which gives it a Being distinct from all others and divided by Individual Properties , is the true ground of the difference between them , and that can be no other but the Will of God. And no consequent Faculties or Acts of the Mind by Self-Reflection , &c. can be the reason of this difference ; because the difference must be supposed antecedent to them . And nothing can be said to make that , which must be supposed to be before it self ; for there must be a distinct Mind in Being from all other Minds , before it can reflect upon it self . But we are not yet come to the bottom of this matter . For as to Individual Persons , there are these things still to be consider'd . 1. Actual Existence in it self , which hath a Mode belonging to it , or else the humane Nature of Christ could not have been united with the divine , but it must have had the personal Subsistence , and consequently there must have been two Persons in Christ. 2. A separate and divided Existence from all others , which arises from the actual Existence , but may be distinguished from it ; and so the humane Nature of Christ , although it had the Subsistence proper to Being , yet had not a separate Existence , after the Hypostatical Vnion . 3. The peculiar manner of Subsistence , which lies in such properties as are incommunicable to any other ; and herein lies the proper reason of Personality . Which doth not consist in a meer Intelligent Being , but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being which can be in no other . For when the common Nature doth subsist in Individuals , there is not only a separate Existence , but something so peculiar to it self , that it can be communicated to no other . And this is that which makes the distinction of Persons . 4. There is a common Nature which must be joyned with this manner of Subsistence to make a Person ; otherwise it would be a meer Mode ; but we never conceive a Person without the Essence in Conjunction with it . But here appears no manner of contradiction in asserting several Persons in one and the same common Nature . 5. The Individuals of the same kind are said to differ in number from each other , because of their different Accidents and separate Existence . For so they are capable of being numbred . Whatever is compounded is capable of number as to its parts , and may be said to be one by the Union of them ; whatever is separated from another is capable of number by distinction . But where there can be no Accidents nor Division , there must be perfect Unity . 6. There must be a Separation in Nature , where-ever there is a difference of Individuals under the same kind . I do not say there must be an actual Separation and Division as to place , but that there is and must be so in Nature , where one common Nature subsists in several Individuals . For all Individuals must divide the Species , and the common Nature u●ites them . And this Philoponus understood very well , and therefore he never denied such a Division and Separation in the divine Persons , as is implied in distinct Individuals : which is the last thing to be consider'd here . 3. We are now to enquire how far these things will hold as to the Persons in the Trinity , and whether it be a Contradiction to assert three Persons in the Godhead and but one God. We are very far from disputing the Vnity of the divine Essence , which we assert to be so perfect and indivisible , as not to be capable of such a difference of Persons as is among Men. Because there can be no difference of Accidents , or Place , or Qualities in the divine Nature ; and there can be no separate Existence , because the Essence and Existence are the same in God ; and if necessary Existence be an inseparable Attribute of the divine Essence , it is impossible there should be any separate Existence ; for what always was and must be , can have no other Existence than what is implied in the very Essence . But will not this overthrow the distinction of Persons and run us into Sabellianism ? By no means . For our Vnitarians grant , That the Noetians and Sabellians held , that there is but one divine Substance , Essence or Nature , and but one Person . And how can those who hold three Persons be Sabellians ? Yes , say they , the Sabellians held three relative Persons . But did they mean three distinct Subsistences , or only one Subsistence sustaining the Names , or Appearances , or Manifestations of three Persons ? The latter they cannot deny to have been the true sense of the Sabellians . But say they , these are three Persons in a classical critical Sense . We meddle not at present with the Dispute which Valla hath against Boethius about the proper Latin Sense of a Person ( and Petavius saith Valla's Objections are mere Iests and Trifles ) but our Sense of a Person is plain , that it signifies the Essence with a particular manner of Subsistence , which the Greek Fathers called an Hypostasis , taking it for that incommunicable Property which makes a Person . But say our Vnitarians , a Person is an intelligent Being , and therefore three Persons must be three intelligent Beings . I answer , that this may be taken two ways . 1. That there is no Person where there is no intelligent Nature to make it a Person , and so we grant it . 2. That a Person implies an intelligent Being , separate and divided from other Individuals of the same kind , as it is among men : and so we deny it as to the Persons of the Trinity , because the Divine Essence is not capable of such Division and Separation as the humane Nature is . But say they again , The Fathers did hold a specifical Divine Nature , and the Persons to be as so many individuals . This they repeat very often in their late Books ; and after all , refer us to Curcellaeus for undeniable Proofs of it . Let us for the present suppose it , then I hope the Fathers are freed from holding Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity ; for what Contradiction can it be , to hold three individual Persons in the Godhead , and One common Nature , more than it is to hold that there are three humane Persons in One and the same common Nature of Man ? Will they make this a Contradiction too ? But some have so used themselves to the Language of Iargon , Nonsense , Contradiction , Impossibility , that it comes from them , as some men swear , when they do not know it . But I am not willing to go off with this Answer ; for I do take the Fathers to have been men of too great Sense and Capacity to have maintained such an absurd Opinion , as that of a Specifick Nature in God. For either it is a mere Logical Notion , and Act of the Mind without any real Existence belonging to it as such , which is contrary to the very Notion of God , which implies a necessary Existence ; or it must imply a Divine Nature , which is neither Father , Son , nor Holy Ghost . Which is so repugnant to the Doctrine of the Fathers , that no one that is any ways conversant in their Writings on this Argument , can imagine they should hold such an Opinion . And I am so far from being convinced by Curcellaeus his undeniable Proofs , that I think it no hard matter to bring undeniable Proofs that he hath mistaken their meaning . Of which I shall give an Account in this Place , because I fear his Authority hath had too much sway with some , as to this matter . I shall not insist upon his gross mistake in the very entrance of that Discourse , where he saith , That the Bishops of Gaul and Germany disliked the Homoousion , and gave three Reasons against it ; whereas Hilary speaks of the Eastern Bishops whom he goes about to vindicate to the Western Bishops , who were offended with them for that reason ; as any one that reads Hilary de Synodis may see . But I come to the main Point . His great Argument is from the use of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may extend to Individuals of the same kind . Who denies it ? But the Question is whether the Fathers used it in that sense , so as to imply a difference of Individuals in the same common Essence ? There were two things aimed at by them in their Dispute with the Arians . ( 1. ) To shew , That the Son was of the same Substance with the Father , which they denied , and made him of an inferior created Substance , of another kind . Now the Fathers thought this term very proper to express their Sense against them . But then this Word being capable of a larger Sense than they intended , they took care , ( 2. ) To assert a perfect Unity and Indivisibility of the Divine Essence . For the Arians were very ready to charge them with one of these two things . ( 1. ) That they must fall into Sabellianism , if they held a perfect Unity of Essence : or ( 2. ) When they clear'd themselves of this , that they must hold Three Gods ; and both these they constantly denied . To make this clear , I shall produce the Testimonies of some of the chief both of the Greek and Latin Fathers , and answer Curcellaeus his Objections . Athanasius takes notice of both these Charges upon their Doctrine of the Trinity : As to Sabellianism he declared , That he abhorred it equally with Arianism ; and he saith , it lay in making Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person ; and so they asserted but one Person in the Godhead . As to the other Charge of Polytheism , he observes , That in the Scripture Language , all mankind was reckon'd as one , because they have the same Essence ; and if it be so , as to Men , who have such a difference of Features , of Strength , of Vnderstanding , of Language , how much more may God be said to be One , in whom is an undivided Dignity , Power , Counsel and Operation . Doth this prove such a difference , as is among Individuals of the same kind among men ? No man doth more frequently assert the indivisible Vnity of the Divine Nature than he . He expresly denies such divided Hypostases , as are among men ; and saith , That in the Trinity there is a Conjunction without confusion , and a distinction without Division ; that in the Trinity there is so perfect an Vnion , and that it is so undivided and united in it self ; that where-ever the Father is , there is the Son and the Holy Ghost , and so the rest , because there is but one Godhead , and one God who is over all , and through all , and in all . But saith Curcellaeus , The contrary rather follows from this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or mutual Inexistence , for that could not be without distinct Substance , as in Water and Wine . But this is a very gross mistake of the Fathers Notion , who did not understand by it a Local In-existence as of Bodies , but such an indivisible Vnity that one cannot be without the other , as even Petavius hath made it appear from Athanasius and others . Athanasius upon all Occasions asserts the Unity of the Divine Nature to be perfect and indivisible . God , saith he , is the Father of his Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without any Division of the Substance . And in other places , that the Substance of the Father and Son admit of no Division , and he affirms this to have been the sense of the Council of Nice ; so that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of the same indivisible Substance . Curcellaeus answers , That Athanasius by this indivisible Vnity meant only a close and indissoluble Vnion . But he excluded any kind of Division , and that of a Specifick Nature into several individuals as a real Division in Nature ; for no man whoever treated of those matters denied , that a Specifick Nature was divided , when there were several individuals under it . But what is it which makes the Vnion indissoluble ? Is it the Vnity of the Essence or not ? If it be , is it the same individual Essence , or not ? If the same individual Essence makes the inseparable Union , what is it , which makes the difference of individuals ? If it be said , The incommunicable Properties of the Persons ; I must still ask how such Properties in the same individual Essence , can make different individuals ? If it be said to be the same Specifick Nature ; then how comes that which is in it self capable of Division to make an indissoluble Vnion ? But saith Curcellaeus , Athanasius makes Christ to be of the same Substance as Adam , and Seth , and Abraham , and Isaac are said to be Con-substantial with each other . And what follows ? That the Father and Son are divided from each other , as they were ? This is not possible to be his Sense ; considering what he saith of the Indivisibility of the Divine Nature . And Athanasius himself hath given sufficient warning against such a Mis-construction of his Words ; and still urges that our Conceptions ought to be suitable to the Divine Nature , not taken from what we see among men . And it is observable , that when Paulus Samosatenus had urged this as the best Argument against the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , That it made such a difference of Substances as is among men ; for that Reason saith Athanasius , his Iudges were content to let it alone , for the Son of God is not in such a sense Con-substantial ; but afterwards , the Nicene Fathers finding out the Art of Paulus , and the significancy of the Word to discriminate the Arians , made use of it , and only thought it necessary to declare , that when it is applied to God , it is not to be understood , as among individual Men. As to the Dialogues under Athanasius his Name , on which Curcellaeus insists so much ; it is now very well known that they belong not to him , but to Maximus ; and by comparing them with other places in him , it may appear , that he intended no Specifick Nature in God. But saith Curcellaeus , If the Fathers intended any more than a Specifick Nature , why did they not use Words which would express it more fully , As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? For that very Reason , which he mentions from Epiphanius , because they would seem to approach too near to Sabellianism . S. Basil was a great Man , ( notwithstanding the flout of our Vnitarians , ) and apply'd his thoughts to this matter , to clear the Doctrine of the Church from the Charge of Sabellianism and Tritheism . As to the former , he saith , in many places , That the Heresie lay in making but one Person as well as one God , or one Substance with three several Names . As to the latter , no man asserts the individual Unity of the Divine Essence in more significant Words than he doth . For he uses the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , . as S. Cyril of Alexandria doth likewise , and yet both these are produced by Curcellaeus for a Specifick Nature . But saith Curcellaeus , S. Basil in his Epistle to Gregory Nyssen doth assert the difrence between Substance and Hypostasis to consist in this , That the one is taken for common Nature , and the other for individual , and so making three Hypostases , he must make three Individuals , and One common or Specifick Nature . I answer , That it is plain by the design of that Epistle , that by three Hypostases he could not mean three individual Essences . For he saith , The design of his writing it , was to clear the difference between Substance and Hypostasis . For saith he , From the want of this , some assert but one Hypostasis , as well as one Essence ; and others , because there are three Hypostases , suppose there are three distinct Essences . For both went upon the same Ground , that Hypostasis and Essence were the same . Therefore saith he , those who held three Hypostases , did make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Division of Substances . From whence it follows , that S. Basil did look upon the Notion of three distinct Substances as a mistake : I say distinct Substances , as Individuals are distinct ; for so the first Principles of Philosophy do own that Individuals make a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Division of the Species into several and distinct Individuals . But doth not S. Basil go about to explain his Notion by the common Nature of man , and the several Individuals under it ; and what can this signifie to his purpose , unless he allows the same in the Godhead ? I grant he doth so , but he saith the Substance , is that which is common to the whole kind ; the Hypostasis is that which properly distinguisheth one Individual from another ; which he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar incommunicable Property . Which he describes by a Concourse of distinguishing Characters in every Individual . But how doth he apply these things to the divine Nature ? For therein lies the whole difficulty . Doth he own such a Community of Nature , and Distinction of Individuals there ? He first confesses the divine Nature to be incomprehensible by us ; but yet we may have some distinct Notions about these things . As for instance , In the Father we conceive something common to him and to the Son ; and that is the divine Essence : and the same as to the Holy Ghost . But there must be some proper characters to distinguish these , one from another ; or else there will be nothing but confusion : which is Sabellianism . Now the essential Attributes and divine Operations are common to them ; and therefore these cannot distinguish them from each other . And those are the peculiar Properties of each Person , as he shews at large . But may not each Person have a distinct Essence belonging to him , as we see it is among Men ? For this S. Basil answers : ( 1. ) He utterly denies any possible Division in the divine Nature . And he never question'd , but the distinction of Individuals under the same Species was a sort of Division , although there were no Separation . And the followers of Ioh. Philoponus did hold an indissoluble Vnion between the three individual Essences in the divine Nature ; but they held a distinction of peculiar Essences , besides the common Nature , which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; as appears by Photius , who was very able to judge . And it appears by one of themselves in Photius , that the controversie was , whether an Hyposiasis could be without an individual Essence belonging to it self ; or whether the peculiar Properties and Characters did make the Hypostasis . But as to S. Basil's Notion , we are to observe ; ( 2. ) That he makes the divine Essence to be uncapable of number , by reason of its perfect Unity . Here our Vnitarians tell us , that when S. Basil saith , That God is not one in number , but in nature , he means : as the Nature of Man is one , but there are many particular Men , as Peter , James and John , &c. so the Nature of God , or the common Divinity is one , but there are as truely more Gods in number , or more particular Gods , as there are more particular Men. but that this is a gross mistake or abuse of S. Basil's meaning , I shall make it plain from h●mself . For , they say , That he held , that as to this question , How many Gods ? it must be answered , Three Gods in number , or three Personal Gods , and one in Nature , or divine Properties ; whereas he is so far from giving such an answer , that he absolutely denies that there can be more Gods than one in that very place . He mentions it as an Objection , that since he said , That the Father is God , the Son God , the Holy Ghost God ; he must hold three Gods ; to which he answers , We own but one God , not in Number , but in Nature : Then say they , He held but one God in Nature and more in Number . That is so far from his meaning , that I hardly think any that read the passage in S. Basil , could so wilfully pervert his meaning . For his intention was so far from asserting more Gods in Number , that it was to prove so perfect a Unity in God , that he was not capable of number , or of being more than one . For , saith he , That which is said to be one in Number , is not really and simply one , but is made up of many , which by composition become one ; as we say , the world is one , which is made up of many things . But God is a simple uncompounded Being ; and therefore cannot be said to be one in Number . But the World is not one by Nature , because it is made up of so many things , but it is one by Number , as those several parts make but one World. Is not this fair dealing with such a Man as S. Basil , to represent his Sense quite otherwise than it is ? As though he allow'd more Gods than one in Number ? Number , saith he again , belongs to Quantity , and Quantity to Bodies , but what relation have these to God , but as he is the Maker of them ? Number belongs to material and circumscribed Beings ; but , saith he , the most perfect Vnity is to be conceived in the most simple and incomprehensible Essence . Where it is observable , that he uses those Words which are allow'd to express the most perfect and singular Unity . Which Petavius himself confesseth , that they can never be understood of a specifick Nature : and Curcellaeus cannot deny , That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , doth restrain the Sense more to a numerical Vnity , as he calls it . How then is it possible to understand S. Basil of more Gods than one in number ? And in the very same Page he mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness of the divine Nature , by which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is better understood . But Curcellaeus will have no more than a specifick Vnity understood . Before he said , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have signified more , but now he finds it used , the case is alter'd : So that the Fathers could not mean any other than a specifick Vnity , let them use what expressions they pleas'd . But these , I think are plain enough to any one that will not shut his Eyes . In an other place , S. Basil makes the same Objection and gives the same answer . One God the Father , and one God the Son ; how can this be , and yet not two Gods ? Because , saith he , the Son hath the very same Essence with the Father . Not two Essences divided out of one , as two Brothers ; but as Father and Son , the Son subsisting as from the Father , but in the same individual Essence : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But Curcellaeus hath one fetch yet , viz. That S. Basil denied God to be one in Number , and made him to be one in Nature , because he look'd on a specifick Vnity or Vnity of Nature as more exact than numerical . S. Basil look'd on the divine Nature as such to have the most perfect Vnity , because of its Simplicity , and not in the least speaking of it as a specifick Vnity ; but Curcellaeus himself calls this , an Vnity by a mere Fiction of the Mind ; and can he imagine this to have been more accurate than a real Unity ? These are hard shifts in a desperate cause . After all , our Vnitarians tell us , That S. Basil doth against Eunomius allow a distinction in Number with respect to the Deity . But how ? As to the Essence ? By no means . For he asserts the perfect Vnity thereof in the same place , even the Vnity of the Substance . But as to the characteristical Properties of the Persons , he allows of Number , and no farther . But say they , This is to make one God as to essential Properties , and three as to Personal . How can that be ? when he saith , so often there can be but one God , because there can be but one divine Essence ; and therefore those properties can only make distinct Hypostases , but not distinct Essences . And is this indeed the great Secret which this bold Man , as they call him , hath discover'd ? I think those are much more bold , ( I will not say impudent ) who upon such slight grounds , charge him with asserting more Gods than one in Number . But Gregory Nyssen , saith Curcellaeus ▪ speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Ablabius ; for saith he , To avoid the difficulty of making three Gods , as three Individuals among Men are three Men ; he answers , that truly they are not three Men , because they have but one common Essence , which is exactly one , and indivisible in it self , however it be dispersed in Individuals ▪ the same , he saith , is to be understood of God. And this Petavius had charged him with before , as appears by Curcellaeus his Appendix . This seems the hardest passage in Antiquity for this purpose , to which I hope to give a satisfactory answer from Gregory Nyssen himself . 1. It cannot be denied , that he asserts the Vnity of Essence to be Indivisible in it self , and to be the true ground of the Denomination of Individuals ; as Peter hath the name of a Man , not from his individual Properties , whereby he is distinguished from Iames and Iohn ; but from that one indivisible Essence , which is common to them all , but yet receives no Addition or Diminution in any of them . 2. He grants a Division of Hypostases among Men , notwithstanding this Indivisibility of one common Essence : For saith he ; among Men , although the Essence remain one and the same in all , without any Division ; yet the several Hypostases are divided from each other , according to the individual Properties belonging to them . So that here is a double consideration of the Essence : as in it self , so it is one and indivisible ; as it subsists in Individuals , and so it is actually divided according to the Subjects . For although the Essence of a Man be the same in it self , in Peter , Iames and Iohn ; yet taking it as in the Individuals , so the particular Essence in each of them is divided from the rest . And so Philoponus took Hypostasis for an Essence individuated by peculiar Properties ; and therefore asserted , that where-ever there was an Hypostasis , there must be a distinct Essence ; and from hence he held the three Persons to have three distinct Essences . 3. We are now to consider , how far Gregory Nyssen carried this , whether he thought it held equally as to the divine Hypostasis ; and that he did not , appears to me from these arguments : 1. He utterly denies any kind of Division in the divine Nature ; for in the conclusion of that Discourse , he saith , it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( a Word often used by the Greek Fathers on this occasion , from whence Athanasius against Macedonius inferr'd an Identity , and Caesarius joyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and so S. Basil uses it ) but he adds another Word , which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Indivisible . Yes , as all Essences are indivisible in themselves ; but they may be divided in their Subjects , as Gregory Nyssen allows it to be in Men. I grant it , but then he owns a Division of some kind , which he here absolutely denies as to the divine Nature ; for his words are , that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any consideration whatsoever . Then he must destroy the Hypostases . Not so neither , for he allows that there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the Hypostases however . For he proposes the Objection himself , That by allowing no difference in the divine Nature , the Hypostases would be confounded . To which he answers , That he did not deny their difference , which was founded in the relation they had to one another ; which he there explains ; and that therein only consists the difference of the Persons . Which is a very considerable testimony , to shew that both Petavius and Curcellaeus mistook Gregory Nyssen's meaning . But there are other arguments to prove it . 2. He asserts such a difference between the divine and human Persons , as is unanswerable , viz. the Vnity of Operation . For , saith he , among Men , if several go about the same Work , yet every particular Person works by himself , and therefore they may well be called many ; because every one is circumscribed : but in the divine Persons he proves that it is quite otherwise , for they all concurr in the Action towards us ; as he there shews at large . Petavius was aware of this , and therefore he saith , he quitted it and returned to the other ; whereas he only saith , If his Adversaries be displeased with it , he thinks the other sufficient . Which in short is , that Essence in it self is one and indivisible ; but among Men it is divided according to the Subjects ; that the divine Nature is capable of no Division at all , and therefore the difference of Hypostases must be from the different Relations and Manner of Subsistence . 3. He expresses his meaning fully in another place . For in his Catechetical Oration , he saith , he looks on the Doctrine of the Trinity as a profound Mystery ( which three individual Persons in one specifick Nature is far from . ) But wherein lies it ? Chiefly in this , That there should be Number and no Number ; different View and yet but One ; a distinction of Hypostases , and yet no Division in the Subjects . For so his words are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which is contrary to what he said of human Hypostases . Now , what is the Subject in this case ? According to Curcellaeus his Notion , it must be an Individual . But since he asserts there can be no Division in the Subjects , then he must overthrow any such Individuals , as are among Men. These are the chief Testimonies out of the Greek Fathers , whose authority Curcellaeus and others rely most upon , as to this matter , which I have therefore more particularly examin'd . But S. Ierom , saith Curcellaeus , in his Epistle to Damasus , thought three Hypostases implied three distinct Substances ; and therefore when the Campenses would have him own them , he refused it and asked his Advice . Then it is plain , S. Ierom would not own three distinct Substances , and so could not be of Curcellaeus his mind . But saith he , S. Ierom meant by three Substances , three Gods different in kind , as the Arians did . But how doth that appear ? Doth he not say , the Arian Bishop , and the Campenses put him upon it ? But who was this Arian Bishop , and these Campenses ? No other than the Meletian Party ; for Meletius was brought in by the Arians , but he joyned against them with S. Basil and others , who asserted three Hypostases ; and the Campenses were his People who met without the Gates , as the Historians tell us . But it is evident by S. Ierom , that the Latin Church understood Hypostasis to be the same then with Substance ; and the reason why they would not allow three Hypostases , was , because they would not assert three Substances . So that Curcellaeus his Hypothesis hath very little colour for it among the Latin Fathers ; since S. Ierom there saith , it would be Sacrilege to hold three Substances , and he freely bestows an Anathema upon any one that asserted more than one . But Hilary , saith Curcellaeus , owns a specifick Vnity , for in his Book de Synodis , he shews , That by one Substance , they did not mean one individual Substance , but such as was in Adam and Seth , that is of the same kind . No man asserts the Vnity and Indiscrimination of the divine Substance more fully and frequently than he doth ; and that without any Difference or Variation , as to the Father and the Son. And although against the Arians he may use that for an Illustration , of Adam and Seth ; yet when he comes to explain himself , he declares it must be understood in a way agreeable to the divine Nature . And he denies any Division of the Substance between Father and Son , but he asserts one and the same Substance to be in both ; and although the Person of the Son remains distinct from the Person of the Father , yet he subsists in that Substance of which he was begotten , and nothing is taken off from the substance of the Father , by his being begotten of it . But doth he not say , That he hath a Legitimate and proper Substance of his own begotten Nature from God , the Father ? And what is this , but to own two distinct Substances ? How can the Substance be distinct , if it be the very same ; and the Son subsist in that Substance of which he was begotten ? And that Hilary ( besides a multitude of passages to the same purpose in him ) cannot be understood of two distinct Substances will appear by this Evidence . The Arians in their Confession of Faith before the Council of Nice set down among the several Heresies which they condemned ; that of Hieracas , who said the Father and Son were like two Lamps shining out of one common Vessel of Oil. Hilary was sensible that under this that Expression was struck at , God of God , Light of Light , which the Church owned . His Answer is , Luminis Naturae Vnitas est , non ex connexione porrectio . i e. they are not two divided Lights , from one common Stock ; but the same Light remaining after it was kindled that it was before . As appears by his Words , Light of Light , saith he , implies , That it gives to another that which it continues to have it self . And Petavius saith , that the Opinion of Hieracas was , That the substance of the Father and Son differ'd Numerically as one Lamp from another . And Hilary calls it an Error of humane Understanding which would judge of God , by what they find in one another . Doth not S. Ambrose say , as Curcellaeus quotes him , That the Father and Son are not two Gods , because all men are said to be of one Substance ? But S Ambrose is directly against him . For , he saith , The Arians objected , that if they made the Son true God , and Con-substantial with the Father , they must make two Gods ; as there are two men , or two Sheep of the same Essence ; but a Man and a Sheep are not said to be Men , or two sheep . Which they said to excuse themselves , because they made the Son of a different kind and substance from the Father . And what Answer doth S. Ambrose give to this ? 1. He saith , Plurality according to the Scriptures rather falls on those of different kinds ; and therefore when they make them of several kinds , they must make several Gods. 2. That we who hold but One Substance , cannot make more Gods than One. 3. To his instance of Men , he answers , That although they are of the same Nature by Birth , yet the● differ in Age , and Thought , and Work , and Place from one another ; and where there is such Diversity , there cannot be Vnity : but in God , there is no difference of Nature , Will , or Operation ; and therefore there can be but one God. The last I shall mention is S. Augustin , whom Curcellaeus produces to as little purpose ; for although he doth mention the same instance of several Men being of the same kind ; yet he speaks so expresly against a Specifick Vnity in God ; that he saith , The Consequence must be , that the three Persons must be three Gods ; as three humane Persons are three Men. And in another place , That the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are One in the same individual Nature . And what saith Curcellaeus to these places , for he was aware of them . To the latter he saith , That by individual , he means Specifick . This is an extraordinary Answer indeed . But what Reason doth he give for it ? Because they are not divided in Place or Time , but they may have their proper Essences however . But where doth S. Augustin give any such Account of it ? He often speaks upon this Subject ; but always gives another Reason . viz. because they are but One and the same Substance . The Three Persons are but One God , because they are of One Substance ; and they have a perfect Vnity , because there is no Diversity of Nature , or of Will. But it may be said , That here he speaks of a Diversity of Nature . In the next Words he explains himself , that the three Persons are One God , propter ineffabilem conjunctionem Deitatis ; but the Union of three Persons in one Specifick Nature , is no ineffable Conjunction , it being one of the commonest things in the World ; and in the same Chapter , propter Individuam Deitatem unus Deus est ; & propter uniuscujusque Proprietatem tres Personae sunt . Here we find one Individual Nature ; and no difference but in the peculiar Properties of the Persons . In the other place he is so express against a Specifick Vnity , that Curcellaeus his best Answer is , That in that Chapter he is too intricate and obscure . i. e. He doth not to speak his Mind . Thus much I thought fit to say in Answer to those undeniable Proofs of Curcellaeus , which our Vnitarians boast so much of , and whether they be so or not , let the Reader examine and judge . CHAP. VII . The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions . III. I Now come to the last thing I proposed , viz. to shew , That it is no contradiction to assert three Persons in the Trinity and but one God ; and for that purpose , I shall examine the charge of Contradictions on the Athanasian Creed . The summ of the first Articles , say they , is this , The one true God is three distinct Persons , and three distinct Persons , Father , Son and Holy Ghost are the one true God. Which is plainly , as if a Man should say , Peter , James and John , being three Persons are one Man ; and one Man is these three distinct Persons , Peter , James and John. Is it not now a ridiculous attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity , to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind , under pretence of teaching them a Creed . This is very freely spoken , with respect , not merely to our Church , but the Christian World , which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity . But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward kicking , as for their Stupidity . And is not this great skill in these Matters , to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead , and Peter , Iames and Iohn ? Do they think there is no difference between an infinitely perfect Being , and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are ? Do they suppose the divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals , as human Nature is ? No , they may say , but ye who hold three Persons must think so : For what reason ? We do assert three Persons , but it is on the account of divine Revelation , and in such a manner , as the divine Nature is capable of it . For it is a good rule of Boethius , Talia sunt praedicata , qualia subjecta permiserint . We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity , but in such a manner as is agreeable to the divine Nature ; and if that be not capable of Division and Separation , then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence . The next Article is , Neither confounding the Persons , nor dividing the Substance ; But how can we , say they , not confound the Persons that have , as ye say , but one numerical Substance ? And how can we but divide the Substance , which we find in three distinct divided Persons ? I think the terms numerical Substance , not very proper in this case ; and I had rather use the Language of the Fathers , than of the Schools ; and some of the most judicious and learned Fathers would not allow the terms of one numerical Substance to be applied to the divine Essence . For their Notion was , That Number was only proper for compound B●ings , but God being a pure and simple Being was one by Nature and not by Number , as S. Basil speaks ( as is before observed ) because he is not compounded , nor hath any besides himself to be reckon'd with him . But because there are different Hypostases , therefore they allow'd the use of Number about them , and so we may say the Hypostases or Persons are numerically different ; but we cannot say that the Essence is one Numerically . But why must they confound the Persons , if there be but one Essence ? The relative Properties cannot be confounded ; for the Father cannot be the Son ▪ nor the Son the Father ; and on these the difference of Persons is founded . For , there can be no difference , as to essential Properties , and therefore all the difference , or rather distinction must be from those that are Relative . A Person of it self imports no Relation , but the Person of the Father or of the Son must ; and these Relations cannot be confounded with one another . And if the Father cannot be the Son , nor the Son the Father , then they must be distinct from each other . But how ? By dividing the Substance ? That is impossible in a Substance that is indivisible . It may be said , That the Essence of created Beings is indivisible , and yet there are divided Persons . I grant it , but then a created Essence is capable of different accidents and qualities to divide one Person from another , which cannot be supposed in the divine Nature ; and withall the same power which gives a Being to a created Essence , gives it a separate and divided Existence from all others . As when Peter , Iames and Iohn received their several distinct Personalities from God ; at the same time he gave them their separate Beings from each other , although the same Essence be in them all . But how can we but divide the Substance which we see in three distinct divided Persons ? The question is , whether the distinct Properties of the Persons do imply a Division of the Substance ? We deny that the Persons are divided as to the Substance , because that is impossible to be divided ; but we say , they are and must be distinguished as to those incommunicable Properties which make the Persons distinct . The essential Properties are uncapable of being divided , and the Relations cannot be confounded ; so that there must be one undivided Substance and yet three distinct Persons . But every Person must have his own proper Substance ; and so the Substance must be divided if there be three Persons . That every Person must have a Substance to support his Subsistence is not denied , but the question is , Whether that Substance must be divided or not . We say , where the Substance will bear it , as in created Beings , a Person hath a separate substance , i. e. the same Nature diversified by Accidents , Qualities and a separate Existence , but where these things cannot be , there the same Essence must remain undivided , but with such relative Properties as cannot be confounded . But may not the same undivided Substance be communicated to three divided Persons ; so as that each Person may have his own proper Substance , and yet the divine Essence be in it self undivided ? This is not the case before us . For the question upon the Creed is , Whether the Substance can be divided ? And here it is allow'd to remain undivided . Yes in it self , but it may be divided in the Persons . The Substance , we say , is uncapable of being divided any way ; and to say , that a Substance wholly undivided in it self , is yet divided into as many proper and peculiar Substances , as there are Persons , doth not at all help our understanding in this matter ; but if no more be meant , as is expresly declared , than That the same one divine Nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the eternal Son ▪ and by Father and Son to the eternal Spirit , without any Division or Separation ; it is the same which all Trinitarians assert . And it is a great pity , that any new Phrases or Ways of Expression should cause unreasonable Heats among those who are really of the same Mind . For those who oppose the expressions of three distinct Substances as new and dangerous ; yet grant , That it is one peculiar Prerogative of the divine Nature and Substance , founded in its infinite , and therefore transcendent Perfection , whereby it is capable of residing in more Persons than one ; and is accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost ; but this is done without any Division or Multiplication . Now if both Parties mean what they say , where lies the difference ? It is sufficient for my purpose that they are agrred , that there can be no Division as to the divine Essence by the distinction of Persons . And so this passage of the Athanasian Creed holds good , Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance . The next Article , as it is set down in the Notes on Athanasius his Creed , is a contradiction to this . For there it runs , There is one Substance of the Father , another of the Son , another of the Holy Ghost . They might well charge it with Contradictions at this rate . But that is a plain mistake for Person ; for there is no other variety in the Copies but this , that Baysius his Greek Copy hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and that of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but all the Latin Copies Persona . But what consequence do they draw from hence ? Then , say they , the Son is not the Father , nor is the Father the Son , nor the Holy Ghost either of them . If they had put in Person , as they ought to have done , it is what we do own . And what follows ? If the Father be not the Son , and yet is the one true God , then the Son is not the one true God , because he is not the Father . The one true God may be taken two ways : 1. The one true God , as having the true divine Nature in him , and so the Father is the one true God ; but not exclusive of the Son , if he have the same divine Nature . 2. The one true God , as having the divine Nature so wholly in himself , as to make it incommunicable to the Son ; so we do not say , that the Father is the one true God , because this must exclude the Son from being God ; which the Scripture assures us that he is ; and therefore though the Son be not the Father , nor the Father the Son , yet the Son may be the one true God as well as the Father , because they both partake of the same divine Nature , so that there is no contradiction in this , That there is but one true God , and one of the Persons is not the other . For that supposes it impossible , that there should be three Persons in the same Nature ; but if the distinction of Nature and Persons be allow'd , as it must be by all that understand any thing of these matters , then it must be granted , that although one Person cannot be another , yet they may have the same common Essence . As for instance , let us take their own , Peter , Iames and Iohn . What pleasant arguing would this be , Peter is not Iames nor Iohn , nor Iames nor Iohn are Peter , but Peter hath the true Essence of a Man in him ; and the true Essence is but one and indivisible ; and therefore Iames and Iohn cannot be true Men , because Peter hath the One and indivisible Essence of a Man in him ? But they will say , We cannot say that Peter is the One true Man , as we say , That the Father is the One true God. Yes ; we say the same in other Words , for he can be said to be the One true God in no other Respect , but as he hath the One true Divine Essence . All the difference lies , that a finite Nature is capapable of Division , but an infinite is not . It follows , The Godhead of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost is all one , the Glory Equal , the Majesty Co-eternal . To this they say , That this Article doth impugn and destroy it self . How so ? For , if the Glory and Majesty be the same in Number , then it can be neither Equal , nor Co-eternal . Not Equal for it is the same , which Equals never are , nor Co-eternal for that intimates that they are distinct . For , nothing is Co eternal , nor Co temporary with it self . There is no appearance of Difficulty or Contradiction in this , if the Distinction of Persons is allowed ; for the three Persons may be well said to be Co-equal and Co-eternal ; and if we Honour the Son , as we Honour the Father , we must give equal Glory to him . But one great Point of Contradiction remains , viz. So that the Father is God , the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost is God , and yet there are not three Gods ; but one God. First , they say , This is as if a Man should say , the Father is a Person , the Son a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person , yet there are not three Persons ; but one Person . How is this possible , if a Person doth suppose some peculiar Property , which must distinguish him from all others ? And how can three Persons be one Person , unless three incommunicable Properties may become one communicated Property to three Persons ? But they are aware of a Distinction in this Case , viz. that the term God is used Personally , when it is said God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost ; but when it is said , There are not three Gods , but one God , the term God is used Essentially , and therefore comprehends the whole three Persons , so that there is neither a Grammatical , nor Arithmetical Contradiction . And what say our Vnitarians to this ? Truly , no less , Than that the Remedy is worse , ( if possible ) than the Disease . Nay then , we are in a very ill Case . But how I pray doth this appear ? 1. Say they , Three personal Gods , and one Essential God make four Gods ; if the Essential God be not the same with the personal Gods : and tho' he is the same , yet since they are not the same with one another , but distinct , it follows , that there are three Gods , i. e. three personal Gods. 2. It introduces two sorts of Gods , three Personal and one Essential . But the Christian Religion knows and owns but One , true and most high God of any sort . So far then , we are agreed , That there is but One , true and most high God ; and that because of the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence , which can be no more than One , and where there is but One Divine Essence , there can be but One true God , unless we can suppose a God without an Essence , and that would be a strange sort of God. He would be a personal God indeed in their critical Sense of a Person for a shape or appearance . But may not the fame Essence be divided ? That I have already shew'd to be impossible . Therefore we cannot make so many personal Gods , because we assert one and the same Essence in the three Persons of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But they are distinct , and therefore must be distinct Gods , since every one is distinct from the other . They are distinct as to personal Properties , but not as to Essential Attributes ; which are and must be the same in all : So that here is but one Essential God , and three Persons . But after all , why do we assert three Persons in the Godhead ? Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed ; but because the Scripture hath revealed that there are Three , Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given . This we verily believe , that the Scripture hath revealed ; and that there are a great many places , of which , we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it , and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds , on which we believe the Scriptures . And if there are three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them ; what must we do in this Case ? Must we cast off the Vnity of the Divine Essence ? No , that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question . Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost , as well as to the Father ? That we cannot do , unless we cast off those Books of Scripture , wherein those things are contained . But why do we call them Persons , when that Term is not found in Scripture , and is of a doubtful Sense ? The true Account whereof I take to be this . It is observed by Facundus Hermianensis , that the Christian Church received the Doctrine of the Trinity before the Terms of three Persons were used . But Sabellianism was the occasion of making use of the name of Persons . It 's true , That the Sabellians did not dislike our Sense of the Word Person , ( which they knew was not the Churches Sense ) as it was taken for an Appearance , or an external Quality ; which was consistent enough with their Hypothesis , who allow'd but One real Person with different Manifestations . That this was their true Opinion , appears from the best account we have of their Doctrine , from the first Rise of Sabellianism . The Foundations of it were laid in the earliest and most dangerous Heresies in the Christian Church , viz. that which is commonly called by the name of the Gnosticks , and that of the Cerinthians and Ebionites . For how much soever they differ'd from each other in other things ; yet they both agreed in this , that there was no such thing as a Trinity , consisting of Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but that all was but different Appearances and Manifestations of God to Mank●nd . In consequence whereof , the Gnosticks denied the very Humanity of Christ , and the Cerinthians and Ebionites his Divinity . But both these sorts , were utterly rejected the Communion of the Christian Church ; and no such thing as Sabellianism was found within it . Afterwards , there arose some Persons who started the same Opinion within the Church : the first we meet with of this sort , are those mention'd by Theodoret , Epigonus , Cleomenes , and Noëtus , from whom they were called Noe●ians ; not long after , Sabellius broached the same Doctrine in Pentapolis , and the Parts thereabouts ; which made Dionysius of Alexandria appear so early and so warmly against it . But he happening to let fall some Expressions , as though he asserted an Inequality of Hypostases in the Godhead , Complaint was made of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome ; who thereupon explained that , which he took to be the true Sense of the Christian Church in this matter . Which is still preserved in Athanasius : Therein he disowns the Sabellian Doctrine , which confounded the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and made them to be the same ; and withal , he rejected those who held three distinct and separate Hypostases ; as the Platonists , and after them the Marcionists did . Dionysius of Alexandria , when he came to explain himself , agreed with the others and asserted the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father ; as Athanasius hath proved at large : but yet he said , That if a distinction of Hypostases were not kept up , the Doctrine of the Trinity would be lost ; as appears by an Epistle of his in S. Basil. Athanasius saith , That the Heresie of Sabellius lay in making the Father and Son to be only different Names of the same Person ; so that in one Respect he is the Father , and in another the Son. Gregory Nazianzen in opposition to Sabellianism , saith , We must believe one God , and three Hypostases ; and commends Athanasius for preserving the true Mean , in asserting the Vnity of Nature , and the Distinction of Properties . S. Basil saith , That the Sabellians made but one Person of the Father and Son : that in Name they confessed the Son ; but in Reality they denied him . In another place , that the Sabellians asserted but one Hypostasis in the Divine Nature ; but that God took several Persons upon him , as occasion required : sometimes that of a Father , at other times of a Son ; and so of the Holy Ghost . And to the same purpose , in other places he saith , That there are distinct Hypostases with their peculiar Properties ; which being joyned with the Vnity of Nature make up the true Confession of Faith. There were some who would have but One Hypostasis ; whom he opposes with great vehemency ; and the Reason he gives , is , That then they must make the Persons to be meer Names ; which is , Sabellianisn . And , he saith , That if our Notions of distinct Persons have no certain Foundation they are meer Names , such as Sabellius called Persons . But by this Foundation he doth not mean any distinct Essences , but the incommunicable Properties belonging to them , as Father , Son and Holy Ghost . It is plain from hence , that the necessity of asserting three Hypostases , came from thence , that otherwise they could not so well distinguish themselves from the Sabellians whose Doctrine they utterly disowned ; as well as Arianism and Iudaism ; and it appears by the Testimonies of Athanasius , Gregory Nazianzen and S. Basil , that they look'd on one as bad as the other ; and they commonly joyn Iudaism , and Sabellianism together . But yet there arose Difficulties , whether they were to hold one Hypostasis or three . The former insisted on the generally received Sense of Hypostasis for Substance or Essence ; and therefore they could not hold three Hypostases without three distinct Essences , as the Platonists and Marcionists held . Upon this a Synod was called at Alexandria to adjust this matter , where both Parties were desired to explain themselves . Those who held three Hypostases were asked , Whether they maintained three Hypostases as the Arians did , of different Substances and separate Subsistences , as Mankind and other Creatures are ? Or as other Hereticks , three Principles or three Gods ? All which they stedfastly denied . Then they were asked , Why they used those terms ? They answered , Because they believed the Holy Trinity to be more than mere Names ; and that the Father , and Son , and Holy Ghost had a real Subsistence belonging to them ; but still they held but one Godhead , one Principle , and the Son of the same Substance with the Father ; and the Holy Ghost not to be a Creature , but to bear the same proper and inseparable Essence with the Father and the Son. Then the other side were asked , When they asserted but one Hypostasis , whether they held with Sabellius or not ; and that the Son and Holy Ghost had no Essence or Subsistence ? which they utterly denied ; but said , that their meaning was , That Hypostasis was the same with Substance ; and by one Hypostasis , they intended no more , but that the Father , Son and Holy Ghost were of the same individual Substance ; ( for the Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they held but one Godhead and one divine Nature : and upon these terms they agreed . From whence it follows , that the Notion of three Hypostases , as it was received in the Christian Church , was to be under●●ood so as to be consistent with the Individual Vnity of the divine Essence . And the great rule of the Christian Church was to keep in the middle , between the Doctrines of Sabellius and Arius ; and so by degrees , the Notion of three Hypostases and one Essence was look'd on in the Eastern Church , as the most proper Discrimination of the Orthodox from the Sabellians and Arians . But the Latin Church was not so easily brought to the use of three Hypostases , because they knew no other Sense of it , but for Substance or Essence ; and they all denied that there was any more than one divine Substance , and therefore they rather embraced the Word Persona ; and did agree in the Name of Persons , as most proper to signifie their meaning , which was , That there were three which had distinct Subsistences , and incommunicable Properties , and one and the same divine Essence . And since the Notion of it is so well understood , to signifie such a peculiar Sense , I see no reason why any should scruple the use of it . As to it s not being used in Scripture , Socinus himself despises it , and allows it to be no good reason . For when Franciscus Davides objected , That the terms of Essence and Person were not in Scripture ; Socinus tells him , That they exposed their cause who went upon such grounds ; and that if the sense of them were in Scripture , it was no matter whether the terms were or not . H●ving thus clear'd the Notion of three Persons , I return to the Sense of Scripture about these matters . And our Vnitarians tell us , that we ought to interpret Scripture otherwise . How doth that appear ? They give us very little encouragement to follow their Interpretations , which are so new , so forced , so different from the general Sense of the Christian World , and which I may say , reflect so highly on the Honour of Christ and his Apostles , i. e. by making use of such Expressions , which if they do not mean , what to honest and sincere Minds they appear to do , must be intended ( according to them ) to set up Christ a meer Man to be a God. And if such a thought as this could enter into the Mind of a thinking Man , it would tempt him to suspect much more as to those Writings than there is the least colour or reason for . Therefore these bold inconsiderate Writers ought to reflect on the consequence of such sort of Arguments , and if they have any regard to Christianity , not to trifle with Scripture as they do . But say they , The question only is , Whether we ought to interpret Scripture when it speaks of God , according to reason or not , that is like Fools or like wise Men ? Like wise Men no doubt , if they can hit upon it , but they go about it as untowardly as ever Men did . For is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to take up some novel Interpretations , against the general Sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles times ? Is this to act like wise Men , to raise Objections against the Authority of the Books , they cannot answer : and to cry out of false Copies and Translations without reason , and to render all places suspicious , which make against them ? Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to make our Saviour affect to be thought a God , when he knew himself to be a mere Man , and by their own Confession had not his divine Authority and Power conferr'd upon him ? And to make his Apostles set up the Worship of a Creature , when their design was to take away the Worship of all such , who by Nature are not Gods ? Is this like wise Men , to tell the World , that these were only such Gods , whom they had set up , and God had not appointed ; as though there were no Real Idolatry but in giving Divine Worship without God's Command . CHAP. VIII . The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined . BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying ; that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools , but like Wise Men : because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us ; and therefore I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand . 1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men , to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter , and that but a short one , to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament , and according to their Sense , not one of them proves that which he aimed at ? viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels , Heb. 1.5 . as will appear by the Sense they give of them . For unto which of the Angels said he at any time , Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee ? These words , say they , in their original and primary Sense are spoken of David , but in their mystical Sense are a Prophecy concerning Christ. Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not ? If not , they are only an accommodation and no proof . But they say , even in that mystical Sense , they were intended not of the Lord Christ's supposed eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father , but of his Resurrection from the dead . But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God , how doth this prove him above Angels ? Heb. 1.6 . And again , when he bringeth his first begotten into the World , he saith , And let all the Angels of God Worship him . This , one would think home to the business . But our wise Interpreters tell us plainly , that the words were used by the Psalmist on another occasion , i. e. they are nothing to the purpose . But being told of this , instead of mending the matter , they have made it far worse ; for upon second thoughts , ( but not wiser ) they say , The words are not taken out of the Psalm , but out of Deut. 32.43 . where the words are not spoken of God , but of God's People ; and if this be said of God's People , they hope it may be said of Christ too , without concluding from thence , that Christ is the supreme God. But we must conclude from hence , that these are far from being wise Interpreters ; for what consequence is this , the Angels worship God's People , therefore Christ is superiour to Angels ? Heb. 1.8 . Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever , i. e. say they , God is thy Throne for ever . And so they relate not to Christ but to God. And to what purpose then are they brought ? Heb. 1.10 . Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth , and the Heavens are the work of thy Hands . These words , say they , are to be understood not of Christ , but of God. Which is to charge the Apostle with arguing out of the old Testament very impertinently . Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men ? Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them ? Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to give such a forced Sense of the beginning of S. John's Gospel , as was never thought of from the writing of it , till some in the last Age thought it necessary to avoid the proof of Christ's Divinity from it . For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was never taken , in the Sense they put upon it , for him that was to preach the Word , in S. Iohn's time ; but the signification of it was then well understood from the Alexandrian School ( as appears by Philo ) whence it was brought by Cerinthus into those parts of Asia , where S. Iohn lived when he wrote his Gospel : and one of themselves confesses , that Cerinthus did by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean something divine , which rested upon , and inhabited the Person of Iesus , and was that power by which God created original Matter and made the World , but as the Christ or the Word descended on Iesus at his Baptism , so it left him at his Crucifixion . That which I observe from hence is , that there was a known and current Sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the time of S. Iohn's writing his Gospel , very different from that of a Preacher of the Word of God ; and therefore I cannot but think it the wisest way of interpreting S. John , to understand him in a Sense then commonly known ; and so he affirms the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been in the beginning , i. e. before the Creation ( for he saith afterwards , All things were made by him ) and that he was with God , and was God ; and this Word did not inhabit Iesus , as Cerinthus held , but was made Flesh and dwelt among us . And so S. Iohn clearly asserted the Divinity and Incarnation of the Son of God. And in all the Disputes afterwards with Paulus Samosatenus , and Photinus , it appears , that they understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for any meer Man , but for some Divine Power , which rested upon the Person of Iesus . So that this was a very late , and I think no very Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn . And even Sandius Confesses , That Socinus his Sense was wholly new and unheard of in the ancient Church ; not only among the Fathers , but the Hereticks , as I have before observed . For they agreed ( except their good Friends the Alogi who went the surest way to work ) that by the Word no meer Man was understood . Let them produce one if they can , saith Sandius ( even the learned and judicious Sandius . ) Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools , and not like Wise Men ? But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools ; what think they of the Deists , whom they seem to have a better opinion of , as to their Wisdom ? What , if Men without Biass of Interest , or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense ? The late Archbishop to this purpose had mentioned Amelius the Platonist , as an indifferent Iudge . But what say our Wise Interpreters to this ? Truly they say , That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low , when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist of no Reputation for Learning or Wit , is made to be a good part of the Proof , which is alledged for these Doctrines . If a Man happen to stand in their way , he must be content with such a Character , as they will be pleased to give him . If he had despised S. Iohn's Gospel , and manner of expression , he had been as Wise as the Alogi ; but notwithstanding the extraordinary Character given of Friend Amelius ( as they call him ) by Eusebius , by Porphyrius , by Proclus , and by Damascenus , this very Saying of his sinks his Reputation for ever with them . What would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn ? when he cannot deny , but that he did set up the Divinity of Christ by these Expressions ; and upbraids the Christians of Alexandria , for giving Worship to Iesus as the Word and God ? With what satisfaction would he have received such a Sense of his Words ; when he Complemented Photinus for denying the Divinity of Christ ; while other Chrians asserted it ? But they do not by any means deal fairly with the late Archbishop as to the Story of Amelius ; for they bring it in , as if he had laid the weight of the Cause upon it ; whereas he only mentions it , as a Confirmation , of a probable Conjecture , That Plato had the Notion of the Word of God from the Jews ; because that was a Title which the Jews did commonly give to the Messias , as he proves from Philo , and the Chaldee Paraphrast . To which they give no manner of Answer . But they affirm in answer to my Sermon , p. 9. That Socinus his Sense was , That Christ was called the Word , because he was the Bringer or Messenger of Gods Word . But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them ? And if the Chaldee Paraphrast had used it in that Sense , he would never have applied it to a Divine Subsistance , as upon Examination it will appear that he doth . Of which Rittangel gives a very good Account , who had been a Iew , and was very well skilled in their ancient Learning . He tells us , That he had a Discourse with a learned Vnitarian upon this Subject , who was particularly acquainted with the Eastern Languages ; and he endeavoured to prove , That there was nothing in the Chaldee Paraphrasts use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because it was promiscuously used by him for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it was applied to God. This Rittangel denied ; and offer'd to prove , that the Chaldee Paraphrast did never use that Word in a common manner , but as it was appropriated to a Divine Subsistance . He produces several places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put , and nothing answering to Word in the Hebrew , as Gen. 20.21 . The Chaldee hath it , The Word of Iehovah shall be my God. Exod. 2.25 . And Iehovah said , He would redeem them by his Word , Exod. 6.8 . Your murmurings are not against us , but against the Word of Iehovah , Exod. 19.17 . And Moses brought the People out to meet the Word of Iehovah , Levit. 26.46 . These are the Statutes and Iudgments , and Laws , which Iehovah gave between his Word and the Children of Israel by the hand of Moses , Numb . 11.20 . Ye have despised the Word of Iehovah whose Divinity dwelt among you , Numb . 23.21 . The Word of Iehovah is with him , and the Divinity of their King is among them , Deut 1.30 . The Word of Iehovah shall fight for you , Deut. 2.7 . These forty years the Word of Iehovah hath been with thee , Deut. 1.32 . Ye did not believe in the Word of Iehovah your God , Deut 4.24 . Iehovah thy God , his Word is a consuming fire , Deut. 5.5 . I stood between the Word of Iehovah and you , to shew you the Word of the Lord , Deut. 32.6.8 . Iehovah thy God , his Word shall go with thee , with many other places , which he brings out of Moses his Writings ; and there are multitudes to the same purpose in the other Books of Scripture ; which shews , saith he , that this Term the Word of God , was so appointed for many Ages ; as appears by all the Chaldee Paraphrasts and the ancient Doctors of the Iews . And he shews by several places , that the Chaldee Paraphrast did not once render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there was occasion for it ; no , not when the Word of God is spoken of with respect to a Prophet ; as he proves by many Testimonies ; which are particularly enumerated by him . The result of the Conference was , that the Vnitarian had so much Ingenuity to confess , That unless those Words had another Sense , their Cause was lost ; and our Faith had a sure Foundation . But it may be objected that Morinus hath since taken a great deal of pains to prove the Chaldee Paraphrasts , not to have been of that Antiquity , which they have been supposed by the Iews to be of . In answer to this , we may say in general , that Morinus his great Proofs are against another Chaldee Paraphrast of very small Reputation , viz. of Ionathan upon the Law ; and not that of Onkelos , which Rittangel relied upon in this Matter . And none can deny this to have been very ancient ; but the Iews have so little knowledge of their own History , but what is in Scripture , that very little certainty can be had from them . But we must compare the Circumstances of things , if we would come to any resolution in this Matter . Now it is certain , that Philo the Alexandrian Iew , who lived so very near our Saviours time , had the same Notion of the Word of God , which is in the Chaldee Paraphrast : whose Testimonies have been produced by so many already , that I need not to repeat them . And Eusebius saith , The Jews and Christians had the same Opinion as to Christ , till the former fell off from it in opposition to the Christians ; and he particula●ly instances in his Divinity . But if Morinus his Opinion be embraced , as to the lateness of these Chaldee Paraphrases , this inconvenience will necessarily follow , viz. That the Iews when they had changed so much their Opinions , should insert those Passages themselves which assert the Divinity of the Word . And it can hardly enter into any mans head that considers the Humour of the Jewish Nation , to think , that after they knew what S. Iohn had written concerning the Word ; and what use the Christians made of it to prove the Divinity of Christ , they should purposely insert such passages in that Paraphrase of the Law which was in such esteem among them , that Elias Levita saith , They were under Obligation to read two Parascha●s out of it every Week , together with the Hebrew Text. Now , who can imagine that the Iews would do this upon any other account , than that it was deliver'd down to them , by so ancient a Tradition , that they durst not discontinue it . And it is observed in the place of Scripture which our Saviour read in the Synagogue , that he follow'd neither the Hebrew nor the Greek , but in probability the Chaldee Paraphrase ; and the Words he used upon the Cross , were in the Chaldee Dialect . The later Iews have argued against the Trinity , and the Divinity of Christ like any Vnitarians , as appears by the Collection out of Ioseph Albo , David Kimchi , &c. published by Genebrard , with his Answers to them . And is it any ways likely , that those who were so much set against these Doctrines , should themselves put in such Expressions , which justifie what the Evangelist saith about the VVord , being in the Beginning , being with God , and being God ? The Substance of what I have said , as to S. Iohn's Notion of the Word is this ; That there is no colour for the Sense which Socinus hath put upon it ; either from the use of it among other Authors , or any Interpretation among the Jews . But that there was in his time a current sense of it , which from the Jews of Alexandria , was dispersed by Cerinthus in those parts where he lived . That for such a Notion there was a very ancient Tradition among the Jews , which appears in the most ancient Paraphrase of the Law , which is read in their Synagogues . And therefore according to all reasonable ways of interpreting Scripture , the Word cannot be understood in S. Iohn , for one whose Office it was to preach the Word , but for that Word which was with God before any thing was made , and by whom all things were made . 3. Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men , to give a new Sense of several Places of Scripture from a matter of Fact of which there is no proof , the better to avoid the proof of the Divinity of the Son of God ? This relates to the same beginning of S. Iohn's Gospel , the Word was with God ; and several other places , making mention of his descent from Heaven . The Sense which these wise Interpreters put upon them is , that Christ was rapt up into Heaven , before he entred upon his Preaching . But where is this said ? What Proof , what Evidence , what credible Witnesses of it , as there were of his Transfiguration , Resurrection and Ascension ? Nothing like any Proof is offer'd for it ; but it is a wise Way they think of avoiding a pressing difficulty . But they have a farther reach in it , viz. to shew how Christ , being a mere Man , should be qualified for so great an undertaking as the founding the Christian Church ; and therefore they say , That before our Lord entred upon his Office of the Messias ▪ he was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God ( as Moses was into the Mount , Exod. 24.1 , 2 , 12. ) and from thence descended to execute his Office , and declare the said Will of God. In another place , That when it is said , the Word was with God ; that is , the Lord Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in all points relating to his Ambassage or Ministry . In a third , they say , That our Saviour before he entred upon his Ministry , ascended into Heaven , as Moses did into the Mount , to be instructed in all things belonging to the Gospel Doctrine and Polity which he was to establish and administer . Now considering what sort of Person they make Christ to have been , viz. a mere Man ; this was not ill thought of by them ; to suppose him taken up into Heaven and there instructed in what he was to teach and to do , as Moses was into the Mount before he gave the Law. But here lies a mighty difference ; when Moses was called up into the Mount , the People had publick notice given of it ; and he took Aaron and his Sons , and Seventy Elders of Israel with him ; who saw the Glory of God , v. 10. And all Israel beheld the Glory of the Lord as a devouring Fire on the Top of the Mount , v. 17. and after the 40 days were over , it is said , That Moses came down from the Mount , and the Children of Israel saw him with his Face shining , Exod. 34.40 . Now if Christ were taken up into Heaven , as Moses was into the Mount , why was it not made publick at that time ? why no Witnesses ? why no Appearance of the Glory to satisfie Mankind of the truth of it ? And yet we find , that when he was transfigured on the holy Mount , he took Peter , and James , and John with him ; which circumstance is carefully mention'd by the Evangelists . And Peter , who was one of the Witnesses then present , lays great weight upon this being done in the presence of Witnesses . For we have not follow'd cunningly devised Fables , when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Iesus Christ , but were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty . For he received from God the Father , Honour and Glory , when there came such a voice to him from the excellent Glory — . And this voice which came from Heaven we heard , when we were with him in the holy Mount. Now let any one compare this with the account which they give of Christ's Ascension into Heaven . The Transfiguration was intended only for a particular Testimony of God's Favour , before his suffering ; but even in that , he took care there should be very credible Witnesses of it . And is it then possible to believe , there should be such an Ascension of Christ into Heaven , for no less a purpose , than to be instructed in his Ambassage , and to understand the Mind and Will of God as to his Office ; and yet not one of the Evangelists give any account of the circumstances of it ? They are very particular , as to his Birth , Fasting , Baptism , Preaching , Miracles , Sufferings , Resurrection and Ascension ; but not one Word among them all as to the circumstances of this being taken up into Heaven for so great a purpose ? If it were necessary to be believed , why is it not more plainly revealed ? Why not the time and place mention'd in Scripture , as well as of his Fasting and Temptation ? Who can imagine it consistent with that Sincerity and Faithfulness of the Writers of the New Testament , to conceal so material a part of Christ's Instructions and Qualifications ; and to wrap it up in such doubtfull Expressions , that none ever found out this meaning till the days of Socinus ? Enjedinus mentions it only as a possible Sense ; b●t he confesses , That the New Testament saith nothing at all of it ; but , saith he , neither doth it mention other things before he entred upon his Office. But this is a very weak Evasion , for this was of greatest importance with respect to his Office , more than his Baptism , Fasting and Temptation ; yet these are very fully set down . And after all , our Vnitarians themselves seem to mistrust their own Interpretations ; for in their answer to my Sermon , they say , it is not the Doctrine of all the Unitarians , and refer me to another account given of these Texts in the History of the Unitarians . There indeed I find Grotius his Interpretation ( as they call it ) prefer●d before that of Socinus . But they say , Grotius was Socinian all over , and that his Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism ; and his Notes on the first of S. John are written artificially , but the Sense at the bottom is theirs . In short , That the Word , according to Grotius , is not an eternal Son of God , but the Power a●d Wisdom of God ; which abiding without measure on the Lord Christ , is therefore spoken of as a Person and as one with Christ , and he with that . And this Notion of the Word leads a man through all the difficulties of this Chapter , with far more ease than any hitherto offer'd . But these wise Interpreters have as much misinterpreted Grotius , as they have done the Scriptures , as I shall make it appear . ( 1. ) Grotius on Iohn 6.62 . interprets Christ's Ascension into Heaven , of his corporal Ascent thither after his Resurrection , where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was before , of whom it is said , That the Word was with God. But how comes Christ to assume that to himself which belong'd to the Word ? He answers , Why not , since we call Body and Soul by the Name of the Man ? But if no more were meant by the Word , but a divine Attribute of Wisdom and Power , what colour could there be for the Son of Man taking that to himself , which belonged to an Attribute of God ? What strange way of arguing would this have been ? What , and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before ? For according to this Sense , how comes a divine Attribute to be called the Son of Man ? How could the Son of Man be said to ascend thither , where a divine Attribute was before ? The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , must relate to him spoken of before ; and how could the Power and Wisdom of God be ever said to be the Son of Man ? But if we suppose a personal Union of the Word with the human Nature in Christ , then we have a very reasonable Sense of the Words ; for then no more is imply'd , but that Christ , as consisting of both Natures , should ascend thither , where the Word was before ; when it is said , that the Word was with God ; and so Grotius understands it . ( 2. ) Grotius doth not make the Word in the beginning of S. John 's Gospel to be a mere Attribute of Wisdom and Power , but the eternal Son of God. This I shall prove from his own Words . 1. He asserts in his Preface to S. Iohn's Gospel , that the chief cause of his writing was universally agreed to have been to prevent the spreading of that Venom which had been then dispersed in the Church ; which he understands of the Heresies about Christ and the Word . Now among these , the Heresie of Cerinthus was this very opinion which they fasten upon Grotius ; viz. that the Word was the divine Wisdom and Power inhabiting in the Person of Iesus , as I have shew'd before from themselves . And besides , Grotius saith , That the other Evangelists had only intimated the divine Nature of Christ from his miraculous Conception , Miracles , knowing Mens Hearts , perpetual Presence , promise of the Spirit , remission of Sins , &c. But S. John , as the time required , attributed the Name and Power of God to him from the beginning . So that by the Name and Power of God , he means the same which he called the divine Nature before . 2. He saith , that when it is said , The Word was with God ; it ought to be understood as Ignatius explains it , with the Father ; what can this mean , unless he understood the Word to be the eternal Son of God ? And he quotes Tertullian , saying , that he is the Son of God , and God ex unitate Substantiae ; and that there was a Prolation of the Word without Separation . Now what Prolation can there be of a meer Attribute ? How can that be said to be the Son of God begotten of the Father , without Division , before all Worlds , as he quotes it from Iustin Martyr ? And that he is the Word , and God of God , from Theophilus Antiochenus ? And in the next Verse , when it is said , The same was in the beginning with God ; it is repeated on purpose , saith he , That we might consider , that God is so to be understood , that a Distinction is to be made between God , with whom he was , and the Word who was with God ; so that the Word doth not comprehend all that is God. But our Wise Interpreters put a ridiculous Sense upon it ; as though all that Grotius meant was , That Gods Attributes are the same with himself ( which although true in it self , is very impertinent to Grotius his purpose ) and that the Reason why he saith , That the Word is not all that God is , was , because there were other Attributes of God besides . But where doth Grotius say any thing like this ? Is this Wise interpreting ? or honest and fair dealing ? For Grotius immediately takes notice from thence of the Difference of Hypostases ; which he saith was taken from the Platonists , but with a change of the Sense . 3. When it is said , v. 3. That all things were made by him ; Grotius understands it of the old Creation , and of the Son of God. For , he quotes a passage of Barnabas , where he saith , The Sun is the Work of his hands ; and several passages of the Fathers to prove , That the World and all things in it were created by him ; and he adds , That nothing but God himself is excepted . What say our Wise Interpreters to all this ? Nothing at all to the purpose ; but they cite the English Geneva Translation ( when they pretend to give Grotius his Sense ) and add , That the Word now begins to be spoken of as a Person by the same Figure of Speech , that Solomon saith , Wisdom hath builded her house , &c. Doth Grotius say any thing like this ? And yet they say , Let us hear Grotius interpreting this sublime Proeme of S. John 's Gospel . But they leave out what he saith , and put in what he doth not say ; is not this interpreting like Wise men ? 4. The VVord was made flesh , v. 14. i. e. say the Vnitarians as from Grotius ; It did abode on , and inhabit a humane Person , the Person of Iesus Christ ; and so was in appearance made flesh or man. But what saith Grotius himself ? The Word that he might bring us to God , shew'd himself in the Weakness of humane Nature ; and he quotes the words of S. Paul for it , 1 Tim. 3.16 . God was manifest in the flesh : and then produces several Passages of the Fathers to the same purpose . Is not this a rare Specimen of Wise interpreting , and Fair dealing with so considerable a Person , and so well known , as Grotius ? Who , after all , in a Letter to his intimate Friend Ger. I. Vossius , declares that he owned the Doctrine of the Trinity ; both in his Poems and his Catechism ; after his reviewing them ; which Epistle is Printed before the last Edition of his Book about Christ's Satisfaction ; as an account to the World of his Faith as to the Trinity . And in the last Edition of his Poems , but little before his Death , he gives a very different Account of the Son of God from what these Vnitarians fasten upon him . And now let the World judge , how wisely they have interpreted both S. Iohn , and his Commentator Grotius ? IV. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men , to make our Saviour's meaning to be expressly contrary to his Words ? For when he said : Before Abraham was , I am ; they make the Sense to be that really he was not , but only in Gods Decree , as any other man may be said to be . This place the late Archbishop ( who was very far from being a Socinian , however his Memory hath been very unworthily reproached in that , as well as other Respects , since his Death ) urged against the Socinians , saying , That the obvious Sense of the Words is , that he had a real Existence , before Abraham was actually in Being , and that their Interpretation about the Decree is so very flat , that he can hardly abstain from saying it is ridiculous And the wise Answer they give is , That the words cannot be true in any other Sense , being spoken of one who was a Son , and Descendant of Abraham . Which is as ridiculous as the Interpretation ; for it is to take it for granted , he was no more than a Son of Abraham . V. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men , to say , that when our Saviour said in his Conference with the Iews , I am the Son of God , his chief meaning was , That he was the Son of God in such a Sense , as all the faithful are called Gods Children ? Is not this doing great Honour to our Saviour ? Especially when they say , That he never said of himself any higher thing than this , which is true of every good man , I am the Son of God. And yet the Iews accused him of Blasphemy , for making himself the Son of God ; and the High Priest adjured him to tell , Whether he were the Christ the Son of God. Did they mean no more , but as any Good man is ? But Mr. Selden saith , that by the Son of God the Jews meant , the Word of God ( as he is called in the Chaldee Para●hrast ) which was all one , as to profess himself God : And our learned Dr. Pocock saith , that according to the Sense of the ancient Iews , the Son of God spoken of , Psal. 2. was the eternal Son of God , of the same Substance with the Father . And by this we may understand S. Peter's Confession , Thou art the Christ , the Son of the living God ; and Nathanael's , Thou art the Son of God. But it is plain the Iews in the Conference thought he made himself God , by saying , I and my Father are One. Not one God , say our Wise Interpreters , but as Friends are said to be One. And what must they think of our Saviour the mean time , who knew the Iews understood him quite otherwise , and would not undeceive them ? But they say , The Jews put a malicious Construction upon his Words . How doth that appear ? Do they think the Iews had not heard what passed before in some former Conferences , when they thought he had made himself equal with God ; and that he said , That all men should honour the Son , even as they honoured the Father ? These Sayings no doubt stuck with them ; and therefore from them , they had Reason to think that he meant something extraordinary , by his saying , I and my Father are One. And if they were so Wise in interpreting Scripture , as they pretend , they would have considered , that if these things did not imply his being really the Son of God , according to the old Jewish Notion , he would have severely checked any such Mis-constructions of his meaning , and have plainly told them , he was but the Son of Man But S. Paul's Character of him doth plainly shew , that he was far from any thing like Vanity or Ostentation , Although he was in the form of God , and thought it no Robbery to be equal with God ; which must imply that he was very far from assuming any thing to himself ; which he must do in a very high measure , if he were not really the Son of God , so as to be equal with God. The meaning whereof , say our Wise Interpreters , is , he did not rob God of his Honour by arrogating to himself to be God , or equal with God. But what then do they think of these passages in his Conferences with the Iews ? Was he not bound to undeceive them , when he knew they did so grossly mis-understand him , if he knew himself to be a meer Man at the same time ? This can never go down with me , for they must either Charge him with affecting Divine Honour , which is the highest Degree of Pride and Vanity , or they must own him to be , as he was , The eternal Son of God. VI. Is this interpreting Scripture like Wise men , to deny Divine Worship to be given to our Saviour when the Scripture so plainly requires it ? When I had urged them in my Sermon with the Argument from Divine Worship being given to Christ ; they do utterly deny it , and say , I may as well charge them with the blackest Crimes . This I was not a little surprized at , knowing how warmly Socinus had disputed for it . But that I might not misunderstand them , I look'd into other places in their late Books , and from them I gather these things . 1. They make no Question but some Worship is due to the Lord Christ , but the Question is concerning the kind or sort of Worship . 2. They distinguish three sorts of Worship . 1. Civil Worship from Men to one another . 2. Religious Worship given on the account of a Persons Holiness , or Relation to God ; which is more or less , according to their Sanctity or nearer Relation to God 3. Divine Worship which belongs only to God ; which consists in a Resignation of our Vnderstandings , Wills and Affections , and some peculiar Acts of Reverence and Love towards him . The two former may be given to Christ , they say , but not the last . From whence it follows , that they cannot according to their own Principles , resign their Vnderstandings , Wills , and Affections to Christ ; because this is proper Divine Worship . Are not these very good Christians the mean while ? How can they believe sincerely , and heartily what he hath revealed , unless they resign their Vnderstandings to him ; How can they Love and Esteem him , and place their Happiness in him , if they cannot resign their Wills and Affections to him ? I think never any who pretended to be Christians , durst venture to say such things before and all for fear they should be thought to give Divine Worship to Christ. But they confess , That they are divided among themselves about the Invocation of Christ. Those who are for it , say , That he may be the object of Prayer , without making him God , or a Person of God , and without ascribing to him the Properties of the Divine Nature , Omnipresence , Omniscience , or Omnipotence . Those who deny it , they say , do only refuse it , because they suppose he hath forbidden it , which makes it a meer Error . And in the New Testament , they say , The Charge is frequently renewed , that they are to Worship God only . And as great Writers as they have been these last seven years , they affirm that , They have wrote no Book in that time in which they have not been careful to profess to all the World , that a like Honour or VVorship ( much less the same ) is not to be given to Christ as to God. And now I hope we understand their opinion right as to this matter . The question is , Whether this be interpreting those Scriptures which speak of the Honour and Worship due to Christ , like wise Men ? And for that I shall consider , 1. That herein they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his Followers , as to the Sense of Scripture in those places . 2. That they have done it in such a way , as will justifie the Pagan and Popish Idolatry ; and therefore have not interpreted Scripture like wise Men. 1. That they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his followers , who did allow divine Worship to Christ. This appears by the disputes he had with Franciscus Davidis and Christianus Francken about it . The former was about the Sense of Scripture . Socinus produced all those places which mention the Invocation of Christ , and all those wherein S. Paul saith , The Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all ; and the Lord Iesus Christ direct our way , &c. and all those wherein a divine Power and Authority is given to Christ as head of the Church , for the support of the Faith and Hope of all those who believe in him in order to Salvation . And this Socinus truly judged to be proper divine Worship . Georg. Blandrata was unsatisfied , that Socinus did not say enough to prove the necessity of the Invocation of Christ , which he said he could do from his Priesthood and his Power , from the Examples of the Apostles , and the very Nature of Adoration . And Blandrata was a Man of great authority among the Vnitarians ; and he thought Socinus ought to assert the necessity of it ; or else he would do injury both to Christ and to his Cause . In the dispute with Francken , Socinus went upon this ground , that divine Authority was a sufficient ground for divine Worship , although there were not those essential Attributes of Omnisciency and Omnipotency . But I observe , that Socinus did not look on this as a matter of Liberty , as our Vnitarians now seem to do ; for in the Preface to the former Dispute , he calls the Error of denying the Invocation of Christ , not , as they now do , a simple Error or a mere mistake ; but a most filthy and pernicious Error , an Error that leads to Iudaism , and is in effect the denying of Christ ; and in the latter Dispute he saith , That it tends to Epicurism and Atheism . And Smalcius saith , That they are no Christians who refuse giving divine Worship to Christ. 2. Is it like wise Men , to go upon such grounds as will justifie both Pagan and Popish Idolatry ? This they have been charged with , and we shall see what wise Men they are , by the Defences they make for themselves . 1. As to Pagan Idolatry , they say , 1. They had no divine command for such a Worship . This was well thought of , when they confess , that some among themselves deny that there is any command for invocating Christ , and therefore they must charge all those who do it with Idolatry . But this is no very wise Notion of Idolatry , which depends upon the Nature of the Worship , and not the meer positive Will of God. 2. They set up the Creatures more than the Creator , as S. Paul saith . S. Paul doth not think them such Fools , that they took the Creatures to be above the Creator , which was impossible , while they owned one to be the Creator and the other the Creatures ; but that they g●ve such acts of Worship to them , as belonged only to the Creator , and exceeded in the Worship of them those bounds which ought to be between them . 3. They set up an infinite Number of Gods who had been mere Men. This is , as if the question were only , whether one , or a great many were to have such Worship given them : as if it were a dispute about a Monarchy or a Common-wealth of Gods. But if it be lawfull to give divine Worship to one Creature , it is to a hundred . 4. Their Worship was terminated on them , and so they made true Gods of Men. Suppose they asserted one supreme God , and made the rest subordinate to him , and appointed by him to be the immediate Directors of humane Affairs . I desire to know , Whether the Adoration of such were Idolatry or not ? If it were , they cannot be excused who give Adoration to Christ , while they esteem him a mere Creature ; if not , all the wiser Pagans must be excused . 2. As to the Papists , the difference they make , is not like wise Interpreters of Scripture ; for they say , 1. They have no Text of Scripture , which commands them to worship S. Peter , S. Paul and S. Francis. So some among them say , there is none for the Invocation of Christ , and with them the case is Parallel . But if Socinus his Principle be true , that communicated Excellency is a sufficient Foundation for Worship , because it is relative to the Giver , then the Papists must be justified in all their relative Acts of Worship without any Text to command it . 2. They exceed the Bounds of Honour and Respect due to glorified Saints . But who is to set these Bounds but themselves in all Acts of relative Worship , because they depend upon the intention of the Persons ? And they hold the very same things concerning communicated Knowledge and Power from God , which our Vnitarians make use of to justifie their Notion of the Invocation of Christ. VII . Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men , to turn S. Paul's words , Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came , who is over all , God blessed for ever , into a Thanksgiving to God for the Exaltation of Christ , i. e. God who is over all be blessed for ever . But what reason do they give for such a forced and unusual Sense , besides the avoiding the difficulty of having the Name of God given here to Christ ? A very substantial one . If the words had been intended of Christ , it would have been in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which they have taken up from Erasmus and Curcellaeus . But Beza , who understood Greek as well as either , ( and Curcellaeus owned him for his Master in that Tongue ) saith , He could not sufficiently wonder at this Criticism of Erasmus , and thinks it a violent and far-fetched Interpretation , and not agreeable to the Greek Idiom , and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And which may signifie more to our Vnitarians , one of the learnedst Men they have had among them , utterly disowns this Interpretation , and saith , That the whole Verse belongs to Christ. But if that will not do , they have another fetch in the case , viz. That it is very probable that the word God was not originally in the Text. How doth this appear to be very probable ? Of that , we have this account : Grotius observes , that the Greek Copies , used by the Author of the Syriac , had not the word God , and that Erasmus had noted , that the Copies of S. Cyprian , S. Hilary and S. Chrysostom had only blessed over all , or above all , without the word God ; upon which he charges his Adversary with no less than Impiety in concealing this ; and calls it , cheating his Reader . But how if all this prove a gross Mistake in him ; unless it be only , that Grotius and Erasmus come in for their shares . It 's true , that Grotius saith , That the word God was left out in the Syriac Version . But F. Simon , whose authority they sometimes magnifie as to critical Learning , saith plainly , That Grotius was mistaken , and that the word God is in all the old Copies , and in all the old Versions . And upon his bringing Erasmus to prove that it was not in S. Cyprian , S. Hilary , and S. Chrysostome , he cries out , Where is Sincerity ? Erasmus had met with one faulty Edition which had it not , but he saith , all the rest of the MSS. have it . And the learned Oxford Annotators , both on S. Cyprian , and the Greek Testament compar'd with MSS. ( which excellent Work we hope will shortly appear more publickly ) declare , that they found it in all the MSS. they could meet with ; and even Erasmus himself saith , That the Omission in S. Hilary might be only by the negligence of the Transcribers ; and so it appears by the late Edition out of the best MSS. where the words are , Ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus . And for S. Chrysostom , all that is said , is , That it doth not appear that he read it , but he thinks it might be added afterwards . But what a sort of proof is this against the general consent of MSS. for S. Chrysostom doth not say he thought so . Erasmus very plainly saith , that it is clearer than the Sun , that Christ is called God in other places of Scripture ; but Grotius can by no means be excused , nor those that rely upon him as to this place . VIII . Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men , to take advantage of all Omissions in Copies , when those which are entire ought to be preferr'd ? This I mention for the sake of another noted place , 1 Tim. 3.16 . God was manifest in the Flesh. Here our wise Interpreters triumph unreasonably ; viz For , they say , it appears by the Syriac , Latin , Aethiopick , Armenian , Arabick , and most ancient Greek Bibles , that the word God was not originally in this Text but added to it . But the Arabick in all the Polyglotts hath God in ; the Syriac and Aethiopick , if we believe their Versions , read it in the Masculine Gender , and therefore in the King of Spain's Bible , Guido Fabricius Boderianus puts in Deus . As to the Armenian , I have nothing to say , but what F. Simon tells us from Vscan an Armenian Bishop ; that there was great variety in their Copies , and that their first Translation was out of Syriac and not out of Greek . And the main point is , as to the old Greek Copies ; and we are assured , that there is but One , viz. the Clermont Copy which leaves out God , but that it is in the Alexandrian , the Vatican and all others ; and Curcellaeus mentions no more than the Clermont Copy . It is therefore necessary to Examine in this place , the Authority of this Clermont Copy , ( as it is called ) whose reading is set up against all other ancient Greek Copies . Beza affirms it with great Confidence , That all the Greek Copies have God with one Consent . But how comes he to take no notice of this Difference of the Clermont Copy ? For that he had a sight of that part of it , which hath the Epistles of S. Paul , appears by his Notes in which he refers to it . For he mentions it three times in his Notes on Rom. 1. v. 13.29.32 . and in one he calls it a very ancient Manuscript written in large Letters . What should make Beza pass it over here ? It seems by Morinus that in the Clermont Copy , there was a Correction made by another hand ; which is put into the various Lections of the Polyglott in Morinus his Words . But how doth it appear , that Beza's Clermont Copy was the very same which Morinus had ? Morinus saith , he had it from the F. F. Puteani ; ( and is the same I suppose with that in the King of France's Library ; of which they were then the Keepers ) But Morinus intimates that it was an old Copy , which fell into their hands ; and so might come into the French King's Library , when they gave their own Manuscripts to it . This seems to have been the same which P. Pithaeus speaks of ; for the Description exactly agrees with it ; but Pithaeus , who was a Person of great Integrity and Learning , affirms , That this Volume of the Epistles in great Letters came out of the Monastery of Corbey ; and so it could not be the Clermont Copy which Beza had . And I shall make it appear from the very places mention'd by Morinus , that Beza's Copy did differ from that which Morinus perused , as Rom. 4.9 . Morinus his Copy had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Beza takes notice of it only in the vulgar Latin ; which he would never have done , if it had been in the Clermont Copy , Rom 5.6 . For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Morinus reads in that Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and saith it is the true reading : but Beza condemns it , and never intimates that his Copy had it , Rom. 7.25 . Morinus saith , the reading of his Copy is the true , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : Beza saith , It is against all the Greek Copies but one , and that hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; whether Beza were mistaken as to other Copies is not our business to enquire ; but if the reading had been in his Copy as Morinus found it ; he could never have said , that but one Copy had that different reading . Rom. 8.13 , Morinus his Copy had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Beza takes no notice of any difference . Rom. 10.8 , Morinus reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Beza saith , It is not in the Greek Copies ; and he had then the Clermont by him : but it is both in that of the French King's Library , and of S. Germain's ; which agree with each other , where Beza's Copy differs ; and Beza upon Rom. 7.6 . and 11.6 observes , that his Clermont Copy differs from the rest ; by which we see how careful he was to observe the variuos Readings in it ; and so upon Rom. 15.24 , 33 , 16 , 27. Rom. 14.6 . Beza observes , That the vulgar Latine leaves out part of the Verse , but that it is found in all the Greek Copies ; here Morinus charges Beza with Negligence , or Dis-ingenuity ; because it was left out in the Clermont Copy ; but how doth he prove he had the same Copy ? He saith indeed , That the ancient Copy , which he had was lent to Beza ; but he tells not by whom , nor in whose Possession it was afterwards . But if Beza were a man of any ordinary Care or Honesty , he would never have concealed those things , which Morinus found in it . 1 Cor. 6.20 , Beza saith , That those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are in all the Greek Copies ; Morinus saith , That they were wanting in that which he made use of . It 's true , they are wanting in the Alexandrian , and some others ; but in none that Beza had the sight of ▪ if he may be believed . These are sufficient to shew , that there is no good Proof , that the ●opy which Beza had was the same which Morinus borrow'd ; and therefore his Authority is not to be slighted in this matter , when he affirms , that all the Greek Copies agreed in reading God manifest in the flesh ; and I cannot imagine Beza so intolerably careless as he must have been , if Morinus his Copy and Beza's were the same . But whether it were in Beza's Copy or not , it 's certain , they say , That it is not in that ancient Manuscript , which is called the Clermont Copy ; which is affirmed by Morinus , and taken for granted by others , therefore we must enquire a little farther into the Authority of this ancient Copy . It appears by those who have view'd and considered them , that there are two very ancient Copies of S. Paul's Epistles , so exactly agreeing , that one is supposed to be the Transcript of the other ; one is in the King's Library , the other in the Monastery of S. Germains . Which Mabillon saith is a Thousand years old . These two Copies are in effect but one , agreeing so much where they differ from others ; and having the old Latin Version opposite to the Greek . Monsieur Arnauld had so bad an Opinion of both parts of this Clermont Copy , ( as it is called ) that he charges it with manifest Forgery , and Imposture ; inserting things into the Text without ground . F. Simon who defends them cannot deny several things to be inserted , but he saith , it was through Carelessness and not Design . But he Confesses , That those who transcribed both those ancient Copies of S. Paul 's Epistles did not understand Greek , and hardly Latin . And now let us consider , of what just Authority this different reading of the Clermont Copy ought to be against the Consent of all other ancient Copies . We find some good Rules laid down by the Roman Criticks , when they had a Design under Vrban 8th . to compare the Greek Text of the New Testament , with their ancient Manuscripts in the Vatican , and elewhere , and to publish an exact Edition of it ( which Collation was preserved in the Barberin Library , and from thence published by Pet. Possinus . ) And the main Rules as to the various Lections of Manuscripts were these , 1. That the Text was not to be alter'd but a Concurrence of all , or the greatest part of the Manuscripts . 2. That if one Manuscript agreed with the vulgar Latin , the Text was not to be alter'd , but the Difference to be set down at the end of the Chapter . But it is observable in that Collation of Twenty two Manuscripts , there is no one Copy produced , wherein there is any Variety as to this place . I know they had not Twenty two Manuscripts of S. Paul's Epistles , ( they mention but Eight ancient Manuscripts ) but they found no difference in those they had . And now I leave any reasonable man to judge , whether this Clermont Copy ought to be relied upon in this matter . But I have something more to say about the Greek Copies . 1. That God is in the Complutensian Polyglott , which was the first of the Kind , and carried on by the wonderful Care and Expence of that truly grea● Man Cardinal Ximenes , who spared for no Cost or Pains in procuring the best ancient Copies both Hebrew and Greek ; and the fittest men to judge of both Languages . And in pursuit of this noble Design , he had the best Vatican Manuscripts sent to him ( as is expressed in the Epistle before his Greek Testament , ) and what others he could get out of other places , among which he had the Codex Britannicus mention'd by Erasmus . But after all these Copies made use of by the Editors , there is no Intimation of any variety as to this Place ; although the vulgar Latin be there as it was . But Erasmus mentions the great Consent of the old Copies as to the vulgar Latin , and whence should that come , but from a Variety in the old Greek Copies . To that I Answer , 2. That the Greek Copies , where they were best understood had no Variety in them ; i. e. among the Greeks themselves . As appears by Gregory Nyssen , S. Chrysostom , Theodoret , Oecumenius and Theophylact. But doth not Monsieur Amelote say , That the Marquiss of Velez had Sixteen old Manuscripts , out of which he gathered various Readings , and he reads it O! I cannot but observe , how he commends Fabricius and Walton , for rendring the Syriac Version according to the vulgar Latin ; but that will appear to be false , to any one that looks into them ; the former is mentioned already ; and the latter translates it , Quod manifestatus sit in carne . But as to the Marquiss of Velez his Copies , there is a Secret in it , which ought to be understood , and is discover'd by Mariana . He Confesses , He had so may Manuscripts , eight of them out of the Escurial , but that he never set down whence he had his Readings . And in another place , he ingenuously confesses , That his Design was to justifie the vulgar Latin ; and therefore collected Readings on purpose , and he suspects some , out of such Greek Copies , as after the Council of Florence were made comfortable to the Latin . Which Readings were published by la Cerda , whose Authority Amelote follows . And now what Reason can there be , that any such late Copies should be prefer'd before those which were used by the Greek Fathers ? 3. That the Latin Fathers did not concern themselves about changing their Version , because they understood it still to relate to the Person of Christ. So do S. Ierom , Leo , Hilary , Fulgentius , and others . As to the Objections about Liberatus , Macedonius and Hincmarus , I refer them to the Learned Oxford Annotations . IX . It is not wisely done of these Interpreters , to charge our Church so much for retaining a Verse in S. Iohn's first Epistle , when they had so good authority to do it ? The Verse is , There are three that bear Record in Heaven , the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , &c. From hence they charge us with corrupted Copies and false Translations ; as an instance of the former , they produce this Text , which they say , was not originally in the Bible , but is added to it , and is not found in the most ancient Copies of the Greek , nor in the Syriac , Arabick , Ethiopick , or Armenian Bibles , nor in the most ancient Latin Bibles . Notwithstanding all which , I hope to be able to shew , that our Church had reason to retain it . For which end we are to consider these things ; 1. That Erasmus first began to raise any scruple about it . For , however it might not be in some MSS. which were not look'd into , this Verse was constantly and solemnly read as a part of Scripture both in the Greek and Latin Churches , as Mr. Selden confesses , and that it was in Wickliff's Bible . So that here was a general consent of the Eastern and Western Churches for the receiving it ; and although there might be a variety in the Copies , yet there was none in the publick Service , and no Objections against it that we find . But Erasmus his authority sway'd so much here , that in the Bibles in the time of H. 8. and E. 6. it was retained in a different Letter . As in Tyndell's Bible printed by the King's Printer , A. D. 1540. and in the Church Bible of King E. 6. in both which they are read , but not in the same Character . Yet Erasmus his authority was not great enough to cast it out , if he had a mind to have done it . Which doth not appear , for he saith himself , that finding it in the codex Britannicus , as he calls it , he restored it in his Translation as well as the Greek Testament , out of which he had expunged it befo●e in two Editions . And the Complutensian Bible coming out with it , added greater authority to the keeping of it in , and so it was preserved in the Greek Testaments of Hervagius , Plautin and R. Stephens and others , after the MSS. had been more diligently searched . Morinus saith , it was in seven of Rob. Stephens his MSS. but F. Simon will not allow that it was in any but the Complutensian , which is a strange piece of boldness in him . For Beza saith , He had the use of them all from him ; and H. Stephens let him have his Father's Copy compared with 25 MSS. and he affirms , That he found it in several of R. Stephens his old MSS. besides the Codex Britannicus and the Complutensian Copy , and therefore he concludes , that it ought to be retained . ( And so it was , after these Copies were come abroad in the Bishop's Bible , under Queen Elizabeth , without any distinction of character , as likewise in our last Translation . ) And it is observable , that Amelote affirms , that he found it in the most ancient Greek Copy in the Vatican Library ; but the Roman Criticks confess , it was not in their 8 MSS. yet they thought it fit to be retained from the common Greek Copies , and the Testimonies of the Fathers agreeing with the Vulgar Latin. 2. This Verse was in the Copies of the African Churches from S. Cyprian's time , as appears by the Testimonies of S. Cyprian , Fulgentius , Facundus , Victor Vitensis , and Vigilius Tapsensis , which are produced by others . F. Simon hath a bold conjecture , of which he is not sparing , that Victor Vitensis is the first who produced it as S. John 's saying ; and that it was S. Cyprian 's own Assertion and not made use of by him as a Testimony of Scripture . But they who can say such things as these , are not much to be trusted . For S. Cyprian's words are , speaking of S. Iohn before , Et iterum de Patre & Filio scriptum est , & hi tres unum sunt . And it was not Victor Vitensis , but the African Bishops and Eugenius in the head of them , who made that address to Huneric , wherein they say , That it is clearer than Light , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are one God , and prove it by the Testimony of S. John. Tres sunt qui Testimonium perhibent in caelo , Pater , Verbum & Spiritus Sanctus , & hi Tres unum sunt . 3. In the former Testimony , the authority of the Vulgar Latin was made use of : and why , is it rejected here ? When Morinus confesses there is no variety in the Copies of it . Vulgata versio hunc versum constanter habet . And he observes , that those of the Fathers , who seem to omit it ( as S. Augustin against Maximinus ) did not follow the old Latin Version . Lucas Brugensis , saith only , That in 35 old Copies , they found it wanting but in five . As to S. Ierom's Prologue , I am not concerned to defend it ; but Erasmus thought it had too much of S. Jerom in it , and others think it hath too little . F. Simon confesses , that P. Pithaeus and Mabillon think it was S. Ierom's , and that it was in the MSS. But I conclude with saying , That whoever was the Author , at the time when it was written , the Greek Copies had this Verse , or else he was a notorious Impostor . X. The next thing I shall ask these wise Interpreters of Scripture , is , Whether , when the Scripture so often affirms , That the World was made by the Son , and that all things were created by him in Heaven and in Earth , it be reasonable to understand them of Creating nothing ? For after all their Shifts and Evasions it comes to nothing at last . But that we may see , how much they are confounded with these places , we may observe , 1. They sometimes say , that where the Creation of all things is spoken of , it is not meant of Christ but of God. For in the answer they give to the place of the Epistle to the Colossians , they have these words : For by him all things were created , are not spoken of Christ , but of God : the sense of the whole Context is this , The Lord Christ is the most perfect Image of the invisible God , the first born from the dead of every Creature ; for , O Colossians , by him , even by the invisible God were all things created ; they were not from all eternity , nor rose from the concourse of Atoms , but all of them , whether things in Heaven , or things in Earth ; whether Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers , are Creatures , and were by God created , who is before them all , and by him they all consist . This is a very fair Concession , that of whomsoever these words are spoken he must be God. 2. But in the defence of this very Book they go about to prove , That the Creation of the World is not meant by these words . Is not this interpreting like wise Men indeed ? And they tell us , They cannot but wonder , that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ. Wise Men do not use to wonder at plain things . For what is the old or first Creation , but the making the World , and creating all things in Heaven and Earth ? And these things are attribu●ed to the Word , to the Son to Christ. But say they , The Scripture does never say in express words ▪ that Christ hath created the Heaven and the Earth . What would these wise Interpreters have ? Doth not by whom all things were created in Heaven and Earth imply , that Heaven and Earth were created by him ? But they have a notable observation from the Language of the New Testament , viz That Christ is never said to have created the Heaven , the Earth , and the Sea , and all that therein is ; but we are apt to think , that creating all things takes in ●he Sea too , and that in the Scripture Language Heaven and Earth are the same with the World , and I hope the World takes in the Sea ; and the World is said to be made by him , and do not all things take in all ? No , say they , all things are limited to all Thrones , Principalities and Powers , visible and invisible . Then , however the making of these is attributed to Christ. And if he made all Powers , Visible and invisible , he must be God. Not so neither . What then is the meaning of the words , By him were all things created that are in Heaven and in Earth , visible and invisible ; whether they be Thrones , or Dominions , or Principalities , or Powers , all things were created by him and for him ? Surely then , these Dominions and Powers were created by him . No , say they , that which we render created , ought to be rendred , modelled , disposed , or reformed into a new Order . Were ever wise Men driven to such miserable Shifts ? One while these words are very strong and good proof of the Creation of the World against Atheists and Epicureans , and by and by they prove nothing of all this , but only a new modelling of some things called Dominions and Powers . Do they hope ever to convince Men at this rate of wise interpreting ? Well , but what is this creating or disposing things into a new order ? And who are these Dominions and Powers ? they answer , Men and Angels . How are the Angels created by him and for him ? Did he die to reform them , as well as Mankind ? No , but they are put under him . And so they were created by him , that is , they were not created by him , but only made subject to him . But who made them subject to him ? The Man Christ Iesus ? No , God appointed him to be the Lord of every Creature . Then they were not created by Christ , but by God ; but the Apostle saith , they were created by Christ. But God made him Head of the Church , and as Head of the Body he rules over all . This we do not at all question ; but how this comes to be creating Dominions and Powers , visible and invisible . Did God make the Earth and all the living Creatures in it , when he made Man Lord over them ? Or rather was Man said to create them , because he was made their Head ? If this be their interpreting Scripture like wise Men , I shall be content with a less measure of Understanding , and thank God for it . XI . Lastly , Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men , to leave the form of Baptism doubtful , whether it were not inserted into S. Matthew's Gospel ; or to understand it in another Sense than the Christian Church hath done from the Apostles times ? I say first , Leave it doubtful , because they say , That Learned Criticks have given very strong Reasons why they believe these Words . In the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , were not spoke by our Saviour , but have been added to the Gospel of S. Matthew , from the common Form and Practise of the Church . Why are these strong Reasons of learned Criticks mentioned , but to raise Doubts in Peoples minds about them ? But they declare afterwards against them . Not too much of that . For they say , only , That they are not without their weight , but they have observed several things that make them think , that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture . Very Wisely and Discreetly spoken ! The Reasons are strong and weighty ; but they think otherwise . I wish they had told the World , who these learned Criticks were ; lest it should be suspected that they were their own Inventions . But I find a certain Nameless Socinian was the Author of them ; and his Words are produced by Sandius ( a Person highly commended by them for his Industry and Learning , but as much condemned by others , for want of Skill or Ingenuity . ) The reason of writing these Reasons Sandius freely Confesses was , because this place clearly proved a Trinity of Persons against the Socinians . But what are these very strong and weighty Reasons ? For it is great Pity , but they should be known . In the first place he observes , That S. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew , and the Original he saith is lost ; and he suspects that either S. Jerom was himself the Translator into Greek and Latin ( who was a Corrupter of Scripture , and Origen ) or some unknow Person : from whence it follows , that our Gospel of S. Matthew is not of such Authority , that an Article of such moment should depend upon it . Is not this a very strong and weighty Reason ? Must not this be a very learned Critick who could mention S. Ierom , as Translator of S. Matthews Gospel into Greek ? But then one would think this Interpreter might have been wise enough to have added this of himself . No ; he dares not say that , but that it was added by Transcribers . But whence or how ? To that he saith , That they seem to be taken out of the Gospel according to the Egyptians . This is great News indeed . But comes it from a good hand ? Yes , from Epiphanius . And what saith he to this purpose ? He saith , That the Sabellians made use of the counterfeit Egyptian Gospel , and there it was declared that Father , Son and Holy Ghost were the same . And what then ? Doth he say they borrowed the Form of Baptism from thence ? Nothing like it . But on the contrary , Epiphanius urges this very Form in that place against the Sabellians : and quotes S. Matthew's Authority for it . But this worthy Author produces other Reasons , which Sandius himself laughs at , and despises ? and therefore I pass them over . The most material seems to be if it hold , That the most ancient Writers on S. Matthew take no notice of them , and he mentions Origen , Hilary , and S. Chrysostom , but these Negative Arguments Sandius thinks of no force . Origen and S. Chrysostom , he saith , reach not that Chapter ; the Opus Imperfectum , which was none of his , doth not ; but his own Commentaries do , and there he not only mentions the Form , but takes notice of the Compendious Doctrine delivered by it , which can be nothing else but that of the Trinity . In the Greek Catena on S. Matthew there is more mentioned , viz. That Christ had not then first his Power given him ; for he was with God before , and was himself by Nature God. And there Gregory Nazianzen saith , The Form of Baptism was in the Name of the Holy Trinity ; and he there speaks more fully . Remember , saith he , the Faith into which thou wert baptized . Into the Father ? That is well , but that is no farther than the Jews go ( for they own one God , and one Person . ) Into the Son ? That is beyound them , but not yet perfect . Into the Holy Ghost ? Yes , saith he , this is perfect Baptism . But what is the common Name of these three , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plainly , that of God. But this learned Critick observes , that Hilary in some Copies takes no notice of this Form. That is truly observed , for the very Conclusion is not Hilary's , but taken out of S. Ierom ; but if he had look'd into Hilary's Works , he would have found the Form of Baptism owned , and asserted by him . For he not only sets it down as the Form of Faith , as well as our Baptism appointed by Christ ; but argues from it , against the Sabellians and Ebionites , as well as others . Thus we see how very strong and weighty the Arguments of this learned Critick were . CHAP. IX . The General Sense of the Christian Church , proved from the Form of Baptism , as it was understood in the first Ages . BUT our Vnitarians pretend , that they are satisfied , that the Form of Baptism is found in all Copies , and all the ancient Translations ; and that it was used before the Council of Nice , as appears by several places of Tertullian . But how then ? There are two things stick with them . ( 1. ) That the Ante-Nicene Fathers do not alledge it to prove the Divinity of the Son , or Holy Ghost . ( 2. ) That the Form of Words here used , doth not prove the Doctrine of the Trinity . Both which must be strictly Examined . 1. As to the former . It cannot but seem strange to any one conversant in the Writings of those Fathers ; when S. Cyprian saith expressly , That the Form of Baptism is prescribed by Christ , that it should be in plenâ & aduna●â Trinitate : i. e. in the full Confession of the Holy Trinity ; and therefore , he denied the Baptism of the Marcionites , because the Faith of the Trinity was not sincere among them , as appears at large in that Epistle . And this , as far as I can find , was the general Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers , as well as others . And it is no improbable Opinion of Erasmus , and Vossius , two learned Criticks indeed , That the most ancient Creed went no further than the Form of Baptism , viz. to Believe in the Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; and the other Articles were added as Heresies gave occasion . S. Ierom saith , That in the Traditional Creed , which they received from the Apostles , the main Article was , the Confession of the Trinity ; to which he joyns the Vnity of the Church , and Resurrection of the Flesh ; and then adds , that herein is contained , Omne Christiani Dogmatis Sacramentum , the whole Faith into which Christians were baptized . And he saith , It was the Custom among them to instruct those who were to be Baptized for forty days in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity . So that there was then no Question but the Form of Baptism had a particular Respect to ●t ; and therefore , so much weight is laid upon the use of it , as well by the Ante-Nicene Fathers , as others . For , Tertullian saith , That the Form of Baptism was prescribed by our Saviour himself as a Law to his Church . S. Cyprian to the same purpose , That he commanded it to be used S. Augustin calls them , the Words of the Gospel , without which there is no Baptism . The Reason given by S. Ambrose is , because the Faith of the Trinity is in this Form. But how if any one Person were left out ? He thinks , that if the rest be not denied , the Baptism is good ; but otherwise , vacuum est omne Mysterium , the whole Baptism is void . So that the Faith of the Trinity was that which was required in order to true Baptism , more than the bare Form of Words . If there were no reason to question the former , S. Ambrose seems of Opinion that the Baptism was good , although every Person were not named , and therein he was followed by Beda , Hugo de Sancto Victore , Peter Lombard and others . And S Basil in the Greek Church , asserted that Baptism in the name of the Holy Ghost was sufficient , because he is hereby owned to be of equal Dignity with the Father and Son ; but it is still supposing that the whole and undivided Trinity be not denied . And he elsewhere saith , That Baptizing in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost is a most solemn Profession of the Trinity in Vnity , because they are all joyned together in this publick Act of Devotion . But others thought that the Baptism was not good , unless every Person were named ; which Opinion generally obtained both in the Greek and Latin Church . And the late Editors of S. Ambrose observe , that in other places he makes the whole Form of Words necessary as well as the Faith in the Holy Trinity . The Baptism of the Eunomians was rejected , because they alter'd the Form and the Faith too , saying , That the Father was uncreate , the Son created by the Father , and the Holy Ghost created by the Son. The Baptism of the Samosatenians was rejected by the Council of Nice . S. Augustin thinks it was because they had not the right Form , but the true Reason was , they rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity . And so the Council of Arles I. doth in express Words refuse their Baptism who refused to own that Doctrine . That Council was held A. D. 314. and therefore Bellarmin , and others after him , are very much mistaken , when they interpret this Canon of the Arians , concerning whose Baptism there could be no Dispute till many years after . But this Canon is de Afris ; among whom the Custom of Baptizing prevailed ; but this Council propounds an expedient as most agreeable to the general Sense of the Christian Church , viz. That if any relinquished their Heresie and came back to the Church , they should ask them the Creed , and if they found that they were baptized in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , they should have only imposition of hands , but if they did not confess the Trinity , their Baptism was declared void . Now this I look on as an impregnable Testimony of the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers , viz. That they did not allow that Baptism which was not in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; or ( which they understood to be the same ) in the confession of the Faith of the Trinity . How then can our Vnitarians pretend , That the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not alledge the Form of Baptism to prove the Trinity ? For the words are , If they do n●t answer to this Trinity let them be baptized , saith this plenary Cou●cil , as S. Augustin often calls it . What Trinity do they mean ? Of mere Names or Cyphers , or of one God and two Creatures joyned in the same Form of words , as our Vnitarians understand it ? But they affirm , That the Ancients of 400 years do not insist on this Text of S. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit . Therefore to give a clear account of this matter , I shall prove , that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did understand these words , so as not to be taken , either for mere Names , or for Creatures joyned with God ; but that they did maintain the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost , from the general Sense , in which these words were taken among them . And this I shall do from these Arguments ; 1. That those who took them in another Sense , were opposed and condemned by the Christian Church . 2. That the Christian Church did own this Sense in publick Acts of divine Worship as well as private . 3. That it was owned and defended by those who appeared for the Christian Faith against Infidels . And I do not know any better means than these , to prove such a matter of Fact as this . 1. The Sense of the Christian Church may be known by its behaviour towards those , who took these words only for different Names or Appearances of One Person . And of this we have full Evidence , as to Praxeas , Noëtus and Sabellius , all long before the Council of Nice . Praxeas was the first , at least in the Western Church , who made Father , Son and Holy Ghost , to be only several Names of the same Person , and he was with great Warmth and Vigor opposed by Tertullian , who charges him with introducing a new opinion into the Church , as will presently appear . And his testimony is the more considerable , because our Vnitarians confess , That he lived 120 years before the Nicene Council , and that he particularly insists upon the Form of Baptism against Praxeas . But to what purpose ? Was not his whole design in that Book to prove three distinct Persons of Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and yet but One God ? Doth he not say expresly , That Christ commanded that his Disciples should baptize into the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , not into One of them ; ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur . In Baptism we are dipped once at every Name , to shew that we are baptized into three Persons . It is certain then , that Tertullian could not mistake the Sense of the Church so grosly , as to take three Persons to be only three several Names . He grants to Praxeas , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are one , but how ? Per unitatem substantiae , because there is but one divine Essence : but yet he saith , there are three , not with respect to essential Attributes , for so they are unius Substantiae , & unius Status , & unius Potestatis , quia unus Deus . And therefore the difference can be only as to personal Properties and distinct Capacities , which he calls Gradus , Forma , Species , not merely as to internal Relations , but as to external Dispensations , which he calls their Oeconomy . For his great business is to prove against Praxeas , that the Son and Holy Ghost had those things attributed to them in Scripture , which could not be attributed to the Father . For Praxeas asserted , That the Father suffer'd ; and thence his followers were called Patripassians and Monarchici , i. e. Vnitarians . The main ground which Praxeas went upon , was the Vnity of the Godhead , so often mention'd in Scripture , from hence Tertullian saith , That he took advantage of the weakness of the common sort of Christians , and represented to them , that whereas the Doctrine of Christ made but one God , those who held the Trinity according to the Form of Baptism , must make more Gods than one . Tertullian answers , that they held a Monarchy , i. e. unicum imperium , one supreme Godhead , and a supreme power may be lodged in distinct Persons and administred in several manners ; that nothing overthrew the divine Monarchy , but a different Power and Authority , which they did by no means assert . They held a Son , but of the Substance of the Father , and a Holy Ghost from the Father by the Son : he still keeps to the distinction of Persons , and the Vnity of Substance . And he utterly denies any Division of Essences or separate Substances ; for therein , he saith , lay the Heresie of Valentinus , in making a Prolation of a separate Being . But although he saith , the Gospel hath declared to us , that the Father is God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , yet we are taught that there is still but one God : redactum est jam nomen Dei & Domini in unione , c. 13. whereby the Christians are distinguished from the Heathens who had many Gods This is the force of what Tertullian saith upon this matter . And what say our Vnitarians to it ? They cannot deny that he was an Ante-Nicene Father ; and it is plain that he did understand the Form of Baptism so as to imply a Trinity of Persons in an Vnity of Essence : To which they give no Answer . But I find three things objected against Tertullian by their Friends : 1. That Tertullian brought this Doctrine into the Church from Montanus , whose Disciple he then was . So Schlichtingius in his Preface against Meisner , grants , That he was very near the Apostolical Times , and by his Wit and Learning promoted this new Doctrine about the Trinity , especially in his Book against Praxeas . But how doth it appear , that he brought in any new Doctrine ? Yes , saith Schlichtingius , he confesses , That he was more instructed by the Paraclete . But if he had dealt ingenuously , he would have owned that in that very place , he confesses , He was always of that opinion , although more fully instructed by the Paraclete ? This only shews that Montanus himself innovated nothing in this matter , but endeavoured to improve it . And it is possible , that Tertullian might borrow his Similitudes and Illustrations from him , which have added no ●●rength to it . But as to the main of the Doctrine he saith , It came from the rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles , before Praxeas , or any Hereticks his Predecessors . Which shews , that those who rejected this Doctrine were always esteemed Hereticks in the Christian Church . And this is a very early Testimony of the Antiquity and general Reception of it , because as one was received the other was rejected , so that the Assertors of it were accounted Hereticks . And the Sense of the Church is much better known by such publick Acts , than by mere particular Testimonies of the learned Men of those times . For when they deliver the Sense of the Church in such publick Acts , all persons are Judges of the truth and falshood of them at the time when they are deliver●d ; and the nearer they came to the Apostolical Times , the greater is the strength of their evidence ; this I ground on Tertullian's appealing to the ancient rule of Faith , which was universally known and received in the Christian Church , and that such Persons were look'd on as Hereticks who differ'd from it . Which being so very near the Apostles Times , it 's hardly possible to suppose , that the whole Christian Church should be mistaken as to what they received as the rule of Faith , which was deliver'd and explained at Baptism , and therefore the general Sense of the Form of Baptism must be understood by all who were admitted to it . So that the Members of the Christian Church cannot be supposed better acquainted with any thing than the Doctrine they were baptized into . Here then we have a concurrence of several publick Acts of the Church . 1. The Form of Baptism . 2. The Rule of Faith relating to that Form , and explained at Baptism . 3. The Churches rejecting those as Hereticks who differ'd from it : which Tertullian applies to those who rejected the Trinity . And Praxeas his Doctrine was then condemned , not by a particular Sentence , but by the general Sense of the Church at that time . For Optatus Milevitanus reckons him among the condemned Hereticks , and joyns him with Marcian and Valentinus , as well as Sabellius , who follow'd him in the same Heresie . How was this possible , if Praxeas deliver'd the true Doctrine , and Tertullian brought in a new Opinion as Schlichtingius fansies . Tertullian was at that time a declared Montanist ; and if he had introduc'd a new Doctrine about the Trinity , can we imagine those would have been silent about it , who were sharp enough upon Tertullian for the sake of his Paraclete ? Some of the followers of Montanus afterwards fell into the same opinions with Praxeas , as Theodoret tells us , and Tertullian saith as much of those Cataphrygians who follow'd Aeschines : But these Montanists are distinguished from the rest . And Rigaltius observes , that Tertullian follow'd Montanus chiefly in what related to Discipline , and that himself was not so corrupted in point of Doctrine as some of his Followers were . 2. It 's objected , That Tertullian's Doctrine is inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity ; for he denies the eternal Generation of the Son ; and only asserts an Emission of him before the Creation . But my business is not to justifie all Tertullian's Expressions or Similitudes ; for Men of Wit and Fancy love to go out of the Road , and sometimes involve things more by Attempts to explain them ; but I keep only to that which he saith , was the Faith of the Church from the beginning ; and I see no reason to call in Question his Fidelity in reporting , however he might be unhappy in his Explications . 3. Tertullian himself saith , Schlichtingius , in other Places , where he speaks of the rule of Faith , doth not mention the Holy Ghost ; and therefore this seems added by him for the sake of the Paraclete . But this can be of no force to any one that considers , that Tertullian grounds his Doctrine not on any New Revelation by the Paraclete , but on the Rule of Faith received in the Church long before ; and upon the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour . Will they say , the Holy Ghost was there added for the sake of Montanus his Paraclete ? And in another of his Books , he owns the Father , Son and Holy Ghost to make up the Trinity in Vnity . Wherein Petavius himself confesses , That he asserted the Doctrine of the Church in a Catholick manner ; although he otherwise speaks hardly enough of him . The next I shall mention , is Novatian , whom Schlichtingius allows , to have been before the Nicene-Council ; and our modern Vnitarians call him a great Man , whoever he was , and very ancient . And there are two things I observe in him . 1. That he opposes Sabellianism ; for , before his time Praxeas and Noetus were little talked of , especially in the Western Church ; but Sabellius his Name and Doctrine were very well known by the opposition to him , by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome . He sticks not , at the calling it Heresie several times ; and Disputes against it , and answers the Objection about the Vnity of the Godhead . 2. That he owns , that the Rule of Faith requires our believing in Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; and asserts the Divine Eternity of it , and therefore must hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be the Faith of the Church contained in the Form of Baptism . For he saith , The Authority of Faith , and the Holy Scriptures admonish us to believe not only in the Father and Son , but in the Holy Ghost . Therefore the Holy Ghost must be considered , as an object of Faith joyned in the Scripture with the other two , which is no where more express , than in the Form of Baptism , which as S. Cyprian saith , was to be administred in the full Confession of the Trinity , in the place already mention●d . And it is observable that S. Cyprian rejects the Baptism of those who denied the Trinity at that time , among whom he instances in the Patripassians , who it seems were then spread into Africa . The Dispute about the Marcionites Baptism was upon another ground , for they held a real Trinity , as appears by Dionysius Romanus in Athanasius , and Epiphanius , &c. but the Question was , whether they held the same Trinity or not . S. Cyprian saith , That our Saviour appointed his Apostles to baptize in the Name of Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and in the Sacrament of this Trinity they were to baptize . Doth Marcion hold this Trinity ? So that S. Cyprian supposed the validity of Baptism to depend on the Faith of the Trinity . And if he had gone no farther , I do not see how he had transgressed the Rules of the Church ; but his Error was , that he made void Baptism upon difference of Communion , and therein he was justly opposed . But the Marcionites Baptism was rejected in the Eastern Church , because of their Doctrine about the Trinity . In the Parts of Asia about Ephesus , Noetus had broached the same Doctrine , which Praxeas had done elsewhere . For which he was called to an account , and himself with his Followers we cast out of the Churches Communion , as Epiphanius reports , which is another considerable Testimony of the Sense of the Church at that time . Epiphanius saith , he was the first who broached that Blasphemy ; but Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes before him ; it seems , that he was the first who was publickly taken notice of for it ; and therefore underwent the Censure of the Church with his Disciples . When he was first summon'd to answer , he denied that he asserted any such Doctrine ; because no man before him saith Epiphanius , had vented such Poison . And in the beginning he saith , that Noetus out of a Spirit of Contradiction had utter'd such things , as neither the Prophets , nor the Apostles , nor the Church of God ever thought or declared . Now what was this unheard of Doctrine of Noetus ? That appears best by Noetus his answer upon his second appearance which was , That he worshipped One God , and knew of no other , who was born and suffer'd , and died for us ; and for this he produced the several places which assert the Vnity of the Godhead , and among the rest one very observable , Rom. 9.5 . Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came , who is over all God blessed for ever . From whence he inferr'd that the Son and the Father were the same , and the same he affirmed of the Holy Ghost . But from hence we have an evident Proof that the most ancient Greek Copies in Noetus his time , which was long before the Council of Nice , had God in the Text. Epiphanius brings many places of Scripture to prove the Distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead ; but that is not my present business , but to shew the general Sense of the Church at that time . I do not say that Noetus was condemned by a general Council ; but it is sufficient , to shew that he was cast out of the Church , where he broached his Doctrine , and no other Church received him , or condemned that Church which cast him out , which shews an after Consent to it . Now what was this Doctrine of Noetus ? The very same with that of Praxeas at Rome . Theodoret saith , this his Opinon was , That there was but One God the Father , who was himself impassible , but as he took our Nature , so he was passible and called the Son. Epiphanius more fully , that the same Person was Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; wherein he saith , he plainly contradicts the Scriptures , which attribute distinct Personalities to them ; and yet assert but one Godhead . The Father hath an Hypostasis of his own , and so have the Son and Holy Ghost ; but yet there is but one Divinity , one Power , and one Dominion ; for these distinct Persons are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; of the same individual Essence and Power . But Epiphanius was no Ante-Nicene Father : however in matters of Antiquity , where there is no incongruity in the thing , we may make use of his Authority ; and I think no one will question , that Noetus was condemned ; which was the thing I produced him to prove . But although Noetus was condemned , yet this Doctrine did spread in the Eastern parts ; for Origen mentions those who confounded the Notion of Father and Son , and made them but one Hypostasis , and distinguished only by thought , and Denomination . This Doctrine was opposed not only by Origen , but he had the Sense of the Church concurring with him , as appears in the Case of Beryllus Bishop of Bostra , who fell into this Opinion , and was reclaimed by Origen ; and Eusebius gives this account of it , That there was a Concurrence of others with him in it , and that this Doctrine was look'd on as an Innovation in the Faith. For his Opinion was that our Saviour had no proper Subsistence of his own before the Incarnation ; and that the Deity of the Father alone was in him . He did not mean that the Son had no separate Divinity from the Father , but that the Deity of the Father only appeared in the Son ; so that he was not really God , but only one in whom the Deity of the Father was made manifest . Which was one of the oldest Heresies in the Church , and the most early condemned and opposed by it . But those Heresies , which before had differenced Persons from the Church , were now spread by some at first within the Communion of it ; as it was not only in the Case of Noetus and Beryllus , but of Sabellius himself , who made the greatest noise about this Doctrine ; and his Disciples , Epiphanius tells us , spread very much both in the Eastern and Western parts ; in Mesopotamia and at Rome . Their Doctrine , he saith , was , that Father , Son and Holy Ghost were but one Hypostasis , with three different Denominations . They compared God to the Sun , the Father to the Substance , the Son to the Light , and the Holy Ghost to the Heat which comes from it ; and these two latter were only distinct Operations of the same Substance . Epiphanius thinks that Sabellius therein differ'd from Noetus , because he denied that the Father suffer'd ; but S. Augustin can find no difference between them . All that can be conceived is , that a different Denomination did arise from the different appearance and Operation ; which our Vnitarians call three Relative Persons , and one Subsisting Person . Sabellius did spread his Heresie most in his own Country ; which was in Pentapolis of the Cyrenaick Province , being born in Ptolemais one of the five Cities there . Of this Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria gives an account in his Epistle to Xystus then Bishop of Rome , wherein he takes notice of the wicked and blasphemous Heresie , lately broached there against the Persons of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . Letters on both sides were brought to him , on which occasion he wrote several Epistles , among which there was one to Ammonius Bishop of Bernice , another of the Cities of Pentapolis . In this , he disputed with great warmth against this Doctrine of Sabellius , insomuch , that he was afterwards accused to Dionysius of Rome , that he had gone too far the other way ; and lessen'd the Divinity of the Son by his Similitudes ; of which he clear'd himself , as appears by what remains of his Defence in Athanasius . But as to his Zeal against Sabellianism it was never question'd . Dionysius of Rome declares his Sense at large in this matter against both Extremes , viz. of those who asserted three separate and independent Principles , and of those who confounded the Divine Persons ; and he charges the Doctrine of Sabellius too with Blasphemy , as well as those who set up three different Principles , and so made three Gods. But he declares the Christian Doctrine to be , that there were Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but that there is an indivisible Vnion in One and the same Godhead . It seems Dionysius of Alexandria was accused for dividing and separating the Persons , to which he answers , that it was impossible he should do it , because they are indivisible from each other ; and the name of each Person did imply the inseparable Relation to the other , as the Father to the Son , and the Son to the Father , and the Holy Ghost to both . And this Judgment of these two great Men in the Church concerning Sabellianism , was universally receiv'd in the Christian Church . And this happen'd long before the Nicene Council . 2. Another argument of the general Sense of the Christian Church is from the Hymns and Doxologies publickly received ; which were in the most solemn Acts of religious Worship made to Father , Son and Holy Ghost . The force of this argument appears hereby , that divine Worship cannot be given to mere Names , and an Equality of Worship doth imply an Equality of Dignity in the object of Worship , and therefore , if the same Acts of Adoration be performed to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , it is plain , that the Christian Church did esteem them to have the same divine Nature , although they were distinct Persons . And if they were not so , there could not be distinct Acts of divine Worship performed to them . S. Basil mentions this Doxology of Africanus , ( that ancient Writer of the Christian Church ) in the fifth Book of his Chronicon , We render thanks to him who gave our Lord Iesus Christ to be a Saviour , to whom with the Holy Ghost be Glory and Majesty for ever . And another of Dionysius Alexandrinus in his 2d . Epistle to Dionysius of Rome . To God the Father and his Son our Lord Iesus Christ with the Holy Ghost , be Glory and Power for ever and ever , Amen . And this is the more considerable , because he saith he did herein follow the ancient Custom and Rule of the Church ; and he joyned with it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Praising God in the same voice with those who have gone before us , which shews how early these Doxologies to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , had been used in the Christian Church . But to let us the better understand the true Sense of them , S. Basil hath preserved some passages of Dionysius Alexandrinus which do explain it , viz. That either the Sabellians must allow three distinct Hypostases , or they must wholly take away the Trinity . By which it is evident , that by Father , Son and Holy Ghost he did understand three distinct Hypostases , but not divided ; for that appears to have been the Sabellians Argument , That if there were three , they must be divided : No saith Dionysius , they are three whether the Sabellians will or not ; or else there is no Trinity : which he look'd on as a great absurdity to take away , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Trinity . Of what ? Of mere Names or Energies ? That is no Trinity ; for there is but one subsisting Person of separate and divided Substances : That the Sabellians thought must follow but both the Dionysius's denied it . And in another Passage there mention'd , Dionysius of Alexandria asserts the Trinity in Vnity . But before Dionysius , he quotes a passage of Clemens Romanus concerning Father , Son and Holy Ghost , which attributes Life distinctly to them . Now Life cannot belong to a Name or Energy , and therefore must imply a Person . But that which is most material to our purpose , is the Publick Doxology in the Church of Neo-Caesarea , brought in by Gregory Thaumaturgus . S. Basil gives a very high Character of him , as of a Person of extraordinary Piety and Exactness of Life , and a great promoter of Christianity in those Parts , and by him the Form of Doxology was introduced into that Church , being chiefly formed by him ( there being but Seventeen Christians when he was first made Bishop there ) which was , Glory to God the Father , and Son with the Holy Ghost , which ought to be understood according to the sense of the Maker of it . And Gregory hath deliver'd his sense plainly enough in this matter : for in that Confession of Faith , which was preserved in the Church of Neo-Caesarea , he owns a perfect Trinity in Glory , Eternity and Power , without Separation or Diversity of Nature , On which Doctrine his Form of Doxology was grounded . Which S. Basil following , Exceptions were taken against it , by some as varying from the Form used in some other places . For the Followers of Aetius took advantage from the Expression used in those Doxologies , Glory be to the Father , by the Son , and in the Holy Ghost , to infer a Dissimilitude in the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father , and to make the Son the Instrument of the Father , and the Holy Ghost only to relate to time and place . But S. Basil takes a great deal of Pains to shew the impertinency of these Exceptions . They would fain have charged this Doxology as an Innovation on S. Basil , because it attributed equal Honour to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , which the Aetians would not endure ; but they said , That the Son was to be honoured only in Subordination to the Father , and the Holy Ghost as inferiour to both . But S. Basil proves from Scripture an Equality of Honour to be due to them : and particularly from the Form of Baptism , c. 10. wherein the Son and Holy Ghost are joyned with the Father , without any note of Distinction . And what more proper token of a Conjunction in the same Dignity , than being put together in such a manner . Especially considering these two things . 1. The extream Jealousie of the Jewish Nation , as to joyning the Creatures with God in any thing that related to Divine Honour . But as S. Basil argues , If the Son were a Creature , then we must believe in the Creator , and the Creature together ; and by the same reason that one Creature is joyned , the whole Creation may be joyned with him ; but saith he , we are not to imagine the least Disunion or Separation between Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; nor that they are three distinct parts of one inseparable Being , but that there is an indivisible Conjunction of three in the same Essence ; so that where one is , there is the other also . For where the Holy Ghost is , there is the Son , and where the Son is , there is the Father . And so Athanasius urges the Argument from these Words , That a Creature could not be joyned with the Creator in such a manner , as in the Form of Baptism ; and it might have been as well said , Baptize in the Name of the Father , and any other Creature . And for all that I see , our Vnitarians would have liked such a Form very well ; for they parallel it with those in Scripture ; and they worshipped the Lord , and the King ; and they feared the Lord and Samuel . But the Iews understood the different occasion of such Expressions too well , to have born such a Conjunction of Creatures with the Creator in the most solemn Act of Initiation into a Profession of Religion . 2. The Iews had a Notion among them of three distinct Subsistences in the Deity sutable to these of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . This hath been shew'd by many as to the Son , or the Divine Word ; and Rittangel makes out the same as to the Holy Ghost . Among the three Subsistences in the Mercavah ( which Rittangel had proved from their most ancient Writings ) those which are added to the first are Wisdom and Intelligence , and this last is by the old Chaldee Paraphrast rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and he proves it to be applied to God in many places of the Pentateuch , where such things are attributed to him , as belong to the Holy Ghost . And he particularly shews by many places , that the Schecinah is not taken for the Divine Glory , but that is rendred by other Words ( however the Interpreters of the Chaldee Paraphrast have rendred it so ) but he produces ten places where the Chaldee Paraphrast uses it in another Sense ; and he leaves , he saith , many more to the Readers observation . If the Iews did of old own three Subsistences in the same Divine Essence , there was then great Reason to joyn Father , Son and Holy Ghost in the solemn Act of Initiation : But if it be denied , that they did own any such thing ; they must deny their most ancient Books , and the Chaldee Paraphrast , which they esteem next to the Text , and Rittangel saith , They believe it written by Inspiration . That which I chiefly urge , is this , that if these things be not very ancient , they must be put in by the later Iews , to gratifie the Christians in the Doctrine of the Trinity ; which I do not believe any Iew will assent to . And no one else can imagine this , when our Vnitarians say , That the Doctrine of the Trinity is the chief Offence which the Iews take at the Christian Religion . How then can we suppose the Iews should forge these Books on purpose to put in such Notions , as were most grateful to their Enemies , and hateful to themselves ? Morinus hath endeavoured to run down the Credit of the most ancient Books of the Iews ; and among the rest the Book Iezirah , the most ancient Cabbalistical Book among the Iews , which he learnedly proves was not written by Abraham , ( as the Iews think . ) I will not stand with Morinus about this ; however the Book Cosri saith , it was made by Abraham before God spake to him , and magnifies it to the King of Cosar , as containing an admirable Account of the first Principles above the Philosophers . Buxtorf saith , that the Book Cosri hath been extant Nine hundred years , and in the beginning of it , it is said , that the Conference was Four hundred years before , and therein the Book Iezirah is alledged as a Book of Antiquity : and there the three Subsistences of the Deity are represented by Mind , Word , and Hand . So that this can be no late Invention of Cabbalistical Iews . But our Vnitarians utterly deny that the Jews had any Cabbala concerning the Trinity . And they prove it , because the Jews in Origen , and Justin Martyr deny the Messias to be God. They might as well have brought their Testimony to prove Jesus not to be the Messias ; for the Iews of those times , being hard pressed by the Christians , found they could not otherwise avoid several places of the Old Testament . But this doth not hinder , but that they might have Notions of three Subsistences in their ancient Books : which contained neither late Invention , nor Divine Revelations ; but a Traditional notion about the Divine Being , and the Subsistences in it : and I can find no Arguments against it , that deserve mentioning . For when they say the Iewish Cabbala was a Pharisaical Figment , &c. it needs no answer . But what do they say to the Old Paraphrases , whereon the main Weight as to this matter lies ? All that I can find is , That they do not speak of distinct Persons ; but they confess that Philo speaks home , and therefore they make him a Christian . But Philo had the same Notion with the Paraphrasts ; and their best way will be to declare , that they look upon them all as Christians ; and they might as well affirm it of Onkelos , as they do of Philo ; but I doubt the World will not take their Word for either . But to proceed with the Christian Doxologies . N●●hing , saith S. Basil , shall make me forsake the Doctrine I received in my Baptism , when I was first entred into the Christian Church ; and I advise all others to keep firm to that Profession of the Holy Trinity , which they made in their Baptism ; that is , of the indivisible Vnion of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . And , as he saith afterwards , by the Order of the Words in Baptism , it appears that as the Son is to the Father , so the Holy Ghost is to the Son. For they are all put without any Distinction or Number , wh●ch he observes agrees only to a multitude . For by their Properties they are one and one ; yet by the Community of Essence the two are but one : and he makes it his business to prove the Holy Ghost to be a proper Object of Adoration , as well as the Father and Son , and therefore there was no reason to find fault with the Doxology used in that Church : and that , Firmilian , Meletius and the Eastern Christians agreed with them in the use of it , and so did all the Western Churches from Illyricum to the Worlds end : and this , he saith , was by an immemorial Custom of all Churches , and of the greatest men in them . Nay , more he saith , It had been continued in the Churches , from the time the Gospel had been receive'd among them . And nothing can be fuller than the Authority of his Testimony , if S. Basil may be believed . To these I shall add the Doxology of Polycarp at this Martyrdom , mentioned by Eusebius , which is very full to our Purpose ; I Glorifie thee by our Eternal High-Priest Iesus Christ thy beloved Son , by whom be Glory to thee , with him in the Holy Ghost . What can we imagine Polycarp meant by this , but to render the same Glory to Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but with such a difference as to the Particles , which S. Basil at large proves come to the same thing ? And to the same purpose , not only the Church of Smyrna , but Pionius the Martyr , who transcribed the Acts , speaking of Iesus Christ , with whom be Glory to God the Father , and the Holy Ghost . These suffer'd Martyrdom for Christianity , and owned the same Divine Honour to the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . What could they mean , if they did not believe them to have the same Divine Nature ? Can we suppose them Guilty of such stupidity to lose their Lives , for not giving Divine Honour to Creatures , and at the same time to do it themselves ? So that , if the Father , Son and Holy Ghost were not then believed to be three Persons and one God , the Christian Church was mightily deceived ; and the Martyrs acted inconsistently with their own Principles . Which no good Christian will dare to affirm . But some have adventured to say , that Polycarp did not mean the same Divine Honour to Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But if he had so meant it , how could he have expressed it otherwise ? It was certainly a Worship distinct from what he gave to Creatures ; as appears by the Church of Smyrna's disowning any Worship but of Love and Repect to their fellow Creatures ; and own the giving Adoration to the Son of God ; with whom they joyn both Father and Holy Ghost . Which it is impossible to conceive , that in their Circumstances , they should have done , unless they had believed the same Divine Honour to belong to them . S. Basil's Testimony makes it out of Dispute , that the Doxology to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , was universally receiv'd in the publick Offices of the Church , and that from the time of greatest Antiquity : So that we have no need of the Te●timonies from the Apostolical Constitutions ( as they are called ) to prove it . But I avoid all disputable Authorities . And I shall only add that it appears from S. Basil , that this Doxology had been long used not only in publick Offices , but in Occasional Ejaculations , as at the bringing in of Light in the Evening , the People , he saith , were wont to say , Glory be to the Father , and to the Son , and to the Holy Ghost , &c. This , he saith , had been an ancient Custom among the People , and none can tell who brought it in . But Prudentius shews , that it was continued to his Time ; as appea●s by his Hymn on that occasion , which concludes with this Doxology , and S. Hilary ends his Hymn written to his Daughter , in the same manner . 3. I come therefore to the last Proof , which I shall produce of the Sense of the Christian Church , which is , from the Testimony of those who wrote in Defence of our Religion against Infidels . In which I shall be the shorter , since the particular Testimonies of the Fathers , have been so fully produced , and defended by others , especially by Dr. Bull. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians , gives an Account of the Form of Baptism , as it was administred among Christians , which he saith , was in the Name of God the Father of all , and of our Saviour Iesus Christ , and of the Holy Ghost . And that he spake of them as of distinct Persons , as appears by his words afterwards . They who take the Son to be the Father , neither know the Father nor the Son , who being the Word and first begotten is God. And when he speaks of the Eucharist , he saith , That it is offer'd to the Father of all , by the Name of the Son , and the Holy Ghost : and of other solemn Acts of Devotion , he saith , That in all of them they praise God the Father of all , by his Son Iesus Christ , and the Holy Ghost . And in other places , he mentions the Worship they give to Father , Son and Holy Ghost . Indeed he mentions a difference of Order between them ; but makes no Difference as to the Worship given to them . And all this in no long Apology for the Christian Faith. What can be the meaning of this if he did not take it for granted , that the Christian Church embraced the Doctrine of the Trinity in Baptism ? Iustin Martyr was no such weak Man to go about to expose the Christian Religion instead of defending it ; and he must have done so , if he did not believe this not only to be a true , but a necessary part of the Christian Faith For , why did he at all mention such a Mysterious and dark Point ? Why did he not conceal it , ( as some would have done ) and only represent to the Emperours , the fair and plausible part of Christianity ? No , he was a Man of great Sincerity , and a through Christian himself ; and therefore thought he could not honestly conceal so fundamental a Point of the Christian Faith , and which related to their being entred into the Christian Church . For if the Profession of this Faith had not been look'd on as a necessary condition of being a Member of the Church of Christ ; it is hard to imagine , that Iustin Martyr should so much insist upon it , not only here , but in his other Treatises : Of which an Account hath been given by others . Athenagoras had been a Philosopher , as well as Iustin Martyr , before he professed himself a Christian ; and therefore , must be supposed to understand his Religion before he embraced it . And in his Defence he asserts , That the Christians do believe in Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; in God the Father , God the Son , and the Holy Ghost . And he mentions both the Vnity and Order which is among them . Which can signifie nothing unless they be owned to be distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature . And in the next Page , he looks on it , as thing which all Christians aspire after in another Life , That they shall then know the Vnion of the Father , and the Communication of the Father to the Son , what the Holy Ghost is , and what the Vnion and Distinction there is between the Holy Ghost , the Son and the Father . No man who had ever had the name of a Philosopher would have said such things , unless he had believed the Doctrine of the Trinity a● we do , i. e. that there are three distinct Persons in the same Divine Nature , but that the manner of the Union , and Distinction between them , is above our reach and comprehension . But our Vnitarians have an Answer ready for these men , viz. That they came out of Plato 's School , with the Tincture of his three Principles ; and they sadly complain , that Platonism had very early corrupted the Christian Faith as to these matters . In answer to which Exception , I have only one Postulatum to make ; which is , that these were honest Men , and knew their own Minds be●t , and I shall make it appear , that none can more positively declare , than they do , that they did not take up these Notions from Plato , but from the Holy Scriptures ; Iustin Martyr saith he took the Foundation of his Faith from thence , and that he could find no certainty as to God and Religion any where else : that he thinks , Plato took his three Principles from Moses ; and in his Dialogue with Trypho , he at large proves the Eternity of the Son of God from the Scriptures ; and said , He would use no other Arguments , for he pretended to no Skill but in the Scriptures , which God had enabled him to understand . Athenagoras declares , That where the Philosophers agreed with them , their Faith did not depend on them , but on the Testimony of the Prophets , who were inspired by the Holy Ghost . To the same purpose speaks Theophilus Bishop of Antioch , who asserts the Coeternity of the Son with the Father , from the beginning of S. John's Gospel ; and saith , their Faith is built on the Scriptures . Clemens Alexandrinus owns not only , the Essential Attributes of God to belong to the Son ; but that there is one Father of all , and one Word over all , and one Holy Ghost who is every where . And he thinks , Plato borrowed his three Principles from Moses ; that his second was the Son , and his third the Holy Spirit . Even Origen hims●l● highly commends Moses above Plato , in his most undoubted Writings , and saith , That Numen●us went beyond Plato , and that he borrowed out of the Scriptures ; and so he saith , Plato did in other places ; but he adds , That the Doctrines were better deliver'd in Scripture , than in his Artificial Dialogues . Can any one that hath the least reverence for Writers of such Authority and Z●al for the Christian Doctrine , imagine that they wilfully corrupted it in one of the chief Articles of it ; and brought in new Speculations against the Sense of those Books , which at the same time , they professed to be the only Rule of their Faith ? Even where they speak most favourably of the Platonick Trinity , they suppose it to be borrowed from Moses . And therefore Numenius said , That Moses and Plato did not differ about the first Principles ; and Theodoret mentions Numenius as one of those , who said , Plato understood the Hebrew Doctrine in Egypt ; and during his Thirteen years ●ay there , it is hardly possible to suppose , he should be ignorant of the Hebrew Doctrine , about the first Principles , which he was so inquisitive after , especially among Nations , who pretended to Antiquity . And the Platonick Notion of the Divine Essence inlarging it self to three Hypostases , is considerable on these Accounts : 1. That it is deliver'd with so much assurance by the Opposers of Christianity ; such as Plotinus , Porphyrius , Proclus and others were known to be , and they speak with no manner of doubt concerning it ; as may be seen in the passage of Porphyrie preserved by S. Cyril and others . 2. That they took it up from no Revelation ; but as a Notion in it self agreeable enough ; as appears by the passages in Plato and others concerning it . They never suspected it to be liable to the Charge of Non-Sense , and Contradictions , as our modern Vnitarians charge the Trinity with ; although their Notion as represented by Porphyrie be as liable to it . How came these Men of Wit and Sense , to hit upon , and be so fond of such absurd Principles which lead to the Belief of Mysterious Non-Sense , and Impossibilities ; if these Men may be trusted ? 3. That the Nations most renowned for Antiquity and deep Speculations , did light upon the same Doctrine , about a Trinity of Hypostases in the Divine Essence . To prove this I shall not refer to the Trismegistick Books , or the Chaldee Oracles , or any doubtful Authorities ; but Plutarch asserts the three Hypostases to have been receiv●d among the Persians , and Porphyry , and Iamblicus , say the same of the Egyptians . 4. That this Hypostasis did maintain its Reputation so long in the World. For we find it continued to the time of Macrobius ; who ment●ons it as a reasonable Notion , viz. of one supreme Being , Father of all , and a Mind proceeding from it , and soul from Mind . Some have thought that the Platonists made two created Beings , to be two of the Divine Hypostases ; but this is contrary to what Plotinus and Porphyry affirm concerning it , and it is hard to give an Account , how they should then be Essentially different from Creatures , and be Hypostases in the Divine Essence . But this is no part of my business , being concerned no farther , than to clear the Sense of the Christian Church , as to the Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; which according to the Sense of the Ante-Nicene Fathers , I have proved , doth manifest the Doctrine of the Trinity , to have been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church . 2. Let us now see what our Vnitarians object again●t the Proof of the Trinity from these words . 1. They say , That there is a Note of distinction and Superiority . For Christ owns ▪ that his Power was given to him by the Father . There is no question , but that the Person who suffer'd on the Cross , had Power given to him , after his Resurrection ; but the true Question is , whether his Sonship were then given to him . He was then declared to be the Son of God with Power , and had a Name or Authority given him above every Name ; being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour , to give Repentance , and Remission of Sins : in order to which he now appointed his Apostles to teach all Nations ; baptizing them in the Name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Ghost . He doth not say in the name of Iesus , who suffer'd on the Cross ; nor in the name of Iesus the Christ now exalted ; but in the name of Father , Son and Holy Ghost : and although there were a double Gift with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost ; the one , as to his Royal Authority over the Church ; the other , as to his extraordinary Effusion on the Apostles , yet neither of these are so much as intimated ; but the Office of Baptism is required to be performed in the Name of these three as distinct and yet equal ; without any Relation to any Gift , either as to the Son or Holy Ghost . But if the ancient Iews were in the Right , as we think they were , then we have a plain account , how these came to be thus mention'd in the Form of Baptism , viz. that these three distinct Subsistences in the Divine Essence , were not now to be kept up as a secret Mystery from the World ; but that the Christian Church was to be formed upon the Belief of it . 2. They bring several places of Scripture , where God and his Creatures are joyned , without any Note of distinction or Superiority ; as , The people feared the Lord , and Samuel , 1 Sam. 12.18 . They worshipped the Lord , and the King , 1 Chron. 29.20 . I charge thee before God the Lord Iesus Christ , and his elect Angels , 1 Tim. 5.21 . The Spirit and the Bride say come , Revel . 22.17 . But can any Man of Sense imagine , these places contain a Parallel with a Form of Words , wherein men are entred into the Profession of a new Religion , and by which they were to be distinguished from all other Religions ? in the former places , the Circumstances were so notorious as to God , and the Civil Magistrate , that it shews no more than that the same external Acts may be used to both , but with such a different Intention as all men understood it . What if S. Paul name the elect Angels in a solemn Obtestation to Timothy , together with God , and the Lord Iesus Christ ? What can this prove , but that we may call God and his Creatures to be Witnesses together of the same thing ? And so Heaven and Earth are called to bear Witness against obstinate Sinners : May men therefore be baptized in the name of God and his Creatures ? The Spirit and Bride may say come without any Incongruity ; but it would have been strange indeed , if they had said , Come be baptized in the Name of the Spirit and the Bride . So that these Instances are very remote from the purpose . But they say farther , That the ancients of the first Four hundred years do not insist on this place , to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit . As to the first Three hundred years , I have given an account already ; and as to the Fourth Century , I could not have thought , that they would have mention'd it : since there is scarce a Father of the Church in that time , who had occasion to do it , but makes use of the Argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit . Athanasius saith , That Christ founded his Church on the Doctrine of the Trinity contained in these Words ; and if the Holy Ghost had been of a different Nature , from the Father and Son , he would never have been joyned with them in a Form of Baptism , no more than an Angel , or any other Creature . For the Trinity must be Eternal and Indivisible , which it could not be , if any created Being were in it , and therefore he disputes against the Arian Baptism , although performed with the same Words , because they joyned God and a Creature together in Baptism . To the same purpose argue Didymus , Gregory Nazianzen , S. Basil and others , within the Compass of four hundred years , whose Testimonies are produced by Petavius ; to whom I refer the Reader , if he hath a mind to be satisfied in so clear a Point , that I cannot but think our Vnitarians never intended to take in the Fathers after the Council of Nice , who are so expressly against them ; and therefore I pass it over as a slip . 4. They object , That the Form of Baptism implies no more , than being admitted into that Religion which proceeds from God the Father , and deliver'd by his Son , and confirmed by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost . So much we grant is implied , but the Question still remains , whether the Son and Holy Ghost are here to be consider'd only in order to their Operations , or whether the Persons of the Son and Holy Ghost , from whom those Effects came , are not here chiefly intended ? For if no more had been meant , but these Effects , then the right Form of Admission had not been , into the Name of Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; but in the Name of the Father alone , as Revealing himself by his Son , and Confirming it by the miraculous Works of the Holy Ghost . For these are only subservient Acts to the design of God the Father , as the only subsisting Person . 5. They tell us , That it is in vain , not to say ridiculously pretended , that a Person or Thing is God , because we are baptized into it ; for some were baptized into Moses , and others into John's Baptism , and so Moses and John Baptist would be Gods ; and to be baptized into a Person or Persons , and in the name of such a Person is the same thing . Grant this ; yet there is a great difference between being baptized in the name of a Minister of Baptism , and of the Author of a Religion , into which they are baptized . The Israelites were baptized unto Moses ; but how ? The Syriac and Arabic Versions render it per Mosen ; and so S. Augustin reads it . And this seems to be the most natural sense of the Word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is , Act. 7.53 . compared with Gal. 3.19 . And the force of the Apostle's Argument , doth not lie in the Parallel between being baptized into Moses , and into Christ ; but in the Privileges they had under the Ministery of Moses with those which Christians enjoyed . The other place implies no more , than being enter'd into that Profession , which John baptized his Disciples into . But doth any one imagine , that because Iohn Baptist did enter his Disciples by Baptism , therefore they must believe him to be God ? I know none that lay the force of the Argument upon any thing parallel to those Places . But it depends upon laying the Circumstances together . Here was a new Religion to be taught mankind , and they were to be entred into it , not by a bare verbal Profession , but by a solemn Rite of Baptism ; and this Baptism is declar'd to be in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost : which cannot be understood of their Ministery , and therefore must relate to that Faith , which they were baptized into , which was concerning the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . And so the Christian Church understood it , from the beginning , as I have proved in the foregoing Discourse . And from hence came the Instruction of Catechumens , who were to be baptized about the Trinity ; and the first Creeds which related only to them , as I have already observed . And so much our Vnitarians grant in one of their latest Pamphlets , that a Creed was an Institution , or Instruction what we are to believe in the main , and fundamental Articles , especially concerning the Persons of Father , Son and Holy Ghost . But they contend , That the Creed which bears the Name of the Apostles , was the Original Creed framed by the Apostles themselves , because they suppose this Creed doth not assert the Son and Holy Ghost , to be Eternal and Divine Persons , and therefore they conclude , that the Makers of this Creed , either did not know , that any other Person but the Father is God , or Almighty , or Maker of Heaven and Earth , or they have negligently , or wickedly concealed it . This is a matter so necessary to be clear'd , that I shall examine these two things before I put an end to this Discourse . 1. What Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles . 2. What Evidence they produce , that this Creed excludes the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost . 1. As to the Proofs they bring , that this Creed was framed by the Apostles . We believe the Creed to be Apostolical in the true Sense of it ; but that it was so in that Frame of Words , and Enumeration of Articles , as it is now receiv'd , hath been called in question by some Criticks of great Judgment and Learning , whom I have already mentioned . Erasmus saith , He doth not question the Articles being Apostolical ; but whether the Apostles put it thus into Writing . And his chief Argument is from the Variety of the Ancient Creeds ; of which no Account can be given so probable , as that they were added Occasionally in opposition to a growing Heresie . As for Instance , the Word Impassible was inserted with Respect to the Father in the ancient Eastern Creed , against the Doctrine of Sabellius ; but it was not in the old Western Creed . And he argues , That the Apostolical Creed ended with the Holy Ghost ; because the Nicene Creed did so . And Vossius thinks the other Articles which are in Cyril , were added after the Nicene Council ; which would not have omitted them , if they had been in the former Creed . And when there were so many Creeds made afterwards , it is observable , that they do all end with the Article of the Holy Ghost ; which they would never have done , in so jealous a time about Creeds , if they had left out any Articles of what was then receiv'd for the Apostolical Creed . The first Creed after the Nicene , which made great noise in the World , was that framed at Antioch ; and that Creed not only ends with the Article of the Holy Ghost ; but mentions the Form of Baptism ; and our Saviours commanding his Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; as the Foundation of the Creed . For it hereby appears , that the Father is true Father , and the Son true Son , and the Holy Ghost true Holy Ghost ; not bare Names , but such as import three distinct Subsistences . For Hilary observes , That this Council chiefly intended to overthrow Sabellianism , and therefore asserted tres Subsistentium Personas , as Hilary interprets their meaning , and so doth Epiphanius ; which was to remove the Suspition , that they asserted only triplicis vocabuli Vnionem ; as Hilary speaks . The next Creed is of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica , and that ends wi●h the Holy Ghost , and so do both the Creeds at Sirmium ▪ and the latter calls the Article of the Trinity , the close of our Faith ; which is always to be kept according to our Saviour's command , Go teach all Nations , baptizing them in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost . So that in all these Creeds , about which there was so much heat in the Christian Church , there was not the least Objection , that any Articles of the Apostolical Creed were omitted . It is no Argument , That there was then no contest about these Articles ; for they were bound to give in an entire Creed ; and so the Council of Antioch declares , that they would publish the Confession of the Faith of the Church : and how could this be , if they left out such Articles which had been always receiv●d from the Apostles times ? But certainly our Vnitarians would not attack such Men , as Erasmus , and Vossius in a matter relating to Antiquity , if they had not some good Arguments on their side . Their first business , is to shew , that some of Vossius his Arguments are not conclusive ; such as they are , I leave them to any one that will compare them with the Answers . But there are two things they lay weight upon . 1. That the whole Christian Church East and West , could not have agreed in the same Creed , as to Number and Order of Articles , and manner of Expression , if this Creed had not come from the same Persons , from whom they receiv'd the Gospel and the Scriptures ; Namely , from the Apostles and Preachers of Christianity . 2. That it was receiv'd by a constant Tradition to have been the Apostles ; not a bare Oral Tradition , but the Tradition of the ancient Commentators upon it . Now these I confess to be as good Arguments , as the Matters will bear ; and I will no longer contest this Point with them , provided , that we be allowed to make use of the same Arguments ; as to the second Point ; wherein they undertake to prove , That the Apostles Creed doth exclude the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost . What is now become of the general Consent of the Christian Church , East and West ? and of the Commentators upon this Creed ? If the Argument hold good in one Case , I hope it will be allowed to do so in the other also . And what greater Testimony can be given of such a Consent of the Christian Church ; than that those who opposed it , have been condemned by it , and that the Church hath expressed her Sense of it in Publick , and Private Acts of Devotion , and Divine Worship , and have defended it as a necessary part of the Christian Faith , against the Assaults of Infidels and Hereticks ? So that although the Apostles Creed do not in express words declare , The Divinity of the three Persons in the Vnity of the Divine Essence ; yet taking the Sense of those Articles , as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles times , then we have as full , and clear Evidence of this Doctrine , as we have that we receiv'd the Scriptures from them . CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in Point of Reason answer'd . HAving in the foregoing Chapters endeavour'd to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Charge of Contradictions , and to prove it agreeable to the Sense of Scripture , and the Primitive Church ; I now come in the last place to Examine the remaining Objections , in Point of Reason ; and those are , 1. That this Doctrine is said to be a Mystery , and therefore above Reason , and we cannot in reason be obliged to believe any such thing . 2. That if we allow any such Mysteries of Faith as are above Reason , there can be no stop put to any absurd Doctrines , but they may be receiv'd on the same Grounds 1. As to this Doctrine being said to be above Reason , and therefore not to be believ'd ; we must consider two things ; 1. What we understand by Reason ; 2. What ground in Reason there is , to reject any Doctrine above it , when it is proposed as a Matter of Faith. 1. What we understand by Reason . I do not find that our Vnitarians have explained the Nature and Bounds of Reason in such manner , as those ought to have done , who make it the Rule and Standard of what they are to believe . But sometimes they speak of clear and distinct Perceptions , sometimes of natural Ideas , sometimes of congenit Notions , &c. But a late Author hath endeavour'd to make amends for this , and takes upon him to make this matter clear ; and to be sure to do so , he begins with telling us , That Reason is not the Soul abstractedly consider'd ; ( no doubt of it ) but the Soul acting in a peculiar manner is Reason . ( And this is a ver● peculiar way of explaining it ) But farther we are told , It is not the Order or Report ( respect I suppose ) which is naturally between all things . ( But that implies a Reason in things . ) But the thoughts which the Soul forms of things according to it , may properly claim that Title , i. e. such thoughts which are agreeable to the Reason of things are reasonable thoughts . This is clear and distinct . And I perfectly agree with him , That our own Inclinations , or the bare Authority of others is not Reason . But what is it ? Every one experiences in himself a Power , or Faculty of form●ng various Ideas , or Perceptions of things ; of affirming , or denying according as he sees them to agree or disagree , and this is Reason in General It is not the bare receiving Ideas into the Mind , that is strictly Reason , ( who ever thought it was ? ) but the Perception of the Agreement , or Disagreement of our Ideas in a greater of lesser Number ; wherein soever this Agreement or Disagreement may consist . If the Perception be immediate without the Assistance of any other Idea , this is not call'd Reason , but Self-Evidence : but when the mind makes use of intermediate Ideas to discover that Agreement or Disagreement , this method of Knowledge is properly call'd Reason or Demonstration . And so Reason is defined to be that Faculty of the Soul , which discovers the certainty of any thing dubious , or obscure by comparing it with something evidently known . This is offer'd to the World , as an Account of Reason ; but to shew how very loose , and unsatisfactory it is , I desire it may be consider'd , that this Doctrine supposes , that we must have clear and distinct Ideas of whatever we pretend to any certainty of in our Minds , and that the only Way to attain this certainty , is by comparing these Ideas together . Which excludes all certainty of Faith or Reason , where we cannot have such clear and distinct Ideas . But if there are many things of which we may be certain , and yet can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them ; if those Ideas we have , are too imperfect and obscure to form our Judgments by ; if we cannot find out sufficient intermediate Ideas ; then this cannot be the Means of Certainty , or the Foundation of Reason . But I shall keep to our present Subject ; and our certainty of it in Point of Reason , depends upon our Knowledge of the the Nature of Substance , and Person and the Distinction between them : but if we can have no such clear Ideas in our Minds concerning these things , as are required from Sensation , or Reflection ; then , either we have no use of Reason about them , or it is in sufficient to pass any Judgment concerning them . 1. I begin with the Notion of Substance . And I have great Reason to begin with it ; for , according to this Man's Principles there can be no certainty of Reason at all about it . And so our new Way of Reason is advanced to very good Purpose . For we may talk and dispute about Substance , as long as we please , but , if his Principles of Reason be true , we can come to no certainty ; since we can have no clear Idea in our Minds concerning it , as will appear from his own Words ; and the method he proceeds in . ( 1. ) He saith , That the Mind receives in Ideas two ways . 1. By Intermission of the Senses , as Colours , Figures , Sounds , Smells , &c. 2. By the Souls considering its own Operations about what it thus gets from without , as knowing , doubting , affirming , denying , &c. ( 2. ) That these simple and distinct Ideas , thus laid up in the great Repository of the Vnderstanding , are the sole matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning . Then it follows , That we can have no Foundation of Reasoning , where there can can be no such Ideas from Sensation , or Reflection . Now this is the Case of Substance ; it is not intromitted by the Senses , nor depends upon the Operations of the Mind ; and so it cannot be within the compass of our Reason . And therefore I do not wonder , that the Gentlemen of this new way of reasoning , have almost discarded Substance out of the reasonable part of the World. For they not only tell us . That we can have no Idea of it by Sensation or Reflection ; but that nothing is signified by it , only an uncertain Supposition of we know not what . And therefore it is parallel'd , more than once , with the Indian Philosophers , He knew not what ; which supported the Torto●se , that supported the Elephant , that supported the Earth ; so Substance was found out only to support Accidents . And , that when we talk of Substances we talk like Children , who being ask'd a Question , about somewhat which they know not , readily give this satisfactory Answer , that it is Something . If this be the truth of the Case , we must still talk like Children , and I know not how it can be remedied . For , if we cannot come at a rational Idea of Substance , we can have no Principle of certainty to go upon in this Debate . I do not say , that we can have a clear Idea of Substance , either by Sensation or Reflection ; but from hence I argue , that this is a very insufficient Distribution of the Ideas necessary to Reason . For besides these , there must be some general Ideas , which the mind doth form , not by meer comparing those Ideas it has got from Sense or Reflection ; but by forming distinct general Notions , of things from particular Ideas . And among these general Notions , or rational Ideas , Substance is one of the first ; because we find that we can have no true Conceptions of any Modes or Accidents ( no matter which ) but we must conceive a Substratum , or Subject wherein they are . Since it is a Repugnancy to our first Conceptions of things , that Modes or Accidents should subsist by themselves , and therefore the Rational Idea of Substance is one of the first , and most natural Ideas in our minds . But we are still told , That our Vnderstanding can have no other Ideas , but either from Sensation or Reflection . And that , herein chiefly lies the Excellency of mankind , above Brutes , that these cannot abstract , and inlarge their Ideas as men do . But how comes the general Idea of Substance , to be framed in our Minds ? Is this by Abstracting and inlarging simple Ideas ? No , but it is by a Complication of many simple Ideas together : because not imagining how these simple Ideas can subsist by themselves , we accustom our selves to suppose some Substratum wherein they do subsist , and from which they do result , which therefore we call Substance . And is this all indeed , that is to be said for the being of Substance , that we accustom our selves to suppose a Substratum ? Is that Custom grounded upon true Reason or not ? If not , then Accidents or Modes , must subsist of themselves , and these simple Ideas need no Tortoise to support them : For Figures and Colours , &c. would do well enough of themselves , but for some Fancies men have accustomed themselves to . If it be grounded on plain and evident Reason , then we must allow an Idea of Substance , which comes not in by Sensation or Reflection ; and so we may be certain of some things which we have not by those Ideas . The Idea of Substance , we are told again , is nothing but the supposed , but unknown support of those Qualities we find existing , which we imagine cannot subsist , sine re substante , which according to the true import of the word , is in plain English , standing under , or upholding . But very little weight is to be laid upon a bare Grammatical Etymology , when the word is used in another sense by the best Authors , such as Cicero and Quintilian , who take Substance for the same with Essence ; as Valla hath proved ; and so the Greek word imports ; but Boethius in translating Aristotle's Predicaments , rather chose the word Substance as more proper , to ●xpress a Compound Being , and reserved Essence , for what was more simple and immaterial . And in this Sense , Substance was not applied to God but only Essence , as S. Augustine observes , but afterwards , the names of Substance , and Essence were promiscuously used , with respect to God and his Creatures . And do imply , that which makes the Real Being , as distinguished from Modes and Properties . And so the Substance , and Essence of a Man are the same ; not being taken for the individual Substance , which cannot be understood without particular Modes and Properties ; but the general Substance , or Nature of Man abstractly from all the Circum●●ances of Persons . And I desire to know , whether according to true Reason , that be not a clear Idea of a Man ; not of Peter , Iames or Iohn , but of a Man as such . This is not a meer universal Name , or Mark , or Sign ; but there is as clear and distinct a Conception of this in our Minds , as we can have from any such simple Ideas , as are convey'd by our Senses . I do not deny that the Distinction of particular Substances , is by the several Modes and Properties of them , ( which they may call a Complication of simple Ideas if they please ) but I do assert , that the general Idea , which relates to the Essence without these is so just , and true an Idea , that without it the Complication of simple Ideas , will never give us a right Notion of it . I must do that Right to the ingenious Author of the Essay of humane Vnderstanding ( from whence these Notions are borrowed to serve other Purposes than he intended them ) that he makes the Case of Spiritual , and Corporeal Substances to be alike , as to their Idea's , and that we have as clear a Notion of a Spirit , as we have of a Body , the one being supposed to be the Substratum to those simple Ideas we have from without , and the other of those Operations we find within our selves . And that it is as rational to affirm , there is no Body , because we cannot know its Essence , as 't is called , or have no Idea of the Substance of Matter ; as to say , there is no Spirit , because we know not its Essence , or have no Idea of a Spiritual Substance . From hence it follows , That we may be certain , that there are both Spiritual and Bodily Substances , although we can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them . But , if our Reason depend upon our clear and distinct Idea's ; how is this possible ? We cannot reason without clear Ideas , and yet we may be certain without them : Can we be certain without Reason ? Or doth our Reason give us true Notions of things , without these Idea's ? If it be so , this new Hypothesis about Reason must appear to be very unreasonable . Let us suppose this Principle to be true , That the simple Ideas by Sensation or Reflection , are the sole Matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning : I ask then , how we come to be certain , that there are Spiritual Substances in the World , since we can have no clear and distinct Ideas concerning them ? Can we be certain without any Foundation of Reason ? This is a new sort of Certainty , for which we do not envy these Pretenders to Reason . But methinks , they should not at the same time assert the absolute necessity of these Ideas to our knowledge , and declare that we may have certain Knowledge without them . If there be any other method , they overthrow their own Principle ; if there be none , how come they to any Certainty , that there are both Bodily and Spiritual Substances ? As to these latter ( which is my business ) I must enquire farther , how they come to know that there are such . The Answer is by Self-Reflection , on those Powers we find in our selves , which cannot come from a mere Bodily Substance . I allow he Reason to be very good , but the Question I ask is , whether this Argument be from the clear and distinct Idea or not ? We have Ideas in our selves of the several Operations of our Minds of Knowing , Willing , Considering , &c. which cannot come from a Bodily Substance . Very true ; but is all this contained in the simple Idea of these Operations ? How can that be , when the same Persons say , that notwithstanding their Ideas it is possible for Matter to Think . For it is said , That we have the Ideas of Matter and Thinking , but possibly shall never be able to know , whether any mere material Being thinks or not ; it being impossible for us by the Contemplation of our own Ideas , without Revelation to discover whether Omnipotency hath not given to some Systems of Matter , fitly disposed , a Power to perceive or think . If this be true , then for all that we can know by our Ideas of Matter and Thinking ; Matter may have a Power of Thinking : and if this hold , then it is impossible to prove a Spiritual Substance in us , from the Idea of Thinking : For how can we be assured by our Ideas , that God hath not given such a Power of Thinking , to Matter so disposed as our Bodies are ? Especially since it is said , That in respect of our Notions , it is not much more remote from our Comprehension to conceive that God can , if he pleases , super-add to our Idea of Matter a Faculty of Thinking , than that he should super-add to it another Substance , with a Faculty of Thinking . Whoever asserts this , can never prove a Spiritual Substance in us , from a Faculty of Thinking ; because he cannot know from the Idea of Matter and Thinking , that Matter so disposed cannot Think . And he cannot be certain that God hath not framed the matter of our Bodies , so as to be capable of it . It is said indeed elsewhere , That it is repugnant to the Idea of Sensless Matter , that it should put into it self Sense , Perception and Knowledge : But this doth not reach the present Case ; which is not what Matter can do of it self , but what Matter prepared by an Omnipotent hand can do . And what certainty can we have that he hath not done it ? We can have none from the Ideas ; for those are given up in this Case ; and consequently , we can have no certainty upon these Principles , whether we have any Spiritual Substance within us or not . But we are told , That from the Operations of our Minds , we are able to frame the Complex Idea of a Spirit . How can that be , when we cannot from those Ideas be assured , but that those Operations may come from a material Substance . If we frame an Idea on such Grounds , it is at most but a possible Idea ; for it may be otherwise ; and we can have no Assurance from our Ideas , that it is not : So that the most men may come to in this way of Idea's is , That it is possible it may be so , and it is possible it may not ; but that it is impossible for us from our Ideas , to determine either way . And is not this an admirable Way to bring us to a certainty of Reason ? I am very glad to find the Idea of a Spiritual Substance made as consistent , and intelligible , as that of a Corporeal ; for as the one consists of a Cohesion of solid Parts , and the Power of communicating Motion by impulse , so the other consists in a Power of Thinking , and Willing , and moving the Body ; and that the Cohesion of solid Parts , is as hard to be conceived as Thinking ; and we are as much in the dark about the Power of communicating Motion by impulse , as in the Power of exciting Motion by thought . We have by daily experience clear Evidence of Motion produced , both by Impulse and by Thought ; but the manner how , hardly comes within our Comprehension ; we are equally at a loss in both . From whence if follows , That we may be certain of the Being of a Spiritual Substance , although we have no clear and distinct Idea of it , nor are able to comprehend the manner of its Operations : And therefore it is a vain thing in any to pretend , that all our Reason and Certainty is founded on clear and distinct Ideas ; and that they have Reason to reject any Doctrine which relates to Spiritual Substances , because they cannot comprehend the manner of it . For the same thing is confessed by the most inquisitive Men , about the manner of Operation , both in material , and immaterial Substances . It is affirmed , That the very Notion of Body , implies , something very hard , if not impossible to be explained , or understood by us ; and that the natural Consequence of it , viz. Divisibility ; involves us in Difficulties impossible to be explicated , or made consistent . That we have but some few Superficial Ideas of things ; that we are destitute of Faculties , to attain to the true Nature of them ; and that when we do that , we fall presently into Darkness and Obscurity ; and can discover nothing farther , but our own Blindness and Ignorance . These are very fair and ingenuous Confessions of the shortness of humane Understanding , with respect to the Nature and Manner of such things , which we are most certain of the Being of , by constant and undoubted Experience . I appeal now to the Reason of mankind , whether it can be any reasonable Foundation for rejecting a Doctrine proposed to us , as of Divine Revelation , because we cannot comprehend the manner of it ; especially , when it relates to the Divine Essence . For as the same Author observes , Our Idea of God is framed from the Complex Ideas of those Perfections we find in our selves , but inlarging them so , as to make them suitable to an infinite Being , as Knowledge , Power , Duration , &c. And the Degrees or Extent of these which we ascribe to the Soveraign Being , are all boundless and infinite . For it is infinity , which joyned to our Ideas of Existence , Power , Knowledge , &c. makes that Complex Idea , whereby we represent to our selves the best we can , the Supreme Being . Now , when our Knowledge of gross material Substances is so dark ; when the Notion of Spiritual Substances is above all Ideas of Sensation ; when the higher any Substance is , the more remote from our Knowledge ; but especially when the very Idea of a Supreme Being implies its being Infinite , and Incomprehensible , I know not whether it argues more Stupidity , or Arrogance to expose a Doctrine relating to the Divine Essence , because they cannot comprehend the manner of it . But of this more afterwards . I am yet upon the Certainty of our Reason , from clear and distinct Ideas : and if we can attain to Certainty without them , and where it is confessed we cannot have them ; as about Substances : then these cannot be the sole Matter and Foundation of our Reasoning , which is so peremptorily asserted by this late Author . But I go yet farther : and as I have already shew'd , we can have no certainty of an Immaterial Substance within us , from these simple Ideas ; so I shall now shew , that there can be no sufficient Evidence , brought from them by their own Confession , concerning the Existence of the most Spiritual and infinite Substance , even God himself . We are told , That the Evidence of it is equal to Mathematical Certainty ; and very good Arguments are brought to prove it , in a Chapter on purpose : but that which I take notice of is , that the Argument from the clear and distinct Idea of God is passed over . How can this be consistent with deducing our Certainty of Knowledge from clear and simple Ideas ? I do not go about to justifie those , who lay the whole stress upon that Foundation ; which I grant to be too weak to support so important a Truth ; and that those are very much to blame , who go about to invalidate other Arguments for the sake of that ; but I doubt all this Talk about clear and distinct Ideas , being made the Foundation of Certainty , came Originally from those Discourses , or Meditations , which are aimed at . The Author of them was an ingenious , Thinking man , and he endeavour'd to lay the Foundations of Certainty , as well as he could . The first thing he found any certainty in , was his own Existence ; which he founded upon the Perception of the Acts of his Mind , which some call an Internal , infallible Perception that we are . From hence he proceeded , to enquire , how he came by this Certainty , and he resolved it into this , that he had a clear and distinct Perception of it ; and from hence he formed his general Rule , That what he had a clear and distinct Perception of was true . Which in Reason ought to go no farther , than where there is the like Degree of Evidence : for the Certainty here , was not grounded on the clearness of the Perception , but on the Plainness of the Evidence Which is of that Nature , that the very Doubting of it proves it ; since it is impossible , that any thing should doubt or question its own Being , that had it not . So that here it is not the Clearness of the Idea , but an immediate Act of Perception , which is the true ground of Certainty . And this cannot extend to things without our selves ; of which we can have no other Perception , than what is caused by the Impressions of outward Objects . But whether we are to judge according to those Impressions , doth not depend on the Ideas themselves , but upon the Exercise of our Judgment and Reason about them , which put the Difference between true and false , and adequate , and inadequate Ideas . So that our Certainty is not from the Ideas themselves , but from the Evidence of Reason , that those Ideas are true , and just , and consequently that we may build our Certainty upon them . But the Idea of an infinite Being hath this peculiar to it , that necessary Existence is implied in it . This is a clear and distinct Idea , and yet it is denied , that this doth prove the Existence of God. How then can the Grounds of our Certainty arise from clear and distinct Ideas ; when in one of the clearest Ideas of our Minds we can come to no Certainty by it ? I do not say , That it is denied to prove it ; but this is said , That it is a doubtful thing from the different make of mens Tempers and Application of their thoughts . What can this mean , unless it be to let us know , that even clear and distinct Ideas , may lose their Effect by the difference of mens Tempers and Studies ; so that besides Ideas , in order to a right Judgment , a due Temper and Application of the mind is required . And wherein is this different , from what all men of Understanding have said ? Why then should these clear and simple Ideas be made the sole Foundation of Reason ? One would think by this , that these Ideas would presently satisfie mens Minds , if they attended to them . But even this will not do , as to the Idea of an infinite Being . It is not enough to say , They will not examine how far it will hold : for they ought either to say , that it doth hold , or give up this Ground of Certainty from clear and distinct Ideas . But instead of the proper Argument from Ideas , we are told , That from the Consideration of our selves , and what we find in our own Constitutions , our Reason leads us to the Knowledge of this certain and evident Truth ; that there is an eternal , most powerful , and most knowing Being . All which I readily yield ; but we see plainly , the Certainty is not placed in the Idea , but in good and sound Reason from the Consideration of our selves and our Constitutions . What! in the Idea of our Selves ? No certainly ; for let our Idea be taken which way we please , by Sensation or Reflection , yet it is not the Idea that makes us certain , but the Argument from that which we perceive in , and about our Selves . But we find in our selves Perception and Knowledge . It 's very true ; but how doth this prove that there is a God ? It is from the clear and distinct Idea of it . No , but from this Argument : That either there must have been a knowing Being from Eternity , or an unknowing ; for something must have been from Eternity : but if an unknowing , then it was impossible there ever should have been any knowledge ; it being as impossible , that a thing without knowledge should produce it , as that a Triangle should make it self three Angles bigger than two right ones . Allowing the Argument to be good , yet it is not taken from the Idea , but from Principles of true Reason ; as That no man can doubt his own Perception ; that every thing must have a Cause ; that this Cause must either have Knowledge or not : if it have , the Point is gained ; if it hath not , nothing can produce nothing ; and consequently , a not knowing Being cannot produce a knowing . Again , If we suppose nothing to be first , Matter can never begin to be ; if bare Matter without Motion eternal , Motion can never begin to be ; if Matter and Motion be supposed Eternal , Thought can never begin to be . For , if Matter could produce thought , then Thought must be in the power of Matter ; and if it be in Matter as such , it must be the inseparable Property of all matter ; which is contrary to the Sense and Experience of mankind . If only some parts of Matter have a power of Thinking , how comes so great a difference in the Properties of the same Matter ? What disposition of Matter is required to thinking ? And from whence comes it ? Of which no account can be given in Reason . This is the Substance of the Argument used , to prove an infinite spiritual Being , which I am far from weakning the force of ; but that which I design , is to shew ▪ That the Certainty of it is not placed upon any clear and distinct Ideas , but upon the force of Reason distinct from it , which was the thing I intended to prove . 2. The next thing necessary to be clear'd in this Dispute is , the Distinction between Nature and Person , and of this we can have no clear and distinct Idea from Sensation or Reflection . And yet all our Notions of the Doctrine of the Trinity , depend upon the right understanding of it . For we must talk unintelligibly about this Point , unless we have clear and distinct Apprehensions concerning Nature and Person , and the grounds of Identity and Distinction . But that these come not into our Minds by these simple Ideas of Sensation and Reflection , I shall now make it appear ; 1. As to Nature , That is sometimes taken for the Essential Property of a thing , as when we say , that such a thing is of a different Nature from another , we mean no more than that it is differenced by such Properties as come to our Knowledge . Sometimes Nature is taken for the Thing it self in which those Properties are ; and so Aristotle took Nature for a Corporeal Substance , which had the Principles of Motion in it self : but Nature and Substance are of an equal extent ; and so that which is the Subject of Powers , and Properties is the Nature , whether it be meant of Bodily or Spiritual Substances . I grant , that by Sensation and Reflection we come to know the Powers and Properties of Things ; but our Reason is satisfied , that there must be something beyond these ; because it is impossible that they should subsist by themselves . So that the Nature of things propery belongs to our Reason , and not to meer Ideas . But we must yet proceed farther . For , Nature may be consider'd two ways . 1. As it is in distinct Individuals , as the Nature of a Man is equally in Peter , Iames , and Iohn ; and this is the common Nature with a particular Subsistence proper to each of them . For the Nature of man , as in Peter , is distinct from that same Nature , as it is in Iames and Iohn ; otherwise , they would be but one Person , as well as have the same Nature . And this Distinction of Persons in them is discerned both by our Senses , as to their different Accidents ; and by our Reason , because they have a separate Existence ; not coming into it at once and in the same manner . 2. Nature may be consider'd Abstractly , without respect to individual Persons , and then it makes an entire Notion of it self . For however , the same Nature may be in different Individuals , yet the Nature in it self remains one and the same : which appears from this evident Reason ; that otherwise every Individual must make a different kind . Let us now see , how far these things can come from our simple Ideas , by Reflection and Sensation . And I shall lay down the Hypothesis of those , who resolve our Certainty into Ideas , as plainly , and intelligibly , as I can . 1. We are told , That all simple Ideas are true and adequate . Not , that they are the true Representation of things without us ; by that they are the true Effects of such Powers in them , as produce such Sensations within us . So that really we can understand nothing certainly by them , but the Effects they have upon us . 2. All our Ideas of Substances are imperfect and inadequate ; because they refer to the real Essences of things , of which we are Ignorant , and no man knows what Substance is in it self : And they are all false , when look'd on as the Representations of the unknown Essences of things . 3. Abstract Ideas are only general Names , made by separating Circumstances of time and place , &c. from them , which are only the Inventions , and Creatures of the Vnderstanding . 4. Essence may be taken two ways . 1. For the real , internal , unknown Constitutions of things , and in this Sense it is understood as to particular things . 2. For the abstract Idea , and one is said to be the Nominal , the other the Real Essence . And the Nominal Essences only are immutable ; and are helps to enable Men to consider things , and to discourse of them . But two things are granted , which tend to clear this Matter . 1. That there is a Real Essence , which is the Foundation of Powers and Properties . 2. That we may know these Powers and Properties , although we are ignorant of of the Real Essence . From whence I inferr . 1. That from those true and adequate Ideas , which we have of the Modes and Properties of Things , we have sufficient certainty of the Real Essence of them : For these Ideas are allow'd to be true ; and either by them we may judge of the truth of things ; or we can make no Judgment at all of any thing without our selves . If our Ideas be only the Effects we feel of the Powers of things without us ; yet our Reason must be satisfied , that there could be no such Powers , unless there were some real Beings which had them . So that either we may be certain by those Effects of the real Being of Things ; or it is not possible , as we are framed , to have any certainty at all of any thing without our selves . 2. That from the Powers and Properties of things which are knowable by us , we may know as much of the internal Essence of Things , as those Powers and Properties discover . I do not say , That we can know all Essences of things alike ; nor that we can attain to a perfect understanding of all that belong to them : but if we can know so much , as that there are certain Beings in the World , endued with such distinct Powers and Properties , what is it we complain of the want of , in order to our Certainty of Things ? But we do not see the bare Essence of things . What is that bare Essence without the Powers and Properties belonging to it ? It is that internal Constitution of things from whence those Powers and Properties flow . Suppose we be ignorant of this ( as we are like to be , for any Discoveries that have been yet made , that is a good Argument to prove the uncertainty of Philosophical Speculations about the Real Essences of things ; but it is no prejudice to us , who enquire after the Certainty of such Essences . For although we cannot comprehend the internal Frame , or Constitution of things , nor in what manner they do flow from the Substance ; yet by them we certainly know that there are such Essences , and that they are distinguished from each other by their Powers and Properties . 3. The Essences of things as they are knowable by us , have a Reality in them : For they are founded on the natural Constitution of things . And however the abstract Ideas are the work of the Mind ; yet they are not meer Creatures of the Mind ; as appears by an instance produced of the Essence of the Sun , being in one single Individual ; in which Case it is granted , That the Idea may be so abstracted , that more Suns might agree in it , and it is as much a Sort as if there were as many Suns as there are Stars . So that here we have a Real Essence subsisting in one Individual , but capable of being multiplied into more , and the same Essence remaining . But in this one Sun there is a Real Essence , and not a meer Nominal or abstracted Essence : but suppose there were more Suns ; would not each of them have the Real Essence of the Sun ? For what is it makes the second Sun to be a true Sun , but having the same Real Essence with the first ? If it were but a Nominal Essence , then the second would have nothing but the Name . Therefore there must be a Real Essence in every individual of the same kind ; for that alone is it , which makes it to be what it is . Peter , and Iames , and Iohn , are all true and real Men ; but what is it which makes them so ? Is it the attributing a general Name to them ? No certainly , but that the true and Real Essence of a Man is in every one of them . And we must be as certain of this , as we are that they are Men ; they take their Denomination of being Men from that common Nature , or Essence which is in them . 4. That the general Idea is not made from the simple Ideas by the meer Act of the Mind abstracting from Circumstances , but from Reason and Consideration of the true Nature of Things . For , when we see so many Individuals , that have the same Powers and Properties , we thence infer , that there must be something common to all , which makes them of one kind : and if the difference of Kinds be real , that which makes them of one kind and not of another , must not be a Nominal , but Real Essence . And this difference doth not depend upon the complex Ideas of Substance , whereby Men arbitrarily joyn Modes together in their Minds ; for let them mistake in the Complication of their Ideas , either in leaving out , or putting in what doth not belong to them , and let their Ideas be what they please ; the Real Essence of a Man , and a Horse , and a Tree , are just what they were : and let their Nominal Essences differ never so much , the Real common Essence , or Nature of the several Kinds are not at all alter'd by them . And these Real Essences are unchangeable : For , however there may happen some variety in Individuals , by particular Accidents , yet the Essences of Men , and Horses , and Trees remain always the same ; because they do not depend on the Ideas of Men , but on the Will of the Creator , who hath made several sorts of Beings . 2. Let us now come to the Idea of a Person . For , although the common Nature in mankind be the same , yet we see a difference in the several Individuals from one another : So that Peter and Iames , and Iohn are all of the same kind ; yet Peter is not Iames , and Iames is not Iohn . But what is this Distinction founded upon ? They may be distinguished from each other by our Senses , as to difference of Features , distance of Place , &c. but that is not all ; for supposing there were no such external difference ; yet there is a difference between them , as several Individuals in the same common Nature . And here lies the true Idea of a Person , which arises from that manner of Subsistence which is in one Individual , and is not Communicable to another . An Individual , intelligent Substance , is rather supposed to the making of a Person , than the proper Definition of it ; for a Person relates to something which doth distinguish it from another Intelligent Substance in the same Nature ; and therefore the Foundation of it lies in the peculiar manner of Subsistence , which agrees to one , and to none else of the Kind ; and this is it which is called Personality . But how do our simple Ideas help us out in this Matter ? Can we learn from them , the difference of Nature and Person ? We may understand the difference between abstracted Ideas , and particular Beings , by the Impressions of outward Objects ; and we may find an Intelligent Substance in our selves by inward Perception ; ●ut whether that make a Person or not , must be understood some other Way ; for , if the meer Intelligent Substance makes a Person , then there cannot be the Union of two Natures , but there must be two Persons . Therefore a Person is a compleat Intelligent Substance , with a peculiar manner of Subsistence ; so that if it be a part of another Substance , it is no Person ; and on this account the Soul is no Person , because it makes up an entire Being by its Union with the Body . But when we speak of Finite Substances and Persons , we are certain that distinct Persons do imply distinct Substances , because they have a distinct and separate Existence ; but this will not hold in an infinite Substance , where necessary Existence doth belong to the Idea of it . And although the Argument from the Idea of God , may not be sufficient of it self to prove his Being ; yet it will hold as to the excluding any thing from him , which is inconsistent with necessary Existence ; therefore , if we suppose a Distinction of Persons in the same Divine Nature , it must be in a way agreeable to the infinite Perfections of it . And no objection can be taken from the Idea of God , to overthrow a Trinity of Co-existing Persons in the same Divine Essence . For necessary Existence doth imply a Co-existence of the Divine Persons ; and the Unity of the Divine Essence , that there cannot be such a difference of individual Substances , as there is among mankind . But these things are said to be above our Reason , if not contrary to it , and even such are said to be repugnant to our Religion . 2. That therefore is the next thing to be carefully Examin'd , whether Mysteries of Faith , or Matters of Revelation above our Reason , are to be rejected by us . And a Thing is said to be above our Reason , when we can have no clear and distinct Idea of it in our Minds : And , that if we have no Ideas of a thing , it is certainly but lost labour for us to trouble our selves about it ; and that , if such Doctrines be proposed which we cannot understand , we must have new Powers , and Organs for the Perception of them . We are far from defending Contradictions to our natural Notions ( of which I have spoken already ) but that which we are now upon is , whether any Doctrine may be rejected , when it is offer'd as a Matter of Faith upon this account , that it is above our Comprehension , or that we can have no clear Idea of it in our Minds . And this late Author hath undertaken to prove , That there is nothing so Mysterious , or above Reason in the Gospel . To be above Reason , he saith , may be understood two ways . 1. For a thing Intelligible in it self , but cover'd with figurative and mystical Words . 2. For a thing in its own Nature unconceivable , and not to be judged of by our Faculties , tho' it be never so clearly revealed . This in either Sense is the same with Mystery . And from thence he takes occasion to shew his Learning about the Gentile Mysteries , and Ecclesiastical Mysteries , which might have been spared in this Debate , but only for the Parallel aimed at between them , as to Priest-craft and Mysteries ; without which a Work of this nature would want its due relish with his good Christian Readers . Others we see have their Mysteries too ; but the Comfort is , that they are so easily understood , and seen through ; as when the Heathen Mysteries , are said , to have been instituted at first in Commemoration of some remarkable Accidents , or to the Honour of some great Persons that obliged the World by their Vertues and useful Inventions to pay them such Acknowledgments . He must be very dull that doth not understand the meaning of this ; and yet this Man pretends to vindicate Christianity from being Mysterious . But there are some , he saith , that being strongly inclined out of Ignorance , or Passion to maintain what was first introduced by the Craft or Superstition of their Forefathers , will have some Christian Doctrines to be still Mysteries in the second Sense of the Word ; that is , unconceiveable in themselves , however clearly revealed . I hope there are still some , who are so throughly perswaded of the Christian Doctrine , that they dare own and defend it , notwithstanding all the Flouts and Taunts of a sort of Men , whose Learning and Reason lies most in exposing Priest-craft , and Mysteries . Suppose there are such still in the world , who own their Assent to some Doctrines of Faith , which they confess to be above their Comprehension , what mighty Reason , and invincible Demonstration is brought against them ? He pretends to Demonstrate ; but what I pray ? The Point in hand ? No. But he will Demonstrate something instead of it ? What is that ? Why truly , That in the New Testament Mystery is always used in the first Sense of the Word . And what then ? Doth it therefore follow , that there are no Doctrines in the Gospel above the reach and comprehension of our Reason ? But how doth it appear , that the Word Mystery is always used in that Sense ? When S. Paul saith in his first Epistle to Timothy , Chap. 3. v. 9. That the Deacons must hold the Mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience ; doth he not mean thereby the same with the Form of sound Words , which Timothy had heard of him , 2 Tim. 1.13 . And are not all the main Articles of the Christian Faith comprehended under it ? Especially that whereinto they were Baptized , in the Name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost : and if the Doctrine of the Trinity were understood by this Form , as I have already proved , then this must be a part of the Mystery of Faith. And in the same Chapter , v. 16. He makes God manifest in the Flesh ; the first part of the Mystery of Godliness . If it extends to all the other things , doth it exclude this , which is the first mention'd ? ( And that our Copies are true , is already made to appear . ) There is no Reason therefore to quarrel with our Use of the Word Mystery in this Sense ; but the Debate doth not depend upon the Word , but upon the Sense of it . And therefore I pass over all that relates to the bare use of the Word , as not coming up to the main Point ; which is , Whether any Point of Doctrine , which contains in it something above our Comprehension can be made a Matter of Faith ? For our Author concludes from his Observations , That Faith is so far from being an implicit Assent to any thing above Reason , that this Notion directly contradicts the end of Religion , the Nature of Man , and the Goodness and Wisdom of God. But we must not be frighted with this bold Conclusion , till we have Examin'd his Premises ; and then we shall find , that some who are not great Readers , are no deep Reasoners . The first thing he premises is , That nothing can be said to be a Mystery , because we have not an adequate Idea of it , or a distinct View of all its Properties at once , for then every thing would be a Mystery . What is the meaning of this , but that we cannot have an adequate Idea of any thing ? And yet all our Reason depends upon our Ideas according to him , and our clear and distinct Ideas are by him made the sole Foundation of Reason . All our simple Ideas are said to be adequate , because they are said to be only the Effects of Powers in things which produce Sensations in us . But this doth not prove them adequate as to the things , but only as to our Perceptions . But as to Substances we are told , That all our Ideas of them are inadequate . So that the short of this is , that we have no true Knowledge or Comprehension of any thing ; but we may understand Matters of Faith , as well as we understand any thing else , for in Truth we understand nothing . Is not this a method of true Reasoning to make us reject Doctrines of Faith , because we do not comprehend them , and at the same time to say we comprehend nothing ? For I appeal to the common Sense of mankind , whether we can be said to Comprehend that , which we can have no adequate Idea of ? But he appeals to the Learned ; for he saith , That to comprehend in all correct Authors is nothing else but to know . But what is to know ? Is it not to have adequate Ideas of the things we know ? How then can we know , that of which we can have no adequate Idea ? For if our Knowledge be limited to our Ideas , our Knowledge must be imperfect and inadequate where our Ideas are so . But let us lay these things together . Whatever we can have no adequate Idea of is above our Knowledge , and consequently above our Reason ; and so all Substances are above our Reason ; and yet he saith , with great Confidence , That to Assent to any thing , above Reason , destroys Religion , and the Nature of man , and the Wisdom and Goodness of God. How is it possible for the same man to say this , and to say w●thal , that it is very consistent with that Nature of man , and the Goodness and Wisdom of God , to leave us without adequate Ideas of any Substance ? How come the Mysteries of Faith to require more Knowledge than the Nature of Man is capable of ? In natural things we can have no adequate Ideas ; but the things are confessed to be above our Reason ; but in Divine and Spiritual things , to Assent to things above our Reason is against the Nature of man. How can these things consist ? But these are not Mysteries . Yes , whatever is of that Nature that we can have no Idea of it , is certainly a Mystery to us . For what is more unknown than it is known is a Mystery . The true Notion of a Mystery being something that is hidden from our Knowledge . Of which there may be several Kinds . For a Mystery may be taken for , 1. Something kept secret , but fully understood as soon as it is discover'd ; thus Tully in his Epistles speaks of Mysteries which he had to tell his Friend , but he would not let his Amanuensis know ; no doubt such things might be very well understood as soon as discover'd . 2. Something kept from common Knowledge , although there might be great Difficulties about them when discover'd . Thus Tully speaks of Mysteries among the Philosophers , particularly among the Academicks , who kept up their Doctrine of the Criterion as a Secret , which , when it was known , had many Difficulties about it . 3. Something that Persons were not admitted to know , but with great Preparation for it . Such were the Athenian Mysteries which Tully mentions with Respect , although they deserved it not : but because they were not Communicated to any but with Difficulty , they were called Mysteries . And this is so obvious a piece of Learning , that no great Reading , or deep Reasoning is required about it . Only it may be observed , that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so the Mysteries related to those who were initiated and not made Epoptoe ; i. e. to those who did not throughly understand them , although they had more knowledge of them than such as were not initiated . Olympiodorus , in reckoning up the Degrees of Admissions , mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So that they were properly Mysteries to such , who knew something ; though there were other things farther to be discover'd , but they did not yet know what they were , as the Epoptoe did . From hence the ancient Christian Writers did not only call the Sacraments , but more abstruse Points of Faith by the name of Mysteries ; so S. Chrysostom calls the Resurrection , a great and ineffable Mystery . And Isidore Pelusiota in his Epistle to Lampetius saith , That S. Paul , when he speaks of the great Mystery of Godliness , doth not mean that it is wholly unknown to us , but that it is impossible to Comprehend it . Theophylact saith , it is therefore called the great Mystery of Godliness ; because although it be now revealed to all , yet the manner of it is hidden from us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for this Reason it is called a Mystery . But this is in the way of Reading ; let us now come to deep Reasoning ; and see how strongly he argues against this Sense of the Word Mysteries : his Words are these ; They trifle then exceedingly , and discover a mighty Scarcity of better Arguments , who defend their Mysteries , by this pitiful shift of drawing Inferences from what is unknown to what is known , or of insisting upon adequate Ideas ; except they will agree as some do , to call every Spire of Grass , sitting and standing , fish and flesh to be Mysteries . And if out of a pertinacious or worse humour , they will be still fooling , and call these things Mysteries , I 'm willing to admit as many as they please in Religion , if they will allow me likewise to make mine as intelligible to others , as these are to me . It is easie to guess whom these kind Words were intended for : And are not these very modest and civil Expressions ? Trifling , Fooling ; out of a pertinacious , or worse Humour ; but why , Fooling about Mysteries , to call such things by that Name , which are in some measure known , but in a greater measure unknown to us ? and if these are real Mysteries in Nature , why may not the same term be used for Matters of Faith ? And I think in so plain a Case , no great store of Arguments need to be used . But in these natural things , he saith , we have distinct Ideas of the Properties which make the Nominal Essence , but we are absolutely ignorant of the Real Essence , or intrinsick Constitution of a thing , which is the ground or support of all its Properties . Are not then ( without Trifling and Fooling ) these Real Essences Mysteries to them ? They know there are such by the Ideas of their Properties , but know nothing of their Real Essence ; and yet they will not allow them to be Mysteries ? If they do understand them , why do they say , They do not , nor cannot ? And if this be true , let them call them what they please , they must be inexplicable Mysteries to them . So that all this is mere quarrelling about a Word , which they would fain be rid of , if they knew how ; but they involve and perplex themselves more by their own deep Reasonings against the Trifling and Fooling of others . But he saith , That some would have the most palpable Absurdities and gross Contradictions to go down , or words that signifie nothing , because men cannot comprehend the Essence of their own Souls , nor the Essence of God , and other Spiritual Substances . We utterly deny , that any Article of our Faith contains in it any palpable Absurdities , or gross Contradictions ( as I hope hath been proved already as to the Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at ) but surely your deep Reasoners may find a difference between gross Contradictions to our Reason , and barely being above it , or not having any distinct Conception of the Nature of it . And that is all that we assert , and which they grant as to all Substances . If this be their Way of arguing , they may even return to Transubstantiation again , without any great lessening of their Understandings . But none are so bold in attacking the Mysteries of the Christian Faith ; as the Smatterers in Ideas , and new Terms of Philosophy , without any true Understanding of them . For these Ideas are become but another sort of Canting with such men ; and they would reason as well upon Genus and Species , or upon Occult Qualities , and Substantial Forms , but only that they are Terms out of Fashion . But we find that the change of Terms doth neither improve nor alter mens Understandings ; but only their Ways of speaking ; and ill Gamesters will not manage their Game one jot the better , for having new Cards in their hands . However , we must see what Work they make of it . Although we do not know the Nature of the Soul , yet we know as much of it , as we do of any thing else , if not more , i. e. we really know nothing by any adequate Idea of it , but we must believe nothing , but what we have a clear distinct Idea of . Is not this a rare way of fixing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason ? As to God and his Attributes , it is said , That they are not Mysteries to us for want of an adequate Idea ; no not Eternity . And in another place , As to God , we comprehend nothing better than his Attributes . Let us try this , by the Attribute pitched on by himself ; viz. Eternity . We see he pretends to comprehend nothing better than the Divine Attributes ; and Eternity as well as any ; ( which I am very apt to believe ) but how doth he Comprehend Eternity ? Even by finding , That it cannot be Comprehended . Is not this Subtle and deep Reasoning ? But Reason he saith , performs its part in finding out the true Nature of Things ; and if such be the Nature of the thing , that it cannot be Comprehended , then Reason can do no more , and so it is not above Reason . Was there ever such Trifling that pretended to Reason ; and that about the highest Matters , and twith Scorn and Contempt of others whom he calls Mysterious Wits ? The Question is , whether any thing ought to be rejected as an Article of Faith , because we cannot comprehend it , or have a clear and distinct Perception of it ? He concludes it must be so , or else we overthrow Religion , and the Nature of Man , and the Wisdom and Goodness of God. Here is an Essential Attribute of God , viz. his Eternity . Am I bound to believe it or not ? Yes , doubtless . But how can I comprehend this Attribute of Eternity ? Very easily . How so ? Do not you comprehend that it is incomprehensible ? What then ? Doth this reach the Nature of the thing , or only the manner of our Conception ? If the Nature of the thing be , that it cannot be comprehended , then you rightly understand the Nature of the thing , and so it is not above your Reason . Let the Case be now put as to the Trinity ; do you believe the Doctrine of it , as of Divine Revelation ? No , God hath given me the Nature , and Faculties of a Man ; and I can believe nothing , which I cannot have a distinct and clear Idea of ; otherwise I must have new Faculties . Will you hold to this Principle ? Then you must believe nothing , which you cannot have a clear and distinct Idea of . Very true : But can you have a clear and distinct Idea of what you cannot comprehend ? A clear Idea , is that whereof the mind hath a full and evident Perception . A distinct Idea , is that whereby the mind perceives the difference of it from all others . Is this right ? Yes . But can you have a full and evident Perception of a thing , so as to difference it from all others , when you grant it to be Incomprehensible ? If you have a full Perception of it , you comprehend its Nature , and especially if you can difference it from all other things ; but when you say , its Nature is Incomprehensible , and yet believe it , you must deny it to be necessary to Faith , to have a clear and distinct Idea of the thing proposed . And if it be repugnant to your Faculties to reject the Trinity , because you cannot have a clear and distinct Idea of it , for the same Reason , you must unavoidably reject his Eternity , and all other Attributes which have Infinity joyned with them . But we must stop here , because this admirable Undertaker hath said , That he despairs not of rendring Eternity , and Infinity as little Mysterious , as that three and two make five . And till then I take my leave of him . And so I return to our professed Vnitarians , who in answer to my Sermon fell upon the same Subject , and it is necessary that I consider so much , as tends to the clearing of it . In my Sermon I had urged this Argument to prove , that we may be bound to believe some things that are Incomprehensible to us , because the Divine Nature , and Attributes are acknowledged to be so ; and I had said , ( 1. ) That there is no greater Difficulty in the Conception of the Trinity , and Incarnation , than there is of Eternity . Not but that there is great Reason to believe it , but from hence it appears , that our Reason may oblige us to believe some things , which it is not possible for us to comprehend . And what say our Vnitarians to this ? They Charge my Notion of Eternity ( as they call it ) with a Contradiction . The best way of proceeding will be to set down my own Words which are these . We know that either God must have been for ever , or it is impossible he ever should be , for if he should come into being when he was not , he must have some Cause of his Being , and that which was the first Cause would be God. But if he was for ever , he must be from himself , and what Notion , or Conception can we have in our Minds concerning it ? To this say they , To say a Person , or Thing is from it self is a Contradiction ; it implies this Contradiction , it was before it was . And they are sorry an Eternal God must be a Contradiction . What a false and spiteful Inference is this ? But it had look'd like very deep Reasoning , if I had said , That God was the cause of himself . For , that would have implied the Contradiction he had charged it with : but I had expressly excluded his being from any Cause ; and the thing I urged was only the Impossibility , of our having a clear and distinct Conception of Eternity . For , if he could have no Cause , what could we think of his being Eternal ? If to be from himself as a Cause , be unconceivable , ( as I grant it is ) then it proves what I designed , that we cannot have any distinct Idea of Eternity . But to be from himself in the Sense generally understood , is a meer Negative Expression ; for no Men were such Fools to imagine any thing could be before it self , and in this Sense only , Learned Men have told us , that it is to be understood by those ancient and modern Writers , who have used that Expression . As when S. Ierom saith , That God is self Originated ; and S. Augustin , that God is the Cause of his own Wisdom ; and Lactantius , that God made himself ; all these and such like Expressions are only to be Negatively understood . But I confess I aimed at shewing , that it was impossible for us to have any clear and distinct Idea of Eternity , and therefore I took in all possible ways of conceiing it , either by Gods being from himself , or his Co-existing with all differences of Time , without any Succession in his own Being ; or his having a successive Duration . From all which I argued the Impossibility of a clear Notion of Eternity . And now what do these Men do ? They dispute against one of these Notions , and very triumphantly expose , as they think , the Absurdities of it . And what then ? Why then this Notion will not do . But I say none will do . I prove there can be no successive Duration in a Being of necessary Existence ; and that it is not to be conceived , how without Succession God should be present with the Being , and not Being , the Promise and Performance of the same thing ; and yet one of these ways we must make use of . From whence I concluded , That all we can attain to is , a full Satisfaction of our Reason concerning God's Eternity , although we can form no distinct Conception of it in our Minds . But when these Men instead of answering the Argument from all the Notions of Eternity , only dispute against one Notion of it , they apparently shew the weakness of their Cause , if it will bear no other Defences , but such as this . For I take it , that the main Debate in point of Reason depends upon this , whether we can be certain of the Being of a Thing , of which we can have no clear and distinct Idea ? If we may , then it can be no Objection in point of Revelation , that we can have no clear and distinct Idea of the Matter revealed ; since there can be no Reason to tie us up stricter in Point of Revelation , than we are without it . If we can be certain in Reason of many things , we can have no such Ideas of , what imaginable Reason can there be , that a Point of Faith should be rejected on that account . 2. I urged another Attribute of God , viz. his Spirituality for the same Reason ; viz. that we are satisfied in point of Reason that God must be a Spirit ; and yet we cannot have a clear distinct positive Notion of a Spirit . And what answer do they give to this ? As wise as the former . Why truly , I had no cause to object this against them , because they own the Spirituality of God's Nature , and none since Biddle have denied it . Very well ! but doth my argument proceed upon that , or upon the not having a distinct and clear Idea of a Spirit ? It was hardly possible for men so to mistake my meaning , unless they did it , because they had no other answer to give . 3. I argued from God's Prescience , which I do expresly assert , and prove that they cannot have a distinct Notion of it , nay that Socinus denied it , because he could not understand it . 〈…〉 they tell me , I cannot defend our 〈…〉 against theirs without finding Contra●●●tions in God●s Eternity and Foreknowledge . If this be the Ingenuity and Justice and Charity of the Vnitarians ; commend me to the honest-hearted Deists , if there be any such , as they assure us there are . One had better be charged with Trifling and Fooling with Mysteries , than with undermining the main foundations of Religion , by charging them with Contradictions . But nothing could be farther from my Thoughts , than any thing tending that way . And such a base Calumny is too much honoured with a Confutation . But do they offer to clear the difficulty and give us a clear and distinct Idea of God●s fore-knowing future Events without a certain Cause to make them future . Nothing like it . For the question is not , Whether a thing be necessary because God foresees it as certain , ( as they suppose . ) But how of a thing merely possible it comes to be certain without a certain Cause ; and how a thing which hath no certain Cause can be certainly foreknown , and what clear and distinct Notion we can have of this in our Minds . If they had answer'd this , they had said something to the purpose . To resolve all into God's infinite Wisdom is a good answer from us , but not from them . For we think it our Duty to satisfie our selves with what God hath revealed , without prying into the manner of things above our Comprehension ; but these Men who will receive nothing but what they have clear and distinct Ideas of , ought to shew the manner of this , or else we must be excused on the same reason , if we allow the manner of the divine Subsistences in the same Essence to be above our Comprehension . 4. I shew'd how unreasonable their demands were , when the Nature of God is owned to be incomprehensible , and his Perfections infinite . And now of a sudden they are quite turned about ; for before they were only for fencing and warding off Blows , but at last they come to the point , and own the being of God to be comprehensible by them ; and that they have clear and distinct Ideas of God's infinite Attributes . This is indeed to the purpose , if they can make these things out . But Fencers have many tricks , and I wish we find none here . I had said , That in consequence to the Assertion , that nothing is to be believ'd , but what may be comprehended , the very Being of God must be rejected too , because his Being is incomprehensible , and so they must reject one God as well three Persons . To this they reply , That to comprehend the Being or Existence of God , is only this , to comprehend that God is , and if we cannot comprehend that , all Religion ceases . Is not this a fine turn ? What I said of God as to the Perfections of his Nature , they will have it understood of his bare Existence , which I do not mention . When God is said to be an incomprehensible Being ; who before them did understand the meaning to be , That we cannot comprehend that there is a God ? This is not mere trifling , for it looks like something worse ; and yet they presently after say , That to comprehend a thing is to have a clear adequate Conception of it . And will they pretend to have such a one of the divine Essence , when they confess but a little before , That we converse every day with very many things , none of which we comprehend , and that I might have spared my pains in proving it ? But what can be the meaning of these sayings , They cannot comprehend the common Natures of things , nor have a clear and distinct Idea of them , but they can comprehend an infinite Being , whom all Mankind own to be incomprehensible . But as to divine Attributes , they say , They have clear distinct and adequate Conceptions of them ; and instance in Eternity , Power , Wisdom and Iustice. We do not deny that in such Attributes which we apply to God , because we find them to be Perfections in us , we have a distinct and clear Perception of them , as they are consider'd in themselves , for that is the reason why we attribute them to God. But for such as peculiarly belong to God as Eternity doth ; and for the degrees of other Attributes as they belong to him , as they are infinite , so they are above our Comprehension . ( 1. ) As to Eternity , say they , it is a clear and distinct Notion of Eternity , to say , it is a duration without beginning and without end . But we can have no clear and distinct Notion of Duration , when applied to a Being that hath necessary Existence . For Duration , they say , consists in a Succession . And what Succession can there be in a Being which always is the same , if there were no difference of times , i. e. God was the same Being before time was , and is the very same Being under all the differences of times ; he hath not any other Duration now than he had before , and what Succession could there be where there was no time ? But we make use of Duration with respect to things done in time , and for the help of our und●●standings apply the measure of time to divine Acts. But in a necessary Existence , there can be no past , present , or to come ; and in a successive Duration , there must be conceived a longer continuance from time to time ; which is repugnant to the Notion of a Being , which always is . So that , if we cannot conceive Eternity wi●hout Duration , nor Duration without Succession ; nor can apply Succession to a Being which hath necessary Existence , then we can have no clear and distinct Notion of God's Eternity . ( 2. ) As to the Infiniteness of God's Perfections , they say , That although the Mind be in it self finite , yet it hath an infinite Comprehension , for what is finite with respect to its Extension of parts may be infinite in other respects , and with respect to some of its Powers . But how doth it appear that we have any Power to comprehend what is infinite ? All the Power we have extends only to adding and enlarging our Ideas without bounds , i. e. we can put no stop to our apprehensions , but still they may go farther than we can possibly think , but is this an infinite Comprehension ? So far from it , that this shews our Capacities to be finite , because our Ideas cannot go so far as our Reason . For our Reason tells us , we can never go so far , but we may still go farther : but it is impossible for our understanding to have distinct Ideas of the infinite moments in an eternal Succession of the utmost Bounds of Immensity , or of the extent of infinite Power and Knowledge , since the very Notion of Infinite implies , that we can set no bounds to our Thoughts ; and therefore although the Infinity of the divine Attributes be evident to our Reason , yet it is likewise evident to our Reason , that what is infinite must be above our Comprehension . II. I come now to the last enquiry which is that if we allow things above our Reason , what stop can be put to any absurd Doctrine , which we may be required to believe ? And this is that which our Vnitarians object in all their late Pamphlets . In answer to my Sermon they say , That on our principles , our Reason would be in vain , and all Science and Certainty would be destroy'd , which they repeat several times . And from hence they do so frequently insist on the Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation : They say , That all the defence we have made for one will serve for the other , or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine . That what we say , will equally serve all the Nonsense , and impossible Doctrines that are to be found among Men ; and they particularly instance in Transubstantiation . I need mention no more . But I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon , without an answer to two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject , at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an argument to bring in Transubstantiation , as that is now alledged for casting off the other . But I must do them that right to tell the World , that at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues , which I saw , and wish'd might be Printed , that the World might be satisfied about it and them . But they thought fit to forbear ; and in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated , there is but once , that I can find , any notice taken of those Dialogues , and that in a very superficial manner . For the main Design and Scope of them is past over , and only one particular mention'd , which shall be answer'd in its due order . But in answer to the general Enquiry , I shall endeavour to state the due Bounds between Faith and Reason , and thereby to shew , that by those grounds on which we receive the Doctrine of the Trinity , we do not give way to the Entertainment of any absurd Opinion , nor overthrow the Certainty of Reason . 1. We have no difference with them about the Vse of our Reason as to the Certainty of a Revelation . For in this case , we are as much as they , for searching into the grounds of our Faith ; for we look on it as a reasonable Act of our Minds , and if we did not allow this , we must declare our selves to believe without grounds . And if we have grounds for our Faith , we can express them in Words that are intelligible ; and if we can give an account of our Faith in an intelligible manner , and with a design to give others satisfaction about it , I think this is making use of our Reason in matters of Faith. 2. We have no difference with them about the use of our Reason , as to the true Sense of Revelation . We never say , that Men are bound to believe upon the bare sound of Words without examining the Sense of them . We allow all the best and most reasonable ways of attaining to it , by Copies , Languages , Versions , comparing of Places , and especially the Sense of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages , nearest the Apostolical Times and express'd in solemn and publick Acts. By these Rules of Reason we are willing to proceed , and not by any late and uncertain methods of interpreting Scripture . 3. We differ not with them about the right use of the Faculties which God hath given us , of right Vnderstanding such matters as are offer'd to our Assent . For it is to no purpose to require them to believe , who cannot use the Faculties which are necessary in order to it . Which would be like giving the Benefit of the Clergy to a Man with a Cataract in both his Eyes . And it would be very unreasonable to put his Life upon that Issue , whether he could read or not , because he had the same Organs of Seeing that other Men had ; for in this case the whole matter depended not on the Organ but the Vse of it : This needs no Application . 4. We differ not with them about rejecting some Matters proposed to our Belief which are contradictory to the Principles of Sense and Reason . It is no great argument of some Mens Reason , whatever they pretend to talk against admitting seeming Contradictions in Religion ; for who can hinder seeming Contradictions ? Which arise from the shallowness of Mens Capacities , and not from the repugnancy of Things : and who can help Mens Understandings ? But where there is evident proof of a Contradiction to the Principles of Sense and Reason ; we are very far from owning any such thing to be an Article of Faith , as in the case of Transubstantiation . Which we reject , not only , as having no foundation in Scripture , but as repugnant to the common Principles of Sense and Reason ; as is made to appear in the two Dialogues before-mention'd . But our Vnitarians find fault with the Author of them , for laying the force of his argument upon this , That there are a great many more Texts for the Trinity than are pretended for Transubstantiation ; whereas many other arguments are insisted on , and particularly the great Absurdity of it in point of Reason , Dial. 2. from p. 33. to the end . And it is not the bare number of Texts , which he relies upon , but upon the greater Evidence and Clearness of the Tex●s on one side than on the other , which depends upon figurative Words , not capable of a literal Sense without overthrowing the Doctrine designed to be proved by it . See with what Ingenuity these Men treat the Defenders of the Trinity , and the Enemies to Transubstantiation , which they call only a Philosophical Error or Folly ; but the Doctrine of the Trinity is charged with Nonsense , Contradiction , and Impossibilities . But wherein then lies the difference in point of Reason ? For thus far I have shew'd , that we are far from overthrowing Reason , or giving way to any absurd Doctrines . It comes at last to the point already treated of in this Chapter , how far we may be obliged to believe a Doctrine which carries in it something above our Reason ; or of which we cannot have any clear and distinct Ideas . And of this I hope I have given a sufficient Account in the foregoing Discourse . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A61548-e160 Consideraton the Ezplications of the Doctrine of the Trinity , by Dr. W. &c. p. 10. P. 9. P. 13. Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians , A. D. 1695 , p. 3. Letter to the Universities , p. 15. Discourse of Nominal and Real Trinit . p. 7. P. 10. P. 11. P. 13. Tritheism charged , &c. p. 157. Animadvers p. 245. Animadv . &c. p. 243. Ibid p. 240. Basil Ep. 64. Considerat . on the Explication , p. 23. Animadv . p. 291. Tritheism charged , p. 306. Chap. VII . Letter to the University , p. 15. Discourse of Nominal and real Trinitarians , p. 10. Tritheism charged , &c. p. 157. Discourse of Nominal and Real Unitarians , p. 18. Discourse of Nom. &c. p. 19. P. 32. Consideraton the Explication of the Trinity , p. 12. Tritheism charged , &c. p. 309. Direct . Inquisit . part II. quaest . 2. p. 226. Modest examin p. 19. P. 27 , 28. Notes on Athanasius his Creed , Edit . 2. p. 19. Modest examin p 15. P. 17. P. 29. P. 30. Remarks upon the examinat . p. 33. Remarks p. 34. P. 36. Ibid. Animadv . p. 36. Modest examin p. 30. Tritheism charged , p. 262. P. 264. More Nevoch , par . II. c. 1. Modest examin . p. 30. Considerat . on the Explication of the Trinity , &c. p. 12. Leont . de Sectis Act. 5. Niceph. Callist l. 18. c. 46 , 47. Anselm . epist. l. 2. ep . 41. De fide Trinit . &c. c. 3. C. 48. C 49. Phot. Biblioth . Cod. 24. Phot Cod. 23. Isid. Orig. l. 7. de haeret de Trinit . Aug. de haeres●● 74. Modest examin . p. 19. Discourse of Real and Nominal Trinit p 4 Greg de Laur Apol . Joachim Abb●t , c. 66. Decret . Greg. l. 1. c. 2. Comment . in decret . opusc . 24. Bri●f Account of Valentin . Gentilis , p. 132. Ibid. Modest examin . p. 20. Brief Account , &c. p. 40. Brief Account , &c. p. 41 , 42 , 43 , 45. Modest examin . p. 29. Genebrard de Trinit l. 2. p. 91. L 2 p 159. P. 153. Od●●at rixas & jurgia , p●aesertimque inter eruditos ; ac turpe esse diceb●t viros indubitatè doctos canina rabie famam vicissim suam rodere ac lacerare scriptis trucibus , tanquam vilissimos de plebe cerdones in Angiportis sese luto ac stercore conspurcan●●● . Nic Rigalt . vit . P. 〈◊〉 , p. 48. Considerat . on the Explication by Dr. W. &c. p. 12. P. 13. P. 22. P. 23. P. 25. P. 19. P. 13. Defence of the Notes on Athanasius his Creed . p. 24. P. 31. Vindication of the Archbishop's Sermons . p. 5. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 47. History of the Unitarians , p. 10. Considerat . on the Explication by the Archbishop , &c. p. 13. Answ●r to the Archbish . Serm. p. 43. P. 44. Answer to the Archbishop p. 65. Some thoughts upon Dr. Sh. Vindication , p. 21. Letter of Resol . concerning the Trinity and Incarn . p. 18. Letter of Resol . p. 5. Letter of Resol . concerning the Trinity and Incarn . p. 18. Elmacin hist. Sarac . p. 4. Levin . Warner . de Alcoran . Acts of Athanasius , p. 5. Ricard . confut . legis Saracen . c. 10. Letter of Resol . p. 19. Answer to the Archbishop p. 44. P. 66. Notes for div A61548-e10340 Considerat . on the explications of the Trinity , by Dr. W. &c. p. 22 , 32. Defence of the History of the Unit . p. 5. Answer to the Archbishop's Sermon , p. 4. Answer to the Archb. Serm. p 50. Explic●● of the T●●nity , p. 29. Answer to Milbourn , p. 15 , 23. History of the Unit. p. 43. Answer to the Archb. p. 29 , 30. Answer to my Sermon p. 4. Ans. to Dr. Wallis 's four Letters , p. 4. Theodoret haeret . l. 1. & 11. Epiphan . Haeres . 19. n. 5.29 . n. 17. Tertull de praescript . haeret c 52. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 28. Hist. of the Unit. p. 10. Edit . II. Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. Ante-Nicenism . p. 37. Answer to Milb . p. 20. Euseb. l. 4. c. 5. Resp. ad Judic . Eccles . p. 176. Answer to Dr. Bull , part I. p. 41. Euseb. l. 4 , c. 22. Act. 24.5 . Epiphan . haer . 29 n. 7. Euseb. l. 3. c. 5. L. 4. c. 8. L. 4 c. 6. Oros. l. 7. c. 13. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 42. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 39. Euseb. l. 3. c. 24 , 39. L 5. c. 8.10 . L. 6. c. 25. Hieron . c. Pelag. l. 3. Hieron . de script . in Matth. Comment . in Matth. c. 12. In Isa. c. 11. In Ezek. c. 18. Erasm. advers . Stunic . c. 1. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 35. P. 40. P. 39. Origen c. Cels. l. 5. p. 274. Theodor haeret . l. 2. c. 1. Hieron in Matth. c. 12. Euseb. l. 5. c. 8. Epiph. de ponder . & mens . n. 16. Euseb. l. 6. c. 17. August . c. Crescon . l. 1. c. 31. Hier. in Heb. c. 3. Advers . Ruffin . Answer to the Archb. Sermon p. 44 , 66. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. Reflect . on Dr. Bull , p 35. Answer to Milbourn , p. 20. Athan. ad solit . vit . agent p. 857. Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. Respons . ad judicium Ecclesiae p●r I● . Bull , p. 150 Restaurans Pauli Samosatensis Artes & Dolos . Decret . Conc. Sardin . apud Hilar. fragment . p. 1310. Ed. Par. 1693. Euseb l. 7. c. 27. Theodor. haer . fab . l. 2. c. 8. Athanas. desentent . Dionysii , p. 558. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. Athan. de Incarn . To I. p. 591. P. 635. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Epiph. haer . 65. n. 1. Concil . Ephesin . part I. Supplicatio Basilii , &c. Phot. Epist . 35. Marius Mercat . de 12 Anath . Nestorii , n. 16. Leontius de sectis p. 436. edit . Basil. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. Leont . c. Nestor . l. 3. Hilar. fragment . p. 1321. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. Pagi Critica in Bar. A. 272. n. 2. Answer to the Archbishop , p. 54. Euseb l. 8 , 13 , 9. c. 6. Theod. l. 1. c. 4. Petav. de Trinit . l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. H. Valesius in Theod . l. 1. c. 4. Baron . A. 318. n. 75 , &c. Soz. l. 3 c. 5. Philost . l. 2. c. 15 , 16. Athanas. Tom. 1. p. 898. Socr. l. 2. c. 19. Athan. de Synodis Arim. &c. p. 897. Epiph haeret . 71. Sulpit . Sever. l. 2. p. 397. Prudent . Apoth . Epiph. n. 2. N. 1 , 2. N. 4. Epiph. haeret . 71. Socr. l. 2. ● . 30. Soz. l. 4 c. 6. Hist. Tripart . l. 5. c. 8. Hist. of the Unit. p. 10. Concil general . To. II. p. 888. Ib. p. 989. Ambros. Apol. David . c. 4. Ans. to the Archbish. Serm p. 53. Theodor. haer●t . Fab. l. 2. in Photino . Sand. Hist. Enucl . l. 3. p. 357. P. 372. Blond . Dec. 2. l. 2. Sand. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. p. 64.93 . Socr. l. 2. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hilar. de Synod . p. 1175. Ed. Paris . Hilar. de Trinit . l. 10. n. 50. Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. n. 7. August . Ep. 193. Ma●ii Mercat . Oper . Par. 2. p. 17. 〈◊〉 12. A●●th . N●s●orii p. 128. Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Answer to the Serm. about the Trinity , p. 4 , 5 , 8. History of the Unitar . p. 9. n. 7. D●fence of the History of the Unitarians , p. 7. A●t o● Athanasiu● , p. 13. Interrogant enim nos aliquando Infideles , & dicunt , Patrem quem dicitis , Deum dicitis ? Respondemus Deum . Filium quem dicitis , Deum dicitis ? Respondemus Deum Spiritum Sanctum quem dicitis , Deum dicitis ? Respondemus Deum . Ergo inquiunt , Pater & Filius & Spiritus Sanctus tres sunt Dei. Respondemus , Non. Turbantur , quia non illuminantur , cor clausum habent quia clavem fidei non habent Aug. in Ioh. Tr. 39. Nos ergo Fratres , fide praecedente , quae sanat oculum cordis nostri , quod intelligimus sine obscuritate capiamus , quod non intelligimus sine dubitatione credamus . Ibid. Answ. to Serm. p. 5. A fundamento fidei non recedamus , ut ad culmen Perfectionis veniamus . Deus est Pater . Deus est Filius , Deus est Spiritus Sanctus , & ramen Pater non est qui Filius : nec Filius est qui Pater , nec Spiritu● Sanctus . Patris & Filii Spiritus , Pater est aut Filius . Ibid. Trinitas Unus Deus , Trinitas una Aeternitas , una Potestas , una Majestas , tres Personae sed non tres Dii . Non audemus dicere unam Essentiam tres Substantias , sed unam Essentiam vel Substantiam , tres autem Personas , quemadmodum multi Latini ista tractantes & digni auctoritate dixerunt , cum alium modum aptiorem non invenirent , quo enunciarent verbis , quod sine verbis intelligebant . Aug. de Trinit . l. 5. c. 8. Nunc mihi Calumniator respondeat , quid ergo tres ? Ecce inquit tres dixisti , sed quid tres exprime ? Immo tu numera . Nam ego compleo tres , cum dico , Pater & Filius & Spiritus Sanctus . Id. ubi supra . Id enim quod Pater ad se est , Deus est , quod ad Filium est , Pater est : quod Filius ad seipsum est , Deus est ; quod ad Patrem est , Filius est . Sed non quomodo illi duo homines sunt sic isti duo Dii . Quare hoc non est ita ibi ? Quia illud aliud , hoc autem aliud est , quia illa Divini●● est , haec humanitas . Ubi cogitare coeperis , incipis numerare ; ubi numeraveris , quid numeraveris , non potes respondere . Pater , Pater est ; Filius , Filius ; Spiritus Sanctus , Spiritus Sanctus est . Quid sunt isti tres ? non tres Dii ? Non. Non tres omnipotentes ? Non , sed unus Omnipotens . Hoc solo numerum insinuant , quod ad invicem sunt , non quod ad se sunt . Boëth . Oper . p. ● 121. Numerus enim duplex est , unus quidem , quo numeramus , alter verò qui in rebus numerabilibus constat ; Ergo in Numero quo numeramus , repetitio unitatum facit Pluritatem ; in rerum vero numero non facit Pluralitatem Unitatum repetitio . Ita igitur substantia continet Unitatem , relatio verò multiplicat Trinitatem . Nam idem Pater qui Filius non est ; nec idem uterque qui Spiritus Sanctus . Idem tamen Deus est , Pater Filius & Spiritus Sanctus . Answer to Milb . p. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Porphyr . Isag. c. 2. ●6 . Niceph. Callist . l. 18. c. 47. Discourse concerning the nominal and real Trinitarian , p. 16. Petav. de Trinit . l. 4. c. 4. Defence of the History of the Unit . p. 5. Ib. Ib. Answer to La Moth. p. 5. Explic. p. 13. Letter to the University , p. 13. Curcell . devocibus Trinit . Sect. 70. Athanas. de Sentent . Dionys . p. 558 , 567. Orat. 4. de Arian . p. 456. De Communi Essent . &c. p. 214. Expos. Fidei , p. 25● . In illud Omnia mihi trad p. 154. Ep. ad Serap . p. 259. Orat. 4. c. Arian . p. 554 , 456 , 459. &c. Curcell . Sect. III. Petav. de Trinit . l. 4. c. 16. De Decret . Synod . Nic. p. 259.269 , 274 , 276. Orat. 5. c. Arian . p. 514. De Decret . Synod p. 275. Curcell . Dissert . n. 106. Curcell . n. 82. Athanas. de Synod . Arim & Seluc . p. 916 , 920 , 928. P. 919. Curcell . n. 84. Maxim. Oper. T. II. p. 384. T. I. p 413. Curcell . Sect. 73. A Discourse conc●rn●●g No●●●●l and real Unitar . p 26. Basil Hom. ●7 . p. 60● , 604. Epist. 141 , 391 , 64. T. I. p. 605. T. II. p. 9●6 . Cyril Alex . Dialog . de Trinit . 3. p. 498 , 500. Curcell . n. 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 810. B. Phot. Cod. 24. Cod. 234. Discourse conce●ning the Nominal and Real Unitar . p. 26 , 27. Basil. Ep. 141. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil. T. II. p. 926. Petav. de Trinit . l. 4 c. 13. n. 10. Cur. n 106. Basil. T. I. p. 604. Cur n. 113. N. 105. T. II. p. 30. Cur. n. 106. Greg. Nyssen . T. III. p. 17. Petav. de Trin. l. 4. ● 9 n. 2 , 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. Calist. hist. l. 18. c. 47. Athan. T. II. p. 280. Caesar. Quaest. 3. p. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyssen , Tom. III. p. Cur. n. 48. N. 107. Cur. n. 89. Hilar. de Synod . n. 67. Hilar. de Trinit . l. 4. n. 6. Hilar. de Synod . n. 18. Hilar. de Trinit . l. 6. n. 12. Lumen ex lumine , quod sine detrimento suo naturam suam praestat ex sese , & quod dat habet , & quod dederit habeat , nascaturque quod sit . Petav. de Trinit . l. 5. c. 8. n. 9 , 12. Curcell . n. 96. Ambros. de Fide l. 5. c. 3. ed. Nov. Curcell . n. 97. Aug. de Trinit . l. 7. c. 6. C Maxim l. 1. Curcell . n. 114. August . de Trinit . l. 4. c. 21. l. 5. c. 3 , 5 , 8. l. 6. c. 1. De Ago●e Christ. c. 16. C. Maxim. l 3. c. 10. Curcell . n. 114. Notes on Athanasius his Creed , p. 11. Basil. Ep. 141. Notes on Athanas . his Creed , p. 13. Facund . l 1. p. 19. Ed. Serm. Theod. haeret . Fab. l. 2. c. 3. Athan. de Sent. Dionys . p. 558. Athanas. de Decret . Fidei Nicen . p. 275. Athanas. de Sent. Dionys. Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29. Athan. Orat . 4. c. Arian . p. 456. Greg. Nazian . Or. I. p. 16 , 17. Or. XXI p. 380. Basil. Hom. 27. p. 602 , 604. Basil. Epist 141. ●pist . 64.391 . Athanas. ● . 567. Greg. Naz. p. 16. Basil. Hom. 27. Ruffin . p. 211. hist. l. 1. Athan. Ep. ad Antioch , p. 577. Socin . Vol. l. p. 778. Notes on Athanas . his Creed , p. 13. Answer to my Sermon , p. 14. Hist. of the Unit. p. 15. Edit . 2. Hist of the Unit. p. 17. Defence of of the Hist. of Unitar . p. 35. Hist. of the Unit. p. 16. Ibid p. 17. Answer to Dr. Wallis his Letter , p. 9. Answer to my Sermon , p. 9. Reflections no Dr. Bull , p. 39 , 46. Sand. p. 93. Answ. to the Archbishop , p. 54. Eus●b . Pra●p . Evang . l. 11. c. 18. Cyril . c. Julian , l. 10. p. 427.335 . Julian ep . 51. Facund . l. 4. p. 163. Rittangel in Jezirah p. 96. Morinus Exerc. Biblic . l. 3. Exerc. 8. c. 6. Eusebius Dem. Evang . l. 4. c. 1. Bichin . Happerasch p. 21. Paris , A. D. 1566. Joh. 1.1.3.13.6.38 , 62.8.42 . Answer to the Archbishop's Serm. p. 56. Answer to my Sermon , p. 10. Hist. of the Unit. p. 29. Answer to my Sermon , p. 9. Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 56. Matth. 17.1 . Mar. 9 2. Luk. 9.28 . 2 Pet. 1 16. 17. 18. Enjed. in Joh. 6.62 . Answer to my Sermon , p. 10. History of the Unit. p. 26. P. 11 P. 2● . H. Grot. Opusc p. 294 T. 3. Christe caput rerum vitae melioris Origo , Immensi mensura Patris , quem mente Supremâ Miratus sese Genitor , de Lumine Lumen Fundit , & aequali se spectat imagine totum . H Grot. Syl. p. 8. Ed. 1643 ▪ Joh. 8.58 . Answer to the Archbishop . p. 58. Joh. 10.36 . Answer to Milb . p. 31. Ib. p. 30. Joh. 19.7 . Matt. 26.63 . Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. l. 2. c. 12. Pocock Not. Miscel . ad Maim . p. 307. &c. Matt. 16.16 S. Joh. 6.69 . 1.49 . 10.30.33 . Hist. of Unitar . p. 29. Answer to Milb . p. 29. Joh. 5.18.23 . Phil. 2.6 , 7. Hist. of Unitar . p. 38. Answer to Serm. p. 13. Answer to Milb . p. 49. Ib. Col. 1. Answer to Archbish. Serm p. 25. p. 59. De divin . Christi , c. ●4 . Defence of the Hist. of the Unit. p. 54. Rom. 9.5 . Hist. of the Unit. p 35. Answer to Milb p 35. Ante-Nicen . p. 29 , 78. Answer to Milb p 34. Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 29. Answer to Milb p. 3. Histoir Critique du Nov. Test. To. III. c. 54. p. 813. Annot. in Cypr. advers . Judaeos . Hilar. in Psal. 122. Hist. of the Unit. p. 40. Hist. Critique du Nov. To. II. c. 17. Verum repugnant perpetuo consensu omnes Graeci Codices . Bez. Motinus Exercit. Bibl. l. 1. Ex. 2. c. 4. Simon . Dissert . Sur le MS. du Nov , Test p. 14 Rigalt . vit . P. Puteani , p. 62. P. Pithae de Latino Interpret . p. II. Mabil . de Re Deplomat . l. 5. p. 346. Dissert . surless MS. du Nov. Test. p. 17. Alavarez Gomez de rebus Gestis Fr. Ximenii , l. 2. & 3. Amelote in Loc. Marian. Edit . vulg . c. 17. Praef. ad Schol. Hier. in Loc. Leo Epist. 34. ad Fl. Hilar de Trinit . l. 11. Fulg. ad Thra. c. 4. 1 Joh. 5.7 . Consider on the Explic. p. 29. History of Unit. p. 43. Ans. to the Archbishop , p. 29. Selden de Syned . l. 2. c. 4. Morin exercit Bibl. l. 1 , 2 , Ex. 2. Simon dissert . de MSS p. 14. Bez Epist. ad nov . Testam . Critique in nov . Test. c. 18. Morin . exercit . Bibl. l 1. Ex. 2. c. 1. n. 9. Critique To. I. c. 9. Joh. 1.3 . Heb. 1.2 , 10. Col. 1.16 . Hist. of the Unit. p. 38. Defence of the History of Unitar . p. 13 , 14. P. 10. Answer to Milb . p. 15. P. 16. Sand. Interp . Et Paradox . p. 115. Epiph. haer . 62. n. 2. N. 4. Hilar. l. 2. de Trinit . P. 17. Cypri●n . ad Jul. Ep. 73. Erasm. ad Cens. Paris . Tit. II. Vossi . de Symb. diss . I. n. 38. Hierom. Ep. 61. Tertul. de Bap●ism . ● 13. De Praescript . haeret . c. 20. Cyprian . Ep. 27.73 . Ed. Ox. Aug. de Baptism . c. Donat. l. 6. c. 25. Ambros. de Sp. Sanct. l. 1. c 3. Bed. in Act. 19. Hugo de S Vict. de Sacr. l. 1. c. 13. Lomb. 4. Sent. Dist. ● . c. sed qd . Basil c Eunom . l. 5. c. 3. c. 10. Epiph. Haer. 76. ad fin . Concil . Nicaen . c. 19. Aug. de Haeres c. 44. Concil . Arel . I. c. 8. Bellarm. de Bap. l. 1. c. 3. Answer to Mi●b p. 18. P. 17. Advers . Prax. c. 26. C 2. Tertul. de praescr . haeret . c. ult . Con. Prax. ● . 3. C. 4. Alium autem quomodo accipere debes jam professus sum , Personae non Substantiae nomine , ad Distinctionem , non ad Divisionem , caeterum ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus . Advers . Prax. c. 12. Et sermo erat apud Deum & nunquam separatus à Patre aut alius à Patre , quia ego & Pater unum sumus . Haec erat probola veritatis , custos unitatis qua prolatum dicimus Filium à Patre , sed non separatum . C. 8. Schlicht . ad M●isn . de Trinit . p. 13 , 14.17 . Advers . Prax. 2. Nos vero ut semper nunc magi● ut instructiores per Paracletum , &c. Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decueurrisse etiam ante priores haereticos , n●dum Praxean hesternum . Optat. Mil. l. 1. Theodor. haer l. 3 c. 2. Tertul. de praefer . c. 5. Rigalt . in Tertul. ad Praxean . Ante-Nicen . p. 27. P. 12. In quo est Trinitas unius Divinitatis , Pater , Filius & Spiritus Sanctus . De Pudicit . c. 21. Petav. T. 2. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. 4. Schlichting . Praef p. 30. Ante-Nicen . p. 27. Novatian . de Trinit . c. 12.21 , 31. C. 29. Et cum Spiritus Sancti divina aeternitate sociari . Cypr. Ep. 37. Basil Epist. Canon , 47. Epiph haeres . 57. n. 1. N. 2. Theod. haer . l. 3. c. 3. Epiph. 57. n. 2. Comment . in Matth. p. 470. Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. Epiph. haer . 62. Aug. in Joh. tract . 36. Discourse of Nominal . and real Unit. p. 1● Euseb. l. 7. c. 6.26 . Athan. de Decret . Synodi Nicaenae , p. 275. Athanas. de Sentent . Dionysii , p. 561. Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Thaumat . p. 1. Athanas. c. Serap . p. 10. Answer to Milb . p. 18. Rittang . p. 81. P. 113. P. 117. Answer to Dr. Bull , p. 59. Morin . Exercit. l. 2. l. 10. c. 8. Cosri Part. 4. p. 316. P. 302. P. 61. De Sp. Sancto , c. 10. C. 17. C. 18. C. 29. Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. Vales. ad Euseb. p. 73. Coteler VII . p. 1●27 . C. 29. Prudent . Cath. Hymn . 5. Hilar. Op. N. E. p. 1214. Apol. 2. p. 94. P. 26. P. 97. P. 98. P. 56. P. 60. Athenag . p. 11. Defence of the Hist. of the Unit. p. 5. Resp. ad Judic . Eccles p. 174.178 . Just. Apol. 2. Paraei . ad Graec. p. 18 , 22 , 24. Dial. cum Trypho , p. 274 , &c. Athenag . p. 8 , 9. Theophil . ad Autolyc . p. 100. Clemens Paed. l. 3. c. 7. Str. l. 4. p. 517. Prof. p. 68. Paed l. 1. c 6. Str. l 5 p. 598. Orig. c. Celf l 1. p. 16. l 4. p. 198 l. 6. p. 275 , 2●9 , &c. 308. l 7. p. 351 , 371. Clem Alex . Str. 1. Euseb. Praep. l. 8. Theod. Serm. 1. Cyril . c. Jul. l. 1. & l. 8. Plutarch de Isid. & Osirld . p. 369. ed. Fr. Eusebius Praep. E. l. 3. c. 11. Jamb . de Myst. Sect. 8. c. 2. Macrob. in Som. Scipion . l. 1. c. 14. Answer to Milb p. 17. Athan. Ep. ad Serapion , p. 14. Tom. 2. Ad Serap . Tom. 1. p. 186 , 179. Or. 3. c. Arian p. 413. Petavius T. II. l. 2. c. 12. sect . 8. Hist. of the Unitar . p. 25. Aug. in Psal. 77. Answ. to Dr. Bull , p. 17. Eras. ad Cens. Paris . Tit. II. Voss de tribus Symb. Dissert . 1. Sect. 47. Hilar. de Synod . p. 1169. Epiphaninius haer . 73. n. 17. Clausula Fidei in Edit . nuperâ Paris . ex MSS. P. 27. P. 28. Answer to my Sermon p. 4. Letter of Resolution , p. 3. Christianity not Mysterious , p. 8 , 9. Chap. I. Human understanding , l. 1. chap. 4. sect . 18. L. 2. c. 13. sect . 19. Chap. 23. sect . 2. L. 2. ch . 1. sect . 5. L 2. ch . 23. sect . 1. Valla Disput . Dial. l. 1. c. 6. Chap. 23. sect . 5. Humane Underst . I. 4. ch . 3. Sect. 6. 2d . Ed. p. 310 Book . IV. Chap. 10. sect . 5. Book . II. Chap. 23. sect . 15. Sect. 27. Sect. 28. Sect. 31. Sect. 32. Sect. 33 , 34 , 35. Sect. 36. Book IV. chap. 10. sect . 1. Sect. 7. Sect. 6. Sect. 5. Sect. 10. Humane Underst . l. 2. ch . 30 , 31. Chap. 32. sect . 18. Book 3. Chap. 3. sect . 6. Ib. sect . 15. Sect. 19 , 20. Book Chap. Sect. 1. Christianity not Myst. p. 28. P. 67. P. 71. P. 73. P. 145. P. 75. Ad. Attic. 4.87 . ed. R S. Acad. 4.18 . De Leg. l. 2. c. 14. Chrys. Hom. de Resurrect . Isidor . Pelus . l. 2. Ep. 192. Christianity not Myst. p. 80 , 81. P. 84. P. 86. P. 81. P. 88. P. 82. P. 8● . Answer 1● Serm. p. 5. Possevin . Appar . in Genebrard . P. 6. P. 7. P. 7. P. 5. P. 8. Answer to the Archbishop , &c. p. 4. P. 17. P. 67. Letter of Resolut p. 3. Considerat . on the Explication , &c. by Dr. W. p. 30. Considerat . on the Explication by Dr. W. p. 30. Answer to the Archbishop , p. 21. 
A62735	----	Primordia, or, The rise and growth of the first church of God described by Tho. Tanner ... ; to which are added two letters of Mr. Rvdyerd's, in answer to two questions propounded by the author, one about the multiplying of mankind until the flood ; the other concerning the multiplying of the children of Israel in Egypt. Tanner, Thomas, 1630-1682. 1683 Approx. 510 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 204 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A62735 Wing T145 ESTC R14957 11845931 ocm 11845931 49846 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A62735) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 49846) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 551:7) Primordia, or, The rise and growth of the first church of God described by Tho. Tanner ... ; to which are added two letters of Mr. Rvdyerd's, in answer to two questions propounded by the author, one about the multiplying of mankind until the flood ; the other concerning the multiplying of the children of Israel in Egypt. Tanner, Thomas, 1630-1682. Rudyerd, James, b. 1575 or 6. [14], 312, 69, [2] p. Printed for Ric. Chiswell ..., London : 1683. The letters have separate paging. Reproduction of original in the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. 2003-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-05 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-06 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2003-06 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-08 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion PRIMORDIA : OR , THE RISE and GROWTH Of the FIRST Church of God DESCRIBED . By THO. TANNER , M.A. J.C. and Rector of Winchfield in Hampshire . To which are added Two LETTERS of M r RVDYERD's , in Answer to two QUESTIONS propounded by the Author : One about The Multiplying of Mankind until the Floud . The other concerning The Multiplying of the Children of Israel in Egypt . Quod primum verum . LONDON , Printed for Ric. Chiswell , at the Rose and Crown in S Paul's Church-yard . MDC LXXXIII . TO THE Much Honoured IAMES RVDYERD , of Winchfield , Esq SIR , SInce it hath been a Custome from one Generation to another , for all sorts of Writers to creep into the Light at first with their well-set Apologies ; it may justly seem in vain now ( when there is nothing left to be said ) for me to travel in that kind , wherein the Wits themselves have been stranded ( as it were ) before : But as for Vs , who are Divines by Our Profession , it might possibly be better to confess ingenuously , That it is as much our duty ( as occasion or acceptance may oblige us ) to Write as to Preach the truth . Nor can such an exigency be ever wanting while they that are weary of our Scribbling , will help off our Impressions : for they see some reason for it . And it is most likely to be this , They may perceive that all is not truth that is in Print ; but much more that disguised truth is the fittest of all to serve the turn of errour ; which is not of the like consequence in reference unto all opinions . For how we shall be saved is another matter than how we shall be re-imbursed with a Notion only . We have as frequent need to bring all Metals to the Touchstone or the Scale , as the Goldsmiths have , and in certain Points to be scrupulous , even to a Grain , since the Filings of Gold are precious . Wherefore as for this Essay in pa●ticular , which I have desired to present unto the common light through Your hands , I must confess , Sir , that although I wrote it not on purpose to oblige or disoblige an● Party ; yet I cannot be unsensible , that as it cometh home to certain Points at which I aimed not at first ; so there may be divers that may take themselves to be more concerned in it than I was aware : for whose sakes I may be the more sorry , that I have also written in some confusion , rather as Books came to my hand , in this obscurity ( as You know best , who have been my chiefest Lender ) than as my method lay in the first Scheme , wherein it was designed . And if I beg leave here to give You a further Prospect into that than I have done before , the rest of my Observers may be prepared the better for it . Since the Prime Antiquity is the only Standard both of Truth and Purity , and the Scripture it self ( tanquam Index sui , & obliqui ) the only Rule whereby to prove the Reports of Ancient Writers , which may be many ways seduced , or imposed on by others ; I thought by comparing these together to set forth what I could discover of the true Church , from the first beginning to the end ( at least ) of the first Century after Our Lord's Nativity ; having a due regard both to the outward and inward Constitution of it , waving or referring unto others , what I found done to my content before . I weighed with my self the Subterfuges of the Papists , in writh'd or feign'd Antiquities only ; and of divers modern Sects , in the real obscurity of the first Ages , both of the Old and New Testaments : which it may be divers of them would rather wish to be left under a Standing Veil still , than to be discovered by any other Lights than their own . And if I say no more at first , it may be 't is because I know not how far I may be able to proceed , though I have the whole Substance in my rude Draughts already . I have been informed , that the Great Bishop Montague had designed to accomplish a Refutation of Baronius's Annals ; but he lived to finish little else ( of that Design ) beyond his Apparatus . And that it was among the Belli Pensieri of Mr. Cowley , to take a review of the original Principles of the Primitive Church . Which he purposed should reach to Our Saviour's , and the Apostles Lives , and their immediate Successors , for four or five Centuries , till Interest or Policy prevail'd over true Devotion . But alas ! for ought appears , these dyed with him . But what shall I say for my self at last , in that I have not only thrust these Papers forth under Your Name in the Front , but also fortified my self with the same in the Rere , by pressing one or two unusual Requests from You ? For the first , sure it can be thought no other than the least expression of gratitude ( howsoever rude ) that can be made ( as the World goes now ) to an uncorrupted Patron . And for the second , let them that blame Your condescension , but shew first that they are able to acquit themselves as well , or ( at least ) to imitate Your Example ; and then they shall escape the better in exchange of censures : In the mean while it is no matter who shall tell them , That Learning and Vertue , such as Yours , in an Ancient House , is the Elder Nobility , and like to raise You ●o more Esteem among the better Spirits , and to oblige other kind of thanks than mine , who am , SIR , Your most affectionate and humble Servant , THO. TANNER . Winchfield , August the 20 th 1682 PRIMORDIA : OR , THE Rise and Growth Of the FIRST CHURCH of GOD. CHAP. I. Introduction . Adam why Created out of Paradise , and after brought in ? Our first Parents Created in perfection , yet never offered to couple in their innocency , though they had such a command , with a blessing ; and why ? Why , also , they coveted Children after their fall ? wherein their outward state of misery is pointed out . BY what degrees and means the Divine Power and Wisdom would erect a Kingdom to himself , distinct from all the Nations , which he suffered to walk in their own ways , is the scope of these reserches : to the end , that we may come to know ( at last ) what manner of Kingdom that should be , which God would give unto his only Son. Who being to derive his flesh from the first Adam , we cannot chuse but begin from the head of all ; and observe somewhat concerning his state , that hath either escaped some Writers , or been wisely passed o're by others to evade perplexity . As for Adam ( then ) the School-men have observed , that he was created out of Paradise , and after brought in : from which some of them would inferr , and argue , That he was not created in Grace , but in his pure naturals ; and that he was endued with supernatural Gifts , when he came to be instated there . To which some others have fitly applyed this Answer : That if Adam had not sinned , the whole Earth would have been a kind of Paradise to the sons of men ; but that , that which was set forth for Adam , was adorned for him ( in a special manner ) as the Prince , and head of all mankind ; to be his residence , and mansion ( which as it is described , comprised many regions ) while his Children , to be born , had all the rest before them . Whereas , if there be any mystery at all to be observed in it , it may seem to have been this , That God would not leave Adam , to abide in the wide world ( at large ) as his own master , and Lord of all besides , without any homage to be paid to himself , his Maker ; and therefore , that he would impale him ( without confinement ) within a certain glorious place , wherein he would be worshipped , in a more especial manner , by him and his , that were to constitute an holy Church in the state of innocency , if he had held it . Unto which intent , God took Adam into a kind of implicit Covenant ( but not the same with that , which some do take for the Covenant of Works ) with himself , and to the ordinance of the Sabbath , he annexed ( as a kind of Sacraments ) the Tree of knowledge for his caution ; and the Tree of Life for his comfort , as a pledge of immortal felicity , in case of his obedience . But when Adam fell from this , it gave occasion unto God to excommunicate , and send him forth from the Garden of Eden , to till the [ common ] ground , from whence 〈◊〉 had been taken , into that consecrated place . Now , although it be manifest by it self , that our first Parents were created in perfection , inasmuch as God blessed them ( as soon as he had done ) and said unto them , be fruitful , and multiply ; yet , no Christian ever did presume to think * that there was any offer of copulation between them in the Garden : whether , because they had no burning blood in them , but were like to other tame creatures ( that retain their native innocence ) which have no desire , but at certain seasons , when men observe to joyn them : Or , whether it was so ordered ( according to the foreknowledge of God ) that no kind of inconvenience might ensue ; for , if Adam had had but one Son , born in innocency , then all mankind could not have fallen together , in Adam's person ; but the state of Men might have proved like to that of Angels , whereof some left their first station , while others held it : Or , if Eve had but conceived in her integrity , that conception ( not having been shapen in iniquity , could scarce have been said to have been born in sin ; or to have sinned in its Parents loins : So that it might have been justly questioned , how far such an issue might be lyable to , or exempted from , the consequents of sin , in reference unto punishment ? for he saith , Behold all souls are mine ; as the soul of the Father , so also the soul of the Son is mine : the soul that sinneth , it shall die . But as soon as they were fallen , and yet ( in mercy ) respited from sudden death , they began to long for posterity ; both to supply their own mortality , and also to obtain the blessed seed , that had been promised to them for their recovery . In the next place , therefore , we have to contemplate the greatest beauties , and the most accomplisht souls that ever were , ( as coming immediately , out of the hands of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or first Former of all mankind , in them ) thrust forth to dig , or till the ground , that had been newly curs'd with barrenness . But what shall they dig , or cut withal ? He that made all living creatures made no tools : Nay he hid the Iron within the earth , so that without Iron it is not easie to come by it : or if Adam find any in the stony mass , above ground , what should he do with it , if the use of the forge was not known till Tubal-Cain was born , above a hundred years after ? But it seems that Tubal was an improver rather than an inventer : For the Text says only , that he was the instructer of every [ Arti●icer ] ( as if there were Artificers before ) in brass and iron . It makes no matter , since we find that the Indians in America had Bows and Arrows , and comely Tents , having only ways to sharpen stones , and fish-bones , without the use of Iron , before they learnt it hence . And we will suppose our father Adam to have been much more handy and ingenious , than those bruitish peoples and the better workman needs the fewe● tools , and helps : for what could ●●ve do , who must be taken up ( for her part ) to make some thing or other of skins , or wooll , to be spun , or wove , or patcht , for cloaths and clou●s against her lying-in ? Then she could have no other but her Husband instead of Midwife , Nurse , and Tender ; and before she could have any child to be officious to her , what a deal must lie upon her hands ? And whereas she had this heavy sentence from the Lord ? I will greatly multiply thy sorrow , and thy conception : In sorrow shalt thou bring forth Children : and thy desire shall be to thy Husband [ for more . ] Judge what she might suffer , by bearing and nursing Children , in her time , if she lived proportionably unto Adam , nine hundred and thirty years , and bare ( one year with another ) but three hundred of them . To which misery , this was also to be added ; she must needs bear the seed of the Serpent as well as her own , and not know which was which , till they should be grown : when she should have more sorrow with one Cain , than in bearing all the rest . And thus we have surveyed some part of their outward punishment for sin . CHAP. II. That our first Parents repented , and believed . That in token thereof they sacrificed , and taught their Children so . That Sacrifices were not of the light of Nature , against Pelagius ; but of institution ; though not to be proved but by inference , as the Lords Supper it self , and Infant-Baptism , and the Lords Day , and single Marriages . NOR can we doubt , but that our first Parents , seeing into what a state they had brought themselves , did earnestly repent , and embrace the promise of the blessed Seed , and understand so much of the meaning of it as was for their use and comfort . Neither could they live without fear thereafter , of sinning ( again ) by the like disobedience : For by occasion of their sin , they came to see into the horrour of eternal death , which remained as the utmost punishment thereof , and which they could not understand so well before . And this truth the Catholick Church hath ever held with so much zeal , that it hath taxed Tatianus and the Encratitae , of Heresie , for holding to the contrary . For ( say they ) if these were not saved , of whom Christ was to be born , Nihil quicquam eorum massae salvabitur , Nothing of their mass can ever be saved . And if they were to perish , certainly the whole Church of God was once at a loss and failure ; which , that it might not be , God had no sooner excommunicated them out of his Temple of Paradise , but he took them into the Church of Christ , the State of Grace ; whereinto he called them by repentance * , and faith in his blessed promise . He did not leave them so soon as they had left him , but he brought them about again , by reproving of their sin , and setting a better hope before them than they had deserved . And the effects themselves will shew it : For they not only submitted unto their punishments with thankfulness , in that they were delivered both from sudden and eternal death ; but also o●●ered continual Sacrifices and Oblatitions unto God , both of their Herds and Flocks and Fruits and all their encrease or acquists , that they had ; and so they taught their Children all alike , that God might be glorified in all , and their Children become Partakers of the same hope , which themselves , through mercy , had received . Now , As for Sacrifices , we may well think that it could not lightly enter into their heads to invent them ; but if they had , that God himself was unlikely to be so well pleased with their will-worship , as , first , to accept , and after , to make a standing Ordinance of them ( with the addition of many more Rites ) till the fulness of time should be accomplished : Nor is it easie to discover how this kind of service ( which was a Type and a Mystery ) came to be first revealed to them . I cannot pass the Porch of this Argument , but I shall meet Pelagius ready to oppose me with the first ; For it follows from his opinion , That Sacrifices were but of the light of Nature only , if the Fathers , * from Adam to Moses , lived by no other light ; as from Moses to Christ , by the Law ; and we at last by Grace ( by him also ‖ perperam intellectam . ) As for the practice it self , there is no doubt : for although we do not read that Adam himself did make any Sacrifice or Oblation , yet we find that in process of time , Cain ( being a Tiller of the [ newly accursed ] ground ) brought of the fruits thereof an Offering unto the Lord ▪ And Abel ( being a Keeper of the Sheep amongst which the immaculate Lamb was ) brought of the firstlings of his flock , and of the fat thereof . Which how should they do , but by their Parents directions ▪ That Abraham offered the Tent● of his spoils unto Melchisedeck ; and that Iacob vowed a vow , saying , If God will be with me , &c. then shall the Lord be thy God , and of all that thou shalt give me , I will surely give the tenth unto thee . ● If to Sacrifices , what should he add ? If to any Priesthood , after the disappearing of Melchisedeck , where was the like o●der ? If to any other pious uses ( since the Building of Altars of Earth or loose Stones was of little charge , and Poor he had none ) Expositors are troubled to shew them ; unless there be some light arising out of those words , And this Stone which I have set for a Pillar , shall be Gods House ; as if he had designed , like David , to erect a Temple over his Altar , if it had pleased God to permit him . Only it is manifest that these things were revealed ( ab initio ) from the very first . Not by the light of Nature : For then , 1. Adam in innocency had been bound to sacrifice ; 2. Since Christ's death , Sacrifices also would be in force as much as the rest of the Laws of Nature ; 3. It seemeth rather abhorrent unto Nature to shed the blood of Beasts in vain ; so that many of the Heaten Philosophers have seemed to symbolize with those passages of the Psalmist , Thou desirest not Sacrifice , thou delightest not in Burnt-offerings . Will I eat the flesh of Bulls , or drink the blood of Goats ? Indeed it is a Question among the School-men , whether Christ should have been incarnate , though Adam had not sinned ; but it was never doubted , whether he should have been crucified without out it . And that the slaying of Beasts prefigured this , the common consent of Christians hath made it manifest , who ever since the death of Christ , did not only cease to sacrifice , but declare all sacrificing to be a denial of it , and a crucifying of Him afresh . And the power of God hath so wrought , that where-ever the Gospel came , the Heathen Sacrifices also decayed by degrees . Nay , that where it came not ( to our knowledg ) as in America , and the utmost Indies , the sacrificing of any Beasts was not found in use when later Travellers came amongst them . But why they were in use all the World over , before the coming of Christ , no other reason can be given than that Adam , first , and after Noah , taught their Children all alike to offer Sacrifice . But as it went , it gathered manifold corruptions : for whereas Adam and Abel ( as Selden and Bertram judg * put a difference betwixt the clean and unclean in their Sacrifices ; the Gentiles afterwards offered Swine , and all abominations , even ‖ Mankind , unto some or other of their Idols ; and by erecting Altars for Sacrifice unto other men , they did translate them into the number of their reputed Deities . But so much by occasion of Pelagius . On another hand , who will dare to say , That it was lawful to sacrifice ( which was the special Sacrament of the Old Testament , in lieu of which the Papists would set up their Sacrifice of the Altar , tanquam incruentum only , as a proper Sacrifice of the like kind ) without an institution ? Or who can shew the institution before the practice ? A Point that is like to move the Kidney in two sorts of men . The first can never prove , That God did directly institute this Ordinance of sacrificing , the most substantial part of his worship , which , no doubt , from Adam unto Moses ( whatever he added to it ) was not without confession and bewailing of sins , so far as the Sacrifices were Sin-offerings , that is , of expiation or atonement ; or without prayers , if they were but Peace-offerings , or Sacrifices of propitiation for obtaining of benevolence ; nor without certain words of Benediction , or Thanksgiving , when they were oblations of inanimate things for the blessings that God had bestowed , or continued to them . How do they then stand so stiffly on it , that nothing is to be admitted in the worship and service of God , without a positive command , extending to all the material circumstances , ( at the least ) when they cannot find so much as a syllable of the substance of this first Sacrament at all ? In the New Testament , we find no institution neither ( which will touch them nearer still ) of the Lords Supper itself ( which all hold for an Ordinance , and a Sacrament , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and it may be a weak pretence , why they excuse so many from coming to it , and keep so many more from it : ) For when our Lord gave it to his Disciples , he only shewed them an example , as to some part of the manner ( not observable , or observed since , in point of conscience ; as to be celebrated at the Passover , or in the midst , or after Supper ; or sitting , kneeling , standing ; or with or without any form or gift of Prayer , more than blessing or asking of a blessing , before the breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine ) but as if he left them at an ingenuous liberty , according to their own good will , or love ; he only saith , As oft as ye do this , do it in remembrance of me : not so much as directing them how oft to do it . In the like manner S t Paul , I have received of the Lord ( whether by tradition , or report , or example of the Apostles at Ierusalem , and the Churches of their first planting , or by special revelation ) that which I also delivered unto you , setting forth no more but only Christ's own example . Will they therefore wholely deny any institution , by way of implicit precept ? or raise example in some one case , or two , as high as a precept ; and in many more , of great importance , study to dwindle it to nothing ? As for Baptism , indeed , our Lord speaks positively , and expresly ( as if they might inferr , that this ordinance of initiation were only instituted ; and not the other , which they account worthily , of greater excellency ) Go teach all Nations , baptizing them , &c. but say the Anabaptists , baptize only such as ye have taught before , and not Infants , which could not understand you ; contrary to the universal practice of the Church , succeeding in the next age from the Apostles , as deriving from the first : Shall we therefore stand strictly to the institution ( as some account institution ) and deny Baptism unto Infants ? No , say others , that is utterly unreasonable . Yet some of these will scarce acknowledge that those express words , God rested on the s●venth day , and therefore blessed the seventh day , and sanc●ified it , did amount to any institution , as to Adam in Paradise , or his Children afterwards , affirming that the Patriarchs did not keep it , because they do not read that they did , ( as if God were obliged to be as punctual in his Commands and Records as men , if he would be obeyed ) but that it was of Moses first ; not considering , or not weighing what S t Paul says , that the Law of Moses was added only because of transgressions : and therefore because in ●gypt ( it is like ) this Observation had been neglected , God would have the transgression of this his original Institution to become Capital for the future . Nor yet , that Moses brought in no new Institutions at all , but of Rites and Circumstances relating to the Iewish Church and Commonwealth alone . And although the Sabbath be not of the Law of nature , yet I doubt not * but it obliged all Nations from Adam , as the penalty did the Iews alone by virtue of the Law of Moses . The same men ( that they may preserve the greater veneration to the Customs of the Church ) though Christ arose on the first day of the Week , ( the seventh being the first day to Adam also , who was created on the sixth ) and sent the Holy Ghost on the same , and the Disciples met on the same to break Bread , ( in no common way ) and that S t Paul saith expresly , Concerning the collection for the Saints , as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia , so do ye . Vpon the first day of the Week let every one contribute , as God hath prospered him ; do notwithstanding hold , that the Lords Day is but of even rank with other Holy days that the Church observes , as if it were of Ecclesiastical Tradition only , and not of Institution ; whereas it may be shewn when other Feasts began successively , and demonstrated that the Lords Day began from Easter and Whitsunday , ( fifty days after ) and so continued without any interruption hitherto , as hath happened unto all the rest . But if all this amount not to an institution , in vain do they object against the Anabaptists that which they may so readily retort . For may not they say , Why do not you hold the Lords Day to be jure Divino ? Is it not for the same reason that we hold Infant-Baptism to be nothing so ? The like might be said of single Marriage , That it was instituted or ordained in Paradise as an implicite positive Law , dispensed with ( for a time ) by the Law-giver unto the Patriarchs , and Divorces indulged to the Israelites ( till Christ came ) for the hardness of their hearts . But when he says , From the beginning it was not so , without more words he revives the Primitive Institution . So that where the Scripture speaks but little , there is much to be understood ; for if all should be written at large , the world it self could not contain the Books that should be written . It remains therefore that we think otherwise of Institutions than some men do : And , for all these two Institutions in Paradise , ( viz. of the Sabbath and of single Marriage ) that we do not presently imagine , * that though Adam had not eaten of the forbidden Fruit , he might have fallen some other way ; but rather that he was under a Sacramental Guard before he made a breach upon Gods injuction . CHAPTER . III. The subtilty of the modern Socinians . An abstract of their chief Tenents , and the main design to which they are all ●ccommodated , noted . A ground-work laid against them in order to prove , That Sacrifices were offered by revelation , and not according to any possible invention of man. BUT ( to resume our Argument about the original of Sacrifices ) the modern Pelagians ( learning how to ward the Passes that pressed home upon their Founder ) espied this to be one , That if Sacrifices had been of the light of Nature , it would have been written there indelebly , as with a Sun-beam , at the same time that Adam received the Image of God ; or ( if there be any difference ) if it were of the Law of Nature , mens consciences could not chuse but bear witness to it , their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another , according to the performance or omission of their Sacrifices ; and this as much before the Fall as after : whereupon they bethought themselves of such a subterfuge as this , viz. That Sacrifices were offered unto God of m●ns own accord , not accord●●g to the Laws of Nature properly so called , ( which are eternal , immutable , confirmed , and far from being abolished by Christ himself ) but according to such institutes thereof as natural reason might excogitate as apt and sit for the conspicuous worship of God. v. gr . To offer the best of the Flock [ like an Herriot ] unto God in acknowledgment of his dominion and power and bounty ; but more especially as the Lord of life and death , in token of homage , as other Offerings in token of thanksgiving for their encrease . Which is the most favourable opinion of such as do but socinianize , and so double-refine upon him , who thought he had refined Pelagius before . Neque mirum , inquiunt , se quae primi illi homines Deo sacra faciebant , ea igne absumenda curarent , u●pote quod faciendum erat , ne quod Deo sacratum fuit , ad usus prophanos transferretur , quod aliter accidere potuisset . For they say it was no wonder , but most natural that the Ancients should consume by fire that which they had dedicated unto God , lest any remainders of them should hap to be afterwards converted to prophane uses . Which doth not amount to so much as the Heathen did imagine , who thought their Sacrifices to be sanctified by that Celestial Element of fire . Or the Iewish Rabbins , ( enemies unto Christ , or any mystery relating unto him ) for they held , That Burnt-offerings were to expiate for matters whereupon there was a penalty ; and that the Body of the Beast that was sacrificed did serve to expiate , even for the thoughts of the heart . From which we may collect , That they also thought their Offerings to have been purified by the ●ir● of the Altar . Now I can hardly forbear ( at the first entrance ) to declare my opinion , That whoever doubteth ●o deny , that Sacrifices came in ure by the use of natural reason , ( e●cogitating any acceptable service unto God ) or to determine and affirm with us , that they came in by institution only , according to the illumination of the very first Patriarchs , and were not essential to salvation before Moses ; they can hardly come so clearly off from Pelagianism or Socinianism , as to oppose them ab imis fundamentis , but must needs yield Goliah's Sword to gratifie them . Neither yet that they can heartily acknowledge this fundamental Principle , Vn●m esse omnium fidem , that there was but one faith and way of salvation from the beginning , I mean since the Fall , ( which I am shortly about more clearly to demonstrate ) till the end . I shall therefore immediately betake my self to compare opinions , that contraria juxta se pos●ta , magis illucescant , contraries being set one against another , the truth may arise the brighter out of all obscurity , the one setting off the other . When we meet with any Divine Notions among the Heathen Writers ( which are not a few ) we may take all the rest , that they had not from the Phoenicians ( by which name they seem to have known in general the Hebrew people ) to have been clearly from the light of Nature , or from some old Traditions , traduced by their Poets , which were their ancientest Philosophers . When there are any Passages quoted out of the Iewish Rabbins in favour of any Gloss or Tenent , we are to consider whether that Author lived before our Saviours birth , or after : If before , how far suspicious of the leven of the Pharisees ; if after , how much tainted with the reprobate imaginations of the unbelieving Iews , ( which yet some do swallow as a Loche ; ) or , in fine , how far free from contradiction , ( those blinded people , out of hatred to Christianity , having many ways belied one another , in delivering of their pretended Rites and Traditions . ) In Christian Controversies , where the Authority of Fathers and Councils is quoted , the times , circumstances , occasions , interests and powers , are either to be added or substracted , as Grains are in the weight of Gold. But the present scope and design of Parties may seem to give us the best light ( if we can discover it ) into modern opinions , what to judge of them . I will therefore here endeavour to detect that of the Socinians , ( as far as I am able ) because it stands in my way now , and is like to stand in my light hereafter , ( as I proceed ) if I do not utterly remove it . The design of Socinianism is not to destroy all Religion , without which they could not make a Sect ; nor yet to deny the Gospel in express terms , ( lest they be questioned of Iudaism or Mahumetism , which would work nothing else to their purpose besides a prejudice ) but by consequence only . Yet because they draw as near to the Borders of Atheism as those of Poland do to the Grand Seignior's , they have a mighty ●orce ( as it were ) of Cossacks , that pretend indeed as if they were of that Sect , but really hang betwixt that and utter Atheism . Their main foundation is , That men might and may be saved by the light of Nature in things Divine and moral . To second which Hypothesis , amongst others , these are some of the chief , First ▪ That men argue so from Scripture , a●●f they did ( in effect ) but adhere to their own opinions , according to their light of reason , or capacity of reasoning ; taking only the Subject of it to furnish their apprehensions with some more probable matter of believing , and generally seem to adhere unto that common reason , whereof they accuse Socinians only . Secondly , That there is not naturally a sense of the Being and Providence of God in men , but that it is a matter of Faith only to believe that God is . . Thirdly , That natural Religion is only moral , and that he which is just shall be saved , though he believe not whether there be a God or no ; and to believe more , they are only bound to whom more hath been revealed . Fourthly , That there was no such thing as original righteousness in Adam ( but only innocency ) before the Fall ; nor as original sin , ensuing thereupon , or any imputation of his sin at all to his Posterity : ( For he holds that Adam was mortal in Paradise , though he might have been continued in life , or have been translated if he had not si●ned that sin ( though he did others in inordinate affections , at the least , before ) and that his Posterity was little the worse for it , although somewhat . ) Fifthly , That Christ ( though a more Divine Person than any other ) neither justly could , nor did satisfie for sin ; so that his righteousness can be any way said to be imputed : but th●t men are justified by simple condonation only . Sixthly , That he was given to us , chiefly as an example , to shew us that way to Heaven , which else it would have been hard for us to find . Seventhly , That as Adam had free-will before he fell , so all his Posterity hath still ; since there is no cause why he should be deprived of it by his Fall , nor the nature of the thing it self , nor of Divine Justice so admitting . Eighthly , That by the right use of this , a man may obey the Divine Law. Ninthly , That Predestination unto life is of such as shall do so , according to the foreknowledge of God. Tenthly , That such foreknowledge relieth on no Decree , but is like to the foresight only of a prudent man , including no contingences . Now according unto these Principles , if Christ himself was not made a S●crifice for sin , ( nor needed ) but only suffered martyrdom , as the Prophets before , to instruct us in the way of patience , meekness , or the like ( as Socinus teacheth more expresly afterwards ) what should they do but talk contemptuously of Sacrifices from the first to the last , as indeed they do ? For what say others of his Followers ? When we urge them thus , Would such a righteous man as Abel imbrue his hands in the bloud of a Beast , and burn it , as an Offering acceptable unto God , if it had been no way revealed to him , that with such Sacrifices God was well pleased ? Nobis , inquiunt , quibus alii mores , aliae Religiones inveter●runt , non est temere judicandum , tanto temporis intervallo , quid alteri in mentem venire posset , praesertim eorum , quae non sunt contra Naturae Leges , qualia utique erant Sacrificia ; ut quae Deus , qui nihil unquam contra Natur● Leges jussit , populo Hebraeo imperabat . To us , say they , who are inured unto other manners , and religious Rites , it is in vain to judge rashly , after so long a time , what might come into the mind of another man , especially about such things which are not contrary to the Laws of Nature , as Sacrifices were not , since God commanded them unto the Hebrew people . Agedùm , igitur , jam cominùs agamus . CHAP. IV. That the Arguments of Socinians are taken from two of the weakest Topicks . A distinction offered to detect the first fallacy , betwixt a Law imperative and indicative . That Sacrifices were of the latter sort , proved , first , Because in all Ages God prescribed his own worship , and accepted no other . Secondly , Because illumination ( in this case ) preceded Sacrifice , shewed , 1. By the manner of acceptation of Cain's Offering . I Would fain come indeed to handy-blows with my Adversary , but that I cannot but remember that the Romans themselves could scarce at last get any advantage against Hannibal in that way , because he fought more by subtilty and sleight . Nor is there any great force in a Serpent , when he is displayed , Ita scilicet Socini Discipuli , quoties urgentur sacris literis , vel ad verborum ambiguitatem , vel ad sensus quosdam tralatitios , tanquam in Castra se recipiunt , as my Authour speaks . When the Socinians are urged with the Scriptures , they betake themselves to ambiguity of words , or to certain wrested expositions , as it were into their Holds . You may partly guess ( from the beginning ) what art they need to send and prove , when you shall have once observed , that all their Arguments arise from two of the weakest Topicks , viz. A negativo ad positivum generale ; from a negative to a positive Conclusion general , that because no Law is expresly recorded , therefore there was none . 2. A possibili ad necessarium , that because it was not impossible , but that by the light of Nature ( reasoning and excogitating ) the Offering of Sacrifice might come into their minds , that therefore it must needs be so , and no otherwise . To the first Argument therefore , That because there is no Law commanding Sacrifices expresly recorded , there was no such . Or , ( as my Author amplifies it , according unto their sense , and not his own ) That it is incredible that God should have ordained such a Law unto posterity , and that Moses and all other sacred Writers should pretermit it as a thing of no moment , and that it is a rash thing to introduce imaginary Laws . It is to be answered , That it is sallacia in homonymia , and may be solved easily by distinguishing betwixt Laws imperative and indicative : for as it is a rashness to introduce the former , without shewing of the express Precept ; so it is a like rashness to deny the other ( by way of true construction ) as made more in favour than the other ; and implying the same authority and hazard , in case of violation , as the other . Wherefore under the name of a Law we must know that a Rule , direction , intimation , or any signification whatsoever , from a Sovereign power , obtains the name of a Law indifferently , to all his loyal Subjects , without any Act or Edict whatsoever . For who will dare to disobey the nod of a Prince ( if he may understand it right ) without the pain of displeasure , or other penalties ? Who will venture to keep his place , if a General point with his Staff or Finger , directing any motion ? And that this Law of Sacrifices was of this latter sort , I am ready now not only to prove , but to demonstrate unto any clear and unprejudiced man , by these two irrefragable Arguments ; 1. Because , though God in all Ages left to humane prudence the ordering of such things as were agreeable only unto humane order , yet he never suffered it ( so depraved especially as it is since the Fall ) to excogitate any way of worship whatsoever ; much less an intire way to please him , such as Sacrifice , with all its appurtenances , ever was . Which if I take for the assumption of my Argument , I believe it will not be denied in its kind . Ergo , The Offering of Sacrifices could not be of any mens excogitation . The major likewise will hold its own , unless an instance can be given in any other thing besides Sacrifice it self , which I believe cannot be done . And if they still insist no less on that than before , we say , It is very strange that so important a thing as Sacrifice ( about which , God afterwards establishing but a better order , destroyed Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire before the Lord , which he commanded them not ) should be the sole exception . But if it be said further , Why might not God ( accepting of Sacrifices , which men had offered of their own accord ) after make an Ordinance of them , as Christ himself did of Baptism , in use among the Iews before ? Or of the Bread and Wine that was used at the Passover , to frame his own Supper by it , according to their use ? I answer , That for Baptism , if it had been grounded in Pharisaical washings , it would have availed the Objectors somewhat ; but that which was grounded on the Law , and warranted by it before , might well be taken out , and varied by the Giver of the Law. And so for the Lords Supper ; when he abolished the Passover , he took Bread and Wine out of it , as he had taken a Rib out of Adam , and made another Creature . There is not the least of humane invention therefore left in either of these , having both their first Originals from God , before men were conversant about them . In sine , if it be urged , That if Sacrifices were by no Law , it remains that they must needs have their Original from the apprehensions of men , bethinking themselves what service was proper for them to offer unto their Maker , Lord of life and death and all ; and that none appeared like to Sacrifices of living Creatures , and Oblation of other precious things : they shall then make way for my second Argument , viz. That , Secondly , Because illumination came between , therefore Sacrifices must needs be from God , and not of man. In which I shall be put to prove , first , That illumination came in , and , secondly , that it amounted to a Law ; and then I shall be rid of this too . Now in the touching upon this Point , methinks I cannot but foresee that my Adversaries are ready to compound with me by some concession , viz. That God is not deficient to them that use their right reason , to illuminate them some way ; yet as by the use of their own natural reason , and not by ungrounded infusions , or outward revelations , any more than he did in the Case of Bezaleel , ( whom he filled with the Spirit of God , in wisdom , and in understanding , and in knowledge , to fit all things for the Tabernacle ) and yet he wrought as an Artist still . But I am not so much afraid of my Argument , as to admit of any composition with them . I grant to them likewise that Bezaleel was enabled and over-ruled ( so as they say ) to workmanship only ; but I say , That neither he nor any other did ever begin or continue any true way of worship , without a previous revelation , in an extraordinary manner , from God. It cannot be denied ( in the first place ) but , That if illumination may be a medium betwixt an imperative Law , and the use of reason , that then there may be ( what we call ) an indicative Law , betwixt these extremes , amounting in effect unto some express of positive Command . Let us therefore begin with this , and shew , first , That there was such a thing ; secondly , That it amounted to as high a Law to the First Adam to sacrifice , as this word did after the Second Adam had spoken it , As oft as you do this , do it in remembrance of me . First , The first appeareth , viz. That there was illumination before Sacrifice , these two ways : 1. In that Cain's Sacri●ice was not forbidden , when it did not please God for the manner of the Offering ; for the Text saith , that after , God had respect to the Offering of Abel , and not of Cain ; so that his countenance fell . God was so far from excusing his obedience , that he rather put him in mind to amend it than to refrain , If thou do well , saith he , shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou dost not well , sin lyeth at the door ; ( and Cain knew what that was by his Father Adam's punishment for sin ) but if thou do well , unto thee shall be Abel's desire , and thou shalt rule over him . Judge you therefore , whether Cain or Abel first invented sacrificing . If it had been wicked Cain , would God have spoken so indifferently to him ? If it had been righteous Abel , the younger Brother , whom Cain hated , would not Cain have disdained to take example from him ? But unto such straits are these reduced , who because they do not read that Adam sacrificed , would take it for granted that he did not at all ; and so that Adam lived without any Form of Religion , ( it may be a hundred years or more ) till his Sons invented one . Let us hear one of their Quotations to prove it , from a Jewish Rabbin , which they take to be pat unto their purpose . Cain and Abel , saith he , were very wise men ; [ whereas the Scripture noteth the wickedness and folly of the first , and the righteous simplicity only of the latter ] and it came to pass when they came to the end of their labours , they either of them offered a Present unto God , out of their encrease [ as viz. Cain when his Fruits were ripe , and Abel when his Ewes had yeaned , once or twice a year ] and the reason of such Oblations , as it seemeth to me ( saith the Rabbin ) was this , Because they knew that all things were created and governed by God , as the true cause of all . But Abrabenel thinks that Adam also sacrificed as well as his Sons ; both forgetting that God did afterwards require daily Sacrifices , and that not only as Presents , but as matter of atonement and expiation for sin : as he had expresly told their Forefathers , The life of the flesh in the bloud , and I have given it to you upon the Altar , to make an atonement for your souls ; for it is the bloud that maketh an atonement for the soul. However the modern Rabbins would blanch the matter , to make their own way more plausible unto the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gentiles , or out of hatred to Christianity ; because we say , and prove , That their bloud-shedding of old , was a Type of the bloud of our Christ , to be shed , once for all , in the latter days . But indeed the Sentiments of such Reprobate Jews are most agreeable to Socinus's Disciples , who hold , That Christ was no Sacrifice , nor made any atonement for sin , nor was absolutely decreed to be crucified at all ( notwithstanding that express place , Who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world ; but was manifest in these last times for you ) but foreseen only ; or , if decreed at all , conditionally , that if men did sin , then Christ should be given to be slain . For why ? To make one sin more than was before , but not one less ! CHAP. V. The 2. way laid down to shew an indicative Command , viz. Abel's Offering by a twofold Faith , First , Of the Object , viz. his Duty to sacrifice , which faith he had in common with Cain . Secondly , Of the promise , which was siducial , wherein his Sacrifice excelled , as being offered with bloud ( which Cain's was not ) and with respect to Christ. The Socinian varnish washed off . The second Head proved , viz. That Sacrifices were by a certain Law ab origine , because a certain penalty accrued to the omission of them before the Law of Moses . 2. BUT for that which we are to alledge , as the second way whereby it may appear , That there was some indicative or implicite precept , involved in some gracious revelation from Christ himself , ( as the eternal Word of God ) previous unto these ' Sacrifices , the Adversaries have been made sensible , and are well aware of it : I mean the Sacrifice of Abel , more accepted than his Brothers . Which having been said by S t Paul ( or the Author to the Hebrews ) to have been offered unto God by faith , as a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain's ; by which he obtained witness that he was righteous , God testifying of his gifts ; and by it , he being dead yet speaketh : we may clearly conclude , That he sacrificed in a right obedience to some gracious intimation of the good pleasure of God , which was instead of an imperative Command , if there were none ( though we conceive there might be , though it be not mentioned ) before . On that therefore we will not insist , because it is not to be proved ; but on the intimation , or indicative Command , we will proceed and answer their dilutions . Let it be observed that Socinus doth not call in Question the Authority of this Epistle ( whatsoever the Arrians did , whose Heresie he absorbs , together with the Pelagian ) since he quotes it to prove ( as I noted before ) that the knowledge of God is not by Nature , but by Faith ; for without faith ( saith the Author ) it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God , must believe that he is , and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him . And he also saith , that by faith Abel offered unto God. Is not this argumentum ad hominem , if after this he affirm ( as his Followers do ) that Sacrifices were of humane excogitation only ? For cannot God be known but by faith ? And can Abel offer by faith , and yet according unto humane excogitation only ( reasoning in it self what was fittest to be done , and so doing ) which in Socinus's sense is taken to be an exclusion of faith , and directly contrary to it ? And if Abel had offered without faith , the Apostle testifies that he could not have pleased God ; but in that he did please him , with a witness he shews , that it was by such a faith as Cain had not , though he could not have offered without revelation neither . Now when the Apostle says , that without faith it is impossible to please God , we will take Socinus's Grant for a ground , viz. That the true object of Faith is some kind of supernatural revelation , and not any thing that is excogitated by a rational man ; so that if Abel had offered without such a revelation , he had sinned ; nay , if he had but done such a thing in doubt , whether he had warrant for it , or no ; those other words of the Apostle might have been sit to be applyed , He that doubteth is damned in the case : for whatsoever is not of faith is sin . Wherefore Cain sinned not in sacrificing , according to the revelation of God to his Father Adam ; for he sacrificed with faith , or belief of the Duty to be done , and he obeyed the outward part , as many men do at this day ( who have not the faith of Abel , or of right Believers ) but he sinned in his hypocrisie , having malice in his heart , and no love to God , nor respect unto his promise . And this you may take for a good reason why his Sacrifice could not be so acceptable as his Brothers . For it is manifest by the Text , that he offered only of the fruit of the ground an Offering unto the Lord ; whether it were a viler or a fairer Offering , it makes no matter ( let the Rabbins * argue that ) but Abel brought of the firstlings , or first-born ) of his flock , and of the fat thereof , and the Lord had respect unto Abel and his Offering ; but not to Cain's . Why , wherein was the difference ? Abel offered with bloud-shedding , but Cain a dry Offering , And without shedding of bloud there is no remission . Abel's Offering was like the humble supplication of the Publican , a Sinner ; Cain's like the Pharisees , who offered praises more than prayers , as if he had no need of mercy . Abel had respect to Christ ; for so he is reckoned in the Catalogue among the rest , And all these having obtained a good report through faith , received not the promise , but eyed and expected it . But since Cain was fallen into the temptation of the first Tempter , the Serpent , he could have but little comfort in looking forward towards this ( which made against him ) viz. That the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head . And is this the reason why Socinianizers would be content to take that blind Gloss of the Hebrews , for sense enough to be made of those words , viz. That they import no more but that men should hate Serpents , and Serpents men ; and that they should lye in wait for one another ? Or to hold , That there was no such thing as a Sin-Offering ( but only Peace-Offerings at the most , or Oblations of Gifts and Presents , without a Type ) before Moses ? Or , That men were never at all justified by their Offering of Sacrifice in Faith ? But let us hear what they say now to this instance of Cain and Abel ? They say , That this place , wherein the saith of Abel is commended , is so far from proving that it did rely on any explicated Command of God , that the contrary may be rather proved from it . For if Abel sacrificed in obedience to some Law of God , what shall we judge of Cain ? For if he sacrificed on the same account that Abel did , he had the same Faith that Abel had , which is quite contrary to the Apostle . The Answer riseth of its own accord from what hath been said before , That ( secundùm fidem credendam ) he offered with the same faith that Abel did , but ( secundùm fidem quâ creditur , seu quâ debuit credere ) he offered without any such faith at all , as the Apostle speaketh of in that Chapter . Thus a multitude partake of the Lords Supper , believing it to be his body and bloud ; but a few receive in faith : yet all are bound to come that profess any hope in Christ , or any interest in him . And if we say , That Cain sacrificed according to the faith of his Father Adam , more properly than his own ; it may well be said further , Whether there was an explicite Command or not , yet he had an implicite Faith at least , to believe as the Church believeth . 2. Now that these reve●●tions amounted to no less than a positi●● or imperative Law , remaineth to be shewed next , by this ( as invincible an Argument as any other ) Where there is no Law , there is no transgression ; and where there is no transgression , there is no legal penalty ; but where there may be manifest transgression and just punishment , there an undoubted Law must be presumed , or the Government call'd in question about the equity of the matter . The Law of Moses was not given till they came into the Wilderness ; but in order to their marching thitherwards , God commanded Moses to speak thus unto Pharaoh , The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us ; let us go , we pray thee , three days journey into the desart , and sacrifice unto the Lord our God , lest he fall upon us with pestilence or the sword . Ergo , This Law was ab origine to the people of God , viz. That they should offer Sacrifice unto him , for their own good , or at their peril . The Lord Christ , when he instituted his Communion ( as I noted before ) only gently said , As oft as you do this , &c. And it hath been let pass for an Ordinance of his : and there is no penalty upon the omission of that , though the Apostle lets them know that for the sake of eating and drinking unworthily , many were weak and sick amongst them , and many slept . But in this Case omission only is to be punished with extreme mortality . CHAP. VI. Socinus's second Topick propounded to be examined , viz. Whether , because men might possibly invent Sacrifices , as not against the Law of Nature , it must needs follow that they had their rise from thence . A contrary way of arguing propounded , by way of demonstration , and the subtilty of his way noted . That there were divers other Laws before Moses , in force ; shewed also that he did not record the Laws , but the practice only . AND now , that I may bring Socinus ( or his Adherents ) off with the more advantage or disadvantage , which may happen , since we have contrary designs ; they to admit as little need of Christ , and so , to do as little honour to him , as needs must ; and we do him all the Right that the Scriptures or the Catholick Church hath ever done : I come to his second Topick , A possibili ad necessarium , that because it was possible ( or not impossbile , but ) that by the light of Nature ( reasoning and excogitating what was fit to be done in honour to the great Creator , to set up some conspicuous service to be performed to him ) the Offering of Sacrifices might come into their minds , that therefore it must needs be so , and no otherwise ; there being nothing in it contrary to the Law of Nature , since God did afterward confirm it . In answering of their former reasoning , from a particular Negative to a general Affirmative , we proceeded by the way that is as strong as theirs was sleight ; I mean , by demonstration from the effects to the cause ( the same way that we prove a God ) for where there was example , encouragement and penalty demonstrated , there the Law it self ( the cause of these ) was also demonstrated , by a necessary consequence . And so in handling this their other Topick , A possibili ad necessarium , I shall go near to requite them by arguing quite contrary , A necessario ad impossibile . But , first , What kind of arguing is this ? There is no Command revealed about a matter of such moment as sacrificing ; and therefore there was none , nor any reason to be given why such a thing should be omitted . And yet to say that it is possible and likely ( of as great moment as it is ) that men should find it out by the use of right reason , whereas this is less revealed than the other ? And less reason to be given why or how it should be first devised ? We say still , it was absolutely necessary , that after the Fall there should be sacrificing ; but that it was utterly impossible that man should invent it of himself . And if Socinus doth not ground his own Hypothesis upon Scripture , wherefore doth he call for Scripture , Scripture ? And when we shew him Scripture , what avails it in the case of Sacrifices , when he shall set the same reason that invented them , above the Scriptures ; giving it authority to expound them ( not so as right reason , but ) as the reason of Socinus shall allow ? Is not this to appeal always to himself ? And what hath he deserved of the truth , that we ( that revere the Scripture indeed ) should defer so much authority to him ? Do we not see that he alledgeth Scripture only to baulk us , and admitteth it not to inform himself ? But let us appeal , however , unto such as will hearken what the Scripture saith , and believe it . Was not Abraham expresly commanded to offer up his Son Isaac , and did not God provide him of a Ram in the stead of his Son ? And , said not God unto Iacob , Go up to Bethel , and dwell there , and make there an Altar unto God ? The Question is , Whether God commanded these things , because Cain ( suppose ) being a very wise man , had invented them before , or because God himself had commanded the like before ; what do you think ? Is it more reasonable that men should prescribe a modus of his own worship unto God , or he to men ? Or do you think it proper that God himself should second a project of the wicked Cain , or the decayed Adam ? And what though the first Law be not recorded , ( as many Laws of England , depending on the ancientest Customs of all , are not ; and yet are held to be such , as out of which Magna Charta was composed , and which , without so much as mention in any Statute , are accounted to be prime Law amongst us ) does it therefore follow that there was none ? What think you of Murder before Noah ? of burning for Adultery afterwards ? or of the Law of Leviration , obliging the Brother surviving to raise up Seed unto his Brother ; for the breach of which , God Almighty being provoked ( besides the other aggravation ) cut off Onan in his prime ? Shew me the Laws , if you are able ; and yet they were of such moment , that their breach ( you see ) was Capital . I instance in Laws ( which is ad idem to the Question ) since it nothing moves them when we shew , That divers things are recorded in the New Testament as delivered by Moses , ( who was directed unto brevity ) which we cannot find at all in him : as Enoch's Prophecy , Lot's perturbations for the wicked Sodomites , Noah 's preaching to the old World , &c. In a word , the fourth Chapter of Genesis was not the place wherein Moses was to set down the Law of Sacrifices , which he was after to reform . So that these two Points remain , in the whole , to discover the fallacies of our Adversary , and to vindicate the truth , viz. first , That after the Fall , Sacrifices were absolutely necessary towards the reparation . Secondly , That it is utterly improbable , and morally impossible , that any man should invent them ; so that from the very first they should have been acceptable unto God on that account . CHAP. VII . What maketh the Socinians talk so sleightly of Sacrifices . The inconcinnity and implications of their opinion , in part detected . IN this it is that the Socinians trifle much , when they talk ( prophanely ) concerning Sacrifices , as if they had been but complemental or superstitious things ; nay , but fond in their imaginations , and such as they should have never liked if they had lived then : which will represent their opinion to the more prejudice , if it shall at last appear that God himself was the Director of them only as a merciful remedy for man. But what though ? Will they be any more ashamed in this , than in their sleighting of both the Sacraments of the New Testament , ( of which they acknowledge Christ himself to have been the Author ) while they drive them to another scope , and question the necessity of their continuance ? For what is there in water now , more than in fire before ? or in Bread and Wine now , more than in the Cakes and Libaments , with the flesh and bloud of Sheep , before ? They say , ( as it were by a scomma or a sarcasm ) Nobis , quibus alii mores , &c. To us , that are inured unto other manners and religious Rites for a long time , it is in vain to judge , after so long a time before , what might come into the mind of another concerning Sacrifices ; as if Adam and the Patriarchs were no other in their account but as old exotick Heathens , that had invented some way of worship : acknowledging , however , lest they should be free in any part from contradiction , Haec , & hujusmodi instituta , quae ratio naturalis excogitavit , tanquam ad conspicuum Dei cultum , satis apta suisse , & idonea . That these Sacrifices , and what pertained to them , were apt and proper enough ( though invented by men ) to render a certain kind of conspicuous service unto God. And so when they say , It is no wonder that they should consume these consecrated things by fire ; for how else could they prevent their reservation ( possibly ) unto prophane uses , after once they had been dedicated ? They themselves , that pretend to take their refuges in reason , do but raise us unto admiration of their considence , when they tell us , that there is no wonder in such a thing , whereof they can give no other but an illusory or ridiculous reason , while they say , There is no wonder . For if this be strange to us , how it should come into the Patriarchs heads , to think to please God , by slaying of a Beast , without such revelation ; how should it seem less strange , that burning it , when they had done , should enter into the same heads , for any one reason more than another ? Certes , the reason which these Socinians give , viz. That nothing might remain of that which they had thus devoted unto God , doth but edge upon the brim of two other contradictions of their own , or some of theirs . For they say , That Cain brought only of the fruits of the Ground at the end of Harvest ; explaining themselves so , as if they did not think he burnt them , ( whatsoever he did with them ) nor is it likely that he ●id : nay , in after times , God accepted of divers kinds of Gifts and Offerings , which were not to be consumed ; but conserved rather for his Priests , or for his Tabernacle , or Temple , and the Utensils and Ornaments thereof . And as for Abel , Hugo Grotius , not to be excused of favouring them in this particular opinion ( however it stand in others ) doth upon the matter bring it into Question , Whether Abel himself o●fered by fire . For being pressed with this Argument , That if there had not been some revelation from God , men would scarce have thought of offering their own food to God , ( which anciently were the only Offerings ) he being of the opinion , That the old World ( so much given to the flesh ) did eat none before the Flood ; falls upon this broken shift to say , That Abel offered not the flesh it self , but only the Milk and fine Wool thereof . ( Cujus tamen sententiae , saith my Author , nescio an quenquam adjutorem habeat . ) But in the mean time he leaves us as much to admire what he did with the Beast , if he did not burn it , being slain : Did he rather bury it , to with-hold a Sacrifice by fire ? Or did he spare all his Flock to be immortal , while Man alone was subject to mortality ? Or what need had Abel to bring such Sacrifices as these but once a year , the profits whereof arose daily ? Or how was Abel's Sacrifice of more value than Cain's ? Or indeed , a thousand Head of Sheep or Cattel of any great worth , if their Flesh were not ? Which of the contradictions of these rational Querists shall we embrace , since they cannot all hold together , nor yet agree one with another ? In fine , if such a conceit as this might by natural reason have entred into the heads of some of the Ancients , it is a wonder why it should not into theirs also , who set Dishes before their Idols ( to which some passages of the Prophets seem to allude ) for them to feed upon ? For if they had thought of burning them , the Priests , who would not defraud their own Genius's , could not have defrauded their Idols in the Night . Or why might not we , at this day , have discovered such an use of consuming by fire those Presents , which the Chinese , Tartars , or Americans do offer unto their Pagods ? ? which I cannot learn to be true from the report of Travellers , although they make fires , and rings , and feasts , and the like , as barbarous people have been still accustomed . But I will tell you more anon , why God required and directed fire ; and not He that was to be tormented with it hereafter , together with all his Complices . CHAP. VIII . The summ of our opinion related in the words of Eusebius Caesariensis . Sleight exceptions against them noted . Our opinion stated more at large . That it implies an inconvenience to oppose Socinus , and our opinion too . The Subject of the next Chapter laid down . BUT to come up closely to the Question : Our first Parents , after their transgression , must either fall immediately to sacrificing , ( especi●lly by fire ) or else yield themselves to go into that fire of Hell , which they had deserved without remedy . Neither have we forgotten that all this cometh in upon occasion of shewing how they repented , believed and were restored unto Grace by the Church , whereof the promised seed was the Head , in the use of the means of Grace . To proceed therefore in our purpose . The summ of all is contained in that passage of Eusebius , quoted by my Author ( though by him so qualified , as if either Party might take their advantage of it , and ●bound in their own sense ; which we ( for our parts ) think ought not to be left to an indifferent liberty . ) I do not think ( saith he ) that the thought of sacrificing came by chance , or by design of man. For the godly ( then ) and such as were familiarly acquainted with God , and were enlightned by his Divine Spirit in their souls , sa● what manner of need they had of a great means of healing , for the doing away [ or expiation ] of their mortal sins ; and therefore thought a recompence was to be made [ or a redemption ] for their salvation , to the Giver of life and soul. And since they had nothing better or more worthy than their own souls to consecrate unto God , in the stead of these they sacrificed unreasonable Beasts , laying down [ or offering ] up their lives as hostages [ or pledges ] for their own . There are two shifts obtended over this authority to avoid the manifest pertinency and cogency of it . First , That he makes no mention of inanimate Offerings in the Case ; but it is confessed that he had spoken somewhat of them before , viz. That they availed little to the Point in hand , the expiation of sin . Secondly , That he doth not say , that the Beasts which Abel , Noah , or Abraham sacrificed , were offered unto God , explicatâ aliquâ ipsius Lege , by any manifest Law of his ; but only by some Divine enlightning ( it may be ) of their minds , not common unto all , but imparted only unto some of the best of men : And this they think maketh not at all against their own supposition . Which trifling baffling , I shall also endeavour to uncase presently , that when I do proceed I may the sooner wind up all that doth remain of this Argument upon its last bottom . We say in summ , That the Law of sacrificing was revealed unto Adam , and no other ; and only taught by , and derived from him : That no Sacrifice apart was ever of any avail at all , without respect to that which was made by blood . And we have proved how the first illumination or direction amounted to a Law ; and shall shew the manner , in order , as we can come to it . We utterly reject the fallacious insinuation , as if only extraordinary mén did sacrifice ; and we say , That Cain and all his did sacrifice ( one way or other ) as well as Seth , there being no need of any second illumination . But the main subtilty lyes about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the first , viz. Whether Adam and Eve did excogitate Sacrifice , or no ; and if they did , Whether by their own natural reasons , with nothing else but some remote assistance of illumination , such as a man may have by study ? When we therefore say further , That Sacrifices were absolutely necessary after the Fall , for the reparation of Adam and his Posterity ; we must distinguish against the Sons of Cain , or the Magnifiers of his Sacrifice by inanimate things ( if they were of more worth ) above Abel's , which was by the choicest Animals that he had ; as if both alike were no more but returns of thanks to God , by a visible token , for his outward benefits , according to their several kinds : I say , we must distinguish betwixt Sacrifices of expiation , or atonement for sin , ( which they deny ) and those others , whatsoever they were , that were Propitiatory only , or Eucharistical . And we say , That they were all absolutely necessary ( but especially the first ) and all alike revealed , before they could be tendred unto God. Now why Socinus thinks so meanly or indifferently of Sacrifices , as not belonging to salvation , is not far to seek . For he holds , ( as we have hinted before ) 1. That the light of Nature alone , without this excogitation , was sufficient ; 2. That natural Religion is only moral , which Sacrifices are not ; 3. That there is no such thing as expiation , or satisfaction for sin ; but that it is done away by merely pard●ning : 4. That Christ ( therefore ) s●●●●red no vicarious punishment for sin , ●●gured by any Sacrifices , which themselves impor●ed no such matter ; but that he was only sacrificed as a good man for the publick good . But what should move any man to grant unto Socinus , that Sacrifices might be found out by men ; and that they became not figurative , or expiatory , until Moses , and yet oppose him ; I cannot imagine , unless it be to gratifie a more modern Father ; or because they are well enough assured of sufficient Arguments ( besides ) out of the Old and New Testaments , to overthrow the Socinian suppositions ; and so to let this opinion of revelation go how it may to them that are fonder of it ; suppose some or other of the Calvinists . Let it favour or disfavour any Party whatsoever ( as it may happen ) I doubt not but that passage of Eusebius , which I have borrowed from my Author , contains the Catholick Doctrine ; to be seconded by the authority of more Fathers , when I come to prove , Vnam esse omnium fidem . In the mean while , ( in prosecution of my first Argument , set down in the close of the sixth , and beginning of the last Chapter ) I shall endeavour to shew , 1. How this revelation of the will of God concerning Sacrifices may be conceived ; and then , 2. That it was necessary to be received and obeyed . CHAP. IX . The Offering of Sacrifice revealed , 1. By the light of Grace . The ends of Sacrifice shewed , and the true reason of consuming it by fire . 2. By the light of Prophecy , as the Day of Christ to Abraham . That hereupon our first Parents must needs obey . 1. FOR the first , we may conceive two ways , whereby it pleased God to reveal his will unto Adam , concerning Sacrifices , as a means of his recovery , Lumine Gratiae , & Lumine Prophetiae . First , In a way of Grace and Mercy ; which was not so obscurely as obliquely tendred to him . For after his Fall , Expositors have observed , that Gods beginning with the Serpent first , to sentence him ( who was the first in fault ) imported a reservation of greater mercy to them that were but drawn in , and so betray'd . And when he had said , I will put enmity betwixt the Woman ( a Type of the Church ) and the Serpent ( the Devil ) and betwixt his Seed ( the Reprobate World ) and her Seed ( the Elect ) that they were given out of hand to understand that they should not dye presently , as they had deserved ; but should live to see a various Seed . And when they heard , in the close , that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the head of Satan , whereas his Seed should only bruise the heel of the other , by temporal tribulations ; they had light enough given them to perceive that they should not only obtain a redemption by that blessed Seed promised , but also a certain Victory at the last : which some of the ancient Rabbins understood as relating to their Messiah . But if any one will rather chuse to be frivolous with the modern Iews , it is in vain to stand to beat the truth into them with a Mallet . Surely , none found the effects more of God's severity or goodness , imported in the whole judgment , than our first Parents themselves ; since they both suffered more troubles in the flesh , and obtained more favour than any of their Posterity . For ( as Estius counts ) Adam was a longer Liver ( being created in perfection ) of nine hundred and thirty years , than Me●husalah of nine hundred forty nine ; who began not to procreate ( for ought appears ) till seventy ; unless it be said , that Children of lesser note are wholly omitted in the Genealogy . Wherefore , when our first Parents saw themselves delivered from the utmost fear to some certain hope , they must needs conceive that somewhat was thereupon to be done by them in hope . But what that was , how could they have possibly imagined , if the same Grace that gave the promise , had not both enlightned the eyes of their minds , to know the meaning of it , and what to do in order to obtain it , or in expectation of it ? So that according to Eusebius it must needs be some way or other mercifully insinuated to them ; that whereas they had deserved death in their own persons by transgression , they should put to death in their own steads the fairest of their living Creatures , that were clean ( and not the Serpent ) and then offer them up unto God above by fire , that their prayers might ascend therewith , and their sins be forgiven , as if they were utterly consumed . And here may be a place to shew the reasons of offering by fire . If we consider the ends of sacrificing in the general , it will soon afford some light into it . Which were , 1. To represent , and to be a memorial of the great Sacrifice of Christ to come , who ●hould once be offered up in behalf of Sinners . 2. To lecture to them the desert of sin and Sinners , death , and fire , in the death and firing of the Sacrifice before their eyes . 3. * To acknowledge their Goods received from God , in offering up to him somewhat of all they had . 4. To be a matter of Worship and Religion in those times of ceremoniousness ; wherein all did acknowledge their homage to God , and true Believers acted their faith on Christ's sufferings . 5. To be signs of repentance , and pledges of expiation ; when they should see ( that is to say ) the innocent slain instead of the nocent , and their sins to pass away ( as it were ) with the smoke that ascended from the Altar . To these others add , That the Sinner was hereby admonishe● to burn up ( as it were ) all animal-concupiscences within him , which have their rise from blood and fat ; and so , to eradicate all vice within them . But the main reason is that which God hath given us himself ; for whereas the Patriarchs offered whole Burnt-offerings , without any curious ordering of their Sacrifice , when God directed Moses afterwards how to wash the Inwards , and divide the parts , and how then to put them again together , and burn them on the Altar , he saith , It is a sweet savour , an Offering made by fire unto the Lord. Therefore they were to burn their Offering then , that the odour thereof might ascend with their prayers into the nostrils of God , at whose right hand the Mediator was ( even then also ) to do the same Offices for his Church and people that he doth now , as it is described in the Revelation , that he stood at the Altar , having a golden Censer ; and there was given unto him much incense , that he should offer it up with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar , which was before the Throne . And the smoke of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints , ascended up before God out of the Angels hand . Say not therefore , that the savour of Beasts , being burnt , could not be sweet of it self , any more than that of the sinful prayers of men . God smelleth not as men do ; but though under Moses's order , other things were added unto Burnt-offerings , that there might be no evil savour ( possibly ) in the Temple , as to men ; yet all received another scent , with a sweet perfume and odour , as it passed through the ministration of the Angel , the Mediator of either Testament , before it came into the nostrils of his Father . Secondly , Lumine Prophetiae ; Whether it were by vision , or any other way of Prophetical revelation , Adam as a Prophet might have all this and more ( as no doubt he had ) from God ; for else how should the first Church of all have been informed or directed according unto God or godliness ? We may not therefore suppose Adam little the worse for his Fall , as Socinus ; or as deprived of his natural endowments , ( the Image of God ) but only of all the extraordinary improvements and comforts that he had before , when he had ordinary communion with God. So that it is still held in the Schools , That Adam was absolutely the wisest of all mortal men , ( not Solomon excepted , whose wisdom was Government ) and that he did not after cease to know those Creatures which he had named in Paradise . And as he was the first that received Grace , so we may well think that he received it not in the least measure . Wherefore , since our Saviour doth assure us , ( and yet it is not to be proved out of Moses ) that Abraham longed to see his day , and that he saw it , and was glad ; Most like it might be then , when he was about to set his Knife to Isaac's throat ; and lo , a Ram was provided ready for him to offer up instead of Isaac , and the Angel from above staid his hand from such a sad issue of obedience : and the Angel swore , saying , By my self have I sworn , saith the Lord , because thou hast done this thing , In blessing I will bless thee . And had not Abraham reason to be glad ? We may doubt no less of Adam , at some one time or other , when he received this Ordinance of Sacrifice , to be continued in their Generations , until Shiloh came . 2. Then ( after this ) they must needs receive and obey this enlightning from above ; for if we think upon Adam's Case , he must needs at first be thunder-struck with the terrible appearance of God , calling him to judgment , and passing sentence on him . For if Moses said , ( which is not to be proved in terminis , out of his own Books neither ) I exceedingly fear and qu●ke , when he received the Law in the Mount ; how much more out first Parents , when they hid themselves , and made such weak and lamentable excuses ( being forced to appear ) for their transgression ? But what should they do at last ? Should they rest in despair , and in dejection ? Or should they rather strive and endeavour to rise again ? Certainly , to rise : but if so , must it not be by a right repentance ? And was that possible without hope ? Or such an hope , without a ground of faith ? Or such a faith without a clear evidence to support it ? And if you say they might repent , believe and pray ; and that that might be enough without Sacrifice : I answer , That there was never any faith without the Church , never any Church without Ordinances , whereby a right faith might be supplied , and the Object of faith ( in some measure ) conveyed unto right Worshippers . It is in vain to imagine that they should have some faith , and no practice ; or any right practice without a certain faith before , without which it is impossible to please God. These therefore put together , did constitute a true Church , in the persons of Adam and Eve , and the Head of the Church ( two or three , till they bred more ) and a sure Religion unto them and theirs : of the nature of which it is , that if it be not imposed by another ( but excogitated only ) it is no Religion ; which signifies a bond or tye , such an one as a man can●ot lay upon himself ; and if he do , it b●nds not his God to accept it , or reward it in the least ; or , so much as to approve of it , lest it be a thing incongruous , or disagreeable unto himself . We cannot therefore imagine any time at all betwixt the Fall , and the introducing of some Religion , by the benefit of which our first Parents might recover . But the So●inians must needs suppose it , if the Offering of Sacrifices were indeed the first Religion , which they deny not ; and yet , that it hung in suspense , till a certain space of excogitation : they care not , though it be till Cain and Abel were grown unto maturity . In the mean while , is not this true , that they which live without a right Religion , do live without God in the World , and are in a kind of reprobate estate ? Which doleful apprehension about our first Parents , I have shewed you before how much the Catholick Church abhorreth . CHAP. X. The last shift of the Socinians discussed , wherein is shewed , That Sacrifices , neither probably nor ( morally ) possibly could be invented by men , so as to be approved by God. And that they had been unnatural , if they had not been ordained towards a mystery . Socinus not so pious as Pelagius , or Homer . IN fine , Whereas the Socinians do distinguish betwixt the Laws of Nature , that were eternal and immutable , and those which excogitating reason might ordain , towards the setting up of some conspicuous and idoneous worship , to be rendred unto God ; and affirm , that Sacrifices had their original from the latter , inasmuch as they were not contrary to the former ; ( granting that they were not necessarily implied in the former ) and say ( besides ) that what Abel , Noah and Abraham might do ( in this kind ) might be indeed by some especial Divine way ; so that it was not common unto others , but only proper to themselves , or such excellent men as they : they have given us the last hints of Argument to proceed , and to conclude on somewhat in the close . We have shewed before , the vanity of their reasoning , à possibili ad necessarium , from a thing possible to the certainty of the thing , or to the probability either . For who ever thought , that a thing not repugnant must needs be , or be most likely , at the least ? How many instances might be given to expose such a supposition to laughter ? But the way which I propounded last was , to detect their legerity , by arguing , à necessario ad impossibile , from a thing necessary to a thing impossible . I have shewed , that Sacrifices were necessary to do away sin : if they like not that , yet they seem not to deny , but that they were apt and fit enough to set forth some conspicuous worship and service unto God. And if this sacrificing for either end , was a Duty not revealed , nor likely , nor possible to be excogitated by any man ; then man was obliged to an impossibility by nature ( at least excogitating ) which is absurd , Quia nemo tenetur ad impossibile . Will they say , that it was not necessary from the beginning to offer any Sacrifice at all , but only to set up some way of worship ; and that another way might have been invented , if this had not been fit enough ? They themselves are not able ( in this light of day ) so long after , to shew what that other way might have been . Will they say , they deny not some direction ; but that it came in use ( divinâ quâdam ratione ) they know not how , but by mens using of their right minds , the government of God ( it may be ) over-ruling them ? This , I have noted before , was the shift of the old Pelagians ; who finding some Grace to be undeniable , would have it all to be placed in the natural gifts of knowledge , Free-will and moral Vertues , together with the benefits of Gods Providence and Government : but all this ( as I have also shewed before ) is not enough to constitute a Religion , which must needs come from some Law imposed , and revealed from God himself ; much less a Covenant betwixt God and man , or a certain sign thereof , as Sacrifice was , viz. Of our first Parents thereby entring into the Covenant of Grace , Gather my Saints together unto me ( he says , Psal. 50.5 . ) those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice . Which was not the sign of the Covenant by Moses , but only circumcisio● . But from which of the first reasons ( however over-ruled ) should it proceed ? From Adam's ? He was at an utter loss , and if he had gone about such a thing ( of his own head ) more apt to fall into the snare of the Tempter again , than to hit it right towards God ; From Cain ? He was a Reprobate ; From Abel , Noah and Abraham , according to such respective enlightnings as they had ? Then so many good men , so much variety of sacrificing ; which was all but uniform until the Law of Moses . Let us therefore come to the last winding up of the botom . 1. It was not probable , 2. It was morally impossible , that any man should invent sacrificing , so as to please God thereby , upon their own accounts . 1. It was not probable , that either Adam or Abel should invent the sacrificing of living Creatures , ( since of Cain there remains no further Question , as to his own person , whatsoever his Descendents did , because he brought only of the fruits of the ground ) as any acceptable service unto God. For Adam and Eve ( for their parts ) they being due to death themselves ( from which they were but reprieved only in respect of temporal death ) it cannot well be imagined , that one of the first thoughts that should enter into their minds , should be to kill any of their lower Fellow Creatures ; as being a●raid in themselves to see what natural death might be , much more a violent one , in any other ; more especially , wrought by their own hands , which had brought all other things into bondage with themselves , howsoever innocent . And as for Abel , he could have no less estranged apprehensions from the like slaughter , For a righteous man regardeth the life of his Beast , but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel ; even as the very Sacrifices of the Heathen . And Abel besides was a Shepherd , which sort of men are so tender of their Flocks , that David encountred a Lyon and a Bear in their defence ; and our Saviour himself saith , The Thief cometh not but for to steal , and to kill , and to destroy ; but the good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep . 2. So that it was morally impossible , that such good men as these should ever devise such a way as this of their own heads , or approve of it in their own conceits , if they had not been informed of a mystery in the Case . For it would have been a sin against the Creator to have slain his Creature , ( for no mischief done , nor yet for food ) if he had not required Sacrifice , or the death of the innocent ( which he valued less ) instead of the nocent , which he loved more . What was his speech to Ionah ? Should not I spare Niniveh that great City , wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons , that cannot discern betwixt their right hands and their left , and also much Cattel ? The Children and the Cattel being innocent alike , and so far Objects of Divine compassion , according to their different worths and natures . We hear what they say , That these did it to acknowledge the right and dominion of the Lord of life and death , and that it was not unnatural , because that God confirm'd it afterwards by Moses , and Christ in fine abolish'd it , which he never did any Law of Nature , which is eternal and immutable . But if they did this to acknowledge the right of the Lord of life and death only , why did they take his right from him ? Was that the proper way to acknowledge it ? For if they slew the Creature in their own right ( before God had put it into their hands ) they wronged the Lord of life by bare killing , much more by presenting of such a death , as an acceptable token to him . To the Lord of life , a living Present is a fitter token than a dead ; for he delighteth not in the death of any of his Creatures , he willeth not so much as the death of a Sinner , but rather that he should turn and live . But as the same is the Lord of death by his own free dispensation , for again he saith , Return ye Children of men ; so he will be avenged on them that take this out of his hand , to hasten the end of any of his Creatures , having once said , Vengeance is mine , and I will repay it , saith the Lord. In a word , if there had been no mystery in Sacrifices , they had been as un●atural in themselves , as Zipporah counted Circumcision ; or , as we may account the severities of Moses , and of Ioshuah , and more especially of David ( who was a merciful man in his own nature ) who put the Ammonites under Saws , and Harrows of Iron , and hewed them with Axes , and cast them into the Brick-kilns , ( or made them pass through them ) not only those that resisted at Rablah , but all the Children of Ammon . A thing , which even Turks and Tartars would at this day shrink from committing , as contrary to the Laws both of Nature , and of Nations . So that God's confirming of Sacrifices afterwards doth only prove , that they were his Ordinance before ; and Christ's abolishing of them , that they were ordained only for a time . In this , at last , we find Socinus to exceed Pelagius , viz. That he holdeth but one way of salvation from the beginning to the end , ( which is very true , if he had assigned the right ) namely , by living according unto Nature ; whereas Pelagius held , that that endured but till the Law , and that that was another way , and Grace another after that . And that he doth not so much as come up to the Heathen Philosophers , who though they sometimes speak lightly of prodigal Sacrifices , which God ( they thought ) delighted not in for themselves ; ( as he also testifieth of himself in many places of the Scripture ) yet they generally acknowledged Sacrifices to be piacular of offences , and pacatory of their offended Deities ; according to the advice of Calchas unto Agamemnon , for removing of the Plague brought upon the Grecian Army ( as he said ) for Agamemnon's offence in using roughly of Apollo's Priest , and detaining of his Daughter . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He will not from the Plague withhold his hand , Vntil the black-ey'd Maid be sent to stand Before her Father , and an hundred Head Of Bullocks be presented to his meed , To sacrifice , and then we shall appease Apollo's wrath — CHAP. XI . Why Abel cut off , and why without issue , viz. That the curse and the promise might obtain their respective turns . The Sentence of the Woman , as the weaker Vessel , lightest ; and a blessing restored to her in the birth of the Seed promised . That Cain inherited Adam's curse , by his own choice . Of the City that he built , and how it might be peopled , so as to leave retinue enough to his Father Adam , and Brother Seth , besides . BUT was this the reward ( at last ) of the Grace and favour shewed unto Abel's Sacrifice more than Cain's , that he should be delivered up into those hands which God himself did hate , to be vilely murthered by them ? So God , it seems , esteemeth ( otherwise than men do ) this to be the greatest honour that he can do his Saints , that they should suffer for his sake in this World , to the end that Abel might become the first Prophet upon record , ( by which we may observe how he came , besides his Fathers directions , to be better informed about his sacrificing than his Brother ) the first Martyr , and the first Inheriter of eternal life and Glory● ▪ as also , that on the persecuting World might come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth , from the blood of righteous Abel unto the utmost crucifying of Christ and of all his Members . Nor was Abel suffered to live so long , as to leave any Issue of his own , wherein he might have survived here on Earth in another manner , ( which might a little have alleviated the loss of him towards his broken-hearted Parents ) God reserving for him a better name than that of Sons and Daughters . But , very probable it seems , that both his death was permitted , and his issue prevented , for two other ends , which I may point at here , viz. 1. That the Curse , and 2. That the Promise , might both obtain their respective turns . For God had said first unto the Serpent , Because thou hast done this , thou art cursed ; and I will put enmity between thee and the Woman , and between thy Seed and her Seed . It shall bruise thy head , and thou shalt bruise his heel . And unto the Woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow . And unto Adam , Cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life . Thorns also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee ; and in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread , till thou return unto the ground whence thou wast taken . For the first , It was denounced against the Serpent , and against the man , more extensively ; but against the Woman ( tanquam medium tantùm participationis ) as the weaker Vessel , more remisly , though sad enough , In sorrow shalt thou conceive . But the benefit of the promise it self passeth through the Woman by a stroke darted through the Serpent , and reacheth to the man ( tanquam objectum tantùm participationis ) as the primary object of mercy only ; since the Woman was of the Man , and all Mankind was to be the like thereafter , till the very promised Seed should come from the bowels of a Woman only . So that as Woman was taken out of Man at first , Man was taken out of Woman afterwards , without generation in both ; but the regeneration that came by the latter to all Mankind , was infinitely a greater benefit than the constitution of a certain Sex or Species of Womankind before . And for so much of the Serpents Curse as glanceth also terribly on the Posterity of man , the Lord had said , I will put enmity between thee and the Woman , and between thy Seed ( poor Woman ! that She herself must bear against her will ! ) and her Seed ( which God should chuse , and She not know which was which ) but the Seed of the Serpent was named first . This was Cain , the first , that was conceived in iniquity and born in sin ; which yet was no more imputed unto him than unto Abel : what reason shall he therefore have to murmure ? If thou do well , shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well , sin lyeth at the door . And yet poor Eve hoped that this had been the promised Seed , wherefore She called his Name Cain , saying , I have gotten a man from the Lord. Unto Adam God had also said , Cursed is the ground for thy sake . And this did Cain also obtain for his inheritance ( as a double portion ) by his own choice ; for whereas Abel was a Keeper of the sheep , Cain was a Tiller of the ground . Of the competition likewise betwixt the two Seeds it is said further , It shall bruise the Serpents head , but the Serpents Seed shall bruise the others heel . Now the Seed of the Woman ( if that was Abel ) was so far from beginning at all with the Seed of the Serpent ( so much as to tread upon its tail , much less to bruise his head ) that it was not only bruised in the heel by a small hurt from the Serpent , but in the head it self , by the death of Abel , quite contrary to what might be expected . But the Answer is , Though Cain knock'd his Brother in the head , yet the Seed of the Serpent did but bruise the heel of the Church ( which was the Womans Seed ) in the person of Abel , who was the first Type of Christ , qui patiendo vicit , who overcame , and so broke the head of the Serpent by his sufferings . For Daemona , non armis , sed morte , subegit IESVS . Wherefore as Christ arose from the dead the third day , and then triumphed gloriously over Principalities and Powers ; so did Abel rise again ( to the benefit of the Church ) in the person of his Brother Seth , For God , said Eve , hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel , whom Cain slew ; by whom the Serpent was to be sped at last . In the mean while , there are two further Points to be discreetly traversed , 1. That Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years ( and it is likely Eve somewhat near the matter , whether more or less ) and begat other Sons , not mentioned , and Daughters , whereof the name of never an one is at all recorded . 2. That some penitent issue is not obscurely shewn to have issued from Cain himself . For all the Sons of Adam , not named , we may take it for granted that they either abode in their Fathers Tents ( taking their Sisters to Wives , who were next to be taken ) or went off with Cain to help him build and replenish his City ; being nevertheless of the Seed of the Woman ( or of the true Church ) so long as they retained the Worship , the Rites , the Rules , and the Moral Laws , that they carried off from their Fathers house . And others of them cleaved unto Seth , and holp to make up his Family , because the Earth must needs be replenished , and Children go off to further distance . And thus we may conceive that the true Church was far from failing betwixt the death of Abel , and the birth of Seth , howsoever the necessity of livelyhood , or civil accommodation might divide the Members of it . But as Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years before he had Seth , so Seth live a hundred and five years more before he had Enos . In which long tract of time , and encrease of Generations , when men began to multiply on the face of the Earth , and that Daughters were born unto them ; so that the Sons of God saw the Daughters of men that they were fair , and took them Wives of all they liked : then the true Worshippers were ●ain to gather unto one House , or Tribe . And how they might attain to any consistency there , I refer you to the Letter of a learned Gentleman in the Postscript . All that remains to be said here is this , That when the House of Seth came to degenerate too , God brought a Deluge on the World , as it is commonly accounted 1656 years after the Creation . CHAP. XII . Why God preserved Cham and Japhet in the Ark , as well as Sem. That though they followed the way of the old World , yet they were encreased in dominion ( which was not the blessing promised ) more than . Sem Nay , that he himself was greater in temporal accessions by other Sons , than by Eber. NOW one might think , since God Almighty was so much offended with the sins of the old World , as to say , It repented him that he had made man on the Earth , and it grieved him at his heart , that he would have taken such caution about the next succession , that no generation like to that of Cain's should have survived the Deluge . Yet as he preserved some of all kinds ( even of noxious Creatures ) in the Ark , so he dealt by the intire Family of Noah . He would not prejudge the Cases of Iaphet and Cham , who were under the same protection , discipline , and common blessings with Sem , till they came to be severed in their habitations and progenies . Among the Sons of Noah ( saith Sir Walter Raleigh ) there were found strong effects of the former poyson . For as the Children of Sem did inherit the Vertues of Seth , Enoch and Noah ; so the Sons of Cham did possess the vices of Cain , and of those wicked Giants of the first Age. As for Iaphet , we read no hurt of him , but it is rather recorded to his commendation , that he joined with his Brother Shem , to make some amends for the villany of Ham. who had exposed his Fathers nakedness . However , it is not obscurely implyed that Iaphet was either fallen or about to fall off to degenerate worship ; because this is added to his blessing ( for that act of silial Grace and Duty ) That God would at last enlarge or perswade Iaphet to dwell in the Tents of Sem , who , though chosen by God , is for the most part concluded to have been the younger Brother : Which Prophetick Promise to Iaphet , as the like Curse to Ham , were not to be accomplished in either of their persons , but in their posterities , some Ages after . Wherefore , for all the love and great savour that God shewed unto Noah , he would not hinder the accursed race of enmity from spreading out of his Loins also , to be two ways branched , for the greater afflictions of Sem's choicest Descendents , until the time appointed . For as the Sons of Noah descended from Mount Ararat , ( where the Ark rested , whether it was Caucasus or Taurus ) Ham and his Sons seized on all that they were able to occupy , from the parts of Mesopotamia to the ends of Africk , which was the Road that a part of them took . Of his Son Cush descended Nimrod , the Founder of the ensuing Babylonian Greatness , as also Ashur ( who gave the Name of Assyria ) that built Niniveh . And of his Son Canaan descended the Sidonians , Hittites , Iebusites , Ammonites , Girgasites , Hivites , Arkites , and other reprobate Hoards or Nations . Of his Son Mizraim descended also Pathrusim , the Father of the Philistines , and Casluhim , the original of some of the Bordering Arabians . And such of his Race as aimed further Southwards , peopled all Egypt and Ethiopia , to the Lands end , so far as their number or encrease could seize on Lands without resistance . So that out of Ham proceeded the Princes and people which held the great Kingdoms ( as they grew ) of Babylon , Syria and Egypt , for many Descents together , towards the future oppression of the Sons of Sem ; the blessings of Shem and Iaphet ( as my Authour hath it ) taking less effect , until the time appointed . So that the first great Lords of the Earth were of this accursed Race , that they might thresh in the Theshingfloors of Israel , and bring their Fans in their hands , whensoever the House of God was to be purged by the affliction of his people . And to shew besides that God accounteth not , as men do , of Worldly Greatness , he letteth it go ( to chuse ) unto the Heathen : who thereupon do idolize the Fortunes of their Princes , and set them up for Gods. The first of which this Ham is counted to have been , by the Name of Iupiter Hammon ; and the places where he was adored most , do countenance that opinion . And who was ever set up for an Idol , but the worst of men ? From Iaphet also and his seven Sons , the Medes , Seythes , Thracians , Macedonians , Grecians , and the most part of Lesser Asia were replenished ; together with the Isles of the Gentiles , by which name the ends of the habitable World were only known unto the Hebrews . From whence came Alexander first , and his Captains , and after them the Romans , to subdue and to waste Eber. Which events seem to have been more clearly revealed unto Balaam , than unto any of the better Prophets , even in the infancy of this people , while they travelled in the Desart towards this Land of Promise . And Ships shall come , saith he , from the Coasts of Chittim , and shall afflict Ashur , and shall afflict Eber , and he also shall perish for ever Nor did no other , but the holy Line , run through Sem himself : For from his Son Elam the Elamites or Persians did derive their name ; from Arphaxad the chaldeans sprung ; and some say , from his Son Ashur ( and not Nimrod's ) the Assyrians : as from his Son Aram the Aramites or Syrians ; and from his Son Lud the Lydians ( what people soever they were ) became known , according to the names of their Progenitors . CHAP. XIII . The knowledge of God dispersed in other Families , besides Sem's : but corruption in his also occasioned the Call of Abram . Why Lot came with him , and why he was driven into Egypt , and brought back so soon . Piety in Canaan while Sem lived there . Nor was the whole election at first restrained to the House of Abraham . NOW as Adam taught his Children , as he himself had been taught by God , how to sacrifice and keep the Sabbath , with certain Rites of Worship , and Laws of life ; so Noah also taught his Children all alike the same true Worship that had been delivered from Adam , ( who dyed not much above an hundred years before the birth of Noah , since he lived nine hundred and thirty years , and Noah was born in An. Mundi 1056. ) together with the true meaning of the Covenant after the Flood , betokened by a Rainbow . And because Noah lived three hundred and fifty years more , and the dispersion happened not in his life , the knowledge of God must needs be far and wide dispersed in the Tents of Cham and Iaphet as well as in those of Sem , before the Rout at Babel ; and they that went off in that confusion of languages , could not chuse however but carry off some rudiments or other of their first breeding . But when true Religion came to be corrupted in Sem's Family too , as well as in the rest , in the eighth Generation ( about five hundred and two years after the Deluge ) in the person of Terah , who became an Idolater , as the Scriptures do expresly * testifie ( however Bishop Montague ‖ comes to have a better opinion of him ) Then it pleased God to call forth his elect Vessel Abram from his Fathers house , to go into a Land that he would shew him , where his Seed should in time to come be planted alone by themselves in the middle of the Earth , and become a peculiar people unto God. And Abram brought his Brother Haran's Son Lot with him by God's permission , because he was a righteous man ; and yet neither he nor his were to be comprized in the same Covenant with Abraham and his Seed . Iosephus says , That Abram brought him along with him , with intent to make him his Heir , because as yet he had no Issue . But the same Providence that brought them forth together , within a while did sever them , that Moab and Ammon ( that should hate the Seed of Abraham as much as Lot and Abram loved one another ) might arise out of Lot's incest , and be ready planted in the Land of Canaan , to be Thorns in the sides of Israel . As for Abram himself , God had no sooner shewed him the Land of promise , but he forced him and Lot from thence by famine into Egypt , to try whether he would not stagger after such a promise , seeing such a defeat immediately upon it ; as also to make him a Type of the Seed promised , who was to be driven into Egypt as soon as he was born ; as also to begin the sufferings of Christ in his Body the Church . For it was from this time to be accounted , that the four hundred years should be accomplished in him and his Seed ; of which he had received this threatning ( after such a promise of Grace ) for some shew of lesser faith than he had exprest before , Know of a surety that thy Seed shall be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs ( as Egypt and the parts about , for in Egypt it self they remained but two hundred and ten years ) and shall serve them four hundred years . But while Abram sojourned here , he found more piety than he expected ; as he after did in the same Case , at Gerar of the Philistines . However , Pharaoh's mistaken kindness unto Sarah , occasioned the dismission of Abram and Lot , with all their substance , into Canaan ( as it is thought ) the very next year , where their substance being greatly encreased , they were fain to part ; their Companies also being great , Abram was put to shew his power in falling upon four victorious Kings for the rescue of his * Nephew Lot , who had been taken captive by them : for it is said , that Abram was very rich in Cattel , in Silver , and in Gold. And for his great Retinue , when he treated with the Sons of Heth for a Burying-place for Sarah , they said unto him , Hear us , my Lord , thou art a mighty Prince amongst us ; in the choice of our Sepulchres bury thou thy dead : As if there had been yet some civility among these Hitties , of the Race of Cham , somewhat of kin to piety . But when Abram returned with victory over the Kings which he had pursued , then Melchizedeck King of Salem came forth to meet him , and he brought forth bread and wine , * because he was the Priest of the most high God. And he blessed him , and said , Blessed be Abram of the most high God , Possessor of Heaven and Earth . And Abram gave him tythes of all [ his spoils ] as the Apostle doth expound it , Heb. 7.4 . So that here we are pointed to observe another Church , without the House of Abram , which hath an High Priest , whereas Abram himself had no greater Title than that of a Prophet ; nor any greater Right to handle Divine Mysteries , than any other Father of a Family , ( which derived Priesthood down from Adam ) so that Abram paid Tythes unto him . Not to enter into the whole Dispute about Melchisedeck , Saint Paul preferring ancient things before the latter , sets the Covenant of Grace before the Law four hundred and thirty years ; and thereby proves the excellency of it above the latter . And to shew that our Lord Christ was of a Royal Priesthood , far above the Tribe of Levi , he proveth that Levi , himself paid both tithes and homage to him , by Abraham in his Antitype Melchisedeck ( while Levi was in the loins of his Progenitor Abraham ) as Priest of the most high God , and King of righteousness , and King of peace , by augmentation of his titles , ( King and Priest from ancient times agreeing in the same person , till God appropriated the Tribe of Levi , for the better preservation of purity , after many of the Heads of Families were found so prone unto degeneracy ) whatever proper name he might have besides . The generality agree that he was a * mortal man ( immortal only as a Type of Christ ) and some think ( as à ‖ Lapide quotes the Authors ) that he was one of the Roytelets of Canaan , who by God's Providence was preserved to be both a faithful man , and a good King amongst them . Which to me ( prophanum quoddam sonat , & audax ) seems to be too bold a sense to agree with that expression of our Apostle , Now consider how great this man was , * unto whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils . Which words are surely imcompatible unto the best of the race of Canaan . But the circumstances agree well , that this Melchisedeck should be the great Patriarch Sem , the high Progenitor of Abram , from whom in a direct Line Abram was of the ninth Generation : for Sem begat Arphaxad , and He Salah , and He Eber , and He Peleg , and He Re● , and He Serug , and He Nahor , and He Terah , and Terah Abraham . And Sem lived in all , six hundred years , whereof a hundred and fifty in Abraham's life time : so that very venerable must his presence needs be to Abraham , who was so much a Puis●é among the Great , Great , Grand-Children of Sem. Now if any wonder how this Sem should come to dwell and have a Kingdom among the Canaanites , it is to be remembred what Noah had said when he cursed Canaan , Blessed be the Lord God of Shem , and Canaan shall be his Servant . So that for a time Shem might have an habitation amongst them , and he built the City of Salem ( as it is conceived ) amongst them , all other Nations becoming ( soon ) a confused medly of people , besides the Israelites , whom God preserved intire to himself . And so , it may be , this branch of Sem ( after his death ) that dwelt at Salem , might come to be incorporated with the other Nations , that were afterwards to be destroyed for their idolatry . But the blessing went away with his Son Arphaxad only , of all his Sons mentioned before , whither he went ; and followed only his Posterity , according to election , till the time of promise was compleat , and the iniquity of the Canaanites full , that the Sons of Sem by Eber alone might have it all at last . Only this we may observe , That for a long time after Adam , and after Noah , the Church of God was in divers Families , and in divers Kindreds . But as in the old World , the Children of men came to be distinguished from the Sons of God by the House of Seth , and his Son Enos , when men began to call upon the name of the Lord , in Assemblies apart from the other : So after the Flood , the like happened to the House of Sem , the whole House of Sem ; till out of this it pleased God to make a more particular election of the Seed of Abraham , for his peculiar people , to be his visible Church on Earth ; to which all Nations owed reverence and obedience , as they hoped to share in the blessings of his holy Covenant ( not to dispute here whether the whole Election or the whole Covenant of Grace , as to the inward part , was not larger than the Covenant of Promise , entailed only unto Abraham and his Seed , with the outward priviledges annexed to it ) But before the Call of God to Abraham , he disdained not to be called the Lord God of Shem ; yet after that , it was said to Abraham in appropriated terms , with addition above Sem , for his posterity , I will be thy God , and the God of thy Seed after thee . By which new way of entailment , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God common , and as common appertaining unto all , was , saith Chrysostome , made his by peculiar interest and appropriation ; since when it is delivered , declared and averred by God himself , for him and his Seed , I am the God of Abraham , the God of Isaac , and the God of Iacob ; this is my name for ever , this is my memorial from generation to generation . And so he continued known , and distinguished in the World of old , until the incarnation , the God of Israel above other people . Let us therefore next consider how it pleased God to form them . CHAP. XIV . That God's Command to Abram might not seem too hard , it pleased him to mollifie it with an ample Promise , only general at the first : Which he delayed about twenty eight years to exercise the faith of Abram , and repeated with some variety to the sixth time , after long intervals , Abram running divers hazards between . Abram is terrified by seeking of a sign , and why . Sarai thinking the promise not to be to her , weakly giveth Hagar to her Husband : yet divers mysteries in the coming of Ishmael betwixt the promise and the Son of promise . IF Chaldaea had not been grosly idolatrous ( saith Bishop Hall ) Abraham had not left it : ( But how could he chuse , since God had called him from thence , even out of Mesopotamia , which is invironed with the two great Rivers of Euphrates and Tigris , about which Tracts the Garden of Eden is thought to have been situated ? ) But whither must he go ? to a place he knew not ? to men that know not him ? The Text says no more , at the first word , but only unto a Land that I will shew thee . Wherefore , that this Command of God might seem the less hard or strange to Abram , he thought it not too much condescension to his chosen Vessel , to mollifie it with a rich and gracious promise , both temporal and spiritual , I will make of thee ( saith he ) a great Nation , and I will bless thee , and make thy name great , and thou shalt be a blessing . And I will bless them that bless thee , and curse him that curseth thee ; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed . In which promise it is contained , 1. That God would make of his Seed a great Nation ; 2. That that Nation should be a blessing , in that it should become his only true Church ; 3. That God would bless the friends and blast the enemies thereof ; 4. That at last all the faithful , throughout all the Families of the World , to the World's end , should become the Children of Abraham through faith in the blessed Seed promised , who was to be made of God the Heir of all things visible and invisible ; by which faith they should be after blessed , as Abraham himself was before . Now to exercise this faith of Abraham , and to make him a pattern to all posterity , it pleased God to delay this promise for the space of twenty eight years , till there was little hope in Abraham , and none at all in Sarai of obtaining any Issue ; and yet still to continue this promise , after divers tedious intervals , to a sixth repetition , with some seeming variation in the terms . He no sooner had received the first general promise ( mentioned above * ) but God drove him out of Canaan into Egypt by famine ( as was touched before ) where he was in fear of being killed for Sarai's sake . Then he soon finds himself ( after his return ) engaged in a War to rescue Lot , leading forth three hundred and eighteen of trained Servants , born in his own house ; besides some Auxiliaries of the Amorites , his Confederates , under the Conduct of Aner , Eshcol and Mamre , ( in whose Plain at that time Abram sojourned , when the tidings were brought unto him ) which happened after the promise renewed the third time , in these words , Lift up now thine eyes , and look from the place where thou art , Northward , and Southward , and Eastward , and Westward . For all the Land that thou seest , to thee will I give it , and to thy Seed for ever . And I will make thy Seed as the dust of the earth , which cannot be numbred . In which promise the temporal blessing is only pointed at , and that Land in particular , more amply than before . Some considerable time seems to have passed between , e're God appeared unto Abram again with these comfortable words , Fear not , Abram ; I am thy shield , and thy exceeding great reward . Abram is sensible that these words relate to the three former promises ; yet doubting , lest he should be mistaken in the meaning of them , he makes bold to complain unto God , That ( for all his former promises ) he remained Childless still , and no other Heir but Eliezer , his Steward ( a Stranger of Damascus , though born in his house ) appeared likely to inherit all his Substance . Which moved God to compassionate his Case , and to condescend to him in a fourth promise , that he should have an Heir out of his own Loins , And he believed in the Lord , and he counted it to him for righteousness . Yet after that , presuming farther , to ask a sign , though God vouchsafed to condescend to his request ; yet he caused an horror of great darkness to fall upon him in his sleep , in ( or after ) which he gave him to know , that his posterity should serve unto the fourth Generation , till the iniquity of the Amorites was full . However , when this heavy agony was over , God was pleased to amplisie his temporal promise , in extending the bounds of it from the River of Egypt , unto the great River Euphrates . In the mean time , Sarai , thinking these promises to be made to her Husband only , and not unto her self ( finding how the Case stood with her ) gave her Egyptian Handmaid Hagar to him , desiring ( at least ) to have some little part in the Land promised , by her own Maid ; which She was not like to have by another . This was the tenth year after the promise at the least ; but as soon as She conceived , Sarai was iealous of her , and by hard usage wrought her flight : and so gave birth unto a great mystery or two , before the Son of the Concubine could be produced . What made Abram so continent hitherto , and so constant to his barren Wife Sarai ? Did he think it unlawful to take a Concubine ? And if so , why did he now ? He might have had , it seems , a nearer Heir than Eliezer before this , and if he had gone this way ; for * Concubines were accounted as Wives , only different in their Rank ; and divers of their Sons did inherit among the Sons of ‖ Israel , whereas Bastards only were excluded , as in the Case of † Iephthah . It may be Abram understood about Concubinacy ( what our Saviour taught expresly ) that , God having made Man Male and Female ( one and one ) from the beginning it was not so : yet that it might have been permitted unto him , as well as his Progenitors , for the supply of Issue , if it had not been to grieve his beloved Wife , and Sister-in-Law , Sarai . But now She puts Hagar to him , as if it were on purpose to restrain his choice of any other : What shall He do ? Is He glad of the occasion for the further satisfying of his flesh ? Or doth he do it the better to please his Wife , even as Adam pleased Eve , and fell by it ? Or , in sine , is not he himself also touched with a little spice of unbelief , in his obtemperance unto Sarai , as well as she ? In my opinion ( howsoever some Expositors do seek to blanch it ) the faithful Abram was at this time imposed on by his Wife Sarai , and not excusable of some infirmity in the Case . Though he stedfastly believed the promise , yet hitherto it had not been revealed to him , that it should be by Sarai : By whom should he therefore try , but by her whom Sarai herself had recommended to him ? It happened therefore as a punishment unto Sarai's diffidence , that her Handmaid Hagar ( having conceived , and thereupon imagining that she and hers should go away with all at last ) began to despise her ; and to Abram himself , that he should have such a Lout as Ishmael , by a foul Egyptian . Of whom yet ( as a Son by Nature ) he was so fond , that when God renewed the promise the fifth time of the blessed Seed , thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael , enough to let him know that Ishmael was not the Seed intended ; yet he could not forbear to intercede for him after this manner , O that Ishmael might live before thee : As if Abram could e'en have been contented that Ishmael might have been the man. But it may not fare better with Abram than with his Forefathers , Adam and Noah , before him ; for as Adam had Cain for his First-born , and Noah one , or other of the Aliens ; so must Abram too ( the election of Grace having seldome been observed to have followed primogeniture , while all other priviledges were annexed to it ) . And as Cain and Cham were born to persecute the true Church , before it was yet in being , or but yet in its under growth ; ( like the red Dragon , in the Revelation , that stood before the Woman that was ready to be delivered , for to devour her Child as soon as it was born ) so it was to fare with Ishmael , who first scoffed at the Feast of Isaac's weaning , and was after planted in his own Issue upon the skirts of the Land of Canaan , among the Canaanites , to be ready to join as far as any of them , with the enemies of the Race of Isaac . So that God would have out of the same Loins of Abram both the Curse and the Blessing to have their appointed course , according to his own purpose , without respect unto the favour that he bore to Abram ! In fine , the Apostle himself warns us of a further mystery , Why Ishmael should come between the promise , and the fulfilling of it ; and why he was to be born before Isaac the Heir of the promise , Tell me , ye that desire to be under the Law , Do ye not hear the Law ? For it is written , That Abraham had two Sons , the one by a Bond-maid , the other by a Free woman . But he who was of the Bond-woman was born after the flesh , but he of the Free-woman was by promise . Which things are an allegory ; for these are the two Covenants , the one from the mount Sinai , which gendreth unto bondage , which is Agar : for this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia , and answereth unto Ierusalem , which now is , and is in bondage with her Children . But Ierusalem which is above , is free , which is the Mother of us all , &c. So that the further mystery beyond this ( that Israel should first suffer under Egyptian bondage before they should be free ) was this , That the Law which engendreth unto bondage must needs come first ; whereof this Hagar and her Son Ishmael were a Type or Allegory . Which do answer ( saith the Apostle ) to the unbelieving Ierusalem , that now is , or still remaineth fixed to the Law of Mount Sinai , the Law of the old Covenant or Testament . But Sarah and her Son Isaac , the Son of the promise , do answer unto that Ierusalem , which is from above , viz. the Church of the Gentiles , called by wonders from Heaven , with the descending of the Holy Ghost . Which Church is free both from all the burthen of the Law , and from all its defects , as having that joy in the Holy Ghost , which by the Law it could not possibly have attained to . Unto which Church it is further promised , that the desolate ( which was ) should have more Children than she which hath ( the Law for ) an Husband . But what saith the Scripture ? Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son ; for they cannot live together , by reason of the Spirit of persecution that is in one against the other ; much less can they inherit together , that lay claim by titles so opposite to one another , as the Law and Works , the Gospel and its Grace . CHAP. XV. At the fifth renewal of the promise God augmented the names of Abram and Sarai . And required a Covenant from Abraham and his Seed ; the effect of which was , That he would be their God , and they should be his people . Why God required such a sign as Circumcision to be the token of the Covenant . Wherein the Glosses of Philo and Maimonides are detected . How Circumcision came to be in use in Egypt , and who of them received it . The right state propounded , as it was to be accommodated to the times of the Old Testament . NOW , when it pleased God to renew his promise , at the fifth course when Abram was ninety nine years old , and Sarai past Child-bearing , according unto Nature ; he added an ● of augmentation in the midst of Abram's name , and in the end of Sarai's ; that the one should thereafter be called Abraham , and the other Sarah : the reasons whereof ( to refer the rest unto the Cabbalists ) are given in the Text. And so the promise it self is exhibited in ampler terms than before , and Sarah expresly shewed to be , in her own Person , the Woman that should conceive this Seed , and the set time , viz. at that set time in the next year , after God had done talking with Abraham , and went up from him . But Abraham is now given to understand , that according unto this Grace , he must enter into a Covenant with God for himself , and for his Seed after him ; wherein God would also condescend to be one Party of the Covenant with him ; which in effect was this , That God would be the God of him and his Seed , and that he should be their only God. In token of which Covenant , ( as a recognizance or acknowledgment of it ) God required of Abraham , that he and his Seed , every male at eight days old should be circumcised in the foreskin of the flesh ; and all that were born in his house , or bought with money of any stranger , which was not of his seed ; under penalty of being cut off from his people , whosoever should break the Covenant , in remaining uncircumcised after this . So Abraham began with Ishmael , or with himself , it is uncertain whether ; but to me it seems that it was with himself . So that Abraham's heart being formed by faith before God would also now have all of the same profession to be signed with the same Sign , whereby his visible Church and people should be distinguished from others , and Sacramentally sanctified unto himself . Which mystery is therefore next to be enquired into with the greater diligence . It appeareth by it self what circumcision is : The only thing to be admired is , Why it should please God to make an holy Ordinance of so obscene a thing as Circumcision , ( saltem in adultis ) at the least in grown men , that were to be made Proselytes ; whom , one would think , the pain should not more keep off than the shame of the thing , in the eyes of common men : And to what ends ( especially ) he did require it : Which may draw in all the Question here , so far as it doth relate unto the times of the Old Testament : for of the remainder ( if God permit ) there is more to be said hereafter . And because this is no Polemical Discourse in its first intention , I shall endeavour to be the briefer in the stating of it . This Question therefore may be considered , First , As it hath been blanched or coloured , to make it more plausible unto the Philosophical apprehensions of the learneder sort of Heathens . Secondly , As it was accommodated to the state of the Old Testament , from Abraham until Moses , Ioshua , David , and the times of the Maccabees . Thirdly , As it was a Type , a Figure , a Mystery , or a Sacrament , referring unto Christ , and the state of his Church to come , under the ministration of the New Testament : Which are all worthy to be weighed by themselves . First , I find that Philo ( a Iewish Philosopher ) of Alexandria imitating Plato , descended from one Class or other of the Chief Priests , and sent as an Ambassador from the Jews of that place unto the Emperour Cains , about seven years after the death of Christ ) endeavouring , as his manner is , to apologize for Iudaism , that it might seem the more gentile among the Gentiles , among other reasons why Circumcision was introduced by their Ancestors , and transmitted to their Posterity , speaketh thus : The Circumcision of our Ancestors is derided ; but it is had in no small honour among other Nations , especially the Egyptians , who excel no less in sapience than in populacy of men . And Herodotus informs us , That divers other Nations , as the Ethiopians , Phoenicians , and Inhabitants of Colchos , &c. derived this Custom from the Egyptians . Philo goes on , and says , That one cause of it is , For that Circumcision is a good prevention of a foul Disease called the Carbuncle : Whether he mean the same that was since known in these Parts by the Neapolitan Disease , let the learned judge ; and enquire whether this Disease was known in those times and Countries when Philo wrote , or not ; and whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were a preventive remedy against that Disease . Another reason ( he says ) was , That the whole Body might become the purer ; so that the Egyptian Priests did add rasure to it , over all their Bodies , that they might come the purer to their Offices . Now as for this , Herodotus ( indeed ) says , That the Egyptians circumcised themselves for cleanliness , making more account of that than to be decorous . But on whatsoever trust Herodotus took this , it could not escape the search of the learned Father Origen , that this pretended cleanliness was for some reputed sanctity amongst the Egyptians ; and that they did not admit their Vulgar unto Circumcision , but their Priests only , or their Soothsayers , and Students of their Hieroglyphicks , and their sacred Sciences , as they reputed them . Apud vos ( inquit ) O Gentiles , it a magni habetur Circumcisio , ut non passim Vulgo ignobili , sed solis Sacerdotibus , aut Mystis credatur . Nam apud Aegyptios , qui in Superstitionibus vestris & vetustissimi habentur , & eruditissimi , à quibus propè omnes reliqui Ritum sacrorum , & Caeremoniarum mutuati sunt , apud hos , inquam , nullus , avt Geometriae studebat , avt Astronomiae ...... nise Circumcisione susceptâ .... Hoc igitur apud Iudaeos turpe , & obscoenum judicatis , quod apud vos ita honestum habetur , ac magnum ? Now if any one ask , How come the Egyptians , who were fully peopled before Abraham's time , and of the Off-spring of Cham , to have any Circumcision at all among them ? Was Circumcision ancienter than He ? Some are of opinion that they might learn it in after-times from the Ishmaelites , who when they traded into Egypt , sold Ioseph there : But that they rather learned it from the Israelites themselves , while Ioseph was in much authority there , relieth on the opinion of divers ancient Fathers , and modern Interpreters ; and that with reason , since Ioseph lived in Egypt about ninety three years in all , and Israel came to him thither when he was but young , viz. about thirty seven years of Age : Time enough to bring the Egyptians to some odd conformity or other ! To go on with Philo a little further : Another reason ( saith he ) is for the sake of better propagation ; for the circumcised Nations are said to be most populous . But this agrees little with a passage of R. Moses Ben Marmon . ( who hath carried away the reputation from all the modern Iews , and who seems also to philosophize , for plausibility , as Philo had done before him ) for he says , That in his judgment Circumcision was instituted unto this end , that the lust of men should be thereby abated , and that Member which is the Instrument thereof impaired ; which he taketh to be the principal reason . If impaired , never the better to propagate ; but if debilitated , one would think ( as the Rabbi says ) the less prone to lust . But this ( saith Lorinus ) is not much credited amongst us , who hear that the circumcised Turks and Saracens are more inordinate in their lust , than the generality of uncircumcised people . Secondly , To consider therefore this Question ( not as it is wire-drawn to avoid prejudice , but ) as it is to be accommodated to the state and times of the Old Testament . CHAP. XVI . The true ends of Circumcision , I. Civil , to distinguish them from other Heathen people or corrupted Worshippers ; which was a Bridle to them , as restraining them from mixt marriages and fornication , and given as a mark to make them odious to the Gentiles , and the Gentiles an abhorrency to them . 2. Moral , to put them in mind of purity of heart . 3. Spiritual and Mystical , in respect , First , Of Abraham ; Secondly , Of his Seed , and thirdly , houshold . 4. Of the whole Church . Why Ishmael must be circumcised , Arminius taxed ; why the Sons of Keturah were also to be circumcised , and in fine all the Servants . THE ends of Circumcision ( in reality ) seem to be partly Civil , whereby the Jewish Nation should be severed from others ; partly Moral , to teach them purity ; and partly Typical , or Spiritual , in respect to the holy Seed , and the Mysteries thereafter to be revealed . 1. For the first of these Maimonides himself striketh in with the right , immediately after the words cited before , But ( saith he ) there is also another reason , viz. That all such as are of this Faith , have one certain sign of conjunction against any that should thrust in amongst them : For Circumcision is such a thing as no man will admit but for Religion sake . And thus Circumcision is a Covenant [ S t Paul calls it a sign and seal of a Covenant ] which our Father Abraham made , and so many as are circumcised enter into the same , viz. to believe the Unity of God ; as God faith , I will be a God unto thee , and unto thy Seed after thee . And this reason ( saith he ) is as firm and valid as the former , and it may be more solid . To which Iosephus was agreed before , viz. That God commanded Abraham that his Posterity should be circumcised in their Privities , by reason that he would not that Abraham's Posterity should be intermingled with other Nations . To which purpose S t Chrysostom speaketh thus , See ( saith he ) the wisdom of God : For knowing what evil impressions the Hebrews were like to take , he imposed the Sign of Circumcision as a Bridle on them , lest they should mix themselves with other Nations ; that so the Seed of the Patriarch Abraham might remain unmixed and undefiled in them , to the end that the promises of God might be accomplished in his Seed . But how a Bridle ? Why , when men began to multiply , and Daughters were born unto them , the Sons of God saw the Daughters of men that they were fair , and they took them Wives of all which they chose . Which brought in both Idolatry and all uncleanness , and provoked God ( before ) to send a Deluge . Now Circumcision was not only given them as a mark , to warn them against the like wandring , but to shame them if they did ; if they should but offer to uncover their nakedness unto any Stranger : for it served both to make the Israelites a scorn to Foreigners , and the uncircumcised a like abhorrency unto them ; that the due enmity betwixt the Seed of the Woman , and the Serpent might be the better stated . Among the Romans , Iudaes Apella was a term of derision : Neither may there seem to be any greater reason why Tacitus should write foeda superstitio upon the Jewish Religion than , this ; since in their worship there was nothing like to the Rites of Bona Dea , or Priapus , to be observed . And on the other hand , it was the greatest reproach which the Iews thought they could cast upon other people , to call them Uncircumcised . We cannot give our Sister ( say the Sons of Iacob ) to one that is uncircumcised ; for that were a reproach unto us . Let us go over unto the Garison of these uncircumcised Philistins , said Ionathan : Who is this uncircumcised Philistine ? said David . And it may be for this reason S t Paul reckoneth the Maltese but as Barbarians , while he counts it an honour to himself that he was a free-born Roman . Nay , whereas the Greeks and Romans looked upon other Nations as barbarous only out of scorn , the Iews looked on all alike as barbarous , with the more bitterness , because they were not circumcised . But of this we shall have somewhat to observed further when we come into the Wilderness . 2. Circumcision was also ordained for a Moral End. In which alone Philo doth acknowledge some part of the truth ; but in such an Heathenish manner , that his similitude is not only filthy , but as false , and unworthy to be conceived to have ever entred into the purer thoughts of God ; but that the outward Circumcision taught the Israelites the circumcising of their hearts , ears and lips , the Phrase of the Scripture doth often teach us . 3. But as for that intention of this Ordinance , which was Spiritual , Typical and Mystical , there is much matter of disputation involved in it , according to the several Branches or Divisions of the Subject , as it had respect , first , to Abraham's Person , secondly , His whole Seed , and thirdly , Family , and fourthly , the whole Church of Israel , to which Proselytes were thereafter to be joined . Under some of which Heads it will fall in to be considered how Circumcision was a Sign , and of what ? How a Seal , and of what Covenant ? and whether it might be imposed ? As to Abraham's Person in particular , one of the ancientest of the Fathers hath left us this to observe , viz. That whereas Abraham was old and unapt for Generation , God had appointed him this suffering in the flesh , that being the more debilitated in that part , his faith might become the stronger in God , when he should find his strength repaired above Nature . A thing to be the more regarded , because God had said to Abraham when he talked with him , My Covenant will I establish with Isaac , whom Sarah shall bear unto thee , at this set time in the next year . And lo ! that very day Abraham circumcised himself , and so must needs be unfit for Sarah's Company , till he was cured of it . But this ( in fine ) was most pertinent to Abraham in particular : Whereas , at the making of the promise once before , Abram had said , Lord God , whereby shall I know ? He hath now a Sign or a Token given him in his own Flesh , whereby he might rest the more assured ( thereafter ) that Christ should be born of his Seed , according to the Flesh , out of his Loins , and of the Womb of Sarah , and no other . Secondly , Then if we look upon Circumcision with respect unto his Seed , as an Ordinance for ever , to be begun with Ishmael ( his Reprobate Issue ) before the Son of Promise was any otherwise conceived : But in the faith of Abraham we shall find some further matter worthy to detain us in the way , even though we were in haste before . This is ( indeed ) one of the true reasons assigned by the Fathers and the School-men why Circumcision was given unto Abraham , as to his Person , viz. To be a Sign to him of that faith whereby he believed , and was to believe , that Christ should be born of his Seed . But had this been all , it had sufficed that Abrahams alone bad been circumcised in his own Person ; whereas , if it had been so , there could no Covenant have ensued , comprehending all his Seed , and all his houshold , together with himself . The Questions that arise for the clearing of this Point are three , Firth , Since Isaac , who was to be born , was declared to be the Son of the promise , and Ishmael not ; why must Ishmael be circumcised into this Faith , and be comprehended in this Covenant , and that before Isaac was born ? Secondly , Why the Sons of Keturah afterwards ? Thirdly , Why the Servants born in the house , or bought with money , who were all Aliens from the Seed of Abraham ? For the fifth of these : Must he that was an Enemy by Nature , in that he must lose the inheritance that he stood so fair for before , and an Enemy by God's appointment ; be circumcised into a Covenant of thankfulness and obedience for Isaac , who was to be his Supplanter , as much as Jacob ( after ) was of Esau ? We must take all together : The whole promise made to Abram ( at the very first ) amounted unto thus much , I will bless thee , and make thy name great , and thou shalt be a blessing ; and I will bless them that bless thee , and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed . And again it is said , not only that Abram should become a great and mighty Nation , but that all the nations of the earth should be blessed in him . And that he should command his Children and his houshold after him , to keep the way of the Lord , that the Lord might bring upon Abraham that which he had spoken of him . Ishmael had been hitherto brought up in his Fathers house , ( to the twelfth year of his Age ) and taught to sacrifice , which he understood no more than Circumcision ; but he must submit to both . He was so far from being excluded from the state of Grace , or the hope of Glory , that he was a principal Member of the visible Church , before the Son of promise was conceived . Neither was he circumcised into the blessings of Isaac's house in particular , but of his Father Abraham's , the Father of the Nations to descend by promise from Ishmael , and of all the faithful ; and into him that was the utmost Object of all faith , the desire of all nations : which whoseover should bless , he should be blessed . It was not sufficient therefore that only the very promised Seed should be circumcised , for Isaac himself did not afterwards know whether his Son Efau , or his Son Jacob should be the man , till he was as blind with Age as he was with fondness of his elder Son. I am not of the mind of Arminius , that Ishmael , or Esau , though Types of rejection from the temporal promise , annexed unto Isaac , were not also examples of a real reprobation . But if the priviledges of Nature , or of the outward pale of the Church , had been of any regard in the Point of Election , the elder surely had not been rejected . Yet it cannot be said but that the house of Abraham was enough to season both the Mother and the Son with some piety , as appears by divers passages of Hagar , and by Ishmael's returning , after he had been turned out of doors , to assist Isaac in the Burial of his Father . However , as he had been a Scoffer in his own Person , so he continued to be a Persecutor in his Posterity , which instead of the blessing inherited the curse , which was opposed to it , viz. I will curse him that curseth thee . We read of no good man of his descent at all , so far as I remember . Secondly , But for the Sons of Keturah , I know not whether any Persecutors descended from them , or no , unless the Midianites ; out of some of which ( however ) the Subjects of Iethro , and the Kenites befriended Israel , and became Partakers of his Blessing . So that their Circumcision served to carry the true worship of God abroad into remoter Parts , when Abraham gave them gifts , and sent them father off from Isaac . Of the Race of Edom , or as bad , we are sure enough that Iob descended , and his zealous friends . And that our Lord himself , according to the flesh , drew a vein of his bloud from humble Ruth , a Moabitish Woman , whose Nation was abominable for its insectuous Original . The chaste Bed of holy Parents hath sometimes bred a monstrous Generation ; and contrarily , God hath raised sometimes an holy Seed from the drunken Bed of incest or fornication . But , as Bertram does observe , the knowledge of God by such means came to be propagated far , in other parts , even in the times of Moses . And although Cunaeus doth collect ( in favour , it may be , of some opinion ) that the Church of old was still restrained unto one Family , as from Adam to Seth , and so to Noah , and to Sem alone of his , and to Abram alone of his , and to Isaac alone of his line ; and that God despised all other Nations as prophane , until the coming of Christ ; yet it seems to me , that although many Families and Nations did not escape corruption , yet some true Worshippers there were here and there , without those houses , and without that Nation . But the first Church was the Metropolis ( only ) of all the rest . Thirdly , And now we may perceive the reason why Abram's Servants also must be circumcised , to the solution of the Question ( with favour ) against Pererius , That Circumcision was to be imposed , since it was not free for Servants , bought with Abram's money , to obtain liberty upon the pretence that they would not be cirumcised . Nor was ever Hyrcann's blamed in later times for compelling the Edomites , when he had subdued them , to be circumcised , but commended rather . The reason of their Circumcision ( besides the share which they had in the desire of all Nations ) was partly to propagate the knowledge of God , if they went off ; and partly to constitute and fortifie the Body of the Church , if they continued in the Tents of Abraham . Such was the Church which it pleased God to form to himself from the beginning ; such the Materials of it ! And how many of these had true Grace in their hearts , besides Abraham himself , and his Wife Sarah , and ( it may be ) his Steward Eliezer , before Isaac was born ; I leave the Brethren that are most concerned to enquire . But that part of this Question which relateth to the whole Church of the Old Testament with reference , as a seal unto some Covenant ( that we may not be delayed in our progress here ) will fall in , in a proper place in order . CHAP. XVII . Abraham's obedience so acceptable unto God , that he maketh himself known to him in a more familiar way than ever before . That Abraham knew nothing to the contrary why there might not be more righteous people in Sodom than his Brother Lot. His various peregrinations are recounted , and further Questions propounded to be enquired into . SUCH hath been the acceptation of a liberal obedience in the hearts of generous Princes , both of ancient and later times , that they have not thought much to go out of their way , and to come incogniti to visit one or other of their meaner Subjects whom they have known by such a Character : In the like manner , after Abraham had circumcised all his Males , it pleased God , not to defer , as in former times , but , to make haste to come and see him ( incognito , but ) in a more familiar manner than before , to make the last promise , or to confirm all the former to him , to be surely made good to him within the set time mentioned before ; so that to keep reckoning , we may account it to have been within a month or two after the last appearance . To this was added the great favour of Almighty God ( for when did he ever do so by any other mortal man ? ) to commune with Abraham about the destruction of Sodom , and to hearken to his intercession : In which it appeareth , that Abraham thought no other but that there might be many righteous persons there ( whom God would not destroy with the wicked ) besides his Brother Lot. Some are of opinion that Abram remained five years at Charran of the Chaldees ( or that part of it to which Mesopotamia may be reckoned ) after he had received the first promise . And then ( upon the death of his Father Terah , who as S t Chrysostom observes , though an Idolater , had a fatherly affection for his Children ) he came as far as Sichem in the land of Canaan , in the seventy fifth year of his Age ; and there he received the second promise , and built an Altar to the Lord for remembrance ; because the Lord had there appeared to him . It is only said that he came unto the place of Sichem , unto the Plain of Morch . And that the Canaanite was then in the Land. So that it seems not likely to me that he entered into the City at all , whether it were a walled City ( as is most probable , it being a great and ancient one ) or only a City of Streets , as we find such accounted in the number , before the Nations were replenished . But he removed , journeying southwards , and about Luz or Bethel ( which was after called so by Iacob ) he built another Altar for constant worship , and there he called on the name of the Lord. But the very next year ( as it may seem ) he was driven into Egypt by famine , and the year after that returned again to the place , where he had erected his second Altar : and here he remained ( if conjecture fail not ) about a year or two ; when , obeying the command of God , he went about surveying the Land of promise , and came the third year to the Plain of Mamre ( about Hebron , which was after called so ) and there built another Altar to the Lord , viz. as a place where he designed some residence , if it should please God to permit him . And hereabouts he continued eighteen years , even till he had received the last promise ; and then he journeyed again toward the South Country , and dwelt between Cadesh and Shur , and sojourned in Gerar , where he made a Covenant , by mutual Oath , with Abimelech , a King of the Philistines , at Beersheba . And Abraham planted a Grove in Beersheba , and called there on the name of the Lord , the everlasting God. And he sojourned in the Philistines Land many days . But by the death of Sarah in Kiriath-arba , which is Hebron in the Land of Canaan , we may learn that though the Son of Promise was born among the Philistines , yet Abraham returned at the last to Hebron , where he had his place of worship , among the Hittites . And there he had his last blessing , of encrease by Keturah , * according to the fulness of the promise of God , to the rise of many Nations from him . And there he left in his Tents Isaac and Iacob , Heirs of the same promise with himself , having lived a hundred and seventy five years ( whereof one hundred hereabout ) and leaving Isaac about seventy years of Age , and his Son Iacob fifteen . And his Sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him with Sarah in the Cave of Machpelah . So that all the expeditions of Abraham were 1. from the remoter parts of Chaldea unto Charran ; from thence , 2. unto Sichem ; from thence , 3. to Bethel ; from thence , 4. to Egypt ; from thence , 5. back again to Bethel ; from thence , 6. to the Plain of Mamre ( which is Hebron or Kiriath-arba ; ) from thence , 7. to the Parts of Gerar ; and from thence , 8. back again to Hebron of the Sons of Heth. That which remaineth to be enquired , is , first , What use Abraham made of his Altars ; secondly , How he governed his own Hoard ; thirdly , How he lived amongst the Canaanites and Philistines ; fourthly , In what estate he left his whole Posterity . CHAP. XVIII . Letters and Writing ( most probably ) from Adam , as also Altars . Of Cain and Abel , and the difference of Sacrifices ; and of theirs in particular . Whether they offered in one place ; and whether Adam offered for them , or they for themselves : Why Abel more accepted , and how Cain knew it . THough it hath been thought by many ( studious of the Pagan Antiquities , and too much addicted to credit them ) that the Patriarchs before the Floud delivered unto their Posterities all the learning which they had , by Oral Tradition only ; and that Writing was first expressed by certain Hieroglyphicks , and after Letters formed by the cunning of the Phoenicians , or the Greeks ; yet I must confess I take it to be but an heathenist conceit , and not fit to be imagined , that the Church of God did ever want its Scriptures , out of which by Divine Instinct Moses drew the Abstract of the things that were before his time . Which it pleased God to allow only , as to be preserved unto after Ages , whatsoever is reported about a certain Prophecy of Enoch , to which S t Iude is conceived to refer : But there is also reference in other places unto certain current Traditions among the Jews . It is as easie for me to believe that our Father Adam could as well write and read , ( and teach his Children so to do ) as speak , and set the names on every Creature . Should we think it to be too hard for him , or that he had not time enough in the nine hundred and thirty years , that he lived , to accomplish it ? I cannot so much as think , that the Church ( or the World either ) could want the use of Letters so long as * Seth , ( whose engraven Pillars are spoken of ) much less as Enoch , who was born so long after him , though both in the life of Adam ‖ . The like conceit I must needs retain concerning Altars . When God had vouchsafed to reveal unto Adam this Grace and Mystery , That whereas he had incurred the guilt of sin , and the punishment of death by his transgression , an atonement should be accepted for him , through the shedding of the bloud of certain clean Beasts , ( which are thought to have been revealed to him , together with the first Notion of Sacrifice it self ) with respect to the Seed of the Woman , promised in some uncertain time to come ; it was so natural to him to erect an Altar for Sacrifice and Oblations , that he could not conveniently do any otherwise , any more than men can eat without a Table : Yet that a standing Altar was not always necessary , appears by Abraham's building one in haste , when he was tempted to sacrifice his only Son Isaac . How Cain and Abel did ( to begin from thence ) may worthily be doubted , as it is . But to set it free as much as may be , we must know , That whereas not only death eternal , but also temporal , with many calamities , besides the Curse of the Earth , were the consequents of sin ; not only bloody Sacrifices ( or whole Burnt * Offerings , as they knew no other before Moses ) were to be offered for the expiation of sin ; but also other Offerings , in acknowledgment of the Dominion of the supreme Majesty over all ; in way of thankfulness for plenty and prosperity ; in way of supplication for encrease and blessings ; in way of vowing and devoting themselves , and the Goods which they enjoyed , unto God's service in some acceptable manner . The Queries are , ( 1. ) Whether Cain and Abel offered apart , or in one place ? ( 2. ) Whether they offered , as for themselves so , by themselves , or whether they brought them to their Father Adam , as the only High-Priest then on Earth , and the first Prophet , to offer for them ? ( 3. ) How the difference stood or appeared in respect of what they offered , and how they were accepted ? For the first : No doubt , while they were young , and lived in their Fathers house ( which necessity would teach him to build , as well as to make himself Cloaths ) but that Adam offered for himself and all his Children ; but when they were able to go abroad , and set up a Tent of their own , to be filled with their younger Brethren and Sisters , and their Children ; then of common Right , Paterfamilias , the head of the house , was their Priest , and in Case he sacrificed , all the houshold were sufficiently consecrated to assist him by an implicite Ordinance of God , because that which he required could not otherwise be done . Some are of opinion , that Adam appointed a certain place of meeting for Divine Offices for all his Children ; where ( most likely ) he erected an Altar ; which of old did ( as it were ) constitute a Temple sub dio : and that continued some Ages , both amongst the people of God , and the Heathen . There he instructed them , there he prayed and offered up praises unto God ( more especially on the Sabbath Day ) and did all , in substance , that belonged unto Sacrifices ever after . But against this that passage seems to make , that when God demanded of Cain , Where is Abel thy Brother ? He replyed , I know not : Am I my Brothers Keeper ? As if God knew they did not use to meet every Day or every Week together . So that possibly they might offer in divers places . ( 2. ) It might so happen that one or other of them might be absent ; and yet their Father ( who led a careful and penitential life ) might offer for which of his Sons came ; as Iob did for all his Sons when they were absent . Yet I know nothing to the contrary , but that Cain and Abel , when they had housholds of their own , might have Altars so too , the mystery of oneness of Altars being not as yet revealed . ( 3. ) For the last Query , Why Cain's Sacrifice should not be accepted so well as Abel's ; Iosephus gives us this reason , Because Cain , being covetous , offered only that which he had forcibly extorted ( as it were ) from Nature by the Plow , whereas Abel offered things produced of themselves . The Rabbi's tell other Dreams relating to the wickedness of the Person , and the niggardliness of his Oblations . But a clearer reason is hinted in the Text it self , when it is said , That Cain brought only of the fruits of the ground , which was no expiatory Sacrifice for sin , but a superfluous Oblation ( it may be ) of more splendid things than Abel ; whereas S t Paul assures us , that without shedding of blood , there is no remission for sin : Which things have been touched before . But how should these know the difference of their acceptations ? If they came to their Father Adam , and his Altar , by him ; who was both a Priest and a Prophet , and though not in former favour , yet not wholly left by God , or deprived of all his manifestations to him : But if they sacrificed otherwise , God did not leave himself without witness , till he raised up sufficient Seers to advise them that had to do with him . And thus the worship of God came to be transmitted unto Abraham , unless any small circumstances might be added to his worship , after God had given certain Precepts unto Noah , with a kind of Covenant , by the token of the Rainbow . CHAP. XIX . Altars of Monument for mercies and deliverances . Of Tokens for a Testimony or a Covenant betwixt God and man , and man and man. Of service for adoration , vows and sacrifices . Of the matter and form of them . Of those which Abraham made at Sichem , Mamre and Beersheba , with his Grove there , which was drawn into an ill example , and the like afterwards forbidden . WE read , first , of Altars of Monument and Testimony ( which were usually magnificent : ) Secondly , Of Altars for Burnt-Sacrifice , Meat and Drink-Offerings and Peace-Offerings and the like ; and thirdly , Of an Altar of incense , in after-times , all opposed to the Idolatry of the Heathen . Of the two first ( which belong only unto this place ) we may consider the matter and the form . For the matter , they were simple , of Earth or Stone , ( and not of Brass , as they after were in setled times ) as we may learn by the first Institutes that were delivered by Moses , who according to God's direction digested many things into Law and Rule , which were but only of good example before . An Altar of Earth ( saith he ) shalt thou make unto me , and shalt sacrifice thereon thy Burnt-offerings , and thy Peace-offerings , thy Sheep and thine Oxen : In all places where I record my name I will come unto thee , and I will bless thee . And if thou wilt make me an Altar of Stone , thou shalt not build it of hewn Stone * : for if thou lift up thy tool upon it , thou hast polluted it . For the form therefore , if it was for remembrance only , as for thanksgiving , and a glory ; they made it greater , or it may be neater ; but yet so , that it might be sit to be used as an Altar for service upon all occasions . Let us see what examples we have of any of these , since it may be questioned whether they did not more hurt than good ( as in process of time it happened unto Moses's Brazen Serpent ) for the Heathen finding them , might either demolish them in revenge , ( because the Israelites were commanded to abolish theirs ) or else prophane them by some new Dedication or Consecration to an Idol ; and so offer Sacrifices , even unto Devils , upon the same Altars ; or else they might become occasions of division among themselves , which we are about to note hereafter . It was in use from ancient times , as from Seth's Pillars ( if there be any truth in that ) and from the Tower of Babel , for men to raise some Structure or another , in remembrance of their atchievements or fortunes : And ( it seems ) that the true Worshippers delighted rather in erecting Altars , than any other Fabricks : But if they were not intended directly for the service of sacrificing , why should they do so ? I find therefore , as I hinted , that before the Law , Altars were erected for a threefold end . First , For Monuments of thankfulness for some mercy or deliverance ; Secondly , For tokens of a Covenant , ( or for a Testimony ) whether betwixt God and man , or betwixt man and man ; Thirdly , For ordinary resort to the whole acceptable service of God , not only on their Sabbaths , but on every Day of the Week , and on all occasions : All of these pious , and allowed by God ; not only before the Law , but till the Temple was built ; and ( upon some occasions ) even after that . First , We find of Abram , that after God had appeared to him in the Land of Canaan , and had assured him that that was the Land which he would give unto his Seed ; that he built an Altar upon the Plain of Moreh , near unto the place of Sichem : But that he forthwith removed thence , unto a Mountain on the East of Bethel , ( called so proleptically , since Iacob was the first that named it so , that is , the House of God ; which for divers mercies and manifestations of God became a place famous to posterity ) and pitched his Tent , and there he built an Altar unto the Lord , and called upon the name of the Lord : as if he had not done so at the Altar before , but had only set it up as a Monument of thanksgiving unto God , who had so graciously appeared to him near Sichem . Which Notion is favoured the more by this circumstance , that when Abram returned from Egypt , he repaired unto the place betwixt Bethel and Hai , where his Tent had been at the beginning , and there called on the name of the Lord ; returning not to the Altar at Sichem at all , by any thing that we can find . Neither might it seem lawful or expedient for him to demolish any Altar of thanksgiving , or any other , that by erection he had consecrated and dedicated unto God , for fear left the Heathen should prophane them , who might be likelier to sleight them , as having Altars enough of their own , called by the names of one or other of their Idols . As the true Worshippers did also call the Altars which they erected by some special name , for a Memorial . And when Abram removed from thence to the Plain of Mamre , ( so called from Mamre the Occupant and Collegue of Abram ) he built another Altar ( as a place where he might likely spend some time of sojourning ) and there also he called on the name of the Lord ; that is , instructed all his people , offered up prayers , thanksgivings , sacrifices and such Oblations or Peace-offerings , as God had so far directed him , or any of the Patriarchs before . But in fine , when Abraham came into the Country of the Philistines , ( where Isaac the Son of the Promise was born , as God appointed it ) and was entred into a League with Abimelech , by exchanging of Presents on either hand , so that Abraham took himself to be setled for a time , He planted a Grove in Beersheba , and called there on the name of the Lord the everlasting God. * Which Grove , it seems to me , Abraham only made for shelter , ( since he and his lived only in Tents ) against the heats and wets , that his Altar and place of Worship might be the better defended . But it came indeed to be drawn afterwards into ill example , and to be expresly forbidden ; as the offering of Children unto Molech , upon pretence of imitating the same Abraham's obedience in the Offering up of his Son Isaac . Even so did the Well and Mount at which Iacob worshipped , ( in his time ) prove a pretence to the Samaritans to oppose the Temple at Ierusalem . But I will leave the Altars standing in this imperfect state , till I turn this way again , which I foresee will happen speedily . CHAP. XX Abraham had many Tents , and , as a Prince , had a Despotick Power over them , that ( through all their Tents ) were born in his house . That the Patriarchs occupied much Land , and were no burthen , but a profit to the Countries wherein they sojourned , viz. Freely in the wasts , where the Pasture was ; and by Purchase , Covenant and Compromise , when they pitched near to any great City , or populous place . Of Abraham's purchase of a Field , and Jacob's of a parcel of one . Now whereas we read that Abraham and , after him , Isaac and Iacob pitched their Tent , in the singular number ; it may seem that this is not to be restrained more than needs , but to be extended so as the circumstances do direct us . The enquiring into which will lead us to consider and perceive what manner of temporal or spiritual lives they enjoyed in their respective pilgrimages ; God having so provided for the honour of his Church , that he would not therewithal afford them all kind of temporal enlargements or accommodations ; nor leave them ( long ) in any uncomfortable state . Saint Paul tells us , that by faith Abraham sojourned in the land of promise , as in a strange Countrey , dwelling in Tabernacles ( in the Plural Number ) with Isaac and Iacob , the Heirs with him of the same promise . By which we may collect that the Tents were many , and Abraham's only like a Praetorium to the rest . Out of which Abraham drew three hundred and eighteen men , to pursue the Seizers on his Nephew Lot , ( who was permitted to be taken , that Abraham might redeem Lot , and Melchizedech might thereupon bless Abram ) which were all said to have been born in his own house . Certes , if all in one Tent ( and you cannot imagine that they all lodged continually under the Cope of Heaven ) it must have been a very large one ; but if it had been so , he would not have entertained three Angels ( whom he took to be but Strangers ) under a Tree , without the doors . As for his power over all these , it was absolutely Despotical , as the Princes round about him . He taught them the Laws that they were to obey ; and he might punish as he thought sit , without account to any other Prince , any more than the Prince to him , whosoever he was . Which is sufficiently declared by Bertram in the same Chapter , cited more than once before . And if we think sit ( in the next place ) to consider what extent of Grounds these Sojourners might occupy , and by what Right , since they were but Strangers in the places where their Dwellings or their Changes were , it may dart a little further light unto us . It cannot be doubted , but Abraham and his Herdsmen , with their several Ten●s and Families , took up much Ground , because that Lot and He were forced to part , since the Land was not able to bear them , that they might dwell together , because that both their substance was exceeding great ; which was in Flocks of Sheep and Goats , and in Herds of other Cattel , as Bullocks , Horses , Camels , Asses , Mules , and such other Breed as those Countries did afford . Now although it be said , that the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the Land ; yet Abram said unto Lot , Is not the whole Land before thee ? If thou wilt take the left hand , then I will go to the right . And Lot beheld the Plain of Iordan , that it was well watered , and he dwelt in the Cities of the Plain , and pitched his Tent towards Sodom : But Abram dwelt in the Land of Canaan . Nor could Isaac and Iacob afterwards when the Stock was much encreased , and the Families ( it is likely ) more , but occupy Land accordingly . The Question is , Quo jure , by what Right these Strangers took up so much Ground in a Strange Countrey , and escaped wars about Plats , wherein they sate down , and ( in all probability ) entrenched themselves , for the better security ; and about the Tracts round about them , which they filled with their Herds and Flocks . We must remember ( to set us right here ) that from the Flood to the promise made to Abram , there is but about four hundred and twenty two years reckoned , which is too little to imagine all places to be replenish'd in ; so that while the Inhabitants that were , lived in walled Towns for safety ; and studied Arts and Sciences ( to which the Canaanites and Phoenicians ever were addicted ) and were employed in the cultivating of the nearer Fields , and planting of their Vineyards , the coming of these Strangers with their Stocks , and pitching about them , ( like a standing Fair or moveable City ) brought both Trade and plenty to them , while the waste Grounds might be left at large , without prejudice unto any Native of the Country ; which brought also encrease of Gold and Silver to the Patriarchs . As for Abraham himself , he kept at a distance from all the idolatrous Cities , and entred not at all into them without some great occasion , as Famine and Distress once or twice , and to treat with the men of Kiriah-arba for a Burying-place for Sarah but Lot being indiscreetly mingled amongst the men of Sodom , happened once to be taken captive amongst them by the four Kings , and after hardly escaped from being destroyed with them . And if it ever fell to their conveniency to pitch nearer to any City , or better peopled place , so that there might be any danger of interfering with them . Then they either made some Purchase , or some Confederacy , or Compromise , with the Princes or people there , to preserve an inviolable peace amongst them . And when Abraham was about Gerar , he did all at once . For when Abimelech and his Chief Captain Phichol observed that Abraham grew great , they thought it good policy to take caution of him by a solemn League , made by Oath , That he should not thereafter deal falsly by Abimelech , or his Son , or Son's Son ; but according to the kindness that he had found in the Land , wherein he had so long sojourned . And Abraham sware , and both of them made a Covenant . At the making whereof , Abraham did reprove or gently contend with Abimelech , about a Well of water which Abimelech's Servants had violently taken away from his , though Abraham himself had digged it . And he made a Present to Abimelech , that he might enjoy the better Right to it : But of the Land about , there was no Question made between them . However , when Abraham planted a Grove about the Well , and set up an Altar there , sojourning many days in the Land of the Philistines , no doubt he became a Purchaser ; at least of some Tenant-right or other for the time : both the Grove and the Well being to rest to him and his , as their propriety * . And when Abraham bought the Field and Cave of Machpelah , it may seem that he intended to make no other use of it , but for a Burying-place , though it cost him four hundred Shekels of Silver , of currant Money with the Merchant , which amounts to about an hundred Dollars , as Iunius doth account , ( which before Navigation came to an height , was no inconsiderable Summ ; ) but as others , it might amount to two hundred and fifty Crowns . Once more , ( and no more that I can find ) When Iacob came to Shalem a City of Shechem , which is in the Land of Canaan , when he came from Padan Aram , and pitched his Tent before the City ; he bought a parcel of a Field , where he had spread his Tent , of Hamar Shechem's Father , for a hundred pieces of money . And he erected there an Altar , and called it El-Elohe-Israel , that is , God , the God of Israel . So that his Purchase seems to have been partly to prevent exceptions , in that he had pitched his Tent upon part of Hamar's Patrimony , and partly , that he might erect his Altar of Worship in the most convenient place , where-ever the other Tents were pitched , for the benefit of the Drove . The Purchase it self , as the price , was but small , a parcel of a Field . But why ? Must not he , as well as his Grandfather Abraham , leave it all behind him , at the next remove ? CHAP. XXI . Why the Patriarchs made it their first Work to erect Altars whereever they came . What their outward form of Worship was . Of the restraints and incommodities of the Patriarchs , as living in Tents , frugality of Diet , pa●city of entertainments , want of Fields , Gardens , Vineyards ; whereby being hindred from sowing for themselves , they were ost distressed through Famine , if there was any scarcity abroad . HItherto we have seen somewhat of the best of the Patriarchs state , as , viz , that they had Gold and Silver and Stock and a great Retinue , together with some favour in the places where they most conversed . As for their outward form of Religion , there being no retiring places in Tents for the exercise of devotion , ( Isaac being fain to go forth into the Field to meditate ) they made it their first work to erect Altars whereever they came ; which were their places of resort to pray and pay their Vows , and receive instructions and directions from God , ( whether Oracularly , or by the mouth of the Priest , who was the Father of the Family ) as it is said of Rebekkah , that when the Twins struggled in her , She went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her , Two Nations are in thy Womb ; which was said unto her , while Abraham was yet alive . Here they offered their Sin-offerings for expiation , and their propitiatory Sacrifices , or Peace offerings , for reconcilement , and for further blessings . To these their Eucharistical Oblations of thanksgivings by First-fruits and Tenths and Spoils ; which Abraham thought meet to make Melchizedech , as a greater Priest than himself , Partaker of ( since the less is blessed by the greater ) because he had a certain knowledge of this before the Law. As also , As also , that though every Father of a Family was Priest in his own Tents , yet when he came to a greater Father in such a Tribe or Kindred , as were true Worshippers , that the younger was to serve the elder , and to pay such a reverence to him , as if he reserved none unto himself . Let us next consider ( before we leave them ) some of their restraints and incommodities , under which it pleased God to discipline and train them up unto a growing Church . We have a kind of Emblem of it in the Case of the Rechabites , whose Father Ionadab commanded them , saying , Ye shall drink no Wine , you , nor Your Wives , nor your Sons , nor your Daughters for ever : Neither shall ye build house , nor plant Vineyard , nor have a Field , nor any Seed . But all your days ye shall dwell in Tents , that ye may live many days in the Land , where ye be Strangers . Only , for fear of the Army of the Chaldeans , ( say they ) we dwell at Ierusalem , for a time , even as Abraham might do in Gerar , or in Hebron , whose example that devout man seemed to recommend unto his Children and their Posterity for ever ; and so to become more extraordinary Votaries than any of the Nazarites . For Wine indeed , it was not forbidden to the Patriarchs ; but they could not have it of their own , since they could not be so well setled as Noah , who began to be an Husbandman , and planted a Vineyard , and he drank the Wine , and was drunken , belike as unaccustomed to it too . Even as it happened unto Lot , whose Daughters got the Wine ( no doubt ) from the inhabitants of the Land : But since the Patriarchs had no such intimacy with their wicked Neighbours , we read of no other Beverage that they had , but Milk and Water . And such were their frugal entertainments , with Cakes made ready upon the hearth , and a little Butter , Veal , or Kid , fetched ( as occasion served ) from the Flock . And , that we may likewise think , might much conduce to their encrease of Wealth , since they made much ado about the approach of any Visitant , that came for kindness only , as a rare thing . As for the Fields , which Abraham and Iacob purchased , we have noted before , that the one was for no other use but a Burying-place , and the other for his Booth and his Altar , even as men at a Fair pay for the Ground they break or occupy for the time . For S t Stephen telleth us , That God gave them no inheritance in the Land , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not so much as to set their foot upon ; but a promise only unto Abraham's posterity . And S t Paul , that Abraham by faith ( only ) sojourned in the Land of promise , as in a strange Countrey . And , in opposition unto houses , that he dwelt in Tabernacles ( which are no more comparable unto Houses , than the Ship-Cabins to the Chambers of a Palace ) with Isaac and Iacob , the Heirs with him of the same promise ; though for Isaac it seems that he was not lodged under the same Roof with Abraham , but was enlarged enough in Family to have a Tent of his own , when he went forth to meet Rebekkah ; and having met her , he brought her into his Mother Sarah's Tent , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for mutual joy , and Rebekkah's better welcome . Having therefore no Lands , what should they do with Seed ? This might be the Cause why they were so oft distressed by Famine , if there were a little Drought ; because the Husbandmen of Canaan seem to have been but few , and might easily be brought to have little enough for their own necessities . And by these occasions happened the chiefest of the troubles of Abraham's life , that have been touched before . Which things considered and weighed , I cannot but wonder at some mens accessions , so near unto that Socinian fancy ; as if the Fathers of the Old Testament did but only live according unto temporal promises , as they were in part from time to time fulfilled to them . So apt are men sometimes to dote upon Antiquity , as if nothing in the latter Ages could either happen or be done like what was then ; and at other times to look upon the same as meer dotage , even as young men when they hearken to old mens Tales think that they themselves are able to do much more and better . Or , as others pretend , that the modern Ages must needs be far more knowing , because they stand upon their Shoulders , while they are but growing up unto their Elbows ; at least more pious by revelation and experience : whereas more knowledge is lost than can possibly be repaired , and more piety than the declining Age of the World is likely to restore . CHAP. XXII . Adam and Eve earnestly looked towards the promised Seed . Enoch lived an heavenly life , and Noah . Abraham , Isaac and Jacob much in private devotions . The Saints of the Old Testament lived not by temporal promises , nor rested in them : But they lived , and were saved by faith in Christ ; Proved out of both Testaments , and one Objection answered . WE may perceive by what hath been hinted before , what manner of life our Father Adam lived after his transgression , viz. praying and sacrificing in earnest expectation of the Seed promised , in whom all Sacrifices were to cease : And poor Eve ( to make amends ) travelled continually with the desire of obtaining it ( as She hoped ) in her own person . Wherefore when She brought forth her first-born , She said , I have gotten a man from the Lord. And when She came again in process of time with Seth , She said , For God hath appointed me another Seed instead of Abel , whom Cain slew . So that the first promise being to the Seed of the Woman , it is conceived to be some reason why they were allowed usually to name their own Children . And when Seth had Enosh , it is further said , That then men began to call upon the name of the Lord , that is , the Sons of God began to sever themselves from the Sons of men , or the Race of Cain , and to worship apart from them . And Enoch also , the seventh from Adam , ( of whom it is said , that he walked with God , and was not , for God took him ) shewed by his prophecy what manner of Spirit he was of . Behold ( saith he ) the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints , to execute judgment upon all , and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds , which they have ungodly committed , and of all their hard speeches which ungodly Sinners have spoken against him . Behold his faith in the Point of the Resurrection and Judgment , his foresight of the Flood , and his great zeal against all sin ; especially those of the times wherein he lived . Behold what Record is left of his exactness , his heavenly mindedness , his holy contemplations , and indesinent Communion , and familiarity in walking with God ; who had endued him with the Spirit of Prophecy and sanctity to such a measure , that ( wanting nothing else but Vision ) God translated him from Earth to Heaven in the middle of his days , That he should not see death : for before his translation he had this testimony , That he pleased God. When it is therefore said of Noah , That he was a just man , and perfect , and one that walked with God ; and that he endured long ( as a Preacher of righteousness ) the contradictions of Sinners , while the Ark was in preparing ( which was about a hundred and twenty years by account ) we may guess whether he was not also like to Enoch . And whether the holy speculations of these experienced Long-livers , were dry , or more unlearned , than the shorter-lived and shorter-sighted casts of the Ages following , may be well conjectured by the Book of Iob , who lived hundreds , and died full of days . Now for all the Saints ( in general ) of the Old Testament , let us see what their inward piety was ; from Abraham the Father of the faithful , till the coming of Christ : that I may clear this Point , Vnam esse omnium fidem , that there was but one faith of all Believers , the same with ours , faith in Christ , which was the strength of all their lives and hopes ; and not any carnal blessings whatsoever . Which I think worthy , in this place ( as if it were once for all ) to state and prove , and answer such Objections as may be made against it . As for Abraham's private Devotions , they appear in his Visions , Expostulations and Intercessions with Almighty God. Isaac's in his meditation and prayer recorded ; Iacob's in his vows and wrestlings , whereby he did prevail with God , and obtain the name of Israel . For the state of the Question moved , it needs no further explication , when it shall be remembred , that it speaketh not of faith under any common Notion , ( by which it might be diversly divided ) but of faith taken properly and strictly for faith in Christ ; of which it is asserted , that such a faith was in all Believers from the beginning ; more especially from the promise made to Abraham , that in his Seed all the Nations should be blessed . And , according unto true method , the next Proceeding must be to prove it by Authority and Reason . First , In the Old Testament , ( not to cite all places , but to point out to the diligent Reader how to find more ) Iob is express when he saith , I know that my Redeemer liveth , and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth . And though after my skin Worms destroy this Body , yet in my flesh shall I see God ; whom I shall see for my self , and mine eyes shall behold , and not another , though my reins be consumed within me . In which words it is plainly manifest that Iob understood that the Seed promised was to be the Redeemer , that he should come in the Flesh , and after that to Judgment at the Day of the Resurrection , when he should glorifie them that had believed in him . All these even as we believe now . In the Prophecy of Isaiah we read this , Thus saith the Lord who redeemed Abraham * . Secondly , In the New Testament our Saviour testifieth thus much more of Abraham in particular , Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day , and he saw it , and was glad . First , He might see it by the Scriptures , which were extant before him : for ( as I hinted before ) it is not safe to think that God had left his Church for above two thousand years , without Record , only to favour unwarrantable Tradition , which in such times might have been erroneous , or in others corrupted ; or too weak ( without any Monuments ) to have kept so many important Genealogies , as have been collected and digested by Moses as the Spirit of God directed him , ( and therefore thought fit to save no more but his Books unto Posterity ) and so to have transmitted them by memory alone . Nor may it be convenient to imagine that God by revelation only discovered unto Moses all that had passed before , as if he had left himself in the Ages before without witness . Secondly , He might know it by the Sacrifices , which he was to offer for the doing away of sin , which he knew to be the life of the lower Creatures instead of man , till the Redeemer should come ; and this he might know ( in a more especial manner ) by the Precept dispensed with , which he had received , to offer up his only Son. Thirdly , He might know it by Vision and Revelation ; since when God had admitted Abraham himself , as a Type of Christ , to be a Mediator for sinful Sodom , he had said , Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do , seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty Nation , and all the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed in him ; and since he will instruct his Children after him , that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him ? And if it be asked further , Why , what could he see in this day that should make him glad , more than the Iews that descended from him , who expected nothing more than temporal greatness at the Messiah's coming , which seems to be the literal meaning of the promise ? Let us hear how our profound Bishop Andrews descanteth on it : Why should Abraham ( saith he ) so desire to see this day two thousand years , and more , after his own were at an end ? How was he concerned in it ? Yes , Christ's birth he needed , and he had good by it . Will ye hear it from his own mouth ? Thus he setteth down his Case , Ecce ego pulvis & cinis ; Lo ! I am but dust and ashes : Dust refers us to Dust thou art , and into dust thou shalt return . But why Ashes ? He was not made of these : This sure refers to somewhat else . Ashes ( we know ) come of fire : Without it they are not made . So that besides death to resolve him into dust , he saw a fire to turn him into ashes . He saw it in his Vision when the Sun was down , and it was Night , and a great fear or horrour fell upon him ; he saw Clibanum fumantem , a fiery Furnace . Blame him not , if after such a Night he desired to see such a Day , and was glad when he beheld it . Besides , it is a vulgar errour which represents the Iews of the ancient times ( whatsoever the modern think ) as looking for no other than a King , when their Messiah should come ; for they looked for such a Saviour as should be withal the greatest Prophet that they had ever had . Wherefore Iudas Maccabaeus , when he had pulled down the Altar that the Heathen had desiled , he laid up the Stones , by advice , until there should come a Prophet , to shew what should be done with them . And was not this the Question put to Iohn the Baptist , Art thou that Prophet , or do we expect another ? And the Woman of Samaria spoke ( no doubt ) the sense of Israel when she said , I know that Messias cometh , which is called Christ : when he is come he will tell us all things . But however the Iews were mistaken in their day , our Saviour himself after his resurrection , beginning at Moses and all the Prophets , expounded [ unto his Disciples ] in all the Scriptures , the things concerning himself . And the like method did the Apostles use towards all men , when they had received the Holy Ghost . This especially they studied to clear , That they brought in no new faith by Christ. But we believe ( saith S t Peter ) that through the grace of the Lord Iesus Christ , we shall be saved even as they , viz. the Fathers , which had born the Yoke of the Law before , till they were weary : signifying that they were also saved by the same Grace of Christ ( and not by the Law ) before it was revealed by the Gospel in a clearer manner . We having the same spirit of faith ( saith Saint Paul ) by which the Psalmist spoke in the place he citeth . And if it be necessary to insist on more Texts , they will be apt ( some of them ) to fall in with the Reasons which I shall set in order . CHAP. XXIII . The Church of the Old and New Testament but one . Christ made known in all his Offices before his incarnation . That he was King and Captain of his people , 1 Cor. 10. illustrated . That Christ was Mediator also of the first Covenant delivered by Moses . THEY amount ( in effect ) to these , First , One Church ; Secondly , One Head ; and , Thirdly , The same Operations of the Spirit before and since . Which do all prove the unity or sameness of that saving faith , which was common unto them and us . For the first of these , Quis unquam negavit ? Who ever denied or doubted but that the Saints of the Old Testament made up the same Body of the Catholick Church , to which we hope to be joined , The general Assembly and Church of the first-born , which are written in Heaven , and the Spirits of just men made perfect ? Or who ever questioned but that those were saved by some faith or other equivalent unto ours ? Wherefore Iesus also took with him Peter , Iames and Iohn to be transfigured before them , when there appeared also Moses and Elias talking with him ; that his Apostles might be joined to his Prophets by himself , the Mediator ( not only betwixt God and man , but ) of either Testament . For there is but one Body , and one Spirit , and one Lord , and one faith , and one hope , and one God and Father of all , who is above all , and through all , and in us all , as S t Paul expresseth it , Ephes. 4.4 , 5 , 6. For the second , Ex sponsione factâ ab antiquo ( as the Master of the Sentences speaketh ) by a certain compromise betwixt the Father and the Son , our Blessed Lord and Saviour exercised all his Offices of King , Priest and Prophet , and was so obeyed and believed in ( according to the measure of revelation ) before he was incarnate ; and , tanquam in praeludiis , ( as the Fathers took the Phrase from one another ) he made himself manifest in sundry manners before he came in Person . He appeared and communed with many ; but with Iacob only he vouchsafed to wrestle hand to hand , and to name him Israel , because he had prevailed with God , And Iacob called the place Peniel , for I have seen God ( saith he ) face to face , and my life is saved . To exemplify the appearances of Christ in these his Offices ( apart and severally ) through divers passages or places of the Old Testament , may seem superfluous ; since they are to be found exerted there ( in act ) more than once , and sometimes all at once . In our Systems of Divinity they serve for better method , or clearer illustration of some particular Points or Questions . If he guided their Kings , they expected another kind of Kingdom ; if he inspired their Prophets , they expected another kind of Prophet , when the time should come ; if they repaired to their Priests according to the Law , they knew that they needed another Advocate or Intercessor in many Cases ; neither were they satisfied with any of their Sacrifices , For thou desirest not sacrifice , else would I give it . Purge me with Hyssop , and I shall be clean . Create in me a clean heart ; and — Deliver me from bloud-guiltiness , that my tongue may sing aloud of thy righteousness , &c. Neither was this the Notion of so choice a Spirit as David's only , but it passed into the Vulgar Doctrine of the Scribes ; for one of them replyed upon our Lord in these terms , Well master , thou hast said the truth : for there is one God , and to love him with all the heart , is more than all whole Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices . To whom our Lord again , Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God. Not as if Sacrifices , the Ordinances and Sacraments of God , could be neglected ( without which there was no remission of sin ) but because in Sacrifices there might be more or less profusion ( being partly Eucharistical , even their very Sin-Offerings ) according to the wealth or liberality of the Offerer ; as also , because the thing signified was of more worth than the sign thereof . Yet it shall not be amiss to consider the headship of Christ two ways , viz. as to ( 1. ) Power ; and ( 2. ) Mediation , whatsoever Offices may be comprized under these , during the state of the Old Testament . Of the first we read , That Moses , when he was come to years , did by faith refuse to be called Pharaoh's daughters son ; esteeming the reproaches of CHRIST ( to whose Kingdom he belonged ) greater riches than the treasures of Egypt : for he had respect unto the recompence of reward , viz. in the Kingdom of Christ. And of all the people of Israel it is said . That by faith they passed ( under Christ's conduct ) through the Red Sea , as by dry Land. Which passage of theirs is more fully cleared in another place , Moreover , Bre●hren , I would not have you ignorant , how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud , and all passed through the Sea. And were all baptized into Moses in the Cloud , and in the Sea. And did all eat the same spiritual meat , and did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them , and that rock was CHRIST . But with many of them God was not well pleased — Which things were our examples . Let us not therefore lust as they did , neither let us tempt CHRIST , as some of them also tempted HIM , and were destroyed of Serpents ; neither murmur , as some of them also murmured , and were destroyed of the Destroyer , that is , the Pestilence . Was not therefore the Regiment of the Church of the Old Testament under God the Father ? Or , if any delegation of Government was unto Christ , under compromise ( as was mentioned before ) did he himself destroy , who was said to be the Mediator ( likewise ) before of either Testament ? The Answer unto this will fall in better with the next consideration , viz. of the Mediation , or Mediatorship of Christ , which may chance to clear more obscure Texts all together . ( 2. ) Wherefore , as Mediator , our Blessed Lord ( under the state of the Old Testament at least ) seemed in one respect to have been but as a Moderator unto temporal punishments ; and in another , an Intercessor , not only that all punishment should be remitted , both temporal and spiritual , but also that all Grace and Favour , necessary unto that estate , should be afforded . Neither will I be curious to divide these Parts of his Office of Mediator , more than of the other ; but I shall shew what I find in reference unto any part at all relating unto this Head , or remaining Headship of Christ , as it may happen to conduce unto the first purpose . First , The Apostle tells us , That the Law it self was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator . And that , When Moses had spoken every Precept to all the people , according to the Law , he took the bloud of Calves and Goats , with Water and Scarlet Wool and Hys●op , and sprinkled both the Book and all the people , saying , This is the bloud of the Testament , which God hath enjoined unto you . Whereupon neither the ●irst Testament was dedicated without bloud : for almost all things were by the Law purged with bloud ; and without shedding of bloud is no remission . As the Apostle would therefore have the Corinthians know , that by the ministry of Moses all the Israelites were baptized into Christ , by the Type of the Cloud over their heads , and the Sea round about their bodies ; and did in effect and virtue partake of the like Sacraments , by which they ate and drank of the fulness of Christ ( the Rock that followed them when they left the other behind ) and so had the like priviledges as the Corinthians had : Yet as God was displeased with many of them to their destruction , so he might with these too . He taketh not the Government from God the Father , while he sheweth who had the conduct from the beginning hitherto . Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa . But if the Son be despised now , as heretofore , God the Father may extend his justice where the Mediator is wickedly set aside by men , for whose redemption he had satisfied . But whether it was ever committed unto Christ to destroy his own enemies ( in any other than a spiritual way ) before his coming , or since his exaltation , is beyond the Question . But S t Paul would have his Galatians and the Hebrews know , not only that Christ is the Mediator of a new and better Covenant than that which Moses made in the behalf of the people ; but also that Christ himself , in the person of Moses , was indeed the Mediator of that too ; or else that it had been the worser for them . CHAP. XXIV . It was necessary by reason of the Curse annexed to the first Covenant , that it should be delivered in the hands of a Mediator , who could be no other than Christ himself . God caused the Covenant of Works to be shut in a Chest under the Mercy-seat , and why ? The benefit of Christ's mediation otherwise . The Vnity of the Spirit in both Testaments . THE thing that troubled S t Paul , and the Churches of his Plantation , ( more than any other ) was this , Certain men which came down from Iudaea , taught the Brethren , saying , Except ye be circumcised according unto Moses , ye cannot be saved . Against whom S t Paul disputeth in most of his Epistles , and having shewed the Churches , that this Doctrine made them Debtors to the whole Law ( as to keep the Iewish Sabbaths , New-moons , and other Fasts and Feasts ; as also to their vows and purifyings ; to their abstinence from all unclean meats , and from all such Companies as ate so ; and from all uncircumcised persons whatsoever , though Believers in Christ ; In sine , to repair to Ierusalem to sacrifice , as the Head-City and Mother-Church , as oft as the Law of Moses required ) he takes the Question it self soundly to task , to discover the danger and the ill consequents of it . Amongst his other Arguments , these are strong and pressing : 1. That the free promise was made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the Law was given by Moses ; so that Abraham being justified by faith without the Law , the Law could not render the promise void to any that believed as Abraham had done before . 2. But that the Law , so far as it contained Types and Figures of things to come , was it self abolished by Christ , in whom they were all accomplished . 3. And as for the Moral Law , That none was ever justified by that , or ever could be ; neither was it given for that end , but only added because of transgressions , or delive●●d in a terrible manner to that backsliding 〈◊〉 corrupting people , as a Bridle , till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made . 4. In fine , Because the whole Law had this dreadful Codicil annexed to it , Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things , which are written in the Book of the Law , to do them ; that they had in those times been miserable , if the Law , which was delivered by thundring Angels , had not been ordained in the hand of a Mediator ; which is the Point that 〈◊〉 closest to that which we are now about . Who was this Mediator then ? And why must the Law be needs ordained in the hand of such an one ? The Mediator , in a Type and true Vice-gerency , was Moses , beyond all doubt ; and the end why he was sitted to interpose at the giving of the Law , was because the people was affrighted at the sound of the Trumpet , and the voice of words , and the Mount that burned with fire , entreating that the word should not be spoken to them any more : for they could not endure that which was commanded . So Moses stood between the Lord and them , at that time , as a Type of Christ , who breaketh the Majesty of the Father , delivering us from the terrour of his Justice and Power . But in effect and virtue it was the good will of him that dw●lt in the Bush , that was the true Mediator then ( though not after the same manner as he is of the New Covenant ) the same that appeared in the Cloud upon the Mercy-Seat ; and upon the Tabernacle , to guide them and protect them from the heats ; that cleft the Rocks when they were thirsty , and gave them Manna when they hungred ; that delivered them from the fiery Serpents ; and by the same Moses's intercession , holp them to prevail against . Amalek * Nor did he leave his Office neither as soon as he had brought them into the Land of promise : But his Mediation , in whatsoever we may discover it , was profitable to them , to the end . For , after their first restipulation with God by the hand of Moses ( who returned this Answer from them unto him that sent him , All that the Lord hath spoken we will do ) it pleased God to cause this Covenant of Works to be shut up in a Chest , called the Ark of the Covenant or Testimony [ betwixt God and them ] but to be covered with a Mercy S●at , and then placed according unto his direction ; which in Solomon's Temple was in the Oracle of the most holy place : and the reason of his prayer , why God should hearken to the supplications of his people ( in any Case , or without any Offerings ) whensoever they shoud but look toward that holy place , and pray . By which we know where the Throne of the Mediator was under the Old Testament . If they transgressed , the Covenant enclosed was a Testimony against them ; but there was a Mercy-seat above it , as though God would oblige himself to his Covenant of mercy , though they should break their Covenant of obedience to him . And this was a gracious Argument to him , not to cast them off upon every provocation , but rather to chastise them gently , and to restore them to his former favour , by virtue of his elder Covenant of Promise , made unto Abraham , Isaac and Iacob , their Progenitors . So that when their hearts were not right with him , neither were they stedfast in his Covenant , he being full of compassion , forgave their iniquity , and destroyed them not , yea , many a time turned he his anger away , and did not stir up all his wrath . O ye Seed of Abraham his Servant , ye Children of Iacob his chosen . — He hath remembered his Covenant for ever , which he made with Abraham , and his Oath unto Isaac . And confirmed the same unto Iacob for a Law ; and to Israel for an everlasting Covenant — He remembred his holy promise , and Abraham his Servant . And though God suffered at last the Assyrians to destroy this Ark ( together with his Temple ) so that the second Temple wanted this inestimable pledge of Grace ; yet when the people humbled themselves with Nehemiah , and other of their Reformers , and renewed their Covenant with God by their repentance , they were accepted without the Ark , so as to stand upon their good behaviour more than ever , like a Fort dismantled , or a City that is disfranchized of its former priviledges . But the time was short then , after the Lord had said so long before , Lo , I come ( in the Volume of thy Book it is written of me ) to do thy will , O God. In fine , as they had the same Head , so they had the same Spirit that we have now ; which may serve for a Close to all the Arguments . That I may not seem to skrew or wire-draw any Text of Scripture , S t Peter is express , Of which Salvation ( faith he ) the Prophets have enquired , and searched diligently , who prophesied of the Grace that should come unto you , Searching what and what manner of time the Spirit of CHRIST , which was in them , did signifie , when it testified before-hand the sufferings of CHRIST and the glory that should follow . — Which things the Angels desired to look into , as having been appointed ministring Spirits , before and since , united also to this Church of Christ. And if we look upon the operations of the Spirit , and see how it wrought before and since ; we shall find the same breathings of the Saints of both Testaments in their Confessions , * Prayers and Arguments ; save only that what we ask for Christ's sake , by virtue of his death , his resurrection and his intercession for us ; they asked by the mercies of God ( not at large , as Heathen-men , but as ) annexed to his Promises and his Covenant , and his faithfulness therein , with respect unto him that was to come , whatsoever Notions they had of him : Which we shall take account of in the last place , by answering two or three more Objections , to attain the clearer light in this particular ; trusting that the Reader will think it as worthy of his perusal , as I of my digesting . In the mean while we leave the Saints of the Old Testament , as endued with the samehope , love and patience , as these of the New ; and have thereupon inferred , according to the connexion of the Graces of the Spirit , that they must needs have the like faith . ‖ And for their outward Worship , all the people were sprinkled with the bloud of a Mediation , often shed , as ours are , by the bloud of Christ , once shed for all , unto the Worlds end . CHAP. XXV . Second Objection propounded , How that little which they knew could answer unto that justifying faith which we have now . First , The things that they believed considered , and shewed , That they amounted to as much as our Creed , less than which may be a ground of justifying faith . Secondly , For the manner of their faith , it was explicit . The distinction of explicit and implicit weighed ; How much faith in them . Fiducial faith . THE first Objection was , That a few choice persons only had any special notion of the Messiah to come . The next is , That of those very choice persons so little was known , as could not be a sufficient ground of such a faith as we account to be a justifying or a saving faith in Christ ; since of the Prophets , to some one was revealed one part of this mystery ; to some others a little more ; to no one the whole . Nay , it is to be gathered from that place of S t. Peter quoted before , that some of them had Commission to prophesie more than the meaning whereof was revealed even to themselves For he saith , Of which salvation the Prophets ( that prophesied ) have enquired and searched diligently of the Grace that should come unto you , ( and not unto themselves ) unto whom it was revealed ( at the last ) that not unto themselves , but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you . Which things ( for all their Prophecies ) the Angels desired to pry into . Let us , first , consider the things believed ( or to be believed ) betwixt them and us ; and , secondly , then demodo , of the manner of their Faith and ours , how far they agree or differ . First , If they and we do agree in the same Creed ( which is called the Apostles Creed ) then certainly we both agree in side credendâ , in the Faith which is to be believed . But why we should not be taken to agree in this , since every Article of it may be articulately proved out of the Old Testament , there can ( indeed ) be no other reason given than that which is insinuated , viz. That though the substance be there ; yet it lyes scattered , and was not revealed ( so much as in the matter ) all at once ; nor the end clearly understood by them , to whom the matter it self was revealed . Now if this Creed ( which is sufficient ) be but understood confusedly by many of ours , and yet we take it to be ground enough for a saving faith to be built upon it , as they know in part ; how much more may we extend our latitude of Charity to the Saints of the Old Testament , who believed upon the matter as much as some of ours , before it was propounded in such an order ? Let me say further , That it was enough for them to know in the general that Christ should be born in the time appointed , to redeem us ( without any circumstances ) to ground even a Fiducial Faith upon that alone . But let us see how much they knew more . We have proved that our Father Adam offered Sacrifices according unto revelation . And if they came in use by revelation , it is reasonable to imagine that the end also was some way or other revealed from the first , viz. That Christ himself should be offered up unto God ( in the appointed time ) to do away that sin which Adam had contracted ; the punishment whereof deserved death and fire , as the act of Oblation required true repentance and contrition , with compassion on the innocent that was to dye in the sread of the nocent . And was not Abraham taught as much as this , ( do you think ? ) when God commanded him to offer up his only Son Isaac , and in sparing Isaac , provided Abraham of another Sacrifice ? But when we come to the Book of the Psalms and the Prophets , both the death and resurrection and ascension and sending of the Holy Ghost are all described to the life ; so that the Object of Faith was but only more comfortably enlarged than before , and left under less obscurity , as the Day-Star and the dawning drew the nearer . Nor was all the Scripture of the Old Testament of no profit in its own time , ( which was given by inspiration of God , for their instruction in righteousness ) though many things happened unto them as Types unto us , and are also written for our admonition , upon whom the ends of the World are come . Upon all which , S t Augustine is here producible with a clear Verdict : Before the Coming of Christ ( faith he ) there were righteous men , so believing in him to come , as we believe in him come : The times are varied , not the Faith. We believe that our Lord was born of a Virgin , suffered , rose again , and ascended ; They that all this should be thereafter , &c. Secondly , But because neither they nor we could be saved by believing any Articles only , howsoever clear ; let us next consider de modo , or de fide quâ , by what manner of faith they might believe in Christ as well as we , unto justification by him . To this we have also an Answer in the general from the same Father , Whosoever ( saith he ) from the beginning have believed in him , however understood , whensoever it was , or wheresoever they were , without doubt they were saved by Him. But this Answer will not serve the turn , since the late distinction of the School-men about explicit and implicit faith ; so that we must endeavour to give a clearer and more particular Reply to the thing in Question . The Distinction it self seemeth to have been first coined by Aquinas in his Comments on the Master of the Senteces , who called this explicit Faith , ( Fidem distinctam in aperto , and the other Fide●● velatam in mysterio ) such a distinct Faith by revelation as Abraham and Moses had , and such a veiled Faith in the mystery as they received from them in the after-times ; to whom no more was revealed , but that they must believe as Abraham and Moses had done before , having no distinct knowledge of all the Articles of the Faith that were delivered to them . But Aquinas's explicit Faith is described to be , Quâ quid creditur secundùm se , & in particulari , the believing of a thing by it self , and in particular ; and his implicit to be , Quà quid creditur in alio , tanqu●m in universali , the believing of a thing that is contained in another , as in the general . Which at last was wrested to this sense , Velut si quis ex animo profiteatur se credere quicquid credit Ecclesia , as if any one should profess that he believeth from his heart what the Church believeth ; which we take to be no faith at all , but only a blind obedience . But of the Believers of the Old Testament we say , first , that they had a certain explicite Faith in Christ , in some measure , every one of them according to the Word of Grace that was any way revealed or transmitted to them . And then that there was implicitly more contained in that which they received ( which was indeed veiled in a mystery ) than they could possibly conceive : Whether they received it in Doctrine , or in the Promises , or , more especially , in any of the Types and Figures of the Law. But an implicit Faith in their own Church they had not ; neither could they be saved by the faith of their Progenitors , like little Infants , ( as Cun●us is apt to think that some of them might be ) but every one by his own faith ; and that a Fiducial Faith too , wherein I follow Cunaeus for the rest : But to avoid that Question of the Schoolmen , ( or to refer my Reader to them ) How much or how little it was necessary for the ordinary people , before the coming of Christ , to believe concerning him ; as also to make way for my more direct proceeding ; I cannot but take that passage of S t Bernard in my way . If the Prophets ( faith he ) and choicest of them did not all know all alike , but some more , some less ; how much more might the simpler sort , without any detriment unto their salvation , be ignorant of the time and manner ; while they held fast the things promised with a certain faith and hope ? Yet I cannot but wonder how the Fathers and Schoolmen could all beat about so much ( as they have done ) in this suit ; and not withal bethink themselves , that this faith of the Believers of Israel ( at least ) was not wholly towards a Mediator to come ; but was also in him , as having him with them in every time , even as they had ever since they had the name of Israel : For I have shewed how he wrestled with Israel ( in particular ) and was with them all in the Red Sea , and the Desart . To proceed therefore a little further , and you shall know what manner of explicit and siducial faith they had , and how far it was implicit or veiled , ( take which term you like the better ) and how agreeable unto that Faith which we conceive to be saving now . CHAP. XXVI . That the Israelites were not saved by a blind obedience , or any mere implicit faith only ; but by a fiducial trust in the mercies of God , as they were exhibited in the Ark of the Covenant , and the Mercy-seat erected over it . That the Cherubims , erected at either end , represented the same Church , of one piece , of either Testament , looking towards Christ ; who really dwelt ( by his Divine presence ) betwixt them , and so shewed himself their King and Prophet . The Argument of the next Chapter propounded . WE are never nearer to a bright Morning , than when we pass through an early foggy Mist. When we are told that the Israelites ( for their parts ) might be saved by a mere obedience , without any explicit Faith at all in Christ , tanquam per opera operata , ( as they speak abusively to the very terms ; ) or else by the faith of their Forefathers , as if it could be imputed unto them to justification , as Christ's righteousness is to us : Or , in fine , by believing that God , who could do wonders , would redeem them , and all Mankind , one way or other , in the general ( they knew not how ) we are left in a maze . But when we come to this result , viz. That as the Patriarchs before the Law worshipped God in Christ at many Altars ; so after the giving of the Law , the Children of Israel worshipped him in his holy Tabernacle , at one only Altar ; as having Christ there in the midst of them , sitting on the Mercy-Seat as his Throne , and dwelling betwixt the Cherubims , who was the Keeper of their Covenant ; and that their trust in the mercies of God ( shadowed there by the wings of the Cherubims ) according to all his promises , was their ●iducial faith in God , through Christ Iesus ; I say , when we come to this result , methinks we have found a certain Clue , to bring us out of all perplexity , and to shew us , that the Saints of the Old Testament had ( at least ) enough to stay their Stomachs till the Word it self should be made flesh , and come to dwell among them , in a larger place . In this posture we therefore find the Mediator of both Testaments , as exercising all his Offices under the first ; for protection , direction and doing away of sin , in such an extraordinary way as all the other expedients of the Ceremonial Law could not come near . The Ark it self contained the Law of the ten words , which when the people had accepted , saying , All that the Lord hath spoken we will do , it became a Covenant of Works to that people , and to no other , though a Rule and Obligation unto all Mankind , that should come to know it . And when God had commanded that this should be laid up before him in the Ark , and placed in the Holy of Holies ; the Ark came to be called the Ark of the Covenant , or of Testimony . However , he that gave the Law , knowing their proneness to ●●ansgress , was graciously pleased to command that it should be covered with the Mercy-Seat ; remembring his elder Covenant of Grace , made with Abraham , Is●a● and Iacob , in whom not only one people , but all the nations of the earth should be blessed . And for Supporters to the Mercy-Seat , as a Royal Throne , he caused two Cherubims of Gold , beaten out of one Piece , to be set at either end of it , which spreading out their wings on high , covered the Mercy-Seat therewith ; and having their faces one towards another , looked both towards the Mercy-Seat . Now in that the Cherubims were both of one Piece , looking both towards this Mercy-Seat , ( which was also made of pure Gold , that we might know the worth of mercy ) they served aptly to set forth the posture of the Saints of both Testaments , which in their faces look towards one another , and both towards Christ : and in the spreading of their wings , they reach the two sides of the World , while they touch in the middle , and so do sweetly join to one another , as D r Lightfoot speaks . But betwixt these was the strength and glory of Israel , the most pregnant and proper resemblance of our Saviour , in whom God dwelleth among men : Nor was it a mere resemblance , but it was truly so . For Hezekiah ( in his distress ) prayed before the Lord , and said , O Lord God of Israel , which dwellest between the Cherubims , bow down thine ear and hear ; open thine eyes , and see and save us , that all the Earth may know , that thou art the Lord God , even thou alone . This Ark the Priests were therefore ordered to carry forth to Battel , while the Tabernacle stood , and it was the Palladium of Israel , they were either victorious , or invincible , while they had it with them ; for the King of Glory went along with it : And , Who was that King of Glory ? The Lord strong and mighty , the Lord mighty in battel ; The Lord of Hosts is the King of Glory . So that when the Philistines had once taken this Ark , ( though they could not hold it long ) the Wife of Phinehas fell in travail , and dyed ; having first named her Son Ichabod ; because , said she , the glory is departed from Israel , since the Ark of God is taken . In fine , when it pleased God to deliver them up to the Assyrians for their incorrigible Idolatry ( which was not a breach of the Covenant in part , but in the whole ) he suffered this Ark , Mercy-Seat and all , to be burned with the Temple . To this , the same Ark was their Oracle , and gave name to the whole Room , the Holy of Holies , to be called the Oracle , For there I will meet with thee ( said God ) and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat , from between the two Cherubims , which are upon the Ark of the testimony , of all things which I will give in commandment unto the Children of Israel . And thus it was of frequent use so long as the first Temple did continue . But that which is most to the purpose ( to understand the Object and the manner of the faith of the Saints of old ) is that which presents it self to our next thoughts , about the Priestly Office of Christ within this inner Temple , beyond the ministry of the Sons of Levi , which was in the outer Sanctuary , ( once a year excepted , when it was permitted to the High Priest alone to enter in hither . ) I hardly can forbear to deliver my own opinion expresly here , although I know no other authority to fortifie it by , besides the very Scriptures themselves , or what an ingenuous man may accept for a reasonable inference upon them . I take the Ark it self to have been a kind of Altar . CHAP. XXVII . The Kingdom given unto Christ for his Priesthood-sake ; who as of the order of Melchizedek had an inner house and Altar , to which the house of Aaron owed reverence : That it was not properly an Altar , but bore some analogy ; and was needful for the people . That the promises of God before the Law were virtually concealed in the Ark. A new Objection started . IT was in contemplation of Christ's Priesthood , that God the Father bestowed the Kingdom on him , according to that of the Royal Psalmist , The Lord said unto my Lord , Sit thou at my right hand , until I make thine enemies thy footstool .... The Lord hath sworn , and will not repent , Thou art a Priest for ever , after the Order of Melchizedek , that is , after the s●militude ( as the Apostle doth expound it ) of that King of righteousness ; which word doth indifferently signifie mercy in the use of the Old Testament . Within this inward Temple ( therefore ) it was convenient that another kind of Altar should be reserved for another kind of Priest than Aaron was , ( who had the Ruler of the people over him ; and many Laws lying on his Order , from which Melchizedek was free ) For the Law made nothing perfect ; but the bringing in of a better hope did , by which we draw nigh unto God . ... which hope ●e have as an Anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast ; and which entreth into that within the Veil . Whither the forerunner is for us entred , even Iesus , made an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek , who was a Type of him ; as the Holy of Holies , within the Veil , was of Heaven ; having the Throne of God in the midst of it , and a multitude of Cherubims besides it , after Solomon had put the last hand to it . And as our hope is now ( above all ) in the intercession of Christ in Heaven ; so was theirs of old within the Veil , more than it was without , as I am about to shew . But because it doth not consist with the oneness of the Body of Christ , that there should be more Temples or Altar● ( properly so called ) than one ; I shall first address my self to some accommodation * . Besides the Altar of Oblation , there stood apart ( and nearer to the Veil ) the Golden Altar , or Altar of Incense , by God's appointment ; which served to set forth the intercession of the Angel of the Covenant , who is represented to us in the Revelation , as standing at the Altar , having a golden Censer , with much incense , that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar , which was before the Throne ; the smoke whereof ascended up before God out of the Angels hand , and then the Angel took his Censer , and filled it with fire of the Altar , and cast it to the Earth ( as a return of prayers ) and then the judgments of God began to work below . Which Altar therefore stands not in opposition to the other ; nor this that I am about to speak of to either of them . But now I will shew what analogy , and what need or use there was of this token . Quod prius praestantius , was the great Rule that S t Paul went by in preferring Christ's Priesthood before Levi's , in that it was according to the likeness of Melchizedek's , unto whom Levi himself had paid Tythes in the Loins of his Father Abraham . And in this he shews the excellency of the New Testament above the Old , that it was four hundred and thirty years ( indeed ) the elder of the two . This I say ( saith he ) that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ , the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after , cannot disannul , that it should make the promise of no effect . And that it might not do so , God laid a Mercy-Seat over the Law , and put all together behind the Veil ; where he kept the Archives of his first promise made to Abraham , and to Isaac , and to Iacob , concerning Christ : In reference whereunto he bad Moses tell the people from the very first beginning of his vocation , The Lord God of your Fathers , the God of Abraham , the God of Isaac , and the God of Iacob , hath sent me unto you . This is my name for ever ; and this is my memorial unto all Generations . This was his name within the Veil , covered with the wings of Angels , while the Lord of life was yet in the Loins of his Progenitors . So that if any one be ready to object further against the knowledge of Christ of old , that Moses put a veil [ of Types and Ceremonies ] over his face , [ on purpose ] that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished [ viz. the Ceremonial Law. ] But their minds were blinded so , that until this day , the same Veil remaineth on them in the reading of the Old Testament ; we are as ready to meet them with another passage of the same Apostle . Wherefore then serveth the Law ? [ Was it given to the prejudice of the Grace of Christ ? ] It was added because of transgressions , till the seed should come , to whom the promise was made ; and it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator : Is the Law then against the promises of God ? God forbid . But before faith came , we were kept under the Law , shut up unto the faith , which should after be revealed . Now the strength of the Objection seems to bear against the multitude of the Children of Israel , and not against any choice men amongst them ; who ( for all this Objection ) as they drew nearer , might see the clearer into this mystery of Christ , on coming . But I shall endeavour to take things in such an order , that that which remains of the former Objection , may go off as well satisfied as can be with this that cometh last . CHAP. XXVIII . What resemblance the Ark bore unto an Altar ; and how the Altar of Burnt-Offering was sanctified by it . That a Censer was only a necessary Vtensil , belonging to the Holy of Holies , to be used once a Year . That the whole Temple was hallowed by the Còvenant and Mercy-seat , shewed by Solomon's Dedication of it . OF the whole Law , how far it is a priviledge or a burthen , a light or a veil , ( that I may not too much anticipate the design that I have in hand ) there will be a proper place hereafter . In the mean while , whatsoever was defective ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) in the Sanctuary , was supplied ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) in the Holy of Holies , or most holy place . And whatsoever blindness happened to the later Jews , it was not so much by the Veil , that Moses drew over his own face ( which was , as it were , but of Cypress ) as by the grosser Veils , that the Scrib●s and Pharisees , in the later times , had drawn over all . On the tenth Day of the seventh Month , T●ri or September , the High Priest was to make an atonement for the people by Sacrifice , to cleanse them , that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord. But this was to be done the same Day , after he had performed all that was required to be done in the Holy of Holies . He was first to make an atonement without , for himself and for his house , by a Sin-Offering , which was to be a Bullock . Then he was to carry a Censer full of burning Coals of fire from off the Altar , with his hands full of incense within the Veil , where he was to burn it upon the Coals , that the Cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony , [ thus it resembleth the Altar of incense , as it was in form somewhat like it ] and he shall take of the bloud of the Bullock , and sprinkle it with his finger Eastward ; and before the Mercy-Seat shall be sprinkle of the blo●d with his finger seven times [ thus doth he dedicate it to the Lord with some of the same Ceremonies that he used towards the Altar of Oblation ] Then shall be kill the Goat of the Sin-Offering that is for the people , and do with that bloud as he did with the former , sprinkling the bloud upon the mercy-seat , and before it . And then he shall there make an atonement even for the San●●uary it self , because of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel , and because of their transgressions in all their sins . In fine , ( as if this were the Altar of Altars * , that imparted holiness * unto both the other , as well as unto all the people ) he shall go out [ again ] unto the Altar that is before the Lord , and make an atonement for it , and shall take of the bloud of the Bullock , and of the bloud of the Goat , and put it upon the horns of the Altar round about . And he shall sprinkle of the bloud upon it with his finger seven times , and cleanse it , and hallow it from the uncleanness of the Children of Israel . And then , to the Sacrifice of atonement mentioned before . Now because S t Paul reckons that there was a golden Censer ( which belongs to an Altar ) within this Holy of Holies , whereof there was no need , since the Priest carried one in with him ; it might occasion that errour of S t Augustine's , that the Altar of incense was in this most holy place ; which is sufficiently detected by Cunaeus . And when Expositors have toiled much about this superfluous Censer ; it may be it was but for Ornament alone , as the multitude of Palm-Trees and Cherubims , with which Solomon adorned the Oracle ; whereas Moses had ordained two only Cherubims at the ends of the Ark it self . Or else S t Paul might intend no other than that which the Priest brought in ( as the only Ut●●sil belonging unto the service of that place ) though he carried it out again . But is was not once a Year only that the Mercy-seat and the Covenant were of any use unto this people . For if the Altar of Sacrifice was ( * Asylum ) a certain refuge whereunto to flee , and to repair for succour ; this was much more , both for all the people , and for each particular person , in ordinary and in extraordinary , whether at home or abroad . Let us mark how they might use it . This awful place , into which the High Priest might not presume to enter above once in the year , at the time appointed , not without Typical bloud ( to safeguard him ) and incense ( to procure a gracious acceptation , by the intercession of the immaculate Lamb , slain from the beginning of the World ) lest he dye ( as it is twice said in the same Chapter ) gave its dignity unto all the Temple . So that when Solomon had fini●hed the whole , he stood before the Al●ar of the Lord [ upon a Brazen Scaffold , which he had erected ] and kneeling down in the presence of all the Congregation , he prayed , saying , Lord God of Israel , who keepest Covenant and mercy ( there being little comfort in the one without the other , as also to shew us that it was the Covenant and the Mercy-seat together that was the glory of the whole ) although the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee , much less this house that I have built ; yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy Servant , O Lord my God , ( which Pronoun possessive is to be observed as bearing respect to the promise that he had mentioned before , made unto his Father David ) that thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day , even toward the place of which thou hast said , My name shall be there . And hearken thou to the supplication of thy people Israel , when they shall pray toward this place , and when thou hearest , forgive , and relieve , reckoning up the needs that might happen . And among the rest of his petitions , what prayer or supplication soever be made by any man , or by all thy people Israel , which shall know every man the plague of his own heart , ( and not of his Body only ) and spread sorth his hands towards this house ; then hear thou in Heaven thy dwelling place , and forgive , and do ; moreover , concerning a Stranger that is not of thy people Israel , ( that it might be known that this house was also sacred unto him , in whom all the Nations of the Earth were to be blessed ) but cometh out of a far Country for thy names sake ; ( for they shall hear of thy great name ) hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place , and do according to all that the Stranger calleth unto thee for . Which proved a Rule ( if not mistaken ) in after-times to admit Heathen Princes to offer Sacrifices in the Temple . This is therefore the frequent compellation ( or adjunct to the blessed Attributes ) of God in the Old Testament , who keepeth Covenant and mercy . If you please to know how often , the Concordances are at hand ; to which I may refer you with favour , and not oblige my Reader to pay twice for a single sa●i●faction . Only this remains to be enquired into , What Covenant they meant , and with what respect unto the Temple . CHAP. XXIX . They intended t●at Covenant which God had made with Abraham , Isa●c and Jacob , by the sign of Circumcision , ( and not that which they consented ●o when they received the Law ) upon which fundamental Covenant it was that God proclaim●d his Attributes of mercy to them ; yet they were bound ●o renew their own Covenant wh●n ●hey sought for mercies . The presence of God in the Temple an Object of their faith ; of which presence Christ was the Angel , otherwise known by the name of the loving kindness or tender mercies of God , to which they trusted more than to any of their services . ONCE we may be sure , that it was not that part of the Covenant which they had broken , which was added because of transgressions , or annexed as a Codicil unto the first Testament , to keep them in awe , and fear of sinning , by its threatnings , they being always prone to trespass upon the God of Israel : But the Covenant which they intended was that which was confirmed before of God in Christ , viz. with Abraham , Isaac and Iacob , their Progenitors , till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made . So that when David had brought the Ark , and set it in the midst of a Tent , which he had pitched for it , they offer●d Burnt-sacrifices , and Peace-offerings before God : and then he delivered the hundred and fifth Psalm unto Asaph and his Brethren , to be tuned by them unto praise , in which there is this special passage , O ye seed of Israel his servant , ye children of Iacob his chosen ones ; Be ye mindful always of his Covenant : the word which he commanded to a thousand Generations . Which Covenant be made with Abraham , and his Oath unto Isaac . And confirmed the same unto Iacob for a Law , and to Israel for an everlasting Covenant . Unto all which the temporal promise of the Land of Canaan ( a Type of ●he eternal rest ) is join'd and knit . Upon which fundamental Covenant it was that God proclaimed the name of the Lord , at the second giving of the Law , in this manner , The Lord , the Lord God , merciful and gracious , long-suffering , and abundant in goodness and truth , keeping mercy for thousands , forgiving iniquity , transgression and sin . This is the Covenant that they were to flee to in all their adversities , so as still to renew their own , which they had made with God by the mediation of Moses , when the Law was given . In such manner , as we may read distinctly in the examples of Iosiah , Ezra , Nehemiah , and whatever Reformers or Restorers there were besides . All the Sacrifices of their Land were of no avail to appease or please God , wi●hout this . And this was to be done either in the Temple , with their faces towards the Mercy-Seat ; or towards the Temple , when they were at a distance from it . This was the use of the Covenant of mercy , as to all the people : Let us see next what the faith of particular men might be , and of what use or help , this within the Veil . It was the Object of Ionah's faith directly , I said , I am cast out of thy sight , yet will I look again toward thy holy Temple : When my soul fainted within me I remembred the Lord , and my prayer came in unto thee , into thine holy Temple . Of all places ( saith Archbishop Abbot ) he pitcheth on the Temple , where God had put his name , and was more apparently conversant by his ●pecial Grace . Which did make that House and City to be counted an holy Mansion , the joy of the Earth , the beauty of the World , the Palace of the Great King , the delight , Paradise and Garden of the Highest . There was the Ark of the Covenant , the Tables of the Testimony , [ that we may not take these latter alone to be the whole Covenant ] the Cherubims and the Mercy-Seat , all being strange things of much excellency : But the summity of all happiness was the residence of God's favour there .... Wherefore the Jews observed this evermore in the earnestness of their prayer , in what land soever they were , to turn them toward the Temple ; not tying superstitiously the power of God to that place , but knowing that the same house was not erected in vain . And witnessing withal their obedience unto the Lord , and to men the constancy of their profession , who held that place as the Seal of the Lord 's assured protection over them . So when Daniel in Chaldaea would pray , he set his Windows open toward Ierusalem , to the hazard of his life . Let us therefore next consider his example . When Daniel knew by Books , that the seventy years were expired , he set his face toward the Temple ( though it was demolished , because the blessing was that way still , and a promise of its restitution ) and prayed , saying , O Lord , the great and dreadful God , keeping the Covenant and mercy to them that love him , and to them that keep his Commandments .... To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses , though we have rebelled against him . O Lord , according to all thy righteousness , I beseech thee , let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy City Ierusalem , and cause thy face to shine upon thy Sanctuary that is desolate , for the Lord's sake . Which if any one think to be not the same as if he had said , For Christ's sake , who was wont to dwell in the Sanctuary , that lyeth now in ruines , it might be fit to put him in mind of our Saviour's Question to the Pharisees , saying , What think ye of Christ , whose Son is he ? They say unto him , The Son of David . He saith unto them , How then doth David in spirit call him Lord , saying , The Lord said unto my Lord , Sit thou on my right hand , until I make thine Enemies thy footstool ? — And no man was able to answer him a word . The Prophet said , I beseech thee , O Lord , for the Lord's sake ; The Question is , For what Lord's sake ? or what congruity in the sense ? For the words are not , I beseech thee for thine own sake , or for thy mercy-sake ; But for the Lord's sake : Neither is it questioned , but that the Lord Christ was revealed to the Prophets , in a great measure ; nor yet that their Writings were so obscure , as that others besides themselves understood nothing of the meaning of them : for they were written ( as all Scripture ) for instruction , which has been pointed at before There are indeed of opinion that hold , That by the Types they were little the wiser ; but by the Prophets , they knew to the very Day of Christ's coming , not only that he was to be the Son of David ; but also the Son of God : A Notion common unto all that expected the Messias in any manner . But , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to speak the rest in a word , What is the Son of God , but the loving kindness and mercy of the Father , begotten in himself by eternal Generation , to be made manifest in the flesh , according to the time appointed by the Father ? In this loving kindness ( therefore ) and tender mercies of God , with respect to him that was to come , they put their trust ; even as we do , in the same mercies , through him , that is come since , and now for ever liveth to make intercession for us . So that in their prayers there was nothing but the name of Christ concealed , because it was not yet revealed to them ; the same Petitions , the same Arguments , and the like Confessions . In all which , if there were not a Syllable of Christ , how could we use the fame Forms and Phrases still ? If they were not according to the Spirit of Christ , how could we be sanctified or comforted by the Scriptures of the Old Testament ? A thing that hath been little weighed by the Antinomians , when they spake so contemptibly of an Old Testament-Spirit , as if it were all legal , and of bondage only in blindness and darkness . Alas ! they knew as well as we , that faith and repentance ( whether with or without Sacrifices or other outward services ) was the only way to please God : Neither had they any Sacrifices , but if it were a Sin-Offering , the Offerer was bound to put his hand upon the head of the Burnt-Offering . Which was accounted amongst them to have been a Rite of transmission , as it were , of the man's sin unto the Sacrifice that was to dye for him ( which was a Figure of the transferring or our sins on Christ. ) And in laying of his hands on the Bullock's head , he confessed his sin after this manner , I have sinned , I have done perversely , I have rebelled , and done thus or thus ; but I return by repentance before thee , and let this be my atonement . And once a year they had a scape-goat let loose with all their sins into the Wilderness , to teach them that God delighted not in the bloud of Beasts ; and that there was another mean to do away their sins , besides the slaying of the dumb Creature . For if had been otherwise , what should David have done , when he was convicted by the Prophet of his two great sins , of murder and adultery ? All the Beasts of the Forest , and the Cattel upon a thousand Hills ( which were all God's own ) had not been enough to sacrifice for the expiation of such sins as those . Wherefore he saith , Thou desirest not Sacrifice , else would I give it ; Thou delightest not in Burnt-Offering . How then ? The Sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit . Have mercy upon me , O God , according to thy loving kindness , according to the multitude of thy tender mercies , blot out my transgressions ..... Wash me , and I shall be whiter than Snow . Create in me a clean heart , O God , and renew a right spirit within me . Cast me not away from thy presence , and take not thy Holy Spirit from me . Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation , and uphold me with thy free Spirit . Nor was this a mystery known only unto choicer men : For one of the Scribes approving of our Lord's Answer , when he had told him which were the two great Commandments , replyed , Well , Master , thou hast said the truth ; for to love God with all the heart and soul , and to love his Neighbour as himself , is more than all whole Burnt-Offerings and Sacrifices . And if that passage of Isaiah be well considered , it will shew us what kind of piety it was that did impregnate the Spirits of the people of God from Moses unto Christ : I will mention the loving kindnesses of the Lord , according to the great goodness towards the house of Israel , which he hath bestowed on them , according to his mercies , and according to the multitude of his loving kindnesses : for he said , Surely they are my people : so he was their Saviour . In all their affliction he was afflicted , and the Angel of his presence saved them . In his love , and in his pity he redeemed them , and he bare them , and carried them all the days of old . Wherein the church standeth clear off from any merits of her Progenitors ; or of Moses , Aaron , and the Prophets , relying only on her Saviour , the Angel of the presence of the God of Israel . They believed therefore in Christ as we do only by the name of the tender mercies of God , both for pardon and for every Grace beside . CHAP. XXX . Christ cloathed in his Word and promises , the adequate Object of saving faith ; which he was to them as well as unto us : No naked Christ without these : No plerophory without them . So much of any promise as the Ancients laid hold of , so much of Christ they received in an implicit manner . There is somewhat implicit in faith , even in these days too . NOW if Faith be to be defined per modum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( as some Divines have followed Calvin over strictly in such a Notion , from which they are much come off of late ) to be a certain full perswasion of particular Election in Christ ; I must confess I know not how to accommodate such a faith to the times of the Old Testament ; or to find that they had ( then ) an agreeable faith unto such as are of that perswasion . Or if the Object of Faith be precisely ( and abstrusely ) set , to be the very person of Christ , a naked Christ , divested ( almost ) of his Word and Ordinances ; I shall not be able to make out any thing that way neither . But as the Lutherans speak about their Consubstantiation , that Christus vestitus , Christ clothed in the Elements , is there received by the worthy Communicant ; so I doubt not but I may safely say , that Christus vestitus verbo suo , Christ clothed with his own Word , ever was and is the adequate Object of the Faith of all Ages ; wherein he was and is received to salvation , and to all other ends and purposes whatsoever . More especially according to the measure of promises , as they have been revealed , and made from time to time * . I think I have gone somewhat near to prove to indifferent men , that many of the Saints of the Old Testament had a greater insight into the main scope of the very promise about the person and merits of Christ , than diversmen might have thought before ; and that they had the right use of their faith unto justification , as we have now . The only Point wherein it may seem that some may stick , is , whether in the multitude it was not a confused faith , and not distinct enough to be what ours must be . To this therefore it is to be considered , That saving faith relyeth not on any one promise whatsoever ( abstractedly ) by it self ; nor yet that all the promises which are certainly to be believed are of use to all men : so that all together are of no more consequence unto us than unto them . Next it is to be remembred what S t Paul tells us , that all the promises of God in Christ are Yea , and in him Amen . So that how much or how little soever the Saints of the Old Testament embraced of the promises , they embraced of Christ , as implicitly contained in them : which wrought in them the like obedience , hope and perseverance as in us , so as to carry them beyond carnal things , to the things heavenly and spiritual . Which S t Paul ( again ) elaborately proves to us , in the eleventh to the Hebrews ; and that they looked more towards that Seed wherein all the Nations should be blessed , and another Country and City , which hath foundations , whose Builder and Maker is God , than towards the Land of Can●an . And all the Worthies which he reckons up , he says obtained a good report through faith , having not received ●he [ special ] promise , God having provided some better thing for us , that they without us , should not be made perfect . In fine , we shall find somewhat that is implicit in the best faith of any of ours ; and if we shall consider how short that faith may be , which others of ours may have , ( unto salvation t●o ) and so compare it with theirs , we shall think the less strange of any thing that has been said of theirs before . Do we not all believe the Gospel , not knowing how much may be contained in it ? Do we not engage ourselves in Baptism to obey , not knowing what shall be required of us ? Like Abraham , who when he was called , obeyed , and went out , not knowing whither he went. Are we not in frequent doubts and fears both about the promises that we embrace as we are able , and about our practice , to be ordered so that at last we may obtain them ? Was it a weak faith in that Martyr , that went drooping to the Stake , not so much for fear of death , as for the pressure of desertion that then lay upon him ? And yet he durst not recant to save all , ( as they might think ) both Soul and Body too . But the Spirit of Glory came upon him in an instant to bear him up above all . In fine , when we shall consider how many of ours that have some faith of adherence ( as we otherwise distinguish ) and , in the judgment of Charity , do stand fair towards salvation in the end , are ignorant of the mystery of Christ , whom they profess ; not knowing how to apply themselves to the mercies of God , through him alone , nor the Vertue of his merits , or benefit of his intercession for them ; in a word , nor th● power of his death and resurrection in any comfortable measure to their own souls ; what need we wonder much , though it be said , That ( as many which were first shall be last , and many of the last , first , so ) the Saints of the Old Testament shall be found in comparison with us at the latter Day ? For better were those of them who knew how to apply the mercies of God in Christ , not knowing the name of Christ ; than such of ours as have heard the sound of the Gospel , and do not understand so much of the meaning of it , as they before . CHAP. XXXI . Wherein the Saints of the Old Testament could not attain to so much as hath been since revealed . That the generality of them were blinded most ( 1. ) by God's Providence , who would have ' Christ to come in the worst times , that he might be crucified ; and so obtain his Kingdom . And that the Disciples themselves should be held in like obscurity with other misled Disciples of the Scribes , lest they should indis●r●etly offer to hinder the ministry of Christ. ( 2. ) By Satan's malice , to work the destruction of the Jewish Church and people ; chie●ly by the perverseness of the Pharisees . Different apprehensions concerning Jewish Learning . The close of this Argument . BUT here the Objectors may close again , and say , Is there ( then ) no priviledge or no advantage by the Gospel ? or by the explicit faith of Christ , exhibited in the New Testament , more than there was before ? Has S t Paul magnified his own ministry , and this ministration all in vain ? God forbid ! But it is not within my verge ( in this place , though I have stretched to bring in this Question ) to shew the difference betwixt the two Testaments ; but only in discovering the state of the first , to manifest that they had the faith of Christ amongst them . But for a better relish in the Close , I will adde a passage or two of the Fathers , whose Authority may go further than any Comments of my own . Saint Augustine thus , Although the Prophets conceived much pleasure , when in the Spirit they foresaw the things to come concerning Christ ; yet they would ( if it could have been ) have lived in the same times with us ; and to have seen those things fulfilled which they prophesied by the Spirit . And S t Bernard upon those words of our Saviour [ Blessed are your eyes , for they see ; and your ears , for they hear : for verily I say unto you , that many Prophets and righteous men have desired to see these things which ye see , and have not seen them ; and to hear these things which ye hear , and have not heard them ] descanteth thus , Why would they see and hear ? To wit , that they might perceive more clearly and largely that which they scarcely discerned , but slenderly and obscurely before . For what need had there been to see with their fleshly eyes , and to hear with their outward ears , if they had been inwardly and perfectly instructed as much before as they could ever learn thereafter ? There remains nothing to be cleared more , but what is shadowed by the Veil of Moses , in the latter end of the last Objection : For if the Veil of Ceremonies was but thin , and the Prophecies so clear ; why were all the Jews so ignorant , especially the Disciples of our Lord himself , about any true or proper thing relating to Messias when he came ? It hath been hinted before , that they generally knew how he was to be both the Son of God , and the Son of David , to be born at Bethlehem , and to be the greatest Prophet and King that they ever had . Now it is a further Question among the Schoolmen ( to whom I may refer you ) whether Moses knew more of the Messias to come than Abraham , and David more than both : and so onwards of all the Prophets , home unto Iohn the Baptist , even as his coming was the nearer . But I confess my opinion carries me to think , That the Prophets ceasing after Malachi , and the Pharisees arising to repute under the first beginnings of the Maccabees , ( which will be noted in its place ) and not long after combining with the Scribes to the corruption of the true Religion ; that this mystery was on purpose veiled ( more than before ) by the Providence of God , and malice of the Instruments of Satan . ( I. ) By God's Providence , who would have , the Restorer to appear in the worst of times . Could the Son of man then ( any more than at his second Coming ) find faith upon the Earth ? If they had known him generally , durst the rest of them have crucified the Lord of life and glory ? Wherefore when S t Peter preached to their conviction , that they might not be driven to despair , but to repentance of such a sin ; he is permitted thus to insinuate with them , And now Brethren , I wot that through ignorance ye did it , as also did your Rulers . And had not Christ suffered , and so entred into Glory , how could he have obtained the Kingdom promised of his Father ? So that left the Disciples themselves ( that had been trained under the Paedagogy of the Scribes and Pharisees ) should become impertinent Hinderers of their Masters ways , if they had known to what they tended ; the spiritual mysteries of Christ were sparingly delivered to them before he suffered , and fully after he was risen . Once , when our Saviour had said unto them ▪ ( somewhat to prepare them for a change ) Let these sayings sink down into your ears ; for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men ; they understood not this saying , but it was hid from them , that they perceived it not : and they feared to ask him of that saying . And again , when Iesus began to shew unto his Disciples how he must suffer and be killed , and rise again the third day ; Peter took him up , and began to rebuke him , saying , Be it far from thee , Lord ; this shall not be unto thee . ( for Peter meant to fight for him ) But Iesus turned , and said unto Peter , Get thee behind me Satan , thou art an offence unto me : for thou savourest not the things that be of God , but those that be of men . Such a check had never trusty Peter , or any of the Disciples before . But after his resurrection , he began from Moses and all the Prophets , and expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself . ( 2. ) As for the malice of Satan , and his Instruments . He himself could have no greater stratagem ( so far as he could discern the tokens of Christ's coming , more than mortal men ) than to blind their eyes before-hand that they might not know the day of their visitation ; but that they might be defeated , and disappointed of all their perverted , carnal expectations , and so become offended in him to the death : In sine , that by the murder of the Son of God , he might bring many souls to Hell ; and the ancient people and Church of God to final ruine and destruction , as shortly after happened . And who knows but Satan might understand the Prophecies of these things , and so set himself to work , as the readier instrument to bring them all about , as he desired ? But for his Under-Instruments , they chiefly were the Scribes and Pharisees , whose corruptions our Saviour therefore bends himself to discover and reprove on all occasions . And if you ask me , what could they do ? I answer , they had in a long tract of time before , put such carnal glosses on the Scripture , out of their designs ( sometimes against their own Princes , sometimes against the Romans ; but always to get both gain and authority among the people of the Iews ) that sitting in the Chair of Moses , as Expounders of the Law and of the Prophets ; they utterly perverted the true sense and meaning thereof : and that especially about the Messias , who was generally expected ( almost throughout the whole Roman Empire , and beyond it ) when he came . And when he was come , who should be enquired of but the Pharisees whether he was indeed the Christ , or no ? And they generally denied him ; for the Character of his Person agreed not with their ancient Glosses , or their present ends or interests . And here I cannot omit what different Notions learned men have of the Iewish Rabbins , especially of such whose Writings remain as accounted written before our Lord was born , or shortly after . Cunaeus saith , That their authority was always great among ingenuous and prudent men , as oft as any Question doth arise about their Countrey-Rites and Ceremonies . And another speaks thus , Let all blind and bold Expositors know , that if they expound not many Phrases and things in the New Testament out of the old Records of Jewish Writings or Customs , they shall but fansie and not expound the Text , as may be confirmed , saith Scaliger , sexcentis Argumentis , by very many Arguments . And what account M r Hugh Broughton , M r Selden , and D r Lightfoot , have made of these ( it may be because they could have no better ) appeareth by their elaborate Collections from them . On the other hand Chemnitius ( whom M r Vines esteemeth as the learnedst of all the Lutherans ) hath entred abundant caution with us about these Writings of the Iews . The Disputation ( saith he ) about unwritten Traditions , whether to be joined or opposed to the Scriptures , is no new thing ; but it is the very panoplia of Iewish perfidy against the Sword of the Spirit , which is the Word of God in the Scripture . That the purity of the sound Doctrine of the Word was corrupted amongst them in the time of Christ , the Evangelical History doth manifestly shew ; and that it sprang partly from Oral Traditions , and partly from other holy Books ( so esteemed ) which they received with the like veneration as the other , is likewise to be gathered from their teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of men . ( Which have ever used to be written . ) And if Andradius ( against whom the Author writeth ) cannot bear the indignity , that their Traditions should be compared with the Pharisees , which were but false and feigned ; whereas theirs are derived by a continual succession from the Apostles themselves ; the Iews , saith he , will be as ready to pretend as much from Moses and the Prophets by a like succession . And if the Talmud had not first been written , I should rather have thought that the Rabbins had learned from the Pontificians , than these from them , — Ita a●tem Commentum suum concinnant Talmudici : They feign , that at Mount Sinai , Moses received f●om God , not only what he wrote , Verum etiam mysticam , & arcanam Expositionem Legis , but also a certain mystical and secret Exposition of the Law , which he neither wrote nor would have written , but to be delivered by word of mouth from one to another , and so to be transmitted to Posterity . And they say further , that both of ●hese are the Word of God , and to be received with the like veneration ...... And that after these had been long transmitted from the Priests and Prophets , ( whose succession they name ) they were thought fit ( at last ) to be compiled in the Talmud . ..... Unto whose Expositors the poor Iews are in such bondage , that they must believe against their own sense and reason , whatsoever their Rabbins do impose upon them . And why the Iews are so zealous of this Talmud , may be learned from the circumstance of time when it was compiled : for when the Iews saw many of their Nation converted to Christianity , by the evidence of the Scripture ; the Rabbins about the year of Christ 150. began to write the Talmud , comprizing their Traditions . Finding the success whereof , they after infinitely encre●sed the number of them : so that few Jews were after that converted to Christianity . So that in the opinion of Cheminitius all the errours and perverseness of the ancient Pharisees are couched in the Talmud ( which is one of the most ancient Iewish Books we have ) The Talmud it self has been replenished and corrupted more than it was at first . All that is in it ( howsoever ) has given Rules and Bounds to all the Rabbins that have written since ; from whence it follows , that we can hardly tell wherein to believe or trust the most applauded of them . They contradict the Scriptures ( often ) in relating of their own Customes , and one another no less ; and if any man thinks to illustrate one part of a Text by some of their suggestions , he may be as apt to leave the other darker than before . In fine , the Iews of later times know what they know of their own Rites by learning only , and have ever had concurrent Christians to study with them , and exceed them , as the more concerned to gain such knowledge , and to gainsay such friends as they . But we are no such Enemies unto Learning ( howsoever ) though we cannot get the light we seek from them , as to burn their Books for a blaze at once , and after that to stand in need of such a Guide as we might have gotten ( rather than none at all ) in the Quarters of an Enemy . And thus have I endeavoured ( not to say all that may be said , but ) to travel through a Question that hath sometimes puzzled me before ; and which being well cleared ( if I have attained unto that happiness ) may prevent perplexities and more digressions , that may else be●al me hereafter in my proceeding : But chiefly upon Cunaeus's encouragement , ( who has offered fine things upon the same Subject ) viz. That this Point is of great moment towards the interpretation of the whole Bible , and such as doth deserve to be discuss'd with diligence . CHAP. XXXII . Shewing the providence of God over his people Israel , according to the Blessing promised of their multiplying ; in respect of fruitfulness , and of protection in Egypt ( however hardly used otherwise ) from Famine , War and Pestilence . That the indulgence of Concubines might contribute much to the number of their encrease . That in an ordinary way of computatio● ( without flying unto Twins , or any other miracles ) out of seventy persons only , the Muster-Roll of Moses might easily arise . NOW when it had pleased God to sever from the Tents of Abraham and Isaac whom he pleased , and to plant them so as they might either afflict or befriend the House of Israel in the times to come ; he brought the whole House of Iacob , by another Providential Famine , into Egypt , whither he had brought Ioseph ( as if he had been but a lost man ) before , to provide for all the rest . It is said , that all the souls that came with Iacob into Egypt , which came out of his loins , besides Iacob's Sons Wives , were sixty six . And the Sons of Joseph , which were born to him in Egypt , were two souls : All the souls of the house of Iacob ; which came into Egypt , were seventy . And again , Thy Father went do●n into Egypt with seventy persons [ or names ] and now the Lord thy God hath made thee as the Stars of Heaven for multitude . Neither doth Iosephus reckon more . But when they came forth of Egypt ( after two hundred and nine years ) the Children of Israel , being numbred from twenty years old and upward , were found to be six hundred and three thousand , five hundred and fifty , all able to go forth to Battel : ( Judge how many more the Women and Children might be . ) And when the Tribe of Levi was numbred by it self , every Male from a month old and upward , it amounted to twenty two thousand more , ( to which we may allow as many Females ; ) so that we can hardly imagine less than a million and an half of these people in the whole . And how this account may be stated to ● reasonable man ( to save him the labour of adjusting it ) I have begg'd the assistance of a learned Gentleman , who hath obliged us both with this return . Which I give you clearly in the Postscript , as I received it , though it seem in divers passages to contravene some of my own opinions , as they are here and there delivered in these Papers . See the Postscript , where the Contents intended in this Chapter are annexed . CHAP. XXXIII . That a great number came along with the house of Jacob ; for Abraham had a great Train , Isaac more , Jacob all they left , and such as he brought with him from Padan-aram . Six Objections propounded : And two fundamental Arguments for the Thesis . BUT if all that be not ample satisfaction , what If I should pro-pound another thought ( fortified with its probabilities ) unto other searching Spirits ? Which is , that the seventy names or persons were only of such as came out of Iacobs loins , Heads of Families , which were to be the Princess of Israel ; and that indeed a great number came along with them . We cannot but remember what a Band of his own trained Servants , bred in his own Tents , Abraham carried forth against the Kings , when he rescued Lot ; and no doubt he left others with the Women and the Cattel at home . It seems to have been about thirty years after , that Abraham being much more en●reased in wealth and power , was sought unto by Abimelech to enter into League with him . And it was about a hundred years after ( if my Chronologer guess well ) before another Abimelech entred into the like Covenant with Isaac ; when he sowed in the land , ( which is more than Abraham had done ) and received in the same year an hundred fold , and waxed great , and went forwards , and grew until he became very great : for he had possession of flocks , and herds , and great store of Servants ; so that the Philistines envied him . And as for Iacob , he returned out of Padan-aram ( or Mesopotamia ) to his aged Father Isaac at Hebron , where Abraham and Isaac ( for the most part ) so-journed , with much more Cattel , and with two Bands in his Retinue ; together with both his Wives ( only Rachel fell in travail of Benjamin , and dyed by the way , falling short of Hebron no more than Bethlehem is distant from it ) and his twelve Sons , besides his Daughter Dinah ( mentioned , it may be , on occasion only , and that Iacob might have more ‖ ; at least by Bilhah and Zilpah , the Concubines that his Wives had given him out of their emulation unto one another : ) So that after Isaac's death , he must needs be , not only enriched with the inheritance but , powerful in the number of * all his people . A specimen whereof we have in the attempt of Simeon and Levi ( alone by themselves ) who took each man his sword and came upon the City of Shechem boldly , and slew all the males ; unless any man will have it so , that two single men stormed a walled City , and put all the males to the sword , who ( however sore ) might have been defended by the very Women in such a Case . Now as the absence of Iacob from his aged Father before was very long , ( some twenty years ) so it is not to be expected that Isaac's days should be extended much longer by the Providene of God ; since the Heir of the Promise was restored home to him . Of all the Patriarchs , none made so little noise in the World as Isaac , none lived either so privately , or so innocently . He used no Concubine , although Rebekkah was twenty years barren ...... And now that Rebekkah's Darling was come back , he left all to him in the hundred and eightieth year of his life . Which Iacob managed , not above ten years longer ( upon account ) before he was enforced by God's Providence to descend into Egypt with all his house . The Question is , Whether they were but seventy Males in all ( to wave the Question , whether they were so many , for some are of opinion that some of Iacob's Sons Sons are reckoned by anticipation , and might for all that be born in Egypt , after they were planted in the Land of Goshen . ) Let us hear what may be said on either side . And first , that they were but seventy precisely , or thereabouts , as S t Stephen reckoneth . For , First , It is safe to keep to the Letter of the Scripture ( in Historical Passages especially ) and not to wire-draw it , or extend it more than needs ; for fear of wresting , or of worser consequences that may be drawn from more remote constructions , than from the very words . Now of Iacob and his Sons it is expresly said , First , That Iacob sent his ten Sons ( and no more ) into Egypt , to buy Corn ; by which it may seem , that he had no such number to spare as hath been suggested : Or that his Sons were but as the rest , by the errand that they went on . Secondly , When Ioseph returned their monies , it was to every man in the mouth of his Sack ; and being searched , upon their second return ( when they had Benjamin with them ) the search began from the eldest to the youngest , and could proceed no further , because ( it seems ) they were no more . Thirdly , Their dealing was for little , since so few Asses could carry what they came for ; and their Sacks not so full , but that they could contain Provender besides : proving nothing else , but that these being laden , the poor Ass-Riders must go on foot home . Fourthly , By Iacob's mean Present , and Iudah's fear of losing the Asses , when they were taken , it seems they were but poor ; and so when Ioseph returned an answerable Present with Waggons to his Father , to bring him into Egypt Fifthly , Besides , that there maybe no doubt of the number , it is carefully recorded how many came with Iacob , and were there before , viz. seventy souls . And so Iosephus , Jewish Antiquary , doth account , and no more . Sixthly , In fine , it would be a strange extravagancy to put so many Supernumeraries ( of we know not what Aliens ) unto this account ; which must needs reckon them to Israel , and the Seed of Abraham , ( and so to the only Church of God ; ) or else give some other clear account what became of them at the last . Secondly , Notwithstanding which Objections , we must hold , That Israel descended into Egypt with more than seventy person , by these two Arguments ( which will be proved by answering the Objections only ) 1. Because he descended with all his houshold . 2. Because he neither could nor ought to part with his circumcised Servants , and their Wives and Children . CHAP. XXXIV . Certain Corollary Rules preliminary to the answering of the first Objection . That Jacob sent his Sons to Joseph , as a foreign Prince , for a favour ; but not unaccompanied ; considering , 1. Their concern ; 2. What weight of money they might take with them in so many Bundles , if only to lade ten Asses . 3. What the length and hazard of the way . The four next Objections briefly answered . TO the first good Rule , these others may be joined as succedaneous Corollaries . First , That the sense of the Scripture is its own authority , more than the Critical position of the words ; warranted by several Quotations in the New Testament , out of the Old. Secondly , That necessary consequence is all one with the Text it self ; neither was a good Inference ever sleighted . Thirdly , That in such Historical Passages of Scriptures as do veil ( or are invelop'd with ) a mystery , we are , in a manner , directed to a further indagation by S t Paul , where he tells us , ( what else we should have hardly found ) that one of Abraham's Sons by a Bond-maid , and another by a free Woman , did by an Allegory exhibit to us the difference of state betwixt Mount Sinai and the New Ierusalem , or betwixt the Law and Grace , Bondage and Liberty . Fourthly , That by comparing Passages , one Scripture doth best expound another . After which Preliminaries , I address my self to answer the first Objection , thus : First , It is still to be remembered , that it is above two hundred and ten years since Abram armed three hundred and eighteen trained Servants born in his own house , to pursue the Kings that had taken Lot Prisoner : And if seventy Persons only in two hundred and ten years ( or thereabouts ) might become such an incredible number , ( as the possibility hath been demonstrated ) what may we think of three hundred and eighteen more , in the same Family , Partakers of the like Blessings , so far as their encrease was the encrease of Abraham's wealth and strenght ? But ( not to be entangled with too many difficulties ) to think modesty , Iacob could scarce have less than a thousand souls within his Tents . Secondly , But why ( then ) did he send his ten Sons only , with their ten Asses , to buy Corn for them all ? Could they bring enough ? Or did they only bring for Iacob's own Tent , and leave the rest to live on Roots , or Nuts and Almonds , with which ( it seems , by the Present , that ) the Land abounded ? You must remember Ioseph's Dreams , that their sheaves should do obeysance to his sheaf , and the Sun and the Moon and the eleven Stars also ; and then you must consider his present state , and the condition of all the Nations thereabouts . Ioseph was advanced to be chief Minister of State under Pharaoh ; and according to his own advice , he was appointed to take up the fifth part of the Land of Egypt , for seven years together , of plenty , against seven other to ensue of certain famine , according to the interpretation of Pharaoh's Dream . And when the famine came in all parts , Iacob heard that there was Corn in Egypt ( for Ioseph had gathered Corn as the sand of the Sea , very much , until he left numbring , for it was without number ) but not to be had , save only from the hands of Pharaoh , or his chief Minister ; and therefore ( you may know ) he sent his ten Sons ( and not his Servants ) to do their obeysance for Corn ; But not without Attendance , as we may easily collect from divers circumstances : as , 1. From the Concern that they had ; 2. From the money that they carried with them ; 3. From the hazard of the Journey , and the length thereof . As for their Concern , they had every man his own Family , and did not always eat in Iacob's presence : Nor could they live on Nuts or Almonds any more than the Egyptians on their Fruits , who were forced to sell their Lands , and their Persons too , to Pharaoh , that they might have Bread. For their money , every of the ten carried a Bundle in his Bag : Think you that a Bundle of Silver ( as money went then ) was but enough to buy one Asses burthen ? Weigh the Bundle , and the burthen , and consider ! For their Journey , it could be little less than two hundred miles directly from Hebron unto Caire : If they brought but each man an Ass-Load , what might they spend by the way ? Or what might they have to divide amongst them when they came home ? Certainly so little , that there would have been no end of going or coming ; whereas ( by virtue of what they brought ) they were able to subsist ( it seems ) a good while e're Iacob could be prevailed with to venture Benjamin , though Simeon lay at stake till their return . And for the way , it was never to be passed without a lusty Caravan , for fear of the Ishmaelites , ( of whose Progenitor it was said , That he should be a wild man , and that his hand should be against every man , and every mans hand against him ) and the Arabians , who wanted Cornespecially . And now the Answer is the easier to the second , viz. That in the search they went not so much by Pole , as by Companies , the Heads of which were the Leaders and the Purse-bearers for all the rest of their Retinue . And in Benjamin's own Sack ( as it was designed ) the prize was found . To the third , we answer , That if there were any Servants at all , there might be Asses enough , so that the Masters needed not to foot it back , or to return home with so slender provision , as is imagined . And if there were no Servants , Ioseph gave his Brothers not a little trouble when he gave them Waggons also , without any one man ( mentioned ) to assist them . It may seem rather by Iudah's fear about the losing of the Asses that they were not a few , than that his Father was poor ; and for Iacob's Present , let it be compared with other Presents of the same time ; nay , with Abigail's a long time after , when one would think that she should have stretched to pacifie the wrath of David . That the seventy are recounted only to keep the Genealogy of the Head● of Israel , Wherein the Servants had no share . CHAP. XXXV . The last Objection answered , by shewing , That the circumcised Servants were part of Jacob's household , that could not be parted withal , without loss , scandal and prejudice to the Church of God ; as being , 1. Children of the faith of Abraham . 2. Graffed into his Seed by intermarriages . 3. Distinct in Genealogy . 4. Yet ( possibly ) some snare unto the Israelites , by retaining a smack of their old Idolatry . NOW I cannot be unsensible how loth some will be to admit many rude Herdsmen ( who were still apt to be at debate with their Neighbours ) into the number of Abraham's Seed , the only Church of God ; lest it should be prophaned by them , and prove an interruption to the promise : yet I must needs shew them that these were no Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel , but were really constitutive members of that growing Body . 1. I think it will not be questioned but that these were part of Iacob's house or houshold , who dwelt in the Tents of Iacob : and then it is expresly said , that Israel took his journey with all that he had . And Ioseph said unto his Brethren , and unto his Fathers house , ( distinct from them ) I will go up , and say unto Pharaoh , My Brethren and my Fathers house , which were in the Land of Canaan , are come unto me . And the men are Shepherds ; for their trade hath been to feed Cattel , and they have brought their Flocks and their Herds ( more than twelve men could manage ) and all that they have , that ye may dwell in the Land of Goshen , which was a fertile Tract about the mouth of the Nile , or the tongue of the Red Sea , nearest unto Canaan , and neglected by the Egyptians . For every Shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians . Out of superstition ( say some ) because they worshipped some fort of Beasts ; and ( say others ) out of niceness , because they more affected Towns and Trades . And Ioseph placed his Father and his Brethren in the best of the Land , in the Land of Rameses , as Pharaoh had commanded . And he nourished them and all his Fathers houshold with bread , according to their Families . Which shews that some of the Servants also were of some account , and had their own Families , enough to people the rest of Goshen : So that Ioseph wisely kept them at a distance from the sight of Pharaoh , for fear of State-jealousie . 2. As these could not be left behind without loss , so neither w●s it lawful for Iacob or his Sons to turn them off , or abandon them . For their Circumcision was an indelible Character ; so that it would have been a reproach to Israel to have exposed any of his unto the Heathen , or to have cast them into temptation of revolting to Idolatry , after once they had been joined to the Church by the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith , even of the same faith with Abraham , in whose Seed all the Nations of the Earth were to be blessed ; and these ( in particular ) as the first-fruits of the Gentiles , Children of the faith of Abraham , and Heirs of the better part of the promise ; and not excluded from their lots in the other part neither , as we trust to shew hereafter . Neither was there need to put off these for any misdemeanour , since every Head of an house had power of life and death , and other punishments , and that without appeal to the Supreme , as is manifest in the Case of Iudah and Tamar , when it was told Iudah , that she was with Child of whoredom ; saith he , Bring her forth , and let her be burnt . And though specious things are said about the ancient use of Excommunication in the Church ; yet it seems to me , that hitherto ( and long after ) there was no cutting off from the people , but by death : wherefore an Angel met Moses with a drawn Sword , and sought to have slain him , for his neglect of circumcising of his Child . 3. Nor let any one admire at this that follows . They became the Children of Abraham by a kind of adoption or insition into the Stock of Abraham , by marrying of the Daughters of Israel ; and so , in course of time , they became one Kindred with them . For who should they give them to besides ? We cannot give our Sister to one that is uncircumcised ( said the Sons of Iacob ) for that were a reproach unto us . But if ye will be as we be , then will we give our Daughters unto you , and take your Daughters unto us , and we will dwell with you , and we will become one people . Trouble not your self about disparagement ; for they were bene nati , well-born , who were born in the same house ; emancipate also ( tanquam liberi aut liberti ) by Circumcision , and they lived all upon one Stock , so that there could not be any want amongst them . But the truth is , the dignity of Degree and Pedegree went to the prime Descendents male , from the Loins of the twelve Patriarchs of Israel ; which may seem to be the true reason why we find in the Genealogies such an account as this , viz. These are the Sons of Ephraim ( for instance of one ) after their families , of Shuthelah , the family of the Shuthalhites ; of Bacher , the family of the Bachrites ; of Taban , the family of the Tabanites — And the rest are numbred in gross only , to be in all thirty two thousand , and six hundred Families . But the Patriarchs themselves were put to harder shift for Wives ( even unto trespass ) because they could not take their Sisters , or go any more to their Unkles houses to be matched , as Isaac and Iacob had done before . It remaineth ( therefore ) that these Hinds , Husbandmen , or Stewards ( such as Eliezer was to Abraham ) were far from being Supernumeraries , or Aliens from the Covenant , or Church of God ; and that they never went out of it after once they were called or brought in , and joined to it by the sign of Circumcision . Only this may be doubted , viz. That these people ( taken out of Chaldea , Syria , Arabia , or any other parts ) and joined only by Circumcision , ( some of them ( no doubt ) by compulsion , lest others should be cut off for them ) might not prove so good Members as could be wished ; but they retained still a smack , and had an hankering after their old Idolatry . Which sin continued uncontroulably amongst all , ( one seducing another ) till the captivity of the Tribes : And after their return , when Hyrcanus forced the Edomites to be circumcised , he prepared a way for Herod to come and to subvert their whole Estate . But however it was for that , God himself foresaw these inconveniences ; and yet he would not prevent them : as some of the Separation think they are able to do in their Societies , by so often drilling of them , that at last they lose their first matter , order and consistency . CHAP. XXXVI . That the simplicity of the Scripture ( contrary to the Romances of the Heathen Writers ) maketh little state of great Secular matters , relating to the Church ; Shewed by instances of Abraham and Jacob ; yet Joseph ( as a Statesman in Egypt ) observed Ceremonies in the reception and introduction of his Father and Brethren . That the Israelites built not in Egypt , but by constraint . WE may see ( in part ) by this how little state the simplicity of the Scripture maketh of great matters , in things Secular , that are incident unto God's Elect ; who are also as humble in themselves as Servants in all Conditions . For after Abraham had obtained a famous Victory over four Kings , that had ( immediately ) before been themselves victorious over five ; we find him sitting at his Tent-door in the heat of the day , and he espied three men , and when he saw them , he ran to meet them from the Tent-door , and bowed himself toward the ground , and said , My Lord , if now I have found favour in thy sight , pass not away , I pray thee , from thy Servant . Let a little water , I pray you , be fetched , and wash your feet , and rest your selves under the Tree . And I will fetch a morsel of bread . And Abraham hastened into the Tent unto Sarah , and said , Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal , knead it , and make Cakes upon the hearth , ( as if poor Sarah had never a Maid to help her . ) And Abraham stood by them under the Tree , while they did eat — And after they had eaten , Abraham went with them to bring them on the way . And when he was to bury Sarah , and to sue for a Sepulchre , he bowed himself to the people of the Land , even to the Children of Heth , who complemented him , saying , Hear us , my Lord , Thou art a mighty Prince amongst us : In the choice of our Sepulchers bury thou thy dead . And when he sent Eliezer , the eldest Servant of his house , who ruled over all that he had , he set him forth ( indeed ) in some Equipage , with Jewels and other Presents , that he might obtain Rebekkah ( the Daughter of Bathuel , the Son of Nahor , the Brother of Abraham ) for his Son Isaac . But Rebekkah ( who was to be presented with Jewels , and had ten Camels to bring the errand to her ) is brought forth with a Pitcher on her shoulder , as ready to make the Camels drink as the Stranger , wondring at the fine things , and straining no courtesie about accepting of them ; but as coming and forward , as a simple Country-Lass : and her Brother Laban no less officious . Yet this Rebekkah it was that over-reached the Old Man Isaac , and her elder Son Esau. As for Iacob himself , though he went forth with his Fathers Blessing ( and not by meer flight ) on his way to Laban , his Mothers Brother ; yet we read neither of Ass , nor Camel , nor Camerade , nor any Servant , given to attend him in his journey ( which was for a Wife too , of one of Laban's Daughters ) and it was a long step further ( I trow ) than into Egypt . His adventures are thus described : first , He lighted on a certain place , and tarried there all night , because the Sun was set ; and he took the Stones of that place , and put them for his pillow , and lay down in that place to sleep . And by his vision there , it appears no otherwise , but that he was alone ; save only that it is said , He took the stone that he had put for his pillow , and set it up for a Pillar , and poured Oil upon the top of it . Which it is not like that he should carry about him , with other necessaries , unless you should imagine him to have been a kind of Walking-Tavern in a Wilderness . However , that we may be assured that Iacob was not overmuch accommodated ; let us hear his own devout acknowledgment unto God , I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies , and of all the truth which thou hast shewed unto thy Servant ; for with my Staff I passed over this Iordan , and now I am become two Bands . With a Staff ( saith Bishop Hall ) goes he over Iordan , doubtful and alone , ( not like the Son of Isaac ) and is fain to lye sub dio , when an Angel appeared to comfort him . And when Laban heard of his Sisters Son , he might expect a like Equipage as fetch'd Rebekkah — but now as he comes , so he uses him . He fled from a cruel Brother to a cruel Unkle : And as his Mother had cunningly ( by deceiving Isaac ) substituted him for Elder ; so now Laban as cunningly deceiveth him , by giving him the Elder instead of the Younger , whom he loved . Wonder not therefore that the Equipage of the Sons of Iacob , and of their whole descent into Egypt , is described without any pomp at all ; for so I could lead you forward to Gideon's Threshing-floor , and to David's Flocks ; and shew you how great thing were always veiled , and good men lowly : But these also were both of the principal Families of Israel , as may be observed hereafter . In the mean while , considering that Ioseph was a great Courtier , and a Politician ; and that we have observed his cunning in getting the fairest and fertilest Tract of the Land of Egypt , for his Father and his Brethren , on colour of their being Shepherds : In the next place let us note some of his Ceremonies ( howsoever ) whereby he wrought the ingratiating of his own Kindred with Pharaoh and his Egyptians . When his Brethren came first into his presence ( he knowing them , but they not him ) they bowed down themselves before him , with their faces to the Earth ; knowing what kind of reverence the proud Egyptians did expect . Then Ioseph remembred the dreams which he had dreamed of them , and like a crafty Statesman ( to get what he could out of them , and to make them fit for what he presently apprehended ) he spake roughly to them , and dealt as hardly , keeping them three days in ward , and speaking to them by an Interpreter ; nay , he took Simeon from them as a Pledge , and bound him before their eyes , and sent them away ( the first time ) in fear . But the next time , as soon as Ioseph spied Benjamin in their Company , he said to the Ruler of his house , Bring these men into my house , and slay , and make ready ( a place that will trouble them to answer , who would perswade us , as if the Egyptians then did eat no living Creature ) for these men shall dine with me at noon . Then he brought Simeon forth unto them ( who , no doubt , looked never the worse for his detainment ) And they made ready the Present against Ioseph came in , and made many low obeysances ; but he spake very kindly to them . Then that Ioseph might reserve Dignity to himself in the sight of the Egyptians , he caused himself to be served at a Table of State ; and that there might be no interfering , he caused his Brethren ( knowing their scruples about eating of unclean meats , or with uncircumcised men ) to be served at another Table by themselves : And knowing also the superstition of the Egyptians , ( who looked upon the Hebrews as prophane to them , as the Egyptians could be unto the Hebrews , if they did not also scorn them as Shepherds ) he caused them to eat in the same presence apart ; so that all admired , and there was no exception : but they drank and were merry , as Ioseph had ordered the matter ; and , no doubt , obtained favour with such Egyptian Courtiers as there were then admitted at the entertainment . Now when Iacob drew near unto Goshen , he thought it a fit Ceremony , for his part , to send Iudah before ( as his Harbinger ) to prepare for his reception by his Son Ioseph , in the state wherein he then was . And Ioseph hastened in his Chariot ( to meet him as a Prince ) and to do honour to his aged Father . And so instructed all his Company how to behave themselves before Pharaoh . But since policy did require that Pharaoh should not see all , civility and gratitude seemed to prompt Ioseph that he should present ( at least ) the chief of Pharaoh's beneficiaries before his face ; and he thought it enough to present but five of them to do or to receive that honour . It is like , the most personable and fashionable of his Brethren , that were the Sons of Rachel and Leah , rather than of the Concubines ; who , we are not to doubt , made their reverence unto Pharaoh , as the Master of the Egyptian Ceremonies should direct them . But as for his venerable Father , he brought him in , ( after them , which was ever esteemed the more honour ) and set him before Pharaoh . And Iacob blessed Pharaoh , ( after his own way , whether as a Prince , and Priest of the most High God , or as a congratulation only of his favours . ) And so when he went out ( after short communication by Interpreters ) he blessed him again . And Pharaoh accepted of their addresses , and seems to have been pleased and satisfied with them . Thus was the way made for Israel and his Children , to be planted in Rameses , ( which I take to be a fenced place , with a Territory , situate upon the jaws of the seven-mouth'd Nile ) and for his Hinds and Herdsmen to pitch where they liked in the Province of Goshen , So the former of these needed Tents no longer ; for when Ioseph sent for them , he had said from Pharaoh's mouth , Come unto me , and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt . Regard not your stuff ; for the good of all the Land of Egypt is yours . 'T is true , the place might be called Rameses , by anticipation , as that which was called Luz , was after called Bethel , by Iacob's nomination ; but that there was an habitable Town or City before Iacob came thither , I doubt not ; both because of Ioseph's recommendation of his father to a good place , and because of the situation of it , as a necessary Fortress against Out-livers of another Nation . However , some are of opinion , that the Israelites themselves might build that City ( as the English did Calais ) while they were in Egypt , ( before the Task-masters set them to work to fortifie it more , as a Treasure-City , and a Bridle to themselves , from escaping , as well as to keep out others ) against common sence ; for throughout their prosperity they were instructed that the Land of Canaan was their inheritance , expecting ( daily ) as good a Call to return out of Egypt , as ever they had to come thither . Said not God unto Iacob at his first descent , I will go down with thee into Egypt , and I will also surely bring thee up again ? And said not Ioseph on his death-bed unto his Brethren , I dye , and God will surely visit you , and bring you out of this Land unto the Land which he sware unto Abraham , Isaac and Iacob . Ye shall carry up my bones from hence . Which he did by faith ( as S t Paul witnesseth ) bearing up the like in his Brethren and Posterity . In this estate the Children of Israel lived in prosperity the remaining seventeen years of Iacob's life , and about fifty four more of Ioseph's , through the Reign of more Kings than one , as Historians tell us . ( Even as it happened ( after ) unto Daniel , for the sake of the same people , when they were a second time to be redeemed from their bondage . ) As large a time of felicity as God doth usually grant to his Church at once ; that their hearts should neither fail , nor wax gross ▪ But before any change arrive , we will leave them in their best condition , in a foreign Countrey , only eying in the close what their spiritual state was , as the only remaining visible or ( at least conspicuous Church of God under Heaven . CHAP. XXXVII . Th● Israelites had toleration in Egypt , as to offer Sacrifices during Ioseph's life ; Afterwards , denied them . That contrary Religions are sooner tolerated than diversities of the same . That there was but one Religion in Satan's Kingdom , how many Gods soever the Heathen worshipped . Jews ( at this day ) tolerated much at the like rate that they were before . THERE are three Questions emergent here , if I may dare to handle the Argument that I have in hand , viz. first , Toleration ; secondly , Division ; and , thirdly , The Unity of the Church . The first from the indulgence of Egypt , during Ioseph's life ; The second from the piety of Ioseph's house , while separated from his Brethren ; And the third , from the adoption of the whole house of Iacob ( whereas but one of Abraham or Isaac's Sons were comprehended in the blessing ) even of the Sons of Bilhah and Zilpah , in opposition unto Hagar and Keturah . It is not only said , that every Shepherd was an abomination unto the Egyptians ; but also , that the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews ; for that is an abomination to the Egyptians ; as if it were so to those , more than to the Hebrews to eat with them . I would gladly know ( then ) how they could hold any time together : for I take it for granted , that Iacob would rather starve than want an Altar at Rameses , or some other part of Goshen ; it being the first thing he did to erect one ( and to purge his house from Idols ) in other places . Or how the Egyptians could bear their Sacrifices better than their Trade or Diet ? I cannot doubt but that there were Egyptians in Goshen before a fertil Plat , and a Frontier ; and some of these , Shepherds , and Hersmen too , ( however scorned by the Citizens ) because Pharaoh had said unto Ioseph , In the best of the Land make thy Father and Brethren to dwell ; in the Land of Goshen let them dwell : and if thou knowest any man of activity * amongst them , then make them Rulers over my Cattel ; Which whether they consumed in Egypt , or sold abroad , ( as the Jews after did their Swine ) it matters not . But this was enough to ground such a Commerce as was fit to hold the Israelites and Egyptians in the fairer terms ; especially since no man durst to mutter against the Kindred of Ioseph , ( that came in with so high a hand of grace and favour , and ) who himself had preserved alive the people of Egypt . Neither is it to be doubted , but that these Parts were at this time more populous than Canaan , by reason of fertility , and the multitude of the Sons of Ham , that betook themselves this way ( as fast as they encreased ) from the Mountains of Armenia . We must also suppose , that the Egyptians ( and all other Nations ) offered Sacrifices * , as well as Israel ; ( for both Adam and Noah taught all their Sons alike to sacrifice . ) And this perhaps might be a worser eye-sore to the Egyptians than any other , the Israelites worshipping another God before their faces , in another manner than they did ; since the Rites were changed wheresoever Idolatry came instead of the right Worship . Now to this it may be said , that two different Religions were always accounted more tolerable than the same divided . For such would be sure to go far enough apart , and not to interfere with one another . Nay , all Religions ( besid●s the true ) which had Satan for their Moderator , agreed well enough with one another . As in the Roman practice , there are Churches dedicated by divers names in sundry Regions , which have Reliques , Miracles and Altars with indulgences annexed to them ; so that there is curiosity in pilgrimage and merit too : more particularly , the places that bear the superscription of the Blessed Virgin , are the most celebrated and visited : for their stateliest Churches are lightly hers , and in Churhes hers the fairest Altars . Where one prayeth before the Crucifix , two before her Image ; where one voweth to Christ , ten vow unto her , and not so much to her self , as to some peculiar Image , which for some select Vertue or Grace , together with greater power of operation of Miracles , they chiefly serve , as the glorious Lady of Loretto , the devout Lady of Rome , the miraculous Lady of Provenzano , the Annunciata of Florence ; whose Churches are so stuffed with vowed Presents and Memories , that they are fain to hang their Cloisters also , and Church-yards with them . Then as their vows are , such are their pilgrimages , &c. In like manner , , the Heathens had always some sumptuous Temples , or wondrous Stories , to draw Strangers and devotion , and to raise a name to the places where they lived . If they would see a stately Structure ( compared with the Temple of Solomon by some Writers ) and a wonder by report , What man is there that knoweth not how that the City of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great Goddess Diana , and of the Image that fell down from Iupiter ? If they would be cured , they must go to Aesculapius or Apollo ( chuse they whether ) or to any other God or Goddess that had a same , whether in their own or in another Countrey , for some particular aids or remedies . If they would have counsel and success , ‖ these were reserved chiefly unto Iupiter ( in great Cases , and ) in those few places where Satan would vouchsafe to speak by his Oracles . But it was observed that Venus had more Votaries than any other ; whether Men or Women would be married , or obtain any other Love ; or be fruitful , or be barren ; or agree ( after they had fallen out ) * ad Sacellum Deae viri-place , which is described in Valerius Maximus . Wherefore , though some Nations of the Heathens intituled themselves to particular Gods or Goddesses , and so preferred them above others , as their Protectors ; yet they never opposed or vilified the Gods of other Countries , when they came into the places where they were adored , ( although both at Rome and Athens they were fain sometimes to take caution against admitting too many Foreign Religions within their own Walls ) whereof I will alledge but two Instances , for fear of an impertinent digression . When Xenophon had returned safe with his Army out of the Locks and Bars of Persea and was now within the protection of the Grecians , he consulted with a famous Soothsayer about his Affairs ( having always been a superstitious and industrious man ) why he should get nothing howsoever : His Soothsayer advised him to sacrifice to Iupiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( or the Gentle ) who was adored in those Parts : And after this service performed unto that Idol ( of a fine Title ) Xenophon struck into a small and short exploit , and enriched himself more than by all his former Travels . Which he imputed unto that direction . And of Pompey the Great , Plutarch tells us , that he enriched and adorned the Temples of the Gods in the Eastern Parts with his Spoils ; and Iosephus , that he not only abstained from spoiling the Temple at Ierusalem , when he had taken it by Storm ( through the reverence he had of God ) but also caused such as had the charge of the Temple , to purge the same , and to offer Sacrifices unto God the next day , according to the Law ; whereof we shall have more to say hereafter in its proper place ; where we shall observe ( that according unto Solomon's prayer ) Alexander and divers other Princes also were admitted to offer their own Sacrifies or Oblations there . But the Question of toleration returneth still for a fuller Answer . It seems , that they enjoyed it no longer than Ioseph's life : for the first message that Moses brings to Pharaoh complains of this oppression , and demands redress of it , Let us go three days journey into the Wilderness , that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God ; lest he fall upon us with pestilence , and with the sword , for having thus long deferred it out of fear . And when Pharaoh ( after dreadful judgments ) would have yielded that they should sacrifice in the Land ; Moses replyed , So shall we sacrifice to the Lord our God the abomination of the Egyptians , and will they not stone us ? When the same people were in Babylon ( where Sacrifices ceased with the Temple , so that they were the less to be observed ) they were sometimes overlooked , and sometimes not ; even as they are at this day in Turky and Christendom ; whereas the Turkish Mussulman hates the Persian Mahometan , even more than either Jew or Christian. and the Papists would extirpate Protestants , if they were able ; and inferiour Sects ( howsoever plausibly they speak when they are low ) would even do the like by one another . Only our Mother Church of England is of no Sect at all . CHAP. XXXVIII . How Joseph might live in Pharaoh's house , And be free from Egyptian superstition . What private Religion he might have ; What godly people near him ? What Vnion he had with the Church Catholick , or his Fathers house . That he lived by faith , like Daniel in Babylon ; yet the want of Ordinances such a trouble to him as to David . 1. IF any one admire how Ioseph could live so many years , first , in Potiphar's , and then in Pharaoh's house , so as to escape the Egyptian idolatry or Superstitions ; they may observe , that he was noted in both places to have a Diviner Spirit in him than the Magicians ; and so to have been left the more to himself in Egypt , as Daniel ( after ) was in Babylon , till a particular charge was brought against him concerning his Religion . Nay , Ioseph's being as Pharaoh and a Father unto Pharaoh ( after he came to Court ) exempted him from any jurisdiction or inspection whatsoever ; for who durst say unto Pharaoh , What dost thou ? 2. If it be further questioned , What private Religion Ioseph could have unto himself , or what exercise or practice of it , in the house of Pharaoh ? Could he have any private Altar ? Or , if he had , any one to serve at that Altar , or to worship at it , besides himself ? Or , could he have any Closets adorned with the Reliques of Noah , Sem , Eber , Abraham , &c or any other holy things ? or what did he do ? I answer , First , He did as his Father Iacob had done before in the idolatrous house of Laban ; where I cannot think that he either had or needed any Altar , or any other circumstances of devotion . In his way to whose house ( notwithstanding ) he set up the stone that he used as a pillow , for a pillar , and poured Oil upon the top of it , and called the name of the place Bethel , that is , the house of God ; vowing that it should be so to him , if God should restore him safe to his Father's house , and that he would offer the tenth unto him , of all that God should give him ; as if he would make that Stone an Altar , and that place such a place of worship , as Gilgal and Shiloh after were . But this Pillar ( you see ) was erected pro futuro only . Secondly , Yet I doubt not but Ioseph might have erected an Altar of testimony or thanksgiving , or for Peace-offerings ( at the least ) as others did upon special occasions , ( before and after the Law ) even till the building of the Temple , if such occasion were . But we read not of it ; peradventure God would not suffer his own name to be prophaned by setting up an abomination to the Egyptians before their faces , nor Ioseph's service , to be prejudiced thereby . For although the Father of a Family was the ordinary Priest of his own house ; yet any man apart ( as Iacob ) might erect an Altar , and offer his thanksgivings thereupon , using such as he had about him like so many Levites ▪ all sanctified by the Sacrifice , if the occasions of the Altar and the Sacrifice were right . Thirdly , If Ioseph had any outward part of Devotion to accomplish , it may be he might have found some ( of his Retainers ) not unmeet to be assisting to him . For in his handling of his Brethren ( while they took him for an Egyptian ) he said unto them the third day , This do and live ; for I fear God : As if he would have them think no other , but that there was some piety in Egypt as well as amongst them whom he knew . And when they made Apology unto the Steward of Ioseph's house about their money , the Steward said unto them , Peace be to you , fear not : your God , the God of your Father hath given you treasure in your Sacks , I had your money . As if this Steward could speak the language of Israel , and was not unacquainted with the God of Iacob . Fourthly , It may seem that Ioseph worshipped God with the like respect to his Fathers house , and the Sacrifices offered there ; and with the like respect unto the Land of promise , as Daniel did in Babylon , when he opened his Window towards the Temple , and prayed for the restitution that was promised : in the mean while they were both abridged of the outward Ordinances , and lived by their faith in the promises of God. We have spoken enough of Daniel before ; S t Paul is as clear for Ioseph when he saith , By faith Ioseph when he was a dying made mention of the departing of the Children of Israel , and gave commandment concerning his bones ; reckoning him among the rest , who through faith obtained a good report , not having yet received the promise . Fifthly , Nay , by the History it is manifest , that as Moses by faith when he was come to years refused to be called the Son of Pharaohs Daughter , esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt ; so it had fared with Ioseph before . All the pleasures of that Heathen Court , and all the submissions of that Heathen People , infused no other satisfaction into his spirit , but that he must be contented ( that he might be Protector of Israel ) to abide without , as an Alien from his Fathers house , and to be deprived of the holy Ordinances of God : For when he was about to dye , he said unto his Brethren , I dye , and God will surely visit you , and bring you out of this Land ( of bondage , where I have been detained and afflicted with you , in expectation of the promise made unto our Fathers ) unto the Land which he sware to Abraham , to Isaac , and to Iacob : God will surely visit you ; and he took an Oath of them about carrying his bones from thence . Nor was David in his worst Quarters when he said , Wo is me that I sojourn in Mesech , that I dwell in the Tents of Kedar . For although good men may be saved without the Ordinances , where God himself debarrs them ; yet they cannot live comfortably without them : Which they may do well to consider , who ( if they have but a reasonable excuse for it ) had as lief be planted in the utmost Indies , as in the midst of Churches . So we see what union Ioseph held in his separation both with the Church Catholick of all Believers , and also with the house of Iacob in particular . CHAP. XXXIX . Of the Vnity of the Church in respect to Election , in the general ( perplexities noted ) more especially in respect to the house of Jacob , wherein all were chosen ; whereas in the house of Abraham and Isaac , there was but one received as Heir of the promise . Reasons to be given for their rejection : and so , might have been in Jacob's house too , whose errours are recorded . NOW concerning the Unity of the Church , this hath been taken for a general Rule , That the Church is as large as the Election , and the Election so determined within its Bounds or spaces , that ( extra Ecclesia●● non est salus ) without the Church there is no salvation . Which occasioning a distinction betwixt the Church visible and invisible , it hath made the wide World the Subject of some mens charity , as much as any Church visible ; the rather because some men think there may be an inward Call by the Spirit , where there in so outward Call of the Church visible . And so for Election ; Whereas S t Paul gives us ground for two distinctions uncontroulable , viz. 1. Of a general Election both of Jew and Gentile , unto the state of Grace , by believing of the Gospel , answering to the Election of the Jews alone ( from the times of the Law ) unto special Covenant and priviledge . 2. Of a certain Election of persons ( not so large as the other ) unto eternal life , according to the foreknowledge of God. This hath occasioned the Schoolmen and the modern Polemical Divines ( by scanning of the terms , and sisting what might be drawn from them ) to come in with a distinction between ( like a kind of superfo●tation ) of particular Election absolute or conditional ( for of the general Election of some people more than others unto special means , they dare not question over boldly ; or enter farther into this Secret of Providence , than Travellers dare into that Stove of S t Germans in Italy , the mouth wherof I have been in ; only , some presume to say , that there are sufficient means granted unto all ) which modern distinction of the Popish Schoolmen , and our Common-place-men , hath raised much stir and heats both in the Roman and Reformed Churches : For if the●e be an absolute positive Election of a ●ew , the Question is not so much , Whether it be without respect of persons , as without respect of sin ? If there be a particular Election of persons , conditionally only ; then , Whether Election hangeth in suspense ? or , being from eternity , proceedeth according to God's foreknowledge ( vel saltem per scientiam mediam ) with a respect to his own Decree , according to works foreseen , of merits condign or congruous , ( as the Schoolmen speak ) or according to faith or Evangelical obedience ( at the least ) foreseen and foreknown ; which pleaseth some of ours well enough , though they have much difficulty and difference in the explaining of their meanings ? In the mean while perhaps there cannot be much more proved from S t Paul , than that Election beareth no respect to the Works of the Law , by which neither Jew nor Gentile can be justified ; but that both must be brought to cry , Grace , Grace , unto the Gospel . But the Bounds of my Discourse confine themselves naturally within the general Election of Grace , whereby it pleased God to chuse some particular persons to be the Body Constitutive of his Church , to the exclusion of ●●hers , that might seem to have stood as fair as they . If it be asked , Why Abel was accepted , and Cain not ? it is ready to be answered , That Abel offered a better Sacrifice , and that from a better mind ; wherein God himself is our Warrant : for he said unto him , Why art thou wroth ? and why is thy countonance fallen ? If thou doest well , shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well , sin lyeth at the door . If it be asked again , Why was Sem chosen rather than Ham and Iaphet ? A reason may be given against Ham ; but there is no manifest reason against Iaphet , but the Oeconomy or Providence of God , secundum beneplacitum : Whoever presseth further , may engage himself beyond recovery , unless he do content himself in this , that there was a time to be ( when it pleased God ) that the fulness of the Gentiles should come in . So a reason may be given against Ishmael , He was not only the Son of the Bondwoman that misbehaved her self towards her Mistress , but a malicious Scorner of the true Heir , the Son of the Free-woman , and a Wild-man ; but of the Sons of Keturah , what have we to say more than of Iaphet , save only , that of Midian , one of them , came Iethro and the Kenites , friends and partakers of the house of Israel ? What wonder though Esau was permitted to seek his Fortunes in Mount Seir , he having matched with the Daughters of Heth and Ishmael , to the grief of his Parents ( and so , without their liking ) and being otherwise prophane ; not only as a common Hunt , but as an Hunter like to Nimrod , so far as God permitted ? But what have we to say at last , that all the Sons of Iacob ( his Concubines and all ) should be taken in , and never an one rejected ? Did ever Ishmael or Esau play such pranks as some of these ? Reuben the eldest went in to Bilhah , ( the Concubine which Rachel , and not his Mother Leah , had given unto Iacob ) and lay with her , and defiled his Fathers bed . Simeon and Levi fell upon the Shechemites , not only cruelly , but perfidiously , after they had made them Proselytes . Iudah ( the next preferred above all ) went down from his Brethren , ( who had little converse , beyond their commerce , with the people of the Land ) and turned in to a certain Adullamite , whose name was Hirah . And Iudah saw there a Daughter of a certain Canaanite , whose name was Shuah , and he took her , and went in unto her . And she bare him Er , Onan and Shelah . Er married Tamar , and was wicked ( following his Mothers kind ) and the Lord slew him , and Onan after him . And then Iudah dissembled about giving the third Son Shelah unto Tamar , lest he should perish too . So Iudah himself fell into Tamars Gin , and was disgraced by her at the present , but got more honour from her incestuous Issue at the last , than from his own marriage with the Canaanite . For the Sons of the Concubines , Dan , Naphtali , Gad and Asher , Ioseph was wont to bring their ill report unto his Father , for which they envied him : And for Issachar and Zebulun , they were also in the Conspiracy against the life of Ioseph . Only Reuben's pity was commended , ( though he was agreed with the rest to conceal it with fraud from Iacob ) in that he would have saved Ioseph altogether , ( which might be a reason why Ioseph bound Simeon , the second when he let Reuben , the first , go free ) and Iudah so far , as that he would rather fell him for a Slave than slay him . Thus the Scripture concealeth not their vices : Only Ioseph ( the Son of Rachel ) is extolled , and his Brother Benjamin blameless . CHAP. XL. The Sons of Jacob compared in their vertues and vices : The latter aggravated , and excused . Why Pharez , born of incest , should be so great in Judah , and inherit the promise at the last . NOW to compare the good and bad qualities of these Patriarchs with one another . It seems to some , that when Reuben had committed his incest with his Mother-in-Law , and that Israel heard of it , his Father was afraid to take notice of it , ( quia Reuben ferox erat ) because Reuben was a fierce man : It may seem likewise as if he defiled his Father's Bed , in contempt of Bilhah , Rachels Handmaid ; and so that there was some malice mixed with his lust . But the pity that he alone had of Ioseph , the Son of Rachel , shews that he was neither fierce ( as Simeon and Levi ) nor yet so envious as the rest : But most like it is that the beauty only of Bilhah did inflame him ( as a fine Creature , for Rachel , to present to Iacob , whereby to estrange him a little more from Leah ) since Iacob , who was to denounce his punishment to him at the last , said no more but that though he was the beginning of his might , he should not excel only because he was unstable as water , when he went up to his Fathers bed , and defiled it ; high water being such as will break any Bounds whatsoever . And though some Expositors doubt not of his repentance , ( by the tokens of his good nature towards Ioseph , both when he was betrayed , and after in his Embassy ) yet God did not think fit to remit the temporal punishment unto him and his posterity , of being deprived of Primogeniture and number . But whether it was Iudah or Ioseph that had his Right , we shall consider by and bye . As for Simeon and Levi , after their bloudy fact , when their Father said unto them , Ye have troubled me , to make me stink among the inhabitants of the Land , so that I being few in number ( incomparison of the Canaanites and Perizzites ) they shall gather themselves together against me and slay me , and I shall be destroyed , I and my house ( shewing their blind and rash folly as well as wickedness ) they had so little Grace as to return this surly Answer , Should he deal with our Sister , as with an Harlot ? Nor had they any more remorse about their Brother Ioseph afterwards , in whose bloud they would ( for their parts ) have had an hand . Which might occasion Ioseph to seize on Simeon ( to chuse ) as hath been noted . Yet ( no doubt ) he was famous in his Generation ( for some Vertue * or other ) because so many bore the name of Simeon or Simon in the succeeding Ages . So that he had but one and the same Sentence with his Brother in iniquity , even with Levi , I will divide them in Iacob , and scatter them in Israel . Which was accomplished in Simeon's posterity , by having their lot shut up ( in a manner ) within the Confines of Iudah , and its Borders ; and in Levi's , by having no lot at all among the rest in the Land of promise ; saving a lot extraordinary , which God had assigned to them ( they say ) as good as the best : So God over-ruleth in his gracious Providence , even turning his chastisements into blessings ! And for Levi's own person , he lived a hundred and thirty years , ( what Age he might be when he came with Iacob into Egypt , is uncertain . ) And a hundred and thirty years after Iacob's descent was Moses born , the younger Brother of Aaron , the Redeemers of Israel , descended both immediately from Levi * . Now for Iudah , his faults and failings have not been spared ; upon which ( saith Bishop Hall ) I find not many of Iacob's Sons more faulty than Iudah : But Bishop Montague ‖ says ( according to Iosephus ) that Iudah , being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bold , daring , putting-forth man , was well enough disposed in his own person to be the Law-giver , and to have the Scepter , although it was not ( indeed ) conferred on his person , but his Tribe . Methinks ( in truth ) he was ( like Peter among the Disciples ) the forwardest to undertake with his Father , to lead his Brethren , to expostulate with Ioseph , to be Iacob's Harbinger , and the likeliest to be presented ( as one of the five ) in the presence of the great King Pharaoh . And though he consented to Ioseph's slavery , yet said he , Let not our hand be upon him ; for he is our Brother , and our flesh . And as he was of a fervent Spirit , and presently passed Sentence upon Tamar to be burnt ; so when she convinced him , he did not deny , or hasten execution to conceal it , but ingenuously said , She hath been more righteous than I : And he knew her again no more . To him therefore , as a man of great sufficiency , was the Scepter given , and the promise of Christ , ( which was much more ) and yet the birth-right of Reuben was translated unto Ioseph . Of which ( peradventure ) more at large when I come unto the lots . Only , this is too much to my purpose and design to be omitted . Not only Iudah with all his faults ( which poor Iacob's pious soul must bear withal amongst them ) is admitted to the prime Prerogative ; but his base-born Pharez , after him , becomes the immediate Heir of the Promise , and not his elder Son Shelah , begotten in the state of Wedlock ; to the disparagement likewise ( as it might seem ) of the rest of the Seed of Iacob . Let us make the account thus : Reuben is deprived of his birth-right for the Cause of Bilhah ; Simeon was next , and Levi next to him : but they are both removed farther off for the sake of Shechem . Iudah is ( thereupon ) the next in order ; and ( if there be any fault in him , or however , if it were possible ) one would think that Iacob should transfer this blessing unto Ioseph , who was the eldest Son of his best beloved Wife , and now a Father to his Brethren , as he was to his own Father too , so far as he was a Father unto Pharaoh , under whose protection and beneficence they were to be cherished and flourish ; or else ( by Ioseph's leave ) to his own Brother Benjamin , the Son of Iacob's right hand , with whom no fault is found ; nor , it may be , ever was , since his posterity held stedfast to the Covenant , and the blessing , when Ioseph's had revolted . Why , there was fault enough to be found with Iudah to stop his mouth , and barr his claim to any Excellency amongst his Brethren . It was a kind of debauch in him , to go rambling among the accursed Canaanites , ( from whom he ought to have kept an holy distance ) and there to be enamoured or inveigled with their Shuah ; and to marry according to his lust , rather than his reason . It was like that sin of the old World , which hastened the deluge , when the Sons of God saw the Daughters of men that they were fair , and they took them Wives of all that they chose . If you ask , Why , where should he have had another ? Think you not that Esau guessed shrewdly ( though he hit amiss ) when hearing that Iacob was to be sent to Padan-aram for a Wife of the Mothers kin ; he himself was resolved to mend the matter , by taking one of the Fathers side , in marrying the Daughter of Ishmael the Son of Abraham ? But if there had not been choice enough of kin of either side at hand , better an Alien of any other Countrey than of Canaan ; which he knew to be the very Land that God had promised to his Father and Forefathers for an everlasting possession , not without the destruction of the inhabitants , as the very Seed of the Serpent and Coar of enmity . Thou shalt not ( therefore ) take a Wife of the Daughters of Canaan , had Isaac said unto his Father Iacob . For must such a mixture be ? Or such a Seed proceed from the Bowels of a Canaanitish Woman , as shall be proper to destroy the Canaanites ? Was not this ( then ) as just an exception against Iudah now , as it had been against Esau before , and for the sake of which his own Mother could not love him , but procured his disherison ? For Esau when he was forty years old married two Hittites , ( before Ishmael's Daughter ) which were a grief of mind to Isaac and Rebekkah : and she said , I am weary of my life , because of the Daughters of Heth. Now if any one ask here , Why , what choice had he or the other Brothers ? Whither should they go ? Whom did the other Brothers marry ? Did not Ioseph ( for his part ) marry the Priest of On 's Daughter ( an Egyptian ) for whose sake it may seem that he left the Egyptian Priests demesns intire , when he cunningly bought all the rest of Egypt , for his bread , into bondage unto Pharaoh ? Or who ever blamed Abraham for his taking of Hagar or Keturah for his Concubines ? Or Iacob himself , for taking Bilhah into his bosom ( who proved not honest to him ) or Zilpah , and had been bred amongst the Idols of Laban , which Rachel stole , whether for love or hatred is a Question ? Although it hath been taken for an opinion , that the Hebrews took their Wives only ( ex Ingenuis ) out of free-born women , and their Concubines ( ex Ancillis ) out of Handmaids ; yet M r Selden proves that these did not differ in the quality of Wives , but only in the inequality of conditions ; forasmuch as Keturah in Genesis is called Abraham's Wife , and in the Chronicles his Concubine , ( which some do therefore improbably think to be the same with Hagar re-assumed ) We may observe that Hagar had been seasoned with the same Religion before Abraham took her , by being bred in his house ; insomuch that she prayed in her distress , and had an Angel to comfort her . But she was repudiated for her rebellion against her Mistress , and her Son sent away with gifts ( which followed ) because it is said , that unto the Sons of the Concubines ( both of them ) which Abraham had , he gave gifts , and sent them away from Isaac his Son , while he yet lived * . And by Keturah ( whose true Religion we have no ground to question ) he had some Issue which retained their profession in the time of Moses , who married a Wife out of Iethro's house , descended from Midian , a Son of Abraham by this Keturah . Among some or other of these ( therefore ) the Sons of Iacob might have found Wives , as well as Moses , who is not blamed for it . Or else , among the Women that Rebekkah , Rachel and Leah had brought with them , ( if they were more than two ) or the Daughters born of them , in the space of a hundred and fifty years ; or as they might give their Sisters to their choicer Servants , so they might take their Daughters , and so contain themselves within themselves ; which might be the reason of their leviration , ( which God did after establish by a Law ) or Brothers marrying of a Brother's Widow , in case he dyed before he had any Issue by her . Indeed , it is not mentioned whence the other Sons had their Wives , only Iudah seemeth to be blamed . As for Ioseph's taking the Priest of On 's Daughter , 1. Pharaoh gave her . 2. God himself , who was able to sanctifie her unto him , as it is like he did by the towardly Children which she bare him ; which pleased Iacob when he blessed them . 3. If Ioseph spared the Priests Lands , it is an Argument that he feared Sacriledge , as many of the Heathen ( after ) did , with the like regard unto the Iewish Priests : And this is delivered ( by Iosephus ) as a Law among the Iews : Let no man speak evil of those Gods which other Countries and Cities suppose to be Gods. Let no man spoil any strange Temple , nor take that which is dedicated unto any God. And as for Iacob's taking of Bilhah and Zilpah , the same may be said as of Abraham taking of Hagar and Keturah . They came from Padan-aram with him , and abode with their Mistresses after he had purged his house from Idols ; Labans and all , ( if any did remain ) which it may seem that Rachel stole away to please her Husband Iacob ( when time should serve to discover it ) not fearing her Fathers displeasure , rather than out of any love to them , because she may be understood to have been of the forwardest , when Iacob purged his house , to bring all the strange Gods and ear-rings unto him : As also because she had the blessing of the two more pious Sons . CHAP. XLI . Pursuing the same Argument , and opening the Law of Leviration , by which Pharez was restored . Other marked persons not blot to the Genealogy of Christ. BUT the failing of Iudah concerning Tamar ( if it were not greater ) might yet seem more unlucky of the two , and more prejudicial in the consequence unto the house of Israel , than the other ; inasmuch as two misbegotten Children came thereby to be reckoned to the ruling Tribe of Israel , and not only to have equal part with others , but to have inheritance from Iudah , all alike with Shelah . Doth God abhor incest and adultery , and yet suffer the choicest Blessings of all to descend to their Issue ? Or how is it that David and Christ should come to descend from this Pharez , rather than from Shelah ? Now about the first failing of Iudah we may say , That if Iacob had had the power of the blessing in his own hands ( as he had not ) it was not exception enough against him to put him by ; nor in the streights wherein they were , can one be sure that there were no more strange Wives within the Tents of Iacob , but only Shuah's Daughter . However , God was pleased to take the punishment of Iudah's fault home unto himself , and he brought it home to Iudah ; for whatever Shelah was , he gave him but three Sons in all , two of which he permitted to be such wicked Canaanites as were not to be born withal ; so that the Lord himself slew them , and in the stead thereof made him father other two , which he least intended . But on second thoughts , neither was the latter fault so great as the first , nor the consequence so bad as you imagine . See what an Acquaintance had Iudah gotten by wandring away from the Tents of Israel , and searching out for some good house or other wherein to solace and caress himself ; He turned in to a certain Adullamite , whose name was Hirah . And he , it seems , as having a design upon his Friend ( so called ) hold him unto Shuah's Daughter , with whom Iudah was taken in his vagary . Which friendship ( howsoever ) continued till after her death , ( good men being seldome forward to shake off even their Back-friends : ) So that Hirah , being with him to comfort him , was as ready to help him at another turn , ( even as lewd Suburbers delight to draw in Country-men into the Stews ) and to wait for him ( like a Pander ) and conceal his prank , while he suffered him ( rather than himself ) to go aside unto a seeming Harlot : and when Iudah came back , to carry a Kid for him unto the Woman , to redeem Iudah's pledges , because he was ashamed to send by any but a Stranger . So that Iudah seems to have continued still under the same or like temptations , as long as he retaineth this acquaintance . And it is by his temptations that we must endeavour to excuse him ; whereof this Heathen Hirah was the first . Then we must consider , that it was but simple fornication , upon surprize ( and without design ) that Iudah suffered himself to be drawn in by ; whereas his marriage was a setled resolution . And that God suffered him to be thus betrayed ( punishing one sin by another , and the consequences of it ) for his injustice in denying his third Son Shelah unto Tamar ; which he was bound to do by a known Law amongst them : Or for his distrust in God , lest he should take away Shelah for doing his Duty , as he had done the other two for wickedness . Add to this the subtilty of Tamar ( who was a Free-woman of Israel , by her marriage unto Er the eldest Son of Iudah , whatsoever she was before ) that knew where the soft place was in Iudah's Head , and meant to be meet with him , inasmuch as she had been of a long time wronged , and saw no other likelihood of redress but this : for the Law ( as we may learn more clearly by the reviving of it ) was this , viz. If Brethren dwell together , and one of them dye , and have no Child , the Wife of the dead shall not marry without , unto a Stranger ; her Husband 's Brother shall go in unto her , and take her to him to Wife , and perform the duty of an Husband's Brother unto her . And it shall be , that the first-born which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his Brother , which is dead , that his name be not put out of Israel . The Law ( then ) obliging Tamar to live within , under a Widow's guise , and not to marry without , but expect ; she had ( indeed ) Onan given to her ; but he hating to raise up Seed unto his Brother ( more than to lye with a taking Woman ) spilt his Seed upon the ground , thinking ( it may be ) after that to go into fruitless dalliance . And the thing displeased the Lord , so that he slew him also after his Brother Er. The reason of Onan's sin is to be understood , viz. Because he would have the eldest Brother's Right extinct , and be eldest himself ; whereas if he had begotten a Son on Tamar , even that Son should have carried the birth-right from him . And when Tamar had remained still a shady Widow , in hope of Shelah , and she saw that he was grown , and not given to her , she began not only to despair of an Husband , but of an interest in the house of Iudah , which ought not to be denyed her : It was the least of her intention ( therefore ) to play the Harlot , whatever Iudah meant ; for being sped by him , she put on her Widows Garments again , and betook herself to her former place . So that she may seem no more to blame than an honest Woman , that puts her self into an Harlots place , and so defrauds her own Husband . Ay , but the Law was , That the Brother and not the Father-in-Law should raise up Seed unto the first Husband , How then can Tamar be excused for tempting , and lying with the Father ? We must not take Tamar for a scrupulous Casuist , ( though she meant not to be an Harlot , but contained ever after , as it is most likely Iudah did , of whose refraining there in mention , but of his marrying again we read not ) but for an interested , wronged Person , that sought to right herself the best she could : For if she conceived , she should be wrapped up in the inheritance of her Issue , which Iudah could not abandon ; or if not , yet Iudah could not wrong her any further . But take the Case as it will bear : For a Brother to lye with his Brothers Wife or Widow , in any other Case than this , is incest ; And it is no more incest in the Father-in-Law , so far as touching of bloud is intended ( for the Father-in-Law has no more blood in his Son's Wife that never conceived ) than in the Brother : There is only the reverence of Descent , that is more . And the reason of another Descent ( viz. of inheritance ) being the reason of the Law that allows the dispensation , it is the less wonder that Tamar should lay aside the respect of reverence only to a Father , that would hold her still under greater wrong , unless she laid this Veil aside , and put another on : which is all that I have to say for her . But as for Iudah , as his soul hated incest , so neither was he guilty of it ( in the least ) as he was beguiled . And though his two Sons Pharez and Zarah were misbegotten ( by mistake ) on Tamar ; yet they were not base-born , but came by due Right into their Father Er's Lot , as much as if Shelah had begotten them , who ought to have endeavoured it : So that Iudah ( by God's permission ) did but supply his Son's place as a punishment for his with-holding him . And when God had pardoned all this to Iudah , neither his Father , nor his Brethren eyed him the worse ; but God himself prospered him the more : For whereas his Brethren had all more Children than he , when they came to be numbred , at their going out of Egypt , Iudah had seventy four thousand , and six hundred males , from twenty years and upwards , whereas no other Tribe could come within ten thousand of His. If all this doth not satisfie , let us hear the pious Bishop a little further : I find not many of Iacob's Sons more faulty than Iudah , who yet is singled out from all the rest to be the Royal Progenitor of Christ , and to be honoured with the dignity of the birth-right , that God's Election might not be of merit . Else , however he had sped alone , Thamar had not been joined in this Line . Even Iudah marries a Canaanite : It is no marvel , though his Seed prosper not . Yet , that good Children may not be too much discouraged with their unlawful propagation , the Fathers of the promised Seed are raised from an incestuous Bed. And ( as I may add ) in Christ's Genealogy we have Rahab the Harlot , Ruth the Moabitess , and Bathsheba ( to chuse ) the adulterous Wife of David . But ( as the Apostle speaks ) he put no difference betwixt us and them , purifying their hearts by faith . Such was the state of the first visible Church ( which produced afterwards such admirable Spirits ) so far as I can discover . But if the Masters were indifferently such ( as I have described ) what think you were the Men ? If it had so seemed good to God , he could have set them all alike without blemish : But he would rather take in all ( now ) than leave out one . And so must we , leaving them in the good Land of Goshen all the life of Ioseph , and some time after ; for the Text saith , that Ioseph dyed , and all his Brethren , and all that Generation , before a new King ( Iosephus saith of another Race ) arose up over Egypt , which knew not Ioseph . And that the people were so encreased , that Goshen could no more contain them , but that the Land of Egypt was filled with them . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS . A LETTER In ANSWER to a QUESTION Propounded by the Authour , viz. CONCERNING The multiplying of the Children of Israel in Egypt . SIR , SINCE You were pleas'd to request my poor assistance in the solution of the following Question , to shew my readiness to serve You , I set my self about it : I confess , at first I expected nothing but dry Arithmetical matter to work upon ; but upon farther consideration , I found the Subject You had given me , of a more extensive nature than so , fit to be replenish'd with other more useful considerations , and capable of a more noble improvement than I am able to bestow upon it ; yet such as that is , here You have it . Your Question is this , How from seventy Males only , in no longer space than two hundred and ten years , ( as your Chronologer reckons ) wherein the Israelites sojourned in Egypt , there could be produc'd at their first numbring in the Wilderness no less than six hundred and three thousand , five hundred and fifty , from twenty years old and upwards , besides the Tribe of Levi which amounted to two and twenty thousand Males , from a Month old and upwards ; and how the probability of this may be demonstrated , so as to stop the mouths of such as Porphyry and Celsus , without refuge to a vast multitude of Twins , or a miraculous continuance of the power of generation in that people more than any other , of which we have no mention in prophane Writers ? To this I doubt not but to return such an Answer as shall satisfie any reasonable man , and your self in particular ; and having done that , I think I shall have done all that You expected from me , towards the silencing such as are of Celsus's and Porphyry's Creed in this matter ; if such as they may properly be said to have any Creed , whose Faith revers'd , consists in disbelieving . Nor is this the only good effect of such undertakings , ( if duly perform'd ) For although Christians , believing the holy Scriptures to be from God who cannot lye , do generally take God Almighty's word for the truth of those things that are there revealed , without a strict scrutiny and examination of the things themselves ; yet if after assent given to the holy Scriptures as the word of God , those amongst them who are qualified with abilities , especially such as Your Self who serve at the Altar , and whose lips preserve knowledge , do search and dive into the particular Circumstances of any thing there related , of an unusual and surprizing nature , such as this seems to be at first view ; and when upon such search , the thing appears upon rational grounds , not only possible but , very likely to be effected : This not only puts to silence the ignorance of foolish men , but highly confirms Believers themselves in their most holy faith , and encourages them on other occasions to acquiesce and rely intirely on the truth of God's word , when their limited finite faculties cannot fathom the reasons either of the thing or Command revealed . Without any farther Preface therefore : Give me leave , Sir , to affirm , That in the matter before us there is no need of flying to an extraordinary multiplication by Twins ; I say , Extraordinary ; for there is no reason to exclude it in the ordinary course of nature , because we see it frequently happen amongst our selves , and I believe 〈◊〉 might be more frequent among the Israelites , even from natural causes , such as the simplicity of their Diet above ours , and the more fertile pregnancy of that Climate , where Nature is more perfect , and better digested by the nearer approach of the Sun who quickneth all things , and is reputed by Philosophers to have a peculiar influence in the work of generation ; insomuch that it passes for an uncontrouled Maxim amongst them , and a kind of Postulatum , that Sol & homo generant hominem . And as little need is there of a miraculous power of Generation , unless we will multiply miracles unnecessarily , by styling every eminent Blessing by that Title , which is sent in performance of a promise ; then indeed the great encrease of this people would pass for a miracle of the first rank : For never was any promise oftener reiterated than this , as if the Benediction vied in proportion and analogy to the nature of the Blessing it self , which consisted in number . Had the Israelitish Women been all old Sarahs , nay had they been young Rachels or Rebeccahs , and their Husbands confin'd to them , nothing less than a miracle could have done it : But as it is , it holds no higher denomination than that of a very great Blessing , which I look upon as a medium betwixt the ordinary course of Nature and a Miracle , and much nearer of kin to the former than the latter ; because there is nothing in it either praeter or contra Naturam . The several promises of encrease before mentioned , being the foundation whereon I shall build my Superstructure , it will not be amiss to take a transient view of some of them , and the wording of them ; where we shall find a most remarkable exuberancy , good measure , press'd down , and running over ; such as these , Gen. 13.16 . I will make thy seed , says God to Abraham , as the dust of the earth : so that if a man can number of dust of the earth , then shall thy seed also be numbred . Gen. 15.5 . And God brought Abraham forth abroad , and said , Look now towards Heaven , and tell the Stars if thou be able to number them ; So shall thy seed be . Gen. 22.16 , 17. By my self have I sworn , saith the Lord , That in blessing I will bless thee , and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven , and as the sand which is upon the Sea-shore . And although we may think that this promise was partly made good in Ishmael and Abraham's other Sons , and also in Esau ; from all which great Nations were descended : yet that is a mistake , for although they did seem materially to make good these promises of encrease , yet formally they did not , quatenus a promise ; but they were thrown in by God ex abundanti , and on the account of other bye promises , such as that to Hagar , Gen. 17.10 , 11. and were mere Anomala's in respect of the main Promise , Gen. 21.12 . For in Isaac shall thy seed be called : To whom the Promise is renewed in Person , Gen. 26.3 , 4. I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy Father , and I will make thy seed to multiply as the Stars of Heaven . Then the same promise is renewed again ( twice ) to Iacob , not to Esau , Gen. 35.11 . where God ushers it in with this remarkable Preface , I am God Almighty , and therefore able to perform what I promise in spight of all opposition from Men or Devils : The Promise it self runs thus , Be fruitful and multiply ; a Nation and company of Nations shall be of thee . Where the first part is but a repetition of the Blessing given to Adam for peopling the whole World at first , and afterwards to Noah and his Sons for re-peopling it , when it had been destroyed by the Floud ; as if little Goshen were to be equivalent to the whole World besides : at least , it was to be God's Nursery or Seed-plot , where he raised almost his full number of Stocks , and only transplants them into Canaan , insomuch that if they had continued but twenty years longer in Egypt , they would have encreased to a greater number in that short space than they did in four hundred seventy three years that they were in the Wilderness and Canaan , as I shall demonstrate . So that it was Egypt where all these several promises , as to number , do chieftly terminate at last and discharge themselves , as all the Rivers do into the Ocean : And this appears farther yet from the last of all these Promises , Gen. 46.3 . Fear not , Iacob , to go down into Egypt : for I will THERE make of thee a great Nation . Which Promise is limited to the time of the Israelites sojourning in Egypt , and is exactly contemporary with the two hundred and ten years in the Question now handled : So that the veracity of God himself was highly concerned to see this Promise performed within that compass of time : and when once that is expired , then they who were preserv'd before , intire as it were in the hollow of his hand ( as I shall make appear at large ) were delivered up to several wasting judgments in the Wilderness , such as the Earth opening her mouth to swallow up the two hundred and fifty * Princes of the Assembly , famous in the Congregation , men of renown , their Wives ‖ and their little Ones , and all that appertain'd † or adher'd to them in that revolt ; besides this , they are smitten with four several Plagues of Pestilence , and in several Battels great numbers fall by their Enemies Swords . And Numb . 21.6 . The Lord sent fiery Serpents among the people , who bit them : so that much people of Israel dyed . And that mighty power which was wholly employed for their preservation during the two hundred and ten years of their abode in Egypt , is , after their delivery thence , employed to their destruction on several provocations from their sins , When Iesurun waxed sat and kicked ; whereas their miserable and afflicted condition in Egypt was a means from God of making them more humble , and therefore more fit for the Divine protection , till such time as he had made good that promise to Iacob before recited , Fear not to go down into Egypt , for I will there make of thee a great Nation . Besides these several promises to Abraham , Isaac and Iacob , we read Gen. 48.16 . that when the last of these upon his death-bed , adopting Ephraim , and Manasseh for his own , transferr'd this Blessing upon them also , saying , Let them grow into a multitude , the Margin reads it , As Fishes do encrease ; and that You will allow , Sir , to be even faster than by Twins . Their great Sacrament also of Circumcision in partibus genitalibus , I take to be a most proper Memorandum and Token of this Promise of encrease . But although this Promise had never been made , nor Circumcision instituted ; yet would it be but reasonable to suppose , That that Primitive Blessing , Be fruitful and multiply , which was given in the Garden , should have a more eminent accomplishment in God's own enclosure the Church , than amongst His and His Church's Enemies ; especially considering the Circumstances of the Jewish Church and people , that they were to subdue Nations great and mighty before they could be setled in the promised Canaan : And when they were setled there , they were environ'd with Nations round about , like a Garden in the midst of a Forest of wild Beasts , who would be continually breaking in upon them to devour them , if God had not proportioned their numbers to a competency of defence and resistance , and the whole Church would have wanted that Priviledge and Blessing , which was the lot of many private Believers , viz. Not to be ashamed when she spake with her Enemies in the Gate . Having spoken of the Promise , the next thing will be , to consider the means of its accomplishment ; which I take to be two especially : The first is , The advantage of the Concubines ; which they could not cashier without differing from the examples of their Ancestors . And doubtless that Custom which was introduced at first by Lamech , was not only connived at ( but encouraged by God's appearing to Hagar , and promising so bountifully in the behalf of Ishmael , Gen. 17.10 , 11. ) in order to fulfil the Promise of Encrease in due season , and in God's appointed time , and in imitation of Abraham and Iacob , did that Nation retain that Custom , not only in Egypt , but even till Shiloh came . I shall confirm the truth of this by two or three Quotations only , out of the learned Selden , De Iure Naturali Gentium , &c. where he cites Maimonides saying , Fas est cuique quotcunque , etiam centum Vxores , sive siniul omnes , sive alteram post alteram ducere , neque potestas Vxort antea ductae virum heic impediendi , modo illi potestas fuerit praestare alimenta , vestitum , atque debitum conjugale , The other Citation is of an Author with a deadly hard Hebrew name , which I therefore omit ; who says , Qui dicit , Plures Vxores simul interdictas esse , notum sit , eum nec morum nee juris esse peritum , nam multi justi acceperunt binas Vxores , velut Elcana , David , Solomon : Et in Libro Paralipomenwn multi memorantur , quibus binae Vxores . M r Selden in the same Chap. 7. Book 5. quotes S t Augustine saying , Prolis gratiâ Patres sanctos ex Abraham & ante Abraham , quibus Deus , quòd ei placuerint , perhibet testimonium , usos fuisse conjugibus , neminem oportet dubitare Christianum , quando quibusdam etiam singulis plures habere concessum est , ubi ratio fuit prolis multiplicandae , non variandae appetitio voluptatis . But because we are so over-run with Grotius in England of late years , that nothing will go down with our modish Divines but what Grotius has chew'd for them ; and if He does but say it , down it goes , right or wrong ; insomuch that they can no more write without Grotius , Grotius , than a Carmelite Nun can drop her Beads without exhibiting particular devotion to the Virgin Mary , her peculiar Patroness , the Lady of Mount Carmel ; I therefore refer You to his Second Book and Fifth Chapter de Iure Belli ac Pacis , where he speaks to the same purpose with M r Selden's Rabbies . And if it were both lawful and commendable to have secondary Wives of Concubines , it is not to be doubted but that it was generally practised , though the Scriptures speak but little of it ; because there is but little occasion to speak of any Concubines . In the 20 th of Judges there is a Relation concerning a Levite , who with his Concubine came to lodge in Gibeah of Benjamin , where the lustful Inhabitants forced his Concubine till she dyed in the Street ; whereupon the Levite makes no more Bones of his old Familiar , but slices her in pieces , and sends a part to every Tribe , except Benjamin , where the fact was committed ; who refusing to deliver up the men of Gibeah to Justice , the other Tribes , to revenge the murder and the injustice of the Benjamites in protecting the Murderers , proclaim War against them ; which cost the bloud of above fourscore thousand men : And upon this great and remarkable occasion the Levites Concubine is mentioned , which otherwise would never have been taken notice of in the Scripture . But although neither this Concubine nor her Husband had been mentioned , it would have been but a weak Argument to have said that no Levite ever had a Concubine , because then none had been mentioned at all ; for this Levite had had a Concubine , though this fatal accident had never happened , which was the only occasion of informing us particularly that a Levite ever had a Concubine . The like may be concluded of the twelve Patriarchs , and their Descendents in Egypt , though the Scriptures say nothing of their Concubines ; for I have already observed , that that was the main critical time to make use of that advantage for encrease , and that liberty was too pleasant and agreeable to corrupt Nature to be laid aside upon a sudden , or waved ; we see both Reuben , Gen. 35.22 . and Iuddah , Gen. 38. were brisk and sanguine men , and therefore more likely to be fond of having Concubines than their chaster Progenitors . Flesh and blood is highly pleased to be indulged in matters of this nature ; and our Saviours denying this Priviledge by reducing marriage to its primitive institution between one Man and one Woman , and paring away the Appendix of Concubinage , making no medium between such marriage and fornication , might be no small stumbling-block to the Jews , and might make some of them like the young man in the Gospel , to go away sorrowful , for that they had , or at least intended to have , beloved possessions of this nature . And as it might be and still is some disadvantage to the ready embracing of the Christian Religion , the abridging of this liberty ; so the allowing and encouraging of it was the Master-piece of Policy in that great Impostor Mahomet , and prov'd too powerful a Bait to draw the World after him . And although the present Jews are not over-fond of this Priviledge , and make but sparing use of it ; yet the reason of this abstemiousness is not at all on the account of Conscience , ( for they do in some measure practice it to this day ) but by reason of the inconvenience of it : For since the destruction of their Country and Temple by that Heathen Emperor Vespasian , and his Son Titus , ( who yet by God's Providence were made the Revengers of the precious bloud of Christ ) they have been scattered abroad upon the face of the Earth , and by the just Judgment of God they are generally look'd upon with an evil eye , and are become ludibrium humani generis , liable not only to the just and real disgust of Princes , but to their very Capricio's , and to be banish'd at every turn out of their Domions ; and they who have occasion to remove housholds often , have little reason to be fond of encreasing their luggage and their lumber . From what has been said , I think it appears highly improbable that the Patriarchs and their Posterity in Egypt should on a sudden quit that Custom which claimed the possession of so many years as from Lamech , long before the Floud , down to Iacob ; and therefore we are not to measure their Corn by our cut Bushel , nor their encrease by what is now adays , when that advantage of Concubinage is ( or at least should be ) taken away . And yet we are not without examples of prodigious fertility where there has been neither Miss nor Concubine in the Case : I my self have seen a Woman within four miles of my own house at Winchfield , whose eldest Son Iohn Hawkins ( that dyed but last year at about ninety years of Age , being healthy and strong , and a man of a very good understanding ) told me , that there were no less than seventy five in a Room together at one time that ask'd his Mother blessing , Children , Grand-Children , and Great Grand-Children , besides above forty more that were not present . Famianus Strada , lib. 1. de Bello , tells us Iuliana , Mother to the famous Prince of Orange , liv'd to see a hundred and fifty ask her Blessing , that were descended from her . And our own Chronicles mention one William Somerset Earl of Worcester , who was so numerous in his Off-spring , that he could reckon more Children of both Sexes than all the Earls of England besides , and this was within this hundred years . And Fuller in his Worthies of England speaks of a Lady Temple , who saw above six hundred that were descended from her own Body , if I am not mistaken ; whereas Iacob himself had but twelve Sons : And although each of them might have the like number , yet the eleven that went with him into Egypt had but about five a piece at the time of their going thither , reckoning one with another , which yet is as great a number as I shall have occasion for in this matter . Before I dismiss this business of Concubinage , it will not be amiss to enquire whence the Hebrews were stock'd with such a number of Women more than Men ; for every Man having but one Concubine besides his Wife , the number must be double , which is the most probable proportion : For though some like Iacob might have more one , yet 't is probable that others might imitate Isaac , and have none at all . I find in my Lord Chief Justice Hale's most learned and judicious Discourse of the Origination of Mankind , a little Book quoted with a great commendation , written as I think by one Captain Grant , who among other most ingenious Observations from the Bills of Births and Burials in London for almost a hundred years together , demonstrates that the number of Males to Females is as fifteen to thirteen , which is eight Men to less than seven Women ; the wife Providence of God allowing that redundance in the Males for Wars and Shipwracks , and other accidents , to which Men are more exposed than Women . But although Providence should have furnished the Israelites with as great a redundance of Women ( the same Providence sheltring this people from Wars under the protection of the Egyptians , and they being Shepherds , not Mariners ) yet still there will want a great supply to make the number of Women double to that of Men : And whence can this supply come , but from the neighbouring Quarters of the Midianites and others ? We see Moses takes one of his Wives from thence , the Daughter of Iethro , who seems , Exod. 18.9 , 10 , 11 , 12. to be a pious good man , and a true Worshipper , and not tainted with Idolatry as most of the Midianities were , Numb . 25. notwithstanding their descent from the Father of the faithful , and their retaining Circumcision ; for those Texts , Exod. 4.25 , 26. are grosly misrendred , as M r Mede has evidently proved . Nay , it is not improbable , that the Isrealites might be furnished with Handmaids or Concubines from their Neighbours the Egyptians ; for that abomination or antipathy which the Egyptians had for eating Bread with the Hebrews , Gen. 43.32 . seems to have been on the account of their Prosession only , as they were Shepherds , Gen. 46.34 . and to have been little else but an aversion to the smell of a Tar-pot , which by mutual converse would easily wear out , and be laid aside . For that reason which Interpreters give of this abomination , viz. Because the Israelites eat Flesh from which the Egyptians abstained , and more than that , the Flesh of the Oxe and Sheep which were the Idols or Representative Gods of the Egyptians ; this seems to me to be of little force ; for then they must have had all other Nations in abomination that eat Leeks or Onions , as well as the Israelites for Flesh. Porrum & Caepe nefas violare , & laedere morsu : Faelices Gentes , quorum haec nascuntur in hortis Numina ! — — Quis nescit qualia demens Aegyptus portentae colit ? The more probable account of this antipathy is given by Bochartus in his Canaan ; and by Grotius out of Manetho , the most ancient Egyptian Historian , who says , that on the account of the different manner of life of the Shepherds of Egypt from the rest of the people , there arose in ancient times dreadful Wars , and the Shepherds getting the mastery revenged themselves with fire and sword , and burnt down the Cities , which made them be hated ever after ; so that the antipathy seems to have been of the same nature with that of French and Spaniards now , and of French and English heretofore ; when Wars and emulation stirred up hatred , which in the ordinary people is not forgotten to this day : Notwithstanding , this spight and emulation was among the men only , who were the mutual Rivals , and was not extended to different Sexes on either side , so as to abate that kindness and inclination which was ingrassed by Nature for its own preservation , as appears by the intermarriages of French and Spaniards now , and of French and English formerly ; as our Histories abundantly testifie . The like may be said of the Hebrews and Egyptians ; for we find there was a friendly correspondence and neighbourhood amongst them , nay they sojourned with the Israelites in their houses , Exod. 3.22 ▪ And Exod. 1. the Egyptian Midwives are made use of by the Hebrew Women in their extremity of Child-bearing , and express so much compassion towards them as to disobey Pharaoh for their sakes , and then excuse their so doing with a lye , notwithstanding they are said to fear God. But that which is more than to take a Concubine , we find that Ioseph takes to Wife the Daughter of the Priest of On , and by her had Ephraim and Manasseh , who gave denomination to one of the greatest Tribes , an honour denyed to the rest of Iacob's Grand-Children ; their Mother being an Egyptian was no Bar in the way , the Males only in all the Genealogies of the Hebrews being accounted for the Seed . So then if Ioseph might take a Wife notwithstanding the abomination which the Egyptian men had for the Hebrews , much more might others take Concubines in imitation of that great Hebrew of the Hebrews , Abraham himself , whose beloved Agar was an Egyptian . Thus much I thought fit to say of this matter , that when I had stated the numbers of Men and Women among the Israelites , I might not be brought to an after-reckoning about the Concubines . The next advantage for encrease and multiplying , one would think should be the longaevity of those times ; but I confess I question whether that were any such advantage ; for as they continued to get Children longer , so they began later . Isaac and Esau were forty years of Age before they married , Abraham and Iacob a great deal older ; and perhaps Nature was not so forward then as it is now ; but as it came to its period later , so likewise to its maturity ; and the reason why it arrives at its journeys end the sooner now , may be because it treads swifter paces to perfection , Nature observing a due proportion in its three great Stages , Maturation , Vigour and Decay : according to that true Proverb , Soon ripe , soon rotten ; to which answers , Later ripe , later rotten : And we see , that those Creatures which are ripe for Generation at two or three years old , as Horses and Cows , though they far exceed Man in strength , yet they seldom live to be much above twenty years of Age. Now although the first Descendants into Egypt for a hundred years or more , might in all probability live to a greater Age than Men do now ; so from what I have now said , I think 't is probable also that they married later , whereby we should lose à parte ante almost as much as we should gain à parte post , by continuing the work of generation longer : I shall therefore suppose the Age of Man then to be the same that it is now , for it seems to have had a gradual decrease from the time of the Floud till the time of Moses , or a little before , who in the 90 th Psalm , which was of his Penning states the Age of Man at three-score and ten , and that Men were so strong that they came to fourscore years , which is usual in our days . We must not therefore state the Age of the Israelites in Egypt at a hundred and ten , or an hundred and twenty years , because Moses , Aaron and Ioshua arrived to those years : For doubtless Moses speaks not in that Psalm as a Prophet of what would be hereafter , but as a Divine Philosopher and Observer of Nature in the people whom he led , and these turns that Observation into Devotion and pious Contemplation of the vanity of our nature . And the great Age which those three Worthies arrived at was a peculiar Blessing from God on their particular Persons ( not common to others ) for the ends of his Providence , they being highly favoured of God , and chosen Instruments for that great and wonderful administration in the Wilderness , and for the plantation and settlement of God's Church and people in the promised Canaan : And of Moses in particular it is said , that his eye was not dim , nor his natural force abated , Deut. 34.7 . at a hundred and twenty years of Age ; which could not be by the ordinary power of nature , when the generality of Mankind attained but to fourscore , and that with labour and sorrow , Psal. 90. but by the extraordinary blessing and support of the God of Nature , in whom we live and move and have our being ; nor is this to be lookt upon as any other than part of the recompence of reward to him who was faithful in all God's house , Numb . 12.7 . Nay , the kindness of God seems to extend even to his dead Body , as well as to his living , bearing it away ( as it were surreptitio●sly ) in his owns arms , digs his Grave with his own hands , and covers him with Earth ; thus bereaving the rebellious . Tribes of the honour of his Interment , to perform his Obsequies Himself , Deut. 34. This longaevity therefore of the Patriarchs affording little or no advantage above the shorter lives , but more early pregnancy of the latter Generations in Egypt ; I proceed to that which You will say was a great advantage indeed , which is the second means that conduc'd to bring about the accomplishment of the Promise of multiplying the Posterity of Iacob exceedingly , that is , with more than the usual encrease of the rest of Mankind ; and that is , The watchful Providence and protection of that God who promised : And indeed I am apt to think , that the vast encrease of the Israelites proceeded more from God's great care in the preservation of those that were born , than from their own extraordinary fertility above all other people , that had both Wives and Concubines as well as they . For although the Promise contained fruitfulness as well as multiplication , yet that was promised only as the means conducing to that end ; so that if their fertility sufficed for that , both parts of the promise were exactly fulfilled , though there were no exuberant Numbers of Super-numeraries , as it were for food for those three great Devourers , Famines , Wars , and Pestilences ; they being exempted from those three Calamities by the special Providence of God over them : But lest this should be thought to be said gratis , I shall therefore endeavour to prove it . And in order to that , it is worth observing , That Moses , who writes the History of this people from the very Creation , dispatches that great interval of above sixteen hundred and fifty years from the Fall to the Floud , in three Chapters , viz. Gen. 4 , 5 , 6. whereas the rest of the Book , which is no less than forty four Chapters , is spent wholly on no longer an interval than to the death of Ioseph , which is searce six hundred and sixty years ; and still the nearer he comes to his own times , the more his History swells , like great Rivers , the farther from the Spring the larger they grow , by the confluence of more streams : For although his inspiration to write truth , was equal throughout , yet the Tradition , which ( for the most part ) furnished him with the Subject matter of that truth was not equal ; the Tradition of the first Ages being very scanty , and almost worn out as it were by passing through so many hands : whereas those things which were transacted at a less distance of time , could not so easily either be forgotten or corrupted ; so that these came in greater number , more intire and certain , and cloathed in their particular circumstances : whereby it seems to me highly improbable that Moses should be ignorant of any considerable Calamity that besell this people , that was of so late a Date as their coming into Egypt ; which was but about thirteen years before he himself came into the World , and therefore the knowledge of it had been easily handed down to him from so small a distance , without the help of supernatural revelation , which he was also furnished withal , to supply the defects of Oral Tradition in that History which he wrote . Now if he could not be ignorant of it , and yet concealed it , I conceive this cannot be supposed without questioning his fidelity as God's own Historiographer , who yet has this testimony even from God himself , That he was faithful in all his house , Numb . 12.7 . that is , in all that wherewith God entrusted him , whereof the penning this sacred History was a part . But besides his fidelity , his tender affection to this people , for whose sake he quitted the glory and pleasures of the Egyptian Court , refusing to be called the Son of Pharaoh's Daughter , and afterwards in the Wilderness desires God to blot him out of his Book , rather than they should be destroyed ; I say this tender affection could not suffer him to omit the recording any considerable calamity that befel their Community , and that with as much commiseration , and in as relenting a strain , as he does the business of the Taskmasters . And though they had fallen into the hands of God himself , by some raging Pestilence , and not of man ( as the other was ) yet doubtless his great piety would not have failed to have pointed out those sins which provoked that judgment , nor to have celebrated God's mercy for saying to the destroying Angel , It is enough . This therefore being cleared , That Moses could neither be ignorant nor silent of any considerable Calamity that besel this people in Egypt , let us in the next place see whether he mentions or but hints at either Famine , War or Pestilence . As for Famine , we read of none , ●ave that which first brought them into Egypt ; and when Iacob and his Family came down to settle there , it was to this very end , That they might be preserved from the evil effects of that Famine which was in Canaan , and in all those parts , whereof there were five years yet to come , Gen. 45.11 . There is as little also said of their being oppressed by War or Invasion on their small Territory by the Neighbouring Midianites and Arabians , or any others : nor is it probable that the Kings of Egypt made any use of them in their Wars , they being Strangers charitably sheltered for their Brothers sake , under the protection of the Egyptians . For when they were but few , they could afford but sorry assistance ; and when they became many , 't was no policy to arm a Province of Strangers in the Bowels of the Country , and teach them the Art of War : And when they began to multiply , the Egyptians were so far from this , that they grew jealous of them , Exod. 1.10 . lest when there fell out War , they should join unto their Enemies , and fight against them . As for the Pestilence , we find not one word of that neither : That they were very subject to the Leprosie , is very certain ; and though it be as certain that that was very in●ectious , fore and noysome , and called a Plague , yet that it was frequently mortal seems to me very improbable ●or two reasons ; the first is , Because we ●●ver read of any that dyed of it , or 〈◊〉 least of any considerable numbers ; which is sufficient to my purpose : The ●ther reason is , Because the Law seems ●o suppose the recovery of those that ●ad it , as much as it did Women in Child-bed , because it appoints Rites and Offerings after recovery in both Cases , and both together , Lev. 12 , 13 , 14. I confess it appoints more large Offerings and more Rites for cleansing the recovered Leper , than in the othe Case , to denote the impurity of the one to be far greater than that of the other ; the one being according to the Law of Natures Oeconomy , the other an accident and a disease and the consequent of sin . But although this denotes the impurity to be of a different nature , and far greater ; yet does it not denote the danger to be greater : the Law by appointing the Rites of cleansing seems to suppose in general the recovery of both ; and though some might dye of the Leprosie , so likewise did some in Child-bed : but that it was any way comparable to the Plague , properly so called , is no way credible ; there b●ing no Rites nor Offerings appointed 〈◊〉 that in particular , because the Law ●●pposed the Plague mortal . I remember I have read in some Author , whose name I have forgot , as not worth remembring , of the same stamp with those Gentlemen You mention , Celsus and Porphyry , How that the Egyptians desired nothing more than to be rid of the Israelites , and that that Army wherewith Pharaoh pursued them according to Moses's relation , this Author says went to drive them out of the Country as a Herd of unclean Beasts and noysom Lepers . Now although this account be notoriously false , yet it affords this Observation , That the Leprosie was not accounted mortal , like the Plague of Pestilence ; for surely then this Authour , who seem'd to me to be more Knave than Fool , would not have made the Egyptians to have followed the fatal scent so close at the heels with their King at the Head of them , by whose life they swore . Nor had it been any more for Moses , but only to have commanded out a Brigade or two of Lepers , and by that means have seen that literally fulfilled which was promised afterwards , Iosh. 23.10 . One man of you shall chase a thousand ; or else he might have fac'd about , and placing death and destruction in the Front , easily have saved the expence of a Miracle , and in this posture have march'd back again to their beloved old Quarters , as this Author supposes them . The Leprosie therefore being 〈◊〉 no such mortal Nature , and there b●ing no hint of any other Epidemical Disease of a fatal Nature amongst this people during their abode ; I therefore conclude that they were guarded by God's especial Providence in this respect , as well as from the direful effects of War and Famine . But this will yet appear with greater evidence , if we take a view of God's tender affection and care over this people in supporting them under those afflictions which he was pleased to suffer to be brought upon them . During the life of Ioseph all was well , and they liv'd at great ease by means of his interest at Court , nay their happiness seems to be of equal continuance with the memory of that good man ; but he being gone to his Fathers , and to his Grave in peace and honour , at length in process of time , it is said , ( Ex. 1.8 . ) that there arose a King which knew not Ioseph , nor how serviceable he had been both to Prince and people in the time of Egypt's calamity . And he taking notice ( ver . 9. ) that the Israelites were more and mightier than his own people , he seems resolved to put a stop to their growing numbers , to keep Iacob from overflowing , and Israel within his Banks : Come , says he ver . 10. let us deal wisely with this people , lest they multiply , and it come to pass , that when there falleth out any War , they join also unto our enemies , and fight against us , and so get them out of the Land : By which means part of his Territories would have been unpeopled , and he would have lost above half his Subjects , or rather Slaves . And in order to accomplish this Project of checking their numbers from growing to an ungovernable bulk , ver . 11. therefore did they set over them Task-masters to afflict them with their burthens : Nor were these Taskmasters negligent in the execution of their Office , as appears by these several words which the Holy Ghost makes use of to set forth the misery of this poor distrested people , such as Affliction , Oppression , Rigour , Burdens , cruel Bondage , all manner of Service , fighting , crying , groaning , anguish of Spirit , and ver . 14. life it self is become bitter ; and chap. 2.11 . there Moses finds an Egyptian bastinading a poor Hebrew Slave at such an inhumane rate , as it provoked the meekest of men to become both his Judge and his Executioner upon the place . And doubtless , the slavery of the Spanish Mines at Peru and Mexico , no nor of the Turkish Gallies , is to be compared to this of Egypt ; for there the Masters interest pleads for the preservation of the Slave , whereas the very design of this seems with more than barbarous drudgery to make their Souls quit their harrassed Bodies , and by destroying a great part of the present Generation , prevent their multiplying in the next . But what is the effect of all this barbarous cruelty , Exod. 1.12 . The more they afflicted them , the more they grew ; though the Bush was on fire , yet was it not consumed . The second Project of Pharaoh's to give a check to their encrease was , By tampering with the Midwives ; But here God defeats him again ; for they feared God ( ver . 17. ) and did not as the King commanded them . Then in the third place , the same Command is issued out by Proclamation to all his Subjects whatsoever , ver . 22. And then Moses is born , and strangely preserved , even by the Tyrants own Daughter , whom God afterwards employs as the chief instrument of their delivery , in spight of all Egyptian policy and force : So vain is it to fight against God ; and if He be for Israel , let Pharaoh do his worst . It is also remarkable , that besides the destruction which fell to the share of the Egyptians at the Red Sea , two of the ten Plagues are of the same nature with those which Pharaoh intended against Israel : For as he intended to diminish their numbers , by crushing them into their Graves by heavy burthens and intolerable , Exod. 1.11 . Exod. 5.45 . Exod. 6.6 . so God diminishes Pharaoh's people with the Plague of Hail , which crush'd all that were abroad in the Field , even to the Earth , Exod. 9.25 . And the death of the first born of Egypt seems to retaliate what he would have done by the Midwives ; though this be threatned indeed on a more general account , Exod. 4.22 , 23. Thus faith the Lord , Israel is my Son , even my first-born ; let my Son go , that he may serve me : And if thou refuse to let him go , behold I will slay thy Son , even thy first-born . Now if God appear thus eminently , not only to preserve Israel intire from being diminished in his promised numbers in the midst of this Furnace of afflictions , but even to repay in kind that vengeance which was intended against them , certainly he would not destroy them himself by Famine or Pestilence ; nor is there any reason to suppose that there was not an even hand of Providence over them for good in one respect as well as another , and at one time as well as another . Can we think that God who promised Iacob , Gen. 46.3 . to go down with him into Egypt , and surely to bring him thence again , would leave him one minute whilst he was there , unless we think the God of Israel to be some times like booted Baal , whom the Prophet Elijah wittily upbraids to be taking of a journey ? I therefore conclude , that as they were extraordinarily supported under their afflictions from Pharaoh , so likewise that they were guarded from those three Calamities , Famine , War and Pestilence ; and that it may be truly said of these , as it is of the Plague of Hail , Exod. 9.26 . Only in the Land of Goshen , where the Children of Israel were , was there no hail . Seeing then that these People were thus cherished under the wings of Gods special Providence and protection from those sweeping Calamities which the same God inflicts upon other particular Nations ; and that frequently , not only as the Punisher of sin , but as the great Governour of the World , and for the good of the whole , in order to keep the Race of Mankind within such Bounds , that the Creatures may suffice for food and clothing , which they could not do if those three great Correctives were wholly intermitted but for one Century ; I say what wonder is it , that they who were thus cherished by God as a Father and Sponsor , and under his immediate protection , ( unless that protection it self be a wonder ) should be so very fruitful in respect of adult numbers , though they were not prodigiously fruitful above the Egyptians and other people , in respect of the number of Infants born , who had both Wives and Concubines as well as they ? For as other Nations , so particularly the Egyptians , are frequently subject to very considerable abatements in their numbers , by those three calamities before mentioned , especially the Pestilence in that sultry Climate , where the River Nile every Iune , which is a hot time of Year also , leaves abundance of mud upon the surface of that flat Country at his return into his old Channel , which must needs send forth noysom smells and vapours into the Air ; from whence arise Plagues and other Epidemical Diseases , especially where people live at ease and luxury , and crowded together in Cities : whereas the Israelites manner of life , they being Shepherds , whose business lyes abroad in the fresh open Air , might be a means from God of the preservation ; and that which Pharaoh intended for their ruine , in all probability was a means to secure them from Epidemical Pestilential Diseases . For it is a great truth , that the Plague it self is no Plague to clean and pure Constitutions , and seises those only whose Bodies , by feeding plentifully and living at some ease , contract vicious humours , which the infectious Air sets into a high fermentation , which it could not do if those humours were not there , they being the only Fuel of that fatal combustion : and certainly all the Colledg of Physicians , though Galen and Hippocrates and Aesculapius himself were joined with them , could not prescribe a more Sovereign remedy against the encrease of humors than Pharaoh did to these poor Drudges , viz. the Leeks and the Onions , the Garlick and Cucumbers of Egypt ; and if they would mend their Commons with Bread , they must get it , not with the sweat of their Brows only , but of every joint and limb : so that they were as clean as Horses for a Race , and might bid defiance to all infection . But when once they remove out of Egypt , and from making Bricks without Straw , and had little to do but only to stalk easie marches in the Wilderness , and sometimes to lye at Anchor , and to surfeit upon Quails and Manna , till it run out at their Nostrils , Numb . 11.20 . Then while the luscious Flesh was between their teeth , Numb . 11.33 . they are smitten with a very great Plague : and at the 14 th Chapter , those who went to search the Land of Canaan , dye of a second Plague ; and at the 17 th Chapter , there fourteen thousand and seven hundred dye of a third Plague ; and Chap. 25. there twenty four thousand dye of a fourth Plague ; they being now both naturally sitted by their luxury , and morally qualified by their sins , for this Judgment . But we hear not a syllable of any one Plague amonst this great people during their bondage in Egypt , who were therefore great and numerous , because guarded from this and the like Judgments . For should God have exposed them to those devouring Judgments of Famine , War and Pestilence , that had been but the way to have unravelled the means of performing his own promise , like one who travels in a Circle , and having trac'd the whole Circumference , arrives at length ( and not advances ) but to the same Point from whence he first set forth . I can never think that the Egyptians ( whose wisdom is celebrated even in Divine Writ , Acts 7.22 . as an Ornament and excellent Qualification in Moses himself , whom God chose out of all the Tribes to be his own Lieutenant or Deputy in governing the Israelites ) were such ill Politicians , or that they whom the annual Overflow of their great River taught to be the great Masters of Practical Geometry even to Greece it self ( which it is impossible to perform without good skill in Arithmetick ) should be such ill Arithmeticians , as not to be able to do that which I do now , viz. sit down and compute the number that would arise from seventy men by their Wives and Concubines , though every man had been as fruitful as Gideon , who had threescore and ten Sons ; and then judge whether these Strangers might not in time become dangerous to the State , and with a less auspicious inundation than that of Nile , overflow the whole Country , and like the Frogs enter even into their Kings Chambers . Now the reason why this fagacious people did not foresee this vast encrease of the Israelites must proceed from hence , That they saw no such prodigious fertility in them to make them encrease faster than themselves , and they being many thousands for one Israelite . Nature ( they thought ) would still hold the proportion the same . They could not but foresee by former experience , mortalities and plagues , those Correctives of the excels of humane generations , whereby God seems to say to the overflowing Ocean of Mankind , Hitherto shalt thou come , and no farther . But then they look'd upon this Judgment in the same Notion that David does , Psal. 91.5 . As an Arrow that flyeth by day : And for that reason they thought they saw it with their eyes falling promiscuously on the Israelites , as well as on themselves , not dreaming of that Pestilence , Psal. 91.6 . which walketh also in darkness , and beside the track of all humane conjectures , raging in the Cities of Egypt according to its usual Periods in that hot Country , but making a skip or pass-over at Israel , and forbearing to curtail his promised numbers in their Geometrical Progression towards infinity , which I now come to state more particularly . And what wonder is it if every man under these circumstances which I have discoursed of , should have five or six Sons apiece , and as many Daughters , reckoning one with another ; for though some might not have so many , so others might have a far more numerous Issue : Many a poor Cottage here in our less pregnant Climate can furnish out a larger Stock , honestly begotten , by one Wife only . Certainly , no man that considers what has been said , can think this an unreasonable supposition , especially if he consider also what David says , Psal. 127.4 . Lo Children and the fruit of the womb are an heritage and gift that cometh of the Lord , and also how eminently this truth appeared in the Wives of their famous Progenitors , Abraham , Isaac and Iacob , who were all successively barren till God made them otherwise ; and it is very probable , that as there was not one feeble Person , Psal. 105.36 . so there was not one barren person among their Tribes . But because that by accidents and natural infirmities some of these may reasonably be supposed to dye before they come to maturity , or at least , before they have the like number of Children ; I will therefore suppose no greater number than four Sons live to contribute their Parts to the next Generation , by getting five or six Sons likewise , whereof four live to do the like , and so on till two hundred and ten years be expired . In the next place I will suppose that every one of these four may be Father of his first-born at twenty four years of Age compleat ; for the life of man being now contracted , as I have before shewn , to seventy years , it is but reasonable to suppose that they made more haste than their long-liv'd Ancestors to secure an early share in the promise ; and if they might be Soulders at twenty years of Age , Numb . 1.45 . certainly it is no unproportionable supposition to think they might be Fathers of their First-born at twenty four . This will appear more probable yet , if we consider the more early pregnancy of that Climate , being almost under the Tropick ; whereas it is a common thing in our colder Situation of 52 Degrees latitude to anticipate that Age : Add to this what the learned Selden tell us , lib. 5. cap. 3. De jure Naturali Gentium apud Hebraeos : Necessitatem Matrimonii Praecepto fructificandi seu propagationis multiplicationisque , eo usque sanciri docent Rabbini , ut ita eo teneri Masculos omnes , ut quicunque expleto vigesimo aetatis anno ( & sunt qui de minori aetate heic pronuntiant ) Vxorem non duxerit , eum in illud committere seribant : nisi aut assiduo Legis studio incumbat , aut , &c. But because of this early commencing Fathers , it is probable ( as I have before observed ) that they continued Proletarians the less time , I will therefore suppose that these four Sons are all born in twenty four years more , that is , by such time as their Father is forty eight years of Age compleat , and upon these three suppositions I frame the Calculation annexed . The usual way of reckoning Generations , and calculating their numbers , is by Geometrical Progression , and in this present Case according to the suppositions premis'd , the proportions of every Generation would run thus : 1 , 4 , 16 , 64 , 256 , 1024 , &c. But I find that at last in the Conclusion this way does not give a distint view of the Grand-Sons , whereof a very considerable number are born within that Period which is allowed to the immediate Sons only , and by that means the account is intermixed and confused at last , and therefore I have thought of another way . And although the eldest Son may have his first Child before the Father has his last ; yet for clearness sake , and to avoid confusion , I suppose the Father to have all his four Sons before his eldest Son has ever a Child ; not that it was always really so , but to keep the account of each Generation distinct by it self , from interfering with that which succeeded , which would have been more intricate if I had supposed the Father and Son to have had Children born the same years both together ; I therefore suppose in the Table annexed , that every man has one of his four Sons every six years : so that his youngest Son is born six years before his eldest Son has a Child . This Table has but two Columns or Ranges of Figures , the first contains every sixth Year from Iacob's coming into Egypt , in every of which and no other ( for distinctness sake ) I suppose the Children to be born , the number of whom is placed in the other Column over against each Year . But this Column contains the number of Children which will arise from one man only , as suppose from Adam , in two hundred and ten years on the suppositions laid down ; if multiplyed by three , it will give the numbers arising from the three Sons of Noah ; if multiplyed by seventy , it will give the numbers of the Children of Israel , which are as follows : Of Males up to 80 years of Age — 1437310 Of Females the same — 1437310 Besides Concubines — 400000 Summ Total — 3274620 This account agrees exactly with that of Moses at their first Muster in the Wilderness , Numb . 1.46 . where all of twenty years old and upwards , fit for War , are computed at six hundred and three thousand , five hundred and fifty , and in the next Verse it is said , that the Levites were not numbred among the rest , but by themselves , Numb . 2.39 . where the Males from a Month old and upwards amount but to two and twenty thousand : Now if you allow eight thousand one hundred and eighty of these to be twenty years of Age and upwards to sixty eight , and then add that number to the number of the other Tribes fit for War , which is six hundred and three thousand , five hundren and fifty , then the total Summ will be the same with that which arises by my Computation , viz. six hundred and eleven thousand , seven hundred and thirty , where none are taken in that were born before the hundred and forty fourth year from their coming into Egypt ; so that none are above sixty eight years of Age of these six hundred and eleven thousand , seven hundred and thirty , at their going thence , and none under twenty : which being so near the mark , I think the Total number of Males and Females cannot be very wide from the truth . As for that ascititious Tribe , the Concubines , I have put them down at a venture at four hundred thousand , which is not so much as two thirds of the Males from twenty years old and upwards to sixty eight , by eleven thousand seven hundred and thirty . For though I have formerly hinted , that one Concubine to each man was the most probable number ; yet perhaps they might be without Concubines for some years after they were married , till such time as their appetites beginning to be cloy'd with one and the same Dish , their stomachs began to hanker after second Course . As to the way of computing the Table annexed , I need not say as S t Iohn does , Here is wisdom , let him that hath understanding count the number ; for he that has but so much understanding in Arithmetick as to perform Addition only may do this , and therefore , Sir , I will trouble You no farther about that . You will find that I have not confined my self precisely to two hundred and ten years , but to two hundred and twelve ; which yet is less than either S t Walter Raleigh , Helvicus or Petavius do allow for the Israelites stay in Egypt ; and yet I have not supposed any Children to be born after the two hundred and tenth year , but only that they stayed two years more , to this end , that I might begin my Computation of those that were twenty years old , and upwards , fit for War , with those that were born in the Year 192. But having such good authority as those three learned Chronologers , I think I need make no farther Apology , Petavius allowing no less than two hundred and fifteen years for their abode there . But I must not forget my promise that I made , to demonstrate that if the Israelites had continued in Egypt multiplying at the same proportion that they did whilst they were there , they would in eighteen or twenty years time have encreased to a greater number than they did in four hundred and seventy three years afterwards . For so many years it was , according to Helvicus , from the time of their deliverance out of Egypt to the time that David caused Ioab to number the people , whereof I find two Lists returned , 2 Sam. 24 and 1 Chron. 21. This last is the larger List , and therefore I will pitch upon that , it amounts to eleven hundred thousand . But Levi and Benjamin were not counted among them , 1 Chron. 21.6 . For the King's word was abominable to Ioab . But if ten Tribes give eleven hundred thousand , what shall two Tribes give at the same proportion ? And the Answer is , Two hundred and twenty thousand ; which added together make , One million , three hundred and twenty thousand men that drew the Sword , that is , that were twenty years old and upwards , to about seventy . Now if we suppose that the Israelites ●aid twenty years more , that is , to two hundred and thirty years , then they who were born in the two hundred and tenth year will be full twenty years old , and therefore if we begin there , and add all the numbers together up to the year one hundred and sixty two inclusively , they make nineteen thousand and fifty two ; which being multiplyed by seventy , make one million , three hundred thirty three thousand , six hundred and forty , which is , thirteen thousand six hundred and forty more than they were at the latter end of David's Reign ; Quod erat demonstrandum . And now , Sir , do You judge whether God Almighty was not as good as his word to Iacob , Gen 46.3 . Fear not to go down into Egypt ; for I will there make of thee a great Nation ; and whether this might not be done without multiplying of miracles for their production , only by covering them under the shadow of his wings till their calamities were past . For my part , I think they do equal disservice to the Christian Religion , who needlesly swell and aggrandize passages of Scripture into Mysteries and Miracles , such as this I have been speaking of , and that of S t Iohn 6.53 , 54 , 55. by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation ; and those who will solve all the Phaenonema of God's Providence and Proceedings , and the greatest Mysteries of Faith , such as the Doctrine of the Trinity , the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ , by bringing them down to the Level and Comprehension of our frail understandings , as the Pelagians and Socinians . For they who maintain , that this vast encrease of the Israelites could be effected no otherwise than by constant Twins , they do by that means make it look like an absurd Romantick Tale , as if it were impossible to be effected , unless every Israelitish Woman were like a Dorsetshire Ewe , which seldom brings forth less than two Lambs at a time ; whereof their own History does not so much as pretend to make mention . But I hope I have in some measure evinced the probability of the thing upon rational grounds , at least in such a measure as could well be expected from a Batchelour , who was never vers'd in this work of generation : And perhaps it was for that very reason that You were pleas'd to single me out to discuss this Question , from among the rest of your more learned Acquaintance that were married , as having a charitable regard to that Chessboard-Proverb , ( which You know We have sometimes occasion to make use of ) That a Stander-by sees more than the Gamesters . But I must not part with You so , without a more serious farewel and reflection on this occasion , and expressing my hearty thanks for putting me on this useful and pleasant undertaking ; for by that means You have ministred to me an occasion of searching more narrowly into the series of God's Providence over the Children of Israel , bringing the greatest events to pass by despicable , nay contrary means in all humane appearance at the time when they were transacted : Ioseph's Brethren by selling him to the Ishmaelites thought verily to have defeated the accomplishment of his aspiring Dreams , and by that very means send him ( notwithstanding he pass'd through a Prison too ) to be no less that the Vice-Roy of Egypt , and in that capacity their Sheaves come above twenty years after to do obeysance to his Sheaf , and the Sun , Moon and Stars to fall down before him , Gen. 37. and he becomes their great Patron and Protector , and in the place of God to them and their Posterity , Gen. 50.19 . I have before observed how God defeated at every turn the secret Plots and Machinations that were designed for the ruine of his Church and People ; and have not We seen fresh instances of the same nature even among our selves at this day , as well as in every Age since the time of the Reformation , wherein God Almighty has hitherto delivered us from the hands of our Roman Task-masters , and I trust he will yet deliver us ? For the reviving and cherishing of which hopes and trust in the good Providence of God , I must owne my self more beholden at this time to your obliging injunction , than You can be to me for my slender performance ; which yet if it contribute , though but remotely , to the clearing of any weighty truth which You shall undertake , it will be an additional satisfaction , as it was the only design and intent of , SIR , Your most obliged humble Servant , JAMES RUDYERD . Winchfield , November the 10 th 1681 . Anni a migratione Jacobi in Aegyptum . Filii nati quolibet anno sexto . 1 1 6 1 12 1 18 1 24 1 30 2 36 3 42 4 48 4 54 5 60 7 66 10 72 13 78 16 84 20 90 26 96 35 102 46 108 59 114 75 120 97 126 127 132 166 138 215 144 277 150 358 156 465 162 605 168 785 174 1016 180 1315 186 1705 192 2213 198 2871 204 3721 210 4821 212 0000 A SECOND QUESTION Propounded by the Author , viz. CONCERNING The multiplying of Mankind until the Floud . Honoured Sir , ALthough in contemplation of your great pains and bounty to my self and the Commonwealth of Learning , I should not ( in civility ) come in with another Question , tanquam ex postliminio ; yet , Extremum hunc , Arethusa , mihi concede laborem ! It is said , That Cain , being cast forth from the presence of God , in process of time begat Enoch , and built a City after his name ( being , it is likely then , at mans estate . ) After which it is set forth , in order of Writing , though not of time , that Adam begat Seth , in the hundred and thirtieth year of his Age , who had Enos by name ; in whose time men began to call upon the name of the Lord , or to be divided ( as I take it ) in Religions : I would fain know how far the World might be peopled by that time Enos was fit to go forth from his Fathers Tents , and to have a Tribe , Hoard , or Family of his own ; so that still the chief Family might retain to Adam , and the next numerous to Cain , and more people yet , to make up the house of Seth , or any of his Descendents . And if this appear for three hundred years in all , both the true Church and the false may be discovered , and what numbers of people may be conjectured to have been destroyed by the Floud . Which is the humble request of , SIR , Your most obliged Servant , THO. TANNER . December the 10 th 1681. M r RUDYERD's ANSWER TO THE Second Question . SIR , YOUR kind acceptance and favourable interpretation of my former Essay , obliges me to do no less than to attempt the answering Your other Queries , ex postliminio , as You call them . And in order to that , I have calculated the numbers that might arise from Adam and Eve , and their Posterity , upon these following suppositions : 1. That they had a Son every fourth Year , and a Child every second Year ; so that there is one Year for breeding , and another or nursing : For 't is not to be imagined , that Eve bred up her Children by hand , or that , when Mankind began to multiply , they should be guilty of that unnatural curiosity and gentile ninceness which prevails so much nowadays , of nourishing their Infants at a strange Dugg . But that there might be such frequent births as this amounts to , is not improbable ; considering that Mankind was at that time for especially under the Divine Benediction of encreasing and multiplying , in order to replenish the Earth , which was nothing else but a Wilderness , and altogether as useless ( except for wild Beasts ) as the Chaos it self , till such time as it was furnished with Inhabitants . 2. That these Children , being born of Parents of a far more durable althletick Constitution than men are now , and being form'd out of the more pure principles of Nature , as She came untainted out of the hands of her Creator , were not such Rickety Pulings as they are now in the decrepit Age of the World : there were no mala stamina vitae derived from diseased , feeble , intemperate Parents ; but fortes creantur à fortibus . I therefore suppose that they very rarely made such untimely Exits as frequently happen among us , but that every one of these attained to perfect Age ; or at least , that at such a time as God Almighty's own Colony , the Earth , wanted Planters , He might bless them extraordinarily with such a number of Twins as might make ample reparation for those who were cut off young by accidents and infirmities ; so that they might increase as fast as that proportion which I have stated , though not according to it : And yet I am not of the general opinion of the Rabbins , that upon this great occasion of peopling the World , there were few single births , but all were Twins ; and M r Selden out of them , and the Oriental Traditions , gives us the name of Cain's Sister Twin , and of Abel's two Sister Twins : But perhaps this may be but a Rabbinical fancy . 3. That Cain and all that were born after him , had their first-born at sixty five years of Age , as is recorded of Mahalael and Enoch : For although none are said to begin so early besides in that whole Genealogy , Gen. 5. down from Adam to Noah ; yet we are not to think the eldest Son is always named . And S t. Augustin is clearly of this opinion , libs 15. cap. 15. De Civitate Dei , Video esse credibile , inquit , non hic primogenitos filios ●sse commemoratos , sed quos successionis ordo poscebat , with much more to the same purpose a little after . For Moses's great aim is to draw down the direct Line only of Abraham the Father of the Jewish Nation . The like appears plainly in the Genealogy of our Saviour in S t Matthew , where Abraham is said to beget Isaac ; Isaac , Iacob ; Iacob , Iudah ; Iudah , Pharez ; Iesse , David ; David , Solomon ; whereof not one was the eldest Son of his Father . Nay , Methodius out of Oriental Traditions says , That Cain's eldest Son was born , when his Father was but thirty years old : And M r Selden quotes Cedrenus affirming , that Adam had thirty three Sons and twenty seven Daughters , and yet none of these are mentioned by Moses , save only Cain , Abel and Seth , and not so much as one Daughter , without which the Race of Mankind must have come to a full stop immediately . And if Adam and his Posterity to the Flood had no more Children than whose names are recorded by Moses , there had been little need of opening the Windows of Heaven , and pouring out an Ocean to drown them ; for as to the quantity of water , they might all have been drown'd in a Trash-pool ▪ And seeing there were many more than what are mentioned , what necessity is there to suppose that those which are mentioned were always the eldest ? Credat Iudaeus — 4. I suppose that Adam might continue getting Children till six hundred years of Age , seeing Noah had Sem , Ham and Iaphet after five hundred , Gen. 5.32 . But I shall have no occasion to carry on my Calculation so far in order to answer your Queries , which require no more than to the Birth of Cainan , when his Father Enos was ninety years old , which is just three hundred twenty five from the Creation . As for the numbers that might be destroyed by the Floud , they cannot be conjectured from any Calculation which falls short of that time ( as You imagine ) for the Calculation keeps no certain proportion that I can find : only You may guess the World to have been throughly stock'd with Inhabitants , and perhaps more than at this day . For Petavius in his 9 th Book de Doctrina Temporum , c. 14. and Temporarius in his Chronology before him , gives an evident demonstration ( as my Author says ) that within the compass of two hundred and fifteen years after the Floud , the number of coexisting Individuals would amount to a vast multitude , and I believe more than is in the World at this day , viz. above twelve hundred millions . Which is a swifter way of encreasing than arises by my computation ; for in 325 years there arise but 116779 Males , and adding the like number of Females there will be in all but 233558 ; which yet I think is abundantly sufficient to answer your Queries about Seth and Enos , though there were but half this number , or , which is all one , if I had supposed them to have had a Son but every eighth year . The only seeming difficulty is , to find out Inhabitants for Cain's City ; for by my Computation I can make but a hundred eighty seven Males in the World at the birth of Seth ; and Cain , according to my former suppositions , could have but sixteen Males of his own Posterity , and certainly none else would accompany the wretched Murderer , and thereby banish themselves from the face of the Earth , and of God himself , Gen. 4.14 , 16. Now seventeen Males would constitute but a large Family , nor is it to be supposed that so small a number , whereof a good part were but Children too , could give a Place the denomination on of a City , or of a Town , though we should suppose it such an one as Caesar describes our British Towns at his first footing here , Commentariorum lib. 5. Oppidum Britanni vocant , quum Sylvam impeditam vallo atque fossa munierant , quo incursionis hostium vitandae causâ convenire conjueverunt . But to solve this doubt I answer , That what is here said , Gen. 4.17 . That Cain's Wife bare Enoch , and that He builded a City , and called it after the name of his Son Enoch , is spoken by way of anticipation ; as if Moses should have said , This is that Enoch whose name Cain gave to the City which he afterwards built in process of time , when his Posterity began to encrease . And al●hough this be the first City mentioned , yet 't is very probable that Adam built the first City , being so much longer in the World at Man's Estate , wherein he was created , as to be Cain's Father ; And what need Cain have given any name to his City , if there were no other City in the World beside ? For names are for distinction , and are useless where there is but one of a kind . In Gen. 9. it is said of Sem , Ham and Iaphet These are the three Sons of Noah , and of them was the whole earth overspread ; and the next Verse says , Noah began to be an Husbandman , and planted a Vineyard : But no rational man can conclude from hence that the whole Earth was peopled before Noah began to be an Husbandman , and planted a Vineyard . So I say , Although Cain's City be mentioned before the birth of Irad and Mehujael , Gen. 4. yet it does not at all follow that therefore it must be built before they were born , because we see many things in this History hinted at in order of Writing first , which fell out last in order of time ; as in that instance I mentioned of Noah's Sons , and you your self instance in your Letter , in this History of Cain and his Posterity , which Moses seems to clap in a Parenthesis : And supposing Enoch the Son of Cain to be Contemporary with Seth , though it be probable he was something later , the Parallel will run thus . Seth Contemporary with Enoch Enos Contemporary with Irad Cainan Contemporary with Mehujael Mahalael Contemporary with Methusael Iared Contemporary with Lamech Enoch Contemporary with Tubal Cain Methuselah Contemporary with Lamech Contemporary with Noah Contemporary with And yet the History of Tubal Cain is dispatched before Seth is spoken of , though he were Contemporary with Enoch , who is five Generations remov'd from Seth : So that there is no reason to conclude that Cain's City was built before Irad was born , only because it precedes in the History . And perhaps it was not built in a hundred years after , nor received the name of Enoch many years after that , till such time as there were more Cities in the World , and Cain himself grew old , and weary of the splendid toil of Governing , and so admitted his eldest Son to a Partnership in his Superintendency ; thereby to ease himself of part of his care , and secure the Succession in the right Line ; for which Cain seems to have been very zealous : For by calling his City Enoch , no man could mention it , but at the same time he must declare , by the very name of it , to whom it did belong . In this , Cain seems to me to have play'd the Machiavel ; and no wonder , since our Saviour himself tells us , that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light . But certainly it was no policy for Cain to secure the Dominion of this City to his Son , by calling it after his Son 's , and not after his own name , till such time as he himself grew old , and willing to resign up his cares as well as his Glory : For had he done it whilst he was young and likely to live , unless Enoch was an honester man than his Father , it would have been a greater temptation to him to have murthered his Father , than ever Cain had to murder his Brother . Artaxerxes seems to have gone this way to work ; for he setled his Son Darius in the Throne during his own life , and a common thing it was among the Persian Emperors : Nay , David himself did so by Solomon , to prevent his elder Son Adonijah from coming to the Throne , and many of the Roman Emperours assum'd those whom they intended for their Successors , in Consortium Imperii : And perhaps this part of King-craft might derive its Original from Cain . But if any are so wedded to their own opinions , as to think that this City must needs be built before Irad was born , because 't is related first , I shall not be averse to that fond conceit , provided they allow this definition of their City , that it was Spelunca Latronum . And whereas it is urged by the Prae-Adamites , that the World was peopled very well before Cain slew his Brother , because Cain says Every one that meeteth him will slay him : All that I can gather from hence , is , That Cain spake more reason than the Prae-Adamites : For what reason is there , now that the World is peopled , for a Murtherer to conclude that every one that meeteth him will slay him ? Does not many a Murtherer escape by flying amongst men , and hiding himself in the Crowd ? So that there is no need of puting a mark upon such an one for fear he should be kill'd , Gen. 4. there is more need of a mark now that he may be known , and brought to Justice . Nay , the Prae-Adamites are so far from establishing or strengthning their opinion from this Text , that Cain spake greater reason , by how much the World was the lesser ; for that was an high aggravation of the murder , and made it look more black and notorious than it would do now that the World is well stock'd with Inhabitants , as it would have been a greater crime to have rob'd the good Samaritan of his Two-pence , than to have stollen the same Summ out of Craesus's Treasury . And by reason of this scantiness of the Race of Mankind , the matter became the more known , even to all the World , who would be sure to tell their Children of this inhumane act , which made him the discourse of all , — cunctorum volitare per ora , and they would be sure to describe the villany from head to foot ; and the Race of Mankind continually encreasing and spreading farther from its Center , Nature seem'd to send the Hue and Cry after him , and Cain might well conclude , that that and vengeance would overtake him both together , and that every one that meeteth him would slay him . But lest I should seem guilty of something of the like nature , by murdering Your patience with a tedious long-winded Epistle , I here take occasion to tell You , That I have done ; or , which is all one , to subscribe my self , SIR , Your faithful Servant , J. RUDYERD . December the 12 th 1681. Anni a Creatione Filii nati 1 1 5 1 9 1 13 1 17 1 21 1 25 1 29 1 33 1 37 1 41 1 45 1 49 1 53 1 57 1 61 1 65 2 69 3 73 4 77 5 81 6 85 7 89 8 93 9 97 10 101 11 105 12 109 13 113 14 117 15 121 16 125 17 129 19 133 22 137 26 141 31 145 37 149 44 153 52 157 61 161 71 165 82 169 94 173 107 177 121 181 136 185 152 189 169 193 188 197 210 201 236 205 267 209 304 213 348 217 400 221 461 225 532 229 614 233 708 237 815 241 936 245 1072 249 1224 253 1393 257 1581 261 1791 265 2027 269 2294 273 2598 277 2946 281 3346 285 3807 289 4339 293 4953 297 5661 301 6476 305 7412 309 8484 313 9708 317 11101 321 12682 325 14473 Total 116779 Males Books Printed for , and Sold by RICHARD CHISWELL . FOLIO . SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland , and of Foreign Parts . Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers , in 2. Vol. Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time. Wanley's Wonders of the little World , or Hist. of Man. Sir Tho. Herbert's Travels into Persia , &c. Holyoak's large Dictionary , Latine and English. Sir Rich. Baker's Chronicle of England . Wilson's Compleat Christian Dictionary . B. Wilkin's real Character , or Philosophical Language . Pharmacopaeia Regalis Collegii Medicorum Londinensis . Judge Iones's Reports in Common Law. Cave Tabulae Ecclesiasticorum Scriptorum . Hobbs's Leviathan . Lord Bacon's Advancement of Learning . Sir Will. Dugdale's Baronage of England in two Vol. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity . Winch's Book of Entries . Isaac Ambrose's Works . Guillim's Display of Heraldry with large additions . Dr. Barnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England , in 2. Vol. — Account of the Confessions and Prayers of the Murtherers of Esquire Thynn . Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion . Herodoti Historia Gr. Lat. cum variis Lect. Rushworth's Historical Collections the 2 d. Part in 2. vol. — Large account of the Tryal of the Earl of Strafford , with all the circumstances relating thereunto . Bishop Sanderson's Sermons , with his Life . Fowlis's History of Romish Conspir . Treas . & Usurpat . Dalton's Office of Sheriffs with Additions . — Office of a Justice of Peace with additions . Keeble's Collection of Statutes . Lord Cook 's Reports in English. Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World. Edmunds on Caesars Commentaries . Sir Iohn Davis's Reports . Judge Yelverton's Reports . The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuites , Seminary Priests , Recusants , the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgments , and resolutions of the Iudges ; with other Observations thereupon , by Will. Cawley Esq William's impartial consideration of the Speeches of the five Jesuits executed for Treason . 1680. Iosephus's Antiquities and Wars of the Jews with Fig. QVARTO . DR . Littleton's Dictionary , Latine and English. Bishop Nicholson on the Church Catechism . The Compleat Clerk : Precedents of all sorts . History of the late Wars of New-England . Dr. Outram de Sacrificiis . Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery . Spanhemii Dubia Evangelica , 2 Vol. Dr. Gibbs's Sermons . Parkeri Disputationes de Deo. History of the future state of Europe . Dr. Fowler 's Defence of the Design of Christianity against Iohn Bunnyan . Dr. Sherlock's Visitation-Sermon at Warrington . Dr. West's Assize Sermon at Dorchester 1671. Lord Hollis's Relation of the Unjust Accusation of certain French Gentlemen charged with a Robbery 1671. The Magistrates Authority asserted , in a Sermon , By Iames Paston . Cole's Latine and English Dictionary . Mr. Iames Brome's two Fast-Sermons . Dr. Iane's Fast-Sermon before the Commons . 1679. Mr. Iohn Iames's Visitation Sermon April . 9. 1671. Mr. Iohn Cave's Fast-Sermon on 30. of Ian. 1679. — Assize Sermon at Leicester Iuly 31. 1679. Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the Divine Authority of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion . Mr. William's Sermon before the Lord Mayor 1679. — History of the Powder Treason with a vindication of the proceedings relating thereunto , from the Exceptions made against it by the Catholick Apologist and others ; and a Parallel betwixt that and the present Popish Plot. Speculum Baxterianum , or Baxter against Baxter . Mr. Hook's new Philosophical Collections . Dr. Burnet's Relation of the Massacre of the Protestants in France . — Conversion and Persecutions of Eve Cohan a Jewess of Quality lately Baptized Christian. — Letter written upon Discov . of the late Popish Plot. — Impiety of Popery being a second Letter written on the same occasion . — Sermon before the Lord Mayor upon the Fast for the Fire , 1680. — Fast Serm. before the House of Com. Dec. 22. 80. — Sermon on the 30. of Ianuary 1681. — Sermon at the Election of the L. Mayor . 1681. — Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Houblon . 1682. — Answer to the Animadversions on his History of the Rights of Princes , 1682. — Decree made at Rome 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuites and other Casuists . Published by Dr. Burnet , with a Preface . — A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the difference between the French K. and the Court of Rome . Bibliotheca Norfolciana , sive Catalogus Libr. Manuscript . & impress . in omni Arte & Lingua , quos Hen. Dux Norsolciae Regiae Societati Londinensi pro sci●ntia naturali promovenda donavit . OCTAVO . ELborow's Rationale upon the English Service . Bishop Wilkin's Natural Religion . Hardcastle's Christian Geography and Arithmetick . Dr. Ashton's Apology for the Honours and Revenues of the Clergy . Lord Hollis's Vindication of the Judicature of the House of Peers in the case of Skinner . — Jurisdiction of the H. of Peers in case of Appeals . — Jurisdiction of the H. of Peers in case of Impositions . — Letters about the Bishops Votes in Capital Cases . Duporti Versio Psalmorum Graeca . Dr. Grew's Idea of Philological History continued on Roots . Spaniards Conspiracy against the State of Venice . Dr. Brown's Religia Medici : with Digbies Observations . Dr. Salmon upon the London Dispensatory . Brinsley's Posing of the Accidence . Several Tracts of Mr. Hales of Eaton . Bishop S●nderson's Life . Dr. Tiliasen's Rule of Faith. Dr. Simpson's Chymical Anatomy of the York-shire Spaws ; with a Discourse of the Original of Hot Springs and other Fountains . — His Hydrological Essays , with an Account of the Allum-works at Whitby , and some Observations about the Jaundice . 1 s. 6. d. Dr. Cox's Discourse of the Interest of the Patient , in reference to Physick and Physicians . Organon Salutis : or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach . With divers New Experiments of the Vertue of Tabaco and Coffee : with a Preface of Sir Hen. Blunt. Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity , in three Parts . A Discourse of the Nature , Ends , and difference of the two Covenants , 1672. 2 s. Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness . 1 s. 6 d. A free Conference touching the present State of England , at home and abroad , in order to the designs of France . 1 s. Mystery of Jesuitism , Third and Fourth Parts . Doctor Sanway's Unreasonableness of the Romanists . Record of Urines . Doctor Ashton's Cases and Scandal and Persecution . Cole's Latin and English Dictionary . The Tryals of the Regicides in 1660. Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon in Arguments Civil , Moral , Natural , &c. with a large account of all his Works , by Dr. Tho. Tennison . Dr. Puller's Discourse of the Moderation of the Church of England . Dr. Saywel's Original of all the Plots in Christendom . Sir Iohn Munsons discourse of Supream Power and Common Right Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts . Mr. Seller's Remarks relating to the State of the Church in the three first Centuries . The Country-mans Physician ; for the use of such as live far from Cities or Market-Towns . Dr. Burnet's account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester . — Vindic. of the Ordinations of the Church of Engl. — History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-Lands . — Life of God in the Soul of man. Markam's Perfect Horseman . Dr. Sherlock's Practical Disc. of Religious Assemblies . — Defence of Dr. Stillingsleet's Unreasonableness of Separation . — A Vindication of the defence of Dr. Stillingsleet in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob about Catholick Communion . The History of the House of Estée , the Family of the Dutchess of York , Octavo . Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha , or Natural Power of Kings . Mr. Iohn Cave's Gospel to the Romans . Dr. Outram's 20. Serm. preached on several occasions . Dr. Salmon's new London Dispensatory . Lawrence's interest of Ireland in its trade & wealth stated . DVODECIMO . HOdder's Arithmetick . Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christian● . Bishop Hacket's Christian Consolations . The Mothers Blessing . A Help to Discourse . New-Englands Psalms . An Apology for a Treatise of Human Reason , written by M. Clifford Esq . The Queen-like Closet , both parts . VICESIMO QVARTO . Valentine's Devotions . Guide to Heaven . Pharmacopoeia Collegii Londinensis reformata . Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell . AN Historical Relation of the Island of CEYLON in the East Indies : Together with an Account of the detaining in Captivity the Author , and divers other English-men now living there , and of the Author 's miraculous Escape : Illustrated with fifteen Copper Figures , and an exact Map of the Island . By Capt. Robert Knox , a Captive there near 20 years , Fol. Mr. Camfield's two Discourses of Episcopal Confirmation , Octavo . Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons never before extant . Mr. Iohn Cave's two Sermons of the duty and benefit of submission to the Will of God in Afflictions , Quar. Dr. Crawford's serious expostulation with the Whiggs in Scotland , Quarto . A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the Difference between the French King and the Court of Rome ; to which is added , The Popes Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy , and their Protestation . Published by Dr. Burnet . Alphonsus Borellus de motu Animalium , in 2 Vol. Quarto . Dr. Salmon's Doron Modicum , or supplement to his new London Dispensatory , Octavo . Sir Iames Turner's Pallas Armata , or Military Essayes of the Ancient , Grecian , Roman and Modern Art of War , Fol. Mr. Tanner's Primordia : or the Rise and Growth of the first Church of God described , Octavo . A Letter writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants , inviting them to return to their Communion ; together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction . Translated into English and Examined by Dr. Gilb. Burnet , Octavo . Dr. Cave's Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church by Bishops , Metropolitans , and Patriarchs : more particularly concerning the ancient Power and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome , and the encroachments of that upon other Sees , especially Constantinople , Octavo . — His History of the Lives , Acts , Death , and Writings of the most eminent Fathers of the Church that flourished in the fourth Century : ( being a Second Volumn ) wherein amongst other things is an Account of Arianism , and all other Sects of that Age. With an Introduction containing an Historical account of the state of Paganism under the First Christian Emperours , Folio . Books in the Press . DOctor Iohn Lightfoot's Works in English , Fol. Mr. Selden 's Ianus Anglorum Englished , with Notes : To which is added his Epinomis , concerning the Ancient Government and Laws of this Kingdom never before extant . Also two other Treatises written by the same Author : One of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments ; the other of the Disposition or Administration of Intestates Goods ; now the first time Published , Fol. Mezeray's History of France , rendred into Engl. Fol. Gul. Ten-Rhyne Med. Doct. Dissertat . de Arthritide , Mantyssa Schematica , & de Acupunctura . Item Orationes tres de Chemiae ac Botaniae Antiquitate & Dignitate . De Physiognomia & de Monstris . cum Figuris & Authoris notis illustrata , Octavo . D. Spenceri Dissertationes de Ratione Rituum Iudaicorum , &c. Fol. Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A62735-e470 Acts 14.16 . Gen. 1.26 , 27. & 2.8 . Si hom● non pe●âsset , tota terra velut Paradisus quidam , ab hominibus generatione multiplicandis , incolenda s●it● ; licèt ille Paradisus , in quo positus dicitar Adam , esset ins●gnior cat●●is , ideoque primo ●omini attributus , quatenus gene●is principi . Est. in lib. 2. sent . dist . 25. § 2. Gen. 2.2 , 3 , 9. Gen. 2.17 . Gen. 3.22 , 23 , 24. Gen. 1.28 . * R. Iarchi tamen asserit Adamum , ante praevaricationem , genuisse Cainum , quia praeceptum su●rat , crescite , &c. At Doctores Catholici statuunt cos è Paradiso egressos Virgines : praeceptum vero expectasse tempus debitum , ●t varii Coment . in G●n . Psal. ●51 . 5 . Ezek. 1● . 4 . Gen. 4.22 . Gen. 3.16 . ●r●naeus l. 3. ●ontra Haer. cap. 34 , &c. Eppihan . Her. 46 , ●7 . * Deus utrumque poslquam peccârunt , non dereliquit , sed increpando requisivit , & adpoenitentiam vocavit : & ut eos in majorem spem veniae erigeret , promisit Semen ex Muliere nasciturum , quo aliquando conter●ret●r Caput Serpentis , qui cos ad transgressionem Divinae Legis induxerat . Est. in 1. 2. d. 33. §. 10. * Pelagius docuit primos post peccatum homines , sal●atos suisse per Legem Naturae ; pos●eriores per Legem Mosis ; postremos vero per Evangelium Chris●i , quasi ●ine gratiâ Christi , vel Natura , vel Moses cuiquam potuerit prodesse ad salutem . Est. in l. 3. sent . d. 1. § 3. ‖ Pelagius vero , cùm gratiam Dei omninò negare non posset , docebac ●am in libero arbitrio , in Lege data , in exemplo Chrisli ▪ &c. sitam es●e . Id. in l. 2. sent . d. 26. §. 18. Naturalis gratia ha●ent●r bona gubernationis , &c. ut & dona naturalia scientiae , & morum : quanquam gratia significavit antiquitus donum aliquod supernaturalis Ordinis , alque dovec Pelagius abus●● est boc nomine , ad significandum solam Naturam gratis creatam . Alvar. disp . 1. de auxiliis . Quam gratiam sussecisse ad salutem , secundùm P●lagium ▪ resert etiam Voss. Hist. Pelag. l. 3 th . 1. Gen. 4. Chap. 14. Ch. 28.20 — ver . 22. Psal. 51.16 . — 50.13 . * Selden de jure naturali , & Gentium juxtadisciplinam Ebraeor . l. 3 c. 8. & quia Noachus munda ab immundis segregavit . Gen. 7.2 . Item Bertr . de Rep. Ebr. cap. 2. Illud non praeter●undum , non sicut ips● Sacrificia , ita omnia , quae prophanae Gentes ad Sacrificia adhibuerant , adscita ●uisse in Dei sacra : nec enim omnia Animantium , nec Rituum sacrificalium genera eadem in populi Isra●litici , a● Gentium a'iarum , sacris ●rant . Ou●●am de Sacrificiis , lib. 1. cap. 1. ‖ Vt notum est de Poenis , Phoenicibus , Syris . DeGallis etiam Caesar : pro vitâ hominis nisi vita hominis reddatu● , non posse D●orum Immortalium numen placari arbitrantur . De Bello Gall. lib. 6. 1 Cor. 11.25 , 26. — v. 23. Matt. 28.19 . Mark 16.15 . Gen. 2.2 , 3. Exod. 20.11 . Vide ●tiam plura de hac qu. in Seldeno , loco supra citato & cap. 9. sequen●e . Gal. 3. * Videsis que fusius de hác re disseruit Selden . de jure natur . &c. l. 3. cap. 8. & 9. Gen. 1.31 . 1 Cor. 16.1 , 2. Gen. 2.23 , 24. Matth. 19.4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. Mark 10.5 , 6 , 7 , 8. Eph. 5.31 , 32. John 21.25 . * Cautione adhibitaâ contra Socinum , qui censet Adamum ante pecc●sse , quàm comed ret , ●ametsi sola comessione à slat● excideret . Rom. 2.15 . Referente Outramo lib. 1. c. 1. §. 6. in haec verba , Hi , qui sua sponte pririò sa 〈◊〉 judicant , bun● sacri●ic●●●i Rit●m ad Naturea 〈…〉 dictas , ●ternas , ●lique● , & immutabiles non reser●nt ; sed ad ejus●nodi Instituta , quae ratio naturalis ●xcogitaverit , tanguam 〈◊〉 icuum Dei cultum apt●●●●●● , & idonea , &c Contra sententiam Antiquoram , qui Sacrificia isla ignita , ex jussu , seu inspiratione Numinis , cum caeteris ad cultum necessari●● , originem babuisse tradid●runt . Uti probant Alex. Halens . p. 4. membr . 6. & Scot. in sent . 4. dist . 1. quaest . 7. D ● Lig●t●oot's Temple Service ch . 8. § 1. E praelectionibus th●olog . F. S●cini Senensis , sparsim . Heb. 11.6 . Cui ●nim usui , obsecro , is●a praenotio esset ? Annon fatis est , D●●n c●n●la regere perpetu● , ac g●b●●nare , n●●●pso plan● nelente quidquam fieri posse ? S●a cura ubique semper , ●ta scientiâ , ac potentiâ suâ praest● esse , ut omnes ho●inis conatus & perspicere , & si sibi visum suerit , impedire posse● , insin●●aque suâ sa●i●ntiâ ( ●uicquid homo ●●oliatur , aut moliri 〈◊〉 ) omnia ad sui gloriam 〈◊〉 ; & quà rationi , prout hominis conatus suerit , sibi , ag●ndu● sit , ja● , ant●a , si it● placet , constituisse ? cap. 9. Cap. 10. respondend● ad 1 Pet. 1.20 . ●● Outram . ubi supra . Outram . in Praes . libri de Sacrif●ci●s . Temere ab ●is sactum judicant , qui Lege aliquâ à Deo latà , cujas neque Moses , neque alius quisqua● Scri●or●m ve●●rum osquam ●neminit , primo sacrificatum sla●●●t . Prorsus enim incredibile esse , omnes planè Scriptores sacros ●iulmodi si qua esset , Legem que primis omnium hominum parentibus eorhinque posteris à Deo ipso lata●suerit ; quase nullius momenti rem , tacitè praeloire ●●l●isse . ubi supr . l. 1. c. 1. Lev. 10.1 . Exod. 31.3 , 5. Gen. 4. R. Levi Ben Gerson ad Gen. cap. 4. in h●c verba , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Cainus & Abel viri valdè sapientes erant : atque i●a sactum , utcum ad laborum suorum sinem pervenissent , uterque ex facultatibussuis munus Deo off●rret , &c. Lev. 17.11 . Socinos ●bi supra , respondendo ad 1 Pet. 1.20 . Heb. 11.4 . Vt neq●e Crellius , qui in han● Epistola● variè Commentatus aut commentus est . Rom. 14.23 . Gen. 4.3.4 . * In oblationibus spontaneis , holocaustis itid●m spontaneis , & votis ( pro vario personarum , ac rerum discrimine ) praeter preces , gratiarum actiones , benedictiones , constitisse cultum illum Divinum , ad quem genus humanum obligatum esse voluêre Ebraei , idque ●x jure naturali . — In holocaustis autem cruentis , seu a●imalium sacrisiciis , ●g●e omninò consumendis , parte nullâpollutâ , sex comesâ ... atque tune temporis ( sc. ante Noacbum ) sacrificia illa ignita ex jussu , seu inspiratione Numinis , originem habuerunt ... Et totum animal pro victima oblatum , excoriatum tamen pro more , & dissectum [ Tamen quaere num Abrabamus ita fecerit , cùm arietem pro Isaaco immolaret ] concremandum erat , in gratiarum actionem , favoris conciliationem , peccatorum expiationem , velut per symbolum ... Vnde Abel primogenita Ovium , ●aque optima in holocaustum immolavit , Numinique sic placuit : Cainus verò tantum absuit ab hoc tam eximio Numinis hominibus indultu agnos●●●do ut nondum admitteret animantium immolationem ; ac si baberet caedem licitam magis fuisse , as homicidium ; parilem enim ( ut Ebraei reserunt ) hominibus censuit , ac animantibus caeteris fuisse exitum . Atque inde cùm res viliores , seu fruges terrae obtulit , ●o demùm nomine Deo displicuit . Ut Seldenus , ubi supra , ex Rabbinis . Heb. 9.22 . Heb. 11.39 . Tantum abesse judicant , at hîc laudata Abelis fides explicato ullo Dei jussu niteretur , ut boc ex loco contrarium potius effici posse arbitrentur , &c. A p. Outr. l. 1. c. 1. §. 4. Rom. 4.15 . Exod. 5.3 . 1 Cor. 11.30 . Gen. 22.2.13 . Gen. 22.2 , 13. — 35.1 . Gen. 38.9.24 . Jude 14. 2 Pet. 2.5 , 7 , 8. Vt supra , cap. 3. Ita nimirumprimevoshomines naturae lumine institutos judicant , ut cultum , & honorem conspicuum Deo adhibendum viderent , idque optimè si●ri potuisse , si quod quisque optimum habuit , id ritu sacro Deo redderet . Ibid. Hec enim sic intellig● volunt , ut sinis di●rum Cai●o messis ●xitus esset : Abeli aut●● tempus illud , qua pecorum setu au●tus erat . sect . 5. Point I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Euseb. Caesariens . de dem . Evang. l. 1. c. 10. Qui Socini●norum Scripta leg●rit , ita de morte I●s● Chris●i , ita de illius Sacrificio ( quod ● morte ejus semper sejungunt ) judicâsse sentiet , ut alteri omnem planè detraxerint poenae vicari●e rationem , nihilque nobis gratiae apud Deum al●●ro impetratum exislimaverint : ut qui licet mortis ejus vi●● aliquo modo circa Deum , vim tamen Sacrificii ejus circa bomines primò versari statuerint . Outram . in Praf . — Gen. 3.14 . Sidetrahas primos 60. annos Mathus●lae , aetatem p●rfectam praecedentes , sacilè inde conjici potest , quantò longior ●●erit Adae vita . In sent . dist 17. §. 1. Gen. 5.15 . Only Mabaleel began to generate at 65. ●ictimae enim piaculares peccata , di quibus immolabant●r , p●enâ vica●iâ expiâ●●●t . C●e●●●a Sac●is●●ia omnia ad Dei gratiam vel impetrand●m , vel 〈…〉 . Outr. in Praef. Dr. Lightsoot's Temple-Setvice , ch . 8. * Continet hoc Sacrificii genus protestationem , quod homo totum , & omne bonum suum accepisset à D●o , cum recognitione , & gratiarum ac●ione . Id●oque totum Ill●d Sacrificium , nullà parte reserva●â , igne consumi debebat in honorem Dei. Est. in lib. 2. dist . 25. §. 27. Exod. 29.18 . Levit. 1.9 . Rev. 8.3 . De precibus vero sacrificalibus quales erant . Vid. Outr. l. 1. c. 15. & Jo. Seld. de jure nat . & Gentium juxta discipl . Ebr. l. 3. c. 8. & Lightsoot c. 9. §. 6. Adami , seu praeficti Eccles●e moderande duplex fuisse videtur ofsicium : unum Prophetiae , alterum Sacerdotii ... Saepius iteravit , & exposuit Vxori increpationem , & promissionem sibi sacram , item & Liberis suis , ●ósque Genuinum Dei cultum doc●it : atque ita proph●tam ●git , ut & suit . Bertr . de Rep. Ebr. cap. 2. Est. in l. 2. dist . 23. sect . 3. Gen. 2.20 . John 8.56 . Gen. 22.11 , &c. Heb. 12.21 . Heb. 11. Point II. 〈◊〉 sacrificandi Ritum ad Naturae Leges propriè dictas , aeternas utique & immutabiles non reserre ; sed ad ●jusmodi in●titata , q●ae ratio naturalis excogitav●rit , tanqua● ad conspicuum D●i cultum apta satis , & idonea ... Neque ipsa animalia ab Abele , Noa & Abrahamo , Deo immolata , explic●tâ aliquâ ipsius Lege , sed Divinâ quâdam ration● , que non omnium communis erat , sed potius optimi c●ju●q●● prop●ia ▪ Outr. ubi supra . Vt supra cap. 2. Rom. 8.20 . Prov. 12.10 . John 10.10 , 11. Jonah 4.11 . Psal. 90.3 . Deut. 32.35 Psal. 94.1 . Rom. 12.19 . Heb. 10.30 . 2 Sam. 12.31 . 1 Chron. 20.3 . Hom. 11.1 . Luke 11.51 . Matth. 23 , 35. Gen. 3. Gen. 3. Gen. 4. cain est possessio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In ●o ● . p●tabant redemptionem else in ●oribus : ergo Letum 〈◊〉 nomen impos●●nt . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aé●le 〈…〉 , ideo vanitatis nomine p●tiùs illum insig●●●b●● . Fagius . Gen 4.1 . Gen. 4.25 . Gen. 4.3.4 . ver . 19 , &c. Gen. 6.1 , ● . Gen. 6. First Book of the History of the World. part 1. ch . 6. sect . 2. Gen. 9.23 . Gen. 10.21 . Gen. 10. Sir Walter Raleigh Book , 1. part , ch . 8 §. 2. Numb . 24.24 . Though goodness may be repaired in our selves , yet it cannot be , propagated unto ours .... Doubtless their education was holy : for Adam , tho' in Paradise he could not be innocent , yet was a good man out of Paradise , saith Bishop Hall. Contemplat . on Cain and Abel . Ut fusè explicat Bertramus , l. de Rep. Ebr . cap. 2. & Jo , Seld. l. 3. de Jure Natur. & Gen. &c. cap. 8. * Josh. 24.2 , 3. Isal. 51.1 , 2. ‖ Montag . apparat . c. 1. Sect. 28. Jos. Antiq. l. 1. c. 8. Egypt gives relief to Abraham , when Canaan could not afford him Bread , which yet he must believe shall flow with Milk and Hony to his Seed ... Thrice had Egypt preserved the Church of God ; in Abram , in Iacob , and in Christ. Bishop Hall. Cont. of Abraham . Gen. 15.13 . Gen. 12.19 — 20.4 , 8. Simson . Chronici Catholici parte 1 . ad An. Mund. 2086. Wherefore God enjoined Abraham's Posterity in after Generations to speak , and say before the Lord their God , A Syrian ready to perish was my Father , and he went down into Egypt , and sojourned there with a few , and became there a Nation , &c. Deut. 26.5 . * Gen. 14. Ch. 13.2 . Ch. 23.6 . Ch. 14.18 , &c. * ( Whether to refresh his little Army , or to sacrifice , or both . ) Qui Melchisedecum nihil ad Sacrificia , nisipane & vino usum censent , & rebus tantùm inanimis sacrificâsse arbitrantur , hi sanè quantum mihi videtur , quare fiejudicent , nihil habent . Imòverò , se à Sacerdotio ejus aliena suissent cruenta Sacrificia , quî sactum est , ne ipse Christus cujas idem Sacerdotii genus sanguine suo sacrificaret ? Outr. l. 2. c. 1. [ Ubi Vir Cl. coactus est sareri Sacrificia Typica , ac proinde instituta ante Mofen . ] Gen. 20.7 . Gal 3. * Videsis tamen quid de hâcre senferit P. Cunaeus de Rep. Hebraeorum , l. 3. c. 3. ‖ Corn. à Lap. in locum . Qui interimpios piè & juslè vix . it ... Accuratissimè v. Matth. Po. lus in Synopsi ad Heb. c. 7. * Sine Patre , sine Matre , quia sine Genealogia , quod in aliis omnibus viris magnis contra à Mose fieri solebat : Imò nallis parentibus esse dicti sunt magni & illustres Viri , quorum Parentes non memorantur . Nam Seneca duorum Regum meminit , quorum alter , inquit , Patrem non habet , alter Matrem . Ep. 108. In Outr. l. 1. c. 4. cujus Libri Cl. de Sacrif . ad manus meas non pervenêre , nisi post exaratas , & propemodum fi●itas hasce Chartas ; quaeratio est , cur in ipsis Columnis postea non citentur . Gen. 9.26 . Gen. 10 , 21 , &c. Gen. 4.26 , Gen. 4.26 . Gen. 9.26 . Montague's Acts and Monuments ( w th is his Apparatus otherwise accommodated ) ch . 1. § 29. Gen. 17.7 . Con empl . of Abraham , Book 2. Acts 7.2 . Gen 12. ● , 2 , 3 — Ab Anno Mun. ( ut Simson computat ) 2077 ad An. Mun. 2108. * With a second assurance , delivered as a new promise , pointing out the Land in particular , which he had been commanded to survey . Gen. 13.7 Gen. 13.14 , 15 , 16. Gen. 15.1 . Gen. 15.6 , &c. Gen. 16.2 . Ver. 3. * Ut probat Jo. Seldenus de jure , &c. libr. 5. cap. 7. ‖ As Dan and Naphtali , Sons of Bilhab ; and Gad and Ashur , Sons of Zilpah . † Judg. 1 1.2 . Mar. 19.4 . Alii dicunt , Filios Concubinarum ( ejusdem Gentis ) Haeredes quidem esse , seu posse ; non item ancillarum alienigenarum , ut Agar . Vide que Sarah suggerit , cap. 21.10 . Gen. 15. ult . & 17 ▪ 1. Gen 17.18 . Rev. 12.4 . Gen. 21.9 . Gal. 4.24 , &c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.11 . Evidenter ergo Paulus pronunciat , quòd omnis , qui per sidem à Chrislo consequitar lib●rtatem , Filius sit Liberae ; & hanc dicit esse sursum Hierusalem , quae libera est , quae est Mater omnium nostrum . Orig in Cantic . homil . 2. tom . 1. Hi vero qui ex Gentibus crediderunt , Domino crediderunt , & non videntur sub hujus viri , i.e. sub Legis vixisse poteslate , nec unquam habuisse virum Legem — Vt Esaias declarat , dicens , Laetare slerilis , quae non paris — Et ollenait eam quae habet virum , Synagogam quae habet Legem — Post Christam Lex everta est — Et tunc mortuus est Vir ejus , i.e. secundum literam Lex . Idom ia E.p. ad Rom. c. 7.1.6 . tom . 2. Frobenii . Gen. 17.21 , 22. In Comment . Loriniad Act. 15.1 . Ant Plato Philonizar , ant Philo Platonizat . Vulg. dict . Jos. Antiq. ●● 18. cap. 10. In Euterpe ubi mores Antiquorum Aegyptiorum dei scibic . Virilia circumcldunt munditiae gratiâ , plaris sacientes te mundos esse quàm decoros . Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. cap. 2.l . 2. Gelenii Edir . à Frobenio . Gen. 37. Theodor. qu. 67. in Gen. & Perer. in c. 17. Allen's Chain . Notes upon the ● Period , § 32. He lived 110. years , Gen. 50 , 26. Qui tloruit Cordubae A.D. 1150. aut circiter . Vt libido h●minum diminustar , & Membru● b●e , quantam sieri potest , a.d. actum istum debilitetur . Atque haec est principalis ratio , meo quidem judicio . More Nevochim . par . 3. c. 49. Lorinus ubi supra . 〈◊〉 1. c. 11 Signum Circumcisionis quasi Fraenum quoddam ●is imposuit , ut suâ Gente cont●nti essent , & ita Patriarche Semen inconsusum , atqat incontaminatum maneret , ut sic in to Di● promissa compleri possent . Homil. 39. in Gen. apud ●●rer . Gen. 6.1 , 2. Taci● . Annal . lib. 15. Gen. 34.14 . 1 Sam. 14.6 , 17 , 26. Acts 28.1 , 3 , 22 , 28. Tertia ( inquit ) cause , pars bee Corporis circumcis● Cordis ●militudinem quandam habi● Viraquesanè Generations servit : siquidem ab altera Spiritus animales , ex alterâ Genitales procreantur , & proslu● . Quocirca prisci equum censuerunt , potiori illi fonti , visibilem 〈◊〉 partem [ circumscindendo ] assimilare . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 J. Mart. Qu. 102. ad Orthodoxos . Gen. 17.21 . An vero Circumcisio debili●●● partem illam ad actum generandi , and hominum libidines aliquatenus diminuat , supra in quaesitis suit , asserent● Maimonide , & reclamante Lorino . Aquinas tamen par . 3. qu. to . Artic. 3. ●tiam hanc inter causas recenset , quare circumcisio fier●et in hàc parte , potiùs quam in fronte , a●● alio quovis membro , scil . ad diminuendam concupiscentiam , que praecipuè in istis membris viget , propter abundantiam d●●ectationis venereorum . Et Maimonides qui dem consititur , 〈◊〉 gandere pontius in circumcisis Viris ; ac Medici , cum praeputio , partem quandam titillationis 〈◊〉 praescindi Viris etiam antumant . Videtur igitur , quod Circumcisio nihil physicè operatur ad coercendam illam , quae intus ●rit , libidinem , aut ad impediendum externum generandi actum . At moraliter tamen Signo est homini Circumciso , 〈◊〉 se inspexerit , quo ad 〈◊〉 moneatur carnis concupiscentiam , & ad omnis delicias ( ej●smodi ) superstuas amputandum . Quod coincidit , ad extremam , cum secundo fine h●jus instituti , quem supra attigimus . Gen. 15.8 . The wound was notso grievous , as the signification was comsortable ; for herein he saw , That from his Loins should come that Blessed Seed , which should purge his soul from all corruption . Bishop Hall. Gen : 12.2 , 3. Chap. 18.18 , 19 , & 22.18 . Hag. 2.7 : Ishmael & Isaac , Esau & Iacob non in sese , sed ut Typi , iślis quos Apostolus adsert locis , sunt considerandi ... Quod moneo ne quis necessum esse putit , ut is qui repraesentat filios carnis , sit ips● filius carnis ejusdem difinitionis modo . in cap. 9. ad Rom. v. 9 , 10. Gen. 25.9 . Gen. 12.3 . Gen. 25.6 . Job 1.1 . Bishop Hall's Contemplation upon Lot and Sodom . Bertr . cap. 2. Adam , inquit , eliam tempore Mosis , illuxisse alibi quàm in polleris verae Religionis aliqua vesligia , &c. Cujus Familia Ecclesie nomen atque dignitatem inessabili ratione , velat per successionem , sibi vindicaret . Caeli●● Gentes , tanquam prophanae , specteà spectae Numine , posthabiteque 〈◊〉 donec Messias terranum orbem ingressus , intergevinam disjecit parictem , &c. de Rep. Hebr. 1.3 . c. 2. It may be noted ( besides ) that after Circumcision Salah and Sem survived as true Worshippers , in other places , and Eber longer than Abraham himself . Ioseph . Antiq. lib. 13. cap. 17. 〈◊〉 quasi per praei●●ia , incarnationem 〈◊〉 praeveniente , 〈◊〉 patribus nonnulii nobis 〈◊〉 Gen. 18.20 . Acts 7.2 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hom. 31. in Gen. Gen. 12.6 , 7. Gen. 28.19 . Gen. 12.8 . An Mund. 208 〈…〉 1918. secundum supputarionem Nostratis Simson . Gen. 13. Gen. 20.1 , &c. Ch. 21.27 , 33. Ch. 23.1 . * Quae utram eadem suerit cum Hagare , consulatur Simsonius ad A. M. 2181. & Jo. Scld. de jur . &c. l. 5. c. 7. Heb. 11. Gen. 23.9 . Literas semper arbitror Assyrias suisse : sed alii apud Aegyptios à Mercurio , ut Gellius ; alii apud Syros repertas volunt . Utl● ; in Graeciam intulisse Cadmum 16. numero . Plin. lib. 7. Nat. Hist. c. 56. Phoenices primi , famae si creditar , ausi Mansuram radibus vocem signare figaris . Lucan . lib. 3. v. 220. Videsis quid de hoc commentitio Oraculo disserit P. Cunaeus de Rep. Hebr. lib. ● cap. 1. Et quid de literis S t Walter Raleigh , lib. 1. part 1. cap. 7. §. 10. † 4. ut ● : ante nos sensit D. August . Jude 14 , 15. * Jos. Ant. lib. 1. cap. 3. S●th natus est A. M. 130. Enoch 622 s●cund . Allen , &c. ‖ Adam vero suit omnium hominum ( excepto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) sapientissimus : sicus quàm senti●nt Hebraei , qui more suo nugantes , fingunt Adamum , & Evan creatos suisse ( tanquam infantes ) simplicissimos . Est. in l. 2. sent . dist . 23. §. 3. Bert. ubl supra . Gen. 22.9 . * Totum Animal pro Victimâ oblatum , excoriatum tamen ex more , & dissectum , concremandu● er at . Seld. de jure l. 3. c. 8. Vt Hebraeorum primogeniti homines essent D●o sacri , nec aetatis suae Praerogativâ , nec jure ad Sacerdotium sactum est , sed sal●te sibi praestitâ dum primogeniti Aegyptiorum subito excidio interivent , Numb . 3 . 13●& 24.5 . ●nde postea redimendi , Numb . 18.10 . N●que Levitae Sacerdotes erant , sed corum Min●stri .... Ego in antiquissimis seculis ita comparatum suisse judico , ut in sacris pro se uno factis , sibi quilq●e suus Sacerdos esset . Nam Cainus & Abel , sua ipsi sacra per se Deo osser●bant ... Qui autem Cainum & Abelem sacra Deo destinata ad Adamum adduxisse judicant , hi ca● sic judicent , nihil asserunt . In sacris autem pro familiâ quâvis destinatis nihil dubium quin ipse Paterfamilias Sacerdotii obeundi ●as babuer it . Aeoque jure Noa , Gen. 8.20 . & Jobus c. 1.5 . pro se , sulsque immolabant . Outr. lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 3. ( Bert. secutus ( ut videtur ) Ab. Ezram ) Pro cis autem Coetibus , qui variis ex familils constabant , mos ●rat , ut cujusque princeps ( si modo ipsi visum ess●t ) publica Deo sacra factret . Ibid. Job 1.5 . Jos. Antiq. lib. 1. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videre est in Seldeno loco ci●●t . p. 18. Heb. 9.22 . Gen. 8.20 . Where we read of the first Altar , built by Noah , to offer some of every sort of clean Beasts and Fowls ; though ( we do not doubt but ) multitude of Idol-Altars ( imitating the true ) had provoked God to drown the World before — Exod. 20 , 24 , 25. & Deut. 27.5 , 6 , 7. * The Patriarchs had no time for that , nor , it may be , ready Work-men ; possibly by Providence , as the next words may shew the reason Exod. 34.13 & Deut. 7 , 5 .. &c. 12.3 . Gen. 12.7 , 8. Ch. 13.3 , 4. Gen. 13.18 . Gen. 14.24 . Cùm cultus interior sit , qui consistit in conjun●tione ad Deum , summâque ejus reverentiâ per intelle●tum & affectum : exterior autem , qui inprecibus & laudibus effundendis , Adorationibus , Sacrificiis , Oblationibus cernitur , neque hic sine illo rità exhiberi possit ; consequitar ad ultrumque obligatos etiam Proselytos Domicilii , & qui eorum instar fuere ( adulti scil . nec rationis expertes ; & pro rerum suarum sive copia , sive inopia ) censuisse Ebraeos . Seld. lib. 3. cap. 8. supra citat . Quum Abrahamus ad Quercetum Mamrae consedisset , ibi Sacrarium & Altare quoddam ordinariis familie suae coetibus destinavit . Sacrisicavit , Gen. 15.9 , &c. Docuit , Gen. 18.19 , — Propheta dicitur , Gen. 20.7 . Ipse Domi familiae suae Sacerdos erat ; & ubi Altaria erexit , D●i ●omen invocavit , i. e. universum Dei cultum celebravit , qui nomine orationis , invocationis & adorationis variè nancupatur . Bertr . * Gen. 21.33 . Deut. 13.2 , 3. Levit. 18.21 . John 4.12 , 20. And lot also had Flocks and Herds and Tents , ( in the Plural Number ) Gen. 13.5 . Heb. 11.9 . Gen. 14.14 Gen. 18.4 , 5 , 6. 〈◊〉 13.6 . Gen. 12.16 & 20.1 . & 23.3 . Ch. 13.12 . & 14.16 . & 19.1 . Gen. 21 , 22. * In the Plain of Mamre , Abraham had also such a Confederacy , that he got Mamre himself , with Aner and Eshcol , to join with him in the pursuit of the four victorious Kings ; which was a bold and brave attempt of theirs . Gen. 14.13 , 24. Jun. in not . A Shekel of Silver , argenteus , 2 f 6 d. Matth. 26.15 . Gen. 33.18 . Gen. 24.63 . Gen. 25.22 , 23. Heb. 7.7 . Ver●simile e●l unum quemque in suâ familiâ Principem , & Sacerdotem fuisse , atque inde has dignitates ad primogenitos p●rvenisse : ita ut primariae familiae primogenitus eas semper obtineret ; ali rum vero familiarum primogeniti tum ad Rempublicam , tum ad sacra p● agenda adhibiti sunt . Bertr . Jer. 35.6 , &c. Gen. 9.20 . Gen. 19.23 . Gen. 18.5 , 6 , 7 , 8. Acts 7.7 . Heb. 11.9 . Gen. 24. ●3 , 67. Gen. 4.1 . 25 , 26. Jude 14 , 15. Gen. 5.24 . Hebr. 11.5 . in the 365. year of his life . Gen. 5.23 . Gen. 6.7 . 1 Pet. 3.20 . & 2 Pet. 2.5 . Job 42.16 , 17. Job 19.25 , 26 , 27. Docet Iobi cum aliis fidelibus consensum . Quatenùsamicis respondet , sensus est ; Licèt me pro impio habeatis , in Redemptorem vindicem unicè spero : fiduciam non abjeci ; Conqueror à Dio me ad tempus derelictum , sed tamen credo . Varii Commentatores in Poli Synopsi . * Isai. 29.22 . John 8.56 . Gen. 18.17 , 18. Object . Resp. Serm. 8. on the Nativity . Gen. 18. Gen. 15. 1 Mac. 4.46 . John 1.21 . John 4.25 . Luke 24.27 . Acts 3.18.22 , 24. & 15.16 , &c. Acts 15.11 . 2 Cor. 4.13 . Heb. 12.23 . Matth. 17.1 , 2. In hujus rei [ scil . unitatis fidei ] mysterium transfigurationi Christi intersuerunt , duo ex veteri Lege , & tres ex novâ , ut omnium justorum utriusque temporis unam esse fidem , quae in Christum est , insinuaretur . Est. in lib. 3. sent . dist . 23. sect . 12. P. Lumbard , dist . 1. lib. 3. Gen. 32.21 , 28 , 30. Psal. 51. Mark 12.32 , &c. Lightfoot's Temple-Service . ch . ● . sect . 1. Heb. 11.24 , &c. Ver. 29. 1 Cor. 10 ▪ 1 , 2 , &c. Numb . 14.37 . Gal. 3.19 . Heb. 9.19 , 20. Heb. 8.6 . & 9.15 . & 12.24 . Acts 15.1 . Gal. 5.3 . Gal. 3.17 , ●9 . &c. Exod. 19.9 , &c. Deut. 5.5 . & Heb. 12.18 , &c. Levit. 16.2 . Numb . 9.15.21.6 , &c. Exod. 17.11 , &c , * Patrem per silium dedisse Legem consentiunt Veteres , & Recentiores , Graeci & Latini . Sensus est , Legem per Angelos ordinatam ( uno Angelo denuntiante , ut Act. 7.38 . ) in mana Chr●ni dispositam esse , qui pro nobis ●am pr●slitit : Vel , Legem Israelitis traditam suisse per manum , five directionem , Christi Mediatoris , populum illum in su●m adventum ho● modo praeparantis . Varii . Exod. 19.8 . Exod. 25.16 , 17. 1 Kings 8 . ● , &c. Psal. 78.37 , 38 , 39 Patriarch . Faederis hanc promissionem accepere , Ero Deus vefler , & prosteritatis vestrae . Hinc persaepà in sacro codice , cù Israelitae veniam ab irato Deo , & insuper magna impe●rant beneficia , Coelesti voce monentur , uti hoc totum acceptum s●rant majoribus suis Abrahamo , Isaaco , Iacobo . Creber ille sermo est in Pentateucho , & in Vatum Scriptis . Porrò Foederis illius quod cum patriarchis sancitum diximus , Sponsor Messias ●uit , qui ●deò appellatur Angelus Foederis : Propter ipsum Messiam igitur salus Israelitis data erat , etiam propter majorem sidem . P. Cunaeus lib. 3. cap. ult . Heb. 10.7 . 1 Pet. 1.10 , 11. * As may appear by Psal. 51. alone . ‖ Idem & ratione ductâ à simili ostenditur . Est una spes omnium , quâ ad tandem felicitatem tendunt ; & una charitas , quâ omnia propter Deam diligant : ergo & unasides . Eft. ubi supra . a Heb. 9.19 , 20. Obj. 2. Resp. Aug. in 1 Tim. 2. Ep. 89 , Vnus ( inquit ) est Mediator , quia unum Christum ad justificationem nobis prodesse commemorat Apostolus : ut sciamus etiam Antiquos justos , non nisi pèr candem fiden liberatos , quâ & nos : sidem scil . incarnationis Chri●ti , quae illis praenuntia●ata● , sicut à nob●s sacta annuntiatur . 2 Tim. 3. 16. 1 Cor. 10.11 Ante adventum Christi praecesserunt jus●i , sic in ●um credentes venturum , quomodo nos credimus in ●um qui veni● . Tempora variata sunt , non sides , quia & ipsa verba pro tempore variantur , cùm variè declinantur . Eadem tamen fides introsque conjungit , & ●os qui venturum esse , & ●os qui ●um venisse crediderunt , diversis quid●m t●mporibus , sed u●rosque per unum sid●i os●ium , hoc est per Christum videmus ingressos . Nos credimus dominumi nostrum natum ex Virgine , venisse in carne , &c. Tract . in Joan 45. Et alibi : Sine side incarnati●nis , & mortis , & resurrectionis Christi , ne● antiquos juslos ut jus●i essent , à peccatis potuisse mundari , & Dei gratiâ justificari , veritas Christiana non dubitat ..... vel ante diluvium , vel inde usque ad datam Legem , vel ipsius Legis tempore , non solùm in filiis Israel , sicut fuerunt Prophetae , sed etiam extra eundem populum , sicut Iob. Et iplorum etiam corda ●âdem mundabantar Mediatoris side , & dissundebatur in ●is charitas per Spiritum Sanctum , qui ubi vult , spira● , non merita sequens , sed ●tiam ipsa merita faciens . Lab. de pecc . origin . cap. 24. Quaescunque sacrae scripturae ●nca probant neminem salvari sme Christo Mediatore , eadem valent ad probandam fidei necessitatem . Est. in lib. 3. di●● . 25. s●ct . 4. Quicunque ab exordio generis buma●i in eum crediderunt ; eumque 〈◊〉 ; intelle●erant , & secundums ejus Praeceptapiè , & justè vixerunt , quandolibet , & ubilibet suerint , per eum proculdubio salvi sacti sunt . Aug. Ep. 49. ad Deogratias , Qu. 2. Summ. 1 , 2. Qu. 2. Artic. 5. Lumbard . lib. 3. dis● . 25. b. Eft. in 1.3 . d 25. sect . 2. Etiam●i multitudo nihil cognitum , perceptùmue habuisset de Messia , nihilo tamen minus Coe●estem beatitudinem dari illis potuisse prop●er Patriarchas , qui Messiam mente intuiti sunt , & Foaderis hanc Promissionem accep●re à Numine , Ero Deus vester , & Pos●eritatis vestrae . Hinc persaepe v●niam , & magna impe●trant beneficia majoruma suorum gratiâ ... Sic Infantibu● ad salutem pi●tas Parentum valet . Ubi supra . Quod si Prophetae , & ill●s●riores , qui videbant●r in illo populo , non omnes omnia liquido ●●●●liter agnoscere valueru●t , sed alii plus , alii minus ; quanto magis simpliciores qu●que ju●ti , sine detrimento salutis , salvationis modum , tempus , & ordinem ●escire p●tuerunt ; qu● tamen certâ spe , & side , ●ti promissa suerant , firmissi●è ten●erant ? Bern. in Ep. 77. ad Hugonem . Exod. 19.8 . Exod. 37.6 , &c. Temple , chap. 15. sect . 4. 2 Kings 19.15 , &c. So Psal. 80.1 . & 99.1 . 1 Sam. 4.4 . & 2 Sam. 6 . ● , &c. Psal. 24 : 1 Sam. 4.22 . 1 Kings 6.16 . Exod. 25.12 . Psal. 110. Heb. 7.15 . Heb. 7.19 . Chap. 6.19 , 20 : * Nec quis miretur ( insup●r ) auratam mensam , cui panes sacierum apponi solebant , tanquam oblationes , in Ararum censum referri . Sicut enim Ara Mensa Dei ( Mal. 1.12 . ) ita Mensa D●i Ara quedam ●rat , Araeque plane vicera praeslabat . Neque viro apud Iudaeos tantum , sed etiam apud prophanas Gentes , Mensas ritè dedicatas Ararum vices praeslitisse legimus . In papyria●o enim j●re evidentèr relatum es● Arae vicem p●estare posse mensam dicatam . Outr. lib. I. cap. 8. Rev. 8.3 , &c. Heb. 8.4 , &c. Gal. 3.17 . Exod. 3.13 . Obj. 3. Resp. Gal. 3.19 , 21 , 23. Heb. 9.2 , 3. Lev. 16 , * Quod sacit tale , to magises● tale . So that if we suppose a third Altar , we do not ●rigere Altare contra Altare ▪ but rather set all three to agree in one , according to the Mystery of the Trinity . * Quod sacit tale , to magises● tale . So that if we suppose a third Altar , we do not ●rigere Altare contra Altare ▪ but rather set all three to agree in one , according to the Mystery of the Trinity . P. Cun. l. 2. c. 4. * Non solum ●rbes Levitarum Asyli gandebaut privilegio , verum & Altare Templi , licèt perquam dispari , tum respectu sacinorum , tum & more , &c. Joan. Seld. de jure Nat. & Gent. jux●a Heb. lib. 4. cap 2. Levit. 16.2 , 13. 1 Kings 8.22 . & 2 Chron. 6.12 , &c. Gal. 3.17.19 . 1 Chron. 16. But in the Psalm , v. 6. it is , O ye seed of Abraham his Servant — Exod. 34.5 , 6 1 Kings 23. Ezra 8. Nehem. 8. & 9. Jonah 2.4 , 7. Lect. 11. on Ionah . Dan. 6.10 . Dan. 9. Nos cum Synodo Sardicensi , simplicitèr h●c verba accipimus , Propter Dominum , h. e. propter Messiam , sive christum . Junius in locum . Eadémque suit in Veteri & Novo Testamento salutis impetrandae ratio . Nec Iudaei hîc renit●ntur , quo minus hec verba de Messia intelligantur . Yarii . Matth. 14.33 . — 26.63 . — 27.43 , 54. Joh. 1.49 . — 6.69 . — 11.27 . — 20.31 , &c. Levit. 1.4 . & 3.13 . & 4.24 . D r Lightfoo●'s Temple-Service , ch . 8. sect . 1. Et Outr. l. 1. c. 15. Levit. 16.9.22 . Psal. 30.10 , 11. Psal. 51. Mark 12.32 , 33. Isai. 63.7 , 8 , 9. Ut B●za , Zanchius , &c. ut etiam videre est in Tactic . sacr . D. Arrowsmith . * Crediderunt quidem in Chrislo per promissa , & prophetias partim revelato : intra Cherubinos tamen , & in Typis , aliter velato . 2 Cor. 1.20 . Heb. 11.10 , &c. Licet magnam jucunditatem habu●rint Prophetae , quando in Spirit● videbant ●utura de Chrislo , tamen volebant , si ficri posset , in hoc tempore nobiscum vivere , & videre impleta , quae Spirit● prophetabant . Praef. in Psal. 96. Matth. 13.16 , 17. Quare voláerunt videre , & audire ? Vt videlicet clarius , ●argiúsque perciperent , quod vix ten ●itèr obscuréque praesinserant . Alioqui quid erat opus , soris videre carnem , & carnis audire sermones , si intus ● Spriritu su rint instructi perfectè de omnibus ? Epist. 77. ad Hug. de S. Victore . Luke 18.8 . Acts 3.15.17 . Luke 9.44 , 45. Matth. 16.21 , 22 , 23. Luke 24.27 . Matth. 2.4 . Talmudicorum omnium , Rabbinorumque gravissima judicia , semper apud omnes cordatos permagnum pondus habuēre , quoties de Patriis Ritibus eorum , Ceremoniisque orta disceptatio est . l. 2. c. 4. M t Vines in his Treatise of the Sacram● , chap. 1. Alib. in l. praed . Chemn . in examp . 1 , par . Conc. Trident , pag. 12 , Agens de similit●dine & assinitate Traditionum Pontificiarum , cum Pharisaicis & Talmudicis . Matth. 15.9 . Dix illud inter homines eruditissimos disceptalum est , quid de summo salutis auspice speraverit olim , credidertive antiquior illa Hebraeorum Natio ? Habit ●a res magnum momentum ad rectam interpretationem : otius sacri codicis , Adio latè patet illius ambitus . Lib. 3. cap. ult . Gen. 46.26 , 27. Deut. 10.22 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiq. 1.2 . c. 4. Numb . 1.45 , 46. Chap. 3.15.39 . Gen. 21.22 , 23. D r Simson . Gen. 26.12 , &c. Gen. 35 , 27. — 32.10 . ‖ See Gen. 46.7 Iacob came into Egypt with his Sons , and Sons Sons , his Daughters , and his Sons Daughters , &c. yet again ver . 15. Dinah alone seems to make up the number of seventy souls . * Chap. 37.35 . it is said , that all Iacob's Sons , and all his Daughters , rose up to comfort him after Ioseph's loss . Chap. 34.25 . Bish. Hall. Acts 7.14 . Obj. I. Gen. 42. Obj. 2. Chap. 44. Obj. 3. Obj. 4. Chap. 43.10 , 18. Obj. 5. Gen. 46 — Obj. 6. Gal. 3.22 , 23. Answer to Object . 1. Gen 37.7 , 9. Ch. 41.38 . Ver. 54. Ch. 42.1 . Gen. 47.19 . Ch. 43.35 . Ver. 21. We opened our Sacks , and behold every man● money wa● in the mouth of his Sack , our money in full weight — Gen. 16.12 . Answer to Object . 2. Answer to Object . 3. Chap. 45. ●1 . Answer to Object . 4. 1 Sam 25.18 . Answer to Object . 5. Answer to Object . 6. Gen 46.1 , 31 , &c. Videsis Cun. de Rep. Heb. l. 1. C. 5. Chap. 47.11 , 12. Gen. 38.24 . Videsis Bertr . cap. 2. & Godwin's Jewish Antiquities , Book 5. chap. 2. Exod. 4.24 . Gen. 34.15 , 16. Numb . 26.35 . Gen. 15.2 . Gen. 18.1 , &c. Gen. 23. De Abrahamo magnifica etiam tradidêre Ethnici , ut Jos. Antiq . l. 1. C. 9. & Euseb. praepar . l. 9. Chap. 24. Gen. 11.26 , &c. & 24.15.24 . Gen. 28.1 , &c. Gen. 32.10 . Gen. 42. Gen. 43. Gen. 46.28 . Gen. 47.7 , 10. Gen. 45.20 . Exod. 1.11 . Gen. 46.4 . Gen. 50.24 . Heb. 11.22 . Locis cit●tis . Gen. 33.19 — 35.1 , 2 , 4 , 7. * A vulgo multum diversa su●● terita qu●dam populi pars , quae seorsim in Campestribus Aegypti , ac prope paludes degebat ; ii Pastores suere , actuosi illi quidem gnavique , sed cunctis Aegyptiis execrabiles , propte●ea quod ignaviam ●orum semper sollicitam ten●bant . Cunaeus lib. 1. cap. 5. The Floud ceased Anno Mundi 1657. Iacob descended into Egypt An. Man. 2298. So that by the Scheme before , you may guess to what magnificence they might be grown by this . * Adeo ut ineptire ( quasi ) gestian● , qui Aegyptios ab omni mactatione aversari praetegunt ; sintientes divinum aliquid in animalibus inesse : Vt & alii , qui Iosephi tempore , nullam in Aegypto Idololatriam agnosc●nt , sed in Syria tantùm ; quum Israelitae bîc sacrificare Vitulo didicerint , & dum in Aegypto degerent , idolis eorum inquinati sunt . Ezech. 23.3 Sand●●'s Socculum , pag. 6. Consulatur Chemnitius parte 3. Exam. t●t . de invocatione & veneratione Sanctorum ; & recentiores adversus Bell. Acts 19.35 . ‖ Ciceron comp●e 6. Hercules ; Varron 43. & plus de 300. Jupiters . Le' Tresor Polit , l. 3. chap. de ce mot Brindes * Quoties inter Virum & Vxorem aliquid jargii intercesserat , in Sacellum D●●● Viri-plac●e , quod est in palatio , veniebent ; & ibi invicem locuti quae voluerant , con●entione animorum deposit● concordes revertebantur . 1.2 . c. 1. Invenit tamen medium sioi 〈◊〉 mortalitas Numen : Toto q●ippe m●ndo , & locis omnibus , omnibusque horis , omni●m vocibus , fortuna , sola invocat●● : Vna nominat●r , una accusatar , una agitar rea , una cogitatur , sola laudatur , sola arguit●r , & um convitiis colitur ... ●deoque obnoxiae sumus sortis , u● ' ors ipsa pro Deo sit , quâ Deus probatur incert●s ... ●nnumeros autem credere , a●que etiam ex virtutibus , vitiisque hominum , ut pudicitiam , concordiam , &c. majorem ad socordiam accedit . Plin , Nat. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 7. Quinetiam surtorum , & s●elerum Numina esse tradiderunt . Coluerunt Romani Ioven adulterum & slupratorem , & sebri publicum sanum in palatio dedicârunt , & Aram malae sortunae in Exquiliis . Corn. Agrippa de Van , scientiarum cap. de Relig. Sic nos . Te sacimus Fortuna Deam , Caeloque locamus . Juv. Sat. Sed ( ut Plinius pergit ) irridendum , agere curam rerum humanarum quicquid est summum : a●ne tam trisli , atque multiplici mixisterio non pollui credamus ? Et oftendens paulò post , quid Deus possit sacere , v●l non , asserit expresse ... Non mortales aeternitate donare , aut revocare desunctos , nec facere , ●● qui vixit , non vixerit , &c. nullumque habere in praeterita jus , praeterquam oblivionis . Ibid. Xen. de Exped . Cyri minoris Plut. in vit . Pomp Jos. Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 8. & de Bello lib. 1. cap. 5. Exod. 3.18 . & 5.3 . Chap. 8.25 , &c. Gen. 44.18 . & 45.8 . Gen. 28.28 . Gen. 42.18 . Gen. 43.19 , 23. Heb. 11.22 . Gen. 50.24 . Psal. 120.5 . Gen. 4.6 , 7. Gen. 35.22 . Ch. 49.4 . Ch. 34.25 . Gen. 38. Chap. 37.1 . Ver. 18. Gen. 42.22.24 . Ch. 35.22 . Es●ius . Gen. 49.3 , 4. Chap. 34.30 , 31. * Reuben for one fault , lying with Bilha , his Fathers Concubine , lost all : and yet for himself , in his particular , Ioseph excepted , he was ( otherwise ) the best of the Brethren . Bishop Mont. acts , &c. cap. 1. § 37. Gen. 49. Exod. 6.16 . * So long as Ioseph lived , so long as Levi , who survived all his Brethren , they adhered to God , and to his Service alone , wherein they had been brought up and instructed by tradition [ so it liketh him ] from Iacob , Isaac , Abraham . After which they degenerated ( as Ezek. 23. cited above . ) Bishop Montague's acts , &c. cap. 1. §. 32. ‖ Id. Sect. 37. Gen. 37.27 . 1 Chron. 5.1 , 2. Gen. 6.2 . Gen. 28.6 , 9. Gen. 26.34 , 35. & 27.46 . Gen. 47. ●2 . De jure Nat. & Gent. sec. Heb. l. 5. c. 7. Gen. 25.1.1 Chron. 1.32 . Gen. 25.6 . * But after they were separated , it seems , that they both revolted : for Ishmael dwelt in the wilderness of Paran , and became an Archer . And his Mother took him a Wise out of the Land of Egypt . Gen. 21.20 , 21. Gen. 38.8 . Antiq. l. 4. c. 8. Amiq. l. 4. c. 8. Gen. 35.4 . Gen. 38.1 . Deut. 2● . 5 , 6. Gen. 38.10 . Numb . 1. ●6 , 27. Bish. Hall's Contemplation of Iudah and Thamar . Acts 15.9 . Antiq. l. 2. c. 5. Notes for div A62735-e38180 Gen. 46.47 . Deut. 10.22 . Numb . 1.46 . & 3.39 . * Numb . 16.2 , 3 , 5. ‖ Ver. 27. † Ver. 33. 
A59809	----	A defence and continuation of the discourse concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and our union and communion with Him with a particular respect to the doctrine of the Church of England, and the charge of socinianism and pelagianism / by the same author. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1675 Approx. 689 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 273 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-05 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59809 Wing S3281 ESTC R4375 12187147 ocm 12187147 55821 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59809) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 55821) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 898:15) A defence and continuation of the discourse concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and our union and communion with Him with a particular respect to the doctrine of the Church of England, and the charge of socinianism and pelagianism / by the same author. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [8], 535 p. Printed by A.C. for Walter Kettilby ..., London : 1675. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Church of England -- Doctrines. Pelagianism. Socinianism. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-02 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2004-02 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A Defence and Continuation OF THE DISCOURSE Concerning the KNOWLEDGE OF Jesus Christ , And OUR Union and Communion with Him. With a particular respect to the Doctrine of the Church of England , And the Charge of Socinianism and Pelagianism . By the same AUTHOR . LONDON : Printed by A. C. for Walter Kettilby , at the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard , M. DC . LXXV . TO The most Reverend Father in GOD , GILBERT , By Divine Providence , LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY , Primate of all England , and Metropolitan , AND One of His Majesties most Honourable Privy-Council , &c. May it please your Grace , IT is not unknown to your Grace , that in a late Discourse , according to my mean Abilities , I endeavoured to vindicate Christian Religion from those uncouth and absurd Representations , which some modern Divines , who are the great Fomenters of our present Factions , have made of it : And herein I thought , I should do good service , not only to the common Cause of Christianity ( which is exposed to the scorn of Atheistical Wits , for the sake of such Doctrins , as are so far from belonging to Christianity , that they seem to be invented on purpose to affront the general sense and understanding of Mankind , ) but also to the best constituted Church in the World , which is rent and torn into a thousand Factions for the sake of these new Discoveries , which are admired for no other reason , but because they are not understood . And I have met with such a Reward , as those men use to do , who oppose any popular and inveterate mistakes , hard Words and hard Censures ; though as soft and gentle Arguments , as I could wish : But my Adversaries have used one extraordinary piece of Art , which alone , I hope , will be sufficient to make my Apology for this Address . It is well known , my Lord , what Friends they are to the Church of England , and yet now they take Sanctuary in our Church , and pretend a mighty Zeal for the antient Catholick Doctrin of it : Their great quarrel with me is , that I have contradicted the Doctrin of our Church , and they are very jealous lest the Church should by this means be disadvantageously represented to the world ; and think it the concernment of the Reverend Bishops either to confute or censure such Doctrins : And indeed would those grave and wise Persons hearken either to Papists or Fanaticks , they should never want work ; for whenever they find themselves gravelled , they call upon the Church of England , to defend them against her most zealous Advocates and hearty Friends . My Lord , were I in the least conscious to my self of having deserted the Doctrin of our Church , there is no Person , whom I should so justly dread as your Grace , whose quick and piercing Iudgment would easily detect such a Prevarication , and whose great Authority could as easily crush so weak an Adversary , and whose syncere and hearty Zeal and Fatherly Care and Affection for this Church would not suffer such Tares to grow up in the midst of the Wheat . But these excellent Accomplishments , wherewith God has in great goodness endowed your Grace for the Preservation and wise Government of this Church in such dangerous and critical times , render you as sure a Refuge and Sanctuary to the Friends of our Church , as they make you formidable to her Enemies . In this Assurance it is , that I humbly lay this my Defence at your Graces Feet , and entirely submit it and its Author to your Iudgment and Censure . If I have said any thing blame-worthy , it has been hitherto out of invincible Ignorance and Mistake , which I hope will plead my excuse : And if I have ( as I am verily persuaded I have ) made a true and faithful Representation of the Doctrin of our Church , and vindicated it from such Fanatical Innovations , as give the greatest and the justest cause of Scandal to all wise and considering men , I humbly beg your Graces Patronage , which is the only Security and Protection I desire from the rude Clamors and vehement Reproaches of my Adversaries . I beseech Almighty God to preserve your Grace long among us in Health and Vigor , to protect his Church by your wise Counsels and Conduct , and to adorn your See with your exemplary Virtues , which is the hearty Prayer of Your GRACES Most Humble and Dutiful Servant , William Sherlock . Imprimatur , Ex Aed . Lambethanis April . 2. 1675. Tho. Tomkyns . AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DEFENCE and CONTINUATION OF THE DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST , &c. CONTAINING The Reasons which moved me to write that DISCOURSE . THere is not a more lamentable sight in the World , than the present state of Religion , which is assaulted by so many subtil and malicious Adversaries , crumbled into so many Sects and Factions , pester'd with such infinite Disputes , that it is time to cry out , as the Disciples did in the Storm , Help Lord , or we perish . And that , which makes the case so desperate , is , that the Disease is too strong for the Remedy , and the wisest Prescriptions do only stir and provoke , not expel the Humors ; or as it is in some complicated Distempers , that w ch is proper for one disease , is very hurtful for another ; which makes the state both of the Patient and Physician very dangerous ; the one being likely to lose his Life , and the other his Reputation . I was not wholly ignorant of these difficulties , when I ventured my late Discourse into the world , but have now a more sensible experience , what it is to oppose inveterate prejudices ; and what little hope there is of doing much good , when a man must contend , not against Reason and Argument , ( in which way any ingenuous persons will be glad to be overcome ) but against Passion , & Interest , and popular Clamors , and the rude assaults of a spightful and unchristian Zeal . And yet I cannot say , that my labour is lost ; for I am sensible , that my Discourse has already served to rectifie the mistakes of some honest and unprejudiced men , and I hope may do so still ; for those little and unmanly Arts which have been used to disparage it and its Author , cannot long abuse any ingenuous minds ; and when the cheat is discovered , it will but give the greater reputation to abused truth and honesty . For this Reason I am resolved not to betray a good Cause , but to venture once more , and to leave the success to the Divine Grace and Providence , which is more peculiarly concerned for the interest of Religion , and true goodness ; and if I should see no other good effect of it , yet I can abundantly satisfie my self in honest intentions , and worthy and generous designs . For if I know my own thoughts ( and I think no man knows them better ) it was not a disputing humour , nor an affectation of Fame and Glory , which gave birth to that Discourse : Popular errors are a more likely way to procure a popular esteem , than despised and persecuted truths ; and though the judgment of the wise is more valuable , yet the opinion of the people gives a name ; as Dr. Owen very well observes from his own experience , that his reputation is secured by the cry and vogue of a Faction , when his Arguments are baffled , and practises exposed . And there is nothing I am more averse to , than a disputing humour ; there are very few opinions , which I think worth contention ; while the general concernments of Religion and a good Life are secured , I can be contented , that men should differ in some nicer speculations , and it is a folly to be discontented at it , for they always will , and there is no hurt in it : There are five hundred curious questions started by some wanton wits , which can never be determined , and it is no matter , whether they be or not ; but whatever opinions have a bad influence upon mens lives , are destructive to their souls too ; and it becomes every man , who hath any concern for the eternal welfare of mankind , to oppose such dangerous mistakes . And this was the true occasion of my writing that Discourse ; for the principal Doctrines , which I there oppose , are such , as according to the best judgment I can make of them , do either expresly , or in their immediate consequences , encourage men to be bad ; and if I am not mistaken in it ( as I see no reason yet to think I am ) it was the most charitable design I could undertake ; and if I be , though my Adversaries may reasonably condemn me for imprudence or ignorance , yet they ought in justice to commend my Charity : And indeed , let it prove how it will , I cannot but foresee some good effect of it ; for those who have any care of their souls ; must either reject such Doctrines , as are destructive of a good Life , or more expresly declare for the necessity of a good Life , notwithstanding such Doctrines ; and either way I have my end , so this Conclusion be universally received , whatever the Premises be : though this last I think is much the worst way , it being dangerous to intrust men with bad principles , for then they will draw Conclusions for themselves ; and most men are very sagacious to discover such consequences as will serve their interest , and patronize their lusts . This I have often observed in conversing with several sorts of men , that they were very well skild in all those principles which tended to loosness and debauchery , and that they understood the consequences of them too well , and did at all turns make use of them to apologize for their own and other mens vices , who were accounted gracious persons ; the impossibility of keeping Gods Laws was their excuse , and the righteousness of Christ their refuge ; the one lessened their guilt , and the other covered it ; and I found , that let St. Iohn say what he would , they had found out a way to be righteous without doing righteousness . Nay I observed farther , that too many were grown so fond of these Notions , that they were impatient to hear any Preacher , who instructed them in their Duty , and prest the necessity of a holy Life , unless he concluded comfortably with a Caution not to trust in their Duties , nor to expect that God would be ever the better pleased with them upon that score , but that they must hope to be saved only by the Righteousness of Christ , which ( however it was intended by the Preacher ) I found was too often expounded by the Hearers , as a Gospel-Use , which relaxt the Rigor and Severity of that Legal Doctrine of the necessity of Good Works . And it was too evident , that their Preachers did very much contribute to , and encourage this humour , as the last refuge of their sinking Cause : all their pretences for Separation had been notoriously baffled and shamed , and they were reduced to that case , that they could dispute no longer ; and therefore the most effectual way they could take , was to perswade the People , that Christ and the Gospel were confined to a Conventicle , and to declaim against those Moral Preachers , who made it their constant business to perswade men to live well , and urged this , as the most material and necessary part of Religion , and the great end of Christs coming into the World : A strange and unpardonable crime , that a Minister of the Gospel should preach up good Works ! and yet this is the great reproach that is cast upon the City-Clergy , ( and I thank God , that there is so much reason for it ) this makes these men jealous of the Honour of Christ , and the Grace of God , as if there would not be sins enough for Christ to expiate , and for the grace of God to pardon , unless men continued wicked : This occasioned that great out-cry against a late excellent Book to prove that Holiness is the Design of Christianity , that the great end of what Christ hath done and suffered for us , is , to transform us into the nature of God , and thereby to qualifie us for the eternal fruition of him ; as if this were too mean a design for the Son of God to effect , or there could be any thing more great and honourable , or the Salvation of Mankind could be obtained without it . So that indeed I was not the first Assailant , but writ in the defence of a holy life , which was cried down by these men either under the name of Morality , or of a Legal Righteousness , and in justification of those pious and truly Gospel-Preachers , who were scandalized and reproached as great Enemies to Christ , and the Grace of God , without any other pretence than their great Zeal and vigorous Endeavours to convince men of the necessity and advantages of a good Life . It has bin the artifice of such men in all times to reproach the Loyal and Conformable Clergy ; formerly they were a company of dumb Dogs and Idol Shepherds , because they were not every day in the Pulpit ; but since their industrious and conscientious Labours have confuted that calumny , now they quarrel with them for preaching so well , for directing all their discourses to the advancement of true Piety and a practical Religion ; without which Preaching can serve no end but to wheadle and cajole the People , and to maintain and promote a Faction . Their pretences indeed for this are glorious and popular , that Christ is not preached , nor the grace of God sufficiently advanced in the Work of our Redemption ; this were really a very great fault , if it were true , and such as does unchristian those men who are guilty of it ; and therefore the great design of my Book was to wipe off this reproach , to show what it is to know Christ , and to preach him , to explain those Metaphors whereby Christ is described , and to reconcile the necessity of Holiness with the Doctrine of Christs Merits and Satisfaction , and Imputation of his Righteousness ; and withal to make it appear , that some , who glory so much in preaching Christ , have made a very false representation of him , and out of a pretended veneration to the Person of our Saviour , have thrust his Gospel out of the World , or made such a Nose of Wax of it , as to serve any purpose but that , for which it was first designed . And since my Adversaries have endeavoured to misrepresent the Doctrine and Design of my Book , and by affixing ill names to it , deter their followers from looking on the inside , or once considering what it is they are afraid of ; I shall here give a short Abstract of the whole Doctrine , and do earnestly beg that favour of every man , if he will not be at the trouble to read and consider the Discourse it self , at least to peruse this short Account of it , before he allow himself the liberty of reviling . Only I must observe by the way , how the state of things is already altered since the appearing of my Discourse ; before , the great noise and clamour was against Moral and Legal Preachers , who preach'd up Holiness , but left out Christ and the Grace of God ; now when they are charg'd on the other hand with as much undervaluing a holy Life , and with advancing the Person of Christ to the prejudice of his Laws and Religion , they change their note , and would perswade the world , that there is no real difference between us , but that I force their Expressions to a sense which they never intended ; they are now grown great Patrons of Holiness , and whatever they talk of the Excellency of Christs Person , or of his boundless and bottomless compassion , and of such an infinite mercy , which all the sins in the world cannot equal , and of such a Patience as will save us notwithstanding our sins , they mean no more , than what we believe , as heartily as they , that Christ is able and willing to save all those who repent , and believe , and reform their lives , and that he will save none but upon these terms : I am glad with all my heart to hear this , for I designed no more than to establish this Doctrine ; but what account can they give after this of their general out-cry against Legal and Moral Preachers ? Were there any men who taught the People that Holiness would save them without the Merits of Christ ? I know no such , they were none of my Companions and Complices , at whom the Doctor so often flurts . And if there be no real difference between us , but only a different phrase and manner of expression , I wonder why they should be so angry with those men , who speak that so plainly , that the People cannot mistake them , which they affect to obscure in uncouth and mystical phrases : There can be no account given of this , but that they are willing , at least , that the People should believe there is a difference ; and are not so faithful to Mens Souls as to prevent such dangerous mistakes . Were these phrases of coming to Christ , and closing with Christ , and leaning and resting and rolling our Souls on Christ for Salvation , and such like , generally understood , ( not only by some cunning Sophisters , when they are forc'd by reason and argument to put a sober sense on them , but by the common people ) to signifie no more than expecting to be saved by Christ according to Gospel-terms , that is , upon the conditions of Faith and Repentance , and a new Life , I should think him very ill imployed , who should disturb the peace of the Church for the sake of any modes of speaking ; but when it is so evident , that the Preachers themselves , when they have no adversary , expound these phrases to a very different , if not contrary purpose ; and that the generality of Hearers never suspect that coming to Christ , and closing with Christ , include Obedience and a holy Life ; but that this is rather a hinderance to their closing with Christ , as their Preachers tell them : This makes it necessary to oppose those forms of speech which are generally abused to evil purposes , and it is an argument of no great honesty , to be fond of words and phrases to the prejudice of mens souls . And yet after all this , the Doctor cannot forget his old grudge against these Preachers of holiness : He tells us , I know there are not a few , who in the course of a vain worldly conversation , whilst there is scarce a back or belly of a Disciple of Christ that blesseth God upon account of their bounty or charity ( the footsteps of levity , vanity , scurrility , and prophaness , being moreover left upon all the paths of their haunt ) are wont to declaim about holiness , good works , and justification by them , which is a ready way to instruct men to Atheism , or the scorn of every thing that is professed in Religion . No doubt but there is a great mixture of truth and modesty in this censure ; I thank God I know no such persons , and if I did , I should abhor them as much , as he can : but the Doctors quarrel seems to be not so much at the vanity and prophaness , &c. of their Conversation , ( for it is a known Maxim among them , The worse the better ) as at their preaching Holiness , &c. Good Sir , if such men are permitted to preach , what would you have them preach ? Should they cry down holiness , and preach up debauchery ? Is this the way to cure the world of Atheism ? Or should they teach men to trust wholly in the righteousness of Christ , without any righteousness of their own ? I confess , this would much more become them ; and I wonder all bad men are not of this perswasion , though I hope the Doctor and his Friends have some better reason for their Zeal . For the same cause these men persecute my Discourse , the whole design of which is no more than to convince men of the absolute necessity of a universal Righteousness in order to please God , and to save their souls ; that no man must expect to be saved by Christ without obeying the Gospel , and imitating the example of his Lord ; and that this is the meaning of all those phrases of Scripture , of believing in Christ , and coming to him , and receiving him , and being united to him , and ingrafted in him , and the like , which are expounded by some men to the prejudice of obedience , and to encourage sinners to expect justification by Christ ( and those who are justified , are actually in a state of salvation ) while they are in their filth and impurities . I cannot but think it very glorious to suffer in such a cause ; this was the very reason , why the Pharisees persecuted our Saviour himself , because he rejected all their external and ceremonial righteousness , and exacted from them a sincere and internal obedience to the divine Laws ; and plainly told them , That nothing would carry them to Heaven , but such a renovation of their minds and spirits as transformed them into the likeness and image of God : This is the great fault of my Book , and the true reason of all this noise and clamour , as will appear by taking a summary account of the whole Design , and Doctrine of it . CHAP. I. Containing a short Account of the Design and Doctrine of the Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Christ , &c. THe Design I proposed to my self in that Discourse , was to reconcile that Love and Honour and Adoration , Trust and Affiance , which all Christians owe to their Lord and Saviour , with the necessity of obeying his Laws , and being conformed to his Example ; that esteem and reverence we owe to the Person of Christ , with a reverence for his Laws ; that no man might expect to be saved by Christ , though he be infinitely gracious and compassionate , and inherit all the boundless Perfections of the Deity , without the practice of an universal Righteousness . And therefore I showed that all those Considerations which did naturally result from the contemplation of the Person of Christ , as he is the Eternal Son of God , who was made Man , and sent into the World to accomplish the work of our Redemption , did necessarily engage us to obey his Laws , but gave us no encouragement to expect any thing more from him upon his Personal account , than what he hath promised in his Gospel . This ( I observed ) was a plain demonstration of Gods love to Mankind , that he sent so great and so dear a Person as his only begotten Son , to save Sinners : — No man can doubt of Gods good will to Sinners , who sees the Son of God cloathed with our flesh , and dying as a Sacrifice for our sins ; and this gives relief to our guilty fears , and encourages us to retrieve our past follies by new Obedience . No man will return to his Duty without some hope of Pardon and Forgiveness for his past sins ; and the proper use of Gods love in sending Christ into the World , is to conquer our Obstinacy , and to encourage our Hopes . Thus the greatness of Christs Person gives great Reverence and Authority to his Gospel , and an inviolable Sanction to his Laws , as the Apostle argues ; If the word spoken by Angels was stedfast , and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of Reward , how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation , which at first began to be spoken by the Lord , Heb. 1. 2 , 3. And this gives great Authority to his Example , and lays forcible obligations on us to imitate him , who was not only our Saviour , but God incarnate . And this assures us of the infinite value of his Sacrifice , and of the power of his Intercession : God cannot but be pleased , when his own Son undertakes to be a Ransom , and to make Atonement for sinners , which is so great a vindication of Gods Dominion and Soveraignty , of the authority of his Laws , and the wisdom and justice of his Providence , that he may securely pardon humble and penitent sinners without reproaching any of his Attributes ; and we can desire no greater security for the performance of this Gospel-Covenant , than that it was sealed with the blood of the Son of God. And this is a great encouragement to return to God , when we have such a powerful Advocate and Mediator to intercede for us . But then we must expect no more from Christ , upon account of his personal Excellencies and Perfections , than what he hath promised in his Gospel . Christ is the object of our Faith and Hope , only as he is our Saviour ; and he is our Saviour in no other sense , than as he is our Mediator ; and he mediates for us as our Priest , that is , in vertue of that Covenant , which he hath sealed with his blood ; and therefore we have no reason to expect any thing from the Person of Christ which is not contained in his Covenant , much less , which contradicts it ; for that would be , in effect , to renounce his Mediation , and to trust to the goodness of his Nature . Christ will in his own Person accomplish all those , Promises he hath made , whether they concern the present assistances of his Grace , or his Providence and Protection in this world , or the future rewards of the next : but we must learn what Christ will do for us , and upon what terms , not from the boundless Perfections and Excellencies of his Person , but from the Declarations of the Gospel , though the consideration of his Person , who he is , and how he lived , and what he taught , may convince any man , that he will be a Saviour to none but those who live in the practise of that Righteousness , of which he was a Preacher and Example . Now to silence the clamors of some men , who upbraided those Preachers who spent their greatest zeal in expounding the Laws of Christ , and in pressing men by all the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel ( the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ , the necessity of a good Life to make men happy hereafter , and the many great advantages of Holiness here , &c. ) to the practise of an universal Righteousness ; I say , to silence the clamors of those , who upbraided such Preachers with not preaching Christ , I considered in the next place , what it is to know Christ , and so consequently , what it is to preach Him ; and the sum of it was this , That to know Christ , is to be acquainted with that Revelation which Christ hath made of Gods will to the world : For as in former ages God made himself known by the light of Nature , and the works of Creation and Providence , and those partial and occasional Revelations of his Will , which he made to good men ; now in these last days he hath sent his Son into the world , to declare his Will to us : And therefore the only useful knowledge is to understand those Revelations , which Christ hath made of Gods Will , the necessary consequence of which is , that he , who expounds the Laws and Doctrine of the Gospel , does in the most proper sense preach Christ , as Philip is said to preach Christ to the Samaritans , Act. 8. 5. which in ver . 12. is called , Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God , and the Name of Iesus Christ ; that is , the whole Doctrine of the Gospel . The whole Christian Religion is the Knowledge of Christ , and the Laws of Righteousness , and the Motives to Obedience as principal a part as any , because this was the ultimate design of Christs coming into the world to reform mens lives , and to prepare them for the happiness of the next world , by transforming them into a Divine Nature : All that Christ did and suffered , was only in order to this end , and then we understand all those mysteries of the Incarnation , and Death , and Intercession of Christ , as much as is necessary to the purposes of Religion ; when we understand what obligations , they lay on us to a holy Life , and feel their power and vertue in renewing and sanctifying our minds . In the next place I observed , that the foundation of the greatest and most dangerous mistakes , was laid in a wrong notion of our Union to Christ , of which some men discourse in such uncouth and Cabbalistical terms , as no Body can understand , and therefore I endeavoured to state the true notion of our Union to Christ , and Communion with him . And the sum of it is this , that those Metaphors which describe our union to Christ , do primarily refer to the Christian Church , not to every individual Christian ; as Christ is the Head , and the Church or whole Society of Christians his Body ; a Husband , and the Church his Spouse ; a Shepherd , and the Church his Flock ; a Rock , whereon his Church is built ; the chief corner Stone , and the Church a holy Temple . But as for particular Christians , their Union to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church : that is , no man can be united to Christ , till he be a Christian ; and no man is in the Scripture account a Christian , till he make a public profession of his Faith , and be solemnly admitted into the Christian Church , which is the Body of Christ , for which he died , and to which all the Promises of the Gospel are made . A secret and private Faith in Christ is not ordinarily enough to make any man a Christian ; but Faith in the Heart , and the Confession of the Mouth are both necessary : Rom. x. 9 , 10. Christ himself hath appointed the publick Sacrament of our Initiation , and our Church teacheth her Children , that in their Baptism ( which is their solemn admission into the Christian Church ) They are made Members of Christ , the Children of God , and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven . But I have abundantly confirmed this Notion in my former Discourse , and those who would be more fully satisfied in it , may have recourse thither . The next thing to be considered is , what is the true nature of this Union betwixt Christ and his Church , and the most general and comprehensive notion is , that it is a Political , not a natural Union : the Union between Christ and his Church consists in their mutual Relations to each other ; now those Relations whereby the Scripture represents this Union , signifie Power and Authority on Christs part , and Inferiority and Subjection in the Church : Christ is the Head and Husband , which signifies Rule and Government ; and the Church is his Spouse and Body ; and therefore as the Wife is subject to the Husband , and the Body to the Head , so the Church must be subject to Christ ; and the like may be said of all those other Relations , whereby this Union is described . Only when I call it a Political Union , you must not imagine that it is only such an external Relation , as is between a Prince and his Subjects ; because Christ is a spiritual King , and his Authority reaches to the Heart and Spirit , which no Humane Power can : no man is in a proper sence a Subject of Christs Kingdom , but he , who governs his Heart and Spirit , as well as his external Actions , by the Laws of the Gospel ; and though an external and visible profession of the Gospel entitles men to an external Communion with the Christian Church , because the external Government of the Church is committed to men , who cannot discern hearts and thoughts ; yet whoever does not heartily obey Christ , is not really united to him ; for the subjection of the Mind and Spirit is the principal thing which denominates us the Subjects of a spiritual King : and therefore this may be called a Spiritual-Political Union , which principally respects the Subjection of our Minds and Spirits to Christ , and does necessarily include a participation of the same nature with him , and a mutual & reciprocal love : It is a Political Union because it consists in the Authority and Government of Christ as a Head and Husband , and in the Subjection and Obedience of the Church , as his Body and Spouse : and it is Spiritual , because the Authority of Christ does not only reach our Outward Actions , as the Government of Earthly Princes does , but extends it self to our Minds and Spirits : and if you will put it into other words , our Union to Christ consists in a hearty belief of his Revelations , in obedience to his Laws , and subjection to his Authority , this makes us the Church the Temple of God , wherein he dwells , as he formerly did in the Temple at Ierusalem ; this is that which the Scripture calls having Fellowship and Communion with God and Christ , which signifies being of that Society , which puts us into a peculiar relation to God , that God is our Father , and we his Children ; that Christ is our Head and Husband , our Lord and Master , we his Disciples and Followers , his Spouse and his Body : this entitles us to his Merits and Righteousness , to his peculiar Care and Providence , to the Influences of his Grace , to the Power of his Intercession , to all those blessings , which he hath purchased for , and promised to his Church . Now besides that this Notion is plain and intelligible , and very aptly agrees with all those Metaphors and Forms of Speech , whereby the Scripture represents our Union to Christ , there are these two great advantages we gain by it : first that this is a plain demonstration of the evil and danger of Schism , a sin which very few men have any sense of in these days ; for if our Union to Christ as our Head , necessarily requires our Union to the Christian Church , which is his Body , then to divide from the Christian Church , or any true and sound part of it , does not only make a Rent in the Body of Christ , which is a very great evil , but divides us from Christ ; as a Member , which is separated from the Body , is separated from the Head too : this makes the Sentence of Excommunication so dreadful , because it cuts us off from the Body of Christ ; and this Sentence every Schismatick executes upon himself , and that more infallibly too than Church-Governours can ; for they may be mistaken in the Justice of the Cause , and may separate those from the external Communion of the Church , who are spiritually united to Christ , and then their Sentence is reverst by a superior Tribunal : But whoever causlesly separates from the Christian Church , or any part of it , does infallibly divide himself from Christ , unless it be through such invincible mistakes , as may mitigate the crime , and plead his excuse ; for Schism is a work of the flesh , the effect of Pride , and Passion , or Interest , or some other carnal Lust ; and it concerns those men , who make so light of Schism , to consider , how they expect to be saved by Christ , who is only the Saviour of the Body , when they have divided themselves from his Body , and are no longer any part or member of it . A second advantage , which we gain by this notion , is this , that it gives a plain account of the necessity of Holiness and Obedience to entitle us to the Merits of Christ , and Justification by him , and to all those Promises , which Christ hath made to his Body and Members ; whoever is in Christ , and united to him , shall certainly be saved by him ; for he is the Saviour of the Body ; and our Justification is not owing to our own Merits and Deserts , but to the Merits of Christ , for whose sake alone , God hath promised to justifie and reward those , who are united to him ; but since our Union to Christ consists in the subjection of our Souls and Bodies to him , Holiness and Obedience is as necessary a condition of our Justification by Christ , as it is essential to our Union to him : We cannot be justified by Christ , till we are united to him , and we are not united to him , till we obey him : this gives the glory of all to Christ , because we are justified for his sake , by vertue of our Union to him , and yet vindicates the necessity of a holy Life , because this is essential to our Union to Christ. And this is the sum of whatever I asserted concerning the Necessity of Good Works to our Justification ; not that they can merit any thing of God , but that they are the necessary conditions of the Covenant of Grace , which was purchased and sealed by the Blood of Christ ; or in other words , that they are necessary to our Union with Christ , and thereby to give us an interest in all those Promises of Pardon , and Grace , and Eternal Life , which Christ hath made to his Church . The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness , when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant , by which we are accepted ; but if we speak of the terms of the Covenant , then we must have a Righteousness of our own , not to merit Justification or Eternal Life , but to entitle us to the Grace and Mercy of the New Covenant , or which is all one , to unite us to Christ , by whom and for whose sake we are justified : to say , that Obedience to the Laws of the Gospel , a new Nature , and Holiness of Life , are the necessary conditions of our Justification by Christ , and to say , that they are essential to our Union to Christ , by whom we are justified , are different forms of Speech , but signifie the same thing ; because Christ justifies none but those , who are united to him , and none are united to him but by Faith and Obedience ; and so e converso , those who believe and obey the Gospel are in so doing united to Christ , and they , and none else , shall be justified by him : which gives a plain account , how the Virtue and Merit of all is due to Christ , because we are justified by our relation to him ; and explains the meaning of those phrases of receiving Christ , and coming to him for Life and Salvation , and believing in him ; which signifies our being united to him by a sincere Faith and Obedience , which is necessarily required of all those , who would be justified by him . In the last Chapter I give a short account of the nature of Christs love to us , and of our love to Christ , that no man might mistake the love of Christ for a fond and easie passion , nor think to please him with some heats and raptures of Fancy , instead of the substantial Returns of Duty and Obedience : the sum of which in short is this ; that Christ expressed a wonderful and stupendious Love in dying for us , especially in dying for us , while we were his Enemies ; upon which account the Scripture every where magnifies the love of Christ : but though this were the greatest , yet it is not the only expression of his love , but he manifests the same good will in all the methods of his Grace and Providence : he is an easie and gentle Governour , who rules with the natural tenderness and compassion of a Shepherd , a Husband , a Head , a Friend : He pities our weaknesses and infirmities , and is ready to help and succour us ; he is now ascended up to Heaven , where he personally intercedes for us , and with his own hand dispences all those Blessings to us , which we want , and pray for in his Name . And he who loved Sinners so as to die for them , must needs take pleasure in good men , and dwell with them as one Friend dwells with another , Iohn xiv . 21 , 23. Christ will in a more especial manner be present with such good men , who are careful in all things to obey him , and will give very sensible demonstrations of his presence with them , will manifest himself unto them , and make his abode with them . And now in return to this , we must consider that Christ is our Superiour , our Lord , and Master , and therefore our love to Christ must not express it self in a fond and familiar passion , such as we have for our Friends and Equals , but in a great Reverence and Devotion . Superiors must be treated with Honour and Respect , and therefore our love to our Parents and Superiors in the Fifth Commandment is called Honour ; and the same religious Affection to God , which is sometimes called Love , is at other times called Fear , which signifies a Reverential Love , or a Love of Honour , Reverence , and Devotion : and therefore the external Expressions of our love to our Saviour are as various , as the Expressions of Honour , and must bear some respect to the nature and condition of the Person , and that relation we stand in to him : Christ being the only begotten Son of God , we must have regard to the Greatness and Excellency of his Person : Since he became Man , and died for us , we must admire and praise his Goodness : He being our Mediator and Advocate , we must trust and confide in him , and expect the returns of our Prayers , and all other Blessings , from the prevalency of his Intercession : He being our Prophet and Law-giver , we must express our Love to him in a belief of his Gospel , and a sincere Obedience to his Laws ; as Christ requires of his Disciples , If you love me , keep my Commandments : And when we consider our Saviour , as our Guide and Example , the truest expression of our Love and Honour is to imitate him , to live as he lived in the World : And that , which perfects our Love , is an undaunted Courage and Resolution in professing the Faith of Christ , whatever Dangers and Miseries , it may expose us to in this world : For there is no fear in love , but perfect love casteth out fear . These are the proper expressions of our love to Christ , which are summarily comprehended in believing his Gospel , and obeying it ; for to be a true Lover of Christ , signifies neither more , nor less , than to be a good Christian. This is a faithful account of the Design and Doctrine of my Book , which hath raised so much Noise and Clamour , and hath sharpened the Pens and Tongues of so many against me ; but it is a vain attempt to think to out-face the Sun ; these are such bright and glorious Truths as will out-shine all the New Lights of present or former Ages , and command belief from all honest and inquisitive Minds , by their own natural Evidence . The Doctrines , which I designedly opposed in that Discourse , are such as contradict these great Truths , or at least such , as I apprehended to do so , either expresly , or in their immediate consequences ; and because this is the principal thing , which has anger'd so many men , whose Cause and Reputation are concerned in the quarrel , I shall give some brief account , what those Doctrines are , and in what sence I reject them , which I hope may silence those scandalous reports , as if I had struck at the very foundations of Christianity . And first whereas I observed , that to know Christ , signifies the belief and knowledge of those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World , which includes whatever he hath revealed to us concerning his own Person , Natures , Mediation , and the whole Will of God concerning our Salvation , which must be learnt from the express Declarations of the Gospel , not from some fanciful and imaginary consequences , which is a very unsafe way in matters of pure Revelation ; Doctor Owen hath advanced an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ , as the only Medium of saving knowledge ; that is , when we have from the Gospel learnt , who Christ is , what he hath done and suffered for us ; when we have learnt those things , which concern his Person , Offices , and Work , we may then give free scope to our fancies , and draw such conclusions , as are no where expresly contained in Scripture , or could not possibly have been learnt from Scripture , at least not clearly and savingly ; without such an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ , that is , without reasoning and drawing conclusions from what Christ hath done , & suffered . These conclusions must be formed into artificial Theories , and Schemes of Religion , and then these are the great Gospel-Mysteries , and the only saving knowledge of Christ : and those men only preach Christ , who fill peoples heads with such choice Speculations , as they have learnt from this Acquaintance with Christ. I thought there was very great reason to oppose this Principle , which gave such boundless scope to mens fancies , and allowed every man to frame and mold a Religion according to his own humour ; and was the more confirmed in this , when I observed what strange Mysteries the Doctor himself had learn'd from this Acquaintance with Christ , which I am sure without this , he could never have learnt either from Scripture or Reason ; I gave several instances of this nature out of his own Writings , which shall be made good in due time ; at present I must observe what Doctrines I there reject , and in what sence . I rejected such a notion of Gods Justice , as represents him as fierce and savage as the worst of beings ; such a notion of Justice as disparages the Satisfaction of Christ , as if the whole design of it were to gratifie Revenge , and to appease a furious and merciless Deity ; which notion at first frighted Socinus out of his Wits , and made him rather chuse to deny the satisfaction of Christ , than to believe any thing so unworthy of God ; though thanks be to God , that we need do neither . I reject such a notion of Justice , as disparages the Wisdom of God in the contrivance of our Redemption by Jesus Christ : for if it were absolutely necessary for God to punish sin , and there were no other Person in the World fit or able to bear the punishment of sin , and to make expiation for it , but only Christ , there was required no great Wisdom to make the choice . I reject such a notion of the Mercy and Patience of God , as represents it to be the effect only of the satisfaction of Revenge , which is like the tameness of an angry man , when his passion is over , which is an unworthy conceit of the infinite Love and Goodness of the Divine Nature . I reject such a notion of Mercy , as represents God to be fond & easie to Sinners , while they continue so ; and I think such a notion of Justice and Mercy very unworthy of God , which represents him more concerned to punish Sin , than to reform it : And is it not hard , that a man must be scandalized with denying the satisfaction of Christ , and blaspheming God , meerly for rejecting such Doctrines , as are injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ , and when they are pursued to their just and natural consequences , are down right blasphemy against God : this is a certain way to prevent the confutation of such Doctrines , for you cannot confute them without discovering their blasphemy , and whoever does so , shall himself be charged as a Blasphemer . But to proceed , I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ , as is unintelligible , such as the Great Patrons of it cannot explain , nor any one else understand ; for since all our hopes of Salvation depends upon our Union to Christ , I can by no means think , that this is such a Mystery , as surpasses humane knowledge ; for that on which the happiness of all men depends , ought in reason to be so plain , that it may be understood by all . I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ , as intitles us to all the Personal Excellencies , Fulness , Beauty , and to the Personal Righteousness of Christ , as much as Marriage intitles a Woman to her Husbands Estate : that whatever Christ hath done and suffered is as much reckoned ours , when we are united to him , as if we had done and suffered the same things our selves ; and that upon this account we are justified only by the Righteousness of Christ , without respect to any inherent Righteousness in our selves . Now I reject this , because no Union can thus intitle us to Christs personal Excellencies and Righteousness , but such a natural Union as makes Christ and Believers One Person , that they are Christed with Christ , which is an absurd and dangerous Heresie ; but neither our Marriage to Christ , nor his being our Surety , or Mediator , can effect this ; for whatever Union there may be between the Person of Christ and the Persons of Believers , while their Persons remain distinct , their Properties and Qualifications and Righteousness must be considered as distinct too ; and though we may receive great advantage by what Christ hath done and suffered , yet it cannot be reckoned ours , in that strict notion , as if it had been done by us : and there is a vast difference between these two notions ; for the first only makes the Righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Reward , which makes it necessary to have a Righteousness of our own to entitle us to these Blessings ; but the second makes the Righteousness of Christ our Personal Righteousness , which destroys the necessity of any inherent Righteousness in our selves ; but of this more hereafter . I reject such a notion of our Union to Christ , whereby bad men may be , nay must be united to Christ , while they continue in their sins : for if it once be granted ( as it must be granted , if we believe the Gospel ) that our Union to Christ gives us an actual interest in all his Promises , such as Pardon of Sin , and Eternal Life ; it is easie to observe how this overthrows the whole Design of the Gospel , if a bad man , while he continues so , may be united to Christ ; for then he is a Son of God , and an Heir of Everlasting Life ; and what becomes then of all those Gospel-Threatnings , which denounce the wrath of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men ? When Christ tells us , That he who breaks the least of his Commandments , shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven ; that except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees , we shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven : and when St. Paul tells us , The works of the flesh are manifest , which are these , Adultery , Fornication , Uncleanness , Lasciviousness , Idolatry , Witchcraft , Hatred , Variance , Emulations , Wrath , Strife , Seditions , Heresies , Envyings , Murders , Drunkenness , Revellings , and such-like , of the which I tell you before , as I have also told you in time past , that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God , Gal. v. 19 , 20 , 21. I say , must these and such-like places , which so expresly denounce the wrath of God against all wickedness and impieties , be expounded with this limitation , that this shall be the portion of such men , unless they be united to Christ , and thereby sheltered from the wrath of God , as a Wife under covert is secured from all Arrests at Law ? But as soon as any man hath got into Christ , let him be what he will , he is redeem'd from the curse of the Law , and made an Heir of Eternal Life : And does not this effectually evacuate all the Threatnings of the Gospel , and set up the Person of Christ , as a Refuge and Sanctuary for the Ungodly , and make the Grace of Christs Person a Dispensation from his own Laws and Threatnings ? I am sure the Apostle understood not this limitation , as is plain from what he adds vers . 24. And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh , with the affections and lusts . And in Rom. viii . 1. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus ; and that we might not mistake him , he expresly tells us , whom he means , who walk not after the flesh , but after the Spirit : This is essential to our Union to Christ , and to entitle us to the Grace of the Gospel . And it is not enough to say , that Christ will save none , but those who do live very holy lives , because there is no reason for this saying : for if men are united to Christ before they are holy , their very Union to Christ gives them a title to eternal Life , and this can never be reconciled with the antecedent necessity of Holiness , which the Gospel inculcates , not only to qualifie us for actual Salvation , but to give us a right to it : and therefore I had good reason to reject this notion of Union , unless I would renounce the whole Gospel . I reject such a notion of Union , as makes it impossible for any man to ●●ow , either how to get into Christ , or whether he be in Christ or not ; and I think every man , who values the salvation of his soul , or the peace and comfort of his own mind , hath reason to reject this too . I reject such a notion of Sanctification , as makes it impossible to distinguish a sanctified from an unsanctified state . I reject such a notion of Christs love to us as represents it too like a fond and foolish passion , as respects the very Person , without regard to any Qualifications in him , whether he be a fit object of love or not , which is so great an imperfection in humane love , that I cannot imagine it to be the perfection of a Divine Love. And I reject such a notion of the immutability of Christs love , as sin it self cannot alter , which is contrary to all the Declarations of his Gospel , and inconsistent with the Holiness and Purity of his Nature . I reject such a notion of our love to Christ , as excludes all respect to the infinite love of Christ , and those numerous Benefits , we receive by him ; which the Scripture assigns as the true reason of our love to Christ. I reject such a notion of love to Christ , as excludes all regard to our own Happiness and Salvation by him , and must make us contented to be damned , and eternally separated from him ; which is not only impossible to humane Nature , but contrary to the Principles of Christianity . I reject such a notion of our love to Christ , as opposes our Love to Christ to our Duty and Obedience to him , which is the most proper and natural expression of our love of him ; such a love as consists only in some flights of fancy and imagination , in admiring and valuing the Person of Iesus Christ , and in preferring him above all Legal Righteousness , and blamelesness of Conversation , and Duties upon Conviction ; and in using all Duties and Ordinances only to have us over to Christ , for Righteousness and Salvation , and whatever we need ; for this is no better than to set up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion . This is a short and plain account of the whole Doctrine and Design of my late Discourse , and the more I consider it , the less reason I see to repent of my Undertaking : The Doctrines I have professedly taught , are the most necessary and useful Doctrines of Christianity , and so plain and evident , that a younger man than my self may defend them against the oldest Sophister : And the Doctrines that I have opposed , are as certainly false , as the other are true . That such Doctrines have been taught , I have made it sufficiently evident already , by the express Testimonies of some late Writers , and because Doctor Owen is unwilling to own the Charge , as far as he is concerned in it , I must be forced to make it good , in vindication of my own Honesty , and that is all the trouble , which he has given me : Only I would desire the Reader to observe , that since the Doctor disowns the Charge , he renounces such Doctrines too , and that was all I designed ; I have no personal quarrel with any man , and should be glad to find them more Orthodox , than their express words would ever suffer me yet to believe , they are ; though I fear much that upon Examination it will appear , that I understood them too well , and that the Doctor is not willing to recant those Doctrines , which he would seem to disown : There is some reason to suspect this , because he is not willing to declare his sense in plain words , but endeavours to avoid the blow by jugling and sophistical Arts ; as will appear in what follows . CHAP. II. Containing an ANSWER to some Popular Exceptions . NExt to no Adversary , the most desirable thing is , to have a fair and ingenuous one ; but this must never be expected , where men serve a Faction , which makes them try all ways , not to discover what is true , but how they may palliate their mistakes , and maintain , their Authority and Reputation . It is my unhappiness to fall into such mens hands , who wanting better Weapons to defend their Cause , return to their old childish tricks of flinging stones and dirt : I am not so well skilled at this sport , as to venture to engage with them , nor shall I envy them such a Victory , which will cost them some time and trouble to make themselves clean again . There are several familiar Topicks of Reproach , which such men use , when they dare not directly engage in the Dispute . They have a peculiar Gift of discerning thoughts and intentions , and there never was any Book writ , which they could not answer , but it was writ with a very ill design . Thus the Doctor would perswade the world , that it has been the great design of late days , to cavil at his Writings , and to load his Person with reproaches , and accordingly , that I principally intended my Book against himself , and his Book , because he was the Author of it , which ( as he says ) will at last prove to be its only guilt and crime : What a mighty conceit has the Doctor of himself , to think that he is so considerable that so many men should make it their business to oppose him ! He might have been quiet for ought I know , had he not been troublesome to others , and set up for the Great Champion of the Cause ; and his former miscarriages might have been buried in silence , had he not forc'd men to publish them : But I assure him , as for my own part , that I did not principally design that Discourse against him , nor any other man , much less against any party ; but against those foolish and absurd Doctrines ( whoever were the first Inventers , or Patrons of them ) which debauch the practise of Christianity , and turn the plain Revelations of the Gospel into unintelligible Mysteries . I envy no mans Reputation , when it is consistent with the interest of Religion , nor do I think , that any mans Reputation ought to be so dear to us , as to forego the most useful and necessary Truths , rather than let the World know , that such Men of Name and Renown have been in a mistake . But it may be the Looking-Glass-Maker may see more than other men , though there is some danger , lest such persons should draw other mens faces by the reflection of their own : however let us hear , what he has to say . And he very gravely proves , that my design could not be good , by several arguments . For first , if it had , then before I had charged any Opinion , I ought fairly to have stated , and candidly represented that Opinion , but may not the want of this sometimes be a defect in Skill , not a failure in Honesty ? Or else what will become of many of his good Friends , who are not much versed in Logick , and never were acquainted with this knack of stating things fairly : But he adds , This I seldom find him to do , and if I had said , I never found him so to have done , I should not lie , though perhaps I might be mistaken : Now I know not how to help him , only would advise him the next time to use his Spectacles instead of a Looking-glass , and then I hope he may see better , and discover a great many things fairly stated . Secondly , He says , That I ought never to charge any man with those consequences of an Opinion , which I know to be disowned , and disavowed by him : Now how this comes in , I cannot tell , for he has not the confidence to charge me with doing so , though he would willingly insinuate that I do . But the third is a heavy charge , That I draw a bad sense out of words which are capable of a good sense , which is a great Sin against God and my Neighbour : Now this I confess , is a great crime , if by capable he means , when according to the common acceptation of the words , and use of phrases , and circumstances of the place , and the avowed Doctrines and Principles of the Author , it appears to be intended otherwise ; but when the phrase is doubtful and ambiguous , and on purpose contrived so to conceal those Doctrines , which cannot endure the clear and open light ; or when those expressions , which may be capable of a good sense , are by a traditionary exposition generally understood in a bad sense , especially if the bad sense be most agreeable to the professed Principles of the Writer , and such phrases be delivered without an express caution against the bad sense ; in these cases it is no fault to expound such expressions to the worst sense ; but a great charity to mens Souls to warn them against such easie and obvious mistakes . But this is a great charge , and therefore let us hear how he proves it : He gives too instances of it , one with respect to Doctor Owen's Doctrine concerning an Acquaintance with Christs Person : this I shall let pass at present , because I shall meet with it again in the Doctor ; but his other instance , on which he insists , is with reference to Mr. Shephard : I show how impossible it is , according to some mens Principles , to discover our Union to Christ , and Justification by him by the marks of Sanctification , and among other things I observe , That when they have a mind to take down the confidence of men , who are apt to presume too soon , that their condition is good , they do so magnifie the attainments of Hypocrites , who shall never go to Heaven , that it is impossible for any sanctified man to do more than a Hypocrite may do . This I make good by a large citation out of Mr. Shephard's Sincere Convert : And here he first quarrels , that I say some men do so , and prove it only from Mr. Shephard . These men , I see , will never be pleased ; sometimes they quarrel , that I name any body , and sometimes that I name no more : but I can assure this Gentleman , that this was not Mr. Shephard's private Opinion , and shall make it good , when I find more of his Mind to require a proof of it . The wrong which he supposes I have done Mr. Shephard , is this , That I bring him in answering the Pleas of several Hypocrites for themselves , and then suppose the same man to make all these Pleas for himself , which is not fair or just : As for instance , the man accused of Hypocrisie , or at least suspected , pleads for himself , that he has reformed those Vices he once lived in , that he prays often , that he fasts sometimes , as well as prays , that he hears the Word of God , and likes the best Preachers , that he reads the Scriptures often , that he is grieved and sorrowful for his past sins , that he loves good men and their company , that he has more knowledge than others , and keeps the Lords day strictly , and has many very good desires and endeavours to get to heaven , and performs all these Duties with Life and Zeal , and is constant and perseveres in godly courses , and is conscious to himself of his own Sincerity in all this , that he does all this with a good heart for God : That Mr. Shephard objects all this in the person of one man , whom he designs after all to prove a Hypocrite , is so evident , that nothing could excuse our Author for supposing , that he spoke this in the persons of several men , that one pleaded one thing for himself , and another another , but only his confession , that he had not read the Book ; and how far that will excuse him , let others consider . Mr. Shephard begins thus , In what hast thou gone beyond them that think they are rich , and want nothing , who yet are poor , and miserable , and naked ? Thou wilt say haply first , I have left my sins I once lived in , &c. So that this is but the first thing such a man objects or pleads , which argues that the other pleas are made in the same person ; and so he goes on in the same person , But I pray ; But I fast ; But I read the Scriptures , &c. where I can refer to none but the Person , who first made this Plea ; and but connects it with the former Pleas , and is design'd to take off the force of the preceding Answers , that though a Hypocrite might do some one good thing , yet he did not another , or if he did a second or a third , yet at least he did not do all those good things which this poor man pleaded for himself . And indeed the way Mr. Shephard takes with this man , to prove that he either is , or may be a Hypocrite , is so common and familiar a practise , that I wonder very much at the ignorance , or at the honesty of our Author in requiring a proof of it : It is an ordinary question , How far a Hypocrite may go , and yet miss of Heaven ; and the common way of answering it , is the same , which Mr. Shephard takes , by considering what particular good thing has been done by bad men , and since some bad men may do one good thing , and some another , and there is no single grace or vertue , but may be counterfeited by a Hypocrite ; they put all the good things together , which were ever done by bad men , and this is the attainment of Hypocrites : as if because a Hypocrite may do some one good thing , and continue a Hypocrite , therefore a man may do all the good things , which were ever done by any Hypocrites , and yet be a Hypocrite ; and after this , it is impossible for any man to know , whether he be a Hypocrite or not , since there is no one good thing , that can be named , but some Hypocrite or other has either done it , or done something like it . And now after this , every man must needs see how absurd and impertinent that difference is between a regenerate and unregenerate man , which Mr. Shephard assigns , and which our Author defends ; That an unregenerate man , let him go never so far , do never so much , yet he lives in one sin or other : I readily grant , that this is a good mark , in it self considered , of an unregenerate man , that whoever lives in any one sin , is certainly an unregenerate man : but that he should live in some one sin , who goes never so far , and does never so much , is a wonderful thing to me ; especially when we consider , what is meant by going never so far , and doing never so much , which has respect to what he had discoursed before of the attainments of Hypocrites ; such as the reformation of his former vices , an honest , smooth , innocent , blameless life , joyned with all the acts of Worship and Homage to God , prayer , fasting , reading , hearing , observing the Lords day , and perseverance and sincerity in all this ; what those sins are , in which such a man lives , is strange to me , and all the Philosophy in the world will not cure my admiration : and therefore Mr. Shephard did not think this an infallible sign , but lays greater weight upon some more spiritual marks , of being carried out of all Duties to Christ , and taking up his Eternal Rest and Lodging in Christ only , which are surer evidences of Grace than all that Legal Righteousness of good Works , which Hypocrites may counterfeit : but this our Author fairly passes over in silence . Now though I know not how to excuse my self to the Reader already , for taking so much notice of such an Objector , who writes without ▪ reading the Books , which he defends , or scarce those which he answers , yet I cannot but divert my self a while with some few Remarks upon his Answers to the several Pleas : Plea : I have left my sins I once lived in , and am now no Drunkard , no Swearer , no Lyer , &c. Mark ( says our Author ) it is not supposed that he hath left all the sins he once lived in . Nor is the contrary supposed , though &c. you know is of a very large signification ; and an indefinite proposition , when the subject matter requires it , is equivalent to an universal ; and so it must be here ; for he , who pleads for his sincerity from the reformation of his former sins , must be supposed by his sins , to understand all his sins , unless he be a greater fool than a Hypocrite ; for if forsaking sin be necessary , then forsaking all sin is as necessary , as to forsake any . It is well our Author did not fall into Mr. Hickman's hands , for he has declared against teaching his Adversaries Logick . Upon the second Plea he observes , That though a man live a blameless , innocent , honest , smooth life , yet if it be not so with relation to God and Men , and in every thing , his prayers may avail nothing . Our Author is as fit a man to defend Mr. Shephard , as ever I met with , for thier Understandings and Logick seem to be much of a size : What difference is there between being blameless &c. with reference to God and Men , and in every thing ; and between being blameless in their lives , honest and innocent in their conversation with men , and devout Worshippers of God , as those are , who sincerely and heartily pray to him . However if the prayers of such men may avail nothing , he must prove it from some other Text than Isa. i. 11. for those Jews , whose Sacrifices God rejected , were not such honest and innocent men . Upon the next Plea , he observes , That Hypocrites may fast sometimes ; yes no doubt , though I am but young , I am old enough to remember this ; but what he adds , that this is enough to justifie Mr. Shephard , I doubt is not so true as the other ; for though this has been too common an Art of Hypocrisie , yet I am not willing to believe , that every one , who fasts , is an Hypocrite ; much less , if he be an honest and innocent man. But whether they were the Scribes , or Pharisees , who fasted twice a week to devour Widows Houses , I was not much concerned to enquire , we have seen Examples enough of both sorts . Upon the next Plea I assert , That to hear the Word with joy , and to believe it , which is the description of the Stony Ground , had been a good sign of Grace , if it had continued : And this is the fault our Saviour found in this Ground , that this sudden Faith and Joy did not continue . What has he to object against this ? Why then — Ultima semper Expectanda dies homini est , sanctusque vocari Ante obitum nemo , supremaque funera debet . That is , every man must expect his last hour , and cannot be called holy , till he dies . But why so pray ? We cannot say indeed , that any man will persevere , till we see him die well ; but we may call any man holy before , who lives holily : While he lives well , it is the best sign of Grace in the World , and if he continue to do so , his sign of Grace continues , but Perseverance must crown all . Why does not our Author correct our Saviour , for telling those new Converts , If ye continue in my words , then shall ye be my Disciples indeed ? Iohn viii . 31. Why does he not correct the whole Gospel , the language of which is , He that continueth to the end shall be saved ? Upon the next Plea , he has a learned Dispute about the Pharisees Memories , which were better than any Concordance for the Hebrew Text ; I know the Story , as well as he , and do not much matter , what the credit of it is ; but is not this a wise reason why our Saviour did not name the Text in preaching to a promiscuous Auditory , because it may be some few great Rabbies knew where to find it , whereas the generality of the people are said not to know the Law. In the next place , he disputes as learnedly whether Iudas hanged himself , and I perceive this great Critick thinks every one must be as impertinent as himself , who cannot meet with the word Iudas , or hanged , or the like , but whether it be to the purpose or not , must dispute the case whether Iudas were hanged : for if he broke his Neck , or had drowned , or burnt himself , it had been all one to my purpose , and I was not disposed to go out of my way , to pursue Feathers , and Butterflies . Upon the next , he gravely observes , That there are no good men but sleep sometimes , unless they be wiser than the five wise Virgins . We will allow him this , so they do not sleep to let their Lamps go out , as the five foolish Virgins did . On the next , he observes , That it is a huge commendation of good Knowledge , that I say , If a good man have the keeping of it , it is never the worse for him ; though if he think this any disparagement to good Knowledge , I perceive he understands Rhetorick as little as Logick ; or thinks his Readers understand neither . On the next , when I say , That keeping the Lords day strictly , is one good thing , which doth well in the company of more ; he is afraid I forgot my self and stumbled upon a Puritanical saying before I was aware ; and adds , that notwithstanding I thus commend a strict observation of the Lords day , I could like well enough of a Book of Sports ; the uncharitableness of which Censure , contrary to the express sense of my words , I leave to be corrected by his own Conscience , if he have any left . And here our Author thinks fit to break off , for it was not safe to go any farther ; those other Pleas , which this poor man makes to defend himself against the imputation of Hypocrisie , are such on which he dares not venture ; as , That he performs all these Duties with life and zeal ; That he is constant , and perseveres in godly courses ; and that he is conscious to himself of his Honesty and Sincerity in all this , that he does all with a good heart for God ; that is , out of a hearty Devotion to God , and Reverence for his Laws ; and if such a man may be a Hypocrite , no man can be sure of his Sincerity . Only upon this last , he observes , That Mr. Shephard only says , That a man may think he hath a good heart to God , and yet deceive himself : whereas I wish he had said , that a man , who thinks he hath a good heart to God must needs be mistaken ; and then I would say , the whole Doctrine concerning Marks and Evidences were at an end . Now to make it appear , what a fair Adversary I have of this Author , I shall transcribe this whole passage . Object . But some men are conscious to themselves of their own hypocrisie , but I do all with a good heart for God. Answ. So thou maist think of thy self , and be deceived : Upon this , I observe , If this be an Objection , let a man have what marks he will , the Objection will still be good ; for after all it may be objected , that a man may be deceived in it , and think he hath these marks , when he hath them not : And as a proof of this , Mr. Shephard adds , There is a way that seemeth right to a man , but the end thereof is death ; thou mayest live so , as to deceive thy self and others , and yet prove an Hypocrite : On which I observe , that the sense of this argument is this , As if because some men may think themselves good , who are in a bad way , no man could ever be sure that he were in the right ; and thus farewel all Evidences . So that there is no need Mr. Shephard should say , that he who thinks he hath a good heart towards God , must needs be mistaken , in order to overthrow the Doctrine of Marks and Evidences ; for if a man , who is conscious to himself of his own sincerity , that he hath a great reverence and regard for God in all his actions , may be deceived in it , it is sufficient to destroy all Marks and Evidences . For if we cannot be sure what the workings and motions , purposes and resolutions , and habitual inclinations of our own Minds are , we can be sure of nothing : and if a man , who is as sure of this , as inward sense and feeling can make him , may be deceived , then there is no way to be sure of it : this makes men as down-right Scepticks in the Doctrine of Marks and Evidences , as to deny the truth of our Senses , or of our Faculties , does in Philosophy . That refined Hypocrisie , wherewith men deceive themselves , does not consist in such an hypocrisie and deceitfulness of the heart , as conceals it self from it self , which is absolutely impossible ; but in a false and hypocritical Religion , when they think to please God by some exterior homage , or flattering Devotions , or costly or pompous Ceremonies , or by an Orthodox Faith , or counterfeit Reliances , or any other mode or form of Religion , without a sincere Obedience to his Laws ; the men know that they are Villains all this while , that they are guilty of notorious wickedness , as the Scribes and Pharisees were ; but they flatter themselves , that they may be very dear to God notwithstanding this , either for the sake of the Righteousness of Christ , or some hypocritical performances of their own : These are the ways , which seem right to a man , when the end thereof is death . This is the sum of our Authors charge against me , for perverting mens words , and how he hath acquitted himself in it , let the Reader judge ; and all the amends I shall require of him is , to turn his Looking-Glass upon himself , and to view his own face in it . But there is one Argument still behind , to prove , that I could have no good design in writing that Discourse , and when I have answered that , I hope I may pass at least for a well-meaning man. And that is , That I thrust out my sting against those , who have written nothing ( taken notice of by me ) that can be supposed to hurt or hinder Godliness : And though he mentions those , he instances only in one , a fault , which at all turns he corrects in me ; now suppose this were true , is there nothing fit to be corrected , but what has an immediate tendency to make men bad ? Must men be suffered to play and toy with sacred things ; and prostitute the most venerable Religion to mean and low conceits ; and confound mens notions with mystical and allegorical descriptions , and turn the vital parts of Religion , into a work of imagination and fancy ? This is the present case , for in this charge he refers to that short reflection I make upon Mr. Tho. Vincents invitation of young Women to Christ ; and our Author tells us , That the Exhortation is directed to his Hearers to chuse Christ for their Husband ; It is so , but it is to his She-Hearers in particular , which is a very spiritual conceit ; because he knew that Women , not Men , wanted Husbands : He has in the same Pamphlet a distinct Exhortation to young Men , but does he invite them to chuse Christ for their Husband ? by no means ; the conceit would not do there ; for young Men are more for Wives than Husbands , and therefore his Exhortation to them is only to give God their Hearts ; which is a plain confession of guilt , that he had so debased and carnalized the notion of that spiritual Marriage between Christ and his Church , that it was not so properly applicable to men , as to Women , as if there were any regard to the difference of Sex in this Spiritual Marriage : Nay , which is still more fulsome , the Exhortation is not only to Women , but to young Women , because they generally have most mind to Husbands ; and indeed it appears by his Exhortation , that this Sermon was designed to gratifie his young She-Hearers ; I shall direct my speech unto you , and that to all , both Men and Women , but particularly to you that are young Women , whom especially I am now called to preach unto . What the Call was , is not said , some extraordinary one , no doubt : But whether this Exhortation had been directed to Men or Women , to Young or Old , yet I wonder what Mr. Vincent thought of his Hearers , whether they were Turks , or Jews , or Pagans , for it is plain he did not look upon them as Christians , because he perswaded them to be married to Christ , to chuse Christ for their Husband : If they are the Members of the visible Church of Christ , they are already married to Christ , in the Scripture notion of it , and the proper Exhortation to them is , not to chuse Christ for their Husband , but to live worthy of that Relation : Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made such an Exhortation as this ; The proper Exhortation to those who are not Christians , is to embrace the Faith of Christ ; and to those who are , to walk worthy of that Profession and Relation ; but such Discourses , as these , perswade People , that to be married to Christ signifies something more than to be Christians , or else they would never with so much patience hear their Preachers exhorting them to be married to Christ , that is , to turn Christians ; nor reproving them for slighting the offers of Christ , that is , for rejecting Christianity . And whether this notion , as it is managed by those who best understand the consequences of it , be not prejudicial to a good Life , I shall refer my Readers to my late Discourse to consider ; for the whole of Religion at this rate consists only in a fanciful application of Christ to themselves , to consummate the Marriage with him , and then whatever they were before , they are rich , and lovely , and beautiful , by vertue of their Marriage with a rich and lovely and beautiful Husband : When once they are married to Christ , they are secured from all the Arrests of Gods Justice , as a Woman under Covert ; the Bond is indissoluble , and Christ must now bear with all the faults of his Spouse , and answer for all too : His Righteousness must conceal their Deformities , and make them righteous before God ; which I think doth not much encourage a personal and inherent Righteousness . Though to give Mr. Vincent his due , he does not understand the depths of this Mystery , and therefore must not be charged with such consequences as he does not understand . He thinks honestly , that in order to our Marriage with Christ , we must put off our filthy Garments , all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness , &c. and that we must put on the white Raiment , and clean Garments , and rich Robes , which Christ hath provided for us , I mean the Attire of Grace , the Robes of his perfect Righteousness . I cannot but think , how severely Mr. Shephard would have corrected this mistake , and have told him , how unfit he was to be a Suiter for Christ. What ? Must we make our selves beautiful before we are married to Christ , or receive all our beauty from him ? Have you a mind to teach People such Antichristian Pride , as to go about to make themselves fit for Christ , before they will close with him ? Which is a ready way to make them despise Christ , when they find themselves beautiful without him . And how is it possible , they should get the Robes of Christs Righteousness , till they are married to him ? For it is only Marriage that gives us a title to the Righteousness and Fulness and All of Christ , as it gives a Woman right to her Husbands Estate . And now if any man be agrieved at this , he must thank our Author for it , who has forc'd me in my own vindication to say more of Mr. Vincent , than ever I intended ; whose greatest fault , for ought I see , is , that he affects to speak in such phrases , as he does not understand ; and might instruct people to good purpose , would he content himself with the plainness and unaffected simplicity of the Gospel . Having thus vindicated the Honesty of my Intentions , the next objection is , That I have writ with great Scorn and Contempt ; which is a very proper Objection to be made by so candid a man as Doctor Owen , whose Writings savour of such a humble and mortified Spirit : Indeed had this Objection any truth in it , I could not have wished for a better justification , than the Doctors Answer , which has so much out-done all that ever I saw in Satyr and Fury , that I must needs hereafter be esteemed a very cold and tame Writer ; I am sure his Answer has pride and insolence enough , and if it be not sufficiently Scoptical , it is plain , that it was not for want of good will , but for want of wit. But pray whom or what do I scorn ? Do I make any spiteful Reflections upon mens Persons ? Do I tell merry Tales of them ? Do I transprose them , or dress them up in a fools Coat to be laught at ? I shall leave these Arts to my Adversaries , who are more vers'd , and better skill'd in them ; the cause I undertook , did not need such a Defence : My business indeed was to confute and to shame such Doctrines as have a very bad influence upon mens lives , and yet are cried up for great Gospel-Mysteries , and Soul-saving Truths ; and this is that , the Doctor calls writing scornfully , that I have so plainly discovered the absurdities of such Doctrines , as to expose them to scorn and contempt ; which as he observes very well , was my design in Writing , as well as I could to give them a shameful baffle : for I never thought my self concerned to be tender of the reputation of dangerous , though popular , Errors . And that I do not attempt a grave and solemn confutation of Non-sense , or absurd forms of speech , is no fault , Mr. Ferguson himself being Judge , who tells us , That Non-sense is not to be refuted , but exposed . For he betrays the Weakness of his own Reason , who undertakes to encounter an absurd phrase with Arguments . And that the Reputation of Persons is concerned in the Reputation of Doctrines , and that the scorn , which I bestow on one , reflects upon the other , I cannot help , though they may : My only design was to confute their Doctrines , and there is not any expression which they call scornful , which was levell'd against the personal weaknesses and infirmities of Men , but against the fulsome and palpable absurdities of Opinions ; and when such absurd notions are cried up for great and venerable Mysteries , there is the greater reason to speak very plain , that they may appear absurd to the meanest apprehension . This is the only Reason why my Book is accused of Scorn and Contempt ; and I do not deny , but they have some reason to be angry at this , though I shall never be perswaded to like my Book ever the worse for it . But the Doctor observes farther , That the Discourse , which I thus rave against , is Didactical , and accommodated unto a popular way of Instruction , and it hath hitherto been the common ingenuity of all learned men , to give an allowance unto such Discourses , so as not to exact from them an accuracy and propriety in expressions , such as are required in those , which are Scholastical and Polemical , &c. I cannot understand the reason of this Exception , when the Doctor , pag. 7. had so expresly affirmed , That he could not find any Thing , any Doctrine , any Expressions , any Words refl●cted on , which the Exceptions of this man do give him the least occasion to alter , or desire that they had been otherwise either expressed or delivered . Now if his Discourse be writ with such accuracy , what matter whether it be Didactical or Polemical : But as for the thing it self , it must be acknowledged , that it is very disingenuous to expect a Polemical Accuracy in Popular Discourses , for it is not fit to instruct people in terms of Art , borrowed from the Schools of Plato or Aristotle , which , we may be sure , the people understand not , nor it may be these Polemical men neither . But there is another kind of accuracy very necessary for Popular Discourses , which I should be very glad to find in Dr. O. and some late Writers , that is , strict Truth , and plainness of expression , and when Popular Discourses are defective in these , it is no disingenuity to take notice of it ; for there is nothing does more mischief to Religion , than to teach the people a Set of unintelligible and ambiguous Phrases ; which how-ever they may be forc'd to some tolerable sense by men of Art and Skill , yet to the generality of Readers , either signifie nothing , or that which is very bad . But by this the Doctor would fain insinuate , that my Book consists only of some cavilling Exceptions about Words and Phrases , and improper forms of Speech , which , if it could be proved , would be a more effectual confutation of it , than any I have yet seen ; and yet the Looking-Glass-Maker proceeds upon this supposition , and therefore to requite me , picks quarrels with my Words , and discovers great improprieties , contradictions , nonsense ; and writes just such a Confutation of my Book as I should have expected from a Court-Jester , or a Prevaricator . I shall give some few instances of this nature , which may be sufficient to divert the Reader , and that is the only reason I know , why I should take any notice of them : Except for fear the Author should think himself slighted , and judge me of the same morose humour with Mr. Hickman , who uses to punish such Scriblers , with not buying nor reading their Books . Thus sometimes I use some popular forms of Speech , the sense of which is generally very well understood , but they will not down with our Author , because they cannot be reconciled to strict Rules of Logick , or terms of Art ; thus he observes that I say in one place , some men , where-ever they meet with the word Christ in Scripture , alway understand by it the Person of Christ ; and this I doubt not is true of a great many private Christians , and some ignorant Preachers ; but then in another place I affirm , that it is acknowledged by all , that Christ sometimes signifies the Church of Christ ; now this is a contradiction , that all sometimes understand by the name Christ , the Church of Christ , and some always understand the person of Christ : But pray what need is there that all should include those some ? Why could not he by all , understand all men of any knowledge and skill in the use of words , which some , and a great many , have not ? How comes it to pass , that he has so soon forgot their beloved distinction of singuli generum , & genera singulorum , whereby they prove , that Christ died for all , without dying for all ? Thus I observe , that Christ hath told us in the Gospel , whatever he intends to do for us , and hath charged us to expect no more from him ; which the circumstances of the place determine to the terms and conditions of our Salvation by Christ ; but nothing will serve our Author , unless whatever be supposed to signifie all the particularities of Christs Providence towards the Church ; as the very particular time when Kingly and Episcopal Government should be restored here in England : Though I doubt not , but our Author had much rather know , when they shall be pulled down again . Thus when I say , That now the only true Medium of knowing God , is the knowledge of Christ , who came into the World to declare God to us : that is , as I soon add , That the only certain way of attaining to the knowledge of the nature and will of God , is by knowing Christ , whom God sent into the World to publish the everlasting Gospel , who hath made more perfect Revelations of Gods will , than ever the World had before , &c. Because I say , that Christ is the only true Medium of knowing God , he concludes , that I am a Fanatick , who reject the Light of Nature , and the Works of Creation and Providence , as false Mediums of knowing God , which must be thrown away , or not made use of : But does he know what a true Medium is ? It is that which gives us a clear and certain , and perfect knowledge ; as a true Medium of sight is that which conveys the perfect images of things with clearness and certainty : now will he say that the Light of Nature , &c. can give us such a clear and perfect and certain knowledge of the nature of God , and his will concerning our Salvation , as the Revelations of the Gospel ? Or must they be false , or wholly rejected , because they are not a true Medium of knowledge in that sense , wherein the Gospel of Christ is ? But pray , who taught him to oppose the Light of Nature to the Gospel of Christ ? That he , who owns the Gospel of Christ as the only true Medium of knowledge , must be supposed to reject the Light of Nature ? I am sure this is a Fanatical notion of the Gospel of Christ ; for Christ did not only reveal those things to us , which could not be known by the Light of Nature , but gave us a more perfect and certain knowledge of those things , which the Light of Nature did more imperfectly and uncertainly discover : And therefore the Gospel of Christ is the surest Medium of natural knowledge , so far as it concerns matters of Religion , as well as of revealed knowledge ; I say , as far as it concerns matters of Religion , for fear this happy man at sensless mistakes , should imagine , that I mean that Christ taught Natural Philosophy in the Gospel . At other times he quarrels with single words and expressions , as very improper : As I say , That Christ is originally the name of an Office , which the Iews call the Messias , or one anointed by God : The plain meaning of which can be no more than this , that this Name Christ doth primarily respect an Office ; that is , when this Name is given to any Person , it is wholly with respect to the Office with which he is invested ; and though there can be no such thing , as an Office without a Person , yet the Name doth more immediately respect the Office than the Person ; as is plain from this , that when we hear such a name , it does not convey the Idea of any particular person , but the notion of an Office to our minds ; when we hear the Name King , Priest , or Prophet , it naturally excites in us the notion of those Offices , without regard to any particular persons invested with them ; upon the hearing such names , our minds naturally prescind the consideration of the Office from the Person ; and since words are but artificial images of things , we may safely affirm that to be the original signification of a name , which answers to that notion and idea , which it first imprints upon our minds . The reason our Author assigns , why Christ is not originally the name of an Office , is because it is a Concrete , or Connotative term : but did he never hear of some Adjectives that are used Substantively , and so I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be , and when a word respects two things , may it not more immediately refer to oue of them ? And is not that then the original signification of the Name ? This I perceive is a very material Exception , and therefore is repeated by Mr. Ferguson , together with a censure of another absurd form of speech , The Duties and Actions of an Office , at which Doctor Owen also had before quarrell'd : now the Duties and Actions of an Office is a very plain and ordinary form of speech to signifie those Duties and Actions , which are proper and peculiar to any person with respect to such an Office ; and no man who is in his wits , can by such an expression be led into such a blundering mistake , as to think that the Office is the Agent : Methinks Mr. Ferguson might have learnt from the Title of his own Book to have been more favourable to such forms of speech , for The Interest of Reason in Religion , is to the full as absurd , as the Actions of an Office ; Interest is a term as proper and peculiar to a Person , as Actions , and pray what kind of Person is Reason ? Just such a Person as In-dwelling-Sin , or some mens Consciences , which are often described , as if they were distinct Beings , which have Properties , Actions , Powers , and a kind of Personality and Subsistence of their own , distinct from the man , in whom they are . And indeed I have no reason to quarrel with these men , who deal much more favourably with me , than they do with St. Paul in the like cases : they only reprove me for an improper expression , but do not affix an improper sense to my words ; whereas they usually make St. Paul's meaning to be as absurd , as they fancy my words improper . But to return to our Author : I add farther , that this name Christ is used to signifie the Person who is invested with that Office : Which our Author says , Is a rare and odd notion ; for as the name Christ never signifies the Office abstracted from the Person , so it never signifies the Person , but as invested with the Office : But what then ? Christ may be used as a proper name , to signifie such a determinate Person , which very much differs from the more general acceptation of the word without affixing it to any particular person , as every School-boy knows . A Poet , or Orator , or Philosopher , are names which may be indifferently given to any Poet , Orator , or Philosopher , and therefore do not in their own nature signifie any determinate Person ; but if these names be given by eminency , or for any other reason , to any particular Persons , as to Aristotle , or Tully , or Virgil , this doth as much alter the property of them , as when the name of the Species is appropriated to any one Individual : Thus it is here , Christ may signifie any one , who is anointed by God to any Office , or it may respect the particular Office of the Messias , without knowing who shall bear this Office ; but besides this , it may denote some determinate Person , as Iesus of Nazareth , who is invested in this Office. And he who knows not how to distinguish a common Name , from the same Name , when it is appropriated to a particular Person , has not much reason to talk either of Grammar or Logick . But this , it seems , is too hard for our Authors understanding ; who can by no means conceive the difference between acknowledging Jesus to be the Christ , as his Disciples and some other Jews sometimes did in his life-time , and using Christ as a proper Name , to signifie the same Person who was called Iesus . As if to say Aristotle is a Philosopher , and to say that Philosopher is the proper name of Aristotle , were the same thing . He adds , The reason , why the Evangelists use the name Iesus more frequently than the name Christ , could not be , because in the life-time of Christ it was disputed whether Iesus were the Christ , for the Gospels were all written after the Resurrection of Christ , and one of them was written after all Paul's Epistles were written , at which time there were many Churches founded on this perswasion and belief , that Iesus was the Christ. But our Author mistakes the state of the question , which is not why the name Christ is used more frequently in the Epistles than in the Gospels , but why it is not used at all in the Gospels , as a proper name : and his reason shews , that he would make no very good Historian , but would relate things not according to the Customs and Usages of the Times , wherein they were acted , but according to the practice of the Times , wherein he writ ; for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose , at what time the Gospels were writ , nor what was the belief and practice of that Age , if we suppose the Gospels to be a true History , not of those present times , but of the Life of Christ , and of that Age wherein he lived . He argues much at the same rate in another place , where he would prove , that the Sermons & Parables of our Saviour ought not to be of greater Authority in the Christian Church , than the Writings of the Apostles ( which is contrary to the Judgment and practice of the Ancient Church ) and his Argument is extraordinary subtil ; Because our Saviour did no more write the four Gospels , than he did the Epistles ; the same Spirit that inspired Matthew , Mark , Luke , Iohn , to write the Gospels , inspired Paul , Peter , Iames , Iohn , Iude , to write the Epistles . As if the Authority of our Saviours Sermons did depend upon the Writer , not on the Speaker : There is a vast difference between the Truth of a Relation , and the Authority of those Sermons and Parables contained in it ; the first depends upon the honesty of the Historian , the second upon the Authority of the Speaker : So that though Matthew , or Mark , &c. wrote the History of the Gospel , yet the Sermons and Parables of the Gospel derive their authority and veneration from Christ himself : and therefore the comparison between the Gospels and Epistles does not lie between St. Mathew and Mark , &c. and St. Peter and St. Paul , but between Christ and his Apostles : and though the Evangelists were inspired men , yet the only inspiration , which was necessary for this Work , was only to help their Memories to make a true and faithful Relation of what our Saviour did and taught ; and though the Apostles were inspired men too , yet their very Inspirations were to be examined by the Doctrine of the Gospel , which was to be the Rule of their Preaching and Writings . But to return : In pag. 4. I find our Author in a great amazement , and I always suspected something was the matter with him , that he wrote so much like a man out of his wits ; the occasion of it is , that I say , That all these Offices of Prophet , Priest , and King , are not properly distinct Offices in Christ , but the several parts and administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom . Here he first observes , That 't is a strange Presumption for a Young Divine , to say that these Offices are not distinct Offices in Christ , and never in the least suggest , wherein the impropriety of so calling them doth lie : But I did not say that they are not distinct Offices , but not so properly distinct Offices ; and had he not been in a great amazement , he might have seen the reasons , why I said so , because Christ did exercise a Regal Power and Authority in each of these Offices : and the reason why I chose to state it in this manner , was the better to show , how all these Offices did conspire to the same end : Christ is a Mediatory King , whose Office is to reconcile God and Man , and in order to attain this end , he gives us his Laws to be the Rule of our Lives , makes Atonement for our Sins , and powerfully bestows all those Blessings on us , which he hath purchased by his death : All this is necessary to the Recovery of lost man , and therefore we must not expect to receive any benefit by his Expiation and Sacrifice , without Obedience to his Laws , nor think that his Kingly Power will save those , who submit not to his Rule and Government ; which those are very apt to do , who do not consider how all these Offices belong to him as a Mediatory King , but look upon them as such distinct things , which have distinct effects , without any relation to , or dependance on each other . For this very reason a late Reverend Author quarrels at Mr. Baxter's definition of Justifying Faith , that it is to receive Christ in all his Offices , as Prophet , Priest , and King. He dares not deny that justifying Faith must receive a whole Christ , but then he affirms , that Christ is the formal Object of justifying Faith , not considered as Prophet or King , but as Priest. Etsi Idem Christus sit Dominus & Sacerdos , totusque in justificatione recipiatur , totus tamen omni sensu , i. e. omnium promiscue munerum intuitu ad justificationem formaliter minime requiritur , sed tantum qua Sacerdos , & legi satisfaciens : i. e. Though the same Christ be both Lord and Priest , and whole Christ is received in justification , yet not under that formal consideration , as a whole Christ , in all his Offices , but only as a Priest , who makes satisfaction to the Law. And the reason which he assigns for it , is this , That Justification consists in being delivered from the Curse of the Law ; that the only way whereby we are delivered from this Curse , is the Satisfaction of Christ ; and Christ made this Satisfaction for us , only as our Priest and Sacrifice : And this were a good reason indeed for justifying Faith to eye Christ only as our Priest and Sacrifice , if his Satisfaction alone could give us a title to Justification ; if expiation of sin were the only thing required to the pardon of it : The Sacrifice of Christ hath made a general expiation for the sins of the world , but this Satisfaction it self intitles no particular man to the benefit of it ; that more properly belongs to the Prophetical and Kingly Office , to confer a Right and Title to the Benefits of Christs Priesthood ; and therefore we must first receive Christ , as our Prophet , and our King , that is , must believe his Revelations , obey his Laws , and submit to his Government , before we have any reason to look on him as our Priest , to expiate our sins . His Priestly and Prophetical Offices are but subservient to his Regal Power , ( as the Priests and Prophets under the Law , were to their Kings ) and therefore can have no effect without our subjection to Christ , as our Lord and King , which unites us to him , and makes us Members of his Body , which he redeemed and purchased with his Blood. But then he wonders , why they may not be distinct Offices , and yet parts of Christs Mediatory Kingdom : but then I wonder too , what he means by distinct Offices , and parts : When I say they are not properly to be considered as distinct Offices , by distinct Offices I mean , such Offices , as have no dependance upon each other , but can attain their ends single and apart ; and when I say , they are several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom , I mean , as any one might easily guess , that though there are several Acts distinct from each other , and proper to each of these Offices , yet they all center in one common end ; they are all but the different administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom , and necessary to produce the same effect , the Salvation of Mankind . But this troubles him too , that I say , they are the different administrations of this Mediatory Kingdom ; for says our Author , Is an Office an Administration ? No , by no means , therefore I say they ought not to be look'd on as different Offices , but as different Administrations of the same Supreme Office , which comprehends them all . But then he would fain know , what kind of Totum a Mediatory Kingdom is , to the Offices of Prophet , Priest , and King : Why Sir , just such a Totum as consists of three parts : His mistake , which occasions this wondering humour , is , that he thought a Mediatory Kingdom and the Office of a King , to be of equal extent , and therefore that the Office of a King could not be contained under a Mediatory Kingdom , as a part is contained in the whole ; Whereas every Puny in Divinity knows , that a Mediatory Kingdom is of a larger extent than the meer Office of a King , and contains the Prophetical and Priestly Offices under it : Which is like another of his mistakes , that because ( as he observes from Doctor Iackson and Doctor Hammond ) Christ was consecrated to his Priestly Office by his Sufferings and Death , therefore he was not consecrated to his Mediatory Office ( as I assert ) by being anointed with the Holy Ghost and with Power ; as if Christ might not have a general Consecration to his Mediatory Office , and a particular Consecration to the particular parts of it : though Doctor Hammond only says , That the Death of Christ was his Consecration to his Melchisedechi an Priesthood , but was it self an act of his Aaronical Priesthood . But I see the most innocent expressions shall not escape the severest Censures , when we have to deal with men , who can understand nothing , which is out of their common road of phrases : Mr. Ferguson draws up a very severe Charge against me upon this score , as if I confounded the Offices of Christ , and denied his Priesthood , and his Expiation and Sacrifice : and yet would have the World believe , that if he had not been in a very good humour , he could have handled me after another rate : Truly what his humour is I cannot tell , but I am sure that either his Understanding , or his Conscience , is not very good . He takes a great deal of laudable pains to prove , that the Offices of Prophet , Priest , and King , though they be not separated in their Subject , the Person of Christ , yet they are in their Natures , Objects , Acts , and Effects distinguished one from the other : But do I any where deny this ? Because I say , that they are several Parts , and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom , does it hence follow , that they are not several Parts and different Administrations ? That they do not differ in their Natures , Acts , and Effects ? As for instance , the Paternal Government consists of very different parts , as the Education of Children , providing Food and Raiment for them , correcting them when they do amiss , and incouraging their Vertues , placing them with prudent Masters and Governours , and providing for their future subsistence , and the like : Now will any man say , that there is no difference between feeding Children , and correcting them , and sending them to School , and putting them out to serve an apprentiship to a Trade , whereby they may get their Livings , because all these do equally belong to a Fathers care , and are contained under the general notion of Paternal Government ? Thus when we say , that Christ is a Saviour , or which is the same thing , a Mediatory King , and that the Offices of Prophet , Priest , and King , are but the several Parts , and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom , that is , they are all essential to the Office of a Saviour , and included in the notion of it , and necessary to the same end , the Salvation of Mankind ; can any man hence reasonably infer , that they do not differ in their particular Natures , Acts , Objects , and Effects ? But Mr. Ferguson proves , that I make no difference between Christs Priestly and Kingly Office , because I say , that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin , was an Act of Kingship . But I say no such thing : My words are these ; When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin , he acted like a King. Now can our Author perceive no difference between these two expressions , that Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin , was an Act of Kingship ; and , When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin , he acted like a King ? The first signifies , that the nature of his Sacrifice and Oblation consists in the exercise of a Regal Power , which indeed confounds his Priestly and Kingly Offices ; the other only signifies , that at the very same time , and in that very Act , when he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin , he exercised the Power of a King too ; that is , as I explained it , that his Life was not taken from him by external force and power , but his laying down his Life was an Act of Authority ; He had power to lay it down , and he had power to take it again : And I wonder Mr. Ferguson should think it any derogation from our Saviours Power and Authority , that he adds , This Command have I received from my Father ; for I would fain know of him , what Authority and Power that is , which Christ , as Mediator , has not received from his Father , and does not exercise by his Command , and in subordination to him : A Mediatory Kingdom is a received and subordinate Power ; it is Obedience with respect to God , and Authority and Power with respect to Men. And had this Author been so honest , as to have considered , what I immediately subjoyn , he could not have suspected me of Socinianizing , or of confounding the Priestly and Kingly Office , viz. Herein Christ differs from other Kings , that he laid the Foundation of his Kingdom in his own Blood , that he purchas'd and redeem'd his Subjects with the Sacrifice of himself . Such another mistake one may observe in our Author , when he makes me to say , That the Sacerdotal Office is only a part and different Administration of the Regal : Whereas I never thought , that the Sacerdotal Office was part of the Regal Office , but that the Priestly and Kingly and Prophetical Offices were several Parts and different Administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom : And when I affirm , that they were several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom , I had not so little wit in the same breath to affirm , that they were parts of each other , which is a down-right contradiction : but I see , our Author , with all his Learning , cannot distinguish between a Kingly Office , and a Mediatory Kingdom . In the like manner he arraigns me for a Socinian , for asserting that Intercession signifies the Administration of Christs Mediatory Kingdom , the Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins : Though either our Author is very ignorant , or cannot but know , that what I there assert , has no affinity with the Socinian Notion ; for I expresly attribute the Virtue and Efficacy of his Intercession , to the Expiation and Sacrifice of his Death , and cite Heb. ix . 12. to that purpose , which I am sure no Socinian can own . The proper notion of an Advocate or Intercessor is one , who offers up our Prayers and Petitions , and procures an Answer , which was represented by the High Priests offering Incense in the Holy of Holies , which signified the Prayers of the Congregation ; and therefore we find that while the Priest offered Incense in the Holy Place , the People used to pray without , that their Prayers might ascend together with the Incense , Luke i. 10. So that Christs Intercession is founded on the virtue of his Sacrifice , but it is not the representation of his Meritorius Sacrifice , as Mr. Ferguson imagines , but the Recommendation of our Prayers and Persons to God by virtue of his meritorious Sacrifice : and therefore the Intercession of Christ is described by his being able to save all those to the uttermost , who come unto God by him , Heb. vii . 25. And since we have such an High Priest , who intercedes for us , and is sensible of our Infirmities , we are exhorted to come boldly to the Throne of Grace , that we may obtain mercy , and find Grace to help in time of need , Heb. iv . 16. The death of Christ upon the Cross was a Sacrifice for Sin , was an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood , to make Atonement for Sin by the Sacrifice of himself ; but when he ascended into Heaven , and had presented his Blood in the holy Place , he was no longer then a Priest after the Order of Aaron , but after the Order of Melchisedeck , as the Apostle proves at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; his work is not to offer himself any more in Sacrifice , for he hath by one offering for ever perfected them who are sanctified ; but his Office is to bless the People in Gods Name , as Melchisedeck blessed Abraham : God hath sent his Son to bless us , in turning of us from our iniquities : He hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour , to give repentance unto Israel , and remission of sins . So that now in virtue of his Death and Sacrifice , Christ doth not intercede , like some meaner Advocates , by Prayers and Intreaties , having all power both in Heaven and Earth committed to him , but doth by his Power and Authority , which he received from God , as the Purchase and Reward of his Death and Sufferings , bestow all those Blessings on us which we want , and pray for in his Name . For this Reason , I asserted , That Christs Intercession is the Power of a Regal Priest , to expiate and forgive sins ; not to make atonement for them , which he did by his Death and Sacrifice , ( as Mr. Ferguson would pervert my words ) but to apply this Expiation and Atonement to us , in the actual forgiveness of our sins . And this is so plain and evident a Truth , that Mr. Ferguson himself cannot deny it , though he quarrels with me for asserting it , being willing , it seems , to find fault , if he knew how : His Words are these : Indeed his Intercession , as upon the one hand it is founded on his Oblation and Sacrifice , being nothing but the representation of his meritorious Passion , and a continuation of his sacerdotal Function ( which , as I observed before , is a mistaken notion of Christs Intercession , as confounding his Sacrifice with his Intercession , which is indeed founded on his Sacrifice , and receives all its virtue and efficacy from it , but yet is of a distinct nature and consideration ) so on the other hand , it hath its effects towards us by virtue of the interposition of some Acts of his Kingly Office : For these Offices being all vested in the same Person , and having all the same general End , and belonging all to the Work of Mediation , it cannot otherwise be , but that their Acts must have a mutual respect to each other ; but yet the Priestly Office , to which Intercession appertains , is formally distinct from his Kingly . In which words he acknowledges , that Christs Intercession , as it respects us , and consists in bestowing those Blessings on us , which we want , and which he hath purchased , is an Act of Kingly Power and Authority ; which is as much , as I asserted , or ever intended to assert : And as for what he adds , that still his Priestly Office is formally distinguish'd from his Kingly , I readily grant it , so far as it respects his Sacrifice and Expiation , which is an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood ; but as it respects his Intercession , which is an Act of his Melchisedechian Priesthood , his Kingly and Priestly Offices are so closely united , that he is rather to be considered as a Regal Priest , than as either Priest or King , because it is the exercise of that Power and Authority which is founded on his Sacrifice . And by this time , I hope , every ordinary Reader will see what a vain and malicious attempt it was , for this Author to endeavour to represent me as a Socinian ; of which Candor and Ingenuity , I shall give several other Instances hereafter ; and that he might have spared his pains in proving , that the Kingly and Priestly Offices in Christ are distinct , and that Christ is not a Metaphorical , but a proper Priest. But to return to our Looking-Glass-Maker , he quarrels still , that I say , That Christs preaching the Gospel was the exercise of his Regal Power in publishing his Laws : Our Author can understand , that to enact Laws is an exercise of a Regal Power , but not to publish them , which would make every inferior Herald a King : This is a very wise Objection , which shews his Skill in Laws and Government : It is not indeed necessary for a King to publish his Laws in his own Person ; this was a peculiar condescension of our Saviour , to come in Person to us to publish his Laws ; but yet the publication of Laws must be made by the same Authority , which Enacts them ; for publication is of the very essence of a Law , and by wiser men than our Author , put into the definition of it , and therefore is the proper exercise of Regal Power . I doubt my Readers will be quite tired with my taking notice of such impertinent Cavils , and therefore I shall add but one or two more , which are very remarkable , and dismiss our Author for the present : I commend the Wisdom and Honesty of our Church , for teaching her Children a Religion without Art or Subtilty : Our Author disproves this , by shewing that no Child can understand the Church-Catechism without great art and subtilty : he cannot understand what it is to be a Member of Christ , without understanding the various significations of the Name Christ , and whether he must be made a Member of the Church , or of the Person of Christ ; and then he must know what this Church is , which requires great subtilty , &c. Now by the same argument I can prove , that a Child cannot understand the easiest thing in Nature , without unridling all the Mysteries of Philosophy ; as for instance , at this rate a Child cannot understand what Bread is , unless he first understand what Matter is , and then he must understand all the difficulties of Quantity , and whether it consist of Divisibles or Indivisibles , and must understand the differences of Matter , and the reason , why he can bite one sort of Matter with his Teeth , but can make no impression upon another : and how the parts of matter hang together , and the like . There is a more general indistinct apprehension of things , which is sufficient to govern our Actions , though we do not understand all the Niceties and Philosophy of them . But if our Author can find such subtilties in those plain matters , which are taught Children in the Church-Catechism , ( which are objections that will indifferently lie against the plainest Instructions ) what does he think of those sublime matters of the Eternal Decrees and Counsels of God , Election and Reprobation , and such-like Mysteries , which are so familiarly thrust into Catechisms ? What subtilty is required in Children to understand these deep Points , and to comprehend the subtil and artificial Schemes of Orthodoxy ? This is much like another Cavil against the intelligibleness of our Union with Christ : I am sure ( says our Author ) that our Union with Christ is an Union : No doubt Sir ; and if it be so , it cannot be very easie to be understood , because the Metaphysical notion of Union is as difficult as any other transcendental term : Why then let the Metaphysicians dispute it out ; but for all that , I can easily understand , and I believe any one else can , what it is to be related to Christ , as Subjects are to their Prince , and Disciples to their Master , and Wives to their Husbands , &c. This is enough to give the Reader a taste of our Authors Skill ; and should I add any more , it might bring my own discretion into question : for next to making foolish and cavilling Objections , it is an argument of a very little Wit to answer them . And therefore to proceed , Dr. Owen observes , that I have writ against his Book , which was writ and published near twenty years since : I confess I do not well understand the force of this Objection , unless he imagine that his Book is now grown venerable for its antiquity ; but where-ever the force of it lies , I am sure it answers another grand Objection against me ( which is so often repeated ) that I am a Young Man , a defect which time will mend , and which Industry will supply : However I suppose the Doctor was not very old twenty years ago , and it argu'd some Modesty in the young Man , rather to attack a Book writ by the Doctor , when he was a young Man too , than rudely to assault his Writings of a later date , which may be presumed to be the effects of a more mature Judgement , and riper years ; and I hope this consideration will plead my excuse with him , for not undertaking that task , which he has so kindly allotted me , right or wrong , to answer all his late voluminous Treatises , which I think I may as soon be perswaded to do , as to read them ; that magnificent Title of Exercitations , which used to be prefixed before some learned Discourses , invited me to take a little taste of them , till I found my self mistaken , and deceived with some jejune or trite Observations ; which has so put me out of conceit with flattering Titles , that I shall never again believe the Titles of Books or Chapters , for his sake . But this Book has had the approbation of as Learned and Holy Persons , it may be , as any the Doctor knows living in England , or out of it , who owning the Truth contained in it , have highly avowed its Usefulness , and are ready yet so to do . I fear that either the Doctor 's Acquaintance with Learned and Holy Men , is not very great , or that this is not true ; for I cannot conceive , how very holy men should so approve a Book which is so little a Friend to Holiness , or that learned men should be pleased with such loose and inconsequent Reasonings ; but let that be as it will , I am sure there are as learned and as holy men , who do as little approve it ; unless the Doctor thinks , that Learning and Holiness are confined to his own Party , or that the approbation of his Writings is the only sure test of Mens Learning and Holiness . But the great charge of all , which runs thorow his whole Book , is , that I have mis-represented his words , and perverted his sense , which sometimes he attributes to ignorance , sometimes to malice , sometimes he calls it an impudent falshood , sometimes flagitiously false , and shows very great Skill at varying phrases , which he is much better at , than at writing Controversies . Whether this Charge be true or not , shall be examined particularly , as far as I can reduce the several particulars of this Charge into any order : But to abate the wonder a little , I must inform my Reader , that this is Dr. Owen's way of answering Books , to deny those Doctrines which he dares not own , or cannot vindicate ; I am not the first who have been charged with such falsifications ; Mr. Baxter was taxed with it long since , in a whole Book written for that very purpose , intitled , Of the Death of Christ , and of Iustification , the Doctrine concerning them formerly deliverd , vindicated from the Animadversions of Mr. R. B. where this grave man is corrected as magisterially , as if he had been such another Stripling as my self . Towards the conclusion of that Discourse , I meet with a very excellent Prayer : If I must engage again in the like kind , I shall pray , That He , from whom are all my supplies , would give me a real humble frame of heart , that I may have no need with many pretences , and a multitude of good words , to make a cloak for a Spirit breaking frequently thorow all with sad discoveries of Pride and Passion , and to keep me from all magisterial insolence , pharisaical supercilious self-conceitedness , contempt of others , and every thing that is contrary to the Rule , whereby I ought to walk . It is great pity that Forms of Prayer are not lawful , for this is too good a Prayer to be used but once in a mans life ; which I doubt , is one reason , why we see no better effects of it in the Doctors Writings . But there is a heavier Charge than all this behind , which is frequently hinted by Doctor Owen , and more expresly managed by Mr. Ferguson , who in his Preface tells his Readers , That I treat the sacred Writers with as much contempt as I do T. W. and Burlesque the Scripture no less than others have done Virgil's Poems . This would be a terrible Adversary , were he as good at his proofs , as he is bold and daring in his Charge . This is a crime of a very high nature to burlesque Scripture , and the foulness of the imputation might justly have provoked a tamer man than my self , did not his weak and ridiculous proofs more deserve contempt , than any serious resentment . He waves the proof of this in his Preface ; but in his second Chapter , where he entertains his Readers with a tedious impertinent Discourse about Metaphors and Allegories , and very gravely states the difference between a Metaphor and Allegory , and Parable , &c. as if he were reading a Rhetorick Lecture to his School-boys ; and very strongly proves , that it is lawful to use Metaphors , and that the Spirit of God in Scripture does so , ( it being his peculiar Talent to prove that which no body denies ) at length he comes to the business , to show that some of the expressions reflected on in the Writings of the Nonconformists , are such as the Holy Ghost himself hath preceded them in the use of , and that to the very same ends and purposes for which they produce them . And that he may not be thought to design the disparagement of any party of men , by quoting Testimonies from divers of their Authors , who rather than not strain up the dregs of their choler against the Fanaticks , for their Phraseologies , have even written in derogation of Scripture-phrases ; and made the Spirit of God the subject of their derision , as well as the Nonconformists ; to avoid this , he confines himself to me alone . This is true Fanatick Charity : He will by no means , good man ! disparage any party of men , only he informs his Readers that there are a sort of men , who write against the Fanaticks ( and it is pretty well known who they are ) that make the Spirit of God the subject of their derision : And why so I pray ? because they laugh at the Fanaticks for their ridiculous abuse of Scripture-Phrases and Metaphors : Though they prate Nonsense in Scripture-phrase , yet because it is the phrase of Scripture which they thus abuse , every one , who laughs at them for it , if we will believe Mr. Ferguson , makes the Spirit of God the subject of his derision . And yet our Author , when he is in a better mood , tells us , But let them and all such Persons , of what communion and perswasion soever they are , who turn the Gospel thus into a Romance , and subvert the Mysteries of Faith , by transforming them into Phantastick Allegories , be treated with the derision and contempt of all , who pretend to Wisdom and Modesty . So that it seems , some men may turn the very Gospel it self into a Romance , and abuse the Phrases and Expressions of Scripture to very evil purposes ; and then it is not a deriding the Spirit of God , but that which is consistent with Wisdom and Modesty , to expose them to derision and contempt . Thus contrary is our Author to himself , when he opposes the Quakers , and vindicates his own dear Brethren , who have abused Scripture-expressions as grosly , though in many cases with less wit , and to worse purposes , than the Quakers themselves ; as he is forc'd to acknowledge of T. W. that maybe , in some things he * hath prevaricated , which is in plain English to say , that it may be , he hath either play'd the Fool or the Knave , for which character T. W. is very much beholden to Mr. Ferguson . But he hath taken care , that no other Person shall be able to answer this Charge ; for though he very charitably accuses all men , who write against the Fanaticks , yet he names no man , nor gives any particular instances of this prophane derision of the Holy Spirit ; only I am singled out to bear the fury of his assault ; and I am very well contented with it , provided that if I acquit my self , his bare Testimony may not be taken against any man , till the Cause be first heard and tried . The plain state of the Controversie is this : I charge them with drawing a New Scheme of Religion , such as is no where to be found in express terms in Scripture , from a pretended Acquaintance with Christs Person ; I foresaw an easie and obvious objection against this , that there are no men , who stuff their Books and Discourses with more frequent quotations of Scripture , than they do ; right or wrong they have a Scripture - proof for every thing they say ; and does it not look like a calumny then to charge them with fetching their Religion from any other Fountain than the holy Scriptures ? In answer to this , I made it appear , that they expound Scriptures according to their own fancies , and in compliance with their pre-conceived opinions ; that they do not fetch their notions from the Scriptures , but wrest the Scriptures from their proper and genuine sense , to make them countenance their own fancies . Now because I produce those Scripture expressions which these men pervert and burlesque ( to use his own word ) by their wild and fanciful applications , Mr. Ferguson had no way to be even with me , but to charge me with burlesquing the Scripture it self . As for instance : They tell us , That all we have to do in order to our salvation , is to get into Christ , and to be united to him , for then his Fulness , and Beauty , and Riches , and Righteousness , and Merits , and All , is ours ; and in order to this Union ( which what it is , they could never yet explain ) we must first come to Christ , and then receive him , and apply his Merits and Righteousness to our selves , and then lean , and rest , and roll our Souls upon him , and trust to be saved wholly by his Merits , without any Righteousness of our own : and all this they learnedly prove from those Scripture-expressions of coming to Christ , and receiving him , &c. which signifie no more than believing in Christ , or undertaking the publick Profession of Christianity ; but because I show how far these Scripture-phrases are from countenancing their Gibberish , Mr. Ferguson challenges me with burlesquing the Scripture . Coming to Christ , signifies , according to the Eastern Dialect , to believe in Christ , or to become his Disciple ; but because it is called coming , hence these men of fancy dream of I know not what spiritual progress of the Soul to Christ ; and explain believing , by coming to Christ , which in their Divinity is one of the first Acts of Faith. Now because I say , That it falls out luckily , that Faith is called coming , I am charged with deriding the Scripture ; whereas it is plain , that if I deride any thing , it is only their foolish Explications of Scripture-phrases : for all their Mystical Divinity had been spoiled , and they must have been forc'd to have spoke plain sense , like other men , or to have spoke Nonsense without the least pretence of the authority of Scripture , had it not been for such Eastern Phrases , which were intended by the Holy Ghost to another purpose , but are capable of being perverted by such English Divines , to the countenancing of a New-fashion'd English Divinity ; and I think still , that this fell out very luckily for them . Thus with an equal skill and ingenuity , he accounts it deriding the Scripture , to say , That coming and going are very intelligible explications of believing ; whereas coming must be explained by believing , not believing by coming , unless we will in a proper sense burlesque the Scripture . Thus because I reject their fanciful and presumptuous trust and confidence in Christ , viz. to be saved by him for no other reason , but because they trust to be saved by him ; I am charged with deriding all trust and dependence on Christ , for the performance of his Promises , or the influences of his Grace ; and because I reject their proof of this from St. Paul's trusting in God in the faithful discharge of his Apostolical Office , notwithstanding all the Persecutions he suffered from Jews and Heathens , 2 Tim. 1. 12. I am accused of involving the Scripture in the same condemnation , and bringing St. Paul himself under the same imputation : Certainly these men think themselves all Apostles , and that they expound the Scriptures with as infallible a Spirit as first indited them ; for otherwise they would not be so impudent , as to charge every man , who laughs at their ridiculous applications of Scripture-phrases , with deriding the Scriptures , and the holy Spirit . And yet this is the true Reason of all this noise and out-cry about burlesquing the Scripture ; for he directs his Readers to page 62 , 63 , &c. of my Book , for an example of my sacrilegious abuse of the words of Scripture , to make my Readers sport , and to render my Adversaries ridiculous : and whoever consults the place , will only find a Scheme of their Divinity , expressed in their own canting phrases , without any Art to make it look ridiculously , but only a true and naked representation of it ; and though I cannot deny , that it is a famous Example of burlesquing the Scripture , yet Mr. Ferguson ought to have laid the Saddle upon the right Horses back , and then I doubt his own dear Friends must suffer under this Imputation . There is nothing I more heartily designed , than to rescue the Scripture from such Abuses , as appears from what I immediately added , That the whole Mystery of this , and a great deal more stuff of this nature ( not of * Fanaticism , as he cites my words , purposely to create the greater odium , which is very familiar with him , and agreeable enough to the purity of his Christian Morals ) consists in wresting metaphorical and allusive expressions to a proper sense : When the Scripture describes the Profession of Christianity , a sincere Belief and Obedience to the Gospel , by having Christ , and being in Christ , and coming to him , and receiving him ; these men expound these phrases to a proper and natural sense , to signifie I know not what unintelligible Union and spiritual Progress and Closure of the Soul with him ; an Union of Persons , instead of an Agreement in Faith and Manners . If this be to burlesque Scripture , to deliver it from the Freaks of an Enthusiastick Fancy , and to expound it to a plain and easie sense , such as is agreeable to the Understandings of men , and worthy of the Spirit of God , I acknowledge the Charge , and am afraid my Adversaries will never be guilty of that Crime . Thus when I shew how convincingly these men prove their darling Opinions from a fanciful Exposition of Scripture-Metaphors , and Types and Figures , and among the rest observe , how many pretty Resemblances of Christ , Mr. Watson has discover'd in the brazen Serpent , ( wherein Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges he has prevaricated ) I am charged with deriding the Type it self , and making scornful Reflections upon the main scope and design of the comparison : T. W. among other things tells us , that as the Serpent was lifted up to be look'd upon by the stung Israelites , which looking implied a secret hope they had of cure ; so if we do but look on Christ fiducially , we shall be cured of our sins : by which comparison he would prove , that because the Israelites were miraculously cured only by looking upon the brazen Serpent , that therefore there is nothing more required of us to be cured of our Sins , but only looking fiducially on Christ , that is , confidently hoping to be saved by him ; this , Mr. Ferguson says , is parallel to the words of our Saviour , and the true intendment and meaning of them , Iohn iii. 15 , 16. And as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness , even so must the Son of man be lifted up , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life : And now I will acknowledge that I have done very ill in ranking this comparison of T. W's , among the rest of his Prevarications , if Mr. Ferguson can prove , that this believing signifies no more than this fiducial looking on Christ , which I am sure he can never prove , except it be in Mr. Watson's way . What he adds about Mr. Tho. Vincent is sufficiently answered already , and shall be considered in another place . This is the sum of his Charge against me , for burlesquing Scripture ; in which I cannot think he was serious , but only said this , because he must say something , and had nothing wiser to say : Or as it is with some scolding people , who wanting wit to make proper and sudden Repartees , chuse rather than to say nothing , to say the same things , which were said to them ; though the impropriety of the application , and the dullness of it , serve only to make mirth for the by-standers . This , I perceive , is Mr. Ferguson's peculiar Talent ; and to give him his due , he is very dexterous at it , as will appear in two or three instances more of a like narure . I charge some of the Nonconformists ( for I never thought them all guilty of it ) with perverting the Scripture by expounding allusive and metaphorical expressions to a proper sense ; Mr. Ferguson dares not deny this Charge , for the matter of fact is too evident ; but he shews great Skill in retorting it , and gives several instances , how I pervert Scripture in the same manner . Thus he tells his Readers , That whereas other Expositors of Scripture have expounded Christs being called The Brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the express Image of his Person , Heb. i. 3. in a plain and proper sense , and have accordingly argued from it for the Deity of Christ against the Socinians , Mr. Sherlock by Christs being stiled the Brightness of his Fathers Glory , &c. understands no more but those Discoveries which Christ hath made of God , being as true a Representation of the Divine Nature and Will , as any Picture is of the Person it represents . When he says I understand no more by it , he expresly contradicts my own words , which are these : Upon which account too ( as well as with respect to his Divine Nature ) he is called the brightness of his Fathers glory , &c. So that I acknowledge , that Christ is called the brightness of his Fathers glory , as well with respect to his Divine Nature , as to the glorious Revelations of his Will ; and for Mr. Ferguson to say I do not , and upon that account to insinuate so foul a Charge as Socinianism , others would have called a wilful and malicious lye . But suppose the worst , that I had expounded Christs being called the brightness of his Fathers Glory , &c. only with respect to those glorious Discoveries he hath made of God , he might have said , it had been a false and dangerous , and Socinian Exposition , or what he pleased ; but it is a very unhappy instance of abusing the Scripture to a metaphorical sense , where the words , according to all Rules of Exposition , will admit a proper one : for I would desire Mr. Ferguson to tell me , what is the proper sense of the Brightness of Gods glory , and the express Image of his Person : What is the proper brightness of a Spirit ? Nay , the brightness of the Glory of God , and the Image of an infinite Spirit , which hath no shape ? I never met with any Expositor till now , who thought these proper Expressions , but every one hath reckon'd them metaphorical : But besides this , why does he imagine , that Wisdom , and Goodness , and Power , and Justice , and such-like Perfections of the Divine Nature , are but the metaphorical Glory of God ? And that those glorious Discoveries , which God hath made of these Perfections in Christ , are but a metaphorical Brightness of this Glory ? When we never read of any other Glory of God in Scripture , except it were some glorious visible Appearance , which is much more likely to be a metaphorical glory , than the eternal and infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature . And the same answer will serve for what he alledges about Christs being the Image of God. But he tells us , That Grotius and Hammond , Persons to whom ( as he well guesses ) I pay a respect , vouchsafe us a much better Paraphrase , on Heb. i. 3. I shall be very glad to learn from these men , and first let us consult Dr. Hammond , and his Paraphrase upon those words , The brightness of his glory , and the express Image of his Person , is this , Who being the means of reflecting to us the sight of him , who is otherwise invisible : for the explication of which , he refers us to Iohn i. 18. No man hath seen God at any time , the only begotten Son , who is in the bosom of the Father , he hath declared him : and his Paraphrase on these words , whereby we may know what the Doctor means by reflecting the sight of God to us , is this : God is invisible , and not approachable by us , and so his will , and the knowledge of his Attributes cannot be conveyed to us but by some Intercessor , and of this sort none can be comparable to Christ Iesus , who is next unto the Father , and most dearly beloved by him , and knows most of his mind ; and his end of coming into the World was to declare this unto us . So that Dr. Hammond gives no better Paraphrase , but in part the very same , which I do , and must pass for a metaphorical Interpreter , and Mr. Ferguson for a proper Slanderer . And Grotius gives the very same account of the words : He expounds the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the brightness of his glory , by repercussus Divinae Majestatis , qualis est Solis in Nube , qui dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , A reflection of the Divine Majesty , such as we may sometimes observe of the Sun in a Cloud : and adds , That this Divine Glory and Majesty , cum per se conspici nequeat , cernitur in Christo , sicut Sol , quem directe oculi nostri tueri nequeant , cernitur in Aqua , Speculo , Nube : Since we cannot immediately see it , as it is in it self , is discovered in Christ ; as the Sun , which we cannot directly view , is seen in Water , in a Glass , or in a Cloud : and for the understanding of this , refers us to 2 Cor. iv . 4. Who is the Image of the invisible God ; which he thus paraphraseth : Nimirum sicut ex imagine hominis species cognoscitur , ita ex iis , quae egit & locutus est Christus , Dei Potentia , Sapientia , Sanctitas , Bonitas . As a Man is known by his Image and Picture , so is the Power , Wisdom , Holiness , Goodness of God , known and discerned by those things which Christ did and spoke , while he was on Earth . And the very same account he gives of Col. i. 15. What excuse Mr. Ferguson can make for this , I know not ; though I presume , that he , who so often needs Excuses , is never without one . But to requite him for his civility to Grotius and Hammond , I will direct him to two other Persons , to whom , I suppose , he will pay some respect , who are as metaphorical men in this point , as my self , and they are no less men than Calvin and Beza . Mr. Calvin , though he acknowledges , as I do , that those Expressions , The brightness of his Glory , and the express Image of his Person , refer to the Divine Nature in Christ , yet he tells us , that we must consider this Phrase , according to the scope and design of the Apostle : Neque enim hic tradere voluit , quid simile intus habeat Pater cum Filio , sed quemadmodum dixi , fidem nostram adificare cum fructu voluit , ut discamus non aliter Deum nobis patefieri , quam in Christo. i. e. That the Apostle did not intend in this place to acquaint us , what internal similitude or likeness there is , between the Father and the Son ; but to teach us that which is for the edification of our faith , that God cannot be known any other way , but only in Christ. With more to the same purpose . Beza exactly follows his Master , and gives this interpretation of the brightness of his glory ; Is in quo resplendet gloria illa ac Majestas patris alioqui infiniti & inconspicui , five is , in quo uno splendorem suum conspiciendum praebet Pater , qui propterea Col. i. 15. dicitur imago Dei inconspicui , & 1 Cor. iv . 4. idque in Evangelio . That is , He in whom the Glory and the Majesty of the Father , who otherwise is infinite and invisible , shines forth , or he in whom alone God makes his own brightness and glory visible to us , upon which account , Col. i. 15. Christ is called The Image of the invisible God , and 1 Cor. iv . 4. with respect to those Discoveries he hath made of God in the Gospel : , , And as he proceeds , We cannot truly contemplate the Father , but in the Son , in the Son , I say , incarnate , by whom the Father speaks to us . And he alledges the Authority of Tertullian , adversus Praxeam , for this Exposition : Vicarium se Patris Christus ostendit , per quem Pater & videretur in factis , & audiretur in verbis , et cognosceretur in filio facta et verba patris administrante : Christ shewed himself the true Vicar of his Father ; for the Father was seen in his Actions , heard in his Words , and made known by that whole Oeconomy , which was administred by the Son. By this we may see what credit Mr. Ferguson deserves , when he talks so confidently of the sense of Ancient and Modern Expositors , who either is acquainted with none of them , or thinks his Readers are not ; who either knows not , or cares not , what he says . In the next place he observes , that I expound the Fulness of Christ , Iohn i. 16. to signifie a perfect Declaration of the Divine Will concerning the Salvation of Mankind , and he gives this as another instance of my turning plain Scripture Testimonies into Tropes and Figures . Now whatever becomes of this Exposition , ( of which more hereafter ) did ever any man before Mr. Ferguson , imagine , that the Fulness of Christ , of which we receive Grace for Grace , was a proper Expression , without the least Trope or Figure ? Fulness properly belongs only to space , as filled with matter , and is a metaphorical Expression , when applied to Spirits , or spiritual things : and therefore I thought that instead of turning a proper Expression into Tropes and Figures , I had expounded a figurative Expression to the most proper sense , when by the Fulness which is in Christ , I understood the most perfect Knowledge of the Divine Will ; and by this Fulness communicated to us , the most perfect Declarations of the Divine Will in the Gospel , which is a Dispensation of Grace and Truth . But let us consider what proper work Mr. Ferguson makes of it : By that Fulness in Christ , of which we all receive Grace for Grace , he understands a participation of renewing sanctifying Grace , according to the plain and proper import of the words : So that Christ is in a proper sense full of renewing and sanctifying Grace , that is , according to Mr. Ferguson's notion of it , of infused habits of Grace ; and we receive this renewing Grace out of Christ's Fulness , as Water flows out of a Fountain : And thus either Grace passes from one Subject to another , which the Philosopher would have told him , no Habit or Quality can do ; or the very Substance of Christ is communicated to Christians , together with these infused Habits of Grace , which is a more ridiculous conceit than the Popish Transubstantiation , or the Lutheran Consubstantiation : The inherent Grace of Christ , according to this notion , is of the same identical nature with the infused Habits of Grace in Christians , and the Essential Holiness of Christ is separable from his Person , and may be transmitted into another Subject , and may there be capable of increase and diminution : Mr. Ferguson must necessarily allow all this , if he take these words in a proper sense ; for it is not sufficient to say that Christ is endowed with power to renew and sanctifie us , to deliver this Expression from Tropes and Figures , but the very same Grace which is in Christ , must be infused into Believers ; which is an excellent way of expounding Scriptures to a proper sense , by turning them into Nonsense . But these are but some slight Skirmishes ; in pag. 387. he draws forth his whole strength and force to make good this Charge against me , That I pervert the Scripture , by turning Plain and Proper Expressions into a Metaphorical Sense . Of this he gives two instances , the first is concerning the Priestly Office of Christ , which he says , I confound with his Regal Office , and consequently make Christ only a metaphorical Priest ; and then he tells us , That there is not one Text in the Bible , where Christ is called a Priest , which can be understood in a proper sense , but they must all of necessity be interpreted in a metaphorick , as the Socinians expound them : Now though I doubt it would puzzle Mr. Ferguson to give an intelligible account what he means by a proper and a a metaphorical Priest , yet at least one might reasonably expect from him , that in order to make good this Charge , he should produce some express place where I make Christ a metaphorical Priest , or some express Texts , which I expound to such a metaphorical sense ; but he can do neither of these , and therefore he first perverts my words , as well as sense , and then argues by consequence , that I make Christ only a metaphorical Priest , and then by as good consequence , I must expound those Texts , which concern the Priesthood of Christ , in a metaphorick sense ; and thus by consequence our Author loses his labour : For I have already made it sufficiently appear , how childishly he has mistaken , or maliciously perverted my words , and sense , whereon this Charge is grounded : only I am very glad to find upon this occasion , that he has so much alter'd his Judgment of Dr. Stillingfleet , and his Discourse concerning the Reason of the Sufferings of Christ : for time was , when he charged that Learned Person with betraying the Cause , for the same Reasons , for which I am now charged with Socinianism : But our Author never commends any one , unless it be to insinuate some commendation of himself , or to reflect some disparagement and odium upon his Adversary . His next instance concerns that account which I give of the nature of Justification . And here he first lays down my sense of it , and then makes some few cavilling exceptions against it ; & then admirably proves , that I pervert plain and proper expressions of Scripture to a metaphorical sense . As for the first , I own my words , but dislike that blundering method , into which he has cast them ; and therefore I shall beg leave to represent my own Conceptions in such order and method , as may more easily and naturally express my sense . I assert , That our Justification and Acceptance with God , depends wholly upon the Gospel-Covenant , which does not exact from us a perfect and sinless Obedience , but promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life , upon the Conditions of Faith , and Repentance , and new Obedience ; that this Gospel-Covenant is wholly owing to the Merits of Christ , who by the Sacrifice of his Death hath expiated our Sins , and both in his Life and Death hath given a Noble Demonstration of his entire Obedience and Submission to the Divine Will : for God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life , and with the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death , entered into a New Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind : that the only way to partake of the blessings of this New Covenant , is by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ ; that is in other words , by acknowledging the Divine Authority of our Saviour , believing his Revelations , obeying his Laws , trusting to the Merits of his Sacrifice , and the Power of his Intercession , and depending on the supplies and influences of his Grace : So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Righteousness or Justification , but the Righteousness of his Life and Death is the meritorious cause of that Covenant , whereby we are declared righteous , and rewarded as righteous Persons : our Righteousness is wholly owing to the Righteousness of Christ , which in this sense may be said to be imputed to us , because without this Covenant of Grace , which is founded on the Righteousness of Christ , the best man living could lay no claim to Righteousness , or future Glory . The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness , when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant , by which we are accepted ; but if we speak of the Terms of the Covenant , i. e. What it is that will intitle us to all the Blessings of the Covenant , then we must have a Righteousness of our own , for the Righteousness of Christ will not serve the turn . This is a plain and easie Account of my sense concerning the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Christ , and to this I will stand . Let us hear then what Mr. Ferguson has to object against it . And first he can by no means understand how the Righteousness of Christs Life and Death can be the meritorious cause of Gods forgiving our sins and follies , ( he should have said , of that Covenant , wherein God promises to forgive our sins upon certain Conditions ) for asmuch as ( according to what I express elsewhere ) his Essential Goodness obliged him to it . The words which he cites to this purpose , are these : That the natural notions , which men have of God , assure them , that he is very good , and that it is not possible to understand what Goodness is , without pardoning Grace . Now I would know of Mr. Ferguson which of these three he will reject ; whether he will deny , that the natural notion of a Deity includes infinite Goodness ; or that the notion of infinite Goodness includes Pardoning Grace , when there is a just and honourable occasion for it ; or that the Merits of Christs Life and Death have purchas'd the Grace and Mercy of the Gospel : If he believe all these , he is as much concerned to answer this Objection , as I am ; if he deny them , he must either turn Atheist or Socinian : But pray , who told him , that the Goodness of God did immediately oblige him to pardon Sinners ? or that the Goodness of God confers an antecedent title on Sinners to Grace and Pardon ? May not a good God consult the Reputation of his Holiness , and of his Authority and Government , and dispence his Pardons in such prudent Methods as his own Infinite Wisdom shall direct ? And may he not then require the intervention of a Sacrifice , and of a very meritorious one too , to purchase and seal his Pardon to Sincers ? The Essential Goodness of God only proves , That he may pardon Sin without a Sacrifice , but it does not prove , that either he will or must . The next Exception is very surprizing , That because I elsewhere assert , That the whole Mystery of the Recovery of Mankind consists only in repairing the Divine Image , which was defaced by Sin , that is , in making all men truly good and vertuous , &c. He cannot imagine , how the Covenant of Grace can be so much as necessary to the promising of Remession of Sins , much less that the Death of Christ was needful to procure it to that end . But pray why so ? Is not the Promise of Pardon purchas'd and sealed with the Blood of Christ , absolutely necessary to encourage men to be good ? Does not the Gospel represent this to be the last and ultimate end of what Christ hath done and suffered to rescue Mankind from the Power of the Devil , and Dominion of their Lusts , and to renew them after the Image of God ? If Mr. Ferguson be ignorant in these matters , I can direct him to a * very good Book , which will better instruct him . But suppose he know no other end of Christs Death , but to satisfie a natural vindictive , inexorable Iustice , yet if this must be done , before any thing else can be done , is it not absolutely necessary to the last and ultimate end , which is to transform men into the Image of God , and to bring them to the fruition of him ? For the satisfaction of Justice , in what sense soever he pleases to understand it , can only be a means in order to the Recovery of lost Man , not the Recovery it self . In the next place , he tells us , That it seems inconsistent with the Wisdom and Sapience of God , to introduce a perfect Righteousness , such as that of his Son was , meerly to make way for his justifying us upon an imperfect Righteousness , such as that of our Obedience is . What force there may be in that phrase of introducing a perfect Righteousness , I cannot tell , but I can discover no inconsistency with the Wisdom of God to accept & reward those , who are sincerely but not perfectly righteous , for the sake of one , who is . If God bestowed so many Blessings on the Posterity of Abraham , for the sake of their Father , who was not perfectly righteous , I wonder our Author should think it any derogation to the Divine Wisdom , to accept and reward our imperfect Obedience for the sake of the perfect Righteousness & Obedience of Christ. Nay , though we should suppose , that God had sent Christ into the world upon no other design , but to set a most perfect Example of Holiness & Obedience to the Divine Will ; and to give a plain Demonstration , how highly he is pleased with Obedience to his Laws , should not only greatly reward him in his own Person , but should promise for his sake to pardon and reward all those , who imitate ( though imperfectly ) his Example , ( which in our Authors Phrase , is to introduce a perfect Righteousness , meerly that he may justifie us upon an imperfect one ) this would be no greater blemish to the Wisdom of God , than it is to chuse fit and proper ways of expressing his love to Holiness , and encouraging the Obedience of his Creatures . But our Author proceeds very Rhetorically : Nor shall I ●●gue how that the Righteousness of Christs Life , and Sacrifice of his Death , must be imputed to us for Iustification , in proportion to our Sins having been imputed to him , in order to his Expiatory Sufferings . He may argue thus , if he pleases , and I shall perfectly agree with him in it . Let us then consider how he manages this Argument . Christs Sufferings must not be attributed meerly to Gods Dominion , without any respect to Sin : This I grant ; therefore our sins were imputed to him , not only in the effects of them , but in the guilt : This I so far grant , that the Sufferings of Christ had respect to the guilt of our Sins , otherwise he could not have been a Sacrifice for Sin ; but whereas he adds , That it is a thing utterly unintelligible ( I hope Mr. Ferguson thinks it never the less true for that ) how Christ could be made sin for us , and have our punishment transferred to him , without a previous imputation of sin , and the derivation of its guilt upon him . I am so far of another mind , that I think it unintelligible how it should be so : for ( besides that guilt cannot be transferred upon an innocent Person , though punishment may ) I cannot understand how Christ should suffer for our sins , if the guilt of our sins were transferred upon himself : if he died for our sins , it is plain that the guilt is accounted ours still , though the punishment be transferred on him : And this is essential to the nature of a Sacrifice , that it dies not for it self , but for another , and therefore not for its own , but for anothers guilt , continuing anothers : Christ was no Sinner in any sense , but a Sacrifice for Sin , which differ just as much as bearing the guilt , and bearing the punishment of sin . Were our sins transferred on Christ in Mr. Ferguson's way , so that our sins become his , and that he may be called a Sinner ; nay the greatest of Sinners , the necessary consequence of this Doctrine would be , that we are not delivered from the guilt and punishment of our sins by the Death of Christ , which the Scripture every where asserts , but by the translation of our sins on him : When our sins are transferred on Christ , we are ipso facto innocent , and his Death cannot deliver us , who are freed already , but must be only to deliver himself from this assumed guilt ; we are freed by the transferring of our guilt on Christ , and Christ is freed by undergoing the punishment of sin : As if any man should be so kind as to take my Debt absolutely upon himself , if the Creditor accept of this exchange , I am finally discharged , and am not liable to any farther Arrest or Action at Law ; and whenever he pays the Debt , he does not free me , but himself from the Obligation . So that now his Argument from Proportion falls to the ground , That if our sins were imputed to Christ , otherwise than meerly in the Effects of them , so must likewise the Righteousness of his Life , and the Sacrifice of his Death be otherwise imputed to us , than meerly in the Benefits of them : For as Christ was not accounted a Sinner , by the imputation of our sins to him , so neither shall we be accounted formally righteous , by the imputation of his Personal Righteousness to us . His next Argument is , That seeluding not only the Righteousness of Christs Life , but the Satisfaction of his Death , as the matter , and the imputation of it , as the formal cause of Iustification , it seems repugnant to the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God , to justifie us upon an imperfect Obedience , the Law which requireth a perfect , remaining still in force , and denouncing wrath in case of every failure : The sum of which Argument is this , That it is unjust for God to forgive us our sins , though Christ hath died to make Atonement for them , unless we be made formally righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness to us ; which in plain terms overthrows the Gospel of Christ , and makes the Sacrifice of his Death of no value : for if Christ have expiated our sins by his Death , why may not God accept and reward our imperfect Services , without being unjust in doing so ? But that Law which requireth perfect Obedience remains still in force , and denounceth wrath against every failure : But is there any Law which forbids God to pardon sin , though his own Son make atonement for it by his Death ? Where is this Law ? And where is the Sanction of it ? And who gave it this Sanction ? Will nothing satisfie the Law but perfect and unsinning Obedience ? Then there can be no Gospel , then God never can forgive sin , and it is a vain thing to talk of it : We may be Righteous by an imputed Righteousness , ( were it possible for God to judge otherwise of things , than they are ) but our sins can never be forgiven ; which is a direct contradiction to the whole Gospel . A Law in force , which will not admit of Pardon and Forgiveness upon any terms , is inconsistent with Gospel-Grace ; and therefore had not Mr. Ferguson told us , that the Socinians assert the abrogation of the Sanction of the Law upon the confirmation of the Gospel-Covenant , I should have been inclined to have thought so too : for I cannot understand how it is possible to reconcile a Law , which requires unsinning Obedience under the pain of Damnation , with the Gospel , which promises Pardon of sin and eternal Life , upon the condition of sincere Obedience , which are at as great a distance as a necessity of Pardon , and a necessity of Innocency . And now I think of it , there is no danger of Socinianism , if we do but attribute such an abrogation of the Law ( if it may be so called ) as well as the Sanction of the Gospel , to the Merits of Christs Death and Sufferings ; and therefore I boldly assert , That there is no such Law now in force , as requires unsinning Obedience under the penalty of Damnation . Not that Christ hath in a proper sense abrogated the Law by his Death , if by the Law we mean those Eternal Rules of Righteousness , which necessarily result from the nature of things , and their mutual relations and respects , that is , that he has not made that to be no sin , which according to the Eternal Rules of Righteousness was a sin ; as Mr. Ferguson childishly argues , That then it would follow , that by being Believers , we wholly cease to be Sinners ; and that the Gospel instead of only making provision for the remission of sins against the Law , hath prevented the breaches of it from being so . But the only abrogation of the Law is , That we shall not be judged or condemned according to the Rules of a perfect and unsinning Obedience ; that Christ having made Atonement and Expiation for our sins , God will now for the sake of Christ pardon the sins of true Penitents , and reward their sincere , though imperfect Obedience . This is the Gospel-Covenant , which was purchased and sealed with the blood of Christ , which does not make that to be no sin , which before was a sin , but only absolves us from the condemnation due to sin , and entitles us to those Rewards which an imperfect Obedience cannot merit . Perfect Obedience is the Attainment at which we must aim , but not the Rule by which we shall be judged : There is no other Law now in force to Christians , but the Gospel of our Saviour , which is the Christian Law , and is the Perfection and Advancement both of the Law of Nature and the Law of Moses ; and this Law requires a perfect , but accepts and rewards a sincere Obedience : it does not come short of any Law in the perfection of its Rules , and it excells all other Laws as it is a Dispensation of Grace : For though the Gospel requires both a perfect and sincere Obedience , yet it requires them under very different Sanctions , at least if Promises may be called the Sanction of a Law : The Sanction of Sincerity is the Promise of Eternal Life ; nothing less than this , will deliver us from the wrath of God , or procure our admission into Heaven ; by this Rule we shall be judged , as to our final state of Happiness or Misery . But the Sanction of Perfection consists in the greater degrees of Glory : He who is sincere , though imperfect , shall be saved according to the terms of the Gospel , but our Reward shall be proportion'd to our different Attainments , and the greatest Glory is reserved for the most perfect Saint . And now I hope Mr. Ferguson will be satisfied , that it is not repugnant to the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God , to accept and reward a sincere though imperfect Obedience ; since he does not absolve his Creatures from any essential part of their Duty , but is so merciful , as for the sake of Christ to pardon and accept sincere Penitents ; and so holy , as to encourage the most perfect Vertue with the promise of proportionable Rewards . As for what Mr. Ferguson adds concerning Christs Surrogation in our room and stead , which makes all his Acts and Sufferings in a Law-sense accounted ours ; before he had laid too much weight and stress on this Argument , he ought first to have proved , that Christ acted as our Substitute , in all that he did , as well as suffered , and he might have tried his Skill in answering those Arguments wherewith I have already assaulted that Notion ; but this is not his way , it is more agreeable to his Genious and Capacity to dictate Magisterially , than to prove . Christ indeed died as a Sacrifice for our Sins , and in this sense suffered in our stead , but his suffering in our stead is a plain demonstration , that his sufferings are not accounted ours , any otherwise than as we receive the benefit of them , in the expiation and forgiveness of our sins , which is the proper effect of Sacrifices , and redounds to them for whom the Sacrifice is offered ; which is all I can understand by any sufferings , which are not ours , being accounted ours in a Law-sense ; for any other sense implies a contradiction , that any sufferings , which are not under-gone by us , but by another in our stead , should be accounted ours , any otherwise than as we receive the benefit and advantage of them : And this is what the Learned Bishop Davenant understood by Imputation : De facto imputantur ( extrinseca ) quando illorum intuitus & respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum , aequè ac si à nobis vel in nobis essent : Then those things , which are without us , and do not properly belong to us , are said to be imputed to us , when with respect to them , we are equally intitled to their effects , as if they had been done by us , or were inherent in us . But such a Surrogationand Imputation , will not satisfie Mr. Ferguson , who must have the Righteousness of Christs Life , and the Sacrifice of his Death , otherwise imputed to us , than meerly in the benefits of them : Though any other imputation is impossible , as implying a Thwacking Contradiction , to use his own phrase . Having thus got rid of these Objections in a fair Logical Way , according to Mr. Ferguson's desire , and not called , but proved them all to be meer cavil , and sophistry , and vulgar talk ; I come now to the main Charge which he draws up against me , of perverting the plainest Scriptures into Metaphors . And in order to make good this Charge , he premises two things : First , That to Iustifie , is in its proper acceptation a forensick term , signifying to acquit and absolve one that is acoused : This I readily grant . The second is , That Iustification not only supposeth us to be indicted , but withal imports an absolution from the Charge of that Law , of the breach whereof we are accused : I don't much care , if I grant this too ; but then observe the consequence , the Law , which accuseth us , is the Law of perfect and unsinning Obedience , and therefore if we would be acquitted and absolved from the Accusation of the Law , we must produce a perfect and unsinning Obedience for our Justification : for to be pardoned is not a proper , but a metaphorical Justification ; for in propriety of speech , neither can an accused Innocent , by being acquitted be said to be pardoned , nor a condemned Criminal , by having the execution of his sentence remitted , be said to be justified : So that to our proper Justification from the Sentence of the Law , is necessarily required an Imputation of the perfect Righteousness of Christ to us , to make us perfectly righteous ; but to place Justification in the Pardon of Sin , ( as I do ) is to pervert plain Scripture into Metaphors , for then Iustification , as it is opposed to the accusation of the Law , its charging us with guilt , and its passing Sentence of Condemnation against us thereupon , doth not admit a proper sense in the whole Scripture , but must every where be construed metaphorically ; and that the import of it is , that we are not properly and in a Law-sense justified , but that such Benefits accrue to us by remission of sin , as if we were so . And now I pity our Author with all my heart , for he hath run himself into a labyrinth , out of which all his Art and Sophistry can never deliver him . The only Foundation he has to bear up the weight of this Charge , is , That the Law of perfect and unsinning Obedience is still in force ; but I have already shewed the weakness and vanity of this pretence , and how inconsistent it is with the Gospel-Covenant ; and therefore I need add no more in vindication of my self : for take away this Law of perfect Obedience , and Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges that according to my notion , in reference to the demands of the Gospel , we may in a proper sense be said to be justified . So that I am whole again all on a sudden , and the only difference between Mr. Ferguson and my self is , that he contends for the necessity of a legal Righteousness and Justification , and I contend for an Evangelical Righteousness ; he is for being justified by the Personal Righteousness of Christ , I am for being justified according to the gracious terms and conditions of the Gospel , which are founded on the Merits and Righteousness of Christ. But let us suppose for once , that this Law of perfect and unsinning Obedience , is still in force , and does accuse us , and that our Justification must respect the Sentence of the Law ; what then ? Why then , to place Justification in pardon of sin , is to make it not a proper but metaphorical Justification ; and what then ? If this be the Scripture-notion of it , I matter not , whether it be proper or metaphorical : the abuse of Scripture-expressions does not consist in expounding Scripture either to a proper or to a metaphorical sense , but in wresting metaphorical and allusive expressions to a proper sense , when they ought to be taken metaphorically , and proper expressions to a metaphorical sense , when they ought to be expounded to a proper sense . And this Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges , when he gives some Rules for the Exposition of Scripture , which are generally good , when he transcribes them out of other men : I call that ( says he ) the literal sense of Scripture , which God doth intend in the words , whether the words be taken properly or tropically . That which ariseth from a figurative acceptation of the words , is as truly a literal sense , as that which flows from their proper acceptation . And therefore he ought to have prov'd , not only that I take Justification in a metaphorical sense , but that the Scripture , when it speaks of the Justification of a Sinner before God , uses that word in a proper sense , for Acquitting the Innocent , which is a pretty odd way of Justifying a Sinner . But here our Author is very silent , and cannot give one instance of it , only he tells us , That in this sense it must be taken , when declarative of the Act of God towards us , as our Iudge , or when set in opposition to condemnation , or the curse of the Law to which we are obnoxious : But what need of that ? Does it not as much belong to a supreme and unaccountable Judge to pardon , as to absolve ? And is not Pardon as properly opposed to Condemnation , as Absolution is ? But to let all this pass , it is worth considering , how our Author in his way can explain Justification in a proper sense : He tells us , that the proper notion of Justification , is to acquit and absolve the Innocent ; suppose this to be true , ( though it may admit of some dispute , whether this forensick use of the word be its proper sense ) I would willingly learn of our Author , how a Sinner can be justified in this proper sense ; that is , how he , who hath broken the Laws of God , can be acquitted and absolved as innocent ; how God , who cannot lie , can declare , that that man hath never broken his Laws , nor done any thing amiss , who is a Sinner : Yes , says our Author , this may be done very well by the imputation of the perfect Righteousness of Christ to Sinners , which makes them perfectly innocent ; suppose this to be true , yet is this the proper notion of Justification , that a Sinner is innocent and righteous by Imputation ? Is there no difference then between an imputed , and an inherent and personal Righteousness ? Justification in a proper sense requires a Personal Righteousness and Innocency , and I doubt it will require some good lusty tropes to make an imputed Righteousness the matter of our Justification in this Law-notion . So that for ought I can see , the imputation of Righteousness in his gross notion , is as metaphorical a Justification as the Pardon of sin , though not half so good sense . But I have not thus done with our Author ; There are three things more , which I would desire him to consider at his leisure , and to answer when he is able . The first is this , That Pardon of Sin , whether it be a proper or metaphorical Justification , is the true Scripture-notion of the Justification of a Sinner : Justification indeed in its full extent and latitude , signifies the acceptation of our Persons , and the restoring us to a state of Grace and Favour with God , which is somewhat more than bare Remission ; but the first Act of Justification on Gods part , and that which draws all the rest after it , is the Pardon of our Sins ; this is a Sinners Righteousness , wherewith he must appear before God : This is the Commission which Christ gave to his Disciples , To preach Remission of Sins in his Name ; this is the great Priviledge of the Gospel , that now by Christ all that believe , are justified from all things , from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses , Act. xiii . 39. That is , that now Christ hath made a tonement and expiation for those sins , for which the Law of Moses did appoint no Sacrifice : Where to be justified , signifies to be delivered from the guilt and condemnation of Sin , that is , to be pardoned . But not to heap up many Testimonies , I shall principally insist on the Fourth Chapter to the Romans , as being the proper Seat of this Controversie . There St. Paul enquires by what means our Father Abraham was justified before God ? And in answer to it he tells us , that Abraham was not justified by Works , but by Faith : Where by Works , the Apostle does not mean only the Works of the Mosaical Law , an External and Ceremonial Righteousness , for he proceeds to that in the tenth verse , but he seems principally to intend a perfect and unsinning Righteousness : Let us then examine what the Apostle means by Justification by Faith , what this Righteousness of Faith is , as it is opposed to a Righteousness of Works ; and there are four expressions whereby this Righteousness is described , which signifie one and the same thing . That it is an imputed Righteousness , vers . 3 , 6. that it is a Righteousness without Works ; that it is a Justification of the ungodly , vers . 5. that it consists in the Pardon of Sin , vers . 7 , 8. I shall begin with the last , because this is Mr. Ferguson's grand Charge against me , That I place Iustification in the forgiveness of Sin ; but so does our Apostle , and alledges the Authority of the Prophet David for it : Even as David also deseribeth the blessedness of that man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works , saying , Blessed are they , whose iniquities are forgiven , and whose sins are covered ; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin , vers . 6 , 7 , 8. This is the Justification of Faith , in opposition to Justification by Works , that those who heartily believe in God as Abraham did , though they have been formerly guilty of many sins , and are still subject to many infirmities and defects , yet God for Christs sake will forgive their past sins , and their present imperfections , and will reward them above the Deserts and Merits of their Works . A Righteousness of Works consists in Innocency and Perfection , but a Righteousness of Faith in Sincerity and Pardon . Upon this account it is called an imputed Righteousness , Faith was accounted and reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness , and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness : Which signifies , that this is matter of Grace , not of Debt ; for to him that worketh , is the reward reckoned not of Grace , but of Debt . When a man is justified by Works , he is absolved because he is innocent , and rewarded because he hath merited a Reward , ( which is the Justification for which Mr. Ferguson pleads , in a direct opposition to St. Paul ) but Justification by Faith requires the favour and acceptance of God , because though it includes an honest and sincere mind , and a readiness to do our best to please God , yet it is consistent with a great many infirmities , and miscarriages , and defects , which cannot pass the trial of strict Justice : and this is imputed Righteousness , when God accepts of that for our Righteousness and Justification , which in a strict sense is not Righteousness : Whatever is imputed to us for Righteousness , must be good , but imperfect : If it be not good , it is no part of Righteousness , and therefore cannot be imputed instead of the whole ; and if it be perfect , there is no need of this gracious acceptation ; it is then a strict and proper , not an imputed Righteousness . Upon the same account it is called a Righteousness without Works , vers . 6. Which must not be understood in such a loose sense , as if God would justifie a man , who does nothing which is good , as if he would account that man righteous , who does no Righteousness , which is expresly contrary to the Doctrine of St. Iohn , 1 Epist. iii. 7. But the meaning is , either that God sometimes accepts of great and generous Acts of Faith , instead of Works , when there is no occasion or opportunity of Action ; which was the case of Abraham , when he believed in hope against hope , that he should have a Son in his old Age ; to which the Apostle principally refers in the 5th verse , when he tells us , That to him that worketh not , but believeth , his Faith is counted for Righteousness : Or else a Righteousness without Works , signifies a Righteousness without the Perfection of Works ; and therefore the Apostle makes a Righteousness without Works , the same with an imputed Righteousness , and both of them to consist in forgiveness of sins ; even as David also describeth the blessedness of that man , to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works , saying , Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven , and whose sins are covered . So that forgiveness of sins , which supposeth an imperfect and defective Righteousness , if we will believe our Apostle , is a description of Righteousness without Works . Upon the same account it is called Justifying the Ungodly , vers . 5. which can by no means signifie , that God will justifie a wicked man , while he continues wicked ; for this is a plain contradiction to the whole Gospel ; but it signifies , that God will justifie those , who though they have been wicked ( which was the case of Abraham and the Gentile-World ) yet return to him by a hearty Repentance , and a true lively Faith. Justification by Works requires a perpetual Innocency and Blamelesness of Life ; for a man , who ever was a Sinner , can never be justified by Works in this sense , because he can never be innocent again ; it being impossible that that should never have been , which has been : But now the Righteousness of Faith , which consists in the forgiveness of sins , makes him Righteous , who has been a Sinner , and is still an imperfect Saint ; not that such a man never was a Sinner , but that God doth not impute his sins to him . This is the Apostles account of Evangelical Righteousness and Justification , that it is an imputed Righteousness , a Righteousness without Works , a Justifying the Ungodly , or which is the sum of all , that it consists in the Pardon of Sin : And now let our Author tell the Apostle , That this is to turn plain Scripture into Metaphors , and that it is inconsistent with the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God. But secondly , I have something more to say to Mr. Ferguson , which I suppose will be of some weight with him , viz. That all the Reformed Churches are for that Metaphorical Justification which he rejects ; that is , they place our Justification in the forgiveness of sin . Thus the French Church declares in her Confession , which Beza presented to Charles IX . in the Name of that Church : Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione , quae sit etiam , ut testatur David , unica nos●●a a selicitas : i. e. We believe that our WHOLE RIGHTEOUSNESS consists in the pardon of our sins , which also , as David witnesseth , is our ONLY Blessedness : — In sola Iesu Christi obedientia prorsus acquiescimus , quae quidem nobis imputatur , tum ut tegantur omnia nostra peccata , tum etiam ut gratiam coram Deo naniscamur . And we rest wholly in the Obedience of Jesus Christ , which is imputed to us , both that all our sins may be covered , and that we may obtain grace and favour with God. By which last words we learn , what they and other Protestant Churches mean by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness , and resting on the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ ; not that his Righteousness is so imputed to us , as to make us formally righteous , and to answer the demands of the Law , which exacts an unsinning Obedience ; but it is so imputed to us , that for the sake of Christ , God forgives our sins , and receives us into favour . Thus the Helvetian Confession tells us , Iustificare significat Apostolo in disputatione de Iustificatione , peccata remittere , à culpa & poena absolvere , in gratiam recipere , & justum pronunciare . To justifie , according to the Apostles sense of it in his dispute of Justification , signifies to forgive sins , to absolve from guilt & punishment , to receive into a state of favour , and to pronounce such a person just and righteous : that is , not just as an innocent , but as a pardon'd man. Nor is the Scotch-Confession more Orthodox in this point : For giving an account of those benefits we receive by the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ , it sums them up in this : Deus Pater nos in corpore Iesu Christi Filii sui intuetur , imperfectam nostram obedientiam quasi perfectam acceptat , omniaque opera nostra , quae in se multis maculis foedantur , perfecta justitia filii sui tegit . i. e. God the Father beholds us as Members of Christs Body , accepts our imperfect Obedience , as if it were perfect , and covers all our works , which in themselves are defiled with many spots and blemishes , with the perfect Righteousness of his Son. So that according to the sense of this Church , to which our Author ought to pay some Reverence , we are not acquitted and absolved as innocent Persons , by the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness , but for Christs sake God accepts our imperfect Obedience , as if it were perfect : and covers all the imperfections and defects of our Works with the perfect Righteousness of his Son ; that is , pardons all our sins , for the sake of Christs perfect Righteousness . The Augustan Confession is very express in this matter , and so is their Apology : Consequi remissionem peccatorum est justificari , juxta illud , beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates : To obtain the pardon of sin , is to be justified ; according to that saying , Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven . Thus the Churches of Bohemia declare their sense : Per Christum homines gratis fide in Christum , per misericordiam justificari , salutem & remissionem peccatorum consequi : That to be justified , is to obtain the pardon of sin , and salvation freely by Christ. Thus we read in the Dutch Confession : Credimus omnem felicitatem nostram sitam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione , quae est in Christo Iesu ; eaque unica totam nostram justitiam coram Deo contineri : We believe , that our whole Happiness consists in the forgiveness of sins , which is by Jesus Christ , and that in this alone consists our WHOLE Righteousness before God. And to conclude with our own Church , in the Homily of Salvation , we are taught , that our Iustification consists in the forgiveness of sin ; and that this Iustification and Righteousness , which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits , is taken , accepted , and allowed of God for our perfect and full Iustification . I do not urge the Consent of Reformed Churches , as if I thought their Authority sufficient to determine us in this matter : they had no Authority but Reason and Scripture , nor did they pretend to any other ; which is the true Principle of the Protestant Reformation . There are but three sorts of Authority of any moment in Religion , viz. The Authority of Divine Inspiration , the Authority of Testimony , and the Authority of Discipline and Order . The Authority of Divine Inspiration is peculiar to Christ and his Apostles , who spoke by an Infallible Spirit , and is now confined to the holy Scriptures , which are the only Infallible Rule of Faith and Manners : The Authority of Testimony is proper only to those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles ; for it may reasonably be presumed , that those Persons who convers'd with the Apostles themselves , or convers'd with those who convers'd with the Apostles , who understood the Phrase and Dialect of that Age , and those particular Controversies and Disputes which were then on foot , may be able to give us a better account of the traditionary sense of Scripture , and of the practice of the Apostles , than those who lived in after-Ages ; and upon this account the Writings of those who lived in the first Centuries , have always had a just Esteem and Authority in the Christian Church ; but still the more Ancient they are , the greater is their Authority ; and the farther they are removed from the Fountain of Tradition , so their Authority lessens . The Authority of Discipline and Order , is that Authority which every particular Church has over her own Members ; or which the Universal Church , represented in General Councils , has over particular Churches : For while we live in Communion with any Church , we oblige our selves to submit to its Government , and at least so far to receive those Doctrines which she owns , as not to disturb Publick Peace and Order by our Private Disputes . But in all other cases , he has the greatest Authority , who has the best Reason , and it is a childish thing to urge the bare Authority of any Man or Church , when it hath neither Scripture nor Reason to support it . So that I do not urge the consent of these Reformed Churches upon account of any inherent Authority , but to make it appear how vainly Mr. Ferguson brags , when he charges me with opposing the received Doctrines of Protestant Churches . For indeed those Doctrines , which I oppose , are meer Novelties , and were never publickly owned by any Reformed Church , and never had any greater Authority , than what an Assembly of Divines , and an Ordinance of Parliament could give them . He who understands , what notion the first Reformers had of justifying Faith , that it is fiducia misericordia propter Christum , a firm and stedfast belief and hope , that they should find mercy with God for Christs sake , can never imagine that they once dreamt of such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness to them , as should make them stand in no need of Mercy ; or of such a Iustification as is the Off-spring of Iustice , and imports one transacting with us in a Iuridical way , without the infringement of Law or Equity , in opposition to Pardon and Remission , which is the result of Mercy , and the act of one exercising favour ; which is Mr. Ferguson's Account of it , in his own words . But thirdly . As this Notion of Imputation has no Foundation in Scripture ( as I abundantly proved in my former Discourse , of which our Author takes no notice , and it was very wisely done of him , for I am sure he cannot answer it ) so it overthrows the principal Doctrines of the Gospel , and contradicts its main design . I shall briefly name some few . First , Justification by a perfect Righteousness is inconsistent with pardon and forgiveness : Mr. Ferguson acknowledges , That to justifie and to pardon , are wholly distinct in their Natures and Ideas , and always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane Tribunals , — and that thus it is in the actings of God too : Now I wonder he did not consider , that by the same reason , the same subject is not capable of both : He who is universally justified in our Authors notion , that is , who is acquitted and absolved in a Juridical way , i. e. as perfectly innocent and righteous , needs no pardon , nor is he capable of it , because he has no sins to be pardon'd : and he who is pardon'd , cannot be justified in this sense , because Pardon supposes him a Sinner , and Justification supposes him innocent , which hath some little appearance of a Contradiction . So that the Gospel-way of Justification , which is by Pardon and Forgiveness , is quite discarded , and we are justified by a legal Righteousness , or by the Works of the Law ; that is , by a perfect and unsinning Obedience , though the Apostle tells us , That by the Works of the Law no flesh shall be justified : for though this perfect Righteousness whereby we are justified , be not our own , but the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us , yet it is the Works of the Law still , which is an express Contradiction to the Apostles Doctrine : And I wonder , what our Author thinks of all those Promises of Pardon , which are contained in the Gospel , and which are the greatest support and comfort of Sinners , when it is impossible to find any place for them in his New-Gospel . Secondly , This notion of Justification overthrows the Necessity and Merit of Christs Death and Sacrifice : the vertue of a Sacrifice consists in the expiation and forgiveness of sin ; but now if Justification excludes Pardon , there is no need of a Sacrifice ; if nothing will satisfie the demands of the Law , but a perfect and unsinning Obedience , then there can be no Sacrifice for sin , or at best it is to no purpose , for it cannot satisfie the Law , and therefore not expiate our sin ; and if Christ have satisfied the Law by his perfect Obedience , there is no reason why he should suffer the penalty ; for no Law can oblige us both to obey it perfectly , and to endure the Penalties for the breach of it , though we do perfectly obey it : So that if Christ died for our sins , and if remission of sins must be preached in his name , then we are not perfectly righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness , but must obtain the pardon of our sins through Faith in his Blood. Thirdly , This notion of Justification destroys the Grace and Mercy of God in the Justification of a Sinner : This Mr. Ferguson expresly owns , That Pardon indeed ( if there could be any such thing ) is the result of Mercy , but Iustification is the Off-spring of Iustice , and imports Gods transacting with us in a Iuridical way , without the infringement of Law or Equity : And I know not any assertion , which more expresly destroys the Grace of the Gospel : Whereas St. Paul attributes our Justification as well as Pardon , to the Grace of God : We are justified freely by his Grace , through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus . Nor will it relieve him to say , that our Justification is an Act of Grace , because though we are justified in a proper Law-notion by a perfect Righteousness , yet this Righteousness is not inherent , but imputed , which is an act of Grace : for besides that this implies a contradiction , to be justified in a proper Law-sense , by an imputed , that is an improper Righteousness , and that God proceeds in a Iuridical way , without the infringement of Law , and yet admits of such a Righteousness as not the Law , but only Grace can accept ; I say , besides this , we may for the very same Reason say , that Pardon is an act of Justice , because it is purchas'd by the Death of Christ. And therefore if our Author would make good his notion , he must shew how Pardon is more an act of Grace , than Justification ; and how Justification is more the Off-spring of Justice , than Pardon ; and if he dare stand to this notion , there needs not many words to prove , that he overthrows the whole Grace of the Gospel . Fourthly , There is another very ill consequence of this notion , that it destroys the necessity of an inherent Righteousness , or of a good Life : For what necessity can there be , that we should have a Righteousness of our own , when we are perfectly righteous with the imputed Righteousness of Christ ? The Law demands a perfect and unsinning Righteousness , and it is impossible it should demand any more ; we answer this Charge by the perfect Righteousness of Christ ; and when this is done , we are innocent and righteous , and have a title to the Rewards of a perfect Obedience , and what can be desired more from us ? Mr. Ferguson indeed supposes that the Law requires a perfect Obedience , and that the Gospel over and above this requires Faith and a sincere Obedience : and that Christ was our Substitute to make Satisfaction to the Demands of the Law , and not of the Gospel And that by his Death he hath only freed us from what we were obnoxious to , upon failure of perfect Obedience ; but not at all from what we are liable to , in case of Unbelief , and want of sincere Obedience : Now though this be true in some sense , that is , that Christ by his Death hath expiated our sins , and thereby delivered us from the condemnation of the Law , upon the failure of perfect Obedience , and hath sealed the Covenant of Grace in his Blood , which accepts and rewards a sincere though imperfect Obedience ; yet as it is applied by him , it is down-right non-sense : for if we perfectly answer the Demands of the Law , by the imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness , there is no need of the Gospel , nor any place for it : Perfection includes Sincerity , as the greater includes the less , and therefore if the Righteousness of Christ answers the Demands of the Law , as to a perfect Obedience , it shuts out any farther Demands of the Gospel . He who is perfectly righteous , is sincere too , and he who can answer the Demands of Justice , needs not the allowances of Grace and Mercy : So that the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness does supercede our own Endeavours , and makes our own Righteousness needless : for this Reason I charged them before , and do so still , with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion ; with magnifying his Personal Righteousness , so as to evacuate all the Obligations of Duty . And now methinks I can deal with any thing in Mr. Ferguson , but his Brow and Confidence , who is of the true breed , and can stare the Sun in the face without blinking : for after all this he declares , That let me but once justifie my Charge of their making the Personal Righteousness of Christ our Personal Righteousness ; or that they maintain , Christ to have fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead , & he does assure me , that he will not only be ready to allow my severest Reproofs , but to commend and second them . Now unless by Personal , he means inherent , nothing in the World can be more plain , then that he himself makes Christs Personal Righteousness our Personal Righteousness : for we are Personally Righteous with the Righteousness of Christ , and answer all the Demands of the Law with it , and then I conceive it must be a Personal Righteousness , not by inhesion indeed , with which I never charged them , but by imputation . And as for Christs fulfilling Righteousness in our stead , unless he has some secret quirk in that phrase our stead , Doctor Owen does not only profess this , but endeavours to prove it by several Arguments , that Christ did not keep the Law for himself , but for us , and that not for our good only , but that we might be righteous with his Righteousness , and fulfil the Law in him . He keeps the Law as our Mediator , and Surety , and Representative ; and I think that is so for us , as to be in our stead : this I have discours'd at large in my former Book , and thither I shall refer my Reader . Having thus justified my self in a proper Law-notion from the Accusations of this Author , I shall farther consider , how he justifies his dear Friends the Nonconformists , from that Charge of toying with Scripture-Metaphors and Phrases , and turning them into Burlesque : And truly he is the most wretched Apologist that ever I saw ; sometimes he acknowledges the Charge with respect to particular Persons , who through ignorance , inadvertency , or wantonness , prevaricate in this matter ; but would not have the whole Party ( which was never done by me ) traduced for the folly of a few ; but if we should enquire , how few those are who thus prevaricate in this matter , and judge of it by their late Writings , I doubt it would appear by computation , that they never had so many Prevaricators at Cambridge , since the first Institution of that Order ; and then let any one judge , how well this agrees with what he asserts in the same breath , that he knows none more observant of these Rules ( which he had before laid down ) in the sensing and applying of Metaphors , than those who are stiled Nonconformists ; which proves nothing , but that he has very little good Acquaintance . But indeed Mr. Ferguson has taken the best course he could : I had shewed in particular instances , how they had abused Scripture-Phrases and Metaphors , but he did not think fit to descend to particulars , but instead of that , collects a great many good Rules out of Glassius and Vossius , and tells us how they ought to expound and use Metaphors , and then without any farther proof concludes , that they do so : Whereas should we suppose that all the Nonconformists understood the Rules of Rhetorick as well as our Author ( though I fear many of them never read so much Rhetorick in their Lives before , and I wish reading this may do them some good ) yet it is a very different Art to understand the Rules of Rhetorick , & to practise them ; whether they have any Skill in the first , or no , I know not ; but I am sure , if they have , they are as saving of it as ever men were , as if they were afraid it would waste by too common a use . Just after the same manner he vindicates the Nonconformists from those Aspersions lately cast upon them , as if they were Defamers of Reason , disclaiming it from all Concern in Religion , &c. To wipe off this Reproach , which was not cast upon them , but which they brought upon themselves by their perpetual Declamations against Reason ; our Author writes a large Chapter to shew the Use of Reason in Matters of Religion , and this must pass for a Justification of the Nonconformists ; and now they will be thought the only Rational Divines : Whereas in truth had he managed this Argument with as much accuracy as he pretends to , he had been so far from justifying the Nonconformists , that he had given a fatal blow to those ridiculous People , who declaim against the Use of Reason : But for ought I see they may talk at their old rate still , for all Mr. Ferguson . Desinit in piscem mulier formosa supernè . But to wave this , only wishing that some young Sophister ( and there are many of them that are equal Matches for this Fanatick Professor ) would undertake to correct his insolent humour , and teach him to treat Des-Cartes with greater Reverence : I shall only inform him at present against he writes next , what he should write about ; for I find he has abundance to say , when it is nothing to the purpose , but either does not , or will not understand , what he should oppose , nor what he should vindicate . I was not so silly , as to oppose a sober use of Metaphors , no not in matters of Religion , as Mr. Ferguson would fain insinuate ; nor did I concern my self about their slovenly and Kitchin-Metaphors , though it is a great prophanation of sacred things , to make such gross and fulsom representations of them , as must needs disgust more refined and spiritual minds , and expose Religion to the Scoffs and Drollery of Atheistical Wits : But my Quarrel with them is , that they confound and darken the most plain and material notions in Religion by metaphorical Descriptions , and turn the Scriptures themselves into an Allegory or Romance : and of this they are guilty several ways . First , By thrusting Metaphors into Definitions ; this Mr. Ferguson himself does in express words condemn , and therefore I would desire him in behalf of himself and his Friends , to give me a Definition of Justifying Faith , agreeable to their Principles , without a Metaphor in it : Could I once see this , I doubt not but all our Disputes about Faith and Justification would be at an end ; and yet this he is bound to do , if he will be true to his own Rules : for he acknowledges , that every thing spoken metaphorically is spoken obscurely , with respect to expressing the nature of things . And accordingly in assigning the definitions of things , metaphorical terms are to be avoided , because as Aristotle says , ( as Mr. Ferguson might learn from many Modern Authors , without ever seeing Aristotle , though he should be so ingenuous as to own his Masters ) they do not declare , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , what a thing is , but only what it is like to ; when any thing is manifested by a Metaphor , the thing it self is not fully expressed , but only some similitude betwixt it and another . And what he adds , is so great and useful a Truth , that it is sufficient to expiate all the Fooleries of his Book , because it will confute them all ; That there is not any thing relating to Doctrine or Manners delivered in the Scripture metaphorically , which is not somewhere or other either explicitly or implicitly expressed in terms that are proper , ( one place being a Key to the unlocking another . ) And yet after all this , I never could yet hear any thing but Metaphors from these men in their Definitions or Descriptions of Justifying Faith. Justifying Faith is either a coming to Christ , or receiving Christ , or embracing Christ , or a looking fiducially on Christ , or leaning , and resting , and rolling on Christ and his Righteousness for Salvation : Now what are all these , but Metaphors taken from material and sensible things ? Which can never give us any intelligible notion of Faith , though they may serve for illustration , when we first understand its nature . And yet , as if this were not sufficiently obscure already , most of them make each of these distinct acts of Faith , which in order of nature precede each other : We must first come to Christ , and then we must receive him , and then we must look fiducially on him , and then we must lean , and rest , and roll our Souls on him , and then we must lay him in our Bosoms , and embrace him in our Arms : and when we have done all this , we shall be very understanding Believers , if we have but a good Fancy to distinguish between the Legs , and Hands , and Arms , and Eyes , and Bosom of Faith. I do not speak this in Mirth and Drollery , but with a just Indignation to see the Religion of our Saviour transformed into a Work of Fancy , and with a hearty pity for those deluded People who are fed with such thin and airy Notions . The plain notion of Justifying Faith , stript of all Metaphors and Figures , can be no other than this ; Such a firm and sted fast Assent to all the Revelations of the Gospel , as governs our Hearts and Lives by the Laws of it : Or to give a larger Explication of it , It is such an Assent to whatever Christ hath revealed concerning the Nature and Will of God , or his own Nature , Offices , and Mediation , the Rules of Life and Practice , and the Rewards and Punishments of the next Life , as does effectually determine our Wills to the Obedience of his Holy Laws . To receive Christ in all his Offices , when it is explained , comes to the very same sense ; To believe all the Revelations of Christ , as he is our Prophet , to acknowledge the Vertue and Merit of his Sacrifice and Intercession , as he is our Priest ; and to expect our acceptance with God for his sake , upon condition of our obeying his Laws , and submitting to his Government , as he is our King. But these men could never be perswaded to talk without Metaphors , which would spoil all the Shiboleths of their Party , and make them look like dull Moralists ; and yet I shall once more challenge Mr. Ferguson , in compliance with his own Rules , to give me a Definition of Justifying Faith , agreeable to his notions of Justification , without a Metaphor ; and if he cannot do this , ( as he will be a wonderful man , if he can ) I would desire him to consider how dangerous it is to transcribe good Rules out of good Books , without understanding the Consequences of them . Secondly , Another fault which they are guilty of in the use of Metaphors , is , that they expound one Metaphor by another ; this Mr. Ferguson very justly condemns : For Metaphors properly signifying one thing , and being applied to signifie another , only because of some resemblance , we are therefore in our sensing of Metaphors to remove the metaphorical term , and to substitute in its room that word which properly signifies the thing , whereof we conceive the former to have been only a figure . To paraphrase Metaphors in metaphorick terms , is instead of making them intelligible , to continue them dark and mysterious . Now if this be a fault , as I perfectly agree with Mr. Ferguson that it is , he would do well to correct those men ( which might be taken more kindly from him ) who do not only explain one Metaphor by another , but pursue a single Metaphor , till they have forc'd it into an Allegory : I gave one short instance of this in my former Discourse , with respect to the Marriage between Christ and Believers . And whereas our Author justifies such Discourses from the Book of Canticles , which describes the love of Christ to his Church in such an allegorical manner ; in return to this I would offer several things to his consideration . As first , I suppose he understands , that there is a vast difference between Poetical Descriptions , such as the Book of Canticles is , and Practical Discourses for the Government of our Lives : the first requires more Garnish and Ornament , and justifies the most mysterious flights of Fancy ; the second requires a plain and simple dress , which may convey the Notions with ease and perspicuity to the Mind . And therefore that which is not only justifiable , but commendable in a Divine Song , which ought to have something Great and Mysterious , and to describe every thing with Pomp and Ceremony , is not only a ridiculous affectation , but a very hurtful vanity in a Preacher , whose business is to instruct the Rude and Ignorant , not to amaze and astonish his Hearers with Poetick Raptures . And secondly , Though I do no more quarrel with Allegories , than I do with Metaphors , which may be of good use in their fit and proper places , yet I would desire our Author to consider , that there is some little difference between an Allegorical Description of things , and an Allegorical Exposition : It is justifiable enough in some cases to describe plain things in Allegories and Parables ; but it is a mad way of expounding Religion by turning it into Allegories , which must of necessity make it obscure and mysterious . Allegories are of no use till they are expounded , and are of a very doubtful signification , when we want the true Key of Exposition ; because they being a work of fancy and imagination , may by men of different fancies be expounded to very different and contrary purposes ; which makes the Song of Solomon it self , though the most divine and spiritual thing that ever was penned under the Jewish Church , of much less use to us , than otherwise it might be , as appears from the variety of interpretations , which are given of it : And this is a plain Argument , how injurious these men are to Religion , who instead of expounding the Mysteries of it , turn them into Allegories , which must either be expounded again , or continue obscure , and expose Religion to all the Freaks of an Enthusiastick and Allegorical Fancy . And thirdly , Our Author may consider farther , that Allegories are much more improper now under the Gospel , than they were under the Law ; Under the Law God instructed the Jews by dark and obscure Types and Figures , but did not think fit to unveil his Glory , and give them a distinct and clear knowledge of his Will , and therefore an Allegorical Song was very allowable under the Typical and Ceremonial State of the Church : But since Christ hath appeared , who is the Brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the express Image of his Person , who hath given us a plain and perfect Revelation of the Will and Nature of God , an Allegorical Religion is as improper as Jewish Types and Ceremonies . It disappoints one great end of Christs coming in the Flesh , to make his Religion obscure and mysterious , and to wrap it up in Types and Allegories : And I wonder very much , that these men , who are so afraid of a significant Ceremony , for fear of returning to a Jewish Bondage and Pedagogy , should be so fond of an Allegorical and Metaphorical Religion , which is as obscure and unintelligible , as the Jewish Types were . We are not now under a Canticle-Dispensation , but live under the bright and clear Light of the Gospel , which is equally clouded by Jewish Types and mysterious Allegories . But to return : It is very easie to give many other instances of their expounding Metaphors by Metaphors , and I have given several in my former Discourse : thus Faith is call'd Coming , Receiving , Embracing , &c. If you enquire , How all this must be done ? They tell you , That you must come to Christ on the Legs of Faith , or be carried to him in the Chariots of Faith , or swim to him on the Stream of the Promise , and receive him by the Hand of Faith , and embrace him in the Arms of Faith , as good old Simeon did : and thus Faith becomes an Instrument of Justification , and receives Christ , who is the Gift of God , as a poor man receives an Alms : Whereas Legs , and Hands , and Arms , and Instruments , are as obscure Metaphors , and need as much explication as Coming and Receiving , &c. and yet you must never expect any better explication from them ; if you press them hard , they will tell you , that coming and receiving , &c. signifies believing ; but then if you ask them what believing signifies , they are forced to ring the Changes backward , and tell you , that believing is coming and receiving . Thirdly , Another abuse of Metaphors is , to argue and reason from them , and to erect such Doctrines on them , as are no where to be found in express words in Scripture : Thus I shewed in my former Discourse , how they prove the imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness to us , from the Laws of Marriage , of Suretiship , and the Mediatory Function . The Church is Christs Spouse , and as the Wife by vertue of her Marriage . Union is entitled to her Husbands Estate , thus are Saints by their marriage to Christ entitled to all his Personal Fulness , Beauty , Righteousness : And as a Wife under covert is not liable to an Arrest , or Action at Law , but all must fall upon her Husband ; so you being married to Christ , this supersedes the Process of the Law against you , if it be not satisfied , it must seek its reparation at the hands of your spiritual Husband , Christ himself , &c. Thus Mr. Shephard argues very comfortably : That the Husband is bound to bear with the Wife , as the weaker Vessel , and shall we think that God will exempt himself from his own Rules , and not bear with his weak Spouse ? That is , one who hath no strength , no grace , no nor so much as sense of Poverty . And Mr. Watson argues at the same rate , That Sin it self cannot dissolve our Union to Christ , because we are the Members of his Body , and Christ will never lose a Member . And thus they argue from Christs being our Surety , that as in the Law , the Debtor and the Surety are but one Person , so it is with Christ and us ; for he took our Debt upon himself , and upon this Christ and we are but one Person before God , and accordingly he deals with us ; for he makes over our sins to Christ , and Christs Righteousness and Satisfaction to us . At the same rate they argue from Christs being our Mediator , That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as he was Mediator ; and that whatever he did as Mediator , he did it for them whose Mediator he was , or in whose stead , and for whose good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God , and hence it is , that his compleat and perfect Obedience to the Law , is reckoned to us . Now when I had plainly shown them how weak and fallacious this way of Reasoning is , from the Laws of earthly Marriages and Suretiship , &c. the only answer I can get from Dr. Owen and his Friends , is , That Christ is not such a Husband , and Surety , and Mediator , as men are , but is all this in an eminent manner ; that there is something peculiar in him , which cannot be affirmed of any other . Now this is the answer I desired , but could not hope that they had so little wit as to give it : for this is plainly to acknowledge that all their Arguments are fallacious ; for if there be such a vast difference between the Notion of a Husband , and Surety , and Mediator , and the several Duties and Offices of these Relations , as applied to men , and as applied to Christ , then we cannot argue from one to the other : this is plainly to give away the best Arguments they have for the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness in their sense , and with them to yield up the Cause . For now before they argue from Christs being our Husband , that therefore we have a title to his Personal Righteousness , as a Wife has to her Husbands Estate , they must prove from express Texts of Scripture , that this is the Law of our spiritual Marriage ; before they argue from Christs being our Surety , that therefore we are but one Person with him , and that whatever he did as our Surety , is accounted as much ours , as if we had done it our selves , they must prove that this is the Scripture-notion of Christs Suretiship : and had they taken this course , I dare say I might have looked long enough for an Answer , before it had come . And here , as not finding a fitter place for it , I shall briefly take notice of that Defence which Dr. Owen has made for his way of Reasoning , from Christs being our Mediator , to prove the Imputation of his Personal Righteousness to us : Though I must recal that word Defence , for indeed he has made none , but appeals to the ingenuity of his Readers , and leaves his Book to defend it self ; which it may be supposed to be very well able to do at the age of twenty years , especially against a young Adversary . And first he would willingly insinuate , that I had not truly or fairly related his words , but then on a sudden he takes courage , and roundly asserts , whatever I had charged him with , That the Lord Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as Mediator , and that what he did as Mediator , he did it for them whose Mediator he was , or in whose stead , and for whose good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God. And here he first very nicely distinguishes between these two Propositions , Christ as Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead ; and , Christ being Mediator in our stead , fulfilled all Righteousness for us ; and very truly observes , that I do not understand the difference between them ; and it would have been charitably done of him to have shown the difference , for I am still so dull as not to perceive it : If Christ as Mediator in our stead fulfilled all Righteousness for us , then he must fulfil it in our stead ; for he is therefore supposed to fulfil Righteousness for us , because he acted in our stead ; which can be no reason , unless he acted in our stead in fulfilling Righteousness , which I think is much the same with fulfilling Righteousness in our stead . And indeed the Doctor himself does expresly assert this in so many words , That this Obedience was performed by Christ , not for himself , but for us , and in our stead : So that it seems He himself did not understand the difference of these expressions then , and I am sure can show no difference now . Though I cannot blame the Doctor for being willing to shift off this expression , That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead , as fore-seeing the consequence of it , that this must needs discharge us from the Obligations of a Personal Righteousness : For if Christ have fulfilled the Righteousness of the Law in our stead , the Law can no more exact Obedience from us , than it can inflict Punishment on us ; a perfect Righteousness is all the Law can require of us ; and since we have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ our Mediator , it can make no farther Demands of us . Which is to set up the personal Righteousness of Christ , in opposition to his Laws and Religion . Now as bad a consequence as this is , if Dr. Owen would speak consistently with his own Principles , he can never avoid it ; for the foundation of all his Arguments , to prove , that Christs Righteousness is made ours in a Law-sense , is , that Christ as our Surety and Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead ; for take away this , and there is no more reason why the Righteousness of Christ should in his sense be reckoned ours , than why the Righteousness of Abraham , or Moses , or St. Paul , should be imputed to us . And yet supposing this true , That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead , it necessarily overthrows their fundamental Notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us ; for if he did it in our stead , it becomes ours without an Imputation : It would be necessary indeed , that God should accept of Christ as our Surety and Mediator , to act in our stead , which may be reckoned an act of favour , and accordingly that Christ should fulfil all Righteousness in our stead , but when this is done , there needs no imputation to make it ours . Whatever is done in our stead by a Proxy or Substitute appointed and allowed to act for us , becomes ours according to strict Law and Justice , and needs not the acceptation of Grace and Mercy ( which is the Scripture-notion of Imputation ) to make it so : Christs Righteousness would become ours by his acting in our stead , without any consequent Imputation . And yet ( to see how Absurdities multiply ! ) suppose we take it in Dr. Owen's sense , that Christ is only a Mediator in our stead ; this is a manifest contradiction , for it supposes that the Middle may stand in the place of either of the Extreams : for a Mediator is a middle Person between two contending Parties , and therefore his Office is to act between them both , and not in the stead of either . And to say that Christ is a Mediator in our stead , supposes that we ought to have been Mediators , that is , middle Persons between God and our selves ; nay indeed that we are so in the Person of Christ : for otherwise , though he may be a Mediator on our behalf , and for our good , yet he cannot mediate in our stead . In the next place I made it appear , that we cannot argue from the general notion of a Mediator , that his Personal Righteousness shall be imputed to those for whom he is Mediator ; for a Mediator is one who interposes between two differing Parties , to accommodate the difference , but it was never heard of yet , that it was the Office of a Mediator to perform the terms and conditions himself , which I shewed particularly in the example of Moses . And here the Doctor observes first , that I give an instance in Moses , who is called a Mediator in receiving the Law , but did therein no way interpose himself between differing Parties , to reconcile them : But was this the only Office of Moses , to receive the Law ? Did he not frequently interpose between God and the People , and by his intercessions divert his anger from them ? Secondly , he observes , that I would describe the nature of the Mediation of Christ , from the nature of the Mediation of Moses , which he calls a Socinian Fiction ; but pray who told him so ? I only argue from the general notion of a Mediator , which must equally agree to all Mediators , whatever other differences there may be in the nature of their Mediation : and therefore if Moses as a Mediator were not bound to fulfil the Righteousness of the Law for the whole Congregation , neither could Christ as a Mediator be bound to this ; at least we cannot prove , that he was from the general nature of Mediation ; and therefore now the Doctor quits this way of reasoning , and pretends only to argue from the special nature of the Mediatory Office and Work of Christ , and so I have obtained all I designed by that Argument , viz. That the general consideration of Christs being our Mediator , cannot prove that his Righteousness is imputed to us . In the next place I fairly state what that Righteousness is , which the Doctor says , Christ fulfilled for us : this he calls wonderfully perplexing my self in gathering up sayings backward and forward in his Discourse , to make some advantage to my purpose : and I confess any man , who reads the Doctors Books with a design to understand them , and to make sense of them , will find it a very perplexing work : But however I first shewed , that the Doctor rejects the habitual Righteousness of Christ as Mediator , in his humane nature , from being imputed to us . Secondly , he rejects the Obedience which he yielded to the peculiar Law of the Mediator , which respected himself meerly , and contains all those Acts and Duties of his , which were not for our IMITATION , and instances in his Obedience , which he shewed in dying : though I observed , that St. Iohn the Divine tells us , that we must imitate him in this too , must lay down our lives for the Brethren , as Christ died for us , 1 John iii. 16. To which the Doctor answers , That we are not so to die for any one , as Christ died for us : But what of that ? May we not imitate that which we cannot equal ? But then thirdly , the Righteousness which is imputed to us , is his Righteousness , as a man subject to the Law , and now whatever was required of us by virtue of any Law , that he did and fulfilled , and this is that actual Obedience of Christ , which he performed for us . Now before I came particularly to examine the Doctors Proof of this , I observed by the way , That this is very strange , that what he did as Mediator ( in Obedience to the peculiar Laws of his Mediation ) is not imputed to us , but what he did not as Mediator , but as a man subject to the Law , that is imputed to us , and reckoned as if we had done it , by reason of his being our Mediator . Here the Doctor charges me , either with a wilful or ignorant mistake , for making him to say , that what Christ did not as Mediator , but as a man subject to the Law , is imputed to us ; whereas he asserts , that what Christ did as a man subject to the Law , he did as Mediator ; for Christ was made a private man , as Mediator . But the Doctor might have observed , that I did not report that as his words , but as their natural interpretation , that what Christ did not as Mediator , but in a private capacity , as a man subject to the Law , is imputed to us : for soon after I take notice of the reason , whereby the Doctor proves , that Christ did that as Mediator , which did not belong to the peculiar Laws of his Mediation , but was required from him in a private capacity , as a man subject to the Law ; the sum of which came to this , that he did it as Mediator , because he was a Mediator who did it ; which as the Author of the Speculum observes , may pass for a quâ reduplicativè ; but yet I think the subtilest Schoolmen never argued from one to the other , that whatever a Mediator does , he does as a Mediator , because he is a Mediator who does it . But Christ was made a private man as Mediator : This I deny ; as Mediator he was a publick Person , and nothing belongs to his Mediation , but what he did as a publick Person : But he was made a man then , as Mediator ; yes , he was a Mediator in Human Nature , but his taking Human Nature on him , was no part of his Mediatory Office , but a necessary preparation for it : And now what follows ? That whatever he did as a man , he did as a Mediator ? By no means : He was a Mediator in our Nature , but it does not therefore follow , that whatever he does in our Nature , belongs to his Mediatory Office ; there is no way to prove this , that I know of , but to return to the old Sophism , that he obeyed the Law as Mediator , because he was a Mediator who did it . So that the whole proof , that Christ fulfilled Righteousness for us , as our Mediator , depends upon this , whether he acted as our Mediator in his private capacity , as a Man subject to the Law : The Doctor acknowledges , that the general notion of a Mediator includes no such thing , and that this does not belong to the peculiar Laws of his Mediation ; for his Obedience to the peculiar Law which required the Publick Acts of his Mediation , cannot be imputed to us : And therefore it all resolves it self into his Obedience to the Law , as a private man ; that is , that he is our Mediator as a private man , acting in a private capacity ; i. e. as obeying those Laws of Righteousness , which concern private men . Which is so strange at the first hearing , that we may well require good proof of it . But then I observed farther , That it is as strange to the full , that Christ should do whatever was required of us , by vertue of any Law , when he was neither Husband , nor Wife , nor Father , Merchant , nor Tradesman , &c. that he should discharge the Duties of these several Relations for us , when he never was in most of these Relations , and could not possibly be in all . To this , the Doctor answers , That he has frequently smiled at this Argument , when he has met with it in the Socinians , who are perking with it at every turn ; but here it ought to be admired . I wish the Doctor be Orthodox at his heart , for he seems to have read none but Socinians ; and I fear has a design to promote Socinianism , by giving away all good Arguments to them : but to antidote my Readers against this , I can assure them , that this Argument is used by very Orthodox Writers , and derided by Antinomians : Though it is some question , whether the Doctor smiled at the Argument , or at his own Answer ; however I had rather he would smile still , than admire , which would be the more effectual Confutation of the two . But his Answer is worth considering : That the Grace of Duty and Obedience in all Relations is the same , the Relations only administring an external occasion unto its peculiar exercise . And what our Lord Iesus Christ did in the fulfilling of all Righteousness in the Circumstances and Relations wherein he stood , may be imputed to us for our Righteousness in all our Relations , every act of Duty and Sin in them respecting the same Law and Principle . The meaning of which Answer is this , That Christ is said to fulfil all Righteousness for us , not because he did fulfil all Righteousness , but because he would have done it , had he been in such Circumstances and Relations as had required it : and thus he has found out a way how Christ may fulfil all Righteousness , without doing any thing at all : for by the same Reason that he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of any particular Duties and Relations , without doing it , he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of all Duties and Relations , without doing any thing : for the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all : and that does not consist in external Actions , ( for then it will equally oblige to every particular act of Righteousness , as to any ) but in an inward Principle : and thus the Doctor must return to what he had before expresly rejected , That the habitual Righteousness of Christ as Mediator in his Human Nature , is the only Righteousness which can be imputed to us : Christ did not fulfil all the particular Duties of Righteousness in his actions , because he was not in such circumstances and relations as required it : and therefore those at least , who are in any condition or relation , in which Christ never was , ( as the generality of Mankind upon one account or other are ) must of necessity be justified not by the imputation of Christs actual , but habitual Righteousness . And now let me reason a little with the Doctor in his own way : Why should Christ live here in the World so long as he did , in perfect Obedience to all the Laws of God ? Had he died before ( as soon as he had been born ) there had been perfect Innocency and perfect Holiness by his habitual Grace : and thismade him fit to be a Sacrifice to expiate our sins , and would as well serve for a perfect Righteousness to cover them : and should he have lived to the end of the World , unless he could have run through all the several Relations and Conditions of Life , he could never actually fulfil all that Righteousness which is required of all Mankind , and therefore the perfect habitual Righteousness of his Nature may as well serve for the whole as for a part . The Doctor in the place , to which I now alluded , can find no other reason why Christ should live so long in the World , in a perfect Obedience to the Laws of God , but only a necessity of an actual fulfilling all Righteousness for us , which supposes that an habitual Grace is not enough ; and yet when he is told that Christ could not and did not fulfil all Righteousness for us , because he could not discharge the Duties of our several Relations for us , when he never was in most of these Relations , & could not possibly be in all ; he answers , that there is no need of it , because the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all : and now how the Doctor can reconcile these two . that it is necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness , and that it is not necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness , let him consider ; for I am sure there must be the same necessity of fulfilling all Righteousness , that there is of fulfilling any ; and he himself describes that Righteousness which Christ was to fulfil for us , as our Mediator , to be , whatever was required of us by vertue of any Law : though I suppose , when he thus stated it , he had not met with this Socinian Objection , which he will never be able to answer otherwise than by smiling or admiring . In the next place I considered those Arguments , whereby the Doctor proves that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness for us , as our Mediator . And the first is , That Christ was under no Obligation to obey those Laws himself , and he instances both in the Law of Creation , and in the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews . First to begin with the Law of Creation , that is , all those Duties which necessarily result from the frame and constitution of Human Nature ; and because the Doctor in his Vindication hath represented the force of his Argument in fewer and plainer words , I shall quit the advantages which his perplext and intricate arguings in his Book of * Communion give an Adversary ( which I dare venture any man to make sense of , without a comment ) and deal with him at the fairest Weapon . He proves then , that Christs Obedience to the Law of Creation was designedly for us , by two Arguments : First , because the way whereby the Lord Christ in his own Person became obnoxious and obedient to the Law of Creation , was by his own voluntary antecedent choice , otherwise than it is with those who are inevitably subject unto it , by natural generation under it : The meaning of which is , that he considers Christ antecedently to his Incarnation , when it was in his choice whether he would become Man , or no , and so consequently whether he would be subject to the Laws of Human Nature ; and I say still , the force of this Argument is no more but this , That Christ had not been bound to live like a man , had he not voluntarily chose to become man ; and the reason of that is this , that he could not have lived like a man , had he not been a man. It was in his choice whether he would become Man , but when he had chose this , it was not at his liberty to choose whether he would submit to the Laws of Human Nature ; and it is a new way of reasoning to argue , that Christ was not bound to obey those Laws for himself , because he voluntarily chose such a state , which necessarily and without any further choice brought him under those Obligations : Which is just as if I should prove , that no man is bound upon his own account to discharge the Duties of a Husband , because it was at his own choice , whether he would have entered into that Relation , which , when he is in it , necessarily exacts such Duties from him . The discharge of his Mediatory Office , necessarily required , that he should become man , that he might be our Prophet , and Example , and Guide , our Priest , and our Sacrifice , our King and Governour ; and when he was Man , his Nature required that he should obey the Laws of Creation , and live like a reasonable Creature . But the Doctor adds , That the Hypostatical Union in the first instant whereof the Human Nature was fitted for Glory , might have exempted him from the Obligation of any outward Law whatever . What he means by outward Laws , I cannot tell , for the Laws of Creation are intrinsick and essential to human Nature ; and if the Hypostatical Union do not destroy the Human Nature , it cannot exempt it from those natural and necessary Obligations : He might as well say , that the Hypostatical Union exempts the Human Nature of Christ from the Laws of Reasoning , as from the Rules of Life , both which are equally the Glory and Perfection of a Reasonable Nature . And though we should suppose the Human Nature in Christ , in the very first instant of its Union to the Divine Nature to be fitted for Glory , yet I cannot see , how this exempts the Human Nature from the Obligation of those Laws which are essential to Human Nature , unless he thinks that Human Nature in Glory is under no Obligations . Had Christ been immediately translated to Heaven , he had not been obliged to those particular instances of Obedience , which are proper to an earthly state , for glorified Saints themselves are not ; but while Christ is a perfect Man , as well as God , it will always become him in whatever state he be , to live agreeably to Human Nature : For though he be advanced to the Right Hand of God , he is still as man inferiour to his Father , and therefore can never , as man , be exempted from the necessary Laws of Human Nature . But to proceed to the Ceremonial Law : The Doctor proves , that Christ as an innocent man , under the Covenant of Works , could not be obliged by this Law , which came upon us by reason of Sin , especially not to such institutions as signified the washing away of sin , and repentance from sin , as the Baptism of Iohn did , and therefore he fulfilled this Righteousness for us . To this I answered in my former * Discourse , That though it were granted , that these Laws at first were commanded upon occasion of sin , yet an innocent man may observe them to good and wise purposes , as publick and solemn acts of Worship , or external and visible expressions of Devotion , as a publick Profession of Righteousness and a vertuous Life ; to which purposes among others , the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law , and the Baptism of Iohn served , &c. To which the Doctor returns no answer , but makes me say what I never thought , and abuses his credulous Readers with an apprehension that I had talked like himself , at such a rate of Nonsense as any one in his Wits must needs despise , to borrow some of his own Elegancies . For thus he reports my sense , or words , or both , as he would perswade his Readers , that I say , that an Innocent Person , such as Christ was absolutely , may be obliged for his own sake , to the observation of such Laws and Institutions , as were introduced by the occasion of sin , and respected all of them the personal sins of them that were obliged by them . And now he desires to be left to his liberty , nay to the necessity of his mind , not to believe Contradictions : I wish he had been under this necessity a little sooner , or were yet under a necessity of not making contradictions : for what he believes , no man can tell . I plainly acknowledged , that Christ being an Innocent Person , could not observe any of these Judaical Ceremonies , with respect to personal sins ; but I say , as they had other significations , so he might observe them to other purposes . Circumcision in its first Institution was a seal of that Covenant which God made with Abraham , and therefore did very well become him , who was not only of the Seed and Posterity of Abraham , but that very Seed , which was promised in the Covenant , whereof Circumcision was the Seal . The Baptism of Iohn was a publick Profession of a vertuous Life , which becomes the most innocent man ; but it was a profession of Repentance , and signified the washing away of sin , only when the baptized Person had been a Sinner ; and yet the Baptism of our Saviour was designed for a nobler purpose , as a Publick Inauguration of him to his Prophetical Office. The Passover was an Eucharistical Sacrifice , in commemoration of the Deliverance of their Fore-fathers out of Aegypt , and therefore might be observed by the most innocent man ▪ but I challenge the Doctor or any of his Friends to prove , that Christ offered any Sin or Trespass-Offering , which respect only personal Offences , or that he observed any Ceremony , which could signifie nothing else but personal guilt ; and till he can prove this , his Argument is worth nothing . His second Argument to prove that what Christ did as Mediator , ( that is , the actual Obedience of his Life ) he did for us , and in our stead , I represented thus : That there can be no other reason assigned of Christs Obedience to the Law , but only this , that he did it in our stead : Here the Doctor , according to his usual way , charges me with mis-representing his Argument ; for his words are . That the end of the active Obedience of Christ cannot be assigned to be , that he might be fit for his Death and Oblation . These I acknowledge to be his words , but not his Argument , for the force of his Argument consists in the dis-junction , as I expresly observed , that either Christ fulfilled all Righteousness to fit him for his Death and Oblation ; or he did it for us , and in our stead ; because otherwise , as he himself expresses it , if the Obedience Christ performed be not reckoned to us , and done upon our account , there is no just cause to be assigned , why he should live here in the World so long as he did in perfect Obedience to all the Laws of God : and therefore in answer to this , I made it appear , that though the Righteousness of Christ were supposed not necessary to qualifie him for his Death , ( which he can never prove ) yet there were other great and necessary Reasons , why he should live so long in the World in a perfect Obedience to the Divine Will. His third Argument to prove that Christ performed all Righteousness for us , is , the absolute necessity of it : for this is the term of the Covenant , Do this and live ; so that we being unable to yield that compleat & perfect Obedience , which the Law requires , as the condition of Life and Happiness , it is necessary that Christ our Mediator and Surety should fulfil the Law for us . The sum of which Argument ( as I told him before ) is this , That there never was , nor ever can be a Covenant of Grace ; that God still exacts the rigorous perfection of the Law from us , and that we must not appear before him without a compleat and perfect Righteousness of our own , or of another : Now this is the thing in question , whether we must be made righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us , or whether God will for the sake of Christ dispense with the rigor of the Law , and accept a sincere and Evangelical Obedience , instead of a perfect and unsinning Righteousness ; so that he only confidently affirms what was in dispute , and this goes for an Argument : This Argument he silently passes over , only he transcribes the last clause , without taking any notice of the reason of it , and huffs it off with an Appeal to his Reader . Any man may easily guess by the management of this whole Discourse , that the Doctor had no mind his Readers should know what was in dispute , or what Arguments were alledged on either side ; and I do readily believe what he says , That he is weary of every word he is forced to add , for it is enough to tire any mans heart out , to be forced to say something , and not to have one wise word to say . But to return from this long Digression , it were very easie to give several other instances of this way of arguing from Metaphors ; as when they prove , that we are wholly passive in our first Conversion , because we are said to be dead in trespasses and sins , from whence they infer , that we can contribute no more to our own Conversion , than a dead man can to the quickning of himself ; and that we are born again , and are made new Creatures , and created to good Works , and the like : but to discourse this fully , would take up too much time , and possibly may fall under consideration in a proper place . What I have already discours'd , is sufficient to acquaint Mr. Ferguson that I am no Enemy to a sober use of Metaphors ; and that he and his Friends do very much corrupt Religion , and perplex and entangle the plainest notions of it by the abuse of Scripture-Metaphors . CHAP. III. Concerning the DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND . THose Objections ( if they may be so called ) of which I have taken notice in the former Chapter , are but some slight Skirmishes , but the main Battel is still behind : the great out-cry is , That I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England , contained in her Articles and Homilies : This ( I confess ) were a very great fault , if it were true , and if it be not , it is a very great calumny : And yet whether it be true or false , every one may believe as he pleases ; for the Doctor is not at leisure to make good the Charge ; this he leaves to the Bishops and Governours of our Church to consider , which is very wisely done of him . But all that he takes leave to say , is , That the Doctrine here published , and licens'd so to be , either is the Doctrine of the present Church of England , or it is not : If it be so , what then ? Why then the Doctor shall be forced to declare , That he neither has , nor will have any Communion therein . But I thought there had been no need of declaring this now : If this be all the hurt my Book has done , to force the Doctor to renounce the Communion of our Church , after so many years actual separation from it , the matter is not great . But why so much haste of declaring ? Why as for other Reasons ( at which you may guess ) so in particular because he will not renounce or depart from that which he knows to be the true ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church : What a mighty Reverence has the Doctor for the Church of England ! That he will rather separate from the present Church of England , than renounce the Ancient Catholick Doctrine of the former Church of England ! That he will not renounce any thing , which he knows to have been the True Ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church ! But does he indeed speak as he means ? Does he account the Authority of the Church of England so sacred , as to make it the Foundation of his Faith , and a sufficient Reason to renounce any Doctrines which she condemns , and to own what she owns ? If he does not , I would desire him to explain the force of this reason , and if he does , I would beg of him for the sake of his Reason to renounce his Schism ; though upon second thoughts I fear , this is no good Argument with the Doctor . Well , but if it be not so , that is , if the doctrine here published , be not the Doctrine of the present Church of England , as he is assured with respect unto many Bishops , and other learned men , that it is not ; What then ? What account will he now give of Renouncing the Communion of this Church ? Nay , not a word of that , but he has a little Advice to the Bishops and Governours of it : It is certainly the Concernment of them who preside therein , to take care , that such Discourses be not countenanced with the Stamp of their Publick Authority , lest they and the Church be represented unto a great disadvantage with many . What a blessed change has my Book wrought in the Doctor ! He is now mightily concerned for the Honour and Reputation of the Bishops and Church , and fears lest they should be disadvantagiously represented to the World. Who could ever have hoped for this , who had known the Doctor in the blessed times of Reformation ! And yet I vehemently suspect , that after all his Courtship to the Church and Bishops , the Doctor designs a little kindness to himself and his Friends in it , to perswade the Reverend Bishops not to suffer any Books to be Printed against them , which they cannot answer , which may represent them to a great disadvantage with many . The Looking-Glass-Maker transcribes several passages out of the Homilies , to what end he himself knows best ; for I should not readily have guessed my self concerned in them , had it not been for that ingenious Reflection , How ill Mr. Sherlock hath fitted his Cloth to this Pattern , he that is not very blind , may see : So that now every one must acknowledge for the credit of his eye-sight , that I have contradicted the Homilies : by which artifice , as I have heard , some waggish Fellows have perswaded silly People to confess , that they have seen some strange Prodigies , which they did not see , and which indeed were not to be seen . But to gratifie the ill nature of these men , let us for once suppose , that which they cannot prove , that I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England : what then ? Why then I have contradicted the Doctrine to which I have subscribed ; if I have done so , it is very ill done of me , but what then ? Why then this is a sufficient Answer to my Book : But I pray why so ? Do they believe the Church of England to be infallible ? Do they think it a sufficient proof of the Truth of any Doctrine , that it is the Doctrine of the Church of England ? Why then do they reject any of the Articles of our Church ? Why do they renounce Communion with us ? If they attribute so much to the Judgment and Authority of our Church , is it not as good in one case , as it is in another ? Every one , I suppose , knows , what Obedient Sons they are of the Church of England , how they reverence the Authority of their Mother ; and is it not a plain Argument , how hard they are put to it , when they are forc'd to take Sanctuary in the Authority of that Church , which they so much reproach and vilifie ; when they dare not trust to any other Weapon to defend their Cause , but the despised name of the Church of England ? Those I am sure must be very blind , who cannot see through so transparent a Cheat. The meaning then of all this noise about the Church of England , is no more but this : They are conscious to themselves of a bad Cause , which they can no longer defend by plain Scripture and Reason , and therefore shelter themselves in the Authority of the Church , and would fain perswade the Bishops and the Church of England to defend them , since they cannot defend themselves ; and having little else to say , they make long Harangues about Articles and Homilies , and pretend a mighty Zeal for the True Ancient and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England : And now methinks the Church of England and the Reverend Bishops are very much beholden to me , for they have not had so many good words from these men in many years before , and must never expect the like again , but upon such another occasion ; and I hope the People will begin to consider , what a Church they have forsaken , whose Authority is much greater than all other Arguments with their own Teachers . But I see it is very dangerous to be too much in love with any thing ; for this great zeal and passion for the Doctrine of the Church of England , has betrayed the Doctor , and his good Friend the Author of the Speculum , to some hasty Sayings , of which , it may be , they may see cause to repent , when they are better advised . They are great Friends , you must know , to Liberty and Indulgence , and take it very ill , if they may not only think and act as they please in matters of Religion , but make Parties and Factions too , and controul the Commands of Secular Powers ; and yet these very men , who so much extol and magnifie an Indulgence , and so much need it , give plain intimations how far they would be from granting that Liberty to others , which they challenge to themselves . The Doctor tells me , There is great reason to pity the People committed to my Charge , what regard soever ought to be had unto my self : i. e. though I should starve for want of my Rectorship , as he expresses himself elsewhere , — Had this man in their days treated this Doctrine with his present scoffing petulancy , he had scarce been Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane , &c. Nor should I be so now , could he hinder it : But what becomes of Liberty and Indulgence then , in matters of Religion ? Must the Conscience be set free in matters of External Order and Government , but tied up in Doctrines and Opinions ? This indeed is the Doctors avowed Principle , as great a Friend as he is to Liberty : He would be excused himself from subscribing Three of the XXXIX Articles , but as for the other XXXVI , he would have no man suffered to live in England who will not subscribe them ; and the Doctor can remember when he proposed this very unseasonably . The Author of the Speculum desires his Friend to bid me consider , whether if the Parliament should meet , they might not find leisure enough to censure my Discourse , as they did Mr. Mountague ' s , who in vain pleaded for himself that he had writ against the Puritans ; and was left alone to suffer , though others had instigated him to write : The Commons of England will scarce endure to find the Doctrine of the Church of England struck at , though it be through the sides of Dr. Owen and Dr. Jacomb . But now suppose the Commons of England should think it as reasonable to secure the Government and Discipline , as the Doctrine of the Church , what would become then of Indulgence ? Would not our Author then change his Note , and repent of such Intimations as these ? Or if the Commons of England should happen to have other thoughts of that Discourse , than our Author has , and should think it necessary to prevent the Debauching of Mens Minds by such corrupt Doctrines as are there opposed , what would become of most of the Conventicles in England ? Could he with any Confidence then cry out of Persecution , when he himself hath sounded the Alarm to it ? This it is to fence with a two-edged Sword , which cuts both ways , and may wound a Friend as soon as an Enemy . This is sufficient in answer to my Adversaries , who are well skill'd at drawing up a Charge , but have no faculty at proving it . But I think my self upon this occasion concerned to vindicate the Doctrine of the Church of England from the mis-representations of these men , as if it favoured such uncouth and absurd notions , as besides the ill consequences of them , have no foundation in Scripture or Reason , which I doubt may represent the best Church in the World to great disadvantage with many , I mean with all wife and considering men . The principal thing which these Men object against me , is the Doctrine of Justification , as it is explained in the Articles and Homilies of our Church . And I am contented the Controversie should be put upon this issue , whether they or I speak most consonantly to the Doctrine of the Church of England , in this matter . The Doctrine of Justification is contained in Article XI . which is this : We are accounted Righteous before God , only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith , and not for our own Merits and Deservings . Wherefore that we are Iustified by Faith only , is a most wholsom Doctrine and very full of comfort , as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Iustification . The Article is plain , and expressed in a few words , without any Scholastical Subtilties ; we are not clogged here with the several Modes of Causality , with the Efficient , Formal , Material , Instrumental Causes of Justification , which fill up every Page in the Books of Modern Divines . All that our Church requires us to profess , is only this , that we are accounted Righteous before God , only by Faith , and for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; that neither Faith nor Works are the Meritorious Cause of our Justification , but that all the Merit of it is to be attributed to Christ , who died for our sins , and fulfilled the Law ; so that whoever acknowledges the Merits of Christ , and denies the Merits of Good Works , answers the end and design of this Article : For this was the great Controversie of those days , between the Papists and Protestants , whether we were Justified freely by the Grace of God , and the Merits of Christ , or by the Merits of our own Works ; and the principal design of this Article was to oppose the Popish Doctrine of the Merit of Good Works . But we are referred to the Homily of Justification for a larger Account of this Doctrine , and thither I willingly appeal : And to proceed with all possible ingenuity , I readily acknowledge , that there are several Expressions in that Homily , which seem to favour that notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness , ( though that phrase of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness , is nowhere used throughout the whole Homily ) but if we will take that Explication , which the Homily it self gives of them , it will evidently appear , that there was no such thing intended by them : I shall produce these expressions in their proper places , and in the management of this Argument , shall First explain the sense of our Church concerning the Doctrine of Justification , out of the Homilies of Salvation , Faith , Good Works , and Repentance . And Secondly , Show you how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day , and what a just reason this is for a more particular explication of those Expressions , which occasioned the corruption of the wholsom Doctrine of our Church . First I shall enquire what is the true sense of the Church of England concerning the Doctrine of Justification . And first , I observe , that our Church places the nature and essence of Justification in the forgiveness of sins . This is evident from the very first words of the Homily : Because all men be Sinners , and Offenders against God , and Breakers of his Law & Commandments , therefore can no man by his own Acts , Words , and Deeds , ( seem they never so good ) be justified , and made righteous before God : but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another Righteousness or Iustification , to be received at Gods own hands , that is to say , the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses , in such things as he hath offended : And this Iustification or Righteousness ( the forgiveness of sins ) which we so receive of Gods Mercy , and Christs Merits , embraced by Faith , is taken , accepted , and allowed of God , for our perfect and full Iustification . So that our full and perfect Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins , whereby God over-looking what we have done amiss , deals with us , as with Righteous Persons , that is bestows Eternal Life on us . The Homily takes notice of two ways of Justification : The first is by our own Works ; when we live so innocently and vertuously as to be acquitted and absolved by God , according to the strict Rules of Law and Justice : But in this way no Sinner can be justified ; for the Law justifies no man , who is a Transgressor of the Law : and therefore since we are all Sinners , and can neither expiate our past sins , nor perfectly keep the Law for the future , it is impossible that we should be justified by our own Acts and Deeds . It remains therefore , that no Sinner can be justified , or accounted Just and Righteous before God , without the pardon and forgiveness of his Sins : this is the Justification and Righteousness of a Sinner , that God forgives his wilful sins , and covers all the defects of his good Actions ; for when the sin is pardoned and covered , the man is innocent and righteous . Now this Account , I am sure , cannot please Dr. Owen and his Friends , who look upon the forgiveness of sin but as one part of our Justification , and that the most inconsiderable too , which only makes us innocent , and delivers us from the condemnation of the Law , but cannot entitle us to future Happiness ; besides Innocency ( as they tell us ) there is required a perfect Righteousness , the first is owing to the Death of Christ , which expiates our sins , the second to the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness to us , which makes us perfectly just and righteous : this is a down-right contradiction to the Doctrine of our Church , which teaches us , that God accepts and allows of this forgiveness of sin for our full and perfect Iustification . And indeed , forgiveness of sins is a true Evangelical way of Justification , in opposition to a Legal Justification , which consists in perfect and unsinning Obedience : the first our Church requires , but the Doctor and his Friends exact the latter , a perfect Righteousness of Works : for as the Doctor observes , Life is not to be obtained , unless all be done that the Law requires ; that is still true , If thou wilt enter into life , keep the Commandments : they must be kept by us , or by our Surety : All the difference the Doctor knows between the Law and the Gospel , is only this , that the Law required a perfect Righteousness from every man in his own Person , the Gospel accepts of a perfect Righteousness in the Person of our Mediator ; but still we are justified by a Legal , not Evangelical Righteousness ; that is , by a Righteousness of Works , not by pardon and forgiveness . And it has been before observed by some learned men , that to place our Justification in the forgiveness of our sins , as our Church doth , and in the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness to us , as others do , are not very consistent . For by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us , we are Legally Righteous , or have a perfect Righteousness of Works ; and Forgiveness of sins , and a perfect Righteousness , destroy each other : for if we are perfectly Righteous , whether in our own Persons , or by Imputation , we need no Forgiveness ; and if we need Forgiveness , it is plain that God does not so much as impute a perfect Righteousness to us . So that when our Church places the whole nature of our Justification in the Forgiveness of sins , it is a good Argument that she never thought of a Legal Righteousness of Works , of the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness and Obedience , to make us righteous before God. But for a fuller Explication of this Doctrine of Justification , we are taught in that Homily , that there are especially three things which must go together in our Iustification : upon Gods part , his great Mercy and Grace ; upon Christs part , Iustice , that is , the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice , or the price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body , and sheddidg his Blood , with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly ; and upon our part , true and lively Faith in the Merits of Iesus Christ , which yet is not ours , but by Gods working in us . This is a much more intelligible way of explaining the Doctrine of Justification , than by the Material , Formal , Efficient , Instrumental Causes , and such-like terms of Art , which need more explication than the Doctrine it self ; and therefore I shall follow this method , and reduce the Doctrine of the Homilies under these three Heads : What is Gods part , what is Christs part , and what is required on Mans part in the business of Justification . First , Let us consider what is Gods part in the Justification of a Sinner ; and that is , the Mercy and Grace of God , which expresses it self first in providing a Ransom for us , as it is expressed in the Homily , That our Iustification doth come freely by the meer Mercy of God , and of so great and free mercy , that whereas all the World was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their Ransom , it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy , without any our Desert or Deserving , to prepare for us the most precious Iewels of Christs Body and Blood , whereby our Ransome might be fully paid , the Law fulfilled , and his Iustice satisfied . There is no Controversie between us about this matter , that it was an expression of the undeserved Goodness of God , to send Christ into the World to save Sinners . And secondly , The Mercy of God is seen in the very Act of Justifying us , in accepting this Atonement , and in forgiving our sins . Thus we are informed in the second part of that Sermon of Salvation . Justification is not the Office of Man , but of God : for Man cannot make himself righteous by his own Works , neither in part , nor in the whole , for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of Man , that Antichrist could set up against God , to affirm , that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own Sins , and so Justifie himself . But Justification is the Office of God only , and is not a thing which we render to him , but which we receive of him ; not which we give to him , but which we take of him , by his free Mercy , and by the only Merits of his most dearly beloved Son , our only Redeemer , Saviour , and Justifier , Jesus Christ. Bywhich words , it is very plain , what is understood by Justification being Gods Act , and not Mans ; that is , that it is an Act of Favour and Grace , not of Merit and Desert . Though God may be said to Justifie an Innocent Man , when he pronounces him Just and Righteous according to Law , which is the proper office of a Judge , i. e. to acquit an Innocent Man , when he is arraigned ; yet in this case an Innocent Man may be said to Justifie himself , because he is Justified by his own Actions , and God only like a Just and Righteous Judge , pronounces the Sentence of Justification , that is , acquits and absolves him , as his actions deserve , which strict Justice requires : But in the Justification of a Sinner , who dares not stand the trial of strict Justice , but appeals to the Grace and Mercy of God , Justification is properly Gods Act , and not Mans , is owing to the Divine Grace and Mercy , not to Mans Merit and Desert . Upon the same account , we are told in the same place , that not our own Act to believe in Christ , or that this our Faith in Christ which is within us , doth not justifie us , ( for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves . ) Which I confess sounds very like what some men say , That Faith doth not justifie us , as our own Act , but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ , and applies it to us , by which Righteousness thus apprehended by Faith we are justified ; but there is nothing less meant in this place , as will appear from considering the whole Sentence , which is this : So that the true understanding of this Doctrine , We be justified freely by Faith without Works , or that we be justified by Faith in Christ only , is not , that this our own Act to believe in Christ , or this our Faith in Christ , which is within us , doth justifie us , and deserve our Justification unto us , ( for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves ) but the true understanding and meaning thereof is , that although we hear Gods Word , and believe it , and do never so many Works thereunto , yet we must renounce the Merit of all our said Vertues , of Faith , Hope , Charity , and all other Vertues and good Deeds , which we have done , shall do , or can do , as things that be far too weak , and insufficient , and imperfect , to deserve Remission of our Sins , and our Justification , and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy , and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus the Son of God , once offered for us upon the Cross , to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission , as well of Original Sin in Baptism , as of all Actual Sin committed by us after Baptism , if we truly repent , and turn unfeignedly to him again . The meaning of which is plain , that we are not justified by Faith as our own act , as we are not justified by Hope and Charity , as our own acts , that is , that they cannot merit our Justification , or the Forgiveness of our sins : When we have done the best we can , we must still fly to the Mercy of God , through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ : that distinction of Faiths justifying , not as our own Act , but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ , and cloaths us with the perfect Robes of his Righteousness , for which God accounts us perfectly Righteous , is of a later date than these Homilies , and very inconsistent with the Doctrine contained in them . Thus you see what Gods part is in the Justification of a Sinner , viz. To provide a Ransom , and to forgive sins in vertue of that Ransom ; that is to justifie those who according to the strictness and rigor of the Law , are not Just and Righteous Persons . Thus to conclude this in the words of the Homily , You have heard the Office of God in our Iustification , and how we receive it of him freely by his Mercy , without our Deserts . Let us now consider what is Christs part in our Justification , and that is expressed by Iustice , that is , the satisfaction of Iustice , or the Price of our Redemption , by the offering of his Body , and shedding of his Blood , with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly : The plain meaning of which is , that we are justified for the sake of Christs Merits , that his Obedience in doing and suffering the Will of God , in dying for our sins , and in fulfilling the Law , is the meritorious cause of our Justification : that is , did deserve at Gods hands , that for Christs sake he should pardon all humble , penitent and believing Sinners . This is all the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which our Church acknowledges , that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious Cause of our Justification . Thus we are told , That Infants being baptized , and dying in their Infancy , are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins , brought to Gods favour , and made his Children , and Inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven : And they which in act or deed do sin after their Baptism , when they turn again to God unfeignedly , they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice from their sins , in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin , that shall be imputed to their damnation : Which is to the same sense with that of St. Iohn , that if we walk in the light , as he is in the light , ( if we are holy as God is ) we have fellowship one with another , and the Blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin , 1 Iohn i. 7. And to this sense our Church expounds those Texts , Rom. iii. All have offended , and have need of the Glory of God , but are justified freely by his Grace , by Redemption which is in Iesus Christ , whom God hath set forth to us for a Reconciler and Peace-maker , through faith in his Blood , to shew his Righteousness : And in the Tenth Chapter , Christ is the end of the Law unto Righteousness , to every man that believeth : And in the Eighth Chapter , That which was impossible by the Law , in as much as it was weak by the flesh , God sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh , by sin damned sin in the flesh , that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us , which walk not after the flesh , but after the Spirit : Which Texts are alledged by our Modern Divines , to prove the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us , as the formal cause of our Justification ; but our Church expresly tells us , that she understands these Texts to signifie no more on Christs part , but Iustice , or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice. And whereas these new Divines make such a difference between the Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ , that by his Death and Sufferings he expiated our Sins , and by his Active Obedience makes us righteous : Our Church knows no difference in this matter , but assures us , that they both concur to the same effect , to make satisfaction for our sins ; He made satisfaction to Gods Iustice , by the offering of his Body , and shedding his Blood , with fulfilling the Law perfectly and throughly . Which account I expresly gave of it in my former Discourse , p. 330. & Edit . 2. p. 231. In this sense we are taught , that Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly believe in him ; he for them paid their Ransom by his Death , he for them fulfilled the Law in his Life : So that now in him and by him every true Christian Man may be called a fulfiller of the Law : for asmuch as that which their infirmity lacked , Christs Iustice hath supplied . Which last clause the Looking-Glass-Maker thought fit to leave out , for he had so much wit in his anger , as to see , that it did not make to his purpose : for the meaning of it is this , that Christs active and passive Righteousness is imputed to us , to procure the pardon of our sins , & thereby to supply the defects of our Righteousness , not to make us formally righteous : though our Righteousness be imperfect and defective , yet Christ by his Righteousness having obtained the pardon of our sins , we may be said in him to fulfil the Law , in as much , as that which our Infirmity lacked , Christs Iustice ( his Merit and Satisfaction , as it is before explained ) hath supplied . And once for all , our Church tells us , what she means by being justified by Christ only : We put our Faith in Christ , that we be justified by him only , that we be justified by Gods Mercy , and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only , and by no vertue and good works of our own , that is in us , or that we can be able to have or to do , to deserve the same : Christ himself being the only cause meritorious thereof . So that the plain sense of our Church is , that Christs part in our Justification is only to be the meritorious cause of it , to merit Pardon and Justification for all those , who heartily believe in him . And who-ever of our Communion have affirmed any more , they have in so doing plainly deserted the Doctrine of our Church : And therefore Doctor Prideaux himself does expresly disown the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in any other sense than that of Merit : Iustificamur per justitiam Christi ( non personae , quâ ipse vestitus est , sed meriti , quâ suos vestit ) nobis imputatam : that is , We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us , not by his Personal Righteousness ( as Dr. Owen affirms ) with which he is cloathed himself , but with the Righteousness of Merit , with which he cloaths those who belong to him : And in answer to a passage out of Bellarmine , he adds , Quis unquam è nostris , nos per justitiam Christi imputatam , formaliter justificari asseruit : that is , Who among us ever affirmed , that we were formally justified by the imputed Righteousness of Christ. And as the learned Forbs observes , it sounds very like a contradiction to assert , that the Righteousness of Christ is both the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification . Nequit enim fieri , ut eadem res simul fit causa efficiens , ad quam meritum reducitur , & formalis ejusdem effecti , quia sic simul & de essentia effecti foret , & non foret , cùm causa formalis interna sit , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , efficiens autem externa tantum , ut constat : that is , It cannot be , that the same thing should be both the efficient ( as Merit is ) and the formal cause of the same effect ; for so it must both be of the essence and not of the essence of the effect ; for a formal cause is internal , and belongs to the nature and essence of the thing , but an efficient is an external cause , as every one knows : And therefore when the Learned Bishop Davenant , asserts the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us , to be the formal cause of our Justification , and explains it by our being justified ex intuitu meritorum Christi , & propter Christum , with respect to the Merits of Christ , and for Christs sake , though he uses a different phrase , which too many since have abused to bad purposes ; yet he seems to mean no more by it , than we do , who say , that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification , for that must be explained by the same phrases of being justified for Christs sake , and with respect to the Merits of Christ : and indeed the only difference the Bishop makes between the Righteousness of Christ being the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification is no more but this , that in the first case he considers the Merits of Christ absolutely , as the price of our Redemption ; in the second he considers those same Merits of Christ applied to particular persons for the pardon of their particular sins , which still makes it no more than a meritorious cause . His words are these : Eadem & unica justitia Christi in se & suo valore considerata est meritoria causa humanae justificationis , considerata autem quatenus imputatur , donatur , applicatur , tanquam sua singulis credentibus , & in Christum insitis , subit vicem causae formalis . And that he intends no more by a formal cause , than what others express by a meritorious cause , is plain in this , that he acknowledges the imputation even of Christs active Righteousness only in the sense of Merit . He expresses his agreement with Vasques in this matter , who acknowledges the imputation of the Merit of Christs active Obedience : Cùm dicimus Merita Christi nobis imputari , idem de justitia & sanctitate illius existimamus ; nam cùm Merita Christi ex sanctitate ejus dignitatem accipiant , eodem sensu quo Merita nobis dicuntur imputari , ipsa etiam Iustitia Christi imputari dicitur : that is , When we say , that the Merits of Christ are imputed to us , we understand the same thing of his Holiness and active Righteousness : for since his Purity and Holiness gave worth and dignity to his Merits , in the same sense , wherein his Merits are said to be imputed to us , his active Righteousness and Obedience is imputed also . So that the Bishop never thought that the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ is so made ours , that we are accounted by God to have done the same things , to have performed all that Righteousness which Christ performed , which is the modern notion of Imputation ; but it is so imputed to us , that upon account of the Merits of Christs Life and Death , God forgives the Sins , and accepts the Persons of those who heartily believe in him , as the same Learned and Reverend Person excellently explains it soon after : Where he tells us , that we are delivered from the Law by Faith in Christ ; Whosoever believes in him shall not perish , and shall not come into condemnation , or into Iudgment , as he reads it , Iohn v. 24. and adds , What Iudgment is this , from which Believers are delivered by Christ ? Proculdubio strictum illud , ubi juxta normam legis aliquis examinatur , & prout deprehenditur huic norme respondere justus aut injustus pronunciatur , &c. No doubt that strict Judgment , where men are examined according to the Rule of the Law , and are pronounced just or unjust , as they are found to agree with that Rule : Iustificatio igitur & salus credentium non ex eo dependet , quod habent in se qualitatem nova justitiae , quam audent legali examini & stricto Dei judicio subjicere , sed quod per & propter Merita Redemptoris , non subituri sunt tale judicium , sed perinde cum illis agetur , ac si haberent in seipsis exactam justitiam legalem : Therefore the Justification and Salvation of Believers does not depend on this , that they have such an internal Righteousness as they dare submit to a legal Tryal , and to the strict and rigorous Judgment of God ; but that by and for the Merits of their Redeemer , hey shall never undergo such a Judgment , but shall be dealt with as if they had an exact legal Righteousness of their own . And this he tells us hemeans by the Merits of Christ being the formal cause of our Iustification ; and in this sense I heartily own it , though the abuse of that Phrase is a sufficient Reason to alter it . Let us now consider in the third place , what is required on our part , in order to our Justification by Gods Mercy , and by Christs Merits , and that is plainly expressed in the Homily : And upon our part , true and lively Faith in the Merits of Iesus Christ , which yet is not ours , but by Gods working in us . That we may the better understand this , we must enquire , What is meant by this Faith in the Merits of Christ : And what is meant by a true and lively Faith in Christs Merits ? And what our Church attributes to this Faith in the Work of Justification ? First , What is meant by Faith in the Merits of Christ ? Now the general Notion of Faith is , that it is a perswasion and belief in mans heart , whereby he knoweth that there is a God , and agreeth unto all Truth of Gods most holy Word , contained in the holy Scripture : This is such a Faith as Devils and wicked Men may have : But then a Faith in Christs Merits , or a true justifying Faith such as no wicked men can have , is not only the common belief of the Articles of Faith , but it is also a true trust and confidence of the Mercy of God , through our Lord Jesus Christ , and a sted fast hope of all good things to be received at Gods hand : and that although we through infirmity or temptation of our ghostly Enemy , do fall from him by sin , yet if we return again to him by true Repentance , that he will forgive and forget our offences for his Sons sake , our Saviour Jesus Christ , and will make us Inheritors with him of his everlasting Kingdom ; and that in the mean time , till that Kingdom come , he will be our Protector and Defender in all perils and dangers , whatsoever do chance : and that though sometimes he doth send us sharp adversity yet that evermore he will be a loving Father unto us , if we trust in him , and commit our selves wholly unto him , hang only upon him , and call upon him , ready to obey and serve him . That is , a Faith in the Merits of Christ , is a sure Hope and Confidence in God , a certain Expectation of all temporal and spiritual good things from God , for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , upon the condition of Repentance , and a new Life : or as it is excellently expressed a little after in the same Homily : For the very sure and lively Christian Faith is , not only to believe all things of God , contained in holy Scripture , but also is an earnest trust and confidence in God , that he doth regard us , and that he is careful over us , as the Father is over the Child whom he doth love , and that he will be merciful to us for his only Sons sake , and that we have our Saviour Christ our perpetual Advocate and Priest , in whose only Merits , Oblation , and Suffering , we do trust that our Offences be continually washed and purged , whensoever we ( repenting truly ) do return to him with our whole heart , sted fastly determining with our selves , through his Grace , to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments , and never to turn back again to sin . So that Justifying Faith ( according to the sense of our Church ) is not a perswasion that our sins are actually pardoned , or that God for Christs sake will forgive our sins , without requiring any more of us , than to believe , that he will forgive them . But it is a firm perswasion that God will forgive our sins for Christs sake , if we repent of our sins , and forsake them , and determine through his gracious assistance never to return to them again . But we shall understand this the better , if we consider , secondly , what is meant by a true lively Faith in Christs Merits : for our Church distinguishes between a dead and a lively Faith : A dead Faith is by the holy Apostle St. James compared to the faith of Devils , which believe God to be true and just , and tremble for fear , yet they do nothing well , but all evil . And such a manner of Faith have the wicked and naughty Christian People , which confess God ( as St. Paul saith ) in their mouth , but deny him in their deeds , being abominable , and without the right faith , and to all good works reprovable . — And , Forasmuch as Faith without Works is dead , it is not now Faith , as a dead Man is not a Man : This dead Faith therefore is not the sure and substantial Faith , which saveth Sinners . Let us now consider what a lively Faith is , and the description of that follows in these words : Another Faith there is in Scripture , which is not ( as the foresaid Faith ) idle , unfruitful , and dead , but worketh by Charity ( as St. Paul declareth , Gal. v. ) which as the other vain Faith is called a dead Faith , so this may be called a quick or lively Faith. — This is the true , lively , and unfeigned Christian Faith , and is not in the mouth and outward Profession only , but it liveth and stirreth inwardly in the heart . And this Faith is not without hope and trust in God , nor without the love of God and of our Neighbours , nor without the fear of God , nor without the desire to hear Gods Word , and to follow the same in eschewing evil , and doing gladly all good works . This Faith ( as St. Paul describes it ) is the sure ground and foundation of the benefits which we ought to look for , and trust ●o receive of God , a certificate and sure looking for them , although they yet sensibly appear not unto us , &c. This I think is as plain , as words can make it , that the only Foundation of our Hope and Trust in God , and of our expectation of all temporal and spiritual good things from him , is a lively and working Faith ; and upon these terms I will dispute with no man ; I never asserted more my self , nor desire any other man should . But to make it more evident what the sense of our Church is , concerning the necessity of Good Works , we are taught in these Homilies three things concerning Faith : First , That it is essential to true Faith to be fruitful in good Works , when it hath the Opportunities of Action : This Faith doth not lie dead in the heart , but is lively and fruitful in bringing forth good Works : That as the Light cannot be hid , but will shew forth it self at one place or other ; so a true Faith cannot be kept secret , but when occasion is offered it will break out , and shew it self by Good Works . And as the living Body of a Man ever exerciseth such things as belong to a natural and living Body , for nourishment and preservation of the same , as it hath need , opportunity , and occasion : even so the Soul that hath a lively Faith in it , will be doing alway some good Work , which shall declare that it is living , and will not be unoccupied . Therefore when men hear in the Scriptures so high commendation of Faith , that it maketh us to please God , to live with God , and to be the Children of God. If then they phantasie that they be set at liberty from doing all good Works , and may live as they lust , they trifle with God , and deceive themselves ; and it is a manifest token that they be far from having the true lively Faith , & also far from knowledge what true Faith meaneth . And then follows that excellent Description of Faith , which I have transcribed above . From this it is very plain , that our Church accounts a holy Life as essential to a true Faith , as Action is to Life : and that true Faith is discovered by a holy Life , just as an inward Principle of Life is discovered by external and visible Actions . This is farther proved in the Homily , from the examples of all good men in former Ages , whose Faith was fruitful in good Works , such as Abel , Noah , Abraham , Isaac , Iacob , &c. and from the Testimony of the holy Scripture , especially of the 1 Epist. of S. Iohn , where there are so many express testimonies to this Truth : and by refuting the several pretences of those men , who fancy that they believe in God , and love him , though they either live in sin , or neglect to obey his Laws : & the conclusion of all is in these words , So they that be Christians , and have received the knowledge of God , and of Christs Merits , and yet of a set purpose do live idly , without good works , thinking the name of a naked faith to be either sufficient for them , or else setting their minds upon vain pleasures of this World , do live in sin , without repentance , not uttering the Fruits that do belong to such an high Profession , upon such presumptuous Persons , and wilful Sinners , must needs remain the great vengeance of God , and eternal punishment in Hell , prepared for the unjust and wicked Livers . The second thing which we are taught of Faith , is , That Faith is the only Principle of Good Works , acceptable and pleasing to God ; that without it can no good Work be done , accepted and pleasant unto God : for as a Branch cannot bear Fruit of it self ( saith our Saviour Christ ) except it abide in the Vine , so cannot you , except you abide in me . — And without Faith it is impossible to please God. — And whatever work is done without Faith is sin . Faith giveth life to the Soul , and they be as much dead to God , who lack Faith , as they be to the World , whose Bodies lack Souls . This is a true account why no Works , though they may appear never so good , can be acceptable to God without Faith , because Faith is the only Principle of a new and spiritual Life , which makes us alive to God , which gives us such a sense of God , and reverence for his Authority , as makes us careful in all things to please him , which is the very life and soul of Religion , and all Vertue ; and as it is observed in that Homily from St. Chrysostom : As men that be very men indeed , first have life , and after be nourished , so must our Faith in Christ go before , and after be nourished with good Works : A Life may be without Nourishment , ( that is , for some short time ) but Nourishment cannot be without Life : A man must needs be nourished by good Works , but first he must have Faith : He that doth good Deeds , yet without Faith , he hath no Life . Much to the same purpose it is observed from St. Augustine , That the intent maketh the Works good , but Faith must guide and order the intent of Man. — So that he which doth not his good Works with a godly intent , & a true Faith , that worketh by Love , the whole Body besides , ( that is to say ) all the whole number of his Works is dark , and hath no light in them : for good Deeds be not measured by the facts themselves , and so discerned from Vices , but by the ends and intents for which they were done . The meaning then of our Church is no more , but this , That whereas without Faith no man can love and reverence God , or design to please him in all things , whatever materially Good Works such men may do , yet they are not properly Acts of Religion , as not being referred to God , and therefore cannot be acceptable to God , as such , nor avail any man to eternal Life . Upon this account it is , that God so much prizes Faith , because it is the Seed and Principle of Universal Obedience : that when there is such a sincere Principle in us , and wants an opportunity of exerting it self , it is accepted by God without Works ; as is observed in the same place from St. Chrysostom : I can shew a man that by Faith without Works lived and came to Heaven , but without Faith never any man had Life : the Thief that was hanged when Christ suffered , did believe only , and the most merciful God justified him : ( though , as Bishop Davenant observes , his Faith produced a great many good Works in a very short time ) but then it follows ; If he had lived , and not regarded Faith , and the Works thereof , he should have lost his Salvation again ; but this is the effect , that I say , that Faith by it self saved him , but Works by themselves never justified any man : Where he prefers Faith above Works , because Faith being a Universal Principle of Obedience , is accepted by God without Works , when there wants time or opportunity to act them , though in no other case ; but no Works can be pleasing and acceptable to God , unless they proceed from a true and hearty Faith : Neither Faith is without Works , having opportunity thereto , nor Works can avail to everlasting Life without Faith. The third thing noted of Faith , is , What manner of Good Works Faith produces ; and the Good Works of Faith are not some external Acts of Hypocrisie , or some worthless and flattering Devotions , not some Arbitrary Superstitions , &c. but are the substantial Duties of Religion , which consist in the love of God , and of Men , which make us like to God , and useful to the World , as is excellently discoursed in the Second and Third parts of the Homily of Good Works . So that according to the sense of our Church , Justifying Faith is not an idle and unactive Principle , but is fruitful in Good Works , and no other Faith can justifie us , but such a lively Faith as abounds in all the Fruits of Righteousness , according as it hath occasion and opportunity of doing good . But to make this still more evident , I observe farther , that whereas our Church seems to lay the greatest stress upon one particular Act of Faith in the matter of Justification , viz. our trust in the Mercy of God , and our apprehending the Promise of Forgiveness through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ , she also makes a good Life , or at least a firm and stedfast Resolution of a good Life , antecedently necessary to this Justifying Act of Faith , or to our Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God , through the Merits of our Lord and Saviour : This is evident from that Reason , which is assigned , why no wicked men can have a sure Trust and Confidence in Gods Mercy : For how can any man have this true Faith , this sure confidence in God , that by the Merits of Christ his sins be forgiven , and be reconciled to the favour of God , and to be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ , when he liveth ungodly , and denieth Christ in his Deeds ? Surely no such ungodly man can have this Faith and trust in God. For as they know Christ to be the only Saviour of the World , so they know also that wicked men shall not enjoy the Kingdom of God : They know that God hateth Unrighteousness , that he will destroy all those that speak untruly , that those who have done good Works ( which cannot be done without a lively Faith in Christ ) shall come forth into the Resurrection of Life , and those that have done evil ; shall come unto the Resurrection of Iudgment : Very well they know also , that to them that be contentious , and to them that will not be obedient unto the Truth , but will obey Unrighteousness , shall come indignation , wrath , and affliction , &c. The plain meaning of which words is this , that no wicked man can have a true Faith in Gods Mercy , because the Promise of forgiveness is made upon the Conditions of Repentance and a New Life ; whereas God hath threatned eternal damnation against all wicked Livers ; and therefore for any man , while he lives in wickedness , to hope to be pardoned by God for Christs sake , is an express contradiction to the Promises and Threatnings of the Gospel , and surely no man shall be justified for believing a lie . Thus in the first part of the Sermon of Faith , the design of which is to prove , that a true , lively , justifying Faith is fruitful in Good Works , we are expresly taught , That he that believeth that all that is spoken of God in the Bible is true , and yet liveth so ungodly , that he cannot look to enjoy the Promises and Benefits of God ; although it may be said , that such a man hath a Faith and Belief to the Words of God , yet it is not properly said , that he believeth in God , or hath such a Faith and Trust in God , whereby he may surely look for Grace , Mercy , and everlasting Life , at Gods hands , but rather for indignation and punishment , according to the merits of his wicked Life . This contains the very same Doctrine which was expressed in the former Paragraph , & farther gives us an account , what distinction our Church makes between Credere Deo , & Credere in Deum ; to believe God and to believe in God : the first signifies to believe whatever is contained in the Word of God to be true , the second is to yield such Obedience to the Revelations of the Divine Will , as may encourage us to trust in God for the Accomplishment of all those gracious Promises of Pardon and Eternal Life : This is all the fiducial Reliance which our Church teacheth , to trust to the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ , for Pardon and Eternal Life , upon our faithful discharge of all Gospel-Obedience . The same Doctrine is more expresly taught , if it be possible , in the Second Part of the Sermon of Faith : Verily , verily , I say unto you , He that believeth in me hath everlasting Life : Now forasmuch as he that believeth in Christ hath everlasting Life , it must needs consequently follow , that he that hath this Faith must have also Good Works , and be studious to observe Gods Commandments obediently : For to them that have evil Works , and lead their Life in Disobedience and Transgression , or breaking Gods Commandments , without Repentance , pertaineth not everlasting Life , but everlasting Death , as Christ himself saith , They that do well shall go into Life eternal , but they that do evil , shall go into everlasting fire , &c. What can be more expresly said , to prove the inseparable Union of Good Works with Faith , in the Act of Justification ? In the Homily of Repentance this Doctrine is so plainly taught , that there can be no possible evasion : We are there told , That the true Preachers of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven , and of the glad and joyful tidings of Salvation , have always in their godly Sermons and Preachings unto the People , joyned these two together , Repentance and Forgiveness of sins , even as our Saviour Jesus Christ did appoint himself , saying , So it behoved Christ to suffer , and to rise again the third day , and that Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations . Forgiveness of sins ( as I observed before ) is Evangelical Justification , and the necessary condition of Forgiveness is Repentance : This is proved in that Homily by many Scripture-Promises and Examples , and therefore we must consider what our Church means by Repentance , and the explication of this is reduced to four principal Points : From what we must return , to whom we must return , by whom we may be able to convert , and the manner how to turn to God. First , From whence , or from what things we must return : and that is , From all our sins , not only grosser vices , but the filthy lusts and inward concupiscences of the Flesh. — All these things must they forsake , that will truly turn unto the Lord , and repent aright . For sith for such things the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of Disobedience , no end of punishment ought to be look'd for , as long as we continue in such things . But this must be done by Faith : for sith that God is a Spirit , he can by no other means be apprehended and taken hold upon . That is , God being a Spirit , we cannot see him with bodily Eyes , nor go to him on our Legs , nor take hold of him with an Arm of Flesh , and therefore this Metaphor of returning to God , and going to him , and taking hold of him , must be expounded to a spiritual sense , is the work of Faith , which discovers him who is invisible , and unites our Souls and Spirits to him . And , We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto him , who for our sins is angry with us ; the same is Jesus Christ , who being true and natural God , &c. took our nature upon him , that so he might be a Mediator between God and us , and pacifie his wrath . In the second part of the Homily , we have this general Description of Repentance , That it is a true Returning unto God , whereby men forsaking utterly their Idolatry and Wickedness , do with a lively Faith embrace , love , and worship the true living GOD only , and give themselves to all manner of good Works , which by Gods Word they know to be acceptable unto him . And we are there informed , That there are four Parts of Repentance , the first is Contrition of the Heart : For we must be earnestly sorry for our sins , and unfeignedly lament and bewail , that we have by them so grievously offended our most bounteous and merciful God , &c. The second is an unfeigned Confession and acknowledging of our sins to God. The third is Faith , whereby we do apprehend and take hold upon the Promises of God , touching the free pardon and forgiveness of our sins , which Promises are sealed up unto us , with the death and blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Reason of this , is , because Contrition and Confession will avail us nothing , unless we stedfastly believe , and be fully perswaded , that God for his Son Jesus Christs sake , will forgive us all our sins ; for though we be never so earnestly sorry for our sins , and acknowledge and confess them , yet all these things shall be but means to bring us to utter desparation , except we do stedfastly believe that God our heavenly Father will for his Son Jesus Christs sake pardon and forgive us our Offences and Trespasses , and utterly put them out of remembrance in his sight : therefore they that teach Repentance without Christ , and a lively Faith in the Mercy of God , do only teach Cains , or Iudas Repentance : That is , they teach men to be sorry for their sins , without any hopes of Pardon and Forgiveness , which is only to be obtained through our Lord Jesus Christ. The fourth part of Repentance is an amendment of Life , in bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance : for they that do truly repent , must be clean alter'd and changed , they must become New Creatures , they must be no more the same that they were before : As appears from Iohn the Baptists Exhortation to the Scribes and Pharisees , whereby we do learn , that if we will have the wrath of God to be pacified , we must in no wise dissemble , but turn unto him again with a true and sound Repentance , which may be known and declared by good Fruits , as by most sure and infallible signs thereof . This I think is as plain as words can make it , that Repentance , which consists in a hearty sorrow for all our sins , and in a humble Confession of them to Almighty God , and in a sincere Faith and Trust in the Mercies of God through our Lord Jesus Christ , together with an actual amendment of our lives , is according to the sense of our Church absolutely necessary to obtain the pardon of our sins , that is , Iustification by the free Grace of God. This has often made me wonder , that any one should affix such a Doctrine as this to the Church of England , That Repentance it self is not antecedently necessary to our Iustification ; I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant was of another mind in this point , for he expresly asserts , that there are some Works , sine quibus Iustificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta , nunquam obtinebitur , without which Justification never was , and never shall be obtained by any mortal man ; , , among which he reckons true Repentance and Faith , and the love of God and of our Neighbour : Haec & hujusmodi opera cordis interna sunt omnibus justificatis necessaria , non quod contineant in se efficaciam seu meritum Iustificationis , sed quod juxta ordinationem divinam vel requiruntur , ut conditiones praeviae seu concurrentes , sicuti poenitere & credere , vel ut effecta à fide justificante necessario manantia , ut amare Deum , &c. i. e. These and such-like internal Works of the Heart are necessary to all that are justified , not that they are meritorious Causes of Justification , but because according to the Divine Appointment , they are required either as previous or concurring conditions , such as Repentance and Faith ; or as effects , which necessarily flow from a justifying Faith , such as to love God , &c. Where this Learned Prelate doth expresly assert , that Repentance , as well as Faith , is a previous Condition of our Justification ; and I fear will hereafter be accounted one of our Innovators . And that distinction , which the Bishop makes between those Works which are required as previous Conditions of Justification , as to repent and believe ; and those Works which are necessary Effects of justifying Faith , which must always be present in the justified Person , as to love God , &c. gives a plain and easie answer to the grand Exception against the antecedent necessity of Repentance to our Justification : viz. Because then it must precede Faith it self , ( I suppose because every true Believer is actually justified in the first instant of his being a true Believer ) whereas all good Works , ( and therefore Repentance and Contrition , which are certainly good Works ) are the Effects and Fruits of Faith , and so consequently must follow our Justification by Faith , unless we will place the Effects before their Cause : But this is absolutely false , that all good Works are the effects and fruits of justifying Faith : for there are some good Works which are essential to justifying Faith , and it is not justifying Faith without them , such as Repentance and Contrition , without which no Faith is a true justifying Faith ; and therefore we may observe in our Homilies , that sometimes Faith is made an essential part of Repentance , sometimes Repentance is made essential to a justifying Faith , as appears from what I have discoursed above . The reason of the mistake is this , That these men do not distinguish between the general notion of Faith , and Iustifying Faith ; Faith in general , as it signifies a belief of the Being and Providence of God , and the Truth of the Scriptures , &c. is necessary to produce any good Actions , for without Faith it is impossible to please God ; but this bare Assent of the Understanding is not justifying Faith , till it excite in us a hearty sorrow for our sins , and sincere purposes of a New Life , and a great Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God , through our Lord Jesus Christ : So that Repentance , and the Purpose of a New Life , are at least essential to justifying Faith , and not the fruits and effects of it ; but the actual performance of these Vows and Promises , and the faithful discharge of our Duty to God and Men in a holy and blameless Life , may be called the effects of justifying Faith , not that they are not as necessary to a justifying Faith as Repentance is , but because our Justification is begun without them , ( God in infinite Grace and Mercy receiving us into favour upon our first return to him ) though these good Works must necessarily follow , to compleat and perfect our Justification , as it is expresly observed from St. Chrysostom in the Homily of Good Works , concerning the Thief upon the Cross , that if he had lived and not regarded Faith , and the Works thereof , he should have lost his Salvation again . And in this sense we are told in the Homily of Salvation , That Faith doth not shut out the justice of our Good Works , necessarily to be done afterwards , ( that is after our Justification ) of Duty towards God. And upon the same account our Church in her XII Article teaches us . That Good Works are the Fruits of Faith , and follow those who are Iustified . And this gives an easie and plain account of the XIII Article of our Church , which rejects those Works which are done before Justification , that is , before a Iustifying Faith , as is plain from the Article : Works done before the Grace of Christ , and the Inspiration of his Spirit , are not pleasant to God , forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Iesus Christ ; neither do they make men meet to receive Grace or ( as the School-Authors say ) deserve Grace of Congruity , yea rather , for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done , we doubt not but that they have the nature of Sin. The plain meaning of which is this , That Works done before Justifying Faith are not pleasing to God ; that is , whatever Works we do before we repent of our sins , and purpose to live a New Life , and trust in the Mercy of God , and Merits of our Saviour for Pardon and Acceptance , cannot please God , because such are not Good Works : for when we reject Works done before Justification , we must not reject Justifying Faith it self , nor any thing which is necessary and essential to it , for then we run our selves into such a Labyrinth , out of which we shall never find a way . And indeed I find that some men are very sensible what weight our Church lays upon the necessity of Repentance in order to our Justification , and use some little Arts to avoid it : for that Description of Faith which is given us in the first part of the Sermon of Faith , concluding thus : We do trust that our offences be continually washed and purged , whensoever we repenting truly do return to him with our whole heart , stedfastly determining with our selves through his Grace , to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments , and never to turn back again to sin : Which maks Repentance of our sins , and a sincere and stedfast purpose of a new life , antecedently necessary to the justfying Act of Faith : they use this evasion , that the Homily adds , [ Whensoever we repenting return to him ] either with respect to future sins , to the forgiveness of which we all acknowledge Repentance to be necessary , or else to distinguish a saving from a counterfeit and sudden Faith , not as if true Evangelical Repentance had any influence upon the very Act of Iustification , as Faith has . The first account is the strangest , that ever I met with ; for there can be no imaginable reason assigned , why Repentance should be necessary to obtain the Pardon of those sins , which we commit after Justification , and not necessary to our first Justification : I am sure neither the Scripture , nor the Articles and Homilies of our Church , nor the Confessions of any Reformed Churches , which I ever yet saw , ever made such a distinction . The Commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles , was to preach Repentance and Forgiveness of sins in his Name , to the unconverted and unjustified Jews and Heathens ; and both the Homilies of our Church , and the Augustan-Confession , do in express words found the Doctrine of Repentance upon that first Commission given to the Apostles , and do thence conclude the necessity of Repentance in order to Forgiveness : for since Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins , a repeated Forgiveness is but a repeated Justification of a Sinner , and why that should be necessary to the after-acts of Justification , which was not necessary to the first , is beyond my Understanding . The second account is much better , that it is to distinguish between a saving and a counterfeit Faith : but then this very distinction confirms the antecedent necessity of Repentance to Justification : for the difference between a saving and counterfeit Faith , according to this Account , is , that a saving Faith supposes Repentance , or includes it in its very nature , but a counterfeit Faith does not : as for what they add , that Evangelical Repentance hath not such an influence upon our Justification , as Faith has , is none of our present dispute ; if it be but acknowledged to be antecedently necessary , we will consider the rest hereafter . And now it is time to proceed to the last thing I proposed , to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the matter of our Justification : And to state this matter plainly , I shall first enquire , in what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying , and attributes it to Faith alone . And secondly what the Office of Faith is in the Justification of a Sinner . First , In what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying , and attributes it to Faith alone . And it is easily observed , that our Church acknowledges the antecedent necessity of some Works to our Justification , as we are expresly taught in the first part of the Sermon of Salvation : And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance , Hope , Love , Dread , and the Fear of God , to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified , but it shutteth them out from the Office of Iustifying : So that although they be all present together in him that is justified , yet they justifie not all together . So that no man must expect this great Blessing of Justification , unless together with Faith , he have Repentance , Hope , Love , Dread , and the Fear of God : which supposes , that a man must be a true Penitent , and a true Lover of God , before he is justified . Though Repentance and Hope , &c. have no actual influence upon our Justification , yet they are causae sine quibus non , such causes without which the effect will never follow , which necessarily intitles them to the nature of Conditions : for a Condition which hath no natural or meritorious Efficiency , is only a causa sine quâ non : and though it is true , that the accidental presence of one thing with another , which produces any Effect , will not entitle it to any degree of Efficiency , yet where there is such a natural Union between two things , that neither of them can act alone , though the effect may more immediately belong to one than to the other , yet they both concur to it : though the hand does immediately apprehend any thing , or lay hold on it , yet the Shoulder and the Arm is naturally necessary to produce this action , because the Hand cannot move of it self : And if they will allow us this similitude , ( which they themselves sometimes use ) that Good VVorks be the Shoulder and Arm that upholds Faith , we will allow Faith to be the Hand . And thus it is in Moral Causes , where the presence of two things , of Faith suppose , and Works , is necessarily required in order to the same Effect , there must be a concurrence of both , though it may be in different manners : When our Church asserts the necessary presence of some internal Graces and Vertues together with Faith , in him who is to be justified , she plainly acknowledges that we shall never be justified without them , though not for them , which is all that any one desires , who denies and rejects the Merits of Good Works . And as these internal Acts of Repentance , Hope , &c. are antecedently necessary to Justification , so Good Works must necessarily follow , as we are taught in the same place : Nor the Faith also doth not shut out the Iustice of our Good Works , necessarily to be done afterwards of Duty towards God ( for we are most bounden to serve God in doing Good Deeds , commanded by him in his holy Scripture all the days of our Life ) but it excludeth them , so that we may not do them to this intent , to be made good by doing of them : that is , to be justified by them . And this we are taught is so necessary , that unless these Good Works follow , as the necessary Fruits of Faith , we shall loose our Justification again , as you heard above . In what sense then does our Church reject good Works , and attribute our Justification to Faith alone ? And that we are told over and over in the most plain and express words ; that it is only to take away the Merit of Good Works , and to attribute our Justification to the free Mercy of God , and Merits of Christ , not to our own Works and Deservings . Hence it is that Justification by Works is so often opposed to our Justification by the Mercy of God , and the Merits of Christ , which are inconsistent in no other sense , but that of Merit : for though Good Works be supposed the necessary Conditions of Justification , yet if they be acknowledged so imperfect as not to merit , we shall still need the Merits of Christ to expiate our sins , and the Mercy of God to pardon them , and to accept of our imperfect Services . But the words of the Homily are very express , where after alledging the concurrent Testimonies of the ancient Fathers , for Justification without Works , by Faith alone , we have this Explication given of them : Nevertheless this Sentence , that we be justified by Faith only , is not so meant of them , that the said Justifying Faith is alone in man , without true Repentance , Hope , Charity , Dread and Fear of God , at any time and season ; nor when they say we be justified freely , they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle , and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward : neither they mean not so to be justified without Good Works , that we should do no Good Works at all : But this saying , that we be justified by Faith only , freely , and without Works , is spoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works , as being unable to deserve our Justification at Gods hands , and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of Man , and the goodness of God , the great infirmity of our selves , and the might and power of God , the imperfectness of our own Works , and the most abundant Grace of our Saviour Christ , and therefore wholly to ascribe the Merit and Deserving of our Justification to Christ only , and his most precious blood-shedding . Hence for a man to be justified by his own Works , is expounded as if we should affirm , That a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins , and so justifie himself : That is , when they reject Justification by Works , they understand by it a meritorious Justification . Thus in the third part of the Sermon of Salvation , we are expresly taught , That the true meaning of this Proposition or Saying , We be justified by Faith in Christ only ( according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors ) is this : We put our Faith in Christ , that we be justified by him only , that we be justified by Gods free Mercy , and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only , and by no vertue or Good Works of our own , that is in us , or that we can be able to have , or to do , for to deserve the same , Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof . This is so expresly the Doctrine of the Homilies , that I need not multiply Testimonies for the proof of it ; from whence it is evident , that our Church owns the necessity of Good Works to all intents and purposes , excepting Merit , and in this sense they reject Faith too , as it is our own Work. But now because our Church , and all the Reformed Churches , expresly reject Works in the matter of Justification under the notion of Merit and Deserving , in which sense alone they are injurious to the Grace of God , and the Merits of Christ ; from whence we argue , that they own the necessity of Works upon all other Accounts , and reject only the Merit of them : Some tell us , that we should rather argue , that they put no difference between Works and the Merit of Works , in the matter of Justification , but equally reject them both : But pray why so ? Truly for no Reason that I know , but that it best serves their Hypothesis . They acknowledge , that there is a difference between Works and the Merit of Works , but will by no means own , that St. Paul , or any of the Reformed Churches made any : which is not very honourably said of them , that they should make no difference , where there is one : which argues either a great deal of ignorance , or meer Sophistry . But pray why do they think so ? Why because St. Paul always opposes our Justification by Works , whatever they are , to Justification by Grace ; and therefore by Works he must understand the Merit of Works , because only Merit is opposed to Grace : So we say too , but what follows from hence ? That the Apostle rejects all Works , though they are separated from the notion of Merit ? This is to make the Apostle argue very absurdly , that because he rejects Works , when they are inconsistent with Grace , therefore he should reject Works , when they are not inconsistent with Grace , as by this Argument they are not , when they are separated from the notion and opinion of Merit . And what they add , That it is plain , that the Apostle excludes all sorts of Works , of what kind soever , from our Justification , is very true , but then they are all sorts of Meritorious Works ; that is , such a perfect , legal , unsinning Righteousness , as needs not the Grace and Mercy of God , not such an Evangelical Righteousness , as ows its acceptance to the Grace of God , and the Merits of Christ. The only Argument they have to prove that the Church of England , and all the Reformed Churches , make no difference between Works , and the Merit of Works , is because where-ever they reject Justification by Works , they expresly mention their Merit and Deserving ; which is the best Argument that can be , that they do make a difference , otherwise there had been no need of that Explication , especially when they assert the necessity of Good Works upon all other accounts , as our Church expresly doth . In the third part of the Sermon of Salvation , we find these words : Truth it is , that our own Works do not justifie us , to speak properly of our Iustification , ( that is to say ) our Works do not merit or deserve Remission of our sins , and make us of unjust , just before God : What need had there been of this Explication , to speak properly of Iustification , that is to say , to merit and deserve , if our Church had apprehended no difference between Works and Merit , between a proper and improper Justification by Works ? I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant makes a great difference between the necessity of Works , and the Merit of Works , in the Justification of a Sinner : for in answer to that Question , Utrum bona Opera dici possint ad Iustificationem vel Salutem necessaria ? Whether Good Works may be said to be necessary to Justification or Salvation ? In his first Conclusion he tells us , that in dispute with the Papists it is not safe to say so , because they always by necessary , understand necessary as Causes , vera & propria sua dignitate meritorias humanae salutis , which by their own proper worth and dignity merit Salvation : What need had there been of this Caution , if the necessity of Good Works to Justification , and the Merit of Works , had been the same ? In the fourth Conclusion he tells us , That no Good Works are necessary to Justification , if by necessary we understand sub ratione causae meritoriae necessariae , as necessary meritorious Causes . And in the fifth Conclusion he expresly tells us , Bona quaedam Opera sunt necessaria ad Iustificationem , ut conditiones concurrentes , vel praecursoriae , licet non sint necessaria , ut causae efficientes , aut meritoriae ; That some Good Works are necessary to Justification , as previous or concurring Causes , though not as efficient or meritorious . So that it seems , that this distinction between the Necessity and Merit of Works , was known and defended by the great Patrons of our Church ; and we have no reason to think , that when our Church does so expresly reject Works only under the notion of Merit , she understood no difference between Necessity and Merit . And I find in an ancient Book , intitled , Reformatio legum , Ecclesiasticarum , which was composed by Archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr , and some other Bishops and Learned Men of this Church , by the Authority of King Edward the Sixth , that where they give an account of those Heresies , which ought to be suppressed , all they say about Justification , is no more but this , Deinde nec illi sunt audiendi , quorum impietas salutarem & in sacris Scripturis fundatam Iustificationis nostrae doctrinam oppugnant , in qua tenendum est , non operum momentis Iustitiam hominum collocari : i. e. Neither must we hearken to them , who impiously oppose that saving Doctrine of Justification , which is founded on the Scriptures , concerning which we must believe , that the Righteousness or Justification of Men does not depend on the Merits of their Works . So that they only reject the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification . The Confessions of Foreign Reformed Churches are as plain and express in this matter , as the Homilies of our Church . In the Apology for the Augustan-Confession we are told , That good Works are not pretium , nec propitiatio propter quam detur remissio peccatorum : They are not the price nor the propitiation for our sins . And the reason they assign , why they oppose Justification by Works , is , because it detracts from the Glory of Christ , and sets up our Works in competition with Christ , utrum fiducia collocanda sit in Christum , an in opera nostra , Whether we should put our trust in Christ , or in our own Works : which can be understood only in that sense of the Merit of Works , and is no Argument against Works , when they are subordinate to the Merit and Grace of Christ. But not to trouble my Readers with many quotations , I shall add but one more , which is their Answer to that Objection from St. Iames , who expresly says , That we are justified by Works , and not by Faith only : Si non assuant adversarii suas opiniones de meritis operum , Iacobi verba nihil habent incommodi , &c. If our Adversaries would not annex their own opinions concerning Merit of Works , there is no inconvenience in St. Iames his words . So that they were not shy of this expression , of being justified by Works , so men would not imagine , that their Justification were owing to the Merit of Works ; which is no less than a demonstration , that they made a distinction between VVorks and Merit , in the matter of Justification . But there is one very surprizing Argument to prove that there can be no difference between Works and Merit , in the matter of Justification ; and it is this : That if we be justified by Works , without respect to their Merit , then we may as well be justified by Works of an indifferent nature , which have no intrinsick worth and goodness in them , as by the most real and substantial Righteousness ; for take away Merit , and it is all one what the nature of the Work be : Now the only difficulty of framing an Answer to this Argument , is to find what there is to be answered : To be justified by Works without Merit , if any men phrase it so , can signifie no more but this , that God for Christs sake forgives the sins , and accepts the Persons of those , who though they be guilty of many Infirmites , yet do heartily and sincerely endeavour to please him , and by the practise of a real Righteousness do every day aspire after a greater likeness to him ; now the question is , Why ( since these men do not merit such favours ) should God prefer them before those , who busie themselves in some external Rites and Ceremonies , or Judaical Observances , which have no real Goodness in them ▪ And I can give no other account of it , but that it is for the same reason , for which God prefers an Evangelical before a Ceremonial Righteousness ; and if there be no reason for this ( excepting Merit ) I confess the Argument is unanswerable . Is there no reason why God should prefer the internal Habits of Grace and Vertue , which are a participation of his own Nature , and the beginnings ( though but weak and imperfect ) of a new and spiritual Life , and the best qualifications for future Glory and Happiness , before some external Rites and Usages , which have no real worth ? Is there no reason , why God should prefer the substantial Acts of Piety and Charity , which are useful to Men , and an imitation of the bounty and goodness of God , before picking up straws , and such useless and ludicrous Employments ? Is there no difference between Works which are imperfectly good , and Works which have no goodness in them ? But I think it is a Work of Supererogation , though not very meritorious , to answer such an Argument . But now in requital of this Argument against the distinction between Works and Merit , I shall give another for it , and that is , That our Church makes nothing more necessary on our part to our Salvation , than to our Justification : and therefore when she rejects Good Works from the Office of Justifying , if she intends to deny the Necessity , as well as the Merit of Good Works , she must be understood to deny the necessity of Good Works to our Salvation also , which is an express Contradiction to her declared Doctrine . There is no such distinction as this between Justification and Salvation , to be found in any of the Articles or Homilies of our Church , which is a good Argument that our Church knew no such distinction , for if she had , we cannot but think , that she would have made use of it in express terms at one time or other ; there being the same occasion for it then , that there is now . The Sermon or Homily of Justification is called the Sermon of Salvation : and these words Iustification and Salvation are promiscuously used in the Homily it self : Thus in the third part of the Sermon of Salvation , we have these words at the beginning : It hath been manifestly declared unto you , that no man can fulfil the Law of God , and therefore by the Law all men are condemned : whereupon it followeth necessarily , that some other thing should be required for our SALVATION than the Law ; and that is a true and lively Faith in Christ , bringing forth good , Works , and a Life according to Gods Commandments : Where Salvation must of necessity signifie , what at other times is called Justification ; for our Church tells us , that we cannot be saved by the Works of the Law , because we cannot fulfil the Law , which is the reason at other times assigned , why we cannot be Iustified by the Law. Because all men be Sinners , and Offenders against God , and Breakers of his Law , therefore can no man by his own Acts , Words and Deeds ( seem they never so good ) be justified and made righteous before God : Which are the very first words of the Sermon of Salvation : And what is here required for our Salvation , is the very same , which in other places our Church requires to our Justification , viz. A true and lively Faith in Christ , bringing forth Good Works , and a Life according to Gods Commandments . Thus in the first part of the Sermon of Good Works , our Church cites those words of S. Chrysostom : I can shew a man , that by Faith without Works lived & came to heaven , but without Faith never any man had Life : the Thief that was hanged when Christ suffered , did believe only , and the most merciful God justified him : this is an Example of living and going to Heaven by Faith without Works , that the Thief was justified by Faith only ; so that to be justified by Faith , and to live and go to Heaven by Faith , it seems are equivalent expressions , as appears also from what follows : And because no man shall say again , that he lacked time to do good VVorks , for else he would have done them : Truth it is , and I will not contend therein , but this I will surely affirm , that Faith only SAVED him : So that to be justified , and to be saved by Faith , still signifies the same thing ; and in the same sense wherein our Church affirms , that we may be justified by Faith only , she affirms , that we may be saved by Faith only , which therefore must not exclude the Necessity , but the Merit of Good Works ; and whenever Faith only will not justifie , it will not save neither , as it follows ; If he had lived , and not regarded Faith , and the Works thereof , he should have lost his Salvation again : That is , his Justification , as appears from the whole Discourse . The Learned Bishop Davenant certainly was not acquainted with this distinction , when he proposed that Question , Utrum bona Opera sint necessaria ad Iustificationem vel Salutem , Whether Good Works be necessary to Justification or Salvation , and answers it without making any difference between their necessity to Justification and to Salvation , which is not very reconcileable with our Modern Divinity , in which good Works are so far from being owned necessary , that they are judged dangerous and hurtful in reference to Justification , though they may be necessary to our Salvation . And indeed this distinction between Justification and Salvation was on purpose invented to mollifie some harsh expressions of later Divines , who rejected good Works and a holy Life , from having any thing to do in the Justification of a Sinner : This gave birth to the Antinomian Heresie , which wholly rejects the Law and good VVorks , and under a pretence of advancing the freeness of Gods Grace , delivers Believers from all the necessary Obligations of Duty and Obedience ; to prevent the infection of this Doctrine , they invented this distinction between Justification and Salvation ; and asserted , that though Good VVorks are not necessary to our Justification , yet they are to our Salvation ; which is as much as to say , that though our sins shall be pardoned , and our persons accepted , and accounted perfectly righteous , and have an actual Right and Title to future Glory without Holiness and Obedience , yet we shall never have an actual Possession of Glory , but upon the condition of an holy Life ; which were it true , would be a greater blemish to the VVisdom and Justice of God , than the necessity of Holiness to our Justification , can be to the freeness of his Grace . Having explained in what sense our Church rejects Good VVorks from the Office of Justifying , viz. That nothing which we can do is so perfect as to merit and deserve Justification , it is time to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the Justification of a Sinner , and upon what account she affirms , That Faith only justifies : And I cannot better explain this , than in the words of the Homily it self , which are these : Truth it is , that our own Works do not justifie us , to speak properly of Iustification , ( that is to say ) our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins , and make us of unjust just before God : But God of his own Mercy through the only Merits & Deservings of his Son Iesus Christ doth justifie us . Nevertheless because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins , and that by Faith given us of God we embrace the Promise of Gods Mercy , and of the remission of our sins , ( which thing none other of our Vertues or Works properly doth ) therefore Scripture useth to say , That Faith without VVorks doth justifie ; and forasmuch that it is all one Sentence in effect , to say Faith without Works , and only Faith doth justifie us : therefore the old ancient Fathers of the Church from time to time , have uttered our Iustification with this speech , Only Faith justifieth us ; meaning none other thing than St. Paul meant , when he said , Faith without works justifieth us . And because all this is brought to pass through the only Merits and Deservings of our Saviour Christ , and not through our Merits , or through the merit of any Vertue that we have within us , or of any Work that cometh from us , therefore in that respect of Merit and Deserving , we forsake ( as it were ) altogether again , Faith , Works , and all other Vertues . For our own imperfection is so great , through the corruption of original sin , that all is unperfect that is within 〈◊〉 , Faith , Charity , Hope , Dread , Thoughts , Words , and Works ; and therefore not apt to merit or deserve any part of our Iustification for us . And this form of speaking use we , in humbling of our selves to God , and to give all the Glory to our Saviour Christ , which is best worthy to have it . These words are so plain , that they need no comment ; and there are three things contained in them , which do evidently declare the sense of our Church in this matter . First , That our Church does not attribute our Justification to Faith , upon account of any Merit or Desert in Faith above other Vertues and Graces : for in respect of Merit and Deserving , we are taught to forsake again Faith it self , as well as Works , and all other Vertues : As our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins , no more does Faith. Secondly , That the reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only , is to declare that we owe our Justification wholly to the Mercy of God , and the Merits of Christ : That God of his own Mercy , through the only Merits and Deservings of his Son Iesus Christ doth justifie us . And thus immediately before we are told , That the meaning of this Proposition or saying , We be justified by Faith in Christ only , ( according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors ) is this , we put our Faith in Christ , that we be justified by him only , that we be justified by Gods free Mercy , and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only , and by no vertue or good VVorks of our own , that is in us , or that we can be able to have or to do , for to deserve the same ; Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof . So that whoever attributes the Justification of a Sinner wholly to the Mercy of God , and the Merits of Christ , without any other intervening Merit or Desert , though he may differ in the phrase and manner of expression , yet does acknowledge all that our Church means , by being justified by Faith only , and cannot justly be charged with deserting or opposing the Doctrin of our Church . And therefore , Thirdly , the true Reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only , and not to Justice , or Charity , or the Love of God , or any other Grace or Virtue , is this , because Faith only connects the necessity of Obedience and a Holy Life with the Mercy of God , and the Merits of Christ ; and thereby both secures and enforces our Duty , and attributes the glory of all to Free Grace , which is the great design of our Church . For Justifying Faith , according to the sense of our Church , ( as abundantly appears from what I have discoursed above ) includes in its own nature Repentance and the Love of God , and the sincere purposes of a new Life , which as opportunity serves , must actually produce all the Fruits of Righteousness ; for without this we cannot embrace the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness , which is made upon the condition of Repentance and a new Life : But then it is the proper office of Faith , when we have done our best , to depend upon the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ , to pardon our many sins and defects , and to accept and reward our imperfect services ; which attributes the glory of all not to our Merits and Deserts , but to the Grace and Mercy of God. Thus our Church tells us , that the reason why Faith only is said to justifie , is because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for Remission of our Sins , and that by Faith given us of God , we embrace the Promise of Gods Mercy , and of the Remission of our Sins , which thing none other of our Virtues or Works properly doth : That is , Justice or Charity , or any other Virtue doth not in its own nature include a dependence on the Grace and Mercy of God for its Acceptance and Reward ; and therefore should we be justified by these Virtues , considered as distinct from Faith , which alone embraces the Promise of Mercy , we must be justified by their proper Merit and Desert , not by the Mercy of God , and the Merits of Christ. But now Faith is not only an active and vigorous Principle of a new Life , but in its own nature includes a necessary dependence on the Promise of Pardon : it sends to Christ for the Remission of our sins , not immediately , for this is not the first act of Faith ; but when we have done our best , it teaches us to renounce the Merit of our own Works , and to trust in the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ for our Pardon and Reward , which ascribes the Praise of all to the Mercy of God. Upon the same account our Church tells us , that Faith doth not shut out Repentance , Love , Dread , and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified ; but yet it shutteth them out from the office of Iustifying ; so that though they be all present in him that is justified , yet they justifie not all together . Where by these good Works being joyned with Faith , and being present in him that is justified , is meant , that they are essential to a Justifying Faith , and must be present , as antecedent qualifications or conditions , without which God will not justifie us ; as appears from what I have discourst above concerning the nature of Justifying Faith , which includes Repentance and the Love of God , &c. as antecedently necessary to our embracing the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness , which is not the first , but the last and completing act of Faith : For if these good Works be not one way or other necessary to our Justification , no reason can be assigned why they should be present in him that is justified ; for Faith might then justifie alone without the Presence , as well as without the Merit and Efficacy of our good Works . And therefore when Faith is said to shut out these good Works from the office of Iustifying , that though they be all present , yet they do not justifie all together ; the design is not to deny the Necessity , but the Merit of good Works . This is plain from the Reason , which is immediately assigned , why these good Works cannot justifie , because all the good Works we can do be imperfect , and therefore not able to deserve our Iustification ; which is the constant Doctrin of the Homilies : For our Church by Justification perpetually understands a meritorious , and not a conditional Justification , and therefore whatever justifies in this sense must by its own Virtue or Merit expiate our sins , which is the reason alledged , why no man can make himself righteous ( that is , justifie himself ) by his own Works , neither in part nor in the whole , for that were the greatest Presumption in Man , that Antichrist could set up against God , to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins , and so justifie himself . SO , that is , by the Merit and Virtue of his own Works . And Faith it self considered as our own Act , hath no greater privilege upon this account , than any other Grace or Virtue ; for in respect of Merit and Deserving we forsake altogether again Faith , Works and all other Virtues . Faith does not justifie as our own Act , that is , it does not merit our Justification , as it must do , if it justifie as our own Act ; which in the sense of our Church signifies , that we do something so meritorious , as to deserve Justification at Gods hands : But now Iustification is the office of God only , and is not a thing which we render to him , ( that is , we can offer him nothing of our own to merit our Justification ) but which we receive from him , not which we give to him , but which we take of him , by his free Mercy , and by the only Merits of his dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer , Iustifier and Saviour Iesus Christ. But for this reason Faith only is said to justifie , and to shut out our own Works , and itself also considered as our own Act , from the office of justifying ; because though it strongly enforce the Necessity of good Works , yet in its own nature it excludes all opinion of Merit and Desert . For Faith has a necessary respect to the Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness , and whoever acknowledges that he ows his Justification to the Mercy of God , who for the sake of Christ pardons his Sins , and rewards his Imperfect Services ( as all those must do , who hope to be saved by Faith in the notion of our Church ) does plainly confess , that his Works are imperfect , and cannot deserve his Justification , which takes away all opinion of Merit from our selves , and attributes the glory of all to the Mercy of God , and the Merits of Christ. I shall only observe three things from this Discourse , which are very material to our present purpose . First , that our Church was not acquainted with that Distinction in the modern sense of it , that we are justified fide solâ , but not solitariâ ; by Faith alone , but not by that Faith which is alone : the meaning of which according to some Modern Divines is this , That we are justified only by that particular Act of Faith , which apprehends the Righteousness of Christ , and relies and rolls itself on Christ for Salvation , and applies his Merits and Righteousness to the Soul ; without any regard to Repentance and the Love of God , or any other Grace or Virtue : That though at the same time God infuse the habits of all Graces and Virtues into a justified person , yet in the Act of justifying , he hath no regard at all to Repentance or any other Grace ; but we are justified in order of nature before these are infused into us , and without any respect to them : And some men would willingly affix this Notion , as absurd as it is , to our Church , because she only requires the presence of these Graces and Virtues in the justified person , but shuts them out from the office of Justifying . But I have made it appear , that these words admit a better sense , and that Justification by Faith only in the modern Notion of it , so as to exclude the antecedent Necessity of Repentance , or any other internal Grace or Virtue , is contrary to the constant doctrin of our Church which requires the presence of these Graces , as antecedent conditions or qualifications , though it shut them out from being the meritorious Causes of Justification . And to confirm this , I observe secondly , that our Church doth not attribute our Justification to any particular Act of Faith : She frequently indeed inculcates the embracing of the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness , as essential to a justifying Faith ; but the reason of that is not because that particular Act justifies us , but to attribute our Justification not to the Merit of our own works , but to the Mercy of God : But she expresly affirms , that Faith doth not justifie as our own Act ; that Justification is not the office of Man , but of God ; and if we be not justified by Faith , as our own Act , much less can any particular Act of Faith ( which if it be considered as an Act , must be considered as our own Act ) justifie ; which overthrows that Instrumentality of Faith in Justification , which these men talk of : but the plain meaning of our being justified by Faith only is this , that God will pardon our sins , and reward us with eternal life , if we repent of our sins , and believe and obey the Gospel of his Son , trusting wholly in the Mercies of God , and in the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ , as it is exprest at large in the Homily : That the true understanding and meaning of our being justified by Faith without Works , or by Faith in Christ only , is this , that although we hear Gods Word , and believe it , although we have Faith , Hope , Charity , and do never so many good Works thereunto ; yet we must renounce the Merit of all the said Virtues , of Faith , Hope , Charity , and all other Virtues and good deeds , which we either have done , shall do , or can do , as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins , and our Iustification ; and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy , and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Iesus Christ the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross , to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission , as well of our Original Sin in Baptism , as of all actual Sins committed by us after Baptism , if we truly repent and unfeignedly turn to him . All this is called being justified by Faith only , which includes a renouncing the Merits and Deserts of our own Works , but first requires that we should do good Works , before we renounce the Merit of them ; and an affiance in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Forgiveness , upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life . This is all I contend for , which is the Antient Catholick Doctrin of our Church , against those modern notions of Reliance and Recumbency , or the virtue of any particular Act of Faith in the Justification of a Sinner . Thirdly , I observe , that should any man affirm in express words , that we are justified by Works as well as by Faith , meaning no more by it , than that good Works are the necessary Conditions , not the meritorious Causes of our Justification , though he would differ in the manner of expression , yet he would agree with our Church in the true notion of Justification ; whereas those who use the same phrase of being justified by Faith only , and by Faith without Works , thereby excluding the antecedent necessity of Repentance and Holiness to our Justification , though they retain the same form of words , yet renounce the constant Doctrin of our Church , and are the only Apostates and Innovators . Which may satisfie any man , how unjustly I am charged with corrupting the Doctrin of our Church , when I have only expressed the true sense and meaning of it in such words , as are less liable to be mistaken ; and how vainly my Adversaries pretend to be such Obedient Sons of the Church of England , when under an Orthodox Form of Words , they have introduced such Doctrins as are diametrically opposite to the declared sense of this Church . After this large and particular Account of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a Sinner , it is time in the second place to consider , how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day ; and how those men , whom I oppose , have corrupted the Doctrin , as well as rejected the Authority of our Church : And though I have already given sufficient Intimations of this , yet it may be of great use more particularly to shew how directly opposite these new and fantastick Notions are to the establisht Doctrin contained in our Articles and Homilies , which though it would admit of a very large Discourse , I shall comprize in as few words as may be . And first whereas our Church expresly asserts , that in the Justification of a Sinner , on Gods part is required Mercy and Grace ; Justification consisting in the free Pardon of all our sins : Mr. Ferguson ( very agreeably indeed to his own Principles ) expresly asserts , that Justification does not consist in the Pardon of sin , nor is it the result of Mercy , but the off-spring of Justice . Remission ( as he acknowledges ) is the result of Mercy , and the act of one exercising Favour ; but Iustification is the off spring of Iustice , and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity . This Notion I have examined already , and shall add nothing further for the Confutation of it : It is directly contrary to the Doctrin of our Homilies , and I hope that is Argument enough with these men , who pretend such a mighty veneration for the Antient and Catholick Doctrin of our Church . But then if any man should wonder ( as well he may ) how a Sinner should be justified in this Law-notion according to the strict Rules of Justice , that is , that a Sinner is justified , not by being pardoned , but by being acquitted and absolved , as an innocent man , who has never offended ; the account of this will farther discover what Friends they are to the Doctrin of our Church . For secondly , whereas the Church of England requires no more on Christs part , but Iustice , or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice , or the Price of our Redemption , which makes him the meritorious Cause of our Iustification , that God for Christs sake forgives the sins of true Penitents ; these men place our Justification in the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us . They tell us , that Christ as our Surety and Mediator hath fulfilled all Righteousness for us , and in our stead ; and that by being clothed with his perfect Righteousness , we are accounted perfectly righteous ; and so are justified , not as Malefactors , when they are pardoned , but as righteous and innocent men , who are acquitted and absolved . And I have already informed Mr. Ferguson , how effectually this Notion undermines the necessity of an inherent Righteousness . To be justified by the Merits of Christ , signifies no more than to be justified by the gracious Terms and Conditions of the Gospel , which is founded on the Merits of Christ , which was purchased and sealed with his meritorious Bloud : For the Merits of Christ do not immediately justifie any man , but whereas strict Justice will not admit of Repentance , nor accept of an imperfect , though sincere Obedience , God has for the sake of Christ who hath expiated our sins by his Death , entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy , wherein he promises Pardon to true Penitents ; and this necessarily requires an inherent Holiness not to merit , but to qualifie us for the Grace of God : But if we be made righteous by a perfect Righteousness imputed to us , if this will answer all the demands of Law and Justice , what need is there of an imperfect Righteousness of our own ? The Righteousness of Christ imputed to us makes us righteous as Christ is , and what need is there then of any Righteousness of our own ? which would be according to the Proverb to burn day , and to light up Candles in the Sun. Dr. Owen takes notice of this Objection , and pretends to give an Answer to it , which must be a little considered , for a little will serve the turn . And first he observes , that here is a great difference , if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own , it is only reckoned and imputed to us , or freely bestowed on us . But does not this Imputation make it ours ? How then can we answer the demands of the Law with it ? Is any thing the less ours , because it is not originally ours , but so by Gift ? And the Doctor was sensible that this Answer would not do , and therefore secondly he tells us , the Truth is , that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself , but for us . How plain are things when men will speak out ! So that now it seems this Righteousness is not so properly Christs Righteousness as ours : he had no need to fulfil all Righteousness for himself , but for us , as our Mediator and Surety : So that here can be no comparison between the Righteousness of Christ inherent in him , and imputed to us ; because it is not so much his Righteousness , as ours . But was not Christ personally righteous with this Righteousness ? Did he so fulfil Righteousness for us , that he himself had no interest in it ? Can it be inherent in him , and he not righteous by it ? And if Christ in his private capacity , as a man subject to the Law , were righteous with that very Righteousness , which makes us righteous , then we are righteous as Christ is , and not only righteous with his Righteousness , which he wrought for us , and that completely , but righteous with the very same Righteousness , that makes him righteous ; which excludes indeed all comparison , as the Doctor well observes , because we cannot so properly compare a thing with it self , but it demonstrates the Identity or Sameness of this Righteousness . And here unless I will prove my self an arrant Coward , I must accept that Challenge the Doctor has sent me to stand to that Resolution I gave in my former Discourse to that Question , What Influence the Sacrifice of Christs Death , and the Righteousness of his Life have upon our Acceptance with God ? Which signifies no more than what is meant by our being saved by the Merits and Righteousness of Christ ; and the Answer I gave to it is this , That all I can find in Scripture about it is , that to this we ow the Covenant of Grace : that God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life , and with the Sacrifice of his Death , for his sake entred into a new Covenant with Mankind , wherein he promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel . Now I would desire the Doctor to take notice , that I stand to this , and accept his Challenge , let him chuse what seconds or thirds or fourths he pleases . This Assertion ( the Doctor says ) cannot be reconciled to common Sense , or the fundamental Principles of Christian Religion . And indeed he has discovered a great many Absurdities in it , which are enough to put any man out of conceit with such a Doctrin ; for hence it follows ( if we will believe him , for we have only his bare word for it ) That God entred into a new Covenant originally only for the sake of those things , whereby that Covenant was ratified and confirmed . But how does this follow ? Did I ever affirm , that the Death of Christ did only ratifie and confirm the Covenant ? Do I not every where assert that Christs Death did procure and purchase , as well as seal the Covenant of Grace ? And I hope God may be said to enter into Covenant for the sake of a meritorious Cause . What he means by Gods originally entring into Covenant , I cannot tell , unless it be , that this was the first moving cause of Gods entring into Covenant : but this can not be attributed to the Death of Christ upon any account , but to that free Grace which first contrived the way of our Recovery , and sent Christ into the world to accomplish it . But however , does it not follow from this Assertion , That Christ was so the Mediator of the new Covenant , that he died not for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant , whereby the whole Consideration of his Satisfaction , and of Redemption properly so called , is excluded ; that there is no consideration to be had of his Purchase of the Inheritance of Grace and Glory , with many other things of the same importance . I see unless the Doctor get a very good Second , there is no great danger in accepting his Challenge : for is there any appearance of consequence in this , that because Christ by his Death purchased and sealed the new Covenant , that therefore he did not die for the Redemption of sins under the first Covenant , nor to purchase the Inheritance of Grace and Glory ? That which purchases a Covenant , purchases every thing contained in it : Now the new Covenant contains the Promise of Forgiveness of sin , and therefore whatever sins are pardoned in the new Covenant , were expiated by the Death of Christ , without which there is no Remission , and consequently could be no Promise of Remission : The new Covenant contains the Promises of Grace and Glory , and therefore Grace and Glory are as much the purchase of Christs Death , as the new Covenant is . The plain account of the matter is this , That Christ hath expiated our sins by his meritorious Death and Sufferings , and hath purchased the Pardon of sin and eternal Life ; and whatever Christ hath purchased by his Death , God hath promised to bestow on us in the new Covenant : So that the whole virtue of Christs Death is contained in the Covenant of Grace , i. e. whatever he has purchased for us by his Death is there promised , and we must expect no other benefit by the Death of Christ , than to be saved according to the conditions of the new Covenant , which signifies the same thing with being justified and saved by the Merits of Christ ; and convinces us of the necessity of inherent Holiness , which is the condition of the Gospel Covenant . The last Absurdity the Doctor has discovered in my Assertion , argues him to be a man of a very deep reach ; That the Gospel or the Doctrin of the Gospel is the new Covenant , which is only a perspicuous Declaration of it : Now suppose this were never so great an Absurdity , how am I concerned in it ? when I expresly say , that the new Covenant ( let it be what it will ) is owing to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ : Though it is a mighty subtil Distinction between the new Covenant , and the perspicuous Declaration of it ; which is like distinguishing between a Law or Contract , and the Words whereby it is expressed : How easie is it for such nice Metaphysical Wits to find or make Absurdities in any thing ! But to proceed , I observe thirdly , that whereas our Church attributes our Justification to such a Faith as comprehends in its notion Repentance and the Love of God , and all internal Graces and Virtues , and a sincere purpose and resolution to reform our Lives and external Conversation , and makes all this absolutely necessary to our Justification ; these men on the contrary attribute our Justification to a particular Act of Faith , which they call a fiducial Reliance or Recumbency on Christ for Salvation , abstracted from Repentance or the Love of God , or any othe Grace or Virtue . And this I confess is very agreeable to their notion of Justification by the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us ; for if we are made righteous only by being clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ , nothing more can be required of us in order to our Justification , but to apply the Righteousness of Christ to our selves , which they tell us is done by coming to Christ for Salvation , by receiving Christ , by resting and relying and rolling on Christ : There is no use of Repentance or Charity or the Love of God in this affair , for they cannot apply the Righteousness of Christ to us . If we come to Christ for Righteousness , we must come without any Righteousness of our own : And yet it is hard to understand how this fiducial Reliance on Christ can apply his Righteousness to us ; a confident Persuasion that Christ is ours may make a fanciful application of his Righteousness to us , but a mere Reliance on Christ makes no application , but only signifies a Hope , that it shall be applied : And if they will be true to their Principles , that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us , which is God's act , whereby he applies the Righteousness of Christ , I cannot understand how we can be justified by applying his Righteousness to our selves by Faith , which , if it have any sense , must signifie our imputing the Righteousness of Christ to our selves ( for the Righteousness of Christ can be applied to us only by Imputation ) which makes our Justification our own Act , and not Gods : For it is as absurd to the full to say , that Faith is an Instrument in doing that which is intirely Gods act , or that our Imputation of Christs Righteousness to our selves is an Instrument of Gods imputing his Righteousness to us . And then it is worth considering which of these two Imputations must go first ; if we apply , that is impute , the Righteousness of Christ to our selves before God has imputed it , this is a false Confidence and Presumption ; if God imputes it first , then we are actually justified , and there needs no Imputation or Application of Faith to make this Righteousness ours : all that can be said in this case , is what the Antinomians affirm , that we are first justified before we believe , and that Faith is only a Sign or Evidence , not an Instrument of our Justification . But to let pass the Absurdities of this Doctrin , every one may perceive how different this notion is from the sense of the Church of England , which does not attribute our Justification to Faith as our own Act , much less to any particular Act of Faith ; but by Justification by Faith only intends no more than that God will pardon our sins , if we repent of them , and reform our Lives , and trust in the Mercies of God through the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ : according to the sense of our Church , the sole object of our trust is the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ , and therefore the proper Act of Faith is to embrace the Promise of Pardon upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life ; we must first repent of our sins , and reform our Lives , and then rely on the Mercy of God for our Pardon and Reward . But according to this new Divinity , the sole object of our trust and reliance is the perfect and personal Righteousness of Christ , which shuts out the Mercy of God , and the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ , and the Promises of Pardon , and the necessity of an inherent and personal Righteousness , as abundantly appears from what I have discourst above . But fourthly , whereas our Church makes Christ only the meritorious cause of our Justification , but still requires on our part Faith and Repentance and the Love of God , as antecedent conditions of our Justification , these men found all our hopes of Justification immediately on the Person of Christ. Every good Christian hopes to be justified and saved by Christ , but not to be immediately saved by Christ , i. e. by a bare Union to his Person , but by believing his Gospel and obeying his Laws , which are necessarily required on our part to give us an Interest in his Merits and Righteousness : but to assert that nothing is necessary to our Justification , but to apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves by a fiducial Reliance and Recumbency , is to place our hopes immediately in the Person of Christ , which is the foundation of Antinomianism . For this reason among others , I charged them in my former Discourse with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Gospel , and making a new Religion of the Person of Christ distinct from and contrary to the Religion of his Gospel . For the Gospel requires a great many previous conditions to entitle us to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ , as that we must repent of our sins and reform our Lives , and become new Creatures , and then God will pardon and reward us for the sake of Christ ; but if an immediate Application of the Righteousness of Christ to our selves by a fanciful and Enthusiastick Faith will make all Christ ours , this makes all the conditions of the Gospel void and useless , and sets up the Person of Christ and his Personal Righteousness instead of his Laws and Religion . The Gospel attributes the Pardon of our sins , and the Acceptance of our imperfect Services to the virtue and efficacy of Christs Sacrifice and Righteousness , and thus we are made righteous by Christ , as by a meritorious Cause : But in this way the Righteousness of Christ must serve instead of a personal and inherent Righteousness , which makes us so innocent , that we need no Pardon , and so perfectly righteous , that we merit a Reward . This I take to be the grand Miscarriage in these mens Divinity , which indeed is the foundation of Antinomianism ( though the mistake be very taking and popular , which makes an opposition to it very odious ) that whereas Christ is our Life and our Righteousness , our Wisdom and Power , and the Author of all spiritual Blessings , but does not dispense these Blessings immediately to us , but in such ways and methods , and upon such terms and conditions , as are prescribed and declared in the Gospel ; these men send us immediately to the Person of Christ for Life and Righteousness , for Beauty and Comliness , for Grace and Wisdom , and for the supply of all our spiritual wants , which shuts out his Gospel and Religion , or makes it wholly useless ; and let but Dr. Owen stand to what he asserts in his Vindication : We do not imagin , but believe from the Scripture , and with the whole Church of God , that we receive Grace and Salvation from the Person of Christ , in those distinct ways , wherein they are capable of being received ; if by that he means , such ways as are prescribed in the Gospel , and I declare , I have no controversie with him about this matter . Thus for instance Christ is our Righteousness ▪ as he is the meritorious cause of the Pardon of our sins , and the Acceptance of our sincere but imperfect services ; but the way to be made righteous by Christ , is not immediately to go to Christ for Righteousness , with all our sins and impurities about us , to be cloathed with his perfect and personal Righteousness , but to repent of our sins and to believe and obey the Gospel , and then we shall be pardoned and rewarded for Christs sake . Thus Christ is our Wisdom , as he has reveled those hidden Treasures of the Divine Wisdom , which were conceled from former ages , but we must not go immediately to the Person of Christ for this Wisdom , but we must search for it in the Gospel , where it is reveled ; and beg those divine Assistances , which are necessary to enlighten our minds , and to bless our Studies and Enquiries . Thus we must receive all supernatural Aids and Assistances from Christ to renew and sanctifie our Natures , and to make us holy as God is , Christ hath by his Death purchast the Gift of the Holy Spirit for those who believe : but we must not expect to receive these vital Influences from Christ by such a natural conveyance as water flows out of a fountain , or as the animal Spirits are communicated to the Members of the natural Body ; but we must consider and meditate , and affect our minds with all the Motives and Arguments of our Religion , and derive strength and power from the consideration of Christs Death and Sufferings , and Resurrection , and Ascension into Heaven , and Intercession for us at Gods right hand , &c. to mortifie our Lusts , and to transform us into a Divine Nature : We must read and pray , and watch and fast , and communicate at the Lords Table , and by these means put our selves under the guidance and conduct of the Divine Spirit , who will never fail to do his part , when we are so diligent in doing ours : But a bare trust and reliance on the Person of Christ will not entitle us to his Divine Aids , no more than a presumptuous Dependence on the Providence of God will secure a slothful man from want and beggery . Christ is the fountain of all spiritual life , but we must not look on this as a personal Grace in Christ , which must be immediately derived from his Person ; but as an act of Goodness and Power in the Administration of his spiritual Kingdom , which is therefore dispensed in such regular ways , that every one that pleases may certainly know how to obtain it , and that no man must expect it any other way . But now those Persons whom I oppose , if we may judge of their meaning by their words , send sinners immediately to Christ for Life and Righteousness , for Wisdom and Power , &c. and make all these personal Graces , which must be derived immediately from the Person of Christ , when indeed they are no other than the effects of his Prophetical , Priestly or Regal Offices , in publishing the Will of God to us , or in expiating our Sins , or in governing his Church , and dispensing his Grace in such ways and methods , as he has prescribed in the Gospel . And therefore as I observed in my former Discourse , they have either found out a new Person for Christ distinct from his Godhead and Manhood ; or which comes to the same thing , have drest up the Person of Christ with such personal Graces as do not belong to his Person as God-Man , but are the effects of his Mediation . And here the Doctor and Mr. Ferguson , and the rest of my Opponents raise a great cry , and tell the world , that what I charge them with as a Fault , that they have found out a Person for Christ distinct from his Godhead and Manhood , they think not to have done it , would have been as far from Wit , as Truth ; because the Person of Christ is of a distinct consideration from his Godhead and Manhood : And here they Philosophize at large concerning the Notion of Suppositum and Persona and Hypostasis , and are glad with all their hearts to find an occasion to avoid the true Question . Now I readily grant , that this was not warily exprest , to prevent the cavilling humor of those men , who have no other way to escape , but by taking Sanctuary in such Retreats : though what I immediately add was sufficient to inform them what I meant by it , had they any mind to understand it , that they distinguish the Person of Christ as Mediator , from his Person as God-Man ; and cloath this Person with such personal Graces , as belong neither to his Divine nor Human Nature , nor to the Union of both . Thus they talk of the Fulness and Riches , and Beauty and Loveliness , and Righteousness , and Wisdom and Power , and Grace and Mercy of Christ , as personal Graces , inherent in him , and derived immediately from his Person to us , whereas I made it appear by a particular examination of those Scripture-phrases , that all this is attributed to Christ , either with respect to his Doctrin , or Sacrifice , or Mediation and Intercession for us ; that they are the effects of his several Offices , not properly the Graces of his Person , unless they will make his Mediatory Office a distinct Person : And therefore we must expect to receive the Communications of his Fulness or Riches , or Righteousness , or Grace or Wisdom , not from a bare Union to his Person , but by believing and obeying his Gospel , and in the conscientious use of such means as God hath appointed for the conveyance of Grace , and the Communication of all Spiritual Blessings to us . This I called dressing up the Person of the Mediator with all those Personal Graces and Excellencies , which may make him a fit Saviour , that those who are thus united to his Person , need not fear missing of Salvation : This the Doctor thinks prophane , because the Preparation of the Person of Christ to be a fit and meet Saviour for Sinners , which I prophanely compare to the dressing up of — ( of what , good Sir ? Speak out , and let us know the worst ) is the greatest , most glorious and admirable effect that ever infinite Wisdom , Goodness , Power and Love wrought and produced , or will do so to eternity . Very right ! God's fitting Christ to be a meet Saviour for Sinners , was an admirable effect of Wisdom and Power ; but this new Dress , they have put our Saviour into , contains the greatest Mystery of Iniquity and Antinomianism , that ever was invented ; and I hope it is no Prophaneness to reprove such an uncouth Metamorphosis of our Saviours Person . And here once for all , I shall desire my Readers to taken notice of their great Artifice in perverting my Words either into Prophaneness or Non-sense ; that whatever I speak against that odd and Phantastical Representation which they make of the Person of Christ , they interpret as spoken against Christ himself God-Man ; which is just as if a man , who argues against a false and absurd Notion of a Deity , should be charged with Atheism , or with Blasphemy against God. And that no man may any longer think that this Religion of Christs Person , as it is distinguisht from the Religion of his Gospel , is a peculiar Conceit and Invention of my own ( as the Doctor would fain persuade his Readers it is ) I shall now make it appear , that this Distinction between the Person and Gospel of our Saviour is so far from being imaginary , that it is the very foundation of Antinomianism . Thus the Antinomians lay the foundation of their Religion in winning and wooing People unto Christ , and therefore tell us , that St. Paul , who had an excellent faculty this way , observes what doth most effectually take with people to beguile their Spirits , and with a kind of Craft to catch their Affections , and that accordingly he meets with every thing , that is most enamouring and taking with people . Thus far Dr. Crispe and Dr. Owen very well agree in placing the great Mystery of Religion in winning and wooing People unto Christ : though St. Paul tells us , that the Ministers of the Gospel are Embassadors of Christ , beseeching the People in Christs stead to be reconciled unto God : So that Christ and his Embassadors woo for God , but Antinomians woo altogether for Christ , to win people to the Person of Christ. Let us then consider what course they take thus to woo and win people unto Christ : Now if by this wooing people to Christ , they understood no more than to persuade men to embrace the Faith and Religion of Christ , the proper way to effect it were to prove the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation made by Christ , to represent the Excellency of his Religion , how easie and advantageous his Commands are , how perfective of our Nature , and how necessary to dispose and qualifie us for future Happiness , to set before them those Rewards , which Christ hath promised to those who obey him , and those severe threatnings , which he hath denounced against the Workers of Iniquity ; and to confirm them in the belief and expectation of all this , by the consideration of the Incarnation , Death ; and Sufferings of the Son of God , who died to expiate our Sins , and to purchase Pardon and Eternal life for all true Penitents , and rose again from the dead and ascended into Heaven to intercede for us , to dispence the influences of his Grace , to raise us to a new and spiritual life here , and at the last Day to raise our dead bodies out of the dust , and to reward us with Immortality and Glory : And then we may argue from the love of our Crucified Saviour to perswade men to live to him , who died for them . These and such like Arguments are very powerful to perswade men to be Christians , but this is not the way of wooing for Christ : You must with a holy guile catch peoples affections , and make them fall in love with the Person of Christ , and therefore you must describe his Personal Graces and Excellencies , and consider what is most enamouring and taking with the People : Thus for instance , The World is mightily taken with Beauty , with compleatness of Person ; Oh , saith one , let me have a beautiful person , it is no matter how poor : Well then , Christ is a rare piece , for such is the beauty of Christ , that there is no beauty like his : He is the Image of the invisible God , the brightness of his Glory , and the express Image of his Person : And Mr. Watson could have furnished him with a great many other irrefragable proofs of Christ's beauty and loveliness , though , I think , the Doctor had too much wit to have made use of them . But besides Beauty , some persons look for Linage , what a Stock a person is of : Well if this will take , then there is no Stock like this of Christ : he is of the greatest House in the world , The First-begotten of all Creatures ; He comes of that great House of God himself . He is not a Younger Brother in this House neither , for he is the First-begotten of the House , that is a great matter among persons to marry the Heir of the Family ; nay , he is the Only-begotten of the House , there is never another in all the Family , and that is a great encouragement ; so that if men go all the World over , to find a Match in the Noblest House , they will never meet with such a one as this of the Son of God : which exactly agrees with Mr. Vincent's reasoning to perswade young Women to chuse Christ for their Husband . Well , but if he be poor after all , I shall live but poorly with him : But Christ is rich in Treasure too , it pleased the Father , that in him should all fulness dwell : He hath the whole World to dispose of , and therefore Gold and Silver are not to be compared to him ; which Notion Mr. Brooks hath excellently improved in his Riches of Christ. Thus to conclude , You have a Proverb , That Batchelours Wives , and Maids Children must be rare Creatures ; that is , their fancy will devise what kind of one they will have , and what kinds of perfections they desire : Let the fancy devise what kind of perfections it can to please sense , Christ shall really out-strip in perfection all these fancies , more than a Substance doth out-strip a shadow . This is the great Mystery of Antinomianism ( which some of our Modern Divines call the Mystery of the Gospel , and the only spiritual Preaching of Christ ) to attribute every thing immediately to the Person of Christ , which is spoke of him , either with respect to his Gospel , and Revelations , or his Propitiation and Sacrifice , or his Mediation and Intercession for us , as to give some few instances of it . Thus it is a great Gospel truth , That Christ is the way to the Father , that he is the way , the truth , and the life , both as he instructs us in the way to life and happiness , how we may please God and save our Souls ; and as he is our Mediator and High Priest , by whom we have access to God : But then this requires , that we study his will , and live in obedience to his Laws , that we may have an interest in his Mediation , and may with a humble confidence put up our Prayers to God in his name : Whereas the Antinomians , agreeably enough with the Divinity of this last Age , make Christ such a way as excludes every thing else , even his Laws , and Religion , Evangelical Righteousness and Holiness from being the way ; Christ himself , and nothing but Christ , though in a subservency and subordination to him , can be the way . Thus Dr. Crisp tells us , That Christ is the only way to free sinners from the guilt of sin ; which is true in a sober sense , that Christ only makes attonement for our sins , but in the Doctors Divinity Christ is so the only way , that nothing else but Christ is required to this , neither Repentance nor Evangelical Righteousness . The Gospel holds forth the Lord Christ , as freely tendring himself to people , considering people only as ungodly persons receiving him ( that is , taking him for their own , to be justified and saved by him ) you have no sooner received him , but you are instantly justified by him , and in this Iustification you are discharged from all the faults that can be laid to your charge . And his Argument to prove this , is the same with Mr. Ferguson's , He was made sin for us ; here you see plainly our sins are so translated to Christ , that God doth reckon Christ the very Sinner ; nay , God doth reckon all our sins to be his sins , and makes him to be sin for us ; And what is the fruit of this ? We are thereby made the righteousness of God in him ; if we be righteousness , where is our sinfulness to be charged upon us ? And he adds , Many think there is such a kind of sinfulness , that is a bar to them , that though they would have Christ , yet there is not a way open for them to take him . Beloved , there is no way of sinfulness to debar thee from coming to Christ , if thou hast a heart to come to him , and to venture thy self with joy against all objections into the bosome of Christ to discharge thee of all thy sinfulness . And the Mystery of this he immediately explains , The truth is , men doat upon the establishing of their own righteousness to bring them to Christ , and it is but presumptuous or licentious Doctrine , That Christ may be their trust , and they receive him , and they considered simply ungodly as enemies . Now one Egg is not more like another , than this Doctrine is like what we find in M. Shephard , Watson , and D. Owen , as evidently appears from those many passages cited from them in my former discourse . Thus to proceed , Dr. Crisp observes , That Christ is a free way to all sorts of persons , none excepted , none prohibited ; for a Drunkard , for a Whore-master , for a Harlot , an enemy to Christ. Or in Dr. Owens Phrase , For the greatest , the oldest , the stubbornest transgressour : And what Dr. Owen pleads for himself , that he only represented such grace in Christ as should encourage all sorts of persons to come to him , will serve Dr. Crisp as well as himself : For he expresly adds , Do not mistake me , I do not say , Christ is a free way to walk in him , and yet to continue in such a condition ; but for entrance into him Christ is as free a way for the vilest sort of sinners as for any persons under heaven : That is , the worst man in the world may have as good an interest in Christ for Justification and Eternal life as the best ; but when Christ has got him , he will make him good . Of which more anon . Thus Christ is a near way to the Father : he brings the Father unto men , and becomes such a way , as that there is but one step from the lowest condition of sinfulness to the highest of being the Son of God ; That is , he who receives Christ , though , at that instant of receiving him , he be the greatest sinner in the world , yet in the next moment is the Son of God , and perfectly innocent and righteous with the righteousness of Christ , and heir of eternal life . And to take notice but of one passage more ; Christ is a spacious , large , elbow-room way : When a man enters into Christ , he enters into liberty and freedom . But how is it said then , Srait is the gate , and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life ? Answer ; By the straitness of the way is not here meant strictness of conversation : But it is strait and narrow in this regard , that all a mans own righteousness must be cut out of the way ; it must be so narrow that there must be nothing in the way but Christ ; which is exactly parallel with Dr. Owen's chastity of our affections to Christ , in not taking any thing ( as our own righteousness ) into our affections and esteem for those ends and purposes , for which we have received Christ ; that is , not to contribute any thing to our Justification or Salvation . This is the effect of making the Person of Christ in contradistinction from his Laws and Religion , the immediate way unto the Father . It were easie to give numerous instances of this nature , but these may suffice to satisfie any intelligent man , that all those precious and charming discourses of the Beauty , and Loveliness , and Fulness and Riches , and Righteousness of Christ , and of wooing and winning Souls to Christ , as they are managed by these men , are as formal hypocrisies , as Iudas his Salutation of his Master when he betrayed him ; for the plain design is to advance his Person to the prejudice of his Laws and Religion ; whoever sends sinners immediately and directly to the Person of Christ for Righteousness , and Justification , and Eternal life , without first requiring Repentance , and the Love of God , and at least the sincere purposes of a new life to entitle them to Grace and Mercy , are down-right Antinomians ; whoever place the Essence of a justifying Faith in a meer fiducial reliance on Christ , and a fancifull application of Christs Righteousness to themselves , place all their hopes immediately on the Person of Christ , which is to make a new Religion of Christ's Person in opposition to his Gospel . But fifthly , I observe farther , That the Church of England makes Repentance , and the Love of God , and the sincere purposes of a New life antecedently necessary to our Justification , as appears from what I have discoursed above ; but these men absolutely deny , that Repentance , or the Love of God , or any other internal Grace or Vertue , are necessary to our Justification by the Righteousness of Christ ; but that we are justified before and without them , at least in order of nature . There are none of them indeed deny , that those who are justified ought to live holily ; but yet they assert , that God hath no regard to Repentance and Holiness in the Justification of a sinner , but that all these follow our Justification , as the effects and fruits of it . God justifies the ungodly in a proper sense , while they are ungodly , but whom he justifies he sanctifies too , and makes them holy . Now if any man should enquire , what great difference there is between these two , since the necessity of Holiness is universally acknowledge ; I answer , the difference is just as much as between the necessity of an Event , and the necessity of Duty , which , I think , is a very material difference in matters of Religion ; to place Holiness after Justification as a necessary effect and consequent of it , acknowledges the necessity of Holiness , as to the Event , that those who are justified shall be sanctified ; but it destroys the necessity of Duty , and undermines all the Arguments to a Holy life : God may sanctifie us if he pleases , by an irresistible and uncontroulable Power , but there is no necessary Argument left to induce us as free Agents to purifie our selves , and to co-operate with the Divine Grace ; which makes the whole Gospel , and all the External Ministeries of Religion useless , the great design of which is to furnish us with such cogent and perswasive Arguments , as by the concurring assistance of the Divine Grace may effectually bow our Wills , and govern our Affections , and transform us into a Divine Nature : If we are justified without Repentance and a New life , if God accepts our Persons as Just and Righteous only for the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us , and this gives us an actual Title to Life and Immortality ; what reason can there be assigned so cogent , as to conquer our love to Sin , when there is no Argument to work either upon our Hopes or Fears ? The Hope of Heaven , and the Fear of Hell , are the great Motives of the Gospel , but are of no use in this new Religion , since a justified Person ( who yet may be very wicked ) is in no danger of Hell , and is secure of his Inheritance in Heaven : For if a justified person may miss of Heaven , and fall into Hell , his Justification is worth nothing , a man had as good be Unjustified , as to perish with his Justification : And therefore though God , if he pleases , may sanctifie whom he first justifies , yet there is no Argument left to perswade a justified person to be holy , if he may be justified without it . This I particularly shewed in my former Discourse , where I examined Dr. Owens Reasons for the necessity of Holiness , which either prove nothing , or prove only the necessity of Event , that God will necessarily make men holy ; not such a necessity of Duty , as will make every considering man , who hath any value for his Soul , freely chuse Holiness . But instead of answering what I there urged , the Doctor in his * Vindication transcribes a long Paragraph concerning the necessity of Holiness , and leaves it to the judgment of his Readers , which I must needs say was very boldly done , if he thought his Readers had any judgment ; though it argued more craft to give me a fresh challenge , as if I had yet said nothing to him . The Doctor only takes notice of two or three things which I answered to his Reasons for the necessaty of Holiness , and passes over all the rest as unanswerable scoffing , which is his way to call that scoffing , which he cannot answer . As first he proved the necessity of Holiness from the command of God , which had been a good Argument had it been used by another man ; but the Doctors Notion of Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ only , evacuates this command , and therefore I enquired , where is the Sanction of this Law ? will he damn those , who do not obey , for their disobedience ? And will he save and reward those who do obey for their obedience ? Not a word of this , for this destroys our Iustification by the Righteousness of Christ only . And if , after all these Commands , God hath left it indifferent whether we obey or not , I hope such Commands cannot make Obedience necessary . This last Clause the Doctor recites , and cries out , Wonderful Divinity ! A man must needs be well acquainted with God and himself , who can suppose that any of his Commands shall leave it indifferent whether we will obey them or no. This I confess is wonderful Divinity ; but I know no reason the Doctor should wonder at it , because it is his own : For such indifferent things he makes all the Divine Commands , while he makes them unnecessary to our Justification , which quite destroys their Authority , and Sanction : For a Law ( if it may be so called ) without Rewards and Punishments is left at the liberty of the Subject to obey it or not ; and such a Command cannot make Obedience necessary . But the Doctor proceeds , But may we not , notwithstanding this Command , be justified and saved without this Holiness ? Wherein he designs to represent my Sense , though he have changed the words , and answers , false and impertinent , we are neither justified nor saved without them , though we are not justified by them , nor saved for them : This is warily expressed , but will not serve his purpose , for by our not being justified without Holiness , he means no more , than that God at the same time , when he justifies , infuses the Habits of Grace and Holiness , renews and sanctifies us too , and therefore we cannot be said to be justified without Holiness , because we are justified and sanctified at the same instant , though in order of nature we are Justified before we are Sanctified , and therefore in our Justification God had no respect to any sly Antecedent Holiness , which , as to the present Dispute , is the same thing as to be Justified without Holiness . The Doctor professes it as his avowed Doctrine , That Holiness and Obedience is neither the Cause , Matter , nor Condition of our Iustification , and therefore not Antecedently necessary : And expresly tells us , That the Passive Righteousness of Christ only is imputed to us in the non-imputation of Sin , and that on the condition of our Faith and new Obedience , so exalting them into the room of the Righteousness of Christ , is a thing which in Communion with the Lord Iesus , I have as yet no acquaintance withal . And a little before : Are we then freed from this Obedience ? Yes ; But how far ? From doing it in our own strength , from doing it for this end , That we may obtain Life Everlasting . It is vain , that some say confidently , that we must yet work for Life ; it is all one as to say , That we are yet under the Old Covenant , Hoc fac , & vives , we are not freed from Obedience , as a way of walking with God , but we are as a way of working to come to him : So that Holiness contributes nothing to our Justification , and Eternal life , and therefore we may as well be justified and saved without them , which destroys the Necessity and Sanction of the Divine Laws , and leaves it at every mans liberty to Obey , or not to Obey , were they not over-ruled , like spiritual Machines and Engines , by an irresistible Power . In the next place the Doctor proves the necessity of Holiness from the Ends of God in Election and Redemption ; God Elected us , and Christ Redeemed us , that we might be holy . This is a very good Argument too , if it be rightly managed , but that it can never be upon the Doctors Principles ; that is , if we deny the Antecedent necessity of Holiness to our Justification : For if God have absolutely Elected us to Eternal Life without any condition required on our part , only purposing to make those holy by an irresistible Power , whom he hath Elected ; this only proves the necessity of the Event , that those who are Elected shall be holy , but can be no Argument to engage any man to press after Holiness : For this Election to Holiness doth not make Holiness necessary on our part with the necessity of Duty , or of a Condition , without which we shall not be saved , but only makes it necessary on Gods part as to the regular execution of his Decree of Salvation . And the same may be said of Redemption ; if we are so absolutely Redeemed by the Death of Christ , as to have a right to all the benefits of it as Justification and Eternal Life , without any condition required on our part . If we are justified freely by the Grace of God , through the Redemption which is in Christ Iesus , without any regard to Repentance or New Obedience to qualifie us for this Grace , then our Redemption by Christ cannot make it a necessary Duty in us to be holy , though Holiness may follow as a necessary Effect . This I expressed in fewer words , but to the same sense in my former Discourse . Will the Father Elect , and the Son Redeem none but those who are holy , and reject and reprobate all others ? Doth this Election and Redemption suppose holiness in us ? Or is it without any regard to it ? For if we be Elected and Redeemed without any regard to our being holy , our Election and Redemption is secure whether we be holy or not . And so this cannot make Holiness necessary on our parts , though it may be necessary on Gods part to make us holy , but that is not our care . This last Clause , wherein the strength of the Argument lay , the Doctor omits , as not knowing what to answer , but as for the rest , cries out , Wonderful Divinity again . Methinks he should consider , whose property it is so much to wonder : But what is the reason of this wonder ? Why , We are Elected and Redeemed with regard unto our own Holiness , that is , Antecedently to our Election and Redemption , for Holiness , being the Effect and Fruit of them , is that which he opposes : But , pray Sir , where do I oppose this ? Or what occasion had I to oppose it in this place ? My enquiry is only whether Election and Redemption include any necessary condition on our part , without the performance of which we cannot lay claim to the benefits of them , and whether Holiness be that Condition ; if they do not , then our Election and Redemption can be no Argument on our part to live holily , though it may be a sufficient reason for God to make us holy : If they do , then indeed Election and Redemption are a very necessary reason , why we should live holily , but such a reason as the Doctor dares not own . Another reason , which he assigned for the necessity of Holiness , is , That it is for our peace , by it we have Communion with God , wherein peace alone is to be enjoyed : This is a very good Argument also in it self considered ; for if Holiness be the only way to enjoy peace and Communion with God , there is an absolute necessity for every man , who consults the peace of his Mind , and the safety of his Soul , to be holy , as God is : But this is not reconcilable with his darling Notion of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ only , without any regard to our Holiness and Obedience ; for if we may be Justified without any respect to Holiness , our Personal Righteousness cannot be necessary to our peace with God , any more than it is to our Justification ; for all justified persons are in a state of peace and reconciliation with God. And besides this I made it appear by two large quotations out of his Book of Communion , that at other times he rejected our own Righteousness and Obedience , and founded our Peace with God and Communion with him wholly and entirely on Christ , and Justification by his Righteousness . Here he expresses some indignation , that I would offer to frame the appearance of a contradiction between what he saies on the one hand , that there is no Peace with God to be obtained by and for sinners , but by the Atonement , that is made for them in the Bloud of Iesus Christ , with the Remission of Sin and Iustification by Faith , which ensue thereon ; and the necessity of Holiness and Fruitfulness in Obedience to maintain in our own Souls a sense of that peace with God , which we have being justified by Faith. Now though we should ( to bring him into a good humour again ) put the Controversie upon this Issue , that our Peace with God is only to be obtained by the Atonement made by Christ , and Justification by the imputation of his Righteousness , but that the sense of this Peace with God is owing to Holiness and fruitfulness in Obedience , yet I cannot see how to reconcile them : For if nothing more be necessary to put us into a state of Peace and Friendship with God , but the Atonement and Righteousness of Christ , and we know , that this alone , and nothing else can do it ; How can our own Obedience and Righteousness , which we know can contribute nothing to our Peace with God , be necessary to give us a sense , that is , the knowledge of our Peace with God ? And therefore the Antinomians very agreeably to their own Principles , which are the very same with the Doctor 's , do reject our own Righteousness as well from being the Signs and Evidences , as the Cause and Matter of our Peace with God : And the Doctor and his Friends make Sanctification such a lame and imperfect Sign , that we had as good have none , as I have largely shewed in my former Discourse . And though we should suppose Holiness to be a very good Sign and Evidence of our Peace with God , yet this only makes Holiness necessary as a Sign , not as our Duty : It may be necessary on our part to our present Comfort , not to our future Happiness . And yet after all the Doctors swaggering , I cannot understand that his words will bear this sense : For in the first place he brings in a man enquiring after such a Righteousness , as may be a sure foundation of hope and comfort , and may settle and compose his mind with respect to a future judgment , and shews the various ways men take in order to this : That some labour to correct their Lives , amend their ways , perform the Duties required , and so follow after Righteousness according to the Prescript of the Law : And in this Course do many men continue long with much perplexity , sometimes hoping , oftner fearing , sometimes ready to give quite over , sometimes vowing to continue , ( their Consciences being no ways satisfied , nor Righteousness in any measure attained ) all their days . So that here he rejects Holiness and Obedience , correcting our Lives , amending our Ways , performing Duties , from being able to give us a comfortable sense of our Peace with God , this can by no means allay our Fears , and satisfie our Consciences ; and I think no man , who is a Christian , who ever heard of Christs dying for our sins , can understand this in any other sense , than that our Holiness and Obedience is wholly useless , not only to expiate our sins ( which every Christian knows to be the work of Christ , and the Effect of his Death and Sufferings ) but to maintain any comfortable sense of the Pardon of our sins , and the Love of God in our Souls . I am sure he says the very same thing , and assigns the very same reason for it which Dr. Crispe does , and therefore there is some cause to think that they were of the same mind . The Reasons Dr. Owen assigns , why there is no hope , no satisfaction of Conscience in correcting our Lives , and performing Duties , are first , That men have already sinned , and therefore there is a score and a reckoning upon them already , which they know not how to answer for by their after Obedience : That is , their Righteousness , though never so perfect , cannot expiate past Offences . Thus Dr. Crispe to the same purpose tells us , The Christ is he that saves the Soul , Christ is our Peace-maker ; that is ; by his Expiation and Atonement . And as Christ is this Peace-maker , so all this Peace depends upon Christ alone : Beloved , if you will fetch your Peace from any thing in the world but Christ , you will fetch it from where it is not . Dr. Owen's second Reason is , That if all former Debts should be blotted out , yet they are no way able for the future to fulfil the Law , they can as well move the earth with a finger as answer the perfection thereof . Thus Dr. Crispe in the very same manner ; Men forsake that peace , which is to be had in Christ , when they would have Peace out of Righteousness of their own . These are broken Cisterns , and what Peace is there in them ? Who can say I have washed my hands ? If there be sinfulness in them , where then is their Peace ? &c. Fetch Peace where it is to be had , let subduing of Sin alone for Peace ; let Christ have that , which is his due ; it is he alone that speaks Peace . To the same purpose I produced another passage out of the Doctor 's Book of Communion , where he asserts , That all our wisdom of walking with God consists in our acquaintance with Christ ; which is not very reconcilable with what he says in this place , that Holiness is necessary to our Peace , and Communion , and walking with God : upon which account I had before charged him , with making Christ a medium of Communion and Agreement between God and bad men , while they continue so ; to which he only answers according to his huffing way , that it is flagitiously false : Let the indifferent Reader then be judge between us : He describes the distance between God and Men in a state of nature , and how impossible it is they should walk together : For God is light , and in him is no darkness at all ; we are darkness , and in us there is no light at all . He is Life , a living God , we are dead , dead sinners , dead in trespasses and sins ; He is Holiness , and glorious in it , we wholly defiled , an abominable thing ; He is Love , we full of hatred , hating , and being hated ; surely this is no foundation of agreement , or upon that of walking together : What course then must we take to come to an agreement with God , that we may walk with him ? Must we reform our Lives , and lay aside our Opposition to God , and return to our Duty and Allegeance ? Not a word of this ; The Doctor only directs us to Dr. Crispe's near way , wherein there is but one step from the lowest degree of sinfulness to the highest of being the Sons of God. For he immediately adds , The foundation then of this agreement is laid in Christ , hid in Christ ; He , saith the Apostle , is our peace , he hath made peace for us , he slew the enmity in his own body on the Cross : So that there is nothing but Christ comes between men in a sinful natural state , and a holy God to make up the difference ; and therefore they are in Communion with God , and in a state of agreement with him by the interposition and mediation of Christ while they are wicked : And if the Doctor reply , That Christ , who takes away the distance between God and Sinners , and makes peace between them , does at the same time make those , who were wicked , holy . Dr. Crispe himself asserts as much , and yet this does not alter the case , for ( according to this way ) in order of nature they are in a state of agreement with God before they are holy , and Holiness in its own nature contributes nothing to this Agreement , but is only the Effect of it : And by the same reason , that God can be reconciled to wicked men continuing so for one moment , he may be so for ever . But to proceed , The Doctor proves the necessity of Holiness with respect to Sanctification , we have in us a New Creature , 2 Cor. 5. 17. This New Creature is fed , cherished , nourished , and kept alive by the fruits of Holiness . To what end hath God given us new hearts , and new natures ? Is it that we should kill them , stifle the Creature , that is formed in us in the Womb ? That we should give him to the old man to be devoured ? To this I answered , The Phrase of this is admirable , and the reasoning unanswerable ; for if men be new Creatures , they will certainly live new Lives , and this makes Holiness absolutely necessary by the same reason , that every thing necessarily is , what is , when it is ; but still we enquire after a necessary Obligation to the practice of Holiness , and that we cannot yet discover . To this the Doctor replies , That the new Creature , whatever I may fancy , is not a new conversation , nor a living holily , but it is the Principle and spiritual ability produced in Believers by the power and grace of the Holy Ghost , enabling them to walk in newness of Life , and holiness of Conversation . And this Principle being bestowed on us , wrought in us , for that very end , it is necessary for us , unless we will neglect and despise the Grace , which we have received , that we walk in Holiness , and abound in the fruits of righteousness , whereunto it leads and tends . Let him answer this if he can , and when he hath done so , answer the Apostle in like manner , or scoff not only at me , but at him also . What Apostle the Doctor means I cannot tell , unless it be some Gnostick Apostle and Teacher of Holiness ; and I can as little guess , what he would have me answer in all this : I agree with him about the nature of the New Creature , if he only mean , that a New Creature is not made up only of External Acts of Holiness , but is a new Principle of spiritual life , the Internal Habits of Grace and Vertue wrought in us by the concurring assistances of the Grace of God : but how does this make Holiness necessary ? Yes , says the Doctor , it is necessary we should live holily , unless we will neglect or despise the grace of God , which was bestowed on us for this very end ; that is , unless we will live wickedly , which , I confess , is a demonstration , we must live holily unless we live wickedly , which is the whole force of this answer , if it have any : For suppose we should neglect and despise the grace of God ; What then ? Why , truly nothing : the necessity of Holiness ceaseth , unless you can shew some very great danger in doing so , that we shall lose our Justification and Salvation by it ; and then the necessity of Holiness does not result from the nature of the new Creature , but from the great danger of living wickedly , because Holiness is Antecedently necessary to obtain the Pardon of our Sins , and Eternal Life , which the Doctor dares not own . But I would fain know what he means by neglecting or despising the Grace of God , is it to resist the grace of God , and to make it ineffectual ? And can the grace of God be resisted ? Can it fail of its Effect ? This is to assert a moral , a Pelagian grace , as the Doctor often tells me : If this new Creature , this new Principle of grace in us , produce the fruits of Holiness by a free and voluntary choice , from Principles of reason and moral perswasion , together with the supernatural assistances of grace , then it cannot it self be an argument of the necessity of Holiness , but does it self stand in need of such Arguments from the necessity and advantages of Holiness , as shall effectually incline and determine it to a constant and vigorous practice of Holiness : And if this new Creature produce the fruits of Holiness by a necessity of nature , meerly by the natural , or rather supernatural force and energy of Grace , then indeed it makes Holiness necessary , as a necessary cause makes a necessary Effect , and the Doctor need not fear , that this new Creature should be starved for want of being fed and cherished with the fruits of Holiness . And indeed this is a kind of Pelagian fear too , that the new Creature should perish for want of being kept alive by the fruits of Righteousness ; for all Orthodox Divines use to assure us , that the new Creature can never die ; that the least spark of grace will live in the midst of a whole Sea and Ocean of corruption . However upon the consideration of the whole it appears to be an excellent Argument to prove the necessity of Holiness , that we must abound in the fruits of Holiness to keep the new Creature alive in us , whereas the life of the new Creature is necessary to produce these fruits of Holiness : A Tree must be alive to bring forth fruit , and its bringing forth fruit is a sign that it is alive , but the fruit it self contributes nothing to the life of the Tree : Acquired Habits are owing to exercise , but an infused Principle of life in the Doctors way can neither owe its being , continuance , nor increase to External Acts : I am sure in other cases the Doctor is very much against working for life . And I can imagine no reason why he should be for it now , but that it is absurd and senseless . And to make the most of this Argument that may be , the whole result of it is this , that we must live holily , that we may be holy ; we must abound in the External fruits of Holiness , that we may preserve an inward Principle of Holiness , for a new Creature in the Doctors account is no more : But if the question be proposed , what need there is of this new Creature , as well as of the fruits of it ( which ought to be taken into consideration when we enquire after the necessity of Holiness , unless he thinks Holiness a meer External thing ) I doubt in his way he can find no good reason for it ; unless he will say , that a new Creature is necessary to produce the fruits of Holiness , and the fruits of Holiness are necessary to feed and cherish the new Creature , and so they may be necessary for each other , but for ought yet appears might both be spared . I know not whether the Doctor will think all this an answer , but I am pretty confident ( as young men are apt to be ) that other men will. This is all our Author returns to those Objections I made against his reasons for the necessity of Holiness , the rest he passes over as unanswerable scoffing ; that they are unanswerable I am verily perswaded , whether they be scoffing , let others judge ; however whether they be scoffing or not , any one will perceive , that in this Argument I may securely scoff at the Doctor , without any danger of scoffing at any true Apostle . But though the Doctor have done with me , I have not thus done with him ; since at all turns he can talk of nothing less than Apostles , I shall acquaint the World to what Apostles he is nearest related , such as Dr. Crispe , Saltmarsh , and other Antinomian Apostles , who are to the full as Orthodox in this Point as our Author , and assign the same reasons for the necessity of Holiness , and take the same method to secure the Prerogative of Christ , and of Free Grace : which I shall make appear by particular instances . Dr. Owen pretends to be a great Friend to Holiness , and so does Dr. Crispe . He tells us , That he does not speak against Holiness and Righteousness , that becomes a people to whom Christ is a way , for holy and righteous they shall be ; Christ will make them holy , and pnt his Spirit into them , to change their hearts , and work upon their Spirits . And therefore as Dr. Owen takes care to assign the Righteousness of Christ its proper place , and Gospel Obedience its place , so does Dr. Crispe . Thus Dr. Owen tells us , We do by no means assign the same place , condition , state , and use , to the obedience of Christ imputed to us , and our Obedience performed to God , if we did they were really inconsistent . And thus Dr. Crispe assures us , that the consequence of his Doctrine is not to take men off from Obedience , but to take them off from those ends which they aim at in Obedience , namely the end for which Christs Obedience serves . It doth take men off from performing duties to corrupt ends , and from the bad use they are apt to make of Idolizing their own Righteousness . Our own Righteousness is good in its kind , and for its own proper uses , but then it proves a fruit of sin , ignorance , and a dangerous stumbling block , when we go about to establish this Righteousness of ours , so as to bring it into the room , and stead , and place of Gods Righteousness . So far all is well on both sides ; let us consider then , what those ends are , for which the Righteousness of Christ must serve , and which must not be attributed to our Righteousness . Dr. Owen in the same place enforms us , That those who affirm , that our Obedience is the condition or cause of our Iustification , do all of them deny the imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto us ( in his Notion , he should have said , for otherwise it is not true . ) The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us , as that on the account whereof we are accepted , and esteemed righteous before God , and are really so , though not inherently . Our own Obedience is not the Righteousness whereupon we are accepted and justified before God , although it be acceptable to God , that we abound therein . There is a necessity of good Works notwithstanding we are not saved by them , and that is , that God has ordained , that we shall walk in them . And Dr. Crispe speaks the very same thing : It will be worth the while to consider , when our Righteousness is said truly to be established in the room and stead of the Righteousness of God : viz. When men make their own Righteousness the Sanctuary and Refuge that Gods righteousness only should be . As when men have such imaginations as these , as long as men do not mend , there is no hope that God will mend . They that put deliverance from sin and wrath upon the spiritual performance of that Righteousness , which the Law doth command of them , they do put that Righteousness in the room and place of the Righteousness of God. It is most true , that all the Righteousness of man cannot prevail with God to do us good , there is but one mover of God , the man Christ Iesus , who is the only and sole Mediator . If you will have your own Righteousness to be your Mediator with God , to speak to God for you , to prevail with God for you , what is this , but to put your Righteousness in the room and place of Christ ? Which is the very same with what Dr. Owen affirms , That our Righteousness can contribute nothing to our acceptance with God. And if you will have Dr. Crispes sense in fewer words : It is as much as to say , Our standing righteous by what Christ hath done for us , concerns us in point of Iustification , in point of Consolation , , and in the business of Salvation , we have our Iustification , we have our Peace , we have our Salvation only by the Righteousness Christ hath done for us . They are both you see agreed in attributing our Justification and Salvation entirely to the Righteousness of Christ ; and as for Peace and Consolation the only difference is , that Dr. Owen sometimes attributes it to Christ , and sometimes to Holiness , but Dr. Crispe is always consistent with himself and his own Principles ; and yet this difference is so very small , that Mr. Saltmarsh undertakes to compound it , and to allow Christians of a lower form to fetch their comforts from Holiness , as a mark and evidence , though a very uncertain one . And now they are agreed about the place of Christs Righteousness , they cannot differ about the place and use of Obedience ; for whatever does not belong to the Righteousness of Christ may be very safely attributed to the Righteousness of man. Thus for instance , the Reasons assigned by Dr. Owen for the necessity of Obedience are , First , The Soveraign Appointment and Will of God , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . Thus Dr. Crispe tells us , That one end of our good works is a manifestation of our Obedience and Subjection to God. that is our Obedience to the Soveraign will and appointment of God ; and therefore he professes , I speak not , Beloved , against the doing of any Righteousness according to the will of God revealed , let that mouth be forever stopped that shall be opened to blame the Law , that is holy , just , and good , or shall be a means to discourage people from walking in the Commandments of God blameless . Dr. Owen's second Reason is , That Holiness is one eminent and special end of the peculiar dispensation of Father , Son , and Spirit , in the business of exalting the glory of God in our Salvation . It is a peculiar end of God's Electing love , the Son 's Redeeming love , and it is the very work of the love of the Holy Ghost . To the same purpose Dr. Crispe ( though not so particularly ) tells us , that the end of good Works is , The setting forth of the praise of the glory of the Grace of God : That is , of the Grace of God in Electing , of the Grace of Christ in Redeeming , and of the Grace of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying . But thirdly Dr. Owen tells us That Obedience is necessary with respect to the end of it , and that whether we consider God , our Selves , or the World. First , The end of Obedience with respect to God is his glory and honour ; So says Dr. Crispe too , That the end of good Works is the actual glorifying of God in the World , that our services may glorifie God , that is , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . Secondly , The ends assigned by Dr. Owen with respect to our selves , are Honour , Peace , and Usefulness . The first of these I do not find Dr. Crispe mention ; because I suppose he might think it a greater honour to be cloathed with the perfect Robes of Christs Righteousness , than with the rags and patches of our own . The second he rejects , as Dr. Owen sometimes does , and ought always to do , if he would be true to his own Principles . The third he owns , but refers it to its proper head , where it ought to be placed , the end of holiness with respect to others , in doing good in the World , and being profitable to men . That we may serve our Gentration , according to the Apostle's charge , that men study to maintain Good Works , because saith he , these things are profit able unto men . There is this usefulness of our Righteousness , that others may receive benefit by it , Let your light so shine before men , that they seeing your good Works may glorifie your Father which is in heaven , which compriseth Dr. Owen's ends of Conviction and Conversion , and the benefit of all , for it must be confessed , that Dr. Crispe hath not so good a faculty , as Dr. Owen , in making distinctions without a difference . Dr. Crispe indeed will by no means allow , that our own Righteousness can keep off Judgments either from our selves , or from other men , as Dr. Owen would have it , but thinks , that God can be moved only by the Righteousness of Christ , and that if we must trust wholly in the Righteousness of Christ for our deliverance from future punishments , we may as reasonably trust him for present deliverances . But to proceed with Dr. Owen , Fourthly , Holiness is necessary with respect to the state and condition of justified persons , for they have a new Creature in them , which must be nourished and kept alive by the fruits of Holiness . Now though Dr. Crispe was never guilty of talking at this absurd rate , yet he says that which is more intelligible , and wherein the true force of this reason , if it have any , must consist , viz. that Holiness is necessary as it hath a necessary cause , a renewed and sanctified nature infused into Believers by Christ. Thus he affirms , That there is no Person is a Believer , and hath recieved Christ , but after he hath received Christ , he is created in this Christ to good works , that he should walk in them . He that sprinkleth them with clean water , that they become clean from all their filthiness , puts also a new Spirit into them , and doth cause them to walk in his Statutes , and Testimonies . And the Doctor honestly confesses , that the only security against the evil consequences of his Doctrine is the power and efficacy of the Grace of God in bridling mens corrupt Passions . That the same Christ , who hath born the wrath of the Father , and the effects thereof , the same Christ doth take as strict an order to restrain and keep in the Spirit of a man , as to save that man. This is the true and clear way of arguing ( according to these Principles ) from the state of a Justified person , because such a man is Sanctified too , and must live holily . And fifthly , Dr. Owen assigns another reason of the necessity of Holiness . That it is necessary with respect to the proper place of Holiness in the New Covenant , as God hath appointed , that Holiness shall be the means , the way , to Eternal life ; though it be neither the cause , matter , nor condition of our Iustification , yet it is the way appointed by God for us to walk in for the obtaining of Salvation . The meaning of which is , not that Holiness contributes any thing either to our Justification , or Salvation , but that God has ordained , that he will first sanctifie men , before he will save them : This is the method God hath designed in the execution of his Decrees , that he will first justifie , and then sanctifie , and then save and glorifie . Now all this Dr. Crispe will readily own : For he asserts , that Christ will take care to sanctifie those whom he justifies . And that our Righteousness is useful , as it is the Ordinance of God , wherein the Lord hath appointed to meet with us , and wherein he will make good those things , which before he hath promised ; which is all that can be meant by Dr. Owen's way , which is neither the cause , nor matter , nor condition of our Justification , nor of our Salvation neither , as he elsewhere tells us , that we must not work for Everlasting life . And therefore when Dr. Crispe elsewhere tells us , That Sanctification of life is not a jot the way of the justified person to Heaven , it is the business of a person that he hath to do in his way to Christ , but it is not the way it self to Heaven . He only means , that Holiness is not such a way as Christ is , but would never scruple to own it such a way as Dr. Owen makes it . What Dr. Owen adds , that this Holiness is the whole expression of our thankfulness to God , is so often repeated by Dr. Crispe , that I need not direct to any particular places . From all this it evidently appears , that as great a Friend as Dr. Owen would seem to be to Holiness , Dr. Crispe is as great to the full , and that any Antinomian may own the necessity of Holiness upon the same accounts that Dr. Owen does . Indeed the parting Line is the Antecedent necessity of Holiness to our Justification and Salvation , and whoever will not own this , I will be bound to make it good against him , that he is an Antinomian , though he may not have courage enough openly to defend all the fulsom consequences of that Doctrine . And for a conclusion of this Argument I shall only observe these two things : First , What great reason these men have to assert a natural and irresistible efficacy of Grace in the Conversion of a Sinner . For they having taken away all those Arguments which should work upon our Hopes and Fears , which are the natural springs of action , there is nothing left , but an Omnipotent and irresistable Power , to make men good : And therefore , as I observed before , Dr. Crispe honestly acknowledges , That this were the way to take the bridle from men , and make them kick up their heels , as the wild Asses upon the Mountains , were a man to be guided by himself , and to order his own way according to the pleasure of his own will , and therefore resolves the bridling of mens Passions solely into the over-ruling power of Christ , which restrains and keeps in their Spirits . Which he explains by this similitude , Although a wild Ass upon the Mountains , being loose , runs at random , yet this Ass may be taken , and so tamed , that he may be set as loose , as he was before , yet he will not run unrulily , as he did before , by virtue of that ●aming that is upon him . It is true , our natures themselves are mad , and if they had the reins , would run wild ; but you must know , that Christ breaks this wildness ▪ and then he dare let a Believer loose to that , in respect of which an Unbeliever , a wicked man , would take advantage to sin . This is a plain confession , that the only security against the evil consequences of this Doctrine consists in the restraints of Omnipotent Grace . The Doctrine is apt in it self to give the reins to mens ungoverned Lusts , and Passions , but Christ so tames the Spirit of a man , that he shall not run away , though there be no bridle to keep him in : which , though it be much for the necessity and commendation of irresistible Grace , is not much for the credit of the Christian Religion . Secondly , I observe also , what great reason these men have to cry out against Selfishness , or Self-love , or against serving God in hope of a Reward , or for fear of Punishment ; because they have taken away all the Objects of our Hopes and Fears ; for if as Dr. Crispe well says , Christ have done all , that may be done for us , then there needs no doing at all for our selves . If our Justification and Eternal Life be wholly owing to what Christ hath done for us , then we must not work either for Justification , or Eternal Life , as Dr. Crispe and Dr. Owen both assert . For what reason then shall we serve God ? If we get nothing by all the righteousness we perform , then we had as good sit still , and do nothing . This , says Dr. Crispe , is a carnal reasoning , and there is Selfishness at the botom of it ; and such a man had as good do nothing , for if he design his own good and happiness , he serves himself , not God , and though he doth perform Righteousness never so exactly , if he serves himself , God will never reckon that he serves him . At this rate Mr. Shephard , and others talk , as I shewed in my former Discourse , and here we see the plain reason of it . For it is not imaginable , what should force men into such wild conceits , as to banish all the natural principles of Action out of Religion , but that they had first formed such uncouth Notions of Religion , as were inconsistent with all the Principles of Human Nature : They first ascribe our Justification and Salvation entirely to what Christ hath done and suffered without requiring any condition on our part , and then they were forced either to assert , that there was no need of serving God at all , which they durst not own ; or that we must serve God without designing any benefit and advantage to our selves in doing so , because in their way there is nothing to be gained by it ; and therefore unless we will serve God for nothing , we must not serve him at all : And I cannot but acknowledge , that it was very craftily done of them , to cry up that as the very hight and perfection of Christianity , which ( how absurd and contradictory soever to the Principles of Humane Nature , yet ) they were forced to own , unless they would renounce their darling and beloved Notions . Thus I have given a plain and full account of the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a sinner , and shewed what little reason these men have to talk of Articles and Homilies : All which I willingly submit to the judgment of my Superiours , but neither expect nor fear an Answer from my Adversaries . CHAP. IV. Concerning an acquaintance with Christ's Person . THe Sum of what I charge Dr. Owen with in this matter is this , that , as far as I can discover his meaning , by an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ , He understands such a knowledge of what Christ is , hath done , and suffered for us , from whence we may learn those greater , deeper , and more saving Mysteries of the Gospel , which Christ hath not expresly revealed to us : Let us hear now how the Doctor avoids this Charge , and I should be very glad , if he could come off well , for I had much rather do publick Penance in recanting an involuntary mistake , than to find such pestilent Doctrines maintained and propagated by men of note and fame : First then he tells his Readers , That I quarrel with him about asserting the necessity of Acquaintance with the Person of Christ. This is a very ill beginning , and I have nothing to answer to it , but that it is a mistake ; for I acknowledge the necessity of acquaintance with the Person of Christ , as much as the Doctor does , and no where intimate the least dislike of it ; but I frequently make use of this expression afterwards by way of reproach : That is , I often call those Persons , who derive their Schemes of Orthodoxy from a pretended acquaintance with Christs Person by the name of Acquaintance of Christ , and this I must confess is a fault , that I have given so good a name to them , and I wonder why they should take it as a reproach : I was sensible that an Acquaintance with Christ was too good a name , and therefore frequently mollified it with the addition of a pretended acquaintance , which I should never have done , had I designed it as a note of infamy ; yet I thought it the most proper name to characterize those men , who pretend to learn all saving knowledge from such an acquaintance with the Person of Christ. But the Doctor adds , That the use of the word Acquaintance in this matter is warranted by our Translation of the Scripture , and that properly , where it is required of us to acquaint our selves with God : Here I perfectly agree with him , for I have no quarrel with the word Acquaintance , but believe believe it to be a very good English word , and our Translators did well to use it ; nay I agree with the Doctor too , that an acquaintance with the Person of Christ signifies the knowledge of Iesus Christ , of his Person the Word made flesh , or the Son of God incarnate ; but yet I must beg the Readers favour to believe , that this is not the Crime I charge the Doctor with , that he asserts it necessary that Christians should know Iesus Christ : Nor do I charge him with asserting any acquaintance with the Person of Christ , which is not learned from the Gospel . Nay , I do not so much as affirm , That the Doctor in express words owns that there are any Mysteries of Religion , that are not to be found in the Gospel , unless we are first acquainted with the Person of Christ. I always had a better opinion of his prudence and skill in Humane Affairs than to imagine , that he would thus publickly disown the Gospel-Revelation , or set up an arbitrary Rule of Faith above it : What then is the Dispute between us ? That is easily discerned by any man , who has a mind to see it , and I cannot better express it than by repeating my own words , That by an acquaintance with the Person of Christ , he understands such a knowledge of what Christ is , hath done , and suffered for us , from whence we may learn those greater , deeper , and more saving mysteries of the Gospel , which Christ hath not expresly revealed to us . This sense I put upon his words , and whether I have mistook him , the Reader has liberty to judge , when he has perused my Defence . The words , on which I found this charge , and which the Doctor does very wisely suppress , are these : Christ is not only the wisdom of God , but made wisdom to us , not only by teaching us wisdom , as he is the great Prophet of the Church , but also because by the knowing of him , we become acquainted with the wisdom of God , which is our wisdom . In which words the Doctor tells us , That Christ is made wisdom to us ; that is , that by him we learn all spiritual wisdom and knowledge , all the Mysteries of Religion , these two ways : First , As he instructs us in the will and wisdom of God , as he is the great Prophet of the Church : This includes all the Revelations of the Gospel , which the Church of Christ hath hitherto thought sufficient to make a man wise unto Salvation ; but the Doctor has discovered another way , whereby Christ is made wisdom to us , and that is , as by knowing of him we become acquainted with the wisdom of God , which is our wisdom : So that this knowing of Christ , or being acquainted with Christ is a way to be acquainted with the wisdom of God distinct from all the Revelations of the Gospel : Let us then consider , since we have two ways of learning wisdom , which of these is the best , and the Doctor clearly prefers an acquaintance with the Person of Christ before the Revelations of the Gospel in those words which follow , That these properties of God ( his pardoning mercy , &c ) Christ hath revealed in his Doctrine in that Revelation he hath made of God and his will , but the life of this Knowledge lies in an acquaintance with his Person , wherein the express beams and glory of his Father doth shine forth ; that is , that these things are clearly , eminently , and savingly to be discovered only in Iesus Christ , as he explains himself . Here he distinguishes again between the Revelations which Christ hath made , and an acquaintance with his Person , and prefers an acquaintance with his Person as the way to attain to the most saving knowledge : The life of this knowledge lies in an acquaintance with his Person , these things are clearly , eminently , and savingly to be discovered only in Iesus Christ ; that is , in the knowledge of his Person , as distinguished from the Revelations of the Gospel : the Gospel of Christ instructs us in the wisdom of God , but these things are discovered savingly only in the Person of Christ , which , if I can understand plain English , excludes the Revelations of the Gospel from making any saving discoveries of the wisdom of God : And does not all this amount to what I charge him with , that he sets up a new Rule of Faith above the Gospel , that he teaches such a knowledge of Christ's Person , from whence we may learn those greater , deeper , and more saving Mysteries of the Gospel , wich Christ hath not expresly revealed to us ; for if Christ hath expresly revealed these things to us , I can by no means understand , why they may not be as clearly , eminently , savingly discovered in the Revelations of the Gospel , as in the Person of Christ. Now though no man in his wits will openly profess to learn any other new Mysteries from the Person of Christ , than what are revealed in the Gospel , yet when men have set up a new Rule of Faith or Knowledge , they may learn new discoveries too , if they please ; especially if it be such a rule , as will bend and comply with every mans fancy ; and thus it hath fared with the Doctor and his Friends , as I have made appear by a whole Scheme of new Divinity , which is wholly owing to this acquaintance with the Person of Christ , but hath no solid foundation in the Gospel . But though the Doctors words be too plain and express to be evaded , yet I had a surer foundation for this Charge than some loose or unwary expressions ; for the design of that whole digression of the excellency of Christ Iesus will satisfie any impartial Reader , that I did not either mistake or pervert his sense ; for there he gives us many examples of this way of reasoning from the knowledge of Christs Person to discover those other great Mysteries of Religion , which however they may be revealed in the Gospel of Christ , yet are clearly , eminently , savingly discovevered only in Iesus Christ. He reduces the sum of all true wisdom to three heads , the knowledge of God , and of our selves , and skill to walk in Communion with God ; and adds , That not any of them is to any purpose to be obtained , or is manifested , but only in and by the Lord Christ. Upon this I observed in my former Discourse , that by is fallaciously added to include the Revelations Christ hath made , whereas his first undertaking was to shew , how impossible it is to understand these things savingly and clearly , notwithstanding all those Revelations God hath made of himself and his will by Moses and the Prophets , and by Christ himself , without an acquaintance with his Person . To this the Doctor answers , The fallacy pretended is meerly of his own coyning . The knowledge I mean is to be learned in Christ , neither is any thing to be learned in him , but what is learned by him . I do say indeed now , whatever I have said before , that it is impossible to understand any sacred truth savingly and clearly without the knowledge of the Person of Christ ; but that in my so saying I exclude the consideration of the Revelations , which Christ hath made , or that God hath made of himself by Moses and the Prophets and Christ himself , the principal whereof concerns his Person , and whence alone we come to know him , is an assertion becoming the modesty and ingenuity of this Author . As for modesty and ingenuity , the Doctor may take them to himself , since no man deserves them better , but I would willingly put in for a share of truth and honesty , if he can spare any : The Doctor says the fallacy is of my own coyning , pray why so ? Because he does not exclude the Revelations which Christ hath made ; nor do I say he does in these words , but the fallacy consists in not doing it , which he ought to have done , if he would have been true to his proposed design : He who undertakes to prove , that there are any sacred truths , which cannot be clearly and savingly known by the Revelations of the Gospel without an acquaintance with the Person of Christ , ( which was the Doctors task , as appears from what I have already said ) though he need not wholly renounce Revelation , yet he ought to consider the Revelations of Christ , and the knowledge of his Person distinctly , and shew that these truths are not clearly manifested by Revelation , but are clearly and savingly discovered in the Person of Christ : The first of these ( especially with reference to some new discoveries ) the Doctor has done pretty honestly , for he has either alleadged no Scriptures for the proof of these grand Doctrines , or such , as every one may easily see , do not clearly prove them ; I shall now consider how he acquits himself in the second , whereby it will evidently appear , that he sets up the knowledge of Christs Person as a way of learning Divine Truths distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel : A few instances will be sufficient to clear this matter ; and that is all I at present design . I shall begin with that terrible discovery of the naturalness of Gods righteousness ( vindictive justice ) unto him , in that it was impossible , that it should be diverted from sinners without the interposing of a Propitiation ; this the Doctor tells us is discovered in Christ , that is , in his Death and Sufferings for Sin ; what he means by a natural vindictive justice I shall consider in its proper place , my present business is to examine , how he proves a natural vindictive justice in God from the knowledge of Christ , and the only Argument in that place is this : Those who lay the necessity of satisfaction meerly upon the account of a free act and determination of the will of God , leave to my apprehension no just and indispensable foundation for the Death of Christ , but lay it upon a supposition of that which might have been otherwise ; but plainly God in that he spared not his only Son , but made his soul an Offering for Sin , and would admit of no Atonement but in his bloud , hath abundantly manifested , that it is of necessity to him ( his Holiness and Righteousness requiring it ) to render indignation , wrath , tribulation , and anguish unto Sin. To look upon it ( Vindictive Iustice ) as that which God may exercise or forbear , makes his Iustice not a property of his Nature , but a free act of his Will : And a will to punish , where one may do otherwise without injustice , is rather ill will , than justice . If you resolve this Argument into its several Propositions , it must proceed thus : It is very plain in Scripture , that Christ died for our sins ; so far Revelation goes . Hence the Doctor infers , That it was absolutely necessary , that Christ should die for our sins ; from hence he infers , That it was absolutely necessary , that Sin should be punished ; and thence he infers , That Punitive and Vindictive Justice is so absolutely necessary to God , that it is not at the free choice of his Will , whether he will punish sin , or not , but he must do it : Now whether this Argument be good or bad , I am not at present concerned to enquire , but shall only ask , whence the Doctor learns all this train of Consequences , from which he at last concludes , the naturalness and necessity of God's indictive Justice ? Are we any where told in Scripture , that because Christ died for sin , therefore it was absolutely necessary he should die for Sin ; and that it was absolutely necessary he should die for Sin , because it is absolutely necessary that Sin should be punished , and that it is absolutely necessary that Sin should be punished , because God is so naturally just and righteous , that he cannot do otherwise : If we are no where taught in Scripture to argue at this rate , then here is a plain example how we may learn something from the knowledge of Christ's Person , which the Gospel has not expresly taught us ; how we may reason from what Christ hath done and suffered to draw such Conclusions , as are either no where to be found in express terms in Scripture , or at least which we are no where taught to draw from such Premises ; which makes an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ a new way of discovering Divine Truths distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel ; and if this be once acknowledged to be a good way of reasoning , men may as well draw such Conclusions , as are no where to be found in Scripture , as those which are . By the same Argument the Doctor proves what the desert of Sin is : the demerit of Sin is such , that it is altogether impossible that God should pass by any , the least , unpunished : How does this appear ? Why from the Person , who suffered for it , who was the only Son of God , and if God would have done it for any ( passed by sin unpunished ) he would have done it in reference to his only Son , but he spared him not . The sum of which Argument is this , that because God would not spare his only Son , after he had determined , that he should die as a Sacrifice for sin , therefore he could not spare him , and therefore the demerit of Sin is such , that it is impossible God should suffer it to go unpunished , which is indeed a pretty Argument , but whether it be true or false , it is no Scripture Argument , and therefore may serve for another instance of this new way of reasoning from the knowledge of Christ. This may suffice at present to make good my Charge , that the Doctor sets up an acquaintance with the Person of Christ as a new medium of saving knowledge , distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel ; from whence we may clearly and savingly learn those Divine Truths , which though they are pretended to be contained in the Gospel , yet are not clearly and savingly to be learnt thence without this knowledge of the Person of Christ ; the plain meaning of which is , that men must first reason from what Christ hath done and suffered , and thence form their Notions and Theories of Religion , and then it is very hard , if they cannot find some obscure , ambiguous , or metaphorical expressions in Scripture to countenance such conceits . But this Book of Communion , out of which I have transcribed these passages , was writ near twenty years since , and therefore to do the Doctor all the right we can , let us consider whether in his later Writings he hath expressed himself more cautiously in this matter . In his second Volume on the Hebrews , a Book of a very late date , p. 20. I find this observation : A diligent attentive consideration of the Person , Offices , and Work of Iesus Christ is the most effectual means to free the Souls of men from all entanglements of errors , and darkness , and to keep them constant in the profession of the truth : This is the very same Doctrine we had before , that we must learn Divine Truths ( which is much the same with being delivered from errors and darkness ) by a knowledge of the Person and Offices of Christ : For the explaining of this he tells us there must be a diligent searching into the Word , wherein Christ is revealed to us : The Scriptures reveal him , declare him , testifie of him , to this end are they to be searched , that we may learn and know what they so declare and testifie . Thus far it is very well , and would men confine their knowledge of Christ and Divine Truths to the Revelation of the Gospel , it would be an infallible preservative against all Error : But I do not so well understand what he adds towards the conclusion of that Discourse : Unto him ( Christ ) and the knowledge of him is all our study of the Scripture to be referred , and the reason why some in the perusal of it , have no more light , profit , or advantage , is , because they have no more respect unto Christ in their enquiry . If he be once out of our eye in searching the Scripture , we know not what we do , nor whither we go , no more than doth the Mariner at Sea without regard to the Pole-star . Truths to be believed are like Believers themselves , all their life , power , and order , consist in their relation to Christ , separated from him they are dead and useless . This is very profound and Mysterious ; we must search the Scriptures to know Christ , and the knowledge of Christ must direct us in expounding the Scripture , as the Pole-star does the Mariner to steer a safe and direct Course : We must consider all Truths in their relation to Christ , which gives life , and power , and order to them . I wish the Doctor had given us some examples of this , for I confess , I cannot understand it . In p. 23. he tells us , But here lies the root of mens failings in this matter : They seek for truth of themselves , and of other men , but not of Christ , what they can find out by their own endeavours , what other men instruct them in , or impose upon them , that they receive ; few have that faith , love , and humility , are given up to that diligent contemplation of the Lord Christ , and his Excellencies , which are required in those , who diligently wait for his Law , so as to learn the truth of him : So that it seems by eying Jesus Christ in searching the Scriptures , he means a diligent contemplation of the Lord Christ and his Excellencies , which will be a safer guide to all true saving knowledge than all other enquiries whatsoever ; so that still we must learn all Sacred Truths from the knowledge of Christ's Person and Excellencies . And indeed this he expresly tells us in the same Page , All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ , and therefore from him alone to be received , and in him alone to be learned : In the due consideration of the Lord Christ are these Treasures opened unto us . There is not the least line of truth , how far soever it may be extended , and how small soever it may at length appear , but the springs of it lie in the Person of Christ ; and then we learn it aright , when we learn it in the spring , or as it is in him , Eph. 4. 21. which when we have done , we may safely trace it down , and follow it to its utmost extent . If there be any sense to be made of this Discourse , it must be this , that we must learn all Divine Truths from a consideration of the Lord Christ , his Person and Excellencies , &c. because the Springs of all truth lie in the Person of Christ , and without such a serious consideration of the Person of Christ to direct and steer our Course , the study of the Gospel will avail us nothing : That it is to no great purpose to understand Gospel Truths , unless we can find out the springs , and the Center of them in the Person of Christ : He that looks upon Gospel truths as Sporades , as scattered up and down independently one of another , who sees not the Root , Center , and Knot of them in Iesus Christ , it is most probable , that when he goes about to gather them for his use , he will also take up things quite of another nature . But it may be we may understand the Doctor better , if we consider the object of this consideration , which is to free men from all errors and darkness , and that is , the Person of Christ , his Offices , and his Work ; this is the very thing I charged him with , that he affirmed , we must attain to a saving knowledge of Divine Truths from a consideration of the Person of Christ , and what he had done and suffered for us , so that I hope every one will now believe , that this was no Calumny . From Christs Authrority as King he observes , p. 22. Men not considering the Authority of Christ , either as instituting the Ordinances of the Gospel , or as judging upon their neglect or abuse , are careless about them , or do not acquiesce in his pleasure in them : This hath proved the ruine of many Churches , who neglecting the Authority of Christ , have substituted their own in the room thereof : The consideration therefore of this Kingly Legislative Authority of the Lord Christ by men , as to their present duty and future account , must needs be an effectual means to preserve them in the truth , and from backslidings . From the faithfulness of Christ as Prophet , he observes the same thing : He being then ultimately to reveal the will of God , and being absolutely faithful in his so doing , is to be attended unto : Men may thence learn , what they have to do in the Church and Worship of God , even to observe and to do whatever he hath commanded , and nothing else . This is the very first Principle of Phanaticism , which undermines the most prudent Orders and wholsom Constitutions of any Church , and is another instance of this way of Reasoning from the knowledge of Christ to discover those important Truths , which the Gospel no where expresly teaches : Neither Christ nor his Apostles have any where told us , that we must do nothing in the Worship of God , but what Christ hath expresly commanded , but this we must learn from an acquaintance with the Person and Offices of Christ , from his Authority as King , and Faithfulness as Prophet , which ( if we will believe the Doctor ) have left no room for the exercise of Humane Authority , nor for the use of humane Prudence in Church-Affairs . But all this the Doctor spake without an Adversary , let us now consider , how he explains his own meaning in his Answer to my Discourse , which you may find in pag. 33 , 34. where he first denies , That he ever taught any other knowledge of Christ , or acquaintance with his Person , but what is revealed and declared in the Gospel . This ( as I observed above ) I never charged him with , and he himself seems to be sensible of it , and therefore adds ; Yet I will mind this Author of that , whereof if he be ignorant , he is unfit to be a Teacher of others , and which if he deny , he is unworthy the name of a Christian , ( this is a dangerous Dilemma ; for I confess , I am not at present disposed either to part with my Rectorship , or my Christianity , and therefore let us hear what it is ) namely , that by the knowledge of the Person of Christ , the great Mystery of God manifest in the flesh , as revealed and declared in the Gospel , we are led into a clear and full understanding of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth , which are all Centred in his Person , and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them : I shall speak it yet again , that this Author if it be possible may understand it , ( this is kindly done , since so much lies at stake on it ) or however that he and his Co-partners in design may know , that I neither am , nor ever will be ashamed of it : That without the knowledge of the Person of Christ , which is our acquaintance with him , as we are commanded to acquaint our selves with God , as he is the Eternal Son of God Incarnate , the Mediator between God and Man , with the Mystery of the Love , Grace , and Truth of God therein , as revealed and declared in the Scripture , there is no true useful saving knowledge of any other Mysteries or Truths of the Gospel to be attained . I wish I get well off , but I will do my best endeavour to understand it . By the knowledge of the Person of Christ , the great Mystery of God manifested in the flesh , as revealed and declared in the Gospel , we are led into a clear and full understaneing of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth , which are Centred in his Person , and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them . If by this he means , that we cannot understand those mysteries of Grace and Truth , which concern the Person of Christ without knowing the Person of Christ , this is a great Truth , but contains no great Mystery : As for instance , Unless we have some knowledge of the Person of Christ , God manifested in the flesh , we cannot understand the love of God in sending Christ into the World , nor the great Mystery of Pardon and Forgiveness through the bloud of Christ , we can know nothing of his Death , and Resurrection , and Ascension into Heaven , and Intercession for us at the right hand of God , and all those benefits we receive from it ; we cannot understand our Adoption in Christ to be the children of God , nor our Union and Re●●●●on to him as our Head and Husband , as our Lord and Saviour , nor the communications of his Grace and Virtue to us , nor his Power and Authority to raise us from the Dead , to judge the World , and to bestow Life and Immortality upon his obedient Disciples : Not that the Springs of these Truths lie in the Person of Christ , or must be learnt from a contemplation of his Person , but from the Revelations of the Gospel . But the knowledge of Christ's Person is necessary in order to understand those other Gospel Mysteries , for the same reason , that it is necessary to understand , that there was such a man as Alexander , before you can know what he did , where he was King , what Battels he fought , what Victories he won ; or by the same reason , that you must first know the subject , before you can know the properties , and qualifications of it . If this be all the Doctor intends , I must confess it is very sound and Orthodox , but yet I must say , that time was , when he meant otherwise , and his obscure way of expressing so plain a thing would make any one suspect , that he meant something more still ; and if he does , then after all his soft and palliating expressions , it must come to this , That the Person of Christ is the Spring and Fountain of all saving Knowledge , from whence we must learn all those Mysteries , which are but obscurely and imperfectly revealed in the Gospel , unless we make use of this knowledge of Christ and acquaintance with his Person to expound and unriddle them : And indeed his second Explication of his sense in this matter plainly looks this way : For under an acquaintance with Christ he includes the knowledge of him , as the Eternal Son of God incarnate , the Mediator between God and Man , with the Mystery of the Love , Grace , and Truth of God therein , as revealed and declared in the Scripture . This comprehends all those Revelations , which immediately concern the Person of Christ , as his Nature , Offices , Mediation , and all the benefits which flow from them , the Mystery of the Love , Grace , and Truth of God therein ; And then he adds , That without such a knowledge of the Person of Christ as this ( which contains all we can know , and all that is revealed in the Gospel concerning Christ ) There is no true useful saving knowledge of any other Mysteries of the Gospel to be attained . This indeed is very warily said , and like a right Sophister ; set aside all the saving Mysteries of the Gospel , which concern the Person , and Offices , and Mediation of Christ , and then there are no other saving Mysteries to be discovered , or at least no saving knowledge of any other Mysteries , because he knew very well , that no Christian could own any saving knowledge , when he had laid aside the knowledge of Christ : And yet in this saying he craftily insinuates too , that there are some other saving Mysteries , which are to be discovered , when we are first acquainted with Christ ; and he should have done well to have told me what they are , and how they may be discovered , since my Living or my Christianity lay at stake , and I am not very good at guessing ; but since he has here concealed this secret , we must learn what it is from his former Writings , and then whatever danger there be in it , I must needs say , that this acquaintance with the Person of Christ is a very ill way of expounding Scripture , or of learning Gospel-Mysteries , as being that , which different men may use to different purposes ( as I shewed in my former Discourse ) and from whence some men draw such Conclusions , as do quite evacuate the ends and design of the Gospel . This is sufficient to vindicate my self from those imputations of Falshood and Calumny , which occur almost in every Page of the Doctors Answer , but I shall not dismiss this subject thus , but shall first shew you , that there is such a way of reasoning from the knowledge of Christ's Person now in great vogue among some late Writers , and what Arguments I reject upon that score , as weak or fallacious : And secondly , discourse something more particularly concerning this way of reasoning . As for the first , I have given instances enough of this nature in my former Discourse , which were so plain and evident , that I thought the bare mentioning of them was sufficient to convince any man from what Principles such Arguments and Conclusions were deduced . But because I find , that my Adversaries are willing to take no notice of the chief design for which those passages were alleadged , but to fall into some collateral Disputes , I must be forced more expresly to state the matter in debate , and reduce it to another form and method . The Question then between us is plainly this , Whether any Persons pretend to learn or prove the great Principles of their Religion from an Acquaintance with the Nature , Person , Offices of Christ , distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel . In my former Discourse I asserted , that they deduced such Doctrines from , the knowledge of Christ , as are no where expresly contained in Scripture , and I doubt not , but that will appear true , upon a particular examination of such Doctrines as they have or shall fall in my way : but let the Doctrines be true or false , the present dispute is , whether they make the knowledge of Christs Person a new medium of saving knowledge , from whence we may learn the greater , deeper , and more saving Mysteries of Religion , distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel : And that they do so is plain from this , that most of the Arguments , from whence they deduce , and by which they prove their most darling and mysterious Notions , are wholly owing to an acquaintance with Christs Person , and are no where exprest in Scripture . I have already given two instances of this in his way of proving the naturalness of vindictive justice to God , and the desert and demerit of sin , and shall now add some more . The Doctor proves from the Deity of Christ ( as I observed in my former Discourse ) the endless , bottomless , boundless grace and compassion that is in him , mercy enough for the greatest , the eldest , the slubbornest transgressor , the infiniteness of Grace with respect to the Spring or Fountain ( the Deity of Christ ) will answer all our Objections . What is our finite guilt before it ? ( How comes this guilt to be finite now ? When we are so often told , that the demerit of every sin is infinite , as being committed against an infinite God , and requiring an infinite satisfaction for its Atonement ) Shew me the Sinner , that can spread his iniquity to the dimensions ( if I may so say ) of this Grace . I am glad to hear the Doctor put so fair a sense on these words , and to declare to the World , that he designed no more in it , than to invite all sorts of sinners , though under the most discouraging qualifications , to come unto Christ for Grace and Mercy by Faith and Repentance : Though any man , who reads that long Discourse about an endless , bottomless , boundless Grace and Compassion in Christ , such an infinite Grace as makes nothing of our finite guilt , as all the sins in the world cannot equal its dimensions , without one word of Faith or Repentance , or a new life to qualifie us for this mercy , especially if withal he understood what a great Patron the Doctor is of the necessity of holiness and obedience to qualifie us for Gods mercy ( as appears from what I have already discoursed above ) would not easily have guessed this to have been his meaning : And whoever writes a Book which cannot be understood without a Commentary , ought not to complain that he is mistaken , nor charge his Readers upon that account with ignorance , falshood , or calumny : Though for my part I shall be very well contented he should write another Book consisting of little else than those mild and gentle imputations of falshood and calumny , so he will but recant , or at least handsomly palliate those doctrines , which otherwise may encourage bad men continuing so , to lay claim to such a boundless and bottomless mercy . But my present business is to observe , how the Doctor proves , that there is such a boundless , bottomless Grace in Christ , and his Argument is taken from his Divine Nature , which is infinite : For when the Conduit of his humanity is inseparably united to the infinite inexhausted fonntain of the Deity , who can look into the depths thereof ; if now there be Grace enough for sinners in an all sufficient God , it is in Christ. This is a plain instance of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christ , ( with his Divine nature ) which the Scripture no where teaches , and which is weak and fallacious : For though the Divine Nature be infinite , yet the exercise of mercy and compassion is regulated by wisdom , and the free choise of the Divine Will , and therefore though we may conclude from the Divine Nature , that God will be gracious and compassionate to sinners , yet we cannot certainly know in what measures and proportions God will exercise this Grace and Mercy without an express declaration of his Will ; and when God has declared his Will , as he has now done in the Gospel , it is then at best to no purpose to argue from his Nature , unless we have a mind to encourage Sinners to expect more Grace from the Divine Nature than God hath promised in the Revelation of the Gospel . So that though we should suppose , that he did not consider this boundless Grace in Christ as Mediator , but considered it as in him who is Mediator ( which by the way spoils all the comfort sinners might take from the boundless mercy of the Divine Nature in Christ , if this be not in him as our Mediator , unless we may expect more Grace from Christ upon his Personal account , than from his Mediation , that is , more from the Person than from the Gospel of Christ , which contains the terms of his Mediation , which he so vehemently disowns ) yet I say this Argument were weak and fallacious , because we cannot reason thus from the Divine Nature it self , for though the Divine Nature be the Fountain of Grace and Mercy , yet the Divine Will regulates the exercise of it , and assigns its measures ; much less can we reason thus from the Divine Nature considered in Christ as our Mediator ; for a Mediator as Mediator , though he be God-man , is not the Fountain , but Minister of Grace , as Christ witnesses , That he came not to do his own will , but the will of him that sent him . And thus he is considered in Scripture , even where he is said to be the only begotten of the Father , full of Grace and truth , which seems not primarily to refer to the inherent glory and perfection of his Nature ( though that may be proved from it ) but to the glory of his Ministry , which was the only glory the Apostles could then discover , when his Essential Majesty was hid under a vail of flesh : and therefore I think still , the Doctor would do well to make God the Father the Fountain of Grace , for though when we consider the three Persons in the Sacred Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Essence , what is attributed to one is supposed to be attributed to the other ; yet when we consider them under different capacities and relations , it is not so : Christ as God essentially one with the Father and Holy Spirit is the Fountain of Grace , as Mediator he is the Minister of it ; the Father sends , and Christ is sent ; the Father prescribes his work , and he finishes it : And therefore to make Christ as Mediator , the Fountain of Grace is a derogation from God the Father , whom the Scripture makes the first mover and supreme Agent in the work of our Redemption . I observed in the same place another instance of this way of reasoning from the Divine Nature in Christ , to prove that Eternity , Unchangeableness , and Fruitfulness of his Love. Now this , I say , is a way of proving the Eternity , Unchangeableness , and Fruitfulness of Christ's love , which the Scripture no where teaches , but is wholly owing to an acquaintance with Christ : And I wonder that the Doctor should be at a loss to know what it is I except against , whether it be , that the love of Christ , as he is God is Eternal ? Or that it is Unchangeable ? Or that it is Fruitful , or Effective of good things unto the Persons Beloved ? It is neither of these in themselves considered , for I own all , as he very well knows , but I except partly against his way of stating these things , and partly against his way of proving them : or rather against both together . What he means by this Eternal , Unchangeable and Fruitful Love , he tells us himself : The love which I intend , and whereunto I ascribe those properties is the especial love of God in Christ unto the Elect. This is such a love , as is Eternal without beginning , and without end , as does not change with the changes of the object , as the love of men does , and is so fruitful and effectual , as to love Life , Grace , holiness into us , to love us into Covenant , to love us into heaven . Now my business is not to dispute the case , whether God have elected some particular Persons , whom he will infallibly bring to glory , which I never denied yet , and I think never shall : But the question is , Whether the Eternity , and Unchangeableness , and fruitfulness , of this Electing Love , can be proved from the Eternity , and Immutability , &c. of the Divine Nature : The inconvenience I then urged it with was this , If this love be so Eternal and Unchangeable , &c. because the Divine Nature is so , then it was always so , for God always was what he is , and that which is Eternal could never be other than it is now ; and why could not this Eternal , and Unchangeable , and Fruitful love as well preserve us from falling into Sin , and Misery , and Death , as love Life and Holiness into us all . To this the Doctor answers , That Gods love is in Scripture represented Unchangeable , because he himself is so , but it doth not hence follow , that God loveth any one naturally or necessarily . His love is a free act of his Will , and therefore though it be like himself , such as becomes his nature , yet it is not necessarily determined on any object , nor limited as to the Nature , Degrees , Effects of it , which he proves from the different dispensations of the Grace and Mercy of God under the Law and Gospel ; and adds , God is always the same that he was , love in God is always the same that it was ; but the Objects , Acts , and Effects of this Love , with the measures and degrees of them , are the issues of the counsel or free purpose of his Will. Now this Answer is what I would have , and plainly discovers the Sophistry of this way of reasoning : For if this electing Love be not the immediate and necessary effect of the Divine Nature , but the free choise and purpose of his Will , then we cannot learn either that it is , or what it is from the bare contemplation of the Divine Nature , but from the declarations of the Divine Will ; for we can prove nothing from the Divine Nature , but what has a necessary and inseparable connexion with some attribute and perfection in God ; but where a free choice and counsel intervenes , we must be contented to be ignorant , or to learn from Revelation . We may certainly conclude from the holiness and goodness of God , that God will love good men , and hate the wicked , because holiness includes in the very notion of it a necessary love to goodness , and hatred of evil ; and from the immutability of God , we may conclude his unchangeable love to goodness , and hatred of evil , as the Psalmist expresseth it , Psal. 103. 17 , 18. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him , and his righteousness unto Childrens Children , to such as keep his Covenant , and to those who remember his Commandments to do them . And this is all that can be proved from the natural notion of an immutable love . But we cannot hence conclude , that God hath elected any particular persons as the objects of this unchangeable love ; whether this be so or no , must be determined by Revelation , which contains the declaration of the free purposes and counsels of the Divine Will. It is impossible from the nature of God to determine , whether God has from all Eternity decreed whatever shall come to pass in time ; because the Decrees of God are the free choice of his will , and therefore he might either decree , or not decree , as he pleased : Nor does the immutability of his Decrees depend immediately upon the immutability of his Nature , but upon the immutability of his Counsel , for God may if he please make temporary and conditional Decrees , which shall last but for a certain time , and be performed only upon certain conditions as well as those which are absolute and peremptory : And therefore when the Apostle to the Hebrews would prove the immutability of the Gospel-Covenant , he does not argue from the immutable Nature of God , who cannot alter what he once decrees , but from his immutable Counsel , which he confirmed to Abraham by an Oath , Heb. 6. 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18. For when God made promise to Abraham , because he could swear by no greater , he swear by himself , saying , surely blessing I will bless thee , and multiplying , I will multiply thee ; for men verily swear by the greater , and an Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife , wherein God willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise , the immutability of his Counsel , confirmed it by an Oath , that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie , we might have a strong consolation , who have fled for refuge to the hope set before us . So that the foundation of our hope rests upon the unchangeable counsel and purpose of God , confirmed by an Oath , which at most resolves it self not into an unchangeable love , but into unchangeable truth and faithfulness , that God will never alter that , which he hath promised never to alter . This is plainly expressed too in that Promise made to David concerning the perpetuity of his Kingdom , wherein he was a Type of Christ , and of the Eternal duration of his Kingdom , Psalm 89. 33 , 34 , &c. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him , nor suffer my faithfulness to fail ; My Covenant will I not break , nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips ; once have I swore in my holiness , that I will not lie unto David , his Seed shall endure for ever , and his Throne as the Sun before me . Thus to give but one instance more of this nature , when God by the Prophet Isaiah makes such a gracious Promise of the restauration of the Gentiles , and their incorporation into his Church , he confirms it in the very same manner , Isa. 54. 8 , 9 , 10. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee , for a moment ; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee , saith the Lord thy Redeemer ; for this is as the waters of Noah to me ; for as I have sworn , that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth , so have I sworn , that I would not be wroth with thee , nor rebuke thee , for the Mountains shall depart , and the Hills be removed , but my kindness shall not depart from thee , neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed , saith the Lord , that hath mercy on thee . And it is very observable , that throughout the Scripture , where it is said , that God will not repent , it refers not to the immutability of his Nature , but of his Counsels ; Thus in 1 Sam. 15. 28 , 29. Samuel acquaints Saul with his immutable Decree to remove the Kingdom from him : And Samuel said unto him , the Lord hath rent the Kingdom of Israel from thee this day , and hath given it to a neighbour of thine , that is better than thou ; and to assure him of the Immutability of this Decree , he adds , And also the strength of Israel will not lie , nor repent , for he is not a man , that he should repent . The like we may see in Ier. 4. 28. where God denounces his severe Judgments against Ierusalem : For this shall the Earth mourn , and the heavens above be black because I have spoken it ; I have purposed , and will not repent , neither will I turn back from it : Whereas in other cases , notwithstanding the Immutability of the Divine Nature , the Scripture frequently mentions Gods repenting both of the good and of the evil , which he had thought to do , when the change of the Object required such a change in his affections , and in the administrations of his providence : Nay , in that very place where God assigns his own immutable Counsels , as the reason why he had not destroyed the Posterity of Iacob , when they had so grievously provoked him , yet he thought it no blemish to his Immutability to assure them , that he would alter the administrations of his Providence according to those changes and alterations which were in them ; for his immutable Promise to Abraham required , that he should not utterly destroy them , and his immutable love to holiness and goodness required the latter , Mal. 3. 6 , 7. For I am the Lord , I change not , therefore ye Sons of Iacob are not consumed . Return unto me , and I will return unto you saith the Lord of Hosts . And this is what I asserted , that the only natural Notion of an immutable love , which we can learn from the Contemplation of the Divine Nature , is that God always loves for the same reason ; that he always loves those who are good , and hates those who are wicked , not that he always loves the same Person , let him be good or wicked : And as for what the Doctor objects against this , that then either God indeed never loveth any man , be he who he will ; or that he is changeable in his love upon outward external reasons , as we are ; I think by his good leave I need chuse neither of them ; the first I by no means like , that because God loves none but good men , therefore he loves no man , for though there are but a few good men in the world , yet I hope there are some , and I do as little like the other ; for though God alter his love to any person , when he ceases to be good , yet this is not to change upon outward External reasons , but upon such reasons as are essential to his Nature ; for it is contrary to the holiness of the Divine Nature to love wickedness , or a wicked man : God's love to holiness and hatred of evil is immutable as his nature is , and therefore when any Person ceases to be good , God must cease to love , which does not argue any change in God , but in the Object , and when the Object is changed , the immutability of his love is the reason why he loves no longer . As for what the Doctor adds , In the mean time , such a love of God towards Believers , as shall always effectually preserve them meet Objects of his love and approbation , is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies : Whether what I have discoursed be a trifling impertinency let others judge ; but when he makes it a necessary effect of an immutable love effectually to preserve such Persons meet Objects of love and approbation , he grants all that I have contended for , that the immutability of Gods love in it self considered is no argument , that he will always love the same Persons , unless they continue meet objects of his love ; for if the love of God be so immutable , as always to love the same Person , be he what he will , then such a man is a meet Object of love , while he continues the same Person , whatever his qualities are , and there is no more required to this , than that God should uphold him in being : But if besides his being such a particular Person , on whom God hath fixt his love , there be any other qualifications required to make him , and preserve him a meet Object of love , then the Doctor must acknowledge , that Gods immutable love requires an Object which does not change , one who persists and perseveres in the practice of an Universal Righteousness , which is all I contend for , the immutable love of God to good men , under that notion as good : For supposing any change in the Object , God must either continue to love an unmeet Object , or else cease to love : And let him chuse which side he pleases ; if the first , he attributes such an immutability to God , as is inconsistent with wisdom and holiness , and savours more of the stubbornness and impotency of humane Passions , than of a Divine Love : If the latter , then he makes the Love of God as mutable and Subject to changes as I do . And as for that love of God to Believers , which always preserves them meet objects of his love , the Doctor mightily mistakes me , if he thinks I designed to oppose it ; I acknowledge the perseverance of Believers to be the effect of the Divine Grace , as well as their believing at first ; but if he designs this for a description of Gods electing love , which is the immutable cause both of faith and perseverance , as it is plain he does , I wonder , why he calls it Gods love to believers ; for Election in the Doctors judgment considers no qualifications in Persons ; and what he calls Gods love , is more properly Gods Decree to Love , when the Person is a fit object for it : And it is necessary to distinguish between an immutable Decree to make and preserve a fit object of love , and the immutability of the Divine Love ; The first depends upon an immutable Counsel ; The second upon the persevering meetness and fitness of the object to be Beloved . I have already given several other instances of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christs Person , from his being our Surety and Mediator , our Head and Husband , and the like , and intended to have added many more , but this is sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader , what I mean by an acquaintance with Christ's Person , and how far the Doctor and his Friends may be charged with it , and therefore at present I shall only briefly consider this way of reasoning , and put a conclusion to this Argument . Now I readily agree with Mr. Ferguson , that in many cases it is not only justifiable , but necessary to Reason from Revelation ; and I must needs say , that the instances he gives of it are unanswerable , but whether they may be called deductions and consequences from Revelation let others judge : As the application of general Precepts , Promises , and Comminations to single Individuals , and universal directions to particular cases . The application of ancient Prophesies to their Events , whereby the Apostles proved Christ to be that Messias who was to come . And the testimony of Miracles for the proof of a Revelation , which are the principal instances Mr. Ferguson gives , as will appear to any one who consults those Texts of Scripture , which he alleadges in this behalf . But this is nothing to our present Dispute ; the question is , whether we may deduce any new Doctrinal Conclusions , which are neither expresly taught in Scripture , nor can be found out by meer Principles of Reason , from their supposed connexion with some thing which is revealed . And I think thus much we may safely say , that we can know no more of matters of pure Revelation than what is revealed ; whatever wholly depends upon the free and Soveraign Will of God can be known no other way but by Revelation , as no man can know the secret thoughts and counsels of a man , but those who learn them from himself ; and by the same reason that we can know nothing of these matters without a Revelation , we can know no more neither than what is revealed ; which consideration alone is sufficient to overthrow this way of reasoning from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ. This Argument I have managed at large in my former Discourse , and know not what I should add to it here , unless it be a more particular application of it to our present case . As for instance , we learn from Revelation that Christ died for our sins to make Atonement and Expiation for them , and to procure pardon and forgiveness for all true Penitents ; but because Christ died for our sins , it does not hence follow that there is such a natural Vindictive Iustice in God , as would not suffer him to pardon sin without a full satisfaction : for Christ's Death being the effect of Gods free Counsel , we can know no more of the cause , and reason , and motive of it than he has revealed ; there may be several other reasons assigned on Gods part , why he should send Christ into the world to save sinners , besides a natural Vindictive Justice , and the Scripture has assigned several other reasons of Christ's Death , but has never assigned this : And indeed unless we will assert that the Death of Christ did necessarily result from the nature of God , and was not the effect of his free choise and counsel , this reasoning must be false : For I hope they will acknowledge God to be as necessarily good , as he is just ( for there is no reason , why goodness should be thought the free act of Gods Will and Counsel , and Justice the necessity of his Nature , ) and if so , then supposing the fall of man , which brought sin and misery into the world , the Death of Christ was as absolutely necessary , as that God should be good and just : The goodness of God ( according to this way of reasoning ) made it necessary to redeem Mankind from that state of misery , and the Justice of God made it necessary for him to punish sin . This punishment must fall either upon the Sinner himself , or some other in his stead ; the Sinner cannot suffer the just desert of sin without being Eternally miserable , and none else could expiate our sins but only the Son of God incarnate ; who by being Man was capable of suffering , and by being God , gave an infinite value to his sufferings , answerable to the infinite demerit of sin : So that if God be as necessarily Good as he is Just , his Goodness did as necessarily determine him to provide a ransom for sinners , as his Justice did to punish sin , and there being no other possible way of doing this , but by the Incarnation and Sufferings of his own Son , the Death of Christ is as necessary an effect of the Justice and Goodness of the Divine Nature , as Light is of the Sun. Thus though Christ died for our sins , yet we cannot meerly from the Death of Christ certainly conclude , that he died for all , or only for some , that he died for us absolutely or conditionally ; for the extent and efficacy of Christ's Death , as well as his Death it self , depends upon the Will and Counsel of God , and therefore cannot be known without a Revelation . Christ fulfilled all Righteousness , but we cannot hence conclude , that he fulfilled all Righteousness for us , and that we are accounted righteous for the sake of his perfect Righteousness imputed to us ; for he might fulfil Righteousness for a great many other reasons , and this is the most unlikely reason of all : The same may be said of those choice Conclusions from Christ's being our Head and Husband , our Surety and Mediator , our Physician , and Shepherd , and Rock , and Life , &c. Whatever Conclusions we draw from these which are not revealed in the Scripture are at best very uncertain and lubricous , because all these Revelations and Offices of our Saviour , with their extent and vertue , and manner of their execution depend upon the free Counsel of God , and therefore can be known only by Revelation . Indeed , those who argue and reason from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ seem to be aware of this , and therefore they endeavour to reduce the whole Mystery of our Redemption by Christ to necessary causes , that God could not do otherwise , and that Mankind could not be saved in any other way , which is enough to prejudice all wise men against the whole Systeme of their Divinity , and yet they can take no other course to uphold their cause , for if it be once supposed , that this may be otherwise , all their Arguments will be found weak and unconcluding . Thus for instance ; if we suppose , that God may forgive true Penitents , without exacting satisfaction , this destroys their Notion of a natural Vindictive Justice , and their wild conceit about the nature of Christ's satisfaction , which is built on it , as if it were only to gratifie an inexorable revenge . If it be supposed , that God may forgive our sins , and accept and reward our sincere though imperfect services for the sake of Christ's Death , and Sufferings , and Righteousness , without accounting us perfectly innocent and perfectly righteous with the Righteousness of Christ ; if God may for Christ's sake dispense with the rigour and severity of the Law , and accept of sincerity instead of perfection , than all their Arguments for the necessity of imputation ( in their notion of it ) fall to the ground . If Christ may be our Surety and Mediator , and yet not be obliged to fulfil all Righteousness in our stead , if Christ may fulfil all Righteousness , and yet this Righteousness not be imputed to us ; if the antecedent necessity of Repentance and a new Life may be reconciled with the Grace of God , and the Merits of Christ , than to be sure it is not necessary it should be otherwise , and then all their Arguments are weak and fallacious , for if they do not conclude necessarily , then the contrary may be true . And is it not strange presumption for any men to say , that there is no other possible way for God to save Sinners than what they have described in their ill-digested Systemes , and yet all their Arguments from an acquaintance with Christ's Person proceed upon this , and can never be made good without it . For if they be not necessarily true , they may be false : And if they may be false , they are no good foundation for our Faith. We have an excellent instance of this in Mr. Ferguson's way of proving the Mystery of the Trinity from its necessary connexion with the Doctrine of Original Sin : For the Mystery of the Trinity hath a necessary Connexion with the Work of our Redemption by the Incarnation of the Son of God , and the Work of our Redemption by the Incarnation of an infinite Person hath the like Connexion with the necessity of satisfying Divine Iustice , in order to dispensing of Pardon to repenting Offenders , and the necessity of satisfying Iustice for the end aforesaid , hath a necessary Connexion with the Doctrine of the corruption of Mankind ; and the corruption of Humane Nature is both fully confessed , and may be demonstrated by reason . And thus the Mystery of the Trinity is at last demonstrated by reason , that is , from the wickedness and degeneracy of Mankind . And thus they reason in other cases ; they prove the necessity of a Vindictive Justice , and the necessity of Satisfaction , and the necessity of the Incarnation and Sufferings of the Son of God , and the necessity of his fulfilling Righteousness , and the necessity of Imputation , nay , a necessity of the Divine Decrees themselves ; For the Arguments , which they commonly alleadge in these cases , if they have any force in them , must prove all this to be necessary , and without this can prove nothing else . When we discourse of the free Counsels and Purposes of the Divine Will , we must learn from Revelation what God has done , and what he will do , not argue what he must do : Or we may confirm our Faith by considering how fit and becoming it is , and how agreeable to the Divine Nature and Perfections , or at most may argue probably from some collateral Circumstances , to prove the thing likely and probable , an instance of which I gave at large in my former discourse ; but we must pretend to know no more of matters of pure Revelation , than what is revealed , unless we can either comprehend the infinite Methods of the Divine Wisdom , or discover a necessity of Nature in God , that he could do no other than what we fancy ; or can pretend to a Spirit of Prophesie and Revelation , to discover those hidden Mysteries to us , which are either concealed or obscurely hinted in the External Revelation of the Letter . And indeed , sometimes they talk at this rate , as if every particular man must have an immediate Revelation from Christ to enable him to expound the External Revelation , which is but a dead Letter without it ; and I know no other secure refuge they have , but to take Sanctuary in Enthusiasms and pretended Inspirations . CHAP. V. Concerning the Union of Believers to Christ , and the imputation of Pelagianism . IT is time now to proceed to the consideration of our Union to Christ , in which Argument Mr. Ferguson has put out his whole strength , such as it is , which consists only in some Childish Cavils , false Representations , and insolent and foolish Triumphs . Though I wonder he has no more craft , than to tell such improbable Stories , as confute themselves . As for instance , he charges my Notion of Union to Christ with disserving holiness ; Why , what is my Notion of Union ? That I expressed in few words , That Christ is a spiritual King , and all Christians are his Subjects , and our Union to Christ consists in our belief of his Revelations , obedience to his Laws , and subjection to his Authority : How can this disserve Holiness , which makes Holiness and Obedience Essential to our Union ? This is a very improbable Story , and I doubt he will find few Vouchers for it : And yet to see the power of wit ; he has two or three as plain proofs of it as heart can wish . For first he observes , that I acknowledge , that in one sense we must be united to Christ before we can be holy : But then he ought to have been so honest , as to have told what sense that is . I shall transcribe that passage , and leave men to judge what they please of our Author . Our Union to Christ is more or less perfect , according to our attainments in true Piety and Vertue . The first and lowest degree of our Union to Christ is a belief of his Gospel , which in order of nature must go before Obedience to it ; but yet it includes a purpose and resolution of obeying it ; and in this sense we must be united to Christ before we can be holy , because this belief of the Gospel is the great Principle of Obedience : But then our Union is not perfected without actual Obedience , this makes us the true Disciples of Christ , when we are fruitful in good Works . So that all I affirm is , that we must first believe the Gospel before we can obey it , and that a sincere belief of the Gospel , and a hearty resolution of obeying it , does begin our union to Christ before we may have the opportunities of External Obedience : The Internal acts of the mind , as Faith and Repentance , and the love of God , and the sincere purposes of a new Life , are antecedently necessary to our Union to Christ ; but External Holiness and Obedience , which requires time and opportunities of action , which are not always in our power , may not always go before , but must always follow to complete and perfect our Union . Which I thus explained in the same place : Christ receives bad men as soon as they believe his Gospel , and resolve to be good , but their Reward is suspended upon the performance of these Vows , and this is no reproach to his Holiness . But still Mr. Ferguson can prove , that I make our Union to Christ to be perfected without actual obedience , though I expresly affirm the contrary , because I say , That to be in Christ signifies no more than being members of his visible Church , which is made up of Hypocrites , as well as sincere Christians : And so I say still , That where Christ speaks of such branches in him as bear no fruit , Joh. 15. 2. By being in him he can intend no more than being Members of his visible Church by a publick profession of Faith in him , for otherwise this Phrase of being in him cannot be applied to hypocrites , who bear no fruit ; But how does it hence follow , that our Union to Christ is compleated without Obedience ? For did I ever assert , that an External Union to the visible Church did complete and perfect our Union to Christ ? And if it does not , then I hope we may safely assert , that to be in Christ is sometimes taken in that Latitude of sense , as to include Hypocrites as well as sincere Christians , and yet not assert a complete and perfect Union to Christ without Obedience . But it is very pretty to observe our Authors Criticism upon our Saviours words , Every branch in me that beareth not fruit , which he says may as well be read , Every branch that beareth not fruit in me , he taketh away : Now suppose we should be so civil , as to grant him this , What will he gain by it ? Why , then the true import of it is this , That unless we be in Christ we can bring forth no fruit to God , and that what shew of being branches we make by an External Membership in the Church , yet that shall be no obex to Christs disclaiming and renouncing our works . His design is to prove , that every branch in me does not signifie those branches which are in Christ ; and therefore he will not joyn In me with branch , but with beareth fruit , which being a very dull observation may pass for his own : For I would fain learn of Mr. Ferguson in what this branch is : It is certain de fide , that it is a branch , unless he can find some new reading to avoid that too ; Of what then is it a branch ? There is nothing in the Context to which this branch can refer , but only the Vine , which is Christ ; and therefore if it be a branch , do what he can , it must be a branch in the Vine , a branch in Christ. And then I have a farther scruple still ( supposing we did allow his reading ) how a branch , which is not in Christ the Vine can bear fruit in Christ the Vine : And therefore if it be acknowledged , that God expects from such branches , that they should bear fruit in Christ , it must be confessed , that in one sense or other they are in him ; for they can in no sense be said to bear fruit in him , till in some sense they may be said to be in him . And there is still one little difficulty behind , what is meant by God's taking away those branches which bear not fruit in Christ : This is a plain Allusion to the Husbandman's cutting dead and fruitless branches off from the Vine , and so signifies the Excision of such fruitless branches from the body of Christ ; and how can they be cut off , and taken away from Christ , if they were never in him . And yet after all our Author is forced to return to what he designed to confute , and by a Branch to understand one who lives in External Membership with the Church , and by so doing makes a shew of being a branch in Christ , that is , ( as he must mean , if he means any thing ) of being vitally united to him , when he is not ; which is as much as ever I asserted in this matter ; only he will by no means allow , that these branches may be said to be in Christ , though he owns them to be members of the visible Church of Christ ; and yet he has no way to prove , that a branch in this place signifies a Church member , but only because it is called a branch in Christ. A second and third Argument , whereby Mr. Ferguson proves my Notion of Union to Christ to be destructive to Holiness , are both resolved into this , That I deny the supernatural assistances of Grace from Christ to make men holy ; and therefore that Holiness and Obedience , which alone I make necessary to our Union to Christ is not true Gospel-holiness , as not being owing to an infused Principle derived from Iesus by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost . And that it is impossible for any Persons , though compleatly and perfectly united to Christ , to attain true Holiness for the future , because Christ is not considered as a quickning Head , and a vital root of influences to us . Now though I suppose Mr. Ferguson and I shall hardly agree about the manner of the Holy Spirits working in us , which he affirms to be by a real and Physical operation , yet I never denied , but have expresly owned the Divine Influences of Grace from Christ , as will appear plainly before I conclude this Chapter . But suppose for once that I had denied this , and had affirmed , that men might be holy without it , would it hence follow , that I rejected the necessity of holiness , or made it impossible to Mankind , because ( though falsely ) I should assert , that men are and may be holy without such supernatural strength and power . Yes , for this is not a Gospel-Holiness , which is wholly owing to the Divine Grace : But does the efficient cause then constitute the nature of things ? Suppose two men , one immediately created by God , another begotten in the ordinary course of nature , but both perfectly alike , as to all the Essentials of Humane Nature , does this make such a difference between them , that one must not be called a man , as well as the other , because one was created , and the other begotten . Thus in the same manner , suppose one man immediately created by God perfectly righteous and holy , as Adam was ; Another , who is renewed and sanctified by infused Principles of Grace , and by the Physical operation of the Spirit ; And a third , who by diligence and industry , by reason and discourse , and the wise improvement of his natural faculties , hath arrived to the same temper of mind , to the same Principles and Habits of Action , which were immediately created in the first , and Physically infused into the second . If there were such a man , as this , I would willingly understand , why he should not be accounted as truly and properly holy as either of the former ; by the same reason , that he is as true a man , who is begotten by the strength of nature , as Adam was , who was immediately created , or as Christ was , who was formed in the Virgins Womb by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost . The original Holiness of God is the Pattern of all Holiness , and the holiness of Creatures consists in a conformity to the Divine Image , not in being produced by a Divine Power : The sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary to the Being , not to the Nature of Holiness : Could that which we call Holiness be produced by the strength of natural Reason , and our natural Faculties , it would be nevertheless Holiness for that : And therefore unless Mr. Ferguson can prove , that that Holiness , which I make essential to our Union to Christ , is defective in something which constitutes the nature of Holiness , though he could prove that I attributed Holiness to the strength and power of Nature , he will only make himself ridiculous , by charging my Notion with destroying the necessity of Gospel-holiness . But this whole charge was the effect only of a weak and contemptible revenge , because I had charged them ( and made good my charge ) with placing our Union to Christ before holiness of life : What defence can Mr. Ferguson make against this ? Truly none at all , but according to his old way he denies it , without attempting to answer any thing which I alleadged in the proof of it : And yet ( which argues him to be a man of much greater courage than wit ) at the very same time he denies and owns it , or which comes much to one , professes that it is very indifferent to him , whether it be so or not . He tells us , All that we plead for is this ; That as previously to our Union with Christ , we are polluted and unholy , so by that very act , whereby he unites us to himself , he infuses those Principles into us , whereby our natures are cleansed , and we come to be denominated holy and pure . Here he expresly acknowledges , that before our Union to Christ we are polluted , and unholy , and therefore we must be united to him while we are unholy , for every minute before , our Union is previous to it . Well , but then by the same act that he assumes us into Union with himself , he transforms our natures . Suppose that yet we are unholy till we are united , for we are made holy by vertue of our Union ; and our Author tells us , That it is a needless enquiry , whether our Renovation in order of nature precede our Union with Christ , or whether our Union go before our Renovation , seeing in order of time they are not only inseparable , but that which is the new Creature , the Seed of God , and Divine Nature in us is the very bond of our Cohaesion . Say you so Sir ? Is this a needless enquiry ? Then it seems it is indifferent , whether we be considered as united to Christ before or after we are holy ; and why then should he pretend so much to abhor the thoughts of our being united to Christ while we are unholy ? And yet how this agrees with making the New Creature the bond of Cohaesion , I cannot understand , since in order of nature , we can have no notion of any Union before or without its bond . But to consider this a little , whether it be so indifferent to place our Union to Christ in order of nature before or after our Renovation : ( For I never charged them with saying that those , who are in Christ may continue unholy , because they , as well as the Antinomians , do affirm , That Holiness is a necessary and Physical effect of our Union to Christ , though their Principles overthrow the necessary Obligations to it ) whoever is considered as united to Christ must be considered in a state of favour and acceptation with God , as cloathed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ , as pardoned through his Bloud , and so an actual Heir to Eternal Life and Glory ; now if a man may be considered as pardoned , and justified , and an Heir of Glory in order of nature before he is holy , before he repents of his sins , or loves God , or so much as resolves and purposes to obey him , this I am sure overthrows the whole Christian Religion , which denounces the wrath of God against every man , who is wicked , to the very last minute , wherein he may be considered as wicked , and promises Pardon and Eternal Life only to those who actually repent and love God : If we may be considered in order of nature , as united to Christ before we are holy , then there is nothing in Sin contrary to the nature of our Union , and then we may as well be united to Christ in order of time , as in order of nature , before we are holy , and then we may ( if Christ please ) as well continue united , as at first be united to him without holiness : For if neither the nature of the Gospel-Covenant , nor the nature of God and Christ , hinder such a Union between Christ and bad men , while they may be considered as bad , then nothing can hinder their continuing bad after they are united to Christ , but an arbitrary Decree , or an irresistible Power . Christ may make them good if he pleases by an Almighty Power , but there is no reason can be assigned , why he may not as well own them , while they continue wicked , as receive them into Union with himself , while they were considered as such . Christ may undertake the cure of bad men , as Physicians do the cure of the sick , this was the great end of his coming into the world , not to call the Righteous , but Sinners to repentance ; but to unite them to himself , to receive them into a state of favour and reconciliation , to interest them in his Righteousness , to make them Heirs of Glory , while they are considered as bad , in order of nature before they are renewed and sanctified , is contrary to the holiness of his Nature , to the express declarations of his Gospel , and perfectly alters the whole frame of the Christian Religion . This gives us a little taste , what candour and honesty we may expect from our Author in his ensuing Discourse , in the examination of which I shall not confine my self to his method , but shall content my self to vindicate my own Discourse of our Union to Christ in that order and method wherein it lies , which will give me occasion to consider whatever I am concerned to answer in Mr. Ferguson's Chapter of Union , and then his scurrilous reflexions , and Childish impertinencies will need no answer . The two first Propositions which I laid down in order to explain our Union to Christ are these : First , That those Metaphors , which describe the Relation and Union between Christ and Christians , do primarily refer to the Christian Church , not to every individual Christian. And secondly , That the Union of particular Christians to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church . Which Mr. Ferguson tells us , Are in his opinion things coincident : If by Coincident he means , that one follows from the other , I readily grant it ; but if he means , that the Propositions are the same , which have neither the same subject nor predicate , he might have spared his reflexions either upon my Logick , or accuracy of Writing , as being a very incompetent Judge of either : But the Propositions are distinct and proved by different Mediums ; that which proves the first Proposition does not immediately prove the second ; though Mr. Ferguson would perswade the world , that I had argued at that inconsequent rate , and charges my Logick with the miscarriages and failures of his own , which was the most effectual way he could take to make it ridiculous . And yet after he had charged them with being coincident Propositions , which signifie the same thing , at the very next turn he is so far from owning them coincident , that he will not allow one to be so much as a just consequent from the other : For having recited that Paragraph , whereby I proved , That the Metaphors , which describe the Relation and Union between Christ and Christians , do primarily refer to the Christian Church , not to every individual Christian : He adds , To this I answer . 1. That were this Discourse of our Author framed into a Syllogism , the incongruity between the Conclusion and Premises would easily appear . For example , Christ is the Head of the Church , ergo , no particular Believer is united to him , but by means of their Union with the Church . Let us learn then how he disproves it ; I deny ( says he ) the Consequent , ( I suppose he would have said Consequence , had he understood the difference of those Logical terms ) his Reason is this : Surely , though the King be immediate Head to the whole Kingdom , yet he is immediate head to every Individual Person in it . As for that word Immediate , I shall let it alone till anon , but our Author says very right ; The King is the Head of every Subject , as well as of the whole Kingdom , and so is Christ the Head of every particular Christian , as well as of the whole Church ; but this is not the thing in Controversie : The question is , Whether a King , who is Head only of his own Kingdom , can be said to be the Head of any single Person , who is not of his Kingdom , and therefore whether such a Person must not first be incorporated into his Kingdom , before he can be related to the King as his Head : Thus Christ is primarily stiled a Head with reference to his whole Church , which is his body , and therefore those who are not of this Church and body cannot be related to him , as to their Head ; the only way to be related to Christ , as our Head , is to be incorporated into his Church , which is his body : For no head has relation to any members , which are not united to its own body . But our Author proceeds : 2. The Church and its Individual Members being of an Homogenious nature , what soever is praedicated essentially of the whole , is equally praedicated of every part . If by this he only means , that Christ may as well be called the Head of particular Christians , as of the whole Christian Church , I readily grant it , though it be nothing to the purpose ; but the Proposition is the most absurd and senseless that ever was framed . A River is a Homogeneous body , and yet every drop of water cannot be called a River . The Union of several things of the same nature gives them a new denomination , which cannot belong to every particular : A Kingdom consists of a great many men , who are as much of the same Homogeneous nature as men , as Christians are , as they are Christians ; and yet every particular man cannot be called a Kingdom . The body of Christ consists of a great many particular Christians , and yet every Christian is not the body of Christ : And besides this , it is fulsomly absurd to say , that the Church and its Individual Members are of an Homogeneous nature : For the Church is an organized body , which consists of several Christians , who considered as Members , are of as different a nature as the hand , and eye , and foot , which are of different use , necessity , and honour : So the Apostle tells us , 1 Cor. 12. 12 , 13 , 14 , &c. For as the body is one , and hath many members , and all the members of that one body being many are one body , so also is Christ. And he particularly mentions the Foot , and the Ear , and the Eye , which no man yet thought to be of an Homogeneous nature , till Mr. Ferguson blessed the world with this Discovery . His third and fourth Arguments proceed upon the same mistake , and indeed are the very same in terminis : That every member of the body , as well as the whole body is united to the Head , that the Church is Christ's Body , and we are all Members in particular , which is the very thing I contend for . But Mr. Ferguson ought to have proved , that every member is the body of Christ , or that any one can be a member of Christ , without being a member of his body ; that any Christian can be said to be married to Christ , or to be his Spouse upon any other account , than with respect to his relation to the Church , which is his Spouse . That these expressions may be used of particular Christians upon account of their relation to the whole body , I deny not ; but the primary use of these Metaphors is to describe the relation between Christ and his Church , and are secondarily applied to particular Christians , and particular Churches as they are members of the Universal Church . But to come closer to the business , Mr. Ferguson's great spight is at the second Proposition , That the Union of particular Christians with Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church . Now methinks our Author in common prudence ought not to have expressed too great a zeal against this Notion , till he had found out some better way of stating it : And yet there are two or three plain questions , which I am sure he can never answer , without owning all I contend for in this matter . As first , whether Christ have more than one body ; I suppose he dares not say he has , because the Apostle has expresly told us , that there is but one body , as there is but one Spirit , Eph. 4. 4. And therefore I would ask him secondly , whether every Christian , as a Christian , be not a member of Christ ; this I presume he will not deny neither ; and therefore thirdly I enquire farther , whether any Christian can be a member of Christ without being a member of his body : And unless our Author be very fond of non sense , and thinks every thing true which is unintelligible he dares not say it ; and then the Consequence is very plain , that no man can be considered as a Christian , that is , as united to Christ , without being considered as incorporated into the Christian Church : For no man can be a member of Christ without being a member of his body , which is his Church . Mr. Hooker , in that very Paragraph which Dr. Owen alleadges , as he thought , against me , asserts this in as express words as ever I did : In God we actually are no longer than from the time of our actual Adoption into the body of his true Church , into the fellowship of his Children . For his Church he knoweth and loveth , so that they , that are in the Church , are thereby known to be in him . Our being in Christ by Eternal Fore-knowledge saveth us not , without our actual and real Adoption into the Fellowship of his Saints in this world . For in him we actually are by actual incorporation into that Society , which hath him for their Head , and doth make together with him one body . I am not ashamed to confess , that I cannot answer this , though the comfort is , that I have no need to do it . If Dr. Owen be of this mind , as methinks he should be by this quotation , I would desire him to answer Mr. Ferguson ; if he be not , let him answer Mr. Hooker , or at least give an account to the world for what purpose he alleadged his authority , for grant but this , and I see nothing in that long Paragraph , which will do him any kindness , or me any injury . But to return to Mr. Ferguson , there needs no more to take off the force of his little Cavils , than to state the true meaning of that Proposition , That particular Christians are united to Christ by means of their Union to the Christian Church ; which I perceive he either does not , or will not understand . And I shall do that in these following Propositions . First , this does not signifie , that it is one thing to be united to the Church , and another thing to be united to Christ , but our Union to Christ consists in our Union to the Christian Church , as at other times I express it : For there is no other way for a member to be united to the Head , but by being united to the body : And by its Union to the body it is united to the Head ; and we cannot so much as consider any priority of nature , much less of time between these two : For though we may distinctly consider the relation , which is between the particular members of the body to each other , and that relation , which every particular member has to the head , and for a more distinct conception of them , may represent one as the means to the other ; yet when we consider the relation which is between the head and particular members , we can form no other Notion of it , than their Union to that body which is united to the Head. Hence it is , that when I explain that Metaphor of Christ's being a Vine , sometimes by Vine I understand the Christian Church , which is founded on a belief of the Gospel of Christ , and is united to him as their Head : Sometimes I express it more distinctly , that I am the Vine signifies , Christ together with his Church , which is his body , in which Mr. Ferguson fancies great contradictions : That the Vine should sometimes signifie the Church , sometimes Christ together with his Church ; but this savours only of his dulness and hebetude , to use his own Phrase , or which is as likely , of a prevaricating conscience . For when I say the Church is the Vine , no man in his wits could imagine , that I excluded the consideration of Christ the Head , especially when I immediately explain it by Christ and his Church , that is the Head and the Body : For it is the very same thing , when we speak of our Union to Christ , to say , that we are united to Christ , or that we are united to his Church , that we are united to the Head , or to the Body , since our Union to both is the very same : And therefore it is indifferent whether we explain this Metaphor of the Vine by the Christian Church , which is the body of Christ , and inseparably united to the Head , or by Christ considered as Head , which implies a necessary relation to his body , to which particular Christians are united . We are in Christ as members are in the body , which unites them to the head , which is our being engrafted into this spiritual Vine : Christ is in us , as the Head is in the members , by his Influences and Government , by his Word dwelling and abiding in us , Ioh. 15. 7. And now I hope no man will believe me so senseless , as to deny the Union of Christians to the Person of Christ ( as Mr. Ferguson would perswade the World I do ) when I acknowledge our Union to him , as the Head of the Church , as the great Prophet , and Ruler , Prince and Saviour of his body , which he is , as he is a Person : And therefore when I affirm , That when Christ speaks in the first Person I and in Me , he cannot mean this of his own Person , but of his Church , Doctrine , and Religion , according as the circumstances of the place require ; the plain meaning of it is this , that we must not consider the Person of Christ as abstracted from his being the Head of his Church , and the great Prophet and Teacher of it , as these men do , as will appear more in what follows . Secondly , I observe , that we are united to Christ and to the Church by the very same act , as it must necessarily be , if the Union be the same . Faith in Christ , and such a publick profession of it , as he requires , unites us to Christ , and incorporates us into the Christian Church , that is , makes us members of Christ's body , which is our Union to him . We are not first united to Christ by Faith , and then united to the Church by our subsequent choice and consent , by explicite Contracts , as some imagine without any reason or president of the Apostolick Age ; but that Faith , which unites us to Christ , incorporates us into his Church , makes us members of his body , wherein our Union consists , and that obliges us , as we will own our Christianity , to a visible Communion with the Church , where it may be had . Thirdly , to make this yet more clear , we must consider what is meant by the Church in this question : Now the general Notion of a Church is , a Religious Society founded on the belief of the Gospel , and an acknowledgment of the Authority of Christ , and united to him as their Head ; who rules and governs them either immediately by himself , or by the mediation of Church-Officers , authorized by him for that purpose . That Christ designed not only to reform and save some particular men , but to erect a Church , and to unite all his Disciples to himself in one body , is so very evident , that were not men acted by Faction and Interest , it could admit no serious dispute : All the Metaphors , which describe our Union to Christ , do primarily refer to the Christian Church , as I observed before : Christ is the Head , and the Church his body , and the Apostle tells us , that there is but one body ; and that he is the Saviour of the body , and that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud : The Jewish Church was Typical of the Christian , and they were all of one Family , the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham , and were all united by the same Laws , and Religious Ceremonies , and there was no way for an Alien to partake of the Priviledges of that holy people , but by being incorporated into the body of Israel ( who were the Heirs of the Promises ) by Baptism and Circumcision . Now as the Jews were the carnal Posterity of Abraham , so the Apostle tells us , that Christians are his spiritual Seed , the Sons of God , and the Children of Abraham by Faith , Gal. 3. 26 , 29. ( i. e. ) We are admitted into Abraham's Family , and made Heirs according to Promise : When God cast off the Jewish Church , he did not leave himself without a Church in the world , but as some of those branches were broken off , so the Christians , who before their Conversion were many of them Pagan Idolaters , a wild Olive tree , were graffed in among them , and with them partake of the root and fatness of the Olive tree , Rom. 11. 27. So that Christ did not come to dissolve , but to reform the Church : He owns no relation to particular men , as scattered Individuals , but as incorporated into his Church . Now the internal Union of the Church to Christ consists in a sincere and lively Faith , and a voluntary subjection to his Authority ; the External Ligaments of it , are an External and visible profession of our Faith , and solemn Vows of Obedience ( which is regularly according to our Saviours Institution performed in Baptism ) and external and visible Communion , and the external Ministries of Grace , to which our Saviour has ordinarily annexed the internal operations of his Spirit , as will appear more hereafter . Now though Internal Union by a sincere and hearty Faith , and a subjection of our selves to the Laws and Government of Christ will unite us to his invisible Church , where there is no visible Society of Christians professing the faith of Christ , and living in a regular Communion and Fellowship with each other ; Yet where there is , we cannot be united to Christ's body without a visible incorporation into his Church : For the visible and invisible Church of Christ is but one body , and to renounce the Communion of the visible Church , where it may be had without any injury to our internal Union , that is , without being forced to renounce any Article of the Christian Faith , or to violate any of the Christian Laws , is in effect to renounce Christianity : For Christ hath appointed no other ordinary method of our Union to his body , but those ordinary and regular ways of incorporation into his Church , and though he will dispense with ordinary ways in extraordinary cases , yet we have no reason to think he will ordinarily do so , which would be to dissolve his visible Church , or to make External Communion the most arbitrary and precarious thing in the world . A secret Faith in Christ , and acknowledgment of his Authority does not ordinarily unite us to his body , but is only a necessary qualification , and disposition to such a Union : But in order to an actual Union there is required such a publick profession of our Faith , and solemn Vows of Obedience , performed with such initial Rites , as our Saviour has appointed , as does actually incorporate us into the Christian Church , as makes us members of the Universal Church , visible or invisible , and more immediately unites us to the particular Church wherein we live ; just as it is in our admission into any Relation or Society , there is required an antecedaneous consent to qualifie us for it , but this alone does not unite to such a Society , without such particular Ceremonies , or publick Oaths and Engagements as by the Laws of that Society are required to our actual admission : And therefore in the Ancient Church the Clinici , who delayed their Baptism till they were under the apprehensions of death , though all their lives they professed the Faith of Christ , yet refusing by this holy Rite to be actually incorporated into the Church , they were looked on at best as a very imperfect sort of Christians , of whose state there was just reason for doubt and jealousie . Fourthly , we may observe some difference in the manner of our admission into the Church according to the different states and dispensations of it : We may consider the Church in its Idea and Embrio , before there be any visible Society of Christians , and in this case , though the first Believer cannot be said to be admitted into any Society of Christians , yet he may be said to be admitted into the Church : For then the Church signifies Christ , who is the Head , and such a platform and Idea of a Society , which is to be set up in the world , formed according to such a model of Laws and Government , Priviledges , and Immunities as are described in the Gospel . This is no other than what is necessary in the first forming of any Societies upon a publick Charter or Commission : He who is first admitted into any Colledge or Corporation is made a member of that Society , though as yet there be none but himself , for there is the foundation of a Society laid , where there is a Head and Governour , and publick Laws , and Constitutions , and Priviledges for the Government of it . Thus when our Saviour did converse upon earth , and was a visible Head , then the way to be united to him was immediately to put themselves under his Government , to go directly to him , and to profess their Faith and subjection to him : Upon which account Faith is called coming to Christ , which Phrase is never used to signifie believing , but only in the Gospels , and with reference to that time , while he conversed on earth : But since Christ ascended into heaven , and left a visible Authority in the Church , there is no other way of admission into his Church but by the Ministry of men invested with his Authority , nor is there any other way of submitting our selves to the Authority of Christ , but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church as you may see more at large in my former Discourse . These things being premised , it will be a very easie task to answer all Mr. Ferguson's little Cavils . As 1. He argues . If particular Christians be united to Christ only by virtue of a previous relation to the Church , I would then fain know of Mr. Sherlock , how the whole Church comes to be united to the Lord Iesus . If this will do him any kindness , it is quickly answered : For the whole Church is united to Christ , just as particular Christians are united , by Faith and Obedience : The only difference is , that the Church is united as a body , particular Christians as members of that body . The foundation of this Objection is , That our Author imagined , that our Union to the Church , and our Union to Christ , were two distinct things , and that we are united to Christ and to the Church by two different acts , and then indeed his Argument would have entangled me in a Circle , but I have already broke this Circle in my first and second Propositions . For though the Church being an aggregate body of believers , can no other ways embrace the Revelations of the Gospel , or yield obedience to its commands but in the virtue of what her particular constituent members do ; yet this may be done in such a manner , as to unite them all to Christ , not as single Individuals , but as formed and cemented into a regular and well-proportioned body . His second Argument in short is this , That the Christian Church being nothing else but the collective body of Christians , it naturally follows , that they must in priority of nature be Christians before they can any way belong to the Church . But I can imagine no reason for this ; for it is sufficient , if they be made Christians by their Union to the Church , for then the Church will still be the collective body of Christians . And indeed if every Christian be a member of Christ , it is not imaginable how any should be a Christian , before he be united to the body of Christ. His third Argument is , That the Apostles were immediately united to Christ without any antecedent relation to the Church , and therefore every Individual Christian may be so too : And this he proves , because there was no Christian Church pre-existent to them , into whose Fellowship and Society they could be admitted : But this I have already answered in my fourth Proposition , that we may be said to be admitted into the Church , where there is no visible Society of Christians to joyn with : If Christ might then be called the Head of the Church , I know no reason why the Apostles at that time might not be called the members of it . And though the Apostles were immediately under the Government and Instruction of Christ , while he was visibly present with them , yet I suppose there may be some reason assigned , why other Christians cannot be so immediately united to him , now he is not present as a visible Head on earth . Thus far , Mr. Ferguson tells us , he has discoursed these things , taking the Church for the Universal Catholick visible Church , which is the most favourable acceptation to befriend my Notion ; But I can tell him a more favourable acceptation than this , which he durst not touch on , The Universal Catholick Church , visible or invisible : For the visible and invisible is the same Church of Christ , and every Christian being a member of Christ's body , which is but one , every Christian is as truly united to the invisible , as to the visible part of it ; and where there is no visible Church , our Union to Christ is secured by our Union to the invisible Church . Had Mr. Ferguson thought on this , he would not have urged that Argument from the Union of the Apostles and first Believers to Christ , without any pre-existent Church to be united to : Unless he thinks that Abraham , Isaac and Iacob , and all the good men , who lived before Christ's Incarnation , were not of his Church , and then I would desire him to tell me how they were saved . Whoever is admitted into the Christian Church must of necessity be admitted by the Ministers of some particular Church , but yet this makes him a member of the Universal Church , which is Christ's body . Our relation , as we are Christians , is to the whole body of Christ , and to a particular Church , as a branch and member of it ; our Christianity is not confined to any particular Society of Christians , but our obligation to external fellowship with any sound part of the Church of Christ , where-ever the Providence of God casts us , is our antecedent relation , at least in priority of nature , to the whole Christian Church . Thus I am sure our Church of England in her Office of Baptism declares , that she receives the baptized Person into the Fellowship of Christ's Church , not of this , or that particular Church , but of the whole Church of Christ , and teaches her Children , that in their Baptism they are made the members of Christ , which word is of a larger import than the members of a particular Church : And St. Paul tells us , that as there is but one body , so there is but one Baptism , which makes us members of that one body . This was one Argument whereby the Fathers in the Council of Carthage proved the invalidity of that Baptism which was administred by Hereticks and Schismaticks , who separated from the Church ; because they being out of the Church , could not admit any one into the Catholick Church . Frustra ille putat se esse baptizatum , cùm non sit baptisma nisi in Ecclesia , unum , & verum , quia Deus unus , & fides una , & Ecclesia una est , in qua stat unum baptisma , & sanctitas , & caetera ; nam quae foris exercentur , nullum habent salutis effectum . Now whether they were mistaken in their Conclusion or not , the Premises were the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church , owned by those very Fathers , who opposed the rebaptization of Schismaticks . We are united to Christ by our Union with the Catholick visible or invisible Church , which necessarily includes our visible Fellowship and Society with that particular Church , wherein we live , when we may hold Communion with it without renouncing the Christian Faith , or violating any express Law , which our Saviour has given us ; as I discoursed more fully in my other Book : And when we cannot joyn in Communion with any visible Society of Christians without renouncing our fidelity to Christ , our Union to Christ is then secured in our spiritual Union to his invisible Church and body . Now this gives a plain solution to all Mr. Ferguson's Arguments , whereby he proves , That Communion with a particular Church cannot be the medium of a Christians Union to Christ. Though I never asserted this any other ways , than as communion with a particular Church , where it may be had , is essential to our Union with the Universal Church . But let us hear what he says : First , there may be some Individual Christians , where there is no particular instituted Church of Christ into which they can be admitted . Then if they be Christians , they are united to the Universal Church : But there can be no particular Church without the pre-existence of Individual Believers . Right , but every Individual Believer is not a Christian till he be incorporated into the Christian Church : Faith is necessary to qualifie a man for admission into the Church , but though God may dispense with extraordinary cases , yet ordinarily Faith alone does not make a man a Christian , as appears from the third Proposition : We must believe and be baptized if we will be saved : For Baptism ordinarily incorporates us into the Christian Church , to which alone the Promises of Salvation are made . And whereas a late Author thinks to evade the force of this Argument by observing that our Saviour adds , But he that believeth not shall be damned , Mark 16. 16 , So that men shall be damned meerly upon account of their unbelief , and not meerly for want of baptism , provided they have faith : It is on the contrary very evident that no such thing can be concluded from our Saviours words : He first lays down the terms of Salvation , Faith , and Baptism , and methinks those men make very bold with our Saviour , who affirm , that we may be ordinarily saved ( for our Saviour speaks here of ordinary cases ) without Baptism ; but then he adds , who shall be damned , and they are Unbelievers of two sorts : such Infidels as refuse Baptism , and such unbelievers as are baptized : So that he that believeth not , shall be damned , signifies , that though Faith and Baptism be necessary to Salvation , yet unbelief alone whether men be baptized or not shall damn them : For I would ask this Author , whether supposing that our Saviour had designed in those words , He that believeth , and is baptized , shall be saved , to signifie , that Faith and Baptism were both necessary to Salvation , it had been proper for him to have added , but he that believeth not , and is not baptized , shall be damned : which would have damned only unbaptized Infidels , and have given too great reason to baptized hypocrites and unbelievers to hope for salvation . But to return to Mr. Ferguson , his second Argument is this , That Christians may be obliged upon their loyalty to Christ to renounce Communion , not only with the particular Church with which they have walked , but to suspend fellowship with any particular Church , that lies within the circle and compass of their knowledge . If there be a just cause for this , it will be their vindication , and this will not prejudice their union to the invisible Catholick Church ; But I hope all good Christians will be more wary of this than our Author and his Friends are , for humour , and frowardness , and interest will not justifie a separation . His third Argument is of the same nature , and needs no other answer , That Christians may be injuriously cast out of the Communion , not only of one , but of every particular Church , and yet remain united to Christ : If they be injuriously cast out , it shall be no prejudice to them , for Christ will reverse all unjust Sentences ; such men are still united to Christ , and therefore are united to his body , the Catholick invisible Church : But what he adds , that a man may be justly secluded for a time from communion with any particular Church , and yet his union to Christ not be dissolved : Though it make nothing against me , for if he be still united to Christ , he is united to the Catholick Church , though secluded from the Communion of the visible Church ; yet it is directly contrary to the sense of all antiquity , and makes the censures of the Church vain and useless things : What is the meaning of that authority our Saviour hath granted to his Apostles and Ministers , Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven , and whatsoever you loose on earth , shall be loosed in heaven ; if they may bind , and Christ loose , if they may justly separate men from the body of Christ , and yet Christ keep them united to himself ? which I fear must be unjustly done , if the other be justly ; unless he will say , that the Church may justly separate men from Christ , & Christ justly keep them united to himself . All Divines indeed grant , that whatever is done errante clave through ignorance and mistake , or for some worse reasons , is rectified by Christ ; but to say that Christ makes void the just and regular Censures of his Church , is expresly contrary to his declared will , and is in effect to repeal and countermand that authority which he has left in his Church : and therefore so far as any man is justly separated from the Church , he is separated from Christ too , and cannot regularly be restored again but by the same authority . But I suppose Mr. Ferguson ( and he has some reason for it ) is of Mr. Watson's mind , That neither Sin nor Satan can dissolve our Union with Christ , and then I know no reason , why it should dissolve our Union with the Church neither . His fourth Argument is , That none are to be received under the notion of members into a particular Church , but upon a presumption that Christ hath received them . But it is sufficient , if they be such as Christ will receive and own , when they are incorporated into his Church ; and indeed Mr. Ferguson's way is down-right non-sense . For Christ's receiving men is his admission of them into his Church , as members of his body , and if Christ must receive them , first he must own them for members of his Church , before they are members of his Church , and no man is fit to be admitted as a member of the Church , before he be a member of the Church : As for what he adds , that men must first be Believers before they be admitted members of the Church , is very true , but Faith only does not make them Christians , as I shewed above . His fifth Argument is , That it is a Persons submitting himself to the Laws and Authority of Christ , which swayeth and influenceth him to submit to Pastors and Teachers , and to joyn with others in the fellowship of the Gospel ; and by consequence our union with a particular Church is so far from being the bond of our Union with the Lord Iesus , that on the contrary our Union with him is the motive and inducement of our joyning into fellowship with a particular Church . This is so far from being true , that on the contrary we have no visible way of submitting to the Authority of Christ , but by submitting our selves to that Authority and Government , which he hath left in his Church : For Christ does not govern us now as a visible head , but by the Ministry of men , whom he hath invested with authority for that purpose . The belief of Christ's Power and Authority is the reason of our subjection to the Church , but we do not actually submit to the Authority of Christ on earth , but by our actual subjection to the Church , as I shewed above in the fourth Proposition . As for his proof from the example of the Churches of the Macedonians , that they first gave themselves to the Lord , and then unto them ( the Apostles ) by the will of God , 2 Cor. 8. 5. Which he thus expounds , That it was by taking upon them the observance of Christs commands , that they found themselves obliged to coalesce into Church Societies ; it is a famous example of our Author's skill or honesty in expounding Scriptures ; for the Apostle speaks nothing there of Church Societies , or the reason of their entring into them , which was no dispute in those days , when Independency was not yet hatched ; but he commends the bounty and charity of the Macedonians in contributing to the necessities of the poor Saints , and their great forwardness to it , that they did not need to be stirred up by the Apostles to so good a work , but on the contrary earnestly intreated them to receive the gift , and take upon them the fellowship of the ministring to the Saints . And the account the Apostle gives of it is this , that they first gave up themselves and all they had to the service of Christ , and then committed their liberal contributions into their hands to be disposed of for the propgation of the Gospel , and the relief of the Saints . This was the commendation of their charity , that it was not the effect of importunate solicitations , but of hearts entirely devoted to Christ and the service of the Church : though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , doth not signifie , that they first gave themselves to the Lord , and then to us , but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us , his Apostles , who are invested with his Authority , and then expressed their bounty and liberality to the poor Christians . His last Argument is , That an imagination of our being united to Christ by the mediation of an Union with the Church , seems to have been the foundation of the Papal Vicarious Political Head : But pray how so ? Because I assert , that Christ is the Head of the Church , which is his body , and that he is a head only to his body , and therefore , that none can be united to Christ as their head without being members of his body , therefore there must be a Papal Vicarious Political Head ? I must now do as M. Ferguson does , deny the consequent , for I am sure there is no consequence in it . He imagines that our Union to Christ , and our Union to the Church , are two distinct Unions , and therefore if we are united to Christ by our Union to the Church , there ought to be a Universal Vicarious Head on earth , to whom we may be united : Whereas we are united to no head but Christ , and we are united to this Head , as all members are , by our Union to his body , which is his Church : To be united to a Vicarious Head in order to our Union to the Real Head , if it be not senseless and ridiculous , yet is founded neither on reason , nor Scripture , nor any analogy or resemblance in nature ; but to be united to the body that we may be united to the head is necessary in order of nature ; for no member is any other ways united to the head but by its Union to the body : The whole Church is the body of Christ , and Apostles , and Prophets , and Bishops , are but members of this body , though of greater use , dignity , and authority than meaner Christians ; as in the natural body some members are more honourable and useful than the rest . But who told Mr. Ferguson that Christ is not the immediate Political Head of his Church , and that therefore there must be a Vicarious Head ? He represents this as my opinion , though I never said so , nor thought so : I have said indeed , that particular Christians are not immediately united to the person of Christ , but are united to Christ by their Union to his Church : But it does not hence follow , that Christ is not the immediate Head of every Christian , much less that he is not the immediate head of his whole Church : except he will say , that the Head in the natural body is not the immediate head of the body , and of every member in it , because the hand and the foot are not immediately joyned to it . These are Mr. Ferguson's Arguments to prove , that we are not united to Christ by being united to the Christian Church , most of which he alleadges also upon another occasion to prove , That one living in the Fellowship and Communion of no visible Church may be a Christian ( which was the avowed Doctrine of Socinus ) by this we may guess , what weight he laid upon them , and I am not at leisure to repeat my answers , as often as he repeats his Arguments , but dare venture them at one proposal against his frequent repetitions . And therefore to proceed , among other Arguments whereby I confirmed that Notion , that our Union to Christ consists in our Union to the Christian Church . I argued from the nature of the two Sacraments , Baptism , and the Lords Supper , which our Saviour has appointed , as Symbols of our Union with him . Our first undertaking of Christianity is represented in our Baptism , wherein we make a publick profession of our faith in Christ , and solemnly vow obedience to him , and it is sufficiently known , that Baptism is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Church . Now in answer to this Mr. Ferguson tells us , 1. That Baptism is neither the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church , nor that whereby we become members of a particular instituted Church . I hope our Author will not here too challenge me with contradicting the Church of England , which so expresly teaches us , that in our Baptism , we were made the members of Christ , the Children of God , &c. I observed before , that Baptism admits us into the Catholick Church visible or invisible , and admits us into particular Churches as members of the Universal Church , which signifies no more , than that by virtue of our being members of the Universal Church , we have a right , and are under an Obligation to visible Communion with any particular Church , wherein we live , if there be no just and necessary cause to hinder it . Let us hear now how Mr. Ferguson disproves this : he tells us , that Baptism is not the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church , he should say the Rite and Ceremony of our admission and incorporation into the Church , for asmuch as a person may be of the Universal visible Church , and yet not be baptized . How does he prove this ? Because there have been many who ( partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism , partly through other motives , though they are not justifiable ) have denied themselves the mercy of the Baptismal Laver , and yet to suppose that thereupon they are not Christians , is to renounce all exercise of charity , and to involve our selves under the guilt of condemning those whom the Lord hath received , in which Argument there are almost as many absurdities as words . He attempts to disprove the received Doctrine of the Church by a judgment of charity , so that if a man will not be very charitable his Argument is worth nothing ; and indeed his Arguments do as often need the exercise of charity , as most I ever met with : And yet in the next breath he charges those with guilt , who condemn them whom the Lord hath received : But if Gods receiving them be only a judgment of charity , how comes he to be so sure of it as to pronounce , that the Lord hath received them , and to condemn all those who deny it , without offering the least word to prove it ? But suppose that we are so charitable as to hope that God may receive them , yet how does this make them members of the Catholick visible Church ? To be sure they are not visible members of any Church , for if they were they would not need the judgment of charity to make them so , and if they be not visible members , they cannot be members of the visible Church : Those who want the opportunities of Baptism , cannot be members of the visible Church , for it is supposed they do not live where there is any visible Church , otherwise they might have the opportunity of Baptism ; and those who refuse to be baptized upon unjustifiable reasons , certainly were never received into the Catholick visible Church , ( which never owns any members but those who are baptized ) though they may be entertained in private Clans and Conventicles . But is not this a pretty Argument against Baptism being the regular way , which Christ hath appointed for our admission into his Church , because there are some few favourable cases , which require the exercise of our charity , to hope that God may be merciful to them who are not baptized ; whereas this very supposition , that it requires the judgment of Charity is a plain acknowledgment , that Baptism is the regular way of making men Christians , and that there is some reason of doubt , whether Christ will own them members of his Church who are not baptized . All Divines of any note tell us , that where men want the opportunity of Baptism , Baptism in voto , in our wish , and desire , and purpose , will be accepted ; as for those who deny themselves the mercy of Baptism upon unjustifiable grounds , we must leave them to the secret judgment of God ; they have not the ordinary title to the Promises of the New Covenant , and what extraordinary mercy God will vouchsafe to them who reject the ordinary methods of grace no man can tell . His Arguments whereby he proves , that Baptism does not admit us into a particular instituted Church , are first because it is possible that a person may be baptized where there are not enough to form any particular instituted Church : What of that ? May it not confer a right , and lay an obligation to Communion with a particular Church , when we come where it is ? Which is all that is meant by our admission into a particular Church by Baptism : Well , but it may sometimes be found necessary to deny the Priviledges of Membership in an instituted Church , even to such as have been baptized : That is , if they be found forging of bonds , or guilty of any other scandalous sin , they may be censured and excommunicated ; and who ever denied this ? Nay , is not this an Argument that Baptism admits them into the Church , because such persons only are subject to the Censures of it ? And how they can be cast out of the Church , I know not , except they were in it : The sum of this Argument is this , That Baptism does not admit us into the Church , because baptized persons , living disorderly , may be cast out of it . But there were baptized Christians before any particular Churches were erected . Be it so ; then they were members of the Universal Church , and thereby qualified to be members of a particular Church , when there should be one . Secondly he proves , that we are not admitted into the Church by Baptism , because none ought to be admitted to Baptism , but those who are antecedently judged to be Christians : For which he quotes Acts 8. 37. where Philip tells the Eunuch , that if he believed he might be baptized : it seems he knows no difference between a Believer and a Christian , but I have taken notice of this already . Faith is necessary to our Baptism , and to qualifie us to be admitted into the Church ; but besides this , an actual incorporation into the Church by Baptism is necessary to make us Christians , and to entitle us to the Priviledges of Christs body . In his third and fourth Propositions he designs to say something against me , but I cannot imagine what it is . He tells us , That our submitting to the Ordinance and Institution of Baptism , is a visible profession of our owning the Authority of Christ : So say I too ; it is such a profession of our subjection to Christ , as Christ hath made necessary to our incorporation into his Church : But we must own the Authority of Christ , before we can make this profession of owning it . Right , we must believe Christ to be Lord and Saviour , but this alone does not make us Christians , unless we make such a profession of it , and be admitted into the Church by such publick Rites and Ceremonies as Christ hath made necessary to that end . The consent of both Parties is necessary to a Marriage , but this alone will not make the Marriage without such a publick solemnization of it as is required by the Laws of Countries : For when there is a legal way appointed for declaring our consent , no Government takes notice of any consent , till it be declared in Form of Law. Our Author tells us , That Baptism is both a Badg and Symbol of our Profession , and a Bond and Obligation upon us , to discharge the duties , which our Profession of Christianity calls us to . And it is so by a perpetual Institution : Now if we consider the nature of a Covenant , which requires sealing on both sides , it will appear , that this Ceremony is essentially necessary to our admission into the Gospel Covenant , ( or which is all one , to our admission into the Christian Church ) God hath sealed to us in the Death of his Son , whereby he has confirmed and ratified the Gospel Covenant , but till we seal to him in Baptism , no previous faith and consent can give us a title to the benefits of the Covenant . In his fourth Proposition he tells us , That the Union of the Catholick visible Church , consisting in a joynt profession of the same Lord , Faith , and Baptism , there doth therefore upon a persons submitting to the Ordinance of Baptism , such a relation to the whole Catholick visible Church emerge , as that he is rendered a compleat member of the Church , under the notion of Catholick visible : And adds , So far is our Union with the visible Church by means of Baptism , from being the medium of our Union to Christ , that it is our dedicating our selves to Christ by this august Ceremony , which constitutes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible . He tells us , that Baptism makes us members of the Catholick Church , so say I : But it makes us members of the Catholick Church by dedicating us to Christ , so say I too ; and therefore our Union with the Visible Church by means of Baptism is not the medium of our Union to Christ : But how does this follow , when Baptism dedicates us to Christ , not as single Individuals , but as members of his body , that is his Church ? For that which dedicates us to Christ as members of his body , unites us to Christ by uniting us to the Church : But Baptism makes us compleat members , whereby he would insinuate , that we were members before , though incomplete ; but this he ought to have proved , which he has not yet , and never can do : And indeed a complete , and incomplete member seems to be no very good sense ; for the same relation admits of no degrees ; one Child under the notion of a Child is as completely the Fathers Child as any other of his Children are ; and if we be indeed members of the Church , that is united and related to the Church , we are complete members ; for what ever makes us members , makes us members , and we cannot be more or less members : A member may be sound or rotten , weak or strong , and upon that score may be a perfect , or imperfect member ; but considering only the relation of membership , which is the present case , every member is as much a member as any other . But Baptism makes us complete members of the Church only under the notion of Catholick visible ; How comes this to pass now ? When in his first Proposition , he would by no means allow , that Baptism united us to the Universal visible Church ; and yet here it makes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible : How will he answer his own Argument ? That men were baptized before there was any particular visible Church formed , and if there were no particular visible Church , certainly there could be no Catholick visible Church neither : Unless we can imagine , that there may be a Kingdom , which consists of a great many subordinate Societies , and Corporations , and Families , before there is so much as any one Family . Baptism admits us into the Church of Christ under the notion of Christ's body , not under the notion of visible or invisible , unless we think , that the Covenant of Grace , and all the Promises of it , which are sealed to us in Baptism , be made only to the Church under the notion of visible : and then I shall not blame the Church of Rome for making Visibility one mark of the true Church . But to proceed , I argued also from the nature of the Lords Supper , which is a Sacrament , and Symbol of our Union to Christ and Fellowship with him after we are incorporated into his Church , and signifies and represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church , and the mutual Fellowship of one Christian with another , as members of the same body . Which is a plain Argument , that Christ owns us , not as single Individuals , but as members of his body , as incorporated into the Christian Church . To this Mr. Ferguson answers : 1. The Supper of the Lord , though a Sacrament of Union , yet it cannot be the first medium of our Union to the Church , seeing none have a right to it , but such as are already Church members . Nor did I ever say it was the first medium , but that it represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church , and every particular Christian , as incorporated into the Church ; For as the Apostle says , ( to use our Authors own words in another place ) seeing it's one loaf ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ ) of which we partake , we are therefore one body ( viz. in Christ ) who participate of that one loaf , 1 Cor. 10. 17. Pichorellus well observes , that Paul doth not say , we are one loaf or bread , ( though our Translation renders it so ) but that he argues from the Coalition of the clusters of the small corpuscles of meal ( surely our Author was taught this bombast by the School master in Sir Philip Sidney ) of which a Loaf is kneaded and contexed to the identity and oneness , that intervenes between Christ and Believers , ( intervening identity and oneness is a great elegancy . ) But our Author seems to have abused Pichorellus not only in a phantastical Translation of his words , but in perverting the sense of them , whose words , as he has set them in the margin , are these : Non dicit Paulus fideles unum esse panem , sed ab uno panc ducit similitudinem : Paul does not say , that all Believers are one bread , but takes a similitude and resemblance from one bread ; What to do ? To prove the oneness and identity , which intervenes between Christ , and single Believers ? as Mr. Ferguson would represent it ; no , but to prove that near alliance and conjunction which is between the whole body of Believers , which are as closely compacted into one body , as the several particles of flour are , when they are kneaded into one Loaf , and so as one body are united to Christ , and entertained at his Table . Agreeably to St. Chrysostoms account of the words , as they are translated also by our Author , What is that Loaf ? It is the body of Christ. What are those who partake of it ? They are the body of Christ , not many bodies , but one . For as the many grains of which a loaf is formed , are so convened into one mass ( mighty elegant still ) that the distinction and diversity one from another doth not appear . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the same manner are we conjoyned to Christ , and one another ; or according to the order of St. Chrysostoms words , to one another and to Christ : So that though this holy Supper be not the first medium of our Union to the Church , yet it represents the Union of the Christian Church , and of all particular Christians in it , in one body to Christ , which was all I designed to prove by it . In the second place he tells us , That by the Lords Supper we ratifie our perseverance , and renew our engagements of being the Lords . And thirdly , That it is a Symbol of our Union to Christ and to each other . And so we are very well agreed , and it is time to give over this Dispute . Thus I have brought off my two first Propositions safe and sound , but before I proceed to the rest , I must remove a rub or two which Mr. Ferguson has thrown in my way : For he charges me with denying our Union to the Person of Christ , and our immediate Union to his Person ; and this indeed I do in some sense , and if he had been either an honest man , or a fair Disputant , he ought to have declared in what sense I disowned it ; but instead of this he fills several Pages with long and senseless Harangues to prove , that we must be united to the Person of Christ , and that it would have been as consistent with my design to own , as to deny it , when indeed I never denied it , but expresly owned it , in that sense which he would now contend for : And to give a plain demonstration of the honesty and ingenuity of this Author , I shall transcribe one Page out of my former Discourse , which concerns this matter . The design of all these distinctions is to prove the Union of Persons between Christ and Believers , and because I find this Author hath bewildred himself , I will endeavour to help him out ; for it is a very plain case , if Christ and Believers are united , their Persons must be united too : For the Person of Christ is Christ himself , and the Persons of Believers are Believers themselves ; and I cannot understand how they can be united without their Persons , that is , without themselves : But then they are united by mutual relations as the Person of a Prince and of his Subjects , of a Husband and his Wife are united , or by mutual affections , or common interest , not by a natural adhesion of Persons : But because I find it does not satisfie these men , that Christ and Believers are united , unless their Persons be united too , it makes me suspect , that there is a greater Mystery in this Union of Persons than every one apprehends . Upon this I considered what they meant by the Person of Christ , and our Union to him : So that I do not impeach them , for not being satisfied , that Christ and Believers are united unless their Persons be united too , as Mr. Ferguson represents it , but from their making such a difference between our Union to Christ , and our Union to his Person , I reasonably concluded , that they meant something more by our Union to the Person of Christ than every one was aware of ; and so indeed I found it , as appears from what I discoursed in that place . And to give as short and perspicuous an account of it as possibly I can here : I observe , that by the Person of Christ to which we are united , they mean such a Person , as has done all for us , and hath undertaken to do all in us : And by an immediate Union to this Person ; they mean at most an immediate application of themselves to his Person by reliance and recumbency , which gives them an interest in all that Christ has done and suffered , by vertue of an Union to his Person . First , By the Person of Christ to which we are united , they mean such a Person as has done all for us , and has undertaken to do all in us . As for the latter part of this , that Christ hath undertaken to do all in us : I shall reserve it to be considered under the head of Political Union , and shall at present confine my Discourse to his having done all for us . This is their notion of Christ's being our Surety and Mediator , that in our stead he hath satisfied the justice of God , and fulfilled all righteousness , and that we are made righteous by his Personal Righteousness , which he performed in his own Person , but in our stead , and as representing us : And I should wonder that Mr. Ferguson denies this , but that I now know him too well to wonder at any thing he says . For Doctor Iacomb has industriously endeavoured to prove this notion of Christs being our Surety to do all in our stead ; and Dr. Owen hath with as great endeavours , and with like success , attempted to prove this from Christs being our Mediator : But how far either the notion of a Surety , or of a Mediator is from countenancing any such Doctrine , I have made abundantly evident in my former Discourse , to which Mr. Ferguson replies nothing , but entertains and amuses his Readers with some School pedantry in the derivation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which he learnedly observes comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But to leave these little Criticisms to School-boys ; and to reduce the Controversie into a short compass , the fundamental mistake is this , that they represent Christ as a Surety and Mediator for some particular men , not as the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant . I made it appear , that though we should grant , that Christ is called a Surety and Mediator , with respect to his undertaking for some particular persons , yet they cannot reasonably argue from the notion of a Surety and Mediator to prove , that Christ fulfilled all righteousness for those , and in their stead , whose Surety and Mediator he was ; and , as I have observed above , my Adversaries have been forced to quit this way of arguing from the general notion of a Surety and Mediator among men : But indeed the foundation of this notion is false , that Christ did undertake for particular persons , to do all for them , which was required of them , by vertue of any Law , as Dr. Owen represents it . Christ by his death made a general Atonement and Expiation for Sin , and with his Blood procured , purchased , and sealed the Covenant of Grace , wherein God promises pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel ; and thus his bloud is the bloud of the Covenant , and he is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant : But that what Christ did and suffered , he should do in the name and stead only of some particular Persons , as their Surety , Proxy , Surrogate , or Substitute , has not the least foundation in Scripture , and is the first cause , and the only support of the Antinomian Heresie . Mr. Ferguson founds Christ's Suretiship on the Covenant of Redemption , that is , on that Covenant , which some modern Divines so much talk of , between God the Father , and Christ concerning the Salvation of the Elect : that God the Father gives so many persons by name to Christ , to be saved by him , and upon his voluntary undertaking that work , he stands in the room and stead of those men , and does and suffers what ever was required of them , acting for them as a common person : that God imputes all their Sins to Christ , and imputes his Righteousness to them , and reckons it as much theirs as if it had been personally performed by them : Gods appointing of Christ to this work , and his accepting of it , puts him into the room and stead of the Elect , and whatever is done by him as their Surety and Mediator , is reckoned as done by them . If this could be proved , it were somewhat to the purpose , but if no such thing appear , as Christ's acting in the name and stead of any particular men , this utterly subverts their notion of Suretiship : For a Surety , or Proxy , or Surrogate , or what ever you will call him , who acts in the name and stead of others , so that what he does , is reckoned as done by those for whom he acts , must do what he does in the name , and as representing the persons of some certain particular men . For to act in the name and stead of another in this sense , and yet not to represent any certain person , is a contradiction . I do not deny , but that Christ may properly be said to die in our stead , loco nostro & vice nostrâ , in as much as his Death was a proper Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin , or as Grotius explains that Phrase , Vice nostra Christum esse mortuum , hoc est , nisi Christus esset mortuus , nos fuisse morituros , & quia Christus mortuus est , nos non morituros morte aeterna ; That Christ is said to die in our stead , because unless Christ had died , me must have died , and since Christ hath died , we shall not die an Eternal death . De satisf . Cap. 9. But then Christ did not so die in our stead , much less fulfil Righteousness in our stead , as to personate us , as our Substitute , Attorney , or Proxy , and the difference between these two is vastly wide : for in the first Case , Christ only so dies in our stead , that in virtue of his Expiation and Sacrifice he procures , confirms , and ratifies , a Universal Covenant of Grace with mankind upon certain terms , and conditions to be performed by us ; hence his bloud is called the bloud of the Covenant , and he the Surety of the Covenant : But for Christ to act in our stead , so as to represent and personate us , gives us an immediate actual right to the purchase of Christ's Death , and to the merit of his Righteousness ; for what is thus done in our stead , is in Law and Justice reckoned as done by us , and therefore can admit of no intervening condition to intitle us to it . In the first sense Christ may die for all mankind , and be a propitiation for the sins of the whole World , and the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death be very well reconciled with a conditional Covenant . But in the second sense he can be said to die for none , but those particular men , whose persons he represented as their Surety and Proxy ; and who have an immediate right to what ever he has done and suffered for no other reason , but because he acted in their name and stead : Which resolves the whole Covenant of Grace between God and man into the Covenant of Redemption , as they call it , between God and Christ. Mr. Ferguson has a great mind to say something against this notion of Christ's being the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant ; and not such a Surety and Mediator for particular persons as acts in their name and stead , and does for them what ever was required of them by any Law. He first excepts against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant , that it signifies no more than to confirm and ratifie this Covenant , and to undertake for the performance of it , that all the Promises of the Covenant shall be made good upon such terms and conditions as are annexed to them . And first he would fain insinuate the charge of Socinianism against it , though he confesses , that both Grotius and Dr. Hammond go this way , but yet my Paraphrase hath more affinity to Schlichtingius's Gloss , than to either of theirs , which is said with the usual ingenuity of our Authour , without any pretence or shew of reason : For there is nothing in my Paraphrase like Schlichtingius's , which I had never seen . As he has set it down in the Margin , Schlichtingius's Comment is this : Sponsor foederis appellatur Iesus , quod nomine Dei nobis sposponderit i. e. fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse , non verò quasi pro nobis sposponderit Deo , nostrorumve delictorum solutionem in se receperit . That Iesus is therefore called the Surety of the Covenant , because he hath promised us in Gods name , that God shall keep and perform the Promises of the Covenant , not that he undertook for us to God , by taking upon himself the discharge of our debts , or sins ; That is , by making Atonement and satisfaction for sin . Which is so far from being my sense , that it is directly contrary to it . For when I say , that Christ's being the Surety of the Covenant , signifies his confirming and ratifying the Covenant , and undertaking for the performance of it , under those Phrases of consirming and ratifying , I include whatever Christ did in order to the full and complete ratification of the Covenant , and had a principal regard to that Expiation and Atonement which he made for sin , which was the procuring cause of the Covenant of Grace , and the Seal and ratification of it : For thus Covenants were confirmed by Sacrifices in the Eastern Countries . Thus Moses confirmed the Covenant between God and the people of Israel , by sprinkling the book and all the people with the bloud of the Sacrifice , saying , this is the bloud of the Testament , which God hath ordained to you , Heb 9. 19 , 20 , 21. Upon which account the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of sprinkling too , because by his bloud God did seal and confirm the Covenant of Grace , as the sprinkling the bloud of beasts did confirm the Mosaical Covenant , as I expresly observed in my former Discourse , from whence Mr. Ferguson might have learned what I meant by confirming and ratifying the Covenant . Now this alone answers all Mr. Ferguson's Objections against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant . He tells us , that the Surety of a better Testament , and Mediator of a better Covenant are equipollent terms , ( though he produces no other reason for it , but that Christ is called a Surety in one place , and Mediator in another , whereas the notions seem to be somewhat different ) and that his being stiled a Surety hath respect not to his Prophetical , but Sacerdotal Office ; and what follows from hence ? Why therefore Christ's being our Surety does not signifie his confirming and ratifying the Covenant , which had been an unanswerable objection , had I attributed the confirmation of the Covenant to Christ only as Prophet , and not as Priest ; but now proves nothing but our Authors great forwardness to answer Books before he understands them , or great skill in affixing perverse senses on them . But Mr. Ferguson has one extraordinary Argument to prove , That there is nothing of ratifying the Covenant , and undertaking for the performance of it intended in the term of Suretiship , because this shakes God's infinite veracity , which is the foundation of all Divine Faith. We may sometimes question , whether such a declaration come from God , but admitting once , that it is his , there is no room left to suspect its being true ; and therefore Christ could not confirm the Covenant ; For Christ needed a testimony from God to confirm his mission , but God needed none from him to establish his being true and unchangeable . But he quite mistakes the state of the question , for Christs confirmation of the Covenant is not his giving testimony to the truth and faithfulness of God , but such a confirmation of the Covenant , as is made by a purchase , and by a Seal ; which is an evidence to us that the Covenant is confirmed past all revocation , which no Covenant is , till the Seal is put to it ; or to use the Apostles Argument from the nature of a Testament , which is not in force till the death of the Testator ; which reason the Apostle assigns , why the first Testament was dedicated with bloud , and why this New Testament should be dedicated , and confirmed , and ratified with the bloud of Christ , Heb. 9. 15 , 16 , &c. which gives a plain Answer to his other Argument , That the Apostle reckoning up all the evidences of the Immutability of God's Counsel , hath omitted this , and thereby precluded it from the number of them . Whereas in this very place the Apostle tells us , that this New Testament receives its force and final confirmation from the death of Christ , who is the Testator . And whereas he adds , Other security in order to our consolation we need not , nor hath God thought fit to give any but his Promise and Oath ; and for this alleadges Gods Oath to Abraham , Heb. 6. 16 , 17. though we should acknowledge , that God confirmed his Covenant and Promise to Abraham only by an Oath , yet it is as plain , that he has confirmed his Covenant with us by the Death of his Son ; and indeed God ratified his Covenant with Abraham too by Sacrifice , and that at Abraham's request , Gen. 15. 8 , 9 , 10 , &c. And this Mr. Ferguson at last acknowledges , that the enacting of the Covenant of Grace ( which I suppose includes a final ratification of it ) respects Christ's undertaking to be made sin , and to undergo the Curse , as the moral cause and condition without which there had been no overtures of mercy made to the Sons of men : And that upon this account is Christ called the Surety of the Covenant . This is a very dilute account of the Death of Christ , to make it only the condition sine quâ non , without which God would not have made overtures of mercy ▪ but he mends this in what follows , that It was in consequence of Christ's susception to be our Sponsor , and with respect to the obedience of his life , and Sacrifice of his Death , as the procuring and deserving cause that God entred into a Covenant with mankind , &c. Which is no more than I always affirmed , excepting by Sponsor he means , that Christ did act in the name and stead of any particular men . Having thus got rid of Mr. Ferguson's Objections against my Notion of Christ's being the Surety of the Covenant ( for what he discourses of Christ's being a Mediator having nothing new in it , deserves no particular consideration ) I come now to shew what necessity there is of rejecting that Notion of Christs being a Surety and Mediator for particular persons , to do for them in their name and slead , whatever was required of them by vertue of any Law ; and that in short is this , that it is one of the first and fundamental Principles of Antinomianism , from which are deduced all those pernicious Doctrines which alter the whole frame and design of Christianity , and do naturally tend to debauchery and licentiousness . I shall give but some short hints of this , because the thing is sufficiently evident and notorious . Thus from hence they argue , that the very sins and iniquities of the Elect , and not only the guilt and punishment of them , is laid on Christ , because he stands so in our stead , as to become just what we were : Hast thou been an Idolater ? Hast thou been a Blasphemer ? Hast thou been a Murderer , an Adulterer , a Thief , a Liar , a Drunkard ? &c. If thou hast a part in the Lord Christ , all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ , and so cease to be thine , and thou ceasest to be the transgressor , from that time they were laid upon Christ , to the last hour of thy life . Christ himself is not so completely righteous , but we are righteous as he was ; nor we so completely sinful , but he became , being made sin , as completely sinful as we . So that here is a direct change , Christ takes our persons , and condition , and stands in our stead , we take Christs person , and condition , and stand in his stead ; what the Lord beheld Christ to be , that he beholds the Members of Christ to be ; what the Lord beholds the Members of Christ to be in themselves , that he beholds Christ himself to be . This is very true arguing from this Principle , that Christ did to all intents and purposes stand in the stead , and represent the persons of particular men ; and thus far Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson agree very well with Dr. Crisp. But secondly , Dr. Crisp argues farther , That every Transgression , first and last , great and small , one with another , are carried away at once , and laid upon Christ : Which is a necessary consequence of the other ; for if all our sins were laid on Christ , and he took them away with one Sacrifice for sin , then they must be taken away all together . Whatever sinfulness you have committed , do commit , or shall commit , there was one Sacrifice once offered by Christ , through which he hath perfected them that are sanctified . And thirdly , from hence it follows , that we are actually acquitted from the time of our sins being laid upon Christ : For sin cannot be laid upon Christ , and continue upon the sinner too ; and therefore from the time of sins being laid upon Christ , the sinner is acquitted and justified . But for the fuller explication of this , Dr. Crisp distinguishes between God's laying Iniquity upon Christ by way of obligation , by way of execution , and by way of his own application of it to his people ; by way of obligation God did lay iniquity on Christ , when he did tie , and bind , and oblige himself to it . And that is from all Eternity , then he did it in his own determinate Counsel , when in his own Counsel he did determine it should be done . But this was a secret tie and obligation upon God , but God did lay the Iniquity of his people upon Christ openly , when he did openly bind himself by Covenant to do it : viz. in that first Promise which he made to Adam after his Fall. Put then God laid Iniquity on Christ by way of execution , as he in time served the execution upon Christ , which may be considered , as it was virtual , or as it was actual and real . The execution was served upon Christ in the virtue of it , from the first instant that ever there was a transgression committed , and not only at that time when sin was first committed , and from thence to the time of his suffering , but also afterwards from the time he had suffered to the end of the world . For you must know that Christ was to bear the sins of the Elect from the beginning to the end of the world , and he was to discharge this debt at once , and therefore he does not actually do this , either at the beginning or at the end of the world ; but in the fulness of time Christ came and reckoned with the Father , and the Father hath so much of him for all that is past , and as much for all for after-times to the end of the world : Saith Christ to the Father , here is so much for every one of mine , that they have run out for the time that is past , and here is so much for every one of my Members that shall come after ; they will commit so many sins in time to come , here is so much for all that sin they shall commit . And this is Gods serving execution actually upon Christ , when he died upon the Cross in the fulness of time . But thirdly , as for Gods laying Iniquity upon Christ by way of particular application of it to this and that man : You must observe , That concerning the Elect in general , as they were in the eye of the Lord , before they had a real Existence and Being , so all their Iniquities were laid upon Christ from Eternity : But the particular application of this grace to persons must be in time , and this done either secretly or manifestly . As for this secret application ( which is so called , because it is a secret thing for a time to these for whom he does it ) it is at the very instant that such a person hath a being in the world : the manifest application is , when the sinner actually believes , and thereby knows , that God hath laid his sins on Christ. In the secret application of this grace unto a person , this person hath a full discharge ; and in the manifestation he hath the comfort of this discharge . So that every elect Sinner is justified from Eternity , as Christ died and bore his sins from Eternity , viz. in the Counsel and Decree of God : His sins are actually paid for , and removed from his Surety too , from the time of Christ's suffering upon the Cross. From that time there was not one sin to be reckoned , either to Believers who are Christ's Members , or to Christ himself , he having them made satisfaction , and upon it given out unto the world it is finished : And this discharge is actually , though secretly , applied to them , as soon as they have any being , and they know that they are discharged as soon as they believe : This is the Antinomian account of Justification ; and supposing their first Principle , that Christ did represent the persons of the Elect , and do all in their name and stead , I cannot see how it is possible to confute it . I confess , I cannot answer Dr. Crisp's reasoning ; That God hath not one sin to charge upon any Elect person from the first moment of conception , till the last minute of his life : because the Lord hath laid it on Christ already . He did lay sins on him ; When did he lay them ? When he did pay the full price for them . Now suppose this person uncalled commits Iniquity , and that this Iniquity is charged upon him ; seeing that his iniquities are laid upon Christ already , how comes it to pass that they are charged upon this Elect Person again ? How come they to be translated again from Christ , and laid upon this Person ? Once they were laid upon Christ , it must be confessed , for the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin . Was there by one act of Christ , the expiation of sin , and all at once , that are committed from the beginning of the world to the end thereof ; how comes it to pass that this and that sin should be charged upon the elect persons , when they were laid upon Christ long before ? And , I profess , I cannot see one hairs breadth difference between Dr. Owen and Dr. Crisp in this matter , unless it be , that Dr. Crisp speaks his mind plainly and honestly , and Dr. Owen endeavours ( if it be not a natural infirmity ) to cloud his sense with a multitude of words , and to lose himself and his Readers in a labyrinth of distinctions , as to give some plain evidences of it . Dr. Owen , in his Book entituled , Salus electorum sanguis Iesu , or , The death of death in the death of Christ , p. 145. Printed 1648. lays down these Propositions . First , That the full and due debt of all those for whom Christ was responsible , was fully paid in to God according to the utmost extent of the Obligation . Secondly , That the Lord , who is a just Creditor , ought in all equity to cancel the Bond , to surcease all Suits , Actions , and Molestations against the Debter , full payment being made to him for the Debt : And since he ought to do this , we need not doubt but he , being a just Creditor , does do it . Thirdly , That the Debt thus paid was not this , or that sin , but all the sins of all those for whom , and in whose name this payment was made . Fourthly , That a second payment of a debt , once paid , or a requiring it , is not answerable to the justice which God demonstrated in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins ; and therefore it is not just with God to require the payment of that Debt again of us , which Christ hath already paid for us . And fifthly , That , whereas to receive a discharge from further trouble , is equitably due to the Creditor , who hath been in Obligation , his Debt being paid ; the Lord having accepted of the payment from Christ , in the stead of all them for whom he died , ought in justice , according to that Obligation , which in free grace he hath put upon himself , give them a discharge . And Sixthly , considering that relaxation of the Law , which by the Supreme Power was effected , as to the persons suffering the punishment required , such actual satisfaction is made thereto , that it can lay no more to their charge for whom Christ died , than if they had really fulfilled in the way of obedience , whatever it did require . Now I can by no means understand what all these Propositions can signifie else , but to prove , that those for whom Christ died , are discharged upon his payment of their Debt , and so are justified from Eternity , as Christ paid their Debt from Eternity , in the Decree of God , and are justified in time , as soon as they are capable of it , that is , as soon they are in being . In his Book of Communion , p. 204. he has ten Propositions , much to the same purpose ; He there tells us , That Christ in his undertaking of the work of our Redemption with God , was constituted and considered , as a common publick person in the stead of them , for whose reconciliation to God he suffered . And that being thus a common Person , upon his undertaking as to merit and efficacy , and upon his actual performance , as to solemn declaration , ( this is what Dr. Crisp calls Gods laying iniquity upon Christ by way of Obligation , and by way of Execution ) was as such ( as a common person ) acquitted , absolved , justified , and freed from all and every thing , that on the behalf of the Elect , as due to them , was charged upon him , or could so be : So that he was from all Eternity upon his undertaking , and in time upon his actual performance , as a common Person , that is , in the name , and as representing the persons of the Elect , acquitted , absolved , and justified ; and therefore as it follows , Christ received the general acquittance for them all , and they are all acquitted in the Covenant of the Mediator , whence they are said to be crucified with him , to die with him , to rise with him , to sit with him in heavenly places , namely , in the Covenant of the Mediator . This is what Dr. Crisp calls a secret application of Gods laying iniquity upon Christ to particular persons , which is done before they know it ; and the only difference between him and Dr. Owen is , that Dr. Owen will not allow this to be a discharge of the Elect in their own persons , but only in the Person of the Mediator ; and Dr. Crisp thinks it more proper to say , that this is a personal discharge of them , since it is done in their names and persons , but it is no great matter who speaks most properly , when the thing is the same . In another Discourse of the Death of Christ , in answer to Mr. Baxter's Objections against his Treatise of Redemption , p. 72. he asserts , that the Elect have an actual right to all that was purchased by Christ's Death before believing , and that is equivalent to their having a right from Eternity , or from the first moment of their being . And he offers it as his one opinion , Whether absolution from the guilt of sin , and obligation unto death , though not as terminated in the conscience ( that is , though it be not known to the Person , which is Dr. Crisp's secret application ) for complete Iustification , do not precede our actual believing , and expounds the Justification of the ungodly , Rom. 4. to this sense , as Dr. Crisp expresly does . And though he dare not assert complete Iustification to be before believing , yet he affirms , that absolution is , as it is considered , as the act of the Will of God , that is secret , and known only to God ; for a discharge from the effects of anger naturally precedes all collation of any fruits of love , such as faith is . And the difference between this absolution and complete Justification is no more but this : That absolution wants that act of pardoning mercy , which is to be terminated and completed in the conscience of a sinner . That is , though such a man be pardoned before believing , yet he can have no sense of his Pardon before believing , which is exactly Dr. Crisp's notion : And absolution wants the hearts perswasion of the truth and goodness of the Promise , and the mercy held out in the Promise . And it wants the Souls rolling it self on Christ , and receiving Christ , as the Author and Finisher of that mercy , an All-sufficient Saviour to them that believe . All which signifies no more , than that Absolution is before and without Faith ; for this apprehending the truth and goodness of the Promise , and rolling it self on Christ according to the Doctors notion , constitute the justifying Act of Faith. And therefore when the Doctor elsewhere tells us , that the Elect , till the full time of their actual deliverance , determined and appointed to them in their several Generations , be accomplished , are personally under the Curse of the Law , and on that account are legally obnoxious to the wrath of God. He only chuses to contradict himself , to avoid the imputation of Antinomianism : For by their actual deliverance , I presume he must understand the time of their actual believing ; and if they are absolved before they actually believe , how can they be under the Law , or legally obnoxious to the wrath of God ? And therefore he immediately qualifies this , that though they are obnoxious to the Law and the Curse thereof , yet not at all with its primitive intention of execution upon them ; which is as much as to say , that they are obnoxious to the Curse of the Law , but not obnoxious to the execution of that Curse , which I take to be non-sense . How then are they obnoxious to the Curse of the Law ? Why , as it is a means appointed to help forward their acquaintance with Christ , and acceptance with God on his account : By which I suppose he means , that their Absolution being at present secret , and not terminated and completed in the Conscience , they are terrified and scared with the threatnings of the Law , as fancying themselves to be under it , when they are not , and this makes them fly to Christ for refuge and sanctuary . And though Dr. Crisp indeed do not like this way of affrighting men to Christ by the Law , yet the difference is not great , and makes no material alteration in the Scheme of their Religion . And therefore when Dr. Owen adds , That it was determined by Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , that the way of the actual personal deliverance of the Elect from the Sentence and Curse of the Law , should be in and by such a way and dispensation , as might lead to the praise of the glorious grace of God , and to glorifie the whole Trinity , by ascending to the Fathers love through the works of the Spirit and Bloud of the Son. All that he means by it is this , that we shall have no sense of our Absolution by the Bloud of Christ till we actually believe , nor be actually possessed of Eternal Life , till we be renewed and sanctified , all which Dr. Crisp will own , and is consistent enough with our Justification , or Absolution from Eternity , since Faith and all other blessings are the effect of our antecedent Absolution in Christ , as the Doctor confesses . And this is all Mr. Ferguson means , when he tells us , That Christ's own discharge was an immediate consequent of his sufferings , and they for whom he suffered had also immediately a fundamental right of being acquitted , but their actual deliverance was to be in the way and order , that he , who had substituted himself in our room , and he , who had both admitted and been the Author of the substitution thought fit to appoint . This is the necessary consequence of this Doctrine , that if Christ acted as a Surety in the name and stead of particular persons , then those for whom he acted are absolved and justified by the undertaking or actual performance of Christ , either from Eternity , or from the first moment of their being . I might add several other Consequences , which necessarily result from this Doctrine , and are the peculiar Principles of Antinomianism , as that we must not pray for the forgiveness of sins , because they are long since removed by the death of Christ , but only for the sense of this forgiveness ; that God sees no sin in his people , because their sins are laid on Christ , and that therefore we must not lay sin upon our own Consciences neither , unless we will make our Conscience a Christ : But this is enough to shew how fruitful this Principle is of absurdities , and what reason I have to reject our Union to the Person of Christ , considered as one , who hath done all for us , in our name and stead . And now I need not insist long on the second thing proposed , viz. our immediate Union to the Person of Christ : For though all Christians are in some sense immediately united to Christ , as I have shewn above , yet in the Antinomian sense of an immediate Union , I do utterly reject it , whereby they understand an Union to the Person of Christ , without any intervening Conditions on our part . And this they must necessarily do according to their notion of the Person of Christ. They explain this , as I observed in my former Discourse , by a Conjugal Relation , and a Legal Union . As for a Conjugal Relation , which consists in such a Union of Persons , as is between a Man and his Wife , which intitles us to all the personal excellencies and perfections , Beauty , Comeliness , Riches , and Righteousness of Christ , as Marriage intitles a Woman to her Husbands Estate ; and secures us from the Wrath of God , and the Accusations of the Law , as a woman under Covert is not liable to any Action or Arrest . I perceive Mr. Ferguson gives it over as indefensible ; for among all the sorts of Unions , which he reckons up , he takes no notice of this , which is the most charming and inviting Union , and most acceptable to the Sisterhood , the best Friends to Conventicles of any other : But I suppose Mr. Vincent will not give it over so , and therefore I observe , that this must be an immediate Union , which requires nothing else but an embracing and clasping Faith , which unites their persons to each other : This Faith is no condition of Union , but only such a consent to have Christ , as is necessary to make the Match or rather like joyning hands , which is the Ceremony of Marriage : Though indeed the Marriage was made before , as they say all Marriages are , in Heaven . Eternal Election marries them to Christ , and this consenting Faith gives them only a comfortable sense of their Matrimonial Union , as will appear by considering the nature of Legal Union , whereby we are united to Christ , as to our Surety and Mediator , who does all for us in our name and stead . Now it is a plain demonstration , that this Union to Christ , as to our Surety and Mediator , is immediate , for it is entirely Gods act in electing some particular persons , and giving them to Christ , to do all for them in their name and stead . And therefore Dr. Crisp truly argues , that it is God , and only God , that can lay our sins upon Christ , that our Repentance , and Faith , and new Obedience cannot do it : For this work of laying sin on Christ , in making him our Surety to do all for us , was done long since , and is not to be done now . Christ hath already died for all , that he will die for ; and if he did not die for us , nothing that we can do now can lay our sins upon him ; For as the Doctor reasons , if we could a fresh by our Repentance and Faith lay our sins on Christ , as our Surety , how should he get rid of them again ? For there is no getting rid of sin , but by dying for it , and Christ hath already done that , and is not to die again . If Christ's Suretiship consists in his dying and performing all righteousness for particular persons , elected and chosen by God , our Union to Christ as to our Surety must be from Eternity , or at least from the time of his appearing in the world ; for if he did not act as our Surety then , he cannot do so since , unless we should suppose , that he must come into the world again , to act over the same part in the name and stead of those who were left out of the first Roll of Election , and therefore I do not wonder , that these men are so much blundered , and talk backward and forward in those directions , they give to their hearers , how to get into Christ ; for the truth is , if we are not in Christ already , there is no getting into Christ now , according to their Principles . Election alone , and Gods giving us to Christ unites us to him , not any act of our own , neither Faith , Repentance , or new Obedience ; these at best can only give us a comfortable sense of our Union to Christ , but can contribute nothing at all to our Union it self . And therefore Dr. Owen does roundly acknowledge , that Christ is reckoned to us in order of nature before we believe ; and by Gods reckoning Christ to us , he means , the imputing of Christ unto ungodly unbelieving sinners , for whom he died , so far as to account him theirs , to bestow Faith and Grace upon them for his sake . And if God reckon Christ to men before Faith , he must reckon him theirs from the time of his giving them to Christ , for there can be no other reason of his reckoning Christ to them at all . And to shew how free and absolute this gift of Christ is ; he tells us , That there is no condition at all in this stipulation . That God should engage upon the death of Christ to make out Grace and Glory , Liberty and Beauty , unto those for whom he died , upon condition they do so , or so , leaves no proper place for the merit of Christ , and is very improperly ascribed unto God. And therefore though the Covenant of Grace seem to run conditionally , that if we repent and believe , we shall be saved ; yet the Covenant is indeed absolute , because these very conditions are part of Christ's Purchase , and are promised without any condition ; and though God will bring us to Heaven in such a way and method , as he has thought fit to prescribe to himself for the Glory of the Trinity , yet all this , in all the parts of it , is no less fully procured for us , nor less freely bestowed on us , for Christ's sake , and on his account , as part of his Purchase and Merits , than if all of us immediately upon his death , had been translated into heaven . From all this it appears , what they mean by an immediate Union to the Person of Christ , such an Union to Christ as our Mediator and Surety , as is founded only on Electing Grace , without any thing required on our part , and in this sense , though I deny not particular Election , yet I disown our immediate Union to the Person of Christ. Christ is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant , who having with his own bloud made a general Atonement and Propitiation for the sins of the whole world , purchased and sealed the Covenant of Grace , wherein he promises pardon of sin , and Eternal Life to all those who repent and believe the Gospel . Such a faith in Christ , as makes us members of his Body , which is his Church , alone entitles us to all the benefits of his Death and Passion ; and therefore he is said to redeem his Church with his own bloud ; for though his Sacrifice was general and universal , yet none have an actual interest in it , but his Church , and the particular Members of it . This unites us to Christ , and applies his Universal grace and mercy particularly to our selves . But to imagine , that Christ was appointed by God to be a Surety only for particular Persons , and to act in their name and stead , necessarily precipitates men into the very dregs of Antinomianism , which in this loose , phantastical , and degenerate Age is the only popular and taking frenzy . It is time now to proceed to the vindication of my third and fourth Propositions in my Chapter of Union , from the misrepresentations of Mr. Ferguson , for this is all the skill he has shewn here , to pervert my sense , and to affix such Doctrines to me , as I never dreamt of . The third Proposition is this , That the Union between Christ and Christians is not a Natural , but Political Union ; that is such an Union as there is between a Prince and his Subjects . The fourth is this , That Fellowship and Communion with God , according to the Scripture notion , signifies what we call a Political Union ; that is , that to be in Fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society , which puts us into a peculiar relation to God , that God is our Father , and we his Children , that Christ is our Head and Husband , our Lord and Master , we his Disciples and Followers , his Spouse and his Body . These two Propositions our Author tells us , are according to the best understanding of enunciations he has , coincident and equipollent ; which is a plain demonstration , how little his understanding is in these matters , when the third Proposition concerns the nature of our Union , and the fourth the explication of a Scripture term , which had been perverted to a very different , if not contrary sense . But to let pass this , and a great many other things of this nature , ( as any man must do , who would not undertake such a trifling task , as to prove , that our Author neither understands Logick nor Philosophy , nor any other part of good learning , of which there are abundant evidences in this very Treatise , where he makes a great shew and flourish with that little undigested knowledge he has ) his great Artifice in what follows is to conceal and misrepresent my notion of Political Union , and then to scuffle learnedly and valiantly with his own shadow and dreams . Sometimes he represents this Political Union to be only such an External Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects , and ever denies , that I own any influences of Grace from Christ , as an influential head , as he is pleased to call him . And therefore all his reasonings , proceeding upon such an ignorant or wilful mistake , all I have to do , is to clear my own notion , and to give an account of the reason , why I stated it in this manner . As for the first : By a Political Union I understand such a Union between Christ and Christians , as there is between a Prince and his Subjects , which consists in our belief of his Revelations , obedience to his Laws , and subjection to his Authority ; and that this is the true notion of it , I gave sufficient evidence in my former Discourse , to which I must refer my Reader . But then I observed , that this Political Union , between Christ and his Church , may be either only external and visible , and so hypocritical Professors may be said to be united to Christ by the Ligaments of an external Profession ; or true and real , which imports the truth and sincerity of our obedience to our Lord and Master , that we really are what we profess to be : And herein consists a material difference between that External Union which is between a temporal Prince and his Subjects , and the Union between Christ , who is a spiritual Head and King , and the true Church , or true and sincere Christians , who are spiritual Subjects . For , as the Authority of Earthly Princes can reach only the External man , because they cannot know our thoughts any other ways than as they are expressed in our outward actions , so the Union consists in an external Government , and an external Subjection : But Christ , being a spiritual Prince , governs hearts and thoughts too , and therefore our subjection to Christ , and consequently our Union to him , must not be only external and visible , but internal and spiritual , which consists in the subjection of our hearts and minds , of our thoughts and passions to his Government . And this real and spiritual Union I explained in four particulars . First , as I have already observed , it consists in the subjection of our minds and spirits to Christ , as our spiritual King. And secondly , this is represented in Scripture , by a participation of the same nature , which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him : Upon which account I observed , that our Union to Christ is described by having the Spirit of Christ , Rom. 89. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ , he is none of his : Which as it respects the cause , whereby we are transformed into a Divine Nature , so it signifies the Holy Spirits dwelling in us ; as it signifies the effect , or that Divine Nature , New Creature , ( which Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges to be the very bond of our cohesion to Christ ) so it is that same temper and disposition of mind , which Christ had ; which , as I expresly observed , is called , having the Spirit of Christ by an ordinary figure of the cause for the effect , for all those vertues and graces , wherein our conformity to Christ consists , are called the fruits of the Spirit . And in the Page before , that it is called being born of the Spirit , because all Christian Graces and Vertues are in Scripture attributed to the Spirit of God as the Author of them . And now I dare trust any man of common ingenuity to judge , whether I make our Union to Christ a meer external thing , or leave out the consideration of the Spirit of God in our Union to Christ , when I assert , that that new nature , all those Christian graces , wherein our conformity and internal Union to Christ consists , are owing to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit . And whereas Mr. Ferguson is so critical , that it will not satisfie him , that the Spirit is present in the hearts of Believers in respect of that New Creature , Divine Nature , and spiritual being , which he hath wrought in them , but immediately also ; I would fain learn of him , what he means by this immediate presence of the Spirit ; for if the Holy Spirit be a divine and infinite being , which is present every where , how can he be more immediately present in one place , or in one person , than in another , but only by a more peculiar manifestation of himself in his effects and operations ? As God , who fills all places with his presence , is said to dwell in Heaven , because there he manifests his glory in a more peculiar manner . But I cannot without some indignation observe , how our Author has prophaned this holy Union between Christ and Believers by comparing it with the impure mixtures of a man with a Harlot , and representing the Apostle to argue at this rate . The Apostle tells us , That he who is joyned to the Lord is one spirit , 1 Cor. 6. 17. Which I thus explained , That herein consists our Union to Christ , that we have the same temper of mind which he had , ( wrought in us by the same Holy Spirit , which animates both the Head and the Body , and every member of it , as I acknowledged before ) for there can be no Union between Souls and Spirits without this , that they are acted by the same principles , and love and chuse the same things , &c. Mr. Ferguson disproves this from that opposition , which the Apostle ( as he says ) makes between the Union of a man to a Harlot , and our Union to Christ ; Know ye not , that he which is joyned to a Harlot is one body , but he that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit . From whence he argues , If the Union betwixt a man and a Harlot , in the virtue of which they are one body , import more than meerly a likeness of temper and moral disposition , as surely it doth , for asmuch as there may be a similitude in sensual propensions and inclinations , where the becoming one flesh through carnal conjunction interposeth not ; much more doth a Believer's , being one spirit with the Lord , imply a higher kind of Union than an affinity of dispositions . What fine work might a prophane Wit make of this ! And indeed I would not have defiled my Paper with it , but only to have vindicated our Apostle , and Christianity together from such sordid and impure abuses : And any one , who consults the place , will easily perceive , that this prophane comparison is owing wholly to our Author , and that the Apostle has nothing to do with it . For in the fifteenth verse he disswades them from Fornication by this Argument , Know ye not , that your bodies are the members of Christ , shall I take then the members of Christ , and make them members of an Harlot , God forbid . The undecency of this is very evident , that the members of Christ should be made the members of an Harlot , and therefore the Apostle distinctly proves these two Propositions , that our bodies , as we are Christians , are the members of Christ ; and that that body which is joyned to the Harlot , becomes one flesh and body with her . This last he proves from the primitive institution of Marriage , Two , saith he , shall be one flesh ; For an Harlot is an uxor usuraria , who unlawfully supplies the place of Wife ; and he proves the latter , that our bodies also are the members of Christ , from that intimate Union of Souls and Spirits betwixt Christ and Believers ; He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit , and therefore his body too is a member of Christ , for that intimate Union between the body and the soul will not admit a separation ; Christ first takes possession of our souls , and then challenges an interest and propriety in our bodies , which must be preserved holy and pure , as the Temples of God. But then thirdly I observed , That there is a closer Union still , which results from this , which consists in a mutual and reciprocal love ; when we are transformed into the Image of Christ , he loves us , as being like to him , and we love him too , as partaking of his nature ; He loves us , as the price of his bloud , as his own workmanship created unto good works , and we love him , as our Redeemer and Saviour ; for which I produced Ioh. 14. 20. At that day ye shall know , that I am in my Father , and you in me , and I in you : Where by day Mr. Ferguson very wisely understands the glorified state , this Union being such a Mystery , as cannot be understood in this world , whereas the Circumstances of the place determine it to our Saviours Resurrection , and the descent of the Holy Spirit , and he himself explains the meaning of this Union , Vers. 21. He that hath my Commandments , and keepeth them , he it is that loveth me , and he that loveth me , shall be loved of my Father , and I will love him , and manifest my self to him . To the same purpose Christ prays for his Disciples , Ioh. 17. 21. That they may be one , as thou Father art in me , and I in thee , that they also may be one in us . These Scriptures are alleadged by Mr. Ferguson too , but to prove he knows not what : He acknowledges , That it is not an oneness of Essence betwixt Christ and Believers , that is here to be understood ; nor yet is it meerly an oneness of will and affection between the Father and the Son , but it is an Essential Unity here meant . Well , Is there an Essential Unity then here meant betwixt Christ and Believers ? No , that he rejected before ; What then ? Why , though we plead not for the same kind of oneness between Christ and Believers , as is between the Father and the Son , yet we affirm that something more sublime than barely a Political Relation is adumbrated and shadowed forth to us . Something more than External-Political Union I believe is intended by them ; but what sublime thing is that , which is adumbrated and shadowed forth to us in these words ( which expressions argue , that our Author is not very clear in it ) that he tells us , that by alluding to that incomprehensible Idendity , which is between the persons of the blessed Trinity through a numericalness of nature , he would instruct us , that the Union between Christ , and those that are born of God , is intimate , great , and Mysterious , as well as true and real . But Mr. Ferguson else-where tells us , that all Unions are Mysterious , and there are several sorts of intimate , and great , and true , and real Unions ; so that we are never the wiser for this account of our Union to Christ. But our Saviours plain and obvious meaning is this , that as there is a perfect harmony of will , and affections , and design , and a perfect agreement in Doctrine between the Father and himself , founded on the unity of nature ; so he prays that his Disciples may be one also among themselves , and with God from their agreement in the same belief , and participation of the same nature , and a unity and harmony of Affections . But then I observed fourthly , that this Union is expressed in Scripture by resembling the Christian Church to Gods Temple , wherein he dwells , as formerly he did in the Temple at Ierusalem . That God now dwells in the Christian Church by his Holy Spirit , as he formerly did in the Jewish Temple by Types and Figures , and that he does not dwell thus in the Christian Church only , as a spiritual Society , but in every particular Christian , as I explained at large in my former Discourse ; which is a plain demonstration of our Authors honesty in charging me with rejecting the Inhabitation of the Holy Spirit , and making a meer External-Political Union between Christ and Christians . This is sufficient to vindicate my own notion from the false representations of this Author , and I might honourably enough retreat , and leave him to skirmish with his own shadow , but to do all the right that may be to my cause , and to satisfie all unprejudiced & teachable minds , I shall give some farther account of the reason , why I stated the notion of our Union to Christ in this manner . And first , the true reason , why I did not more particularly discourse of the influences of the Divine Spirit , but was contented to give some plain and short intimations of it , was , because I principally designed to consider , what was necessary on our part , as matter of duty , in order to our Union with Christ : For here are the great and dangerous mistakes ; here it is , that my Adversaries have confounded the plain Notions of Religion , and lead men into intricate Labyrinths and Meanders . What is necessary on Christ's part , he will be sure to effect , whether we do so clearly and perfectly understand it or not ; but unless we understand , what is necessary on our part , it is impossible we should do it , unless it be by perfect chance and accident : These new Divines cannot to this day direct men how to get into Christ , or to be united to him . They talk of a Legal and a Mystical Union , but what we must do to be thus Legally and Mystically united to Christ they know not ; we must expect till God gives Christ to us , or till Christ unite us to himself , or rather till he give us a sense and knowledge that we are united . And this is a very hard case , that when our Eternal happiness depends on our Union to Christ , we should be so perfectly ignorant how to attain to this Union . Nay , they had so ordered the matter , that a very good man , who heartily believes the Gospel of Christ , and makes conscience of obeying it , if he be so weak as to hearken to their preachments , may be perplext with Eternal Scruples about his Union to Christ ; while a bad man , who hath a warm and Enthusiastick fancy , and can work his imagination into all the various Scenes of the New Birth , shall live in the perpetual embraces of Christ , and in the Raptures and Extasies of assurance , and despise the low attainments of morality and a good life . Now my principal design was to rectifie these dangerous mistakes , to give men such a notion of our Union to Christ , that they may certainly know by what means they may attain this Union ; and that good men may reap the comfort of it , and bad men , though never such Seraphical hypocrites , may see all their hopes confuted , and be forced either to let go all their pretences of Union to Christ , or enter upon a new course of life : And I could not better do this , than by making it appear , that to be united to Christ signifies to be his Disciples , to be incorporated into his Church by a publick profession of Faith and obedience , and to conform our hearts and lives to the Laws of the Gospel : And therefore I chose all along to expound those expressions of being one Spirit with Christ , of having the Spirit of Christ , of Christ's dwelling in us , and the like , so as to explain what they signified on our part , viz. to be transformed into the Image of Christ , to be animated by the same love of vertue and goodness , to have the same Spirit , the same temper of mind which he had , than to dispute concerning the manner of the Divine Spirits inhabitation , and operation in us , which possibly will never be determined ( as very few modes of things are ) and is not much material whether it be or not , so long as we heartily believe , and importunately beg , and constantly rely on the assistances of the Divine Grace . Secondly , There is a further account to be given of this , because the gift of the Spirit is consequent to our Union to Christ , but does not constitute the formal nature of it . That there are some antecedaneous operations of the Holy Spirit , whereby we are disposed to believe the Gospel , and to list our selves into the number of Christ's Disciples , I do not deny ; but these are of a very different consideration from that gift of the Holy Spirit which is bestowed on those who are actually incorporated into the Christian Church , and made the Members of Christ : For Christ has promised his Holy Spirit only to those who are actually united to him , and indeed in order of nature a member must first be united to the body , before it can receive any influences from the Head. The gift of the Holy Spirit is an act of Christs Kingly Power and Authority , and concerns only his Church , and the members of it : Just as Temporal Princes can exercise no jurisdiction but over their own Subjects , and therefore we must first be united to Christ , as members of his Church , before we can expect to partake of the benefits and advantages ( of which the gift of the Holy Spirit is none of the least ) of his Government . God vouchsafes the assistances of the Holy Spirit to all men , to whom the Gosspel is preached , to work Faith in them , but when men do actually believe , and give themselves up to Christ in such regular ways , as he has appointed , then the Holy Spirit is a constant Principle in them upon Covenant and Promise ; upon which account he is said to dwell in them , and to make his abode with them , because he is always present as a Principle of a divine life ; and therefore according to the sense of Scripture , of the ancient Church , and of the Church of England , the Baptism of the Spirit is annexed to our Baptism with water , which is the Ceremony of our Initiation into the Christian Church , which upon that account in the ancient Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or illumination , because the Holy Spirit , the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge was then bestowed on them . And indeed Dr. Owen and all my Adversaries , though they differ from me in their Notion of our Union to Christ , yet do , and according to their Principles must acknowledge , that we are first united to Christ , before the Holy Spirit is bestowed on us . And Dr. Owen proves , that Christ is first reckoned unto us before we believe , ( and I can understand no difference between Christs being reckoned to us , and our being united to him , that is , our being reckoned to him ) because the Holy Spirit , which works faith in us , is bestowed on us for Christ's sake , and upon account of our Union to him : And then certainly the Holy Spirit does not primarily unite us to Christ , but is an effect and consequent of our Union to him . And this I expresly asserted in my former Discourse , that this Union to Christ entitles us to his peculiar care and providence , to the influences of his grace , to the power of his Intercession , &c. And thirdly , for the same reason I did not so largely and particularly discourse of Christ's being an Influential Head ( though I expresly own those influences of grace , which we receive from Christ ) because he is so only as he is a Political Head. That is , as Temporal Princes govern their Subjects by external Arts , and Methods of Discipline : So Christ , who is a Spiritual Prince , governs his Subjects , and dwells in them by his Spirit . The gift of the Spirit is an Act of his Regal Power , is bestowed only on his Subjects , and is dispensed in such regular ways , as he has prescribed for the external Conduct and Government of his Church . Thus the Spirit is at first conferred on us in Baptism , and the daily supplies of it are administred upon our constant and devout Prayers , as our Saviour has promised , that God will give his Spirit to them , who ask him : And we must expect the constant illuminations of the Spirit , and the supplies of Grace in the administration of the Word and Sacrament of the Lords Supper : By these means Christ as our Prince and Saviour conveighs his Grace to us , which requires our Communion with his Church in all Sacred Institutions , and is the true basis and security of Ecclesiastical Authority . Thus St. Paul tells us , That Christ is the Head from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted , by that which every joynt supplieth , according to the effectual working in the measure of every part , maketh increase of the body to the edifying it self in love , Eph. 4. 15 , 16. and Col. 2. 18. And not holding the Head from which all the body with joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together , increaseth with the increase of God. In which places the Apostle represents the nourishment and increase of the Christian Church , and of every member in it , by the growth of the natural body ; in which every member does not receive its influences and nourishment immediately from the Head ; but one member communicates to another in such just and equal proportions , and regular ways , as may be most for the good of the whole body . Thus every Christian , who is a member of the Church and body of Christ , does receive the influences of Grace from Christ , for his increase and nourishment , but he does not receive these influences immediately , but they are bestowed on him by the Ministry of men in the regular administration of those holy Institutions , which our Saviour has appointed for that end ; and this is for the publick benefit and advantage of the Christian Church , to secure the Authority of Church Governours , and to preserve the Unity of Christians among themselves . This gives a plain account , why I would not call the Person of Christ the Fountain of Grace , nor send Persons immediately to Christ for life , and power , and all spiritual supplies , because though Christ be the great Minister of Grace , yet we must not derive it immediately from his Person , but he dispenses his Grace in the Preaching of the Word , or the administration of Sacraments , and such other regular Methods , as he has appointed for the Government of his Church , and the increase and growth of his spiritual body . Whereas Dr. Owen , and Dr. Crisp , and the rest of the Antinomians , represent Christ as such a Person , who has not only done all for us , but has undertaken to do all in us , and that by such natural conveyances of Grace from his Person , as there is of the animal spirits from the head to the rest of the members , and that men must first be united to Christ before they can be capable of any spiritual motion . So Dr. Crisp , very agreeably to what Dr. Owen asserts , tells us , That Christ is the Head ; now the Head is the Fountain of all animal Spirits , and of all motion ; without a Head , a man cannot hear , see , walk , feel , stir , nor do any thing , seeing all these operations come from the Head ; Christ is the Head of his Church , he is the Fountain of all spiritual sense and motion ; you may as soon conceive that a man is able to see , whilst he hath not a Head , as to think a man may have spiritual eyes , whether the eye of Faith to behold Christ , or the eyes of mourning to lament his wretchedness , before there be actually the conjunction of Christ the Head to such a Body . Thus Christ is called Life , and can any one be an active Creature before there be life breathed into him ? — As a Body without a Soul is dead , so every Person in spiritual Actions is wholly dead , till Christ , the Soul of that Soul , be infused into him to animate and enliven him . For these men , as I observed before , having destroyed all the Arguments to a good life , and all the regular and ordinary Methods of Grace , are forced to resolve the renovation of our minds into a Natural , and Physical , and Immediate operation of Christ upon our minds , which makes all his Institutions very insipid and useless things , and destroys the Authority , and Necessity of Christian Societies , if all Grace be so immediately derived from the Person of Christ. These things deserve a larger discourse , but I am now a hastening towards a conclusion , and this is sufficient to vindicate my self , and my notions , from that unjust and scandalous Imputation of Pelagianism , which can be attributed only either to the ignorance of my Adversaries , or to their want of better Arguments , or possibly to both . CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the charge of Socinianism , and the Conclusion of the whole . IAm now come to the last part of my Task , which may be dispatched in a few words . Dr. Owen , and Mr. Ferguson , and the rest of my Adversaries , do at every turn , especially when they have nothing else to answer , charge me with Socinianizing . A charge which was as much unexpected , as undeserved ; but is now grown a very familiar Art among these accusers of the Brethren , to blast the Reputation of those men , who make it their design to vindicate Christianity from those absurd , and sensless , and pernicious Doctrines , which they have broached under the name of Gospel Mysteries , and to reduce people to the Communion of the Church of England , from which they have been seduced through the Witchcraft and Enchantments of sublime and Seraphical non-sense ; and if ever it be just to express some indignation , it is in this case , for as the Father observes , In causa haereseos neminem decet esse patientem ; It becomes no man to be tame and gentle when he is charged with Heresie ; and therefore I did not think fit wholly to pass over this charge in silence , nor yet shall I insist long on it , since there is no other foundation for it , but unchristian spight and malice . I suppose it will signifie no great matter to vindicate my self , nor those who suffer with me under the same Imputation , by a publick abrenunciation of Socinianism ; for if this would do it , our Subscription to the Articles of our Church , our constant use of the Liturgy , especially the Litany , and Gloria Patri , the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds , the old and allowed Tests of Orthodox Christians , which no Socinian will allow , and is the true cause why they renounce our Communion , would be a sufficient justification both of my self and them ; But they who have made such a familiar practice of it to dispense with the most Sacred Oaths and Promises , are apt to suspect all men to be as faithless , as they have proved themselves : But however because the clamours of these men have abused some innocent persons , and betrayed them to very unjust apprehensions of my self , and many others , I do heartily declare , that I am no Socinian , and that I do not know any Divine of the Church of England , who can reasonably be suspected of that Heresie ; though it is notoriously evident , that those Sectaries , who are so ready to charge us with Socinianism , have derived the greatest strength of their cause from Socinian Writers , especially in the case of Anabaptism , Liberty of Conscience , and unlimited Toleration , and rejecting the Authority of Civil Magistrates in the External Conduct of Religious Affairs , as they have borrowed their other Principles of Rebellion and deposing Princes from the worst of Papists . The reason why Socinus has so ill a Character in the Christian Church , is his denial of the Eternal Godhead and satisfaction of our Saviour ; but both these I own , and make them the foundation of my Religion : I expresly call him the Eternal Son of God , that Eternal Son of God by whom the worlds were made . I acknowledge that Christ died as a Sacrifice and Expiation for sin , that by his Death he made Atonement for sin . That he purchased , and procured , and scaled the Covenant of Grace in his own bloud ; That Christ by his Death expiated our sins , and confirmed an Everlasting Covenant ; and being ascended up into Heaven , he there appears in the presence of God for us , and perpetually intercedes in the vertue of his bloud once offered , which is of infinite more value than the repeated Sacrifices of the Law. At this rate I discoursed not once or twice , but as often as occasion served ; and if this be Socinianism , I acknowledge my self to be a Socinian , and if it be not , let others judge what my Adversaries are . But let us consider , what pretences they have for charging me with Socinianism . And first Dr. Owen affirms , that I maintain the Socinian Notion of Iustification : And now I am very well contented to be a Socinian , for I have very good company in it , even the Church of England her self , as I have made appear above : For my notion of Justification is no other than what the Church of England does own and assert . But what is this Socinian Notion of Justification ? That we are justified by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ. This indeed the Socinians do assert , and so do I ; and yet there is a vast difference between us ; because they reject the satisfaction of Christ , as the meritorious cause of our Justification , which I own . Upon the same account Ravenspergerus ( such another zealous Bigot as my Adversaries ) charged Grotius with Socinianism , even when he writ against Socinus at a better rate than these men are acquainted with , because he attributed our Justification and pardon of sin to Faith in Christ , and repentance from dead works , as Socinus does ; and the answer , which Vossius gives to him , may serve my Adversaries . Socinus , ●t ipse censor agnoscit , nullo alio medio interveniente hanc fidel attribuit securitatem , id est , liberationem a poena : Grotius vero aliud statuit medium intervenire , nempe perpessiones Christi , habentes rationem poenae , propter quas Deus nos à poenis velit liberare ; Grotio igitur prius est medium satisfactionis , quam fidei , at Socino solum medium est fides , non satisfactio . i. e. Socinus attributes our security from the wrath of God , or our deliverance from punishment , only to Faith , without any other medium ; i. e. Without the intervention of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ : But Grotius asserts another medium of our Pardon and Iustification ; viz. the sufferings of Christ under the notion of punishments , for which God was pleased to deliver us from punishment . And therefore Grotius first attributes our Iustification to the satisfaction of Christ as the meritorious cause of it , and then to Faith , as the Condition ; But Socinus acknowledges Faith , but rejects Satisfaction . And therefore Dr. Owen himself , when he formerly charged Mr. Baxter with Socinianism upon the very same score , and drew a parallel between that account , which Mr. Baxter gave of justification , and what is given by Slitchtingius , and some other Socinians , was so modest then as to confess , that he was a Socinian in this point , as far as any one could be , who acknowledges satisfaction ; which is as much as to say , that he was no Socinian . Thus to proceed , they almost every where charge me with transcribing my interpretations of Scripture out of the Socinian Expositors , and therefore I must be a Socinian . Now suppose this were true , that I did make use of those Expositions , which the Socinians give of many places of Scripture , what hurt is there in it if there be no Socinianism in them ? For I have heard men , who understand very well what belongs to expounding Scripture , acknowledge the Socinians to be excellent Expositors , where their own peculiar Notions are not concerned , though no men play more tricks with Scripture , where they are : I do very often make use of Mr. Calvin's Expositions , and why do not they hence conclude me to be a Calvinist ? And indeed in most of those places , where they charge me with transcribing out of the Socinians , they might as justly have charged me with transcribing out of Calvin , and , had they known all , with greater reason too : For Calvin I did consult upon all occasions , but the Socinians I never did . I have already taken notice of and vindicated most of those Expositions which my Adversaries charge with Socinianism , as I have occasionally met with them , but Mr. Ferguson has put together some Texts , which he thinks I have so expounded , as to destroy their evidence for the Godhead of Christ. I would not ( says our Author ) be thought to impeach Mr. Sherlock of opposing the God-head of Christ , but this I affirm , that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19. Col. 2. 3 , 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. ( which are the very same that the Socinians impose upon those places ) be admitted , we have some of the main proofs of it , wrested out of our hands . I always suspect our Author of some ill design , when he speaks fairly ; he will not impeach me of opposing the God-head of Christ ; but he will strongly insinuate , that I secretly undermine the foundations of that belief , and that I expound those Scriptures , which are produced for the confirmation of it , just as the Socinians do , who deny it . I presume our Author was secure , that his Proselytes would take his word for this , and never concern themselves to examine the truth of it ; for the imposture is so very obvious , that no man can miss the discovery of it , who takes never so little pains in the inquiry . Most of these places concern that account I gave of the fulness of Christ , and in what sense the fulness of the God-head is said to dwell bodily in him , Col. 1. 19. Joh. 1. 14. Col. 2. 8. And the account I gave of it in short was this , that the Evangelist and Apostles in these expressions had a peculiar respect to the perfection of the Gospel-revelation , that Christ had now made a full and perfect revelation of Gods will to the world ; and much to the same purpose , I confess , Slitchtingius , and other Socinians expound those Texts ; but then Mr. Ferguson might have observed , that I gave a large account of the reason of that phrase , why the Apostle expresses the perfection of the Gospel-revelation by the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ , viz. That this is an allusion to Gods dwelling in the Temple at Jerusalem by Types and Figures , which were the Symbols of his presence , — And this Symbolical presence of God in the Temple , was very agreeable to that Symbolical and Ceremonial Worship , which he then instituted and commanded . But now he hath sent his Son to tabernacle among us , Joh. 1. 14. The Deity it self now dwells in the Temple of Christs body , not by Types and Figures , as he formerly dwelt in the Temple at Jerusalem , but by a real and immediate presence and union . And therefore those revelations , which are made by Christ , are answerable to the inhabitation of the Godhead in him , contain a true and perfect declaration of Gods will in opposition to the imperfect rudiments , and obscure Types and Figures of the Law ; so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , bodily is opposed to Figurative and Typical , and this is a plain demonstration of the perfection of the Gospel revelation , that the fulness of the Deity dwelt substantially in Christ , and we need not doubt , but that so excellent a Prophet as he was , in whom the Deity it self inhabited , hath perfectly revealed Gods will to us . And now our Author had need rub his forehead hard to maintain this to be the very same account which the Socinians give of these Texts , or that this does evacuate the testimony of these Scriptures for the Godhead of our Saviour , when indeed this is the only way to wrest these Scriptures out of the Socinians hands : whoever denies , that the Apostle did by that expression of the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ , intend to signifie the perfection of that revelation , which Christ hath made to the world , must of necessity be baffled by the Socinians , there being so many evident proofs of this from the whole design of the Apostle in that place , that it cannot be avoided ; and therefore the only way to vindicate these testimonies for the Deity of our Saviour , is not to argue from the primary intention and design of the Apostle in that place , but from the nature and reason of the expression ; why the Apostle should describe the perfection of the Gospel Revelation , by the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ , which no man can give any tolerable account of , who denies the Deity of Christ. But what will Mr. Ferguson say , if Mr. Calvin gives the very same account of the words , which I do ? and yet if he will but consult him upon the place , he will find , that my gloss is much more like Mr. Calvins than Slitchtingius's , or any other Socinian's . His words are these , Cùm dicit plenitudinem Deitatis habitare in Christo , nihil aliud sibi vult , quàm totum Deum in ipso inveniri , ut aliquid Deo melius ac praestantius appetat , qui solo Christo non est contentus : i. e. when the Apostle says , that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ , he means no more , than that all God is to be found in him , and therefore he must desire something better and more excellent than God , who is not contented with Christ alone . And what he means by this he further explains , Summa est , quòd Deus in Christo se nobis plenè ac in solidum exhibuerit . The sum is this , that God hath fully and perfectly declared himself to us in Christ. Here is the perfection of the Gospel Revelation , which Mr. Calvin says is the sum of what the Apostle intended in that expression ; and therefore he tells us , that the Apostle by Corporaliter bodily , understands substantialiter substantially : For the Apostle opposes that manifestation , which Christ hath made of God , to all others , that ever were before ; Deus enim saepius se exhibuit hominibus , sed in parte , in Christo autem totum se nobis communicat , aliàs etiam se manifestavit , sed in figuris , in Christo autem essentialiter nobis apparuit . For God did often manifest himself before , but those were partial and imperfect revelations , but now he hath communicated his whole self to us in Christ , i. e. the perfect knowledge of his will : He manifested himself also in other ways , but it was in Types and Figures , but now he hath appeared essentially to us in Christ , that is , as he is in himself . Thus on Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , ( and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the Father ) full of grace and truth . Mr. Calvin has this note , Simpliciter interpretor , Christum Apostolis indè agnitum fuisse pro filio Dei , quòd complementum omnium , quae ad spirituale Dei regnum pertinent , in se haberet , denique quòd in omnibus verè & praestiterit redemptorem & Messiam . I expound this ( says he ) in the most plain and simple manner , that hence the Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God , because in him was found the completion and perfection of whatever appertained to the spiritual Kingdom of God , a fulness of truth and grace , and that in all things he acquitted himself as a true Redeemer and Messias . On Ioh. 14. 20. At that day shall you know , that I am in my Father , and you in me , and I in you , Mr. Calvin expresly asserts , that our Saviour does not speak de aeternâ suâ essentia simplicitèr sed divinam illam virtutem , quae in eo fuit patefacta , commenáat ; Simply of his Eternal Essence , but commends that divine power and vertue , which appeared in him ; and accounts this the best answer to the Arrians objection from these words , That Christ was God participatione tantum & gratiâ , only by participation and by Grace . On Ioh. 17. 21. That they all may be one , as thou Father art in me , and I in thee , that they also may be one in us . Mr. Calvin observes , Tenendum est , quoties unum se cum patre esse in hoc capite pronunciat Christus , sermonem non habere simplicitèr de divinà ejus essentiâ , sed unum vocari in personâ mediatoris , & quatenùs caput nostrum est ; That is , we must acknowledge and own , that as often as Christ calls himself one with the Father in this Chapter , it does not simply and primarily refer to the unity of the Divine Essence , but he is one with the Father considered as Mediator , and head of the Church ; That is , as he acts in Gods name and authority , and does his will. And he adds , That many of the Fathers expound these words , of Christs being one with the Father , as he was Eternal God , but this they were forced to by their contention with the Arrians , longè autem aliud Christi consilium fuit , quàm ad nudam arcanae suae divinit at is speculationem nos evehere , But Christ had a quite different design in these words , than to raise them to a naked contemplation of his secret and unsearchable divinity . And now if Mr. Ferguson will be a just and impartial Judge , he must accost Mr. Calvin as he has done me . I would not be thought to impeach Mr. Calvin of opposing the Godhead of Christ , but this I affirm , that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19. Col. 2. 3. and 2. 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. and add Joh. 17. 21. ( which are as much the same as Mr. Sherlock's with those the Socinians impose upon those places ) be admitted , we have some of the main proofs of it wrested out of our hands . But to proceed , Dr. Owen hath given in his charge against me very fully and emphatically : He that shall consider what reflexions are cast in this discourse , on the necessity of satisfaction to be made unto divine Iustice , and from whom they are borrowed , the miserable weak attempt that is made therein , to reduce all Christ's mediatory actings to his Kingly Office , and in particular his Intercession ; the faint mention that is made of the satisfaction of Christ , clogged with the addition of ignorance of the Philosophy of it , as it is called , well enough complying with them , who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal , with sundry other things of the like nature , will not be to seek whence these things come , nor whither they are going , nor to whom our Author is beholden for most of his rare notions , which it is an easie thing at any time to acquaint him withal . The Doctors chief skill lies in scandalous insinuations , but he is just like other men , when he comes to reason : As for that attempt to reduce all Christ's Mediatory actings to his Kingly Office , I have given a sufficient account of that in answer to Mr. Ferguson , and suppose I shall hear no more of it : As for my faint mention of the satisfaction of Christ , clogged with an ignorance of the Philosophy of it ; what he calls a faint mention I cannot tell , but I did more than once expresly assert it , and that very heartily , but I must beg his pardon , that I dare not pretend to understand the strict Philosophy of that Atonement made by Christ , so long as I assert , that every Christian may easily learn all that is useful and necessary for him to know ; We may all know , whatever the Scripture has revealed about it , that Christ died for our sins , that he died for us , that he is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world , that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son , that his bloud is the bloud of the Covenant , that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud , and hath purchased and ratified the New Testament with his bloud ; which gives us the greatest assurance of the pardon of our sins , and the promises of eternal life upon the conditions of a lively active faith , which is made perfect by works . But then there are some enquiries concerning this matter of a nicer speculation , as wherein the proper nature of atonement and expiation consists , in what sense the death of Christ may be said to satisfie the justice of God , whether Christ died as the Surety of particular Persons , or as the Surety of the Covenant ; whether Christ suffered the Idem or the tantundem ; what is the immediate effect of Christs death , whether to give an actual right to those for whom he died to pardon and life , or to seal the Covenant of grace with mankind , and to put all men into a possibility of salvation . I presume the Doctor knows , that these and a great many more such questions are hotly disputed among those very men , who do not use to make a very faint mention neither of the satisfaction of Christ ; and methinks the Doctor should for once have commended the young mans modesty , that he would not peremptorily determine these matters , rather than blame me for professing my ignorance . And as for what the Doctor adds , that this favours of a compliance with them , who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal . If I mistake not , this is the utmost of what he himself can bring it to , whether right or wrong I shall not now determine ; for he expresly affirms , that Christ could not merit of God , with that kind of merit , which ariseth from an absolute proportion of things , and gives this wise reason for it , because Christ in respect of his humane nature , though united to the Deity , is a Creature , and so could not absolutely satisfie , nor merit any thing at the hand of God. This merit ( from an absolute proportion ) can be found only among Creatures , and the advancement of Christs humanity takes it not out of that number ; neither in this sense can any satisfaction be made to God for sin . And therefore he founds the merit and satisfaction of Christ upon Gods constitution and determination , predestinating Christ unto that work , and appointing the work by him to be accomplished , to be satisfactory , equalling ( by that constitution ) the end and the means . Which at most signifies no more but this , that what Christ did was not in its own nature satisfactory , but was only what God was satisfied with upon account of his own constitution and determination . And therefore all the merit the Doctor ascribes to Christ is the accomplishment of that condition , which God required to make way , that the Obligation , which he had freely put upon himself , might be in actual force . Which he says is no more than what Mr. Baxter assigns to our own works : By which we may learn what a lame and conditional merit and satisfaction he attributes to Christ : Nay , he is so far from attributing any merit and satisfaction to what Christ did , that he affirms , that the will of God is not moved thereby , nor changed into any other respect towards those for whom Christ died , than what it had before , which I take to be complying with those who assert , that God was not moved by the death of Christ to forgive sin , and who those are , I presume the Doctor knows , since he has so often told me of them . As for what he insinuates , that I deny the necessity of satisfaction to be made unto divine Iustice , I own the charge , and have as good company in it , as heart can wish : for , not to take notice of our modern Writers , who ( whatever the Doctor may think of it ) have writ at a better rate against the Socinians , than the necessity men , Vossius gives us a particular account of the concurring judgment of the ancient Fathers in this point . The Author of that Book de Cardinalibus Christi operibus , Athanasius , St. Austin , Leo M. Gregorius M. together with several eminent Divines of the Reformed Churches , and particularly a great man of our own the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield , who in his Letter to Grotius , gives an account of the sense of this Church in this point of the necessity of satisfaction : Nos in sententia Augustini acquiescimus , non defuisse Deo pro sua omnipotentia & sapientia alios modos possibiles , sed hunc convenientissimum esse visum . We rest satisfied in St. Austin ' s opinion , that God , who is infinitely wise and powerful , did not want other possible ways ( for the Redemption of Mankind ) but judged this the most convenient of all . And here I must once more take notice of that account the Doctor gives of the necessity of Satisfaction , which he resolves into a natural vindictive Iustice , which makes it impossible that Gods anger should be diverted from sinners , without the interposing of a Propitiation . Upon which account he tells us , that whatever discoveries were made of the patience and lenity of God unto us , yet if it were not withal revealed , that the other Properties of God , as his Iustice and Revenge for sin , had their actings also assigned them to the full , there could be little consolation gathered from the former . This account ( as I then thought and think so still ) makes a very unworthy Representation of Almighty God ; as if he were so just , that he is cruel and savage , and irreconcilable , till he has taken his fill of Revenge , and represents the whole design of Christs Death to be only a satisfaction of Revenge , without which God could not be appeased ; as if Divine Vengeance ( as I then expressed it out of a just indignation to such a horrid Doctrin ) did glut and satiate itself with the bloud of Christ , instead of the bloud of the sinner . This Dr. Owen makes very severe Reflexions on , as blasphemous and prophane ; and I will not deny upon second thoughts , but that it might have been more inoffensively expressed ; for there is an Euphemia due from us , when we speak of sacred things , and it is not fit always to represent such Doctrins in their true and proper colors : But every one might easily perceive that I did not intend it as any disparagement to the satisfaction of our Saviour , to which we owe all our present Mercies and future hopes , but as the natural Interpretation and Language of the Doctors Argument . I deny not that Anger , and Fury , and Vengeance are in Scripture attributed to God , when it speaks after the manner of men , to signifie the severity of those judgments , which God will inflict upon obstinate sinners ; but to think , that the Death of Christ , who was his only and his beloved Son , was a satisfaction of his natural and unappeasable Vengeance and Fury , is such an account as the Scripture no where gives us of the Death of Christ , as is incredible in it self , and irreconcileable with the other Perfections of the Divine Nature . But let us hear what the Doctor has to say for himself , and he tells us , That all he intended by that which he asserted , is no more but this , that such is the essential Holiness and Righteousness of the Nature of God , that considering him as the supreme Governour and Ruler of Mankind , it was inconsistent with the holiness and rectitude of his Rule , and the glory of his Government , to pass by Sin absolutely , or to pardon it without Satisfaction , Propitiation or Atonement . That God being infinitely holy , does perfectly hate all wickedness , and that as he is the supreme Governour of the world , he justly may , and in some cases cannot consistently with his Holiness and Wisdom , and the ends of his Government , do any other than punish sin , is denied by no body that I know : But the Doctor proceeds farther , that God as a holy and just Governour , is under a necessity of Nature to punish every sin that is committed ; that though the sinner repent of his sins , and humbly confess and bewail them , and sincerely reform , yet Justice must be satisfied either with the punishment of the sinner , or some other in his stead : Thus he states it in his Diatriba de Iustitiâ , p. 2. Iustitiam peccati vindicatricem Deo esse naturalem contendo , & in exercitio necessariam , i. e. I contend and earnestly assert , that that Iustice which takes vengeance on sin , is natural to God , and necessary in the exercise of it . Now this is a very different thing from the Justice of Government , which allows the most just and righteous Judges to pardon Offences , when the ends of Government may as well be attained by Indulgence as by Punishment . And therefore the Doctor distinguishes between Ius Regiminis positivum & naturale , between a positive and natural Right of Government : The Positive Right is such as Magistrates have over their Subjects , and this ( he asserts ) they may recede from in some extraordinary cases , when it is for the Publick Good and Benefit not to punish ; because the Safety of the People and the Publick Benefit , is the supreme Law to such Governours : But the Natural Right of Government is that which God has over his Creatures , and this is immutable , and therefore God cannot recede from it ; which as it is said without any reason ( for whether the Right be Positive or Natural , it does not alter the Nature , nor the prudent Rules and Methods of Government ) so it gives a plain account , what the Doctor means by Gods Right of punishing as Governour , which answers to what we call Revenge in private persons , which immediately respects himself and not the publick ends of Government ; which is the true difference between private Revenge and publick Justice ; and though this be all the Doctor intends , yet that all is enough in all reason , and is the very all which I charged him with . Well but I say as much as this comes to , when I assert , that God is an irreconcilable enemy to all wickedness : By no means , for this does not prove , that God must necessarily punish the sinner , but that he will certainly either destroy sin or the sinner , that he can never be reconciled to any wicked man , while he continues wicked , and that he will certainly express his displeasure against all obstinate and incorrigible sinners ; the difference is just as much as between such a Justice as punishes the penitent , and that which punishes the incorrigible ; the first is such Severity at best , as becomes not a good Man , and a wise Governour ; the second is justified and applauded by the universal consent of Mankind . But the Doctor would retort all these ill consequences , which I cast upon his Notion upon my self : He presumes , I own the Satisfaction of Christ , and this is the first time he hath ghessed right , but what then ? Therefore also I own , that God would not pardon any Sin , but upon a supposition of a previous Satisfaction made by Iesus Christ : very right still , when he had decreed that he would not : Here then lies all the difference between us , that he says God could not pardon Sin without Satisfaction , and I say , that although he might have done so without the least diminution of his glory , yet he would not : and this is a good wide difference between could not and would not : The first represents Satisfaction to be the effect of a private Revenge , the second to be the effect of Wisdom and Counsel in choosing the most convenient way to dispense his Pardon . God , we presume , had more ways than one to secure the Authority of his Laws , the Glory of his Government , and to vindicate the Holiness of his Nature , but he chose this as the best and fittest . It had not been consistent with the Wisdom of God , as Governour of the world , to have pardoned sin in such a way as would have reflected any disparagement on his Holiness , or loosened the Reins of Government ; and therefore if he had not chose this way , he would certainly have chose some other , and then he might have rejected this , but could not wisely reject all : Christ , according to these Principles , did not die for sinners , because God could not forgive sin without such a penal satisfaction , but because he preferred this way before all other , as the most effectual to attain its end . And now I presume my Readers may be as glad as my self , to see a Conclusion of this long Dispute : Some possibly will think I have said too much , and some too little : I have taken notice of every thing which was material in my Adversaries , and of too many things which were not ; and though I have not particularly taken notice of Mr. POLHILL and ANTISOZZO , it was because there was no need of it : Whatever is considerable in them is answered in these Papers ; and as for ANTISOZZO , I had no mind to play the Buffoon , as he does , and I know no other way of answering him : And I hope the world will be sufficiently convinced , what a desperate case Fanaticism is reduced to , when they are forced upon all occasions to take Sanctuary in Buffoonry ; but others may do as they please , as for my part I am resolved this Controversie shall never end in a Trial of Wit. FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59809-e440 Vind. p. 5. Vin. p. 119 Chap. 2 Discourse of the Knowledge of Christ , Chap. 3. Chap. 4. Chap. 4. Sect. ● . Vind. p. 5. P. 7. Speculum , p. 55. Speculum p. 53. Epistle to Historia quinque Articularis exarticulata . Speculum , p. 65. The Interest of Rea son in Religion , p. 457. Vind. p. 143. Preface to Historia quinque Articularis exarticulata . Speculum , p. 2. Ibid. p. ● Ibid. p. 14 Spec. p. 3. P. 457. Ibid. p. 7. Ibid. p. 8 ▪ Speculum , p. 40. Iustificatio Paul●na , p. 112. Spec ibid. The Interest of Reason in Religion , p. 388. P. 392. P. 395. P. 393. P. 391. Speculum , P. 31. P. 36. Vind. P. 1. P. 376. The Interest of Rea son in Religion , P. 311. * Ibid. P. 384. Knowledge of Christ , Chap. 3. Sect. 4. P. 100. Ib. p. 381. Knowledg of Christ , p. 108. * Interest of Reason &c. p. 278. Ib p. 383. Ib. p. 285. Knowledg of Christ , p. 32. Vide Calvin in locum . Beza in locum . The Interest of Reason in Religion , p. ●●7 Ib. p. 399. Ib. p. 403. Ib. p. 406. * The Design of Christianity . P. 409. Ib. p. 41● . Ib. p. 411. Knowledg of Christ , p. ●88 . Edit . 2. p. 201. Davenant de gratia habituali . Cap. 27. P. 413. P. 416. Chap. ● . P. 135. Confess . Helvet . Scoticana Confess . Apol. pro Confess . August . Bohaemica Confell . Belgica Confess . Homily of Salvation , Part 1. P. 417. Knowledg of Christ , p. 235 , &c. & p. 279. Edit . 2. p. 164. & 195. Interest of Reason &c p. 416. Ibid. P. 55● . Knowledg of Christ , p. 296. Edit . 2. p. 2●7 . P. 62. P. 320. P. 344. Knowledg of Christ , Chap. 4 Sect. 3. p. 279. Edit . 2. p. 195. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. Ibid. p. 68. Edit . 2. P. 48. Vindicat , p. 208. P. 209. Commun . P. 184. Knowledg of Christ , P. 297. Edit . 2. P. 207. Vindicat ▪ P. 211. Vindicat ▪ P. ●12 . Knowledg of Christ , P. 298. Edit . Edit . 2. P. 2●9 . Vind. P. 217. Ibid. Commun . p. 18● . P. 220. * P. 18● . * P. ●10 . Edit . 2. p. 217. Vindicat. p. 223. Knowledg of Christ , p. 311. Edit . 2. p. 218. Commun . p. 182. Knowledg of Christ , p. 315. Edit . 2. p. 220. Vind , p. 9 , p. ● Spec. p. 30. Vindicat. p. 82. P. 117. Spec. p. 68. Commun . P. 193. Knowledg of Christ , p. 314. Edit . 2. p. 220. Sermon of Salvation , part 3. Sermon of Salvation , part 1. Serm ▪ of Salvation part 3. Lect. 5. de Justificatione . Considerationes modestae , p. 52. De Justitia habituali & actuali . P. 16. Homily of Faith , part 1. Homily of Faith , part 1. Heb. 12. Ibid. P. 76. Sermon of Faith , part 2. Part 3. Sermon of Good Works , part 1. Serm. of Salvation part 3. De Justit . Habit. & act . cap. 29. August-Confess . Art. XX. Homily of Repentance . Sermon of Salvation , part 2. De Justit . Habit. & act . cap. 31. De dilectione & impletione legis . Responsio ad argum , adversar . Sermon of Salvation , part 3. Sermon of Salvation , part 1. Sermon of Salvation , part 2. Serm. of Salvation part 2. Vide supra p. 152. &c. Sup. p. 156 Commun . p. 187. Vindicat. p. 232. Ibid. P. 151. Knowledg of Christ , p. 201. Edit . 2. p. 140. Interest of Reason &c p. 475. Knowledg of Christ , p. 2 4. Edit . 2. p. 143. Vindicat. p. 153. D. Crisp's Christs Preemin . p. 89 Ibid. Knowledg of Christ , p. 115. Edit . 2. P. 77. Christ alone exalted . Serm. 1. Ibid. p. 7. P. 10. p. 13. Knowledg of Christ , p. 64 , 65 , 66 , &c. p. 24. 129. Edit . 2. p. 45 , 51 , 9● . Ibid p. 49 Ibid. p. 60 p. 84. Knowledge of Christ. p. 422. Edit . 2. p. 295. Knowledge of Christ , p. 126. &c. Edit . 2. p. 88. * p. 100. Knowledg of Christ , p. 127. Edit . ●● . p. 88. Vindicat. p. 120. Communion . p. 187. Ibid. p. 185. Vindicat. p. 120. Knowledge of Christ , p. 129. Edit . 2. P. 90. Vindi●●● p. 12● ▪ Knowledg of Christ , p. 363 , &c Edit . 2. p. 224. Communion p. 113. Ibid. Christ alone exalted . p. 18. Ibid Knowledge of Christ. p. ●5 . Edit . 2. p. 38. Vindicat. p. 70. Communion . p. 119. Vindicat. p. 125. Christ alone exalted . Vol. 1. p. 51. Vindicat. p. 101. Ibid. p. 193. p. 207. Ibid. p. 208. &c. Ibid. p. 193. Vindicat. p. 104. Christ alone exalted . Vol. 1. p. 70. Ibid. p. 210. Ibid. p. 70. Ibid. p. 193. p. 7● P. 217. Ibid. p. 69. p. 30 Ibid. p. 2● . p. 69. Ibid. P. 30. Ibid. p. 215. Knowledge of Christ , p. 413 , &c Edit . 2. p. 295. p. 26. Ibid. p. 27. p. 41● . Edit . 2. p. 29. p. 36. Of the excellency of Christ. p. 93. Ibid. Vindicat. P. 33 , 34 , P. 206. P. 170. p. 272. p. 209. Vindicat. p. 177. Vindicat. p. 183. p. 210. Vindicat. p. 187. Vide supra p. 171. &c Interest of Reason , &c. p. 164. Knowledge of Christ , Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Interest of Reason , P. 35. Knowledge of Christ. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Interest of Reason in Religion , P. 443 , &c Knowledge of Christ , p. 349. Ibid. p. ●45 . Ibid. p. 447 , &c Knowledge of Christ. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. Interest of Reason , p. 440 , 441. Knowledge of Christ , Chap. 4. Sect. 1. Interest of Reason , P. 597. Ibid. P. 611. Vindicat. p. 15. Knowledge of Christ. p. 145 , &c Interest of Reason , &c. p. 459. Ibid. p. 461. 499. Knowledge of Christ , p. 162. Interest of Reason , &c. p. 59● . Cy●r Conc. Carthag . Knowledge of Christ. p. 165 , &c Separation yet no Schism . P. 9. p. 469. p. 615. p. 619. P. 626. Knowledge of Christ. P. 200. Interest of Reason , &c. P. 499. Knowledge of Christ , Chap. 4. Sect. 3. Interest of Reason , &c. p. 540. Knowledge of Christ. p. ●●● . Crisp. Christ alone exalted . Vol. 2. p. 88 , 89. Ibid. p. 90 , 91. Ibid. p. 244. p. 248. p. 254. p. 256. p. 265. p. 259. p. 272. Communion . p. 205. Ibid ▪ Interest of Reason , &c. p. 549. Knowledge of Christ , Chap. 4. Sect. 3. Christ alone exalted . Vol. 2. p. 186 , &c Of the death of Christ. p. 77. Ibid. p. 65. Communion p. 206. Knowledge of Christ. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. Interest of Reason , &c. p. 623. Interest of Reason &c. p. 441. Ibid. p. 646. Ibid. p. 645. Ibid. p. 655. Ibid. p. 628. Of the Death of Christ in answer to M. Baxter p. 77 , &c. Christ alone exalted . Vol. 1. p. 160. &c Knowledge of Christ. p. 81 , 82. Edit . 2. p. 56 Ibid. p. 330. 328. Edit . 2. p. 229. &c. Vindicat. p. 227. Voss●i resp . ad Iudic. Ravensp . p. 283. Interest of Reason , &c. p. 475. Knowledge of Christ. p. 216. &c. Edit . 2. p. 151. Calvin . in 〈◊〉 . Vindicat. p. 131. Of the death of Christ , in answer to M. Baxter . P. 52. Ibid. P. 66. Ibid. P. 50. Resp ad Iudic. Ravensp . P. 336. Knowledge of Christ , P. 45 , 47. Edit . 2. P. 31 , 33. Vind. p. 43 Diatriba de Justit . p. 160. 
A60941	----	Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book, entituled A vindication of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity, &c, together with a more necessary vindication of that sacred and prime article of the Christian faith from his new notions, and false explications of it / humbly offered to his admirers, and to himself the chief of them, by a divine of the Church of England. South, Robert, 1634-1716. 1693 Approx. 803 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 205 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-05 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A60941 Wing S4731 ESTC R10418 13780128 ocm 13780128 101779 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A60941) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 101779) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 850:37) Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book, entituled A vindication of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity, &c, together with a more necessary vindication of that sacred and prime article of the Christian faith from his new notions, and false explications of it / humbly offered to his admirers, and to himself the chief of them, by a divine of the Church of England. South, Robert, 1634-1716. The second edition [2], xix, [3], 382 p. Printed for Randal Taylor ..., London : 1693. Written by Robert South. Cf. DNB. Errata: p. [3] Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity. Trinity -- Early works to 1800. Socinianism -- Early works to 1800. Arianism -- Early works to 1800. 2003-01 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-02 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2003-03 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2003-03 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2003-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Animadversions UPON Dr. SHERLOCK's Book , ENTITULED A Vindication of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity , &c. TOGETHER With a more Necessary Vindication of that Sacred , and Prime Article of the Christian Faith from his New Notions , and False Explications of it . Humbly offered to His Admirers , and to Himself the Chief of them . By a Divine of the Church of England . The Second Edition with some Additions . LONDON , Printed for Randal Taylor , near Stationers-Hall , MDCXCIII . A PREFACE , OR , INTRODUCTION To the following Animadversions . TO be Impugned from without , and Betrayed from within , is certainly the worst Condition that either Church or State can fall into ; and the best of Churches , the Church of England , has had experience of Both. It had been to be wished , and ( one would think ) might very reasonably have been expected , That , when Providence had took the Work of destroying the Church of England out of the Papists Hands , some would have been contented with her Preserments , without either attempting to give up her Rites and Liturgy , or deserting her Doctrine . But it has proved much otherwise . And amongst those , who are justly chargeable with the latter , I know none , who has faced the World , and defied the Church with so bold a Front , as the Author of Two very Heterodox Books ; the first Entituled , A Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ , &c. Published in the Year , 1674. And the other , A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever-Blessed Trinity , &c. Published in the Year 1690. And ( as one would think ) Wrote purposely , to let the World see that the Truth cannot be so much shaken by a direct Opposition , as by a Treacherous , and False Defence . I shall in this Preliminary Address to the Reader , pass some brief Remarks upon both these Books . But first upon this , which I have here undertook to Animadvert upon . It is now of about Three Years standing in the World , and I have wondered , even to Astonishment , that a Book so full of Paradoxes , and those so positively , as well as absurdly delivered , could pass Unanswered for so long a time . For the Author , having therein advanced a Notion immediately and unavoidably inferring Three Gods , has yet had the Confidence not only to Assert it , but to Declare it Heresie and Nonsence to think , or hold otherwise ; that is , in other Words , to call the whole Christian Church , in all Ages and Places , Fools and Hereticks . For I do here averr , and will undertake to prove it , ( as far as a Negative may be proved ) That no Church ( known to us by History , or otherwise ) ever held this Notion of the Trinity before . And must we then be all Fools and Hereticks , who will not acknowledge the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , that is , in other Terms , to be Three Gods ? And can so Learned , and every way Excellent a Clergy bear this ? For if they could not , whence is it that some Writers amongst them , while they are declaring their dislike of his Opinions , yet do it with so soft an Air , and so gentle a Touch , as if they were afraid either to Condemn the Opinion , or to Attack the Author ? Nay , and some I find creeping under his Feet with the Title of Very Reverend , while they are charging him with such Qualities and Humours , as none can be , justly , chargeable with , and deserve Reverence too . For my own part , I franckly own , That I neither Reverence , nor Fear him ; that is , I Reverence none , who gives whole Communities and Churches such Words , nor Fear any One , who Writes such Things , and in such a manner . For even those Mean Spirits , who can both Court , and Censure him in the same Breath , complain , That he gives no Quarter , where he supposes he has his Adversary upon the least Advantage . And if this be his Way and Temper never to give Quarter , I am sure he has no cause to expect any , whatsoever he may find . But still , methinks , I can hardly believe my Eyes , while I read such a Pettit Novellist Charging the Whole Church as Fools and Hereticks , for not Subscribing to a Silly , Heretical Notion solely of his own Invention . For does he , or can he think to Live and Converse in the World upon these Terms ? And to throw his Scurrility at High , and Low , at all About him , Above him , and Below him ( if there be any such ) at this insufferable rate ? Does he , ( I would fain know ) in this speak his Judgment , or his Breeding ? Was it the School , the University , or Gravel-Lane , that taught him this Language ? Or does he never reflect upon himself , nor consider , That though he does not , others assuredly will ? One would think by his Words and Carriage that he had ingrossed all Reason and Learning to Himself : But on the contrary , that this his scornful looking down upon all the World besides , is not from his standing upon any higher ground of Learning , and Sufficiency , than the rest of the World ; and that he Huffs and Dictates at a much more commanding rate than he Reasons , the perusal of my Ninth , Tenth , and Eleventh Chapters will , or ( I am sure ) may sufficiently inform the Impartial Reader ; and shew him how many things there are in this Author's Vindication , which too much need Another , but admit none . In the mean time , I do , and must declare both to himself , and to all others , That the forementioned Charge of Heresie and Nonsence ( as he has laid it ) is so very Rude , Scandalous , and Provoking , that it is impossible for the Tongue , or Pen of Man to reply any Thing so severely upon him , which the foulness of the said Expression will not abundantly warrant both the Speaking and the Writing of . The Church of England is certainly very Merciful ; Merciful ( as a Great Judge once said of K. Charles II. ) even to a Fault . For who , by her silence upon what this Bold Man has Wrote , and the Encouragement he has since received , would not be shrewdly induced after some consider able number of Years ( if his stuff should live so long ) to believe , that his Notions were the Current Doctrine of our Church , or , at least , of our Church-men at that time ? None then opposing them , most over-looking them , and some countenancing and advancing the Author of them ; and , perhaps , for them too . This is truly the Case ; and I hope to do the Church of England so much Service at least , as to break the Universality both of the Silence , and the presumed Acceptance , by one plain , resolute and full Negative put in against it . For upon a due Consideration of the Things vented by this Author , and comparing them with the Proceedings and Zeal of the Primitive Church in its Councils , I do from my Heart believe , That had he lived and published this Book in those Days , and Asserted , That the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity were Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . And that Their Personal distinction consisted only in Self-Consciousness , and their Unity only in Mutual-Consciousness . And withal , That the Terms Essence , Nature , Substance , Person , and Hypostasis , or Subsistence , &c. applyed to the Godhead and the Divine Persons , served only to perplex , obscure , and confound Men's Apprehensions of them ; and for that cause ought to be laid aside ; I say , I do not in the least question , but that all and every one of these Propositions , would have been publickly and solemnly Condemned in Council , and the Author of them ( as high as he now carries his Head , like another Abbot Joachim ) severely dealt with for Asserting them ; and that upon great Reason . Forasmuch , as the Two chief of those Terms , viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Substance and Subsistence , were equally with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self opposed by those Two grand Arian Hereticks and Furious Disturbers of the Church , Ursacius and Valens , who with their Accomplices vehemently contended to have them all wholly suppressed and disused . So that as for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father and the Son , they would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , no mention at all to be made of any such Thing ; and as for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much as to be named concerning any of the Three Persons . And , as one Reason for this , they alledged the satisfaction of Tender Consciences . Which shews , That there are some such tender Consciences in the World , as ( when opportunity serves ) may put the Church , not only to part with its Liturgy , Rites , and Ceremonies , but its very Creed also for their sake . But right , or wrong , those Two Arian Incendiaries pressed hard for the Abolition of these Two Words ; as this Author also does in this his Vindication ; treading hereby exactly in the steps of those Blessed Leaders ; who , no doubt , understood the Interest of their base Cause well enough , and were both Self-Conscious , and Mutually-Conscious , how much they served the design , they drove at , by what they did . And , since Things were so in former Days , what hinders , but that in these latter Days likewise , the same , if not prevented , may happen again ? And , that One , who , ( tho' he carries himself , as if he were able to teach the whole World , yet , for some certain Reasons , professes himself a * Learner still ) having already exploded the Terms Substance and Subsistence , as not to be used about the Trinity , may , upon the winning prospect of some Approaching Advantage , ( as , where Advantage is the Teacher , some care not how long they continue Learners ) be very easily prevailed upon to send the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 packing after its Fellows , and to abandon and cast off that too ? For , though such an One should give the Church his Oath to the contrary , there is no security from thence , but that a Perpetual Learner ( by a due waiting upon Providence ) may , all in convenient time , Learn to forget it too : And a Self-Contradictor having freely allowed a Thing at one time , as freely and fully disown it at another . Wherefore it was , no doubt , upon a most serious consideration of the force of Words in Conjunction with the Tempers of Men , That the Sixth General Council ( and Third of Constantinople ) was so jealously concerned , and so remarkably strict to fence against all Heretical Mischief from that Quarter ; as appears from the Concluding Article of the Synodical Sentence pronounced by the said Council against the Monothelites , as we find it thus set down in the Acts thereof . These Things therefore , being thus with the utmost care and exactness , on all sides , formed and drawn up by us , We Decree and Enact , That it shall not be lawful for any one to Produce , Write , Compose , Conceive , or Teach another Faith , or this in any other way , or manner . But as for those who shall presume to Compose , or Contrive another Faith , or Publish , Teach , or deliver forth another Creed , to such as shall be ready to come over to the Acknowledgment of the Truth from Heathenism , or Judaisine , or any other Sect whatsoever , or shall introduce any unusual way of speaking , or new Invented Terms , as tending to Subvert all that has been defined by us , if they be Bishops , or in Clerical Orders , we decree , That they shall be deprived of their Bishopricks , or said Orders ; or if they be Monks , or Laymen , that they shall be Anathematized . So that we have here a clear and full Declaration of a General Council , against all teaching , not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; that is , not only against delivering another Faith , but against delivering the same in another way , or manner , than the Council had settled , and against the use of all new-Invented Terms , all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness themselves not excepted ) as in the Judgment of the Council , destructive in their consequence to the Faith declared ; and all this upon pain of Deprivation , or Anathematization , as the Quality of the Persons concerned should happen to be . According to the rigour of which Sentence , and the Proceeding of the Church in those ●ges sutable to it , Deprivation , or Suspension , would , no doubt , have attended this Author , had he then lived and produced his new Terms , in defiance and reproach of the former received ones . And if such a punishment had actually befallen him , he would have found , that in those Days , Men were not wont either to be Suspended , or Deprived in order to their Promotion . I know indeed , that in the Apology lately put out by him for Writing against the Socinians , he utters some Things contrary to what he had Asserted in this his Vindication of the Trinity . But this the Reader ought not at all to be surprized at ; it being as Natural to some Men to Write as to Breath , and to Contradict themselves at to Write : And no Man of Sence , who knows this Author , will reckon that he knows his Iudgment , or Opinion from any Book Wrote by Him , any longer , than till he Writes another ; nor from that neither , till he has Wrote his last . Having given the Reader this short Prelibation , or Taste of the Book , which I shall more particularly and fully examine presently , I think fit to remark something also upon that other Piece mentioned by me , and Entituled , A Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ , &c. A Book fraught with such Vile and Scandalous Reflexions upon God's Justice , with reference to Christ's Satisfaction , that it may deservedly pass for a Blasphemous Libel upon both . And I do seriously think , that never was any Book Licensed , Published , and suffered to pass Uncontrolled , more to the Disgrace of the Church of England than this , which the Reader will quickly see upon his Reading some Passages of it ; which , I am sure , if he be but Christianly disposed , be cannot do , but with extreme Horrour . But before I direct the Reader to his Blasphemies , I shall lay before him one Grand leading Absurdity , which utterly Evacuates and Overthrows the whole Doctrine of Free Grace , and the Redemption of Mankind thereby ; and indeed , by Consequence , the whole Oeconomy of the Christian Religion . And it is that Wonderful Assertion concerning the Goodness of God , in Page 44. of his Knowledge of Christ , viz. That it is not possible to understand what Goodness is , without Pardoning Grace . Now certain it is , that Natural Reason , by its own light , is able from the Common Works of God's Providence , to collect the Knowledge of God's Goodness ; as St. Paul expresly told those Heathens of Lycaonia , Acts 14. 17. and therefore , if the Knowledge of God's Goodness , necessarily implies in it , the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace , it will follow , That the Heathens by understanding one from the Works of Providence , must needs understand and know the other also ; and consequently , that the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace is not owing to Revelation , nor the Gospel necessary to make a Discovery of it to Mankind . A Blessed Principle , and Foundation , no doubt , to establish the New-designed Scheme of a Natural Religion upon ! For it is not unknown , what Projects were on foot amongst some , when this Book was Wrote , though the Author had the ill luck to be left in the Lurch , and not seconded in the Attempt . But in opposition to this Paganish Assertion , I do here affirm , That if God may be Good , and that , both as to the Essential Attribute of his Goodness , and as to the actual Exercise of the same , without the Pardon of Sin , then it is not impossible to understand the Goodness of God , without Pardoning Grace . The Consequence is evident . For whatsoever any Thing is , it is capable of being understood to be . And as for the Antecedent , that is manifest from these Considerations . First , That God was Good , and exerted Acts of Goodness , before there was any Sin in the World , and therefore might be , and undoubtedly was , understood both as Good , and as exercising his Goodness , by the Angels before the Fall of any of them , and for that reason before Pardon of Sin could come into Consideration . In the next Place , God had been Good , and had exercised his Goodness , had Men and Angels been Created Impeccable ; and , I am sure , it is no Contradiction to hold , That they might have been Originally made such , as all Glorified Spirits now actually are . And Lastly , God is , and may be understood to be Good , even in respect of those , whose Sins shall never be pardoned . And therefore that Assertion of this Author , That it is not possible to understand what Goodness is without Pardoning Grace , is apparently false and absurd ; as drawing after it One of these Two Consequences . First , That either we cannot understand the Creation and Support of Angels , and of this visible World , and particularly of Mankind , to have been Acts and Instances of the Divine Goodness ( which yet , no doubt , were very great ones . ) Or , Secondly , That we cannot understand them as such , but by understanding them also to imply in them Pardoning Grace . And if so , then , supposing the Creation of Man , and his Sin after his Creation , and the Goodness of God remaining still entire , notwithstanding Man's Sin , ( as it certainly did ) it will follow , that Pardoning Grace , having ( according to the forementioned Principle ) a necessary Connexion with , or result from the said Goodness , must have fallen in of course , and by necessary consequence from thence . And then , Where could be the Freedom of this Grace ? Nay , Where could be this Grace it self ? For the very Nature of Grace consists in this , that it be an Act perfectly Free ; so free , that God might have chosen , after Man had sinned , whether he would ever have offered him any Conditions of Pardon , or no ; And if he had not , Men might , notwithstanding that , have abundantly known and understood the Goodness of God , by several other Acts and Instances , in which it had sufficiently declared it self . So that the foregoing Assertion is nothing but a gross Paradox , and a Scurvy Blow at all Revealed Religion besides , if the Knowledge of Pardoning Grace could , or may be had without it . And now after this Absurdity presented to the Reader 's Examination ; I shall point out to him some of the Blasphemies also that occurr in the same Book . Such as are these that follow . The Justice of God ( says he ) having glutted it self with Revenge on Sin in the Death of Christ , henceforward we may be sure he will be very kind , as a Revengeful Man is , when his Passion is over . Knowledge of Christ , P. 46. Again , the Sum of the Matter is , That God is all Love and Patience , when he has taken his fill of Revenge ; as others use to say , That the Devil himself is very good when he is pleased , Pag. 47. Again , The Death of Christ ( says he ) discovers the Naturalness of Justice to God ; that is , That he is so Just , that he has not one Dram of Goodness in him , till his Rage and Vengeance be satisfied ; which , I confess , is a glorious kind of Justice . And presently after . Now the Justice and Vengeance of God having their Actings assigned them to the full , being glutted and satiated with the Blood of Christ , God may pardon as many and great Sins as he pleases , P. 59. And sutable to this , he likewise calls the Method of God 's saving Sinners upon a Previous Satisfaction made to his Iustice , as necessary for the Remission of Sin , God's Trucking and Bartering with Sin , and the Devil for his Glory , P. 52. Concerning which and the like Expressions uttered by this Great-Good Man ( as a certain poor Wretch calls him ) I cannot but out of a due Zeal , and concern for that Eternal Truth , by which , I hope to be Saved , declare , That the Tongue that should Speak such things , deserves to Speak no more ; and the Hand that should Write them , to Write no more . And great pity it is , that at this time , and in this case also , his Ascendant had not tyed up his Hands from Writing . For see , how one of the Leading Dissenters Insults over our Church , upon occasion of these Horrid Passages . Is this ( says he ) Language becoming a Son of the Church of England ? Ought it not more justly to have been expected from a Iew , or a Mahometan ? From Servetus , or Socinus , ( from whom also it was borrowed ) than from a Son of the Church , in a Book published by Licence and Authority ? And thus he goes on , equally Chastising his Arrogance , and Exposing his Ignorance ; the poor Church 's Reputation all the while paying the Scores of both . But now , if either He himself , or any for him shall plead . That it was not fairly done to charge him with those Blasphemies , which he may ( and perhaps does ) pretend to have been uttered by Him in the Person of his Adversary , and as the genuine Consequences of the Doctrine maintained by him . To this I Answer . First , That he , who pretends to speak in the Person of another , ought , according to all Justice and Decorum , to speak only such Things as that other , whom he personates , uses to speak , and consonant to his known , Avowed Sence . But did his Adversary , Dr. Owen , ever speak so ? Or use the Expressions here uttered by this Author ? Whereas he declares himself concerning the said Expressions thus , viz. That he cannot mention them without begging Pardon for repeating such horrid and desperate Blasphemies . Owen 's Vindication against Sherlock , p. 46. That they were fitter for a Iew , or a Mahometan , for Servetus , or Socinus , than a Son of this Church , p. 47. That he abhorred the Rehearsal of such horrid Profaneness , p. 49. That they were odious Satanical Exprobrations of the Truth of Christ's Satisfaction , ibid. And now can this Man pretend to speak these Things in the Person of one who thus Abhors , Abominates , and Detests them ? The Truth is , his whole Book is such a lewd Misrepresentation both of the Words and Sence of his Adversary , that if he has any Bloud in his Body , it must needs fly in his Face , and bid him Blush for such Unconscionable Falsifications . But Secondly , If he charges these Assertions as Consequences of the Doctrine maintained by his Adversary , I must put him in mind of these two Things . 1. That to the just charging of any Man with the Consequences of his Doctrine , or Opinion , the Things so charged , ought to be not only the Real , but also the Plain , Direct , and Immediate Consequences of that Opinion . Forasmuch as no Man ought in reason to be charged with the Remote far-fetched Consequences of any Proposition held by him ; since he may in all Equity ( if he disclaims them ) be supposed ignorant of them , and that inculpably too . 2. This Author is to know , That to the just charging of even any Doctrine , or Opinion , with such and such Consequences , though they follow never so really and truly from it , yet if they lie any thing remote , and at some distance from the same , they ought first by clear undeniable Arguments to be proved to follow from thence , before they can justly and fairly be charged to do so . Which two Observations thus premised ; that I may lay the whole Matter before the Reader more particularly ; he is to take Notice , That the Doctrine , which this Author loads with these Blasphemous Consequences ; is , That of the Necessity of a Satisfaction to be paid to God's Justice in order to the Pardon of Sin , and the Justification of Sinners . And this I affirm to have been the received Doctrine of the Church , and the General Opinion of Divines in the Case ; all asserting the Necessity of such a Satisfaction ; though not All , I confess , upon the same ground . For First , Some found this Necessity upon the Necessary Egress of God's Vindictive Justice , naturally acting and exerting it self where it meets with a Proper Object . But Secondly , Others state this Necessity upon the Decree or Purpose of God , resolving to take this course for the Pardon of Sin , and no other . Which Decree and Purpose , though made freely , yet being actually passed and declared , it was not free for God to baulk the execution of it . His Veracity , Wisdom and Honour , as Supreme Governour of the World ; not suffering him to let the Violation of his Laws pass without a due satisfaction made to his Iustice. And this has been the Opinion of most Divines in this matter . Nevertheless , ( whether upon either of these grounds , or some other ) it is certain , that the Necessity of a Satisfaction was still held , and owned by the Church : And yet upon supposal of this Necessity alone it is , ( whatsoever ground it be stated upon ) that this Author sets God forth in a most Profane manner , as an Impotent Man venting his Rage and Passion without any sufficient Ground or Reason for it . For , I am sure , no other Consideration can Answer , or come up to the Impiety of the forecited Expressions . And I freely appeal to the Learned , and Unbyassed Reader , Whether the said Passages can be placed to any other Account whatsoever . And if they cannot , I ask with what Conscience could this Man , of his own Head , invent such Hideous , Abominable Words , and then thrust them into his Adversary's Mouth , whether he would , or no ? Or charge them as the necessary Consequences of his Doctrine , without proving , or by any formed Argument so much as offering to prove them so ? For surely he ought to have done this in the first place , and ( since he knew that the Learned Assertors of this Doctrine , did and would deny these to be the Consequences of it to the very Death ) he should by clear and solid Ratiocination have proved against them , ( in spight of their Denial ) that these were indeed the True and Natural Consequences of the said Doctrine , before he reproached them as such . But , it seems he was for doing execution first , and for proceeding to Tryal afterwards ; though , as hasty as he was in the former , he has not yet done the latter , nor , I believe , ever will. Upon the whole Matter it is manifest , That it was not so much any thing Personal in Dr. Owen ( how bitter soever he was against him ) as the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction asserted by the said Doctor , in common with the whole Christian Church , which this Author so vilely reflected upon ; and discharged all those Blasphemous Scoffs at , in that Book of his ; and consequently so far as he was the Author both of the Book and the Scoffs in it , he was as fit a Person to have joyned in the Address to the Morocco Ambassadour , as any Man in England besides . I do , I confess , charge this Author with Asserting Three Gods ( though he does not in Terminis express it ) because of his Asserting Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ; But then the case here on my part is quite different from what it was on his . For in this , the Consequence of Three Gods from Three distinct Infinite Spirits , is direct , manifest , and immediate ; or rather , in Truth , is not so properly a Consequence , or one Assertion following from another , as one and the very same thing expressed in other words ; which is the True account of this Matter . For the Words [ Infinite Mind or Spirit ] are but a Periphrasis of the Thing signified by the Term [ God : ] And their perfect equivalence shall be fully demonstrated in my Fifth Chapter . From all which I conclude , That since there are ( beyond all pretence of Denial ) several Horrid Blasphemous Expressions in this Author 's forementioned Book , which must and ought to be charged somewhere ; and since his Adversary utterly disowns them all , both as to Words and Sence ; and since the Doctrine it self , maintained by him , infers no such Thing ; nor has this Author proved that it does so ; but that the said Representations of it are peculiarly his own , and occur no where but in his Book ( except possibly in the Writings of some of His Old Friends the Socinians , and those such as the Transylvanian Ministers ) it follows that according to the strictest Laws of fair and just Quotation , all the black Dirt of those Impious and foul Passages which I have cited from him , and charged upon him , ought to lie wholly at his Door ; and let him ( and his Porter ) shovel it away thence as they are able . As to what concerns the Licensing this Book , so severely , and so justly reflected upon by Dr. Owen , it did ( it must be confessed ) meet with a Person , as it were , framed for the very purpose . For none certainly could be so fit to stamp an Imprimatur upon a Book Wrote against Christ 's Satisfaction , as One , who while he was Eating the Bread , and Wearing the Honours of the Church , could stab the Doctrine of it to the Heart , by Writing for Transubstantiation . And then in the next place , for it s passing Uncontrolled , it had really been to be wished , That the Clergy in Convocation , in the last especially ( in which so many of them acquitted themselves so exceeding worthily upon other Accounts ) would have vouchsafed to wipe off this foul Blot from the Church by a due Censure passed upon the forementioned Positions , so reproachful to that , and so Contumelious to our Common Christianity . For what vast advantage the Dissenters have taken from hence to Scandalize and Bespatter the Government and Governours of our Church , is but too well known , and cannot be too much Lamented ; and I heartily wish , That it had been a Scandal only Taken , and not Given . And the rather do I represent this as a Work fit for the Convocation ; since this Author has given the World such a Notable Proof , That nothing but a Convocation can Convince , or work upon him . And thus I have given the Reader a Specimen of the Doctrines of this Author in these Two Books of his . In the former of which , he affects to be the Socinian 's humble Servant , by Ridiculing and Exploding Christ 's Satisfaction of God 's Iustice ; and so in effect , the whole Mystery of the Gospel : And in the latter he pretends to oppose them by such a Vindication of the Trinity , and of Christ's Incarnation , as one would think , were Wrote by Themselves . But whatsoever it is , that he either pretends , or intends ( as it is hard to know the latter by the former ) this Character I shall give of him as a Writer , That there is hardly any one Subject , which he has Wrote upon , ( that of Popery only excepted ) but he has Wrote both for it and against it too : Not that I say , that he has Printed all which he has so Wrote ; but Printing is not the only way of Publication ; and this I will say besides , That where he has not Printed , he has Acted it with a Witness . And yet even for Printing ; could any thing be Wrote and Printed more sharp and bitter against the Dissenters , than what this Man Wrote in his Answer to the Protestant Reconciler ? And yet how frankly ( or rather fulsomely ) does he open both his Arms to embrace them in his Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor , on Novemb. 4. 1688 ? Though I dare say , That the Dissenters themselves are of that Constancy as to own , That they were of the same Principles in 88 , that they were of in 85. But the Truth is , Old Friendships cannot be so easily forgot . And it has been an Observation made by some , that hardly can any one be found , who was first tainted with a Conventicle , whom a Cathedral could ever after cure ; but that still upon every cross Turn of Affairs against the Church , the irresistible Magnetism of the Good Old Cause , ( as some still think it ) would quickly draw him out of the Good Old Way . The Fable tells us of a Cat once turned into a Woman , but the next sight of a Mouse quickly dissolved the Metamorphosis , cashiered the Woman , and restored the Brute . And some Virtuosi ( skilled in the Useful Philosophy of Alterations ) have thought her much a gainer by the latter change ; there being so many unlucky turns in the World , in which it is not half so safe and advantagious to Walk Upright , as to be able to fall always upon one's Legs . But not to hold the Reader too long in the Entrance of the Work , which I am about to present him with , I do here assure him , That , in the following Animadversions , I have strictly pursued this Author in every part of his new Hypothesis , I have answered all his Arguments , not omitting so much as one , or any Thing that looks like one . And if I have thought fit sometimes in a short Remark or two , here and there to refresh the Reader and my self , by exposing his Bold and Blind side together , yet this has still been my method , throughly to dispatch the Argument , before I offer to divert upon the Author . As for that part of his Book , which peculiarly concerns the Socinians , I leave him and them to fight it out . My business is to shew , That the Doctrine of our Church is absolutely a stranger to his Novel and Beloved Notions : It knows them not ; It owns them not ; nor ought we to look upon him , so far as he Asserts and Maintains them , to be any True and Genuine Son of it : And consequently , whether he worries the Socinians , or ( which is much the more likely ) the Socinians worry him , the Church of England is not at all concerned . The Contents of the Chapters . CHAPTER I. REpresenting the Sence and Signification of the Word Mystery ; as also a Vindication of the Use and Application of it to some of the most Difficult and Sublime Truths of the Gospel ; and lastly , a full Proof , That the Account given by this Author of his Explication of the Article of the Trinity , is wholly inconsistent with the Mysteriousness of it ; together with some Remarks upon his needless Apology for Writing against the Socinians . CHAP. II. Containing an Account of several Terms commonly made use of in discoursing of the Divine Nature , and Persons , and particularly shewing the Propriety of Applying the Words Essence , Substance , Nature , Infinity , and the like , to this great Subject ; and lastly , proving this Author's Exceptions against the use of them about the same , False , Groundless and Impertinent : With some further Remarks upon his forementioned Apology . CHAP. III. In which this Author 's New Notion of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness is briefly declared ; Self-Consciousness made by him the Formal Constituent Reason of Personality in all Persons , both Create and Increate ; and on the contrary , proved against him in the first place , That it is not so in Persons Create . CHAP. IV. In which is proved against this Author , That neither is Self-Consciousness the Formal Constituent Reason of Personality in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity ; nor Mutual-Consciousness the Reason of their Unity in one and the same Nature . CHAP. V. In which is proved against this Author , That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . CHAP. VI. In which is considered , what this Author pretends to from the Authority of the Fathers and the Schoolmen , in behalf of his New Hypothesis ; and , in the first place , shewn , That neither do the Fathers own the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Infinite Minds ; nor Self-Consciousness to be the Formal Reason of their Distinction . CHAP. VII . In which is shewn , That the Passages alledged by this Author out of the Fathers , do not prove Mutual-Consciousness to be that wherein the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity does consist ; but that the Fathers place it in something else . CHAP. VIII . In which is set down the Ancient and Generally received Doctrine of the Church concerning the Article of the Blessed Trinity , as it is delivered by Councils , Fathers , Schoolmen , and other later Divines ; together with a Vindication of the said Doctrine so explained from this Author's Exceptions . CHAP. IX . In which this Author's Paradoxes , both Philosophical and Theological , as they occur in this Discourse , are drawn together , Examined , and Confuted . CHAP. X. In which this Author 's Grammatical ( and other such like ) Mistakes , as they are found here , and there in his Writings , are set down and remarked upon . CHAP. XI . In which is given some Account of this Author's Temper , and insolent way of Writing , as well in Extolling himself , as in Depressing and Scorning his Adversaries ; in both which he has not his Parallel . CHAP. XII . Containing a Brief Review , and Conclusion of the whole . Advertisement . IT having been found requisite to make some Alterations and Additions in this Second Impression of these Animadversions , &c. yet that those who have bought up the former , may suffer thereby as little as may be , the Author has thought fit for their use and benefit to cause the said Additions and Alterations , to be Printed in a Sheet or two by themselves . Some of the most Considerable Errata of the Press are thus to be Corrected . PReface , Page 5. Line 2. of the Quotation , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 7. l. 5. of the Quotation , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 8. l. 23. for at read as . Book , p. 6. l. 20. for asserter r. Assertor , p. 51. l. 10. for Analagous r. Analogous , p. 71. for Chap. II. r. Chap. III. p. 72. l. 29. for destinct r. distinct , p. 103. l. 17. for it r. that , p. 116. l. 4. for Spirits , r. Spirits . p. 126. l. 7. for one and another dele and , l. 17. for infiinite r. infinite , p. 131. l. 23. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , l. 25. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 132. l. 7 , 8 , 9. r. campósque lucentémque Titaniáque totámque p. 138. l. 28. for of Deity r. of the Deity , p. 143. l. 8. instead of me read Men , p. 155. l. 19. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 157. l. 10. of the Quot . for utrûm r. utrùm , p. 160. l. 31. for Denaeus r. Danaeus , p. 161. l. 5. for our read our , l. 8. in Quot . for genetricem r. genitricem , p. 164. l. 31. for gratis r. gratis , p. 168. l. 14. dele one to , p. 173. l. penult . for imploying r. implying , p. 196. l. 8. of the Greek Quot . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 198. l. 21. for separately read separately , p. 205. at the end of the second Greek Quot . for quarta read quartâ , p. 207. l. 18. for [ of Three ] read [ of the Three ] p. 215. l. 11. for specificully read specifically , p. 220. l. 19. for quod sic read quòd sic , l. 20. for quod non read quod non , p. 224. l. 28. for in self r. in it self , p. 229. l. 2. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 231. l. 2. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , l. 6. of the Gr. Quot . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 232. in the 3d Gr. Quot . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 233. l. 1. of the 4th Quot . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 234. l. 6. of the second Quot . ex-eâ r. ex eâ , p. 237. l. 14. for the Unity r. That Unity , p. 253. l. 6. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 260. l. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , l. 9. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 263. l. 16. for ergò r. Ergo , p. 266. l. 16. for audiérant r. audierant , p. 268. l. 22. for Beotius r. Boetius , and ibid. l. 25. for Difinition r. Definition , p. 278. l. 17. for Nicaenae r. Nicenae , p. 283. l. 6. for on r. upon , p. 284. l. 1. for Bu r. But , p. 285. l. 7. for Metaphisician r. Metaphysician & alibi , p. 288. l. 5. Quot . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , l. 17. for Concession r. a Concession , p. 289. l. 6. Quot . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , l. 8. Quot . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 291. in the Latin Quot . l. 2. for tantummodo r. tantúmmodo , l. 8. for quarc r. quáre , p. 310. l. 25. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 322. l. 25. for asserter r. Assertor , p. 333. l. 13. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 335. l. 31. for Archbishop r. Bishop , p. 343. l. 30. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 351. catch word for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. Greek Errata , p. 352. Correction the 25th . for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 362. l. 16. for wreaking r. reeking , p. 364. l. 8. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 365. l. 24. for ita r. itá . If the Reader chance to meet with any more Faults in Accents , he is desired to Correct , or Excuse them , together with all Mispointings , which in Books of any length are commonly too many to be particularly and exactly set down : Besides that here , through the faintness of the Character several Letters , Points and Accents do scarce appear in some Copies , though legible in others . Animadversions , &c. CHAP. 1. Representing the Sence and Signification of the Word Mystery ; as also a Vindication of the Use and Application of it to some of the most Difficult and Sublime Truths of the Gospel ; and lastly , a full Proof , That the Account given by this Author of his Explication of the Article of the Trinity , is wholly inconsistent with the Mysteriousness of it ; together with some Remarks upon his needless Apology for Writing against the Socinians . IN Order to the better Examination of what this Author has wrote about the Holy Trinity , I think it requisite to premise something concerning the Signification , Sence , and Nature of a Mystery . For certainly the Unity of One and the same undivided God-head , in a Trinity of distinct Persons , is one of the greatest Mysteries , if not absolutely the greatest in our Christian Religion . Now a Mystery , according to the common signification of the word , is derived either from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies to initiate , or enter one into Sacred Rites , or Doctrines , or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , another Greek word ( and that in the judgment of Eustathius and Stephanus , more regularly and naturally ) signifying to shut or close up , and most commonly apply'd to the shutting of the eyes or mouth , the solemn posture of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Initiati in the Rites of the Gentile Worship . And , lastly , one of no small Note for Critical as well as other Learning , will needs run it up even to a Hebrew Original , deriving it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies res abscondita aut secretum . Concerning which , it must be confessed , That there is a more than ordinary agreement between the Hebrew and Greek word , both as to Sound and Signification . But whether this be not wholly accidental , is lest to the Criticks in these Languages to determine . In the mean time , most account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word purely and perfectly Greek : And the Original of it lies so manifestly in one of the two fore-mentioned Greek words , that it seems a needless Curiosity , or rather a meer Fancy to seek for it elsewhere . But whatsoever the Origination of the word is , it always imports something hidden or concealed , especially with reference to Sacred or Religious Matters ; And in this Sence it occurs frequently , if not always , in prophane Writers ; from whence the Holy Pen-men of the New Testament seem to have borrow'd and apply'd it to some of the Great and Arduous Truths of Christianity , such as human Reason cannot give a clear and explicit Account of . This therefore being the undoubted Notation and Signification of the Word , I shall deliver the Nature of the thing it self in this Definition , viz. That a Mystery is a Truth reveal'd by God , above the Power of natural Reason to find out or comprehend . This , I take , to be a full and proper Definition of a Mystery . And accordingly I shall consider the several Parts of it distinctly . As , First , That it is a Truth . By which we exclude every thing from being a Mystery that is absurd or contradictious ; since a Truth can by no means be so . And consequently hereby stand excluded also the Fooleries and Falsities of all other Religions , how Mysterious soever they may be pretended to be , and with how much Solemnity and Confidence soever delivered . Secondly , The next Qualification is , That it be revealed by God , viz. as to its Existence , That there is such a thing . For otherwise , as to the Nature of the thing it self , and several other respects , in which it may be known , the Revelation of it is not suppos'd to extend so far . In a Word , as a Mystery implies some Revelation of a Thing ; so it follows , That all Revelation does not overthrow the Mysteriousness of it : But only such a plenary and entire Revelation of it , as leaves nothing in the Nature of it abstruse or undiscovered . But now , though Revelation be a necessary Ingredient in this Definition , yet it is not sufficient ; something more being still required . Since nothing hinders , but that the same thing may be both revealed by God , and known upon other accounts too . As the Moral Law was revealed by God to his People , and may be drawn and demonstrated from Principles of Natural Reason also . And therefore , the Third Property of a Mystery is , That it surpass all the Power of Natural Reason to discover or find it out . And that not only as to the Quid sit , or particular Nature , but also as to the Quòd sit of it too . For that there are or should be such or such things , ( to consider only the bare Existence of them ) no Principle of humane Reason , by its own natural or improved Light , could ever have found out , as might be easily shewn by Induction , through the several Mysteries of our Religion , such as are the Trinity , the Incarnation , the Mystical Union of Christ with the Church , the Resurrection of the Body , and the like ; of all , and each of which , meer Reason could never have made a discovery . Fourthly , The fourth and last Condition of a Mystery , express'd in the foregoing Definition of it , is , That it be such a Thing , as bare Natural Reason ( even after it is discovered ) cannot comprehend . I say comprehend , that is , know it perfectly , and as far as it is capable of being known . I do not say , That it is , or ought to be wholly Unintelligible . For some knowledge ( no doubt ) may be had of it . As , first , we may know the Signification and Meaning of the Words or Terms , in which it is delivered or revealed to us . Likewise as to the thing it self , we may have some imperfect , defective knowledge of that too . Such as the Apostle Paul calls a knowing in part , and seeing as through a glass darkly , 1 Cor. 13. 12. which words manifestly and naturally import , That something is known , though in a very imperfect manner and degree , and that something also remains still unknown , which shall hereafter be clearly and fully discovered , and made known unto us . So that I think nothing could give us a truer , and more satisfactory account of the Nature of an Evangelical Mystery , than this Scripture , viz. That it is a Truth , of which we know something , at present , though very imperfectly ; but are ignorant of a great deal more belonging to it . And this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this obscure and abstruse part of it , is that which properly constitutes and denominates a Sacred Truth a Mystery ; and consequently we may reckon the Account given us of a Mystery by St. Chrysostome , a true and exact Description of it by its principal Property , viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Homily 7. on the 2 Corinth . and Homily 19. on the Epistle to the Romans . Where I desire the Reader still to observe , that I do not affirm , That this last Acception of the Word is either the Original Sence of it , or that the Heathen Writers used it in this Signification ; all that they intended to signifie by the Word Mysterium , seeming to have been only that it was , Quid sacrum & secretum . But this I affirm , That the Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church generally used it in the Sence specified ; that is , They affix'd a farther Sence to it of their own ; but still such an one as carried with it something of Analogy and Cognation to the first , whereby it signify'd only something obscure or occult in sacred Matters . So that now , if any one should argue , That in the Writers of the Christian Church , Mysterium signified only , Quid sacrum & secretum , because it signified no more in the Heathen Writers , from whom they borrowed it , this would be very inconsequent and ridiculous ; and all one , as if , because Sacramentum in the Heathen Writers signified only a Military Oath : Therefore in the Ancient Christian Writers it must signifie so too . For the Christian Writers apply it , to signifie those two great Rites of Christianity , Baptism and the Holy Eucharist ; though still ( in this instance as well as in the former ) with some Analogy , Reference , and Affinity to the first use of the Word , viz. That as by this Military Oath , Soldiers did solemnly devote themselves to their Emperor's Service ; so in these two Religious Rites Men do much more solemnly devote and bind themselves over to the Obedience and Service of Christ , according to all the Rules and Precepts of his Holy Religion . I conclude therefore , by a Parity of the Case , That Mysterium , according to the Christian Use of the Word , imports not only , Quid in sacris secretum , by reason of an actual Concealment of the same , but moreover something , that is so much a Secretum in Religion , as to transcend and surpass all Human Comprehension . And it is the Authority of the Ancient Writers using the word thus , which I state this Sence of it upon , as abundantly sufficient to enfranchise and render it Authentick in the Church . Though , I confess , as to the Adversary whom I am to deal with , my purpose would be sufficiently serv'd against him , even by the first and narrowest Signification of the Word , as it imports only something in Religion actually secret , hidden , and not open to a common view or perception . I have now given the Notation , Signification , and Definition of the word Mystery . But after all , there is a new Light sprung lately into the World , which tells us , the use of the Word in Scripture determines the Case quite another way ; for that the Scripture knows no such signification of the word , as we have insisted upon ; nor that any thing that is Incomprehensible , is , or ought to be accounted , a Mystery . The Asserter of this ( as we may well perceive ) is a bold Man , but being at present engaged with a much bolder , I shall only say thus much of this Socinian Tract here , viz. That as to the Argument which the Author would raise against the Trinitarians ( as he calls them ) from the Sence of the Word Mystery , as he has there stated it , it has been throughly baffled and overthrown by a Learned Person , in a short Discourse in Vindication of the Mysteries of the Christian Faith , &c. And when this Anti-Trinitarian has answer'd that Learned Person , if there appears need of any further answer to the foremention'd piece , he may , all in good time , receive one in a distinct Discourse by it self . And so I immediately address my self to the Author undertook by me , who by pretending to defend the great Article of the Trinity , has given the Adversary those great Advantages against it , which the bare Article left to defend it self , ( as the Faith is generally its own best Defender ) could never have given him . The Socinians charge it with Paradox , and downright Contradiction . For the repelling and staving off which Charge from this Doctrine , our Author has thought fit to give us some Rules to judge of a Contradiction by , and in so doing , has laid down this Remarkable Assertion , viz. That it is a vain and arrogant presumption , to say , what is , or what is not a Contradiction , when we confess we do not understand , or comprehend the thing we speak of , p. 4. This , I say , is a very remarkable Assertion , and the first thing remarkable in it , is , That ( according to a Custom , very usual with him ) he promiscuously joyns together words , as if they were of the same Import and Extent of Signification , when really they are very different . For to understand a thing , is to know it in any respect , or degree , in which it is knowable ; and to comprehend a thing , is to know it in every respect in which it is knowable . And as it is certain , that we cannot know God this latter way ; so it is as certain , that we may know him the former : For we do , and may know him by inadequate and imperfect , and uncommensurate Conceptions ; as that he is Just , Wise , Good , and the like ; which are several Inadequate ways of representing him to our mind . But now , if this Author's Assertion should take place , viz. That we cannot say what is , or what is not a Contradiction , when we confess we do not comprehend the thing we speak of , then we cannot pronounce these Propositions , Iupiter Olympius is the Supreme God , the Sun is the Supreme God , or the World is the Supreme God , to be Contradictions : Forasmuch as it is certain , that speaking here of God , we do not comprehend the thing we speak of . And yet since Iupiter Olympius , the Sun , and the World are all of them finite Material Beings , and God both Infinite and Immaterial : I doubt not but that to affirm one of the other , is a real and manifest Contradiction . And to shew that it is so , this Author should do well to consider , That a Contradiction is not properly ( or universally at least ) oppos'd to the compleat and adequate knowledge of a thing , but to the true knowledge of it . And we may have a true knowledge even by such inadequate , imperfect , incomplete Conceptions of it , as we have mention'd . For he who knows God to be Just , though he cannot comprehend every way and respect in which he is , or may be so , and much less all his other Perfections , has thereby a true knowledge of God , though an Imperfect one . That is , he knows and understands , though he does not comprehend him . But according to this Author's Assertion , we cannot say , that any thing is a Contradiction , with reference to God , since it is certain and evident , that we neither do nor can comprehend him . And what absurd , and insufferable Consequences , this must needs draw after it in our Discourses of God , I leave to any one but the Author of this Assertion to judge . But the Consequences of it , as bad as they are , do not stop in God. For in the 7th Page , our Author proceeds farther , and affirms , That it is so far from being a wonder to meet with any thing , whose nature ( or rather the Nature of which ) we do not perfectly understand , that he knows nothing in the World which we do perfectly understand , or , in his other word , comprehend , ( for to understand a thing perfectly , and to comprehend it , I take to be the same . ) And now let us apply his former Rule , viz. That we cannot say what is , or is not a Contradiction , when we confess we do not comprehend the thing we speak of . I say , let us apply this Rule here also ; and since he positively avers , That there is nothing in the World which we do comprehend , or perfectly understand : it must roundly follow , That there can be no such thing as a Contradiction ; since whatsoever is so , is , and must be a Contradiction to something or other . Now for the Truth and Reason of his Assertion , I cannot undertake , but certainly the Prudence and Forecast of it is admirable , as being like to do him Knight's Service ( as I shall shew hereafter ) at many a turn , and , next to a Convocation-Book , help him out at a dead Lift. In the mean time , let us see how our Author makes good this strange and loose Proposition , viz. That there is nothing in the World , that we perfectly understand . And in order to this , Let us bring and lay together what he Asserts in several places . And here first in Page 7. line 20. &c. It is agreed by all Men , That the Essences of things cannot be known , but only their Properties and Qualities ; and that the World is divided into Matter and Spirit ; and that we know no more what the substance of Matter , than what the s●bstance of Spirit is : And then he enumerates some of the Essential Properties of each , and owns that we know them ( in Confirmation , I suppose , of his fore-going Assertion , that we know nothing . ) After which , in Pag. 8. line 15. he adds , As for the Essential Properties , Operations , and Powers of Matter , Sence , Experience , and Observation will tell us what they are . And then I hope we may know also what they are , when Sence and Experience has told us . So that we see here what our Author asserts ; But may we rely upon it , and hold him to his Word ? Alas ; That , I fear , may prove something hard and unkind . For a Man , to whom a whole Convocation has given a large scope and liberty of thinking , and who has given himself as large an one for speaking , loves not , of all things in the World , to be held too strictly to what he says . For in Page 4. line 25. reckoning up some of the Absurdities , and Contradictions attending the Doctrine of Transubstantiation , he tells us , That we know them to be so ; because we know the Nature of a Body ( and this also we must suppose said in further Confirmation of his other Assertion , that we know not the Nature of any thing ) and moreover , That we know that such things ( as he there mentions ) are a Contradiction to the Essential Properties of a Body , line 26. All this he says here , and that in very plain terms . But in Page 7. ( in which it is high time for a Man to forget what he said in the 4th . ) He tells us , That the Essences of things cannot be known ; and consequently one would think , That the Essence of a Body could not be known : And yet for one to know the nature of a Body , ( which in Page 4. he says we do ) without knowing the Essence of it ; ( which in Page 7. he says , we cannot know ) is , I conceive , a way of knowledge peculiar to this Author . In the next place , as for the property of things , he tells us very positively in Page 8. line 33 , 34. That the Properties and Operations both of Bodies and Spirits , are great Secrets , and Mysteries in Nature , which we understand nothing of , &c. And yet in Page 7. line 32. he tells us , That we know the Essential Properties of a Spirit , that it is a thinking substance with the Faculties of Understanding and Will , &c. Now to know the Essential Properties of a Spirit ; And yet for these Properties to be such Secrets and Mysteries in Nature , that we understand nothing of them , ( both which this Author expresly affirms in the compass of two Pages ) is another sort of knowledge , which ought in all reason to be reckon'd peculiar to himself . And thus having consider'd some of his Assertions in Contradiction to one another ( if there be any such thing as a Contradiction ) I will consider some of them severally by themselves . And here , as I have already shewn , That he says positively Page 4. line 28. That we have no clear and comprehensive Notion of a Spirit : So he adds in the next words , That it is impossible to know what is contrary to the Nature of a Spirit , if we know not what the Nature of a Spirit is , i. e. Comprehensively , as he must still mean. But this , by his favour , I very much question , and desire him to tell me , Whether we may not know , That it is contrary to the Nature of a Spirit to be Material , to be extended , and to be compounded of the Elements , &c. These things I take to be such as are contrary to the Nature of a Spirit , and such as may be certainly known to be so , and consequently such as may safely , rationally , and consonantly to all Principles of Philosophy , be pronounced to be so : And therefore this Author's Assertion , viz. That it is impossible to know what is contrary to the Nature of a Spirit , if we have not a clear , comprehensive Notion of the Nature of a Spirit , is apparently False , Absurd , and Ridiculous . But to proceed , This Author having said , That he knows nothing in the World that we do perfectly understand : And for the proof of it alledged , That the Essences of Things cannot be known ; and for the farther proof of that , affirm'd , That the whole World is adequately divided into Matter and Spirit ; the Natures of which ( as he says ) are wholly unknown to us : Suppose now , I should ( as I do ) deny this whole Argument , and affirm , That there is a third sort of Beings , which are neither Matter , nor Spirit ; which yet ( as to some of them , at least ) may be perfectly understood and known by us ; and these are Accidents , which , according to the ablest Philosophers hitherto , do together with substance , make a much better , and more comprehensive Division of the whole World , than Matter and Spirit . For certain it is , That Accidents , as contradistinct to Substance , are real Beings , and have their respective Essences and Properties belonging to them , and such as may be matter of Demonstration ; which kind of Argument is known to be the proving of any Property , or proper Attribute of its Subject , by a third thing , or Principle , bearing an Essential Connexion with both . And amongst Accidents , I do particularly affirm this of Numbers , Figures , and Proportions , that they are such things as may be perfectly understood by us in the strength of Natural Reason . For I think it may be perfectly , and comprehensively known , That two and two make four ; and that a Circle is a Figure , every part of the Circumference whereof is equidistant from the Centre ; and a thousand more such things , all which are capable of being Scientifically made out to us by Demonstration : And this indeed to such an height , that as some will admit of no Demonstrations , but in the Mathematicks , viz. in Numbers , Figures , and Proportions : So there are few , or none , but readily grant , That the Demonstrations about these Matters , are the Clearest , the most Scientifick , and Convincing of all other Demonstrations whatsoever . From all which I conclude , That what this Author has affirm'd , viz. That there is nothing in the World but Matter and Spirit , and withal , That there is nothing which we do perfectly understand is not only a crude , loose , unwary , but really , and , in strictness of truth , a very false Assertion . And therefore ▪ though this Author pleaseth himself with a fanciful Harangue about our Ignorance of the Philosophy ; How the Fire burns , and the Waters are condens'd ( as he calls it ) into Ice ? How Stones fall to the Ground , and Vapours ascend and thicken in Clouds , and fall down again to the Earth in gentle Showres , &c. ( for it must be granted , That it is much easier to change like the Weather , than to understand it ) and moreover , though he is pleased to say , That he who thinks he understands these matters , would make a Man question , Whether he has any sense at all ? ( which is his usual Complement to most whom he deals with ) yet all this confident Talk will neither clear him from the Absurdity and Paradox of the forementioned General Position laid down by him ; nor convince such as are conversant in the experimental part of Natural Philosophy , but that a very true , rational , and satisfactory Account may be given of all the fore-mentioned Phaenomena in Nature , which this Man , with so much Confidence , or rather Insolence , says , No Man of unquestion'd Sence will pretend to give the Reason , or Philosophy of . Accordingly I will direct him to some who took the boldness to give a Philosophical Account of his Unresolvable Problems . As for instance , That of the congealing of Water by Cold , into such a solid Body as Ice , he will find excellently , and rationally accounted for , by the Learned Mr. Boyl , in his Treatise of Cold , containing new Experiments , and Observations touching it , and an Experimental History of it begun . Likewise a reason of the same given by those Learned French-men , the Authors of the Philosophia Vetus & Nova , commonly called , the Colbertine Philosophy , in the 2 Vol. p. 213 , 214 , 215 , 216. And then , for the Descent of heavy Bodies , or Stones falling to the Ground ; he will find the cause of it assigned by Galileo , in his Systema Cosmicum , Collat. 1. & 2. And since by Gassendus , in his Accurate Tract de motu impresso à motore translato . As also , an Account of the Gravitation , or Descent of such Bodies , judiciously given by Claudius Berigardus , Professor of Philosophy first in Pisa , and then in Padua , in his Circulus Pisanus 3d part , and the 6 Dial. p. 291 , 292. in the Person of Aristaeus . And last of all , in the Causes of Gravitation briefly , but ingeniously given by Isaac Vossius , in his Observationes variae , p. 201 , &c. In like manner he will find a Philosophical , and Historical Account of Winds , by that great Man , the Lord Bacon , in his Treatise upon that Subject ; which , I am sure , is as difficult an one , as any mentioned by this Author . And as for what he here says of the Ascent of Vapours ( which is easily accounted for , from the Sun and other Celestial Bodies ) and their Descent again in Showres ; which might easily be stated upon their own Gravity , being combined into bigger Bodies , as is lively exemplified in an Alembick ) this Author in this , seems to give us some Philosophical Account of Rain , and consequently for presuming so to do , ought to bear his share in the same Reproach , which upon the like account he hath so insolently fastned upon others . But as touching Rain and Vapours , Snow and Frost , and innumerable more such Subjects ; there is not a Natural Philosopher , whether Peripatetick , Gassendian , or Cartesian of any note , but professeth to give a Philosophical Reason of the Nature of them , both as to what they are , and how , and by what means they are caused . Concerning all which , Learned Men , who have avowedly travelled , and imployed themselves in such Studies , and that with great Applause of all the Learned World ; I desire his Haughtiness to speak out , and declare freely , whether he taketh them to have been such Persons , as a Man would question , Whether they had any Sense , or no ? For as these famous Men were far from denying their Senses , in Complement to their Understanding ; so they were as far from passing such a Complement upon their Senses , as to own , That their Understanding could look no farther , and that where Sense had started the Game , Reason might not follow it , and by a diligent , and sagacious pursuit , at length overtake it . The Things treated of by these mighty Searchers into Nature , I acknowledge to be very difficult ; but every thing that is difficult , is not therefore impossible , even to him that thinks it so . And therefore , as to the ignorance of such like matters , let our Author ( in God's Name ) and others like him , pronounce each Man for himself , and not undertake for others . For there may be several things , which one Man may not know , and yet others may : As for instance , It may sometimes so fall out , That a Man may not know himself , and yet others may know him very well : Which is an Observation , I conceive , not unworthy of this Author's Remark . But to go on : Whereas he is very positive , and decretory , That the Essences of things cannot be known : I very much question , ( and allow him , if he pleases , to question my Sense also , for so doing ) whether this be absolutely true ? For a thing may be known more ways than one ; and if it be perfectly known , any one way , according to the utmost extent of that way , it cannot be truly said , not to be known . Now , if by knowing , he means the knowledge of a thing , by a direct Apprehension , and Intuition of it , so as to have an exact Idea , or resemblance of it thereby imprinted upon the mind : I pretend not that the Essences of things are by any Human Intellect so known . But then , this is still but one way of knowledge ; and what is not known one way , may ( for all that ) be very well known another . But if on the other side , by knowing a thing be meant , the knowing it to be of such , or such a Nature , by such peculiar Properties , such peculiar Effects , and Operations , as discriminate it from other things , and that , to know it thus , be truly to know it : Then I affirm , That the Natures , or Essences of things may be truly , and ( one way at least ) perfectly known . And accordingly , I think it a very good Account of the Essence of any thing , to say , That it is such a thing as always , and necessarily has such Properties , such Operations , and produces such Effects . For this is an Answer , not only to that Question , that enquires , Whether there be such a thing , or Essence , or no ? But also , and much more properly to the Question , that enquires , What kind of Nature , or Essence such a thing is of ? For when that is askt , to say , in reply to it , That the Essence , or Nature of that thing is a certain Principle , always attended with such Properties , and always , or generally operating in such a manner , and producing such effects , is a full , and satisfactory Answer to that Question . If now this Author replys here , that he grants , That the Properties of things may be known ; I Answer , That sometimes indeed he grants it , and sometimes again he positively denies it , as I have shewn . But if in the issue he will stand by the Concession of it , then he must stand by the Consequence of that Concession too , and grant , That Properties are declaratory of the Quality of the Essence they flow from , and belong to . For , I hope , he will grant , that the effect declares the Nature of the Cause : And consequently that the Nature of the Cause may be known by it ; not by way of simple and immediate apprehension of the Cause it self , I confess , but by way of Inference and Discourse , collecting one thing from another ; which is one sure way of knowing . And therefore I do here affirm , and own to this Confident , Assuming Man , That to assert absolutely ( as he does ) That the Essences of things cannot be known , is , by no means , a justifiable Proposition ; or , in the Latitude it is laid down in , to be admitted : But is really that fallacy , that concludes à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter . Well , but since this Author has concluded the whole World in Ignorance ( himself , I suppose , still excepted from so general a Doom ) What must we do in so sad a Condition ? Must we all take up in Scepticism , and acknowledge , that nothing is to be known ? What then will that old Principle of Nature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , serve for , but to tantalize and torment us ? For must we thus think , and thirst , and desire to know , and , after all , find nothing to be known with any thing of plainness , evidence , and demonstration ? Why , Yes ; to comfort us under this Cimmerian darkness , and to shew , that God has not given us our Intellectual Faculties wholly in vain : There is one certain thing in the World , viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity ; That is , to say , of three distinct Persons , all united in one and the same numerical Divine Nature , which is wonderfully plain , easie , and obvious to be known : Though still , thanks to our Author for it , who by a New-found Exposition , and Explication of it , has bestowed this piece of Charity upon the World as to render it so . For thus , in Page 58. line 2. of his Book , Explaining the Union of the three Persons in the God-head , by Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness , ( which words shall be throughly considered in their due place ) he says , That this is very plain , and intelligible , and makes the three Persons to be as much one , as every Man is one with himself . And certainly it is hardly possible for any thing to be more plain and clear , more evident and intelligible , than that every Man is one with himself . ( Except it be only when he contradicts himself . ) Again in Page 65. line 31. he tells us , That his Notion of Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness , seems to him to make a Trinity in Unity as intelligible , as the Notion of one God is . And in Page 66. line 2 , 3. That it gives a plain , and intelligible Solution to all the Difficulties , and seeming Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity . And surely that thing , about which all difficulties are solved , and all seeming Contradictions are cleared , cannot be imagined to have any difficulty remaining in it at all . And again , in Page 68. line 26. he roundly tells us , That the Explication given by him of a Trinity in Unity , is a very plain and intelligible Account of this great and venerable Mystery ; as plain and intelligible as the Notion of one God , or of one Person in the Godhead . And in good earnest , the Notion of one first Cause of all things , and of one Supreme Being , and consequently of one God , is so easily demonstrated , or rather , with such a broad light , stares all Mankind in the Face , even without any demonstration , that if the Trinity in Unity be as plain as this is , it is hardly possible for any thing to the Reason of Man to be plainer : And the Arians , and Socinians are ten times more inexcusable , than ever I thought them before . Again , in Page 73. line 11. having affirmed , The Trinity to be a most Sacred and Venerable Mystery ; within 6 or 7 Lines after , he says , If Men would but consider it according to his Hypothesis ( which he there sets down ) then a Trinity in Unity is a very plain , intelligible Notion . Again , in Page 74. line 9. There will appear ( says he ) no difficulty , or absurdity in the essential Union of Three Minds by a Mutual-Consciousness to each other . But will this Man conclude , That where there is no Absurdity , there is therefore no Difficulty neither ? So that , that which removes one , must needs remove the other too ? It is strange to me , That any one who pretends to argue closely , should place two words so vastly different upon the same level . But again , in Page 82. line 30. he tells us , That this gives an intelligible account of one of the most difficult Problems in all School-Divinity , viz. That the whole Trinity is not greater than any one Person in the Trinity . And again , in Page 85. line 14. This Notion ( says he ) gives a plain account too of that Maxime of the Schools , That all the Operations of the Trinity , ad extra , are common to all the Three Persons . So that by this time we see here all things relating to the Trinity , made plain , easie , and intelligible ; and that since this Man has shewed his skill upon it , all knots and difficulties are wholly cleared off ; so that now none are to be found , though a Man should beat his Brains as much to find them , as Divines did heretofore to solve them . And therefore well may he magnifie the Exploits of such a Triumphant Hypothesis , as he does , first in his Preface , Page 1. line 13. ( which though it be always placed first in Books , yet is generally written last ) Having told us , That his Original Design was to vindicate the Doctrines of the Trinity , and Incarnation , from those pretended Absurdities , and Contradictions which were so confidently charged on them : He adds these words , This ( says he ) I am sure I have done ; for I have given a very easie and intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Unity . If he has , 't is well . But ( how great soever the assurance is , which he utters this with , as he had always a very great stock of it ) I dare aver , That he has here said more of himself , than any Divine of Note , since Christianity came into the World , ever durst say , He was sure of , before . But as high as this sounds , in Page 85. line 27. he raises his Voice something higher , or at least is more particular in the Encomiums he bestows upon this his Performance in these words : Thus ( says he ) I have endeavoured to explain this great and venerable Mystery of a Trinity in Unity . And this I may say , That I have given not only a very possible , and a very intelligible Notion of it , but such also , as is very agreeable to the Phrase , and Expressions of Scripture , such as preserves the Majesty of the Article , and solves all the difficulties of it . By which account , as we see that our Author is not wanting to the Commendation of his own Hypothesis ( as it is pity but Self-Consciousness , and Self-Commendation should go together ) so we see also , that he does it upon three distinct Heads , or Topicks , which therefore , by his good leave , we will as distinctly consider . And First , for it 's being so agreeable to the Phrase and Expressions of Scripture , I hope amongst these , some consideration ought to be had of such Texts of Scripture , As that forementioned one in the 1 Corinth . 13. 12. Where ( no doubt , with reference to the Mysteries of the Gospel , of which this is one of the chief ) we are said to see but as through a glass darkly , and to know but in part , &c. neither of which , can I perswade my self to think , is only another Expression for knowing a thing plainly , easily , and intelligibly , and without any difficulty . The like may be said of that place in 1 Pet. 1. 12. where the Apostle speaking to the Saints , he wrote to , of the things reported to them by such as had preached the Gospel ( amongst which , this Doctrine , doubtless , had it's place , or an equal difficulty at least ) he adds , That they were such things as the Angels desire to look into . The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which all Interpreters lay a peculiar weight and Emphasis upon ; as importing both the earnest intention of the Inspector , and the difficulty of the object inspected , from the Posture of such as use to stoop down for the better discerning of such things as cannot otherwise be well perceived , or look'd into . And now , is not this ( think we ) a most proper and fit posture for such as view and look into things very plain , obvious , and intelligible ? And yet , I doubt not , but the Angels , who are said to use it , could very easily give us the Philosophy of Rain , Snow , and Ice , of the Fires burning , and the descent of Stones , and other heavy Bodies , which yet this Author will allow no Man of sense and reason ( without forfeiting the reputation of both ) to presume to give a Philosophical Account of : Whereas , in the mean time , the Trinity is declared to be a very plain , easie , and intelligible Notion , even to such Persons as can give no such Account of the other . And thus much for the Agreement of his Hypothesis with the Phrase and Expressions of Scripture . The next head of its commendation is , That it preserves the Majesty of this great Article ( as he words it : ) But in much the same sense , I suppose , as his Refusing the Oath , preserved the Majesty of King William , and his taking it , the Majesty of K. Iames : But , that it preserves it so , as to have a singular virtue to encrease Men's Veneration of it , this I very much question , and demur to : Forasmuch as that old Observation that Familiarity breeds Contempt , holds too frequently , as well as undeservedly , no less in Things than in Persons ; which we are more apt to venerate at a distance , than upon a clear , plain , and full knowledge of them . I do not say , That Men ought to do thus ; but such is the present state of Nature , that thus they use to do . And it is worth our marking ; That where a Man is said to know a thing perfectly , he is said To be Master of it ; and Mastership ( one would think ) is not naturally apt to create in the mind , any great awe for the thing , it is thus Master of . But be it , as it may ; this I am sure of , That as the Scripture tells us , That things revealed belong to us , so the same Scripture tells us also , That there are secret things , which ( by a kind of sacred enclosure ) belong only to God , Deut. 29. 29. And till God shall think fit to reveal to us the Nature of the Trinity , I , for my part , shall reckon it amongst those Secret things : And , accordingly , with all the Pious submission of an humble Reason falling down before it , adore and admire it at a distance ; not doubting , but that for this very cause , That Men should do so , God in his Infinite Wisdom thought fit to spread such a Cloud and Veil over it . And therefore I cannot but think , that that Man expressed the due measures of our behaviour to this , and the like Mysteries , extreamly well ; who being pressed in the Schools with an Argument from the Trinity , in opposition to the Question held by him , gave it no other Answer but this : Magister , hoc Mysterium Trinitatis ex quo argumentaris , est potiùs flexis genibus adorandum , quàm curiosâ nimis indagine ventilandum . The Respondent who made this Reply , had the Repute of a Learned and Eloquent Man ; and I think this Reply represents him a very Pious , and Discreet one too . And therefore , as for the third and last Topick , upon which our Author would recommend his Hypothesis about the Trinity , viz. That it solves all the difficulties of it . I fear , from what hath been last said , that it will prove as far from being a Commendation , as it is from being a Truth ; especially when the Author himself , after his saying so , in Page 85. immediately adds , and that in the very next words , Page 86. line 1. That there may be a great deal more in this Mystery than we can fathom , &c. But now , if our Author will in this manner utter one Assertion , and immediately after it subjoyn another which quite overthrows it , who can help this ? For that a great deal more should remain in this Mystery than we can fathom , or that there can be any thing unfathomable in that , in which there is nothing difficult ; or that any thing can be difficult , after such an Explication given of it , as solves all the difficulties of it ( for that is his very word in Page 85. the last Line ) I must freely confess , surpasses my Understanding , to conceive ; and God bless his Understanding , if it can . It must be confessed indeed ( as I hinted before in my Preface ) that in a short Treatise lately Published by him , and entituled , An Apology for Writing against the Socinians , he seems to deny the Notion of a Trinity to be comprehensible and easie , Page 15. telling us , That there must be infinite degrees of knowledge , where the Object is Infinite ; and that every new degree is more perfect than that below it : And yet no Creature can attain the highest degree of all , which is a perfect Comprehension ; so that the knowledge of God may encrease every day , and Men may write plainer and plainer about these matters every day , without pretending to make all that is in God , even a Trinity in Unity , comprehensible and easie , which he calls , a Spightful and Scandalous Imputation . By which angry words it is manifest , that he would fain rid himself from those Inconveniences which his former unwary , and absurd Assertions had involved him in . But by his favour , the Truth of the Charge shall take off the Scandal from such as make it , wheresoever else it may fix it . For I have fully shewn , That in this his Vindication , &c. he has frequently ( and as clearly as words can express a thing ) affirmed , a Trinity in Unity to be a plain , easie , intelligible Notion : Where , by Plain must be understood either 1st . Such a Plainness , as excludes all Doubts and Difficulties whatsoever : In which sense alone a thing can be said to be simply and absolutely plain : And in this sense also it can admit of none , and much less of Infinite degrees of plainer and plainer ; since that , which excludes all doubts , certainly can exclude no more . Or 2dly , The word may be taken in a Lax , Popular , and Improper sense ; for that which is so Plain , as to have no considerable doubt , or difficulty remaining about it . But now , the Notion which Men have of God , or of the Trinity , can never be truly said to be Plain , in either of these Senses , and therefore not at all . For in the first , to be sure , it cannot : No , nor yet in the second . For let Men know never so much of any Object , yet if there remains more of that Object actually unknown , than either is , or can be known of it , such a knowledge can never render , or denominate the Notion of that Object ( even in the common sense of the word ) Plain . And so , I hope , our Author will allow it to be in the knowledge , Men have of God , and the Blessed Trinity . And , whereas he lays no small stress upon this , That Men may write plainer and plainer of these matters every day , I must here remind him of two Things . 1. That he would be pleased to tell us , How Men can write plainer and plainer of the Trinity every Day , after his new Notion of it has solved all the Difficulties about it , as in the forecited Page 85. line 27. he positively tells us , it does . For ( as I take it ) where there remains no difficulty , there must be the utmost degree of Plainness ; and withal , when Men are once come to the utmost of any Thing , they can then go no further . 2. I must remind him also , That the word Plainer in the Comparative Degree does not couch under it the positive signification of Plain , but denotes only a less degree of difficulty , and signifies no more than , That a Thing , or Notion , is not quite so difficult , or obscure , as it was before ; which it may very well be , and yet be far from being Plain , in either of the two foregoing senses , laid down by us . And therefore , tho' we should admit , That Men might write plainer and plainer of the Trinity every Day ; yet I affirm notwithstanding , that the Notion of a Trinity in Unity , can in no sense be truly said to be plain and easie , and much less , very plain and easie ; nay , so very plain , as to have all the Difficulties of it solved , as this Author has expresly affirmed . So that if this be a Scandalous Imputation , it is easie to judge , to whom the Scandal of it must belong . But besides all this , I see no cause to grant this Author that , which he so freely takes for granted , ( for I think it very questionable ) viz. That Men may write plainer and plainer of the Trinity every Day . For , so far as the Writers of the Church have informed us about this great Mystery , the Catholick Church for above these 1200 Years past , has not only had , and held the same Notion of a Trinity , but has also expressed it in the same way and words , with the Church at this very day . And for so much of this Mystery , as Divines could give no Account of then , neither have they given any clearer Account of it ever since ; nor has the Church hitherto advanced one step further in this Subject : Which is an evident demonstration , that it has already proceeded as far in it , as the Reason of Man could , or can go . And as for any further Discoveries of it , which this Author pretends to from two Phantastick words , found out by himself , it will not be long , before they shall be throughly weighed in the Balance , and found as inconsiderable as the Dust of it . But there is one thing more , which I must not pass over ; and it is this : That in the Passage , I transcribed from him , he lays down that for a certain Principle , which is indeed an Intolerable Absurdity , viz. That where the Object is infinite , there must be infinite degrees of knowledge . Now it is most true , That nothing but Insinite knowledge can adequately comprehend an insinite Object . For which reason , God alone can comprehend himself , and he does it by one simple , indivisible act , uncapable of Parts , or Degrees . But as for Degrees of any sort , whether of knowledge , or any thing else , nothing but a Finite Being is capable of them ; and therefore for this Man to assert infinite degrees of knowledge , when Uncreated knowledge is uncapable of Degrees , and Created knowledge uncapable of Infinite Degrees , is a gross thick piece of Ignorance , in the first , and commonest Rudiments of Philosophy . But to return to his Absurdities about the plainness and easiness of the Notion of a Trinity in Unity , and therein to be as short with him as I can , I shall only demand of him , Whether he does in this Apology retract and renounce all , that in his Vindication he has Asserted quite contrary to what he has since delivered in his Apology . If he does , let him declare so much , and I have done ; but till then , no regard at all ought to be had to his Apology ; as serving for nothing else , but to shew , That according to his accustomed way , and known Character , he has denied some things in one of his Books , which he had positively , and expresly affirmed in another ; and consequently proving , That the Apology , which denies a Trinity in Unity to be comprehensible and easie , and the Vindication , which forty times over affirms it to be plain and easie ; nay , very plain and easie , ought to pass for the genuine , undoubted Works of this Author , though they had never born his Name . Wherefore upon the Result of all , what shall we , or what can we say to the fore-cited Particulars , which with so much positiveness over and over assert the plainness , and intelligibility of the Notion of a Trinity ! Which yet has hitherto amazed and nonplus'd the whole Christian Church . For if it be really so plain and intelligible , as this Author tells us , it must to my Apprehension unavoidably follow , either that a Mystery is a very plain intelligible Notion , or that the Trinity is no Mystery . I shall not here presume to take this Author 's beloved word out of his Mouth , and cry Nonsence , and Contradiction . But certainly if the Trinity be a Mystery , and a Mystery in the nature of it imports something hidden , abstruse , and by bare reason not to be understood ; then to say , we may have a plain , as well as an intelligible Notion of it ; nay , plain even to a demonstration ; this , to say no more , is as like a Contradiction , as ever it can look . But really our Author has shewn himself very kind and communicative to the World : For as in the beginning of his Book he has vouchsafed to instruct us how to judge of Contradictions ; so in the Progress of his Work he has condescended to teach us ( if we will but learn ) how to speak and write Contradictions too . There remains therefore only one favour more , viz. That he would vouchsafe to teach us how to reconcile them also . For I , for my own part , think it every whit as hard a task to reconcile Contradictions , as to reconcile Protestants ; and , I hope , much harder . And yet this latter he has endeavoured to prove in a certain Book , wrote by him in the Year 1685 , a thing not to be done . But whether it can , or no , I am sure , he has hardly published any Book since , but what manifestly proves , That there is great need of some Reconciler to do the other . But why do I speak of reconciling Contradictions ? It would be a very troublesome work , if it could be done ; and a very uncomfortable one , when it could not : And therefore our Author ( to give him his due ) has attempted a much surer , and more compendious way of clearing himself of this imputation , than such a long and tedious way of reconciling inconsistent Propositions , could possibly have been . For having Asserted , That we cannot justly charge a Contradiction , where we cannot comprehend the Nature of the thing said to be contradicted ; and that , in the next place , there is nothing in the World ( which he knoweth of ) the Nature of which we can throughly understand , or comprehend : I hope it follows , That , where nothing can or ought to be contradicted , ( as nothing ought to be , which cannot be comprehended ) none can be guilty of a Contradiction . And this , I suppose , none will deny to be an Expedient , every way answerable , and equal to our Author's Occasions : For otherwise I cannot see what can stand between him and the charge of many Scurvy , Contradictory Assertions ; but that which shall effectually prove , and make out to us , That indeed there neither is , nor can be any such thing as a Contradiction . CHAP. II. Containing an Account of several Terms , commonly made use of in Discoursing of the Divine Nature and Persons ; and particularly shewing the Propriety of applying the Words , Essence , Substance , Nature , Infinity , and the like , to this great Subject ; and lastly proving this Author's Exceptions against the use of them about the same , false , groundless , and impertinent : With some further Remarks upon his forementioned Apology . OUR Author seems so desirous to advance nothing upon this sublime Subject , but what shall be perfectly new , that in order to the making way for his particular Novelties , he Quarrels with almost all the old words , which Divines , in their Discourses about the Divine Nature , and Persons , were heretofore accustomed to make use of . He can by no means approve of the words Essence , Substance , Nature , Subsistence , and such like ; as reckoning them the Causes of all the Difficulties , and seeming Absurdities , that are apt to perplex Mens minds in their Speculations of the Deity , and the Trinity , 4 Sect. p. 68 , 69 , 70. and therefore they must be laid aside , and made to give way to other Terms , which he judges properer , and more accommodate to those Theories . To which purpose , though our Author has fixed upon two purely of his own Invention , ( which are to do such wonderful feats upon this Subject , as in all past Ages were never yet seen nor heard of before , and which I therefore reserve in due place to be considered of particularly by themselves ) yet at present the Author seems most concerned to remove , and cashier the fore-mentioned useless , cumbersome words , and to substitute some better , and more useful , in their room : Such as Eternal Truth and Wisdom , Goodness and Power , Mind and Spirit , &c. which being once admitted ; and applyed to all Disputes about the Divine Nature ( and an Act of Exclusion past upon the other ) the way will become presently smooth and open before us , and all things relating to the Mystery of the Trinity ( according to our Author 's own excellent words ) be made very plain , easie , and intelligible . Nevertheless , as I may so speak ( to borrow another of our Author's Elegancies ) let not him that putteth on his Armour , boast as he that putteth it off . A great Promissor , with a great Hiatus , being much better at raising an Expectation , than at answering it . And hitherto I can see nothing but words , and vapour : Though after all , it is Performance , and the issue of things alone that must shew the strength and reason of the biggest Pretences . Now for the clearer , and more distinct discussion of the matter in hand , I shall endeavour to do these Four things . I. I shall shew , That the ground upon which this Author excepts against the use of the Terms , Nature , Essence , Substance , Subsistence , &c. in this Subject , is false and mistaken . II. I shall shew , That the same Difficulties arise from the Terms , Truth , Wisdom , Goodness , Power , &c. used for the Explication of the Divine Being , that are objected against Essence , Substance , Nature , and the like . III. I shall shew , That these Terms do better , and more naturally explain the Deity , or Divine Being , than those other of Truth , Wisdom , Goodness , &c. And , IV. And Lastly , I shall shew , That the Difficulty of our Conceiving rightly of the Deity , and the Divine Persons , does really proceed from other Causes . These four things , I say , I will give some brief Account of . But because the Subject , I am about to engage in , is of that Nature , that most of the Metaphysical , and School-Terms hitherto made use of by Divines upon this occasion , will naturally , and necessarily fall in with it , I think it will contribute not a little to our more perspicuous proceeding in this Dispute , to state the Import and Signification of these Terms , Essence , Substance , Existence , Subsistence , Nature , and Personality , with such others , as will , of course , come in our way , while we are treating of , and explaining these . And here , first of all , according to the old Peripatetick Philosophy , which , for ought I see , ( as to the main Body of it at least ) has stood it's ground hitherto against all Assaults : I look upon the Division of Ens , or Being ( a summary word for all things ) into Substance and Accident , as the Primary , and most Comprehensive ( as we hinted before in our first Chapter . ) But that I may fix the sense and signification of these Terms , all along as I go , by giving them their respective Definitions , or at least Descriptions , where the former cannot be had , I look upon Ens , or Being , to be truly and well defined , That which is ; though , I must confess , it is not so much a perfect Definition , as a Notation of the word from the original Verb est . For to define it by the Term Essence , by saying , That Ens , or Being , is that which has an Essence , though it be a true Proposition , yet I believe it not so exactly proper a Definition ; since the Terms of a Definition ought to be rather more known than the thing defined : Which in the fore-mentioned Case is otherwise . As for Substance , I define that to be a Being not inhering in another ; that is to say , so existing by it self , as not to be subjected in it , or supported , this way , by it . Accident , I define , a Being inherent in another , as in a Subject supporting it , and without which it cannot exist , or support it self . Which Division being made by Terms contradictory , viz. Inhering in another , and not inhering in another , must needs be adequate , and perfect , and fully comprehensive of the whole that is divided thereby . But now , besides these two Terms of Substance and Accident , there is another assigned by Logicians , Metaphysicians , and School-men , called , a Mode of Being , viz. such a thing , as being added to another , does not make any addition of another Being , or degree of Being to it , but only restrains , and determines it ; and may be defined an Affection of a thing , or Being , by which the Nature of it , otherwise indeterminate and indifferent , is determined to some certain respect , state , or condition . Thus , whereas the Nature of a thing may be considered either as yet in its Causes , or as actually produced , and existing out of them , either of these is a Mode of that Nature ; the first rendring it only Potential , the other Actual : Nor is this a meer Ens Rationis , forasmuch as it affects the Being of a thing antecedently to any Operation of the mind passing upon it . And the Reason assigned by some Logicians for the allowing and asserting these Modes , is this : That some things must necessarily be admitted to belong to Being , which are not Beings themselves , to prevent an Infinite progress in Beings . For since every thing is capable of being defined , or described , and yet nothing can be defined merely by it self , ( an Identical Proposition being no Definition ) it must needs be defined by somewhat or other , distinct from it self ; but now if that be also a Being , then that likewise must be defined by another Being , and that by another , and so on in insinitum ; which would be most absurd : Whereas , if this definition , or description of a thing be made by some Modus of it , which is not strictly and properly a Being it self , the thing presently stops here , without any necessity of proceeding to any more Beings . But perhaps it will be here said , if these Modes are not so many meer Nothings , or Entia Rationis , what order , or rank shall they be placed in ? Since those ten heads of Being , which we call Predicaments , cannot seem the proper Receptacles of things , which we own not to be properly , or formally , Beings . I Answer , That though they are not Beings , properly so called , and so not directly , and upon their own Account , placeable under any of the Ten fore-mentioned Heads of Being ; yet since they are Appendages of Being , as cleaving to it , and depending upon it , they are accounted under , and reduced to those respective Heads , or genera of Being , to which the Beings modified by them , do directly belong . Now the Nature of these Modi being thus accounted for , we are , in the next place , to take notice of the difference resulting from them , which we call Modal ; and that is either between two , or more , such Modes differing from one another ; as the Personalities belonging to several Persons , differ amongst themselves ; or when a thing , or Being , differs from the Mode affecting it ; or Lastly , When several things thus modified , or affected , do by vertue of those Modes differ from one another ; and thus the Persons in the Blessed Trinity may be said to differ amongst themselves . I proceed now to those other Terms of Essence , Existence , Nature , Subsistence , and Personality . And first for Essence : As I shewed , that Ens , or Being , might be truly defined , That which is ; so Essence may be as truly and properly defined , That by which a thing is what it is ; that is to say , by which it is Constituted in such a kind , or order of Being : And this difference I take to be founded in the different ground , upon which we conceive of the same thing . Accordingly the Essence of a thing , no less than the thing it self , may be considered , either as yet in the Power of its Causes , and only producible by them , or as actually existing , and produced by them . By which we see , that an Essence , as such , may be indifferent to exist , or not exist ; and that from hence springs the difference between Essence and Existence . There is indeed a Reality ascribed to it , even without Existence : But that is not properly a reality in the thing it self , but partly in respect of the power of its Causes enabling them to produce it ; and partly , because it is properly the Subject of Science , and capable of having true Propositions formed of it , and Demonstrations built upon it : As we may form as true Propositions of a Rose in Winter , and demonstrate all the Properties of it , as of their proper Subject , by their proper respective Principles , as well , as while it is actually flourishing upon the Tree . And this is all the reality which I think can be ascribed to Essence , in its separation from Existence . As for Existence it self , it may be defined , that Mode , or Affection of Being , by which a thing stands actually produced out of the power of its Causes ; or , at least , not actually included in any Cause ; in which sense God himself does exist . From whence it appears , That in Created Beings , Essence bears no such necessary Connexion with Existence , since it is not necessarily included in the Nature of any finite Being , that it must needs be produced , or actually Exist . But it must be confessed , That Existence being a perfection , and , in God especially , a very great one , must of necessity be included in his very Essence , as containing in it ( formally , or eminently ) all sorts , or degrees of perfection . The next Term is Subsistence , which is a Mode of Being , by which a thing exists by it self , without existing in another , either as a part in the whole , or an Adjunct in the Subject . I say an Adjunct , not an Accident , for a Substance may be an Adjunct . And , I think , if we would assign a way , by which the humane Nature of Christ exists in the Person of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , we shall hardly find out a fitter , than to say , That it exists in it , as an Adjunct in the Subject . For it is certain , That it does not exist in it , as a part in the whole ; since by this means , the second Person in the Trinity , must , till his Incarnation , have wanted one part of his Person . But I shall not be positive in the Application of this Term here . In the mean time it must be observed , That Essence and Subsistence really differ , ( so far as a Modal difference is reduced to a Real ) not only in Created Beings , but also in Uncreate . In Created it is evident ; forasmuch as a part divided from the whole , loses the Subsistence which it had from thence , but still continues its Existence , as being still a Substance actually subsisting by it self , and not inhering in any Subject , as Accidents do . Nor is it less evident in the Deity it self , and the Divine Persons belonging to it . For one and the same undivided Existence , as well as one and the same Essence or Nature belongs to all the three Persons equally ; whereas yet every Person has his own proper distinct Subsistence by himself ; which must make as great a difference between Existence and Subsistence , as that which unites several Persons into one Nature , and that which personally distinguishes them from one another . And then also for Christ's Person , with reference to his humanity ; though this subsists by the Subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , yet it does not properly subsist by the Existence of it , ( since every distinct Nature must have its own distinct Existence ) which shews , That even in the Oeconomy of this Divine Person , Existence and Subsistence must be considered as formally different ; since something , we see , may relate to , and be affirmed of one , which cannot be affirmed of , or bear the same relation to the other . Now , whatsoever Being , or Nature , this Mode of Subsistence does belong to , that is properly called a Suppositum ; as being a thing , which by no means exists in any other , but as a Basis , or foundation , supports such things , or Beings , as exist in it ; from which also it receives its Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And the Consequence of this is , That as Subsistence makes a thing , or Being , a Suppositum ; so suppositality makes it incommunicable ; since that which makes it uncapable of existing in another , must also hinder it from being Communicated to another . And another Consequence of the same is , That every Suppositum , or Being , thus Subsisting by it self , is a compleat Being ; that is , such an one as is not made for the Completion of any other : For whatsoever is so , must naturally exist in it , as a part does in the whole , or at least be originally designed so to do . This Account being given of Subsistence , and of a Suppositum , which is Constituted such by it , it will be easie to give an Account also what a Person is ; which is properly defined Suppositum Rationale , or Intelligens . So that as a Suppositum is substantia singularis completa per se subsistens ; so the Ratio Intellectiva , being added to this , makes it a Person , which is a farther perfection of Suppositality , and the utmost perfection of Subsistence , as Subsistence and Suppositality is the utmost Bound and Perfection of Existence in all Beings not Intelligent . If it be here now asked : Whether Subsistence , or Suppositality added to bare Nature , does not make a Composition ? I Answer , That in Created finite Persons it does , but not in Uncreated and Infinite : And the reason is , Because though all Composition implys Union ; yet all Union , is not therefore a Composition , but something higher and transcendental ; so that in the Divine Persons of the Trinity , The Divine Nature , and the Personal Subsistence coalesce into one , by an Incomprehensible , Ineffable kind of Union and Conjunction . And if this does not satisfie , ( as I think it rationally may ) I must needs profess , That my Thoughts and Words can neither rise higher , nor reach further . Having thus stated and fixed the signification of the fore-mentioned Terms , I cannot but remark these two things of the Term , or Word , Essence . As , 1. That it is sometimes taken not only for the Ratio formalis entis , but simply and absolutely for an entire Entity , or Being it self . And 2. That those two other Terms , Nature and Form , are for the most part used as Terms equipollent , and of the same signification with it : Nature being the Essence of a thing considered as an Active , Productive Principle ; and Form being the Essence , or Nature of a thing , as it is the chief Principle , giving Being and Perfection to it , in the way of Composition . Nevertheless it is sometimes also applyed to simple uncompounded Natures promiscuously with the other . So that we see here , That Essence , Form , and Nature , generally taken , are only three formally distinct Considerations of one and the same thing ; which I thought fit to take notice of , to prevent all cavil , or mistake about the use of these Terms . I have now gone over , and severally given an Account of the Notions of Being , Substance , Accident , Modes of Being , Essence , Form , Nature , Subsistence and Personality ; and hereby , I hope , laid some foundation for our clearer , and more intelligible discoursing of the great Article we have undertook to rescue from a false Vindication : There being hardly any one of all the foregoing Terms , of which a clear and distinct Notion is not highly requisite to a clear , explicite , and distinct consideration of the Subject now before us . Concerning which , I think fit to note this , That ( so far as I can judge ) the thing now in dispute is not , what fully and exactly expresses , or represents the Nature of God ( for nothing can do that : ) But what is our best and most rational way of conceiving and speaking of him , and subject to fewest Inconveniences ; and for this , we shall debate it , whether this Author , or we take the best course . These things being thus premised , and laid down , we shall now resume the four Heads first proposed to be spoken of by us , and Discourse of them severally : And , 1. I shall shew , That the Ground upon which this Author excepts against the use of the Terms Substance , Essence , Subsistence , &c. in treating of this Subject , is false , and mistaken . His Exceptions against them we find in Page 68 , 69 , and 70. of his Book . The great difficulty ( says he ) of conceiving a Trinity of Persons in one Infinite and undivided Essence , or Substance , arises from those gross and material Ideas , we have of Essence and Substance , when we speak of the Essence , or Substance of God , or Created Spirits . We can form no Idea of Substance , but what we have from matter ; that is something extended in a triple dimension of length , breadth , and depth , which is the Subject of those Qualities , which inhere and subsist in it . And therefore , as matter is the Subject of all sensible Qualities , so we conceive some such Substance of a Mind , or Spirit , which is the Subject of Will and Understanding , Thoughts and Passions ; and then we find it impossible to conceive how there should be three Divine Persons , which are all Infinite without three distinct Infinite Substances , each distinct Infinite Person having a distinct Infinite Substance of his own : And if we grant this , it seems a plain Contradiction to say , That these three distinct Infinite Substances are but one Numerical Infinite Substance , &c. Thus far our Author : And I freely grant , That this does not only seem ( as he says ) but really is a Contradiction . And , before I have done with him , I will prove to him also , That to say , That three distinct Infinite Minds are but one Numerical Infinite Mind , ( which shall be effectually laid at his Door ) or , That three distinct Infinite Minds , are not three distinct Infinite Substances , or Essences , are as gross , and palpable Contradictions as the other . But he goes on in the same Page a little lower , We know nothing ( says he ) of the Divine Essence , but that God is an Infinite Mind ; and if we seek for any other Essence , or Substance in God , but an Infinite Mind ; that is , Infinite Wisdom , Power , and Goodness , the Essence of God , though considered but as one Numerical Person , is as perfectly unintelligible to us , as the one Numerical Essence , or Substance of three Divine Persons in the ever-blessed Trinity . In which words , I think this Author guilty of a double Absurdity . One , That he supposes a Mind not to be an Essence , or Substance ; and it is manifest , that he does so , since he finds fault with Substance , and puts Mind in the room of it : Whereas a Mind is really a Substance , or Nothing ; not that there is nothing in the World besides Substance , but nothing else which a Mind can be properly said to be . His other Absurdity is , his supposing Mind , Wisdom , Power , and Goodness , to be the same ; whereas Wisdom and Goodness , are not properly a Mind , but the Affections , or Attributes of a Mind . And here let not our Author tell me , That they are all one and the same thing in God : For that is no News ; yet nevertheless , Mind , Wisdom , Power , Goodness , &c. are formally distinct from one another , and so not affirmable of one another : And in speaking of things , the formal differences of them must still be attended to : God's Iustice and his Mercy are one pure simple Act in Him ; but he that says , His Iustice is his Mercy , speaks absurdly for all that : And he who says , That a Mind is Wisdom , or Goodness , or Power , &c. speaks just at the same rate . But again in Page 70. It is this gross and material imagination ( says he ) about the Essence and Substance of the Deity , which occasions all the difficulties about the Notion of one God , as well as of a Trinity in Unity . For we cannot imagine how any Substance should be without a beginning , how it should be present in all places without parts and without extension , how Substance , Essence , Existence , and all Divine Attributes and Powers ( which are distinct things in Created Spirits ) should be all the same and one simple Act in God , &c. From all which we are ( according to this Author ) to conclude , That the Terms Substance , Essence , and Existence , ought to be laid aside in all Discourses of the Deity ; as serving for nothing but to cause in us those false Notions of it . Nor are those only excepted against , but also all Divine Attributes and Powers ; for in his last words ( newly quoted ) he equally joyns and puts them all together . And what monstrous work this must needs make in our Conceptions and Discourses of God , shall , I hope , in the process of this Dispute , be made to appear . In order to which , I do here first of all , in opposition to what this Author has Asserted about Substance and Matter , lay down this Proposition , viz. That Substance in the proper Nature , and Notion of it , includes no Communication with , or respect to Matter at all . And this I prove to him by one plain Argument , before I proceed to any thing that is Metaphysical , viz. That there was Substance in the World before ever there was Matter ; and therefore the Notion of the former does not essentially include in it the Notion of the latter : For , surely , if the Being of one might be without the Being of the other , the Notion of the one may be no less without the Notion of the other too . Now that there was Substance in the World before Matter , I prove from this , That there was a Being existing by it self , in the World , before Matter , and therefore there was Substance : For this is the very definition of Substance , That it is a Being existing by it self , and consequently they must reciprocally infer one another , as the definition and the thing defined by it always do . And then , that there was a Being thus existing by it self , before Matter , is proved from hence , That there was a Being which produced Matter , which nothing but a Being existing by it self could do . And now I would fain know of our Author , Whether we may not have a clear and distinct Conception of such a Being , without so much as thinking of Matter . And if we may , ( as I see nothing to hinder us ) then it is false , that the Notion of Substance does necessarily engage our thoughts in , or confound them with the Idea of Matter . Besides , all the World does , and must allow , that we may have a full and perfect Conception of a Genus , or Generical Nature of a thing , without considering any of its Species . And withal , that it is impossible , that such a Generical Nature should include in it any one of the Specifick Differences of the things , which it is Communicable to , and which are contained under it ; for if so , then one Species would include in it the Specifick difference of the other opposite Species ; forasmuch as including in it the Generical Nature , it must include all that is included in that Nature too : Which would be infinitely absurd . But now Substance is a Generical Nature , equally communicable both to Material and Immaterial Substances , as to two distinct Species ; and consequently in its Precise Conception , implys nothing of Materiality in it ; and for that cause may be conceived and known , and distinctly represented to our minds without it . Nay , and to shew further the difference between Substance , and Matter , in the proper Notions of each , This Proposition , Substance is not Matter , is certainly true ; true , I say , particularly though not universally ; that is , with reference to all those Substances , the Nature of which excludes all Matter , as the Nature of Angels , and of the Souls of Men , confessedly does . But now , if the general Nature of Substance essentially implyed in it Matter , it could not be truly said of any one particular Substance in the World , That it is not Matter . Mr. Hobbs I know , makes Substance and Matter Commensurate , or rather the same . But methinks , though some have lately wrote after him in his lewd Politicks , no Divine should venture to fall in with him in his Natural Philosophy too , for fear of some certain Consequences , which , it is too well known , must follow from it . In a word , the first thing to be conceived in God , is , That he is a Being ; the next , That he is a Being existing by it self ; that is , in other words , He is a Substance : And therefore , I hope , we may both form an Idea of Substance , and afterwards apply it to God , without plunging our selves into the gross Imaginations of Matter . And so far do all other Divines , and Philosophers differ from this Man , that they affirm the word Substance much more properly , and really applicable to God , than to any of the Creatures ; which certainly it could never be , if it implyed any such essential cognation to Matter , either in the Nature , or Notion of it . It is evident therefore , That there is no necessity from the thing it self to justifie this Author's Objection . And as for those gross and Material Imaginations of Substance , taken up and borrowed from Material Corporeal things , nothing can be inferred from thence to his purpose . For is it good arguing to conclude , That because a thing is actually thus or thus , it cannot possibly be otherwise ? Do not some form to themselves gross and absurd Imaginations of God the Father , from that Expression of the Ancient of Days , Dan. 7. 9. representing Him to their thoughts , as an Old Man sitting in Heaven ? But may not others therefore , who are wiser , conceive more worthily of him , without laying aside that Scripture-expression ? If it be a good Argument ( as it is all our Author brings ) that Terms , which may occasion gross and Material Imaginations in the Minds of Men , ought not to be applyed to God ; then I hope it is as much an Argument in one thing as in another . And accordingly I desire to know of him , Whether the Terms Begetting , and being begot , Father and Son , are not very fitly applyed to , and used about the Divine Persons ? And if so , Whether they are not altogether as hard to be abstracted from material Imaginations , as the Notions of Essence , or Substance are , or rather , indeed , much harder ? I believe all thinking Men will conclude they are . Nay , and I shall venture to tell him further , That these two words , partly through their Corporeal signification , and partly through the weakness of Men's Minds , have occasioned more difficulties about the Notion of a Deity , and a Trinity too , than ever the words Essence , or Substance did , or perhaps could do : And yet , for all that , the Spirit of God has thought sit to make use of them to express so sacred a Mystery by . But this Man should have remembred , That how gross and Material soever the Representations of things are , which our senses first make to us , there is a Iudicium Correctivum in Reason , as the superiour faculty , which is to consider and separate what is gross and Material in them , from what is otherwise , till at length by rejecting some Notions , and retaining others , it finds out something even in the most Material things , which may truly , properly , and becomingly be applyed to the purest and most Immaterial . But to give a fuller Account of this matter , we must observe , That the Idea of Substance may be said to be taken from Matter two ways . 1. Remotely and Occasionally ; as the Observation of Material Things may first set Reason to work , which in the strength of its own Discourse may draw from thence the knowledge of Immaterials , as the Apostle tells us in Rom. 1. 20. That the Invisible things of God , from the Creation , were clearly seen and understood from the things that are made , viz. Such visible sensible Objects , as Men daily converse with : And if so , then surely these do not necessarily dispose the Mind of Man to gross and Material Imaginations of the things so apprehended by it . But 2. The Idea of Substance may be said to be taken from Matter immediately and exemplarily , as when the Imagination does , ( as it were ) transcribe and copy one from the other , and take one for the representation of the other ; and this , I confess , must needs imprint a very gross Idea of Substance upon the Imagination : And to this way may be referred all those gross and Material Ideas of Substance , which this Author so much exclaims against . But then , all this is from the neglect of the Person , in not imploying his Reason to correct and refine the first reports of Sence , as he might and ought to have done ; and if from hence we conclude an utter Incapacity in the thing it self to be improved and heightened into Immaterial Representations , and thereupon to be conceived and spoken of agreeably to them , we must even expect a Teacher to be sent down from Heaven to furnish us with a new Language , or we must shut up our Mouths , and put up our Pens , and not speak , or write of Divine Matters at all . And therefore whereas this Author further adds , in Page 70. That we cannot imagine how any substance should be without a Beginning , and how it should be Present in all places . I tell him , This is not the Point in Controversie , Whether we can imagine it , or no ? But I tell him withal , That it is as easie for the Mind of Man to conceive all this of Substance , as of any thing else whatsoever . For , Why not a Substance without Beginning , as well as Truth , or Wisdom , or Goodness , without a Beginning ? I say , Let him shew me some solid Reason why . In the mean time , I can tell him , That of the two , it should seem less difficult to imagine the Eternal Existence of Substance , than of Truth ; since Substance is in order of Nature before it ; as the Subject must needs be before that which affects it . Though in very deed , the main difficulty here , is not so much to find out which of those Perfections may be the most easily conceived to have been without a Beginning , as it is to bring the mind to a full and clear Conception , How any thing at all is so ? While it finds it self wholly at a loss in running up its thoughts still higher and higher , without any bound or stint to determine them . And this it is , and not the particular Nature of Essence , or Substance , that nonplusses and confounds our Reason in these unlimited Speculations . And whereas he goes on in the next words , and tells us , That we cannot imagine , How Substance , Existence , and all the Divine Attributes and Powers should be all one and the same simple Act in God ? I Answer , What if we cannot ? Must nothing be applyed to God , but what shall let us into the full knowledge of all that is difficult and mysterious in the Divine Nature ? Or will this Man say , That the Application of the Terms Essence and Substance to God , is the true cause and reason , why we cannot apprehend , How Substance and Existence , and all the Divine Attributes and Powers , are one and the same simple Act in God ? For this is the thing that he has been professedly driving at , and therefore ought to prove . And besides , as what he has here alledged , is nothing to his purpose , without the proof of that , so it is all but a meer fallacy , a fallacy of the Accident : For albeit , we cannot apprehend how all these Attributes are one and the same simple Act in God , yet surely it will not follow hence , that we cannot apprehend them singly and severally by themselves , and as we so apprehend them , apply them properly and fitly to God. And here I cannot but take notice of a way of Arguing usual with this Author , as , I cannot conceive , and I cannot understand , and I cannot imagine , &c. After which , as if he had laid down irrefragable Premises , he concludes , That the thing it self is not to be conceived , understood , or imagined . But for my part , I must be excused , that I cannot allow this Man's single Judgment ( or prejudice rather ) for the universal Standard , or measure of humane Reason ; or that such a way of discoursing proves any thing but the assuming humour of him who uses it ; and one strangely full of Himself , instead of better things . In conclusion therefore , I do here assert , That the gross and Material Imaginations which Men form to themselves of Substance , proceed not from the thing it self , but from the grossness and fault of the Persons who take up these Imaginations . And accordingly I affirm to this Author , That that Assertion of his in Page 69. That we can form no Idea of Substance , but what we have from Matter , is false , and manifestly proved to be so . And moreover , That it is not only as possible , but as easie to form in the mind , a conception of a Substance , or Being Existing by it self ( which is all one ) as abstracted from , and strip'd of all conception of Matter and Corporeity , as it is to frame to our selves a conception of Truth , or Wisdom , or of a Being eternally True and Wise , separate from all those gross Qualifications : And consequently that the word Substance , with others of the like import , may be most fitly and significantly applyed to the Divine Nature and the Persons of the Holy Trinity , which was the thing to be proved . But because our Author avers , in Page 70. That if we consider God as Truth and Wisdom , which is his true Nature and Essence , without confounding our mind with some material conceptions of his Substance ( as he had already affirmed all conceptions of Substance must needs be ) then these things ( viz. the Difficulties before-mentioned concerning our Apprehensions of God ) are all plain and easie . Where , by the way , it is observable , That he calls Truth and Wisdom the true Nature and Essence of God ; whereas in this very Page , as well as in 68. he had excepted against the Term Essence , no less than that of Substance , as ( by reason of the gross Material Ideas raised by it in the Mind ) very unfit to be applyed to God. So happy is this Author above other Men , that he can rectifie the most improper words and expressions barely by his own using them . But because he is so positive in making the Terms Truth and Wisdom an effectual Remedy against all the Inconveniences alledged from the Terms Essence and Substance , as applyed to the Deity , this brings us to our second Proposition , viz. That the same Objection lies against the Terms Truth , Wisdom , Goodness , &c. as applicable to the Deity , that are made against Essence , Substance , Existence , and the like . In order to the proving of which , I shall observe , That Truth may be taken in a three-fold sense . First , For the truth of Propositions , which is called Logical . Secondly , For an Affection of Being , which is Truth Metaphysical . And Thirdly and Lastly , As it is a Qualification of Men's Words and Actions , and consists properly in an Agreement of the Mind with both . Concerning all which I observe , That the Truth of Propositions is no further eternal , than as it exists in the Mind of God. That the Metaphysical Truth of Things is eternal , or not eternal , as the Being , or Thing it belongs to , is , or is not so . And for the Moral Truth of Men's Words and Actions , it is no more eternal than the said Words and Actions , the proper Subject of them , can be said to be . This premised , I would here ask our Author , Whether the first Notions we actually entertain of Truth and Wisdom , are not drawn from the Observations we make of these things in Men ; that is , in Beings sensible and Material , and consisting of Body as well as Soul , and accordingly cloathed with sensible Accidents and Circumstances ? I cannot imagine that he will deny this , since we do not speak immediately , or converse visibly with God , or Angels ; and I suppose also , that he now speaks of Truth , Wisdom , Goodness , &c. not as they are exhibited to us in Books , or Propositions , but as they actually exist and occur in persons , and consequently as they are first apprehended by us in Concretion , or Conjunction with Men ; that is , with Beings so Compounded , Qualified , and Circumstantiated , as above expressed , and as we find , see and observe them , in Men's Words and Actions , in what they speak , and what they do ; and these are certainly very sensible things , and such as incurr into , and affect the sence as much as Matter it self can do . And if so , I desire to hear some satisfactory Reason , Why the Observation of Substance in Material Beings , and our first Occasional collection of it from thence , should so necessarily pervert , and cause such a grossness in our Conceptions of it , as to make it hardly ( if at all ) possible to conceive of Substance , without the gross Conception of Matter ; and yet that the same consideration and cause should not equally take place in Truth and Wisdom , and equally pervert and thicken our Apprehensions of them , when they are equally drawn from sensible , gross , and Material Objects , viz. the Words and Actions of Men , which they both Exist in , and Converse about ? For I can see no ground why the same Reason should not infer the very same thing , and the same Antecedents draw after them the same Consequents , whatsoever they are applyed to . For the Argument à Quatenus ad omne , &c. is certain and infallible . If it be here said , That Truth and Wisdom in the proper Notion and Conception of them , imply no Communication at all with Matter : I Answer , That as the Notion of them is Abstracted , and gathered up by the Discourses of Reason it does not ; but so neither does that of Substance , after such an Act of the Mind has passed upon it . So that hitherto the Case is much the same in both . But to carry the matter a little further . Truth and Wisdom as observed in and amongst Men , are certainly finite Things . For whatsoever exists in a finite Subject ( whatsoever the Object be which it converses about , or is terminated upon ) is certainly it self finite also . And here I would have this Author tell me , Why a Notion drawn off , and borrowed from finite Things , should not be as apt to perplex and confound our Minds , when applyed to an Infinite Being ; as a Notion abstracted from a Material Being , can be to distract and confound our Thoughts when applyed to an Immaterial ? I must confess , I can see nothing alledgeable for one , which may not be as strongly alledged for the other . All that can be said , is what has been mentioned already , viz. That Reason may , and does extract some Notions from a finite Being , that may be properly applicable to an Infinite , due allowance made for the disproportion between both ; and in like manner I affirm , That it can and does draw Notions from a thing endued with Matter , which may as well agree to Things Spiritual and Immaterial . So that I cannot perceive , that Truth , Wisdom , or Goodness , have upon this Account any Preheminence , or Advantage over Essence , Substance , Existence , and the like Terms at all , but the one may be applyed to the Divine Nature as well and properly as the other . But this is not all ; for I affirm in the 3d Place , That Essence , Substance , Nature , Existence , and other Terms equipollent to Being , considered precisely in and by themselves , are naturally fitter to express the Deity by , than those other Terms , Truth , Wisdom , and Goodness , contended for by our Author . This is our Third Proposition ; and for the proof of it I first appeal to that high and glorious Account , which God himself gave of his own Nature , when Moses desired to be informed of it , viz. I am that I am , Exod. 3. 14. In which he describes himself only from his Being and Substance , which indeed rendered him more eminently , and even more substantially , and truly a Being or Substance , than all other Beings or Substances whatsoever , which , in comparison of him , can hardly be so much as said to Exist or Be. And I am perswaded , that God knew his own Name and Nature , and withal , how to give the best and most proper Declaration of Both , as well as the Author of Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness does or can pretend to do . And indeed this seems to have been the very Character by which God would be then known to all the World , viz. All the Rational part of the Creation ; for it was sent to his People , then living under , and with a Heathen Prince , to answer them and him even in those Notions of a God , which meer Nature suggested to all Mankind ; and consequently were so known and received by them , that they could not easily question , or deny them . For otherwise we know God addressed himself to the same People afterwards in a Character extreamly different , and more peculiar , viz. A God Merciful and Gracious , Long-suffering , abundant in Goodness and Truth , and pardoning Iniquity , Transgression , and Sin , Exod. 34. 6 , 7. Which , it seems , was the Opening a Particular Attribute to them , which the bare Account of his Being ( as known as it was ) could not sufficiently inform the World of before . But to proceed to other Considerations , vastly indeed inferiour to this , but yet of singular use in their degree , to direct our Speculations about these Matters , I have some other Things to offer in behalf of the Proposition laid down by us . As First , That all Divines hitherto have looked upon , and professedly treated of the Divine Nature and Attributes , as different and distinct from one another ; still considering the first as the Subject , and the other as the Adjuncts of it ; or , at least , as Analogous to these Terms as they stand properly applyed to other Things . According to which Notion , as the Subject , or that which is Analagous to it , naturally both precedes and supports the Adjuncts ; so all Notions importing the Divine Nature , Being , or Substance , are to be accounted as the Subject , in respect of all God's other Attributes , or Perfections , whether they be Truth , Wisdom , Goodness , Power , Eternity , Omniscience , or any other whatsoever . Which being so , I do here affirm , That the Terms Essence , Substance , Existence , and others Synonymous to them , ought to have the Precedence of the other Divine Perfections , commonly called Attributes , in their Application to God , and that upon a three-fold Account , viz. 1. Of Priority . 2. Of Simplicity . 3. Of Comprehensiveness . Of each of which severally . 1. For that of Priority . As we have already observed , That the first thing in order of Nature Conceivable of God , is , That he is a Being ; and the next to it , That he is a Being existing by it self , or ( in another word ) a Substance ; so the same is yet further evidenced from this , That the Notion of Being , or Substance , is that , which fully answers and determines the last Question and Enquiry , which can be made concerning God. For if we describe his Nature by any particular Attribute , or Perfection , and be thereupon asked , What that is ? And having given an Answer to that Question , be afterwards urged with another , and perhaps another ; and accordingly , after an Answer given to those also , the Enquiry be still continued , till at length we Answer , That God is a Being ; a Being existing by it self , that is , a Substance . Then we must of necessity stop , and can go no further ; which makes it evident even to a Demonstration , That this is the first and Original Notion which we have , or can have of God. Forasmuch as that which answers the last Enquiry , or Question , naturally made concerning any thing , is certainly the first Thing into which the Being , or Reason of that Thing is resolved . And thus much for Priority . Pass we now to the Second Thing , which is the Simplicity of these Terms , For Primum in omni genere simplicissimum . So that when we say , God is a Being existing by it self , viz. A Substance ; this includes in it no respect to , and much less any Conjunction with any other Thing or Notion whatsoever : But on the contrary , Truth , Goodness , Power , &c. are all Affections of Being , or Substance , and so connote a Relation to , and a Conjunction with it , as their Subject . So that to give you the same thing in words at length , Truth and Goodness are nothing else but Being , or Substance , with these Qualifications , or Being and Substance under such certain respects formally determining them to such a condition , viz. either of Conformity to the Understanding , as Truth determines them , or of Conformity to the Will , as Goodness does . So that in these , and all other the like Attributes , Being or Substance do , as it were , pass from their absolute and Original Simplicity by the Accession of the fore-mentioned Perfections superadded to them . And then in the Third and last place . For the Comprehensiveness of Being , or Substance , above any one , or more of the Divine Attributes . This also is evident ; forasmuch as it runs through and contains them all , which no other particular Attribute does , or can be said to do . And certainly that which signifies Being in the whole compass and perfection of it , should be much more properly applicable to God ; than that , which signifies Being only under some certain and particular determination of it , as every one of his Attributes does , and no more . For we cannot say , That God's Justice , Mercy , Wisdom , Holiness and Power , are properly contained under , and formally attributable to his Truth , but they are all contained under , deducible from , and referible to his Being or Substance . So that it may properly be said , That God is an Infinitely True , Wise , Good , Holy , Omnipotent , Omnipresent Being or Substance . But we cannot with any propriety of Speech pitch upon any one of the other Divine Attributes , and in like manner affirm all the rest of that one . As to say that God is an Infinitely Wise , Good , Eternal , Omnipotent , Omnipresent Truth . This ( I say ) cannot be equally said : For though the Thing be fundamentally true , yet the Expression is neither Proper nor Natural : Forasmuch as Goodness , Justice , Omnipotence , Omnipresence , and the like , are not the proper Affections of Truth , but they are properly so of Substance , or Being . And moreover , Whereas this Author will needs have the Terms Substance , Essence , and Existence discarded , and the Terms Truth , Wisdom and Goodness put in their room , when we speak of the Divine Nature ; I desire him to give me some good Reason , why he pitches upon Truth , Wisdom and Goodness , rather than upon Eternity , Omnipotence and Omnipresence . For these , in their proportion , express the Divine Nature as much as the other ; but neither the one nor the other can grasp in the whole Compass of the Divine Perfections , so as to be properly denominable from all and every one of them , as Substance , and Essence , and such other Terms as barely import Being , are found to 〈◊〉 I conclude therefore , that in our Discourses of God , Essence , Substance , Nature , and the like , are so far from being necessary to be laid aside , as disposing our Minds to gross and unfit Apprehensions of the Deity ; that they are much fitter to express and guide our thoughts about this great Subject , than Truth , Wisdom or Power , or all of them together , as importing in them both a Priority , and a greater Simplicity , and larger Comprehensiveness of Notion , than belong to any of them ; and these surely are Considerations most peculiarly suted to , and worthy of the Perfections of the Divine Nature . I have now done with my Third Proposition , and so proceed to the Fourth and last , viz , That the Difficulty of our Conceiving rightly of the Deity and the Divine Persons , does really proceed from other Causes , than those alledged by this Author . I shall assign Three : As , First , The Spirituality of the Divine Nature . For God is a Spirit , Joh. 4. 14. And it is certain that we have no clear , explicit , and distinct Idea of a Spirit . And if so , must we not needs find a great difficulty in knowing it ? For we know Things directly by the Idea's , the Species Intelligibiles , or Resemblances of them , imprinted upon the Intellect , and these are refined and drawn off from the Species Sensibiles , and sensible Resemblances of the same imprinted upon the Imagination . And how can a Spirit incur directly into that ? Indeed not at all . For we can have no knowledge of a Spirit by any direct Apprehension , or Intuition of it ; but all that we know of such Beings , is , what we gather by Inference , Discourse , and Ratiocination : And that is sufficient . But , 2. The Second Reason of our Short and Imperfect Notions of the Deity , is , The Infinity of it . For this we must observe , That we can perfectly know and comprehend nothing , but as it is represented to us under some certain Bounds and Limitations . And therefore one of the chief Instruments of our Knowledge of a Thing , is the Definition of it . And what does that signifie , but the bringing , or representing a Thing under certain Bounds and Limitations , as the Geeek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manifestly imports ? Upon which Account what a loss must we needs be at , in understanding , or knowing the Divine Nature , when the very way of our knowing seems to carry in it something opposite to the thing known ? For the way of knowing , is by Desining , Limiting , and Determining : and the Thing known is that , of which there neither are nor can be any Bounds , Limits , Definitions , or Determinations . And this , I think , is not only a sufficient , but something more than a sufficient Reason , why we stumble and fail , when we would either have , or give a distinct Account of the Deity . 3. A Third Reason of the same , especially with reference to the Trinity of Persons belonging to the Divine Nature , is , The utter want of all Instances and Examples of this kind . For when a long and constant course of Observation has still took notice that every numerically distinct Person , and every Suppositum has a numerically distinct Nature appropriate to it , and Religion comes afterwards , and calls upon us to apprehend the same Numerical Nature , as subsisting in three Numerically distinct Persons ; we are extreamly at a loss how to conform our Notions to it , and to conceive how that can be in three Persons , which we never saw before , or in any thing else , to be but onely in One. For humane Nature , which originally proceeds by the Observations of Sense , does very hardly frame to it self any Notions , or Conceptions of Things , but what it has drawn from thence . Nay , I am of Opinion , That the Mind is so far governed by what it sees and observes , that I verily believe , that had we never actually seen the beginning or end of any Thing , the generality of Men would hardly so much as have imagined , That the World had ever had any beginning at all : Since with the greatest part of Mankind what appears , and what does not appear , determines what can , and what cannot be , in their Opinion . And thus I have shewn Three Causes ( which I take to be the True Causes ) why we are so much to seek in our Apprehensions of , and Discourses about the Divine Nature , and the Three Glorious Persons belonging to it . And the Reason of them all is founded upon the Essential Disparity which the Mind of Man bears to so disproportionate , and so transcendent an Object . So that it is a vain thing to quarrel at Words and Terms , especially such as the best Reason of Mankind has pitched upon as the fittest , and properest , and most significant to express these great Things by . And I question not , but in the Issue of all , wise Men will find , That it is not the defect of the Terms we use , but the vast Incomprehensibility of the Thing we apply them to , which is the True Cause of all our Failures , as to a clear and distinct Apprehension and Declaration of what relates to the Godhead . From all which I conclude , That the Terms , Essence , Substance , Nature , &c. have had nothing yet objected against them , but that they may still claim the place , and continue in the use , which the Learned'st Men the Christian Church hath hitherto had , have allotted them in all their Discourses and Disputes about the Divine Nature , and the Divine Persons ; which are confessedly the greatest and most Sacred Mysteries in the Christian Religion . But as in my time , I have observed it a practice at Court , That when any one is turned out of a considerable Place there , it is always first resolved ( and that out of merit foreseen , no doubt ) who shall succeed him in it : So all this ado in dismounting the Terms Essence , Substance , Nature , &c. from their ancient Post , I perceive , is only to make way for these two so highly useful and wonder-working Terms , Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness . And therefore let us , with all due and awful Reverence ( as becomes us ) expect their August appearance , and for a while suffer the Mountain to swell , and heave up its Belly , and look big upon us , and all in good time , no doubt , we shall have the happiness to see and admire , and take our measures of the Mouse . But before I close this Chapter , to shew how like a Judge upon life and Death , this Man sits over all the formerly received Terms , by which Men were wont to discourse of God , Sentencing and Condemning them as he pleases ; not content to have cashiered the words Essence , Substance and Nature , from being used about this Subject , he has as great , or greater a Quarrel at the word Infinite , as applyed to God ; and I shall here give his Exceptions against it in his own words , being such , as I believe few would dare to utter but himself , and approaching so near , or rather quite coming up to Blasphemy , that it may be truly said , That he has not spoke more blasphemously of God's Vindictive Iustice in his Book of the Knowledge of Christ , than he has spoken of God's Infinity in this : For in the 77 , 78 , 79 Pages , he expresses his Thoughts of it thus . The truth is ( says he ) this very word Infinite confounds our Notions of God , and makes the most perfect and excellent Being the most perfectly unknown to us . For Infinite is only a Negative Term , and signifies that which has no end , no bounds , no measure , and therefore no positive and determined Nature , and therefore is Nothing , ( mark that ) and withal , That an Infinite Being , had not Use and Custom reconciled us to that expression , would be thought Nonsence and Contradiction . Which I am so far from granting him , that I affirm , if there had never been any thing in the World besides God alone , it had yet been most True and Rational . But he goes on . For ( says he ) every Real Being has a certain and determined Nature , and therefore is not Infinite in this sense , which is so far from being a Perfection , that it signifies Nothing Real . Thus he discourses : And yet this word Infinite has been universally received and applyed to the Divine Nature , by Learned Men in all Places and Ages ; and I desire this Man to tell me , How , if this word Infinite were so liable to be thought Nonsence and Contradiction , this could possibly come to pass . For what he speaks of Use and Custom reconciling us to this Expression , is Impertinent , and begs the Thing in dispute . For still I would know of him , how a word so utterly unfit to express the Thing it was applyed to , could ever pass into Use and Custom , so as to be took up , approved , and made use of by all Mankind . Let him prevail with the whole World to speak Nonsence , and to use words that signifie nothing , if he can . But this Man , before he played the Aristarchus at this rate , should have done well to have considered , That every Term is not Negative , which has a Negative Particle in the Composition of it . Of which , innumerable Instances may be given . And if he does not know this , for all his flirting at his Socinian Adversary , as if he knew neither Greek nor Latin , P. 95. it is a scurvy sign that he is not so over-stocked with either of them as to have any to spare . And therefore , whereas he goes on in Page 78. and pretends there to explain this word Infinite , he might have kept his Explication to himself . For no body ever used it otherwise , but so as to signifie a Positive Perfection by it , but yet withal connoting an Illimitation belonging to it . It signifies , I say , a Thing Real , Absolute and Positive , but still with a Connotation of something , which is to be removed from it , and denied of it ; such as are all bounds and limits in respect of that Substantial , All-comprehending Perfection of the Divine Nature . In a word , the Thing principally signified by this Term , is Positive , the Thing Consignified , or Connoted , ( which is but Secondary and Consequential ) is a Negation . And this sufficiently overturns all his odd Descants upon it . But if , after all , our Minds cannot fully master this Notion , Persons , as thinking as he can be , know , and acknowledge , that it is not the word Infinite , but the Thing Infinite , that renders them so short and defective in this matter . But it is pleasant to see him take his Turns backwards and forwards in speaking of this Thing . There is ( says he ) Page 78. a measure of the most Absolute and ( in this sense ) Infinite Perfections ; and if such a measure there be , then I hope there is as much Nonsence and Contradiction in the word Immense , as in the word Infinite ; and withal , if there is even in the most Absolute and Infinite Perfections , a no plus ultrà , and an ultimum quod sic ( as the School-men , who were never bred at St. Mary Overies , are apt to speak ) then I confess , That an Infinite , with all these Qualifications about it , must needs ( according to his beloved Dialect ) be Nonsence and Contradiction ; and that of the highest Rank . And again , P. 79. We know not ( says he ) how far Infinite Wisdom , and Power , and Goodness reaches , ( and thus much is very true ) but then ( says he again ) we certainly know that they have their Bounds , and that the Divine Nature is the utmost Bounds of them . By which words if he means , That they have their fixed determinate Notions , whereby they are formally distinguished among themselves , as well as from other Things , it is right . For the Notion of Infinite Wisdom is so bounded , that it cannot be said to be Infinite Power , or Infinite Power to be Infinite Goodness , or the like ; but still the Thing couched under all these is Infinite , and neither has nor can have any Bounds set to its Being . And if he should here reply , That then the Notion of Infinite Wisdom , Power , and the like , are false Notions , as not answering the Things they are applyed to . I answer , That they are indeed imperfect and inadequate , as not fully answering the Thing it self , but they cannot be said to be false for all that . But on the contrary , if he will needs have the Thing hereby signified to have any Real Bounds or Limits of its Being ; then it will and must follow , That in the forecited words he has with Accurate and Profound Speculation presented to us An Infinite with Bounds , and the Divine Nature ( which has no Bounds ) made the Bounds of it . These are the very words he uses ; and withal delivered by him with such a Magisterial Air and Contempt of the whole World besides , who have hitherto approved and made use of these Expressions , ( and that in a Sense and signification not to be born down by every self Opiniator , after so long and universal a Prescription ) that so much Confidence cannot be sufficiently wondred at , nor too severely rebuked . And therefore to review a little the foregoing particulars , and thereby to take some estimate of the Man ; Where shall we find such another Instance of a private Presbyter , who in the Communion , or rather in the very Bosom of so pure and Orthodox a Church , as this our Church of England , ever before durst , in so great an Article of the Christian Faith , draw his Pen against all the Writers of the Church Ancient and Modern , Fathers and School-men , and with one dash of it explode and strike off all those received Terms by which they constantly explained this Mystery , as not only useless , but mischievous in all Discourses about it ? Whereas ( not to anticipate what I intend more particularly and fully upon this Head in my Eighth Chapter , ) I shall only affirm thus much at present ; That the Greek Writers in expressing the Godhead , or Divine Nature , whensoever they do not use the Words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , constantly express it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and sometimes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were commonly used in the same sense . And likewise the Latins , where they express not the same by Deitas , or Divinitas , do as constantly express it by Natura and Substantia ; which words stand now particularly condemned by this Presuming Man ; and that , not only in Defiance of all the Ancients , but also of the Church of England Her Self , which has set her Authorizing Stamp upon those Two Words , Substance and Person , by applying them to this Subject both in her Articles and Liturgy . In the first of them teaching us , That in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons , of one Substance , Power and Eternity . Artic. 1. And in her Liturgy rendring the Athanasian Creed by the same words , Neither confounding the Persons , nor dividing the Substance . As likewise that Passage in the Nicene Creed , by the Son 's being of one Substance with the Father . And again in the Doxology at the Communion on Trinity Sunday , it gives us these full and notable words , One God , one Lord , not one onely Person , but three Persons in one Substance . After all which , with what face can this strange , Anomalar Son of the Church ( while he is sucking her Breasts , and at the same time poysoning the Milk , with which she should feed her Children . ) I say , with what Face can he aver to the World , That this word Substance thus embraced , owned , and used by her , ought to be thrown away , as the Direct Cause of all the Errours Men are apt to fall into , about this great Mystery ? And that we can have no Notion of Substance , but what implies in it something gross and material ? Which , were it so , can any one imagine , that the Church of England would ever have made use of such a word , as could serve for nothing , but a Snare and a Trap to betray the Understandings and Consciences of Men , into such Errours as may cost them their Souls ? This is so fouly Reflexive upon her , that I would have any Man living give me a good Reason , Why this Author should not be call'd upon by Publick Authority to give the Church satisfaction for the Scandal given to all the Orthodox Members of it , by the Contumely and Reproach which he has passed upon those Terms and Words which She has thought fit so solemnly to express her Faith and her Devotions by . But some Men , ( such is the Regard had to her Laws and Discipline ) will venture to utter and write any Thing , that the Bookseller will pay them for , though they throw their Conscience and Religion into the Bargain . But God himself , who resisteth the Proud , seems to have took the Matter into his own Hands , and ( to shew his Controlling Providence over the Minds and Hearts of Men ) has at length brought this Scornful Man to eat his own words , ( the hardest Diet certainly that a proud Person can be put to ) and after all the black Dirt thrown by him upon the School-men and their Terms , to lick it off again with his own Tongue . So that after he had passed such a Terrible Killing Doom upon these words , Essence , Substance , Subsistence , Suppositum , Person , and the like , here in his Vindication , all on a suddain , in a relenting Fit , he graciously reaches out his Golden Scepter of Self-Contradiction , and Restores them to Life again , in his Apology . And that the Reader may behold both sides of the Contradiction the more clearly , I think it the best and fairest way to give him the Sense of this Author , ( if it may be so call'd ) in his own Words . Vindication . I Have not troubled my Reader with the different signification of Essence , Hypostasis , Subsistence , Persons , Existence , Nature , &c. which are Terms very differently used by the Greek and Latin Fathers , and have very much obscured this Doctrine , instead of explaining it , P. 101. l. 12. The School-men have no Authority where they leave the Fathers ; whose sense they sometimes seem to mistake , or to clog it with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own , P. 138. l. 28. The Truth is , that which has confounded this Mystery ( viz. of the Trinity ) has been the vain endeavour to reduce it to Terms of Art , such as Nature , Essence , Substance , Subsistence , Hypostasis , and the like , Pag. 138. l. the last , & P. 139. l. 1. And speaking of the Ancient Fathers in the same Page , he tells us : They nicely distinguished between Person and Hypostasis , and Nature , and Essence , and Substance ; that they were three Persons , but one Nature , Essence and Substance : But that when Men curiously examined the signification of these words , they found that upon some account or other , They were very unapplicable to this Mystery . Hereupon he asks the following Questions in an upbraiding manner , viz. What is the Substance and Nature of God ? How can three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance ? And , What is the distinction between Essence , and Personality , and Subsistence ? And Lastly , At the end of the same Page , He confesses , that some tolerable Account of the School-Terms and Distinctions might be given , but that it would be a work of more difficulty than use . Apology . HE ( viz. ) the melancholy Stander-by , is very angry with the School-Doctors , as worse Enemies to Christianity , than either Heathen Philosophers , or Persecuting Emperours . Pray what hurt have they done ? I suppose he means the corruption of Christianity , with those barbarous terms of Person , Nature , Essence , Subsistence , Consubstantiality , &c. which will not suffer Hereticks to lie concealed under Scripture-Phrases . But why must the School-men bear all the blame of this ? Why does he not accuse the Ancient Fathers and Councils , from whom the School-men learn'd these Terms . Why does he let St. Austin escape , from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtleties ? But suppose , these unlucky Wits had used some new Terms , have they taught any new Faith about the Trinity in Unity , which the Church did not teach ? And if they have only guarded the Christian Faith with an Hedge of Thorns , which disguised Hereticks cannot break through , is this to wound Christianity in its very Vitals ? No , no : They will only prick the Fingers of Hereticks , and secure Christianity from being wounded ; and this is one great Cause , why some Men are so angry with the School-Doctors ; tho' the more General Cause is , because they have notIndustry enough to Read , or understand them . Apology , P. 4 , 5. I have ( to prevent all exceptions ) given the Reader the whole Paragraph ; in which the last Clause strikes Home indeed ; tho' in such Cases , some think this Author would do well to take heed of striking too Home and Hard , for fear the Blow should rebound back again , and do execution where he least intended it . Now here the Reader is desired to observe the Soveraign usefulness ascribed by our Author to those School-Terms : Person , Nature , Essence , Subsistence , Consubstantiality , &c. As , That they will not suffer Hereticks to lie concealed under Scripture-Phrases . That the Schools learned all these Terms of the Ancient Fathers . That they have guarded the Christian Faith with an Hedge of Thorns , which disguised Hereticks cannot break through . That instead of wounding Christianity in its Vitals , they only prick the Fingers of Hereticks , and secure Christianity from being wounded . All these great and good Things he tells us have been done in behalf of Christianity by the School-men , and their fore-mentioned Terms , here in this Apology ; and now if the Reader will but look back into the Vindication too , our Author will there tell him also , How , and by what Way and Means the said School-men and their Terms have Atchieved all these worthy Feats , viz. By their Obscuring instead of Explaining the Doctrine of the Trinity . By their mistaking the Meaning of the Fathers , or clogging it with peculiar Niceties of their own . Also by confounding the Mystery of the Trinity , through a vain endeavour to reduce it to such Terms of Art , as Essence , Substance , Subsistence , Nature , Person , and the like . As likewise by the said terms being found very unapplicable to this Mystery . And lastly , Because though some tolerable Account might possibly be given of their meaning , yet that it would be of little or no use to give any such Account , or Explication of them : So useful ( it seems ) does he account them , to secure Christianity against Hereticks , that it is of no use at all to explain them . And now , I hope , when the Reader has considered , what this Author has said on both sides , he will acknowledge , that Hand and Glove cannot more exactly agree , than the Vindication and the Apology . And as for that Melancholy Stander-by , upon whose Account this Apology is pretended to have been written , if he will but read and compare the Apology and Vindication together , I dare undertake , that he will not be half so Melancholy as he was before . But does this Author , in sober sadness , think that this is the way to Confute Hereticks , thus to play backwards and forwards , to say , and unsay , and only to set two Books together by the Ears ? Let me tell him , That God is not mocked , nor the World neither ; and that he owes an Account , of what he has wrote , to both . For my own part , so far as my Converse reaches , I meet with no serious and judicious Person , who does not reckon , that this Author , by his Desultorious Inconsistent , but withal Imposing way of writing , will in all likelihood make Twenty Hereticks , before he Confutes One. It is indeed an amazing Thing to consider , That any one Man should presume to Brow-beat all the World at such a rate ; and we may well wonder at the force of Confidence and Self-Conceit , that it should be able to raise any one to such a pitch . But Naturalists have observed , That Blindness in some Animals , is a very great Help and Instigation to Boldness . And amongst Men , as Ignorance is commonly said to be the Mother of Devotion , so in accounting for the Birth and Descent of Confidence too , ( whatsoever other Cause some may derive it from ) yet , certainly , He who makes Ignorance the Mother of this also , reckons its Pedigree by the surer side . CHAP. III. In which the Author 's New Notion of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness , is briefly declared . Self-Consciousness made by him the formal Constituent Reason of Personality in all Persons , both Create and Uncreate ; and on the contrary , proved against him in the first place , That it is not so in Persons Create . OUR Author not being satisfied with the Account given of the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity by the Schools , nor with those Notions about it , which have hitherto obtained in the World , till he came into it ( no doubt as a Person peculiarly sent and qualified to rectifie all those Imperfect , and Improper Notions , which had been formerly received by Divines . ) He , I say , with a Lofty Undertaking Mind , and a Reach beyond all before , and indeed beside him , and ( as the Issue is like to prove ) as much above him too , undertakes to give the World a much better , and more satisfactory Explication of this great Mystery , and that by two new Terms , or Notions , ( purely and solely of his own Invention ) called , Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness ; which , though still joyned together by our Author in his Explication of the Blessed Trinity , have yet very different Effects , as we shall presently see . For by Self-Consciousness , he means , a Mind 's , or Spirit 's being Conscious to its own Thoughts , Reasonings , and Affections , ( and I suppose all other Internal Motions too ) which no other finite Spirit is , or can be naturally Conscious to , but it self . And this ( he says ) makes a finite Spirit Numerically one , or one with it self , ( for he uses both Expressions ) and withal separates and distinguishes it from all other Spirits ; so that hereby every Spirit feels only its own Thoughts , Passions , or Motions , but is not Conscious to the Thoughts , Passions , or Motions of any other . And this ( so far as his own Words import ) he means by Self-Consciousness . As for Mutual-Consciousness . That takes place , when two or more Spirits , or Minds know all that of one another , which each Mind , or Spirit knows of its self , by a particular Self-Consciousness of its own . And this , I conceive to be a just Account of what this Man means by Mutual-Consciousness . Now the Effects of these two ( as I noted before ) are very different . For Self-Consciousness , ( according to him ) is the Constituent Principle , or formal Reason of Personality . So that Self-Consciousnss properly Constitutes , or makes a Person , and so many Self-Consciousnesses make so many distinct Persons . But Mutual-Consciousness , so far as it extends , makes an Unity , not of Persons , ( for Personality as such imports distinction , and something personally Incommunicable ; ) but an Unity of Nature in Persons . So that after Self-Consciousness has made several distinct Persons , in comes Mutual-Consciousness , and sets them all at one again ; and gives them all but one and the same Nature , which they are to take amongst themselves , as well as they can . And this is a True and strict Account of this Author 's New Hypothesis ; and such , as I suppose , he will not except against , because justly , I am sure , he cannot ; howsoever I may have expressed the Novel Whimsey something for the Reader 's Diversion . Now , by what has been said , it is evident , that the Author assigns Self-Consciousness as the formal Reason of Personality , in all Persons Universally , whether Finite , or Infinite , Create , or Uncreate , For having first stated it so in Finite and Created Spirits , Pag. 48. lin . 26 , &c. He afterwards applies it to Infinite and Uncreate , viz. the Three Persons of the Godhead . And therefore , that we may proceed fairly , and without any ground of Exception in the Case , we will examine : I. Whether or no Self-Consciousness be the Reason of Personality in Finite Persons ? And , II. Whether it be so in Infinite ? And First , For Finite , or Created Spirits . I deny Self-Consciousness to be the formal Reason of Personality in these . And before I give my Reasons against it , I shall premise this one Consideration , viz. That wheresoever the formal Reason of Personality is , there is Personality . And again , That wheresoever Personality is , there is the formal Reason of Personality , viz. That they exist Convertibly , and that one Mutually and Essentially infers the other . Now this premised and laid down , my Reasons , why I deny Self-Consciousness to be the formal Reason of Personality in Finite , or Created Beings , are these . 1. Argument . According to the Natural Order of Things , Self-Consciousness in Persons , pre-supposes their Personality , and therefore is not , cannot be the Reason of it . The Argument , I conceive , is very plain . For whatsoever pre-supposes a Thing , is in Order of Nature Posterior and Subsequent to the Thing so pre-supposed by it ; and again on the other hand , the formal Reason of any Thing is in Order of Nature precedent to that Thing , of which it is the Reason . We will therefore prove the Major Proposition . And we do it thus . Personality is the Ground and Principle of all Action , wheresoever it is . For where there is a Suppositum , whether it be Rational , ( which is another word for Person ) or not , still it is the whole Suppositum , which Acts. So that there must be a Person before there can be an Act , or Action proceeding from , or attributable to a Person . In a word , there must be a Person in Being , before any Action issues from him ; and therefore the Act must essentially and necessarily pre-suppose the Person for the Agent . But now Self-Consciousness does not only do this ; but ( which is more ) it also pre-supposes another Act Antecedent to it self . For it is properly and formally a Reflex Act upon the Acts , Passions , or Motions of the Person whom it belongs to . So that according to the Nature of the Thing , there is not only a Person , but also an Action ( which is , and must be Subsequent to a Person ) that is Antecedent to Self-Consciousness ; which being a Reflex Act , must needs in Order of Nature be Posterior to the Act reflected upon by it . And therefore Self-Consciousness , which is by two degrees Posterior to Personality , cannot possibly be the formal Reason of it . This I look upon as a Demonstration of the Point . And I leave it to our Author ( who is better a great deal at scorning the Schools , than at confuting them ) to answer and overthrow it at his leisure . 2. Our Second Argument is this . The Humanity , or Humane Nature of Christ , is perfectly Conscious to it self of all the Internal Acts , whether of Knowledge , Volition , Passion , or Desire , that pass in it , or belong to it ; and yet the Humanity , or Humane Nature of Christ is not a Person , and consequently Self-Consciousness is not the proper formal Reason of Personality ; forasmuch as it may be in that , which is no Person . That the Humane Nature of Christ is thus Self-Conscious , is evident , since it has all the Principles and Powers of Self-reflection upon its own Acts , whereby it intimately knows it self to do what it does , and to be what it is , which are in any particular Man whatsoever ; so that if any Man be Conscious to himself of these things , the Humane Nature of Christ , which has the same Operative Powers in perfection ( and those essentially proper to , and inseparable from it self ) which the rest of Mankind are endued with , must needs be so too . And then , as for the Assumption , That the Humane Nature of Christ is not a Person , is no less evident . Since it is taken into , and subsists in and by the Personality of the second Person of the Trinity , and therefore can have no distinct Personality of its own ; unless we will with Nestorius assert two Persons in Christ , an Humane , and a Divine . And the Truth is , If Self-Consciousness were the formal Reason of Personality , since there are two destinct Self-Consciousnesses in Christ , no less than two distinct Wills , an Humane , and a Divine , viz. One in each Nature , I cannot see how , upon this Author's Hypothesis , to keep off the Assertion of Nestorius , That there are Two distinct Persons in him also . 3. My Third Argument against the same shall be taken from the Soul of Man in a state of separation from the Body . And it is this : The Soul in its separate Estate is Conscious to it self of all its own Internal Acts , or Motions , whether of Knowledge , Passion , or Desire , and yet the Soul in such an Estate is not a Person ▪ And therefore Self-Consciousness is not the formal Reason of Personality ; for if it were , it would and must Constitute a Person , wheresoever it was . Now , that the Soul , in its separate Estate , is thus Self-Conscious , I suppose no body will pretend to deny , but such as hold a Psychopannychisme , viz. such a dormant Estate , as renders it void of all Vital Motion or Action , during its separation from the Body . But this being an Errour which few now a-days think worth owning , neither shall I think worth the disproving . But for the Minor Proposition , That the Soul in its separate Estate is not a Person . In this I expect to find some Adversaries , and particularly our Author himself , who expresly affirms , That the Soul in such a separate Estate is a Person , Pag. 262. A Soul ( says he ) without a Vital Union to an Humane Body , is a Person . Nor does he bestow the Name and Nature of a Person upon the Soul only as separate from , but also ( as shall be afterwards made appear ) as it is joyned with the Body ; which Assertion of his , together with some others of near Affinity with it , shall in due place be examined by themselves . At present in Confirmation of my Argument , I shall produce my Reasons against the Personality of the Soul , held by this Author , and in order to it , shall lay down this Conclusion in direct Opposition to his , viz. That the Soul of Man is not a Person . And since ( as we have noted ) he holds , that it is so , both in its Conjunction with the Body , and its separation from it ; I shall bring my Arguments against the Personality of it in both . And First , I shall prove , That the Soul while joyned to , and continuing in the Body , is not a Person ; and as a Ground-work of the proof thereof , I shall only premise this one Thing , as a Truth acknowledged on all Hands , viz. That the Soul and Body together constitute the Person of a Man. The same being plainly Asserted in the Athanasian Creed , where it tells us , That the Reasonable Soul and Flesh , is one Man , [ or one Human Person ] for both signifie but the same Thing ; which being thus laid down , as a Thing certain and confessed , I Argue thus : If the Soul and Body in Conjunction constitute the Person of a Man , then the Soul in such a Conjunction is not a Person . But the former is true , and therefore the latter must be so too . The Proposition is proved thus : Nothing which , together with the Body , Constitutes a Person , is , or can be it self a Person . For if it be , then the Body must be joyned to it , either by being assumed into the Personal Subsistence of the Soul , as the Human Nature of Christ is assumed into the Personal Subsistence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Whereupon the Composition and Constitution of a Man , will be an Hypostatick Union between Soul and Body : which I suppose , no body will be either so bold or absurd , as to affirm ; all Divines accounting an Hypostatical Union so peculiar to Christ's Person , as not to be admitted in any other Person or Being whatsoever . ( For an Hypostatick Union , and an Hypostatick Composition , viz. Such an one as makes a Compound Hypostasis , are quite different things : and this Author shall in due time be taught so much , if he has any thing to object against it . ) Or , Secondly , The Body must be joyned with the Soul , as one part , joyntly concurring with another , to the Composition of the whole Person . And if so , then the Soul being a Part , cannot possibly be a Person . Forasmuch as a Part is an Incomplete Being , and therefore , in the very Nature of it , being designed for the Completion of something else , must subsist in and by the Subsistence of the whole . But a Person imports the most complete Degree and Mode of Being , as Subsisting wholly by it self , and not in or by any other , either as a Subject of Inherence or Dependence . So that it is a direct Contradiction to the very Definition and Nature of the Thing , for the same Being to be a Part and a Person too . And consequently that which makes the Soul the former , does irrefragably prove it not to be the other . Besides , if the Soul in the Composition of a Man's person , were an entire person it self , and , as such , concurred with the Body towards the Constitution of the Man ; then a Man would be an Imperfect , Accidental , and not a Perfect , Natural Compound . He would be that which Philosophy calls Unum per Accidens , that is , a thing made up of two such Beings , as cannot perfectly coalesce and unite into one . For a Complete Being ( as every Person essentially is ) having received the utmost degree of Subsistence , which its Nature can give it , if it comes afterward to be compounded with another Being , whether Complete , or Incomplete , it must necessarily make such a loose , unnatural Union and Composition . But to assert , That the person of a Man is such a Compound , would be exploded by all who understood any thing of Natural Philosophy . So that it would be a very idle thing to attempt any further Confutation of it . Let this Author overthrow these Reasonings , and support his Assertion against them if he can . But having thus disproved the Personality of the Soul while in Conjunction with the Body , I go on to disprove it also while in a state of Separation from it : Which I do thus . If the Soul in such a state be a Person , then it is either the same Person , which the Man himself was , while he was living and in the Body ; or it is another Person : But to Assert either of them , is extreamly Absurd , and therefore equally Absurd , That the Soul in such a state should be a Person . And First , It is Absurd to affirm it to be the same Person . For a Person compounded of Soul and Body , as a Man is and a simple uncompounded Person , as the Soul ( if a Person at all ) must needs be , can never be numerically one and the same . For that , differing from one another as Simple and Compound , they differ as two things , whereof one implies a Contradiction and Negation of the other . A Compound , as such , including in it several parts compounding it . And a simple Being utterly excluding all Parts and Composition . So that if a Man , while alive , be one Person , and his Soul after his Death be a Person too , it is impossible for the Soul to be one and the same Person with the Man. And then for the other part of the Disjunction . To Assert , That they are two distinct Persons , is as Absurd as the other , as drawing after it this Consequence , viz. That it is one Person who lives well or ill in this World , to wit , the Man Himself while he was personally in the Body ; and another Person , who passes out of the Body into Heaven or Hell , there to be rewarded , or punished , ( at least till the Resurrection ) for what that other Person had done well or ill here upon Earth . And does not this look mightily agreeable to all the Principles of Reason and Divinity ? Nevertheless so much is certain , That wheresoever there are two distinct Persons , we do , and must by all the Rules of Grammar and Logick , say , That one of them is not the other ; and , where one is not the other , we cannot in Truth or Justice say , That one ought to account for what was done , or not done by the other . But then , if it be intolerably Absurd , ( as no doubt it is , ) That the Soul in the other World should not be responsible for what the Man himself in Person had done in this , then it is altogether as Absurd and Intolerable , for any one to represent and speak of these Things under such Terms and Notions , as must necessarily throw all Discourse and Reasoning about them , into Paradox and Confusion . But 't is needless to insist any longer upon a thing so clear , or to add any other Arguments in so plain a Case . And indeed to me , the Soul 's thus changing its state forwards and backwards , from one manner of Subsistence to another , looks very odd and unnatural . As , that from an Incomplete state in the Body , it should pass to a Personal and Complete state out of the Body , ( which state is yet preternatural to it ) and then fall back into an Incomplete state again by its re-union to the Body at the Resurrection ( which yet , one would think , should rather improve our principal parts , in all respects , not merely relating to the Animal Life ; as the bare Subsistence of them , I am sure , does not . ) These things , I say , seem very uncouth and improbable , and such as ought not , without manifest Necessity , to be allowed of ; which here does not appear ; since all this Inconvenience may be avoided , by holding , That the Soul continues but a Part of the whole Person , and no more , in all its Conditions . And thus having proved our Assertion against the Personality of the Soul , Whether in the Body , or out of it ; let us now see what may be opposed to it . And here , I suppose , some will object , That the Soul in a state of Separation , is not properly a Part , forasmuch as it exists not in any Compound , nor goes to the Composition of it . To which I answer , That an Actual Inexistence in a Compound , is not the onely Condition which makes a Thing a Part , but its Essential Relation to a Compound ; which Relation is founded partly upon its Original Designation , and partly upon its Natural Aptitude to be an Ingredient in the Constitution of a Compound . And this Relation to the Compound , I affirm the Soul to retain , even while it is separated from it ; as is evident from what both Philosophers and Divines hold concerning the Soul , viz. That even in its Separation and Disjunction from the Body , it yet retains a strong Appetite and Inclination ( as well as an Essential Aptitude ) to return and be re-united to it : Which Re-union also we know will be effected at the great and last Day . But you will say , Does not the Scripture , in Heb. 12. 23. speaking of Blessed Souls in a state of Separation from the Body , call them , The Spirits of Just Men made perfect , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; And if those Just Men were made Perfect , must it not have been in respect of the Perfection of their Souls , since their Bodies were then rotting , or ( rather ) rotten under Ground ? And if they derived this Perfection from their Souls , must not their Souls have been eminently perfect themselves , which rendred them so ? And if perfect , can we deny them the Perfection of Personality , ( which as we have shewn ) in Rational Beings , carries in it the greatest Natural Perfection ? To all which I Answer , That the Perfection here spoken of , is not Natural , but Supernatural ; and relates only to the Consummation of their Graces , and not to the manner of their Subsistence . Which being the only Thing now in dispute , this Scripture , which speaks only of the former , can make nothing at all to the present Purpose . Having thus evinced , that the Soul , notwithstanding its Self-Consciousness is neither during its Conjunction with the Body , nor its Separation from it , properly a Person ; and having withal shewn the grounds and Reasons upon which I conclude it impossible to be so , I shall however think it worth while something more particularly to examine ( as I promised ) this Author's extraordinary and peculiar Notions of Person and Personality , as he applies them to the Soul , even while it is joined with the Body also . And first in the 268th Page , he discourses of it in this manner . All the Sufferings ( says he ) and Actions of the Body , are attributed to the Man , though the Soul is the Person , because it is the Superiour and Governing Power , and Constitutes the Person . These are his words , and they contain a very pleasant way of arguing , though wholly contrary to the common , known Rules of Philosophy . For according to these , one would , and must have concluded , That for this very Reason , That all the Actions and Sufferings of the Body ( and he ought to have added of the Soul too ) are ascribed to the Man , therefore the Man himself , to whom these Personal Acts are ascribed , must indeed be the Person , and that for the same reason also , the Soul cannot be so . But our Author has a way of Reasoning by himself . For ( says he ) The Soul is the Person , because it Constitutes the Person . But for that very Cause , say I , The Soul is not the Person . For whatsoever Constitutes a Person , must do it either efficiently or formally . That is , either as a Principle producing it , or a Principle compounding it . As for the first way , whatsoever Constitutes a person efficiently , must do it either by Creation , or Generation ; but this the Soul ( as much a Superiour Power as it is ) is not able to do . For will any one say , That the Soul can either Create or Generate the Person , or ( to speak more plainly ) the Man who is the Person ? And then , for the other way , by which it may be said to Constitute a Person , to wit , formally . This it can do no otherwise than as it is a Constituent Part , and therefore only as a Partial , and not a Total Adequate Cause of the Constitution . That is , in other words , the Soul , as the Form , must concur with the Body as the Matter , to the Constitution of the whole Person of the Man. But then for that very Reason again , the Soul cannot possibly be a Person , since it contributes to the Constitution of the Person only as a Part ; which , by reason of its Incomplete Being , can upon no Principle of Philosophy be a Person . And I would fain have this profound Philosopher give me but one allowed Instance , where one Person is the constituent Principle of another . But to examine the forementioned Assertion yet more particularly , since this Man so peremptorily says , That the Soul is the Person , because it is the Superiour Power , and Constitutes the Person . I must tell him , That the Superiour Power is not therefore the sole Power , and consequently cannot solely Constitute the Person , which yet this Author pretends it does . If indeed he had said , That the Soul as the Superiour Power bears the chief and principal part in the Constitution of a Person , this had been sence , but by no means sufficient for his purpose ; for still this would not prove the Soul to be a Person , ( which he contends for ) but on the contrary , by proving it to concur thereto only as a Part , demonstrate it , upon the same Account , not to be a Person . But this is not all , for in Page 169. he calls the Mind of Man a Person , and thus Discourses about it . Faculties , ( says he ) Vertues and Powers have Personal Acts and Offices ascribed to them only upon the Account of their Unity and Sameness with the mind in which they are , which is a Person , and Acts by them . Now this also is very odd and strange ( could any thing in this Author , which is odd , be strange too ; ) For the thing Asserted by him amounts to neither more nor less than this , That Powers , Faculties , and Vertues have personal Acts ascribed to them upon the account of their Unity and Sameness with that , which it self neither is , nor can be a Person ; as we have abundantly proved , That the Mind of Man , ( taking it in his sense for the Soul ) cannot be . And for his further Conviction , I could tell him of something which has personal Acts very remarkably ascribed to it ; and yet neither for being it self a Person , nor for its Unity and Sameness with the Mind , in which it is , and which sometimes acts by it . And that , if he pleases to turn to 1 Corinth . 13. he will find to be that notable Grace and Virtue , called Charity ; which , being but an Accident , I believe , that even this Author himself will not affirm to be a Person ; and , I am sure , as little can be said for any Unity or Sameness that it has with the Mind , which it is lodged in : Since , though it should be utterly lost , the Mind would nevertheless retain all the Essentials of a Mind , and continue as truly a Mind , as it was before : Which , I think , is but an ill Argument of any Unity or Sameness between the Mind and that ; and this being indubitably true , all that this Author here discourses about personal Acts being ascribed to the Mind , and about their Identity with the Mind , as the Reason of it , is with equal mistake and impertinence alledged by him in this case . For he might and should have known , That personal Acts are often ascribed to Faculties , Vertues , and Graces , not in strict propriety of Philosophical speaking , but Tropically and Figuratively , by a Figure ( which he shall hear further of hereafter ) called Prosopopoeia ; which represents Things , that are not Persons , speaking and doing as if they were so . But besides this , there are here two Things which this Author takes for granted , which yet such dull Mortals as my self will be apt a little to demurr to . As First , That he takes the Mind and the Soul of Man for one and the same thing ; whereas very Learned Men , both Grammarians and Philosophers hold , That in Men there is a great difference between Animus and Anima ; and that as Anima imports the Spiritual Substance which we call the Soul , so Animus signifies only a Power or Faculty , viz. The Supreme Intellectual , Reasoning , Governing Faculty of the Soul , or at least , the Soul it self considered , as exerting the forementioned Acts. But whether it be one or the other , we have sufficiently proved against this Author , That neither of them can be a Person . The other Thing here supposed by him , is the Unity or Sameness of the Powers or Faculties of the Soul , with the Soul it self ; which yet the Peripateticks generally , and most of the School-men with Thomas Aquinas in the Head of them do positively deny , and think they give very good Reason for such their Denial . For if Substances and Accidents are Beings really distinct , and if Qualities be Accidents , and the Powers and Faculties of the Soul come under the second Species of Quality , as Aristotle reckons them , then it is manifest , that they are really distinguished , and that there is no Identity between them . Nor does there want a further Reason for the same . For , since the bare Substance or Essence of the Soul , considered nakedly in it self , may rationally be supposed undetermined , and therefore Indifferent to all those Acts or Actions that naturally proceed from it ; and since withal , bare Objects can of themselves neither enable nor dispose the Agent to exert any Action , there seems a Necessity of asserting the Intervention of some Third Thing distinct from both , which may thus enable , dispose , and determine the Soul to exert it self in such a particular way of acting rather than another , sutably to the several Objects which shall come before it ; which thing is properly that Quality residing in the Soul , which we call a Faculty or Power . And this to me seems the true Philosophy of the matter . But I need not here press the Decision of the Case one way or other ; as not directly affecting the Point in debate between us . Only I thought fit to suggest these Remarks , to check this Author 's bold unwary way of dictating and affirming in things disputable and dubious , and to remind him how much it becomes and concerns one that writes Controversies , to be more liberal in his Proofs , and less lavish in his Assertions . But before I quit this Point about the Personality of the Soul ; since this Author has so absolutely and expresly affirmed , That the Soul , or Mind of Man is a Person , and given this for the Reason of it , That being the Superiour Governing Power in Man , it does , as such , Constitute the Person ; over and above the Arguments which have been already brought for the Confutation of it , I desire to leave with him two or three Questions , which seem naturally to rise from this Wonderful Position . As , First , Whether the Soul , or Mind of Man be one Person , and the Man himself Another ? Secondly , Whether the asserting of the Soul to be a Person , because it Constitutes the Person , does not infer so much , viz. That the Soul is the Person that Constitutes , and the Man the Person that is Constituted ; unless we will say , That the Soul Constitutes it self a Person ? And then , Thirdly , Whether to say , or assert this , does not infer Two distinct Personalities in the same Soul , one in order of Nature before the other , viz. That , by which it is it self formally a Person , and that other , which by its Constituting it self a Person , is Constituted and caused by it ? But since it is too hard a Task to drain any one Absurdity ( especially a very great one ) so , as to draw forth and represent all its naturally descending Consequences , I desire the Author with the utmost ( if Impartial ) strictness to compare the foregoing Questions with his own Assertion and to see , First , Whether they do not directly spring from it : And next , Whether the Matter couched under the said Questions , if drawn out into so many Positive Propositions , would not afford as many Intolerable Defiances to Common Sense , Reason and Philosophy . But thus it is , when Men will be Writing at Thirty , and scarce Thinking till Threescore . But to proceed and shew , That it is not only the Soul , or Mind of Man which our Author dignifies with the Name and Nature of a Person ; but that he has almost as free an hand in making every thing he meets with a Person , as K. Charles the Second had in making almost every Person he met with , a Knight ; ( So that it was very dangerous for any one who had an Aversion to Knighthood , to come in his way , ) our Author , out of the like Over-flowing Communicative Goodness and Liberality , is graciously pleased , to take even the Beasts themselves into the Rank and Order of Persons ; in some imitation , I suppose , of the Discreet and Humble Caligula , so famous in History for making his Horse Consul . And for this , Let us cast our Eyes upon Page 262. where he has these words , worthy ( in sempiternam rei memoriam ) to be wrote in Letters of Gold. A Beast ( says he ) which has no Rational Soul , but only an Animal Life ( as a Man has together with an Humane Soul ) is a Person , or Suppositum , or what you will please to call it . But , by your favour , Good Sir , the Matter is not so indifferent ; for Person and Suppositum , are by no means the same Thing ; and I pity you with all my heart , that you should think so . For any single Complete Nature actually subsisting by it self , is properly a Suppositum , but not therefore a Person . For as Subsistence superadded to Nature , Constitutes a Suppositum , so Rationality added to Suppositality , Constitutes a Person ; which is therefore properly defined Suppositum Rationale , or Intelligens , as we have sufficiently shewn already in our Second Chapter ▪ So that to call a Beast a Person , is all one as to call it a Rational Brute : Which this Author , who can so easily reconcile Contradictions , or ( which may serve him as well ) swallow them , may do , if he pleases ; and so stand alone by himself in this , as well as ( he says ) he had done in some other Things . But others , who think themselves obliged to use Philosophical Terms only as Philosophers intended them , dare not venture to speak thus , for fear Aristotle should bring an Action of Battery against them ; who certainly has a Pate to break as well as Priscian , and is as sensible of hard usage , how patiently soever he has took it hitherto at this Author's hands . But to give the said Author his due , he is not so much a Slave to his word , as to speak the same Thing in all places of his Book . For , to quote his own Authority ( though of little value , but when brought against himself ) in page 62. of this very Tract , he has these words . A Person ( says he ) and an Intelligent Substance are Reciprocal Terms . And , are they so ? Why , how then comes a Beast , in page 269. to be a Person ? Is a Beast an Intelligent Substance ? Or , can a Beast be a Person , and yet not an Intelligent Substance , when he affirms , That they are Terms Reciprocal ? If I have not quoted this Author fairly and justly , let the Advantage be his , and the shame mine . But if I have , then let all the Learned and Impartial World ( which I appeal to ) judge , whether one who talks thus Ignorantly and Self-Contradictiously about the Nature of a Person , be fit to prescribe to the whole Church New Terms and Models never heard of before , to explicate the Persons of the Sacred Trinity by . But the Truth is , the distance between the 69. and the 262. pages , was so great , and the Contradictions which passed within that compass so Numerous , that how gross and bulky soever this one might be , yet with the help of a little good luck , it might well escape the Author's Eye in such a Crowd . And perhaps , it had been never the worse luck for the Author Himself , if it could as easily have escaped the Reader 's Eye too . And now , to sum up in short , the Chief Heads of what has been treated of in this Chapter , I have proved against this Author , That Self-Consciousness is not the formal Reason of Personality in Created Beings . And that first by an Argument drawn from the very Nature of the Thing ; For that , Self-Consciousness presupposes Personality , and therefore cannot be the formal Reason of it . As also from two Notable Instances , One of the Humanity , or Humane Nature of Christ. The other of the Soul of Man in its state of Separation from the Body : Both of which I have shewn to be perfectly Self-Conscious of all the Internal Acts , Motions and Passions respectively belonging to each of them ; and yet that they were , neither of them , Persons . And pursuant to this Subject , I have , by clear , and solid Reasons overthrown the pretended Personality of the Soul , both in a state of Conjunction with the Body , and of Disjunction from it ; which in both is asserted by this Author . And Lastly , I have examined his Absurd Unphilosophical Assertions about these Matters ; in one whereof he ascribes a Personality even to Beasts themselves . By all which , it is but too manifest against this Assuming big-talking Man , that as loftily as he carries it , yet in very Deed and Truth he does not understand what those Terms Suppositum and Subsistence , Person and Personality mean. So fit is he ( as I have said ) to treat of the Divine Persons of the God-head ; whom yet he has made so bold with . And here I should judge it high time to conclude this Chapter ; but that , methinks , it is pity to leave this fine Trim Notion of Self-Consciousness so ; without taking a little further View of the Curious Artifice and admirable Contrivance of so rare a production . For if it were not such , could this Author vaunt of it at such a rate as he does , pleasing himself , and proclaming his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as upon an Invention ( forsooth ) which all Antiquity before him could never yet reach to ? Nevertheless to deal clearly and plainly amongst Friends , such a Cheating , Lurching thing does this Expectation usually prove , that after all these Pompous Shews , and Glorious Boasts of Self-Consciousness , Self-Consciousness , ushered in with twenty Encomium's ( at least ) like so many Heralds , or Tip-staves , or ( rather ) Yeomen of the Guard , marching before it ; yet , in Truth , after all this noise , it is , ( like an Owl stripp'd of its Feathers ) but a very Mean , Meagre , Ordinary Thing ; being , in down-right Terms , neither more nor less than only one Property of a Rational , or Intelligent Being ; by vertue whereof , the Soul is ( as the Schools express it ) Supra se Reflexiva , that is to say , Able by a Reflex Act of Knowledge , intimately to know and consider it self , and its own Being , together with its own Acts , Motions , and Operations . This is the Sum Total of the Matter , and all that Self-Consciousness is , or can truly pretend to be . And , ( which is yet a further Diminution to it ) as poor and mean a Notion as it is , it is Borrowed too . But you will say , From whom ? Why ? Even from Honest Des Cartes , and his Cogito ergo sum . Only with this unhappy difference in the Application of it , That this Proposition , which Des Cartes lays as the Basis and Ground-work of his Philosophy , our Author places with its Heels upwards in his Divinity . For whereas Des Cartes insists upon Cogitation , only to prove and infer Being , as one would prove a Cause from its Effects , or rather an Antecedent from its Consequent : Our Author , on the contrary , makes Cogitation the very Cause and Principle of Being and Subsistence , by making it the formal Constituent Reason of Personality in the Person who Thinks , or Reflects ; than which nothing can be more false , and ridiculous . And this , according to the Truest , and most Philosophical Account of the Thing , is the very utmost which this New , and so much bragg'd of Notion amounts to . And I do hereupon Challenge this Author to prove these two Things if he can . First , That the Self-Consciousness hitherto spoken of by him is any Thing more than a bare Property of an Intelligent Being , whereby it reflects upon it self , and its own Thoughts and Actions . And in the next place , That such a Property does , or can Constitute the Being or Nature which it flows from , and belongs to , properly a Person . These two things , I say , I call upon him to prove ; and if he does not by dint of Argument make them good , he exposes a poor , senceless , infant Hypothesis to the wide World , and then very unmercifully leaves it to shift for it self . In fine , I cannot but again and again own my Amazement at the Confidence of some bold presuming Men , who set up for Enlightners of the Church , and new Modellers of Divinity in the strength of some odd upstart Notions , which yet are not able to acquit , or support themselves upon , and much less against the very first Elements and Principles of a long tryed and never yet baffled Philosophy , CHAP. IV. In which is proved against this Author , That neither is Self-Consciousness the formal Reason of Personality in the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity ; nor Mutual-Consciousness the Reason of their Unity in one and the same Nature . HAving thus examined , and ( as I think ) overthrown our Author's Notion of Self-Consciousness , with reference to Created and Finite Persons , I shall now proceed to the Consideration of what he says of it with reference to the three Persons in the Glorious God-head . And this I shall do under these following Heads , which shall be the Subjects of five distinct Chapters . As First , I shall treat of his two new Notions , viz. of Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness , and shew , That Self-Consciousness is not the formal Reason of Personality in the three Divine Persons , nor Mutual-Consciousness , the Reason of their Unity in one and the same Nature . And this we have here allotted for the business and Subject of this 4th Chapter . Secondly , I shall prove , That the Three Divine Persons of the Godhead , are not Three Distinct , Infinite Minds , or Spirits in the 5th Chapter . Thirdly , I shall Consider , what this Author pretends to from the Authority of the Fathers and School-men , in behalf of his New invented Hypothesis , and shew , That they speak nothing at all for it , or towards it : And this shall make the 6th and 7th Chapters . Fourthly , I shall set down the Ancient and generally received Doctrine of the Church and Schools concerning the Article of the Trinity , and Vindicate it from this Author's Exceptions , in the 8th Chapter . And when I shall have discussed and gone over these Particulars , I cannot imagine what can be found Considerable in this his Book ( so far as I have undertook it ) but what will have received hereby a full and sufficient Answer . Though , when all is done , I confess I have some further Complements to make to this Author upon some other Accounts ( though still occasioned by this Work of his ) which , I should be extremely wanting both to him and the Cause now before me , should I not , with all due Address , pass upon him . And this will add three or four Chapters more to the former , and so conclude this Work. And First , To begin with the first of these , I shall endeavour to prove , That Self-Consciousness is not the formal Reason of Personality in the Three Divine Persons . In order to which , I shall premise and lay down these following Considerations . Consideration 1. That although the Divine Nature be one Pure , Simple , Indivisible Act , yet in our Conceptions of it ( which are always inadequate to it ) there is a Natural Order of Prius and Posterius founded in the Universal Reason of Things ( according to which , the Conception of one Thing presupposes , and depends upon the Conception of another ) which , though it can make no Prius or Posterius in the Divine Nature , yet is by no means to be contradicted , or confounded in our discoursing of God ; forasmuch as without our admitting this Rule it is impossible for any Humane Understanding either to Conceive , or Discourse consistently ; or intelligibly of Him at all . Consideration 2. ( Which , I think , affords us a Rule safely and universally to be relied upon ) is this , That in Things having a dependence between them , where we may form to our selves a clear and distinct Conception of one Thing , without implying , or involving in it the Conception of any other Thing , there that Thing is in Order of Nature precedent to all those Things which are not essentially included in the Conception of it . Thus , for instance , we may have a clear and distinct Conception of Entity and Being , and of Unity too , without entertaining in our Mind , at the same time , any Notion , or Conception of knowledge at all ; and therefore the Ratio Entitativa , of any Thing must needs in Nature precede the Ratio Cognitiva , as well as Cognoscibilis of the same . Consideration 3. We must distinguish between the Affections ; or Modes of Being ( as they are strictly so called ) and between the Attributes of it . The first sort are reckoned of the same Order with Being it self , and so precede whatsoever is consequent upon it , as the Attributes of it are accounted to be ; which relate to the Being or Subject they belong to , as things in Order of Nature Posterior to it . Accordingly in the first rank are Existence , Subsistence , Personality , &c. and in the second are all Acts issuing from a Nature , or Subject so Subsisting ; whether they be of Knowledge , Volition , Power , Duration , or the like : The Denominations derived from which , are properly called Attributes . Consideration 4. Though there can be no Accidents inhering in God , yet there may be Accidental Predications belonging to him . And I call those Accidental , which are not Necessary , or Essential . Such as are all Extrinsecal Denominations of him founded on such Acts of God , as were perfectly free for him to do , or not to do ; nothing in the Divine Nature obliging him thereto . Of which number are the Denominations , or Predicates of Creatour , Redeemer , and the like : Since there was nothing in God that made it necessary for him to be so . Consideration 5. When the Terms [ Cause , Formal Reason , Constituent ; or productive Principle , and the like ] are used about the Divine Nature , and Persons , they are not to be understood as applicable to them in the strict and proper signification of the said Terms , but only by way of Analogy ; as really meaning no more than a Causal , or Necessary Dependence of one Notion , or Conceptus objectivus upon another ; so that it is impossible for the Mind to Conceive distinctly of the one , but as depending upon , or proceeding from the other . Consideration 6. That the Divine Nature may with all fair Accord to the Rules of Divinity and Philosophy be Considered as Prescinding , or Abstracting ( though not as divided ) from the Divine Persons . Consideration 7. That whatsoever is Essentially included in the Divine Nature thus Considered , is equally Common and Communicable to all the Divine Persons . Consideration 8. That whatsoever is the proper Formal Reason of Personality , is utterly Incommunicable to any Thing , or Person beyond , or beside the Person to whom it belongs . Consideration 9. That for any Absolute Perfection essentially included , or implyed in the Divine Nature to be multiplyed in the Three Persons belonging to it , is a manifest Multiplication of the Divine Nature it self in the said Persons . By which we are given to understand the difference between the Multiplication , and the Communication of the Divine Nature to those Persons . These Rules , I thought fit to draw up and lay down before-hand , in order to the use which we shall have of them in the ensuing Disputation . And so I proceed to my Arguments against this Author's New Notion of Self-Consciousness , with reference to the Persons of the Blessed Trinity . And the First is This : Argument I. No Personal Act can be the formal Reason of Personality in the Person , whose Act it is . But Self-Consciousness is a Personal Act , and therefore Self-Consciousness cannot be the formal Reason of Personality in the Person , whose Act it is , and to whom personally it belongs . The Minor , I suppose , neither our Author Himself , nor any one else , can deny . For if Self-Consciousness be not a Personal Act , let any one assign what else it is , or what it ought to pass for . It is certainly an Act of Knowledge , by which each Person knows and comprehends himself , and whatsoever belongs to him . The Major Proposition therefore is to be proved , viz. That no Personal Act can be the formal Reason of Personality in the Person whose Act it is . And I prove it thus : The formal Reason of every Thing , is in order of Nature , before the Thing of which it is the formal Reason ; but no Personal Act is , in order of Nature , before the Personality of the Person whose Act it is , and therefore it cannot be the formal Reason of his Personality . The Major is Self-evident . And as for the Minor , That no Personal Act is before the Personality of the Person whose Act it is ; This also is manifest ; Because such an Act cannot be before the Person himself , and therefore not before his Personality : For as much as his Personality is that by which he is formally a Person ; so that it is impossible to be before the one without being before the other too . And now , that it cannot be before the Person himself , is manifest from hence , that as every Personal Act in general bears a Relation of Posteriority to the Person to whom it belongs , as to the Cause or Productive Principle of all the Acts proceeding from Him ; so this particular Act of Self-Consciousness , bears a Treble Relation of Posteriority to the Person whose Act it is , viz. as to the Agent or Principle producing it . 2. As to the Subject Recipient of it , and sustaining it . And Thirdly and Lastly , As to the Object which it is terminated to . All which Respects it sustains , not barely as it is an Act , but partly as it is an Immanent Act , and partly also a Reflex Act. In the first place therefore , every Person being the Agent , or Productive Cause of all the personal Acts issuing from Him , he must upon that Account , in Order of Nature , precede the said Acts ; and consequently every Divine Person must in Nature be before that Act of Self-Consciousness , which personally belongs to him . And moreover since it is likewise an Immanent Act , it relates to him , as the Subject in which it is , as well as the Cause from which it is , and upon that Account also , must bear a Natural Posteriority to Him. And then lastly , as it is also a Reflex Act , by which the Person knows himself to be a Person , and is Conscious to Himself , what he is , and what he does , it terminates upon him as its Object also . So that the Cause , the Subject , and the Object of this Act being the same Person , in this last respect , no less than in the two former , it bears another and third Relation of Posteriority to Him ; since every Act , not productive of something besides , and without the Agent , is in Order of Nature Posterior to the Object it terminates upon . From all which I conclude , That that Act of Self-Consciousness , by which each Divine Person knows , or is Conscious to Himself of his own Personality , cannot be the Formal Reason of the said Personality , without being , in Order of Nature , both before it , and after it too , viz. Before it , as it is the Formal Reason of it , and yet Posterior to it , as it is an Act proceeding from , lodged and received in , and lastly , Terminated upon the same Person . All which is so very plain , that hardly can any Thing be plainer : And indeed , the very word Self-Consciousness contradicts and overthrows its being the ground , or Formal Reason of Personality . For still Self must be before Consciousness ; and Self imports Personality ; as being that , by which a Person is said to be , what he is ; and they both stand united in this one Word , as the Act and the Object , and therefore Consciousness cannot be the Reason of it . Or to express the same Thing by other Terms , Self-Subsistence must precede Self-Consciousness , and Self-Subsistence here implys Personality ; and therefore Personality , upon the same Account , must in Nature precede Self-Consciousness , and consequently cannot be the formal Effect , or Result of it . For , surely , according to the most Essential Order of Things , a Person must be what he is , before he can know what he is . And this Argument , I confess , being founded upon the Priority of Subsistence to all Acts , and particularly to those of knowledge in every Person Self-Conscious , does , and must Universally run through all Instances , in which Personality and Self-Consciousness , with reference to one another , come to be treated of . And as it affects Self-Consciousness , so it will equally take place in Mutual-Consciousness too . What Allowances are to be here made for the absolute Simplicity , Eternity , and Pure Actuality of the Divine Nature and Persons ( when these Notions are applyed to them ) we have already observed , in the first of those Preliminary Considerations mentioned in this Chapter . The proper use and design of all which Notions , is to lead , guide , and direct our Apprehensions about that Great Object , so much too big for our Narrow Faculties ; so that whatsoever contradicts the Natural Order of these Apprehensions ought upon no ground of Reason to be admitted in our Discourses of the Divine Nature , how much soever it may and does transcend the said Apprehensions . And this must be allowed us , or we must sink under the vast Disproportion of the thing before us , and not discourse of it at all . For I cannot think , that the Word Self-Consciousness has brought the Deity one jot lower to us , or raised our Understandings one degree higher and nearer to that . Argument II. My Second Argument against Self-Consciousness being the Formal Reason of Personality in the Divine Persons , is this : Nothing in the Nature of it Absolute and Irrelative can be the Formal Reason of Personality in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity ; but Self-Consciousness is in the Nature of it Absolute and Irrelative ; and therefore it cannot be the Reason of personality in any of the said Persons . Now the Major Proposition is proved thus . Nothing in the Nature of it Absolute can be the Formal Reason of any Thing in the Nature of it purely and perfectly Relative . But the Personality of every one of the Divine Persons is purely and perfectly Relative ; and therefore Nothing Absolute can be the Formal Constituent Reason of their Personality . The Major of which Syllogism is also manifest . For Things Essentially different , and thereby uncapable of being affirmed of one another , cannot possibly be the Formal Reason of one another . And , that the Persons in the Blessed Trinity are purely Relative to one another , and consequently , that their Personalities are so many Relations , is no less evident from this , That Two of them relate to one another , as Father and Son , and the Third to Both , as proceeding from Both ; and it is impossible for one Thing to proceed from another , especially by a Continual Act of Procession , without Importing a Relation to that from which it so proceeds ; so that the very personal Subsistence of these Persons implys and carries in it a Formal Relation . For the Father Subsists personally as a Father , by that Eternal Communication of his Nature to his Son ; which Act , as proceeding from him , is called Generation , and renders him Formally a Father , and as Terminated in the Son , is called Filiation , and Constitutes him Formally a Son ; and in like manner the Holy Ghost Subsists personally by that Act of Procession , by which he proceeds from , and relates to both the Father and the Son. So that , that proper Mode of Subsistence ( by which in Conjunction with the Divine Essence always included in it , each of them is rendred a Person ) is wholly Relative , and so belongs to one of them , that it also bears a Necessary reference to another . From all which , it undeniably follows , That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity , are in the Formal Constitution of them Relative to one another ; and consequently , That the Three Personalities , by which they become Formally Three Persons , and are so denominated , are Three Eternal Relations . But now , for the Minor Proposition in the first Syllogism , viz. That Self-Consciousness is a Thing in the Nature of it Absolute and Irrelative , that , I think , can need but little Proof ; it being that Act by which each Person intimately knows , and is Conscious to himself of his own Being , Acts , Motions , and every Thing personally belonging to him ; so that , as such , it terminates within , and looks no further than that one Person , whom it is an Entire Survey and Comprehension of . And as it is an Absolute and Irrelative Term , so it may be Conceived distinctly and fully without Conceiving , or implying the Conception of any Thing , or Person besides . And now , what Relation does or can such an Act of Self-Consciousness imply in it ? It is indeed on the contrary , a direct Contradiction to all that is Relative . For it incloses the Person wholly within himself ; neither pointing nor looking further , nor referring to any one else . If it be here said , That each Person , by an Act of Self-Consciousness , intimately knows the Relation which he stands in to the other Two Persons . To this , I Answer Two Things . 1. That to know a Thing or Person to be Relative , or to be Conscious of the Relation belonging to it or him , does not make that Act of Knowledge to be either a Relation , or of a Relative Nature . 2. I Answer , That this very Thing proves Self-Consciousness not to be the Constituent Reason of Personality . For , if the Father knows himself to be a Father by an Act of Self-Consciousness , it is evident , That Self-Consciousness did not make him so : but that he was a Father , and had the Relation of a Father , and thereby a Personality belonging to him as such , in Order of Nature Antecedent to this Act of Self-Consciousness ; and therefore that this Self-Consciousness cannot be the Reason of the Relation , nor of the Personality implyed in it . Forasmuch as it is in several respects Posterior to the Person whom it belongs to , as in the foregoing Argument we have abundantly shewn . But to take a particular and distinct Account of this Notion , in the several Persons of the Trinity ; Does the Father become a Father by being Conscious to himself , that he is so , or rather by that Act by which he Communicates his Nature to , and thereby generates a Son ? Or does the Son's Relation to the Father consist in his being Conscious to himself of this Relation ? Or Lastly , does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and the Son , and so personally relate to both by that Act of Self-Consciousness , by which he is Conscious to himself of this Procession ? All this is Absurd , Unnatural , and Impossible . For no Person is related to another by that Act of Self-Consciousness , by which he knows and reflects Personally upon himself . And yet it is certain , That to be a Father , is a Relative Subsistence , and to be a Son depending upon the Father by an Eternal Act of Generation perpetually begetting him , is also to have a Relative Subsistence ; and lastly , to be Eternally proceeding from Both , as the Holy Ghost is , must likewise import a Way or Mode of Subsisting altogether as Relative as the Two former . In which three ways of Subsistence consist the Personalities of the Three Persons respectively ; and upon these Self-Consciousness can have no Constituting Influence at all ; as being an Act quite of another Nature ; to wit , Absolute and Irrelative , and resting wholly within the Person , whom it belongs to . From all which , I conclude , That Self-Consciousness neither is , nor can be the Formal Reason of Personality in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity . And this Argument I take to have the force and clearness of a Demonstration . Argument III. The Third Argument is this . If Self-Consciousness be the Formal Reason of Personality in the Three Divine Persons , then there is no Repugnancy in the Nature and Reason of the Thing it self , but that there might be Three Thousand Persons in the Deity as well as Three . But this is Absurd , and therefore so must that be likewise from which it follows . The Consequence appears from this , That there is no Repugnancy but that there might be so many Self-Consciousnesses , or Self-Conscious Minds or Spirits , for the Deity to Communicate it self to : And therefore , if Self-Consciousness be the Formal Reason of Personality , there is no Repugnancy , but that there might be Three Thousand Persons in the God-head , as well as Three . The Proposition is proved thus . Because this Repugnancy ( if there be any ) must be either from the Nature of Self-Consciousness , in the several Self-Conscious Minds or Spirits it belongs to , or from the Nature of the God-head , which is to be Communicated to them . But it is from neither of them , For First , there is nothing in the Nature of Self-Consciousness to hinder its Multiplication into never so great a Number of Particulars ; but that there may be Three Thousand , or Three Millions of Self-Conscious Minds or Spirits , as well as Three . Nor , in the next place , is there any Repugnancy on the Part of the God-head , That Three Thousand Self-Conscious Spirits should subsist in it any more than that Three should : For the Godhead considered precisely and abstractedly in it self ( and not as actually included in any Person ) is as able to Communicate it self to the greatest Number as to the smallest . If it be here said , That the Three Persons are not only Three Self-Conscious Spirits , but also Three distinct Infinite Self-Conscious Spirits , ( as our Author says they are , and of which , more in the next Chapter . ) I Answer , That there may be as well Three Thousand distinct infinite Spirits as Three . For Infinity is as much inconsistent with the least Plurality of Infinites , as with the greatest ; and therefore if it be no Repugnancy , that there should be Three distinct Infinite Minds , neither is there that there should be Three Thousand . So that if Self-Consciousness be the Formal Reason of Personality , there appears no Repugnancy either from the Nature of Self-Consciousness , or the Number of the Spirits endued with it , nor from the [ supposed ] Infinity of the said Spirits , no nor yet from the Nature of the God-head it self , but that there might be Three Thousand Persons in it as well as Three . But how then comes there to be only Three ? Why , upon these grounds no other Reason can be assigned for it , but only that it was God's free Determination that there should be Three and no more . And then the Trinity of Persons must be an Effect of God's Will , and not a Necessary Condition of the Divine Nature ; and the further Consequence of this must be , that the three Persons are Three Created Beings , as proceeding from the free Results of God's Will , by vertue whereof they equally might , or might not have been . But on the contrary our Author himself holds Page 129. line 13. That the Three Persons are Essential to the Divine Nature , and so Essential to it , that they necessarily belong to it in this number , and can be neither more nor fewer than Three . And if this be so , I am sure it is a Contradiction that it should be otherwise : for it is a Contradiction , that it should not be , which necessarily is , and cannot but be . But now I have proved , that there is no Repugnancy or Contradiction to the Nature of Things considered barely according to their Nature , that three thousand Self-Conscious Minds or Spirits should subsist in the Godhead any more than that three such Spirits should so subsist . And therefore if it be Absurd , and Impossible , ( as undoubtedly it is ) that so many Persons should belong to the Divine Nature , then must the Reason of this Absurdity be fetched from some other Thing , than either from Self-Consciousness , with reference to the Divine Nature , or from the Divine Nature , ( considered in it self abstractedly from all Actual Personality : ) for these , as we have shewn , afford no sufficient Proof of this Absurdity . And therefore , I say , some other Reason must be found out , and assigned against it . And accordingly , let this Author produce such an one ( whatsoever it be ) as shall solidly and conclusively prove , That there cannot be Three Thousand Self-Conscious Persons belonging to the Godhead , and that from the Nature of the Thing it self ( as several such Reasons may be brought ) and I will undertake to him to prove , by the very same Reason and Argument as Conclusively , That Self-Consciousness is not , cannot be the Formal Reason of Personality in the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity . In the mean time , by that kind of Arguing , which is called Deductio ad Absurdum , I have sufficiently disproved it , by shewing what an Intolerable Absurdity must follow the Asserting it . Argument IV. The Fourth and Last Argument shall proceed thus . If Three distinct Self-Conciousnesses Formally Constitute Three distinct Personalities , then Three distinct Self-Complacencies will Constitute Three distinct Personalities too . But our Author , Isuppose , will not allow of the latter , and therefore neither ought he to assert the former . The Consequence is plain . Because there is no Reason alleagable ( according to our Author's Hypothesis ) why Self-Complacency may not found a Personality as well as Sels-Consciousness . For they are both of them equally distinct Internal Acts in the Person whom they belong to ; and as to the Formal Effect of each , an Act of Self-Complacency seems to have the Preheminence ; since it is a greater Perfection to be United to an Infinite Good , that is , to the Deity , by way of Love and Adhesion , than barely by way of knowledge and Intellection . And Self-Complacency is the former , whereas Self-Consciousness rises no higher than the latter . And consequently since Self-Complacency is the more Perfective Act of the two ( knowledge of good being still in order to the Love of it ) and since withall Personality is the most perfect way of Subsisting , which any Nature is capable of , it seems most rational to derive the perfectest way of Subsistence , belonging to an Intelligent Being , from the most Perfective Act of that Being ; if from any Act at all . And now if this Author should Object , That Self-Complacency , is in Order of Nature Subsequent to Self-Consciousness ; and so , that there cannot be the same ground to make it the Formal Reason of Personality , that there is , to make Self-Consciousness so . I Answer , That , according to my Principle , whereby I deny Self-Consciousness to be the Reason of Personality , because it is postnate to Self-Subsistence , it is , indeed , a good Reason ; but according to our Author's Hypothesis , it is none at all . For if the Priority of Self-Subsistence to Self-Consciousness ( according to him ) hinders not but that Self-Consciousness may nevertheless be the Principle or Reason of Personality , why should the precedency of Self-Consciousness to Self-Complacency , hinder Self-Complacency from being as proper a Reason or Principle to found Personality upon , as the other . All this I alledge only as an Argument ad Hominem ; and desire this Author to consider , if any one should borrow some of that Boldness of him , by which he dissents from all Antiquity , and confidently averr , That Self-Complacency is the Proper formal Reason of Personality in each and every one of the Divine Persons , I would have him , I say , consider by what Reason or Argument , consistent with his New Opinion he could Confute this other New Assertion . For my own part , since I think as much may be said for the one as for the other , I am ready to set up for Self-Complacency against his Self-Consciousness , when he pleases ; and will undertake to give as good Reasons for my Notion , as he can sor his , and perhaps better ; let him begin and enter into the Dispute , as soon as he will. And as I shall oppose my Self-Complacency to his Self-Consciousness , so I shall find out a Mutual-Complacency to Vye against his Mutual-Consciousness too . And if any one should here object , That this and the like Disputes are of that Nature , that the World is not like to be much Edified by them ; I , perhaps , think so as much as he : But that is no great matter ; since our Author is of so very Benign a Temper , That he does not always Write only for the Reader 's Edification , but sometimes for his Diversion too . Having thus given my Reasons against this Author's New Notion of Self-Consciousness , both with reference to Persons Create and Uncreate , and proved , That it neither is , nor can be the Formal Reason of Personality in either of them : I shall now pass to his other New Notion of Mutual-Consciousness , whereby those Persons , who were distinguished from one another by their respective Self-Consciousnesses , are United and made one in Nature by vertue of this Mutual-Consciousness . Concerning which Notion also , I must profess my self in the number of those who are by no means satisfied with it , as of any such peculiar Efficacy to the use and purpose it is here brought for . And there are sufficient Reasons against it . In giving of which , as I must acknowledge , That that one Consideration of the Priority of Being ( whether Essentially , or Personally considered ) together with the first Modes and Affections of it , to any Act of Knowledge Attributable to the said Being , is the Fundamental Principle upon which I impugn this Author's New Hypothesis ; so it does and must ( as I have noted ) run through all , or most of the parts of this Disputation , both about Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness too . And accordingly , in the first place I Argue against it thus . Argument I. No Act of Knowledge can be the Formal Reason of an Unity of Nature in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity : But an Act of Mutual-Consciousness , is an Act of Knowledge ; And therefore no Act of Mutual-Consciousness can be the Formal Reason of an Unity of Nature in the Three Divine Persons . The Major I prove thus . Every Act of Knowledge supposes the Unity of a Thing , or Being from which that Act flows , as Antecedent to it , and therefore cannot be the Formal Reason of the said Being . For still I affirm , that Being , and consequently Unity of Being ( which is the first Affection of it ) must in Order of Nature precede Knowledge , and all other the like Attributes of Being . And if so , no Attribute Subsequent to a Thing , can be the Formal Reason of that Thing , which it is thus , in Order of Nature , Subsequent to . For neither can Omniscience it self ( one of the greatest and most acknowledged Attributes of the Divine Nature ) be said to be the Reason either of the Being , or of the Unity of the said Nature : And therefore neither can any Act of Knowledge whatsoever be so . This is my first Argument , which I think sufficient fairly to propose , without any farther Amplification . Argument II. If Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons be the Cause , Reason , or Principle of Mutual-Consciousness in the said Persons , then their Mutual-Consciousness is not the Cause or Reason of the Unity of their Nature : But the former is true , and therefore the latter is so too . As for the Consequence of the Major Proposition , it is as evident , as , that Nothing can be the Cause and Effect of the same Thing . And for the Minor , That Unity of Nature , or Essence in the Divine Persons is the Cause , Reason , or Principle of Mutual-Consciousness , is proved from this , That we can no otherwise conceive of Mutual-Consciousness , than as of an Essential Property equally belonging to all the Three Persons : And all Properties , or Internal Attributes , are accounted to issue and result from the Essence or Nature of the Things which they belong to ; and therefore can have no Antecedent Causal Influx upon the said Nature , so as to Constitute either the Being , or the Unity thereof . But the Divine Nature or Essence being one and the same in all the Three Persons , there is , upon this Account , one and the same Knowledge in them also . And they are not one in Nature , by vertue of their Mutual-Consciousness ; but they are therefore Mutually Conscious , because the perfect Unity and Identity of their Nature , makes them so . And to Assert the contrary , is of the like import ( still allowing for the Disproportion of an Infinite and Finite Nature ) as if we should make Risibility in a Man , the Principle of his Individuation , and affirm , That Peter's having this Property , is that which Constitutes him this particular Individual Man ; which is egregiously absurd in all the Philosophy I ever yet met with , whatsoever it may be in this Author's . Argument III. To affirm Mutual-Consciousness to be the Cause of the Union of the Three Divine Persons , in the same Nature , is to confound the Union and Communion of the said Persons together : But such a confusion ought by no means to be allowed of : and therefore neither ought that to be Asserted , from whence it follows . Now certain it is , That all Acts of several Persons upon one another ( as all that are Mutual must needs be ) are properly Acts of Communion , by which the said Persons have an Intercourse amongst themselves , as acting interchangeably one upon the other . But then , no doubt , both their Essence and Personality , must still go before this Mutual-Consciousness , since the Three Persons must needs be really one in Nature before they can know themselves to be so . And therefore Union of Knowledge ( as I think Mutual-Consciousness may properly be called ) cannot give an Union of Nature . It may indeed suppose it , it may result from it , and upon the same Account may infer and prove it , but it can never give or cause it , nor be that Thing or Act , wherein an Unity of Nature does properly consist , whatsoever this Author Asserts to the contrary . But the Truth is , all that he has said both of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness ( and he has no more than said it , as never offering at the Proof of any Thing ) is founded in a manifest Perversion of that Natural Order , in which Humane Reason Conceives and Discourses of Things : Which Order ( to give an Instance of it in our discoursing of any particular Person , or Complete Being ) proceeds by these steps . First we conceive of this Person as possessed of a certain Essence or Nature Constituting or rendring him what he is . Then we conceive of this Nature as one , which is the first Affection resulting from Being . After this we consider this Being , as stepping forth , or exerting it self in some Acts , whether of Intellection , Volition , Power , or the like . In which whole process the Order of these Conceptions is such , That it cannot , with any Accord to Reason , be transposed , so as to have the second or third put into the place of the first . But now let us see how contrary to this Order our Author's Hypothesis proceeds . For whereas Nature or Being should be first , Unity next , and the Acts issuing from thence obtain the Third place , and then those Acts stand in their due Order amongst themselves . This Author , on the contrary , makes Mutual-Consciousness , which is by two Degrees , or Removes posterior to Unity of Nature ( in the Persons whom it belongs to ) to be the Cause or Formal Reason of the said Unity . For first Self-Consciousness is posterior to this Unity , and then Mutual-Consciousness is posterior to Self-Consciousness , as being an Act supervening upon it . For Mutual-Consciousness is that Act by which each Person comprehends , or is Conscious of the Self-Consciousness of the other two ; and therefore must needs presuppose them , as the Act must needs do its Object . And therefore to make ( as this Author does ) Mutual-Consciousness the Constituent Reason of the Unity of the Three Persons , when this Unity is by two degrees , in Order of Nature , before it , runs so plainly counter to all the Methods of true Reasoning , that it would be but time lost to pursue it with any further Confutation . Argument IV. Our 4th and last Argument proceeds equally against Mutual-Consciousness and Self-Consciousness too ; and is taken from that known Maxime in Philosophy , That Entities , or Beings , are not to be multiplied without manifest Necessity : That is , we are not to admit of New Things , nor to coin new Notions , where such as are known and long received are sufficient to give us a true and full Account of the Nature of the Things we discourse of , and to answer all the Ends and Purposes of Argumentation . Accordingly I affirm , That the Notions of Mutual-Consciousness and Self-Consciousness in the Subject now before us ought to be rejected not only as New and Suspicious , but as wholly Needless . For what can be signified by those , which is not fully , clearly , and abundantly signified by that one plain Word , and known Attribute , the Divine Omniscience ? And what are Mutual-Consciousness and Self-Consciousness else ( if they are any thing ) but one and the same Omniscience exerting it self several ways , and upon several Objects ? As to apply it to the Matter before us ; does not every one of the Divine Persons , by vertue of the Divine Nature , and of this Omniscience therewith belonging to him , Perfectly , Intimately , and Intirely know himself as a Person , and all the Actions , Motions , and every thing else belonging to him ? No doubt he does ; for that otherwise he could not be Omniscient . And does not the same Person again , by the very same Omniscience , know all that is known by the other Two Persons , and the other Two Persons by the same Mutually know all that is known by him ? No doubt they may and do : Forasmuch as Omniscience knows all things that are knowable , and consequently all that is or can be known of , or in any one or all of the Divine Persons joyntly or severally considered . But to argue the Matter yet more particularly . Either Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness are one and the same with the Divine Omniscience , or they are distinct sorts of knowledge from it . If they are the same , then they are useless and superfluous Notions , as we affirm they are ; but if they import distinct sorts of knowledge , then these two Things will follow . 1. That in every one of the Divine Persons there are three distinct sorts of Knowledge , viz. A Knowledge of Omniscience , a Knowledge of Self-Consciousness , and a Knowledge of Mutual-Consciousness too ; which , I think , is very absurd and ridiculous . 2. And in the next place : If we affirm them to be distinct sorts of Knowledge from that of Omniscience , then they must also have Objects distinct from , and not included in the Object of Omniscience ; since all such difference , either of sorts or Acts of Knowledge is founded upon the difference of their Objects . But this is impossible ; since the Object of Omniscience comprehends in it all that is knowable ; and consequently if Mutual-Consciousness and Self-Consciousness have Objects distinct from , and not included in the Object of Omniscience , those Objects must be something that is not knowable ; for that Omniscience ( as we have shewn ) claims all that is knowable , or possible to be known , for its own Object . From all which it follows , That Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness considered as distinct from Omniscience are two empty Chimerical Words , without any distinct Sense , or Signification . In a word , Every Person in the Trinity , by one and the same Act of Omniscience , knows all the Internal Acts , Motions , and Relations proper both to himself , and to the other Two Persons besides . And if so , what imployment or use can there be for Self-Consciousness , or Mutual-Consciousness , which Omniscience ( that takes in the Objects of both ) has not fully answered and discharged already ? If it be here said , That Omniscience cannot give Personality ; forasmuch as the Personality of each Person distinguishes him from the other two ; which Omniscience ( being common to them all ) cannot do . This I grant , and own it impossible for any Thing Essentially involved in the Divine Nature , to give a Personal Distinction to any of the Three Persons ; but then I add also , That we have equally proved , that neither was Self-Consciousness , the Formal Reason of this Personal Distinction , by several Arguments ; and more especially , because that Self-Consciousness being a Thing Absolute and Irrelative , could not be the Formal Reason of any thing in the Nature of it perfectly Relative , as the Divine Persons certainly are . For this is a received Maxime in the Schools , with reference to the Divine Nature and Persons , Repugnat in Divinis dari Absolutum Incommunicabile , Greg. de Valen. 1 Tom. p. 874. And it is a sure Rule , whereby we may distinguish in every one of the Divine Persons , what is Essential , from what is Personal . For every Attribute that is Absolute , is Communicable , and consequently Essential , and every one that is purely Relative , is Incommunicable , and therefore purely Personal , and so è converso : Upon which Account Self-Consciousness , which is a Thing Absolute and Irrelative , cannot be Incommunicable , nor consequently the Formal Reason of Personality in any of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity ; as we have already at large demonstrated . So that still our Assertion stands good , That all that can be truly ascribed to Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness with reference to the Divine Nature and Persons , may be fully and fairly accounted for from that one known Attribute , the Divine Omniscience . And therefore , that there Is no use at all either of the Term Self-Consciousness or Mutual-Consciousness , to contribute to the plainer or fuller Explication of the Blessed Trinity ; as this Author , with great fluster of Ostentation pretends , but has not yet by so much as one solid Argument proved . But when I consider how wonderfully pleased the Man is with these two new-started Terms so high in sound , and so empty of sence , instead of one substantial word , which gives us all that can be pretended useful in them , with vast overplus and advantage , and even swallows them up , as Moses's Rod did those pitiful Tools of the Magicians ; This ( I say ) brings to my Mind ( whether I will or no ) a certain Story of a Grave Person , who Riding in the Road with his Servant , and finding himself something uneasy in his Saddle , bespoke his Servant thus . John ( says he ) a-light ; and first take off the Saddle that is upon my Horse , and then take off the Saddle that is upon your Horse ; and when you have done this , put the Saddle that was upon my Horse , upon your Horse , and put the Saddle that was upon your Horse upon my Horse : Whereupon the Man , who had not studied the Philosophy of Saddles ( whether Ambling or Trotting ) so exactly , as his Master , replys something short upon him ; Lord ! Master , What needs all these Words ? Could you not as well have said , Let us change Saddles ? Now I must confess , I think the Servant was much in the right ; though the Master having a Rational Head of his own , and being withal willing to make the Notion of changing Saddles more plain , easie and intelligible , and to give a clearer Explication of that word , ( which his Fore-Fathers , how good Horse-men soever they might have been , yet were not equally happy in the explaining of ) was pleased to set it forth by that more full and accurate Circumlocution . And here it is not unlikely but that this Author , who , with a spight equally Malicious and Ridiculous , has reflected upon one of his Antagonists , and that for no Cause , or Provocation that appears ( unless for having Baffled him ) may tax me also , as one Drolling upon Things sacred , for representing the vanity of his Hypothesis by the forementioned Example and Comparison . But I hope the World will give me leave to distinguish between Things Sacred , and his Absurd Phantastick way of treating of them ; which , I can , by no means look upon as Sacred , nor indeed any Thing else in his whole Book , but the bare Subject it treats of , and the Scriptures there quoted by him . For to speak my thoughts plainly , I believe this Sacred Mystery of the Trinity , was never so ridiculed and exposed to the Contempt of the Profane Scoffers at it , as it has been by this New-fashioned Defence of it . And so I dismiss his two so much Admired Terms ( by himself I mean ) as in no degree answering the Expectation he raised of them . For I cannot find , That they have either heightned or strength'ned Men's Intellectual Faculties , or cast a greater light and clearness upon that Object which has so long exercised them ; but that a Trinity in Unity is as Mysterious as ever ; and the Mind of Man as unable to grasp and comprehend it , as it has been from the beginning of Christianity to this day . In a word , Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness have rendred nothing about the Divine Nature and Persons , plainer , easier , and more Intelligible ; nor indeed , after such a mighty stress so irrationally laid upon two slight empty words , have they made any thing ( but the Author himself ) better understood than it was before . CHAP. V. In which is proved against this Author , That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity , are not Three Distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , IT being certain both from Philosophy and Religion , that there is but one only God , or God-head , in which Christian Religion has taught us , That there are Three Persons ; Many Eminent Professors of it have attempted to shew , how one and the same Nature might Subsist in Three Persons , and how the said Three Persons might meet in one , and make no more than one simple , undivided Nature . It had been to be wished , I confess , that Divines had rested in the bare Expressions delivered in Scripture concerning this Mystery , and ventured no further by any particular , and bold Explications of it . But since the Nature , or rather Humour of Man has been still too strong for his Duty , and his Curiosity ( especially in things Sacred ) been apt to carry him too far ; those , however , have been all along the most pardonable , who have ventured least , and proceeded upon the surest grounds both of Scripture it self , and of Reason discoursing upon it . And such I affirm the Ancient Writers and Fathers of the Church , and after them the School-men to have been ; who with all their Faults ( or rather Infelicities , caused by the Times and Circumstances they lived in ) are better Divines , and Soberer Reasoners than any of those Pert , Confident , Raw Men , who are much better at Despising and Carping at them , than at Reading and Understanding them : Though Wise Men Despise nothing , but they will know it first ; and for that Cause very rationally despise them . But among those , who leaving the Common Road of the Church have took a By-way to themselves , none ( of late Years especially ) have ventured so boldly and so far as this Author ; who pretending to be more happy ( forsooth ) in his Explication of this Mystery than all before him ( as who would not believe a Man in his own Commendation ? ) and to give a more satisfactory Account of this long received , and Revered Article by Terms perfectly New , and peculiarly his own , has advanced quite different Notions about this Mystery , from any that our Church was ever yet acquainted with ; Affirming , ( as he does ) That the Three Persons in the God-head , are Three Distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , as will appear from the several places of his Book , where he declares his Thoughts upon this great Subject . As , First in Page 50. he says , The Three Divine Persons , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are Three Infinite Minds really distinct from each other . Again , in Page 66. The Persons ( says he ) are perfectly distinct ; for they are Three distinct and Infinite Minds , and therefore Three distinct Persons : For a Person is an Intelligent Being ; and to say , they are Three Divine Persons , and not Three distinct Infinite Minds , is both Heresie and Nonsense . For which extraordinary Complement passed upon the whole Body of the Church of England , and perhaps all the Churches of Christendom besides , as I have paid him part of my thanks already , so I will not fail yet further to account with him before I put an end to this Chapter . In the mean time , he goes on , in Page 102. I plainly assert ( says he ) That as the Father is an Eternal and Infinite Mind , so the Son is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct from the Father , and the Holy Ghost is an Eternal and Infinite Mind distinct both from Father and Son : Adding withall these words ; Which ( says he ) every Body can understand without any skill in Logick , or Metaphysicks . And this , I confess , is most truly and seasonably remarked by him : For the want of this Qualification is so far from being any hindrance in the Case mentioned , that I dare undertake , that nothing but want of skill in Logick and Metaphysicks , can bring any Man living , who acknowledges the Trinity , to own this Assertion . I need repeat no more of his Expressions to this purpose ; these being sufficient to declare his Opinion ; save only that in Page 119. where ( he says ) That Three Minds , or Spirits , which have no other difference , are yet distinguish'd by Self-Consciousness , and are Three distinct Spirits . And that other in Page 258. where speaking of the Three Persons , I grant ( says he ) that they are Three Holy Spirits . By the same Token , that he there very Learnedly distinguishes between Ghost and Spirit , allowing the said Three Persons ( as we have shewn ) to be Three Holy Spirits , but at the same time denying them to be Three Holy Ghosts , and this with great scorn of those who should hold , or speak otherwise . To which at present I shall say no more but this , That he would do well to turn these two Propositions into Greek , or Latin ; and that will presently shew him what difference and distinction there is between a Ghost and a Spirit , and why the very same things which are affirmed of the one ( notwithstanding the difference of those words in English ) may not , with the same Truth , be affirmed of the other also . But the Examination of this odd Assertion will fall in more naturally towards the latter end of this Chapter , where it shall be particularly considered . I have now shewn this Author's Judgment in the Point , and in opposition to what he has so boldly Asserted , and laid down , I do here deny , That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity , are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Three distinct Infinite Spirits . And to overthrow his Assertion , and evince the Truth of mine , I shall trouble neither my Reader nor my self , with many Arguments . But of those , which I shall make use of , the first is this . Argument I. Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , are Three distinct Gods. But the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity , are not Three distinct Gods. And therefore the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity , are not three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . The Minor , I suppose , this Author will readily concur with me in ; howbeit his Hypothesis ( as shall be shewn ) in the certain Consequences of it Contradicts it , and , if it should stand , would effectually overturn it . For by that he asserts a perfect Tritheisme , though I have so much Charity for him , as to believe , that he does not know it . The Major Proposition therefore is that which must be debated between us . This Author holds it in the Negative , and I in the Affirmative : and my Reason for what I affirm , viz. That Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , are Three distinct Gods , is this , That God and Infinite Mind , or Spirit , are Terms Equipollent , and Convertible . God being truly and properly an Infinite Mind , or Spirit , and an Infinite Mind or Spirit being as truly and properly God. And to shew this Convertibility and Commensuration between them yet further : Whatsoever may be affirmed or denied of the one , may with equal Truth and Propriety be affirmed or denied of the other . And to give an Instance of this with reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity ; As it is true , that one and the same God , or God-head is Common to , and Subsists in all and every one of the Three Persons ; so is it true , That one and the same Infinite Mind , or Spirit , is Common to , and Subsists in the said Three Persons : And consequently , as it is false , That one and the same God , or God-head , by being Common to , and Subsisting in the Three Persons , becomes Three Gods , or Three God-heads ; so is it equally false , That one and the same Infinite Mind , or Spirit , by being Common to , and Subsisting in the said Three Persons , becomes Three Infinite Minds , or Spirits . This is clear Argumentation , and craves no Mercy at our Author's Hands . If it be here objected , That we allow of Three distinct Persons in the God-head , of which every one is Infinite , without admitting them to be Three distinct Gods ; and therefore , why may we not as well allow of Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits in the same God-head without any necessity of inferring from thence , That they are Three distinct Gods ? I Answer , That the Case is very different , and the Reason of the difference is this , Because Three Infinite Minds , or Spirits are Three Absolute , Simple Beings , or Essences , and so stand distinguished from one another , by their whole Beings or Natures . But the Divine Persons are Three Relatives , ( or one simple Being , or Essence , under three distinct Relations ) and consequently differ from one another , not wholly , and by all that is in them , but only by some certain Mode , or respect peculiar to each , and upon that Account causing their Distinction . And therefore to Argue from a Person to a Spirit here is manifestly Sophistical , and that which is called , Fallacia Accidentis , or ( since several Fallacies may concur in the same Proposition ) it may be also à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter . For so it is to conclude , That Three Persons are Three distinct Gods ; since the difference of Persons is only from a diverse respect between them ; but Three Gods import Three absolutely distinct Natures or Substances . And whereas we say , That the Three Persons are all and every one of them Infinite , yet it is but from one and the same Numerical Nature Common to them all that they are so , the Ternary Number all the while not belonging to their Infinity , but only to their Personalities . The Case therefore between a Mind , or Spirit , and a Person , is by no means the same . Forasmuch as [ Person ] here imports only a Relation , or Mode of Subsistence in Conjunction with the Nature it belongs to : And therefore a Multiplication of Persons ( of it self ) imports only a Multiplication of such Modes , or Relations , without any necessary Multiplication of the Nature it self to which they adhere . Forasmuch as one and the same Nature may sustain several distinct Relations , or Modes of Subsistence . But now on the other side , a Mind , or Spirit , is not a Relation , or Mode of Subsistence , but it is an Absolute Being , Nature , or Substance ; and consequently cannot be multiplyed without a Multiplication of it into so many Numerical Absolute Beings , Natures , or Substances ; there being nothing in it to be multiplyed but it self . So that Three Minds , or Spirits , are Three Absolute Beings , Natures , or Substances , and Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , are accordingly Three distinct Infinite Absolute Beings , Natures , or Substances . That is , in other words , They are Three Gods ; which was the Thing to be proved ; and let this Author ward off the Proof of it as he is able . Argument II. My Second Argument against the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity being Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , is this . Three distinct Minds , or Spirits are Three distinct Substances . But the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Substances . And therefore they are not Three distinct Minds , or Spirits . The Major Proposition is proved from the Definition of a Mind , or Spirit , That it is Substantia Incorporea Intelligens , an Intelligent , Incorporeal , [ or Immaterial ] Substance ; and therefore Three distinct Minds , or Spirits , must be Three such distinct Substances . And besides , if a Mind , or Spirit , were not a Substance , what could it be else ? If it be any Thing , it must be either an Accident , or Mode of Being . But not an Accident , since no Accident can be in God ; nor yet a Mode of Being , since a Spirit ( not designed to concur as a part towards any Compound ) is an Absolute , Entire , Complete Being of itself , and has its proper Mode of Subsistence belonging to it ; and therefore cannot be a Mode it self . From whence it follows , That a Spirit is , and must be a Substance , and can be nothing else . As for the Minor , viz. That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity are not Three distinct Substances ; this is evident both from Authority , and from Reason . And first for Authority , Tertullian against Praxeas affirms , Semper in Deo una Substantia . And St. Ierom in his Epistle to Damasus , Quis ore sacrilego Tres substantias praedicabit ? And St. Austin in his 5th Book de Trinitate , Chap. 9. and in Book 7. Chap. 4. And Ruffinus in the 1st Book of his History , Chap. 29. All affirm One Substance in God , and deny Three , and yet the same Writers unanimously hold Three Persons , which shews , That they did not account these Three Persons , Three Substances . And Anselmus in his Book de Incarnatione , Chap. 3. says , That the Father and the Son may be said to be Two Beings , provided that by Beings we understand Relations , not Substances . And Bellarmine , a Writer Orthodox enough in these points , and of unquestionable Learning otherwise , in his 2d Tome , page 348. about the end , says , That to assert , that the Father and the Son differ in Substance , is Arianism : And yet if they were Two distinct Substances , for them not to differ in Substance , would be impossible . And as for the Greek Writers , they never admit of Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Deity , but where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as sometimes it was used : And by reason of this Ambiguity it was , that the Latin Church was so long fearful of using the word Hypostasis , and used only that of Persona , answering to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , lest they should hereby be thought to admit of Three Substances , as well as Three Persons in the God-head . Nor , in the next place , is the same less evident from Reason , than we have shewn it to be from Authority . For if the Three Persons be Three distinct Substances , then Two distinct Substances will concur in , and belong to each Person ; to wit , That Substance which is the Divine Essence , and so is Communicable or Common to all the Persons , and that Substance which Constitutes each Person , and thereby is so peculiar to him as to distinguish him from the other , and consequently to be incommunicable to any besides him to whom it belongs : Since for one and the same Substance to be Common to all Three Persons , and withal to belong incommunicably to each of the Three , and thereby to distinguish them from one another , is Contradictious and Impossible . And yet on the other side to assert Two distinct Substances in each Person , is altogether as Absurd ; and that , as upon many other Accounts , so particularly upon this , That it must infer such a Composition in the Divine Persons , as is utterly Incompatible with the Absolute Simplicity , and Infinite Perfection of the Divine Nature . And therefore the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity , can by no means be said to be Three distinct Substances , but only one Infinite Substance , equally Common to , and Subsisting in them all , and diversified by their respective Relations . And moreover , since Three distinct Minds , or Spirits are Essentially Three distinct Substances , neither can the Three Persons of the Trinity be said to be Three distinct Minds , or Spirits ; which was the Point to be made out . Argument III. My Third Argument against the same shall proceed thus . If it be truly said , That one and the same Infinite Mind , or Spirit is Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , ( I mean all Three taken together ) and it cannot be truly said , That one and the same Infinite Mind , or Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ; then it follows , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are not Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . But it may be truly said , That one and the same Infinite Mind , or Spirit is Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; and it cannot be truly said , That one and the same Infinite Mind , or Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . Therefore the Three Persons in the Trinity , viz. Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are not Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . This is the Argument . Now the Consequence of the Major appears from this , That the same Thing , or Things , at the same time , and in the same respect , cannot be truly affirmed and denied of the same Subject : And therefore since [ Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , taken joyntly together ] are truly predicated of one and the same Infinite Mind ; and [ Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ] cannot be truly affirmed or predicated , and consequently may be truly denied of the same ; it follows , That [ Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ] and [ Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ] neither are , nor can be accounted the same , nor be truly affirmable of one another . As for the Minor , it consists of two parts , and accordingly must be proved severally in each of them . And First , That it is , and may be truly said , That one and the same Infinite Mind is Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ( viz. joyntly taken ) as I noted before . This , I say , may be proved from hence , That God is truly said to be Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ( still so taken . ) And it having been already evinced , That [ one Infinite Mind , or Spirit ] and [ one God ] are terms convertible and equipollent , it follows , That whatsoever is truly affirmed or denied of the one , may be as truly affirmed or denied of the other . And this is too evident to need any further proof . And therefore in the next place , for the proof of the other part of the Minor , viz. That one and the same Infinite Mind , or Spirit , cannot be truly said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ; This is no less evident than the former , because in such a Proposition both Subject and Predicate imply a Mutual Negation of , and Contradiction to one and another ; and where it is so , it is impossible for one to be truly affirmed , or predicated of the other . And now , after this plain proof given both of the Major and the Minor Proposition , and this also drawn into so little a compass , I hope this Author will not bear himself so much above all the Rules which other Mortals proceed by , as , after the Premises proved , to deny the Conclusion , viz. That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are not Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . The Affirmation of which , is that which I undertook to confute . But before I dismiss this Argument , I cannot but take notice , That the same Terms , with a bare Transposition of them , viz. by shifting place between the Predicate and the Subject ( which in Adequate and Commensurate Predications , may very well be done ) will as effectually conclude to the same Purpose , as they did in the way in which we have already proposed them . And so the Argument will proceed thus . If it be truly and properly said , That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity , are one Numerical Infinite Mind , or Spirit ; then they cannot be truly said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . But they are truly and properly said to be one Numerical Infinite Mind , or Spirit . And therefore they neither are , nor can be truly said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . The Consequence of the first Proposition is manifest , because ( as we have shewn before ) one and the same Infinite Mind cannot be Three distinct Infinite Minds without a Contradiction in the Terms . And for the Minor , viz. That the Three Persons are truly said to be one Infinite Mind , or Spirit ; That also is proved by this , That all and every one of them , are truly and properly said to be God ; and God is truly and properly one Numerical Infinite Mind , or Spirit : And therefore if the Three Persons are said to be the First , they must be said to be this Latter also ; and that ( as I shew before ) because of the Reciprocal Predication of those Terms . But as to the Matter before us , That God is truly and properly one Numerical Infinite Mind , or Spirit , even this Author himself allows , who in Page 69. positively says , That we know nothing of the Divine Essence , but that God is an Infinite Mind . Very well ; and if he grant him to be an Infinite Mind , let him prove this Infinite Mind to be three distinct Infinite Minds , if he can . The Truth is [ Infinite Mind or Spirit ] is an Essential Attribute of the Divine Nature , and Convertible with it , and whatsoever is so , belongs equally to all the Three Persons , and consequently cannot be ascribed to them plurally any more than the Deity it self ; it being as uncapable , as that , of being multiplied . Upon which Account , if the Three Persons are with equal Truth said to be [ one Infinite Mind , or Spirit ] and to be [ one God ] they can no more be said to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , than they can be said to be Three distinct Gods. So that which way soever the Argument be proposed , either , That one Infinite Mind is Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; or , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are one Infinite Mind , it still overthrows this Author's Hypothesis , That the said Three Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . Argument IV. My Fourth and Last Argument against the same , shall be this . Whatsoever Attribute may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in the Athanasian Form , so belongs to them all in Common , that it can belong to none of them under any Term of distinction from the rest . But the Attribute [ Infinite Mind , or Spirit ] may be truly predicated of all and each of the Divine Persons in and according to the Athanasian Form. And therefore it can belong to none of them under any Term of distinction from the rest . The Major is as evident ; as that no Attribute can be Common to several Subjects , and yet peculiar and appropriate to each of them . And the Minor is proved by Instance thus ; The Father is an Infinite Mind , the Son is an Infinite Mind , and the Holy Ghost is an Infinite Mind ; and yet they are not Three Infinite Minds , but one Infinite Mind . And this I affirm to be as good Divinity as any part in the Athanasian Creed , and such as I shall abide by , both against this Author , and any other whatsoever . But now let us see how his Assertion cast into the Athanasian Model , shews it self , as thus . The Father is a distinct Infinite Mind , the Son is a distinct Infinite Mind , and the Holy Ghost is a distinct Infinite Mind ; and yet they are not Three distinct Infinite Minds , but one distinct Infinite Mind . And this is so far from being true , that it is indeed neither Truth nor Sence . For what Truth can there be in denying , That Three Persons , of which every one is said to be a distinct Infinite Mind , are Three distinct Infinite Minds ? And what sence can there be in affirming , or saying , That they are but one distinct Infinite Mind ? Whereas the Term [ distinct ] is never properly used or applyed , but with respect had to several Particulars each discriminated from the other ; but by no means where there is mention made only of one Thing and no more , as it is here in this Proposition . But to make what allowances the Case will bear , and for that purpose to remit something of the strictness of the Athanasian Form , by leaving out the word [ distinct ] in the last and illative Clause , we shall then see that our Author's Hypothesis will proceed thus . The Father is a distinct Infinite Mind , the Son is a distinct Infinite Mind , and the Holy Ghost is a distinct Infinite Mind ; and yet they are not Three Infinite Minds , but one Infinite Mind . Thus , I say , it must proceed in the Athanasian way with the word [ distinct ] left out of the Conclusion . Nevertheless even so , the Inference is still manifestly and grosly false in both the branches of it . For it is absolutely false [ That Three distinct Infinite Minds , are not Three Infinite Minds ] and altogether as false [ That Three Infinite Minds , are but One Infinite Mind . ] The Author's Hypothesis put into the Athanasian Model , must needs fall in with that Fallacy sometimes urged against us by the Socinians , viz. The Father is a Person , the Son a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person , and yet they are not Three Persons , but one Person ; which is manifestly Sophistical , by arguing ab imparibus tanquam paribus , viz. Concluding that of an Attribute Relative , and Multiplicable , which can be concluded only of such as are not So. For the Athanasian Inference holds only in Attributes Essential and Common to all the Three Persons joyntly , or severally taken , and not in such as are Proper , Personal , and Peculiar to each . As also in such as are Absolute , ( as the Attribute of Mind , or Spirit without the word [ distinct ] is ) and not in such as are Relative . For those Attributes , which agree to the Divine Persons , Personally , Peculiarly , and Relatively can never Unite , or Coincide into one in the Inference , or Conclusion . In a word [ Infinite Mind , or Spirit ] is a Predicate perfectly Essential , and so in its Numerical Unity Common to all the Three Divine Persons , and for that cause not to be affirmed of , or ascribed to , either all or any of them with the Term [ distinct ] added to it , or joyned with it . For that would multiply an Attribute that cannot be multiplyed . And now , what I have here discoursed upon , and drawn from the Athanasian Creed with respect to this particular Subject , I leave to our Author's strictest Examination . For my own part , I rely upon this Creed , as a sure Test , or Rule to discover the falshood of his Hypothesis by . So that as long as it is true , that God is one numerical Infinite Mind or Spirit , and as long as the Athanasian Form duely applied is a firm and good way of Reasoning , this Author's Assertion , That the Three Divine Persons , are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , is thereby irrefragably overthrown . And therefore I shall not concern my self to produce any more Arguments against it . Only by way of Overplus to , and Illustration of those , which have already been alledged , I cannot but observe the Concurrent Opinion of the Philosophers , and most Learned Men amongst the Heathens about God's being one Infinite Mind , or Spirit , as a necessary deduction ( no doubt ) made by Natural Reason from the Principles thereof concerning the Divine Nature . For most of the Philosophers looked upon God as the Soul of the World , as One Infinite Mind , or Spirit , that animated and presided over the Universe . For so held Pythagoras , as Cicero in his first Book , de Naturâ Deorum , and Lactantius in his Book de irâ Dei , tells us , Pythagoras quoque unum Deum confitetur dicens Incorpoream esse mentem quae per omnem Naturam diffusa & intenta vitalem sensum tribuit . In like manner the Great Hermes being asked , What God was , answered , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Maker of all Things , a most Wise and Eternal Mind . Thales called him , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God , the Mind of the World. Diogenes , Cleanthes , and Oenipides , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Soul of the World. Plato in Phoedone , says of God , That he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Mind that is the Cause and orderer of all Things . And Plato the Son of Ariston says , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God is the Mind of the World. And Lactantius gives this Testimony of Aristotle , That , Quamvis secum ipse dissideat , ac repugnantia sibi & dicat , & sentiat , ( by which one would think our Author better acquainted with him than he is ) in summum tamen unam mentem mundo praeesse testatur . Lact. de falsa Relig. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Agreeably to all which , Seneca in the Preface to his Natural Questions , putting the Question , Quid est Deus ? What is God ? Answers , Mens Universi , The Mind of the Universe . As the Learned Emperour Antoninus after him , expresses God the same way , and by the same word in Greek , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Lib. 5. p. 148. Oxon. Edit . And that Passage in Virgil's 6. Aeneid is famous ; where speaking of God , as the Great Soul of the World , running through all the Parts of that vast Body , he expresses it in those known Verses : — Coelum , ac Terras , Camposque liquentes , Lucentemque Globum Lunae , Titaniaque Astra , Spiritus intus alit , totamque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem , & magno se corpore miscet . And the same was the Opinion of Cato before him , a great Man , though but a small Author , who tells us from the Ancient Poets ( who were accounted the Philosophers of the first Ages . ) That Deus est Animus , God is a Mind , or Spirit . And the Truth is , I reckon that these Learned Men , all along , by an Infinite Mind , or Spirit , understood as truly and certainly One Infinite Mind , or Spirit , as if the Term of Unity had been added by them . For besides that the Particles a , or the , ( which we use in translating any single word into our own Language ) import so much , the very condition also of the Subject spoken of , as being Infinite , must needs infer the same . So that we see here how the Judgment of Natural Reason in these Eminent Philosophers amongst the Heathens falls in with what God himself revealed by the Mouth of our Saviour concerning his own Nature , in John 4. 24. viz. That God is a Spirit . For we have them expressing him by these words , Aninius , Mens , & Spiritus . So that had they all lived after St. Iohn , ( as one of them did , ) their Sentences might have passed for so many Paraphrases upon the Text , all declaring God to be One Infinite Soul , Mind , or Spirit . But perhaps our Author will here say , What is all this to the purpose , since we found our knowledge of the Three Divine Persons , wholly upon Revelation ? And I grant , we do so ; Yet nevertheless I shall , by his good favour , shew , That what I have alledged is very much to the purpose . And to this end , premising here what we have already proved , viz. That to be One Infinite Mind , and to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , involve in them a Mutual Negation of , and Contradiction to one another : ( Forasmuch as to be Unum , is to be Indivisum in se ; that is to say , Indivisible into more things , such as it self . ) This , I say , premised , First , I desire this Author to produce that Revelation , which declares the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity , to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . For I deny that there is any such . Secondly , I affirm , That whatsoever is a Truth in Natural Reason , cannot be contradicted by any other Truth declared by Revelation ; since it is impossible for any one Truth to contradict another . Upon which grounds , I here ask our Author , Is it a Contradiction for One God to be One Infinite Mind , or Spirit , and to be also Three Infinite Minds , or Spirits ? If he grant this ( as I have proved it , whether he does or no ) then I ask him in the next place , Whether it be a Proposition true in Natural Reason , [ That God is one Infinite Mind , or Spirit ? ] If he grants this also , then I infer , That it cannot be proved true from Revelation , [ That God is Three Infinite Minds , or Spirits , ] since the certain Truth of the first Proposition supposed and admitted must needs disprove the Truth of that Revelation , which pretends to establish the second . But some again may perhaps ask , Suppose it were revealed in express Terms , [ That God is Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , ] would you in this case throw aside this Revelation in submission to the former Proposition declared by Natural Reason ? I Answer , No : But if the Revelation were express and undeniable , I would adhere to it ; but at the same time , while I did so , I would quit the former Proposition , and conclude , That Natural Reason had not discoursed right when it concluded , That God was one Infinite Mind , or Spirit : But to hold both Propositions to be True , and to assent to them both as such , This the Mind of Man can never do . So that , in a word , I conclude , That if it be certainly true from Reason , That God is one Infinite Mind , or Spirit . No Revelation can , or ought to be pleaded , That he is Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits : And if Revelation cannot , or ought not to be pleaded for it , I am sure , we have no ground to believe it . And yet at the same time I own and assert a Revelation of the truth of this Proposition , [ That God is Three Persons ] or , which is all one , [ That God is Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , ] since it does not at all contradict the forementioned Propositions founded upon Natural Reason , [ viz. That God is One Infinite Mind , or Spirit , ] nor could it yet ever be proved to do so , either by Arians , or Socinians . But on the contrary , these two Propositions , viz. [ God is One Infinite Mind , or Spirit ] and that other , [ God is Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits ] ( which he must be , if the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ) are Gross , Palpable , and Irreconcileable Contradictions . And because they are so , it is demonstratively certain , That the said Three Persons are not Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits : As this Author against all Principles of Philosophy and Divinity has most erroneously affirmed them to be . I have said enough , I hope , upon this Subject . But before I quit it , it will not be amiss to observe what work this Man makes with the Persons of the Blessed Trinity , ( as indeed he seldom almost turns his Pen , but he gives some scurvy stroke at it or other , ) particularly in Page 89. he affirms , That the Expression of [ the One true God , and the only true God ] cannot properly be attributed to the Son , nor to the Holy Ghost . From whence I infer , That then neither can the Expression of [ God , or the True God ] be properly attributed to the Son , or to the Holy Ghost . Forasmuch as the Terms [ one God ] and [ One True God , or one only True God ] are equivalent . The Term [ One God ] including in it every whit as much as the Term [ One True God , or One only True God ] and the Term [ One True God , or One only True God ] including in it no more than the Term [ One God ; ] and consequently if he asserts , That these Terms cannot with equal Propriety be attributed to , and predicated of the Son and the Holy Ghost , we have him both Arian and Macedonian together in this Assertion . And I believe his Adversary the Author of the Notes could hardly have desired a greater Advantage against him , than his calling it ( as he does ) a Corruption of the Athanasian Creed , to joyn the Term [ One True God ] to every Person of the Trinity ; adding withal , That upon the doing so , it would sound pretty like a Contradiction to say in the close [ That there was but One True God. ] These are our Author's words , but much fitter to have proceeded from a Socinian , than from one professing a belief , and ( which is more ) a defence of the Trinity . But in answer to them , I tell him , That the repeated Attribution of [ The One True God , or Only True God ] to each of the Three Persons is no Corruption of that Creed at all . Forasmuch as these Terms [ The One True God , and the only True God ] import , an Attribute purely Essential , and so equally , and in Common belonging to all the Three Persons , and not an Attribute properly Personal , and so appropriate to some one or other of the said Persons . And if this Author would have duly distinguished between Essential and Personal Attributes , he could not have discoursed of these Matters at so odd a rate , as here he does . And therefore I deny it to be any Contradiction ( let it sound in his Ears how it will ) to conclude , That the said Three Persons ( notwithstanding this Repetition ) are not Three True Gods , but only One True God. But he says , That such a Repeated Application implies as if each Person considered as distinguished and separated from the other were the One True God , To which I Answer , 1. That to imply as if a thing were so , and to imply that really it is so , makes a very great difference in the case ; indeed so great , that this Author must not think from words implying only the former to conclude the latter ; which yet must be done , or what he here alledges is nothing to his purpose . But 2. I Answer yet farther , That the forementioned words do indeed imply , and ( which is more ) plainly declare , That the Three Persons who are said to be [ the One , or only True God ] are , while they sustain that Attribute , really distinct from one another , but it does not imply , That this is said of them under that peculiar Formality , as they are distinct , and much less , as separated ; which latter they neither are , nor can be . The truth is , what he has said against the repeated Application of this Term to every one of the Three Persons , may be equally objected against all the repeated Predications in the Athanasian Creed ; but to as little purpose , one as the other ; since , albeit all these Predications do agree to Persons really distinct , yet they agree not to them under that formal and precise consideration as distinct : For nothing but their respective Personal Relations agree to them under that Capacity ; and this effectually clears off this objection . But here I cannot but wonder , that this Man should jumble together these two Terms [ distinguished and separated ] as he does twice here in the compass of eight Lines ; when the signification of them , as applyed to the Three Divine Persons , is so vastly different , that one of these Terms [ viz. distinguished ] necessarily belongs to them , and the other which is [ separated ] neither does nor can take place amongst them : Nay , and when this Author himself has so earnestly and frequently contended for the difference of them ; as all along asserting the distinction of Persons , and as often denying their separation . But he proceeds , and says , That this Expression of [ The One [ or only ] True God ] is never ( that he knows of ) attributed to Son , or Holy Ghost , either in Scripture , or any Catholick Writer . Which words , methinks , ( as I cannot but observe again ) do not look , as if a Man were Writing against the Socinians . Nevertheless admitting the Truth of his Allegation , That this Term [ the One True God ] is not to be found expresly attributed to the Son , or the Holy Ghost , will he infer from hence , that therefore it neither can , nor ought to be so ? For if that be attributed to them Both in Scripture and Catholick Writers , which necessarily and essentially implys [ The One True God ] and does , and must signifie the very same Thing , is it not all one , as if in Terminis it had been ascribed to them ? Doubtless there are several other Expressions in the Athanasian Creed , as hardly ( as this ) to be found elsewhere : However , the Thing being certain from other words equivalent , this exception is of no force at all ; nor by any one , who understands these Matters , is , or ought to be accounted so ; and much less can I see to what end it should be insisted upon by any one , while he is encountring the Socinians : And therefore , whereas he says , This Attribute , or Title , viz. [ The One True God ] cannot so properly be ascribed to any one Person , but only to the Father ; ( whom , he tells us , the Fathers call the Fountain of the Deity ) what he here designs by the words so properly ( which seem to import degrees of Propriety ) I cannot well tell : But this I ask , in short , May it be properly attributed to the Son , and to the Holy Ghost , or may it not ? If not ; then they are not properly [ The One True God ] nor consequently are they properly [ The True God : ] For whatsoever any one properly is , that he may be properly said to be . And as for [ the Father 's being the Fountain of the Deity , ] I hope he looks upon this Expression only as Metaphorical , and such as ought not to be stretched to the utmost of its Native Sence , for fear the Consequences of it may engage him too far , to be able to make an handsome Retreat ; which I assure him , if he does not take heed , they certainly will. But , in a word , I demand of him , Whether [ the Father 's being the Fountain of Deity ] does appropriate and restrain the Thing expressed by the [ One True God ] to the Father in contra-distinction to the other Two Persons , or not ? If it does , then the same Absurdity recurs , viz. [ That neither is the Son , nor the Holy Ghost , the One True God ] and consequently , neither simply , really and essentially [ God. ] But on the other side , if [ the Father 's being the Fountain of the Deity ] does not appropriate the Thing signified by [ the One True God ] to the Father , then it leaves it common to the other Two Persons with Himself , and to each of them . And whatsoever is so , may with the same Propriety and Truth of Speech be ascribed to , and affirmed of them , as it is often ascribed to , and affirmed of the Father Himself . The Truth is , this Man 's adventurous and unwary way of expressing himself in this sacred and arduous Subject ( to give it no worse word , whatsoever it may deserve ) affords the Arians and Socinians no small Advantages against this Doctrine ; should it stand upon the strength of His Defence , as ( thanks be to God ) it does not . But I must not here omit that Passage , which , in the former part of this Chapter , I promised more particularly to consider ; a Passage , which indeed looks something strangely . It is that in P. 258. line 27. where he tells us , that he allows , That in the Blessed Trinity there are Three Holy Spirits , but denys , That there are Three Holy Ghosts ; so natural is it for false Opinions to force Men to absurd Expressions . But my Answer to him is short and positive , That neither are there Three Holy Spirits nor Three Holy Ghosts in the Blessed Trinity in any sense properly belonging to these words . However , the Thing meant by him ( so far as it is reducible to Truth and Reason ) is , and must be this , viz. That when the Third Person of the Trinity is called the Holy Ghost , there the word Holy Ghost ( which otherwise signifies the same with Holy Spirit ) must be taken Personally , and consequently Incommunicably ; but when the Father , or Son , is said to be a Spirit , or Holy Spirit , there Spirit must be understood Essentially , for that Immaterial , Spiritual , and Divine Nature , which is common to , and Predicable of all the Divine Persons . All which is most true . But then , for this very Reason , I must tell our Author withal , That as Holy Ghost taken Personally is but Numerically one ; so Spirit , or Holy Spirit , as it is understood Essentially , is but Numerically one too . And therefore , though the Father may be called a Spirit , or Holy Spirit , and the two other Persons may each of them be called so likewise , yet they are not therefore Three distinct Spirits , or Holy Spirits , nor can be truly so called ( as this Author pretends they ought to be , and we have sufficiently disproved ) but they are all one and the same Holy Spirit Essentially taken ; and which so taken , is as much as one and the same God. And moreover , though Spirit understood Personally distinguishes the Third Person from the other two , yet taken Essentially , it speaks him one and the same Spirit , as well as one and the same God with them , and can by no means distinguish him from them , any more than the Divine Essence , or Nature , ( which Spirit in this sence , is only another word for ) can discriminate the Three Persons from one another . So that upon the whole Matter , it is equally false and impossible , That in the Blessed Trinity there should be Three Holy Spirits , or Holy Ghosts , ( Terms perfectly Synonymous ) either upon a Personal , or an Essential account ; and consequently that there should be so at all . For , as the word Spirit imports a peculiar Mode of Subsistence , by way of Spiration from the Father and the Son , so it is Personal and Incommunicable ; but as it imports the Immaterial Substance of the Deity , so indeed ( as being the same with the Deity it self ) it is equally Common to all the Three Persons ; but still , for all that , remains Numerically one and no more ; as all must acknowledge the Deity to be . And this is the true state of the Case . But to state the difference between the Holy Ghost , and the other Two Persons , upon something signified by Holy Ghost , which is not signified by Holy Spirit , ( as the words of this Author manifestly do ; while he affirms Three Holy Spirits , but denies Three Holy Ghosts ) this is not only a playing with words ( which he pretends to scorn ) but a taking of words for things ; which , I am sure , is very ridiculous . And now , before I conclude this Chapter , ( having a Debt upon me declared at the beginning of it ) I leave it to the Impartial and Discreet Reader to judge , what is to be thought or said of that Man , who in such an Insolent , Decretorious manner , shall in such a point as this before us , charge Nonsense and Heresie , ( two very vile words ) upon all that Subscribe not to this his New ( and before unheard of ) Opinion . I must profess , I never met with the like in any Sober Author , and hardly in the most Licentious Libeller : The Nature of the Subject , I have , according to my poor Abilities , discussed , and finding my self thereupon extremely to dissent from this Author , am yet by no means willing to pass for a Nonsensical Heretick for my pains . For must it be Nonsence not to own Contradictions ? viz. That One infinite Spirit is Three distinct Infinite Spirits ? Or must it be Heresie not to Subscribe to Tritheisme , as the best and most Orthodox Explication of the Article of the Trinity ? As for Non-sence , it must certainly imply the asserting of something for true concerning the Subject discoursed of , which yet in truth is contradictory to it ( since there can be no Non-sence but what contradicts some Truth . ) And whereas this Author has elsewhere , viz. P. 4. declared it unreasonable to charge a contradiction in any Thing , where the Nature of the Thing discoursed of is not throughly comprehended and understood , I desire to know of him , whether he throughly understands and comprehends the Article and Mystery of the Trinity ? If he says , he does , I need no other Demonstration of his unfitness to write about it . But if he owns that he does not , let him only stick to his own Rule , and then he may keep the Charge of Non-sense to himself . But what shall we say to the Charge of Heresie , ( in which St. Austin would have no Person , who is so charged to be silent ? ) Why , in the first place we must search and enquire , whether it be so , or no ? And here , if my Life lay upon it , I cannot find either in Irenaeus adversùs Haereses , or in Tertullian's Prescriptions contra Haereticos , Cap. 49. Nor in Philastrius's Catalogue , nor in Epiphanius , nor in St. Austin , nor in Theodoret , nor in Iohannes Damascenus's Book de Haeresibus ; nor in the latter Haeresiologists , such as Alphonsus à Castro & Prateolus , with several others : I cannot , I say , find in all , or in any one of these the Heresie of not asserting the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ; no , nor yet the Heresie of denying them to be so . But where then may we find it ? Why , in this Author's Book . And therefore look no further ; it is enough , that so great a Master has said it ; whose Authority in saying a Thing , is as good as another Man 's in proving it , at any time : And he says it ( as we see ) positively , and perhaps ( if need be ) will be ready to take his Corporal Oath upon it , That such as deny his Hypothesis are Hereticks . Now in this case our Condition is , in good earnest , very sad ; and I know nothing to comfort us , but that the Statute de Haeretico comburendo is Repealed . And well is it for the Poor Clergy and Church of England , that it is so ; for otherwise this Man would have kindled such a Fire for them , as would have torrified them with a vengeance . But as he has stocked the Church with such plenty of New Hereticks ( and all of his own making ) so could he , by a sway of Power , as Arbitrary as his Divinity , provide for them also such a Furnace as that of Nebuchadnezzar ( whom in his Imperious Meen and Humour he so much resembles ) yet he must not think That the Sound and Iingle of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness ( how melodiously soever they may tinkle in his own Ears ) will ever be able to Charm Me● over to the Worship of his Idol ; or make them Sacrifice their Reason and Religion either to Him , or to the New Notions which he has set up . And indeed I cannot but here further declare , that to me it seems one of the most preposterous and unreasonable things in Nature , for any one first to assert Three Gods , and when he has so wel furnished the World with Deities , to expect that all Mankind should fall down and Worship Him. CHAP. VI. In which is Considered , What this Author pretends to from the Authority of the Fathers and School men , in behalf of his Hypothesis ; and shewn , in the first place , That neither do the Fathers own the Three Divine Persons to be Three Distinct Infinite Minds , nor Self-Consciousness to be the Formal Reason of their Distinction . I Have in the foregoing Chapters debated the Point with this Author , upon the Reason and Nature of the Thing it self . But that is not all , which he pretends to defend his Cause by ; endeavouring to countenance it also with great Authorities ; and that in these positive and remarkable words . This is no New Notion ( says he ) but the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools , Page 101. These are his very words ; and I desire the Reader carefully to consider , and carry them along with him in his Memory . For as they are as positive , as Confidence can make them : so if they are not made good to the utmost , they ought severely to recoil upon any one , who shall presume to express himself at such a Rate . And now , that we may do him all the right that may be , The way to know , whether this Author's Hypothesis be the Constant Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools , is in the first place truly and fairly to set down , what this Author's Doctrine is , and wherein it does consist ; as we shall declare , what the received Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools is , in our Eighth Chapter . Now we shall find , That the whole Doctrine delivered by him concerning the Blessed Trinity , is comprehended under , and reducible to these four Heads . First , That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity , are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . Secondly , That Self-Consciousness is the Formal Reason of Personality ; and consequently that each of the Divine Persons is such by a distinct Self-Consciousness properly and peculiarly belonging to him . Thirdly , That the Three Divine Persons being thus distinguished from one another by a distinct Self-Consciousness proper to each of them , are all United in one and the same Nature by one Mutual Consciousness Common to them all . And Fourthly and Lastly , That a Trinity in Unity , and an Unity in Trinity , by this Explication and Account given of it , is a very Plain , Easie and Intelligible Notion . These four Heads , or Particulars , I say , contain in them a full and fair representation of this Author 's whole Hypothesis concerning the Oeconomy of the Blessed Trinity : And I am well assured , That the knowing and Impartial Reader , neither will , nor can deny , that they do so . In the next place therefore , that we may see how far our Author makes good all the said Particulars by the Authority of the Fathers , as he has peremptorily promised and undertook to do , I think it requisite to consider , how the Fathers expressed themselves upon this Subject , and how this Author brings the said Expressions to his purpose . For surely the natural way of knowing any Writer's Mind is by the Words and Expressions , which he pretends to deliver his Mind by . But concerning these we have our Author declaring , First , That he has not troubled his Reader with the signification of Essence , Hypostasis , Substance , Subsistence , Person , Existence , Nature , &c. Pag. 101. and some of his Readers could give him a very good Reason why , though I fear too true for him to be pleased with . But the Reasons which he himself alledges for his not troubling his Readers either with these Terms , or the Explication of them , are , First , That they were very differently used by the Fathers themselves , Page 101. And be it so ; yet still for all that , used by them they were ; and that not so very differently neither ; the chief difference having been about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which yet was fairly accorded , and well high setled between the Greeks and the Latines , before the end of the 6th Century , as shall be further made to appear in our Eighth Chapter . And his next Reason for his not troubling his Reader ( forsooth ) with these Terms , is , Because they have ( as he tells us ) very much obscured the Doctrine of the Trinity , instead of explaining it , Page 101. which being one of the chief Things , which he might conclude , would assuredly be disputed with Him ; for Him thus to presume it , before he had proved it , is manifestly to beg the Question . In the mean time , certain it is , That these , and these only were the Terms which the Father 's used in their Disputes about the Trinity , and by which they managed them ; and consequently , were they never so Ambiguous , Faulty , or Improper , ( as they are much the contrary ) yet , whosoever will pretend to give the Sence of the Fathers , must have recourse to them , and do it by them ; and to do otherwise , would be to dispute at Rovers , or ( as the word is ) to speak without Book ; which may much better become our Author in the Pulpit , than in the management of such a Controversie . And now let the Reader ( whom he is so fearful of troubling with any Thing that is to the Purpose ) judge , Whether this Man has not took a most extraordinary way of proving his Doctrine the very same with the Fathers . For neither in the first place does he set down , what the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Trinity was ; which yet , one would have thought was absolutely necessary for the shewing how his own Doctrine agreed with it , which he professed to be his design : Nor , in the next place , does he either use , or regard , or offer to explain those Terms , which the Fathers all along delivered that their Doctrine in ; but is so far from it , That he reproaches , explodes , and utterly rejects them , as serving only to obscure this Doctrine , instead of explaining it : Which , in my poor Judgment , is such a way of proving the Fathers on his side , as perhaps the World never heard of before , and will be amazed at now . But it is his way , and it will not be long before we find him bestowing a like cast of his Kindness upon the School-men too . But since , notwithstanding all this , He allows the Fathers ( good Men ) to have meant well , and taught right ; albeit , by reason of a certain Infelicity and Awkwardness they had in representing what they meant , by what they wrote , their meaning ought , by no means , to be gathered from their own words ( as , possibly also for the introducing a new and laudable Custom amongst the Fathers and Sons of the Church , that the Sons must teach the Fathers to speak ) our Author has , for these and the like Reasons , in great Charity and Compassion to their Infirmities , provided two other and better words of his own Invention , viz. Self-Consciousness , and Mutual-Consciousness , by which alone the True Sense and Doctrine of the Fathers , in all their Writings about this Article of the Trinity , may , or can be understood . Nevertheless how kind soever this design of his may be , yet to me it seems very unreasonable . For , in the first place , it is , ( upon the most allowed grounds of Reason ) a just , and a sufficient Presumption , that the Fathers were wholly Strangers to what our Author intends by these two words , for that they never so much as mention , or make use of the words themselves : Whereas , to be Self-Conscious , and Mutually-Conscious , were things ( no doubt ) easie enough , not only for the Fathers , but for any Man else of Common Sense to find out and understand ; and they might also , without much difficulty , have been applyed to the Divine Nature , as well as other Acts of Knowledge ; and therefore since the Fathers never used them in this case , it is but too plain , that they never thought them fit , or proper for this purpose . For the Arian Controversie was then , viz. in the 4th and 5th Centuries ( in which also the most Eminent of the Fathers wrote against it ) at the Highest . Among which Writers , Gregory Nyssen ( whom this Author so often quotes ) has a Passage , which in this case , is to me very remarkable , and a Rational ground to conclude , that he knew nothing of Mutual-Consciousness , as it is here applyed by this Author . For that , speaking of the Unity of the Divine Persons , in respect of one Common ( though Single ) Nature , he expresses it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , instead of which , certainly he could not have chosen a more apposite and proper place to have expressed the same by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , had that Father had the same Notion of it , which this Author so much contends for . But it seems , he was either less Happy , or more judicious in this Particular . And besides all this , it is most worthy to be Noted , That the very Terms in which the Orthodox Writers expressed themselves about the Trinity , and whatsoever related to it , were severely canvased and examined , and some of them settled by Councils ; which is a fair proof , that the said Terms were fixed and authentick , and exclusive of all others , and consequently of those of this Author , as well as of the Notion signified by , and couched under them , which he would here with such Confidence obtrude upon the World , by and from the Credit of the Fathers , though their Writings demonstrate , that they were wholly unconcerned , both as to his Doctrines and his Expressions . Nor can any Want , or Penury of words be here pleaded for their silence in this Matter , since the Greek being so happy , above all other Languages , in joyning and compounding words together ; in all probability had the Fortunes of Greece ( as the word is ) been concerned in the case , we might have heard of some such words , as , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Or since most such words , as in English terminate in ness , usually in the Greek terminate in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , possibly we might have met with some such made-words , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , since these do more properly import Consciousness than the former ; which rather signifie Self-Conscience and Mutual-Conscience , and so in strictness of Speech , differ something from the other . But he who seeks in the Greek Fathers for these words , or any thing like them ( as applyed to the Trinity ) may seek longer than his Eyes can see . Nor will his Inquest succeed at all better amongst the Latines . For although that Language be extremely less copious than the other , and so affords no one Latine word either for Self-Consciousness , or Mutual Consciousness , but what we must first make , and being made would sound very barbarously ; yet , no doubt , there were ways and words enough to have otherwise expressed the same thing , had they found it the fittest and best Notion to have expressed this great Article by . But no such thing or word occurs in any of their Writings . But why do I speak of the Greek and Latine Fathers ? When the very Schoolmen , the boldest Framers and Inventors of Words and Terms , of all others , where they think them necessary to express their Conceptions by , notwithstanding all their Quiddities , Hoecceities , and Perseities , and the like , have yet no word for Self-Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness : which is a sufficient Demonstration , that either the thing it self never came into their Heads ; or ( which is most likely ) that they never thought it of any use for the explication of this Mystery , which yet they venture further at , than any other Writers whatsoever . But after all ; though this Author is very much concerned to ward off the charge of Novelty and Singularity from his Notions , ( for which I cannot blame him ; this being a charge sufficient to confound and crush any such Notion applyed to so Sacred and received an Article as the Trinity ) and for this cause is not a little desirous to shelter it with the Authority of the Fathers ; yet I assure the Reader , That he is no less careful and concerned to keep the Glory of the Invention wholly to himself , and would take it very ill either of Fathers , School-men , or any one else , should they offer to claim the least share in it . For he roundly tells us , That the Fathers were not so happy as to hit upon his way of explaining this Mystery , Page 126. Line 5. nay , and that , how right a Judgement soever they might have of it , yet in down-right Terms , That they knew not how to explain it , Page 126. Line 18. which , I confess , is no small Complement passed upon himself ( a thing which he is seldom or never failing in ) but , in good earnest , a very course one upon the Fathers . In short , he would appropriate the Credit of the New Invention entirely to himself , but with admirable , and more than Metaphysical Abstraction , at the same time clear himself of the Novelty of it ; and so , in a word , prove it of at least 12 or 13 hundred years standing in the World ; when yet the Author of it was Born since Conventicles began in England , as is well known . But I frankly yield him the Invention , as perfectly his own ; and such an one too , as he is more like to be known by , than ever admired for ; and so , much happiness attend him with it . But as little success as we have had in seeking for his Darling and peculiar Notion of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness , in the Ancient Writers of the Church , we are like to find no more in seeking for his other equally espoused Notion and Opinion there , viz. That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits : We find indeed the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. but not one Tittle of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( as I hinted before ) is sometimes used in the same sense and signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And in this case ( I am sure ) no difficulty of framing Words , or Terms ( as might possibly in some measure be pretended in the Case of Self-Consciousness ) can with any colour of Reason be alledged for our not finding this Notion in the Fathers , had the thing it self been at all there . For can there be any words more Obvious , and Familiar than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the Greek , or than Tres Spiritus , or Tres Mentes , in the Latine ? But neither one nor the other are to be met with any where amongst them , as applied to the Subject now before us . But in Answer to this , I expect that our Author will reply , That they are not the words [ Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ] or those other [ of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness ] but the things meant and signified by them , which he affirms to be found in the Fathers . But this is the very thing which I insist upon against him , viz. That the Non-usage of these words , ( nor any other equivalent to them ) in the Works of those Ancient Writers , ( while they were so particularly , and nicely disputing this Matter ) is a solid Argument , That neither are the things themselves there . For that all those Great and Acute Men should mean the very same thing with this Author , and not one of them ever light upon the same words , is not rationally to be imagined . For What Reason can be given of this ? Was either the Thing it self ( as I noted before ) of such deep , or sublime Speculation , as not to be reached by them ? Or the Language , they wrote in , too scanty to express their Speculations by ? Or can we think that the Fathers wrote Things without Words , as some do but too often write Words without Things ? So that to me it is evident to a Demonstration , That the Fathers never judged , nor held in this Matter , as this Author pretends they did : And besides all this , there is yet one Consideration more , and that of greater weight with me , than all that has been , or can be objected against this Man's pretensions , viz. That it seems to me , and I question not but to all Sober Persons else , ( and that upon good reason ) wholly unsuteable to the wise and good Method of God's Providence , That a clear Discovery of such a Principal Mystery of the Christian Religion , as the Trinity is , should now at length be owing to the Invention , or lucky Hit of any one Man's single Mind , or Fancy ; which so many Pious , Humble , as well as Excellently Learned Persons , with long and tedious search , and the hardest study , ( and these , no doubt , joyned with frequent and servent Prayers to God , to enlighten and direct them in that search ) have been continually breathing after , but could never attain to for above Sixteen Hundred Years together . This , I freely own and declare , That I judge it morally impossible for any serious , thinking Person , ever to bring himself to the belief of ; and much less for any one , not intoxicated with intolerable Pride , to arrogate to Himself . To which sort of Persons God never reveals any thing extraordinary for the good of the World , or of themselves either . But , since I am now upon Disputation , which has its proper Laws , and that this Author may have no ground of Exception , I will proceed to examine his Quotations out of the Fathers , and try whether his Hypothesis may be found there , where it is certain , that we can find none of his Terms . And here , he first begins with the Distinction of the Divine Persons , where I must remind him , That it is not the bare proving a Distinction of Persons , ( which none , who acknowledges a Trinity , either doubts of , or much less denies ) which will here serve his turn ; but He must prove also , That they stand distinguished as Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , and that this Distinction is owing to Three distinct Self-Consciousnesses belonging to them ; otherwise all his Proofs will fall beside his Hypothesis . This premised , I will consider what he alledges . And in the first place he positively tells us , Page 101. That no Man who acknowledges a Trinity of Persons , ever denied , That the Son and Holy Spirit were Intelligent Minds , or Beings . To which I Answer , First , That it is not sufficient for him , who advances a Controverted Proposition , that none can be produced , who before denied it ; but it lies upon him the Advancer of it , to produce some who have affirmed it . Forasmuch as a bare non-denial of a Thing , never before affirmed , can of it self neither prove nor disprove any Thing . But Secondly , I Answer further , That if none of the Ancient Writers did ever , in express Terms , deny this , it was because none had before in express Terms asserted it . But then I add also , That the Ancients have expresly asserted that , which irrefragably inferrs a Negation of the said Proposition : For they have affirmed , That the Son and Holy Spirit are one single Intelligent Mind , and consequently that being so , they cannot possibly be more . And this is a full Answer to this sorry shift ; for an Argument , I am sure , it deserves not to be called . But he proceeds from Negatives to Positives , and tells us , Page 101. That it is the Constant Language of the Fathers ( for it seems he has read them all ) That the Son is the Substantial Word and Wisdom of the Father , and that this can be nothing else , but to say , That he is an Intelligent Being , or Infinite Mind . And he is so , I confess . But does this inferr , That He is therefore a distinct Intelligent Mind , or Being from the Father ? This we deny , and it is the very Thing , which he ought to prove . And it is not come to that pass yet , that we should take his bare affirmation for a Proof of what he affirms . He comes now to Particulars , and tells us , That Gregory Nyssen ( though , since he neither mentions Book nor Page , this ought not to pass for a Quotation ) calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which this Author renders Mind , or Intellect : And I will not deny , but that it may , by consequence , import so much ; but I am sure it does not by direct Signification . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifies properly , Res quaedam Intellectualls , or Intellectu praedita : And since nothing is so , but a Mind , or Spirit , it may ( as I have said ) imply a Mind , but it does not directly signifie it . But admitting that it does both ; does this expression prove , That the Son is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , distinct from the Father ? By no means : For not only the Son , but the Father may be called , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the Holy Ghost , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and yet they are not Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And the Reason of this is , because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is an Essential Attribute following the Divine Nature , and therefore common to all the Three Persons , and not a Personal Attribute peculiar to any one of them . So that granting the Son to be as truly and properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as this Author would have him , yet we absolutely deny , That he is a distinct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from the Father . And this Expression , I am sure , is far enough from proving him to be so . From Nyssen , he passes to St. Athanasius , who ( he tells us ) observes out of these words of our Saviour , John 10. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that our Saviour does not say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and that , by so speaking , he gave us a perfect Duality of Persons in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and an Unity of Nature in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . All which is very true , and that this distinction of Persons overthrows the Heresie of Sabellius , and the Unity of their Nature , the Heresie of Arius ; But then this is also as true , that all this is nothing at all to our Author's Purpose , For how does this prove , either that the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ? Or , that Self-Consciousness is the proper ground , or Reason of their distinction ? Why , yes , ( says He ) If the Father be an Eternal Mind and Wisdom , then the Son is also an Eternal , but begotten Mind and Wisdom : Very true ; but still I deny , that it follows hence , That the Eternal Mind , or Wisdom Begetting , and the Eternal Mind , or Wisdom Begotten , are Two distinct Minds , or Wisdoms , but only one and the same Mind , or Wisdom , under these Two distinct Modifications of Begetting and being Begot . But he pretends to explain and confirm his Notion of a distinct Mind , or Wisdom , out of those words of the Nicene Creed , in which the Son is said to be God of God , Light of Light , very God of very God. By which words , I cannot imagine , how this Author thinks to serve his turn ; unless that by Light must be meant Infinite Wisdom , or Infinitely Wise Mind , and that this must also infer the Father and Son to be Two distinct Infinitely Wise Minds , or Wisdoms , one issuing from the other . But if so , then the same words will , and must infer them also to be two distinct Gods , and very Gods : For all these words stand upon the same level in the same Sentence ; and then , if we do but joyn the Term [ Distinct ] equally with every one of them , we shall see what Monstrous Blasphemous Stuff will be drawn out of this Creed . In the mean time let this Author know once for all , That Light of Light imports not here Two distinct Lights , but one Infinite Light under Two different ways of Subsisting , viz. either by and from it self , as it does in the Father , or of and from another , as it does in the Son. All which is plainly and fully imported in and by the Particle [ of ] signifying properly ( as here applyed ) Derivation , or Communication in the thing which it is applyed to . And this is the clear undoubted sense of the Word , as it is used here . In the mean time , I hope the Arians and Socinians will joyn in a Letter of Thanks to this Author , for making such an Inference from the Nicene Creed . In the next place , he comes to St. Austin ; where , though I am equally at a loss to find how he proves his Point by him , any more than by those whom he has already produced ; yet I will transcribe the whole Quotation into the Margin , that so both the Reader may have it under his Eye , and the Author have no cause to complain , that he is not fairly dealt with . Now that which he would infer from thence , seems to be this , That God the Father is Infinitely Wise , by a Wisdom of his own , distinct from that Wisdom by which the Son is called The Wisdom of the Father ; and consequently , that they are Two distinct Infinite Wisdoms , or Infinitely Wise Minds . This , I say , is that which he would inferr , and argue from St. Austin , or I know not what else it can be . But this is by no means deducible from his words : for the Father is wise by one and the same Infinite Wisdom equally belonging both to the Father and the Son , but not by it under that peculiar Formality , as it belongs to the Son. For it belongs to the Son , as Communicated to Him ; whereas it belongs to the Father , as Originally in and from Himself . And whereas it is objected , That if the Father should be Wise by the Wisdom which he Begot , then he could not be said to be Wise by a Wisdom of his own , but only by a Begotten Wisdom proper to the Son. I Answer , That neither does this follow ; since it is but one and the same Essential Wisdom in both , viz. in him who Begets , and in him who is Begotten : Though [ as ] it is in him who is Begotten , it is not after the same way in Him who Begets : So that it is this determining Particle [ as , or Quatenus ] which by importing a distinction of the manner , causes a quite different application of the Term , while the Thing is still the same . For the Father himself is not denominated Wise , even by that very Wisdom that is Essential to Him , considered as Personally determined to the Son ; for so it must be considered as Derived and Communicated , and no Divine Perfection can agree to the Father under the Formal Consideration of [ Derived and Communicated ] albeit the Thing it self , which is Derived and Communicated , absolutely considered , may and does . In a word , the Father is Wise by one and the same Wisdom , which is both in himself and in his Son , but not by it , as it is in the Son. But , by the way , it is worth observing , That this Man who here in the 102 and 103 Pages denies the Father to be Wise by this Begotten Wisdom , which the Son is here called ( and which , in the Sense we have now given of it , is very true ) and alledges St. Austin and Lombard to abett him in it . This very Man , I say , Page 131. Line 24. affirms , That the Son is that Wisdom and Knowledge , wherewith his Father knows himself : Where , If for the Father to be Wise and to know himself be formally the same Act , and as much the same as his Wisdom and Knowledge can be , as it is manifest , they are ; then I leave it to this Author to tell us , which of these two Assertions is false , for both of them , I am sure , cannot be true : But he who makes nothing to contradict himself within the compass of two or three Pages ( and sometimes as many Lines ) may do it cum Privilegio at the distance of near Thirty . And whereas it is urged again from the same place in St. Austin , That if we say the Father begets his own Wisdom , we may as well say , That he Begets his own Goodness , Greatness , Eternity , &c. I Answer , No doubt but we may say one as well as the other , but that in Truth and Propriety of Speech , we can say neither : For God cannot properly be said to beget Wisdom , and much less his own Wisdom , nor indeed any of his other Attributes , or Perfections Essentially taken and considered ; he may indeed be said to Communicate them , and by such Commmnication to Beget a Son. But still , though these are thus said to be Communicated , it is the Person only , who is , or can be properly said to be Begotten . But our Author tells us , Page 103. out of the next Chapter of St. Austin ( the words of which he should have done well to have quoted ) that he there calls God the Father , Sapientia Ingenita , and the Son , Sapientia Genita , and are not these Two distinct Infinite Wisdoms ? I Answer , No : For that the Wisdom here spoken of , is not taken Absolutely and Essentially , but only Personally : That is , for Wisdom under two several Modifications ; which Modifications , though they diversifie and distinguish the Thing they belong to , yet do not multiply it . For still it is one and the same Wisdom , which is both Genita and Ingenita , though as it is one , it is not the other . Sapientia , or Wisdom , considered Absolutely and Essentially in it self , belongs in Common to all the Three Persons ; but with the Term Genita , or Ingenita joyned with it , it imports a peculiar Mode of Subsistence , which determines it to a particular Personality : So that Sapientia quatenus Genita properly and only denotes the Person of the Son. In like manner when the Third Person of the Trinity is called the Spirit , the Term Spirit is not there taken Essentially for that Infinite Immaterial , Incorporeal Nature , Absolutely considered ( for so it is common to all the Three Persons ) but for that Infinite Incorporeal Nature , Quatenus procedens aut spirata , and under that peculiar Mode of Subsistence , it belongs not to the other Two Persons , but stands appropriate only to the Third . Nevertheless this makes them not Three distinct Infinite Spirits ( as we have already shewn ) but only one Infinite Spirit under Three distinct Modalities . Accordingly , when the Son is here called the Wisdom of the Father , that very Term [ of the Father ] imports a Modification of it peculiar to the Son , but yet this Modification does not make it another Wisdom , from that which is in the Father ; since one and the same Wisdom may sustain several determining Modes . Our Author's next Quotation is out of Peter Lombard , Page 103. whom ( for the Credit of what he Quotes from him ) he styles the Oracle of the Schools ( though he , who shall read Lambertus Denoeus upon the first Book of his Sentences , will quickly find what a Doughty Oracle he is . ) The Passage quoted , proceeds upon the same Notion which we find in the foregoing Citation out of St. Austin , whom he also alledges for it . Nevertheless , I shall Transcribe this also , as I did the other , both for the Choice Stuff contained in it , as also that the Reader may have it before him , and thereby see , what use our Author is able to make of it for his purpose . First of all then , he tells us , That in God to be , and to be Wise , is the same thing . And I grant it , with respect to the Absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature : but , for all that , I must tell him , That to Be , and to be Wise , fall under two formally distinct Conceptions , of which the former does not include the latter ; and that for this Reason , such as treat Scholastically of these Matters , do always allow a formal difference between them , and never treat of them , but as so considered . And let me tell him also , that this consideration looks yet something further ; as inferring , That Things formally distinct , must have formally distinct Effects ; so that the formal Effect of one cannot be ascribed to the other . And moreover , that it is a very gross Absurdity to confound the Formal Cause with the Efficient , and so , to argue from one , as you would do from the other . Which Observations being thus laid down , let us see how this Man and his Oracle argue in the Case . And it is thus . If the Wisdom which He [ viz. God the Father ] Begets , be the cause of his being wise , then it is the cause also of his very Being . In Answer to which , I deny the Consequence . For that Wisdom is the cause of one's being Wise only by a formal Causality , viz. by existing in Him , and affecting him in such a particular way : and this it does without being the Cause also of his Existence , that being a Thing formally distinct from his Being Wise : And therefore , though Wisdom , I grant , must presuppose the Existence of the Subject , where it has this Effect : Yet it does not formally cause it ; or rather indeed , for this very reason , cannot possibly do so . But he proceeds and argues further , viz. That supposing the Wisdom Begotten by the Father were the Cause both of his Being , and of his being Wise , then it must be so either by Begetting , or Creating him , ( for so I Interpret Conditricem ) but for one to say , That Wisdom is any way the Begetter , or Maker of the Father , would be the height of Madness . It would be so indeed . And so on the other side to attempt to prove the Father and the Son to be Two distinct Infinite Minds by such strange , odd , uncouth Notions as these , which St. Austin himself ( particularly treating of them in his 7 and 15 Books de Trinitate ) confesses to be Quoestiones inextricabiles , this , I say , ( whatsoever may be the height of Madness ) is certainly not the height of Discretion . Nevertheless , as to the Argument it self , I deny the Consequence . And that because the Begetting , or any otherwise Producing a Thing imports a Cause operating by a proper Efficiency , or Causality ; whereas Wisdom , being only the formal Cause of one's being Wise , ( as it would be no other , could it be the Cause of one's very Being also ) operates only by an Internal , Improper Causality , viz. in a word , Wisdom makes one Wise , as Whiteness makes a Thing White , not by producing any Thing in him , but by Existing in him , and affecting him by it self , after such a certain manner , and thereby giving him such a certain Denomination . Now from hence let any one judge how foreibly and Philosophically this Man Disputes ; the Truth is , were the whole Argument Conclusive , it were nothing to his purpose . But I was willing to shew , That his way of arguing is as defective , as the Thing he Argues for is Absurd . Nevertheless let us see , what the main Conclusion is , which he would draw from the Premises . Why , it is this , That the Father is Eternal Wisdom , or Mind , and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind . I give you his very Terms . And who denies this ? Or what does it conclude for him ? For still I ask , Does he who says , That the Father is Eternal Wisdom , or Mind , and the Son Eternal Wisdom and Mind , by saying so , affirm , That the Father and the Son are Two distinct Eternal Wisdoms , or Minds ? Any more than he who says , That the Father is God , and the Son God , affirms them to be Two distinct Gods ? Let him say it if he can ; and he shall not fail of a through Consutation as soon as it can be Printed off . But to give the Reader an Account of the whole matter in short . This Author has espoused a very Heterodox and dangerous Notion , viz. That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ; and in order to the proof of this , would perswade us , That there are Two distinct Wisdoms , one in the Father , and the other in the Son ; and that for this Reason : Because the Father , who is Essentially Wise , cannot be said to be Wise by that begotten Wisdom , which is in the Son ( albeit the Son be yet said to be the Wisdom of the Father ) but that the Father must have one distinct Wisdom of his own , and the Son another distinct Wisdom of his own . This , I am sure , is the full Account of his Argument from top to bottom . In Answer to which , I have plainly and undeniably shewn , That the Father is Wise by one and the same Essential Wisdom , common to Father , Son and Holy Ghost , though not under that particular Modification , as it Subsists in the other Two Persons , but by that peculiar Modification , by which it is appropriated to , and Subsists in his own . And that those different Modifications do not , for all that , make it any more than one single Numerical Wisdom , but only one and the same under so many distinct Modes of Subsistence , determining it to so many distinct Personalities . This is the Sum both of his Opinion and of mine , and I referr it to the Judicious Reader to arbitrate the Case between us , with this profession and promise , that if in all , or any one of the Quotations alledged by him he can shew , That it is either expresly affirmed , or necessarily implyed , That the Father and the Son are two distinct Infinite Minds , I will , without further proof of any sort , forthwith yield him the Cause , and withal renounce all my poor share in Common Sense and Reason ; nay , and all belief of my own Eyes for the future . But there is one Clause more , which he brings in as one part of his main Conclusion , Page 103. Line 33. viz. That if we confess this of the Father and the Son , to wit , That they are each of them Eternal Mind , or Wisdom , there can be no dispute about the Holy Ghost who is Eternal Mind , and Wisdom , distinct both from Father and Son. Now this is perfectly gratis dictum , without either proof , or pretence of proof ; and that whether we respect the Orthodox , or the Heterodox and Heretical . And , First , For the Orthodox , they utterly deny the Holy Ghost to be an Eternal Mind , or Wisdom distinct both from the Father and the Son ; and I challenge this Author to produce me but one reputed Orthodox Writer , who affirms it . In the mean time , it argues no small Confidence ( to give it the mildest Term ) in this Man to Assert that as certain , and without Dispute , which is neither granted on one side , nor so much as pretended to be proved on the other . But Secondly , If we respect the Heterodox and Heretical , who ( no doubt ) can dispute as much as others , will this Man say , That these also grant this his Assertion about the Holy Ghost without any dispute ? No , it is certain , that they neither do , nor will. For this Author may be pleased to observe , That as some in the Primitive Times , allowed the Son to be only like the Father ; so they made the Holy Ghost a downright Creature , and an inferiour Agent to both . Such were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under their Head and Leader Macedonius ; as we see in St. Austin de Haeresibus , Cap. 52. hereby placing him as much below the Son , as they had placed the Son below the Father , or rather more . Whereupon I appeal even to this Author himself , whether those who did so , would without all dispute have allowed the Holy Ghost to be an Eternal Infinite Mind , or Wisdom , distinct both from the Father and the Son ; and upon that Account , Essentially and Necessarily equal to them both ? Let this Author rub his Fore-head , and affirm this if he can ; and for the future take notice , That it becomes a True and Solid Reasoner , where a Thing is disputed , fairly to prove it , and not boldly and barely to presume it . In the last place he alledges the Judgment of all the Fathers indefinitely in the Case . And truly where he cannot cite so much as one of them to the purpose , I think he does extremely well to make short work of it , and with one bold Impertinent stroke to alledge them all together . His Allegation is this , That it is usual with the Fathers to represent the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity as distinct as Peter , James and John. Well ; and what then ? Why ; That then the said Three Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits . I deny the Consequence , and to give a particular Answer to this general Allegation , I tell him , That it is a Fallacy of the Homonymy of the Word , and that the Term [ as distinct ] is Ambiguous : For it may either signifie , 1. As Real . Or , 2. As Great a Distinction . As for the first , I grant , That the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity differ as really as Peter , Iames , and Iohn ; Forasmuch as they differ by something in the Thing it self , or ex parte rei , antecedent to , and independent upon any Apprehension , or Operation of the Mind about it ; which is a Real difference , and whatsoever is so , is altogether as Real as the Difference between one Man and another can be . But , Secondly , If by Real distinction be meant as great a distinction , so we utterly deny that the Three Divine Persons differ as much as Peter , and Iames , and Iohn do , or that the Fathers ever thought they did so . For this would inferr a greater difference , or distinction between them , than even our Author himself will allow of ; even such a difference , as reaches to a Division , or Separation of the Persons so differing . And since it is impossible for the Persons of the Trinity to differ so , it is hard to imagine upon what bottom of Reason our Author should measure the Distinction , or Difference of the Three Divine Persons , by the Distinction , or Difference , that is between , Peter , Iames , and Iohn . For though the Three Divine Persons differ as really , yet it is certain , that they do not differ as much . But what the Fathers alledged only as an Illustration of the Case , this Man is pleased to make a direct proof of his Point , which by his Favour , is to stretch it a little too far : For , if he would make the foregoing Example a Parallel Instance to the Thing which he applies it to , it would prove a great deal too much , ( as has been shewn ) and therefore as to the Thing , which it is brought for , does indeed prove nothing at all . Now the Thing it is brought to prove , is , That the Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ; but since we have shewn , That a Real Difference , or Distinction , may be much short of such an one as is between two or more Minds , or Spirits , ( which we own to be as great , as between two or more Men ) it follows , That the Real Difference , which is between the Three Divine Persons , cannot prove them to be so many distinct Minds , or Spirits . In short , our Author 's whole Argument amounts to no more but this ( which , though it may sound something jocularly , is really and strictly true ) viz. That because Peter , Iames , and Iohn are so many Men , therefore Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are so many Minds . A pleasant way of Arguing certainly . I have now examined all that this Author has alledged about the distinction of the Three Divine Persons , and I have done it particularly and exactly , not omitting any one of his Quotations . But how comes it to pass all this while , that we have not so much as one Syllable out of the Fathers , or School-men , in behalf of Self-Consciousness ? Which being , according to this Author , the Constituent Reason of the Personality and Personal Distinction of the Three Divine Persons , will he pretend to prove the Distinction it self from the Fathers , and at the same time not speak one Tittle of the Principle , or Reason of this Distinction ? Or will he profess to prove his whole Hypothesis by the Authority of the Fathers , and yet be silent of Self-Consciousness , which he himself makes one grand and principal part of the said Hypothesis ? Certainly , one would think , that the very shame of the World , and that Common Awe and regard of Truth , which Nature has imprinted upon the Minds of Men , should keep any one from offering to impose upon Men in so gross and shameless a manner , as to venture to call a Notion or Opinion , the Constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools ; nay , and to profess to make it out , and shew it to be so , and while he is so doing , not to to produce one Father , or Schoolman , I say again , not so much as one of either in behalf of that , which he so confidently and expresly avows to be the joynt Sentiment of Both. This surely is a way of proving , or rather of imposing peculiar to Himself . But we have seen how extremely fond he is of this new Invented Term and Notion : And therefore since he will needs have the Reputation of being the sole Father and Begetter of the Hopefull Issue , there is no Reason in the World that Antiquity should find other Fathers to maintain it . CHAP. VII . In which is shewn , That the Passages alledged by this Author out of the Fathers do not prove Mutual-Consciousness to be that , wherein the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity does Consist : But that the Fathers place it in something else . OUR Author having undertook to make good his Doctrine about the Blessed Trinity , from the Fathers ; and that both as to the Distinction of the Divine Persons , and also as to their Unity in the same Nature ; And having said what he could from those Ancient Writers , for that new sort of Distinction which he ascribes to the said Persons , in the former part of his 4th Section , which I have confuted in the preceding Chapter ; he proceeds now , in the following , and much longer part of the same Section , to prove the Unity of the Three Persons in one and the same Nature , according to his own Hypothesis . And the Proofs of this we shall reduce under these Two following Heads , as containing all that is alledged by him upon this point of his Discourse , viz. First , That it is one and the same Numerical Divine Nature , which belongs to all the Three Divine Persons . And , Secondly , That the Thing , wherein this Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature does consist , is that Mutual-Consciousness , by which all the Three Persons are intimately Conscious to one another of all that is known by , or belongs to each of them in particular . And here the Authority of the Fathers is pleaded by him for both of these , and I readily grant it for the first , but however shall examine what this Author produces for the one , as well as for the other . But before I do this , I must observe to him , That if that Distinction Asserted by him between the Divine Persons , whereby they stand distinguished as Three Infinite Minds , or Spirits , holds good , all his proofs of the Unity of their Nature will come much too late . For he has thereby already destroyed the very Subject of his Discourse ; and it is in vain to seek , wherein the Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature ( as it belongs to the Three Persons ) does Consist , after he has affirmed that , which makes such an Unity utterly impossible . And it has been sufficiently proved against him in our 5th Chapter , That Three Infinite Minds or Spirits , can never be one Numerical Infinite Mind , or Spirit , nor consequently one God. Three distinct Spirits can never be otherwise One , than by being United into one Compound , or Collective Being , which , ( could such a Thing be admitted here ) might be called indeed an Union , but an Unity properly it could not . And hereupon I cannot but observe also , That this Author very often uses these Terms promiscuously , as if Union and Unity , being United into One , and being One , signified the very same Thing ; whereas , in strictness and propriety of Speech , whatsoever Things are United into One , cannot be Originally One ; and è Converso , whatsoever is Originally One , cannot be so , by being United into One : for as Suidas explains the word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is to say , Union is so called from the pressing [ or thrusting ] together several Things into one . But our Author , who with great profoundness , tells us of the same Nature in Three distinct Persons being United into One Numerical Essence , or God-head , Page 118. Lines 9 , 10. has certainly a different Notion of Union from all the World besides . For how one and the same Nature ( though in never so many distinct Persons : since it is still supposed the same in all ) can be said to be United into any one Thing , I believe surpasses all Humane Apprehension to conceive ; Union in the very Nature of it , being of several Things , not of one and the same . I desire the Reader to consult the place , and to extract the best sense out of it that he can . And thus having presented our Author with this Preliminary Observation , I shall now proceed to consider how he acquits himself in the first Thing undertook by him , viz. The proving a Numerical Unity of Nature in the Three Divine Persons , out of the Fathers ; which tho' I do as readily grant , and as firmly believe , as this Author does , or can ; yet I think it worth while to shew , with what Skill , Decency , and Respect he Treats the Fathers upon this Subject . And here in the first place he tells his Reader , That this being a Mystery so great , and above all Example in Nature , it is no wonder if the Fathers found it necessary to use several Examples , and to allude to several kinds of Union to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the God-head . And withall , That they take several steps towards the Explication of this great Mystery , viz. of an Unity of Nature in a Trinity of Persons , page 106. In our Examination of which Passages ( reserving his former words to be considered elsewhere ) we will first consider the steps which ( he says ) the Fathers made towards the Explication of this Mistery . And these , he tells us , are Two. First , The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( i. e. ) the Coessentiality of the Divine Persons , whereby all the Three Persons of the God-head have the same Nature , Page 106. Secondly the other is a Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence , or Nature , Page 121. Line 6. which ( to answer one Greek word with another ) we may call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , St. Cyril authorizing the Expression , whom we find speaking of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as Ammonius Cites him in his Catena upon Iohn 17. 11 , 21. Now as this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Sameness of Nature , and this Numerical Unity of Nature , lying fifteen whole Pages , in this Author's Book , distant from one another , must be confessed to make a very large stride ; so , for all that , they will be found to make but an insignificant step ; as setting a Man not one jot further than he was before . For as touching those Words and Terms , which the Fathers used to express the Unity of the Divine Nature by , I do here , without any demurr , affirm to this Author , That Coessentiality , Sameness of Nature , and Sameness of Essence , all signified by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as also Unity of Nature , and Unity of Essence , expressed by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , do all of them , in the sense of the Fathers denote but one and the same Thing , viz. A Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature , only , I confess , with some Circumstantial Difference , as to the way , or manner of their signification . For , 1. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifies Unity of Nature , with a Connotation of some Things , or Persons to whom it belongs . Upon which Account it is , that St. Ambrose ( whom this Author cites ) speaking of this word in his 3d Book , Chap. 7. tells us , That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliud alii , non ipsum est sibi : Nor indeed is any Thing said to be the same , but with respect to some Thing , or Circumstance besides it self . And therefore no wonder if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was anciently rejected , since the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , relating to the Person , whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to , must import a Singularity of Person as well as an Unity of Essence , which would be contrary to the Catholick Faith. But , 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifies Unity of Nature , or Essence , without Connotation of any to whom it belongs : Not but that it does really and indeed belong to the Three Divine Persons , but that according to the strict and proper signification and force of the word , it does not connote , or imply them , but abstracts , or prescinds from them . And this is a true Account of these words , by which the Fathers ( without making more steps than one ) intended and meant the same Thing , viz. a Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature , belonging to all the Three Persons , only with this difference , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Unity of the Divine Nature , with a Connotation of the Persons in whom it is ; which also gives it the Denomination of Sameness ; and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifies the Unity of the same Nature absolutely and abstractedly , without imploying , or co-signifying any respect to those in whom it is , and to whom it belongs . So that these words ( as much Two as they are ) yet in the sense and meaning of the Fathers , import but one and the same Unity . But our Author tells us , That though indeed the Fathers own an Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , yet , since there is a Specifick , as well as a Numerical Unity , the Dispute is here , which of these two Unities we shall assign to the Divine Nature , with reference to the Divine Persons . And for this ; He tells us , That Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved , That the Nicene Fathers did not understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Numerical , but of a Specifical Sameness of Nature , or the agreement of Things Numerically different from one another in the same Common Nature , Page 106. about the end . In Answer to which , I must confess my self very unfit to take such Great and Truly Learned Persons to task , and that upon comparing this Author and Petavius together ( if there can be any comparison between them ) I find much more Reason to believe that he mistook the meaning of Petavius , than that Petavius could mistake the meaning of the Fathers . But however , I shall lay down this as a Conclusion , which I take to be undoubtedly true , viz. That the Ancient Fathers , as well the Nicene , as those after them , held only a Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity : That is , in other words , They held and acknowledged one Numerical God , and no more . This Conclusion I hold , and have good reason to believe , That neither Petavius nor Dr. Cudworth shall be able to wrest it from me . For the chief Reason of some Men's charging the Fathers with holding a Specifick Unity of Nature amongst the Divine Persons , is drawn from this , That some of them , and particularly Maximus and Nyssen ( cited by this Author ) seem to argue from that Specifick Unity of Nature which is found in several Individual Men , to an Unity of the Divine Nature in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity . To which I Answer , That the Fathers never used the Example of Three or more Individual Men , agreeing in the same Nature as a Parallel Instance of the same sort , or degree of Unity with that which is in the Three Divine Persons ; but always alledged it , one , or ( perhaps sometimes ) both of these two ways . First , By way of Allusion , or Illustration ( as I have already noted in the foregoing Chapter ) and as it is the nearest Resemblance of , and Approach to this Divine Unity of any that could be found in Created Beings . For still their Argument proceeds only by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one side , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other , ( as appears from that place quoted out of Maximus , P. 107. ) which Terms surely do not of necessity import an Identity of the Case , but only some Similitude in the parts of the Comparison . Secondly , The Fathers used the forementioned Example as an Argument à minore ad majus , viz. That if several Individual Men could not properly be said to have more than one Nature ( upon which Nyssen's who le Argument turns ) much less could this be said of the Three Divine Persons . Forasmuch as it is not only certain , but evident , That Persons merely distinguished from one another and no more , must have a greater Unity of Nature , than such as are not only distinguished , but also divided from one another by a separate Existence . And let any one stretch this Argument of the Fathers further if he can . I do not in the least deny , but several Expressions may have dropped from the Fathers , which , if we look'd no further , might be drawn to a very inconvenient sense . But then also it is as little to be denied , That the same Fathers professedly and designedly treating of the same Points , have declared themselves in such Terms , as are very hardly , if at all reconcileable to those Occasional and Accidental Expressions . And therefore since their meaning cannot be taken from both , it ought much rather to be taken from what was Asserted by them designedly , than what was Asserted only occasionally . To which I shall add this further Remark , That a due consideration of the Circumstances , under which those Fathers wrote , may very well Apologize for the Dese●●s of some of their Arguments . For the Grand Controversie which exercised the Orthodox Writers of the fourth and part of the fifth Century , was that with the Arians . So that we have the less cause to wonder if some of their Reasonings about the Trinity seem to look no further than the proof of a Specifick Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , while they had to deal with Adversaries who would not allow so much as this between the Father and the Son , but instead of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Sameness , held only an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Likeness of Nature between them ; which , together with the foregoing Considerations , may serve as a Key to let us into the true Explication of several Passages of the Fathers ; about the meaning of which we might otherwise possibly be something at a loss . And the same likewise may serve to give a fair Account of what has been alledged by Petavius , and mistook by this Author upon the present Subject . For to traverse and examine all Petavius's Allegations particularly would require a full and distinct Work by it self . But still our Author seems extremely set upon making good his first step of a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature from the Fathers ; and to that purpose he tells us , Page 107. Line 23. That one thing wherein the Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead is , that all the Three Persons have the same Nature , by which he means ( as shall be shewn presently ) Specifically the same Nature ; and a few Lines after , he tells us again , That some of the Fathers went further than this , and plac'd the Essential Unity of the Divine Nature in the Sameness of Essence , Lines 30 , 31 , 32 , of the same Page . Now here I would desire this Author to inform me of Two Things . First , By what Rule of speaking , or upon what Principle of Divinity , Logick , or Philosophy , Sameness of Nature ought to signifie one Thing , and Sameness of Essence to signifie another ; and withal to be so contra-distinguished to each other , that in the degrees of Unity , this latter must be a step beyond the former ? For the Fathers , I am sure , make no such distinction , but use the words Sameness of Nature , and Sameness of Essence , as well as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 themselves promiscuously ; so that neither by their Native signification , nor yet by their use , do they import any more than one sort of Unity . Secondly , Whereas in Page 106. Lines 23 , 24. he makes the first step towards this Unity to consist in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Coessentiality , ( which also in the next Page , Line 23. &c. he explains by Sameness of Nature ; ) And whereas in Page 121. he makes a Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence , the next step ( introducing it with the word Secondly ) and telling us , That the Fathers added it to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which he had before made the first step ; And whereas , notwithstanding this , having in Page 107. told us , That Sameness of Nature was one Thing wherein the Fathers placed the Unity of the Divine Nature , within seven Lines after , he tells us , That some of the Fathers went further , and placed it in the Sameness of Essence , ( which , yet it is manifest all along , that he reckons not the same Thing with Numerical Unity of Essence ) I desire to know of him , whether there be Two second steps in this Unity ? or , whether there be one between the first and the second ? For he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Sameness of Nature one step , Page 106 , 107. And Sameness of Essence a further step , Page 107. Line 30. &c. And then Numerical Unity of Nature another step , calling it also the Second , Page 121. Line 5. These Things , I must confess , I am utterly unable to give any Consistent Account of , and I shrewdly suspect , that our Author himself is not able to give a much better . But it is still his way to forget in one place what he has said in another ; and how kind soever he may be to himself , I should think it very hard for another Man to forget himself so often , and to forgive himself too . Nevertheless our Author , without mincing the Matter , roundly Asserts a Specifick Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , telling us , Line 23. &c. of the fore-cited Page 107. That this is absolutely necessary to make the Three Persons one God , and that it is impossible that they should be so without it ; where it is evident , that he means a Specifick Unity , both from this , that it was the Subject , which he had been there treating of , as also from this , that immediately after he mentions another sort , or degree of Unity , as a step further than this ; which , since nothing can be but a Numerical Unity , it follows , That that which was one step short of a Numerical , must needs be a Specifical . And now is it not strange , that in Page 109. which is but the next save one after this , this Man should positively say , ( as he does ) That the Fathers never so much as Dream'd of a specifick Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , having here in Page 107. affirmed it to be no less than absolutely necessary to make the Three Persons one God ? And that certainly is a necessity with a witness . But he , who exacts of this Author a consistency with himself for five Pages together , deals very severely with him . And accordingly , the more I consider of this Matter , I cannot but think , that what he says of the Nicene Fathers holding a Specifick Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , Page 106. and his affirming that Gregory Nyssen , St. Cyril , Maximus and Damascen never so much as Dream'd of any such Unity , Page 109. Line 22. will by no means consist together . For first , If by the Nicene Fathers be meant not only those who were present at that Council , but those Fathers also who about those Times held the same Faith which was Established in that Council , then his two fore-cited Passages contain a gross , manifest , fulsome Contradiction ; even as gross as the positive asserting of a thing , and the never so much as dreaming of it , can import . But if by the Nicene Fathers he means only those who sat and acted in that Council , he will hardly however perswade any understanding Man , That Gregory Nyssen , who Wrote and flourished between Fifty and Sixty Years after the Council , and Maximus about Sixty , and St. Cyril about Ninety , could be so grosly ignorant of , and Strangers to the Sentiments of those Fathers , as not so much as to Dream of that wherein they had placed the Unity of the God-head . This to me seems Incredible and morally Impossible : since it is not to be imagined , that Nyssen , Cyril , and Maximus could so soon forget , or knowingly dare to relinquish the Doctrine of the fore-mentioned Fathers , whose Authority was so great and Sacred all the Christian World over . And therefore since this Author allows these Fathers not to have Dreamt of a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature ; I conclude , That neither did the Nicene Fathers Dream of it any more than they , howsoever they might express themselves upon some occasions . And thus having ( as well as he could ) made his first step , by Asserting a Specifick Unity , or Sameness of Nature in the Three Divine Persons from the Fathers , that is to say , partly from what Petavius and Dr. Cudworth had told him of the Nicene Fathers holding such a Specifick Unity between them , and partly from the other Fathers never so much as dreaming of it , he proceeds now to his other step , or rather Counter-step ; which is to shew , That the Unity between the Divine Persons , held by the Fathers , was no other than a Numerical Unity of Nature , or Essence belonging to them : For since to be one only Specifically , and to be one only Numerically , are by no means consistent with one another , in respect of the same Persons , what can this be so truly and properly called as a Counter-step to that which he had made before ? His Method being plainly this . First he tells us , that the Nicene Fathers by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood only a Specifick Unity , or Sameness of Nature in the Divine Persons , Page 106. And then , that the Fathers [ mentioning them indefinitely ] held this Sameness of Nature absolutely necessary to make the said Three Persons one God , Page 107. And now at length he tells us , Page 121. Lines 27 , 28 , 29. That though several of the Fathers attempted several ways of explaining that Unity of Nature that is in the Divine Persons , yet they all agree in the Thing , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three distinct Divine Persons are united in one Numerical Nature and Essence . So that the Sum of all must be this ( as appears also from his own words in the latter end of Page 120. and the four first Lines of the 121. ) that according to him , the Fathers held a Specifick Unity of Nature necessary to make the Three Divine Persons one God , but not sufficient without the Completion of it by a Numerical Unity superadded to it . This , I say , is the Sum of what he delivers ; and in direct opposition to which , I do here deny , That there is any such Thing as a Specifick Unity of Nature belonging to the Divine Persons , or that the Fathers ever held , that there was . And to prove this , I shall premise this Assertion both as certain in itself , and withall affirmed by this Author in those forecited words , viz. That all the Fathers held , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three distinct Persons are United in ( or rather are One , by ) One Numerical Nature and Essence . Which being so premised , I have these Considerations to oppose to the Admission of any Specifick Unity in the Divine Nature as it belongs to the Divine Persons . As , First , If a Numerical Unity in the same Divine Nature be sufficient to make the Three Divine Persons to whom it belongs , One God , then a Specifick Unity of the same is not necessary ; but a Numerical Unity in the same Divine Nature is sufficient to make the said Three Persons One God , and therefore a Specifick Unity is not necessary . The Consequence is evident , because nothing can be necessary to any Thing , or Effect , beyond , or beside what is sufficient for the same ; since this would imply a manifest Contradiction , by making the same Thing , in the same respect , both sufficient and not sufficient . And as for the Minor , That an Agreement in one and the same Numerical Divine Nature is sufficient to make the Persons so agreeing One God. I suppose this carries with it so much Self-Evidence , that no Man of Reason will pretend to doubt of , and much less to deny it . Secondly , A greater degree of Unity , and a less degree of Unity are not to be admitted in the Divine Nature . But a Numerical Unity and a Specifical Unity , are a greater and a less degree of Unity , and therefore they are not both to be admitted in the Divine Nature . The Major is proved thus , because two such Unities would overthrow the simplicity of the Divine Nature ; forasmuch as they must be either two degrees of the same kind of Unity , or they must be two different kinds of Unity : Either of which would inferr a Composition by no means to be endured in the Divine Nature . As for the Minor , it is evident in it self , and needs no Proof . Thirdly , Such a degree , or sort of Unity of Nature , as may agree to Ten Thousand Individuals , neither can nor ought to be admitted in the Divine Nature , with reference to the Divine Persons . But a Specifick Unity of Nature may agree to Ten Thousand Individuals , as well as to Two or Three ; since ( upon a Specifick Account ) it has no Stint , or Limitation , but may be every whit as well and properly in the former Number , as in the latter ; and therefore it neither can nor ought to be admitted in the Divine Nature . Fourthly , Such an Unity as is principally , if not absolutely Notional , and depends upon the Operation of the Intellect drawing one common Notion from the agreement , which it observes in several Individuals , is by no means necessary to make the Three Divine Persons One God , nor can any way properly belong to them . But a Specifick Unity is such an one . And therefore it neither is , nor can be necessary to the making the Three Divine Persons One God , as this Author most absurdly Asserts , p. 107. Line 23 , 24. The Major is evident . For that , if such an Unity could be necessary upon that Account , then there would be some sort or degree of Unity in the Divine Nature so depending upon the Operation of some Intellect , or other ( forming one common Notion out of several Particulars , ) that , had not such an Operation passed upon the said Particulars , such an Unity could not have been , nor consequently could the Three Divine Persons have been one God without it ; which to affirm , would certainly be both a Monstrous and Blasphemous Assertion . Fifthly and lastly , If a Specifick Unity of Nature consists with , and indeed implies a Multiplication of the said Nature , in every one of the Particulars , to which it belongs ; then such a Specifick Unity can by no means be admitted in the Divine Nature . But a Specifick Unity of Nature imports a Multiplication of the said Nature in every one of the Particulars to which it belongs ; And therefore such an Unity cannot be admitted in the Divine Nature . The Reason of the Consequence is evident ; because the Divine Nature is uncapable of any Multiplication : And herein consists the difference of the Divine Nature's belonging to the Divine Persons , and of any other Nature's belonging to its proper Individuals ; That this latter is by a Multiplication of it self in them , and the other by a bare Communication of it self to them , so as that the same Numerical Nature exists in , and becomes thereby common to all the Three Persons . As for the Minor Proposition , That a Specifick Unity of Nature consists with and implies a Multiplication of the said Nature in the several Individuals which it belongs to ; I referr him to all the Logicians and Metaphysicians who have wrote of Species , and Specifick Unity , of Idem , & Diversum , whether they do not give this Account of it . But I fancy this Author has a reach of Cunning ( tho' but a short one ) in the case . For that having made the Three Divine Persons Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits , which can never be One by a Numerical Unity ; he is willing to provide them a Specifical Unity , and to see whether that will serve the turn ; but as the Nature of the Thing unhappily falls out to be , that will not do it neither . These are the Considerations which I thought fit to advance against the Admission of a Specifick Unity in the Divine Nature , with reference to the Divine Persons . And the Conclusion , which I draw from them all , is this , That since the Fathers ( and that even by this Authors own Confession ) held a Numerical Unity of Nature in the Three Divine Persons , we can by no means grant that the said Fathers admitted also a Specifick Unity in the same , without making them guilty of a gross Absurdity and Contradiction . Forasmuch as these Two sorts , or degrees of Unity are utterly incompatible in the Divine Nature . I hope by this time the Judicious Reader sees how fit this Man is to be trusted with the Fathers , whose Judgment about so weighty an Article he dares misrepresent in such a manner . For to sum up briefly what he has said upon this Point . First , he tells us , That the Fathers agree very well in the Account they give of a Trinity in Unity , Page 106. and the four first Lines . Next he tells us , That the Nicene Fathers asserted a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity , and understood the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of such an Unity , and not of a Numerical , Page 106. and the five last Lines . And Thirdly , That this Specifick Unity , or Sameness of Nature , was absolutely Necessary to make the Three Divine Persons One God , and that it was impossible they should be so without it , Page 107. Lines 23 , 24. And Fourthly , That the other Fathers ( of which he there names four ) never so much as Dream'd of a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature , Page 109. lines 22 , 23. And Lastly , That the Fathers do not stop in this Specifick Unity and Identity of Nature , but proceed to shew how the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves a true Numerical and Essential Unity of the Godhead in the Three Divine Persons , Page 114. Lines 30 , 31 , 32 , 33. From all which Assertions , which lie plain and open in the forecited Pages , I desire this Author to resolve me these following Queries . 1. Whether those Fathers who Assert a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature , and those who never Dreamt of such an Unity ; And those again , who by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood only a Specifick , and not a Numerical Unity of Nature ; and those who by the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceed to prove a Numerical Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , can be said to agree so very well in the Account they give of a Trinity in Unity ? 2. Whether those could give a true and right Account of a Trinity in Unity , who never so much as Dreamt of that , which was so absolutely necessary to make the Three Divine Persons One God , that they could not possibly be so without it ? 3. Whether a Specifick Unity , or Sameness of Nature in several Persons , is or can be a direct and proper proof of a Numerical Unity and Identity of Nature in the said Persons ? These Questions , I say , being the Natural and Immediate Results of this Author 's Positions , I hope he will graciously vouchsafe , sometime or other , to give the World a satisfactory Resolution of . In the mean time I will tell him what it was , that imposed upon him so , as to make him talk thus Absurdly and Unphilosophically of a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature , and traduce the Fathers also , as if they held the same . And that in one word is , That in the Subject before us , he takes Specifick Nature and Common Nature to signifie one and the same Thing ; whereas , though every Specifick Nature be a Common Nature , yet every Common Nature is not a Specifick Nature ( no nor a Generical neither . ) And that this was his mistake , appears from those words of his in Page 106. where he says , That Petavius and Dr. Cudworth have abundantly proved , That the Nicene Fathers did not understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Numerical , but of a Specifical Sameness of Nature , or the agreement of Things Numerically differing from one another in the same Common Nature . ] In which words it is evident , That he makes Specifick Sameness of Nature , and the Agreement of Things numerically different , in one and the same Common Nature , to signifie Convertibly the same Thing ; and when he has done so , he opposes them Both to a Numerical Sameness of Nature , as appears from the Adversative Particle [ But ] placed between them . In which , let me tell him he is guilty of a very great mistake , both by making those Things the same , which are not the same , and by making an Opposition where there is a real Coincidence . For , by his favour , one and the same Numerical Divine Nature is a Common Nature too ; forasmuch as without any Division , or Multiplication of it self , it belongs in Common to the Three Divine Persons . The Term [ Deus ] indeed is neither a Genus , nor a Species . Nevertheless all Divines and School-men allow it to be a Terminus Communis , as properly predicable of , and Common to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; and in this very Thing consists the Mystery of the Trinity , That one and the same Numerical Nature should be Common to , and Exist in Three Numerically distinct Persons . And therefore for one ( who pretends to teach the whole World Divinity ) while he is Discoursing of the Divine Nature and Persons , to oppose Common Nature , to Nature Numerically One , and from the Commonness of it , to make the Fathers Argue against its Numericalness ( whereas the same Divine Nature may be , and really is both ) it is a shrewd sign of the want of something or other in that Man , that must needs render him extremely unfit to prescribe , and dictate in these Matters . In fine , the sole Point driven at all along by the Fathers , as to the Question about the Unity of the Divine Nature ( for their Arguments to prove the Coequality of the Three Divine Persons against the Arians are not now before us ) is an Assertion of a Real Numerical Existing Unity of the said Nature in the said Persons . I say , a Numerical Unity , without making any more steps , or degrees in it than One , or owning any distinction between Sameness of Nature , and Sameness of Essence . And much less by making ( as this Author does ) a Specifick Sameness of Nature , one thing wherein they place the Unity of the Divine Nature , and then making Sameness of Essence another and further degree in the Unity of the said Nature ; and when they have done so , by a return back explaining this Sameness of Essence , by the Sameness of Nature newly mentioned ; as he says , they do , in these words , immediately following ( by way of Exegesis of the former ) viz. That there is but one God , because all the Three Divine Persons have the same Nature , Page 107. and the two last Lines . All which is a Ridiculous Circle , and a Contradiction to boot , making Sameness of Nature one step , and Sameness of Essence another , and then making this Sameness of Essence no more than a Sameness of Nature , again ; so that according to him the Fathers must be said to go further , by resting in the very same step which they first made : Which way of Reasoning , I confess , may serve well enough for one , who can forget in one Page , what he had said in the other just before . But ( by his favour ) the Fathers were a little more Consistent , and understood themselves better than to run Divisions in such a senseless manner upon a Thing that admitted none . And thus having shewn how he has dealt with the Fathers in the Account given by him of their Opinion about the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity , ( which was the first Head , under which I reduced his Allegations from them , ) I come now in the 2d Place , to the other and Principal Head ; under which he undertakes to prove the chief and more peculiar part of his Hypothesis from the said Fathérs , viz. That the Unity and Identity of Nature belonging to the Three Divine Persons , consists in the Mutual-Consciousness which is between them , That is in Truth , That they are therefore One God , because they are Conscious to themselves , that they are so . And here I shall begin with shewing how this Author overthrows the Point undertook by him before he produces any Arguments from the Fathers for it . And to this Purpose I shall resume those words of his before cited by me out of Page 106. In which he reminds his Reader , That Trinity in Unity being so great a Mystery , and of which we have no Example in Nature , it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union , and that therefore it was necessary to use several Examples , and to allude to several kinds of Union , to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the God-head . Now here , since our Author's Notion , and the Fathers too ( as he says ) of this Unity is nothing else but Mutual-Consciousness , I desire to Learn of him , what necessity there was or is of using several Examples , and alluding to several kinds of Union to explain , or form an adequate Notion of that ? And I wonder what kind of Thing he would make of his Mutual-Consciousness , should he come to explain and describe it by several Examples , and several Kinds of Union ? But this is not all , for he tells us likewise ( as we also observed before that there are several steps to be taken towards the Explication of this Mystery . Whereupon I would again learn of him how many steps are necessary to explain Mutual-Conciousness ? for one would imagine one single step sufficient to represent and declare a Thing which every Body understands . This Author indeed confidently enough Asserts , That the Fathers give no other Account of a Trinity in Unity , than the same which he gives of it , Pag. 101. Line 2. But certainly if the Fathers thought several Examples , Steps and Kinds of Union absolutely necessary to explain the Notion they had of this Unity , and if these cannot be necessary to explain the Notion of Mutual-Consciousness , then it must follow , That the Fathers neither did , nor possibly could by that Unity mean Mutual-Consciousness . And if this Author doubts of the force of this Reasoning , let him try his skill , and see what Learned stuff he is like to make of it when he comes to explain his Notion of Mutual-Consciousness by several Examples , Steps , and Sorts of Union , and out of them all to form one adequate Notion of this so much admired Thing . Wherefore I conclude , and , I think , unanswerably , That the Fathers by this Unity between the Divine Persons , mean one Thing , and this Man quite another ; and consequently that they have given a very different Account of it , from what he gives , contrary to his equally bold and false Asseveration , affirming it to be the very same . And now I am ready to see what he has to offer us from the Fathers in behalf of his Mutual-Consciousness ; but because I am extremely desirous , that the Reader should keep him close to the Point , and not suffer him to wander from it ( which , in dispute , he is as apt to do as any Man living ) I shall presume to hint this to him , That the Point to be proved by this Author , is not that the Three Divine Persons have one and the same Numerical Nature , or Essence , nor that they are Mutually Conscious to one another of whatsoever each of them is , or knows ; no , nor yet that this Mutual-Consciousness inferrs an Unity of Nature in them , as a Thing inseparable from it . But he is to prove , That this Unity of Nature , and this Mutual-Consciousness are Convertibly one and the some Thing , or that this latter is to the former what the Essence or Form of any Thing is to that Thing : That is to say , That the Unity of the Divine Nature formally Consists in , and is , what it is , by that Mutual-Consciousness which belongs to the Three Divine Persons . This , I say , is the Thing to be proved by Him. And so I proceed to his Arguments ( which I assure the Reader , he shall find very strange ones ) nevertheless to give him as easie and distinct a view of them , as I can , I will set down the several Heads of them before I particularly discuss them . 1. The First of them is from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascribed , by the Fathers , to all the Three Divine Persons joyntly . 2. The Second from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 3. The Third from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Circumincession attributed likewise by the Fathers to them . 4. The Fourth from the Representation , which St. Austin makes of the Trinity , by the Mind , and its Three distinct Faculties of Understanding , Memory , and Will. And , 5. The Fifth and Last from the Unity of the Original Principle , or Fountain of the Deity , or rather ( say I ) of the second and third Persons of the Trinity . All which I shall examine distinctly , and in their order . But before I do so , I think fit to give the Reader an Account in one word of this Author 's whole design in all the Particulars above specified . And that is , to prove , that the Unity of the Divine Nature consists in Unity of Operation , and then to suppose ( for he does not so much as to go about to prove it ) that this Unity of Operation is Mutual-Consciousness . This is the Sum Total of the Business ; but I now come to Particulars . And , First , for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quoted by him out of Greg. Nyssen . Where , before we see how far it may be formed into an Argument , I think it requisite to give some Account how this Author Discourses of it . I must confess , I have sometimes wondred , what design he could have in so zealously exploding those commonly received Terms of Substance , Essence and Nature from any application of them to God : which here he does again afresh , telling us in Page 115. lines 24 , 25 , 26 , 27. That it confounds our minds when we talk of the Numerical Unity of the God-head to have the least Conception or Thought about the Distinction and Union of Natures and Essences . And that therefore we are to speak of God only in words importing Energy or Operation : And accordingly for this reason Gr. Nyssen expresses God by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , words not signifying Nature or Essence , but only Sight and Inspection ; Nay and this Author has gone a step much beyond this , plainly telling us , That the Father and the Son are Energy or Operation , Page 132. Line 13. And that Nature and Energy are the same in God , P. 133. L. 20. and consequently , That we are to entertain no other Conception of God , but as of a pure simple Operation . And thus , when we have degraded the Divine Nature from Substance to Operation , it is but one step more to degrade it to bare Notion . This conceit of this Author , I say , at first I could not but wonder at , but am since pretty well aware of what he drives at by it . And that is in short , That he thinks it a much easier Matter to make Action , or Operation , than Substance , Essence , or Nature pass for Mutual Consciousness : And this upon good Reason , I am satisfied , is the Thing he designs : But I believe he will fall short of fetching his Mutual-Consciousness out of either of them . And therefore first to Correct that Crude Notion of his , That we must not speak of God in Terms importing Nature , but Operation ; I desire this Bold Man ( as I urged before in Chap. 2 ) to tell me whether the Names of Iah and Iehovah , and I am that I am , by which , God revealed himself to his People , were not Names of Nature and Essence ? and whether God revealed them for any other purpose than that he might be known and understood by them ? But for all this he will have us to know from Gr. Nyssen , That the Divine Nature is quid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Thing above Name or Expression . And it is so , I confess , as to an adequate complete Conception or Description of it . But then , I ask him , are not the Divine Operations so too ? Are we able to comprehend them perfectly , and to the utmost of what , and how they are ? When the Psalmist tells us , that God has put darkness under his feet , Psal. 18. 9. and that his footsteps are not known , Psal. 77. 19. And the Apostle in Rom. 11. 33. That his judgments are unsearchable , and his ways past finding out . And are not these passages an Account of his Dealings and Operations in the Government of the World ? And yet surely , notwithstanding all this , we may have some true , though imperfect Conceptions both of his Nature and of his Operations also : And I desire this Assuming Man to inform me , What should hinder , but that so much as we Conceive of God , we may likewise express , and ( what is more ) prove too ? For though Gregory Nyssen has told us , That the Divine Nature is unexpressible , yet , I hope , a Thing may be proved , though the Nature of it cannot always be throughly expressed . But the Truth is , he makes this Father Argue at a very odd rate . For he tells us , Page 115. That one way , by which Gregory Nyssen undertakes to prove , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Specifick Sameness of Nature , ( as this Man understands it ) proves a Numerical Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , is , because the Name [ God ] does not so properly signifie the Divine Nature as something relating to it : Which is a rare Proof indeed ; it being as much as to say , that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Sameness of Nature , proves one God , because [ God ] does not signifie Nature . But St. Gregory is far from arguing so ( which , besides the Absurdity of it , is only denying instead of proving ) but he proves Sameness and Unity of Nature , by Sameness , or Unity of Operation ; and that surely he might very well do , without making Unity of Nature only an Unity of Operation . And no less absurd is it , to represent St. Gregory making Unity of Operation one way whereby the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Specifick Sameness of Nature , proves a Numerical Unity of Nature : For though Unity of Operation it self proves this , yet surely it is not a Medium , whereby a Specifick Unity of the said Nature , does , or can prove it . But to proceed , That Assertion of this Author , [ That God is properly Energy , or Operation ] contains in it more Absurdities than one . For first he takes Energy and Operation for the same Thing ; whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly vis activa , and Operation is only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or actual Exercise of that vis , or Power . But whether it signifies one or both , it is certain , that God is properly neither of them . For ( as I have shewn before ) we must speak of God as we are able to conceive of him ; and we conceive of God not as of an Action , but as of an Agent ; that is , as of a Substance acting , or exerting it self ; and upon this Account I do here tell this Author , that it is impossible for Humane Reason to conceive of Action , or Operation , but as founded in Substance ; and that nothing would more confound and overturn all the Methods , Ways , and Notions of Men's Minds , than to endeavour to conceive of it otherwise . And therefore if God is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Action , it is by a Metonymy of the Adjunct for the Subject , or the Effect for the Cause ; for truly and properly he is not so . And now , if this Author shall think to take Sanctuary in that known Expression of God , That he is a pure simple Act , he may please to take notice , that the Term Act is Ambiguous ; and sometimes signifies an Actus Entitativus , which is no more than the Entity , or Being of a Thing , and sometimes an Actus Physicus , which is the Operation , or Exertion of some Active Power . And it is in the former sense only in which God is said to be a pure simple Act , and not in the latter . And , by this Author's Favour , every Substance , Essence , or Nature is such an Act ; which quite spoils all his fine Notion about expressing God only by Terms of Energy and Operation , in exclusion of those of Nature , Essence and Substance . This I thought fit to premise , as throwing up the very foundation of all his Arguments , and indeed of his whole Hypothesis . And so I come to his Argument , the Sum of which , is this . That the Divine Nature is Divine Energy , or Operation ; and therefore , That the Unity of Divine Operation , is Unity of Divine Nature ; and Lastly , That this Unity of Divine Nature is Mutual-Consciousness . Now it is certain , That there is not one of all these Three Propositions true ; but that is no fault of mine : since if they were cast into a Syllogism , that would not mend the Matter ; for the Syllogism must proceed thus . Unity of Divine Energy , or Operation , is Mutual-Consciousness . Unity of Divine Nature is Unity of Divine Energy , or Operation . And therefore , Unity of Divine Nature is Mutual-Consciousness . Every one of which Propositions is still salse . And yet I shall referr it to this Author himself , or to any one , who has Read and Considered his Book , to form a better Argument from what he has said of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , with reference to the present Subject , if he can . Nevertheless whether it be an Argument , or no Argument , my Answer to his Allegation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , with relation to the Unity of the Divine Nature , and to Mutual-Consciousness , is thus . First , That it is one Thing to be a Proof of a Thing , and another to be that wherein the Nature of the Thing proved , does consist . Thus actual Ratiocination is a certain Proof of a Principle of Reason , yet nevertheless it is not that wherein a Principle of Reason does consist , since that may be and continue , when actual Ratiocination ceases . In like manner I will allow the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be a Proof of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But I absolutely deny , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Energy , is that wherein the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Nature is , or ought to be placed ; or that the Fathers ever accounted it so , how truly and strongly soever it might , in their Judgment , inferrit . What the Fathers designed to prove by Unity of Operation in the Three Divine Persons , is evident from the following Passages ; ( to which Twenty times as many might be added ) Gregory Nyssen tells us , that those whose Energy is the same , have their Nature altogether the same . And St. Basil , That those who have the same Operations , have also the same Essence [ or Substance . ] But the Operation [ orEnergy ] of the Father and the Son is one , as appears in that Expression , Let us make Man. And again , Whatsoever the Fatherdoes , that likewise does the Son , and therefore there is but one Essence of the Father and the Son. And again , The Sameness of Operation in the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , evidently shews , That there is no difference in their Essence , or Substance : And accordingly St. Austin , The Operation cannot be diverse ; where the Nature is not only equal , but also undivided . From all which , it is most clear , That the Fathers alledge this Unity of Operation only as a Proof or Argument of this Unity of Nature , or Essence : And therefore , since nothing can be a proof of it self , That they did not take Unity of Operation , and Unity of Nature for one and the same Thing . But , Secondly , Supposing ( but not granting ) that it were so , viz. That Unity of Operation did not only prove , but really was it self this Unity of Nature , or Essence ; yet how will this Author prove , that Unity of Nature , or Unity of Operation is properly Mutual-Consciousness ? Is there so much as one Tittle in the Fathers expressing , or necessarily implying , that it is so ? And as to the Reason of the Thing it self ; Will any one say , That there is no other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belonging to the Divine Nature , but Mutual-Consciousness ? Or that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the whole Latitude and Compass of it extends no further ? Nay , on the contrary , does it not Exert it self in Infinite other Acts ? And , what is yet more , does it not more properly belong to any other of the Divine Acts , than to an Act of Knowledge ? ( bare Knowledge , as such being of it self unoperative ) and Mutual-Consciousness is but an Act of Knowledge . I protest I am ashamed to dispute seriously against such Stuff . 2. His next Argument to prove , That Mutual-Consciousness is formally that Unity of Nature which is in the Three Divine Persons , is taken from another Expression of the said Gregory Nyssen ; viz. That there is amongst the Divine Persons , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Concerning which , this Author has the boldness to appeal to any one to judge , whether this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this single Motion of the Will , which at the same instant , is in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , can signifie any thing but Mutual Consciousness , which makes them Numerically One , Page 117. Lines 8 , 9 , 10 , &c. And he adds , That it is impossible they should have such a single Motion of Will passing through them all , without this Mutual Consciousness , Page 124. Lines 30 , 31. And this is the Sum of his Argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In Answer to which , before I address my self to his Argument , I will give some Account of the Quotation . In which , by his Favour , we are to take the sense of the Father's words from the Father himself , and not from the Inferences which he who Quotes them , thinks fit to draw from them ( how good soever he may be at that Work. ) Now , what St. Gregory means by them , appears plainly by his manner of Reasoning . The Question before him was , Whether the Three Divine Persons were Three Gods ? Which St. Gregory denies , and amongst other Proofs , says , That God is the Name of Energy , and from the Unity of Energy , proves the Unity of the Deity , and that three Persons are but one God because the Operation is the same in all . To this he raises an Objection from the Sameness of Faculty , Office or Operation amongst Men , as Geometricians , Husbandmen , Orators , whose Office , Business and Operations , ( in their respective way ) are the same ; which yet does not hinder , but that they are still Three or more several Men. To which he Answers , that these act seperately and by themselves ; but that it is not so in the Divine Nature ; no Person in the Holy Trinity , doing any Thing by himself only , or acting separately from the other Two , but that there is one and the same Motion ond Disposition of Will passing from the Father , through the Son , to the Holy Ghost . This is the force of St. Gregory's Reasoning , and the plain meaning of it is no more but this , That Three Men acting the same Thing , are still Three Men , because they act separately and by themselves : but that the Three Persons in the Trinity , are but One God , because they do not act separately , but that there is the same Motion and Disposition of Will in all the Three Persons ; as , on the contrary , Three Men's not having one and the same Motion of Will , equally proves , That they are not One , but Three several Men ; and accordingly makes a manifest difference between Three Men acting the same Thing , and the Operation of the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity : which is the Sum of St. Gregory's Answer to the forementioned Objection . And now , what does all this prove ? Why truly neither of those Two Things , which this Author must prove , or he proves nothing , viz. That this Unity of Motion , and Disposition of Will , is properly and formally Unity of Divine Nature : And next , That this Unity of Divine Nature is properly Mutual Consciousness . These two Things , I say , it is incumbent upon him to prove : But how it can be done from the fore-mentioned Words , or Argument of Gregory Nyssen , I believe , will pose the Learned'st Man alive to shew . The proper Answer therefore to this Argument will be much the same with that just before given to the Argument drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( of which this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a Branch ) and it proceeds thus . First , I deny the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be any more than a proof of the Unity of the Divine Nature ; just as either the Effect , or the Causality is a sure proof of the Cause ; but for all that , is not the Cause : or as a Consequent proves its Antecedent without being the Antecedent , or that wherein the Nature of the Antecedent does consist . Secondly , In the next place I deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is formally and properly the same with Mutual-Consciousness , any more than an Act , or Motion of the Will , is formally the same with an Act of the Understanding : And before this Author takes it for granted , ( which is his constant way of proving things ) I expect that he make it appear , That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifie formally one and the same Thing : And it was boldly done of him ( to say the least ) to appeal to his Reader about a Thing , in which , if he understood the difference between an Act of Volition , and an Act of Intellection , he must certainly judge against him . But it may be reply'd , That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , does at least inserr a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . I grant it may : But affirm , That this is nothing to his Purpose ; unless it could follow from hence , that that which inferrs , or proves a Thing , is the very Thing which it inferrs and proves ; which it neither is , nor , for that Reason , can be . As for what he adds , That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be in the Three Divine Persons , without such a Mutual-Consciousness : I do readily grant this also . But in the mean time is not this Dictator yet old enough to distinguish between the Causa sinè quâ non , or rather the Condition of a Thing , and the Ratio formalis , or Nature of that Thing ? Between That , without which a Thing cannot be , and that , which that Thing properly is ? There can be no such Thing as Sight , without a due Circulation of the Blood and Spirits : But is such a Circulation , therefore , properly an Act of Sight ? Or an Act of Sight such a Circulation ? To dispute this further , would be but to abuse the Reader 's Patience . And last of all , if this Author should take advantage of those words from Gregory Nyssen , That God is the Name of Energy . Besides , that it is not the bare Notation , but use of the Word , that must govern its signification : I would have this Author know , That God may have many Names , by which his Nature is not signified ; as well as several others by which it is , and may be . But I must confess , it is a very pleasant Thing ( as was in some measure hinted before ) to prove the Divine Nature to be Energy , because the Name [ God ] does not signifie Nature , but Energy , or Operation ; whereas in Truth ( if it proves any thing ) it proves that Nature and Energy ( applyed to God ) do by no means signifie the same Thing . And so I have done with his Argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and effectually demonstrated , That there is not so much as the least shew , or semblance of any proof from this , That Mutual Consciousness is properly that wherein the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity does consist . 3. His Third Argument is from the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , commonly Translated Circumincession , and signifying a Mutual-Inexistence , or In-dwelling of each Person in the other Two. The Word was first used in this sence ( so far as I can find ) by Damascen , a Father of the 8th . Century . But the Thing meant by it , is contained in those words of our Saviour in Iohn 14. 11. 21. Believe me that I am in the Father , and the Father in me ; which , I confess , are a solid and sufficient proof of the Unity and Identity of the Divine Nature , both in the Father and the Son ; and withal a very happy and significant Expression of the same . But what is this to our Author's Purpose ? And how does he prove this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Mutual Consciousness ? Why truly , by no Argument , or Reason produced , or so much as offered at by him , but only by a confident , Over-bearing Affirmation , That there is no other Account to be given of that Mutual In-being of the Divine Persons in each other , ( which the Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) but by Mutual Consciousness , Page 125. Lines 6 , 7 , 8. But , by his leave , I must debate the case a little with him , before he carries it off so . And in order to this , I must tell him in the first place , That the Question is not whether Mutual Consciousness best explains this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but whether it be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self , and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons ? And in the next place , I demand of him , Whether our Saviour's Words do not plainly and expresly signifie the Mutual In-being , or In existence of the Persons in one another , without any signification of their Mutual Consciousness at all ? And if so , let me hear a Reason , Why we should not take our Saviour's meaning from the Native signification of his own Words , rather than from those of this Author . For will he venture to affirm , That the Father cannot be in the Son , and the Son in the Father by a Mutual In-existence in one another , but only by a Mutual Knowledge of one another ? Let him take heed what he says , and how he ventures beyond his Depth . Or will he say , That our Saviour meant the same Thing with himself , but was not so happy in expressing it ? For no other Reason , but one of these two can be assigned , That when our Saviour expresses himself in Terms importing Mutual In-existence , this Man shall dare to say , That he means nothing by them but Mutual Consciousness . I referr it to the Serious and Impartial Reader to Judge of the Horrible Boldness of this Man : and withal , to observe how extremely he varies from himself about this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mutual Consciousness . For , First , He sometimes says , That Mutual Consciousness is the only thing wherein both the Unity of the Divine Nature , and this Mutual In-dwelling of the three Divine Persons does Consist , Page 124. lines 4 , 5. And , Secondly , He says , That Mutual Consciousness is the only thing that can explain , or give an account of this Mutual In-dwelling , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Page 125. lines 6 , 7. To which I Answer , That when he speaks of giving an account of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , if he means only an Account that there is such a Thing belonging to the Divine Persons , our Saviour's Words have given a sufficient Account of that already . But , Secondly , If he means such an Account of it , as explains and makes clear to us the Nature of it , by shewing what it is , and how it is , I deny that any such Account can be given ( or perhaps understood ) by Humane Reason ; and much less , that his Mutual Consciousness does or can give it . Concerning which , I shall ask him this one Question , viz. Whether the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are not Mutually Conscious to one another of their Mutual In-existence in one another ? I suppose he will not ( because he dares not ) deny it . And if he grants it , then it manifestly follows , That their Mutual In-existence in one another , is in Order of Nature before their Mutual Consciousness ; and consequently cannot be the same with it , nor consist in it . For certainly those Divine Persons must Exist Mutually in one another , before they can know , or be Conscious to themselves that they do so . So that we see here , that nothing is , or can be concluded from this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his Mutual Consciousness , whether we consider the Use of the Word , or the Nature of the Thing . But let us see , how he makes good his Point from the Authority of the Fathers , which was the grand Thing undertook by him in this his 4th . Section . And here as for the Fathers , he both Despises and Reproaches them , and that very grosly too . For first he tells us , That such an Union amongst the Divine Persons ( as is expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; ) they all agree in , but how to explain it they knew not , Page 125. lines 17 , 18. And why then , in the Name of God , does he referr to the Fathers to justifie his Explanation of that , which in the very same Breath he says , They knew not how to Explain ? And the Truth is , the Fathers never owned themselves able to explain it ; and that for a very good Reason , viz. because they held it unexplicable and unconceivable ; and not for that scandalous Reason given by him , viz. That they had gross Material Conceptions of the Deity , by conceiving of it as of a Substance , Page 125. lines 27 , 28. For , says he , within two lines after , Had they Contemplated God as a pure Mind , it had been easie to explain this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Indwelling of the Divine Persons in each other . Good God! That any Professor of Divinity should call that easie to explain , which the Reason of all Mankind has hitherto bent under , as a thing too great , and mysterious for it to comprehend , or to grapple with ! So that if ever we have cause to cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is here : Or that he should tax all those , who own themselves at a loss about it , for not Contemplating God as a pure Mind ! But to him , I confess , who can conceive of such a pure Mind , as is no Substance ; that is to say , in other words , No being ; ( For I am sure he will not so much as pretend it to be an Accident ) to Him , I say , I cannot wonder , if nothing seem difficult , or mysterious . In the mean time , it is shameless and insufferable in this Man to say , as he does , Page 100 , 101. That his Explication of the Trinity is not new , but the same with that of the Fathers ; and afterwards in pursuance of this Assertion , to say , That the Fathers knew not how to explain it ; and to give this as a Reason of their not knowing how to do so , viz. That they had such gross Notions of God , that they could not conceive rightly of this Mystery . For this he has roundly affirmed ; and therefore ought in all Reason , either to prove this Charge upon the Fathers , or to give the World , and the Church of England in particular , satisfaction for speaking so falsely and scandalously of such glorious Lights and principal Pillars of the Christian Church ; and such as , I dare say , never Preached nor Prayed in any Conventicle . But what the Doctrine of the Fathers is concerning this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and how they understood those words of our Saviour ( expressed by this Term ) is manifest from the Testimony of two or three of them , which I shall set down , as ( in so known a case ) abundantly sufficient . St. Cyril of Alexandria , says expresly , Christ's saying , that he is in the Father , and the Father in him , shews the Indentity of the Deity , and the Unity of the Substance , or Essence . And so likewise Athanasius : Accordingly therefore ( says he ) Christ having said before , I and my Father are one : He adds , I am in the Father , and the Father in me , that he might shew both the Identity of the Divinity , and the Unity of Essence . And so again St. Hilary : The Father is in the Son , and the Son in the Father , by the Unity of an inseparable [ Undivided ] Nature . By which Passages , I suppose any Man of sense will perceive , That the thing which the Fathers meant and gathered from those words of our Saviour ( since expressed by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) was no Unity of Mutual Consciousness ( which they never mention ) but an Unity of Essence , or Nature ( which they expresly and constantly do . ) Nor does this very Author deny it , as appears from his own words , though he quite perverts the sence of the Fathers , by a very senceless Remark upon them , Page 125. lines 20 , 21. This Sameness [ or Unity ] of Nature ( says he ) might be the Cause of this Union [ in the Divine Persons , ] viz by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but not explain what this Intimate Union is . Now this Author has been already told , That the Question here is not , what explains this Union , but what this Union is . But besides this his mistake of the Question , I desire him to declare , what he means by the Cause of this Union , ( as he here expresses himself . ) For will he make an Union ( as he calls an Unity ) in the Divine Persons by Sameness of Nature , a Cause of their Intimate Union by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Mutual In-being of them in each other , and affirm also this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same thing with Mutual Consciousness ? If he does so , he makes the same thing the Cause of it self . For the Sameness of Nature in the three Persons , and their Mutual In-being , or Indwelling , are the very same thing , and the same Unity , though differently expressed . But however , if we take him at his own word , it will effectually overthrow his Hypothesis . For if the Sameness of the Divine Nature in the three Persons , be ( as he says ) the cause of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the same with Mutual Consciousness ; it will and must follow , That this Sameness , or Unity of Nature can no more consist in Mutual Consciousness , than the Cause can consist in its Effect , or the Antecedent in its Consequent . And this Inference stands firm and unanswerable against him . But as to the Truth of the Thing it self , though we allow and grant the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons , and the Mutual In-being , or In-dwelling of the said Persons in each other , to be the same Thing , yet we deny , That this their Mutual In-being is the same with their Mutual Consciousness . But that their Mutual Consciousness follows and results from it , and for that cause cannot be formally the same with it . And so I have done with his 3d. Argument , which he has drawn from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and is indeed nothing else , but a bold down-right Perversion of Scripture , and a gross Abuse of the Fathers . 4. His fourth Argument is from an Allegation out of St. Austin , who , though he does not ( as our Author confesses ) Name this Mutual Consciousness , yet he explains a Trinity in Unity ( as he would perswade us ) by Examples of Mutual Consciousness ; particularly by the Unity of three Faculties of Understanding , Memory and Will in the same Soul , all of them Mutually Conscious to one another of the several Acts belonging to each of them . And his 9th . Book is spent upon this Argument ; In which he makes the mind , considered with its knowledge of it self , and its love of it self ( all three of them ( as he says ) but one and the same Thing ) a faint Resemblance of the Trinity in Unity . And this is , what he Argues from St. Austin . To which I Answer . First , That Faint Resemblances are far from being solid Proofs of any Thing ; and that , although similitudes may serve to illustrate a thing otherwise proved , yet they prove and conclude nothing . The Fathers indeed are full of them both upon this and several other Subjects , but still they use them for Illustration only , and nothing else . And it is a scurvy sign that Proofs and Arguments run very low with this Author , when he passes over those Principal Places in which the Fathers have plainly , openly and professedly declared their Judgment upon this great Article , and endeavours to gather their sence of it only from Similitudes and Allusions ; which looks like a design of putting his Reader off with something like an Argument , and not an Argument , and of which the Tail stands where the Head should : For according to the true Method of proving things , the Reason should always go first , and the Similitude come after ; but by no means ought the Similitude ever to be put instead of the Reason . But , Secondly , To make it yet clearer , how unconclusive this Author's Allegation from St. Austin is , I shall demonstrate , That this Father does not here make use of an Example of Mutual Consciousness , by shewing the great disparity between the thing alledged , and the thing which it is applyed to , and that , as to the very Case , which it is alledged for . For we must observe , That the Mutual Consciousness of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity is such , as is fully and entirely in each Person ; so that by virtue thereof every one of them is truly and properly Conscious of all that belongs to the other Two. But it is by no means so in those three Faculties of the Soul , Understanding , Memory , and Will. For though the Understanding indeed be Conscious to all that passes in the Will , yet I deny the Will to be Conscious to any Thing , or Act that passes either in the Understanding , or the Memory , and it is impossible it should be so , without exerting an Act of Knowledge , or Intellection ; which to ascribe to the Faculty of the Will , would be infinitely absurd . It is true indeed . That one and the same Soul is Conscious to it self of the Acts of all these three Faculties : But still it is by virtue of its Intellectual Faculty alone , that it is so . And the like is to be said of its Knowledge and of its Love of it self : For though it be the same Soul which both Knows and Loves it self , yet it neither knows it self by an Act of Love , nor loves it self by an Act of Knowledge any more , than it can Will by an Act of the Memory , or Remember by an Act of the Will , which is impossible : and amongst other proofs that it is so , it seems to me a very considerable one , That , if a Man could remember by his Will , this Author in all likelyhood , would not forget himself so often as he does . It is clear therefore on the one side , That the Acts of Understanding , Memory , and Will , neither are nor can be Acts of Mutual Consciousness ; and on the other , that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost do every one of them Exert Acts of Mutual Consciousness upon one another , and consequently , that , as to this thing , there is a total entire difference between both sides of the Comparison . For which cause it is to be hoped , that this Author himself will henceforth Consult the Credit of his own Reason so far , as to give over proving , That the Unity of the Divine Nature in the three Blessed Persons consists wholly and solely in the Mutual Consciousness of the said Persons , by Examples taken from such Created Things as are by no means Mutually Conscious to one another . But to manifest yet further the Vanity of this his Allegation out of St. Austin , I shall plainly shew , wherein this Father placed the Unity of the Three Divine Persons . And that , in short , is in the Unity of their Nature , Essence , and Substance . This is the Catholick Faith ( says he ) that we believe Father , Son , and Holy Ghost to be of one and the same Substance . And again , Let us believe in the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . These are Eternal and Unchangeable , that is , One God , of one Substance , the Eternal Trinity . And moreover , speaking of such as would have Three Gods to be Worshipped , he adds , That they know not what is the meaning of one and the same Substance , and are deceived by their own Fancies ; and because they see Three Bodies separate in three Places , they think the Substance of God is so to be understood . I think it very needless to add the like Testimonies from other Fathers ( how numerous and full soever they may be ) for our Author having here quoted only St. Austin , I shall confine my Answer to his Quotation , and think it enough for me to over-rule an Inference from a Similitude taken out of St. Austin , by a Plain , Literal , Unexceptionable Declaration of St. Austin's Opinion . The Sum of the whole Matter is this , That the thing to be proved by this Author , is , That the Three Divine Persons are One , only by an Unity of Mutual Consciousness ; And to prove this , he produces only a Similitude out of St. Austin , and that also , a Similitude taken from things , in which no such thing as Mutual Consciousness is to be found . By which it appears , that his Argument is manifestly lame of both Legs , and , as such , I leave it to shift for it self . 5. In the fifth and last place , He tells us , That the Fathers also resolved the Unity of the God head in the three Divine Persons into the Unity of Principle ; meaning thereby , that though there be three Divine Persons in the God-head , Father , Son and Holy Ghost ; yet the Father is the Original and Fountain of the Deity , who begets the Son of his own Substance ; and from whom , and the Son , the Holy Ghost eternally proceeds of the same Substance with the Father and Son ; so that there is but one Principle and Fountain of the Deity , and therefore but one God , Page 128. line 6. Now all this is very true ; but how will our Author bring it to his purpose ? Why , thus , or not at all , viz. That the Numerical Unity of Nature in the three Divine Persons , by being founded in , and resolved into this Unity of Principle , does therefore properly consist in Mutual Consciousness . This , I say , must be his Inference , and it is a large step , I confess , and larger than any of the Fathers ever made : Nevertheless without making it , this Author must sit down short of his Point . And yet if he really thinks , that his Point may be concluded from hence , why , in the Name of Sence and Reason might he not as well have argued from Gen. 1. 1. That God created the Heavens and the Earth , and that therefore the Three Divine Persons are and must be one , only by an Unity of Mutual Consciousness ? For it would have followed every whit as well from this as from the other . But , since the Creation of both , I believe , never Man disputed as this Man does , while he pretends to prove his Mutual Consciousness from the Unity of Principle in the Oeconomy of the Divine Persons : And yet , if he does not design to prove it from thence , to what purpose is this Unity of Principle here alledged , where the only Point to be proved is , That the Unity of the Divine Nature in the three Persons is only an Unity of Mutual Consciousness ? But to come a little closer to him . If this Author can make it out , that the Father Communicates his Substance to the Son , and the Father and the Son together Communicate the same to the Holy Ghost by one Eternal Act of Mutual Consciousness , common to all three Persons , then his Argument from Unity of Principle to an Unity of Nature , consisting in Mutual Consciousness , may signifie and conclude something ; but this he attempts not , nor if he should , would he or any Man living be ever able to prove it . But he is for coming over this Argument again , and tells us , That ( as Petavius well observes ) it does not of it self prove the Unity ( that is to say , the Numerical Unity ) of the God-head , but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Sameness of Nature , i. e. as he elsewhere explains himself , [ the Specifick Sameness of Nature . ] And that therefore the Fathers thought fit to add , That God begets a Son , not without , but within Himself , Page 128. line 17 , &c. In Answer to which Observation , though it affects the Point of Mutual Consciousness ( the only thing now in hand ) no more than what he had alledged before ; yet in vindication both of the Fathers and of Petavius himself , I must needs tell this Author , That it is equally an Abuse to both . For as to the Fathers , it has been sufficiently proved to him , That neither is there any such thing as a Specifick Unity , or Sameness of Nature in the Divine Persons , nor that the Fathers ever owned any such , but still by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , held only a Numerical Unity of Nature , and no other ; so that their saying , That God begot a Son within himself , was rather a further Explication of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , than any Addition at all to it . And as for Petavius , whereas this Man says , That he has observed , That this Argumentation of the Fathers , does not of it self prove the Numerical Unity of the God-head in the three Persons ; I averr , That Petavius observes no such thing . He says indeed , If this Reasoning ( viz. from Unity of Principle ) were considered Absolutely and Universally , it would prove rather a Specifick than a Numerical Unity of Nature , and gives a Reason for it from Humane Generation : But then he does by no means say , That the Fathers Arguments in this Case ought to be so considered , but plainly limits them to the Divine Generation , as of a peculiar kind , differing from all others . And thereupon no less plainly Asserts , That when the Father begets the Son , he Communicates to him the same Numerical Substance and Nature , and says expresly , That the force and strength of the Fathers Argumentation is taken from the proper Condition and Nature of the Divinity , and the Divine Generation , from whence they collect , not any kind of Unity of Essence , but only a Singular and Numerical Unity in the three Divine Persons : Which he makes good by Instances from St. Athanasius and St. Hilary . And this is the true state of the Case , and shews , That Petavius understood the Fathers ; whether he , who takes upon him to be his Corrector and Confuter , does or no. In the mean time it is shameless to insinuate in this manner , that Petavius represented these Arguments of the Fathers , as proving only the [ Specifick ] Sameness of Nature , and not the Numerical Unity of the God-head , when he plainly shews , That they designed thereby to prove a Numerical Unity of Essence in the Divine Persons , and nothing else . But this Author seems to assume to himself a peculiar Privilege of saying what he will , and of whom he will. In which nevertheless I cannot but commend his Conduct , as little as I like his Arguing . For that , as he makes so bold with so Learned and Renowned a Person as Petavius ; So he wisely does it now that he is laid fast in his Grave . For had Petavius been living , and this Man wrote his Book in the same Language in which Petavius wrote his ( which , for a certain Reason , I am pretty well satisfied he never would ) there is no doubt but Petavius would have tossed him and his New Notion of three distinct infinite Spirits , long since , in a Blanket , and effectually taught him the difference of insulting over a great Man when his Head is low , and when he is able to defend himself . We have seen how little our Author has been able to serve himself of the fore mentioned Resolution of the Unity of the Divine Nature , into an Unity of Principle , by way of Argument in behalf of his Mutual Consciousness . Nevertheless , though it fails him , as an Argument , yet , that he may not wholly lose it , he seems desirous to cultivate it as a Notion ; and upon that score tells us , That it needs something further both to Complete and Explain it , ( which , with reference to his own Apprehensions of it , I easily believe ) but however , I shall take some Account of what he says , both as to the Completion , and Explication of it . And , First , For the Completion . He tells us , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are Essential to one God , and that upon this Account there must be necessarily three Persons in the Unity of the God-head , and can be no more . As to which last clause he must give me leave to tell him , That it is not the bare Essentiality of the three Persons to the God-head , which proves that there can be no more than three belonging to it : but it is the Peculiar Condition of the Persons , which proves this ; without which the Essentiality of the Three , would no more hinder the Essentiality of a Fourth or Fifth , than the Essentiality of Two could take away the Essentiality of a Third . And , therefore though the Proposition laid down by him be true , yet his Reason for it will not hold . But one choice Passage quoted by him out of a great Father , I must by no means omit , viz. That upon Account of this Unity of Principle , St. Austin calls the Trinity , Unam quandam summam Rem , Page 123. line 8. Concerning which , I desire any Man living ( except this Author ) to declare freely , whether he thinks that St. Austin , or any one else of Sence and Learning would call three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ( which are neither Numerically , nor Specificully , nor so much as Collectively one ) Unam quandam summam Rem . But in the Second Place : As for his Explication of the said Notion , he tells us , That he shall proceed by several steps , and those ( as he would perswade us ) very plain , and Universally acknowledged by all , Page 126. lines 16 , 17 , &c. Nevertheless , by his good leave , I shall and must demur to two of them , as by no means fit to be acknowledged by any , and much less such as are acknowledged by all . And they are the Third and Fourth . In which he tells us , That , in the first place , Original Mind and Wisdom , and in the second , That Knowledge of it self , and lastly , Love of it self , are all of them distinct Acts , and so distinct , that they can never be one simple individual Act : And withal , that these Acts being thus distinct , must be Three substantial Acts in God , that is to say , Three subsisting Persons : By which three substantial Acts he must of necessity mean three such Acts , as are three Substances . Forasmuch as he adds in the very next words , That there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God , Page 130. line 7 , 8 , 9. to the middle of the page . Now against these strange Positions , I Argue thus . First , If the three fore-mentioned Acts are so distinct in God , that they can never be one Simple Individual Act , then I inferr , That the said three Acts cannot possibly be one God. Forasmuch as to be one God , is to be one pure simple indivisible Act. And thus we see how at one step , or stroke , he has Ungodded the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity . For these three Acts ( he tells us ) are the three Persons in the God head . Though I believe no Divine before him , ever affirmed a Person to be an Act , or an Act a Person , with how great Confidence soever ( and something else ) this Man affirms it here . Secondly , If those three Acts in the God-head are three distinct infinite Substances ( as he plainly says they are , by telling us , Page 130. line 19. That there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God ) then in the God-head there are and must be three distinct Gods , or God-heads . Forasmuch as an infinite Substance being properly God , every distinct infinite Substance , is and must be a distinct God. These I affirm to be the direct unavoidable Consequences of those two short Paragraphs in Page 130. which he makes his Third and Fourth Explanatory Steps . But because he may here probably bear himself upon that Maxim , That there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God , ( which yet by the way might better become any one to plead than himself ) let me tell him , That that Proposition is not absolutely , and in all Sences true . If indeed he means by it , That there is no Being , whether Substance , or Accident in God , besides his own most Pure , Simple , Indivisible Substance , or Essence , ( which is the commonly received sence of it ) it is most true . But if he therefore affirms , That neither are there any Modes , or Relations in God , this will not be granted him . For in God , besides Essence , or Substance , we assert , That there is that , which we call Mode , Habitude , and Relation : And by one or other of these in Conjunction with Essence , or Substance , we give account of all the Acts , Attributes , and Personalities belonging to the Divine Nature , or God-head . This is the constant , unanimously received Doctrine of Divines , School-men , and Metaphysicians , in their Discourses upon God , and without which , it is impossible to Discourse intelligibly of the Divine Acts , Attributes , or Persons . And as it stands upon a firm bottom , so it may well be defended : And if this Author has ought to except against it , I shall be ready to undertake the defence of it against him at any time . But still , that he may keep up that Glorious standing Character of Self-Contradiction , ( which , one would think to be the very Ratio formalis ; or , at least , the Personal Property of the Man. ) Having here , in Page 130. made a very bold step , by Asserting the three Divine Persons , to be three distinct Acts , and so distinct , that they can never be one Simple , Individual Act. In the very next Page but one , viz. 132. line 13. he roundly affirms , That the Father and the Son are one single Energy and Operation . Now , how safe and happy is this Man , that no Absurdities , or Contradictions can ever hurt him ! Or at least , that he never feels them , let them pinch never so close and hard . What remains , is chiefly a Discourse about the different way of the Son 's issuing from the Father , and the Holy Ghost's issuing from both : As that the former is called Generation , because the Son issues from the Father by a Reflex Act , and the latter termed Procession , because the Holy Ghost issues from both by a Direct Act. But why a Reflex Act must needs be termed properly a Generation , and a Direct Act not be capable of being properly so accounted , this our Acute Author very discreetly says nothing at all to ; though ( under favour ) all that he says besides , leaves us as much in the Dark as we were before . And for my own part , I cannot think my self concerned to clear up a Point wholly foreign to that , which alone I have undertook the Discussion of . And thus I have finished my Dispute with Him , concerning the Authorities of the Fathers alledged in behalf of his Notion of Mutual Consciousness , as that , wherein he places the Unity of the Divine Nature belonging to the three Blessed Persons . The Sum of which whole Dispute is resolved into this single Question , viz. In what the Father 's placed the Unity in Trinity ? And if they placed it in the Sameness , or Unity of Nature , Substance , or Essence , ( words applyed by them to this Subject at least a thousand Times , and still used to signifie one and the same thing ) then it is plain that they did not place it in an Unity of Mutual Consciousness . For , I suppose , no Man ( this Author himself not excepted ) will say , That Essence , or Substance , and Mutual Consciousness are Terms Synonymous , and of the same signification . And as the whole Dispute turns upon this single Question ; so in the management of it , on my part , I have with great particularity gone over all the Proofs by which this Author pretends to have evinced his Doctrine from the Fathers . The utmost of which Proofs amounts to this , That the Fathers proved an Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons , from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common to them all : And moreover , sometimes illustrated the said Unity by the three Faculties of the Understanding , Memory , and Will being one with the Soul which they belonged to . And lastly , That they resolved the Unity of the Trinity into an Unity of Principle ; the Father being upon that account styled , Principium & fons Deitatis , as communicating the Divine Substance to the Son , and together with the Son to the Holy Ghost . And what of all this , I pray ? Do all , or any of the fore-mentioned Terms signifie Mutual Consciousness ? Why , No : But this Author with a non obstante both to the proper signification and common use of them all , by absolute Prerogative declares them to mean Mutual Consciousness : And so his Point is proved , viz That Mutual Consciousness is not only an Argument inferring the Unity of the Divine Nature in the three Blessed Persons , ( which yet was all , that the Fathers used the fore-mentioned Terms for ) but , ( which is more ) That it is that very thing wherein this Unity does Consist . This , I say , is a true , though a short Account of all his Arguments upon this Subject ; and ( according to my custom ) I refer it to the Judicious Reader , to judge impartially , whether it be not so , and withall to improve and carry on the aforesaid Arguments in his behalf to all further advantage that they may be capable of . But in the issue , methinks the Author himself seems to review them with much less confidence of their Puissance , than when at first he produced them . For if we look back upon the Triumphant Flag hung out by him at his Entrance upon this part of his Work ( the only proper time for him to Triumph in ) and when he declared , That his Explication of the Trinity was the Constant Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools , Page 101. lines 24 , 25. who could have imagined but that he then foresaw , that he should prove his Point with all the strength and evidence which his own Heart could desire ? And yet alas ! Such , for the most part , is the vast distance between Promises and Performances , that we have him bringing up the Rear of all with this sneaking Conclusion , Page 138. line 22 , &c. It must be confessed , ( says he ) That the Ancient Fathers did not express their sence in the same Terms that I have done . But I leave it to any Indifferent and Impartial Reader , whether they do not seem to have intended the same Explication which I have given of this Venerable Mystery . These are his words ; and I do very particularly recommend them to the Reader , as deserving his peculiar Notice . For is this now the Upshot and Result of so daring a Boast , and so confident an Undertaking , to prove his Opinion the constant Doctrine of the Fathers ? viz. That though the Fathers speak not one word of it ; nay , though they knew not how to express themselves about it , Page 125. line 18. yet that to an Indifferent Reader ( and a very indifferent one indeed he must needs be in the worst sence ) they may seem to intend the same Explication he had given of it ? So that the sum of his whole Proof and Argument amounts to this and no more , viz. That to some Persons videtur quod sic , and to others , videtur quod non . For see , how low he sinks in the issue . First of all from the Fathers positive saying , or holding what he does , it is brought down to their Intending it ; and from their Intending it , it falls at last to their seeming to intend it ; and that is all . And now , is not this a worthy Proof of so high a Point ; And may it not justly subject this Author to the same Sarcastical Irony which he passed upon his Socinian Adversary ? Page 92. line 17 , &c. Right , very Right , Sir , a plain Demonstration ! But still there is one half of his Promise to be yet accounted for , viz. The proving his Opinion to have been the constant Doctrine of the Schools . And how does he acquit himself as to this ? Why , in a very extraordinary manner too . For , first , instead of alledging the Authority of the School-men , he tells us , Page 138. That they are of no Authority at all , but as they fall in with the Fathers . And withall , That instead of doing so , They use to mistake and clog the sence of the Fathers with some peculiar Niceties and Distinctions of their own . And that , the Truth is , the vain Endeavours of reducing this Mystery to Terms of Art , such as Nature , Essence , Substance , Subsistence , Hypostasis , Person , and the like , ( which , he says ) some of the Fathers used in a very different sence from each other ) have wholly confounded this Mystery . And here I cannot but desire the Reader to judge , whether this be not a new and wonderful way of procuring Credit to an Hypothesis , upon the score of its being the constant Doctrine of the Schools , by telling the World ( as this Man here does ) that the School-men are a Company of Impertinent Fellows , of little or no Authority in themselves , and who have by their useless absurd Niceties , consounded this whole Mystery ? For if they are of no Authority but what they derive from the Fathers , ( as he avers ) why does he quote them upon the same level with the Fathers , and plead them both as two distinct Authorities ? And if they do nothing but pervert and confound this Mystery , why , instead of alledging them , does he not earnestly caution his Reader against them , and disswade him from having any thing to do with their dangerous and absurd Writings ? This certainly is a way of proving a Point by Testimony and Authority , so beyond all Example ridiculous , that unless the Reader will vouchsafe to read these Passages in the Author himself , and so take his Conviction from his own Eyes , I can hardly blame him , if he refuses to believe my bare Affirmation in a thing so Incredible . As for the Terms Essence , Substance , Subsistence , Person , and the like , which he so explodes , I hope I have given my Reader a satisfactory Account both of their usefulness , and of the uselesness of such as this Author would substitute in their room , in Chap. 2. at large , to which I referr him . And whereas he says , Page 139. line 25. &c. That the Deity is above Nature , and above Terms of Art ; and that there is nothing like this Mysterious Distinction and Unity ; and therefore , no wonder , if we want proper words to express it by ; at least , that such Names as signifie the Distinction and Unity of Creatures , should not reach it . It by all this he means , that there are no Terms of Art Comprehensive , and fully expressive of the Divine Nature , and the Mysterious Distinction and Unity of the Persons belonging to it , none that I know of thinks otherwise . But if he means that no Terms of Art can be of any use to aid us in our inadequate , imperfect Conceptions of those great things , so as thereby we may conceive of them in some better degree , and clearer manner , than we could without such Terms , pray then , of what use are his Self-Consciousness and Mutual Consciousness in this Matter ? For I suppose he will allow these to be Terms of Art too ; and such ( I am sure ) as he has promised the World no small wonders from . But if he will allow any usefulness in those two Terms of Art ( of his own Inventing ) towards our better Apprehension of the Divine Nature and Persons , the same and greater has the constant use of all Church-Writers proved to be in the Terms Essence , Substance , Hypostasis , Person , &c. as the properest and most significant , the fittest and most accommodate to help and methodize Men's thoughts in discoursing of God , and Immaterial Beings , of all or any other Terms of Art , which the Wit of Man ever yet invented , or pitched upon for that purpose . And I hope , the known avowed use and experience of such great Men , and those in so great a number , is an abundant overpoise to the contrary Affirmation of this , or any other Novel Author whatsoever . But all this ( it seems ) he endeavours to overthrow and dash with Three Terrible confounding Questions , Page 139. Lines 22 , 23 , &c. Which yet I can by no means think so very formidable , but that they may be very safely Encountered , and fairly Answered too . As , Qu. 1. What ( says our Author ) is the Substance , or Nature of God ? I Answer . It is a Being existing of , and by it self , Incorporeal , Infinite , Eternal , Omniscient , Omnipotent , &c. Qu. 2. How can Three distinct Persons have but One Numerical Substance ? I Answer . Every whit as well as they can be said to have but one Numerical God-head , or Divine Nature ; or as they can have one Numerical Mutual Consciousness common to them all . Qu. 3. What is the Distinction between Essence , and Personality , and Subsistence ? I Answer . The same that is between a Thing , or Being , and the Modes of it . And he , who neither knows , nor admits of a difference between these , is much fitter to go to School himself , than to sit and pass judgment upon the Schoolmen . And as for the Terms Subsistence and Personality , they import the last and utmost Completion of the Existence of Things , by vertue whereof , they exist by themselves so , as neither to be Supported by , nor Communicable to any Subject . Of which two Modes , Personality belongs only to Intelligent Beings , but Subsistence to all others , to whom the aforesaid Definition does agree . And this is the True , Proper Difference and Distinction between these Two. And this Author may take Notice of it , if he pleases . However , having thus answered his Questions ( tho' to what purpose he proposed them , I cannot imagine ) yet that he may see how ambitious I am to follow his great Example , I shall , in requital of his three Questions , propose these four to him : As , First , Since in Page 139. he affirms the Deity to be above Nature , and all Terms of Art ; so that we want proper Words and Names to express the Distinction and Unity of the Divine Persons by , and that such , as signifie the Distinction and Unity of Creatures , cannot reach it . I desire to know of him upon what ground of Reason it is , That speaking of this same Mysterious Unity and Distinction in Page 106. lines 11 , 12 , &c. He says , That the Fathers used several Examples , and alluded to several kinds of Union , thereby to form an adequate Notion of the Unity of the God-head ? For if the Deity be so far above Nature and all Terms of Art , that there is an utter want of words , or Names to express the Unity of it by , How could any Examples , or Allusions drawn from Nature ( though never so many ) form in us an Adequate Notion thereof ? Hitherto both Divines and Philosophers have judged the Divine Nature absolutely Incomprehensible by any Adequate , or Complete Conception of it . And for my own part , I account the Unity of it in Trinity , much less capable of having an Adequate Notion formed of it , than the Deity considered barely in self is , and consequently that it is as much as Humane Reason can reach to , to have a true and certain Notion of it , though very Imperfect and Inadequate . But as for an Adequate Notion of the Unity of the God-head in three Divine Persons , if this Author can form to himself such an one , let him enjoy it as a Priviledge peculiar to himself , and not obtainable by any other Mortal Man whatsoever . And this is not the first Instance of his misrepresenting the Fathers . Secondly , Whereas this Author in the latter end of Page 138 , and the beginning of Page 139. explodes the Terms Essence , Substance , Subsistence , Hypostasis , Person , &c. as useless Niceties , and serving only to confound the Mystery of the Trinity ; and yet nevertheless in line 12 , &c. of Page 139. acknowledges , That these very Terms were found out and made use of to encounter the Heresie of Sabellius , who had turned this Sacred Mystery into a Trinity of Names , or , at most , of Offices ; I desire to know of him , what greater Proof he could have given of the exceeding usefulness and importance of these Terms , than by thus deriving the invention and use of them from such an Occasion ? And especially when , notwithstanding all the Curious Examination since passed upon them , whereby ( he says ) they were found in some respect or other defective ( as what Terms are not when applyed to God ? ) experience yet shews , that they have maintained their Use and Credit from that Age all along to this very Day . Certainly it is a great Unhappiness , when a Man can neither forbear Writing , nor yet know when he Writes for a thing , and when against it . Thirdly , I desire to know of this Author , whether in the very same place , viz. Page 130. in which he professes to explain an Unity in Trinity by an Unity of Principle , he does well to tell us in line 19. of the said Page , That there is nothing but Essence and Substance in God , having so often , and so positively declared , That these Terms serve only to obscure and confound Men's Notions of God ? And whether he accounts such Terms , as serve only thus to confound Men's thoughts and notions about the God-head , and the Unity thereof , the fittest to explain the Unity of the said God-head , with reference to the Divine Persons ? Which is the thing there promised and undertaken by Him. Fourthly and Lastly , Since this Author has condemned all the fore-mentioned Terms both as useless , and sit only to obscure and confound , instead of explaining , the Doctrine of the Trinity , I desire to know of him , why he tells us at the close of Page 139. That he does not think it impossible ( which is only a Figure called , a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifying , that it is very possible and easie ) to give a Tolerable Account of the said School-Terms and Distinctions ? For since by a Tolerable he must mean ( if he means any thing to the Purpose ) such an Account of them , as shews them to have a Rational Sence and meaning under them , I desire him to tell me whether every Rational Sence is not ( as such ) also a True one ? And if True , whether one Truth can any more obscure , perplex , and confound , than it can contradict another Truth ? Which being invincibly evident , as to the Negative , I desire this Author in the last place to tell me , whether it does , or can become a Man consistent with himself , to pass so Reproachful a Character upon the Terms of the Schools , in the beginning of Page 139 , and afterwards to give so contrary and commendatory an Account of the said Terms in the latter end of the very same Page ? I hope the Reader will be pleased to take this Notable Instance also of this Author's Consistency with himself ( so far as Self Contradiction may be so called ) into his Consideration . And so these are the Four Questions , or Queries , which I would have him resolve me , or rather the World , in ; for I am sure it concerns him and his Credit , so to do . Having thus followed this Author both in his Reasonings and Quotations , and found him equally Impertinent in both , I must again desire my Reader to joyn with me in admiring the strange Confidence of the Man. I have already noted , with what a daring Assurance he vouched his new Opinion for the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools , Page 101. line 24. &c. After which Peremptory Asseveration , who could have expected , but that he would have appeared in the Head of Thirty , or Twenty Fathers at least ( Greek and Latin together ) to have rescued his beloved Hypothesis from the Imputation and Charge of Novelty , which he seems so desirous to Ward off ? P. 100. l. 22. And that besides Gr. Nyssen , Athanasius , Maximus , Nazianzen , Damascen ( and these for the most part quoted upon an Account not at all relating to his Hypothesis ) and St. Cyril ( who is not so much as quoted , but only Named ) we should have had Iustin Martyr , Irenaeus , Origen , Clemens Alexandrinus , St. Basil , Theodoret , Epiphanius , with several more , all alledged in his behalf ? And amongst the Latins that we should besides St. Austin , whom alone he quotes , and St. Ambrose , whom he only mentions about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Page 107. line 10. have heard also of Tertullian , Lactantius , St. Cyprian , St. Ierom , and St. Hilary , with a great many others ? And then lastly for the School-men , who could have expected fewer of them also , than Ten , or Twenty ? And that we should have seen Alexander Alensis ( the first who Commented upon the Oracle ) with Durandus , Aquinas , Scotus , Major , Biel , Soto , Vasquez , Cajetan , Gr. de Valentiâ , Estius , and many more of the Scholastick Tribe . all drawn forth in Rank and File , to have fought his Battels ? But when after all , none but poor Peter Lombard comes forth like a Doughty Captain , with none to follow him , this methinks looks more like the Despair of a Cause , than the Defence of it . For though our Author calls Peter Lombard the Oracle of the Schools , and all know his Sentences to be the Text which the School-men undertake to Explain and Comment upon : Yet Experience has told us , That the Responses of this Oracle ( as well as of those heretofore ) are often found very Dubious and Ambiguous . Witness Thomas and his Followers expounding them one way , and Scotus and his Disciples understanding them another ; and several ( amongst whom Durandus and Greg. Ariminensis ) going a different way from both . So that sometimes there is but too much need of a good Interpreter to fix the sence of this Oracle , ( as great a Veneration as the Schools may have for him . ) And therefore since his Text is not always so very plain and easie as to make an Explication of it superfluous , this Author having quoted Peter Lombard in such , or such a sence , ought in all Reason to have produced the Major and more eminent part of the School-men and Writers upon him , and shewn their Unanimous Concurrence in the same Sence and Notion , which he took him in , and quoted him for . And this indeed would have been to his Purpose , and look'd like proving his Opinion to have been the Doctrine of the Schools . Otherwise I cannot see how the Master of the Sentences can be called , or pass for all the School men , any more than the Master of the Temple can pass for all the Divines of the Church of England . Unless we should imagine , that this Peter Lombard had by a kind of Mutual Consciousness gathered all his Numerous Brood into Himself , and so united them all into one Author . So that the Sum of all is this , That this Author , having declared his Opinion , the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools , to make his words good , has produced for it Three or Four Greek Fathers , and Two Latin ( though even these no more to his purpose than if he had quoted Dod and Cleaver , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , out of Homer ) and lastly , One Sentence out of one School-man . Which if it be allowed to pass for a good , just , and sufficient Proof of any Controverted Conclusion , let it for the future , by all means , for this our Author's sake , be an Established Rule in Logick from a Particular , to infer an Universal . And now that I am bringing my Reader towards a close of this long Chapter , I must desire him to look a little back towards the beginning of the foregoing Chapter , wherein , upon this Man 's Confident Affirmation , That his Opinion was the constant Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools , I thought it necessary to state what his Opinion was , and accordingly I shew'd , that it consisted of Four Heads . 1st . That the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity were three distinct infinite Minds , or Spirits ; which how far he was from being able to prove from the Authority of any of the Fathers cited by him , was sufficiently shewn by us in the preceding Chapter . The 2d . Was , That Self Consciousness was the formal Reason of Personality in the said three Persons , and consequently That , whereby they were distinguished from each other ; which ( in the same Chapter ) I shew'd he was so far from proving from the Authority of those Ancient Writers , that he did not alledge one Tittle out of any of them for it , nor indeed so much as mention it in any of the Quotations there made by him . And as for the 3d. Member of his said Hypothesis , viz. That the Unity of the Divine Nature in the three Blessed Persons , Consisted in the Mutual Consciousness belonging to them , This we have Examined at large , and confuted in this Chapter . But still there remains the 4th . And last to be spoken to , as completeing his whole Hypothesis , and resulting , by direct Consequence , from the other Three , viz. That a Trinity in Unity , and Unity in Trinity , explained by the three forementioned Terms , or Principles , is a very plain , easie , and intelligible Notion ; which having been in a most Confident , Peremptory manner , affirmed by him all along ( as I shew in Chap. 1. ) and upon that Score , making so great a part of his Hypothesis , ought in all reason to be proved to have been the Sence and Doctrine of the Fathers concerning this Article . But not one word does he produce upon this Head neither . Nor , for my own part , do I expect ever to find the least Sentence or Syllable in any Ancient Writer tending this way . And I challenge this Author to produce so much as one to this purpose . In the mean time , how , and with what kind of words I find these Ancient Writers expressing themselves about this venerable Mystery , I shall here set down . Only I shall premise a Sentence or two out of this Author himself ; and which I have had occasion to quote more than once before , from Page 106. line 7. viz. That the Unity in Trinity being ( as he confesses ) so great a Mystery , that we have no Example of it in Nature , it is no wonder if it cannot be explained by any one kind of Natural Union ; and that therefore it was necessary to use several Examples , and to allude to several kinds of Union , to form an Adequate Notion of the God head ; and moreover , Page 139. line 26. &c. That there is nothing like this Mysterious Distinction and Unity , and that we want proper words to express it by . All which Passages lying clear , open , and express in the fore-cited places of this Author , I must needs ask him , Whether all these are used by him to prove the Unity in Trinity a plain , easie and intelligible Notion , as he has frequently elsewhere asserted it to be ? As , to go over each of the Particulars , First , Whether we must account it plain , because he says , It is a great Mystery , of which we have no Example in Nature ? And , Secondly , Whether we must reckon it easie , because he says , That it cannot be Explained by any one kind of Natural Union , but that several Examples must be used , and several sorts of Union alluded to for this purpose ? And , Lastly , Whether it must pass for Intelligible , because he tells us , That we want proper Words to express it by , that is , in other Terms , to make it Intelligible ? since to express a Thing , and to make it Intelligible , I take to be Terms equivalent . In fine , I here appeal to the Reader , Whether we ought from the forementioned Passages of this Author , to take the Unity in Trinity , and Trinity in Unity for a plain , easie , Intelligible Notion , according to the same Author's affirmation so frequently inculcated in so many Parts of his Book ? But I shall now proceed to shew , ( as I promised ) how the Fathers speak and declare themselves upon this great Point . And here we will begin first with Iustin Martyr . A Singularity , or Unity ( says he ) is understood by us , and a Trinity in Unity is acknowledged . But how it is thus , I am neither willing to ask others , nor can I perswade my self , with my Muddy Tongue and Polluted Flesh , to attempt a Declaration of such Ineffable Matters . And again , speaking of the Oeconomy of the blessed Trinity , the nature and manner ( says he ) of this Oeconomy is unutterable . And yet again , speaking of this Mysterious Oeconomy of the Deity and the Trinity , as one of the greatest Mysteries of the Christian Faith : I cry out ( says he ) O wonderful ! For that the Principles and Articles of our Religion surpass , and transcend the Understanding , Reason and Comprehension of a Created Nature . In the next place , Dionysius the Areopagite ( or some very Ancient Writer under that Name ) calls it the Transcendent , Superessential , and Superlatively Divine Trinity . In like manner Gregory Nyssen , we apprehend ( says he ) in these ( viz. the three Divine Persons ) a certain Inexpressible Inconceivable Unity ( or Communication ) and distinction , &c. St. Basil also , Writing against such as would derogate from the Equality of the Divine Persons , speaks of the Trinity thus , Either let these Inexpressible things be silently Reverenced , or Religiously and Becomingly Represented . And again , in a Discourse against such as used Contumelious Words of the Trinity , speaking there of the Holy Ghost as Essentially one with the Father and the Son , he says , the Intimate Conjunction between him and them is hereby declared ( viz. by the Scripture there quoted by him , and applyed to them ) but the Ineffable Manner of his Subsistence hereby Inviolably preserved . So that still ( we see ) with this Father the Oeconomy of the Three Divine Persons in the Blessed Trinity , is a thing Ineffable , and above all Description , or Expression . Nazianzen also speaks of the Trinity under these Epithetes , styling it the Adorable Trinity , Above , and before the World , before all Time , of the same Majesty , of the same Glory , Increate , and Invisible , above our Reach , and Incomprehensible . And the same Epithetes are given it by Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople , in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus , declaring the Trinity to be of One and the same Essence , Transcendent in its Substance , Invisible , and Inconceivable . And Lastly , Eulogius , Arch-bishop of Alexandria , sets it forth thus . We divide not ( says he ) what is but One , we part not the Singularity , nor distract the Unity ; but so Assert this Unity , in an Eternal Singularity , as to ascribe the same to Three distinct Hypostases ; by no means subjecting things above our Understanding , to Human Reasonings , nor by an Over-curious Search undervaluing things so much above all Search , or Discovery . Having given this Specimen of what the Greek Fathers and Writers thought and spoke of the Trinity , let us now pass to the Latines . And amongst these , we have in the first place , St. Hilary expressing himself thus . The Mystery of the Trinity is Immense and Incomprehensible , not to be express'd by Words , nor reach'd by Sence , Imperceivable , it blinds our Sight , it exceeds the Capacity of our Understanding . I understand it not . Nevertheless , I will comfort my self in this , That neither do the Angels know it , nor Ages apprehend it , nor have the Apostles enquired of it , nor the Son himself declared it . Let us therefore leave off complaining , &c. After him , let us hear St. Ambrose , The Divinity of the Holy Trinity ( says he ) is to be believed by us to be without beginning or end ; albeit , hardly possible to be comprehended by the Mind of Man. Upon which Account it may be not improperly said concerning it , That we comprehend this only of it , that in truth it cannot be comprehended . To St. Ambrose succeeds St. Austin . In this Trinity ( says this learned Father ) is but one God , which is indeed wonderfully unspeakable , and unspeakably wonderful . To the same purpose Fulgentius . So far as I can judge , only the Eternal and Unchangeable Trinity ought to be looked upon by us , as worthy to be esteemed Incomprehensibly Miraculous ; and as much exceeding all that we can think or imagine of it , as it surmounts all that we are . After him we shall produce Hormisda Bishop of Rome , in a Letter to Iustinian the Emperour , about the beginning of the Sixth Century , speaking thus . The Holy Trinity ( says he ) is but One , it is not multiplyed by Number , nor grows by any Addition , or Encrease : Nor can it either be comprehended by our Understanding , nor in respect of its Divinity be at all Divided . And a little after , Let us Worship Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , distinct in themselves , but with one indistinct Worship , that is to say , The Incomprehensible and Unutterable Substance of the Trinity . And presently again , Great and Incomprensible is the Mystery of the Holy Trinity . In the last place St. Bernard delivers himself upon the same Subject thus . I confidently affirm ( says he ) that the Eternal and Blessed Trinity , which I do not understand , I do yet believe , and embrace with my Faith , what I cannot comprehend with my Mind . I have here , as I said , given a Specimen of what the Ancient Writers of the Church , both Greek and Latin , thought and said of the Blessed Trinity , and it is , I confess , but a Specimen ; since I think that enough for an Universally acknowledged , and never before contradicted Proposition : Whereas , had it but in the least seemed a Novelty , ( as this Author's Hypothesis not only seems , but unquestionably is ) I should have thought my self obliged to have brought as many Quotations for it from Antiquity , as would have filled a much larger Book than I intend this shall be . But as for those which I have here produced , I do solemnly appeal to any Man living , Christian , or not Christian ( who does but understand these Languages ) whether the Fathers now Quoted by me ( and all the rest upon the same Subject speak agreeably to them ) looked upon Trinity in Unity , and Unity in Trinity , as a Plain , Easie , and Intelligible Notion ? So that if the Judgment of the Fathers , and of this Author , be in this point one and the same , it must unavoidably follow , That either the Fathers have not yet declared their Judgment and Doctrine , or that this Author has not yet declared his : Since so much as has been declared on the one side , is a direct and gross Contradiction to what has been Asserted on the other . And moreover the fore alledged Testimonies of the Fathers are such , that we are not put to draw what we contend for , by remote , far fetched Consequences from them , but it lies plain , open , and manifest in them ; in words too clear and full to be denyed , and too convincing to be evaded . So that we are sure both of their Words and Expressions , and of the common sence of all Mankind to expound and understand them by . And will this bold over bearing Man , after all this , Claim their meaning to be the same with his ? What his meaning is , he has told us forty times over , viz. The Unity in Trinity , &c. is so far from being an Unintelligible Notion , that it is not so much as difficult , how much soever the dull mistaken World has for near 1700 Years thought otherwise . And now if this be the true Account and state of this Matter , that when the Fathers say of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Trinity , that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : That is to say , Ineffable , Inconceivable , Unintelligible , Incomprehensible , and ( if possible ) transcending the very Notion of the Deity it self , above all Humane Understanding and Reason , Discourse and Scrutiny , I say , if by all this , he can prove that the Fathers meant , That it was a very Plain , Easie , and Intelligible Notion ( as , by affirming that those ( who used all these Expressions ) meant the same with himself , he does and must affirm ; or say , That they knew not their own meaning , or at least were not able to express it , but in words quite contrary to it ; ) I must needs own the Fathers to have been not only less happy in expressing themselves about this Mystery , than this Author ( as with great Modesty and Deference to them , he often tells us they were ) but , which is yet much worse , that they were the most wretchedly unhappy in wording their own Notions of all Men , who ever yet set Pen to Paper . And as for this Author , if Unutterable , Unconceivable and Unintelligible can pass with him for Plain , Easie , and Intelligible , it is high time for me to leave off disputing with him , and either to have no more to do with him , or without any further demurr , to profess my self as ready to believe and grant Contradictions , as he is , or can be , to Write them . CHAP. VIII . In which is set down the Ancient , and generally received Doctrine of the Church , concerning the Article of the Blessed Trinity , as it is Delivered and Explained by Councils , Fathers , School-men , and other later Divines ; together with a Vindication of the said Doctrine so Explained from this Author ▪ s Exceptions . THough I cannot think that the Nature and Design of the Work undertook by me ( which was only to Animadvert upon , and confute this Author's Novel , Heterodox Notions about the Trinity ) does , or can directly engage me to proceed any further ; or lay any Necessity upon me to give a positive Account of the Doctrine and Sence of the Church about this great Article ; yet since this Author in asserting his own Opinion , could not be content to do it without reproaching and reflecting upon those Ancient Terms , which the Church has been so long in possession of , and has still thought fit to use in declaring it self upon this Subject , ( as if instead of Explaining , they served only to perplex , obscure , and confound it ) and since the Reasonableness , or Unreasonableness of either Hypothesis , is most likely to appear by fairly setting down one , as well as the other , and shewing what this Opiniator is gone off from , as well as what he is gone over to , I judge it neither improper , nor unuseful to represent what the Church has hitherto held and taught concerning this Important Article of the Trinity , as I find it in Councils , Confessions , Fathers , School-men , and other Church-Writers , Ancient and Modern . And in this also I must be again content to entertain my Reader only with a Tast , or Specimen out of so vast a store ; which yet I do , with very good Reason , judge both satisfactory and sufficient , in a Point of Divinity Universally owned , received , and embraced ; and ( unless by such as reject and deny the Trinity it self ) never Impugned , or Contradicted before . Now the commonly received Doctrine of the Church and Schools , concerning the Blessed Trinity ( so far as I can judge , but still with the humblest Submission to the Judgment of the Church of England in the Case ) is this , That the Christian Faith having laid this sure Foundation , that there is but one God ; and that there is nothing ( i. e. no Positive , Real Being , strictly and properly so called ) in God , but what is God , and lastly , That there can be no Composition in the Deity with any such Positive Real Being distinct from the Deity it self ; and yet the Church finding in Scripture mention of three , to whom distinctly the God-head does belong , it has by warrant of the same Scripture , Heb. 1. 3. expressed these three by the Name of Persons ; and stated their Personalities upon three distinct Modes of Subsistence alloted to one and the same God-head , and these also distinguished from one another by three distinct Relations . Concerning which , we must observe , That albeit , according to the Reality of the Thing , the Subsistence and Relation of each Person make but one Single Indivisible Mode of Being , yet according to the Natural Order of conceiving . Things , we must conceive of the Subsistence as precedent to the Relation : Forasmuch as humane Reason considers Things simply as Subsisting , before it can consider them as Relating to one another . But for the further Explication of the Point before us , it will here be necessary to premise what is properly a Mode of Being . And this the School . Divines do not allow to be either a Substance , or an Accident ( which yet makes the adequate Division of Real Beings ; since there is no such Being but what is contained under one of them ) but a Mode is properly a certain Habitude of some Being , Essence , or Thing , whereby the said Essence , or Being is determined to some particular State , or Condition , which , barely of it self , it would not be determined to . And according to this account of it , a Mode in Things Spiritual and Immaterial seems to have much the like reference to such kind of Beings , that a Posture has to a Body , to which it gives some difference , or distinction , without superadding any new Entity , or Being to it . In a word , a Mode is not properly a Being , either Substance , or Accident , but a certain affection cleaving to it , and determining it from its common general Nature and indifference to something more particular , as we have just now explained . As for Instance , in Created Beings , Dependence is a Mode determining the general Nature of Being to that particular State , or Condition , by vertue whereof it proceeds from , and is supported by another ; and the like may be said of Mutability , Presence , Absence , Inherence , Adherence , and such like , viz. That they are not Beings , but Modes , or Affections of Being , and inseparable from it so far , that they can have no Existence of their own , after a separation , or division from the Things , or Beings to which they do belong . And thus having explained , in General , what a Mode is , we are to know , That the Personalities , by which the Deity stands diversified into Three Distinct Persons , are by the Generality of Divines , both Ancient and Modern , called and accounted Modes , or at least something Analogous to them ( since no one Thing can agree both to God and the Creature , by a perfect Univocation . ) And moreover , as every Mode Essentially includes in it the Thing , or Being of which it is the Mode , so every Person of the Blessed Trinity , by vertue ofits proper Mode of Subsistence , includes in it the Godhead it self , and is properly the Godhead as subsisting with and under such a certain Mode , or Relation . And this I affirm to be the Current Doctrine both of the Fathers and the Schools , concerning the Persons of the Blessed Trinity , and the constantly received Account given by them of a Divine Person , so far as they pretend to Explain what such a Person is . And accordingly , as these Relations are Three , and but Three , so the Persons of the Godhead , to whom they belong , are so too , viz. Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . But then we must observe also , That the Relations which the Godhead may sustain , are of Two sorts . 1st . Extrinsecal , and founded upon some External act issuing from God ; of which sort are the Relations of Creator , Preserver , Governour , and the like , to the Things Created , Preserved , and Governed by him . Which , though they leave a real effect upon the Things themselves , yet derive only an External Habitude , and denomination consequent from it upon the Deity it self . The 2d . Sort of Relation , is Intrinsecal , and founded upon those Internal Acts , by which one Person produces another , or proceeds from another : For to produce and to proceed ( whether by Generation , or Spiration ) is that which makes , or Constitutes a Plurality of Persons in the Godhead . From all which it follows , That the Relation , by which God as a Creator , or Preserver , respects his Creatures , is extremely different from that by which God as a Father respects his Son. The former adding only to the Deity an Extrinsecal denomination , but the latter leaving upon it an Internal Incommunicable Character , Essentially Inseparable from the Deity . So that although it may well enough be said , That God might never have been a Creator , yet it cannot be said of Him , That he might never have been a Father ; the former being only an effect of his Will , but this latter the Necessary Result of his Nature . Now these Internal Acts , upon which the Divine Relations are founded , and from which they flow , are , First , That Eternal Act , by which the Father Communicates his Divine Nature to the Son , which accordingly is called Generation . And that by which the Son receives his Divine Nature from the Father , which is called Filiation . And. Thirdly , The Act of Spiration , by which the Father and the Son together , eternally breath forth the Holy Spirit . And , Lastly , The Act of Procession , by which the Holy Ghost proceeds , and receives his Divine Nature , joyntly from them both . These , I say , are those Internal , Incommunicable and distinguishing Acts , from which the Personal Relations belonging to the Three Divine Persons are derived . But you will say : Does not this infer Four Persons in the Godhead ? viz. That as Generation and Filiation make two , so Spiration and Procession should make two more ? I Answer , No : Because the same Person may sustain several Personal Relations , and Exert , and receive several Personal Acts , where those Acts , or Relations are not opposite to , or inconsistent with one another in the same Subject . As for instance , The Person of the Father may Exert both an Act of Generation and of Spiration , and so sustain the Relations resulting from both without any Multiplication of his Person ; and the Son likewise may receive and sustain the Act of Filiation , and withal Exert an Act of Spiration , without any Multiplication of Personality . And this , because neither are the Acts of Generation and Spiration inconsistent in the Father , nor the Acts of Filiation and Spiration , incompatible in the Son. Though indeed the Acts of Generation and Filiation , and the Relations springing therefrom , would be utterly inconsistent ( because opposite ) in any one Person , as likewise upon the same Account would the Acts of Spiration and Procession . From whence by plain and undeniable Consequence it follows , That Generation and Filiation , Spiration and Procession Constitute only Three Persons in the Eternal Godhead and no more . For Relations merely disparate , do not Constitute several distinct Persons , unless they be opposite too . That Maxime of the Schools being most true , That Sola Oppositio multiplicat in Divinis . So that albeit , Filiation and Spiration are Terms opposite to their respective Correlates , yet being only disparate with reference to one another , and as both of them meet and are lodged in one and the same Subject , ( viz. the Person of the Son ) they neither cause , nor infer in him any more than one Single Personality . But now if any one should ask me , What this Generation and Filiation , this Spiration and Procession are ? I answer , That herein consists the Mystery ; and since such Mysteries exceed the Comprehension of Humane Reason , I am not in the least ashamed , most readily to own my ignorance thereof , in that known Anthem used in the Church . Quid sit Gigni , quid Processus , Me nescire sum processus . For tho the Author whom I have been Disputing with , by the help and vertue of Two Wonder working words ( able to make one , who is no Conjurer , do strange things ) undertakes to make this greatest of Mysteries Plain , Easie , and Intelligible ; and when he has done this , ( as he says he has ) owns it nevertheless for a Mystery still : yet in the Judgment of other Mortals , to acknowledge a Thing Inexplicable , and in the same Breath to offer an Explication of it too , will be thought a little too much for one of an ordinary pitch of Sence and Reason to pretend to ; and therefore , for my own part , I dare not look so high . Upon the whole matter , in discoursing of the Trinity . Two Things are absolutely necessary to be held and insisted upon . One , That each , and every Person of the Blessed Trinity , entirely contains and includes in himself the whole Divine Nature . The other , That each Person is Incommunicably different and distinct from the other . And here if it should be asked , How they differ , and whether it be by any real distinction between the Persons ? I Answer , Yes : But for the better explaining of my Answer , we must distinguish of Two sorts of Real Distinctions . 1. The first greater , viz. When Two Things , or real Beings , differ from one another . 2. The other lesser ; as when the difference is between a Thing , or real Being on the one side , and the Mode of it on the other : Or between Two or more Modes of the same Being . And this Distinction , or Difference is called Real , in opposition to that which is wholly founded upon the Apprehension , or Operation of the Intellect , and has of it self no Existence without it . But a Being , and the Mode adhering to it differ , whether the Mind ever apprehends and thinks of them , or no. And thus we affirm , That the Divine Persons really differ , and are distinguished from one another , viz. by a Modal , or lesser sort of Real difference ; according to which , the Divine Nature Subsisting under , and being determined by such a certain Mode , personally differs from it self , as subsisting under , and determined by another . Forasmuch as the Divine Nature , or Godhead so subsisting and determined is properly a Person . Nor ought this smallness of difference between the Divine Persons to be any presumption against the Truth of what we have delivered concerning the Oeconomy of the Blessed Trinity , as shall be more particularly shewn in Answer to one of this Author's Objections against it , before we come to a conclusion of this Chapter . In the mean time to sum up the foregoing Particulars , the Reader may please to take what I aver to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church about this great Article , in this following Account of it , viz. That there is one , and but one Self-Existing , Infinite , Eternal , &c. Being , Nature , or Substance , which we call God. And that this Infinite , Eternal , Self-Existing Being , or Nature , Exists in , and is common to Three distinct Persons , Father , Son and Holy Ghost . Of which the Son eternally issues from the Father by way of Generation , and the Holy Ghost joyntly from both , by way of Spiration ; which Three Divine Persons superadd to this Divine Nature , or Deity , Three different Modes of Subsistence , founding so many different Relations ; each of them belonging to each Person in a peculiar Uncommunicable manner ; so that by vertue thereof , each person respectively differs and stands distinguished from the other Two : And yet by reason of one and the same Numerical Divine Nature or Godhead equally existing in , and common to all the Three Persons , they are all but One and the same God. who is blessed for Ever . This I reckon to be a True and Just Representation of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church , so far as it has thought fit to declare it self upon this Great and Sacred Mystery . Not that I think this sets the Point clear from all Difficulties and Objections . For the Nature and Condition of the Thing will not have it so , nor have the Ablest Divines ever thought it so , ( for where then were the Mystery ? ) But that it gives us the fairest and most consistent Account of this Article , both with reference to Scripture and Reason , and liable to the fewest Exceptions against it , of any other Hypothesis , or Explication of it whatsoever . And the same will appear yet further from those Terms , which the Writers of the Church have all along used in expressing themselves upon this Subject . And that both with respect , First , To the Unity and Agreement of the Three Divine Persons in one and the same Nature . And Secondly , To their Personal Distinction from one another . And first , For their Unity and Agreement in one and the same Nature . The Greeks expressed this by the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And the Latines by Consubstantialitas and Coessentialitas . By all which I affirm , That they understood an Agreement in one and the same Numerical Nature , or Essence . For tho this Author has affirmed , That the Nicene Fathers understood no more by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , than a Specifick Unity of Nature , this Matter has been sufficiently accounted for , and his Assertion effectually confuted in the foregoing Chapter . In the next place . As for the Terms expressing the Distinction and Difference of the Divine Persons from one another , the Greeks make use of these , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinity , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Persons , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subsistences . or Persons , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Modes of Subsistence . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Properties , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marks of Distinction , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguishing Properties , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notes of Signification . And agreeably to them , the Latines also make use of the following Terms , Trinitas , Personae , Subsistentiae , Modi Subsistendi , Proprietates , Relationes , and Notiones seu Notionalia . By which last the Schoolmen mean such Terms and Expressions , as serve to notifie and declare to us the proper and peculiar distinction of the Divine Persons . And they reckon four of them , viz. the above mentioned Paternitas , Filiatio , Spiratio & Processio , all of them importing Relation . To which some add a fifth , which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines , Innascibilitas ; a Term not importing in it any positive Relation , but only a meer Negation of all producibility , by any Superiour principle , and upon that account peculiar to the Father , who alone , of all the Persons of the Blessed Trinity , is without Production . Touching all which Terms , I cannot think it necessary to enlarge any further , in a particular and more distinct Explication of them ; since , how differing soever they may be in their respective significations , they all concur in the same use and design ; which is to express something proper and peculiar to the Divine Persons , whereby they are rendred distinct from , and Incommunicable to one another . But these few general Remarks I think fit to lay down concerning them . As , 1. That albeit most of these Terms , as to the Form of the Word , run abstractively , yet they are for the most part to be understood Concretively , and not as simple Forms , but as Forms in Conjunction with the Subject , which they belong to . In the former abstracted sence they are properly Personalities , or Personal Properties , viz. Those Modes , or Forms by which the Persons , whom they appertain to , are formally constituted and denominated what they are ; but in the Latter and Concrete Sence , they signifie the Persons themselves . 2. The Second Thing , which I would observe , is , That there has been in the first Ages of the Church some Ambiguity in the use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Persona . For neither would the Latines at first admit of Three Hypostases in God , as taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the same Thing ; for that they had no other Latin Word , to Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by , but Substantia by which also they Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( the Word Subsistentia being then looked upon by them as Barbarous , and not in use ) so that they refused the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for fear of admitting of Three distinct Substances , or Essences in the Trinity , which they knew would lead them into the Errour of Arius . Nor on the other side would the Greeks acquiesce in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nor admit of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for fear of falling thereby into the contrary Errour of Sabellius ; for that they thought the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported no real Internal difference , but only a difference of Name , or Attribute , or at most of Office ; and for them to allow no more than such an one amongst the Divine Persons , they knew was Sabellianisme . And this Controversie of Words exercised the Church for a considerable time ; to appease and compose which ( amongst other Matters ) a Council was called and held at Alexandria about the Year of Christ , 362. in which amongst many other Bishops Convened from Italy , Arabia , Aegypt and Lybia , was present also Athanasius himself . And in this Council both sides having been fully heard , and found to agree in sence , though they differ'd in words , it was ordained , That they should thenceforth Mutually acknowledg one another for Orthodox , and for the future cease contending about these words to the disturbance of the Church . By which means , and especially by the Explication given of these words by Athanasius , ( whereby ( as Gregory Nazianzen tells us in his Panegyrick upon him ) he satisfied and reconciled both Greeks and Latines to the indifferent use of them , and indeed that Oration made by Nazianzen himself in the Council of Constantinople ( viz. The second General ) before 150 Bishops , not a little contributing to the same ; ) the sence of these Terms from that time forward came generally to be fixed , and the Ambiguity of them removed , and so the Controversie by degrees ceased between the Greeks and Latines , and the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Personae , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Subsistentiae grew at length to be promiscuously used without any Jealousie or Suspicion , and to be accepted on all hands ( though not presently ) in the same signification . 3. The Third Thing which I would observe , is , That some of the forementioned Terms signifie Causally , and some only Declaratively , that is to say , some import the Ground and Reason of the Distinction of the Divine Persons , and some import only Marks , Notes , and Signs of such a Distinction . Of the first sort amongst the Greeks , are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and amongst the Latines , Subsistentiae , Modi Subsistendi , Proprietates & Relationes . Of the Latter sort amongst the Greeks are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and amongst the Latines , Notiones . But for the fuller and further illustration and improvement of this Note , I cannot but add the Observation of the solid and exactly Learned Forbesius , viz. That of these Modes called by the Greeks , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , there is a Four-fold Use , or Effect , as they sustain Four several Considerations , viz. That , First , As Modes of subsistence , they Constitute the Persons . And Secondly , That by the Relations , which they imply and include , they cause the said Persons to be referred to one another . And Thirdly , That as they are Properties they distinguish the Persons from each other . And Lastly , That , as Notions , they are Means , and ( as it were ) Instruments whereby we are enabled in some measure to apprehend and conceive of the Divine Persons . Forbesius Instruct. Hist. Theolog. Lib. 1. Cap. 35. Sect. 16. By all which it appears , That the several forementioned Terms do really import but one and the same Thing , differently considered , according to the several Uses and Effects ascribed to it , in respect of the Oeconomy of the Three Divine Persons amongst themselves . 4. In the Fourth and Last place , we may observe , That the words most commonly and frequently used by Writers in treating of the Divine Persons , are the forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Greeks . And the Terms Personae , Relationes , Proprietates , and ( in the latter Ages especially ) Subsistentiae , and Modi Subsistendi amongst the Latines . These Observations I thought fit to lay down for our clearer and readier Apprehension of the Expressions used by the Fathers , and other Church-Writers in their Discourses about this great Article of the Christian Faith. And so I proceed now to my Authorities . shewing both from the Aucient and Modern use of the Terms aforesaid , and more especially of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Subsistentiae & Modi subsistendi , that the Church has all along placed the respective Personalities of the Three Divine Persons in Three distinct Modes of Subsistence , according to the Doctrine asserted by us . And here I shall begin with the Greek Writers , setting them down according to the Order and Age in which they Lived . And first with Iustin Martyr ; who in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Exposition of Faith , speaks thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Son ( says he ) and the Holy Ghost , are not the same with the Father ; For the Terms Unbegotten , Begotten , and Proceeding , are not the Names of Essence , but Modes of Subsistence , Iustin. Exposition . fidei . p. 373. Colon. Edition . 1686. Again , speaking of the same Terms , he tells us , That they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is to say , not denoting the Essence , but signifying the Hypostases , or subsistences ; adding withal , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , That they are sufficient for us to distinguish the Persons , and to shew the proper and peculiar Subsistence of Father , Son and Holy Ghost by . Pag. 374. And again , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , we ought to own , or confess one God , expressed to us in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , hereby acknowledging , as they are Father , Son and Holy Ghost , Three Subsistences of one and the same Godhead ; but as they are God , understanding thereby one Essence or Substance common to all the Subsistences . p. 379. ibid. By all which Expressions we see Personality stated upon Subsistence . Our next Testimony shall be from Athanasius , who in his Treatise de Sanctissimâ Virgine Deiparâ , gives this Account of his Faith , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , We believe in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , a Trinity of Hypostases , or Persons , having amongst them such a Distinction , as admits of no Division , and such an Union , or Unity , as is without all Confusion . Athan. Tom. 1. p. 1029. Colon. Edit . 1686. The Author called Dionysius the Areopagite ( tho by a false Title , for the Areopagite lived in the first Century but this Writer in the fourth ) in his Book de Divinis Nominibus , cap. 1. sets forth the Trinity thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Trinity ( so called ) because of its manifestation of a Divine , or superlative Fecundity shewn in Three Subsistences , or Persons . Epiphanius also in the 62d . Heresie , and 3d. Paragraph , gives the like account of the same , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Trinity is Numbred by Father , Son and Holy Ghost , not as one Thing called only by Three Names , but as being in Truth Three perfect Subsistences , [ or Persons ] as well as Three perfect Names . In like manner Gregory Nazianzen speaks much the same Thing in his 29th Oration . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We ought ( says he ) to hold one God , and to confess Three Subsistences , or Three Persons , each with his respective Property according to his Subsistence , Greg. Nazianz. Tom. 1. P. 490. Edit . Paris . 1630. Gregory Nyssen , upon those words in the first of Genesis , Let us make man , expresses himself thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . God ( says he ) made man ( laying the stress upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Singular Number ) that you may reckon , or account the Godhead to be but One. But not so the Subsistences ; For there is a proper Subsistence of the Father , a proper Subsistence of the Son , and a proper Subsistence of the Holy Ghost . Greg. Nyssen , Tom. 1. p. 141. Edit , Paris . 1615. St. Basil in his Book de Spiritu Sancto , Chap. 18. speaks thus of the Second Person of the Trinity . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We ( says he ) never to this Day heard of a Second God ; but Worshipping the Son as God of God , we both acknowledge the Property of the Hypostases [ or Persons ] and insist upon one Supreme Governour , or Lord of all Things . Bas. Tom. 2. p. 332. Edit . Paris . 1637. Likewise St. Cyrill of Alexandria declares himself much the same way in his third Dialogue de Trinitate . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We may observe ( says he ) in one Deity , a Ternary , or Triplicity according to [ or in respect of ] Subsistence . The same we find also in Isidorus Pelusiota , Lib. 1. Epist. 247. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . There is ( says he ) One Godhead , but Three Hypostases , or Subsistences . This keep , this hold , &c. Theodoret also speaks very fully upon the same Subject , in his first Dialogue contr . Anomaeos . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is to say , Such Things as belong properly to the [ Divine ] Essence , or Substance , are in like manner common to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . But the Term [ Father ] is not common to them ; and therefore [ Father ] is no Property of the Essence , but of the Subsistence , or Person : But now , if one Thing be proper to the Hypostasis , or Subsistence , and there be other Properties of the Essence , it follows , That Essence and Hypostasis do not signifie one and the same thing . And again , a little after : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , The Essence , or Substance of the Father , and the Son , and the Holy Ghost is common , being equally and alike Immortal , Incorruptible , Holy and Good. And for this Reason we affirm One Essence , and Three Hypostases , Auctarium sive Tom. 5. Theodoret. p. 286. Edit . Paris . 1684. Certainly nothing could , with greater Evidence , state the Personalities of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost upon Three several Subsistences , than the Words here quoted out of this Father . And I quote them out of him , though I know the same Dialogues are inserted into Athanasius's Works ; but I am convinced by the reasons given by Garnerius the Learned Editor of this Auctarium , that the said Dialogues cannot belong to Athanasius . Next to him let us hear Basilius Seleuciensis speaking the same Thing in his first Oration , upon the first Verse of the first Chapter of Genesis , where , upon these words , Let us make Man after our own Image and Likeness , he discourses thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is to say , The Image here formed is but One , but the mention here made is not of One Hypostasis , or Person only , but of Three . For the Thing formed being the common Work of the whole Deity , shews the Trinity to have been the Former thereof , and so gives us one Image , or Resemblance of the Trinity : But if the Image of the Trinity be but One , the Nature of the Hypostases [ or Persons ] must be One too . For the Unity of the Image , proclaims the Unity of the Substance , or Essence . Basil. Seleuciens . Orat. 1. p. 5. Printed at Paris with Gregorius Thaumaturgus , &c. Anno Dom. 1622. Zacharias Sirnamed Scholasticus , and sometime Metropolitan of Mitylene ( of the Sixth Century ) in his Disputation against the Philosophers who held the Eternity of the World , to a certain Philosopher , asking him , How the Christians could acknowledg the same both a Trinity and an Unity too ? Makes this Answer . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ That is , We affirm a Trinity in Unity , and an Unity in Trinity , hereby affirming the Subsistences [ or Persons ] to be Three , and the Essence , or Substance to be only One. Johannes Damascenus , a Writer of the Eighth Century , in his Third Book de Orthodoxâ fide , Chap. 11. about the end of it speaks thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , The Godhead declares the Nature , but the Term [ Father ] the Subsistence ; as Humanity does the Humane Nature , but Peter the Subsistence , or Person . For the Term [ God ] denotes the Divine Nature in Common , and equally denominates , or is ascribed to each of the Hypostases , or Subsistences . Damascen . Page . 207. Edit . Basil. 1575. I shall close up these particular Testimonies with some Passages in the Creed , commonly called the Athanasian ; which I place so low , because it is manifest , that Athanasius was not the Author of it , it being not so much as mentioned in any Antient Writer ( as the very Learned Dr. Cave affirms ) till it occurs in Theodulphus Aurelianensis , who lived about the latter end of the Eighth Century . Now the Passages are these , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( in some Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. That is , Neither confounding the Hypostases [ or Persons ] nor dividing the Substance . For there is one Hypostasis of the Father , another of the Son , and another of the Holy Ghost , but the Godhead of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost is One , &c. And again , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , The whole Three Hypostases [ or Persons ] are Coeternal together , and Coequal . These Passages are full and plain , and the Creed it self may well claim the Antiquity at least of the Eighth Century . My next Authorities shall be those of the Councils . But before I pass to them , I cannot but observe and own to the Reader concerning some of the first of my Quotations , viz. those out of Justin Martyr , and that out of St. Athanasius , that it has been very much questioned by some Learned Men , Whether those Books , from whence they are taken , do really belong to the Authors to whom they are ascribed , and among whose Works they are inserted , or no. This I say , I was not ignorant of , nevertheless I thought fit to quote them by the Names under which I found them placed ; since many very Learned Persons , and much more acquainted with the Writings of the Ancients than I pretend to be , have upon several Occasions done so before me . And the said Tracts are certainly of a very early date , and though the Authors of them should fall a Century or two lower , yet they still retain Antiquity enough to make good the Point for which I alledged them . Nevertheless I must and do confess it very probable , That the more distinct and exact use of the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as applyed to the Divine Persons , did not generally and commonly take place , but as by degrees the Discussion of the Arian and other the like Controversies , through frequent Disputes , grew to still a greater and greater Maturity . And that the use of these Terms did obtain then , and upon that Account , I think a very considerable Argument to authorize , and recommend them to all Sober and Judicious Minds . And so I pass to the Testimonies of Councils concerning the same . Amongst which , we have here , in the first place , the Council of Chalcedon , making a Confession , or Declaration of their Faith , concerning the Person of our Saviour , and that , both as to the Absolute undivided Unity of his Person , and as to the Difference and Distinction of his Two Natures , part of which Confession runs thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , We confess One and the same Lord Jesus Christ , the only begotten Son of God in Two Natures , without Confusion , &c. the difference of the said Natures , being by no means destroyed by their Union , but rather the property of each Nature being thereby preserved , and both concurring to [ or meeting in ] One Person , or Hypostasis . This Account of the Chalcedon Confession we have in the Second Book of Evagrius , towards the latter end of the 4th Chapter ; and a lively Instance it is of the Council's expressing the Personality of Christ by , and stating It upon , Subsistence . In the next place , upon Justinian's calling the second Council of Constantinople ( being the Fifth General one ) in the Year 553 , for Condemning of the Tria Capitula , we have a large and Noble Confession of Faith made by that Emperour , and owned and applauded by all the Council , and inserted amongst the Acts of it : And in this we have the Three Divine Persons several times expressed by so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as a Term equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indeed importing withall the Personality , or Formal Reason of the same ; and that so fully and plainly , that nothing could , or can be more so . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. That is , We profess to Believe One Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Glorifying thereby a Consubstantial Trinity , One Deity , or Nature , or Essence , and Power and Authority in Three Subsistences , or Persons . And again to the same purpose , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We worship ( says he ) an Unity in Trinity , and a Trinity in Unity , having both a strange and wonderful Distinction and Union , that is to say , an Union , or Singularity in respect of the Substance or God-head , and a Trinity in respect of Properties , Subsistences , or Persons ; with several more such Passages to the same Purpose and Signification . And then , as for the Council it self the first Canon of it speaks thus ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , If any one Confess not One Nature , or Substance , One Power . and Authority of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , a Coessential Trinity , and One Deity to be Worshipped in Three Subsistences , or persons , Let such an one be Accursed . In the next place , we have the Sixth General Council , and the Third of Constantinople , called by Constantinus Pogonatus against the Monothelites in the Year 681. In the Acts of which Council , Article 6. we have the Council owning the same Thing , and in the same words , which a little before we quoted out of the Council of Chalcedon : And moreover in the Tenth Article , the Council declares it self thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. That is , We believing our Lord Iesus Christ to be the True God , do affirm in him Two Distinct Natures shining forth in One Subsistence , or Person . Agreeably to this , the Council immediately following called by the Greeks , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and by the ●atines Concilium Quini Sextum , Consisting chiefly of the same Persons with the former , and called by the same Constantine about Ten Years after , for the making of Canons about Discipline , by way of Supplement to the Fifth and Sixth Councils , which had made none . This Council , I say , in the first of its Canons , which is as a kind of Preface , owns and applauds the Nicene Fathers , for that , with an Unanimous Agreement and consent of Faith , they had declared and cleared up one Consubst antiality in the Three Hypostases , or Subsistences of the Divine Nature . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. And Lastly in the Florentine Council , held in the Fif teenth Century , in which the Greeks , with their Emperor Iohannes Palaeologus met the Latines in order to an Accord between them , touching that so much controverted Article about the Procession of the Holy Ghost . In this Council , Isay , we have the Greeks also expressing the Personality of the Holy Ghost , by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . For whereas the Latines affirmed , that the Holy Ghost the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to say , stream , or flow from the Son , the Greeks desired them to explain what they meant by that Expression , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and whether they understood , that he derived both his Essence and Personality from him , and that in these words very significant to our purpose , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . By which we see that even with these Modern Greeks also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is all one with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifie Essence and Person , as applyed to the Persons of the Blessed Trinity , Hist. Concil . Florent . in the last Chapter , and Question 7. of Section 8. Pag. 246. set forth by Dr. Creyghton , 1660. I cannot think it requisite to quote any Thing more from the Greeks upon this Subject , it being as clear as the Day , that both Fathers and Councils stated the Personalities of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , upon Three distinct Hypostases , or Subsistences of one and the same God-head , Essence , or Substance , distinguished thereby into Three Persons . And so I pass from the Greeks to the Latines , whom we shall find giving an Account of the same , partly by subsistences and Modes of subsistence , and partly by Relations . But not equally by both in all Ages of the Church . For we have before shewn , That there was a long and sharp Contest between the Greeks and the Latines about the Word Hypostasis , and that the Latines dreaded the use of it , as knowing no other Latin Word to render it by , but Substantia , which they could by no means ascribe plurally to God ; and as for the Word Subsistentia , that was not then accounted properly Latin ; and it was but upon this occasion , and to fence against the Ambiguity of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it came at length into use amongst the Latines . And even after all , it must be yet further confessed , That notwithstanding that fair foundation of Accord between the Greeks and Latines laid by the forementioned Council of Alexandria , and the hearty Endeavours both of Athanasius and of Gregory Nazianzen after him , to accommodate the business between them , the Latines were not so ready to come over to the Greeks , in the free use of the Word Hypostasis , as the Greeks were to comply withthe Latines in the use of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , answering to their Persona . And therefore in vain would any one seek for an Explication of the Divine Persons in the Trinity , by the Terms Subsistentiae , or Modi Subsistendi , in the earlier Latin Writers , such as Tertullian about the latter end of the second Century , and St. Cyprian about themiddle of the Third , and Lactantius about the latter end of the same , and the beginning of the Fourth . Nevertheless find it we do , in the Writers of the following Ages ; And how , and in what sence it was used by them , shall be now considered . And here we will begin with St. Ambrose , who is full and clear in the case , in his Book in Symbolum Apostolicum , Cap. 2. Tom. 2. in these Words . Ità ergò rectum , & Catholicum est , ut & unum Deum secundùm Unitatem Substantiae fateamur , & Patrem , & Filium , & Spiritum Sanctum in suâ quemque Subsistentiâ sentiamus . A Passage so very plain , that nothing certainly could more effectually declare , That this Father reckoned the Personalities of the Three Divine Persons to consist in their several and respective Subsistences . The next whom we shall alledge , is St. Hilary , who flourished in the Fourth Century , and wrote Twelve Books of the Trinity , and some other Tracts upon the same Subject against the Arians . He , I confess , frequently , and particularly in Book 4. de Trinit . p. 36. Basil. Edit . 1570. calls the Three Divine Persons , Tres Substantias ; but it is evident , that he took Substantia , in the same sence with Subsistentia , or Hypostasis ; forasmuch as he else where often affirms that , which must of necessity infer this to be his meaning . As for instance , in his Book de Synodis contra Arianos , Page 223. he tells us , That Nullam diversitatem aut dissimilitudinem admittit Geniti & Gignentis Essentia . And again , That there is Indifferens in Patre & Filio divinitatis substantia , p. 224 And nulla differentis Essentiae discreta Natura , ibid. And nulla Originalis substantiae diversitas , ibid. And that there is between them nulla diversitas Essentiae , p. 225. None of all which Propositions could possibly be true , if the Divine Persons were three distinct Substances according to the proper sence and signification of the Word Substance . And therefore the Learned Forbesius in his Historico-Theological Instructions ; Book 1. Chap. 2. quoting the aforesaid Passage , after the Words Tres substantias , subjoyns these of his own , Eo [ nempe ] sensu quo Graeci dicebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And accordingly St. Hilary explaining himself further , in his fore-cited Book de Synodis contra Arianos , p. 226. says , That though between the Father and the Son there was nulla diversitas Essentiae , yet they did respuere Personalium Nominum Unionem , ne Unus Subsistens sit , qui & Pater dicatur & Filius : Which Words manifestly infer , That the Father is said to be a Father , and the Son to be a Son , by a distinct Subsistence proper to each of them . And again speaking of those Fathers who opposed the Heresie of Sabellius , says of them : Idcircò Tres Substantias esse dixerunt , Subsistentium Personas per Substantias edocentes , non substantiam Patris , & Filii , & Spiritus Sancti , diversitate dissimilis essentiae separantes , p. 228. By which Words , he speaks all that the Greeks meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the Latines of the following Times , by Subsistentia . For which reason it is , that the Learned Collator and Editor of this Father's Works , uses , now and then , to such Passages as these to add an Explicatory Marginal Note to this purpose ; as in Page 36. Book 4. de Trinitate , he puts in the Margin , Tres Substantiae , id est , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and in this Book de Synodis , &c. p. 227. he remarks in the side , Trina in Divinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which manifestly shews , what the Judgment of Learned Men was concerning St. Hilary's sence in the use of the words Tres Substantioe with reference to the Divine Persons . From St. Hilary we pass to St. Ierome ; who indeed scrupled the use of the Word Hypostasis , ( as applyed to the Divine Persons ) in Epistle 57. to Pope Damasus . But that he did only scruple it , and not absolutely refuse , or reject it , is evident from several other Passages in that Epistle ; which shewed his Judgment to be , that there was nothing of it self ill and hurtful in the use of it . For , had he judged otherwise , surely he would not have told Damasus , that he was ready to own the Expression of Tres Personas Subsistentes : And moreover , That if Damasus would command the use of the Term Hypostasis , he would use it . But his Exception against it ( for it was not the Word Person , as a great Man mistakes it , but the Word Hypostasis , which St. Ierome demurred to the use of ) was built upon these Two grounds , both expressed in the same Epistle . First , That Hereticks abused , or made an ill use of this Term , to deceive and impose upon the Minds of Weak , and Unwary Persons . And , in good earnest , that must be a very extraordinary Word indeed , which is uncapable of being one way or other abused by some , and misunderstood by others . Secondly , The other ground ( which , as there is great reason to believe , was the main and principal cause of St. Ierome's dislike of this Term ) was its being imposed by an Incompetent Authority , viz. That some of the Greek Church would needs command him ( and him a very warm Man too ) who was of the Latin Communion , to the use of that , which the Latin Church had not obliged him to . And Calvin , in Lib. 1. Chap 13. of his Institutions , Sect. 5. shrewdly intimates the peculiar Pique , which St. Ierome bore to the Eastern Bishops , to have been the chief , if not the sole cause of his Exception against this Word ; adding withal , that it was not fairly done of him ( which Calvin was a very Competent Judge of ) to Assert ( as in that Epistle he does ) that in omnibus Scholis , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was nihil aliud quàm Hypostasis ; which Calvin there says , Communi tritóque usu passim refellitur . But after all , it seems , St. Ierome could relent from his stiffness , and reconcile himself to this so much scrupled Expression . For in his Epistle , or Discourse ad Paulam & Eustochium de assumptione Beatoe Marioe , speaking of our Saviour's exercising Two distinct kinds of Operation , according to his Two Natures combining in one Person , has these Words , Per hoc , quod audiérant , quod viderant , quod tractârant ( viz. Apostoli ) verbam vitoe erat , & nihil aliud ex duabus Naturis , quàm Unum juxta Subsistentiam vel Personam . Hieronym . Tom. 9. p. 113. Edit . Paris . apud Nivellium , 1579. So that I am in good hopes , that for the future St. Ierome's Authority will not be alledged against expressing the Divine Persons by Hypostases ; till it be proved , that there cannot be a Greek and a Latin Word for one and the same Thing : For , what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the Greek , That , it is certain , Subsistentia signifies and declares to us in the Latin. As for St. Austin , though he looks upon the Word Hypostasis , or Subsistentia , as new and strange to the Latines , in the sence , in which it was used by the Greeks , yet he is so far from a bridging the Greeks in their way of speaking , that he very amicably allows even of those Latines also , who chose to follow the Greek Expression , as to this Particular , in his 5th . Book de Trin. Chap. 8 , 9. where he tells us , Qui hoec tractant Groeco eloquio dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Latinè ista tractantes cùm alium modum aptiorem non invenirent , quo enuntiarent verbis , dicunt Unam Essentiam vel Substantiam , Tres autem Personas , ibid. By which this Father manifestly shews , That the Latines indeed undestood the very same Thing by Persona , which the Greeks did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and that they really rendered one by the other , though they were not generally so ready to use the Term. And here I suppose the Reader will easily perceive , that my Intent is not to establish the use of the Words hitherto pleaded for , upon the Authority of St. Austin , ( for the Case needs it not ) but only to shew , That albeit this Father does both particularly consider , and expresly speak of the said Terms , yet he does not in the least reject , or disallow of them . But however , in the same Book he proceeds to another Topick very much to our present purpose , viz. his stating the Divine Personalities upon Relation , in these Words , In Deo nihil secundùm Accidens dicitur , quia in eo nihil est mutabile . Nec tamen omne quod dicitur , secundùm Substantiam dicitur , sed secundùm Relativum : Quod tamen Relativum non est Accidens , quia non est mutabile ; ut filius dicitur Relativè ad Patrem , &c. Whereby ( as we have said ) founding Personality in , and upon something Relative , he sufficiently proves , That the same neither is , nor can be placed in Self-Consciousness ; this being a Term , in the import ' of it , perfectly Absolute , and containing nothing Relative in it at all . Next to St. Austin , we will produce Ruffinus a Writer of the 4th Century , and flourishing about the latter end of it ; who , in the short Account he gives us of what was done in the forementioned Synod of Alexandria , for the Peace of the Church , and the closing up the Division between the Greeks and the Latines about the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Chap. 29. of the first Book of his History , tells us , That although some thought that both these Words were Synonymous , and consequently that as Three Substances were by no means to be admitted in the Trinity , so neither ought we to acknowledg Three Subsistences therein , yet that others , and those much the greater , and more prevailing part , judged quite otherwise ; in these Words . Alii verò quibus longè aliud Substantia quàm Subsistentia significare videbatur , dicebant quòd Substantia rei alicujus Naturam rationémque , quâ constat , designet ; Subsistentia autem uniuscujusque Personoe hoc ipsum quod extat & subsistit , ostendat ; ideóque propter Sabellii Hoeresin tres esse Subsistentias confitendas , quòd quasi Tres Subsistentes Personas significare viderentur , ne suspicionem daremus tanquam istius fidei sectatores essemus , quae Trinitatem in Nominibus tantùm , ac non in Rebus , ac Subsistentiis confitetur . So that we see here a full , and clear Account both of the Sence of this Word , and of the Reason , Why the Church thought fit to establish the use of it with reference to the Persons of the Blessed Trinity . Another Testimony shall be from Beotius who flourished about the beginning of the 6th Century . He in Chap. 2. of his Book de duabus Naturis in unâ Personâ Christi , first gives us this Difinition of a Person , that it is Rationabilis Naturae individua Subsistentia , ( according to which , our Author's Warr-Horse is like to fall from his Personal Dignity . ) And afterwards , having discoursed about the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , he concludes the said Chapter thus . Hoec omnia idcirco sunt dicta , ut differentiam Naturae atque Personoe , id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 monstraremus : Quo verò nomine unumquodque oporteat appellari , Ecclesiasticae sit locutionis Arbitrium ; ut tamen hoc interim constet , quòd inter Naturam Personámque differre praediximus . By all which he gives us a very Plain , Rational , and Scholastick Account of this Matter . The next , whom I shall produce to Vouch the same Thing , is Rusticus Diaconus , who lived and flourished about the middle of the Sixth Century . He in Chap. 6. of his Book contra Acephalos ; tells the Nestorian Heretick , ( whom he is there by way of Dialogue disputing with ) That Subsistentia interdum Personam significat , non nunquam verò Substantiam . And accordingly , that the Council of Ephesus distinguished in our Saviour , aliud & aliud , viz. in respect of his Two Natures , but not alium & alium in respect of his Person , which was but One : And this quite contrary to what we observe in the Trinity , Illic enim alius & alius , ne Subsistentias confundamus ; non verò aliud & aliud . Unum enim Tria & idem Deitate . To which Words of the Synod , this Author subjoyns these of his own . Ecce manifestissimè Synodi Universalis Authoritas Subsistentias pro Personis suscepit atque laudavit . This also , I think , is very full and satisfactory . I shall close these particular Testimonies with Two Passages in the Appendix to the Breviary of Liberatus the Deacon , who also lived about the middle of the Sixth Century , as I find it in Crabb's Collection of the Councils , Tom. 2. P. 126. Col. 2. and which the very Learned Dr. Cave observes , is the only Edition of the Councils , where it is to be found . The first Passage is this . Idem Natura & Substantia , quod commune , non proprium significat , & idem Persona & Subsistentia , quod proprium , & non commune declarat . And the other follows about Ten Lines after in the same Column . Sanctae ergo Trinitatis una quidem est Natura atque Substantia . Communis est enim Trium Substantia , non autem una Subsistentia , seu Persona Trium , viz. Patris , & Filii , & Spiritûs Sancti , sed Tres Subsistentiae sunt . In which certainly we have so very clear and pregnant a Declaration of the Thing Contended for by us , that a clearer cannot possibly be given , nor reasonably desired . And therefore to add no more Private , or Single Authorities , I shall conclude all with that of a Council ; not a General one indeed , but that Lateran held under Pope Martin the first of 105 Bishops about the Year 649 , or 650 , and by way of Preparation for the Sixth General one , and of Constantinople the third ; called ( as we have already shewn ) by Constantinus Pogonatus , and held the following Year against the Monothelites . The first Decree of which said Lateran Synod , is this : Siquis secundùm Sanctos Patres non confitetur propriè & veraciter Patrem , Filium , & Spiritum Sanctum , Trinitarem in Unitate & Unitatem in Trinitate , hoc est , unum Deum in Tribus Subsistentiis consubstantialibus , aequalis gloriae , unam , eandémque Trium Deitatem , Naturam , Substantiam , & Virtutem , &c. sit condemnatus . Now this does as manifestly place the Three Divine Persons in Three distinct Subsistences , as it is possible for words to express . For it is evident , that by Subsistentiis cannot be here meant Substantiis ; forasmuch as [ Substantiis consubstantialibus ] would neither be Truth , nor Sence . And now , all that I pretend to from the foregoing Testimonies and Quotations , is not to prove , that the Latin Church has alway made use of the Terms Hypostases , Subsistentiae , & Modi Subsistendi , about the Explication of the Trinity , ( for I own it to have been otherwise , ) but that from the Fourth Century downward , those of that Communion were not Strangers to , and unacquainted with these Words ; many great and Eminent writers having from time to time more or less applyed them to this Purpose . But the main Proof of the Point driven at I state upon the Latter Ages of the Catholick Church . Concerning which I dare and do affirm , That for the Five or Six last Centuries , the said Terms have been Universally received and used by Divines in their Writings and Discourses about the Trinity ; all stating the Personalities and Distinction of the Divine Persons upon so many distinct Subsistences , or Modes of Subsistence ; therein following the Greek Fathers , who were much more versed in this Controversie , and managed it much better and more exactly than the Ancient Latines did . Accordingly , I shall proceed now to the School-men ; amongst whom I shall begin with the Father of them , viz. Peter Lombard , who in Book 1. of his Sentences , Distinct. 25. and Point . or Sect. 9. speaks thus . Cùm dicitur alia est Persona Patris , alia Filii , alia Spiritûs Sancti , utique id sanè intelligi potest , ut sit sensus talis ; Alia est Subsistentia , vel Hypostasis Patris , alia Subsistentia Filii , alia Subsistentia Spiritûs Sancti ; & alia Subsistentia Pater , alia Filius , alia Spiritus Sanctus . By which surely it is plain , That he states the Divine Persons and their Personalities upon Subsistence , if any thing can be so . Next to Lombard , I shall produce Alensis , who in Vol. 1. and Book 1. de Divinis nominibus in speciali , has these Passages . In Divinis non dicitur una subsistentia , sicut una substantia . Quaest. 57. Memb. 3. And Tres sunt Hypostases unius Essentiae , Quaest. 58. Memb. 3. And Persona est Hypostasis proprietate suâ distincta . Quaest. 58. Memb. 4. By all which he manifestly Asserts the thing here contended for . After him , let us see what Durandus says , who undertaking to give the signification of Substantia , Subsistentia , Essentia and Persona , with reference to God , in order to the Explication of the Term Subsistentia , first tells us , What it is to Subsist , in these Words . Subsistere dicit determinatum essendi modum , prout scilicet aliquid est Ens per se , & non in alio . A little after which , he tells us , That Nomen Personoe dicit suppositum Intellectualis Naturae , cui omnia Proedicta conveniunt , scil . Essentia , Substantia & Subsistentia . By which he gives us a most exact Account and Definition of a Person ; which ( in Intelligent Beings ) is nothing else but an Essence , or Substance ( Terms Synonymous in God ) under a Subsistence peculiarly belonging to it . And in the end of this Question , he further explains the Personalities of the Divine Persons by so many distinct Relations , in these Words . Persona , quoe multiplicatur in Divinis , includit in eo , de quo dicitur , aliquid , quod non est omnino idem secundùm rem vel ex naturâ rei cum Essentiâ vel Substantiâ , scilicet Relationem ; ratione cujus plurificatur Persona in Divinis , & non essentia . Durandus Lib. 1. Distinct. 23. Quaest. 2. Thomas Aquinas also we shall find giving his Judgment to the same purpose , and that very fully and clearly . Dicendum ( says he ) quòd quamvis hoc Nomen [ Substantia ] in Latino respondere videatur huic Nomini [ Hypostasis ] in Groeco , non tamen omninò idem significat secundùm usum utriusque linguoe . Nam hoc nomen [ Hypostasis ] apud Groecos significat tantùm Substantiam particularem quoe est substantia prima ; sed Latini utuntur Nomine Substantiae tam pro primâ quàm pro secundâ . Substantia autem particularis nihil aliud videtur , quàm quid distinctum subsistens . Cùm ergo in Divinis invenitur aliquid distinctum subsistens , rectè ibi Nomen [ Hypostasis ] dici potest , secundùm quod Divina verbis humanis significari contingit . And again , Dicendum quòd hoc Nomen [ Persona ] non differt ab hoc nomine [ Hypostasis ] nisi quòd addit determinatam Naturam ; quod patet ex hoc , quòd Hypostasis est Individua substantia . Persona verò Individua substantia Rationalis Naturoe . Hypostasis ergo in Rationali Naturâ accepta nihil aliud est , quàm Persona , sicut Animal cum Rationali Actu nihil aliud est quàm Homo . Unde cùm Divina Natura sit Rationalis , ( largo modo accipiendo Rationale pro quolibet Intellectuali ) oportet quòd Hypostasis Divina sit idem quod Persona Divina . And presently after , as to the Relative Nature of this Hypostasis , he adds this at the end of the Article . Sicut ergo hoc Nomen [ Persona ] in Divinis significat Relationem per modum rei Subsistentis , sic & hoc Nomen [ Hypostasis ] Thomas in Scripto 2. in Sentent . Lib. 1. Distinct. 26. Quaest. 1. Artic. 1 , 2. And again in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans , Cap. 1. Nihil aliud est Persona quàm Hypostasis aut suppositum Rationalis Naturoe . Next to Thomas , let us hear Cajetan , one of the most Eminent Commentators upon him , who defending Bonaventure against Scotus , speaks thus as to this particular . Substantia dupliciter sumitur , & pro Essentiâ & pro Hypostasi ( i. e. ) Subsistentiâ . Atque hoc secundo modo Substantia , id est , Hypostasis dicitur formaliter de Personâ Divinâ , & quòd simul ac semel Persona Divina est Hypostasis & tamen Relatio . Adding these Words immediately hereupon . Hoec omnia communia sant omnibus Theologis . Cajetan in 1 m Thomae , Quaest. 40. Artic. 2. From Cajetan I shall pass to Greg. de Valentiâ , who discourses of the Divine Persons and Personalities thus . Ex hóc consequenter apparet , debere concedi in Divinis Tres Subsistentias respectivas , non solùm ut Subsistentia accipitur pro Torâ Personis , ut definitio Ecclesioe declarat ; sed etiam ut accipitur pro gradu illo ultimo Substantiali constituente Personam & reddente illam incommunicabilem , quem Theologi appellare solent Subsistentiam , & est ipsa Personalitas . G. de Valentiâ Tom. 1. Disputat . generali 2. Quaest. 3. Artic. 2. p. 741. To Gregory de Valentiâ , we will subjoyn Estius , who speaking of the Words Persona and Hypostasis as they were used by the Greeks and Latines , and of the sence of the Fathers about them , speaks thus . Horum Authoritatem posteriores Groeci ità sunt secuti , ut Hypostasim in Divinis non aliud intelligant , quàm quod Latini Personam vocant , maximè cùm in promptu non esset aliud Vocabulum , quo Subsistentiam illam personalem , quâ inter se distinguuntur Pater , & Filius , & Spiritus Sanctus , commodè atque inoffensè exprimerent . Estius in sentent . lib. 1. Distinct. 23. Articulo 3. By which Words it appears , That according to this Author , it is this Personalis Subsistentia , by which the Three Divine Persons are distinguished , and consequently in which the proper Personality of each of them does consist . After Estius let us cast our Eye upon Suarez , speaking much the same Thing with those before mentioned . Advertendum est ( says he ) hoc nomen [ Subsistentia ] apud Antiquos Patres frequentiùs accipi in Vi concreti ad significandam Hypostasim seu Personam . In quo sensu nulla est Quoestio inter Catholicos , nam de fide est , dari in Trinitate Tres Subsistentias realiter distinctas , id est Tres Hypostases . Suarez in 1 m Thomae de Trinitatis Mysterio lib. 3. cap. 4. And then again for the Relative Nature of the said Subsistences , he gives this Account of the Divine Persons and their Personalities . Ex his quoe hactenus diximus , &c. concluditur Relationem Personalem esse etiam proprietatem constituentem Personam [ seu quâ constituitur Persona . ] De Trinit . lib. 7. cap. 7. in the beginning . To all which I shall add , Martinez Ripalda , a short , but Judicious Writer upon the Sentences , speaking of the Term [ Hypostasis ] in these Words . Hoeretici ( says he ) referente Hieronymo , eâ voce abutebantur ad decipiendum fideles ; jam eâ significantes Essentiam , jam Personalitatem & incommunicabilem Subsistentiam . By which last Expression this Author manifestly shews , That he takes Personality and Incommunicable Subsistence for Words Synonymous ; and consequently that such a Subsistence is and must be that , by which a Divine Person is constituted formally , what he is . I cannot think it necessary to quote any more of this sort of Writers , nor am I sollicitous to alledge many of them , because I am well assured ( according to the forecited Saying of Cajetan ) that these are the Terms , and this the Language of them all upon this Subject . Only I think fit to remark this : That , whereas I have alledged some of the School-men ( and particularly Durandus , Thomas , and Suarez ) expressing the Divine Personalities by Relations , as well as by Hypostases , or Subsistences , as they do in both these mean but one and the same Thing , viz. a Relative Subsistence , or a Subsisting Relation ; so by both of them they equally overthrow this Author's Hypothesis , deriving the Divine Personalities from Self-Consciousness . Forasmuch as Subsistence is in Nature before it , and Relation is opposite to it ; it having been demonstrated by me in Chap. 4. That Self-Consciousness is a Thing wholly Absolute and Irrelative , and therefore cannot possibly be the Formal Reason of that which is Essentially Relative . In a word , Self Consciousness is neither an Hypostasis , nor a Relation ; and therefore can have nothing to do here , whatsoever other Employment this Author may have for it . And now I shall at last descend to the Testimony of several Modern Divines , and all of them Men of Note in the Times in which they lived . And amongst these , let us first hear Philip Melancthon in his common places speaking thus upon this Head. Satis constat ( says he ) veteres Scriptores Ecclesiae solitos haec duo vocabula discernere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & dicere unam esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , Essentiam aeternam Patris , & Filii , & Spiritùs Sancti , sed tres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . From him we will pass to Chemnitius who Wrote upon Melancthon's Common Places : He in the first Chapter of his Book de duabus in Christo Naturis , gives his Opinion thus . Hypostases seu Personae Trinitatis omnes unum sunt propter Identitatem Essentiae suae , atque adeò non differunt Essentialiter , nec separatim una extra aliam & sinè aliâ subsistit . And presently after this , Relatione autem seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , modo scilicet Subsistendi realiter differunt . After Chemnitius , let us consider what Calvin says ; in Book 1. of his Institutions , Chap. 13. Sect. 2. Filium Dei Apostolus characterem Hypostaseos Patris nominans , haud dubiè aliquam Patri Subsistentiam assignat in quâ differat à Filio . Nam pro Essentià accipere ( sicuti fecerunt quidam Interpretes , &c. ) non durum modò sed absurdum quoquè esset . And again in Sect. 6. of the same Chapter . Personam voco Subsistentiam in Dei essentiâ , quae ad alios relata proprietate incommunicabili distinguitur . Subsistentiae nomine aliud quiddam intelligi volumus quàm Essentiam . In the next place Peter Martyr gives us the same Account of the same Subject . Multò rectiùs ( says he ) & veriùs intelligemus ex isto loco ( nempe 2 Samuelis Cap. 7. Commate 23. ) Tres Personas in Unâ Naturâ Divinâ , Patrem , inquam , Filium & Spiritum Sanctum , quae cùm sint Tres Hypostases , tamen concluduntur in Unam Essentiam . Petrus Martyr Loc. Com. p. 50. col . 2. Loco de Dei Attributis & Sacro-Sanctâ Trinitate . Likewise Wolfgangus Musculus in his Common Places under the particular Head or common Place de Deo , declares the Matter thus . Est itaque Deus Essentiâ Unus quemadmodum & Naturâ & Divinitate , Hypostasi verò Trinus . And a little after , Haec sunt manifestâ fide tenenda , Deum , viz. Esse Unum Essentiâ , Naturâ , Divinitate , sententiâ , Motione , & Operatione , Trinum verò Tribus Personis , quarum singulis sua est Hypostasis & Proprietas . Musc. Loc. Comm. Cap. 6. p. 7. And a little before speaking of the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and in what sence the Ancients understood these Words . Voce Essentiae ( says he ) id expresserunt ( nempe Veteres ) quod commune est in Sacrâ Triade : per Hypostasim verò quod Unicuique Personae proprium in illâ est , significârunt . p. 6. ibid. Piscator also in his Theological Theses , speaks after the same manner . Quum igitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper fuerit Filius Dei , quis non videt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de quo loquitur Iohannes , semper fuisse Personam seu Hypostasim , rem scilicet per se Subsistentem , Loc. 2. de Deo. p. 57 , 58. Agreeably to this , Tilenus an Eminent Divine expresses himself in his Body of Divinity , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( says he ) sive Personae sunt illa ipsa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae in singulis Personis est Tota ; ipsae verò Relationibus sive Proprietatibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt distinctae . And again , Simpliciter dicimus Proprietates istas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse diversos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est , modos Subsistendi . Tilen . Syntag. par . 1. cap. 20. p. 129. The Learned Ursinus in his Theological Treatises under the Head De tribus Personis in Unâ Deitate , declares the same . Tenendum est , nequaquam eandem esse Patris , Filii & Spiritûs Sancti Personam ; sed Tres esse Personas seu Hypostases Divinitatis reipsâ distinctas , nec plures nec pauciores . Ursini Oper. Theol. Quaest. 4. Thesi 2. By which we see that this great Divine reckons Subsistence to be so much the Ground and Reason of Personality , that he uses Persona and Hypostasis as Terms perfectly equivalent . But there would be no end of Particulars should I quote all that might be quoted , and therefore I shall conclude all these single Testimonies with that of Turretinus , late Professor of Divinity at Geneva , who gives us this full and Judicious Account , in his common Places , of the Point here before us . Fides Orthodoxa haec est , in Unicâ ac Simplicissimâ Dei Essentiâ Tres esse distinctas Personas , quae proprietatibus Incommunicabilibus sive Modis Subsistendi ità inter se distinguuntur , ut una non sit alia , licèt per ineffabilem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maneant semper & existant in se invicem . Turretinus part 1. Loco 3. Quaest. 28. In the last place to confirm the Testimonies of particular Persons , with the joynt Suffrage and Concurrence of whole Churches in their Publick Confessions , I shall mention some of them . And amongst these , the Augustan , or Ausperg Confession , gives this Account of the Trinity . Ecclesiae ( scilicet Reformatae ) magno consensu docent Decretum Synodi Nicaenae credendum esse , viz. Quòd sit Una Essentia Divina , & tamen sint Tres Personae ejusdem Essentiae , &c. Et utuntur Nomine Personae eâ significatione quâ usi sunt Scriptores Ecclesiastici , ut significet non partem , aut qualitatem , sed quod propriè Subsistit . Confessio Augustana in Articulo fidei 1. Next to this we have the Wirtemberg Confession declaring the same in the very beginning of it . Credimus & confitemur Unum solum Deum , &c. Et in hâc unâ & Aeternâ Deitate Tres esse per se Subsistentes proprietates seu Personas , Patrem , Filium & Spiritum Sanctum . This Confession was made and given forth in the Year 1552. Likewise the Gallican Reformed Churches in their Confession made in the Reign of Charles the IX . and in the Year 1561. declare themselves much the same way upon this Article . Sancta Scriptura nos docet in illâ singulari & simplice Essentiâ Divinâ Subsistere Tres Personas , Patrem , Filium , & Spiritum Sanctum . Add to these the Belgick Confession also , recognized , approved , and ratifyed in the Synod of Dort ; which in its eighth Article speaks of the Divine Persons in the Blessed Trinity thus . Haec distinctio [ viz. Personarum ] non efficit ut Deus in Tres sit divisus , quandoquidem Scriptura nos docet Patrem , Filium , & Spiritum Sanctum singulos distinctam habere suis Proprietatibus Hypostasim , which Words are extremely expressive and full . But as touching these Confessions , the Reader ought not in Reason to be dissatisfied that I produce no more of them to the present purpose , ( out of those many which are extant ) since it has been still the Custom of most Churches to draw up their Confessions in Terms as general and short as they well could . So that we are the less to wonder if we seldom meet with such Words in them as are Explicatory and Particular . And now after all these Authorities thus alledged by me , I would desire this Confident Man ( whom I am here disputing with ) to look back upon the fore-mentioned Greek and Latin Fathers , Councils , School-men , and all those Eminent Modern Divines , together with the Clergy of whole Countreys and Nations , Solemnly and Unanimously declaring themselves in their Publick Avowed Confessions of Faith , upon this great Article and Mystery ; I say , I desire him to look all these in the Face , and to tell them , That they have hitherto abused the whole World with false Notions of the Trinity , by expressing the Divine Persons and Personalities by Hypostases , Subsistences , and Modes of Subsistence , Words ( as he says ) importing little better than Sabellianism , and serving for nothing else but to obscure , perplex , and confound the Minds and Thoughts of Men in conceiving , or discoursing of this Weighty and Sacred Point of our Christian Faith. This , I require him , in defence of what he has so expresly , peremptorily , and Magisterially affirmed all along in his Book , to do ; if his Heart and Fore-head will serve him for it . In the mean time I have here delivered in all the Testimonies both Greek and Latin , Ancient and Modern , which I think fit to offer in behalf of the Point pleaded for : Though , should I have represented all that occurrs in the fore-cited Authors ( besides many others not mentioned ) to the same Purpose , I should not so much have quoted , as ( upon the Matter ) Transcribed them . And now , if any one should ask me , Whether I look upon these Testimonies as sufficiently representing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church upon this Head of Divinity ? I Answer , That barely by way of Induction they do not ; since an Induction ought to consist of a greater Collection of Particulars . Nevertheless I avouch this Number of Testimonies to be a full and sufficient Representation of the sence of the Church herein , if we consider them as joyned with , and supported by these Three following Considerations , As First , That it is morally impossible , that the Persons above quoted , being of such Eminent Note in the Church , both for Orthodoxy and Learning , and Living ( most of them ) at such a great distance both of Time and Place , ( rendring all Communication between them impracticable ) should , or could presume to express themselves upon so Sacred an Article , and so Tender a Point , but in such Terms as were generally received , used , and approved of by the Church . Secondly , That these Terms were never yet Condemned , nor the Users of them Censured by any Church , or Council , accounted Orthodox ; which in so great , and so revered an Article they would infallibly have been , had they been judged unfit for , or unapplicable to , the Things to which they were actually applyed , as this bold Author with great Confidence affirms them to be . Thirdly and Lastly , That hardly any Church-Writer of considerable Remark and Name can be produced , who ever treated of this great Subject in any other Terms than those expressed by us , or particularly made use of the Terms Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness to explain it by . All being wholly silent of them in all those Writings in which they do most particularly and exactly design a Discussion of these Matters . These Three Considerations , I say , added to the fore-alledged Quotations irrefragably prove them to be a true , just , and sufficient Representation of the Sence and Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this Matter ; and that it is utterly inconsistent with the Common Reason , Principles and Practice of Mankind , that it should be otherwise . And as for what concerns this Author , whom I am disputing with , I dare affirm yet further , that any one or two of the Passages quoted by me , are more full and clear to the purpose I quote them for , than all that he has produced from the several Fathers alledged by him for his Self Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness put together ; and much more than his forlorn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited out of Gr. Nyssen to prove the Son an Infinite Mind distinct from the Father , Page 102. That is to say , than Three vagrant Words applyed by him , to he knows not what , and to be found ( for ought appears ) he knows not where . All which being manifestly so , I desire any Sober Person to shew me something but like a Reason to prove , That the Fathers and other Church-Writers ( from whom all these Quotations were drawn ) placed the Personal Distinction of the Divine Persons in Self Consciousness , and their Unity only in Mutual-Consciousness . On the contrary , as these Words were never so much as mentioned by them , so I affirm , That , whensoever , in speaking of the Trinity they proceed beyond the bare Word and Name of Person , so as to give any Account of the Thing signified thereby , and the Reason thereof , they do it constantly by Subsistences , Modes of Subsistence , and Relations . This I am positive in ; and withal , that , as they never mentioned the Terms Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness upon this Subject , so I avert moreover , That when they use the Words Subsistences , Modes of Subsistence and Relations on the one side , and of Unity , or Identity of Nature , Essence , or Substance on the other , ( which they always do ) they neither do , nor can mean Self Consciousness by the former , nor Mutual-Consciousness by the latter , nor yet the Things signified by either of these Terms . And that for these Reasons . First , Because all Modes of Being importing Existence are in Order of Nature antecedent to the other Attributes of Being ; such as are Knowledg , Wisdom , Power , and the like . And Self-Consciousness is no more ; as being but a branch , or sort of Knowledg , and nothing else . And Secondly , Because nothing Absolute can give Distinction and Incommunicability to the Divine Persons , the Rule of the Schools being undeniably true , Non dari in Divinis Absolutum Incommunicabile , Gr. Valent. Tom. 1. Pag. 874. But such a Thing I affirm Self-Consciousness to be , and in Chap. 4. have abundantly proved it so . So that it is evident , That all the Fathers , and Ancient Writers , in all the Terms which they used to express the Trinity and Divine Persons by , had no regard to Self-Consciousness , either Name or Thing , and consequently that it is a Term wholly foreign and unapplicable to this purpose . And what is said of their silence about Self-Consciousness extends to Mutual-Consciousness too . And the Truth is , the other forementioned Terms asserted by us against this Innovator , are to be looked on by all Sober Intelligent Men as a set of stated Words , or Forms of Expression first pitched upon by the Ablest Divines and Writers of the Church , then countenanced and owned by Councils , and lastly established by a kind of Prescription founded upon a long continued use of the same throughout the several Ages of the Church , as the best and fittest helps to guide Men in their Conceptions of , and Discourses about this great Mystery ; and such as the Church , in treating of so arduous a Point , never yet would , nor durst go beyond . So that the Question now is , Whether they ought to be abandoned and made to give place to a New , Mushrom , unheard of Notion , set up by one Confident Man preferring himself before all Antiquity ? A Notion , ( no doubt ) long before he was Born , throughly considered , canvased and laid aside , as not only insufficient , but Impertinent to give any tolerable Account of the Trinity by . Well ; but having declared this for the Catholick , Orthodox , and Received Doctrine about the Blessed Trinity , viz. That it is one and the same Divine Nature , Essence , or Substance diversified into Three distinct Persons by Three distinct Modes of Subsistence , or Relations , so that by vertue thereof God is truly and properly said to be Three Persons , and Three Persons to be One God. Having , I say , vouched this for the Doctrine of the Church , let us in the last place see what this Author has to object against it . And here his First Reason ( to put it into Form for him for once ) may run thus : Whatsoever constitutes and distinguishes the Divine Persons , is really and truly in God , bu Modes of Subsistence are not really and truly in God , and therefore Modes of Subsistence do not constitute , or distinguish the Divine Persons . The Major is evident , and shall be readily granted him . And the Minor he positively asserts , by denying any Modes to be in God , as particularly in Page 47. in these Words . All Men grant ( says he ) that there are no Accidents Qualities , or Modes in God. And again , Pag. 84. There are no Modes , no more than there are Qualities and Accidents , in the Deity . So that we see here , what this Author holds concerning all Modes with reference to God. In Answer to which Argument , as I have formed it ( and I challenge him to shew that I have at all wronged him in it , if he can ) I deny the Minor , viz. That Modes of Subsistence are not in God : And as for his Two forecited general Assertions : That Modes are no more to be allowed in God than Qualities and Accidents ( which by the way are so put together , as if Qualities were not Accidents ) I have these Two Things to remark upon those Two Assertions so positively laid down by him . First , That it is a gross Absurdity , and no small proof of Ignorance , to reckon things so vastly different as Modes and Accidents are , upon the same Range , or Level , and then to argue and affirm the same thing of both . And therefore I do here with the same Positiveness tell him , That Modes and Accidents do extremely differ ; and that none of any skill either in Logick , or Metaphysicks ever accounted them the same . For an Accident affects the Subject , it belongs to , so , that it is also a distinct Being it self . But a Mode affects it so , that it is not a distinct Being it self . I will not deny but Accidents may sometimes in a large and loose sence be called Modes : But I deny , That Modes are either Accidents , or everso called , where they are particularly and distinctly treated of by themselves . School-men and Metaphysicians may speak very differently of Modes when they mention them occasionally , and when they discourse of them professedly , and under a certain and peculiar Head. And whensoever they do so , if this Author can bring me any one Logician , Metaphisician , or School-man who takes Accidents and Modes promiscuously for the same Things , I dare undertake to forfeit to him a greater Sum , than ever yet he received for Copy-money in his Life . Secondly , My next Remark upon his foregoing Assertion is this : That as it is grosly absurd to confound Modes of Being with Accidents ; so it is equally absurd to deny Modes of Being to belong to God. And this I shall prove both from the manifest Reason of the Thing , and from Unquestionable Authority . And First , For the Reason of the Thing . If Modes of Being should not be allowed in God , then I affirm it to be impossible for any Distinction , and consequently for any Persons to be in God. Which I prove thus . If there be any distinction in God , or the Deity , it must be either from some distinct Substance , or some Accident , or some Mode of Being , ( for I defie him or any Mortal breathing to assign a fourth Thing besides these . ) But it cannot be from any distinct Substance , for that would make a manifest Composition in the Divine Nature ; nor yet from any Accident , for that would make a worse Composition : And therefore it follows , That this Distinction must unavoidably proceed from one or more distinct Modes of Being . This I affirm , and ( according to my promise made to this Author in the foregoing Chapter ) I shall be ready to defend the Truth of this Assertion against him , whensoever he shall think fit to engage in the Dispute . Secondly , In the next place , for the proof of this from Authority , I affirm , that all Metaphysicians , School-men and Divines ( at least , all that I have yet met with ) do unanimously concurr in these Two Things . 1. That they utterly deny any Accidents in God. And 2. That they do as universally affirm Modes of Being to be in God , and to belong to him . Nay , and ( which is more ) That they do in these very Modes state the Ground and Reason of the Personalities , and the distinction thereof respectively belonging to the Three Persons of the Godhead . And for a further proof of what I have here affirmed , and withal to shew how unable this Man's Memory is to keep pace with his Confidence , whereas in the forementioned page 47. He affirms , That all Men ( mark this Word ) deny Accidents , Qualities and M●des to be in God. He himself afterwards , in page 48. Owns , That the School-men hold these different Modos Subsistendi in the Godhead , and accordingly there sets himself ( as well as he is able ) to confute them for it . Now how shall we reconcile these blind Assertions , that so cruelly bu●t and run their Heads against one another ? For will he say , That the School-men do not grant such Modes to be in God , after he himself has done his poor utmost to confute them for holding it ? Or having said , That all Men deny these Modes to be in God , and yet that the School men grant and hold it , will he say , That the School-men are not Men , and so come not under that Universal Appellative ? What the School-men hold and assert in this Matter , has been sufficiently shewn already . But I must needs tell this Author upon this occasion , That he seems to have something a bad Memory , and withal to have more than ordinary need of a very good one . There is one Thing more which I think fit to observe , and it is something pleasant , viz. That our Author having exploded all Modos Subsistendi in God , and Chastised the School-men for holding them , even to a forfeiture of their very Humanity ; he yet vouchsafes afterwards , by a kind of Correctory Explication , to allow them in this sence , viz. That the same Numerical Essence is whole and entire in each Divine Person , but in a different Manner , P. 84. Lines 12 , 13 , 14. By which Words it appearing that he grants that of the Manner , which he had before denied of the Modus , it is a shrewd Temptation to me to think , That certainly this Acute Author takes Modus for one Thing , and Manner for another . In fine , I appeal to the Judicious and Impartial Reader , Whether a Man could well give a more convincing Argument of his utter Unacquaintance with the True Principles of Philosophy and Theology , than by a Confident Assertion of these Two Positions . 1. That Accidents and Modes of Being are the same Things . And 2. That such Modes are not at all to be allowed of , or admitted in God. Secondly , His Second Objection against our stating the distinction of the Divine Persons upon Three different Modes of Subsistence , is , That these Modes are little better than Three Names of One God. Which was the Heresie of Sabellius . P. 83. To which , I Answer Two Things . First , In direct and absolute Contradiction to what he asserts , I affirm , That the difference between Three Modes of Subsistence in the Godhead , and only Three distinct Names applyed to it , is very great . For Names and Words depend only upon the Will and Pleasure of the Imposer , and not upon the Nature of the Thing it self , upon which they are imposed , and for that cause neither do nor can Internally affect it . But on the contrary , all Modes of Subsistence spring from the Nature of the Thing , or Being , which they affect , both antecedently to , and ( by consequence ) independently upon the Apprehension , or Will of any one . So that altho neither Man nor Angel had ever considered , or thought of , or so much as known that there were such or such things , yet the Modes of Subsistence proper to them , would have belonged to them , as really and as much as they do now . And if this Author cannot by this see a vast difference between these , and so many bare Names , ( thanks be to God ) others can both see and defend it too . But Secondly , Whereas he says , That these Three Modes are but little better than Three Names . I answer , That his very saying so is Concession that they are something at least more and better . To which , I add further , That this something ( as small a Difference as it makes ) is yet sufficient to discriminate things , which are only Distinguishable , and no more . For separable , or divisible from one another , I am sure they are not . Nay , this is so far from being a just and rational Exception against placing the difference of the Divine Persons in so many different Modes of Subsistence , that , in the Judgment of very Great and Learned Men , it is no small Argument for it : For St. Cyril says , That the difference between the Divine Persons ( by reason of the perfect Unity of their Nature ( as it were ) blotting out , or taking away all Diversity between them ) is so very small as but just to distinguish them , and no more ; and to cause that One of them cannot be called the other ; the Father not the Son , nor the Son , upon any Account , the Father , &c. I thought fit to Transcribe the whole Passage , tho' the latter part , viz. from the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. is most immediately and directly to the Purpose , which I here alledge the whole for . And Thomas Aquinas tells us , That the Divine Persons ought to be distinguished by that , which makes the least distinction . In like manner Durandus affirms , That the first Instance of Plurality [ or remove from Unity ] ought to be the least . And therefore that the distinction of the Divine Persons , since it is the first , ought to be by distinct Relations compatible in the same Essence : Which for that cause , is a less distinction than any that can be made by Things Absolute . And Lastly , Bellarmine averrs pofitively , That the distinction of the Divine Persons ought to be the least that is Possible . Supposing all along , that it must still be Real , and not barely Nominal , or Imaginary . This was the Judgment of these Learned Men ; who as they were far from being Sabellians , so they very well knew both what to assert and how to express themselves without giving any ground for their being thought so . From all which it follows , That for this very cause , that Modes of Subsistence import the least Real difference that can be , they are therefore the fittest to state the Distinction of the Divine Persons upon . So that our Author here relapses into a fault which he has been guilty of more than once , viz. In alledging that as an Argument against a Thing , which is indeed a most Effectual Reason for it . And so I come to his Third and Last Objection against our making these Modes of Subsistence the ground , or Formal Reason of the Distinction between the Persons of the Blessed Trinity , which is , That it makes the Three Divine Persons only Three Modes of the Deity , or only Modally distinguished ; whereas ( according to his Doctrine ) there are no Modes in the Deity , and much less can a Mode be God. And that , As all must grant , that the Father is not a Mode of the Deity , but Essentially God ; so no Man can think that the Father begot only a Modus , and called it his Son ; whereas a Son signifies a Real Person of the same Nature , but distinct from the Father . Thus he discourses , pag. 83. 84. And is not this close and profound reasoning ? But as profound as it is , if it be at all to his Purpose , his Argument must lie in this , That all the forementioned Absurdities unavoidably follow from deriving the Distinction of the Three Divine Persons from Three distinct Modes of Subsistence belonging to one and the same Divine Nature . But this consequence I utterly deny , and to make out the Reason of this denial , I shall consider what he has said particularly . And here , first of all , I would fain know , Whether this Man will never leave confounding things perfectly different , and taking them for the very same ? For to affirm the Three Divine Persons to be only Three Modes of the Deity , is one Thing ; and to affirm them to be only Modally distinguished , is quite another . The former we absolutely deny , and as positively hold the latter . And yet this wretched Fallacy would he impose upon his Reader all along , viz. That the Assertors of these Modes of Subsistence in the Trinity , make a Person to be only a Modus Subsistendi . But that is his own Blunder . For we do not say , That a Person is only a Modus , but that it is the Divine Nature , or Godhead Subsisting under such a Modus , so that the Godhead is still included in it , joyned to it , and distinguished by it . This is what we affirm and abide by , and what sufficiently overthrows his pitiful Objection . And as for his Absurd Denial of all Modes in God , that has been throughly confuted already ; so that we have nothing more to do , but to admire that Invincible and Glorious Ratiocination of his in these Words , p. 84. No Man ( says he ) can think that the Father begot only a Modus , and called it his Son. No , good Sir , No ; none that I know of is in any danger of thinking or saying so ; no more , than that Socrates begot only the Shape and Figure of a Man , and then called it his Son ; or ( to turn your own blunt Weapon upon your self ) no more than God the Father begot another Self-Consciousness besides his own , and called that his Son. Nevertheless I hope it will be granted me , That Socrates might beget one of such a Shape and Figure , and ( by * Xantippe's and this Author 's good leave ) call that his Son ; and that God the Father might beget a Person endued with such a Self-Consciousness ( amongst other Attributes ) and call that his Son too . But I perceive this Author and the Fallacy of the Accident are such fast Friends , that it is in vain to think of parting them . In the mean time , as I told him what we do not hold concerning the Father's Generation of the Son , so for his better Information I shall tell him , what the Assertors of these Modes of Subsistence do hold concerning it , viz. We do hold and affirm , That the Father Communicates his Nature under a different Mode of Subsisting , from what it has in himself , to another , and that such a Communication of it , in such a peculiar way , is properly called his begetting of a Son. In which we do not say , That the Father begets a Modus , no nor yet an Essence , or Nature , but that he Communicates his own Essence , or Nature under such a distinct Modus to another and by so doing begets a Person , which Person , is properly his Son. This , Sir , is the true Account of what the Assertors of the Personal Modes of Subsistence hold concerning the Eternal generation . And if you have any thing to except against it , produce your Exceptions , and they shall not fail of an Answer . I am now come to a close of this Chapter , and indeed of the whole Argument undertook by me against this Author . In which I have Asserted the commonly received Doctrine about this great Article of the Trinity , both from the Ancient Writers of the Church , and against this Author's particular Objections ; and in both fully shewn , That the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are one and the same undivided Essence , Nature , or Godhead , diversified only by Three distinct Modes of Subsistence , which are sometimes called Properties , and sometimes Relations . So that a Divine Person is formally and properly the Divine Nature , Essence , or Godhead with , and under such a distinct Mode , Property , or Relation . And this I averr to be the common , current , generally received Doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity . For Councils and Fathers hold it , the School-men teach it , the Confessions of Churches ( where they are any thing particular upon this Subject ) declare it ; and all Divines both Papist and Protestant , in the several Bodies of Divinity wrote by them , do Assert it ; only this Author , who yet ( forsooth ) owns himself a Protestant of the Church of England , denies and explodes it . To whom therefore ( if he were not too great in his own Eyes to be Counselled and Advised ) I would give this Charitable piece of Counsel for once , viz. That for the future he would not presume at such a rate to contradict the whole World , till he has learn'd not to contradict himself . CHAP. IX . In which this Author's Paradoxes , hoth Philosophical and Theological , as they occurr in this his Discourse are drawn together , Examined , and Confuted . I Am sensible , that I am now engaged in a Subject that would threaten the Reader with a very long Chapter , should I follow it , as far as it would carry me : For I am entered into a large Field , Viz. this Author 's Paradoxical Assertions : In the traversing of which , I shall observe no other Method , but just to take them in that order in which they offer themselves throughout his Book ; save only , that I shall give my Reader this premonition , That such of them as I have particularly examined , and laid open in the foregoing Animadversions , I shall now set down without any further Descant , or Enlargement upon them , or at least with very little . But as for those , which I there passed over without any Notice , or Remark , ( as I did it all along with full purpose to treat of them by themselves , so ) I shall particularly insist upon them now . And the Reader may please to take them as they follow . PARADOX . It is a vain and arrogant presumption ( says this Author ) to say , What is , or what is not a Contradiction , when we confess we do not understand , or comprehend the thing we speak of , p. 4. And again , I know nothing in the World that we do perfectly understand , p. 7. line 19. Answer . According to these Two Assertions taken together , I affirm , That though a Man discourses never so falsly and inconsistently of God , or indeed of any thing in the World besides , yet he cannot justly be charged as guilty of a Contradiction . And moreover , since this Author affirms , page 97 , That for any one to say , That Three Divine Persons who are divided and separated from each other ; are each of them God , and yet that they are not Three Gods , but one God , is a direct Contradiction ; I desire to know of him , Whether he comprehends what the Godhead and what the Divine Persons are ? And if not , Whether ( according to his own Rule ) it is not a vain and arrogant Presumption in him to say what is a Contradiction , when he professes himself not to comprehend the thing he is speaking of , and about which the Contradiction is said to be ? PARADOX . This Author having declared the Intimate and Essential Unity between the Father and the Son from those Words of our Saviour , John 14th . Chap. 10. Ver. I am in the Father , and the Father in me : Subjoyns , That this Oneness between them is such an Union , as there is nothing in Nature like it ; and we cannot long doubt what kind of Union this is , if we consider that there is but one possible way to be thus United , and that is by this Mutual-Consciousness , p. 57. Answer . These Words I charge with Contradiction , and consequently with Absurdity upon two Accounts . First , because they Contradict our Saviour's Words . And Secondly , Because they Contradict the Author 's own Words . 1. And first concerning those of our Saviour . Whereas this Author says , That this Oneness between the Father and the Son , is such an Union , as there is nothing in Nature like it . Our Saviour in Iohn Ch. 17. ( where this whole Passage is repeated twice ) affirms something to be like it ; viz. in ver . 11. where he prays to his Father , That they ( viz. Believers ) may be One , as We ( viz. his Father and Himself ) are One : And again , ver . 21. That they may be One , as thou Father art in me , and I in thee . So that our Saviour expresly asserts a Likeness of something to this Union on the one side ; and this Author as expresly denies it on the other . In which ( according to his blundering , undistinguishing way ) he confounds [ Likeness ] and [ Sameness of kind ] as all One ; as shall presently be further shewn . In the next place , our Saviour ( as plainly as Words can express a Thing ) says , That he and his Father are One , by a Mutual In-being , or In-existence in one another . And this Man as expresly says , That there is no possible way for them to be one but by Mutual-Consciousness . But I on the contrary deny , That Mutual-Consciousness is Mutual-Inexistence , or Mutual-Inexistence Mutual-Consciousness , any more , than that Being , or Existence is properly Consciousness , or Knowledge ; and therefore if they cannot possibly be one , but by Mutual Consciousness , it is certain that they are not so by Mutual-Inexistence ; which yet our Saviour , in Words properly and naturally signifying Inexistence , affirms that they are . And the more intolerable is this Assertion in this Author , for that in Pag. 56. he affirms , that these Words of our Saviour ought to be understood properly ; and if so , I hope they do not only exclude Metaphors , but all other Tropes and Figures also ; for [ Proper ] is not , adequately opposed to Metaphorical , but to Figurative , whatsoever the Figure be . And I do here affirm , That if our Saviour's words be understood of Mutual-Consciousness , they do not signifie properly , but figuratively ; and the Figure is a Metonymy of the Subject for the Adjunct ; forasmuch as in God , Being , or Inexistence are to be look'd upon as the Subject ; and Knowledge , and the like Attributes as the Adjuncts . And therefore I do here tell this bold Man again , that for him to say as he does , that the forementioned words of our Saviour ought to be understood properly , and yet to interpret them to a sense not Proper , but Figurative ( which , by interpreting them of Mutual-Consciousness , he evidently does ) is both an Absurdity and a Presumption , equally insufferable . But in the 2d . Place I charge the forecited Passage of this Author with the same Absurdity , for being as Contradictory to his own words , as it was to those of our Saviour . For whereas he here says , First , That this Oneness between the Father and the Son , expressed in those words , I am in the Father , and the Father in me , can be no other kind of Union , than an Union by Mutual-consciousness . And Secondly , That it is such an one , that there is nothing in Nature like it . I desire him to turn to Page 106. of his Book , where he tells us , That the Fathers use several Examples , and allude to several sorts of Union , thereby to form a Notion of the Unity of the Godhead in the Three Divine Persons . Let him , I say , read this , and tell me , Whether those Examples and Allusions could be of any use to form a Notion of that Unity to which they bore no Resemblance at all ? For I , for my part , ever thought , that there can be no Allusion of one thing to another without some similitude between them , and that a similitude is always on both sides ; it being not possible for Peter to be like Iohn , but Iohn must be like Peter too . And if this Man does not yet blush at such contradictory Assertions , let him turn a little farther to Page 126 , 127. where he tell us particularly , that St. Austin explains this Unity by Examples of Mutual-Consciousness , and by several Similitudes ( mark the words ) of which the Unity of Understanding , Memory , and Will with the Soul of Man is alledged by him for One ; and that a notable one too , for that these Faculties ( as he there says ) are mutually in one another ; and the Example of Love and Knowledge in the same Mind , is alledged by him as another such a Simile , affirming them in like manner to be mutually in one another . Now , I say , after all this , ought not the Reader to stand amazed , when he reads the Man first affirming that the Unity between the Father and the Son mutually existing in one another by virtue of the Mutual-Consciousness between them has nothing like it in Nature , nor has any Example , Metaphor , or Similitude , besides it self to allude to ; and yet afterwards producing several Similitudes , Allusions , and Metaphors out of the Fathers , to explain both this In-being , and this Mutual-Consciousness by ? God give him a better Memory ; for as these things represent him , no Man living ( would he but impart his skill ) could be so fit to teach the Art of Forgetfulness as himself . But after all , I must not omit to give the Reader notice of another of his Absurdities , though of a lower rate , viz. That all along Page 57. he takes a Pattern , or Example , and a Similitude , or Metaphor for Terms equivalent ; whereas a Pattern , or Example imports a perfect entire Resemblance between it self and the thing of which it is the Pattern , and indeed approaches next to a Parallel Instance ; while , on the other side , an Agreement in any one respect , or degree , is sufficient to found a Metaphor , or Similitude upon . And therefore tho it may easily be granted this Author , That there is no Pattern , or Example of such an Union as is between the Father and the Son ; yet that does not infer , that there is nothing in Nature that bears any similitude to it ; since this may very well be without the other , as that place in Iohn 17. 11. and 21. has already proved . And now I should here have finished my Remarks upon this particular Head , but that there is a certain Passage in order to his proving that there is nothing in Nature like the Unity between the Father and the Son , and it is this , That in Substantial Unions , that which comprehends , is greater than that which is comprehended : So that if Two Substances should be United by a Mutual-Comprehension of one another , the same would be both greater and lesser than the other , viz. greater as it comprehended it , and less , as it was comprehended by it , P. 57. Now this Proposition I will neither note as Paradoxical , nor absolutely affirm to be false . But so much I will affirm , viz. That it is nothing at all to his Purpose ; and that he can never prove it to be True. For besides , that he still confounds an Example , or Parallel Case with a Similitude , I would have him take notice , First , That this Maxim , Omne continens est majus contento , upon which he founds a Majority of the thing comprehending to the thing comprehended , is wholly drawn from , and founded upon the Observations made by the Mind of Man about Corporeal Substances , endued with Quantity and Dimensions ; in which the Substance comprehending is , and must be of a greater Dimension than the Substance comprehended . But what is this to Spiritual Substances ? Concerning which , I demand of this Author a solid Reason , Why Two such Substances may not be intimately united by a Mutual-Permeation , or Penetration of one another ? For all that can hinder such a Penetration , or Permeation ( as far as we know ) is Quantity ; which in Spiritual Substances has no place ; and then , if such a Mutual-Penetration be admitted , these Substances will be mutually in one another , and United to one another , not indeed by a Comprehension of one another , ( of which there is no need , if such a thing could be ) but by a Mutual-Adequation , or exact Coequation of one to the other ; so that nothing of one Substance shall exist , or reach beyond , or without the other , but the whole of both by such a Permeation , mutually exist in each other . This , I say , I neither do , nor will affirm to be actually so , but I challenge this Author to prove that it cannot be so ; and till he can , it may become him to be less confident . In the next place , I have one thing more to suggest to him about Substantial Unions , which he talks so much of , viz. That the Term is Ambiguous , and may signifie either , First , The Union of two or more Substances together , and so the Father and the Son , who are not two Substances , but only two Persons ( as has been shewn in the foregoing Chapter ) can never be substantially United . Or , Secondly , It may signifie the Union of Two , or more Persons in one and the same Substance ; which is truly and properly the Union of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity . And thus , though there is no Instance in Nature of Persons so united , yet by way of Allusion and Similitude , the Union of the three fore-mentioned Faculties of Understanding , Memory and Will , in one and the same Soul , ( alledged by St. Austin ) may pass for a small , or ( as this Author himself calls it ) Page 126. Line 28. A faint Resemblance of the Union of the said Three Divine Persons in the same Nature , or Substance ; which , according to his excellent Talent of Self-Contradiction , he positively denies here in Page 57. and as positively affirms in that other now pointed at . In fine , this Assertion , That the Father and the Son cannot possibly be One , or in One another ( which is here the same ) but by Mutual-Consciousness , Page 57. Line 23 , 24 , 25. unavoidably infers , and implies , That they are not One by Unity of Substance , Unity of Essence , or Unity of Nature . For I am sure neither Substance , Essence , or Nature , are Mutual-Consciousness . And if the Church will endure a Man asserting this , I can but deplore its Condition . PARADOX . If we seek for any other Essence , or Substance in God , ( says this Author ) but Infinite Wisdom , Power and Goodness , the Essence of God , though considered but as one Numerical Person , is as perfectly unintelligible to us , as one Numerical Essence , or Substance of Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity , Page 69 , 70. Answer . This Proposition is False and Absurd , and to prove it so , I shall lay down these following Assertions . First , That it is certainly much easier for Humane Reason to conceive one and the same Divine Nature , or Deity , as Subsisting in one single Person , than in Three distinct Persons . Secondly , That Essence , Substance , Wisdom , Power and Goodness are in the Divine Nature ( which is a pure simple Act ) all but one and the same Thing , or Being . Thirdly , That , notwithstanding this , Essence , or Substance , and Wisdom , Power and Goodness are formally distinct from one another . That is to say , The Conceptus Objectivus , or proper Essential Conception of one does not imply , or involve in it the proper Conception of the other : Upon which Account one of them cannot properly be said to be the other . Now these Three Things thus laid down , it is readily granted to this Man , That Essence , or Substance , Wisdom , Power and Goodness are really one and the same Being , and that therefore it is vain and foolish to seek for any Essence , or Substance in God , which is not also Wisdom , Power and Goodness . But this , by his favour , is not the point . For if he will nevertheless say , That the Divine Nature expressed by one Infinite Essence , or Substance Subsisting in One Person , is as unintelligible , as the same Subsisting in Three distinct Persons ; Nay , that One and the same Numerical Wisdom , Power and Goodness consider'd , as Subsisting only in one Person , is not more Intelligible than the same , as Subsisting under Three ; This is manifestly false , and contrary to common Experience , and without any further arguing the case , I appeal to the Reason of all Mankind , whether it be not so ? PARADOX . What is Intellectual Love ( says this Author ) but the true Knowledge , or Estimation of Things ? What is Iustice and Goodness but an equal Distribution of , or a true and wise Proportion of Rewards and Punishments ? What is perfect Power , but perfect Truth and Wisdom which can do whatsoever it knows ? Page 71 , 72. Answer . We have here a whole Knot , or Cluster of Paradoxes , but I shall take them a sunder , and consider them severally : And because they run all in the way of Interrogations , I shall take them out of their Interrogative Form , and cast them into so many Categorical Assertions . The first of which is , That Intellectual Love is nothing else but the true Knowledge and Estimation of Things . This is False and Absurd . For Love is one thing , and Knowledge another ; each of them distinguished by essentially different Acts and Objects , Knowledge importing no more than a bare Speculation , or Apprehension of the Object ; whereas Love is properly an Adhesion to it : Love essentially presupposes the Knowledge of the Thing Loved ; but Knowledge cannot presuppose it self . Knowledge is the first Act of an Intelligent Mind , Love the second . And I would fain know , Whether this Man of Paradox , will affirm , That God Loves every Thing which he has a true Knowledge and Estimation of ? But to give him one Argument for all , Are not the Eternal distinguishing Characters of Two Persons of the Blessed Trinity founded in the distinction of Love and Knowledge in God , the Son issuing from the Father by way of Knowledge , and the Spirit issuing from both by way of Love ? In the next place he affirms Iustice and Goodness to be the same thing , and to consist both of them in a true and wise Proportion of Rewards and Punishments . But this also is false . These Two being as properly and formally distinguished by their Acts and Objects , as the Two former . And I do here tell this Author , That God's Goodness is the proper Qualification of his own Actions , without referring necessarily to any other besides ; but that his Justice bears an Essential Relation to the Actions of others , viz. as Rewardable , or Punishable . And consequently God might have exerted innumerable Acts of his Goodness , though there had never been any Object for him to have exerted so much as one Act of his Iustice upon . And to give him one Instance that may Convince any Man of Sense of the vast difference of these two Attributes ; was that Act of Creation , by which God first Created the World , an Act of his Justice ? Or did that Act consist in a Wise proportion of Rewards and Punishments , before there was any Act of the Creature to be Rewarded , or Punished ? But I am sure it was an Act of the Divine Goodness , whereby God communicated much of the Perfection of Being to something without himself . Again , is Pardon of Sin an Essential Act of God's Iustice ? But I am sure it is an Act of his Goodness . Certainly this Man neither knows , nor cares what he says . His Third Assertion is , That perfect Power is nothing else , but perfect Truth and Wisdom . But this also is a gross Paradox , and as false , as that Omnipotence and Omniscience are not Two distinct Attributes of God. God's Power acts by and under the direction of God's Wisdom , and therefore neither is , nor can be formally the same with it . And besides this , all Acts of Wisdom and Truth proceed from God by a Necessity of Nature , but the Acts and Exercise of his Power by a free determination of his Will. For in speaking of God , no Man says , That God is Wise , Knowing , or True , or Acts according to these Perfections , because he will do so ; for he can neither be , nor Act otherwise ; but we truly and properly say , That God does this or that , because he will do it ; for if he had pleased , he might have chose , whether he would do it , or no. From all which , I conclude , That nothing could be more improperly and absurdly affirmed than , That the Divine Power is nothing else but the Divine Truth and Wisdom . PARADOX . In Men ( says he ) it is only Knowledge that is Power ; Humane Power , and Humane Knowledge , as that signifies a Knowledge how to do any Thing , are Commensurate ; so that every Man can do what he knows how to do : Nay , Knowledge , is not only the Director of Power , but it is that very Power which we call force , Page 72. Answ. This is so gross a Paradox , that , I think , it can need no other Confutation than to oppose the sense of all Mankind to it , nevertheless I shall offer this one Consideration towards the disproving the Identity of Knowledge and Power , viz. That a Man's Knowledge and Skill about the doing any Work of Art , may increase , as his power of Execution for the Actual doing the said Works may decrease , nay , wholly cease , and therefore they cannot be the same . For suppose a Carpenter disabled by Age , or Accident , that he cannot strike a stroke towards the building an House ; does he therefore cease to know how to build it , while another shall build it wholly by the direction of his Skill and Knowledge ? This Man may as well prove his Head and his Hands to be one and the same Thing , as Knowledge and Power to be so . But I shall go no farther than this very Author , to confute this Author's Assertion , who has told us in p. 9. l. 3 , 4. That we understand nothing of the Secrets and Mysteries of Nature ; nor are concerned to understand them , any more than it is our Business to understand how to make either a Body , or a Spirit , which we have no power to do , ( mark that ) if we did understand it , and therefore it would be an useless piece of Knowledge . Now I beseech the Reader to set these Two Assertions together , viz. that in pag. 72. That to know how to do a Thing is to be able to do it , and that other in the pag. 9. viz. That though we understood how to make a Body , or a Spirit , yet we have no power to do it . I say let these Two Propositions be compar'd ; and then I hope that for the future , Knowledge how to do a thing , and Power to do it , ought not , even according to this very Author , to pass for the same thing . In the mean time we see how one of his Assertions contains a gross Absurdity , and the other compleats it with as gross a Contradiction . PARADOX . This Word Infinite ( says he ) confounds our Notions of God , p. 77. Answer . This is false . The Thing indeed signified by the Word Infinite , exceeds and transcends our Notions , but the word Infinite does not confound them . And I would have this Man take notice , that for an Object to surpass and be above our Thoughts , and to disorder and confound them , are very different Things . And moreover , that it is the height of Impudence and Ignorance too , to say , That that Word confounds our Thoughts , Notions and Conceptions of God ; which all Divines and Philosophers in all Places and Ages have constantly express'd the Nature of God by : And which , after the Notion of his bare Existence , does , next in order , offer it self to the Mind of Man , in its Speculations of this Great Object . PARADOX . We know not ( says he ) how far Infinite Wisdom and Goodness , and Power reaches ; but then we certainly know , that they have their Bounds , and that the Divine Nature is the utmost Bounds of them , p. 79. To which I Answer , That for an Infinite Wisdom to have Bounds , and the Bounds of it to be the Divine Nature ( which it self has no Bounds ) is in ipsis Terminis an express , downright , and shameless Contradiction . See this further laid open in my Second Chapter . PARADOX . This Creed ( says he , speaking of the Athanastan ) does not speak of the Three Divine Persons as distinguished from one another , P. 88. Line 21. In reply to which , I am amazed to read an Assertion so manifestly false , and yet so positively uttered . For will this Author put out the Eyes of his Reader ? He tells us here that Athanasius ( or whosoever else might be the Author of this Creed ) does not herein speak of the Three Divine Persons as distinguish'd from one another . But I demand of him , does Athanasius here speak of them as of Three Persons , or no ? If the first ; then he does and must speak of them as distinguished from one another , for that without such a Distinction they are not so much as Three . But if he does not speak of them as of Three , and as of Three thus distinguished . What then mean those Words of the Creed ? There is one Person of the Father , another of the Son , and another of the Holy Ghost ? Do these Words speak of these Persons as distinguished , or do they not ? If they do ; then what this Man has here said of the Creed , is shamelesly false ; and if they do not express the said Persons as distinct , I defie all the Wit of Man to find out any Words that can . PARADOX . He tells us , That the Title of the one Only true God cannot be so properly attributed to any one Person , but only to the Father , p. 89. Answer . This I have already shewn in Chap. 5. p. 137. to be both false and dangerous ; as by direct consequence either making several sorts of Gods , or excluding both the Son and the Holy Ghost from the one true Godhead . At present I shall only say thus much , That [ the One only true God ] and [ the true God ] are Terms perfectly equivalent , and not only Commensurate but Identical in their signification ; and withal , That this very Author himself affirms Page 186. Line the last , That the Son must be included in the Character of the only True God ; which how he can be , without having this Character properly affirmed and predicated of him , and his sustaining thereby the Denomination of the only True God , let this Confident , Self-contradicting Man declare if he can . In the mean time let me tell him further , That these Terms [ the True God ] and [ the only True God ] do both of them import an Attribute , or Denomination purely Essential , and by no means Personal , or Oeconomical : And moreover that every such Attribute does and must agree to all the Three Persons equally , and whatsoever equally agrees to them all , may with equal Propriety be affirmed of all and each of them , and consequently that the Title of [ the One only True God ] may every whit as truly and properly be attributed to the Son and Holy Ghost , as to the Father himself . See more of this in my forementioned Chapter . PARADOX . I affirm ( says he ) that the Glory and Majesty and all the other perfections of the Three Divine Persons are as distinct as their Persons are . And again , These perfections are as distinct as the Persons , and yet as Numerically one and the same as the Godhead is , p. 91. Answer . The first part of these Assertions is utterly inconsistent with , and wholly overthrows the last . And it is indeed very horrid , as by inevitable consequence inferring a Tritheisme . For if the essential Perfections of God ( which in truth are only the Divine Essence under several Conceptions and Denominations ) are as distinct as the Persons , whom the Church acknowledges to be really distinct , then it will and must follow , That in the Trinity there are Three really distinct Essences , or Godheads , as well as Three really distinct Persons : And if they are thus distinct , it is impossible that the Three Persons should by virtue thereof , either be , or be truly said to be , really one ; so that this Author , we see , has herein asserted a Trinity with a Witness ; but as for any Unity in it , you may go look . But I perceive he was driven to this false and absurd Assertion by that Argument of his Socinian Adversary urging him , That if the Essential Glory and Majesty in Father , Son and Holy Ghost be but One , then it cannot be said that their Glory is equal , their Majesty co-eternal ; forasmuch as Unity is not capable of Equality ; which must of necessity be between two or more . This , I say , no doubt , drove him to this Inconvenience . In Answer to which Objection , ( though I owe not this Author so much Service ) as I shall readily grant , That where there is an Equality , there must be also a Plurality , of some sort or other , whatsoever it be : So I shall observe , That the Divine Essence , Glory , or Majesty , ( which I still affirm to be but different Names of the same thing falling under divers Conceptions ) and every other essential perfection of the Godhead , may be considered two ways . First , Absolutely and Abstractedly in it self , and as prescinding from all personal Determinations , in which sense the Divine Nature , Essence ( and every Essential Attribute included in it ) is , and always must be taken , whensoever , in Discourse , it is spoken of , either as compared with , or contra-distinguished to all , or any of the Persons . And accordingly , in this sense being absolutely One , it is incapable of any Relation of Equality . Forasmuch as one Thing considered but as One , cannot be said to be equal to it self . Or , Secondly , This Glory , Majesty , or any other Essential perfection of the Godhead , may be considered as sustaining Three several Modes of Subsistence in Three distinct Persons ; which said Modes , as they found a plurality in this Essential Glory , or Majesty , ( though by no means of it ) so this Plurality founds a Capacity of Equality ; by virtue whereof , the same Glory according to its peculiar way of Subsisting in the Father , may be said to be equal to it self as Subsisting after another way in the Son , and after a third in the Holy Ghost ; so that immediately and strictly this Equality is between the Three several Modes of Subsistence , which this Essential Glory , or Majesty sustains , or ( if you will ) belongs to the said Glory , for and by reason of them . And this is the true Answer to this Socinian Objection , which by a manifest Fallacy proceeds à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter , viz. That because Equality cannot belong to the Essential Glory , or Majesty of the Godhead considered abstractedly from the Divine Persons , therefore neither can it agree to the same Glory , or Majesty , upon any other Account whatsoever , which is utterly false ; forasmuch as considered according to the Three different ways of its Subsistence in the Three Persons , it may , as Subsisting under any one of them be said to be equal to it self , as Subsisting under the other Two. PARADOX . This Author represents Gregory Nyssen as first asserting a Specifick Sameness , or Unity of Nature , in the Divine Persons ( which also he makes all along to be signified by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and then asserting that this Specifick Sameness , or Unity of Nature , makes the said Three Persons Numerically One , Page 118. the latter end . Answer . This is too great an Absurdity for so Learned a Father to be guilty of , and therefore ought to lie at this Author 's own Door ; for that a Specifick Sameness , or Unity of Nature , should make any Thing , or Person , Numerically One ( any more than a generical Unity can make Things specifically One ) is beyond measure senceless and illogical . PARADOX . Though the Fathers ( says he ) assert the singularity of the Godhead , or the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence ; yet they do not assert such a Numerical Unity , as where there is but one Person as well as one Essence , but such a Numerical Unity as there is between Three , who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the very same Nature , but are not merely united by a specifick Unity , but by an Essential Union ; and therefore are Three and One , Page 121 Line 15. Answer . In these Words there are several Absurdities , which he falsly charges upon the Fathers , but ought in all Reason to take to himself . As , 1. He supposes a specifick Unity , and an essential Unity to be distinct Unities : whereas every specifick Unity , or Union , ( call it , at present , which you will ) is also an essential Unity , or Union . For a specifick Unity is one sort of an essential Unity ( which in its whole compass contains the Generical , the Specifical , and the Numerical ) and therefore thus to contra-distinguish a Species to its Genus , is fit for none but such a Logician as this Author ; it being all one , as if one should say of Peter , That he is not only a Man , but also a Living Creature . 2. The second Absurdity is , That he owns a specifick Unity of Nature in the Divine Persons ( which sort of Unity I have abundantly proved in Chap. 7. the Divine Nature not to be capable of ) for he says here of the Divine Persons , That they are not merely United by a specifick Unity : which Words must imply , that however , so united they are . 3. He makes Two sorts of Numerical Unity , contrary to all Rules of Logick , viz. One , where there are several Persons of one Nature , as here in the Trinity ; and the other , where there is but One Person , as well as One Nature . But let me here tell him , That the Divine Nature is every whit as numerically One in the Three Persons , as if there were but one Person in the Godhead , and no more . And in this very Thing ( as has been shewn ) does the Mysteriousness of an Unity in Trinity consist . I say , The Divine Nature is as Numerically One in the Three Persons , as the humane Nature was numerically One in Adam , while there was no other Person in the World but himself ; nay , much more so , since it is not multiplicable , as that was . And to affirm , That the Numerical Unity of the Godhead is not so perfect , or is not the very same , Subsisting in Three distinct Persons , as if we could imagine it to subsist but in One , Subverts and Overthrows such an Unity in Trinity , as the Church in all Ages hitherto has maintained . PARADOX . Having told us , That the Fathers universally acknowledged , the Operation of the whole Trinity ad Extra to be but One , and from thence concluded the Unity of the Divine Nature and Essence ; for that every Nature has a Virtue and Energy of its own ; ( Nature being a Principle of Action , ) and if the Energy and Operation be but One , there can be but One Nature . He adds within four Lines after , That this is certainly true , but gives no Account , how Three distinct Persons come to have but One Will , One Energy , Power and Operation ; nor that any Account ( that he knows of ) can be given of it but by Mutual-Consciousness , Page 124. Line 7 , &c. Answ. Were I not acquainted with this Man's way of Writing , I should be amazed to see him in so small a compass so flatly contradict himself . For will he , in the first place , assert , in the Three Divine Persons a Numerical Unity of Nature ? And in the next , assert also , that this Unity of Nature is proved by Unity of Energy and Operation ? And after this tell us , That this gives no Account at all , how Three distinct Persons come to have but one Will and Energy , Power and Operation ? For does not Unity of Nature , in these three distinct Persons prove this ? While the said Unity of Nature proves Unity of Operation , as the Cause proves its Effect , and Unity of Operation again proves Unity of Nature , as the effect proves its cause ? This , any one of sense would think , is a fair , full , and sufficient Account how Three distinct Persons , having all but One Nature , come thereby all to have but one Will , Energy and Operation . And should any one else argue otherwise , I should think him beside himself ; but this Author in this Discourses like himself . PARADOX . Knowledge , Self-reflection and Love , are distinct Powers and Faculties in Men , and so distinct , that they can never be the same ; Knowledge is not Self-reflection ; nor Love either Knowledge , or Self-reflection ; though they are inseparably united , they are distinct , P. 130. L. 11 , 12 , &c. Answ. Here also is another knot of Absurdities . For , First , Knowledge , Self-reflection , and Love are not in Men distinct Powers and Faculties ( as this unfledged Philosopher calls them ) but only distinct Acts. Secondly , Admitting that Knowledge were a Faculty ( as it is not ) yet I deny that Knowledge and Self-reflection would make Two distinct Faculties , forasmuch as it is one and the same Intellectual Faculty , which both exerts an Act of Knowledge , and an Act of Reflection upon that Act of Knowledge , or upon it self as producing the said Act. For which Cause it is ( as has been observed before ) that Philosophers hold that the Understanding is Facultas supra se Reflexiva ; all of them allowing both the direct and the reflex Acts of Knowledge to issue from the same Faculty . Thirdly , He says , That albeit the forementioned Acts are distinct , yet they are inseparably united . But this also is false ; for ( whether an Act of Knowledge may be without an Act of Self-reflection , as some , not without Reason , think it may ) I am sure in Men ( of whom alone we now speak ) both an Act of Knowledge and of Self-reflection too may be without an Act of Love consequent thereupon : And if the former may be without the latter , then they are not inseparably united , as this Author here says they are . PARADOX . He says , That Love is a distinct Act , and therefore in God must be a Person , P. 133. Answ. If this be a true and good Consequence , then the Ground and Reason of it must be This , That every distinct Act in God , is , and must be a distinct Person . And if so , then every Decree in God , whether it be his Decree of Election , or of Reprobation ( if there be such an one ) or of creating the World , and sending Christ into it , and at last of destroying it , and the like , are each of them so many Persons . For every Divine Decree is an Act of God , and an Immanent Act too , as resting within him , and ( as such ) not passing forth to any Thing without Him ; that Maxim of the Schools being most true , that Decreta nihil ponunt in esse . Nor is this all , but most of the Divine Acts are free also ; so that there was nothing in the Nature of them to hinder , but that they equally might , or might not have been ; which applied to the Divine Persons , would make strange work in Divinity . In the mean time if this Author will maintain this Doctrin , viz. That Acts and Persons , are the same in God , ( as , I think , he ought in all Reason to maintain the immediate consequences of his own Assertion ) I dare undertake that here he will stand alone again ; and that he is the only Divine who ever owned , or defended such wretched Stuff . PARADOX . These three Powers of Understanding , Self-reflection , and Self-Love are one Mind , viz. in Created Spirits ; of which alone he here speaks , adding in the very next words , What are mere Faculties and Powers in Created Spirits , are Persons in the Godhead , &c. Pag. 135. at the latter end . Answer . This is a very gross Absurdity , and to make it appear so , I do here tell him , That the Three foremention'd Powers are no more one Mind , than three Qualities are one Substance ; and that very Term [ Powers ] might have taught him as much ; Potentia and Impotentia making one Species of Quality ; under which all Powers and Faculties are placed . So that his three powers of Understanding , Self-Reflection , and Self-Love are one only Unitate Subjecti , as being subjected in one and the same Mind ; but not unitate Essentiae , as Essentially differing both from one another , and from the Mind it self too , in which they are . Certainly if this Man did not look upon himself as above all Rules of Logick and Philosophy , he would never venture upon such absurd Assertions . PARADOX . He tells us , That the Son and Holy Ghost Will and Act with the Father ; not the Father with the Son and the Holy Ghost , Pag. 169. Line 13 , 14 , &c. Answ. This is a direct Contradiction : For if the Son and Holy Ghost Will and Act with the Father , the Father must Will and Act with the Son and the Holy Ghost . And he who can find a distinct sense in these two Propositions , and much more , affirm the first and deny the latter , has a better Faculty at distinguishing than any Mortal Man , using his Sense and Reason , will pretend to . It being all one , as if I should say , I saw Thomas , William and John together ; of whom William and John were in the Company of Thomas , but Thomas was not in the Company of William and John. And I challenge any sensible thinking Man to make better sense of this Author 's fore-mention'd Assertion if he can . But this must not go alone without a further cast of his Nature , by heightning it with another Contradiction too , which you shall find by comparing it with pag. 188. line 4. where he affirms , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost act together , having before expresly told us here , That the Father does not will and act with the Son and Holy Ghost ; which very Assertion also , ( to shew him the further fatal Consequences of it ) absolutely blows up and destroys his whole Hypothesis of Mutual Consciousness , by destroying that upon which he had built it . For if the Father may and does Will and Act without the Son and Holy Ghost , then farewel to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for they must never be alledged in this Cause more . PARADOX . Nothing can make God visible but a personal Union to a visible Nature , Page 234. Line 22 , 23. Answer . This is a most false Assertion , and directly contrary to Scripture . And to prove it so , I shall lay down these Four Conclusions . First , That the Godhead , or Divine Nature , neither is nor can be visible to a Corporeal Eye , by an immediate sight , or Intuition of the Godhead it self . Secondly , That God is visible to such an Eye only by the special Signs , or Symbols of his Presence . Thirdly , That God is visible by a Body personally united to him , only as the said Body is such a Sign , or Symbol of his peculiar Presence . And Fourthly and Lastly , That a Body actually assumed by God for a Time , is during that Time as true , and visible a Symbol of his Presence , as a Body , or Nature personally united to him can be . And thus it was , that God appeared visibly to the Patriarchs in Old Time , and particularly to Abraham , to Gideon , and to the Father and Mother of Sampson , who thereupon thought that they should Die for having seen God Face to Face . For generally all Interpreters hold the Person who thus appeared , to have been the Second Person of the blessed Trinity , the Eternal Son of the Father ; though sometimes called simply the Angel , and sometimes the Angel of the Covenant , from the Office he was then actually imployed in by his Father , as the extraordinary Messenger and Reporter of his Mind to holy Men upon some great Occasions . This supposed , I desire this bold Author to tell me , Whether the second Person of the Trinity ( God equal with the Father ) was personally united to the Body , which he then appeared in , or not ? If not ; then the forementioned Assertion , That nothing can make God visible , but a personal Union to a visible Nature , falls shamefully to the Ground , as utterly false . But if he was personally united to it , then these Paradoxes must follow , 1. That he either laid down that assumed Body afterwards , or he did not : if he did , then an Hypostatical Union with God may be dissolv'd ; and not only so , but there may be also a thousand personal Unions one after another , ( if God shall think fit to assume a Body , and appear in it so often ; ) which would be contrary to the sense of all Divines , and to all Principles of sound Divinity , which own but one hypostatical Union and no more . Or , 2. He still retains an Union to that assumed Body , and then there is a double hypostatical Union , viz. One to the visible Body assumed by him , in which he appeared of old , and the other to that Body which he was Born with in the World. All which Positions are horrid and monstrous , but unavoidably consequent from the foregoing Assertion . But for the further Illustration of the Case I do here affirm to this Author , That God is as visible in an assumed Body , whether of Air , or Aether , or whatsoever other Materials it might be formed of , as in a Body of Flesh and Blood personally united to him : I say , as visible . For notwithstanding the great difference of these Bodies , and the difference of their Union and Relation to God , One being by a temporary Assumption , and the other by a personal Incarnation ; yet no Corporeal Eye could discern this Difference , during the Appearance , but that one was , for the time , as visible as the other ; and therefore since both of them were truly Symbols of God's peculiar Presence ( the only way by which the Divine Nature becomes visible to a Mortal Eye ) it demonstratively overthrows that positive , false Assertion of this Author , That nothing can make God visible , but a personal Union to a visible Nature . PARADOX . All the Circumstances of our Saviour's Birth , and Life , and Death , were so punctually foretold by the Prophets , and so peremptorily decreed by God , that after he was come into the World , there was no place for his Choice and Election . And he could not shew either his Love , or his Humility by choosing Poverty , Death , &c. Page 242. Line 5. Answer . This is False , Absurd , and Dangerous , and indeed next to Blasphemous ; as overthrowing the whole Oeconomy of Man's Redemption by the Merits of Christ. For that which leaves no place for Choice , leaves no possibility for Merit . For all Merit is founded in freedom of Action , and that in Choice . And if Christ , after his Incarnation , had not this , he could not Merit . And whereas the Author says , That Christ chose all this as the second Person of the Trinity antecedently to his Incarnation . I Answer , That this is indeed true , but reaches not the present Case . For what he did before he was Incarnate , was the Act of him purely as God ; but a meritorious Action must still be an humane Action ; which could not proceed from the second Person before his Assumption of an humane Nature . I readily grant and hold , That the Actions of Christ's humane Nature received a peculiar Worth and Value from its Union with his Divine Person , yet still I affirm , that this Worth and Value was subjected and inherent in his humane Actions , as such ; and thereby qualified them with so high a degree of Merit . So that , whencesoever this Merit might flow , they were only his humane Actions , viz. such as proceeded from him as a Man , that were properly and formally meritorious . And whereas this Author states the Reason of this his horrid Assertion upon the Predictions of the Prophets , and the peremptory Decrees of God concerning all that belonged to , or befell Christ , I do here tell him , That neither Predictions nor Decrees , though never so punctual and peremptory , do , or can infringe , or take away the freedom of Man's Choice , or Election about the things so decreed , or foretold ; how difficult soever it may be for humane Reason to reconcile them ; and if this Man will affirm the contrary , he must either banish all Choice and Freedom of Action , or all certain Predictions and peremptory Decrees out of the World ; let him choose which of these two Rocks he will run himself against , for he will be assuredly split upon either . This vile Assertion really deserves the Censure of a Convocation , and it is pity , for the Church's sake , but in due time it should find it . PARADOX . Concerning Person and Personality he has these following Assertions , which I have here drawn together from several parts of his Book , viz. The Mind is a Person , Page 191. Line 21 , 22. A Soul without a Vital Union to a Body , is a Person , Page 262. Line 17. And the Soul is the Person , because it is the Superiour governing power , and Constitutes the Person , Page 268. Line 28. A Beast which has no Reasonable Soul , but only an Animal Life , is a Person , &c. Page 262. Line 18 , 19 , 20. And again , We may find the Reasonable and Animal Life subsisting apart , and when they do so , they are Two [ Persons ] and but One [ Person ] when United , Page the same , at the end of it . And lastly , One Agent is One Person , Page 268. Line 2. Answer . In all these Propositions , so confidently laid down by this Man , there are almost as many Absurdities and Falsities as there are Words . I have already shewn this of some of them in Chap. 3. and therefore I shall be the briefer in my Remarks upon them here . And first for that Assertion , That the Mind is a Person . To this I Answer , That the Mind may be taken Two ways . First , Either for that Intellectual Power , or Faculty , by which the Soul understands and Reasons . Or , Secondly , For the Rational Soul it self . In the former Sense , it is but an Accident , and particularly a Quality : In the second it is an Essential part of the whole Man ; and therefore upon neither of these Accounts can be a Person . For neither an Accident , nor a Part can be a Person ; which ( as such ) must be both a Substance , and a compleat Substance too . And secondly , Whereas , he says , That a Soul without a vital Union to the Body is a Person ; I tell him , That the Soul without such an Union , is still an incomplete Being ; as being originally and naturally designed for the Completion and Composition of the whole Man , and therefore for that reason , cannot be a Person . And then Thirdly , whereas he adds , That the Soul is the Person , because it is the Superiour governing Power , and Constitutes the Person . I answer , That it is the former , and does the latter , only as it is the prime essential part of the whole Man ; and for that very cause is an incomplete Being , ( as every part is and must be ) and consequently cannot be a Person . In the next place , for an Answer to his saying , That a Beast is a Person . I refer him to his own positive Affirmation , pag. 69. line 18. That a Person , and an Intelligent Substance , are reciprocal Terms : And the same may serve for an Answer to his next Absurdity , That when the Reasonable and the Animal Life subsist apart , they are Two Persons . For the Animal Life separate from the Rational , is void of all Reason , and the very Definition of a Person is , That it is Suppositum Rationale , aut Intelligens . In the last place , By his saying , That One Agent is One Person , ( which , I am sure , he affirms universally of every single Agent ) he makes every Living Creature under Heaven , a Person : For every such Creature is endued with a Principle of Life and Action , and accordingly acts by it , and by so acting , is properly an Agent : From all which it follows , That this Author ( as great as his Retinue may be ) has many more Persons in his Family , than he is aware of ; there being not so much as a Rat or a Mouse within the Walls of his Deanry , but , according to this Assertion of his , is as truly and properly a Person as himself . So that although he seldom ( as he says ) makes Visits , yet he is sure never to want Company . PARADOX . He asserts , That every Man has two distinct Reasons , and two distinct Wills , and those as distinct as if he had two Souls , Page 267. Line 7 , 8 , 9. Answer . This Assertion , and the Absurdity of it are perfectly his own . For certainly Two Reasons and Two Wills , and those as distinct in each Man , as if he had Two distinct Souls , were never asserted to be in any One [ meer ] Man , by any Person of Sense and Learning before : It has indeed been disputed by Philosophers , Whether there be Three Souls in the same Man , viz. A Rational , a Sensitive , and a Vegetative ? And it has been generally concluded in the Negative , and that the Gradus Intellectivus , Sensitivus , & Vegetativus were only Three distinct Powers , or Faculties lodged in one and the same Soul : But as for Two distinct Reasons and Two distinct Wills in one Soul , none that I ever met with , affirmed it . And in Answer to it , it were enough to overwhelm the Asserter of it with the universal Judgment of all Philosophers holding the contrary , viz. That in each individual Person there is only One individual Reason and Will , and no more . But I shall discourse the Matter a little further with this Author ; though yet as briefly as I can . And first of all , I lay down this as certainly true , That if one single Reason , and one single Will are sufficient to give an Account of all the Acts , Offices , and Operations belonging to the Nature of Man , then it is superfluous , and consequently absurd to assert any more . But the former is undoubtedly true . And to shew that it is so , we are to consider what human Reason , and the Offices of it properly are ; and so for the human Will , and the proper Acts and Functions of that . Now they are both of them Intellectual Faculties , and thereby distinguish'd from , and Superiour to all Acts of Sensation , whether External , or Internal , and all Acts of Desire and Appetition , proceeding from the sensitive Appetite . And as they are superiour to them , so it is the proper Office of Reason to Arbitrate upon , Judge of , and Direct all the Apprehensions and Reports of the Senses , and upon such a Judgment passed upon them , to declare authoritatively , What ought , or ought not to be done ; and in the like manner the Will is to govern and control all the Inferiour Appetites , Desires , and Inclinations , by an effectual disposal of them , to what shall , or shall not be done . And this is the Order and Oeconomy of all the Rational and Sensitive Powers and Faculties of the Soul of Man , and of the Functions and Operations respectively belonging to them . And now I desire any one to shew me , what use there is of a Second Reason , and a Second Will , and what are those particular , proper Acts proceeding from them , which are neither Intellectual , nor Sensitive . For if they are either of these , all such Acts have been fully accounted for , from the Intellectual and Sensitive Principles already mentioned , and therefore must needs be superfluous . Again , I would know , whether these Two Reasons are Subordinate , so that one is subject to and governed by the other , or Co-ordinate and Equal , and neither of them subject to , or governed by the other ? If they are Subordinate , the Inferiour is useless , since the Acts proceeding from both , being equally Acts of Reason , the Superiour can and may dictate all that the Inferiour can suggest immediately by it self , and without the Subordinate Operation of the other ; and what I have said of an Human Reason , will proportionably hold in an Human Will : But if , on the other side , there are Two Co-ordinate Reasons , and Two Co-ordinate Wills , neither of them subject to , or governed by the other , then , in the Direction and Disposal of Mens Actions , they either suggest the very same Directions and Commands , or such as are quite different , and sometimes perhaps contrary . If the very same , then one of the Reasons and one of the Wills are again superfluous : For what need can there be of two to suggest the very same things ? But if these two Reasons suggest different , or contrary Directions , and these two Wills exert two different , or contrary Influences upon the Inferiour and sensitive part , then the Soul must be distracted between both , and not able to proceed determinately to Action ; but the two Reasons must dispute the Matter , and the two Wills must fight it out . And this will be the admirable Harmony and State of an Human Soul. If it be here Objected , That we sometimes find mention in Scripture of a sensual , or carnal Reason , and of a sensual Will : and that therefore two Reasons , and two Wills must be admitted in each Man. I Answer , That we read in Scripture of the Old Man and the New Man , in Persons Regenerate , and yet I cannot from hence infer , That two distinct Men do , or can subsist in one Person . And therefore as to that Objection of a carnal , sensual Will and Reason , I Answer , That Reason is call'd Sensual , when it directs and prescribes according to the Exorbitant Inclinations and Desires of the sensitive part ; and the Will is called so likewise , when it does not interpose its Sway and Authority , but suffers the sensitive Appetites to take their own course without control : So that this Term Sensual , or Carnal applied either to Reason , or Will , does not import , or infer another Reason , or another Will , but the same Reason and Will under different , and sometimes contrary Qualifications , and otherwise acting and behaving themselves , than , according to their natural Prerogative and Office in the Soul , they ought to do . It is indeed a division Subjecti in Accidentia . And this is all that can be drawn from thence . In fine , I think a stranger and a sillier Paradox could not well be advanced ; and it is great pity but the Author of it should be Known by this Glorious Character , That this is that great Philosopher and Divine , who affirms and holds , That there are Three distinct Infinite Minds in One God : And Two distinct Reasons , and Two distinct Wills in one and the same Man. And long may he live to have the Fame of such Assertions ringing in both his Ears ; and when he is dead , I doubt not but he will be remembred by them , though they be never writ upon his Tomb : For certainly he who affirms Two Reasons in the same Man , hardly Discourses at the rate of One. PARADOX . He Asserts , That the Body moves at the Command of the Will , and is so far conscious to its Commands , Pag. 269. Lin. 18 , 19. In Answer to which , I affirm it to be absolutely false , and extremely absurd ; to say , That the Body is at all conscious to the Commands of the Will. Forasmuch as Consciousness is an act of Intellection , and so must issue from an Intellective Faculty , which the Body is not endued with , and therefore cannot act by ; and withal , every act of the Will is only an Intelligible , and not a sensible Object ; and consequently cannot be otherwise apprehended and perceived than intellectually . And as for the Commands of it ; a Command operates and moves only by way of moral Causation , viz. by being first known by the Thing , or Agent which it is directed to , which thereupon by such a Knowledge of it , is induced to move , or Act accordingly . But now , the Will does not thus Act upon the Body , the Body having no Principle whereby to know , or understand what it Commands . And therefore , when we say , That the Will Commands the Body , in strictness of Truth , it is only a Metaphorical Expression . For the Will , or Soul exerting an Act of Volition , moves the Body , not by Command , but by Physical Impulse : That is to say , It does by its native Force , Energy , and Activity , first move and impell the Spirits , and by the instrumental Mediation of them so moved and impelled , it moves and impells the Body ; and this , by as real an Impulse , as when I push , or thrust a thing with my hand . For though indeed a material Thing cannot actively , or efficiently move , or work upon an Immaterial , yet Philosophers grant that an Immaterial ( as being of the nobler and more active Nature ) can move , impell , or work upon a Material ; and if we cannot form in our Minds an Idea of the Mechanism of this Motion , it is because neither can we form in our Minds an Idea of a Spirit : But nevertheless Reason and Discourse will Evince , That the Thing must be so . PARADOX . He tells us , That the Human Nature of Christ may be Ignorant of some things , notwithstanding its personal Union to the Divine Word ; because it is an Inferiour and Subject Nature , Page 270. Line 12 , 13 , 14. Answer . These Words also are both absurd and false . And First , They are Absurd , because no Rules of Speaking , or Arguing , permit us to say of any Thing , or Person , That it may be so , or so ; when necessarily it is , and must be so . For the Term [ may ] imports an Indifference , or at least , a possibility to both sides of the Contradiction : So that when a Man says , That a Thing [ may be thus , or thus ] he does by consequence say also , [ That it may not be thus , or thus . ] And therefore to say , That the Human Nature of Christ , notwithstanding its personal Union to the Word , may be ignorant of some Things , when it cannot but be ignorant of some ; nay , of very many Things , is Absurd . And in the next place also , To make the Subjection of the Human Nature to the Divine , the proper Cause of this Ignorance is false , and the Assignation of a non causa pro causâ : It being all one , as if I should say , That such an one cannot be a good Disputant , because he has a blemish in his Eye . For it is not this Subjection of it to the Divine Nature , that makes it ignorant of many Things known by that Nature ; but the vast disparity that is between these Two Natures , viz. That one of them is Infinite , the other Finite , which makes it impossible for the Infinite to communicate its whole Knowledge to the Finite . Forasmuch as such a Knowledge exceeds its Capacity , and cannot be received into it , so as to exist , or abide in it , any more than Omnipotence , or Omnipresence , or any other Infinite Divine Perfection can be lodged in a Finite Being . And besides this , this very Author , in the immediately foregoing Page , had not only allowed but affirmed , That the Body ( which certainly is both united to the Soul , and of a Nature Subject and Inferiour to it ) was yet conscious to the Dictates and Commands of the Soul. Wherefore where Two Natures are united , the bare Subjection of one to the other , is not the proper Cause , that the Nature which is Subject , is ignorant of what is known by the Nature which it is subject to . For if Subjection were the sole and proper Cause of this Ignorance , the Inferiour Nature would be equally ignorant of every Thing known by the Superiour ; which yet , according to this Man 's own Doctrine of the Consciousness of the Body to the Soul , is not so . This Consideration I alledge only as an Argument ad hominem , having already , by the former Argument , sufficiently proved the falseness of his Assertion . But I shall detain my Reader no longer upon this Subject ; though I must assure him , that I have given him but a Modicum , and ( as it were ) an handful or two out of that full heap which I had before me ; and from which I had actually collected several more Particulars , which I have not here presented him with , being unwilling to swell my Work to too great a Bulk . Nevertheless I look upon this Head of Discourse , as so very useful to place this Author in a true Light , that if I might be so bold with my Reader , I could wish , that he would vouchsafe this Chapter ( of all the rest ) a second Perusal ; upon which I dare undertake , that it will leave in him such Impressions concerning this Man's fitness to Write about the Trinity , as will not wear out of his Mind in haste . And yet after all this , I will not presume to derogate from this Author's Abilities , how insolently soever he has trampled upon other Mens ; but content my self , that I have fairly laid that before the Reader , by which he may take a just , and true measure of them . And so I shall conclude this Chapter with an Observation , which I have , upon several occasions , had cause to make , viz. That Divinity and Philosophy are certainly the worst Things in the World , for any One to be Magisterial in , who does not understand them . CHAP. X. In which the Author 's Grammatical , ( and such like ) Mistakes , as they are found here , and there in his Writings , are set down , and remarked upon . COuld this Author have carried himself with any or dinary degree of Candor and Civility towards those , whom he wrote against , he had never had the least Trouble given him by me upon this Head of Discourse . But when I find him treating Learned Men with so much Disdain and Insolence , and much liker a rough , ill-bred School-Master domineering over his Boys , than a fair Opponent entring the Lists with an Ingenuous Antagonist , I must confess , I cannot think my self obliged to treat him upon such Terms , as I would an Adversary of a contrary Temper and Behaviour . One Man ( and a very Learned one too ) he flirts at , as if he could not distinguish between Conjunctive and Disjunctive Particles ; Vindication of his Case of Allegiance , pag. 76. the Two last Lines . Another he Scoffs , or rather Spits at , as neither understanding Greek nor Latine . Vindic. Trin. Pag. 95. Line 25. and thereby , I suppose , would bear himself to the World as no small Critick in both . As for the Socinians ( of which number this latter is ) I do from my Heart Condemn their Opinions , as false , and destructive , not only of the Christian , but ( in several Instances ) even of Natural Theology and Religion it self . Nevertheless I do not find , that these Men use to be reproached for want of Greek , or Latine , or for any Notable Defect of Parts , either Natural , or Acquired . Faustus Socinus was a Person undoubtedly of great Wit and Strength of Mind , and of Competent , though not very deep Learning ; but his Uncle Laelius Socinus before him , and Crellius who lived some time after him , were Persons very well stocked with both ; and so have been many more ( indeed too many ) besides these . And where the Case stands thus , I think , what the Poet said of Probity and Integrity , may very well be said of Learning also , viz. That it is Commendable even in an Enemy , how much soever we may blame him for the ill use of it . But this Author spares neither Friend nor Foe , but comes like a kind of Hurricano upon his Adversary , not vouchsafing him so much as one grain of Allowance , wheresoever he finds ( or rather thinks he finds ) him Tripping . And therefore , let him not , of all Men , complain that he is hardly dealt with , if with the same measure , with which he has hitherto meted to others , it be measured to him again . Accordingly , I shall in this Chapter proceed to examine his Grammatical , Vocabular Mistakes . And that I may do this justly , and without the least shadow of unfair dealing , I will first set down the Table he gives us of the Typographical Errata , in the first Edition of his Book ; that so we may distinguish , what ought to be laid at the Printer's Door , and what at the Author 's . The Table of Errata prefixed to the First Edition of the Vindication of the Blessed Trinity , &c. is as follows . PAge 50. Line 2. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , P. 51. L. 15. for Corinthus read Cerinthus . P. 93. L. 26. for ss read is . P. 95. L. 32. for his read Tres. P. 96. L. 2. for Persons read Personae , and L. 30. for the read Three . P. 105. Line 5. for whence read when . P. 155. Line 33. for to read too . P. 203. L. 15. for we read He. P. 214. L. 29. for Convict read Convinc't . P. 227. L. 10. for World read Word . P. 238. L. 18. dele it . P. 249. L. 18. read Challenged . This is a true and exact Transcript of the Table of the Errata prefixed to that Book . ( Whether the said Table be True , or no ) concerning which , I cannot but observe , That most of these Errata are much more easily Corrigible by an Ordinary Reader ( without any Admonition ) than those that I shall mention , and remark upon . And I shall add further , That , had he but said [ That these and the like Errata the Reader is desired to Correct as he shall meet with them ] he should have heard of none of them from me ; though I am pretty well satisfied , and so will any Judicious Reader be too , that as none of them in any probability are , so some of them ( as they stand here placed in this Book ) neither are , nor could be any one 's but his own . But since he has laid in no such Salvo , and this stands as a full Account of the Errata ; and not only so , but since in the Second Edition some Faults not mentioned in this Table , are Corrected , while others remain the same , or as bad , as in the First Edition , there is all the Reason in the World , that the Author should be charged with that , from which he himself has thus discharged the Printer . And besides , in the Second Edition of his Book , the Reader is desired to take Notice , that there is no Table of Errata at all ; by which we may justly conclude , That he reckoned it so Correct , as to need no further Correction . So that what I find there , I judge my self , to have all the right that can be , to Account with him for . And the rather , for that Ten Years ago he publickly declared in Print , That he was resolved in what he should publish for the future , to Correct the Press himself ; though , on my Conscience , it was one of the unfittest Employments ( next to the Writing of Vindications ) that he could take to ; as , I doubt not , but this Chapter will pretty well shew . Now the Words , which I intend to Remark upon , shall be of these Two sorts . First , Such as may be considered singly in themselves . And Secondly , Such as must be considered in Conjunction with other Words , in Sentences and Forms of Speaking . Of the first sort the Reader may please to take notice of these that follow . As in Page 16. Line 23. I find an extraordinary word called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : The meaning of which I would gladly know : For I can no more find it in any Lexicon , than I can in the Table of the Errata : And yet certainly it must be some excellent Word , as having stood its ground in both Editions of his Book . I confess I have been apt to think it stands for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; but why it should do so , the Author ( who , no doubt , is a Grecian in his Heart ) may possibly give us a good Reason ; but I , for my part , cannot . Such another Word we have cloathed indeed in Greek Characters , but , by no means , of Greek Extraction ; and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Pag. 115. Line 11. I have read , I confess , of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifying innominabile , or quod nominari non potest ; and I do not deny but that I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also ; and that not only in the place here cited out of Greg. Nyssen , but twice also in St. Basil's Hexaemeron ( from whence I quoted it so written , Ch. 7. p. 192. ) But I very much question , Whether the Word be so wrote in other and Ancienter Copies of those Father's Works ; and that for these Two Reasons . First , Because it must be derived from the Preterperfect Tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and if so , then according to the Rule of Grammar in such Verbal Derivatives , the Augment must be thrown away , and the Original Letter retained ; as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Omicron is the Regular and proper Word , appears from those Cognate Words so common amongst the Grammarians , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nevertheless if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be admitted , it must be by the Attick Dialect ; which very often ( especially in Compounds ) puts an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and several other like Words . But my Second Reason , why I think the Ancienter Editions of St. Basil have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Omicron , is , because I find those Lexicographers who write it so , quote this Word out of that very place of St. Basil's Hexaemeron , where now it stands wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which surely proves that they found it not there so wrote then , when they quoted it from thence . But admitting that it may be so wrote , viz. with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , yet what does , or can this make for our Author 's new-coined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? For till there can be found such Greek Words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to derive it from ( which none ever yet met with , nor ever will ) in vain shall we seek for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where but in this Author . In the next place , to pass from Greek Words to Latine , or such at least as are Latinized , I would gladly know , who those Anti-Nicene Fathers were , who are mentioned by him , Pag. 24. Lin. 5. And whether they were Arians , or Novatians ; who ( as I take it ) were the great Opposers of the Nicene Council . But that , I find , cannot be , since our Author tells us , That th● P●●sons , spoken of by him , were of the same Faith with th● ●●cene Fathers . So that upon that Account , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 think , it ought to be the Ante-Nicene Fathers . And 〈◊〉 so , I think the Author would do well to take notice , that there is a great difference between Anti-Nicene and Ante-Nicene , between such as lived before the Council , and such as were against it . And the more particular and exact notice ought he to take of it here , since ( tho' the difference be only in an Iota ) he yet knows what a Disturbance this little Letter made in the Homoousian and Homoiousian Controversie , even so great as to occasion the Convening of this Famous Council . Nevertheless , that this word Anti-Nicene passed for good and current with this Author , is evident from hence , that it is ( as well as some others ) free of both Editions of this extraordinary Book . Again in Page 105. Line 8. we are told of the Favourites of some Opinions . As to which , I had thought , that Men use to favour and countenance Opinions , and not to be countenanced and favoured by them . And yet the Word Favourite signifies passively , and so must be taken for one who receives favour , and not actively for one who shews it . And therefore if to represent any one as the Favourite of an Opinion be not good sence , I know no way , but by striking it out , and putting Favourer in the room of it , to make it better . In Page 106. Line 16. I read Intension used in the same sence with Intention , or Purpose ; and I must declare , that I never found it so used before . And in Page 108. Line 31. I am told of the Council of Lateran ; and I wondered a good while , what Council it should be ; for though I had heard of several Lateran Councils , yet I never heard of the Council of Lateran , till I met with it here . Likewise I find an Extraordinary Person in Page 43. Line 1. named Lucifer Carolitanus , and was thereupon in some thoughts with my self , whether there might have been any place called in former times Carolina , or by some Name like it . But then out comes the Second Edition and alters it into Caralitanus ; which ( in my poor Opiniou ) looks very suspiciously , as if some Body had a mind to Correct it , but knew not how . As for Lucifer Calaritanus so called from Calaris , now Cagliari , the Metropolis of Sardinia , I have heard much of him ; but I will suppose our Author had some Body else in his Eye . And upon this occasion , I cannot but take notice of some other Writers quoted by him , whom the World seems as much unacquainted with , as with this Carolitanus . As for instance St. Hillary in his Apol. P. 15. at the latter end . And Albaspinus in his Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet , Pag. 165. Line 22. And Nonn●s in his Knowledge of Christ , Page 218. Now St. Hilary indeed ; a Famous Father of the Church , and Bishop of Poictiers , and Albaspinaeus Archbishop of Orleans , Eminent for his Learned Works , and Nonnus who Wrote a Paraphrase upon St. Iohn's Gospel , in Greek Verse , are every one of them known and celebrated by all . But as for St. Hillary , Albaspinus and Nonnas , I never heard of them till this Author was pleased to bless the World with these New Names . As for Erronious instead of Erroneous , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , they are small things , and ought to make no difference amongst Friends , though I have known many a poor School-boy forced to Water his Plants for a less Mistake . But there is a Word of singular note , which I have met with at least six or seven times in this Book , and four times in one Page , viz. 227. and it is Prosopopaea , which also , as well as its Companions has given the Catalogue of Errata the slip , and so , weathered it out in Two Editions : But what to make of it , I cannot tell . There is indeed a certain Figure in Rhetorick , called Prosopopoeia , which I know well enough , but Prosopopaea I am wholly a Stranger to : And surely this Author could not mean the Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; forasmuch as the strict Literal signification of that is fictio Personae . And I cannot imagine how this Author should mistake about this Word ( of all others ) having had so Excellent an Hand at the Thing signified by it ; as having , I dare say , made more Persons than ever God thought fit to furnish the World with . And to shew the Reader that our Author's store extends much further than one Book , I will present him with some more of the like Rarities out of some of his other Pieces . As first in Page 65. of his Answer to the Protestant Reconciler , he makes mention of Exorcisme , Chrysom , Unction , Dipping , Trine Immersion , &c. as rejected by the Church of England . And here I was extremely at a loss to learn what Chrysom was ; and after all my search , no Lexicon could inform me , till at last I hit upon a certain little Lexicon , called , The Bill of Mortality , and there I found a Word very near it , as differing from it but by one Letter , which was Chrisom , signifying a Child that dies presently after it is born : But then considering again , that the Church of England did not declare her self to reject such , I was as much at a loss as ever ; till at length setting my Guessing Faculty on work , I concluded , that certainly it should be Chrisme , which is a Greek Word for Unction , as Immersion is a Latine one for Dipping . And this our Author should have taken notice of , for though he quotes it out of the Reconciler , yet since he neither rectifies it , nor reflects upon him for it , we may very reasonably suppose , that he took it for good Payment ; and really thought , that it ought to be Chrysom as he found it . Otherwise he who had been so quick and sharp upon him at other turns , would , no doubt , have took him upon such an advantage , and well-favouredly exposed him for so foul a Blunder . But to go on . In Page 209. Line 13. of the same Book , I find mention of the Quadrigesimal Fast. And this put me as much to a stand , as the other , to imagine what kind of Fast this should be . For the nearest and likest Word I could derive it from , was Quadriga , signifying a Coach , Cart , or Waggon . And accordingly as the Jews had their Feast of Weeks , and of Tabernacles , so I did not know , but the Papists , or some Christians like them , might have some Fast , called , The Fast of Coaches , or Waggons ; and might possibly give it that Name from its being carried on with the Discipline of the Whip and the Lash , as Coaches and Waggons used to be . This Conjecture , I say , I made with my self . For I concluded , that this Author could not mean it of the Lenten-Fast ; for that is called Quadragesima , or Jejunium Quadragesimale , and issues from the Numeral Quadraginta , and so is quite another Thing from this Quadrigesimal-Fast ; which I cannot find in all the Rubrick of our Church ; though perhaps when those Excellent Persons spoken of , Apology , P. 5. Line 20. have finished their Intended Alterations of our Rubrick , we shall find it there too . In the next place , let us pass to such of his Words as stand conjoyned with others in Sentences , or Forms of Speaking . And here let us first of all consider his absurd use of that form of Expression [ as I may so speak ] which he has at least Twenty times in this one Book : Now the proper use of these Words , is to bespeak excuse for that which they are joyned to , as for something that is legendum cum veniâ , and containing in it a kind of Catachresis , or at least some Inequality , some Defect or other in the Expression , with Reference to the Thing designed to be expressed by it . And this , I am sure , is all the true and proper Reason assignable for the use of these Words [ as I may so speak . ] But this Author applies and uses them , even when he pretends to give the properest and most Literal Account and Explication of Things , and such an one , as is not only better than all others , but even exclusive of them also , as the only True Account that can be given of them . As for instance , where he affirms Self-Consciousness to be the True and only Formal Reason of Personality , and Mutual-Consciousness to be the same of the Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Persons , he ushers it in with those Words [ as I may so speak ] Page 56. Line 6 , 7 , 8 , &c. Which ( according to what he holds about these Two Terms ) is all one , as if I should say , God is an Infinite , Eternal , Almighty Being ( as I may so speak ) and God is the Creator and Governour of the World ( as I may so speak ) and Man is a Rational Creature , having Two Eyes , Two Arms , and Two Legs ; I may so speak ) all which is egregiously Absurd and Ridiculous . And the more so ; for that this very Author reproaches one of his Adversaries ( whether Owen , Baxter , Lobb , or the Reconciler , I cannot at present remember , but the Thing I perfectly do ) for using the like Expression [ as I may so say , ] with great scoff and scorn , telling him thereupon , That certainly no Man had ever more need of ( so says ) than he had . Now for my own part , I think this Author's [ so speaks ] are every whit as bad and contemptible as his Adversary's [ so says ] unless he can perswade the World , That a Man may speak an Absurd thing much more excusably than he can say it . To this we may add some more such Absurd Expressions . As for instance , that in P. 55. Line 26. where he says , That the Three Divine Persons are so United to each other , as every Man is to himself . In which Words , besides the falseness of the Proposition ; it being impossible for the Three Divine Persons to be so United to each other , as to be but One Person , which yet every Man is , we ought to note also the Absurdity of the Expression . For all Union , or Unition , is Essentially between two things at least ; so that unless the Man be One thing , and himself another , He cannot be said to be United to Himself . He may , perhaps , be properly enough said to be One with Himself ; but to say , That he is United to himself , is unpardonable Nonsence . Again , in Page 85. Line 8. He tells us , That the Infinite Wisdom which is in the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is [ Identically the same ] which is as much as to say , That a Man is Wisely Wise , Honestly Honest , Learnedly Learned , and the like : For though I know what it is to be perfectly , or absolutely the same ; yet to affirm any Thing , or Person to be Identically the same , is an Idle , and a Nauseous Tautology . Likewise in Page 182. Line 19. He tells us , That God intercedes with no Body but himself . Concerning which Form of Speaking , I must observe , That when the Term [ But ] is used as a Particle of Exception , it implys the Thing , or Person excepted from others , to be of the same kind , or , at least , condition with the rest , from which it was excepted . And therefore , unless God were a Body , it can with no Congruity of Speech be said , That God intercedes with no Body but himself . So that this also must pass for another Blunder . With the like Absurdity he tells us in Page 124. Line 15. Where there are Two distinct and divided Operations , if any of them can act alone without the other , there must be Two divided Natures . Now it is a Maxime in Philosophy , and that such an one , as , I think , ought to take place in Grammar too , That Actionis non datur Actio . And accordingly if the Reason of Things ought to be the Rule of Words , then to say , That an Operation Acts , or Operates , is extremely Senceless and Ridiculous . But to proceed , he has a way of promiscuously applying such Words to Things as are properly applicable to Persons only , such as are [ who ] and [ whose . ] As for instance , he tells us of the Being of a Thing [ whose ] Nature we cannot conceive , Page 6. Line 11. And in the same Page , Line 23. We may know ( says he ) that there are a great many things [ whose ] Nature and Properties we cannot conceive . And in Page 7. Line 18. It is so far from being a wonder to meet with any Thing [ whose Nature ] we do not understand , &c. But is this Sence , or Grammar ? Or does any Man say , Reach me that Book , [ who lies there ] or that Chair [ who stands there ? ] No , certainly , none who understands what proper speaking is , would express himself so . And moreover ( to shew that he can speak of Persons in a Dialect belonging only to bare Things , as well as he did of bare Things in words , proper only to Persons ) he tells us of a Son produced out of the Substance of [ its Parent ] instead of his Parent , Page 257. Line 19. which is a way of speaking every whit as improper and absurd as the other . In the next place he has a custom of joyning a Verb of the Singular Number with a Noun of the Plural , and so vice versâ . As there is Three Gods , instead of , there are Three Gods , Page 2. Line 9. And the Nature of most things [ are ] very dark and obscure , instead of [ is so ] Page 6. Line 20. which also is so Ungrammatical that it would not be endured in a School-Boy ; it being as arrant a Solecism in English , as Homines currit , or Socrates disputant would be in Latine . Likewise he often uses the Particle [ then ] instead of [ than ] as , The Scripture teaches more [ then ] Natural Reason does . Pag. 148. Line 19. And a more Glorious Authority [ then ] he exercises himself , Page 173. Line 28. This , I say , is familiar with him , but withal exceedingly Absurd , Improper , and not English. For [ then ] is a Note of Time , but [ than ] is a Note of Comparison , importing a greater or lesser degree of that Thing wherein the Comparison is made ; and is commonly joyned with the Words sooner , or rather , but always with some word or other , denoting the Comparative Degree of a Thing . As , such an one has more or less Strength , or Wisdom [ than ] another . And I will Die sooner , or rather [ than ] I will do such a Thing , or the like . But no Man who Speaks , or Writes true English , will use these two words indifferently . But I must not omit that Notable Passage , Page 119. Line 25. where he tells us , That there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . These are the very words , and as they stand ( though in conjunction with Two or Three English Words to complete the Sentence ) do in my Opinion , carry much of the Air of a Solecisin upon them ; so that according to the Construction of them here , if it had been for my Life , instead of saying , There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I would have said , There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so have joyned true Greek and English together . But there is an extraordinary Passage in his Book of Judgment , Chap. 2. Sect. 1. p. 164. of the last Edition , ( which should be the most correct ) and I was doubting , whether I should charge it upon his Ignorance , or his Insolence ; but both of them play their Parts very remarkably in it . For first he makes a most false , illiterate , and absurd Translation of a Verse , or rather part of a Verse in the New Testament , and then reproaches the received Translation , as wrong , and very faulty , for rendring it otherwise . The place is in 2 Pet. c. 2. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In which he considers only the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , dividing them from the rest of the Sentence , viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and by that means from the Verb in this latter part of it , which should govern the Noun in the former ; thereby making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( as it ought to be ) but most falsely and Ungrammatically by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and so he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , casting them , viz. the Apostate Angels , down into Chains of darkness . And this interpretation he builds partly upon the pretended Reason of the Thing here discoursed of , and partly upon the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but upon both of them very absurdly . From the Reason of the Thing he argues , that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie the Apostate Angels being cast down into Hell , how could they be said upon Sentence passed upon them at the last Judgment , to be then cast into Hell , if they were there before ? To which the Answer is very easie and obvious , That immediately upon their sin they were cast down into , and kept in those lower Regions called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Hell locally , but not cast into Hell-Torments , till the last Judgment has passed upon them ; so that with full accord both to Scripture and Reason we are to distinguish the place of Hell , where they now are , from the Judicial penal Torments of Hell , which they shall be adjudged to , and endure in that place hereafter ; as we distinguish the Prison wherein Malefactors are kept , from the execution which they are there kept for : As indeed this Text with great significance alludes to both : So that his Argument from hence falls to nothing . His other Reason is from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which he affirms to signifie only to cast down . But on the contrary , I must here tell him first , That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only import the Act of casting down , but ( being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) signifies also the Term ad quem , or the Place , into which this casting down is . And I refer him to all the Greek Lexicographers ( not one of them excepted ) whether they do not render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by in Tartarum detrudo , dejicio , or praecipito ; and if so , how can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possibly here agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; for if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Term ad quem of the Act , how can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be so too ; since one single Act can have but one Ultimate Term ad quem ? And even this Man himself does not allow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be one and the same thing . And besides this , I must tell him further , That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported the Term , Thing , or Place , into which God cast down the Apostate Angels , it ought not to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; forasmuch as the motion of casting down , importing a Local descent to something , the Dative Case cannot in true Grammar answer it . And therefore the old Latine Version makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to import , not the Term to which , but the Instruments or means by which these Angels were thus brought down , rendring the Text thus , Rudentibus Inferni detractos in Tartarum tradidit , &c. which , as it is not strictly a Translation , but an arbitrary Paraphrase , so it is a very forced and unnatural one too ; as importing not a casting but a drawing down these Angels into Hell. In which case , who must be the Person drawing them ? For since God ( to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does and must here agree ) ought to be considered by us as in the Highest Heaven , how can this drawing down be applyed to him , which , in the Nature of it , supposes the Person drawing to be in that lower place , to which he is drawing others ? For all Traction is a motion of the Agent forcibly bringing something to himself , but Trusion a motion by which he removes or forces something from himself . It is clear therefore , that according to all the Rules of Grammatical Construction , and proper speaking , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and that , therefore something else must be sought for to govern it , which can be nothing besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And then the whole Sentence will be properly and plainly translated thus . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [ God ] having cast or thrust them [ viz. the Apostate Angels ] down into Hell [ or the Lower Regions ] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , delivered , or put them into Chains of darkness , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , kept , or reserved to [ or for ] Iudgement . And this is sence and propriety of Speech , agreeable both to the Natural Signification , and the Grammatical Syntax of the Words . But the Translation so imperiously and ignorantly given by this Man ( in correction of that of the Church ) is agreeble to neither . For it both divides one part of the Sentence from the other , from which it must not be devided , and then makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which cannot govern it , and quite cutting it off from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which alone can . And now , ought it not to be matter of Amazement to all Men of Sense and Sobriety , to see a Puny , who is not able to master three words of Greek , presume to controul such great Masters of that Language , as the Translators of the New Testament into English undoubtedly were ? Nay , and thereby to reflect upon the Church her self , which has received and owned this Translation , and to whose Judgment and Authority ( if he be so nearly related to her , as he pretends ) he ows so great and filial a Deference ? Let him rather instead of correcting the English Translation ( a Work which he was never born for ) thank God , and the Translators for it ; there being few Men living more beholden to it than himself . And therefore leaving his forlorn Criticisme ( as new every whit as his Divinity ) to shift for it self ; I , for my part , like my English Bible , for his dislike of any part of it , better than before . For I can by no means see any force or consequence in this Argument , viz. That because this Author is much better at quoting a Greek Sentence than at construing it ; therefore the English Translation of this Text in St. Peter is a very bad Translation : I say , I cannot admit , or yield to this Consequence . And thus I have presented the Reader with some of this Author's Ways and Forms of Expression , which Grammarians call Loquendi Genera . From all which , according to the singular skill he has shewn in this sort of Learning , it is to be hoped , that as he has already blest the World with a New Divinity and Philosophy , so he will in due time oblige it with a new Grammar too . And great need ( as we shall presently see ) there seems to be of such an one . In order to which , I shall mention but one more of this Author's Pieces . And that is a Book , Intituled , A Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet , &c. In the beginning of which , there is a Table of Errata prefixed , that fills almost a whole Page ; so that I verily thought , that it had so clearly carried off the whole Crop , as to leave no Gleanings behind . Nevertheless I shall present the Reader with this small Spicilegium of what I gathered up after it ; not mentioning any one Word that stands Corrected there . In Page 53. therefore , and Line 10. He tells us of a Counterfeit Epithite ; but what that is , I do not know . I have indeed often heard of an Epithete from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifying quid appositum aut adjectum , and imports properly , an Adjective joyned to a Substantive , and giving the Substantive a Denomination accordingly . But as for this Author's Epithite , it may , for ought appears , signifie something to stop Bot●les . For as for any other Signification ( that I know of ) it has none . In the next place , Page 64 , 65. he quotes Baxter for an Expression used by him , viz. of such people as talk through a Window on the West-end of Moore-Fields ; and calls it Mr. Baxter's Elegant Paraphrases for Madmen . But here ( besides the mistake of Paraphrases for Paraphrasis , which is only one Number put for another ) our Learned Author must give me leave to tell him , That by this Passage , he seems not to understand what a Paraphrasis means . For a Paraphrasis , or Paraphrase ( to put it into English for his sake ) signifies properly a Translation of some Writing , with Additions and Enlargements to Illustrate and Explain the sence of it , and is therefore usually called Liberior Translatio . In which sence we read of this or that Paraphrase upon the Psalms , and Erasmus's Paraphrase upon the New-Testament , and the like . So that unless the Mad-men here spoken of , were a certain Book , or Writing , and Mr. Baxter's Words concerning them , an Explicatory Translation of the said Writing , this Great-Good Man could not properly call them a Paraphrase . But what must we call them then ? Why truly the forementioned Words might be properly enough called a Periphrasis , or Circumlocution ( which , being so like the word Paraphrasis , might easily deceive a Man who cares not what he Writes ) and when it is so taken , it is a certain Figure in Speech , whereby we express a Thing by several Words , which otherwise might , and , for the most ' part , is expressed by one . As Sophronisci filius , is a Periphrasis for Socrates , and the Man who Conquered Pompey the Great , is a Periphrasis for Iulius Caesar ; and so to bring the matter home to Mr. Baxter's Instance ; that forementioned Expression of , Men who talk through the Windows at the West-end of Moore-Fields , is a proper Periphrasis for Mad-men . But as for a Paraphrase upon Madmen , I leave it to this wonderful Person , to make a Paraphrase upon any Man , ( whether Mad or Sober ) if he can . Likewise in Page 112. and the last Line , he tells us , out of Calvin's Epistles of a Publica praecum formula . Concerning which , though I must confess , that I do by no means aspire to be one of the Number of this Author 's Excellent Persons , who were for altering our Liturgy , or Publick Form of Prayer . Yet , if it were expressed by Publica praecum formula , I should be one of the foremost who should desire that Praecum might be altered into Precum . In the mean time , why should any one who had reàd but a Page in Calvin , quote him for such a word as could not possibly drop from so Learned a Pen ? But it would be endless to descant particularly upon all this Author 's New-found Latine , and Proprieties of Speech . And therefore to set them down briefly as they offer themselves . In Page 122. in the Quotation in the Margin , the Reader will find a most choice word , viz. Conscionator , not to be met with in any such puny Author as we commonly call Classick , but cited by him instead of Concionator out of the 57th Canon of our Church ; which , I must tell him , is not an ordinary slip , but a foul stumble , attended with Two more in the same Quotation , viz. Sique for Siqui , and a lesser one , which is Utrum , for Utrum ; for that is no greater than the difference of a Noun from an Adverb , which , we know , is below a Person , Paramount to all rule , to take notice of . Though by his good leave the Church of England both Writes and Teaches better Latine to such as are disposed to learn it . Again in Page 139. in the Quotation on the side , we have these Words cited out of the third Book of Optatus Milevitanus . Recordamini quomodò à vobis jamdudum Matris Ecclesiae membra distracta sunt , non enim [ Unumquamque demum ] semel seducere potuistis . Of which Passage I must confess I could make neither Sence nor Grammar , till consulting the Author himself of Albaspinaeus's Edition , instead of Unumquamque demum , I found it Unamquamque Domum ; which , no doubt , is an admirable Various Lection ( of which this Author ought to have the Glory ) upon the Text of such a Father . But this is not all the Blunders which this fruitful Sentence affords us ; there being yet another , viz. recedit for resedit ; and that such an one as utterly perverts the sence of the Author , who speaks here of some who left , and some who remained in the Communion of the Church , opposing them in this respect to one another ; as , Aut ivit uxor , aut resedit maritus , aut Parentes seducti sunt & filii sequi noluerunt , aut stetit frater migrante sorore , &c. Thus the Father here speaks ; but , pray , what opposition could there be between aut ivit uxor aut recedit maritus , any more than there is between going away and departing ? Besides , that all the rest of the Verbs running in the Preterperfect Tense , this must needs do so too , or make a very gross fault in the Construction : So that this is an Illiterate Perversion of the sence of this Father . Upon which , as well as upon other occasions , I look upon this as the only sure Rule of dealing with this Author's Quotations , viz. To trust them no further than one can see them in their Originals . In like manner , Page 178. in the place there quoted in the Margin out of St. Cyprian's 55. Epist. ( and not the 52d . as this Author there mistakes it ) we meet with these words , à Coepiscoporum suorum Corpore & ab Ecclesiae Unitate [ discisserit : ] But the word in St. Cyprian is ( as it ought to be ) descisceret , from descisco to fall off ; between which , and the other word used by this Author , there is a wide difference , descisceret being a most proper Latine Word , but discisserit so far from Proper , that it is not so much as Latine . And in Page 187. Line the last , we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which makes the whole Period neither Sence nor Greek . Again , Page 188. Line the last but one , we have this Passage , Videte annon dicantur martyres , sed aliquid [ Alium ] dici mereantur ; which being there put for Aliud , is a downright Solecism . And lastly , in Page 198. in the Quotation in the Margin , we have those remarkable words , Simiarum more , [ qui ] cùm homines non sint , homines tamen imitantur ? Which is another Solecism every whit as bad and scandalous as the former . Now all these Words and Passages , I assure the Reader , as they stand in the Authors , from whence they are quoted , carry a very different face , from what this Writer has given them ; which shews , that whensoever the words of the Fathers are transcribed into any of his Books , they are quite out of their Element . For amongst them ( as they stand here ) there are some such vile faults , or rather such clamorous sins in Grammar , that should a School-Boy tender an Exercise to his Master with but Two or Three such in it , he would soon find himself very roundly and severely took up for them ; and that perhaps more ways than one . But Hands that can restore dispossessed Princes , may Write any Thing , and Authorize what they have Wrote , by their very Writing it . For otherwise , the Truth is , the Latine , which the forecited Passages are dressed up in , seems a sort of Providential Latine , as being above all Rules and Laws of Speaking and Writing whatsoever . As for faults about Accents , such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Vind. P. 102. Line 3. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Page 113. Line 2. of the Quotation in the Margin , and the like , they are too numerous for me to trouble the Reader with . But this I desire him to take notice of , upon the whole that has been produced by me , That as none of the forementioned Faults are in the Table of the Errata ; so some of them in the first Edition of his Vind. Trin. stand Corrected in the second ; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Page 115. Line 1. of the Quotation in the Margin of the first is Corrected into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second : And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Page 121. Line 21. in the former , is changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the latter . And therefore according to the old Maxime , That Exceptio firmat Regulam in non Exceptis , it is to me a sufficient proof , That since this Author Corrected some Passages , and not others , which yet need correcting as much , if not more , it was , because His Acuteness did not see , that these last needed any Correction at all : And in such a case some are of Opinion that where the Words escape it , the Author himself ought to have it . But because some perhaps will hardly be satisfied with so General a Charge without an Allegation of more Particulars , I shall here give the Reader a Catalogue of this Author's Greek Errata in the 2d Edition of his Vindication of the Trinity ( which should in Reason be thought the most correct ) together with their Correction confronting them . Greek Errata . Correction . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol .   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol .   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol .   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now all these Errata , one would think , make up a jolly Company to rendezvous together in the compass of less than half a dozen Pages of an English Book ; a Company fit for our Author to march Triumphantly in the Head of . But I shall hold my Reader no longer upon this Subject , how diverting soever it may be ; this being enough to satisfie any Rational Person , how unfit this Man is to upbraid any one with wars of Greek , or Latine : Though had I in my first perusal of his several Pieces foreseen this my Engagement with him , I might and would have presented my Reader with a more complete Collection of his Greek and Latine Elegancies . For I had not gone far in the Reading of him , but I found the Blows come so thick and fast upon poor Priscian , that , to prevent downright Blood-shed , still as I drew near to a Latine Quotation of any length , I presently advised him as a Friend to get out of the way as fast as he could . And now , if either he , or any one else for him , shall pretend to slight and despise this charge , and tell me that the Faults and Mistakes here alledged by me , are small Things ; so , say I , is the point of a Dagger too ; but for all that , it may stab a Man to the Heart ; and , I think , it matters not how small the Thing is , which wounds a Man's Credit , if it chance to bleed to Death of the Wound . But there are some Things in the World , the Knowledge of which seems but small , but the Ignorance of them is not so . And certainly of all Men living , such as will be Writers , especially provoking , Insulting Writers , are concerned to tread tenderly , and to take every step with the utmost Caution , where they do not find a Grammatical Bottom firm under them . For my own part , I dare account nothing small , or despicable , which may either do a Man a great mischief , or is necessary to prevent one . The first step in any Ascent may be reckoned but a low and a mean thing , nevertheless there is no getting to the top without it . As the Great St. Basil himself tells us , That nothing is to be slighted , or despised by such as are to be instructed and led into the knowledge of Things . For if a Man ( says he ) looks upon the first Elements as [ small inconsiderable Things ] ( the word by which some are pleased to call the Rites and Ceremonies of our Church ) when will such a One be able to attain to the Perfection of Wisdom and Learning ? And so I shall close up the present Subject with this Note , That St. Paul's School is certainly an Excellent School , and St. Paul's Church a most Noble Church ; and therefore , I think , that he directs his Course very prudently , and happily too , who in his Passage to such a Cathedral , takes such a School in his way . CHAP. XI . In which is given some Account of this Author's Temper and insolent way of Writing , as well in Extolling himself , as in Depressing and Scorning his Adversaries ; in both which he has not his Parallel . THough in all Contests and Controversies , how sharp soever on both sides , and just on one , there is still a Duty , which every Man ows both to Decency and to Himself , always obliging him to utter only such things , as may become him to speak , whatsoever his Adversary may deserve to hear ; yet , as to the Adversary himself , it is , no doubt , a course justifiable beyond all exception , to take ones measures of Treating him , from the measures he has allowed himself of dealing with others . And , as I hope , for my own , and the Churches sake , to acquit my self as to the former part of the Rule , so let my Adversary take his lot as to the other . For I doubt not but to satisfie the World , ( were it not superabundantly , from his own Writings , satisfied already ) That he is a Person of such an insufferable Insolence both of Style and Temper , that all , that he has met with in the foregoing Chapters , has by no means paid off his Scores . In all his expressions concerning his Antagonists , he is infinitely scornful ; and not only so , but very often also , extremely spiteful and malicious . For what but the height of spight could make him in his Vindication of his Case of Allegiance tax his Learned Adversary , as an Epicurean and an Atheistical Ridiculer of Providence , only for maintaining , that the Passages and Events of Providence are not the Rule , which God will have us govern our Actions by ; but the Precepts and Prohibitions of his Law ? And what , but the same malice , could make him insinuate that the same Author was inclined to Popery and an Infallible Interpreter , only for saying that one Text of Scripture was obscure and much controverted ? Which yet St. Peter had said of many Passages of St. Paul's Epistles , 1 Pet. 3. 16. and yet without giving any wise Man the least occasion from thence to think that he was then providing an Argument for the Infallibility of his supposed Successor . And Lastly , what but the bitterest Rancour could make him charge his Adversary , as if he had compared the swearing Allegiance to K. W. and Q. M. for the great and notorious Impiety of it , with the Villanies foretold by the Prophet of Hazael ; only , because he had told Him , that as Hazael had changed his mind ; ( notwithstanding his confident Opinion of himself to the contrary ; ) so had this Author too ? For who but one of equal Virulence and Ignorance would have stretched the comparison , which respected only the changing of Minds , to a Comparison as to the merits of the Cause , which it had no relation to at all ? Indeed no more than that Reply of Hazael , Is thy Servant a Dog ? Was design'd to convince the Prophet , That he had not four Legs , and not rather only to clear himself from such a currish and belluine temper of mind , as those Actions foretold of him must needs imply ? And I suppose , when a certain Person speaking of the New Oath to a certain Bishop , said , My Lord , I will be Crucified before I will take this Oath , His meaning was not , that he thought the taking it more Painful and Tormenting than a Crucifixion , but that he had a greater unwillingness to take the one , than to undergo the other . And yet this was this Author's way of Treating a very Worthy Man , an old Acquaintance , and a fair Adversary . I am not at all concern'd to espouse or abett the Cause defended by that Learned Person . But this I do , and ever shall averr , That there is a Ius Belli , in these Controversial , as well as in Military Conflicts , and consequently an obligation to Truth and Justice and common Ingenuity even in the exercise of the greatest Hostilities . But this Man's usage of his forementioned Adversary is not more Senseless and Illogical , than Disingenuous , Barbarous , and Unchristian . And so let the Reader take this as a Specimen of his impotent Spleen and Malice . After which , let us shew him in his next good Quality , his Insolence ; and first in that Branch of it , which concerns his wonderful Opinion and Applause of Himself . As to which , we shall first of all see him ( as we have in some degree shewn him before ) preferring himself before all the Fathers , as much happier in giving an explication of the Trinity than they were ; and this , in such a fleering scoptical way , ( scoptical I mean as to the Fathers , but highly Commendatory of himself ) that it would even turn ones Stomach to read his fulsom Expressions . For he tells us , ( and that with the most profound humility , no doubt ) p. 101. l. 1. &c. If that explication which I have given , be very consistent with , nay , be the true Interpretation of that account the Antients give of a Trinity in Unity , I hope it will not be thought an unpardonable Novelty , if I have expressed the same thing in other Words , which give us a more clear and distinct apprehension of it , &c. And again , p. 126. l. 2. I hope this is no fault neither , to give an Intelligible explication of that , which all the Fathers taught , but were not equally happy in their explication of it . No ; for his comfort , no ; to excel and outdo all the Fathers ( if a Man can do it ) can be no fault at all . But before this be allow'd him , I do here require him to name and produce me but one ( who acknowledges a Trinity ) in the whole World , besides his own modest self , who ever preferr'd his explication of the Trinity for the Happiness and Intelligibility of it , before that given by the Fathers . I say , let him produce me so much as one affirming this , if he can . So that , in short , the Comparison here stands between the Fathers , and this Author : And we see the Preheminence given him above all the Fathers by the sole and single Iudgment of one Doctor , and that Doctor is Himself : Nay , and ( which is more ) to put the matter past all Comparison between him and them for the future , He tells us ( as was also observed before in my 7th . Chapter ) That the Fathers neither knew how to speak their own Thoughts of the Trinity , nor indeed so much as to conceive of it aright , by reason of the grossness of their Imaginations : Whereas , if they had ( as he adds ) but conceived of it , and expressed themselves about it , as he has done , all would have been plain , easie , and intelligible . And as for Gregory Nyssen , ( from whom he had Quoted more than from all the rest of the Fathers together ) he gives him a cast of his Temper at last , p. 119. l. 5. and sends him away with this rap over the Pate , That he could not tell what to make of him and his Reasonings ; for that , in his judgment , he destroyed all Principles of Individuation . And in this manner we have him Pluming himself , clapping his Wings , and crowing over all the Fathers ; for which , and his quarrelsome domineering Nature together , most think , it is high time , that his Comb were cut . In the next place , let us see what Elogies he bestows upon himself for his Atchievements in the Socinian Controversie . Concerning which he tells the Men of that Persuasion , That after his Vindication of the Trinity He believes they will talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions for the future . pag. 153. But , why , I pray ? Is it because this Author has got the Monopoly of them , and engrossed them all to himself ? And that therefore the Laws will be very severe upon such as invade his Property ? For , as for any other Reason , they have none , that I know of , to talk more sparingly of Absurdities and Contradictions , than they used to do , having so many more , out of his Writings , to talk of , than ever they had before . But he proceeds , and closes his Work with this Triumph over his Antagonist ( and in him , I suppose , over all the rest of that Tribe ) pag. 272. That he is pretty confident , that he will never be able to reason to any purpose in this cause again . As for his confidence , none doubts of it ; but as for his Prediction , if he proves no better a Prophet in what he here foretels of his Socinian Opponent , than in what he foretold of that Learned Person , who answered both his Case of Allegiance , and his Vindication of it . viz. That if he would but well examine his Arguments before he answered them , he should expect to hear no more from him : And if withal this Socinian be but able to handle him at such a Rate , as that close Reasoner has done , I dare undertake for him , that he shall go out of the World the most baffled Person , that ever lived in it . But why , ( for God's sake ) must the Socinians Reasoning Abilities ( which his great Lord and Patron has given so high , so signal , and so peculiar an Encomium of ) all of a suddain fail them , upon this Author's Publication of his Book ? What can the meaning of this be ? Why the meaning of it is this . Hic vir , hic est , &c. according to the words by which Virgil pointed out Augustus Caesar. This , This , is the Man. This is that Incomparable , Mighty , and Irrefragable Divine , who has wrote more convincingly and effectually against the Socinians , ( if you will believe him ) than all , that ever wrote against them before , put together . For notwithstanding all that has been wrote by those great Men , who from time to time have appear'd in this Controversie , the Controversie is still alive , and the Socinians continue writing and reasoning still : And even by this Author's confession ( once at least ) to some Purpose . For otherwise how could he say of his Socinian Adversary , That he would never be able to reason to any purpose in this cause again , if he had never reasoned so at all ? But so far are the Socinians from being put out of Countenance , and much less out of Heart , by what this Man has wrote against them , That I assure him , they look upon him as an Opponent according to their Hearts desire ; as having play'd a fairer Game into their hands than ever was dealt into them before : So that next to their wishing all the World their Friends , they wish they may always have such Adversaries . And therefore if they should resolve to reason against him no more , he will have great cause to thank either their Inadvertency for over-looking the great advantage given them , or their good Nature for not taking it . For the Book called by him , a Vindication of the Trinity , is certainly like a kind of Pot or Vessel with handles quite round it ; turn it which way you will , you are sure to find something to take hold of it by . And the truth is , upon a strict impartial comparing of things together , I cannot see any new Advantage that he has got over the Socinians , unless it be That he thinks his Three Gods will be too hard for their One. And perhaps it is upon Presumption of this , That he discharges that clap of Thunder at them in his Preface , where he tells us , That having dipp'd his Pen in the Vindication of so glorious a Cause , by the grace of God he will never desert it , while he can hold Pen in hand . In which words , methinks I see him ready Armed and Mounted ( with his Face towards the West ) and brandishing his Sword aloft , all wreaking with Socinian blood , and with the very darts of his Eyes looking his poor forgotten Friends through and through . For in good earnest the Words sound very terribly to these Men ; but most terribly of all to the Article it self : ( which is like to suffer most by his Vindication : ) For thus to threaten that he will never leave off vexing it as long as he can hold Pen in hand , ( which , I dare say , will be as long as he can tell Money with it ) This , I say again , sounds very dreadfully . Nevertheless , as fierce and formidable as these words may represent him , he has yet , like a merciful Enemy , very great reserves of compassion . For otherwise how come so many Socinian Pieces wrote against him to lie so long unanswered ? He has indeed lately wrote an Apology for writing against the Socinians ; but where is the Apology for writing in such a prevaricating way against them at first , and for never writing against them since ? For has he lost his daring Polemick Pen ? Or has he lost the use of his Hand ? Or has he run himself out of Breath ? If this last be his case ( as by some Asthmatick Symptoms one would think it is ) he will do well to call in his old Friend , and Defender , the Foot-man , to second him : Especially since the Contention , which now seems most likely to be , is , who shall run fastest from the Enemy , and keep furthest from Him. In the mean time I wonder that in the mannage of this Disputation , he does not take the same course that other Learned Men in the like cases use to do . For he frequently taxes his Adversary with Fallacies ; telling him that this is a Fallacy , and that is a Fallacy : But why does he not express to his Reader , what the particular Fallacy is ? There being no Sophism or Fallacy incident to Speech or Argumentation , but what falls under one of the Thirteen reckoned up by Aristotle . Moreover , while he is Animadverting upon the History of the Unitarians , he will , I believe , hardly get clear of a scurvy lapse in that History himself . For concerning the Exposition given by the Socinians of that Text in the 3. Iohn 13. where our Saviour tells the Iews , That he came down from Heaven . He writes thus : Did Socinus find it so easie a Thing to reconcile this Text to his Darling Opinion , when he was forced to Fast and Pray for it , and to pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it ? viz. That Christ before he entred on his Prophetick Office , was taken into Heaven to be instructed in the Gospel , and then came down from Heaven again to publish it to the World ; pag. 143. l. 19. &c. Now , the Person here spoken of , and intended by this Author , must needs have been Faustus Socinus , and I believe he will not pretend that he meant any other ; which being supposed , This Remark of his will appear to have been a very great mistake . For neither was this the Text , about which this Praying and Pretence of Revelation was , ( for Fasting is a word of this Author 's putting in : ) nor was Faustus Socinus the Person who did any of these Things upon this occasion . But the Text was that in Iohn 8. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And the Person of whom this was pretended , was Laelius Socinus the Unkle of Faustus , who interpreted this Text to this sence , Antequàm Abramus factus fuerit Abrahamus ; that is , from the Father of the Faithful enclosed within the Church of the Iews , should become the Father of the Faithful diffused through many Nations , Christ was to preach his Gospel to the World ; and by so doing enlarge the Church from the limits of one People , to all Nations throughout the World. So that to the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to supply the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , importing Christ's Enlightning the World by the Publication of his Doctrine . This was Laelius's Interpretation of this Text , which together with the Interpretation of the first Chapter of St. Iohn were the Two Scriptures , which he first set up with , for the founding of his new Hypothesis . Which explication of the Text ( as it was indeed very forced and unnatural so ) Erasmus Iohannis , in his Disputation with Faustus , cryed shame of it in these Words , Fateor me per omnem vitam non magis contortam Scripturae Interpretationem audivisse ; ideóque eam penitus improbo . To which Faustus , who had a much different Opinion of it , replys . Cùm primùm [ fatendi ] verbum in tuis Scriptis animadverti , sperabam te potiùs fassurum nullam in tuâ vitâ Scripturae Interpretationem Te audivisse , quae hâc sit aut acutior aut verior , quaequé magis divinum quid sapiat , & à Deo ipso patefactam fuisse prae se ferat . Ego quidem certè non leves conjecturas habeo , illum [ viz. Laelium ] qui primus aetate nostrâ eam in lucem protulit ( hic autem is fuit , qui primus quoquè sententiam de Christi Origine , quam ego constanter defendo , renovavit ) Precibus multis ab ipso Christo impetrâsse . Hoc profectò affirmare ausim , cùm Deus illi viro permulta aliis tunc temporis incognita patefecerit , vix quicquam inter illa omnia esse , quod Interpretatione hâc divinius videri queat . Socinus in Refutatione Arg. 4. Erasmi Iohan. p. 505. Col. 2. Edit . Fratrum Polonor . Tom. 2. But as this may satisfie the Reader that the forementioned place in Iohn 8. 58. was the Text , for which this Praying and Pretence of Revelation is said to have been , and consequently may suffice to shew this Author's Blunder ; so I shall yet further shew , that the other Text in Iohn 3. 13. concerning Christ's coming down from Heaven , was not accounted by Socinus of so difficult an Interpretation , as to need those peculiar Methods of Prayer and Revelation for the Discovery of it , as this Author has been pleased to affirm . And this will appear from these words of Socinus concerning it . Postquàm ex Mariâ natus est , in coelo , antequàm moreretur , rever à esse potuit ; nec solùm potuit , sed ( ut ita dicamus ) debuit . Si enim homo ille Paulus Christi servus ad Tertium usque Coelum ante mortem raptus est , nullo pacto nobis verisimile est Christum ipsum ante mortem in coelo non fuisse . And , a few Lines after , speaking of the same again with reference to St. Paul's having been taken up into the third Heaven , he thus discourses . Certè Christus ( in quo sine ullâ mensurâ rerum omnium Divinarum cognitio , ut fuit , sic esse debuit , quin ibi ( viz. in coelo ) per aliquod Tempus antequàm munus coele sti doctrinâ homines imbuendi sibi à Patre mandatum publicè susciperet , versatus fuerit , nullo modo dubitandum videtur . Socinus in Responsione Priore ad Paraenesim Andreae Volani , Tomo 2do . Fratrum Polon . p. 380. Col. 2. By all which we see , that Socinus was so far from apprehending any difficulty in finding out this exposition of the Text , That he affirms it was nullo pacto verisimile , There was no likelyhood that it should be otherwise , & nullo modo dubitandum , that no doubt could be made , but it was and ought to be so . Which surely are not forms of expression , to shew the difficulty of conceiving , or finding out how the said Thing could be so . So that this is a manifest mistake in this Author ; and let him set it off with never so much brow and confidence , yet no doubt his Socinian Adversaries despise him for it sufficiently . And the Truth is , one would in all Reason imagine , that to the Answering the History of the Unitarians , a little more knowledge of their History would have done no hurt . But after the many ample and extraordinary Elogies he has passed upon himself for his Writings , methinks it is something Pleasant to see him in his Continuation of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet , p. 121. l. the 4. &c. strutting himself in these words , I am no Arch-bishop yet . Which shews what his most early thoughts ran upon , and what his Modesty would be at from the very first . For otherwise , the purpose of the place , where this comes in , had been fully served by saying , I for my part am no Arch-bishop , nor expect to be one . But the addition of that little word yet was very significant , and shews , that out of the Abundance of his heart his mouth spoke . For though indeed he presently adds , And I very much suspect I never shall be one , yet those words were put in only ad frangendam invidiam , and to qualifie the fulsome arrogance of the first expression . Howbeit in that he spoke his mind , in this he fences against an Inconvenience ; in that we have an account of his Nature , in this only a Copy of his Countenance . And , I question not , but by this time his pretended suspicion is passed into a contrary expectation , and that the Deanry of Paul's begins to make him think himself Heir apparent to Canterbury . And therefore no wonder , if while big with such Thoughts , speaking in his Apology of Dr. Wallis and Himself , he sets himself before Him , p. 29. in these words . He ( viz. The Melancholy stander-by ) concludes with an heavy charge upon my self , and Dr. Wallis . By which , I suppose , he would have Dr. Wallis know his proper place . Though I must tell him , that not only common Modesty , but also the common Custom of the World , makes wise Men whensoever they mention themselves with others , place themselves last . And so it might have become this Author too , especially speaking of himself in conjunction with such an one , as Dr. Wallis , who was a Person of Fame and Eminence , while this Man was learning his Grammar ; if ever he was so . But to proceed , and pass from his applauding himself to the other Branch of his Arrogance , in his scornful undervaluing all such as write against him , or differ from him , ( though yet no more , nor in any other Thing , than in what his Worship had differed from himself ) . We have him in the 4th . page of his Preface to his Case of Allegiance , calling such as in their Writings could not fall in with his last sentiments about the New Oath , Little Writers . Concerning whom I must tell him , that it is often with Writers , as it is with Books ; Amongst which there are many Little ones , that exceed the worth , and outlive the Reputation of much Greater . If indeed number of Pamphlets makes a great Writer , this Author is in no danger of being accounted a Little One. But as there is such a Thing , as multum in parvo , so there is also Parvum in multo ; and He who will digest the trouble of Reading this Authors Writings , will need no other Argument to prove it so . But as for those excellent Persons , whom he first slights , then challenges , and afterwards flies from , by never replying upon them , I would have him know , that the World has already past it's judgment both upon them and him too : and therefore I would advise his Haughtiness for the future to forbear calling his Antagonists Little Writers , till by his Answers he has made them so . A further discovery of his rude , undecent way of treating such as he writes against , is the Language he has bestow'd upon a certain Writer , a Nonconformist indeed , but yet a Man of Learning ( as a much greater Man than this Author has found by experience ) whom he calls a Trifling Scribler , who understands little more than Quibbles and Iests ; Charging him withal with Pertness and Folly to complete his Character , p. 15. of his Preface to his Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet . And in the 12. page of the Book it self , and the five first lines , He represents him under the name of the Inquirer , as one , who cannot understand plain and familiar sense ; nor carry the Connexion of three or four Sentences together . Very civil Language indeed , becoming a Scholar , a Divine , and a well-bred Man , to a Person who had not in the least provok'd Him. For my own part , I have no knowledge of the Man , but from his Writings ; and upon the Stock of that knowledge have often wondred , that one so able to humble this Reviler , would take such gross Reproaches at his hands . But the Truth is , when I consider ( as I noted first in my Preface ) how patiently our whole Clergy has hitherto suffered him to call them Fools and Hereticks , by charging all those , as such , who concur not with him in holding the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Infinite Minds , or Spirits ( which , I dare say , not one of them held at the time of his uttering this Lewd Reproach ) I say , when I consider this , I have cause to surcease all wonder , that any Private Man should indure this Insolent Huff to insult over him in such a manner . But I shall insist no further upon this master-piece of his Scurrility , having in some measure accounted with him for it already . Only I shall add this , That as it is beyond Example marvellous that any one single Member of a Church should presume to load all the rest with such a charge , so it is yet a greater marvel that all should bear it . It would be endless to set down all the dirty stuff that has flowed from his Billingsgate Pen. But to repeat and bring together so much as we have taken notice of , the Reader may be pleased to bear away in his Memory such Expressions , and Appellations as these , viz. Epicurean , and Ridiculer of Providence , Popishly inclined , and looking towards an Infallible Interpreter , Disaffected to , and a slanderer of the Government , Little Writers , Fools and Hereticks , Errant Fopp , Trifling Scribler , shamefully Ignorant and Impudent , Fit to be sent to School again , One that understands little else but Iests and Quibbles , One that cannot understand plain and familiar sense , One that understands neither Greek nor Latine , and the like . These are the choice Embellishments of his Style . But above all , that beloved word , Nonsense , is always ready at hand with him ; and out it flies at all Persons and upon all Occasions . And hardly can he write three or four Pages together , but , right or wrong , he throws it in his Adversary's Face . One would think that he was Born with the Word in his Mouth , and that it grew up with him from his Infancy , and that in his very Cradle he Cryed Nonsense , before he could Speak it . But to check this ungovern'd Humour of his , in thus using this word at all Adventure ; Let me tell him , that it is both a very rude , unmannerly Word ; and most commonly , as applyed by him , a very false Charge . As for the rudeness of it , since he owns himself a Son of the Church of England , I think he would be much his own Friend , if he would remember the Reprimand given him by his old Acquaintance and Antagonist Dr. Owen ; who in his Vindication , &c. p. 72. having , upon occasion of some of his profane Scoffs , called him Goodly Son of the Church of England ! Immediately subjoyns , That he intended it not as a Reflexion upon the Church it self , but only to remind this Man of his Relation to that Church , Which ( he there says ) to his Knowledge , taught better Learning and better Manners . In the next place , as for the falseness of the Charge in his usual application of this Word , I would have him know , That the Charge of Nonsense does not properly lie against every one who asserts a false Proposition , or is guilty of a mistake . For Nonsense is not properly opposed to strict Truth , but to such plain and manifest Truth as is obvious to Common sense . For Truth oftentimes lies deep , and abstruse , and requires a more than ordinary sagacity to reach and fetch it out ; which that low Pitch of Reason , which we call Common sense , cannot always do . For in Discourse a Man may be sometimes mistaken in laying his Foundation or Principle , and yet be very Clear and Rational in the Consequences he draws from it ; and sometimes he may fail in drawing Consequences from a True and well-laid Principle ; in both which cases , the whole Discourse is certainly False and Inconsistent : Nevertheless ( according to the common acception of the Word ) this cannot be called Nonsense . It may indeed be called Error or Mistake ; which is a weakness cleaving too close to Humane Nature , for any one of the same Nature to reproach another for it . But on the contrary , if every Thing , that is not strict Demonstration and certain Truth , must pass for Nonsense , I fear , it would overlay whole Volumes , and not only prevent the 2d . 3d. and 4th . Editions of many Books , but shrewdly also endanger the Sale of the First : Especially if 2d . and 3d. by the unlucky escape of some scattering Copies , should chance all to appear in the space of Three or Four Days , As in the first Publication of a certain Book Entituled , The Case of Allegiance , &c. it fell out . But great , no doubt , is the Art of Bestowing several Title-Pages , importing divers Editions , upon Books of one and the same Impression : And may serve to teach the World , what a fruitful Thing the Press is , when impregnated by the Prolifick Genius of some Writers ; and that ( when it is for the credit of any extraordinary Book and it's Author ) it can bring forth four , five , or six Editions of it at the same time . Which certainly is a most Ingenious Contrivance ; but whether it were the Author 's or the Bookseller's , is a Question ; though some think , it uses to be done by a kind of Mutual-Consciousness between both . But to return to the Point in hand . According to the common use of the Word Nonsense , He , who Discourses of Things obvious to the ordinary Apprehensions of Men , with gross and palpable Contradictions of one thing to another , or with a plain , manifest Incoherence of one part of his Discourse with the other , that Man is properly and justly chargeable with Nonsense . And let those ( in the Name of Sense and Reason ) take it to themselves , who have most claim to it . But because the best way of Illustrating Things is by example . I shall also take this course here . Thus for instance . For any one to own a Thing for a great and sacred Mystery ( the very Notion and use of the word Mystery importing something Hidden and Abstruse ) and at the same time to affirm it to be very Plain , Easie and Intelligible , is Nonsense . To say , That in Men Knowledge and Power are Commensurate ; nay , That Knowledge is Power ; so that whatsoever a Man knows how to do , he is by vertue thereof also able to do it , is contrary to the Common Sense of all Mankind , and consequently Nonsense . To say , A Beast is a Person , and yet to say withal , That a Person and an Intelligent substance are Terms reciprocal , is both Nonsense , and Contradiction too , with a Witness . To affirm , That a specifical Unity can make any Thing or Person Numerically One , is Nonsense . To affirm , That there are two distinct Reasons and two distinct Wills in each Man , and those as really distinct , as if the same Man had Two distinct Souls , is Nonsense . And to affirm , That the Body ( which is utterly void of any Intellectual Power or Faculty ) is conscious to all the Dictates and Commands of the Will , is gross and inexcusable Nonsense . So that whereas this Author ( according to his mannerly way ) charges his Adversary with unintelligible Nonsense , p. 227. l. 6. it must needs be granted , that he has much the advantage of him in this Particular ; since all must acknowledge that his own Nonsense is very Intelligible . And here I could easily direct him where he may be supplyed with several more such Instances , as those newly alledged ; but that I think these may suffice for the Purpose they are produced for . In the mean time I would advise him for the future to use this rude Word more sparingly , and cautiously ; and to apply it only where the generally received way of speaking applies it : And now and then also to cast his Eye upon his own Writings . These things , I say , I would advise him to ; and to consider withal , how unreasonable and unjust it is , for him to bestow about the Word so freely upon others , while he keeps the Thing to himself . CHAP. XII . Containing a Brief Review , and Conclusion of the whole Work. I AM at length come to a close of that Work , which I should much more gladly have been Prevented , than engag'd in , by being a Reader , rather than the Author of a Reply to this Man 's strange , unjustifiable Innovations upon this great Article of our Religion . But it is now a considerable Time that the Book , here Animadverted upon , has walked about the World , without any publick Control ; And though in private Discourse generally censur'd by all , yet , ( as to the Point undertook by me ) hitherto Answered by none ; which may well be Matter of Melancholy Consideration to all Hearty Lovers of our Church , and Ancient Christianity . Whereas , I dare say , had this Heterodox Piece been wrote and published in a Language understood by Foreigners , we should long since have had several Confutations of it sent us from abroad ; and probably not without some severe Reflexions upon the English Church , and Clergy , for their silence in a Cause , which so loudly called for their Defence . To take off therefore this Reproach from our Church ( in some degree at least ) I have ( while others , far more able to Defend it , chuse rather to sit still and enjoy it ) ventur'd to set my weak Hand to the Vindication of a Principal Article of her Faith , against the rude Attacks of this bold Undertaker . In which , though I freely own , that all , that has been done by me in it , is extremely below the Dignity of the Subject , which I have employed my self in , yet I am well assured that I have fully and effectually answered this Man ; and if it should prove otherwise , I must ascribe it to a peculiar Misfortune attending me ; since none besides , has hitherto wrote against him , but has confuted him . In the Work I have here presented the Reader with , I have examined and gone over all that , I conceive , requires either Answer or Remark ; and that according to the following Method and Order , which I shall here briefly set down . I have , in the first place , laid my Foundation in the Explication and State of the Sense of the Word Mystery ; which I shew , in General , signifies something Concealed , Hidden , or Abstruse in Religious Matters ; and amongst Christian Writers not only that , but something also neither Discoverable nor Comprehensible by bare Reason : According to which , I shew , that this Author 's frequent affirming , that his Hypothesis and Explication of the Trinity rendred the Notion thereof very Plain , Easie , and Intelligible , was utterly incompatible with the Mysteriousness of the same . I shew also upon what absurd Grounds he stated the Nature of a Contradiction ; according to which , joyned with another of his Assertions , I shew , That no Man could be justly charged with Contradiction , though he discoursed never so incoherently and falsely upon any Subject whatsoever . From hence I proceeded to consider the Ancient Terms constantly received and used by Councils , Fathers , and Schoolmen , in speaking of the God-head and Trinity , which this Author in his Book had confidently and avowedly condemned , as obscuring and confounding Men's Notions about these great Matters ; and upon a distinct Explication of each of them , I shew the Propriety and singular usefulness of them , both against all his Exceptions , and above those other Terms , which he would needs substitute in their Room : And under the same Head , I laid open the Contradiction of his Vindication and his late Apology to one another , as I had done before in my Discourse about the Nature of a Mystery . From hence I passed to his New Notions of Self-Consciousness and Mutual-Consciousness ; in the strength of which two Terms he pretended to make a Trinity in Unity a plain , easie , and intelligible Notion ; nay so very plain , as to solve all Difficulties about it ; these being his very words . And as he pretended Self-Consciousness to be the formal constituent Reason of Personality Universally , both in Beings Create and Uncreate . I first Demonstrated the contrary in Created Beings ; and that both from the general Reason of Things , and from Two manifest Instances ; and withal examined and confuted several extremely absurd Propositions , and Assertions advanced by him concerning Personality . From this I passed on , and proved that neither could this Self-Consciousness be the formal Reason of Personality in the Divine Persons , shewing the impossibility thereof by several clear and unquestionable Arguments . And in the next place , with the same Evidence of Reason I proved , That Mutual-Consciousness could not be the Ground or Reason of the Unity or Coalescence of the Three Divine Persons in one and the same Divine Nature ; and all this upon known , allowed Principles of Philosophy , as well as Divinity . And so I Naturally went on to the examination of that monstrous Assertion of his , by which he holds and affirms the Three Divine Persons to be Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits ; which I shew unavoidably and irrefragably inferr'd them to be Three Gods ; It being impossible for the God-head , which is essentially One single Infinite Mind or Spirit , to be multiplyed into three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits , without being multiplyed into as many Gods. This Opinion of his , I shew , was easie enough to be confuted ; But for all that , I must here add further , that for the insufferable Scandal of it , it is much fitter to be censured by a Convocation , though even he himself ( since John Goodwin and Hugh Peters are gone off ) should be Prolocutor of it . After this , since he had the Confidence to vouch his Hypothesis for the constant Doctrine of the Fathers and the Schools , I first proved it quite otherwise in the Point of Self-Consciousness , and in his Assertion of Three distinct Infinite Minds ; For the latter of which he quoted Three or Four Fathers , and One Sentence out of one Schoolman , viz. P. Lombard ( which , one would think , was far from proving it the constant Doctrine either of the Fathers , or the Schools ) and yet even these very Quotations , I shew were no more to his Purpose , than if he had alledged them to prove that twice Three makes Twenty . And as for Self-Consciousness , which is one of the Two main Branches , or Members of his Hypothesis , he does not produce , nor so much as mention one Father or School-man in the behalf of it ; so exact is he in proving his Doctrine the very same with Theirs . And then , in the next place , for the proof of his Mutual-Consciousness from the Fathers and School-men , I have distinctly considered his Allegations for it , and forming them into Arguments ( such as the matter would afford ) found them the saddest wofullest things to be called by that Name , that perhaps ever appeared in the World , since Argumentation was in use . And to complete his excellent and peculiar way of Arguing from the Fathers ( for not so much as one School-man is cited in favour of Mutual-Consciousnsss ) his whole business , I shew , was to reproach the Fathers as neither able to conceive rightly of the Trinity , nor yet express themselves Properly and Intelligibly about the same ; and all this , because they neither conceived of it , nor expressed it , according to his Terms and Hypothesis , which yet he affirmed to be the Constant Avowed Sentiments of those very Fathers ; though ( God help them , poor Men ) they were not so happy , as to know it . And this , I hope all the World will acknowledge , to be a most extraordinary way of proving a Thing from the Authority of the Fathers , by thus representing them as a Company of Dolts , who neither knew how to think or speak , as they should , upon the subject which they were professedly treating of . Upon which Head , having finished my Answer as to the main Point I first engaged in , I proceeded to mark out , and Animadvert upon several of his Paradoxical Absurd Assertions , both in Divinity and Philosophy . And I did not only alledge them for such , but also by the most commonly received and current Principles of both , effectually proved them such ; and I refer it to any Man of clear and impartial Sense , upon a survey of the Particulars there distinctly examined and remarked upon , to pass as Judge between this Author and my self , whether the Proof falls at all short of the Charge . Next to which , because of his Insolent Reflexions upon some Learned Men , I took into consideration also his vocabular Sins , and manifold Transgressions of the Laws of Grammar and Philology : And whereas he had vilified his Adversary as having neither Greek nor Latine , I shew , that albeit the Charge had been never so true , yet that he was one of the unfittest Persons living to make it , for some certain Reasons fairly presented to him in that Chapter . And lastly to bring up the Rear of all , I thought it expedient to lay open the Temper of the Man , and his way of Writing ; His Immoderate Applauses of himself above all before him , or about him , together with his disdainful Treatment of all that come in his way , as if they were not worthy to carry his Books after him . Though ( by what some of them have Wrote against him ) it appears , that they have made too good use of their own Books , to be fit to carry his . In fine , I have in my Perusal of this Man's Writings , with the utmost exactness I was able , observed his way of speaking both of himself , and others ; and upon the result of all do most seriously and sincerely affirm , That never did I ( nor perhaps any one else ) meet with so much confidence with so thin a Bottom to support it ; and yet surely that Man ought to stand upon a very broad and firm Bottom indeed , who ventures to defie all the World. And thus , to relieve the Reader 's Memory , I have given him this brief draught or Scheme of the whole Work. In which , as it is this Author alone , whom I have undertook , so I think fit to declare , That if any one besides him , shall attempt an answer to this Discourse , I shall not in the least trouble or concern my self about him , whosoever he be ; but if this Author himself shall be disposed to defend his New Notions and Hypothesis by a just and Scholastick Reply to what I have here offered against them , I will not fail ( God affording me such a measure of Health and Strength as may enable me for Study ) to attend his Motions upon this Subject , as soon , and as often as he pleases . For I can hardly perswade my self that I have yet paid him all , that I owe him . Nevertheless I must leave this Admonition with him , That I neither can , nor shall account such a Pamphlet , as his late Apology , a just and sufficient Answer to these Animadversions . In the mean time , since the Reverend Dr. J. W. ( spoken of in the preceding Chapter ) in his Letters about the Trinity , and W. I. another very Learned Person , in his 2d . Letter to the said Doctor , upon the same subject , have both of them been pleased to commend this Author for several excellent Things in this Book , I do with the greatest earnestness of Entreaty , as well as with the profoundest deference of Respect to their great Judgments beg of them , that they would by a kind of charitable Benefaction to such low , and mean Understandings as mine , vouchsafe to point out in particular , what those excellent Things are , and in what part of his Book they may be found ; and whether I have hit upon any of them in my Three immediately foregoing Chapters . For I have read the Book over and over ; as ( after I had took up Thoughts of Answering it ) it concerned me , in all Reason , to do . And I do thereupon solemnly profess , that , according to the best of my poor Judgment , and that ordinary Measure of Learning which God has vouchsafed me , I can hardly find throughout the whole Work ( unless perhaps , here and there a passage or two against the Socinians ) so much as one True , Through Stroke either in Divinity , or Philosophy , or Logick , or even in Grammar ; and I confidently appeal to the ingenuous , and unbyass'd Reader , whether I have not in the foregoing Animadversions given very pregnant and particular Instances of this Author 's gross Defects in every one of these . And therefore my poor Opinion and Advice is , That if these two Learned Men are resolved to persist in their Commendations of this Author ( as there is nothing by which they can oblige him more ) and withal to commend him upon sure , undeniable Grounds , they would hereafter wave all the forementioned Topicks of Commendation , and pitch upon his true excellency by commending him for his Preferment ; for that certainly is very commendable . And now , that I am taking my Leave of my Reader , ( for this time at least ) that I may not leave him with any just Distaste or Grudge in his Mind against me , as if I had treated this Man too severely , I do assure him , that nothing has been here utter'd by Chance ; or in the heat of any present passion , but upon a due , calm , and sedate Consideration of what he had said falsly of others , as a Warrant for what was to be truly said of him . And I do further assure the Reader , That I would by no means have treated a Candid , Civil , and Well-bred Adversary , at the Rate , I have treated him , who has shewn no sign of any one of these Qualifications , either in his Writings or Behaviour . And therefore tho' to accept Persons be a Fault in the Sight of God and Man , yet certainly to distinguish them is none . I have used him , as I found him ; and for what I found him , he may thank himself . The Truth is , he has carried on an Offensive War with most that have Wrote ; and there are very few , whom he has not , one way or other , struck at and Defied . So that the Matter being in effect brought to this point , Whether He shall be too hard for the World , or the World for Him ? I hope it will not be long in deciding . He has for a great while , and in a very Audacious manner been preying , and privateering upon many a Worthy and Good Name , and as far as he was able made prize of the Reputation of Men better than Himself : And therefore it is now high time for such to think of repaying the good Turns done them , and for the injured World to retaliate upon the Lawless Aggressor . For this is , and has been the Custom of Nations ; and all must grant it to be a most just , equal , and allowed Course ; and since it is so , 't is to be hop'd , that this is not the last Reprisal that will be made upon Him. To the most Holy and Blessed Trinity , Three Glorious Persons in one and the same Undivided God-head , be rendred and ascribed all Honour and Praise , Thanksgiving and Adoration , now and for evermore . Amen . THE END . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A60941-e150 Dr. Owen , in his Vindication of himself against this Author , gives him the Character of a Scoffer , and a Censurer of other Mens Labours , Iudgments , and Expressions . Which Witness of his is true , and since it is so , whether he , of whom it is true , deserves a Rebuke , or no , is left to the World to judge . Owen's Vindic. p. 129. Ch. Justice Scroggs . Having first rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those Words , To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Athanas de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae , Tom. 1. P. 904. Edit . Colon. 1686. In the next place , p. 906. they proceed to cashier the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the following Words . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . For this see also Socrat. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 29. and Theodoret Histor. lib. 2. cap. 18. & 21. & Sozomen's Histor. lib. 4. cap. 18. * See his Preface to his Case of Allegiance , p. 5. line 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Concil . 6. in Actione 17. seu ultimà , circa sinem . Owen's Vindication against Sh. p. 47 , 48 , &c. See a most Virulent and Blaspemous Book Wrote by these Men , and entituled , Praemonitiones Christi & Apostolorum de abolendo vero Christo per Antichristum . See the Preface to his Case of Allegiance , P. 5. Notes for div A60941-e8770 See Casaub. Exer. 16. ad Ann. Baron . 43. p. 542 , &c. An Account of the word Mystery , as it is taken in the Holy Scripture . Bishop Stillingfleet's Sermon on the 1 Tim. 2. 15. Printed 1691. Some Remarks upon his Apology . Answer to the Protestant Reconciler , Chap. 3. Notes for div A60941-e13630 See my Preface . Some further Remarks upon his Apology . See these empty Questions distinctly answered in my 7th Chapter . Notes for div A60941-e25780 See Chapter II. Notes for div A60941-e40330 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyssen . de differentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Tom. 2. P. 465. Edit . Paris . 1615. Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit , ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit , non existendo per se pater sapientia . Deinde si ità est , Filius quoque ipse , sicut dicitur , Deus de Deo , Lumen de Lumine , videndum est utrûm possit Sapientia de Sapientiâ dici , si non est Deus pater ipsa sapientia , sed tantùm Genitor sapientiae . Quod si tenemus , cur non & magnitudinis suae , & bonitatis , & aeternitatis , & omnipotentiae suae Generator sit ? ut non ipse sit sua magnitudo , & sua bonitas , & sua aeternitas , & sua Omnipotentia , sed eâ magnitudine magnus sit , quam genuit , & eâ bonitate bonus , &c. Aug. Tom. 3. Lib. 6. de Trinitate . — Sed absit ut ità sit ; [ viz. That the Father should be wise only by the Wisdom he begets ] quia si hoc est ibi esse quod sapere , non per illam sapientiam quam genuit sapiens dicitur Pater , alioquin non ipsa ab illo sed ille ab ipsâ est . Si enim sapientia quam genuit causa est illi ut sapiens sit , etiam ut sit ipsa illi causa est ; quod fieri non potest nisi gignendo eum aut faciendo : Sed nec genetricem nec conditricem Patris ullo modo quisquam dixerit Sapientiam . Quid enim insanius ? &c. Lib. 1. Dist. 32. Cap. 3. Notes for div A60941-e46600 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyssen . in Orat. Dom. Nat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil . lib. 4. contra Eunomium . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil Epist. ad Eustathium . Non potest operatio esse diversa ubi non solùm aequalis , verùm etiam indiscreta Natura . August . Serm. de Verbo Dom. 63. Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Cyril . Thesaur . lib. 12. p. 109. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Athanasius Oratione quarta contra Arianos . Pater in filio est & filius in Patre per inseparabilis Naturae Unitatem , Hilarius de Trinitate , lib. 8. Patrem , Filium & Spiritum Sanctum , unius ejusdémque Substantiae , Lib. 1. de Trinitate , Cap. 4. Credamus ergo in Patrem & Filium & Spiritum Sanctum : Haec aeterna sunt & incommutabilia , id est , Unus Deus , Unius Substantiae , Trinitas aeterna . Ibid. Nesciunt enim quid sit Una eadémque Substantia , &c. Lib. de Agone Christiano . Ex propriâ Divinitatis divinaeque Generationis Conditione ac naturâ Vis & robur Argumentationis istius petitur , quatenus non qualemcunque Essentiae Unitatem sed Singularem & Numeralem inesse Tribus Personis colligit . Petav. Dog. de Trinitate . Lib. 4. Cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Iustin. Martyr . Exposit. Fidei de rectâ Confessione . Pag. 379. Edit . Colon. 1686. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Iustin. Mart. ibid. p. 381. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Iustin. Mart. ibid. p. 387 , 388. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dionysius Areopagita in Mysticâ Theologiâ , cap. 1. p. 271. Paris . Edit . 1615. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Greg. Nyssen . Pag. 465. Tom. 2. Edit . Parisiens . 1615. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basilius libro de Spiritu Sancto ad Amphilochium , c. 18. p. 332. Tom. 2. Edit . Paris . 1637. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. pag. 333. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nazianzen . Oratione 12. Page 204. Edition . Parisiens . Anno Dom. 1630. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus in Actis Synodi Ephesinae , Pag. 307. Editionis Commelianae 1591. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Eulogius Archiepiscopus Alexandrinus in Bibliothecâ Photii . Cod. 230. Pag. 865. Rothomagi Anno Dom. 1653. Trinitatis Mysterium est immensum , & Incomprehensibile , extra significantiam sermonis , extra sensûs intentionem , Imperspicabile , Lumen occaecat , Intelligentiae Capacitatem excedit . Ego nescio ; sed consolabor me tamen : Angeli nesciunt , saecula non tenent , Apostolus non interrogavit , Filius ipse non edidit . Cesset ergo dolor querelarum , &c. Sanctus Hilarius Libro secundo de Trinitate . Absque ullo Principio aut fine credenda est Sanctae Trinitatis Divinitas . Licèt humanae sit menti ipsâ comprehensione difficilis . Unde non incongruè dicitur quòd hoc solum ex-eâ comprehendimus , quia prorsus comprehendi non potest . Ambrosius Tract . in Symbolum Apostolicum . Tom. 4. p. 43. col . 1 Edit . Colon. 1616. In illâ Trinitate , Trinitas est unus Deus , quod sanè est mirabiliter ineffabile , vel ineffabiliter mirabile . Aug. de Trinitate Lib. 15. Sola ( quantùm arbitror ) immutabilis illa sempiternitas Trinitatis reperietur Incomprehensibilitatis digna miraculo , quaesic excedit omne quod cogitare vel sapere possumus , sicut superat omne quod sumus . Fulgentius ad Thrasymundum Regem , lib. 2. c. 1. Unum est Sancta Trinitas , non multiplicatur Numero , non crescit Augmento ; nec potest aut Intelligentiâ comprehendi , aut hoc quod Deus est discretione sejungi . Ac paulò post . Adoremus Patrem & Filium & Spiritum Sanctum , Indistinctum distinctè , Incomprehensibilem & inenarrabilem substantiam Trinitatis . Atque iterum , Magnum est sanctae & incomprehensibile Mysterium Trinitatis . Crabb . Concil . Tom. 1. Pag. 1034 , 1035. Fidenter dixerim aeternam beatámque Trinitatem , quam non intelligo , credo , & fide teneo , quod non capio mente , Bernardus Sermone 76. super Cantic . Notes for div A60941-e66600 Iustin Martyr . Athanasius . Dionysius Areopagita , Epiphanius . Gregory Nazianzen . Gregory Nyssen . St. Basil. St. Cyrill of Alexandria . Isidorus Pelusiota . Theodoret. Basilius Seleuciensis . Zacharias Scholasticus Damasce● . Athanasian Creed . Histor. literar . p. 146. & 500. Council of Chalcedon . Justinian's Confession . Fifth General Council . The Sixth General Council . The Council called Quini-Sextum . The Council of Florence . The Latin Church . St. Ambrose . St. Hilary , S. Ierome See the four Sermons on 1 Iohn 14. p. 120. Printed 1692. St. Austin Ruffinus . Boetius . Rusticus Diaconus Liberatus Diaconus The Lateran Council under Martin the First . Lombard . Alexander Alensis . Durandus . Aquinas . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cajetan . Greg. de Valentiâ . Estius . Suarez . Ripalda . Melancthon . Chemnitius . Calvin . Peter Martyr . Wolfg. Musculus Piscator . Tilenus . Ursinus . Turretinus . The Ausperg Confession . Wirtimberg Confession . The Gallican Confession . The Belgick Confession . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Cyril . Dial. 1. de Trinit . p. 409. Edit . Lutet . 1638. Distinctio Personarum non debet esse nisi per id , quod minimùm distinguit , hoc est , per Relationem . Aquin. primâ parte . Quaest. 40. Articulo 2. propefinem . Prima pluralitas debet esse minima ; & ideo distinctio Personarum , quae est prima , debet esse per Relationes compossibiles in eâdem Essentiâ : Et ob hoc , est minor aliâ quâcunque distinctione , quae sit per Absoluta . Durandus Lib. 1. Distinct. 16. Quaest. 1. in fine . Distinctio inter Divinas Personas debet esse minima . Bellarminus Tom. 1. P. 337. Lutetiae Paris . Qui personas in Deo modos tantummodo existendi , sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dicunt , ipsam Deitarem nequaquam excludunt , in quâ conveniunt ; Sed nihil aliud esse volunt , quàm Existendi modum , in quo differunt . Quare Pater non est modus tantùm existendi , sed deus est , quemadmodum & caeterae Personae , verùm deus est cum certo modo existendi , qui neque silio convenit , neque Spiritui Sancto . Sic et filius deus est , non modus tantùm existendi , Sed deus est cum certo modo Existendi , qualis neque Patri convenit , neque Spiritui Sancto . Ad eundem modum discriminis , et Spiritus Sanctus deus est , non modus existendi tantùm , Sed deus est cum certo modo existendi , qualis nec Patri convenit neque Filio . Summa est , Personas in deo non differre essentiâ , quia sunt unus deus , Sed Proprietate & modo Subsistendi . Twissus in Responsione ad Arminii Praefationem in extremâ pag. lin . 20. editionis Amstelod●mensis apud Janssonium anno 1632. * Socrates's Incomparable Lady , Notes for div A60941-e96800 A Letter to Anonymus , p. 1. Printed 1683. Tusanue . Constantine Stephanus . Pag. 102. Quotat . Pag. 107. Quotat . Pag. 107. l. 14. Pag. 110. Quotat . Pag. 113. Quotat . 2d Quot . ibid. Pag. 115. Quotat . Pag. 116. Quotat . Pag. 119. Quotat . Pag. 119. l. 28. Pag. 120. l. 26. l. 27. Pag. 121. l. 24 , 25. Pag. 122. l. 27. ibid. Pag. 123. Quotat . Pag. 125. Quotat . Pag. 128. l. 19. Quotat . Pag. 129. l. 27. Pag. 166. l. 6. Pag. 200. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Basilius in Libro ad Amphilochium de Spiritu Sancto , Tom. 2. p. 292. Edit . Paris . 1637. Notes for div A60941-e108000 Vind. Case , &c. p. 58. l. 28. Vind. Case p. 48. and the two last Lines . Vind. of the Case , &c. p. 79. l. 10. B. K. Vind. Case p. the last . See his four Sermons on the 1 John 14. p. 71 , 72. William Giles sometime , of Mark-Lane , who wrote ( forsooth ) in Defence of our Author against the Papists . See this Learnedly confuted by Bishop Pearson upon the second Article of the Creed , p. 219 , 220. &c. in 4to . Mr. Alsop . Notes for div A60941-e111500 ☞ An humble Address to the Learned Doctor J. W. and W. I. 
A59853	----	The present state of the Socinian controversy, and the doctrine of the Catholick fathers concerning a trinity in unity by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1698 Approx. 799 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 203 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59853 Wing S3325 ESTC R8272 11902974 ocm 11902974 50623 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59853) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50623) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 512:7) The present state of the Socinian controversy, and the doctrine of the Catholick fathers concerning a trinity in unity by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [12], 388 p. Printed for William Rogers ..., London : 1698. Errata: prelim. p. [12]. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Socinianism. Trinity. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-01 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2004-01 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE PRESENT STATE OF THE Socinian Controversy , AND THE Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers Concerning A TRINITY in UNITY . By WILLIAM SHERLOCK , D. D. Dean of St. Paul's , Master of the Temple , and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY . LONDON : Printed for William Rogers , at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet . MDCXC VIII . THE PREFACE . I Have little to say to the Reader , having sufficiently Explained the Design of this Treatise in the First Section . Those who remember how this Controversy has been of late managed , may possibly expect , what they will not find , some sharp Resentments of the Ill Usage I have met with , and as sharp Returns ; but I write not to Revenge my self , but to Explain and Vindicate the Truly Ancient , Catholick and Apostolick Faith of a Trinity in Unity , which requires a Composed and Sedate Mind both in the Writer and Reader . For this Reason I have thus long delayed the Publication of this Treatise , the greatest part of which was Printed Two Years since , that those who will ever grow Cool , might have time to recover their Temper : And did I not hope that the Publication of it at this time would tend more to quiet Mens Minds , to stop the Mouths of Hereticks , and to secure the Catholick Faith , than a Passive Silence , it should never see the Light , how much soever my own Reputation might suffer by it . But I persuade my self , That the Authority of the Catholick Church , and of the Catholick Fathers , is not at so low an Ebb , even in this Age , as to be easily despised ; and therefore their Explications , their Arguments , their Answers to the Objections of Hereticks , will have their due weight ; and I have not gone one step further . I appeal to the Catholick Fathers , and am contented to stand or fall by their Sentence . I have not wilfully misrepresented their Sense in any thing , and have taken all possible care not to mistake it ; and as far as Human Authority is concerned , here I must leave the matter , for I know of no further Appeal . The CONTENTS . CHAP. I. SECT . I. THE Present State of the Socinian Controversy ; and how to reduce the Dispute to the Original Question . Page 1. SECT . II. How to reduce this Dispute concerning the Trinity to Scripture-Terms . 4 The Form of Baptism the Rule and Standard of Faith. ibid. That these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are more easily understood , and give us a truer Idea of a Trinity in Vnity , than any Artificial Terms . 5 , &c. SECT . III. That the Title of God attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , gives us the best Account of their Nature , and must determine the signification of Ecclesiastical Words . 12 This particularly Explained with respect to those Terms , Nature ▪ Essence , Substance , Hypostasis , Existence , Subsistence , Person , &c. 13 , &c. SECT . IV. These Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , prove the real distinction of Persons in the Trinity . 20 , &c. SECT . V. These Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , prove the Vnity , Sameness , Identity of Nature and Godhead , explained at large . 24 SECT . VI. Concerning the Vnity of God. 33 In what sense the Catholick Church believed in One God. ibid. Tritheism an old Sabellian and Arian Objection against the Trinity . 34 How answered by the Catholick Fathers . 37 , &c. CHAP. II. AN Examination of some Considerations concerning the Trinity . SECT . I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy . 51 What Ways the Considerer dislikes . 52 , &c. What way he took , viz. consulting Scripture and Natural Sentiments . 56 SECT . II. Concerning the Traditionary Faith of the Church with respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity . 60 What the Catholick Church is , from whence we must receive this Traditionary Faith. ibid. What Evidence we have for this Tradition from the Ancient Heresies condemned by the Catholick Church . 64 Of what Authority the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ought to be in expounding Scripture . 77 SECT . III. What is sufficient to be believed concerning the Trinity . 80 His Requisites to make it possible for us to believe a thing . 81 SECT . IV. Concerning his state of the Question , That One and the same God is Three different Persons . 84 His Examination of these Terms , God , Unity , Identity , Distinction , Number , and Person . And 1. Of the Notion of God. 86 SECT . V. His Notions and Ideas of Unity , Distinction , Person . His Sabellian Notion of a Person ; that there is but One single Person in the Trinity , as Person signifies properly , a particular Intelligent Being . 88 This he proves from his Notions of Vnity and Distinction ; the Vnity and Distinction of Ideas , of Principle , and of Position . 91 What he means by an obscure confused Knowledge , and a general confused Faith of the Trinity . 101 SECT . VI. What the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity . 103 His Sabellian Notion of One God , to be adored under Three different Titles and Characters . Ibid. His Scripture-proof of this Examin'd . 104 , &c. His attempt to reconcile this with God's being One and Three . 108 , &c. And with the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity . 113 His Account of the Vnion of God and Man. 115 What end the belief of the Trinity and Incarnation serve , not as a Matter of Faith and Speculation , but as an artificial representation of God's love to man. 120 CHAP. III. AN Account of the Sabellian Heresy , and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed it . 124 The several kinds of Sabellianism 1. Those who made Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be only Three names , appearances , and offices , of the same Person . And here the question was , not whether the Son was a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person , but whether they were distinct Persons from the Father . 125 By what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy . 127 2. That the Son is distinguished from the Father , only as a man's word is distinguished from himself . 133 And by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed this Heresy . 134 3. Some made God a compound Being , and Father , Son , and Holy Ghost the Three Parts of this one God. 143 By what Arguments the Fathers opposed it . Ibid. CHAP. IV. COncerning the Homoousion , or One Substance of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . 150 SECT . I. The true sense of the Homoousion , from those misrepresentations which were made of it , and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections . 152 SECT . II. Some Rules for Expounding the Homoousion . 158 SECT . III. What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion . 163 SECT . IV. A more particular Inquiry into the full signification of the Homoousion , with respect to the specifick Vnity of the Divine Nature . 170 SECT . V. That by the Homoousion the Nicene Fathers did not meerly understand a specifick , but a natural Vnity and Sameness of Substance between Father and Son. 180 Damascen's distinction between one in Notion , and one in reality . Ibid. This appears from their Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 181 And the Catholick Fathers lay the foundation of this Sameness and Consubstantiality of Nature in the Eternal Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father . 184 To which they added , That the Son receives his whole Substance from the whole Substance of the Father , totus ex toto . 186 Concerning this mysterious and ineffable Generation , Whole of Whole . 187 St. Austin teaches , That the Divine Nature and Essence must not be considered either as a Genus or Species , nor the Divine Persons as Individuals . 194 What Medium there is between the Vnity of Singularity , and a specifick Vnity of Nature . 195 The difference between Three Divine Persons , and Three Individual Human Persons . 199 SECT . VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity . 207 Petavius's attempt to prove , that both the Greek and Latin Fathers taught the Singularity of the Divine Nature . Ibid. His Notion of Singularity Considered . 208 His Apology for the Fathers , who , as he says , taught a specifick Vnity , rejected . 211 His Authorities for the Singularity of the Divine Nature Examined . 213 By the Sameness and Identity of Nature the Fathers did not mean Singularity , but such a Sameness as is between Three real subsisting Persons , without the least Change and Variation . 217 That the Fathers resolved the Vnity of God into this Sameness and Identity of Nature . 221 Some Examples in Nature of the distinction betweeen alius and aliud . 227 How the Fathers proved the Vnity of God in opposition to Polytheism from the Sameness and Identity of Nature . 230 That these Arguments do not conclude against a Trinity of Divine Persons . 232 Gregory Nyssen vindicated from Tritheism , and his Answer to Ablabius Explained . 236 The Philosophy of the Ancients about Numbers . 243 The distinction between the Vnity of Number and the Vnity of Nature opposed to the Charge of Tritheism , and a Confutation of a Sabellian Singularity . 246 In what sense the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substan●e . 248 SECT . VII . Concerning the Distinction of Persons in the Vnity and Identity of the Div●ne Essence . The general Account of this . 254 That both the Fathers and Schools , by a Divine Person understood the Divine Essence and Substance , and nothing else . 260 This proved from that Ambiguity with which the Fathers are charged in the use of these Terms , Essence , Nature , Substance , Hypostasis , &c. 261 That these Terms , Essence , &c. are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity . 264 And all those Terms , which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons , were always used by Catholick Writers in the Notion of Substance , and never thought Catholick in any other sense , as Person , Hypostasis , Suppositum , &c. 265 That a Divine Person is nothing else but the Divine Nature , proved from the Absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature , which admits of no Composition , as both Fathers and Schoolmen own . 272 According to the Doctrine , both of Fathers and Schools , the Divine Essence and Substance , as subsisting distinctly in Three , is proper and peculiar to each , and incommunicable to one another . 273 Whether the Divine Essence either begets , or is begotten , and how the Fathers and Schools may be reconciled . 274 SECT . VIII . Concerning the Divine Relations . 281 The true Notion of Relative Substances , or Subsisting Relations , explained from the Doctrine of the Schools . Ibid. These Divine Relations secure the perfect Vnity of the Divine Essence . 287 What is meant by an Absolute Substance , and what by Relative Substance . Ibid. This applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity . 288 Three Absolute Substances are always distinctly and separately Three ; Three Relative Substances may be essentially One in the same One Individual Nature . 289 This account the Fathers give of the Vnity of the Divine Essence . 290 Concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that they do not signify Personal Relative Substances , but singular Absolute Substances . 293 The Divine Relations prove the Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three . 298 These Divine Relations give us an intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the inseparable Vnion of the Divine Persons , and their mutual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inexistence in each other . 300 This mutual inbeing , can be understood only between the Relatives of the same Individual Essence and Substance . 305 And this gives an Account of the Vnity of Operation . 308 Concerning the Mutual Consciousness of the Divine Persons . 313 The Doctrine of Relations necessary to give us a sensible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity . 326 SECT . IX . A more particular Inquiry into the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Nature and Person , with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech , relating to the ever Blessed Trinity . 334 The Faith , and the Philosophy of the Ancients of a different Consideration . Ibid. All the Heresies relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation attributed to this one mistake , that Essence and Hypostasis are the same . 336 This by some charg'd upon Aristotle's Notion of a first Substance . Ibid. The Distinction of Nature and Person in Creatures considered 338 Aristotle's first Substance , and what the Fathers call Hypostasis , is in Creatures the same thing . 339 What the Fathers mean by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Hypostasis . 340 No real difference between Aristotle and the Fathers in this Matter . Ibid. The Fathers by a Common Nature did not mean One Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals . 341 For what reason they reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a particular singular Nature . 343 Hypostasis is Nature with its peculiar Accidents subsisting by it self ; that these Accidents and Personal Properties do not make , but only distinguish Persons . 345 The Hypostasis or Person is the common Nature subsisting by it self . This proved from the Humanity of our Saviour . 346 How improper all these Terms are to explain the Trinity in Vnity . 350 How the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the Explication of this Mystery . 352 The Common Nature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Divinity , is the Divinity of the Father , common to the Son , and Spirit , by a perfect Communication , whole of whole . 354 The true Notion of One Individual Nature . Ibid. Essential Internal Productions are in the Individual Vnity of Nature . 356 The Distinction between Nature and Persons , for that is the true State of the Question , not how Nature and Person is distinguished in each Single Divine Person ; but how One Individual Nature is distinguished from Three Persons in the Individual Vnity of Nature . 360 The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained . 362 This applied at large for the Explication and Vindication of several Catholick Forms of Speech concerning the Trinity in Vnity . 365 , &c. The Conclusion , with a short Application to the Socinians . 385 ERRATA . PAge 6. l. 31. d. all . p. 9. marg . r. quae . p. 15. l. 3. r. enow . p 86. l. 8 , 9. r expressions . p. 180. l. 23. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 165. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 188. l. 16. marg . r. ex i●demutabilis . p. 208. l. 24. Identity , p. 216. l. 5. ● . Man's r. Man. p. 225. l. 34. marg . r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 230. l. 2. r. Identity . p. 236. l. 14. marg . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 245. l. 10. r. an Angel. p. 304. l. 2. marg . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 322. l. 12. de Trin. l. 2. marg l. 15. de Trin. l. 7. & l. 32 videri . p. 347. l. 14. r. his . p. 349. l. 12 , 13. r. where-ever . p 350 marg . l. 8. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Curious Reader may observe ●ome other Mistakes , which I hope will not disturb the Sense . THE PRESENT STATE OF THE SOCINIAN Controversy . CHAP. I. SECT . I. The Present State of the Socinian Controversy ; the unreasonableness of it ; and how to reduce the Dispute to the Original Question . THE Faith of the Holy Trinity is so fundamental to the Christian Religion , that if Christianity be worth contending for ▪ That is : For if God have not an Eternal Son , and an Eternal Spirit , the whole Mystery of our Redemption by Christ , and of our Sanctification by the Spirit , which in its Consequences is the whole of the Gospel , and distinguishes it from all other Religions , is utterly lost . Those various Heresies relating to the Divinity , Person and Offices of Christ and the Holy Spirit , which began to appear even in the Apostolick Age , and have ever since under several forms and disguises disturbed the Peace of the Church , is proof enough , how much the great Enemy of Mankind thinks himself concerned by all possible means to corrupt this Faith ; and that great , unwearied , unconquerable Zeal , wherewith the Catholick Fathers have always defended this Faith , shews of what importance they thought it ; and therefore it is no wonder , and ought to give no scandal to Christians , that these Disputes are again revived among us with as much fury and insolence as ever ; for there never was a more unhappy Season for the Enemy to sow his Tares . But that which is most to be lamented is , That the lukewarmness of some , and the intemperate Zeal of others , have given greater scandal to the World , and more shaken the Faith of Christians , than all the Opposition of our Adversaries could have done . I need say no more , the Case is too well known , and the Evil Effects too visible among us . I will make no new Quarrels , if I can help it , but sincerely endeavour to prevent the Mischiefs of what has already happened , as far as is nec●ssary to secure the Faith of Christians , and to wrest those Weapons out of our Enemies hands , which some professed Friends have unwarily furnished them with . To do this , I shall endeavour in the first place to restore this Controversie to its original state , and take off those Vizards which make it appear very frightful to ordinary Christians . This Dispute about the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity , has of late been dressed up anew with some old School-Terms , which how proper soever they may be to give Learned Men a more distinct Idea and Conception of that Adorable Mystery , only amuse common Christians , and confound them , instead of teaching them better . This , as it was at first occasioned by Hereticks , who denied or corrupted the Christian Faith , which forced the Catholick Fathers to use some unscriptural Term● , which by degrees improved into great Subtilties , and disturbed the Church with very nice and wrangling Disputes ; so our Modern Socinians at this day place the main strength of their Cause in these Disputes , and think it a sufficient Confutation of the Faith of the Ever Blessed Trinity , that the Trinitarians themselves cannot agree about the Sense of Person , Hypostasis , Substance , Nature , Essence , nor in what Sense God is One and Three ; but advance very different , and , as they think , contrary Hypotheses , to reconcile the Unity of God with the distinction of Three Persons in the Godhead . As if there were no difference between what is fundamental in this Faith , and such Metaphysical Speculations : As if no man could believe in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , without determining all the Disputes of the Schools . Learned men may dispute these matters , and things may so happen as to make such Disputes necessary ; but the Faith of Christians may be secured , and Heresies may be confuted , without them . The Faith is plain and certain , even all that is necessary to the purposes of Religion ; but men may leap out of their depths , where they can find no footing ; and when such Questions are asked , as no man can certainly answer , it is very likely , that they will be answered very different ways , and upon very different Hypotheses ; and there is no great hurt in this neither , while these different Hypotheses are neither made new Articles of Faith , nor new Heresies , but serve only for Hypotheses , to give a probable Answer to such Questions as ought never to have been asked ; and to stop the mouths of Hereticks , when they charge the Catholick Faith with Nonsense and Contradiction . To distinguish rightly between these two , will set this Controversy upon its true ancient bottom ; which will spoil the Triumph of our Adversaries , and possibly may rectify the Mistakes , and allay and qualify the intemperate Heats and Animosities of those whom a common Faith ought to make Friends . SECT . II. How to reduce this Dispute concerning the Trinity , to Scripture Terms . THE Catholick Fathers have always appealed to the Form of Baptism as the Rule and Standard of Faith ; that as we are baptized , so we must believe , In the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . This is a plain simple Faith , which every Christian may understand , and which every Christian must profess , That there is an Eternal Father , who has an Eternal Son , and an Eternal Spirit , of the same Nature ▪ and inseparably united to himself ; and that this Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are the joint Object of the Christian Faith and Worship . This is the true Christian Faith , and this is all that we are concerned to defend against our Adversaries ; and would men stick to this , without engaging in Philosophical Disputes , which we know little or nothing of , and which the Scripture takes no notice of , we should soon find how weak and impotent all the Attempts of Hereticks would prove . Whatever Disputes there are about the signification of those words Nature , Essence , Substance , Person , Hypostasis , Subsistences , Relations , &c. there is no Dispute about the signification of Father , Son , and Holy Spirit ; we have natural Idea's belong to these words , when applied to Creatures ; and when God is pleased in Scripture to represent himself to us under th●se Characters , if we must understand any thing by them , we can understand nothing else , but what the words signify all the World over : only allowing for that infinite distance there is between God and Creatures , which requires us to abstract from all material and creature imperfections . We must not think that God begets a Son as men do , by corporeal passions , or division of his substance ; or that he begets a Son without himself , or separate from himself ▪ or that because a Creature-father is always older than his Son , therefore God can't beget a Son co●ternal with himself ; for all these Circumstances do not belong to the essential Notion of a Father , but of a Creature-father : But then it is essential to the Notion both of Father and Son , that the Father communicates his own Nature to the Son , and that the Son receives his Nature and Being from his Father ; that Father and Son do truly and really subsist by themselves , though they may be , and when we speak of God the Father and his Son , are inseparably united to each other : that the Son , with respect to his Nature , is perfectly the same that his Father is : the son of a man , as true and perfect Man as his Father is ; and therefore the Son of God , as true and perfect God. By these Arguments the Catholick Fathers confuted both the Sabellians , who made Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but Three Names ; and the Arians , who denied the Consubstantiality of the Son , or that he had the same Nature with his Father , For both these Heresies destroy'd the essential Notion and Idea of Father and Son ; which includes in it both a real distinction and sameness of Nature ; that they are as really Two , but infinitely more one and the same , than any other Father and Son in Nature are . Now I cannot see , but that as these Names and Characters are better understood , and liable to less dispute ; so they convey to our Minds a more distinct conception of God the Father and his Eternal Son , than any other artificial Terms . Were there no Controversy about Nature , Essence , Person , Substance , Hypostasis , yet they immediately convey no Idea of God the Father and his Eternal Son to my mind , much less give me a more distinct Conception , than these Terms Father and Son do : For they neither acquaint me what God is , nor what Father and Son is ; and as the Schools themselves assert , cannot be Univocally , or in the same sense spoken of Creatures and of God , who is Super-Essential , above all Praedicaments and Terms of Art ; that is , Nature , Essence , Substance , Hypostasis , Person , do not , and cannot signify the same thing , when spoken of God , as when applied to Creatures . And this has occasioned all those Disputes concerning the Use and Signification of these words , when applied to God ; which indeed is no reason for wholly discarding these Terms , which the Perverseness and Importunity of Hereticks has forced the Church to use , and which have now been so long used , that the Ecclesiastical Sense of these Words is very well known to Learned men , if they would be contented to use them in that Received Ecclesiastical Sense in which the Catholick Fathers have always used them ; but yet it is a reason not to clog the Faith of ordinary Christians with them , who are not skilled in Metaphysical and Abstracted Notions ; and it is a reason to reduce the Controversy , as much as possibly we can , to Scripture Terms ; when these Artificial and Metaphysical Terms divide even the Professors of the Catholick Faith , and give too just occasion to the vain Boasts and Triumphs of Hereticks . To represent this matter plainly , I observe , That all all those Unscriptural Terms which the Catholick Fathers made use of for the Explication of this Adorable Mystery , were intended for no other purpose , but to give us some distinct Ideas and Conceptions of what the Scripture teaches concerning the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost , by using such Terms as signify something in Creatures , which bears some , though a very imperfect , anology and resemblance to what we are to conceive of God. And therefore the Fathers justifie the use of such words , by shewing , That all they mean by them is contained in Scripture , and reject any Words , and any such Sense of Artificial Words , as cannot be justified by Scripture : Which , by the way , is a more infallible Rule than all Metaphysical Subtleties , to find out in what sense the Fathers used such Words , by observing to what Scripture-Notions they apply them , and how they justifie their use from Scripture , when they are Disputed . If this be the truth of the Case , as it certainly is , then the Catholick Faith does not depend upon the use of these Terms , for it was before them ; for they were intended only to explain and illustrate the Catholick Faith , and to comprise Scripture-Notions in Terms of Art , which must be acknowledged to be of great use , and was by experience found to be so in the Disputes with ancient Hereticks , while the Fathers agreed in the sense of these Terms . But when these Terms themselves are become the great matter of Dispute ; and men who , as is to be hoped , agree in the Catholick Faith , cannot agree about the Propriety and Signification of such Terms , nor how they are to be applied and used , whether in the singular or plural Number , whether substantively or adjectively , in recto or obliquo ; and our Adversaries abuse such Disputes to the Reproach of the Catholick Faith , as a perplex'd , uncertain , contradictious Riddle and Mystery , which men can know nothing of , or can never agree in ; it becomes absolutely necessary at present to take this Controversy out of Terms of Art , and to let our Adversaries see , That our Controversy with them is not concerned in these Disputes : That it is not about the Signification and Use of such words as Essence , Nature , Substance , Person , &c. but , Whether the Supreme , Eternal , Self-originated Father , have not an Eternal Son , eternally begotten of himself , and an Eternal Spirit , the Spirit of the Father and of the Son , eternally proceeding from them : And whether this Eternal Son , and Eternal Spirit , are not True and Perfect God. In this all sincere Trinitarians do heartily agree with each other , and are ready to join issue upon this State of the Controversy , with all their Adversaries , of what denomination soever . And if we can prove from Scripture , That God has an Eternal Son begotten of himself , and that this Eternal Son is True and Perfect God , as the Father is ; and that the Father and Son have an Eternal Spirit , who is True and Perfect God , as Father and Son is ; I hope this is a sufficient Confutation of Socinianism ; and yet all this may be proved , without concerning our selves in any Metaphysical Disputes : And therefore such Disputes as these , though they give opportunity to our Adversaries to make some Flourishes , and to cast Mists before peoples eyes , are not of that moment as they would represent them ; they neither prove Socinianism to be true , nor the Catholick Faith of the Trinity to be false or uncertain . I do not intend at present to dispute this Point with the Socinians , Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit ( for there is no dispute about the Father ) be not each of them True and Perfect God : This has been proved often enough already , to the satisfaction of all sober Enquirers , who pay a just Veneration to Scripture ; and shall be done again , when a fair occasion offers : But the Question under Debate now is , Whether we cannot explain and defend the Doctrine of the Trinity , without the use of Ecclesiastical or Scholastick Terms ; and whether the Disputes of Divines about the Use and Signification of such Terms , proves any D●sagreement in the Faith , when they all consent to the Scripture Explications of it . The great Dispute is about the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead , and by what Terms to express this Wonderful Distinction , and Wonderful Vnion , as some of the Fathers call it . All sincere Trinitarians do agree , That God is Vnus & Trinus , One and Three ; but we having nothing in Nature like this , we know not by what Names to call it : Those who have most critically examined the force of words , find them all upon some account or other defective , or improper for this purpose : That St. Austin well said , That in these Sublime Mysteries we can no more express what we conceive of them in Words , than we can conceive of them as they are . When we profess to believe that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead the next question is , What Three they are ? That is , By what common Name to call them , which may be multiplied with them , or spoken of them in the Plural Number ; which St. Austin thinks not easily found . The Greeks called them Three Hypostases , which signifies Three Individual Substances : This seemed hard to the Latins , who acknowledged but One Substance in the Godhead , and therefore they called them Three Persons ; though this did not satisfy St. Austin , who looked upon Person as an Absolute , not a Relative Term , and therefore the Plural Predications would not agree with his Rule , quae ad se dicuntur ; that what is predicated absolutely , must be predicated only in the Singular Number : And in truth , if this be a good Rule , it is a demonstration that there can be no common Name for these Three ; for whatever is a common Name for them all , must be absolutely predicated of each of them : And therefore St. Austin could give no other reason why we say Three Persons , and not Three Essences , or Three Gods , but only this , That since we acknowledge there are Three , it is fitting to agree upon some common Name to denote the Trinity by ; and Ecclesiastical Use had given this Signification to the word Person . But then besides this , the great Dispute is , What is meant by a Person , when applied to the Three in the Blessed Trinity : Some adhere to the old approved Definition of a Person , That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature ; which is the very definition of the Greek Hypostasis , as Boetius owns . Others are afraid of this ; for if every Person be an Individual Substance , and there are Three Persons , they know not how to avoid the Consequence , That then there are Three Individual Substances in the Trinity . And consequently , since we can have no other Notion of the Divine Substance , but Infinite Mind and Spirit , there must be Three Infinite Minds and Spirits in the Godhead , which they think infers Three Gods. And therefore they will not allow a Person to be a Substance , at least not an Individual Substance , but a Mode , or at most a Mode of Subsistence , or Relation , or Property , or a Person , in the Tragedian or Comedian sense of a Person , as one represents and personates another ; or to signify an Office or Magistracy , and so one man may be as many several Persons as he has Offices . I can't answer for all these different significations of the word Person , as applied to this Sacred Mystery , especially as they are used by some Modern Writers ; for I believe there is no such material difference between the Fathers and the Schools , as some men imagine ; of which more hereafter : But as to my present purpose , I must profess , I can see no necessity why we must find out a Common Name for the Three in the Blessed Trinity , when the Scripture has given us no Common Name for them ; much less why we should dispute eternally about the propriety and use of such words , to hazard the Catholick Faith , at least the Honour and Reputation of it , together with the Peace of the Church . If I am asked not only Who but What the Three in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ? I know no better Answer to make , than what the Scripture has taught me , That they are God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy Ghost ; which signifies all that can be express'd by any Artificial and Unscriptural words ; is an Answer liable to no Exceptions or Misrepresentations , and in which all must agree , who believe a Trinity ; and it shames and silences all those Disputes which are often occasioned by other words , though never so wisely and reasonably chosen . This Answer shews us what their Nature is , what their Distinction is , and what Relation they stand in to each other ; which is the most perfect knowledge we can have of the Ever-blessed Trinity in this world . SECT . III. That the Title of GOD , attributed in Scripture distinctly to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , gives us the best Account of their Nature , and must determine the Signification of Ecclesiastical Words . 1. AS for the first , the design of some common Name for these Three , is to form some common Notion and Idea of them , in which they all agree : And is any thing else so common to them ? Is there any thing else which is common to them , but the Name and Nature of God ? Can any thing else give us so true and perfect a Character and Idea of each of them , as this does ? When we say the Father is God , the Son is God , the Holy Ghost is God , we attribute every thing to each of them , which signifies any Perfection ; for the Idea of God comprehends all possible Perfections : And we reject every thing which has the least signification of Imperfection ; we abstract our minds from all Material and Creature-Images , which Names common to Creatures are apt to impose upon us ; and when we are forced to apply any such Names to God , we learn from hence in what Notion to understand such Words , when applied to God. Men may very subtilly distinguish between the formal Conceptions of Nature , Essence , Substance , Hypostasis , Existence , Subsistence , Person , Personality , Suppositality , and the like , and neither understand God nor Creatures much the better for it : But let them but tell us what they mean by these Terms , and then every Child can tell whether they belong to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , or not : For as far as they are included in the Notion of God , and signify true Divine Perfections , so far they belong to all Three : For if the Father be God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , then Father , Son and Holy Ghost , each of them by themselves are whatever is included in the Notion and Idea of God , excepting their Relations of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , whereby they are distinguished into Three . As for Example : If by Nature , Essence , Substance , Existence , Subsistence , however they may differ in their formal Conceptions , they only mean a true and real Being , who actually , perfectly , compleatly is what it is ; God is Essence , Substance , Subsistence , in the most perfect sense of all ; for he is All Being ; his Name is Iehovah ; which as Learned Men most probably conclude , signifies a Plenitude and Perfection of Being , which is such a Perfection as includes all other Perfections in it ; for Perfect Being is every thing which perfectly is . This is the peculiar Name and essential Character of God , and of God only : God is , that is , is Eternal , Essential , Immutable Life and Being ; in which sense the Apostle tells us , That He only has Immortality . Creatures are , but are not Essential Life and Being : Being is not included in the formal Conception or Definition of any Created Nature . Man is a Reasonable Creature , was a true Definition of Human Nature , before any man was created ; and would be so for ever , though all mankind were annihilated . And therefore we may reasonably enough in Creatures distinguish between Nature , Substance , Existence , Subsistence ; if by Nature we understand that Idea or Pattern according to which they are made ; and by Substance , that which is made , whatever it is , whether Matter or Spirit , which is the Subject of those Moral or Natural Perfections which belong to the Idea of such a Creature ; and by Existence and Subsistence , their actual Being which they receive from their Maker , with regard to their compleat or incompleat manner of Existence . But now we can form no Idea of God without perfect life and being ; for whatever else , according to our imperf●ct manner of conceiving , is contained in the Idea of God , is nonsense and contradiction without it : Infinite Wisdom , Infinite Power , and Infinite Goodness , is the Idea of nothing , without Eternal and Necessary Being ; and an Infinitely Perfect Nothing is a contradiction in the very Notion . But Infinite , Perfect , Life , and Being , includes all other Perfections , and is the most simple and comprehensive Idea of God ; for whatever perfectly is , is whatever is any real Perfection . So that there is no foundation , nor any occasion , for such Distinctions , of Essence , Nature , Substance , Existence , Subsistence , in God ; for his Essence , Nature , Substance , is his Being ; and his Being is perfect Existence and Subsistence . These Terms differ in their formal Conceptions , when applied to Creatures ; but in essential Life and Being , these cannot be formally distinguished ; for we cannot conceive Existence or Subsistence , as superadded to Nature , as we do in Creatures ; because Necessary Essential Being , is the Divine Nature : Nor can we distinguish between Essence , Nature , and Substance , because there is no distinction in God between the Subject , and its Faculties and Powers , which is the Foundation of that distinction in Creatures . Men , who do not love to use words without any Notion belonging to them , find themselves extremely puzzled to fit any distinct Ideas to these words when applied to God. When the Fathers and Schoolmen apply these Terms to God , they take care to shew how differently they are used when applied to God , from what they signifie when applied to Creatures : They assert the most absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature without the least composition , and indeed expound all these Terms to the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & Esse , to signify the most Absolute Being , or the most Perfect Is , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who is Simple , Perfect Existence : One. St. Austin , whose Authority is sacred in the Schools , will furnish us with sayings enough to this purpose . Nothing is more certain with him , than that in God , to Be , to Live , to Understand , or whatever else we can attribute to God , is all the same , is Perfect Being , or Essence : And therefore he owns the impropriety of those Terms , Substance , and Subsistence , when applied to God. But notwithstanding this , that God is the most Pure Simple Being , without any imaginable composition , yet since we cannot comprize all that is necessary for us to know of God , in one simple uncompounded thought , we must unavoidably conceive the Idea of God by Parts , under different formal Conceptions , such as his Wisdom , his Power , his Goodness , his Truth and Faithfulfulness , &c. for such distinct representations as these , God makes of himself in the Holy Scriptures ; they are what we can distinctly apprehend , and are absolutely necessary for the Government of our lives , and to know what we are to expect from God. But such distinctions as we can frame no distinct conceptions of , as are apt to corrupt our Notions of God with corporeal Representations , and perplex our Minds with endless and inextricable difficulties , ought to be cautiously used , and carefully explained , to prevent all mistakes , and to reduce them to such plain and simple Notions , as come nearest to the absolute simplicity of the Divine Essence . And now , I suppose , it will admit of no dispute , Whether the Father , who is God , be Essence , Substance , Subsistence ; or whether the Son , who is God , be Essence , Substance , Subsistence ; and so in like manner the Holy Ghost . For this signifies no more than To Be in the most perfect and absolute sense of Being , which is the first and most simple Idea of God , Absolute Essence and Being . So that if the Father is , the Son is , and the Holy Ghost is ; each of them is Essence , Substance , Subsistence , in the most Perfect and Absolute sense of these Terms : For if each of them is , and each of them is God ; each of them is , only in that Notion of Being , which is included in the Idea of God , which contains the most absolute Perfection of Being ; that is , all that is absolutely Perfect . And will any Trinitarian deny , That the Father is , the Son is , and the Holy Ghost is ? And then I know not what other Dispute there can be about this matter ; if the Father be God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , then the Father is , the Son is , and the Holy Ghost is , in the most Perfect Notion of Being , and that is all that is meant by Essence , Substance , Subsistence , when spoken of God. In the same manner we may examine the signification of the word Person , which has occasioned no small Dispute . We say that there are Three Persons in the Godhead , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; and each of these Divine Persons is in himself True and Perfect God. Now if we must call these Divine Three , Three Persons , ( which long Use and Custom has made Reasonable , and in some measure Necessary ) the most certain way to determine the signification of Person , when applied to God , is to consider in what sense one who is True and Perfect God , may be called a Person ; for GOD is the Scripture Name and Character which is distinctly attributed to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; and therefore that must give the Signification to all other words of Human Use and Institution , as far as relates to this Mystery . These words Person and Hypostasis , were very anciently used , without any Definition to determine their Signification , till they became matter of dispute . Boetius has given us a definition of Person ; which has been generally allowed of ever since , that a Person is an individual Substance of a rational Nature . Let us then examine whether this definition can belong to a Divine Person , to one who is True and Perfect God. As for Substance , Boetius tells us , That it is essential to the Notion of Person ; for a Person cannot subsist in Accidents , ( much less in Modes , which are less than Accidents ) ; and it is certain no other Notion of Person can belong to one who is God : For a Person who is God , must be Substance in the most Perfect and Absolute sense ; that is , as I have already explained it , Perfect Being and Essence : As St. Austin expresly tells us , That in God , to Be , and to be a Person , is the same thing ; and that when we say the Person of the Father , we mean nothing else but the Substance of the Father ; and thus it is with respect to the whole Trinity . It is certain St. Austin never dream'd of defining a Person , much less a Divine Person , by a Mode : For to make a Person , who is God , and therefore the most Perfect Being , a Mode , which if it be any thing , is next to nothing , no Substance , but a meer Modification of Substance , is both new Divinity , and new Philosophy , unknown either to Fathers or Schoolmen . But meer Substance can't make a Person , unless it be a Living , Understanding Substance , the Substance of a rational Nature : And this must be the Notion of a Person , when applied to God ; for God is Pure Infinite Mind and Intellect , the First and Supreme Life and Intellect ; in whom , to Live , to Understand , and to Be , is the same thing ; as I observed before from St. Austin ; and if a Divine Person signifies One who is God , every Person in the Godhead is Supreme Absolute Life and Intellect : And this is what we must understand by a Person , when we say , That the Father is a Person , the Son a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person ; for no other Notion of a Person can belong to any one , who is True and Perfect God. There is another Term of great consideration in this definition , which still remains to be Explained , and that is Individual , That a Person is an Individual Substance of a Rational Nature ; which Boetius opposes to Vniversal Substances , which are nothing else but the abstracted Notions of generical or specifick Substances ; which have no real and actual Subsistence , and therefore are not properly Substances , but only the Ideas of Substances , and therefore are not Persons neither ; for Substance and Person are only in Singulars and Individuals , which Subsist by themselves . Thus Human Nature considered in general as common to all Mankind , has no actual Subsistence , and therefore is not a Human Person , but it subsists only in particular Men , and that makes every particular Man a Human Person ; for the Person of the Man , is nothing but the Man himself . And so St. Austin tells us it is in the Holy Trinity ; the Person of the Father , is the Father himself ; and the Person of the Son , is the Son himself ; and if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are Three , they must be Three Persons ; for each of them is himself , and not the other ; and Three Selfs are Three Persons ; I , and Thou , and He , are Personal Pronouns : I my self , Thou thy self , He himself ; by which Argument the Catholick Fathers prove against the Sabellians , that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are Three Persons , by these Personal Pronouns , which the Scripture applies to them ; as our S●viour speaks of himself in the first Person , I and my Father ; of his Father in the Second Person , I thank Thee , O Father ; of the Holy Ghost in the Third Person , when He the Spirit of truth shall come . Now I , and Thou , and He , must signifie Three distinct Persons , or Three Selfs : Person indeed , as St. Austin observes , is not a Relative Term , but is spoken ad se of the thing it self : For if Person were a Relative , then as we say , The Father is the Father of his Son , so we must say , The Person of the Father is the Person of the Son , which is absurd ; but yet Person must be praedicated Plurally according to the number of Selfs ; for as many Selfs as there are , so many Persons are there ; for Selfs make numbers , because one self is not another . Three singular intelligent Selfs , singulares intelligentes , as Melancton calls them , is the proper Notion of Three Persons ; and in this sense , Father , Son and Holy Ghost , are Three Persons , if each of them be True and Perfect God. For God is certainly himself . If the Father be God , the Father himself is God ; if the Son be God , the Son himself is God ; if the Holy Ghost be God , the Holy Ghost himself is God. This is the plain express Doctrine of Scripture , and what every man may understand , and what every one who believes a Trinity must profess , and no man needs believe more . SECT . IV. These Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , prove the real Distinction of Persons in the Trinity . II. THESE Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , especially when the Name GOD is Attributed to each of them , That the Father is God , the Son God , the Holy Ghost God , proves a real and substantial distinction between them ; for these are opposite Relations which cannot meet in the same Subject : For a Father cannot be Father to himself , but to his Son ; nor can a Son be Son to himself , but to his Father ; nor can the Holy Ghost Proceed from himself , nor in this sense be his own Spirit , but the Spirit of the Father and Son , from whom he Proceeds . And therefore the Father is not the Son , nor the Holy Spirit ; nor the Son the Father , or Holy Spirit ; nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son : And yet , if each of them be God , each of them Perfectly is , or is Perfect Being , and therefore are as Perfectly Distinct , as three which perfectly are , and are not one another . To talk of Three Distinct Beings , Substances , Minds , or Spirits , may be Misrepresented by perverse Wits , to the prejudice of the Divine Unity , though the Catholick Fathers , besides Hypostasis , did not scruple to use the same , or other equivalent Expressions , concerning the Holy Trinity , when they disputed against the Sabellians ; yet if we believe a Trinity , whether we will or no we must acknowledge Three ; each of which Perfectly Is , or is Perfect Being , and no one is the other : For if we deny this , we must either deny , that the Father Is , or that the Son Is , or that the Holy Ghost Is ; and to deny either of these , is to deny a Trinity . And if it be Objected against this , That according to St. Austin's Notion , ( though it was not peculiarly his , but common to all the Greek and Latin Fathers , nay to the Schoolmen themselves , and must be owned by all Men of Sense ) that esse , vivere , intelligere , sapere , velle , bonum esse , magnum esse , &c. to be , to live , to understand , to be wise , to will , to be good , and to be great , or whatever else we can attribute to the Divine Nature , is but unum omnia , all one and the same in God : I say , if it be Objected , that the consequence of this is , That to say , that in this sense of Is , the Father Is , the Son Is , the Holy Ghost Is , is equivalent to asserting Three Distinct Substances , Minds , Spirits , Lives , Understandings , Wills , &c. in the Trinity , I cannot help it . St. Austin was never yet charged with Tritheism . Let them either deny what St. Austin and the rest of the Fathers teach about this matter , and try if they can defend the absolute S●mplicity of the Divine Nature without it ; or let them deny , if they think good , that the Father Is , the Son Is , and the Holy Ghost Is , in this Notion of Perfect and Absolute Being ; or try if they can find such a medium between Perfect Is , and is not , as can belong to any Being which is True and Perfect God ; or allow ( which is the true solution of it ) that Is , and Is , and Is , Essence , and Essence , and Essence , are but One Eternal Is , One Eternal Essence , as they are but One God : Of which more presently . I always was of opinion , that these Terms in the plural number , ought not to be familiarly used , because few Men can conceive of them , as they are worthy of God ; and therefore the Fathers were v●ry cautious in using them , which they very rarely did , but when they were extorted from them by the perverse importunity of Hereticks ; but I cannot see how it is possible to deny three Selfs , or three Is's in the U●ity of the Godhead , without denying a Trinity ; and if each of these Three be himself and not another , and each of them Is , and Is by himself ; this is the least we can say of the Ever Blessed Trinity , and this is all with respect to their Distinction , that we need say of them . So that if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , be so in a true and proper Notion , are in truth and reality what these Names of Father , Son , and Spirit , signify : That the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a true , proper , natural , Father ; the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a true , proper , genuine , Son ; and the Holy Ghost , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in a true , proper sense , the Spirit of the Father and the Son , as the Catholick Fathers always Professed ; they must be as truly and perfectly Distinct , as Father and Son are . The only Question then is , Whether these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , signify naturally and properly when spoken of the Holy Trinity , or are only metaphorical and allusive Names ; though what they should be Metaphors of , is not easy to conceive , and as absurd to conceive , that there should be any Metaphors in God , who is all Perfect Essence and Being . The Divine Nature and Perfections , which we cannot conceive of as they are , may be expressed by Metaphors taken from some thing which is analogous in Creatures ; upon which account we read of the Hands , and Eyes , and Ears , and Bowels , and Mouth of God. Creatures may serve for Metaphors , for Shadows , and Images , to represent something of God to us , but the reality of all is in God. So that we may allow Father and Son in some sense to be Metaphorical Names , when applied to God ; not that God the Father is not in the highest and most perfect sense a Father ; and his Son a most proper , natural , genuine Son , but because the Divine Generation is so perfect a Communication of the Divine Nature and Being from Father to Son ; that Human Generations , Creature-Fathers and Sons , are but obscure , imperfect images and resemblances of it . When any thing is spoken Metaphorically of God , the Metaphor and Image is always in the Creatures ; the Truth , Perfection , and Reality of all in God. And if this be a certain and universal rule , then if God be a Father , if he have a Son , an only B●gotten Son , Begotten Eternally of himself , not Made , nor Created , but Begotten ; though this Eternal Generation be infinitely above what we can conceive , yet it is evident , that God the Father is more Properly and Perfectly a Father , and his Son more Properly and Perfectly a Son , than any Creature-Fathers or Sons are . But , I think , this will admit of no Dispute , if we own , that God has a Son , who is himself True and Perfect God ▪ For a Son , who is Perfect God , is God of God. That he is a Son , proves that he receives his Nature from his Father , for this is Essential to the Notion of a Son ; That he is Perfect God , proves the Perfection of his Generation from the Perfection of his Nature : For to be Perfect God , of Perfect God , is to receive the Whole , Perfect , Undivided Nature of his Father , which is the most perfect Generation that is possible , for a Whole to beget a Whole . And if God the Father , and his Son , be Truly and Perfectly Father and Son , they must be Truly and Perfectly Distinct ; That is , they are in a proper sense Two , and by the same reason , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are Three : And we need no other proof of this , but the very Names of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , if we understand them in a proper and natural Sense . SECT . V. These Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , prove the Unity , Sameness , Identity of Nature and Godhead . III. THESE Names of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , as they signify and prove a real Distinction between these Three , so they also signify and prove the Unity , Sameness , Identity of Nature , and Godhead : Which reconciles the Faith of the Trinity with the Faith of one God : The same One Divine Essence and Godhead , being and subsisting , Whole , Perfect , and Entire in each of these Divine Three . I shall Explain and Confirm this matter more at large hereafter ; and therefore at present shall only briefly represent this Notion , and the reason of it . One Eternal Self-Originated Divine Nature , is One Divinity and One God ; and nothing can destroy the Unity of God , but what destroys the Unity of the Divine Nature , by Division or Multiplication : And if this be the true Notion of the Unity of God ( and if it be not , I would desire to know , why this is not , and what is ) then the Unity of God may be preserved in Three , each of whom is True and Perfect God , if the same One Divine Nature , or Divinity , subsists distinctly in them all : And the very Characters and Relations of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , do necessarily infer and prove , the same One Divinity in them all : And therefore the Christian Trinity is so far from contradicting , that it establishes the Faith of one God : As to explain this in a few words . All Christians agree , That God , whom we call the Father , is an Eternal Self-Originated Being , who had no beginning of Being , and received his being from no other , and that there is no other Self Originated Being , but himself . This is the Notion which all Mankind have of One God , That there is one Infinite , Eternal , Self-Originated Being or Nature ; and if there be ( as it is certain there is ) but one such Nature and Divinity , there can be but One God. And this is Established in the Christian Faith , which owns but One God the Father , who is therefore in Scripture , in a peculiar manner , called the One God , and the Only True God. Thus f●r all Christians are agreed ; but here our Arian and Socinian Adversaries stop : For how can the Son be God , and the Holy Ghost be God , if the Father be the only Self-Originated Being , and the One True God ? Now the very Notion of a Son Answers this difficulty , or at least proves , that so it is , however it may exceed our finite Comprehension . It is Essential to the Notion of a Son , to be of another , of him , whom we call his Father , and to receive the same Nature from him . Man begets a Man , and God begets God ; but there is an infinite distance between these two , as there is between God and Creatures . When Man begets a Man , he does not Communicate his own whole entire numerical Nature to his Son , but with part of his own Substance Communicates the same specifick Nature to him , or a Nature of the same kind ; and therefore a Man and his Son are two Men , as having two particular Natures , though specifically the same . But if we believe , that God has a Son , begotten by him of himself , I say , not created out of nothing , nor made of any other prae-existent Nature or Substance , but eternally begotten of himself , we must acknowledge , that the Father and the Son are perfectly One , excepting that one is the Father , and the other the Son. All men , who know any thing of the Divine Nature , know , that God is the most Pure , Simple , Uncompounded Being ; and if God , who has no parts , and cannot be divided into any , begets a Son , he must Communicate his Whole , Undivided Nature to him : For to beget a Son , is to Communicate his own Nature to him ; and if he have no parts , he cannot Communicate a part , but must Communicate the Whole ; that is , he must Communicate his whole self , and be a second self in his Son. Now a Whole , and a Whole of a Whole , are certainly two , but not two Natures , but one Nature , not meerly Specifically , but Identically One ; for it is impossible that a Whole , which is Communicated without Division , or Separation , should have the least imaginable diversity from it self , so as to become another Nature from it self ; for a Whole of a Whole must be perfectly and identically the same with that Whole of which it is ; for a Whole can be but One. This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Sameness and Identity of Nature , which the Fathers assert , and whereon they found the Unity of the Godhead . And this is the meaning of that distinction of the Schools , between unum numero , and re numerata , one in number and in the thing numbred . Two must always be allowed to be Two in number , as Father and Son are , though they are but One in re numeratâ , in the Sameness and Identity of Nature , as Christ tells us , I and my Father are One ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Neuter-Gender , which must relate to Nature , not to Number . To distinguish or multiply Natures , there must be some real or notional diversity and alterity between them , as Boetius observes : But a Whole can never differ in the least from the whole of which it is , no more than the same Whole can differ from it self ; and it is this Sameness and Identity , which is called a Numerical Unity of Nature , and is peculiar to the Divine Nature , there being nothing like it in Creatures : Not that the Divine Nature considered as in the Father , is the same in number with the Divine Nature as communicated to , and subsisting distinctly in the Son ; for then the Father and the Son can't be two ; for the Person of the Father and his Divinity , or Divine Nature , is the same ; and the Person of the Son , and his Divine Nature is the same ; and if this Oneness relate to number , there can be but One Person , as there is but One Nature : but a Numerical Unity of Nature does not exclude a Number of Persons , each of whom has the whole Divine Nature Perfectly and Distinctly in himself ; it does not exclude the actual and perfect communication of the same Divine Nature to more than one , but only excludes all imaginable diversity and alterity ; and what is not aliud , is unum ; that which is not another thing , another different Nature , is but One : That is , the Divine Nature is numerically One , in opposition to any other Absolute , Self-originated Divinity , not in opposition to the Eternal Communications of its self to the Son and Holy Spirit . If the Divine Nature , as actually and distinctly subsisting in Three , be as perfectly One , as the Idea of God is One , as any specifick Notion , suppose of Human Nature , is One ; then it is Identically and Numerically one and the same . And indeed this is the true reason why the Catholick Fathers so often represent the Unity of the Divine Nature by Allusions and Metaphors signifying a specifick Unity ; because the Divine Nature , as subsisting in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is as perfect●y one and the same , as the specifick Notion and Idea of any Nature is , which abstracts from all the diversities and differences which are found in Individuals . Which one Observation will help us to expound several disputed passages in the Fathers , as I could easily shew , were that my present business . Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , though they have one undistinguished , undiversified Nature , and therefore are One in Nature ; yet are Three in Number , because they have this one undivided , undistinguished , undiversified Nature , after a different manner , which the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the manner of Existence , or the manner how they come to be , which though it sounds very harshly when applied to that which has no beginning of Being , ( as most other expressions do , when applied to God , and Criticized on by perverse and Comical Wits ) must be allowed in such a qualified sense as is proper to an Eternal Being , or we must deny Eternal Generation and Procession , which is , though not the beginning , yet a Communication of Being : And thus the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Mode , or manner of Existence , and Being is , that he is Self-originated , and receives his Being from no other ; the Son 's is , that he is Eternally Begotten of the Father , and receives his Nature and Being without any beginning , from the Father ; the Holy Ghost's is , that he Eternally Proceeds from Father and Son ; and this is all the distinction that is between them : They have but one undivided , undiversified Nature ; but these opposite Relations necessarily prove them Three in Number , as I have already shewn ; though the Divine Essence , the res numerata , is but One ; it being Communicated from Father to Son , and from Father and Son to the Holy Ghost , Whole of Whole ; which makes it perfectly one and the same Undivided , Undiversified , Essence , Subsisting Distinctly , but not Separately , in Three . That this is the true Notion both of the Fathers and Schools , and all that the wisest Schoolmen meant by the Singularity of the Divine Essence and Nature , which they acknowledged to subsist in Tribus Suppositis , or Personis , whole and entire in Three distinct Persons or Subjects , may appear in due time , when Men have recovered their Temper so far , as to be capable of hearing Reason , and of understanding plain Sense . But my only design at present is to shew , that these Relations in the Ever Blessed Trinity , of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Vindicate the Faith of the Trinity from the Imputation of Tritheism . Three Gods must signifie Three Absolute , Independent , Self-originated D●vinities , Three such as we acknowledge the Person of the Father to be , who is Infinitely P●rfect , and is of himself ; and all the Catholick Fathers acknowledge , that Three Fathers would be Three Gods : Three such Absolute Beings , though equally Perfect , and every way alike , would be Three Divine Self-originated Natures , or Three Individuals of the same specifick Nature ; that is , Three Gods , as Three Individuals of Human Nature are Three men . But Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are not Three Absolute Divine Natures , nor Three Individuals of One specifick Nature , but are Three Singulars of One Individual Nature , Communicated whole and entire from Father to Son , and from Father and Son to the Holy Ghost : So that there is but one and the same Divine Nature in all Three , and therefore but One Divinity , and One God ; unless one and the same Divine Nature can be Three Gods. To number Three , each of whom is himself True and Perfect God , does not prove Three Gods , unless you can multiply and number Natures too ; for One Divine Nature is but One God ; but Three Gods must have Three Appropriate , and Incommunicable Divine Natures ; which the very Relations of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , deny in the Christian Trinity . There is but One Self-originated Divinity in the Person of the Father ; and the very Name of Son proves that he is not of himself , but has , and is , all that he has , and is , from the Father , and is all that the Father is : H● i● G●d ●f G●d ; now God of God , is Another , and is True and Perfect God , but is not Another God , because he receives all from his Father , has the same Divine Nature that his Father has , has nothing but what his Father has , and has all that his Father has ; T●tus ex Toto , Whole of Whole ; which is but One Undivided , Undiversified , One Numerical Whole , One God. This seems to be the true Reason why St. Austin , and after him the Schoolmen , lay such stress upon the Relations in the Trinity , to salve the Unity of the Divine Nature . For by Relations the Schools mean , Relationes Subsistentes , Subsisting Relations , or Relatives , not Relations without a Subject ; which St. Austin rejects as absurd : For nothing can be Predicated Relatively which has not some Being and Substance of its own to be the foundation of that Relation : A Man who is a Master , a Man who is a Servant , must be a Man , or he could not be the Subject of any Relation , either of Master , or Servant ; and thus , as he adds , Father must signifie a positive Being , something that he is himself , or else there is nothing to sustain a Relation to another ; and the like must be said of the Son and Spirit . Now these Relations in the Trinity , of Father , Son , and Spirit , though each of them have the whole Divine Nature and Substance , do yet prove that there are not Three Absolute Independent Divinities , but only One Divine Nature and Substance : As St. Austin speaks of Father and Son , utrunque Substantia , & utrunque Vna Substantia ; they are both of them Substance , and both of them One Substance ; for the Son must receive his whole Being from his Father , and therefore have the same One Nature and Substance that his Father has ; which proves , that a Trinity of Relatives can be but One God , because they can have but One Divine Nature in them all . But this is beyond my present design . Thus I have given a short view of the Catholick Faith of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity : We are B●ptized into the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost ; and if we are Christians , we must Believe in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and we need not believe nor understand any more than what these Names , when applied to God , do plainly and necessarily signify . This I have explained as easily and familiarly as possibly I could , that ordinary Christians , who are not skilled in School Terms or Subtilties , may know what they are to Believe , and see the plain Reasons of it . This is what all Christians , who sincerely Believe a Trinity , are agreed in ; That there is an Eternal Father , who has an Eternal Son , and an Eternal Spirit , of the same Nature with himself : That the Father is God , God of himself ; The Son is God , God of God , True and Perfect God , Begotten of his Father from all Eternity ; That the Holy Ghost is God , True and Perfect God , Eternally Proceeding from Father and Son : That the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father , nor the Holy Ghost Father or Son ; but they are Three , truly and really distinct from each other : But that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , have all the same One Divinity , Communicated from the Father to the Son , and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit , and therefore are but One God. All this , as I have shewn , is necessarily included in the Names and Relations of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; which if they be not empty Names , but signify any thing real , must signify all this . And what is there unintelligible in all this ? Such a Distinction , and such an Unity as is signified in the very Names of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , necessarily prove that God is Three and One : If the Father is himself True and Perfect God , the Son himself True and Perfect God , the Holy Ghost himself True and Perfect God , and the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father , nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son , then there are Three , each of whom is in himself True and perfect God , and that is a Divine Trinity : And if the Father communicates his whole Nature without division or separation to the Son , and Father and Son communicate the same whole Nature to the Holy Spirit , they are in the most perfect notion One , there being one and the same whole entire perfect Divinity in all Three . A Whole , a Whole , and a Whole , are Three in number , but are but one Identical Nature ; for a Whole of a Whole must be the same Whole ; and in this Unity of Nature consists the Unity of the Godhead . I grant a Whole of a Whole is very unconceivable to us ; and so is the Notion of an Eternal self-originated Being , and of Creation , to the full as unconceivable , as the Eternal Generation of a Whole from a Whole : But this is a difficulty in the Notion of an Eternal Generation , not of a Trinity in Unity : If God begets a Son , as the Scripture assures us he has an only begotten Son , he must communicate his own Nature to him ; and besides the Testimony of Scripture , That all the Father has is the Son 's , his whole Nature and Divinity , Reason assures us , that God being a pure simple Being , without composition or parts , if he communicate his Nature to his Son , he must communicate it whole and entire , without division or separation ; and if this be so , it is certain , that Father and Son , he who begets , and he who is begotten , are Two ; and it is as certain , that the same whole Divinity , communicated by the Father to the Son , is but the same One Divinity ; and One Divinity , though actually subsisting in Three , can be but One God , not Three Gods. It is certain , this is the most perfect Unity that can be , between Three who are truly and really the same , and yet distinct ; for they can n●ver be more One , than to be Three Same 's , and Three Wholes ; for the Communication of a Whole may make a Number , but cannot distinguish or multiply Nature . SECT . VI. Concerning the Unity of God. BUT our Socinian Adversaries , and some who would not be thought Socinians , have espoused such a Notion of One God , as makes the Faith of a Trinity absolutely irreconcilable with the Faith of One God. By One God , they mean One who is God ; but the Faith of the Trinity owns Three , each of whom is by himself True and Perfect God ; and I grant it is as absolutely impossible to reconcile these two , as it is to reconcile Contradictions ; for to say that there is but One who is God , and to say that there are Three , each of whom is God , is a manifest Contradiction ; and yet without saying this last , we must deny a Trinity . It is in vain to think to solve this with Words without Sense : If there is but One who is God , we must either make Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three Names , or Modes , or Manifestations of the same One Numerical Divine Person ; which was the ancient , exploded , anathematized Heresy of Noetus and Sabellius ; or we must make the Son and Holy Spirit to be mere Creatures , if we allow any Personality to them , as Arius , Macedonius , Paulus Samosatenus , and such like Hereticks , and our Modern Socinians do . But we , with the Scriptures and the Catholick Church , reject this Notion of the Unity of God , which is to assert the Unity , but to deny a Trinity . And because this seems to be so prevailing a Notion at this time , I shall shelter my self as well as I can , under the Authority of the Catholick Fathers , and the Catholick Church . That there is but One God , was always the Faith of the Catholick Church , as appears from all the Ancient Creeds ; but then they did not believe in One God , as One God signifies One Divine Separate Person ; which is never expressed in any Christian Creed , but in One God the Father , who has an only begotten Son , and an Eternal Spirit , in the Unity of the same Godhead . There is no Christian Creed , which teaches the Belief of One God who is not a Father ; and if the One God be a Father , he must have a Son of his own Nature and Substance ; and the Son of God , consubstantial with God the Father , must be God the Son. This is what Tertullian tells us , That there is One God , with his Oeconomy , that is , with his only begotten Son , and Eternal Spirit . The Catholick Church so believed in One God , as to acknowledge Three Persons , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , each of which is truly and really God , as they must necessarily do , if they believed a Trinity : And upon this account they were charged with Tritheism , or with asserting Three Gods , because they owned a Trinity of Divine Substantial Persons , really distinct from each other , each of which is truly and perfectly God. So that this is no new Charge against the Asserters of a Real and Substantial Trinity ; and the Ancient Christians had no regard to it ; for Tritheism in this Objection signified no more than the B●lief of the Trinity , or of Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead , which is the true Christian Faith. As to shew this briefly : In answer to this Objection against the belief of a Real Substantial Trinity , from the Unity of God , they tell us it is Judaism and Heresy , to place the Unity of the Godhead in the Unity of a Person ; to teach that there is but One Divine Person , as there is but One God. We may find enough to this purpose in Tertullian against Praxeas , and Athanasius against the Sabellians ; in St. Hilary , St. Austin , and many others . Athanasius commends the Iews for opposing the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Gentiles : But then he charges them with as great Impiety themselves , in denying the Son of God , by whom all things were made , and in accusing those of Polytheism who worship the Father by the Son. — And he exhorts his Readers to separate themselves from those Iudaizers who corrupt Christianity with Iudaism , who deny God of God , and teach One God in the Iewish Notion of it : In which he taxes the Sabellians , who taught that the Word of God is like the Word and Wisdom of a Man , within him , in his Heart and Soul ; and therefore that God and his Word are but One Person . St. Hilary frequently takes notice of this Corruption of the Evangelical Faith , as he calls it , under the Pious Profession of One God , to deny the Only begotten God , to deny Christ to be born God , or to be True God , but only a Powerful Creature , thereby to preserve the Faith of One God , which they think the Birth of God does overthrow . In which he distinctly charges the Sabellians and Arians ; the first for making God but One Person , for fear of introducing a Trinity of Gods with a Trinity of Persons ; the other for making Christ a mere Creature , though the first and most powerful Creature , for fear of making a Second God , should they have owned him to be God of God , of the same Substance with the Father . In opposition to this , he tells us what the true Faith is , which they have learned from Divine Revelation , Neither to preach Two Gods , nor One Solitary Divine Person ( for so solus must signify in this place ) ; and undertakes to prove both from the Evangelists and Prophets , That when we profess our Faith in God the Father , and God the Son , we must neither own God the Father and God the Son to be One Person , as the Sabellians did , nor Two different Substances , as the Arians did : For when God is born of God , this Divine Nativity will neither admit a Unity of Person , nor a Diversity of Nature : For Father and Son , he who begets , and he who is begotten , must be Two Persons ; and the Son who is begotten of the Substance of his Father , must be consubstantial with him . It were easy to multiply Quotations to this purpose , both out of these and numerous other Ancient Writers ; but this is Proof enough , that the Primitive Fathers would not be frighted out of the true Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity , by the loud Clamours of Tritheism ; but rejected such a Notion of One God , as confined the Godhead to One Single Solitary Person , as Iudaism , and an Anti-trinitarian Heresy . For we know in what sense the Iews owned but One God ; viz. in the very sense that the Socinians and all Anti-trinitarians do ; that is , That there is but One who is God , but One Divine Person ; and in this sense these Ancient Fathers rejected it . But besides these general Sayings , they industriously confute this Notion of the Unity of the Godhead , which confines it to one single Person ; that the One God is so One , that there is and can be but One Divine Person , who is true and perfect God. The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament do expresly teach , that there is but one God ; This the Ancient Hereticks perpetually objected against the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity : And St. Hilary observes , what danger there is in answering this Objection , if it be not done with great caution : For it may be equally impious to deny , or to affirm it . For the True Catholick Faith of One God lies between two such contrary Heresies , as are ready to take advantage one way or other , whatever Answer you give . If you own that there is but One God , without taking notice , that this One God has an only begotten Son , who is True and Perfect God , the Arians take advantage of this against the Eternal Godhead of the Son : If you say , That the Father is God , and the Son God , and yet there is but One God , the Sabellians hence conclude , That Father and Son are but One Person , as they are One God. But in opposition to both these Heresies , he tells us , That though the Catholick Church did not deny One God , yet they taught God and God , and denied the Unity of the Godhead both in the Arian and Sabellian Notion of One God. And consequently , That they professed to believe God , and God , and God , though not Three Gods , but One God ; yet in that very sense which both Ancient and Modern Hereticks call Tritheism . There is no dispute but the Scripture does very fully and expresly teach us , That there is but One God. Hear , O Israel , the Lord our God is one Lord , 6. Deut. 4. which our Saviour himself approves , 12. Mark 29. and the Scribe expounds 32. Well master , Thou hast said the truth , for there is One God , and there is none other but He : And this is often confirmed both in the Old and New Testament : But then the Fathers think that they have an unanswerable Argument to prove , That by One God , is not meant , that there is but One who is God , because the same Holy Scriptures which teach us , that there is but One God , do attribute the Name , and Dignity , and Power , and all the Natural Perfections of God , to more than One. St. Hilary explains this Argument at large ; the sum of which in short is this : That we must learn the knowledge of God from Divine Revelation ; for Humane Understandings , which are accustomed to Corporeal and Bodily Images , are too weak of themselves to discern and contemplate Divine things ; nor is there any thing in our selves , or in Created Nature , that can give us an adequate notion and conception of the Nature and Unity of God : We must believe God concerning himself , and his own Nature , and yield a ready assent to what he reveals to us . For we must either deny him to be God , as the Heathens do , if we reject his Testimony ; or if we believe him to be God , we must conceive no otherwise of him , than as he himself hath taught us . This is very reasonable , if we believe upon God's Authority , To believe all that God reveals , and to expound the Revelation by it self ; not to put such a sense upon one part of the Revelation , as shall contradict another ; but to put such a sense upon the words , as makes the whole consistent with it self . As in the present Dispute concerning the Unity of God. The Scripture assures us , that there is but One God , and we believe that there is but One God. Excepting the Valentinians , and such kind of Hereticks , all Christians , both Catholicks , and Hereticks , agree in this Profession . But the Question is , In what sense the Scripture teaches that there is but One God ? Whether this One God signifies One single Divine Person , or One God with his Only begotten Son and Eternal Spirit , who have the same Nature and Divinity ? The Arians and Socinians embrace the first Sense of the words , That One God is One Divine Person , and for this reason will not own Christ , or the Holy Spirit , to be True and Perfect God , because there is but One God , and Three Divine Persons , they say , are Three Gods. Now unless we will pretend to understand the Divine Nature , and the Divine Unity , better than God himself does , we must refer this Dispute to Scripture ; and if we have the same Authority to believe more Divine Persons than One , that we have to believe but One God , then the Unity of God in the Scripture-notion of it , is no Tritheism , nor any objection against the belief of a Trinity ; for there may be but One only God , and yet Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the same Godhead . This is St. Hilary's Argument , and it is a very good one , That Moses himself , who has taught us , that there is but One God , has taught us to confess , God and God ; that we have the same Authority to believe the Son of God to be God , that we have to believe One God. And therefore , though we do , and must believe One God , we must not so believe One God , as to deny the Son of God to be God , for this is to contradict Moses and the Prophets . This Argument he prosecutes at large throughout the IV th and V th Books of the Trinity , and alledges all those Old Testament Proofs for the plurality of Divine Persons , and for the Divinity of Christ ; which , whatever opinion some Modern Wits and Criticks have of them , have been applied to that purpose by all Christian Writers from the beginning of Christianity ; and were that my present Business , might be easily vindicated from the Cavils and Exceptions of Hereticks . St. Paul tells us , That there is One God the Father , of whom are all things , and we in him ; and One Iesus Christ , by whom are all things , and we by him , 1 Cor. 8.6 . St. Hilary finds this God of whom are all things , and this Lord by whom are all things , in the Mosaical History of the Creation . And God said , Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters , and let it divide the waters from the waters ; and God made the firmament , and divided the waters , &c. 1. Gen. 6 , 7. Where , as he applies it , the Father commands , and the Son , his Almighty Word , makes all things . So the Psalmist tells us of the Father , He spake , and it was done ; he commanded , and it stood fast , 33. Psal. 9. Or as it is in the 148 th Psal. 5. He commanded , and they were created . And by whom they were created , St. Iohn tells us ; In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. All things were made by him , and without him was not any thing made , that was made , 1 Joh. 1 , 2. This he thinks proves a plain distinction of jubentis Dei , & facientis Dei , God that commands , and God that does ; for common sense will not allow that they should be one single Solitary Person , much more reason have we to distinguish them , when both the Old and New Testament distinguish them . But whatever dispute this may admit , that Account Moses gives of the Creation of Man , he takes to be an unexceptionable Proof of a Plurality of Divine Persons ; And God said , Let us make man in our image , after our likeness . — So God created man in his own image , in the image of God created he him , 1. Gen. 26.27 . Now if we understand these words as spoken by God , in the same sense as we should and ought to understand them , had they been spoken by men , ( which St. Hilary lays down as a Principle , That God speaks to us as we speak to one another , and expects to be understood by us according to the common use and acceptation of such forms of speech ) then let Vs make man in Our Image , after Our Likeness , cannot signify a singular and solitary Person ; for such a form of speech naturally imports a Plurality of Persons , and a common Nature and Likeness . No single solitary Person speaks to himself to do any thing , but only wills and chuses what to do , and exec●●es his own purposes ; much less does he speak to himself in the Plural Number , which in common use signifies some Companions and Partners in the work . Let Vs make , cannot signify One single Person , nor can Our Image admit Two Persons of an unlike and different Nature , when the Image is but one and the same ; and therefore this must prove , that there are more Divine Persons than One , and that they have all the same Divine Nature . Were God but one single and solitary Person , this would be a most unaccountable form of speech ; and there can be no pretence to put such a harsh sense on the words , unless we certainly knew that there was no other Divine Person , but he who spoke ; but then if instead of knowing this , we certainly know the contrary ; that when God made the World he was not alone , but had his Eternal Substantial Wisdom , the Person of the Eternal Word with him , by whom he made the world , this puts the matter out of doubt : And this St. Hilary proves fr●m that account which Solomon gives of Wisdom , 8 Prov. 22 , &c. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way , before his works of old . I was set up from everlasting , from the beginning , or ever the earth was . — Then I was by him , as one brought up with him , rejoicing always before him : And therefore the Father was not alone , and did not speak to himself when he made the world ; his own Wisdom , a Divine Eternal Person , co-operating with him , and rejoicing in the Perfection of his Works . But besides this , he proves at large , that the Angel which so often appeared to Abraham , Hagar , Iacob , to Moses in a Burning Bush , and is in express terms called God , the Judge of the world , the God of Abraham , and Isaac , and Iacob , was not a Created Angel , nor God the Father , and yet was True and Perfect God , even the Son of God , who in the fulness of time became Man ; and adds several Passages in the Psalms and Prophets , which plainly own a Divine Person , distinct from God the Father , to be True and Perfect God. I need not tell those who are acquainted with the Writings of the Ancient Fathers , that they all insist on the same Arguments to prove the same thing ; that there is not in any one point a more universal Consent amongst them , which is too Venerable an Authority to be over-ruled by Criticism ; it being no less than a Traditionary Exposition of Scripture from the Apostolick Age. But I am no further concerned in this at present , than to shew what Notion the Catholick Fathers had about the Unity of God. These Fathers did not fence against the Objection of Tritheism , by distinguishing away the Divinity of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit , by making the Son God ex accidenti , & secundum quid ; for they knew nothing of an accidental or secundum quid God ; which I must own sounds to me very like Blasphemy and Contradiction ; that when this Name God , signifies the most necessary and absolutely Perfect Being , any Person to whom this Name does naturally and essentially belong , should be God by Accident , or only in a limited and qualified sense : But without fearing the Charge of Tritheism , they with Moses and the Prophets own another Divine Person distinct from the Father , but as Real and Substantial a Person , and as truly and perfectly God , as the Father is : Insomuch that Tertullian , when he had alledg●d that T●xt , 45. Psal. 6 , 7. which the Apostle to the Hebrews applies to Christ , 1. Heb. Thy throne , O G●d ▪ is for ever and ever , the scepter of thy Kingdom is a right scepter . — Therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows ; was not a●raid to add , Ecce Duos Deos ! Behold Two Gods ! That is ▪ Two Divine P●rsons , each of whom is by himself truly and essentially God ; for notwithstanding this , he would not say there are Two or Three Gods , and gives his reason for it : He owned a Plurality of Gods , even Tritheism it self , in that sense of the word Tritheism which the Arians and Sabellians objected against the Faith of the Trinity , as Three Gods signify no more than Three Divine Substantial Persons , each of whom is truly and perfectly God , as having distinctly in himself the whole and perfect Divine Nature ; but this he and the other Fathers deny to be Tritheism ; they are God , and God , and God , but not Three Gods : And they think it a sufficient proof , ( as any man would , who believes the Scripture ) that this is not the Scripture-Notion of Tritheism , because the same Scripture which teaches us that there is but One God , attributes not only the Name and Title of God , but the Divine Nature and Perfections , to more Persons than One. And this is the only Answer that need be given , and the best Answer that can be given to this Objection of Tritheism ; for God knows his own Nature , and his own Unity best : And it is enough for us to acknowledge God to be One , as the Scripture teaches him to be One ; that is , that there is but One God , but that this One God has an Eternal only begotten Son , and an Eternal Spirit , in the Unity of the same Godhead . This is the account Tertullian gives us of those Expressions , when the Scripture asserts that there is but One God , and that there is none besides him . For without denying the Son , we may truly affirm , That there is but One only God , whose Son he is . For though he has a Son , he does not lose his Name of the One and only God , when he is named without his S●n ; and so he is , when what is said , is appropriated to him as the first pers●n ; for in the order of Nature , a●● of ou● Conceptions , the Father is befo●●●he Son , and therefore must be named b●●ore him : So that there is but One God the Father , and besides him there is no other ; which does not deny the Son , but another God ; which rejects the multitude of False Gods which the Heathens worshipped ; but the Son , as being inseparably united to him , is included in the Unity of the Father's Godhead , though not named ; which as he well observes , he could not be , without making another God of him . Had the Father said , There is no other God besides me , excepting my Son , this had made the Son another God , a new separate Divinity ; and would have been as improper , as if the Sun should say , There is no other Sun besides me , excepting my Rays . The Sum of which is this : That the Title of the One and only God , and besides him there is no other God , does in a peculiar manner belong to the Father , who is the One only God with his Son and Spirit ; but this does not exclude the Son or Spirit from being true and perfect God ; for they are not other Gods from the Father , but have the same Divinity , and are inseparably ●mited to the Father , and therefore are included in the ●●ity of the Godhead , without being named ; whereas th●●r being named would have excepted them out of the Unity of the Godhead , and made other Gods of them : And though the Son when he is named al●ne , is called God , this does not make Two Gods , because he is God only by his Unity with his Father . St. Hilary gives much the same account of it ; That when the Scripture teaches that there is One God , and no other God besides him , this does not exclude the Son of God from being true and perfect God , because the Son is not another God : He being of the same Substance with God the Father , God of God , and inseparably united to him : Another God does not signify another Divine Person , but another Divinity , another separate and independent Principle and Fountain of Deity . And besides this , St. Hilary endeavours to prove at large from several Texts of the Old Testament , that this very expression , of one God , and no other besides him , is applied not only to the Father , but to the Son , and is very justly applicable to each of them , because each of them have a Personal and Incommunicable Unity . The Father is the One God , and there is none besides him ; for he is the only Deus Innascibilis , the only God , who is God of himself , without any Communication of the Divine Nature to him from any other Divine Person . The Son is the One God , and there is none besides him ; that is , the Deus Vnigenitus , the only begotten God ; and there is no other begotten God but he : So that each of them is the One God : For between One and One , that is One of One , there is no Second Nature of the Eternal D●ity . I shall not dispute these matters now , which will be more proper in another place ; it is enough at present , that we learn from them what Sense these Fathers had concerning the Unity of God ; viz. That it is not the Unity of a S●ngle Person , so as to exclude all other Persons from the Name and Nature of God , but a Unity of Nature and Principle ; That there are not Two different Divinities , nor Two Principles of Divinity , which have no Communication with each other ; but that there is One Self-originated Being , who communicates his own Nature , without Division and Separation to his Eternal Son , and by and with his Son to his Eternal Spirit . Thus St. Hilary concludes this Dispute , That to confess One God , but not a solitary God ( that is , not one single solitary Person ) is the Faith of the Church , which confesses the Father in the Son : But if out of ignorance of this Heavenly Mystery , we pretend that One God signifies One single Divine Person , we know not God , as not owning the Faith of God in God. This is plain sense which every Christian may understand , and what every one must believe who wi●l be a Christian : We must believe in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , that the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father , nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son ; and that each of these Three is in himself , as distinguished from the other Two , true and perfect God ; but though they are Three , and each of them true and perfect God , yet they are not Three Gods , because there is but One and the same Divinity in them : The same individual numerical Divine Nature , being whole , perfect , undivided in them all ; originally in the Father , by Generation in the Son , and by Procession in the Holy Ghost , as I have already explained it , which is the most perfect Unity we can conceive between Three Wholes , or Three , each of which have the same whole undivided Nature distinctly in themselves . If this will not be allowed to be such a Unity as is included in the Notion of One God ; that the natural Notion of One God is of One only who is God , which is contradictory to the belief of Three , each of whom is in himself true and perfect God ; the answer the Catholick Fathers give to this ( as I have now shewn ) ought to satisfy all Christians ; that this is not the Scripture-notion of One God , That there is but One , who is God ; because the same Holy Scriptures which teach us , that there is but One God , do also teach us , that there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead . That not only the Father is God , as an Infinite , Eternal , Self-originated Being , and upon this account in a peculiar manner called the One and only true God ; but the Son also is true God , and the Holy Ghost true God , by the Communication of the same Divine Nature to them . Now God knows his own Nature and Unity best , and if he declares himself to be but One God , but yet requires us to believe his Eternal Son to be true and perfect God , and his Eternal Spirit to be true and perfect God ; it is certain that the Divinity of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost is very reconcilable with the Unity of God. For as far as Revelation must decide this Dispute , we are as much obliged to believe , That the Father is God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , as we are to believe , That there is but One God. Those who will not acquiesce in this , must appeal from Scripture to Natural Reason , which is a very absurd and impudent Appeal ; for the plain sense of it is this , That they will believe their own Reason before the Scriptures , in matters relating to the Divine Nature and Unity , which all wise men acknowledge to be so much above human comprehension : That is , That they know the Unity of God better than God himself does ; or , which is the same thing , That they will never believe any Revelation to come from God , or any thing , how express soever the words are , to be the meaning of the Revelation , any farther than their own Reason approves it : Of which more elsewhere . And yet I dare appeal to any man of a free and unbiass'd Reason in this Cause , What is that Natural Notion we have of One God ? Is it any thing more , than that there is and can be but One Eternal Self-originated Being , who is the Principle or Cause of all other Beings ? And does not the Scripture , do not all Trinitarians , with the whole Catholick Church , own this ? Do not all the Christian Creeds teach us to profess our Faith in One God the Father , from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their Godhead ? Thus far then Scripture , and Reason , and the Catholick Faith agree : Does Reason then deny , that God can beget of himself an Eternal Son , his own perfect Image and Likeness ? If it does , then indeed Scripture and Reason contradict each other : But I believe these men will not pretend to prove from Reason , That God could not beget an Eternal Son ; and if this cannot be proved by Reason , as I am certain it never can , then Reason does not contradict Scripture , which teaches us that God has an only begotten Son : And if God have an only begotten Son , Reason will teach us that the Son of God must be True and Perfect God , and yet not another God , because he has one and the same Nature with his Father . This is all that any Christian need to believe concerning this matter , and all this every Christian may understand ; and all this every one who sincerely believes the Faith of the Holy Trinity , does and must agree in : Those who do not , I will at any time undertake to prove to be secret Hereticks , and Enemies to the Christian Faith : and as for those who do , I will never dispute with them about some Terms of Art , and the Propriety of Words , in a matter which is so much above all words and forms of speech . And here I leave this matter upon a sure Bottom ; and here we are ready to join Issue with our Socinian Adversaries . Our only Controversy as to the Doctrine of the Trinity with them is , Whether the Son , and the Holy Spirit , each of them , be True and Perfect God : If we can prove this , which has been the Faith of the Catholick Church in all Ages , we need dispute no other matters with them ; nor can any Disputes among our selves give any Support to their Cause . A Dispute about Words may look like a difference in Faith , when both contending Parties may mean the same thing ; as those must do , who sincerely own and believe , That the Son is True and Perfect God , and the Holy Ghost is True and Perfect God , and that neither of them are the Father , nor each other . And therefore those different Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity which the Socinians of late have so much triumphed in , and made more and greater than really they are , and more sensless too by their false Representations , can do them no real service among Wise Men , tho it may help to amuse the Ignorant . If any men have subtilly distinguished away the Catholick Faith , they may take them to themselves , and increase their Party by them : But if this were the Case , as I hope it is not , it is no Objection against the Catholick Faith , that some men openly oppose it , and others , at least in some mens opinions , do secretly undermine it . There is reason to guard the Christian Faith against all inconvenient or dangerous Explications , which seem to approach near Heresy , if this be done with due Christian Temper and Moderation ; but I hope the Disputes of the Trinitarians are not so irreconcilable , but that they will all unite against a Pestilent and Insolent Heresy , which now promises it self glorious Successes only from their private Quarrels . CHAP. II. An Examination of Some Considerations concerning the Trinity . SECT . I. Concerning the Ways of managing this Controversy . BEfore I put an end to this Discourse , it will contribute very much to the better understanding of what I have said , and give a clearer Notion of the Use of it , to apply these Principles to the Examination of a late Treatise , entituled , Some Considerations concerning the Trinity . The Author I know not ; he writes with Temper ; and though he takes the liberty to find fault , he does it Civilly , and therefore he ought to meet with Civil Usage , and so he shall from me , as far as the bare Censure of his Principles will admit . I was , I confess , startled at the first entrance , to find him own the Vncertainty of our Faith in these Points ( concerning the Trinity ) ; for if after the most perfect Revelation of the Gospel that we must ever expect , and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for above Sixteen Hundred years , this Faith is still uncertain , it is time to leave off all Enquiries about it . As for the many absurd and blasphemous Expositions that have been made of this Doctrine ; if by them he means the Ancient Heresies which infested the Church , they are so far from rendring our Faith uncertain , that ( as I shall shew him anon ) the very Condemnation of those Heresies by the Catholick Church , gives us a more certain account what the true Catholick Faith was . I agree with him , that the warm and indiscreet Management of contrary Parties , has been to the Prejudice of Religion , among unthinking people , who hence conclude the uncertainty of our Faith ; and it concerns good men to remove this Prejudice , by distinguishing the Catholick Faith from the Disputes about Ecclesiastical Words , and the Catholick Sense of them ; and I hope I have made it appear this may be done , and then the Faith is secure , notwithstanding these Disputes ; and as for any other Offence or Scandal , let those look to it , who either give or take it . This Considerer dislikes all the Ways and Methods which have hitherto been taken to compose these Disputes . 1. He dislikes those who are for reverencing the Mystery of the Trinity , without ever looking into it at all ; who think it proposed to us only as a Trial and Exercise of our Faith ; and the more implicit that is , the fuller do we express our Trust and Reliance upon God. Now if by not looking into it at all , he means not enquiring what they are to believe concerning the Trinity , nor why they believe it ; this I acknowledge is a very odd sort of Faith ; but I believe he cannot name any such men whose avowed Principle this is : An Implicit Faith is only meritorious in the Church of Rome , but then an Implicit Faith is to believe without knowing what or why ; but these Ignoramus or Mystery-Trinitarians ( as some late Socinian Considerers have insolently and reproachfully called them , and whom our Author ought not to have imitated ) never teach such an Implicit Faith as this , much less admire the Triumph and Merit of Faith in believing Contradictions , and the more the better . Under all the appearance of Modesty and Temper , these are very severe and scandalous Reflections upon some of the Wisest and Greatest Men amongst us , and which this Considerer had little reason for , as will soon appear . The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the most Fundamental Article of the whole Christian Faith , and therefore an explicite Knowledge and Belief of it is essential to the Christian Profession , and thus all Protestant Divines teach ; and whatever Voluminous Disputes there may be about it , the true Christian Faith of the Trinity is comprized in a few words , and the Proofs of it are plain and easy : For the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach us , that there is but One God ; and that the Father is God , the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost is God ; that the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father , nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son ; as I have already explained it : This we all teach our people to believe upon the Authority of Scripture ( which is the only Authority we can have for matters of pure Revelation ) , and expound those Texts to them which expresly contain this Faith , and vindicate them from the Cavils and perverse Comments of Hereticks : And this , I think , is not to reverence the Mystery , without ever looking into it at all , when we look as far as we can , till Revelation bounds our prospect : And this is to look into it as far as God would have us , and as far as is necessary to all the purposes of Religion ; that is , as far as the knowledge of this Mystery is of any use to us . Now when this is done , there are a great many wise men who think we ought to look into this Mystery no further ; and there seems to be a very good reason for it ; viz. because with all our looking , we can see no further . There are indeed some curious Questions started about reconciling the Unity of God with the belief of a Trinity , in which there are Three , each of whom is by himself True and Perfect God ; for if there be but One God , how can there be Three , each of whom is True God ? Now whatever Answer may be given to such kind of Objections and pretended Contradictions , these Learned Men think there is no reason to clog the Christian Faith with them , nor to disturb the minds of ordinary Christians with such Subtilties : That the Authority of God who has revealed this , and the acknowledged Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature , is a sufficient Answer to all Objections ; and as ridiculously as a Witty Man may represent this , That is the truest Faith , not which can believe Contradictions , but which can despise the pretence of Contradictions , when opposed to a Divine Revelation ; for that resolves Faith wholly into Divine Authority , which is the true Notion of a Divine Faith. To say that this will not suppress any of our Doubts or Disputes in Religion , is a manifest mistake ; for such a profound Veneration for the Authority of God , would silence them all : And whatever is the Natural Propension of the Soul to the search of Truth , Natural Reason will tell us , that there are a thousand things which we can know nothing of , and that it is in vain to search after them ; but that the Divine Wisdom is unsearchable , and therefore God is to be believed beyond our own knowledge or comprehension ; and when we are agreed about the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation , that will silence all our Disputes about what is revealed , and set bounds to our Enquiries . And I never knew before , the danger of submitting our Reason to Faith , of a blind resignation of judgment ( as he is pleased to call it ) to a Divine Revelation , for that is the matter in debate . Blasphemies and Contradictions may , and have been imposed upon mens Faith , under the Venerable Name of Mysteries ; but such Blasphemies and Contradictions were never revealed in Scripture , and therefore belong not to the present Enquiry , which only concerns believing what we allow to be revealed , without looking any farther into it . We allow all men to examine the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation , and to examine what is revealed ; but here we must stop , and not pretend to judge of what is revealed , by the measures of human Reason , which is so inadequate a Rule for Divine and Supernatural Truths . This is all very plain ; and if he will allow the Truth of this , he must confess , that what he has said upon this first Head is nothing to the purpose . It is a very popular thing to decry Mysteries , and to cry up Reason , but to be very cautiously imitated , because it is generally found that such men are either no great Believers , or no very deep Reasoners . 2. In the next place he tells us of a very strange sort of men , who call the Doctrine of the Trinity an Incomprehensible Mystery , and yet are at a great deal of pains to bring it down to a level with Human Vnderstanding ; and are all very earnest to have their own particular Explications acknowledged as necessary Articles of Faith. An Incomprehensible Mystery is what Human Reason cannot comprehend ; to bring an Incomprehensible Mystery down to the level of Human Vnderstandings , is to make it comprehensible by Reason ; and those are notable men indeed , who undertake to make that comprehensible by Reason , which at the same time they acknowledge to be incomprehensible : It is to be hoped this Considerer does a little mistake them : Men may be-believe the Trinity to be an Incomprehensible Mystery , and yet speak of it in words which may be understood , which does not pretend to make the Mystery comprehensible , but to deliver it from Nonsense , Jargon , and Heresy ; that is , not to explain the Mystery , which is and will be a Mystery still , but to secure the true Christian Doctrine of the Trinity , which they desire may continue an Article of the Christian Faith still . There are , he tells us , a third sort of men who are for no Mystery ; that is , the Socinians ; and I was glad to find them censured and rejected , but wonder'd how they came to be numbred among those men who have laboured in this good design of explaining the Trinity , and reconciling the Disputes about it . Well : All these Methods have proved ineffectual ; let us then ( to omit other matters ) enquire what Course our Considerer took to make himself a fit and competent Judge of this Controversy : Take the account of it in his own words ; I have endeavoured to deliver my self from Prejudice and Confusion of Terms , and to speak justly and intelligibly : And not being yet prepossess'd in favour of any particular Explication , the better to preserve my freedom of examining the Subject in hand , I have purposely forborn to search the Fathers , Schoolmen , or Fratres Poloni , or read over any later Treatises concerning this Controversy , while I was composing the present Essay , resolving to consult nothing but Scripture and my own Natural Sentiments , and draw all my Reflections from thence , taking only such which easily and without constraint offered themselves . Thus Des Cartes made a New Philosophy , and this is the best way that can be thought of to make a New Faith. This has an appearance of great Indifferency and Impartiality , but it is a great mistake when men boast in this as a virtue and attainment , and an excellent disposition of mind for the Examination of Matters of Faith. I never in my life yet saw any one example to the contrary , but that when men who had been educated in the Christian Faith , and tolerably instructed in the meaning and the reasons of it , could persuade themselves to be thus perfectly indifferent whether it were true or false , but this indifference was owing to a secret byass and inclination to Infidelity or Heresy . It is in vain to pretend such an absolute freedom of Judgment , without being perfectly indifferent which side is true or false : For if we wish and desire to find one side of the question true , and the other false , this is a Byass , and our Judgment is not equally poiz'd . And certainly in matters of such vast consequence as the Christian Faith , and especially that great Fundamental Article of the Holy Trinity , such an Indifferency as this is , can never recommend either an Author or his Writings to sober Christians . Will this Considerer then own , that it was indifferent to him when he undertook this design , whether the Doctrine of the Trinity should upon Examination appear true or false ? If it were not , the Socinians will tell him that he had not preserved a Freedom of Judgment , and then he did well in not consulting the Fratres Poloni , for he had condemn'd them without hearing ; or if he were persuaded concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity , Was it indifferent to him whether the Sabellian , or Arian , or True Catholick Notion of a Trinity , contained in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds , were the True Faith ? That is , Was it indifferent to him , whether the Ancient Heresies condemn'd by the Catholick Church , or that Faith which the Catholick Church has always own'd and professed , be the True Faith ? For my part , I confess , I am not thus indifferent ; I will never shut my eyes against plain Conviction , which is all the Freedom of judging which is allowable ; but my Prejudices are , and I hope always will be , on the side of the Catholick Faith. No wise man can be thus indifferent . And we shall find this Considerer was not so very indifferent ; for the main Principles he reasons on , are some Popular Mistakes and Prejudices , which he seems to have espoused without due Consideration . But let us allow him to be as free and unprejudic'd as he pleases , I cannot think that he took a good method to understand this Sacred Mystery . He laid aside Fathers , Schoolmen , and other later Treatises concerning this Controversy , and consulted nothing but Scripture , and his own natural Sentiments . To consult Scripture is indeed a very good way , and absolutely necessary in matters of pure Revelation , which can be certainly known no other way ; but the Fathers at least are very good Guides , and have very great Authority in expounding Scripture ; and our Natural Sentiments , otherwise called Natural Reason , is a very bad , a very dangerous Expositor of Scripture in such Supernatural Mysteries , and has no Authority in these mattters ; and how our Considerer has been misled by his Natural Sentiments , will soon appear . A few words might serve for an Answer to the Considerer ; but since this is the great Pretence of Socinians and other Hereticks , to set up Scripture and Natural Reason , against Scripture and the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ; and our Considerer and some other unwary Writers chime in with them , it will be very necessary to shew how this betrays the Catholick Faith , and makes Reason and Criticism the Supreme Judge of Controversy ; and then men may dispute on without end , and believe at last as they please . The Considerer tells us , I take it for granted in a Protestant Countrey , that Scripture is the only Standard of all necess●ry Revealed Truths : Neither in the present Case is there any room for a Traditionary Faith. For besides that all the Fathers and Ancient Writers ground their Exposition of the Trinity wholly upon Scripture , I cannot conceive that the Subject is capable of a plainer Revelation ; as I shall endeavour to shew more fully in the following Discourse . What this last Clause means , we shall understand better hereafter ; but his denying a Traditionary Faith , is very extraordinary ; for if we can prove from the most Authentick Records , what the constant belief of the Catholick Chu●ch has been , especially in the first and purest Ages of it , This I take to be a Traditionary Faith ; nor is it the less Traditionary because the Fathers and Ancient Writers sound their Expositions of the Trinity wholly upon Scripture : For if this be true , then we have a Traditionary Faith of the Trinity , and a Traditionary Exposition of the Scripture , for the Reason and Proof of that Faith , both in one ; which I take to be a greater Authority , and safer Guide , than mere Scripture and our Natural Sentiments : And though Protestants allow Scripture to be the only Standard of Faith , yet he might have remembred , that the Church of England requires us to expound Scripture as the Ancient Fathers expound it . But this Wholly is a Mistake ; for the Primitive Fathers pleaded Tradition as well as Scripture against the Ancient Hereticks , as two distinct , but agreeing Testimonies ; as this Author might have known , would he have been pleased to have consulted Irenaeus and Tertullian de praescriptionibus , with divers others . What he means by a plainer Revelation , I cannot tell ; it makes it somewhat plainer , to know what the Catholick Faith has always been , and what the Catholick Interpretation of Scripture has always been ; which is the plainest and strongest Answer to Wit and Criticism , and Natural Sentiments , when they contradict this Traditionary Faith. But to discourse this matter more particularly , I shall enquire , 1. What that Catholick Church is , from whence we must receive this Traditionary Faith. 2. What Evidence we have of this Tradition concerning the Trinity , in the Catholick Church . 3. Of what Authority this ought reasonably to be in expounding Scripture , SECT . II. Concerning the Traditionary Faith of the Church , with respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity . FIrst then , Let us consider what that Catholick Church is , from whence we must receive this Traditionary Faith. Now since Christ gave the Supreme Authority of preaching the Gospel , and planting Churches , to his Apostles , those only must be reckoned the true Apostolick Churches , from which we must receive the true Christian Faith , which were planted by the Apostles , or by Apostolick men , and lived in Communion with them . It is not sufficient to prove any Doctrine to be the true Primitive Faith , That it was preached in the Apostles days , but that it was the Faith of the Apostolick Churches , which were planted by the Apostles , and received their Faith from them ; for that Only is the Primitive and Apostolick Faith. And therefore though Arians and Socinians could prove their Heresies to be as Ancient as the Apostolick Age , ( as we grant something like them was ) this does not prove theirs to be the true Christian Faith , if it were not the Faith of the Apostolick Churches . And this was very visible in those days , what these Churches were which were planted by the Apostles , and lived in Communion with them , and is very visible still in the most Authentick Records of the Church . For the Hereticks which sprang up in that Age , separated themselves from the Apostles , and thereby made a visible distinction between the True Apostolick Churches , and Heretical Conventicles : And in after-Ages they either separated themselves , or were cast out of the Communion of the Church . This St. Iohn accounted a great advantage to the Christian Church , and an Infallible Proof of False Doctrine and Heresy , as it certainly was at that time ; for if the Apostles taught the True Faith , those who separated from the Apostles , and preached another Gospel , which they never learnt from them , must be Hereticks ; 1 Ioh. 2.18 , 19. Little Children , it is the last time ; and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come ▪ even now there are many Antichrists ; whereby we know that it is the last time : They went out from us , but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us , they no doubt would have continued with us ; but they went out , that they might be made manifest , that they were not all of us . The Separation of Hereticks in that Age was a visible renouncing the Apostolick Faith and Communion ; and therefore how many Heresies soever started up , it was still visible , where the Apostolick Faith and Tradition was preserved ; and this was of admirable use to preserve the Faith of the Church sincere and uncorrupt : For had these Hereticks continued in Communion with the Apostles and Apostolick Churches , and secretly propagated their Heresies , and infected great numbers of Christians , without dividing into distinct and opposite Communions , it would have been a great dispute in the next Age , which had been the true Apostolick Faith , when the Members of the same Churches , which all their time lived in Communion with the Apostles , should preach contrary Doctrines , and pretend with equal confidence , Apostolick Tradition ; which the greatest Hereticks might very plausibly have done , had they always lived in Communion with the Apostles : But they went out from us , says St. Iohn , that they might be made manifest , that they were not all of us ; that the world might know how to distinguish between Catholick Christians , and Hereticks ; and between the True Catholick Faith , and the Corrupt Innovations of Perverse men . And this I take to be a good reason to this day , why we should keep the Communion of the Church sincere and uncorrupt , and not set our doors open for Arians and Socinians , and all sorts of Hereticks to mix with us ▪ For though , since the C●mmunion of the Church has b●en so broken and divided by Schisms , and Factions , and H●resies , it is no proof of the True Apostolick Faith , merely that it is the Faith of such a Church , ( though the Church of Rome still vainly pretends to such Authority ) yet it would soon ruin the Christian Church , and the Christian Faith , to have no distinction preserved between true Apostolick Churches , and the Apostolick Faith , and the Conventicles of Hereticks , the impure Off-spring of Cerinthus and Ebion , of Photinus or Arius . And therefore I cannot but abhor that Accommodating-Design which some men have expressed so warm a Zeal for , to Comprehend away the Faith of the Holy Trinity , in some loose general Expressions , without any particular determined Sense , and to purge our Liturgies of every thing that savours of the Worship of the Blessed Trinity , that Arians and Socinians may join in Communion with us : Which is a plausible Pretence , under the Notion of Christian Charity and Communion , to betray the Christian Faith : Not expresly to renounce it , but to bury it in silence , as a Useless and Church-dividing Dispute . I am satisfied this Holy Faith can never be Confuted ; but could these men prevail , it might soon be Lost. But to return : This is a sure Foundation for our Enquiries into the Faith of the Primitive Church , To know what the Primitive Church is ; for otherwise we may mistake Old Heresies for the Primitive Faith. But those Churches which were planted by the Apostles or Apostolical men , and received their Faith from them , and lived in Communion with them , are the true Primitive and Apostolick Churches , and their Faith is the true Primitive Apostolick Faith ; and what that was , Iustin Martyr and Irenaeus assure us ; The Faith and Worship of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : And what their Faith was as to all these Three Divine Persons , is evident from the Writings of those Ancient Fathers , who preserved the Succession and Communion of these Apostolick Churches . But this is not what I intend at present ; but from hence it appears , That those Ancient Heresies which were rejected and condemned by the Apostolick Churches , as soon as they appeared , could not be the Apostolick Faith. These Hereticks separated from the Apostles , and Apostolick Churches , and therefore could not receive their Faith from them ; nor did they pretend to this , while the Apostles lived , though they forged new Gospels , and Acts , and Revelations for them when they were dead . And thus all the Heresies of Simon Magus , Menander , Cerinthus , Ebion , Valentinus , and all those other Divisions and Subdivisions of Hereticks , who denied or corrupted the Doctrine of the Divinity of our Saviour , or his Incarnation , are all rejected from the Apostolical Faith ; for these Hereticks did not receive their Doctrines from the Apostles and Apostolick Churches , as they themselves owned by their Separation from the Apostolick Churches ; and these Churches gave Testimony against their Corruptions , as soon as they were known ; and there is no need of any other Confutation of them , if we allow the Doctrine of the Apostles to be the only Infallible Rule of Faith. This is the Argument from Prescription , which Tertullian insists so largely on , and is frequently urged by Irenaeus , and other Catholick Writers ; which is not , as some mistake it , an Argument merely from Antiquity ; for though the true Faith was ancienter than any Heresies , yet some Heresies had Antiquity enough to make them venerable , if that alone would do it ; but the Argument was from the Tradition of the Apostolick Churches , which were planted by the Apostles , and had preserved an uninterrupted Succession from them , and all the world over taught the same Faith , without any material change or variation : Whereas none of these Heresies , how Ancient soever they might be , could pretend to such an Original , were never taught by the Apostles , or any Apostolical men , nor were received or owned by any Churches planted by them . And this is an unanswerable Argument , as long as we can reasonably suppose the Tradition of the Catholick Faith , and the Communion of the Church , was preserved entire , which it visibly was , at least till the first Nicene Council ; and during all this Period , had we no other ways to know it , we might learn the Faith of the Catholick Church , by its opposition to those Heresies which it condemned . 2 dly . And this is the only Evidence which I shall at present insist on for the Catholick Tradition of the Faith of the Holy and Ever blessed Trinity ; for we may see the plain Footsteps of the Ancient Catholick Tradition concerning Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , in those Ancient Heresies . Simon Magus was the first Heretick we read of , and may be very justly accounted the Father of many of the Ancient Heresies , having led the way , and sown the Seeds and Principles of them . Now if we believe that Account which Epiphanius gives of him , this wicked Impostor pretended himself to be God , both Father and Son , and affirmed that his Lewd Woman , who was called sometimes Helena , sometimes Selene , was the Holy Ghost . These Names and Distinctions of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , he could not possibly learn from any persons , but only from the Christian Church , in which he was baptized in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . And therefore we may observe , that before his Baptism he only pretended to be some Great One , and the deluded people thought him to be the great power of God , 8. Acts 9 , 10. But when he was baptized , and soon a●ter apostatized from the Christian Faith , the Devil , whose great Power he was , set him up for the God of the Christians , both Father and Son. And though he blasphemously attributed these Titles of God the Father and Son to himself , and wickedly corrupted this Faith , by making the Father and Son but one Person under different appearances ; that he appeared to his Countreymen the Samaritans as God the Father , and to the Iews as the Son ; yet there had been no pretence for this , had not the Christian Church owned Jesus Christ , the Son of God , to be true and perfect God. For had the Father been God , and the Son a mere Man , it is certain Father and Son could never be the same Person : And besides the Wickedness and Impudence of the Impostor , in pretending himself to be Father and Son , it had been ridiculous to pretend this to Christians , had he not known that the Catholick Faith taught the Son to be True and Real God , as well as the Father ; and then if he could persuade them that he was God the Father , he might with the same ease persuade them that he was God the Son too , under a different appearance . Thus when he pretends that his wicked Strumpet was the Holy Ghost , by whom he created the Angels , which created the World ; the very Prophanation of this Holy Mystery shews what the Faith of the Church in that Age was concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost ; for he could have no other Inducement to make his Woman , whom he calls the Holy Ghost , such a Divine Power , but because he knew the Christian Church believed the Holy Ghost to be God , and the Spirit of God , as he made her to be his Divine Creating Intelligence . Another Heresy concerning the Person of Christ , attributed Divinity to him , owned him to be the Son of God , though not of the Maker of the world , ( who they said was but an Inferior Angel ) , but of the Unknown and Incomprehensible Father ; and that he appeared indeed in the world like a Man , but was no true and real Man. Now what should put such a wild Conceit as this into their heads , had they not known this to be the Catholick Faith , That Jesus Christ was the Son of God ? Their eyes could not see him to be God , but they saw him to be a Man , and yet they deny him to be a Man , and teach that he was the Son of God , in the form and apparition of a Man : Which is a plain indication what the Catholick Faith was , That Christ was both God and Man. This they could not believe , that the Son of God would so unite himself to Human Nature , as to become true and real man ; and yet they thought it so evident that he was the Son of God , or at least saw that this Faith was accounted so sacred , that they would not venture to deny that , and therefore chose to deny his Humanity , and make a mere Apparition of him . But then on the other hand , Cerinthus and Ebion thought it too evident to be denied , That he was a true and real Man ; and therefore they taught , That Iesus was a Man , and no more than a Man , born as other Men are , of Ioseph and Mary . But then it is worth considering , how they came to make this the distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect , That Christ was but a mere Man , if the Apostolick Churches , whom they opposed , and from whom they separated , had not taught , That he was more than a Man , That he was God as well as Man. Was there ever any Dispute either before or since , concerning any other Man in the world , who was owned to be a Man , Whether he were a mere Man or not ? When one sort of Hereticks deny Christ to be a Man , and another deny him to be God , and both of them in contradiction to the Apostolick Faith , it is a very strong presumption at least , what the True Catholick Apostolick Faith was , That Christ was both God and Man. And yet Cerinthus himself , though he makes Jesus to be a mere Man , owns Christ to be a Divine Person , and that this Christ descended on Jesus at his Baptism , in the form of a Dove , and rested on him , or dwelt in him , and wrought Miracles by him , but left him at his Crucifixion , and flew up again to Heaven . So that , according to Cerinthus , from the time that Jesus was baptized , till he was crucified , the Divinity was very nearly and intimately united to him ; not that he was God and Man in one Person , as the Catholick Faith teaches , but yet that Jesus Christ was a Divine and Human Person , though Christ was one Person , and Jesus another . And therefore as the Nicene Creed ( which we find also in the Ancient Oriental Creeds ) teaches us to believe in One God the Father Almighty , Maker of Heaven and Earth , and of all things visible and invisible ; not to exclude Christ from being the Maker of the World , but in opposition to those Hereticks who would not allow the Supreme God , who is the Father of Christ , to be the Maker of the World , but attributed the Creation of this World to one or more Inferior Angels ; So they add , And in One Lord Iesus Christ , the only begotten Son of God , in opposition to those who made Christ and Jesus Two Persons . And yet in this very Heresy we may see what the Ancient Catholick Faith was , That Jesus Christ was God and Man ; as Cerinthus himself owned , though he would not unite Christ and Jesus into One Person , nor make the Union inseparable . The Valentinian Heresy , though dressed up after the mode of the Pagan Theology , was a manifest Corruption of the Christian Faith , under a Pretence of a more perfect knowledge of Divine Mysteries ; and we may still see the broken Remains of the Catholick Tradition of the Trinity among them . Their Pleroma , by which they seem to understand the Fulness of the Deity , as St. Paul uses that Phrase , 2 Col. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , That the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily . I say , this Pleroma consisted of several Aeons or Divine Persons , which were propagated from the Unknown and Incomprehensible Father in gradual Descents , and all together made up the Compleat and Perfect Deity ; which were more or fewer , according to the various Fancies of Hereticks . Now from these wild Conceits we may in some measure learn what the Catholick Faith was : That the Godhead was not confined to one Single and Solitary Person , but that there is such a Foecundity in the Divine Nature , as communicates it self to more Persons than one . For had it been the known and received Faith of the Christian Church , That there is but One Person in the Godhead , as well as but One God , there had been no pretence for these Hereticks , who called themselves Christians , and boasted of a more perfect knowledge of the Christian Faith , to have invented such a number of Aeons , which they included within their Pleroma , as the several Emanations of their Deity . And we may observe , that most of the Names which they gave to their several Aeons , are Scripture-Names and Titles , which the Pagan Theology knew nothing of , and which they could learn no where , but from the Christian Church . Basilides , I think , was one of the first who gave us any distinct account of these Aeons , which was new modell'd by Valentinus , and other succeeding Hereticks ; and his first and Supreme Aeon , as Epiphanius tells us , was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; The Unbegotten One , who only is the Father of all , and by others is called the Propater , and the Unknown , Invisible , Incomprehensible Father . Now though the Heathens very familiarly call their Supreme God , the Father of Gods and Men , with respect to his Creating Power ; yet as the Notion of Father is founded in a substantial Generation , as these Hereticks plainly understood it , so it is the peculiar Character of God under the Gospel , who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , his only begotten Son. It is certain the first Person in the Godhead was never called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the One that is unbegotten , but to distinguish him from One who is begotten ; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the only begotten ; who is God also , but God o● God. And it is observable what Tertullian tells us of Heracleon , That he made his first Ae●n to be illud quod pronunciat , which some Criticks not understanding , think to be a defect in the Copy ; but the sense is plain , that his first Aeon is he that pronounceth , or speaketh ; by which he represented the Eternal Generation of the Word : So that his first Aeon is the Pronouncer or Speaker , that is , the Father of the Eternal Word , which St. Iohn tells us was in the beginning , was with God , and was God : Which shews that this is nothing else but a disguized Corruption of the Catholick Faith , concerning the Eternal Generation of the Word from the Eternal Unbegotten Father . To confirm this , I observe farther , That most of the Names which they give to their other Aeons , are such Names , Titles , or Characters , as the Scripture gives to Christ , or the Holy Spirit , which they have multiplied into so many distinct Persons or Aeons , such as the Mind , Word , Prudence , Power , and Wisdom ; Truth , Life , Light , the Only begotten , the Paraclete , and the like . Valentinus indeed , as Epiphanius observes , did model his Thirty Aeons according to Hesiod's Genealogy and Number of Gods , and with some manifest allusions to them ; but yet he retained as many Scripture-Names as he could , the better to reconcile unwary people to his fabulous Genealogi●s , as the hidden and mysterious sense of Scripture . And it is impossible such Fables should ever have obtained any Credit , had they not been grafted on the Catholick Faith , and pretended to improve it with new degrees of Light and Knowledge . When these Heresies were pretty well silenced , up start Noetus and Sabellius , who ran into the other Extreme . The Valentinians had corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity , by multiplying Three Divine Persons into Thirty Aeons , besides all their other Pagan and Fabulous Conceits about them : This offended these men , as downright Polytheism ( as indeed it was no better ) ; and to avoid this , they reject a Trinity of Real and Substantial Persons , for a Trinity of Names ; that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are but Three Names of the same Person , who is sometimes called the Father , at other times the Son , or the Holy Ghost , with respect to his different Appearances or Operations : Or they made the Son and Holy Ghost not Two Persons , but Two Personal Attributes in God , his Wisdom , or Power : Or they made the Trinity but Three Parts of One Compounded God , as a Man consists of Body , Soul , and Spirit ; which of late have been revived among us , under different Names . After these men , arose Arius and his Followers , who out of great Zeal also for the Unity of God , framed a New and more Subtile Heresy : They were sensible that Father and Son were not Two Names , but Two Real Distinct Persons , and therefore they attributed the whole entire Divinity to the Father , and made the Son not to be God by Nature , but the most Perfect and Excellent Creature , as Perfect an Image of God , as any Creature can be , but not Consubstantial with God , nor Coequal and Coeternal with him . All these Heresies were rejected and condemned by the Catholick Church in their several Ages , as soon as they appeared , and were taken notice of : And this is one very good way to learn what the Catholick Faith was , from its Opposition to those Heresies which the Catholick Church condemned , and from the Corrupted Remains of the Ancient Faith which appeared in them . For these Hereticks were originally Christians , and professed themselves Christians , and therefore did not wholly renounce the Christian Faith , but grafted their Heresies on it . As to confine my self to the Subj●ct of the present Dispute , What we are to understand by Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Whether Three Distinct , Real , Substantial Persons , or not ; each of whom is distinctly by himself True and Perfect God , but in the Unity of the same Divine Nature and Godhead . Now that this was the received Faith of the Catholick Church , we may learn both from the Valentinians ▪ Sabellians , and Arians . Though the Valentinians , as I observed before , had corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity , either with the Platonick Philosophy , as that it self had been corrupted by the Iunior Platonists ; or with the Pagan Theology ; yet the Propagation of their Aeons in different Degrees and Descents from the first Supreme Aeon , the Unbegotten One , and the Invisible and Incomprehensible Father , as they stile him , shews what they thought the Catholick Faith was , concerning the Eternal Generation of the Son , and Procession of the Holy Spirit , which they took to be a Substantial Generation and Procession ; and accordingly in imitation of this Faith , asserted a Substantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Emanation of one Aeon from another ; and which is more , none of the Ancient Fathers who wrote against this Heresy , as far as I have observed , ever quarrel with them upon this account . Nay Tertullian , though he abominates these Heresies , owns this Probole or Emanation in a true Catholick Sense ; and tells us , that these Hereticks borrowed this word from the Catholick Faith , though they fitted it to their Heresy : And challenges any man to say whether the Divine Word be not produced by the Father ; and if it be , Here , says he , is the Prolation or Emanation , which the true Catholick Faith owns . And adds , That the fault of this Heresy was not their producing one Aeon from another , but that besides the number of their fictitious Aeons , they did separate these Emanations and Aeons from their Author ; that the Aeons knew not the Father , nay , desired to know him , but could not know him ; and was e'en dissolved with Passion and Desire ; whereas in the Catholick Faith there is the most Inseparable Union of the Son with the Father , and the most Intimate and Perfect Knowledge of him . So that Tertullian allows of a Real and Substantial Production of the Person of the Son from the Person of the Father ; as the Valentinians pretended of their Aeons ; and asserts , that these Hereticks learnt this from the Catholick Faith of the Trinity : And that the Church must not reject this Probole , Prolation , or Emanation , in an Orthodox , Catholick Use of those words , because Hereticks abuse them , to countenance their own Heresies . As for the Noetians and Sabellians , ( for however they explain the Doctrine of the Trinity , whether by Three Names , or Three Powers , or Three Parts , while they Teach , That the One God is but One Single Person , the Heresy is the same ) it is impossible the Catholick Church should reject this Heresy , without asserting Three Distinct , Real , Substantial Persons in the Unity of the Godhead , each of whom is as True and Perfect God , as each of Three Men , Peter , Iames , and Iohn , is a True , Perfect , Distinct Man ; though these Three Men are not uni●ed , as the Three Divine Persons are . The occasion of this Heresy was , That they thought that Three Real Distinct Persons in the Godhead were Three Gods ; and therefore , though being profess'd Christians , and consequently baptized in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , they durst not deny Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , yet neither would they own Three Divine Persons , but turned them into Three Names , or Three Parts of One Person ; which has much more sense in it than Three Modes ; though Three Modes of the same Person , let them call them Three Personalities if they please , is the same Heresy , if there be but One Suppositum ; as One Man may be the Subject of Three , or Three and twenty Modes , and be but One Human Person still . Noetus and Sabellius did certainly apprehend , that by Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , the Catholick Church understood Three Distinct , Substantial , Divine Persons , or else why should they charge them with Tritheism upon this account , and turn Three Persons into Three Names , or Three Parts of One and the same God , to avoid the Imputation of Three Gods ? And if this had not been the belief of the Catholick Church , what meant their Zeal against this Heresy ? For all the Wit of Man can't find a Medium between Sabellianism , and Three Divine Substantial Persons . A Trinity must be Three Somewhats , as it has been lately called ; and then it must either be One Suppositum or Person , under Three Names , or Three Modes , or compounded of Three Parts ; or be Three Distinct Suppositums and Persons . Now if this had been the Catholick Faith , That the Trinity is but One Suppositum or Person , under Three Names or Modes , &c. I cannot imagine why the Catholick Church should have quarrell'd with these Hereticks , or they with the Catholick Church , unless they both mistook one another : But if the Sabellians and Catholicks understood themselves and each other , and did intend to contradict each other , we certainly know what the Catholick Faith was : For there is nothing contradicts a Noetian and Sabellian Trinity , but a Trinity , of Distinct , Substantial , Divine Persons . And Novatianus well observes , That these Hereticks did acknowledge the Divinity of Christ ; That whoever Christ was , it was evident from those Characters given of him in Scripture , That he was True and Perfect God : And because the Father is True and Perfect God , and Christ True and Perfect God , for fear of owning Two Gods , they make the Father and the Son to be but One and the same Person . The Arians denied the Eternal Godhead of Christ , and made a Creature of him , though the most excellent Creature , the Minister and Instrument of God in making the World ; and the reason of this Heresy was the same ; viz. for fear of a Plurality of Gods , should they allow Christ to be True and Perfect God. And this still is a plain evidence what they thought the Catholick Faith to be ; not only that Christ was True and Real God , but that he was Truly and Really a Distinct Person from God the Father ; so distinct , that if they should acknowledge him to be True God , he would be a Second God ; which they thought contradicted the Faith of One God. Well : Though they would not own him to be True God , yet they own him to be a distinct Person from the Father , as distinct as God and a Creature are distinct . Do the Catholicks now quarrel with the Arians , that they have made a Substantial Person of the Son ( as in reason t●ey ought to have done , had th●y not believed the Son to be a distinct Substantial Person ) ; this Dispute we hear nothing of ; but the only Dispute was concerning the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father ; and that proves , that they did own the Son to be a Substantial Person ; for were he not in a true proper sense a Person , and a Substantial Person , he could not be Consubstantial with the Father . Nay , St Austin expresly tells us , That Arius agreed with the Catholicks against the Sabellians , in making the Son a distinct Person from the Father ; and if so , the Catholicks taught , That the Son was as distinct a Person as Arius did , though not a Separate and Created Person , as he did . Now when Arius would have reduced Christ into the number of Creatures , though he made him the first and most excellent Creature , created before the World , and God's Minister in making the World , as like to God as a Creature can possibly be , but not of the same Nature with God ; the Catholick Church would not bear this , but in a most Venerable Synod collected from most parts of the Christian World , condemn this as contrary to the Faith always received and owned in their several Churches . Thus far , at least , the Tradition of the Church was Sacred and Venerable , and the concurrent Testimony of all these several Churches , was a more certain Proof of the Apostolick Faith , than all the Wit and Subtilty of Arius : For Wit may patronize New Errors , but cannot prove That to be the Ancient Apostolick Faith , which the Church had never received from the Apostles , nor ever heard of before . This I take to be a very sensible Proof what the Faith of the Christian Church was , from the Times of the Apostles till the Council of Nice ; and consequently , what that Faith was which the Church received from the Apostles : And this abundantly satisfies me , That whatever loose Expressions we may meet with in some of the Fathers , before the Arian Controversy was started , and managed with great Art and Subtilty ( though I know of none but what are capable of a very Orthodox Sense ) , it is certain that they were not Arians , nor intended any such thing in what they said . For had Arianism been the Traditionary Faith of the Church , it must have been known to be so ; and then how came the Church to be so strangely alarm'd at the first news of it ? Or what shall we think of those Venerable Fathers and Confessors in that Great Council , who either did not know the Faith of the Church , or did so horribly prevaricate in the Condemnation of Arius , when they had no other apparent Interest or Temptation to do so , but a Warm and Hearty Zeal for the Truly Ancient and Apostolick Faith ? It is certain Arius never pretended Catholick Tradition for his Opinion , but undertook to reform the Catholick Faith by the Principles of Philosophy , and to reconcile it to Scripture by new-coin'd Interpretations ; though in this he fail'd , and found the Great Athanasius an over-match for him . It is not with Faith , as it is with Arts and Sciences of Human Invention , which may be improved in every Age by greater Wits or new Observations ; but Faith depends upon Revelation , not Invention ; and we can no more make a New Catholick Faith , by the power of Wit and Reason , than we can write a True History of what the Apostles did and taught , out of our own Invention , without the Authority of any Ancient Records : Men may do such things if they please , but one will be Heresy , and the other a Romance . And yet this is the bold and brave Attempt of Secinus and his Disciples : They are so modest indeed , as not to pretend Antiquity to be on their side ; they can find no other Antiquity for themselves , but in Cerinthus and Ebion , who separated from the Catholick Church , and were rejected by them ; and it does not seem very modest , to set up such men as these , against the Universal Consent of the first and purest Ages of the Church . The Socinians , who know very well what the Charge of Novelty signifies in matters of Religion ; That a New Faith is but another Name for New Heresies ; Though they reject the Doctrine of the Fathers , and the Catholick Tradition of the Faith from the Apostolick Age , yet they appeal to Scripture and Natural Sentiments , as the greatest and best Antiquity , in opposition to Apostolick Tradition . This is our Considerer's way , which he prefers before a Traditionary Faith ; and by the same reason the Socinians may oppose it to a Traditionary Faith : And if we must always expound Scripture by our Natural Sentiments , this Author had best consider whether he can prove a Trinity by Natural Reason ; or fairly reconcile the Natural Notion of One God , with the Catholick Faith of the Trinity , or of Three , each of whom is True and P●rfect God , from the mere Principles of Natural Reason ; for if he can't , he must not in his way find a Trinity in Scripture : But of this more hereafter . 3. Let us now , in opposition to this pretence , consider of what Authority the Traditionary Faith of the Catholick Church ought to be , in expounding Scripture . The Holy Scripture , at least in pretence , is allowed on all hands to be a Compleat and Authentick Rule of Faith ; but the question is , since men differ so much in expounding Scripture , What is the safest Rule to expound Scripture by ; whether the Traditionary Faith of the Church , or our Natural Sentiments , or Natural Reason ? I do not mean , that we must learn the Critical Sense of every Text from Catholick Tradition ; for we have not in all points such a Traditionary Exposition of Scripture ; though even in this respect , we shall find that the Catholick Fathers have unanimously agreed in the Interpretation of the most material Texts relating to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity , and the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ. They sometimes indeed alledge such Texts , especially out of the Old Testament , as our Modern Criticks will not allow to be proper and apposite ; but even this shews what their Faith was ; and yet these very Expositions , which have been so anciently and unanimously received ( though they may appear at this distance of time too forc'd and mystical ) have too Sacred and Venerable an Authority to be wantonly rejected . We may learn from Christ and his Apostles , what mysterious and hidden Senses were contain'd in the Writings of the Old Testament , such as it is very probable we should never have found in them , had not Christ and his Apostles explained their meaning : And the nearer any Writers were to the Apostolick Age , the more they were addicted to these Mystical Interpretations ; which is a good reason to believe that they learnt it from the Apostles themselves . But this is not what I now intend ; my present Argument reaches no farther than this ; That if we can learn what the Doctrine of the Catholick Church concerning the Holy Trinity , and the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ has always been : Then 1. It is very reasonable to conclude , That they received this Doctrine from the Apostles , it being the Faith of those Churches which were planted by the Apostles , received their Faith from them , and always lived in Communion with them . 2. This makes it reasonable to believe , that this very Faith is contained in the Writings of the New Testament ; for , I suppose , no man questions , but that the Apostles taught the same Faith by Writing , which they did by Preaching ; and then this is a Demonstration against all such Interpretations of Scripture as contradict the Catholick Faith ; whatever fine Colours Wit and Criticism may give them . Nay , 3. It is a certain Proof , That these Primitive Christians , who received these Inspired Writings from the Apostles which now make up the Canon of the New Testament , did believe that the same Faith which the Apostles and Apostolical men had taught them by Word of Mouth , was contained in their Writings ; for they could not possibly have believed both what the Apostles taught , and what they writ , if their Preaching and Writings had contradicted each other . We know what the Faith of the Primitive Church was , and we know they received these Apostolical Writings with the profoundest Veneration , as an Inspired Rule of Faith ; and had we no other presumption of it but this , we might safely conclude , That they found the same Faith in these Writings , which the Apostles had before taught them by Word of Mouth . But besides this , we find that all the Catholick Writers appeal to the Scriptures , and prove their Faith from them ; and the Authority of such men who were so near the Fountain of Apostolick Tradition , must be very Venerable . 4. I shall only add this , That since we know what the Catholick Faith was , and how the Catholick Fathers expounded Scripture , if the Words of Scripture will naturally and easily admit that Sense , much more if they will not admit any other Sense without great force and violence , let any man judge which is most safe and reasonable , to expound Scripture as the Catholick Faith and Catholick Fathers expound it , and as the Scripture most easily and naturally expounds it self , or to force New Senses and Old Heresies upon Scripture , which the Catholick Church has always rejected and condemned . This , I hope , may satisfy our Considerer , that he did very ill in rejecting a Traditionary Faith , and venturing to expound Scripture by his Natural Sentiments , which is a very Unsafe Rule in Matters of Pure Revelation , of which mere Natural Reason is no competent Judge . SECT . III. What is sufficient to be believed concerning the Trinity . THus far , I fear , our Considerer has been a little unfortunate ; or if it do not prove a Misfortune to him in forming his Notion of a Trinity , his Luck is better than his Choice . Let us proceed to his next Enquiry , What is sufficient for Christians to believe concerning the Trinity ; or , which is all one in this case , what is necessary to be believed ? What the meaning of this Question is , I can't well tell ; nor why he makes sufficient and necessary all one ; for , at least , they are not always so . That is sufficient which is enough for any man to believe ; that is strictly necessary which every man must believe : But let him take his own way ; he quits the Term sufficient , and enquires what is necessary to be believed ; whereas in many cases , that which is absolutely necessary for all , may not be sufficient for some : I should much rather have enquired how much may be known concerning this Glorious Mystery , than how little will serve the turn ; which argues no great Zeal for it . Well : What is necessary to be believed concerning the Trinity ? He answers , Nothing but 1. What 's possible to be believed . And 2. What 's plainly revealed . Here we begin to see what the effect is , of consulting nothing but Scripture and Natural Sentiments . I hope he meant honestly in this ; but if he did , he expressed himself very incautiously ; for these two Conditions are very ill put together , when applied to matters of Revelation . Plainly revealed , had been enough in all reason , unless he would insinuate , that what is plainly revealed may be impossible to be believed ; and that how plain soever the Revelation be , men must judge of the possibility of the thing by their own Natural Sentiments , before they are bound to believe it ; which makes Natural Reason , not Scripture , the final Judge of Controversies . But we must follow him where he leads us ; and thus he divides his whole Work. 1. To consider how far it is possible to believe a Trinity . 2. What the Scripture requires us to believe in this matter . As for the first , he tells us , There are two requisites to make it possible for us to believe a thing . 1. That we know the Terms of what we are to assent to . 2. That it imply no Contradiction to our former Knowledge : Such Knowledge I mean , as is accompanied with Certainty and Evidence . This in some sense may be true ; but as it is thus loosely and generally expressed , it is very like the Socinian Cant and Sophistry . By knowing the Terms , he means having distinct Natural Ideas of what is signified by such Terms ; as he himself explains it ; — I can believe it no farther than the Terms of which it is made up , are known and understood , and the Ideas signified by them consistent . So that all Divine Mysteries must be examined by our Natural Ideas ; and what we have no Natural Ideas of , we cannot , we must not believe : And this once for all condemns all Supernatural Faith , or the belief of Supernatural Objects , though never so plainly revealed ; for we have no Natural Ideas of Supernatural Objects : And though Revelation may furnish us from the Resemblances and Analogies in Nature with some Artificial Ideas , this will not serve the turn ; for though they know what such Terms signify when applied to Natural , they know not what they signify when applied to Supernatural Objects , nor have they any Ideas to answer them : As for Instance ; We know what Father and Son signify when applied to Men ; but when we say , God is not only Eternal himself , but an Eternal Father , who begot an Eternal Son ; these Terms of Father and Son , begetting and being begotten , must signify quite otherwise than they do among men , something which we have no Idea of ; and therefore say the Socinians , All this is unintelligible and impossible to be believed , unless we can believe without understanding the Terms : This Considerer asserts the Premises , he had best consider again how he will avoid the Conclusion . Another Socinian Topick is Contradiction , and this our Considerer makes another requisite to the possibility of believing , That the thing do not imply a Contradiction to our former knowledge ; that is , to any Natural Ideas : And here he learnedly disputes against believing Contradictions ; and that it is not consistent with the Wisdom , Iustice , and Goodness of God to require us to believe Contradictions . But if instead of all this he had only said , That God cannot reveal such plain and evident Contradictions , as he cannot require us to believe ; and consequently , That whatever is plainly revealed , implies no Contradiction , how much soever it may be above our comprehension , because God does require us to believe what he plainly reveals ; this had put an end to this Dispute , and left the belief of the Trinity possible , whatever difficulties we might apprehend in conceiving it : But this great Zeal against believing Contradictions , when applied to the belief of the Trinity , is a very untoward Insinuation , as if the Doctrine of the Trinity , as commonly understood , were clogg'd with Contradictions , and that we must cast all such Contradictions ( which in the Socinian account is the Doctrine it self ) out of our Faith ; and therefore , That whatever the Scripture says , we must put no such sense on it as implies any Contradiction to our former knowledge . This is an admirable Foundation for Considerations concerning the Trinity ; and what an admirable Superstructure he has rais'd on it , we shall soon see . I may possibly discourse this Point of Contradictions more at large elsewhere ; at present I shall only tell this Author , That as self-evident as he thinks it , this Proposition is false , That it is impossible to believe what implies a Contradiction to our former knowledge ; and that God cannot require us to believe it . I grant that all Logical Contradictions which are resolved into is , and is not , are impossible to be believed , because they are impossible to be true ; and such is his Contradiction about the Whole and its Parts ; for to say , That the Whole is not bigger than any of its Parts , is to say , That a Whole is a Whole , and is not a Whole ; and that a Part is a Part , and is not a Part. But contradictory Ideas may both be true , and therefore both be believed , and every man believes great numbers of them : The Ideas of Heat and Cold , White and Black , Body and Spirit , Extension and No Extension , Eternity and Time , to have A Beginning and to have No Beginning , are contradictory Ideas , and yet we believe them all ; that is , we believe and know that there really are such things , whose Natures are directly opposite and contrary to each other . Now when there are such Contrarieties and Contradictions in Created Nature , it may justly be thought very strange to true Considerers , that our Natural Ideas should be made the adequate measures of Truth or Falshood , of the Possibilities or Impossibilities of things ; that we must not believe what God reveals concerning himself , if it contradicts any Natural Ideas . And yet I challenge this Considerer , and all the Socinian , Sabellian , Arian Fraternities , to shew me any appearance of Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity , but what are of this kind ; that is , not Logical Contradictions , but Contradictions to our other Natural Ideas : And if our Natural Ideas of Created Nature contradict each other , it would be wonderful indeed if the Divine Uncreated Nature should not contradict all our Natural Ideas . Every thing we know of God is a direct Contradiction to all the Ideas we have of Creatures ; an Uncreated and a Created Nature , an Infinite and a Finite Nature , are direct Contradictions to each other : Eternity without Succession , Omnipresence without Extension , Parts , or Place ; a pure simple Act , which is all in one , without Composition ; an Omnipotent Thought , which thinks all things into Being , and into a Beautiful Order ; these and such like Ideas of God are direct Contradictions to all the Ideas we have of Creatures ; and can any Contradiction then to any Ideas of Created Nature be thought a reasonable Objection against believing any thing which God reveals to us concerning himself ? But of this more hereafter . SECT . IV. Concerning his State of the Question , That One and the Same God is Three Different Persons . THese are his Preliminaries , Axioms , Postulata's , all in the strict demonstrative way ; but now he comes to apply all this more closely to the business in hand ; but then he very unfortunately stumbles at the Threshold . The Proposition he proposes to examine by these Principles , is this , That One and the same God is Three Different Persons . Where he met with this Proposition in these very Terms , I know not ; I 'm sure there is no such Proposition in Scripture , nor did I ever meet with it in any Catholick Writer : It is very far from giving us a true and adequate Notion of the Catholick Faith concerning the Trinity ; it is of a doubtful signification , and in the most obvious sense of these words ( which I fear will appear to have been intended by this Considerer ) is manifest Heresy : For if by One and the same God , he means , That there is but One who is God ; and , That this One and same God is Three different Persons ; it is the Heresy of Sabellius at least , if he would have owned the Term different , which inclines more to the signification of diversity , than of mere distinction , which savours of Arianism , and more properly relates to Natures than to Persons . We meet with different forms of speech in Catholick Writers concerning the Unity and Trinity in the Godhead , all which must be reconciled , to form a distinct and compleat Notion of the Trinity . That Deus . est Vnus & Trinus , God is One and Three , is very Ancient , and very Catholick . That the Father is the One God , in a peculiar and eminent sense , is both the Language of Scripture , and of the Church . That each Person , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is by himself True and Perfect God , is likewise the Doctrine both of the Holy Scriptures , and the Catholick Fathers . That the Trinity is One God ; That Father and Son are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Vnum , One Divinity , Christ himself teaches us : That Father , Son , and Spirit , are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One , St. Iohn teaches us . And nothing is more familiar both with the Greek and Latin Fathers , than to call the Trinity One God ; and in consequence of this , That One God is the Trinity ; though this they rather chose to express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Divinity in Three Persons . And whoever would give an account of the Catholick Faith of the Trinity , must have respect to all these Notions , and not content himself with any one of them , as , to make the best of it , the Considerer here does , when he only proposes to enquire , How One and the same God is Three Persons : But he ought to have enquired also in what sense each Person is by himself True and Perfect God ; and the Person of the Father in a peculiar and eminent sense the One God ; and to have framed his Notions of Unity and Distinction with an equal regard to all these Catholick Expositions ; which would have secured him from the Sabellian Heresy , which now his Words are very guilty of , whatever He himself be . But let us now proceed to his Examination of these Terms , God , Vnity , Identity , Distinction , and Number , and Person . As to the Notion of a Deity , he confesses he has not a ful● and adequate Idea of God ; but yet he knows which of those distinct Ideas he has in his mind , are applicable to God , and which are not . But the present question does not conce●n the Idea of God , which I hope we are all agreed in , That God is a Being infinitely perfect : But whether this Name God , in the Question of the Trinity , signifies only One who is God , or One single Divine Person ? Or , Whether this Name , and the perfect Idea which belongs to it , be applicable distinctly to Three , to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; That each of them is True and Perfect God , and neither of them is each other , and all Three but One God ? This had been the true Explication of the Term God , as applied to the Doctrine of the Trinity , To have told us what is meant by God , when this Name is peculiarly attributed to the Person of the Father , when it is attributed to each Person distinctly , and when it is jointly attributed to them all , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are One God : ●t is certain all this must be resolved into the same One Divinity , which is perfectly in each of them , and insepara●ly and indivisibly in them all : And the true stating of his matter had been very proper , and would have saved all his other Labour . And therefore to save me some labour , I will briefly tell him how the Catholick Fathers understood it ; which is the only possible way I know , of reconciling these different Expressions . When they tell us , That the Person of the Father is in an eminent and peculiar manner the One God ; by this they understand , That the Father alone is self-originated , and from himself ; That the Whole Divinity and Godhead is originally his own , which he received from no other : Which is the first and most natural notion we have of God , and of One God. When they say , That though the Father in this sense be the One God , yet the Son also is True and Perfect God , and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God , they ascribe Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost , upon account of the Eternal and Perfect Communication of the Divine Nature to them : For he who has the True Divine Nature , is True and Perfect God : And therefore the Son , who is eternally begotten of his Father , of the Substance of his Father , and is Consubstantial with him , is True and Perfect God , but God of God ; and the like may be said of the Holy Spirit , who eternally proceeds from Father and Son. When they teach , That the Trinity is One God , they mean by it , That the same One Divinity does subsist whole and entire , indivisibly and inseparably , but yet distinctly in them all , as I have already explained it : So that the Unity of the Godhead gives an account of all these Expressions , Why the Father is said to be the One God , and yet that the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost God , and Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but One God. All this is taught in Scripture , and is the Faith of the Catholick Church ; and I would never desire a better Proof of the Truth and Certainty of any Notion , than that it takes in the whole Mystery , and answers to every part of it ; which no other account I have ever yet met with , can do . SECT . V. An Examination of his Notions and Ideas of Unity , Distinction , Person , &c. AND now the Sabellian Scene opens apace : If the Heresy of Sabellius was , That there is but One who is God , but One Divine Intelligent Person , as well as One Divine Nature , this our Considerer expresly owns , and does his Endeavour to prove it absolutely impossible that it should be otherwise ; that is , That the Catholick Faith , asserted and defended by the Catholick Church , against Sabellius , is absolutely impossible . To explain the word Person , he tells us , It signifies one of these two things ; either a particular Intelligent Being ; or an Office , Character , or some such complex Notion , applicable to such a Being : If you would know in which of these senses we must understand the word Person , when we say there are Three Persons in the Trinity ; he tells us plainly , That the simple Idea ( of God ) can be applied but to One single Person , in the first sense of the word Person , as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being , Nature , or Principle . — And that all the Personal Distinction we can conceive in the Deity , must be founded on some accessory Ideas , extrinsecal to the Divine Nature ; a certain Combination of which Ideas , makes up the second Notion signified by the word Person . And for this he appeals to Natural Sentiments , mistaking Heresy for Nature . And if we fairly and impartially examine our own Thoughts upon this Subject , we shall find , That when we name God the Father , we conceive the Idea of God , so far as we are capable of conceiving it , as acting so and so , under such respects and relations ; and when we name God the Son , we conceive nothing else but the same Idea of God over again , under different relations ; and so likewise of the Holy Ghost . Noetus , Praxeas , or Sabellius , never taught their Heresy in more express words than these . And what is to be done now ? Must we dispute this Point over again with the Considerer , and confute a Heresy which has been so early , so often , and so constantly condemned by the Catholick Church ? For my part , I can pretend to say nothing new , which has not long since been much better said by the Catholick Fathers ; and therefore before we part , I shall acquaint him with their Judgment in the Case , and leave it to rest on their Authority and Reasons . But it may not be amiss to mind this Considerer , That he has all the Schoolmen ( as far as I have heard , or had opportunity to consult them ) as well as the Catholick Fathers , against him , in his Notion of a Person ; for they all receive Boetius's Definition , That a Person is an Individual Substance of a Rational Nature . Or it may be the Authority of Melancthon may be more considerable with him ; who tells us , That the Church in this Article of the Trinity understands by Person , an Individual , Intelligent , Incommunicable Substance : And adds , That the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that there is but One Essence or Nature , and Three Hypostases ; that is , Three really subsisting , not commentitious , vanishing , confused , but distinct , particular , Intelligent Persons . And the Censure he passes upon Servetus upon this score , is very remarkable . That Fanatical Fellow Servetus plaid with the word Person , and contended , That in Latin it anciently signified a Dress or Habit , or the distinction of an Office ; as R●scius is sometimes said to act the part of Achilles , sometimes of Vlysses : Or , the Person of a Consul is one thing , and the Person of a Slave is another , as Cicero speaks ; that it is a great thing to maintain the Character of the Person of a Prince in the Commonwealth : And this Ancient Signification of the Word he slily wrested and applied to the Article concerning the Three Persons of the Godhead : But let us fly from , and abhor such wicked Artifices ; and know , That the Church speaks after another manner ; and that Person signifies an Individual , Intelligent , Incommunicable Substance . And it will be of great use to form and fix this Notion in our minds ; to contemplate the Baptism of Christ , where all Three Persons were most evidently represented and distinguished : The Father spoke in an audible Voice , This is my beloved Son ; the Son is seen standing in the River ; and the Holy Spirit descends on him in a visible Appearance . But since the Considerer makes a great Flourish with his Ideas , and clear and distinct Conceptions , and fetches his Proofs from the most intimate knowledge of Nature , he may take it ill if no notice or regard be had of them : We see very well where he has been trading ; and I doubt the Ingenious Author of Human Vnderstanding , will have more Disciples of different kinds than he was well aware of , in whom he will have no great reason to glory : For it requires more Skill than every man is Master of , to form simple and distinct Notions and Ideas , and to apply them dexterously to their proper Subjects . And to refer all men to Natural Ideas and Perceptions , when so very few know how to distinguish between Natural Notions , and the Prejudices and Prepossessions of Education , the Delusions of Fancy , and the Byass of Inclination , is like the Quakers appeal to the Light within , which is just what every man will have it to be . Our Considerer reduces all the Notions he can find of Vnity and Distinction , to Three Heads : The Unity or Distinction of Ideas , of Principle , and of Position ; and undertakes to prove from them all , That it is impossible , or absolutely unconceivable , that there should be more than One Intelligent Person , in the proper Notion of a Person , in the Godhead . Now in the first place I would be glad to hear a good reason why the Considerer takes no notice of that old received definition of One , that Vnum est Indivisum ; that is One , which is Undivided : The most perfect One is that which neither is nor can be divided ; an absolute perfect Monad , which is absolutely and perfectly Simple , without any Parts to be divided into : And this is the Unity of the Divine Nature , as Scripture , Fathers , Schoolmen , and all men of improved and exercised Reason teach ; and it is strange he should not find this Notion of Unity among all his Natural Ideas , which is the only Natural Notion of the Divine Unity , and belongs to no other Being . And this would have given him a true Catholick Notion of the Unity of God in a Trinity of Persons ; for all agree , That the Divine Nature is indivisibly and inseparably One. And this is another thing I would be glad to know the reason of , Why in such an Enquiry concerning the Unity and Distinction of the Trinity , he takes no notice of that Old Catholick distinction , That God is One in Nature , and Three in Persons ; which would have been a good direction to him , what kind of Unity , and what distinction to have enquired after : What Unity belongs to Nature , and what it is which distinguishes Persons : But our Considerer has no regard to the different Notions of Nature and Person , but applies all his Notions of Unity to a Person , which as far as they are true , belong to Nature , and from the Unity of Nature proves against the Catholick Faith , that there can be but One proper Divine Person . And there is one thing I am sorry for , That having mentioned a very good Notion , he let it slip between his fingers without making any use of it . He tells us , That Identity is nothing else but a repetition of Vnity , as Number is of difference . This is very Catholick , and it is great pity we hear no more of it . Upon this Principle the Fathers justify the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons : For the Divine Nature is but One , a perfect Monad , and is communicated whole and entire , without the least Division or Separation , to the Son and Holy Spirit , and therefore is perfectly and identically one and the same in all Three ; for the perfect repetition of a Monad and Unit makes no Number : God , and God , and God , are not Three Gods , but One God , because the same Divine Nature , without the least difference or diversity , is distinctly in them all ; and the repetition of what is perfectly the same , makes no Number ; but Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are three , for they are really distinguished from each other , not by any difference of Nature , but only by Personal differences , or the different manner of having the same Nature : That the Father has the Whole Divine Nature originally in himself , is God of himself : The Son receives the same Divine Nature by an Eternal Generation , and is God of God : And the Holy Ghost in like manner by an Eternal Procession from Father and Son : This incommunicably distinguishes Persons , that one can never be another ; and this is difference enough to make a Number ; not to make Three Gods of them , because the Divine Nature is perfectly One and the same in Three , but to distinguish them into Three Persons , each of whom is True and Perfect God , and all but One God. Why the Considerer should wave such a Notion as this of Unity and Distinction , which any one would have thought his own Notions of Identity and Number must unavoidably have led him into , I cannot guess ; but I hope this may satisfy him , that there are other Notions of Unity and Distinction , than what he insists on , and such as may be as easily understood , and which fairly reconcile the belief of Three proper Divine Intelligent Persons , with the Unity of the Godhead : But let us now briefly consider his Ideas of Unity and D●stinction . 1. The first is , The Vnity of Idea : This he discourses of very confusedly , and does not seem well pleased with it himself : The Unity of the Idea he places in being perceivable at one view , and having one uniform appearance : Which makes it one Idea indeed , right or wrong , but proves no other kind of Unity : This he grew sensible of , that the reality of things may not answer our Ideas or Appearances ; and I know not how they sh●uld , unless our Ideas answer the Reality of Things ; for Things are to be the Patterns for our Ideas , not our Ideas for Things . But the Considerer , by forsaking his good old Rules , for new Methods of Thinking , has quite mistaken the Question . When we enquire into the general Notion of Unity , the meaning is not , When we conceive of any thing as One , but what it is that makes any thing One. The Unity of Idea , whether simple or compounded , may be Answer enough to the first Question , Tha● a●l that is comprized in one Idea , if our Idea be right , belongs to one thing ; but , as he owns , we cannot prove that our Idea answers the Reality of Things , and therefore I know not what this Rule is good for at all . But our general Notion of Unity is of a very different Consideration ; and our particular Ideas of particular Things , contribute nothing to it : For the question is not , How many Things are united in One Being ? or , How many partial Conceptions are united in One Idea ? But , What it is that makes it One ; or what the formal Conception of its Unity is ? But our Considerer takes heart at last , from the Unity of the Idea of God , to prove that there can be but One Divine Person in a proper sense ; or but One who is True and Perfect God. His Argument is this ; We cannot conceive that any Object should be truly and adequately represented to any Mind or Vnderstanding under One Idea , and truly and adequately represented under Three Ideas . And what is the Cons●quence of this ? That he tells us plainly , That all the Perfections ( of the Deity ) though considered separately under different apprehensions by our imperfect Faculties , being really but One simple Idea , can be applied to but One single Person , in the first sense of the word Person , as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being , Nature , and Principle . 1. Now in the first place this Argument supposes an Idea which truly and adequately represent its Object , and yet our Considerer is so modest as not to pretend to a full and adequate Idea of God : And therefore , according to his own way , he can never conclude from the Idea of God , That it can belong but to One single Person , because he has not an adequate Idea of the Divine Nature ; and then there may be something in the Idea of God , which he does not comprehend , which may make it applicable to more Persons than one . Certainly it seems very reasonable , when we confess that we have not an adequate Idea of the D●vine Nature , to refer this whole Dispute , not to Natural Ideas , which can never determine it , but to Revelation , which is more certain and more perfect than our Natural Knowledge . 2. I grant , That One Object cannot be truly and adequately represented to my mind under One Idea , and truly and adequately represented under Three different Ideas : But it is as true , That One and the same Idea may be truly and adequately applied to Three distinct and different Persons : The adequate Idea of Peter can be applied to none but Peter ▪ but the Idea of Man , or of Human Nature , may be truly and adequately applied to Peter , Iames , and Iohn , and to every single human Person in the world . The Idea of God , as abstracted from the Consideration of a Trinity of Persons , is only the Idea of the Divine Nature , which is but One , and can never be Three different Natures ; for the Divine Nature always was , and always will be but One and the same ; and this is that One Object which is adequately , in his sense , represented by One Idea . And this is the account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God , That there is but One Divinity , One Divine Nature in Three Persons ; and thus the Trinity is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the One Divinity , that One Object represented by the One Idea of God. The Divine Persons are not distinguished by any difference of Nature , which is One and the same in all , but by Personal differences ; That the Father is unbegotten , the Son begotten , and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son : These are Three different Ideas for the Three Divine Persons ; but the Idea of the Divinity is but One , as the Divine Nature is One and the same in all . Could he indeed prove , That the Idea of God is not only One simple Idea , but the Idea of One single Person , that would be somewhat more to the purpose ; it would be such an Argument against a Trinity of Persons , from the Idea of God , as Necessary Existence , as included in the Idea of God , is for the Being of God : But this he can never prove ; and at best , these Arguments from Ideas are thought too fine and subtle by most men . 2. His next kind of Unity is a Vnity of Principle ; that is One thing , which has but One Principle of Action : And we cannot conceive that One Principle or Nature should be but One , and yet Three different Principles and Natures . But I suppose he can conceive , That if One and the same undivided Principle and Nature be and act in Three , these Three are One by the Unity of Principle and Nature . And this is the Catholick Faith of the Trinity , not Three different Principles and Natures in Three Persons , but One and the same Principle and Nature , inseparably and indivisibly subsisting and acting in Three : Upon account of which Identity of Principle and Operation , the Catholick Fathers asserted but One Life , Energy , and Power , not confusedly , but distinctly in Three ; which asserts the Unity of Principle , together with the real distinction of true and proper Persons . If indeed he can prove from his Vnity of Principle , That One Nature and Principle can live , subsist , and act but in One ; such a Unity of Principle as this , will admit but of One single Person , and must overthrow the Catholick Faith of a Real Trinity . But though the Unity of Principle does prove That to be but One , which has but One Principle ; it does not prove , That this One Nature and Principle can be but in One. 3. His Third kind of Unity is very surprizing , especially as applied to the Unity of God ; it is the Unity of Position , of Place , or of Vbi . When we perceive any Object in a continued Position , bounded and fenced out from other things round about it , all within such Terms and Limits we call One. Bless me ! thought I ; How is this applicable to the Unity of God ? who has no Body , no Parts , no continued Position ; can't be bounded and fenced round about , nor confined within Terms and Limits ; and therefore can never have this Vnity of Position , which is a very sorry kind of Unity at best . His Philosophy belonging to this Head is very admirable ; but to let that pass , he would not be thought to attribute Extension to Spirits ; but the Idea of a Point is more applicable to Spiritual Beings ; but a Physical Point is extended still , though it be the least conceivable Extension , and has parts , and therefore can't represent simple Unity , and is the Idea of Body , not of Spirit . Nor does he think local presence or determination any way contained within the Idea of a Spiritual Being , and therefore this can't belong to the Unity of a Spirit . Well : But he is not able to comprehend the Vnion or Separation of Two Spiritual Beings , without considering them in the same or different Localities . I know not how to help this , that he can't conceive of Spirits , but only after the manner of Bodies . Are Spirits united by Juxta-position of Parts , or Penetration of Dimensions ? If not , One Vbi can't unite them , though Separate Vbi's may prove them Separate . But still what is all this to the Unity of God ? Why , he tells us , It is plain at first sight , that we cannot possibly conceive God under any difference of Position : I add further , That we cannot conceive God under any Position , and therefore the Unity of Position can never belong to the Vnity of God. But the reason he gives why we can't conceive God under any difference of Position , is , because we cannot exclude Omnipotence from any imaginable point of Space ; nor can we include it in it ; which proves that God has no Position , but is present without Position , as he is without Extension , and without Parts . God needs no place to subsist in , but is Place to himself , and Place to every thing else ; as the Hebrews called God Mak●m , or Place ; according to S. Paul's Notion of it , That in him we live , move , and have our being ; that as all things receive Being by his Almighty Word , so all things subsist in Infinite Mind , as the Ideas and Notions of things do in Finite Minds . God could not create any thing without himself , because there is nothing extra without him ; and this is the Omnipresence of God , not his Commensuration to Infinite Space ; which is a gross Corporeal Representation of Omnipresence by Infinite Extension , or Commensuration to Infinite Extension , and makes something else as Infinite as God , viz. Infinite Space , which must be commensurate to God , if God be commensurate to Space ; but the Omnipresence of God is his Comprehension of all things in himself . And yet his way of proving the Omnipresence of God from his Omnipotence , That we cannot exclude Omnipotence from any imaginable Point of Space , if by Omnipresence he means an Essential Omnipresence , as he must do here , is not so self-evident as he seems to think it : The only foundation of it is this , That nothing can act where it is not ; which holds true only where Contact is necessary to Action , that is , only in Bodies , whose Power consists in Contact , or touching each other ; but any Being which acts without Contact , as God certainly does , may be Omnipotent , without being Omnipresent ; that is , may act at an Infinite distance , without any Local Presence with the thing on which it acts . It is the first time , to the best of my remembrance , that ever I met with this Notion , That 't is the limited Powers and Faculties of Created Beings , which are the foundation of all local distinction . Finite Creatures indeed have finite and limited Powers ; but it is not the limitation of their Powers and Faculties , but of their Presence , which makes a local or Vbi distinction : If this were so , Power must be proportioned to Presence , which we know is false ; for the greatest things , which fill the largest space , are not the most powerful : Spirits , which fill no space at all , have the greatest Power , and most enlarged Faculties . But it is time to see the Pinch of this Argument from the Vnity of Position ; and the Sum of it is this : Whatever is One , must be in some One Place or Vbi , which distinguishes and separates it from other things : That he cannot conceive the distinction of two or three Beings from each other , without considering them in so many different Places or Localities : That God is Omnipresent , and he can no more conceive Three Omnipresent , than he can conceive Three straight Lines drawn between the same Points . That is , in plain English , There are not Three Distinct Infinite Spaces for Three Distinct Omnipresent Persons to be in , and therefore there cannot be a Trinity of True and Proper Persons ; but as there is but One Omnipresent Divine Nature , so there can be but One single Omnipresent Person ; and there is an end of the Trinity , till we can find room in the world for Three Persons , each of whom is Omnipresent . I perceive our Considerer has not been so fair and equal as he pretended to be . He would not consult the Fathers , for fear of Prejudices and Prepossessions ; but either good Wits jump , or he has taken care to consult the Ancient Hereticks ; for this was the old Sabellian Argument , which was long since answered and scorned by Athanasius ; as he will find in the Chapter of Sabellianism , to which I refer him and the Reader . But in good earnest , does any sober Christian want an Answer to this Argument ? Does God then fill a Space , as Bodies do , that Three Divine Omnipresent Persons must have Three separate Localities , and be commensurate to Three Infinite Spaces ? Has God any Place ; does he subsist in any thing but himself ? If the Considerer can't conceive any Beings to be distinct without distinct Localities , How does he distinguish God from Creatures , when he owns that God is in every imaginable Point of Space , that is , in the very same Vbi's and Localities , whereever any Creatures are ? But do not all Catholick Christians own , That there is but One Infinite , Inseparable , Undivided Nature , in Three Persons ? And must this One Undivided Monad be in Three separate Localities , because it subsists in three distinct Persons ? especially when these distinct Persons are whole and entire in each other ; as our Saviour assures us , I am in the Father , and the Father in me . And is not this a wonderful demonstration against Three Real and Proper Persons in the Trinity , That there cannot be Three such Infinite Omnipresent Persons , unless they subsist in Three Infinite and Separate Localities ? But enough of this in all reason . These are the Premises , from whence with so much open Assurance and Confidence he draws that Sabellian Conclusion , That the Idea of God being really but One simple Idea , can be applied but to One single Person , in the first sense of the word Person , as it signifies a particular Intelligent Being , Nature , or Principle . — From whence , he says , it follows , that according to the Notions we are capable of framing of Vnity and Distinction , — all the Personal distinction we can conceive in the Deity , must be founded on some accessory Ideas , extrinsecal to the Divine Nature . So that there is not a Trinity in the Divine Nature , as the Catholick Church has always believed ; but the Divine Nature , which really is but One single Person , is a Trinity with respect to something which does not belong to the Divine Nature , but is extrinsecal to it . Whether these be not New Terms and New Doctrine too , unknown to the Catholick Church , or known only as condemned Heresies , I appeal to all men , who will consult any Catholick Historian , or any Catholick Father , without prejudice . And here I might reasonably enough break off ; for I have followed the Considerer till we have heard him demonstrate against a Trinity of Real , Proper Persons in the Unity of the Godhead ; which puts an end to the whole Dispute about a Trinity in Vnity , because there is no such thing . He has found out indeed a Unity for God , but it is not a Unity in Trinity , but the Unity of One single Person ; and he has found a Trinity , but it is not a Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Nature , but a Trinity of extrinsecal accessory Ideas . But since he has used some Art in palliating this Heresy , it will be necessary to take off the Disguise . The first step he makes to it , is by seeming to own , That there may be some greater Mystery and Obscurity in the Doctrine of the Trinity , than that Account which he has given of it : But if this Account , says he , of the Trinity be too easy , and falls far short of those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture ( as I think it does ) , and no other , grounded upon any Notions our Souls have framed of Vnity and Distinction , can be true or consistent ( as I have before particularly proved ) , then it necessarily follows , That God must be One and Three in some way or manner not conceivable by human Vnderstanding . Here he thinks he has found a safe Retreat : He asserts , and proves ( as he would have us believe ) from all the Notions of Distinction and Unity which our minds can frame , That God is and can be One in no other Notion , than of One single Person , in the first and proper sense of a Person , for an Intelligent Person ; and that God neither is nor can be Three in the sense of Three Proper Distinct Persons : If you charge him with Sabellianism for this , then he retreats to an obscure , confused knowledge ; to such a way and manner of God's being One and Three , as is not conceivable by human Understanding . Well : But will he allow us with this obscure and confused knowledge , to believe the Holy Trinity to be Three Divine , Proper , Distinct Persons , and One God , in a way and manner unconceivable by Human Vnderstanding ? By no means ! This he has proved by all the Notions of Unity and Distinction cannot be true or consistent ; nor is it possible for us to believe what we do not understand the terms of , or what contradicts our former knowledge ; and we are not bound to believe what is not possible to be believed , nor can God in Justice or Goodness require such a Faith of us , as we have already heard : So that Sabellianism we may believe , and must not believe any thing contrary to it ; and then we may believe that there is something more in it than we understand , if we please . And therefore we may observe , That he is not concerned about any difficulties in the Notion of the Divine Unity , which all Catholick Writers have been most concerned for ; how to reconcile the Unity of God with a Trinity of Divine Persons ; but that which troubles him most , is the Distinction , which the Catholick Fathers never disputed about , but positively asserted in the most proper and real sense , against the Sabellian Hereticks : But he seems sensible , as well he may be , that the Sabellian Notion of Persons falls very short of those high Expressions of Distinction which are found in Scripture : And here it is that he allows of an obscure and confused Knowledge . When he has rejected a True Personal distinction , all other kinds of distinction he can think of , will not answer those high expressions of distinction found in Scripture ; and therefore provided you do not believe them distinct Persons , you may believe , if you please , that there is some other unknown and unconceivable distinction between them . This is plainly what he means by his obscure confused Knowledge , by his general confused Faith , by his general confused Notion of the Trinity ; and therefore he religiously keeps to that form of words , That One and the same God is Three ; which must be understood in his Notion of One and the same God , that is , One single Person ; for all his Notions of Vnity and Distinction are on purpose designed to prove , That One God can't be Three , in a true and proper Notion of a Person ; and therefore he never so much as names that question , How Three Divine Persons are One God ? Which can never be reconciled to a Sabellian Unity of a Single Person . SECT . VI. What it is the Scripture requires us to believe concerning the Trinity . THE Considerer having laid the Foundations of Sabellianism in his Natural Sentiments , proceeds to examine what the Doctrine of the Scripture is concerning this matter ; and to reconcile the Scripture to his Natural Sentiments ; though the more reasonable and safer way had been first to have learnt the Faith from Scripture , and then to have corrected the Mistakes of his Natural Sentiments by Scripture . I do not intend to enter into a long dispute with him here , but shall only let the Reader see what it is he would prove , and what he asserts ; for his whole business in short is to prove , That the Sabellian Notion of the Unity of God , or of One single Person , and of Three Names , Titles , Characters , extrinsecal Respects and Relations , is the True Scriture Doctrine of the Trinity . This he very freely tells us , That the Sum of all that the Scriptures plainly and expresly teach concerning a Trinity , is this , That there is but One only God ( and what he means by One only God , we have often heard ) , the Author and Maker of all things : But that One God ought to be acknowledge and adored by us under those Three different Titles or Characters of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : Which Words are very remarkable . He does not say , That this One God is to be acknowledged and adored in Three , who have the same One Divinity subsisting whole , and perfect , and distinctly in each of them , which is the Catholick Faith : But this One God is to be acknowledged and adored by us under these Three different Titles and Characters of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : So that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are not the One God , for neither of them is God , but they are only the different Titles and Characters of the One God ▪ And though God , when represented by different Characters , is God still under each Character , yet neither of the Characters is God , no more than the Titles and Characters of a Man , is the Man. Now one might have expected that the Considerer should have proved , That the Scripture-Notion of One God is , That there is but One single Divine Person ( in the true and proper Notion of the word Person ) who is God ; and that these Names of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , do not in Scripture signify Three Distinct , Real Persons , but are only Three Different Titles and Characters of the same One Divine Person : This indeed had effectually proved what he pretends to ; but he was too wise to attempt either . The first he says nothing at all of , but takes it for granted , that he has demonstrated That by his Natural Notions of Unity and Distinction ; but had he not first demonstrated that nothing could be true and consistent , and that God can require us to believe nothing which contradicts his Natural Notions , he should have a little enquired what the Notion of Scripture is about this matter : But taking it for granted that he had already demonstrated this , That One God signifies One single Person , he only proves , That the Titles and Characters of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , belong to God ; and therefore , That these Terms must all be so understood , as to include the same God ( the One single Divine Person ) in their Signification . The first , I think , he proves well enough , That these Titles and Characters of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , belong to God ; and this vindicates him from being a Socinian : But when he applies all these Titles and Characters to One and the same God , that is in his sense , to One and the same single Person , this proves him to be a Sabellian ; for this was the Doctrine of Noetus and Sabellius , That these different Titles and Characters did belong but to One single Person , who is God. He proves , That these Titles and Characters , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , do signify God , from the forms of Baptism , Salutation , and Blessing . Go teach all nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father , of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ , and the love of God , and the communion of the Holy Ghost , be with you all . From whence , as he adds , I infer , That all these terms , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , signify God ; because I cannot possibly conceive 't is agreeable to the nature of the Christian Religion , that the Ministers of it should teach , baptize , or bless the people in any other name but God's . I like this Argument very well , but if it proves any thing , it proves more than he would have it , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are each of them by himself true and perfect God , and not all Three One single Person ; for it seems altogether as absurd to teach , baptize , or bless in Three Names and Titles , when there is but One single Person signified by those Three Names . And therefore his Inference is not very plain , That if any One of these Terms signify God , they must all Three signify God ; and if all Three signify God , they must all Three signify One and the same God ; for God is One. This is very artificial , but not plain : The consequence is plain , That if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are the Names of God , they must all signify One God by the Unity and sameness of Nature , because there is but One God ; but not by the Vnity of Person , because the Scripture mentions Three , each of whom is God : Which proves , That God is One in Nature , but Three in Persons ; as the Catholick Church has always believed . As for what he adds , That the One Supreme God , the Lord and Maker of all things , is here meant by the word Father , is a thing not questioned ; and therefore S●n and Holy Ghost are terms expressive of the same Divine Nature ; may in some sense be allowed , if he will distinguish between Nature and Person ; but according to the sense of Scripture , and the belief of the Catholick Church , Father , Son , and H●ly Ghost , are the names of Three Real , Distinct , Divine Persons , not of One Divine Nature , in the sense of One Pers●n . But though we allow this with the Catholick Church , That the Father is the One Supreme God ; we have no reason to allow this to the Considerer , who will not allow Father , Son , or Holy Ghost , to be Names of Divine Persons , or to be Names or Relations of the Divine Nature , considered as the Divine Nature ; for he says they are extrinsecal , that is , ●xtra-essential , Ideas , Titles , Characters , Respects , Relations ; and therefore Father , according to this Hypothesis , is not the essential Name of the One Supreme God , but given to him for some extrinsical and extra-essential reasons ; is his Name , not by Nature , but by Institution , and then must be proved to be his Name ; which the mere form of Baptism cannot do , for the Name God is not expressed in it ; much less does it prove , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are One and the same God , or One single Person . It is evident indeed from other Texts , That Father is the Name of God , but then it is the Name of God the Father ; and the Son is the Son of God , and the Holy Ghost the Spirit of God , the Spirit of the Father and of the Son ; and this does prove , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , have the same One Divinity , the same One Divine Nature , as the very Names and Relations of Father , and Son , and Spirit , prove : But surely this does not prove , That God the Father , and his Son , are the same One single Person , as well as One God ; for Father and Son all the world over signify Two distinct Persons ; for no One Person can be Father and Son to himself ; nor can the Eternal subsisting Spirit of God be the same Person with that God whose Spirit he is . Unless he allows that Father in the form of Baptism is the Name of a Person , he can prove nothing from it ; and if Father be the Name of a Person , Son , and Holy Gh●st , must be the Names of Persons also ; and then the Names and Relations of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , necessarily prove , That they are not One single Person , but Three Persons . Thus he proves the Son to be God , from that Religious Worship which is paid to him ; which does indeed prove him to be God , but not the same One Person with the Father : Our Considerer is much mistaken , if he thinks it sufficient to prove , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are the Titles and Characters of the same One single Person , who is the One God , if he can prove that each of these Names signify One who is God. And the truth is , if these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , do not signify Persons , they cannot signify God ; for then they are not Names of Nature , but something extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature ; and therefore they may be the external Denominations of him who is God , but not the Names of God , considered as God , and therefore cannot signify God ; because they do not signify the Divine Nature in the Persons of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but something extrinsical and accessory , that is , something which is not essential , and therefore which the Divine Nature might be without . I hope the Considerer did not think of this Consequence , That it is possible that God might neither have been Father , Son , nor Holy Ghost ; which yet must be allowed possible , if these be mere extrinsecal and accessory Titles and Characters : Nay , this must be allowed , unless we will grant that these Names signify Three Real , Subsisting , Intelligent , Coeternal Persons , in the Vnity of the same Godhead . But these Three Persons do somewhat puzzle him . That God should be called Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is as easily to be believed , as that he should be called Adonai , Elohim , and Jehovah : That the same thing should be signified and expressed by several Names , is no such incredible Mystery . Which still shews us what it is he believes and would prove in all this , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are but Three Names of that One single Person , who is God. But , as he proceeds , if we allow that these terms , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are all applied to God in Scripture , 't is not thought sufficient to say , That these are Three several Names , which signify God ; but we are further required to believe , That God is One and Three ; the same God ( not the same single Person ) , but Three different Hypostases or Persons ; and that one of these Three Hypostases or Persons is both God and Man. These are the Hard Sayings which puzzle some mens understandings . This is the Faith of the Catholick Church , and will always be Hard Sayings to Sabellian Understandings , which they will never be able to reconcile with their Hypothesis of One single Person in the Godhead . But let us hear how he clears himself of these difficulties . He observes in the first place , That these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are applied to God in Scripture in a different way from what any of his other Names are . So far he is in the right ; but what is this different way ? In short , it is this ; That the other Names of God signify only partial Conceptions of the Divine Nature , such as Self-existence , Power , &c. and are all contained within the same Idea of God , and therefore cannot be the foundation of any distinction in the Godhead . Let this pass . But each of these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , includes the whole Idea we have of God , and something more ; as being extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature , and the whole Idea of God full and compleat , before the application of these terms . Let us examine this first . He says , Each of these Names includes the whole Idea of God. I beseech you how can that be , when they signify something extrinsecal and accessory to the Divine Nature , and the whole Idea of God may be conceived full and compleat without them ? For if these Names are not included in the Idea of God , which is full and compleat without them ( which Assertion , by the way , overthrows the whole Christian Faith of the Trinity ) , how can they include the Idea of God in them , which they are not so much as any part of , much less the whole , and something more ? I grant the Names of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , may connote the Idea of God , as the Name of a King and a Father connote the Idea of a Man who is King and Father , which I suppose is all he intends by it ; but then the King must be a Man , and the Father must be a Man , to connote the Idea of Man : And thus in the Blessed Trinity ; if these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , connote the Idea of God , the Father must be True and Perfect God , and the Son must be True and Perfect God , and the Holy Ghost must be True and Perfect God ; for neither Father , Son , or Holy Ghost , connote the Idea of God upon any other account , than as the Whole and Perfect Divine Nature subsists in each of them , and that makes the whole Idea of God belong to each of them . To proceed : He tells us , That though all these Names are separately and together affirmed of God , yet each of them in so peculiar a manner , that there are several occasions , where , when one of these terms is used with relation to God , 't would be improper to use either of the other . That is , when it is proper to call God Father , it is improper to call him , Son , or Holy Ghost , and so on the contrary : But the reason of this in his Hypothesis , is not that their Persons are distinct and incommunicable , but that there are several occasions which make such change of Names improper : As a Man who is a King , a Husband , and a Father , all these Names do separately and together belong to him , but you must have a care of speaking improperly , by applying these Names to improper Relations . Well : however , From hence , he says , it follows , that these Three Names of God , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , must denote a Threefold difference of distinction belonging to God. I grant , it makes a distinction of Names and external Offices and Relations in God , but no distinction of Hypostases and Persons , which was the distinction to be shewn ; but this he absolutely rejects ; for it must be no other difference or distinction , but such as is consistent with the Vnity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature . This we would all subscribe to , did he mean honestly ; but his Vnity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature , is nothing else but the Unity and Simplicity of One single Person ; and all the distinction he will allow these different Names to make , is no more than what One single Person is capable of . For each of these Names includes the whole Idea we have of God , and something more . Very right ; if we allow these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be the Names of true and proper Divine Persons ; for then each of them is true and perfect God , and the whole Idea of God is included in each of them , because the whole Divine Nature is in each of them ; otherwise neither of these Names include the Idea of God , but only connote it , as I have already observed . And what he adds , That as far as these Names express the Nature of God , they all adequately and exactly signify the same ; is very true also , if by the same , he means the same Nature , not the same One single Person : And then what he adds , 'T is the additional signification which makes all the distinction between them , is very true also ; but he ought to have told us what this additional signification , this something more than the whole Idea of God , is , which is included in these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and then we might have known what this distinction is . All the additional signification that I know of , is this ; That Father signifies God , includes the whole Idea of God ; but besides this , Father , when it signifies God , signifies a Self-originated , Unbegotten God , who is God of himself , and begets a Son of his own Nature , and Coeternal with himself . Son signifies God , but begotten God , God of God , the living and perfect Image of his Father . Holy Ghost signifies God , but God proceeding eternally from Father and Son , in the Unity and Perfection of the same Divine Nature . And this is all the difference between them , not a difference of Nature , but a distinction of True , Real , Proper Persons . The Considerer seems to allow this . That Person is a proper Name for this distinction ; For Father , Son , and Holy Ghost — have plainly a Personal significati●n ; each of them , without any figure of speech , being determined to signify some Intelligent Being acting in such a manner as is there related . These Words would betray an Unwary Reader , to believe the Considerer as Orthodox as the Nicene Fathers , and that he did acknowledge Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be Three Persons , without a Figure , as a Person signifies an Intelligent Being ; but he has secured himself against this Imputation by an artificial addition , some Intelligent Being acting in such , or such , a manner : He will not allow Person to signify absolutely an Intelligent Being ▪ but an Intelligent Being with respect to some peculiar manner of acting ; and thus One single Person , in the proper Notion of Person , for an Intelligent Being ▪ may sustain Three Persons , or Personal Characters , with re●pect to extrinsecal Relations , and the different manner of acting . The whole Mystery and Sophistry of this , is , That God , who is One single Person , is upon different accounts sometimes called the Father , sometimes the S●n , and sometimes the Holy Ghost ; and therefore Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , have a Personal signification , each of these Names signify Person in a proper sense , that is , the Person of God ; but all of them separately and together , signify but One and the same single Person ; for they are all of them attributed to God , and God is but One , or One Person , though this One proper Person may sustain Three figurative Persons , or Personal Characters . This is plain dealing : and this is his Answer to his first Hard Saying , That God is One and Three ; the same God , but Three different Hypostases or Persons : That God is One and the same single Person , under Three Personal Characters , which may be called Three Persons , because each of them signifies the True and Proper Person of God. And here we see in what sense these Gentlemen allow , That each Person is Substance , is Mind , and Spirit , and yet that God is but One Substance , One Mind , and Spirit ; viz. in the very same sense that this Author affirms that God is but One single Person , and yet that the Father is a Person , the Son a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person ; and for the same reason , that they decry and abhor Three Substances , Three distinct Minds and Spirits in the Godhead , though affirmed to be indivisibly and inseparably One Infinite Substance , Mind , and Spirit ; for the same reason they reject Three Intelligent Substantial Persons ; though our Modern Sabellians have been more cautious generally than this Considerer , not to own it in express words . Now as for these Terms of Three Substances , and Three Minds , there may be good reason to let them alone , tho when rightly explained no reason to condemn them of Heresy ; but we must insist on Three Distinct , Infinite , Intelligent , Substantial Persons , Each of which is Mind and Substance , and One is not the Other : If they disown this ( as the Considerer does ) they are downright Sabellians ; if they own it , we have no farther Dispute about this matter . Let us now consider his other Hard Saying , That One of these Three Hyp●stases or Pers●ns should be both God and Man. Now the Hardness of this Saying is not , That it is hard to prove from Scripture , that so it is ; or that it is hard to conceive how God and Man can be united ; which is all that he touches on : But it is and always will be a Hard Saying to the Considerer upon another account ; that is , To reconcile it with a Trinity of One proper single Person , and Three Personal Characters . The Doctrine of the Incarnation is this ; That the Eternal Son of God became True and Perfect Man , by taking the Human Nature into a Personal Union to himself . That the Son only became Man , not the Father , nor the Holy Ghost : That two perfect distinct Natures , the Divine and Human Nature , were without Confusion united in the One Person of Christ ; and that this One Person is the Eternal Word and Son of God. Now if there be but One single Person in the Godhead , and Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are but Three Names , or Personal Characters of this One single Person , How can the Son be Incarnate , and not the Father , nor the Holy Ghost ? It is only a Person that can be Incarnate , for a Personal Character can't be Incarnate without the Person ; and if there be but One single Person , and this same One Person is Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , it is impossible that that Person who is the Son , should be Incarnate , but the Person who is the Father and the Holy Ghost , must be Incarnate also ; because the same Person who is the Son , is the Father and the Holy Ghost . The short Question is this ; Whether a True , Proper , Divine Person was Incarnate , in the Incarnation of Christ ? If not , then Christ was not a Divine Person , how Divine soever he might be upon other accounts ; the Divine Nature did not pers●nally subsist in him , he was not personally True and Perfect God ; and then the Person of Christ was no more than a Man , whatever Divine Influences he might receive from God : But if the Divine Nature were truly and properly Incarnate in the Person of Christ , then if there be but One single Divine Person in the Godhead , but One Divine Nature ▪ in the sense of One single Person , then the whole Godhead , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , which are but One True and Proper Person , was Incarnate in Christ. This is the true difficulty , and he is so wise as to take no notice of it . It does not appear to me , that he believes one word concerning the Incarnation of God , or of a True Divine Person ; he says , He that is in Scripture called the Son of God , did appear in the likeness of men : He certainly was a True Man , but that is not our present dispute ; Was he in his own Person True and Perfect God ? Was he a Human Person ; or the Person of the Son of God appearing in Human Nature ? He was , he says , in the Form of God , before he took the Nature of Man upon him . This sounds well ; but why does he not speak out , and tell us what this Form of God is ? Whether the True Divine Nature subsisting in him , a True Divine Person ? Well : But God did suffer himself to be worshipped and adored in and by the Man Christ Iesus ; the least that can be inferred from which is , That God was more immediately and peculiarly present in Christ , than ever he was said to have been any where else ? as in the Heavens , the Jewish Temple , between the Cherubims , in Prophets and Holy Men , who spake as they were moved by the Spirit . Now all this might have been spared , would he but have said , That the Person Iesus Christ was worshipped with Divine Honours , as being in his own Person True and Perfect God , as well as Man ; and without saying this , he says nothing to prove that Christ is the Son of God Incarnate . To say , That God did suffer himself to be worshipped in and by the Man Christ Iesus , as he was worshipped in the Heavens , in the Jewish Temple , between the Cherubims ( for that must be the force of the Comparison ) does no more prove Christ to be God , than it proves the Heavens , the Iewish Temple , and the Cherubims , to be God : It may prove a more perfect symbolical Presence of God in Christ , which he calls the Fulness of the Godhead , but not the Incarnation of the Son of God. But this is not the Doctrine of Scripture , merely to say , That God suffers himself to be worshipped in the Man Christ Iesus ; as if God , and the Man Christ Iesus , were not One Person ; but that he commands us to worship that Person who is called Christ Jesus , not as a Man , in whom the Power of God dwells , and is present , as in the Heavens , or in the Jewish Temple , or in the Prophets and Holy Men ( who were never for this reason thought the Objects of Worship ) but as his own Eternal Son Incarnate . That all men should honour the Son , as they honour the Father ; which does not only signify to honour the Father in the Son , but to pay Divine Honours to the Person of the Son , which makes them distinct Objects of Worship , and therefore True and Proper Persons , not Personal Characters , which may be distinct Reasons of Worship , but are not distinct Objects . But we shall better understand this , by the account he gives of the Union of God and Man , In what manner Soul and Body , or God and Man , are united , is not the question ; for we know nothing how this Physical Union is made ; but the question is concerning the Nature and Kind of this Union : Whether , as the Soul and Body are united in One Person , so as to be One Man , so God and Man are united in One Person : That as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man , so God and Man is One Christ. Whether the Divine and Human Natures are united in One Person ; or God be united to Man only as an assisting Principle , by a perpetual and constant Influx of Divine Powers and Virtues . These two are vastly different : The first indeed always includes the second in the most perfect manner , but the second does not always infer the first . A Personal Union is always a Union of Life , Influence , and Power ; as he describes the Vnion of Soul and Body ; That there is some Intelligent Power that makes use of the Organs of my Body , and acts in conjunction with the motions there produced : This is all true , and necessarily consequent upon a Personal Union , but a very lame account of the Vital Union of Soul and Body ; for thus Angels may use the Bodies they assume , without a Personal Union : But a conscious Life , Sensation , and Government , which makes One self , is a great deal more than to act in conjunction with the Motions of the Body . The Union of Influence and Power may be without Personal Union , and therefore does not always make One Person . It is the first we enquire after , it is the first the Scripture teaches , That the Word was made Flesh ; That God sent forth his Son , made of a woman : This is the Catholick Faith of the Incarnation ; but this the Considerer takes no notice of ; but all he says , relates only to the Union of Influence and Power . And I may , says he , as well consider God united to Man , when he so acts by the Ministry and Operation of Man , that the Actions of God seem conveyed to us the same way as the actions of one man are to another . But does this make God True and Perfect Man ? This falls short of the conjunct Operations of Soul and Body , which are much more close and intimate than the actions of one man are to another ; however , to be sure the actions of one man upon another , do not make Two such Men One Person ; nor therefore can the like Influence of God on Man , make God and Man One Person . But he proceeds : Had those who upon some occasions spake by the Extraordinary Assistance of a Divine Power , been constantly so directed and assisted , how could they have distinguished the Motions of their Souls from the Impressions of God ? Just as they did when they were sometimes thus assisted ; for External Impressions are always distinguishable from Internal Motions . But suppose they could not distinguish them , does this prove that God is Incarnate in such men ; or would it be a reason to worship such men as God ? He adds , And why then should we not think such an extraordinary Power as this , as much united to such men , as that common ordinary Power we call the Soul , is to those Bodies in which it acts and exerts it self . The Answer is plain , because it would be an External , not an Internal Principle of Life , and Motion , and Sensation , how constant soever its Influences were . He calls it an Extraordinary Power , which shews that it is not a Natural Principle of Action ; it is an Extraordinary Power united to a Man , and therefore the Man is the Person , this Extraordinary Power only an external assisting Principle , of the same kind with that in Prophets , though more constant and regular in its actings : But here is nothing of Incarnation in all this . Is this Extraordinary Power a Divine Subsisting Person , in the true and proper Notion of a Person ? Is it the Son of God , that Eternal Word , which was in the beginning , was with God , and was God ? Is this Extraordinary Power so united to Human Nature , as to become Man ? Is it the Person of Christ Jesus , who was conceived in the Womb of the Virgin , lived in the World as a Man , suffered , and died , and rose again from the dead , and now sits at the Right Hand of God in the highest Heavens ? Not one word of all this , which is the true Mystery , and the only Use of this Doctrine of the Incarnation , whereon all our Hopes of Salvation by Christ depend . This Extraordinary Power is not a Person , but such a constant regular Inspiration , as he says , some are of opinion the Soul of man is : But whether that be so or not , as he thinks m●st probably it is not ( which yet argues some kind of Inclination to it ) , yet it seems to him plain from Scripture , that such a Power as we ascribe to God ( he will not say such a Power as is God , or a True Divine Person ) did as constantly and regularly act in and through Christ , as the Human Soul is perceived to do in any other man. That such a Power did constantly appear and act in Christ , is true ; but whether by Nature , or by a constant and regular Inspiration , is the Question . Our Saviour proves his Divine Nature from his Works ; our Considerer thinks it proves no more than a constant and regular Inspiration : The first is necessary to the Catholick Faith of the Incarnation , That the Word was made Flesh ; the second proves him only to be an extraordinary and perpetual Prophet : The first makes him True God-Man ; the second makes him only a Divine Man. And this is all he can mean by this Power regularly and constantly acting in and through Christ : For if Christ be God-Man , he is this Divine Power in his own Person ; it is his Divine Nature , not an external adventitious Principle , how regularly and constantly soever it acts ; it is not merely an uninterrupted Presence and Concurrence of the Deity with the Man Christ Jesus , as he represents it , but the Personal Union of the Divine Nature of Christ to Human Nature . He was not only as conscious of all the Divine Perfections in himself , as a man is conscious of his own thoughts , ( which yet , by the way , is absolutely impossible , without being True and Perfect God in his own Person ) , but he knew himself to be God , the Eternal Son of God , not the same Person with his Father , but One with him . Were a man thus regularly and constantly Inspired , he would know that he was thus Inspired , and he would also know , that these Divine Perfections are not in himself , not seated in his own Human Person , nor under the Conduct of his own Will , as his own Natural Powers are , and therefore must know himself to be a mere Man still , not God-Man . So that this constant and regular Inspiration , this uninterrupted Presence and Concurrence of the Deity , which is all he allows in this matter , cannot make any Person God-Man . This Inspiration is not a subsisting Person , is not the Person of the Son of God , is not Incarnate by its Union to Man , no more than it is Incarnate in other Prophets : The Man is the Person , and therefore a mere Creature still , tho never so Divinely Inspired . This is such an Incarnation as Socinians themselves own , in as high expressions as the Considerer can invent . Cerinthus owned something more , That Christ who descended on Iesus at his Baptism , was a Divine Person , not a mere Inspiration , and rested on him , and was most intimately united to him , till his Crucifixion . That Sect of the Noetians and Sabellians who were called Patripassians ( for they do not seem by the accounts we have of them , to have been all of that mind ) did acknowledge the Incarnation of God in a true and proper sense , as the Catholick Church did the Incarnation of Christ : But then their Trinity being but One proper single Divine Person , distinguished by Three Names or Personal Characters ( which is the express Doctrine of the Considerer ) their whole Trinity was Incarnate , suffered , and died , in the Incarnation and Sufferings of Christ , the Father as well as the Son ; as it must of necessity be , if there be but One Divine Person , who is Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and if this One Person is in a true and proper sense Incarnate : But this the Catholick Church abhorred and condemned , under the name of the Patripassian Heresy . Others of them were Sabellians in the Doctrine of the Trinity , but Photinians , or Samosatenians , that is , Socinians , as to the Doctrine of the Incarnation , as Athanasius often intimates : And if I understand him , this is the Considerer's way , who believes a Trinity in One single Person , and an Inspired Man for a God Incarnate . And thus we have lost the Trinity and Incarnation , and must part with every thing which is peculiar and essential to Christianity , with them . And now one would wonder after all this , what he has to say more about the Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation ; and yet this is his next Enquiry , What the Scriptures necessarily oblige us to believe in this Point , that is , concerning the Trinity and Incarnation ? Though he has been careful all along never to use this term Incarnation , as being sensible that all he said about God-Man , would not reach the Catholick Notion of Incarnation . When I met with this Enquiry , I was in hope that there was something behind to unsay all that he had hitherto said ; for if what he has already said be true , it is certain the Scripture requires us to believe nothing about them . But upon Examination I found , that the Question was fallaciously stated ; and the true meaning of it was , What the Scriptures oblige us to believe , instead of what has hitherto passed for the true Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation ? I shall not dispute this Point with him now ; to shew what he means , will be Confutation enough . We must not , he says , look upon the Doctrine of the Trinity as a nice abstracted Speculation , designed for the exercise of our Vnderstandings ; but as a plainer Revelation of God's Love and Good Will towards men , and a greater Motive and Incitement to Piety than ever we had before this Doctrine was delivered . This we grant , That the Christian Faith is not designed merely for Speculation , but for Practice ; but yet all the Doctrines of Faith are matters of Speculation , and the Doctrine it self must be believed in order to Practice , or else the Revelation of it is of no use at all . The Question then is , Whether we must not believe the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation ? Or how much we must believe of them ? Must we not believe , That God has in a true and proper sense an Eternal and Only-begotten Son , begotten from Eternity of his own Substance ; his True , Perfect , Living , Subsisting Image ? Must we not believe , That this Eternal Son of God did in a true proper Notion become Man , by uniting Human Nature to his own Person ; and that in Human Nature he suffered and died for the Redemption of Mankind ? Truly , No ; if I understand him : All this is a nice abstracted Speculation , and a very perplexing exercise of our Vnderstandings ; and we are bound to understand no more by God's giving his own Son to dye for us , but his Love and G●od Will to Mankind , as it is a great Motive and Excitement to Piety . But how can we learn God's Love and Good Will to Mankind , from this Doctrine , if it be not true ? if God have no Eternal Son , and therefore did not give his Eternal Son to become Man , and to suffer and dye for us ? The Gospel proves the great Love of God to Sinners , by the Incarnation , Death , and Sufferings of his Son ; that if we do not believe this Doctrine strictly and literally true , we lose the Gospel Proof of God's Love to Sinners , and of the Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Death and Sacrifice to expiate our sins , and of the Power of his Intercession as the Eternal , Only-begotten , and Well-beloved Son of God. But our Considerer will not allow this : These Titles and Relations must be chiefly c●nsidered with reference to the great Work of Man's Salvation : But must they not be considered as Three distinct proper Persons in the Unity of the Godhead , who have their distinct Parts and Offices in the Redemption of Mankind ? No ; but distinct Relations and Offices of One and the same single Divine Person , who is the One Supreme God , and is All in One , Father , Son , and Holy Gh●st , Saviour , Mediator , Comforter . But how then can these Titles and Relations signify an Eternal Distinction in the Godhead , an Eternal F●t●●r , an Eternal Son , and an E●ernal Spirit , when th●se Offices relating only to Man's Salvation were not Eternal ? This he resolves into the Eternal Purpose and Decree of God , to redeem Mankind by the Death and constant Mediation of a Man chosen and enabled for this work by the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him : And in consideration of his Passion and Intercession , to impart such Gifts , Graces , and Spiritual Assistances , as would be sufficient to render this Redemption effectual to the saving of much people . So that God decreed from Eternity , upon his Foreknowledge of Man's Fall , that in order to redeem Man he would take upon himself the Distinctions and Offices of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; Saviour , Mediator , and Comforter , in time ; and this is all the Eternal Distinction in the Godhead . Well : But it seems God did not decree from Eternity to redeem Man by his own Son , but by a Man chosen and enabled for this Work by the Fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him ; that is , as we have already heard , by an Inspired and Deified Man , not by a God Incarnate : It is the Man who is the Saviour and Redeemer , though he be enabled to this work by the Fulness of the Godhead , or a constant regular Inspiration : This is downright Socinianism ; the Catholick Faith is , That it is the Son of God who redeems us , though he redeems us in Human Nature . But if God redeems us by a Man , however he be enabled by a Divine Power , Why is he said to give his Son for us ? For this Divine Power is not a Person , and therefore no Son , nor is the Man his own and only begotten Son. Now this would be a difficulty indeed , were we to understand God's giving his own Son for us , in a proper literal sense ; but this is nothing but Figure and Representation , if we believe the Considerer . His words are these ; Thus when God is pleased to represent his Love to Mankind in the highest Image of Nature , that of a Father sacrificing an only-begotten Son , the exact Transcript and Resemblance of himself , perfectly innocent , and obedient to his Will in all things , we are to believe ( that God did thus sacrifice his Son , as he assures us he did ? No ; but ) that by the Sufferings and Death of Christ , God has given greater Proof of his Love towards us , than any man is capable of doing to another ; and that such an action of an Earthly Parent suggests the nearest and likest Conception we can possibly frame of what our Heavenly Father hath done for us ; though at the same time we must acknowledge it comes infinitely short of expressing the Riches and Fulness of his Mercy and Loving kindness . It does so indeed . To believe that God has actually given his own Eternal and Only-begotten Son for us , as the Scripture assures us he has , is a much nearer and truer Conception of what God has done for us , and infinitely exceeds all earthly comparisons . Abraham's offering his Son Isaac at God's Command , was an Image and Figure , but a Typical Figure of it ; but it was a Type without an Antitype , if Christ was not as truly and properly the Son of God , as Isaac was the Son of Abraham . But if we will believe the Considerer , the Scripture does not oblige us to believe this ; if we do but believe , That God is as good to us as if he had sacrificed his only Son for us , we need not believe , That he did sacrifice his Son. I have no Patience to proceed any further ; if this be true , there is an end of the Faith and Hope of Christians . CHAP. III. A Brief Account of the Sabellian Heresy , and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed it . THE Considerer has given us the most Compleat and Artificial Scheme of Sabellianism that I have yet met with , a●d has very fairly and openly confessed his Design , to prove , That One God must signify that there is but One who is God , but One single Divine Person , in the proper Notion of a Person , as it signifies an Intelligent Being . I have endeavoured to shew him his Mistake , and what it is that has mis-led him ; and how hopeless an Attempt it is to reconcile his Hypothesis with the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation . This is so bold an Attempt , openly to assert and defend a Heresy which has been constantly condemned by the Catholick Church , since its first appearance , that I am apt to hope he does not believe his Hypothesis to be Sabellianism , or that Heresy which now is best known by that name , though Sabellius was not the first Author of it . And therefore I will shew him what Sabellianism is , and how the Fathers opposed it . There were Two Points in dispute between them and the Catholick Christians . First , Concerning the Personality of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit . Secondly , Concerning the Unity of God , Whether it were the Unity of One Person , as they pretended . That we may rightly understand this matter , we must distinguish between the several kinds of Sabellianism , because the Arguments and Answers of the Fathers are sometimes adapted to one , and sometimes to another Notion of it . That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , were but One Person , was asserted by them all , but explained very differently , and that altered the state of the Question , and required different Answers . 1. As first , They made Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be only Three Names , Appearances , or Offices of the same Person , as I observed before : And then the state of the Question was not , Whether the Son was a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person , in as true and proper a sense as the Father was a Person ? For this they owned by making Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three Names of the same Person ; whereas it is impossible they should be the same Person , if the Son were not a Person , nor the Holy Ghost a Person . If the Son be the same Person with the Father , the Son must be a Person , for no Person can't be the same Person : Which is the same Argument to prove that these Hereticks owned Christ to be a True and Real Person , that Novatianus used ( as I observed before ) to prove that they owned Christ to be true and perfect God , because they made him the same with the Father , who is true and perfect God , and a true , and real , and substantial Person . And if he be the very same with the Father , he must be the same we acknowledge the Father to be ; viz. a true and real Person , and perfect God. The Dispute then which the Catholick Fathers had with these Hereticks , with respect to this Notion , That Father , Son ▪ and Holy Ghost , were the very same Person , was not , Whether the Son was a Person , and the Holy Ghost a Person ? but , Whether the Son and Holy Ghost were truly and really distinct Persons from the Father , as the Catholick Church always believed ? or , Whether they were the same Person , distinguished only by Three Names . Now when the Fathers asserted not only the Personality of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost ( which this Notion did not oppose ) , but the real distinction of Persons , That the Son was a Person , but not the same Person with the Father , they must ascribe the same kind of Personality to the Son , which they do to the Father ; That the Son is as truly and really a Person as the Father is , though not the same Person ; as truly a Person as God would be , were there but One Person in the Godhead , as these Hereticks affirmed . For according to all the Rules of Disputation , we must take Words in the sense of those whom we oppose ; for otherwise it is a mere wrangle about Words , without opposing one another . And therefore since the Sabellians by Person understood such a Person as every single Person is , ( for they made Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but Three different Names of the same single individual Person ) nothing could oppose or confute them , but to prove , That Father , and Son , and Holy Ghost , are Three distinct Persons , in the same Notion of a Person which belongs to every single individual Person , as far as mere Personality is concerned . For to prove them Three in any other sense , whether Three Modes , or Three Powers , or Three Parts of the same One single Person , is what they would have ; and allow them to be but One Person , and they will dispute no further ; nay , will give you leave to call Three Modes , or Three Names , or Three Parts of the same One Person , Three Persons , if you please . But for the clearer understanding of this matter , we must consider by what Arguments the Ancient Writers opposed this Heresy . Tertullian , in opposition to Praxeas , reduces this to a short Question , Whether God have any Son , and who he is , and how he is his Son. For if God have a Son , the Son must be as true and real a Person as the Father , and Father and Son must be Two distinct Persons ; for the same Person can't be both Father and Son to himself ; the very Names of Father and Son signify , that one is of the other , and we must understand things to be what they are called , whether Father or Son , which can no more be the same than Night and Day , with respect to these different Relations . The Father makes the Son , and the Son makes the Father ; and those who receive these Relations from each other , can never be these Relations to themselves , that the Father should make himself a Son to himself , or the Son make himself a Father to himself . This Order God has instituted in all other Beings , and he observes it himself . A Father must of necessity have a Son , to be a Father ; and a Son must have a Father , that he may be a Son , but to have , and to be , are two things ; as for instance , for a man to be a Husband , signifies that he has a Wife , not that he is a Wife to himself ; and thus to be a Father , signifies to have a Son , not to be a Son to himself ; in such Relations we must be one , and have another ; that to be both is to be neither , because we can have neither . If I be Father and Son to my self , I am no Father , because I have no Son , who makes a Father , but am Son my self ; and I am no Son , because I have no Father , who makes the Son , but am Son my self ; and thus while they make Father and Son one and the same Person , they destroy the Notion both of Father and Son. Now would any man have argued at this rate , who did not believe Father and Son to be real and Substantial Persons , and as distinct from each other as a human Father and Son are ; for if they be not , all this reasoning from the distinct Relations of Father and Son , which require a real distinction of Persons , is quite lost : And whether this Argument be good , or no , ( which is not the present Enquiry ) it is certain that whoever uses it , if he understands himself , must believe , That Father and Son signify as true and real Relations , and as real and distinct Persons in the Godhead , as they do in human Nature . The like may be said of that other Argument against the Father and the Son being One and the same Person , That then the same Person must , in order of Nature , be both before and after himself ; for he who begets must always in order of Nature ( though not of Time , in an Eternal Generation ) be before him who is begotten by him : That as Father , he is before himself as Son ; as Son , he is after himself as Father ; which had been Iudicrous trifling , if they had not believed a real substantial Generation of the Person , and consequently that the Son is a real substantial Person : For this Argument will not hold in the Generation of Modes and Postures , or in one part of the Deity generating another . Thus to prove the distinction of Persons between Father and Son , they urge all those Texts in which the Father speaks to or of the Son , and the Son speaks to or of the Father ; which are so many , and so well known , that I need not transcribe them . And Tertullian lays it down as a certain Rule , That he who speaks , and he to whom he speaks , and he who is spoken of , cannot be one and the same Person ; for this is such perverseness and deceit as does not become God ; that when he himself is the Person to whom he speaks , he should speak in such a manner as if he directed his speech to another , and did not speak to himself . And therefore when the Father says , Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee . This is my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased . When Christ tells us , That God is his Father ; That he came forth from the Father , and came into the world , and again leaves the world , and goes to the Father : When he says , I and my Father ; and I will pray the Father , and he shall send you Another Comforter : I , and He , and Another , must signify Three as Real and Distinct Persons , as these words signify in common speech . Thus they prove the distinction of Persons between Father and Son , from those Texts which tell us , That the Father sends the Son , and the Son is sent ; That the Father anoints , and the Son is anointed ; That the Father gives Commands , and the Son receives them , and doth the Will of his Father ; That the Father knows the Son , and the Son the Father ; That he sees all that the Father doth , and can do all that he sees the Father do : For there must be distinct Subjects for such different Acts ; the same Person , with respect to himself , can't with any propriety of speech be said to send , and to be sent ; to anoint , and to be anointed ; to command , and to obey ; to come forth from himself , and to come into the world , and to leave the world , and go to himself : And therefore he who sends , and he who is sent , &c. must be Two. Nay , it is well observed by these Fathers , That Christ himself expresly teaches us , that He and his Father , with respect to the distinction of Persons , are Two ; so Two , as to make a Legal Testimony of Two Witnesses ; 8. Iohn 13 , — 18. When the Pharisees objected against him , That he bore Record of himself , and therefore his Record was not true : He answers , And yet if I judge , my judgment is true , for I am not alone , but I and my Father which sent me . It is also written in your law , That the testimony of two men is true ; I am one that bear witness of my self and my Father that sent me beareth witness of me . This is as express as words can make it . If Father and Son were but O●e single Person , Christ could not have said , I am not alone , but I and my Father which sent me ; for one single Person is in this sense alone , how many Names soever he has ; and if he and his Father are not Two distinct Persons , they are not Two Legal Witnesses , as Two distinct men are . These and such like Arguments we may find in all the Ancient Writers who have engaged in this Controversy ; and from hence we learn not only what they thought of the distinction of Persons between Father and Son , but what kind of Person they believed the Son to be ; such a Person as has a Personal Knowledge , and Will , and Power , who is capable of being sent , of receiving and executing Commands , and has all this as distinctly in himself , as he is a distinct Person . The Father knows the Son , and the Son knows the Father , but each of them know by their own Personal Knowledge ; the Father wills , and the Son wills , and wills all the same with the Father , but each of them wills by his own Personal Will ; the Father works , and the Son works , and they inseparably do the same things , but each of them work by their own Personal Power . Knowledge , and Will , and Power of acting , is essential to the Notion of a Person , and therefore every distinct Person must have a distinct Personal Knowledge , and Will , and Power ; and those must acknowledge this , who prove the distinction of Persons from distinct Personal Acts , as all these Fathers did . This is all we ask , when we assert a distinction of Persons in the Trinity ; and this we must insist on , or deny a Trinity ; for if there are not Three who have all the same distinct Personal Acts , there cannot be Three distinct compleat Persons ; for Personal Acts shew a Person , and distinct Personal Acts prove distinct Persons ; and in this sense ( as all these Arguments prove ) the Ancient Fathers owned a distinction of Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead . Their distinction between Deus invisibilis , and Deus visibilis , the invisible and visible God , whereby they proved the real distinction between God the Father and God the Son , is an undeniable Proof of their Opinion in this matter ; for I urge it no farther . It was the received Opinion ( as far as I can find ) of all the Ancient Fathers , till St. Austin , That God the Father never appeared in any visible Representation of himself ; for he tells Moses , No man can see my face , and live : And St. Iohn assures us , No man hath seen God at any time , but the only-begotten Son , who is in the bosom of the Father , he hath declared him : And yet in the Old Testament we frequently read of God's appearing to men , which they therefore expound of God the Son , and that his Appearance in a visible Form was a Preludium to his Incarnation . This we may see largely proved by Tertullian and St. Hilary , and observed by St. Athanasius ; and the plain consequence they draw from it , is , That this invisible and visible God cannot be one and the same Person ; and the consequence is so sel●-evident , that it needs no Proof ; but it evidently proves what a real , substantial , as well as distinct Person they thought the Son , who could visibly appear , while the Father remained invisible ; for as a visible and invisible God can't be the same Person , so a visible God must be a real substantial Person . And though St. Austin was of opinion , That those Three Men which appeared to Abraham , were the Three Persons of the Sacred Trinity , and thereby rejected the distinction of the invisible and visible God , by attributing a visible Appearance to God the Father , which none of the Ancients had done before him ; yet by these Three distinct Appearances he confirmed the real distinction of the Divine Persons , who were as distinct Persons as they appeared to be , and therefore as distinct as Three Human Persons , for they appeared as Three distinct men . And therefore he observes , That whereas Two of these Three went to Lot in Sodom , Lot speaks to them as to One , 19. Gen. 18. And Lot said unto them , Oh , not so , my Lord : And justifies Lot in this , That though they were two , yet they were equal , and he would not divide the Father and Son ; and urges this against the Sabellians , who made Father and Son One Person . I do not justify St. Austin in this , because I doubt whether the Argument be good ; but by this we may understand St. Austin's Judgment of the real distinction of Persons . And to the same purpose the Voice from Heaven at our Saviour's Baptism , This is my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased ; and the Descent of the Holy Spirit like a Dove , and lighting upon him , is urged by the Ancient Fathers to prove a real Trinity of Divine Persons : The Voice from the Father in Heaven , the Son on earth , and the Holy Ghost descending like a Dove ; which being Three distinct Manifestations , and all at a time , must represent the Father who spoke from Heaven , the Son who was on Earth , and the Holy Ghost who descended like a Dove , to be Three distinct Persons , not One single Person , which cannot speak of himself in the Third Person , nor descend on himself in a distinct visible Appearance . The Sabellians being unable to maintain this Point , which is so manifestly absurd , and so irreconcilable with all the forms of speech used in Scripture concerning Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , found it necessary to allow some distinction between them , but yet were so afraid of Tritheism , that they kept religiously to their main Point , that One God was but One Person , and therefore would admit of no other distinction but what was reconcilable with the Unity of a Person . 2. Hence , secondly , some of them taught , That the Son is distinguished from the Father , not as one Person is distinguished from another , but as a man's Word or Wisdom which is in his Heart and Soul , may be distinguished from himself ; that is , That the Son is not a living , substantial , subsisting Word , no more than the Word of a Man , which is only the motion of a living subsisting heart , but does not live and subsist it self , but being spoke it vanishes , and being often repeated , never continues ; and therefore is not another Man , nor Man of Man , nor with Man ; as the Divine Word is true and perfect God , God of God , and God with God ; and therefore they make God and his Word but One Person , as Man and his Word is One Man. In answer to this , St. Athanasius urges all those Texts which prove Christ and God the Father to be Two distinct Persons ; for if they be Two Persons , then the Son is as True and Real a Person as the Father is . This I have already taken notice of , and need not now repeat it ; only I cannot but observe what Athanasius tells us of these Hereticks , That when they were convinced by the plain Evidence of Scripture , that God the Father , and Christ who called himself the Son of God , were Two Persons , they then took Courage , and owned Christ to be a Person , but not a Divine Person , as the Eternal Word of God , but only a Human Person , as he was Man. But Athanasius tells them , That this was neither better nor worse than the Heresy of Paulus Samosatenus , or what we now call Socinianism , to make Christ a mere Man ; for he can be no more , if the Divine Word , which St. Iohn tells us was Incarnate , be not the Person : If the Word Incarnate be the Person , then Christ is God-Man ; if the Man be the Person , he can be no more than a Man. This Athanasius confutes at large , and proves , That what Christ says of himself , cannot belong to a mere Man. But that which I would observe , is this , That both these Hereticks , who denied the Divine Word to be a Person , and Athanasius and the other Catholick Fathers who affirmed him to be a Person , agreed very well in the Notion of a Person , viz. That a Person is a distinct , intelligent Being , who does really and actually subsist , and subsists distinctly from all other intelligent Beings . That the Divine Word in the Godhead is such a Person as a Man is in Human Nature : Such a Person these Hereticks would allow Christ to be , considered as a Man ; and such a Person Athanasius affirms Christ to be , considered as God , or the Divine Word ; for otherwise they wrangle about words , and do not oppose each other . The Fathers proved , That Christ was a Person , and a distinct Person from the Father , by those Texts which represent him as speaking to and of his Father , and which attribute many Personal Acts to him : The Sabellians could not deny but that these were Personal Acts , and did prove Christ to be a real subsisting Person ; but then would not allow the Word to be the Person , but only the Man Christ Jesus to be the Person : The Fathers , on the other hand , allow their Notion of a Person , which is the only true intelligible Notion , but prove , That the Divine Word which was Incarnate , not merely the Man Christ Jesus , was this Person ; and therefore that this Divine Word is a real , substantial , subsisting Word , not like the Word of a man , which is a transient Act , but has no subsistence of its own . The Sabellians would have allowed a Trinity of Persons in any other Notion of a Person , than as a Person signifies a real , subsisting , intelligent Being ; but the Catholick Fathers would own no other Notion of Person but this ; and taught that there were Three Persons in the Trinity , in the same sense in which the Sabellians denied there were Three Persons ; Three such Persons as they affirmed there was but One ; that the Son and Holy Ghost were Divine Persons , in the same sense that the Sabellians owned the Father to be a Person ; that is , Three such Persons as they called Three Gods. The reason of this I 'm sure is not to be answered , That if the Catholick Fathers understood what they did , when they opposed the Sabellians , who made the Divine Word only to be the Word of a Divine Person , but not a Divine Person himself , they must assert the Divine Word in a strict and proper sense to be a Divine Person , and not merely the transient Word of a Person , which has no subsistence ; which is a more sensible Argument than all the Criticisms about Persona and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And yet they express themselves so fully and clearly in this matter , that there is no need of gu●ssing at their meaning . Tertullian reduces this Dispute to this one single Question , which is the true state of it ; whether the Son and Word of God , considered as distinct from God the Father , be a Substance , and has a Subsistence of his own : Which he expresly affirms , and offers his reasons for the Proof of it . This he tells us is necessary to make the Word a real Being and Person , Res & Persona , that he have a real Substance , and a Substance of his own , proper to himself , per Substantioe proprietatem , without which he cannot be Second to God ; nor the Father and the Son , God and his Word , be Two. Now for the Son and the Word to be a substantial Being per proprietatem Substantioe , by a Substance proper to himself , as distinguished from God the Father , must signify , That the Personal Substance of the Son is not the same , but a distinct Substance from the Personal Substance of God the Father ; so distinct , that the Father and Son are Two Persons , in the same sense and notion that the Father is One Person . In answer to their Objection , That the Word of God was but like the Word of a Man , which was nothing else but a Voice and Sound , a Vibration of the Air , which conveyed some Notions to the Mind , but was it self Emptiness and Nothing , without any Substance of its own ; he answers , That God himself is the most real and perfect Substance , and therefore whatever proceeds from ( or is begotten of ) his Substance , must be a real substantial Being ; much less can the Son and Word , who gave Being to all other Substances , be an insubstantial Nothing himself : For tho there may be equivocal Causes , which may produce things of a different nature from themselves , yet nothing can produce nothing . He argues farther , That this Word is called the Son of God , and God ; The Word was with God , and the Word was God : And that Word which is the Son of God , and himself God , can't be an insubstantial Nothing , unless God himself be Nothing . If God begets a Son , he must be a substantial Person , as all Creature-Sons are , much more the Son of God : And such a Son who is himself God , must have all the Reality and Perfections which belong to the Notion of God. But he argues farther , from what St. Paul tells us , That he was in the form of God , and thought it not robbery to be equal with God. In Effigie , in the Image of God. Now , says he , in what Image of God , was he ? Certainly in another , but not in none : The meaning of which is , That every Person , as a Person , has his own Personal Image ; but thus he was not the Personal Image of the Father , because he was not the same Person with the Father ; but yet if he was the Image of God , he must be his True , Substantial , though not his Personal Image ; the true living Image of his Father's Person , but not his Person . He seems indeed in what follows , to have entertained too gross and corporeal imaginations of the Substance and Image of God ; but this was his own Mistake , and a Mistake only in Philosophy , not in the Traditionary Faith of the Church ; for which only we alledge his Authority . And the Conclusion of this Argument most fully acquaints us what he understood by a Person : Whatever , says he , the Substance of the Word is , that I call a Person ; and to that I give the Name of Son ; and by acknowledging him the Son , I own him to be second to the Father . Whoever reads this , must confess , That Tertullian did believe Father and Son to be Two distinct substantial Persons ; that though the Son be of the same Substance with the Father , as begotten of his Father's Substance , yet the Personal Substance of the Father was no more the Personal Substance of the Son , than Father and Son were One Person . Novatianus , who was Cotemporary with St. Cyprian , though a Schismatick , was charged with no Heresy in this Article ; and he opposes the Sabellians with the same Arguments , and almost in the same words that Tertullian and done before him : And tells us particularly , That this Divine Word , which is the Son of God , begotten and born of him , is not a mere Sound or Voice , like the Word of a Man , but that substantial Virtue and Power which proceeds from God : A Divine Substance , whose Name is the Word : Such a Word as is both the Son of God , and God : God proceeding from God , and making a Second Person in the Godhead . Epiphanius , in opposition to the Heresies of Noetus and Sabellius , who made Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but One Substantial Person , affirms over and over , That the Father is Substance , the Son Substance , and the Holy Ghost Substance , that is , each of them Substance by himself , and as distinct in Substance as they are in Person : Three Substantial Persons , which are not one another , nor all the same . These Hereticks allowed the Father to be Substance , the Son Substance , the Holy Ghost Substance , but denied them to be Three in Substance , but taught that they were but One Substance , as they were but One and the same Person , Three Names , or Three distinct Virtues and Powers of the same One Substance or Person . And therefore when in opposition to these men Epiphanius asserts , That the Father is Substance , the Son Substance , and the Holy Ghost Substance , he can mean no less but that each of them is as distinctly Substance as he is a Person ; for to oppose One Substance , and One substantial Person , you must assert , not Three diverse or different Substances , but Three as distinct in Substance as they are in Person , or Three distinct substantial Persons . Epiphanius asserts against these Hereticks , That the Son is not the Father , but truly and properly a Son , begotten of God the Father , as to Substance . Now a Son which is substantially begotten of the Father , and is not the Father , must in Substance be distinct from God the Father , that is , a distinct , tho not separate Substance from God the Father . Athanasius also is very positive in this , That this Divine Word is a Perfect Son of a Perfect Father , Being of Being , the Image or Character of his Father's Substance , not an insubstantial Word , but a living Power , and the Author of Life to all things ; not like the Power of a Man , which denominates a Man powerful ; for the Power of Man is not his Offspring or Son , whereas this Power of God is his Son ; that the Father is Perfect Power , as the Father of Power , and the Son Perfect Power , as born of him . It were endless to transcribe such Sayings as these out of the Fathers ; but I cannot miss Athanasius his Argument from those words of our Saviour , I am in the Father , and the Father in me . Now , says he , the Father is not the Word in the Heart of the Son , and therefore neither is the Son the Word in the Heart of the Father , but the Living Word , begotten eternally of the Living God the Father , and being without beginning with the Father ; insomuch that we cannot conceive the Father ever to have been alone : Which attributes as compleat and distinct Personal Subsistence to the Son as to the Father : That if the Father , who has the Son in himself , be a real , subsisting Infinite Person ; the Son , who has the whole Father in himself , must be as real , subsisting , Infinite a Person ; for there is the same reason of both . The Answer Athanasius gives to a Sabellian Objection against the substantial Generation and Subsistence of the Word and Son of God , is an unanswerable Proof what he thought of this matter . The Objection is this , That if the Word and Son be truly and substantially begotten , this substantial Word must go out of the Father , and subsist separately from him : Whereas the Word which is in God must be inseparable from him , and not appear out of him ; for how should he appear out of God , when God fills all places , even Heaven and Earth , and therefore there is no place for the Word to subsist in , where God is not ? In answer to this , Athanasius first observes what this Objection is levelled against , viz. To disprove the true and proper Generation of the Son , his Eternal Procession from the Father , and Subsistence with the Father ; that the Father does not compleatly and perfectly subsist by himself , nor the Son compleatly and perfectly subsist by himself . This is the Faith the Sabellians opposed , and which Athanasius defended , as the Argument it self will assure us ; which contradicts no other Notion of Generation or Subsistence , but a substantial Generation , and a compleat Personal Subsistence of the Word ; but they could not imagine how the Word should be substantially begotten , and compleatly and perfectly subsist by himself in his own Person and Substance , distinct from his Father's Subsistence and Person , without going out of the Father , and subsisting in a separate place from the Father , as all Created Births do , which opposes nothing but a real substantial Birth , and a compleat distinct subsistence of the Word ; and therefore this is what the Sabellians took for the Catholick Faith , and this is what Athanasius defends : Who tells them that this is a very ignorant mistake , to think that God is circumscribed by place , and to conceive the Son in another place , and to imagine that the Father and Son must be divided and separated , one in this place , and another in that , if we acknowledge that the Son is begotten of the Father , and does appear and subsist by himself , distinct from the Father : This he proves from Scripture ; That there is no place that can contain God , and therefore we must have no imagination of Place , when we think of God , the Son , and the Holy Spirit ; That these are false and Atheistical Reasonings ; That the Omnipresence of God is not a co-extension with all Creatures , which is a bodily or kind of Corporeal Omnipresence ; but his Power holds and contains all things , for Power is unbodied and invisible , which neither encompasses other things , nor is encompassed by them ; and therefore it is impious to ask for , or to conceive what is the Place of God , of the Word , or of the Holy Spirit . And if a man will deny that the Son is or was begotten , because he cannot conceive nor find out the place of his Essence or Substance , for the same reason he may deny that there is a Father , or that there is a God. So that Athanasius acknowledges the Son to be as true and substantial a Son , as the Father is a substantial Father ; and that he does as perfectly and compleatly subsist by himself , as the Father does ; but denies that it hence follows , as the Sabellians objected , That the Son , if he be a distinct substantial Person himself , must be divided and parted from the Substance of his Father , and that if he subsist distinctly by himself , he must subsist in a separate place from his Father ; that this distinction of Persons and Subsistence cannot be conceived without a Local Separation . For he tells them , All these Mistakes are owing to Corporeal Imaginations ; that they conceive of God after the manner of Bodies ; that because Body cannot generate another , without parting and dividing of Substance , nor subsist without being in some place , nor subsist distinctly without being in distinct and separate places , therefore if God beget a Son , and this Son subsist distinctly by himself , this Son must go out of the Divine Substance , and be locally separated from God the Father , as a human Son is from his Father ; whereas the Divine Nature and Substance cannot be divided , nor does God subsist in a place ; and therefore the Son may be substantially begotten of the Father , and subsist distinctly by himself , without any division of the Divine Substance , or separation of place . Let us now proceed to a Third sort of these Hereticks , who did allow a real and substantial difference between Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but made God a compound Being , but one Person , as well as one God , and that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , were the Three Parts of this One God. This St. Austin calls Triformis Deus ; and tells us , That these Hereticks did not allow the Father to be Perfect in himself , nor the Son Perfect in himself , nor the Holy Ghost Perfect in himself ; that neither of these considered by themselves were Perfect God , but that all Three together made one Compleat and Perfect God. This all the Catholick Fathers unanimously reject , and for the same reasons ; because there can be no composition in the pure and simple Nature of God ; and it was the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church , That each Person is by himself True and Perfect God , not an incompleat Part of the Deity . Thus Athanasius warns us against this Heresy , which conceives the Trinity like Three Bodily Parts , inseparably united to each other ; which , he says , is an ungodly reasoning , contrary to the Nature of Perfect Unbodied Beings ; and therefore attributes the Perfection of the Godhead to each Person , who are a real Trinity , inseparably united in the same Form and Nature . That the Father is Perfect Essence and Being , without any defect , the Root and Fountain of the Son and Spirit : That the Son in the Fulness of the Deity is the Living Word , and Perfect Offspring of the Father : That the Spirit is the Fulness of the Son , not Part of another Being , but Whole and Entire in himself : That we must conceive them inseparably united to each other , but yet Three real subsisting Persons in the same Form and Species , which is originally in the Father , shines in the Son , and is manifested by the Holy Spirit . And therefore he adds , That he did not compound the Trinity , nor force it into a Monad or Unit ( that is , One single Person ) to preserve the Unity of the Godhead ; nor conceive of God as of a Man , who is compounded of Three Parts , Spirit , Soul , and Body ; for such a composition cannot belong to a simple Nature . This is the constant language of the ancient Writers , That the Divine Nature is not compounded of Parts , nor is God a compound Being ; that each Person in the Trinity is a complete and perfect Person , and Three complete and perfect Persons cannot be One by Composition , as Three incomplete Parts are : that each Person by himself is perfect God and perfect Essence , though when we unite them and number Three , we acknowledge but One perfect God : for the Deity is not compounded but in Three , each of which is complete and perfect , there is One perfect Being , without Composition , and without Parts ; that is , the same One Divine Nature subsisting distinctly , not by Parts or Composition , but Whole and Entire in Three . Let us now then consider the true state of the Question between these Sabellians , and the Catholick Fathers : These Hereticks owned at last , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be Three distinct Substances , but not Three substantial Wholes , but Three substantial Parts , which by their Union and Composition made up One whole intire God. The Catholick Fathers join with them so far , as to own these Divine Persons to be Three substantial subsisting Persons , but reject their Notion of a compounded God , or Three Parts of the Deity , with the utmost abhorrence , and affirm , that each Person is by himself entire and perfect God , perfect and complete Divine Essence or Substance , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as Damascen speaks ; and that they are not One God by Composition , or as One Person is One God , but as Three complete and perfect Persons , each of which is perfect God , can be One God. Now I think after this we need not dispute , what the Metaphysical Notions of Person and Personality are : for a Person in this Sacred Mystery , signifies One who is true and perfect God , and therefore is whatever God is ; for the true and perfect definition of God , must belong to every Person who is true and perfect God. If then we acknowledge God to be Infinite Substance , Mind , Life , Knowledge , Power , every Person who is God must be all this ; and if each Person be true and perfect God , and yet no One Person is the other , nor the Motion , Affection , or personal Power , nor part of the other , then each Person is distinctly and by himself complete and perfect God , and therefore has distinctly in himself all those Attributes and Perfections which belong to the perfect Notion and Idea of God ; and to make any Person less than what God is , is to make him no God. But Athanasius has another Argument against the Sabellian compounded Deity , which must put all Compositions of the Deity for ever out of countenance . The Scripture assures us , that God sends his Son , and that the Son sends the Holy Ghost ; whereas were the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three inseparable Parts of one compounded Deity , how could this One God , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , send part of himself , and one part of the same One God send another ? To send , and to be sent , necessarily supposes Persons really and substantially distinct , such as can give and receive , and execute Commands , who have distinct Understandings , Wills , and Powers of Action , for no other Beings are capable of sending or being sent ; and Three such distinct Persons , each of which is complete and perfect God , is the Trinity asserted by the Catholick Fathers , in contradiction to the Heresy of Sabellius . But there is one very good Rule of Athanasius , which is worth observing in this Controversy , That we must not imagine to find the Unity of the Godhead by denying Three , but we must find this Unity , or Monade , in Three . The Sabellians took the first way to secure the Catholick Faith of One God , they denied Three real , distinct , substantial Persons in the Godhead ; but the Catholick Faith owns Three real , distinct , substantial , divine Persons , and teaches that these Three are One God ; not with such an Unity as belongs to One Person , but as Three Persons are One God : which should be a warning to some late Writers , who think they cannot sufficiently defend the Unity of God , without opposing a real and substantial Trinity , which is to oppose the ancient Catholick Faith. To conclude this Chapter , the result of the whole in short is this , That in opposition to the Noetians , who made Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be only Three Names of the same One Divine Person , whom we call God , the Catholick Fathers asserted that they were Three distinct Persons , not the same Person under Three Names , or Three Appearances ; in opposition to those Sabellians , who denied the Substantiality of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , but made the Son like the Word in the mind or heart of man , which had no substantial , permanent Subsistence of its own , and the Holy Ghost in like manner to be a transient efflux of Power from God ; so that God the Father was the only subsisting Person , and the One God , but the Son , and the Holy Ghost , the insubstantial , transient Word and Power of God. These ancient Fathers in like manner asserted the Substantiality of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , that they were real , distinct , subsisting Persons , as true and perfect Persons as the Father himself is : in opposition to those Sabellians who asserted a compound Deity , and made a Trinity of Parts , instead of a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead ; they unanimously rejected all composition in the Deity , and asserted each Person distinctly by himself , not to be a part of God , but true and perfect God. Now had these Fathers asserted nothing positively concerning the Three Divine Persons , but only rejected these Noetian and Sabellian Heresies , it had been evidence enough what their Faith was concerning the Ever-blessed Trinity ; for remove these Heresies , and all such as are manifestly the same , however they may differ in words , and there is nothing left for any man to believe concerning a Divine Trinity , but the true Catholick Faith of Three real , distinct , substantial , Divine Persons , each of which is distinctly , and by himself complete , entire , perfect God ▪ For if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are not one and the same Person , distinguisht only by Three Names , according to their different Appearances and Operations ; nor one single Person with two personal Vertues and Powers , called the Son , and the Spirit , like the word and emotion in a man's heart , which is no person , and has no subsistence of its own ; nor three parts of one compounded Deity , as a man is compounded of Body , Soul , and Spirit , then of necessity Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , must be Three complete , substantial , subsisting Persons , Thr●● such Persons as the Sabellians would allow but One : f●●●f they ●e not the same , nor affections and motions of the ●ame , nor parts of the same , there is nothing left but to own them Three completely and perfectly subsisting Person . If God be One , not in the Sabellian ●otion of Singularity , as One God signifies One single Person ; but O●e in Three , without parts or composition , as the Father asserted against Sabellius , then each Person must be by himself complete and perfect God ; for God cannot be One in Three Persons , unless each Person be perfect God ; for unless this One God be perfect God in each Person , he cannot be perfectly One in Three . If the Unity of God be not the Unity of a Person , it must be the Unity and Sameness of Nature , and the inseparable Union of Persons ; and this is the Unity in Trinity , and Trinity in Unity , which the Catholick Fathers taught , and which is the only thing they could reasonably teach , when they had rejected the Sabellian Unity . There is no medium that I know of in this Controversy concerning the Unity of God , between the Unity of One single Person , and that Oneness which results from the Unity , and the Consubstantiality of Nature , and inseparable Union of Persons ; and therefore if the first be Heresy , the second must be the Catholick Faith ; and whatever Notions men advance against this , is Sabellianism in its Principle , and last result : for if the Unity of God be not the Union of Three complete Divine Persons , each of which is distinctly by himself perfect God , it must be the Unity of One Divine Person , which is the Sabellian Unity . CHAP. IV. Concerning the Homoousion , or One Substance of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . IN the last Chapter I have plainly shewn what Sabellianism is , and by what Arguments the Catholick Fathers opposed and confuted it , which is proof enough what they meant by Person , when in opposition to Sabellius , they taught that there were Three Persons in the Unity of the Godhead ; not Three personal Characters and Relations , which Sabellius owned , but Three true and proper Persons , each of whom is by himself true and perfect God. But yet the Nicene Faith of the Homocusion , or One Substance of Father and Son , is so expounded by some , as to countenance the Sabellian Heresy , which all the Nicene Fathers condemned , though one would think that should be an unanswerable Objection against it ; this has made it so absolutely necessary to the Vindication of the Catholick Faith , and to compose some warm Disputes , rightly to understand this matter , that I shall carefully inquire what the Nicene Fathers meant by these terms of the Homoousion , and One Substance , which they have put into their Creed , as the most express opposition to the Arian Heresy . And we cannot long doubt of this , if we consider the true state of the Arian Controversy : There was no Dispute between the Arians and Catholicks concerning the Personality of the Son ; they both condemned Sabellius , and therefore One Substance , when opposed to the Arians , can't signify a Sabellian Unity . The Arians and Sabellians both agreed in this , That One God is but One Divine Person , who is truly and properly God ; and that to assert Three Persons , each of which is true and perfect God , is to make Three Gods. The Sabellians , to avoid this Tritheism , make Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but One Divine Person , and in that sense but One God. The Arians on the other hand , allow Father and Son to be two real distinct Persons , but attribute true and perfect Divinity only to the Father , and make the Son a Creature , though the most excellent Creature , made before the World , and as like to God as any Creature can be , and the Minister of God in making the World. This Heresy was condemned by the first general Council assembled at Nice ; and if we would understand the Nicene Creed , we must expound it in opposition to the Arian Heresy , without running into the other Extreme of Sabellianism . And therefore when we are taught to believe in One Lord Iesus Christ , the Only begotten Son of God , begotten of his Father before all Worlds , God of God , Light of Light , Very God of very God , begotten , not made , being of One Substance with the Father , by whom all things were made ; Wemust understand a Son , who is a distinct Person from his Father , as the Arians allowed him to be , but not a made or created Son , as they taught , but a Son by Nature , begotten of his Father's substance , and that not in Time , but from all Eternity ; and therefore not a Creature , but God by Nature , true and perfect God , as God of God , begotten of God , and therefore of One Substance with the Father ; not in the Sabellian sense , as One Substance is One Person , but as One Substance signifies the same Nature , in opposition to the Arians , who made him not only a distinct Person , but of a different Nature , like his Father , but not the same ; not of the substance of his Father , but a new created Substance , made out of nothing , as all other Creatures are . The opposition of this Creed to the Arian Heresy is certainly the best way of expounding it , and then we find nothing in it , but the true ancient Catholick Faith , of the real distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence . But the present Inquiry is , What is the true Notion of the Homousion , or One Substance of Father and Son ; and besides that positive account the Fathers give us of it , we may learn this from those false Glosses and Interpretations which they reject , and those Rules they give for the expounding these words . SECT . I. The true Sense of the Homoousion , from those Misrepresentations which were made of it , and the Answers which were given by the Nicene Fathers to such Objections . 1. FIrst then , Let us consider what Misrepresentations were made of this disputed word Consubstantial , by the Enemies of the Catholick Faith , and what Answers the Fathers gave to such Objections . St. Hilary mentions three in the beginning of his 4 th Book of the Trinity ; and I shall consider them in the Order in which he sets them down . 1. The first is , that this word Homoousion , or Consubstantial , is no better than Sabellianism ; that it makes the Father and the Son to be but One , by One singular Substance , which being Infinite , extended it self into the Virgin 's Womb , and taking a Body of her , in that Body took the Name of Son ; and thus they say some former Bishops understood it , and is therefore to be rejected as Heretical ; which , as he adds , is the first misrepresentation of the Homoousion . Thus he observes in his Book de Synodis , that the Fathers in the Council of Antioch , which condemned Paulus Samosatenus , did also reject the Homoousion , because Paulus thereby understood the singularity of the Divine Nature and Substance , which destroys the real personal distinction between Father and Son ; and adds , that the Church , though it retained the word Homoousion , still rejects that sense of it as profane . The Learned Dr. Bull , notwithstanding St. Hilary's Authority , can't believe that either Paulus or Sabellius did upon choice own the Homoousion , but only put a forced and unnatural sense of it , to favour their Heresies ; and seems to have very good reason on his side ; but that is not the present question , How perversly soever Hereticks understood this word , the Nicene Fathers rejected this sense as profane and heretical . Now if One Substance does not signify One singular Substance in the Sabellian Notion of it , which leaves only a Trinity of Names or Modes , instead of a Trinity of Persons , then Three consubstantial Persons must signisy Three substantial Persons , who have the same Nature and Essence , but not the same singular Substance . And St. Basil tells us , that this is the proper acceptation of the word Homoousion , which is directly opposed to the Sabellian as well as to the Arian Heresy , as it destroys the Identity of Hypostasis , and gives us a complete and perfect Notion of distinct Persons ; for the same thing is not consubstantial to it self , but to another ; that there must be another , and another , to make two that are consubstantial . Another Objection against the Homoousion was this , That to be consubstantial , or of One Substance , signifies the communion of Two in some other thing , which is in order of Nature before them both ; as if there were some prior Substance or Matter , of which they both did partake so as to have the whole Substance between them ; which makes them consubstantial , or of one Substance both partaking of the same Being , Nature , or Substance , which was before them both ; and therefore they rejected the Homoousion , because it did not preserve the relation between the Son and the Father , and made the Father later than that Substance or Matter , which is common to him with the Son. This also St. Hilary tells us the Church rejects and abominates ; for nothing can so much as in thought be before the Substance of the Father ; and the relation between Father and Son signifies to beget , and to be begotten , not to be both made of the same Substance . A third Reason they assigned against this word Homoousion was this , That to be Consubstantial , or of One Substance , in the strict and proper acceptation of these words , signifies , that the generation of the Son , is by the division of the Father's Substance , as if he were cut out of him , and One Substance divided into Two Persons , and so Father and Son are of One Substance , as a part cut out of the whole , is of the same nature with that from whence it is taken . This was objected against the Homoousion in the time of the Nicene Council , while this word was under debate , which Socrates gives a more particular account of . The reason those Bishops , who refused to subscribe to the Nicene Faith , gave against the Homoousion , was this , That that only can be said to be Consubstantial , which is of another , either by division , or by efflux and emanation , or by prolation or eruption : by eruption , as the branches sprout out of the root ; by efflux , according to the manner of human generations ; by division , as the same mass of Gold may be divided into two or three golden Cups ; but the Son is of the Father neither of these ways , and therefore they rejected this Faith , and ridiculed the Homoousion . For this very reason Eusebius of Caesarea was for some time in suspense about the Homoousion , which he afterwards readily received , when the Council had declared in what sense they understood it , and rejected all corporeal passions , all division and partition , change and diminution of the Divine Essence ; which pure , simple , unbodied , eternal , unchangeable Mind is not capable of . Now all that I shall observe at present is , That this very Objection , which was thought so formidable , necessarily supposes that both they who made it , and they who were so much concerned to answer it , did acknowledge a substantial generation of the Son ; for this whole Dispute is downright Nonsense without it : If God the Father in begetting his Son , does not so communicate his own Nature and Substance to him , as to make him a true substantial Son , of the same Substance indeed , but yet as distinct in Substance from the Father , as he is in Person , How ridiculous is all this Dispute , how the Father communicates his own Nature to his Son ? for according to these men , he does not communicate or propagate his own Nature and Substance at all , there being but one singular solitary Divine Nature and Substance , with a Trinity of Names , Modes , or Offices , and therefore no danger of any division or partition of the Divine Substance . The Dispute between the Catholicks and the Arians about the generation of the Son was this : They both owned against the Sabellians , that the Son is a real , substantial , subsisting Person ; but the Question was , whence he had his Nature ? whether he was created out of Nothing , and consequently had a beginning of Being , as the Arians affirmed ; or was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the Substance of his Father , and so coeternal with his Father , as the Nicene Council affirmed , That the Substance of the Son was of the Substance of the Father , God of God , Light of Light. Against this the Arians objected , That the Son could not be of the Substance of the Father , without the division of the Father's Substance , which is impossible in an infinite uncreated Spirit , as God is ; which Argument is only against a substantial generation . The Nicene Fathers allow this Objection to be good as to corporeal generations , but deny that it is thus as to the Eternal Generation of the Son of God ; for an Eternal , Uncreated , Immutable Mind , if it can communicate its own Nature at all , ( and we learn from Scripture , that God has a Son ) must do it without division of parts ; for the Divine Nature and Substance has no parts , and is capable of no division : And it is very absurd to reason from corporeal Passions , to the Affections and Operations of Spirits , much more of an infinite eternal Spirit . Had not the Arians understood the Catholick Fathers , of the substantial Generation of the Son , they had more wit than to urge an Argument to no purpose ; for where there is no communication of Substance , it is certain there can be no division of it : And had not the Catholick Fathers owned this substantial Generation , they would have rejected the Argument with scorn , as nothing to the purpose , and not have distinguished between corporeal generations , and the Generation of Eternal and Infinite Mind . That though Bodies cannot communicate their own Nature and Substance without division , yet an Eternal Mind can ; so that from these perverse Interpretations of the Homoousion , which the Catholick Fathers rejected , we may learn what they meant by it : for if Father and Son are not Consubstantial in the sense of the Sabellians and Modalists ; that is , that Father and Son are not One Person with Two Names , nor One singular solitary Substance common to them both , then the Father must be a substantial Father , and the Son a substantial Son , and these Two substantial Persons are Consubstantial , as having the same One Divine Nature and Substance intirely , perfectly and distinctly in themselves , without any division , diminution , or separation of Substance , by a complete and perfect Generation , whereby the Father communicates his whole intire Nature to the Son without any change or alteration in himself . SECT . II. Some Rules for expounding the Homoousion ; and in what Sense the Fathers understood it . SEcondly , Let us now examine what account the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers give of the Homoousion , and in what sense they understood it . But before I tell you what they expresly say of this matter , I shall observe by the way two or three Rules they give us for expounding the Homoousion , which are of great use in this Enquiry . 1. The first is , To give the Homoousion the right place in our Creed , as the Nicene Fathers have done . They do not tell us abruptly , in the first place , That the Son is consubstantial , or of one Substance with the Father . They first tell us , That Jesus Christ our Lord is the only-begotten Son of God , begotten of his Father , that is , of the Substance of his Father , before all Worlds , God of God , Light of Light , Very God of Very God , Begotten , not made ; and then they add , Of One Substance with the Father . This St. Hilary lays great stress on , and his Reason is very considerable ; because if in the first place we say , Father and Son are consubstantial , or of One Substance , this is capable of an Heretical as well as Orthodox Sense , as we have already heard ; for they may be One Substance in the Sabellian Notion , as that signifies One Person ; or One by the Division or Partition of the same Substance , of which each has a part ; for all these perverse Senses may be affix'd to it , when this word Consubstantial , or One Substance , stands singly by it self , or is put in the first place , without any thing to limit or determine its signification . And therefore a true Catholick Christian must not begin his Creed with saying , That Father and Son are of One Substance ; but then he may safely say One Substance , when he has first said , The Father is unbegotten , the Son is born , and subsists of his Father , like to his Father in all Perfections , Honour , and Nature ; not of nothing , but born ; not unborn , but coaeval ; not the Father , but the Son of the Father ; not a Part of the Father , but All that the Father is ; not the Author , but the Image , the Image of God , begotten of God , and born God ; not a Creature , but God ; not Another God , of a different Kind and Substance , but One God , as having the same Essence and Nature , which differs in nothing from the Substance of the Father ; that God is One , not in Person , but Nature , Father and Son having nothing unlike , or of a different kind in them : And after this we may safely add , That Father and Son are One Substance , and cannot deny it without Sin. This is as plain as words can make it , and needs no Comment , but fixes and determines the Catholick Sense of the Homoousion . For if we must acknowledge the Son to be consubstantial , or of one Substance with the Father , in no other sense than as a True and Real Son is consubstantial , a Son , not created out of Nothing , but begotten of his Fathers Substance ; the Son of God , who in his own proper Person is true and perfect God ; not a part of God , but all that God is ; not One God , as One Person with the Father , but as having the true Divine Nature distinctly in his own Person . This is a Demonstration that the Nicene Consubstantiality , is the Consubstantiality of Two real substantial Persons , who have the same Nature distinctly subsisting in each of them . 2 Another Rule for expounding the Homoousion is , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are equipollent terms ; that to be of one Substance , and to be in all things alike to each other , signify the same thing . I know the Fathers condemned the Arian Homoiousion ; for they asserted , That the Son was like the Father , in opposition to his being of the same Nature with the Father , and therefore this was an imperfect likeness and resemblance , or indeed no likeness at all ; for a created and uncreated Nature are at such an infinite distance , as to have no true and real likeness to each other ; to be sure not such a likeness as there must be between a Son and a Father : Nay sometimes they would not allow , that likeness can be properly applied to two individual Natures of the same species , as to two individual human Natures , which are not like to each other , but are the same . But yet whether it was proper or improper , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be upon all accounts , and every way perfectly alike , was allowed to be very Orthodox ; and therefore St. Hilary in his Book de Synodis , approves several Oriental Creeds as very Orthodox , though they left out the Homoousion , because they in the most express terms confessed the perfect likeness and similitude of Nature between Father and Son ; which they guarded with the utmost Caution , against the perverse Interpretations both of the Sabellian and Arian Hereticks . And he disputes at large , That perfect similitude is a sameness and equality of Nature ; and calls God to witness , that before he ever heard of those words Homoousion , and Homoiousion , he always thought that what is signified by both these words , is the same : that perfect likeness of Nature is the sameness of Nature ; for nothing can be perfectly alike , which has not the same Nature . And this he says he learnt from the Evangelists and Apostles , before ever he heard of the Nicene Faith , which he had not heard of till a little before he was banished for that Faith. This observation is of great use , as St. Hilary notes , to confute Sabellianism , and to fix the true sense of the Homoousion : for if to be Consubstantial , or of one Nature , signifies a perfect likeness , similitude , and equality of Nature , Consubstantiality must at least signify Two , who are thus consubstantial , as likeness , similitude and equality does ; and these Two must have One and the same Nature , not in the sense of Singularity , and Sabellian Unity , but of likeness and similitude : that Father and Son are One Substance , not as One Person is One with himself , but as Two Persons are One by a perfect likeness and similitude of Nature , which must be the true meaning of Consubstantial , if Consubstantiality and likeness of Nature be the same . 3. I observe farther , That the Catholick Fathers did not make the Homoousion the Rule of Faith , that whatever sense some critical Wits can put on it , must therefore be owned for the Catholick Faith ; but they chose it as the most comprehensive word , to comprize the true Catholick Faith , and to detect the Frauds of Hereticks . They taught no new Faith by this word , but what the Catholick Church had always taught , but secured the Faith by it against the shifts and evasions of H●reticks . This is the defence they made to the Arian Objection , That it was an unscriptural word ; they confessed the word Homoousios was not to be found in Scripture , but the Faith expressed by that word was : Thus St. Austin answers Pascentius , and tells us , That Christ himself has taught us the Homoousion , where he says , I am in the Father , and the Father in me ; and I and my Father are One ; and expounds this of the Unity , Dignity , and Equality of Nature : And adds , That it is not the word , but the thing signified by that word , which is so terrible to Hereticks ; and if they would dispute to purpose , they must not reject the word , but the doctrine it contains . And thus Laurentius , who presided in that Dispute , gives judgment in this Controversy , That the Homoousion was not the Name of the Christian Faith , but signified the Equality of the Trinity ; and that though this word be not in Scripture , yet the thing signified by it is true ; and we must believe honourably of the Unity , lest we injure the Trinity . We may find enough to this purpose in Athanasius , De Decret . Syn. Nic. and elsewhere , of which more presently . And therefore St. Hilary , in his Book de Synodis , which he wrote to some Catholick Bishops , who were very Orthodox in the Faith , and yet doubted of this word Homoousion , tells them , That they are to consider what the Synod intended by that word , and not reject the word , unless they rejected the Faith taught by it , and would profess those Arian Doctrines , which the Council condemned in it . This is the constant language of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers , when the Dispute is concerning the use of this word , which gives us this certain Rule for expounding the Homoousion , that we must understand it in no other sense than what the Nicene Fathers intended by it ; for if we do , we may acknowledge the Homoousion , and yet deny the Nicene Faith. What they taught by this word , that we must own ; and what they rejected by it , we must reject . And though we may fancy that this word signifies more than what the Nicene Fathers understood by it , ( as we have heard what perverse Senses the Hereticks fixt on it ) yet it being not a Scriptural , but an Ecclesiastical word , it must be expounded to that Sense , and no other , which placed it in the Creed . SECT . III What the Nicene Fathers meant by the Homoousion . AND this brings me to a more particular Account of the Homoousion , and what the Nicene Fathers understood by it . Eusebius Pamphili , who at first doubted about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that Christ was of the substance of the Father , and consubstantial , or of One Substance with him ; gives an account to his Coesareans of the Reasons which moved him afterwards to subscribe to that Form of Faith ; as appears by his Letter to them , recorded in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History . He tells them , That he did not admit these words without due examination ; but when he found there was nothing meant by them , but what was truly Catholick and Orthodox , he complied for Peace sake . For by the Son 's being of his Father's Substance , they meant no more than that he was of the Father , not as a part of the Father , or of his Substance ; and when the Son is said to be consubstantial with the Father , they did not understand this after the manner of Bodies by division , abscission , or any change of the Father's Substance ; but the only meaning is , That the Son has nothing like a created Nature , but is in every respect perfectly like his Father , as not being of any other Substance or Nature , but of the Father . Athanasius gives us a very particular account what it was that forced the Nicene Fathers to add those two words to their Creed , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that the Son is of the Substance of the Father , and Consubstantial , or of One Substance with the Father ; which was to cut off all Evasions and Subterfuges from the Arian Hereticks , and to force them to confess the Truth , or to confess their Heresy , which they endeavoured to palliate and conceal under ambiguous words . When the Nicene Fathers taught , That the Son is of the Father , the Arians were contented to allow this , but meant no more by it , but that the Son is of the Father , as all other Creatures are of God ; and therefore they added , That the Son is of the Substance of God , to distinguish him from all Creatures ; and this is the true interpretation of that Phrase , That the Son is of the Substance of the Father , that he is no Creature . Thus when the Fathers taught , That the Word was the true Power and Image of the Father in all things , and invariably like the Father , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Arians owned this also in a qualified sense , because Creatures are said to be the Power , the Image , the Likeness of God , and therefore they were forced to express the sense of Scripture , and what sense they understood the Scripture in , concerning the Son's being the Likeness and Image of God , by adding , that the Son is Consubstantial , or of One Substance with the Father , to declare that the Son is not so of the Father as meerly to be like him , but to be the very same in likeness and similitude to the Father ; and to be inseparably united to his Father's Substance , and that he and the Father are One , as he himself hath said . The Word is always in the Father , and the Father in the Word , like the light and its splendor ; and this the word Homocusios signifies , and was used by the Council to this very end , to distinguish and separate the Word from all created Nature , as appears from the Anathema they immediately denounce against those who said , That the Son of God was produced out of nothing , was a Creature , of a mutable Nature , the Workmanship of God , or of any other Substance but the Substance of the Father : And therefore he adds , That those that dislike these words , ought to consider the sense in which the Synod uses them , and to anathematize what the Synod anathematizes ; and then if they can , let them quarrel with the words ; though he is very confident that no man who owns the sense of the Council , and understands the words in their sense , can dislike the words . From whence it appears , that Athanasius would have allowed those for Orthodox Christians ( as I observed before St. Hilary did ) who should confess the Eternal Generation of the Son , that there was no time before he was , and that he had no beginning of Being ; that he is no Creature , nor of any other Substance , but only of the Father , and that he always was inseparably united to him , and one with him , though they should have boggled at those words , That the Son is of the Substance of the Father , and consubstantial with him . But the true reason why the Nicene Fathers did so earnestly contend for these words , of the Substance of the Father , and Consubstantial , was because they found by experience , that no other words would hold the Arian Hereticks , who concealed their Poyson under any other form of words , though in appearance very Orthodox ; as the Catholick Bishops found to their cost in the Council of Ariminum , and upon several other occasions ; which is the account the Synod of Paris gives the Eastern Bishops of this matter : But though they desired that all would agree in the use of this word , as most expressive of the true Catholick Faith , yet they never rejected the Communion of any Bishops merely upon this account , while they prosessed the true Catholick Faith , which the Nicene Council intended to signify by this word , and condemned those Arian Blasphemies which they intended to condemn by it . Before this Council had taken the Homoousion into their Creed , and made it the Test of the Catholick Faith , Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria , in his Book against the Sabellians , had let drop some Expressions , for which he was charged with denying the Homoousion , and accused for it to his Name-sake Dionysius , then B●shop of Rome , which occasioned his Apology to the Roman Bishop , which Athanasius gives us an account of . He owns , That he did say that the word Homoousion was not to be found in Scripture , yet what he taught of Christ did plainly signify what is meant by the Homoousion , that he is no Creature , but homogeneous , or of the same Nature with his Father , which he explained by Human Births , which are manifestly of the same kind ; there being no difference of Nature between Parents and Children , who differ only in this , That Parents are not their own Children ; whereby he signified that God the Father and God the Son had but one and the same Nature , though the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father . The same , he says , he represented by other similitudes of Homogeneous Productions ; as a Root and its Branches , the Fountain and Rivers , which are not the same with each other , but have the same Nature . These are true Catholick Representations of the Homoousion , and this Dionysius thought a sufficient Justification of his Faith , and Athanasius thought so too , without using that term ; especially if we add what he discourses more at large , de Sent. Dionysii contra Arianos . I shall only observe farther , That the Learned Dr. Bull takes this very way to prove that the Ante Nicene Fathers did own the Faith of the Homoousion , or that the Son is consubstantial to the Father , though we seldom meet with the word it self in their Writings ; because they teach the same things which the Nicene Fathers intended by that word : As 1. When they affirm the Son of God is not only of the Father , but that he proceeds from , and is begotten of the Father . 2. That the Son is the True , Genuine , Proper , Natural Son of God. 3. When they explain the Generation of the Son , by the Root and its Branches , the Sun and its Rays , the Fountain and River , which are of the same Nature , and therefore represent the Father and Son to be of the same Substance . 4. When they except the Son of God out of the number of Creatures , and deny him to be a Creature . 5. When they ascribe such things to the Son , as are proper and peculiar only to the True God. 6. When they affirm the Son of God not only to be God , but expresly own him to be true God , God by Nature , and One God with the Father . This is the true Notion of the Homoousion ; and now let any man judge , Whether a Consubstantial Trinity be a Trinity of Personal Characters , Relations , or Names , or of Real , Substantial , Subsisting Persons . If we will allow either the Nicene Fathers , or the Arian Bishops to be well in their wits , can we think that there would have been any such Disputes between them , as whether the Son be Coeternal with the Father , or had a Beginning ? whether there were any time , the least conceivable moment before the Son was ? whether he was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , created out of nothing , as all other Creatures are , or begotten of the Substance of the Father , and is the true , genuine , natural Son of God , or a Son only by Adoption ? whether he be true perfect God , in opposition to the most perfect created Nature , or be only a made and Creature-God ? whether he be Consubstantial with the Father , or have only a Nature like the Fathers , but not the same ? and whether he be like his Father in all things , in Substance and Essence , or only in Will and Affection . I say , Could any men in their wits dispute such matters as these , unless both sides were agreed , that the Son is a Real , Substantial Son , as human Sons are , who are begotten of the Substance of their Parents ; that he has a Subsistence of his own , distinct from his Father's Subsistence ; that he has a Substance of his own , eternally begotten of his Father's Substance , and therefore the same , but proper and peculiar to his own Person , which makes him the Son , and not the Father . For till these things are agreed , there is no foundation for the other Disputes ; for if the Son have no real Subsistence of his own , who would dispute whether he began to subsist in time , or did subsist from all Eternity ? If he have no Substance of his own , is it not ludicrous to dispute whether he be of the Father , that is , have his Substance of his Father's Substance , or be a new created Substance , as like his Father's Substance as a created Substance can be , but not the same ? For if he have no distinct Substance of his own , neither of these can be true . To what purpose is it to dispute , whether he be a begotten or created God , if he be not as true and perfect a Person , and as true and perfect God ( upon the Catholick Hypothesis ) in his own Person , as the Father himself is ? In short , to conclude this Argument , If the Homoousion signifies , that the Son of God , who is Consubstantial to his Father , is no Creature , was not made out of Nothing , had no Beginning of Being , is of his Father's Substance , begotten of his Substance from all Eternity , a true and perfect Son of a true and perfect Father , and upon all accounts the very same that the Father is , excepting that he is the Son and not the Father , it is impossible the Nicene Fathers should have been either Sabellians or Modalists . SECT . IV. A more particular Inquiry into the full Signification of the Homoousion , with respect to the Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature . THAT the Nicene Fathers did by the Homoousion , or One Substance of the Godhead , understand something like what we call a Specifick Sameness and Vnity of Nature , might be proved by numerous Quotations , had it not been sufficiently done already by Petavius , Curcelloeus , Dr. Cudworth , and others ; whoever will be pleased to read the Testimonies they produce in this Cause , will never be able to make any other tolerable Sense of them . They apply this word Homoousion to things , which are specifically One , or which have the same Specifick Nature , as a Tree and its Branches , a Fountain and River , as they call God the Father the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Root and Fountain of the Son , and Holy Spirit ; the Sun and its Rays and Splendor ; as Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the brightness and refulgency of his Father's Glory . They prove that Christ has the same Nature with his Father , because all true , natural , genuine Sons have so ; and therefore if he be as truly and properly the Son of God , as Isaac was the son of Abraham , he must be Consubstantial to God the Father , as Isaac was to Abraham , which we know is a Specifick Vnity of Nature . And the Council of Chalcedon expresly affirms , That Christ is Consubstantial to his Father , as to his Godhead , or Divine Nature ; and Consubstantial to us as to his Manhood , or Human Nature ; and if the Homoousion signifies the same , or something analogous in both , we know what this sameness of Nature means ; for it is impossible to reconcile this to one singular Nature and Unity . Christ is not Consubstantial to us upon account of the same singular human Nature in him , and in all Mankind ; for every Man has a particular human Nature of his own , and so had Christ ; but the Nature is specifically the same in Christ , and in us that is , it is a true human Nature , and this makes Christ and us Consubstantial . And if there be any thing like this , though in a more perfect degree , in the Consubstantiality of Father and Son , it must signify not one singular Nature ; which cannot be said to be Consubstantial to it self , but the Consubstantiality of Two Persons really and substantially distinct , but united in the same common Nature , or the same Divinity : And therefore nothing is more common , than to render the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unius generis , and by such like words , as every one knows signify a Specifick Vnity . That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the One Divinity , and One Divine Essence , is a common Nature , the same in all Three Persons communicated by the Father to the Son , and by Father and Son to the Holy Spirit , is so universally acknowledged , that it needs no proof ; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , frequently occur in the writings of the Nicene Fathers , which signify the One Divinity to be a common Nature to the Three Divine Persons . This is the very account St. Basil gives of the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Essence and Person ; that Essence signifies a common Nature , which is in more than One , and may be spoken of more than One , as a species is predicated of its Individuals . Man is a common Name for all Men , because Humanity is a common Nature , which is alike in Peter , and Iohn , and Iames , and all the Men in the World : But Hypostasis or Person , though it signifies the Nature also , yet not in that general Notion , as common to all of the same kind , but as actually subsisting in Particulars , which are distinguished from each other by their distinct Subsistence , or by such other Properties and characteristical Marks as are peculiar to each of them , and not common to the whole kind , as the persons of Peter , and Iames , and Iohn , though they have the same common Nature , are yet distinguished from each other . Now if the One Divine Nature be in this sense a common Nature , that it is really and actually communicated by the Father to the Son , and Holy Spirit , and does distinctly subsist whole and entire , and perfect , in all Three Divine Persons , it cannot be One singular solitary Nature , which cannot subsist distinctly in Three ; for in perfect singularity there can be no distinction : nor can One singular Nature be Three Subsistences , when there is but One which subsists . Athanasius , or whoever was the Author of that Treatise of the common Essence of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , proves that all Three Persons have the same common Nature from the same Names , and Attributes , and Works , Dominion , and Power , ascribed distinctly to them all ; and gives this account , why , though the Father be God , and the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , yet we must not say that there are Three Gods , but One God in Three Persons ▪ because a common Nature has a common Name , as he shews , that all Mankind in Scripture are called one Man , upon account of their common Nature ; and if this be allowable among men , to unite all Mankind in one Name , and to speak of them as one Man , notwithstanding all that diversity which is between them in external form , strength , will , affections , opinions , &c. how much more reasonable is it to call the Three Divine Persons One God , who are distinguished and separated from the whole Creation by One undivided Dignity , One Kingdom , One Power , One Will and Energy . And that we may not suspect that by One common Nature they meant One singular Substance and Nature , common to Father and Son ( which it is impossible to form any Notion of ) St. Basil tells us what he meant by a common Nature , such a Nature as has the same Notion and Definition , that is , which is common , as a Genus or Species is common : As for example ; If the Father , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as to his Suppositum , or Substance , be Light , we must acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Essence and Substance of the Son to be Light also ; and whatever other Notion we form of the Being and Essence of the Father , the same we must apply to the Son. And herein he places the Unity of the Godhead , or the One Divinity ; that though the Divine Persons differ in Number , and in their peculiar Characters , yet that Divine Nature which subsists distinctly in each of them , has but one and the same Notion and Definition , and therefore is but one and the same in all . If this be not a specifick Sameness and Unity , all our Logicks deceive us : I 'm sure the Unity of an Individuum or singular Nature was never thought to consist in a common Notion or Definition of its Nature ; and yet this is the account which the Fathers unanimously give of the One common Divinity of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . No man who understands any thing of this Controversy , can be ignorant of that famous Dispute de Ingenito & Genito , concerning the Vnbegotten and the begotten Nature . By this Sophism the Arians endeavoured to prove , That the Son could not be Homoousios , consubstantial , or of the same Nature with the Father , because an Unbegotten Nature cannot be the same with a Begotten Nature . Now had the Catholick Fathers believed the singularity of the Divine Nature in the modern Notion of it , this Objection had been unanswerable ; for it is absolutely impossible that the same singular Nature should be both begotten and unbegotten , as much as it is that the same single Person should be both begotten and unbegotten . I desire to know , how any Sabellianist , who acknowledges but One singular solitary Substance of the Deity , would answer this Objection ; I know no possible way they have , but to deny that the Divine Nature of the Son is begotten ; that though the Son be begotten , his Divine Nature is not begotten , but only his Personality , or Mode of Subsistence , without a begotten subsisting Nature : And this , indeed , would effectually answer the Objection ; for if there be not a begotten and unbegotten Nature , the foundation of the Objection is lost . And this is so obvious an Answer upon the Hypothesis of Singularity , that it is sufficient to satisfy any thinking man , that the C●tholick Fathers did not believe this Singularity of the Divine Essence , since none of them ever gave this Answer to the Objection . But we need not guess at their meaning ; for they themselves expresly reject this Answer , which is the only proper and pertinent Answer upon this Hypothesis ; and give such other Answers as contradict the Notion of the Singularity of the Divine Essence . As strange as some think it , the Catholick Fathers , from the very beginning of Christianity , owned the Divine Nature and Substance of the Son to be begotten ; nothing is more familiar in all their Writings , than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Natura genita , Deus genitus , unigenitus Deus . St. Gregory Nyssen agrees this matter with Eunomius , that the Divine Nature of the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Begotten Substance ; so does St. Basil , so do the other Fathers . When Eunomius objected , That God being unbegotten , cannot admit of Generation , St. Basil allows this to be true in one sense , viz. That he who is unbegotten cannot in his own proper Nature be begotten , because it is impossible that an unbegotten Nature should it self be begotten : But the other sense of the words , That he who is unbegotten himself can't beget , so as to communicate by a substantial Generation his own Nature to the Son , he rejects as Blasphemy both against Father and Son ; which is a plain demonstration what St. Basil's Judgment was about an unbegotten and begotten Nature . Eunomius urged , That unbegotten , and begotten , are both Names of Nature , and therefore must signify two Natures as different from each other , as unbegotten and begotten are . Now to prove that begotten is not the Name of Nature and Substance , St. Basil uses this Argument , That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the same , if begotten and substance signify the same thing , then as he who is begotten is the begotten of him who begets , so we may in like manner say , that he who is begotten is the Substance of him who begets , and then the Name begotten will not signify the Substance of the only begotten Son , but the Substance of the God of all : that as the Son is the begotten of God , so he is the Substance of God ; and thus the begotten is the Substance of the unbegotten , which , he says , is ridiculous . And yet as ridiculous as St. Basil thought this , those must of necessity own it , who assert but One singular Substance of the Deity ; for if there be but One Substance in the sense of Singularity , the Son ( if he have any Substance ) must be the Substance of the Father ; he who is begotten , must be the Substance of him who is unbegotten . Thus much I think is certain , That if St. Basil was in his wits , he would never have used this Argument , had he believed that Father and Son are but One singular Substance ; and yet elsewhere he expresly tells us , That the Nicene Fathers distinguished the Hypostates of Father and Son , when they called the Son Light of Light ; for the Light which begets , is not the Light which is begotten , though their Nature is the same , they being Light and Light. Once more , to prevent if it be possible all manner of Evasions , since some Moderns distinguish between the generation of the Son , and of his Substance , and will allow that the Son is begotten , but not his Substance . I observe that St. Basil rejects this distinction between the Son and his Substance . Eunomius durst not say that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , made or created out of nothing , this being so expresly condemned by the Nicene Council , which the generality of Christians received as the Rule of their Faith , and therefore he endeavoured to cheat them into it before they were aware , by a new form of speech : He says , That the Substance of the Son was begotten , having no Being before its own proper subsistence , and was begotten before all things by the Will of God. This was very craftily expressed , to insinuate that there was a time when the Substance of the Son did not exist ; for it could not be before it was begotten , and had a proper subsistence of its own . St. Basil exposes this Sophistry at large , and shews , that by the same Argument they might prove , that there was a time when the Father's Substance was not ; for that could not be older than its own subsistence : But if the Father be Eternal , though his Substance could not be before its subsistence , so may the Son be also , by an Eternal generation and subsistence . But that which I would take notice of is , that St. Basil observes the vain Sophistry of this way of speaking , that when he durst not say that the Son was of nothing , or that there was a time when he was not , he insinuates the same thing concerning the Substance of the Son , as if the Son and the Substance of the Son were two things . Now if the Son and the Substance of the Son be the same , then if the Son is begotten , the Substance of the Son is begotten ; if the Son be not the Father , the Substance of the Son is not the Substance of the Father . And yet all the Philosophy of the ancient Fathers , not excepting St. Austin himself , would not allow of any difference between the Person of the Father , and his Being , Essence , Substance , Subsistence , Nature , nor between the Person of the Son , and his Being , Subsistence , Nature , &c. and therefore the Son is as distinct from the Father in Nature , Being , Life , Substance , as in Person and Subsistence . But to proceed : There was no dispute between the Catholicks and the Arians about the singularity of the Divine Substance , they both rejected that as Sabellianism , and asserted Father and Son to be as distinct in Nature and Substance , as they are in Person ; and therefore this Objection de ingenito & genito , concerning the unbegotten and the begotten Nature , was intended not to prove a numerical distinction , ( which it effectually does ) but a specifick difference and diversity of Nature between Father and Son ; that the Son is no more consubstantial to the Father , than to be unbegotten and to be begotten are the same . The whole Controversy turned upon this one Point , Whether unbegotten and begotten , were Names of Nature ; and consequently , whether to be unbegotten , and to be begotten , made a specifick difference of Natures . This the Catholick Fathers unanimously denied ; and not to take notice of all they say on this Argument , there is one Answer which they all give , very observable to my present purpose , and that is this : That to be unbegotten or begotten , makes no specifick difference in created Natures , and therefore there is no reason to say that it makes any such diversity in the Divine Nature ; and they all give the Example of Adam , Seth , and Eve , who all had the same human Nature ; and yet Adam was unbegotten , as being immediately formed by God. Seth was begotten , as being Adam's Son ; Eve was not begotten , but made of one of Adam's Ribs : But this makes no diversity of Nature , but only distinguishes them by their manner of Existence , or coming into Being , and there is no imaginable reason why the same specifick Nature considered in its Individuals , may not have very different Beginnings , without any alteration of Nature . Nay , as Damascen observes , thus it is in all the several species of Creatures ; for the first in every kind is unbegotten : And though the Divine Nature in all Three Divine Persons is Eternal , without any Beginning ; yet if to be unbegotten , or to be begotten , make no diversity of Nature in Creatures , there is no reason to say that it makes any such difference in the Divine Nature . This is so plain and express , that I need add nothing to shew how this overthrows the Opinion of Singularity , and owns a Specifick Unity and Sameness of the Divine Nature : That though the Father be unbegotten , and the Son begotten , yet they are Consubstantial , or of the same Nature ; not with the Sameness of Singularity , which is impossible , but with such a Sameness of Nature as is between two of the same kind and species , as the Example of Adam and Seth proves . And I need not prove , that a Specifick Sameness of Nature , supposes a real distinction of Persons , who agree in this One same Nature . SECT . V. That by the Homoousion , or One Substance , the Nicene Fathers did not meerly understand a Specifick , but a Natural Unity and Sameness of Substance between Father and Son. BUT yet after all this , the Catholick Fathers did not allow the Divine Nature in a strict and proper Notion to be a species , which is only a notional and logical Unity and Sameness of Nature ; for the Divine Nature , which is perfect Essence , is not logically , but essentially One , though it subsists distinctly in Three Persons , and this was the Faith of the Catholick Fathers . On this one Point the whole Controversy turns , concerning the Singularity of the Divine Nature , or the Plurality of Divine Natures multiplied with the Persons , and consequently that great Controversy of all , whether a Trinity of true , real , substantial Persons , be essentially One , or Three Gods. To represent this as plainly as possibly I can , we must consider the difference between a Specifick and a Natural Unity , between being One in Notion , and One in Nature . The first is , when from that agreement which we observe in the Natures of several Individuals , we form a Notion of one common Nature which belongs to them all ; as the Notion of Humanity , or Human Nature , which belongs to all men , and affords a common Name , and a common definition to them : But this is only the work of the mind , for there is no such one common Human Nature actually existing in all Mankind ; but every man is a man by himself , and has a particular Human Nature , as he has a Soul and Body of his own , which is not the Soul and Body of any other man in the world . And thus Damascen owns , it is with all Creatures of the same kind , who in truth and reality are distinct separate Beings , who subsist apart by themselves , as Peter and Paul , and all other men do , and are united only in a common Notion , not in a common subsisting Nature , which is one and the same in all . But then he tells us , that it is quite otherwise in the Divine Nature , which is a common Nature , and yet but One ; not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; not meerly in our notion and conception , but in truth and reality ; the same One Divine Nature , without the least diversity or separation , actually and distinctly subsisting in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , which being perfectly the same is but One , and really and substantially subsisting in Three is a common Nature , which is equally and perfectly in them all . Thus Damascen has declared his Opinion fully against the notional and specifick Unity of the Divine Nature , that the Divine Nature is One , only as Human Nature is One , because it has one common Name and Definition , which belongs to all of the same kind ; whereas there is no one common Human Nature in Subsistence , but only in Notion : But the same One Divine Nature actually subsists in Three , and is the same One Divinity in Three . And that this was the true Sense of all the Catholick Fathers will appear , from considering some Notions which were common to them all . 1. They all agree , That there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but One Divinity , and One God ; and One God , because but One Divinity ; and for this very reason nothing is more familiar with them , than to call the Holy Trinity One God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Divinity in Three perfect Hypostates . Now will any man say , That the One Divinity , or One Divine Nature , and One God , is a meer Notion ? Is not the Unity of God the fundamental Article of Natural Religion ? And if this One Divinity does really , immutably , inseparably subsist in Three Divine Persons , as it must do , if these Three Divine Persons with respect to this One Divinity , are naturally and inseparably One God , Can this One common subsisting Divinity be a meer Notion , which has no Hypostatical Subsistence , but only subsists in Thought ? Can the Specifick Notional Unity of Human Nature , make three men one man , as the One common Divine Nature makes Three Persons One God ? If the Unity of the Divine Nature be but a Notion , the Unity of God , the Unity of the Trinity , which is this One God , must be a meer Notion also ? And so , in truth and reality , there is no more One God , than there is but one man. I readily grant , That the Father may be , and often is , in a peculiar manner called God , and the One God , as distinguished from the Person of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit ; but I deny , that he is called the One God , as considered without them , or so much as in thought separated from them : If we do not include the Son and the Holy Ghost in the Unity of the Godhead , we must deny their Godhead also ; unless we will say , that there is One God , and besides him two Divine Persons , each of which is God , but not the One God : Which must introduce a Plurality of separate Gods : For if they be not One , they are more than One ; and if One Person be the One God without the other , they cannot be One God. This shews , what necessity there is of owning the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity to be the One God , and One Divinity , naturally and essentially One ; and then the necessary Consequence is , That this One Divine Nature , which actually and substantially subsists in Three distinct Divine Persons , who for that reason are naturally and essentially One God , cannot be a mere Common Specifick Nature , but One Common Subsisting Nature . But what possible Sense can we make of this ? One Common Subsisting Nature , which is really , actually , indivisibly , One , and yet is Common , that is , does really and distinctly subsist in more than one . To be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be Common , and to be One , not in Notion , as a Species is common to all the Individuals , but in the truth and reality of Nature sounds very like a Contradiction . When we say the Divine Nature is common to Three Persons , and subsists distinctly in three , we deny it to be One singular solitary Nature , which can subsist but in one , and constitute but One Person , which was the Sabellian Notion of the Divine Unity , which the Catholick Church condemned , as destroying a Real Trinity , as I have shewn at large : But how then can this Common Nature , which is not singular , but subsists perfectly and distinctly in Three , be actually and essentially One ; for a Natural Unity is a Numerical Unity , is one in number , which , one would think , should signify a singular Nature , for so it does in all Creatures : And when we speak of the Unity of the Divine Nature , it cannot be one by composition , which the absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature cannot admit . This is the great difficulty , which we must not expect perfectly to understand , because a Finite Mind can never comprehend , that is , can never have an adequate notion of what is infinite : But I shall give some account , what the Catholick Fathers have said of this matter , which will satisfy us , that it is a natural , not a mere Specifick Unity , which they intended ; and will give us such a notion of this Venerable Mystery , as will deliver it from all inconsistency , and contradiction . 2. I observe therefore , That the Catholick Fathers lay the foundation of this Sameness and Homoousiotes of Nature in the Eternal Generation of the Son , of the Substance of the Father . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Son is not of nothing , as all Creatures are , but receives his whole Substance of the Substance of his Father : St. Basil in express words makes Generation essential to the notion of the Homoousion : For such Beings as upon account of likeness of Nature may be call'd Brothers to each other , are not therefore Homoousious ; but when the Cause , and that which actually subsists from , or out of that Cause , have the same Nature , then they are Homoousious to each other : And in opposition to that Perverse and Heretical Sense , which some affixed to the word Homoousion , that it signified two made of the same Substance by the division and partition of it , as two Shillings cut out of the same piece of Silver ; besides all other Blasphemies , the same Father tells us , That this destroys the Faith both of Father and Son ; for in this Sense , to be of one Substance , can make them no more than Brothers : And I need not observe , that all the Fathers prove the Son to be Consubstantial to the Father , because he was not made , nor created , but begotten of his Father's Substance ; which does not refer merely to a specifick Sameness of Nature , but to the substantial Communication of the same Nature from Father to Son ; which is therefore not in meer Notion and Idea , but substantially the same in both : for they would not allow that a mere specifick Sameness of Nature made Two Persons Consubstantial unless one of them received his Nature and Substance from the other . And this seems no improbable account why the Nicene Fathers in their Anathema's , added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : when they teach that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of his Father , in opposition to his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of nothing , they must , by the Substance of the Father , mean that Divine Nature and Substance which is the Person of the Father ; for there is no other Notion of begetting a Son of his Father's Substance : nor is any other sense of the words directly and immediately opposed to his being made of nothing . But then since Ousia does often signify a specifick Nature , which the Philosophers call a second Substance , to prevent this mistake , they added Hypostasis , which signifies a first Substance , or a subsisting Nature ; and condemn those who say the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of another Nature , specifically different from the Nature of the Father , as the Arians taught ; or that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of any other Substance than that which is the Substance of the Father , and consequently not begotten of the Father : for both these are essential to the Notion of the Homoousion , to have the same Nature for kind , or the true perfect Divine Nature , and to receive this Nature from the Father by a substantial Generation ; and the Council condemns those who deny both or either of these . I must add one thing more to make this Notion complete ; that as the Son is begotten of the Substance of the Father , so he receives his whole Substance from the whole Substance of the Father . This is the constant Doctrine of the Fathers , That the Son is Totus ex Toto , Whole of Whole ; That the Divine Generation is not like Human Generations , by corporeal Passions , by a division of the Father's Substance , by a partial efflux or emanation ; but the Father , without any division , diminution , or alteration of his own Substance , communicates his whole Divine Nature to the Son ; That the Son is perfectly and entirely all and the same that the Father is . Thus they expound those sayings of our Saviour , All that the Father hath , is mine . All things are delivered unto me of my Father . As the Father hath life in himself , so hath he given to the Son also to have life in himself . Not to signify an external arbitrary Gift and Donation , but the Eternal Communication of his whole Divine Nature to the Son ; that he is Life of L●fe , Light of Light , God of God , Very God of Very God. For this Reason the Arians rejected the Homoousion , because they thought it absolutely impossible that the Father should beget a Son of his own Substance , without a division of his Substance ; that he should communicate the whole D●vine Nature to his Son , and have the same whole Divine Nature himself . And the Fathers allow , that this is above Human Comprehension , as the Divine Nature it self is ; but think those men little consider the true measure of Human Understanding , who will not believe that God has a Son , because they cannot comprehend the inessable Mystery of the Eternal Generation . The Scripture assures us that God has a Son , that Eternal Word , which was in the Beginning , was with God , and was God. The very Notion of a Son , signifies that he has the same Nature with his Father , and receives his Being and Nature from his Father , is Substance of his Father's Substance ; for thus all other Sons receive their nature and substance from their Parents . The absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature , whi●h has no Corporeity , no Composition , no Parts , and therefore can be divided into none , proves that the Divine Generation can have nothing like to Human Generations , no more than God is like a man ; and therefore must be as much above Human Comprehension , as the Divine Nature is . We certainly know what it is not , That it is not by any separation or division of Substance ; for the Divine Nature is a pure , simple , indivisible Monade ; but how this Monade can communicate it self , we cannot tell : But this we know , That if a Monade does generate , it must generate a perfect whole ; for when the whole is a simple , indivisible , uncompounded Monade , it must generate its whole , or nothing . Thus much is evident , That to communicate a whole , perfect , undivided Nature and Substance , is the most perfect Generation . He is the most perfect Father , who communicates his whole Substance to his Son , without division or separation ; who without ceasing to be what he was himself , begets a Son wholly and perfectly the same with himself : For the more perfectly One Father and Son are , the more perfect is the Generation ; and they cannot be more One , than to be One and the same Substance , communicated whole and entire from Father to Son. There is nothing like this in human Births ; for the imperfection of created Nature will not admit it ; the Father communicates the first Seeds and Principles of Life with part of his Substance , but the Child is nourished , grows and encreases to its just proportion by adventitious matter , which never was the Substance of the Father , and therefore Father and Son are not One Substance , though the Father communicates the same specifick Nature with part of his Substance to his Son. Now though we cannot conceive how a whole begets a whole , yet we must grant that this is the most perfect Generation ; for to generate , is to communicate Nature and Substance , to beget 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , another self , as the Ancients speak of the Divine Generation ; and then the more perfectly the Son is the Father's self , the more perfect the Generation is ; and therefore thus God must beget a Son , if he begets at all ; for he must beget in the most perfect manner . And thus the Son must be begotten , if he be begotten at all ; for if he be a Son , he must be of his Father's Substance , and that not a part , but the whole ; for the Divine Substance must be a perfect indivisible Inseparable Monade . This Eternal Generation of the Son is a great and unconceivable Mystery , and has always been owned to be so by the Catholick Church ; we have no Notion or Idea of it , but no more have we of the Eternal Existence of the Divine Nature it self , without any Cause or Beginning , or of the Creation of all things out of nothing , or of the Natural Production and Propagation of Created Beings ; our present Inquiry is not concerning the Mystery of the Eternal Generation , but concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature in Father and Son , in what sense they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance , and that the Eternal Generation gives an account of : For if the Father communicate his whole Nature and Substance to the Son , without division and separation ( which is the Catholick Faith ) the Son must of necessity have the same one Substance with the Father ; for a whole same of a whole same , cannot be another , and therefore must be the same One Substance , whole of whole . St. Athanasius reasons very subtilly against the Arians upon this Point : They taught that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , made of nothing , as other Creatures are . Then , says he , he must be the Son of God by participation ; what is it then he partakes of ? Other Creatures are the Sons of God by the participation of the Holy Spirit ; but the Holy Spirit is given by the Son , not the Son , as the Eternal Son of God , sanctified by the Spirit ; for the Spirit receives all from Father and Son , not the Son from the Spirit . He must then partake of the Father : But what is that , and whence is it ? If that he partakes of be something Extra-essential to the Father , which is not the Father's Nature and Essence , then he does not partake of the Father , but of that Extra-essential Being , whatever it is ; and then he is not second to the Father , that whereof he partakes being before him ; nor is he the Son of the Father , but of that Extra-essential Being or Nature , by the participation of which he obtains the Title and Character of Son , and God. But this is very absurd , since the Father calls him his Beloved Son , and the Son calls God his own Father ; and therefore is not a Son by Extra-essential Participations , but Son is the name of him who participates in the Nature and Substance of the Father . But then again , If that which is participated of the Father , be not the Nature and Essence of the Son , the same Absurdity returns , there being some middle Term between these two , To be of the Father , and the Nature of the Son , whatever that Nature be ; which proves that the Nature of the Son is not of the Father , and therefore he is not the Son of the Father , for Nature makes a Son. All this being so absurd , it is necessary to own , That the true genuine Son of God is all that He is , of the Essence and Substance of the Father : For when God is thus wholly and perfectly participated , it is the same thing as to say , that God begets ; and to beget , signifies , that he begets a Son. And therefore , though all things by the Grace of God partake of the Son , he will not allow us to say , That the Son partakes of any thing , which implies , that the Son is one thing , and that which he partakes of , is another ; But that which is the participation of the Father , that is the Son. This is the most Natural and Essential Unity that is possible to be conceived , That the whole Son is nothing else , but the whole , entire , immediate participation of the Father's Substance , and therefore must be as perfectly One with the Father , as the Father is One ; for there is but one and the same Substance , which is the Substance of the Father , and by an Eternal and Ineffable Generation , the Substance also of the Son. Though Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are Three Real distinct Persons , and each of them have the whole entire Divine Nature in himself , yet there is but One Divine Nature , One Divinity in them all , and therefore they are but One God. This is the Account St. Hilary gives , why we may say God is One , and One , and One , but not Three Gods : Because the Divine Nature is not multiplied with the Persons . Thus speaking of the Father and Son , he tells us , That the Son is One of One , and therefore they are both One : For between One and One , that is One of One ; there is no S●cond Nature of the Eternal Divinity . For as he adds elsewhere , The Nature of the Father is born in the Nativity of the Son , and for this Reason , the Father and Son are One God , because the Son is God of the Nature of God : But their being thus One , does not destroy the subsisting Nature of the Son , but in God , and God preserves the Nature of One God. And therefore the true , absolute , and perfect Profession of our Faith is , To confess God of God , and God in God , not after the manner of Bodies , but by Divine Powers ; not by transfusion of Nature into Nature , but by the Mystery and Power of the Divine Nature : For God is of God , not by dissection , protension , or derivation , but by the Power of the Divine Nature subsists by his Birth in the same Nature . — Not so the same Nature , that he who is born , is he himself who begets ; ( for how is that possible , since he is begotten ) but he who is begotten subsists in the same whole entire Nature , which is his whole entire Nature who begets . And this Perfect Unity Sameness , Identity of Nature , he resolves into the Mystery of the Divine Generation , Virtute Naturoe , & Mysterio & potestate Naturoe , for since he is not begotten of any other Substance or Nature , but of his Father's Substance , and that not after the manner of Bodies , by dissection , protension , or derivation , but by the Mysterious Power of the Divinity , which communicates it self whole and perfect , there must be the same One Divinity in both . And he appeals to every man's Understanding , what the natural Interpretation of these words are , That the Son is of the Father ; for can of the Father signify , that he is of any other than the Father , or that he is of nothing , or that he is the Father himself ? He is not of another , because he is of the Father ; for a Son cannot be God , if he have any other Father but God , and therefore is God of God. He cannot be of nothing , because he is of the Father ; and whoever is begotten , must be begotten of the Nature of him who begets . He is not the Father himself , because he is of the Father , and the Birth of the Son speaks a necessary relation to the Father . Now a Son , who is so of the substance of the Father , as to be nothing but what he is from the Father , and to be all that the Father is , whole of whole , must have the same One Nature , Substance and Divinity with the Father ; for whole of whole must be the same whole . And yet if he be so of the Father , as not to be the Father , but the Son , he must be distinct in substance from the Father . He is true and perfect God , but he receives his Divinity by his Birth ; he is God of God , not God who begets , but God , who is begotten , not of nothing , but of his Father's substance , who is unbegotten . And therefore though St. Hilary , and all the Catholick Fathers with him , reject all Corporeal Passions in the Divine Generation , all Corporeal Desection , Division , Efflux , or Emanation of the Divine Substance , which is incorporeal and indivisible , yet they all assert a true and proper generation of the Son , and an impassible production and prolation of him , whole of whole . And St. Hilary tells us , that for this reason the Arians , under a specious Pretence of condemning Valentinus his Emanations and Aeons , denied the prolation of the Son from the Father , only to deny his generation ; whereas some kind of prolation is essential to the very Notion of a Birth , which cannot be conceived without it ; and therefore we must not wholly reject all Prolation and Production of the Son from the Father , but only reject all Corporeal Emanations , which are very imperfect Images of Divine Mysteries , and have nothing like the eternal generation of the Son , but only that the Son is truly begotten of his Father's Substance . This is that adorable and unsearchable Mystery of the Divine Generation : The Son is truly and properly begotten , receives his whole Being and Nature from his Father , is substance of his Father's substance , whole of whole , and therefore one and the same substance with the Father ; not that substance , which is the Person of the Father , nor a new or another separate substance , as it is in human generations , but the nature and substance of the Father , born and repeated in the Nativity of the Son , as St. Hilary speaks : The Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are but One Divinity , One Infinite , Eternal nature and substance ; but they are thrice this One substance , and as perfectly and distinctly Three in this One substance , as any other Three are Three substances . St. Austin was certainly in the right , when he asserted , That the Divine Nature and Essence must not be considered either as a Genus or Species , nor the Divine Persons as Individuals , and shews particularly the impropriety of each ; though he knows not under what Notion to conceive them , but inclines most to some common matter or substance , which is the same in all , as carrying the nearest resemblance and analogy in it : though this he does not very well like neither , of which more presently . It will be of great use briefly to consider this matter ; for the difficulty consists more in want of words to express this Unity and Distinction by , than in the Notion it self . The singularity of the Divine Essence and Substance in the Sabellian Notion of One Substance , the Nicene Fathers universally rejected , as irreconcilable with a real distinction of Persons , which destroys the Faith of a Real Trinity . A mere specifick Unity of Nature and Substance , which is a meer Logical Notion , falls short of the Natural and Essential Unity of the Godhead ; and yet we have no word to serve as a middle Term between the Unity of singularity , and a Specifick Unity of Nature . For there is no such Unity as this in Created Nature , and therefore no name for it ; and yet the Unity of the Divine Nature in a Trinity of Persons , is neither of these , but bears some resemblance and Analogy to both . As to shew this briefly . The Unity of the Divine Nature is not a meer Specifick Unity . A Species is only an Idea , or Pattern of Nature , according to which particular Creatures are formed ; and such Creatures as are made according to the same Pattern , are specifically the same ; and as far as we can observe this Correspondence and Ideal Sameness of Nature , so we rank them under the same Species . So that there can be no Species but among created Beings ; for they must be all made , and made according to the same Original Pattern . But an Eternal and Necessary Nature was not made , and therefore not made according to any Pattern , nor can any other be made according to its Pattern ; for what is made cannot be Necessary and Eternal . So that the Divine Nature can be but One , and One Numerical Nature is no Species ; it can communicate its own Substance by an Eternal Generation and Procession , but it can't be a Pattern and Idea for any other Beings of the same kind , which are not its own Substance . For this reason St. Austin rejects this specifick Unity ; he distinguishes between saying , That the Divine Persons are Vna Essentia , & Vnius Essentiae , One Essence or Substance ; and that they are ex Vna Essentia , of One Essence . The first may signify a natural Unity , and must do so when applied to the Trinity . The second signifies only a common specifick Nature and Unity . When we speak of men we may use either expression , that they are One Essence , or that they are of One Essence , because in both Cases , when applied to Creatures , One Essence signifies specifically as a common pattern of Nature , according to which not only Three , but many Threes may be made : But the whole Divine Essence is in the Trinity , and cannot subsist in any other Person , and therefore is not a common specifick Nature . But then there is something in the Divine Nature , as substantially communicated to the Son , and to the Holy Spirit , which bears some analogy to a Species , and to a Specifick Unity ; and for this reason the Catholick Fathers in their Disputes both with the Sabellians and Arians , frequently express the Unity of the Nature , as subsisting in Three Distinct Persons , by a Specifick Unity . The Notion and Idea of a Common Nature , which subsists in many Individuals , is called a Species ; the same common notion and definition belonging to all the Individuals of the same kind : Now if we believe the Doctrine of a Real Trinity , we must acknowledge , That the same One Divine Nature , which is originally in the Father , is communicated to the Son and Holy Spirit , and does subsist distinctly and substantially in all Three ; and therefore has this resemblance to a Species , that it is a common Nature , which has the same Notion and Definition , and is the same in Three , but not meerly by a Notional Identity and Sameness , but by the Real Identity of Substance ; there being but One Divine Substance , unmade , uncreated , unbegotten , but communicated whole and entire to the Son by an eternal generation , and to the Holy Spirit by an eternal Procession : so that the Divine Nature is so far a Species , as by its actual communication to the Son and Holy Spirit , and its distinct subsistence in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , it is in truth and reality a common Nature and Substance , which a Species is only in Notion and Idea . The Notion and Definition of human Nature in Peter , Iames , and Iohn , is the very same , and therefore there is a specifick Sameness and Unity of Nature between them . The Divine Nature in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is the same , not merely in Notion and Idea , but Substantially the same ; and therefore all the names of a Specifick Sameness and Unity , do in a more perfect and excellent manner belong to the Sameness and Unity of the Divine Nature , as Subsisting Perfectly , Indivisibly , and yet Distinctly , in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : And when we speak of the Sameness of the Divine Nature , as subsisting distinctly in Three Divine Persons , we have no other words to express it by , but such as signify a Specifick Unity ; and we must use such words as we have , and qualifie their sense as well as we can . As for instance : Those words , whereby we signify a common specifick Nature , which is One and the Same in all the Individuals of the same Species , are the best we have to express the Unity of the Divine Nature , as common to Three Persons , and thus the Catholick Fathers use them without scruple , and speak of the Unity of the Divine Nature , and of its being common to all the Three Divine Persons , in the same Words and Phrases , as they use conc●rning a common specifick Nature : Which leads some into a great mistake , as if they meant no more by it but a specifick Sameness , and Unity of the Divine Nature ; that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost have one Substance no otherwise , than as Peter , Iames , and Iohn , have one and the same Humane Nature : For the Divine Nature is not One merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not in mere Notion and Idea , but actually , indivisibly , inseparably , One ; nor is it a common Nature , merely as it has a common Name and Definition , but by an actual Inexistence in Three . For the same reason it is very difficult what Three to call Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , so as to avoid the Heresies of both Extreams ; for there is no Example of such Three in Nature : They are certainly Three , for the Father is not the Son , nor the Holy Ghost , nor the Son the Father , or the Holy Ghost , and each of the Three is perfect God , and therefore an Infinite Mind , an Infinite Spirit , and the most Perfect Essence and Substance : And that Substance which is the Person of the Son , is not that Substance which is the Person of the Father , no more than the Person of the Son is the Person of the Father , or an unbegotten is a begotten Nature and Substance ; and therefore in opposition to Sabellius , they asserted Three Substantial Persons , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three Hypostases , or Personal Substances , as Hypostasis signifies ; tria in substantia , tres substantias , tres res , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet at the same time did assert , That there is but One Divine Nature and Substance , which indivisibly and inseparably , though distinctly , subsists in all Three . For the understanding of which we must observe , That as the Divine Nature , which is common to Three , is not a mere Species , but is really and actually One and the same in all ; so these Three Divine Persons , which have one and the same common Nature , are not in a strict and proper notion Individuals of the same common Nature : Though we have no Names for these Three , but such as signify Individuals , as Persons , Hypostases , Subsistences , &c. and there being no Created Person , Hypostasis , or Subsistence , but what is an Individual . To shew you the difference , with respect to the notion of an Individual , between the Three Divine Persons , and three individual Humane Persons , I observe , That every Humane Person is such an Individual as has a particular Humane Nature of his own , which is not the particular Nature of any other Person ; the notion and definition of Humane Nature is the same in all men ; but the same Numerical Humane Nature does not subsist in all , but every particular individual man has one particular individual Humane Nature appropriated to himself , that is , which is his particular Person ; and as many particular Persons as there are , so many particular Humane Natures , and particular men there are . But now the Divine Persons are not Three such Individuals as these ; because they have not three individual Divine Natures , but the same One Divine Nature common to them all , originally in the Father , and communicated whole and entire to the Son by an Eternal Generation , and from Father and Son to the Holy Spirit by an Eternal Procession . How impossible soever it is , for our finite Understandings , to comprehend these Mysteries of the eternal Generation and Procession , it is not so hard to conceive the difference between Three Persons who have One individual Nature common to them all , but subsisting so distinctly in each of them , as to make them Three distinct Persons ; and Three Persons who have Three Individual Natures of the same Kind and Species . As for Instance ; Three Human Persons , which have Three individual Human Natures , are by the confession of all Mankind Three Men : But could we conceive One individual Human Nature , which originally constitutes but One Person , to Communicate it self Whole and Entire , without Division or Separation to Two other Persons , we must acknowledge Three Human Persons , each of which Persons is distinctly and by himself , True and Perfect Man , but not Three Men ; for Man is a name of Nature , and if Persons can be multiplied without multiplying the Nature , ( as we at present suppose ) there must be Three Human Persons in One individual Human Nature , that is , Three Persons and One Man ; but not Three Men , no more than Three Human Natures . Thus it is with respect to the Divine Nature : Were there Three individual Divine Natures Self-originated and Independent on each other , though perfectly the same in their Notion and Definition ; Three such Persons would be as Perfectly Three Gods , as Three Human Persons , that have Three individual Human Natures , are Three Men. But whereas the Scripture teaches , and the Catholick Church has always believed , there is but One Infinite , Self-originated , Divine Nature , Originally in the Father , and by Communication in the Son , and Holy Spirit ; these Three Divine Persons are each of them True and Perfect God , but not Three Gods ; because they have not Three Individual Divine Natures , but One Divine Nature subsisting distinctly , but Whole and Perfect in them all . This , I think , may give us some Notion of One Numerical Common Nature , which is no Species , and of Persons , which are no Individuals . St. Austin shews particularly , how improper it is to call the One Divine Essence a Genus , and the Three Divine Persons Species ; or to call the Divine Essence a Species , and the Divine Persons Individuals ; for in both these cases we must multiply the name of Essence with the Species and Individuals , as we not only say three Horses , but three Animals ; and as Abraham , Isaac and Iacob , are three Individuals , so they are three Men ; in consequence of which , we must not only say Three Divine Persons , but Three Divine Essences , not One Essence . But besides this , One Essence can't be a Genus , because what is but One can have no Species : nor can it for the same reason be a Species , because what is One can't be subdivided into Individuals , as though Man , considered as a Species , is divided into Abraham , Isaac , and Iacob , yet One Man can't be subdivided into Three Men ; for One Man is One single Man. Why then do we say , One Essence , and Three Substances or Persons ; ( which are St. Austin's words , who always renders the Greek Hypostases by Substances , and makes Substances and Persons equivalent ) for if Essence be a Species , as Man is , there can be but One Essence in the Sense and Notion of One Man : which , by the way , he objects as a great Absurdity , for it is the Sabellian Heresy . Thus far St. Austin was certainly in the right ; but here I think , with all submission , this great Man missed the true Notion which he had so happily started . One Essence can't be a Species , because what is but One , can have no proper Individuals under it , as One Man can't be subdivided into Three Men : But then he might have applied Individual to Essence , which One Essence naturally led to ; and have found Three Persons in One Individual Essence , which would not indeed be Three Individuals of One Species , but Three Singulars of One Individual Nature . And though One Man , who is but One Individual of Human Nature , can't be subdivided into Three proper Individuals , yet to conceive One Individual Human Nature to be communicated whole and entire , without division or separation to Two others , is the truest Image of Three distinct Persons in One Individual Essence , and the only possible Explication of totus ex toto , whole of whole , which is the true Catholick Faith. Such an One Essence is no Species , but yet is a common Nature ; and such Persons are not what we call Individuals , as not having each of them a particular individual Nature to himself , but yet they have a particular singular Subsistence as other Individuals have , and are each of them by himself as true and perfect God , though all but One God , as every individual Man is true and perfect Man. It seems plain to me , that this is the very Notion St. Austin intended , in what he immediately adds , the communis eademque materia , that One common Matter which he prefers before either a generical or specifick Unity . That the same One Divine Essence is common to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; not as if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , had their Subsistence out of the same common Essence , as three golden Statues are made of the same Gold ; this perverse Exposition of the Homoousion was rejected with abhorrence by the Catholick Fathers , as I shewed before ; and St. Austin expresly rejects it here , and therefore though these Three Persons are One Essence , una essentia & unius essentiae , he will not allow us to say , that they are ex una essentia , out of One Essence , as golden Statues are of , or cut out of the same Gold ; nay , nor as Three Men are of the same Nature , that is , which is specifically , not identically the same , as I observed a little above . Now remove these two Notions of One common Essence , and there remains only a third , which is that very Notion I now insist on , One and the same Essence common to Three , by a perfect communication of the same One whole undivided Essence . And this answers exactly to that Notion of St. Austin , which he could find no Image of in Nature ; that the Essence of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is not more or greater all together , than the Father alone , or the Son alone : but these Three Substances or Persons , if they may be so called , all together are equal to each single Person , which a carnal Man cannot apprehend . But now if we believe a whole of a whole , we must confess that it is impossible it should be otherwise ; for if the Son have the same whole Essence with the Father , if the Father be the whole Divine Essence , if the Son be the same whole Divine Essence , and so the Holy Ghost ; the same whole , though subsisting distinctly in Three , can never be greater nor less than it self : Three Persons are more in number than One , but One and the same whole undivided Essence can be but one whole . This is the true Notion ( and there can be no other Catholick Sense made of it ) of what the Fathers so universally teach , That there is in the Trinity Vna Substantia , but not unus subsistens , One Substance , but not one only who subsists ; when yet at the same time they as universally acknowledge , That the Father is Substance , the Son Substance , the Holy Ghost Substance ; and neither of them each other : That the Person of the Father is the Essence and Substance of the Father , the Person of the Son the Substance of the Son ; that the Person is not one thing , and the Essence and Substance another , as St. Austin upon all occasions teaches : Now that there should be but One Substance , and Three substantial Subsisting Persons , can never be reconciled any other way , than by the perfect Communication of the same whole undivided Essence and Substance of the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit . For the same reason they tells us , That the Father is Wisdom , the Son Wisdom of Wisdom , and yet but One Wisdom ; the Father is Spirit , the Son Spirit , and the Holy Ghost Spirit , and yet not Three Spirits , but One Spirit ; and the Father is God , the Son God , the Holy Ghost God , yet there are not Three Gods , but One God : For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One God is the One Divine Essence ; and One Divine Essence , though distinctly subsisting in Three , is but One God , though every Divine Person having the whole Divine Essence in himself , is True and Perfect God. Three Divine Natures , though specifically the same , and perfectly alike , would unavoidably be Three Gods , as three particular Humane Natures are three men ; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a thrice subsisting Monade , as Dyonisius the Areopagite , calls the Divine Essence , is but One in Three , and therefore but One God in Three , because but one Divine Essence . In this Sense we are so often told , That in the Trinity there is alius & alius , another and another , that is , distinct Subsisting Persons , who are not each other , but not aliud in the Neuter Gender ; not another Essence or Nature , not only not specifically another , as the Arians asserted , but not another Nature , though of the same Species , but the same One Individual Nature communicated whole and undivided to more than One. Upon the same account , the Father is acknowledged by all Catholick Writers to be the One only God , and they answer the Objection of Tritheism , by this very Principle , That they own but One Eternal , Self-originated , Unbegotten Father , and therefore but One God ; They grant , That Three Fathers would be Three Gods ; but when there is but One Eternal Father , though he have an Eternal Son , and an Eternal Spirit , there can be but One God. Now what is the meaning of this ? Is it because none is , or can be God , True and Perfect God , but he , who is God of himself , Self-originated and Unbegotten ? This would destroy the Perfect Godhead of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit , and answer the Objection of Tritheism by denying the Trinity . And it is certain this could not be their meaning , because they owned the Sameness and Equality of Nature , of Majesty and Glory , of Wisdom and Power in Father , Son and Holy Ghost , only allowed the Prerogative of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the name and relation of Father : And when the Arians woul● prove the diversity of Nature between Father and Son , by this Argument , That the Father is unbegotten , and the Son begotten , they denied that this inferred the least difference or inequality of Nature . Now if the Divine Essence be God , and there be a perfect equality of Nature between Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , though the Father be unbegotten , the Son begotten , and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both ; I desire to know , Why Three Persons , each of which is True and Perfect God , though one be unbegotten , another begotten , and a third proceeds , be not as much Three Gods , as Three that are unbegotten , are Three Gods. The natural Notion of God is an Eternal , Unmade , Uncreated Essence , which gives being to all Creatures ; but neither Begotten , nor Unbegotten , belongs to the natural Notion of God , but is matter of pure Revelation ; and therefore Three that are Eternal , as to the natural Notion of God , are as much Three Gods , as Three that are Unbegotten . The true Account of it then is this , That One Father , who is unbegotten himself , but begets a Son , is but One eternal Divine Essence , which he eternally communicates whole and undivided to the Son , and therefore is but One Divine Essence still , and therefore but One God : whereas Three Unbegottens , who do not communicate in each other , and neither give to , nor receive from any other , must be Three absolute independent Divine Essences , and therefore Three Gods. And therefore they do not call the Father the One God , merely because he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , unbegotten , but as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Fountain of the Deity , who communicates his own whole Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit : For this reason Athanasius condemns Sabellius , for saying that there is but One only God in the Iewish Notion of One God ; not meaning thereby , that there is but One only who is unbegotten , and who only is the Fountain of the Deity ; but that there is but One God , as having no Son , nor living Word or true Wisdom . It were easy to enlarge here , and to improve this Observation for the Explication of several difficult Passages in the Fathers ; but this may satisfy us , that the Catholick Fathers by One Substance did not mean a meer specifick , but a natural and essential Unity . SECT . VI. A more particular Inquiry what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness and Identity of Substance in the Holy Trinity . WHat I have discoursed in the last Section concerning the Homoousion , and One Substance of the Godhead , will receive a new Light , if we consider what the Catholick Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness , Identity , and Inseparability of Essence and Substance , whereby they explain the Unity of the Divine Substance , and the Unity of the Godhead . The Learned Jesuit Petavius has two large Chapters , to prove that both the Greek and Latin Fathers did assert the Singularity and Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature and Substance . And I freely grant , That as Singularity is opposed to a mere specifick Unity , he has unanswerably proved it ; but why he or the Schools should chuse a word to represent the Sense of the Catholick Fathers by , concerning the Unity of the Divine Substance , which they themselves rejected as Sabellianism , I can't account for ; for singularis & solitarius , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , the Singularity of Nature and Substance , were rejected as suspected terms at least , though they allowed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness and Identity of Nature ; the Vnitas , but not Vnio ; the Unity , but not Union ; which St. Hilary so often calls impia Vnio , a wicked Union , as destroying the real distinction of Persons , and consequently the true Faith of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . And to do Petavius right , he rejects such a notion of singularity , as denies the Divinity to be a Common Nature ; as if it could subsist only in One Person or Hypostasis , which he owns to be Sabellianism ; and that for this reason some of the Fathers ( he might have said , most , if not all the Ancient Fathers ) did reject the use of such words , and taught , That the Divine Nature is One , as any other Nature is , which is common to more than one : And acknowledges , that St. Hilary , St. Ambrose , St. Austin , and others , do expresly deny that God is a singular Being , and reject the Notion of singularity from the Divine Essence . Now such a singularity as this , as admits of a real and substantial Communication of the Divine Nature , whole of whole , to the Son and Holy Spirit , is certainly the Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers , and what they meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sameness or Identity of Nature in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , in which they placed the Unity of the Godhead . That there must be this Sameness and Identy of Nature in all Three Divine Persons , is evident from the last Section ; for a whole of a whole , must be identically the same Whole ; not so the same , as one singular Whole is the same with it self , but as the same Whole , which thrice subsists , without the least conceivable difference , is the same with it self in Three . And that this is what the Fathers meant by that Sameness of Nature , wherein they placed the Unity of the Godhead , it were easy to prove by numerous Authorities ; but some few may serve in so plain a Case . One St. Hilary will furnish us with Testimonies enow of this nature : He places the Sameness of Nature between Father and Son in this , That the Son has by his Eternal Nativity the Nature of the Father , without the least dissimilitude or diversity ; indifferens , indissimilis , indiscreta Natura ; and this makes the Father and Son One God : But then at the same time he carefully and expresly rejects the Notion of Singularity , Solitude , and Union . Petavius quotes several Passages out of St. Hilary , to prove this Singularity of the Divine Essence ; but all that they amount to , and all that he pretends to prove by them , is , That the Unity between Father and Son is greater than a Specifick Unity , or a Communion in the same Specifick Nature ; and this I readily grant ; and he might , if he had pleased , have transcribed half St. Hilary de Trinitate & de Synodis , to the same purpose : And this is so universally the Doctrine of all the Greek and Latin Fathers , that there was no difficulty in multiplying Authorities to this purpose . And I dare appeal to any man who is competently skill'd in these Matters , and will impartially examine the Testimonies Petavius has produced for the Singularity of the Divine Essence , Whether the most pertinent of them all prove any more than this , That the Nature of the Father , without the least alteration or diversity , is communicated whole and perfect , without any division or separation of Substance , to the Son , ( of which more presently ) ; not that the same singular Nature and Substance which is the Person of the Father , is also the Person of the Son ; which makes the Father and Son to be but One Person , as well as One Nature and Substance ; but so One , that the One Nature , Substance , and Divinity , which is the Father , is wholly and perfectly the same in the Son , excepting this , That one is the Father , and the other the Son : Which is not the Unity of Singularity , which is properly the Unity of a Person ; but the Unity of Identity and Sameness , which is the Unity of One Individual Nature , which is common to more than one . I don't intend to transcribe all the Quotations of Petavius , which he has alledged to this purpose ; but yet I will give such a general View of them , as may satisfy any impartial Reader as to this Point ; not to confute Petavius , who , as I have already observed , rejects the Sabellian Singularity ; but to undeceive those who mistake Petavius and the Schools too , as will appear more hereafter . I shall only premise , That it had become the Learning and Acuteness of Petavius to have reconciled the Fathers with themselves ; for they were Wise Men , and true Reasoners , and knew very well what a Contradiction meant ; and therefore we ought not easily to believe that they perpetually contradicted themselves . He acknowledges and proves , That the Catholick Fathers did teach a Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature ; That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost have One Divinity , as Peter , Iames , and Iohn have one Human Nature ; and he alledges the Authorities of the same Fathers , to prove the Singularity of the Divine Nature , That it is an exact , perfect , indivisible Monad : And this also they do plainly teach : But then he should have considered how to have reconciled these two ; for it is certain , that if the Divine Nature be an indivisible Monad , it can't be a Species in the common Notion of a Species ; and if it have any thing anolagous to a Species , it can't be a singular Monad , because it must be a common Nature , which subsists in more than one ; and Singularity is properly the Unity of a Person , not of a common Nature . Petavius was very sensible how inconsistent these two kinds of Unity are ; and yet that the Fathers did most commonly explain the Unity of the Divine Nature by a Specifick Unity , and did more cautiously mention the Unity of Singularity ; he might have said , did absolutely reject it , as St. Hilary does in a hundred places . And was not this a much better reason , so to qualify the Notions of a Specifick Unity and Singularity of Nature , as to reconcile them to each other , than to make the Fathers contradict themselves ; which destroys three parts of their Reasoning about the Unity of the Godhead , and very much weakens the Authoity of all the rest ? The Apology which Petavius makes for the Fathers will by no means salve this matter . He tells us , That if we speak of God according to the exact Rules of Philosophy ; the Three Divine Persons are not so of One Substance or Homoousion , as Peter , Paul , and Iohn ; and so far he is in the Right , as I have already shewn : But then what he adds is a very heavy Charge upon the Catholick Fathers ; That they taught this almost in every Dispute they had with the Arians . Now if this be true , what Apology can be made for them ? for , it seems , they confuted the Arians upon false and dangerous Principles , and were either ignorant themselves of the true Catholick Faith , or did prevaricate in it . But let us hear what Excuse he makes for them : He says , They are not to be blamed for this , nor accused of Ignorance , as if they understood nothing of the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence , and owned no other Unity but what is like the Unity of Human Nature ; for they did know the first , but very prudently used the Specifick Unity , as an Example whereby to represent the Divine Unity : But if there be nothing in the Divine Nature , which is analogous to this Specifick Unity , and may be truly and properly represented by it , as the best Image we have in Nature , I cannot understand either the Prudence or Honesty of this . Yes , he says , they were to take Care so to oppose Arianism as to avoid Sabellianism , which otherwise they might easily slip into : And therefore so tempered their Style as to speak more sparingly of that highest Unity and Conjunction , which Gregory Nyssen calls a Perfect Monad , lest they should seem to favour a Sabellian Solitude and Singularity , but did more freely use the Examples of a Specifick Unity , which was sufficient to confute the Arians ; who asserted the Diversity and Dissimilitude of Nature between Father and Son , which cannot be between those of the same Kind and Species ; and yet at the same time shewed how far they were from Sabellianism . That this is a very false account of the matter appears from the former Sections of this Chapter , and will appear more fully from what is to follow ; but if it were true , it would be a very scandalous account ; for the sum of it is this , That to oppose Sabellianism and Arianism , the ancient Fathers advanced a false Notion of the Divine Unity , and dissembled the true one : Which is no great commendation of the Catholick Faith , that it needs such Arts , nor of the Catholick Fathers to use them ; when both these sorts of Hereticks , as I have often observed , charged the Catholick Faith with Tritheism , and made that the very Reason of their Heresies . Can any man think it prudent in these Fathers to conceal or very cautiously mention the true Notion of the Divine Unity , and to insist on a Specifick Unity , which , if we believe Petavius , is no better than Tritheism ; which would rather have confirmed them in their Heresies than have confuted them ? These two Heresies being in two extreams , the Catholick Faith must be in the middle , and the only true Medium between them , is a real distinction of Persons , without the least diversity of Nature ; and this is what they meant both by their Monad , and Specifick Unity , the perfect Sameness and Identity of Essence , actually , indivisibly , inseparably subsisting in Three , a thrice subsisting Monad , or Individual Essence or Substance , but not one Singular and Solitary Substance . And if this be all that Petavius means , as he seems to own , we are agreed in this Point : But because some think that he means more , and sometimes he says what seems to imply more , I shall shew that he has proved no more . He begins with Athanasius ; who tells us , That the Father gives all to the Son ; and yet that the Father hath the same All himself ; for the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father . Which only proves , That the Father communicates his own Whole Nature to the Son ; that he gives the Whole to the Son , and has the whole himself ; which is the Same , but not One Singular Solitary Godhead , for it is the Whole in Two : But yet it is the Godhead of the Son , and the Godhead of the Father . And the Father and Son are Two , but yet the Godhead an inseparable , indivisible Monad . And therefore this Wonderful Divine Monad must not be divided into Three Godheads . And having quoted some other Passages of that Father to the same purpose , he concludes with a very remarkable one out of his Exposition of Faith. That we must not conceive Three Divided and Separate Hypostates in the Godhead , after the manner of Bodies , as it is among men ; which , like the Pagans , would introduce a plurality of Gods : But as the River , which proceeds from the Fountain , is not divided from it , though they have Two Forms and Two Names ; for the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father ; but the Father is the Father of the Son , and the Son the Son of the Father . For as the Fountain is not the River , nor the River the Fountain , but both are One ; and the self-same Water ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) flows out of the Fountain into the River ( and so is the very same in both ) so is that Divinity , which is communicated from the Father to the Son , without any Efflux , Emanation or Division . This Petavius lays great Stress on , and it is a most express Testimony against such a meer Specifick Unity in the Godhead , as there is between Three Individuals of the same Species , as between Three Men. But then it is as express and positive a Testimony against a Singular and Solitary Divinity , and confirms the Notion of the perfect Communication of the same Individual Nature and Godhead from the Father to the Son , which is as perfectly One and the Same in both as the Water is , which flows out of the Fountain into the River : But with this difference , That the manner of Communication is not the same , not by Efflux and Emanation after the manner of Bodies ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which I wonder Petavius should transl●te perenniter ) not as Waters flow out of the Fountain , which the Catholick Fathers always disowned ; but by the Ineffable Mystery of the Eternal Generation , as I have shewn above . The next Father he appeals to is Gregory Nazianzen , whom at other times he has much ado to excuse from Tritheism . And he tells us , That there is but One God , because there is but One Divinity , and those who are of him ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this One God , that is , the Son and Holy Spirit ) are reduced to One , tho' we believe them to be Three : viz. by that One D●vinity , which perfectly subsists in each of them : And adds , If we may express this in short , it is One Vndivided Divinity in Three Distinct Persons ( for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must here signifie , not Divided or Separate , but Distinct ) like the Vnion of Three S●ns , which would give but One Vndistinguished Light. One would wonder how this should prove One Singular Divinity , which it expresly rejects , unless Three Suns are One Single Solitary Sun , and give but One Single Solitary Light. Such Expressions as these prove no more than One Undivided Divinity in Three , not One Singular Divinity . But the same Father starts an Objection ; That since the wisest Philosophers owned but One Divinity in all their Gods , as we acknowledge but One Humanity in all Mankind , and yet they believed Many Gods , as we acknowledge , there are Many Men , though but One Common Humanity : Why must not we confess , That Father , Son and Holy Ghost are Three Gods also , though they have but One Common Divinity ? This Petavius says , Causoe jugulum petit ; and it is indeed an unanswerable Objection against a meer Specifick Unity of Nature , which is Multiplied in Individuals , and therefore must Multiply Gods as well as Men ; but the Perfect Communication of the Same Whole Individual Nature does not Multiply Natures or Divinities , though it Multiplies Persons . And this is the very Answer Greg. Naz. gives , which I had observed before from Damascen , the distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That there is not One Common Subsisting Human Nature in all Men , and therefore Human Nature is One , only in Notion , not in Reality , every Particular Man's having a Particular Human Nature of his own ; and therefore there are as many Men , as there are Subsisting Human Natures ; but the Divine Nature is One and Common , not in meer Notion and Idea , but by an Actual Communication without Division or Separation : This proves it to be One Individual , but not a Singular Nature ; for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and One Undivided Divinity , though in a Wonderful and Ineffable manner it Actually Subsists in Three , can be but One God. His other Quotations out of the Greek Fathers are all to the same purpose , and are resolved into the force of such words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and their rejecting not only Three Gods , but Three Natures , Three Essences , Three Divinities ; and that not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which specifically differ from each other , but even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , those which are specifically the same , as Sophronius speaks ; which are unanswerable Testimonies against a mere Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature ; but confirms what I have all along asserted , That the same One Undivided Divinity subsists actually and inseparably , but distinctly in Three , and therefore is One common Individual , but not a Singular Nature : And the Latin Fathers , to whom he appeals in Chap. 14 ▪ speak all to the same purpose , and one Answer serves them all . To give an Account of the Meaning and Reason of these Expressions , which Petavius insists on to prove the Singularity of the Divine Essence , will be much more instructing and satisfactory , than to comment upon every particular Quotation : And therefore I shall , 1. Enquire what the Fathers meant by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Sameness and Identity of Nature . 2. How they proved the Unity of the Godhead from this Sameness of Nature . 3. How they distinguish'd the Divine Persons in this Sameness of Nature . 1. As for the first , That the Fathers by this Sameness and Identity of Nature did not mean One singular , solitary , Personal Nature , is abundantly evident from what I have already discours'd : The Fathers , in opposition to Sabellius , universally rejected One singular , solitary Nature and Substance , as destroying a Trinity of Real Persons ; for in their Philosophy , One singular Substance is but One Person ; and therefore Three Persons , each of which is by himself True and Perfect Substance , can't be One singular Substance ; which is Proof enough , that when they explain the Unity of the Divine Substance by its Sameness and Identity , they could not by this Sameness and Identity mean Singularity ; but such a Sameness as is between Real , Distinct , Subsisting , Substantial Persons , who are every way alike , without the least Change or Variation : Which the Greek Fathers commonly call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; the Latin Fathers , as St. Hilary especially , Indifferens & Indissimilis Natura . That this is the True Notion of this Sameness and Identity of Nature appears from those Representations which the Catholick Fathers make of it , viz. That it is such a Sameness and Identity , as there is between a Perfect , Living , Subsisting Word , and that Perfect Mind , whose Word it is ; such a Sameness as is between Father and Son , between the Prototype and the Image , between the Seal and the Impression ; between Life of Life , Wisdom of Wisdom , Power of Power , &c. neither of which is the other , and yet both are the same . That God hath an Eternal Word , which was in the Beginning , was with God , and was God ; that this Eternal Word was the Son of God , and this Son the Perfect Likeness and Image of his Father , the Brightness of his Glory , and the Express Character of his Substance , is the known Doctrine of the Scripture and Fathers . That this Word is not like the Word of a Man , but the Substantial , Essential , Living , Subsisting , Omnipotent Word ; and this Son a True , Natural , Genuine Son , and this Image a Substantial , Living Image , and a Living , Substantial Character of the Father ; that this Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Distinct Person from him , whose Word he is ; that the Son is not the Father , nor the Father the Son , but that they are alius & alius ; that the Image is not the Prototype , nor the Prototype the Image , nor the Chararacter and Impression , that whose Character it is ; I have already proved to be the Received Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers against the Sabellians , and were there any occasion for it , I could confirm it with innumerable Testimonies : The only Question then is , What this Sameness and Identity of Nature is . And if we will allow for that difference there is between God and Creatures , we may learn , as the Fathers teach us , what this Sameness of Nature between the Divine Persons is , from the Sameness and Identity between a Mind and its Word , between Father and Son , between the Prototype and the Image , the Seal and its Character and Impression . Now what this Sameness and Identity is , is so visible , that a few words will explain it . It is not the Sameness of Singularity ; for the Mind and its Word , a Father and Son , the Prototype and its Image , the Seal and its Impression , are visibly Two : Nor is it the Sameness of meer Likeness and Similitude , how Exact and Perfect soever we conceive that Likeness to be ; for every one must confess , that there is a vast difference between the Perfect Likeness of Two Minds , Two Men , Two Originals , and Two Seals , and that Sameness , which is between a Mind and its own Word , a Father and his own Son , a Prototype and its own Natural Image , and the Seal and the Impression which is made by it ; just as much difference as there is between Similitude and Nature , or between a perfect Likeness of Nature and Identity . And therefore the complete and adequate Notion of S●meness and Identity between Two , who are really distinct in Subsistence and Personality , and are not each other , must be this , That an Eternal Unproduced Person produces another in his own Nature , Whole , Perfect , Entire , without the least Conceivable or Possible Difference or Diversity ; excepting this , That One Produces , and the Other is Produced : For Two such , who distinctly subsist , are really Two Persons in One and the Same Individual Nature . Thus it is with a Perfect Mind and its Perfect Living , Subsisting Word , which is perfectly it self , as its own Perfect , Natural Image ; Two in Number , but One in Re , in Nature . Thus it is with a Father and such a Son , as is Whole of Whole , they are Two and the Same , the Son the Natural Living Image of the Father , in whom the Father sees Himself , and is seen in Him , as Christ tells us , He that hath seen me hath seen the Father : Which is agreeable to the common Forms of Speech , to call the King's Picture or Image , the King , as the Catholick Writers frequently observe ; which would be exactly and philosophically true , were it a Perfect , Natural , Living , Inseparable Image : And this is what the Catholick Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness or Identity of Nature ; as might easily be proved by numerous Citations : But I will content my self with a few . The Nicene Fathers taught , That the Father and the Son were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the same Nature and Substance : This , as I observed before , they explain by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Perfect Invariable Likeness and Similitude , without the least Difference and Diversity ; and this is what they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness and Identity of Nature , which cannot be the Sameness of Singularity , but the Sameness of Indifference and Indiversity ; such a Sameness as is between Two , which are perfectly alike , and differ in nothing from each other . Athanasius gives this account , why the Nicene Fathers taught , That the Son was Homoousios , of the same Substance with the Father , that they might signifie that the Son was not only like the Father , but so of the Father , as to be the same in Likeness : Now the Sameness and Identity of Likeness cannot be the Sameness of Singularity ; and yet this he calls the Sameness and Identity with his Father ; That the Son is the Natural Genuine Son of the Father , and the Word God's own proper Word ; and the invariable Likeness between the Light and it's Splendor ; the Unity of Nature and the Identity of Light : With several Expressions , noted in the Margin , which signifie the most perfect Sameness in Nature . Thus the Son is the Image of God , the Character of his Substance , Nature and Essence ; which is the Language of Scripture , and the constant Doctrine of the Fathers : And from hence they conclude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature between Father and Son , or a perfect Likeness and Similitude . By which Argument they prove , That he is no Creature , but that he is Eternal and Omnipotent , and all that his Father is ; because this is the Nature of a Perfect Living Image , to be perfectly all and the same that the Prototype is . Thus St. Basil tells us , That the Seal is seen in the Impression , and the Prototype is known by its Image , from that Sameness and Identity which is in both : Which he calls also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . This sufficiently proves what the Catholick Fathers meant by this Sameness and Identity of Nature ; not the Sameness of singularity , which they always rejected as Sabellianism , but such a Sameness as is between Two , who have the same Individual Nature , subsisting so distinctly in each of them , as to make them Two , but without the least conceivable or possible Change or Alteration ; such a Sameness as is a perfect likeness and similitude , which cannot be in singularity . But because Petavius lays great stress upon these Expressions , it will not be amiss to give two or three direct and positive Proofs of this matter . Athanasius expresly cautions us against this , That when we hear that the Son hath all that the Father has , this invariable likeness and sameness of what the Son has , may not mislead us into Sabellianism , to say , That the Son is the Father himself : And tells us , That the Father gave all to the Son , and that the Father hath all again in the Son ; and the Son having all , the Father again has the same all ; for the Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father . Gregory Nyssen , or St. Basil , for the same Treatise is ascribed to them both , proves both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from the nature of an Image ; That the Son is both the same with the Father , and another ; for so an Image is both the same with its Prototype , and yet another ; not the Prototype it self . And adds , that we may see the Father in the Son , not considered as unbegotten , for then he would be upon all accounts the same , and not another , which destroys the Nature and Character of an Image . The same account St. Hilary gives of an Image , That it signifies a perfect likeness and similitude of Nature between Two ; for no Man is his own Image , but the Image represents the Prototype : And therefore there is a Father , and there is a Son , if the Son be the Image of the Father ; and being an Image , the Son must necessarily have in himself the Nature and Essence of his Father . Which he urges as a direct Confutation of the Sabellian Singularity . But there is no need of multiplying Authorities in this Case , since it is so very obvious to every one , who ever look'd into the Fathers , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness and Identity , and the Community of Nature , though they differ in their formal Notions , yet both equally belong to the same Divine Nature ; and the same Identical Nature , which is also a common Nature , can't be One in the Notion of Singularity . 2 dly . Having thus shewn what the Catholick Fathers meant by the Sameness and Identity of Nature in Father and Son , I proceed to shew , That herein they placed the Unity of the Godhead , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the One Divinity , and what account they give of this matter . The Defence they generally make for the Unity of God in a Trinity of Divine Persons , is reducible to two Heads ; this Sameness and Identity of Nature , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or inseparable Unity ; which Two make up the compleat Notion of the Divine Unity ; but I must now consider them apart . That the Catholick Fathers did resolve the Unity of God into this Sameness and Identity of Nature , That the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , though they are Three Real , Proper , Distinct Persons , yet have the same One Divine Nature , which subsists whole , and perfect , and distinct , without any Change or Variation in all Three ; and that therefore they are not Three Gods , but One God , is so very plain , that there is no need of multiplying words about it . The One God in the Catholick Language is One Divine Nature in Three Persons ; and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this One Essence , and One Divinity , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which are often used as equivalent terms , the Unity , Identity , Propriety , and Sameness of Nature ; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one and the same . All those Passages quoted by Petavius , though they do not prove the Singularity of the Divine Nature , yet prove the Unity of the Godhead , by the perfect and invariable Sameness of Nature , in the sense now explained . But the Testimony of St. Basil against the Sabellians is so full and express to this purpose , that I shall represent this matter in his Words , wherein he agrees with all the other Catholick Fathers . Though ( Father and Son ) are Two in Number , yet are they not divided in Nature ; nor does he who says Two Persons , alienate them from each other . There is One God , because a Father ; but the Son also is One God , not Two Gods , because of the Sameness and Identity of the Son with the Father ; for there is not One Divinity in the Father , and Another in the Son ; nor One Nature of the Father , and another of the Son. When therefore you would distinguish the Persons , number them distinctly , the Father by himself , and the Son by himself ; but if you would avoid Polytheism , confess but One Nature in them both , which rejects both the Sabellian and Anomoean Heresy . But when I say One Nature , you must not imagine that Two Persons are made of One Nature , as it were by a division of it into two Parts ; but only conceive the Son subsisting of the Father , as his Principle and Original : Nor must you conceive that Father and Son are so of One Nature , as partaking of some One Same Nature and Substance antecedent to them both ; for we do not call them Brethren , but Father and Son , which signifies the Sameness and Identity of Nature . For the Son is of the Father , not made by his Command , but begotten of his Nature ; not by Division of the Father's Substance ; but the Son shines forth whole and perfect from a perfect Father , without any diminution of him . And therefore , as he proceeds , do not charge us with Preaching Two Gods , or Polytheism ; for we Preach not Two Fathers , or Two Principles , and therefore not Two Gods , which was the Impiety of Marcion : Nor do we make the Father and Son of a different Nature , unlike to each other , as the Anomoeans do . — But where there is but One Principle , and One Begotten of it , One Prototype , and One Image , the Unity is preserved : Because the Son who is begotten of the Father , and imprints his Father's Nature and Essence on himself , as an Image , he has an invariable Likeness , as a Son he retains the same Nature and Substance . Now as a man who calls the King's Image or Picture the King , does not make Two Kings , nor deny him whose Image it is , to be the King , much less reason is there for such an Imputation in this Case . For here , when we hear of the Image of God , we must conceive nothing less than the Brightness of his Glory . But what is this Brightness , and what is this Glory ? That the Apostle adds , The perfect Impression or Character of his Substance . And therefore Substance is the same with Glory , and Character with Brightness : So that the Divine Glory remaining perfect and undiminished , emits a perfect Splendor and Brightness : And thus the very Nature of an Image expounded as it becomes God , confirms the Faith of One Divinity . For the Father is in the Son , and the Son in the Father ; because such as the Father is , such is the Son , and such as the Son is , such is the Father : And thus Two are One , because the Son in nothing differs , as receiving no other Form or Character , but that of his Father . And therefore I say again , One and One , but an undivided Nature , and never-failing Perfection . And therefore there is One God , because by both the same perfect Divine Form and Nature is seen wholly and perfectly subsisting in both . This I think is as plain as words can make it , both what St. Basil meant by the Sameness and Identity of Nature , and that herein he placed the Unity of the Godhead ; and were there any occasion for it , it were easy to confirm this by the concurrent Suffrages of Athanasius , Gregory Nyssen , and Gregory Nazianzen , St. Cyril , and other Greek Fathers , almost in the same words . St. Hilary and St. Ambrose , to name no more of the Latin Fathers , are so express in placing the Unity of the Godhead in this perfect Sameness , Indifference , Indiversity of Nature between Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , that there is no need of any other Art , but barely to represent their Words ; and therefore I shall only refer my Readers to some few Quotations in the Margin . It cannot be denied , but that all the Fathers unanimously agree in this Account of the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three Distinct Persons : Which should make modest men very cautious of charging it with a direct Contradiction to all Reason and Philosophy : But Modesty and Reverence to the Catholick Fathers , are none of the prevailing Virtues of this Age. But is it indeed such a Contradiction to say , That the same Nature , which is perfectly and in every thing the same in Three , is but One Nature in Three , and that such Three have not Three Natures , but One Nature ? Is it such a direct Contradiction to Sense and Reason , to say , That there is alius , & alius , & alius , in the Trinity , but not aliud ? That there is Another , and Another , and Another Person in the Holy Trinity ; but that there is nothing in any One of these Persons , which can be called Another thing from what is in the other Two ? This is so far from a Contradiction , that it seems plain Sense , nay , plain Demonstration to me , That Three Persons who have nothing in themselves but what each of them have , without the least conceivable Variation , are in Nature but one and the same ; and though each of them be Another Person , yet not Another Thing , or Another Nature . There are several Examples in Nature which justify this distinction between alius & aliud , and must make all thinking men confess that they cannot speak properly without it . I would not be mistaken in this matter , and therefore desire the Reader carefully to observe , That I do not alledge these Instances which follow , as Resemblances of the Trinity , but only as Examples of a perfect Sameness and Unity in Nature ; where we must confess , That the thing is but One and the same , and yet that there is Another and Another : And if there be any Images of this in Nature , there is no reason to call this a Contradiction in the Faith of the Trinity . Let me then ask this plain Question : When Five hundred Men hear the same Man speak , do they all hear one and the same Voice , or Five hundred Voices ? It will , I think , be granted , that it is but one and the same Voice which they all hear , and yet it is heard five hundred times , and is distinctly in five hundred Ears : The Voice is essentially one and the same in all , and yet no man dares deny that the Voice in Peter's Ear is another from that Voice which is in Iohn's Ear ; and therefore is Another and Another , but not Another Thing : And were a Voice Essence and Substance , there would be One Nature , Essence , and Substance , in a Plurality of Hypostases . Thus Sight furnishes us with as many Examples of this as Hearing : When five hundred Men see the same thing , the Object is one and the same , and yet is Another and Another , according to the number of the Persons who see it : Is one and the same in Nature , and subsists the same , and yet distinctly in each eye . Sight and Hearing approach nearest to an Incorporeal Nature , and therefore give us the nearest Resemblances of a Spiritual Sameness , Unity , and Distinction : But we have still more perfect Images of this , in what is more perfectly Spiritual . The same Notion and Idea , though it subsist in Ten thousand Minds , is perfectly the same in all . A perfect true Idea of any thing , is and can be but One ; and therefore how many Minds soever it subsist in , it must be one and the same in all ; but yet the Idea in the Mind of Peter is not the same in Subsistence with the Idea in the Mind of Paul : It is Another and Another , and yet the same Idea in Nature and Essence : As suppose the perfect Idea of Humanity , or Human Nature , and the perfect Idea of the Divine Nature ; if they be true and perfect , they are perfectly the same in all the Minds in the World ; and nothing but the different Notions men have of things , can multiply such Ideas . Now if we advance but one step higher , we shall plainly see what this Unity of Sameness is ; what the true Notion of it is , and how far it reaches : For though this be absolutely essential to the Divine Unity , yet as I have already noted , and will appear more hereafter , this is not the compleat and adequate Notion of it . Let us suppose then that Human Nature , for instance , did subsist as perfectly the same in Peter , Iames , and I●hn , as the true and perfect Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in all ; that a Man were nothing else but the living subsisting Idea of Human Nature , without the least change or variation in Nature to distinguish one from another : I say , in such a Case as this , would not Three such Persons be perfectly one and the same , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the Sameness and Identity of Nature , which would be as perfectly and invariably the same , as the common Notion and Idea of Nature ? Would not Human Nature be as perfectly the same in Three Persons or Subsistences , as the Idea of Human Nature is one and the same in Three Minds ? Or could we in proper speaking , with reference to this Sameness of Nature , any more say that there are Three Men , than that there are Three Humanities , when a Man is nothing else but the subsisting Idea of Humanity ? Would not , as far as this Sameness and Identity reaches , Human Nature be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; not merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , both One and a Common Nature , not merely by a Logical and Notional Unity and Community , but by an actual Subsistence in all , without the least difference or diversity ? As the Idea of Human Nature is both One , and Common to the whole Kind . This indeed is but an imaginary Case , as to Finite Creatures , who never were , and never can be so perfectly One and the same , as their Idea is ; but yet it is the properest and most sensible representation we can make of the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature , which has really and actually all that Sameness and Identity which we only suppose in Creatures to help our Conceptions of the Divine Unity ; how different Hypostases may be One in Nature by this Sameness and Identy of Nature . The Divine Nature and Essence is more perfectly simple and uncompounded than any Notion and Idea which we can frame of it ; and therefore must subsist as simply as the simplest Idea , and consequently must be as perfectly one and the same in all Three Persons of the Trinity , as the same Idea is one and the same with it self : And though this be not the whole notion of the Sameness and Identity of Nature , which requires not only two perfect Same 's , but that one be of the other without division or Separation ; yet this is essential to this Notion , and there can be no Identity of Nature without it : This is what the Catholick Fathers intended in many Passages , which some Modern Writers have so miserably mistaken and misrepresented , as to charge those Wise men , and Learned Philosophers , with the most wild and absurd Conceits , and those great Advocates of the Catholick Faith with the worst of Heresies , even Tritheism it self . I can't do right to my Cause , without doing right to these great Lights of the Church , in giving a plain account of this matter . And to explain what they meant by this Sameness and Identity of Nature , and to shew how groundless this Imputation of Tritheism is , I shall begin with their natural Proof and Demonstration of the Unity of God against the Pagan Polytheism , which they unanimously resolve into this Sameness and Identity of Nature . They prove , that there can be but One God , and One Divinity , because the Divine Nature is not capable of the least conceivable change and diversity , which is necessary to make a Number : For what is , and always must be the same with it self , cannot be another , or a Second Nature ; and One Divinity is but One God. This they prove from all the Notions which we have of God , especially that comprehensive One of an Absolute and Perfect Being ; for Absolute Perfection is , and can be but One , without any possibility of change ; for all change and diversity must be either for the better or for the worse , and Absolute Perfection can admit of neither ; and without diversity and alterity there can be but One. An Infinite Nature , which nothing can distinguish from it self , can be but One ; and could we imagine any thing to be added to , or taken from it , to make this distinction , it would destroy , not only its Unity , but it s Infinity too ; it would indeed make a Number , but not of absolute perfect Beings . If we consider the Divine Perfections by themselves , it is impossible to conceive any difference or diversity , and consequently any number in them : Is not Eternal Truth , and Infinite Wisdom , and Omnipotent Power , always one and the same ? Can Eternal Truth , and Infinite Wisdom in any thing vary from it self , to make two Eternal Truths , and Infinite Wisdoms ? Now remove all possible diversity , and you necessarily destroy a plurality of Gods ; for a Perfect Sameness and Identity must reduce us to the belief of One God : For what is perfectly the same , is not many , but one . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Well! But can't there be more than one of these Eternal , infinitely Wise , infinitely Good , and Omnipotent Natures ? No : For if this Nature must of necessity be always the same , and is unmade and self-originated , it can be but one : For though in Created Natures several of the same kind may be made according to the same Pattern , there being nothing in the Idea of any Created Nature which hinders the multiplication of its Individuals , yet a Nature which subsists of it self ; and is absolutely uncapable of any diversity , and consequently of number , can be but One ; for a Self-subsisting Nature must subsist according to its own Essential Idea , that is , according to its own Nature , and that is but One ; for as far as we can judge of these Matters , what we cannot possibly conceive should ever be Two , we must conclude to be One. But besides this , these Fathers observed , That if there were more than one Self-originated Divinity , or more Divine Natures than one , they must be divided and separated from each other ; for if to the Sameness and Identity of Nature you add an inseparable and indivisible Union too , it is impossible they should be more than One. And yet two or more such divided and separated Natures are inconsistent with the Notion of a Divine Nature and Essence , which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Uncircumscribed , and Omnipresent ; whereas two Divided and Separated Natures , which are not where each other is , must be Circumscribed , and not Omnipresent , and this destroys the absolute Perfection of both ; for a confined and limited Presence , as it is an imperfection it self , so confines and limits all other Perfections , as it confines Wisdom , Power and Goodness within a certain limited Sphere of Action . And now it may be , some may think that these Arguments conclude as strongly against a Trinity of Divine Persons , each of which is by himself True and Perfect God , as against a plurality of Divided and Separate Divinities ; and upon second thoughts , I suspect this may be what our Considerer intended in those surprizing Arguments , of the Unity of Idea , and the Unity of Position and Place , to prove , that there can be but one single Person , in the true and proper notion of a Person , for an Intelligent Person , in the Trinity ; this to be sure is the Argument which a Socinian Writer alledges with so much triumph out of Athenagoras to disprove the Trinity , though that very Ancient and Learned Writer understood very well the difference between Polytheism and the Trinity , and at the same time confutes the one , and professes the other ; which might have made that Author suspect , that he did not understand the true force of this Argument , since not only Athenagoras , but all the other Fathers , thought it a good Argument against Polytheism , and at the same time a Confutation of the Charge of Polytheism against the Faith of the Trinity . Gregory Nyssen , and Damascen , and many others , having confuted the Pagan Polytheism , or plurality of Gods from the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature , which can admit of no change or diversity , and therefore not of number ; they immediately proceed to consider the distinction of Persons and Hypostases in the perfect Unity and Simplicity of the Divine Nature , in opposition to the Iewish Notion of One God , for One Single and Solitary Divine Person . And here they undertake to prove by Natural Arguments ( of which possibly more hereafter ) that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Divinity , must have an Eternal Subsisting Word , which is Life , Wisdom , Power , all the same in his own Person that God is , but yet another Person : For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Divinity is not without its Coeternal Word , and Coessential Reason and Wisdom ; and the same they teach and prove concerning the Eternal Spirit ; so that they make Father , Son , and Spirit , to be essential to One Divinity , not as parts , but as perfectly whole , and the same in Three distinct Hypostases , which they think necessarily included in the Perfection of One Divinity , as Reason and Word is essential to a Created Mind . This is what they mean by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypostases ; not that Three Hypostases are united , as it were ex post facto , into One Divinity ; but that One Divinity does subsist Eternally , Essentially , and Inseparably , in Three Hypostases , which are necessary to compleat the Notion and Definition of One Divinity . Thus it is certain Melanchton understood it , and therefore rejects the Definition which Plato gives of God , That he is an Eternal Mind , the Cause of all Good in the World ; for though he owns it to be True and Learned , when rightly explained , yet he says it is defective , and must be supplied by the Gospel Revelation . That God is a Spiritual Intelligent Essence , Eternal , True , Good , Iust , Merciful , most free , of Infinite Power and Wisdom , the Eternal Father , who from Eternity begat a Son , his own Image , and the Son , the Coeternal Image of the Father , and the Holy Spirit , proceeding from Father and Son. So that the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity is but One Eternal Coessential Divinity ; that were there more Divinities than One , there must of necessity be more Trinities also , according to the Doctrine of these Fathers ; which is evidence enough , that this Argument against a plurality of Divinities from the perfect Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature , which can't be multiplied , can't concern a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons in the same One Eternal Undivided Divinity : For the same One Divinity is not multiplied by a Trinity of Persons Coeternal and Coessential ; if this be the Nature and Unity of the Deity , to subsist whole and perfectly in Three , which was the constant Doctrine of the Fathers , and which this Argument don't oppose ; nay so far from it , that it as evidently proves the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons , as it confutes a Plurality of Godheads and Divinities ; for if the Sameness and Identity of Nature will not admit of a Plurality of Divinities , then if Three are perfectly One and the same in Nature , they are but One Divinity , One God. Thus the Incircumscriptibility or Omnipresence of the Divine Nature is a good Argument against a Plurality of God's , or Divinities , which must be separated , if they be more than One , and therefore circumscribed , or of a limited and confined presence ; but it is no Argument against a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence , which are all mutually in each other , and therefore equally Unconfined and Omnipresent , and perfectly One by an Essential and Inseparable Union . And are not these Fathers now like to prove very notable Tritheites , who prove the impossibility , that there should be more Divinities than One , and the perfect Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Divine Persons , from that perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature which is between them ? But yet for all this Tritheites they are and must be , if they acknowledge Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be One God , in no other sense than Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are one Man ; that is , because they agree in the same common Nature , which has the same notion and definition , and is upon that account One and the same in all . This is what they are charged with , and I should not have wondred at it , had only some Careless and Unskilful Readers charged them with it , for they do say something which at first view may look like it ; but then such Sayings as manifestly contradict their avowed Doctrine , not only in other places of their Writings , but in those very Places where these Sayings are found , ought in all Reason and Justice to be expounded only by way of Analogy and accommodation , as containing some imperfect Image and Resemblance of that , which Nature has no proper and adequate Example of . This must be allowed in all the Natural Representations which are made by the Catholick Fathers of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever-blessed Trinity ; or there is not one of them , but what literally and Philosophically applied , would furnish out some new Heresy : This I have already shewn in the Specifick Unity of the Divine Nature , which the Nicene Fathers did teach in a qualified Sense ; though it appears from all I have said in the last , and this present Section , how far they were from thinking the Divine Nature to be a meer Species , or Logical Notion , though it has this resemblance to a Species , that it is One and Common , but not merely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not in meer Notion and Idea , but by an actual Subsistence and Inexistence in all Three , being as perfectly , wholly , indivisibly the same in all , and in each of the Divine Persons , as a Specifick Nature is Notionally and Ideally one and the same in every individual of the same kind , which , as I have made appear , is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Sameness and Identity of Nature , wherein they place the Unity of the Godhead . And yet this is the only foundation of the present Charge , that they make Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be One God only by a Specifick Unity , as Three Individuals of the same kind and Species , suppose Peter , Iames , and Iohn are one Man. That all this is a mistake , is evident , because these Fathers do not resolve the Unity of the Godhead into a meer Specifick Unity of Nature ; and the occasion of this mistake is great Inadvertency , as will appear in a very few words . Gregory Nyssen is principally charged with this Paradox , and in vindicating him , I shall vindicate all the rest . The Question which Ablabius desired him to resolve , was this , That since Peter , Iames , and Iohn , though they have but one common Humanity , are yet called three Men ; and no man denies , but that the name of Nature may be multiplied , when there are more who are united in the same Nature , how comes it to pass that we contradict this in the Mystery of the Trinity ? that we acknowledge Three Hypostases , who have the very same Nature , without the least difference or diversity , and yet teach , that the Divinity of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , is but One , and forbid saying , that there are Three Gods ? Now the better to understand the Father's Answer , we mu●t observe that this was an Arian Objection against the Homoousion , or the perfect Sameness , Indifference , and Equality of Nature between Father and Son : For the design of it was , as St. Gregory himself observes , to reduce them to this dangerous Dilemma , either to assert Three Gods , which is unlawful ; or to deny the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost , which is impious and absurd . If they denied the Sameness and Equality of Nature , then the Son and Holy Ghost are not True and Perfect God , consubstantial with the Father ; or if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost have the same One Common Nature , and are perfectly consubstantial , then they are Three Gods ; as Peter , Iames , and Iohn , who have the same One Common Humanity , are Three Men ; and there is the very same reason for calling Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three Gods , that there is for calling Peter , Iames , and Iohn , Three Men ; that is , the same Nature common to them all . This was the Objection St. Gregory was to answer ; and therefore his business was to prove , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are not , and ought not to be called Three Gods , as Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are and may be called Three Men ; and therefore he must prove , That they are neither Three nor One , in the same sense that Three Men are Three and One ; for if they were , they would be as truly and properly Three Gods , as Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are Three Men ; and no more One God , than they are One Man ; which had been to give up the Cause to the Arians , instead of answering their Objection . This may satisfy any man , that those Learned Persons are very much mistaken , who charge such a sense upon this Father , as is directly contrary to his design ; for he understood the Laws of Reasoning better . Neither he , nor any other Father I ever yet met with , asserted that Peter , Iames , and Iohn , were but One Man ; or that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are One God no otherwise than Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are One Man ; which yet is what has been charged upon them . But does not Greg. Nyssen say , That it is a catachrestical way of speaking , tho become common and familiar , to multiply the name of Nature with the Individuals of the same Nature ? As to say , That there are many Men , because there are many who have the same Human Nature . — But if we would speak accurately and properly , we should say that there is but one Man , how many soever have the same Nature : And does not he apply this to the Unity of God ? And can this have any other sense , than that the same Divine Nature makes Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , but One God , as the same Human Nature makes all the Men in the World but one Man ? The Interpretation of which seems to be , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are as much Three Gods , as Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are Three Men ; but that it is very improper to call either the one or the other Three , for they are but One , by One Common Nature . Now this Father does indeed say , and so many others of them say , That the name of Nature ought not to be multiplied with the Individuals ; but he was far enough either from saying or thinking what he is charged with , That Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are not Three Men , but One Man ; or that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are One God in no other sense , but as Three Men are One : And a due attendance to the Series of the Argument , would have discovered the Falseness and Absurdity of this Imputation ; which therefore I shall briefly explain . The Arian Objection which St. Gregory undertook to answer , as I observed before , was this ; That since the Catholick Church owned the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , to be consubstantial , and to have the same undiversified Nature , they must for that reason be Three Gods ; as Peter , Iames , and Iohn , upon account of the same common Humanity , are acknowledged to be Three Men : That is , that whether in God or Man , the same Nature in Three must make Three Individuals of the same Kind and Species ; and therefore as the same Human Nature in Three makes Three Men , so the same Divine Nature Three Gods. In answer to this , St. Gregory first observes , That it is not the same common Nature which distinguishes and multiplies Individuals , no , not in Men : Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are not Three Individuals in the Species of Humanity , merely by having the same Nature ( which is the force of the Arian Objection ) ; for what is perfectly the same in all , can't distinguish or multiply them . And this is plainly all that he means , when he says , That the name of Nature ought not to be used plurally ; and therefore Man being the name of Nature , and signifying the same with Humanity , we ought no more , if we speak properly and Philosophically , to say Three Men , than Three Humanities , or Three Human Natures ; for he proves , that the name Man does not distinguish one Man from another , nor can we single any particular Man out of a Crowd by that Compellation ; for there is but One Man , or One Humamanity in them all ; that name not belonging primarily and immediately to the Individuals as such , but to the common Nature . Well ; but are there not Individual Men then , as well as a Common Nature ? Yes , without doubt ; but they are distinguished and multiplied , not by the Common Nature , which is the same in all , but by such peculiar Properties as diversify and distinguish Common Nature , as it subsists separately in particular Persons , and that makes the Number , though Nature be one and the same , a perfect indivisible Monad . This is not merely to criticize upon Words , or to dispute against the common Forms of Speech , but to give a true Philosophical Reason of their different Use , when applied to God and Creatures . We commonly call Peter , Iames , and Iohn , Three Men , and right enough ; but then they are not Three Men merely upon account of the same Common Humanity in them all , ( which was the Arian Objection ) ; for Humanity is but One in all , and what is perfectly One can't be numbred . To say there are Three Humanities , all Men grant to be absurd ; and yet it is to the full as absurd , to say that Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are Three Men , merely upon account of the same Humanity , strictly and precisely taken , as to say that there are Three Humanities : So that though Peter , Iames , and Iohn , could not be , nor be called Three Men , without the same Common Nature , yet some peculiar , distinguishing , diversifying Properties make them Three Men. Could Human Nature subsist as perfectly and indivisibly the same in Three , as the perfect Idea of Humanity , their Persons might be distinguished , but their Nature would be as perfectly One , as the Idea of Humanity is one and the same in distinct Minds ; and in this Case ( as far as this perfect Sameness of Nature can make them one , which , as I have observed , is not the compleat Notion of the Divine Unity , though it be essential to it ) they might be called Three Human Persons , but not Three Men : But such peculiar Properties as diversify and thereby distinguish the same common Nature into Particulars , make the Number : Which is one reason why we must not say Three Gods , as we do Three Men , though the same Divinity be common to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; because this same One Divinity subsists whole and perfect , without the least Change , Diversity , or Alteration in Three : That though their Persons are distinct , the Divinity is perfectly One and the Same in All , and therefore they are but One God. So that these Fathers do not insist on a mere Specifick Unity , but on the Sameness and Identity of the Divine Nature in Three , as the reason why we must not say that there are Three Gods ; for the same One undiversified Divinity can be but One God. And therefore having answered that Popular Objection , That Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are allowed to be called Three Men , upon account of the same common Nature , by shewing that it is a great Popular Mistake , that merely the same One Common Nature makes them Three Men , or will justify their being called so ; this Father proceeds to shew , That there is such an Unity between Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , as is not , and cannot be between any Three Creatures , though they partake of the same Common Nature : Such an Unity as makes Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , essentially One God , though Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are Three Men. Nay , such an Unity , as even a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature cannot make between Creatures who have an absolute and separate Subsistence . This gives a reasonable Account of this whole Argument , and vindicates it from those Absurdities which are charged on it . It was necessary to lay the Foundation of the Divine Unity in the perfect and invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature : For if the Divine Nature in Three is not perfectly the same , it cannot be One ; for Diversity and Alterity makes a Number : But if it subsist as perfectly the same in Three , as its Idea is the same , it must be as perfectly one as its Idea is one . No , say these Arians , the same Nature subsisting in Three , becomes Three Individual Natures of the same Species ; and the name of Nature must be multiplied with the Individuals , as all allow it must be as to Men , who partake of the same Common Nature : For Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are acknowledged to be Three Men , though they have but one common Humanity ; and by the same reason , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , must be Three Gods , if they have the same common Divinity . To which St. Gregory Nyssen answers , That it is not the common Humanity which makes them Three Men ; for that which is but one and the same in all , can't distinguish or multiply them ; and therefore in strict and accurate speaking , as Man signifies pure and abstracted Humanity , we cannot properly say Three Men , because there are not Three Humanities ; and accordingly , the name Man does not and cannot distinguish one Man from another , nor is ever used to that purpose ; but that which multiplies Nature , and the name of Nature , are those peculiar Properties which distinguish and diversify Nature , as well as Persons ; and thus the common Nature , with diversifying Properties , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is distinguish'd and multiplied by a kind of Composition ; for the same Nature with one peculiar diversifying Property , is distinguish'd from the same Nature with other Properties ; and thus the same Nature divided and distinguish'd with these Properties , makes a Number , and gives the name of Nature to each Individual Person , and thus it is in all Creatures : But where the same Nature subsists in Three , without any thing to distinguish or diversify Nature , as it is in the Blessed Trinity , though the Persons may be distinguish'd , the Nature and the name of Nature can be but One : Which is the reason why Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are but One God , because they have but One undistinguish'd , undiversified Nature , though their Persons are distinct . This is the true Account of this Matter ; which is so far from such a mere Specifick Unity of Nature as is between Three Men , that it is that very Sameness and Identity of Nature , which the Catholick Fathers make essential to the Unity of the Godhead . And the better to understand this , we must consider their Philosophy about Numbers ; for according to them , nothing properly but Alterity and Diversity makes a Number : What is perfectly the same , is but One , as Boetius tells us ; not by a Singularity , but by a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature . In this sense it is , that Greg. Nazianzen , St. Basil , and others , teach , That God is One , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not in Number , but Nature ; whereby they do not mean that there are more Gods in Number than One ; but that the Unity of the Godhead does not consist in the Unity of Number , but of Nature ; and that the Unity of Nature consists in the invariable Sameness and Identity of it ; and therefore where the Divinity is perfectly the same , there is but One God. Thus Greg. Nyssen tells us , That the same Divinity may be numbred , and yet rejects all Number ; that is , the Divinity may be numbred with the Persons , as when we say the Father is God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God ; but the Divine Nature being perfectly the same in all , that can't be numbred ; that we must not say there are Three Gods , or Three Divinities . Boetius has given the best Account of this , according to the Philosophy of the Ancients , by distinguishing between Numbers ; for he says , Number is twofold , that by which we number , and that which is in the things numbred : As to the first , the repetition of Units makes a Number , for One , and One , and One , are Three ; and both the Catholick Fathers and Schools reject this kind of Number , which is a Species of Quantity , from the Divinity ; for God is under no Predicament , and therefore the Unity of God not reducible to the Predicament of Quantity ; for God is before and above all Unity , as he is above Substance , above Essence , above every thing which we have any Notion or Conception of ; as Dionysius the Areopagite speaks . But as to the things numbred , the Repetition of Units does not multiply , or make a Number in things , where the Nature is perfectly the same ; for it is not a Repetition of Units , but Alterity and Diversity , which multiplies Natures : To say God , and God , and God , does not make Three Gods , because there is but one and the same Divinity in Three : And this is what they mean by the Numerical Unity of the Divine Nature ; not that Unity or Unit which is the beginning of Number , but the Unity of Sameness and Identity ; which Tho. Aquinas calls unum non numero , sed re numerata ; One , not in the numbring Number , but in the thing mumbred ; or as the Fathers speak , not in Number , but Nature . The better to understand this matter , we must consider what St. Basil discourses about the Unity of God , in answer to those who charged the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tritheism ; viz. That they acknowledged One God , but not in Number ( the numbring Number ) but in Nature : For that which is One in Number , is not truly One , nor perfectly Simple in Nature ; but all men acknowledge God to be the most Simple Uncompounded Being , and therefore he is not One in the Notion of this numbring Number . This he proves by an induction of particulars ; we say , the World is one in number , but not one in nature ; for it is compounded of great variety of Creatures ; and we say , one Man , but Man is compounded of Body and Soul ; and even any Angel is not perfectly pure and simple , but is compounded of Essence and Qualities , such as Holiness , which is not pure and simple Nature , for it may be separated . He adds , that Number is a Species of quantity , and answers to the Question , How many , which properly belongs to a Corporeal Nature : — And indeed all Number denotes such things as have a material , or at least a circumscribed and limited Nature , but Monad and Vnity denote the Simple , Uncompounded , Uncircumscribed Infinite Essence : And when he says , That Number must belong to things of a Circumscribed Nature , thereby he tells us , he means , not merely such things as are circumscribed by Place , which properly belongs to Bodies ; but all such Natures as have a limited and confined Idea , as all Created Natures , whether Body or Spirit , have , whose Natures are limited , circumscribed , fixt and determined by that Infinite Mind , which gives being to them . The meaning of all which is this , That to make a Number , there must be Alterity and Diversity in Nature , or a separate Existence : But a Perfect , Simple , Uncompounded Nature , can admit of no possible alteration and diversity ; for the same Nature can never differ from it self , without some kind of composition ; and where there is no difference and diversity , there can be no number , and an Infinite Uncircumscribed Nature can never be divided and separated , or subsist a-part , and therefore can't be numbred : So that Number can belong only to Created Natures , which are compounded and finite , and therefore by some diversifying Qualities or Affections , and a separate Ex●istence may be distinguished into Individuals , which may be numbred ; but the Unity of the Divine Nature , which is a Perfect Indivisible , Uncompounded , Infinite Monad , is not the Unity of Number , but a Perfect Invariable Sameness and Identity , and an Indivisible , inseparable Union . Now some Men , who do not duly attend to the nature and design of these Reasonings , apply all this to prove the Perfect Singularity of the Divine Essence , in the most strict and proper notion of Singularity , as that signifies One in Number ; which contradicts the whole Intention of this Hypothesis , which is to prove , that the Unity of God does not consist in the Unity of Number , but of Nature ; and that the Unity of the Divine Nature is not a Unity of Number , but a Unity of Sameness , Identity , and Inseparability . This is a Matter of great consequence , and therefore let us consider it over again . This distinction between the Unity of Number , and the Unity of Nature , was alledged by the Catholick Fathers to avoid the Charge of Tritheism : The Sabellians and Arians asserted the Unity of God to be a Unity of Number ; that One Divinity is not One , unless it be One in Number , One Single Solitary Divine Nature : And this , say they , is inconsistent with the Trinity of Divine Persons , each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God : For Three such Divine Persons must be Three Gods , Three Divinities , if each Divine Person have the True Perfect Divine Nature in himself ; and it is impossible to understand what a Divine Person is , without the Divine Nature : So that if the Father be God , the Son God , the Holy Ghost God , if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , be Three , they must be Three Gods. This was the great Difficulty , and it is the only material Difficulty to this day . To have asserted but One Singular Divine Nature , which is but One in Number , had given up the Cause to the Sabellians or Arians : For then either Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are but Three Names or Offices of the same One Divine Person , who is the One God , as the Sabellians taught : Or Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are not a Consubstantial Trinity , but the Father alone is God , and the Son and Holy Ghost but mere Creatures , how Excellent Creatures soever they are . On the other hand , should they have denied that Three Ones make Three , this had been false counting , as the Socinians tell us now ; and therefore to avoid both these Extremes , they distinguish between the Number by which we reckon , and the thing which is numbred ; and thus they find a Real Trinity in Perfect Unity : As Greg. Nyssen tells us , That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the very same thing , the same Divinity , is both numbred , and not subject to Number . It may so far be numbred with the Persons , as each Divine Person has the whole and perfect Divinity in himself , but yet the Divinity can't be numbred ; not because it is One Single Solitary Divinity , for it really subsists in Three ; but by reason of that perfect Sameness and Identity , which admits of no Number ; for that which is perfectly one and the same in Three , can't be numbred . Had they thought of such a Singularity of the Divine Nature , as is but One in Number , they must have disputed at another rate against Sabellians and Arians . Would they have taught , That the Divinity may be numbred , and yet is without Number ? Which is impossible to be true of the same singular Divinity , which is but One in Number , and therefore can never be more than One in Number ; that is , in that Father's sense , cannot be numbred , much less can the same Singular Nature be numbred , and incapable of Number , that is , be One , and More than One. Would they have taken so much pains to prove , That Sameness and Identity of Nature excludes all Number ; if by this they had meant the Sameness and Identity of Singularity , as the same thing is one and the same thing with it self , which is no great Mystery ? And is it not evident , that this whole Dispute is concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature in Three distinct Persons , and consequently , concerning that Sameness and Identity of Nature which is between Three who have the same Nature , and therefore not One in the Notion of Singularity , which is One in Number , not in the Sameness and Identity of Nature ? Would they have insisted on that distinction of Units in Number , and Units in Nature ; that the first multiplies , the second does not , had they believed that there are no Units in the Divinity ; not One , and One , and One , but only One Singular Divinity ? At least , could Boetius , who so particularly explains and urges this distinction , intend to prove by it the Singularity of the Divine Essence , when at the same time he defines a Person to be the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature ; and assigns this distinction as the Reason why though we number Three in the same Divinity , yet there are not Three Divinities , or Three Divine Natures or Essences ; because the Repetition of Units in the thing to be numbred , where there is a perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature , makes no Number ? In this sense it was , that the Schools asserted the Singularity of the Divine Substance ; because the Divine Substance , by reason of its perfect Sameness and Identity can't be numbred , and what can't be numbred , they call a Singular Substance : But they expresly reject ( as the Catholick Fathers did ) Singularity in the sense of Solitude , as it signifies one alone by himself , without any Communion or Fellowship ( consortium ) with any other in the same Divine Essence . And therefore the Master of the Sentences expresly distinguishes between Diversity , Singularity or Solitude , and Unity and Trinity , Distinction and Identity . Now let any man judge , what that Unity is , which is not Singularity or Solitude , but a Unity in Trinity ; and what that Distinction is , which is perfect Identity without any Diversity : For my part I can make nothing of it , but this perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature in Three , which numbers Persons , but not Natures . Estius takes notice of that Objection against the Trinity , That the Father is God , and the Son is God , therefore the Father is the Son ; which Consequence is resolved into that Maxim , Quaecunque eadem sunt uni tertio , eadem sunt inter se , whatever things are the same with the same Third , are the same with each other : To which he answers , That this Rule holds true only where the Third is a perfect Singular : Deus autem non prorsus singulare nomen est , but God is not upon all Accounts a name of Singularity , that is , does not signify One only who is God ; but signifies such a Singular Nature as is communicable to Three , Significat enim Naturam Singularem , sed quae communicari possit tribus suppositis : That is , It is not a Singular Nature , with the Singularity of solitude , because it is communicable , and can subsist distinctly in Three , but only with the Singularity of Identity , as he explains it from St. Hilary , Dist. 23. Sect. 4. to which he refers his Reader . So that though the Schools did use this Phrase of a Singular Nature and Substance , which the Catholick Fathers rejected as Sabellianism , yet they did not use it in that Sense , which the Father 's rejected , for One Solitary Nature , which can be but One Person ; and therefore Estius observes , that Aquinas uses this name of Singularity , when applied to the Divinity , non simpliciter , sed cum cautela , not simply and absolutely , but with caution , and qualifies it with ut sic liceat loqui , if I may have leave so to speak : And he imitates this Caution himself , Dist. 23. Sect. 1. when he tells us , That the Divine Essence may quodam sensu in a certain sense be said to be individual , as it neither is a Genus nor Species , but res una numero , & ut it a dicamus singularis , numerically One , and if we may say so , Singular ; though it be not individual , in the sense that Boetius defines a Person to be an Individual Substance , because it is not incommunicable . This shews , That though the Schools have in this Question changed the Ancient Catholick Language , by teaching , That the Divine Essence is Vna Numero , & Singularis , One in Number , and Singular ; whereas the Catholick Fathers denied that God was One in Number , but only in Nature , and denied the Singularity of the Divine Nature ( which Confusion , and appearing Contradiction of Terms occasions great Mistakes ) yet they meant the very same thing , and their Philosophy about Singularity and Number was the same : For they taught a Communicable Singularity of Nature , which is opposed to a Sabellian Solitude , and rejected the numbring Number from the Divinity . They universally deny , That God is One in that sense of Unity , which is the beginning of Number : For Number is a Species of Quantity , & nascitur ex divisione continui , is made by Division ; and to assert God to be One in this Sense , is to ascribe Quantity to him ; for nothing can be thus One , but what has Magnitude and Figure , that is , nothing but Body ; for Number , as it is a Species of Quantity , can belong to nothing , but Body , which has divisible Parts , and Extensions , and Magnitude , which may be One or more . This is certainly true , as to that kind of Number , which is a Species of Quantity ; for that can measure only such things as have Quantity : But then they were sensible , that other Beings are numbred besides Bodies , even Incorporeal Spirits , who have no Quantity , Parts , or Divisibility , and yet these we number , when we say , a Hundred , or Thousands , or Millions of Angels . This they own , and call it a Transcendental Number , that is , such a Number as is not reduced to the Predicament of Quantity : But that is little to the purpose ; if Spirits , which have no Quantity may be numbred , what is it that makes a Number in them ? And why may not Number then belong to the Divinity , though it be not quantum , have no Predicamental , that is , Corporeal Quantity ? To this they answer , That this Transcendental Vnity adds no form to the thing , but only signifies the thing it self , as undivided from it self : Well! But if this be all , then God , who is thus indivisible from himself , may as properly be called One , as One Angel is said to be One : No , say they , For to entitle any thing even to this Transcendental Numerical Unity , ratione rei subjectoe Naturam ejus designat ut limitatam , atque extra res alias positam , it must be considered to have a Finite and Limited Nature , and to subsist separately from all other Beings , and to be diversified from each other in Nature or Qualities . Res una ab alia , Natura vel qualitatibus discreta intelligitur . But now Unity in God , though it resemble this Transcendental Unity , as adding no Form to God ; that is , not supposing him to be Corporeal , as the Predicamental Unity does , yet it does not signify any thing limited and finite in God ; but only his Undivided Inseparable Being : As Number in God ( that is , the Trinity ) does signify the real distinction of Three , Non ita tamen , ut ea plura Natura vel Qualitatibus discreta intelligantur , & singula suis velut limitibus circumsepta . But not so , as if these Three were distinguished and separated by Nature and Qualities , or as if each of them had their own Separate and Circumscribed Bounds and Limits . This is the Account Estius gives us of Unity and Number in God , dist . 24. sect . 1. which perfectly agrees with that Account I have already given of this matter from St. Basil : That an Infinite , Undiversified , Indivisible Nature ( as the Eternal Divinity is ) is neither One nor Three , in the same Sense , and for the same Reasons , which give these Denominations to any Created Beings . And therefore there are no Arguments in Nature to confute the Unity of the Godhead from a Trinity of proper Subsisting Persons , nor a Trinity of Persons from the Unity of the Godhead , because Three and One in God do not signify what they do in Creatures . This appeared a great difficulty to the Master of the Sentences , That since we neither allow of Diversity nor Singularity , Multiplicity nor Solitude in the Trinity , what should be the meaning of One , and Two , and Three , of Trinity and Plurality , and Distinction , as when we say , One God , Two Persons , Three Persons , more Persons , distinct Persons ; or a distinction of Persons , Plurality of Persons , a Trinity of Persons , which seems to ascribe a Numerical Quantity , a Multitude and Multiplicity to God. To this the Master answers , That these words , when applied to God , are rather intended to remove every thing from God , which is inconsistent with the Perfect Simplicity of the Divine Nature , than positively to affirm any thing of him : This Answer does not please Estius , because it seems to imply , that God is not in a true and proper Sense One and Three ; but this is his own Mistake : For Peter Lombard meant no more but this , That though God be in the most perfect sense One and Three , yet those positive Ideas , which we have of One , or Two , or Three , of Distinction , and Trinity , when applied to Creatures , do not belong to the Divine Nature ; and therefore we must conceive of them in God , rather by way of Negation , than by any positive Ideas , by denying such things of God , as are inconsistent with the Perfect Simplicity of his Nature ; which is true of most other Divine Perfections , that we have rather a negative than positive conception of them , as attributed to God ; for Wisdom , and Power , and Goodness in God , are no more reducible under the Predicament of Quality , as they are in Creatures , than the Unity of God is reducible to the Predicament of Quantity . Thus he tells us , when we say One God , we thereby exclude more Gods , but do not attribute the quantity of Number to God ; that is , we do not mean that there is One God , in that Notion of One as it is the beginning of Number , which is a Species of Quantity , for so nothing can be One , but what has Quantity , which God has not : Thus when we say , One Father , and One Son , the meaning is , that there are not many Fathers , nor many Sons . When we say there are more Persons , we exclude Singularity and Solitude , but do not introduce Diversity or Multiplicity into the Divine Nature . Thus Three Persons does not signify the Quantity of Number , or any Diversity ( as it is in Creatures ) but only determines our Thoughts to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , that each of these Persons is in the Godhead , and none else . Distinct Persons , or Distinction of Persons , excludes Confusion and Mixture ; signifies that they are Another and Another , without any Diversity , or Sabellian Confusion . The meaning of which is , That we must not form such a Notion of One God , as we have of One Man , nor of Three Persons , as of Three Men ; but must acknowledge One God , in opposition to more Gods , or more Divinities ; and Three Persons , in opposition to Singularity and Solitude in the Divinity : All which resolves it self into the Unity of Identity , which excludes both all manner of Diversity , and Singularity and Solitude . SECT . VII . Concerning the Distinction of Persons in the Unity and Identity of the Divine Essence . THIS fairly brings me to the Third Enquiry I proposed , concerning the Real Distinction of the Divine Persons , in the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature ; how we can distinguish Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , when their Nature is perfectly One , by the Unity of Identity and Sameness . This is the Seat of most of those nice distinctions which we meet with both in the Fathers and Schools , and therefore it deserves to be carefully examined ; for a sensible Account of this Matter would answer many great Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Trinity : And to this purpose I shall first give a general Account of it , according to those Principles which I have now laid down ; and then more particularly explain what the Fathers and Schools say of it ; which will appear to be no such Mysterious Nonsense , as the Adversaries of our Holy Faith would represent it to be . 1. The general Account of this is very short : The Catholick Fathers universally teach , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are each of them by himself in his own proper Person , True and Perfect God : That the same One Whole Undivided Divinity subsists distinctly in each of them : That the Person of the Father , as he is True and Perfect God , is the whole Divinity ; That the Person of the Son , as True and Perfect God , is also the same One Whole Divinity ; and so of the Holy Ghost : That this Divinity is One and the Same , not by an Unity of Singularity and Solitude , which is irreconcilable with the Notion of a Real Trinity ; for One Singular Divinity can be but One Single Divine Person ; but by the Unity of Sameness and Identity , which admits of a Trinity of subsisting Persons in the same undiversified Nature : That whatever the Father is , That the Son is , and that the Holy Ghost is . That a Divine Person is nothing but the Divine Nature and Essence ; for the perfect absolute Simplicity of God admits of no imaginable Composition , not so much as of Nature and Suppositum , or that which is the subject of all Natural Powers , as it is in Created Beings . This makes it very evident that these Divine Persons are not distinguished by Nature ; for there is nothing in Nature to distinguish them , it being perfectly and invariably the same in all ; and where there is no distinction , there can be no Number ; for which reason they will not allow that the Divine Essence is multiplied with the Persons , there being but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , one and the same Divinity in them all . They agree farther , That the Divine Persons are incommunicable : That the Person of the Father is not , and can never be the Person of the Son ; nor the Person of the Son , the Person of the Father ; nor the Person of the Holy Ghost , the Person either of Father or Son. But then this seems to make the difficulty insuperable ; That if a Divine Person be nothing else but the Divine Nature , how there should be Three such distinct incommunicable Persons in the same undivided , undistinguished Divinity ? Why we may not call Three Divine Persons , who have each of them the whole Divine Nature distinctly and incommunicably , Three Divinities , as well as Three Divine Persons , when a Divine Person is nothing else but the Divinity ? And then Three distinct Persons must be Three distinct Divinities . This Unity and Distinction in the Godhead has always been acknowledged by the Catholick Fathers to be a Great and Inexplicable Mystery , a wonderful Union , and wonderful Distinction . Damascen , as I observed above , tells us , That the Divine Nature , though subsisting in Three Persons , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , really and actually One , not merely notionally One , as Human Nature is , which subsists only in Individuals , and has a particular , distinct , separate Subsistence in every particular Man , and therefore can be One in its Individuals in no other sense , but only as the same common Notion and Definition of Humanity belongs to them all ; that is , Human Nature is One in all the Men in the World , not by a Real Subsisting , but by a Specifick Notional Unity : But the Divine Nature is One with a Real Subsisting Unity , being perfectly the same in Three , without any Division or Separation : And an indivisible , inseparable , undiversified Same , is really and actually One , according to the most simple Notions we can form of Unity . But what room then does this leave for a Real Trinity of Persons , in this One , Simple , Uncompounded , Indivisible , Inseparable Nature ? To this he answers , That this Real Distinction of Persons in the perfect Unity and Simplicity of Nature , may be known and understood by Reason , though there be nothing in Nature to distinguish them . Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are upon all accounts perfectly One , excepting this , That one is Unbegotten , the other Begotten , and the third Proceeds . We acknowledge One God , distinguished only by these Personal Properties of Paternity , Filiation , and Procession , as a Cause , and that which is caused ; and as each of them has a compleat perfect Hypostasis , distinguish'd only by these different Modes of Subsistence . This proves a Real Distinction , without any Diversity , Division , or Separation , and therefore a Real Distinction in perfect Unity . The Divine Nature is Infinite and Uncircumscribed , and therefore the Divine Persons cannot be divided and separated from each other , but are perfectly in each other , without Confusion . The Divine Nature is perfectly One in Three , by the Unity of Sameness and Identity , and therefore there can be no diversity or division of Will , or Counsel , or Operation , or Power : Now a Nature which is perfectly the same , and undivided , must be perfectly One. But then Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are certainly Three ; for He who begets , is not He who is begotten , for nothing begets it self : To beget , and to be begotten , and to proceed , are the Characters of Persons , and can belong only to True , Real , Substantial Persons : He who begets , must be a Person , and so must He who is begotten , and He who proceeds ; they have each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whatever makes a compleat and perfect Person ; but then these Three can never meet in the same Person , and consequently must distinguish Persons ; for the same Person can't be unbegotten , begotten , and proceed ; can 't be the Cause , and that which is caused . This is demonstratively certain , That a begotten and unbegotten Person , and consequently a begotten and unbegotten Nature ( a Divine Person being nothing else but the Divine Nature ) are and must be Two , and never can be each other ; and therefore this distinguishes Persons , though it makes no distinction or diversity in the Divine Essence ; as the Catholick Fathers proved against the Arians , that to be unbegotten , and to be begotten , does not . But to be unbegotten , to be begotten , and to proceed , whatever you will call them , whether Personal Properties , or Modes of Subsistence , though they do not make the Persons , that is , are not the formal Notion of a Person , yet they certainly distinguish them , or prove them to be as distinct and incommunicable , as Unbegotten , Begotten , and Proceeding ; for if these Terms or Characters can never signify each other , then the Persons characterized by them can never be each other : And this is all the distinction that can be in an undistinguished , undiversified , undivided Essence . Well ; but still the difficulty remains , how to distinguish between Essence and Person in God ; for if Person be Nature and Essence , and each Person distinctly in himself be the whole Divine Essence , or the whole Divinity , how can we avoid acknowledging Three Essences , and Three Divinities , as well as Three Persons in the Trinity ? Now the account of this must be taken from the nature of that Distinction and Unity which is in God ; for such a Distinction as does not destroy the Unity , can't multiply Natures , though it distinguishes Persons . Each Person is the Divine Nature , but without any diversity , division , or separation of the Divinity ; and what is Identically and Indivisibly the same , is but One. The Divine Nature , as self-originated and unbegotten , is the Person of the Father ; as communicated by Generation , is the Person of the Son ; as proceeding is the Person of the Holy Ghost , and these are Three ; but the Son is begotten of the Substance of his Father , and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son , without any diversity , division , or separation of Substance , and therefore the Divinity is but One. The Divine Nature subsists distinctly and incommunicably in Three , according to their distinct Characters of Unbegotten , Begotten , and Proceeding ; and these we call Persons , because they bear some Analogy to Individuals in created Beings , which in an Intelligent Nature are called Persons ; but they are not Three Divinities , because the Divine Nature , though it be distinct , yet is undiversified , and undivided in Three , and therefore is but One in Three . This seems to me a very intelligible Account of a Trinity in Unity , and the difference between Person and Essence , though a Divine Person is the Divine Essence . When we distinguish between Person and Essence , and say there are Three Persons and One Essence , by Essence we mean an undistinguished , undivided Divinity , which is but One ; by Three Persons we mean the Divine Essence , unbegotten , and communicated by Generation , and Procession , which are really distinct Persons , and subsist distinctly , but i● the Unity of an undistinguished and undivided Divinity ; which makes them really and actually Three and One ; the same without diversity , and distinct without division . And this seems to be the reason why the Catholick Fathers , tho they called the Divine Persons Tres Res , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and Tres Subsistentes , Three Things , and Three that subsist , yet were more cautious in calling them Three Natures , or Essences , or Substances ( though there are some Examples of this kind ) , because though the Divine Essence subsists distinctly in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , which makes them Three Distinct , Real , Subsisting Persons , yet the Divine Nature is not distinguished nor separated , but is perfectly One , Same , Undivided Essence ; and therefore Vna Substantia , though not Vnus Subsistens ; One Substance , though not One , but Three , that subsist . What I have thus briefly represented , I hope I have proved in the First Chapter , from the Authority of Scripture , and Reason founded on Scripture : And from what I have already discoursed of the Doctrine of the Fathers , it may appear to careful and intelligent Readers , who use such Application as this Argument deserves and requires , that this is their Unanimous Sense also . But yet as far as it is possible , to clear this Matter more fully , and vindicate the Fathers and Schools from those Obscurities , Inconsistences , and Contradictions which are generally charged on them in so concerning an Article , I shall reassume this Matter , and particularly shew , 1. That what they call a Divine Person , is the Divine Essence and Substance , and nothing else . 2. That this Divine Essence and Substance , as constituting these Divine Persons , is proper and peculiar to each , and incommunicable to one another ; and therefore that this Divine Essence and Substance , as subsisting distinctly in Three , is no more numerically One , than their Persons are One. 3. What difference they made between Nature and Essence , and Hypostasis and Person . 4. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real and Substantial Trinity , can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity , as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums : And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion , deliver the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to . 1. As for the first , That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence , it is and must be in some sense acknowledged by all who profess the Faith of a Real Trinity ; for there cannot be a Real Trinity of Divine Persons , if each Person be not True and Perfect God , that is , the whole Divinity , or Divine Nature and Essence . And therefore those who assert in the strictest sense the Singularity of the Divine Essence , yet assert , That this One Singular Essence subsists distinctly in each Divine Person ; which , whether it be to be understood or not , yet is an acknowledgment that there is no conceiving a Divine Person without the Divine Essence : But we need not be beholden to any man for this Concession , for the thing is plain and evident in all Catholick Writers . Petavius has very critically observed the different use of Words in Catholick Writers , relating to this Venerable Mystery ; such as Essence , Nature , Substance , Hypostasis , Subsistence , Person , &c. which sometimes occasioned great Misunderstandings between them , and is to this day made a pretence of charging the Fathers with great Uncertainty and Obscurity , and with contradicting each other , and themselves . This of late has been much insisted on , in order to disparage the Authority of ● , as Zealous , Contentious Bigots , who neither understood one another , nor themselves , nor the Catholick Faith , but so confounded Terms , that we can never certainly know what they meant ; or used such dangerous Terms , that if we rely too much upon them , we m●y easily m●stake H●resy for the Catholick Faith. Were this true , our Case would be very bad ; but two or three Observations will set this matter in a clear light . 1. That very Ambiguity which the Fathers are charged with in the use of Words , does certainly prove , that by a Divine Person , they meant the Divine Essence , Nature , and Substance . The plain Case is this . The Catholick Fathers did universally own and profess a Trinity in Unity , Three Persons , and One God ; So that there was no difference in their Faith , how different soever their words were : The most common Terms , whereby they exprest the Unity of the Godhead , were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Vna Esse●●●● , Vna Natura , Vna Substantia ; One Ess●nce , One N●ture , One Substance ; and a Trinity they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three Hypostates ; and the Latins Three Persons ; but sometimes we meet in undoubted Catholick Writers wi●● the direct contrary Expressions , such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Tres Substantiae , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three Essences , Three Natures , Three Substances , and One Hypostasis : The usual way of reconciling this seeming Contradiction is by saying , That when these Fathers use such Expressions , as Three Essences , Three Natures , Three Substances , they do not understand this of Three divers , or specifically different , Essences , Natures , Substances , which is Arianism , but of Three Persons ; and when they affirm , that there is but One Hypostasis , they do not by One Hypostasis mean One Person , which is Sabellianism , but One Nature , Essence , or Substance : As we know this very Controversy about One or Three Hypostases , was thus composed in the Alexandrian Synod , where Athanasius presided : And no doubt but this is the true Solution , since those , who were neither Arians , nor Sabellians , could not understand such Expressions in any other sense . But then the Question still remains , How this Ambiguity should happen , or how it comes to pass , that such contradictory Terms , as One Essence , and Three Essences , One Substance , and Three Substances , One Hypostasis , and Three Hypostases , should both be Orthodox and Catholick . Now the only Account I can give of this matter , is this ; That these Terms , Essence , Nature , Substance , Hypostasis ( which originally signifies Substance , of which more presently ) may signify , as the Philosopher speaks , either the First or Second Substance ; either the common Nature , which has the same notion and definition , common to the whole Kind , as Humanity , which is the same in all Men ; or a Singular Subsisting Nature , and Substance , which in Creatures we call Individuals , and in reasonable Creatures , Persons : Now in analogy to this common Specifick Nature , which is one and the same in all its Individuals , the Catholick Fathers taught but One Essence , Nature , Substance , and in this sense but One Hypostasis in the Godhead , that is , a Consubstantial Trinity , in analogy to the several Individuals of the same Species , in whom only this common Nature did really and actually subsist ; they ordinarily asserted Three Hypostases , sometimes , as we see , Three Natures , and Essences , and Substances , in the Trinity , that is , Three Real , Substantial , subsisting Persons ; and in this sense , Three Essences , Three Natures , Three Substances , was accounted Catholick Doctrine . St. Hilary allows Tria in Substantia , or Tres Subs●antias , Three in Substance , or Three Substances , for Tres Subsistentium Personas , Three Subsisting Persons . And St. Greg. Nyssen , in answer to Eunomius , who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three Essences , or Substances , says , That if he understood this distinction of Substances only in opposition to Sabellius , who gave three Names to one Suppositum , or Substance , that not only he , but all Catholick Christians , assented to it : His only fault being in this Case , that he uses improper words , Three Essences , for Three Hypostases . Now that which I observe from hence is this , That had they not believed each Divine Person to be distinctly by himself the Divine Nature , Essence , and Substance , there could never have been any occasion for this Dispute about One Essence , Nature , Substance , Hypostasis , and Three Essences , Natures , Substances , Hypostases ; nor for that known Distinction , by which they reconciled this difference between Essence and Hypostasis , that the first signifies something analogous to a Common Specifick Nature , the second to Individuals . If the Divine Nature subsisted in Singularity , or were but One Singular Subsisting Nature , Essence and Hypostasis must signify the same thing ; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Essence is Substance , and so is Hypostasis , and in this sense , they must both signify a first Substance , and then one singular Subsisting Nature or Substance ; and three singular Subsisting Natures and Substances , is an irreconcilable Contradiction . Had the Singularity of the Divine Nature been the Catholick Faith , we should never have heard of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the Common Nature and Essence of the Divinity ; for Singular and Common are express Contradictions , and a Singular Subsisting Nature can have nothing thing analogous in it to a Common Specifick Nature : If each Divine Person be not the Divine Nature ▪ Essence , Substance , there can be no Pretence , that Essence and Substance should ever signify a Person , nor can any Interpretation make Three Essences and Substances Catholick Doctrine , if there be no sense , wherein Three Persons may Orthodoxly be called Three Essences and Substances ; as there can't be , if a Person , as a Person , be not Essence and Substance : And on the other hand , if Hypostasis , which is the peculiar and appropriate Name whereby the Greek Fathers denote a Person , do not signify Essence and Substance , it could never be Orthodox to say , that there is but One Hypostasis , no more than it is to say , that there is but One Person in the Trinity . 2. But to set aside this Dispute concerning Three Essences , Three Natures , Three Substances , and One Hypostasis in the Trinity , which though allowed to be Catholick , yet were sparingly and cautiously used , because they were liable to Heretical Senses ; I observe farther , That these words , Essence , Nature , Substance , are distinctly applied to each Person of the Holy Trinity , which could not be Orthodox , were not each Person distinctly in himself , Essence , Nature , Substance . What I have already discoursed with relation to Sabellianism , and upon several other occasions , sufficiently proves this , and I shall not trouble my Readers with a needless Repetition : Petavius owns it , and has given several Instances of it , That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Essentia , Natura , Substantia , do not always signify the common Essence of the Divinity , but the Divine Persons ; that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is the Person of the Father , and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Person of the Son , which is undoubtedly true ; but still Essence signifies Essence , and Nature Nature , and Substance Substance ; and the only reason he has to say , That in this construction the Words signify a Person , is because they are used singularly , and construed with the name of a Person , as the Essence and Substance of the Father , or of the Son : But this is no reason , if the Essence be not the Person ; if the Essence of the F●ther do not signify that Essence which is the Person of the Father ; and the Essence of the Son , that Essence which is the Person of the Son : For if a Divine Person be not the Divine Essence , Essence can never signify Person : And yet if they do believe that each Divine Person is by himself in his own Person Essence and Substance , the whole undivided Divinity , I cannot imagine the reason of this Criticism , why they should be more afraid to say the Essence and Substance of the Father , than the Person of the Father , unless it be , that this does not so well agree with their Notion of the singularity of the Divine Essence , as I doubt indeed it will not , especially if we add , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Unbegotten and begotten Substance , the one the Person of the Father , the other of the Son ; of which more hereafter ; but this is not to learn our Faith from the Fathers , but to expound them by our preconceived Opinions . 3 dly , I observe farther , That all those words , which are more peculiarly appropriated to signify the Divine Persons , were always used by Catholick Writers in the notion of Substance , and were never thought Catholick in any other sense . Hypostasis is the most received word among the Greek Fathers , to signify a Person ; and One Essence and Three Hypostases was the Catholick Language . Now it is agreed on all hands , That Hypostasis literally signifies Substance ; and as I have already observed , the only dispute about it was , that some by Hypostasis understood the Common Nature and Substance in the notion of Essence , and for that reason asserted , That there is but One Hypostasis , as there is but One Essence in the Trinity ; others understood a singular Subsisting Nature and Substance , and in this sense asserted Three Hypostases ; but none of them ever understood Hypostasis in any other notion , but that of Substance , either a Common , or Individual Substance : And to prevent this Ambiguity , as far as they could , which might conceal very different Heresies , Sabellianism on one hand , and Arianism on the other , and many times occasioned the Orthodox to suspect each other of these opposite Heresies , though Essence and Hypostasis signified much the same thing , yet they appropriated the name Essence to signify a Common Nature and Substance , and Hypostasis to signify Individuals : As we learn from St. Basil , Greg. Nyssen , Damascen , and many other Catholick Writers , who assign this difference between Essence and Hypostasis . But yet this did not wholly silence this Dispute among the Greeks , much less did it satisfy the Latin Fathers , who knew no difference between Essentia & Substantia , but translated the Homoousion by Vnius Substantiae ; and therefore it was as great Heresy to them to say Three Substances ( as they translated the Greek Hypostases ) as to say Three Essences in the Trinity : St. Austin professes , That he knew not what the Greeks meant by One Essence , and Three Substances ; and for the same reason , it is well known , St. Ierom rejected Three Substances , for both by Essence and Substance they understood a Common Nature , which made it Heresy indeed to assert Three Substances , which in this acceptation of the word must signify Three divers Substances , which specifically differ : And therefore tho they did not reject the Greek Faith , but did believe as heartily as they , that each Person by himself was perfect Hypostasis and Substance , and rejected the Sabellian One Hypostasis , and One Substance ; yet they did not like the Phrase of Three Hypostases , and Three Substances ; for they knew no difference between Three Substances and Three Essences , and by both understood Three different Kinds and Species of Beings . And for this Reason , both to secure the Catholick Faith from such a diversity and dissimilitude of Nature , as Three Essences and Substances may signify , and from a Sabellian Unity and Singularity , they chose such words , as signified a Real Perfect Subsisting Being , but did not immediatly and formally signify Essence and Substance , tho they did necessarily suppose and connote it . Such among the Greeks are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , among the Latins , subsistentia , suppositum , res , ens : Existence , Subsistence , Subject , Suppositum , Thing , Being , which every one sees , must signify something as real , as Essence , and Substance , and must necessarily include Essence and Substance in their very notion ; and that thus they were used by the Catholick Fathers , Petavius proves by numerous Quotations , which the Reader may consult at his leisure . And though some of these words are sometimes used singularly of all Three Divine Persons in the notion of a Common Essence and Substance , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , res , in which sense St. Austin called the Trinity unam summam rem , yet both Fathers and Schoolmen did without any scruple use them in the plural number , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , tres subsistentiae , tres res , tria supposita , tria entia realia , that the Divine Persons were Three Existences , Three Subsistencies , Three Suppositums , Three Things , Three Real Beings ; and why not then Three Essences , and Three Substances , since every suppositum , every Thing , every Real Being , is Essence and Substance ; the reason of which is plainly this , That Essence and Substance , unless qualified with some limiting Adjuncts , signify the formal Reasons of things , and can't be multiplied without diversity ; whereas the other Terms signify nothing but Real and Actual Existence , which does not diversify , and therefore not multiply , the Essence ; for Three Suppositums , Three Subjects , Three Things , Three Real Beings , may have One Essence , Nature , and Substance , formally , identically , and invariably the same . But there is some dispute about the use of those words , Existence and Subsistence . Petavius observes a great difference between the Ancient and Modern use of them : That the Ancients used them in a Concrete Sense for Person and Substance , that which does really exist and subsist , as he proves by several Quotations ; but that the Schoolmen use them in an abstract Sense , for the modifications of Substance , which they call Modes , which together with the Substance constitute what we call Persons ( of which more hereafter ) and this may be true as to some later Schoolmen ; but the more Ancient , and many Modern Schoolmen , retained the Old Catholick use of the words ; and Suarez could trace the Doctrine of Modes no higher than Durandus . Peter Lombard is express in it , That Three Persons are tres subsistentioe , tres entes , Three Subsistencies , Three Beings , and tres subsistentioe vel entes , & subsistentioe vel subsistentes , Subsistencies or Beings , Subsistencies or those that subsist . Thus Tho. Aquinas tells us , That Persons are res subsistentes , subsisting things : And in answer to that Objection against a plurality of Persons in the Godhead , that a Person , according to Boetius , being rationalis naturoe individua substantia , the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature ; if there be a plurality of Persons in the Godhead , there must consequently be a plurality of Substances ; he tells us , That Substance either signifies the Essence , or the Suppositum ; that in this last sense it is used in the definition of a Person , as appears by the addition of Individual , which is what the Greeks call Hypostasis , and therefore assert Three Hypostases ( Individual Substances ) as we do Three Persons ; but we don't use to say Three Substances , by reason of the equivocal use of the word , lest we should be thought to assert Three Essences in the Godhead . From whence it is plain , that by Three Subsistencies , Tho. Aquinas understood Three that subsist ; Three Individual Substances , in the Notion of Three distinct Supp●situms , though not of Three different Essences ; for this is the true distinction he makes between Suppositum and Essence , that they both signify Substance , but the one signifies as Matter , and the other as Form ; and therefore the Plurality of Suppositums of Subsistencies does not multipl●●●e Essence or Form , for Three may be perfectly One in Nature and Essence ; but to multiply Essences , to say there are Three N●tures , or Three Essences , is to diversify them , and to make Three Gods specifically and essentially different . After this , I need not add much concerning the Notion of Person . The Ciceronian sense of this word ( too much in use of late ) , wherein the same Man may be said to sustain several Persons , according to his different Relations , Offices , and Quality , has ( as I have observed before ) been rejected by all Catholick Writers , as Sabellianism . St. Austin , generally speaking , is the Text to the Master of the Sentences , and He to the Schoolmen ; and that Father is express in it , that Person is Essence and Substance ; that the Person of the Father is the Essence and Substance of the Father : From whose Authority P. Lombard concludes , That Person is used in the Notion of Substance ; That when we say the Father is a Person , the sense is ▪ the Father is the Divine Essence . He observes from the same Father , that the Latins used Person in the same sense that the Greeks used Hypostasis , which in Latin literally signifies Substance ; but yet they were very cautious of saying Three Substances , as the Greeks did Three Hypostases ; because though the Greeks distinguished between Essence and Substance , that Essence expressed the formal Nature of things , Substance what in Creatures we call the Matter or Suppositum , yet the Latins knew no such distinction ; and therefore Three Substances to them was the same with Three Essences , which would assert a diversity in the Divine Nature : And this he shews was the only Objection St. Hierom had against Three Substances , or Three Hypostases , which he allowed in the Notion of Tres Personas subsistentes , Three subsisting Persons , but not of Three Natures or Essences ; and this Solution he acquiesces in , That Tres Personoe sunt Tres Substantioe , scilicet , Tres Entes , pro quo Groeci dicunt Tres Hypostases ; That Three Persons are Three Substances , that is , Three Real Beings , which the Greeks call Three Hypostases . And though he observes that Person may sometimes signify that Personal Property whereby one Divine Person is distinguished from another , yet he will not allow us to call Three Persons Three Properties , but Three Subsistencies , or Three Hypostases ; for the Property is not the Person , but only distinguishes Persons ; of which more hereafter . And he reduces the several acceptations of Person , as used in the Doctrine of the Trinity , to these three . 1. That it sometimes signifies the Divine Essence , as it does when we speak singularly of any One Person ; for the Person of the Father is the Divine Essence , and so of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . 2. Subsistencies and Hypostases , as when we speak in the Plural Number , Three Persons are Three Subsistencies , Three Hypostases , but unius Essentioe , of one and the same Essence . 3. A Property , as when we distinguish the Persons by their Personal Properties . Thomas Aquinas , and generally the Schools , receive and vindicate that Definition which Boetius gives of a Person , That it is the Individual Substance of a Rational Nature , as I have already observed , whereby they expresly tell us , that they understand Aristotle's Substantia Prima , or a Subsisting Individual . St. Austin thought that the Greeks might as well have used Prosopon as Hypostasis , for what the Latins called Person ; and why they rather said Hypostasis , he could not tell , unless perhaps the Propriety of their Language required it ; and this was the truth of the Case ; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a very ambiguous word , taken originally from the Stage , as Persona also was , and signified that Vizor which was put over the Face , to represent the Person whom they intended to act , and so was used to signify a mere Appearance and Representation , not a Real Subsisting Person ; and therefore St. Basil tells us , That the Sabellians who owned but One Essence and Hypostasis in God , yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that the Scripture represented God under different Personal Appearances , sometimes as the Father , sometimes as the Son , or Holy Spirit ; and adds , That therefore those who affirm that Father , Son and Holy Ghost are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One in Subject , Hypostasis , or Suppositum , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three perfect Persons , or Prosopa , or Appearances , justify the Charge of Sabellianism imputed by the Arians to the Catholicks . And in another place he tells us , That those who say that Essence and Hypostasis are the same , are forced to acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , only different Prosopa , o● Appearances ; and while they are afraid to own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three Hypostases , they relapse into the Sabellian Heresy . And therefore Petavius truly observes , That though the Catholick Fathers did not scruple the use of this term Prosopon , yet they used it in the sense of Hypostasis ; and the Notion of Hypostasis joined with Prosopon , makes up the true Catholick Notion of a Person , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which , as he says , proves that these Persons have not one simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Suppositum , nor are merely different Functions and Energies of the same Individual Being , but that the Diversity and Multiplicity is in the Subject it self , and that there are Three truly and really distinct , and that subsist distinctly . This I hope is a sufficient Proof of the first thing proposed , That a Divine Person is the Divine Essence and Substance ; but I added also , That it is nothing else ; and I must speak something briefly to this . The absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature , which admits of no kind of Composition , neither of Parts , nor of Substance and Accident , nor of Nature and Suppositum , that which has , and that which is had , is the universal Doctrine both of the Catholick Fathers and Schools , as I need not prove ; and the necessary Consequence of this is , That a Divine Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature , Essence , and Substance ; for were a Divine Person the Divine Nature and something else , there must be a Composition in the Divine Nature , something superadded to it , to make it a Person . The Unity of the Divine Nature in a Trinity of Persons , as I have shewn at large , is resolved into the perfect invariable S●meness and Identity of Nature ( the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) in Three ; and therefore each Divine Person must be the whole Divine Nature and Essence , and nothing else ; for otherwise the Divine Essence could not be perfectly one and the same in Three , but would be distinguished and multiplied by some new Accidents and Modifications , as Human Nature is in distinct Human Persons . A Trinity of Persons is a known Objection against the absolute Simplicity of the Divine Nature ; and the Answer to it is as well known , That those Relations which distinguish Persons , make no Composition in the Divine Nature ; and then a Person can be nothing else but the Divine Nature , if there be no Composition to make a Person : But of this more presently . 2 dly . The next thing I proposed was this , That according to the Doctrine both of Fathers and Schools , the Divine Essence and Substance , as subsisting distinctly in Three , is proper and peculiar to each , and incommunicable to one another . This is so universally acknowledged by all who own real and substantial Persons , that I need say little of it . I have produced several express Testimonies already out of the Fathers to this purpose ; and indeed to say , That the Substance of each Person is proper and incommunicable , is no more than to say that their Persons are incommunicable ; that the Father is not , and never can be the Son , nor the Son the Father , nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son ; which is what they meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , properly and appropriately Father and Son ; that the Father never was nor can be a Son , nor the Son a Father . Thus their different Characters prove an incommunicable distinction between them : The Son is the Image of God , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Living Substantial Image ; but the Image , tho by an Identity of Nature it is the same with the Prototype , yet it is not and never can be the Prototype ; not imaginale , but imaginalis imago , as Victorinus Afer speaks ; not the Person , nor Personal Substance of the Father , but the express Image of his Person and Substance . In Boetius's Definition of a Person by individua substantia , the Schools , as far as I have observed , universally understand incommunicabilis substantia , an incommunicable Substance ; and therefore , as I observed before , though they assert the Divine Essence to be singularis , yet it is singularis communicabilis , a communicable Singular ; but a Person is substantia individua , or singularis incommunicabilis , a singular incommunicable Substance . Now this started a great Difficulty ; How the Essence and Substance of the Father , which is but One , can be both communicable and incommunicable . The Person of the Father , which is his Divine Essence , is incommunicable , and yet the Father communicates his own Divine Nature and Essence to the Son and Holy Spirit , without communicating his Person . Of the same Nature is what the Schools teach concerning the Divine Generation and Procession . They allow that the Father does truly and properly , not metaphorically , beget the Son , and that the Son is truly and properly begotten ; and that the Father by Divine Generation communicates the Divine Essence to the Son ; and that the Son has all that he has from the Father , and is all that the Father is , excepting that he is not the Father , but the Son : And yet they will not allow that the Divine Essence either begets , or is begotten , or proceeds . They have a great Authority against them in this , as they all own ; for the Fathers made no scruple to say , That God begat God , Essence Essence , Wisdom Wisdom , Life Life ; and that the Son is begotten , and only begotten God , God of God , Light of Light , Wisdom of Wisdom , and begotten Wisdom . Upon these Authorities Richardus Victorinus contends earnestly , that we ought in plain terms to own , That Substance begets Substance , and that those who deny it , reject the Doctrine of all the Catholick Fathers : But Peter Lombard , and most other Schoolmen , especially since the Council of Lateran , justify themselves in this matter , by saying , That the Fathers intended no more in such expressions , than what they themselves own , though they reject that way of speaking . When the Fathers taught , That God begat God , Essence Essence , Substance Substance , Wisdom Wisdom , Life Life , they meant no more , than that the Father , who is God , Essence , Substance , Wisdom , Life , begat his Son , who is also truly and really God , Essence , Substance , Wisdom , Life ; and the reason why they rather chose to say , That the Father , who is God , and Essence , and Wisdom , begets the Son , who is God , and Essence , and Wisdom , &c. than to say , That God begets God , Essence Essence , Wisdom Wisdom , is this , Because God , and Essence , and Wisdom , &c. signify absolutely , and so may multiply Gods , Essences , Wisdoms ; as when we say Man begets a Man , the begotten Man is as absolutely a Man , as he who begets ; and he who begets , and he who is begotten , notwithstanding their relation , are two absolute Men : And therefore , to prevent all such mistakes , and to secure the Catholick Faith of the Real Distinction of Persons and Suppositums in perfect Unity , without the least diversity or multiplication of Essence , they attributed Active Generation to the Person of the Father , and Passive Generation to the Person of the Son ; which proves a Real Distinction of Persons and Suppositums ( for he who begets cannot be he who is begotten ) , and yet preserves the Unity and Identity of the Divine Nature . But how can this be , if Person and Essence , Suppositum and Nature be the same , as it is in God ? For then if the Person be begotten , the Essence , which is that Person , must be begotten also ; and if the Person begets , the Essence must beget . Now this is in some sense true ; and therefore the Catholick Fathers promiscuously used these terms ; That the Father begets a Son , or God begets God , or Essence begets Essence ; and the Schools themselves own , That the Father , who is God , begets the Son deitatem habentem , who has the Divinity , the Divine Nature and Essence , and has it by his Generation and Birth ; which in reality is the same , though they thought the expression less liable to mistake . For the truth of the Case is this ; The Schools , that asserted the perfect Singularity of the Divine Essence , fenced against all Expressions of an absolute signification , which multiplied Natures ; for Two absolute Natures cannot be singularly One ; and therefore would not say , that Nature and Essence begets , or is begotten ; for in these Propositions , the terms Nature and Essence , unless qualified and restrained , signify absolutely , and so infer Two absolute Natures and Essences , that which begets , and that which is begotten ; and therefore they rather call this a Communication than a Generation of Nature , because this last signifies relatively : That which is communicated , may be a Singular Nature , which subsists distinctly in more than one , but with a necessary relation to its Original , and such a Communication does not multiply Natures , but only Essential Relations . And this is the difference they made between Deus & Deitatem habens , God , and one who has the Divinity ; that God signifies absolutely , an Absolute Independent Divinity , which has no relation or communication with any other ; but One who has the Divinity , may signify One , who has it , not originally and absolutely , but by communication from another , and in an Essential Relation to him , as the Son and the Holy Spirit have , which is the same Divinity in Three , and but One in Three . And therefore I think the Schools were very much in the right , for rejecting Tres Dii , Three Gods , when at the same time they owned Tres Deitatem habentes , Three who have the Divinity , for these do not signify the same thing : The first , unless qualified , is Polytheism ; the second , the Christian Trinity in Unity ; though I confess , I should not chuse to call the Father , One who has the Divinity , but simply God , because he is absolutely and originally so , and not by communication ; and for that reason is both in Scripture , and in the Fathers , eminently call●d God , and the One God , whereas the other Divine Per●●●s are the Son of God , and the Spirit of God ; and as Te●●●●●ian observes , never called God , when joined with the Father , though they are , when spoken of distinctly by themselves . For the same Reason the Schools forbid the use of Abstract or Sub●tantive Terms in the Plural Number , when we speak of the D●vine Persons , but allow of Plural Adjectives , because Substantives signify absolutely , and multiply Natures , as well as Persons or Suppositums , but Adjectives may signify relatively , and multiply Persons without multiplying Natures ; as Three Eternals , Three Omnipotents , Three Infinites , in a Substantive sense , signify Three Eternal , Omnipotent , Infinite , Natures , as well as Persons ; but Three , who are Eternal , Omnipotent , Infinite , signify a Trinity of Eternal , Omnipotent , Infinite , Persons , but do not necessarily signify a Trinity of Natures , since these Three may subsist in the same Eternal , Omnipotent , Infinite Nature , and each of them have this Eternal Infinite Nature , and all the same . But still the difficulty remains , if Person or Suppositum and Nature be perfectly the same , How the Father can communicate his Nature , and not his Person ? How there can be Three Incommunicable Persons , and Suppositums , and but One Nature , and that communicable to more than One ? That thus it is , and how it may be , is better explained by an Example , than by any words without it : And I shall instance in a living substantial Image : This is the true Character of the Second Person of the Trinity , that he is so the Son , as to be the Living Perfect Image of God , as has been explained at large elsewhere , as you may find in the Margin . Now every man must confess , that the Prototype and the Image are two distinct Incommunicable Suppositums , the Prototype is not the Image , nor the Image the Prototype ; and yet we must confess , that there is , and must be , but one and the same Nature in both , not Specifically , but Identically the same , for a perfect Image is , and can be nothing but the same that the Prototype is , the same Eternity , the same Life , the same Wisdom , Power , and Goodness , but all this not Personally the same , for their Persons are not , and cannot be the same ; but identically and invariably the same , or else it can't be a true and perfect Image . And this makes it evident , that though Person and Nature be perfectly the same in God , yet when he begets a Son , he neither begets his own Person , nor Nature , which would be to beget himself , which St. Austin , and the Schools after him , reject as absurd ; for an Image of God is neither the Person , nor the Personal Nature of God , but of the same Nature with him , and perfectly the same , there being no other difference between them , but that one is the Prototype , the other the Image ; one the Father , the other the Son. So that when God of his own whole perfect Substance begets a whole , perfect , living , substantial Image , he does not beget himself , but another ; he does not beget his own Nature , nor another Nature like his own , but his own Image , of the same Nature with himself : He begets another Person , who is as truly and perfectly God , as the true , perfect , living , Image of God must be perfect God , but he does not in an absolute sense beget God , neither se Deum , nor alium Deum , as the Schools rightly determine , neither himself God , nor another God ; for he neither begets his own Essence and Divinity , nor another Divinity , but another , who is the perfect Image of his own Divine Essence : And what is here said of the Generation of the Son , as the living subsisting Image of God , must be applied to the Procession of the Holy Spirit , who is the Eternal Spirit of God , as the Son is his Image . This is what the Catholick Fathers call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that One Divinity , in which they place the Unity of God : That there is but One Absolute Divinity , or Divine Nature , which is the Person of the Father , who is therefore eminently acknowledged to be the One God , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Fountain of the Divinity , that is , of the Divinity of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit , which are not two other Absolute Divinities , for then they would be two more Gods , besides the Father ; but the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is the same One Divinity of the Father , as an Eternal , Perfect , Begotten , Living Image , and an Eternal Proceeding Spirit , each of which is in himself true and perfect God , and all Three but One God , or One Divinity , not merely because they receive their Divinity from God by an Eternal Generation and Procession , nor as they have a Divinity , or Divine Nature specifically the same with the Father , which alone can no more render them One God , than Father and Son are One Man ; but as the singular individual Divinity of the Father is in the Son and Holy Spirit ; as it is manifest the singular individual Nature of the Prototype is , and must be in its living substantial Image , without which it is not a Natural Image , though it may have a perfect likeness of Nature , if it have an absolute Nature of its own : This is what Tertullian tells us , That there is unus Deus cum oeconomia , One God with his Economy ; and what St. Hilary and others so often tell us , That the Father does not cease to be the One God by having a Son , since the Son is God by Nativity and Birth , and Authoritate Paternoe Naturoe , by having his Father's Nature , who is the One God. And this is all that the Schools mean by the Singularity of the Divine Nature and Essence ; and it is impossible they should mean any thing else , when they teach , that this singular Nature is communicable . They allow , as I have already shewn , that Nature and Person is the same , that each Person is Suppositum and Substance , a singular incommunicable Substance , and therefore that there were Three Suppositums , and in that sense Three Substances in the Trinity ; but not Three Natures and Essences , though each Person be distinctly by himself , the Divine Nature and Essence . Now since what is strictly singular , is Numerically One ; and what is Numerically One , and never can be more , can't be multiplied , as that seems to be , which is communicated , what sense can there possibly be in a singular communicable , which seem to be contradictory Terms ? But this is very good sense , and very Catholick Doctrine , if we understand this Singular Communicable , as the Schools did , of One absolute Divinity , or Divine Nature , which is so singular , that it can be but One , as is demonstrable by Reason : But yet may beget its own essential Image , which is not another Divinity , or another Nature , but it s own singular Nature in its Image , which is another Suppositum and Person , but not another Nature . That this is the Sense of the Schools , and all that they meant by the Singularity of the Divine Essence , is evident from the whole Doctrine of Relations . A Trinity of Proper , Real Persons , each of which is Nature , Essence , and Substance , was made an Argument against the perfect Unity , as well as against the perfect Simplicity of the Divine Nature , for Plurality and Unity are opposed to each other . To this the Schools answer , That a Plurality and Unity of the same kind , are indeed opposite to each other , and cannot be reconciled ; as a Plurality of Natures cannot be reconciled with the Unity of Nature , nor a Plurality of Persons with the Unity of a Person ; but a Plurality of Persons and Unity of Nature may be reconciled , and thus it is with the Trinity in Unity ; for though each Divine Person be the Divine Nature and Essence , yet Three Divine Persons are not Three Absolute Natures and Essences , but Three Relations in One Singular Absolute Nature . SECT . VIII . Concerning the Divine Relations . BUT it will be of great use more particularly to consider this Doctrine of Relations , without which it is impossible rightly to understand what the Schools teach , about a Trinity in Unity : And to reduce it into as narrow a compass as I can , I shall 1. shew , What the Schools mean by Relations in the Divine Nature . 2. Why they insist so much upon Relations . 1. What they mean by Divine Relations . Now they tells us , That they are real Relations , not made by the Mind from some external Respects and Habitudes which it observes between things , but antecedent to all the Acts of Reason in the things themselves : That they are not inherent Accidents , but Substance , and subsisting Relations ; not relative Names and Appellations , but the Relatives themselves ; the Persons related being the Relations , and the Relation the Person ; which are therefore by some called Substantiae Relativae , and Entia Realia Relativa , Relative Substances , and Real Beings , but Relative ; that is , not Absolute Substances , and Absolute Beings , with a Relation , as it is in Creatures , where the Son is as Absolute a Man , and as Absolute a Person as the Father is , though they are related to each other as Father and Son ; but the very Substance and Person is the Relation . Before I shew , That this is the Doctrine of the Schools , the better to understand what they say , and the Reasons of it , it will be necessary to give as plain and intelligible an Idea of this as I can ; especially since I find some Learned Men boggle very much at the Notion of Relative Substances , which are not merely the Subjects of Relations , but the Relations themselves . What their Objection is against this , I can't tell , unless they think that a Relative Substance is not True and Perfect Substance ; which is very far from the Notion of the Schools , who attribute compleat and perfect Subsistence to these Divine Relations or Persons , not as Accidents in their Subjects , nor as Parts in a Whole , which is their Notion of Substance and compleat Subsistence ; but a Relative Substance only signifies such a Substance as is not the Original , but is all that it is from another , which they call the Relatio Originis , not merely such a Relation as is between the Cause and the Effect , which is seldom a substantial subsisting Relation , but the Relation between Substance and Substance , when one Substance , in the notion of Suppositum , is wholly and perfectly derived and expressed from the other . The easiest Representation of this , is the relation between the Prototype or Original , and its Image ; which is not a mere Relation of Likeness and Similitude , but of Origination , that the Image is taken from the Original , which is the foundation of the Relation . Though Two Eggs were never so perfectly alike , yet One is not the Image of the Other , because it is not of the Other , nor its natural Representation , though perfectly like it ; but the Image is that which results from the Object , like a Face in the Glass , or the Impression of a Seal ; and the whole Essence of such an Image , as an Image is relative . And it is the same case as to a living substantial Image of that Life and Substance from whence it proceeds ; it is as perfect Life and Substance it self , as its Original , or else it could not be a natural Image of Life and Substance ; but yet it is Relative Life and Substance , Life of Life , the Prototype begetting its own Image in a perfect Identity and Sameness of Nature , Whole of Whole . And this is the Notion of the Schools concerning Relative Substances , which is intelligible enough . And that this is what they mean by Relations in the Godhead or Divine Nature , is as plain . The Master of the Sentences tells us , That these Names , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , signify the Properties of Paternity , Filiation , and Procession ; for they are Relatives , which speak a mutual respect , and denote Relations , which are not Accidents in God , but immutably in the Persons themselves ; so that they are not mere relative Appellations , but are Relations or Notions in the things themselves , that is , in the Persons . And by this Argument Tho. Aquinas proves , That these are real Relations , and are really in God , because the Father is so called from the Relation of Paternity , and the Son from Filiation ; that were not Paternity and Filiation realiter in Deo , real subsisting Relations in the Divinity , it would follow , That God is not really Father or Son , but only according to different Conceptions , which is the Sabellian Heresy . And proves , That these Relations in God are real , because they are Divine Processions in the Identity of Nature ; that is the Son , who proceeds from the Father in the Identity of the same Nature ; and the Holy Spirit , who proceeds from Father and Son in the Identity of the same Nature : For they called both the Generation of the Son , and the Spiration of the Holy Ghost , Processions , as the Greeks did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; the one processio intellectus , the other amoris . Now these real Processions are Respects in the nature of things , and such Respects are real Relations ; for when any thing proceeds from a Principle of the same Nature , both that which proceeds , and that from which it proceeds , must necessarily be of the same Order , and therefore have a real respect to each other . Divine Processions in the Identity of Nature must be related to each other in the Unity of the same Nature , and must be substantial subsisting Relations ; for they are no other than the Persons themselves , who thus proceed . It is a received Conclusion in the Schools , That a Relation in God is the same with the Divine Essence : That Personal Relations are not reipsa distinguished either from the Persons or the Essence . And Gilbertus Porretanus , who taught the contrary , was forced to recant in the Council of Rhemes . The real Distinction of these Relations in the Unity of the Divine Nature , is another avowed Doctrine of the Schools ; and by a real Distinction they mean a Distinction in re , in the Subject and Suppositum : And this they prove from the real Distinction of Persons , which are distinguished only by Relations : From a real Trinity , which is One in Substance , but multiplied by Relations , ( relatio multiplicat Trinitatem ; ) and therefore unless these Relations be really distinguished from each other , there can't be a Real , but only a Notional Trinity , which is Sabellianism . That these Relations which constitute the Trinity , are opposite Relations , which require distinct Subjects , as Paternity and Filiation , for no man can be Father and Son to himself : That these Divine Relations are real Relations , and therefore must be really distinct or else they are not all real , unless they be really opposed to each other , which makes a real distinction ; and therefore there must be a real distinction in God , not as to any thing absolute ( secundum rem absolutam ) , which is the Divine Essence , which has the most perfect and simple Unity , but secundum rem relativam , with respect to a Relative Being and Subsistence : So that these Relations are Relative Beings ▪ Relative Subsistences , and , as they are sometimes called . Relative Substances , which are really distinct , though not in Nature , yet in their Suppositums ; not as T●ree Absolute Beings , which makes a distinction in Nature , but as Three Real Subsisting Relations , in the Unity of the same Nature . But not ●o multiply words in so plain a Case , I shall observe bu● one thing more to this purpose , and that concerns the Dispute conc●●ning the Number of the Divine Persons . The Catholick Faith owns a Trinity , or only Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead , Father , Son , and Holy 〈◊〉 ; and it is the known Doctrine of the Schools , That the Relation is the Person ; How comes it to pass then , that when there are Four Relations in the Godhead , Paternity , Filiation , Active Spiration , and Procession , there should be but Three Persons ? Now the Answer , which Aquinas and others give to this Difficulty , is this . That it is not every Relation , but only opposite Relations , which constitute and distinguish Persons ; for more Pers●ns are more subsisting Relations really distinct from each other ; but there can be no real distinction between the Divine Relations , but upon account of their relative opposition : And therefore two opposite Relations must belong to two Persons , but such Relations as are not opposite to each other , must belong to the same Person ; and therefore Paternity and Filiation must belong to two Persons , as being relatively opposed ; and therefore a subsisting Paternity is the Person of the Father , and a subsisting Filiation the Person of the Son : Which can never be one Person , as requiring distinct Suppositums for such opposite Relations : But now the other two Relations , Spiration and Procession are not opposed to either of these , but only to each other : And therefore Spiration does not constitute another Person , as not being opposed either to Paternity or Filiation , and therefore may and does belong both to Father and Son ; but Procession must constitute a Third Person , as opposed to Spiration , and so necessarily distinguished from Father and Son. And therefore , though there are Four Relations , yet one of them , Spiration , is not separated from the Person of the Father , and the Son , but belongs to them both ; nor is it a Property , as not being proper and peculiar to any one Person ; nor is it a Personal Relation , or that which constitutes a Person , and therefore there are but Three Relations , Paternity , Filiation , and Procession , which are Personal Properties , which constitute Persons , and therefore but Three Persons . Now this Answer evidently proves , That by Relations they did not mean meer Habitudes , Respects , and External Denominations ; for then every Relation must of necessity be a Person , and there must be as many Persons , as there are Relations ; but they mean relative Beings , and Subsistencies , and therefore allow no Relations to constitute distinct Persons , but such as necessarily require distinct Subjects ; that is , such opposite Relations , as can never meet in the same Subject ; and therefore their Suppositums must be really distinct , as Paternity and Filiation , for no one can be Father and Son to himself . There is no imaginable Account , why only opposite Relations constitute Persons , but because they distinguish their Subjects ; for when opposite Relations meet in the same Subject , but not in opposition , they do not distinguish and multiply Persons , as the same man may be Father and Son , and but One Person ; but when opposite Relations distinguish their Subjects , as the Divine Relations necessarily do , they multiply Persons too : And no Relations , Properties , Notions , according to the Doctrine of the Schools , constitute a Person , but such as distinguish their Subjects , that Three Persons , and Three Relations , are not Three Respects and Denominations of the same Singular Subject , but Three real distinct Relative Beings , and Subsistencies . 2. Let us now consider , why they insist so much upon the notion of Relations , that when they allow every Divine Relation to be the Divine Essence , Substance , an incommunicable Subsistence and Substance , yet they will not allow us absolutely to say Three Substances , but Three Relations , or Three Relative Beings , Subsistencies , or Substances . And the plain and short account of it is this ; That this is essential to the Unity of God , and gives us the truest and most perfect conception of a Trinity in Unity . As to shew this particularly ; 1. These Divine Relations ( though each of them be incommunicably in his own Person , Essence , and Substance ) secure the perfect Unity of the Divine Essence . For Three Relative Substances are essentially but One Substance , which Three Absolute Substances can never be , though they never so perfectly agree in the same Specifick Notion and Idea . By an absolute Substance , I mean one intire , perfect , individual , whole , which is compleat in it self , and subsists compleatly by it self , without any Internal , Essential Union to , or necessary dependence on , any Being of the same kind : By Relative Substances , I mean , such Substances as are internal subsisting Relations in the same One whole individual Nature : Of Absolute Substances we have as many Instances , as there are particular Creatures in the World ; of Relative Substances we have no instance in Created Nature , but some such Images and Resemblances , as may help us to form an intelligible notion of them . Now it is evident , without any need to prove it , that every compleat absolute Substance , how many soever they are , multiplies the Individuals of the same kind ; Three absolute Human Substances are Three Men , and Three Absolute D●vine Substances would for the same reason be Three Gods ; but it is ●therwise as to Relative Substances , which are ●ubsisting Personal Relations in the same One individu●l Nature ; and it is demonstrable , that the Relations of the same One individual Nature and Substance , can't multiply Natures and Substances , for then they would not be Relations in the same individual Substance , but would be Ab●olute , not Relative Substances . As to explain this by a familiar Example . The Fathers , and after them the Schoolmen , find some Images of the Trinity in Human Souls , as Memory , Vnderstanding . Will ; or which they think a nearer resemblance , Mind , Knowledge , Love : And a late S●cinian is very fond of such a Trinity , as Original Mind , Reflex Wisdom , and Love. Peter Lombard explains this particularly from the Doctrine of St. Austin , and it is evident that all these are very distinct , and never can be each other ; but all have a mutual and necessary relation to each other ; are in each other , and equal to each other , but are but One , One Mind , One Life , One Essence , and One Substance ; because they substantially exist in the same Soul and Mind , not as Accidents in their Subjects , which may be parted , but as Essential Properties and Powers . This our Socinian Adversaries like well enough ; for these distinct Properties and Powers do not multiply Persons , and therefore though they grant something like such distinct Powers in the Divine Nature , yet still there is but One Divine Person , and therefore according to their own Notion , but One God. But this is not the Question , Whether such distinct Faculties , Properties , and Powers , multiply Persons , which we grant they do not , because they do not multiply Natures , and One Individual Human Natu●e is but One Man , or One Human Person ; but the Q●estion is , Whether , if instead of these distinct Powers and Faculties , there were real subsisting Persons , as essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature , they would any more divide or multiply Nature , than such distinct Powers and Faculties do ? And I am pretty confident , no man can give me any good reason , why Relative Subsistencies , or Personal Relations should any more divide or multiply the Divine Nature , than Relative Powers and Properties divide or multiply Human Nature : For if these Divine Persons are as essentially related to each other in the Divine Nature , as such distinct Powers and Faculties are in Human Nature , a Trinity of Persons must be as essentially One in the same One Individual Divinity , as a Trinity of Powers and Faculties are in the same single Human Nature . It is certain , Three such Divine Persons , though each of them be by himself true and perfect God , are not Three Absolute Divinities , and therefore not Three Gods , but Three Divine Relative Subsistencies in the same One Individual Godhead , and therefore but One God ; as Memory , Understanding and Will , are all that a Mind is , and each of them all that the other is , and yet not Three Minds , but One Mind . This shews the diff●rence between Absolute and Relative Substances ; Three Absolute Substances are always distinctly and separately Three , and can never be any otherwise than specifically One ; but Relative Substances may be essentially One in the same One Individual Nature ; and this is the Account both the Fathers and Schools give of a Trinity in Unity , Three Relations , or Three Relative Substances , or Subsistencies , essentially related to each other in the Unity of the same One Individual Essence . St. Gregory Nyssen has given the most particular Account of this matter in his Catechetical Oration . To convince the Heathens of the Eternal Subsistence of the Divine Word in the Unity of the same Godhead , he lays the foundation of all in that universally received Principle , That the Divinity is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which I translate ( not , irrational , without Reason , or Understanding , but ) not without its Word ; which is not the Personal Wisdom of the Father , whereby the Father is wise , as I have already shewn ( Chap. 3. ) but a Personal , Living , Subsisting , Word : Which answers to that Word which we feel in our own Minds , and which is essential to all Minds , that no Mind can be without its Word ; but is not a vanishing Notion and Idea , or a transient sound , as Human words , but answers to the perfection of the Divine Nature . And therefore as our Mortal Nature has a Vanishing , Perishing Word , so the Incorruptible , and Eternally Permanent , Immutable Nature , has an Eternal Subsisting Word . And ( as he proceeds ) if this Divine Word subsists , it lives ; for it does not subsist like stupid inanimate Stones , but as Mind , and Spirit , which must live , if it subsists ; and if it lives , the absolute simplicity of the Divine Nature , which admits of no composition , proves that he lives , not by a participation of Life , but as Life it self . And if the Word lives , as being Life it self , it must have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a power to do , what it freely wills and chuses . For that which cannot will and chuse ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) does not live ; and an Impotent Will is a contradiction to the Nature of God ; and therefore its Power must be equal to its Will : But this Divine Word can will nothing but what is good , and wills whatever is good ; and being able to effect whatever it wills , is not unactive ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) without doing any thing , but does the good it wills : And since we must acknowledge the World , and all things in it , which are wisely and artificially made , to be good ; all things are the Works of this Living Subsisting Word . This is his Proof , That God has a Subsisting , Living , Almighty , Creating Word , which is another distinct Person from him , whose Word he is . For the Word is a Relative Term , and signifies a Relative Subsistence , and necessarily supposes the Father ; for he is not the Word , but with relation to him , whose Word he is . And by this means he tells us , we may escape both the Polytheism of the Gentiles , and the Singularity of the Iews , by acknowledging the Living , Energetical , Operative Word , which the Iews deny , and the Unity and Identity of Nature , between the Word , and Him , whose Word he is . For as our Word proceeds out of our Mind , and is neither every way the same with the Mind , nor yet upon all accounts another . For that it is of the Mind , proves that is is another , and not the Mind it self ; but as it perfectly expresses and represents the Mind , it cannot be another Nature , but one and the same Nature , though a kind of different subsistence . So the Word of God , by a distinct subsistence of its own , is distinguished from him , from whom he receives his Subsistence and Hypostasis ; but inasmuch as he is all , and the same that God is , he is perfectly one and the same in Nature . This is the Doctrine of all the other Catholick Fathers , as well as of Gregory Nyssen , who resolve the Unity of the Godhead in a Trinity of Persons , into Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature , which no more multiplies Natures and Divinities , to make Two or Three Gods , than the Mind , its Word , and Love , make Three Minds . This is the true and compleat notion of the Homoousion , which ( as I have already shewn ) does not signify a meer Specifick Unity , but the Unity of One Individual , not Singular , Nature in Three ; that Three Real , Distinct , Subsisting Persons are as intimately and essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature , as a Human Mind and its Word are ; which are not , and never can be two Minds , but one Mind . Two compleat and perfect Minds can never in a proper notion be Consubstantial , or one Substance , though they have the same specifick Nature ; for their Substance is not one and the same , but naturally two , and naturally separable , how closely soever they may be united ; but Three Divine Persons , who are essentially related to each other in the same Divinity , as the Mind and its Word are , are in the strictest notion Consubstantial , or One Substance , being essentially related to each other in the same One Individual Nature and Essence . And here I must take notice of a great mistake , which some Learned Men run into , concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , singular and particular Natures , Substances , and Essences , by which they understand , what some others call Personal Substances ; and conclude , That since Philoponus , and others , who asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three particular Natures and Essences , or Substances in the Godhead , were charged with Tritheism ( as they deserved , if their Opinions be truly represented ) those who assert Three Substantial Persons , or Three distinct Personal Subsistencies or Substances , are liable also to the same Charge . This is a material Objection , and a fair Answer to it will set this whole matter in a clear light . Now the Answer in short is this , That those who rejected the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and charged it with Tritheism , did not thereby understand particular , personal , relative , Subsistencies or Substances , but compleat , absolute , particular Natures and Substances ; not Three Real , Substantial , Subsisting Relations in One Individual Nature , as a Mind , its Internal , Essential , Word , and Spirit , as Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are Three ; but Three absolute particular Natures , as Three Men , each of whom has a compleat , absolute , personal Nature of his own , are Three . Now if this be the true Account , every one sees the difference between Three personal , relative , Substances or Subsistencies of the same Nature , and Three absolute particular Natures ; the first is a real Substantial Trinity , Three Subsisting Infinite Persons in the Unity of the same Godhead . Three Persons , and One God ; the other is down-right Tritheism . And that this is all they meant by particular Individual Natures , I have many Arguments to prove . For 1st . Had they herein condemned distinct , personal , relative Substances , they had condemned the Faith of the Catholick Church , and relapsed into Sabellianism , as abundantly appears from what I have already proved at large . 2 Those very Persons , who charge Philoponus with Tritheism for asserting Three Individual Natures and Essences , do themselves own a Personal Substance . Leontius , as Nic●ph rus tells us , wrote a large Book against Philoponus , and yet he tells us , That the Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Essence or Substance , and Nature , understood the same thing , and so they did by Hypostasis and Person . That by Essence and Substance , they meant what the Philosophers call a Species ; by Hypostasis and Person , what they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , an Individual Substance : And in this sense he tells us , They acknowledged One Divinity in Three Hypostases , or Three Personal Subsistencies . That there is One Hypostasis ( that is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) of the Father , One Hypostasis of the Son , and One Hypostasis of the Holy Ghost ; that these Three ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) in nothing differ from each other , but only in their Personal Properties , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) that one is the Father , the other the Son , the other the Holy Ghost : So that Leontius owns Three true proper Persons , each of which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , an Individual Substance , which he asserts to be the true Catholick Ecclesiastical Notion of a Person , and each Person as distinct from each other , as he that begets is from him who is begotten ; and therefore when he condemned Philoponus for his Individual Natures and Essences , he could not by that mean relative , Personal Subsistencies or Substances . Theodorus Abucara ( if he be the Author of that Tract against the Severians , Explanatio vocum , quibus Philosophi utuntur , which I have sometimes suspected to belong to Theodorus Presbyter Raithensis , who promises such an Explication of Philosophical Terms at the end of his Treatise de Incarnatione , I say , this Theodorus , whoever he is ) expresly charges these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Individual Natures and Essences with Tritheism ; and yet throughout that Treatise teaches , That Hypostasis is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a singular Individual Nature ; and so does Anastasius Sinaita in his Hodegos ; and indeed all the Writers of that Age , who asserted against the Severians the Union of Two Natures in One Person in Christ. 3 dly , But we shall soon be satisfied in this matter , if we consider the occasion of this Dispute . The Severians , as they had learnt from their Master Severus , and he from Eutyches , taught , that there was but One Nature , as well as One Person in Christ , and that for this reason , That to assert Two Natures , is consequently to assert Two Persons in Christ , which is Nestorianism ; for every Nature is a Person , that it is impossible there should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Nature without a Personality of its own , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Nature and Person , or Hypostasis , are the same . In opposition to this the Catholicks urged , That if Nature and Hypostasis were so the same , that One Hypostasis is One Nature , and One Nature but One Hypostasi● ; then as we assert Three Hypostasis in the Trinity , we must also allow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three Individual Natures and Essences in the Trinity . Philoponus saw that this was an unavoidable Consequence , and therefore rather than own Two Natures in One Person in Christ , he chose to assert Three Individual Natures in the Trinity : And for this , he and his Followers were very justly charged with Tritheism . And this shews us , what these Individual Natures were , not Three Relative Personal Subsistencies and Substances in the same One Individual Nature , which is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Divinity ; but Three Compleat Absolute Divinities , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three such Divine Natures , as there are Three Individual Human Natures in Three Men : Each of which is by himself , and alone , without communication with any other in the same Individual Nature , One compleat intire Humane Nature , and One Human Person : For this was the rise of the Dispute , concerning the Humanity of Christ. The Catholicks owned the Personality of the Word , but taught that Christ's Humane Nature was so united to his Divinity , as not to be a distinct Human Person , but to subsist in the Person of the Word , which is the true Faith of the Word 's being Incarnate , or made Flesh , which could not be true , if the Person of the Word were not Incarnate , and that could not be true , if the Human Nature in Christ , were a distinct Human Person , as other Men are . On the other hand , the Severians denied the Union of Two Natures in the One Person of Christ , because an Individual Human Nature must be a Person , and then Christ must be two Persons , as well as two Natures : So that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a compleat absolute Individual Nature , such as an Individual Human Nature is , and three such Individual Natures make three Men , or Three Gods , and to assert Three such Absolute Divinities , is Tritheism ; but this concerns not Personal , Relative , Subsistencies or Substances in the same Individual Nature and Essence ; and therefore the Condemnation of Philoponus , or Valentinus Gentilis , and such kind of Hereticks ( if they did really teach what they are charged with ) cannot aff●ct those , who assert Three real , distinct , substantial , Persons , each of whom is by himself , in his own Person , the whole Divine Nature , Essence , Substance , but are essentially and inseparably related to each other in the Unity of the same Individual Essence . The very asserting three relative , personal Subsistencies , or Substances , in One Individual Nature , is a direct opposition to the Doctrine of Philoponus , and the Severians , that Nature and Person is the same , so the same , that One Nature can be but One Person , and One Person but One Nature , which necessarily overthrows a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence , and the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in the One Person of Christ ; but Three Relative Persons and Subsistencies in One Nature , and One Nature and One Person are direct Contradictions , as One Individual Substance , and Three Individual Substances are . Indeed those who deny Three Relative Personal Subsistencies , that is , Three Real , Proper , Substantial Persons , in the Unity of the Divine Nature , go upon the same Principle with Philoponus and the Severians , that One Nature is but One True and Proper Person , or Hypostasis , and therefore there cannot be Three Proper Subsisting Persons in the Unity of One Individual Substance ; which , as Anastatius Sinaita , and the other Catholick Writers of that Age frequently observe , is that fundamental Error , which gave birth to Sabellianism , Arianism , Nestorianism , and Eutychanism ; for as different as these Heresies are , the fundamental Principle is the same , that One Individual Nature is , and can be but One Person , and One Person but One Nature : For this reason Sabellius , who acknowledged the Unity of the Divine Nature , rejected a Trinity of proper Subsisting Persons ; Arius , who owned a Trinity of Persons , denied their Consubstantiality , or Sameness and Identity of Nature ; Nestorius , who owned Two Natures in Christ , asserted also Two Persons ; and Eutyches made Christ but One Nature , as well as One Person ; and in consequence of this Philoponus ( if he was not mistaken ) taught Three Individual Natures , as well as Three Persons in the Godhead . So that to make Nature and Person in the true and proper notion of Person commensurate and convertible Terms ; that a Nature is a Person , and a Person an Individual Nature ; that One Nature is but One Person , and One Person but One Nature ; and that Individual Natures and Persons must always be multiplied with each other , is the fundamental Principle of all the Heresies relating to the Trinity and Incarnation , and then one would think , that those Doctrines which expresly contradict this Principle , and all these Heresies which result from it , should be the true Catholick Faith : And then Three Real , Substantial , Subsisting Persons , or Three Relative Personal Subsistencies , or Substances , in the Unity of the same Individual Essence , or one Godhead , is the True Catholick Faith ; and to reject it upon pretence , that this must multiply Natures with Persons , and so make Three Divinities , and Three Gods , is to return to that condemned Heretical Principle , That One Nature can be but One True and Proper Person ; which , if Men understand the true Consequences of what they say , must inevitably betray them to Sabellianism , Arianism , or Tritheism . And thus much for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which , I hope , we shall hear no more of . The Doctrine of Relations demonstrates the Individual Unity of the Divine Essence ; for if Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , though each of them in his own Person be True and Perfect God , yet are not Three Absolute Divinities , but Three Eternal Subsisting Relations , in the same One Divinity , they must be One Individual Essence and Substance , for else they cannot be the Relations of the same One Essence and Substance . 2. As these Divine Relations prove the Individual Unity of Nature and Essence , so they prove the Sameness and Identity of Nature , wherein , as I have shewn at large , the Catholick Fathers place the Unity of the Godhead . That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . One Divinity is One God. A few words will serve to explain this , after what I have already discoursed on this Argument . The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as I have already shewn , does not signify the Singularity , but the perfect invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature ; not such a Sameness , as every single Person is the same with himself , but such a Sameness as is between distinct Persons of the same Nature . Now the Doctrine of Relations necessarily infers this perfect Sameness and Identity , and this Relative Sameness and Identy proves a perfect Unity . As for the first , there needs no other proof , but barely to represent it , for it is self-evident : For is it possible , that a Perfect , Living , Subsisting Word should not be perfectly the same with that Infinite Mind , whose Word it is , and from whom it proceeds ? That a Perfect , Living , Subsisting Image , should not be perfectly the same with its Prototype , from whom it receives its Being and Nature ? For if the Word be not perfectly the same with the Mind , nor the Image with its Prototype , it is not a true and perfect Word , not a perfect Image : By these Relations of Father and Son , of a Mind and its Word , a Prototype and its Image , the Catholick Fathers , as I have already shewn , prove the perfect , invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature ; for the thing proves it self . The Relation indeed of Father and Son , considered in general , proves no more than a specifick Sameness of Nature , which may admit of great changes and variety within the same Species ; but when God is the Father , and begets a Son of his own Substance , his Nature being absolutely and immutably perfect , he must communicate the same perfect invariable Nature to his Son ; especially when this Son is his own perfect living Word , and his perfect Image . But this is not all : A perfect Sameness between Two Absolute Natures , without the least conceivable difference or variation , would not be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Sameness of Identity ; for though they could subsist as perfectly the same , as their Idea is , yet they would be Two Absolute Natures , not One Nature : But a perfect Sameness in Essential Relations , or Relative Subsistencies , proves a perfect Identity of Nature , that they are perfectly the same in the same One Individual Nature : As a living substantial Word must receive its substance and being , whole of whole , from that Mind , whose Word it is ; for if it be not the same Substance , it can't be the substantial Word of that Mind , whose Substance it is not ; nor can a living substantial Image be any other Substance , than that of the Prototype ; for if it were , it might be its likeness , but not its natural Image . And thus this Sameness and Identity of Nature proves each Person by himself to be true and perfect God , and all Three but One God ; for each Person , according to this Doctrine , has , and must have , the whole perfect Divinity in himself , and all Three but one and the same Divinity . 3. These Subsisting Relations in the Unity of Nature , give us an intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the inseparable Union of the Divine Persons , and their mutual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Inexistence , Inbeing , in each other . That all the Catholick Fathers asserted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or inseparable Union of the Divine Persons , as essential to the Unity of the Godhead , is so well known , that I need not multiply Quotations to prove it , after what I have already observed to that purpose . But the Question is , What they mean by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , wherein the Essential Unity of the Godhead consists . Now it is certain this relates to the inseparable Union of the Persons ; for it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , divided and separate Hypostases and Persons , which the Fathers charge with Tritheism . The Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , inseparable from the Essence and Substance of the Father , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is inseparably in the Father ; that he is begotten of the Father without any division of Substance , within the Father , and inseparable from him ; so that this does not relate immediately to the Unity of Nature , but the Union of Persons , and therefore cannot signify the Singularity of the Divine Nature , but the Inseparable Union of real distinct Persons in the Unity of Nature . That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Persons , does as necessarily prove the real Distinction of Persons as the Unity of Nature , as St. Hilary , and Athanasius , and the other Fathers , frequently observe , and that proves that the Unity of the Divine Nature , which is the Inseparable Union of Three proper subsisting Persons , is not the Unity of Singularity : Which shews by the way , how improperly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made use of to prove the Singularity of the Divine Essence , for it proves quite the contrary ; it is the Unity of Three which is a Trinity in Unity ; not the Unity of One , which is Singularity and Solitude . In the next place I observe , That by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Catholick Fathers understand in this Mystery the inseparable Union of Relatives in the same Individual Nature , not the Union of compleat , absolute Natures , how close and inseparable soever it may be . There is by Nature no Inseparable Union , but in the same Individual Nature . Three compleat Individuals , though of the same Kind and Species , how closely and intimately soever they be united , are not by Nature inseparable nor essentially One , for they may be parted by that Power which united them , and when they are parted , can subsist apart ; as Three compleat Minds , how intimately soever they should be united by God , yet can never be essentially and inseparably One , for they are not essential to each other ; they might have subsisted apart , and may be parted again , and an External Union cannot so make them One , as to be naturally inseparable . Which I think is a Demonstration that a Natural Inseparability , which is an Essential Unity , can be only in One Individual Nature between such Relatives as are Essential to each other , and can neither be , nor be conceived , divided , or separated : And therefore the Catholick Fathers represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Examples of Natural Unions between things Essentially related to each other in One Individual Nature , which either cannot be conceived , or at least cannot subsist apart . Of this last Kind are a Fountain and its Streams , a Tree and its Branches , whereby they not only represent the Homoousion , but the Inseparable Union of the Divine Persons , as every one knows ; for there cannot be a Fountain but its Waters must flow out , nor Streams without a Fountain from whence they flow ; and though Branches may be separated from the Tree , yet they live no longer than they are united , and are Branches of that Tree no longer : But these are very imperfect Images , and without great caution will corrupt our Ideas of the Divine Unity . Of all Corporeal Unions the nearest resemblance we have of this , and which the Fathers most insist on , is the Sun , and its natural Splendor , for we cannot conceive the Sun without its Splendor , nor the Splendor without the Sun ; they never were , never can be parted , and therefore , though two , are essentially one . This Representation the Scripture makes of it , which calls the Son , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Brightness of his Father's Glory , and in this Sense they teach that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Light of Light , as it is in the Nicene Creed , whereby they do not mean two distinct independent Lights , which either are or may be parted , though one be lighted at the other ( this was the Heresy of Hierachas , as St. Hilary tells us , who represented this Mystery by two Candles , one of which is lighted at the other , or by one and the same Lamp , which is divided and burns in two Sockets ) ; but that Light and Splendor which is essential to the same Sun , and can never be divided from it , as Athanasius teaches . But the truest Images we have of this in Nature , is the Inseparable Union which is between a Mind and its own Internal Word , which are so essentially related to each other in the same Individual Nature , that they can never be parted , nor conceived apart ; the Mind can never be without its Word , nor the Word subsist but in the Mind : It is evident , That two compleat , absolute Minds can never be thus united ; for they are not Essential to each other ; not naturally one , and therefore not naturally inseparable ; but a Mind and its Word , though two , are essentially One , and therefore can never be parted but must subsist together ; and these are the Characters the Scripture gives us of God the Father and his Son ; the Father Infinite , Eternal , Self-originated Mind ; the Son his Eternal Infinite , Living , Subsisting Word . And if Father and Son , this Eternal Mind and Eternal Word , be as essentially One , as a mans Mind and his Word are One , this is a Demonstration of their Inseparable Union , and gives us a sensible Notion and Idea of it . This is the account Athanasius every where gives of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that the Father and Son are inseparably One ; the Father being in the Son , and the Son in the Father , as the Word is in the Mind , and the Light in the Sun. To separate the Divine Persons , so as not to be in each other , whatever other Union we own between them , Dionysius of Alexandria charges with Tritheism ; for the Divine Word must of necessity be one with God , and the Holy Spirit be and subsist in him . And this Athanasius resolves into such a Sameness and Unity of Nature , as must be between two Relative Subsistencies in the same Individual Nature . That the Son is in the Father , as the Word is in the Mind , and the Splendor in the Sun ; that he is a genuine proper natural Son in the Father's Essence and Substance , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not subsisting out of his Father's Substance , as other Creature Sons do . That the true Notion of the Sons being in the Father , is that the whole Being of a Son , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Genuine Natural Birth of the Father's Substance , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the Splendor is of the Sun : That the very Being of the Son is the Form of Species , and Divinity of the Father . That as the Sun and its Splendor are two , but not two Lights , but one Light from the Sun enlightening all things with its Splendor and Brightness ; so the Divinity of the Son is the Divinity of the Father , and therefore inseparable ; and thus there is but one God , and none else besides him . All this plainly refers to the Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Relatives of the same Individual Substance , which are really distinct , but essentially in each other , as the Word is in the Mind , and the Mind in the Word , that Thought it self cannot part them ; which is such an Union as can never be between compleat absolute Substances , which are not naturally Inseparable , nor essentially One. Herein Athanasius places the adequate Notion of the Homoousion , the Sameness , Identity , and Unity of Nature . He tells us , That for this reason the Nicene Fathers taught the Homoousion , or that the Son is Consubstantial , or of one Substance with the Father , to signify that the Son is not only like the Father , but to be so of the Father , as to be the same in likeness ; not after the manner of Bodies , which are like each other , but subsist apart by themselves , as Human Sons subsist separately from their Parents ; but the Generation of the Son of the Substance of the Father is of a different Kind and Nature from Human Generations , for he is not only like , but inseparable from his Father's Substance . He and the Father are One , as he himself says : The Word is always in the Father , and the Father in the Word , as it is with Light and its Splendor , and this is what the Homoousion signifies ; and in like manner he resolves the Sameness , Identity , and Unity of Nature , into this Internal , Inseparable Union and Inbeing of Three , essentially related to each other in One Individual Divinity . 4 thly , That Mutual Inbeing of the Divine Persons , which is their Inseparable and Essential Union , that the Father is in the Son , and the Son in the Father , which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the Latins Circumincessio , can be understood only between the Relatives of the same Individual Essence and Substance . The true compleat Notion of this Inbeing or Perichoresis , is not merely a Mutual Presence , or the same Vbi , that where-ever one is , there the other is ; or a kind of Immeation and Penetration of each other , which is a Corporeal Notion , and rejected as such by the Catholick Fathers , when they speak of this Divine Inbeing , as St. Hilary expressly does , inesse autem non aliud in alio , ut corpus in corpore ; that they are not in each other , as one Body is in another Body . And when the Arians objected against our Saviour's saying , I am in the Father , and the Father in me ; How can this be in that , and that in this ? Or how can the Father , who is greater , be at all in the Son , who is less ? Or what wonder is it , that the Son should be in the Father , when it is written of us all , That in him we live , and move , and have our being ? Athanasius answers , That this is all owing to Corporeal Conceits , as if they apprehended God to be a Body , not considering the Nature of the True Father , and true Son , the Invisible and Eternal Light , and its Invisible Splendor ; an Invisible Substance , and its unbodied Character and Image . But the true Notion of this Inbeing and Pericharesis is the Perfect Unity of the same Individual Nature in Three . That the Nature and Essence of the Father is in the Son , that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Character , Image , Mind , Divinity of the Father . Here , as Athanasius observes , our Saviour himself lays the Reason and Foundation of this Mutual Inbeing : He first tells us , I and my Father are One ; and then adds , I am in the Father , and the Father in me , that he might shew the Sameness and Identity of the Godhead , and the Unity of Essence . For they are One , not One divided into two Parts , and nothing more than One ; for they are Two ▪ the Father is the Father , and not the Son ; and the Son is the Son , and not the Father , but there is but One Nature ; for he that is begotten , is not unlike in Nature to him that begets , but is his Image , and all that the Father hath is the Sons . There is no need to multiply Quotations to this purpose , which may be met with every where . The Father is in the Son , and the Son in the Father , as the Nature of the Father is , lives and subsists in the Son ▪ not a Nature like the Fathers , but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Father 's own proper Nature and Essence ; they are in each other , as being essentially One , not One merely as being in each other , as it is possible Three may be , and yet not be essentially One , but Three ; as Three compleat absolute Minds would be Three still , though they should perfectly penetrate each other : Or as Three Candles in the same Room , are Three Lights though they are perfectly united in One. But Original Mind , its Word and Spirit are and must be in each other , as being Three in One Individual Essence ; for the same undivided Essence can't be whole and entire in Three , but those Three must be in each other . If the Divinity of the Father is in the Son , the Father is in the Son , and the Son in the Father ; the Mind is in its Word , and the Word in the Mind : The Son is in the Father , as eternally begotten in the Substance of the Father , whole of whole , and essentially one and the same , as the Word is in the Mind , not by such an Union and Penetration as we may suppose between two Minds , but as conceived in the Mind , and essentially one and the same with it . Now according to this Representation , which all the Catholick Fathers make of this Mystery , we must of necessity acknowledge Number without Multiplication , Distinction without Division or Separation , a perfect Trinity in perfect Unity ; Three Persons , each of which is by himself True and Perfect God , but not Three Gods , but One God : A Mind and its Word are two , and a living , subsisting Word is true and perfect Mind , Mind of Mind , and yet not two Minds , but one Mind ; for the Mind and its Word are essentially One , as all Men must confess ; the Word is in the Mind , and the Mind in the Word , and therefore identically one and the same : for which reason the Fathers acknowledge that the Father is Spirit , the Son Spirit , and the Holy Ghost Spirit , and these are Three , but not Three Spirits , as essentially related to each other in the same individual Essence , essentially the same , and essentially in each other : And thus Will of Will , Wisdom of Wisdom , Life of Life , Power of Power , though they multiply and distinguish Persons , do not multiply Wills , Wisdoms , Lives , Powers , which are essentially One , as the Mind , its Word , and Spirit , are One : They are not One Life , One Will , One Understanding , One Power , in the Sense of but One who Lives , who Wills , who Understands , and has Power ; but as the same , identically the same Life , and Will , &c. is in each of them , and indivisibly and inseparably in them all . And this gives an account of the Unity of Operation , wherein the Catholick Fathers unanimously place the Unity of God , for One Almighty Agent is but One God , and One Essential Will , Wisdom , and Power , can be but One Agent ; and Infinite , Original Mind , and its Eternal subsisting Word can have but One Will , and Wisdom , and Power , for the Will and Wisdom of the Mind is in its Word ; the same , not merely specifically the same , or the same by consent , as it may be between Two Minds , which Will perfectly the same thing , but the same One Individual Will ; the Father Wills , and the Son Wills , and they both Will distinctly , but with one Individual Will ; as it is impossible that the Word should Will with any other Will , but the Will of that Mind , whose Word it is . And therefore Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , though Three Eternal , Infinite , Living , Intelligent , Willing , Persons , which Subsist and Act distinctly , yet being that to each other in a more perfect and excellent manner , that Mind , its Word , and Spirit , are in Men , they must be as perfectly One Almighty Agent as a created Mind is , which Wills and Acts in its Word and Spirit . The Distinction and Unity of Operation necessarily proves the Distinction and Unity of Essence ; it being in our way of conceiving things a necessary effect of it ; there must be some real Distinction in the same Nature and Essence , in which there are Three who Act distinctly ; and there must be an Individual Unity of Essence , when in Three there is but One Individual Operation ; and though these things may be distinguished in Creatures , where we distinguish the Suppositum and the Powers , and give a priority of Nature to the Suppositum , yet Essence and Energy being the same in God , who is a pure simple Act , there can be no priority nor posteriority between them , but the Demonstration proceeds equally upon Nature or Operation ; but that is the best , which is the most intelligible Representation of this Distinction and Unity . For this reason the Fathers chose to explain the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead by the Distinction and Unity of Operation , which I need not prove at large , as being universally owned , and therefore I shall only observe , how St. Gregory Nyssen represents this matter . In his Answer to Ablabius , that there are not Three Gods , he tells us , That the best way to form the clearest and most perspicuous Notion of this , is to examine what this Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Godhead , signifies . Now whereas some think this a proper Name to signify the Divine Nature and Essence , he asserts with the Scriptures ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) that the Divine Nature and Essence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , without a Name , and can't be signified by words ; and that every Name which is given to God , signifies something essential to him , but not his Nature and Essence it self . This he shews particularly in some Names given to God , and affirms , That thus it is in all other Divine Names , that either they remove all Imperfections , or attribute all Divine Perfections to him , but do not declare his Nature : And thus he adds it is in the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , God is a S●er , an Inspector , who beholds all things : Now if God signifies him , who sees and knows all things , we must inquire , whether this All-seeing Power belongs only to one of the Divine Persons of the Trinity , or to all Three : For if this be the true interpretation of the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that it is an All-seeing Power , and that He that sees all , is God , we cannot reasonably deny this to any Person in the Holy Trinity , since the Scripture does equally attribute this Omniscience to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . Well! suppose this , as he adds , it does not remove but encrease the difficulty ; for though God be not a Name of Nature , but of Energy and Power , if the Name God signifies a Seer and Inspector , and there be Three , who thus see all things , Three must be Three Gods , as we number Persons of the same Profession , who all do the very same things , as well as those who have the same Nature ; as we say many Orators , Mathematicians , and the l●ke , as well as many M●n . Now this he answers by the Unity of Energy and Power , which is in each of them , but is but One indivisible inseparable Power ; not as it is in Men , who each of them acts separately by himself ; and though they do the same thing for kind , yet what each of them does , is properly his own doing , and not anothers : They act separately , and produce distinct and separate Effects , and therefore are many Agents . But it is quite otherwise as to the Divine Nature : The Father does nothing by himself without the Son , nor the Son without the Holy Ghost ; but each Divine Operation proceeds originally from the Father , is continued by the Son , and perfected in the Holy Spirit ; and therefore the name of Energy is not divided into a number of Agents , because neither of them acts separately by himself . And this he proves from the Unity of the Effect ; that whatever good thing we receive from God , as suppose Life , is attributed to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; but though it be given by Three , that which is given , or done for us , is not Three ; we do not receive three Lives , one from each Person of the Trinity , but we have but one Life , which we receive from them all . Now where there is but One Undivided Effect , there can be but One Natural Agent ; for separate Agents will produce separate Effects ; and therefore there can be but one motion of the Divine Will from the Father by the Son to the Holy Spirit , and that without distance and Succession . Now it is plain , that all this does not signify a mere Unity of Consent , as may be between Three Distinct and Separate Minds , but the Unity of Principle , which acts distinctly , but uniformly and inseparably in Three ; the same Divine Will , which is originally in the Father , acting in the same manner , and with one indivisible motion ( as they speak ) in the Son , and Holy Spirit ; which Unity of Operation , though it admits of distinct Acts , and consequently a real distinction of Persons , yet proves the individual Unity of Essence ; for there can be no Unity of Principle or Operation , but in the same Individual Essence ; where Three Persons are united in the same Individual Essence , as the Mind , its Word , and Spirit , are in Man. And here ( had there not been enough already said about it ) is a proper Place to vindicate that late Representation which has been made of the Distinction and Unity of the Godhead by the self-consciousness , and mutual consciousness of the Divine Persons . I have met with no body yet so hardy as to deny , that Self-consciousness is essential to the natural Unity of a Person , and that Three Persons cannot be naturally and essentially One without mutual Consciousness . But the great Objection against this Notion ( and which I am amazed to find some Learned Men insist on ) is the order of Nature , which requires , that a Person should be One by an Unity of Nature , before it can be self-conscious ; and that Three Persons must be One by the Unity of Nature , before they can be mutually conscious : For the Unity of Nature , and the Union of Persons in the same Nature , must be before all Acts of Self-consciousness , and mutual Consciousness : And that which in the order of Nature comes after such a Distinction and Union cannot be the cause of it . But who ever thought of causes of Distinction and Unity in an Eternal Nature , which has no cause ? Did the Fathers philosophize thus concerning Priority and Posteriority in the Divine Nature , when they placed the Unity of the Godhead in the Unity of Energy and Operation ? For does not the same Objection lie against the Unity of Energy and Operation , that does ●gainst mutual consciousness , ( which is essential to this Unity of Energy ) that the Divine Persons must first be One , before they can be One Energy and Power ? and therefore that One Energy does not cause their Unity , because they must be One , before they are One Agent . And indeed such Men Gregory Nyssen intimates he had to deal with , who would not allow the Deity to be Energy and Power , but he thought it not worth the while to dispute that Point with them ; for the Divine Nature being Infinite and Incomprehensible , the pure and simple Nature of God is not the immediate Object of our Knowledge , can have no name and definition given it ; and therefore we can know nothing of it immediately and directly , but by such Essential Attributes and Properties , as we c●n form some notion of . The not considering this , how perfectly unknown and incomprehensible the Divine Nature it self is , occasioned a late Author to tell us , That An Hypothesis in this Affair , which leaves out the very Nexus , the Natural and Eternal Vnion , and insists upon mutual consciousness , which at most is but the consequence thereof , wants the principal thing requisite to the salving the Vnity of the Godhead . But this is to philosophize about the abstracted Natures and Essences of Things , even the Divine Substance and Essence , which I dare not presume to do . No doubt but God is the most real substantial Being in the World , even Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; and there is as little doubt , but there is as real and substantial an Union between them : But I know nothing of the Substance of God , as distinguished from his Essential Attributes and Perfections , nor of such a Distinction and Unity of Substance in the Deity , as can help us to form any notion of a Trinity in Unity , and defend it from the Charge of Contradiction and Impossibility , when we have done . For we must have a care of conceiving any Extension , or Parts , or Composition in God , without which we can have no notion of a Distinction and Union of Substances , considered purely under the notion of Substance . And therefore we must be contented to be ignorant of the Substance and Substantial Unions of the Deity , as we are of all other Substantial Unions . We know not what the Substance of a Spirit is , nor what the Substance of Matter is , nor what their substantial Unity is : And therefore when we inquire into their Distinction and Unity , we never meddle with the Essential Reasons and Causes of Unity , which are concealed from us , but consider as far as Sense , or Reason , or Observation will reach , wherein the Unity of any thing consists , and when a thing may be said to be One : As to instance at present only in the Unity of a Mind , and in the Union of Soul and Body . Is there any thing else in the World which can make a Mind one with it self , and distinguish it from all other Minds , but a self-conscious Sensation , that it feels it self , and its whole self , and only it self ? I suppose these Men will grant , that such a Mind is One , and but One , and distinct from all other Minds ; but Self-consciousness is not the formal reason of the Unity of a Mind , or of a Person , because in order of Nature the Unity of a Mind or Person must go before Self-consciousness ; that is , Self-consciousness is owing to the Unity of Essence , not the Unity of Essence to Self-consciousness . Well , but what is this Essence of a Mind , and this Unity of Essence , which makes a Mind One ? Truly that no body can tell ; and therefore to say a Mind is one by the Unity of its Essence , is to say , it is One , because it is so ; for we know no more of the matter : But Self-consciousness is a sensible Unity , which we all feel in our selves , and know our selves from other Men by it . This Unity of Essence we know nothing of , but by Self-consciousness ; and I desire to know , whatever the Unity of Essence be , whether any but a Self-conscious Unity would make a Mind One , and distinguish it from all other Minds ? which shews , that we have nothing to do with the naked Essences and Substances of Things , but with their immediate and essential Properties ; and when we know them , we know all that is to be known of Nature ; and therefore we can know no more of the Unity of a Mind than Self-consciousness . The Substances of things are distinguished from each other by their Essential Properties , and therefore from them we must learn their Unity or Distinction . A Mind is a Substance , and Matter is Substance ; and the essential difference between them , as far as we can understand , is , that a Mind is a thinking Substance , and Matter extended Substance ; and therefore we must judge of a Mind by the properties of Thinking , and of Matter by extension : The Unity of a Thinking Substance must consist in the Unity of Thoughts and Sensations , that is , in one Consciousness ; and the Unity of an Extended Substance in the continuity of its extension ; and to ask farther , what is the cause or principle of Consciousness in a Mind , or of One Consciousness in One Mind , is to ask a reason of the natures of things ; why a Mind is a Thinking Being , and why One Thinking Being has one Center of Thoughts : Why do they not ask also , how Extension comes to be essential to Matter , and how Matter is extended ? I know no reason to be given of such matters , but the Will of God , who formed all things according to the Ideas of his own Infinite Wisdom . This I hope is sufficient to be said concerning the order of Nature , and the priority and posteriority of our Conceptions ; for if we do not stop in our Inquiries at immediate and essential Properties , but demand an antecedent Reason for them , this is to demand a Reason of Nature , Why things are what God has made them : Those who are not contented to contemplate Nature in its immediate and Essential Properties , may philosophize by themselves for me ; for there is nothing more to be known without an intuitive knowledge of Nature it self , which none can have but the Author of Nature . Thus should you inquire of me concerning the Union of Soul and Body ; all that I know of it is , That they are united in one Conscious Life ; That the Soul feels all the Impressions of the Body , and directs and governs it . No , will such Philosophers say , here wants the Nexus , the natural Union between Soul and Body ; for they must be One by a Natural Union before there can be this Conscious Life and Sympathy between them , which is not the Union , but the effect and consequent of this Union . Very true ! They must be vitally united to have One Life , and to receive impressions from each other ; But can they give any other notion of this Vital Union , than that the Body is animated by the Soul , and lives with it ? Could these Philosophers tell you , how a Soul , which is an Immaterial Being , could be fastened to a Body , what Union of Substances there is between them , ( which is the thing they want to know ) would they understand a Vital Union ever the better for it ? An Union of Substances seems to signify some kind of Contact , which is hard to conceive between Body and Spirit ; but however an Union of Contact , and an Union of Life , are two very different kinds of Union , and do not include or infer each other ; and therefore the true Answer to that Question , How Soul and Body are united , is not to say , That their Substances are united or fastened together , which gives us no notion of a Vital Union ; but that the Soul lives in the Body , and gives life to it ; receives impressions srom it , and governs its motions . But to inquire farther , is to inquire into the Reasons of Natural and Essential Unions , which are as great Mysteries as Nature is : We may as well ask , How a Soul lives , as how it animates a Body ; and God alone knows both . So that to inquire after the Natural Nexus , or Cement of this Union , is nothing at all to the purpose , and is not the Object of Human Knowledge . Now , though the Vital Union between Soul and Body , and the Union of mutual Consciousness , be of a very different Kind and Nature , yet the Dispute about the Nexus , or the Natural Union of Substances , is much the same . Consciousness is the Unity of a Spirit ; Self-consciousness is the Unity of a Person , and by the same reason mutual Consciousness is a Natural Union of Three distinct Self-conscious Persons in the Unity of the same Nature . And to reject this for want of a Nexus , or the Natural Union of Substances , is as if we should deny the Union of Soul and Body to be an Union of Life or Animation , because this don't explain the Natural Nexus between Soul and Body : If a Mutual Conscious Union be an Essential Union of Three distinct Persons in the same Nature , as a Vital Union is the Essential Union of Soul and Body , we have nothing to do in either Case with the Union of Substances which we can know nothing of , and if we could , should understand these Unions never the better for it . For whatever Union of Substance we may suppose between Soul and Body , and the Three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity , it is the Kind and Species of Union which gives us the Notion and Idea of it . If you inquire , what Spirit , and what Matter is ? It would not be thought a good Answer to these Questions , to say a Spirit is a Substance , and Matter is a Substance , without adding their Specifick Differences , that a Spirit is an intelligent thinking Substance , and Matter is an extended Substance ; nor is it a better Answer to that Question , what Union there is between Soul and Body , or between the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity , To say , That their Substances are united , which gives us no distinct Notion of their Union ; but a Vital Union , and a Mutual Conscious Union , contain distinct Ideas ; and if these be Natural and Essential Unions , though we know no more of the Union of Substances than we do , what Substance is , yet we know that the Soul and Body must be one Natural Person , and the Three Divine Persons must be naturally and essentially One God ; for a Natural Union makes One according to the Nature of that Union . It is visible enough what has occasioned this Mistake : Men consider Mutual Consciousness between Three Compleat , Absolute , Independent Minds , and rightly enough conclude , that how conscious soever they were to each other , this could not make them essentially One ; for every compleat Mind is One by it self , and not naturally Conscious to any One but it self , and by whatever Power they should be so united , as to be mutually Conscious , this could not make them essentially One ; they would be Three Mutually Conscious Minds , not essentially One Mind ; for they are not by Nature One , nor mutually Conscious , and therefore may be parted again , and cease to be so . But then , in this way of stating it , the Objection equally lies against the Perichoresis , the inseparable Union and In-being of Minds , which can never make Three Compleat Absolute Minds essentially One. But if we apply this to the Union of Living , Subsisting , Intelligent Relatives of the same Individual Essence , to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Eternal , Self-originated Mind , its Eternal , Living , Subsisting , Word , and Eternal Spirit , this Mutual Consciousness gives us the most Intelligible Notion of the Essential and Inseparable Union and In-being of Three in One. I dare not say what other Men can do ; but I have tried my self , and can form no Notion of an Unity in Trinity , but what either necessarily includes , or ultimately resolves it self into One Natural Essential Consciousness in Three . The Divine Nature is indivisibly and inseparably One in Three ; but we must not understand this Inseparability after the manner of Bodies , whose Parts may be divided and separated from each other ; God is not Body , and has no Parts ; but in the Unity of the Godhead there is Eternal Original Mind , an Eternal Word , and Eternal Spirit , which are inseparable from each other , that is , can never be parted : What then can parting and separating signify in a Mind , which has no Parts to be torn and divided from each other ? I can understand nothing by it , but that the Mind does no longer see , and know , and feel its Word in it self , nor the Word the Mind ; for this would make a perfect Separation between the Mind and its Word ; that Mind has no Word which does not see and feel it in it self ; and were it possible that a living subsisting Word should lose all Conscious Sensation of the Mind , whose Word it is , it would cease to be a Word , and commence a perfect separate Mind it self : So that as far as we can conceive it , the Inseparable Union between Father and Son , between Original Infinite Mind , and its Eternal Word , is an inseparable Conscious Life and Sensation , which is such a Natural Demonstration of their Inseparable Union , as no other Notion can give us ; for all Men feel that a Mind and its Word can never be parted ; a Mind can never be without its Word , nor the Word subsist but in the Mind . Thus what other possible Notion can we form of the Perichoresis , or Mutual In-being of Father and Son , as our Saviour tells us , I am in the Father , and the Father in me , which is their Natural and Essential Unity , I and my Father are one ? We all feel how the Word is in the Mind , and the Mind in the Word ; the Mind knows , and feels , and comprehends its own Word ; and a perfect , living , subsisting Word knows and feels that whole Mind , whose Word it is , in it self ; for the Word is nothing else but the whole Mind , living and subsisting in the Word , which is another Hypostasis , but perfectly One and the same Nature ; and therefore as they know themselves , so they know and feel each other in themselves . As the Father knoweth me , saith Christ , so know I the Father , 10 John 15. And thus to see and know God by an Internal Sensation , and to be in him , are ●quivalent Expressions in Scripture , 1 John 18. No man hath seen G●d at any time ; the only begotten Son , which is in the bosom of the Father , he hath declared him : Where to see God , and to be in the Bosom of the Father , must signify the same thing ; for to be in the Bosom of the Father , is put in the place of seeing God , that is , to see him within , to see him in his Bosom , as the Word sees the Mind , and this is to be in his Bosom , and thus the Son is in the Father . The same Account we have of the Holy Spirits being in God , 1 Cor. 2.11 . For what man knoweth the things of a man , but the spirit of man , which is in him ? even so the things of G●d knoweth no man , but the Spirit of God ; that is , the Spirit of God is in God , as the Spirit of a Man is in Man , and therefore by this In-being , the Spirit of God knows all the Things of God by such an Internal Conscious Sensation , as the Spirit of Man knows what is in Man. Thus what is the Unity of Energy and Operation , but the same Conscious Will and Power acting distinctly , but inseparably in Three ? for without this Internal Consciousn●ss , they must be Three separate Wills and separate Powers , and produce distinct and separate Effects ; but when God , his Word and Spirit are in each other , and see , and know , and feel each other in themselves , as a Man's Mind , his Word , and Spirit , do , though in a more perfect and excellent manner , there can be but One undivided Motion of the Divine Will , as there is but One Conscious Life in Three ; the Son lives , subsists , wills , understands , and acts , in and with the Father , and therefore is but One Eternal Life , One Almighty Will and Power . Now as Novel as some Men think this Notion of the Vnity of Mutual Consciousness to be , we meet with it more than once in express words in S● . Hilary , whose Authority I hope is sufficient to vindicate it from the charge of Novelty . Thus with reference to what our Saviour says , No man knoweth the Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son , and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him , 11. Matth. 27. St. Hilary observes , ( Hilar. de Trin. c. 2 ) Illis scientia mutua est , illis vicissim c●gnitio perfecta ; That Father and Son have a mutual perfect Knowledge of each other . And this he asserts to be a Conscious Knowledge , connate with him , a Conscious Sensation of his Father's Nature in himself , which our S●viour himself signifies by his Unity of Nature and Operation with the Father ; as the Reader may see in the Margin . Thus Tertullian long before describ'd this mutual Consciousness between God and his Eternal Word and Wisdom by what we feel in our selves when we silently muse alone , our Word does as it were talk with us , and return our Thoughts to us , is present with us in every Turn , and Motion , and Pulse of Thought , and internal Sensation , as conscious to all within us . Thus he tells us , That the Son alone knows the Father , and does not his own , but his Father's Will , which he knows , de proximo , imo de initio ; that is , by an immediate Intuitive Knowledge , not by External Communication , but by Internal Sensation . Thus the Son does nothing of himself , but what he sees the Father do ; in sensu scilicet facientem , in his own Mind and Will ; Pater enim sensu agit , the Father does all things by disposing and ordering all things in his own Mind and Will ; Filius vero , qui in sensu Patris est , videns perficit : The Son , who is in the Mind , and Sense , and Will of the Father , sees the Father's Will , and does it : Now let any Man tell me what else can be meant by the Sons being in sensu Patris , & videns in sensu Patris , but this Internal Conscious Sensation . St. Cyril of Alexandria calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that the Son Wills together with the Father , and with the same Will. Dionysius the Areopagite , says , This Union does not only exceed all bodily Unions , but the Unions also of Souls and Minds , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And Fulgentius tells us , The Word was with God , sicut in mente verbum , sicut in c●rde consilium , as the Word is in the Mind , and Counsel in the Heart . Marius Victorinus Afer tells us to the same purpose , That the Son being in the Bosom of the Father , signifies , that he is God ; that he is in the Bosom and Womb of his Substance , and therefore they are Consubstantial , each of them being in each other , and knowing each other . But not to multiply Quotations ; all those Catholick Fathers and Doctors , who placed the Unity of the Godhead in Consent , ( and none of them rejected this in a Catholick Sense ) could understand nothing less by it than this mutual natural Consciousness , for any other Consent was down right Arianism , as St. Hilary witnesses ; and y●t thus the famous Lucian , whom the Arians would have challenged as theirs , but whom the Catholick Church always owned , expresses it in his Creed ; and thus per substantiam tria , per consonantiam verò unum : Three in Substance , but in Consent and Agreement One , is justified by St. Hilary , ( Hilar. de Synod . ) as very Catholick ; but then he refers this to the Holy Spirit , who is the substantial Bond and Cement of this Union and Consent . But Gregory Nyssen , who allows of this Unity of Consent , more intelligibly represents it by the Consent and Uniformity of all the Motions between the Prototype and its Image , or a Man's Face in a Glass , which moves and acts with it . Thus Christ is the Image of the Invisible God ▪ and is immediately and instantly affected together with his Father . Does the Father Will any thing ? The Son also , who is in the Father , knows the Fathers Will , or rather is the Father 's Will. But this I think is sufficient to be said about mutual Consciousness , which is so manifestly the Doctrine of the Fathers , of some in express Terms , and of all according to the true Interpretation of what they taught , that I cannot imagine the meaning of this furious Zeal against it , but a Sabellian Zeal against Three Conscious Persons , for one single Self-conscious Nature : As St. Hilary observes in the Dispute between the Sabellians and Arians . The Arians allowed Father and Son to be Two Distinct Persons , but denied their Consubstantiality , or Unity and Sameness of Nature : The Sabellians , who denied the distinction of Persons , but asserted the Sameness , Unity and Singularity of Nature , which they thought sufficiently proved One Person , as well as One Nature ( as no doubt but it does ) confuted the Arian Dissimilitude of Nature by what our Saviour says , I and my Father are one ; which they said could be the Language of none , but of a Nature conscious to it self of its own Identity , and Sameness , which he allows to be a good Argument against the Arians , ( which he could not have done , had he not allowed this Consciousness in the Trinity ) but then observes , That the Arians did as eff●ctually consute them , as to the distinction of Persons ; and thus between them both the Catholick Faith , of a real distinction of Persons , in the Sameness and Conscious Unity of Nature , was vindicated . In short , If the whole Divine Nature is conscious to it self , as every Created Mind is conscious to all that is in it self ; and the Three Divine Persons subsist in the Individual Unity of the same Nature , then these Divine Persons must be intimately and mutually conscious to each other , as a Mind , its Word , and Spirit , are ; and however Men please to philosophize about this , as to the prius & posterius , whether they will make the Unity of Nature the cause of this mutual Consciousness , and therefore in order of Nature prior to it ; or make mutual Consciousness not the cause of this Unity , but the Essential Union of Three Distinct Subsisting Persons in the Unity of the same Individual Nature ; I will not contend with any Man which of these speak most properly . Consciousness is the Unity of an Intelligent Nature , and the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature , and the Conscious Unity of Nature in Three Distinct Persons is the same thing . We cannot conceive the Unity of a Mind without Consciousness , nor any other kind of Unity of a Mind , but a Conscious Unity ; nor can we conceive an Internal Essential Consciousness without an Essential Unity ; and if the mutual Consciousness of Persons in the same Nature , is the Consciousness of Nature , I cannot see why we may not say , That it is at least One Notion of the Unity of Nature too . But to return where I left off , ( if this may be called a a Digression ) what I have now said , is sufficient to shew , how necessary this Doctrine of Relations is to give us a sensible notion of a Trinity in Unity . To assert a Real Trinity , we must assert Three Real , Distinct , Subsisting , Substantial , Intelligent Persons , neither of which is each other , and each of which is by himself , in his own proper Person , True and Perfect God : But this , say Sabellians , Arians , and Socinians , is to assert Three Gods ; which the Catholick Church always abhorred the thoughts of . Now how the Fathers answered this Charge , and vindicated the Divine Unity in a Trinity of Real Subsisting Persons , I have already particularly shown , as by the Consubstantiality , the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature , whole of whole , their Inseparability , and Unity of Operation ; but we can form no distinct Idea of all this , but only among Personal Subsisting Relatives of the same Individual Nature . Whatever is not this , is a meer Specifick Consubstantiality and Identity of Nature , and an External Union , how inseparable soever it be , which must make a number of Individuals in the Divine , as well as Human Nature : but now it is plain to a Demonstration , That if God hath an Eternal Subsisting Word , and an Eternal Subsisting Spirit , they can be but One Individual Essence , as a Man's Mind , and Word , and Spirit , are One ; and therefore all Three but One God , as a Man , with his Mind , and Word , and Spirit , i● but One Man ; which is an Intelligible Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Individual Essence and Godhead : For though the Word of God be a Person , which a M●n's Word is not , yet if his true Nature and Character is the Word , he is the same to the Eternal Mind , which a Man's Word is to his Created Mind , and therefore God , and his Living , Subsisting Word , must be One Individual Essence , as a Man's Mind and his Word are One ; a Word must be conceived and begotten of the Mind , and can have no other Substance , if it be a Living , Substantial Word , but that of the Mind ; and if it be a perfect Word , the perfect Image of the Mind , it must be whole of whole , all that the Mind is ; for the whole Mind is in its perfect Word and Image , and lives and subsists in it , and the whole Word in the Mind . So that the C●eternity , the Coequality , the Consubstantiality , the Identity , the Inseparability , the Unity of Operation between God and his Word , is so far from being Jargon , Contradiction , Unintelligible Nonsense , that i● God have an Eternal Word , it is self-evident that thus it must be : When we contemplate the Consubstantiality of Father and Son , under the notion of Substance , we can form no Idea of a whole , which is of a whole , that the Father should communicate his whole Essence , and Substance , to the Son , and be the whole himself ; and this is no great wonder , since we can form no Idea at all of the Divine Substance ; but we can very well understand , That the Whole Mind must be in its Word , that the Eternal Mind and its Word must be Consubstantial , Coeternal , Coequal , Two , but perfectly the same , inseparably in each other ; for all this is included in the very Relation and Notion of a Mind , and its Word . I 'm sure , a Living , Subsisting Word , which is not Consubstantial , Coeternal , Coequal , with that Eternal Mind , whose Word it is ; that a Mind should be without its Word ; that an Infinite , Eternal Mind , which is perfect Life and Being , should have a vanishing , perishing Word , as Man has ; not a living , subsisting Word ; that a Mind and its Word should ever be parted ; that the Word should not be and subsist in the Mind , and the Mind in the Word ; I say , all this contradicts all the Notions we have of a Mind and its Word : We cannot immediately and directly contemplate the Divine Nature and Essence , which is so infinitely above us , and therefore we must contemplate it in such Ideas and Representations , as God himself makes of it ; and if they are such , as we can form an intelligible notion of , we have no reason to complain of unintelligible Mysteries and Contradictions , though when we reduce it into Terms of Art , we find our Minds confounded and perplext , and unable to form any distinct and easy Ideas . The Arians , to avoid the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father , would not allow the Term Substance to be used of God ; the Catholick Fathers proved , that Substance is in Scripture used concerning God , and that the Arians could not reasonably reject it , because they used it themselves ; for though they would not own the Son to be of the same Substance with the Father ; they taught , that he was of another Substance , which still is to own Substance in God. But though God be in the most true and absolute sense , perfect Essence and Being , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or according to St. Ambrose his derivation of the Word ( which shews what he meant by it , whether it shews his skill in Greek or not ) that Essence and Substance is that which always is , and that which always is , is God , and therefore God is Essence and Substance , and a Consubstantial Son is a true and real Son ; for which reason , as he observes , the Arians would not allow the Son to be Consubstantial , because they would not allow him to be a true genuine Son ; and for this very reason the Nicene Fathers inserted the Homoousion in their Creed : But yet if we would rightly conceive of God , of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , of the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity , we must not form our Notions by the Ideas of Substance and Consubstantiality , which we have no distinct conceptions of ; but we must learn their Unity , Distinction , and Consubstantiality from those Characters the Scripture gives of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost . This Rule St. Ambrose expressly gives us with reference to the Son , and the Reason is the same , as to the other Divine Persons . If we would avoid Error , says that Father , let us attend to those Characters the Scripture gives us , to help us to understand what , and who the Son is : He is called the Word , the Son , the Power of God , the Wisdom of God ; all this we can understand ; and not only St. Ambrose , but all the other Catholick Fathers , as I have already shewn , prove the Consubstantiality , Coeternity , Coequality , Unity and Distinction of Father and Son , from these Names and Characters , which they understood in a true and proper sense , for a Living , Subsisting Son , and Word , and Power , and Wisdom ; and there is no difficulty in conceiving all this , if we contemplate it in these Characters ; nay it is impossible to conceive otherwise of it . As impossible as it is to form any notion at all of those Philosophical Terms , whereby this Mystery is commonly represented , when we abstract them from those sensible Characters and Ideas which the Scripture has given us , and begin our Inquiries with them . It will be of great use to represent this matter plainly , that every man may see what it is that obscures and perplexes the Doctrine of the Trinity , and confounds mens notions about it , to the great scandal of the Christian Religion , and the disturbance of the Christian Church . The great difficulty concerns the Unity and Distinction of the Ever Blessed Trinity , that they are really and distinctly Three , and essentially One : And this is represented by One Nature , Essence , and Substance , and Three Hypostases ; and yet Hypostasis signifies Substance , and every Divine Hypostasis is the whole Divine Essence and Substance . Now if we immediately contemplate this Mystery under the notion of Substance , it is impossible for us to conceive One Substance and Three Hypostases , that is , in some sense Three Substances , or which is all One as to the difficulty of conceiving it , though the form of Expression is more Catholick ; Three , each of which is the whole Essence and Substance , and neither of them is each other ; we may turn over our Minds as long as we please , and change Words and Phrases , but we can find no Idea to answer these , or any other words of this nature . But now if instead of Essence and Hypostasis , we put Mind and its Word , we can form a very intelligible notion of this Unity and Distinction , and prove that Unity of Substance , and Distinction of Hypostases , which we cannot immediately and directly form any notion of . For Eternal Original Mind , and its Living Subsisting Word , are certainly Two , and neither are , nor can be each other ; the Mind cannot be its own Living Word , nor the Word the Mind , whose Word it is ; and yet we must all grant , that Eternal Mind is the most Real Being , Essence , Substance , and that a Living Subsisting Word is Life , Being , Substance , and the very same Life and Substance that the Mind is , and all that the Mind is ; for a perfect Living Word can have no other Life and Substance but that of the Mind , and must be all the same that the Mind is . The Eternal Generation of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the Substance of the Father , Life of Life , Substance of Substance , Whole of Whole , is impossible to be conceived , as immediately applied to the notion of Substance ; but the Generation of the Word , Whole of Whole , is very conceivable , for the Mind must beget its own Word , as we feel in our selves ; and a Mind which is perfect Life and Substance , if it begets its Word , must beget a Living , Subsisting , Substantial Word , the perfect Image of its own Life and Substance . And as impossible as it is to conceive , much more to express in words , this Mystery of the Eternal Generation , yet the necessary relation between a Mind , and its Word , proves that thus it is ; we feel it in our selves , though we are as perfectly ignorant , how our Mind begets its dying vanishing Word , as how the Eternal Mind begets an Eternal , Living , Subsisting Word : And the Generation of the Word includes in it all the Properties of the Divine Generation ; that it is Eternal ; for an Eternal Mind can never be without its Word ; that it is without any Corporeal Passions , or Esslux , or Division , begotten in the Mind , and inseparable from it . Now if we conceive after the same manner of the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit , can any man deny this to be an Intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Unity , though we can form no distinct Idea of One Essence and Substance , and Three Hypostases ? For if we can conceive Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; Eternal Original Mind , its Eternal Word , and Eternal Spirit , to be Essentially One and Three , the Catholick Faith is secured , though we do not so well understand the distinction between those Abstract Metaphysical Terms of Nature , Essence , Substance , Hypostasis , especially when applied to the Unity and Distinction of the Eternal Godhead , which is above all Terms of Art. The Catholick Faith is , That the Father is God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God ; but yet there are not Three Gods , but One God ; and this the Doctrine of the Divine Relations gives us a very intelligible notion of ; for we cannot conceive otherwise of the Eternal Mind , its Eternal Word , and Eternal Spirit , but that each of them are True and Perfect God , and yet a Mind , its Word , and Spirit , can be but One , and therefore but One God. But One Substance , and Three Hypostases , is but a secondary notion of a Trinity in Unity , to secure the Catholick Faith against the Sabellian and Arian Heresies : Against the Sabellians the Catholick Fathers asserted Three Hypostases , against the Arians One Substance ; and the Essential Relations of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , necessarily prove both the One Substance , and Three Hypostases ; but though One Substance and Three Hypostases be the Catholick Language , yet those Men begin at the wrong end , who think to form an intelligible notion of a Trinity in Unity from these abstract Metaphysical Terms . This is not the Language of the Scripture , nor have we any Idea to answer these Terms , of One Substance in Three distinct Hypostases , when we consider them by themselves , without relation to the Divine Nature , to which alone these Terms can belong , for there is no such thing in created Nature , and therefore we can have no Idea of it . It is abundantly sufficient in this Case , that we have a clear and distinct Notion of One Substance , and Three Hypostases in the Essential Unity and Distinction of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three subsisting Relations in One Individual Essence and Substance , though when we abstractedly consider these Terms of One Substance and Three Hypostases , we can form no consistent Notion or Idea of it . And now let our Socinian Adversaries , who talk so loud of Absurdities , Contradictions , Nonsense , false Counting and Tritheism , try their skill to make good these Charges against the Divine subsisting Relations in the Unity of the same Individual Essence . SECT . IX . A more particular Inquiry into the Difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Nature and Person , with an Account of some Catholick Forms of Speech , relating to the ever Blessed Trinity . BUT since one Nature and Essence , and Three Hypostases or Persons , is the Catholick Language , and necessary to guard the Faith from those Two Extremes of Sabellianism and Arianism , it will be necessary to consider how to apply these Ecclesiastical Terms to the Three and One in the ever Blessed Trinity . And here , were I so disposed , I might enter into a very large and perplext Dispute ; but my design , as far as possibly I can attain it , is only to explain what the Catholick Fathers meant by these Terms , and to give a plain and sensible Notion of them : And after what I have already so largely discoursed concerning Nature and Hypostasis , I have little more to do , than to compare them together , and to shew in what the Catholick Fathers placed this Distinction . And as nothing is of greater consequence , than rightly to understand this matter , so nothing requires greater Caution , nor greater Application of Mind . Whosoever is conversant in the Writings of the Ancient Fathers , must acknowledge it not only reasonable but necessary , to distinguish between their Faith , and their Philosophy . Their Faith , which they received srom the Scriptures , and the Universal Tradition of the Catholick Church , is plain and simple , and the same in all . That there is but One God , who has an Eternal Son , and an Eternal Spirit ; that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are each of them by himself , True and Perfect God , and all but One God , which is a Trinity in Unity , and Unity in Trinity ; that they are in a true and proper Sense , Three and One. This is the Catholick Faith , wherein they all agree ; but then those Philosophical Terms , which the importunities of Hereticks , who corrupted either the Faith of the Unity or Trinity , forced them to use in the Explication of this Mystery , are of a different Consideration : These have not always been the same , nor have all agreed in them ; and the wisest Men have owned great Improprieties in them all , when applied to this Sacred Mystery ; and indeed it is impossible to be otherwise ; for that infinite Difference and Diversity there is between the Divine and Humane Nature , nay all created Nature , can never admit of any Common Terms proper to express both . The most perfect Creatures bear only some imperfect Analogy and Resemblance to what we conceive of God ; and therefore when we apply such Words and Terms to the Divine Natur● , as are borrowed from Creatures , ( and we have no other ) we must understand them only by way of Analogy and Accommodation ; and when we expound such Terms as are used by the Catholick Fathers in such an accommodated Sense , we must apply them no further , than that particular Matter they intended to represent by them . I have already sh●wn this in several particular Passages relating to the Homoousion , but now I am more particularly to consider the difference between Essence and Hypostasis ; and I shall only shew how the matter of fact stands , what has occasioned this difficulty , what the true state of the Controversy is , and how we may form some sensible notion of this Distinction ; and if I should mistake in so nice a Point as this , I hope it will be a pardonable Mistake , while I make no change in the Catholick Faith , and intend it only as an Essay , if it be possible to silence or qualify the Dispute about words . The Greek Fathers attribute all the Heresies relating to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation , to this one Mistake , that Essence and Hypostasis are the same ; for then if there be but One Essence in the Blessed Trinity , there must consequently be but One Hypostasis , which is Sabellianism ; or if there be Three Hypostases , there must be Three Natures and Essences , either in the Arian or Tritheistick Notion : Thus with reference to the Incarnation , two Natures must be two Persons , or Hypostases , as Nestorius taught , or One Person must be but One mixt and compounded Nature too , which was the Heresy of Eutyches . This some Fathers thought a fundamental Error in Philosophy , introduced by Aristotle , who makes the first Substance , which is the only true and proper Substance , to be that which is predicated of no Subject , nor is in any Subject , that is , what we call , a Subsisting Individual , as this Man , or this Horse . And therefore Theorianus observes , That the Catholick Fathers understood Essence and Hypostasis in a very different sense from the Greek Philosophers ; that is , by Essence , and Substance , they did not mean one singular Individuum , or singular Nature and Substance , as Aristotle did ; but a common Nature , not a common Notion , as Genus or Species , which are Aristotle's second Substances , but a common Subsisting Nature , which is one and the same , whole and perfect in every Individual of the same kind . And what Aristotle call'd his first Substance , a singular Subsisting Nature , that they called Hypostasis , a common Subsisting Nature , with its individuating Characters and Properties . It is evident some Ages past , before these words Essence and Hypostasis were thus nicely distinguished , or at least before this Distinction was so unanimously received ; for as I have already observed , these Words were used very promiscuously , which occasioned the Alexandrian Schism ; and it does not appear to me , that this Distinction was setled by Athanasius , and the Bishops with him , in that Synod , as some seem to think ; though soon after it generally prevailed , as we may learn from St. Basil , Gregory Nyssen , St. Cyril of Alexandria , Damascen , Leontius , Theorianus , Theodorus Abucara , Ignatius Sinaita , and generally all the Catholick Writers of the Eutychian and Severian Age , who universally agree in this , That Essence and Hypostasis differ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as that which is Universal , differs from what is Proper and Singular . Now so far these Fathers were certainly in the right , That if they must apply Philosophical Terms to Divine Mysteries ( which the Cavilling Objections of Hereticks made necessary ) there was an absolute necessity for them to change their signification ; for as there is nothing common to God and Creatures , so there can be no words in the same sense common to them ; but then this only requires an accommodation of words to Divine Mysteries by way of analogy and resemblance , but not to change the Language and Philosophy of Created Nature , which after all our Attempts , and all our Art of Expression , will fall infinitely short of the Divine Nature , and give us but a very imperfect Image of it . And if by such Attempts we confound our Notions and Ideas of Nature too , we shall so much the more confound and perplex our Ideas of God. It may help to ease mens Minds of some Notions which lie cross and uneven : Briefly to state this matter . I confess , I am not satisfied of that absolute necessity , which some pretend , of stating nicely and Philosophically this distinction between Nature and Person , in order to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity . This was the Catholick Faith long before this Distinction was universally received ; and Men who understand little of this Distinction , may believe very orthodoxly in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , without it : Nay the best , the safest , and easiest way , to understand these and all other Philosophical Terms applied to the Explication of this Faith , is to fit them to those Scripture Ideas we have of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , each of them True and Perfect God , and all Three but One God , as I have shewn at large in the First Chapter . But since there is a very warm Dispute about Nature and ●erson , and has been for many Ages , and this Distinction is become necessary to secure the Catholick Faith against the Attempts of Hereticks on both sides , as the Church has found by long Experience ; it will be necessary to set this matter in as clear a light as possible we can . And the best way I can think of to do this , is 1. To consider this distinction of Nature and Person in Creatures : As for instance , in a Man ; What the distinction between Nature and Person is in Man ; and to shew , which way soever we state this matter , how improper all these Notions are to represent this distinction between Nature and Person in the Blessed Trinity . And 2. To shew how the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the Explication of this Mystery , and what Unity , and what Distinction they intended to represent by them . 1. As for the first , If the Infinite distance between God and Creatures will allow us to Philosophize freely about Created Nature , without incurring the Suspicion of Heresy ; I must confess , I never could form a distinct notion of the difference between a subsisting Nature and Hypostasis , or Person in Man ; but do what I can , I can conceive no otherwise of an Individual Subsisting Human Nature , but as of an Individual Subsisting Human Hypostasis , or Person ; nor of an Individual Human Person , than as of an Individual Subsisting Human Nature . And I have some reason to think , that this is not peculiarly my Case ; for besides that I find other thinking Men blundered in this matter , and could never yet meet with a clear and sensible Explication of it ; I observe , that there is no word , which in its original institution signifies this difference ; and it is reasonable to think , as to Created Nature , that Mankind have no notion of that , which they have no word for . It is sufficiently known , that Hypostasis originally signifies Essence and Substance , not Person as distinguisht from Nature , which is a later , and a mere Ecclesiastical use of it ; and it is confessed , that Persona and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken from the Stage , and when they were applied to signify a true and real Man , they signified only the Man himself , not the Personality of a Man , as distinguished from an Individual Subsisting Nature : And , which is much more considerable , some of the Fathers , as I observed before , confess , that Aristotle knew no such distinction ; but in his Philosophy , Essence and Hypostasis signified the same thing ; for Nature and Essence , which is his first Substance , is an Individuum , which subsists not as part of another , but as whole and compleat , which the Fathers call Hypostasis ; and therefore Aristotle's first Substance , and what these Fathers call Hypostasis , is in Creatures one and the same thing ; and yet all confess , That no man ever more nicely distinguisht all the distinguishable Notions in Nature , than Aristotle did , that what escaped his observation , must be very nice indeed . And though St. Basil , and St. Gregory Nyssen , and the other Catholick Writers of that Age , do distinguish between Essence and Hypostasis , that they differ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , what is common to all the Individuals of the same kind , which is a common Nature , and what is proper and peculiar to each Individual , and distinguishes one man from another ; yet I do not remember , that they quarrelled with the Greek Philosophers , or apprehended that they themselves taught any new Philosophy in this Point , as afterwards Theorianus , and others did ; nor can I see any other difference there is between them , if candidly interpreted , but only in words . The short account of the matter is this . Aristotle's first Substance , which subsists by it self , these Fathers , as they themselves own , call Hypostasis , not Nature , Essence , and Substance ; that is , every subsisting Individuum is Aristotle's Nature , Essence , and Substance , the Fathers Hypostasis ; now when they mean the same thing , and own that they do so , so far they are agreed in the thing , and differ only in words . But then these Fathers in every Hypostasis distinguished between the common Nature , and such Personal Properties , which distinguished common Nature into Individuals , or were Characteristical Marks , whereby to know one Person from another . Now Aristotle indeed never made such a distinction as this ; but yet all that is material in it , is included in his Notion and Definition of Substance . For when these Fathers distinguish in every Hypostasis , what is common to the whole Kind , and what is proper and peculiar to each Individuum , they mean no more by it , but that Peter , for instance , considered as a Man , is perfectly the same that Iames and Iohn are , considered also as Men , though there is something so peculiar to Peter , as to make him a particular Human Person , and to distinguish him from Iames and Iohn , and all other Men in the World. Now it is certain , neither Aristotle , nor any Man of sense , would ever have denied any thing of all this ; for it is evident , that there is something wherein all Men agree , and something proper to every particular Man. That which is the same in all Men , the Fathers call a common Nature , and so does Aristotle , a common Specifick Nature ; but here is some appearance of difference between them , which I think , if rightly stated , is none at all . Aristotle makes Nature as actually subsisting by it self ; as suppose Human Nature in Peter or Iames , to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Individuum , a particular , Singular Nature , and that it is common only in Notion , as every particular Man has a Nature of the same kind , or a true Human Nature . These Fathers on the contrary affirm , That Human Nature , as considered in Peter , or any other particular Man , is a common Nature , distinguished into Hypostases , by something proper , peculiar , and particular to each . That all Nature is common to all the Hypostases of the same kind , and that it is impossible to find a particular and appropriated Nature . Now as great an appearance as here is of a direct Contradiction , a little consideration , I believe , will satisfy all thinking Men , that Aristotle would have owned all that these Fathers say , and then the only Dispute will be , which of them speak most properly , which is of no great moment in this Cause . For what do these Fathers mean by a common Nature ? Do they mean , that there is but one Numerical Subsisting Nature common to all the Individuals ? but one Universal Human Nature in all the particular men in the World ? By no means . Damascen expresly teaches , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the common Nature in Creatures , is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be known by Reason ; but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the distinction of Hypostases , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is seeen in the things themselves , in their separate Existence . But what is this common Nature , which is seen by Reason ? why , every particular Man is a reasonable Mortal Creature ; each of them is Flesh animated by a reasonable Soul and Mind , and this is the common Nature which is seen by Reason ; common , because it is perfectly and invariably the same in all , though each of these Hypostases , in which this common Nature is , subsist distincty and separately by themselves , and therefore the common Nature too subsists distinctly and separately in these separate Hypostases . Now would Aristotle , or any one for him , deny that his first Substance , though it be an Individuum , which subsists compleatly and separately by it self , is in this sense a common Nature , as being perfectly the same in all the Individuals ; or in the Language of the Fathers , in all the Hypostases of the same Nature ? There can be no such thing , as what Aristotle calls a Species , if every Individual have not the common Nature ; for Nature subsists only in Individuals ; and if that be not a common Nature , it cannot have a common Name and Definition ; if Human Nature be not perfectly the same in Peter , Iames , and Iohn , the Name and Definition of a Man cannot equally and universally belong to them all . And therefore Damascen was certainly in the right , who from an Universal Predication infers , that common Nature is the Species ; and that for this reason , Nature is predicated of its Hypostases , or Individuals , because in every Hypostasis of the same kind , there is the same perfect Nature . Every Man has the perfect Nature of a Man ; and for that reason , and no other , the Name and Definition of a Man belongs to every Man. Upon this account it is , that they reject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a particular , singular Nature ; because then the same Hypostases must have both the same , and a diverse Nature , even the Persons of the Holy Trinity . If Nature be perfectly the same in all the Hypostases , it is a common Nature ; but if Human Nature in Peter have any thing peculiar and different from Human Nature in Paul , it is then a particular Humanity , and Peter and Paul are not perfectly of the same kind , which is one Notion , wherein they rejected a particular Nature ; which added to what I discoursed above , that by a particular Nature , they meant a whole , absolute Individual Nature , it includes , I think , all that they meant , when they rejected as Heresy , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Three Individual Natures in the Trinity : By Three particular Natures , they always understood Three Absolute , Whole , Individual Natures , and this alone is Trith●ism , for Three such Absolute Divinities must be Three Gods ; but besides this , they thought there could not be Three Individual Natures , without some essential difference to distinguish and number Natures , and this added a mixture of Arianism to Tritheism , and made , at least in part , Three different Divinities , that they were partly of the same , and partly of a different Nature . For , as far as I can understand this matter , the reason why they rejected Singular and Individual Natures , was not , that Human Nature , for instance , does not subsist singly and individually , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as Damascen speaks , in Peter and Paul , and every individual Man in the World ; but because what is common to all without the least Alterity or Diversity , can be but one in all , for Alterity and Diversity is necessary ●o make a Number ; and therefore Nature , which is perfectly the same in all , though it subsists singly in Individuals , is not an Individual it self , as having no principle of Individuation in it self , that is , no Diversity : For which reason it may be numbred with the Hypostases , with the numbring Number ; but the res numerata , that Nature which is numbred with the Hypostases , is but one in all , as I have shewn above . In this sense also these Fathers rejected an Individual Nature , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in their Disputes with the Severians , concerning the Personality of Christ's Human Nature : These Hereticks taught , That every Nature is an Individuum , Hypostasis , or Person , and therefore the Human Nature of Christ , if it were true Human Nature , must be a Human Hypostasis or Person too : In answer to which , these Fathers absolutely denied that there is any such thing as an Individual Nature ; that pure Nature is no Hypostasis , not that it can't subsist , for the Human Nature of Christ does actually subsist ; but that meer Nature has no individuating Principle in it self to distinguish it into different Hypostases , but is distinguished not by any Essential Diversity , but by Personal Properties ; that Nature with Personal Properties is a Person , and therefore if there be a Subsisting Nature , which has no Personal Properties , but is distinguished some other way from Human Nature in Human Persons , it is certain it is Human Nature , but no Human Person : And thus it is with the Human Nature of Christ , which is distinguished from Human Nature in all others by its Hypostatical Union to the Eternal Word , which is no Personal Property , and therefore does not make it a distinct Person , though it be a perfect Subsisting Nature . This is the best and easiest Account I can give of the Philosophy of these Fathers , concerning a Common and Individual Nature , which if it be thought a new way of speaking , yet it is what may be understood , and has a great deal of old Truth in it ; and will help us to understand the Fathers in these Disputes about the Trinity and Incarnation , a little better than I find many men do . Let us then in the next place , inquire what these Fathers mean by Hypostasis , and how they distinguish it from Nature in Created Beings . Now they themselves tell us , That by Hypostasis , they mean Aristotle's first Substance , or that which subsists by it self ; not as a Part in a Whole , nor as Accidents in a Subject , but is a perfect whole it self , and has a compleat Subsistence of its own . What is it then that subsists by it self ? For that is Aristotle's first Substance , and the Fathers Hypostasis : And that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Nature , Essence , and Substance : For nothing else can subsist by it self , as is evident in Aristotle's Definition of Essence and Substance ; and though the Fathers put something more into their Definition of Hypostasis , yet it comes all to one . For as Damascen tells us , Every Hypostasis is perfect Nature and Substance ; and therefore the Hypostases do not differ from each other in Nature , but only in such peculiar and Characteristical Accidents , as distinguish Hypostases . For the Definition of Hypostasis is Nature with its Accidents : That every Hypostasis has the common Nature with its peculiar distinguishing Accidents , subsisting by it self . So that an Hypostasis is nothing else but Nature with its Accidents and distinguishing Characters , subsisting by it self : Now we know Accidents do not subsist by themselves , but if they be Inherent Accidents , they subsist in Nature and Substance ; and therefore though they may distinguish Hypostases and Persons , do not constitute an Hypostasis , and therefore are owned to be only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the peculiar distinguishing Marks and Characters of Hypostases or Persons , whereby they are known from each other : But the Marks and Characters which distinguish Hypostases , are not the Hypostases themselves ; such as the Time when they were born , the Place where they lived , their Parentage , Name , Features of Body , Endowments of Mind , and a hundred other distingushing Marks , for these are very different in different Persons , and as changeable in the same Persons , as Time , Age , Place , Features of Body , Endowments of Mind , Trades , Offices , &c. and yet all these are Persons , and the same Persons under all these Changes . Now setting aside all these Characters and Accidents , which cannot make a Person , but only distinguish one Person from another , there is nothing left to be the Hypostasis or Person , but only the common Nature subsisting by it self : Common , as it is the same in every Individual , but an Hypostasis or Individuum by a separate Existence , or subsisting by it self . For an Individuum , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is one undivided Whole , subsisting by it self , and therefore a whole , perfect , undivided Human Nature , subsisting by it self , is an Hypostasis , or Person , one single , individual Man , though there were no other Mark and Character to distinguish him from other Men , but only this Separate Subsistence . The Humanity of our Saviour is a plain Demonstration of this , that it is only a Separate Existence , or subsisting by it self ( which in Created Beings is the same thing ) that makes Human Nature an Hypostasis , or Person . All Catholick Christians own , that Christ took Human Nature on him , but not a Human Hypostasis or Person , and therefore in him we may see the difference between Nature and Person . What then was Christ's Human Nature ? I know no more of it , but that he had a true Body of Flesh , animated by a Reasonable Soul , such a Body , and such a Soul , as other Men have , and this is Human Nature : But why is not this Human Body and Soul a Human Person too ? Did he want the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , some peculiar Marks and Characters to distinguish him from all other Human Persons ? By no means ! He had more of these Marks of Distinction , and more Authentick ones , than any other Man ever had . The Time and Place of his Birth , his Parentage , his Miracles , his Doctrine , the minute Circumstances of his Death , his Resurrection , &c. were foretold by Ancient Prophets , and he distinguished himself from all the rest of Mankind by those wonderful things he did , that if peculiar distinguishing Characters make a Person , he was more a Person than ever any Man was before or since . What then was wanting to make us Human Nature a Human Person ? Truly nothing , but only subsisting by it self , which it never did , but in union to the Eternal Word . This I think looks very like a Demonstration , that an Hypostasis is nothing but Nature subsisting by it self ; for all that the Humanity of Christ had , without being a Human Person , cannot make a Person , for then the Human Nature of Christ must have been a Human Person too ; and that which alone was wanting to make the Human Nature of Christ a Person , which was subsisting by it self , must be the only thing which makes Nature a Person . I have the rather chose this Instance , because the Humanity of Christ , which is no Person , is often alledged to prove , that there must be some peculiar mode of Subsistence , which must coalesce with common Nature to make a Person . This , I confess , is Language which I do not understand , if there be any thing more meant by i● , than that Nature subsisting by it self is a Person : For Nature which does not subsist , is nothing but in Idea , and Subsistence is a mere Notion without something that subsists ; now we may unite these two Notions of Nature and Subsistence , and form the Idea of a Subsisting Nature , which is all the coalescing I know of ; but actual Production makes a Subsisting Nature , which is not Nature and Subsistence , or a mode of Subsistence coalescing , but Nature in Act. In a Subsisting Created Nature , which does not necessarily exist , we may distinguish between the Notions of Nature and Subsistence , but a Subsisting Nature is nothing but Nature in being , Nature which is , that is , Nature it self ; for the meer Idea of Nature is not Nature . But Subsistence has a Mode , and there must be a peculiar manner of Subsistence to make a Person : Must every Person then have a peculiar manner of Subsistence ? Are there then as many peculiar Manners and Modes of Subsistence , as there are , or ever have been , or ever shall be , distinct Persons in the World ? This is beyond my Philosophy . I have heard of a Compleat and Incompleat Subsistence , to subsist by it self , or to subsist as a Part in the Whole , or an Accident in a Subject , &c. but I never could understand , that any other Subsistence strictly belongs to the Notion of an Hypostasis or Person , but to subsist by it self . The Human Nature of Christ did upon all other Accounts , as truly and properly subsist , as any other Man in the World , but was no Person , as not subsisting by it self , but in Union to the Eternal Word ; which made it the Human Nature of the Word , which was made Flesh , and dwelt amongst us . All this Talk about the different Modes and manner of Subsistence , seems to be a mistake of the Fathers Doctrine concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which these Men translate Modes of Subsistence , of which more anon ; but at present I only observe , That the Fathers do not place the Personality of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , in these Modes of Subsistence , but only distinguish and characterize their Persons by them , and from thence prove the real distinction of Persons in the Individual Unity of the Divine Essence : But then I do not remember , that they so much as distinguish all Created Persons by their peculiar Modes of Subsistence . I know very well , that both Damascen and others , give an Example of this in Adam , Eve , and Seth ; that Adam was immediately formed by God of the Dust of the Earth , Eve formed of one of Adam's Ribs , and Seth begotten of Adam and Eve , which they call their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which in this Example can signify nothing else but their different manner of Production , not different Modes of Subsistence ; but then they do not alledge this as the formal Reason of Personality , nay not as necessary to the distinction of Persons , ( though such Peculiarities , whenever they are , will always distinguish Persons ) but all they designed by it , was to prove , that such different ways of coming into being , made no change or alteration in Nature ; for Adam , Eve , and Seth , had all the same Human Nature , though formed after such a different manner ; in answer to the Arian Objection against the Homoousion , that an Unbegotten and Begotten Nature cannot be the same , and therefore Father and Son not Consubstantial . Indeed this would have been a very ill Example of the Distinction of Persons by these different Modes of Subsistence , because it could only distinguish Adam and Eve from all the rest of Mankind ; for all Mankind ever since , excepting our Saviour , have come into the World the same way that Seth did , and therefore are not distinguished by a peculiar manner of Subsistence , for they have all the same ; and consequently either are not distinct Persons , or else such peculiar Modes of Subsistence , coalescing with common Nature , do not constitute the Person . And yet I can meet with no other Account of any Modes of Subsistence necessary to the constitution of a Created Person ( excepting their Personal Properties and Characters , which do not make , but only distinguish Persons , which are not properly Modes of Subsistence , but Modes , Affections , and Properties of the Subsisting Nature ) ; but only a separate Subsistence , that every Created Hypostasis , or Person , subsists by it self , and separately from all others . And herein both Fathers and Philosophers , notwithstanding some difference in words , seem well enough agreed , and this is all that I need say concerning the Distinction between Nature and Person in Created Beings . But now every one who understands the True Catholick Faith of the Trinity , must needs be sensible , how improper all this is to explain that Venerable Mystery of One Nature , and Three Persons , in the Unity of the Godhead , if we apply these Terms strictly and properly . The Catholick Fathers would not allow Aristotle's Definition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Nature , Essence , and Substance , that it is that which subsists by it self ; because this leaves no possible distinction between Essence and Hypostasis , without which we can never defend the Faith of One Nature in Three Persons ; for what in his Sense thus subsists by it self , is an Individual and Singular Nature , which is the same with Hypostasis , and then it is impossible there should be Three Hypostases in One Singular Nature , which is but One Hypostasis . But after all , Do these Fathers deny , that the Divine Nature is One Individual Nature ? Do they not , as I have largely shewn , make this the Fundamental Reason of the Divine Unity , That there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypstases ; and that this One Divinity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Perfect Indivisible Vnit , and Monad ; and that in a very different Sense from what they own in Creatures ? So that in some Sense these Fathers own , That the Divine Nature is as True an Individuum , and infinitely a more Perfect Vnit and Monad , than Aristotle's First Substance , though his First Substance is , and can be but One Hypostasis , and the Divine Nature subsists perfectly in Three . And therefore to qualify this , they tell us , That Nature signifies the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that which is common to all the Hypostases of the same Nature ; but the Hypostasis is the common Nature with some peculiar and distinguishing Properties , subsisting separately by it self ; and this seems to give us a better image and resemblance of One Nature in Three Hypostases ; for here is one common Nature , not only in Three , but in all the distinct Hypostases of that Nature , that ever were , or ever shall be : But I 'm sure this needs greater qualification , when applied to the Mystery of the Trinity , than Aristotle's ●irst Substance , or it will unavoidably introduce , not merely Tritheism , but Polytheism without end ; for God can limit the Numbers of Created Hypostases , but the number of Hypostases in an Infinite necessary Nature can never be limited , if the Divine Nature be common to the Divine Hypostases , only as Humane Nature is common to Human Hypostases . They teach , as I have already observed , That Human Nature , for instance , is a common Nature , and that every Hypostasis , or every particular Man has this same common Nature ; but then it is a common Nature , not as it is numerically One in all , for it subsists separately in every Hypostasis , and therefore in this sense is not One common Numerical , Individual Nature ; but it is common only , as it is perfectly the same in all . Which they will not allow to be a meer common Notion , but a common Specifick Nature ; for the Nature is the Species , which is the foundation of the common Predication : For therefore all Men have the common Name and Definition of a Man , because they have the same common Human Nature . And thus , though every Hypostasis has not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a particular Nature , as that signifies a distinction in the Nature it self , yet it has the common Specifick Individual Nature ; that is , that Nature which makes the Species , and is common , as it is the same in all , but yet subsists individually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and separately in each Hypostasis . But now will any Catholick Christian say , that thus it is in the Ever Blessed Trinity ? That the One Common Divinity is One and Common , only as One Common Humanity is , that is , that it is perfectly the same in all ? not One Individual , but One Specifick Nature : Or will he say , That each Divine Person has one whole intire Specifick Divinity , as every Human Person has a whole Specifick Humanity ? As far as I can see , this would as unavoidably make Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three Gods , as Peter , Iames , and Iohn , are three Men ; and a common Nature , and personal Properties , and different Modes of Subsistence , would no more prevent a Trinity of Gods. than a Trinity of Men. This , I think , plainly shews , how vain an Attempt it is to find out any Notions of Unity and Distinction , of Nature and Person , or any words to express those Notions by , common to God and Creatures . These Creature-Ideas , and Creature Terms , can be applied to God only by way of Analogy and Accommodation , and that a very imperfect one too . 2. Let us then consider , how the Catholick Fathers accommodated these Names of Essence and Person to the explication of this Mystery , and what they intended to represent by them . I shall do this in as few words as possibly I can , that what I have to say may be the more easily understood . They tell us , That all Nature is common , that Human Nature is common to all Mankind , and the Divine Nature common to all the Three Divine Persons , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; not that they thought the Divinity or Godhead a common Nature , merely as Human Nature is common , but there is this Analogy between them ; that the Divine Nature is not singular , or does not subsist in Singularity , but in Three Hypostases , as Human Nature is common , because it is not confined to one , but is in all Human Hypostases ; and that the Divine Nature is perfectly and invariably the same in each Hypostasis , as the Human Nature is , which for this Reason is called a common , not a particular Nature ; which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Sameness , Identity , not Singularity , of Nature in the Blessed Trinity . Thus far the Analogy holds , ( which is a direct opposition both to Sabellianism and Arianism ) but it reaches no farther ; for the Divine Nature is not a common Specifick Nature , as all Created Nature is common , for the Godhead is no Species ; that is , there is , and can be but One God : Which I have already at large shewn to be the Sense of the Fathers . They expresly teach , That the Divine Nature is an Individual Nature , but not Singular ; it is common , as being whole and perfect in more Hypostases than One , which excludes Singularity , but it is one whole Entire , Individual Nature ; so one Individual , as Human Nature is one in one Man. For though Individual and Singular is the same in Creatures , it is not so in the Divine Nature ; nor can it be , if the Catholick Faith be One Nature , One Divinity in Three Perfect Hypostases : And if we can form any sensible Notion of this , it will silence all the pretences of Jargon , Nonsense , Contradiction , Tritheism , which are so constantly objected against this Venerable Mystery . And therefore I shall briefly inquire , 1. What that One Divinity is , which is common to Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and how it is common : 2. How this common Nature is in a strict and proper Sense , One Individual Nature . And I think this is easily accounted for from the Doctrine of the Fathers . 1. As for the first ; This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Divinity , is the Divinity of the Father , the Natura Patris , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Nature of the Father , and the Divinity of the Father , who is the Eternal Self-originated Mind , which has no Second , and therefore there can be no other , no Second , or Third Divinity . Now this One Divine Nature , One Divinity of the Father , is common to the Son , and to the Holy Spirit : Common , I say , not merely as Human Nature is common to all Men , because it is the same in all , perfectly the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , though it be not the same Individual Nature in all , which is singular and incommunicable in Creatures ; but it is common by a perfect communication , whole of whole ; that it is no New Divinity , but the Divinity of the Father , which is in the Son , who is therefore so often , as I observed above , called the Nature , and Divinity , and Mind of the Father , his Image and Character , and that which is signified by all this , his Eternal , Living , Omnipotent Word . I do not intend to prove all this over again , which I have abundantly proved already , but only to put every thing into its proper place , that we may view the Whole in a true light . This Divine Nature then of the Father which is but One , is that One Divinity , which is by an Eternal Ineffable Generation communicated whole and perfect to the Son , and by a like Eternal and Ineffable Procession to the Holy Spirit : But still the difficulty is , How this is One Nature , which is not Singular , nor subsists in Singularity , but in Three Proper , Distinct , Compleat Hypostases , or Persons . 2. And therefore rightly to apprehend this , we must inquire into the Notion of One Individual Nature . Now that which is most obvious , and which the Fathers perpetually alledge in justification of the Divine Unity , is , That an Individual is an undivided Nature , and therefore the One Divinity of the Father , though actually communicated to the Son , and Holy Spirit , is One Individual Divinity , because it is communicated whole and perfect , without Division or Separation ; and that which is undivided is One. But though to be undivided be essential to the Notion of an Individual Nature , yet there must be something else to compleat this Notion , or at least to give us a more distinct conception of it . Could Human Nature propagate it self whole and compleat to Two or Three , without any division or separation of Substance , this could not make it One Individual Nature , though they were undivided ; for One Individual Nature , is One whole Compleat Nature , without division ; which is all that is essential to such a Being , and is this all but once , and that without division . But how will this agree with the Notion of One Divinity , or One Individual Divine Nature ? For does not the One Divine Nature , which is the Divinity of the Father , subsist compleatly and distinctly , though without division and separation , in the Son and Holy Ghost ; and will you call this One Individual Nature , which is not singularly in One , but subsists distinctly in Three ? Yes , I will , because all these Three , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are essential to the Notion of One Divinity , and therefore are One Individual Divinity in Three ; for an Individual Nature is that , which without division has all that is essential to such a Nature . Well , But is not the Father then , in his own Person , True and Perfect God , and the Son True and Perfect God , and the Holy Ghost True and Perfect God ? that is , Have not each of these Divine Persons all the Divine Perfections included in the Notion and Idea of God ? And are they not Three who have all the Perfections of the Divine Nature ? and how then is this One Individual Nature ? I answer : When I say , That One Individual Nature is that which has all that is essential to such a Nature ; by Essential I mean , not only Essential Properties , Qualities , Powers , and Perfections , ( which are commonly called Nature , there being no other notion of Nature in Created Beings ) but Essential Productions too , which ( when there is any such thing ) are as essential to Nature , as any other Properties or Perfections . In the first Sense of Essential , the Divine Nature is not singular , but communicated by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son , and by Father and Son to the Eternal Spirit , and all Three are Infinite in Wisdom , Power , and Goodness , and all other Divine Perfections . This is but One Divinity , One Godhead ; for there is not a Second and Third Divinity in the Son , and in the Holy Spirit , but the One Divinity of the Father . But yet we must confess , that here is Number ; Father , Son , and Holy Ghost are Three , and how can that Divinity , which is perfectly and distinctly in Three , be One Individual Nature , One Numerically ; One as Human Nature in every particular Man is One ? Now this must be resolved into the second Notion of Essential , for Essential Productions ; for all Essential Productions in the Unity of Nature , though they may be distinguished and numbred among themselves , are but One Individual Nature . It will be in vain to seek for an Example of this in Created Nature , and I believe the reason of it will be evident without it . An Eternal Self-originated Mind is True and Perfect God , the First Supreme Cause of all things , and has all the Perfections of the Divinity wholly in it self , is the One and only True God : But if it be essential to an Eternal Mind to have an Eternal , Living , Subsisting Word and Spirit , by an Eternal Generation and Procession , then this Eternal Word and Spirit are essential to an Eternal Mind , not as Essential Perfections , or Essential Parts , but as Essential Productions or Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature . Thus the Scripture represents this Mystery , That there is One God , who has an Eternal Word , and an Eternal Spirit ; and the Catholick Fathers , as I have already observed , insist on this as a natural Demonstration of a Trinity , That the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit . Now if the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit are essential to the Eternal Mind , it is certain , that Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , the Eternal Mind , its Word , and Spirit , are but One Individual Divinity ; every thing that is essential , is included in the Notion of an Individual Nature ; for that is not a Compleat and Perfect Nature , nor an adequate notion of Nature , that wants any thing that is essential . Now though we may have a general Notion and Idea of a God , That he is an Absolutely Perfect Being , which Includes all the Divine Attributes and Perfections , without knowing any thing of the Son , or Holy Ghost ; yet if we consider this Absolutely Perfect Being as Eternal Self-originated Mind , with its Eternal Word and Spirit , as essential Productions or Processions , we can consider them no otherwise , but as One Individual Divinity ; this Eternal Word and Spirit being essential Processions of the Eternal Mind , which can never be separated from it : For such essential Processions are not only coeval and consubstantial with the Nature from whence they proceed ; as the Sun , its Light and Heat , ( by which Argument the Catholick Fathers proved the Coeternity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit with the Eternal Father ) but whatever distinction there is between them , they are One Individual Nature , if all that be One Individual Nature , which is essential to such a Being ; and such all essential Processions are , as well as essential Perfections . These are two very different Questions , and of a very different consideration , What God is ? and Who this God is ? In an answer to the first , we form the Idea and Notion of all Divine Perfections , or of an absolutely Perfect Being , which is the true notion of the Divinity , and whoever has all these Divine Perfections , is True and Perfect God ; and this is our natural notion of God , as that signifies the Divinity , which gives no notice of any distinction in the Divinity ; for there can be no diversity in Absolute Perfections and therefore no distinction or number , according to the Philosophy of the Fathers . But when we consider who God is , or what is the Subject of all these Divine Perfections , we can form no other Idea of it , but an Eternal , Infinite , Self originated Mind ; this the Wisest Philosophers , as well as Christians , are agreed in , That God is an Infinite Mind ; and this rightly explained , may teach us some distinction in the Divinity ; for all Men must grant , what they feel in themselves , that every Mind has its Word and Spirit , and cannot be conceived without them ; and therefore the Eternal Mind must have its Eternal word and Spirit too ; and the reason why this did not lead all Mankind into the natural belief of a Trinity of Persons , Mind , Word , and Spirit , in the Unity of the Godhead , was plainly this , Because they found that their own Word and Spirit were not permanent , subsisting Persons , but were the perishing Creatures of the Mind , which were no sooner produced , but died and vanished as our Thoughts do , and thus they conceived it was with the Divine Mind ; which is one kind of Sabellianism , as I observed above : But yet the Catholick Fathers thought this natural belief , That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that the Divinity , or Divine Mind , is not without its Word , a very proper Medium to prove a real subsisting Word in the Divinity ; for an Infinite Perfect Mind , which is all Life , Being , Substance , if it begets its own Word , as every Mind does , must beget a Living , Substantial , Subsisting Word , the perfect Image and Character of its own Life and Infinite Being . However , thus much I think we must own , That since every Mind must have its Word and Spirit in the Individual Unity of its own Nature ; and the Holy Scripture assures us , that God , who is the most perfect Mind , has his Word and Spirit , and that this Divine Word and Spirit is an Eternal , Living , Subsisting Word and Spirit , this is a very good foundation for the belief of a Real Trinity both from Reason and Scripture . The natural Notion and Idea of a Mind , teaches us this distinction in the Divinity ; and Natural Reason strongly infers , from the perfect Productions of an infinitely perfect Mind ; that the Divine Word and Spirit must be an Eternal , Living , Infinite Word and Spirit ; and the Holy Scripture confirms all this : And therefore Scripture and Reason are so far from contradicting each other in this Article , that the Belief of the Trinity , though it be ultimately resolved into the Authority of Revelation , yet has Reason on its side , as far as it can judge of such matters : Which proves a considerable Authority , when the obscure and imperfect Conjectures of Reason , are explained and confirmed by Revelation . For though the Notion of an absolutely perfect Being , which is the Natural Idea of the Divinity , teaches no such distinction , yet the Idea of an Infinitely Perfect and Self-originated Mind , which is as natural a Notion of God , does . Thus Damascen teaches us to distinguish between the Divinity , and in what the Divinity is , or to speak more accurately , what is the Divinity , and that which proceeds eternally from this First Cause , that is , the Hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit ; the first teaches us that there is but One Divinity ; the second shews the distinction of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature . But then ( which is what I intended in all this ) this very distinction proves one individual Divinity , because it is in the individual Unity of the same Numerical , not Specifick Nature ; for all essential Processions , as the Eternal Word and Spirit are , which cannot so much as in Thought be separated from Original Mind , must continue in the Unity of the same individual Nature . This is what the Fathers meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the One common Divinity , which is individually One in Three perfect Hypostases , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : The Divinity of the Father , of Eternal , Self-originated Mind , is the common Divinity , communicated to the Eternal Word and Spirit , in the individual Unity of Nature . 2. Now this will give us some Notion of the distinction of Nature and Persons in the Eternal Godhead . I say , Persons , not Person ; which I take to be the fundamental Mistake which has obscured and perplex'd this Mystery . Men have rack'd their Inventions , to find out some distinction between Nature and Person in every single Person in the Godhead ; which it is certain these Fathers never thought of ; though their Attempt to distinguish between Nature and Person in every Man , gave some occasion to this Mistake : But I have already proved both from Fathers and Schoolmen , That when they spoke distinctly of each particular Person , they made Person and Nature the same : That the Person of the Father is the Nature of the Father , and the Person of the Son the Nature of the Son. Nor indeed had they any occasion to distinguish between Nature and Person in each single Person , which could do no service in this Mystery : For the true reason and occasion for this distinction , was to reconcile the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature , with a Trinity of real Hypostases or Persons ; how One Nature can subsist in Three distinct Hypostases , and continue One Individual Nature : Which had been no difficulty at all , were not each Divine Person by himself the Divine Nature . But how the Divine Nature should subsist whole and perfect in Three distinct Persons , and not be Three distinct Natures , but One Nature , and One Divinity ; not specifically , but individually and numerically One ; This was the difficulty they were concerned to answer ; which the distinction between Nature and Person in each single Person could not answer : For let us suppose such a distinction as this , whatever it be ; if the Divine Nature subsist whole and perfect in each distinct Person , the difficulty still remains how the Persons are distinct , and the Nature individually One : As , to put the Case in Human Nature ; whatever distinction we allow between Nature and Person in every particular Man ; if we allow that every Man has Human Nature as distinctly in himself , as he is a distinct Person , the distinction between Nature and Person can never prove the Individual Numerical Unity of Human Nature in Three Men. The Question then is , Not how Nature and Person is distinguish'd in each single Person , ( much less , how Three Persons in One singular Nature are distinguished from that singular Nature , which unavoidably reduces a Trinity of Persons to an unintelligible Trinity of Modes ) ; but , How the Three Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity , which are Three in number , and each of them the Divine Nature , are distinguished from that One Individual Divinity which is in them all , or rather , which they all are . Now what I have already said , seems to me to give a very intelligible Notion of this , viz. That the Divine Nature , which is but One , is the Eternal , Self-originated Divinity , with its Eternal , Essential Processions or Productions ; which , as I have already shewn , are but One , not Singular , but Individual Nature , and Individual Divinity : But then this One Self-originated Divinity is most certainly an Infinite , Eternal , Self-originated Person , if Infinite , Eternal , Self-originated Mind be a Person ; and these Eternal Essential Processions are Persons also , if an Eternal , Living , Subsisting Word be a Person , and an Eternal , Living , Subsisting Spirit be a Person ; and then it is evident , that there are Three Eternal , Subsisting Persons in the Individual Unity of Nature . These Divine Processions do not multiply nor divide the Divine Nature , because they are essential to an Infinite Mind , and are Processions ad intra in the perfect Identity ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and Individual Unity of Nature ; but they are distinct Persons , as being Eternal , Subsisting , Living , Intelligent Processions , which is all that we mean by Persons in this Mystery , with reference to the Eternal Word and Spirit . For these Three Divine Persons have their different Characters and Order , whereby they are distinguished from each other , which the Fathers call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by which they meant their different manner of subsisting in the Individual Unity of the Divine Nature , that though they have all the same Divinity , as that signifies all Divine Perfections , yet they have it after a different manner that is , as they constantly explain it , Vnbegotten , Begotten , and Proceeding , as the Athanasian Creed teaches us to believe ; The Father is made of none , neither created , nor begotten . The Son is of the Father alone , not made , nor created , but begotten . The Holy Ghost is of the Father , and of the Son , neither made , nor created , nor begotten , but proceeding . This is the only distinction which the Catholick Fathers allow between the Three Divine Persons , and let us consider the nature of it . Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies actual Existence , and that which does actually exist ; and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signify that there are Three that do actually exist , but after a different manner : That is , That the Father is Unbegotten , Self-originated Divinity , is God of himself , without any other cause of his Being , and this Self-originated Unbegotten Divinity is the Person of the Father , and in the highest and most absolute sense the One God. The Son is Eternally begotten of his Father's Substance , and lives and subsists in him ; and so the Holy Ghost Eternally proceeds from Father and Son : That is , There is One Eternal Self-originated Divinity with its two Eternal Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of the same Nature . The Father's manner of subsistence is easily understood , and secures to him the Prerogative of the One True God ; but we must shew this a little more plainly with reference to the Son and Holy Spirit , each of which is by himself True and Perfect God , but not a Second and Third God : The right understanding of which depends upon the true stating of their different manners of subsistence . And here I need only refer to what I have already discoursed concerning the difference between an Absolute Nature , and Relative Subsistencies in the same Nature . An Absolute Nature is a whole Compleat Nature , with all that essentially belongs to such a Nature , as every perfect Man has all that belongs essentially to the Nature of Man , and thus a Man begets a Man in his own Nature and Likeness ; and the Son , which is begotten , is upon all accounts as much a Man , as he who begets , and Father and Son are two Men : And to beget , and to be begotten , tho they prove their Persons to be distinct , yet are but External Relations not different manners of subsistence in the same Nature . And thus God does not beget a Son , which would be to beget a Second God : For to beget , and to be begotten , when he who begets , begets in an absolute sense all the same that he is himself , makes two of the same kind . And therefore we must observe , That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is the Personal Character and Property of the Father , does not only signify , that he has no cause of his Being and Nature , but that what he is , he is absolutely in himself , has an Absolute , not a Relative Nature and Subsistence ; and so consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is the Personal Property of the Son , signifies that his Being and Nature is Relative ; not only , that he receives his Being and Nature from his Father , but that he so receives it , as to be a Relative Subsistence in his Father's Nature ; and the like may be said of the Procession of the Holy Ghost . As to shew this more particularly . God begets a Son , his own perfect Image and Likeness , but he does not beget his own Absolute Nature in his Son , as Man does , though he begets his Son of his own Nature and Substance ; as for instance . God is Perfect , Absolute , Original Mind , not only as Original is opposed to what has a Cause , and a Beginning , but as opposed to an Image ; but God does not beget an Absolute Original Mind in his Son , but only his own Eternal , Essential Word , which is the Perfect , Living Image of Eternal , Self-originated Mind , and is it self Eternal , Infinite Mind , in the Eternal Word ; but is in its own proper Character , the Eternal Word of the Eternal Mind , not originally an Eternal Mind it self . It has all the Perfections of an Eternal Mind , as a Perfect Word must of necessity have , which is the perfect Sameness and Identity of Nature ; but it has all these Perfections , not as Original Mind , but as a Begotten Word , which is a different Mode of Subsistence , and a sensible distinction between the Eternal Mind and its Word in the perfect Identity of Nature . This I take to be a True and Intelligible Account of these different manners of Subsistence , which distinguish the Divine Persons in the perfect Unity of Nature , that they have all the same Nature , and same Perfections , but after a different manner ; which can never be understood in Absolute Natures and Persons , for three Men , though Father , Son , and Grandson , have all of them Human Nature after the very same manner ; but in an Absolute Nature , and Relative Essential Processions , this is to be understood , and proves a real distinction , and perfect Unity . It is evident to all Men , that the Mind and its Word are Two ; and it is as evident , that Life , Wisdom , Knowledge , are in Absolute , Original Mind , after another manner than they are in its Word ; and yet the very Notion of a Mind , and its Word , and that Essential Relation that is between them , makes it a contradiction to say , that any other Life , Wisdom , Knowledge , can be in the Word , than what is in the Mind ; which would be to say , That the Word is not the Word of the Mind , if it have any thing that is not in the Mind : For a Natural Word can have nothing but what is in the Mind , and is no farther a Word , than it is the Natural Image of the Mind : And the like may be said concerning the Holy Spirit , which hath all the same Divine Perfections , but in a different manner , from Original Mind , and its Word , as eternally proceeding from both . This is the Account which the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of Nature , and Distinction of Persons , in the Ever Blessed Trinity , which answers the Objections of our Sabellian , Arian and Socinian Adversaries , and vindicates those Catholick Forms of Speech , which they charge with Tritheism , Contradiction , and Nonsense : As to shew this briefly in one view , for each part of it has been sufficiently confirmed already . The Catholick Faith teaches us , That there is but One God ; and this is demonstrable from the Doctrine of these Fathers . For in this Account I have now given , there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , One Absolute Divinity , One Divine Nature , and therefore but One God. But , say our Adversaries , One God in Natural Religion , and according to the general Sense of Mankind , signifies One Person , who is God : And this also in some sense has always been owned by the Catholick Church ; That as there is but One Absolute Divinity , so the Person of the Father , who is this One Absolute Divinity , is this One God ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , there is but One Person , who is God , in this Absolute Sense , because there is but One Father , who , as they often speak , is the Fountain of the Deity , that is , of the Divine Processions , of the Son and Holy Spirit : He is the Whole Absolute Divinity himself , and whatever is Divine , Eternally and Essentially proceeds from him , in the Unity of his own Nature . But at this rate , what Divinity do we leave for the Son , and the Holy Spirit ? Truly , the very same by Eternal Generation and Procession , which is originally and absolutely in the Father : For it is the Nature of the Father , and the Divinity of the Father , which is in the Son and Holy Spirit ; as the Fathers constantly own , and as of necessity it must be , because there is no other . This Eternal Generation and Procession has always been owned as an ineffable Mystery ; which we must believe upon the Authority of the Scriptures , without pretending to know how God begets an Eternal Son , or how the Eternal Spirit proceeds from Father and Son , which we confess we have no Notion of ; but we know likewise , That this is no reason to reject this Faith , no more than it is a reason to reject the belief of an Eternal , Self-originated Being ; because though it be demonstrable , That there must be an Eternal First Cause of all things , which has no Cause of its own Being , but an Eternal necessary Nature , yet we can no more conceive this , than we can an Eternal Generation and Procession . Supposing therefore ( without disputing that matter at present ) that God has an Eternal Son ; that Eternal , Self-originated Mind has an Eternal , Subsisting Word , and an Eternal Spirit , it is evident that this Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit , must have all the same Perfections of the Eternal Mind , must be all that the Eternal Mind is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , excepting its being an Absolute , Self-originated Mind . Now if he be God , who has the whole Divine Nature and Perfections , then the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost is God , who by Eternal Generation and Procession have that same Divinity which is absolutely and originally in the Father . Well then : Here is One Divine Person , viz. the Eternal Father , who is absolutely and originally God ; and Two more , the Son , and Holy Ghost , who are each of them in his own Person , true and perfect God , by having all the Divine Perfections : But are not these Three then Three Gods ? the Unbegotten God , who is originally and absolutely God , the Begotten God , and the Proceeding God. No , it is the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Fathers , that the Trinity is but One Divinity , and One God , una Summa res , One Supreme Being , as St. Austin taught , and from him Peter Lombard , and was confirmed by the Council of Lateran , in the Condemnation of Abbot Ioachim . For Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , though they are Three true and proper Persons , are but One Individual Nature ; for it is Essential to the Eternal Mind to have its Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit , and the Eternal Word and Spirit live and subsist in the Mind ; and though living , subsisting Persons , yet are as individually One with the Mind , as a Created Mind , its Word and Spirit are One. Whatever is Essential to Nature , is in the Individual Unity of it ; and that is but One Individual Nature which has nothing but what is Essential to it ; and therefore if , as I have already observed , and as the Catholick Faith teaches , the Son and Spirit , the Eternal Word and Eternal Spirit , are Essential Processions of Eternal Original Mind , and essentially , indivisibly , and inseparably in it ; Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , are as essentially and inseparably One Individual Divinity , as any One Nature is One with it self . But is not this a kind of Sabellian Composition of a God ? A whole Divinity made up of Three partial and incomplete Divinities ? Which St. Austin calls a Triformis Deus : By no means ! What is compounded , is made up of Parts , which make a compound Nature ; but perfect Hypostases , however united , can make no Composition : However you unite Iames and Iohn , you can never make a compound Man of them , because each of them have a perfect Human Nature ; and as Damascen observes , we do not say , That the Nature or Species is made up of the Hypostases , but is in the Hypostases : So that each Divine Person , being a complete and perfect Hypostasis , having the whole Divine Nature in himself , as being True and Perfect God ; their Union in the same Individual Nature , though it makes them One Essential Divinity , yet it cannot make a Compound God ; for however their Persons are united , the Divinity or Divine Nature is not compounded , each of them being True and Perfect God , and not One God by Composition , but by an Individual Unity of Nature in Three . For every Divine Person is not God , in the same sense , that every Human Person is a Man , as having an Absolute Individual Nature of his own ; for in this sense the Father only is God , as being Absolute Original Divinity , an Eternal , Self-originated Mind ; and Three such Persons must be acknowledged to be Three Gods ; but as I have been forced often to repeat it , the Son and Holy Spirit are Divine Persons , as they are Eternal , Living , Subsisting Processions in the Divine Nature , which proves them to have the very same Divinity , and to be but One Individual Divinity , but not One Compound God. For One Individual Nature in Three , though distinguisht into Distinct Subsisting Persons , makes such a natural , inseparable Unity of Will , Energy , and Power , that they are as perfectly One Almighty Agent , as every single Person is One Agent , as I have shewn above . It is thought by some a manifest Contradiction to say , as the Athanasian Creed teaches us , The Father is God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God , and yet there are not Three Gods , but One God. But whoever carefully considers what I have now said , must own , that this is the only true and proper way of speaking in this Mystery . If there be but One Absolute Divinity , there can be but One God ; for the Divine Processions in the Unity and Identity of the same Individual Nature , cannot multiply the Divinity , nor multiply the Name and Title of God ; for the Name God does not originally , absolutely , and immediately belong to them , but only relatively : The proper immediate Character of the Second Person in the Trinity is , not God , but the Son of God , and the Word of God ; and so the Third , is the Spirit of God. And though we must necessarily own , that the Son of God , and the Spirit of God , are each of them True and Perfect God , equal in all Divine Perfections to the Father , as being all the same that the Father is , excepting his being a Father ; yet they are not Three Gods , for this is not their immediate , Original Character , but there is One God the Father , his Eternal Son , and Eternal Spirit . This is what I have above observed from Tertullian , That there is One God with his Oeconomy , that is , his Son and Spirit , and that Christ is called God , when he is spoken of by himself ; but when he is named together with the Father , he must have his own proper Title , which is the Son of God ; and the Reason is the same , as to the Holy Spirit ; by which Rule , we can never say , That Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , though each of them be God , are Three Gods ; but there are Three , God the Father , his Son , and Holy Spirit : The Father God of himself , the Son and Spirit Eternal Processions , and Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity and Identity of the Father's Godhead . They have all the same Divinity , their Glory equal , their Majesty coeternal , but their different manner of having it , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , distinguishes their Names and Characters : The Father is God , absolutely God , an Unbegotten , Self-originated Being ; so God , that there is no other God besides him . The Son is not absolutely God , but the Son of God ; and when he is called God in Scripture , it is in no other sense , - but as the Son of God ; for the Son of God , must be God the Son : Nor is the Holy Spirit absolutely God , but the Spirit of God , which is all we mean , when we call him God ; for the Spirit of God must be God the Holy Ghost : This is the Catholick Faith , and let any Man try if he can find Three Gods in it : For when we number Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , we must not number them by the common Name of Nature , which is One Undivided Divinity in them all ; but by their Relative Names and Characters , which do not only distinguish their Persons , but signify their Unity , Order , and Relations in the same Nature . We must not call them Three Gods , because God is not the original Name of the Son , or Spirit , and therefore they are not Three Gods ; but there are Three in the Unity of the Godhead . The One God the Father , the Son of God , and the Spirit of God ; so that there is but One God in the Christian Faith , if the Son of God be the Son of this One God the Father ; and the Spirit of God , be the Spirit of this same One God : And though the Son of God be God , and the Spirit of God be God , that is the Name of their Nature , not of their Persons , and therefore can no more be multiplied with the Persons , than the Divine Nature is . The Son of God is God , but it is Authoritate Paternae Naturae , as St. Hilary speaks , not by any Absolute Godhead of his own , but in right of his Father's Nature and Divinity , which he received by an Eternal Generation . Thus it must be , where there is but One Absolute Nature , with its Internal Processions . Let us put the Case in a Human Mind , and suppose , That its Word and Spirit were Distinct , Living , Intelligent Hypostases in the Mind , Essential Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature , perfectly the same with the Mind , but distinct Hypostases ; but would any one for this Reason , call these Three , Three Men , or Three Minds ? And yet such a Living , Subsisting Word , and a Living Subsisting Spirit , would as perfectly have the Nature of the Mind as the Mind it self , but neither of them would be an absolute Mind , but one the Word of the Mind , and the other the Spirit of the Mind ; not Three Minds , but One Mind , with its Essential Word , and Spirit . This , though an Imaginary Case , gives us a sensible representation of the difference between the Eternal Mind , and its Eternal Word and Spirit ; which I freely acknowledge cannot properly be called Three Infinite Minds and Spirits ; for though the Eternal , Subsisting Word is an Infinite Mind , and so the Eternal , Subsisting Spirit , yet Mind , as well as God , is the Name of their Nature , not of their Persons , which is Identically one and the same in all . This , as I take it , is what some Learned and truly Catholick Writers mean , in distinguishing the several Acceptations of this Name God. That sometimes it signifies the Divine Nature and Essence in general ; as when we say , The Trinity is One God , that is , One Divinity ; that there is but One Divine Nature and Essence in all the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity : Sometimes it signifies Personally , as when we say , The Father is God , the Son is God , and the Holy Ghost is God ; that is , the Person of the Father , the Person of the Son , and the Person of the Holy Ghost is God : But then they are still forced to acknowledge , that the Name God is not predicated Vnivocally of all Three Persons ; but that the Father is God in a more excellent and eminent Sense , than the Son is God , or the Holy Ghost God , as being God of himself , an Unbegotten , Self-originated God , the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit : Upon which account he is so often by the Catholick Fathers called the One God , and the only True God. Now all this is very True , and very Catholick , but with all submission , it seems to me to be an inconvenient way of speaking , which perplexes the Article with different Senses , and is liable to great Cavils and Misconstructions , as the Examples of Dr. Payn , and the Author of the 28 Propositions , witness ; and when most dexterously managed , will sooner silence than convince an Adversary . The Divine Essence must be considered only as in the Divine Persons ; when we say , That the Trinity is One God , the true meaning is , That Three Persons are One God ; and the general abstract Notion of the Unity of Essence does not account for this , but the Unity of the Divine Essence in Three . Thus to say , That the Father is God in the highest sense of that Name God ; and that He alone ( strictly speaking ) is a Being absolutely perfect , because he alone is Self-existent , and all other Beings , even the Son and Holy Ghost are from him ; may be expounded to a very Catholick Sense , and was certainly so meant ; but is liable to great Cavils , when Men take more pains to pick Quarrels with Words , than to understand an Author . An Absolutely Perfect God ; and a God that wants any Perfection , sounds not only like Two Gods , but like Gods of different Kinds ; for every diversity of Nature alters the Species . All that is meant by this is certainly True and Catholick , and taught in express words by the Primitive Fathers ; That the Father is not the Son , nor the Son the Father ; that the Son is all that the Father is , excepting his being the Father , and unbegotten , that is , excepting Paternity , and Self-existence , or Self-origination ; and that upon this Account the Father is eminently called the One God , the Son , God of God ; that is , God as the Son of God. What I have now discoursed seems to me to give the fairest Account of this Matter . I take the Name God always to signify a Person , in whom the Divine Nature is , not the Divinity in the Abstract ; and then the Name God must belong to any Person after the same manner , as the Divine Nature is his ; that is , he must be called God in no other sense than as he is God. Now , as I have already shewn , there is but One Absolute Divinity , with Two Internal Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature : And if we make this our Rule of Speaking , ( as we must do , if this be the Catholick Faith of the Trinity , and we will fit our words to the nature of things ) then it is very plain , That the Name God absolutely belongs only to him , who is this Absolute Divinity , that is , the Person of the Father , that no other Person is God in recto , absolutely and simply God , but only he ; that he is the One God , the only True God , as both the Scripture and Fathers own . But what becomes then of the Son , and Holy Ghost ? Is not the Son God ? and the Spirit God ? Yes ! the Name and Title of God belongs to them , as the Divine Nature does ; that is , not absolutely , as to the Absolute Divinity , but as to Divine Processions , to Divine Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Godhead ; that is , the Second Person in the Trinity is God , but not in recto , as God signifies that Person , who is the Divinity ; but as the Son of God , as habens Deitatem , having the Divinity , not absolutely and originally , but by Communication , by Eternal Generation : And so the Holy Spirit is not absolutely God , but the Spirit of God ; and God only as the Spirit of God , as an Internal Procession in the Divine Nature . But in what sense then can we say , That the Trinity is One God , or that Three Persons are One God ? Must we not necessarily own , that God in these Propositions is taken Essentially for the Deity in the abstract , and not as considered in any One Person ? For will we say , That the Trinity , or Three Persons , are but One Person ? No! and yet in this Proposition , The Trinity is One God ; by One God , I understand , One , who is absolutely God , One Absolute Divinity , which is the Father , who has indeed a Son and Spirit , in the Unity of his own Nature and Godhead , each of which is True and Perfect God , but not a Second , and Third God , but the Son of God , and the Spirit of God ; Divine Subsisting Relations in the One Absolute Godhead of the Father , which does not multiply the Name nor Nature of God. This is the Account the Catholick Fathers give of the Unity of God in a Trinity of Persons , and therefore this must be the Catholick Sense of this Proposition : And here it will be proper to observe , That in the Account they give of the Unity of God , that is , the Unity in Trinity , they indifferently assign One Divinity , and One Father , as the Reason of it : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . There is One God , because there is One Divinity ; and there is One God , because there is One Father , which are not two different Reasons , but one and the same ; from whence it necessarily follows , That this One Divinity is the Divinity of the Father , and that this One God in Trinity , is the Father ; for One God must necessarily signify One Person , when the Father is the One God. So that the Father , who is the One Absolute Divinity , is the One God , who ceases not to be the One God , ( as St. Hilary and others constantly teach ) by having a Son , and Holy Spirit , who receive all from him , live and subsist in him , and are eternally and inseparably One with him : Thus we are taught in the Athanasian Creed , to worship One God in Trinity , that is , the Eternal Father , who is the One God , with his Son , and Holy Spirit ; and the Trinity in Vnity , that is , Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , not Three Gods , but One in the Unity of the Father's Godhead . For the Godhead of the Father , of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , is all one , the Glory equal , the Majesty Coeternal : There is but One Godhead , One Glory , One Majesty , and that is the Godhead , Glory , and Majesty of the Father ; and the Son and Spirit are in the Godhead , Glory , Majesty of the Father , as Internal Processions , Living , Subsisting Relations in the Father's Godhead . This Account , which I confess is the only Account of this Matter that I can understand , whatever other Faults it may have , which I do not yet see , I 'm sure is perfectly Orthodox ; is neither Tritheism , Sabellianism , Arianism , nor Socinianism , but the True Catholick Faith , of a Trinity in Unity . Here is but One Absolute Divinity , but One Father with his Eternal Son and Spirit , in the Unity of his own Nature and Godhead , and therefore but One God : For Three Gods must be Three Absolute Divinities , without any Internal Relation , or dependence on each other . Internal Relations , though Real , Subsisting Relations , can't multiply Nature , and therefore can't multiply Gods. Here are Three Real , Proper , Living , Intelligent , Substantial , Divine Persons , and therefore no Sabellianism , not One Personal God , with three Names , Offices , Manifestations , Modes , Powers , Parts . Here are Three truly Divine Persons , each of which is by himself , or in his own Person , True and Perfect God. The Father God of himself , Unbegottan , Self-originated God , the Fountain of the Deity to the Son and Holy Spirit . The Son , the Son of God , and True and Perfect God , as the Son of God. The Spirit , the Spirit of the Father , and the Son , and True and Perfect God , as the Spirit of God : So that here is neither Arianism , Macedonianism , nor Socinianism ; no Made or Created Nature , no Creature in the Ever Blessed Trinity . No , say our Arian and Socinian Adversaries , neither the Son , nor the Holy Ghost , according to this Hypothesis , are True and Perfect God , as the Father is : Neither of them have Self-existence , or a Fecundity of Nature , which are thought great Perfections in the Father ; but the Son is not of himself , but begotten of his Father ; nor is the Spirit of himself , but proceeds from Father and Son ; and neither of them have a Son , or Spirit of their own , as the Father has . All this I readily grant ; for it is the Catholick Faith , that the Father is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , so a Father , that he never was a Son , and the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , so a Son , that he never was , nor can be a Father , and so of the Holy Spirit ; That there is but One Father , not Three Fathers ; One Son , not Three Sons ; One Holy Ghost , not Three Holy Ghosts , as the Athanasian Creed teaches . This proves indeed , as we all own , that neither the Son , nor Spirit , are absolutely God , an Absolute Divinity , as the Father is , but only Divine Processions ; an Absolute Divinity has a Fecundity of Nature ; Absolute , Original Mind , according to this Hypothesis must have its Word and Spirit , in the Unity of its Nature ; but the Word being no Absolute Nature , can't beget another Word , nor the Spirit another Spirit . So that this Objection only delivers us from the Charge of Tritheism , by proving Father , Son , and Holy Ghost to be but One Divinity , One God : For if the Son were as absolutely God , as the Father is , there is no account to be given , why he should not beget a Son , as his Father did him , as we see it is among Men , where the Son begets a Son , and becomes a Father , and thus there could be no possible end of Divine Generations ; but these are Generations ad extra , which give as compleat and absolute a Nature , and absolute Subsistence to the Son , as the Father has ; but Internal , Essential Relations are in the Individual Unity of Nature , and therefore cannot multiply , when Nature has all that is essential to it . So that Self-existence and Generation do not belong to the Character of a Son ; and with the Catholick Church , we teach , That the Son of God is God , only as the Son ; and it would be Heresy to ascribe the peculiar Prerogatives of the Father to him : And then it can be no Objection against the Divinity of the Son , that he has not what is peculiar and proper only to the Person of the Father , as Self-existence and Generation is . Self-existence , Self-origination , to have no cause of his Being , I grant , is essential to the Idea of a God : And Eternal and Necessary Existence to the Notion of any Person , who is in any sense God ; for he , who ever began to be , and subsists precariously , can in no sense be God. But then though Self-existence be essential to the Notion of an Absolute Divinity , yet a Person , who is a Son , and therefore not Self-originated , but eternally begotten of a Self-originated Father , and subsists eternally and necessarily as an Essential Procession and Relation in a Self-originated Nature , must be the Son of God , and God the Son , True and Perfect God , as the Eternal , Necessary , Essential Procession of a Self-originated Divinity . For what is internally and essentially related to a Self-existent Nature , can be no Creature , and therefore must be True and Perfect God. Thus to proceed : The same Rule of speaking ( if Men be peaceably and charitably disposed to understand one another ) will easily reconcile that late warm Dispute , about One Substance , and Three Substances , in the Unity of the Godhead ; for the Dispute is the very same , in other words , with One Nature and Three Persons . The Nicene Fathers , who asserted the Homoousion , the One Nature and Substance of Father , and Son , did not by this mean One Singular Substance , as I have abundantly shewn ; and those who assert Three Substances in opposition to Sabellianism , do not mean Three Absolute , nor Three divided and separated Substances , but One Individual Substance , as there is One Individual Nature in Three Substantial , Subsisting Persons . That is , There is but One Absolute Substance , with Two Relative , Substantial Procefsions in the Individual Unity of the same One Substance : Which the Schools make no scruple to call Three Relative Substances . All Catholick Writers , both Ancient and Modern , own , that the Father is Substance , the Son Substance , and the Holy Ghost Substance ; but yet are cautious of saying Three Substances ; nor will they say , ter Vna , thrice One Substance , because Number does not belong to the Nature , but to the Persons ; though at the same time they own , that Deus trinus signifies tria supposita Deitatis . These seem to be great Niceties , and Arbitrary Distinctions , without any reason and foundation in Nature ; for what difference is there between Three Substances , and Three Relative Substances ? For Relative Substances are Substances . What difference between Three Substances , and tria supposita ? when suppositum is only another name for Substance ; and so St. Hilary , as I have observed , called them , tres substantias , & tria in substantia , Three Substances , and Three in Substance . When there are Three , each of which is in his own Person Substance , and neither of them each other , what difference is there between saying , Tres in una substantia , & ter una substantia ? Three in One Substance , and thrice Once Substance ? Marius Victorinus , as I observed before , ventures to say , ter ipsa Substantia , ( not ter una , as it is mistaken in a late Treatise , by trusting too much to memory ) thrice the very same Substance ; now thrice the same One Substance , is thrice One Substance ; where the Number belongs to the Essence and Substance , which is Aquinas's Objection against it . But the whole Account of this must be resolved into the Distinction between Absolute and Relative . Substance , when it stands by it self , signifies Absolutely , and so Three Substances are Three Absolute Substances ; Three Human Substances , Three Humanities ; and Three Divine Substances , Three Divinities ; and therefore we must not without great caution , say Three Substances in the Trinity , for fear of asserting Three Gods ; but yet we must own , that each Person is True and Perfect Substance ; and both the Fathers and Schools own this ; and Three in Substance are Three Substances , but not Three Absolute but Relative Substances , Three Subsisting Relations in the Unity of the Divine Essence and Substance : Though , as I have more than once observed , in proper speaking , we cannot say Three Relative Substances ; for though the Father speaks a Relation to the Son , and Holy Spirit , it is as he is the Fountain of the Deity , Original , Absolute , Divinity , Essence , Substance , in his own Person , not a Relative Subsistence ; and therefore in the Blessed Trinity , there is One Absolute Substance , Absolute Divinity , and Two Relative Substances , as there are Two Internal Substantial Relations in the Unity of the same Substance . And to prevent Mistakes , I must here observe , That by Absolute we do not mean Compleat and Perfect , for so the Son is Absolute Substance , and the Holy Spirit Absolute Substance , Compleat and Perfect Substance , as each of them in his own Person is True and Perfect God ; in which Sense St. Austin tells us , that persona ad se dicitur , that Person is predicated absolutely ; that every Person , as considered in himself , is a Person , and not merely as related to another ; but when we say , that there is but One Absolute Substance in the Godhead , by Absolute we mean Original , as I have already explained it , as distinguished from Relative Processions , as the Original is distinguished from the Image ; though the Image , if a Living , Subsisting Image , is as Compleat and Perfect Nature and Substance , as the Original is . And this is the only difference I know , between Substance , Nature , Essence , and Suppositum , Subject , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Res , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Thing , Being , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Subsistence , and the like : That the first signify Absolutely , or as the Schools speak , the Form ; that is , an Original Substance , Nature , and Essence ; and therefore these must not be multiplied in the Divinity , by saying Three Substances , Natures , or Essences , for fear of a Diversity or Number of Divinities , and Gods. The other Terms , though they do not in common use signify Relatively , as Subject , Suppositum , Thing , Being , Subsistence , do not , yet they signify any thing that really is , that has a Compleat , Actual Subsistence of its own , and therefore are applicable , to all substantial relative Processions , which are compleat Subsistencies , Things , Beings , as well as to original Nature and Substance : And both the Fathers and Schools for this reason owned the Three Divine Persons to be Three Things , Three Beings , Tres Entes , Tria Entia , Tres Res , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and scruple not the use of any such transcendental Terms , as do not necessarily multiply the absolute and original Form. Thus the One Substance of the Godhead either signifies the absolute Divinity of the Father , and this is but One , and can never be Ter Vna , Thrice One ; or it signifies the One individual undivided Divinity of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , that is , the absolute Divinity of the Father , with his internal essential Processions in the perfect Unity and Identity of Nature , and this it is but One Substance , for there is but One Individual Nature ; not Ter Vna , but Tres in Vna ; not Thrice One Substance , but Three in One Undivided Nature and Substance ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which I have sometimes , not so properly , translated a Thrice subsisting Monad , but it is a Monad with Three Hypostases ; which , in other words , is One Nature and Three Persons ; not One singular Nature Thrice subsisting ( which I cannot understand ) , but One individual Nature , and Three subsisting Hypostases ; Vna Substantia , non Vnus Subsistens ; One Substance , not One that subsists : This Individual Nature subsists but once ; but in the Individual Unity of the Father's Essence and Godhead , are those Eternal , Substantial , Subsisting Processions , the Hypostases of the Son , and Holy Spirit . And in this sense the One Individual Substance of the Divinity may properly enough be stiled Ter ipsa , or Ter Vna Substantia ; Thrice the same One Substance , not Thrice One Absolute Substance , in which sense Aquinas rejected it ; but Tria Supposita Vnius Substantiae , or Deitatis ; which is One Substance , by the individual Unity , and invariable Sameness and Identity of Nature ; as I have shewn above . Thus that warm Dispute among the Schoolmen , about one Absolute Subsistence and Existence in the Trinity , and Three Relative Subsistencies and Existences , which is managed with so much perplexing Subtilty , as far as I can understand any thing by it , may easily be composed after the same manner . For there is but One Absolute Being and Nature in the Divinity , and therefore there can be but One Absolute Subsistence and Existence , as Absolute signifies , not Compleat and Perfect , but , to subsist and exist as an Original , which in the Godhead signifies a self-originated Subsistence and Existence : But then to deny all relative Subsistencies and Existencies , is to deny the compleat Subsistence and Existence of the Son and Spirit , who are essential Relations in the Unity of the Father's Godhead , and therefore subsist not as Originals , but as Relatives , which is the meaning of a Relative Subsistence . There is but One Absolute Divinity , and Two Relative Processions , and therefore in this sense , but One Absolute , and Two , not Three , Relative Subsistencies ; which seems fairly to divide the Question between them . Thus , once more : It is a known Rule of speaking in this Mystery , That Substantives must be predicated in the Singular Number , Adjectives will admit a Plural Predication ; and the same difference is made between Abstract and Concrete Terms . There are not Three Gods , but Tres Deit atem habentes , there are Three who have the Divinity ; not Three Omnipotencies , or Three Omnisciencies , but Three who are Omnipotent and Omniscient . And the approved reason for this is , That Substantives and Abstract Terms , signify the Nature , Essence , and Form , and to multiply them , is to multiply Natures ; but Adjectives immediately signify the Subjects , Suppositums , and Persons , and only connote the Nature and Form , which multiplies the Persons , but not the Nature . Now though I understand what is meant by this , when applied to the Divinity , yet I never could understand this Reason for it ; for there is no such difference between Substantive and Adjective Predications in any other Case ; Three men , and Three , who have Human Nature , signify the very same thing , and multiply the Form , as well as the Persons ; Three , who have Human Nature , are truly and properly Three men ; and then the meer difference between Substantives and Adjectives cannot be a good Reason , why Three , who have the Divine Nature , are not Three Gods. But the difference between an Absolute and Relative Predication does give an account of this . Substantives and Abstract Terms always signify the Form , as the Schools speak , that is , an Absolute and Original Nature , and in this Sense Number multiplies Nature , as well as Persons , and Three Gods are Three Absolute Original Divinities , as wellas Three Divine Persons ; and thus it is as to Adjective Predications in all Creatures , as I observed before , because there is no such distinction in Creatures between an Absolute Nature , and Internal Subsisting Processions in the Unity and Identity of Nature ; and when Nature always signifies the Original Form , a Substantive or Adjective Predication can make no difference : but where there is such a distinction , as there is in the Divinity , Substantives and Adjectives do most aptly represent it , because Adjectives admit of a Relative Predication , and may signify a Person , who has the Divine Nature , as an Internal , Subsisting Procession in the Divinity , but is not the Absolute Divinity , nor in an Absolute Sense God , but the Son of God , and the Spirit of God. Indeed in such Forms of Speech we must have more regard to the Absolute or Relative Signification , than to the Substantive or Adjective Form of the Words . Adjectives in an Absolute Sense must no more be multiplied than Substantives , which I take to be an easier Account of the tres aeterni , and unus aeternus in the Athanasian Creed , than to turn it with Aquinas into tria aeterna , and unum aeternum . For Three Eternals , whether Substantives or Adjectives , in an Absolute Sense are Three Gods ; Three Eternal , Three Intelligent , Three Omniscient Persons , in an Absolute Sense , are Three Eternities , Three Omnisciences , and in this Sense there is but unus aeternus , One Eternal Self Originated Person , as there is but One God : and on the other hand , Deus or God , though a Substantive , may signify Relatively , as it does in the Nicene Creed , God of God ; and in this Sense some of the Schoolmen , thought it very Orthodox to say Three Gods , if we explained in what Sense we meant it , as I observed above , Tertullian did , Ecce duos deos , though at the same time he rejects the use of such Forms , for their ambiguous Signification which might betray men into Polytheism . And if God may have a Relative Signification , so may Mind and Spirit too , and then Three Minds and Spirits is as Orthodox , as Three that have an Intelligent and Spiritual Nature . In short ; as far as I can hitherto observe , all the Catholick Rules of Speaking relating to this Mystery must be resolved into this distinction of Absolute and Relative : This is the only distinction we know of in the Godhead , and this we as certainly know there is , as we know , that there is an Eternal Father , who has an Eternal Son , and an Eternal Spirit ; One Absolute , Self-Originated Divinity , with its Internal , Essential Processions in the Individual Unity and Identity of Nature : and if this be the Unity and Distinction of the Divinity , this must be our Rule of Speaking also , to have a due regard to the One Absolute Nature , and the Relative Processions of the Godhead ; which will secure us both from a Sabellian Singularity , and a Tritheistick Trinity of Absolute Divinities . The CONCLUSION . With a short Application to the Socinians . I Proposed one thing more to be considered in relation to this Subject ; viz. Whether the Catholick Faith of a Real a●d Substantial Trinity , can be as reasonably and intelligibly explained by the Notion of One Singular Substance in the Divinity , as by asserting Three Personal Substances or Suppositums : And whether the Singularity of the Divine Essence in this Notion , delivers the Asserters of it from any Inconveniences and Objections , which the contrary Opinion is thought liable to . But , I hope , after what I have already said , there is no occasion for this , and I will not needlesly revive old Quarrels . Let but Men sincerely and heartily believe in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , Three Eternal , Infinite , Substantial , Living , Intelligent , Omnipotent , All-wise Persons , each of which is in his own Person True and Perfect God , and all Three but One Divinity , and One God ; and I will dispute with no such Orthodox Christians concerning the Philosophy of the Divine Nature , which is so infinitely above our comprehension . There may be a necessity for such Disputes , when we have to do with Hereticks , who ridicule the Catholick Faith as contradictions and absurd ; but when Men agree in the Faith , such Disputes are of no use to them , and may prove of dangerous consequence ; for there are too many , who will be sooner disputed out of their Faith , than out of their Philosophy ; which should teach all Catholick Christians , as much as it is possible , to silence all Disputes amongst themselves , which their common Adversaries are so apt to improve into Scepticism , Infidelity , or Heresy . And therefore for a Conclusion , I shall only take a brief Review of the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning this Article of a Trinity in Unity , and apply it in a few words to our Socinian Adversaries . The Faith of the Catholick Church taught by Christ and his Apostles is , that there is but One God ; but this One God is a Father , who has an Eternal Son , and an Eternal Spirit , in the Essential Unity of the same Undivided and Undiversified Godhead : And this is the Faith which all the Catholick Fathers have owned and taught in their several Ages . The whole Christian Church Baptizes , as our Saviour commanded , in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost ; and this is the Rule of their Faith , to believe in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : A plain , simple Faith , could Men have been contented to believe God concerning himself . Let our Socinian Adversaries tell us , what there is absurd , impossible , or contradictious in this Faith ? Will they venture to say , That it is absurd or contradictious , that God should have a Son ? No! in some sense they will allow this true ; they themselves believe in Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; they acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God , as he is frequently called in Scripture , and that in a higher sense , than any other Man is the Son of God ; but that he is but a Man after all , though advanced by God to Divine Honours , above all Principalities and Powers , and made the Judge both of the Quick and of the Dead ; and this they affirm to be all that the Scripture means , in calling Christ the Son of God. But this is not the present Dispute : They know that the Catholick Church believed otherwise , that Christ is the Eternal Son of God , begotten of his Father before all worlds , God of God , very God of very God ; and they know also , that thus the Catholick Fathers expounded those Texts which concern the Sonship and Divinity of our Saviour ; and they cannot but confess , That they are very capable of such an Exposition ; nay , that it is very difficult to put any other sense upon many Texts ; and the only reason why they reject these Catholick Expositions , is the pretended Absurdity and Contradiction of the Catholick Faith. Here then we join issue with them , and desire them to shew us , what is impossible or contradictious in this Faith ? That there is something incomprehensible in this Mystery , that is , something which we have no Natural adequate Ideas of , we readily acknowledge with the whole Catholick Church ; and some of our Adversaries grant , That it is possible for a thing to be , whereof we have no Idea ; and then it seems to me very unreasonable to add , but we are no ways concerned , nor can we Reason or Discourse about those things whereof we have no Ideas : For the direct contrary seems to be the more natural consequence , that if God thinks fit to reveal such things to us , of which we have no Ideas , we are concerned and obliged to believe them ; for if they may be true , they are the proper Objects of Faith , though they want the Evidence of Natural Ideas But I do not intend to dispute this now , but refer them to the Bishop of Worcester ' s Answer to Mr. Lock ' s Second Letter ; and to a late Sermon , and its Vindication , Concerning the Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy . What I have now to say , is of another Nature , viz. That we have an Idea of a Trinity in Unity , and such an Idea , as contains nothing absurd , impossible , or contradictious in it : That very Idea , which I have so largely explained , One Absolute Divinity , with Two Eternal , Essential Processions , in the Unity and Identity of Nature . The Eternal Father , Eternal Self-originated Mind , with his Eternal Word , his Eternal Son , and the Eternal Spirit of Father and Son. This is that Idea which the Scripture gives us of it , and which the Catholick Church hath always taught : Every Man may understand what is meant by it , and therefore it is not Jargon and Nonsense ; and I think I have sufficiently vindicated it from Tritheism and Contradiction , and have no more to say of that nature , till I hear what they have to object against what is already said ; and when they come to consider this Matter again , as Men that shall certainly be called to an Account for it in this World , as well as in the next , I hope they will see reason to grow out of conceit with their own Philosophy , about Emanations and Processions , a Priority of Time , and Priority of Nature , Self-Existence and Necessary Existence , and such like Arian Objections , which were made and answered many Ages since , and which they may find sufficiently answered in this Treatise . This brings back the Dispute to Scripture , where the last Appeal must lie in all such Matters , without appealing for the Sense of Scripture to Natural Ideas and Philosophy : And if the Interpretations of the Catholick Fathers were of any Authority with these Men , I have already shewn how they expounded Scripture , which will always be a venerable Authority to modest Men and sober Christians , how much soever it be despised by Hereticks . But it is time to put an end to this Treatise ; we may consider their Expositions of Scripture some other time . THE END . DR . Sherloc● , Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity . Third Edition . Quarto — Apology for Writing against Socinians . Quarto . — The Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy . A Sermon . Quarto . — A Vindication of the Sermon , in Answer to some Socinian Remarks . An Answer to the Animad versions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Trinity . By I. B. A. M. Quarto . A Defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for Writing against Socinians . Quarto . A Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of a Trinity in Unity . Quarto . The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined ; in Answer to a Socinian Pamphlet . Quarto . All Printed for William Rogers . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59853-e4010 Quâ nec dicuntur ut cogitantur , nec cogitantur ut sunt . Aug. de Trinit . l. 5. c. 3. Cùm ergo quaeritur quid tria , vel quid tres , conferimus nos ad inventendum aliquod speciale vel generale nomen , quo complectamur haec tria , neque occurrit animo , quia excedit supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem . Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 3. Ad se quippe ( Pater ) dicitur Persona , non ad Filium , aut Spiritum Sanctum . Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 6. Cur ergo non haec tria simul unam Personam dicimus , sicut unam Essentiam , & Deum , sed tres dicimus Personas , cùm tres Deos , aut tres essentias non dicamus , nisi quia volumus vel unum aliquod vocabulum servire huic significationi quâ intelligitur Trinitas , ne emnino taceremus interrogati , quid tres , cùm tres esse fateremur . Ibid. Quidigitur restat , nisi ut fatcamur , loquendi necessitate partita haec vocabula , &c. l. 7. c. 4. No● h●c definitione eam quam Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt terminavimus . Boet. de Una Persona Christi . Prima & summa vita , cui non aliud est vivere , & aliud esse , sed idem est esse & vivere . Primus & summus intellectus , cui non est aliud vivere , & aliud intelligere , sed id quod est intelligere , hoc vivere , hoc esse est , unum omnia . Aug. de Tr. l. 6. c. 10. Si tamen dignum est , ut De●● dicatur subsistere . — Deus autem si subsisti● at substantia propriè dici possit , inest in co aliquod tanquam in subjecto , & non est s●●plex . — N●fas est autem dicere ut subsist●t , & subsit Deus bonitati suae . — Unde manifestum est , Deum abusiv● substantiam vocari , ut nomine usitatiore intelligatur essentia , qu●d verè & proprie dicitur , ita ut fortasse solum Deum dici oporteat esse essenti●m . — Ego sum qui sum , & qui est misit me ad vos . Id. l. 7. c. 4 , 5. Personam in accidentibus non posse constitui , relinquitur ergò , u● Personam in Substantiis dici conveniat . Boet. de una Christi Persona . Non enim aliud est Deo esse , ali●d Personam esse , sed omnino idem . Neque in hàc Trinitate , cùm dicimus Personam Patris , aliud dicimus , quàm Substantiam Patris . Aug. Tr. l. 7. c. 6. Personam in Substantiis dici conve●●at — non autem in non viventibus corporibus , vel s●nsu carentibus , vel intellec●●s & ratione . Boet. ibid. In universalibus Persona dici non potest , sed in singularibus atque individuis . Boet. Ibid. Cùm ipsae Substantiae in Universalibus quidem sint , in particularibus verò capiant Substantiam , jure Substantias particulariter Subsistentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( Graeci ) appellaverunt . Id. Omnis essentia , quae relativè dicitur , est etiam aliquid excepto relativo , ut homo dominus , homo servus — ad se dicuntur , & substantiae sunt vel essentiae : dominus vero & servus — ad aliquid relative dicuntur : sed si non esset homo , id est , aliqua substantia , non esset qui relative dominus diceretur . — Quapropter si & Pater non est aliquid ad se ipsum , non est omnino qui relativè dicatur ad aliquid . Aug. de Trinit . l. 7. c. 1. Nos verò unicum , quidem Deum credimus , sub hác tamen dispensatione , quam aeconomiam dicimus , ut umci Dei sit & filius , & sermo ipsius , qui ex ipso processerit , per quem omnia facta sunt , & sine quo factum est nihil . Tert. cont . Prax. c. 2. p. 501 Oxon. Dum unicum , Deum non aliàs putat credendum , quàm si ipsum eundemque & Patrem , & Filium , & Spiritum Sanctum dicat , quasi non sit quoque unus sit omnia , dum ex uno omnia , per substantiae scilicet unitatem , & nihilominus custodiatur aeconomiae sacramentum , quae unitatem in Trinitatem disponit , tres dirigens Patrem , & Filium , & Spiritum Sanctum . Ibid. Iudaicae fidci ista res est , sic unum Deum credere , ut Filium adnumerare ei nolis , & post Filium Spiritum . Tert. c. Prax. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. cont . Sabell . Tom. 1. p. 651. Paris . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. Quidam ita Evangelicae fidei corrumpunt Sacramentum , ut sub unius Dei pià tantùm professione , nativitatem Unigeniti Dei abnegent — Qui sub unius Dei solâ sanè utili ac religiosâ praedicatione , aut Deum natum Christum negant , aut verum Deum non esse contendunt , ut Creatio potentis Creaturae intra unum Deum fidei Sacramentum relinquat , quia nativitas Dei extra unius Dei fidem religionem protrahat confitentium . Sed nos edocti divinitus , neque duos Deos praedicare , neque solum , hanc Evangelici ac Prophetici praeconit rationem in Confessione Dei Patris & Dei Filii afferemus , ut unum in fide nosira sit uterque , non unus ; neque cundem utrumque , neque inter verum & falsum aliud confitentes : quia Deo ex Deo nato , neque eundem nativitas p●rmittit esse , neque aliud . Hilar. de Trin. lib. 1. Cùm enim unum Deum prophanae assertio infidelitatis ingereret , & rursum unum Deum negare fides sana non posset , tractari de eo non sine ancipitis periculi conscientiâ potuit , quod non minus impiè confirmaretur , quàm negar●tur . Hil. de Trinit . lib. 5. Non ignorans , quantum in eo sit , vel responsionis periculum vel silentii , & e● utraque opportunitatem impietatis expectans . Atque ita sapientia mundi , quae stultitia apud Deum est , specie blandae & pestiferae simplicitatis illuderet , cum hoc fidei suae constitu●ret exordium , in quo sibi impiè assentiremur aut adversaremur . Et per hoc utriusque rei periculum , Dei filium Deum non esse obtineret , quia Deus unus est ; aut extorqueret alterius haeres●os necessitatem , si & patrem Deum & filium Deum confitentes , unum Deum praedicare secundum Sabellii opinionem impiam existimaremur . Ibid. Non n●gantes Deum , unum , sed — Deum & Deum — Praedicantes , & Deum unum non per unionem docentes , neque rursum ad diversitatis numerum des●cantes ; neque contra in nominibus tantùm confi●entes , sed Deum & Deum . Ibid. Nemini dubium esse oportet ad divinarum rerum cognitionem divinis utendum esse Doctrinis — Non subeunt ingenia nostra in coelestem scientiam , neque incomprehensibilem virtutem sensu aliquo infirmitas nostra concipiet . Hilar. l. 4. de Trin. Ipsi de se Deo credendum est , & iis , quae cognitioni nostrae de se tribuit , obsequendum ; aut enim more Gentilium denegandus est , si testimonia ejus improbantur ; aut si , ut est , Deus creditur , non potest aliter de Deo , quàm ut ipse est de se testatus , intel●igi . Ibid. Non negantes Deum unum , sed eo ipso Autore Deum & Deum , per quem Deus unus praedicatus est , praedicantes . — Atque ita non autoritati contrarium est , sed ex autoritate responsum est , ne per id filium liceret Deum negare , quia ad Israel Deus unus est : cùm confitendi Dei filium Deum idem Autor est , qui Autor est Dei unius praedicandi . Hilar. de Trin. l. 5. prope initium . Habes ergo Deum ex quo , habes Deum per quem ; aut si id negabis , necesse est , id quod factum est , per quem factum sit , doceas . Quod ergo dictum est , fiat firmamentum , in eò quod pater sit locutus , ostenditur ; & quod fecisse Deus dicitur , in eo persona efficientis est intelligenda , qui faciat . Hilar. de Trin. lib. 4. Sensus communis intelligentiae non recipiet , ut in eo quod dictum est , jussit & facta sun● ▪ solitarius atque id●m significatus credatur . Ibid. Caeterùm , etsi ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus , tam●n ahum dicam oportet ex necessitate sensus , eum qui jubet , & eum qui facit : nam nec j●ber●t , si i●se faceret , dum juberet fieri per eum : tamen jubebat , haud sibi jussurus si unus esset ; aut sine ●●ssit facturus , quia non expectasset , ut sibi juberet . Tert. adv . Prax. c. 12. Haec aut nega Scripta , aut quis es , ut non putes accipienda qu●madmodim Scripta sunt ; maxime quae non in Allegoriis & Parabolis , sed in d●finitionibus , & certis & simplicibus habent sensum . Tert. adv . Prax. c. 13. Deus enim per Legistatorem secundum intelligentiam nostram locutus est : Verbis videlicet quibus uti ipse nos voluit , cognitionem corum nobis , quae gessit , imperticus . Hilar. Ibid. Sustulit singularis intelligentiam prof●ssione consortu : Consorti●m autem esse aliquod solitario ipsi sibi non potest . Quid enim tam alienum ab eo qui solus ●sset , ut sibi faciendum diceret , cùm voluntate tantum opus est , ut fieret . N●one rursum recipit solitarii solitudo , F●ciamus , r●que quisq● un alieno à se Nostram loqui●●● uterque sermo , & faciamus , & nosi 〈…〉 silitarium ●●ndemque non patitur , ita neque divers●●● à se alienumque significat . Cognita per id , quòd nost●am imagin●m dicit , non etiam imagines nosiras , ●mus in utroque prepietate naturae . Hil. Ibid. Non ergo in fabricatione mundi solitarius Pater sibi loquitur , sapientiâ suâ secum & co operante , & consummata co operatione gaudente . Ibid. Te●t . a●v . Pra●●a●● . Salvo enim filio recte unicum Deum potest determinasse , cujus est filius . Non enim definit esse qui habet filium ipse unicus , suo scilicet nomine , quotiens sine filio n●minatur . Sine filio autem nominatur , quum principaliter determinatur ut prima p●rsona , quae ante si●i● nomen erat proponenda ; quia pater ante ●●gn●●citur , & post patrem fi●ius nominatur . Igitur unus Deus Pater , & ali●s absque ●o non est . Quod ipse infer●us non ●●lium n●gat , sed alium Deum . Cae●●rum alius à Patre filius non est . D●nique , inspice sequentia hujusmodi pronuntiationum , & invenies fere ad Id●lorum factitatores atque cultores definitionem carum pertinere ; ut multitudinem falsorum Deorum unio Divinitatis expellat , habens tamen filium quanto individuum & inseparatum a patre tanto in patre reputandum , etsi non nominatum , atquin si nominasset eum , separasset , ita dicens , alius praeter me non est , nisi filius mēus ; alium enim etiam filium fecisset , quem de aliis excepisset . Puta solem dixisse , ego sol , & praeter me ●on est , nisi radius meus , nonne denotasses vanitatem , quasi non & ra●ius in sole deputetur . Tert. adv . Prax. c. 18. Qui etsi De●●●●catur , quando nominatur sing●●● 〈◊〉 non igitur du●s Deos faciat , se● 〈◊〉 , hoc ipso quod & Deus ex unitate patri● vocari habeat . Ibid. c. 19. Non alter ad eum Deus deputatur ( filius ) non enim ex alia substantia , sed ex Deo Deus est . Nihil itaque in eo novum , nihil extraneum , nihil recens est . Hilar. de Trin. l. 4. in fine . Reliquus autem nunc omnis s●rmo ad id proficiet , ut qui Deus verus esse intelligitur , non in Deum alterum deputetur : Et quod in alterum non proficit , id unum intelligatur . Non enim aliud quàm Deus subsistit , quod non aliunde quàm ex Deo Deus subsistit : Nam cùm ipse Deus sit , tamen etiam per naturae virtutem in eo Deus est : Et per id quod ipse Deus , & in eo Deus est , non est Deus praeter eum : Cùm non extet aliunde quod Deus est , & in eo Deus sit , habens in se & quod ipse est , & ex quo ipse subsistit . Id. l. 5. Quoniam ego sum Dominus , & non est Deus praeter me : Est enim unigenitus Deus , neque consortem unigeniti nomen admittit , sicut non recipit innascibilis , in eo tantum quòd est innascibilis , participem . Est ergò unus ab uno , neque praeter Deum innascibilem Deus innascibilis alius est ; neque praeter unigenitum Deum Deus unigenitus quisquam est . Uterque itaque Unus & Solus est , proprictate videlicet in unoquoque & innascibilitatis & originis . Ac sic uterque Deus unus est : Cùm inter unum & unum , id est , ex uno unum , Divinitatis aeternae non sit secunda natura . Hil. l. 4. In his ergo si unum magis quam solitarium Deum intelligis , ecclesiae religionem profiteberis , quae Patrem in Filio confitetur . Sin verò unum Deum ad solitarii significationem , sacram●nti coelestis ignarus oltendis , extra cognitionem Dei es , Deum i● Deo esse non confitens . l. 5. Considerations , p. 1. Consid. p. 2. Consid. p. 3. P. 3. P. 5. P. 2. P. 9. P. 10. Alii qu●que Haeretici ●sque adeò Christi manifestam amplexati sunt Divinitatem , ut dixerint illum fuisse sine Carne , & totum illi susceptum detraxerint hominem , ne decoquerent in illo divini nominis potestatem , si humanam illi sociassent , ut arbitrab●ntur , nativitatem . Novat . de T●init . c. 18. Epiph. l. 1. Tom. 2. Haer. 4. five 24. Tertul de praescript . Haeret. Hoc si qui putaverit me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquam in● roducere , id est , prolation●m rei alterius ex altera , quod facit Valentinus , alium atque ali●m Aeonem de Aeone producens ; primo quid●m dicam tibi , non ideo non utitur & Veritas Vocabulo isto , & re & censu ejus , quia & haeresis potius ex veritate accepit , quod ad mendacium suum strueret . Prolatus est Sermo Dei an non ? Hic mecum gradum fige . Si prolatus est , Cognosce probolam Veritatis , & viderit Haeresis si quid de Veritate imitata est . Iam nunc quaeritur , quis quomodo utatur aliqua re & vocabulo ejus ? Valentinus probolas suas discernit & separat ab Auctore : Et ita longe ab eo ponit , ut Aeon Patrem nesciat . Denique desiderat nosse , nec po●est ; immo & pene devoratur , & dissolvitur in reliquam substantiam . Apud nos autem solus filius patrem novit & sinum patris ipse exposuit , & omnia apud patrem audivit & vidit . — Sermo ergo & in patre semper , sicut dicit , Ego in patre . Et apud Deum semper , sicut scriptum est , & sermo erat apud Deum , & nunquam separatus à patre , aut alius à patre ; quia , Ego & Pater unum sumus . Haec erit probola veritatis , cuflos unitatis , quâ prolatum dicimus filium à patre , s●d non separatum . Tert. adv . Praxeam . c. 8. Firmum est genus probationis , quod etiam ab adversario sumitur , ut veritas etiam ab ipsis inimicis veritatis probetur . Nam usque adeò manifestum est in Scripturis esse Deum tradi , ut plerique haereticorum divinitatis ipsius magnitudine & veritate commoti , ultra modum extendentes honores ejus , ausissent non filium , sed ipsum Deum patrem promere vel putare . Quod etsi contra veritatem Scripturarum est , tamen divinitatis Christi argumentum grande atque praecipuum est : qui usque adeo Deus , sed quâ filius Dei natus ex Deo ; ut plerique illum ( ut diximus ) haeretici , ita Deum acceperint , ut non filium , sed patrem pronunciandum putarent , &c. Novat . de Trin. c. 18. In eo quod credit ( Arius ) alium esse Patrem , alium Filium , mecum est contra Sabellianos . Aug. de 5. Haeres . c. 5. P. 9 , 10. P. 14. P. 13. ● . 14. P. 14. P. 20. P. 24. Persona , ut Ecclesia in hoc articulo loquitur , est substantia individua , intelligens , & incommunicabilis . Satis constat veteres Scriptores Ecclesiae solitos haec duo vocabula discernere , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & dicere unam esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , essentiam aeterni Patris , Filii & Spiritus Sancti , sed tres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , tres verè subsistentes , non commentitios , non caducos , non confusos , sed distinctos , singulares intel●●gentes . Lusit homo Fanaticus Servetus de vecabulo Personae , & disputat olim Latinis significasse habitum aut officti distinctionem , ut dicimus Roscium alias sustin●re Personam Achillis , alias sustinere Personam Ulyssis ; seu alia est Persona Consulis , alia servi : ut Cicero inquit , Magnum est in republica tueri Personam Principis . Et hanc veterem significationem vecabuli sycophantice detorquet ad Articulum de tribus Personis Divinitatis . Sed has impias pras●igias fugiamus & execremur , & sciamus in hoc Articulo aliter loqui Ecclesiam , & Personam dici substantiam individuam , intelligentem , & incommunicabilem . Ac prodest in hac cogitatione saepe mente intueri baptismum Christi , ubi tres Personae illustri discrimine monstrantur . Pater sonat hanc vocem : Hic est Filius meus dilectus . Filius stans in flumine conspicitur : & Spiritus Sanctus specie visibili demittitur . Melanct. loci Theolog. de tribus Personis Divinitatis . P. 20. P. 13 ▪ P. 21. P. 24. P. 16 , 20 , 21. P. 16. P. 18. P. 19. P. 21. P. 21. P. 22. P. 24. P. 24 , 25. P. 2● . P. 30. P. 31. P. 32. P. 37. P. 36. P. 37. P. 38. P. 38. P. 39. P. 40. P. 41. P. 41. P. 42. P. 43. Sin autem ideo dictum putant Deum , quod inspirationem divinitatis habuit , sicut & multi sancti viri — ergo non ultra homines eum praeferunt — Ambr. de fide , l. 5. cap. 1. P. 44. Sed quia duos unum volunt esse , ut idem Pater & Filius habeatur , oportet & totum de filio examinari , ut sit , & qui sit , & quomodo sit . Tert. ad Prax. c. 5. Ipsum qu●d Pater & Filius dicuntur , nonne aliud ab alio est . Utique ●nim omnia quod vocantur , h●c crunt ; & quod crunt , hoc vccaluntur — Ita aut pater aut filius est , & neque dies cadem & nox , neque pater idem & filius , ut sint ambo unus , & utrumque alter . Ibid. c 9 , 10. Ipsi se , inquiunt , filium sibi faci● , atquin pater filium facit , & patrem filius . Et qui ex alterutro fiunt , à semetipsis sibi fieri nullo modo possiunt , ut pater se sibi filium faciat , & filius se sibi patrem praestet . Qu●e institut Deus , ipse custodit . Ibid. Habeat , necesse est , pater filium , 〈◊〉 pater sit , & filius patrem , ut filius sit . Aliud est autem habere , aliud ●sse . Verbi gratia , ut maritus sim , h●b●a● oportet uxorem , non ut ipse mihi ero ●xor ; sic etiam , ut pater s●●n , filium habco , non ipse mihi ero filius . Ibid. Qu●e enim me faciunt , si ha●●●ero , tun`e ero pater , si filium habeam , filiu● ero , si patrem , Parro , si ipse ero qui● coruum , jam non habeo , quod ipse ero ; n●c patrem , quia ipse ero pat●● , 〈◊〉 filium , quia ipse ero filius : in q●antum vero alterum ex his hab●re m● oportet ; alterum esse , in tantum si ●trumque sucro , alterum non ero , dum alterum non habeo ▪ si enim ups● ero filius ut , q●a & pster , sum non habeo filium , sed ipse sun filius . Non haben●o autem filium cum ipse sum flius , quem●do pater ero ? habere enim filium d● b●n , ut pater sini ; non sum ergo silius , quia patr●n● non habeo , qui 〈◊〉 filium ; 〈…〉 si ipse sum pater , qu● & filius , &c. H●c ●rit titum ingenium Diab●li , alterum ex aliero ●xelua●re , dum utrumque in 〈◊〉 s●b Monar●●●ae ●avore conclu●●●ns , ●entrum hale●● 〈◊〉 , &c. Ibid. Non posse unum & eundem videri , qui loquitur , & de quo loquitur , & ad quem loquitur : quia neque perversit as , neque fallacia Deo congruat , ut ci●n ipse esset ad quem loquebatur , ad alium potius , & non ad semetipsum loquatur . Ibid. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. cont . Gregales Sabellii . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Ibid. Ipse enim ad humana semper colloquia descendit ab Adam usque ad Patriarchas & Prophetas , in visione , in somnio , in speculo , in aenigmate , ordinem suum praestruens ab initio semper , quem erat persecuturus in finem ; it a semper ediscebat & Deus in terris cum hominibus conversari , non alius potuit quàm sermo , qui caro erat futurus . Tert. adv . Prax. c. 16. Quid agis Lot sancte ? Angelos vides , non unum , sed duos , & dicis domine mi. Duos video , aequales video , unum rogo , nulli injuriam facio , quia patrem & filium non divido ; Sabellianus legat duos venisse , &c. Aug. de 5. Haeres . Epiph. c. Noes . Haer. 57. Audi tu Sabelliane , audi de coelo patrem , vide in terra filium , & noli dicere , idem pater qui silius . Aug. de quinque Haeres . cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. cont . Gregal . Sabellij . Ergo inquis , das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem ? plane . Non vis enim eum substantivum habere in re per substantae proprietatem , ut res & persona quaedam videri possit , & it a capiat secundus a Deo constitutus duos officere , patrem & filium , Deum & sermonem . Quid est enim , dices , sermo , nisi vox & sonus oris , & sicut Grammatici tradunt , aer offensus , intelligibilis auditu , caeterum vacuum nescio quid , & inane & incorporale . Tert. adv . Prax. c. 7. At ego nihil di●o de Deo mane & vacuum prodire potuisse , ut non de inani & vacuo prolatum , neo carere substantiâ , quod de tanta substantia processit , & tantas substantias fecit , feciz enim & ipse , quae facta sunt per ipsum : quale est ut nihil sit ipse , sine quo nihil factum est ? ut inanis solida , & vacuus plena , & incorporalis corporalia operatus sit ? Nam etsi potest aliquando quid fieri diversum cjus per quod fit ; nihil tameu potest fieri per id , quod vacuum & iname est . Ibid. Vacua & inanis res est sermo De● , qui filius dictus est , qui ipse Deus cogneminatus est ? & sermo erat apud Deum , & Deus erat sermo . Hic certè est , qui in effigie Dei constitutus , non rapinam exiitimavie esse se aqualem Deo. In qua ●ffigie Dei ? utique in alia , non tamen in nullâ . Quaecunque ergo substantia sermonis fuit , illam dico Personam , & illi nomen filii vindico ; & dum filium agnosco , secundum a Patre defendo . Ibid. In substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem . Nov. de Trin. c. 24. Sermo filius natus est , qui non in ●ono percussi aeris , aut tono coactae de visceribus vocis accipitur , sed in substantia prolatae à Deo virtutis cognoscitur . — Substantia scilicet illa divina , cujus nomen est verbum . Ibid. c. 30. Deus utique procedens ex Deo secundam personam efficiens . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. cont . Sabellii Gregal . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Ibid. p. 658. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Est alia , quae triformem sic asserit Deum , ut quaedam pars ejus sit pater , quaedam filius , quaedam spiritus sanctus , hoc est , quod Dei unius partes sint , quae istam faciunt Trinitatem , velut ex his tribus partibus compleatur Deus , nec sit perfectus in seipso , vel pater , vel filius , vel spiritus sanctus . Aug. de Haeres . ad quod vult . Deum . Haeres . 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Athan. con . Greg. Sab. p. 661. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 662. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc. Orth. Fidei . l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Id. ib. c. 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Ath. contr . Gregal . Sabell . p. 662. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — Ibid. 658. Quin etiam id adjiciunt , cum unius substantiae patrem & filium esse audiunt , ab anterioribus episcopis esse praedicatum , ut id subtiliter per speciem haereticae opinionis infirment ; dicentes eos verbi hujus significationem , id est , unius substantiae , quod gracè dicitur homoousion , hoc sensu usurpare atque eloqui , tanquam ipse sit pater qui & filius , ex infinitate videlicet suà protenlus in virginem , ex quâ corpus assumens sibi , in to corpore quod assumpsit filii nomen addiderit ; & haec quidem de Hil. de Trin. l. 4. Secundo id quodque addidistis , quod Patres nostri , cum Paulus Samosatenus hareticus pronunciatus est , etiam homoousion repudiaverint , quia per hanc untus essentiae nuncupationem , solitarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrcem & Filium praedicabat , & hoc same nunc quoque prophanissimum Ecclesia recognoscit , Patrem & Filium in his nominum professionibus ad unionis & singularis solitudinem negat● personarum proprietate revocare . Hilar . de Synod . propè finem . Bull. Defens . Fidei Nicaenae . p. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil. ep . 300. Sequens illa est , quod affirment id enuntiationem homoousii significare , quod rei anterioris & alterius communio sit duobus , & tanquam prior substantia vel usia materiae alicujus exciterit , quae participata duobus , & in utroque consumpta , utrumque illam & nature anterioris , & rei esse testetur unius . Atque ideirco improbare se homoousii aiunt confessionem , quod enuntiatio ejus neque Filium à Patre distinguat , & posteriorem Patrem materia , quae sibi cum Filio sit communis , oftendat . Hil. de Trin lib. 4. initio . De homoousio verò , quod est unius essentiae tractantes , primùm idcirco respuendum pronuntiastis , quia per verbi hujus enunciationem substantia prior intelligeretur , quam duo inter se partiti essent — prophanus hic sensus est , & communi judicio ab ecclesiae respuendus . Hil. de Synod Quis enim sanae mentis tertiam substantiam , que & Patri & Filio communis sit , praedicabit . Non hic sanctissima religiosorum virorum synodus , nescio quam priorem , quae in duos divisa sit , substantiam introducat , sed Filium natum de substantia Patris . Ibid. Tertio quoque hanc improbandi homoousti causam commimscuntur , quod secundum verbi hujus significationem , ex divisione Paternae substantiae esse Filius existimetur , tanquam desectus ex co fuerit , ita ut in duos sit res una divisa : & ideo substantiae dicantur unius , quia portio desecta de toto , in natura ca sit unde desecta est . Hil. de Trin. lib 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Socrates H. E. lib. 1. c. 8. Eusebii Epist. ad Caesariensis apud Socrat . Ibid In his igitur tot tamque gravibus fidei periculis , verborum brevitas temperanda est , ne impie dici existimetur , quod pic intelligitur : ne secura atque innocente conscientia , per occasionem haereticorum reus sermo sit , dicturus unam substantiam Catholicus Patris & Filii , non inde incipiat ; neque hoc quasi maximum teneat , tanquam sine hoc vera fides nulla sit . Hilar. de Synodis . Unam substantiam dicet , cùm ante dixerit , pater ingenitus est , filius natus est , subsistit ex Patre , Patri similis est , virtute , honore , natura , &c. Et post haec unam substantiam patris & filii decendo , non errat , at unam substantiam negando , jam peccat . Nemo unam substantiam brevi & nudo sermone putet praedicandam : ut possit religiose deci , una esse substantia . Nihil solitarium ex divinis sacramentis ad suspicionem audientium , & ad occasionem blasphemantium proferamus . Ante nativitas filii , ante subjectio , ante similitudo naturae praedicanda est , ut non impie unius & Pater & Filius substantiae praedicetur . Ibid. Si ergo naturam neque aliam , neque dissimilem ci , quem impassibiliter generabat , dedit , uon potest aliam dedisse , nisi propriam ; ita similitudo proprietas est , proprietas aequalitas est , & aequalitas nihil differt ; qui autem nihil differunt , unum sunt ; non unione personae , sed aequalicate a●●urae . Hil. de Synod . Testor Dominum coeli atque terra me cùm neutrum audissem , semper tamen utrumque sensisse , quòd per homaeusion homousion eperteret intelligi ; id est , nihil simile sibi secundum naturam esse posse , nisi quod esset ex cadem naturâ . Fidem Nicaenam nunquam nisi exulaturus audivi , sed mihi homousii & homaeusii intelligentiam Evangelia & Apostoli intimaverunt . Ib. in fine . Religiosè unam substantiam praedicamus , dummodò unam substantiam proprietatis similitudinem intelligamus , ut quod unum sunt , non singularem significet , sed aequales . Aequalitatem dico , id est , indifferentiam similitudinis , ut similitudo habeatur aequalitas . Aequalitas verò unum idcirco dicitur esse , quod par sit , unum verò in quo par significatur , non ad unicum vindicetur . — Credamus & dicamus esse unam substantiam , sed per naturae proprietatem , non ad significationem impiae unionis . Una sit ex similitudine non ex solitudine . Hilar. de Synod . Ita similitudinis aequalitas nec solitudinem habet , nec diversitatem , quia omnis aequalitas nec diversa nec sola sit . Idem l. 7. de Trin. Deus qued est genuit , ejusdem substantiae , ejusdem essentiae , sine tempore , sibi coaeternum genuit — Hanc Dei Trinitatis substantiam unam homusion verbo Graeci complecti breviter maluerunt . Non enim nomen est , sed res terribilis est in verbo hujusmodi sonaus . Quod verbum apertè ipse Fili●s declarat , cùm dicit , ego & Pater unum sumus . In isto uno consistit substantia una . — Contra hoc pugnetur , quod possidet , quod habet , quod docet verbum Graecum , non contra ipsum verbum , quod auribus retinuit syllabis articulatum . Contra divitio●s , contra aequalitatem naturae , quod possidet verbum , &c. Altercatio inter Aug. & Pascentium . To. 2. Nec esse nomen fidei homusion , sed aequalitatem magis ipsius Trinitatis — Laurentius vir clarissimus dixit , sic ergo & homusion quod in dubium veniebat te proponente , & si scriptum non est , res ipsa tamen , quae latet in verbo , vera est . Credatur honorificè Unitati , ne fiat injuria Tranitati . Ibid. Displicet cuiquam in Synodo Nicaena homousion esse susceptum ? Hoc si cui displicet , necesse est placeat quod ab Arianis est negatum . Negatum enim idcirco est homousion , ne ex substantia Dei Patris Deus Filius natus , sed secundum Creaturas ex nihilo conditus praedicaretur — Hilar. de Synod . prope finem . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Socr. H. E. l. 1. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. de Decr. Syn. Nicaenae . p. 267. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 269. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. Conc. T. 2. Col. 8 21. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Syn. Nic. decret . p. 274. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Ibid. Defens . Fidei Nicenae . p. 66. Basil. Hom. 27. c. Sabell . Basil. Ep. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Athan. de communi Essentia . Vol. 1. p. 213. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 214. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil adv . Eunom . T. 1. l. 1. p. 719. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil adv . Eunom . T. 1. l. 1.717 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — Ibid. lib. 2. p. 734. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil. Ep. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 734 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc. orth . nd . l. 1. c. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Damasc. de orth . fide . l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyssenus cont . Eunomium . Orat. 1. p. 78. Parisiis . 1615. Tres enim Deos dicit , qui divinitatem separat Trinitatis , cùm Dominus dicendo ; Ite , baptizate Gentes in Nomine Patris , & Filii , & Spiritus Sancti , unius esse Trinitatem potestatis ostenderit . Ambr. de Fide. l. 1. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Ep. 300. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. cont . Arianos . Orat. 2. p. 314. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 320. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Gr. Nyss. c Eun. or . 1. p. 9. Quasi aliud sit Homoousion quâm quod dicit , ego de Patre exivi , ego & Pater unum sumus ; — Haec est autem nominis ratio , ut in Patre & Filio unitatem substantiae credas , licet rem ipsam ( quae est inenarrabilis ) definire ●on posses . Ambr . de Fide cont . Arian . c. 5. Cùm autem ego Patrem & Filium statuo , unitatem generis assigno ; & si illam in personis divido , discretiones tamen personarum rursus cadem nomina in unitatem sui naturali legis foedere consignant , unde & tantus est Filius , quantus videbitur Pater , totus de toto , integer de integro , perfectus de perfecta consummataque virtute . Ibid. c. 7. Habet utique in natura , habet in substantia , & habet non per gratiam temporalem , sed per sempiternam Divinitatem ; habet non ex dono quasi servus , sed ex generationis proprietate , quasi Filius coaeternus . Et habet sicut Pater . Sicut enim Pater habet vitam in semetipso , ita & Filio dedit vitam habere in semetipso . Sic habet , inquit , sic dedit . Didicisti supra quemadmodum dederit , ne putares esse gratiae largitatem , ubi generationis arcanum est . Ambr. de Fide. l. 5. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ath. cont . Arian . or . 2. p. 321. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 314. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 321. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 330. Verbi enim appellatio in Dei Filio de Sacramento Nativitatis est , sicut sapientiae & virtutis est nomen , quae cùm in Dei F●lium cum substantia ver●e Nativitatis extiterint , Deo tamen ut sua propria , quamvis ex Deo in Deum sint nata , non desunt . — Earum rerum unigenito Deo aptata cognomina sunt , quae cum eum subsistentem ex Nativitate consumment , tamen Patri non desint exinde mutabilis virtute naturae . Hilar. de Trin. l. 7. Non enim sicut frequenter dictum a n●bis est , divisionis in Filio , sed Nativitatis Sacramentum praedicamus ; nec separatio fuit imperfecta sed progenies perfecta , quia Nativitas non habet detrimentum generandi , cum profectum teneat nascendi . Ibid. Quid est enim Filius de eo quod Pater est ? alius idem . Et hoc est quod Graeci Homoousion appellant , cum uno aliud ipsum . Ambr. de Fide cont . Arianos . c. 6 , 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Gr. Nyss. cont . Eunom . p. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. contr . Arian . Orat . 2. p. 322. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. Unus ab uno — ac sic uterque Deus unus , cùm inter unum & unum . id est , ex uno unum Divinitatis aeternae non est secunda natura . Hil. de Trin. l. 4. Nemo ambigat naturam Autoris in Filit nativitate connasci . Id. l 5. Et per id unus est Deus , quia ex natura Dei Deus sit . — Unum autem illud non subsistentem naturam perimat in Filio , sed in Deo & Deo naturam Dei conservet unius . Verum & absolutum & perfectum fidet nosirae Sacramentum est , Deum ex Deo , & Deum in Deo confiteri : non corporalibus modis , sed divinis virtutibus , nec naturae in naturam transfusione , sed mysterio & potestate naturae : n●n enim per desectionem , vel protensionem , vel derivationem , ex Deo Deus est , sed ex virtute naturae in candem naturam nativitate subsistit ▪ Eandem autem naturam inde ita , non ut natus sit ipse qui genuit , ( nam quomodo erit ipse , cùm genitus sit ) sed in his ipsis subsistat ille qui genitus est , in quibus totus est ipse , qui genuit : quia non ex alia genitus , neque aliud quam Deus est , quia non est aliunde quod genitus est . Hil. Ibid. Unius cujusque intelligentiam consulo , quid existimet in eo quod dictum sit , ex ipso . Utrumne ex altero intelligendum sit , anne ex nullo , an ipse ille censendus sit . Ex altero non est , quia ex ipso est ; id est , ne aliunde praeterquam ex Deo Deus sit . Ex nihilo non est , quia ex ipso est ; demonstratur enim natura unde nativitas est . Ipse non est , quia ubi ex ipso est , nativitas Filii resertur ex Patre . Hilar de Trin. l. 6. Nescit enim in Deo portionem , se● scit Deum totum ex Deo toto ; seit ex uno unum , non desectum , sed natum : seit nativitatem Dei , nec d●minutienem esse gignentis , nec infirmitatem esse nascentis . Ibid. Quod Deus est , Deus totum est — Deus ut est Deus , quod est permanet , & permanens Deum genuit . Ibid. Deus qui ex Deo natus est , non utique natus ex nihilo est , neque de non extantibus natus est , sed nativitatis suae viventem habuit naturam , nec idem Deus , qui erat , sed Deus ex Dec qui erat natus est . Ibid. Sed quia ex Deo Deus , neque per nativitatem suam Deo ademit , quoa Deus est , neque ipse in nativitate non Deus est , & quod Deus est non caepit esse , sed natus ex Deo Deus est , & quod nascitur , id ipsum secundum humanae naturae sensum videtur esse prolatum , & ita ut prelatio ipsa nativitas esse existimetur ; idcirco tentatum est per Valentini haeresim prolationis nomen excludi , ne nativitatis veritas permaneret , quia prolationis intelligentia opinione terrena non multum esset à natura terrenae nativitatis aliena . Ibid. De quâ Pater substantia , & ipse substantia Filius , spiritusque substantia , sed ter ipsa substantia . Marius Victorinus Afer . hym . 3. Bl. Patr. Vol. 4. p. 258. Filium non similem , sed eundem diximus , quippe ex cadem substantia . Id. adv . Arium . l. 1. p. 183. Non itaque secundum genus & speciem ista dicimus , sed quasi secundum communem eandemque materiam . Aug. de Trin ▪ l. 7. Nec sic ergo Trinitatem dicimus tres personas vel substantias , unam essentiam & unum Deum , tanquam ex una materia tria quaedam subsistant , quanqam quicquid illud est , in his tribus explicatum sit ; non enim aliquid aliud ejus essentiae est praeter istam Trinitatem ; tamen tres personas ejusdem essentioe , vel tres personas unam essentiam dicimus , tres personas ex eadem essentia non d●cimus — Cùm dicuntur tres honanes una natura , vel tres homines ejusdem naturae , possunt ctiam dici ●res homines ex eadem naturâ , quia ●n cadem naturâ & alti tres homines possunt existere . In illa verò essentia Trinitatis , nullo modo alia quaelibet persona ex eadem essentia potest existere . Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 6. Nam si genus est essentia , species autem substantia sive persona , ut nonnulli sentiunt ; omitto illud quod iam dixi , oportere appellare tres essentias , ut appellantur tres substantiae vel personae , sicut appellantur tres equi , eademque animalia tria , cùm sit species equus , animal genus ; neque enim species ibi pluraliter dicta est , & genus singulariter , tanquam diceretur tres equi unum animal , sed sicut tres equi speciali nomine , ita tria animalia generali nomine . Quod si dicunt substantiae vel personae nomine non speciem significari , sed aliquid singulare atque individuum , ut substantia & persona non ita dicatur , sicut dicatur homo , quod commune est omnibus hominibus , sed quomodo dicitur hic homo , velut Abraham , velut Isaac , velut Iacob , vel si quis alius qui etiam digito praesens demonstrar : possit ; sic quoque illos eadem rati● consequetur ; sicut enim dicuntur Abraham , Isaac , & Iacob , tria ina●vidua , ita tres homines . & tres animae ; cur ergo & Pater & Filius & Spiritus Sanctus , si secundum genus & speciem & individuum etiam ista disserimus , non ita dicuntur tres essentiae , vel tres substantiae & personae . Sed haec , ut dixi , omitto , si essentia genus est , una essentia jam non habet species . Non sunt ergo tres species unius essentiae pater & filius & spiritus sanctus . Si aut●m species est essentia ▪ sicut species est homo , tres vero illae quaes appellamus substantias sive personas , sic candem speciem communiter habent , quemadmodum Abraham , Isaac , & Iacob , speciem quae homo dicitur communiter habent , non autem sicut homo sub●ividitur in Abraham , Isaac , & Iacob . ita unus homo & in aliquos si●gulos homines subdi vidi potest , om●●no enim non potest , quia unus homo jam singulus homo est : cur ergo una essentia in tres substantias vel personas subdividiutr : Nam si essentia species est . sicut homo , sic est una essencia sicut unus homo . Aug de Tr. l. 7. c. ● Non enim major essentia est pater & filius & spiritus sanctus simul , quam solus pater out solus filius ; sed tres simul illae substantiae sive personae , si ita dicendae sunt , aequales sunt singules , quod animalis homo non percipit . Ibid. Teuenda est haec regula , quâ non minor est filius , sed de patre esse int●matur , quibus verbis non inaequalitas , sed nativitas ejus ostendatur . Aug. de Trin. l. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. contr . Gregal . Sabell . Vol. 1. p. 651. Quanquam in ejusmodi nominum usu , cùm singularem & individuam Dei esse naturam dicimus , proprietas est observanda significationis : ne sic singularis credatur esse natura , ut communis esse nequeat : & sic individua , ut in unâ tantùm existat persona , vel hypostasi , qui fuit Sabellianorum ac similium haereticorum error , ob quem nonnulli Patres istis repudiatis vocibus , it a divinitatem unam esse docuerunt , quomodo natura quaelibet communis pluribus una dicitur . Petav. de Trin. l. 4. c. 14. sect . 11. p. 443. Nec sit dissimilis in genere , quia diversitatem substantiae geniti ex substantiâ Patris Filii similitudo non recipit , & omnem in se Divinitatis Paternae , qualis & quanta est , formam invisibilis Dei Filius & imago complectitur . Et hoc verè est esse Filium , Paternae scilicet formae veritatem , coimaginatae in se naturae perfecta similitudine retulisse . Hilar. de Syn. Retinetur it aque in Patre & Filio naturae indifferentis similitudo per essentiae nativitatem , non tamen damnum Personae affert , ut unus sit missus & mittens , similitudo Naturae — quia cùm gignens & genitus unus esse non possit , non tamen diversae Naturae sint natus & generans . Ibid. In Naturâ Dei Deus unus est , it a tamen ut & Filius Deus sit , quia in so Natura non differens sit ; & cùm Deus ex Deo sit , non potest non uterque Deus esse , quorum per generis indifferentiam — non discernatur essentia . Ibid. Petav. de Trin. l. 4. c. 13. Si ad exact am Philosophiae regulam qui de Deo habetur Sermo dirigatur , non sic ejusdem Substantiae , id est , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sunt Tres Personae , uti Petrus , Pauleus , & Ioannes ; quod tamen antiqui in omni f●rè sua disputatione ponunt , quam contra Arianos instituunt . Petav. de Trin. l. 4. s. 6. p. 425. Neque verò culpandi ob id illi erunt ▪ aut inscitiae daumandi , tanquam numeralem Unitatem Divinae Essentiae funditùs ignorarint ac solam ejus , quae in natura inest humana , similem agnoverint . Nam & priorem illam intellexerunt , ut mox ostendam ; & prudenter nihi lominus hâc sunt it . exemplam usi posteriore , speci●ique propriâ Etenim sic illi adversus Arianos obnitendum sibi esse meminerant , ut scirent Sabellianam quoque pesiem esse vitandam ; in quam ab illa fugienti praeceps lapsus erat , ac lubricus . Itaque modum hunc adhibendum or ationi suae putarunt ; ut summam illam conjunctionem , & , ut Gregorius Nyssenus loquitur , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , parcius inducerent , ne Sabellianae solitudini & singularitati locus dari videretur ; alteram verò quae speciei convenit , libentiùs usurparent : Quae cùm ad Arianorum retundendam insaniam satis illis erat , tum ab Sabelliani suspicione dogmatis , & calumnia longè cos abesse monstrabat . Ibid. Petav. de Trin. l. 4. c. 13. p. 427. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Or. 4. p. 489. Ath. or . 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Ath. in expos . fidei . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Naz. Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . At h Decr. Syn. N p. 269. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 272. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 273. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . C●nt . Arian . Or. 1. p. 300 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Or. 2. p. 338. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . v. 346. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 365. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 352. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 365. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 367. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Decr. Syn. Nic. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Bas. ad Eunom . c. 1. p. 718. Tom. 1. Par. 1638. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Ath. C. Ar. O. 4. p. 488. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid p. 489. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil. Ep. 43. Gr. Nyss. d ediffer . Essent . & Hypost . Exclusa est assertio volentium nominibus tantum Patrem & Filium praedicare , cùm imago omnis ejus ad quem coimaginetur , species indifferens sit . Neque enim ipse sibi quisquam imago est , sed eum cujus imago est , necesse est ut imago demonstret . Imago est itaque rei ad rem coaequandae imagiuata & indiscreta similitudo . Est ergo Pater , est & Filius , quia imago Patris est Filius . Et qui imago est ut vere imago sit , speciem necesse est & naturam & essentiam , secundum quod imago est , in se habeat Autoris . Hilar . de Synod . Pet. de Tri. l. 4. c. 13 , & 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil cont . Sabellianos . p. 521. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 522. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. Haec est verae nativitatis intelligentia , & fidei nostrae , quae ex natura divinae unitate , unius indifferentisque divinitatis veritatem in patre & filio confitetur , absolutissimum sacramentum . Hil. de Trin. l. 7. p. 86. Bas. 1570. Exaequata virtus est per naturae indissimilis unitatem . P. 87. Omnia habere sola natura possit indifferens , neque nativitas aliquid possit habere , nisi datum sit . — Neque aliter potuit aut debuit filius à patre distingui , quàm quod natus sit , nec tamen differens doceretur . Ibid. Non confunditur itaque aut aboletur natura , ne filius sit , nec tamen rursum adimitur natura , ne Deus sit , nec discernuntur diversitate , ne unum sint , neque quod unum sunt id potest praestare , ne uterque sit . P. 88. Ego & Pater unum sumus : Ut quod unum sunt , nec diversum nec solitarium crederetur , non alia in utroque per nativitatis & generationis proprietatem existente natura . — Confessionem unius in utroque & consimilis naturae . 89. Quia non differt , nec degenerat nativitas , — dum Dei filius , non aliud quàm Deus est . Vnum dixit , ne fiat discretio potestatis ; sumus addidit , ut patrem filiumque cognoscas , quo perfectus pater perfectum filium genuisse credatur . Et pater & filius unum sint , non confusione , sed unitate naturae . Ambr. de fide , l. 1. initio . Non enim pater ipse qui filius , sed inter patrem & filium generationis expressa distinctio est ; ut ex Deo Deus , ex manente manens , ex pleno plenus sit . — Est enim plenitudo divinitatis in patre , est plenitudo divinitatis in filio , sed non discrepans , sed una divinitas . Nec confusum quod unum est , nec multiplex quod indifferens . — Quanto magis pater & filius unum sunt , ubi nec substantiae nec voluntatis ulla est differentia . — In te igitur est Deus per unitatem naturae , & non est Deus praeter te per proprietatem substantiae , repulsam differentiae . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( fortà 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyss. Catech. Or. Praef. Gr. Nyss. cat . or . c. 1. Deus est essentia Spiritualis , intelligens , verax , bona , pura , justa , misericors , liberima , immensae potentiae & sapientiae , Pater aeternus , qui Filium imaginem suam ab aterno genuit , & Filius imago Patris coaeterna , & Spiritus Sanctus procedens à Patre & Filio , &c. Melanct. loci Theol. de Deo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyss. ad Ablabium , Vol. 2. p. 448. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Gr. Nyss. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. Diversitas plures facit , unitas potestatis excludit numeri quantitatem , quia unitas numerus non est , sed haec omnium ipsa principium est . Ambr. de fide , c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Greg. Nyss. Catech. Or. cap. 3. N●merus enim duplex est , unus quidem , quo numeramus , alter verò , qui in rebus numerabilibus constat ; ergo in numero quo numeramus , repetitio unitatum facit pluralitatem ; in rerum vero numero non facit pluralitatem unitatum repetitio . Boet. de duabus in Christo Naturis . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil. Apolog . ad Caesar. Ep. 141. p. 164. T. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Peter Lomb. lib. 1. dist . 23. Estius , lib. 1. dist . 2. sect . 5. Lib. 1. dist . 23. Damascen . de Orthod . fide l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc. de Orth. Fide. l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Ibid. Contra Eunom . l. 12. Pet. de Tr. l. 4 c. 1 , 2 , 3. Petav. de Tr. l. 4. c. 3. s. 6. L. 1. dist . 25. Parte prima . q. 30. Art. 1. Sicut nos d●●in●us in divinis pluraliter tres personas , & tres subsistentias , ita Graeci dicunt tres hypostases . Sed quia nomen substantiae , quod secund●m preprietatem significationis respond●● hypostasi , aequ●●●ocatur ●pud nos , cùm ●uandoque significet essentiam , quandoque hypostasin , ne pess● esse erroris occasio , maburunt pro hyp●stasi tran ferre s●bsistentiam , quam sabscantiam . Ibid. q. 29. art . 2. ad secundum . Ecce expresse dicitur , quòd Persona secundum substantiam decitur , ut cum decitur , Pater est Persona , hic sit sensut , Pater est divina essentia ; similiter cùm dicitur , Filius est Persona . Spiritus Sanctus est Persona , id est divina essentia . Lomb. dist . 23. Idem , Dist. 26. Dist. 25. Hoc etiam modo sanè potest accipi persona in praemissis locutionibus , cùm dicitur alia est persona Patris , alia filii , id est , alia est proprietas , quâ pater est pater , alia , quâ filius est filius , alia , quâ spiritus sanctus est spiritus sanctus . Ita etiam nomine personae quidam proprietates intelligere volunt , cùm dicuntur tres personae ; sed melius est ut subsistentias vel hypostases intelligamus , cum dicimus tres personas . Ex praedictis colligitur , quòd nomen personae in Trinitate triplicem tenet intelligentiam ; est enim ubi facit intelligentiam essentiae , & est ubi facit intelligentiam hypostasis , & est ubi facit intelligentiam proprietatis ▪ Dist. 25. De Tr. l. 7. c. 6. Basil. Ep. 349. Ep. 391. Quae liguendi rati●nes indicent , Personat illas , — non unum & simpl●x hahere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , neque diversas solum c●●idem individui functiones & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quibus appel ationes variae comp●●ant — s●d diversitatem illam & mul●iplicitatem in subjecto esse revera , ac tria emnino ex se distincta , & su●sistentibus proprietatibus separata consistere . Petav. l. 4. c. 2. p. 324. De Trin. l. 6. c. 22 , 23. See Dr. Payn ' s Letter to the Bishop of Rochester . See the Defence of Dr. Sherlock ' s notion of a Trinity in Unity , p. 19. &c. Adeo propter summam unitatem & simplicitatem excluditur omnis pluralitas absolutè dictorum , non autem pluralitas relationum Quae relationes praedicantur de aliquo ut ad alterum , & sic compositionem in ipso de quo dicuntur non important . Aquin. 1. q. 30. art . 1 , ad 3. Imago enim est similitudo non quaecunique , sed ex eo , cujus imago dicitur expressa ; respondent enim sibi invicem imago & exemplar . Proinde non quaecunque sibi mutuò sunt multum similia , ut ovum ovo , sunt ejusmodi , ut alterum sit imago alterius ; non enim in his omnibus , verbi gratia in ovis , alterum de altero expressam gerit figuram , sed quod ex re objecta resultat in speculo , & similitudo sigilli cerae impressa , & alia hujusmodi propriè imagines dicuntur . Estius dist 27. S. 8. & Aquin 1. q 35. in corpore . Has proprietates designant nomina personarum , scilicet Pater , Filius , & Spiritus Sanctus ; quae relativa sunt , & ad se invicem dicuntur . Quia notant relationes , quae non sunt Deo accidentales , sed in ipsis Personis ab aeterno sunt immutabiliter , ut non modo appellationes sunt relativae , sed etiam relationes , sive notiones in rebus ipsis , scilicet in Personis sint . Lomb. l. 1. dist . 26. Pater non dicitur nisi à Paternitate , & Filius à filiatione ; si igitur paternitas & filiatio non sunt in Deo realiter , sequitur , quòd Deus non sit realiter Pater aut Filius , sed secundum rationem intelligentiae tantum , quae est haeresis Sabelliana . Aqu. 1. q. 28. art . 1. Relationes in divinis , cùm sint secundum processiones in identitate naturae , reales quasdam in divinis esse relationes necessarium est . Ibid. Respectus in natura rerum sunt relationes reales , cùm aliquid procedit à principio ejusdem naturae , necesse est quod ambo , scilicet procedens , & id à quo procedit in eodem ordine conveniant , & sic oportet quod habeant reales respectus ad invicem . Ib. Relatio realiter in Deo existens , idem est essentiae secundum rem . Aq 1. q. 28. art . 2. Relationes personales nec à Personis , nec ab essentia reip●â distingui . Estius dist . 33. S. 2. l. 1. Aquinas & Estius , Ibid. Aqui. 1. q. 30. Ar. 2. Lomb. l 1. d. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nyss. Orat. Cat. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. Leontius de sectis Act. 1. B.P. Gr. L. T. 1. p. 493. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theod. Abuc . Op. 2. B. P. Gr. L. p. 382. Athan. Decr. Syn. Nic. T. I. p. 269. Sed nec sicut Hierachas lucernam dixit de lucerna , vel lampadem in duas partes . Hilar. de Tr. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Syn. Nic. decr . p. 271. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dionys. Alex. ap . Athan. Syn. Nicen. decr . T. I. p. 275. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. cont . Arian . Or. 4. p. 456. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 437. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Syn. Nic. decret p. 269. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Or. 4. c. Ar. p. 456. Hil. C 7. de Tr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ath. Or. 4. c Ar. p. 454. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 456. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nyss. ad Abl. Vol. 2. p. 450. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . See the Defence of Dr. Sherlock 's Notion of a Trinity in Unity . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. p. 456. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theophyl . in locum . Sed c●m na●ura Dei in natura Dei substi●●ss●● , id est , ex patre filius natus esser , per virtutis ac naturae in se paternae conscientiam , nihil ab se , ni●i quod patrem faci●ntem vidisset , fi●●●m fac●re poss● testatus est . Et cum unigenitus Deus pa●ern●e virtutis operationibus operaretur , tantum si●i a● fa●iendum praesumcret , quantum in Conscientia sua esfet , inseparabil●m à se Dei Patris , quam per l●gitimam nativitatem ob●in ▪ bat , posse naturam ; non enim corporalibus modis via●● , sed visus ei omnis in virtute Naturae est . Hil. de Trin. c. 7. Et demonstratio operum non ignorationis instructio , sed nostrae fidei , quae non silio scientiam ignoratorum , sed nobis confess●onem nativitatis invexit — ut demonstratio ipsa nativitatis esse substantia d●ceretur , cui per dile●●●●ne● patris op●rum paterno●●● — esset cognata cognitio . Ibid. Quod a●tem videt , conscia in se na●●●ae s●●nificatur aguitio , & in eo nunc . 〈◊〉 Dei cognosce naturam . Ibid. U●●genitus igitur Deus naturae in●e 〈◊〉 ●●nscius , &c. Di●eun● 〈◊〉 se per loquentem loqui , & per operantum operari , & per judicantem judica●e , & per visum vi●●r● , & per r●con●●●●tem reconci●●●ri , & manere se in ●o , qui in se ma●●ret , qu●ero quo alio a● intellig●nt●● nostrae sensum Expositionis sit●e 〈…〉 ap●rtio●i s●rmone , ut unum ●sse intellige●entur quam isio , quo p●r ●●●ivitatis verita●em , & naturae u●●tatem , qui●q●id filius ageret , & diceret , id in filio , pater & loqueretur & ageret ? Non est hoc itaque naturae à se alienae . — Sed perfecta nativitate in Deum perfectum genitae divinitatis , cujus haec naturalis conscientiae fi●ucia est , ut dicat , ego in Patre , & Pa●er in me , & omnia , quae Patres sant , mea sunt . Id. l. 8. Vide ci●m tacitus recum ipse congrederis , ratione hec ipsam agi intra te , e●cu●rente e●i tibi cum s●rmone , ad omnem cogitatûs tui motum , & omnem sensus tui pulsum . Tert. Cont. Prax. p 503. Paris . Tert. Contr. Prax. c. 13. p. 509. Cyr. l. 4. in Joan. Dion . de divin . nom . Fulg. 3. ad Mon. c. 7. Unigenitus qui est in gremio Patris , quod est esse Deum , in gremio enim & in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substantiae ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , uterque , & substantia & divinitate consistens , uterque in utroque , & cognoscit uterque utrumque . Vict. Afer . Bl. Patr. Vol. 4. p. 190. Id enim quod ait , Ego & Pater Unum s●mus , tentant ad Unanimitatis referre consensum , ut voluntatis in his unitas sit , non naturae ; id est , ut non per id quod idem sunt , sed per id quod id●●m volunt , un●m sent . Hil. de Tr. l 8. Et quia dixit Unum , intel●igant haeretici quod non dixit Unus . Unum enim neutral●ter positum , societatis concordiam , non unitat●m personae sonat . Novat . de Trin. c. 22. Quod autem dictum est , ut sint quidem per substantiam tria , per consonantiam vero unum , non habet calummam , quia cognominato spiritu , id est , paracleto , consonantiae potius quam essentiae per similitudinem substantiae praedicare convenit unitatem . Hil. de Synod . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Gr. N●ss . cont Eun. O● . 12. p 345. Nou alta natura , quàm quae sui conscia est , diceret , ego & Pater Unum sumus . Hil. de Trin. c. 7. Uterque hostis Ecclesiae res Ecclesiae agit ; dum Sabellius Deum ex natura in operibus praedicat ; hi verò ex sacramento fidei filium confitentur . Ibid. Quod si de nomine substantiae aut naturae Divinae voluerint dicere , facile revincuntur , quia Usiam Gracè & Latinè Substantiam frequenter Scriptura memoravit — quod si ex aliâ substantiâ filium dicunt , ipsi se revincunt , & verbum substantiae quod metuunt confitendo , & filium creaturis , quibus praeferre se simulant , conferendo . Ambr. de Fide , C. 1. Tom. 2. Bas. 1555. p. 51. Aut quid est Ousia , aut unde dicta , nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quod semper maneat ; cui enim esse est semper , Deus est , & ideo maneus semper Ousia dicitur Divina . Ambr. Ibid. c. 3. Non igitur verbum , sed vim verbi fugiunt , quia nolunt , verum esse Dei filium . — sicut Autor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediensis Epistola sua prodidit , dicens , siverum , inquit , Dei filium & increatum dicimus , Homousion cum patre incipimus confiteri . Haec cùm lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Nicaeno , hoc verbum in Tractatu fidei posuerunt Patres , quod id viderunt Adversariis esse formidini , ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipsorum nefandae caput haeresis amputarent . Ibid. p. 75. Certè ne quis posset errare , sequatur ea quibus scriptura sancta ut intelligere possimus Filium significat . Verbum dicitur , Filius dicitur , Dei virtus dicitur , dicitur Dei sapientia . Ib. c. 1. p. 40. De substantia autem , Imperator Auguste , quid loquar unius Filium cum Patre esse substantiae , cùm imaginem Paternae substantiae Filium legerimus , ut in nullo secundum Divinitatem à Patre intelligas discrepare ? Iuxta h●nc imaginem dixit , omnia quae Pater habet , mea sunt ; ergo nec substantiam in Deo possumus denegare . Ambr. de Fide. c. 3. p. 74. Mihi enim impossibile est generationis scire secretum . Mens deficit , vox silet , non mea tantum , sed & Angelorum . Id. c. 1. p. 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc. Orth. Fid. l. 3. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Arist. Categ . cap. 5. T. 1. p. 23. Theor. Leg. ad Armen . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc. Orth. Fid. l 3. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damas. Orth. Fid. l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc. O●th . Fid. l. 3. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . D●m . Orth. Fid. l. 3. c. 6. Damasc. Orth. Fid. l. 1. c. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc. Ibid. l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Damasc. Fid. Orth. l. 1. c. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Damasc . Orth. Fid. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damas● . Orth. Fid. l. 1. c. 10. & cap. 11. See Doctor Payn 's Letter to the B of R. Aqu. p. 1. Quaest. 31. Art. 1. The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians Exam. p. 24. Notes for div A59853-e49990 Reply to theSecond Defence of the Twenty eight Propositions , p. 16. 
A49796	----	An exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrewes wherein the text is cleared, Theopolitica improved, the Socinian comment examined / by George Lawson ... Lawson, George, d. 1678. 1662 Approx. 1717 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 192 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A49796 Wing L707 ESTC R19688 12043448 ocm 12043448 53038 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A49796) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53038) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 570:1) An exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrewes wherein the text is cleared, Theopolitica improved, the Socinian comment examined / by George Lawson ... Lawson, George, d. 1678. [16], 364 p. Printed by J.S. for George Sawbridge ..., London : 1662. Marginal notes. "Errata": prelim p. [4]. Reproduction of original in Bodleian Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Bible. -- N.T. -- Hebrews -- Commentaries. Socinianism. 2004-05 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-06 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-07 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2004-07 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion AN EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrewes . Wherein The Text is cleared ; Theopolitica improved : The Socinian Comment examined . Optimus ille Lector est , qui dictorum intelligentiam expectet ex dictis potius quàm imponant , & retulcrit magis quam attulerit : neque cogat id videri dictis contineri , quod ante lectio●em praesumpserit intelligendum . Hilar. de Trinitate , lib. 1. By GEORGE LAVVSON , Rector of More , in the County of Salop. LONDON , Printed by J. S. for George Sawbridge , at the Sign of the Bible on Ludgate-Hill , 1662. THE EPISTLE . MAny receive their Knowledg in matters of Salvation from the Words and Writings of other men upon trust , and at the second hand : But that is the most certain and purest Doctrine , and the most effectual , both to inform the Mind , and ulso to reform the Heart and Life of ignorant and sinful man , which is taken from the Scriptures , clearly explained , and truly understood . And though there be many good and prositable Books ; yet those are the best , which are written by learned and pious men : who being endued with the knowledg of Arts , and the Original Languages , have by the assistance of God , and their diligent study , found out those hidden Treasures of heavenly wisdom , contained in those blessed Writings . Of this sacred Volume , there be many parts , and some more edifying than others ; and amogst the rest , the Divine Epistle to the Hebrews is inferiour to none . The Subject thereof , is , The Prophetical and Sacerdotal Office of Christ , our blessed Saviour , upon whom our eternal Salvation doth depend ; the Frame and Contexture is wonderful and excellent ; the Method , clear and exact ; the Arguments , whereby the Truth is confirmed , demonstrative and undeniable ; the Motives , whereby heavenly Duties are pressed , piercing , powerful , and prevailing . This I have singled out to be the Subject of the ensuing Discourse ; and , after the Labours of other learned and worthy men , have endeavoured , in our native Language , to make it plain and more easy to be understood by meaner Capacities ; and my earnest desire , and hearty prayer , is , That it may have the same effect upon our Hearts , which the blessed Apostle intended it should have upon these Hebrews . My design , in this Work , principally was , by searching the Original and the Translations , to find out the sense of the Phrases and Expressions ; by giving the Analysis of the several Chapters , by shewing the Connexion of one part with another , and the tendency of them to the main Scope , to make a positive clear Explication of the whole . And by this , I improve my [ Theo-Politica ] : for , divers points and parts of divine Wisdom , concerning the Prophetical and Sacerdotal Office of Christ , final Perseverance , Faith , the Sacrifice of our great High Priest , but briefly touched there , are more largely handled here . Neither is this all ; but , whilst I proceed in this Work , I take notice of the Vanity of the Socinian Expositor , who goes about to elude such Texts , as asserts the Deity of Christ , as the eternal Word of God , whereby the World was made , his Incarnation , and his expiation of Sin by a bloody Sacrifice offered by him as Priest , and accepted of God before his Ascension into Heaven , and his S●ssion at the right hand of God ; Where he was not first made , but confirmed by Oath , an everlasting Priest according to the Order of Melchizedec . For all these he denies , contrary to the scope of the Apostle ; and the express words of Scripture in other places . Impertinent Digressions , and needless Amplifications , I have forborn : I am neither too brief , as some ; nor too large and voluminous , as others have been ; I have endeavoured to observe the Golden mean. My desire is , by this Discourse , to edify , confirm , and comfort God's People , who aim at Heaven , and seek eternal Life by our blessed Saviour . The whole , I submit unto the Judgment of the pious , learned , and judicious Reader ; who , I hope , will pardon my Imperfections ; correct my Mistakes , accept my Endeavours ; and , if he find the Work beneficial , will give the Praise and Glory to God , Who is blessed for evermore . AMEN . ERRATA . PAge 1. line 29. 15. read 19. p. 2. l. 57. both infallible , r. that infallbly . p. 3. l. 22. dele sit . p. 4. l. 58. there , r. three . p. 8. l. 1. he , r. they . p. 10 l. 5. dele Zurick . p. 11. l. 10. sor Zanch. Divlnes , r. or the Zurick Divines . Ibid. l. 13. Zank , read Zurick . p. 14. l. 2. the , r. they . Ibid. l. 12. the , r. they . Ibid. l. 29. the , r. their . p. 20. l. 38. Rivera , r. Ribera . p. 21. l. 7. that , r. they . p. 25. l. 2. then some , r. yet some . p. 27. l. 28. so must , r. so much . p. 30. to Angels , r. 1 ot to Angels . p. 4. l. 25. in these , r. in thesi . Ibid. l 58. of those , r. of those times . p. 42. in the margent , for Sacraments r. Ser mons . p. 50. l. 1. our with , r. with our . Ibid. l. 8. then those , r. then of those . p. 63. l. 12. and invest men , r. but actually investeth men . p. 66. l. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 70. l. 39. that they are , r. that there are . p. 77. l. 56. sussabdi , r. jus subditi . p. 78. l. 11. predicated , r. predicate . p. 88. l. 24. in , r. in my Theopolitica . p. 193. l. 15. r. Metaphorical , not a Metaphorical . p. 121. l. 33. 9. for . 6. p. 127. l. 35. him , r. them . p. 130. l. 24. excepted , r. accepted . p. 13 r. l. 1. he , r. they . p. 152. l. 33. for 12. r. 1. 2. p. 160. l. 17. Being , r. King. p. 174. l. 5. pledges , r. pleadet . p. 177. l. 36. part , r. party . p. 188. l. 18. figured , r. fig uring . p. 192. l. 4. or if he do not believe it , r. or if they do believe it . p. 197. l. 56. Vet●siu● , r. Vel●sius his Copy . p. 201. l. 32. Nobitius , r. Nobilius . p. 203. l. 10. Megittath , r. Megillath . p. 215. l. 56. any , r. nay , p. 225. l. 2. professeth , r. professed . Ibid. l. 8. as so , r. so as . p. 226. l. 14. dele or . p. 243. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 245. l. 5. ter , r. chapter . p. 249. l. 7. meant , r. made . p. 251. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 256. after the last line , blot out the word [ fountain . ] p. 257. l. 13. end , r. evil . Ibid. l. 4. 49. stored , r. stered . p. 283. l. 46. impulsive mountains , r. impossible mountains . p. 290. l. 23. to referred , r. to be referred . p. 294. l. 9. descerti , r. deserti . p. 299. l. 56. deprivation , r. depravation . p. 303. l. 8. that we in , r. that we may . p. 304. l. 50. receiving , r. reviving . p. 312. l. 49. regeneration , r. generation . p. 312. l. 48. portions , r. potions . p. 340. l. 21. exhorted , r. dehorted . p. 342. l. 36. simple , r. single . Ibid. l. last . prefection , r. protection . p. 343. l. 13. to on stand , r. to stand on . p. 349. l. 26. are all of us by nature , r. even all us by nature are contrary . A brief Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews . THE parts of this Letter written , and sent to the Hebrew Christians , are , The Substance and Body of the same . The Conclusion . The End whereat the Apostle aims , is , The confirmation of them in the belief and profession of the Gospel . The Means he useth for the attainment of this end , is , Clearly to demonstrate the excellency of Christ , as a Prophet , and a Priest , far above all former Prophets and Priests ; and thereupon to perswade them to rely upon Him , who alone can effectually and eternally save them , and make them fully blessed . The Method observed by him , is , to deliver , 1. The Doctrine of his Prophetical Office , and to apply the same ; and this is done in the first four Chapters . 2. The Doctrine of his Sacerdotal Office , and to apply it ; this is begun Chap. 5. and continued to the 18 verse of the last Chapter . CHAP. 1. VVHerein the Apostle taking for granted , that the Doctrine of the Old Testament was revealed from God by Prophets and by Angels , and the Doctrine of the Gospel by Christ ; he begins his Discourse concerning Christ as a Prophet , and proves him , 1. More excellent then all the Pen-men of the Old Testament . For , 1. He was the Son of God. 2. He was the Heir of all things . 3. God by him did make the Worlds . 4. He was the Brightness of his Father's Glory , and Character of his Person . 5. He upholdeth all things by the Word of his Power . 6. He expiated and purged Sin by his Blood. 7. He is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on High. In all these seven particulars , he far excells the former Prophets , ver . 1. 2 , 3. 2. More excellent then the Angels , because he hath inherited a far more excellent Name , Power , and Dignity , ver . 4. He hath obtained , by inheritance , a more excellent Name ; Because , 1. He is his [ The Son ] , and God his Father , ver . 5. 2. God commanded all the Angels to Worship him , ver . 6. 3. They being created , are but Messengers and Servants ; but Christ , the Son , sits in a glorious Throne , and is possessed of a Kingdom which is everlasting ; and when the Earth and the Heavens , created by him , shall wax old and be changed , it shall abide unchangeable for ever . ver . 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. 4. He is set at the right hand of God , and , by the Word and Patent of God , is made Supreme and Universal King and Prince , a Place never granted to any of the Angels ; who , all of them , are but Ministring Spirits under Him for the Heirs of Salvation . This Jesus Christ , so excellent , was a Prophet ; for God spake by him as more excellent , and in a more excellent manner then by them ; so that his Doctrine is more full , more powerful and more perfect then the Doctrine of Prophets and Angels . CHAP. II. VVHerein , 1. The former Doctrine of the excellency of Christ and the Gospel is applied , by way of exhortation . 2. The excellency of Christ above the Angels ; though he was lower then them for a time , is further proved . In the Exhortation , we may observe ; 1. The Duty exhorted unto . 2. The Reason or Motive to enforce performance . 1. The Duty is , diligently to attend unto the Doctrine of the Gospel , and to , take heed of falling from the belief and profession of the same , ver . 1. 2. The Reason , is taken from the most grievous punishment , which they cannot escape , if they continue not in their Profession . This Reason is delivered by way of comparison in quantity ; For , if they , who disobeyed the Law , then much more they who disobey the Gospel , shall be severely punished , and shall not escape ; The Consequence is good and clear , from the excellency of the Gospel , above the Law. For , 1. The Law was delivered by Angels , the Gospel by Christ. 2. The Law is a Doctrine of Death and Damnation , the Gospel of Salvation . 3. The Gospel , preached by the Apostles , commissioned by Christ , was attested from Heaven , and confirmed by Signs , Wonders , Miracles , and Gifts of the Holy Ghost ; but the Law was not . And , from the excellency of the Gospel , in respect of the Authour , the Matter , and Confirmation ; the Sin is aggravated , and the Punishment made more grievous , ver . 2 , 3 , 4. The Exhortation finished ; the Apostle doth not only enforce the former Reason , but proceeds farther to demonstrate the excellency of Christ above the Angels . The Argument is , That God hath not subjected the World to come to Angels , but to Christ ; who , for a little time , was lower then the Angels : for so it is to be understood , ver . 5. This Argument is taken out of Psal. 8. 4 , 5. Where we may observe , 1. The words of the Psalm , cited ver . 6 , 7. 2. The Apostle's Discourse upon them ; wherein he observes , 1. That all things were put in subjection to him by the Patent and Edict of his heavenly Father ; yet not actually subdued and brought into subjection , ver . 8. 2. The Humiliation of Christ , which went before his Exaltation ; For He was made lower then the Angels for a little time . Of this Humiliation , he delivers the Causes , Efficient . Final . The efficient Cause , was , 1. The Grace and free Mercy of God , which did decree it for the benefit of sinful man , ver . 9. 2. The Wisdom of God , which contrived it as the fittest way in bringing many Sons to Glory , to consecrate their Captain by Sufferings , ver . 10. The final Cause may best be understood , if we consider what this Humiliation , whereby he was lower then the Angels , is : It was , 1. To be made a Mortal man. 2. In this mortal humane Nature , to suffer Death . 1. The reason why he must be made Man , and mortal , was ; Because he that sanctisieth and they that are sanctified must be one ; and because the sanctified , which were to be made Sons , did partake of Flesh and Blood : therefore he took part with them , that in this respect they might be his Brethren : And that they were so , he proves , ver . 11 , 12 , 13. 2. The End and final Cause why he was made man , and mortal , was , 1. That he might dye for his Brethren , and by his Death destroy the Devil , and deliver his People , ver . 14 , 15. And for this reason he took not the Nature of Angels , to deliver them , but the Seed of Abraham , ver . 16. 2. Another end was , That he , Suffering , and being Tempted in their Nature , might be a merciful and faithful High Priest , and make atonement for the Sins of the People , and succour them who were tempted , ver . 17 , 18. CHAP. III. VVHerein Christ is proved to be more excellent , and a greater Prophet then Moses . For the Jews did think it very unreasonable , in any part , to recede from that Doctrine , which they had received from God , by Prophets , Angels , Moses ; and to hearken unto Christ , except he could be proved to be a Greater Prophet sent from God , and his Doctrine more excellent and perfect : And this was the cause of the Apostle's Undertaking . This part of his Discourse , is brought in by way of Exhortation . Where , 1. The Duty exhorted unto , is , To consider Christ , the Apostle and High Priest of our Profession , and to presevere in his Doctrine , ver . 1. 2. The Reasons , by which he presseth the performance of this Duty , are , 1. Christ was not only faithful in his Trust , as Moses was , but also far greater then Moses , in two respects : For , 1. Moses was but part in the House builded ; Christ was the Builder of all things ; and especially of the Church , ver . 3 , 4. 2. Moses was but a Servant in that House , Christ was the Lord and Owner , ver . 5 , 6. 2. If they persevere in his Doctrine and the Faith , they shall be his House of Glory , wherein God shall for ever dwell , and make them fully blessed , ver . 7. 3. If they that disobeyed and hardned their hearts against Mose's Doctrine fell in the Wilderness , and by a peremprory Oath were shut out of God's Rest ; much more shall they , disobeying the Gospel , and falling from the Faith , be shut out of God's eternal Rest in Heaven . In this Reason , we must consider ; 1. That it 's taken out of Psal. 95. the words whereof are recired , ver . 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. 2. That from these words applied unto them , he dehorts them from Unbelief and Apostacy , and exhorts them to use all means of perseverance , that so he might be partakers of that eternal Rest , which Christ had merited for them , ver . 12 , 13 , 14 , 15. 3. He wisheth them to take special notice of such as did , and such as did not , enter into God's Rest , and what was the cause of the exclusion of those whom God destroyed in the Wilderness , and would not suffer to enter into Canaan ; and that was Unbelief , ver . 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. CHAP. IV. VVHerein , the Discourse upon the words of the Psalm is continued , and application made by way of Exhortation . And , 1. The Duty exhorted unto , is , To be obedient and mix the word with Faith , ver . 1. 2. The Reasons are ; 1. They are partakers of the heavenly Call ; and the Gospel was preached unto Them , as well as to their Fathers . 2. They , not mixing the Word with Faith , but being disobedient to the heavenly Call , did not enter , but came short , ver . 2. 3. They which do believe , do enter into God's Rest , ver . 3. And here , lest they should be ignorant , what Rest of God is meant , and to be expected , he informs them of a three-fold Rest of God. 1. His Rest of Creation . 2. His Rest , which he promised in the Land of Canaan , to their Fathers . 3. His spiritual and eternal Rest , promised in the Gospel . It was not the first , ver . 3 , 4. For after this he speaketh of another Rest , ver . 5. It was not the second , into which many of their Fathers , because of unbelief , did not enter ; and after this , he limitteth another Time and Rest , which had never been mentioned , if Joshua , who brought their Fathers into the Land of Canaan , had brought them into This , ver . 6 , 7 , 8. It 's a spiritual and eternal Rest in Heaven , which remaineth for the People of God , and is to be enjoyed , when they cease from all their works of Obedience and Sufferings ; as God did from his , when he had finished the work of Creation , ver . 9 , 10. 4. If they do not persevere , they may fall after the example of their unbelieving Ancestors ; and lest they should presume or be secure , he lets them know , that Christ by the piercing Word of the Gospel , will discover their inward and most secret sins , and will be a severe and impartial Judg , ver . 11 , 12 , 13. 5. The same great Prophet , who hath called us by the Word of the Gospel , is our High Priest , very sensible of our infirmities , and entred into Heaven , the eternal Rest of God , in our behalf ; and if we , wanting strength , do come boldly by him before the Throne of Grace , we shall obtain help in due season , when we have greatest need , ver . 14 , 15 , 16. CHAP. V. VVHerein , after the discourse of the excellency of Christ's prophetical Office , he begins to speak of his Priest-hood : And , 1. Delivers the Doctrine thereof from this Chapter to ver . 19 of the 10th . 2. Applies the same , and continues the Application from the 19th verse of the 10th Chapter , unto the latter end of the last . The scope of the Apostle , in the Doctrine , is , To demonstrate the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , in respect of 1. The Constitution , from the beginning of this Chapter to the 8th . 2. The Ministration , from the beginning of the 8th to the middle of the 10th . In this Chapter , we have ; 1. A Discourse of Priest-hood . 2. A Digression , begun in the latter end of this Chapter , and continued in the 6th . 1. The Discourse is , 1. Concerning a Priest in general . 2. Concerning Aaron . 3. Concerning Christ. 1. An High Priest in general , is described , 1. From his Vocation , He is taken from amongst men and ordained , ver . 1. 2. From his Ministration , He must offer Gifts and Sacrifices for sins , Ibid. 3. From his Qualification , He must be merciful and compassionate , ver . 2 , 3. 2. Vocation , which consists in Election and Ordination , is not from Man , but God ; for no Priest-hood can be efficiently conducing to Man's spiritual good , except it be instituted from Heaven , as Aaron's was , ver . 4. 3. Therefore Christ did not usurp his Sacerdotall Power , but he had his Vocation Confirmation Consecration from God. 1. His Vocation he finds , Psal. 2. in these words , [ Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee ] ; by which , upon his Resurrection , he was made , and constituted King and Priest , ver . 5. 2. His Confirmation , he reads , Psal. 110. 4. [ I have sworn , and will not repent , Thou art a Priest for ever after , the Order of Melchizedec , ver . 6. 3. His Consecration , which tended to his fuller Constitution , was finished in his Agony and Death upon the Cross ; by which he became the Author of eternal Life , to as many as obey him , ver . 7 , 8 , 9. Thus far the Author's Discourse of Priest-hood , which is closed up with the Repetition of the words of Confirmation ; 1. Because the Confirmation followed the Consecration . 2. From the same , the Apostle takes occasion to make the Digression , which followeth . And therein he reproves them of their Ignorance , contracted by their negligence ; which was such , that , whereas , for the time , they might have been more and apt to able teach others , yet were Babes , had need to be taught again the first Principles , and were uncaple of the Doctrine , which he intended to deliver concerning the Priest-hood of Christ , ver . 11 , 12 , 13 , 14. CHAP. VI. VVHerein , 1. The Digression is continued . 2. The principal Subject resumed , ver . 20. In the Digression , we have ; 1. His Resolution . 2. An Exhortation . In the Resolution , 1. The Thing Resolved upon . 2. The Reasons of his Resolution . The thing resolved upon is expressed , 1. Negatively , Not to go back and lay the Foundation , 2. Affirmatively , To go on with his intended Discourse , ver . 1 , 2 , 3. The Reasons are , 1. If any of them , after a clear conviction and considerable progress , had lost their Christendom , it was impossible for them to be renewed and initiated again . For neither the grace of Repentance could be expected from the Spirit , nor any benefit from the Sacrifice of Christ , which was never intended for to expiate the Sins of Apostates . This is amplified and illustrated by a Similitude : For as they , who continue , and increase in Grace , shall be like good Ground , and receive the blessing of God ; so Apostates shall be like bad Ground , which , being well Husbanded , proves barren , is cursed , and the end is Burning . For Apostates render themselves liable to God's Curse , and everlasting Fire , ver . 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. 2. Though some of them might be very faulty , yet he had better hope of the generality of them ; and this his hope is grounded on , 1. God's Righteousness . 2. Their Faith in Christ , and labour of love , manifested in their constant ministration to the Saints , ver . 9 , 10. Thus far the Resolution ; the Exhortation followeth : Wherein we may observe , 1. The Duty exhorted unto , which is Perseverance ; ver . 11. 2. The Motive from example of former Saints not named , ver . 12. Abraham . In the example of Abraham , the Apostle takes special notice of a Promise made unto him , and confirmed by Oath ; and acquaints them with the end of this confirmation ; which was , 1. To shew to the Heirs of Promise the immutability of his Counsel , in performing his Promise , ver . 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17. 2. To minister Comfort to them , ver . 18 , 19. This Digression finished , he resumes the words of Confirmation , Psal. 110. 4. that they may be the subject of the Chapter following , ver . 20. CHAP. VII . THE Subject whereof is , the words of Psal. 100. 4. formerly resumed . The Scope , to demonstrate the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood . The Method Begins with Melchizedec , ver . 1. Goes on with the Priest-hood of Aaron , and the Law , ver . 11. Concludes with the Priest-hood of Christ , ver . 20. For the Author discourseth . 1. Upon the last word in the Text of the Psalm , which is [ Melchizedec ] . 2. Upon the words , [ Thou art a Priest for ever , after the Order of Melchizedec . ] 3. Upon the words , [ I have sworn , and will not repent . ] 4. Takes notice from the antecedent Context of the Psalm , to shew , who the person was , that was thus confirmed , and how excellent and perfect . In the first part , we may observe , 1. A Description of Melchizedec . 2. A Demonstration of his excellency . He is described from His Offices . The acts of his Offices . The perpetuity of his Priest-hood . 1. For his Offices , he was King and Priest , ver . 1. 2. For the acts of his Priest-hood , they were Blessing and Tything Abraham , ver . 1 , 2. Regal power , they were the righteous Government of his People , and procuring their peace . These he inferrs from the notation of his own name , and the name of the place , where he did reside , ver . 2. 3. For the continuance of his Priest-hood ; he neither had Predecessor , from whom he did derive ; nor Successor , to whom he did transmit ; his Sacerdotal power , in which respect , it might be said to be Personal and Perpetual . This is the Description of Melchizedec , taken from Gen. 14. From which he inferrs his excellency , especially as a Priest. And this excellency is proved , 1. From his tything Abraham , so great a Person ; whereas the Levitical Priests did but Tythe their Brethren , which were far inferior to their Father Abraham , ver . 4. 5. 2. From his blessing of Abraham , who had the Promises , ver . 6 , 7. 3. From this , That the Levitical Priests , receiving Tythes , dye ; but Melchizedec , who received Tythes of Abraham , is witnessed to live , ver . 8. 4. Levi , being then in the Loyns of Abraham , when he payed Tythes to Melchizedec , may , with the Levitical Priests , descended from him , be laid to pay Tythes unto this great Priest , ver . 9 , 10. In the second part , which begins , ver . 11. the Apostle enters upon these words , [ Thou art a Priest for ever , after the Order of Melchizedec ] ; and inferts from them . 1. That there must be another Priest of another Order , then that of Aaron , ver . 11. 2. That if there must be , and by God's institution , another Priest-hood , and another Oder ; then that Levitical Priest-hood , which came in with the Law , was imperfect , Ibid. 3. That seeing it was imperfect , it must be changed , and that if the Priest-hood , then the Law also , which was so inseparably joyned with it , must be abolished , ver . 12. 4. That seeing the legal High Priest must , by the first institution , be of the Tribe of Levi ; and Christ , this great and new High Priest was not of that Family , but of the Tribe of Judah ; therefore it was evident , the Priest-hood was changed already , ver . 13 , 14. 5. That this Change must needs be made , was evident ; because the Priest , which was of another Tribe , must be after another Order , the Order of Melchizedec , ver . 15. and another Power of endless life , ver . 16 , 17. 6. That the Reason why the Law , annexed to the former Priest-hood , must be disanulled , was ; because it could sanctify and perfect no man as the Gospel doth , ver . 18 , 19. In the third part of this Discourse , grounded upon these words of the Psalmist , [ I have sworn , and will not repent , and the antecedent Context ] , he speaks more distinctly and directly of Christ's perfect Priest-hood , and 1. Proves the excellency thereof , in that he was a Priest , by an Oath , which the Levitical High Priest was not , ver . 20 , 21. 2. Hence inferrs , That his Priest-hood and the Gospel were unalterable , and of perpetual continuance ; because , 1. By this Oath he was made Surety of a better Covenant , which could sanctify and save , ver . 22. 2. The Levitical Priests were mortal ; Christ , upon his Resurrection , immortal , and able for ever to save by his Intercession , which he ever lives to make for them , who come to God by him , ver . 23 , 24 , 25. 3. He sums up the excellency of Christ , whereby it 's evident , that He , and he Alone , because of his perfections , was only fit to be our Priest , and save us , For , 1. He is holy , harmless , undefiled , separate from Sinners , ver . 26. 2. Higher then the Heavens , Ibid. 3. He need not Offer often , or for Himself , as the Levitical High Priest did ; He offered but once , not for Himself , but for his People , and that Sacrifice was of eternal Virtue , ver . 27. 4. The legal High Priest had his infirmities , and was not The Son ; but he that is by the Oath , after the Law , confirmed Priest , hath no infirmities , is the Son consecrated for ever , ver . 28. All these things are implied in the antecedent Context of the Psalm ; for he that is there confirmed Priest , in this manner , was the Son of God without sin ; who having offered himself a Sacrifice unsported , was risen again , immortal , ascended above the Heavens , and set at the right hand of God , as appears from ver . ●● . of the Psalm , when God , by his Oath , did confirm him . CHAP. VIII . HItherto the Apostle hath demonstrated the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , in respect of the Constitution ; and now proceeds to prove his excellency , in respect of the Ministration . For if he be a Priest , he must minister and officiate ; and his ministration is two-fold , or there be two parts thereof : The first whereof , Which is his great Offering , was performed on Earth ; The second , Which is his Intercession , is performed in Heaven . He was a Priest elect , when he offered on Earth ; He was a Priest constituted and confirmed , before he did intercede in Heaven . These things premised , the Author doth , 1. Sum up briefly the substance of his former Discourse , Concerning the constitution of Christ's Priest-hood , ver . 1. 2. Proceed to set forth his excellency , in respect of his Ministration . 1. More generally , in this Chapter . 2. More particularly , hereafter . That he may do this the better , he takes it for granted , that the due ministration of a Priest requires , 1. A Tabernacle or Temple . 2. A Sacrifice ; or something to be offered . 3. A Covenant , whereof he must be Mediatour . These things presupposed , he proves the excellency of Christ's ministration , in respect , 1. Of the Tabernacle , which is not made with hands , but pitched by God , ver . 2. 2. Of the thing offered , and the service ; both which are supernatural and divine ; not after the pattern of heavenly things , ver . 3 , 4 , 5. 3. Of the Covenant , which he did confirm , and make effectual as Mediatour ; which is better then that of Works , whereof the Levitical High-Priest was Mediatour , ver . 6. That it was better , he proves , because it was established upon better Promises . Where two things are observable , 1. That the Promises of the Covenant were better . 2. That it's stable and firm , Ibid. To make both these evident , he , 1. Recites the words of the Prophet Jeremy , concerning both the Covenants . 2. In the words , he 1. Informs us , 1. Of the deficiency of the former , ver . 8 , 9. 2. Of the excellent Promises of the latter , ver . 10 , 11 , 12. 2. From the word [ Now ] , he inferrs the abolition of the former , to bring in the latter , ver . 13. CHAP. IX . VVHerein the Apostle proceeds farther , to evidence the excellency of Christ's ministration ; and this he doth more particularly , by setting forth the excellency of his great Sacrifice and Offering . That he may do this the better , he singles out from all the other legal Services , the anniversary Sacrifice of Expiation ; with the Blood whereof the High Priest alone , once in the year only , entred into the Holiest of all : and proving Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross , to be far more excellent than this ; he doth clearly evince the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood . The parts of the Chapter are two , The first is concerning the Typical Tabernacle . Priests . Service . The Tabernacle is described , ver . 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. The Priests , ver . 6 , 7. The Service , Ibid. The imperfection of their Service , ver . 8 , 9 , 10. The principal part of the Tabernacle , was the Holy of Holies . The principal Priest , the High Priest. The principal Service , the presenting of the Blood of the Expiatory Offering in the Holiest place . Where the Apostle observes , 1. That because none but the High Priest alone might enter within the 2d Veil ; therefore the way into the Holiest was not yet made manifest . 2. That because the Services , and so the Ministration , were but carnal ; therefore they could not perfect the Performers . The second part is concerning the Antitypical Tabernacle , Priest , Service ; and especially the Service of Christ's great Offering , which he proves to be far more excellent then the legal great Sacrifice of expiation , and so , than all other legal Sacrifices ; from the Effects and Consequents thereof . For by it , Christ entring the Holy place , 1. Obtained eternal Redemption , ver . 11 , 12. 2. Purgeth the Conscience from dead Works , to serve the living God , ver . 13 , 14. 3. Confirms the new Covenant , makes it effectual and unalterable , ver . 15. This Confirmation is illustrated , 1. From the Testaments of Men , confirmed by the Death of the Testator , ver . 16 , 17. 2. From the Sanction and Confirmation of the former Covenant by Blood , ver . 18 , 19 , 20. The former purifying and expiating Virtue of Christ's Sacrifice , is illustrated from the Purification , Expiation , and Consecration of most things under the Law by Blood. And hence inferrs , That heavenly and spiritual things must be purified by better Sacrifices , ver . 21 , 22 , 23. 4. Entring Heaven , he appears before God for us making Intercession , and needs not come out of that Holy place again to re-iterate his Death and Sacrifice , as the High Priest under the Law did ; but he stayes there , pleading his One Offering of eternal Virtue , untill he come to Judgment , and give the actual possession of eternal life to all such as wait for him ; and this is the ultimate benefit of this Great Offering , ver . 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28. CHAP. X. VVHetein , 1. The Doctrine of Christ's Sacrifice is continued . 2. The same Doctrine is applied . Of this Doctrine , there be two parts ; 1. Concerning the imperfection of the legal Offering● . 2. Concerning the perfection of Christ's . The imperfection of the former , was in this , They could nor sanctify , because 1. They were but shadows , ver . 1. 2. They were re-iterated , and left a conscience of sin , ver . 2 , 3. 3. They were but carnal , and the Blood of Bulls and Goats could not take away the spiritual stain and guilt of Sin , to purge the immortal Soul. 4. God did reject them , as insufficient for that purpose , and did accept Christ's one Offering . This is proved out of Psal. 40. 7 , 8 , &c. and here , 1. The words are cited , ver . 5 , 6 , 7. 2. The principal thing , intended thence , concluded ; that not by them , but this Sacrifice of Christ we are sanctified , ver . 8 9 , 10. 3. They being many , offered many times , by many Priests , could not take away sin ; but this one Sacrifice , offered but once , and by one Priest doth consecrate the Sanctified for ever , ver . 11 , 12 , 13 , This he proves out of Jer. 31. 1. Citing the words , ver . 15 , 16 , 17. 2. Thence concluding the eternal Virtue of this Offering , ver . 18. Thus far the Doctrine ; now follows the Application , continued from this place to the latter end of the last Chapter . In this Application , we may consider ; 1. The Duties exhorted unto , which are many ; but the principal is Perseverance . 2. The Motives . 3. Sometime the Means . The first Duty exhorted unto , is , To draw near with a sincere Heart , in assurance of Faith. 2. The Motives , The holy place is open , A new way is made , We have an High Priest , ver . 19 , 20 , 21 , 22. The second Duty , is , To hold fast our Profession , and persevere , ver . 23. The Means , 1. To stir up one another , ver . 24. 2. Not to forsake the Assemblies , ver . 25. The Motives , 1. God is faithful , who hath promised , ver . 23. 2. The time is near at hand , ver . 25. 3. If we fall away , after we have received the Truth , the Sin will be very hainous , the punishment very grievous and unavoidable , ver . 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31. 4. They must remember their former constancy in great Afflictions ; when they suffered in their own persons , and also with others , ver . 32 , 33 , 34. 5. If they persevere , the Reward will be great ; the enjoyment will be very certain , and shall not long be delayed , ver . 35 , 36 , 37 , 38. CHAP. XI . VVHerein Perseverance is urged , upon other Reasons and Motives , as 1. From the excellency of Faith in it self : For , 1. It can secure us of glorious Rewards to come , 2. Assure us of things far above sense and reason , ver . 1. 2. From the Effects , and also the Consequents thereof : For , 1. The Effects thereof are so excellent , that by them the Saints of antient time became famous , and obtained an excellent Testimony from God himself , which is upon Record in sacred Scripture , ver . 2. 2. By it we know , the World was made of things that did not appear , ver . 3. 3. From the particular examples of the Elders , endued with this heavenly Virtue , who obtained so good Report . And in this Argument from Example , we must observe ; 1. That it is only proposed in this Chapter , and applied in the next . 2. That the rare Effects of this Faith , in them , were , that they 1. Obtained great Mercies . 2. Suffered great Afflictions . 3. Did rare Exploits . 3. That they being many , are Marshalled in order , and reduced to three Companies . 1. Such as lived near the Creation , and before the Flood . 2. Such as lived after the Flood , before the Law. 3. Such as lived under the Law , till near the time of the Incamation . 4. Some are mentioned by Name , and the effects of their Faith specified and expressed ; some are not named at all . 5. The Apostle insists most largely in Abraham and Moses , as rare and eminent Patterns . 6. All these lived before the exhibition of Christ ; and this is their great commendation , that in the times of imperfection , their Faith was so excellent , and had so rare effects . CHAP. XII . VVHerein , 1. The Motive from Examples proposed in the former Chapter , is applied , and these Hebrews exhorted to imitation , ver . 1. 2. The unparallel'd Example of Christ is proposed , as a mighty Motive ; seeing , for the Joy that was set before him , he , with great patience , endured more then ever any did , and that from wicked men , ver . 2 , 3. 3. Though they had suffered much , yet they had not resisted to Blood , and loss of their lives , ver . 4. 4. They must consider , that all their Afflictions , which they Suffer , come from God , as a Father loving them ; and looking upon them , not as Bastards , but as Sons , and chastising them in Wisdom to make them more holy and more happy , ver . 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. And the Means of perseverance , which they must use , are , 1. To encourage themselves , and renew their strength . 2. To live in peace and holiness . 3. By Discipline , to cast out from amongst them Apostates and scandalous Persons ; as Fornicators , and profane Persons , as Esau : And the Motives to use these means , are , 2. Lest they be turned out of the way . 3. Lest the Blessing be irrecoverably lost , ver . 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17. 5. The sad estate of fear and bondage under the Law , and the blessed and glorious estate under the Gospel , in the Kingdom of Christ , should perswade them much , To be constant , and never to think of returning back to Judaism again , ver . 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24. 6. If they which refused to hearken to the Law given on Earth were severely punished ; How much more must they suffer , who disobeyed him speaking from Heaven , ver . 25 ? 7. They must persevere in their Profession , and serve God accordingly ; because , the former dispensation , under the Law , is altered and taken away ; and the dispensation , of the Gospel , shall never be shaken . That this Dispensation continues for ever , he proves out of Haggai , by whom God said , Once more I will shake not only Earth , ( as I did , when I gave the Law ) but Heaven too : And after this , there never shall be any more shaking or alteration in his Spiritual Kingdom , ver . 26 , 27 , 28. And , lest they should not live according to their Profession , he lets them know , that , God is a consuming Fire , ver . 29. CHAP. XIII . VVHerein the Apostle , 1. Exhorts . 2. Concludes . 1. He exhorts to brotherly-Love , Hospitality , and other Duties ; and urgeth the performance by several Reasons and Motives , from ver . 1. to the 18th . 2. He concludes with , Request . Intercession . Intreaty . Information . Salutation . Benediction . These things give light unto the Whole : and the more particular Explication you may expect in the Comment . AN EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews . CHAP. 1. § . 1. OF the Divine authority , the Authour , the Language , and Translation of this Epistle others have spoken at large ; the Matter is the principal thing . To do something , & cast in my mite , after other learned men have done their part , and to unfold the mysteries thereof is my design . And before I enter upon particulars , I think it expedient to acquaint the Reader with the scope and method of the Apostle : The end and scope is easily known , if we read the whole together , and seriously consider the Contexture : For upon this done , it will appear , and that very clearly , that the whole and all the parts tend to the confirmation of the blebrews in that Christian Faith , which they had professed , and for which many of them had suffered . For the divine Authour knew full well , there was danger of Apostacy , or at least of doubting in all , because of the relapse of some . He was not ignorant , what the Devil by subtil perswasions , or cruel persecutions might do . For though some were strong , yet many were weak : and losse of Goods , Imprisonment , Banishment , and hazzard of Life were shrewd temptations . And though it was God who must assist , strengthen , support , and establish them ; yet he might make him an Instrument in that work so far as to furnish them with Weapons and Armour , and perswade them to make use of them . Yet we must not think that the inward motive , which stirred him up to write , was meetly his natural affection to his Brethren and desire of their good : or that he used only such means to confirm them in the Truth , as natural reason , and humane prudence did dictate . We must have far higher conceits of this Letter , which for matter is divine and far above the dictates of reason : For he was inspired , moved , and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost . The * principal Subject of the whole is Christ's prophetical and sacerdotal Office , wherein he did excell not only the former Prophets and Priests , but Angels too . The attentive and intelligent Reader will easily find this , and from thence observe his method . For , he single out his prophetical Office , wherein he proves him far more excellent then Prophets , Angels , and Moses himself ; and all this in the first four Chapters . In the fifth he begins his discourse of his Priest-hood , as far above that of Aarons ; yea , above Melchlsede●ks , and in this he Tpends the fifth , sixth , seventh , eight , ninth , and part of the tenth Chapter . The test of the Epistle from the 15th . verse of the tenth , unto the end is chiefly exhortation to continue in the profession of that Faith in Christ their only Prophet and their only Priest , and a life sutable to this profession , as the only way and means whereby they may obtain eternal Salvation . For no other kind of profession and life could serve them ; yet in all this you must understand , that the divine Authour with his reasons , whereby he demonstrates the excellency and sufficiency of Christ , doth intermix exhortations , motives , reproofs , and sometimes digressions ; yet all to good purpose , so that no part or parcel is impertinent . The reason why I pitched upon this Epistle , is , 1. Because in it we find more of Christ's propheticall , and especially of his sacerdotal Office , then in all the Scriptures besides : 2. To clear it from the false Glosses of Crellius , who seeks to elude those places , which so clearly contradict their Socinian Errours ; especially in the Deity and Satisfaction of Christ. And this I do the rather , because his Book is translated , and speak ; Socinianism in English , and goes abroad under the ●●me of Dr. Lushington : for though we find not his name in the Book printed , yet he is charged with the Translation and making it publick . Whether it be a meer Translation I cannot say , because I have not seen Crellius . § . 2. To enter upon the first part , which is concerning Christ's prophetical Office ; we must observe , that the substance of the first four Chapters is reduced to two Propositions : The first is , That Christ is a Prophet more excellent then the former Prophets ; then Angels , then Moses : The second , That therefore he must be heard ; The first is the Doctrine , the second the use ; That he is far above the former Prophets and the Angels , is proved in the first Chapter . The Use is to hearken unto him , in the second , where we have a digression : in the third , he is proved to be more excellent then Moses . The Use is an Exhortation to hearken unto him and believe him ; the reason is , lest , as the Israelites , hardning their hearts , were overthrown in the Wildernesse ; So we , not believing Christ , never attain our eternal Sabbatism or Rest : upon this the Apostle enlargeth in the third and four Chapters . His excellency , above the former Prophets , we may understand in the three first verses ; above the Angels in the rest of the Chapter . So that the Propositions of this first Chapter , are two : First , That Christ is more excellent then the Prophets . Secondly , Christ is more excellent then the Angels . To understand the first Proposition , we must note , that the excellency of one above another cannot be known , except they be compared and laid together . Therefore the Apostle , though he do not expresse it , yet implyes a Comparison ; which is in quantity , and presupposeth a former in quality . That in quality is this , That as the holy men of Old were excellent , so is Christ ; they are excellent , he is excellent , both are excellent . That in quantity is , That though they were excellent ; yet he is more , yea far more excellent : The meaning whereof is , that 1. They are compared as Prophets ; for they were Prophets , and so Christ is a Prophet . 2. Christ is a more excellent Prophet , not only the party prophesying is more excellent , but also as a Prophet , or in respect of his propheticall Office and the exercise thereof . § . 3. God , who at sundry times , &c. ver . 1. ] Before we can understand that Christ is more excellent then the Prophets , we must know , 1. Who those Prophets were , 2. Who Christ is . Therefore the Apostle gives us here , 1. A description of the Prophets , ver . 1. 2. Of Christ , ver . 2 , 3. The former Prophets are described to be men by whom God spake unto the Fathers at sundry times , and in divers manners or ways . This implyes , that a Prophet is one by whom God speaks to men ; and because God spake to men by them , and also by Christ , therefore both they and Christ are Prophets . In b prophecy therefore we may consider . 1. The matter . 2. The form . 1. The matter is the mind of God infallibly made known to Man or Angel : here , to Man. 2. The form is the infallible declaration unto Man , of this mind of God first infallibly known . The mind of God , is , Something contrived by his Wisdom , and decreed by his will concerning Man , as subject to his Power ; and ordinable to an estate of happinesse or misery . 2. This is represented unto Man , apprehended by Man , and both infallible , so that he hath a more certain and infallible knowledg of the thing revealed . The form thereof is an infallible declaration of thi ; mind of God known infallibly . It may be declared to others by Word Writing Both and this declaration also must be infallible , or else God doth not speak by them . For because , that God is true and necessarily true , therefore his Word is necessarily true : Hence the Divine authority and absolute Truth of the Scriptures ; because God speaks in them and by them to us ; and for this reason are they ●●●●ed , The Word of God. God speaks to Men immediately mediately by men infallible and inspired . falllble , not inspired . He spake immediately , and at the first hand to the Prophets ; mediately by the Prophets at the second hand ; at the third hand by such as understand and teach the Doctrine of the Scriptures . A Prophet , as receiving his knowledg from God , may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ro●h , in respect of his declaration and speaking to others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he is but God's Instrument , Officer , Minister ; if he prophesy by Word , he may be said to be God's mouth : if by Writing God's hand or scribe , or secretary . And because God is the principal Agent , upon whom in this work the Prophet totally depends , therefore he is said to speak by them : God spake by the Prophets . § . 4. This explication premised , doth give us to understand what the Prophets were , 〈◊〉 . Men by whom God spake unto the Fathers of Old , at sundry times , in divers 〈◊〉 . 1. God spake by them , and this did make them fit to be Prophets ; and this may be s●id to be the general , wherein they agree with Christ : For God spake by him , and in that respect he was a Prophet . 2. In the rest they differ from him , and that in four things . 1. They sp●●e to the Fathers ; that is , their Ancestors , who lived formarly in the times of the Prophets , 2. They prophesyed of Old , in former days , before the incar●ation and ex●ibition of Christ. 3. God spake by them to the Fathers at several times , ●● as some 〈◊〉 it , in many parts . This implyes , 1. That the Prophets by whom God spake , were 〈◊〉 . For the Doctrine of the Old Testament was not either spoken or written by one man , but by many . 2. That Doctrine was delivered by parts ; the whole body and systeme was not 〈◊〉 up at once , but first one part , then another , then a third , till the whole was finished . One part was declared , as it was revealed by one Prophet , another by another , a third by a ●●ird . 3. That one part was written at one time , another at another , and the whole ●● several and sundry times . 4. There was a considerable time between the Prophet , and the parts , and a great distance between the first and the last . For some of the best Chronolog●ts ●ell us , that the time from Moses to Malachi was a thousand and two hundred years . 5. This 〈◊〉 ●ay referr to the matter , which was various . 4. As it was delivered by parts , and in several times ; so it was revealed and declared many and several ways , as it seemed good to the manifold wisdom of God , ●ho 〈◊〉 many ways , both to inform his Prophets and instruct his People . In this they all agreed , that they were moved , inspired , illuminated , and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost . Yet this eternal Spirit did inform them , by several representations made to the o●●ward 〈◊〉 whilst they were waking ; or to the inward senses in Dreams o● Ex●●fies ; or more partly of immediately to the immortal Soul by illaps and powerful pen●●●tion with a divine Light into the intellectual Spirit . And as he did notify and make known his thoughts and 〈◊〉 lent Counsels several ways unto the Prophets , so by them he declared them to ●●● People in any ways ; as by words , by writing , by writings read , by visible Figures . So that he 〈◊〉 any way ; did apply himself to the Fathers , and used several means to cause them to understand his Will. He omitted no way , which was either necessary or expedient for their good : From all this , we may collect a Description of that part of the Scripture , which we call the O●● Testament : It is the Word of God , which at sundry times by parts , many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 times past he spake by the Prophets to the Fathers . These were not all the Prophets 〈◊〉 the beginning ; For Adam was a Propher , so was E●och , and 〈◊〉 and N●●h , ●●● Abraham ; but these were they by whom God spake to the Fathers and Ancestors of those 〈◊〉 and were the pen-men of the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament , whereof 〈◊〉 were Priests and Kings . That God by these was pleased to speak unto the Fathers , 〈◊〉 a peculiar mercy and special favour to that People above all other People , and was in act of ●●●gular care and extraordinary providence . And it was a prerogative , and a 〈◊〉 priviledg that they were trusted with his Oracles : It 's true , that the Church never was without some Prophecy and Word of God ; whereby he supplyed the ignorance and negligence of men , and defects of humane reason , and memory in divine things in 〈◊〉 known those things concerning man's eternal good , which otherwise could never have been known . § . 5. The first Proposition is , That the Prophets are excellent ; as hath been made evident . The second follows , and affirms , That Christ is more excellent ; and that , not only as a Prophet , but many other ways . Both are excellent , because God spake by both : and the Fathers , as also their Children happy , because God spake to both . Yet Christ is more excellent , because God spake by Him , as by his Son ; and their Children more happy then the Fathers , because God spake to them , not by Prophets , but his Son. For in these last Days , God hath spoken to us by his Son , &c. Ver. 2. In the words , four things are to be considered : 1. Who spake ? 2. To whom He spake ? 3. When He spake ? 4. By whom He spake ? 1. Who spake ? It was God , the same God , who spake unto the Fathers . For the same God is the Authour of the whole Canon of the Scripture , both of the Old and New Testament . 2. To whom did He speak ? To us , that is , the Children and Posterity of the Fathers living in the time of Christ , and the Apostles . Such were these Hebrews and the Apostles . For whom God reserved this special happiness above their Ancestors . For many Prophets and Kings desired to see those things which they saw , and did not see them ; and to bear those things which they heard , and did not hear them , Luke 10. 24. 3. When did God speak to the Children ? Even in the last days , which in this respect were the best days , because of clearest light and greatest mercy , wherewith this time was blessed above the former days . 4. By whom did he speak then unto them ? By his Son , the Greatest and most Excellent of all the Prophets , and far above them all . For the Word was made Flesh , and dwelt amongst them , ( and they beheld his Glory , the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father ) full of Grace and Truth , Joh. 1. 14. § . 6. The intention of the Apostle in these words , is , to set forth the excellency of Christ , and therefore he gives us a description of Him ; which we must , 1. Understand , 2. From thence conclude his Excellency , both absolutely and comparatively . In the description , some things affirmed of Christ agree to him , as the Word not made Flesh ; some agree to him as the Word made Flesh , or Incarnate . Christ Jesus , if we observe , is the Son of God , by whom he spake , whom he hath made Heir of all things ; by whom he made the Worlds , the brightness of his Fathers Glory , &c. 1. He is the Son of God , and that in a Supereminent manner ; so as neither Men or Angels , though Sons of God , are ; therefore is He said to be his only begotten . He is a Son , not only in respect of his person Divine , but of the humane Nature united to the Word . He is a Son , not only because like God , or because adopted ; but by a divine and ineffable generation and production , which far transcends the capacity of humane reason . As the Word , He is so near to God , that He is God ; as Flesh and Man , He is nearer then either Men or Angels . 2. This Son of God is a Prophet ; for God spake by him as he did by the Prophets , yet by him in a more perfect and excellent manner . 3. God hath appointed him Heir of all things , ] To be Heir , is to be Lord ; to be made Heir , is to receive Power : to be made Heir of All , is to receive an Universal and supream Power , not only over Men but Angels . This Power he received , and it was given him upon the Resu●rection : Therefore being risen , he saith , All Power in Heaven and Earth is given unto me , Matth. 28. 18. This includes , 1. A right , 3. A possession upon a Solemn investicure . In this phrase , he seems to allude unto the priviledg of the first born Son , who was Lord of the whole Inheritance , and must Rule over his Brethren . And this agrees to Christ as Man , yet united to the Word . 4. By him he made the Worlds ; ] This is affirmed , and to be understood of Christ , as the Word not incarnate and made Flesh. In the words we may observe , 1. Worlds made , 2. The making of them , 3. By whom they were made ? 4. Who made them by him ? 1. By Worlds , some understand , 1. All times , 2. All things in all times : Others think , that he used the expression of the Rabbins , who make there Worlds ; 1. The lowest , which is the Earth , Sea , and all things in them . The second and the middle is the Ayr , and the Aethereal part with the Sphears . The third is the supream , the World of Angels , God and Souls . Yet all these are but one World , and systeme of Heaven and Earth ; and the Word signifies all times and durations , with all places , and all things , in all times and places . 2. The making of these Worlds , is the giving them their Being after that they had no Being , and is the same with creating and framing , as we may read in many other places . 3. These Worlds were made by the Word , which once made Flesh was Christ , For by the Word and Wisdom of God , which was the Rule and Idea of all things , all things were modeled and received their forms , shapes and distinct beings . 4. It was God , who by this Word , which was his Word , and was with him in the beginning , and also from eternity , so that it was God , as he was God , the same God , the same essence . Yet we must not understand this so , as though God made the World by his Son , as by an instrument , or inferiour distinct Agent , but Father , Word , and Spirit , were an individual efficient sole cause of the Worlds . This is the same with that of the divine Evangelist : All things were made by him , that is , by the Word , and without him was not any thing made , which was made , Joh. 1. 3. The Apostle Paul expresseth this more particularly and distinctly ; for speaking of the Son , he saith , That by him were all things created that are in Heaven , and that are in ●ar●● , visible and invisible ; whether they be Thrones or Domin●ons , or Principalities or Powers , all things were created by him and for him , Colos. 1. 16. This is so clear , that I wonder with what face Cr●llius could expound the words so , as by the Worlds to understand Man ; and by making and creating the Worlds , the reforming and restoring Mankind . This seems to be more strange , seeing he understands those words . [ By Faith we understand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God , ] Heb. 11. 3. of the Creation of the World. The cause of this his false exposition is plain enough ; For this being affirmed of Christ , that by him God made the Worlds ; it did plainly evince his Existence before his conception of the Virgin Mary , nay before the World , which was contrary to their damnable Errour . Therefore he wilfully devised this interpretation , lest he should grant the etemity of the Son of God. But in Chap. 11. 3. where there was no mention of Christ , he could give the genuine sense . § . 7. Ver. 3. Who being the brightness of his Glory , ] To be H●i● of all things , did agree to him upon the Resurrection ; that God made the Worlds by Him , referrs unto the work of Creation : but to be the brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the express image of his person , agrees to Him from eternity . For in these words we may observe his eternal generation and production : Some think the expression is taken out of the Book of Wisdom , though Apocry●h●l , Chap. 7. 26. where Wisdom is said to be [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] the brightness o● effulgency of eternal Light. For we find diverse expressions of those Apocryphal Books taken up and used in the New Testament . For the better understanding hereof , we must observe , 1. That God is often called Light , because this bodily and visible Light is Glorious , and in several respects resembles that eternal glorious essence of God. 2. That here God is said to have Light or Glory , not that Glory or Light is an accident in God , but because he is said to have , that which he is : For God is not only lightfome and glorious , but Light and Glory ▪ Therefore this Glory is essential Glory or Light. ● . 3. The Similitude here used is taken not from accidental but substantial Light , as the same is said to be a Light. Purity , beauty , delectability in Light do teach us something of Him. 4. Brightness or effulgency here must not be understood to be either an effect or an accident of this spiritual , infinite and eternal Glory : yet it 's something issuing from ; and produced by , that Glory ; as the mental Word , which is a kind of invisible brightness is the issue , product , or broode of the intellect , which is a spiritual Light. From this p●ice ; and such like the Nicene Fathers did conlude , That Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God , begotten of his Father before all Worlds God of God , Light of Light , very God of very God ; begotten , not made , being of one substance with the Father , by whom all things were made . By this we may easily understand , that they believed , 1. The Glory to be a substance , 2. The brightnesse to be a substance , not an effect or accident , 3. That the glory and brightnesse were one and the same substance , 4. That the brightness issued from , and was a product of the Glory not meerly as from a substance , but as from a substance acting , and acting upon it self . 5. That Christ in this respect did exist from eternity . We know little of this bodily Light ; less of the intellectual Light of the Soul ; and least of all , of this eternal Light. Therefore we trust believe according to plain Scripture most certainly , that which we cannot clearly understand . From hence we may understand the reason , why Jesus Christ is called the Word ; and it is , as because the word of the Intellect reflecting upon it self to know it self , is a product of it self ; so is the Son of God the product of the eternal Intellect , beholding it self to know itself : yet this is the difference ; that this Word of the Soul is not so perfect nor real , as this Word of God. And the express Image of his person , ] If Light produce Light , then the Light produced must be like unto and in some measure represent , more the Light and Glory producing ; and the more perfect and immediate the production is , the more perfect is the resemblance and expression . And because this production was perfect , therefore this brightness is said to be the express Image of his Father . The word translated here , the express Image , is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Character or impression made by Sculpture , or some other way : and this Character , if rightly made , is a lively expression of the samplar , as an ectypon of the prototype . This brightness is said to be the Character of his Hypostasis , which some turn substance , some turn person . This implys , 1. That he is a substantial Image , yet not another , but the same substance : 2. That there is a relation between God , who is this eternal Light , and this image or brightness ; for he is the Image of this Glory . 3. Yet he is not the Image of , nor hath relation unto the Essence , for that cannot be . But he hath relation to the essence as acting upon it self , and producing an Image of himself ; for Christ is the Word and Image of the Father and his Person . This is the same with that we read in another place , That he is the Image of the invisible God , Coloss. 1. 15. The word invisible seems to be added , for to distinguish Christ from these visible Images of visible things . For God is not visible to mortal and bodily Eyes , neither is his Image visible in that manner . For though Christ had a body ; yet he neither in that body , nor in his humane Soul , but as the Word , was he the express Image of his Father . Crellius , his glosse upon these words is grosse , and nothing to purpose . For he tells us , 1. That Christ is the lustre , ●ay and beam of God's Majesty ; this is very obscure , and , in proper sense affirmed of Christ as the Word , is false . 2. That he was thus a ray and beam , only as sent and manifested in the humane Nature unto us : This is agreeable to his erroneous Doctrine , denying the Deity and Incarnation of the Word , contrary to expresse Scripture . 3. That Man resembles God in some attributes , but Christ is the Image of his Person as Lord and Soveraign . This is both obscure , illiterate , and impertinent ; For to resemble God in Power and Dominion , and to bear his person as his Substitute , is political ; to resemble him in Wisdom , Knowledg , Holiness , is physical ; and to be his Image , as he had said before , that Man is . These he jumbles and confounds together , and contradicts himself . Again , to be his Image ; and , bear his person in respect of Power and Dominion , is the same with that of being Heir of all things . And will any man imagine that the Apostle in so few words so full of different matter would tautologize ? And where do we find political representation , for Power and Lordship signified in Scripture by such terms ? But that he was guilty of a willful Errour , he would never have sought to elude the genuine sense , by such a ●rosse sophistication . § . 8. And upholding all things by the Word of his Power , ] As before he made the Worlds , and with the Father created all things , so here he is affirmed to support and order all things ; so that he is Creatour and Preserver . We may here observe two things : 1. The Word by his Power . 2. The upholding of all things by this Word of Power ; his Word of Power is his powerful Word . Christ is the Word in respect of the Father , the eternal Word of the Father , and there is a word of the Word in respect of some thing to be done and effected . This word of the Word for effecting something ( ad extra ) out of God , is here meant . This is the Word of Creation , whereby God sald , ' Let there be Light , and there was Light. And it is the Word of Providence , as in this place we must understand is . This word is , sometimes an expression , sometimes a decree , sometimes a command , sometimes a deed . Here it 's a decree and command expressed , whereupon the deed follows ; and something willed , decreed and expressed is effected . This is a Word of Power , that is very powerful , of almighty Power ; so that what is spoken , is done , and what the Word signifieth is effected . This Word ( Power ) is added to signify the efficiency and wonderful efficacy of the Word , which is such , that we cannot well distinguish betwixt the Word and the executive Power . Therefore it 's said , God spake , and it was done ; he commanded , and is st●●d 〈◊〉 , Psal. 33. 9. And the same Nown . Verbal , both in Hebrew and Greek , which signifies a Word , signifies a deed . And Christ's Word is his deed ; this Word being a Word of Power is the cause , the effect here is the upholding of all things . The word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] may signify to preserve , and as Erasmus , à Lapide , Heinsius observe , to govern . And so it may expresse the two acts of Providence , Conservation and Government , and both universal ; for it upholds and orders all things . This is the same , which we find in another Scripture , That by him all things subsist , Coloss. 1. 17. In which place we may observe , that as all things both visible and invisible were created by him , so all things consist and be upholden by him . This agrees to the Word not incarnate , though being incarnate it doth not cease to exercise the same causal power , because the Word made Flesh remains the Word , and hath its universall causality as before the incarnation . The Socinian , lest he should grant the Deity and eternal existence of Christ , understands this of Christ doing his Miracle by his Word , and restrains ( all things ) to a few things done by Christ a Man. And this is directly contrary to the Apostle affirming all things to consist by Christ , even all things created , and that from the beginning . § . 9. When he had by himself purged our Sins , ] This was an act of Christ , 1. As the word Incarnate . 2. As a Priest. 3. As a Priest offering himself a Sacrifice for our sins . 4. This Sacrifice , as not only offered , but accepted of God had this power . This purging of our Sin is not only actual pardon or sanctification , but something antecedent , and an immediate effect of Christ's Death , as of a Sacrifice offered and accepted in behalf of sinfull man. In the words , we have an effect [ the purging of sin ] , and the cause , Christ by himself . In the effect , the object is our sins , the act the purging of them . By sins , our sins are meant , the consequents of sin , & in particular the guilt of sin , yet joyned with the stain . These are the sins of Men not of Angels , [ our Sins ] . The act of purging is the making of the consequents of sin , especially the guil● , removable upon certain terms determined by God our supream Judge and Law-giver . This was done by satisfaction of divine justice , and by merit . For upon Christ's Sacrifice offered , and the punishment due to us for our sins , willingly suffered by him God was so well pleased , as that he was willing to pardon that sin , which was punished , and by himself , in his ownSon . Sin therefore here , by a Metonymie , is said to be purged , when this Sacrifice ( by which , believed and pleaded , sin is actually pardoned , ) was offered and accepted ; because as offered and accepted , it did make sin immediately pardonable , and had a causal vertue to procure the actual pardon . This causal vertue and vigour is said to be Purging : But of this more hereafter , especially in Chap. 9. The cause of this expiation is Christ by himself ; for he alone was the Priest , he alone the Sacrifice . He and he alone offered , he and he alone was the thing offered ; he was the sole cause and efficient of this purging . Neither Men or Angels did co-operate in this Work as co-efficients with him . Crellius expounds these words ; yet so , that his expression is neither exact , nor clear , nor altogether true . For , 1. By expiation and purging , he understands the removing of guilt and punishment , and affirms that by the oblation they are removed , whereas instrict sense it did not remove them , but make them removeable , and so he himself saith afterward , That it had then only an efficacy and power . 2. He distinguisheth between the Slaughter and the offering of the Sacrifice , and saith , That the Slaughter was on Earth , and the Offering in Heaven . That Christ dyed and suffered Death on Earth is clear ; That he willingly suffered this Death , to expiate the sin of Man in obedience to his heavenly Father , none can truly deny : and this willing Suffering for sin in obedience , may be truly said to be an offering and an act of a Priest as properly a Priest , though they will not have him to be a Priest , untill he entered Heaven , which is very untrue . Was not the High Priest a Priest before he entred with the expiatory blood into the holy Place ? There were many Sacrifices offered to God , the Blood whereof was not presented in the holy place ; yet it may be granted , that if type and antitype agree so far as the Scripture makes them so to do , then Christ must present himself in Heaven ; and he did so . For by his own Blood he entered in once into the holy Place , Heb. 9. 12. But whether he entered as mortal or immortal , in Soul only or in Soul and Body , as dead or living , when he presented himself before the Throne of the great eternal Judge , may be doubted . That his Soul , that very day he dyed was in Paradise , it 's certain ; and that entrance was properly by Blood with his Soul separated from his Body , and made the expiation . For when he enters the second time forty days after his Resurrection , he enters as immortal , in Soul and Body to make Intercession ; not to make Satisfaction and expiation , or to merit . § . 10. S●te down on the right hand of the Majesty on High , ] This was a reward for his suffering and being obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross. This agrees unto him as the Word incarnate , and in respect of his Man-hood . And thus to sit , is to be next to God , above all Men and Angels , and every Creature in holiness , bliss , honour , and especially in Power and Dominion . This properly agrees to him as King : This is not to participate of the divine perfections and excellency , as infinite and eternal , but so far as the most noble Creature was capable . From all this is manifest the excellency of Christ above all Prophers , both as a Prophet , and in other respects . For as a Prophet he knew more of God , and of his mind then all the Prophets joyned in one . He declared his Will more fully , clearly , and powerfully then he did , and this both by himself and by his Apostles . God gave the Spirit not in measure , but in fulness unto him . He is more excellent , not only as a Prophet , but in other respects ; 1. As the Son of God. 2. As Heir of all things . 3. As he by whom the Worlds were made . 4. As he is the brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the expresse Image of his Person . 5. As upholding all things with the word of his Power . 6. As by himself purging our Sins . 7. As set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high . There is not the least of these ( though all be very great ) but therein he far excels the Prophets . This might be added , that he spake by him ; 1. As by his Son , so did he not by any of the Prophets . 2. In the last Days , after which he will speak no more to mortal Men , neither will there be any need . § . 11. The second Proposition is , That Christ is more excellent then the Angels , [ Being made so much better then the Angels , ] This might be a conclusion of the former words , but that in them Christ is compared with the Prophets . Therefore we will consider it as a distinct Proposition concerning Christ , as compared with the Angels . And if he be more excellent then them , he must needs be more excellent then the Prophets . He is more excellent then the Angels in the seven sormer Respects ; but the Divine Apostle seems to insist principally upon the last , as will appear by that which follows . The occasion of this Discourse may be this , because the Jews or Hebrews might say , That though Christ was more excellent then the Prophets ; yet he was inferiour to the Angels , by whom the Law was given , and who spake to the Fathers and the Prophets : so that they were Prophets , and God spake by them ; and it 's not like that Jesus of Nazareth was above them , or equal with them . This is the more probable , because it follows , If the Word spoke by Angels , &c. Chap. 2. 2. Which implys , that some part of the Old Testament , especially the Law , was declared by Angels : For the Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediatour , Gal. 3. 19. The Revelation was signified to John by an Angel of Christ , Revel . 1. 1. And this Angel calls himself a Prophet : For he had the Testimony of Jesus , which was the Spirit of Prophecy , and was one of the Brethren the Prophets , Revel . 19. 10 , & 22 , 9. So that some part of the New Testament was delivered by Angels . Now to take away this conceit of the excellency of Angels above Christ ; he not only affirms , that Christ is equal with , but above the Angels ; and not only affirms it , but ptoves it . His first argument in form is this , He that hath inherited a more excellent Name then Angels , is more excellent then the Angels ; but Christ hath inherited a more excellent Name ; therefore he is more excellent . § . 12. Let 's first consider the terms of the Major , then the connexion of those termes , or the Consequence . The terms are Angels Name , a Name by Inheritance : 1. Angels are Spirits , or spiritual Substances , the most noble and excellent Creatures God made : and because Angels are good or bad , who being made good , became bad by their own folly ; here the Apostle understands the holy , loyal , and obedient Angels , who never sinned against God. They are called Angels by reason of their Office and imployment , not of their nature . The Word signifies Messengers , because they are God's Messengers sent by him , not only to do , but declare his Will. Angelus is the same that Malaach , N●●tius , Lega●us ; and those names agree to their Prophetical Office. 2. These Angels have a Name , but Christ a more excellent Name . By Name in this place is not signified a bare Title , but the Dignity and Power of Christ ; and a more excellent Name , as a more excellent Dignity and Power . Thus the word [ Name ] is used , Phil. 2. 9. Ephes. 1. 21. For Fame , Glory , Dignity , it 's signified by [ Name ] in the Old Testament , and in many other Authours , and in several Languages . That the Apostle understands thus for a Title , not only of Dignity , but Power inherent in the person whose Titlo it is , may easily appear from what follows . 3. This more excellent Name Christ hath by Inheritance , it 's Hereditary , and he is invested with it , and actually possessed of it to enjoy it for ever . Yet the word in the Greek signifies sometimes only to acquire , possesse , enjoy , and so doth Iarash in Hebrew . The Connexion is clear , for whosoever hath greater dignity and power then another , and that justly , must needs be more excellent . For excellency is a proper necessary consequence of Power . § . 13. For to which of the Angels said he at any time , Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee ? And again , I will be to him a Father , and he shall be to me a Son. ] By these words he proves that Christ hath or doth inherit a more excellent Name , which is the minor . 1. This is a proof by an inartificial argument or testimony , which depends upon the authority of the Person testifying . 2. The party testifying is God ; therefore the authority is Divine , and without exception , especially to the Hebrews , who acknowledged the Old Testament to be from God , and infallible . 3. He produceth two places out of the Old Testament . 4. He alledgeth both , especially the first by way of interogation , affirmative , which is a more vehement Negation . For , to which of the Angels said he ? that is , to none ; and he challengeth the Hebrews , or any other , to prove that God said so to any Angel . The first Testimony we find Psal. 2. 7. which must first be examined : The words are used by the Apostle to prove the Resurrection of Christ , Act. 13. 33. and his Priest●●ood , Chap. 5. 5 , 1. By the first place Psal. 2. we understand that upon the Resurrection , after the time of his Humiliation was past , he was made a King ; and by the second , Hebr. 5. 5. he was made and created a Priest. 2. That both are to be understood of Christ , and of Christ raised up from death . 3. That upon this Resurrection Christ was constituted King and Priest universal and supream in Heaven and Earth . Therefore he said after his Re●●rrection , and before his Ascension , All Power is given unto me in Heaven and i● Earth , Matth. 28. 18. Therefore [ this day ] is not Eternity , nor are the words to be understood of his eternal Generation , as some of the Ancients expounded them ; but it 's the day of Resurrection , when he laid aside the Form of a Servant ; and that Work , which in that Form he must accomplish , was finished . This place truly understood , doth plainly inform us , that as none of the Angels did so humble themselves as he did , to do so great and glorious a Service as he performed ; so none of them were rewarded with the honour and power of an universal Kingdom and Priest-hood as he was : He had a better Name , a higher place , and a greater power ; for the Regal power he gave him was such , that the very Angels were subject unto him , as to their Lord and Soveraign . The second place alledged we find 2 Sam. 7. 14 , 16. and the words of that former History contracted a C●ron . 22. 10. in this manner , The Lord speaking of a Son who should succeed him , faith , He shall build an House for my Name , and he shall be my Son , and I will be his Father , and I will establish the Throne of his Kingdom over Israel for ever . To understand this passage of Scripture , you must consider , 1. That the words are to be understood of Solomon ; for David intending to build a House and Temple to God , was certified by Natha● from the Lord , that he should not build Him an House ; but Solomon his Son , who should sit in his Throne after him , should undertake and finish that Work. 2 That Solomon was but a Type of Christ , and that in three things : 1. In building God's House . 2. In being a King. And 3. In the perpetuation of his Kingdom . 3. You must know , that when any words are spoken of a Type , as a Type , they are to be understood of the Anti-type , and that principally , to agree more exactly to the A●●●-type . For here , to build God a spiritual House , and to succeed David as an everlasting King , did agree fully to Christ , not to Solomon . 4. The words understood both of the Type and the Anti-type make but one literal sense : For that I call the literal sense which is intended by the Spirit . And this is the excellency of the Scripture , that by the same word it signifies not onely one but several things , and tha● as the words signify things immediately , at first hand , so these things signify other things-things past , or present , or things to come : For such was the wonderful Wisdom of God , that he ordered things of old so , that they plainly shadowed out things to come , and so did teach Mysteries not onely by words but things , and many things by one word . 5. Christ and his Apostles do sometimes so quote the words of the Old Testament , that they onely Point at the place , and refer the hearer to it , where he may read more than he hears , and the whole when a part onely is spoken . 6. This place joyned with the former doth plainly tell us , that to be a Son , is to be a King universal over the Church for ever ; and this is the more excellent Name and hereditary Power given to Christ , never given to the Angels : David himself by these words understood , that God therein promised the Mess●as and his eternal Saviour , who was afterwards called the Son of David , and his Throne and Kingdom the Throne and Kingdom of David . By Son in both places is meant , 1. Not a Servant . 2. Not any kind of Son , but the first-born . 3. Not the first-born of any but of a King. 4. Not the first-born of any King , but of God as universal and Supream King ; for his Son , this Son , must be Heir and Lord of all . § . 14 Ver. 6. And again , when he bringeth in the first-begotten , &c. ] These words are taken out of Psal. 97. and are found in the Septuagint , Deut. 32. 43. They are brought to prove the excellent Name of Christ above the Angels , affirmed in the Minor of the Apostle's Argument . Expositors differ in the manner of bringing in these words upon the former , but agree in the matter . The difference is two-fold : 1. About the Adverbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 2. The bringing of Christ into the World , whether it was his Incarnation ( as some affirm ) , or his coming to Judgment , as others . For the Adverbe 〈◊〉 turned again , some make it onely a word of Connexion of these words with the former , as an Addition of a third Proof of the Minor out of a third place . His first was from Psal. 2. The second from 2 Sam. 7. which is added to the former in this manner [ And again ] . The third is this , from Psal. 97. So that the word here signifies onely an Addition of a third Proof to the two former : Thus Beza , Trimellius , Vatablus , the Tigurines , Zurick , Erasmus , Sasbout , and our English Translators understand it . Others think this too harsh a Transposition , and joyn it with the Verbe [ bringeth in ] ; when he brings again , or a second time , the first-begotten into the World ; thus the Vulgar , à Lapide , Ribera , Mr. Mede . The former is very probable ; the latter cannot be demonstrated to be intended , but gives occasion of the second doubt , which had been none if they had not fallen upon this Criticism : For it gives occasion to doubt what coming of Christ into the World is here to be understood , whether his Incarnation , or R●surrection , or last Judgment ; Some understand the first , some the second , some the last . Two things perswade us to believe it of that second coming ; 1. Because the first proof , out of Psal. 2. speaks of the bringing of Christ into the World as King , I have s●t my King upon my holy Hill of Zion ; for upon his Resurrection he was made King by Decree and Patent , according to those words , I will declare the Decree . The second place 2 Sam. 7. speaks of him as King , first-born , and Lord of all . 2. The 97. Psalm doth not speak of his coming to Judgment , but 1. Of his Exaltation above all Gods , whether Men or Angels , For thou Lord art high above all the Earth , thou art exalted far above all Gods , Ver. 9. 2. Of his Laws , and the Promulgation of them . These Laws are given to Jews to Heathens , to Angels , with threatnings of Punishment , and promises of Reward . There is not a word of the Summons , Appearance , Sentence , Execution , and final Retribution of eternal Rewards and Punishments . But these things wherein some differ are not so material as that wherein they all agree , which is , The Command of God to all the Angels to worship Christ. Let all the Angels of God worship him , ] In Psal. 97. 7. Worship him all yo Gods. ] These seem to di●●es much : But here you must take notice , that the Apostle useth the words of the Septuagint , and , that which is strange , the words of the Septuagint as used in Deut. 32. 43. ●ather than those we read Psal. 97. 7. The words of the Psalm are translated by Hi●rom , Prat●●s●s , Ju●ius , Vi●tublus , our Translators , [ Worship him all yo Gods. ] By Pagnin● , the Tigurine , the Vulgar , and the Septuagint , Worship him all his Angels . And it 's certain , that the Greek Translators either followed an Hebrew Copy different from ours , or else they understood the word [ Malachin ] Angels , and expressed it in their Version . For that Translation is not wording , but rather a Paraphrase , and many times gives the sense ; and sometimes where they are most blamed , as forsaking the Original , they are most excellent , and give greatest light , as the Chalde● Paraphrast many times doth . But not to insist upon the Translations , nor upon the word Elohin● , which is said to signify God , Angels , Princes , excellent men , Idols : The words of the Apostle following the Septuagint are plain ; and inform us . 1. That the 97. Psalm is to be understood of Christ , as King and Lord Redeemet reigning in glory . 2. That God by this Command and Edict subjected all his Angels to Christ. 3. That he did this upon the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ , when he raised him up from the dead , and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places , far above all principalities , and powers , and might , and dominion , and every name that is named not onely in this World , but that which is to come , Ephes. 1. 20 , 21. For * Christ is gone in●o Heaven , and is at the right hand of God : Angels , and Authorities , and Powers , being made subject unto him . 4. That not onely some but all the Angels of God are subject to him ; for all the Angels must worship him , and acknowledge him to be their Lord. 5. Therefore Christ hath obtained a more excellent Name , a Name above every Name , Phil 2. 9. And this is not onely a Name of Dignity , in respect whereof the Angels must honour him , but of Subjection to his Power , by which he might command them as his Subjects and Servants to obey him . § . 15. Ver. 7. And of the Angels he saith , Who maketh his Angels Spirits , and his Ministers a flame of fire , ] These words may be referred either to the Context , Antecedent , or Consequent . If to the Antecedent , they seem to be a new Argument to this purpose ; If Christ be a Son , and Lord of all , even of Angels , and Angels but his Legates and Servants then Christ is more excellent than Angels . If they refer to the Context following , then the Apostle argues in this manner : If Angels be but Servants , and Christ an everlasting King , then Christ is more excellent than Angels ; but they are but Servants , and he an everlasting King ; therefore he is more excellent . There can be no doubt of the Major . The Minor or Assumption hath two parts , 1. That the Angels are Servants . 2. Christ , an everlasting King ; he proves both , and out of the Psalms , out of which are taken all the proofs except one in this Chapter , and the most material proofs , whereon he principally insists thorough out the first 9. Chapters of this Epistle . This first part , that Angels are but Servants , he confirms out of Psal. 104. 4. 1. There is little , or in effect no difference in the Translation , nor much in the Exposition of the words ; for most do understand the place of Angels , as spiritual and immortal Substances , though some very few interpret it of the Winds , and the fire , which must needs be untrue , except we will make the Apostle's Argument invalid , 2. Yet there is some difference about the manner of Allegation , in these words , And of the Angels he saith ; for the Original seems to say , that these words were spoken of the Angels , not to the Angels ; So Vatablus , Jumus , Tremelius , the Tigurines , Zanck Divines , and out Translators turn it . The Vulgar reads it [ ad Angelos ] to the Angels ; yet a Lapide expounds the words [ of the Angels ] , and thinks that the Vulgar follows the Hebrew , wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ad for super , to for of . And they of Zanck conceive there is an Enallage of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : Yet Heinsius understands it in another manner , and thinks it may well be translated [ ad Angelos ] , and the sense is , [ Quod ad Angelos spectat , ] As for the Angels he saith ; and this is likely to be true . Yet howsoever , the words of the Psalmist are not spoken to , but of the Angels . 2. It s added [ he saith ] , in the Greek [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] saith , without any expression who saith , whether God , or the Psalmist , or God's Spirit by the Psalmist ; or it may be understood , yet to the same purpose , that the Scripture saith . The words are the words 1. Of the Scripture . 2. Of the Psalmist . 3. Of the Spirit , who is God. But to the words themselves ; 1. The Subject of them is the Angels . 2. The Scope is , to prove that they are inferiour to Christ , because Servants . 3. They teach us , 1. The Nature . 2. The Place or Office of Angels . 3. That God made them such for Nature , such for Office. First , For their Nature , they are Spirits , and a flame of sire ; for Office , Angels and Ministers . 1. They are Spirits ; that is , spiritual and intellectual Creatures : For whereas many think , because Ruack in Hebrew ; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek signify sometimes the Winds ; and that here the Angels are compared to the Winds for swiftness , it 's poor : For the word signifies , the Soul of Man , the Affections and Operations , and the Mind ; it signifies also , Angels both good and bad , as they are spiritual and intellectual Substances . 2. They are a flame of fire , or flaming fire ; that is , Seraphims , bright , glorious , and excellent Creatures : They are called Cherubims and Seraphims , which are Spirits near unto the Throne of God , ever in his presence , like Princes tending upon his Majesty , ready ever to do him Service , and glorify him . 1. God makes them , and gives them an excellent Being , and qualifies them , and makes them fit to be his Servants . 2. He makes them Servants and Officers , to do him high and glorious Service . 1. They must be Angels , to know and declare his Will to those to whom he sends them . 2. They must be Ministers , to do and execute his Will. He made them , both their excellent Nature , and their Office , and both from him . Here it might be noted , that the Angels are not any kind of Servants , but such as are in eminent place , as Officers be ; yet Officers are but Servants , and not Lords . The Sum of all is , that Angels , though excellent Creatures , are but Servants and Ministers ; and this the Apostle intended out of these words to prove . § . 16. Ver. 8 , 9. But unto the Son he saith , Thy Throne , O God , &c. ] Where we must consider , 1. The Connexion . 2. The Translation . 3. The principal sense . 4. The Scope of the Apostle . 1. The Connexion is not copulative but discretive , and implies an opposition and an eminency : For Christ is here opposed to the Angels , as Servants and Subjects are to Soveraigns , as invested with a super-eminent Dignity and Power ; therefore the particle ω is well translated but. 2. The Translation is , 1. Of the words of Allegation . 2. Of the words alledged . First , Of the words of Allegation , which may be translated , either as they are here read , [ To the Son he saith , ] or , as the former [ of the Son he saith ] ; or , [ as for the Son he saith ] . He , that is , God , or the Psalmist , or the Scripture , or the Spirit by the Psalmist in the Scripture , saith thus of the Son. Secondly , Of the words alledged , the Translation is somewhat doubtful ; for they may be turned , Thy Throne , O God , as they are commonly translated ; or , Thy Throne is God , as Genebrard ieforms us ; some Rabbins understand it , or thy Throne of God ; and every one of these may be true . 3. The genuine sense is this , that the Power of Christ is from God a royal and divine Power ; for his Kingdom was not of this World , but an heavenly Kingdom , of universal and eternal continuance , and of a perfect constitution and administration : For because that he loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity , so far as to be righteous and holy , not only in life but death , and by his death to expiate the sin of Man , and to sanctify all that believe in him for ever ; therefore God , even his God , anointed him , that is , exalted him above all Kings and Prophets , even above the Angels . By Oyl of gladness , is meant Oyl that maketh glad , which here signifies not only the gifts but the power of the holy Spirit ; and to be anointed with this Oyl , is not onely to receive gifts and ability , but power and authority spiritual and divine , and the same super-eminent above all power communicated to any other . And this transcendent power was given him for his great and glorious Service , in the work of Redemption , by his Death and Sufferings . 4. The Scope of the Apostle is , to prove that Christ is more excellent than the Angels , and the reason is strong ; they are but Messengers , Ministers , Servants : God never made any of them an universal and eternal King , but such he hath made Christ. The Apostle implies that the 45. Psalm speaks of Christ. § . 17. Ver. 10 , 11 , 12. And thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth , &c. ] How these words agree with the Scope of the Apostle , so as to prove Christ to be more excellent than the Angels is difficult to understand : They are taken out Psal. 102. The whole Psalm is a Prayer directed to God Redeemer by Christ ; the matter of the Petition is , to hasten the coming of Christ , and his glorious Kingdom , the repair of the Church and the enlargement of it to all Nations , that the People may be gathered together , and the Kingdoms , to serve the Lord ; that is , the Lord Christ ; and that his Saints being mortal may be changed , and inherit eternal life , by that Lord Christ , who shall destroy all Enemies , consume the World with fire , and eternally glorify the Saints . The Propositions or divine Axioms contained in these words are , 1. That Christ , being Jehovah , made the World. 2. That Heaven and Earth , created by him , are mutable , and shall be changed by him . 3. That he is immutable , and his Kingdom everlasting . 4. That his Subjects and Servants , though mortal , shall enjoy eternal peace and happiness by him . In all these things Christ is far above the Angels , especially in this , that he being Creator of the World shall be an everlasting King , of an everlasting and unchangeable Kingdom : Yet this is so to be understood , that it doth not agree to Christ as the Word alone , because as the Word alone he is not Redeemer ; nor to Christ as Flesh or Man alone , for as such he could not create the World ; but it agrees unto him as the Word made Flesh , and exalted at the right hand of God. This may be considered , either as a distinct proof from the former , or a confirmation of the same , in respect of his eternal Throne and Kingdom . The Socinian upon this place 1. Denies Christ to be the Creator of the World , and so to be God. 2. Affirms , that the intention of the Apostle is , to prove Christ more excellent than the Angels , onely by one thing in the words ; and that is , by his secondary power to change Heaven and Earth , which power God never gave unto the Angels . And his design in all this was to cloud this place , which so plainly affirms the Deity and immutable Being of Christ. 1. That Christ is the Creator of the World , hath been clear from Joh. 1. 2 , 3. from the second Verse of this Chapter , from Coloss. 1. 16. For Christ is not meerly Man as they affirm , but the Word by which all things were made , which in fulness of time was made flesh . 2. That he that made the World is the same that shall change it , and shall abide the same for ever : For to create the World , to change it , to remain for ever , are all affirmed of one Person , and if that Person be Christ , then all , not onely one of them , agree unto him . This Erasmus Johannes did very well observe in his dispute with Socinus concerning some kind of existence which Christ must needs have before the Incarnation . Socinus in his Answer doth miserably shift , and offers plain violence to the place ; Volkelius doth the like . Crellius , Volkelius , Socinus , make this the Scope of the Apostle in this first Chapter , to demonstrate that Christ is more excellent than the Angels onely in such things as he received as Man from God after his Death and Resurrection . But as you heard before , his intent is to prove , 1. That Christ is more excellent than the Prophets . 2. Than the Angels . And as he was more excellent than the Prophets , not onely as sitting at the right hand of God , but as creating the World , and being the brightness of his Father's Glory , and the express Image of his Person ; so he was more excellent than Angels , not onely as sett at the right hand of God , but as creating the World. It was an hard thing , and is still , to understand the Mystery of the Incarnation . That the eternal Word and Wisdom of God , by which he created the World , should be made Flesh , and possesse , dwell in , and be united to the Nature of Man , is plain Scripture : but how he doth possess it , dwell in it , and is united to it , so as he never possessed , or dwelt in , or was united unto any other Man or Angel ; is far above our reach and capacity . Believe , that it is so , we must , we may , we are bound unto it ; it 's clear , certain , and the Word of God expresseth it plainly : Understand the manner how it is , we cannot . And how should we ? seeing we are so ignorant how the Soul and Body are united . In this Case , as in many other , Non vivacitas intelligendi , sed simplicitas credendi , not our evident Knowledg , but our Faith must save us . But it 's a wickedness , which God will punish , to deny that which God doth plainly affirm , because we cannot fully comprehend it . § . 18. Ver. 13. 14. But to which of the Angels said he at any time , &c. ] These words may be understood to be a Conclusion of the former premisses , or a new Argument : If a Conclusion , then we must conceive the premisses and the former discourse to amount to this , that God set Christ at his right hand and not the Angels ; and here he briefly sums up the whole , and inferrs , therefore Christ is above the Angels . Yet they rather seem to contain a new another Argument taken from the Psalmist , Psal. 110. The Lord said unto my Lord , Sit thou on my right hand , &c. ] 1. To sit at the right hand of God is not onely to be for ever happy and blessed , by enjoying those pleasures which are at God's right hand for evermore , nor onely to be advanced to the highest place of honour and dignity next unto God , but to be invested with a supream and universal Power above all Men and Angels , and by the same actually to reign ; for , with the Apostle , to sit at the right hand of God is to reign , 1 Cor. 15. 25. This is to be Administrator-general , as Law-giver and Judge in that spiritual Kingdom , whereby God orders sinful Man unto eternal Glory : This agrees to him as the Word made Flesh , raised from the dead , and ascended into Heaven . 2. This Glory , Dignity , and Power , was given to Christ as Man , yet united to the Word ; For the Lord said unto my Lord , that is , David's Lord , who yet according to the Flesh was David's Son ; who , though Flesh , was far greater after his Humiliation than his Father David , not onely as the Word , and the same Supream Lord with the Father , but as Flesh and Man. The Chaldee turns it [ to his Word ] , the Lord said to his Word , yet to his Word made Flesh. 3. The party who advanced him to his right hand was God ; for it was God who gave him a Name above all Names , none else could give it . 4. He gave it him by his Word and Edict : For [ he said ] . In this word we have the Patent or Commission of Christ , in which he signifies his Will was , that he should be Lord and King , and with the word gives him the Power , so that his Title is good and valid , and stands firm and inviolable . 5. The date of this Reign is expressed in those words , untill his Enemies be made his Foot-stool ; that is , till the Resurrection and final Glorification of all his Saints . This being the meaning of the words , the Apostle insists chiefly upon that part of the Text [ said to my Lord ] , as though he should say , 1. You confess that Psalm to be part of the holy Scripture revealed from Heaven . 2. That the words are not to be understood of Angels , but the Messiah . 3. That in the first words of that Psalm God speaks to some certain Person to whom he gives Power to reign . 4. He did not by those words give Power unto the Angels , but to Christ ; thence he argues , If God gave this Power to Christ , and never to any of the Angels did the like , then Christ is more excellent than the Angels , and the Angels inferiour to Christ ; But this was said , this power was given to Christ and not to the Angels ; therefore he is more excellent . This Argument is stronger and more convictive , because it 's negative and exclusive ; for they might have said , that though God did advance and honour Christ , and gave him an everlasting Kingdom , yet he might do the like to some of the Angels . To prevent this , he out of the Text proves that God said this to Christ , and there is no mention there nor in any part of the Scripture of God's advancing any of them to his right hand . And that his Argument might be more forcing , he proposeth it interrogatively , To which of the Angels said he at any time ? That is , He said not any such thing at any time to any of the Angels : If he did , he challengeth them to prove or produce the place , which they could never do . § . 19. Ver. 14. Are they not all ministring Spirits , &c. ] These words may be considered absolutely in themselvs , or relatively , as conducing unto the main Conclusion intended by the Apostle . The subject of them are Angels , of whom something here is affirmed : The manner of Expression is Rhetorical , by way of Interrogation : The Answer implyed is affirmative ; for they say , that negative Interrogations are more vehement Affirmations . The Proposition in general is , That all the Angels are ministring Spirits , sent forth to minister for them , who shall be Heirs of Salvation . The parts infolded in the general or the whole , are many : 1. They are Spirits . 2. Ministring Spirits . 3. Sent forth to minister . 4. The Minister for the Heirs of Salvation . 5. They are all such . 1. They are Spirits that is incorporeal , incorruptible , intellectual , active substances ; the most noble and excellent Creatures God made . 2. They are ministring Spirits ; To be Ministers is , 1. To be Servants in general . 2. To be Officers , and imployed either in sacred or civil Service ; therefore the word doth signify Priests or Magistrates . Yet these are Ministers or Servants in the Court of Heaven under God the Supream Lord of all . 3. They are sent forth ; for as they have their Office , so they have their Imployment , they are sent forth to Minister . They do not go of their own head , but have their work designed by God , and receive both Direction and Command from him . 4. The parties for whose good the Minister are , the converted Believers , who are designed Heirs of Salvation and eternal Glory . For though they be God's Servants , yet they serve for the good of his Children , and this is their principal work , and their happiness is the end of their Service . 5. They are all and every one both Servants , and also sent forth for this Service , the greatest is not exempted . This is the absolute consideration of the words . The relative , as they referr unto the scope of the Apostle , is to prove that Christ is more excellent , and they inferior to Christ. The force of the argument lyes chiefly in this , 1. That they are Ministers and Servants . 2. That all of them , none excepted , are such . For all and every of them be Ministers , not Lords and Kings , then they are inferior to Christ. Nay , they all , and every one of them are subject to Christ , as the Word from the Creation ; and after Christ , as the word incarnate was set at the right hand of God , they all were his Servants , commanded and sent by him for the promoting of the Salvation of his redeemed ones believing on him . So that they are not only Servants , but his Servants : this Doctrine informs us , 1. Of the excellency of Christ , advanced in our Nature above the Angels . 2. Of the benefit of Believers , they are Heirs of Salvation ; and the Angels , the heavenly Spirits must take a special care of them . 3. Of our Duty . 1. To believe that we may be Heirs of Salvation , and enjoy the guardance , guidance and protection . 2. To be humble Servants unto God , to do good to others ; especially the Houshold of Faith , seeing Angels , though excellent , are humble Servants to Christ for our good . This principal matters in this Chapter are several . The first is , concerning the excellency of the Scriptures , wherein God speaks by Prophets , and by his own Son. 2. The excellency of Christ in respect of the Prophets and the Angels . 3. The Nature and Ministry of Angels . The Use of this Doctrine follows in the beginning of the next Chapter . CHAP. II. Ver. 1. § . 1. THis Chapter is an Exhortation to the constant Profession of the Doctrine of the Gospel . These words may be considered , 1. In that Connexion with , and dependence upon the former . 2. In themselves . The Connexion and Dependence is signified by the illative therefore , which implys , that the proposition in the first verse is a conclusion inferred from some premisses in the former Chapter , wherein the Apostle had not only affirmed and proved , that Christ was a Prophet more excellent then the former Prophets , but the Angels . And if he was so , then it follows he must needs be heard , and his Doctrine observed , which is the substance of the first verse . For seeing God speaks by the Prophets , and more excellently by Christ ; therefore Prophets , much more Christ , are to be heard . § . 2. This is a Connexion : The words themselves we must consider , First , As an Exhortation , And secondly , in the same : 1. The duty exhorted unto . 2. The reasons whereby the performance is urged . An exhortation is reducible to a Rhetorick , and proper to a deliberative Theme , according to Aristotle and Tully ' , whose Rules are not meerly Rhetorical , but Political , and are miscellaneous . It presupposeth the party exhorted to know , and remember the thing exhorted unto , and a perswasion that it 's good ; especially honest and just . The end of it is to move , inslame , and stir up the Will and Heart of the Auditor to performance . This upon the by ; To proceed , we have , 1. The matter of the Exhortation , or the Duty exhorted unto . For the subject of divine Exhortations , is some duty possible by the power of Grace to be performed . Duty presupposeth a Command of God , upon which follows an obligation to performance ; and a duty is nothing else ; and is a duty , whether performed or not . The duty is affirmative or negative . So that in the words we have not only an exhortation , but a dehortation too ; yet to speak properly , they are but implyed : For the Apostle signifies rather that the matter is a duty , then exhorts unto it . The affirmative is to give the more earnest heed to the things heard , the negative not to let them slip ; yet the former must be done , lest the latter , which is a Sin , should follow . The matter of the duty , is , the things heard , that is , the Doctrine of Christ , the great Prophet and his Apostles as made known and heard by them . The act is attention , earnest attention ; the more earnest attention , because spoken by Christ , more excellent then the Prophets , then the Angels . This attention is not only a diligent consideration of the things heard , but a belief and constant profession joyned with practise , and presupposeth the knowledg of them . The negative , which upon the neglect of the affirmative , will follow , is , not to let them slip . Thus it 's translated in our English , but with divers Latine Interpreters it's , to leak , or flow out or aside . And here Expositors compare the Soul unto a broken Cistern or torn-Vessel , which will not keep any liquid substance powred into it . In this sense to let slip , seems to be nothing else then to forget : But the Sytiack turns it so , lest we fall off or from our profession . The Septuagint use the Apostles word , Prov. 3. 21. where the Hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luz , which signifies not only in that Language , but in the Chaldee , to depart , go back , decline from a thing . Therefore here the sin we must take heed of , is , not only to forget the Doctrine of Christ , but to fall from the Faith and Profession of it . And the reason , why they must be so careful , is , because there was great danger , and many temptations , which would prove the more effectuall against the careless and the negligent . In a word , the duty is upon most dillgent attention , constantly to believe and profess the Doctrine of Christ , and never to recede or fall from it . Thus to do is our duty ; there is a necessity of precept , God's Command binds us , we ought and the reason is , because the Doctrine we have heard is the Doctrine of Christ , the Doctrine of God made Man. And it was God's Command to hear him the great Prophet , upon peril of total Destruction . This duty is reducible to the first Commandment , evangelically understood ; and not to hear , believe , profess the Doctrine of God Redeemer by Christ , is a grievous sin there forbidden . As the duty presupposeth the Command , so the Command presupposeth that God spake by his Son more excellent then the Angels and that they had heard his Doctrine . This may be the Use or Application of the Doctrine delivered and confirmed in the former Chapter : And the Use after the present mode of preaching is an Instruction , which virtually includes an exhortation with a dehortation . § . 3. Ver. 2 , 3 , 4. The reason which may perswade , and motive which may incline us , to performance of the duty both affirmative and negative , follows . And it is two-fold , 1. From the grievous unavoidable punishment , to which upon non-performance we shall be liable , and in the end suffer . 2. From divine Ordination . The first we read , ver . 2 , 3 , 4. where we may observe , 1. A punishment grievous unavoidable . 2. The cause of it 1. There can be no Punishment , where there is no Law transgressed . For where there is the Law , there is no Transgression , Rom. 4. 19. And where no transgression or sin , there is no ●●ath or punishment . For the wages or desert of Sin is Death , Rom. 6. 23. Punishment therefore is some evil determined and threatned in the Law , by the Law-giver against the Transgressou● as due unto him upon the transgression . It 's opposed properly to a reward promised , not to a benefit , which is no reward . This punishment is grievous , and the grievousness is implyed in a Comparison . For if the Transgressours of the Law , then the Transgressours of the Gospel shall be grievously punished ; and if the former , much more the latter : if their punishment was grievous , much more grievous shall ours be . It 's expressed in two words in the Original , in three in our translation , a just recompence of reward ; yet according to the Greek , it 's a just retribution or rendring of wages ; that is , a punishment of Death , which they deserved , and was justly due unto them . To deserve and to be ●able to punishment , is a consequent and moral effect of transgression , by vertue of the Law : to determine this punishment is an act of the Law-giver ; to infact it is an act of the Judge , which infliction is a rendring of some evil as due , to the party suffering as deserving it . But as it is first grievous , so it is unavoidable . This is expressed , 1. In that they under the Law receved it . 2. In that we under the Gospel cannot escape it . How shall we escape ? § . 4. The cause of this grievous unavoidable punishment is some sin , which is here expressed : And to understand this more fully and distinctly , let 's consider , 1. The sin and punishment of transgressours under the Law. 2. The sin and punishment of the transgressours under the Gospel . 3. The force of the reason . The words of the second verse informes us , 1. Of the sin . 2. The punishment of former Offenders . 1. The sin is the transgression of the word spoken by Angels . 2. The punishment was the destruction of the Offenders . In the Text , we have , 1. A Law , 2. The transgression of this Law. 3. The punishment of the transgressours . 4. The efficacy of the Law in this punishment . If we reduce it to Propositions , they are these : 1. That a word was spoken by Angels . 2. This word was disobeyed . 3. The disodient suffered condign punishment . 4. By this punishment the Law was made firm and valid . In the first we have , 1. A word . 2. The the same spoken . 3. The same spoken by Angels . 1. By word is no doubt understood a Law consisting of precepts , prohibitions , promises , threats or comminations , which are principally here understood as a part of the Law. Some think this Law to be the Decalogue : yet this cannot be here intended as it stands alone separated from the Judicials and Ceremonials , wherein we find many fearful penal Statutes and Comminations . So that by Word is understood the whole body and systeme of those Laws God gave by Moses to Israel ; neither let any wonder , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify a Word and a Law. For in Hebrew , Chaldee , and Arabick , the same verbes , which signifie to speak , signify to govern ; and the same Nouns which signifie words , signifie Commands and Laws . 2. This word was spoken , that is , this Law was published and promulgated . For , the matter of the Law , the mind and will of the Law-giver , the declaration of both , do all concurr to constitute the essence of a Law. 3. The word and Law was spoken and declared by Angels , though the matter and the binding decree was from God , and neither of them from the Angels , who were used by God in the promulgation . Though God in a more special manner is said to have uttered and written the ten Commandments or Decalogue ; yet in giving of the whole Systeme of the Law , he used the ministry of Angels . For they received the Law by the disposition of Angels , Acts 7. 53. And it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediatour , Gal. 3. 19. where by Law cannot be meant the Decalogue alone , as appears by the context , antecedent and consequent . And God , Angels , Moses , did all concurr as one efficient of the promulgation before it could be compleat . Therefore there is no need with H●insius to understand by Angels , the Prophets , as Angels , that is , Messengers of God. Hence appears the vanity and error of Crellius . For , he doth suppose and take for granted , that if the Law was spoken and published by Angels , then it was not published by God , or the Son of God in the person of the Diety . For by this he might argue against the express words of the Apostle , Chap. 1. 1. that because the Old Testament , and the Doctrine thereof , was published and declared by the Prophets ; therefore it was not published , declared , and spoken by God ; whereas it 's expresly said , God spake by the Prophets to the Fathers . 2. He argues to this purpose , that if the Law was in proper sense delivered by God , or the Son in the person of the Deity , then it would follow that the Apostle's argument to prove the Gospel above the Law were not good ; for if the Law was published by God , or the Son in the person of the Deity , the Law must be more excellent then the Gospel . But first , He takes the Law only for the Decalogue , which should not be done . 2. He mistakes the Apostle's comparison and argument : For the comparison is not in respect of him that spake , but of those by whom he spake . The Old and New Testament do not differ in this , that God doth speak and declare them : For both are the Word of God , both were spoken by God , in which respect they are equal and the same . If God had not spoken in both , both had not been the Word of God : But the difference is in respect of those by whom he spake . For of old he spake by the Prophets , in the last days he spake by his Son , and the Son is more excellent then the Prophets ; for here is the inequality and the excellency of the Gospel above the Law spoken by Angels and Prophets , not by the glorious Son of God. This is the first Proposition concerning the Law given . § . 5. The second proposition is , that this Law was transgressed and disobeyed . The sin , which was the cause of the punishment , is expressed by two words , Transgression and Disobedience . By these words we must not understand any kind of sin ; as of ignorance , or infirmity , or a sin upon surprizal , or in petty matters ; for the best of the Saints and Prophets under the Law sinned in this manner . But by them is understood some more hainous sins ; as Idolatry , Blasphemy , and such like ; or rebellion , or apostacy , or an habitual and continued course of Sin joyned with contempt of the Law. For these were capital , and capitally punished . The third Proposition concerning the Punishment you heard before . The fourth is concerning the Efficacy of the Law , It was stedfast . A Law should be armed with power and coactive force , otherwise it cannot be executed ; and without Execution , which is said to be the life of the Law , it 's but words , and can neither be a sufficient ground of hope in the Promises , or fear in the Comminations : When the Punishments threatned are inflicted , it strikes a greater Terrour . In this respect the Law proved firm and stedfast , when the Offenders were punished according to their Transgressions ; and by suffering the penalties , they knew that the word spoken by Angels was not vain , but valid and effectual . There is a three-fold stedfastness or firmness of a Law ; the first is in respect of the unalterable Will of the Law-giver ; the second in respect of the Execution ; the third in respect of the Party to whom it s given , who firmly and certainly believes it : The first is supposed ; the second is meant , and is a great cause of the third : The Emphasis is in the first words [ If the word spoken by Angels ] ; that is , the word spoken by Angels , and not by the Son , proved firm and valid , and was made and manifested to be such by the punishment of the Transgressors , and especially in this , that every transgression with an high hand , contumacy , and contempt was punished , and not say such Offence escaped unpunished . § . 6. After the Sin and Punishment of Offenders in the times of the Law and Old Testament ; follow the Sin and Punishment of Offenders in the times of the New Testament . The Sin is the neglect of the Gospel : The punishment is implyed in the words How shall we escape ? In the first we may consider , 1. The Word or Law. 2. The Transgression of it . In the Law we may observe , 1. The Title , or Name . 2. The Publication . 3. The Confirmation . The Title is this [ so great Salvation ] , by which is meant the Gospel , which is called Salvation . So great Salvation . As in the Law , so in the Gospel which is the Law of God Redeemer by Christ exhibited , we have 1. Precepts and Prohibitions , determining mens Duty . 2. Promises and Threats , declaring Punishments and Rewards according to mens Disobedience or Obedience ; and as in respect of the former the Gospel is the Rule of Man's Duty , so in respect of the latter it 's a Rule of God's Judgment . This Gospel is called Salvation , because it promiseth Salvation , and being followed brings loto Salvation ; and is said to be the Power of God unto Salvation ; and therefore is called the Word of Salvation , and the Gospel of Salvation : So that it 's called Salvation by a 〈◊〉 , 1. Of the Subject for the Adjunct , because the matter and subject of it is Salvation . 2. Of the Effect for the Cause , because it ●ath a causal vertue and power to save : As it's Salvation , so it 's great Salvation , because it doth promise and conduce to the attaining of eternal deliverance from eternal punishments and the greatest Enemies , and of eternal bliss and full happiness : the Word spoken by Angels did no such thing . This is the Name or Title . 2. The Publication or Promulgation is two fold : 1. Began by Christ , 2. Continued by them who heard him . The Gospel is a Law , and the Law of God Redeemer in Christ ; yet it could bind no man except it were published : And it was first published by Christ. The Law and the Doctrine of the Old Testament was spoken and published by Angels and Prophets ; but this by Christ the Son and Lord : Jesus Christ is our Lord by Redemption , whereby he acquired a Right unto us , and Power over us ; for because he suffered death for our sins , God raised him up , and made him Lord and Christ , and being at his right hand he hath Power to command men and Angels , and is the head of the Church , which acknowledgeth his power and submits unto it . He began to speak and declare the Gospel both before and after his Resutrection , and they who heard him were especially the Apostles , by whom afterward ●●dued with the holy Ghost he declared it , first to the Jew and these Hebrews , then to the Gentiles : It was so spoken as it was known by him and them , so fully and clearly as was never done by Prophets and Angels before . This is the Publication . 3. The Confirmation follows ; where we must observe , 1. To whom . 2. By whom . 3. By what it was confirmed . 1. To whom ? It was confirmed , saith the Author , to [ Us ] ; that is , to himself and these Hebrews ; so it 's commonly understood . That it was confirmed to the Hebrews there can be no doubt , and also to Paul who was an Hebrew ; to whom the Gospel was preached as to the rest of the Jews , and also confirmed to him , though he did not at the first believe it . Yet it will not follow from hence that Paul received his immediate and infallible Knowledge of the Gospel from the Apostles : For this he received immediately by Revelation from Christ as the rest of the Apostles did , though they heard Christ as many more did , who yet were no Apostles . In this respect none can ground an Argument upon these words , to prove that Paul was not the Author of this Epistle , as divers do . Again , the word [ Us ] is often taken largely and indefinitely , not strictly and precisely so as formally to include the person speaking . And in this sense , because it was confirmed to the Hebrews , whereof he was one , he might say , It was confirmed to Us ; especially seeing it 's he that writes unto them . 2. By whom was it confirmed ? It was confirmed by those which heard him : Now many besides the Apostles did hear Him , and also confirm the Doctrine of the Gospel : Yet the Apostles did it in a more eminent manner , and may be principally , though not solely here intended . Yet Paul did not hear Christ as the other Apostles did : for though Christ spake to him from Heaven , yet he did not speak to him as he did to others whil'st he conversed on Earth . 3. By what was this Doctrine confirmed ? It was confirmed by two things : 1. By Miracles . 2. By the Gifts of the Holy Ghost . Miracles are called Signs . Wonders . Powerful Works . They are called 1. Signs . 2. Wonders . 3. Powerful Works . because they 1. Signify God's Approbation of the Doctrine . 2. Cause men to wonder . 3. Are done by a divine and supernatural Power . The same words are used 2. Cor. 12. 12. In Signs , Wonders , mighty Deeds . They are said to be divers , because they are not onely many of one kind , but of several and different kinds , as dispossessing of Devils , raising the Dead , and miraculously healing all kind of Diseases ; and as they are Works of extraordinary Power and Wisdom , so they are of Mercy . 2. By Gifts or Distributions of the Holy Ghost according to his own Will. So that there were Gifts of the Holy Ghost . Distributions of them . These according to his Will. Gifts of the Holy Ghost were extraordinary Qualities and Powers , given such as heard the Apostles Doctrine and believed it ; as power to heal , to speak in strange Languages , to prophesy , to do Miracles . They are said to be Gifts and Effects of the Holy Ghost , because they had them not by Nature , or Industry , or Instruction by Man , but from the Power of God-Redeemer , and the Spirit of Christ. They are called in the Original , distributions or divisions , because they were 1. Communicated to divers Persons . 2. Were many of different kinds . 3. Were given in several degrees . They were distributed according to his own Will , 1. Freely . 2. To whom he will. 3. What Gifts he will. 4. In what measure he will. For there are diversities of Gifts , 1. Cor. 12. 4. But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit , dividing to every man severally as he will , Ver. 11. The Effect of these Miracles and Gifts was the confirmation of the Doctrine of the Apostles , which they did confirm by Word and Deed : For , 1. They did most certainly affirm and assert this Doctrine , as having heard it immediately of Christ , and as having received the immediate Knowledge there of from him . 2. They did these Signs , Wonders , and mighty Deeds , and upon the Imposition of their hands Believers received the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost ; yet they neither did these Miracles , nor gave these Gifts by their own power , or holiness . But the Works were done , and the Graces given by them as Instruments ; in the Name of Christ as risen and glorified , and from God. So that the Power of God , the merit of Christ , their Ministration , did all concur to the production of these glorious Effects : God was the principal Cause , therefore is it said , that by these God did bear them witness and attest their Doctrine to be true , and from him ; so that this confirmation was a giving credibility to the Doctrine of the Gospel , so far as it was new , and delivered the positive truths concerning Jesus of Nazareth , dying for our sins , rising again , sitting at the right hand of God , and the dependence of Justification before the Tribunal of God , and eternal Glory upon Faith in him making Intercession in Heaven : For there was no need thus to confirm the Ceremonials of Moses , and the Covenant of God with Israel before Mount Sinai to the Jew : For these things he made no doubt of , nor was this confirmation needful for to perswade the Gentile of the Equity and Justice of the Morals of the Scripture ; for the natural light of Reason did approve them . These Miracles and Gifts were Proofs very strong and powerful ; for they were no jugling Impostures or Delusions , but real demonstrations of the divine . Will , and clear to the senses . § . 7. The Transgression is a neglect of this divine Doctrine thus declared , thus confirmed : This neglect implies a contempt , and is a disobedience to that Law of God-Redeemer by Christ , exhibited in not believing and repenting , or a positive de●ial of this excellent truth in such as never professed it , or in Apostates who once received it : The punishment is eternal death , which can no ways be avoided by the Offenders neglecting this Salvation . The force of the Argument is the last and chief thing to be considered : To understand this , we must observe the Form of the Apostles Argument , which is this , That sin which makes us liable to grievous and unavoidable punishment must with earnest heed be avoided : But to let slip , or recede from , and neglect the Doctrine of the Gospel is such a Sin ; Therefore with all earnest heed to be avoided . The Apostle in this Argument presupposeth , 1. That sin makes liable to Punishment , ●ainous sins to grievous punishments ; some sins to unavoidable punishments . For the punishment of some sins are avoidable ; and the sins whereby we are made obnoxious , though committed , yet may be remitted : Some are not by the tenor of God's Laws remissible . 2. That we are made liable to punishment by the divine comminations , 3. That the end of Comminations in God's Laws , is , by representing the penalty as certainly due upon Transgression to restrain us from Transgression and Disobedience : For though the Love of God and Righteousness , and hatred of Iniquity , are the principal Motives to Obedience , and Restraints from sin , yet the hope of Rewards and fear of Punishments may have great force ; because we love our selves , desire our own peace and happiness , and abhor such things as tend to our misery and ruine : These things taken for granted make the Proposition good . But the doubt might be of the Assumption . That neglect of the Doctrine of the Gospel will make us liable to such a grievous unavoidable punishment . This he therefore proves , thus ; If Disobedience unto the Law , muc● more will the Disobedience to the Gospel , make us liable to such a Punishment : But Disobedience to the Law made the Offenders liable to such a Punishment . This the Hebrew and Jew would grant , for they knew it ; but the Proposition onely could be controverted by them . Therefore he confirms it from this presupposed in general , That greater sins make us obnoxious to greater Punishment ; but disobedience to the Gospel is the greater Sin. And this he proves fully , and that from many particulars . For this end , he proves the Doctrine of the Gospel more excellent than that of the Law , & more powerfully binding men to receive it and retain it : And if it be so , then to sin against it , is more hainous than to sin against the Law : That it is as excellent , there could be no doubt ; for it hath all the excellencies of the Law : But that it was more excellent he manifests by four things : 1. It was the Doctrine of so great Salvation , for such the Law was not . It by it self without the Promise could not save eternally and suppose it could , yet it was not so full , so clear , so powerfull , and effectually conducing to eternal life . 2. It was first spoken by the Lord Christ , who is so far above the Angels by whom the Law was given . 3. It was confirmed by Miracles far more in number and more glorious . 4. Upon the hearing and receiving the Gospel the Believers received many different and extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit , which the Hearers of the Law did not . For the Apostle saith to the Galathians , He therefore that ministreth unto you the spirit , and worketh Miracles amongst you , doth he it by the works of the Law , or by the hearing of Faith ? Chap. 3. 5. Where he doth imply , 1. That he did not so many and great Miracles amongst them to confirm the Doctrine of the Law , but to confirm the Faith , that is the Gospel . 2. He did not minister the Spirit , and gifts of the Holy Ghost by the preaching , nor they receive the Spirit by the hearing , of the Law , but of the Gospel . 3. That God , to testify the excellency of the Gospel above the Law , did concurr to work Miracles , and give the Spirit in confirmation of the one , not of the other . Therefore if the Gospel in so many respects be more excellent then the Law ; then to let it slip , to recede from it , to neglect it , is a far greater sin ; and therefore makes us obnoxious to far more grievous punishment . So we are come to the principal Conclusion , which is , to take heed of departing from , or neglecting of , this Doctrine of so great Salvation . § . 8. The application of this is to be made unto all and every one , who having the use of reason hath heard the Gospel . Let every one of them seriously consider , that God speaks in it , he speaks not by Angels , but his own Son ; it 's the most clear , full , and powerful Doctrine that ever was revealed from Heaven , a Doctrine of eternal Salvation : it 's confirmed by most glorious works , and the excellent Gifts of the blessed Spirit . It 's a discovery of profoundest wisdom , a manifestation of greatest love , and the last warning God will give . No other knowledg so useful , so excellent , so absolutely necessary as this . Therefore receive it readily , lay it up in your hearts , never forget ; ever remember it , prize it , never neglect it , never depart from it . If the love of God cannot perswade you , let the fear of his eternal displeasure , and the love of your own Salvation prevail with you . What ? will you despise his sweetest mercy ? reject the tender of Salvation ? bring upon your selves eternal and unavoidable misery ? It will be the greatest Sin that you can commit ; and make you obnoxious to the greatest punishment , if you shall refuse to hearken to this great Propher . Shall the word of Angels transgressed be so severely punished ? and shall no Offender escape ? And shall the word of the eternal Son of God be disobeyed , and any Offender guilty in this particular escape everlasting penalties ? Let not any slatter themselves , and think to escape : For how shall we escape , if we neglect , & c ? Ver. 5. For unto the Angels hath he not put in subjection the World to come , whereof we speak . § . 9. The words are difficult to be understood , and must be explained before the scope of the Apostle in them can be discovered . The subject matter of them is the World to come , and God's subjection of it : The greatest difficulty is to know what 's meant by , the World to come , which many think referrs to the state of glory , and the World which follows the Resurrection . Thus à Lapide , and some of the Antients : Riverae understands the Church-Christian as opposed to the Church of former times ; especially under the Law. This is the more probable sense : For the Apostle speaks of these last times ; wherein God spake unto men by his Son ; and it 's opposed to the times , wherein he spake by his Prophets and Angels . Yet we must not understand it of the Church exclusively , as though God had not subjected other things , even Angels for the good of the Church . That World , and those times , whereof the Apostle speaks are here meant ; but he speaks of the times of the Gospel . The proposition is negative , God subjected not the World to come , to Angels : In former times God had used very much the ministery of Angels in ordering the Church , and put much power in their hands to that end . Yet now in this last time he made Christ his Son ( who by reason of his suffering was a little lower then the Angels ) to be the administratour-General of his Kingdom , the Universal Lord ; and subjected the very Angels unto him . The expression seems to be taken from Esay 9. 6. for whereas there , amongst others Titles given to Christ , one is , ●verlasting Father , the Sep●uagint turn it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , The Father or Governour of the World to come , * which seems to be the genuine sense of the Hebrew words . The sum is , that God did not subject the Church in the times of the Gospel ; nor the World of those times to Angels , but to Christ. The words thus understood , may inform us ; 1. That Christ is more excellent then the Angels . 2. If the Law and Word spoken by Angels , when neglected and disobeyed , was so severely punished ; much more severely shall they , who neglect the Gospel spoken by Christ , be punished . 3. That if it was the duty of the Fathers , and those who lived in former times to hearken to the Word spoken by Angels , which are but Servants . Then it 's much more the duty of us , who live in these last times to hearken unto the Word of so great Salvation spoken by Christ , made Lord of All. From hence we may understand the scope of the words to be the same with that of the former , and that may be considered either a●part of the former reason , why we should hearken to Christ , and not neglect the Gospel ; or they may with the latter words following contain another distinct reason , and in this manner , that seeing God hath not to the Angels subjected the World to come , but to Christ , who by his Suffering and Death was for a little time , made lower then the Angels , and for that suffering , afterward made Lord of all , even of Angels , then we ought to give the more earnest heed to his Doctrine . Crellius understands by the World to come Heaven , but without any reason ; but rather contrary to reason , and to the purpose of the Apostle . § . 10. The former Text being negative , doth not express but imply , that the World to come was put in subjection to Christ. But in these words he doth not only express it , but prove it . And to this purpose he alledgeth the words of Psal. 8 , 4 , 5 , 6. In this testimony , we may observe the allegation or the words alledged . application of them . The manner of the allegation we need not examine ; the Authour neither names the Book of Psalms , as a distinct part of the Scriptures of the Old Testament ; nor the particular Psalm , which is for number the 8th ; nor the Authour of the Psalm , David . But saith , 1. That one , or a certain man , testifieth . 2. He testifieth in a certain place . This he did not through ignorance or defect of memory , but out of some other reason . He knew , that the testimony , or thing testified , was the principal thing , and that these Hebrews were well acquainted with the Scriptures ; and especially with the Book of Psalms . To return to the words alledged out of the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament , received by the Jews as Divine and from God ; the difficult Question is of whom that Psalm speaketh , and whom he meaneth by man , the Son of man , so minded , so visited by God , so humbled , so advanced . Some will have it to be man in the day of his Creation ; some think it's man fallen ; some determine it to be man restored in Christ ; some are resolute that it is Christ himself as man. Thus Cramerus , Tarnovius , and the Lutherans generally , who bitterly inveigh against Calvin , interpreting otherwise . Calvin had his fellows & followers . Others tell us , that it agrees to Man in the literal to Christ in the mystical sense : others that there are two literal senses , the one whereof agrees to Man ; the other , which is the principal , agrees to Christ. Vatablus seems to agree with this , Cramerus teckons this amongst the prophetical Psalms . The intention of the Psalmist is to praise God for his glorious works , wherein he manifested his power , wisdom , and special mercy . The works are not only those of Creation , but of his special providence over Man , and amongst those works of special providence , that of restauration of Man , by the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ , who is the principal subject of the Psalm , according to the parts of it alledged in the New Testament , where we find ver . 2 , 6 , 8. applyed to Christ. Upon this ground Cramerus , Tarnovius , and others , understand it only of Christ : It 's true , that some things here mentioned do agree to Man in the state of Creation ; yet the special care of Man , in respect of his spiritual and eternal estate , appears most of all in Christ ; to whom , set at his right hand , he subjected all things , for this end , That he might convert man , and make him converted for ever blessed . So that in the words alledged , we may observe , 1. God's special care of Man , and his singular love towards him . 2. The same manifested in a most glorious manner , in the humiliation and exaltation of Christ. 3. The admiration , or rather amazement at such a stupe●dious manifestation of such stupendious love . All the works of God are in themselves excellent and wonderful , but the work of Redemption by Christ is matter of greatest wonder and astonishment even to the Angels . § . 11. The Application follows , where the Authour takes special notice of the last words cited out of the Psalm : They are these , Thou hast put all things in subjection under his Feet . These are not the last words of the Psalm , but of the words alledged out the Psalm . These , understood of Christ , proves that which he intended , That unto the Angels God hath not put in subjection the World to come , but to some other ; even to Man , that special Man whereof the Psalmist speaks . Concerning these words , he delivers two Propositions . The first , as a conclusion . The second , upon the By. The first , as a conclusion , is this , That he left nothing that is not put under him ; this necessarily follows , if God put all things under his Feet . Therefore he is the Lord of the World to come , and Angels are subjected , as included in the word all : That these words are understood of Christ , and not of any other Man , as Heinsius would have them to be , is evident from 1 Cor. 15. 27. For he hath put all things under his Feet : but when he saith , All things are put under him , it is manifest , that he is excepted , who did put all things under him . Where two things are observable , as clear and evident : 1. That it was Christ risen from the Dead , and set at the right hand of God ; under whose Poet , as his Foot-stool , all things were put . 2. That nothing is excepted , as not put under , but God , who subdued all things unto him . The second Proposition upon the By , is , But now we see not all things put under him : The meaning whereof is , that though God hath given him Dominion over all things , and all things are subject to his Power ; yet he hath not as yet exerclsed his Power to destroy all Enemies , and reduce all his People to subjection . And this we shall never see , till the last Saint be converted , and Death the last Enemy destroyed ; which cannot be , before the Resurrection , whereby all his Servants and Vassals shall be made immortall , and fully , and for ever freed from Death . Ver. 9. But we see Jesus , who was made a little lower then the Angels , &c. This is the second Application of those words of the Psalmist , Thou hast made him a little lower then the Angels ; thou hast crowned him with Glory and Honour . Which we find differently expounded , translated , read , pointed . Yet the matter is plain , and it 's evident they speak of Christ ; and , concerning Him , deliver two things : 1. His Humiliation . 2. His Exaltation . 1. His Humiliation , in three things : 1. That he was lower then the Angels . 2. He suffered . 3. He suffered Death for all men . And the substance of the whole is , That though in the state of his humiliation and mortality , in respect of his suffering Death , he was a little , or a little while , lower than the Angels ; yet he rose again , and is now crowned with Glory and Honour at the right hand of God , and made Lord of All. And there was a special reason , why for a time he should be mortal and suffer Death , even because that was the way unto Glory , and the means of eternal deliverance determined by God. Though all this be clear , yet the place is wofully obscured , and especially by Henisius , whilst he tediously endeavours to make it more plain . I will not trouble the Reader either with his pointing the words , or his manner of rendring them , or his exposition : in all which he thinks T●cla's Manuscript doth favour him ; which it doth not . § . 12. In these words these things are manifest : 1. That the subject of them are the words of Psal. 8. 5. 2. That he applys them unto Christ. 3. That in them he observes the Humiliation and Exaltation of Christ. 4. Gives the reasons , why Christ must first be humbled , before he can be exalted , and to shew this last is , * the scope of the Apostle in the rest of the Chapter unto the end . It 's not to prove that Christ is Man , as some do think , nor to make a digression to speak of his Priest-hood , as others tell us . That he mentions some acts of Christ as a Priest , and other things agreeing to him as Man , and as a Priest or King it 's upon the By. In them we find three Propositions : 1. That we see Christ , for the suffering of Death , Crowned with Glory and Honour . 2. This Christ is he that was first made a little lower then the Angels . 3. One end why Christ was made lower then the Angels , was , that by the Grace of God he might ●asto Death for every Man. The meaning of the first Proposition is easy ; For it affirms , 1. That Christ was Crowned with Glory and Honour . 2. And that , for suffering Death . 3. They did see it . To be Crowned with Glory and Honour , is to be invested with great Glory , Honour , Dignity and Power ; and the words signify the exaltation of Christ at the right hand of God. We need not here distinguish of Crowns , which were of many sorts ; For if the Author did allude to any of these , the sacerdotal Mitte , and the imperial Diadem did most of all resemble the eminency and dignity of this Celestial Pontiff , and this universal King. But why may i● not be an Hebraism ? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Crown doth signify , To compass about : for God had circuminvested Christ with the highest and most eminent degree of Dignity and Power , and this is the Word used by the Psalmist . For the suffering of Death ] This passion was the meritorious cause , his Glory and Honour the Reward ; according to another Scripture , which informs us , that because Christ was obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross ; Therefore God did highly exalt him , Phil. 2. 8 , 9. Neither need we fear to say that Christ merited eternal Glory for Himself , if we confess he merited it for Us. It 's true , he could not merit the personal union ; and such things which necessarily followed upon the same : but this is nothing to that Crown of Glory , which was given him in consideration of that most excellent piece of Service , which he performed in expiating the Sin of man , and that by his own Blood , which is plain Scripture . Some referr this clause unto the former , of Christ being made a little lower then the Angels , yet understand it differently . For some say , He was made lower then the Angels , by or in respect of his Death : Others think , that it denotes the final cause of his minoration ; as though the end , why he was cast below the Angels , was , that he might suffer . But neither of these are probable we see ; that is , it was manifest both by the glorious Miracles done , and excellent Gifts of the Spirit given in his Name , and other ways , and they did therefore see it * . The second Proposition , He was made a little lower then the Angels , ] It 's not material , whether we understand by little , a little measure of inferiority , or a little time ; for both are true . But the principal thing in these words , is , where in he was made lower then the Angels ; and that was in this , that he was man and mortal . Man is inferior to an Angel as man ; and much more as mortal , because the Angels never dy : Now , Christ had the body of a man , and a Soul separable from his body till the Resurrection ; and that was the little time here meant , the time of his mortality : Both might be joyned in one divine Axiome thus . We see , for the suffering of Death , Crowned with Glory and Honour , that Jesus who for a little time was made lower then the Angel. The third Proposition , That he by the Grace of God might taste of Death for 〈◊〉 man , ] In these words we have the reason and the end why Christ was made lower then the Angels for a time : For it was , that through the Grace of God he might redeem us by his Death . In the words we have , 1. The Death of Christ. 2. The parties for whom he dyed . 3. The inward motive which inclined God to give him to Death ; and the first Original of Redemption . 1. It 's said , He insted of Death , we need not play the Critick in the explication of the word † taste : For the plain meaning is , that he suffered Death ; and by this is signified all his Sufferings , which were many and bitter the principal and consummation whereof was Death wherein they all ended , and without which there had been no expiation . 2. He suffered Death for every man ; not that every man should absolutely enjoy the ultimate benefit thereof , for every one doth not : yet every man as a sinner hath some benefit by it , Because the immediate effect of this Death was , that every man's sin in respect of this Death is remissible , and every man savable ; because Christ by it made God propitious and placable , in that he had punished man's sin in him , and laid on him the iniquities of us all . And the reason why every man is not actually justified and saved , is not for want of sufficient Propitiation , but upon another account . 4. That which moved God to transferr the punishment due to our sins upon Christ his only begotten Son , was his Grace and free love . For he so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son to be the propitiation for our Sins . The end therefore why Christ was made lower then the Angel , was , that he being man and mortal , yet holy and innocent , without sin , might suffer Death , that our sins might be expiated , divine justice satisfied , and a way made for mercy to save us . Ver. 10. For it became him , &c. § . 13. These words must be considered absolutely in themselves . relatively in their connexion . Absolutely considered , they inform us , and do affirm , that it became God , to bring us to Salvation by the Suffering of Christ. This is the substance : In the words , we may observe the end . means . conveniency of the means . 1. The end is to bring many Sons unto Salvation . 2. The means is to perfect their Captain by Sufferings . 3. The convenience of these means in respect of this end , it was such as that is became God to use them . All these may be reduced to certain Propositions , which are these : 1. Christ is the Captain of Salvation . 2. God made this Captain perfect by Suffering . 3. This was the means to bring many Sons to Glory . 4. Thus to do became him for whom and by whom are all things . 1. Christ is the Captain of the Salvation of the Sons of God , ] The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , turned Captain , signifies a Prince of a multitude , eminent for dignity and priority : or one , who besides his eminent Dignity ; is invested with Power to command , direct and order the rest inferiour and subject to his Power : or one , who in any work is a principal cause , and hath a great and eminent influx upon the Subject to produce the Effect . In all these significations , Christ may be here taken : For he , in respect of all Patriarchs , Prophets , Apostles , Saints , Martyrs , and Believers ; is the most eminent for dignity , and invested with supream and universal Power , and in both respects he is called their Lord , and King , and Head ; for as the Head is in respect of the members , so is Christ in respect of his Saints , and many Sons of God. He is also the Authour , Beginner , and principal , cause of their Salvation ; both for the merit of it , and the application of the merit , and the actual consummation and collation . He by his Death laid the foundation , and by his Word and Spirit makes them capable of Salvation , and gives them a right unto it . He by his Intercession procures their actual Justification , and Glorification : He , by his Power , doth raise them up , and gives them everlasting life . Hee 's that Joshua , who leads us , and gives us possession of our spiritual and celestial Canaan . 2. This Captain , Prince and Authour was made perfect of God by Suffering , or God made him perfect by Sufferings . To be perfected in this place , is to be consecrated and made a compleat Priest , or at least to be put in an immediate capacity to act as a Priest. Aaron , and the Levitical Priests had their Consecration , and it was not without Blood and the death of Sacrifices , and the form was instituted and prescribed by God , who alone could give them this Glory , Power , and Office. That Christ was a Priest is expresse Scripture , as we shall understand in this Epistle hereafter : Yet such he could not be without Consecration , neither could he be consecrated without Blood and suffering of Death , and offering a bloody Sacrifice . And the difference of the Consecration of other Priests and him was this , that though both were consecrated by Blood , yet they were consecrated by the blood of Bea●●s sacrificed ; He , by his own Blood , when he sacrificed and offered himself without spot unto God. The reason of this was , Because he must be a Meditatour between God , and sinful Man , to reconcile them ▪ but no reconcilion without Blood , and no Blood but his own Blood immaculate would be accepted . For though God was merciful and willing to be reconciled , yet his justice would admit of no reconciliation , but upon satisfaction to be made by this Blood , God did manifest his Justice and hatred of sin by punishing it in Christ , before he would pardon it in Man : It was God that did Consecrate him ; for no Man or Angel could conferr this Office upon him , or make him an universal and eternal Priest to officiate and minister in Heaven ; only God could do this . And he as supream Lord and Law-give● could appoint and accept him to be Redeemer , prescribe the manner of Consecration , and as supream Judge accept of his Consecration once finished , and invest him with this sacerdotal Power : In these respects God is said to Consecrate him . By him thus consecrated , many Sons are brought to Glory , ] There are many Sons brought to Glory , he that brings them to Glory is God ; he doth this by Christ consecrated and made their Captain . To bring to Glory is , in the end , to give possession of Glory , and that everlasting and most excellent Estate prepared for the Sons of God. These are many , and are made his Sons by Regeneration and Adoption : The one doth make them capable of , the other gives them right to Glory , which they shall fully enjoy , when their heavenly Birth and gracious Adoption are perfected : They derive their title from their Captain as consecrated by Suffering , and received by Faith. For as they are the Sons and Heirs of God , so are they joynt-Heirs with Christ and in his right : And if he never had been consecrated by Sufferings , they never had been either Sons , or Heirs , or Glorified . For he by his Sufferings merited all , and laid the foundation of their eternal Happiness : And for this Suffering he made him Captain and Head of all his Sons , and gave him power to give eternal Life to as many as he had given him . It 's God who brings these Sons to Glory , by their Head and Captain ; He loved Man , he gave his Son to Death , he raised him up again made him King and Priest , and gave him power to convert us ; and by him he adopts us , and by him he gives us Glory . The sum of all , is this ; The glorification of sinful Man from first to last is from God , it 's he and he alone that brings him to Glory ; yet though the persons glorified be many , yet they are all Sons , and none but Sons shall enjoy the Inheritance ; neither are they Sons by Nature , or of themselves : He makes them such by Christ , and Christ was consecrated by Sufferings , and made their Captain . It became him for whom and by whom are all things , in bringing many Sons to Glory , thus to do , ] God is here described from his efficiency , where-by he is the cause of all things , the universal Agent , who produceth , preserveth , ordereth all things to their end , especially his Sons , unto Glory . For though his works be many , then some are more excellent then others , and one of the chiefest , is the Salvation of man. Some do think that by these words for whom and by whom , are meant ; that God is the final and efficient cause of all : yet in strict sense God cannot in himself be said to be the end of any thing , yet the manifestation of his glorious Perfection may be said to be intended by him in all his Works . To consecrate the Captain of all his Sons by Sufferings did become him , that is , it seemed best to his divine Wisdom to use this means as most fit to manifest his justice and mercy in the Redemption and Salvation of man. What Ways and means as conducing to this end he knew , or his divine Wisdom did dictate unto him , is hidden from us ; but this here mentioned , he resolved upon as the best and most agreeable to his excellent perfection . For God doth nothing but that which becomes him so glorious in himself , and so excellent an Agent ; Men may do many things unbeseeming , and no ways befitting them to do : nay Angels have done many things , which did not become so noble Spirits to do ; but God doth nothing , but what God may do . And this is the reason why Christ must taste of Death for every man ; Because it seemed good to God by that way and means to save sinful man. And this is the relative consideration and connexion , implyed in the causal conjunction , For. They give a reason why Christ was lower then the Angels , and suffered Death : And why ? It became God so to do . Ver. 11. For both he that Sanctifieth , &c. § . 14. The Apostle in these , and the following words doth manifest how it became God to cast Christ below the Angels , and consecrate him by Sufferings ; and he doth so manifest it , as that it may appear to be agreeable to Reason , which is a spark or ray of divine Light. To understand this the better , you must remember , 1. That Christ was lower then the Angels in suffering Death . 2. That as God or Angel he could not suffer Death . 3. If he could have suffered Death as a Spirit , yet that Death was not so fit to redeem Man , or expiate his sin , and sanctify him . 4. That seeing he must both dy , and dy for man , he must be Man , and mortal Man , to sanctify man. These things premised , the Apostle proves , that it became God to make Christ a mortal Man ; and the reason is , because he that sanctifyeth and they who are sanctifyed ought and must be of one ; and this is the coherence . In the words themselves , we have the unity and indentity of the Sanctifier , and sanctified : By the Sanctifier , or the person sanctifying , is meant Christ ; and by the sanctified , sinful men : by being of one , that they are some ways , one . The reason why Christ is said to sanctify , is , because he hath an active power to sanctify and free from Sin such as are polluted with Sin ; and men thus polluted are said to be sanctified , when they are freed from Sin : Christ doth sanctify them by his merit , and the application of his merit by his Sacrifice , and his Spirit making use of Word and Sacraments . And man is first sanctifiable by the Death of Christ , and actually sanctified upon his Faith in this Death . That this is the sense , is plain by these words of his , By which Will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all , Chap. 10. 10. The meaning whereof is , that by the Death and Sacrifice of Christ remission of Sin , and freedom from the pollution was merited , so that this doing of his Fathers Will in suffering Death for the sin of man was so accepted of God , that it hath an eternal virtue of purging the conscience from sin ; and , in consideration of the same , God is always ready upon man's Faith , actually to remit and to take away his sin . These two are said to be of one ; Crelli●s is here mistaken , as in the former verse : For he tells us , that God brings many Sons to Glory , by perfecting their Captain Christ through Sufferings , because by his example God doth teach us , that by Suffering , and by Death , though grievous , we may attain eternal Glory ; and suffering is the way unto it . This he spake to delude his Reader , and seduce him ; because he would not confess the satisfying and meriting power of Christ's Sacrifice . That Christ in his Suffering Death did give us a rare example of many heavenly vertues , and an encouragement by his Resurrection and Glorification is true , but not intended in this place . So neither may we approve of his exposition of these words , as any ways genuine and agreeing with the scope of the place . For he makes Christ and Believers one as Brethsen , because they have God as one Father . But this is wide , and far from the Apostles intention ; That of Junius and others is the best , that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of one masse and humane Nature , alluding to the offering of the first Fruits at the Passover , or the two Loaves waved at Pentecost , by the which all the rest of their Fruits and Bread were sanctified . That he means so , he expresseth plainly afterwards , ver . 14. which informs , that to be of one is to be partaker of Flesh and Blood , as they are Flesh and Blood. Therefore the Socinian must be either blind or impudent ; yet to understand his unity the better , you must know , 1. That as man had sinned , so he was resolved to redeem and deliver him . 2. That his wisdom did not think good to redeem him immediately himself , nor mediately by Angels ; but Man must be redeemed by Man. 3. That seeing man by sin deserved , and was liable to Death , he determined to deliver him by the Death which another must suffer for him , 4. God as God could not dy , therefore God must some way become Man , and by his Word assume Flesh and Blood , that he might in and by that humane nature suffer Death . 5. He that must be Man , and suffer Death , and so sanctify all the rest , must be one with them ; and not only as having Flesh and Blood as all men are , but must be the Head , Captain , representative of all mankind ; and this , Christ was both by divine Institution , and his own voluntary susception . And this is the difference between this unity of him with all mankind , and the unity of all other men amongst themselves ; that he is so one with them as to be their Head , and general representative for Redemption and Salvation . And the difference between all other men considered as men , and him considered as man , is not only in this , that he was holy and they sinful , but that he was personally united to the Word ; they were not , for they were distinct persons in themselves . § . 15. That they were of one , is proved in the words following , and that two wayes 1. In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that it is so by testimony of Scripture . 2. In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the reason why it 's so , and that taken from the end , to manifest how it became God thus to do . The first is proved out of the Old Testament , and first from Psal. 22. 22. That the Psalm is understood of Christ is clear , not only because the first words thereof were used and taken up by Christ , even when he was Suffering upon the Crosse , but also many things in that Psalm were clearly fulfilled in Christ , to the very casting Lots upon his Seamless Coat . In the words Christ calls his Apostles and Disciples ( and all such as should believe in his Word , declared unto them ) his Brethren , not Strangers or Aliens , not Servants or Slaves . And by this acknowledgment and owning them , he doth signify that he sanctifying , and they being sanctifyed , were one . For he was man , and they were men ; he was the Son of God , they the Sons of God : he was amongst these as a Brother of the same Society , but as the Head of the Society , and the first begotten amongst many Brethren . The argument is this , Brethren are one , and of one ; but Christ , and those who are sanctifyed by Christ are Brethren ; therefore they are one , and of one . That they are Christ's Brethren is evident , because Christ calls them so , and is brought in by the infallible Scriptures giving them that Title . And how great a condescension was this , that the Son of God , Lord of Angels should vouchsafe us this honour as to acknowledg us sinful Wretches raised out of the dust , his Bretheren . And though he cites other words besides these , as that [ He in the midst of the great Congregation would sing praise unto God ] ; yet the principal words for which the 40 Psalm is quoted , is the word [ Brethren ] , a term given by Christ unto his Disciples . The second proof is found in many places of Scripture , but yet they must be taken out of some place which speaks of Christ , so as these words may be evidently the words of Christ. Some , yea many think they are taken out of 2 Sa● . 22. 3. or out of Psal. 18. 2. where , in the Septuagint , we find words to the same purpose . But seeing the Apostle doth follow the words of the Septuagint , when he alledgeth any place out of the Old Testament , and these words are not found in either of the former places , neither is that Psalm so properly understood of Christ ; therefore it 's not likely that the Apostle intended to cite any thing out of them . Therefore feeing we find the words following concerning trusting in God , and concerning him and the Children , which God had given him in the Prophet Esay , and in the same Chapter of that Prophet , and close together too ; therefore we may conclude with à Lapide and Heinfi●s , that the place here cited is , Esay 8. 17 , 18 , verses , where we have in the Septuagint the very words here used and alledged of the Apostle . In that part of the Chapter we have a clear prophecy of Christ fulfilled in the time of his abode on Earth , and before his ascent into Heaven . There is a plain prediction of Christ's Incarnation and living amongst men , and of his Disciples who did believe on him ; as also of the unbelief of the greatest part of the Jews , of their rejection of Christ ; and of God's rejection of them ; and the destruction of Jerusalem . And Christ is brought in saying , And I will wait upon , ●● for , the Lord , that hideth or turneth his Face from the House of Jacob , and I will trust in him [ as in the Septuagint ] ; Behold , I and the Children which God hath given me . These words are to be understood of him as one with his Disciples , and man as they were men . And in that Chapter we find some passages directly agreeing with the words of Simons , which he spake after that he being in the Temple , had received Christ being then Incarnate , and an infant into his arms . So that to understand the Apostle and the Prophet too , we must not so must stand upon the words in themselves severed from the rest , but joyntly with the context of the Chapter speaking of Immanuel , that is , Christ Incarnate . § . 16. In ver . 11 , he had said , That both he that sanctifieth , and they that are sa●ctified , are of one ; and in these words he assumes , but the sanctified are par●akers of Flesh and Blood , and so concludes , that he must have Flesh and Blood , and therefore saith , He likewise took part with them . And those which he called , [ The sanctified by him , ] ver . 11. Here he names Children according to the words of the Prophet , and these were Disciples , and such as believed in him . And it 's to be observed , 1. That to be of one , is to be Flesh and Blood , and so man. 2. That there is a two-fold union of Christ with M●ns● The first , by his Incarnation : And the second , by his actual Sanctification . In the first respect he is one with all mankind , as they are men ; and the Head of the whole body of them . In the second respect he is one in a special manner with his Elect. By him ●● man , and dying for man , all men receive this benefit to to be savable , which Angels sinning do not . By him as man dying and believed upon , all such as do believe are actually sanctified , and in the end saved . And He , and the Sanctified , which are the Church , are one in a special manner : yet because , to take part with the Children , and be man , was not sufficient , except he dyed for them , that by his Death he might be beneficial unto them ; therefore it 's added , That he took part with them , that he might destroy him that had the power of Death , which is the Devil . Where we may observe two things , 1. That the Devil hath the power of Death . 2. That Christ by Death destroyed him . The first is implyed , The second is expressed . The word [ Devil ] is to be understood collectively for the [ Devils ] , but in a special manner for the Prince of Devils , who is said to be a Lyar and a Murderer , Joh. 8. 44. because by his lyes he deceived our first Parents , inducing them to Sin , whereby they were made liable to Death . For by his Temptations , and false Suggestions , he insinuateth into man , and infuseth his poyson into their Soul. Man yielding unto his Temptations , falls into his hands , and comes under his Power , so that he hath dominion over him , reigns in him , blinds him , perverts him , inclines him effectually to sin , and by sin stings him to Death . And because he hath so great power to draw man into sin , he may be said to have the Power of Death , because by this means he makes man more and more obnoxious to Death , which so unavoidably by the Law follows upon Sin : yet he may be said to have the power of Death , as a Jaylour , Hangman , or Executioner may be said to have such a power ; and God in his just Judgment may deliver disobedient man into his hand ; and by him execute his punishments , as some understand the place ; and by divine permission he may have great strength to torment and destroy man. Otherwise he can have no right unto Man to judg , condemn him , punish , as being his Lord and Judg ; For that belongs only unto God , who , if man yield unto Satan , may deliver him into his hand , and he may detain him as his Captive . The Scripture speaks much of the power of Satan over man , till God deliver him out of his hand ; and this power can be no power of Life , but of Death and Destruction . This is the first thing implyed , the second is , That Christ by his Death destroyed him . He destroyed him , he destroyed him by his Death . To destroy him , is not to take away his immortal Life and Being , but to take away his power or strength : For the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . For the power of an Enemy over a Captive , is not a legal and regular power and authority . This strength and force , and also right unto man as his Captive , Christ took away by his Death . For by his Death he satisfied God's Justice , and merited a power and right to him , as having by a [ lutron ] or price payed to the supream Lord and Owner , bought him . So that upon this price and ransome paid and accepted , man became his , and the Devil had only the possession of him ; though Christ had the right unto him , and the propriety in him . Therefore Christ in his prayer doth acknowledg , that his Father had given power over all Flesh , that he should give eternal life to as many as he had given him . Again by this Death , Christ made Death removable , because by it he made man's sin remissible . Bacon Thorpe tells us , that the Devil , by putting Christ being innocent to Death , lost all his power over man ; because he had no Commission from God to put any person innocent , and free from all sin , unto Death ; yet for this he brings no clear Scripture , though this be certain , that God gave all men to Christ , because he dyed for them . This Death aimed at a further end then the destruction of the Devil , as having the power of Death . Christ indeed came to destroy the works of the Devil , 1 Joh. 3. 8. and though the Devil at the first , as a strong man , keeps peaceable possession ; yet Christ is that stronger man who takes away his power , disarms him , takes possession , and all this is done to deliver man out of his hands . For 1. Christ must be lower then the Angels , and mortal Man , that he may dy . 2. He must dy , that he may destroy the power of the Devil . 3. He must destroy the power of the Devil , that man may be delivered from the danger of Death . Man cannot be delivered , except the power of the Devil be destroyed ; this power cannot be destroyed , except Christ dy : Christ cannot dy , except he be lower then the Angels , and made mortal Man. This connexion and subordination of these things did become God , and was agreeable to his heavenly wisdom : whereas the Socinian saith , That for Christ to take part with Men , and be Flesh and Blood , as they are , doth not prove that the Incarnation is true ; if we consider it barely in it self , as a participation of humane nature and mortality . Yet if we consider the subject of this participation , and the person taking part with man to be the Son of God , by whom he made the Worlds , the brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the expresse Image of his Person ; and look upon him as that word which was in the beginning , and was with God , and was God , then if this Son , this Word be made Flesh , as here the Apostle doth affirm and else-where ; then the Incarnation is plain and clear enough , it cannot be denyed . § . 17. This farther end is expressed in these words , Ver. 15. And deliver them , who through the fear of Death , were all their life-time subject to bondage . This Text represents unto us two things : 1. The sad condition of such as are under the power of Satan . 2. A deliverance or freedom from it . The sad condition is an estate of perpetual slavery and fear of Death : For to be subject to bondage , is to be a slave ; and to be thus subject all the time of his Life , is to be a perpetual slave for time of Life . And this is a grievous slavery and bondage , not only because it 's perpetual , but because of the great danger . For by fear of Death may , by a Metonymy , be meant the danger of Death : For the proper cause of fear , is danger once apprehended ; for it 's true , that men may be in danger , and yet without fear ; because the danger is not seen , apprehended , known . And the bondage of perpetual fear is woful , if not intolerable : This Death , which is so dangerous , and ever threatens to terrify and torment us , is not only bodily , but spiritual ; not only temporal , but eternal ; and the greatest Evil of all others : and if we be Satan's slaves , and in his power , he is a most cruel Tyrant and Enemy , and seeks our extream and everlasting misery ; and we can expect nothing better from him , who delights in our destruction : Oh that man did but see his condition , and were sensible of it ! For then he could take no rest Day or Night , and he would seek and cast about for deliverance . We see how sad it is by the terrours and torments of Judas and Cain , and by the fears , griefs , troubles , wounds , sigh● , groans , of such as were once sensible of their sins , and apprehensive of the wrath of God. Though this be a sad condition , yet there is deliverance from this continual danger , this perpetual fear , which is the greatest slavery of all other . The beginning of comfort is to know that there is a possibility of Freedom , and that the Danger is avoidable or removable . The first degree of this deliverance is in Christ's Death , whereby divine justice was satisfied , and freedome merited . 2. That the power of the Devil was destroyed ; for whilst it continued , this fear could not be removed . 3. This freedome and liberty is more compleat , when upon Faith in Christ's Death , Sin is pardoned , and the cause of this fear is taken away . For the justified have peace with God , are freed from condemnation and the Law of Sin and Death , and they who feared eternal Punishments rejoyce in the hope of Glory . Then this slavery is changed into a blessed liberty , fear into hope , and the sorrow of Death into the joy of Life . § . 18. It follows ; Ver. 16. For verily he took not upon him the Nature of Angels , but he took on him the Seed of Abraham . In these words , it 's conceived , a reason is given , why Man and not Angels are delivered from the slavery of death , and danger of eternal punishments : and the reason is this , because the Word was made Flesh , and Man , not a Spirit or an Angel. And they more clearly explain these words , [ Seeing the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood , he took part with them ] . By Death to deliver them : For if he , 1. Took part with them . 2. To deliver them . 3. Deliver them by Death ; then he took not part with Angels , but with the seed of Abraham , as a fit means , which it became God to use . The Conjunction [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is not always causal , to inferr a reason of some thing from the cause or some other argument . For it is sometimes expletive , sometimes hath another signification , and so it may be here . But to let that pass , let 's consider the Text in it self , which logically considered , is a discretive axiom , denying the same thing of one subject , and affirming it of a another . Christ took upon him something ; But , 1. That was not the Angels , or nature of Angels . 2. He took upon him , or to him , the seed of Abraham . So that in the words , we have two simple axiomes or propositions . The first is negative , For verily he took not upon him the nature of Angels . The second is affirmative , He took on him the seed of Abraham . The negation in the former proposition is strong ; for it 's not barely said , He took not ; but he , no where , or , not at all . For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , may signify nusquam , aut nequaquam , no where , or , in no wise ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifies verily . To understand the whole Text is difficult , because of the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which some turn [ apprehend it ] he took hold on , and think the expression is taken from such as pursue and follow hard after one that flyes from them , to take hold on him , and bring him back . So Man runs from God , and God became Man to follow after Man , and take hold on him to save him . Thus Chrysostome , and from him Bishop Andrews , Heinsius , à Lapide , with others . Crellius and the Socinians turn the word another way , and understand the place thus , Christ succoured not the Angels , but succoured the seed of Abraham . This and also the former may be true , but not pettinent . The reason why Crellius likes the latter sense is because he likes not the Doctrine of the Incarnation , he cannot digest it . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , translated , and that rightly , by Vatablus , Beza , the Turgurines and Tremelius out of the Syriack assumpsit , he assumed , and by our English took on him , doth answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned by the Septuagint several times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the word here used . And not to take the Angels , that is , nature of Angels , is , not to be made an Angel or Officer ; the individual substance of an Angel , to redeem the Angels that sinned . To assume or take the Seed of Abraham , is , 1. To be a man , as Abraham and his Seed were men , and partakers of Flesh and Blood. 2. That whereas he became man in latter times , he must needs be of some Nation and People , with reference to the Head and first Father of that Nation : and for Nation he was according to his humane Nature a Jew , the first Father of which Nation was Abraham . The reason hereof is this , because God had made a special promise to Abraham , That in his Seed all Nations should be blessed . By which word , Seed , is meant Christ , and Christ as descended from him according to the Flesh : He is also called the Son of David , because God promised , That he should be born of his Family in Bethlehem , the native place of David . This sense , 1. Is most agreeable to the Context antecedent , where it 's said , That Christ must be lower then the Angels , must taste of Death , must be consecrated by Suffering , must be one with the sanctisied , must be partaker of Flesh and Blood , and deliver sinful man from the Devil . But if he had assumed the nature of Angels , none of these could be affirmed of him . 2. The former two senses cannot be good , because then he should have only apprenended and succoured the Seed of Abraham , according to the Letter of this Text. Therefore seeing he took upon him the Seed of Abraham , as he did the Seed of David ; therefore to take on him , or assume the Seed of Abraham , is to be of the Seed of Abraham , as he was of David , 2 Tim. 2 , 8. and to be made of the Seed of Abraham , as he was made of the Seed of David , according to the Flesh , Rom. 1. 3. And it is the same with that of the Divine Evangelist , The Word was made Flesh , Joh. 1. 14. Crellius here trifles egregiously , for he excepts against this sense , 1. Because to apprehend or take hold of a thing , is not to assume the nature of it . 2. The word Angels which is plural , should have been singular . But , 1. Who will grant him , that which neither others do , nor he can prove , that the word must be turned [ apprehended ] in this place , whereas it hath other senses , both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament , and is turned oftner and by more Translatours , assume , as was shewed before . 2. If Christ had assumed the individual substance of an Angel , he had assumed the Nature of Angels . He did but assume one individual Flesh and Blood , yet he is said to take part with the Children which were many . He again objects , that if it be said that he took the nature not of Angels but Men , then these words cannot contain and render a reason , That Christ was made lower then the Angels , because it is the same . But , 1. How will he prove that [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is causal , if it should be denied . 2. Who told him , that it referrs only to those words of the 7th . verse as a reason of them ; whereas it 's plain , if the conjunction be causal , it referrs to that which went immediately before . 3. To be lower then the Angels , and assume the nature of Man , are not precisely the same : For now he is Man , and yet above the Angels . These words thus explained and cleared , inform us , 1. Of some special love of God shewed unto Man , and to Angels ; and of some benefit issuing from that love , and given unto Man , and denied to the Angels . He so loved Man , that he gave his only begotton Son to be the propitiation for his sin , and not for the Angels . Christ and the eternal Word must be Man , and dy for him ; but he must not be an Angel to dy for Apostate Angels , or redeem them . The cause of this , was the free will of God , who might have neglected both the one as well as the other : for both were sinful , and deserved Death . Yet there might be a reason why he passed by the Angels , and not Man ; even because Angels were not tempred , yet sinned : but Man was deceived , and so was a subject more capable of mercy , though he deserved no mercy . Yet if Man will be obstinate in his sin , and refuse to acknowledg this love , and receive Christ , God will turn his love into hatred , and send him , a cursed wretch , into everlasting fire , prepared for the Devil and his Angels , and he shall lose eternally the benefit of Christ's Redemption , which is remission and eternal life . 2. They let us know the condescension and deep humiliation of the Son of God , who vouchsafed not only to be Man ; but took upon him the form of a Servant , and was obedient unto Death , the Death of the Crosse. And this Incarnation is a deep mystery , and this humiliation a matter of greatest wonder . 3. They acquaint us with the excellent dignity and high advancement of the humane Nature , in that it was assumed and inseparably united unto that eternal Word , which is God. The Angels in many things are above us , and more excellent then we are ; yet in this we are above the Angels , and nearer unto God , and our nature in Christ is Lord of Angels . 4. We learn from them , that the Seed of Abraham , and the People of the Jews have a priority and priviledg above all People . For Christ took upon him their Flesh and Blood , and they were his Brethren , of whom , according to the Flesh , Christ came , who is over all , God blessed for ever , Amen , Rom. 9. 5. This is the reason , why he said , when he lived on Earth , That he was sent to the lost Sheep of Israel ; and why he chose out of them the Apostles , preached the Gospel unto them first ( for the tender of eternal life was first made to them ) , and why he began and finished the work of Redemption amongst them . 5. From them we understand something of the nature of the Incarnation . For herein we have , 1. One person , the eternal Word , and the Son of God. 2. Two Natures , Divine and Humane . 3. The union of these two by assumption ; for the Word assumed the nature of Man , and this Nature was thereby united to the Word in the unity of person . 4. The distinction of these two Natures ; for the Word is God and not Man , this humane Nature remains Man and is not God , and the difference is very great and perpetual . And thus God-Man is Christ our blessed Saviour and Redeemer ; and happy are they , who know him , and believe in him . Ver. 17 , 18. Wherefore in all things it beh●●ved him to be made like unto his Brethren , &c. § . 19. In these words we have another reason , why Christ must be lower then the Angels , Man , and like his Brethren . One end was , that he might suffer and dy ; and this he could not do , except he be partaker of Flesh and Blood : and therefore he took upon him the Nature of Men , and not of Angels . The end why he must dy , was , 1. That he might destroy the Devil , who had the power of Death , and so deliver them that were in continual danger . 2. That he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest , and so make reconciliation for the sins of his People , and be able to succour them . So that the Apostle , 1. Affirms , that he must be Man , and that being Man he must Suffer . 2. Proves why he must be Man. 3. Why being Man , he must Suffer . The Text is brought in by an illative [ wherefore ] , and the conclusion inferred is , That in all things it behooved Christ to be like unto his Brethren : And the premisses do not go before but follow in the last words of this verse , and is explained more fully in verse 18. The conclusion is concerning Christ ; and the thing affirmed of him is , That he must be like his Brethren , for it behooved him in all things to be like them : Where , 1. We must understand what the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] 〈◊〉 [ behooved ] doth import . 2. What it is , In all things it behooved him to be like them . The Syriack word which signifies [ it was meet , convenient , right ] doth best expresse the meaning . For it was most agreeable to God's wisdom and Mans condition , That he should be like his Brethren . Some make this conveniency to be a kind of duty to be performed , or debt of money to be paid , or of punishment to be suffered ; because the Word is so used in other places of the New Testament : but none of these significations are here intended , or can well be meant . 2. For the words [ in all things , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , they may be referred either to the Verb [ behooved ] , and then the sense is , It was altogether convenient , and in every respect sitting ; or , to the Adjective [ like ] , that is , He must be like us in all things , there must be [ similitudo ●nmimods ] . And whereas some tell us , that this must be understood with a limitation and exception of sin , it 's needless . For if he must be a Saviour and expiate the sin of others , he must needs be without sin . This exception is made by the Apostle , Chap. 4. 15. but upon another account . The meaning therefore is , That he must be like unto us in [ all things ] which are necessary or requisite to make him a compleat Redeemer and Saviour of sinful man. But to this , sin was neither necessary nor requisit : but it was absolutely necessary , he should be free from it : This is the conlusion . § . 20. The premisses or Principle from whence it 's inferred is this , Because he must be a merciful and faithful High-Priest . If we bring the Apostles discourse into form , it 's this , onto this purpose : If Christ must be a merciful and faithful High-Priest , &c. then in all things it behooved him to be like unto his Breth●ren : But he must be a merciful and faithful High-Priest , &c. Wherefore , or therefore , In all things it behooved him to be like his Brethren . In these words , and those that follow , we may observe that Christ , 1. Is a merciful and faithful High-Priest , &c. 2. How he became such ; and that was by suffering and being tempted . In the first part we have , 1. Christ's Office. 2. The Qualification for this Office. 3. The Work of Function of his Office. 1. His Office is to be an High-Priest in things pertaining to God : A Priest is an Officer in things appertaining to God , that is , in matters of Religion , wherein we have some Communion or Converse with God the Supream Lord , upon whom we depend for all things , especially such as tend to our spiritual and eternal happiness . Therefore Priest-hood is an Office distinct from all Offices of a civil state ; Of this we shall hear more , Chap. 5. Amongst Priests , some are inferiour , some are superiour , and some above all the rest ; and the chief and highest Priests differed from the rest , by some power proper to them and to none else , as to enter into the Holy of holies , and make the general Expiation : Christ was a Priest and Mediatour between God and Man in matters of Religion , and he was the highest , supream , and universal Priest , and had a proper power far above all other Priests , and could enter the Sacrary of Heaven , and doth minister in that glorious Temple . This is his Office. 2. His Qualification , which is alwayes requisite in a Priest , is , in two things , He was 1. Merciful . 2. Faithful . 1. He must be merciful ; for he must deal with God for sinful and miserable Man , for to help him and relieve him : And he is then merciful , when he doth not only know Man's misery , but is inwardly sensible of it , as his own , so as to be moved and resolved and that effectually , to succour him . This mercifulness is opposed not onely to Ignorance of others misery , and senslesness ; but also to harshness , severity , cruelty . And Christ was more merciful than ever any Man or Angel was , and there was great need he should be so ; for if every Offence , nay , if many and great offences , should move him to Passion , and enrage him so as to reject them and their Cause , or proceed to plead against them , or condemn them ; how many thousands should perish everlastingly ? 2. As he is merciful , so he must be faithful , and such as poor sinners may safely trust unto , and depend upon , when they commit their Cause concerning their eternal estate into his hands . Christ may be said to be faithful , either to God who hath given the Office of High-Priest , and a Command to discharge it ; or unto Man , who according to the Rules of God's Word believs in him , trusts upon him , and commits himself , and all that he hath unto him : And then he is actually faithful , when he performs all things belonging to his Sacerdotal Office , and goes thorough with his Work until he hath perfectly finished , and sinful Man attains that for which he trusted him . Man may be merciful , and not faithful , Christ is both ; and will be sensible of our Case and Cause , will minde it , and do it as his own : In this respect our Hope is firm , and our Comfort is unspeakable ; Blessed are all they who trust in him . This is his Qualification , the best that ever was or can be in any Priest. 3. The Work , the principal Work is , to make Reconciliation for the Sins of his People . 1. He hath his People , and they are such as know him and trust in him . 2. These have their Sins , and are guilty . 3. Reconciliation therefore is necessary ; otherwise they dy , they perish everlastingly . 4. There must be some one , and the same a Priest both merciful and faithful , to make this Reconciliation , and this is Christ. The word that is translated [ to make Reconciliation ] is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which , taken actively and transitively , is , to make God propitious and merciful to sinful Man , so , as to free him from Sin , and the woful Consequents thereof : And this must be done , so as to deliver Man from sin , fully and for ever , before this Sacerdotal Work shall cease . This Reconciliation is first made , and the Foundation of it laid in his Suffering Death , and offering himself a Sacrifice unto the supream and universal Judge for the sin of Man first to make it remissible . But it 's actually made , when Man believs , and this High-Priest makes intercession effectually for his People , who come to God by him ; and then it 's consummate , when all the sins of his People are for ever pardoned , and they finally justified . This is a Work of great Mercy , and if God commit it to him , he undertake it , and Man rely upon him , if it be not done ; how can he be said to be faithful ? To reconcile and propitiate is a Work of greatest fidelity , because of greatest Consequence . Ver. 18. For in that he hath suffered , being tempted , he is able to succour them that are tempted . § . 21. In this Text , and by these words , we are informed of the Reason why Christ is so merciful and faithful an High-Priest , and how he became such ; and that was by suffering and temptation , whereof he had experience in himself . In the words we have his Suffering and Temptation . Power to help the tempted . 1. His Sufferings were many and cruel , and such as never any did endure ; yet his greatest Sufferings were reserved to the last : And though he never sinned , yet he knew and felt the woful Consequences of Sin , and the Punishments it deservs . 2. He was tempted ; for no sooner was he baptized , and publickly initiated and declared in the sight of Heaven and Earth to be the Son of God , but Satan the great Enemy set upon him , and attempted his ruine ; yea , all his Sufferings , as from Satan , were temptations , and it 's very likely he did assault him most violently in the end . By both these he knew what a sad and woful thing Suffering for Sin is , and how hard a thing it is to be tempted and not to sin , and how much such , as being violently tempted , do sin , are to be pitied : For if he , who had the greatest power that ever was to resist and overcome temptations , was hardly put to it ; he must needs know , and could not be ignorant how dangerous Man's condition is , and how easily a frail Sinner may be foiled . 2. This Suffering and Temptation made him more merciful and faithful , and able to succour : To succour , is to do all things for the procuring the Reconciliation of his People ; and his ability to succour , is his mercifulness and fidelity , whereby he is every way fitted , powerfully inclined , and effectually moved to succour them . To be able sometimes is to be sit , as Varinus observeth , and so it may be here taken : And the more fit , the more able . The saying is , None so merciful as those who have been miserable , and they who have not onely known misery , but felt it , are most powerfully inclined , not onely to inward compassion , but to the real relieving of others miserable . And this was a contrivance of the profound Wisdom of that God , who is infinitely knowing and merciful , to find a way how to feel misery , and be merciful another way : This was by his Word assuming Flesh , that in that Flesh he might be tempted violently , and suffer most grievously , and all this , that he might be more merciful , and effectually succour sinful Man. This is the most powerful Remedy against despaire , and the firmest ground of hope and comfort that ever sinful miserable Man , sensible of his Sin could have . And that was the great reason why Christ must suffer being tempted , that he might be a merciful and faithful High-Priest ; and , that he might be such , was the end why it behoved him to be like his Brethren , not onely in being Man , and assuming flesh , but in Suffering and Temptation too : And thus the Son of God , for a little time , was made lower than the Angels . This the Apostle insists upon so largely , to let the Hebrews know , that there was little reason why they should be offended with his Humiliation , either because he was a mortal Man , or that he suffered death : For 1. It was fore-told that he must be lower than the Angels . 2. That he should be lower for a little time . 3. That this his Humiliation for a time was a way to Glory ; he was lower than those heavenly Spirits for a little time , that he might be above them for ever . 4. That thus to be humbled became God , and it seemed in his Wisdom to be the most excellent way of consecrating the great Captain of our Salvation . 5. It was most fitting , that he that was sent to redeem and sanctify Man , should be Man , and not an Angel. 6. It was infinitely beneficial unto us ; for by this means , 1. He tasted death for us . 2. By his death destroyed the Power of Satan . 3. By destroying his Power , delivered us from the slavish fear and danger of death . 4. By his Humiliation , in Suffering and Temptation , he became a most merciful and faithful High-Priest , and most able effectually to procure their Reconciliation . And why should this voluntary Humiliation be either any the least derogation from the Excellency of Christ ? or stumbling-block unto the Jew ? or seem foolishness to the Gentiles ? There is no reason at all , but it argues the Ignorance , if not the wilful blindness , of both Jew and Gentile . The Errours of Crell●us we shall meet with hereafter : For 1. He denieth Christ's Sufferings to be Punishments . 2. He affirmeth , that to succour is to expiate Sin. 3. He saith , that the principal Function of Christ's Priest-hood is performed now in Heaven , and was not performed by his death on Earth , which he denyes to be an Expiation by suffering Punishment for our sins . CHAP. III. Ver. 1. § . 1. THE Sum and Substance of this Chapter is an Exhortation to perseverance in the Christian Faith , yet upon new grounds and reasons , distinct from those in the two former Chapters : For they shew , that Christ was more excellent than the Prophets and the Angels ; and that the World to come was not subject to Angels , but to Christ ; who , though by his Sufferings he was for a little time lower than the Angels , yet upon his Resurrection and Ascension , was far above them . This Chapter manifesteth his Excellency far above Mofes ; and argues , that if Moses was to be heard , then Christ much more , and if they which disobeyed Moses were punished , much more they which disobey Christ. In the Exho●tation we must observe , 1. The parties to whom the Exhortation is directed . 2. The Duty exhorted unto . 3. The reasons whereby the performance of the Duty is urged . And these Reasons are taken from the Excellency of Christ. Benefit of Perseverance . Punishment of Apostacy . The Punishment is set forth by an Example of their Fathers Proposed . Applied . Ver. 1. Wherefore , holy Brethren , partakers of the heavenly Calling , &c. § . 2. This is the Description of the parties exhorted : They were Hebrews , yet Christians , and described as Brethren , Holy , Partakers of the heavenly Call. They were Brethren , and as such related to Paul , an Hebrew , and one unto another . And the ground of this Relation and Fraternity was not onely Generation , but chiefly Regeneration ; not so much natural as supernatural : For though they were Brethren by natural Generation , as descended from Abraham , the same Father , as the unbelieving Jews were ; yet here they are called Brethren , as believing in Christ ; and holy , as sanctified by the Spirit of Christ : So that this is a Fraternity in respect of Religion Christian. They became such Brethren , and so holy , by the heavenly Call ; they were partakers of the heavenly Calling . For as they were not Brethren , so neither were they holy by natural Generation , but by supernatural and spiritual Regeneration , as before . To be partakers of this Call , is either barely to be called , or to be partakers of this Mercy , together with others : It 's said to be Heavenly , as some understand it , in respect of the efficient and the final Cause , It 's from Heaven , that is , from God , who is the principal Cause of this Work ; and because they are to be called to Heaven , that is , eternal Glory , which is the end and ultimate Effect thereof . In it we may consider , 1. The Work of God. 2. The Duty of Man. 3. The Benefit following upon both . The Work of God is by the Word of the Gospel , and the Power of the Spirit , to enlighten and sanctify man , and gave him a Divine Power to believe and turn unto Him. The duty of Man is to be obedient to the heavenly Call. The benefit is the admission of him as obedient unto his heavenly Kingdom , and receiving him as an Heir of Glory . Upon this heavenly Call followeth a great change , both in the disposition , and condition of man called . For his disposition , he is made of unholy , holy , and therefore said to be called with an holy Calling , and to be called unto Holiness . For his condition , he is made of miserable , happy ; and therefore said to be called unto eternal Glory . And because the distance between holiness and happiness , and sinful and miserable Man , is so great ; therefore this work of God is a work of great power : and , because the change is so happy , therefore it 's a work of great mercy , wherein God freely prevents man ; so that if he should not thus prevent him , he would be for ever sinful and miserable . Wo unto all such as are disobedient to this heavenly Call , and neglect this preventing Grace , for as their Sin is more hainous , so their Punishment shall be more grievous . The Apostle seems to put them in mind of this Calling , to let them know how deeply they are engaged to God , and how unworthy they should be , if they should not persevere unto the end . § . 3. The duty exhorted unto , is expressed ver . 6. It 's to hold fast the confidence and rejoycing of the hope firm to the end ; and is repeated , ver . 14. It 's opposed to unbelief , ver . 12. Take heed , Brethren , lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief , in departing from the living God. The duty therefore is persevetance , which presupposeth that they had received the Truth of the Gospel , and professed their Faith in Christ ; and is a contin●ance in this Faith once received , and professed to the end . This Faith was from God , and was wrought in them by the heavenly Call , and the continuance of it depends upon God. He gave it at the first , he continues it to the last ; yet so , that man must be obedient at the first , and use all means with diligent care to preserve it to the last . Some refuse to obey at the first , others who have professed and received the Truth fall off before the end ; and both these are sins , and they only guilty of them . § . 4. The reasons follow , 1. From the excellency of Christ , which is set forth by Comparison . The parties compared are Christ and Moses , both excellent , but Christ far more . And here it is observable , 1. That the duty is the same with that , which was pressed , Chap. 2. 2. That the ground of that , was the excellency of Christ above the Angels ; of this , the excellency of Christ above Moses . 3. The reason there , was , that if the disobedience unto the word of Angels was punished with Death , how much more grievously shall they be punished which disobey the Gospel of Christ ? 4. The reason here , is , that if their fathers for their unbelief and disobedience to the Doctrine of Moses , were eternally shut out of God's rest ; how much more shall they he shut out of Heaven and Christ's eternal rest , if they do not continue in the Faith of Christ , but fall off from their profession . To understand this first reason , we must consider , 1. The excellency of Christ , and the excellency of Moses absolutely and positively . 2. The excellency of both comparatively , that so we may understand the excellency of the one f●t above the the excellency of the other . 1. Therefore they must consider the excellency of Christ Jesus , which is this , That he is the Apostle , and High-Priest of their Profession . Their profession was of the Christian Faith and Religion , which they did professe . The Authour , Apostle , and Legate sent from Heaven , who first published this Faith and Doctrine was Christ the Son of God , by whom God spake , who was formerly proved to be more excellent then the Prophets , then the Angels . So that their Religion was from God , nor by Prophets or Angels , but by Christ the great Prophet : For here to be an Apostle , is to be a Prophet . Yet Moses ( and so , many others ) may be Prophets , yet no High-Priest ; but Christ Jesus is not only the Prophet , but the High-Priest , who mediates between God and Man , and officiates so , as to make his Doctrine effectual and saving , and expiate his Peoples Sin , that they may be reconciled to their God. This two-fold power was necessary , as without which he could not have been a perfect Saviour . These are his two Offices upon which the Apostle so much enlargeth and insisteth . But 〈◊〉 may be an Officer , and yet prove unfaithful , and not discharge his trust ; yet Christ was faithful . For it follows , Ver. 2. Who was faithful to him that appointed him . ] § . 5. This is concerning Christ's fidelity expressed both absolutely in these words , and comparatively in those which follow . 1. Absolutely ; He was faithful to him , who appointed him . 2. Comparatively ; As Moses was faithful in all his House . The former words 1. Imply his ordination . 2. Expresse his fidelity to him that ordained him . Where we have two Propositions : 1. That God appointed Him. 2. He was faithful to God. In that He was appointed , or made an Apostle and High-Priest of our Christian profession ( for so the words are to be understood ) ; it 's evident , that He did not Usurp this two-fold Power and Office , but received it , and acquired it legally ; and none could invest Him with this Power , but onely God : and the reason is , because it is so eminent and transcendent . After he was once advanced , he was faithful to that God who advanced , and trusted him with so great a Power : This fidelity was the true and full discharge of his Apostolical and Sacerdotal Office , in perfectly doing all things necessary for the eternal Salvation of Man , so far as it depended upon this two-fold Office. As an Apostle or Prophet he clearly and fully revealed the Will of his heavenly Father , and taught Man all things necessary to be known , believed , and practised , to his Salvation . And from him we received that perfect Rule of Christianity , which directs us to Heaven , which he confirmed by his holy Life , glorious Miracles , and the excellent Gifts of the Holy Ghost , and sealed it with his precious Blood. As a Priest , he offered himself a pure unspotted Sacrifice to satisfy divine Justice , to propitiate the Supream Judge , to merit his favour , and all spiritual Blessings ; and is ever ready to officiate and make intercession in Heaven . For in all these things God trusted him : This is his Absolute fidelity , his Comparative follows in these words , As also Moses was faithful in all his House . ] This may be a Comparison either in quality or quantity . In quality , it 's a similitude signifying that he was like unto Moses in this particular of fidelity : Moses was faithful , so was Christ. It may be also in quantity , and so signify an equality , that He was as faithful as Moses ; and in fidelity not any whit inferiour to him : both are true . Moses was a Prophet , and did order all things in the whole Church of Israel , and all matters of Religion , according to the pattern shewed him in the Mount , and with all care and diligence did follow close the directions given him from Heaven : So Christ did not his own Will , but the Will of him that sent him , and that in all things . § . 6. The Apostle knowing full well , that it was not sufficient to prove Christ to be equal to Moses , proceeds to shew that he was far more excellent . Ver. 3. For this Man was counted worthy of more Glory than Moses , &c. ] To understand these words , many things are to be observed ; As , 1. That the scope of the Apostle in this Epistle ; as you heard before , is to confirm these Hebrews in the Christian Faith , and so prevent Apostacy . 2. That one means , and the same principally conducing , to this end , was , to set forth the sufficiency and excellency of Christ ; and that not only absolutely , but comparatively to those persons which were of most excellent account as Prophets and Angels , both sent unto Men by God , and by whom God had spoken to Men ; and also above all Priests , which had nearer accesse to God , and as Mediatours did officiate for Man before the Throne of God. 3. That formerly He had demonstratively proved , that He was more excellent then Prophets or Angels . 4. That Moses was one of the greatest Prophets of all the rest , as one that had nearer familiarity with God then others , and as one that was trusted by him in very great and weighty matters . 5. That the Jews and these Hebrews did much honour Moses , and much depended upon him . 6. Therefore the Apostle , lest their high conceit of him should any wayes derogate from Christ , or diminish his Glory ; he proves in this place , that Christ was not only like unto Moses , and equal with him , but also far above him . These things premised , the words are easily understood : The subject of them is the excellency of Christ as far above Moses . This is set forth by a Metaphorical Allegory ; and in that manner , that we have not only a Comparison in quality , but also in quantity . They are brought in by this rational or causal Conjunction [ For ] , which some referr to the word [ consider ] , as giving a reason why we must consider Christ. But it 's many times prefixed before the conclusion as inferred upon premisses following , as here it seems to be ; and so it was used , as you heard , in the former Chapter . Yet it 's sometimes adversative , and the same with [ sed or but ] ; sometimes it 's used only to bring in a sentence : but this I write only upon the By , lest when we find it used in the New Testament , we should in every place look for a reason from the cause , or think that it alwayes tenders a reason for to prove or inferr a conclusion . The comparison or comparative terms are taken from a Builder and an House , and from a Lord of the House , and a Servant in the House . The argument in form is , The Builder is far above the House , and the Lord above the Servant : But Christ is the Builder of the House , and Moses but a part of the House : Christ is the Lord , and Moses but the Servant in God's House : Therefore Christ is far more excellent then Moses , and to be counted worthy of more Glory . To be counted worthy of greater Glory doth presuppose , 1. That the object of all Honour , which is here called Glory , is some excellency . 2. That the more excellent any thing is , the more worthy of honour it is . 3. That because every thing is to have it's due , and to be accounted as it is ; Therefore , if Christ be more excellent , and worthy of greater Honour , then he ought to be honoured above Moses . That the Builder is more excellent then the House , no rational Man can doubt , because the cause , especially the principal efficient ( such an Architect is ) must needs be more excellent then the effect . This proposition presupposeth another , which can hardly be doubted , that is , Ver. 4. For every House is built by some man , ] The word [ House ] may be taken either for an earthly artificial House , or for any spiritual and metaphorical House , as the Church : yet here it seems to be an earthly artificial House made for habitation . The reason why every House must have a Builder , is , because no House can build , no effect can produce , it self ; but every effect ( as every House is an effect ) must have a cause . From hence it 's consequent , that this House whereof the Apostle speaks , must needs have a Builder ; even both that House wherein Moses , and also that House wherein Christ was faithful . Yet there may be Houses which may be built by Men , and by Builders who are particular Architects of some particular House or Houses ; but there must be some universal Architect and Builder of all things , and that is God. But he that built all things is God , ] that is , God is the supream Agent : the principall and universal cause of all Buildings and Effects is God. And if of all things and Buildings , then of the Church ; that Church , that House wherein Christ was faithful . These words are conceived to contain the Minor of the Argument , so far as it speaks metaphorically of Building ; and then the sense is , that Christ is the Builder of the Church . But some do conceive , that it 's a proof or confirmation of the Minor , in this manner ; God is the Builder of all things , and especially of the Church ; therefore Christ is Builder of the Church : for Christ is God , because he is that Word which was with God , and was God , and by whom all things were made at first ; and that Son by whom he made the Worlds , who , as the Father , worketh hitherto , and upholdeth all things by the word of his Power . That God is the Builder of the Church , whose House it is , is expresse Scripture ; that Christ doth build it , is so too . For thus Christ saith to Peter , Upon this Rock will I build my Church , Matth. 16. 18. Some restrain the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ] all things to the Church , but that 's not probable . For the better understanding of these words , you must observe , 1. That one of the most noble Effects and Works of God , is the Church , a most rare and curious piece . 2. That to Frame , Build , and Constitute this , must be a special act of that excellent and universal Builder . 3. That as by the Word . God created all things , and built the World at the first ; so by this Word Incarnate , dying and rising again , sending down the Holy Ghost , revealing the Gospel , he built and founded the Church-Christian , which shall stand for ever . 4. That because he built this Church not meerly as God , by the word not-Incarnate , but Incarnate and made Flesh ; therefore it must necessarily follow , that Christ is not part of the House , nor the House it self , but the Builder of the House . For , though he doth many things by the word not-Incarnate , yet he never built the Church but by it . The substance of the words is , That , presupposing this for a certain truth , That every House hath a Builder ; therefore this House must have so too : yet because it cannot be built by Men or Angels , it must be built by God ; and because the materials of it are Men first sinful and guilty , God must build it by Christ , who is the Word made Flesh. This discourse implyes , that Moses was not a Builder , but a Member of this House ; yet an eminent Member , and one advanced far above the ordinary ranck of other Members ; not only because a Prophet , but an excellent and eminent Prophet too . § . 7. Thus far the excellency of Christ above Moses , set forth by a Similitude taken from building . The second Comparison is between Him and Moses as between Lord and Servant : For it follows , Ver. 5. And verily Moses was faithful in all his House as a Servant , for a Testimony , &c. ] These words are part of the Minor Proposition , and , with the words immediately following , inform us of two things ; The one concerning Moses , the other concerning Christ : 1. Concerning Moses , That for his place he was a Servant . 2. Concerning Christ , That He was Lord of God's House . They both agree in this , that they had some certain place in the House of God ; but differ in this ; That the one was in a lower , the other in a higher place . Moses , though faithful , yet was but a Servant ; He was God's Servant in an honourable Place , and in an Office of great Trust : For the word [ Servant ] signifies an Officer ; yet because all Officers are Servants , therefore by a Synechdoche , they are often called Servants under their Soveraign . He was a kind of Steward trusted with a general superintendency and inspection over God's House , the Church of Israil : In a word , he was a Prophet and a Prince . Yet here he is considered as a Prophet ; for he was to testify and declare unto the People the Laws and other things God should reveal unto him . And it was an Honour to be such a Servant , and a greater Honour to be faithful , as he was to declare and testify all things which God revealed unto him ; and to do this , without diminishing the least , or adding any thing unto God's Word . This is one proper Duty of Christ's Ministers to be witnesses of Christ , and declare the whole counsel of God faithfully ; and how happy might the Church be , if her Prophets were such : As , 1. Who did know what the Will and Word of God is , 2. Did teach it faithfully and wisely , according to their Commission . Though Moses in this respect was counted worthy of Honour , and deserved to be heard and obeyed by that People ; yet Christ was worthy in this respect of far greater Honour . For it followeth , Ver. 6. But Christ as a Son over his own House , ] Here Son is opposed to Servant , and his own House to the House of another which is the Master . Christ is the Son , Moses but the Servant : Christ is in the House , as his own built by him ; Moses was in the Church of the Jews as a Servant in the House of his Master , giving directions for all things to be done therein , according to the Will of God his Lord and Master . Christ is not here called Lord , but Son ; but by Son is meant the Heir , which is Lord of all . For as you heard before God had made Christ his Son Heir , that is , Lord of all , Chap. 1. 2. The Church is his own House ; for he redeemed and purchased it by his own Blood , he gave himself for it , which Moses never did : and his Father hath given all things into his hands , and made Him Head of that Church and House which he himself hath Built : Moses was never advanced to this Honour , he never had any such Title . This excellency of Christ both absolute and comparative , we are exhorted to consider : It 's represented unto us fully and clearly in the Gospel ; yet will be of little use to us , if we consider it not , so as we may the more clearly and distinctly know it , and be effectually moved to honour Christ , and prefert Him far above Moses . For the end of consideration is a more clear and perfect knowledg of the things considered , and in practicals the end of that knowledg is to move and incline out hearts . This exhortation is but subordinate unto another , as the duty of Consideration is but subordinate to an higher and far greater , and that is Perseverance which is here thus expressed . Ver. 6. — Whose House We are , if we hold fast the considence , and rejoycing of hope firm to the end . ] § . 8. The Duty exhorted unto , is final perseverance ; and is here described by the Apostle to be an holding fast of the considence , and rejoycing of hope firm to the end : This is opposed to Apostacy , or a falling off before the end . Per●everance is conceived to be no virtue distinct in it self , but an adjunct of virtues , and especially of Faith. The virtues here are considence , and rejoycing of hope ; The nature of it is , 1. To hold these fast and firm . 2. To hold them fast unto the end . The subject immediate of this constancy and perseverance , is confidence and hope : 1. Confidence in this place presupposeth a firm and certain belief of the Truth of the Gospel concerning Christ , as the only sufficient Saviour by whom alone God will give us everlasting Life . 2. This confidence is a reliance and resting or reposing of our hearts upon God promising remission and eternal Life for Christ's sake alone . For seeing God , who is almighty in Power , infinite in Wisdom , unchangeable in his Purposes , hath signified his willingness to save us , and hath bound himself by his promise , upon certain terms expressed in his promise ; we may be confident , that what he hath promised he will perform , and will in no wise fail , or be unfaithful . He is a firm , unmovable , eternal Rock , whereon we may securely settle and fix our selves ; and so much the rather , because there is not any other besides him in whom we may trust . 3. The effect , if not the act of this confidence , is , boldly , without any fear of Persecutions or Sufferings , to profess our Faith in God , and Christ our Saviour . For where there is true Faith within , there will be profession of it without : And though the inward confidence be the principal thing , yet profession outward is necessary , and should be inseperably joyned . The second thing is the rejoycing of hope ; Hope may here be the thing hoped for , which is Salvation and eternal Glory : yet not as considered absolutely in itself , but as due to us by Christ's merit and God's promise , in which respect we expect it , and look for it , and that upon most sure grounds ; The rejoycing of this hope is rejoycing in eternal Life as hoped for . Eternal Life , and the state of Glory is the principal , though not the adequate object of Christian hope , and is often so expressed in Scripture . It may be known and believed on Earth , yet it 's to be enjoyed in Heaven : As only known and believed , it cannot be a cause of joy , but as either possessed or hoped for at least . Neither can any man hope for it , except he be so qualified as to be capable of it , and have a right unto it by vertue of God's promise , and a certain possibility to obtain it , and that by divine assistance and constant use of means ordained to that end . And this well-grounded hope , makes it in some sort present though imperfectly to the party hoping : And to look upon it represented and apprehended by a divine Light as ours , and to be had in due time : though for the present it be future , and at a great distance ; yet it reviv●s the heart , and warmes it with an unspeakable joy . This confidence and this hope are Duties required in the first Commandment ▪ understood evangelically , and are found in every true Believer , and never are without this heavenly joy . Now , because these heavenly virtues are not essential to the Soul , not eternally inseparable adjuncts , and may continue inherent for a time , and yet not finally , except God preserve them in us , and we use the means of continuation ; therefore the Apostle exhorts us to hold them fast and firm unto the end . And this is the Duty exhorted unto , which is called perseverance , which is not in our power , but depends upon the divine assistance . For that God , which did first work them in these Hebrew-Christians , must continue them ; yet so , that he requires a performance of Duty , and an humble dependance upon him in the use of all means appointed to that end , with a serious consideration of those weighty Reasons and Motives which are proposed in the Scriptures , and apt of themselves to work effectually upon us . This exhortation presupposeth faith and hope as already qualifying the Soul ; for there 's no holding fast of that we have not , no continuance of that which hath no existence in us . And the more deeply and firmly they are radicated in the Soul , and intensively increased , they will be more easily preserved , though the continuance depends [ ab extrinseco ] from the principal Efficient , which is God , who will never be wanting to such as carefully rely upon him , and constantly pray unto him . § . 9. Thus you have heard , 1. Who the persons exhorted are ; And , 2. What the Duty pressed upon them is . The third thing is the Reasons and Motives , which are ( as before ) reduced to three Heads . The first is the excellency of Christ , as one so far above Moses , as the Builder above the House , and the Son and Lord above the Servant . And this was an argument very forcible and powerful with the Hebrews , and that not without plain reason . For if they so much honoured and magnified Moses , as they were bound to do , because he was so excellent , and the first Authour under God of their Jewish Profession ; how much more upon their own principle and practise were they bound to honour Christ , the Authour of that Christianity , which they had already received . For if Moses was sent of God , so was Christ ; if Moses was a most eminent Prophet , so was Christ ; if Moses was faithful in the House of God , so was Christ. Yet this is far short . Christ was not a Servant , but a Son , and a Builder of this spiritual House , which Moses was not ; and every way far more excellent and clearly manifested so to be . And if they were bound to observe the Laws of Moses till Christ came , and to continue firm and faithful in the Covenant contracted by Moses with God and their Fathers ; how much more were they bound to submit themselves to Christ , receive him as their Apostle and High-Priest , and hold fast and firm their Faith and Hope in Him , upon whom their everlasting happiness did so much depend . To forsake Christ , and return to Moses , must be a very hainous Crime , and deserving a most grievous Punishment : For Moses was no ways so beneficial , nor any wayes so excellent as Christ. That Christ is far more beneficial , is next to be considered . § . 10. Whose House we are , ] This Clause inserted , proposeth a second reason of and a motive to perseverance ; and that from the benefit , the inestimable benefit , which follows upon the performance of this Duty to such as do perform it . If we will reduce the whole into a Proposition , it 's this , That they who persevere unto the end , are Christ's House . This [ in these ] is an eternal Truth , whereon the Apostle grounds his argument ; the force whereof will then appear , when we shall understand what it is to be Christ's House : 1. We have an House . 2. Christ's House . The word House is to be taken metaphorically for some thing like an House . There are many kind of Houses , all made for some to dwell in them ; among these , Temples and sacred Palaces excell , because they are not made for habitation of men , but for some God or Deity to dwell in them , and take possession of them . Therefore some have made the perfection , if not the essence of a Temple , the presence and inhabitation of a God. The excellency therefore of this House here meant must be the special presence and inhabitation of God-Redeemer by Christ. And the truth is , that as Christ by his Spirit dwells in every true Believer , in which respect they are said to be the Temples of the Holy Ghost ; so he dwells in the whole Church , as in one House . God dwells in us here in a special manner , but he will dwell in us far more gloriously hereafter : And if we well consider , this House shall not be fully Built , much less furnished and fully beautified untill the Resurrection , when Christ shall perfectly sanctify and glorify us , and so dwell in us , never to remove , but for ever to abide , and make us for ever holy and happy . This latter condition of this House , and more excellent habitation is here meant ; For only they who persevere unto the end shall be his House in this manner . Though it may be said , That we are his House now , and shall be his House for ever in a more glorious manner , if we persevere unto the end : This is the meaning of the words . The force of the argument from them thus understood is evident , and very great : For if this blessed and glorious estate of being Christ's House will certainly follow upon the final perseverance in sincere Christianity ; how much will it move and work upon such as believe , and certainly hope , that upon this duty performed so incomparable a Reward will follow ? And how careful will they be in case of all means , which conduce to this perseverance ? For the greater good believed to follow upon any performance , the greater and more powerful the motive is : This is the second Reason . § . 11. The third follows , and that is from the penalty that will follow upon non-perseverance and Apostacy . This reason is annexed to a dehortation from hardening of the heart , and apostacy , which is unbelief ; yet this dehortation presupposeth the principal exhortation to Faith , and continuance therein to the end ; and therefore because it is a reason of the dehortation from the contrary sin , it must needs be a reason of the exhortation to the duty opposed to that sin . It 's taken out of Psal. 95. from ver . 8. unto the end . And though it seem to be directed unto the People of those , wherein the Psalm was composed ; yet it directly points at the Gospel , and the dayes of the same . In that part of the Psalm , we may observe , 1. The dehortation . 2. The reason why they should take heed of the sin dehorted from . The reason is from an example of the like Sin punished in their fore-fathers : The Sin in one word was Unbelief , expressed and declared by the effects thereof , which were tempting of God , and so offending him ; because they erred in their hearts , and did not know or take notice of his wayes . The punishment was exclusion out of Canaa● , their rest intended by God : Which punishment was , 1. Absolutely denounced by way of a final and peremptory sentence passed with an Oath . 2. Executed by overthrowing their Carkasses in the Wildernesse . The sum of all this was to let them know , That if they sinned , as their Fathers did , they should certainly suffer the like punishment . The conclusion inferred hence , is , That they must have a special care to persevere in the Faith , and take heed of Apostacy : This may suffice to be observed upon the words of the Psalmist . § . 12. The next thing is the Application of these words of the Psalmist unto the present Hebrews , to whom he writes , Wherein he , 1. Presseth the Duty upon them according to the words of the Psalm . 2. That his counsel might be more forcible , and the Duty more diligently and carefully performed , he useth two reasons : The first from the benefit which will follow . 2. From the punishment they must suffer , if they fall away . 1. The duty is the same , which was formerly urged , and that is perseverance and constancy in their Christian Profession , which is opposed to unbelief and apostacy , which is a departing from the living God , which in the Psalmist is the hardning of the heart . For that passage of the Psalmist presupposeth a Day and Time of God's speaking to mortal man , and exhorteth man in that Day to hear and obey constantly till the Day of God's Voice be ended ; and dehorteth from hardness of heart , Disobedience and Apostacy . In this place the Apostle making the same application to the Children and Posterity , which David did to their Fathers living in his time , declareth the Duty . 1. Negatively , or rather [ apotreptic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , by way of dehortation . 2. Affirmatively , by way of exhortation to that which will be a means of continuance and perseverance . The dehortation is , Ver. 12. Take heed , Brethren , lest there be in any of you an evil heart of Unbelief , in departing from the living God. ] Where we must consider , 1. The evil dehorted from . 2. The dehortation it self . The evil is an evil of Sin , not of punishment ; where we have the root of it in the primary subject [ an evil heart of Unbelief ] , the fruit and effect [ departing from the living God. ] The heart is the primary and proper subject , and also the cause of sin ; yet the heart , as the heart , is not the cause of actual sin , but as an evil heart , and here an evil heart of Unbelief . Unbelief may in this place signify perfidiousnesse , when the heart inclines to deny and forsake that Truth which was formerly professed , and to violate that promise of Obedience made to God , at the first entrance into Christianity ; and so actual unbelief is a breach of Covenant . This unbelieving heart is an evil , that is , a disobedient , impious , perverted heart . This is the basest temper , and most malignant quality of the Soul , whereby it 's most contrary to the most just and holy Law of God , and the conditions of the Covenant of Grace . That it is so , is evident from the act or effect thereof , which is , to depart from the living God. This departing from God , is actual and formal apostacy , which is so directly contrary to Perseverance : This is signified by the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in the Orginal , which is to renounce something formerly received and acknowledged . It 's like to a rebellion , revolt , and renouncing of a lawful Soveraign formerly acknowledged , by allegiance and fidelity promised : These Hebrews had received the Gospel , acknowledged Christ their Saviour , made a Covenant with the living God , to whom they submitted themselves as their Soveraign Lord Redeemer by Christ. In their Baptism , they had solemnly professed their Faith in God the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and promised obedience . To deny this profession , or this Faith professed , to break this promise , to forsake their Christianity , turn Jews or Heathens ; especially after that by Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost , that were so strongly convinced of the Truth , must needs be an hainous sin , issuing from an evil and malignant heart indeed . There is an hardning of the heart against the light and motives of the Gospel , when Christ is first tendered , and not yet received . There is an hardning of the heart against the Truth once received ; this latter , not the former , is Apostacy , and the Sin here meant : both hainous , both forbidden by God , both tending to eternal Death ; yet this more then the other . And here it 's to be noted , that , positive unbelief , blindness , and hardness of heart are often taken for the same : The Duty therefore is , to take heed lest there be such an heart in any of them . Where it 's implyed , 1. That every one was in danger . 2. That this sin began in the heart . 3. Therefore all and every one must be very wary , careful , diligent to avoid the same , and all the causes thereof . For if they were not well-grounded in the principles of Christianity , they might be deluded by the Sophisms of the unbelieving Jews , and their cunning Emissaries : if they were not strong in Faith , and their former holy resolutions , they might the more easily be overcome by the sear of persecution , and the love of their Temporal Peace , Safety , Estates , Liberty , Lives . The reason of this dehortation was , because he knew , that if they did not carefully avoid the contrary , which was destructive of perseverance , they could not persevere . To avoid this sin , he adds an exhortation , wherein he prescribes a means tending to continue us in the Truth , saying , Vet. 13. But exhort one another daily , whilst it 's called to Day , lest any of you be hardued through the deceitfulness of sin . ] § . 13. Though we may exhort one another in private , yet this seems to have some reference to their publick Assemblies for Religious Worship . For as the Psalm was composed for the publick Worship , and to be sung as a preparative to the same ( especially that part , which is concerning the hearing of God's Word ) : So in the times of the Gospel , it was used by some Christian Churches to prepare the People assembled ; as for other Duties , so for that of hearing the Gospel . Thus we find it placed in our Liturgy ; And upon due consideration , it will appear to be an excellent place of Scripture , and most fit for that end . In the words we have , 1. An exhortation . 2. A reason . In the exhortation we have , 1. The duty . 2. The time of performance . The duty is , mutual exhortation , and encouragement of one another : The time is , daily , while it 's said [ To Day ] . The reason is to prevent obdu●ation , lest any of you be hardned . Before I enter upon the particular explication of these words , I must inform the Reader , That the Apostle having recited the words of the Psalm , in the application of them follows the order of the principal words and parts thereof . The first was , Harden not your heart this he insists upon , ver . 12 , 13 , 14. The second , The Fathers provoked God : this he takes up in ver . 15 , 16. The third , God was grieved with that Generation : this you find , ver . 17. The fourth is , The shutting of these unbelieving Ancesters out of God's Rest : this you may read of , ver . 18 , 19. The fifth is , Entring into rest granted and promised to God's People , after the days of David : This takes up the greatest part of the Chapter following . The duty exhorted unto , is , to exhort one another , so that it is an exhortation to exhortation . Where we must consider , 1. What it is to exhort . 2. Who they be who are concerned in this duty to perform it . 1. To exhort , is to move , stir up , encourage , comfort , strengthen , perswade . The end is confirmation and continuance in Christianity . The means are , proposing the divine Precepts , the glorious Reward promised , the fearful Punishments threatned , to manifest the clear and pure Truth of the Gospel , and the Divine confirmations of the same , with the falshood of all contrary Doctrines : To these we may add their publick and private Prayers , with the Sacraments . 2. This Duty concerned all and every one . For every Christian , according as he hath power and opportunity , is bound as to convert others , so to edisy and confirm one another converted , and mutually further and promote their Salvation . And this is a special work of Christian Charity , which we owe one to another is Christian Brethren , and fellow-Members of the same Body : Yet the greater our Abillties , and the more excellent out Gifts , the greater is our Obligation . * And Ministers , of all others , are most concerned in it ; and the end of out Christian Assemblies for Religious Worship and Discipline , is to do this work . But how guilty are we of neglect ? how careless are we of this work ? How justly may God charge the Blood of the Souls of our Apostate Brethren upon us ? Most men hinder , and that many wayes ; and few further the Salvation of their Brethren . It 's high time for us all to reform in this particular : This is the Duty , to exhort one another ; the time limited for the performance is , [ to Day , whilst it 's said to Day ] : For so the Psalmist saith , To Day if you will hear his Voyce . ] This presupposeth a time when God will speak , and we must hear ; God speaks by his Word , and here , in particular , by the Gospel , and the Professors and Ministers thereof . By it , he Commands all men to repent and believe ; and being once converted , to persevere unto the end : and by it he promiseth to such as obey , a glorious Reward . He is further ready to accompany this Word of the Gospel with the power of his Spirit , without which man cannot perform his Duty : This is that , which we call Vocation ; so that to Day is the time of Vocation granted to any People , or to single Persons . And whilst God grants to any the Word and Spirit , which are the means of conversion ; He may be said to Call , and Man is bound to hear and be Obedient . Some think this Day to be the whole time of every man's life , whilst he is a member of the visible Church : yet we find , that many of the Israelites were by an Oath excluded out of God's Rest before they dyed ; and that Jerusalem had by her hardness of heart made her case desperate , and her ruine unavoidable , long before it was destroyed : so likewise many a man's Day and Time of possibility and hope to be saved , is spent and ended , before his life determine . Therefore by [ Day ] in this place is understood in a special manner the present time , because no man is certain of the future . Therefore they must exhort one another , whilst it 's said to Day ; that is , presently , and in no wise delay , or intermit the performance of this Duty . The reason of this exhortation is from the end , which is the preventing [ hardness of heart through the deceitfulness of Sin. ] This presupposeth that sin is deceitful , and implies that the deceitfulness thereof will harden the heart . Sin in it self is base and filthy , and an object of abhomination ; and except it be represented in some appearance of good , every one would abhor it . Satan therefore , when he would tempt and perswade man to it , deludes his Understanding with false colours of Pleasure or Profit , or something desirable : but conceals the baseness , and the sad and woful consequents thereof . This outward appearance of goodness makes it like a bait fastned on an hook , and man being greedy of the bait , swallows the hook . When he finds no mischief to follow upon the Commission , immediately he goes on by degrees , till he acquire an habit , which hardens the heart , makes it sensless , blots out the Characters of divine Truth , and so in the end changeth the very quality of the heart . Whereas man before was very pliable , and ready to receive the impressions of Divine Truth ; now he is blinded , and become stupid : Divine commands , promises , threats , exhortations , admonitions cannot work upon him , and then how easily will he be perswaded to fall off from Christ , and deny the Faith he had professed . Hardness of heart may be considered as a Judgment of God , or as a Sin of Man ; here it 's to be considered as a Sin. And such it may be either in respect of the first Call , and so is , or implies at least a refusal of Christianity ; and so it 's either a rejection of that Christianity which was once received and professed , or at least makes way for it ; and thus it 's to be understood in this place . For no man can fall off from the Christian Faith once received , but his heart must needs be hardned , and stand unmoved against all former convictions . This considered either in the former or latter sense , may be conceived , 1. As a Not yielding unto the Reasons and Motives unto belief and profession proposed in the Gospel . 2. As an obstinate resisting of these Motives and Reasons joyned with some power of the Spirit . And both these may be caused either from the delusion of the understanding , apprehending , and 〈◊〉 to contrary Motives and Reasons ; which are not really such , but seem to be such , which may be called sinful 〈◊〉 , as the words of the Text may be understood ; o● from the pure malignancy of the Will , or from both . Now to prevent all these , mutual exhortation is an excellent mean ordained by God to that end . And the neglect of this Duty is a great Cause , or at least a great Advantage of sin , and leaves the way open for Apostacy to come in . For frequent proposals and representations of the true Reasons , why we should believe , and a continual ●itring up to holy Duties , are effectual causes of the confirmation of our profession , and so of our perseverance . § . 14. We must mutually exhort one another , whilst it 's said to Day , for to prevent Apostacy , and we must prevent Apostacy ; because , without final perseverance we cannot be partakers of Christ. For , Ver. 14. We are made partakers of Christ , if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end . ] This seems to be the same with that in ver . 6. yet the expression is some what different . For to hold fast our confidence and rejoycing of hope firm unto the end , is the same with holding the beginning of our confidence stedfast to the end : And to be Christ's House , the same with being partakers of Christ. So that I need not say much of this Text , only some things may be observed ; As , 1. That [ Hypostasis ] turned confidence may in this place signifie our Christian Faith. 2. That the beginning of it , is the first receiving of it , or the principles of Christianity . 3. That , as it may signify a firm standing , so it 's applyed to the Soul as firmly standing and continuing in the belief and profession of the Faith , without wavering or doubting , and is opposed to falling . For , though the principles and fundamental Truths are firm and stable for ever in themselves ; yet they are not so firm in the hearts of many who professe them . Therefore it 's our duty to seek a firm existence of them in our hearts , and a firm fixing of our hearts upon them , never to be removed . 4. That to be partakers of Christ , is to partake of , and attain the great Reward of eternal Glory merited by Christ : For the word Christ is here taken Metonymically , for the benefits of Christ. 5. That though this may seem to be the same reason with the former ; yet here it seems to be brought as a reason from the penalty that will follow upon our Apostacy , which is an unspeakable loss of eternal Glory , the greatest benefit Christ hath purchased for us . For if we shall be partakers of Christ only upon this condition of perseverance to the end ; then if we harden our hearts , and fall off , we must needs lose eternal Glory , and that great Benefit , which Christ merited . § . 15. Thus far the Apostle hath made use of those words of the Psalmist ; [ To day , if ye will hear his Voice , harden not your hearts . ] Now he proceeds to the words following , [ As in the Day of Provocation ] ; and enlargeth upon them , in this manner . Ver. 15. While it is said to Day , if ye will hear his Voice , harden not your hearts , as in the day of provocation : For some when they had heard , provoked , &c. Where , 1. He takes in the former words with this of Provocation . 2. Though the Psalmist do not mention whether all their Fathers provoked and tempted God , or no ; yet he observes , that only some , not all , did provoke . The connexion of these words , with the former seems to be this , That as their Fathers by hardning their hearts provoked God to wrath ; so if they hardned their hearts , they will provoke God likewise , and he will be offended with them . The argument in form , is this ; e must Wnot do any thing that will provoke God to anger : but if we harden our hearts , we shall provoke him to anger : Therefore we must take heed of hardning our hearts , and of Apostacy . The proposition [ in these ] here presupposed is , That hardning the heart , will provoke . The propositions here delivered in the Hypothesis , are , 1. That some of their Fathers did provoke . 2. That all did not provoke . That which all these imply and inferr is this , as applyed to them , That they must not harden their hearts , lest they provoke . Lest this discourse should not be so pertinent and effectual , let us first enquire what this provodation is . The Hebrew word is translated by the Septuagint , to signify contention , contradiction , and exacerbation , and so they turn it only in this place . And the Apostle follows their Translation , and useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Which is a word , 1. Compound . 2. Derivative , and is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies bitter , as Me●●s or Drinks are bi●●er to the taste . The signification therefore , in this place is Mephorical , and informs us , That as some Meats and Drinks being bitter , are very offensive to the taste ; so hardness of heart , and apo●●acy are very offensive unto God. The words used in the Psalm may be , either Proper , and so translated [ as in Meribah and Massa ] ; or Anell●tive as here the Apostle understands them . This provocation may be considered either at a Sin , or a consequent of Sin ; here it seems to be a consequent of sin , yet necessarily presupposing the Sin. Sin , every sin , being contrary to God 's Law , provokes him to anger , and gives him just cause to execute his vindictive Justice upon the Sinuer . Yet some sins are more provoking then others , especially such as are committed by People in Covenant with God , who act contrary to their solemn Vows and Engagements , as Israel in the Wilderness did , And this hardning of the heart , so as to fall away , is the most provoking of all : For it not only deserves punishment , and by vertue of the Law makes the Sinner liable to it ; but provoks God to pass a definitive sentence , and to proceed to execution : This particular consequent of sin is , that which here is called provocation . This premised , I need not much insist upon the two Propositions following , ver . 16. The first is , Some did provoke ; these were all that came out of Aegypt , whose Carkasses were overthrown in the Wildernesse . And the Sins were , their Mur●●urings , Unbelief , tempting of God , Rebellion , Idolatry , Lustings , and the like ; and that that made up the measure of their Iniquity , was that Rebellion , which they made upon the return of those twelve men , who were sent as Spies to view the Land. All these sins were but so many acts of their Apostacy , and revolt from God , contrary to the Covenant that He had made with them . The second Proposition is , That all did not provoke ; for Caleb and Joshua , with the Children of those , were not guilty , or chargeable with the test : For many fell , some did stand , and continue stedfast in the Covenant . This is a fair warning to all us , who own our Baptism , and profess Christianity : Though we may have our sins of ignorance and infirmity , yet let us take heed of provoking-Crimes . For shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy ? Are we stronger then He ? § . 16. The Apostle having said , That some did , yet not all , did provoke : He , in the next words , lets us know who did provoke and were shut out of God's Rest ; yet he doth not specifie them by their several names , but by their qualification ; and the cause of their not entring into Canaan . For thus he goes on , Ver. 17. But with whom was He grieved forty years ? was it not with them who had sinned , whose Carkasses fell in the Wilderness ? ] Thus these words come in upon the former : And in these three last verses he useth a great deal of art , not only Logical and Theological , but Rhetorical too . For the matter is Theological concerning sin and the consequents of sin , which is the offence of God , and punishment of Man offending . The Logical form is Dianoetical , to inferr a conclusion formerly expressed , and here implyed : The Rhetorical manner of expression is Dialogistical , and like that which we call Addubitation , wherein we have Questions and Answers ; yet these Answers are returned by Interrogation , which imply a formal affirmative , and possitive Answer to the Questions . The end of this Rhetorick is not only to make the sin and the aggravations thereof more clear ; but to make a more lively representation both of the Sin and Punishment , to the end his reason and disswasive may be more forcible . The first Question and Answer we have in ver . 17. The Question is , But with whom was He grieved forty years ? This presupposeth that God was grieved forty years with a certain Generation , as the Psalnist brings in God complaining . In which words , taken by the Apostle for granted , we may consider ; 1. The party grieved . 2. The parties grieving . 3. The time of both . 1. The party grieved , was God. 2. The party grieving , was the People of Israel . 3. The time , was forty years . To understand this Axiom , we must first know what it is for man to grieve actively , and for God to be grieved passively . 1. For Man to grieve in this place , is to sin , and do something offensive and displeasing to God. 2. For God to be grieved , is to be offended , to be dispeased . Hi●rom turns it , Displicuit ; P●guine , Litigavi● ; Pratensis , Mol●stia affectus suni ; The Vulgar , offensus fui : Vatablus cum toedio pertuli . All these interpretations signify , that God was much displeased with the carriage of that Generation , so that He was even weary of them . Genebrard expounds the word used by the Septuagint , to be a pressing hard upon them , and punishing them till they were consumed . Yet because [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , as Heinsius observes , sometimes signifies Idol which God did abllor and abhominate it may be understood of God abhorring that Apostare and unbelieving People . This informs us , how God accounts of such Sins ; He accounts them as odious , abhominable , and contrary to his purest holiness , and most just Laws . We must not think that God can be grieved , vexed , molested ; but he thay be displeased and offended . 2. The party grieved , was God ; and oh ! how unworthy are we , who will displease that God , who hath made Us , preserved Us , redeemed Us , and shewed so much love and kindness to Us , upon whom we so much depend , in whose favour is life , and all solid comfort . 3. The Generation that thus grieved God , was that People of Israel , who were at Age , when they came out of Aegypt , and made a Covenant with God at Horeb , yet brake that Covenant . 4. The time of their sinning , and God's punishing , was forty years ; from the time of their deliverance from Pharoah , till their entrance upon the Land of Canaan . Yet this is to be understood of them joyntly , for many of them were overthrown and destroyed within a short time of their deliverance . This is the Question : The Answer is , He was grieved with those that sinned , whose Carkasses were overthrown in the Wilderness ; and this Answer is put interrogatively , as though he would referr it to them , or any other indifferent person to give the Answer . For it 's very clear out of the Text , who the persons were that grieved God ; they were such as sinned , and were overthrown in the Wilderness . And from their Sin which they committed , and the Punishment which they suffered , are they easily discovered : Their Sin was , hardning of their Hearts and Apostacy ; their Punishment was , their Carkasses were overthrown in the Wilderness . This the Hebrews must take special notice of , that so they may take heed of the like Sin : The second Question or Addubitation is , Ver. 18. And to whom sware He , that they should not enter into His Rest ? ] Now he comes to the last words of the Psalm , [ So I sware in my wrath , That they shall not enter into my Rest. ] Where we may observe , 1. The matter of the Oath . 2. The Oath it self . The matter or thing Sworn was , That they should not enter into God's Rest. This Rest was their quiet possession of the Land of Canaan , and their abode therein after their bondage in Aegypt , and so journing through the Wildernesse . It was God's Rest , Because , 1. God hath the propriety of that Land , as also he had of the whole Earth . 2. God did undertake to dispossess the Inhabitants . 3. He did promise and grant to Abraham , to plant and settle his Posterity in it ; and He , and He alone did give their Children possession of it : It typified Heaven and that eternal Rest , which God hath prepared for his Saints . Into this rest they must not enter , not ever have any possession of it : This was the dreadful Sentence , which God passed upon those unworthy and rebellious Wretches . The Oath was the Oath of God , which He sware in his Wrath ; The party swearing was God , [ God sware ] ; and because He could swear by no greater , He sware by Himself . In this respect it differed from the Oaths both of Men and of Angels , and could not be a part of Worship or Invocation , as other Oaths are ; and in this , he in some sort pledged his Beeing and Deity to confirm his Sentence . 2. This Oath he sware in his Wrath ; he sware to Abraham , in his great mercy , to confirm unto him the immutability of his Counsel ; which was , to bless him , and this he did upon the acceptation of his sincere Obedience . But this was in wrath , not of rash passion , which God is in no ways subject unto ; but in his severe vindictive Justice , moved by their abhominable disobedience and rebellion , after so many mercies , deliverances , wonders and convictions . 3. The end of this Oath was , to make the Sentence immutable : His Word and bare Sentence was sufficient : but , to manifest his high displeasure , and to cut off from that People all hope of entrance , he added this Oath , which , in some sort , stands good against all such Apostate Wretches , who can have no hope of God's eternal Rest , which they have eternally forfeited . This is the Question , To whom did God thus swear ? and who were those Israelies , who , by this Oath , were absolutely debarred of all entrance into that Land ? The Answer follows , though proposed , as the former , Interrogatively in these words , But to them that believed not ? ] This is evident and very clear : and by it is signified , 1. The Parties who were excluded . 2. The Sin for which they were excluded , and it was Unbelief . They believed not God's Word and Promise , were not moved by all his Mercies , and Miracles , and former Judgments . And thereupon became guilty of the breach of Covenant , refused obstinately to perform the conditions of it , in the obedience of God's Command . They hardned their hearts , and departed from the living God , and became perfidious and rebellious Apostates : From these words , he concludes the Chapter in this manner , Ver. 19. So we see , they could not enter in , because of Unbelief . For this was the scope whereat he aymed , to make clear , what the cause of their not entring into Cauaan , was ; that special notice might be taken of the Sin , that they might take heed of the like Sin , that so they might avoid the like Punishment . Where , by the way , we may take notice that God's Judgments are just , and He never condemns any but for Sin ; and as the Sin is more or less hainous , so he proportions the Punishment . The sum and substance of this example of the Fathers proposed in the Psalm , is this , That if they should be guilty of hardning their hearts and unbelief as their Fathers were , they should be punished with the like punishment under the Gospel . And if their Fathers were so fearfully punished for their disobedience to the Law of Moses ; how much more grievously should they be punished , if they disobeyed the Gospel , and forsook Jesus Christ their Saviour . The whole Chapter , as you heard , is an exhortation to perseverance in the Christian Profession , and that upon several Reasons . As , 1. The exocllency of Christ so far above Moses . 2. The incomparable benefit that would follow thereupon . 3. The dreadful punishment they must suffer , if they did fall away . To make this last the more effectual : He , 1. Alledges the words of the Psalm . 2. Applies them to these Hebrews , that by the example of their Fathers , they might take heed of Apostacy and Unbelief . Yet this Application is but begun here , and finished in the next Chapter . CHAP. IV. Ver. I. FOR the better understanding of this part of the Epistle , we must considor : 1. The Coherence with the former . 2. The Scope . 3. The Method and parts . 1. For the Coherence : it agrees , 1. With the former three Chapters in the subiect , the prophetical Office of Christ : and in urging the duty of attention , belief , prosession and obedience unto his Doctrine into the end . 2. It agrees with the last part of the 〈◊〉 , in a special manner . For , having made evident , that the cause why their Fathers 〈◊〉 not into God's Rest , was Unbelief : therefore they must take ●eed of that Sin , last they ●●ffer the like searful punishment . ( For he that will avoid the effect , must take heed of that cause upon which that effect will certainly follow ) : He further urgeth that exhortation of the Psalmist , To day , if 〈◊〉 will hear his Voyce , so as to be edmitted into God's Rest , we must not harden our hearts , provoke , grieve God , as their Fathers in the Wilderness did . 2. The scope of the Apostle , presupposing a Rest promised in the Gospel , is to perswade them , and th● them up to use with all diligence those means , whereby we may attain it , and enter . In a word , it 's the same with that of the second and third Chapters , to confirm them in the profession and practice of Christ's Doctrine , so as to perse 〈◊〉 unto the end , and so attain that eternal Rest and Happiness , to which it directeth . 3. The parts are two : 1. A Dehortation , ver . 1. 2. An Exhortation , ver . 11. In the Dehortation , we have 1. The thing dehorted from . 2. The Reasons . 3. The determination of the rest . In the exhortation , we may observe : 1. The duty exhorted unto . 2. The Reasons . These are the parts , and this is the method ; the particulars whereof you shall understand hereafter . To enter upon the first part , which is a Dehortation . In every Dehortation , we must observe there is some evil or sin to be avoided , and the duty is to take heed of it . The sin is , to come short , which we cannot do , but by falling off from our profession , which is Apostacy . And the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , signifies [ deficere ] , to fall off ; and is called a failing of the Grace of God ; or , a falling from the Grace of God , Chap. 12. 15. The Sin therefore is Unbelief , which was observed in the former Chapter to be the cause , why the Israelites could not enter into God's Rest. It 's true , that many understand it of the punishment of not entring into Rest ; which is an inevitable consequent , and moral effect of falling away . The duty , is to fear this , and to be very careful to avoid the Sin , that they may avoid the Punishment . This duty lies upon all and every one : For it 's said . [ lest any of you ] ; and not only so , but lest any of you [ seem ] , which the Syriach interprets , lest any of you be [ found ] . Some indeed will have the meaning to be , that they must be so careful to continue in the Faith , that they must not so much as seem to fall off , or make any appearance of Apostacy . Yet there is no necessity so to understand it ; for the principal thing is to take heed of the Sin , which , if committed , will appear , and be judged and punished . This is the duty brought in upon the words of the former Chapter , by this illative [ Therefore ] , as though he should say , Seeing ye have so dreadful an example of God's wrath executed upon your Fathers for their Unbelief ; Take heed of their Sin , lest ye suffer the like Punishment . § . 2. The reason follows from the example of their Fathers applyed to them : The sum of it is this , That , as many of their Fathers having a Promise , not believing , entred not into God's Rest , and some of them believing , did enter : So they having a Promise , if they believe not , shall not enter ; if they believe , shall enter and enjoy the benefit and Rest promised . The ground of this Application is , that they had a Promise ; and this thing promised , is God's Rest : For there was a Rest remaining for them , as well as for their Fathers ; The words are , A Promise being left of entring into his Rest. ] SOme translate and understand the words of leaving , and by unbelief forsaking the Promise ; yet this cannot be the intention of the Apostle , which is made clear by these words , There remaineth therefore a Rest , or Sabbatism , to the People of God , ver . 9. where we have the same simple , though not the same compound Verb. To understand this , we must know , that God promised Rest unto the Israelites in the Land of Canaan , which should be their Inheritance . Therefore some understand the word [ left ] to be taken Metaphorically , as Legacies are left and bequeathed in a Testament unto Children , and so this was left to them by God's Promise . As they had a Promise of a Rest , so these Hebrew Christians had a Promise of a far more excellent Rest as well as they : But then the Question is , where have we this Promise ? and who makes it , and where is it made ? God makes it , and he makes it in the Gospel . Therefore he first proves , that a Promise is left them , as their Fathers had a Promise : For it followeth , Ver. 2. For unto Us was the Gospel preached , as well on to Them. VVHere we have two Propositions : 1. That the Gospel was preached to the Israelites in the Wilderness . 2. It was preached to these Hebrews . 1. It was preached to the Israelites : For as a Promise was made to Abraham , that he in his Seed should inherit the Land of Canaan ; so this Promise was renewed unto them in the Wilderness , and God was ready to perform it , and give them possession . Yet this Promise was made , and to be performed upon certain conditions and duties to be performed by them . And because this Canaan was a Type and Figure of the heavenly Inheritance and eternal Rest to be obtained by Jesus Christ ; therefore the Gospel might be said to be preached to them , though darkly and implicitly . 2. It was preached to these Hebrews , yet more clearly and fully by the Apostles : In this Gospel , as preached to them , the Promises are one principal thing ; and , amongst the Promises , that of eternal Rest is the chiefest , and includes all the rest . This Promise is made for and in consideration of Jesus Christ ; the condition is Faith in Christ , meriting the same , and , after his Sufferings , being entred into this rest : This Promise of Rest upon Faith in Christ already come , is the substance and matter of the Gospel , and the Doctrine thereof is the Gospel in proper sense ; hough the Doctrine preached to the Israelites , where●n Rest was promised upon condition of Faith , was also the Gospel , and might be so called though imperfectly . But what was the issue of this Promise in respect of the Israelites ? It was two-fold , 1. In respect of them who believed not , it did not profit them . 2. In respect of them that believed , they entred into God's rest ; for so the Apostle informs us , But the Word preached did not profit them , not mixed with Faith in them that heard it . In which words may be observed , 1. The Event . 2. The Reason . The Event , It profited not ; the Reason , They believed not the Word : For though the Word be the Power of God unto Salvation in them that believe , yet it 's a Word of eternal death to Unbelievers . Both these , the Event and the Reason , are delivered in two Propositions ; 1. That the Word preached did not profit them . 2. It was not mixed with Faith in them that heard it . The latter is the former in order of Nature : Both include many Propositions , 1. That the Word was preached unto them . 2. They did hear it ; for how should they hear without a Preacher ? Where , by the way , note that the Gospel of Doctrine , here meant , in the Original is called the Word of Hearing , implying , that it was so preached as that they did or might hear it , as they were bound to do . 3. They who heard it did not believe . The Expression in the Original is , that it was not mixed with Faith ; For that whereby the Soul receiveth the Word is Faith , and that whereby it receiveth it effectually is a sincere Faith : For this heavenly Doctrine is like a liquor , it 's an heavenly Water , and is poured upon men by preaching , and is of rare and excellent vertue , when it 's received and digested in the Soul by Faith. For the saying in Philosophy is true in this case , Actus activorum sunt in passo , unito & disposito : For by the Soul rightly disposed , and by Faith receiving this Doctrine , the Doctrine is as it were incorporated into the Soul , and made one with it . 4. This Word not believed did not profit , that is , did not prove any wayes effectual , either for a title to eternal rest , or for the possession of it : For , they not performing the condition , God was no wayes bound to perform his promise to them ; yet this was not all , he was so offended with them , that he pastan irrevocable sentence of exclusion upon them . By all this we may understand , 1. That it 's a great Mercy in God to vouchsafe us the Gospel , and to have it faithfully and constantly preached unto us , so that we may hear it . This of it self is an excellent means of our Conversion , and the mighty Power of God unto Salvation : It 's like the Mann● , and heavenly kind of Food , which being eaten , and received into our Souls , will nourish and preserve us . It 's a divine light to guid us to Heaven : And ●o unto them to whom God denies it , for they sit in darkness and the shadow of death without any hope of Salvation . 2. In this Gospel there are precious Promises , the cheifest whereof is that of entring into God's Rest ; The condition of it is sincere Faith , and continuance therein unto the end . This Rest was merited by Jesus Christ : To believe sincerely , and persevere therein , is the Duty commanded and to be performed ; to enter , is the great Reward . Therefore we should diligently consider , that it promises the greatest good that God did ever give , or Man is capable of , and in this respect is the best Doctrine in the World ; yet , lest Man should presume , he promiseth it upon condition of perseverance , and for the merit of a Saviour . If we do attain it , we do not deserve it ; for the enjoyment of it is a free Gift of God : yet , though God give it freely , yet he gives it to none that are guilty of Unbelief and Apostacy . 3. Men may hear the Gospel preached , and yet receive no benefit by it through their own fault : Meat will feed , if it be eaten ; Water will quench thirst , if we drink it , and receive it into our bodies ; yet if we neither eat the one when it 's set before us , nor drink the other when put into our hands , we may perish for hunger and thirst : So it is spiritually with our Souls , in respect of the Word preached , and heard only our with outward ears , and not received and receiued in our hearts by a true and lively Faith ; So that the cause why the Word of God being so great a Blessing , and so excellent a means of Salvation , doth us no good , is from our selves or in our selves , who either refuse it at the first , or reject it after we have professed it , and promised to live according to it . And this refusal and rejection , as they are hainous sins , not onely against God's just Laws , but his merciful tender of eternal life , so they will prove in the end , the cause of our eternal misery , which shall be greater and more intolerable than those to whom the Word of God was never preached . 4. Therefore it concerns us all to fear this Sin of Apostacy , as we fear loss of heavenly Rest , God's eternal displeasure , Hell , Death , and eternal Punishments . The Apostle by this word [ fear ] implies there is danger of falling away ; and if we consider , there is danger , and the same very great : For if we look upon our weakness , and the remainders of corruption , the deceipt and hypocrisy of our own hearts , the imperfection of our Understanding in heavenly things , the inconstancy of our Wills , our little experience in the wayes of God , and the violence and power of temptation from the Devil and the World ; we may easily see that it 's a wonder , if not a matter of amazement , that we stand one day , one hour yet when we look up towards Heaven , remember our Saviour Christ reigning and victorious , the power of the blessed Spirit , the helps God hath given us , the Promises of assistance , there is great cause of hope ; yet this hope doth not exclude but require our diligent Care , continual Watching , and instant Prayers , without which we cannot , by which we may , hope to stand . Oh , how should we carefully and constantly attend unto God's Word , lay it up in our hearts , make it the Rule of our whole life ; so as to obey his Commands , rely upon his Promises , and fear his threats , and every day call to mind the Profession we have made , and the Promises , whereby we have engaged our selves unto our God ? And seeing so few do fear , it 's no wonder so many fall and come short of this blessed Rest. Most men presume upon the Promise , and neglect the Duty . The Israellres had a Promise , yet did not enter , because they did not believe . § . 3. There follows another distinct Reason from the former , and that is , the great benefit that follows upon the performance of the Duty . Ver. 3. For we , who have believed , do enter into Rest , as he said , As I have sworn in my Wrath , &c. THere is some difficulty to know the coherence of these words with the former , as also of those that follow with these , and amongst themselves . Some say they come in upon the words immediately antecedent , and give a reason why the Word not mixed with Faith did not profit , nor bring the hearers into God's Rest ; For onely we that believe do enter , that is , There is no entrance but by Faith ; but by Faith there is . Others think they propose a reason why we should fear Apostacy , and be careful to persevere , and that from the happy consequent , and the glorious reward which follows upon perseverance in belief , and that is entrance and admittance into God's Rest ; yet they may referr to those words of the former Chapter , For some when they had heard did provoke , howbeit not all that came out of Aegypt by Moses . For Caleb and Joshua heard , and believed , and persevered ; for it 's said of Caleb ( and it 's the Testimony of God ) , That he had another Spirit with him , and followed the Lord fully , Numb . 14. 24. This he applyes to himself and the Hebrews , to this purpose , That though some did not enter because of Unbelief , yet some did believe and did not provoke , and so entred ; so likewise shall we believing do . As the former might cause fear , so this latter might cause hope , and prove a strong motive why we should fear to fall , and be very careful to persevere : So that if we will sum up that which went before , it 's this in brief , To day if we will hear God's voice , we must not harden our hearts ; 1. Because if we do harden them , we shall be shut out of God's Rest , as our rebellious and Apostate Fathers were . 2. If we do not harden our hearts , but believe we shall enter into God's Rest , as Caleb and Joshua did . It follows , [ As he said , I have sworn in my wrath , if they shall enter into my Rest , &c. ] These words serve to inform us of three things : 1. That the Word not believed could not profit , because by Unbelief they provoked God to wrath , and in his Wrath he sware they should not enter into his Rest ; so likewise we should fear to be guilty of Unbelief , because if we prove such , God in his Wrath by the like Oath will exclude us . 2. That as God by this Oath did exclude none but Unbelievers , and brought the Believers into Canaan ; so he will exclude none out of the Rest promised in the Gospel but Unbelievers , and will without all fail bring us believing into our spirituall Canaan . 3. That as the Oath , so the Exhortation used by the Prophet David , implied , that as there was a Rest in the dayes of Joshua , so there is another Rest besides that of the promised Land : Therefore , because it might be doubted what Rest either David meant , or the Gospel doth promise , the Apostle proceeds to prove that there is yet a Rest prepared for God's People under the Gospel , and determines what Rest that is . This is done by distinction ; for he informs us of a three-fold Rest , 1. Of the Sabbath . 2. Of the Land of Canaan . 3. Of the eternal Rest in Heaven . That it was the intention of the Apostle to manifest that there was a Rest for the People of God under the Gospel , and yet that Rest was neither the first of the Sabbath , nor the second of the Land of Canaan , is evident by that which follows , especially Ver 19 , 10. That it was expedient , if not necessary , for him to do thus is as clear , because he had alledged the words of the Psalm , [ To day , if ye will hear his Voice , ] and also said in Ver. 1. That a Promise was left us of entring into his Rest. The first is the Rest of the Sabbath in these words , [ Although the Works were finished from the Foundation of the World. ] And Ver. 4. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day in this wise ; And God did rest the seventh day from all his Works . THE particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned here [ although ] , yet it may signify and be translated otherwise , as it is by the Syriack , Vatablus , and the Vulgar . This passage hath reference to that word especially [ my Rest ] ; for there is a Rest of God promised in the Gospel , yet truly this is not God's Rest from his work of Creation upon the seventh day . That was a Rest , 1. Of God. 2. That Rest wherewith he rested himself , 3. It was his Rest from the works of Creation . 4. It was that Rest which he rested the first seventh day of the World , after he had finished the Works of Heaven and Earth : For this purpose the Apostle alledgeth the words of Moses , Gen. 2. 1 , 2 , 3. This Rest indeed might signify the perpetual Rest of Men and Angels , when they have finished their work of Obedience , and God might institute the Sabbath for this end : Yet though this was a Rest of God , yet it was not the Rest implyed in the Psalm , not that which is promised in the Gospel : That it was not , he makes plain Ver. 5. And in this place again , If ye shall enter into my Rest. THat is , there is a second Rest long after promised to Israel , and it is that which he gave them in the Land of Canaan , this the Psalmist intends in these words , [ As I sware in my wrath , if they shall enter into my Rest , ] yet this is not that which is promised in the Gospel : This he makes evident by the words following , Ver. 6. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein , and they to whom it was first preached , entred not in because of Unbelief : Ver. 7. Again he limiteth a certain day , saying in David , To day , after so long a time ; as it is said , To day , if ye will hear his Voice , harden not your hearts . Ver. 8. For if Jesus had given them Rest , then would he not afterward have spoken of another Rest. THis part of the Chapter is more easily understood , if we reduce it to Propositions , which are these , 1. That though there was a Rest of the Land of Canaan , whereinto some must enter and did enter ; yet a certain day is limited and appointed by David of entring into another Rest. 2. This day was appointed long after the entrance of Israel into the Land of Canaan . 3. The words whereby another day of another Rest is appointed and promised are these , To day if you will hear his voice harden not your hearts . 4. If Jesus or Joshua had brought Israel into that Rest which David speaks of , there had been no need of speaking of , and promising another Rest so long after . The Apostle infers from all this , that there is a Rest yet remaining for the People of God , though it be neither the Rest of God from the Works of Creation , nor the Rest in the Land of Canaan : For the Scriptures mention but three Rests or Sabbatisms , the first of Creation , the second of Canaan , the third of Heaven ; and this last is that which is meant by the Psalmist , and promised in the Gospel . And he further adds , that this Rest had some affinity with that of Canaan , and with that of God's Sabbath : For , Ver. 10. He that is entred into his Rest hath ceased from his own Works , as God did from his . VVHich words may be understood two wayes : 1. Of the Title and Right to enter into this Rest ; or , 2. Of the actual enjoyment and full possession . In the former respect it 's certain that no Man can have so much as a Title or any hope of this eternal Rest , till he cease from and forsake his own Works of Sin by true Repentance . In the latter respect , which is more probably intended , no Man can actually enjoy the Rest of Heaven , untill by perseverance he hath finished all his Work of Evangelical Obedience ; as God did not keep his Sabbath till he had fully finished all his works of Creation . This is a Doctrine full of sweet and heavenly Comfort , That Christ hath purchased an eternal glorious Sabbath ; God hath promised it in the Gospel , and we who by the Sanctification of the Spirit persevere in our Christian Profession and Practice , shall certainly enjoy it fully and for ever . All men desire Rest , yet it 's not to be found on Earth , but in Heaven ; not in the Creature , but in God : Happy they which know the Excellency and Glory of this Rest , and with all diligence and constancy use the means to attain it by following the Doctrine of the great Prophet Jesus Christ unto the end . § . 4. Here comes in the Exhortation to the great Duty , in Ver. 11. Let us labour therefore to enter into that Rest , lest any man fall after the same Example of Unbelief . THese words may be considered , 1. In their Coherence . 2. In themselves . 1. The Coherence is implyed in the Particle and Illative Conjunction [ therefore ] , which informeth us , that this Exhortation is a Conclusion inferred upon some antecedent Premisses , and that Proposition of the Apostle , [ We which have believed do enter into Rest , ] Ver. 3. Which 1. Implies , that there is a Rest for us under the Gospel . 2. Affirms , that they who believe do enter . The former he manifests at large , that there is a Rest , besides that of Creation , and that of the Land of Canaan , remaining for the People of God : The latter is plain out of the Psalm : and he takes it for granted , that such as hear and believe shall enter , and onely such have admission . Hence he inferrs , That if there be an eternal glorious Rest prepared and promised to be enjoyed by Believers , then it 's our Duty to labour to enter : This is the Connexion . The Exhortation considered in it self , with the rest of the Chapter to the end , doth 1. Propose the Duty . 2. Urge the performance upon effectual Reasons . The Duty is , to labour to enter into that Rest , where we have A Rest. Entring into it . Labouring to enter . What the Rest is , you have heard before : The entrance is to acquire and attain the actual possession and full enjoyment ; and that it may be considered , 1. As a Duty of man , and then it is the use of all means ordained of God for the attainment . 2. As a gift and gracious Work of God admitting and receiving us unto the enjoyment : yet , because man should not mistake , by thinking it an easie matter to enter at his will and pleasure ; he here implies , that it 's a work of labour , of difficulty , of striving ; it 's an entring in at the strait Gate : and we must labour , use all our power , and put our strength to the utmost . For this is the greatest business which we have to do in this Life , and our will must be most firmly resolved and bent upon it , our understanding intended , and , as it were , set upon the rack in all the operations thereof ; and our executive power exercised to the utmost degree . For out wit , will , and power , and all the faculties of the Soul and Body must be taken up continually in this work ; as the most necessary and excellent of all others . The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , study ye : And , as one well observe , [ Studium est vehemens applicatio axim ad aliquid agendum ] , Study is a vehement application of the mind to do something . Yet that which is matter of lamentation , and a sad presage of the eternal ruine of many Souls , is the great neglect of this Duty ; for few go seriously about it . The vigonr and strength both of our Souls and Bodies is imployed , and wholly spent in seeking the vanities of the World. § . 5. The Reasons , whereupon the performance of this Duty is urged , are three : 1. From the sad and woful Consequent . 2. From the severity of the all-seeing Judge . 3. From the help and assistance of our High-Priest . The reason from the sad Consequent is expressed thus ; Lest any fall after the same example of Unbelief . ] THis implies , 1. There is danger , and an evil to be feared . 2. The evil is falling . 3. All and every one is in this danger , [ lest any fall . ] 4. Lest any should sleight the danger , he instanceth in the Israelites , who fell by Unbelief : To fall , may be a Sins or a Punishment . If a Sin , it 's Apostacy , which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifie ; in this , as in many other places , Rebellion and Apostacy : If a Punishment , it 's exclusion out of God's Rest , with all the miseries that accompany it ; so it seems here to be taken . By this , as by many other places , we easily understand , how we must conceive of Examples , and what use we must make of them . If they be examples of Punishments , we must account them as executions of God's Laws , and especially of his Comminations : The use that we must make of them is , to avoid those Sins , for which they were inflicted : and to be the more careful in this particular , because , by them , we may easily know that God's Laws are not only words , and his Threats only wind . It 's not with God as it 's often with Men , who will threaten more then they will or can do ; Thence the Saying , Threatned men live long . But here it 's otherwise , God's Word is his Deed , and his Punishments threatned against Apostates are unavoidable . They are not made unadvisedly , and out of rash passion ; but according to the eternal Rules of Wisdom and Justice : And let every one know , that that God that spareth neither Men , nor Angels , nor his own chosen and beloved People , will not spare Us. Therefore as we desire to escape this fearful Punishment , let us labour to enter into that Rest which God hath promised . § . 6. The second Reason is , from the severity of the Judge : For , Ver. 12. The Word is quick and powerful , and sharper then a two-edged Sword , &c. ] TO understand this Text , we need not doubt whether by [ Word ] , is meant the Scripture and Doctrine of the Gospel , or Christ Jesus , which is the Word of God made Flesh ; or the penal decrees of the Gospel : For by Word of God , is meant the Law of God , with his judicial Sentence . For God is here brought in as a most perfect Law-giver , and a most severe and exact Judge . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , [ Word ] is often taken for a Law ; as the ten Laws or Commandments are in the Hebrew called Ten-words , Exod. 20. 1. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dabar , both in Chaldee , Syriack , and Arabick , doth sometimes signify to Order and Govern ; and because Government is by Laws and Judgment , therefore [ Word ] signifies both : This is more evident from Chap. 2. 2. Where you read , [ If the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast , and every Transgression and Disobedience received a just recompence of Reward . ] Where , by Word , is meant the Law without all doubt , as you heard before ; wherein there were not only Precepts but Comminations , according to which Judgment did proceed and was executed . By Word , therefore , is meant the Law and Doctrine of God by Christ , wherein we have not only precepts and prohibitions , but promises and threats ; and according to these God will judge every Man , to whom the Gospel shall be preached . This is a defect in humane Laws , that they cannot reach many Offendors , and leave the conscience exempt from humane Tribunals ; and this is an imperfection in many Judges , that they cannot attain the perfect and clear knowledg of many Causes brought before them ; or if they know them , will not impartially punish them . The Apostle removes these defects , and imperfections from this Law-giver and Judge , this Law , and this Judgment . For the Word , or Law , of God is quick and powerful . The latter word explains the forn●er ; for those things that are living , are said to be active in opposition to such things which are dead , which have lost their power ; and to be lively and very active , are many times the same and this signifies the efficacy and active power of this Law. This active vigour , and efficacy , is illustrated by a Similitude : For the Law is compared to a two-edged Sword , which being used by a powerful and skilful hand , doth manifest how sharp and cutting it is , for it pierceth quickly into the inward parts , and divideth between Soul and Spirit , and the Bones and Marrow , which are most nearly united , and more hidden and secret in living Bodies . So that in the Similitude we have two acts of a Sword , or any such cutting Instrument : The first is , dividing things most nearly united . The second , discovering things most secret . There cannot be any more perfect division or discovery in any dissection or anatomy then is here expressed . The reddition of this Comparison seems to be made in these words , And is a discerner of the thoughts and the intents of the heart . ] For this cannot agree to a Sword , or any cutting Instrument ; and therefore the meaning must be , that as a Sword doth divide things so closely united , and discover things so secretly hidden in Bodies ; so doth this Law in the Soul , especially when it 's applyed by the Judge unto the case of sinful Man , to be determined by him . The most hidden things in Man , as a subject of God's Judgment , are the intents and thoughts of the heart ; and they seem to be closely and inseparably conjoyned both with the heart , which is the most intimate thing in Man ; ( for cor intimum honunis ) , and also one with another . We need not curiously explain the words , [ thoughts and intents of the heart ] , or distinguish between them : The heart is the Soul of Man , endued with a faculty of understanding and willing such things as are the proper objects of it . The Soul is in continual motion and action , framing and moulding things with in it self : Thoughts and intents are the secret acts , both speculative and practical , of the understanding and rational appetite . The words turned [ thoughts and intentions ] , may signify apprehensions , conceptions , judgments noetical or dianoetical , consultations about mens intents concerning the ends , decrees , and all other acts of the Soul , and may here be so understood . And many of these acts and operations are most secret and concealed ; and , in respect of them , God saith , The heart of man is deceitful above all things , and desperately wicked ; who can know it ? Jer. 17. 9. Of this heart , and these motions , it 's said , That the Word of God is the discerner . For this Law must needs discern them , otherwise it could not discover the pravity and rectitude of them , as it must do , if it will be a perfect Rule of Judgment : The word [ discerner ] may signify a perfect judicial knowledg . To understand this the better , you must observe , 1. That when it 's said , the Word or the Law is a discerner , it 's meant , that God in his Word discovers and distinguisheth these . 2. That in Judgment he will as clearly discern all moral acts and operations of the Soul as agreeable or disagreeable to this Law , and will judge the party accordingly . 3. That he , by execution , will make this Word effectual to the eternal confusion of disobedient and rebellious Wretches . And lest any should think that something might be concealed from the Judge , it 's added , Ver. 13. Neither is there any Creature , that is not manifest in his sigh● ; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him , with w● on we have to do . ] THis place informs Us of the perfect knowledg of God , as He is Judge ; without which , his Judgment cannot be just and perfect . It presupposeth that perfection and attribute of God's understanding , whereby he fully and clearly knoweth himself , and all things else . In this place , it 's an exercise of that perfection restrained to things created ; and especially to matters of Judgment , as all Persons and Causes of Men to whom the Gospel is made known , as to be judged by him . Where we may observe , 1. The object , [ all and every thing ] . For it 's said [ not any thing ] and [ all things ] . 2. The manifestation and clear representation of all in general ; and every thing in particular . For there is [ not any Creature that is not manifest ] , and [ all things are naked and open . We need not here stand upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , turned here [ opened ] . For in it there is a Metonymy and a Metaphor ; whether the Metaphor be taken from a body laid upon the back , or flead and excoriated , or divided through the back-bone , it all comes to one ; for it signifies some thing made manifest . 3. They are thus manifest in his sight , naked and opened to him ; Which implies two things , 1. That they are manifest , naked , opened ; that is , very clearly , most evidently and fully discovered to him . 2. That if they be so clearly and fully manifest in his sight and to his eyes , he must needs know them fully and clearly . The sum of this is , that God knows all things fully and clearly ; and therefore cannot be ignorant of any Man , or any thing in any Man , who must have to do with him ; that is , be judged by him . This is the matter of this Text considered in it self , and is the same with that of the Prophet , I , the Lord , search the Heart , and try the Reins , even to give every Man according to his ●ays ; and the fruit of his doings , Jer. 17. 10. The force of it , as a reason , is this , That seeing we must be judged according to a just Law , by a most exact impartial and all-knowing Judge ; it concerns us much to labour , and use all means to persevere . For if we neglect this work , or perform it sleightly or secretly in our deceitful hearts turn away and depart from God , he will one day summon 〈◊〉 to Judgment ; we must appear before his Tribunal , he will fully and clearly discover the persidiousness of our hearts , shut us out of his eternal Rest , and cast us into everlasting Flames : and though now we will not believe it , yet then we shall find it to our woe ; what a fearful thing it is to ●isobey the Laws of this most Just All-knowing and Almighty God. Men now do little regard the Word of God , and his Commands , Promises , Threatnings ; fear not to transgress his decrees , seldom seriously think of that Day , when all their baseness and treachery shall be discovered to their everlasting shame , confusion , and destruction : This will be the end of such as do not consider with whom they have to do . § . 7. The third Reason is from the Priest-hood of Christ : For Chap. 3. ver . 1. we are exhorted to consider the Apostle , and the High-Priest of our Profession . He hath formerly pressed the duty of perseverance , upon the consideration of his Apostleship and prophetical excellency , and here urgeth it again upon the consideration of his Priest-hood . This is the first connexion of these words with ver . 1. of the third Chapter : Again , he seemed in the two former Reasons taken from the sad consequent of Apostacy , and the severity of the Judge , to set before them the [ Arduum ] , or difficulty of the performance ; and in these words , the [ possibile ] , that though it be difficult , yet it may be done by means of our great High-Priest . The former arguments tended to work fear , this to cause hope ; the former well considered , might make them careful and diligent ; this last might encourage and give them comfort . This is the second Coherence with the Text immediately antecedent : But the words must be considered in themselves , before we can understand the force of the Reason contained in them . For this end we must take notice that the subject matter of them is the Priest-hood of Christ , or Christ our great High-Priest , Jesus the Son of God ; And concerning this High-Priest , He 1. Affirmeth some things . 2. From the things affirmed , inferrs the main Conclusion . He affirms of him , 1. That he is entred into Heaven . 2. Is very merciful to us and compassionate . 3. Will prove very helpful . The conclusion inferred , is , To hold fast our Profession ; Seeing Christ , as Priest , is the subject of the Text and this last part of the Chapter , let 's hear what he writes . Ver. 14. Seeing then , that we have a great High-Priest , that is passed into the Heavens , Jesus the Son of God. ] Where we may observe , 1. The eminency of the person . 2. The excellency of his Office. 3. His Relation to us . THe person , is Jesus of Nazareth , the Son of the Virgin Mary , conceived at Nazareth , born at Bethlehem , and Crucified at Jerusalem . This Jesus is Son of God , not only because of his supernatural Conception and Birth , but his eternal Generation . For that Word , which was from everlasting , and by which the World was made , was made Flesh , and did assume that humane Nature conceived by the Holy Ghost , and born of the Virgin Mary , and possesseth the same inseparably and eternally . This is the eminency of the Person , who is Superiour to all Men and Angels : The excellency of his Office is , that he was a Priest ; and not only so , but an High-Priest as Aaron was above other Priests , and President in all matters of Divine Worship , and might perform some sacerdotal Acts , which none but he might do . Many High-Priests were of that Dignity , that they were equal with Kings : But he was not only High-Priest , but a great High-Priest above all others , as Universal and Supream Pontiffe of Heaven and Earth , in comparison of whom all other Priests , even the highest , are but shadows . This is the excellency of his Office : His Relation to us is this , that we have him , that is , He is our great High-Priest in whom we , who professe our Faith in him , have a special Interest ; so that He , as a Priest , doth officiate for us , and his excellent Office was instituted of God for our eternal good ; no Unbelievers can be said to have him in this manner . Of this great High-Priest it 's affirmed , that He is passed into the Heavens : This entrance into Heaven was shadowed by the High-Priests entrance into the inmost sacrary of the Tabernacle or Temple , which was called the Holy of Holiest . The reason why this , which is here first affirmed of him , is mentioned , may well be this , because by this he hath not only obtained and taken possessi●● of this eternal Rest , wherein we must seek to enter , but by this means hath procured an entrance for us . For where he is , there we shall be ; and the Head and Members must be and abide together : Therefore if we labour and strive , we cannot doubt of entrance , seeing he hath made a passage open for us . This , of it self , is a great encouragement , that our High-Priest is passed into the heavenly Rest , not only for himself , but also in our behalf , even to assure us , that if we follow him , trust in him , and labour to enter , that we shall not come short : yet this is not all , the encouragement is yet greater For it followeth , Ver. 15. For we have not an High-Priest , which cannot be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities : but was in all points tempted like as we are , yet without Sin. I Will not here mention the principal Exhortation expressed in the former verse , but reserve it to the last . For it is usual , upon several Reasons delivered , to repeat the exhortation : In the words , we may observe two things ; 1. Christ's merciful disposition towards us . 2. The Reason of it . His mercy is set down negatively , in that he is not sensless of our Infirmities , but is one that will be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities . To be inwardly affected and moved with the miseries of others , doth argue an excellent temper of spirit , and is a proper act of that we call mercy and compassion ; and it issues from goodness and love . Christ , as God , is infinitely merciful , and mercy it self ; and in his Word doth signify how readily and abundantly he is inclined unto it , and he would have man to know it . And as Man , none so merciful as He ; and that God might manifest what store of his mercy he had for sinful Man , He became Man , nay miserable and mortal Man ; and , because experimental knowledg and sense is the most effectual , therefore , as Man , he was willing to Suffer , and be Tempted . And this is the Reason , why he is so sensible of our sad condition , because [ he was tempted in all points like unto us . ] This is that wonderful way , which God by his profound Wisdom contrived , to make his mercy greater , and in some sort more then Infinite : He would have a kind of knowledg of man's infirmities , which , as God and infinite , he could never have . That which makes us an object of compassion , is our infirmity ; that which makes him so sensible of our condition , is , That he was tempted in all points like us , yet alwayes without Sin. Infirmity is sometimes weaknesse , and so the word signifies ; sometime Sickness and Diseases , which cause weaknesse . The one is opposed to strength , and the other to eucrasy and health ; and both are twofold , either of Body or Soul : and here is meant the weakness and distemper of the Soul , and may be Sin or Punishment , which makes our Case very miserable . For sin taken either for native or acquired corruption and imperfection , doth fearfully weaken the Soul ; because it doth not only incline to actual sin , but makes us unable to resist temptation : so that we are easily overcome by Satan a potent , subtle , malicious enemy ; who will not only violently , but continually assault us . This is the reason , why our sins are so many , and we so often and so halnously guilty , and have continually great need of mercy and pardon ; which cannot be obtained without the effectual intercession of this righteous Advocate , and merciful High-Priest . And how merciful must he needs be , that was tempted himself ? For he was tempted in all points like unto us , but without Sin ; Where two things are observed , 1. That his temptations were in all points like ours . 2. That yet he was without Sin. Temptation may be taken for Sufferings , or for an inducement to Sin , as directly tending to sin ; and having a power or causality moving us thereunto . As for Christ's Sufferings , they were exactly like unto Ours : To that end , he took a Body and Soul , and continued for a while in a state of Humiliation , whereby he was obnoxious unto them , and did actually fall under them , and felt them . As for temptation to sin , it 's inward , outward ; inwardly he was not tempted , outwardly he was : Of us it 's truly said , that every man is tempted , when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed . But in him there was no such corruption , lust , or inward concupiscence ; yet he was outwardly vehemently assaulted by Men and Devils , as much as ever any Man was , and was tempted to the same kind of sins , to which , we being tempted to , do commit . This appears from the History of the temptation and passion ; yet , though we being tempted , do often sin , yet he being often and violently tempted , never sinned , never yielded to the temptation ; but alwayes resisted , and alwayes overcame . This is a great comfort to us , that he never sinned ; for , because of this , his Intercession for us , is the more effectual with God , and the more acceptable unto him : For a guilty person pleading for guilty persons , could not have made reconciliation for their sins . As it is a comfort , so it 's a rare example for us to follow , that when we are tempted , we should use all means to avoid Sin as he did . § . 8. But let it be granted Christ is so merciful an High-Priest , and ( though entred into Heaven ) so sensible of our miseries , what benefit do we receive by him ? This the Apostle resolves in the words following . Ver. 16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the Throne of Grace , that we may obtain mercy , and find grace in time of need . IN which words , we may observe , 1. That , as we may , so we ought to come boldly unto the Throne of Grace . 2. That coming thus , we may speed , and attain that which we desire . That which in the first Proposition is presupposed , is , that God sits in the Throne of Grace : There is a Throne of Justice , and a Throne of Grace . If He look upon Man according to the Law of works , he must needs sit upon the Throne of Justice as a severe Lord , and strict Judge to condemn us . But being propitiated and attoned by the Blood of Christ , his Throne is the Throne of Grace and Mercy : In this phrase he alludes unto the propitiatory or seat of mercy above the Ark in the Tabernacle or Temple , which did typify the propitiation to be made by the Death of Christ , upon which accepted of God ; man's Sins become pardonable , and God reconcileable ; and without this reconciliation , it 's no coming near this Throne . If once it be made a Throne of Grace , then we may come boldly unto it : For it 's not like Mount Sinai , a Mount of Darknesse , Thunder , Lightning and Terrour ; but Mount Zion , a Mount of Light , Grace and Glory . So that now we need not fear God's Wrath , but hope in his Mercy : And though we may justly be afraid to approach , if we look upon our selves ; yet when we consider that Divine Justice is satisfied by our High-Priest's Sacrifice , and that he is the admissional of Heaven , ready to take us by the hand , and bring us to his Father , and plead our cause with his Blood , then we may come boldly , and ought so to do . To come , is to pray , or to approach for to pray ; to come with boldness , is in the Name of Christ to pray with great confidence , not onely to be admitted , but to be heard for his sake . For by him we have accesse unto that Grace wherein we stand , Rom. 5. 2. By him we have accesse by one Spirit to the Father , Ephes. 2. 18. And in him we have boldness and access with confidence , in the Faith of him , cap. 3. 12. But suppose we come , what may we expect , or what shall we receive ? [ — We may obtain mercy , and find Grace for help in the time of need . ] All our time on Earth is a time of need , for we alwayes have need of help ; yet somtimes we have greater need than at other seasons . The word in the Original is [ seasonable help ] help in due season , and then it 's most seasonable when most needful : To afford this help must need be an act of Mercy and Grace , whereby sins past are pardoned , and power of Sanctification , with assistance to prevent sin for time to come , obtained : And without this help , mercy , pardon , and assistance , it 's impossible to enter into God's eternal Rest , but by it we assuredly may ; So that if we persevere , and so enter , it 's to be ascribed to that Grace and Mercy which we obtain by Prayer ; if we come short , the fault will be our own , who do not seek help by our continual and instant Supplications in the Name of Christ. To understand the force of this , as a Reason delivered in these three last Verses , we must call to remembrance , 1. What the Duty is , which is , to labour to enter into Rest , and to hold fast our Profession , which is nothing else but perseverance . 2. We must consider , that it 's taken from Christ as a Priest , and it 's very effectual : For if 1. He be our great High-Priest . 2. Passed into the Heavens , and hath taken possession of that eternal Rest , and also in our behalf . 3. So merciful and sensible of our Infirmities . 4. So ready to procure us help , when we seek it by Prayer before the Throne of Grace ; then let us not onely with all diligence , but with greatest hope and confidence , labour to persevere . For a conclusion of these four first Chapters let us observe , 1. That the Subject of them is Christ's Prophetical Office as most excellent , and above that of other Prophets , Angels , Moses . 2. That though this be the principal and intended Subject , yet he speaks something of his Regal and Sacerdotal Function ; yet onely upon the by , and with some reference to his Prophetick Faculty . 3. That the principal Duty which he urgeth so strongly upon us from his Prophetical Excellency , is perseverance in the Profession of his blessed Doctrine , and the Observation of his Laws , given by him as a Regal Prophet and Apostle . 4. In the pressing of this Duty , he insisteth upon the latter part of Psal. 95. where he ● . Sexs forth the Example most clearly . 2. Applies it to these Hebrrews . 5. The last reason is taken from his Priest-hood , which is handled and brought in with such Art , that it not onely servs for to perswade us to attend to his Prophetical Doctrine and continue in it , but also to prepare and make way for his admirable discourse following , concerning his eternal Priesthood , and is an imperfect Transition . CHAP. V. Ver. I. For every High-Priest taken from among men , is ordained for men in things pertaining to God , that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins . § . 1. BEfore I enter upon the Chapter it self , the connexion of this part with the former must be considered ; and I find the Agreement to be two-fold , 1. General . 2. More particular . The general is very clear ; for after that in the former four Chapters the Apostle had set forth the Excellency of Christ's Prophetical Office , wherein he was far above the former Prophets , Angels , and Moses ; and thereupon had exhorted to perseverance in the Profession of his Doctrine declared in the Gospel , and pressed the performance of the Duty , both from the fearful Punishment of Apostacy , and the glorious Reward of Constancy : He now in this Chapter enters upon a discourse of his Priest-hood , as ●ar more excellent than that of Aaron's ; so that there was all the Reason in the World to persevere in respect of this Office likewise ; This is the general Method . The particular seems to be implyed in the Particle [ For ] , which many times is a causal Conjunction , and renders a reason of something formerly delivered : For , seeing he had formerly affirmed Christ to be an High-Priest , here he proves him to be such indeed , and to have the Nature , Properties , Qualities , and Power of such an Officer . This particular refers to the three last Verses of the former Chapter , which made way for this discourse that follows . § . 2. As the occasion of the former Doctrine was an high conceipt which the Hebrews had of the Law , as delivered to them by Prophets , Angels , Moses ; so the occasion of what follows was their high esteem of Aaron , and the Levitical High-Priest . The Scope is to demonstrate the Excellency of Christ's Priest-hood as far above that of the Law , and perswade them to continue in their Faith in him , as so excellent an High-Priest ! as far above all others . The Method is this , 1. He delivers his Doctrine . 2. Confirms it . 3. Applies it . The Doctrine is this , Christ is a perfect High-Priest , more excellent than Aaron , or any of the Levitical Order . The Confirmation is from his Calling and Order , his Ministration , and his excellent Sacrifice , and this continues from this Chapter to the 19th . Verse of the tenth : After this confirmation finished , he proceeds in cap. 10. 19. to Application , which is made principally by way of Exhortation . In this Chapter the Apostle doth 1. Manifest Christ to be a Priest for ever , according to the the Order of Melchizede●k , 2. Conceiving these Hebrews hardly capable of that discourse concerning this excellent and eternal Priest-hood , which he intended , he i●proves their Ignorance , caused by their great negligence . In the first part , he 1. Informs us what an High-Priest in general is . 2. Shews , that none can be a lawful Priest who is not called . 3. Proves Christ to be called , and by Commission from Heaven made an High-Priest , and invested with a Sacerdotal Power . But to proceed unto particulars , and enter upon the Text , which gives us a description of an High-Priest , and lets us know , that he is an Officer in matters of Religion . 2. That his Work is to offer Gifts and Sacrifices for Sin. 3. He must be of a mercifull disposition , and inclined to compassionate the People , as having Infirmities of his own . 4. The end whereat he must aim to make God propitious , and procure his favour for the remission of the Peoples Sin. He is an Officer in matters of Religion : To be an Officer is the general , wherein he agrees with all others in any Office ; to be such in matters of Religion , differenceth him from all Magistrates and Civil Officers . Before we handle the parts of the Description , we must take notice first what the definitum , or thing described , is , and it 's said to be an High-Priest . Priest-hood , if we consult the Greek or Latine Name , is a sacred Office ; the word [ Cohen ] in Hebrew also is an Officer , either sacred or civil , and comes of a Verbe in Piel , which signifie , to minister or act in political or religious matters ; and such a Person may be a Magistrate or Minister , a Prince or a Priest : For anciently Princes were Priests , and Priests Princes ; so Melchizedeck was King and Priest ; and such , if we may believe some ancient Authours , were the first-born of Families , and had the Power and Charge of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government in the Family . This Office is a place of power and dignity : Yet there usually was an inequality between Priests ; for some were high-Priests , some inferiour , and the High-Priest was President over the rest , of greater dignity and power , and could and might officiate in some things , wherein the inferiour could not : In this place , the thing or Person described is an High-Priest , though many of these things might agree to other Priests . And first , he is an Officer : For [ He is one taken from among men , and ordained for men , ] By this , with that which follows , we may easily understand , that the Priest here described is a Man , and not an Angel , and an Officer for men , and for sinful men . 1. He must be taken from among man , which implies not onely that he must be a Man , but of the same ranck and quality with other men , who are no Officers , no Priests , but of no Priests made Priests ; yet they should be duly qualified , and fit for the place , how else can they officiate as they ought to do ? This phrase [ to be taken from among men ] we find Exod. 28. 1. where Moses is commanded to take Aaron and his Sons , from the midst or from among the children of Israel ; and a like Expression is used , Levit. 8. 1. when Aaron must be consecrated . This is a kind of election and designation of the person , whereby he is singled out of , and separated from , the rest , to be put in another and higher rank and order . This designation is made by Lot , or Birth-right , or Election , or divine immediate determination ; for here there must be no Usurpation : After the Person is once designed and determined upon , he must be constituted , ordained , set over other men for their good ; for the end of all Officers is , to seek and endeavour the temporal or spiritual good of those to whom they are made Officers . For though God can do all things immediately himself , yet he is pleased to make use of man , and by man communicate his Blessings to man. This constitution is by a Mandate of him or them who can constitute an Officer , and by this Mandate is signified the Constitutor's Will : The effect of it is to give the Person constituted , Power , and to bind him to officiate : For every Officer by his Ordination receivs a power and a charge to do the Works of his place : And as the power and charge are many times great , so the Constitution is made with solemn Rites , which are used in the Inauguration of Princes , and Consecration of Priests . This is the general Nature of a Priest , he is an Officer ; Yet there be Civil and there be Religious Officers ; but a Priest is an Officer in Religion , and the things of God : For we have to do with Men , and we converse with God. The Subject therefore wherein a Priest is imployed is , things pertaining to God ; for he is the Supream Lord , to whom all Glory , Service , and Obedience are due in the highest degree ; upon him we all alwayes do wholly depend , both for our Being and Happiness both spiritual and temporal . And though all men must worship him , yet there are publick Services which none but a Priest may perform , so as to be accepted . Every one doth not know how God will be served , neither , if they knew it , are they fit or qualified for it . Therefore God ordained Priests who knew his Will , his instituted Worship , and how it should be performed , and to come to God without them was in vain ; and for any other to officiate in that place , is an Usurpation , and a great Offence . By this Office God did signify , that sinful Man cannot come near unto him without a Mediator : And it was an unspeakable Mercy of God to institute such Services as he requires at Man's hands , and to ordain such Persons for the performance as he would accept . * As Religion , so Priest-hood in general , sin presupposed , seems to be of the Law of Nature : For no Nation is without Religion , no Religion without a Priest ; therefore we read in Authours so much of Temples , Altars , Priest ; and amongst these , High-Priests , and Supream Pontiffs : Yet there may be Officers in Religion who are no Priests , but subservient unto them ; therefore we must know what is the proper Work of a Priest , which is the next thing whereof the Apostle informs us , in these words , [ That he may offer both Gifts and Sacrifices for Sins . ] The Law and Ligh : of Nature dictate unto us , that something must be offered unto God in acknowledgment of his Supream Dominion ; and because men have their Sins , and are guilty , and God is just , and hath power of life and death , of punishment and pardon , therefore Sacrifices must be offered to satisfy his Justice , avert his Wrath ; and procure his favour . But by what Gifts and Sacrifices God may be propitiated , and in what manner they must be offered , the Law of Nature will not teach us : These things must be revealed and instituted from Heaven , and so must the Priest-hood and party officiating too ; for every one must not offer these Gifts and Sacrifices , either for himself or others , but such as God shall either mediately or immediately design and qualify for this Work. § . 3. Thus you have heard , 1. That a Priest is an Officer in Religion . 2. That his proper Work is to offer Gifts and Sacrifices . The third thing is the disposition which is most suitable to his place , 3. He must be merciful , and inclined to compassion as one who himself hath his Infirmity : For it followeth , Ver. 2. Who can have Compassion on the ignorant , and on them that are out of the way ; for that he himself also is compassed with Infirmity . THis disposition and affection is so necessary , that no man without it , is fit to be a Priest : For this reason God contrived a way whereby Christ , after he was risen from the dead , ascended into Heaven , obtained fulness of joy in his presence , and pleasures for evermore at his right hand , might be sensible of Man's misery . To understand the words of the Text , we must consider , 1. What it is to have Compassion . 2. Upon whom he must have Compassion . 3 , Why he should be the more compassina●e . To have Compassion , is to be inwardly affected with the misery of another , so as to be moved and inclined , so far as we are able , to help , relieve , and comfort them . Therefore , saith one , Misericordia est ●iseria aliena in corde nostro : The word in the Original is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] to suffer moderately , or rather in some certain measure . 1. He must suffer , for he that is merciful doth suffer with them that suffer , and mourn with them that mourn ; for we should be like fellow Members of one Body : and as there is a Sympathy or fellow-feeling amongst the Members of one Body ; so there should be amongst us . Yet as our own Passions and Affections should be moderated by the rules of Reason , so must this Compassion be ; it must neither be boundless nor irregular : For there be such hainous Offenders , and abominable Sinners , that they are no fit Subjects either of the Mercy of God or Man , and we may exceed in our Compassion . Therefore the Rules of divine Wisdom and Justice must regulate and measure the same , otherwise we may make our selves unfit to officiate for others ; yet this was seldom the fault of Priests , whose Compassion was usually defective . 2. The parties to be pityed , and the Subject of the Priest's Compassion , were the ignorant , and such as are out of the way . Ignorance and Errour are often taken for sins , yet not such as are capital and crying crimes , but Offences committed out of ignorance , infirmity , and violence of temptation , for which under the Law Sacrifices were prescribed , and accepted upon the Confession of the Delinquents ; for there was no Sacrifice to expiate capital sins , for they must be punished by Death . They which were ignorant , and seduced out of the way , willing to confess , and desirous of pardon , were to be pitied , as a fit Subject of the High-Priest's Compassion . 3. The reason why he should the more have Compassion on these , was because he was compassed himself on every hand with the like infirmity , and might easily fall into the like Sin. This should make him the more careful to make Reconciliation for them , as for himself , because he might fall into the same condition ; and it was the Wisdom of God to make such kind of Persons to be Priests . § . 4. The end of the Priest's officiating , and his Compassion , was to make Reconciliation for his own and their sins . For Ver. 3. And by reason hereof he ought , as for the People , so also for himself , to offer for Sins . ] THe reason , why he must be merciful and sensible of the guilt and misery of the People , was , that he might offer for their Sins ; and because he was compassed with infirmity , and had his own Sins , therefore he must offer for himself . His own infirmity and sin might move him both to pity them , and also seek their pardon , as his own . To offer for Sins , is , to do that upon which God hath promised to pardon ; and remission is the very end and ultimate effect of all propitiatory Sacrifices , and the Service of all lawful Priests . Before I conclude this part of the Chapter , it may be expedient to resolve two Questions . The first is , Whether it be necessary and essential to a Priest to have sins of his own , for which he must offer ? The second is , Whether in the times of the Gospel , after Christ had offered his Sacrifice , and was confirmed an eternal Priest in Heaven ; there be many persons properly called Priests , and such as are here described ? To both , I answer Negatively . For , 1. It 's not essential to a Priest to have sins of his own , or that he be a Sinner : For Christ himself is a most perfect and compleat Priest , and yet without Sin ; yet he is merciful , and as sensible of our miseries as any ever was . And this indeed was a necessary qualification in a Priest , that must make reconciliation for Man ; and he that is unmerciful , is no ways sit to be a Priest for guilty Wretches : yet a Priest may be merciful , and yet without sin , though there never was any such Priest in the World , but Jesus Christ , the Son of the living God. For the second , there never was , in proper sense , since Christ's Ascension into Heaven , in the Church-Christian , any such Priest , as is here described . And it 's observable , that such as officiate in the Church-Christian , and minister in holy things , are in the New Testament called Ministers , Elders , Bishops , Pastors , Teachers , Men of God , Apostles , Evangelists , Prophets , but never styled [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Priests , much less High-Priest ; neither are there any Temples , Altars , Sacrifices in the time of the Gospel , that are properly such . Some of the Church of Rome do affirm , The Masse to be a Sacrifice , and the same with that which Christ offered upon the Cross , and propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead . Yet seeing they confess , 1. That it 's [ incru●ntum ] unbloody , therefore it must needs essentially differ from that Sacrifice and Oblation , wherein the Blood of Christ was once shed , never to be shed again , never to be re-iterated . 2. Seeing it 's not essentially the same , it cannot be properly propitiatory . 3. Seeing it 's not [ expiatorium & redemtorium ] , as they grant it is not , How should it be the same ? 4. That which is a representation , commemoration , and application of that Sacrifice once offered , never to be offered again ; can neither be the same , nor propitiatory . And as it is not the same Sacrifice , but essentially different from it , it 's no Sacrifice at all in proper sense , neither can any wit of Man prove it so to be . Therefore , in respect of it , their Priests can be no Priests , their Tables no Altars , their Temples no Temples . When divers of the Ancients call the Ministers of the Gospel or Bishops , Priests ; the Service of the Eucharist , a Sacrifice ; and the Communion-Tables , Altars ; they must either be understood to speak tropically and metaphorically , or deliver that which is untrue , and also contradict themselves and the Scriptures . § . 5. Hitherto the description of a Priest in general , and such as did officiate before the times of the Gospel ; the next thing is concerning their calling and acquisition of their Sacerdotal Power , which is delivered in these words , Ver. 4. And no man taketh this Honour unto himself , but He that is called of God , as was Aaron . ] THe sum whereof is this , that the Institution of an High-Priest-hood , and an High-Priest , is from God. For the more distinct handling of the Text , we must observe three things : 1. That no man can make himself Priest. 2. That God's Calling makes a Priest. 3. Aaron , for example , was so made a Priest. 1. The first Proposition is , that no man can make himself a Priest : For any man to take or receive to himself or by himself this Honour , is , to make himself such a Priest , as is formerly described . The sense is not , that no man will usurp this sacerdotal power , or that many will not take it upon them , or many will not presume to make others Priests which God did never make such . For Jeroboam made of the lowest of the People , Priests . Yet , let Princes or People presume to make Priests ; let others , without any consent of God or Man , usurp this Power : yet if God do not Institute and Call them either mediately or immediately their Priest-hood is no Priest-hood , their Offering no Offerings , their Service ineffectual , and no wayes acceptable to God. And here it 's observable , that Priest-hood is called an honour , because the Office is high and honourable , and next to that of Kings , though with many it 's contemptible . 2. God's Calling makes a Priest , for he not only hath power to institute this Office , and invest men with this honour : For , as all Power is of God ; so is this of Priest , as well as that of Prince . And though God gives liberty to men for to institute some civil Offices , and make Officers ; yet in matters of Religion it 's otherwise . For he hath reserved that Power of making spiritual Officers , and to appoint their Service unto himself , and the successe of their Service doth meerly depend on him ; for without him , it can have no spiritual effect upon the Souls and Consciences of men . Yet God doth not Call all Officers in Religion immediately , and by an extraordinary and particular designation ; but many are called in an ordinary way : yet it 's necessary , that every standing Office should be instituted either by a General , or some special precept of universal Obligation for the time he will have such an Office to continue in the Church . This precept determines the qualification of the person ; and this must be known and approved by the Church , ●● such as the Church shall trust : and this approbation must be publickly declared , before the party that must publickly officiate can be orderly admitted ; yet this rule admits of some exception in extraordinary Cases . All the power , that the Church in constitution of Officers can challenge , is to signifie the Will of Christ concerning the particular persons to be constituted , that they are rightly qualified and such as Christ requires them to be . Christ , therefore in this work , is the principal ; and the Church , following the rules of Christ , is the instrumental cause . Of vocation , ordination , imposition of hands , and constituting of Church-Officers , I shall speak more at large in my Treatise of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government . 3. Aaron did not take this honour to himself , but was Called of God ; this is an instance , and a particular example of the divine Vocation of an High-Priest : And though it was but a particular example , yet it was agreeable to a general Rule . That Aaron was an High-Priest , and that he did not usurp this honour ; and that he was Called of God , is evident out of Scripture . For , 1. God singles out the Tribe of Levi for religious Services . 2. Out of this Tribe , he singles the Family of Aaron for the Priest-hood . 3. Out of this Family , he separates Aaron and his Sons , with their Posterity to be High-Priests . 4. He caused him publickly to be set apart with his Sons , and to be consecrated . 5. Upon his Consecration , when he first begins to minister and offer , his Priest-hood is confirmed by Fire sent from Heaven , to burn the Offering . 6. Notwithstanding this particular institution and designation , he was unjustly challenged as ingrossing the Sacerdotal Power , till God by consuming the Company of Korah , and causing Aaron's Rod to Blossom , and bring forth ripe Almonds , confirmed it again . 7. Aaron's Children and Posterity acquired their power by lineal discent , according to the first Institution ; for all his Successours derived their Power from the first Investiture of him and his Sons . § . 6. After the Description of an High-Priest , and his divine Calling , follows the Apostles discourse of the High-Priest-hood of Christ. And he , 1. Asserts his Calling . 2. Proves it : His Calling is asserted in these words , Ver. 5. So Christ also did not glorify himself , but he that said , &c. ] THis doth presuppose , 1. That Christ is a Priest , and all things essential to a Priest , we find in him according to the former Description . 2. That to be a Priest , is a Glory and Honour ; for it is a place , as of Power , so of Dignity and Glory . Yet it 's said , He did not glorify himself , and take upon him the Sacerdotal Power and Dignity , though he was qualified better then ever any was . By this we understand the intolerable pride and presumption of many in these times , which take upon them to officiate in matters of Religion , though no wayes qualified or fitted for this work . If ever any Man or Angel , then surely Christ might have taken this Honour to himself ; yet he did not . And this will be the eternal condemnation of all such as usurp Ecclesiastical Power without any Commission from God or Man. How unlike unto Christ are all such , who presume of their own merit , and despise such as Christ hath called ? But if Christ did not glorify himself , and take upon him to be a Priest , how did he acquire his Sacerdotal Power ? It 's said , That God did glorify and advance him to this place and honour . This is included in these words , [ But he that said unto him . ] For he that said unto him the words following , was God , and He made him Priest : And the truth is , the place was so high , and required such a measure of Power , that none but God could constitute and invest him . For it was not in the power of Man or Angel to make so great an High-Priest : As before it 's said , 1. That he did not make himself an High-Priest . 2. That God made him so : by those words found in Psal. 2. 7. he proves both , that he was a Priest , and that God made him such . For , 1. It 's clear that it is the Lord , and everlasting Jehovah , who spake these words . 2. He spake them to Christ. 3. By them he constituted him a Priest. The words of Constitution are these , [ This Day have I begotten thee . ] This day , as you heard before in the first Chapter , is the day of Resurrection ; and for God to say that day , [ Thou art my Son , this Day have I begotten thee ] , is to make him both a Priest and a King. For to have the Birth-right , and be the first begotten , was to be King and Priest. And if God , who had all Power in his hands , declare him to be his Son , and first begotten , this is to invest him with the Regal and Sacerdotal Power . And though he was designed for this place long before ; yet , till here he was consecrated by his own Blood , he did not receive this Honour , and it was a reward of Humiliation . For you must know , that God his Father , by the Resurrection , did not only restore his life , which he had laid down upon the Cross , and made him immortal , but invested him with his Glory and Power . And whereas this Psalm was composed long before the Resurrection and Incarnation of the Son of God ; yet the thing was not done , nor the words spoken to Christ , till his Resurrection : for the meaning is not , that then God did speak these words , but after the Incarnation and Resurrection , he would by them declare him Priest and King. But he finds not only his Patent and Commission for his Priestood , but the confirmation of it to him for ever , in another place : For thus he writes , Ver. 6. As he saith also in another place , Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec . ] THe words here cited , we find Psal. 110. 4. Where we may observe , 1. That David was the Authour of that Psalm , as appears , Matth. 22. 43. 2. That the subject of the Psalm is Christ or the Messias , and it 's to be understood of speaking of him . 3. That it is prophetical , and a prediction of things which were then to come , and a long time after . 4. These things are spoken of the Messias by the Prophet , as moved , inspired , enlightned to see , speak , write such things as should come to passe , and be accomplished in their time . 5. The Apostle , in this Discourse , takes it for granted , and as confessed by these Hebrews , that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah , in whom all these things were fulfilled . 6. The things affirmed or predicated of the Messias were spoken , done , sworn , not only after the Resurrection , but the Ascension of our Saviour , and upon his coming before the Antient of Days . For when God set him at his right hand , he established his glorious Kingdom , and he began instantly to Reign ; and then it was that he confirmed his everlasting Priest-hood upon him by Oath , and that he began to officiate and minister in the heavenly Temple . And those words spoken by God , were sufficient , not only to make him a compleat Priest , but to confirm him . 7. Both these places prove , not only that Christ was a Priest , but that he was made an eternal Priest of a far higher Order than that of Aaron , and all this by God himself immediately . And as he was made a Priest by God , so his Priest-hood was the most excellent Priest-hood , and most beneficial to sinful Man , that ever was or shall be . § . 7. These two places prove Christ , 1. To be a Priest ; and therefore all things essential to that Office , must agree to him according to the Description of a Priest in the beginning of the Chapter . 2. They manifest he was a Priest , not by Usurpation , but by Commission from Heaven . 3. The former Scripture informs us , that he was constituted a compleat Priest upon his Resurrection ; the latter , that he was confirmed in his unchangeable and everlasting Priest-hood upon his Ascension into Heaven , and Session at the right hand of God. The words following presuppose his designation , and signify the manner of his Consecration , which was such , as that it did fitly qualify him to be a merciful and eternally-saving High-Priest , who offered for himself , not as sinful , but bearing the punishment of man's Sin , and for others too . Therefore it follows , Ver. 7. Who in the dayes of his Flesh , when he offered up Prayers and Supplications , with strong crying and tears , to him that was able to save him from Death , and was heard , in that he feared . IN which words , with those that follow , ver . 8 , 9. we may observe ; 1. The Consecration of the Son of God. 2. The acquisition of a mighty saving Power upon the Consecration once ended . In the Consecration , by his deep Humiliation , we have ; 1. His effectual Prayers . 2. His learning Obedience . Concerning his Prayers , we are informed of , 1. The time when they were offered . 2. The manner how they were made . 3. The party to whom they were presented . 4. The efficacy and success of them . He offered up Prayers and Supplications , that is , he prayed in humble and suppliant manner , with bended knees , and a bowed and deeply humbled Soul. Both the words signify one and the same thing , though expressed by two words ; the one whereof is often , the other seldom , or rather but once , used in Scripture . Both are Petitions , and especially such as we call Deprecations , which are used for the averting of some evil : These Petitions were presented unto God ; for Prayer , in strict sense , is a representation of our Petitions unto God to move him for to grant our desires . It 's a kind of Service or Sacrifice , and therefore said to be offered unto God , and doth imply an acknowledgment of his supream Dominion . Though the word used in the Original sometimes signify a branch of Olive , which Suppliants used to carry in their hands ; yet both the Verb , from whence it comes , doth signify humbly to request , and it doth expresse a Supplication or humble Petition : The Prayers here mentioned , were the Prayers of Christ the Son of God. And , 1. They were made for the time , in the days of his Flesh : The days of his Flesh are the time of his humiliation , frailty , and mortality before his Death and Resurrection ; especially , the time of his Agony and Suffering upon the Crosse. For in the one he vehemently prayed , and deprecated the Cup of his Passion ; in the other , he makes a most sad Complaint of his Desertion and many cruel Sufferings , and petitions for help and deliverance , and binds himself upon the same by solemn Vows unto his heavenly Father , as we may read , Psal. 22. And though he made use of the whole Psalm , which exactly agrees to him and none else ; yet the Evangelists relate only the first words , [ My God , my God , why hast thou for saken me ? ] The prayers made at these two times in his deepest and last humiliation , are here principally intended by the Apostle . 2. The manner how these Prayers were made , is expressed in these words , [ with strong cryes and tears ] ; which imply , 1. His sad and woful condition , the anguish , sorrow , and horrour of his mind , and the bitternesse of his Passion . 2. Signify the fervency and importunity of his prayers . And if Man were once sensible of his sins , for which his Saviour Suffered ; he would be fervent in his prayers , and most earnestly deprecare the Wrath of God , as his Saviour did . The sense of sin will break the stoniest heart , and quicken our Prayers , cause cryes and tears . But we neither consider the grievousnesse of our sins , nor the bitternesse of our Saviour's Passion ; therefore our Prayers are cold and weak , and mercy stands afar off , and pardon comes not near us . 3. These Prayers were made and directed to God , as One that was able to save him from Death . All Petitions made to any Person , either unable or unwilling to do that which is desired , are in vain : might and mercy , power and goodness are necessarily required in him , to whom Prayers , which shall in the issue prove effectual , are to be offered . And because none but God is absolutely Powerfull and Good , Almighty and Almerciful , therefore to him alone , as Supream Lord , all Prayers are to be made , as to the prime Authour , and principal efficient of all Blessings and Mercies . To addresse our selves in this manner to any other , is flat Idolatry , and a breach of the first and great Command : None can deliver from Death , but only He. Therefore Christ offered his Prayers and Supplications to Him , as able to save from Death ; and this ability to save in greatest dangers , was the ground of his confidence . God was able to save from Death , either by prevention , and not suffering him to dy ; or , if he suffered Death , by raising him up again , and restoring life once taken away and lost . The latter he did , the former he denied to do : yet by Death , in this place , may be meant some other thing then loss of this mortal and temporal Life ; for in Scripture it signifies all kind of evils Man or Angel is subject unto , and in this place something which he feared , prayed against , and was freed from by God his heavenly Father supporting him , so that he did not sink under the heavy burden laid upon him . He endured all with patience and willingness of mind , and was not overcome or overwhelmed : He suffered something far more terrible then all bodily pains , and that Death which is only a separation of Soul and Body ; and this was violent temptation , for he was tempted more violently then ever any was ; yet he never yielded the least , but continued firm , faithful , obedient unto his heavenly Father , in the midst of his greatest conflicts . That which upheld him , was the power of his Father ; and that which obtained the victory , was his support , obtained by his fervent Prayers . For , 4. His Prayers and Supplications were effectual , [ he was heard , in that he feared . ] To be heard in the Hebrew is , by a Metonymy , sometimes to have our prayers granted , and the thing requested done . And , to be heard , when we pray for deliverance , is to be delivered , saved , holpen : This might be made manifest out of many places of the Old Testament , translated by the Septuagint . Two of them Heinsius observes , as 2 Chron. 18. 31. where it 's written , That Jehoshaphat cryed out , and the Lord [ helped him ] , so the Hebrew ; [ heard him ] , so the Septuagint : And Psal. 56. 16. As for me , I will call upon God , and the Lord will save me , so the Hebrew ; [ hath heard me ] , so the Greek . So that for Christ to be heard , was for Christ to be delivered : But what was he delivered from ? certainly not from Death , so as not to suffer it ; for he dyed : but from something he seared . For the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , which properly signifyeth fear , Metonymically , in this place , signifies the thing feared , which was the object and cause of his fear . This word is once used by the Septuagint , for so they translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Josh. 22. 24. But what ? did Christ fear Death ? No , not bodily Death , but such a Death as he suffered , wherein he was so fearfully tempted . For if God had deserted him wholly , as he did in part , and not have supported him ; he , as man , might have been overcome , have sunk under the burden in distrust , or dispair , or impatience . This he feared , more then ten thousand Deaths of his Body , and so to do was his holiness ; and though he knew his Father would support him , yet he must offer vehement Prayers , and be put hard unto it , before he did obtain it . Thus though he knew he must dy ; yet he defired vehemently that the Cup of his Passion , if it were possible , might passe and be omitted . God began to hear him , when he sent an Angel from Heaven to comfort him ; but then he heard fully , when he had supported him to the end of his Passion , so that he commended his Soul unspotted and victorious into his Fathers hand , and made haste unto that Paradise , into which no unclean thing shall ever enter . When all was done and suffered , the Devil found nothing in him , could not charge him with the least Sin. This was the efficacy of his Prayers , which he offered for himself , as different from all others that ever were made in his extremity , whereby he learned to pity others in their temptations and necessities . For an High-Priest must offer for himself , as well as for others , because he is compassed with infirmities . So Christ , though he had no Sin , yet had infirmities , and was tempted , and had need to pray for himself , as well as for his People , and Ver. 8. Though he were a Son , yet learned he obedience , by the things which he suffered . VVHere we may observe two things , and two propositions ; Two things , 1. His eminent Dignity , he was a Son. 2. His obedience : Two propositions , 1. He was a Son. 2. Though a Son , yet he learned obedience by the things ●he Suffered . 1. He was a Son ; the Son of God , and in a more excellent manner then any , either Man or Angel was or could be . He was , as the Word , the Son of God , so as that he was God : and , as Flesh and Man , he was assumed by the Word , and conceived by the holy Spirit in the Virgin 's Womb : yet so , that there were not two Sons but one , the Word , made Flesh ; and as such a Son , he was nearer God then any other , Heir of all things , Lord of Men and Angels , and the only-begotten Son of God. Yet , 2. Though a Son , yet learned he obedience . For though , as a Son , he was very high ; yet he humbled himself very low , and took upon him the form of a Servant , and in that form became obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross , which was the Death of a Servant , as he was sold for thirty pence , the ordinary price of a Servant and Slave . His obedience presupposed his subjection , as Flesh , unto his heavenly Father , as his Supream Lord ; and a Command , not only to Do , but to Suffer even the Death of the Crosse ; and this was the highest , greatest , and hardest command to dye such a Death for the Sin of Man : This command above all others he learned , to obey . He learned this hard Lesson , not only to know it , but chiefly to do it ; not meerly by speculation , but real experience . For to learn to obey , is to obey ; and to learn to suffer , is to suffer . God by laying on him the Iniquities of us all , was the Master ; he , by bearing that heavy burden , became the Schollar : for by the things he suffered , that is , by suffering so many things ; and , amongst the rest , the Death of the Cross ; he did perfectly learn , and experimentally understand what obedience was . This Lesson , no Angel did ever learn in this manner ; they had no such command ; neither did they ever obey it , though they knew it . By the former words , we understand that he offered prayers for himself , and by these that he offered himself for us , and learned to have pity upon poor Sinners , who , in their extremities , cry unto God. By this obedience was signified God's severity against Sin , and his tender mercy towards Sinners . § . 8. Thus Christ was consecrated , and , by this Suffering and Sacrifice of himself , fitly qualified for to be a Priest , and a saving Priest unto all his loyal and obedient Servants . For , Ver. 9. Being made perfect , he became the Authour of eternal Salvation u●to all ●●●m that obey him . ] FIrst , He is made perfect : Secondly , He became the Authout of Savation . 1. To be made perfect , is to be consecrated , and made fit to minister before God as a Priest. For though God did design Aaron for a Priest , yet he did not suffer him to minister before he was consecrated . There is no legal Consecration ; without Blood of Sacrifices ; therefore Christ was consecrated by his own Blood , the Blood of that Sacrifice , wherein he offered his life himself . It was the Wisdom of God to order it , and his Will ●o decree that Christ should first Suffer , and shed his Blood for the Sin of man , and so sanctify him by Suffering , before he should have power to save . For the best and most merciful Priest that ever was , must be made in the best and most convenient manner : Upon this strange and wonderful Consecration , he became an Authour of Salvation . Where we may observe , 1. An Effect , eternal Salvation . 2. The Authour or efficient , Christ consecrated . 3. The Subject to which this Salvation is communicated , such as obey him . 1. By Salvation , is meant deliverance from Sin , and all the Consequents thereof ; so as , that the party saved , is made for ever happy . There be both bodily and spiritual , temporal and eternal dangers , whereunto man , by Sin , is liable ; and this Salvation is a deliverance from all . There is deliverance , as from some evils , and not all ; so deliverance only for a time , and not for ever : but this Salvation is a total deliverance from all evil , and that for ever . Eternal peace , safety , felicity , is the issue and consequent thereof : 2. This Salvation being so noble and glorious an effect , must have some Cause , some Authour and Efficient , and this Efficient was Christ ; yet Christ , as perfected and consecrated . For by his Blood and purest Sacrifice of himself , 1. He satisfied divine Justice , and merited this Salvation . 2. Being upon his Resurrection , constituted and made an High-Priest and King , and fit to minister and officiate as a Priest , and Reign as King in Heaven ; he ascends into that glorious Temple and Palace , and is set at the right hand of God. 3. Being there established , he begins as King to send down the Holy Ghost , reveal the Gospel , and by both to work Faith in the hearts of Men , and qualify them for Justification and Salvation . 4. When men are once qualified and prepared , so as to sue for pardon in his Name before the Throne of God ; he , as Priest , begins his Intercession , and by the plea of his own Blood for them procures their pardon and eternal Salvation . So that , as consecrated and perfect , he becomes the great efficient Cause of this Salvation , by way of merit , intercession , and actual communication . There be many other ministerial and adjuvant causes of this effect , yet he is the principal ; so the word , which signifies a Cause , in general was understood by our Translators , who turn it [ the Authour ] 3. If it be communicated from and by him , it must be received in some subject ; and if in him there be an eternal saving virtue , and he exercise it , there must be some subject and persons in whom this saving power shall produce this effect , so as that they shall be saved . And though this Power be able to save all ; yet only they , and all they who obey him shall be saved : Efficient causes work most effectually in Subjects united and disposed aright . And so it is in this case ; for though the mercies of God , mericed by Christ , may be so far communicable to all , as that all may become savable , which is a great and universal Benefit ; yet they are not actually communicated to all , because all are not obedient . For the divine Wisdom and Justice have limited them to a certain subject , and to regulate the manner of communicating them . And seeing the proper subject of this Salvation are such as do obey this Saviour ; therefore here it 's presupposed , that Christ is a King and Soveraign Prince , and as such gives Commands and Laws to all his Subjects ; and such as submit unfainedly unto his Regal Power , and obey his Laws , and none else may expect this Salvation . His Laws require this sincere submission and obedience in renouncing all others , and a total dependance upon him , and him alone ; in repenting of our Sins , and believing upon him . And this sincere Faith is the fundamental vertue , and potentially all obedience : Therefore is it said , That whosoever believeth on him shall not perish , but have everlasting Life : And he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life , Joh. 3. 16. 36. § . 9. Yet before he was an immediate and compleat Authour of eternal Salvation , he must not only be consecrated ; But , Ver. 10. Called of God an High-Priest , after the Order of Melchisedec . THese words are added and repeated , not only to expound his former proof out of Psalm 110 ; but also to shew , when and how he became so mighty and glorious a Saviour , and also to bring in , 1. The digression . 2. The discourse that followeth . 1. They are exegetical , and declare the meaning of those words alledged , ver . 6. [ Thou are ●● Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec . ] For by this Text , we are informed , 1. That those words were spoken by God. 2. That God by those words did make him a compleat and eternal Priest , and by Oath confirmed his Priest-hood . For this Text was alledged , to prove that Christ did not glorify himself , and usurp this Sacerdotal Office ; but God gave it him , and so he came justly and legally by it . They are , 2. Added to shew when Christ became so compleat an High-Priest , and to exercise his saving Power ; and that was not only upon his consecration , but this confirmation of him at his right hand . For then instantly he began to work , and convert Men , make Intercession for them , and bring them to Salvation . 3. Upon these words reiterated , he takes occasion to deliver that which follows , as will appear anon . Two things here I will only observe , 1. That ( to be called ) is openly and solemnly with power to be declared : For this inauguration and confirmation was made with great solemnity , and that in the presence of all the Host and Angels of Heaven . Whether God commanded any Archangel with sound of heavenly Trumpet to proclaim him , and ouer these words before the Throne of Glory , and the place of his special presence in the Heaven of Heavens , we know not , It 's certain ; by these words , he was made an eternal Priest , and thereupon all the Angels of Heaven did acknowledg him . The second thing to be observed , is , that he was not only made a Priest , but also a King ; for without either of these he could not be so powerful a Saviour , yet he was not so made by these but other words . § . 10. Now follow ; a Digression : For after that the Apostle had proved him to be a Priest , and so made of God ; and a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec , and not after that of Aaron : order did require he should enlarge upon the words of the Psalmist ; yet because this Doctrine was mysterious and profound , and they not so capable of it , he takes occasion , by the way , to reprove their dulness , stir up their attention ; and prepare them for this Doctrine concerning Christ's Priest-hood , which he intended more fully to declare unto them . This reproof is brought in artificially by a kind of Transition , and in this manner . Ver. 11. Of whom we have many things to say , and hard to be uttered , seeing ●● are dull of hearing . ] IN these words , and those which follow ; We have , 1. The excellency and copiousness of the matter . 2. The Hebrews incapacity . 3. The reason of their incapacity . The subject whereof he intended to speak , was the Priest-hood of Christ ; and seeing he was a Priest after the Order of Melchisodec , he must needs speak something of him . The copiousness and aburdince of matter is signified by those words , [ Of whom we have many things to say ] ; the excellency , in those [ and hard to be uttered ] ; their incapacity , [ they were dull of hearing ] . The cause of this , [ For when for the time ye ought to be Teachers , ye have need that one teach you again , &c. ] which implies their negligence . Of whom , ] Some think this Relative [ whom ] referrs to Melchisedec , others to Christ as Priest. But it referrs to both ; to Christ principally , to Melchisedec in order unto Christ : For many things were to be known of Melchisedec , that it might be made evident how he did typify Christ , and how Christ was a Priest according to that Order , and not the Order of Aaron . This is the subject of which he intended to speak . Of this subject , he had many things to say , ] This implies , 1. That he knew many things concerning this Priest and Priest-hood , and the same certainly and infallibly true , as revealed unto him by the divine Spirit . 2. That these things he could utter and express , and that clearly and perspicuously enough ; and he was willing , yea desirous to make them known , if he could have found Schollars capable of this excellent Doctrine . But such they were not : for many excellent things might be taught , if men would be careful to learn and improve their time and parts . Yet these many things , were hard to be uttered , ] This implies , that they were excellent , and above the capacity of Babes and Children . They were not hard or obscure to him ; for he knew them , and fully understood them : neither were they such things as he learned , when he was rapt up into the third Heaven , unutterable in themselves ; but they were hard to be uttered , so as they might understand them . For , They were dull of hearing . ] This was their incapacity : The meaning is not , that they were deaf either in whole or part ; or , that such amongst them as were learned could not read them , if written , or understand the language ; but by hearing , is meant , understanding . There are outward ears , and outward hearing of the body ; inward ears , and inward hearing of the Soul : the former they had , the latter they had not , so as to be capable of such things as he had to say of this Priest and Priest-hood . This was no obscurity in the matter , but an indisposition in the Soul to receive this Doctrine : Dulness was this indisposition , which , in general , is a defect of active Power ; in particular , in this place , of the intellective faculty , as not able to perceive , discern , apprehend , and judge , of this higher Doctrine . It 's opposed to that we call [ ac●●●n ] , the sharpness , quickness , and piercing power of the wit and intellect : yet here this dulness is restrained to a certain object ; for in other things , they might be apprehensive , and judicious enough . By reason of this defect it is , that much excellent and divine Doctrine is lost , or , at least useless to the greatest part of the People , who are no whit moved with Doctrine , though excellent , if above their capacity . For this cause the meanest Teachers are most popular ; though it 's true , that all wise men must have respect unto the capacity of their Hearers , and condescend unto them : yet men should not be alwayes Babes and Dunces in God's School . But what might be the cause of this dulness ? The Apostle informs us , Ver. 12. That when for the time ye ought to have been Teachers , you have need that one teach you again the principles of the Oracles of God , and are become such as have need of milk , and not strong meat . ] § . 11. THis incapacity and defect of the Understanding , may be either from natural imperfection , as in Ideots and Naturals , or such as are not much better ; or from want of teaching , instruction , and disciplination ; or from God's just Judgment , and the delusions of Satan ; or from the negligence of such as are taught , and do not attentively hear , heed , consider ; or from the sublimity and excellency of the matter taught , or from ignorance of the language , or terms , or manner of expression used by such as take upon them to be Teachers ; or from the want of Understanding , in principles upon which the knowledg of other things doth depend . Dulness , and so ignorance , from some of these causes , is blamless , and will not be charged upon man in his last tryal . For ignorance invincible is not counted a Sin ; but ignorance and dulness from neglect of the means God hath given Man to improve his knowledg for his own good , is inexcusable . If the things to be known be necessary , and concern his everlasting Salvation , or conduce to the same , it 's far more hainous . Such was the dulness and ignorance of these Hebrews , and it 's implyed in this , that they had had time , and all other necessary means to improve their knowledg to that of Teachers ; and yet they were so ignorant , that they had need to be taught again the very principles of Christianity . This was a Sin , and the same very grievous , and a great impediment to their Salvation , and increase of heavenly comfort . The Sin therefore which was the cause of this dulness and incapacity , was their great neglect of the improvement of their knowledg in the Word of God. And this their neglect was great : For , 1. They had had time and teaching enough , and other means to increase their knowledg so far as to be able to teach and instruct others ; and yet they had wofully mispent this time , and lost much knowledg which they might have attained both for their own advantage , and the good of others . 2. They had so wofully mispent this time , that they were ignorant of the very principles of the Oracles of God , and had need to be instructed in them by others , had need of milk , not strong meat . 3. By this means they had made themselves uncapable of further instruction in the higher and more execellent points of the Gospel concerning the Priest-hood of Christ. This was the greater Sin , because they not only might , but also ought to have improved their time , so as to be men of Age , able to digest strong meat , and understand and learn higher Doctrine . In this Text we may observe , 1. That they are principles of the Oracles of God. 2. That when these are once taught and learned , men ought to improve their knowledg , so far as to be able to teach others that are ignorant of these principles , and to be capable of higher points of Doctrine . 3. That many are so negligent and careless in this particular , that they forget their principles , are Babes , and have need of Milk still , and be taught their principles again . The first Proposition implies , 1. That there are principles of the Oracles of God. 2. These are like Milk. 3. Men should be first taught these . By Oracles of God , we must understand the Word of God revealed in the Scripture , for to direct us to Salvation . For God being willing to save Man , gave him a Rule to direct him to eternal happiness : Man knew not the way , neither could he direct himself , neither could any other Man or Angel teach him . Therefore God was willing by the illumination and inspiration of his blessed Spirit , to make known his mind unto certain men , who , being infallibly directed , must teach others both by word and writing ; and their Doctrine must be the Rule of all other Teachers , and is sufficient as a Doctrine to save any Man , that shall learn to know and practise it . This Doctrine may well and truly be called the Word of God , because by it whether inspired , or spoken by word of mouth , or written , he doth express his mind , and signifies unto Man what he must know , and do , to be for ever saved . Yet here we must observe , that by these Oracles of God , is here principally meant , the Doctrine of the New Testament and the Gospel : Yet here it 's to be noted , 1. That all Scripture is the Word of God , and is immediately from God , in respect of the first Revelation . 2. That as it came first from God , it is of unchangeable Truth ; and the dictates of divine Wisdom are therein contained . 3. That it 's sufficient without any other addition in that kind , to that end , God intended it . Of these Oracles there are Principles ; In these Oracles we are taught many things , and of them there be several parts , which are unequal and different one from another ; one part , and the chiefest is that of the Principles . These are , 1. Such as are first in order , and first to be taught and learned . 2. They are the chief and fundamental Truths of the Gospel , and such as upon which the rest depend , or to which the rest are appertinent , and which are most conducing to Salvation . These being prime Truths , are reduced to a few Heads in a certain method , intimated in several places of the New Testament , and contracted in the antient Creed's , grounded upon our Saviours words , [ Go , and teach all Nations , baptizing them in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , as I have shewed in my [ Theopolitica . ] These are like the A. B. C. or letters of the Alphabet , upon which all words and sentences so far depend in Grammar , that except they be first learned , it will be impossible to spell or read . They are like the Elements in Nature , of which all mixt bodies are compounded and made : They are like the foundation of an House , without which it can neither be built or stand . And not to teach these first to those who are willing to learn , is a vain undertaking , and a preposterous course , and a very unprofitable way ; and we find it to be so in the learning of all other Arts and Sciences . 2. These principles are like Milk ; Milk is the fittest nourishment for new-born Babes and Infants , and of most easie digestion ; so these are plain and easie , and such as Children , ignorant , and unlearned People , if wisely directed , may understand , and they give great light to all other Doctrines ; and it was the great Wisdom and Mercy of God to make them such . And , 3. They which do not first learn these , cannot profit much ; some confused knowledg they may acquite , but distinct , clear , and orderly understanding , without these first learned , cannot be expected . For the very matter and method of those , give great light to all other divine Doctrines of the Scripture . 2. After the first Proposition , [ That they are principles of the Oracles of God , first to be taught and learned ] , follows the second , which is , [ That when these principles are learned , men may and ought to improve their knowledg so far as to be able to teach others , and be capable of higher Doctrines . ] This is implyed in these words , [ when for the time yo ought to have been Teachers . ] By Teachers , are not meant , Ministers and publick Teachers , who are Officers , and have taken upon them the charge of others Souls ; but such as privately are fit and able to instruct their Families , and their ignorant Neighbours . Neither may they presume to teach higher Points of Doctrine ; but the principles , and such as they well understand . If these would do their Duty , they might help the Ministers much , and edisy one another ; and so knowledg in necessaries might abound . If any of these be of excellent parts , and much improved , they may be called to the Ministry . Yet many are so ignorant , that they are not able to teach their Children and their Servants , and so are not fit , as for matter of Religion , to be Masters of Families . 3. The last Proposition is , [ That many of these H●brews , and so others , were so negligent , that when they might and ought to have been Teachers : of others , they have need to be taught again the very principles of Christianity . ] This is a great Sin , and cannot be excused , and many are guilty of it for two Reasons ; 1. Because they do not improve their former knowledg . 2. Because they forget , and so lose the knowledg of the very principles which they had formerly gained , and so become Babes , uncapable of higher Doctrine , which is for men of better improvement . By this we understand , that knowledg , by negligence may be diminished and lost : For usually , he that increaseth not , decreaseth ; and he that goes not forward , goes backward . For that which is acquired by industry , by industry must be kept and improved : If God give a Talent , it must not be hid , but used to gain more ; and where he gives capacity , helps and means , he requires the use and exercise of them . Suppose a man should or could retain the knowledg of the principles , and yet proceed no further ; he must needs be guilty , and unfit to be advanced to an higher Form in Christ's School . He will prove a Babe , a Child , and render himself uncapable of higher Instruction . Ver. 13 , 14. For every one that useth Milk , is unkilful in the Word of Righteousness : for he is a Babe . But strong Meat belongeth to them , who are of fa'll age , even those , who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil . § . 12. IN these words , the Apostle gives a reason , why he could not so well proceed to deliver the Doctrine of this great Priest-hood ; and it 's this : By their negligence , they had made themselves uncapable . This he doth express in an allegorical Metaphor , wherein he compares the Ignorant to Babes , and the more knowing Hebrew-Christians to men of full age ; and the Principles of the Oracles of God to Milk , and his Doctrine of Christ's Priest-hood to strong meat . His intent therefore is to let them know , that as strong meat is not for Babes , but for such as are of full age , so his Doctrine of Christ's Priest-hood is not for them , which have not digested the principles , but for such as by use and constant diligence have improved their knowledg . Here we must observe , who are Babes in knowledg , and who are of full age . They are Babes , who are unskilful in the Word of Righteousness ; they are of full age , who have their senses exercised to discern good and evil , according to that Word . Where , by word , is meant that Doctrine of the Scripture , which was revealed from Heaven to direct Man unto eternal life ; especially the Gospel . It 's called the Word of Righteousness : 1. Because it is a righteous Doctrine , that is , just , firm , stable , and of eternal certain Truth . For thus the word [ Righteous ] is sometimes taken in the Hebrew ; therefore is it called so often the word of Truth . 2. The Gospel may be called the Word of Righteousness , because in it , is revealed the Righteousness of God by Faith. 3. It 's the perfect Rule of Righteousness . To be unskilful in this Word , is , to be ignorant of it , and not to understand it . To have the senses exercised , to discern Good and Evil , may , 1. Be understood of the long experience of such as are at full age in respect of meats , which by long use and exercise of the senses of seeing , smelling , tasting , have acquired a more perfect knowledg to discern what food is good and wholsome , what unwholsome . Yet it 's principally by Analogy to be understood of such , as by much attention , study , meditation , have exercised their intellective faculty to find out the true sense and meaning of the Gospel ; and by the same to acquire a divine discerning faculty and habit more easily to understand the truths of the same , and by the same to judge what Doctrine is true , and what is false ; and more easily to apprehend and judge of higher points , if taught unto them . Such as these , the Hebrews should generally have been , and then they had been sit Schollars for his School . Where we might observe , That the proper act and work of man's intellective faculty , is , to discern and know the differences of things to be understood . But now amongst us there is risen up a Generation of People , who never were well grounded in the principles of the Oracles of God , who yet will take upon them to teach themselvs and others too . These forsake the Ministers of the Gospel , whom God hath blessed with a greater measure of divine knowledg , and by long and earnest study , reading , prayer , and other means , have improved themselves to an higher degree of understanding in the holy Scriptures . These separate themselves from other sober and more solid Christians , and are divided into several Sects , and their end will be sad and woful ; for being deserted by their God , they will fall at last into some damnable heresy , or impiety , or iniquity ; if God in his great mercy prevent it not . This is a fair warning to all such as profess themselves Christians , first to ground themselves well in the principles , and then use all the power and means God hath given them to improve themselves , and with all humility acknowledg their imperfections , — not thinking of themselves more highly then they ought , but to think soberly , according as God h●●● deals to every man the measure of Faith , Rom. 12. 3. CHAP. VI. Ver. I. Therefore leaving the Principles , &c. ] § . 1. THis part of the Apostle's Letter seems to be brought in upon , and joyned to the former by the Illative Particle , and Conjunction , [ Therefore ] , which though sometimes expletive , yet usually inferrs a conclusion : What the conclusion inferred is , we find in ver . 1 , 3. But from what words it's inferred , seems to be doubtful . They may be antecedent or consequent ; Those antecedent are , Chap. 5. 11. [ Of whom we have many things to say ] , As though the Apostle should say , Though many of you be dull of hearing , and your incapacity through negligence be such , as that you have need to be taught again the Principles of the Oracles of God ; yet because there be many things , and excellent points of Doctrine concerning the Priest-hood of Christ , which I have to deliver unto you : Therefore I will not go back again to initiate you , but go forward unto perfection ; yet the premises may be in the words consequent to this purpose , That seeing there is little or no hope of the recovery of such as fall so far as to need instruction in the very principles , and to be initiated again ; and though I thus speak to warn you , yet hope better things of you : Therefore I will leave the principles , and proceed to perfection . Yet we need not stand strictly upon the one or the other ; for , it may be , he inferrs the conclusion from both joyntly . § . 2. But to enter upon the Chapter : In it we may observe , 1. The continuance of his Digression . 2. His return unto his former Subject . In the former we have , 1. His resolution what to do , from ver . 1. to the 11. 2. An exhortation to these Hebrews , from the 11. to the last . In his resolution , are to be considered , 1. The thing resolved upon . 2. The reasons of his resolution . The thing resolved upon , is , to proceed in his Discourse concerning the Priest-hood of Christ. The Reasons of this resolution are two , 1. That if any fall away so far , as that there shall be a necessity to return unto the principles , and laying the foundation of Christianity anew , there is little or rather no hope of recovery . 2. That he was perswaded better things of them , though the negligence of many had been great . In his Exhortation , ver . the 11. two things are chiefly to be taken notice of , 1. The duty exhorted unto ; which was , perseverance . 2. The reasons , whereupon he urgeth the performance . § . 2. To begin with the Resolution , the thing resolved upon , is expressed in the first words . 1. Briefly , [ Leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ , let us go ●● to perfection . ] 2. More largely , [ Not laying again the Foundation , &c. ] This Resolution doth imply , that in Christianity there is a Doctrine , 1. Of Principles . 1. Of perfection . The first is for Babes and Children , the second is for persons of full age : The Principles are like Premises , and the more perfect Doctrines like unto Conclusions ; and as some premises contain many excellent and precious Truths deducible from them , and have affinity with many others reducible to them , so these principles . Both Principles , and higher Doctrines , must be taught in their time , according to the capacity of the persons to be taught . And the best must begin with the principles , and after they are once well grounded in them , they must proceed to higher points . The Apostle here presupposeth the principles taught and once learned by these Hebrews ; therefore he resolves now to lay them aside and omit the Doctrine of them , and to ascend to higher matters : What he meant by leaving the principles , he explains more at large , and in particular ; It was [ Not to lay again the foundation of Repentance from dead works , &c. ] Where , 1. He compares the work of man's Salvation to a Building . And , 2. The teaching of principles to the laying of the foundation , which is the first and principal part of the Building supporting all the rest of the Superstructure , and the teaching of these prime Truths , is the laying of the foundation upon which the rest of Christianity depends . 3. To lay this Foundation [ again ] , presupposeth that he had formerly done this work , and initiated them ; and to do this again , implies they had lost their Christianity , and were relasped into that Condition wherein they were before they did believe , and were baptized , and there was need of re-baptizing them . 4. Yet this he would not do : and , to leave the Doctrine of the beginning or principles of Christ , and , not to lay the foundation of Christianity , are the same . And lest they , or any other , should be ignorant what these principles of Christianity and fundamental Doctrines were ; he informs us , That they were the Doctrines [ Of Repentance , Faith , Baptism , &c. ] To understand these words the better , we must consider , 1. What was the way and order of initiating Christians . 2. What Doctrine is contained in these particular Fundamentals . 1. The way and order was this , That , 1. When they had taught them Repentance and Faith , and they had willingly received this Doctrine , and signified their acceptation , then they most solemnly promised to repent and believe that Doctrine they did professe . 2. Upon their promise and profession , they were baptized . 3. Being baptized , they were confirmed by imposition of hands , and receiving the Holy Ghost . 4. Being confirmed , they were exhorted to persevere to the end , in hope of Resurrection to eternal life , and fear of Condemnation to eternal punishment . To lay the foundation , in this manner , was to admit them Christians again , after they had lost their former Christianity . 2. The Doctrine contained in these Particulars , may easily be understood by the words themselves . The first Head or Topick is that of Repentance from dead Works ; where , by dead Works , are meant Sins , which pollute us spiritually and morally , and also render us liable to Death , of which hereafter , Chap. 9. 14. Repentance from these , is an acknowledgment of them with grief of heart , and a resolution to forsake them and reform . This Doctrine presupposeth the Creation , especially of Man , in the Image of God ; and contains those Truths we read in Scripture concerning Satan's Temptation , man's Fall and Sin ; what Sin is , and what the Consequents thereof be ; one whereof is Punishment and Death , Knowledge , Confession , godly sorrow , hatred of Sin , returning to God ; this is the first part of the Creed . The second Head , is , Faith in God , under which comes in , the Doctrine of God , who so loved the World , that he gave his only begotten Son to redeem us from our Sins by dying for us , and rising again to apply and communicate the benefits of his Redemption . The particulars of these parts , are , the Incarnation , the Offices of Christ , his Humiliation ; In taking upon him the form of a Servant , and being obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross : The immediate effects thereof , which are satisfaction , merit , and putting man into a capacity of Salvation ; his Resurrection , upon which he was made King and Priest , his Ascension into Heaven , his sitting at the right right hand of God , to reign as King , and make Intercession as a Priest , and so make his satisfaction and merit effectual . 3. The third Head is the Doctrine of Baptisms , wherein Repentance and Faith are professed , new obedience promised , and both sealed and confirmed by Baptism . To this Head may be referred the Covenant , and the confirmation of it : This Covenant presupposeth the Gospel , with the Precepts and Promises thereof . This was revealed by Christ , as a Prophet sending the Holy Ghost to reveal it ; therein commanding , promising , and performing as a King , As it presupposeth the Covenant in general , so it doth the making thereof in applying the Precepts and Promises unto the particular persons to be baptized , who on their part must professe and promise ; upon which done , the confirmation on Gods part and Man's doth follow in Baptism . We need not trouble our selves with the word [ Baptisms ] , which is plural ; nor debate the reason why he used that number , whether it was because the Baptisms of John and Christ , both instituted from Heaven , did differ in several particulars , and so were [ Baptisms ] ; or , because the Baptism of Christ was two-fold , of Water and the Spirit , which both must joyntly concurr to Regeneration ; or because , that though Baptism in general , in respect of the Institution , be one ; yet in respect of several individual persons baptized , it 's multiplyed . For the Baptism of Peter is one , the Baptism of Paul another ; and so many Baptisms there may be said to be , as there are persons Baptized . It 's certain , he meant but one Baptism , Rite , and Ceremony instituted by Christ , applyed to many several persons ; and so the Syriack Translatour , using a Nown singular , understood it . 3. The fourth Head is that of Imposition of hands ; and by this may be meant , either the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost , proper to the Apostolical Times , given upon imposition of the hands of the Apostles and Prayer , or the sanctifying Power of the Spirit to confirm them in the Truth , and enable them to keep the Covenant of God. Under this Head come all the Gifts , Virtues , and saving-Graces of the Spirit , without which they can neither be renewed or mortified , and proceed in the wayes of Righteousness and Holiness unto the attaining of eternal life . 5. Resurrection is the fifth part of this Doctrine , and seems to signisy in this place immortality and eternal Glory , as a Reward . This presupposeth the exercise of all heavenly Virtues , and the continuance of their Faith and Obedience . Under this Head , may be brought , Justification , Reconciliation , Adoption , with the continuance of the sanctifying and regenerating Spirit , and also the joys and comforts of God's Saints in this Life , and their security and bliss upon their departure out of this Life , untill the Resurrection . 6. The sixth Doctrine , is that of eternal Judgment : Both Resurrection and this Judgment presuppose men's Obedience or Disobedience to the Laws of God ; and by Judgment may be understood either Judgment in general , which follows the Resurrection , and determines finally the eternal Punishments and Rewards ; or , by a Synecdoche , for the eternal Punishments which that Judgment shall award to certain persons . This latter seems to be the intended sense , because the word is usually taken for Condemnation and Punishment ; and so much the rather , because we never find Judgment , taken properly , said to be everlasting . This presupposeth impenitence and unbelief , both Negative and Positive ; and to this Head are reducible all the spiritual Penalties inflicted upon Man in this Life , as fore-runners of this eternal Vengeance . It was necessary , in the first place , to lay the foundation in teaching these Truths of Repentance , Faith , the sealing of the Covenant , the sanctification of the Spirit , and the retribution of eternal Rewards and Punishments according to men's observation , or violation of the Covenant of Grace . This Doctrine they had formerly learned and professed , and it was the sum and substance of the antient Creeds : And if they any wayes were fallen from this , it was in vain to lay the foundation anew , and initiate them again . Therefore he was resolved to proceed , and do that which he had proposed , if God would permit and assist him ; for all resolutions of Men are in God's Power . For he alone can so assist them , as to make them effectual ; or hinder them , so as to frustrate their designs . This implies the Authour's dependance upon God , for the carrying on and finishing his intended Discourse concerning the Priest-hood of Christ. § . 4. Thus far the Apostle's Resolution , the Reasons follow . The first is , because to lay the foundation anew , would be in vain : It would prove so , because such as fall from these principles , render themselves uncapable of any benefit to be received by Christ's Death and Passion , neither can they be renewed again unto Repentance . The argument in form is this , The Apostle presupposing that no man ought , and no wise man will do that which he knows to be in vain , and to no purpose ; he proves , that to lay the foundation again , is in vain , thus ; To attempt that which is impossible , is in vain : But to attempt , by laying the foundation again , to renew unto Repentance such as fall away , is to attempt that which is impossible ; therefore it 's in vain . To understand the force of this Reason , let us reduce the Apostles words into these Propositions . 1. They which have been enlightned , and have tasted of the heavenly Gift , and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost , and have tasted of the good Word of God , and of the Powers of the World to come , may fall away . 2. If they fall away , it is impossible for them to be renewed again unto Repentance . 3. The reason why it is impossible , is , because they Crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh , and put him to open shame . These may be reduced to one Syllogism thus ; It 's impossible that they which Crucify the Son of God afresh , and put him to open shame , should be again renewed to Repentance . But such as fall away from Christianity once received , do Crucify the Son of God afresh , and put him to open shame . Therefore it 's impossible again , to renew them to Repentance . The sum of all is this , he would not lay again the foundation of Christianity , because it was in vain . It was in vain , because the recovery of such , as fall away and renounce Christ , was impossible . In the first Proposition , I will consider , 1. What it is to fall away . 2. Who they are that may fall away . 1. To fall away , is here to be Apostates , and forsake Christianity once received ; it 's not to fall into any kind of Sin , but such as are [ contra integrum faedus ] , contrary to the essence and substance of Christianity ; such are impenitency and unbelief , after Repentance and Faith. In this respect David's Murther and Adultery , though very grievous Sins , and against the Covenant ; yet they were not a violation of it essentially , and formally considered : This is falling away , or Apostacy in this place . 2. The subject of this Apostacy , and parties which may fall away , are such as have received Christianity , and have been convinced of the Truth thereof . For he that never was a Christian , cannot be said to fall away from Christianity ; he must be a Christian , before he can be an Apostate . But to enter more particularly upon the Description of the Subject of Apostacy , and persons that may fall away , 2. They are described from sive things or adjuncts , 1. They are enlightned . 2. Have tasted of the heavenly Gift . 3. Are partakers of the Holy Ghost . 4. Have tasted of the good Word of God. 5. Have tasted of the Powers of the World to come . 2. The difference of several Writers in the Exposition of these five particulars is great , For with some , 1. To be enlightned , is Repentance . 2. To taste of the heavenly Gift , is Faith in God. 3. To be partakers of the Holy Ghost , is to receive the Gifts of the Spirit . 4. To taste of the good Word of God , answers to Imposition of hands . 5. To taste of the Powers of the World to come , is to have some apprehensions of the Resurrection and eternal Judgment , with affections suitable . Others understand , 1. By enlightning , Baptism . 2. By tasting of the heavenly Gift , spiritual Peace and Joy. 3. By the Holy Ghost , Gifts of that blessed Spirit . 4. By tasting the good Word of God , The sinding how sweet and comfortable the Doctrine , and especially the Promises of the Gospel be . 5. By tasting of the Powers of the World to come , The experience of the efficacy and moving Power of the Doctrine of everlasting Life and Death believed . Others not differing much , think that , 1. Enlightning , is the knowledg of saving-Truth . 2. Tasting of the heavenly Gift , is the receiving of Christ by Faith. 3. Participation of the Holy Ghost , is receiving of the Gifts of the Spirit . 4. Tasting of the good Word of God , and the Powers of the World to come , is some experimental effects of the Gospel and Spirit . 3. Yet upon examination , the first three may be one ; And that is the illumination of the heart and mind , by the heavenly Gift of the Holy Ghost given to that end . 2. The two latter also may be the same , and that is the affection and disposition of the heart answerable to the illumination , and an effect thereof . The first , is a divine and supernatural knowledg of saving-Truth . The second , is some sanctification and consolation of the will and heart of Man. 4. The qualification and condition of these persons , were not meerly natural and moral , but supernatural . For they could not be acquired by any exercise of the natural and moral power of the Soul , without a Divine active Power given them , whereby they might act upon supernatural objects , according to a supernatural Rule . And as their operations were supernatural , because they had a supernatural Efficient , a supernatural Object , a supernatural Rule , and did tend to a supernatural End ; so the Consequents were supernatural and divine . 5. To fall from the supernatural disposition and estate , was a very grievous Sin , and a great contempt of God's mercy , Christ's merit , and the Power of the Holy Ghost . For , 1. These things tended directly to their eternal Salvation . 2. They issued from the mercy of God , the merit of Christ , and the Power of the Holy Spirit . 3. That Grace which they had received , and which was in them , was real , true , serious , and divine ; and if they had gone forward , they might have attained to an estate of confirmation . 4. It was a Crime so much the more hainous , because they had received the Truth of the Gospel , professed it , and engaged by their Baptism in the Covenant , and were fully convinced , not only by Powers or Miracles without , but by the Gifts of the Spirit , and divine effects within . 6. Yet here is no mention of any firm inherency , or deep radication of divine Virtues in their Souls , but rather the contrary is implyed . For it 's said , They did but taste of the heavenly Gift , and taste of the good Word of God , and taste of the Powers of the World to come . To taste , is indeed a real participation ; yet but of a little and in low degree . But there can be no state of confirmation , till Grace , by a firm and deep radication , proceed to an universal dominion of Sin and Corruption . Yet this radication is not a sufficient cause in or by itself of confirmation , which depends upon the Will of God , who hath bound himself by promise to preserve Man , attaining to a certain degree by his power through Faith unto Salvation , which shall be revealed in the last Day . For though this estate of one that only tasteth be good and comfortable and hopeful ; yet it may leave some lust or corruption unmortified , which though it doth not appear for the time to the party thus far renewed , yet in the day of Tryal it will break out and discover the hidden malignancy of the heart nor fully regenerate . For they that have escaped the pollution of the World , through the knowledg of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , may again be entangled therein , and overcome , 2 Pet. 2. 20. 7. Yet this falling away from this measure of Grace , and hopeful Condition , is not to be attributed to divine desertion . For God will not with-draw or with-hold any necessary support , till Man by his negligence , or pride and presumption give him cause . For he loves any degree of Grace , and is very tender over the weak , and will not break the bruised Reed , nor quench the smoaking Flax ; he will gather the Lambs with his Arm , and carry them in his Bosom , and shall gently lead those that are with young . § . 5. Hitherto you have heard , what it is to fall away , and who they are that may fall away , and that they all are Christians ; yet so , that some may make a further progress in Christianity , they are not all of one measure . The 2. Proposition , which for the order of matter might be the third , is , That it 's impossible for Apostates to be renewed . To be renewed in this place , is to be initiated and made Christians of no Christians : For initiation is the entrance and admission into Christianity , as the Apostle intends it . To understand this better , you must know , that Apostacy doth un-Christian a man , makes void his Baptism , and takes away all Christian Priviledges by razising the very foundation . As Apostacy presupposeth the Apostate , a Christian first ; so this renewing presupposeth Christianity formerly received , to be lost and forfeited . For an Apostate is like a Rebel or a perfidious Revolter , who loseth [ sussabdih ] and ceaseth to be a Subject , contrary to his Allegiance . Whereas the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] [ again ] is inserted , it 's rather to be joyned with the antecedent Verb [ fall away ] , and signifies , that as he was no Christian at the first , and afterwards became a Christian ; so by Apostacy he is made to be no Christian again , he returns unto his former estate of non-Christianity . And the former estate was a kind of negation , this latter a privation of Christianity . This renovation , if it could be made , must be by repentance , and way of return : For the first initiation is by profession of Faith , confession of Sin , and promise of Reformation : this therefore much more : yet this Renovation is affirmed to be impossible . That proposition or ax●om , which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , impossible is opposed to that which is , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , necessary and alwayes true ; for it is alwayes false , and can never be true , the dis unction and separation of the terms i● perpetual . Therefore to say , That an Apostate may be renewed by Repentance , is eternally false ; because the thing , represented by the subject , and predicated , are eternally separated ; yet this impossibility is not to be considered in respect of God's absolute and almighty power ; for he can renew an Apostate by Repentance : but it 's in respect of his Will , which hath decreed it to be impossible . His Power can do it , but his Will hath limited his power , so that , though he could do it , yet he will never do it , never suffer it to be done . This is that which the School-men mean , when they distinguish of God's Power , and say , It 's [ absoluta a●t ordinata . ] Whereas some call this a Proposition modal , there is no Proposition but is such , and essentially includes the manner how the terms argue one another ; and here [ impossible ] is the predicate , and [ to be renewed by Repentance ] is the Subject . It was much controverted amongst some of the Antients , whether such as fell away in time of persecution might be admitted to penance , and reconciled to the Church ; some denyed , some affirmed . And as their opinion , so their practise was ; some were more rigid , some more remisse , some moderate . The reason of the difference was , because they did not agree in the definition of an Apostate , and so could not unanimously judge of the parties offending , and their offences : whereof some were so hainous , that though they did not reach Apostacy , yet many thought it not safe to admit them to communion , because the example might be of bad consequence . Therefore though they did not absolve them , yet they prayed for them , and referred them to the Judgment of God. § . 6. The Apostle not content barely to affirm this Renovation to be impossible , gives us a reason hereof , and that in a third Proposition , which is , They Crucify the Lord Jesus a new , and put him to open shame . This should have been the second , but I follow the order of the words : For this is the genuine method . 1. Christians may fall away . 2. Falling away , they Crucify Christ , and put him to open shame . 3. It 's impossible for them doing so , to be renewed by Repentance : This third which I handled in the second place , contains the medium , whereby the impossibility of Repentance is inferred . But , 1. I will explain the words . 2. Shew how they come in upon the former . 1. To Crucify the Lord Jesus , the Son of God afresh , and to put him to an open shame , are in some respect the same . For the Death of the Crosse is a shameful and ignominious Death and Punishment ; therefore we read of shame , and the Crosse joyned together . For it 's said of Christ , That he endured the Cross , and despised the shame , Hebr. 12. 2. There be many tormenting and disgracing Punishments inflicted by higher Powers upon Malefactors ; Amongst these , Capital penalties are the greatest : Of Capital , Crucifying or putting to Death upon the Crosse , is most cruel and ignominious . This , our blessed Saviour , the Son of God , once Suffered . For such was the malice of the Jews , that nothing but his Death , and no other Death , but the Death of the Crosse , besides many other indignities , would satisfy them . The end of just punishments are loss , pain , and shame . Therefore Malefactors were executed publickly and openly , that others might see , hear , and fear to do the like Sinnes , lest they should suffer the like Punishments , if they should prove guilty of the like Crimes : And not onely the Punishments executed by Man , but such as are inflicted by God are exemplary . Therefore , as the Apostle saith , The punishments which the Israelites suffered in the Wildernesse , are our ensamples , 1 Cor. 10. 6 , 11. Therefore the word turned [ put him to open shame ] , signifies to make an example of shame and disgrace . To return unto the Text , Apostates are said to Crucify Christ unto themselves afresh ; the meaning is not , that they put Christ to Death upon the Cross in proper sense . For that they cannot do ; he dyed upon the Crosse once , and rose again , is immortal in Heaven , and shall never dy any more . For in that he dyed , he dyed unto Sin , or for Sin once , and but once ; seeing he being raised from the Dead , he dyed no more , Death hath no more Dominion over him , Rom. 6. 9 , 10. Therefore the words are to be understood Tropically ; they are a Metaphor , which is a contract Similitude , and signify , that they are like unto the Jews , and deal with Christ in somethings , as they did . For as the Jews judged Christ not to be the Messias and Son of God , but a Seducer , an Impostor and Malefactor , and desired Judgment against him as such , that he might be Crucified , and put to open shame ; so these Apostates denying Christ , whom they had formerly professed , must needs account of him no better then the Jews did , and so justify all their Accusations against him , and his Crucifying as just , and justly deserved by him . But these Revolters especially agree with the malicious Jews , who renounce him , blaspheme him , and persecute him in those who profess him ; such , Julian was . This is to tread under foot the Son of God , and to count the blood of the Covenant , [ that is , whereby the everlasting Covenant was confirmed , and they sanctified ] an unholy or profane thing . This is the highest contempt of Christ and his Blood , that possibly can be : Some observe from these words , [ Crucify him afresh ] ; 1. That though they cannot Crucify him , because he is far out of their power ; yet for their part they are ready and have a mind to do it , and would do it , if it were in their power . 2. That though he was Crucified once , yet if he were living and in their reach , they would Crucify him again . § . 7. This is the meaning of the Words : Now secondly , Let 's consider how they come in upon the former , and what connexion they have with them . They presuppose that Apostates do Crucify the Son of God to themselves afresh , and are guilty of this Crime : For Apostacy is their Sin , and this necessarily follows upon it , and is inseparably joyned with it . And they seem to give a reason of the impossibility of their Renovation by Repentance . For there can be no Renovation or Sanctification , but by the Blood of the Son of God ; and this they deny , renounce , trample under foot ; therefore they can neither repent , nor by repentance be renewed , or receive any benefit . For repentance presupposeth necessarily Faith in the Blood of Christ , and the force thereof dependeth upon that Blood , and the belief thereof ; without both which , no repentance can ever do any good , or benefit any man ; and this is the immutable Will and Decree of God. Neither will God give Repentance to any Apostate , or accept him , though he should and could repent : For Christ did never merit , nor God promise to any such persons , either of these . The reason of all this is , That God decreed that Christ should dy but once , and that Sinners should be initiated but once ; and that whosoever makes void to himself this one Death , and this one Initiation , shall never have any benefit by a second Death , or a second Initiation . These are contrary to the eternal and unchangeable Rules and Laws of his Kingdom ; and by these Rules , their Sin is irremissible , and their final destruction unavoidable . Therefore let us hear and fear , lest by any means we fall away from that Christianity , which we have received , professed , and engaged in . By all this it 's evident , that it 's in vain to lay the foundation again by Repentance , Faith , Baptism , and the rest . This reason , to make it more plain , is illustrated by a Similitude ; which , as all other Comparisons , hath two parts , 1. A Proposition . 2. A Reddition . The Proposition is expressed , the Reddition implyed . The subject of the first part or proposition is the Earth ; and as there are two sorts or kinds of Earth , good and bad , so there be two parts of the proposition , The first , Concerning good Earth . The second , Concerning bad and barren Ground . 1. Concerning the good , we may consider , 1. The Proposition , and then the Reddition . In the first observe , 1. The Fruitfulness . 2. God's Blessing . The fruitfulness presupposeth Rain . Dressing . For without these two ; Moisture and Husbandry ; no Ground can be fruitful : The Rain is from Heaven , the Husbandry from Man. The goodness of it is , that it drinketh in the Rain . bringeth forth Herbs meat for them , by whom it 's dressed ; and here by Herbs may be meant all kind of Fruit that 's fit for man's food . As it 's fruitful , so it receiveth Blessing from God : For it is God that maketh the Earth fruitfull and flourishing , and without his Blessing the best Land , though never so well husbanded , is barren , and of this we have frequent experience . The Reddition of this is , 1. That the thing signified in general , is sinful Man ; and especially his heart . Yet there is a great difference of men's heart ; for though no man can make his heart spiritually good , yet every man may make his heart bad , and worse then other mens ; and may , by neglect and other wayes , much obscure the light of Nature , and dull the edge of conscience , and so render himself indisposed for better things . If this were not so , there would be no inequality , but all men would be equally sinful , which daily experience contradicts . A good heart is like good Ground , therefore may be an heart not so bad , or morally good , according to the light of Nature , and the power of Conscience , which we find in Heathens , and somewhat improved higher by Christian Education . For the heart to bring forth fruit meet for the Dresser , is to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit answerable to God's Spiritual Husbandry , and the Showres of his heavenly Doctrine , and the workings of his Spirit : It 's to walk worthy of our Calling , wherewith we are called . This is that good and honest heart , which bringeth forth fruit unto perfection : The Blessing received , is the continuance of the means of Salvation , the increasing of heavenly Graces and Comforts , and in the end eternal Life , which is the greatest Blessing of all . The end of this part of the Comparison , is not only to perswade and encourage to Duty , because of the great Blessing and Reward which will follow ; but also to let others , who incline to Apostacy , know , how they deprive themselves of God's heavenly Blessings , and these glorious Rewards . § . 8. The second protasis or proposition is , concerning bad Ground , which , 1. Appears to be bad , by bearing Thorns and Bryers . 2. Is used as bad Ground . 1. By being rejected . 2. Nigh unto Cursing . 3. In the end burned . This Ground , is a bad heart , which is manifested by the fruits , which are words and deeds , tending to the dishonour of God , and the hurt of Man. And this Sin is so much the greater , because of the means of Grace , and workings of the Spirit over and above the light of Nature , which God hath graciously afforded them . The punishment of this barrenness in all virtue , and fruitfulness in Sin , followeth ; and there are three degrees thereof . The first is rejecting , when God takes away his Ministers , his Word ; or , if they continue , withdraw the powerful working of the Spirit ; whereupon man is justly deserted of God , as unworthy of any farther spiritual Dressing , and useless for that end God in his great Mercy intended him . The second , he is nigh unto Cursing , and the sentence of Excommunication , whereby he is delivered up to Satan , and a reprobate mind . Hence blindness , hardness of heart , and the spirit of slumber : This was the case of the unbelieving Jew , and is the greatest Curse that can fall upon man in this life . The third , their end is Burning : For rejection , and this Curse will end in eternal punishments , compared to torment , with unquenchable fire . This comparison is not only an illustration for the more clear representation of the condition of Apostates , but also a very serious admonition , to take heed of that grievous Sin , and of all things that tend thereunto , because the end will be so woful , and the punishment so grievous . For if men deal thus with their Ground , which is devoid of reason , sense , and understanding ; how much more cause hath God to punish , and that so severely , men who are endued with understanding , and enjoy so many helps and means of Conversion and Salvation ? § . 9. The second reason of the Apostates resolution is given , Ver. 9. But beloved , we are perswaded better things of you , and things that accompany Salvation , though we thus speak THe brief meaning of the words , is , 1. That though we did sharply reprove you , and by our discourse of Apostacy , might seem to imply , that you were either Apostates , or very near unto it ; yet I desire to be understood in another manner . For I have more charity for you , better conceirs of you , and hopes of your continuance in Christianity , so that you need not be initiated again by laying the foundation , and I have good Grounds of this my hope . 2. This is the reason why I will not lay the foundation again , but go on to perfection , and further inform you of higher points of Doctrine , and in particular of the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood . In this reason , we may observe , 1. His hope and good perswasion of them . 2. The ground of this his hope . In these words we have a Rhetorical Anticipation , whereby he endeavours to prevent the thoughts which might arise in their hearts upon his former speeches and expressions : For they might think that he did by them tacitely condemn them as Apostates , or in the way to Apostacy . And if he did so , he must needs wrong them and discourage them ; for he did tacitely imply , though not positively and expresly affirm , that they were of a bad disposition , and in a very sad condition ; and this Opinion of them was against charity and truth . To remove such suspicious and jealousies out of their minds , he in these words assures them of his Charity , and that his words were not inconsistent with his good conceipt of them . The first , that is , his Charity , he signifies by the term of Compellation [ Beloved ] ; for he loved them with a dear and tender Love , as Christians continuing in Christianity : This he could not have done , if he had judged them Apostates and Enemies to Christ. By this we are taught , that it is our Duty not onely to love our Christian Brethren , but upon occasion to express it , and further to give the reason and ground of our love , as the Apostle here doth : For the reason and ground of this love was his perswasion of their continuance in Christianity : [ For he was perswaded better things of them &c. ] In which words , 1. He confesseth he spake such things as might seem to charge them with Apostacy , and condemn them as cursed . 2. He yet denies , that those words do imply any such thing ; and that he was so far from any such thoughts of them , that he was perswaded of the contrary . He did indeed reprove them for their Ignorance and Negligence , whereof some of them were highly guilty ; and also signify the deplorable and desperate case of Apostates , and there was danger lest some might in time be guilty of that Sin ; yet all this was not to accuse them , but warn them , that this danger might be prevented . To reprove and admonish , are Acts of Charity , and such as the most loving Father in the World may and sometimes must use , if he truly love his Children . We may represent the ugly and filthy face of Sin and the horrid pains of Hell to our best friends , to the end they may hate the one and escape the other ; Thus God doth in the Scriptures , thus Christ often doth in his heavenly Sermons , and useth this as a means to prevent their Damnation and promote their Salvation ; So that his former discourse was consistent both with Christian Charity , and his good perswasion of them . [ I am perswaded better things of you , and such as accompany Salvation . ] These words imply , 1. That there were good things in them . 2. He was perswaded of this . The good things ( which , in comparison of the former barrenness or fruitfulness in bringing forth briars and thorns , and cursing , and burning , were better ) were , 1. Their Qualification . 2. Their Condition : And they were better , not because the other was good , for they were not , but very evil ; but because they were very good , as the other were very bad ; This is a special kind of Phrase and Expression , yet in some Languages ordinary , yet it 's improper though elegant : Some would call it a M●iosis , which is , when more is meant than is expressed , and so it 's reducible to a Syn●chdochs . Their qualification was from some heavenly vertues , which did manifest themselvs in their practice ; their Condition was that of Salvation . They were in the state of Salvation ; for their vertues were such , as that by divine Ordination and Promise there was an inseparable Connexion between Salvation and them : For Salvation and divine Graces go together in one Company ; the Graces go before , Salvation follows after ; yet so that the Graces take hold of Salvation , as the word in the Original signifies ; For , such Christians as these Hebrews were , have a present Right by Faith , evidenced by the Works of Charity , unto eternal life , and Hope takes hold of it . But what these vertues were , we shall know from the next Verse . 2. That these better things were in them , the Apostle was perswaded ; that is , he did not deny them , no , nor doubt of them , but was confident of their good Qualification and Disposition . § . 10. Yet if a man be confident of another man's sincere Christianity , he must have some ground sufficient for his confidence ; otherwise it 's vain and irrational . Therefore he gives us the ground , Ver. 10. For God is not unrighteous , to forget your work and labour of Love , &c. ] The ground of his confidence concerning 1. Their qualification , was , his Knowledge of their Divine and Christian virtues . 2. Concerning their condition , was , his Knowledg of God's Righteousness . In the first , we may observe , 1. Their virtues . 2. The manifestation of them , so as that he might know them . The virtues were Faith and Love ; Faith in Christ , Love of the Saints : Their Love is expresly mentioned [ your labour of Love ] ; their Faith is implied , in that it was toward his Name . There were other virtues ( for these could not be alone ) , as their Patience in suffering of Afflictions for Christ's sake , and that with joy ; and their hope of Glory , Chap. 10. 34. The manifestation of these was in their work and labour , in continuing to minister unto the Saints , whereof he had certain Knowledge : Here we are informed , that Love will be working and labouring , and ever bringing forth fruit ; and that is not real and sincere Love which is not such . Therefore another Apostle exhorts us not to love onely in tongue , but in truth and in deed , 1 John 3. 18. And what it is to love in truth and indeed , is signified in the 16th . and 17th . Verses going before ; it 's to give the lives of our bodies for them , and relieve them with our goods ; it's a dying and giving Love : And happy they which find this heavenly fire burning in their Souls . But in most men , though professed Christians , we either find no Love , or if any it 's but cold ; it will neither take pains , nor be at Charge , much less hazard life for the Brethren , as Christ gave his life for us . This love was fixed upon the suffering Saints , who were persecuted for Christ's sake , they were the speciall Object of it ; and this did argue their Love to God , and their Faith in Christ , without which this love could not have been truly Christian : Therefore the Apostle joyns Faith in Christ , and Love to all the Saints together , Col. 1. 4. By all which we may understand , that there is a Connexion of divine vertues : For where one is in sincerity , there all the rest are ; they cannot be seperated . This work and labour in particular was their Ministration to the Saints : Where we must enquire 1. What this Ministration is . 2. To whom they did minister . 3. How long they did minister . 1. This Ministration was a work of Faith and Love , whereby they used all just and effectual means in their power , to preserve , maintain , comfort , deliver the Saints persecuted and suffering . 2. These Saints were Christians which suffered banishment , imprisonment , loss of Goods , and other earthly Comforts , for the Profession of their Faith in Christ. And by this Suffering were they known to be Saints : Therefore this Love was not meerly natural , nor meerly Moral , but truly Christian Love ; and so denominated from the parties that loved , who are such , as that we are bound to love them above others , and this Love is that whereby we may know that we are passed from Death to Life . 3. The continuance of this Love was , that they had ministred formerly , in time past , and now for the time present they continued this Work of Love ; for Christian Love is an immortal fire , it will still burn and never dy . This Ministration was a great evidence of their good Qualification , and a good and firm ground of the Apostle's perswasion . The ground of his perswasion , concerning their good condition , was the Knowledge of God's Righteousness ; [ For God is not unrighteous to forget your Work and Labour of Love. ] This Proposition is Negative , and includes the Affirmative ; which is , That God is fighteous , and will remember their Christian Faith , Love , and good Works : And it 's delivered Negatively , to signify the infallible certain truth of the Affirmative ; for in this Case the Negative is more peremptory and emphatical . The ground it self is thus expressed , his Knowledge of it is implyed . But let 's consider , 1. What it is for God here to forget or remember . 2. What it is for him to be righteous or not unrighteous . 1. God can forget nothing at any time , but alwayes remembers all things ; and the reason of this is , the perfection of his Knowledge , which is infinite , as he himself is . Therefore , to forget in this place is , not to take notice of their vertues and actions , so as to recompense them . To remember , is so to regard them as to render a Reward : To reward , is an Act of God as a Supream Judge . The Righteousness of God is his distributive Justice , and faithfulness in performing his Promise in judging according to his Law : And this rewarding of his loyal and obedient Subjects is a proper Act of his judicial Justice ; for God is the universal Judge , and is alwayes upon the Bench , and in the end will pass final ●●●tence upon all Men and Angels . This seems to be understood of that final Doom , in which eternal Punishments and Rewards shall be determined . This could be no ground of his perswasion , except he knew it , and he knew this Judgment in generall as he knew the Gospel ; that is , infallibly , and by divine Revelation : But that they should be eternally rewarded , in particular , he understood so far as he was certain of their Works . So that the ground of his perswasion was this , that he knew God was not unrighteous , to forget their vertues and good works . § . 11. In this part and passage of Scripture divers things are remarkable : 1. Real Love to God's persecuted Saints , is a great evidence of sincere Christianity . Therefore saith the divine Apostle , By this we know that we are passed from Death to Life , because we love the Brethren , 1 Joh. 3. 14. 2. Where there is sincere Christianity , it will manifest it self by good Works ; for as a good tree manifests its Goodness by its fruits , so doth Faith and inward sincere Christianity . 3. To whomsoever this Christianity is thus manifested in any persons , they ought to love them , and be well perswaded of their happy condition and state of Salvation . 4. They that are thus perswaded ought to signify their Love and good Opinion of them as occasion shall require : For by this they may prevent suspicions , quiet their minds , encourage and comfort them . 5. There are certain divine Vertues and good Works , which have an inseparable connexion with Salvation and eternal Life , and which God will not forget . 6. This inseparable Connexion is not necessary as from the Vertues and the Works , as though they did merit Salvation , or necessitate God to reward them . 7. It is from God's Righteousness and Promise , with respect had to Christ's merit , and the qualification of the parties . 8. As there are some Persons hardned and delivered up unto a reprobate mind , and some sins committed in this life , and sometimes long before death , which are irremissible ; so there are certain Vertues and good Works found in Christians , & that in this life , whereupon they are put in a state of Confirmation . 9. This state of Confirmation infallibly prevents , though not all sins , yet final and total Apostacy . 10. This state of Confirmation doth depend upon God's Righteousness and faithfulness , not upon the Excellency of the Vertues and good Works . 11. If such as be endued with these Vertues , & have done these Works , should fall away totally and finally , then they should never be rewarded . 12. If they should never be rewarded , but forgotten , God should be unrighteous and unfaithful ; which to imagine is a bominable . 13. Therefore God hath made some Promise , whereby he hath bound himself certainly to support such as attain to this Qualification , that so they may be eternally rewarded . God may be said to be righteous three wayes : 1. In respect of strict Justice . 2. Of bounty and free beneficence . 3. Of Promise . First , He may be said to be strictly just , when he rewardeth Man according to his perfect Obedience ; yet no Obedience , though never so perfect , can bind him to reward Man or Angel. 2. He is just by way of bounty , when he rewards Man capable of Reward , and worthy , though not in respect of his perfect Righteousness in himself , yet because he is some wayes righteous in respect of others who are unrighteous : Thus Righteousness is often taken in Scripture , therefore it 's written , that it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble his persecuted Saints ; and to his Saints troubled , Rest with the Apostles , 2 Thes. 1. 6 , 7. And Righteousness for this reason somtimes signifies Metonymically , the great Reward of eternal life ; as , Seek ye the Kingdom of God and his Righteousnesse first of all , Mat. 6. 33. So Psal. 24. 5. & Isa. 51. 5. The third Righteousness is in the performance of his Promise ; for though his Promise be free , yet if it be once made , Justice doth require it , and God is not free but bound to perform it , and if he should not perform , he should be unjust , which he cannot be : This is the Righteousness here meant . If any reply against this Doctrine , and alledge the words of God , saying , that when the righteous turneth away from his Righteousness , his Righteousness shall not be mentioned unto him , he shall dy , Ezrk. 18. 24. The Answer is , 1. That the place speaketh of Legal Righteousness , and Legal Repentance , and Legal Life and Death , according to the Covenant ma●● with their fathers in the Wilderness . 2. Yet there is a Righteousness , and a certaindegree thereof , and that under the Gospel , from which Christians may fall finally and totally . To understand both these , we must observe , 1. That no good Works can expiate Sins , either antecedent or consequent to them ; for there is no expiating Power in them at all , neither doth any Laws , that require constant Obedience , allow that latter vertuous Acts should satisfy for former Crimes ; nor former good Deeds though excellent take away the guilt of future Offences . 2. There was a Legal Righteousness required in the Covenant made between God and Israel before Mount Sinai , and it consisted in the Obedience of the Moral , Judicial , Ceremonial Laws of Moses , which did prevent God's temporall Judgments , and was a means whereby they obtained and enjoyed God's Protection , Safety , Peace , Plenty , and many a Blessing in the good Land of Canaan : This is evident out of Levit. 26. and many places of Deuteronomy , and in particular out of the 28th . Chapter , and so out of many Passages which we read in the Books of the Prophets . As there is a Legal Obedience , so there is a Legal Repentance , upon which followed deliverance from temporal Judgments of Sword , Famine , Captivity , and the Curses threatned in the Law. So we find , Levit. 26 , 40 , 41 , 42 , &c. and Deut. 30. 1,2,3 , &c. But that Righteousness whereby they obtained eternal Peace , and that Repentance whereby they were freed from eternal Punishments , did depend upon that Promise of the blessed Seed made to Abraham . That there was such a Righteousness in them under the Law , from which they might fall , and though they did not fall , yet by it they could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven , appears by that young Man , who came to Christ to know what he should do to inherit eternal Life , Matth. 19. 16 , 17 , 18 , &c. and by Paul , who touching the Righteousness of the Law , was blameless , Phil. 3. 6. There is also a Righteousness and Repentance according to the Law and Light of Nature , according to which men are blessed or delivered temporally : But the Righteousness , and the state thereof , which is here intended , is far higher : It presupposeth both Moral and Legal Righteousness and Repentance for the Substance of it , yet is more . 3. Of this Righteousness , under the Gospel , is found in many , such a degree as they may fall from it , and that totally and finally : This Righteousness , so far as it reacheth , is true , and tends much towards eternal life ; and the estate of such as do attain it is comfortable and hopeful . But there are usually defects in it , and those very great : For 1. It doth not proceed to a deep and firm radication ; nor 2. To any habitual predominancy over all lusts ; nor 3. Will it endure any great tryall . There may be , and are indeed in many Persons , Knowledge , Faith , Love , Hope , and Comfort , and these not meerly Moral , but Supernatural and divine , caused not onely by the outward revelation of the Word , but also by inward illumination and inspiration of the Spirit ; yet some of these , if they be Persons of great estate , will be unwilling to sell all and give unto the poor , or restore four-fold to those they have wronged , or forfeit credit , liberty , their whole estate , and hazard their lives , out of Love to their dear Saviour ; yet all these must be done , and that freely and willingly , before we can attain to an estate of Confirmation , 4. Yet this Confirmation doth not depend upon the radication and intensive measure of their divine vertues , but upon the Will and support of God , which certain support Man cannot expect by vertue of the Covenant , before he arrive at such a measure of Grace , and performance of Duty : For it 's the meet Mercy of God , who delights in an upright heart , which moved him to promise this Confirmation to persons of integrity , who have overcome the World ; for till Faith improve so far as to obtain this Victory , and that clearly , Man may fall , and the desires and fears of the World may the more easily prevail against him , and God may justly desert him , because he neglects to come up unto his terms , and refuseth the conditions and qualification necessary to a compleat , real , and sincere Disciple , to whom alone Confirmation by vertue of the Promise is due . That which supports a Man against all temptations , and prevents Apostacy , is strength ; this strength is internal and external , and both from God. The internal strength is such a measure of Faith in Christ in Man , as is sufficient to overcome the World , and obtain a clear victory . The external strength is that power of God superadded to the former , which , not only , continues and preserves the inward power of Grace , but also is continually ready to supply all defects , and make the final issue infallible and most certain . For there is a glorious Inheritance reserved in Heaven for those , who are kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation , ready to be revealed is the last time . 1 Pet. 1. 4 , 5. Where we have Faith within , and the power of God without , and the preservation of the parties regenerate unto Salvation , and final enjoyment , as the effect of both . Neither of these belong unto those which have only the Spirit of preparation , and not of inhabitation : For though they are in a fair way unto , and in good hope of both , yet they have attained neither . Yet there are others which find the victorious power of Faith within them , and having received the Spirit of Adoption , testifying that they are the Sons of God , and the first fruits of Glory , may be assured of their preservation to the end , according to the tenour of the Promises made in many places of Scripture to such as are so qualified , as they know themselves to be . § . 12. Thus far the Apostle's Resolution , and the Reasons thereof : Now followeth his exhortation , which comes in very seasonably after his former Doctrine of Apostacy , which was terrible ; and the latter concerning the happy and safe estate of such as were qualified as they were . For , lest the one should occasion dispair , and the other presumption and security ; by this exhortation , he intimates , that the very estate of confirmation in this life doth not exempt from duty and diligence on Man's part , not exclude some kind of desertion on God's part . For this Confirmation differs from that which shall be in Heaven , where there shall be no Sin , no Temptation ; but perfect holiness without any danger , and a plenary possession of the blessed Inheritance . For the estate of the Confirmed in this time of mortality , is like that of Israel , after that they had broken the main strength of the Canaanites , divided the Land by lot , and did begin to enjoy it . But after all this was done , there remained several parts of the Land not yet reduced , nor totally subdued . And God did so order it to try them , and also to continue and improve their Military skill and valour . So it is with God's regenerate Ones , his true Israelites , for though they have broken the main strength of the Enemy , and , as it were , in one pi●cht Battle obtained a clear Victory : yet the remainders of corruption may sometimes put them hard to it , and much annoy them . And it 's God's Will it should be thus to teach them humbly to depend upon him , and that continually , to exercise their heavenly virtues ; to keep their watch , and never put off their Armour , till they have obtained a total and final Victory . The principal things to be observed in this Exhortation are , 1. The Duty exhorted unto . 2. The Reasons why it should be performed . For he that will exhort effectually , must , 1. Let the parties exhorted know distinctly what the Duty is . 2. Demonstrate that it's very reasonable to perform it , and the more clearly and fully both these are done , the more effectually will the heart be moved : For the rational Creature must be moved rationally . Every exhortation implies the desire of the Oratour , or party exhorting ; otherwise , why doth he perswade ? why doth he exhort ? therefore , saith the Apostle , [ I desire you . ] In this it differs both from a Command and a Petition ; and if the party desiring be excellent or beloved , and the thing desired be reasonable and advantageous , it should prevail much . If such a person as Paul , so worthy and so excellent , shall desire the performance of a thing which is not only convenient , but necessary to the attaining of eternal life , how ready should we be to do it ? § . 13. But , To know the Duty , is most considerable ; and it is Perseverance , the same , which was formerly urged , Chap. 2. 3 , 4. This duty is proposed affirmatively , and negatively : and the performance of it , concerned all and every one . For thus he writes , Ver. 11. And we desire that every one of you shew the same diligence , to the full assurance of hope unto the end . Ver. 12. That you be not slothfull . ] THere is no mention of Perseverance in the Text , yet it 's sufficiently implyed ; for , if they must shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end , then they must persevere . But to understand the duty more fully , let us enquire ; 1. What hope is , 2. What the full assurance of hope . 3. What it is to shew the same diligence , to the full assurance of hope unto the end . Hope , is sometimes taken , for the thing hoped for , not as it is in it self , but as it is an object of that hope which is a divine vertue ; and this eternal Life , which though it be not the only , yet is the principal object of our Christian hope . Sometimes it 's taken properly for the expectation of this glorious , and great Reward of eternal felicity : It presupposeth Faith , whereby we certainly believe it possible to be had and enjoyed , with a vehement desire and longing after it . And though the distance between us and it be great , yet we are patient , and willing to stay God's leisure . There is a vain and groundless hope , which is irrational ; there is a rational and probable hope , yet not so firm and certain : there is a firm and certain hope , and that is when we have assurance of the thing hoped for , This assurance also may admit of degrees ; for it may be full , or not full This full assurance is the second thing , and it 's that which removes all doubts and fears and this it may do at sometimes , and not at others ; it may be interrupted , or continued to the end : This place speaks of full assurance of hope to the end . This assurance will not be had , much less continued to the end by sloth ; by diligence , it may . And so we are in the third place come unto the Duty , which is to use all means , and that with diligence , whereby we may attain this assurance , and continue it full unto the end . And here he implies , that they had been formerly diligent , and so diligent , as to have attained this assurance ; yet here he tells them , 1. That they must continue the same diligence to the end . 2. That the same diligence , zeal , affection , they had shewed formerly being continued , would serve the turn . Assurance or certainty is either of the thing , or the person : The latter presupposeth the former ; for there can be no certainty to the person of a thing which is not certain in it self . This certainty is in respect of the person , who is either God or Man : Eternal life is certain in respect of God , who is able to give it , and hath decreed so to do . And that it might be certain unto us , and that before the time of possession , he hath signified his purpose , bound himself by promise , and confirmed his promise by Oath ; so that on his part it 's fully , and every way certain . Yet because the promise requireth a qualification , and a performance of duty in the person to whom the promise is made ; therefore , before we can be certain , we must not only perform the duty , and have the qualification , but we must certainly know , that we have done that which the Promise requireth , and are duly qualified . And the more clear and full the knowledg is , the more full the assurance of hope ; and if this full knowledg continue , this full assurance continueth to the end , which is no groundless presumption , but a firm and well-grounded hope . Yet this is so to be understood , that so far as Man may neglect his Duty , and abate in the Qualification , so far this assurance may abate . If man's diligence in performing the Duty continue to the end , this full assurance will do so too . For to them , who by patient continuance in well-doing , shall seek Glory , Honour , and Immortality , God will render eternal life , Rom. 2. 7. Yet this patient continuance in well-doing , depends upon God's special assistance and support . For it 's God that worketh in us the Will and the Deed of his good pleasure , Phil. 2. 13. And this is the reason why we must work out our Salvation with fear and trembling : The full assurance not only depends upon the merit and intercession of Christ , the Decree , Promise , and Oath of God ; but also requireth the diligence of Man , and the continual support of God. God's support , assistance , and concurrence are alwayes ready , yet so is not Man's diligence . For the best , and most confirmed Saints on Earth may sometimes be remisse , and so have their failings , whereupon follow desertions to their great discomfort . Yet neither do their failings wholly annihilate Grace , nor frustrate the final event ; but God sometimes in his wonderful wisdom , by with-drawing his comforts , awakens and quickens them to Duty , and useth outward Afflictions as Chastisements to improve their inherent virtues , and corrects them . And in that he promiseth to be their Father , he binds himself to Chastise them , if need require : Otherwise he should not take them as Sons , but account them as Bastards , and so utterly neglect them . So that we may apply that of the Psalmist in this case ; If his Children for sake my Law , and walk not in my Judgments ; If they break my Statutes , and keep not my Commandments : Then will I visit their Transgression with the Rod , and their Iniquities with Stripes . Nevertheless , my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him , nor suffer my faithfulness to fail , Psal. 89. 30 , 31 , 32 , 33. So God's adopred Children may have their failings ; yet God will Chastise them , that their Covenant may stand firm unto the end . Yet let every one be diligent to the end , and look for no comfort , but upon performance of Duty : For that God , who is most merciful , will be holy and just , and he requires his Children should be so too . Therefore let all those , who have made so great a progress in Grace , as to attain a full assurance of hope , and a sight of their heavenly Canaan , go on with all care and diligence : for it 's a sad thing , after that we are upon the borders of our heavenly Country , to be turned back , and wander in this Wilderness . For , Ver. 12. We must not be slothfull , but followers of them who through Faith and Patience inherit the Promises . § . 14. THE Duty exhorted unto may be sufficiently understood by what hath been said already ; but that 's not sufficient , it must be performed : Yet , who will go about it , except it be reasonable ? And to manifest this , is the next Work of the Apostle , declaring the Reasons and Motives , the first whereof is from Examples 1. Of many not named . 2. Of Abraham in particular . Examples do prove the Duty to be not onely possible , but to have been actually performed , and as such they do not bind though they may encourage ; but because the matter of them is something commanded ; they may and do oblige , and not onely so , but God commands us to imitate them , and for that end makes them known , and proposeth them ; yet in these patterns there is a special reason and motive superadded ; for as they by Faith and Patience obtained the Promises , so shall we if we follow them . The Persons intended are patterns for imitation in two things ; 1. The end whereat they aimed , which was the attainment of the Promises . 2. The means whereby they attained this end Faith. Patience . 1. They attained the Promises , ] By Promises understand the things promised , which were spiritual deliverances , blessings , and rewards , and , in one word , Salvation ; yet temporal Mercies in reference to spiritual are not to be excluded : For God made many Promises to the Saints of old , and some of them were more special and extraordinary , and did not belong to all but to some particular Persons . All these , except the full enjoyment of eternal Glory , they attained , so far as they were capable before the general Resurrection and the last Judgment . If therefore we will make them our pattern , we must 1. Propose unto our selvs some divine and noble end , some great and glorious good : Yet 2. Because the end in it self may be excellent , yet no wayes beneficial to us , we must aim at the attainment thereof ; for Good known may delight our fancies , and the speculation of it may be pleasing , but the real possession and enjoyment doth make us happy . 3. It 's in vain to aim at any thing , though never so good , if God hath nor promised it ; for Gods Promise is the firm and immovable Foundation of our hopes ; this is the end whereat we must aim : Yet all our aims , and desires , and intentions are vain , except we use the means . The means which they used were Faith and Patience , and the same continued unto the end , even to the attainment : The same means we must also use ; for to imitate them in the prestitution and proposal of the end , is to no purpose , except we imitate them in this also : They had Faith , so must we have it ; they had Patience , we must be patient . By Faith we may understand , Confidence and relying upon God's Promises ; and it presupposeth a divine Belief grounded upon the Word of God revealed from Heaven . A probable humane Faith will not be sufficient , it 's far short and defective , it must be a gift of the Holy Ghost . Yet this without Patience will do little , it will not reach the end ; we must be patient . For ye have need of Patience ( saith the Apostle ) that after ye have done the Will of God , ye might receive the Promise , cap. 10. 36. We must have Faith , because the things promised are invisible , rare , excellent , far above the Power of any Creature , and onely in the Power of the Almighty God. We must have Patience , because they are to come , and at a great distance . For if we hope for that we see not , or enjoy not , then do we with Patience waite for it , Rom. 8. 25. Besides , we shall meet with many difficulties , oppositions , trials , all which must be overcome , which without Patience cannot be : Many things must be done , many things must be suffered , and we must make out way through the midst of dreadful Enemies , before we can attain the end . Further , our desires are vehement , and we long for the enjoyment which is yet to come ; therefore we must be patient , that we may quietly wait God's leisure . Though many other Christian vertues are required , yet these are onely expressed ; not onely because these are never without the rest , but because the other depend much upon these two which are the principal , and have the principal influence on the effect , as being most actively conducing to the attainment . These are most noble and excellent vertues , necessary and of great force ; yet by Faith and Patience is meant , the use and exercise of these two Graces , and the same continued to the end . § . 15. After the Examples of many , he instanceth in one , and the same most pertinent and eminent ; it 's that of Abraham . Ver. 13. For when God made a Promise to Abraham , &c. ] HE did but briefly touch upon the former examples , and thought it sufficient ; but he enlargeth upon this , and informeth us , 1. That God made a Promise to Abraham . 2. Confirmed the Promise by Oath . 3. That by patient enduring he obtained the Promise . 4. What the reason was , why God confirmed the Promise by Oath . 1. God made a Promise to Abraham ; There are Promises of God , and Promises of Men. This is a Promise of God. Of Promises in general , what they are , I have spoken [ Theopolitica ] , and of God's Promises , as they are parts of his Laws , and opposed to threatnings , in respect of both which the Law is a Rule of his judicial proceedings . The matter of them is some Good to come , and the same Spiritual and Temporal ; but the principal is Spiritual . Yet , 2. This Good , and the communication of it , must be intended by the party promising . 3. This intention is not sufficient , except it be expressed and signified to the party , to whom the Promise is made . 4. The effect , if not the act , is the binding of the party promising , unto performance ; and the giving a kind of right of the thing promised unto another to whom it 's made ; and also an hope of receiving and enjoying the good that doth follow upon it . All these are found in the Promises of God ; yet there is something more in them , for they are added unto , and joyned with , the Precepts to encourage man to the performance of his Duty , And they differ from the Promises of Man , as being most certain , ever stable , never failing ; because God is almighty , true , constant , faithful : and therefore are a firm ground of hope . There was great reason , why God should intend good to Man , if he was resolved to save him , and make him happy ; for otherwise his happiness had been impossible . Neither had this intention been sufficient , except he had signified it in his Promise , and bound himself ; for without both these , Man could have had no certain hope or comfort . The spiritual and eternal Mercies and Benefits , intended to Man , are so high , so excellent , so glorious , that Man could never have thought upon them , if God had not revealed them ; nor could have had any certain and firm hope of them , if any but God had promised them , and that freely , and upon Christ's merit : yet no Man can challenge any immediate right , much less the enjoyment of those things promised , before he be rightly qualified , and perform the Duty . God made many Promises to Abraham , but the chief to which the rest were appendant and subordinate , were Righteousness and eternal Life by Jesus Christ. § . 16. This Promise was confirmed by Oath , where we must observe , 1. The Confirmation . 2. The Promise confirmed . In the Confirmation , we have , 1. The party Swearing , which was God. 2. The party by whom he Sware , which was himself . 3. The reason why he Sware by himself , which was , because he could swear by no greater . By this we may easily understand , 1. That the ordinary definition of an Oath is not perfect , and of sufficient extent ; it agrees only to an Oath taken by a Creature , whether Man or Angel , it cannot agree to God ; yet God Sware , and this was an Oath far different from all other Oaths . For in this God lifts up his hand unto eternity ; and laies it upon the Altar of his unchangeable and infinite Beeing ; He pawns and pledgeth his God-head , and is willing , if he perform not with Man to forfeit it . 2. Therefore an Oath in general , is a special kind of confirmation of that which is less certain and evident , by that which is more certain and evident . For God's eternal Beeing and Life is more certain and evident to us , then his doing this or that good for his sinful Creature . 3. God swaring is in some sort inferiour to himself , and his eternal Beeing . 4. This was a strange condescension in God , in regard of man's infirmity , that He would hazzard the forfeiture of his Deity . O sinful man , be eternally ashamed to doubt of God's Promises , seeing he hath so deeply engaged himself unto thee , and hath laid down his God-head as a stake and pawn never to take it up again , if he fail the least jot with thee . This Oath we find , Gen. 22. 16. where we have , 1. The form , [ I have Sworn by my self . ] 2. The occasion whereupon He sware , and that was the extraordinary Faith and Obedience of Abraham , whereby he was ready at God's Command to Sacrifice his Son , his only Son. And whosoever shall attain to the same degree of Faith , which Abraham did manifest in this act of Obedience , may be secured by this Oath ; for God by it intended to confirm the Promise of righteousness and eternal life , not only to him , but to all Believers , who are the genuine Sons of Abraham . This was the Confirmation , the Promise confirmed followeth . Ver. 14. Surely Blessing I will Bless thee , and Multiplying I will Multiply thee . ABraham had Faith before , and was justified before this time . But upon this hard Tryal his Faith did more gloriously shine forth , and proved to belike refined Gold coming out of the Furnace far more bright , and his righteousness and eternal reward , besides other mercies were far more firmly confirmed unto him . The words of God spoken , are here , repeated but in part ; yet so , that we must understand the rest to be intended , and taken altogether , they are so full , and uttered in that manner , as though God could not express how much he loved him . For the words do signify the certainty , and abundance of his love , which he would really manifest unto him ; especially in Christ , in whom all Nations must be blessed . There are indeed in this Promise some Blessings proper unto Abraham , but the chief was spiritual and eternal bliss in Christ , without which all the rest could not have made truly and fully happy . § . 17. Abraham by this Promise thus made sure by Oath , was mightily strengthened ; and by his patient enduring , attained in the end the Promise . For , Ver. 15. So after he had patiently endured , he obtained the Promise . ] THe Promise , is the thing promised , and the thing promised was final Righteousness , Joy , and Peace ; the obtaining , is the enjoyment of this blessed estate which he so much desired , so much sought . The means was his continued patience , whereby he overcame all difficulties , continuing firm in the Covenant to the end . The sum of all , and the scope of the Apostle , is to let them know by this example of their Father Abraham , whom they so much honoured ; that if they patiently endured to the end , and faithfully performed their Duty , they should obtain and enjoy the same glorious Reward whereof he was already possessed . And this example should quicken , incite , and mightily encourage them ; and it should so much the more encourage , because the event should be so certain . But this is our misery , few believe these things , and so neither the Commands , Promises , and Oath of God , nor these examples of rare Heroick spirits do work upon us ; and though we might , yet we will not be made certain of eternal bliss . For God hath done all things on his part to assure and confirm us , as appears by this Oath . § . 18. For this was the end for which God promised and confirmed the Promise by Oath , as it appears by the words following , wherein we may consider , 1. The end of an Oath in general . 2. The end of this particular Oath intended by God. Concerning an Oath , as taken and used by Men ( for of such he speaks ) , he observes two things , 1. That it 's taken by a greater . 2. It 's for confirmation , an end of all strife . Ver. 16. For men verily swear by the greater , and an Oath for confirmation to them is the end of all strife . 1. MEn verily swear by the greater ; and some Men and Angels are greater , and may have power to punish perjured persons : yet suppose such an Oath to be lawful , as in some cases it may be , yet it 's insufficient for that end , for which an Oath in general was intended and ordained . For neither Men nor Angels know the secrets and intentions of the hearts of Men who Swear ; neither can they punish with eternal punishments the Offenders . But God who is Omniscient , Omnipresent , Omnipotent , and exactly just , knows the hearts , and secrets of all Men , in all places , at all times , and can and will punish the Offenders , and in particular false and vain Swearers , not only with temporal , but eternal punishments , if they be not prevented by serious and timely Repentance . Therefore men usually Swear by God , and requires others so to do ; otherwise they will not believe them , and rest satisfied . And though they should , yet the God of eternal Truth will not be abused and attested for to confirm a falshood ; and wo to him who shall forfeit his interest in him , and provoke him against his own Soul , as false Swearers do . 2. Because the end of an Oath is to determine strife ; therefore men swear by a greater who can take vengeance , and certainly knows who do profane his Name . That this is the end to determine strife , the Apostle signifies by these words , [ And an Oath fo● confirmation to them is an end of all strife . ] Where it 's to be noted , 1. The subject matter of an Oath is some strife or controversy , that is , a thing which may be doubted of , and is not known to them who doubt , but only to the party that asserts it by Oath . 2. This doubt must be such , as cannot be cleared by sense or reason , or any other argument but a testimony . 3. Yet there is some kind of necessity of confirmation . 4. This confirmation cannot be made but by testimony . 5. Because the testimony of man is insufficient and unsatisfactory , therefore God is invoked to be a co-witness . 6. Because it 's supposed that no man will forfeit his interest in God , and invoke him against his own Soul , when a thing is confirmed by Oath they rest satisfied . For the party swearing can do no more , and when he hath taken his Oath , he hath done enough ; except he be an Atheist , and no Atheist should be permitted or admitted to Swear , his Oath will signify nothing . § . 19. As the end of an Oath in general is to end all strife , and finally determine Controversies ; so the end of that Oath in particular which God sware to Abraham , is to take away all controversy and doubt about the eternal Inheritance . For by it God , 1. Shews the immutability of his Counsel . 2. By this shewed , ministreth strong consolation to the Heirs of Promise , which fly for refuge to the hope set before them . So that the end is two-fold ; Immediate , and Remote : Immediate is the manifestation of the immutability of his Counsel ; the Remote , strong consolation . The former is subordinate to the latter , and as it is an end in respect of the Oath , so it 's a means in respect of the consolation . The first end therefore is to shew the immutability of his Counsel , unto the Heirs of Promise . For thus it 's written . Ver. 17. Wherein God willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise , the immutability of his Counsel , confirmed it by an Oath . ] VVHere we may observe , 1. The immutability of God's Counsel . 2. The more abundant manifestation thereof . 3. The Oath of God interposed to that end . If we reduce the Text to Proposions , they are these : 1. That God's Counsel is immutable . 2. God was willing to manifest this to the Heirs of Promise . 3. For that end He interposed an Oath . Proposition 1. God's Counsel is immutable , ] By God's Counsel , is meant his Decree , which is an act of the Will , as Counsel is of the Understanding : yet it 's called Counsel , because no Decree of God is made without the Counsel , Wisdom , and direction of the Understanding . For God being an intelligent Agent , and of most perfect Knowledg , and profoundest Wisdom , can will or determine nothing but according to the best and most exact Understanding . 2. The Decrees of God are many , and extend to all things done , or to be done ; but here the Decree or Counsel of God is special , and limited to a special object , the intellectual and immortal Creatures as Men and Angels ; and here to Men , and amongst Men to the Heirs of Promise . 3. The Heirs of Promise , are the object of it in respect of their spiritual and immortal estate ; and the matter of it , was the giving of eternal life . For he decreed to give them eternal Bliss and Glory . This Decree once made , was immutable , and could not be altered or revoked either by God himself , or any thing out of God. For , 1. There can be no cause of revocation , either for want of Wisdom or Justice , for he is absolutely both wise and lust . 2. Neitheir from the inconstancy of his Will ; for the strength of Israel will not lye or repent , for he is not as Man that he should repent , 1 Sam. 15. 29. 3. Neither need he alter , nor can his Will be frustrated for want of Power , for he is Almighty . And if there be no ground or cause of alteration from within , much less from without , though all Men and Angels and all Creatures should combine together ; as they have no strength to frustrate ; so they have no power to Null his Decrees , for he is the Supream and Universal Lord. Therefore it is said , The Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever , the thoughts of his heart to all Generations , Psal. 33. 11. This immutability is truly affirmed of all his Decrees , but especially it is true of this particular determination , concerning the eternal Salvation and Beatification of the Heirs of Promise . This counsel is part of the Election and Prede●●●nation of his People , and is to be referred to that Head : And it 's noted , that no Decree but this was confirmed by an Oath . Proposition 2. God was willing more abundantly to shew this to the Heirs of Promise , God only knows his own Thoughts and Counsels ; and neither Man or Angel is or can be privy to them , except they be revealed . None can reveal them but Himself , and this he hath done freely , and of his own accord ; and in great mercy hath let man know his gracious thoughts and purposes , to make him for ever blessed . In this manifestation , we may consider , 1. What the thing manifested is . 2. To whom the manifestation is made . 3. His willingness to manifest this to them more abundantly . 1. The thing manifested , as before , is the immutability of his Counsel : For he manifests not only his Counsel and Decree of everlasting Salvation , but the immutability of it . Man must know what his Counsel is , and that it is unchangeable and irrevocable ; and the manifestation of both , was necessary to the end he intended . For if Man had not known his Counsel , he could have had no immediate ground of comfort ; if he had known his Counsel , and not the immutability of it , his comfort could not have been strong , certain , stable . 2. This manifestation was made unto the Heirs of Promise : They are Heirs of Promise , who have right unto the eternal inheritance promised ; these are sincere Believers , and the Sons of God , who are joynt-Heirs with Christ , and by Faith derive their Title from him by virtue of God's Promise , which in him is Yea and Amen . By this we understand , that the Promise was not made to Abraham alone , but to all his Seed according to the Spirit ; for he was the Father of Believers , who by Faith are Christ's : And if Christ's , then are they Abraham's Seed , and Heirs according to the Promise , Gal. 3. 29. These , and these alone , are they whom God intended to secure , and make certain of their Salvation , and for their security was the manifestation made ; but as for others , as they have no right to the Promise , so they can have no benefit by this manifestation . 3. God was willing more abundantly to shew this to them : It must be shewed , and so it was by his Word ; it must be shewed abundantly , and that was done by the Promise ; it must be shewed more abundantly , and this could not be , but by his Oath . What more could be done ? what more could the Heirs of Promise desire ? But what moved him to do this ? nothing but his own will , his goodness , his dear affection , and abundant love to the Heirs of Promise . As for himself , he knew his Counsel well enough , and that it was unchangeable ; yet he had regard unto their infirmity , and certainly intended to give them certain and strong comfort . And for this he did not expect their Prayers , but prevented them out his free and exceeding mercy , which was the only Fountain from which this gracious manifestation did issue . Proposition 3. To this end God interposed himself by an Oath , or confirmed it by ab Oath . ] This interposing or confirming by an Oath , was the means ; and the immediate end of it was the more abundant manifestation of the immutability of his Counsel . The word used in the * Original , signifies as a term of Law [ to interpose ] , as a third person to give security . So the Heirs of Promise , are one party to whom the Promise is made ; God , as promising , is the other ; and God swearing is a third person , who intervenes and interposeth himself as different from himself , as promising . So he becomes [ Interventor & sidejussor ] , for himself as promising to Believers , to whom the Promise was made ; and as a Surety is engaged deeply for himself , promising to see his Promise made good to man , to whom he is bound . And for this end He sware , as Surety to confirm the Covenant , that the Heirs of Promise might know the immutability of his Decree . The words [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] turned [ wherein ] by some are interpreted [ because ] ; and then the sense is , that , because an Oath is the end of all strife ; therefore God to remove all doubts and fears , and establish and assure the Heirs of Promise , was willing to swear , and by that Oath to manifest more fully the immutability of his Counsel ; and that which was the end and issue of Men's Oath , was the end and issue of this Oath of God. If Men will believe Men swearing ; how much more should we believe and rest satisfied in the Oath of God ? From all this it 's clear , that the Promise of God is as certain on God's part , as possibly can be . § . 20. This is the immediate end of God's Oath ; yet it is but a means in respect of a further end which God intended . For thus it followeth , Ver. 18. That by two immutable things , in which it was impossible for God to lye ; we might have a strong consolation , who have fled for refuge to the hope that is set before us . ] IN which words , we have , 1. A strong Consolation . 2. The parties to whom it doth belong . 3. The means whereby it is obtained . 1. Strong Consolation is the ultimate end both of the Promises of God , and his Oath . The mind of Man is discomforted , vexed , weakened from Doubts , Fears , Sorrows ; and whatsoever removes or abates these , doth quiet , refresh , revive and strengthen the heart , and so comfort it . This comfort , it may be weak , it may be strong ; the comfort here is strong , and prevailing comfort , and such as will overcome all doubts , fears , and sorrows caused by Temptations , Persecutions , Tryals from without or from within . This is opposed to all worldly and seeming joys and comforts , which appear and vanish in a moment , and cannot firmly stay and revive the heart ; for every blast of temptation scatters them . It must be the hope or enjoyment of some solid , lasting , and substantial good , that can be the cause of solid and lasting comfort : Some , by comfort , understand Faith or Hope the cause of comfort . 2. Though there be a firm and strong comfort , yet it belongs not to every one ; but it 's intended for Believers , the Heirs of Promise , who sly for refuge to take hold upon the Hope set before them , where we may observe , 1. Hope . 2. Hope set before us . 3. The taking hold of this Hope . 4. A flying for refuge to take hold on this Hope . 1. Hope in this place , is the thing hoped for , considered as a formal object of the divine virtue of Hope ; and it is that blessed and glorious estate , which is reserved in Heaven to be enjoyed there . 2. This Hope is set before us as a prize , and represented in the Promise as ours , which we must seek and aym at , as being called to the enjoyment thereof . It 's set in our view , that we might eye it much , and often look upon it , and press earnestly towards it . 3. We must take hold upon it ; and that is done two wayes , 1. By gaining a title and right unto it , for so we take hold on it by Law. 2. By getting some possession , and that either in part , as when we receive the first Fruits of the Spirit ; or in whole , which is reserved for Heaven . Both these are done by Faith and Hope ; and the more we exercise our Faith and Hope with other heavenly virtues , the stronger hold we take . For hereby we make more evident to us our right , and obtain a greater measure of the first-Fruits . 4. We fly for refuge , to take hold of this Hope ; for it 's our Sanctuary and safety , far better then a City of refuge : and it 's a far greater security to take hold on this Hope , then to take hold upon the Horns of the Altar . For many have held fast hold upon the Altar , and have either been pulled away , or slain in the very place , as Joab was . Blessed is the man that maketh the Lord his trust , and respecteth not the Proud , nor such as turn aside to lies , Psal. 40. 4. For all things and persons , though never so great , so strong , so excellent , are lies , and if we trust in them they will fail us , God never will. For who , or what can separate us from his love in Christ ? Eternal life is unchangeable , and God who hath promised it , and confirmed his Promise by Oath , is unchangeable too . Those who in all dangers , storms , and tempests retreat unto him , find strong consolation . For , what need terrify or trouble them , or shake their hearts , when God hath assured them of eternal life ? 3. This security and strong comfort is grounded upon two immutable things , wherein it 's impossible for God to lye . These two things are the Promise and the Oath of God ; and , as it is impossible for God to cease to be God , so it is impossible for God to violate his Promise or his Oath . These are sure things ; Heaven and Earth may pass away , but these cannot fail , nor frustrate our hopes . § . 21. The Apostle in the next words gives a reason why they did , and we should , fly to take hold upon the Hope set before us ; and it is this , because , Ver. 19. [ It was [ to them ] an ancre of the Soul , both sure and stedfast , and which entereth into that within the Vail . ] VVHere we have a two-fold Reason , 1. Because it 's like unto a sure and stedfast Ancre . 2. It entereth into that within the Vail . 1. It 's like an Ancre ; for , what an Ancre is to a Ship , the same is Hope unto the Soul , that is , a stay and means of safety in the midst of all the Waves and Storms of Temptation , in this floating troublesome World. For that which stays , strengthens , quiets the Soul of man , is the hope of everlasting Glory grounded upon God's Promise and Oath . For eternal life , as theirs , is the Ancre ; for though it be excellent in it self , yet it 's nothing unto them , if they have not a right unto it , and a well-grounded hope of it . 2. It enters into that within the Vail : In the Tabernacle or Temple within the second Vail , was the Holy of Holies , which was a type of Heaven ; in allusion to this , it signified , that the object of our hope is something excellent , and above the World ; something heavenly , glorious , and eternal . Therefore it 's said , That the Inheritance of God's Sons is reserved in Heaven for us , 1 Pet. 1. 4. And that the great object of our hope is laid up in Heaven , Col. 1. 5. Where we shall fully enjoy our God , and all things in him . And surely nothing under Heaven can stay , and firmly fix the floating heart of man ; neither can this Ancre fasten firmly , but in Heaven . This Hope may be said to be stronger , and our hearts more assured , because Ver. 20. The fore-runner is entred into Heaven . THis fore-runner is entred Heaven , to take possession for himself , and also in our behalf , and make the way passible ; this is more then ever Abraham did , or could do . Therefore we have a rare example , far above that of Abraham , to make us diligent unto the assurance of hope ; for our diligence shall not be in vain . These words , with the former , may imply , at least , distinct Reasons , why we should labour for the full assurance of Hope unto the end ; 1. Because this assurance will be an Ancre to the Soul. 2. It will be a sure and stedfast Ancre . 3. It will be the more stedfast , because it fastens within the Vail , a sure ground . 4. It fastens so much more strongly , because it fastens there where our Fore-runner is entred ; yet because all this referrs to hope grounded on the Promise and Oath of God , it may belong to the example of Abraham enlarged upon . Lest we should be ignorant who this Fore-runner is , he informs us , that it is [ even Jesus , made an High-Priest for ever , after the Order of Melthisedec ] ; and so he returns , and that in an excellent manner , with much art , to the principal intended subject of his Discourse formerly proposed , and now rehearsed again , as the Theme and Matter to be handled , in the seventh Chapter following . CHAP. VII . Concerning the Excellency , Perfection , Immutability , and perpetual continuance of Christ's Priest-hood . § . 1. THat the Reader may understand my Method , it 's this , 1. I will observe something by way of additions to my Exposition upon the former Chapters . 2. Shew the Connexion of this with the former . 3. Enter upon the Chapter it self . The additions are these , 1. That the Qualification described by the Apostle , Chap. 6 , 4 , 5. ( from which some do , and many may , fall away ) is such as doth not reach that degree of Faith and other divine Vertues , which is required in the Covenant ; upon which followeth the constant inhabitation of the Spirit , as a constant spirit of Sanctisication , Adoption , Consolation . For this donation of the Spirit , and the effects thereof , have a more immediate and firm connexion with eternal Life , and the final Reward , than any other inferiour degree of Grace . 2. To minister constantly unto the persecuted Saints , and suffer with them out of Faith in Christ , and love unto the Brethren , doth imply an higher Qualification , than that which was described , ver . 4. 5. 3. Though these exercises and performances of Faith and Love , do not in themselves merit , or necessarily inferr , the final Reward ; yet God will not forget them , but certainly remember , and reward them with an eternal Reward : and in respect of this remembrance which God hath promised , the final Reward doth necessarily follow . 4. After that God had once given the Spirit of Adoption , and accounts such as have received it as his Sons , he is bound by his gracious Promise , when it shall be requisite , to chastise them , to prevent their final ruine . 5. In the example of Abraham , the Apostle gives a Reason , 1. Why he sware by himself ; which was , because he could not swear by a greater . 2. Why he confirmed the Promise with an Oath ; and it was to strengthen our hope of everlasting Glory , whereof Christ hath taken possession for Himself , and in our behalf . § . 2. The Connexion with the former , to the observant Reader is clear enough . For the words referr , 1. Unto Chap. 5. ver . 6 , 10. where he citeth the words of Psalm 110. 4. to prove the vocation of Christ unto his eternal Priest-hood . 2. To Chap. 6 , 20 , where he signisies , that Christ as our Fore-runner was entred into Heaven , where he was confirmed an everlasting Priest by Oath , and so rehearseth the words of the Psalmist , proposing them as the Theme and Subject of this seventh Chapter . The digression comes in by a ( Parenthesis ) ; so that , if it had been omitted , yet the Apostle's discourse had been entire , only the Repetition had been needless . And though it be impertinent to the Subject proposed and intended , yet it was very subservient to prepare their minds , for the more attentive receiving of the Doctrine following . § . 3. To enter upon the Chapter it self , we may observe therein , 1. The Subject matter . 2. The Scope . 3. The Method . The Subject matter is Priest-hood , and especially the Priest-hood of Christ. The Scope is to shew the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , as far above all other Priest-hoods , and particularly that of Aaron's . The Method is , General . Particular . In the general , the Apostle speaks , 1. Of the Priest-hood of Melchisedec , from ver , 1. to the 11. 2. Of the Priest-hood of Aaron , from the 11th to the 20th . 3. Of the Priest-hood of Christ , from the 20th to the end . The particular Method and Analysis is by divers Authors apprehended and declared diversly . All agree , 1. In the Subject , which they determine to be the Priest-hood of Christ. 2. In the Scope , which is to shew the excellency of Christ's Priesthood . 3. In the manner how this excellency is set forth , and that is not absolutely , but by way of Comparison . 4. That the comparison is not onely in quality , that he was like Melchizedec , but in quantity , that he was more excellent than the Levitical Priests ; and this was one thing chiefly intended , to represent unto the Hebrews , who did so much honour the Priest-hood of Aaron , the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , as far above Aaron's : For the one was imperfect , and could sanctify no man ; the other was perfect , and could eternally save . 5. That the Priest-hood of Melchizedec and Aaron here are spoken of onely in reference to Christ's Priest-hood . 6. The things delivered by them are true , though their several Methods are not so exactly consentaneous . Junius makes the parts of the Chapter two , the 1. Is concerning the Type , Melchizedec . 2. Concerning the Anti-type , Christ. This is true , though not accurate : Yet he well observs three things , 1. That this Chapter is rather concerning his Calling than his Ministry . 2. That this Priest-hood is handled by way of Comparison . 3. That the Proposition here handled is that of Psal. 110. 4. Dr. Gouge , whose diligence and pains in the Explication of this Epistle are much to be commended , doth much agree with Junius in the general : For he observs that the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood is set out by way of Similitude . Dissimilitude . This implyes , 1. That the Doctrine of Christ's Priest-hood is here delivered comparatively . 2. That the Comparison is in quality ; yet the truth is , that though the similitude and agreement , and dissimilitude and disagreement , in quality be necessarily presupposed , yet it 's not principally intended ▪ For the intention of the Author is , to demonstrate that Christ's Priest-hood was not only excellent , but far more excellent than that of Aaron's ; because it was according to the Order of Melchizedec , which was far above the Order of Aaron . Where it 's further implyed , that if Melchizedec , as a Priest , was but a Type , and Christ the Anti-type ; then Christ was not onely more excellent than Aaron , but than Melchizedec himself : So that the Comparison is in quantity , and the same not equal but unequal , and the exceeding excellency was Christ's . A Lapide , taking the scope of the Apostle to be , as it was , to shew the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood above that of Aaron's , finds seven Arguments in this Chapter to prove it . The first three are taken from the excellency of Melchizedec's Priest-hood , the fourth from the Imperfection of the Levitical Order , the fifth from the Confirmation of Christ's Priest-hood by the Oath of God , the sixth from Christ's Immortality , the last from the excellent vertue of Christ's Sacrifice . And he well observs , that the Apostle in this Discourse , doth urge and urge again , and very much insist upon these words of the Psalmist , I have sworn , Thou art a Priest for ever , after the Order of Melchizedec . § . 4. But if we well consider the whole Chapter till we come to the Conclusion , it 's nothing but a Discourse upon those words : And he begins with the last word [ Melchizedec ] ; then he proceeds to another , [ a Priest after the Order of Melchizedec , ] which was Christ ; then to the words [ I have sworn , and will not repent ] ; lastly , to those [ Then art a Priest for ever ] . And if you observe not this , you shall hardly ever find the genuine Order of the Apostle's Discourse ; And the Text of the Psalm is excellently handled by way of Explication , and Illation or drawing Conclusions from it . The first part therefore , from the first Verse to the eleventh , is concerning Melchizedec , declaring out of Gen. 14. who he was , and that he was not only a King but a Priest , and that his Priest-hood was more perfect and excellent than that of Aaron's . The second part , from Ver. 11. to the 19th . infers from this , that there must be another Priest , not of the Order of Aaron , but of Melchizedec , that the Levitical Priest-hood must be abolished , because it could sanctify no man , or give him hope of everlasting life ; for this Sanctification and Perfection must be by another Priest , which the Spirit signifies even whilst the Order of Aaron was in force , must be of another Order , and of another Tribe . The third part , from Ver. 19. to the 23. takes notice of those words , [ I have sworn , and will not repent , ] and thence infers , that seeing he was made and confirmed a Priest by oath , and the Levitical Priest was not , therefore was he the Surety of a better Covenant . The fourth part , from Ver. 23. to the 26. infers not onely the difference of Mortality and Immortality , between the Priests of the Law and of Christ , but also from his Immortality and eternal Priest-hood , his ability to save for ever such as come to God by him . In the last part , from Ver. 26. to the end , he seems to infer the eternal vertue of Christs Sacrifice from his innocency and holiness , which was such , as he had no Infirmity . This last doth not appear in the Text , either as expressed or deducible from it , yet it may well be presupposed , because the party to whom this Priesthood was thus confirmed by Oath could not be any man that had sins and infirmities of his own , but was the Son of God , who as Man never knew any sin . This Discourse is to be understood of the Constitution and Confirmation , not the Ministration of Christ's Priest-hood ; and in the very words of Confirmation the Apostle observs four clear and evident Arguments of the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood above that of Aaron's , and a fifth implyed or presupposed . § . 5. The first part is concerning Melchizedec , upon the Explication of which Word the Knowledge of the whole Proposition doth depend , and in it we have 1. A Description of this Melchizedec , from Ver. 1. to the 4. 2. His greatness and excellency , inferred from this Description , from Ver. 4. to the 11th . The whole may be reduced to two Propositions : The first whereof declareth who he was : The second , how great he was . In the Description which is taken from Gen. 14. 18 , 19 , 20. we may observe , 1. His Offices . 2. The Acts of his Priestly Office. 3. The Interpretation of his Name , and the place of his Residence . 4. The perpetuity of his Sacerdotal Office. 1. His Offices were two : 1. His Regal ; for he was King of Salem . 2. His Sacerdotal ; he was Priest of the most High God. The Acts of his Priest-hood are two : 1. His blessing 2. Tything of Abraham . The Interpretation of his Name informs us , that he was King of Righteousness Peace . The Perpetuity of his Priest-hood is signified , in that he had no Predecessor from whom , nor Successour to whom he might derive his Priest-hood . His Offices and Acts of his Priest-hood are expressed in the Text of Moses ; the Interpretation is taken from the signification of the words whereof his Name is composed , and from the signification of Salem . The perpetuity is concluded from the reticency and silence of the Text : This was the onely place in the Scriptures of the Old Testament where any mention is made of this Person , before that of Psal. 110. 4. The first part in the Description informs us of his Offices , that he was 1. King of Salem . 2. Priest of the most High God. Who this Melchizedec was , is much doubted , whether he was God , Angel , or Man : For some affirm , that he was the Spirit of God ; some , that he was an Angel ; some , that he was a Man : And , of such as affirm him to be Man , many think him to be Shem , who was certainly living at that time : Others deny it , and bring strong Arguments for the Negative ; and it 's very likely , if not certain , it was not Shem , whose Genealogy and Descent is evidently and expresly delivered in Scripture , and there can be no Reason why he should change his Name and take another . It 's certain he was a Person that lived in Salem , in the Land of Canaan , at that time that Abraham sojourned there , and lived at Mamre . The word King , as distinct from that of Priest , doth imply his Civil Power : And because Civil Power of Government may be in one or more , it signifies the Civil Power in one ; yet this Civil Power may be in one , either despotically , in an absolute or arbitrary way , or limited . And whether this Power be in one by commission and trust , or without commission ; and whether it be greater or less , we find that any eminent single Person that had Power to command others in Scripture , is called a King. What kind of Power Civil this Melchizedec had over his Subjects , we do not read , neither need we trouble our selves : That he was a King , and had Civil Power , such as the other petty Kings of Canaan had , need not to be doubted . The place whereof he was King , is expressed to be Salem , which might be either the City of his residence , or his Territory belonging to that City , or both : This Salem in all probability was that place which was called Jerusalem in after times , for so we find it called , Joshua 10. 1. and the Name of the King then wa● Adonizedec which is the same Name with that of Melchizedec ; for both signify a Prince of Governour ( call him King or Lord ) of Righteousness , that is , a righteous Prince or Governour : And some tell us , 1. That the first Name of that City was Zedec , afterwards it was called Salem , and then Jerusalem . 2. That Melchizedec and Adonizedec was the common Name of the Kings of that place , as Pharaoh was of the Kings of Egypt , and Caesar of the Romane Emperours . Whether this King was by descent a Canaanite , or some other , is not material to know ; yet Moses informs us , that he was not onely a King but a Priest , and such he might be , and yet an Idolater : But , to take away that doubt , it 's added , that he was the Priest of the most High God. This word Priest doth signify his Superiority and Authority in matters of Religion ; and he was a prime Minister , and did officiate in things pertaining to God : As a King he governed men , as a Priest he worshipped God. The word Cohen , which signifies a Prince or a Priest , is here determined to the signification of a Priest or publick Officer in sacred things : Whereas it 's said , that he was the Priest of the most High God , it may be understood , 1. That he was constituted and consecrated a Priest by God , and so received his Power immediately from Heaven ; as he must needs do , because he derived not his Power from any Predecessor , and his Order vvas very high , and so high , that he was said for to be a lively Type of Jesus Christ the Son of God , and the supream and eternal Priest of Heaven . 2. That he did worship no Idols or petty Gods , but the Supream Lord and Living God that made Heaven and Earth , and taught his People so to do : From these words , Ver. 1. For this Melchizedec , King of Salem , and Priest of the Most High God , ] VVEE may observe , 1. That Religion was not so generally corrupted in those times , but that there were some as well as Abraham , and even in cursed Canaan , as well as in other places , who did worship the true God. 2. That the Offices of King and Priest are not so inconsistent , but that they may lawfully be assumed and exercised by one Person : For Melchizedec , though one single Person , was invested both with Civil and Ecclesiastical Power . And if one person be so qualified , that he is able to discharge both places so far as he is bound , there is no doubt to be made of the Union of both in one man ; and the Duties of both might be the more easily performed by one , when the Power extended but to a Family , or a little Territory , as this of Salem was : especially when onely the greater Services were to be done by him that was King and Priest , who had the Superintendency and Command over the rest , who both in matters of State and Religion were subservient unto him . Yet when Israel was multiplied to a great Nation , it pleased God to separate these two Powers ; and gave the one to one Tribe , and the other to another : And if this separation had not been made by God himself , the opposition made by Corah , Dathan , and Abiram , could not have bin so hainous a Sin. And Christ himself , though a King and Priest , would not take upon him any Civil Jurisdiction , neither did he give his Apostles any Power Civil ; for their Commission was to teach and baptize , to build the Church and not the State ; neither would he have his Souldiers entangled with the Affairs of this life . The Work of the Ministry was so great , that there rather wanted more Labourers to be sent into that Harvest . And for any man to take upon him more Power than he can well manage , or a greater charge than he is able to discharge , must needs be unlawful . § . 6. These were the Offices : The Acts of his Priest-hood come next to be considered ; the first whereof was , that he blessed Abraham : For Ver. 1. Melchizedec met Abraham returning from the Slaughter of the Kings , and blessed him . In these words , with those that follow , we have the exercise of his Sacerdotal Power : And in this Exercise three things ; 1. The Person upon whom he did exercise it . 2. The Time when . 3. The distinct Acts thereof . 1. The Person was Abraham , one of the most eminent and excellent men of the World , the friend of God , the Father of Israel , of all Believers , of Christ according to the Flesh , who had received the great Promise , and was a Priest and Prince himself ; and all this did argue the greatness and excellency of Melchizedec . 2. The time was , when he met him returning from the Slaughter of the Kings . For , 1. Abraham , as we read in Gen. 14. had conquered and slain the Kings , recovered the Captives and their Goods , and taken a great Spoil . 2. After this great and glorious Victory , he was returning towards Mamre . 3. In his return , near to Salem , Melchizedec met him with Provision of Bread and Wine to refresh him and his Army : Then it was that he exercised his Sacerdotal Power . 3. The first Act was , he blessed him . The words and form of this Benediction are these , Blessed be Abraham of the most High God , Possessour of Heaven and Earth . This Blessing was not a meer expression of his desire , for so any Inferiour may bless a Superiour ; but it was a sacerdotal , powerful , and authoritative Benediction , yet in the Name of God , as it was by Commission from God , and therefore real and effectual upon the Subject . Whether it was particular or general is not expressed : Some , as Mercerus , think the words to be Indicative , and so to be understood ; as though he had said , Blessed is Abraham , &c. Others , Let Abraham be blessed ; or , The Lord bless Abraham ; as the Blessing of the Levitical Priests is delivered , The Lord bless thee and keep thee , &c. Numb . 6. 24. This Blessing is neither a Wish and desire , nor properly a Prayer , nor yet a meer Prediction : A Prayer is directed unto God , a Blessing unto Man ; the one seeks it from God by Petition , the other pronounceth and declareth it by Warrant and Commission from God : In the one the Priest doth represent Man , in this other he represents God. Here , by the way , we may observe , That a Priest hath Power , by vertue of his Office and God's Institution ; to bless : So this Priest , and the Levitical also , and the Minister , of the Gospel , may and ought to do . § . 7. The second Act was the Tything of Abraham ; for so the next words twll us , Ver. 2. To whom Abraham gave the tenth of all ; ] This is the first place of the Scriptures which speaks of Tythes or the Tenth of mens Goods paid unto God , and received by his Priests and such as represent him in matters of Religion : And here we may observe , 1. Who paid them . 2. To whom they were paid . 3. Of what they were paid . 1. Abraham , the party blessed , payes them ; and so they who receive spiritual Blessings and are made fit Subjects of God's Mercy in Christ must give and pay them . 2. The party receiving them was Melchizedec , who , as a Priest blessing Abraham , and not as King , receivs them , and to him they are paid . So Christ appointed the Labourer in his Harvest to receive his Wages , and that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel , and that he that is taught should communicate to him that teacheth . 3. The matter of these Tythes are a certain portion of mens Goods ; For when it is said , he gave a Tenth of all , it 's meant of his Goods , yet not of all his Goods , but of the Spoils , Ver. 4. For these were Goods , yet 1. Neither the Goods of his Confederates ; nor 2. Of the King of Sodom ; but 3. His own Goods , which were justly his according to the Laws of a just War , by which Laws indeed , the Goods of the King of Sodom , recovered and possessed upon the Victory , were his ; yet for a special reason mentioned Gen. 14. 23. he refused to keep them . But whether he paid the Tenth of them before he delivered them freely to that King , is uncertain , because it 's , not expressed , That these Goods are and alwayes were the matter of Tythes , and the maintainance of God's Worship , is evident from Mose's Law , and also the Gospel , where they are called the Labourer's meat and his hire , Matth. 10. 10. Luke 10. 7. Carnal things due for spiritual , 1 Cor. 9. 11. The lively-hood of such as preach the Gospel , ver . 14. A part of all the Goods of him that is taught in the Gospel , Gal. 6. 6. From this and other Scriptures , we may observe many things . 1. That Tythes were very antient ; for they were paid in Abraham's time , long before the Law of Moses , and therefore cannot be said to be Jewish and Levitical , as though they were proper to those times of legal dispensation . And though Abraham is the first man that is related in Scripture to have paid them , and Melchisedec the first man to whom they were paid ; yet from hence it doth not follow , that this was the first time that they were due , or given or received . For as some think that the seventh day , and part of our time was given to God from the times of Adam ; so it 's as probable , that the tenth part of our Goods were due and given to God from the beginning , by the Worshippers of the true God according to his Laws . 2. That though the Law and Light of Nature requires that a competent time , and acompetent portion of our Goods , should be given to God as chief Lord of Time , and proprietary of our Goods ; yet , that to give the seventh part of the one , and the tenth part of the other should be that quota pars , or determinate part of the one and the other , is but positive : yet so , that it 's by divine Institution . For otherwise it 's strange , that the Patriarchs before the Law , the Jews under the Law ; and so many Christians in the time of the Gospel ; and many Gentiles should agree upon this proportion ; seeing it's so agreeable to Reason , and not contrary to divine Revelations . For though Idolatry , and other Superstitions , were antient , and of general practise amongst the Heathens ; yet were they contrary both to Reason and divine Revelations . 3. The end of these Tythes , and such like allowance , was the maintainance of such as did officiate in things appertaining to God , and of Religion , and the Worship of God. 4. They were not given immediately to God , but to such as in matters of Religion did represent God , and were his Ministers for the spiritual good of the People . 5. As no man ever could find out a better proportion of time to be given to God , then the seventh part ; so never any could evince a fitter proportion of Mens Goods for God's Service , then the tenth part . 6. Though in some places , and at some times the tenth cannot so well be given ; yet this is no prejudice either to the more general right or practise , if so be a competency according to men's ability were allowed . 7. Under the Law they never gave less , though they gave more then the Tenth . 8. Christ and the Apostles did not require the tenth , because whilst the Levitical dispensation stood , it was by divine Institution and Law due to the Priests and Levites , neither was Christian Religion established and compleated in all things at the first in any place , though all things necessary for the preservation and continuance were due from the first plantation of it . 9. A competent maintainance was alwayes due by divine Law , as an honourable Stipend , Hire , and Wages ; and not as a meer Benevolence or Free-will-Offering . 10. The reason why Abraham gave only the tenth of the Spoils , and not of his Goods at Mamre , was , because he had then no Goods , but the Spoils in the jurisdiction of Melchisedec , who blessed him . 11. Though the Priests and Ministers of God are not bound to receive this maintainance , yet the People was alwayes bound to give it . 12. Though this maintainance may be given to others , and denyed to those that are the true and lawful Ministers of God and Jesus Christ ; yet they are due only to these . 13. Though these Tythes , where they are generally and constantly paid , may be called a Lay-Fee , as our Laws call them , because they are given and offered to God by the Civil Powers , and to be recovered by the Civil Laws of Christian States , by whom the manner of paying them is determined : yet as they are a necessary maintainance of the Worship of God , they are a divine Right and Fee. And though there be doubts made , whether the propriety be , in the Church , or the State , or God ; yet so far as they are due by divine Law , the propriety is in God : and both such as alienate them , and such as purchase and keep them , diverting them to another end than they were intended , and leave the People , who pay them , destitute , so that there is no competent means to maintain an able and godly Minister , must needs be guilty . For though they may flatter themselves with a conceit of a Lay-Fee , yet they will not be able to make any good account to God. 14. Though in some times and places a comfortable and competent Allowance may be provided for Ministers , yet for the generality of all times and places , no wit of Man could ever find out a better way to maintain the Worship of God , then this of Tythes : if Compositions , Customs , Prescriptions , and the unequal , and unjust disposal , and dispensation of them were taken away . And if it be thus , then they , who are Enemies to Tythes , where they are established for the right end , must either be ignorant , or Enemies to God's Worship , and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And it 's remarkable , that they who censure them as Anti-christian , and are offended with them , when they are given to the Ministers of Christ , who labour in God's Harvest : yet like them well enough , and judge them good and lawful , if they themselves be once possessed of them . § . 8. The third thing is the notation or interpretation of the Name of this excellent Prince and Priest , and of the place which we learn from the words following . — — First being by interpretation King of Righteousness , and after that also King of Salem , which is , King of Peace . MElech , and so Melchi , in Hebrew signifies King , Prince , or Governour ; and such is , being one person , is eminent in Power above the rest . Zedeck is Righteousness in that Language : This name agrees with Adonizedeck , of Adon or Adoni , Lord , and Zedeck , Righteousness as before . This Name did truly agree unto this Person , and he did answer to his Name ; He was a just King , and did Order and Govern his People in Righteousness , by just Judgment , and according to just Laws , and sought their weal and common good . Such all Civil Governours should be ; for justice is essential to good Government , and God never gave any power to any person , but bound him to Righteousness : nay further , governing Power is no Power without wisdom and justice ; it may be [ pot●ntia ] , but not [ potestas ] . Some Princes are more righteous then other , yet this man was eminently righteous ; because he proved a Prince of Peace . For the Fruit of Righteousness , is Peace ; and the more wise and just the Government of any State shall be the greater the Peace and Happiness of the People . But Righteousness must go before , and after that Peace will follow ; and Kings must first be Kings of Zedeck , before they can be Kings of Salem . If the Kings of Sodom had been such , they had not been invaded , subdued , and spoiled by a forraign Enemy . The words seem to imply , that Zedeck and Salem were two places , from whence he had his Name and Title ; first from the one , then from the other ; or that because he was so just , first he was called the King of Righteousness ; and after that , because by his just Government the People enjoyed so great Peace , He was called King of Salem . § . 9. The fourth and last particular is the perpetuity of his Priest-hood : For thus it 's written , Ver. 3. Without Father , without Mother , without Descent , having neither beginning of Dayes , nor end of Life ; but made like unto the Son of God , abideth continually a Priest. ] FOR the better understanding of these words , we must consider , 1. That if Melchisedec was a man living in Abraham's Dayes , he had both Father , and Mother , and Descent , and beginning of Dayes , and end too ; except he , as Enoch , was translated not to see Death : otherwise these words , properly understood , and strictly taken , might justly give occasion to think he was an Angel in humane shape , which was the opinion of some . 2. Therefore , for the most part , the words are understood Tropically , to this purpose , That as he is described , Gen. 14. the first and only place of the Old Testament that speaks more largely of him ; Moses , the Historian , makes no mention of his Father , or Mother , or Descent , or Birth , or Death . And he was directed thus to do by the Spirit of purpose ; either because , he being ignorant of all these , the Spirit did not reveal them unto him : or if he did , and he knew them , yet he was ordered and moved by the Spirit to conceal them , that , according to that Description , he might appear a more lively and perfect Type of Christ. 3. The words have special reference unto his Priest-hood , and gives us a real difference between him and the Levitical Priest , and makes him far more like unto the Son of God ; our everlasting Priest. For the Levitical High-Priests had their Priest-hood by Descent and Birth , and upon their Death , their Successors . For as born of a Father , of the Tribe of Levi , and the House of Aaron , after he was once consecrated , and as born of a Mother , who was a woman married to one of that House : so they derived the Priest-hood from the first Investiture , after the first Institution . And whosoever could not manifest his Genealogy and Descent from that Family , could not minister and officiate as a Priest. As they had beginning of Dayes , and by their Birth and Descent derived their Priest-hood from their Predecessors ; so they were Mortal , and had end of Dayes , and so transmitted their Priest-hood to their Successors . Thus did not Melchisedec ; who though he might have Father , and Mother , and Descent , and so beginning and end of Dayes as a man ; yet , as a Priest , he had no Predecessor , from whom , by Birth , he might receive his Sacerdotal Power ; nor Successor , who derived his Priest-hood from him . So Christ , the Son of God , derived his Priest-hood from no mortal Predecessor , but immediately from his heavenly Father ; neither will he transmit it to any Successor , but when all Enemies shall be subdued ; and he shall deliver up his Commission , by vertue of which he doth now officiate and intercede in Heaven : He shall resign the same together with his Kingdom to God , who gave him both . And thus perhaps Melchisedec , this great Priest , and lively Type of Christ , did : And if there be any Priest-hood according to the Law of Nature , which is of perpetual continunuance ; then he seems to be an extraordinary Priest , according to the Law. For there is the Law of Nature , the Law of Moses , the Law of Grace ; and every one of these may have their ordinary Priests , and their extraordinary supream Pontiffs immediately instituted of God ; and the extraordinary supream Pontiff according to the Law of Nature , must be above Aaron , who was a High-Priest according to that Law which was but for a time , and to be abolished , and so more fit to typifie Christ the Mediatour and Priest of the New Covenant , which shall stand for ever . And these things I referr , and in them submit my Judgment to the wise and judicious , who may take occasion to seek further : whether Melchisedec's Sacerdotal Title did not continue to him in Heaven , till Christ's Ascension , and then was delivered up to Christ , and so it continued in him for ever , and in this respect he abideth a Priest continually . The first three verses seem to be one Proposition , and all the whole description , till the last words , the subject or antecedent ; and [ abiding continually ] the predicate ; yet so , that there are many simple Propositions in the antecedent . And it 's observable , that Righteousness , Peace , and Blessing of Melchisedec are perpetual . § . 10. After the explication of this Description , we must consider wherein Melchisedec and Christ agree ; for there must be an agreement between the Type and the Antitype . They agree in Offices , Acts , and Continuance . 1. Melchisedec was a Priest and a King , so was Christ ; Melchisedec was a King , first of Righteousness , and after of Peace , so is Christ : for he is the most righteous and just Administratour of his universal and perpetual Spiritual Kingdom , and by Righteousness procures an everlasting Peace : for our eternal Righteousness is from Him , and the Fruit of this Righteousnesse is the perpetuall Peace of all his Loyall and Obedient Subjects . 2. Melchisedec , as a Priest , received Tythes of Abraham , and blessed him ; so Christ doth bless all such as believe in him , and makes them eternally happy , and all our spiritual Blessings , and our eternal Bliss , we expect to receive by him and from him . As Abraham gave Melchisedec , as blessing him ; so all Christians should give the tenth , and a competent portion of all their Goods to maintain his Servants , Messengers , and Ministers , who labour in the Word and Doctrine ; without which , his Worship cannot be maintained : And all those , who deny to do this , are Enemies to Christ , and to Christian Religion , and cannot be excused . There is a Generation of men , who under pretence of Reformation , and greater Purity , would have all Tythes taken away ; and their design is to starve the Ministry , enrich themselves and friends : but the issue of all this will be the destruction of the Ministry , the famishing of Souls , and the decay of Christianity . Others would have Ministers to continue ; but they must pinch them , and keep them poor . This is a base spirit and temper , and no wayes suitable to the profession of Christianity : Ministers indeed should not cover Riches , and the Splendor of the World ; for thus to do is base on their parts , and no wayes becoming the faithful Servants of Christ. Yet they should be comfortably maintained ; and such as receive any real spiritual Blessing and Comfort by them , will not grudge to minister unto them , and will be far from taking from them that allowance , which by just Laws is settled upon them as firmly as any man's Inheritance , except in the right of Alienation . Some do honour Learning , and are willing to have it maintained ; and if there be sufficient reason for this , then it will follow , that the most excellent Learning of all other , and the most beneficial to mankind , and in the exercise thereof effectually conducing to eternal Salvation , should be honoured and maintained much more . Some conclude from hence , and not without cause , That seeing Melchisedec was a Type of Christ in all things here mentioned , then Christ Blessing man , must receive Tythes by his Ministers , as due unto Him. For if he was a Type in the rest , no wit of man can according to the tenour of this Scripture deny him to be a Type in receiving Tythes . And this is so much the stronger , 1. In this , that he insists in the following words more largely upon this particular of Tythes , then any of the rest . 2. Because Tythes , or something as good as Tythes , are plainly necessary to the maintainance of Christian Religion . 3. Because Christ hath ordained a maintainance . 3. He was a Type in the continuance of his Priest-hood : For as he did not receive his Priest-hood by Descent from any Predecessor , nor transmit it to Successors in that manner as the Levitical Priest's did : So Christ had no Predecessor from whom by Birth , nor Successor to whom , he should derive it . And as Melchisedee's Priest-hood was effectual for that excellent end for which it was ordained ; and because it was not so carnal and imperfect as that of Aaron's was , there was no reason it should be abolished . So Christ's Priest-hood being perfect , and effectual to bring in an eternal glorious estate upon a perfect Righteousness ; there was all the reason in the World it should continue for ever , and never be altered . § . 11. After the Description of Melchisedec , which is absolute , follows his excellency and greatness set forth comparatively . And before I enter upon the words , somethings must be premised , and enquiry must be made of , 1. What the order and connexion of these words , with the former , is . 2. What the Apostle's Scope is . 3. In what manner the Apostle doth proceed . 4. What kind of Comparison this is . 5. How the words , and discourse of the Apostle is brought in . 1. The order is this , 1. After that the Authour had informed us out of Gen. 14. who this Melchisedec was , he goes on to speak of the Order of Melchisedec . So that the Subject of the former words was [ Melchisedec ] , the last words of the Text , Psal. 110. 4. and of these words following , [ the Order of Melchisedec ] . For the words of the Psalmist do imply , that there was one Melchisedec a Priest. 2. That there was an especial distinct Order of that Priest-hood : This is the Order . 2. The intention and scope of the Authour , is to shew the excellency of the Priest-hood of Melchisedec : And , 2. From thence to conclude the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood . For if Melchisedec , who was but the Type ; then much more Christ , the Anti-type of that Order , must needs be excellent . 3. The manner of the Apostle's proceeding , is Dianoetical ; for he proves the excellency of this Order by illation and deduction of certain conclusions from the express words of the Text , Gen. 14. This act of Reason is called discourse , which discovers the truths included in the bowels of the Premises . By this manner of arguing , is manifested the vanity of irrational Sectaries , which call for expresse Scripture in points of Controversy , and reject all Consequences . These implicitly deny our Dianoetical faculty given us by God , and tacitly blame Christ and his Apostles , for drawing conclusions from expresse places of the Word . Though this discoursive power , as used to clear a truth , whereof we doubt and are ignorant of , imply an imperfection ; yet , as it is a deducing and inferring one truth out of another , it is a perfection , and may agree to Angels , nay to God himself , because we find him by his Spirit in his Word doing so . 4. But what kind of Comparison is this ? It 's indeed a Comparison in quantity of imparity , yet it presupposeth a Comparison in quality . For it implyeth , That Abraham was great and excellent , and that the Levitical Priest's were such , and Melchisedec also . They all agree in this , that they were excellent : but they differ in the inequality and imparity of excellency ; for one was more excellent then another , Abraham was above the Levitical Priest , and Melchisedec above Abraham ; his Order was the most excellent : and this is the thing , which as he intends , so he clearly proves . The Order of his Priest-hood was such a by the acts thereof did manifest the dignity and worth thereof . 5. The Authour brings in this discourse with a word of Exhortation : For he begins thus , [ Consider ] : So that from these words unto ver . 11. we have an Exhortation directed unto these Hebrews , and so to us . The Text therefore is , Ver. 4. [ Now consider how great this Man was , to whom even the Patriach Abraham gave the tenth of the Spoils . ] § . 12. IN these words , with those that follow , we have , 1. The Duty in general , which is Consideration . 2. The Matter and Subject to be considered . 1. I will not stand upon the word which seems to be a Metaphorical , but the thing signified by it , which is the principal . Consideration , therefore , as intended in this place , is an act of the Understanding ; and especially the act of Judgment , yet presupposing the antecedent act of Apprehension . Yet it 's not any act of Judgment , whether Noetical or Dianoetical ; but a serious and more intense act , wherein we use the utmost activity of our discerning faculty . And because the Understanding of man , as imperfect , cannot in an instant clearly see a truth ; therefore it must make a longer stay , and more intentively and wistly look upon the thing represented in a Proposition . Therefore this consideration is opposed to a superficial , instantaneous , or imperfect contemplation . 2. This being meant by Consideration , let 's take notice of the thing to be considered ; and it is , in general , the greatness of Melchisedec , which was manifested several wayes . The object of serious consideration , are such things as are subtil and obscure , and not easily discerned by us ; especially when they are excellent or necessary , or of great concernment , or all these . And of all other things , the Doctrine of the Gospel , and the eternal saving truths thereof represent such thing unto us , that require the most serious contemplation , and highest degree of consideration . Amongst these , this of Melchisedec's greatnesse with respect to Christ was one ; and it was not easily understood out of the Text of Moses by every Reader , but such as should be attentive and intelligent . And to know it , was a matter of great concernment of these Hebrews : The end of this consideration is a more clearfull , and distinct knowledg of the thing considered . And the neglect of this Duty is a cause , why we know so little of God's heavenly Word , and why it works no more powerfully upon our hearts , to make us use the means to prevent our eternal destruction . There can be no Consideration , excent there be something to be considered ; for there can be no act without an object . The object is the greatness of Melchisedec , which is not physical , but moral : not political , as of a Prince ; but spiritual , as of a Priest. It 's an eminent Sacerdotal Power , Dignity and Excellency : yet this eminency is not here to be considered only absolutely but chiefly comparatively , and this Priest ( and so his Order ) is proved , Greater and more excellent , 1. Then Abraham . 2. Then the Levitical Priest. He is proved more excellent then Abraham , by two acts . 1. That of Tything , 2. That of Blessing , both Sacerdotal acts . Yet the excellency is not in the meer acts ; for the Levitical Priests both Tythed and Blessed the People , and that by a divine right and Institution . But it is in this , That he , 1. Tythed 2. Blessed Abraham , who was greater then Levi. 1. He Tythed or Decimated Abraham ; for , — Unto him even the Patriarch Abraham gave the Tenth of the Spoils . ] Where it 's affirmed , 1. That Abraham was a Patriarch . 2. That he gave the Tenth of the Spoils . 3. Even he , a Patriarch , gave them to Melchizedec . 1. He was a Patriarch , that is , a first and chief Father ; for so the word signifies . He was the Head and first Father of the Jews , Isaac his Son was a Patriarch , so was Jacob , so were the Heads of the twelve Tribes , Act. 7. 8 , 9. So David is stiled a Patriarch , Act. 2. 29. Rosh Haovoth is by the Septuagint turned , Patriarch , 1 Chron. 9. 9. & 24. 31. 2 Chron. 19. 8. & 26. 12. So Sar , a Prince , is turned by them , 1 Chron. 27. 22. 2 Chron. 23. 20. Yet , of all these , Abraham was the greatest and most eminent Patriarch in several respects , as shall be shewed hereafter . 2. He gave the Tenth of the Spoils : What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies is known to Schollers , who have observed how Greek Authors use the word ; for , whatsoever it may signify , the Apostle interprets Moses saying the Tenth of all , to mean the Tenth of all the Spoils which Abraham had taken from the four confederate Kings whom he had slain ; for this was an ancient Law and Rule of War , that the Persons and Goods of the conquered fell unto the Conquerour . And though the Greek word may signify the first-fruits taken from the top of the heaps of Grain , or the chiefest Spoils taken from the Commanders in War , which amongst the Heathen were offered to their Gods , and consecrated to their Idols , or Spoils in general ; yet here by the Context it 's plain , the Spoils taken in War are to be understood . And Abraham had no other Goods at that time in Melchizedec's Jurisdiction tythable . The Tenth of these , not all , nor any other part , he gave . 3. Even the Patriarch Abraham gave the Tenth of the Spoils to Melchizedec . ] Abraham did not give these Tythes onely in Civility out of courtesy , or out of free and Princely bounty , or as a Free-will-Offering ; but as due , and that by some Law , and as due to this Melchizedec as a Priest , and the Priest of the most high God , whom he did represent , and as the greatest Priest then in the World. In this giving he did acknowledge himself as less and inferiour , and Melchizedec as greater and superiour : For , to receive Tythes by a just Law as due , is an excellency and superiority above him or them who gave them . And this superiority of this Priest was so much the more , because Abraham was so excellent a Priest himself of the most High God , who honoured him above all men of that time in the World ; and to manifest this excellency by Abraham's paying Tythes is the principal intention of the Apostle . The Emphasis is in these words , [ even Abraham the Patriarch gave , and gave to him . ] This must be considered , and they must consider this [ ●ow ] , that is , after he had given so clear and full a description of Melchizedec ; for before it could not so well be done . § . 13. But if any should reply , that this was no demonstrative Argument of Melchizedec's Excellency and Superiority , for the Levitical Priests received Tythes of their Brethren , he adds , Ver. 5. And verily , they that are of the Sons of Levi , who receive the Office of the Priest-hood , have a Commandment to take Tythes of the People , according to the Law , that is , of their Brethren , though they come out of the Loins of Abraham . Ver. 6. But he whose descent is not counted from them , received Tythes of Abraham , and blessed him that had the Promises . THE Subject of these words is , Tything and Blessing : The Tything is two-fold , of The Levitical Priests . Melchizedec . The Levitical Priests tythed their Brethren ; Melchizedec tythed Abraham who was far greater than the Priests and their Brethren . The Scope seems to be this , to prove Melchizedec to be greater than the Levitical Priests , even in matter of Tything . Both indeed received Tythes , and in that respect were equal ; but the matter here , is , of whom did they receive . Tythes : They received Tythes onely of their Brethren , but he of Abraham their Father the great Patriarch , and therefore must needs be far more excellent than they . In the words of Ver. 6. we may observe , 1. The parties Tything . 2. The parties Tythe● . 3. The Warrant and Rule of their Tything . 1. The parties Tything or receiving Tythes , are said 1. More generally , to be the Sons of Levi. 2. More particularly , they of those Sons who received the Priest-hood . 1. They were the Sons of Levi. This doth presuppose the translation of the Power of ministring in holy things , pertaining to the Service and Worship of God among the Israelites , from the first-born of other Families to the Tribe of Levi : For we read , that the were set apart for the Service of the Tabernacle , Numb . 1. 50. And this done by Command of God to Moses , Ver. 48. This was the Reason why they were not numbred , non had a several distinct part of the Land , as the rest of the Tribes . In this the Lord did punish , shew Mercy , and gave Honour : He punished that Tribe , in scattering them throughout all the Tribes according to the words of Jacob , who denounced this Judgment against them for their dissimulation and cruelty exercised upon the Shechemites , Gen. 49. 7. He shewed Mercy to the rest of the Tribes , in that they were dispersed in every part amongst them , to teach them the Laws of God. He honoured these Levites , in that he consecrated them to his Service , and setled the Priest-hood in that Tribe . And this seems to be a Reward for their Service in assisting Moses , when he punished their idolatrous Brethren . Therefore said Moses , Consecrate your selves to day unto the Lord , &c. Exod. 32. 29. So wonderful is the Wisdom of God , that by one Act he can both punish and reward the same parties , and shew Mercy unto others : Of this their separation , and taking them for the first-born , we may read , Numb . 3. 12. Yet though all the Sons of Levi did minister in holy things , all were not Priests : for of the Sons of Levi onely the Family of Aaron received the Office of Priest-hood , and were Priests ; the rest of that Tribe were assistant and subservient to the Priests : These had their Office , not by Usurpation , or the voluntary consent and suffrage of Man , but by the ordination and determination of God , without whose Power intervening , so great an alteration in the Translation of the Sacerdotol Power , could not have been valid or just . In the Christian Church the Office of Ministers answers to this , which could neither be necessary or effectual , except Christ had instituted it : And onely such as enter upon this Function according to his Institution , are legal Ministers . 2. The parties tythed were their Brethren , though descended of Abraham : The Priest-hood , with their inferiour Ministry , must be maintained ; and it seemed good to the Divine Wisdom to appoint the Tythes for that end , as the sitrest and most convenient maintenance of all other ; and , if duly paid according to his order , the least subject to inconveniences : And seeing they did serve and minister for the good and benefit of their Brethren , sequestring themselves from other employments , Justice and Epuity did require that they should maintain them , and give them their Tythes . The same Rule in general holds good in the times of the Gospel ; For ( saith the Apostle ) if we have sown unto yo● spiritual things , is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things ? 1 Cor. 9. 11. Yet profane World●ings who make no account of spiritual Blessings will say , It is a great thing , an heavy charge , and we desire to be freed from it ; yet carnal things are nothing to spiritual . These Brethren were descended of Abraham as well as the Levites and Priests ; and , both as Brethren , and as descended of Abraham , were equal : Yet they must acknowledge themselves , and that by paying of Tythes unto the Priests , to be inferiour to them who vvere nearer God , and did represent him in the highest Acts and Service . 3. But by what Warrant , and according to what Rule , did these Priest receive Tythes of their Brethren ? They had a Warrant and a Rule , and both from God : For , 1. He gave a Command they should be paid , and a Rule how they should be given : The Command did presuppose the Power , and signified the Will of God , so that the People were bound to give them , and the Priests had Power to demand them as due ; For the Effect of this Command was , to make them due to be given by the People , and unto them and to none other : After this Command they could not be a meer Benevolence , God did often signify in the Books of Moses , that Tythes were his , and he had given them to the Sons of Levi and the Priests . That they are the Lord's and holy unto him , we find Levit. 27. 30 , 31 , &c. and they are commanded to bring them to the Priest , Deut. 14. 22. And that he gave them the Children of Levi for their service , is evident Num. 18. 21. and they were their Inheritance . And whosoever deteineth them , robs God , and is cursed with a Curse , Mal. 3 , 8 , 9. Work and Hire , Service and Tythes , the Preaching of the Gospel and Maintenance go together , before the Law , under the Law , and in the time of the Gospel . Commands and Laws do not onely define the Persons that must obey , and the thing to be done , but many times , if not alwayes , the manner of performance . So it was in Decimation ; for the Law determined not onely the Persons that must give them , but of what they must be given , and at what time they must be paid , and into what place they must be brought , and where they must be laid up . So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Command , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rule , and both are parts of the Law of Tything . Some think these words are brought in by the Apostle , to prove the Superiority of the Priests above their Brethren , because their Brethren gave and they received Tythes ; and it 's true , as Tything them they were above them . Others conceive , that in them he answers the Objection , That Tything and Decimation would not prove the Greatness of Melchizedec above the Levitical Priests ; for these , as well as he , did decimate . And they understand the Apostle to return this Answer , That though they received Tythes , yet it was but from their Brethren who being the posterity of Abraham , were far inferiour unto Abraham , whom Melchizedec tythed ; yet this answer is not given by him in these words , except in part : For the principal part followeth . § . 14. For we read in the next words , Ver. 6. But he whose Descent is not counted from them , received Tythes of Abraham , &c. In which words we may observe two Propositions , The 1. Negative , That Melchizedec's Pedegree was not reckoned from them . 2. Affirmative , Yet he received Tythes of Abraham . The first informs us , that he was not descended from Levi , neither was his Priesthood of their Order , or derived from them . If he had descended from their Tribe , and his Priest-hood from the House of Aaron , then they would have said that he received Tythes because he was of their Order , and would further alledge , that if one as great as Abraham should be found amongst their Brethren , they had Power , by vertue of their Priesthood , to decimate him . But all this he prevents by denying his Descent from them . The second tells us plainly , that he tythed Abraham , who was far above Levi , and the Levitical Priests , and much more above their Brethren . Yet this is not all ; he not onely tythed Abraham , but — He blessed him that had the Promises . ] Where , 1. Abraham had the Promises . 2. Yet Melchizedec blessed him . The Promises which Abraham had , and whereby God had bound himself unto him were many ; As 1. That his Seed should be as the Sand of the Sea , though in humane Reason , according to the course of Nature , there was little or no hope of it ; and this Seed should be both ( according to the Flesh ) of the Jews , and far more numerous ( according to the Spirit ) of the Gentiles : For he was made the Father and Head of all Believers in the Generations following , both Jews and Gentiles . 2. He had a Promise of the Land of Canaan , where he then sojourned , and where at that time Melchizedec was both King and Priest. 3. He had the great Promise of all , That in his Seed all Nations should be blessed . And this Seed , which was Christ , to descend of him according to the Flesh , who should be the great High-Priest , and bless all Nations . These words are added to shew how great Abraham was . Yet secondly , Though he was so great , yet Melchizedec blessed him , and he was blessed : What kind of Benediction this was , I have formerly shewed . There is one universal Authour of Benediction , who blesseth all things , and that is God , as Creator . There is one universal Authour of all spiritual and special Blessings , tending to the eternal happiness of sinful Man , and that is God Redeemer by Christ : There be many others , who ministerially under God , and by power from God , do bless men , as the Patriarchs , as Moses , as the Levitical Priests , as Ministers of the Gospel ; yet one of the greatest was this Melchizedec blessing Abraham . And lest any should reply , that inferiours may bless superiours , and equals may bless equals ; it follows , Ver. 7. And without all Contradiction , the less is blessed of the better . ] The Argument in Form , is this , The less is blessed of the better . But Melchizedec blessed Abraham : Therefore Melchizedec was better and greater than Abraham . In the words , two Propositions , 1. The less is blessed of the better . 2. This is without all Contradiction . The former Proposition is concerning the imparity of the party blessing and the party blessed , the one is greater and better , and the other is less and inferiour : Yet this is to be understood of the party blessing as blessing , and the party blessed as blessed ; and the blessing here meant is an authoritative , powerful , and effectual blessing , because otherwise it cannot infer a superiority . And the reason is , because he that communicates any good unto another who wants it , is more excellent in that respect than him that receives it , and in this respect is more like unto God , whom all lawful Priests , and other persons blessing by commission from him , do represent ; and in that particular Act of Benediction . 2. And this is so clear and evident a Truth that reason cannot deny and contradict , but presently assents unto : It 's like a Principle clear in its own light , and far above those remote Conclusions which are doubtful and uncertain . And this doth evidently prove the Conclusion , That Melchizedec , in blessing Abraham who had the Promises , was far greater than Abraham . § . 15. Thus far the Authour hath made it manifest , that Melchizedec , as a Priest , was greater and more excellent than Abraham ; Now , not content with this , which did imply his greatness above the Levitical Priests , he proceeds to prove more explicitly and expresly , that he was greater than them , and that in respect of Tythes two wayes : 1. In respect of his immortal Priest-hood . 2. In that Levi , and so the Levitical Priest , was in a manner tythed in Abraham his Father . 1. He was greater , in respect of his perpetual and immortal Priest-hood ; for thus it follows , Ver. 8. And here men that dy receive Tythes ; but there , he receiveth them , of whom it 's witnessed that he liveth . THis by many is made a third Argument , to prove the greatnesse and excellency of Melchizedec ; and , if we consider the Reasons in general , it is so : Yet if we consider them more distinctly , the former two Reasons proved him greater than Abraham , and greater than the Levitical Priests consequentially . But this is the first immediate and direct Argument and Proof of his excellency , above the Priests of the Tribe of Levi : In Form it 's thus , The Priest receiving Tythes , of whom it 's witnessed that he liveth , is greater than those who receiving Tythes do dy . But Melchizedec , receiving Tythes , is witnessed to live , and the Levitical Priests tything their Brethren dy . Therefore he is more excellent . The former Proofs were taken from Abraham , as the party giving Tythes ; this from the party receiving Tythes , that is , from the Priest's tything , not from the Persons tythed . In the Words , we have 1. A similitude or agreement 2. A dissimilitude or difference of the Priests . They both agree in this , that they were Priests , and received Tythes . They differ , in that the one dies , the other is witnessed to live . The Propositions are two ; 1. That here men that die receive Tythes . 2. There he receiveth them , of whom it 's witnessed , that he liveth . By the Word or Adverb [ here ] , is meant either the time or place ; the time was the time of the Mosaical dispensation , whilst the Law was in force ; the place was at Jerusalem , and in the Land of Canaan , as in the Possession of Jacob's Posterity , where the Priest's of the Tribe of Levi Tythed the Jews . Yet though they were above their Brethren in receiving Tythes , yet they were not better in that they died : Of the Death of Aaron , and other Aaronical Priests , the Scripture makes express mention , as likewise of their Successors ; and doth signify not only that they are mortal , but that they died . Yet Enoch was mortal , and yet died not , but was translated . The second Proposition is , [ That there he receiveth Tythes , of whom it 's witnessed that he liveth ] . 1. This [ he ] is Melchisedec , as a Priest , who , as such , Tythed Abraham . 2. Of him it 's affirmed , that he liveth . 3. It 's witnessed , that he liveth . 4. This Proposition is annexed to the former , by a discretive Particle [ But ] , to signify the difference between the Levitical Priests and Melchisedec ; they die , but he liveth . 5. It 's said [ There ] , that is , in the time before the Law , when Melchisedec met Abraham ; or it may referr unto the place of Scripture , Gen. 14. that there it 's witnessed , That he liveth , and to Psal. 110. There is no difficulty in this Axiom , except in this , [ That it 's witnessed , That Melchisedec liveth ] ; which some understand of the silence of the places of Scripture , which mention Melchisedec , especially Gen. 14. For though the holy Writings tell us , that Aaron and other Levitical Priests died , and that their Order of Priest-hood was only Temporary , and to be altered , abolished , and so to die ; yet it 's no where said , that Melchisedec died , and this , as was said before , is conceived to be done of purpose by the Spirit ; that he being represented as living , and not dying , might be in that respect fit to represent ( and be a Type of ) Christ as our ever-living Priest. But if he was translated , and continued a Priest untill the moment of his translation , then the representation is more full and lively ; yet this we find not clearly testified any where of him . Some think , That the [ Taxis ] or Order of his Priest-hood was of perpetual continuance , and so it was in Christ the Antitype , of whom it 's said , He is a Priest for ever . § . 16. Besides all this , the Apostle hath something more to say of the excellency of Melchisedec , in respect of the Levitical Priests . For it followeth , Ver. 9. 10. And as I may so say , Levi also , who receiveth Tythes , paid Tythes in Abraham . For he was yet in the Loynes of his Father Abraham , when Melchisedec met him . THis is another agrument , and in form is this ; He , who so received Tythes , that he did not give any , is more excellent then him that so Tythes others , that he Tythed himself . But Melchisedec so Tythed Abraham , that he was not Tythed by any Superiour Priest ; and the Levitical Priest did so Tythe his Brethren , that himself was Tythed . Therefore Melchisedec is the more excellent Priest. The minor is proved , ver . 10. For Levi was then in the Loyns of Abraham when Melchisedec met him , and tythed him and Levi in him . The sum is : Melchisedec Tythed Levi , and in him the Levitical Priests ; therefore he was more excellent . And because it was not proper , but tropical to say that Levi paid Tythes , and that to Melchisedec , in Abraham ; therefore he abates somewhat in his expression by adding [ if I may so say ] . For by a Trope he might so say , though properly he could not ; because neither Levi , nor any Priest of Levi did then actually , but only virtually exist in his cause . This so is true , as that it must be rightly understood ; otherwise , it may be an occasion of errour . For Christ himself , according to the Flesh , was then in Abraham's Loynes ; yet Christ , 1. Was not meerly Man. 2. He was not to Descend of Abraham by natural propagation . 3. He was in Abraham as the Anti-type of Melchisedec , and so could not pay Tythes to him . 4. He was to be advanced higher then Melchisedec was , and rewarded with far greater priviledges ; yet none of these did agree to Levi , or his Sacerdotal Posterity : and so , as paying Tythes in Abraham , he was inferiour , and of an inferiour Order of Priest-hood . And here I might take occasion to observe , that Parents and Children may be truly accounted as one person ; and this not only before they be born , but in many cases after that they actually exist in themselves : and by reason of this unity and identity , the Children may be said to do or suffer what their Parents do and suffer , and on the contrary . § . 17. Hitherto the Apostle hath described Melchisedec , and set forth his greatness and excellency ; and now he proceeds to manifest the greatness and excellency of Christ the Antitype , and of his Priest-hood as far more excellent then that of Aaron's , which is the second part of this Chapter ; and this is the Coherence and Connexion . And as the Theme of the former Discourse was [ Melchisedec ] , the last word of Psal. 110. 4 ; So now he goes on to handle in the first place these words of that Text , [ Another Priest after the Order of Melchisedec . ] For though in them we do not read the word and Adjective [ Another ] , yet it 's implyed , because the place doth speak of Christ , as another Priest , distinct not only from Aaron , but from Melchisedec . So that the Doctrine or Proposition , which he discourseth upon , is , [ That after Aaron , and the Levitical Priest , there must be another Priest after the Order of Melchisedec . ] From this proposed , he inferrs several conclusions of great moment concerning the insufficiency and mutation of the Levitical Priest-hood , and the efficacy and sufficiency of Christ's Priest-hood . And to ground this Discourse , he presupposeth that the end of all legal Priest-hood instituted by God is perfection , and then begins to argue in this manner . Ver. 11. If therefore Perfection were by the Levitical Priest-hood ( for under it the People received the Law ) , what further need was there that another Priest should rise after the Order of Melchisedec , and not be called after the Order of Aaron ? ] VVHere we must note , 1. That the words are Interrogative , and imply , that the hypothetical or connex Axiom is Negative , and the negation is more vehement and peremptory . For if perfection had been by that Priest-hood and that Law , there was no further need of another Priest , of another Order so far different from that of Aaron's . That Priest-hood would have been sufficient , and there had been no reason of alteration , nor any necessity of a Priest of another Order . 2. These words [ A Priest after the Order of Melchisedec ] are found in this 11th . ver . by was of supposition , and afterward repeated more fully and expresly out of the Psalm , and enlarged upon . 3. He gives a reason , 1. Why there must be another Priest of another Order . 2. Why this other Priest must be constituted in a more perfect manner then the former was . And the reason of both is from the insufficiency of the Levitical Priest , and the sufficiency of Christ's Priest-hood . 4. He joyns both the former and the latter Priest-hoods , and the several and distinct Laws according to which being made , they must minister . 5. From the words of the Psalmist he , 1. In this verse inferrs the imperfection both of the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law. And , 2. In ver . 12. the alteration of the Priest-hood and the Law. 6. In this Text , ver . 11. the Apostle's argument in form is this , If Perfection were by the Levitical Priest-hood ( under which they received the Law ) , then there was no farther need that another Priest should rise after the Order of Melchisedec , and not called after the Order of Aaron . But another Priest after the Order of Melchisedec , and not of Aaron , must rise . Therefore there is no perfection by the Levitical Priest-hood or the Law. The consequence presupposing perfection to be the end of Priest-hood , and that God doth nothing needless and in vain ; and that the bringing in of another Priest and Priest-hood , is clear and undoubtful . The assumption he proves from the words of the Psalm , which positively affirms , That there shall and must be another Priest after the Order of Melchisedec . For if they be the words of God by his Spirit inspiring David , the Jews acknowledging the divine authority of the Book of Psalms , could not deny it . For the words of the Psalmist , being the words of God , must needs be true ; yet the words of the assumption are not expresly , and wholly found in the Psalm , but implyed consequentially . For if God constitute another Priest after the Order of Melchisedec , and signifies his Will to do so , then necessarily it follows , that there is further need of such a Priest. 7. This Syllogism is Compound , and to be referred to the second Connex ; which takes away the Consequent , to take away the Antecedent . If we resolve this Text into simple absolute Propositions ; They are these , 1. There is no Perfection by the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law. 2. There is further need of another Priest. 3. This other Priest is after the Order of Melchisedec . 4. He is not called after the Order of Aaron . The first Proposition presupposeth perfection to be the end of Priest-hood , and the Laws of God. Where we must understand what is meant by perfection in this place : perfection is expiation , justification , sanctification , consecration , as may appear , Hebr. 10. 1 , 2 , 4 , 10 , 14. For , to perfect sinful man , is to free him from Sin , and the consequents thereof , so as to make him righteous , holy , and capable of eternal happiness in a near Communion with God. And here we may take notice of the errour of Crellius , who takes expiation for remission and sanctification , without any satisfaction . Whereas it 's evident , that both in the Scriptures , and especially in this Epistle , it signifies to pacify and propitiate by Blood and something offered to God ; without which , there is no justification and sanctification . And this is evident from Chap. 10. 10. where it 's said , We are sanctified through the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ. And ver . 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected ( or rather consecrated ) the Sanctified for ever . In both which places it's evident , that there must be , 1. An Offering or Sacrifice to propitiate God offended . 2. That Sanctification and Consecration are by this Propitiation , and no ways without it . This perfection is the end of Priest-hood and Law : For Priest-hood was ordained , and with the Priest-hood Laws were made to avert the Wrath of God , to procure his favour , and to be means conducing to sinful man's Salvation , and eternal Happiness ; and that Priest-hood , and that Law , which cannot do these things , nor reach this end is insufficient , and can save no sinful man , nor give him hope of Life . This perfection is denied to the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law ; for the Levitical Priest could offer no Sacrifice that could expiate Sin , or propitiate God offended , or purge the Conscience from dead works . Neither could the Law do any such thing , as is plainly asserted , ver . 19. and Chap. 10. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4. And here we must enquire , 1. What is here meant by the Law. 2. What is meant by [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] under which . 3. Why this clause is added and inserted . 1. Some will have this Law to be the Law of the Constitution of the Levitical Priest-hood , others will have it to be the rule of their administration , others will have it to be the Law of Worship , Service , and Obedience of the People , with the Promises and Comminations ; and the simple word Law , in this place included in the compound Verb , may signifie all these . Thus understood , it 's opposed to the Promise made to Abraham , and to the Gospel ; and the Jews sought Righteousness and Life by this Law , and the Ministery of the Levitical Priest-hood , and were confident of Salvation ; This was their great errour . 2. By [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] which our Translatours turn [ under it ] , that is , under the Levitical Priest-hood , some understand [ with it ] [ , and [ about the same time ] the people received , or were subjected to the Law. Junius translates it , and Vatablus expounds it differently from the rest , in this manner . For it , that is , for Sanctification the people received the Priest-hood , or the Law of Priest-hood : and so referr the Relative [ It ] not to Priest-hood , but to perfection or sanctification ; and , with them , the Preposition [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] signifies in this place not [ under ] , but [ for ] . Crellius seems to agree with them in part , but not fully ; for he referrs the Relative as others do , to the word [ Priest-hood ] , and so will have it rendred . That the people received the Law of , or touching , or concerning the Priest-hood , that is the Law of Priest-hood ; yet according to the use of the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in the Septuagint , the place may be rendred thus , [ For under , or , by the Priest-hood the People were directed or ordered ] . For with them [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is to guide , order , direct ; yet because the Apostle puts a plain difference between the Priest-hood and the Law , and makes the one depend upon the other , and joyns them inseparably , and this in the very next Verse ; therefore the first sense is the best , that with the Priest-hood , and about the time of the Institution , the People received the Law. But thirdly , Why is this Clause added and inserted ? It was inserted to inform us in general , 1. That there is no Priest-hood , especially instituted by God , without a Law and Covenant . 2. That this Priest-hood was not without a Law , and that Law and Covenant was the same which God made with their Fathers in the Wilderness . 3. That as the Law is , such is the Priest-hood ; for as they cannot be separated , but depend one upon another , so the one cannot exceed or excell one another . Every Covenant of God hath a Mediator , and as the Covenant is better , and established upon better Promises , so the Mediator or Priest is more excellent : For the end of the Priest , is , by his Ministration , to avert the Wrath of God , to make Reconciliation for the People , and procure the Blessings promised in the Law and Covenant , and no other ; therefore the Levitical Priest-hood could not so officiate or minister , as to procure any Blessings but such as the Law , or God in the Law , did promise ; nor turn away any Judgments but such as it did threaten . And this seems to be the special Reason why these words were added , to signify , that as there was no perfection by the Priest-hood , so neither could there be by the Law ; and , that because there could be no Expiation and Sanctification spiritual and eternal by the Law , therefore there could be none by the Priest-hood . The sum of all this , is , That there is no Expiation , Remission , and eternal Happiness , by the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law : And whereas the Hebrews or others might demand , Why then did God institute that Priest-hood , and give that Law , if there be no perfection by either of them severally or both joyntly ? Doth God any thing in vain ? The Answer is , That both the Priest-hood and the Law were indeed from God , and he can do nothing in vain ; neither did he ordain the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law in vain : For they were sufficient for that end he intended them . But that was not spiritual and eternal Sanctification , or the Confirmation of the eternal Covenant , but a legal Consecration and Confirmation of that Covenant which was to continue onely for a time . And as the Law had but the shadow of far better things to come , so the Priest-hood was but a Type of a far better Priest-hood , to which this was subordinate : For , as the Law was but a School-Master to Christ , so it may be said of the Priest-hood , that it did but lead to Christ. God never intended them for that perfection which is here meant , though , if rightly observed and used , they might make good the Promises of that former Covenant . § . 18. Because there was no perfection by that Priest-hood , therefore there was further need of another Priest , which is the second Proposition . David , who lived above 400 years after the first Institution of the Levitical Priest-hood , and knew the imperfection thereof , being inspired from Heaven , and enlightned by the Spirit , fore-saw that the Lord would make his Lord and Saviour sit at his right hand , not onely a King , but also a Priest , and give him an eternal Priest-hood , and did fore-tell , that in times to come he would say to Christ , I have sworn , and will not repent , Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec . These words Paul by the same Spirit knew as well as any other to be meant of Christ , as a Priest , and that to make him such was an Act of God , which did presuppose his excellent Wisdom , which could neither decree nor effect any thing needless . And therefore from them infers the necessity of another Priest , which God would never have brought in , nor have signified his Will to do so , if the Levitical Priest had been sufficient , and able to save sinful Man. Yet there might have been another Priest endued with excellent power and priviledges , that might have been sufficient to sanctify God's People , and of some Order , but 3. This Priest must be after the Order of Melchisedec . This is the third Proposition : This was very fitting and suitable to the Divine Wisdom , seeing Melchizedec was so great a Priest , and of such an excellent Order , that from the Creation we do not read of a greater . Yet why might he not be called after the Order of Aaron ? Could not God have raised a Priest of that Order far more excellent than Aaron ? Not to dispute God's power , and what he could have done ; yet his Will was otherwise : For 4. This other Priest must not be called after the Order of Aaron . And this is the fourth and last proposition of the Text , which informs us , That though he might have his Name , and so his bate Title , after that Order , yet this was no wayes fitting : But if he should be constituted according to that Order ( for to be called may signify either to be named , or to be constituted ) , then there could be no difference between the Levitical Priest and Him , neither could there be any hope of Perfection or Sanctification by him . This Negative he infers from the words , after the Order of Melchizedec : For if he be after that Order , and so constituted , he could not be constituted after the Order of Aaron , which was far inferiour to that of Melchizedec's , which was far more excellent . § . 19. Yet because the words speak of another Priest , therefore the Apostle infers two things : 1. The Change of the Priest-hood . 2. From that , the Change of the Law. For so we read , Ver. 12. For the Priest-hood being changed , there is made of necessity a Change of the Law. VVHere the Apostle doth two things : 1. Presuppose the Change of the Priest-hood . 2. Proves from that Change a necessary Change of the Law. The Reason why he presupposeth the former Change , is , because it was necessarily implyed in the words of the former Verse , and a necessary Consequent of the words of the Psalm , which expresly speaks of another Priest , and the same after another Order ; therefore he might well presuppose it . The Reason why he infers a necessity of the Change of the Law , is , because some might reply , That though the Priest-hood was changed , and another Priest brought in ; yet that other Priest might officiate according to the Law , and so be a Mediator of that Covenant . The Apostle's Argument in Form is this , If the Priest-hood be changed , the Law , of necessity , must be changed . But the Priest-hood is changed . Therefore of necessity , the Law must be changed . The words of the Text are not difficult , therefore I will briefly handle them , and 1. Reduce them to propositions . 2. Declare the meaning of the word Changed . 3. Examine the force of the Consequence . 1. The Propositions are two : 1. The Priest-hood is changed . 2. There is made , of necessity , a Change also of the Law. 2. By Change in this place is meant , an abolition and taking away the Levitical Priest-hood : For God never intended it to continue to the end , but had fixed a time how long it should be in force , and when that time once came , it might be said to be abolished by exspiration . Yet it seems rather to be taken away by actual Constitution of another Priest-hood , the Priest-hood of Christ ; for when he had offered up his great Sacrifice , and began to officiate and make Intercession in Heaven , the other Priest-hood did cease , and could not consist with this , which was far better , but was made useless . When that which is perfect , and can perfectly sanctify for ever , shall come , then that which was imperfect and could not sanctify , was put away : That it must be changed , and the reason why it must be changed , you heard before ; and this is the reason why the Apostle doth presuppose it as a thing made evident and to be granted . 3. The force of the Consequence is clear enough to him that shall observe what hath formerly been said . In the words of the second Proposition , considered in it self , we may observe , 1. The Change of the Law. 2. The necessity of the Change. 3. This necessity of this Change after the Change of the Law. 1. By Change is meant , the abrogation of the Law , which answers to the abolition of the Priest-hood . Though the bringing in of this Law 430 years after the Promise could not make void the Promise , yet the bringing in of a better Law and Covenant made null and void this Law : And God , as he limited a time how long it should continue , so he determined to take it away by a better Covenant and would not abrogate it till that was established and published : For the promulgation of the Gospel , and the Instituton of Christianity did abrogate it , and made it of no force . And this was the great Mercy of God , 1. That he would change and abrogate that which was imperfect and insufficient . 2. That he would not abrogate it till he had confirmed that which was better . 2. Of necessity there must be a Change of this Law : This implies , that the Change was not casual and contingent , or arbitrary , or any wayes to be provented ; yet this was not an absolute necessity , but upon supposition of the Decree and Promise of God , and the Sanctification of sinful Man , and the Imperfection and Inability of the Levitical Priest-hood to effect any such thing . So that it 's necessitas Consequentiae , non Consequentis : This word [ of necessity ] seems to make the Proposition modal , though in strict sense it is not so ; for the truth of the Proposition doth not depend upon any absolute Connexion of the terms , as it comes to pass in a necessary Axiom , which is opposed to impossible . 3. This is more evident , when we consider , that both this Change and this necessity follows after , and upon another Change : For , though God in his absolute power could have continued this Law , and prevented this Change ; yet if he once change the Priest-hood , the Law must be changed . And so the force of the Consequence comes in to be considered , which presupposeth some strict Connexion of both , and a dependance of the Law upon the Priest-hood : For if God did determine that the Priest-hood and Law should stand and fall together , then it must necessarily follow , that whilst the Priest-hood did stand , the Law must stand ; and when the Priest-hood shall fall and be abolished , then the Law , of necessity must be abrogated . And that this was the determination of God was made evident by the event and the execution of his Decree . Again , if the Priest-hood be once taken away , the Law was useless , because there was no Priest appointed by God remaining to officiate according to that Law , as we see it is at this day : And this might be the Reason , why God did not only by the Death and Sacrifice of the great High-Priest , after he was once exhibited on Earth , and his Ministration in Heaven , abolish that Levitical Priest-hood , but also destroyed the Temple and the City where he had put his Name , and to which he had confined that Priest-hood , and never yet suffered either of them to be rebuilt : And from these Reasons the force of their Consequence is strong and evident . § . 20. He proves further , that the Priest-hood was changed , because the great Priest , after the Order of Melchizedec , was not called after the Order of Aaron , because he was not of the Tribe of Levi , but of another Tribe , and by Name of the Tribe of Judah . Thus the Text informs us , Ver. 13. For he of whom these things are spoken , pertaineth to another Tribe , of which no man gave attendance at the Altar . Ver. 14. For it is evident , that our Lord sprang out of Judah , of which Tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Priest-hood . THE words of the Psalmist do prove , that the Levitical Priest-hood must be changed , and these prove , that it was already changed : And the Reason whereby he proves the Change of the Priest , is , the Change of the Tribe ; which presupposeth , that the Levitical Priest was confined to one certain Tribe , and that was the Tribe of Levi , and to one certain Family , the Family of Aaron . From whence it follows , that if the Tribe was once changed , and God institute a Priest of another Tribe , the Priest-hood must be changed . And this great Priest , which is after the Order of Melchizedec , must not be , was not called after the Order of Aaron , neither was he of that Family . In the words he informs us 1. Who the Person , was that must be the Priest , intended in the Psalm . 2. What his Descent is ; and that two wayes . 1. Negatively . 2. Positively and affirmatively . 1. The person of whom these things are spoken , was Jesus Christ. The thing spoken of him are , 1. That he was a Prophet above Angels , all the Prophets , and above Moses himself . 2. That he was a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec . And though a Prophet might be of any Tribe , yet a Priest must be of the Tribe of Levi. Of this great Priest he saith , 1. He was of another Tribe . 2. Of a Tribe , of which no Man gave attendance at the Altar . He was of another Tribe : This implies the Negative , He was not of the Tribe of Levi ; 1. This is general , and so is that which follows . For , 2. He was of a Tribe where of no man served at the Altar . To serve at the Altar , and offer Sacrifice , was the proper work of a Priest ; and if any of that Tribe had ever been a Priest , and according to God's Institution , then though Christ had been of that Tribe , yet the Priest-hood had not been changed . But God's constitution was otherwise ; for it excluded all the Tribes but one , that one of Levi ; and so that not any person of any other Tribe could lawfully serve at the Altar . This makes the Negative more clear , and full , and peremptory : By this we understand , that Christ was of another Tribe , that he was not of the Tribe of Levi ; yet all this will not inform us of what Tribe in particular he was . Therefore to give full satisfaction , the Authour adds , Ver. 14. For it 's evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah , of which Tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Priest-hood . THe Apostle presupposing that which cannot be denied , that the Tribe of Judah is not the Tribe of Levi , and that Christ , being of the Tribe of Judah , was made a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec : seems by these things to prove , that the Priest-hood is changed , and that more particularly and distinctly then he had done in the former verse . For it might have been argued and replyed , that if he was of another Tribe then of Judah , or Ephram , or Benjamin , or some of the rest : If he was of another Tribe name it , or else nothing is done . And this was convenient to be done , to name the Tribe in particular out of which Christ sprang , and it was that of Judah . In the words , we have three propositions , 1. That Christ sprang out of the Tribe of Judah . 2. This is evident . 3. That of Judah , Moses spake nothing concerning the Priest-hood . The first proposition is made clear out of the Histories of the Evangelists , delivering the Genealogy of Christ from Abraham , and David by way of descending , Matth. 1. and of Christ's descent from David by way of ascending , Luke 3. It 's further evident by the Calling of Joseph his Father-in-Law , and his Mother to be enroled with the Tribe of Judah in Bethlehem , the City of David , Luke 2. And his Name was found long after his Ascension in these Rolles kept in the Arches at Rome . He saith our Lord , to signify that Christ was that Lord to whom the Lord Jehovah said , Sit thou at my right hand , &c. The second proposition , This was evident : This might be evident then to them , not only by these Histories , but by the publick Records of the Roman Cense and Enrolment , and the Registers both publick and private of their pedigrees . For the Jews were very careful to Register their Discents for their distinction of their Families and their Tribes ; and God's providence did order it so to be , not only by these Genealogies to manifest who had title to the Priest-hood , but principally to preserve the Tribe and Families of Judah distinct , till Christ was exhibited , that so it might be evident that Christ was of that Tribe , and of the House of David . By this God did manifest his Promise concerning Christ , to Descend of David to be fulfilled , in that it was evident , that Christ was the Son of David , and so often called by that Name . The third proposition , That of that Tribe , Moses spake nothing concerning the Priest-hood . These words are added to signify , that no man of that Tribe had right to officiate as a Priest. For before he had said , that no man of that Tribe did serve at the Altar , but this was but matter of Fact ; for though none of Judah did serve at the Altar [ de facto ] , yet some might [ de jure ] , as having a right to officiate . But these prove as none did serve , so none could [ jure ] justly and lawfully do it : For it they could , they might prove their title out of the Books of Moses . Yet this cannot be done , because Moses never wrote of any such thing ; there is not in all his Books the lest tittle of the right of any of Judah to officiate as a Priest. And the rule of the first Constitution of the legal Priest-hood is to be found there , and no where else . These words imply , that a negative argument from the Scripture in matters of Religion is valid : For that which is not to be found in the Scriptures truly understood , either expresly delivered , or by consequence to be deduced , cannot be of divine authority , so as to bind men to believe it , or do it . But those arguments , which prove a Negative not only from the silence , but also from exclusive terms , are the strongest . And in this particular cause , we find Moses not only silent , and saying nothing of the Tribe of Judah concerning the Priest-hood , but also speaking so positively of the Levitical Priest , as that he so confirms him to the Tribe of Levi , and the House of Aaron , that he peremptorily and clearly excludes all other persons of all other Tribes from that Office. And here we may take notice of the wisdom of God , which contrived this business so , that he made Augustus ( though he thought of no such thing ) an Instrument of this evidence . For though the Cense and Enrolment was general of all Countries within the Roman Empire , whereof Judea was one ; yet by this , he brought Mary to Bethlehem , when she was ready to be delivered of Christ , that so he might be born there , according to the prophesy of Micah , and that it might be evident , that he was of the linage of David , and so of the Tribe of Judah . § . 21. Hitherto the Apostle hath manifested , that the Priest-hood was changed , because the Tribe was changed , and another Priest was risen of another Tribe . But not content with this , he proceeds to make this far more evident . For so it followeth , Ver. 15 , 16. And it is yet far more evident : for that after the Similitude of Melchisedec , there ariseth another Priest. Who is made not after the Law of a Carnal Commandment , but after the power of an endless life . HEre the Apostle seems to insist upon two words in the Text of the Psalm . 1. After the Order or Similitude of Melchisedec . 2. A Priest for ever after that Order . By both which , he is thought to prove the change of the Priest-hood , and the Law , by the Introduction of a Priest of another Order , and a Priest for ever . The former proof was evident and sufficient , yet this seems to make the change more evident , and not only [ more ] , but [ far more evident ] . And so the words may be taken , as by our Translatours , they are turned : That this must be understood , we may consider , 1. What that thing or proposition is , which is made far more evident . 2. How it is far more evidenced . The thing evidenced , is the change and abolition of the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law : A thing is made evident , when it is so clearly represented to the Understanding , that if it be rightly disposed , it must needs assent unto the truth of it once received , as it is represented . This evidence may be either immediate from Connexion of the terms distinctly understood , or mediately from a third Argument : This evidence of this change , abolition , abrogation , is mediate . And that argument , whereby it 's made so evident , is , 1. That there must be , and then was risen a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec . 2. His Priest-hood must be personall and perpetual : In the words , we may observe two propositions . The 1. That another Priest ariseth after the Similitude of Melchisedec . The 2. This Priest is made not after the Law of a carnal Commandment , but after the power of an endless life . In this Proposition you must , 1. Remember what hath been said formerly concerning the explication . 2. You must note , that [ Order ] mentioned before , and [ Similitude ] here are the same , and to be a Priest after the Similitude , is the same with being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec ; so that if Christ be of the same , Order , then he must be like unto Melchisedec . By Order is meant a distinct and different kind of Priest-hood ; and though Christ's Priest-hood be like both to Aarons and Melchisedec's , yet it was far more like unto Melchisedec , which was far more exellent then that of Aarons . This Order might be the better known , if we knew the Law and Covenant , whereof he was a Priest ; which was not only the Law of Nature , according to which he did minister , and serve the most high God as Creatour and Judge of this World ; but of the Law of Grace , according to which he worshipped God , as Redeemer by Christ , promised to Abraham , Seth , Enoch , Noah , Shem , and the rest of the Patriarchs before him , who believed in Christ to come , yet not as to descend from Abraham . Whereas it 's said , That another Priest ariseth , you must know , that his rising is his constitution , manifestation , and beginning of his Officiation . And the rising of him was the fall of the Levitical Priest , and the abolition of that Priest-hood : The force of this proposition , considered as a reason , is in this , That this other Priest is not only of another Tribe , and in particular of Judah , but after another Order . For it might have been said , That though Christ was a Priest of the Tribe of Judah , yet he might be after the Order of Aaron ; and so he might be essentially the same kind of Priest , though accidentally he might differ from the rest of the Levitical Priests , as they were of that Tribe . To take away all colour of any such conceit , this is added , That he was after the Similitude of Melchisedec , and not of Aaron . This doth prove the change far more strongly , and therefore the evidence is far greater . The second proposition , ( to evidence the difference , yet to be far greater ) informs us according to what Law he was made a Priest ; and this is done , 1. Negatively ; not after the Law of a carnal Commandment . 2. Affirmatively ; after the power of an endless life . In the Negative , we have , 1. A Commandment . 2. A carnal Commandment . 3. The Law of a carnal Commandment . 1. By Commandment , we may understand , the whole System of the Ceremonies and Mosaical Rites prescribed from God by Moses to that People : For whatsoever else it may signify or include here ; yet these are principally , if not solily meant . 2. This Commandment or body of Ceremonies and Rites is carnal , that is , outward , bodily , fleshly . For besides Circumcision , which was in the Flesh , their Sacrifices and Offerings were outward and bodily ; and they had their effect upon their Bodies and Flesh , in freeing the People from legal guilt and impurities . 3. There was a Law which did direct how these must be used , and binding them to the observation of them ; and this Law had promises of some legal Blessings and Deliverances , and Comminations of some temporal penalties . That they were carnal , it doth imply , that they were not spiritual , had no power upon the immortal Soul , and could not any waies procure spiritual and eternal Blessings , nor free from the eternal penalties due to Sin. Neither could that Priest ( who was by such outward Rites and Ceremonies consecrated ) by his Ministration , according to that Law , expiate any sin , nor make any spiritual reconciliation . The Levitical Priest was made after this Law , and to minister according to the same : But here it 's said , That Christ was not made a Priest after this Law , which was a body of carnal precepts , in respect of the Priest , the Tabernacle , the Service and Ministry , and the effects thereof . For if He had been made after the Law , He could have done no more then they did ; and then both He and his Ministry had been defective , frail , and of a short continuance ; therefore it 's denied , that he was made a Priest after that Law concerning the consecration , ministration , succession , and operation of the Levitical Priest. 2. The affirmative ; He was made a Priest after the power of an endless or indissoluble life . Where we have , 1. Life . 2. An indissoluble life . 3. The power of an endless indissoluble life . 1. Life is either the bare continuance and duration of a living Beeing , or the happiness and perfection of that Beeing ; in this latter sense most Expositors take it . 2. This life , whether it be the continuance of that more perfect Beeing , which is living , or the happiness thereof , may be temporary or perpetual , in respect of time to come ; so that , though it may have beginning , yet it never shall have end : Such a life is here meant . 3. The power here may be a Law , which is powerful not only in binding , but in promising , so that the event thereof will be endless happiness ; as the Gospel is said to be the power of God unto Salvation . Christ is said to be made according to this powerful Law , and so is , 1. Of eternal continuance himself in his person . And , 2. Hath power by this Law to give eternal life to such as are his People , depend upon him , and come to God by him : For by his death he merited , and by his life and intercession he procureth , spiritual and eternal Expiation and Blessings . Neither of these could the Levitical Priest , by that carnal Ceremonial Law , and his Ministration according to it , effect . That Christ must be made such a Priest , he proves in the next words . Ver. 17. For he testifieth , Thou are a Priest for ever , after the Order of Melchizedec . VVHere two things : 1. That Christ is made a Priest for ever , after the Order of Melchizedec . 2. That this is testified . The force and Emphasis is in the words [ for ever ] and [ testified ] . The first Proposition is concerning the Eternity of Christ's Priest-hood : the second concerning the declaration of this Eternity or Perpetuity . And we must 1. Consider the meaning of the words . 2. Declare the end for which they are brought . In the first part we have , 1. The Order of Melchizedec . 2. The perpetuity of the Priest , constituted according to that Order . 1. Melchizedec was formerly affirmed to have no end of dayes , and so in some respect was of endless life ; and for this particular Reason , these words so often taken up are repeated here the sixth time . Christ is made a Priest after this Order , as one who must continue for ever . In the second part it 's said , that this was testified ; where , to testify , is , Solemnly , by a formal and powerful Edict , to declare and pronounce him not onely to be a Priest , but a Priest for ever : And it was God himself , as Supream Lord , who made this Declaration before all the Angels of Heaven , and by it constituted and confirmed Christ an everlasting Priest. The end why these words are alledged and here repeated , is , to prove that Christ was not made a temporary Priest according to a carnal and temporary Law , but according to a Law and Power of endless life ; that is , that he was made an everlasting Priest , of everlasting power to save . The words prove this effectually , 1. Because the words of the Psalmist signify expresly , that he was a Priest for ever . 2. Because it was God , as the Supream Lord , who by his solemn Declaration made him such . This is the Apostle's Discourse upon those words of the Psalm , I have said , Thou art a Priest for ever . The Scope of the Apostle in all this is , 1. To prove that the Priest-hood was changed . 2. It was changed to bring in a better Priest. 3. Christ is this Priest , and more excellent than the Levitical Priest , as being a Priest of perpetual continuance and of everlasting power , and therefore was to be honoured far above Aaron , or any Priest of that Order . § . 22. Hitherto the Apostle hath proved , that the Priest-hood was changed , and given the Reason , which was , because by it there was no perfection : And by the Change of the Priest-hood , the Change of the Law is inferred , and in the words following he gives the Reason why the Law must be changed . This is the coherence of this Text with the former . So that this is his Method : He proves , 1. By the words of the Psalm , That there must be another Priest besides and after the Levitical Priest. 2. That if the other Priest be brought in , the Levitical Priest-hood must be changed . 3. That if the Priest-hood be changed , the Law is changed . 4. He infers the Change of the Priest-hood from the Change of the Tribe , and of the Order . 5. He infers from the words of the Psalm , that this other Priest must be an everlasting Priest , and of everlasting power . 6. He gives the Reason of this Change , and that was , because there was no perfection by the former Priesthood , as there is by the latter . Now , because the Priest-hood and the Law are alwayes so inseparably joyned , that they live and dy , stand and fall , begin and end together ; therefore he take it for granted , that having proved the change of the Priest-hood , he had proved the Change of the Law For , as the Priest-hood could do nothing , but was useless without the Law ; so the Law could do nothing , but was useless without the Priest-hood . Therefore he thought it needless any farther to prove the Change of the Law ; for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that it was changed , was evident enough and proceeds to give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Change thereof , in this manner . Ver. 18. For there is verily a disanulling of the Commandment going before , for the weaknesse and unprofitableness thereof . Ver. 19. For the Law made nothing perfect , but the bringing in of a better Hope , whereby we draw nigh to God. BY these words we understand , that the Reason why the Law was changed , is the same why the Priest-hood was changed , and it was from the Imperfection of both : Both were imperfect , for neither severally nor joyntly could they perfect any man. And here the Order of the things is not Order of the words ; for the Order of the matter is this , 1. The Law is weak and unprofitable . 2. It was so , because it was defective and not effective of perfection ; it could perfect nothing . 3. For this Reason it was disanulled . 4. It was disanulled by and for the bringing in of a better Hope , whereby we draw nigh to God. In Ver. 18. we have , 1. The disanulling of the Law. 2. The Reason , which was the weakness and unprofitableness thereof . For explication , 1 , You must know , that by Law is meant the Law of Moses , and the Covenant made with the Fathers . 2. This Law is said to go before , that is , to be a former Law or Covenant ; and this it 's said to be , in respect of the Gospel , which followed after : For , consider it absolutely , many Laws and Promises were made before it ; and in particular , the Promise made to Abraham was before it 430 years . 3. By disanulling of this Law is signified the abrogation of it : The Essence of a Law is the binding force of it , whereby it obligeth the party subject to the power of the Law-giver to Obedience or Punishment : to abrogate a Law , is to take away this binding force , so as the Subject is freed from the Observation of it , and so from all penalty upon the Non-Observation . His not doing of it , or his doing contrary unto it , is no Disobedience , nor can make him liable to penalty . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the word here used , if it be applyed to , and affirmed of , the party subject and under a Law ; it signifies a prevarication and transgression of the Law , because the party offending , as offending , carryes himself as though there were no Law , and on his part makes it void : It 's opposed privatively to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is the making of a Law , and giving force unto it : This disanulling of it was an Act of God , who by revealing the Gospel , took away the binding force of the Law , and made it void , and so took away the very being of it as a Law. 4. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many times is used expletively for ornament , sometimes it 's used to signify verily , as here it 's translated ; and signifie ; not onely the truth but the certainty of the Proposition to which it doth belong , and so it may do here . The Reason of this abrogation and nulling of the Commandment is , 1. The weakness . 2. The Unprofitableness . Weakness is the want of internal strength and efficient power : Unprofitableness is the want of some good , which , by its efficient acting , a Cause may bring unto another thing capable of that Good , which by reason of it's impotency & deficiency it cannot effect . This weakness in the Law was not a want of Physical , but Moral and Supernatural power , whereby it might bring some Supernatural and Moral good unto that People , which did observe it . Yet this is not so to be understood as though it had not the power of a Law ; for it had that both in the Precepts to bind and direct , and in the Promises to profit upon the Observation of it : For it was sufficiently both binding and profiting in respect of that end , to which God intended it . But he never intended it for supernatural Expiation and Sanctification , but he annexed it unto the Promise , and subordinated it to the Gospel , for to direct them to Christ and the Gospel to come . Therefore the Jews before Faith , that is , the Gospel of Christ exhibited and glorified , were kept under the Law , shut up , or confined , unto the Faith , which afterwards should be revealed , Gal. 3. 23. And they who then observed it , found it effectual in the enjoyment of the Blessings it did promise , and they who transgressed it , in suffering the penalties it did threaten . And this was the great errour of the Jews both before , but especially after , the Gospel was revealed , to expect supernatural Expiation and Sanctification from it , as though they had no need either of Christ or the Gospel . § . 23. In Ver. 19. we have , 1. The deficiency of the Law. 2. The efficiency of the Gospel . The deficiency of the Law is , that it made nothing perfect : The efficiency or efficacy of the Gospel , that by it we draw nigh to God. That the Law made nothing perfect proves , that it was weak and unprofitable : 1. By nothing , understand no Person . 2. By perfect , to justify and sanctify upon Expiation : So that the Argument of the Apostle in Form is this , That which perfects nothing is weak and unprofitable . But the Law perfects nothing : Therefore it 's weak and unprofitable . This proves , from the non-production of the effect , the insufficiency of the Causal power in the Law : And this is so to be understood , that the Law did neither actually perfect , neither had any power to perfect any person . But that which it could not effect , the bringing in of a better hope , whereby we draw nigh to God , could fully accomplish . The profit which the erring Jew expected from the Law was perfection , and he believed there was strength and power in the Law to produce this effect : Yet God did never teach him so , but reserved this excellent power unto the bringing in of a better Hope , where by better Hope is meant the Gospel , and by bringiag in , the Promulgation of it after the Law , and upon the Law. The Gospel is called a better Hope , because by the Promises made therein to them who observe it , we have firm and certain hope of perfection and sanctification and so of eternal life ; and this hope is so much the more certain , because of the blessed Spirit of God , which accompanying it , doth enable us to obey the Precepts , and seals the Promises ; for it writes it in our hearts : So that what the Law could not , the Gospel can effect . Some will have this better Hope to be the Priest-hood of Christ , but that cannot well be : For , 1. That is opposed to the Priest-hood of the Law , not to the Law it self , which is opposed properly here unto the Gospel and the Gospel to it . 2. The Gospel presupposeth the Priest-hood of Christ , and the Expiation made by the Priesthood , and it is a means of Application and Communication of the benefits of that Expiation : The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned bringing in seems to be taken from Law-givers , who bring in one Law after and upon another , either to confirm , or intetpret , or repeal and abrogate the former , at least in part . The Gospel is a Law of God Redeemet in and by Christ , brought in and after the Law to null and abrogate it : The effect of this Gospel upon the Expiation made by Christ is the Perfection , that is the Justification and Sanctification of sinful guilty Man , whereby he is freed from the sad and woful Consequents of Sin , and especially from the condemning vindicative Justice of God , and eternal death , and so may draw nigh to God : Where we must consider , 1. What it is to draw nigh to God. 2. Why this Clause is added . To draw nigh to God is sometimes a Duty , somtimes a Reward and Priviledge , given for Christ's merit to such as perform the Duty : As it is a Duty , it 's sometimes a coming to the place where God hath put his Name , and where he vouchsafed his special presence , as in the Tabernacle and Temple he did , for to worship him . It 's sometime a worshipping of God , or performing any divine Service unto him ; for then we pretend to leave the World and turn our backs upon all things , and to present our selves before his Throne , as in Prayer and other Duties . Again , it is a turning from our sins with a Resolution to forsake them , and an engagement of our selvs , and that with our whole hearts to be his Servants and obedient Subjects : And this we cannot do effectually without Faith in Christ , and the further we depart from sin , the nearer we draw to him , and are more like unto him . This is a Duty : But to have peace with God , to be reconciled to him , so as to have free access with boldness and confidence to the Throne of Grace , where he sits as propitiated by the Blood of Christ , and as a Father looks upon us as his Children , is a great and gracious reward and special priviledg , and presupposeth the former Duty performed , and the party performing it in the state of Justification and Reconciliation . [ For being justified by Faith , we have peace with God , through our Lord Jesus Christ : By whom also we have acccess by Faith into this Grace wherein we stand , &c. Rom. 5. 1 , 2. ] To understand this more fully , we must consider . That the words are in some sort Metaphorical , wherein the Apostle alludes either to the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai , where he represented himself very terrible , as sitting in the Throne of Justice , and not of Grace and Mercy , so as that to draw nigh unto him was a present Death . The People must keep at a distance , only Moses might come near , and ascend the Mount , which was a special and extraordinary favour ; or he may allude unto the legal dispensation , under which no unclean person , as a Leper , or one defiled by touching a dead body , or some other way , might come into the Congregation , or nigh the Tabernacle or Temple , so as to worship with God's People before they were cleansed and purified ; but upon their purification finished , they might draw nigh , and come with the rest of God's unpolluted Servants to Worship , and to serve their God , so as to have communion with him , and receive mercies , blessings , and comforts from him . So , in this place , such as are perfected , that is , justified and sanctified through Faith by the Blood of Christ , have liberty to draw nigh to God , as to a Father , to seek and receive mercies , and increase of Grace and heavenly Comforts , and have sweet communion with him . Before their justification and reconciliation , they stood at a distance from their God , and looked upon him as a consuming Fire , and to draw near was danger , though even then they might have some hope of mercy . They are like the Publican standing a far off , and beating upon his Brest , and saying , Lord , be merciful to me a Sinner ; but when their Consciences are purged , and their Souls by Faith are cleansed in the Blood of Christ ; they then have liberty , and draw nigh to serve and worship God with confidence , that he will accept their persons , prayers , and other Services . This is the drawing nigh to God here meant ; yet you must know , that these approaches are not so nigh in this life , but that there is some distance . But in the place of Glory , the approach shall be so near , as that it will take away all distance , and we shall have immediate and full communion with our God. The reason why this Clause was added , which is the second thing , is to let us know how far more excellent the Gospel is above the Law. For by the Law , no Man was brought nigh to God , or might approach unto him in this manner . It 's true , they might draw nigh to the place of God's special presence , if legally clean or cleansed ; and by observation of the Law , escape some temporal Judgments , obtain some temporal Blessings , and enjoy some earthly Comforts : yet continue spiritually unclean , guilty , and liable to eternal penalties ; be far from God with their hearts , remain unjustified , unsanctified , and so could have no spiritual peace with God , nor any heavenly comfort , neither could they draw nigh to God with boldness , so as to have any near communion with him . To draw nigh to God , as to a Father in Christ , is a far more excellent priviledg , and could not be obtained by the Law. Some do make these words a reason , to prove that Perfection was had by the Priest-hood of Christ , because by it we draw nigh to God : And it 's true , that by Christ , as a Priest , and the Gospel , we obtain this priviledg which the Law could not give us . For to draw nigh to God , presupposeth the party approaching , perfected and sanctified ; and by what we are sanctified , by that we draw nigh , and this priviledg doth prove perfection by the Gospel , as the effect doth prove and manifest the cause . So that the argumentation in form is this ; By what we draw nigh to God , by that we are perfected . But by the Priest-hood of Christ and the Gospel , we are perfected . Therefore by them we draw nigh to God. For as we must not seperate the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law , so neither must we divide the Priest-hood of Christ and the Gospel . In all this discourse , two things are observable : 1. That God did not take away the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law , till he brought in the Priest-hood of Christ and the Gospel . 2. That he took away that which was imperfect , to bring in that which was perfect and far more excellent . And all this was done as to manifest his wisdom , so especially his mercy and serious intention to save man : For he would leave nothing undone , that was necessary for the compleating of man's eternal Salvation . For if the Levitical Priest-hood , and the Law could have justified Man , and so given life ; He had never sent Christ , and made him a Priest , and revealed the Gospel : For then both Christ and Gospel had been needless and useless to that end . For as the Apostle saith , If there had been a Law given , which could have given life , verily Righteousness should have been by that Law , Gal. 3. 21. But because both Law and Priest-hood were insufficient ; therefore he decreed to bring in Christ and the Gospel , which were effectual to save . § . 24. The Apostle hath hitherto proved the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood above that of Aaron . 1. Because it 's after the Order of Melchisedec , which was above the Order of Aaron , from ver . 1. to the 11th . 2. Because Perfection is by Christ's Priest-hood , and not by that of Aaron's ; and by the Gospel , and not the Law. 3. Because the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law were changed ; Christ's Priest-hood and the Gospel having a power of perpetual Sanctification abides for ever . Now he draws a fourth Argument from the words of the Psalm , [ I have sworn , and will not repent . ] And the form is this ; That Priest-hood which is confirmed by an Oath , is more excellent then that which is not so confirmed . But the Priest-hood of Christ was confirmed by Oath , and the Levitical Priest-hood was not . Therefore Christ's Priest-hood is more excellent . This argument we find in these words , Ver. 20 , 21 , 22. And in as much as not without an Oath , he was made Priest. For these Priests were made without an Oath ; but this with an Oath , by him that said unto him , ( The Lord sware , and will not repent , Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec . ) By so much was Jesus made the Surety of a better Testament . VVHere we find the major Proposition , ver . 20. the Assumption , ver . 21. the Conclusion , ver . 22. For a Priest to be constituted by Oath , and by the Oath of God was extraordinary : Of an Oath in general , and of the Oath of Angels and of Men , and of God , I have formerly spoken in Chap. 9. This was the Oath of God ; the Proposition we read , ver . 20. [ In as much as not without an Oath . ] The words are Ellyptical , and therefore supplyed and made out by the Translators from the following verse , where it 's said , [ But this with an Oath . ] Not to be made without an Oath , and to be made with an Oath are the same ; for it follows , if Christ was made with an Oath , then he was not made without an Oath , and è co●t●● . The Negative and the Affirmative expression of the same thing makes it more evident , and implies the greater certainty . In this [ Major ] we have a two-fold Comparison , one in quality , another in quantity : In quality a dissimilitude , one Priest is made with an Oath , another without . In quantity , He that is made with an Oath , is more excellent then he that 's made without an Oath . All this is implyed in ver . 20 , & 22. out of both which the Proposition is to be made : This presupposeth that Priests may be made several ways , and in a different manner . For some may be made by divine designation , and consecrated and confirmed by outward Rites instituted by God ; some may be made such by humane Election and Ordination , and both without an Oath . Some may be made and consecrated in another manner , and confirmed by a solemn Oath of the eternal God. The Apostle doth take it for granted , That the more excellent the constitution and confirmation of any Office , and in particular of a Priest shall be , the more excellent the Officer and Priest is : For this manner of Constitution doth imply , that he receives the greater power for some more excellent end . The Assumption follows , Ver. 21. For those Priests were made without an Oath , but this with an Oath , &c. THis is closed within a Parenthesis ; where we have not only the [ Minor ] , but the proof and confirmation : The Minor denies the one Priest , and affirms the other to be made by Oath . And the Priests , being that of Levi , and Christ , are compared as dislike ; the one as made without , the other as made with , an Oath ; this is the dissimilitude . The proof of the former part , That the Levitical Priest was made without an Oath , is not expressed ; but taken for granted , because in his Constitution as related by Moses , the only authentical Authour , who speaks of it ; there is no mention made of an Oath , which , without all doubt , had not been concealed , if there had been any such thing . The proof of the latter is taken out of the words of the Psalmist ; where we must consider , 1. The Oath . 2. The thing confirmed by Oath . The Oath , [ I have sworn , and will not repent ] ; and the Apostle informs us , That the party swearing was the Lord , the eternal Jehovah , named in the first verse of that Psalm , and implies from thence , that the party to whom he sware was the Lord Christ , and that the time when he sware to him , was when he was ascended into Heaven , and set at the right hand of God. For then , when he was possessed of his everlasting universal Kingdom , was his universal and eternal Priest-hood confirmed unto him . And this Oath was made use of for the greater solemnity , and the stronger confirmation : And by the same he signified , that he was infinitely pleased with that great Sacrifice , wherein he offered himself upon the Cross , that in respect he was the fittest of all other , or rather only fit to be this Priest ; that there could never be any cause of repentance or change , neither would there be any further need of any other Priest , because he would fully and for ever sanctify his People , which no other Priest could do . This was the highest and most solemn confirmation that possibly could be made , and doth fully satisfy and quiet the minds of all such as rely upon Christ. For they need not seek their Priest , they know him , and are assured that he was made a Priest by God , and confirmed in his Priest-hood by God , this is the confirmation ; the thing confirmed is , [ That Christ should be a Priest for ever . ] God might have made the Levitical Priest by Oath , and yet he might have been changed ; but if he had made him by Oath to be a Priest for ever , then he could not have repented , that is , changed ; but he must of necessity have been a Priest for ever . Therefore you must take special notice , that God did not only swear that Christ should be a Priest , or that he should be a Priest for a long time , but a Priest for ever ; so that there should never be any Priest joyned with him , or come after him . So that if we consider the Oath , and the thing confirmed by this Oath , two things will be manifest : 1. That Christ's Priest-hood is personal , and setled in one single person for ever ; so that he can have no Fellow or Co-partner , nor any Successor in his Priest-hood . 2. That , by this Oath , God did limit his arbitrary , supream , and absolute power in this particular ; and took away the use and exercise of it , and that for ever . For now he hath no power to make Christ no Priest , or take away his Priest-hood at will and pleasure : And in this God did discover his unspeakable love unto Christ , in that he did so much honour him , and so highly reward him ; and his abundant mercy to Man. For by this Oath known unto Man , he signifies that he shall never be destitute of a powerful and effectual Priest , able for ever to save ; and this doth minister unto sinful man most sweet and heavenly comfort . And this comfort is so much the greater , because Ver. 22. By so much was Jesus made the Surety of a better Testament . ] THat is , by so much was Jesus a better and more excellent Priest : The words with the 20th verse make up the Major proposition ; and these , with those , understood in general , or of a Priest in general , without mention of the Levitical Priest , or Christ , may make the proposition Categorical or a simple Axiom , which otherwise must be Hypothetical and a compound Connex . In a simple Syllogism , the principal part of the Question is the Consequent or Predicate , and is always disposed in the Proposition ; which , for that reason , is called the [ Major ] , because of the principal and greater part of the Question . But to return unto the Text , which is the conclusion of the former Premises ; wherein we must consider two things , or rather Axioms . 1. That Christ is an excellent Priest. 2. That He is a more excellent Priest. To explicate the former , you must know , That to be the Surety of a Covenant in this place is to be a Priest , and this may easily appear by the Context ; this in general . In particular , we must enquire , 1. What the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used and translated by many in this place , a Testament and in the eighth Chapter following Ver. 6. a Covenant , doth signify . 2. What it is to be a Surety of this Testament or Covenant . 3. What Covenant or Testament is here meant . 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Law , a Covenant , a Testament . To know this , we need not consult Lexicons , as Varinus , who interprets it [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] a Law , or Bud●us , with whom it signifies a Testament and Covenant : For the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets , translated into Greek , will tell us ; that it alwayes signifies a Law , or a Covenant , and for the most part both : So it doth in the Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists , where it very seldom signifies the last Will and Testament of a Man : The same thing is a Law in respect of the Precepts , and a Covenant in respect of the Promises ; for Laws are nothing else but Pacts and Covenants between the Prince and People , and the Laws of God alwayes have their precepts and their promises : For , in respect of God there is a two-fold Obligation , one whereby he binds his People to Obedience , another whereby he binds himself to reward upon Obedience performed . On the People's part , there is also a two-fold bond , the first arising from the Law , whereby they are bound to obey or suffer ; the second is from their voluntary Submission to God , and promise of Obedience . The former is passive ; this latter , active : yet these Laws of God can never properly be called a Testament , tropically and metaphorically they may . And because Covenants had their Sanction , not by promises and comminations , but by some solemn Rites , and Sacrifices , and Feasts , therefore the Obligation was so much the stronger , and the danger of them , which should violate them , the greater : This was a Law and Covenant between God and Man , and not only so , but a Covenant between God Redeemer and sinful Man , of which more anon . 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , turned Surety , signifies one that undertakes for another to see something paid or performed ; and though the word is not found in the New Testament , except in this place , yet we find it three times in the Apocryphal Books , from whence several Expressions , used by the Apostles , are taken : And we have the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifying to be Surety for another , as Prov. 6. 1. & 17. 18. & 20. 16. And thus the Septuagint turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrice : And they interpret it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Gen. 43. 9. & 44. 32. Psal. 119. 121. and this in the Canonical Books . But Varinus tells us , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Me●●●s a Mediator ; and so it 's taken here , as it s expounded by the Apostle in the Chapter following ; and because a Priest doth undertake to procure from God both the confirmation and performance of the Promises unto the People , and to that end mediates between both , therefore he is a Surety and Mediator of the Covenant ; and in this respect a Surety and Mediator of the Covenant is a Priest. But thirdly , What Covenant is this ? 1. The Text faith , it 's the better Covenant . 2. If it be the better , then there is another ; for a Comparison must be between two . 3. In the following Chapter we learn , that there were two Covenants ; the first , of the Law made with the Fathers ; the second , of the Gospel . This is that of the Gospel which is described out of Jeremy 31. of which more at large when we come to that Text. 4. As the Levitical Priest-hood and the Law , so the Priest-hood of Christ and the Gospel go together , and cannot be separated . Thus far the first Proposition , which considers Christ absolutely in himself , which was this , That he is an excellent Priest , because a Surety of an excellent Covenant . What it is to be the Surety or Mediator of this Covenant , you shall hear more at large , Chap. 8. 6. The Comparative Proposition , which is , That Christ is a more excellent Priest , is now to be considered . This Comparison is implyed in the words , By so much and better . So much answers to as much , Ver. 20. It 's between the Levitical Priest and Jesus , who are compared in quantity : Where we must note , 1. That both are excellent , because both were instituted of God. 2. That the excess and advantage is on Christ's part , he was the more excellent . 3. The reason of the excellency is their manner of Constitution ; for the Levitical Priest was made without , Christ with the Oath of God ; and is much as a Priest made by Oath doth excel him that is made without , so much Christ is more excellent . 4. The excellency was not onely in this , that Christ was made a Priest by Oath , but also and chiefly , because by that Oath he was made personally an everlasting Priest of a better , far more excellent , and everlasting Covenant . This is the fourth Argument taken out of the Psalm , to prove comparatively the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , so that the believing Hebrews had no cause to repent of chusing Christ to be their Priest , and depending upon him for Salvation . As for the Socinian , who makes Christ a Surety of this Covenant , in respect of his holy Life , miraculous Works , and Death sealing it as a testimony by his Blood ; and not in respect of his satisfaction , merit , and intercession , we shall say something hereafter , and so proceed unto the Text following . Ver. 23. And they truly were many Priests , because they were not suffered to continue by reason of Death , &c. ] § . 25. HItherto the Apostle had proved by several Arguments , That Christ was more excellent then the Levitical Priest ; and now he proceeds further , and hath something more to say , and prove his super-excellency . He had indeed touched upon those words , [ Thou art a Priest for ever ] , and seems here to repeat them ; yet , if we accurately consider , it 's one thing to be a Priest for ever , and another to receive an eternal Priest-hood by a solemn Oath , which now he undertakes to manifest . So that the Subject of three verses following , the 23d . 24th . 25th . is the eternal , effectual , unchangeable Priest-hood of Christ made such by Oath . And in them we may observe the Perpetuity of Christ's Priest-hood . Efficacy The Perpetuity and Immutability is affirmed , ver . 23 , 24. The Efficacy , ver . 25. In ver . 23. we have the discontinuance of the one , in the 24th . the continuance of the other . And both together manifest the difference , and so dissimilitude , between them ; and the excellency of the one above the other , and this is done comparatively . For by comparison both the dissimilitude and the imparity are made to appear . He begins with the Levitical Priest in this manner , [ They truly were many Priests , &c. ] Where we have , 1. Their Multitude . 2. Their Mortality . And the Mortality was the cause of their Multitude : Their Multitude was evident , [ For they were many Priests ] ; and their Mortality , [ They died . ] And hence he inferrs , that they could not continue : for the cause why they could not continue , was Death . The intention of the Apostle is , to inform us of an imperfection and defect in the Levitical Priests , that they were all , and every one of them mortal , and died one after another ; and none could possesse and keep the Priest-hood long , but must transmit it to another ; Aaron first unto his Son , then his Son to a third , and that to a fourth , and so to the last High-Priest . So that though they might all joyntly be considered as one person morally by fiction of Law , yet they were many men , and many Priests physically , and so the Priest-hood was continued by Succession ; and though the Priest died , yet the Priest-hood continued till it was abolished . In this respect it might be said to be immortal , as Corporations and Societies are ; yet this is no perfect immortality , nor real perpetuity . This was their imperfection ; Christ's perfection was , that he continued ever . Ver. 24. But this man , because he con●in●uth ever , hath an unchangeable Priest-hood . ] THe Copulative [ And ] in the former verse did signify the Connexion , and that of another new argument to the former ; and here the Discretive [ But ] implies the difference between Christ and the Levitical Priest , in that they were Priests , but he a Priest ; they were many , he but one ; they continued not , he continues for ever . In the words we have three propositions , 1. That Christ continueth ever . 2. He hath an unchangeable Priest-hood . 3. Because he continueth ever , therefore he hath an unchangeable Priest-hood . The Apostle may seem to reason and argue thus , He that continueth ever hath an unchangeable Priest-hood . But Christ continueth ever . Therefore he hath an unchangeable Priest-hood . 1. [ This man continueth ever ] Where , 1. By this Man , is meant Christ , who was truly Man , though this Man , this individual Man , was united unto the Word , so as never any was ; He was so united unto the Word , that he might truly be said to be God. Yet , as God , he was not , he could not be a Priest ; and this is evident , if we consider either what a Priest is , or what he must do . Therefore is it said , [ This Man ] continueth for ever , and in another place , There is one God , and one Mediatour between God and Man , the Man , Christ Jesus , 1 Tim. 2. 5. 2. He is said to continue ever , that is , liveth ever ; but this is to be understood of him as risen again from the Dead . For , before in the state of his Humiliation he was mortal , and not only so , but dyed : Yet after the Resurrection he became immortal , and shall never dye , but continue for ever . For Christ being raised from the Dead , di●th no more , Death hath no more dominion over him , Rom. 6. 9. 2. [ This Man hath an unchangeable Priest-hood ] , The word translated [ Unchangeable ] may be understood , 1. So as though the Apostle did inferr from the words of the Psalam , [ Will not repent , or change ] , that Christ's Priest-hood should never be abolished and changed to another Order : Or , 2. Because it may signify not passing from one another , to conclude from this , that Christ continueth ever , that his Priest-hood doth not pass from him to any other his Successor , as the Priest-hood of Aaron did . And this latter seems to be the genuine sense , because he opposeth the Priest-hood of Christ unto that of Levi which did pass from one to another , so that his Priest-hood did continue in this one individual Man , who lives for ever . 3. [ Because he continueth ever , therefore his Priest-hood is unchangeable , and doth not pass , from him to another . ] This follows clearly . For if he individually be made a Priest , and a Priest for ever ; and this by Oath ; and he that was thus made , was immortal , then his Priest-hood is personal , and to be continued in him , one single person for ever . Now we enter upon the Comparison , and make it in this form , He that liveth , and continueth ever , so that his Priest-hood is not transmitted to another , is more excellent then they , who not continuing by reason of Death , transmit their Priest-hood to their Successors , who are many . But Christ doth thus continue , and the Levitical Priests do not . Therefore He is a more excellent Priest. § . 26. This excellency is yet more , because of the efficacy of the Priest-hood , and the ability of the Priest ; when perpetuity and efficacy meet in one , the Priest-hood must needs be excellent indeed . But let 's hear the Apostle proving this Efficacy . Ver. 25. Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost , or , for ever , that come to God by him , seeing be ever liveth to make Intercession for them . THE judgment of this Text is Dianoetical , as is evident from the Illative [ Wherefore ] , and in form he argueth thus , He that ever liveth to make Intercession for them that come to God by him , is able to save them for ever . But Christ ever liveth to make Intercession for them , that come to God by him . Therefore he is able to save them for ever . Where , from his perpetual and effectual Intercession , he inferrs his ability to save for ever ; and from both his super-excellency which is principally intended . In the words we have , 1. His ability to save them for ever that come to God by him . 2. The reason of it , because he ever liveth to make Intercession for them . In the first we have , 1. His active power . 2. The subject upon which it works effectually . 1. His active power , that he is able to save to the uttermost . 1. He is able , that is , he hath an active power to produce some excellent effect , and reach some glorious end . 2. This power is not physical , but moral , nay super-natural and divine ; and that 's evident from the effect , which is Salvation ; he is able to save . This Salvation is not natural or temporal , but spiritual , and a full deliverance from sin , the greatest evil , and the most woful Consequents thereof ; for he so delivers , that he makes the parties saved , fully happy and blessed . 3. He might save Man , and that spiritually , and yet but for a time ; but he is able to save for ever , and this is full and compleat Salvation indeed : and it 's indifferent whether the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] be turned to [ the uttermost ] or [ for ever ] ; for both are intended . Neither could Christ save fully , and to the uttermost , except he should save for ever with an everlasting Salvation . 2. The subject and parties , whom he thus saves , are not all and every one , but such as come to God by him . Some will not come to God at all ; some will come to God , but not by him : But they who will be saved , must , 1. Come to God , and none else : And , 2. Must come to God by him , and by none else . This is the qualification and right disposition of the subject , without which it 's not capable of Salvation . For [ Actus activorum sunt in passo unit & disposito ] , may be applyed here : For as this rule is true in natural , so it 's true in supernatural Phisophy . To come to God some times , is to turn from Sin and Satan , to God and Righteousness ; and the further we depart from Sin , the nearer we come to God. For this coming is a spiritual and divine motion between the terms of Sin and God ; it 's from Sin , and to God. Sometime it 's to worship God , which , if done aright , presupposeth the former motion . When a man doth worship God , he turns his back upon all other things , and leaves all other business and company ; and turns his face , the face of his Soul to God as Supream Lord , and the fountain of all happiness . One part of Worship is to pray and present our petitions unto God , wherein as we seek for many things , so amongst others we sue for pardon . This is a principal Suit , which sinful man hath to his God ; therefore to come to God in this place is by prayer , to sue earnestly for pardon of Sin , everlasting Salvation : and the more sensible of Sin we are , the more powerful is our prayer . Yet we may come to God , and sue earnestly for mercy , and not speed , except we take the right way . We must therefore not only come , but come by Him , that is , by Christ : God is not accessible to sinful guilty man without a Mediatour , who may and can satisfy his justice , merit his favour and mercy ; and will effectually intercede for him , and plead his Cause . These things only Christ can and will do ; and if we will speed , we must believe that he alone is our Mediatour , and rely upon him alone as our only Propitiatour and Intercessour . And all such as live under the Gospel , must rely upon him , as having suffered Death already , offered his great Sactifice , obtained eternal Redemption , hath ascended Heaven , and is set at the right hand of God , where he is made an everlasting King and interceding Priest. They who thus come to God by him , renounce all righteousness in themselves , acknowledg themselves guilty and miserable Wretches , plead the Blood of Jesus Christ , and cast themselves wholly upon his infinite mercy , which he hath merited , and God hath promised , with a resolution to subject their selves wholly to him , and obey him for ever . Thus the Saints of God did come to him by Faith , 1. In the Seed of the Woman , who should bruise the Serpents Head. Then , 2. In Christ , as the Seed of Abraham , in whom all Nations should be blessed . 3. In the Son of David , who should sit upon his Throne , and reign for ever and ever . 4. In him , as exhibited and glorified . The faith of the former was but implicite , the faith of these last is more explicite , clear , and distinct . This is his ability to save wholly , and to the uttermost . 2. The reason of this is , Because He ever liveth to make Intercession for then . Where we must consider , 1. What it is to make Intercession . 2. For whom this Intercession is made . 1. To intercede , is to sue , plead , and sollicite for another ; and so in generall it 's taken here . This Intercession presupposeth , that he is immortal , is in Heaven , appears continually before his Father's Throne , for all his Clients in the Court of Heaven . He hath great interest in the supream Judge , as a most beloved Son before a Father , sitting in the Throne of Grace : He sues for Pardon and Salvation , He pleads his own Blood and Propititation , his Father's Promise , his Clients Faith ; and except he should plead his Propitiaion , he could not make the cause of his Client good . Therefore we have his Intercession and Propitiation joyned together ; for he is our Advocate with the Father , and the propitiation for our Sins , 1 Joh. 2. 1 , 2. This is directly against the Socinian . 2. The parties for whom he pleads are they , who come to God by him ; for it 's in vain , and against the rules of that Court to plead for any others , who are impenitent and unbelieving . For though the Scripture saith , He died for all , to make their sin 's re●sissible ; yet it no where saith , He makes Intercession for all , to obtain actual Remission and Salvation . For his Blood and Sacrifice doth merit Remission , the Covenant doth promise it to Believers ; Faith makes us immediately capable and justifiable , and by virtue of the Promise gives us right ; Christ's Intercession obtains actual pardon . These , who come to God by him , are his Clients , and he undertakes their cause , and is alwayes ready to carry it for them . The reason why Advocates were appointed by the imperial Laws , as Civilians tell us , was to supply the defects of such Clients , as could not alwayes be present , were ignorant of the Law , and could not manage their own cause before the Judge . So the imperfection of our prayers , our unworthiness , and our many defects gave occasion to the supream and universal Lord and Judge out of his abundant mercy to appoint Christ Jesus Advocate-General in the Court of Heaven , and to make our Justification to depend not only upon his death suffered on Earth , but his intercession made in Heaven . He is that Angel , which John saw in Heaven , who came and stood by the Altar having a Golden Censer , and there was given unto him much Incense , which he should offer [ or add unto it ] the prayers of all Saints upon the Golden Altar , which was before the Throne , Rev. 8. 3. This is an allusion to the Levitical Priest , offering Incense in his Golden Censer , upon the Golden Altar before the Throne or Mercy-seat of God , and praying for the People . And in this he was a Type of Christ making such Intercession in Heaven , as that the prayers of penitent Sinners perfumed with the Incense of his merits , and offered unto God the Supream Judge by him , prove most effectual . In that place it 's observable , that he offers only the prayers of Saints ; and in another place he makes Intercession only for the Apostles , and such as by their word should believe in him , Joh. 17. 9 , 20. Saints and Believers , are they who come to God by him . And this is our Duty , 1. To come to God and him alone for remission and eternal Salvation ; for they are found in him , and in him alone , and no where else . 2. We must come to him by Christ , as our only Propitiatour and Intercessour , who alone can and will effectually plead our cause , and make it good . And as this is our Duty , so upon the performance of it , this will be the comfort of all penitent Sinners , who groan under the heavy burden of their Sins , and sigh , and long , and pray for Salvation . 1. That Christ will certainly plead for them , and by his Intercession obtain their everlasting Salvation . And why should poor believing Sinners quake and tremble at the Bar of God , seeing Christ doth plead their Cause ; which is more then if all Saints and Angels , and the blessed Virgin , the Mother of our Saviour , should pray for him . And why should be fear the Tryal , or , upon the Tryal , Damnation or eternal Death ? For who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect ? It is God that justifirth : Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died , yea rather that is risen again , who is even at the right hand of God , who also maketh Intercession for us , Rom. 8. 33 , 34. It was expedient , as he said to his Disciples , That Christ should go away , and that to his Father's House ; that as a Priest and Advocate he might be ever ready in that Court of Heaven to plead our Cause . His presence and his perpetual Intercession there , is far more beneficial to us , then his bodily presence here on Earth : it 's not only beneficial , but necessary . For when we have sinned , what should we do , if we had not him our righteous Advocate and Propitiatour with his Father ? we were redeemed indeed by his Death , but we are saved and justified by his Life ; because he ever liveth to make Intercession for us , and will fully and for ever save us . For because he is a perpetual and effectual Intercessour , therefore he is so able fully and for ever to save even all that come to God by him ; and this is a clear proof of his excellency above the Levitical Priest. § . 27. Now the Apostle seems to have finished his Discourse upon that excellent Text , [ I have sworn , and will not repent , Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec , Psal. 110. 4. ] and to conclude in these words following , Ver. 26 , 27. For such an High-Priest became us , who is holy , harmless , undefiled ; seperate from Sinners , and made higher then the Heavens . Who needeth not , &c. VVHich words may be handled , 1. Absolutely in themselves : 2. Considered in their connexion and reference to the former . But I will begin with the coherence and connexion , which is difficult to be known , as appeareth by the different ●pinion ; of Expositors upon the place . For some think it 's a Conclusion ; and as it is the last part and close of the Chapter , it may be so called , for in this sense the word is sometimes taken , yet this is no proposition inferred from former premises . Others conceive , that the Apostle proceeds by other Arguments to prove the superexcellency of Christ ; and this is true , for so he doth . Others imagine , that these words give a reason why there must be such a Priest as lives for ever to make Intercession for us ; for such a Priest became us , and none other would serve our turn . Others judge a reason to be given here why the Intercession of Christ was so powerful ; and that is from his excellent qualification , and his pure unspotted Sacrifice . And it 's very certain , that his Intercession had not been so effectual without this qualification of the person , and the excellency of his Sacrifice . Though all these things may be true , yet something is to be observed ; and upon serious condesiration we shall find , that the Apostle hath not done with his Text in the Psalmist , but hath something more to say upon it , and that he doth in these words . It was well observed by the Rhemists , that the Apostle scanneth every word of Psalm 110. 4. And there was one word more to be further examined . For we have heard , 1. Of Melchizedec . 2. Of another Priest after his Order to arise after the Levitical Priest. 3. That he is a Priest for ever . 4. That he is made by Oath a Priest immortal , and living for ever . Yet in all this here is no mention of the person , who he is that is thus made , not what his qualification was , nor of the time when he was thus made , and why he was so confirmed . But in these words he satisfices us in all these particulars , as is implyed and presupposed in that very Psalm . 1. The party was David's Lord , [ For the Lord said unto my Lord , ] ver . 1. Who was above David , not only because of his union with the Word , but because he was advanced to far higher dignity , and invested with far greater power , and was the Son of God who lives for ever . 2. His qualification was excellent ; For he was holy , harmless , undesiled , and separate from Sinners . 3. The time , when he was thus made High-Priest for ever , and that by Oath , was after that he had offered one Sacrifice , not many ; for the People , not for himself ; once , not often : of everlasting virtue , not effectual for some petty expiation for a time , and after he was risen , ascended , and set at the right hand of God. 4. The reason why he was thus made such a Priest , was , not only his excellent qualification , and his immortality upon his Resurrection , but because he had offered up himself without spot unto God. That this is the intention of the Apostle , will appear by the last words of the Chapter : But to enter upon the words , Ver. 26. For such an High-Priest became us , who is holy , harmless , undesiled , separate from Sinners , and made higher then the Heavens . ] IT may be truly said with Junius , That in these words , with those in the verse following , Christ is circumscribed or described , 1. From his Person ; 2. From his Ministry . For his Person , he had all the perfections of a Priest ; for his Service , he was entred the holy place of Heaven to plead his excellent Sacrifice for all his Saints . For his Perfections , [ He was holy , harmless , undefiled , separate from Sinners . ] These are perfections which were required in the Levitical High-Priest , so far as humane frailty was capable . But they agreed to Christ exactly , and in a far higher degree then they did agree unto any , even the best of them . And though the words may signify several qualities different at lest in respect ; yet they make but one perfect qualification of this Priest , who was holy , as Man , in his Conception , Birth , Life , Death ; as innocent and harmless as the new born Child , never tainted or stained with the lest Sin , and so separate from Sinners : that though he did converse with them to convert them , yet he was far from being drawn to sin by them , or partaker of sin with them , or any wayes guilty by his presence amongst them . All these do signify , that he was both habitually and actually more virtuous and righteous then ever any was ; and far more free from any vicious quality , habit , act , then any Priest on Earth , or Angel in Heaven ever was ; and therefore was the fittest of all others to be a Priest , as being more like and nearer unto God , then ever any other . In this respect he was more fit then any to draw nearer unto God , as one that had the greatest interest in him . And therefore , [ He was made higher then the Heavens . ] For he ascended far above all Heavens , where he ever liveth and keeps his Residence ; and being entred into that holy and glorious Sanctuary , he was made King to Reign , and by Oath confirmed an everlasting Priest to officiate there , and make his great Sacrifice effectual and actually beneficial to all true Believers . And God advanced him not only above the highest place , but above all the Angels and Inhabitants of that glorious Palace . His work in this Temple is to make Intercession , not to Sacrifice , for , Ver. 27. He needed not daily as those High-Priests to offer Sacrifice , first for his own sins , and then for the People's : for this he did once , when he offered up himself . ] THis Text , though here brought in upon the By , and handled of purpose and more at large , Chap. 9. & 10. is concerning one of his chiefest Services , which was his great Sacrifice , wherein he far excelled all the Levitical Priests in severall respects ; for in this , 1. He offered Himself , whereas they offered Bullocks and Goats . 2. He offered not for his own , but the Peoples sins ; but they offered , first for their own , then the Peoples sins . 3. He offered but once , they daily and often . Therefore is it said , That this man Christ , after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever , sate down at the right hand of God : From henceforth expecting till his Enemies be made his Foot-stool , Chap. 10. 12 , 13. Where it 's observable , That this Sacrifice was of that eternal efficacy , as that he needed not to offer any more , but only to enter into the Sacrary of Heaven and make Intercession , and plead this Sacrifice for every penitent and believing Sinner . And these words are added to the former , [ That he was holy , harmless , undefiled , and separate from Sinners , made higher then the Heavens . ] 1. To signifie that the reason why this Sacrifice was of so great virtue , was , because the Priest was so holy and devoid of sin , that he had no need to offer for himself , as not having any infirmity , which the best of the former Priests had . 2. To shew why , upon this offered , he was advanced above the Heavens . 3. To manifest the time , when he was by Oath confirmed a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec , and that was after he had offered this Sacrifice , and was set at the right hand of God in the highest Heavens . In these words we may note , 1. His excellent qualification , whereby he was free from all sin . 2. His pure unspotted Sacrifice , and offering of himself . 3. His exaltation above the Heavens upon the same , so that he had no need to offer any Sacrifice again . And these things were so ordered of God , that one should be subordinate to another ; the first to the second , and that to the third . For without this qualification , he could not have offered so perfect a Sacrifice ; without this Sacrifice thus offered , he could not have entred the Sanctuary of Heaven , neither could his Intercession have been so powerful to save . No , God did not swear unto him , and by Oath make him a Priest for ever , but as so qualified ; and as by vertue of that qualification , having offered so perfect a Sacrifice , and as by virtue of this Sacrifice having entred Heaven . This man , and thus considered was he , who by the Oath of the everlasting God , was made an everlasting Priest. And in the Text we might , as formerly , observe , 1. The similitude . 2. The dissimilitude and difference . 3. The superexcellency . 1. The similitude ; they were Priests , Christ was a Priest ; they offered Sacrifice , Christ offered Sacrifice . 2. The dissimilitude ; they were many , he but one : they offered often , he but once ; they offered Buls and Goats , and other things ; he , himself ; they offered for themselves and the People , he offered not for himself as having no infirmity , but only for the People . 3. The superexcellency of Christ above them , especially in two things : 1. That he needed not offer for himself , as being without sin . 2. He needed not to offer often for the People , but only once ; and by that one Sacrifice once offered , he did infinitely far more then they did or could do by their daily offerings . This superexcellency also did appear both in his perfect qualification , and his exaltation above the Heavens . These things are so plain in these Enthymatical words , that there is no need to reduce them to the precise form of a Syllogism , or Syllogisms , according to the rules of Logick . The first words of these two verses 26 , 27. which are handled last , are these , [ For such an High-Priest became us ] , wherein we must consider , 1. What [ such ] an High-Priest is . 2. How and in what sense he is said to [ become us . ] 1. [ Such ] an High-Priest is one who is described from , 1. His Qualification . 2. His one perfect Sacrifice . 3. His being made higher then the Heavens . For , 1. He must be pure and holy without any sin , or else he cannot offer a pure unspotted Sacrifice ; which being offered , is able to purge the Conscience , and expiate the sins of the People for ever . 2. If he do not offer such a Sacrifice , he cannot enter into the holy place of Heaven , as the High-Priest without Blood could not enter the earthly Sanctuary . 3. Except he enter Heaven , he cannot be ready there to make Intercession for us . 2. Such a Priest doth [ become us . ] [ To become ] is , 1. To be sit , suitable , convenient . 2. To be useful and profitable . 3. Sometimes to be necessary . All these significations are here intended : But to whom is he so convenient , profitable , necessary ? even to us . To understand this , we must consider what our condition is : It 's sinful , miserable ; for we are guilty , polluted with sin , liable to Death , have no access to God , and at a great distance from eternal Life ; and that which is worst of all , we are sensless of this sad condition ; and if we once know it , we are hopeless , helpless . We cannot propitiate God , or sanctify our selves , or come near the Throne of God's Justice ; and except we find one that is fit to mediate and deal with God in our behalf , we perish utterly and for ever . For our own prayers and offerings , will not be excepted ; they can do us no good : The Levitical Priests have sins and infirmities of their own , and they can offer nothing but the Blood of Beasts . And how can these purge the conscience ? There must be a Priest , an High-Priest , and he must be without sin , and offer an unspotted Sacrifice far more noble , precious , and excellent , then that of Beasts , and enter into the heavenly Sacrary ; otherwise he can do us no good : such an High-Priest only Christ is . Therefore our condition was such , as none but he was convenient for us , could do us good , and save us . And seeing he , and he alone was such , and without him we must needs perish ; therefore he was necessary to our Salvation . For we must of necessity have such an High-Priest , as shall by his purity , and his spotless Sacrifice satisfy God's Justice , merit his favour and enter Heaven ; and by his Intercession procure the actual remission of our sins , and our full and everlasting Salvation . And how much are we bound to acknowledg the unspeakable mercy of our God , who knowing our sad condition , pittying us , and resolving to save us , provided such an High-Priest as was convenient for to save us , and reconcile us to himself for ever . But we unworthy wretches , being ignorant and sensless of our sin , guilt , and misery , do not understand what need we have of Christ ; nor do we seek him and long after him , nor praise our God for his greatest love in Providing him for us . § . 28. But who is this High-Priest ? and how ? and when was he made ? It could not be the Levitical High-Priest , for he had infirmities ; therefore it must be some other , and the Text following will inform us who he is , how he was made , and when he was constituted , in these words ; Ver. 28. For the Law made men High-Priests , which have infirmity ; but the word of the Oath , which was since the Law maketh the Son , who is consecrated for evermore . ] BY these words we understand , 1. Who he was that was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec ; and it was not the Levitical High-Priest , but the Son. 2. How he was made , and that was , by the word of the Oath . 3. When he was made , and that was after the Law ; and in them he finisheth his discourse upon Psalm 110. 4. They have some coherence with the former words ; but how , is not so clear . Yet they have much agreement with the Text immediately antecedent , which makes mention of Priests which must offer first for their own sins ; and of a Priest , who being free from all sin , had no need to offer for himself , but only for others , and that but one Sacrifice once , and the same so perfect , that it was of eternal virtue . And here he gives a reason by the rational Conjunction [ for ] why they had need to offer for themselves , and that is , because he had infirmity , and the Law made no better Priests . And also implies another reason why this other Priest , made by the word of the Oath , had no need to do any such thing , and it 's because he had no infirmity , but was consecrated for evermore . The former Priests did not become us , would not serve our turn ; therefore God abolished that Priest-hood , and would never confirm it by Oath ; and also abrogated the Law , which had no better High-Priests . And because the Son was free from all infirmities , and able to finish the work of man's Salvation ; therefore he pitched upon him , and gave him an everlasting Priest-hood . But let us consider the words in themselves , and we shall find in them two divine Axioms , 1. The Law maketh men High-Priests which have infirmity . 2. The word of the Oath , which was after the Law maketh the Son , who is consecrated for ever . And here it 's to be observed , That these two make but one compound Axiom , and it 's discretive , as appears by the particle [ But ] . Therefore we must consider , 1. The parts severally in themselves . 2. Joyntly in their opposition . In the first we have , 1. Men , which have infirmities . 2. These made High-Priests . 3. These made such by the Law. By infirmities are meant sins , as appeareth from the former verse , where it 's plainly implied , That the Levitical High-Priests had sins , because they must offer Sacrifice first for their own sins . There is a natural and bodily , and there is a spiritual and moral infirmity : And though Christ was not subject to the latter , yet he had something of the former ; for though he had no diseases , yet he was subject to hunger , thirst , fainting , weariness , pain , and such like infirmities . All men born of Adam had their bodily infirmities , and all men but Christ have their spiritual infirmities . Yet though all have their infirmities , yet some of them were made Priests , and some High-Priests ; and they must officiate and draw near to God , and officiate and perform religious Services , not only for themselves , but for others . And because there were no other kind of men free from sin , therefore the Law made such men High-Priests ; and the best and the most holy of them had their failings and lesser sins , though they were not wicked . And whereas it 's said , [ the Law ] made them , it 's meant God in the Law made them High-Priests ; and therefore they were such by the Law of God , instituting that Priest-hood ; and , by that Law making them , who were men of infirmity , High-Priests , they were bound first to offer for themselves the great Sacrifice of expiation , and then for , others , L●v. 16. 11 , 15. and none of them could offer up themselves without spot to God. § . 29. The second Axiom is , [ That the word of the Oath , which is since the Law , maketh the Sov , who is consecrated for ever . ] Where we may observe , 1. The constitution , or making of the Son a Priest for ever . 2. The word of the Oath , which makes him such . 3. The time , when he was made such by this Oath . 1. By Son , understand Jesus Christ ; who though he be the Son of Man , yet is the Son of God in a more eminent manner then ever any other was , is , or shall be . It 's that Son whom God hath made Heir of all things , by whom he made the Worlds , the brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the express Image of his Person . This Son is constituted and made a Priest for ever ; for , to be consecrated or perfect for ever is nothing else , then to be made a compleat and everlasting Priest. 2. This Son was made thus by the word of the Oath , that is , God by the word of this Oath , did constitute and make him such . The word of the Oath is , Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec ; for this did signify and declare the Will of God concerning him . The Oath was that , whereby God did confirm this Word , and signify his Will , that the Priest-hood of the Son should remain unto him , so that it should never be changed in it self , or pass from him , or be abolished . The word did signify God's Will what Christ should be ; the Oath did signify that this his Will should stand imm●table for ever . Yet the word of the Oath may be nothing else but the words of the Psalmist , [ I have sworn , and will not repent , Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec . ] Where we have , 1. The thing , Christ's everlasting Priest-hood , 2. The confirmation of this thing , which is by Oath , the Oath of God. 3. This word of this Oath was after the Law. For , 1. The prophesy that God would thus swear unto his Son in future times , was four hundred years and more after the Law. 2. The Oath it elf was sworn actually above a thousand years after the Law , and then when Christ was ascended into Heaven , and set at the right hand of God , and that is now a thousand six hundred years and above , before these present times . So that whereas the Apostle had handled the several parts of his great Text Psal. 110. 4. severally , now in these words he sums and knits them all up together in one divine Axiom , informing us who this everlasting Priest was , and the time when he was fully constituted . After the several parts considered severally , follows the consideration of them joyntly in their opposition , which is easily understood . For , 1. The former High-Priests were but Servants , but Christ is the Son. 2. They had infirmities , Christ had none . 3. They were made Priests by the Law , Christ by the word of the Oath . 4. The Law was before , the word of the Oath after . 5. They were made Priests without an Oath , but for a time ; Christ was made with an Oath , a Priest for evermore . So that in these words , we have in brief all the former supercellencies of Christ summed up , and to this end , that these Hebrews should not rely upon the Law and legal Priest-hood , which God in the very constitution of it , intended to continue but for a time ; but upon Christ , who was able to save them for ever , and therefore by Oath made an everlasting Priest. CHAP. VIII . Concerning the Tabernacle or Sanctuary wherein Christ must minister , the Service he must perform , and the Covenant whereof he must be Mediatour . § . 1. ALL do grant that the scope of the Apostle is this Chapter , as in the former , is to demonstrate , That Christ is a more excellent Priest then Aaron , or any of that Order ; and thus it agrees with the former and the two latter Chapters . This he doth , 1. By summing up the matter of the former Chapter . 2. By producing new Arguments . These arguments are taken from his ministration , as some conceive ; and this ministration is proved to be more excellent from , 1. The place , which is Heaven . 2. The Offering and Service . 3. The Covenant , whereof he is Mediatour . Janius thinks , that the Authour continues his Discourse concerning the vocation of this great High-Priest , and determines the subject of this part to be the Office to which he was Called , and proceeds to speak of the execution of this Office in the Chapter following , and not before . But this is not accurate , because the vocation of Christ , to be a Priest after a certain Order , made him an Officer , and gave him a sacerdotal Office. But if he mean by Office , Officiation , Function , and the exercise of his pontifical Power , then it 's true , that this is the subject of this Chapter . The principal matter of the ninth , and a great part of the tenth Chapter is concerning one principal piece of his Service and Mistration , which was the great Sacrifice of himself , and the excellent virtue and eternal efficacy of the same . So that the proper subject of this part is Christ's ministration or officiation ; yet this must be rightly understood , for the Apostle doth not here instance in , or insist upon , any work or service in particular of his Priest-hood , but informs us of certain rules of this officiation . But to return to the words themselves , we thus read . Ver. 1. Now of the things which we have spoken , this is the Sum ; We have such an High-Priest , who is set on the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the Heavens . THese words are said to be a Transition , and it 's certain they are a part of one : A Transition is perfect or imperfect ; the perfect is defined to be Epilogus dictorum , & Propositio dicendorum ; for it not onely informs in a few words what hath been said already , but also proposeth the Subject of the ensuing Discourse : These words are the first part of a Transition ; wherein we may consider , 1. That some things were spoken already . 2. The Sum of them . 3. The things spoken and sum'd up . 1. Something 's were spoken and delivered already in the three former Chapters , especially in the seventh , where the Apostle had discoursed at large , and that with great Wisdom and profound Learning , and discovered and unfolded many excellent truths concerning the Priest-hood of Christ , contained in certain Texts of the Old Testament . A Transition is a Rule of Art , and the first part of it doth necessarily presuppose something already handled and more largely treated upon . 2. These things spoken of already are sum'd up : The word in the Original for the most part is , a Sum or brief Contraction of many things into few ; and the Verb signifie , to contract , abridge , or epitomize . We find it once used in the Apocryphal Books Ecclus. 32. 8. Let thy Speech be short , comprehending much in few words . The words in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Where we have the definition of a Sum , as here it 's taken ; not for a Sum of Money , as Act. 2● . 28. but of words . It is a speaking of many things in few words ; for , when the things are many , and our words expressing them are few , then we may be said to sum up and contract our Speech : Yet this may be done , when nothing hath been formerly delivered ; but as it is a part of a Transition , this Contraction presupposeth something spoken formerly and at large : Some think the word signifies the chief and principal things formerly delivered , though we hardly find any where this signification ; yet when we contract many words into a few , we do little to purpose if we omit the principal matters , or take in any other . A transition , whereof this is the principal part , belongs to Logick , and is a part of Method . The use of it is , handsomely to tye and knit the parts of a Discourse together , to give light , and make it perspicuous , to manifest the order of things , and the dependance of one upon another ; and so it helps the apprehension , the judgment , and the memory especially : The same is done chiefly by the Epilogue and former part , which is the summing up of a large Discourse in a few words . 3. The things summed up , or the matter of this Sum , is , 1. That we have such an High-Priest , &c. Where we have two Propositions , 1. We have an High-Priest . 2. We have such an High-Priest , who is set on the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the Heavens . The Order of things , and not of the words , is , 1. There is such an High-Priest . 2. He is ours . 1. He is a Priest , and he is such an High-Priest , so eminent and so excellent , t●●t he is set at the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the Heavens . A Robe , a Scepter , a Sword , a Diadem , a Throne , are Ensigns and Ornaments of Sovereign Power . To sit in the Throne of Majesty is to possess Sovereign Power and Dominion . There is an earthly Dominion and Sovereignty , and also an heavenly and supercelestial Majesty , which is proper to God as the Supream , universal , and eternal Lord. This is here to be understood : Christ , this High-Priest sits at the right hand of this Throne : As he is the Word by which the World was made , he sits in this Throne with the Father and the Spirit , as one God and Lord with them ; yet , as Man , though assumed by the Word , he sits but at the right hand of this Throne : And so to do , is , to possess the highest degree of dignity and power next to that which is infinite and eternal . The place of residence of Christ , this great High-Priest , where he possesseth and exerciseth this power , is Heaven , whither he ascended after his Resurrection ; and it was the highest degree of his Exaltation , and a Reward of his deep Humiliation . This Power and super-excellent Dignity agrees to him as a King , who was fully invested with this Regal Power , when God said unto him , Sit thou on my right hand , at which time God sware unto him , Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec : For Christ was both King and Priest ; and from the 110. Psal. we learn , that he was first made King , and then at the same time by Oath confirmed in his everlasting Priest-hood ; and these words are an Abridgment of the first four Verses of that Psalm . 2. This High-Priest is ours , for we have him . The Jews had their High-Priest ministring in the Temple at Jerusalem , and upon him they relyed for their Justification and Salvation : The Christians , and amongst others these believing Hebrews had their High-Priest , not on Earth , but in Heaven ; and the same far more excellent than the Levitical Pontiff , who might stand , and not sit , before the Mercy-seat on Earth , not at the right hand of the heavenly and eternal Throne . This was proper to Christ , who is the High-Priest of all Christians , upon whom they rely for eternal Salvation ; and all such as are sincere Believers have Interest in him as in their own : For he was made and consecrated for them , to benefit and save them , and none other . And if we knew his excellency , and being sensible of our sin and misery , would rely upon him with our whole hearts , we might find unspeakable Comfort in him : It 's our honour that we have an High-Priest at the right hand of God , and our great happiness , that he is able to save us for ever , who come to God by him : But our Ignorance of his excellency , the senslesness of our sins , and the want of a true and lively Faith , deprive us of those inestimable benefits we might certainly expect from him . These things are the Sum of all that excellent Discourse in the former Chapter , upon the Text of Psal. 110. 4. For , that Christ 1. Is a Priest after the Order of Melchizedec . 2. That he is a Priest for ever . 3. That he is made such by Oath . 4. That he , after his one Sacrifice once offered , was higher than the Heavens . 5. That he , being the Son , consecrated for evermore , needs offer no more Sacrifice , but remains at the right hand of God , & lives for ever to make Intercession , and by this exercise of his Regal and Sacerdotal power makes his Sacrifice eternally effectual for his Saints , are all comprised in these words . § . 2. If Christ be an High-Priest he must officiate , and that in some place , and so be the Minister of some Sanctuary or Temple , and so he is : For Ver. 2. He is a Minister of the Sanctuary , and of the true Tabernacle , which the Lord pitched , not Man. THese words may be so understood , as to be the latter part of the transition : Yet , whether they be so or no , they plainly speak of Christ's officiation in some Sanctuary : For in them we have 1. A Sanctuary and Tabernacle . 2. A true Tabernacle , pitched by God , not Man. 3. A Minister of this Sanctuary , this Tabernacle . 1. A Sanctuary , or an holy place , for the most part with men , is a place or Building made by Man , and dedicated unto God , who sanctifies it by his special Presence : For the presence of a Deity makes a Temple or a Sanctuary ; and the special Presence of the true God , manifested by some Divine effect , makes a Sanctuary of the true God. For when God by a bright Cloud entred the Tabernacle , and after the Temple ; then he took possession of those places , and made them his House . The word in the Original [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is plural , yet may be turned Sanctuary , not Sanctuaries , because we find it so used by the Septuagint . The reason why it 's plural is , because in the Tabernacle and the Temple there were divers parts and partitions , and every one of them were holy , yet altogether made but one house . Thus it 's used Exod. 29. 30. Ez●k . 44. 11. Lev. 20. 3. & 24. 12. and in many other places . One part of this Sanctuary is that within the second Veil , which is the principal and most holy , and signified the holy place of Heaven , which here is chiefly meant . That 's a true Sanctuary and Temple , and that in a most eminent manner , because of God's eminent and more glorious presence in that place : So the word signifies , Chap. 9. 12. and is so interpreted Ver. 24. ibid. Tabernacle is here the same with Sanctuary , and so it might be called , because the whole Building was holy ; yet in the Tabernacle , that part within the first , and that within the second Veil , were the Sanctuary more properly : Yet these were called Tabernacles by a Synechdoche , and the first was called the Sanctuary or Holy , the second the Holiest of all , Heb. 9. 2 , 3. And this is the difference between a Tabernacle and Temple in the Type , that the one was removable , the other fixt . But what is here to be understood by Tabernacle , is much controverted ; Some will have it to be the Church both Militant and Triumphant ; and especially the Triumphant , because of Christ's bodily presence there : Some conceive that it 's the Body of Christ , wherein the Schekina , or the divine Glory and Majesty , fixed it's habitatation ; Thus Junius , Beza , and others following them , expound it , and give their reasons for that Interpretation : But their Arguments are of little or no force at all , as , if it were worth the while , might be easily made evident ; Others , and the most for number , understand the Heavens mentioned in the former Verse : And this is the most genuine sense , for the Priest did never offer the Tabernacle , but in the Tabernacle ; did not minister it , but in it . And the Apostle seems to take his expression from Exod. 29. 30. where it 's said , That that Son which is Priest in Aaron 's stead shall put on the holy garments seven dayes , when he cometh into the Tabernacle of the Congregation , to minister in the holy place , or Sanctuary . Where we have 1. A Minister that must minister or officiate . 2. The Tabernacle of the Congregation into which he must come . 3. The Sanctuary where he must officiate . The very same words of Minister , Sanctuary , Tabernacle , are used by the Septuagint in that place which the Apostle taketh up in this place . And though the Body of Christ may be called a Tabernacle , yet that 's nothing except it be so taken here : And we find the word here turned Sanctuary , signifying Heaven Heb. 9. 12. and also Ver. 24. of that Chapter makes it more plain , where it 's written , That Christ is not entred into the holy places made with hands , which are the figures of the true , but into Heaven it self , to appear in the presence of God for us . Where we may observe , 1. That the word which there is turned holy places , and Ver. 12. before , the holy place , is here translated Sanctuary . 2. That this Sanctuary , or holy places , into which Christ entred , was not made with hands , which is the same with not pitched by Man. 3. This place is said to be Heaven it self . 4. That Christ doth minister there by his Intercession for us , after that he had offered his great Sacrifice , and by the Blood thereof entred into the heavenly Sacrary within the Veil . To signify this , the inner Veil of the Temple rent instantly upon the death of Christ , to signify that the great High-Priest was entring Heaven with his Blood. 2. The Excellency of this Tabernacle is set forth , 1. By the quality . 2. The Cause . The Quality , it 's the true Tabernacle : True is not here opposed to that which is feigned , or nothing at all , but to the Typical Tabernacle which was a real and true sacred Building ; yet so far inferiour to this , that comparatively it might be said to be nothing , or but a shadow at the best , and this is the Substance : For though that was glorious , and honoured with God's special presence ; yet earthly things are poor to heavenly , though we who never saw the inward glory of Heaven may admire them . The Cause is expressed assirmatively pitched by God , negatively , and not by Man. By both which is signified the excellency of it , far above any Work , and Building made by the power and skil of Man : For the efficient power and skil of Man is nothing to the efficiency of God , whose Power is almighty , and Wisdom infinite , and who hath made Heaven a far more glorious place than any on Earth . 3. Christ is the Minister of this Sanctuary and Tabernacle , to minister and officiate in it : For every High-Priest must have some Temple or sacred place , wherein he must minister and serve : for Priest-hood , Temple , and Service must go together . When the Temple was destroyed by the Chaldeans , the High-Priest might pray , but he could not offer Sacrifice , burn Incense , expiate Sin by entring the Holy of Holies with blood . These Services were confined by God's Institution to that House and sacred Building after once it was consecrated ; Neither could they perform such Services till it was re-built and dedicated again : Neither have the unbelieving Jews any High-Priest , that can do any such thing since the second Temple was demolished by the Romans . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Minister , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to minister and serve ; and these two words are often used by the Septuagint ; For so they turn several Hebrew words , and especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which both signify to serve in general , but many times to serve God the Supream Lord , and to worship him . And though the performance of this Service be the general Duty of all , even of private Persons ; yet there are certain parts of this Service proper to the Priests , and some to the High-Priest ; who is not a private but a publick Minister , as the rest of the Priests be , and mediates between God and the People , and by whom the People offer their Services to God. The same word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is used in the New Testament , and doth signify not onely to perform the Levitical but also the Evangelical Service , and from this Verbe comes [ Liturgy ] a Form or Directory for the Worship of God. In this place , a Minister is 1. A Priest. 2. An High-Priest . 3. The great High-Priest of the heavenly Sanctuary , Christ Jesus . And here it might be observed , that a Minister is not a contemptible but an honourable Title , as given not onely to the Levitical Pontiff , but to the Apostles , and to Christ himself . The Text thus explained , contains an Argument to prove the excellency of Christ above the Legal High-Priest ; for he indeed was a Minister , and did officiate , yet he did this onely in an earthly Sanctuary and Tabernacle , but Christ officiates as an High-Priest in Heaven : And this second Verse may be part of the former Sum and Abridgment , and a Conclusion deduced from the former words . For , if Christ be an High-Priest in the Heavens , then he must needs be the Minister of an heavenly Sanctuary ; yet it 's so deduced from the former , that it brings in new matter , and gives occasion of a new Discourse concerning Christ's Ministration ; for if he be a Minister of a Sanctuary he must officiate , and amongst other things offer something to God. Ver. 3. For every High-Priest is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices ; wherefore it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat to offer . § . 3. THis Text must be examined , 1. In its relation to that which goes before . 2. In it self . 3. In reference to what follows . First , It relates to Chap. 5. 1. where in the Description of an High-Priest we have the very words : For , 1. He must be taken from amongst men . 2. Ordained for men in things pertaining to God. 3. Thus he is ordained for to offer both Gifts and Sacrifices : For there we have his Election , Ordination , and Ministration . And hitherto the Apostle , having spoken of his Election and Ordination , now begins to treat of his Ministration , in offering Gifts and Sacrifices for Sin. The nearer Connexion is with the Text immediately antecedent , and , 1. With the word Minister ; for if he be a Minister , he must minister and officiate by offering . 2. With the word Tabernacle : For , if that signify the Body of Christ , as Beza , Junius , and Dr. Goug● , with divers others , do understand the place , He must have his Body to offer : But of this I have said something already and shall have occasion to say more hereafter . The words in themselves are discursive ; for the Apostle argues thus , Every High-Priest being ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices , must have somewhat to offer . But Christ is ordained an High-Priest to offer , &c. Therefore he must have somewhat to offer . The principal part of this Syllogism is the Conclusion , That Christ of necessity must have somewhat to offer . The necessity is , that if he have not somewhat to offer , he cannot be an High-Priest according to God's Ordination : For though he may be one Titulary , yet Effectively he cannot . This necessity is from divine Ordination , which hath determined that an High-Priest must offer , but to offer without something to be offered is impossible . Besides , he must offer something that God will accept for that end that God intended that Office , which was to make Reconciliation for the sins of the People , and propitiate his Majesty offended by their iniquities ' : The Premisses from whence this conclusion is inferred were handled before : The Proposition we find expresly , Chap. 5. 1. The Assumption was the Subject of the former Chapter . When it 's said that he must have somewhat to offer , it 's meant , that the thing he must offer and have to offer , must be not onely something that was much different from that which the Levitical High-Priest did offer , but also something far more excellent , and such as was suitable to the Sanctuary whereof he was a Minister , which was Heaven : What this was , which he had to offer , and which he offered , we shall hear after , Chap. 9. And in this respect the words refer to that which follows in the 9. & 10. Chapters . For in this place the Author informs us onely , that seeing he was an High-Priest , and a Minister of a Sanctuary , and the chief part of Ministration , was to offer , therefore he must have somwhat to offer : But what this somewhat to be offered is , or that he offered it , is not here so much as mentioned , as yet . For the intention of the Authour is first to prove in general his Ministry to be the more excellent , 1. Because of the more excellent Sanctuary . 2. Of his more excellent offering . 3. Of the more excellent Covenant , whereof he is a Minister . § . 4. After it was proved , That Christ's ministry was more excellent in respect of the Sanctuary ; in the next place it 's made evident , that he is more excellent in respect of his Offering . This he doth in these words , Ver. 4. For if he were on Earth , he should not be a Priest , seeing that there are Priests that offer Gifts according to the Law. Ver. 5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things , as Moses was 〈◊〉 of God , when he was about to make the Tabernacle . For see ( saith he ) then make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the Mount. ] THe Apostle presupposing Christ to be an High-Priest , and that being such he must be one either in Heaven or Earth : He doth here , 1. Deny him to be a Priest on Earth . And , 2. Proves his Negative . 1. He denies , in these words , [ That if he were on Earth , he should not be a Priest ] ; that is , an offering-Priest according to the Law amongst the Jews . He should not , that is he could not in respect of divine ordination . 2. The reason , whereby he proves this is in the words following ; which may be reduced to several Propositions . A● , 1. There are Priests , which offer gifts according to the Law. 2. These serve unto the example of heavenly thing . 3. Moses was commanded to make all things according to the pattern shewed in the Mount. The force of the first part of the reason is , because God hath appointed Priests to minister and officiate on Earth , in an earthly Sanctuary ; and these must be of the Tribe of Levi , of the House of Aaron , and not any other . Christ was not of this Tribe , nor of this Family and House ; And these of that Tribe and Family were made Priests , and that , by God , and that exclusively to all others , and by that Institution ; None but they had power to offer Gifts : So that Christ could no wayes be a Levitical Priest. The force of the second part of the reason is , because , They served according to the example and shadow of heavenly things ; for so the words may be turned . Where , 1. To serve , is to officiate as Priests , and , in particular , in offering Gifts and Sacrifices . 2. Their service was not spiritual and heavenly , so as to expiate sin , and purge the conscience . 3. Their service was but earthly and carnal , and a shadow and imitation of heavenly things . 4. All this was according to Gods Command , which we find , Exod. 25. 4. Where Gods charge to Moses was this , Look that thou make them after the pattern which was shewed thee i● the Mount ; which words imply , that Moses , in matters of Religion , and in manner of God's Service , did nothing of his own Head , but that he had his direction in all things from God ; who made him to understand all things concerning the Tabernacle , Priests , and Services , fully and perfectly , so that he was able to give directions and perfect instructions unto others , who were capable of them . This doth teach us an excellent lesson , and that is , Not to reach any Doctrine , but that which is revealed and confirmed from Heaven ; nor perform any thing in his Service , but according to his Institution . Humane Inventions , in matter of Religion , though they may have a fair colour of devotion and reverence , are not tolerable . God will not endure that any Man should devise any thing in his Worship ; for it is an high presumption . And as Moses was bound to give direction according to the pattern , so the Priests in their Service were bound to follow Moses directions . Amongst other things , which Moses according to the pattern did prescribe , one was , the service and offering of the Priests ; and they could not lawfully officiate but according to his prescription , both for the matter and manner of their offerings . The pattern did only direct him to prescribe , as an earthly Tabernacle , so carnal offerings , and none other : yet these , though but shadows , yet were shadows , and obscure significations of heavenly things . For the Sanctuary was a shadow of an heavenly Sanctuary , the Priest of a better Priest , the Service of a far better Service . Therefore the pattern it self shewed in the Mount , must have some agreement with these heavenly and better things . As the former part of the reason was in respect of the Priest that must offer , so this latter is in respect of the service and offering , and both make but one reason . And it 's to this purpose , That as Christ , if he had been on Earth , could not have been a Priest , because , there was other Priests instituted by God ; so neither could he have offered Gifts and Sacrifices prescribed by the Law , which were shadows of heavenly things . For none but the Levitical Priests might offer these : Hence it follows , That seeing Christ being an High-Priest , must have somewhat to offer ; and he could not be a Priest on Earth to offer such things as the Levitical Priests did offer : therefore he must have some other thing , and the same far more excellent to offer , and the offering of that was a far more excellent service ; and therefore Christ's Ministry was far more excellent then the Ministry of the Levitical Priest. And because their service and offering was a shadow of an heavenly service and offering , therefore Christ's service must needs be heavenly , and far more excellent then their's . That this is the intention of the Apostle , is implyed in the words following , Ver. 6. But now he hath obtained a more excellent Ministry , by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant , established upon better promises . ] § . 5. BY these words , [ He hath obtained a better Ministry ] , we are given to understand from the former Discourse of the Apostle , ver . 3 , 4 , 5. 1. That Christ must have a Ministry . 2. That that Ministry of his , was far more excellent then that of the Levitical Priest ; because the Levitical Service and Ministry was but a shadow of an heavenly Service and Ministry , which was proper to Christ. And now the Apostle hath demonstrated that Christ is a more excellent Priest , 1. In respect of the Sanctuary , whereof he is a Minister . 2. In respect of the ministry and offering it self , for both are heavenly . But not content with these two Arguments , he proceeds in these words to a third , and proves him more excellent in respect of the Covenant , where of he was a Minister and Mediatour . So that the subject of the following Discourse is that better Covenant , whereof Christ is the Mediatour ; and the scope of the Authour is to prove Christ to be a more excellent Priest then the Levitical , by this better Covenant . And to this ex●● he , 1. Frames his argument , and then produceth it . 2. Proves the Covenant , whereof he affirms him to be Mediatour , to be better . 3. He proves it to be better , 1. By the Promises , which are better . 2. By the abolition of the one , and the stability of the other . 1. His argument in form is this ; He that is the Mediatour of a better Covenant , hath obtained a better Ministry . But Christ is a Mediatour of a better Covenant . Therefore he hath obtained a better Ministry . Before we can understand the force and validity of this argument , we must first explain the words , wherein we have , 1. A Covenant of Promises . 2. Of better Promises . 3. This Covenant established upon better Promises . 4. A Mediatour of this Covenant . 5. A Ministry . 1. The word here used in the Original , is sometimes translated a Covenant , sometimes a Testament , though very seldom . For in the Septuagint it 's used mostly for a Covenant , and sometime for a Law or Command : And in this place , as in many more , it so signifies a Covenant , is that the Covenant is a Law , or implies one . A Covenant may be defined to be a Convention between parties , mutually binding themselves upon certain terms . For in a Covenant there must be , 1. Several parties , two at the least . 2. These parties must both agree . 3. They agree upon certain terms , which bound and limit the agreement . 4. They mutually bind themselves one to another for some performance , and this is done by promises , which are voluntary obligations . The parties covenanting may be such as were at no variance , yet free from any obligation of one to another . They may be such as are enemies , or at difference ; and then there is some need of a Mediatour , who may only intercede to bring them to terms of agreement , or besides , that may be a Surety , and he may undertake for performance on one part or both . It may be made between parties equal , and equally free , or between parties unequal as Soveraign and subject . The one binds himself to protect , the other to be faithful , subject , and obedient . A Covenant may be , 1. Private or publick ; 2. Between Man and Man ; 3. Between God and Man. This Covenant is between God-Redeemer and sinful Man , and therefore between unequals . For God may bind Man ; as his Subject , to subjection and obedience , though Man never voluntarily by promise bind himself unto God ; and this he may do by a Law , wherein we have precepts and prohibitions , binding Man to obedience , and promises binding God to reward upon performance of obedience on Man's part , and comminations binding Man to penalty , if he rebel or disobey . And in respect of these promises annexed and subjoyned to the Commands , as the terms and conditions : It may be said to be a Covenant , though it be not properly such till Man voluntarily bind himself , as God requires him to do , and deals with him as a rational free Creature . And these Covenants are ordinarily confirmed by solemn Rites , as by the Blood of federal Sacrifices , Gen. 15. By Circumcision , Gen. 17. By Blood of Sacrifices sprinkled , Exod. 24. By washing with Water or Baptism , Matth. 3. & 28. and many other places ; and the obligation is renewed by the Sacrament of the Eucharist . By all this it 's evident , That a Covenant is a Covenant of promises ; for there is no Covenant without Promises , neither is there any Law of God without Promises . 2. This , here meant , is a Covenant of better promises . This implies , That there is another Covenant which hath promises , but not so good either in respect of the things promised , or the terms and conditions . This other Covenant was that made with the Israelites in the Wilderness before Mount Sinai , as will appear hereafter . For in that , The things promised were far inferiour to the things promised in the Gospel , and yet the terms were more difficult . The things promised were carnal and temporal , and the condition , [ Do this , and continue in all these things . ] 3. This Covenant was established upon better promises . The word [ 〈◊〉 ] here used [ in the passive ] signifies [ sancio ] , to establish , confirm , and ratify ; because Laws are usually confirmed and made of force , and sometimes unalterable . We read , That God said to Moses , I will give thee Tables of stone , and a Law , and 〈…〉 which I have written , that thou mayst teach them , Exod. 24. 12. The word which in Hebrew signifies to teach them , is translated by the Septuagint , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , that is to estalish them solemnly by Blood sprinkled upon the Book , the Altar , and the People . This was properly a Sanction , and the word there used by the Septuagint is here taken up by the Apostle . 4. Christ is the Mediatour of this Covenant : To be a Mediatour in this place , is not meerly to mediate as Moses did between God and Israel . For a Mediatour is needful not only when there is a difference , but when there is a distance and great imparity between the parties confederating , and this Christ might be as a Prophet . But to be a Mediation in this place , is far more . For the parties , God and sinful Man , were not only at a vast distance of imparity , but at a great difference of enmity . And God stood upon these terms , 1. That his justice must be satisfied , and that by Blood , and the Death of some innocent and emineut person , and the repentance and reformation of sinful Man : and he stood so strictly upon these terms , that except these were performed , he would neither promise , not give Remission and Salvation , but Man must lye under his eternal displeasure . Christ's mediation by intreaties , or interpretations and declarations of the will of both the partie , could do no good ; to be hately a Prophet would not serve the turn : Therefore to mediate in this place , is to be a Surety [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , as you heard in the former Chapter . And as [ Sponsor ] and Surety , he first undertake to satisfy God's Justice by his own purest Blood , and so make an ar●●●ment and way for God's metoy to make promises upon easy terms ; and for the performance of the terms and conditions , he , by this Blood , merits the Grace of the Spirit to enable man to repent's believe , reform , and relye wholly upon God's mercy procured by Christ's Sacrifice● neither is this all , but in the second place he undertakes to obtain the mercies promised by his intercessions and pleading his blood in Heaven for penitent and believing Sinners . That he is Mediato●● by his Blood shed and offered is evident from Chap. 9. 16. where it 's said , That for this cause is he the Mediator of the new Covenant , that by means of Death , for the Redemption or Remission of the Transgressions that were under the first Covenant , they which are called might receive the Promise of eternal Inheritance . Where we may observe , 1. That he was the Mediator of the new Covenant . 2. That he was Mediator for his Sacrifice and offering of himself without spot to God. 3. That whereas there was no expiation of Sin by any Sacrifice of the Law , the sins then committed were expiated and remitted by vertue of his Death and Sacrifice . 4. That except this expiation and remission had been obtained by this death , the called could not have received the Promise of eternal Inheritance . That he is Mediator of this Covenant by his Intercession is evident from 1 Joh. 2. 1. and other places : Now both these agree to Christ as a Priest , and therefore he is the Mediator of this new Covenant of better Promises , as a Priest. The Levitical Priests were Mediators for the former Covenant by their Offerings and Prayers to obtain the Promises of that Covenant ; and this Mediation was but a shadow , and an obscure Representation of this heavenly and far more excellent Service and Ministry : For , 5. He by reason of this Mediation obtained , and so enjoyed a more excellent Ministry and Office of Priest-hood : For he that could lay the foundation of such an excellent Covenant by satisfying divine Justice , and as Surety make it so valid , so effectual , and of eternal continuance , must needs be a more excellent Priest in respect of his Ministration , which had far more glorious effects than the Ministration of the High-Priests under the Law. Where by the way , observe , That Christ is an High-Priest in respect of his Office , and a Minister in respect of his Officiation , which was the work and end of his Office. From all this , the force of the Argument is clear and evident ; for every Cause is to be valued according to its causal activity , and the effects produced by it : For , that cause which produceth more noble and excellent Effects , Physical , Moral , or Divine , is more noble and excellent . And seeing Christ as Priest , by his Ministration , doth produce far more glorious , supernatural , and divine Effects , tending most effectually to Man's spiritual and eternal happiness ; therefore he is far more excellent than the Levitical Priests , which were Mediators only of a far inferior Covenant , and yet could not by their Officiation make that effectual . Yet the Apostle , not contented with this , that he obtained a better Ministry , further adds , that the Ministry was so much the more excellent as the Covenant , whereof he was Mediator , was more excellent : But the Covenant was far better and more excellent by many degrees , therefore the Ministry is such too . The major Proposition would easily be granted , That the more excellent the Covenant , the more excellent the Ministry : But the Assumption might be excepted against , and that several wayes , as , 1. There was no other Covenant ; or , 2. If there was , it was not better or more excellent . Both these he therefore proves , and 1. That the Covenant was better ; for it was established upon better Promises . In which words we may observe two Arguments , one expressed , the other implyed : For , 1. The more excellent the Promises , and the Rewards , and Duties promised are , the more excellent the Covenant must needs be ; this is expressed . 2. When he saith that it 's established upon better Promises , he implies , that it is stable , firm , and ra●fied , so as not to be altered ; such the former was not . Both these he proves , and that two wayes : 1. By an Artificial Argument . 2. By Testimony . § . 6. First , By an Artificial Argument . Ver. 7. For , if the first Covenant had been faultless , then there should have no place been sought for the second . IN the handling of this Text I will 1. Consider it absolutely , and explain it . 2. Inquire into the Apostle's Argumentation . 3. Examine what the Apostle intends to prove . 1. Absolutely considered , it presupposeth , as a thing well-known to these Hebrews , that there are two Covenants , the first , and the second : Upon this presupposed , we find two absolute Propositions ; 1. That the first Covenant was not faultless . 2. There was place sought for a second . And both these are presupposed here as a ground of the Apostle's Argumentation , though both are proved afterwards . By this first Covenant is meant , as we shall understand anon , the Covenant made with the Israelites in the Wilderness , after they were come out of Aegypt ; of it we find it affirmed , that it was faulty , or not faultless . Not to be faultless , is to be imperfect and defective , and so not able to sanctify and perfect any man , though the Jew thought otherwise , and through his Unbelief and erroneous Imagination sought perfection by it : Yet God in giving it intended no such thing , but aimed at other ends for which it was sufficient ; neither could it possibly perfect any man , because it neither gave Man any sanctifying Power to enable him to perform spiritual Obedience ; neither could the Priests by their Ministration expiate any Sin. Therefore to be faulty is not to be unjust , or justly blamable , or insufficient for those ends God intended it , but to be unable to justify , as the Jew falsly judged it to be . 2. There was place sought for a second . The second was the Covenant of Grace in the Gospel , called the second , because it came in after the first . It 's true , that the Promise was 430 years before the Law , and was the same for Substance with the Gospel , but differed in this , that it held out Christ onely in Promise to be exhibited in time then to come , and required Faith in him not yet incamate : But this new Covenant of the Gospel required Faith in Christ already come . Between these two the Promise and the new Covenant of the Gospel enters in the Law , and that which is here called the first Covenant : For this , it 's implyed , that a place was sought . By place is meant the existence and actual Being of it as a Covenant in force , and the Order of existing , which was in respect of time long after the first Covenant , which it did so exceed that it abolished and abrogated the former , as surrogated into the place of it . When it 's said , that this place was sought , for it to exist , it 's not so to be understood , as though any great search was made for it , as though the surrogation was difficult , or the time uncertain , and not easily known : For God both certainly knew the fittest time , upon which he had determined , and could easily bring it in , as he did . The time and order of the entrance and succession of the Gospel were so fit , as if diligent search had been made by the wisest they could not have been more fit . To seek , is sometimes to require and demand , sometimes to will and determine , sometimes to consult ; all which do signify , that if we stand upon the word sought , it signifies in this place , that God's most excellent Wisdom and Counsel determined to bring in the second Covenant ; and the place for it might be said to be sought , because it was to come . § . 7. Secondly , After the Explication of the words , follows the Apostle's Argumentation grounded upon the former absolute Propositions . In Form , he argues thus : If the first Covenant had been faultless , then should no place have been sought for the second . But there was place sought for the second . Therefore the first was not faultless . Where the Apostle , from the Introduction of a second , proves the imperfection of the first Covenant ; for , if the first had been sufficient , the second had been needless . This agrees with that of the Apostle , for if there had been a Law given that could have given life , then Righteousness should have been by the Law , Gal. 3. 21. And it 's like to that other of the same Author , And if they which are after the L●●● be Heirs , Faith is made v●id , and the Promise of vone effect , Rom. 4. 14. The Text is the Proposition , which is hypothetical and connexe . The Connexion of the parts is firm ; for no wise Law givers will abrogate Laws , and change their Leagues and Covenants , if they be good , sufficient , and effectually subservient to their main end ; neither will they do that which is superflu●●● and needless . As this is true in general , so in particular the Connexion is far stronger , when we consider that it was God who made the alteration by seeking place for a second Covenant . The Assumption is the consequent part of the Proposition , which is affirmed to infer the Antecedent . 3. The thing which the Apostle intends by this to prove , is implyed in the words not faultless ; and that is not onely the Imperfection of the former Covenant , but the excellency of the latter : For , though the ●onner was good , so far as God intended it , the latter was far better , and far more effectually conducing to Man's Righteousnesse and eternal happiness . And if it was better , then the Ministry of the Mediator was better . § . 8. That place was sought for the second , which is the Assumption , is proved out of the Scriptures , in these words , Ver. 8. For , finding fault with them , he saith , Behold , the dayes come ( saith the Lord ) when I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah . THese words are but part of the Proof and place of Scripture : and , as taken from the Scripture , which is the Word of God , it 's a Testimony and an inartificial Argument , which is as good as any Demonstration , because it 's the Word of God who is truth it self : And here I will 1. Explain the whole Text , with the several parts thereof . 2. Declare what it proves . 1. In the Explication we must consider 1. How this part of Scripture is brought in . 2. The Text it self . 1. It 's brought in by these words , For finding fault with them , he saith : Finding fault with something , is the principal thing ; but the difficulty is to know certainly who the person finding fault is , and who or what is that which is blamed as faulty . The Person blaming may be God himself , or the Prophet ; yet both may be intended , and the meaning then is , that God by the Prophet found fault : But with whom did he thus find fault , or with what ? for either Persons or things must be faulty . If with persons , they are Jews and Israelites ; if with things , some think , they are the Promises : Others say , in finding fault with the Persons , he finds fault with the Covenant . Yet the words may be turned thus , Finding fault , he saith unto them ; and this Translation makes the sense clear , and removes all scruples : For , without all doubt , it was the first Covenant that was faulty and defective ; and the words of the Prophet were directed unto the Jews , and to them he spake , and to them he wrote . These words are prefixed before the Text to bring it in ; for by them is signified , 1. That the Covenant was faulty . 2. That God found fault with it . 3. It 's apparent by the words of the Lord following . Thus the Text is brought in , and fitly joyned to the former words . 2. The Text it self comes in to be considered : Where we must observe , 1. That the words are the Lords . 2. That the matter of them is concerning the Covenants . 1. The words are the Lords , for so the Text informs , Behold , the dayes come ( saith the Lord ) . It was the Lord that said these things ; For , though the Prophet himself spake and wrote , yet it was the Lord that enlightned , moved and inspired him by his Spirit ; for the Prophecy came not in old time by the Will of Man , but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost , 2. Pe● . 1. 21. Yet God did not speak these words immediately to any but the Prophet , and did dictate them unto him by his Spirit immediately , and in an ineffable manner , so that he could not mistake what was dictated : Yet he did not speak them immediately to any other , but mediately by him , so as to direct him infallibly both in his words and writings , as in his understanding , which did by divine illumination so apprehend and know the things of God , as that he could not err and mistake . This is to be observed further , that the Prophet useth this Phrase , saith the Lord , three times in this short Description of the new Covenant ; and here the Verb which signifie , to speak or say , is almost alwayes , as in this place , given unto God , as though only God could speak so , as it importeth , that is , certainly , most truly and infallibly , so that the thing spoken is firm , and most worthy of all acceptation . By this the Prophet did declare , 1. That he spake not of himself . 2. That the Testimony was of divine Authority ; he related not the words of Man but of God , who is Truth it self ; 3. That the thing testified was firm , certain , and most stable . The Apostle alledgeth the Prophet , who was divinely inspired , and one of the sacred and Canonical Writers , and acknowledged by the Jews to be such , so that they could not any wayes except against his Testimony , as being not only divine , but as alledged by him , very plain , and pertinent , and effectual to prove the Point intended . And it was the more effectual and undeniable , because this Prophet was one of the Levitical Priests , and delivered this Prophecy , whilst that first Covenant was in power and force . Yet another thing is further to be observed , That the Apostle follows the Translation of the Septuag●nt , except in one word ; and though it seem to differ from the Hebrew , yet it doth not : For the sense both of the Hebrew Original and Greek Version is the same . That wherein they seem to differ most is that passage in the latter end of the ninth Verse , [ and I regarded them not . ] It is strange that our English Translators should here follow the Greek , and in Jeremy 31. 32. the Hebrew , as they conceived ; for thus they turn it there , although I was an Husband ●nto them . But to reconcile both the places , we may note , 1. That the Septuagint's Alexandrian Version is rather Paraphrastical than wording , 2. That they knew the force and signification of the Hebrew words better than we do , 3. That though our Lexicons give no such signification to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to neglect , or not regard ; yet it may signify so , and they knew it , and did so translate it , to make the sense more per●picuous , as they do in many other places . 4. We find that Baal din signifies an Adversary in judgment , and that Baal aph is One that is angry , displeased , and much offended . 5. The words , Though I had been a Husband to them , may signify by a Me●onymy of the Cause for the Effect , to neglect , reject , and cast off : Because their breach of Covenant was aggravated very much , in that God had been an Husband to them , yet they forsook him , and that was the Cause why he neglected them ; and thus some understand the place . But to enter upon the words , which we find , Jer. 31. 31 , 32 , 33 , 34. Behold the dayes come , &c. The Adverb Behold , is often used , as in other Authors , so in the Scriptures , and for the most part is a Note of attention , especially when the matter is rare , strange , or excellent . And though every part of God's Word requires our attention , yet some deserve an higher degree of consideration : For being of special and great concernment , and sometimes extraordinary , that cannot be so effectual except we in a special and extraordinary manner attend unto them . The word is Metaphorical , and signifies an Act of our Eye and visive faculty , but here by similitude , an Act of the Understanding , exercising both the apprehensive and judicial Power thereof . And this new Covenant was a special Object of both . The matter of the Text alledged is a Covenant described from 1. The parties confederating . 2. The time . 3. The quality . 4. The promises . 1. The parties confederating were God on one side , and the House of Israel and Judah on the other . God was the first and principal party , who contrived the Covenant , and resolved upon it , and by the Prophet fore-told it ; and all these were Acts of his free Grace and abundant Love to sinful Man , intending to save him : The parties with whom he would make it , was the House of Israel and Judah ; yet because there was Israel according to the Flesh ; and according to the Spirit , and a Jew who was such outwardly , and a Jew who was such inwardly , therefore it doth not exclude the Gentile : and it takes in not only the Proselyte , but others too : Yet the Houses of Israel and Judah have the preheminence , and the Jew must first be called , and the Covenant must first be tendred ●nto him : And this Prophecy may be understood of them in a more special manner with reference to their Conversion in the latter times . 2. The time , when God would make it , was then to come : and when the Apostle wrote to these Hebr●ws , it was past : For God knew his own mind and purpose , and signifies the same by the Prophet , long before the Execution of the Decree : for known to God from the beginning are all his Works ; yet , though he know them , he doth not instantly effect them . But he knows the best times and fittest seasons , and when they once come , his almighty executive Power doth issue out and effect them : Yet he may signify before , hand what he will do in the times to come , as here he did . And there may be special Reasons moving him so to do ; as , 1. To signify the Perfection of his Knowledge , 2. To comfort his People in their great Afflictions , by letting them know what good he intends them in future times . Yet there might be some special reasons of this particular Prediction ; as , 1. To teach them and their Posterity the weakness and imperfection of the former Covenant , lest they should depend upon it for Justification and eternal Life . 2. By this Prophecy to convince in future times the unbelieving Jews , and confirm these believing Hebrews ; and also to prove the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , which is the use the Apostle makes of it in this place . 3. The quality ; it was new , and different from the former : In that it was new , it implies , c. 1. That there was an Old Covenant . 2. That the old was the former , this the latter , in Order of time . 3. Because new things are better than old , and sometimes far better , in which respect Novum est eximium , therefore he● here may signify a more excellent Covenant ; and so this was far more excellent than the former . 4. New Covenant is another Covenant , and different from the former ; and it differs not only accidentally but essentially : Which difference is expressed Ver. 9. Not according to the Covenant which I made with their Fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Aegypt , because they continued not in my Covenant ; and I regarded them not , saith the Lord. § . 9. VVHere many things are observable ; as 1. That the former Covenant was made with their Fathers . 2. It was made when he brought them out of Aegypt . 3. They continued not in that Covenant . 4. He therefore rejected them . 5. This new Covenant is not according to that . 6. All this saith the Lord. 1. The first Proposition signifies the parties with whom God made this Covenant , they were their Fathers and Ancestors , in opposition to their Posterity and Children , with whom he would make this Covenant . These Fathers in particular were those who sojourned in Aegypt , 430 years after the Promise was made to Abraham , which informs us ? that it was different both from the Promise made before , and the Gospel , and this new Covenant revealed so long after . 2. The time expressed in the second Axiom , was the time when God brought them out of Aegypt , in the third Month after their departure out of the Land of Bondage . They were in a sad condition , when God as a Father took them by the hand , and it was a great Mercy to deliver them , to have such a special care of them , to do so many wonders for them , and then bind himself in Covenant to them . For , though that Covenant was far inferiour to this new one , yet it was a great Mercy unto them , and tended to their great good . The place where it was made is here implyed , which was the Wilderness of Sinai : Of the making of it we read Exod. 19. of the confirming of it by Sacrifice , Blood , and a Sacrificial Feast , Exod. 24. 3. They continued not in that Covenant ; for they did prove unfaithful to their God , and disobedient to his Laws : They forsook him , and revolted from their Lord and Sovereign , & went a whoring after other gods , the golden Calves and Idols of the Heathen , ●nd polluted themselve with their Abominations . And though God had been a Husband to them , yet they did all this according to their leud and whorish hearts , and this did much aggravate their sin : For the Covenant made between God and them , was like the Covenant of Marriage , a Covenant of nearest Union , dearest Love , and strictest Obligation ; and God had carried himself towards them , like a loving and most faithful Husband , and yet they did Apostate from him , and made the Covenant void . 4. Therefore God neglected them , and regarded them not : For he rejected and cast off the Kingdom of Israel , and sent Judah into Captivity . And why should he regard a leud , impious , whorish People , who had forsaken their God , and refused to turn unto him ; this was a just Punishment for their grievous sin . And so it was to their Posterity , who , adhering to the old , rejected the new Covenant . 5. This new Covenant was not according unto , but different from , this old one : It differed in the foundation and ground , in the terms and conditions , in the Promises , in the force and efficacy , and we might add in the Mediator . The foundation of this Covenant whereon , as upon its Basis , it stood so firm , as never to be shaken and altered was the Blood and Sacrifice of Christ , without which God would not covenant upon any terms with sinful guilty man. The terms were , Repentance and Faith , not Do this and live . The Promises were not of legal Remission and temporal Prosperity , but of eternal pardon of all Sins repented of , and of eternal happiness . The efficacy and power was great ; for this Covenant gave power to keep the conditions , and could purge the Conscience ; neither of which the former was able to do . Lastly , the Mediator was the Son of God , a far more excellent Priest. 6. The Lord said this : And this is the second time wherein the Lord is brought in as Witness ; and that to signify the certainty of the whole and every part of what was spoken . And it had been to little purpose , if any but God had said so ; for he alone had power to alter and make void the former , and establish this new latter Covenant . He only fore-knew what should come to pass , and could fore-tell it infallibly : He only could make the Prediction good : His Testimony only was of undeniable Authority . § . 10. After that you have heard of the parties confederating , the time of confederation , and the quality of the Covenant , as being new , and far different from the old ; you must more especially consider the Promises which are essential parts of this Covenant , by which is manifested the real difference of it from the former , and the excellency and perfection thereof : For , the former was so defective , that it could sanctify and justify no man ; nay , by reason of the unfaithfulness and untowardliness of the People under the same , it did not reach the end which by it was intended . The parts thereof seem to be only Promises , yet the Covenant had Precepts and Terms , as conditions , with threatnings of penalty if not performed ; and though these are not expressed , yet they are not excluded , but implyed . The reason why the Promises are only mentioned is , because they are the principal part upon which the attaining of the ultimate end did most depend ; And these are solemnly ushered in by these words Ver. 10. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those dayes , &c. FOR God , not content to say , I will make a new Covenant , adds , That this is the Covenant : By the former words he signified his Will to make a new Covenant , and by these he informs us what this Covenant is , and what be the Promises By the former we understand that it was different from the former , by this latter we learn wherein the the difference consists , and that is chiefly though not only in the Promises , which are so excellent that the Promises of the former Covenant were not worthy to be named with them ; yet this is not all , but he again informs of the time , after those dayes : For as the former Covenant was made after the deliverance out of Aegypt , so this latter must be made after the return of Babylon's Captivity . And it 's remarkable , that he deeply humbles by great and bitter Afflictions both the Fathers and the Children , before he makes any Covenant with them : For he knew this to be the way to prepare them , and make them more ready to obey , more capable of his Mercies , and more desirous of his Blessings . So much Corruption is in Man , that God hath much a-do with us for to reduce us , and make us a Subject fit to receive his Covenant and his Promises . And here again , God is brought in a Witness the third time , by that Clause [ saith the Lord ] , to signify how excellent and important , and also how certain the matter is : The Promises which are the principal part of this Covenant are , Ver. 10. I will put my Laws in their mind and write them in their hearts , — This is the first Promise , wherein we may observe , 1. Some things to be written . 2. The Book wherein they must be written . 3. The Scribe or Pen-man who must write them . 4. The Writing it self . The things to be written , are the Laws of God ; the Table , Mens hearts ; the Scribe and Pen-man is God ; the writing is a wonderful Work of God , whereby the Soul is enlightned , sanctified , and made capable of nearer Union with God. 1. The things to be written are the Laws of God ; but what Laws these are may be doubted : For some will have them to be the several Commandments of the Decalogue . Yet these are said to be written in the heart of the very Heathens , Rom. 2. 15. Yet suppose they be already in their hearts , yet the writing of them there is very imperfect ; for both the Knowledge of them , and power to keep them are very imperfect , so that the Love of God and our Neighbour may be imprinted there more perfectly . Yet the word turned Laws signifies in the Hebrew , Doctrines ; And these are the Doctrines of the Gospel concerning Christ's Person , Nature , Offices , and the Work of Redemption ; the Doctrines of Repentance , Faith , Justification , Resurrection , and eternal Life ; and these either presuppose or include the Moral Law : For , they must be such Truths as are necessary and effectual to Man's Salvation , without the Knowledge and practice whereof sinful Man cannot attain eternal Life . Further , they are Doctrines concerning Christ , as already exhibited , glorified , reigning and officiating in Heaven . 2. The Book or Tables wherein they must be written are the mind and heart of Man : By Mind , some conceive , is meant the Understanding ; and by Heart , the Will and rational Appetite . But by both words are meant the immortal Soul , endued with a Power to understand , and will or nill that which is understood . The word in the Hebrew , turned by the Septuagint [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] the Mind and intellective Faculty , signifieth the inward parts : because as the heart and reins are the inmost parts of the Body , so the mind , thoughts , and rational Appetite , are [ intima Anime ] the inmost parts , if we may so speak , of the Soul. They are as it were the Center of that immortal Substance , where all the active vigour and powers of the Soul are united ; There is the Spring and Original of all rational and moral Operations , of all thoughts , affections , and inward Motions : There is the directive Counsel , and imperial commanding Power : There is the prime Mover of all humane Actions , as such : This is the Subject fit to receive not only natural but supernatural Truths , and Doctrines , and all Laws : There divine Characters may be imprinted , and made legible to the Soul it self : This is the most noble and excellent Book that any can write in . This is an Allusion to the Tables of Stone , wherein the Law was written ; for the Law was not written in the heart , but in stone ; upon Phylacteries , Frontlets , Posts , and Walls of their Houses . And now the Scriptures and divine Revelations are written in Books , so as that they are legible by the Eye ; they may be spoken and so uttered by Man as to be perceived by the Ear , and from these be conveyed to the common sense and fancy , and by degree , be transmitted to the Soul , which by them receives some imperfect representations , not informations . This immortal Soul is the Book or Table wherein these Laws and divine Doctrines must be written . 3. The Scribe or Pen-man is God ; for it 's said , I will give or put , I will write . He that said so , was the Lord ; And it must be He , because the Work is so curious and excellent , that it 's far above the Sphere of created activity : He alone can immediately work upon the immortal Soul , to inform it , move it , alter it , and mould it anew , so as neither Man or Angel can do : They may by the outward senses and the fancy come near the Soul ; but immediately prepare it , and make lively Impressions , and write clear Characters of divine Truth upon it they cannot : They may move it , and affect or disaffect it : yet to take away the stony heart , and make an heart of Flesh , is far above their Power : Therefore God doth alwayes ascribe this great Work unto himself . 4. The Act and Work of this Pen-man is , to write , and write these Laws , and write them in the heart . How he doth it we know not ; That he doth it , is clear enough . His preparations , illuminations , impulsions , inspirations , are strange and wonderful , of great and mighty force ; For , in this Work , he doth not onely represent divine Objects in a clearer light , and propose high Motives to incline and turn the heart , but also gives a divine perceptive and appetitive Power , whereby the Soul more easily and clearly apprehends , and more effectually affects heavenly things . The Effect of this Writing is a divine Knowledge of God's Laws , and a ready and willing heart to obey them , and conform unto them , a Power to know and do the Word of God. This is that Work of the Spirit which is called Vocation , Renovation , Regeneration , Conversion actively taken , without which Man cannot repent , believe , obey , and turn to God. It 's said to be a quickning of Man dead in sin , a putting God's fear in Man's heart , a putting God's Spirit within Man , to cause him to obey his Laws , a calling out of Darkness into Light , a writing upon the fleshy Tables of Man's heart . By this writing Man is said to have a new Heart and Spirit ; not that God creates in Man a new Soul , or new Faculties , but because he gives new Power , new Light , new Life , new Qualifications , so that Man is made partaker of a divine Nature , and moulded anew , with so much alteration that he is another Man , though not for Substance , yet for Qualities and Operations . All this tends to an imperfect explication of this Promise , wherein this new Covenant differs from , and is more excellent , than the former : For , that had no Promise of God's writing his Laws and Doctrines in Man's heart , or of giving any sanctifying or renewing Power to enable them to observe and keep his Judgments : Yet lest we mistake this excellent and most comfortable part of Scripture , many things are to be observed , 1. Concerning the Laws . 2. Concerning the heart . 3. Concerning God's writing in the heart . 1. The Laws ; the Laws of God are written in the heart , not the inventions , fancies of men , nor natural , nor mathematical , nor moral Philosophy ; much less the Errors and Blasphemies of Seducers and false Prophets . It 's true , that humane Learning and Languages are excellent means to find out the sense of the Scriptures , and are great Blessings ordained of God for that end ; and , being used with Prayer , and sanctified , may do much : Yet we must know , that these Doctrines are not only those of the Moral Law , but these high Mysteries concerning Christ , the Redemption , Repentance , Faith , Justification , Resurrection , and the eternal Punishments and Rewards in the World to come , as they are revealed in the Gospel : For , the matter and subject of them is God's Kingdom , and the Government of God-Redeemer , ordering Man to his final and eternal estate , as I have manifested in another Treatise . 2. The heart of Man is by Nature a very untoward and indisposed Subject , and not capable of these heavenly Doctrines : It 's blind and perverse , and there is an Antipathy between it and these Laws . It hath some little parcels of the Law of Nature written in it , but not any thing of these heavenly and evangelical Truths ; it neither knows them , nor can relish them : And when they are represented unto it , yet it hath no intellective Power to understand them , nor any Will or Desire to seek them , or inclination to obey the Laws of God , which direct unto everlasting life : It 's not only ignorant , but filthily blotted and blurred with Errours , both in matters of Religion and humane Conversation . And this is the condition not only of Heathens , and illiterate People , but also of all natural men , though of excellent parts , and highly improved , and exquisite humane Learning , both Arts and Languages . Besides , Ignorance and Error , corrupt Lusts , inordinate Affections , violent Passions , indispose it very much , and make it most averse from that which is just and good , and strongly bent upon that which is evil : As it hath no true Notions of the greatest good , so it hath no mind to use the means , which conduce to the attaining thereof . This defacement of so noble a Substance is the Work of the Devil and Sin. 3. Concerning God's writing his Laws in the heart of Man , you must know , 1. That they are not written there by Nature , as you heard before : If they were , what need God write , that which is already written . 2. He writes nothing in this heart but his Laws and his saving Truths : Therefore that which is not written without in the Scripture he doth not promise to write within the Heart , and whosoever shall fancy any Doctrine received in his heart to be written by the hand of Heaven , and yet cannot find it in the Gospel , is deceived and deluded . 3. Before these divine Doctrines can be written in the heart , all Errors , Lusts , false Opinions , must be rased and rooted out of the Soul , and it must be made like blank paper . This is the reason , why we are commanded to prepare our selves for the hearing and reading of God's Word , to be like good ground to put away all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness , all Malice , all Guile , and Hypocrisies , and Envies , and evil-speaking , and like new-born Babes desire the sincere Milk of the Word of God. 4. God doth not write his Laws in our heats by Enthusiasm , Rapture , and Inspiration , as he wrote his Word in the hearts of the Prophets and Apostles ; but he makes use of the Word , and the Ministers of the Gospel , and the Instructions of Man , as also of the outward senses , as of the Eye and Ear , and also of the inward , and of Reason , and of all the powers he hath given Man to do any thing in this Work. And whosoever will not use these means , and exercise this Power by Reading , Hearing , Meditation , Conference , Prayer , let him never expect or think that God will write these things in his heart . The neglect of these helps is the Cause why Enthusiasts , who pretend the Spirit , and persons of high attainments , as they boast , as though they were above Ordinances , have so little solid and saving Knowledg of God's Word , & fall into so many absurd & abominable Errors . 5. The Effect of this writing of God is not only Knowledge , but also a Love of the Truth , Light and Integrity , Power and Dominion over Sin , and the powerful Sanctifications and Consolations of the Spirit . And whosoever doth not find these in his heart , let him not think that God hath written his Laws in his heart ; For he writes with Power , and leavs a permanent Tincture of holiness , and a constant habitual inclination to that which is good , just , and right . 6. God doth not write these Laws perfectly and fully in Man's heart whilst he is in the Flesh ; for he proceeds in this Work by degrees : Therefore seeing God hath ordained means , and commanded them to be used , no Man must neglect them whilst this mortal life continues ; for these Truths are not written in any of our hearts further than we use these means , which were given not only for the first inscription of these Laws , but for the encrease and perfection of our divine Knowledge . This was the way which Christ and his Apostles took for the Conversion , Edification , and Confirmation of their Disciples : If this were not so , what need was there of so many Epistles , and in particular of this , to be written to so many Converts and regenerate Saints . 7. Though God doth both begin and encrease our Knowledg and Sanctification by these means , yet this Work of his is immediate upon the Soul , and far more excellent than these means can reach . § . 11. The end of this Promise made , and the issue of it performed , is , to acknowledg and receive God as our God in Christ , and to submit unto him with a real , hearty , and total Submission , as to our onely Lord and Redeemer , that so he may protect and bless us , and we may serve and obey him : And this we cannot do except God first write his Laws in our hearts ; therefore this must needs be the first Promise upon which the rest do depend , and that whereby he in great Mercy binds himself to give us his preventing Grace , and the continuance of it : For such is our Case , that , except he prevent us by granting and vouchsasing unto us both the means of Conversion , and the Power of his Spirit to make them effectual upon our immortal Souls , we can never take him to be our God , so as to become his People and loyal Subjects . And , upon this done , he will be our God and take us for his People , and so he promiseth here in this Ver. 10. And I will be to them a God , and they shall be to me a People . THis is the second Promise of this new Covenant : Where we must understand what it is for God to be a God unto any People , and for any Persons to be his People . This latter is easily known , if we know the former ; 1. Therefore it is not for God to be God absolutely in himself , most perfect , glorious , infinitely and eternally blessed ; for so he was from everlasting : Yet , except he be thus God in himself , he cannot be a God to any Creature . Neither , 2. Is it to be a God by Creation , Preservation , and Ordination ; for so he is to all Creatures , and to every one of them whilst they have their Being . Nor , 3. Is it to be a God in an higher degree to men , as immortal and rational Creatures ; for so he is to all men . Nor , 4. Is it meerly to be a God in a peculiar manner to some certain People , by choosing and singling them from amongst other men , so as to enter into some special Covenant with them , and to take a special care of them , and to bless them with some special blessings and deliverances ; for so he was a God to the Jews . But 5. It is to be a God unto any Persons or People , by a new Covenant of eternal Mercy and Salvation by Jesus Christ exhibited and glorisied : And to be his People , is , to be his Subjects of his special Kingdom , so as to receive from him as their Lord-Redeemer , spiritual and eternal Protection and Blessings : This is the meaning of this Expression in this place . In a word , it 's a Promise of admission into his Kingdom of Grace and Glory . To know this more distinctly , we must take notice , that to be God in this manner , is , so to exercise his Wisdom , Power , and Mercy in Christ , as to protect and deliver us from all evill , and give us all Blessings necessarily required to make us eternally and fully happy . Thus much is signified by God's Promise to Abraham , I will be thy shield , and thy exceeding great Reward , Gen. 15. 1. and that Acknowledgment of the Psalmist , The Lord God is a Sun and a Shield , Psal. 84. 11. To be a Shield is , to save and protect either by prevention or removal of all dangers and evils , not only temporal but spiritual and eternal . And to be a Reward , a great Reward , and an exceeding great Reward , cannot come short of Heavens Glory , and that eternal Bliss , which is an aggregation of all Blessings , which shall ever issue from that Sun , which shall in his Meridian fully and for ever shine upon his Saints : And to be a People to this God is to be a subject of all Mercies Man can possibly desire . He begins to be our God in this manner upon our first Connversion , when his Laws are first written in our hearts ; and goes on to bless and save us more and more till we be fully happy ; for the more his Laws are imprinted in our heart , the more he will manifest himself to be our God , and when he is once engaged he will go on and finish our felicity till he be all in all . Some make this writing of his Laws to depend much upon our Free-will , and that by it we may lose our God : But it 's certain , that though by our Free-will we may neglect the means , and so be guilty of not receiving the Impressions of these heavenly Doctrines ; yet by this natural Freedom , we can do nothing to purpose in this business : we can by it neither prepare our hearts , nor apprehend nor relish these heavenly Doctrines , which are above out Sphere : And the beginning and continuance of God being our God , depends upon an higher , more efficacious and more excellent Cause . This Promise is most excellent , and a Fountain of unspeakable Comfort ; for , happy is that People who have God to be their God ; and miserable are they , who are without the Covenant of Promises , without hope , without Christ , without God. How vast is the distance between them and eternal happiness ! As they come not near their God , so God will not come near them . § . 12. After this second Promise it followeth , Ver. 11. And they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour , and every Man his Brother , saying , Know the Lord ; for all shall know me from the least unto the t●●●reat●st . THese words are not so easily understood , as appears by the many and different Interpretations of several Expositors , which here I will not recount . The Subject of them is the Knowledge of the Lord , which shall be far more excellent , clear , full , and effectual , and generally diffused , then in the times of the former Covenant . Whether it be a distinct Promise from the former , or the same ; and these words added for the fuller Explanation of the former , shall be examined hereafter . In themselvs , they seem to be an Enthymeme , which may be supplied and reduced into this Form ; If in the new Covenant all shall know the Lord , from the least to the greatest , then they shall not teach every man his Neighbour , and every man his Brother . But all shall know the Lord , from the least to the greatest : Therefore , they shall not teach every man his Neighbour , &c. In the Text there are two Propositions , 1. They shall not teach every man his Neighbour , and every man his Brother . 2. They shall all know the Lord from the least to the greatest . The former is inferred from the latter , and the Connexion of both as Conclusion and Premisses is expressed by the causal Conjunction [ For ] . The Conclusion is negative , and signifies that there shall not be any such teaching under the new Covenant , as was under the old . In the words we have , 1. The Master . 2. The Schollar . 3. The Lesson taught by the Master to the Schollar . 4. The teaching of this Lesson . The Master is every Man , not absolutely , but every man that hath the Knowledge of God , and is able to teach another : For every one that hath any Knowledge of God should teach others that are ignorant ; and this is a general Duty of all knowing men , but most of all of such as , having a more eminent degree of Wisdom , do take upon them the Charge of others . The Schollar is every man's Neighbour and Brother ; that is , Such as are near unto them by Co-habitation , or Relation , or both ; and are ignorant of God , so as they need Instruction and Teaching , yet are capable . The Lesson is , to know God ; this is the chief and best Lesson any Man can learn : The Object to be known is the most excellent , there is none better , not any so good ; the Act is answerable to the Object . For of all Knowledg , the Knowledg of God , as it is most necessary to Man's Salvation , so it is far above any other Knowledg . But this Knowledge is not a bare Knowledge , but to know the Lord is , to fear him , serve him , and obey him : Therefore the Chaldee Paraph●ast doth usually interpret the Knowledg of the Lord to be the Fear of the Lord. And this is agreeable to that of the Apostle , 1. Hereby we know that we know him , if we keep his Commandments . He that saith , I know him , and keeps not his Commandments , is a Liar , and the truth is not in him , 1 Joh. 2. 3 , 4. Not they who have some high Notions of God , and can discourse of his eternal Power and glorious Perfections , and yet are Workers of Iniquity ; but they who keep his Commandments , may be said truly and really to know him . To teach , in this place is not barely by Instruction to inform the Understanding , but by exhortation to move the heart , and stir up Man to Obedience and Practice . To teach this Lesson , and to perswade and exhort men to know and fear God , is a good Work , and a Moral Duty , and as such of perpetual and universal Obligation ; and therefore must continue in the Church Christian , as it did in the Jewish . Yet it 's said , that they shall not so teach under this new Covenant ; which implies , there was some defect and imperfection , both in the teaching , and also the Knowledge which did depend upon it , which shall not be found in the Teaching and Knowledge of the new Covenant : But of this anon . The second Proposition is , That All shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest . Where we have , 1. The party to be known . 2. The Knowledge of him . 3. The parties that shall know him , and that is , All , from the least to the greatest . The party to be known , as in the former , so in this part of the Text , is the Lord : For , they shall know Me , saith the Lord ; so it 's in the Hebrew , Jere● . 31. 34. And this is the fourth time that Expression is taken up in that Prediction of this Covenant : Yet God is Lord by Creation , by Preservation , by Redemption , and Regeneration . In this place is meant God , not onely Creator and Preserver , but Redeemer by Jesus Christ exhibited , glorified , manifested and represented to us in the Gospel . To be Lord in this manner is to manifest himself in the Excellency of his Wisdom , Power , and Mercy . To know him as such is not any wayes to understand those excellent things testified of him in the Gospel , but effectually to believe those Truths as revealed from Heaven , and to rely upon him , and him alone , as our onely Saviour , renouncing all Righteousness in our selves , and all Confidence in all other things , and counting all things loss and dung in comparison of him . This is that which we call Faith in Christ , whereby we are justified and saved ; yet this Knowledge and Faith was not without teaching : For , how should they believe on him of whom they have not heard ? and how should they hear without a Preacher ? And again , So then Faith is by Hearing , and Hearing by the Word of God , that is taught and preached , Rom. 10. 14 , 17. And the Apostles had Commission to go and teach or disciple all Nations , Mat. 28. 19. and they must teach Repentance , Faith in Christ , and Remission of sins in his Name . And when Christ ascended into Heaven , he gave Gifts to men , and sent Apostles , Prophets , Evangelists , Pastors and Teachers , Ephes. 4. 11. Yet this Teaching of Man was not without the Power of the Spirit , teaching inwardly the same which they taught outwardly , yet in a more excellent manner , and with far greater efficacy . The Persons who shall know God were all , from the least to the greatest . 1. The Jew taught but the Jew or his Proselyte ; the Apostles , both Jew and Gentile , of all Nations . 2. All to whom the Gospel is preached aright know God , or may know him . 3. All may be restrained to all those who are taught , not onely of Man , but of God , who writes his Laws in their hearts , and gives them one heart and one way , that they may fear him for ever , and so puts his fear in them that they shall not depart from him , Jerem. 22. 39 , 40. And he had promised to give his People an heart to know him , that he was the Lord , and they his People , and he their God : for they shall return unto him with their whole heart , Jer. 24. 7. Where it 's observable , 1. That God will so give them one heart , as that they shall turn with their whole heart to the Lord. 2. So turned , they shall not only know God to be the Lord , but to be their God , and they his People . 3. That this place compared with that of the same Prophet , Chap. 31. 33 , 34. alledged in this place , doth signify , that this Knowledge is such , as upon which will follow , Remission of Sins ; and this is justifying Faith. § . 13. Two things remain to be considered : 1. How this Reason infers this Conclusion , That they shall not under the Gospel , every Man teach his Neighbour , and every Man his Brother , saying , Know the Lord. 2. How these words come in upon the former ; whether so as to be a distinct and different Promise from the former , or not . For the first , 1. It 's certain , that in Heaven the Knowledge of the Lord shall be so perfect , as that there shall be no need of any teaching of Man , no , nor of Prophets or Apostles ; therefore some of the Ancients understood the place of the perfection of Saints in the state of Glory . 2. That un●er the Gospel there is need of Man's Teaching , not onely for the first Conversion , but for their further Edification , till the Saints be perfect in Christ. 3. Yet there is a great difference between the teaching under the Law , and that under the Gospel ; and that in three respects , 1. Of the matter taught . 2. Of the Teachers . 3. Of the manner of Teaching . 1. For the matter taught : For , the matter taught under the Law , was , The Lord bringing them out of Aegypt into the Land of Canaan and giving them Moral , Judicial , and Ceremonial Laws , and blessing them in that good Land , whilst in their manner and measure they observed these Laws ; Christ also was taught in Types and Shadows . But the matter taught under the Gospel is God Redeemer by Christ , exhibited , glorified , reigning at God's right hand , and officiating in Heaven , as being far more clearly and fully revealed . 2. The Teachers under the Law , whether Priests , or Levites , or Scribes , or Parents , or Masters , or any private Persons , were but Ministers of the Letter , not of the Spirit . But under the Gospel they were Ministers not onely of the Letter , but of the Spirit , and their Knowledge was far greater and clearer than that of the Teachers under the Law. 3. For the manner of Teaching , it was more clear , more full , more powerful , as accompanied by the Spirit of Christ , enlightning the Understanding , and inclining the heart : For in the Law there was no Promise of the Spirit to take away their stony heart , and give them an heart of Flesh , and to be put in them , to cause them to walk in his Statutes : As the saying of Austin is , Lex jubet , non juvat . If the Spirit had been thus given to make the Doctrine of their Teachers effectual upon the heart of their Disciples , and imprint the Knowledg of the Lord so deeply in their hearts , as that they should never depart from him , then the Promises of that Covenant had not been so far short of the Promises of the new Covenant : But , as the Law could expiate no Sin , so it could not minister the Spirit . It 's true , that under the Law , they had Faith in Christ to come , and were enlightned and sanctified by the Spirit , yet this they had not by vertue of the Law but the Promise , by Christ to come and not by Moses . And they who had it were few in number , and their Knowledge of Christ was but implicit , and the Power of the Spirit far less . But under the Gospel they were many in number , not only Jews and Proselytes , but Gentiles of all Nations ; their Faith was far more explicit , and the Power of the Spirit far greater : So that the force of the Reason is , That if the Teaching under the Gospel ●e so far more excellent in respect of the matter taught , the Teachers , and manner of Teaching , which is such , as that they all , from the least to the greatest , shall know the Lord , so clearly , fully , and powerfully ; then there shall be no such Teaching as under the Law : For , seeing there is no distinct actual Knowledge , without some kind of Disciplination and Instruction ; therefore , where any Knowledg of the Lord is , whether under the Law or the Gospel , there must be some kind of Disciplination under both . And here the Disciplination and Teaching of the Law and the Gospel are compared together : And that of the Law was so weak and imperfect in respect of the Knowledg of the Lord , which it did produce , and that of the Gospel so powerful and also so perfect in respect of the Knowledge of the Lord , the Effect thereof ; that there was great Reason that the former should cease as needless , useless , and imperfect . For , as the Apostle saith in another Case , When that which is perfect is come , then that which is in part shall be done away , 1 Cor. 13 10. Both Law and Gospel have their Teachers , Teaching , and the matter taught , which is the Knowledg of the Lord , and both agree thus far : Yet they differ in the Quality , Power , and Manner ; in which respects the former shall cease , and the latter continue . There shall be no such Teaching under the Gospel as under the Law , because there shall be a far better . The second Enquiry is , Whether these words are added to the former only for Explication , or for to inform us of another distinct Promise . Upon due consideration they may be found so to explicate the former , as to add another Promise : For they signify , 1. That the end and issue of God's putting his Laws in their mind , and writing them in their hearts , is to know God , the only true God , and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent . 2. To know God and Jesus Christ far more perfectly than ever they could do under the Law. 3. To know him so , as never to depart from him , as their Fathers did . 4. To know him so , as that God should be their God for ever , and bind himself in an everlasting Covenant unto them . And this effect it should have , not in a few , but in very many of all sorts , of all Nations : And all and every one in whom he would thus write his Doctrines , should thus know him , fear him , love him , and obey him constantly and cheerfully , so as they should not need either so much teaching , admonishing , threatning , correcting , punishing , as they did under the Law ; nor be in such danger of departing and revolting from their God , as their Fathers were : For , our God doth so deeply imprint his heavenly saving Truth in our hearts , as that we shall be enamoured with Christ ; and so firmly adhere unto him , as never to be separated from him . This Effect , it is not onely able to produce , but hath actually produced it in thousands and millions . This may be a new Promise , whereby God doth engage himself not onely to be our God , and take us for his People for a time , but for ever : For , after once he becomes our God , as here is meant , he not onely rewards us , but amongst other things doth continually minister unto us the sanctifying Power of his Spirit , to enable us more and more to keep his Covenant , that so in the end , we may obtain the final and eternal Reward ; for he first writes his Laws in our hearts , that upon our first Faith and Conversion he may first become our God , and after he once is our God , he writes them more and more , that he may continue to be our God for evermore . He will not only begin , but finish the great Work of Salvation . § . 14. There is another Promise of unspeakable comfort expressed , Ver. 12. For I will be merciful to their Unrighteousness , and their Sins and their Iniquities will I remember no more . THis is a Mercy of that concernment and necessity to sinful Man , that all the rest without it are nothing . The thing promised is eternal Remission of all sins . Where we have 1. Sins . 2. Remission of Sins . 3. Remission for ever . 4. The Person remitting . 5. The Persons to whom they are remitted . 1. For Sin we have three words , 1. Unrighteousness . 2. Sins . 3. Iniquities . Two of these are only named in the Prophet , and the Apostle adds the third , according to that of Exod. 34. 7. where we find three Hebrew words , as we do Psal. 32. 12. And the Septuagint translate the three Original words by these three Greek words which are here used by the Apostle : And here it 's implied , That the People with whom God makes this Covenant , have their Unrighteousness , Sins , and Iniquities ; and some of them not onely many , but very hainous . What Sin is I need not here define , because I have done it more at large in my Theopolitica , where I explain the meaning of the Apostle's definition , 1 Joh. 3. 4. Sin presupposeth a Law-giver , one Subject and under his Power ; a Law , and the Obligation of the party subject . And it 's a disobedience to the Law. Here God's the Law-giver , Man 's the Subject , Commandments the Laws ; and when Man acts , moves , or is inclined , contrary unto these Laws , then he sins . The Commands of God are his Rule , and he ought to follow it , and his heart ought to be conformable unto it , and that freely , and upon Knowledg : For , Man is bound to know the Law , and to observe it . And when Man s●vervs from this Rule , he forsakes the Wisdom and Righteousness of God , and follows his own Imagination and the Suggestion of the Devil , and is carried away from his God by his base and ill-disposed Will and Lusts. And though all Sin is base , yet some sins are more hainous than others : Amongst other Consequents of Sin , Guilt and Punishment are most remarkable ; and there can be no Sin which makes not Man guilty , and liable to Punishment , though the Punishment may be removed , or the Suffering of it prevented . And because God in his Law promiseth not only temporal but eternal Rewards , and threatneth not only temporal but eternal Punishments , therefore the condition of the guilty is very miserable ; and the more guilty , the more miserable . And if once we see our condition , and be sensible of it , our Souls are troubled and fearfully tormented , and the thoughts and remembrance of Judgment are very terrible , not onely because we are in danger to lose the eternal Rewards , but to suffer eternal Punishments . 2. Though there be Sins , and the Guilt after the Sin is past remains ; yet there is Remission . This Remission is a kind of loosing and dissolving an Obligation : This Obligation here to be loosed is Guilt , which is not Obligation to Obedience , which is the Act of a Law , but unto Punishment which follows upon the transgression of the Law , by vertue of the Law and the Commination : Pardon therefore and Remission is a freedom from the Guilt , and so from the Punishment by necessary Consequence . This Remission in this place is expressed by two words ; the first is , I will be merciful : the second , I will not remember their Sins and Iniquities . The first implies , that Remission is an Act of Mercy , pure and free Mercy ; for he that is guilty is in the hands of the Judge , to punish or spare him ; and if he spare , it 's a favour , and an undeserved kindness : Yet the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] mercifull , doth sometime imply such a Mercy as presupposeth some satisfaction and propitiation made , without which Mercy and Pardon will not be granted ; and so it 's taken in this place : For , though God be merciful and inclined to pardon , yet he will be just , and Justice requires some expiation to be made by Blood , or some other way , and this to manifest his purest holiness and hatred of Sin , and that he will not suffer his just Laws to be violated , and yet let the party violating go free , without any satisfaction made : Neither is it cruelty , but Justice , to require explation to be made , and to accept it for a guilty Person , and so upon the same to remit him is a great Mercy . The second word is , Not to remember : To remember Sin in this place is an Act of a Judge , taking notice of Sin so as to punish the Sinner . Not to remember , is , not to charge the Sin upon the Sinner , and so punish him ; but to free him from the Punishment and the Guilt too ; so that he shall neither be punished , nor be liable to Punishment . And it 's observable , 1. That he will not only be mercifull , but he will not remember . 2. That though in the Hebrew there be but one Negative [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , yet in the Septuagint , and the Apostle , we find [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] a double Negative ; where by the Multitude of words is signified , that God's Mercy will be very great , and by the Negatives , that it will be very certain , and the Sinner shall have no cause to doubt : And both the words and the Negatives imply , that God will certainly and abundantly pardon , and he will in no wise punish . 3. This Remission is eternal , and takes away the Guilt of Sin for ever , and puts the sinful guilty wretch once pardoned , in a condition of eternal safety . In the Law , notwithstanding their Sacrifices for Sin , and Burnt-Offerings and Expiations , there was a yearly remembrance of Sin upon the day of Expiation ; and their many Sacrifices offered by many Priests often , could not take away Sin. But Christ , by one Offering , consecrated the sanctified for ever , and by his Blood entring into the Holy place obtained eternal Remission , and made Sin eternally pardonable . And upon Repentance and Faith follows actual and eternal Remission , and freedom from all Guilt and Punishment for evermore : So that the pardon here promised is plenary ; for it 's total of all sins , and perpetuall , and an Act of eternal Amnesty or Oblivion will be passed in the supream Court of Heaven : No sin , not any , shall in any wise be remembred any more . 4. The party pardoning is God , who makes the Covenant , and in the Covenant this Promise : For it 's said , I will be mercifull , & , I will not remember . He is the supream Law-giver , and the supream Judg ; and if he once justify , none can condemn : His Sentence cannot be revoked and null'd ; there lyes no Appeal from his Tribunal ; his Decrees once passed stand firm for ever . Yet God pardons as propi●●ated by the Blood of Christ , and ●s there upon freely and abundantly merciful : For , to pardon one , whom he may justly punish is Mercy , & to pardon many & grievous sins is abundant Mercy , & to pardon for ever is eternal Mercy . It is the Lord , the Lord God , merciful , and gracious ●●ng-suffering , and abundant in goodness and truth , Keeping Mercy for thousands , forgiving Iniquity , and Transgression , and Sin , Exod. 34. 6. 7. Where we may observe , that Mercy goes before Remission . He loved and pi●yed us , when we were sinful and Enemies , and gave his only begotten Son for us , that by his Blood he might make way for his Mercy , & make our Sins pa●●●onable , and when the Sinner once repetus and believs , and the Blood of Christ is once pleaded , then he actually , freely , abundantly , eternally , pardons . How are God's justified Ones bound to praise him with all their heart for evermore ! 5. The Persons pardoned are not all Sinners , and every Transgressout : For , though God's Mercy ●e , as he himself is , infinite , yet it 's by his Wisdom and Justice limited to certain Persons : For , though Christ hath merited pardon by his death , yet no Sinner as a Sinner is capable of it ; his Death makes Sin , and Faith makes the Sinner ; pardonable God must write his Laws in Man's heart , and Man must know his God and Saviour , and believe in him , and Christ must make Intercession , before Man can be actually justified . Therefore this Promise follows all the rest . Except Man receive God for his God , and God become his God , no pardon can be expected : God , received as our God , and engaging himself to be our God in Christ , doth justify . And this is great Mercy of God , that seeing Man is by Nature uncapable of Remission , because sensless of his Sin , and ignorant of his Saviour , he writes his Laws in his heart , to take away the stony and sensless quality thereof , and makes it tender and sensible ; and so Man sees his Sin , hates it , is humbled and grieved for it , willing to turn unto his God. He enlightens him ; and , lest he should despaire , he manifests unto him his Saviour , and his infinite Mercy in him ; promiseth pardon , invites and calls him , and lets him know there is plentiful Redemption : Upon all this Man is willing to submit himself , and take God to be his God in Christ , and now he is in a capacity of pardon , and justifiable . Thus Man by God's Grace , and performance of his Duty by the power of that Grace , is prepared for this great Mercy of Remission and Justification ; And they who through neglect of hearing God's Word , and Prayer , continue in their Sin , and harden their hearts , can have no hope of this great benefit , which God is so willing to give , and sinful Man unwilling upon God's terms to receive . These words , thus explained , contain this Promise , That God will forgive Man his Sin , and justify him ; and the words are brought in upon the former , by the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek , turned by our Translators , For. And , as I have observed before , it 's sometimes expletive , sometimes illative for therefore , sometimes causal , and accordingly is rendred ; Sometimes the Hebrew Particle signifies When. If it be expletive , it 's used onely to bring in this last Promise , and joyn it with the rest : But if it be not such , but used here as a rational Conjunction , the Connexion of these words with the former is very doubtful . Some make Remission to be the ground of all the other Priviledges which God doth promise , because he will forgive their Sins ; Thus Dr. Gouge seems to understand it . Yes this seems to give a Reason why God will write his Laws in their hearts , be their God , and so teach them , as that they shall know him ; and it 's this , That he may make them capable of Remission , and , being made such , he may remit them : This is certain , that this is a distinct Promise of the Covenant , different from the rest ; and it 's such a Promise , and of so great a Blessing , that the Law had none such , neither by the Observation of it could any Man obtain Pardon and Justification . And it 's certain and clear enough , that one end why God made this Covenant , and in the same promised to write his Laws in our hearts , was , that by them so written we might repent and believe , and by them obtain Remission : For , the chief Laws and Commandments of this new Covenant , are those of Repentance and Belief in Christ ; which performed , Remission , which the Law did neither promise , nor could give , will certainly follow . And , before I conclude this part , I will inform you , 1. That Remission of Sins , and Justification , are the same . 2. That there is no Justification but by the Blood of Christ. 3. That no man is justifiable by the Blood of Christ but upon his Faith. 4. That this Remission and Justification takes away from the party justified all the sad and woful Consequents of Sin. 5. That God never justifies any , but in justifying he sanctifies him , and doth not onely free him from the Guilt of Sin past , but from the Power and Dominion of Sin , so as to preserve Man from Sin for time to come : The Imperfection and Corruption of Man , which followed upon the first Sin , is one of the greatest Punishments that Man can suffer and be liable to ; and , to remove this Punishment is one part of our Justification . 6. In this Remission is included Reconciliation , Adoption , and all those Blessings which tend to everlasting Salvation . 7. Though upon our first Conversion , and our first true and lively Faith , we enter into the state of Justification , which frees us from the eternal penalty ; yet we are not perfect in this state , till all Sins , even the last be pardoned , and all Punishments fully and for ever prevented and removed , which will not be before the Resurrection . Thus you have heard the words of the Prophet , alledged by the Apostle , explained . Now , we must consider what they prove , and being the words of God , they must needs prove strongly ; and the thing proved is , That the Covenant , whereof Christ is Mediator is established upon far better Promises , than the former Covenant with the Fathers was . § . 15. The Apostle by the words of the Prophet hath proved , that the Covenant , whereof Christ was Mediator , was a better Covenant , because established upon better Promises : Yet , though this was sufficient , he proceeds further out of the same Text , to prove the abrogation of the former Covenant , whereof the Levitical Priest was Mediator , and that in this manner , Ver. 13. In that he saith a new Covenant , he hath made the first old . Now , that which decayeth and waxeth old , is ready to vanish away . THE Subject of these words is the Old Covenant made with the Fathers ; and they inform us of two things ; 1. The Abrogation . 2. The total Abolition of it . 1. The Abrogation , It 's made old . 2. The total Abolition , It being made old is near vanishing and Abolition . The Abrogation he proves from these words of the Lord by the Prophet , I will make a new Covenant ; If God make a new Covenant , then he abrogates the old ; But he makes a new Covenant ; Therefore he abrogates the old . To understand the force of this Argument , let 's enquire into the meaning of the words : 1. To make old , in this place , must be to abrogate ; for , as old things lose their Power , Strength , and Vigour , so the Covenant being made old loseth it's binding force , which is the very Essence of a Law , from which the vigour and the vertue of it , as a Law , doth issue : Hence that Phrase , to antiquate a Law , which is the same with [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] to take away the Authority of a Law. And this is the genuine sense of the word in this place . 2. It may be doubted , whether the making a new Covenant or Law doth antiquate the former Law and Covenant ; for the making of a new doth not alwayes take away the old , but sometimes confirm it . Therefore you must know , That for God to make a new Covenant , is to make such a Covenant as is different from and inconsistent with the former ; ●ay , to make it so as by it to take away the former as useless , needless , and imperfect . Such , and so made is this new Covenant ; and the former doth lose all force two wayes , 1. By Expiration ; for it was intended to continue untill the latter was made , and upon the making thereof it became out of Date . 2. By another Law and Covenant which could not stand with it , but must needs destroy it . These words , thus understood , do necessarily infer the Antiquation of the former Covenant ; and the inference is evident in the light of Nature , and needs no further Confirmation . The Argument , That God will make a new Covenant , we find in the express words of the Prophet's Text. This is the Abrogation ; The total Abolition , which follows upon this Abrogation , is expressed in this Proposition , [ That which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish . ] Where , to decay and wax old are but Synonymal ; and signify the utter Abrogation of a Law and Covenant in general , of this Covenant with the Fathers in particular . That which is thus antiquated , is said to be nigh or ready to vanish or disappear , and , as it were to lose its Being . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , turned Vanishing , is used oft by the Sept●●gint as a Verbal , to signify destruction , and desolation , and the Verb whence it 's derived , signifies to ruine , destroy , Persons , Cities , Countries , so as to take away their Being and Existence . And this Expression may intimate thus much , that as things , after they become old , and have lost their strength and vigot , may retain some kind of imperfect Being for a time , and moulder away by little and little , till they vanish and totally perish ; so the Law once abrogated may continue , though in no force for a while , and by little and little decay , till it totally cease . § . 16. This is the Explication of the Text , which may be further cleared , and made more evident , if we examine the time of the Abrogation and Ab●lition . It was not abrogated in the dayes of the Prophet J●remiah , by whom God revealed the making of the new Covenant , and the tenour and substance of it ; for it continued in force for many years after , even untill the exhibition of Christ. Neither was it abrogated upon his Birth , or Baptism , but upon his Death which unhinged the Law , and so virtually nul'd this Covenant : Yet it was not actually abrogated , but upon the Promulgation of the Gospel ; for then the force of it was taken away , and no baptized Christian was bound to observe it : yet there were many attempts made , & that by some who professed Christianity , to continue i● in power . Hence that great Controversy raised in the famous Church of Antioc● in Syria , which occasioned the great Synod at Jerusalem , mentioned Act. 15. where it was unanimously determined , that it was abrogated ; therefore they would not impose it upon the Gentiles . And though after that , they suffered some believing Jews to observe it in some particulars , as a thing indifferent ; yet the Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians doth clearly demonstrate , that whosoever should observe it as necessary , and so binding as that Christ could not save them without ' it , they were fallen from Grace , and went about to make void the Gospel . By all which it 's evident , that the new Covenant of the Gospel was so made as that it abrogated the Law of Moses and the Legal Covenant : Yet , because the Law was given , and that Covenant made by God and not by Man , and had continued in force about 1500 years , many could not be satisfied in the matter of Abrogation , and made scruple of rejecting and neglecting of it : For that which is confirmed by Law and long Custom , can hardly be made void . The unbelieving Jew did reject the new Covenant , and adhere to the old ; as instituted from Heaven , and sufficient to justify and save those who observed it : Some believing Jews feared to neglect it , and judged Christ insufficient without it , and thought Moses and Christ joyntly must bring them to Heaven ; and some of the Gentiles seduced by them were entangled with the same Errour . So that it was observed by some as necessary , by some as indifferent , till the ruine of Jerusalem , the destruction of the Temple , and the dispersion of the miserable and captive Jews into all Nations : And then , when there was no face , either of a Civil or Ecclesiasticall Polity in that Nation , then it vanished and did not appear : It was abrogated therefore by the Promulgation of the Gospel , decayed by little and little after that time , and in the end was totally abolished . The Apostle had , in the former Chapter proved the Change of the Law , and the Abrogation thereof from the Change and Abolition of the Priest-hood ; and gives the reason why it was to be abrogated , to be this , because it could justify and sanctify no Man : And this he made good out of Psal. 110. 4. And here he implies , that it must be abrogated , because it was not faultless but defective , and confirms the repeal of it , from the words of the Lord by Jeremiah , saying , I will make a new Covenant ; and his chief Scope is to prove , that Christ hath obtained a better Ministry , because he was the Mediator of a better Covenant . And that Covenant was better , not onely because it was established upon better Promises , but in that it was new , and so made that it abrogated the former , and it self was to continue for ever : For God never promised to make another after this new one was once confirmed by the Blood of Christ. § . 17. In all this Discourse , he takes it for granted , and presupposeth it as certain , that Christ was the Mediator of this Covenant ; and in this he may seem to beg , and not to make good the assirmative of the Question . For the Jew might reply , That suppose it were granted , that there must be a new Covenant , so made as to take away the old , as God by the Prophet doth positively affirm it ; yet , How doth it appear that Christ , and not some Levitical High-Priest shall be the Mediator of it ? To remove this and the like Scruples , it 's to be observed , 1. That no Levitical Priest could be a Mediator of any Covenant but the former made with the Fathers , as is evident from the Institution of that Priest-hood , and the Rules of Legal Ministration , Therefore he was clearly excluded from this Mediation of this new Covenant . 2. That if Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias , whom God promised , the Fathers expected , the Prophets fore-told ; then it will necessarily follow , that he was the great Prophet above all former Prophets , above Moses , above Angels , and he must be the great and eternal High-Priest , according to the Order of Melchizedee , a Minister of the heavenly Sanctuary , and a Mediator of this far better Covenant . But the reason why he takes it for granted , and goes not about to prove , that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias , was , because that was done unto his hands , and made evident many wayes : For , the fulfilling of so many Prophecies of the Old Testament , and that so fully , even to particular Circumstances , in him who was called Jesus of Nazareth , the Angel's Testimony who certified his Mother of his Conception , the Testimony of an Angel , with a Multitude of the heavenly hoast , at his Birth , did signify this ; So did the words of his Father , at his Baptism and Transfiguration , his glorious Works , his heavenly Wisdom , Knowledg , and Doctrine ; besides the Testimony of John the Baptist , his prodigious and stupendious Death and Resurrection , Ascension , the coming down of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles , the Revelation of the Gospel , the rare and excellent gifts of this heavenly Spirit , received by such as believed on him , and the wonderful works done in his Name , did sufficiently and superabundantly prove him to be the Messias . § . 18. From all this , the intelligent Reader may easily understand the Subject , Scope , and Method of the Apostle in this Chapter . The Subject is , the Ministry of Christ , constituted a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec : The Scope is to manifest , that Christ is a far more excellent Priest than that of Aaron's Order , in respect of his Ministry : The Method is , to set forth his superexcellent Ministry , in respect of the Tabernacle , the Service , and the Covenant whereof he was Minister ; for , the more excellent the Sanctuary , the Service , the Covenant , the more excellent the Priest. The Sanctuary whereof Christ is Minister is heavenly ; his Service and Offering not ●arnal , but supernatural and divine ; the Blessings promised in the Covenant , whereof he is Minister , and which by his Ministry he procures , are spiritual and eternal , and such as once obtained make sinful Man fully and for ever happy : And , because the Covenant is so excellent and so effectual by his Ministration , it 's of eternal continuance . The Application of all this to our selves is of Information , Exhortation , Consolation ; for , by this Doctrine we 1. Understand how excellent and effectual Christ's Priest-hood is , in respect of his Ministration in the best Sanctuary , by his best Service , making effectual the best Covenant that ever was made . 2. It stirs us up to admire the wonderful Wisdom of God , which contrived such an excellent Priest-hood and Ministry ; and his infinite Mercy in ordering both for our eternal Salvation : For , Who are we , that the Son of God should be our eternal Priest , offer up himself a Sacrifice to confirm his Covenant which he hath made with us ? and that God should appoint him to minister in the heavenly Sanctaary , and by his Ministry there obtain for us the excellent Blessings , which he hath merited , and God hath promised ? That he should deal thus with us , and do thus for us , may be matter of amazement to the very Angels of Heaven . How often should we think and seriously meditate on these things , and magnify his Wisdom , and be eternally thankful for his unspeakable Mercy , and engage our selves to his Service for evermore . 3. It 's matter of sweetest Comfort , that there is so excellent an High-Priest ; that he is our High-Priest ; that after he had sacrificed himself on Earth , he should minister for us in Heaven ; that God should make so excellent a Covenant with us , promise Power to keep it , and bind himself upon the keeping of it to be our God for ever , and eternally to blot out all our Sins , and never remember them , never charge them upon us ; that Christ should be the Mediator of this Covenant , and never cease his Mediation till he hath fully sanctified , justified , and blessed us for ever . What can Man desire which he shall not have ? What can he want which God hath not provided for him ? Doth he desire an High-Priest ? He is ready , and he is the best in the World. Doth he desire his Ministry in Heaven ? He shall be sure of it . Doth he desire a Covenant ? Here is a Covenant , a new Covenant , a Covenant of the best and sweetest Promises that ever were . Doth he desire a Mediator of this Covenant ? A Mediator is at the right hand of God , who ever lives there , and as an Advocate pleads his Cause , and will not rest Day or Night , untill he hath made us capable of Pardon , and procured Remission of all our Sins for ever . The remembrance of these things must needs be sweet , and wonderfully revive and refresh a bruised Spirit , and a broken heart sensible of Sin , hungring and thirsting after Righteousness and Salvation . But , how great is our Ignorance of these things ? how weak our Faith ? how languishing our Hopes ? Our eternal happiness depends upon this Covenant , this Priest , this Mediation and Ministry ; and issues from God the Father , and from this High-Priest , and from pure Mercy : And , how happy we , if we had but a true and living Faith , effectually to believe these things , and totally to rely upon God's pure , free , and abundant Mercy in Jesus Christ ; for , they who believe in him shall not perish , but have everlasting life ; and he that hath the Son hath Life , and Life for evermore . Many and grievous are our Sins , great is our danger , and none can help us but this great Mediator of this blessed Covenant ; yet we are sensless of our Sins , and do not seek unto our Saviour : We are secure , and do not understand , that without his help and Ministry we must unavoidably perish . God hath done much to save us , and hath brought eternal life near unto us , but we regard it not : We continue in our Sins , and will not believe on Christ , and therefore are we condemned already , because we have not believed in the Name of the onely begotten Son of God : And this will be our Condemnation , that Light is come unto us , and yet we love Darkness rather than the Light ; therefore Salvation is far from us ; Christ will not be our Saviour , nor make Intercession for us . O Lord , put thy Laws in our minds , and write them in our hearts , that we may see our Sins , and be sensible of them , and seek our Saviour , that thou mayest be our God , and we thy People , and know thee , all of us , from the least unto the greatest , that so thou mayest mercifully pardon our Unrighteousness , and remember our Sins and Iniquities no more . Amen , Amen . CHAP. IX . Of the Sacrifice of Christ , and the excellent vertue thereof . § . 1. THE Apostle here doth enlarge upon , and more particularly and distinctly explain , those things which in the former Chapter he had only in general and briefly mentioned : For he implyed there , that a Priest once made and consecrated must have a Sanctuary , must minister in it , and be the Mediator of a Covenant ; and , that the more excellent the Sanctuary , the Service , and the Covenant , the more excellent the Priest that is Minister of these : And did affirm , that Christ , in respect of all these , was more excellent than the Levitical Priest. But in this Chapter he speaks more at large of the earthly and the heavenly Sanctuary , of the Service performed in both ; but especially of the great Sacrifice and Expiation made by both the Priests , & most of all of Christ's Expiation-Offering , of the rare vertue and the excellent Effects thereof , and how by it he was the Mediator of the new Covenant , and made it effectual unto Remission , and the eternal Salvation of Man. This is some kind of co-herence , whereby this part is joyned to the former : But there is another ; for the Apostle having proved Christ more excellent than the Levitical High-Priest , 1. In respect of his Constitution , Chap. 5. 6. and especially in the 7th . 2. In respect of his Ministration , in the 8th . In this 9th . he proceeds to speak of his Ministration in particular , and of his excellent Service in Offering himself a Sacrifice without spot to God. § . 2. The Subject of this whole Chapter , and part of the tenth , is the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Scope is to manifest how excellent this piece of Service is . The Method upon consideration of the whole is this ; He informs us 1. Of the Typical Tabernacle , and the Service , especially the great Expiatory Sacrifice performed therein ; and this by way of Introduction to the 11th . Verse . 2. Of the Anti-Typical Sanctuary and Sacrifice , and teacheth us , 1. The Nature and Quality of both , especially of the Sacrifice . 2. The Vertue of this Sacrifice manifested in the Effects thereof , from Ver. 11. to the end . And this he doth , 1. Both absolutely , and sometimes comparatively , in this Chapter . 2. More comparatively in the Chapter following . This is the general Analysis ; the particular you may expect both in and after the Explication . The Substance of the whole is this , He that , being a Minister of a better Sanctuary doth offer a far more excellent Sacrifice , must needs be a more excellent Priest than the Levitical . But Christ being Minister of a better Tabernacle , offered a more excellent Sacrifice . Therefore he is a more excellent Priest. The Proposition he takes for granted : The Assumption he proves at large , and very effectually , and this is his Design and Work in this Chapter , and part of the 10th . § . 3. To begin with the Introduction , Ver. 1. Then verily the first Covenant had also Ordinances of Divine Service , and a worldly Sanctuary . VVHere we may observe , 1. The Connexion . 2. The Matter . The Connexion is signified by these words Then verily , or , according to the Original , Therefore verily ; and so Vatablus , Beza , Junius , translate . By which the words following seem to contain a Conclusion deduced from the former Chapter Ver. 2. 3 , 4 , 5. and especially from the 5th . where it 's implyed that there must be a Tabernacle , and the Priests must serve and officiate in it , according to the Example and Shadow of heavenly things , and there were certain Rules given to Moses according to which both he must make the Tabernacle , and the Priests must serve therein . This briefly for the Connexion . It follows , 2. The former had Ordinances of Divine Service , &c. Where we have , 1. The Subject . 2. The Predicate . The Subject [ the first ] , the Original expresseth no more , not informing us , whether the first Priest-hood , or the first Tabernacle , or the first Covenant , be meant : Some Copies expresly read the first Tabernacle , and so some understand the place ; but most reject that , and supply the Ellipsis by the word Covenant , and so much the rather , because in the last Verse of the former Chapter we have the same word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] first , and Covenant understood ; Few or none make any mention of Priest-hood . The Predicate , and that which is affirmed of this Covenant , is , That it had Ordinances of Divine Service , and a worldly Sanctuary : The meaning is , that in the time of the Law , the Levitical Priest-hood , and the Tabernacle , there were such Ordinances , and a Sanctuary belonging to the Covenant . In the words we have the Sum and Abridgment of the nine following Verses , which describe unto us both the Ordinances of Service , and the Sanctuary . In the words therefore we have two things : 1. The Ordinances . 2. A Sanctuary . The Ordinances of Divine Service imply , That there was under the Law , the Work of Service and the Ordinances of this Service : And , because there is Service due to Man , and Service due to God , and Latreia signifies both ; therefore the Translators for difference sake , and to signify what Service is here meant , do add the word Divine : For Divine and Religious Service is due only unto God , and is to be performed to him as Supream Lord , and it cannot without injury be given to any other : And when it is so given to any but the true and living God , it 's called Idolatry , and is against the first Commandment . Some distinguish between Service and Worship , and it 's true , they differ much , if Worship be taken for Adoration , which is terminated upon the divine Excellency and Dignity , and not upon his Power ; yet the words are used indifferently . But whereas the Socinian Expositor saith , that Latreia properly signifies Worship , he is much deceived , as will be evident if we examine the places of the Old Testament , where the Septuagint turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serve , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] and that so often . This Service of God is two-fold , 1. Positive . 2. Moral . The Moral is the principal , as being spiritual , and performed by a Spirit unto a spiritual and eternal Substance which is God. Positive and Ceremonial is far inferiour , and is here meant : This Ceremonial Service , which never should be performed without the Moral , had Ordinances as a Rule to direct both Priest and People in the performance of it , and these Ordinances were given by God , and were part of the Ceremonial Law , determing what religious Rites and Ceremonies must be used especially by the Priests : For the Service here meant is chiefly that which was proper to the Priests ; for as we now serve God by the Ministers in publick , so they then by their Priests . The word turned Ordinances is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , used above 60 times by the Septuagint to interpret the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though it often signifies Ceremonials , yet not alwayes . Men , ever depending upon God as upon their Supream Lord , are ever bound to serve him , that they may receive Protection and Happiness from him . He that will not serve a God is a profane Atheist , he that servs any but the true God is an Idolater ; he that servs the true God after his own fancies and the inventions of Man , is a superstitious fool ; he that inventeth Rites and Ceremonies , and Modes of serving God , and imposeth them on others , is a presumptuous Wretch . For , as God alone doth know what kind of Worship and Service is fittest to be performed unto him , so he onely hath Power to impose it . The highest degree of Service is due unto him alone , and he alone hath Power to make Ordinances for it . This is the Service and the Ordinances of God , which must be performed in some place of his special presence : Therefore there was then a worldly Sanctuary . A Sanctuary is an holy place consecrated to God , and sanctified by his presence : There is a bodily and earthly , and also a spiritual Sanctuary . This was a bodily earthly Sanctuary , a Type of a far better ; and , to difference it from a fat better , it 's called a worldly Sanctuary , though the word may signify a beautiful , decent , and glorious place : And in respect of outward earthly decency , beauty , and glory it did excel . It was made , not according to the fancy of Man , but according to a pattern given from Heaven ; and every thing in it was Mystical , and the greatest Glory of it was God's special presence . This Sanctuary was said to be the Throne and Palace of God , residing as a glorious Being in the midst of his People : It may be considered mystically , as shadowing a far more excellent Throne and Palace , which may be Heaven the Humanity of Christ , and the Souls and Bodies of sanctified Persons ; or it may be considered as a convenient place for God's People to assemble there for publick Worship : In the former consideration it 's abolished , in the latter it may continue ; for , if all things in the Worship of God must be done decently and orderly , then surely it 's decent and orderly according to the Law of Nature , and the Law of God , to have convenient places for Religious Assemblies , and Publick and Divine Worship . To think there is any holiness in these places as places , is the superstitious conceipt of some ; to think they may not be called Churches is the superstitious fancy of others : For a Church or Kirk is but a convenient place where Christians ordinarily assemble to perform Divine Service , and God's presence is not tyed to the place , but to God's People , observing God's Ordinances in this place ; neither is he tyed to any special presence in such place , but by vertue of his gracious Promise ; neither is there in these places any divine , special , effectual , and spiritual presence there , but to such as there worship him in Spirit . We are not so bound to these places , as though God would not accept our Service else-where , or more in such a place than in another , but onely in respect of conveniency , and the testification of our Union with God's People in the Christian Religion . § . 4. After that the Subject and Heads of his following discourse were determined and named , he proceeds to discourse of them more particularly , 1. Of the Sanctuary . 2. Of the Service and Ordinances . So that we may in the following nine Verses observe a Description , 1. Of the Sanctuary or Tabernacle , Ver. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. 2. Of the Service from Ver. 6. to the 10. 1. This Sanctuary , leaving out the Court where they sacrificed , is divided into two parts : The first is the Holy place ; The second , the Holiest of all . The holy place divided from the Court by the first Veil or Hanging , is described from the sacted things and Utensils therein , which are here said to be , the Candlestick , the Table , the Shew-Bread ; and this was called the Sanctuary : Both the place and Utensils of the place had their mystical Representations , though not so well known to us . The second part , divided from the Sanctuary by the second Veil , and called the Holy of Holies ; that is , the Holiest of all , is set forth from the things therein : As , 1. The Golden Censer . 2. The Ark , wherein are said to be the Golden Pot of Manna , Aaron's Rod that budded , and the Tables of the Covenant . 3. The Cherubims over-shadowing the Mercy-Seat ; and all and every one of these had their Mysteries , which the Apostle forbears to speak of here . He could have spoken much of every particular , but he doth not , because it was not necessary to the principal end , which here he intended ; and where he saith nothing , it 's fit we should be silent . Yet two things in this place should be considered , 1. How it may be reconciled with other Texts of Scripture which seem to differ from it . 2. How and in what respect this Sanctuary may be said to excel others . 1. It seems to differ from some other parts of Scripture , 1. In placing the Golden Censer . 2. In saying , That , besides the Table of the Covenant , Aaron's Rod , and the Pot of Manna , were in the Ark. For the first , Some say the Golden Censer was the Altar of Incense , and it stood so near and close unto the Veil , that the smoak of the Incense did enter into the Holiest of all ; yet this is not so probable . We read Levit. 16. 12 , 13. of a Censer , which with Coals from the Altar and Incense , the High-Priest must take , and enter within the Veil upon the day of Expiation , and burn the Incense in the Holiest place , so that the smoak may cover the Mercy-Seat ; and why might not this Censer be kept in that place ? For the second , Aaron's Rod and the Pot of Manna may be said to be in the Ark , when they were in the side of the Ark. In this manner the Reconciliation may be made , yet so that upon further search the Truth may be more clearly discovered : what others have said in this particular I pass . But , 2. How may this two-fold Sanctuary be said to be more excellent than others ; for there have been rich and glorious Temples with their inward Sacraries rarely beautified ? It 's true , in respect of the Materials and outward Order , some Temples might be as rich and glorious , if not more ; for the matter , Gold , and other things , with the Art of Man , might be the same : But the Excellency of this consisted in two things ; 1. In that all things were made in this two-fold Sanctuary , by the Direction and Command of God. 2. Besides outward decency , beauty , and glory , every thing was Mystical , and represented some heavenly and excellent thing , and that according to God's Institution . And , in the time of this Legal Dispensation , the Saints enlightned by Faith looked at far higher things : They did not look for Sanctification and Happiness from an earthly Sanctuary , but from their God , who was present in the midst of them , and from their Messias ( promised to Abraham ) , in whom all Nations should be blessed . Abraham sought a more excellent Countrey than Canaan ; for he aimed at an heavenly and eternal City , which God had prepared for him . § . 5. This is the Description of the Sanctuary , and the two principal parts thereof . The Service followeth , Ver. 6. Now , when these things were thus ordained , the Priests went alwayes into the first Tabernacle , accomplishing the Service of God. VVHere we must observe , That all the Service of God is not here described , but onely that which was accomplished within the first and second Veil ; neither is every particular of these here set down . So that the Subject of the ● following Verses is the Service of God in the two Sanctuaries : And we are informed , 1. What it is . 2. How imperfect it is . In this sixth Verse we have the Service in the first Sanctuary described in general . In the Text we have three things : 1. The Ordination of the former things . 2. The constant Entrance of the Priests into the first Sanctuary . 3. The performance of the Service therein . The performance of the Service presupposeth the Entrance ; the Entrance , the Preparation of the former things . The Propositions are three , according to the things , or rather Acts : The first is , That these things were thus ordained . Where , by these things , are meant the two Sanctuaries , with the things contained in them : For these to be ordained , is for the Sanctuaries to be made , built , and ordered : To be thus ordained , is to be so made , placed , and every thing therein set in that Order , as God prescribed . The second Proposition is , That these things thus ordained , the Priests went alwayes into the first Tabernacle . Where , by Tabernacle , is meant the Sanctuary within the first Veil : Into this the Priests did enter ; not only the High-Priest , but the other Priests might go into this place ; but none but Priests had this Priviledg granted . They entred alwayes , that is , every day ; and that several times . They entred after the Sanctuaries were made , and all things therein orderly placed and disposed ; for , before they were made they could not enter ; before all things in them were prepared and orderly disposed , they could not officiate and serve . The third Proposition is , The Priests being entred accomplish the Service of God. This Service was chiefly to burn Incense , and to pray : This Sanctuary may signify the Mis●tant Church on Earth , which is the Society of Saints sanctified , and made Priests by the Blood of Christ ; for none but Priests and real Saints are admitted as living Members of this Sanctuary , which is next unto the Heaven of Heavens . In this , Prayer is continually made in the Name of Christ , and Service continually performed to God ; and they enjoy the Light of the Gospel , and partake of the Bread of Life , which came down from Heaven ; both which were signifyed by the Golden Candlestick and the Shew-Bread . These things , thus understood , signify unto us , That Christ must first redeem us , and God by his Word and Spirit convert us , & so make a Church , before any Service acceptable can be performed to him ; & , after we are converted , sanctified , made Priests , then we may serve and receive Mercy : For we must first serve him , before we can receive benefit from him ; and by continual Service and Prayer we obtain continually the Light of Grace and the Bread of Life , till we be made perfect , and admitted into the inward Sacrary of Glory . § . 6. After this Service accomplished in the first Sanctuary , follows that which is to be performed in the second , Ver. 7. But into the second went the High-Priest alone , once every Year , not without Blood , which he offered for himself , and for the Errors of the People . THese words determine , 1. The principal Service to be performed in this inner Sacrary . 2. The Person by whom it was to be performed . 3. The Time when , and how often . The Service is that of Expiation by Blood : The Person expiating by Blood was the High-Priest alone : The Time was , once a Year . This was the highest piece of Service that was prescribed by God , or performed by Man , under the Law ; and therefore it was to be performed by the most eminent Person , and but seldom , even once a Year . And the Apostle singles this out from amongst the rest , to prove , that if Christ performed a far more excellent Service , then he must needs be far more excellent than the Levitical High-Priest , in respect of his Ministration , and the Execution of his Sacerdotal Office. This Service was , the Offering of an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice , first for himself , then for the People ; And he must enter with the Blood thereof into the Holiest place within the second Veil ; and , after he had offered Incense there , he must sptinkle the Blood upon the Mercy-Seat , and before the Mercy-Seat . The Time of this solemn Service was the tenth Day of the seventh Moneth every Year , which was an holy time of Humiliation and Expiation : Of this , which is briefly touched here , you may read more at large , Lev. 16. § . 7. The Imperfection of this Service is declared in the three following Verses , and its three-fold , 1. By this Service the way into the Holiest of all was not made manifest . 2. Being but Figures and Shadows they could not sanctify any Man that observed them . 3. They were but of short continuance ; for upon the time of Reformation they must cease . That the way into Holiest of all was not then made manifest , we learn from Ver. 8. The Holy Ghost this signifying , That the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest , while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing . FOR the better Explication ; the whole may be reduced to two Propositions or divine Axioms . 1. That the way into the Holiest of all was not made manifest , while as the first Tabernacle was standing . 2. That the Holy Ghost did signify this . In the first , we have the way into the Holiest of all ; the non-manifestation of this way ; the time of this non-manifestation . The Holyest of all was a Type of Heaven , and there must be a way into it , or else no man can enter , all men must be shut out . This way may be taken either for the passage into it , or the means whereby a passage was made and opened . Here it seems to be taken , not so much for the passage , as the means whereby this passage was made , and so opened : Yet the Holiest of all , where the Mercy-Seat was placed , may signify the Throne of Grace , which , without some Expiation , is not accessible . For , there is a two-fold Throne of God , the one of Grace , the other of Glory ; and the first must be made accessible before the second , and we must have access to the one in this life , before we can have access to the other in the life to come . And one and the same cause may open and make way to both : No sinful Guilty Man , as such , can have access to God , so as to be accepted of him , and receive spiritual Comfort from him , but as propitiated by the Blood of Christ : And though , as propitiated by this Blood , he be accessible ; yet no man can have actual access with Hope and Confidence , except he be justified and washed in the Blood of Christ : And though one may be justified so as to approach the Throne of Grace , yet no man can immediately approach the Throne of Glory , till he be fully and perfectly both justified and sanctified . That there was a way and passage for Man , innocent , righteous , and holy , is signified by this , that Adam before he sinn'd had access to the Tree of Life ; but after , the way was barr'd and guarded by Cherubims and a flaming Sword turning every way : Yet after , the Saints of God had free access unto the Throne of Grace , and a way unto the Tree of Life in the heavenly Paradice . But that which made the way and the passage was the Blood of Christ , promised and believed : Yet , as the Revelation , so the Faith was implicit and imperfect ; and that not onely before the time of Moses , but long after ; therefore is it said , the way was not manifest . There was a way not only for Enoch and Elias , but for many others ; but there might be a way and yet not manifest , as then it was not : This was possible to all , but passable to few , and perhaps manifest to none ; at least not so manifest as afterwards it was to many both Jews and Gentiles . The time whil'st it was not manifest and so open , is here expressed to be the time of the standing of the first Tabernacle ; where , by Tabernacle , we must unstand not only the Tabernacle of Moses , but the Temple built by Solomon and rebuilt by Babylon's Captives returned ; and by the time of all these , is meant the time of the Legal dispensation , and of the Levitical Priest-hood whil'st it was in Power . This is said to be signified by the Holy Ghost ; for what is signified by Moses in the Scriptures must needs be signified by the Holy Ghost , who inspired , moved , and directed Moses and all the Prophets in their writing and penning of the Scriptures . But how and by what was this signified ? Even by this , that the Spirit did 1. Prohibit any but the High-Priest to enter into the Holiest . 2. Neither must he enter but once a Year . 3. Neither then must he enter but with Incense and Blood ; and not any other , though with these , might enter at any other time . Therefore the Veil and rich Hanging must hide the Mercy-Seat and Throne of God from all the People , from all the Priests , and from the High-Priest at all other times but the day of Expiation . That which may be said to be the way , and to make and open the way , is the Blood of Christ ; and the shedding of this Blood , and Revelation of the Gospel , did manifest the way . There is no way but by the Blood of Christ , no manifestation of the way , but by the shedding of this Blood : Therefore upon the shedding of this precious Blood , and instantly upon the death of Christ , the Veil , the inner Veil , [ Catapetasma ] of the Temple was rent , and the way opened to the Holiest of all , and to the Mercy-Seat . The Saints of old did know and certainly believe , that there was a way , but that this should be the Blood of Jesus of Nazareth , and made by his Blood ; as it was not so clearly reveal'd , so it was not so manifestly known . And this was one Imperfection of the Law , that could not by any Blood make a way , or manifest a way , to sinful men observing it , or make any man fit to enter . § . 8. The Reason of this is given in these words , Ver. 9. Which was a Figure for the time then present , in which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices , which could not make him that did the Service perfect , as pertaining to the Conscience . THE principal thing , and most observable , in the Text , is , the Imperfection and Inability of the Service performed in this Tabernacle ; for it had no sanctifying power , as to the Conscience . And the whole may be reduced to three Axioms , or Propositions 1. The Tabernacle was a Figure for the time then present . 2. In it were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices . 3. These Gifts and Sacrifices offered , could not make him that did the Service perfect , as pertaining to the Conscience . The first Proposition is , It was a Figure for the time then present . By Tabernacle , in this place , may be understood the whole Building with all the parts , especially the two Sanctuaries . This was a Figure ; the Word in the Original is a Parable , which is a kind of Figure or Shadow representing by the similitude and resemblance some other thing , and usually the thing represented and resembled is more excellent than the thing resembling ; as the Body is more excellent than the Shadow , and the Figure more easily known than the thing figured . Therefore Similitudes and Parables are usually taken from things easily known and obvious to the senses , and the end of it is by that which is more easily known to inform us of that which is more inward and secret . So this Tabernacle , and the parts thereof , with the things therein contained , are visible and easily perceived and known ; yet so made , as to signify far better things , which were spiritual and divine ; such also were the Services therein performed . And all this did imply the Imperfection of the Tabernacle , of the things therein contained , and of the Services accomplished in it ; for Types and Shadows are very imperfect things . It was a Parable or Figure for the time then present , as a time of Infancy and Non-Age , and to continue only till the things figured and represented should be exhibited , and then to cease and vanish ; and this is the reason why they had so little Power . The second Proposition is , In this Tabernacle were offered Gifts and Sacrifices . Every religious Building , and all Sanctuaries and Temples are erected for the Service and Worship of a God present in them ; so was this , and it was so much better than others , because it was consecrated to the true God , and by his Command and Direction : And seeing this and others are for the Service of God , therefore there must be something to be given and offered , as Gifts and Sacrifices : These must be offered ; they must be offered to God ; and this Offering of them is the Service of God , as it was in this Tabernacle . The third Proposition is , These Gifts and Sacrifices could not perfect them who did the Service , as appertaining to the Conscience . This doth presuppose that the end of God's Service is the benefit of Man serving : The benefit here is the perfecting of such as did the Service . To perfect , is to sanctify , free Man from Sin , reconcile him to God , so he may have some Communion with God , and derive some Happiness from him : There is an outward , and also an inward , spiritual , and divine Sanctification . The Service of the Law in the Tabernacle , in offering Gifts and Sacrifices , might sanctify the outward Man with an inferiour kind of Sanctification , so that both Priest and People might have some outward Communion with God , prevent , or avert , or remove some temporal Penalties , obtain some temporal Blessings and Priviledges : Yet all this was nothing to Sanctification of the Conscience , and the immortal Soul , conscious of Sin , so as to remove the spiritual Guilt , or the eternal Punishment , or obtain spiritual and eternal Blessings : All the Service of the Law could do no such thing , it had no such Power and Efficacy . It 's true , that they who , in performing these Services with an humble and penitent heart looked far beyond these figures , upon Jesus Christ to come , might obtain the Sanctification of the Conscience : Yet this they could not do by the figures and shadows , but by the things signified by them . This was the reason why Paul did so much dis-esteem all his Priviledges and his Righteousness according to the Law , in respect whereof , he was blameless ; and did so much esteem , so highly value , and so much long after the Righteousness by Faith in Christ. This therefore was one Imperfection of the Law , that it had not any such sanctifying Power , as appertaining to the Conscience ; and this the Hebrews must take special notice of , and they must know , the figure and shadow had not the Power of the Substance . § . 9. The third Imperfection follows , Ver. 10. Which stood only in Meats and Drinks , und divers Washings , and carnal Ordinances imposed on them till the time of Reformation . IT 's very difficult to find the Grammatical Congruity and good Construction in these words , and the Connexion is obscure ; * the printed Books differ , and so do the Translations : The Reason of all this may be from some Errour in the Transcription of the Manuscripts . The Syriack is more plain than the rest , and the whole may be summ'd up in two Propositions : 1. That the Service of the Law consisted in Gifts and Sacrifices , together with Meats and Drinks , and divers Washings , and carnal Ordinances . 2. That these were imposed upon the Jews till the time of Reformation . In the first Proposition : Meats and Drinks are not ordinary , but religious , and by them may be intended Meat-Offerings and Drink-Offerings , and some extend the sense so far as to include Meats clean and unclean , allowed or forbidden by God. Baptisms or Washings are here to be understood to be such as were religious and used in the Service of God , and these were divers , and of several sorts ; some were by water onely ; some by Blood ; some by other things mixt with Water ; some with sprinkling , some with bathing , some with washing another . The end of them all was legal Cleansing and Purification : And because there were other Rites , he summs them up all in one word , Ordinances which were carnal . The word for Ordinances is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , the same that is used in the first Verse , and some translate it Justifications , that is , Legal Sanctifications . But it 's taken here for Rites and Ceremonies in this place , as in the Margent is expressed . These Ordinances , with the Offerings , Meats , Drinks , Washings , are said to be carnal ; that is , outward , sensible , bodily , and such as have their Effect , in the use of them , upon the Body , the outward Man , and bodily things . This Epithet [ carnal ] is thought to be added for to give a Reason why they cannot perfect and sanctify the Conscience , or have any Effect upon the immortal Soul ; and so this first Proposition belongs unto the former Verse , to signify the inability of the Legal Service , in perfecting the Conscience , which is the second Imperfection . The second ●●oposition : These Rites , and this Ceremonial Service , were imposed till the time of Reformation . It might be said , If they were so poor , imperfect , and ineffectual , why were they observed ? The Answer is , They were imposed till a better time , a time of Reformation . To be imposed , is to be commanded , so that the People of those times were bound to observe them , and serve God in that Mystical and Ceremonious manner ; for the divine Precept made the Observation necessary . Some so understand the word in the Greek , as to imply , they were a Yoke or Burden , and so indeed they were . Yet whether this be here intended may be a Question . The time of Reformation is conceived to be the time of the Gospel , which took away these Rites , not as sinful , but as imperfect , and then useless , when a better kind of Service was instituted . The word here used in the Greek may signify Perfection , Confirmation , and Establishment ; and if we consult the Septuagint , they tu●● the Verb [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signify to perfect , confirm , and establish . That therefore , which in our Translation , is a time of Reformation , is a time of Perfe●●●● Confirmation , and Establishment ; and this is the time of the Gospel , when the 〈◊〉 imperfect is taken away , and that which is firm and stable shall be brought in and 〈◊〉 for evermore . By this we may observe . That because the Ceremonial Law was imposed by God , the Jews were bound to observe it . 2. That God intended not the Servi● of the Law , as a means to sanctify the Conscience ; for then it should have continued . 3. It was imposed onely for a time untill the Introduction of a better Service , and then it was to cease . And this is the third Imperfection ; it was not perfect , firm , stable , and of perpetual continuance . And this is to be understood not onely of some of these Services , but of all , even of that which is the principal and more excellent than all the rest , even the yearly Sacrifice of Expiation . § . 10. Thus far the Typical Tabernacle and Service ; the Anti-Typical follows , and begins in these words , Ver. 11. But Christ being come an High-Priest of good things to come , by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle , not made with hands ; that is to say , not of this Building : Ver. 12. Neither by the Blood of Goats and Calvs , but by his own Blood , he entred in once into the holy place , having obtained eternal Redemption for us . TO understand this Text the better , it 's to be observed , 1. That as in the Type , so here in the Anti-Type , to make the Comparison perfect , there are three things : 1. An High-Priest . 2. A Tabernacle with two Sanctuaries . 3. A Service and Sacrifice to be performed by the High-Priest in the inmost Sacrary and Holiest of all , into which he could not enter but by passing through the Sanctuary within the first Veil . 2. That the words have special Reference to the seventh Verse , which speaks of the Highest Levitical Service and Sacrifice , which the High-Priest alone was to perform once a Year in the Holiest of all . 3. That the Scope of the Apostle is to set forth the Excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , as far above that of Aaron's in respect of the Service . 4. That seeing this was the highest and most excellent Service , which could procure the greatest good promised in the former Covenant ; therefore the Apostle singles out this , informing us , that it was but a shadow of a far more excellent Service , which was of far greater Power and Efficacy , to be performed by Christ. 5. That the Excellency of this Service and Sacrifice is set forth by rare and excellent Effects , Consequents , and Benefits , which were such as the best and greatest Service of the Levitical Priest could not reach . 6. That the first Effect is eternal Redemption , which immediatly follows upon the performance of this Service , and is the principal thing in this Text. In the Text we have four things : 1. Christ come an High-Priest of good things to come . 2. The Tabernacle , whereof he is Minister . 3. The Service and Sacrifice performed by this High-Priest . 4. The first most excellent Effect thereof , eternal Redemption . The first Proposition is concerning Christian High-Priest ; and it 's affirmed , 1. That he is come , that is , exhibited , present , and consecrated . 2. That 〈◊〉 ●onsecrated he is a compleat High-Priest ; both these are demonstratively 〈…〉 in the former part of the Epistle . 3. That he is an High-Priest 〈…〉 . The end of all Priests , and especially High-Priest 〈…〉 and Ministry , to procure some Mercy and Benefit , which the People want , desire , and have need of . Yet they can pro●●●● no Mercy , but such as God hath promised in that Covenant , where of they are Priests 〈◊〉 Mediators ; therefore the Legal High-Priest could not obtain any greater Mercy than the Law did promise . But because Christ is the Mediator of the new Covenant established upon better Promises , he doth procure for his People far greater Mercies , which God hath promised in this Covenant . Therefore , 1. By good things , understand those Mercies , Benefits , and Blessings , which are promised in the new Covenant , the principal whereof are Remission of Sin for ever , and eternal life following thereupon . 2. These good things are said to be future and to come , and that either in respect of the Law , which went before the Gospel , according to that 〈◊〉 follows , Chap. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come : Or 〈◊〉 of full enjoyment of them , which is reserved for Heaven , and that World 〈…〉 is yet to come : For there is a World to come , a Life to come , an abidi●● 〈…〉 me , a Glory to come , which shall be revealed upon the Sons of God , 〈…〉 long after and wait for this Life , this City , this Glory to come . Again , the time of the Gospel is said to be the World 〈◊〉 , Chap. 2. 5 , & 6. 5. The sense therefore may be this , That Christ was an High-Priest effectually procuring these good things , which were shadowed out and typified in the Law ; and were then to come , but present , and exhibited in the times of the Gospel . The second Proposition , which is concerning the Tabernacle , doth affirm , That Christ's Tabernacle , wherein he must minister , is greater and better than the Legal , as not being of that Building . To be greater , may be understood of quantity or quality ; i● of quantity , then it 's signified that it 's far larger ; and so Heaven , where Christ doth minister , is : if of quality , then the latter word explains the former , and so greater is 〈◊〉 ; and both together inform us , that it 's far more glorious and excellent . And that it ●● so , it 's evident , because it 's not of this Building , but of a far better : The former was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pitched by the Art and Industry of Man ; yet so , that the pattern and direction was from Heaven . The Workman and Builder was not Man , but God : and is the Wisdom skil , and Hand of God , is infinitely above the Wisdom , Skill , and Power of Man , so his Building must needs be far more excellent . Therefore the Apostle told us before , Chap. 〈◊〉 . That Christ was the Minister of High-Priest of the Sanctuary , and of the true Tabernacle , which the Lord pitched , not Man. The former was but a Shadow , and di● but imperfectly represent this which was the Substance : The Holiest of all ; though the most sacted and glorious place of the former Tabernacle and Temple , was nothing to this . Yet it 's much doubted , 1. What this Tabernacle is . 2. Whitherto these words are to 〈◊〉 referred . First , Some think this Tabernacle to be the Body of Christ , yet this was the thing to be sacrificed and offered . Others conceive , it was the Church Militant . Oth●● imagine , it was the whole World , which , with the parts thereof , both the Tabernacle and Temple did represent : wherein the Heaven of Heavens is the Sanctum Sanctor●n ; the Holiest of all ; and the Sanctuary through which the High-Priest passed into the Holiest place , the Aethercal part of the World , where the Sun and Moon and Stars , represented by the Lights in the Golden Candlestick , do ever shine . Others determine it to 〈◊〉 the Heaven of Heavens , whereof they make some different parts ; as , one to be the place of Angels and Saints , and another far more glorious , which was the place of God's most blessed and special presence . That Christ entred the Heaven of Heavens , and that 〈◊〉 he ever ministers and makes Intercession there , is express Scripture ; what difference and degrees of places be there , we do not certainly know . But let the Tabernacle ●e his Body , or the Church Militant , or the World , or the Heaven of Heavens ; the second doubt is , Whither these words concerning this Tabernacle are to be referred . If to the former words , which say , that Christ being rome an High-Priest of good things to come , then it 's nothing but this , That Christ is the Minister and High-Priest of a far more glorious Sanctuary . But some refer them to the word entred , and make the sense to be , that as the High-Priest under the Law passeth through the first Sanctuary to enter into the second , which is the Holiest of all : so Christ passed through the Militant into the Church Triumphant . And it 's very true , that Christ hath his Sanctuary and Temple here on Earth , and that 's his Church wherein God dwels in a special manner , and he passed through and from this into the Church Triumphant of Saints and Angels , where God is more gloriously present and powerful ; nay , he entred through the Aetherdal part of the World into the highest Heavens , and through the Heaven of Angels and Saints unto the highest and most glorious place , and Throne of God. But the former sense , that Christ is come an High-Priest and Minister of a far more glorious and excellent Sanctuary , seems to be more genuine , and confirmed by Chap. 8. 2. § . 11. The third Proposition is concerning Christ's Service and Sacrifice offered in this Temple : For Christ , not by the Blood of Goats and Calves , but by his own Blood , i●●red in once into the holy place . Where , 1. We have the Holy place . 2. Christ's Entrance into it . 3. His Entrance once . 4. His Entrance once by Blood , not of Goats and Calvs but by his own Blood. 1. The Holy place is the Heaven of Heavens , signified by the Holiest of all in the Tabernacle and in the Temple ; for that was the place into which the High-Priest with Blood entred in once every Year , so that there is no difficulty in this particular . And that Christ entred into Heaven is clear enough ; For Christ is not entred into the holy places made with hands , which are the Figures of the true , but into Heaven it self , there to appear before God for us , Ver. 24. of this Chapter . 2. Christ entred into this Holy place . But there is a Question made of the time when he entred . That he entred forty dayes after the Resurrection , it 's clear and express : For he was taken up into Heaven , Acts 1. 11. He was carried up into Heaven , Luke 24. 71. And , He that descended , is the same also that ascended far above all Heavens to fulfil all things , Ephes. 4. 10. But there seems to be another entrance before this ; and that was immediately upon his Death . For when he had given up the Ghost , immediately the Vail of the Temple was rent in the midst from the top to the bottom ; and his Soul , separated from his Body , and commended into his Fathers hands , entred into Paradise . That he entred at that time into Heaven with his Soul separated from his Body , the Text doth seem to affirm : And what should the renting of the Catapetasm and the Inner-Vail immediately upon his Death signify , but that the great High-Priest was ready to enter Heaven ? Again , it may be said more properly , that he entred Heaven with or by his Blood , when his Soul was separated from his Body , than when his Body was risen , and made immortal , and both Soul and Body joyntly ascended . For it was the custom of the High-Priest , according to God's Institution , upon the slaying of the Sacrifice , and taking of the Blood , to enter the holy , Place ; and the Type and Anti-type should agree , especially in this particular . Further , the expiatory Offering was not compleate , till the Blood was presented before the Throne of God in the inner Sacrary ; and it was suitable to the Type , that the great High-Priest should , after he was slain on Earth , present himself as slain in Heaven before the Supream Judge , as having suffered Death , and satisfied Justice for the sin of man. But all this I leave to the judgment of Learned men , who shall seriously search the Book of God , and impartially examine whether God doth not speak this in Scripture . And howsoever it 's certain , that , whether he entred thus & then , yet he so entred at one time or other , that he obtained eternal Redemption . 3. He entred once : This informs us , that though the High-Priest entred once every year , and so might enter above a thousand times ; yet Christ entred thus but once . For , as we shall read , both in the latter end of this , and also in the beginning of the next Chapter , once to enter , or one entrance in this manner was sufficient ; because one Death , one Offering was able to do that which all the Offerings of all the High-Priests under the Law could not do ; neither was any more Offering needful , seeing this had done all that was requisite for satisfaction and merit . 4. This entrance was by or with Blood ; and this is set down negatively and affirmatively . Negatively this was not blood of Goats and Calves , and that with which the Legal High-Priests did enter within the Vail . For , as we may read , Levit. 16. upon the day of expiation a Bullock and a Goat must be slain , and with the Blood of these he must enter the holy Place . The reason of this is , because the blood of Beasts could not satisfy divine justice , expiate the sin of man , and purge his conscience and immortal Soul , and so make the eternal penalty removable . Therefore it must be a far more excellent blood , the blood of the Son of God , his own blood ; which was pare , unspotted , and most precious . The reason , 1. Why it must be by blood , is , because as without blood under the Law , there was no Legal Remission or Expiation ; so it was the Will of God , that without blood there should be no eternal Remission . For though God was merciful , and sate in the Throne of Grace and Mercy , yet his Justice did require that satisfaction should be made : and seeing sin was committed , and punishment was deserved , and due by his Law violated ; therefore sin must be punished , before it could be pardonable ; and seeing the punishment was Death , Death must first be suffered . This was thus appointed and done , to signify his purest holiness , his hatred and detestation of sin , his love of Justice , and his respect unto the Law , which bound to obedience , or upon disobedience to punishment . By this he signified , and all men must know it , that it 's a dangerous thing to transgress his Laws , and this must hear and fear . But then , 2. Why by his own blood ? The reason , in general , is the will of God , which did determine upon this blood ; and the wisdom of God , which knew that it was the fittest of all other . But more particularly , the blood of Goats and Calves was no wayes convenient : For it is not possible , that the blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away sins , Hebr. 10. 4. Nor the blood of man , of the best man , though far above the blood of Bullocks and Goates was fit ; for all men are guilty , and their blood is stained . Neither was the life of Angels fit ; for though it might be precious , yet God did not think it sufficiently satisfactory and meritorious for sinful man. And suppose an High-Priest should offer his own blood , yet that would not serve : Therefore it must be Christ's blood , his own blood , which was pure and without spot , and most precious ; not only because it was the blood of God , that eternal Word made Flesh , which was God , but because it was shed with greatest pain , and most willingly out of love to sinful man , whose Flesh and Blood he had assumed ; and in obedience to his heavenly Father , who had made him the great High-Priest , appointed him to be the Head Surety and Hostage of sinful man , and commanded him to lay down his life , and do this great Service . And without the blood of this Sacrifice he could not have entred into the holy place , and obtained eternal Redemption . This is the fourth thing observed in the Text , and the Subject of the fourth Proposition concerning one immediate effect of his blood . For he entring by his own blood once , obtained eternal Redemption . Where we must enquire , 1. What Redemption is . 2. Why this Redemption is said to be eternal . 3. How it was obtained by the blood of Christ entring into Heaven , or by Christ entring Heaven once with his own blood . 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] comes of [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Copher in Hebrew , which signifies a price or gift offered to a Judge or an Enemy to deliver one from Death , or some other evil or punishment , and it 's called a Ransome ; in this respect Christ is said to give himself [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] [ Lytron ] a Ransome , 1 Tim. 2. 6. and Matth. 20. 28. In that place it 's such a price as is given to a Judge , who hath power of Life and Death for to save the life of one capitally guilty , and by Law bound to suffer Death . The effect of this price is , 1. To propitiate the Judge . 2. Upon this propitiation made to save the lise of the party guilty . In this place [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is the effect of this price , and is turned Redemption , Expiation , Remission , Propitiation . It 's true , that the word may signify many other things , and any kind of deliverance from evil . But , in this place , it 's evident , that it signifies the deliverance of guilty persons from Death upon a price given and accepted . The party to whom this price was given , is God , as Supream Judge , before whose Tribunal man stands guilty and liable to Death . The effect of it is propitiation , which includes satisfaction of divine Justice , and merit of his favour and love : Upon this propitiation , sin becomes remissible and pardonable ; therefore Redemption and Propitiation are sometimes by a Metonymy taken for Remission , according to that of the Apostle , In whom we have Redemption through his blood , the forgiveness of sins , Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. In both which places the latter word seems to explain the former : Yet Redemption is not Remission properly and actually , but [ efficienter ] , as the effect is said to be in the cause before it exist , because of the virtue and power , which abiding in the cause , is sufficient to produce the effect ; and Christ must make sin by this Redemption remissible , before it can be actually remitted . 2. This Redemption and Propitiation is said to be eternal , not because Christ is always redeeming and propitiating ; for that work was performed speedily and in a short time : But it 's such , because the virtue of it is of perpetual continuance in respect of all Sinners capable ; of all sins according to the Laws of God-Redeemer remissible ; and of the remission it self , which frees the Sinner from all his sins , from the eternal guilt and all penalties for ever . Upon this Redemption is grounded that comfortable promise of the New Covenant formerly mentioned , Chap. 8. 12. where God binds himself to remember our iniquities no more , that is , to give eternal pardon . This adjunct of perpetuity is added to difference this Redemption and Expiation from that of the Law , which must be made atleast every year . It did but extend backward to sins of one year , and the force of it presently expires . 3. This was found and obtained by Christ , as by his own blood entring once into the holy place . None could make this propitiation but Christ , neither could he do it , except he enter the holy place ; Neither by that , except he enter with blood , his own blood . But if he enter with that blood but once , then the work is done for ever . Why this Expiation and Propitiation should be made by blood , and Christ's blood , you have heard already : But why with his blood must he enter the holy place ? and how , being entered by and with this blood , propitiation should be made [ for us ] , as Translators by adding these words understand and supply the place , though more difficult , yet is to be cleared . 1. Some tell us that , because [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is the Aorist tense , consignifying time past , eternal Redemption and Propitiation was found and obtained first , and then afterward he entred the holy place . And it 's true , that when Christ had suffered Death , the principal work was done , and the foundation of eternal Remission was laid : Yet if Death , and shedding of his blood , obtained eternal Redemption before he entred Heaven , at lest in his Soul separated from his Body ; then the Type and Anti-type did not agree . For the legal Redemption and Expiation was not made instantly upon the slaying of the Coates and Bullocks : but before the work could be finished , and sin expiated , the High-Priest must take the Blood and Incense and enter the Holy of Holies ; and first burn the Incense , and then sprinkle the blood upon , and before , the Mercy-seat : without both which done , neither his own sins , nor the sins of the People could be expiated . In all bloody and propitiatory Sacrifices were required [ Mactatio & Oblatio ] the death of the thing Sacrificed , and the offering of it to God ; and the blood must not only be shed , but in the Law it must be sprinkled either upon the horns of the Altar without , or upon and before the Mercy-seat within the second Vail . The blood being shed , was the death of the thing Sacrificed ; and the sprinkling of it upon the Altar or the Mercy-seat , was the presenting it to God. These both did signify , that life must go for life , and the blood wherein is the life must be presented to God as Supream Judge , and accepted of him before the work of Sacrificing could be finished and made efficacious . Therefore Christ's Sacrifice could not be compleated , except he be not only slain on Earth , but present himself as slain before the Mercy-seat of God in Heaven , and both the suffering and offering must be with Incense and Prayer requesting eternal Redemption . Whether he did miraculously take some or all his blood shed , as some conceit , into Heaven ; is not necessary to be believed , except it be evident out of Scripture unto us , that he did so . Some Socinians affirm and inferr from hence , that Christ was not a Priest till he entred Heaven ; because though his Suffering was on Earth , yet his Offering was in Heaven . But this is ridiculous , and not worth the answering . For though this work of Sacrificing was not finished before he entred Heaven ; yet it doth not follow , that he was no Priest before that time , because this great Sacrifice was not finished . For Aarou must be a Priest , before he can minister in the Tabernacle , much more before he enter into the inner Sanctuary with the expiatory blood . The Socinian doth not assert any entrance of Christ into Heaven , but that only one by and upon his Ascension ; yet Christ was made a compleate Priest instantly upon his Resurrection . For from these words , [ This Day ( which was the day of Resurrection ) have I begotten thee , ] the Apostle proves Christ to be made a Priest , and that by those words . This is point-black against his assertion ; Christ may be , and was a Priest by Designation , Consecration , Constitution , Confirmation . He was designed from his Birth , yet more solemnly upon his Baptism ; he was consecrated by his great Sacrifice , he was fully constituted and made a compleate Priest upon his Resurrection ; he was confirmed Priest by Oath upon his Ascension and Session at the right hand of God. He must needs therefore be very ignorant that shall think , that he was no Priest before this confirmation in Heaven . But , 2. How was this propitiation made , and this eternal Redemption obtained [ for us . ] It 's said he gave himself a Ransome for all , 1 Tim. 2. 6. That he gave his life a Ranson●● for many , Matth. 20. 28. That he was delivered for our Offences , Rom. 4. 25. That he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only , but also for the sins of the whole World , 1 Joh. 2. 2. And more fully in the Prophet , All we like Sheep have gone astray , we have turned every one to his own way , and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all , Esay 53. 6. Out of all which places , especially the last , we may observe , 1. That Christ suffered , and by his blood entred Heaven for man. 2. For man as sinful . 3. To make God propitious to us for ever . 4. God in this is to be considered as a Judge punishing us in him , and by laying the iniquities , that is , the punishments of the iniquities of us all upon him . 5. He did not suffer not offer for his own sins ; for God made him , who knew no sin , sin ( that is , a suffering or propitiatory and redemptory Sacrifice ) for us , so that the benefit redounds to us . 6. Seeing he suffered for sin , though not for his own , his Death was a punishment in proper sense . 7. The blood of Christ shed and offered to God as Supream Judge , was the price of our Redemption , and the immediate effect thereof was eternal propitiation . 8. In this work , Christ by God's appointment , and his own voluntary submission , became our Surety and Hostage , and so liable to Death . That God did punish sin in him , was justice ; that he did punish our sins in him , was mercy unto us : It 's true , that God considered as a private person , and as the party offended was merciful , and pityed Man ; but as supream Law-giver and Judg of Mankind , he must be just , and punish Sin ; that , his Justice being satisfied , he might have free and full power to pardon Sin , and that without any breach of Justice . The Intention of the Apostle in this Text is , to prove and make it evident , That this Service and Sacrifice was far more excellent than the greatest Service the Levitical High-Priest could or did perform : This super-excellency is set forth in respect 1. Of the Blood , which was not that of Goats or Calvs , but his own Blood. 2. In respect of the place into which he entred , which was not an earthly Sanctuary , but the Holy place of Heaven . 3. And most of all in respect of the Effect , which was not a yearly Expiation , but an eternal Redemption . In Form he argues thus , That Service wherein by his own Blood he enters Heaven but once , and obtains eternal Redemption , is more excellent than the Service of that Priest , who enters often with the Blood only of Calvs and Goats into an earthly Sacrary , and obtains but a yearly Remission . But Christ's is such , and the Levitical High-Priest's Service but such as is formerly described . Therefore Christ's Service is more excellent . § . 12. The Apostle goes on , and proves by a second Argument , that the Service and Ministry of Christ is far more excellent , and that in respect of the Effect which it hath vertue to produce . The former Effect was Propitiation or Expiation ; this latter and second is cleansing or Purification : This , as the former , is delivered by way of Comparison , and the Comparison is in Quantity , yet presupposing another in Quality . The whole may be reduced to Propositions in this manner , 1. The Blood of Bulls and Goats , and the Ashes of an Heifer , sprinkling the unclean , sanctify to the purifying of the Flesh. 2. The Blood of Christ , who , through the eternal Spirit , offered himself without Spot to God , purgeth the Conscience from deād Works to serve the Living God. 3. If the Blood of Buls and Goats , and the Ashes of an Heifer , sprinkling the unclean , sanctifieth to the purifying of the Flesh ; then much more doth the Blood of Christ , who , through the eternal Spirit , offered himself without spot unto God , to purge the Conscience to serve the Living God. The Comparison in quality is between the Blood of Buls and Goats ; the thing wherein they are compared and do agree , is purging and sanctifying . The Comparison in quantity , presupposing also a dissimilitude in this , that one doth sanctify the Flesh , the other the Conscience , is this , That if the one hath power to purge and cleanse the Flesh , the other hath much more power to purge the Conscience . To proceed unto particulars , the parts of the Comparison are two : 1. The Proposition . 2. The Reddition ; The first Ver. 13 , the second , Ver. 14. In the first , we have the Cause , the Blood of Bulls and Goats , and the Ashes of an Heifer ; then the Effect , sanctifying , to the purifying of the Flesh. Of the Blood of Bulls and Goats , which is the same with the Blood of Goats and Calvs , Ver. 12. you have heard before ; for that was the Expiatory Blood , wherewith the Priest , entring the most Holy place , did sprinkle the Mercy-Seat ; and the Effect of this was the Expiation of the Sins of the Priest and the People , whereby they were freed from such penalties as the Law imposed upon persons for some Legal and Ceremonial Offences . The second purifying was by the Ashes of a red Heifer , mixed with running Water , and sprinkled upon Persons or things polluted by touching or being near the dead : Of this you may read at large Numb . 19. The Effect of both was sanctifying , by cleansing from some Legal pollution and Guilt ; but neither of these could free any person from the Obligation to eternal penalties , nor spiritually purify and make holy the Spirit and Soul of Man. Some think that the Blood did signify the Death and bloody Sacrifice of Christ , the Water the sanctifying Spirit : Yet both are here compared with the Blood of Christ as Shadows of it . This is the Proposition . § . 13. The Reddition followeth , Ver. 14. Where we have two absolute Propositions , and part of the Comparison . 1. That Christ offered himself through the eternal Spirit without Spot unto God. 2. That the Blood of Christ , who thus offered himself , doth purge the Conscience from dead Works , to serve the Living God. 3. The Comparative part is , that it hath much more Power , or doth much more purge the Conscience . The first Proposition is , Christ , through the eternal Spirit , offered himself without Spot unto God. Where we may consider , 1. The Priest. 2. The thing offered . 3. The manner how . 4. The thing by which . 5. The Person to whom the Offering was made . 1. The Priest was Christ , the Word made Flesh , and the Son of God , designed a Priest by God. 2. The thing offered by this Priest was Himself ; that is , his own Life , his own Body , and some add , his own Soul. This was spoken in opposition to such things as the Levitical High-Priests offered , as Buls and Goats ; for none of them offered either other men or themselvs . 3. The manner how this was offered is this , that it was offered without Spot : The thing offered , and the Offering , and the manner of offering , were all pure . 4. That , by or through which he made this Offering , was the eternal Spirit . By Spirit , some understand the Soul , which is said to be eternal , because it 's immortal . And certainly , in respect of his Body , he may rather be said to be the thing offered , and in respect of his Soul , the Priest offering : For this offering is said to be the doing of God's Will , and an Act of Obedience unto death , the death of the Cross ; and this is a proper Act of his immortal Soul and Spirit : Yet this Soul and Body too were united to the Word , which as God was an eternal Spirit ; in which respect , some understand by eternal Spirit , the Word and Divine Nature of Christ : And both Soul and Body were in the highest degree sanctified and supported , especially in suffering death , by the Holy Ghost , which some think is here meant . It 's certain , he did offer himself by his immortal Spirit , sanctified and supported by the Holy Spirit , and united to the Word , which with the Father and the Holy Ghost are one God and eternal spiritual Substance . 5. The party to whom he offered himself was God , as supream Lord of Life and Death , Law-giver and Judg of Man-kind : For he alone had power to appoint him to be Priest , to be Offering , and to offer ; and also to accept this Offering in behalf of sinful Man , and thereupon to justify him believing , and reward him with eternal Life . All these are expressed and joyned together , to set forth the Excellency and the immanent and internal Vertue of Christ's Blood : For , How excellent , and of what rare vertue and causality , must that Blood , Death , Sacrifice , be which was the Blood of Christ , who was by God's own immediate Commission and Designment made the highest and the greatest Priest , and offered Himself , the best Sacrifice that ever was , and that through the eternal Spirit , purely spiritual , and most holy , and impolluted , and that unto God the supream Lord and Judg : and in that manner , that the very Act of offering , from first to last , was most exactly conformable to his Will ? It had all the perfections of a Sacrifice , and in the highest degree . The Levitical High-Priest was a Priest , but far inferiour to Christ ; he offered Goats and Calvs , but not himself , and if he had offered himself , yet the thing offered had been nothing to this ; he offered indeed to God , yet he had not that near Relation unto , Agreement with , and Interest in God , as this Priest had : He offered by or through his own Spirit , which was very imperfect , and the imperfections of his very Act of Offering were very many and great . Therefore it was no wonder , that it should not have the like rare efficiency with this . The second Proposition in this Verse is , That Christ's Blood doth purge the Conscience , &c. This is the outward Efficacy and Working of this Blood upon a certain Subject rightly disposed . In the words we may observe , 1. The Conscience , which is the Subject . 2. The pollution of the Conscience . 3. The purging and cleansing of it . 4. The ●ind and Consequent of this cleansing . 1. The Conscience is the Spirit and immortal Soul of Man , which is [ Intimum Hominis ] the in most and most excellent part ; yet this is not here considered meerly as a spiritual , immortal , intellective , and free Substance , created and preserved by God , but as subject unto his Power , bound by his Laws , conscious to it 's own Disobedience , and sensible of it : For the Blood of Christ doth actually purge no other Soul , nor any Soul , but thus qualified ; neither without this Qualification is the Soul immediately capable of this Purgation . 2. The Pollution of the Soul is from dead Works , where , by dead Works , it 's generally granted are meant Sins , and that not only of Commission but Omission . All the Works of Man should be living Works , and issue from a Soul endued with a spiritual and supernatural Life , have a spiritual and supernatural Form , which is Conformity to Divine Law , and should tend unto a supernatural and spiritual end . When they either issue from a Soul destitute of this heavenly Life , or want this Conformity , they are dead Works , base , and such as becomes not so excellent a Creature . The ordinary Reasons given by Authors , why Sins are called dead Works , are , because they are the Works of men dead in sin , want the Life and Form of Holiness , and merit death and Punishment ; or because men are dead and sensless of them , and so continue in them : Yet the Apostle seems to allude in this to the Pollutions by the dead , whereof we read Num. 19. 18. For he that touched a Bone , or one slain , or one dead , or a Grave , was legally unclean and polluted . In every sin we commit , our Soul doth come too near unto , or morally and spiritually doth touch , something that is base , vile , and far below it self , and so debaseth and defileth it self , and makes it self not only guilty , but unholy and unfit for having any Communion with God. 3. To purge this Conscience is , to free this Soul thus conscious of sin from the Guilt and the Impurity , and other sad Consequents of Sin , so that thereupon the Sinner is neither liable to Punishment , or debarred from Communion with God. This purging is not only Justification , but that which is called Sanctification and inherent Holiness , without which no Man shall see God ; the want whereof , if we consider it as following upon a former demerit , is the greatest Punishment of all other : For , if we could imagine a Man pardoned and freed from the Guilt of former sin , and left inherently polluted and unsanctified , he must needs remain in a sad condition . But we cannot truly thus imagine , if want of the sanctifying Spirit be a Punishment for former Sin : If we be once thus purged , there is no more Conscience of Sin once pardoned , no fear of God's wrath , nor of the eternal penalty ; for we , being once purged , have peace with God , quiet of Conscience , and hope of Glory . 4. To serve the true and living God , following upon the purging of the Conscience , is a special priviledg . To understand this more distinctly , we must know , that under the Law , whosoever was polluted by the presence or touch of the dead could not enter into the Congregation , with the rest of God's sanctified People , for to worship , or have any Communion with , God. If he should dare and presume to enter before he was purged or purified , he defiled the Tabernacle and Sanctuary of God , and that Soul must be cut off , Numb . 19. 13 , 20. That which answers unto this Priviledg is , the liberty of free access with boldness and confidence unto the Throne of Grace , to offer up our Prayers , Thanks-giving , and other Services unto God propitiated and reconciled , so as to be accepted , and receive Mercies and Blessings from him : For , being justified and sanctified , we do not fear God as a severe Judg , we do not stand at a distance or fly from him , but come near unto him as Children to a loving Father . This same Service of the true and living God , who is Light most pure and holy , doth presuppose us justified , sanctified , reconciled , adopted . There are degrees , as of this cleansing , so of this serving God ; for we are not cleansed fully from all Sin in this Life , but we shall be in the Life to come , and then we shall have full Communion with our God , and serve him far more perfectly in the glorious Temple and Sacrary of Heaven . This is the purging of the Conscience in it self : Now we must consider it , as an Effect predicated of the Blood of Christ the Cause ; for it being so noble and excellent an Effect , must have some rare and noble Cause . The Cause therefore must be Blood ; yet no Blood , but this Blood of Christ , with which he entred into the Holy place of Heaven , after it was shed , will serve the turn , or reach this Effect ; yet this is not an immediate but a mediate Effect of this Blood thus shed and presented to God : For , one immediate effect , antecedent to this is expiation and satisfaction of God's Justice , whereby Sin became pardonable . And if Christ had not obtained and found eternal Expiation by this blood , he could never by it have purged the Conscience . Yet this blood hath this power first , and then doth exercise it , when he finds a Subject rightly disposed ; which is a Conscience sensible of sin , and appealing to the Throne of Grace , where it pledges this blood of Christ. So that this purging actually considered , presupposeth the blood of Christ shed , offered , accepted as a sufficient propitiation , and the Sinner to be purged , penitent , and believing . This seems to be signified by that Ceremony of purification described and prescribed , Numb . 19. For he that was once polluted and unclean , must be willing , desirous , and careful to be cleansed , with the ashes mixt with water sprinkled upon him . The blood of some Sacrifice did expiate , the ashes with water sprinkled did cleanse . So the blood of Christ shed and offered , doth expiate sin so far as to make it remissible , and the sprinkling of that by the Spirit upon the penitent and believing doth purge . The third Proposition in this verse is , that much more doth the blood of Christ purge the conscience ; that is , 1. It purgeth the conscience . 2. It purgeth it effectually and fully . But joyn this with the former , and then we have the substance of the whole in one proposition , which you heard before ; and the Apostle in the words argues to this purpose , If the blood of Bulls and Goates , &c. had power of sanctifying the Flesh , then much more the blood of Christ doth purge the Conscience : But the blood of Bulls and Goates , &c. did sanctify the Flesh. Therefore much more the blood of Christ , &c. doth purge the Conscience , &c. This place implies , that the expiations by Blood , and purifications of the Law could neither satisfy God's Justice , nor purge the Conscience from spiritual filth and guilt of sin ; yet the blood of Christ could do both . And here we must seriously consider the excellency of the blood of Christ , the wonderful purging efficacy thereof , and the unspeakable mercy of God in providing this remedy , and setting open this fountain to wash and cleanse away our sin . O blessed blood ! O happy man ! O come to this Fountain , wash and bathe thy self here every day . Here the wrath of God is quenched , the tormenting conscience quieted , the filthy Soul washed , and prepared for the communion with her God. But we are ignorant of the virtue of this blood , sensless of our sins , careless of our purification , and so presume to enter into God's presence , and defile his Tabernacle , and bring his wrath upon us . But before I leave this Text , something further must be said concerning the efficacy of the blood of Buls and Goates , and the ashes of an Heifer ; also of the efficacy of the blood of Christ. For it must be enquired , whether the efficacy of both depend meerly upon divine Institution , o● upon the nature of the Causes . 1. That neither is Physical will be granted . 2. That the purifying efficacy of the blood of Goates and Bulls , and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean , did depend meerly upon the will and positive Institution of God will not be denyed . For neither the blood , nor ashes , nor sprinkling had any moral , spiritual , intrinsecal virtue : They were all , in themselves considered , indifferent things , and a fit matter and subject of some positive Law. 3. The offering , and also the shedding of the blood of Christ were , in respect of Christ acting and officiating in both , purely moral , and divine in the highest degree of Service . For , his suffering of Death for the sin of man , at the Command of his heavenly Father , was the highest degree of obedience that ever was performed to God. There was in it so much love to God , so much love of Man , so much self denial , so much humility and patience , and such a resignation of himself to God , as never could be parallel'd . It was so excellently qualified , that it was , in a moral sense , most powerfull to move God to mercy , who is so mightily inclined to mercy of his own accord . It was most pleasing unto God , and most highly accepted of God considered in it self . But seeing it was the suffering of a party different from man guilty , ( who was bound himself to make satisfaction , or to suffer according to the Law transgressed ) ; that it should be so far accepted of God , as to make the Sinner pardonable , and that certain pardon should follow upon Repentance and Faith , depended upon the free will of God , who , in strict justice , might have refused any satisfaction offered him in behalf of man , who deserved to dye , and might justly have been condemned to eternal Death . It was one thing to accept the service and obedience in it self , and another thing to accept it so for sinful man , as to determine such inestimable benefits should follow thereupon , and accrue to the sinful guilty Wretch . The Socinian upon the Text is very muddy and obscure ; And , 1. Though he deny Christ's satisfaction and merit , yet he confesseth that the shedding of the blood of Christ , even of its own nature , had force and power to procure unto Christ all power in Heaven and Earth , and all judgment and arbitrament of our Salvation , and to produce in us the cleansing of Conscience . This is not only obscure , but , if well examined , false : For what is it [ of its own nature to procure ? ] For if he mean by the word [ procure ] merit upon satisfaction , it 's true , that by his blood he satisfied and merited ; but both these he denies . If he understand that , of it own nature , it did so procure this power and this effect , so as it did solely or principally depend upon the will of Christ as Man ( for he denies him to be God ) , and not principally and solely upon the will of God , it 's false . Here I must demand , What difference he makes between procuring and meriting , and also take occasion to shew the nature of meriting , which is a moral act , upon which some good or reward doth follow , not necessarily , and [ exnaturá rei ] , but voluntarily , according to the will of him in whose power the reward is : but of this else-where . 2. He puts a difference between Christ's Priest-hood and his Mediatourship , and makes his Mediatourship to end with his Death , and his Priest-hood there to begin . But the Apostle makes no such difference , but in this Epistle he takes Mediatour and Priest for the same . That his Mediatourship should end , and his Priest-hood should begin with and upon his Death , I will believe , when he can prove it , which he can never do ; for there is not the least ground for it in the Word of God ; and it must needs be false upon this account , that both are the same . 3. He affirms , that the blood of Christ takes efficacy and force to purge fin , from the subsequent oblation of Christ in offering himself in Heaven ; and this he not only here , but else-where doth often assert . But , 1. It 's very clear and certain , that the total resignation of himself unto the will of his heavenly Father , and his willing suffering of Death , the voluntary laying down of his life , the making himself a whole Burnt-offering , was properly the oblation of himself . This was on Earth , this was the great act of Obedience , the great Service that was so acceptable to God , wherein Christ shewed himself a mirrour of so many heavenly virtues . The representing of himself slaln in Heaven was not this offering , nor the appearing before his Fathers Throne upon his Ascension : The Scripture no where affirms it , he cannot instance in one place for this . And though God did require it , yet it was not the meritorious act ; therefore never let him , or any of that party , delude us with his false and groundless notion of offering himself in Heaven . By his Death Christ did satisfy and merit ; by his Resurrection and Ascension he makes his Death effectual unto us , both by revealing the Gospel , and sending the Spirit to work Faith in us , and make us capable of remission and eternal life ; and by his Intercession and pleading his blood , he obtains actual pardon , and in the end full fruition of eternal life . This is the meaning of those words , [ Who was delivered for our Offences , and rose again for our Justification , ] Rom. 4. 25. 4. He tells us , that Christ was filled with the eternal Spirit ; that is , with the power of God , which clarified him from all mortality , and made him eternal , subject to no destruction . ] This is a strange fancy of his own , and invented because he is so great an Adversary to Satisfaction . And , 1. He saith , that eternal Spirit is the power of God , which he so understands , as that he denies him to be God. 2. The power is either God himself , or some active power , whether natural or supernatural created by God in some of his Creatures , or an act of God extrinsecally supporting and preserving something creued . Now that which made Christ's Sacrifice and Suffering so acceptable to God , and so efficacions , was the sanctifying power of the Spirit , enduing him with such heavenly virtues , and supporting him in this great Service of sacrificing himself . For if he had not received a divine and supernatural active power of holiness and righteousness inherent in his Soul , which so strongly inclined and moved him to obedience in greatest temptations , and had been extrinsecally supported by him ; this Offering had never been so acceptable to God , nor efficacious to purge the Conscience . And this was a far more glorious effect of the Spirit then to make him immortal , and bring him into Heaven . For this immortality and entrance into Heaven were Rewards , not Virtues ; and only made way for the exercise of his Regal and Sacerdotal Power , in the Palace and Temple of Heaven . 5. He saith , that by the Offering of Christ is signified his singular and only care for the Expiation of our Sins , and for our Salvation . Where it is to be observed , 1. That he understands this of Christ , as entred by his Ascension into Heaven . 2. That by Expiation , he means Remission and Sanctification , without any respect unto Propitiation and Satisfaction by blood antecedent . 3. Christ's offering of himself is a religious Service performed unto God , as Supream Lord and Judge offended with sinful man , yet willing upon certain terms to be merciful unto him ; And one condition , which performed , he will accept , is , that Christ as Surety for man , should suffer Death for man , to satisfie divine Justice . In this respect is he said to give himself a Ransome or Price : How far different this is from the offering here described , is easy to understand . The word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is used about sixteen times in this Epistle , but never taken in his sense ; which is so absurd and unworthy , that no rational man , as rational , much less a Christian and a Schollar can any wayes approve , but reject with scorn . The rest of his discourse upon this Text is like his description of Christ's offering ; and by it he seeks to cast a mist upon the divine Doctrine of the Apostle , lest he should confound himself , and suffer his Reader to see the truth . Dr. Gouge , upon this Text , affirms Christ to be a Priest in both natures , which cannot be true ; for though he that is Priest be God , yet , as God , he is not , he cannot be , a Priest. For a Priest is an Officer , and all Officers , as Officers , are made such by Commission from the Supream Power , from whom they derive their Office , whom they represent , and are Servants under them to serve them . There are two prime and proper acts of Christ as a Priest , to Sacrifice and offer himself to God as Supream Lord , and to make Intercession to him . To attribute either of these to God as God , and affirm them of him in proper sense , is plainly blasphemous , and inexcusable ; it turns the Lord into the Servant , and God into Man. § . 14. Hitherto the excellency of Christ's Sacrifice and Service hath been manifested by two glorious and excellent effects ; the one immediate , which is Expiation ; the other mediate , which is purging the Conscience from Dead Works . The former made Sin pardonable , and the Consequents thereof removable ; the latter actually takes away Sin , and the Consequents thereof in him who believeth . Besides these two , there is a third effect shewing it to be yet more excellent , and that is confirmation of the New Covenant : for thus he writes , Ver. 15. And for this cause is he the Mediatour of the New Covenant , that by means of Death for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Test ament , they which are called might receive the promise of eternal Inheritance . ] THe subject of this Verse is the confirmation of the New Covenant , by the Death and Sacrifice of Christ ; which is affirmed here , and illustrated from ver . 16. to the 23. afterwards . And here the Coherence is , 1. To be examined , 2. The Text in it self to be considered . The coherence with the former , is in these words , [ And for this cause ] . The Copulative [ and ] may be , as in other places , expletive ; or it may be used to signify , that the Death and bloody Sacrifice of Christ , as it was ordained for another end , besides the two former of Propitiation , and purging the Conscience ; so it hath another and a third effect , which is , The confirmation of the New Covenant . For this is to observed , that he speaks and still continues his discourse of the Death and Blood of Christ. The words , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , for this cause , which are turned by some [ therefore ] , may referr either to that which goes before , or that which follows . If to that which goes before , then they inform us , that because Christ by his Blood entring the holy place of Heaven , obtained eternal Remission , and by it offering himself through the eternal Spirit without spot , doth purge the Conscience to serve the living God ; therefore , and for this cause , and in respect of these two effects , is he the Mediatour of the New Covenant . If they relate to that which follows , they are to be understood in this manner , That because by the Death of Christ the Called receive the promise of eternal Inheritance , therefore he is the Mediatour of the New Covenant . This is the Coherence ; The absolute consideration of the Text followeth , wherein we have two principal express Axioms or Propositions ; 1. Christ is the Mediatour of the New Covenant . 2. By means of Death for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant , the Called might receive the promise of eternal Inheritance . 3. Christ is a Mediatour of the New Covenant , that by means of Death for Redemption , &c. the Called may receive the promise , &c. In the first we have , 1. A New Covenant . 2. A Mediatour of this New Covenant . 3. Christ the Mediatour . 1. The New Covenant is that of the Gospel , whereof you have heard in the former Chapter , where it was opposed unto , and compared with , the Old Covenant made with the Fathers in the Wilderness , Exod. 19. as established upon better promises . And that word which was there turned Covenant , is turned Testament ; not that there is any necessity , but a conceived congruity . For because here is mention of an Inheritance , which is usually conveyed by the Will and Testament of man , which Will is then firm and unalterable , when the Testatour dieth ; therefore it was conceived by some , that in this place , that which formerly was called a Covenant , should be called here a Testament : yet notwithstanding it agrees with a Testament , and may by a Metaphor be so termed ; yet it is more properly a Covenant . 2. We have a Mediatour of this Covenant ; and what a Mediatour is , you have heard before , as also the distinctions of Mediators . Some tell us , that a Mediatour is [ aut ●untius , aut sequester pacis , aut arbiter , aut sponsor ] : yet we need not insist upon these terms , for the Mediatour of this Covenant is a Priest and a Minister of it , as the High-Priest was of the former Covenant . 3. This Mediatour is Christ , who may be said to be Nuntius à D●o , Intercessor pro h●mine , Arbiter inter utrumque , Sponsor pro utroque : and he is a Messenger declaring the Covenant as a Prophet , an Arbitratour between God and Man as a King , a Surety and Intercessour as a Priest. Yet though all this said , may be in some respect true ; yet it 's neither accurate , nor pertinent in this place . Christ as a Priest , and as a Priest officiating and offering himself a Sacrifice to propitiate God , and purge the conscience of sinful Man , is the Mediatour of this Covenant . For as such and in this respect he mediates between God and Man , to propitiate God , and to make man fit for the receiving of the eternal Reward promised ; and both these he doth by his Blood and Death ; without which offered and applyed , the promise would be void , and never take effect . It 's true , that Christ doth procure the Covenant , declares it , confirms it , and makes it effectual ; and in all these respects he may be said to be a Mediatour . Yet here he is made such principally and most properly as confirming and making it effectual . Moses , and not Aaron , was the Mediatour in the making and confirming the Old Covenant . For he dealt between God and the People as a third part ; 1. In making the Covenant , in signifying God's Will unto the People , and returning the People's Answer unto God , Exod. 19. 2. 2. In confirming it by Blood , as an indifferent distinct person , Exod. 24. To which place the Apostle doth allude , as we shall understand hereafter in the illustration . This is the meaning of the first Proposition , The second may be divided for explication , and made two . 1. Christ by means of Death expiated Transgressions under the former Covenant . 2. By means of this Death the Called receive the promise of eternal Inheritance . The first implies , 1. That there were Transgressions under the former Covenant . 2. That there was a Redemption of these Transgressions . 3. This Redemption was by the Death of Christ. The first is clear enough ; for Moses , Aaron , David , and the Saints of God from the times of Moses till the exhibition of Christ had their sins , much more others not sanctified . The second cannot be doubted of ; for if there was no Redemption of those Sins and Transgressions , then they could not be saved , they must suffer eternal punishments , as they did temporal . By Redemption here is meant Expiation and Propitiation , whereby their sins were made remissible , and , upon certain terms and conditions performed , actually to be remitted . The third will be granted in general , that the Expiation was by Death and Blood ; but that they were expiated by the Blood of Christ , many of the Jews denied . Yet if they had understood the Books of Moses , they might have known that the Blood of Bulls and Goats could not expiate the Sin of Man , a rational and immortal Creature , not free from the eternal Punishment : Some Legal frailties and infirmities they might expiate , and avert some temporal penalties . Therefore there must of necessity be some other Death and Blood that must do it : And this was the Blood of Christ , which all their Ilastical Sacrifices and Lustrations did typify : Yet this is not so to be understood , as though their Sins were not remissible and remitted , till Christ dyed and offered his Sacrifice ; for by vertue of this Death fore-seen and fore-accepted , they were in their Life-time , upon their Repentance , Faith in Christ to come , and their fervent Prayers pardoned . They did not rely upon their Legal Sacrifices , nor expected Remission from them , but relyed upon this Death of Christ to come , according to the Promise , That in him all Nations should be blessed . This Proposition is not to be understood exclusively , ( as though Christ's Death did expiate no Sin but that , which was committed under the first Covenant , ) but emphatically , to singnify , 1. That there was no Expiation for Transgressions under the Law. 2. That if Christ's Death expiate former Transgressions under the Law , much more will it expiate such as are committed under the Gospel . 3. That there was no reason , as some observe , why they should be offended with the Death of Christ , seeing without his Death and Blood , neither they , nor their Fathers , could be saved , but must suffer eternal penalties . The second part of this second Proposition informs us , that 1. There is an eternal Inheritance . 2. There is a Promise of it . 3. The called receive this Promise . 4. By means of Christ's Death they receive this Promise . For , in the words we have an Inheritance , the Heirs , the Conveyance , the Purchase , or rather the price whereby it 's purchased . The Inheritance is eternal Happiness , the Heirs are the called , the Conveyance is by Promise and Covenant , the price of the purchase is Christ's Death and Blood. 1. The Inheritance is that blessed and glorious Estate , which is to be enjoyed upon the Resurrection ; for the full possession and enjoyment is reserved for Heaven , where it 's said to be laid up and reserved . It 's said to be eternal in opposition to the Land of Canaan , which was the temporal Inheritance of them and their Fathers , and to be enjoyed with the Blessings thereof so long as they kept the Covenant of their God ; and this was the Inheritance promised in the former Covenant , and to this which formerly was called God's Rest , the Apostle seems to allude , as a Type of this which was far more excellent and glorious , of eternal continuance , in respect of the Inheritance it self , the parties enjoying it , and the enjoyment thereof . 2. This eternal Inheritance was promised , there was a Promise of it : It was God's , and the disposal of it was at his Will. Man for his sin was cast out of Paradise , and forfeited Heaven , with the eternal Bliss thereof ; yet it was in his mind to give it sinful Man , who deserved it not , so great was his mercy and bounty ; and Man must know this : For this end he promised it , and by his Promise bound himself to give it , and in it did signify his Will. The Effect of this Promise was Obligation on God's part , and a Right unto it on Man's part , & an Hope to obtain it , and a Comfort upon this Hope . And here it 's to be observed , that our Title to eternal life depends immediately upon the Promise , and is derived from it ; for , as the Israelites had the Land of Canaan , and held it by Covenant and Promise , so do all the Children of God expect the heavenly Canaan , and hope to have it by Promise of the new Covenant . Some do ' understand by the Promise of eternal Inheritance , this Inheritance promised ; yet there must be a Promise received , before we receive the thing promised . 3. After the Inheritance , and the Promise , and Conveyance , follows the Heirs , which are here said to be the called . Some are not called at all ; these have no Promise of the Inheritance : Such were the Gentiles before the Gospel was preached unto them ; they were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise , having no Hope , and without God in the World , Ephes. 2. 12. Some are called , and have the means of Conversion , but reject the terms of the Covenant , and refuse to enter into it , and engage themselvs ; such were the unbelieving Jews , and many others . Some are called , enter the Covenant , and solemnly bind themselvs to the observation of it , yet do not observe it . In respect of these two last it is that Christ saith , Many are called , but few are chosen , Matth. 22. 14. None of these are Heirs . Some are called , and are obedient to the heavenly Call , and keep the Covenant ; these receive the eternal Inheritance promised , and first acquire the Title , and after that the Possession . Some were called before the Exhibition of Christ , some after ; the former are here principally meant , though the latter with them receive the Inheritance . 4. These called Ones of former times , with us , receive this Promise by vertue of Christ's Death expiating their sins , and of his Blood purging their Conscience . To understand this , you must consider , that none , but such whose Sins are expiated , and their Consciences purged , can be Heirs ; for they must be regenerated , and acted by the Spirit , and adopted Sons , before they can be Heirs . For , as the Apostle argues , If Sons , then Heirs , Rom. 8. 17. so may we likewise say , If no Sons , then no Heirs . None can be Sons that are not justified ; none can be justified which believe not in the Death and Blood of Christ ; there can be no Belief in this Blood , if not shed . This Death and Blood of Christ , 1. Expiates sin , and makes it remissible . 2. Merits the eternal Inheritance promised , and the Promise too . 3. It merits the Spirit , to enable Man to keep the Covenant , so as to obtain and receive the Inheritance . 4. It merits a Power in Christ , 1. To reveal the Gospel , and give the Spirit to work Repentance and Faith in sinful Man's heart . 2. Upon Repentance , and Faith , and his Intercession , a Power to give Remission , and the eternal Inheritance . Take away this Death , this Blood , there is no Expiation of Sin , no Inheritance , no Covenant ; and suppose a Covenant and a Promise , yet it 's ineffectual , & invalid , without this Blood , this Death : For , all the heavenly Promises are made for and in consideration of this Blood satisfying his Justice and meriting his Favour ; so that without it they are all nothing to purpose , neither without it can the called , though obedient to the heavenly Call , ever have any Right unto , or Possession of , eternal Life : So that the whole strength and efficacy of the Covenant doth depend upon this Blood ; for by it our Sins are expiated , and our Consciences purged , so as to be capable of the Inheritance . This is a most clear Text , to prove that the Saints , even under the Law , were called and saved , and that not by the Ministry and Sacrifice of the Levitical Priests , but by the Blood of Christ , the vertue whereof extended to former times , even the times of Adam . Neither did they trust in their Sacrifices , and their Priests , and the Blood of Bulls and Goats , and their Water of separation , but in the Blood of Christ ; yet their Faith was very implicit . The third Proposition is , Christ is the Mediator of the new Covenant , for this Reason and for this End. An excellent Covenant must have an excellent Priest and Mediator ; and seeing this Covenant doth promise eternal Remission , and an eternal Inheritance , it requires such a Priest as shall be able by his Ministry and Service to obtain this Remission and Inheritance : This no Priests , by their Sacrifices or any other Service , could do , but Christ could ; and therefore not they , but He , and He alone , was made the Mediator of this new Covenant : For , by his Death he expiates sin , and purgeth the Conscience , so that the called receive the Promise of eternal Inheritance , and the vertue of this Death is universal in respect of time and persons called . The Sum of all this , is , That Christ , by reason of his Death and Blood , expiating Sin , and purging the Conscience , is the Mediator of the new Testament or Covenant , to confirm and make it effectual to the Heirs of the Promise . § . 15. This Confirmation of the new Covenant is illustrated from a two-fold Similitude ; the one is taken a Jure Naturali , the other a Jure Ceremoniali . The first is taken from the Law of Nature , ( for to it the Civilians refer the Rules of Testaments and Wills , ) and is delivered Ver. 16. For where a Testament is , there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator . Ver. 17. For a Testament is of force after men are dead ; otherwise it is of no strength at all , whilest the Testator liveth . THis is an imperfect and contract Similitude ; for the parts thereof , as of all Comparisons , are two : 1. The Proposition . 2. The Reddition . And yet the Proposition is only expressed , and the Reddition is only implyed , and to be supplied from the antecedent Context . In the Proposition we may observe two things : 1. The necessity of the Death of the Testator barely asserted , Ver. 16. 2. The Reason thereof rendred , Ver. 17. The Argument in Form may be this , That which is not of force whilest the Testator liveth , that necessarily requireth the Death of the Testator to make it of force : But a Testament is not of force whilest the Testator liveth . Therefore it requireth , to make it of force , the Death of the Testator . The Assumption is expressed , 1. Affirmatively , A Testament is of force after men who are Testators are dead . 2. Negatively , It 's of no strength whilest the Testator liveth . The Comparison at large is this : As the Death of the Testator is necessary to make the Testament of force , so the Death of Christ is necessary for to make the new Covenant of force : For , though Christ might in some respect be a Mediator of the new Covenant , yet he could not make it valid , firm , and effectual , without his death ; neither we under the Gospel , nor the Fathers under the Law , could without this Death be saved by it . And as the death of the Testator gives full force and efficacy to the Testament , and this Confirmation is an Effect of his Death ; so the Death of Christ gives full force to the new Covenant , and makes ●● effectual ; and this validity and efficacy is an Effect of this Death of Christ , and manifests the excellency of this Sacrifice , and of Christ the Priest who offered it . The things compared as like , are , the Death of Christ , and the Death of a Testator : The things wherein they agree are , 1. The like Effect of both , which is , to confirm and make effectual some Instrument . 2. The necessity of both for that end , to confirm and make effectual . § . 16. The Propositions in the first part of the Comparison are these , 1. There are Testaments of men . 2. These are not of force whilest the Testators live . 3. They are of force upon the Death of the Testators . 4. The Death of the Testators is necessary to make them of force . 1. The matter of all Testaments is a temporal estate , of these earthly Goods , which God hath given Man to preserve this temporal Life . The Testator is one that hath a just Title unto these Goods , so that he hath power to dispose of them : The Testament it self is the manner of disposing these Goods , so as to give the same Right which he had in them unto other Persons after his Death ; and therefore it must signify his Will concerning these Goods , and nominate the Persons who must succeed him , so as to have them . And because it 's an Act of Reason so to do , therefore the Testator ( when he makes his Will ) must be Compos mentis , and have the Use of his Reason , and also sui Juris , and not under the power of another . The end of it , is , to prevent future suits and dissensions and Injustice about his Estate : The Light of Nature doth teach men thus to dispose of their temporal Goods , and therefore they are of ancient and universal Use. 2. These are not in force whilest the Testators live ; and the Reason of this is , not only because whilest they are living they have need of , or do use , their Goods ; and though they make their Will in their life-time , yet they have power to change and alter them , but chiefly , because in a Will the Inheritance is so alienated and transmitted to others , as that they can have no Right unto it but upon the Death of the Testators , who signify in their Wills what their Heirs shall have , not whilest themselves are living , but only when they are dead . If any alter these after they are dead , the alteration is void , because it signifies not the Will of him that is dead . 3. They are in force only upon the death of the Testators : This is that wherein the death of Christ and of a Testator do agree , and for which the Author made this Comparison , for Illustration of his former Doctrine . To be of force , is , to be valid and firm , so as to give an immediate Title unto the right Heirs , upon whom the Testator's Right actually descends . The Reason of this legal force and validity is , not only because there is no possibility of Alteration , but also because the Testator being by Death disseised of all Right and Possession of any temporal estate in this Life , the time signified in the Testament is come , wherein the Heir may challenge his Right , and the Will may be put in execution . 4. The necessity of this Death to make the Testament valid , is evident from what hath formerly been said : The Reddition of this Comparison hath been already made ; and from all this we learn , that though a Testament and the new Covenant are like in this , that as there must be the Death of the Testator for to make the Testament valid , and the Death of Christ to make the new Covenant of force , yet they are unlike and different in many other things : For the Death of the Testator doth not purchase the Inheritance , norexpiate the Offences of the Heir , yet Christ's Death doth both . Therefore the new Covenant is not a Testament in proper sense , but is so called metaphorically . A L●pide and others labour to make it a Testament , but all they can say is to little purpose : Others again endeavour to prove a Testament to be a Covenant , and from hence infer , that the new Covenant is a Testament ; yet this is vain and needless . For , all that can be said in this Point , if we will follow the Apostle and the Scriptures , is , that for matter of Confirmation , the new Covenant and a Testament agree in this , that both are confirmed by Death and Blood : For , as the Testator hath no intention to give his Inheritance , and part with the Title or Possession , before he dy ; so , God did never intend to give Remission and eternal Life , which he promiseth in the new Covenant , but for , and in the consideration of , Christ's Death , by which they were purchased and merited ; and if Christ had not dyed , the Promises had been in vain , and of no force . Therefore the Death of Christ is the Foundation , Life , and Soul of the new Covenant ; not only unto those who were called after his Death , but also unto those who believed before his Death and Exhibition : Yet this Comparison may be made , and so intended by the Author , as to signify , that Christ's Blood is of far greater force to confirm the new Covenant , then the death of the Testator to confirm a Testament made by him ; for the former is of divine , the latter but of humane constitution ; and the former can no wayes be violated , the latter may be many wayes made void . § . 17. The second Illustration is a Jure Ceremoniali , from the positive Ceremonial Law of Moses , instituted by God , and that for several Ends , and amongst the rest , for Confirmation of the Covenant . Purification of things and persons . The Apostle instanceth in both , and first in the Blood of Confirmation , Ver. 18 , 19 , 20. Where we must consider , 1. The Conneion . 2. The words themselvs . The Connexion we have in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , turned unde , itaque , propterea , in Latine , and in English , Whereupon . The sense is this , Seeing the best way of Confirmation and firmest Sanction of Laws , Covenants , Testaments , is by Death and Blood , and judged so to be by God himself ; therefore it seemed good to him to confirm the first Covenant by Blood , and by that did even then intimate , that the far better Covenant to succeed should be confirmed by far better Blood. And therefore none should think it strange , that the new Covenant should be confirmed by the Death and Blood of Christ , seeing it was the usuall and onely way of confirming Testaments , according to the Custom of the Eastern Nations ; and besides , the first Covenant was so confirmed . That it was so , the Apostle 1. Affirms . 2. Proves . He affirms it Ver. 18. Whereupon , neither was the first dedicated without Blood. VVHere we have 1. The first . 2. The Dedication of the first . 3. The Dedication of it by Blood. 2. By first , we must understand the first Covenant which God made with Israel in Mount Horeb. 2. By Dedication is meant , the Confirmation and the solemn Sanction of the same : For it was 1. Made between God and Israel , Exod. 19. 2. Then Laws given as certain Articles and Conditions to be observed by the Peeople , were revealed , and afterwards written . 3. Both Laws and Promises were read and assented unto . 4. The whole Covenant thus compleated , was confirmed Exod. 24. That which is dedicated unto God , by vertue of the Dedication becomes sacred and inviolable , and so this Covenant upon the Confirmation was . In this respect , that which is Dedication in respect of persons or things , is Confirmation in in respect of the Covenant . 3. This Dedication was by Blood ; for that way of Dedication or Confirmation is the highest , most solemn , serious , and firm ; for stronger cannot be . For using of Blood , for sanction of Leagues and Covenants , seems to signify that the parties confederating engage Blood and Life for the observation of them . Whereas it 's said , That [ neither without Blood ] , which may seem to be Negative ; It 's the same with this , [ and with or by Blood ] , which is Affirmative ; and the Copulative signifies , that not only Testaments of Men , but the first Covenant of God was thus confirmed . § . 18. That which he affirmed , he proves Ver. 19. For when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People , according to the Law , he took the Blood of Bulls and Goats , with Water and scarlet Wooll , and Hysop● , and sprinkled both the Book and all the People . Ver. 20. Saying , This is the Blood of the Covenant , which God hath enjoyned you . THe substance of this we find , Exod. 24. And we need not trouble our selves either in the Omissions or Additions of the Apostle ; for the Omissions may be easily supplyed from the place of Moses , and the Additions are there implyed , and here expressed for explication . In the words themselves , we may observe , 1. The action of Confirmation . 2. The words 1. The Action is sprinkling of Blood : The Sprinkler was of Scarlet Wooll , and Hysope ; for the Sprinkler used in the Passover was a bunch of Hysope , Exod. 12. 20. The blood was the blood of Calves and Goats with water ; for such were Sacrificed for Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings . The things sprinkled with blood , were the Book , wherein the Covenant was written , and out of which it was read ; and the People who engaged themselves in the Covenant . The time was , when Moses had spoken every Precept to all the People , according to the Law : For the Covenant must first be made , before it could be confirmed . And this sprinkling upon the People , was the confirmation of the Covenant on the People's part , as the sprinkling of it upon the Altar was the confirmation on God's part . This was the action , described more fully then we find it in Exod. 24. 2. The words are added to the action , to signify the use and end of that sprinkling , which is to ratify the League and Covenant . For in these words we have , 1. A Covenant enjoyned by God. 2. The Blood of this Covenant . The History informs , 1. Of a Covenant made . 2. This Covenant enjoyned by God unto Israel : It 's said to be enjoyned both because God having made and instimted it , by Moses commanded it to be entred into , and confirmed by the People ; but also because in this Covenant there were certain Precepts , which were Articles and Conditions , the observation whereof God did stipulate and require at their hands . In Moses Exod. 24. 8. it 's said to be the Covenant which God had made with them ; and he is said to make it not only because he was the Authour of it , but also because in it he was the principal party covenanting and binding himself unto the People by his promises , which are so made , that they prerequire the performance of the Precepts from them , if they will either avoid the penalties threatned , orattain the Blessings and Rewards promised . 3. This Covenant once made must be confirmed by Blood , and this Blood sprinkled . For the meaning of the words , [ This is the Blood of the Covenant ] , is this , That this is the Blood by which this Covenant is confirmed and made inviolable . And as this , so the New Covenant is confirmed by Blood ; as is evident from the words of our blessed Saviour , in the Institution of the Eucharist , saying , This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood ; which is shed for you , Luke 22. 20. 1 Cor. 11. 25. Or , This is my Blood of the New Testament , which is shed for the Remission of the Sins of many , Matth. 26. 28. Mark 14. 24. Where we have , 1. A Now Covenant . 2. The Blood of this New Covenant , or the New Covenant in this Blood , that is , this New Covenant confirmed by Blood , or Blood confirming this New Covenant . 3. This Blood is the Blood of Christ shed for Remission of Sins . This Remission of Sins is one principal Blessing promised in this New Covenant ; yet this promise had been in vain , and to no purpose , if Christ's Blood had not been shed to satisfy divine Justice , and make Sin remissible . For though Man should repent and believe , yet his Sin could never have been actually remitted , if not by this Blood made remissible . So that this Blood of Christ is the firm and immovable basis , upon which the Covenant is fixed . Both these Covenants agree in this , that they were confirmed by Blood , and to manifest this is the intention of the Apostle ; and though the confirmation of both be the same in general , yet as the Blood , so the manner of confirmation was very different . § . 19. As there were several Ceremonials instituted by God for confirmation , so there were some ordianed for purification ; therefore it followeth , Ver. 21. Moreover he sprinkled with Blood both the Tabernacle , and all the Vessels of the Ministry . Ver. 22. And almost all things by the Law are purged with Blood : and without sh●dding of Blood is no Remission . IN these words , with those that follow in the next Verse , we have an explicate and full comparison in quality ; and both the parts are expressed . For we find , 1. The Proposition in these words . 2. The Reddition , ver . 23. In the Proposition we may observe , 1. The sprinkling of several things with Blood. 2. The effect of this sprinkling , which was purification . 3. The necessity of this sprinkling for Remission . 1. Several things were sprinkled with Blood , the things thus sprinkled are either named in particular , as the Tabernacle and the Vessels of the Ministery , or signified by a more general term ; yet with some diminution and abatement . The general term is [ all things ] , the abating Particle is almost ; which signifies , that many and the greatest part of them by far were sprinkled with Blood ; yet not all , but some were excepted , and were sprinkled and cleansed with water . 2. The end of this was purging : We do not read of the sprinkling of the Tabernacle with Blood in the Books of Moses ; we find , that Aaron and his Sons , with their Garments and the Altar were sanctified by Oyl and Blood , Lev. 8. 38. Neither do we find there signified , or here expressed by the Apostle what kind of purging or sanctification this here mentioned is ; There is a purging of Consecration , of Sanctification or Explation . Consecration is a separation from common use ; Sanctification is a purging from pollution ; Expiation is a freeing from guilt . These two last seem here to be understood , at least principally ; yet we may distinguish between the cleansing of things and persons . Things may be considered as common or polluted ; as common , they are purged by Consecration ; as polluted , by re-consecration . Persons are impure , and as such , they must be sanctifyed ; or guilty , and as such they must be restored by expiating Blood sprinkled . Some give the reason , why things , as the Tabernacle and Vessels and other things must be purged by by Blood to be this , because man being himself polluted , polluteth those things which he useth ; and this is something , though not all that may be said in this particular . 3. The necessity of this sprinkling is , because [ without Blood there is no Remission . ] Where we have , 1. Blood shed . 2. Remission . 3. No Blood shed , no Remission . 1. By Blood shed , we must understand the Blood of some living thing to be Sacrificed , and this Blood shed upon the slaying of the Sacrifice , and not only shed , but usually sprinkled before it could purge . 2. Remission may be Consecration in respect of things , and Expiation and Sanctification from pollution in respect of persons . For Remission is not here to be taken strictly , for freeing a person from guilt and obligation to punishment : Neither is it in this place any cleansing from spiritual pollution of the Conscience , or freedom from the spiritual and eternal penalties ; but it 's only a Legal Remission of Legal guilt and impurity . 3. If where there is no Blood shed , there is no Remission ; then it follows , that unto Remission Blood shed is necessary , not only as an antecedent to a consequent , but as a cause to the production of an effect . It 's true , that the causality is not naturall , but morall : By this God even then did signify that Blood was necessary , not only for confirmation of the New Covenant , but also for the purification of the Called Covenanteers . And therefore there could be no reason why these Hebrews of the Jews should be offended with the Death of Christ , seeing it was so useful and so necessary , not only for Expiation , but for purging the Conscience from dead Works , and confirming the New Covenant and Testament . And here two things are observable , 1. That if this Blood should not expiate Sin , and purge the Conscience , the Covenant could not be firm to the Called , so as to receive the eternal Inheritance . For if the Inheritance be not purchased and me●ted , and the Called justified from sin , they can have no title or right unto it ; and if not sanctified and cleansed from the pollution of sin , they cannot be capable of it , so as to enjoy it . 2. This Blood was necessary for the Expiation of the sins , not only of them who live after it was shed , but also of those who lived under the Law. For under it there was no Blood of any Sacrifice that could expiate sin as polluting the Conscience , and making the Sinners liable to eternal punishments ; and as it could not expiate , so it could not purge the Conscience , though sprinkled with it . § . 20. The Reddition or Application followeth , Ver. 23. It was therefore necessary , that the paterns of things in the Heavens should be purified with these , but the heavenly things themselves with better Sacrifices then these . THe sum of these words is this , That as it was necessary , that earthly and carnal things and shadows should be purified by the blood of these carnal Sacrifices , for the confirmation of the first Covenant ; so it 's necessary , that spiritual and heavenly things should be purified with the blood of better Sacrifices then these , for the confirmation of the New Covenant . This Reddition is made by a repetition , in brief , of the former proposition and protasis of the Comparison . So that in these few words we have the full Similitude : whereof there be two parts ; The first , Is the necessity of purging the Types and Shadows . The second , Is the necessity of purging the Anti-types . Both agree in this , 1. That they must be purged . 2. They must be purged with the blood of Sacrifices . 3. There is a necessity of purging , both with the blood of Sacrifices . Yet they differ , 1. In that the one are earthly and carnal Types . 2. In the purging , as well in the things purged . For the first are purged with earthly carnal Sacrifices , suitable to their nature ; the second with far better Sacrifices . The whole may be reduced to two Axioms or Propositions . 1. It 's necessary , that the paterns of heavenly things should be purified with these . 2. It 's necessary , that the heavenly things should be purified with better Sacrifices then these . Yet there is a third implyed , and that is , As it 's necessary for the one to be purged with these , so it is necessary the other should be purged with better . The disposition of the Text seems to be Diano●tical , and the argumentation in form to be this ; If it was necessary , that the paterns of things in Heaven should be purified with these ; then it 's necessary , that the heavenly things should be purified with better Sacrifices then these . But the first was necessary . Therefore the second is so too . From all this we understand , that the Apostle inferrs the necessity of purging heavenly things , from the necessity of purging earthly ; and further , that if the purification of the Types was necessary , then the purification of the Anti-types , with better Sacrifices , was much more necessary . This is the reason why the Apostle brings in this Text by the illanve [ Therefore ] : which is to be understood , to follow the proposition , and to go before and bring in the Reddition . In the first Proposition we have , 1. Things in Heaven . 2. Paterns of things in Heaven . 3. The purifying of the Paterns . 4. The purifying of them with these . 5. The necessity of purifying them with these . 1. By things in Heaven , are meant heavenly things , as appears in the latter part of the Text , and by heavenly are meant spiritual and more excellent things . We read of Jerusalem above , Gal. 4. 26. and of the heavenly Jerusalem , Chap. 12. 22. of this Epistle . And this is the Church , which is first Militant , and then Triumphant ; which is first from Heaven , then in Heaven . 2. The patterns of the things in Heaven are such things as were Signs , Images , Shadows , and imperfect Representations of things in Heaven : For [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] the word in the Original signifies Signs and Images , which represent , though but darkly , other things . These are not Patterns in proper sense , but things that do sub-demonstrate or obscurely signify some other things : They are called Examples and Shadows , Examples and Shadows of heavenly things Chap. 8. 5. where it's observable , that the very word which is there turned Example , is here turned Pattern . And Chap. 10. 1. it 's said , The Law had a Shadow of good things to come . These Shadows , Signs , and Figures were the Tabernacle , the Vessels , with many other things , which under the Law were purified with Blood. 3. What the purifying of these was , you have heard before ; for it was Consecration , Expiation , Sanctification , whereby the things purified , of unholy were made holy . 4. These were purified with these ; that is , with Scarlet Wool , Hyssop , Water , Blood , Ashes ; and the principal of these was Blood ; and this Blood was the Blood usually of Bullocks and Goats , which was ordained by God to be the Blood of Expiation and Sanctication . So , outward and carnal things were purged with outward and carnal Blood , and both the things , the Blood , and the Purification were Mystical , and did signify some spiritual and more excellent things , Blood , Purification . 5. There was a necessity why these things should be so purified ; Where we may consider , that not onely the Purification , but this purification by these was necessary . The necessity did arise from God's Institution and Command , that these things and shadows should be purified , and purified by these things : And if these things must signify persons and things guilty and polluted by Sins , which God would have purified , then in this respect also there was a necessity , because otherwise there had been no Agreement between the Types and Anti-Types . § . 21. The second Proposition is , That it 's necessary the heavenly things themselvs be purified by better Sacrifices than these : Where we must examine , 1. What these heavenly things be . 2. What these better Sacrifices are . 3. What it 's to be purified by these . 4. How this is necessary . The heavenly things themselvs are some better and more excellent things ; for as Heaven is far above the Earth , and more glorious , so heavenly things must be some better and more glorious than earthly . The one are bodily and corruptible , and the other spiritual , incorruptible , and immortal , in comparison whereof the best things under the Law were but Shadows . These spiritual and heavenly things principally intended , are the Consciences , and immortal Souls of men , which being purged make up the Body of the Church , which is Militant first on Earth , and after that to be Triumphant in Heaven . 2. The better Sacrifice , above the former , is the Sacrifice of Christ , and the pure unsported Blood of him , who offered himself by the eternal Spirit to God. The purifying vertue of this Sacrifice was in this , that Christ the Son of God , innocent , holy , righteous , as Surety and Hostage of Man-king appointed to be so by God , did deny himself , took up the Cross , shed his Blood for to expiate the Sin of Man , and was obedient unto death , the death of the Cross : For him , so excellent , to suffer death so willingly , for so glorious an end , and that at the Command of God , was the highest and purest degree of Obedience that ever was performed unto God , and was highly accepted , and did fully satisfy divine Justice , so far as was required . In the offering of this Sacrifice , he gave himself wholly to his heavenly Father , and became , as it were , a whole Burnt-Offering , being wholly consumed with the Zeal of his Father's Glory , and the Love of Man-kind . And here it is to be noted , upon the By , That though in the Text we read Sacrifices , in the plural number , yet this one Sacrifice of Christ is onely meant . Estius thinks it's an Enallage of number , the Plural for the Singular ; for the Sacrifice whereby heavenly things are purified , is but only one , once offered : Yet it may be called Sacrifices , because it had more vertue than all other purifying Sacrifices , and also because it was one of those expiating Sacrifices , which were offered unto God , yet more excellent than all the rest . It 's like that expression of J●phtah's Butial ; for it 's said , he was buried in the Cities of G●lead , that is , one of the Cities of that Country which was Mizpeh , as some think , Judg. 12. 7. 3. For the heavenly things , and the Consciences of men to be purified , is , to be freed from Sin , that is , from the Guilt and Dominion of Sin , which is to be justified and sanctified , as these words are usually taken . This Purification is vertual or actual ; for when the Blood of Christ was shed , offered , and accepted , for the Sins of men , then they may be said to be purified virtually , as upon the death of Christ we are said to be reconciled , because made reconcilable . And when by Faith this Blood is sprinkled upon our Consciences , and pardon obtained by Christ's Intercession for peni●ent and believing Sinners , then they are said to be actually purified , and when they are wholly freed from all the Guilt and Power of Sin , then they are perfectly purified . 4. This Purification by this Sacrifice was necessary ; for supposing God's Will and Decree concerning the eternal Happiness of sinful Man in Communion with his God , it was necessary Man should be purified ; for otherwise he could have no fellowship with God , so as to derive eternal Happiness from him : For , as God is Light , and just , and holy ; so they must be Light , just , and holy , who shall see and enjoy him . And because no Sacrifice but this of Christ could thus qualify him , therefore it was necessary both that he should be purified , and purified with this Sacrifice . § . 22. Thus far you have heard of the necessity of the death of Christ , for the Confirmation of the Covenant , illustrated by Similitudes , taken from the Law of Nature , and the Ceremonial Law of Moses : Therefore the Jews , except they were very ignorant , could have no cause to be offended with this death upon the Cross , seeing it was so necessary to the purchasing of the eternal Inheritance , and the purging of mens Consciences , that they might be capable of the Possession , and have a Title unto it ; for the ground of the Promise from whence the Title is immediately derived ; is this Sacrifice , without which the Promise was never made ; neither , if it had been made , could it without this have been valid . But let 's consider what follows ; for he saith , Ver. 24. For , Christ is not entred into the Holy places made with hands , which are Figures of the true , but into Heaven it self , now to appear before God for us . THese words , considered absolutely in themselvs , seem to be plain and easily understood ; but the coherence is doubtful . Some , and amongst the rest Es●ius , takes little notice of it , as not much material . Many others , finding the causal Conjunction [ For ] , do agree , that in these words the Apostle gives a Reason of something that went before ; but they differ much in the particular Explication of the Reason . Dr. Gouge conceivs , that the Apostle's intention is to prove , that the Sacrifice of Christ is more excellent than the Sacrifices of the Law ; and this is true , but yet imperfect . Beza thinks , that the Author in this Text begins another , and a new Collation or Comparison to prove the excellency of this Offering ; and this cannot be denyed . Dr. Lushington , who is said to be the Translator of Crellius , tells us , that here is proved , That the Heavenly places are purified by better Sacrifices ; and that because Christ entred not into the earthly Sanctuary , but into Heaven it self . This doth presuppose , that Heaven it self is purified by the Blood of Christ , and that Christ entred thereinto for that end : But this is difficult to understand , and supposeth that which few will grant him . A Lapide differs from all these , and saith , that the Apostle gives in this Text a Reason , why he called the Church heavenly , or heavenly things ; and that is , because Christ entred into Heaven to unlock the Gates and open the Doors thereof , that the faithful might enter thereinto : This is not so clear and satisfactory , though it hath something of Truth . To find out the Connexion , we must observe , 1. That the Conjunction for , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is sometimes expletive and redundant . 2. Sometimes the same that but or moreover is . 3. That though it be called by the Grammarians a Causal , yet it doth not alwayes imply a Cause , but it 's used to bring in any other Reason or Argument ; and therefore might be called a rational Conjunction : Yet Whittington in his Grammar saith , that a Causal Conjunction signifies the Cause or Order of that which goe● before ; where he implies , that it doth not alwayes joyn the Cause and the Effect . 4. Let it be taken for a Conjunction , which joyns these words to the former so as to contain a Reason ; we must consider what was formerly ●ffi●med , and how it 's here proved . To this end , let us remember , that the Subject of the former discourse was Purification or Expiation of things by Blood of Sacrifices ; and these things are earthly and carnal , or spiritual and heavenly : Of these latter he affirmed , that it was necessary they should be purified with better Sacrifices . The manner how he proves this is this ; He , presupposing that these heavenly things must be purified , proves , 1. That they were purified by better Sacrifices , because they were purified by the Sacrifice of Christ. This Reason 1. Presupposeth and taketh for granted , that Christ's Sacrifice is better than those of the Law ; but not content to suppose , he proves it to be better , because Christ by it entred Heaven , and it once offered was of eternal vertue . 2. He proves the necessity implicitly ; for here it 's implyed , that no other Sacrifice in the World could purify them : For earthly Sacrifices could not purify spiritual and heavenly Persons . Or , more briefly thus ; It was necessary that the heavenly things should be purified by the Sacrifice of Christ , but that was better than all the Levitical Sacrifice . It was better , because by the Blood thereof Christ entred Heaven , and it once offered had vertue to purify not here expressed for ever : This Reason implies several things , as 1. That it was the Will of God , that the Types and Anti-Types should be purified . 2. That though the Types and Figures might be sufficiently purified by the Blood and Sacrifice of Bulls and Goats , yet heavenly things which were the Anti-Types could not . 3. That only the Sacrifice of Christ was sufficient and fit to purify these heavenly things . 4. That it was God's Will that this , & this alone should purify them . From all this , it 's evident how these words come in upon the former , and also what they add unto them : For formerly the Author had made a Comparison whereof there were two parts , 1. The Proposition . 2. The Reddition . The Proposition was this , That under the Law there was no Purification and Expiation of the Types and Figures without the Blood of Legal Sacrifices . The Reddition this , So there is no Purification and Expiation of the Anti-Types of heavenly things , without the Blood of some better Sacrifice , which is the Sacrifice of Christ. So that these words belong unto the Reddition , which formerly affirmed only in general , That the heavenly things must be purified with some better Sacrifice ; and here it 's added , that the only better Sacrifice , was the Sacrifice of Christ ; to which the Author , by vertue of the Comparison , must needs be understood to add a singular vertue of purifying heavenly things . § . 23. But to enter upon the Text , absolutely considered in it self , the Subject whereof is Christ and his Sacrifice ; we find in it 1. An Act of Christ , which is entrance into a Sanctuary . 2. The end of that Act , which is , to appear before God for us . To understand this , we must note , 1. That what is here done by Christ , was done in Figure by the Levitical High-Priest . 2. That this High-Priest , after he had slain and taken the Blood of Bulls and Goats , enters into the Sanctuary , within the second Veil . 3. That b●i ge●tred he appears before God for the People . 4. That , appearing before the Mercy-Seat , which was said to be the Throne of God , he sprinkles the Blood upon the Ark and the Mercy-Seat . 5. That by this and Prayer he expiates the Sins of the People , and procures a Legal Remission . These things give Light to the Text : For here 1. Christ must be considered as a High-Priest . 2. To be slainand crucified upon the Cross. 3. Having shed his Blood , to enter into Heaven . 4. Being entred , to appear before the Throne of God , the Supream Judg. 5. By his Blood and Death presented to God , to expiate our sins and procure Remission . But here it may be doubted , Whether the first or second Entrance and Appearance be intended , or rather both . For Christ first entred and appeared with his Soul separated from his Body , when the Veil of the Temple was rent , to signify the Entrance of the great High-Priest , having sacrificed himself , into Heaven : Of this you heard before . He entred the second time , when risen again and made immortal he ascended into the Heaven of Heavens ; where as a King he fits and reign ; at his Father's right hand , and as a Priest appears as an Advocate before his Father's Tribunal , and pleads his Blood for all his penitent Clients on Earth . Both may be meant , both purify , and the latter presupposeth the former : The former purifieth vertually , and by way of Merit ; the latter actually , by obtaining actual Remission . So that in these words we have 1. A Sanctuary . 2. An Entrance into it . 3. An Appearance before God. 4. An Appearance for certain Persons . 1. The Sanctuary is described negatively , affirmatively : Negatively , It was not any Holy place , or places made with hands , which are the Figures of the true : For the Levitical Holy places were made by the Art and hands of men , and were true Sanctuaries ; but they were not the true , but the Figures of them . They were ●laces , Holy places , and Figures , ( for so the word Anti-Types doth sometime signify , ) of far more holy and glorious places , where God did manifest his presence in a far more glorious manner . Affirmatively , It was Heaven it self , the highest and most holy and glorious place of all , sanctified by the special presence of God. Therefore this Sanctuary is not earthly but heavenly ; not the Figure , but the place figured ; the supernatural , celestial and eternal Bethe● . 2. Christ entred not into the figured Sacrary , but into Heaven it self , both the first and second time ; and it was expedient , that so he should do : For that was the place where God had appointed a special piece of Service to be done , even there and no where else . 3. He did not onely enter , but being entred did appear , and appear as a Priest , having offered his great Sacrifice , and now presenting himself as slain for the Sin of Man ; and after this appears again as immortal , and as a Priest to plead his Sacrifice for his People . And he , as a Priest , must appear , first as Mortal , secondly as Immortal ; and present himself before the Supream Lord and Judg , or else his Sacrifice is not compleat and actually effectual . 4. He dyed , he entred , he appeared , for us , sinful men and guilty : First , that Sin , our Sin , might be remissible ; and then the second time for us , though sinful yet penitent , that our Sins might be actually remitted , and both Souls and Bodies sanctified . § . 24. But it might be said , If Christ must expiate Sin by Sacrifice , as the High-Priest did ; he must often offer , often enter , as he did : For every Year , once at least , he entred and appeared with Blood before the Mercy-Seat . To this the Apostle answers , by way of Anticipation , That as Christ entred not into the earthly Sanctuary , so neither had he need , as the Levitical High-Priest , to offer himself , and often to enter into Heaven ; for one Offering in the end of the World , and one Entrance upon that Offering , with his Blood , was sufficient to take away Sin. The Apostle's words are these , Ver. 25. Nor yet that He should offer Himself often , as the High-Priest entreth into the Holy place every Year with Blood of others . Ver. 26. For then He must have often suffered since the Foundation of the World ; but now once , in the end of the World , hath He appeared , to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of Himself . THE Subject of these words , is , the Sacrifice of Christ whereby he entred Heaven it self ; and of this , it 's affirmed , That it was but once offered , and that by the one Offering of this one Sacrifice , the heavenly things were purified by taking away Sin for ever . This single Offering of this single Sacrifice is set forth by way of Dissimilitude and Opposition to the Levitical Sacrifices , and that 1. Negatively . 2. Affirmatively . Negatively , Ver. 25. wherein we have two Propositions , the one concerning the Levitical , the other concerning Christ's Sacrifice . The first , concerning the former , is , That the Levitical High-Priest entreth into the Holy place every Year , with the Blood of others : This is meant of the great Anniversary Sacrifice of Expiation , which in the beginning of this Chapter the Author singled out , as the greatest and highest piece of Service that was performed under the Law , with this design , to prove the Sacrifice of Christ to be far more excellent in many things , especially in the vertue and effects thereof . In this we have 1. The entrance of the Priest into the holy place . 2. This entrance made with the blood of others . 3. This entrance yearly , or every year . 1. The holy place was that within the second Veil , the holiest of all ; for into that the High-Priest alone might enter , and that but once every year . 2. Yet he might not enter without blood ; and this blood was the blood , not of the High-Priest himself , but of others , that is , the blood of Bulls and Goats . 3. The principal thing in the Proposition to be noted , is the frequency of his entrance and offering , for he entred and offered every year ; God thereby signifying , that it was not of eternal virtue . The second Proposition is , That Christ did not offer himself often : He must offer , and offer himself , and by his own Blood enter Heaven : yet he must not do this often , his offering must be single and individual , both in respect of the Sacrifice and the oblation thereof . He must not , once entred , come out again , and offer a new and another Sacrifice , or the same again . So that the thing that is denyed of this Sacrifice , is frequency of offering . § . 25. In the latter part of the Text , ver . 26. we may observe , 1. The reason why this Sacrifice must not be reiterated . 2. The affirmative part of the principal point . Yet the whole verse may be said to give a reason of the former Negative proposition , and the same is two-fold : The first is , [ ab absurdo . ] The second , [ ab inntili & ●●●-necessario . ] For Christ's offering must not be reiterated , 1. Because it was inconvenient and absurd . 2. Because it was no wayes profitable or necessary . I will sum up the whole in two Propositions . The first , If Christ should offer himself often , then must he often have suffered since ●●●● the foundation of the World. The second , But now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin o●●●●● by the Sacrifice of himself . The first Proposition implyes , 1. That where there is offering , there must be suffering ; for in sacrificing living Creatures , the thing sacrificed must be sl●in , as well as offered : For , mactation and oblation are essential to such as Sacrifice . 2. That seeing there was Sin since the beginning of the World , and Sacrifice for Sin appointed by God , there must be suffering and offering from the beginning of the World ; or at least some Sacrifice offered ; which once presented to God , should be of eternal Virtue . 3. Because the offering of Christ requires necessarily his suffering ; therefore , if Christ's own offering of himself once could not expiate Sin for ever , then he must suffer often . The absurdity and inconvenience of Christ's frequent offering of himself was this , that if he must often offer , he must often suffer ; and this was thought unreasonable to divine wisdom , to put his Son so often to such a cruel Death . For by Suffering , is meant suffering of Death in that manner as Christ Suffered . Yet it seemed good unto God to appoint the Levitical High-Priest often to offer , and often with blood to enter into the holy place , to signify the imperfection of the Legal Expiation , that the People might expect a far more excellent sacrifice . In the second Proposition , concerning Christ's once offering , we may observe , 1. Christ's appearing . 2. The time of his appearance . 3. The end . 1. Christ's appearance is , 1. His Incarnation . 2. The manifestation of him incarnate . 3. The presenting of himself as a Priest , having Sacrificed himself unto his heavenly Father , without which his Incarnation and Manifestation had been to no purpose . He appeared from the foundation of the World , in the Word of the promise , and in Types and Figures ; yet this was but obscure . At length he appeared really , and far more clearly , when the Word was made Flesh , dwelt and lived amongst men , dyed , and , as a Priest , offered himself unto God the Supream Judge , for the Sin of Man. 2. The time of his appearance , was the end of the World , which is opposed to the foundation of the World. Yet as this end is not the last , so the foundation is not the first day of the World ; therefore end and foundation must be taken with a Latitude . Christ appeared to Suffer a thousand six hundred years ago and upward , and yet the World is not ended ; therefore End signifies the last times of the World , which may be many years yet to come , as many years of these last ●in●es , as parts thereof , are past already . And so the foundation of the World may be the beginning thereof , and this beginning may be so far extended , as to comprehend many hundred , and 〈◊〉 thousands of years . This end of the World is called the fulness of the time , Gal. 44. because , as some tell us , the time appointed by God was fully come ; all things , which were decreed to be before his coming , were fully accomplished . And though we understand not the reasons , yet the end of the World was the fi●●ell of all others for this appearance ; and though the last times seem to have the greatest benefit of his Exhibition , yet the first times were not without it : for the virtue of this Sacrifice extended to all times . 3. The end of this appearance , was to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself ; Where we have two ends , the one subordinate to the other : The first was the Sacrificing of himself : The second by this Sacrifice to put away Sin. Christ was the Priest , and the thing Sacrificed was himself ; and the blood , by which he entred Heaven was his own blood , and he himself was slain and suffered , and he himself did offer himself slain . The end , and so the effect of this Sacrifice once offered , was the putting away of sin . This putting away was not the abrogation of the Law transgressed , but a taking away the moral effects and consequents of Sin committed against that Law , and principally of guilt . For one certain and perpetual effect of Sin in respect of the prohibition and commination of the Law , is guilt , and rendring of the Sinner obnoxi●us unto vindicative Justice of the Law-giver and Judge . This guilt can no waye he taken away , but either by suffering , or pardon , or both , as here it 's put away by Christ's suffering , and God's pardon : for , Christ suffers for Sin , God pardons it so Christ's sake , and in consideration of his suffering and offering . The effect of Sin is to render the party sinning obnoxious and liable to punishment , and God's vindicative Justice , and by this virtue of the commination of the Law. God to make way for pardon , by a trans●endent extraordinary power , makes Christ man's Surety , and Christ voluntarily submits himself , out of love to his Brethren , to God's will , so far as to suffer Death for man's Sin , and offers himself as being ●lain to the Supream Judge . Upon his submission he becomes one person with sinful man , as a Surety with the principal , and so is liable to that punishment , which sinful man should have suffered , as a Surety becomes liable to pay the debt of the principal . From all this it 's evident , that Sin is an efficient moral cause of Christ's suffering , and Christ's suffering is a punishment in proper sense ; though both these be denied without any reason by the Socinian . By this Legal substitution of Christ , and the offering of himself , Sin is made remissible , and the way is made open to pardon , and upon the penitency and faith of the Sinner actual pardon follows . That Sin is pardonable and pardoned , is the end and effect of Christ's Suffering : To put away Sin , is first to make Sin pardonable , and the consequents of Sin removable . For this is the work and immediate effect of Christ's Sacrifice of himself , and the same not often but once offered in the end of the World. In all this we may observe the difference between Christ and the Levitical High-Priest : Christ suffers and offers himself , and enters Heaven with his own Blood ; but the Levitical High-Priest offers often , and enters with the blood of Bulls and Goats . The virtue of the High-Priest's offering was but for a little time , but the virtue of Christ's extends to all time : In these respects , Christ's Sacrifice is far more excellent , and more purifying . § . 25. This discourse of Christ's once offering , and once suffering , is continued and enlarged ; for the Apostle informs us , that the reason why Christ suffered but once in the end of the World , was the Decree of God , which had determined of Christ as he had done of other men ; and this decree was regulated by Divine Wisdom , which alwayes dictates that which shall be best and fittest . This Decree is two-fold , 1. Concerning other men . 2. Concerning Christ. And because there is some agreement between the lot of Christ and other Men , in respect of Death , and that which followeth Death ; therefore the singularity of Christ's Death is set forth comparatively : And of the comparison we have , 1. The Proposition . Verse 27. And as it was appointed unto Men once to dye , but after that the Judgment . ] IN which words we have , 1. Something 's ordained . 2. The ordination . The things ordained are two , 1. That men once dy . 2. Come to Judgment . The words absolutely considered , may be reduced to two Propositions . 1. That it 's appointed unto men , once to dye . 2. But after Death , follows Judgment . The first tells us , 1. That men dye , and this we certainly know . 2. That they dye but once . 3. That this is appointed ; yet though men must dye , and it 's so certain , and so evident and easily known ; yet men little consider it , but their hearts are strangely taken up with the things of this life , and they admire the vanities of this World , and promise unto themselves long life , and certain enjoyment of these earthly things . They do not remember , that they are mortal , and that there is no assurance , that they shall live one hour , before Death arrest them , and seise upon their estates , and all earthly comforts : in that day their thoughts perish , and their pride and glory are laid in the dust . Oh inconsiderate Wretches ! are ye able to conquer Death , turn Mortality into Eternity , and Earth into Heaven ? Be wise , and never forget that you must dye . 2. Men dye but once ; there is no return into this World again , neither any recovery of what man once dead hath lost . As no man can keep alive his Soul ; so no man can raise his Body , and re-unite the Soul unto it . This is a work proper to God , who made us ; and far above the power of any Creature . When it 's said , That men must dye , it 's to be understood of the generality of mankind , that all must dye ; because all are obnoxious to Death and Mortal , even Enoch and Elias , and all those who shall be found alive , when Christ shall come to Judge the World. And though the two Prophets did not , and they who remain till Christ's coming shall not , dye as others do ; yet the former suffered , and the latter shall suffer a change equivalent to Death , though in both there seems to be some exception from the general rule . So to dye but once , is the general rule , and the ordinary fate ; yet Lazarus , and others may dye twice , because God reserved an arbitrary power to himself , to raise some unto a mortal life , so that they became obnoxious to a double Death , and he did exercise this power to manifest his Glory in some particular persons . Yet this was an extraordinary case ; and this reservation did not take away the general and ordinary rule , according to which the Apostle is to be understood . 3. This is appointed ; for so the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is understood and translated , and it 's capable of that signification by a Trope . The party , who appointed , decreed , and ordained , both that all men shall dye , and dye once , and but once is not expressed , but it 's easily understood . For the Supream Lord of Life and Death , who hath an Universal Power over all Men is God , and none else ; and therefore this must be a Decree of God as Supream Lord , and a Sentence of him as Judge , and the same irrevocable ; yet dispensable in some particular and extraordinary Cases , as should seem good unto him . Death is a punishment , and therefore men being obnoxious unto it , must be guilty of some Crime , and condemned thereunto for some Offence against some Law threatening Death . And that was the positive Law , which God gave to Adam saying , But of the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil , thou shalt not eat of it ; for in the Day thou eatest thereof , thou shalt surely dye , Gen. 2. 17. This Law was transgressed , and the Sentence followed in these words , Dust thou art , and to dust thou shalt return , Gen. 3. 19. Whereas the Socinian saith , That Death is natural , and not from any Decree of God ; his Opinion is not reconcileable with that of the Apostle , As by one man Sin entred into the World , and by Sin Death ; and Sin reigned from Adam to Moses , Rom. 5. 12 , 14. And the wages of Sin is Death , Rom. 6. 23. Besides it 's said , That in Adam all dye ; that is , in Adam sinning ; ( for he was that one man by whom Sin entred into the World ) , 1 Cor. 15. 22. So that God appointed Man to dye , and to dye but once . The second Proposition is , That after Death , followeth Judgment . This is the second thing : For Death is first , Judgment the second ; and the word [ after ] signifies the order of time ; For Death goes before , and Judgment follows after . The party Judged is Man , the Judge is God , whose Judgment is particular or general ; particular of every particular individual person , general or universal of all . For there is the Judgment of the great Day , when all shall appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ ; and this Judgment is appointed of God , and appointed to follow after Death , after which follows the final and eternal estate of man , which shall be unalterable ; and by Judgment may be meant , not only the Sentence of the Judge , but the estate of the parties judged , which followeth thereupon , whether it be an estate of misery or of felicity . We live here , that we may prepare for this Judgment ; and we ought so to live , as that we may be happy for ever hereafter , and prevent the suffering of eternal punishments . Yet men do not believe that God will Judge us , and that Judgment will follow , and that unavoidably after Death ; or , if they do not believe this , yet they do not seriously consider it . This is the reason why they live secure in their Sins , and extream danger ; and this is the cause of their eternal ruine . It 's not material to enquire , whether the act of the Judge , or the estate of the parties judged ; or whether particular or universal Judgment be here meant or no. It 's certain , that this is a Judgment , which followeth after Death , and the final and universal Doom seems to be here intended , when both Soul and Body , the whole man , and all men that dye shall be judged : This is the proposition . § . 26. The Reddition followeth in these words , Ver. 28. So Christ was once offered to bear the Sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin , unto Salvation . ] THis Text informs us of the appearance of Christ , for that 's the subject of it . This appearance is two-fold , the first and the second ; and both these differ much , not only for the manner , but the end . The first was in Humility , and the end was to suffer , and by suffering to expiate Sin. The second shall be in Glory , and the end of it to give eternal Salvation to such as look for him . The first was to suffer and save , the second to judge and reward his faithful and obedient Servants . The propositions therefore are two : 1. Christ was once offered to bear the Sins of many . 2. Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without Sin , unto Salvation . The first is the same with that in ver . 26. But now once in the end of the World , hath he appeared to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself . The words differ , the matter is the same . For as there , so here two things are observable ; 1. The Sacrifice , the single Sacrifice of Christ. 2. The end of it . The single Sacrifice ; for Christ was once offered : the end , for he was once offered to bear the Sins of many . First he offered himself , this was an act of him as a Priest ; and , as he was the best Priest that ever lived , so he himself was the best Sacrifice , that ever was offered . The end was also excellent ; for he bare the sins of many , that is , the punishment due for the sins of many , and he bare this punishment to satisfy divine Justice , and procure God's favour to sinful man : We deserved the punishment , and he suffers it ; he is punished , that we may be spared . It was tender compassion in him to offer himself for us , and it was exceeding love in God to send and give him for to suffer , and so be the propitiation for our Sins . He bare the sins of all to make them pardonable , and the sins of many , even of all sincere Believers , that they may be actually pardoned for ever : possibility of pardon is the benefit of all , actual pardon of many , yet not of all . For Christ had no absolute intention to procure the Salvation of all , but of such as believe in him : yet the reason why all are not pardoned , is not from Christ's Death , which made the Sins of all pardonable , but from some other cause . And this is the condemnation of all those to whom the Gospel is preached , That Light comes unto them , and they love Darkness rather then Light. God hath given his only begotten Son , and his Son hath offered himself , and made the way to Heaven passible ; and remission of Sins and eternal Life are offered unto u ; upon fair and reasonable terms and conditions ; and though to corrupt Flesh and Blood they be difficult , yet they are made easy by the power of the Spirit ; yet we love our Sins more then our Saviour , and continue in them to our eternal condemnation . § . 27. The second Proposition is concerning his second appearance : For he shall appear the second time , where , as before , we have the manner and the end . The manner is Glorious , for he shall appear without Sin ; yet he never had any Sin , and in his first appearance he was without Sin. For Sin of his own he had not , yet he bare Sins , the Sins of others , the Sins of many : Yet these Sins were not his by Commission , but by Imputation so far as to be liable to Death ; For God laid on him the Iniquities of us all . So that [ without Sin ] is without suffering for the Sins of others ; He shall not come the second time to dye for our Sins , as he did the first : this is the genuine sense . When he came to Sacrifice for Sin , he came in great Humility , and took upon him the form of a Servant , and was obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross ; this low condition was suitable to the work he then undertook . But now he comes as King and Lord to judge the World and therefore he comes in Glory : The end of his coming is to reward , and the reward is Salvation , and the parties to be rewarded are such as look for him . By Salvation , is meant eternal Life and full Happiness , which he purchased by his precious Blood ; and it 's so called , because man in danger of eternal Death , shall then be fully saved and delivered from all Sin , and all the sad and woful Consequents of Sin , and that for ever ; for then Death , man's last Enemy , shall be destroyed . Yet this immunity from all evil cannot consist without the enjoyment of those glorious and eternal Blessings which God hath promised ; this is the great reward , which Believers do expect : and because they know they shall not fully enjoy it till his second appearance , therefore they look and wait for his coming from Heaven , that then their joy may be full . Some think the Apostle doth here allude to the manner and order of the Levitical Service ; which was this , The High-Priest enters the Sanctuary to pray and expiate Sin , and the People stay without , and wait for his coming out to bless them : So Christ enters Heaven , that glorious and eternal Sanctuary , there appears before God , and stayes a while , and all his Saints do wait and look for his return and coming out from thence , that they may by him be eternally Blessed . These Lookers for him are they , who shall be rewarded : For though Christ came the first time to dye for all , so far as to make their Sins remissible ; yet he comes the second time to conferr the ultimate benefit of his Redemption only upon them that look for him . To look for Christ from Heaven , doth presuppose the parties regenerate and renewed from Heaven , justified , and in the estate of justification , and as having a title unto eternal Glory , with a certain belief that Christ will come from Heaven and appear in Glory , and that then they shall be glorified with him . And this looking for Christ is their hope , with a longing desire , expressed sometimes by groans , and yet a patient waiting God's leisure , out of an assurance that he that shall come will come , and will not tarry . All this is signified by that of the Apostle , And not only they , but our selves also , who have the first Fruits of the Spirit , even we our selves groan within our selves , waiting for the Adoption , to wit , the Redemption of our Bodie , Rom. 8. 13. Where we have , 1. The persons waiting , or the expectants . 2. The thing waited for . 3. The act and manner of waiting . 1. The persons waiting are such as have the first Fruits of the Spirit , which is a certain measure of Sanctification and consolation ; for these are the beginnings of Heaven , where our holiness and comfort shall be perfect and full ; and these being but a little which bear the like proportion with eternal Glory , as the first Fruits do with the Harvest , do assure us , as an Earnest , of the full possession . 2. Adoption is said to be the Redemption of our Bodies , that is , the Resurrection , when our Adoption shall be compleat ; for then our minority being past , and the time appointed by our heavenly Father come , we shall be put into full possession of the Inheritance and glorious eternal estate , which God hath prepared for those that love him ; and this is that , which is called Salvation in this place . 3. The act of waiting is an act of hope , which resting upon the promise is assured and fully perswaded of the fruition of Glory in God's time , and looks often towards it , as our own . The manner of this waiting is with vehement desires , and longings , and g●oans ; and yet with patience . For because this blessed estate is so full of happiness , and yet to come , and only present in the first Fruits , therefore we earnestly desire and long for Christ's comming , saying , Come Lord Jesu , come quickly . And because for the present we are pressed with the remainders of sin and corruption within us , and with temptations and persecutions without , and the distance between Heaven and Us is great ; therefore we groan , and sigh , and say , Oh when will that time come when I shall be rid , and fully freed from Sin and sorrow for ever ! I see the place of mine eternal Rest afar off , when shall I come near and enter and enjoy my God for ever ? Yet because we have God's Word to assure us of possession , we therefore are patient , and content our selves in God's Will. For if it be his will and pleasure , that we must stay a while longer , and suffer more , we desire his will may be done , and we submit unto it ; and there is great reason we should so do . For we are unworthy of the least mercy , and he might require a thousand years tryal and suffering ; and to give us so great and glorious reward , and that within so short a time after our first regeneration , is an act of greatest love and bounty . § . 28. Thus far the words have been absolutely handled , now it 's time to consider them comparatively . The notes of Similitude ( for it 's a comparison in quality ) are [ As ] and [ So ] . For as man dies , so Christ dies : As man dies once , So Christ dies once ; and no more . And as man is appointed by God to dye but once , so Christ was appointed by God to dye but once . And as man , after Death , comes to Judgment , so Christ , after he died once , will not dye again , but come to Judgment : Yet as in all things that are like there is some dissimilitude and difference , so there is in Man and Christ. Man dies for his own Sin , Christ for the Sins of others : Man's Death doth not satisfy for Sin , Christ's Death satisfies divine Justicé , and his Sacrifice doth expiate the Sins of many for ever . Upon man's Death follows Judgment , and he himself is judged ; but after once suffering and offering , Christ appears and comes to Judge , and not to be judged ; to reward such as believe in him , but not to be rewarded . And here it 's to be noted , 1. That as Christ died to make man savable , so he appears before God actually to save , and comes to Judgment to make man fully happy . As by his Death he merited Remission and Glorification , inestimable Benefits ; so he appears before God for us now , and in the end will come to Judgment , that he may communicate these Benefits , and make men actually partakers of them . 2. That remission of Sins , and the enjoyment of Salvation , and full happiness do depend upon Christ's Sacrifice once offered , as the effect depends upon the cause . To sum up the Chapter , we must observe , 1. That the Subject of it , is the Sacrifice of Christ. 2. That in it the scope of the Authour is to prove the excellency of the same above all Levitical Services . 3. That his method is this , 1. He describes the Tabernacle and the parts thereof , and the Services performed therein ; and singles out the greatest Service performed by the greatest Priest in the most holy place , which was the yearly Sacrifice of Expiation . 2. He proves the Sacrifice of Christ to be far more excellent then this in many respects , but chiefly in respect of the effects thereof The first effect is eternal Expiation , ver . 12. The second , purification of the Conscience from dead Works , to serve the living God ; in which respect it did excell all Legal purifications , ver . 14. The third is the confirmation of the New Covenant , by virtue of this Expiation and Purification , ver . 15. The fourth , lest they should think it strange , that the Death and Blood-shed of their Messias should be any wayes conducing or necessary to these effects of Confirmation , Expiation , and Purification , he lets them know : First , That for confirmation of the New Covenant , it was very conducing and necessary ; 1. By a Similitude taken from a Testament and last Will : For as the Death of the Testatour is necessary for to make his Testament of force and effectual , so the Death of Christ was for the making effectual the Covenant of Grace , ver . 16 , 17. 2. From the manner of the Sanction and confirmation of the first Covenant , which was solemnly confirmed by Blood ; God even then signifying , That the better Covenant must be established by Blood ; yet by better blood , ver . 18 , 19 , 20. Secondly , He manifests , that it was as necessary for purification and expiation of the parties in Covenant , and this also by a Similitude from the Law Ceremonial , whereof we may observe two parts : 1. The proposition concerning Expiation and Purification under the Law : For then the Tabernacle and Vessels , and almost all things were purified by Blood ; and without Blood there was no Legal Expiation and Remission , ver . 21 , 22 , 23. The Reddition follows , and therein is signified , That if it was necessary , that these shadows should be purified with the blood of Sacrifice , men certainly it was necessary , that the heavenly things shadowed should be purified , and that with the blood of some better Sacrifice ; and this Sacrifice was that of Christ himself , by the blood whereof he enters Heaven , and there appears before God for us , ver . 23 , 24. Yet , lest they should think , that as the High-Priest entred often , and every time with blood , therefore Christ must often suffer Death , that he may often offer ; he informs them , that though the High-Priest was a Type of Christ , and was like unto him in many things ; yet in these two they did much differ , 1. Then they entred often . 2. They entred with the blood of Beasts : But Christ , 1. Offered but once , and entred Heaven . 2. He offered himself , and by his own Blood entred Heaven , and took away Sin for ever . And in this God made him like to other men , for whom he suffered : For as he hath appointed that they shall dye once , and after come to Judgment ; so he had ordained that Christ should dye but once , and after that to come in Glory , to reward his Saints with eternal Salvation . § . 29. Before I proceed unto the next Chapter , it will not be amisse to take notice of the glosse of the Socinian Expositor upon the former proposition of this Text. For he would have us to believe that [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to bear the Sins ] , is to take away Sin by removing it , and sanctifying his People . To this end ; he , 1. Observes that the word sometimes so signifies , and argues , that because the Offering of Christ was performed in Heaven , therefore it cannot here signify to bear Punishment for Sin. But 1. The word doth no where in the New Testament signify to take away , but either to take or bear up unto an higher place , or to offer ; and suppose it should signify in some few places of the Old Testament to take away ; yet in many and very many places , it hath another signification , and under one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's used by the Septuagint 80 times for to offer . Neither are any of the four places cited by him truly and sincerely , but falsly alledged . But suppose it should signify sometimes , ●ay often , to take away ; doth it follow from thence that therefore it must so signify here ? 2. Sin may be and is taken away , 1. By suffering the Punishment , to make it remissible . 2. By pardon and Remission . 3. By sanctifying and renewing the Sinner . And , To conclude , that , because it 's taken away by Sanctification , therefore it 's not taken away by Suffering and Expiation , is very inconsequent . 3. For Christ's offering of himself in Heaven , we know that in his sense it cannot be true . For Christ's willing Suffering for the Sin of Man , is the offering of himself , and this was done on Earth , as is evident from the Scriptures . And though when he presenred himself in Heaven , as having suffered , and this before God , yet this is seldom called offering : Yet if it were , it presupposeth another Act antecedent , which is an offering in proper sense . CHAP. X Concerning the Perfection of Christ's Sacrifice , and certain Duties , which we are bound to performs in respect of his Priest-hood . § . 1. THE Author continues his Discourse concerning Christ's Sacrifice ; which being finished , he proceeds to apply the Doctrine of Christ's Priest-hood and Sacrifice , and deduce some practical Conclusions from it . The parts therefore of the Chapter are two , 1. Concerning Christ's Sacrifice . 2. Concerning certain Duties , which he exhorts these Hebrews to perform . This is so plain , that there is a general agreement amongst Expositors concerning the same . Christ's Sacrifice , as in the former Chapter , so here , is considered and handled comparatively , and with reference to the Levitical Sacrifices . The intention of the Apostle is , to set forth the Excellency of it , as far above the other in respect of the Efficacy . So that we have of this first part of the Chapter two Branches . 1. Concerning the Imperfection and Impotency of the Legal Sacrifices . 2. Concerning the Perfection and Efficacy of Christ's one Sacrifice . This takes up the first part of the Chapter unto Ver. 20. where the Apostle begins the hortatory part , grounded upon the excellency of Christ's Priest-hood , and the Perfection and Efficacy of his Sacrifice . The Duties exhorted unto principally , are , Faith. Perseverance in Profession . And both these are urged upon several strong and powerful Reasons : The former briefly , the latter largely unto the last Chapter . The principal Arguments in this Chapter are taken , 1. From the Punishment which must be suffered if we fall away ; where , according to the Aggravations of the Sin , the grievousness of the penalty is set forth . 2. From their former Constancy and Patience , whereof he doth remind them . 3. From the glorious Reward which they shall shortly and certainly receive upon their perseverance . This is the general Method , and so clear and obvious to the intelligent and observant Reader , that it 's generally agreed upon for the Substance of it . The particulars shall be more distinctly delivered in the Explication . To enter upon the words , let 's begin with Ver. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come , and not the very Image of the things , can never with those Sacrifices , which they offered year by year continually , make the Commers thereunto perfect . THese words are in Effect the same with those of the former Chapter , Ver. 9. and serve to infer the necessity of that better Sacrifice of Christ. For the Authour had said , That it was necessary that the heavenly things themselves should be purified with better Sacrifices than these , Ver. 23. These words therefore contain a Reason , whereby is proved the Imperfection of the Levitical Sacrifices , in respect of Sanctification . The Argumentation in Form is this , That which had but a Shadow of good things to come , and not the very Image of the things themselves , could not , by the yearly Sacrifices continually offered , perfect the commers . But the Law had but the Shadow , not the very Image . Therefore it could not perfect the commers . To understand this , with that which follows , more fully , we must observe , That the Question is , Whether the Law , by the Service and Sacrifices prescribed in it , could perfect or sanctify any man that did use or observe them ? The Apostle denies this , and proves the Negative , and by this Argument ; because it had but the Shadow not the Substance of good things to come . The Propositions in the Text are two ; 1. The Law had a Shadow of good things to come , and not the very Image of the things . 2. The Law could never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually , make the commers thereunto perfect . In the first we have 1. A Shadow of things to come . 2. The very Image of the things . 3. The Law , which is affirmed to have the Shadow , not the very Image of good things to come . 1. The good things to come are some great and excellent Blessings , which issued from the great Love of God to sinful Man , and tended to his everlasting Salvation and Happiness , and they were to come upon the Exhibition of Christ , and the Revelation of the Gospel . These were , Christ , the Work of Redemption , and the benefits of Redemption : Of this Phrase I have formerly spoken , Chap. 9. 11. where we ●ead , Christ was said to be come an High-Priest of good things to come . The Shadow of these good things , is the same which was called a Type or Figure , that is , an imperfect and dark Representation . Christ was represented of old , not onely by words in the Promises , but by things ; yet in such a manner , as that the People of former times had no clear and distinct Knowledg of these things , as under the Gospel now we have . It was a Mercy of God to give them a Shadow , and by the same remind them often of their Saviour , that they might the more desire him , long for him , and expect his coming . 2. The very Image of the things themselvs , according to some , is a more lively Representation of them ; and these think the Expression to be taken from Limmers , which first make a rude Draught , & after that finish and perfect it , so as that the Picture is a more full , distinct , and lively Representation of the thing to be represented . This they make the difference between a Shadow and the Image ; and this is thus far true , as that they under the Law had but a rude , imperfect , and dark Representation of these good things , which the Gospel doth reveal and represent to us far more clearly : Their Light might be like that of the Moon and Stars , ou●'s like that of the Sun already risen . Yet others do observe , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . An Image is two-fold , 1. The Pattern or Samplar . 2. That which is conformed to the Pattern ; and in this place , the Image may be the Pattern and Samplar it self , of which the Ceremonies of the Law were imperfect Figurations . The word in the Syriack signifying Ipse , and turned by the Syriack Translator Ipsa Substantia , seems to favour this sense . So that the very Image of the things , is , both the lively Representation of them , and the things themselvs represented . 3. The Law had the one , not the other : Where , by the Law , understand the Ceremonial Law of Moses , yet so as it was joyned with the other Laws . This Law had a Shadow , that is , did prescribe certain Shadows and imperfect Representations , that is , Ceremonies , or Ceremonial things ; and the People under the Law were bound to observe them , and did enjoy these Shadows for to lead them to Christ ; and in this they were more happy than other People , though not so happy as we under the Gospel . And the Reason hereof was , that God neither gave them the things themselves , nor the clear Representation of them ; both which were reserved to the time of Christ's Exhibition . § . 2. In the second Proposition we have two things , 1. Sacrifices offered year by year continually . 2. Their Impotency to perfect the commers thereunto . 1. By Sacrifices , are meant Ilastical and propitiatory Sacrifices , such as God commanded under the Law to be offered for Sin ; and the chief of them , principally intended , were those Anniversary Offerings of Expiation ; therefore it is said , they were offered year by year . And though there was an Intermission of the space of a Year between every single and individual Sacrifice , yet they are said to be offered continually . For , as Year succeeded after Year , from the time of Moses unto the Suffering of Christ , so there was a continued Succession of these Offerings . 2. These Sacrifices as Causes had their Effects , and such as God intended ; for they did legally expiate and shadow out and continually remind the People of the necessity of Expiation , to be made by a better Sacrifice for ever : Yet they could not perfect , that is , consecrate , and sanctify , and free eternally from the eternal Punishment due to sin . The parties , who might expect Justification and Sanctification from them , were such as came unto them , and did worship God by them ; that is , the parties for whom they were offered , and did humble and afflict themselvs at the yearly solemnity of Expiation , who are said to be Worshippers , in the next Verse , and such as did the Service , Chap. 9. 9. And this was the impotency , imperfection , and insufficiency of them : The Reason of this impotency is given in the former words , for they were but Shadows ; and how can Shadows have any such causal Power as the Substance hath . This Effect was reserved for that substantial and most noble Sacrifice of Christ himself , offered by the eternal Spirit without spot unto God. Therefore the Jews did exceedingly wrong themselves , and prejudice their own Souls , when they rested in these , and looked not for their Saviour . And we Christians are no better , when we rely upon the outward Service of God , and the Signs of the Sacraments , and not upon Jesus Christ the Pith and Marrow of all , who can benefit no Man but such as with a penitent heart rely upon him , and him alone . This impotency is fully expressed by a peremptory Negation ; for they could in no wise perfect : This Effect was too noble , and far , and very far above the Power and Activity of Shadows . This is the Apostle's first Reason to prove the insufficiency of the Sacrifices o● the Law. § . 3. The second Reason follows , Ver. 2. For then they would not have ceased to be offered ; because that the Worshippers once purged , should have had no more Conscience of Sins . THis is a new Argument , taken from the continuance of them , which had been needless if they could have purged away Sin , so that the Worshippers thereof should have had no more Conscience of it . So that here we have 1. The continuance of them . 2. The Reason of the continuance implyed : For the Apostle argues from the non-cessation and the re-iteration of them , and thence infers their Imperfection . But there is some difficulty in the first words of the Text ; for some read them negatively , as our Translation doth , For then should they not have ceased . Some read them Interrogatively , For then should they not have ceased ? Thus Vatablus , and some others . Some omit the negative particle ; and read them thus , For then they should have ceased . Thus the Vulgar , Beza , Tramelius , Vetesius , Stepha●●s , in his fifth Copy , and the Compl●te●sis ; and this seems to be the true Reading , though the Interrogative hath the same sense . The Apostle seems to argue thus , If the Sacrifices of the Law had perfected the Commers , or ●urged the Worshippers , then they should have ceased to be offered . This Consequence is proved , because if they had been once purged , they should have had no more Conscience of Sin , and so the Offerings had been needless and useless . It was said before , that they were offered year by year continually ; and here from that continuance of them he infers their Imperfection : For , as the Sytiack paraphraseth , if they had perfected and sanctified the Worshippers , they should have ceased . This presupposeth , That when an Agent hath produced his Effect , finished his Work , and attained his end , he ceaseth to work for that end any more , and takes his Rest : Thus God when he had finished the World , and made all things , then he rested from the Work of Creation . Now , the End of Sacrifices was to purge and expiate the Sins of those who offer them ; and if once they can do that fully and perfectly , Reason it self would dictate they may cease . But to proceed unto the Reason , why they should have ceased if they had p●●ged the Worshippers ; which is this , For then the Worshippers being purged should have no more Conscience of Sin. Where we have three things observable , 1. The vertue of purging , proper to a Sacrifice . 2. The Subject purged by them , which is , the Worshippers . 3. The Effect of this sanctifying Power in this Subject , which is , to take away the Conscience of Sins . To begin with the last ; By Sins are meant 1. Sins past . 2. Guilt , which necessarily and unavoidably follows upon Sin once committed . By Conscience of this Sin , is understood , 1. The Knowledg of this Guilt ; as we use to say of a Delinquent , that he is conscious to himself that he hath offended . 2. Some Effects consequent , which either are apt to follow , or do follow thereupon , as Sorrow , Fear , Accusation ; therefore Tremelius turns it , Sin wounding the Conscience , though it is the Knowledg of Sin , as our Sin , as rendring us guilty and liable to Punishment , that doth torment and wound : For , by Conscience is meant , the Soul conscious and privy to it 's own Sin ; and the Acts of this , the Soul thus conscious and knowing , are , to accuse , threaten , and condemn it self ; and from hence it is , that the guilty Soul is such a Tormentor of it self . By having no Conscience of Sin , is meant 1. To be freed from the Guilt of Sin. 2. A Knowledg thereof , grounded upon certain Rules . The Subject of this benefit are Worshippers ; for these are not only guilty , but know it , and are sensible of it ; and therefore come to God , and use some means to propitiate him , that being propitiated he may pardon them : For , it 's pardon , that actually frees from Guilt , and the Conscience of Sin. Those who are guilty , and yet sensless , and so no Worshippers , continue guilty still . Yet these Worshippers , as purged only , are free from Guilt ; and this purging is two-fold , 1. By Sacrifice , as propitiating and making Sin pardonable . 2. By God's Sentence , upon Repentance and Faith , pleading the Sacrifice as offered and accepted . And without both , Guilt is not actually taken away . Thus far these words have been explained , as considered absolutely in themselvs : yet we must further examine them as referring to the Antecedent part of the Text , and containing a Reason , why the Legal Sacrifices should have ceased if they had perfected the Worshippers . And , for the clearing of this , I must resume the former distinction of purging , as it is an immediate Effect of a Sacrifice , or an Effect of the Sacrifice upon God's Sentence of Absolution . The former purging is here principally meant , yet so as not to exclude the latter : Yet this purging by Sacrifice offered may be an Expiation of some-Sins for a time , as making liable to some certain Punishment , or as an Expiation of all sins expiable , and making the Sinner liable to all Punishments , not only temporal but spiritual and eternal . Now , if there had been any such expiatory Sacrifice under the Law , that could have made God propitious for ever , and all sin remissible for ever , and so have made not only temporal but spiritual and eternal penalties eternally removable ; then , if that had been once offered and accepted , there had been no need of offering that Sacrifice again , or any other : For this would have purged the Worshipper so , as to free him from the Guilt and Conscience of Sin , without any other , or without any Re-iteration of it at all . But there was no such Sacrifice , therefore the Worshippers , upon new sins , had recourse to a new and to another Sacrifice , and these Sacrifices did not cease but continue ; and hence the Author proves their Imperfection . Under the Gospel we commit new Sins , contract new Guilt , and have Conscience of Sin , and so do often re-iterate the Offering of a broken Spirit , renew our Repentance and our Faith ; yet we plead no new Sacrifice Expiatory , but rely only upon one Sacrifice once offered till such time as by vertue of it we be so purged as never to be guilty again , or have Conscience of Sin any more ; and when upon our finall Repentance , and Faith in this Sacrifice , we receive a full and final Absolution , then by vertue of this Sacrifice we have no Conscience of Sin for ever . § . 4. The Apostle goes on , and further informs thus , Ver. 3. But in those Sacrifices there is a Remembrance again made of Sins every Year . THESE words seem to produce a third Argument , to prove the insufficiency of the Legal Sacrifices , as to perfecting and purging the Worshippers . In Form he argues thus , If in those Sacrifices there was a Remembrance of Sins every Year , then they did not purge and perfect the Worshippers . But in them there was a Remembrance again of Sins every Year : Therefore they did not perfect and purge the Worshippers . In the Text we have , 1. A yearly offering of Sacrifices . 2. In these Sacrifices a Remembrance of Sin every Year . 1. There was a yearly Offering , and this seems to be that great and solemn Sacrifice of Explation , offered the tenth day of the seventh Month every Year . It 's true that there were many other propitiatory and Ilastical Sacrifices besides this offered every Year ; yet this was the general and publick Sacrifice , offered for the Universality and whole Body of the People , and therefore vas the principal . This doth prove that they ceased not because they took not away the G●ilt and Conscience of sin : Therefore some think these words to be an Assumption to sone former Proposition . 2. There was in these yearly Scrifices a Remembrance of Sin ; for when this great Sacrifice was to be offered , God d● command , That Aaron the High-Priest should lay both his hands upon the Head of the Scape-Goat , and confess over him all the Iniquities of the Children of Israel , and all thir Transgressions in all their Sins , Levit. 16. 21. Where we learn what Remembrance of Sin is , it 's the Confession of Sins . Now , Confession presupposeth Remembrance , and is ●n outward Expression and Declaration of the sins remembred . To confess sins , is , to aknowledg the Confessors guilty , notwithstanding Sacrifices had been offered , and Expia●on made ; and from hence it follows , that those Sacrifices had no vertue to take away sin . Some vertue they had , and some Legal Expiation was made ; yet the Offering was ● sooner made , but the expiating vertue vanished , and their new sins must have a new C●nfession and a new Sacrifice , which had been needless if the former Sacrifices had been sufficient . And whereas it may be said , that although many Sacrifices severally could 〈◊〉 , yet all joyntly might purge the Worshippers : The Answer is , they could not ; ●o not any , nor all , had Power to purge the Conscience ; that must be purged by some bette Sacrifice , whereof they were but Types and Shadows : This is the third Argument . § . 5. The fourth we find Ver. 4. For it is not pssible that he Blood of Bulls and Goats should take aw●y Sins . THE force of the Reasons in this , That seeing the Effect is to take away sin , it must have a Cause sufficent to produce it ; but the Blood of Bulls and Goats , which was the princi●l thing in the Legal Annual Sacrifices , was no such Cause , it had no such vertue ; the Effet was so far above it , that there was no possibility that such a Cause should reach it : For ●ery Cause doth work according to it's Power , as it is greater or less ; but if there 〈◊〉 power at all in respect of any particular Effect , in respect of that it can do nothing● all . The Blood of Buls and Goats might be a sign of that Blood that could take away sin but take it away , or any wayes actively concur to the taking away thereof , it could ●o In the words we have 1. An Effect . 2. The Impotency of Legal Sacrifices in respect of this Effect . 1. The Effect is taking away of sin . Where , by Sins , we must understand sins as past , yet remaining in their Guilt : For , though the sins be past , and not in being , yet the Effect abides ; for the party that hath sinned is liable to Punishment , and must suffer it , if it be not prevented . Therefore , to take away Sin , is , to make it remissible , and that by some Sacrifice and Satisfaction : This is to make the Guilt removable , which yet is not actually removed , but by the Sentence of the Judg passed upon the Sinner , rightly disposed and qualified by Faith in a right Sacrifice . And here you must observe , that the Guilt is an Obligation not only to some temporal but also to spiritual Punishment ; because sin is from the Soul an immortal substance , and against a Law of God which binds the Conscience and immortal Soul , and promiseth Rewards and threatneth Punishments , not only temporal , but spiritual and eternal : And the taking away sins in this place is a freeing of the party from this Obligation . 2. Such an Effect , so great and glorious , and so beneficial to sinful Man , must have some excellent and powerful Cause ; such the Blood of Buls and Goats cannot be . Where we must know that the things sacrificed on the great day of Expiation were Buls or Bullocks , and Goats , and with the Blood of these shed , and taken , and sprinkled in the Holy place within the second Veil , the Legal Expiation was made . As the Beasts so the Blood was morally neither bad nor good , but indifferent . And though offering and sprinkling of this Blood was a rational Act in the High-Priest , yet it could give no moral , spiritual , or supernatural Power to the Blood : Neither could the Priest have had any warrant to have made this use of this Blood , if God hadnot commanded him , and that to signify some better and far more excellent Blood. Therefore , if we look upon the Blood , and consider what it was , we cannot rationally inagine any Power in it , either placare or piacere , either to satisfy divine Justice , or to merit any Acceptation for that end from the supream Judg : Therefore , well might the Apstle say , That it was not possible for the Blood of Buls and Goats to take away Sins , and thence conclude that the Legal Sacrifices could not perfect or purge the Worshippers . § . 6. Hitherto the Apostle hath proved the insuiclency and impotency of the chiefest Legal Sacrifices for to take away sins , and this he●ath done by Artificial Arguments , taken from the Nature of the Sacrifices themselvs , ad the Reiteration of them ; and now he goes further to manifest , that they could not perect any , and that by an inartificial Argument ; and a Testimony . The Testimony is ●ivine , and of infallible Authority , and such in the Judgment of these Hebrews , so that th● could not deny it . The End of it is , to prove , that they could not purge or perfect th Worshippers , because God never intended to do any such thing by them : He argueso this purpose , That if God intended to expiate Sin and perfect sinful Man , by anothe and a more excellent Sacrifice , even the Sacrifice of Christ , and by that alone , then they ould not expiate and take away Sin , and so purge the Worshippers : But he intended to ● this great Work by another more excellent , which was the Sacrifice of Christ and thaalone : Therefore they could not do that great Work of Expiation . This was so strong a Proof that it did evince , that though the Legal Sacrifices might have had some expiatig Power ; yet they could never expiate Sin , because that Effect was , and that by God's ntention , reserved for another and a better Cause . And this may be said to be a fifth argument , ●istinct from all the former : Seeing this is an inartificial Argument , we must consider the Nature of the Testimony it self , and the matter or thing testified . The Testmony , as yo heard before , is divine ; for it 's taken out of the Old Testament , and out of that part whih is called The Book of Psalms , and out of one of those Psalms which by the Title is said o be David's . The Pen-men of the whole were Prophets , and inspired from Heaven , ad , amongst the rest , David , of whom it 's said , The Spirit of the Lord spake by me , and his Vord was in my Tongue , 2 Sam. 23. 2. And not only he but all the men of God spake assey were moved by the Holy Ghost , 2 Pet. 1. 21. As they spake so they wrote , thefore their Writings are called The Scriptures by way of Eminency , and The Holy Scripres ; and the words written therein are all the words of God , who spake in them anoy them , and so he wrote by them : From hence it follows , that the Authority of this Tstimony is divine and infallibly true , and acknowledged so to be by them ; and it 's of● much the more force , because it was written in the time of the Law , whilst it was in force . Yet before I enter upon the matter , we must consider of their connexion and bringing the words in . Where three things are observable , 1. The connexion with the former by the particle illative [ therefore ] . 2. A [ Prosopopaeia ] , whereby he brings in Christ speaking , and makes the words his . 3. The time when he speaks , them . 1. The illative particle signifies thus much , That because the former Sacrifices were so unfit , and so insufficient , therefore , for that cause , God did even then by the Prophet David signify , That he would reject them , and pitch upon a better , and that he had no intention to make use of them for to perfect and purge , but from the beginning designed Christ's Sacrifice to that end , and for that purpose . 2. They are brought in Rhetorically , as the words of Christ directing his Speech to God his heavenly Father : The praediction that Christ would use these words , is David's ; but the words must be Christs . 3. The time when Christ should use these words , was the time of his coming into the World ; which was then to come , and now is past . But the controversy is , What should be meant by his coming into the World , which most understand of his Incarnation , and more particularly his inauguration and entrance upon his publick Ministry . It 's certain , they must be the words of Christ Incarnate , after that God had signified his Will and Pleasure that he should sacrifice himself unto him for the Sin of Man. The Socinian will have it to be his coming into the future World , and entrance into Heaven ; and the reason of this opinion is his false conceit of Christ's Offering , which is contrary to express Scripture , as hath been formerly shewed . But to come unto the matter contained in the words ; first , as we find them in the Psalm ; secondly , as they are understood and explained , and so applyed by him to the point in hand . § . 7. The words of the Psalmist may be considered Grammatically or Theologically . In them Grammatically considered , we find a difference between the Hebrew and the Translation of the Septuagint , which the Apostle follows , and it is in one Clause . For the Hebrew words translated , as they seem properly to signify , [ Mine ears hast thou opened ] ; the Septuagaint turn , [ A body hast thou fitted me , or , prepared for me . ] Here the Hebrew Text and the Greek Translation seem so much to differ , as though they were not reconcileable . A Greek Scholiast tells us , that Paul understood and knew the Hebrew well enough , yet he makes use of the word [ body ] used in the Septuagint as most subservient to his purpose . And here I will not mention either what Nobitius observes upon the words of the Psalm , or how several Authours translate the words ; or how à Lapide , and many others , seek to reconcile the Hebrew and the Septuagint . Genebrard , upon the Psalm , by a tropical Explication endeavours the reconciliation . The Tropes are , 1. A metaphor in the Hebrew Verb , and a Synechdoche in the Nown : For as by Digging , Hewing , Cutting , Lapidaries shape and fashion stones into the form of a Body , so God created and framed Christ a Body ; this is Metaphorical . And as many times a part is taken for the whole , so Ear , which is a part , is taken for the whole Body ; this is Synechdochical : Yet this will not satisfie ; therefore it 's to be observed , That the Septuagint's Translation , being not wording , as formerly hath been noted , but many times paraphrastical , doth often leave the words , and give the sense , which here they seem to do . For , 1. To bore or digg the Ear , is to addict one that is willing to perpetual Service . This was the Ceremony prescribed by God , Exod. 21. 6. This was in the Servant a denying himself , a renouncing of his Liberty , and a free , voluntary , total submission of his own will unto the will of his Master . In the Master , it was a Solemn engagement of the person willing to his perpetual Service : According to this , Christ , the Lord of all , made himself of no Reputation , took upon him the form of a Servant , and addicted himself wholly to his heavenly Father's Will. 2. Yet Christ , as the Word , whereby the World was made , could not be a Servant ; therefore the Word was made Flesh , and God prepared him a Body , a Flesh , that in that Flesh he might be his Servant . 3. Because the chiefest piece of Service was in offering up his Body and his Life for the Sin of Man ; which to perform , was the Will and Command of his Father ; therefore the Interpretation of the Septuagint was most excellent . Further it 's observable , That [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] sometimes signifies a Servant ; and then the sense is , That God made him his Servant , and fitted him for the hardest Service that ever was , even the Service of Sacrificing himself , and of being obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross. Thus far the words have been Grammatically examined . If we consider them Theologically , we may observe in them two things ; 1. The Will of God concerning Christ. 2. The Coming of Christ to do the Will of God. For God had determined , that the Sin of Man should be expiated by some offering ; and this Will and Determination is expressed in the Text , 1. Negatively . 2. Affirmatively . For thus it 's written , Ver. 5. Wherefore when he cometh into the World , he saith , Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not , but a body thou hast prepared me . Ver. 6. In Burnt-Offering and Sacrifices for Sin thou hast had no pleasure . VVHere we have , 1. Sacrifices , Offerings , Burnt-Offerings , Offerings for Sin ; by all which is signified all the Levitical Offerings for Expiation prescribed by God. 2. The rejection of these ; for God would not have them , he desired them not , he took no pleasure in them . This is the Negative Will of God in respect of these Offerings ; For he never intended them , for to perfect and sanctify Worshippers , because he knew them unfit for any such purpose . Therefore all these were but shadows of a far better Offering . 3. The Body of Christ , different from and opposed to all the Legal Offerings as far more excellent . 4. God's acceptance of this Body , which God prepared for him , that he might offer it ; for it was designed for that purpose , and was far more fit for to expiate the Sin of Man. This is God's Will ; Christ's will and readiness to perform God's Will follows . For , 1. Christ doth the Will of God. 2. He came to do it . 3. This was written in the Volume of God's Book . 1. Christ's doing of God's Will is not that which we call his active Obedience unto the moral Law , but his suffering Death willingly upon the Cross , and offering his Body and Flesh for the life of the World. For this was the Will and great Command of God , which can never be found in the Moral Law , That Christ should suffer and offer himself to expiate the Sin of Man. This Law is said to be in his heart , and he delighted to do it : For , if he had not done it willingly , it never had been accepted or effectual . These words are left out in the Apostles allegation , not only because he would have them understood , but also because the Text of the Psalmist without them was sufficient for his purpose . Though it 's very true , that in the New Testament several times a few words of the Text cited out of the Old are expressed , and the Reader referred to the Book , where they are written at large . 2. He came to do his Will , that is , to dye for the Sin of Man ; and to do this Will , and offer himself a Sacrifice for the Expiation of our Sins , was the end of his coming . For as that was the great Command of his Father , so it was the great Work he had to do . Not long before his Death , he said , Now my Soul is troubled , and what shall I say ? Father , save me from this hour ; but for this cause came I unto this hour , Joh. 12. 27. And in his Agony he prayes , That the bitter Cup of his Passion , if it were possible , might passe from him : yet concludes , Thy will not mine be done . Where it 's implyed , That it was his Father's Will he should suffer and offer himself ; and he was resolved to do it , and to deny his own Will , and submit unto his heavenly Father . And again , The Cup which my Father hath give● me , shall I not drink it ? Joh. 18. 11. He could have prayed to his Father , and have obtained twelve Legions of Angels ; a Power sufficient to have rescued him from all his Enemies , yet would not do it . For , saith he , How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled , that thus it must be ? Matth. 26. 54. Where we must observe , 1. That the Father had by the Prophets of Old signified , That it was his Will that Christ should suffer . 2. That he c●me into the World to fulfil this Will , and to present himself before his Father , when the time came , and said , Lo I come . 3. This was written in the Volume of God's Book : This Book is the Book of the Old Testament ; and it 's called a Volume , because it was not bound up as now Books are , but rouled up into a Scroul or Volume , as the Hebrew word doth signify , and , as some say , The Jews do fold up the Book they read in their Synagogues : Therefore is it said , That when the Book of the Prophet Esay was delivered to Christ , he [ unfolded it ] ; and when he had read a part of it , he folded it up again , as the word in the Original signifieth , Luke 4. 17 , 20. The word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is turned by Aquila [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , by Symmachus [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] ; by Hierom , Pagnine , Pratensis , Tremelius and Junius , Volumen ; by the Septuagint [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , and by the Vulgar [ Caput ] , and so in this place Tremelius and Beza translate it . Schindler thinks the Septuagint took [ * Megittah ] for [ Gilgoleth ] , which signifies the Scul or the Head. But this is not likely ; We need not much trouble our selves about the Word : For as Genebrard observes , the meaning is , That it was written of him in the whole body of the Scriptures , and the sum of them ; for the sum of † Moses and the Prophets is Christ. And it 's certain , That Christ was the principal Subject of all their Writings , which Christ read , and perfectly knew his Fathers Will revealed in them , that men might believe in him , and expect Salvation from him . This Will , so perfectly known to Christ , was in his heart , which he delighted to do , and was resolved upon it . Thus must we deny our own natural Desires to suffer loss of life and cruel pains to do the Will of God , if we will be Christ's Disciples , and receive benefit by him . § . 8. Thus far the words of the Psalmist ; the Apostle's Application followeth , which will be the more perspicuous , if we consider the Subject of his discourse , and the scope whereat he aims . His Subject is the sanctification and perfection of such a● Worship God by Sacrifices and Offerings , and his scope is this , to prove that the Legal Sacrifices and Offerings could not expiate Sin , and perfect the Worshippers , because that effect was reserved for an higher Cause , and for a more excellent Sacrifice . Thus much premised , the Apostle , having recited the words of the Psalm , observes three things in them . 1. The rejection of the Legal Offerings , and that in these two words , [ Thou wouldst not , and thou hadst no pleasure therein . 2. The acceptation of the Sacrifice of Christ , the Offering whereof was the doing God's Will. 3. The reason , why he rejected , and took away the former was , that he might establish the latter . And seeing these were the words of God , spoken by the Prophet David , and that in time of the Law , and that they plainly signify the Will of God in the matter of Sacrifices ; therefore the argument was strong and evincing , and did clearly prove , that the Legal Offerings could not take away sin , but Christ's could . § . 9. That Christ's Offering could do this , he affirms , saying , Ver. 10. By which Will we are sanctified by the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all . ] HEre the Apostle returns again unto the Sacrifice of Christ , and proves it far more excellent then those of the Law , and that especially in two things : 1. In that it could sanctify , which they could not . 2. It did sanctify being but one and once offered , whereas they were many , and often offered . This excellency , virtue , and efficacy is set forth two wayes : 1. Absolutely , ver . 10. 2. Comparatively , ver . 11 , 12 , 13 , 14. In these words , where we have the virtue of this Sacrifice asserted absolutely , we have two things : 1. An Effect , our Sanctification . 2. The Cause , the Will of God through the once offering of the Body of Christ. Where , 1. We must not understand by Sanctification only a communication of inherent Righteousness , in renuing the Image of God in us ; but also Justification and a freedom from all Sin , and all the consequents thereof , so that we shall never Sin , or be guilty of Sin any more . This is a rare and noble Effect , and such as upon the same we shall be fully and for ever blessed . 2. The Cause of this is God's Will through Christ's Body once offered : And here , by Will is meant the Will and Command of God signifyed to Christ , that he should offer his Body once , with his promise to accept it . Yet this Will may be considered , 1. As a Law or Command given and signified to Christ. 2. As performed by Christ ; in which latter sense , it is here taken principally : For it 's not this Will or Command , but this Will done , that doth sanctify . If God had given this Command , and Christ had never obeyed it ; how could it have sanctified us ? But Christ came to do this Will , and did it : And he did it by offering of his Body once for all . Where we may take notice of 1. The Body of Christ. 2. The Offering of it . 3. The Offering of it once . 1. The Body of Christ was the thing to be slain and sacrificed : For he had said before , [ A Body hast thou prepared me ] ; and here we understand , why God did prepare him a Body , and that is , that it might be Sacrificed . So that the matter of this Sacrifice was a Body ; yet not any Body , but the Body of Christ , which was the Body of the Son of God , and so of God in a singular manner . 2. This Body of Jesus Christ must be offered ; this was the form of the Sacrifice : And here we might enquire and search out a reason why it 's said , That [ the Body ] of Christ was offered ; And to discover this , we must know , That the God-head could not be offered : For who can offer himself , or any other thing to himself . Neither could the Soul of Christ be offered , because it was immortal : For when it 's said , That God made his Soul an offering for Sin , Esay 53. 10. yet there by Soul is meant the Life of Christ. For the thing to be sacrificed must be slain , the Blood shed , and it must be offered to God. But Christ's Soul , though obedient unto Death , was not slain , had no Blood to be shed , could not be sacrified to God : Yet his Body might be slain , the Blood thereof shed , and both tendered unto God. In this respect , it 's said by Christ himself , The Bread that I will give is my Flesh , which I give for the Life of the World. And when he instituted the Eucharist in memory of this great Sacrifice , he mentions his Body broken and given , and his Blood shed . This Body must be offered and resigned up to God , and willingly yielded unto Death out of obedience to God's Command , and love to sinful Man , with an intention to propitiate God offended , and to expiate the Sin of Man. For otherwise , if it had been crucified and separated from the Body , and not out of this obedience and love , and for this end , it could never have sanctified us . For it must be offered ; yet though offered , if not accepted of God as a Ransome for Man's Sin , it could not have had this effect . For , as it was God's free love to give his only begotten Son , so it was his free love to accept this Offering in the behalf of sinful Man ; the rare and excellent effects thereof depended upon his Will. It 's true , that this Offering , in it self , was very acceptable ; yet that thereupon so incomparable a benefit should redound unto Man , was from his Will and good Pleasure , For though , in it self , it was far above all Offerings of the Law , and the dignity of the person was great ; yet to sanctify Man , and free him from eternal penalty , did depend upon God's acceptation . 3. This Body was but offered once ; for that once was sufficient , and so much accepted of God , that a second Offering of the same Body , or any other thing was needless . And that cause which by one efficiency can reach the effect , must not act again for a new production of it . Neither did it seem good to the infinite Wisdom of God to require any offering of this Sacrifice but this one . § . 10. Thus far the excellency of this Offering considered absolutely in it self , hath been declared ; the comparative excellency is set forth in the words following to ver . 15. Where we have , 1. The Proposition concering the Legal Offering , ver . 11. 2. The Reddition , ver . 12 , 13 , 14. The Proposition we find , Ver. 11. And every Priest standeth daily Ministring and Offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices , which can never take away Sins . IN which Text , we may take notice of , 1. The Minstration of the Legal Priests . 2. The inefficacy or weakness of their Ministration . The Priests are of the Order of Aaron , and are here implied to be many in opposition to Christ which was but one ; for it 's said Every Priest. These Priests were ordained of God to minister before him , and especially the High-Priests , which are here principally intended , whose principal Work it was , by the yearly Sacrifice offered on the tenth day of the seventh Month , to expiate the Sins of Israel . 1. In the Ministration of those Priests , which was principally to offer , we may consider , 1. The Sacrifices offered . 2. The frequency of their Offering . 3. Their continual attendance at the Altar for that purpose . 1. That which they offered was Sacrifice ; yet the Sacrifices were many individually , yet the same in kind ; for the same kind of Sacrifice was offered several times . And hence , 2. The frequency of offering , and the manifold Re-iteration of the Act ; for they offered the same Sacrifices often , and many several times . 3. Lest this Work and Service should at any time be neglected , every Priest stands daily ready to offer such Sacrifices as God had instituted and commanded to be offered , at set and determinate times . The Sum is , that 1. Many Priests , 2. Offered many Sacrifices individual of the same kind . 3. Offered the same Sacrifice oftentimes . 2. Though these many were many times offered by many Priests , and often by the same individual Priest , yet they could never take away Sin. This was their impotency and ineffectual Causality in respect of Expiation spiritual and eternal . Where it 's to be noted , 1. That to perfect , to sanctify , to take away Sin , is the same . 2. That there is a Legal carnal Expiation , and a spiritual and eternal , and this latter is here to be understood , as denyed of the Legal Sacrifices , which could not expiate Sin in this manner . 3. Whereas it sometimes falls out , that that , which one Cause cannot , many may effect , and that Cause which may be deficient at one time may be efficacious at another ; yet here it is said , that not all these , nor any of these , could take away Sin at any time ; They could never take it away . 4. Whereas Sin may be expiated and made remissible for ever in respect of the Sacrifice , yet not actually taken away or remitted , by reason of the indisposition of the Subject , and impenitency of the Sinner ; in this place you must know , that these Sacrifices were deficient , not only in respect of the indisposition of the Subject , but also in respect of the active expiating power of the Cause : For they never made any Sin spiritually remissible , or the spiritual and eternal Punishment removable . For otherwise , that Blood of Christ which obtained eternal Remission hath no Effect of Justification upon impenitent Unbelievers ; for , before Sin can be actually taken away from any Person , there must be 1. A propitiatory Sacrifice , and such as God will accept , as a full satisfaction for Sin. 2. The party sinful must repent , believe , pray . 3. Christ , the great High-Priest , since his Ascension , must make Intercession and plead . 4. God , the Supream Judg , must pass the Sentence , and execute the same . The Sacrifice of a broken and penitent heart , and of Prayer , may be offered often ; but the propitiatory Sacrifice need not often to be offered , one Offering will serve the turn . § . 11. Thus far the Proposition , the Reddition follows , Ver. 12. But this Man , after he had offered one Sacrifice for Sins for ever , sate down at the right hand of God : Ver. 13. From henceforth expecting till his Enemies be made his Foo● - 〈◊〉 . Ver. 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected the sanctified for ever . VVHere we have , 1. The offering of Christ's one Sacrifice . 2. The Reason why it was but once offered . In the former we are informed , 1. Of the Dissimilitude between the Legal Sacrifices , and that Sacrifice of Christ , and this is expressed . 2. Of their Imparity , which is implied . 1. The Dissimilitude we find in several things , 1. There under the Law were many Priests , yea the Legal High-Priests were many ; this Priest Christ is but one . 2. Their Sacrifices were many ; Christ's but one . 3. There the same Sacrifices were offered often ; Christ's one Sacrifice was offered but once . 4. Those Priests , after they had offered the same Sacrifice stood ready to offer them again at set times : Christ , when he had offered once , never offered again ; but sate down at the right hand of God. 5. They had no Power to take away Sin ; Christ by this one Sacrifice once offered takes away Sin for ever . 2. The Imparity , which is great , is implyed in the Dissimilitude ; for that Sacrifice , which being but one , and but once offered by one Priest , took away Sin for ever , is incomparably more excellent than those Sacrifices , which being many , and offered many times by many Priests , could never take away Sin. But such is Christ's Sacrifice , and such were theirs : therefore it 's incomparably more excellent . The Text may be reduced to three Propositions : 1. This Man offered one Sacrifice for Sins for ever . 2. Having offered it , he sate down at the right hand of God. 3. Being set there , he expects his Enemies to be made his Foot-stool . In all which we have the Humiliation and Exaltation of the Son of God : In the first Proposition there is little or no difficulty : Yet 1. The Connexion of it with the former part of the Comparison is made by the Conjunction But ( for so they turn the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place ) , which implies the difference and dissimilitude . 2. The Subject of it , according to our Translation , is , This Man ; but in some Copies the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as here it 's read ; and whereas they supply the Substantive by the word . Man [ this Man ] , yet it may be turned this Priest , or , this High-Priest , as some Manuscripts in the former Verse read every High-Priest . 3. When it 's said He had offered one Sacrifice , it must be understood not only of one Sacrifice , but of one single Offering . 4. This is said to be offered for Sins ; this puts us in mind of our misery , God's Mercy , and Christ's merit : For , we have our Sins , whereby we are liable to death ; yet God was so merciful as to give Christ for our Sins , and Christ's offering was so acceptable and meritorious , that it obtained eternal Remission , in respect of which eternal efficacy some think it's said Christ offered this one Sacrifice for ever , never to be offered again because of eternal vertue : Yet several Copies joyn the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] for ever with the latter Proposition , which is , 2. That Christ , having offered one Sacrifice for Sin , sate down at the right hand of God for ever . So the Vulgar , Vatablus , Beza , Tremelius out of the Syriack , and divers other Greek Copies , read it . This sitting at the right hand of God doth presuppose Christ's Offering , and deep Humiliation , his Resurrection , and Ascension into Heaven . 2. It is the highest degree of Glory and Power to that which is infinite , which is the Power of God as God. 3. This Power , which under God is supream and universal , is perpetually continued to him ; and his Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom . Some think this sitting is opposed to the standing of the Levitical Priests , which may be so ; and so it may signify , that his Ministration in the Form of a Servant on Earth was ended , and did cease for ever . 4. This Session and Exaltation is to be considered , not only as a Reward of his Humiliation unto death , whereby he merited Remission and Salvation ; but also as a means whereby he might apply his merits , and confer the Mercies which by his Sacrifice he had procured for us . For , as King , he sends down the Holy Ghost , & reveals his Gospel ; by the Word and Spirit works Faith in us , and converts us , and so makes us Subjects capable of the benefits of his Redemption ; and as a Priest pleads his bloody Sacrifice , and by his Intercession for us converted , obtains our actual Remission and Salvation . He need not offer any more , but plead his one Offering till all his Saints be fully justified . The third Proposition is concerning his expectation of a final Victory over all his Enemies , by the Exercise of his transcendent Power at the right hand of God : For so God had said and promised , when he first invested him with supream Power , For the Lord said to my Lord , Sit thou at my right hand till I make thine Enemies thy Foot-stool . Where we must observe , 1. That in respect of himself , all his Enemies are conquered ; they have not the least Power to molest him : Yet 2. In respect of his Reign and Government they oppose his Power continually . 3. These Enemies are Sin , Satan , the World , and Death , all which must be destroyed in his Church and Saints ; yet this Destruction goes on by degrees , and shall be finished in the end , when the Saints shall rise and be immortal , and freed from all Sin , Sorrow , Misery , Enemies , and Death it self . 4. This is expectation of their final ruine is not doubtful and uncertain , but most certain . And this estate of Glory is opposed to his Death and Humiliation , and both his Regal and Sacerdotal Power are subservient to this total final Victory . § . 12. But here it may be enquired , what should be the Reason , why Christ's Sacrifice should not be iterated , but that one single Offering should be sufficient ? To satisfy us in this particular , the Apostle gives the Reason thus : Ver. 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified . THE Conjunction For doth signify , that in these words is given a Reason of something antecedent , and that is , why the offering of Christ was but one ; and this it is , Because by that one , Christ did more than all the Legal Priests , by all their many frequent Offerings could do . And not only so , but also it did enough to consecrate all true Believers for ever , and proved to be of eternal vertue in all such as were capable of it . In the words themselvs we may observe , 1. An Effect , To perfect the sanctified for ever . 2. A Cause of that Effect , Christ's one Offering . I will begin for Explication's sake with the Effect , though it be after the Cause in the Order of Nature : In it we may consider , 1. An Act. 2. A Subject . 3. The Perpetuity of the force of this Act in the Subject . 1. The Act is to perfect , which may be to consummate or make a thing perfect ; and seeing the end of Christ's Sacrifice is Man's full Happiness , therefore to perfect is to make us perfectly and fully happy , and this certainly is intended in this place : Yet we must further examine the force of the Greek Verb , as it is used in this Epistle and other places of the Holy Scriptures ; and we find it signifies , To consecrate and make one a perfect & complete Priest , so as that he may minister before God : And though some understand the perfecting of the sanctified to be nothing else but to sanctify perfectly , yet we find in several places of this Epistle , that it signifies to make a Priest , and is applyed by the Septuagint to the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons : For , though they were chosen and designed formerly to be Priests , yet they could not act as Priests , minister in the Tabernacle , offer Sacrifice , and officiate , before they were consecrated ; and , upon their Consecration finished , they were actually constituted Priests , and might perform any Acts of Service essential and proper to a Priest so as to please God and be accepted . This Work of Consecration was finished in seven dayes ; and one Sacrifice used in this Consecsation was that of a Ram , which was called [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] The Ram of Consecration : And , as they , so we must be consecrated and made Priests to God , and that by the Blood of Christ ; and this life is the time of our Consecration , which goes on by degrees , and will be made complete for Body and Soul upon the Resurrection , when we shall be fit to approach the Throne of Glory , and serve our God in a perfect manner in the eternal Temple of Heaven . That Christ doth consecrate and make us Kings and Priests , is express Scripture , He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and his Father , Rev. 1. 6. And this is the acknowledgment of all his redeemed Saints , Thou hast made us to our God Kings and Priests , Rev. 5. 10. In this respect we are said to be a Royal Priest-hood , an Holy Nation , 1 Pet. 2. 9. There , in this life , though our Consecration be not finished , we are styled , An holy Priest-hood to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable unto God by Jesus Christ , ibid. 5. This perfection and Consecration we find attributed to his Blood and Offering . 2. The Subject of this Consecration are the Sanctified ; for Sanctification must go before Consecration , and the more sanctified the more consecrated , and when our Sanctification is finished , then our Consecration is consummate . By Sanctification , some understand Baptism , as it 's a solemn Rite of our Initiation : Others say , it is Election , whereby we are separated and set apart to this Perfection : Yet it is that whereby we are freed not only from Infirmities , Defects , Depravations , Inclinations to evil , and so made inherently holy and righteous ; but also from the guilt of Sin. The former is an act of the Spirit regenerating us , and renuing the Image of God in us ; the other is the work of the same Spirit , sprinkling our Consciences with the Blood of Christ , and by the same frees us from God's vindicative Justice , and the punishments due unto us for our Sins . The former is usually called Sanctification , the latter Justification : That only the sanctified can be thus consecrated , and come so near to God , it 's plain out of the former places , as Revel . 1. 5 , 6. we are said first to be washed from our Sins in Christ's Blood , which is Sanctification , before we are be made Kings and Priests : And Chap. 5. 9 , 10. to be redeemed with his Blood , before we are Crowned and Consecrated . And the persecuted Saints who came out of great Tribulation , had their Garments first washed in the Blood of the Lamb before they were admitted to be as Priests before the Throne of God , to serve him Day and Night in his Temple , Chap. 7. 14 , 15. Where we learn , that upon this Sanctification and Consecration we have near access to the Throne of Glory , full communion with our God , a clear vision of his eternal beauty , and as great a fiuition of his God-head , as we shall be capable thereof . And upon all this follows our eternal bliss , joy , and full content , when we shall be freed from all evil , and enjoy the fountain of eternal life . This Sanctification and Consecration is said in the third place to be for ever , because they are perpetually continued , of endless date , and of everlasting continuance . § . 13. This effect is glorious and most excellent , and includes Regeneration , Justification , Reconciliation , Adoption with the inferiour degrees of them all , and also the Resurrection and eternal Glorification . And surely so rare an effect must have some excellent cause ; and so it hath , and that is , that one offering of Christ : For Christ is the cause , and he isthe cause as offering himself ; not often , but only once . For by one Offering , he consecrated the sanctified for ever . Meer Man or Angel , though most excellent , was insufficient , had no power to undertake and finish this glorious Work. For , man's Salvation , and his eternal blisse must needs be ascribed to the highest , first and universal cause ; and issuing from the fountain of eternal Love , was contrived by infinite Wisdom , and effected by Almighty Power ; and no way was thought so fit to accomplish it , as this one Offering of this one Priest. For this end the eternal Word of God , which was God , must be made Flesh : But neither God , as God , nor the Word , nor Flesh severally were the cause ; but God by the Word made Flesh : yet this is not all , this Word made Flesh must be a Priest , and as a Priest , he must suffer , dye , and offer himself for the Sin of Man. He must be the Priest and Sacrifice too , and offer himself without spot unto God , the Supream and Universal Lord and Judge , that so his Justice being satisfied , his mercy might freely and aboundantly issue out upon sinful Man , as it did , when once this Sacrifice was offered and accepted ; and being offered once , it was so accepted , that a second offering was needless . For this was of eternal virtue in respect of all Sins and Sinners , and was the most noble and highest piece of Service , that ever was performed by Men or Angels , in Heaven or Earth ; and was an Ilastical and propitiatory Sacrifice . The Priest offering , it was the the Head and Representative of Mankind , and the second Adam ; and was made such by God and his own voluntary submission , as willing to suffer Death for those whom he did represent . By this representation and substitution , he became the Surety and Hostage of Mankind , so far as was necessary for their deliverance , and became liable to the penalty , which was due to Man for his Sin. That which moved God to send and give his Son , was his meer mercy , and free love to miserable Sinners : That which moved God to punish him once substituted , was his vindicative Justice looking upon our Sins . It is not proper to say , That our Sins were a cause either intrinsecally or extrinsecally , impelling God to put Christ to Death , and to lay upon him the iniquities of us all . Though Sin is the formal object of punitive justice , and doth deserve punishment ; yet God as Supream Lord and Judge , and above his own Law , had power to pardon Sin , or punish it , and punish it either in the party offending , or in Christman's voluntary Hostage , and in what measure he pleased ; and to accept this punishment willingly suffered for what ends , and in what degree he pleased . For to inflict the penalty upon the party delinquent , or upon another , or in this or that degree , or for this or that end , which shall be agreeable to Justice , and pleasing to Mercy , is accidental and not essential to it . And because this Death of Christ was suffered for Sin , and so intended by the Supream Judge ; it was not only an affliction , but properly a punishment . That which moved Christ to offer himself , was his love unto his heavenly Father ; a resolution to obey his Command , and a desire to be beneficial to mankind : and the offering was an act of Charity , Obedience , and properly a Sacrifice ; which did so please God , that he , in consideration of the same , was willing to grant unto Man many glorious and incomparable Blessings . And to substitute Christ , to Command him to offer himself , to make him Sin for us , to accept his Sacrifice for 〈◊〉 and , in consideration of the same , to promise Remission of Sins , and eternal life to sinful man believing , was not meerly or properly a dispensation , but an abrogation of the Law of Works . In this offering God did manifest his Wisdom , his Power , his Holiness , and hatred of Sin ; his love of Righteousness , his vindicative Justice , his supream Dominion , and his infinite Mercy . In it Christ was a patern and lively mirrour of Humility , Patience , Fortitude , Faith , Hope , Charity , Self-denial , and Obedience unto Death , the Death of the Cross. The effects of this one offering are here said to be Sanctification and Consecration ; yet it was not an absolute and immediate cause of these : Therefore we must observe , That the effects of this cause may be said to be immediate or mediate , though this is no formal distinction of a cause as a Cause . The immediate effects which are antecedent to application , are of three sorts : 1. Such as respect God , to whom the Sacrifice was offered ; or Christ , who offered it ; or Man , for whom it was offered . Such as respect God , respect him either as Lord , or Law-giver , or Judge . As Lord , by this Sacrifice , redeeming man , he acquired a new power over Man ; as he was Law-giver , the Law of Works was made rel●xible or repealable ; as he was Judge , his vindicative power in respect of the sin of man was suspended , or inhibited upon a satisfaction or compensation made , so that his mercy might freely issue out to save man without any breach or violation of Justice , or derogation from the Authority of his Law : All these may be reduced to propitiation and reconciliation . In respect of Christ , the person offering , by this he acquired power over all Flesh , and all that happiness and glory which his Father promised to conferr upon him , upon the performance of this Service . In respect of man , for whom Christ offered ; he , by this became savable upon a new Covenant , and new terms ; for the performance of which Covenant , and attaining of which Salvation , all means and power necessary were merited . These effects followed immediately in respect of the offering ; the mediate effects are such as followed upon this offering applyed , yet are the immediate effects of it as applyed . For upon the same received by Faith , followed Justification , Reconciliation , Adoption , Resurrection , and eternal Salvation ; and all these are reduced by the Apostle to Sanctification and Consecration . So that the Salvation of Man from first to last , is wholly from this offering ; yet this offering was not the first Spring and Fountain of our Happiness , for that was the love of God , giving Christ to offer himself . It 's a vain and loose assertion of the Socinian to s●y or argue , That because God loved Man so as to give Christ for him ; therefore there was no need of any Propitiation , or Reconciliation , or Aversion of his Wrath by Blood. For he might easily distinguish between a general indefinite , and a particular love ; and between a love of good will , and of friendship . The love of God is best known by the acts and effects thereof : For we find three degrees and effects of his love to sinful man ; The first is , the giving of Christ to offer himself for him ; and thus he loved him , when he was an Enemy , and ungodly ; for we may love Enemies , though not as Friends . The second is , the giving the means of Conversion , that he may believe : and when God loves him thus , and first calls him , he finds him still an Enemy . The third degree and effect of his love is , to justify and glorify him ; and when God loves him thus , he finds him converted , and looks upon him as a Friend . From these degrees of love , the Apostle argues , That if when we were Enemies , we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son ; how much more being reconciled , shall we be saved by his life , Rom. 5. 10. And though Christ hath offered himself for Sinners , and this was an act of exceeding love : yet he that believeth not on the Son offering himself hath no life in him , but the Wrath of God abideth on him , Joh. 3. 36. And no man can have peace with God by Jesus Christ , before he be justified by Faith in Christ. For being justified by Faith , we have peace with God , through our Lord Jesus Christ , Rom. 5. 16. Where to have peace with God , and be the determinate object of God's special love , doth presuppose and necessarily prerequire both Faith and Justification . § . 14. The Apostle having proved formerly out of Psalm 40. the excellency of Christ's Sacrifice , and the virtue of it , in the next words adds another proof out of Jeremy 31. 33 ; 34. The same Text of the Prophet was alledged , Chap. 8. and there handled ; and therefore here I need not enlarge , but contract my Explication . But let us hear the words of the Allegation , Ver. 15. Whereof the Holy Ghost is a witness to us : For after he had said before , Ver. 16. This is the Covenant that I will make with them ; After those dayes , saith the Lord : I will put m● Laws in their hearts , and in their minds will I write them ; Ver. 17. And their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more . Ver. 18. Now where Remission of these is , there is no more offering for Sin. ] IN all which we may observe , 1. The Apostle's manner of Allegation , ver . 15. 2. The Text alledged , ver . 16 , 17. 3. The Aoostle's Application of the Text to the point in hand , ver . 18. 1. The manner of Allegation , we have in these words , [ Whereof the Holy Ghost is a witness to us : For after he had said before . ] The principal things here considerable are , 1. The thing testified . 2. The Witness testifying . The thing testified , is implyed in the word [ Whereof ] , and it is the excellency of Christ's Sacrifice , in respect of the virtue thereof in taking away Sin ; for this is the principal Subject of his present Discourse , and the demonstration of this Virtue is chiefly intended . The witness testifying this , is the Holy Ghost ; a greater , a better Witness we cannot have . This Testimony we find in the Scriptures , which signifie , That all Scripture is given by inspiration from God : we read it in the Prophet Joremiah ; therefore he spake and wrote this as moved by the Holy Ghost Jeremy so speaks and writes them as the words of God ; for [ saith the Lord ] , is his Style : from whence we observe , That the Holy Ghost is the eternal Jehovah : For that which Jehovah saith there , The Spirit is s●d to witness or testify here . Therefore , seeing it 's the Spirit that testifieth , and upon Record ; the thing testified must needs be of infallible and undeniable Truth . 2. The matter of the Text alledged , is a Promise , and it is two-fold ; 1. Of putting God's Laws in our hearts , that we may believe and be converted . 2. The Remission of our Sins upon our Faith and Conversion . The first is done by illumination and inspiration , whereby that word , concerning Christ and Salvation , which we hear , is made effectual , and the power of the Spirit is added to work Faith by that word in our hearts , to make us capable of Remission . The second is done by the Sentence of the Supream Judge absolving us . The first is referred to Vocation ; The second to Justification . And here we must observe what the Apostle's intention is , which will appear in The third thing , which is the Apostle's Application in ver . 18. 1. The difference between the second Allegation of the same Text here and in Chapter 8th , is , That there he proves the excellency of the Covenant above the former Covenant , from the excellency of the promises ; but here he proves the excellency of Christ's one offering above all the offerings of the Law , because by virtue of it Sins are taken away ; which implies , that the mercies promised in the New Covenant were merited by this Sacrifice , and that in respect of this Sacrifice offered , he was the Mediatour of this Covenant ; so that , without it , those promises had been never made , or , if they had been made , they never had beeneffectual and beneficial unto sinful Man. For in consideration of this offering , God made these promises , and for Christ's sake offering himself once , he gives the things promised to such as are capable of them , according to the Tenour of the Covenant . 2. He singles out the latter promise of Remission , as most pertinent to the point in hand ; for though the former promise be excellent , and the thing promised necessary for to enable Man to keep the Covenant ; yet it is but subordinate to this second promise , because if the Covenant be not kept , there can be no remission : neither is there any keeping of the Covenant , except God's Laws be written in man's heart , as well as in the Scripture outwardly . 3. He puts an Emphasis upon the Hebrew word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] used in the Hebrew Text , and the double negative in the Greek ; which imports , That he will in no wise remember out Sins any more , he will forgive them for ever . 4. From hence he draws this conclusion , there is no more offering for Sin. 5. And from thence , that Christ's Sacrifice was of that excellent virtue , that by one offering it took away Sin , all Sin , and made it eternally Remissible , and upon Faith eternally to be remitted . So that the substance of the Doctrinal part of this Chapter is to demonstrate the inefficacy of the many Legal Offerings , and the Efficacy of Christ's one Offering . And all this tends to this end , to inform us , 1. That Legal Offerings cannot help and save us . 2. That Christ's can . 3. That Christ's is far more excellent and absolutely necessary . And the Comparison therefore is in respect of the expiating power and vertue of both ; which , of the one , is little or none ; of the other , is very great and sufficient for our Salvation and eternal happinesse . And this Doctrine is full of heavenly Comfort to humble , penitent , and believing Sinners ; for by this Offering , though our Sins be many and hainous , yet they are all eternally pardone● , and we for ever consecrated . § . 15. The Apostle having finished his Doctrine of Christ's Priest-hood begins here to apply the same , and that by way of Exhortation to certain Duties , which they were bound to perform by vertue of God's Command and that Faith in Christ they did profess . The former Doctrine did serve to inform their Understanding more fully , and to improve and confirm their Faith , the Exhortations following tended to stir up the heart , informed by the Understanding , and directed by Faith , to the performance of other Duties necessary to the attainment of that eternal life which Christ had merited for them . This is the second part of this Chapter , and almost of the whole Epistle ; for the Connexion will make it appear to be so , if we either consider the matter or manner : For the matter , we find , that these words are joyned with the antecedent Doctrine concerning the Excellency of Christ both as Prophet and Priest ; and so it 's the second part of the whole , which is , 1. Doctrinal . 2. Practical . For , the former part is didascalical , this latter protreptical and more practical . But if we consider the immediate Connexion , then it will appear , that it 's in a more special manner joyned with the Doctrine of Christ's Priest-hood , continued from the fifth Chapter to this place ; and the first Application following , as the last Chap. 13. doth more especially respect Christ's Priest-hood . The manner of the Connexion is evident from the Illative Therefore , which signifies that the Exhortations are so many Conclusions deduced from the former Doctrine , especially that of Christ's Priest-hood . The principal Duty exhorted unto and urged by many and powerful Arguments , is , Perseverance in the Christian Faith , which they did profess . Yet he exhorts unto many other , which should alwayes accompany sincere Faith , and are not separable from it . These things premised , it 's time to enter upon the Text as delivered Ver. 19. Having therefore , Brethren , boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Christ , Ver. 20. By a new and living way , which he hath consecrated for us through the Veil ; that is to say , his Flesh : Ver. 21. And having an High-Priest over the House of God. THE Method of the Apostle in this latter part of this Chapter is obvious : For , 1. He layes the ground of his Exhortation . 2. Exhorts to several Duties . 3. Urgeth the performance of these Duties by several Arguments to the end of the Chapter . The ground is laid in these three Verses , by Repetition or rather Recapitulation of something formerly delivered , either explicitly or implicitly ; and in this ground we have severall particulars , which may seem to be Motives to excite unto the performance of the several Duties exhorted unto , and especially of the first : In these words of the ground , we have three things , 1. A new and living way unto the Holiest , made and consecrated by the Body and Blood of Christ. 2. A Liberty to enter by this way into the Holiest . 3. An High-Priest set over the House of God. And all these are expressed in Metaphorical terms alluding to the Legal dispensation , wherein the High-Priest had a way to pass through the Veil with Blood into the Holiest , to expiate the People's Sins , and obtain Mercy for them . That we may understand the words both in themselvs and in their several respects both to that which goes before , and that which follows . I will 1. Explain them . 2. Enquire how they are a Recapitulation of the Doctrine antecedent . 3. Examine how they are a ground of the Exhortation following : For the way , which is the first thing in the Text , according to the Order of the matter though not of the words , 1. It 's new and living ; these are the qualities of it . 2. It 's consecrated or dedicated . 3. It 's consecrated through the Veil . This is the Sum of the 20th Verse , the second part of the Text ; the Subject whereof is a Way , which is nothing but a certain space through which we pass from one place to another ; and if that space be not passable , it 's not properly or actually a Way . The word in this place is Metaphorical ; for there is no distance of space through which we pass by bodily motion to our God : Yet there may be a spiritual distance between him and us , and such as that he may be inaccessible unto us ; and we cannot come near him , so as to receive spiritual Comfort from him , except a spiritual way be made . So that a way in this place is something whereby we come near unto our God as to a gracious Father . 1. This way is said to be new ; the word in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is turned usually new , and so we find it used by the Septuagint , Eccles. 1. 9. There is nothing new under the Sun : and Deut. 32. 17. New Gods , newly come up . In this sense they use the Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : Yet the word in this place may signify a known and manifest way ; So the Vulgar Latine turns it , Viam notam . And this may seem to be more probable by these words , The Holy Ghost this signifying , that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest , whilest the first Tabernacle was yet standing , Chap. 9. 8. Yet put both new and manifest together , you have the full sense ; it was a Way newly made manifest . From this quality we may observe , that though from the first Promise of Christ , there was alwayes a way for true Believers to come to God ; yet it was not so manifest as it was after Christ's Death , Ascension , and Revelation of the Gospel . 1. This way , as it is newly opened and made manifest , so it 's said to be a living Way ; which some , according to the Syriack Translator , understand to be a way of Life , which leads to Life . And it 's so called in respect of the Terminus ad quem , that Life wherein it ends ▪ And though it 's true , that this way doth lead unto and ends in Life ; yet ● way of Life may be nothing but a living Way , as a man of same or name is a famous man ; an Expression usual in many Languages , when the latter Substantive signifies the Adjunct , as the former doth the Subject : For this is a certain Rule not only in the Latine , but in the Greek and Hebrew , That Substantivum Adjuncti regit Genitivum Subjecti , & Substantivum Subjecti Genitivum Adjuncti . Some therefore think it 's called a living , that is , a constant , permanent , and perpetual Way . So the word which signifies living is used by the Septuagint , and turned [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] aternus , Job . 19. 25. He is eternal who shall dissolve me ; for so they translate the place : And a living Fountain or Spring is such as continually springs . This way may be thus called in opposition to the Typical way into the Holiest of all , which was a dead way to all but the High-Priest ; none but he might enter into it , not he himself but once a Year , and then not without Blood ; and that 's a dead way through which no man passeth . That way was but of short continuance ; for after Christ was once entred with his own Blood into Heaven , it ceased , and is now ceased for ever : Again , it 's a living Way , in opposition not only unto this which led into the Sacrary and the most holy place , but unto that into Paradise : For this is a living safe way , and one may pass through it and live ; both the other were dangerous and mortal . That in the Tabernacle and Temple was so ; it was mortal to any but the High-Priest , and to him too at all times but once in the Year ; and then too , if he presumed to enter without Blood. The other passage into Paradise was obstructed with a flaming Sword , and no man could have access to the Tree of Life , but must be slain and burnt to Ashes : So that this is a way of Life , permanent and safe . 2. This way is consecrated or dedicated , new made , or newly made . The word we had in the former Chapter , it signifies to initiate , to dedicate , to consecrate ; and this is to give a kind of moral Being and Complement to a thing , so as to make it differ from what it was , and applicable to another and a better end and use : For an House dedicated is fit to be used for habitation ; the Temple once dedicated , fit for God's Service ; a Priest consecrated , fit to minister and officiate in the Temple . This way may be said to be initiated and consecrated , when it was once made passable for sinful Man , so that he might pass freely and safely to his God made accessible : And this is an Act of God's Will separating and appointing it for that end , and thereby giving Man access unto him . 3. This way consecrated was through the Veil : Where the Apostle informs us what is meant by the Veil ; that is , the Flesh of Christ. Whereby we understand , that the inner Veil did signify the Flesh of Christ. The High-Priest could not enter into the inner Sacrary , to approach the Mercy-Seat , which was the Throne of God , but through the Veil divided or lift up , or drawn aside . Therefore when Christ dyed , and his Soul was separated from his Body , the Veil of the Temple was rent from the Top to the bottom , to signify that Christ , the great High-Priest , was ready by his own Blood being shed , to enter the Holy place of Heaven , to procure eternal Redemption or Remission for sinful Man , and by this means divine Justice being satisfied God was made accessible : And no Man now can have actual access into his presence but by this Blood and through this Veil of the Flesh , by him who was crucified , and whose Body was separate from his Soul. § . 16. Thus the Way is made and consecrated : The next thing is , the Liberty which we have to enter into the Holiest , through this way , by the Blood of Christ ; where three things are to be observed , 1. The place into which this way doth lead us . 2. The Liberty to enter through this Way into this place . 3. The means whereby we obtain this Liberty . 1. The place is , the Holiest ; for into that the High-Priest entred once a Year with the Blood of Expiation . There was the Mercy-Seat , which must be sprinkled with Blood : We need not here enquire , Whether that Holiest place on Earth signify Heaven , or some other thing ? for it 's certain , the Mercy-Seat did signify that which this Apostle calls The Throne of Grace , Chap. 4. 16. The Throne of Grace is the Throne of God , propitiated by the Blood of Christ ; so that to enter into the Holiest , is , to come to God as Supream Lord , first offended by the Sin of Man , and then made propitious by the Death and Sacrifice of Christ , which was so acceptable unto him , that for and in consideration of the same , he is willing to admit Man into his presence , graciously to receive his Petitions and bless him . The Throne of God might be said to be three-fold , 1. Of Justice . 2. Of Grace . 3. Of Glory . To the Throne of Justice , strict Justice , no sinful guilty Man can approach . To the Throne of Grace every penitent Sinner may have access . The Throne of Glory is inaccessible to mortal Man. We need not locally ascend into Heaven for to come unto the Throne of Grace , it stands in the midst of God's People , as the Tabernacle did in the midst of Israel : For God is alwayes , in all places , nigh to such as call upon him in truth . Christ stood before the Throne of Justice when he suffered for our Sins : Penitent Sinners stand before the Throne of Grace , when they worship him in Faith. And after the Resurrection , we shall all stand before the Throne of Glory , and ever abide in his presence : Yet this way lyes by the Throne of Grace , and we pass by it to the Throne of Glory . There is one way to both . 2. We have Liberty to enter into the Holiest . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as you have heard , signifies Freedom and Boldness of Speech , it signifies also Liberty . The Vulgar and the Sy●iack turn the word Confidence , which is the same with Boldness , though some what more . The Arabick , and Arias Mortan●● , Liberty . The Aethiopick , Grace or Licence . All agree ; for they signify , 1. That we have a Licence and Liberty graciously granted unto us . 2. A Right . 3. This Liberty and Right is so full that we may come with Boldness and Confidence to be admitted and accepted . This is a great Priviledge and Favour which God doth graciously vouchsafe unto Believers and denies to all others , which are not admitted to come so near him . 3. We have this Right , Liberty , and Confidence , by the Blood of Christ ; for the Blood and Death of Christ satisfied God's Justice , and merited his Favour , and made him accessible , and upon the same he promised to admit penitent Believers : And upon our Repentance and Faith , we have actual Right and Liberty ; so that we , who could not come near him for our sins , may come near him by Faith in his Blood. This Priviledg is more fully expressed in these words of the Apostle , In whom we have boldness , and access with Confidence , by Faith of him , Ephes. 3. 12. Where , 1. We have access , and may enter into God's blessed presence : Yet , 2. Because one may come with fear and doubt , here we may come with boldness and confidence . 3. There is no such access , but by Christ , the Blood of Christ. 4. Neither is there any such access granted , but by Faith in that Blood ; that is , to such as believe . The sum of all is , That Sin had made God as the fountain of goodness inaccessible to Sinners as Sinners ; Christ , by his Death , had made him accessible to Sinners as believing . § . 17. We have , 1. A way . 2. A liberty to enter into the Holiest . And 3. We have an High-Priest over the House of God. Where , by the House of God , we must understand the Church , which is the Society and Corporation of Believers ; and by this High-Priest , Christ Jesus , as exalted at the right hand of God. No man under the Law could come to God without the High-Priest ; he must present their Offerings , their Incense , their Prayers , and the Blood of Expiation unto God , and make Intercession for them . So Christ is ever ready before his Fathers Throne , to bring us into his presence , as the Admissional of Heaven , to make Intercession for us , and as our Advocate to plead our Cause by his Blood , and make all our Services acceptable and effectual ; without all which , neither way nor liberty to enter could be beneficial , and to purpose . § . 18. Thus the words are explained , and inform us of a way made through the Veil , of liberty to enter , of Christ set over the House of God , as an High-Priest to bring us unto God , to make our prayers effectual , and to procure for us all things necessary to make us happy . Now it remains , we consider the words , 1. As a recapitulation of some former Doctrine . 2. As a ground of the consequent exhortations : and both these I will make clear in a few words . 1. They are a brief abridgment of the former Doctrine concerning Christ's Priest-hood . For in the 5th and 7th Chapters he had not only asserted , but proved , That Christ was an High-Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedec . That he had made a way to God by his Blood , and procured us liberty to enter into God's presence before the Throne of Grace , so that we might boldly come with confidence to obtain all mercies necessary to our everlasting happiness ; he had made evident , by the rare virtue and excellent effects of Christ's Sacrifice , partly Chapter 9th , partly in the former part of this . For Christ as a Son , is over his own House , Chap. 3. 6. And this House is the Church : We have a great High-Priest , who is passed into the Heavens , and sensible of our Condition , Chap. 4. 14 , 15. And he is the Minister of the Sanctuary , and the true Tabernacle which the Lord p●tched , and not Man , Chap. 8. 2. From all this you easily understand , that the former Doctrine is repeated , and briefly contracted in these words . 2. As it is a Recapitulation of the former Doctrine , so it is also a ground of the future Exhortations . For if there had been no way made ; or if there had been a way , and we could have had no liberty of accesse unto the Throne of Grace by the Blood of Christ ; or if there had been a way and liberty to enter , and yet no High-Priest set over the House of God , it would be in vain to continue in the profession of Christian Faith , or to perform any of those Duties exhorted unto in the following part of the Epistle . But seeing we have all these , and none of them , nor any other thing necessary to Salvation is wanting ; but eternal life is possible , and certainly upon these Reason ; to be obtained : therefore we have a great motive and encouragement to go on and continue in the performance of the Duties exhorted unto . For the ground of our hope is the possibility and certainty of attaining eternal Salvation ; and the ground of our practise and perseverance is our Hope , which is the stronger , because a way is made , a liberty to enter obtained , and a Priest set over God's House , who will secure us of eternal bliss , if we continue to believe and obey him to the end . This is so much the more an effectuall reason , because none of these could be had by the Law. § . 19. But what are these Duties exhorted unto ? They are several ; yet such as have great affinity one with another , and all tend to one end . The first this is , Ver. 22. [ Let us draw near , with a true heart , in full assurance of ●aith , having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience , and our Bodies washed with pure Water . ] THE Apostle in these words , and those which follow , exhorts to severall Duties . 1 To draw near to God , ver . 22. 2. To persevere in their Christian Profession , ver . 23. 3. To stir up one another to Love and good Works , ver . 24. 4. To Continue in Christian Communion , ver . 25. In the first Exhortation , we may observe , 1. The Duty exhorted unto , and to be performed . 2. The manner of performance . 3. The preparation of the persons who must perform it . For the Duty is to no purpose , no wayes profitable , if it be not 1. Performed . 2. Performed in due manner . 3. Performed by persons prepared and duly qualified . 1. To draw near to God ( for so the words are to be understood ) is to Worship God , in general ; in particular , to pray and seek Remission and eternal Life from him . This is to make use of the way Consecrated through Christ's Flesh , and of our liberty to enter into the Holiest , procured by the Blood of Christ. It 's the same with coming boldly unto the Throne of Grace , that we may obtain Mercy , and find Grace for seasonable Help , Chap. 4. 16. It 's the same with coming to God by Christ to sue for Mercy , Chap. 7. 25. The party therefore to whom we come , is God ; yet considered , as sitting in the Throne of Grace , and propitiated by the Blood of Christ. The drawing nigh , or coming to God , thus considered , is a motion , not of the Body , but the Soul ; whereby it turns away both the mind and heart from all other objects , and turneth and addresseth it self unto God , to converse with him for his Favour , Mercy , Blessings ; that it may obtain them from him : And it fixeth upon him , and abides with him till the business with him be finished . This Coming is called Worshipping , as Worshippers are called Commers , ver . 1. 2. This being the Duty , it must be performed with a pure heart , and in full assurance of Faith ; this is the manner , and the due qualification of the act of drawing nigh to God : without which , it can neither please God , nor profit Man. This qualification is two-fold , 1. The purity of Heart . 2. The full assurance of Faith. 1. It must be performed with the Heart : For all serious actions issue from the Heart ; and whatsoever is not done with Knowledg and Will , is not the action of a Man , as a Man , and a rational Creature . The Worship of God , whereby we seek eternal happiness , requires both ; and in the highest degree of our activity , because in it we have to do with God concerning the most weighty business of all others : yet we may Worship with the Heart , and not with a true Heart , that is , without sincerity . The Heart is then sincere , when , according to God's Will , it 's firmly fixed upon , and aims chiefly at the chief End. God's Glory , and eternal Happiness , desiring and intending both far above all other things , and this out of clear Understanding . And here it 's to be observed , That sincerity is required not only in the person Worshipping , but in the action of Worship . He that is habitually sincere , may so f●● forget himself , as to worship without sincerity , and the principal part , essence , power , reality , and truth of that Worship which God requires . For this truth and sincerity is the very Life and Soul of acceptable Worship : If we incline , or have secret and remote thoughts of Vain-glory , of falling off from our profession , or returning to Sin , then our Heart is not perfect , sincere , upright ; and our worship must needs be like our hearts , which ought , in the first place , wholly and folely be given and offered to God. By this we easily understand and both how few do Worship God sincerely ; and how defective the Worship of the best may often prove . 2. Besides sincerity , is required a full assurance of Faith : Faith is both a belief , and a confidence and assurance ; full assurance is an higher degree of both . As a belief , it 's grounded on God's Word in general , revealing the Truths and Propositions to be believed ; as a confidence , it 's grounded on the promise , a special part of God's Word . The belief goes before , confidence follows after , as depending upon the belief : for the promise is first a Truth , and so to be considered , before it can be conceived under the formal notion of a Promise . He that cometh to God , must believe that he is , and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him : That God is a Rewarder of those who diligently seek him , is a truth , or true proposition , and is to be believed ; and it is a Promise , because therein God signifies , that , as he is able , so he is willing to reward such ; any he hath in the Gospel signified , his unchangeable Will and Decree so to do , and hath bound himself both by his Decree and his Word , which is the signification of the Decree . The full assurance of this Faith is grounded upon the infallible Truth of his Word , and the fidelity and immutability of his Promise . And where as this full ssurance is thought generally an high degree of Faith , yet Faith is no divine Faith without it . For no man receives the Word and Promise of God , as the Word and Promise of God , that wants this full assurance . For the firmness of Faith , should answer the firmness of God's Word . If this full assurance were an assurance of our particular estate , and of our Title to eternal Life , and of our perseverance , it might be though an high degree of Faith , and separable from true and sincere Faith in many ; but the object of this full Assurance is the Word and Promise of God , considered antecedently to the application of them , to this or that particular Subject , or our selves ; and to the conclusion , we deduce from thence concerning our own particular estate . And it 's necessarily required in every one , who will draw near to God : The confidence and reliance , which is grounded upon God's Promise , is not an assurance that God hath justified us already , or that he will justify and save us absolutely ; but that he will justify , save , and reward those who by Repentance , and Faith in Christ diligently seek him , and , by consequence , that he will save us , seeking him in that manner . For the Promises of God include the Duty of Man , and bind God only unto such as perform the Duty : And he that comes to the Throne of Grace without a full assurance of Christ's Merit , and God's Promise , and the performance of it to them that do their Duty ; they come not aright , their Worship is not acceptable , their Prayers not effectual . Therefore said the Apostle , If any man lack Wisdom , let him ask it of God , &c. But let him ask it in Faith , nothing wavering , &c. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of God , Jam. 1. 5 , 6 , 7. Where by a wavering man , some understand not only a man not assured of the truth of God's Promises or doubting of them , but one not resolved to perform the Conditions of the Covenant . For any such unresolved man to think , that he shall receive the mercies promised , and prayed for , is plain Presumption . Therefore this full assurance is necessarily required in every person drawing nigh to God , even then when he draws nigh , and converseth with his God. We must therefore draw near to God , and pray every where , lifting up holy hands , without Wrath or Doubting , 1 Tim. 2. 8. Doubting is as prejudicial to Prayer , as Wrath , or impure hands . This is the qualisication of actual Worship . 3. The qualification of the Party followeth , which is the purification of the heart and body . For , 1. Our hearts must be sprinkled from an evil Conscience . 2. Our Bodies washed with pure water ; and the Apostle seems to presuppose them thus qualified , because Believers . The expressions are taken out of the Books of Moses , in which God prescribed a two-fold purification , one by bood , which we have spoken of , another by water . And no person legally impure , might draw nigh to God to worship him in the Tabernacle or Temple , before he was purified . And by this was signified , that no man guilty , and conscious of sin , is fit to draw nigh unto , or to worship God before he be purged from Sin. The Ethiopick Translation is not here so wording , as many other Translations be , but is a Paraphrase , and gives the true sense thus , [ Our hearts being purged , and our selves purified from Sin. ] The reason hereof is this , [ God heareth not Sinners , Joh. 9. 31 ] . But for the more distinct explication of the words , we must observe , 1. Our Hearts . 2. The sprinkling of our Hearts . 3. The sprinkling of them from an evil Conscience . 4. The purifying of our Bodies with pure water . 1. By Hearts are meant , the rational appetite and will , as subject unto the power of God , and bound by his Laws . This Heart and Will is the principal efficient of our actual Sins , and proper and primary subject of Unrighteousness . If this be pure , all is pure ; if this be polluted , all that issues out of it is polluted . For out of the heart proceed evil Thoughts , Murders , Adulteries , &c. Matth. 15. 19. 2. If this be unclean , it must be sprinkled , that is , purged and cleansed ; for that 's the true meaning of the word . For under the Law , the blood of Bulls and Goats , and the ashes of an Heifer were sprinkled upon the unclean ; and their Bodies being sprinkled with this Blood , with these ashes , were sanctified to the purifying of the Flesh , so that the sanctified might be admitted into God's holy Tabernacle or Temple , to Worship God with the rest of the People which were clean . So under the Gospel , such as are morally and spiritually unclean , must be spiritually sprinkled and purged by the Blood of Christ ; which doth not only justify , but sanctify the penitent Believer . So that to have our hearts sprinkled , is to have them justified and sanctified by the Blood of Christ. 3. The thing from which they must be cleansed , is an evil Conscience , which the Aethiopick Translatour interprets to be an evil Work or Sin. For Evil here , is Sin ; and an evil Conscience is the Sin , whereof we are guilty and conscious . For nothing doth spiritually and morally pollute us but Sin , which makes us not only guilty and liable to punishment , but also filthy , and unfit for Communion with God. 4. The Body must be washed with pure water Some understand the Body in proper sense , as contra-distinct to the Heart and Soul ; and this water to be the * water of Baptism , which is sprinkled upon the Body , and , though not physicially , yet sacramentally and mystically doth purge it , and the Soul too from Sin. This it 's said to do by virtue of the Institution , by the merit of Christ's Blood , and the power of the Spirit : For Baptism is the washing of Renegeration , by the renewing of the Holy Ghost . Ti● . 3. 5. Yet this purifying cannot be by washing away the filth of the Flesh , but the answer of a good conscience towards God , by the Resurrection of Christ , 1 Pet. 3. 21. It 's true , that not only the Soul , but the Body are polluted with Sin ; and both by reason of Sin , are liable to punishment ; and both must be cleansed by the sprinkling of Christ's Blood , and the Sanctification of the Spirit : and this is the principal sense of the words . The thing to be observed is , That , 1. No man unconverted , unregenerate , not sanctified by the Holy Ghost , is fit to draw nigh to God. 2. The regenerate , who are in the State of justification and sanctification , if they contract new guilt , must by Repentance , Faith in Christ's Blood , and Prayer for the Spirit to sanctify them , first cleanse themselves , before they come to God. The Body is but once washed with water , and that is in Baptism ; but , as it 's taken here , it must be often washed and cleansed , by the renewing of out Repentance and Faith. So that by Heart and Body is meant the whole man , and by sprinkling and washing is understood justification and sanctification , not only begun upon our first conversion , but continued by our Repentance and Faith , continued habitually , and re-iterated and actually exercised ; especially upon our relapfes , and contracting of new guilt and pollution . David knew this qualification to be necessary , and therefore said , I will wash my hands in innocency ; so will I compass thine Altar , Psal. 26 , 6. To compass God's Altar , was to draw nigh to God , and to worship him ; to wash his hands in innocency , was to cleanse his Heart and Body from sin , before he did approach unto that God , who requires holiness in all them that draw nigh unto him ; for they must be holy as he is holy . This seems to be the reason why in our Liturgy , the Confession of Sin was premised , and began the Worship of God. § . 20. The second duty exhorted unto , follows in these words Ver. 23. Let us hold fast the profession of our Faith without wavering , ( for he is faithful that promised ) . ] THe first Exhortation is to the exercise of Divine and religious Worship , upon which both our perseverance and eternal happiness depend ; and if the parties drawing nigh be prepared , and the Worship duly performed , there will be greater hope of Salvation . In these words we are exhorted to perseverance in the profession of our Christian Faith and Hope , which is necessary to the attainment , and actuall enjoyment , of the great Reward . In the words , two things are observable , 1. The Duty , Perseverance . 2. The reason why the Duty should be performed . This is the principal Duty , and both the former and the two latter are means and helps , which will enable us to perform it . In the Duty we may take notice , 1. Of Faith. 2. Of the Confession of Faith. 3. The holding of this Confession without wavering . 1. We must have Faith , that divine and fundamental vertue in our hearts . Most Copies make no mention of Faith , but of Hope , and so do most of the Translations , so that we may wonder what Copy our Translatours followed . Yet this doth not vary the sense ; For where there is Hope , there must be Faith ; and where there is true Faith , there is certainly Hope : for Faith is the ground of Hope , and Hope depends upon Faith , and these two are inseparable . Besides , Faith , as a confidence , hath great affinity with Hope ; and though they may be distinguished so , as that confidence may look at the party promising , and Hope at the thing promised , yet both are taken often for the same . I need not here inform you of the Nature of Hope , for that I have done already , Chap. 3. ver . 6. & 6. 11. Both Faith and Hope , with Charity , are by the School-men called , Theological vertues . 2. If there be Hope , there must be a Confession of it : Hope is inward and invisible as Faith is , and must be manifested to others by our Confession . This Confession may be made by Works or Words : When our Works are holy and just , and agreeable to our Faith , we thereby signify , that we believe in Christ , and expect eternal Glory by him : When in Words we signify to men , that we believe that God raised up Jesus Christ from the dead , and testify our Hope of the Resurrection unto everlasting Life ; then we confess both our Faith and Hope : This Confession is solemnly made in Baptism , and also in the Eucharist , and by our Communion with God's People in our publick Assemblies . This Confession is necessary , without it such as are at Age are not capable of Baptism , neither can they without it be justly admitted to the Lord's Supper . To deny Christ before men , as Peter did , is contrary to this Confession , and a grievous Sin ; For , with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness , and with the Mouth Confession is made unto Salvation , Rom. 10. 10. So that as without Faith there is no Righteousness , so without Confession there is no Salvation . 3. A man may confess his Hope for a time , yet as his mind may alter so his Confession may waver ; therefore the Duty is to hold fast this Confession without wavering : The more sincere Faith and Hope shall be , and the more deeply they shall be rooted in the heart , the more likely they are to persevere ; yet perseverance doth chiefly depend upon God's support and assistance : For , if temptation be violent , and he desert us but for a little time , we shall be in danger to waver , if not to fall ; yet this divine assistance cannot be expected but in the diligent use of the means ; therefore saith the Apostle , Let us hold fast . And this will be the more easy in time of Peace , when we shall meet with no Opposition : But when the subtle Arguments of Seducers shall begin to delude the Understanding , and the fear of cruel Persecution of bloody Enemies on the one hand , and the desire of temporal Life , Peace , Happiness , on the other hand , shall work upon the Will , then it will be a difficult thing to hold fast , and not be shaken . § . 21. The Reason to perswade , stir up , and encourage , is God's Promise and Fidelity : For , 1. We have a Promise . 2. It 's God's Promise . 3. God promising is faithful . 1. We have a Promise : We are secure , when one that is able hath passed his word , and by Promise bound himself unto us , then we make sure thus far of the thing promised . The thing which we desire , and which is promised unto us , is not onely the Reward of eternal Glory , which is the Object of our Hope , but power and ability with assistance to do all things necessary for the attainment thereof ; for , in the Gospel , not only the Reward , but Power to perform our Duty , are promised . Therefore Paul prayes , that the Ephesians may be enlightned , that they may more fully know not only the excellency of the Reward of Glory , but also the exceeding greatness of that Power , which must not only strengthen , but support and assist them in the seeking of the full possession and enjoyment , Eph. 1. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. 2. This Promise is not the Promise of any Man or Angel , but of God ; this is more than if all the best men , and all the holy Angels , had bound themselvs unto us , and given us all security , which possibly they could . The Reason hereof is , that his Power is absolute and almighty , and nothing can resist or hinder it if once it begin to work . The Power of Men and Angels is great , yet nothing unto this : Besides , God's Mercy is like his Power , and as he is able so he is willing to do what he hath promised , and he hath signified his Will and Purpose , through Faith , by his Power to preserve us unto Salvation . 3. Yet one may be able , and for a time willing , and yet upon several Reasons and Motives change his mind ; for the Mind and Will of Man or Angel is not absolutely immutable ; and so , though perhaps they will not , yet it 's possible they may fail us . But God will not , God cannot ; for God who hath promised is faithful : For as he cannot forget , or be hindred by any contrary Power , so he cannot change his Will : If he say the word , it must be done ; if he pass his Promise , he will perform . This faithfulness presupposeth his Power and his Promise , and it 's the immutability of his Will ; for , as he is unchangeable in his Being ; so he is in his Promise , For the strength in Israel will not lye , nor repent . 1 Sam. 15. 29. And these are his words , I am the Lord , I change not ; therefore the Sons of Jacob are not consumed , Malach. 3. 6. So that all is sure on God's part , and Man hath no cause to waver , except he neglect his Duty ; and if he perish , his destruction must be of himself . O , therefore let us give all diligence to make our Calling and Election sure , and persevere unto the end : And shall we , who have so great advantage , so many helps , so blessed an Opportunity , and the Promise of a faithful God , neglect and injure our selves so much as to lose this glorious and incomparable prize ? Shall we come out of Aegypt , and come so near the borders of the heavenly Canaan , and turn back ? or refuse to go forward ? Let us detest and eternally abhor to waver ; let us go on whatsoever it may cost us . § . 22. The third Duty is to further and set forward one another in this blessed Work : This is the Exhortation of the Apostle , Ver. 24. Let us consider one another , to provoke unto Love and good Works . THE first Duty exhorted unto , seems to be principally Faith ; in the full assurance whereof we must draw nigh to God : The second , Hope ; in the Profession whereof we must persevere : The third , Charity ; to which we must provoke one another . The words have little difficulty in them , and so need not much Explication : In them we are exhorted , 1. To consider one another . 2. To provocation upon consideration . 3. To provocation unto Love and good Works . 1. This consideration is a Work and Duty of every Christian , as he is a Member of the Church ; and it is universal , all are bound unto it . The Object is every Christian and Fellow-Member : The thing to be considered is not their temporal but their spiritual Carriage and Conversation , so far as it shall be manifested and made intelligible unto us : The immediate End thereof , to know their Life , Carriage , and Conversation , which cannot be so well done as by a serious view and animadversion : The Duty is to be performed mutually , so as that every Christian may be the person considering another , and the person considered by another . In this Act , though we may make use of our Eyes and outward senses , yet we most of all must exercise the apprehensive and judicative faculty of our Understanding . 2. We must consider to Provocation . This word is but used twice in the New Testament , and the Verb no oftner ; yet we find the Verb frequently taken up by the Septuagint , under several Hebrew words : It may be taken here either actively , to provoke others ; or passively , to be provoked our selves . We provoke or stir up others , when we see them ignorant , forgetful , negligent , cold , backward ; and that by Information , minding them of their Duty , perswading , moving , quickning them unto performance : Or if we see our Brethren persecuted , we stir up such as are able to pity them , and by Works of Mercy to relieve them . We are passively provoked our selvs , by considering the good Example of others , to do the like , and follow them . 3. The thing which we must provoke others , or be provoked our selves unto , is , Charity ; for we must be provoked and provoke , 1. To Love. 2. To good Works , which are the fruits of Love ; and amongst these good Works , the principal are Works of Mercy , whereby God's poor and persecuted Saints are relieved and comforted : And that is no true real Love which is without good Works , as that is no true Faith which can be separated either from the Love of Christ , or from the Love of Christian Brethren . From the words considered in the Context , and explained in this Latitude , many practical Conclusions are deducible . 1. From the Context we are informed , that Confession without Practice , Love , and good Works , is defective , imperfect , and to little purpose : Confession of the Mouth , Love in the Heart , and Works issuing from Love must go together , and must never be separated in true and sincere Christians . 2. From the word provoking , taken passively , we may learn this lesson , to give good Example unto our Brethren ; and so let that heavenly Light which is in us shine forth , that others may see our good Works , and glorify our Father which is in Heaven : For we should be the Light of the World , and our Lives should be a Mirrour of all divine vertues . 3. We must consides and take special notice of such as are eminent in Piety , Righteousness , and true Holness , and follow closely their good Example they give us , and tread in their paths which lead to the eternal Rest of Heaven . 4. Take provoking actively , and the Text informs of another Duty ; and that is , to have care not only of our own Souls , but the Souls of others , and to use all means to promote their Salvation as well as our own . Love teacheth us this Lession ; for we must Love our Neighbour as our self ; and the greatest Love we can shew unto him , is to endeavour his spiritual and eternal good . And we must remember , that Love , especially Christian Love , is diffusive and communicative , and , in imitation of God doth good unto many . Non solum nobis nati , a●t ●e●iati , sumus ; We are neither born , nor born again , for our selvs , The End both of our natural and spiritual Birth is to benefit others as well as our selvs : we should sharpen , quicken , and mightily stir up others to the best things , especially to Love and good Works : And this is the Duty not only of Ministers , in relation to their People ; or of Parents , in relation to their Children ; or of Masters , in relation to their Servants : but it 's general , and so extensive , that no Christian is exempted from the performance . And the neglect of this Duty hath been the Cause why there is so little Piety , so much Iniquity amongst us , and why most men are profane or bare Professor , and so few are zealous in the best things . 5. From hence we may infer the Excellency of Christian Society . Civil Society tends much to the temporal good of person civilly associated , but spiritual Society in Religion and Christianity is far more excellent and beneficial : Yet this presupposeth the Persons associated , with whom we live and must converse , to be good ; for otherwise ill Company is most pestiferous . Therefore the Apostle commanded the Corinthians to purge out the old Leaven , and scandalous Persons , which like a contagion infect others : And this doth imply , that Christian Assemblies should be kept pure , and consist of Orthodox and pious Members ; and to live amongst such must needs be a great advantage unto poor Souls seeking Salvation . § . 23. There was a fourth Duty exhorted unto : For , Ver. 25. They mustnot not for sake the assembling of themselves together , as the manner of some was , but they must exhort one another ; and so much the more , as they saw the day approaching . IN which we have , 1. A Duty . 2. A Reason to enforce the performance . The Duty is expressed , 1. Negatively , They must not for sake the assembling of themselves together , as the manner of some was . 2. Affirmatively , They must exhort one another . The Reason is taken from the Cause ; where we must consider , 1. The Reason it self , They did see the day approaching nearer and nearer . 2. The performance pressed by this Reason ; and that was , to exhort more and more . In the Negative part of the Duty , we observe several Propositions , 1. There were Assemblies of Christians . 2. It was the manner of some to forsake them . 3. They must not follow their Example , or do so . 1. There were Assemblies : Now , Assemblies are of many kinds ; amongst the many differences of them this is one , that some are Civil , for matters of this Life ; some are Religious , for matters spiritual , wherein we do converse with God , and amongst our selves . These were Assemblies religious , wherein Christians did meet together for to serve and worship God , and by so doing did mutually promote their Salvation . There are private Devotions , and religious Duties , to be performed in our Closets , and also in our Families , and also publick Divine Services . These Assemblies were instituted and observed for publick Converse with God ; and these were occasional or more solemn , and observed at set and determinate times ; and in times of Peace and Liberty in certain convenient places erected or separated for that end and use : Hence Synagogues and Sabbaths amongst the Jews . The Heathens also had their Temples and sacred places , and their solemn times ; yet abused to Superstition and Idolatry . The Light of Nature doth dictate , that God is to be worshipped not only in private , but in publick ; and that this Worship , if orderly performed , requires not only certain solemn times but also convenient places ; yet the times were alwayes more considerable than the places . To enjoy these Assemblies , and have Liberty in publick to serve their God , both in convenient places and at certain and solemn times , was a great Mercy of God , and a great benefit to Man : For in these they restified their Union and Agreement in the same Faith and Worship ; they had the benefit of God's special presence ; they joyntly both heard God speak unto them by his Prophets and Messengers ; they joyntly tendred their Petitions and Thanksgiving before the Throne of Grace ; they had the Covenant confirmed to them by Sacraments ; they comforted and encouraged one another ; and as [ Vis unita forti●r ] the Service and Worship of many was more powerful , so the Blessings , Graces , and Gifts of God were more plentifully poured down from Heaven upon them . And we are very brutish , or very inconsiderate , if we understand not the Excellency of these religious publick Assemblies , and very unthankful if we acknowledg not the benefit of them . The persecuting Enemies of the Church knew full well if they could scatter these Meetings and Conventions , take away their Ministers , demolish their Houses of Worship , and deprive them of their solemn sacred times , they might do much to destroy Christian Religion . David did love the place where God's Honour dwelt , ve●emently desired God's presence in that place , and sadly complained to his God , when he was banished from these holy and blessed Assemblies ; and yet those were far inferiour to these of the Gospel . And doleful was that Lamentation of the Captives of Jerusalem , when God had taken away his Tabernacle , as if it were a Garden , destroyed the places of Assemblies , had caused the solemn Feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion , and had despised in the Indignation of his Anger the King and the Priest , Lament . 2. 6. God grant this prove not to be our Case and sad Condition , because of our neglect and abuse of these Assemblies and our Unthankfulness . 2. It was the manner or Custom of some to forsake these Assemblies . This was a grievous Sin , and of very ill Consequence ; for when they forsook these , they forsook the Church , they forsook Christ ; they forsook their God , and deprived themselves of the incomparable benefits of these sweet and blessed Associations : And this Sin was the greater , in that they did not sometimes , but usually , frequently , constantly , forsake them ; for it was their Custom . Some might do this out of negligence , because they had no lively sense of Religion : Some might do it for fear of Persecution , because they loved their Lives , their Goods , their Reputation , their Liberty , their Quiet and Peace , more than Christ , and feared Reproach and Tribulation ; yet these were convinced in their hearts of the truth of Christianity : Yet some cast off their Profession , turned Jews , and became Apostates . Some might be Seperatists and Schismaticks . It 's to be feared , that most of the Seperatists of these times , if not all , are guilty of this Sin ; for , What Reason can they have to refuse Communion , either in whole or in part , with any who profess the truth of the Gospel , and worship God according to his Word ? 3. Though this was the Custom of some , yet they must not follow their Example , for it was evill , and contrary to the Laws of God. And though as yet they did frequent these sacred Meetings , yet they must consider that there was a possibility , nay a danger they might offend , as others had done even in this particular , They had their frailties , and lay open to Temptation . But now being admonished , they should be the more careful , not onely to do their Duty , but also to avoid the Causes and Occasions of this Sin. This is the Negative , a Branch of that general , Eschew evill : The Affirmative , which is brought in by the Particle discretive but , which sometimes is a note of Opposition , is , To exhort one another , which may be understood two wayes , 1. Privately , to exhort one another to frequent these holy Assemblies , and never to forsake them : Or , Publickly , to exhort mutually in these publick Assemblies ; for so to do was one end ●●y they were ordained , and to be used . Consider this part of the Duty , in opposition 〈◊〉 the wicked Custom of some then , and many now : it is to frequent these Assemblies , ●nd mutually to agree to assemble , and , being assembled , to exhort one another . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to comfort , entreat , encourage , and to exhort : And Exhortation in Scripture , especially in the New Testament , signifies sometimes strictly to stir up unto the performance of some Duty commanded by God , as conducing to our Salvation ; and sometimes more largely , for any set and formal Discourse , as that excellent Sermon which Paul preached in the Synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia , was [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] a word of Exhortation , though it contained many other things . And in this sense , Exhortation may signify the Sermons made , and Doctrine preached , by the Ministers of the Church in publick Congregations , one head whereof is Exhortation to continue in the Profession of the truth , and the Observations of Christ's Commandments : And these Assemblings , if rightly ordered , are effectually conducing to that end ; and where we find them neglected , or turned into private Conventicles in a time of Peace and Liberty , there Religion doth decay ; there is little Unity in the Truth : For , unnecessary private Conventicles , with the neglect of the publick Assemblies , are usually the Seminaries of Errours and Schisms , and very prejudicial to the publick good of the Church . So that the Duty exhorted unto , is , to frequent constantly these Assemblies , and make right use of them , to edify , confirm , and encourage one another to perseverance in the Christian Faith , and to Love and good Works . I might here take occasion to enlarge , and reckon up all the particular Duties to be performed in these religious Meetings , and shew how subservient they are , every one severally , and all joyntly , to that end whereat the Apostle chiefly aims , but I proceed to the Reason . § . 24. For it might be said , What Reason , Suasive , Motive , may be given , why we should be so careful to perform this Duty ? Yes , there is a great and powerful Reason , and that is , Because the day approacheth . Where , 1. We must understand the words of the Reason considered in it self . 2. The force of the Reason , in respect of the performance of the Duty . In the words of the Reason we have , 1. A Day . 2. The Approach of that Day . 3. The nearer Approach . 1. A Day is a part and the principal part of time , as opposed to the Night ; and in this place it signifies some special and more than ordinary time , as , the day of death , of the destruction of Jerusalem , of the End of the World. The day of death every Man must look for ; Nothing more certain than death , though nothing more uncertain than the Hour of death : Every man must dy , and then be brought unto his last Account ; and as that shall be made , so shall be the condition of every Man for ever ; for , where the Tree falleth there it lyeth , and as Death leavs us Judgment finds us . There was a day of Jerusalem's destruction , and of the ruine of that Nation , appointed , and made known by Christ and his Apostles ; and these Hebrews could not be altogether ignorant of it . There is another greater day , of the final and universal Judgment , and this was part of their Creed . All these , and every one of these , are special and great dayes : And one , or two , or all these three , may here be meant . Some think the day of Jerusalem's r●ine was most of all intended by the Apostle , though that cannot be evidently evinced to be pointed at , so as to exclude the other two . 2. This day did approach , and was near ; for first the day of every Man's death could not be far off ; the day of Jerusalem's destruction was near , and so near , as many then living might survive not only the Peace and Happiness of that Nation , but the very Being and Existence of that City and of the Temple ; they might see the ruine and destruction of both ; and , for ought they knew , the end of the World. 3. This day drew nearer and nearer : For , 1. We no sooner begin to live , but we begin to dy ; for we are born mortal , and ready we are to return to that dust from whence we were taken and raised at the first , and the more of our Life is past , the less is yet to come , and every Day , Hour , Minute of our Life we approach nearer unto death , and death unto us . 2. As for Jerusalem's destruction , there were many Signs of that approaching fore-told , and then known to be past : It was fatal and unavoidable , even then when Christ wept over it , lamenting her Sin and Punishment , which he certainly did fore-know ; and when this Letter was written to these Hebrews , that day of her Calamity was far nearer . 3. For the day of Judgment ; the particular Year , Month , Day , was hid ; yet the times of the Gospel were the last times , and upon us the ends of the World are come : And that which is alwayes unknown may alwayes be looked for , seeing it will certainly come , and that suddenly . And , though that day in those times was far off , yet it 's nearer now ; and though now it may be many years before the Son of God shall come from Heaven , and the time to Man may seem long , yet a thousand years with God is but as one day . Besides that day of final Judgment , if we consider that the unchangeable condition of every Man begins immediately upon his death , then the great day of Judgment may in some sense be said to be as near as death to every particular Person . This is the meaning of the words , considered in themselvs ; and now the force of them as containing a Reason remains to be considered : For this end , we must take notice of the thing here urged , and it 's 1. The performance of a Duty . 2. The performance of it the rather and the more ; for the more the day approacheth , the more we should prepare for it . Not to forsake the assembling of our selvs together , and to exhort one another , and to be careful , very careful , diligent , and frequent in this Work of Association , and Exhortation , is a Duty commanded by God , and pressed upon us by the Apostle ; to neglect this Duty is our Sin and Disobedience , to do it constantly is our performance . And this is that which is intended by this Reason : The force thereof is great . For , seeing 1. The day of our great Account , God's final Sentence to be passed upon us , and the Execution thereof is so near ; it concerns us much , not only to know our Duty , but to bestir our selves , and to perform it constantly with all our Power . Our progress towards Heaven should be like a natural Motion , which is slow , or not so swift , at the beginning , and is swifter and swifter towards the end . Upon this performance depends our final and eternal estate : For , if we neglect , fail , and fall away , then we are undone for ever ; if we perform and be prepared , we are eternally happy . Seeing therefore that day is a day of eternal Rewards or Punishments , and approacheth so near , What should not we do to provide for our everlasting safety ? Yet men think little of these things . If we under stand the Text of the day of Jerusalem's Calamities and desolation , which was near at hand , and was a day of death to many thousands , yea to hundreds of thousands , and a lively resemblance of the final Judgment ; this also might effectually work upon them , and move them to performance and perseverance : For , then they should see and clearly behold the woful End of that unbelieving Nation , and most of all , of all Apostates from Christianity . Then their seducing Brethren , and their persecuting Enemies should be destroyed , the Temple burnt and demolished , all their Judaism and Legal Service , wherein they trusted , for ever abolished ; and those which out of fear complyed with them , or of Christians turned Jews , should suffer in the highest degree . Therefore there was no Reason in the World , they should forsake or deny Christ , and turn from him to Moses ; from the Gospel to the Law ; for the day was approaching , when they should see God's Judgment executed upon the unbelieving , seducing , persecuting Jew , and the eternal Confusion of Apostates . Therefore , as they desired God's favour and an happy End , and feared his Indignation and their own eternal Destruction , let them persevere , and use all means to perswade others to continue firm and faithful to the end . And here you must observe , that the principal Duty exhorted unto , is Perseverance , and the rest are subservient thereunto . § . 25. It follows , Ver. 26. For , if we sin wilfully after that we have received the Knowledg of the Truth , there remaineth no more Sacrifice for Sins . IN these words , 1. We have a Reason given to perswade unto perseverance . 2. Yet this Reason is directly and immediately disswasive and dehorrative from Apostacy . 3. Secondarily , and by Consequence , it exhorts and moves to perseverance : For whatsoever Reason is against Apostacy , the same is for perseverance . 4. This Reason doth seem to imply , that the forsaking of Christian Assemblies was Apostacy , or tended to it , and the day approaching to be a day of Judgment , and in particular of the Punishment of such as fall away . 5. This Reason begins here , and is continued to the 32d . Verse . 6. It 's taken [ à poena ] from the Punishment , which is avoided by perseverance , and is executed upon Apostates . 7. In Form it 's this , If the Sin of Apostacy be unpardonable , and shall be punished with unavoidable and most grievous Punishment , then we ought to be very careful cop●●severe . But the Antecedent is true : Therefore we ought to persevere . In the words of the Reason we have , 1. The Sin. 2. The Punishment , which is Unavoidable . Grievous . The Sin is described in the 26. Ver. to be a sinning wilfully after we have received the Knowledg of the Truth . Where we must consider , 1. What it presupposeth ; and that is , the Acknowledgment of the Truth . 2. What it is , upon this presupposed ; It 's a wilful sinning . In the presupposition we have , 1. Truth . 2. The Knowledg of it . 3. The receiving of this Knowledg . 1. By the Truth is meant the true , pure , and most certain Doctrine of the Gospel concerning Christ already come , Faith , and Salvation : This is called Truth , because it 's true , and most eminently and infallibly true , which is no wayes in any thing false and erroneous , as being at first immediately revealed from God , the God of Truth , of all Truth , who is not only true but Truth it self ; It 's called also the Truth , by way of eminency , as the most excellent Truth revealed for Man's eternal Happiness . The Reason of this Truth is the Perfection of his full and clear Knowledge , and his absolute Integrity and purest Holiness , which both are such , as that he neither can nor will reveal any thing but Truth . 2. Truth may be Truth , and yet not known to any Man or Angel ; and this Truth was first known only unto God : Yet it pleased him , out of his great Mercy , to reveal his mind to Man , and in particular this Truth of the Gospel by Christ and his Apostle , who made it known unto others , who by that means came to know it : For , many who heard the Gospel preached , and attended unto it , attained to the Knowledg of the great Mystery of God's Kingdom , and of those things which were sufficient and effectual , for Information of the Understanding unto everlasting Life . This Knowledg was not Mathematical , Physical , Political , or Metaphysical , as some use to speak ; but Theological and Divine , and a Light above the Light of Nature . The word may signify not only Knowledg , but Acknowledgment of this Truth , by a full Assent upon Conviction . And this might be caused , not only by outward Revelation , Information , and Miracles , but also by the Illumination of the Spirit , and supernatural Gifts : For , God goes far with Man , and doth much to save him ; he many times penetrates his inward parts , and by his divine Light and Power enters into his very heart , and all this to convert him . 3. They received this Knowledg : God did not only offer it , but give it , which he might be properly said to do , when they received it . They had it not by Nature ; for it 's far above the natural Man : They acquired it , but not by their own Power and Industry ; neither did they merit it . Yet in this receiving they were not meerly passive , yet passive before they could be active : God must do something without Man , before he can actively receive , he must prevent him by Revelation and Information without , and by Illumination and Operation within , and this done , Man may be active . For , to receive it is certainly an Act not only of the Understanding which assents , but of the Will which approves . So that he both wittingly and willingly receives , and that with some delight , and proceeds to Profession , and continues for a while to believe , approve , profess . Though this receiving of Knowledg may seem only to be Acknowledgment , yet it 's something more . Truth is opposed to Erroar , Knowledg to Ignorance , Acknowledgment to Dissent , Approbation to Rejection of this Truth . § . 26. This receiving and having is presupposed to Apostacy and sinning wilfully : For no Man can loose and fall away from that which he never had either in Title or Possession ; so none can fall away from Grace , or any degree of Grace , which he never had . The Heathens in Scripture were never said to bre●k the Covenant of God , or forsake God , as their God by Covenant . Therefore the proper Subject of Apostacy is one in the Church , a member of the visible Church ; and in the times of the Gospel a Christian , who hath professeth his Faith in Christ : yet of these Apostates there is a difference , and there are degrees of this Apostacy . For some receive and profess Christianity by tradition , and an implicit Faith ; yet never have any distinct knowledg of the Truth to be believed . Some believe and understand more explicitely the Doctrine of Christianity , and are convinced of the truth of it ; yet are never affected with the matter so , as to forsake their Sins , and reform their Lives , but continue in their Sin. Some know , believe , are affected with the matter , as so they begin by the power of the Spirit to escape the corruption that is in the World through lust , and find some spiritual joy and comfort . To fall away from any of these is Apostacy , but to fall from the last is the greatest : And there was something proper to those times , which did aggravate this sin very much . For the Truth then was confirmed both by Miracles , and Gifts of the Holy Ghost ; this confirmation was clear and extraordinary , and to renounce that Truth so confirmed must needs be hainous , and of this the Apostle seems to speak . Christians may fall away three wayes , by denying the Truth , 1. In their Profession . Or , 2. In their practise . Or , 3. In both . And that denial , which we call Apostacy , is destructive of Christianity , and maketh a man of a Christian no Christian. Yet some may deny Christ , or fall into some grievous Sin , and yet verily believe in their hearts , and retain the love of Christ , as Peter and others have done , and yet they remain Christians . This is not strictly Apostacy : In this number were many of those , who antiently were called [ Lapsi ] , and upon repenance were re-admitted to Christian Communion . Therefore the Apostacy here , 1. Is not barely to Sin ; for who lives , and sins not : Nor , 2. To Sin willingly ; for so every one that Sins , especially such as act against their knowledg may be said to do : But , 3. It 's to sin willingly after the reception of the knowledg of the Truth , so as to renounce the Truth , whereof they were fully convinced ; and to reject Christianity , which they had received and professed . That this was the sin here meant , will fully appear hereafter . § . 26. This is the Sin ; The Punishment follows , and it is unavoidable . The reason hereof is , first because it 's unpardonable . This is signified by these words , — [ There remains no more Sacrifices for Sins . ] — This implies , 1. That the punishment of Sins unpardonable , is inavoidable : and this is a clear and certain truth , if we consider the Rules of God's Judgment , and his Practice . For whom he never pardons , those he alwayes punisheth . 2. That no sin is pardonable without a Sacrifice , he meaneth the Sacrifice of Christ , one immediate effect whereof once was to make Sin pardonable . The reason why God required , 1. Sacrifice . 2. This Sacrifice , was , 1. To manifest his hatred of Sin , and his Justice . , 2. To let men know , that no Sacrifice was so fit for this purpose as that of Christ. These , things implyed , he affirms , there remains no more Sacrifice for Sins : In this he denies not this Sacrifice of Christ , or the virtue of it , to remain ; for both remain : But his meaning is , that neither this Sacrifice , nor any other , can make the Sins of these Apostates pardonable . For Sin is pardonable by this Offering , upon condition of Repentance and Faith ; and then actually to be pardoned , when we actually do repent and believe sincerely . But here we must take notice , that the sins of many persons are pardonable , and may be pardoned ; because though for the present they do not , yet for the future they may in due time repent : but the Sins of these Apostates , upon their Apostacy , become unpardonable , so as that they neither shall not can be pardoned . The reason of this is an eternal decree of divine Justice whereby he hath determined , that the Sacrifice of Christ shall never benefit any such as fall away after they have received the knowledg of the Truth ; and if this Sacrifice shall never be accepted for them , not any other ever shall have any force to expiate their Sin. § . 27. Therefore to such there can be no hope of mercy . Ver. 27. But a fearful looking for of Judgment , and fiery Indignation , which shall devour the Adversaries . ] IN the former words , it 's implyed , That the Apostate is liable to an unavoidable punishment of loss , because he hath deprived himself of all hope of pardon or benefit to be received by the Sacrifice of Christ ; and here that he is obnoxious to a positive eternal penalty , as unavoidable as the former . In the words , we may easily observe , 1. The penalty to be inflicted . 2. The parties who must suffer it . 3. The certain expectation of it . 1. The penalty may seem to be described . 1. From the Cause , the severe Justice of God. 2. The Effect , which is devouring or consuming . The severe Justice of God is signified , 1. More properly by the word Judgment . 2. Improperly or Metaphorically , by fiery Indignation . 1. The word [ Judgment ] may inform us , that this Justice is not legislative , but judicial ; and , as judicial , not remunerative , but vindictive , which presupposeth Crime and Guilt in the party to be Judged . The Judge , is God ; the party to be judged , the Apostare ; and the word Judgment may signify strictly the Sentence ; more largely , or , the Sentence , and the Execution or the Punishment to be inferred . This Judgment is the decree of Condemnation , which determines the penalty : and to signify how dreadful it is , it 's said , 2. Metaphorically , to be fiery Indignation . The words may be translated , the hear , or boiling , or burning of fire ; that is , fiery hear . The Phrase is taken out of the Old Testament , as Ezek , 38. 19. Zeph. 1. 18 , & 3 , 8. In which places the Septuagint use both these words of the Text , For , 1. The word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] and [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] signifies , 1. Wrath. 2. Indignation , which is an high degree of Wrath , and sometimes Jealously , which is an implacable anger ; and the word fire is added , to denote the force and vehemency of it . And both words together signify Wrath , very intensive , and of an high degree : yet God is not subject to passion , as Man is ; but by these terms , the Spirit informs us of God's high displeasure against , and his great hatred and detestation of Apostacy , and the severity of his Justice , whereby he is resolved most fearfully to punish that Sin ; which is not barely a disobedience of some particular Law , but a plain revolt . So that God's severe Justice is the Cause ; the Effect is this , that it will devour or consume ; which is no partial , but a total destruction ; not that God will take away the beeing , but the well-beeing of the Offender , and will not only totally bereave him of all Comfort , but torment him with extremity of Pain . 2. The parties that most suffer are Adversaries : Adversaries are Apostates , who are not meerly disobedient Subjects , but Revolters . They violate the fundamentall Law of subjection , and raze the foundation of Obedience ; for subjection unto God-Redeemer by Christ is the first and highest Duty God requires of sinful Man , and it 's the ground of all Obedience , and this Sin of Apostacy is opposed to this Subjection . Yet it differs from that Rebellion , which , upon God's Call , refuseth to submit , and acknowledg Christ our Soveraign . For this presupposeth , that men have received Christ , promised their Allegiance , and by their Baptism have engaged themselves to God the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , and yet contrary to this engagment , renounce the Supremacy of this universal Lord , and so of engaged Subjects become Enemies ; for such all Rebells and Revolters are , and shall be so judged by God. Many besides these shall be condemned and fearfully punished , but these are the Adversaries intended in this place . 3. There remains a certain fearful looking for of this Judgment , &c. The meaning is , they cannot look for any other final retribution . This implies , 1. That though they never fear it , not think of it ; yet they are obnoxious to it . 2. That this will certainly be their Doom ; and as they are obnoxious by Law , and the certain and eternal rules of Judgment ( for neither Sentence nor Execution will fail ) ; they shall certainly suffer that which they have deserved . 3. If they ever seriously reflect upon themselves , and remember what they have done ; as Conscience will now and then lash them , and mind them of their Crime , they must needs expect it , and their fear will be very great . For as they apprehend the peril , so will their fear be ; and they cannot apprehend the Judgment , but as very grievous , near at hand , pressing hard upon them , and unavoidable , and so it will terrify and torment them before the time of Execution . The sum of this Text is , that as there is no hope of mercy and pardon , so there remains a fearful expectation of grievous punishment , and the same unavoidable . § . 28. And lest the Apostate should slatter himself , and promise impunity to his Soul , the Apostle proceeds to prove it unavoidable and very grievous , according to the hainousness of the Sin ; and this he doth in these words , Ver. 28. He that despised Moses Law , died without mercy , under two or three Witnesses . Ver. 29. Of how much sorer punishment , suppose ye , shall he be thought worthy , who hath tr●dden under foot the Son of God , and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified , an unholy thing , and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace . ] THese words are a Comparison , and it 's two-fold , 1. In quality . 2. In quantity . The first is presupposed and implyed . The second intended , and expresly delivered . The first in quality informs , that as he that transgressed Moses Law was punished without mercy , so shall he be that Sins wilfully under the Gospel , after he hath received the knowledg of the Truth . In the second in quantity , we may observe , 1. The Proposition , ver . 28. 2. The Reddition , ver . 29. In the handling of these , we must consider ; 1. The parts absolutely . 2. The whole under the notion of a Comparison . 3. The force of the Comparison , as it is a reason . In the Proposition , we may take notice of , 1. The party to be punished . 2. The manner of judicial proceeding . 3. The punishment it self . 1. The party to be punished , is one that transgressed Moses Law , that is , the Law of God given to Israel by Moses , where we have the Person , and the Crime or Cause . The Person is one under the Law of Moses , while it was in force before the time of the Gospel . The Crime is a transgression of that Law , and this transgression was not any disobedience , but such as for which there was no Expiation appointed , no Remission in that Law promised ; it was such a Crime as God determined to be capital , and to be punished with a Capital punishment , and loss of Life . The word is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , which is the same with [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] which the Septuagint intrepret by the word used in the Text , and both signify to revolt , and that Revolt from the Law was answerable to Apostacy from the Gospel . This was a breach of that fundamental Law , [ Thou shalt have no other Gods but me . ] This was a revolt from the true God , their God , whom they had acknowledged to be their God , unto Idols : Yet there might be other Crimes , which might so grate upon the Foundation , as to amount to this hainous sin of Revolt . 2. The manner of proceeding against such a Transgressour , was by information , and delation of such a Transgressour before a competent Judge , who must proceed [ Secunduns allegata & probata , ] and could not justly sentense the party , but upon evidence . Sometimes the fact might be notorious , or confessed , and sometimes maintained by the party offending ; yet the ordinary way was by Witnesses , and in case of a man's life he required two witnesses at least ; in which respect , [ singular is testis nullus testis . ] The end of witnesses was Evidence , that so the merit or demerit of the Cause might appear to the Judge , and so the Cause be in an immediate capacity for Sentence . 3. The demerit of the cause once made evident , Judgment passed upon the party , and he was sentenced to Death without any mercy ; and this Judgment must be executed . So that if the Judge did make the Law of Moses his rule , he could not acquit or absolve the party , nor impose any other punishment , nor help the Offender by commutation , nor abate the least of this penalty ; for he by his transgression had made himself uncapable of mercy . In this Proposition , two things are especially to be noted , 1. The Crime , which was hainous . 3. The Punishment , which was Death without mercy . § . 29. The Reddition follows in the next words , where we must observe , as before , 1. The Sin. 2. The Penalty . 1. The Sin is described , or rather aggravated from three particulars . It 's 1. A creading of the Son of God under foot . 2. A counting the Blood of the Covenant whereby the Transgressor was sanctified , an unholy thing . 3. A doing of despite unto the Spirit of Grace . The Sin is Apostacy , and no man can Apostate from Christianity once received , but he shall be guilty of the Contempt , 1. Of the Son of God. 2. Of the Blood of the Covenant . 3. Of the Spirit of Grace . The first aggravation therefore is from the contempt of the Son of God. For , 1. The Apostate treads under foot the Son of God ; the expression is metaphorical , and presupposeth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God , and affirmeth , that he , though the Son of God , is trodden under foot . To tread a thing under foot , is , 1. To undervalue it , if it be of any worth . 2. To vilify it . 3. To vilify it very much . 4. To expresse this contempt by casting it upon the Ground , and trampling upon it , which is the greatest debasement , and is sometimes an expression of utter detestation . Thus Jezabel was thrown down upon the Earth , and trampled upon by Jehu's Horses . To vilify and debase things that are base , is no fault ; and to despise unworthy men , is tolerable : but the Apostate undervalues , vilifieth ( and in an high degree ) the Son of God ; and the greater his dignity , the greater the indignity . He is not meer man , though man , yet as man the best of men ; for he is the Son of God , and that not any kind of Son , but the only begotten , and beloved Son of God , the brightness of his Fathers Glory , and the express Image of his person ; and so the Son of God , that he is God. Though he did descend so low for a little time , as to be made man , and humbled himself so far as to take upon him the form of a Servant , and in that form to be obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross ; yet in this low estate he was the Son of God. But after his humiliation , even as man he is advanced to the right hand of God , and is made Lord of Men and Angels , an everlasting King , an everlasting Priest. Yet this Son of God , the Apostate Christian so far vilifies , as that he denies him to be God , to be the Son of God , to be a just Man ; nay judgeth him to be an Impostor , a false Prophet , a Malefactor , and justly and worthily Crucified ; and if he had been living on Earth , and in the Apostate's power , he would have dealt with him as they did . Thus neither the Person and Deity of Christ , nor his Natures , nor the personal Union of them , nor his transcendent Gifts , nor his heavenly Wisdom , nor his Glorious Work● , nor his rare Virtues , nor his great work of Expiation , nor his Glory and Power , which he enjoyes at the right hand of God , could any wayes move him ; but he vilifies him , and debaseth him that was higher then the Heavens , as low as the dust and dirt under his feet : yet this debasement was only an act of his base mind , but could not in the least degree diminish or obscure the Glory and Excellency of Christ : This is the first aggravation of Apostacy . 2. He counteth the Blood of the Covenant , whereby he was sanctified , an unholy thing . ] Where we have , 1. The Blood of the Covenant . 2. The sanctifying Power of this Blood. 3. The counting of it unholy . 1. By the Blood , understand the blooddy Sacrifice of Christ , so much magnified in the former Chapter ; for it 's that Blood , by which Christ entring the holy place of Heaven , obtained eternal Redemption ; that Blood which purgeth the Conscience from dead Works , to serve the living God ; that Blood which confirmed the everlasting Covenant , in which respect it 's called the Blood of the Covenant . This Covenant is called the Conant of Grace , wherein , for , and in consideration of , the unspotted Blood of Christ once shed , God promiseth Remission of Sins , and the eternal Inheritance of Glory , upon condition of Repentance and Faith in Christ. And it 's called the Blood of this Covenant , because , upon it , the Covenant was grounded , and by virtue of it , all the Promises thereof are made unalterable , firm , and effectual . 2. This was the Blood , by which this Apostate , upon his receiving the knowledg of the Truth , was sanctified . For , 1. This Blood , as offered and accepted of God , made his Sin remissible . 2. Upon the profession of his Faith and his Baptism , his Sin was , at least conditionally , pardoned and purged . 3. So long as he continued in his profession , and so far as he proceeded according to certain degrees in Faith and the profession of it ; so far he might be said to be in a state of Justification , or at least in the way to Justification , and not only to Justification , but Sanctification , as it 's made distinct from Justification ; though Sanctification be taken in this Epistle for Justification . For this Blood of Christ is more beneficial to those , which receive the Gospel , are baptized , believe with some degree of Faith , than to others , who either never heard the Gospel , or ; if they heard , did reject it . And all the power against sin that any professing baptized Christian receives , all the hope , joy , comfort which follows upon their profession , are from the Blood of Christ. And how far some men may proceed in Christianity , and what benefit they may receive by Christ ; and yet after fall away , you have heard something in this sixth Chapter . And such is the benefit which such do receive by the Blood of Christ , that in a fair sense they may be said to be sanctified , and have their sins purged by it . Yet the meaning of the Apostle , may be not only that they were some wayes sanctified by it , but that it was the Blood , and the Blood alone which could sanctify them , and from which alone they could expect Sanctification . 3. Yet this sanctifying Blood the Apostate counts unholy or common : To be common Blood , may be understood , 1. Such as hath no expiating and purging power . 2. Such as is no better then the Blood of Bulls and Goats sacrificed . 3. Such as differs not from the Blood of other men . 4. Such as is the Blood of a Malefactor , guilty , and vicious person ; and that is impure and unholy Blood. So that the Apostate , though he had received some kind and measure of Sanctification from it , yet ascribed no more virtue and excellency to it , then to common Blood ; denyed the sanctifying power of it ; nay did account it unholy and polluted . Yet you must note , that though it be so vile in his conceit and judgment , yet it 's really in it self the onely sanctifying Blood , and effectually sanctifying , to all such as do sincerely believe . This is the second aggravation . 3. The Apostate doth despite unto the Spirit of Grace ] , where we must enquire , 1. What this Spirit is . 2. Why he is called the Spirit of Grace . 3. What it is to do despite unto this Spirit . 1. This Spirit is not the spirit of Man , neither is it any Angel ; nor any created Person or Substance : but it 's an uncreated Spirit , the Spirit of God , so as that it is God ; therefore the perfections and operations of God are predicated of it . It 's that Spirit , which with the Father and the Son , is the Supream object of our Faith ; that Spirit , by which God made the World , preserves and governs the same ; that Spirit , whereby he regenerates and sanctifies his People , and animates the whole Body of the Church . 2. This Spirit is said to be the Spirit of Grace . ] Thus he may be called in opposition to the Spirit of bondage and fear , which is the Spirit proper to the Law. For the Spirit by the Law , which had no Expiation for Sin , no Blood to purge the Conscience , no promise of power to keep it , nor of pardon if transgressed , could work nothing but fear , which was a continued slavery and bondage . The Spirit of the Gospel , which is the Spirit of Christ , promised and given in the Gospel , is a Spirit of comfort and confidence ; a Spirit of Adoption , which manifests the special love of God in Christ , our Justification , Reconciliation , and gives us power to keep the Covenant . Some understand it to be called the Spirit of Grace , because he is given out of Grace and free Mercy . Others think , that this Name is given to this Spirit , because , by it , God gives us Grace . For by Grace they understand those spiritual and supernatural Graces , which sanctify the Soul , and dispose it for communion with God , and all those supernatural comforts which issue from that Communion . And it 's very true , that as God by this Spirit works all things , so especially by him he produceth these heavenly Virtues which tend so much unto eternal life . 3. They do despite unto this Spirit . In this despight , there are Injury , Reproach , Contempt ; and the greater the Person to whom the despite is done , the more hainous it is . This here meant is not done to Man , but God ; because done to that Spirit which is so the Spirit of God , that he is God. This is committed , 1. By resisting the sanctifying Power of God. 2. By undoing all that God , by his Spirit , had done in him for his Salvation . 3. By accounting the Gifts , Notions , Motions of this Spirit , the Works , Delusions , and Impulses of the Devil ; and that not only in himself , but in others sanctified by this Spirit , and endued with his Gifts . This is the more hainous , because done not out of ignorance or infirmity , but out of pure malignity of the Will , with malice to Christ , and de●estation of Christian Religion ; and all this after , upon conviction , he received Christianity , and had felt the sanctifying and comforting power , and divine effects of this Spirit in his own soul. For God , by his Spirit , had entred into him , and done much towards his Salvation . This is therefore a Sin against God the Father , who loved us , and sent Christ to redeem us ; against God the Son , who had shed his precious Blood for the Expiation of our sins ; against God the Holy Ghost , who had begun the Work of Sanctification and Consolation in us . The penalty of this Sin is signified absolutely to be this , that he is counted worthy of sore Punishment . Sore Punishment , is , grievous , heavy , bitter Punishment : To be worthy of it , is , to deserve it by some hainous Sin , and not only so , but to be liable to it ; for , one may be worthy of Punishment , yet not liable to it , when he is under no Law ; yet whosoever is under the Obligation of a Law , and yet transgresseth it , he is not only worthy to suffer , and deserving of Punishment , but liable and bound to suffer : For the nature of Law is , to bind either to Obedience or Punishment . But where there is no Law there is no Wrath , that is , no Punishment due ; yet one may be liable to Punishment , which he hath deserved , and yet no Man takes notice to censure or judg him : But the Apostate from Christianity shall be accounted worthy , and that not only by Man , but by God , who will not only take notice of the Sin , but sentence him to the Punishment , the sore Punishment deserved ; that is , he will judg him without Mercy . § . 29. Thus far the parts have been considered and explicated absolutely ; the next thing to be done , is , to examine the whole , under the Notion of a Comparison in quantity , and it 's signified by these words , Of how much sorer Punishment . The things principally compared , are the Punishments , 1. To be inflicted upon such as transgress Moses Law. 2. Upon Apostates under the Gospel . Both are sore and great , but the latter far more grievous than the former : For , a just Judg will judg according to the Law ; and a just Law will determine and proportion the Punishment according to the Offence . To transgress Moses Law was a grievous Offence ; to sin willfully against the Gospel , after we have received the knowledg thereof , is far more hainous : The Punishment of the former was death without Mercy ; the Punishment of the latter , far more grievous . This presupposeth the Gospel to be far above the Law , as being a Covenant of Grace and greatest Mercy ; for in and by it God comes far nearer unto Man. The Son of God is the Mediator , one far more excellent than any Levitical High-Priest : The Blood of this Son , of God expiating Man's Sin , which is far more precious than the Blood of Buls & Goats , doth confirm it : The Spirit of God , which the Law did not minister , is the Spirit of Grace , enlightning , inspiring , sanctifying Man , and enabling him to keep the Conditions , and comforming him . To revolt from , and rebell against , God loving sinful Man , against the Son of God redeeming him , against the Spirit-sanctifying him , is like the Sin of Devils , and one of the highest Man can commit ; and far more hainous than the Violation of the Covenant made with Israel : For by this a man wilfully refuseth to be saved , and puts himself in a most desperate Condition , after God had brought him out of the Spiritual Aegypt , and the Kingdom of Darkness , and brought him to the Borders of the heavenly Canaan . Now , as the Sin is more hainous , far more hainous ; so the Punishment must be grievous , far more grievous . God hath no Mercy for such a Wretch ; for the Sin agrees directly with that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost , which shall never be forgiven . It remains we consider the whole as a Reason , that so we may understand the force of it . The Scope of the Apostle is , to perswade and exhort to perseverance ; the Reason is , because , that , if they persevere not , but fall away , there remains no more Sacrifice for Sin , but a fearful looking for of Judgment , &c. that is , the Punishment that they must suffer is grievous and unavoidable . That it is both grievous and unavoidable , he proves 1. By a Comparison from the Transgressors of the Law : For , if Apostates under the Law were grievously and certainly punished , then much more should the Apostates under the Gospel , who have received the Knowledg of the Truth , be so punished ; for , as their Sin is more grievous and provoking , so their Punishment must be answerable : This is the force of the Reason . This Argument hath some Affinity with that of Chap. 2 , Ver. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , &c. yet that refers more to the Prophetical , this more to the Sacerdotal Office of Christ. § . 30. Yet , though the Apostate may be worthy of Punishment ; yet it may be be questioned and demanded , 1. Who the Judge is . And 2. Whether he will proceed to Judgment , and execute it . But both these the Apostle puts out of doubt in the words following , Ver. 30. For we know him , that he hath said , Vengeance belongeth unto me , I , will recompence saith the Lord : And again , The Lord shall judg his People . IN which words he doth inform us , 1. Who the Judg is . 2. That he will certainly punish . And here he cites a place out of the Old Testament , which affirmeth , both that God is Judg , and also will execute Judgment . This is more than if he had barely affirmed these things ; for he produceth God as Witness , and so by Scripture confirms them : The place is Deut. 32. 35 , 36. and he seems to divide it into two ; for , Ver. 35. he saith , Vengeance and Recompence belong to me . Ver. 36. For the Lord will judg his , People . In the Text we have these Propositions , 1. Vengeance belongeth to the Lord. 2. He will recompence . 3. He will judg his People . 4. The Lord himself saith so . 5. They knew it was the Lord who said so . 1. Vengeance belongeth to the Lord. Where , by the way , observe , that the Apostle doth not follow , as usually he doth , the Septuagint according to our Copies , but the Hebrew Text , which is this , Vengeance is mine , and Retribution : The Septuagint translates thus , In the day of Vengeance I will recompence . They seem to follow the Samaritan Hebrew Text in the former , and the Targum in the ●●tter part of the Clause ; yet neither the Vulgar , nor the Syriack , nor the Chaldee Paraphrast , nor the Arabick , follow them in their Translation of the first words . In this Proposition we have , 1. Vengeance . 2. The party to whom it belongs . By Vengeance , is meant vindicative Justice punishing Offenders , the acts whereof are Condemnation and Execution ; and it 's proper to a Judg , as a Judg , as it is Power of punishing ; as here it may be taken either for the Power , or the Act and Exercise of the Power . The party to whom it belongs is the Lord , as he is the supream and universal Judg ; for he that is the supream Law-giver must needs be the supream Judg. Angels or Men may have the use of it , but the Propriety is in God : And that you may understand it more fully , you must know , that this Power of punishing is an universal , a supream , an original Power , as it belongs to God and none else . It extends to all Persons , to all Causes , and to these in all respects : For he hath Jurisdiction over Angels , and the Consciences and immortal Souls of men , and can irrogate spiritual and eternal Punishments . 2. As Vengeance , so Retribution belongs unto the Lord ; and it may be considered , not only as it is a Power or Right to recompense , but the Act and Exercise of vindicative Justice ; and may include both the Sentence and the Execution , which is nothing else but a returning evil for evil , the evil of Punishment for the evil of Sin. The Apostle in this follows the Septuagint , which turn it I will recompence , which seems to imply , that as he is 1. Just to punish Sin. 2. Hath a power of Retribution . So. 3. He will recompense and exercise this Power , and that certainly . 3. He will judg his People . This may be understood two wayes : 1. That God will judg the Cause of his oppressed and persecuted People , by punishing and destroying their Enemies ; and this the Context in Denteronomy seems to imply . 2. That he will judg his People , and punish severely all Apostates among them . So that by People may be meant , all men punishable , either according to the Law of Nature , or of Moses , or according to the Gospel . Amongst those which are punishable , such as ●●e in Covenant with God , and by Covenant are his Heople , if they revolt , are the greatest Offenders ; and , amongst the Revolters , such as fall away from the Truth of the Gospel once received , are the most hainous Delinquents of all : To judg these is to condemn them , and to inflict the Punishment to which they are condemned ; and when it 's said He will judg them , it signifies he will certainly do it , and they shall not escape . Men may threaten and never condemn , they may condemn and never execute ; but God will certainly do both . 4. The Lord saith so . Man might have said it , and it might have been otherwise ; out of Ignorance he might have been deceived , or out of pravity he might lye and deceive others ; or if any earthly Judg , who knew his own mind and power , should have said so , yet he might change his mind , or want power ; and so , Recompence might fail . But it 's God who is Supream Judg , who cannot be deceived , cannot deceive , cannot change his mind ; who hath almighty Power that saith so , and his Word is his Deed. If therefore he say , I will recompense , I will judg ; Recompence and Judgment will certainly follow , they cannot fail . 5. They knew , it was God who said so ; that God who could certainly do as he had said . If any other had said it , or God himself had said it , and they had been ignorant of it , their fear had been less , though the danger had been as great as if they had known it . Seeing therefore , it is the Lord who said it , and they knew that it was said , and that by him , their fear should be answerable to the danger , and so much the greater , as their Knowledge was more clear and certain . They knew this , and that by Scripture , which they believed to be the Word of God. Ignorance of this Truth makes men secure and presumptuous , and so doth Unbelief : This seems to prove the Punishment to be unavoidable . § . 31. Yet , though it be certain and unavoidable , yet if it be lesse , it 's lesse feared ; But Ver. 31. It 's a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. THis again doth signify how grievous the Punishment of Apostates must needs be ; for they fall into the hands of the Living God. And this is deduced from the former Text ; &c for there it 's said , God will recompence , God will judg and take Vengeance . And if it be the Punishment that the Living God will execute , then it must needs be most fearful ; and unavoidable . To understand the force of the Text , we must observe in it , 1. The Living God. 2. The hands of the Living God. 3. The falling into his hands . 4. The fearfull Condition of such as fall into his hands . 1. The Living God is here opposed not only to dumb and dead Idols , but to mortal men ; and the word Living is added , to signify not only the eternal Duration of his Existence ; but his active and lively Power and Strength , which is said to be almighty , and is of himself . 2. The Hands and Arm of God in Scripture doth usually signify this Power and Strength of God ; which is exercised sometimes in Mercy , sometimes in severe Justice : For it is this Almighty Strength of God which doth deliver and save his People , and punish and execute Vengeance on their Enemies . And here it 's taken for his punishing and revenging hand , whereby he executes his Wrath upon Apostates , and manifests his greatest Indignation against them . 3. To fall into his Hands , is , by Apostacy to make our selvs obnoxious to the sever●ty of his revenging Justice , in that manner , as no wayes to escape either the Sentence or the Execution . For this Sin is the most provoking of all others , renders the Sinner uncapable of any Mercy , makes him liable to the greatest Punishment Man can suffer , and he shall be no wayes able to avoid it , but must in the end certainly feel it . We are all in God's hands and in his power , at all times ; but the Apostate casts himself into the hands of his severest Justice , never to be delivered , ever to be tormented . 4. It 's a fearfull thing . Where we must note , that to fall into the hands of the Living God , is the Subject or Antecedent , and a fearfull thing is the Predicate and Consequent of the Proposition , and argues the Antecedent ; as an Adjunct inseperable doth it's Subject , yet in this place , to be fearful , is , to be apt to cause fear . The Object of all fear is some evil approaching ; and , the greater the evil is , the more approaching , and approaching as inevitable , the greater Cause of fear there is . The Evil is Punishment , the greatest Punishment Man can suffer , and it 's very near ; for he is already fallen into the hands of the Living God , and he can no wayes escape . It 's a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of a severe and potent Judg , or of a cruel Enemy , much more into the hands of this supream and eternal Judg , who can not only kill the Body , but cast both Soul and Body into Hell , and eternally and extreamly torment both . The Sum and Substance of this Argument is , that , seeing the Punishment of Apostates will be most grievous and unavoidable ; therefore it concerns them much to consider seriously of it , and take heed of falling away from their Profession . § . 32. The Apostle proceeds to another argument . Ver. 32. But call to remembrance the former dayes , in which after you were illuminated , ye endured a great fight of Afflictions . ] THE former reason was from the certain and most grievous punishments of Apostacy ; the reasons following have some respect unto the Reward , and they are two ; one in respect to time past , the other to time to come . The former is continued from this verse unto the 35. The latter from the 35. unto the end : In the former , we may consider 1. Their Suffering . 2. The Time when they suffered . 3. An exhortation to Remembrance of what they then suffered . 4. The End of this remembrance . 1. Their former Suffering is described and represented . 1. In general . 2. In particular . The general , we have in these words of this Text , [ Ye endured a great fight of Afflictions . ] Where we have , 1. Afflictions . 2. A fight of Afflictions . 3. A great Fight . 4. The enduring of this great Fight . Christians ought to be endued with all heavenly Virtues , not only such as encline and enable them to do good , but also such as fit and strengthen them to endure evil in doing good , and for serving their God. To suffer for doing evil , is no virtue , but to suffer for Righteousness sake , for Christ's sake , is a noble and excellent Grace . This is an high degree , and a perfection , of a Christian : Therefore we are exhorted to let patience have her perfect work , that we may be perfect and entire , wanting nothing , Jam. 1. 4. For without patience and fortitude , it 's impossible to suffer as we ought , and to attain this perfection . 1. The thing to be suffered , is Affliction , which is some evil that doth vex , trouble , and ●●reave us of that peace , ease , safety which we might otherwise enjoy ; and here it 's not one single affliction , but a multitude of them ; for they endured [ Afflictions ] . The word here turned by a Metonymy [ Afflictions ] , signifies properly Sufferings ; because when we are afflicted , we are patients , and the Subject afflicted , not the Agents afflicting ; and the evil dothly and press hard upon us to bruise and break us ; and all these tend to our destruction and misery . 2. Here is a fight and a contest of Afflictions ; and the Contention is between the parties afflicting , and the persons afflicted ; the one offending , the other defending , like two Enemies , wherein the assailant seeks to overcome and subdue the party assaulted . The great Enemy and Afflicter is the Devil ; his Agents and Instruments are unbelieving and wicked men . His design is to break in pieces our Faith , which is the strength of our hearts ; for Faith strives against fear , and seeks to overcome those terrours , which Satan would strike into us , that so we might renounce our profession . This is a spiritual Fight and Battle between spiritual Enemies ; between Faith and Fear , between the Soul and Satan . 3. This fight is great : For the opposition on one side was cruel and violent , and the resistance was strong and powerful ; so that the Enemy was beaten off and foiled . When Fire and Water meet and encounter , the violence on both sides , is very great according to the degrees of contrary qualities destructive one of another . Thus it is in the contest between the seed of the Serpent , and of the Woman the Church ; and according as the emnity and the power of the Contendents are more intensive , so is the Fight more fierce . And this was a great Fight , because the Devil doth most violently assail new Converts , and the Dragon waits to devour the Churche's newly regenerate Children , so soon as she shall bring them forth ; and would certainly do it , if they were not taken up into Heaven , and into God's protection . 4. Yet though the Fight was great , yet they endured it ; and this they did by patience and divine fortitude . For they continued firm in their Christian profession , without doubtings and fears . Their Faith remained firm , and was like a Shield impenerrable ; They bare and put off the blows , and stood their Ground , kept the Field , and caused the Enemy to retreat and draw off ; and though they suffered temporally , yet spiritually they did not . § 33. Thus far of their Sufferings in general ; but least this should be insufficient , he further expresseth , what their Sufferings in particular were ; and he seems to reduce these to three heads . 1. Shame . 2. Pain . 3. Loss . For they were in disgrace , they were scourged , their Goods were taken from them ; they suffered in their Names , in their Persons , in their Goods ; and that not only for their own profession , but their association with others . Their first particular Sufferings we read , Ver. 33. Partly while ye are made a gazing stock , both by Reproaches and Afflictions , and partly whilst ye became Companicus of such as were so used . ] THis Text informs us , both what they suffered , considered in themselves ; and also what as considered joyntly with others . The evils which they suffered are said to be Reproaches and Afflictions ; the manner how they suffered these , and that was by being made a gazing-stock The words may be reduced to two Propositions : 1. They were made a gazing-stock , both by Reproaches and Afflictions . 2. They were Companions of such as were so used . Yet both these have reference to the words going before , and might be delivered thus ; 1. They endured a great sight of Afflictions , partly by being a gazing stock , both in Reproaches and Afflictions . 2. They endured a great Fight , by being Companions of such as were so used . In the first , for explication sake , we may observe : 1. That they were Reproached and Afflicted . 2. By these Reproaches and Afflictions , they were made a gazing-stock . 3. This was part of their great Fight . 1. They were Reproached ] , Thus they might be used either by Words or Deeds . For to speak or do any thing , that tends to our disgrace and infamy , is to Reproach . Perhaps they called them Sectaries , Hereticks , Apostates , Innovators , seditious Persons ; and also did so account them , and in this respect did hate , despise , and desame them . These Reproaches in themselves were bitter and grievous , yet they were more grievous , because of Afflictions ; for they afflicted them by scourging , imprisoning , banishing them : these did straiten , press , vex , torment their Bodies , and deprive them of ease , peace , and liberty . 2. Yet these were made still more grievous , because they did reproach and afflict them ; not so much privately as publickly , in open view , to make their shame and ignominy the greater . They brought them , as it were , upon a Stage , and as into a Theater , where multitudes , even thousands , might gaze upon them , revile them , scourge them , and make a sport of their Sufferings . Every one must take notice of them , as base persons , troublers of the World , the reffuse and scum of mankind , and abhorr them . And in this they followed Christ , and took up his Cross , which was a suffering of pain and shame . 3. This was part of their great Fight ; and a great Fight it was , because naturally we much desire to preserve our credit , honour , and reputation , which to some high Spirits , which the World terms Generous , is dearer then life ; for some men chuse rather to dye , then live in disgrace , and lose their Honour . And as we desire respect in the World , and abhorr Ignominy and Contempt ; so we love our liberty , ease , and peace , and are very unwilling to lose them . But to be reproached and afflicted publickly , and to be made a gazing stock unto the World , is so harsh and contrary to Flesh and Blood , that he must have some divine power above nature , that can endure them . And though we be endued with some competency of supernatural strength , yet without some conflict and contest with our natural inclination and cormpt appetite , we cannot endure , we cannot stand ; and yet this was but part of the Fight and Battel . The second Proposition is , That partly they endured a great Fight whilst they became Companions of such as were so used . This informs us , 1. Some of their Brethren were so used , 2. They became Companions of them . 3. This was part of their Fight . 1. Some part of the Church doth Suffer sometimes , and not another . It 's true , the Devil is an Enemy to the whole Body ; and , if God Suffer him , he would not only vex , trouble , and destroy some , but all . The storm which fell upon them was past ; yet another falls upon their Brethren ; and they are reproached and afflicted , and made a gazing stock as they had been . 2. They became Companions of these ; for they owned them , were grieved inwardly for their Sufferings , and did relieve and comfort them . By doing thus , they were exposed to the derision of others : Their former Sufferings might be called Passion , this Compassion . So near is the Union , and so dear and tender the Affection of Christian Brethren amongst themselvs , that one Member cannot suffer , but another suffers with it . There is a divine Sympathy and Fellow-feeling of one another's misery , and in this respect they may suffer in the Sufferings of others , and participate of their Afflictions ; & though this may be an ease and comfort to the Sufferers themselves , yet Society is no Joy to the compassionate Brethren , who have more Grief than their own . 3. This also was made a part of the great Fight : For , Satan's Design in this was , to strike a terrour into them , and to let them know what a dangerous and restless condition they were in , if they should continue to be Christians . And if he could not daunt and discourage them , yet he would at least grieve and vex them ; for he knew the Passion of their Brethren would be their Compassion , and that in them suffering they would suffer . § . 34. Yet this was not all their suffering , either in their Brethren or themselvs ; for he further saith , Ver. 34. For ye had Compassion on me in my Bonds , and took joyfully the spoiling of your Goods , knowing in your selvs , that ye have in Heaven a better and an enduring Substance . IN these words we may observe , 1. Their Compassion . 2. Their Passion , and another part of their suffering . 1. Their Compassion : For they had Compassion of the Apostle in his Bonds . This 1. Implieth , that the Apostle suffered , and was in Bonds . 2. Signifieth , that they suffered with him . 1. He was in Bonds ; that is , a Prisoner and restrained of his Liberty . The Cause was , the Gospel of Christ ; therefore he stiles himself a Prisoner of Christ , that is , for Christ's sake : For , whilest he obeys his Saviour's Command in preaching the Gospel , for the Conversion and Salvation of the Gentiles , and maintains the Cause of Christ against the unbelieving Jews , he was many times in danger ; sometimes was scourged , sometimes stoned , sometimes imprisoned and set free again . At length he was taken at Jerusalem , made a Prisoner , sent bound first unto Cesarea , and thence to Rome . 2. When he was in Bonds , whether at Cesarea , or Rome , or both ; they knew it , and were very sensible of it . And they signified their Love and inward Compassion unto him several wayes , seeking to release him , or relieve him ; they could do neither of theseopenly , but with danger , yet they were true and faithful to him , & did not like false friends forsake him . Thus we should honour and esteem God's Children and Ministers in their Afflictions , and own them most in their lowest condition . This is an Evidence of their sincere Faith , and Christian Charity , and the Apostle doth not forget it . He had said before , that they became Companions of such as were reproached , and he seems to prove it by this particular Instance brought in with the Causal for ; For , ye had Compassion on me . This is a rare and excellent Example , and worthy of our Imitation . After Compassion follows Passion : They suffered loss of their Goods . Where we may observe , 1. The spoiling of their Goods . 2. The enduring of this joyfully . 3. The Reason and Ground of this joyful Suffering . 1. They were spoiled of their Goods . A Man may suffer in his Name , his Place , his Limbs , his Liberty , his Life , his Estate : This was a suffering in their Estate ; for their Goods , which are called Livelihood , were taken from them , and that under pretence of Law by Fine or Confiscation . This made so many poor Saints at Jerusalem , for whose relief so many Collections were made in other Churches : The end of this was , to make them poor and miserable , and willing to deny their Christianity . 2. Yet they were so far from being discouraged , that they endured this spoiling joyfully . This did argue a lively Faith in , and a sincere Love unto , Christ ; for , to be deprived of these necessary and convenient earthly Comforts , was matter of sorrow , and it goes near unto the hearts of Worldlings to part with them . But these valued Christ as infinitely more precious than all the wealth of the World ; for they knew , if they could keep Christ , if Christ were not taken from them , if Christ remained with them , they should certainly be happy . It were Wisdom in any Man seriously to consider , what that is which he loves most ; for by that he will easily understand whether his heart be upright or no : For , he will suffer much , and do any thing he can , before he part with the Darling of his Soul. 1. There was a better and an enduring Substance . 2. This Substance was in Heaven . 3. They had it . 4. They knew they had it . 1. By Substance , many times , and in several Languages , is meant Wealth , and an Estate of Goods acquired , possessed , and gathered together : And though sometimes it 's strictly taken for Goods movable , as Cattel , Gold , Silver , Houshold-stuff ; yet the signification is often extended to any kind of Goods or Possessions . This Substance is temporal or spiritual ; and here it 's spiritual , differing from temporal in two respects : 1. As better . 2. As enduring . It 's better in respect of Quality , as far more excellent in it self , and more beneficial to Man. It 's enduring , and will last long , it will not corrupt or waste and decay ; for it is an Estate suitable to the immortal Soul which never dies : The Substance it self , the Possessour , and the Possession of the Substance , continue for ever . This is called Treasure , and an Inheritance ; but divine , and far aboe all other Estates , which may decay , or be taken from the Owners . 2. This Substance is in Heaven , because 1. It 's in God , and in his Power , and at his disposal . 2. It 's prepared for us in Heaven , and the place of eternal Glory , mounted far above the Sphear of corruptible things . 3. It 's to be enjoyed fully and for ever in the Heavens . That it 's better , enduring , and in Heaven , we learn from that Exhortation of our Saviour , But lay up for your selves treasures in Heaven , where neither Moth nor Rust doth corrupt , and where Thievs do not break through and steal , Math. 6. 20. and from the words of the Apostle Peter , who informs us , that the Regenerate are born to an Inheritance incorruptible , undefiled , and which fadeth not away , reserved in the Heavens , 1 Pet. 1. 4. In both these places we find , 1. Treasures and an Inheritance , which are the same with Substance . 3. These far better and more excellent than any earthly Substance . 3. Enduring both in themselvs and in the Possession . 4. Laid up and reserved in Heaven . 3. They had this Substance ; that is , by vertue of God's Promise they had a Title and Right unto it , and some security for the full Possession of it in due time , by the first-fruits and earnest of the Spirit : For this Substance was promised only to them , prepared only for them , secured only unto them . So that in Hope and Reversion , they were the richest men in the World. 4. They knew this in themselvs : That which was the formal Object of this Knowledg was the Promise ; that which was the particular Object was their own Qualification and fulfilling of the Conditions of the Promise . For , all that are rightly qualified according to the tenour of the Promise , had certain Right unto this Substance ; and this they knew by Faith. But they were thus qualified , and did certainly know it : Therefore they might conclude thence that they had right unto it . Besides , the Spirit did testify to their Spirits , that they were the Sons of God ; and if Sons , then Heirs . And this was the ground on which their Joy was bottom'd : For , to be Sons of God , and Heirs of this Substance and Inheritance was Matter , and to know this , was an immediate Efficient , of Joy. This , and this known , did cause them even in tribulation to rejoyce ; and so much the rather , because our Saviour had pronounced them blessed that suffered for Righteousness sake , and they might rejoyce and be exceedingly glad , because great was their Reward in Heaven , Mat. 5. 11 , 12. And , if we suffer with Christ , as they did , we shall be glorified with him , Rom. 8. 17. The Patience and Faith of the Thessalonians , in all their Persecutions and Tribulations , which they endured , were a manifest token of the just Judgment of God , that they might be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God , for which they did suffer , 2 Thes. 1. 5 , 6. § . 35. These were their Sufferings ; it remain we consider the time , the remembrance of these Sufferings , and the end of this remembrance . 1. The time was after they were enlightned . Some understand enlightning to be Baptism : And it 's true , that some upon their Baptism received a divine Light ; yet the Doctrine of the Gospel is a divine Light , and when the blessed Spirit with this Light enters the Soul , it gives a divine visive Faculty and Power unto the Understanding , represents more clearly the Mysteries of God's Kingdom , and works powerfully upon the heart , and hence follows Conversion . And they were first enlightned , when they were first converted ; they who were first the Children of Darkness became the Children of Light , and were translated out of the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light. The Reason of this Expression is , because Illumination is the beginning of Regeneration : For , as God first created Light in this visible World , so in this second and more wonderful Creation , he first makes the Light of the Gospel to shine in the heart by the Power of the Spirit . The People to whom the Gospel was never preached are said to sit in Darkness , and when the Gospel comes Light comes unto them , and when by the Power of the Spirit it enters into our hearts , then Light is in us ; and without this divine Light in us , there is no Regeneration . The sense is , that they were no sooner enlightned , converted , and born from Heaven , but they were persecuted , became Souldiers , and were put to fight . 2. They must remember what then they suffered . The Children of God must not only look forward , and know what they must do , but they must look back and consider both what they have done , and also what they have suffered . And so these Hebrews are exhorted to look back , and call to remembrance former times , especially those which followed upon their Conversion , when they were reproached , afflicted , and spoiled of their Goods . These Sufferings must be remembred , yet not only these , but their Patience , their Faith , their Joy , their Victory , and the foil of their Enemies , and God's Assistance and Support , the Battle , and the happy Issue must not be forgotten . 3. Yet , to what end must they remember all this ? Not to boast and glory in their own strength , and ascribe this happy issue to their own Wisdom and Prowess : But they must remember they had been in the Battle , had fought a great fight , had conquered , 1. That they might give the whole Glory unto God. 2. For time to come to depend upon him . 3. To be encouraged to go on and improve their strength more and more . 4. To be ashamed to give back now after their strength is improved . Did they , when Tyrones , and but newly-listed , endure so great a fight , keep the field , and beat off the Enemy , and will they now begin to faint , and after so much experience prove Cowards , and stain their former Honour ? The greatest brunt was past , and the most violent Storm passed over ; the final Victory was almost in their hands , and the great Reward almost obtained . Therefore the Remembrance of their former Success and God's Assistance should encourage them much to march on till God had given the Anakims into their hands , subdued all their Enemies , and attained certain and eternal Rest on every side . § . 36. After this Motive of encouragement , from Remembrance of what is past , there is another from the great Reward , which certainly follows upon Perseverance . And because in the former great fight the Victory was obtained by Patience and Confidence , he lets them know how needful this Patience and Confidence was , for the attaining of the Reward : For thus we read , Ver. 35. Cast not away therefore your Confidence , which hath great Recompence of Reward . Ver. 36. For you have need of Patience , that after ye have done the Will of God , you might receive the Promise . SOme think that the Work of the Apostle in these words , and the rest of this Chapter , is , to give directions , and prescribe the means , whereby we may persevere ; and do conceive these means to be three , 1. Confidence . 2. Patience . 3. Faith , But upon due consideration it will appear that he urgeth Perseverance by a new Argument taken from the Reward . And , as formerly he dehorted from Apostacy , from the Punishment , which would prove to be very grievous and unavoidable ; so here he exhorts to Perseverance from the Reward , which was very great and most certain . And whilest he proceeds to this Motive from the Recompence , he by the way puts them in mind of their former constancy in Suffering , to encourage them to go on , and by the same makes way for the pressing further of the Duty from the Reward : So that the former Reason from Remembrance of Suffering past , is but a branch of this great Motive . Before I enter upon the words , I must inform you of some things in general ; as , 1. That Confidence , Patience , Faith , are but one and the same thing , which is Perseverance . 2. That the Motive is from the Reward . 3. That he urgeth the Performance of the Duty , both from the excellency and certainty of the Reward : For , first , He affirmeth it to be great : Secondly , To be certain unto Perseverance , and certainly and speedily to be received . 4. He proves it to be certain . 5. Applies the Proof unto themselvs . This is the Sum and Scope of the Close of this Chapter , from the 35 Ver. unto the End. These things premised , we may consider , in the words of these two Verses , these two things , 1. The Duty . 2. The Reward . The Duty is Perseverance , which is expressed by two words , 1. Confidence . 2. Patience . And the words imply an Exhortation to continuance in and of both . The words implying this Exhortation are these , Cast not away your Confidence , and You have need of Patience . For ; that which must not be cast away , and whereof they have need , must be kept , and kept unto the end ; and to keep these to the end is Perseverance . The Reward is said 1. To be great . 2. Certainly to be received when they had done the Will of God. And it 's to be considered , 1. As a Recompence . 2. As promised . The Argumentation of the Apostle , reduced to Form , is this ; That Duty , by which we have great Recompence of Reward , and by which , after we have done the Will of God , we receive the Promise , ought to be performed . But by Confidence and Patience continued we have great Recompence of Reward , and after we have done the Will of God , we receive the Promise : Therefore we ought to continue in both . In the 35th . Verse we have 1. Confidence . 2. The continuing of this Confidence . 3. The great Recompence of Reward . 4. The having of this great Recompence . 1. By Confidence , if we consider the word in the Original , it seems to signify their Boldness in Profession of the Christian Faith : For , they were not ashamed to confess Christ before men , no , not before their persecuting Enemies , in the midst of Reproaches and Afflictions . Yet this profession without was grounded upon , and issued from Faith in Christ , and hope of eternal life within ; and these two were , as the matter , so the Soul and Life of the profession . And to profess Christ , and their Faith and Hope in him in the midst of persecution , did argue their undaunted boldness , and divine fortitude and courage . 2. The continuance of this confidence is signified here negatively , [ They must not cast it away . ] The expression , some think , is taken from those cowardly Souldiers , which in a Battel cast away their Shield and Armour , and either begin to cry for Quarter , or to run away , and turn their backs upon an Enemy . This is suitable to his former Metaphor , whereby he had expressed their Courage and Constancy : For [ they had endured a great Fight ] , and here exhorts them to endure still ; which they could not do , if they did cast away their Confidence , which was like a Shield . These are military terms , and signify that we are spiritual Souldiers , who will not fear to fight till we have attained a final Victory , which , without continued and final confidence , we can never do . To cast this divine Shield from us , is an act of fear and cowardize , and argues a weakness of our Faith and Hope : Therefore the Duty is to be strong in Faith , and in the power of God , and not to shrink or give back for any thing man can do unto us ; for it 's but little , and if God be for us , who can be against us ? 3. If they do not cast away , but hold fast their confidence , there is a great recompence of Reward . Recompence of reward is one word in the Greek , and is turned by some [ Remuneration ] . So that we have , 1. A Reward . 2. A rendring or returning of the Reward . The word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] signifies Hire or Wages given in recompence of some Work and Service . The Work or Service being done , the Reward is due , whether it be given , or not given and rendred : For to be due , is one thing ; to be rendred , another : yet if it be due , it 's injustice not to render it . In strict Justice , the Service and the Hire are equal : yet there is no necessity of this equality , in respect of the excess ; for one may out of his own goodness give more then is deserved ; and this is not injustice , but liberality . Any blessing , especially that great one of eternal Glory given by God upon the performance of some Duty by Man , may be called Wages , Hire , or Reward by a Metaphor . Yet no Man can deserve or merit any thing at God's hands , but yet the Reward may be due by vertue of the Covenant . The word doth signifie , 1. That there is a Reward . 2. That it 's due to such as persevere . 3. That it shall be rendred . Yet a Reward may sometimes be taken Synechdochically for punishment , and the recompence thereof an actual punishment for Sin. Thus , as you may read , it 's taken , Chap. 2. 2. A reward may be poor or rich , less or greater ; but here it 's said to be great , so great indeed it is , that no tongue of man can express the greatness or excellency of it . For here the Apostle speaks of the final Reward , which is unspeakable , according to the promise of God to Abraham , [ I am thine exceeding great Reward , Gen. 15. 1. ] 4. This continuance [ hath ] this great Reward . Which informs us , that it will be not only due , but certainly conferred upon , and rendred to the person persevering ; for , by divine ordination , Perseverance and the Reward are inseparably joyned together , so that the one shall infallibly follow upon the other . § . 37. Ver. 36. Agrees with the former in substance , though it differ in expressions , and ( as the former ) doth inform us . 1. Of the Duty . 2. Of the Reward . The Duty is implyed in these words , [ Ye have need of patience . ] The reward in those , which follow , [ That after ye have done the Will of God , ye may receive the promise . ] The former is the means , the latter is the end . For explication's sake take notice , 1. Of patience . 2. Of the necessity of it . 3. Of receiving the Promise . 4. Of receiving it after they had done the Will of God. 1. Patience , opposed to casting away our confidence , is not meerly that virtue which moderates the passions of the mind in affliction , and keeps the Soul quiet , lest , being much grieved or afflicted , it should be unfit , and unable to go on with the work of Virtue and Obedience : but according to the Original Word , it includes Fortitude and Divine Courage , with constancy and perseverance in the midst of Tribulation and Difficulties . It implies , that our Service and Obedience requires not only labour and great pains , but courage , patience , and constancy . Because our Duty is not only to do good , which shall be easy ; but , which shall be difficult , to suffer much : For we shall be much opposed , and meet with many difficulties ; therefore we must adventure upon , and pass through these Difficulties and Tribulations . This is that which is called patience in this place , and is turned patient continuance , Rom. 2. 7. 2. There is a necessity of this patience ; and this a reason , why it must not be cast away ; for that which is not only useful , but necessary , should be kept . The reason of the necessity of this heavenly Vertue , is , because the will of God hath ordained , That through many Tribulations , we must enter into his heavenly Kingdom . Israel must march through a Wilderness into Canaan , and so pass through Fire and Water , into a wealthly place . Christ must first suffer , and so enter into Glory ; and we must follow the Captain of our Salvation , and take the same way . And if the way be long , and the Difficulties and Sufferings great and many , there can be no possibility of attaining the glorious prize without patience , fortitude , and courage , continued to the end . For perseverance here so much pressed , requires many things : 1. An exercise of all heavenly Virtues . 2. A continuance in this exercise . 3. A continuance till we have finished our Work , ended our Warfare , and obtained a full and final Victory . And seeing they had begun to do , to suffer , to fight , to conquer ; there was a necessity to go on and finish , if they will obtain that glorious Reward . 3. For Patience was necessary , for this end , that they might recive the Promise . Here is , 1. A Promise . 2. The receiving of it . The Promise is the thing promised , this is a Metonymy . The thing promised , is the great Reward , which was merited by Christ , and promised by God. And by virtue of this Promise , it 's due to such as persevere ; and God's faithfulness is the ground of our hope , and certain expectation . Without this , it could no wayes be due , nor God any wayes bound to give it : For though we should do and suffer far more and longer then any Saint of God ever did , and that by our own strength , without the help of God ; yet we could not deserve any thing , much less so great and glorious Reward , which God will give , and we shall receive ; for such as persevere shall not only have a right unto it , but a possession of it . 4. Yet we do not receive it at the first , but in the end , when we have done the Will of God , and not before . The Will of God is the Command of God , wherein he signifies , what our Duty is , and what we must do , and binds us to Obedience and performance . And his Will is , not only to begin to do , but to finish ; and therefore we cannot expect to receive the promised Reward , before we have done ; that is , finished to do that which God Commanded . And when the Work is finished , in the evening of the day God will give , and we shall certainly receive , and for ever enjoy , that full and everlasting Rest and Bliss which he hath promised . Therefore seeing the Reward is so great , it 's promised , and we shall certainly receive it ; let every one of us , who profess the Faith of Christ , resolve , and that stedfastly , and also endeavour with all diligence to persevere unto the end . § . 28. Yet if any ask , When shall we receive the Reward ? how long will it be before , our Saviour will come to Reward us ? The Apostle doth answer , Ver. 37. For yet a little while , and he that shall come will come , and will not tarry . ] THese words seems to be taken out of the Prophet Habakkuk Chap. 2. 3. where we thus read , [ If it stay , wait for it ; because he that shall come , will come , and will not tarry . ] Where Judah's deliverance from Captivity doth typisy our Redemption and eternal deliverance by Christ. And as then they thought the time of their Captivity and Suffering to be long , they are exhorted patiently to wait for it , though it be delayed : and , to comfort and encourage them , He assures them , that deliverance will certainly come , and that speedily . Yet because that deliverance was but Temporal , and the eternal was principally intended ; therefore the Apostle understands the words spiritually , and so in this place doth apply them . And whereas our Translators turn the words of the Prophet , [ It will surely come , it will not tarry ] ; that is , the Vision will come , and not tarry : yet the Septuagint understand it of some certain person , and say , that [ he ] not [ it ] will come and not tarry . The words are meant of Christ's Comming , to put an end unto the Sufferings of his People , and to render unto them an eternal Reward . And of this Coming and receiving this great Reward , two things are affirmed , 1. The certainty . 2. The Expedition . In the words therefore we may observe , 1. The certain 2. The speedy coming of Christ. 1. The certainty is expressed in two words , [ Shall come , will come ] ; or , according to the Hebrew , [ coming will come ] , that is , as there translated , will surely come . Yet the Participle [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in other places is turned , [ He that is to come . ] So that the words imply , 1. That there is a certain time appointed , and God hath decreed that he shall come . 2. That as it is decreed , so the Decree shall be fulfilled , and he shall actually come . This is the certainty . 2. The speedy coming is expressed , 1. Affirmatively . 2. Negatively . Affirmatively ; yet a little while [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , how much , how much , that is , how little is the time ; it 's very little , very short , as the Syriack turns it . Negatively , [ He will not ●arry or delay . ] The word may signify , that he will not stay a moment after the time appointed . And this latter part doth inform us , that the time of the Sufferings of God's Saints is but short , very short . Therefore they are said to be Sufferings of this present time , Rom. 8. 18. The present time is but an instant or moment , and also light affliction for a moment , 2 Cor. 4. 17. For , 1. They have their Calms as well as their Storms ; their intermissions , and the intermixture of sweet and heavenly comforts . 2. The end of this Life , is the end of their Afflictions , and this Life is nothing to Eternity ; their Sufferings shall speedily determine , their Joys shall never end . For when life is ended , all these Conflicts and cruel Fights are ended ; and they are instantly at rest , cease from all their Labours , and are secured of their eternal full Glory . 3. A thousand years with Man , are but as one day with God ; and in this ●espect his stay till the last Saint shall be perfected and finally Victorious , is not much . 4. When the day appointed is once come , he will not stay an hour , no , not a minute ; He will rend the Heavens , and come down , and do glorious things . And is his coming so certain , and so speedy , and hath God said so ? why should we be impatient , and complain of delay . The Saints of God sometimes will cry out , Oh when shall these Labours , these Difficulties , these Sufferings of ours have an end ? How long will my Saviour delay his Coming ? When will he come in the Clouds of Heaven , with all his holy Angels ? Shall I never see an end of this Battel , and obtain a final Victory , and so triumph for ever ? And the Church is alwayes praying , Come Lord Jesu , come quickly . To all this his answer is , Surely I come quickly . And , Behold , I come quickly , and again , Behold I come quickly , and my Reward is with me , to render to every one according to his Works , Revel . 22. 7 , 12 , 20. And if we will not be patient , strive , suffer , and fight a little while , and that for a great and glorious Reward , which we shall receive certainly , and without all doubt ; we shall render our selvs unworthy altogether of so blessed a Victory , and so joyful a Triumph as God hath of his free and unspeakable mercy promised us . § . 39. Further , to encourage them , he proves the certainty of their Reward , to such as persevere , and his displeasure against all such as draw , back out of the next words of the Prophet , which he renders thus , Ver. 38. [ Now the Just shall live by Faith ; but if ●●y man draw back , my Soul shall have no pleasure in him . ] IN the handling of these words , we must consider ; 1. How they come in upon the former . 2. To what end the Apostle doth alledge them . 3. What the matter therein contained is . 4. For particular , and more distinct Explication , reduce then to Propositions . 1. They come in upon the former , as agreeing with them in the matter which is the great Reward . Yet they have more immediate Connexion with the words immediately a●tecedent : 1. As being taking out of the same place of the Prophets . 2. As signifying that when Christ shall come he will accept and reward those that persevere , and reject the rest . 2. The End & Scope is , to encourage them , from God's own words and Promise ( for they are the words of God ) , to persevere and not draw back . 3. The material parts are two : 1. The final Acceptation of such as persevere . 2. The Rejection of such as do not , but draw back . The Propositions are two , 1. The just shall live by Faith. 2. If any Man draw back , my Soul shall have no pleasure in him . In the first Proposition we have , 1. Faith , 2. Righteousness . 3. Life . These three are subordinate ; for by Faith we attain Righteousness ; by Righteousness , Life ; and by what we are justified , by that we live . No Faith , no Righteousness ; no Righteousness , no Life ; these three go together . In the words we have two Propositions at least implied , 1. We are justified or just by Faith. 2. We are glorified and live by Faith. According to the former Proposition , the Apostle made use of this Text in the Prophet , Rom. 1. 17. Gal. 3. 11. to prove Justification by Faith in Christ without Works : For , because Man is sinful and guilty , his Justification is Remission of Sin , which , presupposing the party penitent and believing , depends upon the Satisfaction , Merits , and Intercession of Christ , and the Mercy of God expressed in the Promise . As there he makes use of this Text , to prove gratuitous Justification ; so here he takes it up again , to assure them , that if they continue in this justifying Faith to the End , in the End they shall live and be glorified ; and that Faith which is first justifying shall be Faith glorifying . 1. We have Faith , which is a divine practical Assent unto the saving Truths of the Gospel , and a reliance upon the Promises of God : And here it 's taken for this Faith continued to the End , even in the midst of all Persecutions and Afflictions , and includes the former continued Boldness of Profession with Patience and other heavenly Vertues , with which it hath an inseparable Connexion , and is the foundation of all . 2. Upon Faith followeth Righteousness ; for the just have Faith , and are just and justified by Faith : For , by just , are here meant the justified by Faith according to the Tenour of the new Covenant . For Man being sinful and guilty cannot be justified by his own Innocency , Purity , inherent Righteousness , and perfect Obedience : He is condemnable by Reason of his Guilt , and is freed from Condemnation by deprecating the Wrath of the Supream Judg , and pleading Christ's Sacrifice , and God's Promise , according to his penitent Faith. God in justifying is merciful , because the Person justified is a Sinner ; yet just , because Christ hath suffered , God hath promised , and Man guilty doth believe . This Justification doth not leave a Man under the Power and Dominion of Sin , but in freeing from Guilt he renews and sanctifies him by his Spirit , so that he is inherently righteous . So that he is justified and inherently just ; yet the place is to be understood of such as are finally just , as they are finally believing . For he that hath Faith is just ; he that continueth in Faith , continueth just ; and he that is finally believing is finally just . 3. As guilty Man is just by Faith , so being just he shall live by Faith. By Life in this place is meant a spiritual , happy , and eternal Life ; the Life of Glory , which is the great Reward , which will certainly follow upon final Faith : For it 's Faith , which by vertue of Christ's Merit , and God's Promise , gives a Right to Life ; and upon a finall Faith , the Possession and full Enjoyment of this blessed Life doth certainly follow . The Duty therefore which the Apostle urgeth , is final Perseverance in Faith ; and the Motive whereby he seeks to stir them up to Performance is the certain full Possession of the great Rewards for which he alledgeth God's own Word and Promise recorded in the Prophet . And if they will hearken unto God speaking by the Prophet , and take his Word and Promise , there is great Reason why they should persevere . § . 40. As the former Reason is taken from God's Promise of Life , so the latter is drawn from the Punishment and Displeasure of God ; which , if they fall away , they must suffer , as certainly threatned by God ; For if any Man draw back , my Soul shall have no pleasure in him . The Proposition is hypothetical or compound and connex , the Nature whereof is to deduce a Consequent from an Antecedent . And this is a certain Rule , that if the Antecedent be true , the Consequent is so too . The Connexion is not natural , but depends upon divine Ordination , who hath determined in general , that Punishment shall follow upon Sin ; and in particular , that final Perdition shall follow upon Apostacy . This is part of the Text , which the Apostle alledgeth out of Habakkuk ; and therefore the Original is Hebrew : And this gives occasion to consider the difference of the Translations ; the Vulgar , Junius , Vatablus , the Divines of Zurick , following him and our English , differ amongst themselvs in translating the Hebrew ; and the Septuagint , which the Apostle follows , seems to differ much from all the Rest. Besides , the Hebrew Copy , which they turned , did not agree with these of latter times : This difference will appear in the Explication of particulars , which are two , 1. Apostacy . 2. God's Displeasure . 1. The Apostacy , which is signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to be Pride ; so some , to be Unbelief ; so others , to be a Lifting up ; so our English , to be a drawing back ; so the Septuagint . These may be reconciled ; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to fear , and out of fear to hide ones self , and also to remit and abate of our former Boldness and Courage ; this signification agrees well enough with the Arabick signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gafal , which some tells is to hide or neglect : For , all Apostacy issues from fear , and a Remission of our more intensive Courage in time of Persecution , so as to yield basely and cowardly unto our Enemy , whom we might have resisted and overcome . This drawing back is an Unbelief , after Belief and Profession of our Faith : And it may , and sometimes doth , proceed from Pride , which will not suffer the heart to submit unto the Will of God , and depend upon that Righteousness which is by Faith ; it will scorn to bear the Cross of Christ , and it will despise the Promises and Comminations of the Gospel : Yet it may issue from other Causes . 2. The Punishment is expressed in these words , My Soul shall have no pleasure in him . In our present Hebrew Copies , we read [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] his Soul , whereas the Septuagint read [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] My Soul. To change the Affix Jod into Vau was an Errour easily committed in the Transcription . By Soul therefore is not meant the Soul of the Apostate , but of God ; and the Soul of God is God , who is only Soul and Spirit , and hath no Body . Of God it 's said , He will have no pleasure in the Apostate , which is a Meiosis , and signifies , He will be highly displeased with him . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated to be upright , doth signify also to please ; so the Septuagint divers time ; do turn it , and I know no Reason why the Translatour should vary from them , especially in Habakkuk . By this Phrase is declared God's high displeasure against them for their Sin ; for as their Sin was high and hainous , so was his Displeasure ; who would punish them severely , that the penalty might be proportioned and made adequate to their Sin. So in these words , the words of God , we find the Arguments both à Praemio & Poena briefly contracted . § . 41. Yet , lest the Hebrews should think , that the Apostle had conceived some Jealousy and Suspicion of an Inclination in them to Apostacy , he , as in the sixth Chapter , prevents all such thoughts by these words following , Ver. 39. But we are not of them which draw back unto Perdition , but of them that believe to the saving of the Soul. THis is an Application of the former Doctrine , delivered in general to Paul , and these Hebrews in particular . There is little need of Explication ; for the words are easily understood from that which went before : For to draw back is Apostacy , and Perdition is utter Destruction , which issues from the Displeasure and severe Justice of God. To believe , is the Duty ; Salvation of the Soul , the Reward ; and to believe unto the Salvation of the Soul , is , to persevere in Faith unto the End , and the full Possession of eternal Glory . By these words we learn , 1. To have a charitable conceit of Professors , when we see and know nothing contrary to sincerity . 2. To examine and thoroughly search our hearts , that we may more clearly understand our spiritual condition , Whether it be good or bad ? Whether our Faith be sincere , and our Profession real or no ? Whether we tend unto Perdition or Salvation ? 3. They imply a secret Exhortation to Perseverance , and a Dehortation from Apostacy , upon the two main and principal Reasons of Perdition and Salvation . 4. They serve for Comfort ; for , to have a certain Knowledg of our Sincerity , Constancy , and Performance of our Duty and the Conditions of the Covenant , is a Ground of great Joy and Comfort in the midst of our Afflictions and Tribulations ; for upon this Knowledg we are assured ; that God doth love us , we are freed from the danger of Damnation , have a firm Title unto everlasting Glory , and all things shall work together for our good . And happy we , if we can truly say , as here the Apostle doth , We are not of them who draw back unto Perdition , but of them who believe unto the Salvation of the Soul. The Sum and Substance of the whole Chapter is , 1. The Doctrine of the Excellency and Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice , which once offered doth consecrate the sanctified for ever . 2. Exhortation to several Duties , and especially to the principal , which is Perseverance , which is urged upon them by severall Arguments , especially that of the fearful Punishment of Apostates , and the glorius Reward of Perseverance . CHAP. XI . Concerning the excellency of Faith , exemplisied in the Saints of former times . § . 1. THE Connexion of this Chapter with the former , the Scope , and Method , are obvious , and easily understood by the observant and considerate Reader . 1. The Connexion is this ; the Apostle continues his Discourse concerning Faith , and Profession , and Perseverance in them unto Life , Salvation , and the receiving of the great Reward , and his Exhortation unto Perseverance : So that they agree in the same subject matter . 2. The Scope , is , by a new Argument to stir them up unto continuance in the Exercise of this heavenly vertue . 3. The Method is easily perceived by the Disposition of the parts , which are , 1. A Description of Faith , Ver. 1. 2. An Instance in two general Effects , Ver. 2 , 3. 3. An enumeration of many Saints and Worthies of former times , who by this Faith did suffer grievous Afflictions , did rare Exploits , and obtained many great Blessings . These Saints are represented unto us , as marshalled and set in Array , according to the times wherein they lived , and 1. Some are expressed by Name . 2. Some are not named at all . Of such as are named , 1. Some are honoured with the Testimony of the rare Acts and Effects of their Faith , related in particular out of the Scriptures . 2. Some are only named , and the Effects of their Faith are reckoned up jointly with others which are not mentioned by Name . After the Catalogue of these Worthies is finished , the Argument taken from their Example is applied : In all this Discourse you must observe , 1. That the end of the Apostle is to shew the Excellency of that Faith and Perseverance , which was spoken of in the former Chapter . 2. That the Argument or Suasive here used for to confirm them in the Faith is taken from Example of many of the most eminent Saints and Servants of God recorded in the Old Testament , and of such as lived before the Exhibition of Christ. 3. That the force of the Argument is not only in this , that they believed and persevered in the Faith ; but chiefly from this , that all their rarest and most heroick Acts and Sufferings , whereby they attained so many and great Blessings , did issue from their Faith , without which they could have done little or nothing . § . 2. But to enter upon the Chapter and the Text it self , we read Ver. 1. Now Faith is the Substance of things hoped for , and the Evidence of things not seen . THis is said to be a Description of Divine Faith ; a perfect Definition it cannot be . That Faith is such a vertue as here is described may easily be known from the former ter , whence it may be and is deduced . And the Apostle thought good to premise these words for the better understanding and application of the following Examples . In the words which speak of Faith , we have two Propositions , 1. Faith is the Substance of things hoped for . 2. Faith is the Evidence of things not seen . In both these we may note , 1. The Object 2. The Act of Faith. In the first Proposition things hoped for are in the Object , and the Act is signified by the word [ Hypostasis ] here turned Substance . The whole Verse may be understood either of Faith in general , whether Moral or Divine ; yet here it 's principally meant of that Divine Faith , whereby we obtain Salvation . To define what Faith in general is , belongs to Logick , which is the Rule of Man's Understanding , whereof Faith is an Act , and that Act which we call Assent ; and so it differs from Dissent and Doubting : Yet Assent may be imperfect , and mixt with some degrees of Doubt , and this is ordinarily called Opinion ; and it may be perfect and certain , and that without Doubt . Yet this Assent may be firm , and given unto a false Proposition conceived to be true , or to a Proposition true in it self , either as clear in it's own Light , or upon demonstration and evident Proof , or at second hand , and represented unto us by some extrinsecal Lights , as by the Testimony of another , of whose certain Knowledg and Integrity we make no doubt . This Testimony is humane or divine : The ground of this Faith and Assent here intended , is the Testimony of God. And here two things are required , 1. That the thing testified be credible . 2. That we have certain Knowledg , that the thing to be believed be testified by God. The Tradition of the Church being but an humane Testimony , cannot fully satisfy us herein , but we must have other artificial Arguments , to prove that which the Church saith is the word of God indeed : And so far only as we know the things to be believed to be testified by God , so far only can we believe with a divine and an infallible Faith : So that the Testimony of God , known certainly to us to be his Testimony , is the ground of this Faith here intended . One Object of this Faith is , things hoped for : Things hoped for , in this Text , are , 1. Things and Rewards , promised by God as to come , and not yet received . 2. The principal of these is eternal life , and that great and glorious Reward mentioned in the former Chapter , and to be received upon final Perseverance in Faith. Of these things , or of their futurition , we can by Nature and the Light of Reason have no intuitive or demonstrative Knowledg . The Truths concerning them and their fruition are revealed from Heaven ; and as so revealed , they are fit and proper Objects of our Faith , which is here said to be the Hypostasis of these things . This word is interpreted several wayes ; for some will have it to signify the Substance , Ground , Foundation of things hoped for : Others , a certain persuasion and expectation of them : Others , the Subsistance or Existence of this great Reward to come . This variety of Opinions concerning the signification of the word in this place makes the Proposition doubtful unto many . The Syriack Translator turns the words in this manner , Faith is the Certainty or certain Persuasion of these things which are in hope , as though they did actually exist or were in effect to them that do believe . This Certainty or certain Persuasion , is an act of the Soul of Man divinely enlightned , whereby it doth as firmly believe that such as persevere in Faith shall as certainly receive the great Reward as though they did actually enjoy it . This is that we call a firm Assent , grounded upon the Word and Promise of God ; for this Word and Promise is the Hypostasis , Ground , Foundation , & Basis of this Assent , in respect of things hoped for , upon which the Soul is firmly fixed ; and this Assent is the Principle of all other heavenly vertues , and in particular , and more immediately , of our Hope . So that by this Assent , these things hoped for , though in themselvs yet to come , have a kind of mental , ideal , intellectual Existence , as present by Faith unto him that hath Faith , and this is a mighty motive to perseverance . And here is to be noted , 1. That though things future as hoped for , are here only mentioned as the object of Faith , yet it 's not the adequate object ; for Faith extends further , and moves in a larger Sphear . 2. That this Faith is not only a certain assent , perswasion , and belief of the Truths and Revelations of God concerning these things , but also a certain expectation of the things promised , and a firm confidence and reliance upon God promising , concerning the performance of the promise . Yet neither this expectation , nor this confidence can be Faith strictly taken ; though it 's certain , that in respect of things hoped for , as such , it 's often taken in this large sense . The firm assent is indeed alwayes presupposed as the ground of both . § . 3. The second Proposition , which is , That [ Faith is the evidence of things not sin . ] Where , 1. The Object , is things unseen . 2. The Act , is evidence of those things . 1. The Object , is something not seen . Things unseen are not only such things as are invisible , and such as cannot be received by the eye , but also such as are not perceivable by any of our senses . Neither are things insensible meant , but such as are above the reach of reason . Most of our knowledg is acquired by our senses , especially of hearing and seeing ; according to that Maxim , [ Nihil est in intellect is , quod non prius fuer at in sensu . ] Though this be true only of things sensible ; for no sensible thing can be received into the under standing , but by virtue of our outward and inward senses : yet we have an intuitive knowledg of many things , as of the inward intellectual and moral acts of the Soul , without any act or operation of the senses . So that things unseen , are such as are neither perceivables by the sense nor reason , so as to have either an intuitive or demonstrative knowledg of them . These are such as are conveyed to the Soul by divine Revelation , without which , man could not have known them ; and such propositions as the connexion of the terms depend upon the Will of God. 2. Faith is the evidence of these things unseen ; because we having a certain knowledg of God's veracity , and his testimony and revelation of these things , are as certainly perswaded of the truth of them ; and give as firm assent unto them , as if they were seen and intuitively and demonstratively known unto us . Yet here you must consider , 1. That though the things and proposition ; be above reason , yet this perswasion or firm assent , and this certain knowledg of the divine Revelation are acts of reason , and in the Book of Reason are they written . 2. That this object is of greater latitude then the former . For things hoped for , which are to come , are not seen ; and not only they , but many things past and present . 3. That the things not seen in this place , are not all things not seen , but such as God hath revealed to be the matter and object of our Divine Faith. 4. That though substance and evidence may differ , yet both are a firm assent ; but [ Hypostasis ] in respect of the things hoped for , may include a firm confidence and a certain expectation : for in respect of that object , that assent is more practical then this evidence , which respects things unseen : So that here wants but little of a perfect definition . 5. The Faith here defined is divine Faith in general , not that which is called justifying as justifying ; for that is but a particular branch of this general , looking at a particular object , which is Christ's Sacrifice , and his Intercession . Lushington's Exposition of these words , as it 's singular , so it 's gross , and not worthy taking notice of . § . 4. This foundation being laid , the Apostle proceeds not only to prove it to be true by many instances , but also that this Faith thus described is excellent , and that by divers Acts and Effects thereof . And that it 's excellent , it appears ; for , Ver. 2. For by it the Elders obtained a good Report . ] THE meaning of this in brief is , That by-Faith the Elders became famous , and men of renown , so far as to be commended by God himself . But for the more particular and distinct understanding hereof , I will devide the whole into two propositions : 1. The Elders obtained a good Report . 2. They obtained this good Report by Faith. Both these joyntly taken , prove the excellency of Faith : For that vertue whereby the Elders became so famous , and were so highly honoured both by God and Men , must needs be rare and excellent . But let 's handle them severally . 1. The Elders obtained a good Report . In the Original [ were Witnessed ] : Where we may observe , 1. The Elders . 2. The Testimony concerning these Elders . These Elders were the Saints of God in former times , called so in respect of these Hebrews , their Posterity , and those who succeeded them in the times of the Gospel . Yet principally we must understand such as are mentioned afterwards , and such as were upon record in Scripture ; as Abel , E●och , Noah , Abraham , and the rest . The testimony concerning these Elders , is expressed in the general , [ They were witnessed . ] Now a Testimony concerning a person is good or bad , and this concerning them is good ; and thus the word in Greek and Latine is often taken by a Synechdoche , and here it s taken for the good Testimony which God gave of them , for their rare and excellent virtuous acts , which were such , as that they were not only famous amongst the Saints of their times , but also commended by God. And many of them and their works he caused to be Chronicled and written in his own Book of the Sacred Scripture so that their names are upon divine Record . And this was a rare priviledg , and granted unto few eminent persons ; so that their Fame and Glory is of perpetual continuance , and their names shall never be blotted out , or their virtues ever buried in the grave of Oblivion . 2. They became thus famous by their Faith , without which their remembrance could not have been so precious and honourable to succeeding Generations . That which is matter of praise and honour , is some virtue shining forth in some excellent deeds : Their excellent deeds are many , and recorded in the Scripture , and recited in this Chapter . Yet all these rare Gifts and Acts issued from one Fountain and one particular Faith , without which , they could not have done so glorious things , so worthy of praise and honour . For as the Apostle shews afterward ; By Faith Abel offered so excellent a Sacrifice , Enoch pleased God , Noah prepared the Ark , and so of the rest . From all which he intimates , 1. That without Faith they could not have performed what they did perform . 2. That it was the Foundation of all their other virtues , and all their vertuous acts . 3. By Faith is understood that Faith , which was formerly described . 4. This Verse is an abridgment of the whole Chapter , and of the Old Testament , and signifies the harmony and agreement thereof with the New. 5. By those words the Apostle doth tacitely exhort them to Faith and Perseverance therein , because , as the Elders , so they should obtain a good Report . § . 5. The Apostle in the former words made mention of Elders in general ; and because he intended to descend unto particulars , and to inform us who they were , and some of them lived near the time of the Creation of the World , he thought good to premise an act of Faith about an object necessarily presupposed before the particular instances . For seeing he was to begin his enumeration with some of the Elders , who lived near the beginning , he must say something of the beginning of the World , which could not be known by sense or reason , but by Faith. For , Ver. 3. Through Faith we understand , that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God ; so that the things that are seen , were not made of things that did appear . ] THis act of Faith , in respect of this object , is not proper to any particular Elder or , ancient Worthy ; but a common act of all , and therefore prefixed before the Examples and Instances following , and proves in part , That Faith is the evidence of things not seen , which are hoped for . These words inform us , Of an Object . Act. 1. The Object is the Creation of the World. 2. The Act is the understanding of this by Faith , which usually is reduced under the first article of our Creed . The Proposions are these , 1. The things that are seen , were not made of things that did appear . 2. They were made or framed by the Word of God. 3. This is understood by Faith. Or rather thus , 1. The Worlds were framed , so that things seen , were not made of things that did appear . 2. They were thus framed and made by the Word of God. 3. That they were thus made , we understand by Faith. Where we have two Propositions concerning the Object , one concerning the Act. In the first Proposition we have , 1. The Worlds and Things seen . 2. The World 's framed , and things seen made . 3. Things seen , not made of things that did appear . 1. By Worlds , must be understood Heaven and Earth , and all things therein , the Hosts of them ; the reason of the name Worlds , you may read , Chap. 1. 2. — Things seen may be visible part of the World , which is conspicuous , and may be seen by bodily Eyes , as the frame of Heaven and Earth , with the Lights of Heaven , and Creatures upon Earth , and also the Waters and the Seas , and all things therein , in which respect they are contra-distinct to invisible Creatures . For all things were made by Christ , and these were either visible or invisible , other wayes things seen may be things existent , and in perfect being . 2. These were framed and made , that is , they received their being and existence ; for the act and work of Creation gave existence to things , that had no actual being before . Yet the Word framed , is extended by some to signify not only the work or act of Creation , but also the union , order , and perfection of the whole and all the parts ; but howsoever it may connote these , yet the intended force of it is to be Created ; so as that creation and Making are the same . 3. The things seen , were of things that did not appear . By things not appearing , some understand the Samplar and Idea of things in the Mind and Counsel of God , but this can harldy be the sense . But others say , That things not appearing , are , things not pre-existent or in being . And this may be taken two wayes , 1. To signify , that the first Creation did presuppose no matter , stuff , or atoms , or any such thing ; because all things were purely and meerly Nothing , had no being , nor principle , nor rudiment , nor part of being at all . And this doth differense the powerful and wonderful active strength , and productive force of God from the power and active force of all other Agents ; in respect of which , that 's true , [ Ex nihilo nihil fit . ] 2. To signify , that the things now seen , were made of that Earth , that seminary and imperfect Rudiment , which Gen. 1. 2. as the Septuagint translate it , was [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] invisible , and darkness was upon the face of it . For out of it God created the Elements and mixt Creatures , which when Light was made and they finished , did appear , and most of them were visible . This last sense is good , and so is the former ; and both may agree , because that Earth and imperfect Chaos , concreated with the Heaven of Heavens , was first nothing , then invisible , and not appearing before the things made out of it could be seen . Where note , that , not to be made of things appearing , and , to be made of things not appearing , are the same . 2. The second Proposition is , That these were made by the Word of God. The Word of God is either the Word which was God , and begotten of the Father from everlasting ; and so it cannot be taken here , or the Word of God expressing something out of himself . And this is also two-fold , 1. That Word whereby he effecteth something . 2. That which signifieth his mind , and is not effective and productive further then to make his mind known . But here his effective and productive Word is meant ; For God said , Let there be Light , ( this is his Word ) ; and there was Light , this is the production of his powerful Word . This Word is called the Will and Command of God , not that it was so , but because it did signify that it was his Will , that at such a time such or such a thing should be made or created , and did , as it were , command himself and his almighty power to effect it . For he spake unto himself as almighty , and his Word was his Deed : and as his Wisdom , Word , and Power are not separated in himself ; so neither were they separated in this Work. So that the World was made without any difficulty , toil , tumult , tools , or other adjuvant ministerial Causes . The mighty glorious Work was done instantly , and with ease by him , to whom nothing is impossible . The third Proposition is , That by Faith , we understand that the World was thus created . Where three things , 1. The thing understood . 2. The understanding of it . 3. The understanding of it by Faith. 1. The thing understood , is not this , that the World was made ; for that may be known by Reason . For it 's clear enough , that it 's an Effect , and must necessarily have an efficient Cause , which must produce and effect it . And they which hold , it was [ ab eterno ] from Eternity , some of them do confess this ; only they affirm that it was meant necessarily by the Supream Agent , and the Production of it was like the Production of Light from the Sun , which was no sooner in Being , but Light did necessarily flow and issue from it , so that there could be no Priority of time between the Sun and Light , but the Being of both was simultaneous . But that this World should be made at such a time , and at first of no pre-existent matter , and in the space of six dayes , and in that order one part after another , and by the Word of God as the sole efficient , and so many years ago , is far above Reason . 2. Yet this is understood , and it 's our reason and intellective faculty which doth apprehend and understand it : For without it we can know nothing , by it we know all things that are known unto us , even the deep things and Counsels of God revealed . Neither is Reason meerly passive , but really active , in this Work ; for it moves , acts , knows this Creation of the World as certainly as it doth things cognoscible by the senses , or those whereof we have intuitive or demonstrative Knowledg . 3. Yet we know it by Faith , which is a divine and supernatural Light , and elevates Reason above it's natural Sphere . Faith sometimes by a Trope is taken for the Rule of Faith , which is the Word and Revelation of God. The proper Act of this word is to represent , and this Representation may be made either outwardly or inwardly in the Soul , so as to inform it ; and that either immediately , which is Inspiration ; or mediately , which is a more imperfect Disciplination : When the Soul is once informed , it receives the Impression , knows the thing represented , and assents unto it ; and this assenting Knowledg is a vital Act. The thing here represented is such as Reason by it's natural Active Power cannot reach ; therefore this divine Representation is necessary as a supernatural Light , which by the Power of God piercing the Understanding , enables it to understand and know and believe such things , which otherwise could not be understood , known , and believed . Yet this Assent may be moral and probable , or divine ; here is meant a divine Assent , which without the Power of the Spirit cannot be in ●he heart of Man. Thus by Faith and not by Reason we understand how the World was made , that it was not eternal , that the Wisdom and Power of God was wonderfully manifested in that glorious Work. § . 6. These things premised , the Apostle enters upon his Argument from Examples , which are set forth according to the order of time : 1. By a particular Enumeration . 2. By Accumulation . He might have instanced in far more , but these were the most eminent , and for number sufficient for his purpose . He begins with Abel : who Ver. 4. By Faith offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Kain , by which he obtained Witness , that he was righteous , God testifying of his Gifts : And by it he being dead yet speaketh . YOU must here observe , that one thing wherein all these Saints und Worthies do agree was Faith. 2. That this Faith is the principal thing to be noted in them all . 3. His End is , by a kind of Induction , to prove the excellency and necessity of Faith. 4. That according to the History of the Old Testament , which he makes his Rule , Abel is the first most eminent Person in whom he thought good to instance : For , as Stephen was , though not the first Sufferer , yet the Proto-Martyr of the New Testament ; so Abel was the Proto-Martyr of the Old , and was the first Man who after the Creation and the Fall suffered death , and sealed the Truth of God with his Blood. And though his Father Adam and his Mother Eve had Faith , yet the Scriptures do not relate unto us any special and eminent Work of their Faith ; so that there was no Example of eminency in Faith before him : For , seeing by Faith we believe the Creation of the World , and the Fall of the first Man who was his Father , by whom Sin came into the World , there could not be any before him so near the beginning of the World so fit for Example . Of this Abel two things are related , 1. His Vertue . 2. His Reward . His Vertue in general was Faith , manifesting it self in his excellent Sacrifice . His Reward , God's Testimony of him , and his perpetual Fame . The words may be reduced to three Propositions : 1. That Abel by Faith offered a more excellent Sacrifice than ●ain . 2. By this he obtained Witness that he was righteous , God testifying of his Gifts . 3. By this he being dead yet speaketh , or is spoken of . In the first Divine Axiom we may observe , 1. That he offered Sacrifice to God. 2. This Sacrifice was more excellent than that of Kain . 3. That he offered this so excellent a Sacrifice by Faith. 1. To offer Sacrifice was a religious Worship , and may be considered as Moral , Positive , * Ceremonial . As offered unto God in acknowledgment of his Supream Dominion , it 's Moral ; so is the Gift and Offering of some part of our Goods for pious Uses and Maintenance of his Worship . As it was a part of God's outward Worship , depending only upon Divine Institution , it was Positive . As this Sacrifice signified a far greater Sacrifice to come , it was Ceremonial : For , after Man had sinned , besides the Confession and Amendment of the Sinner , Satisfaction to God's Justice by a Sacrifice was required . That this was Typically an explatory Sacrifice for Sin , seems to be implied by the thing sacrificed , which was of the Flock , which must be slain , and the Blood shed ; as though for compensation Life was given for Life , and Blood for Blood , so that this was a Shadow of Christ's Death and Offering . This Sacrifice was offered unto the true and living God , and not unto Idols , and this according to the first Commandment ; For no Worship or Service Religious is due to any but to God , who alone is Supream Lord , and to whom alone the highest degree of honour is to be given . Yet all these bloody Sacrifices began to be out of date upon the Death and Resurrection of Christ ; and now only the spiritual Sacrifices of an humble broken Spirit of Praise , of Prayer , of Thanksgiving , and such like , continue in force . 2. This Sacrifice was more excellent than that of Kain . This Kain was his Elder Brother ; He offered , and Abel offered too : They both offered unto the same eternal and universal Lord. The marter of his Offering was according to his outward Profession and Imployment , of the fruits of the Earth ; and besides the difference in the matter , there was a great Inequality : For Abel's compared to his , was far more excellent and acceptable . Here we might take occasion to consider , 1. Adam's care in the Education of his Children , to fit them not only for the matters of this Life , but for Religion and the World to come . 2. That two Persons may worship God with the same kind of Worship , and yet differ very much in the manner of their Service . 3. This more excellent Sacrifice was offered by Faith , and this Faith did make it so excellent : For it was not the matter offered , but the Qualification of the Person , and his manner of Offering , that gave the worth unto the Sacrifice , and made it more precious . Kain offers without Faith sincere and lively , his Offering is base : Abel offers with Faith , his Offering is excellent , and of great value . This Faith is the Soul of all Religious Worship , and here the principal thing to be observed is , that Faith was the Principle which did animate and honour this piece of Service . § . 7. The Reward follows , and it is , a good Report , 1. In his life-time . 2. After death . 1. In his life-time : For , 1. It was testified of him , that he was righteous . 2. This was done by God , testifying of his Gifts . 1. He was righteous ; for so our Saviour terms him , speaking of the Blood of righteous Abel , Mat. 23. 35. He was righteous , not without all Sin , for such no Man after the Fall ever was ; yet he was without Wickedness . He was upright , and his Faith was sincere ; and his Worship of God , and his Obedience , were without Hypocrisy . He was justified and sanctified , and continued in the State of Justification and Sanctification , and in such a manner , as that he may be said to be eminently righteous . This Righteousness was not by Nature , but Grace ; not by his deserts , but by the merit of Christ , and the mercy of God. As he was righteous , so he was manifested to be so ; and it was testified to his comfort and honour . 2. It was God who testified of his Righteousness , by testifying of his Gifts . His Gifts were his Sacrifices offered to God ; these God did accept , and some wayes signified his acceptation , both of the Person and his Offering . In Gen. 4. 45. we read thus , [ And the Lord had respect to Abel , and to his Offering : But unto Cain , and his Offering he had not respect . ] The words give occasion of noting several things ▪ As , 1. That the Word turned by our English [ to respect ] in the Hebrew , signifies to behold or look upon with delight , as well pleased with it . The Chaldee Paraphrast useth a word , which signifies to be well pleased with , or graciously to accept . Symmachus turns , [ The Lord was delighted . ] The Syriack , translates to the same purpose . But Theodotion saith , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , inflammavit ] , He fired , or , consumed with fire . For by fire sent from Heaven , God did signify his acceptation of Aaron's Sacrifice , Levit. 9. 24. Of Solomon's , 2 Chron. 7. 1. and of Elijah's , 1 King. 18. 38. 2. God had respect first unto the Person , then unto his Offering ; for if the Person be not rightly qualified , the Sacrifice cannot be pleasing unto God. 3. The thing which rendered both him and his Offering so acceptable , was Faith. 4. That he did not thus accept Cain's , because he was not righteous , had no Faith. Some , and amongst other Cornelius Bertram , think , that by this acceptation of Abel's Sacrifice , God designed him to the Priest-hood , and rejected Cain ; and this was the cause , first of Envy , then of Murder . But whether God did testify of his Gifts by Fire , and by that testimony design him to be Priest , we need not trouble our selves . This is certain , he accepted Abel and his Offering , and that acceptation was some wayes signified , and by that signification he testified of him that he was righteous . All persons , who worship God , are Cains or Abels , offer with or without Faith : how careful therefore should we be , in the Service of our God , to come with prepared and disposed hearts . For it 's a blessed thing , and a matter of sweetest comfort to be accepted of our God , and a sad and woful Curse , with Cain to be rejected . The Reward after his Death is expressed in the third Proposition , [ And by it , being dead , yet speaketh . ] Where it 's said , 1. He yet speaketh , or , is spoken of . 2. Being dead , he speaketh . 3. By it he speaketh . The Copies and Books differ ; for some read he speaketh , some he is spoken of : yet both these may signify his fame and good report continuing in the Church to this Day . He may be said to be spoken of , because his Name and his Faith are upon Record in Scripture , where he , though dead , is remembred and commended , and shall be remembred and commended to the World's end ; and no length of time , which consumeth many things , shall ever raze his memory , he shall never be forgotten . Yet most do read , [ he speaketh ] , and the Translators most do follow that reading . Now the Question is , what he speaketh , and to whom , and what this speaking is , 1. He speaketh Faith , and Righteousness , and Virtue , and the Reward of Virtue ; and calls aloud for imitation of his Faith and Righteousness , that we may be accepted of God , and rewarded as he was . This is the Voice of all good Examples made known unto us . There is another thing , which he is said to speak , of which hereafter . 2. He speaketh first to Men ; for to whom God in the Scriptures speaks , to them , the Saints and Martyrs , by their good Example may be said to speak . Now the Scriptures were written for men living , and God in them doth speak unto us , whilst we living read or hear them . 3. This speaking is not like the speaking of Abel , when he was living , nor as one man speaketh to another ; but this Speech is Metaphorical . For as by Speech we declare and signify something unto others ; so Vertues , Rewards , Crimes , Punishments , made known unto Mortals by word or writing , declare and signify that Vertue shall be rewarded , and that Sin shall be punished ; and by the punishments warn us to take heed of Sin , and by the rewards encourage us to Virtue : This is not a speaking immediate of the person by words , but a speaking by things . In this respect it may be said , that the dead , whose Voice shall never be heard on Earth , do speak : But seeing Abel speaketh , it 's further inquirable by what he speaketh . It 's said , by it he speaketh ; and by it may be his Faith , and Sacrifice , or Blood : By the former , he speaks as you heard before ; and the voice of Deeds and good Examples is far more effectual , then the voice of Words , and continues to sound far longer . For the Voice is but heard , whilst those who live can speak ; but the voice of Deeds is heard after Death : yet some understand that he spake by his Blood , and that he might do two wayes : 1. As living , he spake by his Faith and Offering , but being dead by his patience and suffering ; and by this he exhorteth us , not only to live well , but with patience to suffer Death for Righteousness sake . This is an Alarum to Martyrdom , the highest pitch of Virtue and of Obedience . 2. As dead , he speaketh by his Blood , not only as famous for his Martyrdom , but as crying for Vengeance . For so God said to Cain , The Voice of thy Brothers Blood cryeth unto me from the Ground , Gen. 4. 10. And in the following Chapter Christ's Blood is mentioned as speaking better things then the Blood of Abel , Chap. 12. 24. Abel's Blood cryed aloud for Vengeance , but Christ's for Mercy and Pardon . Abel's Blood , joyntly with the Blood of all Martyrs , may call for justice unto the Supream Judg ; and when the Sufferings of all are finished , then full Vengance shall be executed upon all bloody Persecutors . Something to this purpose we may read , Rev. 6. 10 , 11. In this sense it may be said , they being dead , do yet speak , and will speak as dead , and being slain by their cruel Enemies ; And by Faith they speak thus ; for without Faith , they might have suffered justly for their Crimes , and then they could not solicite the Supream Judg to revenge their innocent Blood , not expect any Reward and Crown of Martyrdom . § . 8. After Abel follows Enoch the seventh from Adam , yet the second from Abel of eminent note in the History of Moses . Of him it 's said , Ver. 5. By Faith Enoch was translated not to see Death , and was not found , because God had translated him : for before his translation , he had this Testimony , that he pleased God. ] IN this Text , we may observe ; 1. The Reward , which was Translation . 2. The Virtue , he was translated by Faith. 3. The Testimony and good Report of him , he pleased God. Yet these may be reduced to two : 1. The Reward , he was translated . 2. His Virtue , by Faith he pleased God. If we take the two Verses together , we may reduce them to two Propositions thus ; 1. Enoch was translated . 2. By Faith Enoch was translated . And because the latter Proposition is not evident , as not expressed in the Text , the Apostle , first presupposing this Translation to be a great Reward , and obtained by Faith , he proves it thus , He that pleaseth God , must have Faith ; But Enoch pleased God : Therefore he had Faith. That he pleased God , he proves it by Testimony ; for that he did so , is express Scripture . The major [ That he that pleaseth God , must have Faith ] is thus made clear and confirmed , If it be impossible for any to please God , who doth not believe that God is , and a Rewarder of them , who diligently seek him ; then he that pleaseth God must believe : But without believing thus , no man can please God ; Therefore he that pleaseth God , must thus believe . Where it 's to be noted , That he infers Enoch's Faith , from his pleasing God , and the inseparable and necessary connexion of Faith and pleasing God. For where there is an Effect , there must necessarily be a Cause , and no Effect can be without its proper Cause . For Method's sake I will begin , 1. With his Translation . 2. Proceed to the demonstration of his Faith. 1. This Translation was a Reward , and therefore signifies the change was to the better . 1. He was translated not to see Death , so the Apostle understood the Text of Moses ; not to see Death , is , not to dye or suffer Death . There was no separation of Soul and Body , they remained , united , the Soul was not unclothed or divested of the Body ; yet it was changed , and made immortal . Of all the other Patriarchs before the Flood , it 's said , [ They , even Methuselah dyed ] : To this their Death , this Translation is opposed ; for it 's not said , that Enoch the great , and most eminently pious Prophet , dyed . This was a dispensation with that general Law and Judgment past in Adam upon all mankind , [ Dust thou art , and to dust shalt thou return ; and it was an act of that power , which God reserved to himself as above his Law. In the Chaldee it 's said , That God did not slay him ; that is , he did not take away his Life ; this was a singular exception from the general rule of his Judgments . 2. In the Hebrew , it 's said , [ He was not ] ; In the Chaldee , [ He appeared not ] ; In the Greek , [ He was not found . These two latter expresse the meaning of the Hebrew Phrase . For this followed upon his Translation , that he did not appear , nor was found upon Earth amongst mortal men ; for he ceased to be in that place with living mortal men , he changed the place and company . 3. Lest we should be ignorant either of the Place to which he removed , or of the Person who removed him , it 's said , [ God took him ] , so the Hebrew ; [ God took him to himself ] , so the Arabick ; [ Because God had translated him ] , so the Text. The place to which he was removed Physically considered , is not expressed ; yet he after his Translation , must be in some place ; this place was not this Earth , for there he was not found . It was some better place ; and seeing there is no place fit for man's Habitation , better then the Earth , but only Heaven , the Habitation of Angels , a glorious place of eternal peace , holiness , and security ; therefore most do positively affirm , that , as Elijah , so he , was taken into Heaven . The Person translating him , was God ; for none but he could make him immortal , and invest him with Glory : This signifies , that he was brought nearer unto God , and had more full and perfect Communion with him , then he enjoyed on Earth . So that this Translation was a change of place , of company , of condition ; for he was removed from Earth to Heaven , from Men to God ; from the estate of Mortality and Misery , to an estate of Immortality and Bliss . This was an anticipation of the great Reward , and it was like the change of all God's Saints , who shall be found living , when Christ shall come to Judge the World. This God did to signify his great respect unto eminent Piety , and to let men know his high and special reserved Power , and that there is a Reward of Glory after this Life , and such a Reward as shall make men fully happy in Soul and Body too , and that for ever . This doth further inform us , that God can make the Body Immortal , without any separation of it from the Soul , and also that he can raise and re-unite the Body turned unto Dust , and make it Immortal , and eternally inseparable . The second Proposition was , that he obtained this Translation and glorious Reward by Faith. For [ by Faith Enoch was translated ] ; But because it was not expressed in the Text of Moses , that he was translated by Faith ( for there is no mention of his Faith ) ; he proves his Faith , the Cause from the Effect [ He pleased God ] ; and his pleasing of God , from the testimony of God. For before he was translated , he had this testimony , that he pleased God : And here we may observe , 3. Propositions , 1. That he pleased God. 2. That he had this testimony . 3. He had this testimony before he was translated . 1. He pleased God : He walked with God , so the Hebrew ; He walked in the fear of God , so the Chaldee : He walked in the Obedience of God , so the Arabick : He pleased God , so the Septuagint , whom the Apostle followeth . The meaning therefore is , that he served God , observed his Commands , and was obedient unto them : The word [ walked ] used by the Hebrew , Chaldee , Arabick Translatours signifies , that this was the constant tenour of life ; it was a life of Righteousness and Holiness , and the repetition of this walking in the Text of Moses , may imply an eminent degree of Holiness in him more then in other men ; for his Conversation was so ordered , that it was very pleasing and acceptable to God , who delights in sincere and constant Obedience , whereby men do resemble him as holy and righteous : We must not think that he could have walked thus with God by the power of Nature , the sanctifying Spirit of Grace was the principle of this Obedience . 2. It was testified of him , or he had this testimony , That he pleased God. This was a good Report , and so much the more certain , because God gave it by his Spirit in the Prophet Moses , who hath recorded it to all Generations . And this is reported of him , not only once , but twice : Therefore there can be no doubt of it . 3. This was testified of him before he was translated ; the sense is not , that Moses testified this of him before he was translated , but the thing testified was this , that he had pleased God before he was translated . For the Text doth testify that he was translated , yet it testifies that he pleased God before this Translation . This is brought to prove , that by Faith he was translated . § . 9. It might be said , that though Enoch pleased God , yet it doth not appear how this pleasing of God will prove and infer his Faith , neither is the Connexion of Faith and walking with God so evident . Therefore to prevent all doubts in this Point he adds Ver. 6. But without Faith it is impossible to be please God ; for he that cometh unto God must believe that God is , and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him . IN these words he proves the impossibility of separation , and the absolute necessity of the Connexion of Faith and pleasing God ; and they must be considered , 1. In themselvs . 2. As an Argument to prove something antecedent . In the first consideration they yield two Propositions , 1. Without Faith it 's impossible to please God. 2. He that cometh unto God must believe that God is , and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him . 1. Without Faith it 's impossible to please God. Where we might observe , 1. The Effect , pleasing God. 2. The Cause , Faith. 3. The inseparable Connexion of both . When one thing doth depend upon another for its being , then it 's impossible for it to exist without that other upon which it doth so much depend ; as the Effect depends upon its Cause , as receiving Being from it . Therefore Causes and Effects are said to be Arguments absolutely consentany , and of inseparable Connexion and impossible Separation . If there be a Cause formally and actually as a Cause , there must of necessity be an Effect ; if there be an Effect there must needs be the Cause that gave it being . If there be the beams of the Sun , there must necessarily be the Sun from whence they issue : The World created is an Effect , and cannot exist without God as creating it . So here , to please God is an Effect , and Faith is the Cause , without which we cannot possibly please God. The Sum is , that as it is impossible for an Effect to be without a Cause , so it 's impossible without Faith to please God. 2. This is made more clear from an Act of Faith. Some think that the Text is dianoetical or discursive ; as though the Apostle should argue in this Form , If he that commeth unto God must believe that God is , and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him , then without Faith , it 's impossible to please God. But the Antecedent is true : Therefore the Consequent . They are induced thus to think from the Conjunction For. This seems to be an arguing a definitione ad definitum : For in this latter Proposition we have a more accurate definition of that Faith , whereby we attain eternal Life , than in the first Verse . In it we may observe , 1. The Object 2. The Act 3. The Subject of Faith. 1. The Object complex is two-fold , 1. God is . 2. He is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him . So that the Object of Enoch's Faith , and so of all saving Faith in general , is God. This most noble Object may be considered , 1. As God. 2. As Rewarder of Man seeking him . 1. God is . This is prima veritas complexa , the first Categorical , Positive , Affirmative Proposition : For , as God's Being and Existence is first , and before all other things and existences ; so that God is , or doth exist , must needs be the first Truth . The Subject of this Proposition being God , by God we must understand the most perfect and excellent Being , which is known unto us in some measure by his Work , but is more fully represented unto us by his Attributes , and his eternal necessary acting upon himself , as we read in Scripture . Of these things I have written more at large in my Theo-Politica . This Being and Existence of God , so far as it cannot be understood by Reason , but by a diviner Light of Revelation , is the first Object of Faith. 2. The second Object of this Faith is God , as beatificans hominem , rewarding Man : where we must consider , 1. The party rewarding . 2. The party rewarded . The party rewarding is God , who first is , and doth exist in himself , before he can be a Rewarder . This Act of Remuneration presupposeth the Creation of the World , especially of Man as a Rational Creature , capable of Laws , Rewards , Punishments , and God's Supream Dominion and Laws , and his Judgment according to the Laws given Man , and Man's Observation of the same , nay , even the Observation of those Laws , according to which sinful guilty Man is rewardable . The party rewarded , or to be rewarded and made happy , is 1. Man. 2. Sinful Man. 3. Sinful Man seeking God. 4. Sinful Man , seeking God with that sincerity and constancy as to find him . This seeking God in this manner is the Observation of his Laws . 2. This being the Object , the Act is , to believe : He that cometh unto God must believe . To this Act is required an Object , not only materially but formally considered ; a Rule , and an intellective Faculty . The material Object you have heard before ; the formal Object are these as intelligible and credible , without which there can be no Act. That which makes them credible is the Rule , which is the divine Revelation or the Word of God representing the Object as intelligible and credible . For Reason without Revelation cannot attain any certain Knowledg and Evidence of these things : Something it may conclude and determine of God from his Works ; something may be taught and testified by Man without Divine Revelation . But that God will render eternal Rewards unto sinful Man , to be redeemed by Christ upon condition of Repentance , Faith , and new Obedience , is far above Reason not elevated above it's Sphere . Therefore the Rule must be supernatural and divine Revelation and Testimony , which is infallible because of God● veracity ; and this Revelation must be in the Soul , and known to be divine , before it can be a Rule to Man. This Faith is a vital and elicit Act of the Soul as intellective ; for without this intellective active Power , the Soul is not capable of the divine Representation , nor can be informed by it . The Act therefore is a Belief of these things thus represented ; this Belief is an Assent unto these things revealed as true : This Assent must be certain , infallible , practical . 1. It must be certain , because the things to be believed concern Man's everlasting Estate . 2. It must be infallible , for the same Reason . 3. It must be practical , because it must stir up men effectually to seek eternal Life , and deliverance from eternal Death : Yet the Cause of the certainty , infallibility , and practical force , is the Word of God conveyed into the Soul , and made powerful by the divine Spirit illuminating and inspiring Man in an ineffable manner ; for a divine Faith it a supernatural Gift of God : And as it is divinely practical and effective , it 's inconsistent with any predominant Lust and Corruption . 3. The Subject of this Faith is one that cometh unto God , even every one that cometh unto God. To come to God , is , for Man to turn unto God , and to make him the chiefest Object of his Understanding and Will , so as to serve him , and walk with him so as to obtain eternal Life from him . If we reflect upon Enoch , it is to come to God , for to walk with him ; for before Enoch could walk with God , he must come to God. Therefore this coming may be Conversion , which depends upon divine Vocation ; yet this coming as also this walking , presupposeth Faith , and follows upon it , as an Effect upon the Cause . For Faith is the Principle of this divine motion , both as first begun and after continued : So that the sense is , that a man cannot begin to walk with God , without this Faith ; for to walk with God , doth presuppose we are with him ; and with him we cannot be , except we first come unto him ; and come unto him for to walk with him , we cannot without this Faith. And here I might take occasion to speak of the distance between God and Man by Nature , caused by Sin ; and also of Man's return and first approach unto this Fountain of eternal Bliss ; but of these things I have spoken in my Theo-Politica : yet here you must remember , that he that cometh unto God is the Subject of this divine vertue of Faith. This is a definition of Faith in general , the Object whereof is the whole Scripture , as representing God , the Cause and Fountain of eternal happiness , whereof justifying Faith as justifying , is but a Branch . After the absolute consideration of this Text , in the second place it remains we examine the words , as they are an Argument or Reason to clear and prove something that went before . And for this purpose we must remember , that his intention was to prove that Enoch obtained the great Reward of his blessed Translation by Faith : This he proves , because he pleased God ; the Connexion of Faith and pleasing God is proved , because without Faith it 's impossible to please God ; and that it 's impossible he makes evident from the definition of Faith , necessarily required in every one that will come to God : For if a man believe not that God is , or that there is a God , he can never come unto him ; for no God no Worship of God , no thoughts of the Worship of that which is not believed to be . Therefore all Atheists are profane Scoffers , and not only neglect but deride Religion : The belief of a God is the first Ground of all Religious Service . But let a man believe there is a God , and yet not be perswaded that this God is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him , his Religion will be very cold , if any at all . The mighty Motive to come to God , and to walk with him , is a certain Belief , not only that God is , but that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him . Upon this Ground ( because upon the Resurrection we receive this great and glorious Reward , ) the Apostle exhorts the * Corinthians to be stedfast and immovable in this Faith of the Resurrection , alwayes abounding ing in the Work of the Lord , in as much as they knew their Labour in the Lord was not in vain . This presupposeth , that the end is the Principle of Motion in Morals , and this end as known : The End whereat Man should aime chiefly is eternal happiness in the enjoyment of his God ; the means , to walk with God , and so diligently seek him . These things are known by Revelation , and if Man upon Revelation do not certainly believe that God is , and that he will richly reward with eternal Bliss all such as diligently seek him , he can have no Principle of divine Motion in him , but will think all Religious Service and Obedience to be in vain . If any therefore ask what Faith , divine and saving Faith , is , this Text will teach us , that Faith is a Belief that God is , and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him . This definition is an Abridgment of the whole Creed ; it begins with Faith in God , and ends with Life everlasting , which is the great Reward . It 's true that the Creeds and Confessious of the Ancients were not so full , so clear , so explicit , as these of the Gospel ; yet they included implicitly the great work of Redemption by Christ as yet to come , and somewhat darkly represented unto them . § . 10. This rare Example of the great Reward obtained by Faith , was a mighty Motive to perswade them to Perseverance ; yet he stayes not here , but proceeds to a third , who also lived before the Flood , and survived the old World , as a Man of both . This was Noah , of whom it followeth , Ver. 7. By Faith Noah , being warned of God of things not seen as yet , moved with fear , prepared an Ark for the saving of his House , by the which he condemned the World , and became Heir of the Righteousness which is by Faith. IN those words we might observe , 1. Noah's Faith. 2. His Obedience . 3. The Issue of both . Yet for the better handling of them I will reduce them to three Propositions . 1. By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen , was moved with fear . 2. Being moved with fear , he prepared an Ark for the saving of his House . 3. By this he condemned the World , and became Heir of that Righteousness which is by Faith. 1. The first informs us , 1. Of the Ground 2. Of the Object 3. Of the Effect in his heart of his Faith. 1. The ground of his Faith , was the Word of God ; for he was warned by God : This we may learn at large , both that God spake unto him , and what he informed him of . For these few words of this Text are a pithy abridgment of a larger History delivered by Moses , Gen. 6. 7 , 8. Chapters . And here it 's observable , that the rule of the divine Faith of God's Saints in all Ages , was the Revelation and the Word : For the matters of their Faith are such , as that without this word it could not have any certain and firm ground . How God spake unto him , whether by Angels , or by audible Voice , or by immediate inspiration , or some other way , is neither here , nor in Moses his History expressed . 2. The object of this Faith materially considered , were things not seen ; formally , these things not seen as revealed ; for he was warned , or rather informed , by God. For it was God who spake unto him ; and because that information did represent some danger of a great end yet avoidable , the word , which hath many significations , is turned , [ being warned ] , so warning is sometimes taken . Those things were then not seen , and so matter of Faith ; yet after they were seen . But first whilst these things were in the mind of God , no Man nor Angel could know them . After that God had revealed them , they might be known and seen by Faith , but no wayes else . 3. The Effect of this Faith in his heart , was this , That he feared . The object of fear is some danger apprehended : The danger revealed unto him by God , was an universal destruction by a deluge , this he understood by Faith. The effectual belief of this , caused fear ; fear made him careful to provide for his safety : The word in the Original may signify to fear , yet so to fear , as to be cautious and wary ; and by caution to seek for to avoid some danger : and because there may be some danger of Sin , and punishment for Sin ; therefore [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is sometime taken for a devout and religious fear . So that in this Effect of Faith may be fear , caution , and a care lest we offend our God. This was his Faith : his Obedience signified in the second Proposition followeth . For being moved with fear , he prepared an Ark to save his House . As fear was an Effect of his Faith , so the preparation of the Ark was an Effect of his Fear . And here we have , 1. A preparation of the Ark. 2. The end of this preparation . 1. This Ark was a kind of Ship , a Building , and Vessel of great receipt and capacity , sit to store upon , and be carried up by the Water : the materials with the form thereof are described , Gen. 6. He prepared and built it , so as to be finished and ready against the time of the Flood . The direction for the materials , and the fashion and dimensions he received from God ; and it was , as some collect out of Moses , 120 years in Building . And Noah believing that God , as he had said , intended to drown the World , made this Ark according to God's prescription , as a means to preserve him . This implies , that he was a man of a great estate . 2. Therefore the end of this preparation , was to save his House . By House , is meant his Family , as his Wife , and his three Sons with their Wives : These must have perished with the rest of the World , if they had not been preserved in this Ark. And because God intended not to create Mankind a new , he thought good to save those , that they might be a seminary for the propagation of Mankind , to people the Earth : Yet not only they , but some of all living Creatures breathing and living upon the Earth , were preserved with them , that they also might multiply and replenish the World , and that some of them might be Sacrificed after the Waters were dryed up . With these he also laid up in this great Vessel Food for his House , and other Creatures , lest they should perish for want . For the Ark could save them only from the deluge ; yet this it could not do , except God had stored it , and had a special care of it . And it 's strange , that by Virtue of this Ark , that Water which destroyed others , saved them which were in it . This is the reason why the Apostle comparing the Flood to the Water of Baptism , saith , The like figure whereunto , even Baptism , doth also now save us , 1 Pet. 3. 21. As God threatned a fearful Judgment , so he made a gracious promise of deliverance to Noah , and revealed the means of his safety , and gave him a Command to use it : And it was Faith which caused him to fear the Judgment , and to rely upon the Promise , which he believed as certainly , as he did the Commination . 3. The issue and consequent of this Faith , and Obedience was two-fold : 1. He condemned the World. 2. Became the Heir of that Righteousness , which is by Faith. For the third Proposition is , That by this he condemned the World , and became Heir of the Righteousness , which is by Faith. 1. By it he condemned the World. By World , is meant the whole body of Mankind , besides his Family . The persons were many thousands , and millions dispersed over the face of the Earth ; for it 's probable , the World at that time was very populous ; yet very corrupt and wicked , and besides that impenitent and hardned , though they had sufficient warning , and time to repent . For God had given them an 120 years , by Repentance to provide for their safety , and prevent their ruine : This World is said to be condemned by it , that is , by the Ark , or , as some say , by his Faith ; the truth is , he condemned them by both . For by Faith he made the Ark , and by making the Ark out of Faith , he wamed the World , and exhorted them to repent . To understand this , we must consider , that Noah was a kind of Prince and Prophet in those dayes , and very famous , and his Name known far and near . A private man , of mean and poor estate , was neither fit to make the Ark , a Building of so vast Charge , nor to give a general warning to the World. And perhaps as he was a Preacher of Righteousness , so he sent many into several parts of the World , to signify the great danger , and to exhort them to Repentance . And as by his Doctrine and Words ; so also visibly , by building the Ark , he signified to the World the Will of God requiring Repentance , or resolving to drown and destroy the World. And they , not believing his Doctrine , not his design in making the Ark , as God had commanded him , not repenting of their Sins , were condemned . For he testified his Faith by making that great Vessel , and confirmed his Doctrine by his Example and Righteousness of Life , and did what in him lay to perswade all others to repent , and by repentance provide for safety . But they not hearkening unto him , aggravated their sin so high , as that they made themselves liable to Condemnation unavoidable . There is a three-fold Condemnation , 1. By Law. 2. By Witness . 3. By Judgment . The condemnation by Law and Witness , are not properly condemnation : For that is in strict and proper sense a judicial act of the Judge ; yet so , that , if a man be not condemnable by Law , and proved to be so by Witness , or some other way , he cannot justly be condemned . Jonah preached to Nineveh , Forty dayes and Nineve shall be destroyed : So Noah preached to the Old World , An hundred and twenty years , and the Word shall be destroyed . Nineveh repented , and by repentance prevented destruction . The Old Word , at the preaching of Noah , repented not , and so were condemned : The Doctrine and Word of God did virtually and conditionally condemn them ; God's Sentence did absolutely condemn them , because they repented not . So that Noah by his Faith , and the Ark was not only a Witness against them , but a Judge , and God by him might be said to give the Sentence . Again , whosoever or whatsoever actively concurrs to Judgment , by a Metonymy , may be said to judge ; in this sense both Law and Witness may be said to Condemn ; and not only rational , but irrational Creatures may be said to be Witnesses , and rise up in Judgment against Offenders . 2. The latter Consequent of this Faith , and preparation of the Ark , is , that by it , that is , his Faith preparing the Ark , He became Heir of that Righteousness , which is by Faith. To understand this , we must consider , that the saving of Noah by the Ark from the Flood , was but a Type and Shadow of eternal Salvation by Christ ; and God by saving him from the Flood , which drowned and destroyed the impenitent World , did justify Noah , and declare Righteousness by Christ , and his deliverance from eternal Death . And because the Ark wherein he was saved , was made and prepared by Faith ; therefore be obtained this Righteousness , and became Heir of eternal Salvation by Faith. For though Noah was a righteous man , and testified so to be , and that by God himself ; yet that righteousness was but the evidence of the sincerity of his Faith. For without Faith , that Faith , whereby he prepared the Ark , he could not have been saved either from temporal or eternal destruction . Not so , as though he had not had faith formerly before he was warned by God ( for that he had many years before ) ; but this was one special act of that Faith , which was from former dayes habitual in his Soul , and often exercised , and exerted in the course of his whole Life . This is an excellent argument to perswade to perseverance in Faith , because , by it , we may condemn the World , be saved from the deluge of God's wrath , and be made Heirs of Righteousness , that is , justified before the Tribunal of God. And whosoever being warned of the eternal penalties threatned by God , doth not repent , shall be condemned . Therefore seeing we are all warned of God , let us be moved by fear and by faith , to prepare the Ark of Repentance , that we may be saved from the Streams and Flood of eternal Fire and Brimstone . And here we must note , that Faith , Repentance , and Fear are opposed to Unbelief , Impenitency ; and security in Sin , and Condemnation to Justification ; for to be Heir of Righteousness , is , to be justified not by Works , but by Faith. The destruction by the Flood was but part of that punishment , which the wicked impenitent World did suffer ; and deliverance from the Flood was but part of the great Reward , and that eternal Salvation , which is obtained by Faith in Christ. All this is plainly signified by that Doctrine of St. Peter , 1 Pet. 3. 21 , 22. Where we have Salvation , and the Causes of it ; as water of Baptism , the answer of a good Conscience ( which is Faith and Repentance ) , and the Resurrection of Christ. To close up this Example , let us prepare this Ark , and enter into it be●mes , lest we perish with the wicked World. § . 11. The former patterns of Faith , were such as lived before the Flood ; the following are such as lived after the Flood ; and first , they who lived before the Law. These are Abraham , Isanc , Jacob , Joseph and Moses : The first is Abraham , whose Faith was so eminent , that he was called the Father of Believers ; and therefore the Apostle enlargeth his Discourse concerning his Faith , and instanceth in four rare and excellent Works and Effects of the same . As , 1. His obedience to the heavenly Call. 2. His seeking , as a Pilgrim on Earth , an heavenly Country . 3. His receiving of Isaac . 4. His offering of Isaac . The first we thus read , Ver. 8. By Faith Abram , when he was called to go out to a place , which he should after receive , for an Inheritance , obeyed ; and he went out , not knowing whether he went. ] IN the Text , we may observe ; 1. God's Call. 2. His obedience to this Call. In his Call or Vocation , we have ; 1. A Precept . 2. A Promise . In his Obedience likewise two things are to be noted : 1. His Faith as the principle of his Obedience . 2. The parts of his Obedience : which are two , 1. His departure out of his own Country . 2. His going towards Canaan . To begin with his Vocation , which is briefly expressed in this place , but more largely , Gen. 12. For the Apostle doth contract the words of Moses into one Proposition , concerning his Calling , and into another concerning his Obedience . So that the Text may be reduced to these two Divine Axioms ; 1. Abraham was called to go out into a place , which he should after receive for an Inheritance . 2. Abraham being called by Faith obeyed , and went out , not knowing whither he went. In the first of these we have a Command expressed , and a Promise implyed . The party calling him was God , therefore it 's said to be an heavenly Calling : The party called was Abraham , who thought of no such thing . The condition of this Worthy , wherein God found him , was a condition of Sin and Misery ; for he lived in an Idolatrous place , and , very likely it is , he was an Idolater himself . This seems to be implyed by those words , Your Fathers dwelt on the other side of the Flood , in old time , even Terah the Father of Abraham , and the Father of Nachor ; and they served other Gods , Josh. 24. 2. Upon which Masuis observes , that these words were added to signify God's free mercy towards them , in that he not only adopted them freely , when they neither deserved nor desired any such thing , but when they were Enemies . This Vocation therefore must need , at in act of free mècy , whereby he chuseth and singles man out of the World , and draws him near unto himself , for his eternal Happiness . It 's a gracious translating of Man out of Darkness into his marvellous Light , and out of the Kingdom of Satan into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. And if we would seriously consider our Unworthiness , and the glorious I state we are called unto , we might easily understand , that as the giving of his only begotten Son , so this Vocation , is a Work of stupendious Mercy . The means which God did use in calling Abraham , and so in calling us , is 1. A Precept . 2. A Promise . The Precept informs Man of his Duty , and binds him to Obedience ; the Promise informs of God's Will and the great Reward , and so encourageth us ; and as Man by the Precept is bound to obey , so by the Promise God is bound to Reward . The Precept to Abraham was , Get thee out of thy Country , and from thy Kindred , and from thy Father's House , unto a Land that I will shew thee , Gen. 12. 1. This signifies , that God requires of Man that he should forsake the World , and all things therein , even Life it self , though never so near and dear unto us ; and because our Sins are most inconsistent with his Commands , we must forsake them . Therefore Abraham was commanded to renounce Idols and false Gods ; we must also in forsaking these resign up our selves wholly to the Will of our heavenly Father , and resolve to obey him alone , and follow his directions ; we must leave the World and love our God , and fix our thoughts and affections on Heaven : This is the Precept , He must go out into a place . The Promise is here implyed , that he should have a full Compensation , and instead of the Country he left he should have another , and the same more excellent , for an Inheritance . This Promise is far more largely expressed , Gen. 12. 2 , 3. for there the Promise consists of several Branches , and the last and principal was this , that in him all the Families of the Earth should be blessed : For , this was a Promise of Christ and of eternal Life in him ; for so afterward it 's explained of his Seed , that is Christ , in whom the Believers of all Nations are made for ever happy . Yet you must know , that neither Abraham , nor any other Person , can so understand , believe , and obey this Command , and rely upon this Promise , as to come to God , except he enlighten and inspire Man by his Spirit , and make him able to perform this Duty . Thus Abraham was called : His Obedience followeth ; for by Faith he obeyed , and went out , not knowing whither he went. 1. He obeyed . 2. He went out , not knowing whither he went. 3. He obeyed , and did thus , by Faith. 1. Obedience presupposeth a Superiour , who hath power to command one subject to that commanding Power , a Command given and made known unto the party subject , an Acknowledgment of the Power , and the receiving of the Command ; and it is a willing and free Observation of the Command . The Superiour here is God , who is the supream Lord : Abraham is the Subject ; to come out of his Country , is the Law and Command ; Abraham's coming out of his Country , and that willingly , as bound by God's Command , is his Obedience . And here it 's to be observed , that except Man first submit unfeignedly unto God as his Supream Lord , renouncing his own Will , he can never sincerely obey . For this voluntary total Submission is the ground of all Obedience , and may be said to be the Observation of the fundamental Law of Allegiance , which is required in the first Commandment upon which all the rest do depend . Obedience in general is no particular Duty to be restrained to any particular Command , exclusively ; for it extends to all . 2. He went out , not knowing whither he went. In that he knew not whither he went , it doth inform us of the total absolute Resignation of his Will and heart to God. This high degree of Resignation and Submission is due only unto God , as absolutely wise , and just , and infinitely merciful . There be two parts of this Obedience , 1. He went out . 2. He knew not whither he went. 1. He went out : This was a difficult part of Obedience . To forsake his Countrey , Kindred , Friends , Inheritance , which his heart did so much affect and dearly love , and to renounce that Religion which he had learned and observed , seems to be above natural Power . To part the heart and that which it most loveth , is a Work that cannot be performed without some mighty conflict and torment of the Soul ; to overcome our strongest Affections , and so forsake our darling-sins , is an Heroick and Divine Victory : Yet this was done by him , and must be done by us all , if we will be saved . To deny our selvs , take up the Cross , forsake Father , Mother , Wife , Children , Brother , Sister , and Life it self , was first of all required by Christ , as without which no Man could be his Disciple . The Promise of eternal Life and Treasure in Heaven , could not part the young man and his great estate , and therefore he continued uncapable of eternal Bliss . 2. As he came out , so he went he knew not whither ; for the Command was , that he should go unto a Land which God should shew him , a Land he never knew ; for he neither knew it , not the way unto it . This made the business more difficult ; for he must depend wholly upon God for his Protection , Assistance , and Direction . And when we leave our Sin we must come unto our God , and when we forsake the World we must come unto our Saviour ; and though the way may be very rough and troublesom , we must pass through it . We must not take up our Rest untill we come unto our Canaan , whither out God will bring us . 3. This he did by Faith , which without Faith was impossible to be be done ; For , except he had certainly known that it was God who called him , and believed God's Command and Promises , he could not have obeyed so as to come out and go towards Canaan . So that this Belief was the very principle of his Obedience ; without this Faith , this Obedience had been not only irrational but impossible . But God , who was his absolute supream Lord , did command him , and , as almighty and most faithful , did promise him a great and glorious Reward , which would abundantly recompense his Damages , which he should suffer in obeying him ; and these did effectually move him and powerfully incline his heart to Obedience : For God doth know what will work most strongly upon Man's heart , and therefore by a divine Light and Inspiration penetrateth the heart , and lets him assuredly know that he calls him to eternal Glory ; so that by this divine Vocation , Faith is produced in the Heart of Man , and by it he most willingly and joyfully comes unto his God , and continues to obey him . From all this it 's evident , that Man's Conversion is a supernatural Work of God's great Mercy and Power ; for that which is impossible with Man is possible with God. The natural freedom of the Will is a poor impotent thing ; let us therefore pray earnestly to our God , to give us with his Word , his blessed Spirit . § . 12. This was the first and fundamental Effect of Faith in Abraham , the second is that whereby he was content to be a Pilgrim and Stranger on Earth , that he might attain an abiding City in Heaven , which God had promised and prepared for him : For so it followeth , Ver. 9. By Faith he sojourned in the Land of Promise , as in a strange Country , dwelling in Tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob , the Heirs with him of the same Promise . Ver. 10. For he looked for a City which hath Foundations , whose Bu●lder and Maker is God. THese words inform us , that after that Abraham was once by Faith converted , and became obedient to the heavenly Call , he presently changed his Condition , and was a Stranger in this World and a Citizen or Denison of Heaven : Such are all the Saints of God upon their Regeneration . In them we may observe two things , 1. The sojourning of Abraham with Isaac and Jacob in the Land of Canaan , Ver. 9. 2. His Expectation of a better Country , Ver. 10. In the first we have three Propositions , 1. That Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob were Heirs of the same Promise . 2. That they sojourned as Strangers , in a strange Land , dwelling in Tabernacles . 3. They thus sojourned by Faith. In the first , observe 1. A Promise . 2. Heirs of this Promise . 3. The parties who were Heirs . 1. By Promise , understand the thing promised , which was the Land of Canaan . This was the Inheritance , yet they had it not by natural Descent , nor by Purchase , nor by Exchange , but by free Promise . For it was promised , and that by God , who is the Proprietary of all Land and Coun●reys , and could not only convey it , but give Possession . This Inheritance was but a Type of a far better , and this Promise was added to another far greater and more excellent . 2. There were Heirs of this Promise or Land promised ; and to be an Heir , in this place , is , to have a Right unto that Land , and the Title and Ground of this Right was God's Promise , which was the best and surest Instrument of conveyance in the World : Before this Promise they could challenge no Right unto it ; after the Promise their Right was firm , good , clear , without any flaw at all . This is the great Mercy of God , that when upon his Command we part with any thing , he will give us something better , that will more than countervail our damage . 3. Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob were the Heirs : For the Indenture and first Promise was made to Abraham , sealed and confirmed , Gen. 15. and in him it was made to them , in which respect they were Joynt-Heifs ; but the same Promise was made severally to Isaac , and then after that to Jacob. The parties , who then possessed this Land were Canaanites ; so that they were but Heirs in Reversion : This seemed good to divine Wisdom , 1. Because the Sins of that People were not tipe . 2. Abraham's Posterity was not yet sufficiently numerous to take Possession of that Land , and to husband it . Abraham , with Isaac and Jacob , though Heirs of this Land , did but sojourn in it as in a strange Country , dwelling in Tabernacles . This is the second Proposition , wherein we have 1. The Place or Country . 2. Their Pilgrimage in it . 1. The Place or Country was a certain Land : It was not their native Soil , but it was to them a strange Country : it was the Land of Promise ; that is , that Land which God had promised them , and whereof by vertue of this Promise they were Heirs ; and it was an excellent Land , far too good for that wicked People which did inhabit and possess it . It 's said to be a pleasant Land , a Land flowing with Milk and Honey . 2. Their Pilgrimage in this Land is signified , 1. In this , that the place was to them a strange Country , in opposition to their native Soil , which was ur of the Chaldees beyond the River Euphrates , out of which God had called Abraham . 2. In that they had no fixed habitation in that strange place , but dwelt in Tabernacles or Yents , which were removable . 3. In that they did but sojourn in this Land , though they were Heirs of it . So that they were not Cives , either natural or naturalized and incorporated into any State ; neither were they Incolae , because they had no fixed habitation in Canaan : They were only [ Peregrini ] Pilgrims , and as such they could have no Priviledges as other free Persons had . Neither did they purchase any hereditary Estates except a burying place , not did they build any House , Town , or City : They had indeed some Confederates , and abode in some places longer than in others . Stephen tells us , that God gave Abraham no Inheritance in that Land , no not so much as to ser his foot on , Act. 7. 5. This was so ordered by divine special Providence , to teach them , that though they were in the World , yet they were not of the World ; and that they should remember , that as they were born from Heaven , so their native and hereditary Country was Heaven : For , when we once return unto our God , we renounce the World , and account our selvs but Strangers in it . But of this more hereafter . The next thing is their Faith ; for by Faith they thus sojourned , and were content to be Pilgrims in a strange Land. In this Peregrination of theirs we have an Act of their Faith , whereby they understood , and did affuredly believe , that they had no abiding City on Earth , and that they were of no Association in this World : For they believed the Word of God , which informed them , that as there was no rest , so there was no content , in this World. It was but a strange place , where they must stay a little while , pass thorow it to a better Country ; and that all Inhabitants thereof , not born from Heaven , were Strangers to them , with whom they must have no spiritual Society . This by Faith they did believe , and out of this Belief did wean their hearts from this World , as from a place of vanity , misery , and discomfort . There was another Act of Faith , whereby they did rely upon God's Promise ; and the Effect of this was , a patient waiting for the Possession of the inheritance . § . 13. The second thing in the Text is , their expectation of a better Country . The words inform us , 1. Of a City . 2. Of their expectation of it by Faith. 1. The City is described from the stability and the Builder thereof . A City is sometimes taken for a place of habitation , consisting in the vicinity of many Houses : For multitude and vicinity of Buildings do commonly make a City in this sense . Sometimes it 's taken for a Political Society and Community , which , if it be reduced under one Supream governing Power , is called a Common-wealth . Sometimes it 's taken for the condition and estate of these Societies . In this place , the word City must be taken spiritually , for such a kind of Habitation , Society , and Estate , ( for all these may be here meant , ) as is not found in this World ; for it signifies the Habitation of Heaven , the Society of Saints and Angels , and the perfect peace and eternal happiness of this Society in that place . Therefore is it said , 1. To have Foundations , which is the stability thereof , and to signify the Excellency thereof . 2. It 's said , that God is the Builder and Maker of it . 1. It hath Foundations ; for nothing can be firm which is not firmly fixed upon an immoveable Ground : To signify the firmness and eternal stability of this City , it 's said to have Foundations , that is , a most firm and immovable Foundation . This doth difference it from Tabernacles and Tents , and also from all other Buildings , Habitations , Societies , States , Kingdoms , and their Prosperity : For they are infirm , movable , obnoxious to change , decay , and ruine . Experience doth sufficiently prove this by the ruine of so many Castles , Palaces , Cities , Societies , States , and Kingdoms , which have flourished in great Splendor , Power , and Strength , yet now lye in the Dust and do not appear . This City is no such thing ; but the place of abode , the persons , and their felicity , endure for ever . 2. The Builder and Maker is God : All other Cities , Societies , and their Condition is from men , but in this Man hath no hand at all ; for God is & Artifex , & Opifex , he contrived it , he made it according to the Model contrived by himself . These words are added , to inform us , 1. That it was so far above the Art and Power of Man , that only God could make it ; He was not only the principal but the sole Efficient of it . 2. That it was most excellent , and far above all other Cities of the World for firmness , duration , beauty , and felicity ; for the peace , pleasures , and felicity of it are full and everlasting . 2. The next thing is , Abraham's expectation of this City by Faith. This looking for , or expectation , includes many things ; as , 1. He had a Title to it by vertue of Gods Promise and his Qualification ; and this was not a meer Title , but something more : For , the●e was a time limited in the grant of the full enjoyment , and he had received the first-fruits of Glory . 2. He desired and longed after the enjoyment of this City far more than for any thing in this World. 3. These desires were very effectual and working upon his Soul , and stirred him to seek this City , and constantly to use all means appointed by God for to attain it ; and the whole course of his life was a continued Motion and an Approach towards this eternal Rest and glorious Estate . 4. The actual Possession of this blessed Estate was deferred ; yet he with Patience did wait for it , and made no doubt but to 〈◊〉 that which he so much desired . And here it 's to be observed , 1. That no man can 〈◊〉 right Sojourner on Earth , who doth not look for a City eternally stable in Heaven : For , that which most effectually draws the heart of Man off from this World , is , the expectation of a far better Estate in the World to come . 2. That Believers and Expectants of Heaven , who are Candidates of Eternity , are of a most noble and divine Spirit . Amongst men of this World , the Ambitious , who aspire to Crowns and Kingdoms , and aim at perpetual fame by their heroick Vertues and rare Exploits , are judged persons of far greater Gallantry than covetous Muck-worms , or brutish Epicures ; yet in their thoughts and highest designs they are very base in Comparison of these Pilgrims , in whose breast the Sparks of heavenly fire do ever burn and move , and carry them upward , far above the World. 3. That neither Abraham , nor any other , without Faith could look for this glorious City : For , by it they did not only understand how glorious it was , but also were verily perswaded of God's Promise and fidelity ; and without this Faith they could not possibly hope or look for it : And as by Faith they did sojoum , so by the same Faith they did look for this City . § . 14. The third Work of Abraham's Faith was , the obtaining of Isaac : For , Ver. 11. Through Faith Sarah her self received strength to conceive Seed , and was delivered of a Child , when she was past Age , because she judged him faithfull that had promised . THis is attributed to Sarah's Faith , yet it was a Blessing obtained also , and that principally , by the Faith of Abraham , of whom it 's thus written , That against hope he believed in hope , that he might become the Father of many Nations , according to that which was promised , So shall thy Seed be . And being not weak in Faith , he considered not his own Body now dead , when he was an hundred years old , nor yet the deadness of Sarah's Womb. He staggered not at the Promise of God through Unbelief , but was strong in Faith , giving Glory to God , Rom. 4. 18 , 19 , 20. So that , in this particular , we must consider the Faith of both , and though Sarah only be expressed , yet Abraham , as the chief Believer , is to be understood . Upon this Faith it followeth , that not only Isaac , Sarah's immediate Issue by Abraham , but a numerous Posterity was given upon this Faith : For , Ver. 12. Therefore sprang there even of one , and him as good as dead , so many as the Start of the Skie in multitude , and as the Sands of the Sea-shore innumerable . IN these Verses taken joyntly we may consider , 1. A Promise made by God. 2. The receiving of this Promise by Faith. 3. God's sidelity in performing this Promise to the parties believing . 1. The Promise is only implyed in these words [ who promised ] ; where you must know that the party promising was God , and the thing promised was , that Abraham should have a Son by Sarah , and by that Son his Posterity in after times should be multiplyed as the Stars of Heaven , and the Sand upon the Sea-shore . This Promise was made to both though not expressed , at several times : 1. Gen. 15. 4 , 5. 2. It was renewed to both of them , and that more expresly Gen. 17. 15 , 16 , &c. In both these places mention is made not only of one Son , but a of very numerous Posterity . 3. This Promise was repeated the third and last time , Gen. 18. 10. The parties to whom this Promise was made , were Abraham and Sarah : The Mercy promised was considerable , not only in this , that they should have a Son of their own Bodies , to continue their Name and inherit their temporal Estate , but chiefly because of his Seed Christ should be brought into the World , and his Posterity should enjoy the means of Salvation , and be included in the special Covenant of Grace . 2. This Promise was received by Faith : for Sarah counted him faithful that had promised . She seemed indeed to doubt , till she was reproved , and heard that nothing was impossible with God , and the Promise was again repeated unto her , Gen. 18. 14. So Abraham , upon the first Promise of Isaac and a numerous Posterity , is said to have believed in the Lord , Gen. 15. 6. And the Apostle , to signify the firmness of his Faith , informs us , as you heard before , 1. That against hope he believed in 〈◊〉 . 2. He was not weak in Faith. 3. He staggered not at the Promise . 4. He was strong in Faith. 5. He was fully perswaded , Rom. 4. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21. This Faith was grounded upon divine Revelation , and was a firm and practical Assent unto the Word and Promise of God , which did settle his mind : For he looked not upon secondary Causes , nor upon the Barrenness of Sarah , nor their Age , nor the deadness of their Bodies , and Impotency of Generation by reason of Age ; But he considered that it was God who had promised , that he was Almighty , that he was faithful . This Faith was required in both , as necessary for to attain this great Blessing , not that it had any Physical force to enable them for Generation , but that it was a Moral Qualification required in them . This their Faith is made known unto us for imitation , that as they did so we should do , rest upon God's Promise in greatest extremities , perplexities , and seeming impossibilities : We must look higher and above all created Power , and not measure God's Almighty strength , according to and within the bounds of created activity . 3. This Promise was fulfilled according to this Faith : For Sarah received strength to conceive , and in her Old-Age , above the Course of Nature became the Mother of Isaac , which was part of the Promise . And from this one so good as dead sprang a posterity numerous , and in some sort innumerable , amongst whom Christ was born , in whom all Nation ; were blessed , by whom Abraham became the Father of a far more numerous spiritual Posterity , which were Believers of all Nations . So excellent a thing is Faith , and upon Faith so wonderful the Works of the glorious and almighty God , who begins with small things though unlikely at the first , and multiplies a few to a vast number , and magnifies small things to a stupendious greatness . § . 15. After this third Effect the Apostle returns unto the second , concerning the Pilgrimage of Abraham , Sarah , Isaac , Jacob , and their expectation of that better and more glorious City , which God had promised to them and their Heirs upon the condition of their Faith : For thus we read in the words following , Ver. 13. These all dyed in Faith , not having received the Promises , but having seen them afar off , and were perswaded of them , and embraced them , and confessed that they were Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth . Ver. 14. For they that say such things , declare plainly that they seek a Country . THese words , with the two Verses following , are an Amplification of that which was briefly delivered in the 9 , and 10. Verses . They are sitly brought in upon the former , as presupposing the Birth not only of Isaac , but Jacob ; and the Apostle doth not only enlarge , but also polish his Discourse , and excellently set forth their Faith and the forenamed Effects thereof . The whole is an excellent Testimony of the three eminent Patriarchs : and therein we have 1. The Duty they performed . 2. God's owning them , and expressing his dear Affection towards them . The first of these is continued from the beginning of Ver. 13. to the latter end of the 16th , in the last words whereof we have the second thing here observed . Their Duty and the Performance thereof may be reduced to certain Propositions . 1. These all , not receiving the Promises , dyed in the Faith. Of which , two parts , 1. Their not receiving the Promises . 2. Their dying in the Faith , though they received them not . 1. They received not the Promises . Where by Promises , understand the things promised : For otherwise it cannot be true : because it 's certain , that Promises were made unto them ; they knew them , and received them by Faith. But the things promised were neither given , nor received , till long after ; and these are reduced to four heads , which be these , 1. A numerous Posterity . 2. The Land of Canaan . 3. The Incarnation and Exhibition of Christ. 4. The Resurrection to eternal Glory . The parties here meant are Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob , not any named before , nor any mentioned after these Three ; for they were the Persons who came from beyond the River Euphrates , who sojourned in the Land of Canaan , who dwelt in Tabernacles . Of these it 's said , that they received not the things promised : For neither was their Posterity made as yet so numerous ; nor had they any hereditary Possession of the Land of Canaan ; nor did they see Christ in the Flesh , or hear the Gospel ( for that followed about 2000 years after the Promises were first made ) ; nor did they attain the Resurrection and Immortality . 2. Yet they dyed , even all of them , in the Faith : Which words signify , 1. They did believe . 2. Continued firm in the Faith unto the end , though they received not the Promises . The meaning is , they not only lived but dyed Believers ; delay and non-enjoyment did not break their hearts : neither could Death it self , when they might perhaps be put to the greatest Conflict , separate their Souls and their Faith , though it separated their Souls and their Bodies : For this divine vertue was deeply rooted and fastned in them , and was immortal as their better part was , and followed the Soul into another World. Death might bereave them of their Friends and their temporal Estates , and all their earthly Comforts , but of Faith it could not : And it 's to be noted , that not only one but all of them dyed in the Faith. These were rare Patterns of Perseverance in this rare and incomparable vertue of Faith. The second Proposition is , That seeing them afar off , they were perswaded of them , and embraced them . This should not have been a distinct Proposition , for it's part of the former , and added to those words , not receiving the Promises . And it 's somewhat observable , that the word perswaded is wanting in several Manuscripts . They received them not , but 1. Saw them afar off : For they were distant , and to come , and not to be accomplished or enjoyed in their dayes ; and some of them were more distant from their times than others , some were nearer . The principal , which were the Exhibition of Christ , and the universal Resurrection , stood at the most remote distance of time from them . Yet these they saw ; for divine Revelation , as a celestial Light , did represent them unto them ; the Promise did signify they had a Right unto them , and part in them . And as by this divine Light they were manifested unto them , so by the Eye of Faith , which is the spiritual visive Faculty of the Soul , they saw them , as they were represented , that is , at a distance : For Faith can see beyond and above the World , and hath some glimmering or imperfect sight of Eternity . 2. They were perswaded of them , and assured , that in God's good time , which was the sittest , they should be fulfilled . The Revelation and Promise was a sure Ground of this Perswasion , and the Substance of things hoped for , and the Evidence of things not seen . 3. They embraced them ; the word signifies to salute , to draw near , to rejoyce , to embrace ; for in saluting dearest friends , we draw near unto them , embrace them , rejoyce to seethem . Some think the word here is Metaphorical , and the Expression taken from such as after a long and tedious Voyage at Sea come within ken of Land , and discover their own dearest Country , where they expect to abide and rest : For so soon as they discover and have sight of their own dear native Soil , they wonderfully rejoice , and begin with joyful Acclamations , to say , Land , Land , Land ! Haven , Haven , Haven ! now Rest and Safety are near . So it 's certain that these Saints and heavenly Worthies drawing near their end , beheld these excellent Blessings , and especially their Saviour and their heavenly Country , and being sure of the futurition and enjoyment of them rejoyced with exceeding great Joy. Our Saviour saith thus , Abraham rejoyced to see my day , and he saw it , and was glad , Joh. 8. 56. When Abraham lived , the day of Christ's Incarnation , and the blessed Redemption of sinful Man , was to come , and afar off : Yet Abraham by Faith saw that day ; and seeing it , though not near , or so clearly , he was glad , and rejoyced wonderfully . And now our Faith and Hope of eternal Glory though afar off , is a Cause of unspeakable Joy. The third Proposition . They confessing themselvs Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth , declared plainly that they sought a Country . Here we may consider , 1. What they did express . 2. What they did imply . 1. The thing expressed is , That they were Pilgrims and Strangers on Earth : For , 1. They were Pilgrims and Strangers on Earth . 2. They did openly confess this . 1. They were Pilgrims and Strangers on Earth . That they did so journ in the Land of promise , as in a strange Country , you heard before ; yet they sojourned not only there , but in other places , as in Gerar and Aegypt ; and for the whole time of their mortal Life , they were Pilgrims and Strangers on Earth , and could not be said to be Free-men , Denizons , or Members of any Community or Commonwealth in the World. But they might be such , either Politically or Spiritually , and they were in both respects such ; for Man being immortal should provide for some place of perpetual Abode ; and many thinking only of their Settlement on Earth , and of perpetuating themselves and their Names in their Posterity by successive Generations , look no higher than this World. If these travel out of their native Country , they must needs be Strangers in all Forreign States , if not naturalized in some of them . As for these Patriarchs , they had forsaken their own Country , out of which God had called them , and lost all their native and birth-right Priviledges ; yet they did not seek to settle themselvs in any other part of the Earth , neither did they incorporate with any other People in the World ; in this respect they were Pilgrims and Strangers politically . Besides , by the Light of Faith , they knew this Earth to be no place of perpetual abode ; but only made and appointed by God as an habitation for a little time , through which we must only pass , and out of which , after a little stay , remove into a more certain continuing mansion : From all this we understand , that on Earth they were Pilgrims and Strangers every way . For many are either natural or naturalized Subjects of some earthly Common-wealth , and yet knowing by Faith that this is not their resting place , and continually expecting a removal , are spiritually considered as Strangers and Pilgrims , and are such indeed . That these Worthies were such on Earth is evident , and as they were such , so they openly and plainly professed it , and that by their words : For Jacob calls the dayes of his Life , the dayes of the years of his Pilgrimage , Gen. 47. 9. So David confesseth before God in this manner , We are Strangers before thee , and Sojourners , as were all our Fathers ; and he gives the Reason to be this , Our dayes on Earth are as a Shadow , and there is none abiding , 1 Chron. 29. 15. They did profess this not only by their Words , but their Works , and the whole Course of their lives . For they were men above the World , who clearly apprehending the Vanity , Uncertainty , and Misery thereof , did judg it far below them , as base and unworthy the seeking . They knew the End of their Creation and Regeneration was far more noble : And this should be the mind of all the Saints of God. Therefore Peter exhorts the Christians to whom he wrote , as Pilgrims and Strangers to abstain from fleshly Lusts , 1 Pet. 2. 11. For , We must not love the World ; nor the things that are in the World , 1 Joh. 2. 15. This is the thing they did express . 2. The thing which by this Confession they did plainly imply , is , That they sought a Country . There is no man in the World , but if he follow the Light of Reason , much more if he be guided by the Light of Grace , but will seek a place and an estate of Rest , wherein he may finally quiet his mind . The Land of Canaan was called God's Rest , because therein he gave Rest unto Israel . But this was but a temporal and earthly Rest , as the place of any Man's settled Inheritance may be : It was a Type of an eternal Rest , as their Sabbath was the Type of an eternal Sabbath ; Such a Country , such a Rest , these Saints did seek . No man seeks that which he hath and enjoyeth ; therefore this word sought implies , that they were not possessed of this Country ; they were as yet only Seekers . Yet Seekers they were , and aimed at some better thing which they did most of all desire : And they were resolved to seek till they should find , and never rest till they attained their final Rest. Such Seekers we should all be , and continue to be such untill we reach our heavenly Mansion . He that takes up his Rest in the World , or any earthly thing , and seeks no further , is of a base Spirit , and unworthy of an Immortal Soul. § . 16. If they sought a Country , it must be earthly or heavenly ; Earthly it was not , therefore heavenly it must be : This we learn from Ver. 15. And truly , if they had been mindful of that Country from whence they came out , they might have had opportunity to have returned . Ver. 16. But now they desire a better Country , that is , an heavenly : Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God ; for He hath prepared for them a City . IN these words we find two more Propositions concerning the Duty , 1. They sought not an Earthly 2. They desired a Heavenly Country . The first we may easily understand to be the Substance of Ver. 15. The second is the express words of the 16. 1. That they sought not an earthly Country , is implyed two wayes : 1. In that they sought not that out of which they came . 2. By Opposition , for they sought an heavenly . If they had sought any earthly Country in the World , surely they would have sought their own native Soil : And this is very likely . For what place doth take or affect us more than that of our Birth , Inheritance , Kindred ? This Affection is naturally ingrafted in the heart of Man. Yet if it be said , Perhaps they had no opportunity to return ; He answers , They had , and yet never did return ; for they were not so mindful of it , nor so affected with it . This informs us , that as they voluntarily left their own Country at the first ; so they continued their Absence , and so their Pilgrimage , voluntarily , and they were constantly obedient to the heavenly Call : From hence we learn , that our Obedience must be willing , or else it 's no Obedience . They were , and we must be , content to be Pilgrims for a while in this World. To return was God's Prohibition , implied in God's Command to come out of it ; and both the leaving of it , and the continuance in a strange Country , out of a willing heart ; as it was acceptable to God , so it was part of their Self-denial . We must follow their Example : God calls us out of the World , as he did Israel out of Aegypt , and Judah out of Babylon ; we must not only come out , and that willingly , but we must willingly resolve never to return again . We must not with Lot's Wife look back at Sodom , after that God hath delivered us out of it , lest God be offended with us and severely punish us ; for if we return again to the World , our latter end will be worse than the beginning . 2. They desired an heavenly Country . Here you must observe , 1. That this Country is the same which in Ver. 10. was called a City ; and here it 's said to be heavenly , which before was said to have Foundations ; and that which here is affirmed to be prepared by God , is there affirmed to be built and made by God. So that a City that hath Foundations , which is made and built by God , and an heavenly Country prepared by God , are the same . 2. Strangers , Pilgrims , and Sojourners , are taken for the same , though by Writers of Politicks they may be distinguished . 3. That which before they looked for , here they are said to seek and desire ; for they desired , hoped for , and sought a stable , firm , heavenly City and Country , built , made , prepared by God : To do thus was their Obedience and Performance of that Duty which God required at their hands . This Country or City is said to be Heavenly , not only to distinguish it from all earthly Countries , Cities , Societies , Common-wealths , but also to signify the Original of it , as being from Heaven , and also the Excellency of it ; for , as high as Heaven is above the Earth , so excellent is this Country and City above the most pleasant Countries and most glorious Cities in the World. By this also we understand , that it is spiritual and invisible , safe , and of eternal continuance : Besides , Heaven is the place of our eternal Mansions and Rest , where our glorious Inheritance is to be fully and for ever enjoyed . And Heaven is sit for those who were born from Heaven : Therefore our Hope is said to be laid up in Heaven , our Inheritance to be reserved in Heaven , and our many Mansions to be prepared in Heaven . This heavenly Country they desire , out of their Belief of the Excellency thereof , and desired so much as they counted all earthly Countries base and contemptible in Comparison of the same ; and whosoever doth not desire it in this manner and measure , as they did , shall never enter into that glorious place of eternall Bliss . Some think the Patriarchs , and the Saints after them , under the Law , neither had any better Promise , not higher thoughts , than of temporal Felicity ; but the contrary is evident from this place . According to the Covenant made at Sinai with Israel , as a Civil Society , and a Church under Ceremonies , they could expect no more ; but according to the Promise of Christ in whom all Nations should be blessed , they looked higher ; and as they did believe in Christ , so in him they looked for the Resurrection unto everlasting Glory . Thus far we have heard of the Duty which they performed ; now follows the Reward or Consequent of this Performance , and the manner how God was affected toward them : And this Affection appears in two things , 1. He was not ashamed to be called their God. 2. He prepared for them a City . In the first we may note , 1. That God was their God. 2. That he was not ashamed to be called their God. 1. God was their God. God may be said to be a God , 1. To all men , as he is their Creator , Preserver , and Governor . 2. To be such by Covenant , so far as he promiseth to protect them and bless them , upon condition that they take him to be their God. 3. To be such in a special , peculiar , and eminent manner , as he hath bound himself to be the Author of eternal Salvation by Christ , to all such as sincerely repent , believe , and upon their Belief seek an heavenly Country . Thus to be a God to any , is to justify , sanctify , adopt , raise up at the last day , and make them for ever happy . He was called their God , that is , He was their God ; for in the Hebrew sometimes to be called , is to be ; yet that is not all , for to call himself their God , was not only to be their God , but to signify that he was so ; and that not only by Words , but really by Actions . It was God himself who first promised to be their God , and when they were dead , said unto Moses I am the God of Abraham , the God of Isaac , and the God of Jacob : And again , The Lord God of your Fathers , the God of Abraham , the God of Isaac , the God of Jacob , — this is my Name for ever , this is my Memorial to all Generations , Exod. 3. 6 , 15. So that the Apostle might truly say , that He was not ashamed to be called their God , neither did he think it any Derogation from his eternal Excellency , to own them . To own base and unworthy Persons is a Disgrace to any man of Reputation ; and to own impenitent Sinners would be a Dishonour to God : Therefore to Workers of Iniquity Christ will say at the last Day , Depart from me , I know you not . Therefore we must take special notice of the Persons whom God did own , and of their Qualification . They were Persons of a sincere Faith , and an heavenly Conversation ; and such we must be , or else there will be no Hope that God will own us . God will not be ashamed of any man because he is poor , mean , miserable , blind , deformed , or of no account in the World ; but he will be ashamed of any Person , though never so great , that is not ashamed of Sin. If we seek not an heavenly Country , and manifest our selvs to be Pilgrims and Strangers in this World , though we be never so rich , wise , potent , famous , he will not own us , because his Justice and Holiness will not suffer him to own our Sins . Let us therefore seriously consider , what a Comfort it is to have God to be our God , and what an Honour it will be for Christ to confess and acknowledg us before his Father and all his Holy Angels . All this you may learn from the Illative Particle Wherefore . For , because they desired a better , that is , an heavenly Country , and that by Faith , therefore God was not ashamed to be their God. Not that their Faith and Desire of an heavenly Country was any meritorious Cause of this Honour , Priviledg , and near Relation to God ; but that they qualified the Persons so , that without any violation of his Justice , or any diminution of his Majesty , he might according to his gracious Promise thus acknowledg them . 2. For he had prepared for them a City . These words may seem to give a Reason , why they sought a heavenly Country : And why ? Because God had prepared it for them : Or , they may prove that God was their God in that eminent manner , from this Preparation of a City for them : Or , they may manifest , That God was not ashamed to be called their God , and he did manifest this in that he had prepared a City for them . Here we have 1. A City . 2. The Preparation of it . 3. The Preparation of it for them . 1. This City is that which hath Foundations , that better and heavenly Country spoken of before , and it signifies not only a Place but an Estate . The Place is excellent , and the Estate glorious , and both everlasting . 2. God prepared ; For he loved them so much as he decreed to give Christ for them , that by his precious Blood he might purchase and acquire a Title unto it . He promised to send him into the World for that end , and sent him . He makes a Covenant with them ; and binds himself upon condition of Faith in his only begotten , to give them this City . He works Faith in their hearts , gives them a Title , and by sanctifying them prepares them for the possession and enjoyment . As for the estate , it was ready in his Power from everlasting ; and as for the place , it was finished and furnished from the Creation . It was God , who inwardly moved by his own goodness and most free Love , hath done all this ; for God hath prepared , and made it ready , before they be ready for the Possesssion . 3. He prepared this City for them , not as deserving it , but as through the Power of his Grace , desiring , seeking , looking for it ; for it was never prepared for Unbelievers , and such as loving the World do not prize it , or long for it . For though this Preparation be a Work of his free and abundant Mercy , yet it 's tempered and limited by his Justice , which will not suffer him to give such holy things to Dogs , nor cast such Pearls before Swine ; and by this Preparation of this City for them , and not for others not rightly qualified , he signifies his Love to heavenly vertues , and his dear Affection to them who are enriched with them . So that sinful Men may hope for this City ; yet upon condition , that they will be Pilgrims and Strangers in this World , and desire above all other things this better and heavenly Country . For to clear this Doctrine more fully , we must observe , That the World morally and spiritually considered , is divided into two Societies ; the one is of the Devil , the other of God. This distinction the learned Father took notice of , when he wrote his excellent Treatise De Civitate Dei : For all men either seek their Rest and Happiness on Earth , or an eternal Peace in Heaven ; and by Nature , till God transplant us , we are not only in , but of , this earthly Society , and in the Kingdom of Darkness , and under the Power and Dominion of Satan ; and whilest we are in this Kingdom of Satan , we are Strangers to the Common-wealth and City of God. But when God out of his unspeakable Mercy hath called us , made us meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light ; and delivered us from the Power of Darkness , and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son , Colos. 1. 12. 13. Then we are no more Strangers and Forreigners , but Fellow-Citizens with the Saints , and of the Houshold of God , Ephes. 2. 19. Being once naturalized and made Burgesses of Heaven , we have our Conversation in Heaven , and carry our selves as Children of a Celestial extraction , and the Progeny of the eternal King. This Doctrine doth not only inform us of our Duty , but ministreth unspeakable Comfort if we do perform it : For if our Goods and earthly Estates be sequestred , plundred , o● any wayes taken from us , we have a better Estate in Heaven . If we be disgraced and reproached in this World , yet we shall be Kings and Priests , and for ever honoured in Heaven . If we be banished and persecuted from place to place , so that we can find no Rest and Safety , but are wearied out with Removals ; yet we have a place of Rest and Safety and eternal Abode in Heaven , and of this no man can dispossess and diffeisin us . If our Sufferings be grievous , many , and continue long ; yet we have a City where is no Suffering , Pain , Persecution , Poverty , Sorrow , where God will wipe away all Tears . In this City are eternal Riches , Pleasures , Honours , Peace , Safety , and full Joy : there is nothing wanting which the heart of Man can desire . This is that City , which , as it is the expectation , so it 's the universal Comfort of the Sons of God : And though the time of our Pilgrimage seem long and tedious , yet it will shortly expire , and then begins our everlasting Rest ; for God hath prepared a City for us . § . 17. The Apostle proceeds in proposing Abraham unto us as a Pattern of Imitation , and instanceth in a fourth Work or Effect of his Faith ; for thus we read , Ver. 17. By Faith Abraham , when he was tryed , offered up Isaac ; and he that had received the Promises offered his only begotten Son. Ver. 18. Of whom it was said , That in Isaac shall thy Seed be called . Ver. 19. Accounting that God was able to raise him up , even from the dead ; from whence also he received him in a Figure . IN these words we may observe , 1. Abraham's Obedience . 2. His Faith , whereby he performed this Obedience . In this Obedience we have A Description of the Party obeying . Act of Obedience . 1. The Party obedient , who was Abraham , is described in reference to this Act of Obedience , 1. As tempted . 2. As having received the Promises . 3. As one to whom it was said , That in Isaac shall thy Seed be called . 1. He was tempted or tried . The party tempting or trying him was God : not that God tempts any Man to Sin , but that he would try and manifest unto Abraham himself his Faith and Love to God , that so he might be a rare Example in both to all future Generations , who should be informed of it . The means whereby he tryed him was , by giving him this singular and extraordinary Command of sacrificing his Son Isaac . This Command we read of in the Books of Moses , and this it is , Take now thy Son , thine only Son Isaac , whom thou lovest , and go thou to the Land of Moriah , and offer him there upon one of the Mountains which I will tell thee of Gen. 22. 2. The End of this Command was , to try whether Abraham loved God or his Son Isaac more . The Effect of it was an Obligation of Abra●● to perform this Service , and to offer his Son : Neither in this was God's preceptive Will contrary to his decretive Will ; for the decretive Will binds God absolutely to do that which he hath decreed , and is indispensable ; but the preceptive Will bound only Abraham to do this , yet so that God reserved a Power to dispense with him , and to hinder the Performance . And this was fulfilled instantly upon the signifying of his Will unto Abraham , who instantly upon the Knowledg thereof was bound , whether he did or did it not : There was no decretive Will of God , or Intention , that Isaac should be slain and offered . This Command was just , and no wayes contrary to that other Command of God , Thou shalt not kill ; for though it 's true , that it is unjust and contrary to that Law for any Man to take away the life of a party innocent , not guilty of any Capital Crime , which is the thing there forbidden : yet it is just , and God may justly command Man to take away the Life of such an innocent Person . And the reason hereof is not only this , that that Law did not bind God , but only Man ; but because he is the Supream Lord , and hath absolute Power of Life and Death , which no Creature hath or can have . Again , he could restore Life taken away , which Abraham could not do ; nay , it was above all created Power : So that the Reason whereby God in this Command is freed from all Injustice is taken à Potestate & Potentia Dei ; for his Power was absolute and supream , and his strength was Almighty . 2. Abraham had received the Promises , of the Land of Canaan , of a numerous Posterity sufficient to inhabit it , of Christ in whom all Nations should be blessed . 3. He was fully assured by God , that in Isaac , who was the Son of Promise , all these Promises should be fulfilled : For God had excluded Ismael , and that peremptorily ; and had several times expresly signified , that in Isaac and his Posterity , and in none else these Promises should be accomplished . Neither need we here trouble our selves about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for it may be turned to whom , that is , to Abraham : or of whom , that is , of Isaac it was said , &c. This was the Description of the Party obeying : The Act of Obedience was this , that he offered up Isaac , he offered up his only begotten Son , that Son of whom it was said , In Isaac shall thy Seed be called . The Sacrifice commanded , as commanded , was bloody , and required the Death and Slaughter of the Person to be sacrificed , and he trust be offered as a burnt Offering upon the Altar . This Offering once consummate would be the total Destruction of Isaac , as to this mortal Life , and that before he had any Issue . Abraham is said to have offered him , though he did not consummate and compleat the Oblation : For , 1. In his heart he had parted with him , and given him wholly unto his God , and was resolved to slay him , and burn his Body upon the Altar . So that this Oblation was finished in his heart . 2. He proceeded further , began really to do what he had resolved , came to the place of Offering , had prepared the Wood , bound Isaac , laid him upon the Altar , and had lift up his hand to give the fatal blow , and had done all the rest of his Work , if God by the Voice of his Angel had not instantly staid his hand . This was a difficult piece of Service , and the more difficult the more excellent his Obedience : for it was Isaac , his only begotten of Sarah , whom he was commanded to offer . § . 18. The next thing to be considered , is his Faith ; for by Faith he offered Isaac . This Faith was high and excellent , because having so many difficultie ; to encounter , yet conquered all , and became finally victorious ; so that nothing could stand before it . The difficulties may be reduced to two sorts , 1. Such as seemed to be contrary to Reason . 2. Such as were contrary to dear and tender Affection . 1. Reason might doubt whether the Revelation was from God , or a delusion of Satan ; and this was the first debate . Yet upon serious consideration , he knew assuredly that it was from God , and as from him he by Faith receives it . 2. But suppose it were from God , and as from him he by Faith receivs it . 2. But suppose it were from God , yet he might scruple whether it was a Command , and of absolute Obligation . 3. Let it be so , He might question the matter of the Command , as contrary to an express Law , against the Light of Nature , and against all Justice and Equity ; to slay an innocent Person seemed so to be . 4. Reason would most of all plead the Promise of God , which was to be fulfilled in Isaac , and would alledg , that if Isaac be slain , offered , burnt ; then the Performance would be impossible , and God would not prove faithful . But Abraham in all these particulars wholly resigned up and sacrificed his reason to the Wisdom of God , and by Faith was perswaded , that the Commandment was from God , was just , did absolutely bind him ; and rested upon God's Almighty Power , as able to raise him again out of the Ashes , as he created the first man out of the Dust. And he had an Experiment of this Power , which in his very Generation , and Conception , and Birth , did , above the Power of Nature , as it were , raise him from the dead , according to those words , From whence he received him in a Figure ; whereby is signified , that his Generation was a kind of Resurrection from the dead , and was very like unto it : For his Body when he begot him , and Sarah's Womb when she conceived him , were , in respect of generative Power , both dead . So that the Knowledg and Experience of God's Almighty Power , and his full Assurance of God's fidelity in fulfilling his Promise , did wholly silence and refuse the debates of Reason , natural and not enlightned . 2. As his Reason , so his dear and tender Affection not only natural but moral , was hardly and sorely put unto it . For , 1. God did not command him to offer his Bullocks , Goats , Rams , or Lambs , but his Son ; not his Son Ismael , but Isaac the Son of his Joy , the Son of his Love , whom he loved as his own Son , as his only Son by Sarah , as a dutiful and pious Son , as a Son given him extraordinarily from Heaven , as the Son of Promise , and , which is more than all , a Son from whom he expected Christ , and in whom all the Promises were to be fulfilled . To part with a Son , with such a Son , to have him slain , to slay him himself , and embrue his hands in the innocent Blood of so dearly beloved a Child , whom he prized above any thing in the World , for whose life he would have given his greatest Estate , in whose Person so many of his Comforts were treasured up ; was grievous to Flesh and Blood , and a Service and Work above the Power of Nature ; yet Faith was strong , and overcame his Affection . By this Act of Obedience we learn , that Faith is a rare vertue , and a great gift from Heaven , that when God requires hard and difficult things from us , as , to forsake Father , Mother , all our dearest Relations , Life it self , and to bear the Cross , we must deny our Reason , and our Affections , and resign our selvs wholly up to God's Wisdom and Will , and the more we love our God , the more we love our selvs in God. This Isaac , in this particular , was a lively Type of Christ , whom God gave for us : For Christ was the only begotten , and the dearly beloved Son of God , better than all the World ; yet God , to manifest his Love unto us , sent him into the World , and made Him a Burnt-Offering for us . And he suffered most cruel pains , was slain indeed , and suffered a cruel and ignominious death . In this Example which we are all bound to follow , we may observe God's great Mercy unto Abraham , in that he put him not to this hard Trial till his Faith was highly improved , and was taught to love nothing above his God. § . 19. The Apostle observing the Order of time descends from Abraham to Isaac , of whom it 's written thus , Ver. 20. By Faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau , concerning things to come . BEfore I enter upon the Example , I will put you in mind of some things only hinted and darkly implyed , or not mentioned formerly . As 1. Though God commanded Isaac to be sacrificed , upon which Sacrifice and burnt-Offering once consummate , the Performance of God's Promise seemed impossible ; yet God did fulfil in Isaac what he promised , in that manner that the Command was no wayes contrary nor prejudicial to the Performance of the Promise . 2. That though Abraham thought that the raising of Isaac from the dead might he a way for God to shew his faithfulness , yet that was not God's way but another ; for when Abraham was ready to give the fatal and mortal blow , God stayed his hand , prevented his death , and saved his Life : Yet this was till that very moment concealed from Abraham , that he might fully try him and manifest his total Resignation of himself to God. 3. That though Abraham was willing , yea resolved and ready to sacrifice his Son , and for this was highly accepted of God , yet this doth no wayes warrant or justify such as sacrificed their Children , or were ready to offer the fruit of their Body for the Sin of their Soul. For , 1. They had no Commandment or Warrant from God , as Abraham had . 2. They offered their Children to Idols and Devils . 3. If they had offered them to God , their Blood could not have expiated their Sins . The Case being so different , though the Obedience of Abraham was so pleasing to God , yet their sacrificing was plainly unnatural Murther , and abominable Idolatry . 4. If our Faith be sincere , we must Sacrifice our Isaac , even what we love most unto our God. The Lord increase our Faith , that we may do this Service readily . In the Text two things are observable , 1. Isaac's Blessing , and Effect or Work of his Faith. 2. His Faith , whereby he blessed his Sons . In the Blessing we have , 1. The Parties blessed . 2. The Matter of the Blessing . 3. The Blessing it self . 1. The Parties blessed were Jacob and Esau , these were Twins conceived and born together : For , as their Birth , so their Conception , were simultaneous in respect of time . They were both his Children , both Sons , and all the Children which he had ; for we read of none others born unto him . Jacob was the Younger , because born th● l●●ter , yet preferred before the Elder by God's free Election , and also in this Blessing ; for he received the Priviledges of the first-begotten , and in him , not in Esau , he made the Covenant good . 2. The Matter of the Blessing were things to come , hoped for , not seen , and therefore fit Objects of Faith , as no wayes certainly intelligible by the natural Light of Reason . These things were Blessings , and the same both temporal and spiritual . Esau's Blessings were only temporal , and not spiritual ; Jacob's both temporal and spiritual : From which dispensation of these Mercies we may observe , 1. That profane Persons , as Esau , may enjoy temporal Blessings and Prosperity , and that in a greater measure than God's Children do , and therefore they are no Argument of God's special Love ; for God causeth his Rain to fall , and his Sun to shine , as well upon the unjust as upon the just . 2. That the godly ( such as Jacob was ) have the Blessings of this Life , and of that which is to come . And because they desire heavenly more than earthly Blessings , therefore God , though sometimes he denyes them earthly Prosperity , yet will be sure to give them heavenly Comforts . 3. The Blessing it self was an Act of Isaac , though God was the principal Cause . Of blessing others I have spoken , Chap. 7. 6 , 7. All Blessings come from God ; for he is the Fountain and first Cause of them , and disposeth of them as he pleaseth . He sometimes communicates them by Man to Man , as in this particular Example , and makes Priests , Prophets , Parents , instrumental , and gives them Power to bless in his Name , and that either in an ordinary or extraordinary way . This Blessing was extraordinary , wherein God made his words effectual ; for what he said came to pass . The words of Benediction were Prophetical ; yet not meerly a Prophecy or Prediction , but a Prediction with Power : And though he intended to have blessed Esau with the principal Blessing , yet Jacob obtained it . It was God's Will to order it so , yet his Will gave no Warrant to Rebeccah or Jacob to use any unlawfull means , neither did their frailties hinder God's Mercy ; so gracious he was . When the Blessing of Jacob , intended for Esau , was once past , it proved irrevocable ; though profane Esau sought it even with tears , yet there was no place found for Repentance . But how did Isaac thus bless his Sons ? The Text informs , that he blessed them by Faith ; and this is evident , because the Benediction was concerning things to come . This Faith required some divine Revelation and Promise , as a necessary Ground and Foundation . God had promised before great Blessings to his Father Abraham , and to him , yet to be fulfilled to their Posterity ; by this he understood , that they should fall upon his Children : but whether the principal Mercies should be given to Jacob and his Posterity , or to Esau and his Children , he knew not , that was not revealed unto him , and therefore he was so much mistaken . Yet , besides the former Revelation and Promise , he had some more particular Illumination concerning his Sons and their Children for time to come , and his Faith did believe both , and relyed confidently upon the Promises ; and out of this Faith he blessed them really , which without Faith he could not have done . This shews the excellency of Faith , and may perswade all Parents to believe , and may encourage them to continue in Faith ; forby it they may derive some Blessings to their Children if they shall prove capable : For some Children prove to be profane as Esa● , and are not capable of spiritual Blessings . § . 20. Jacob succeeded Isaac , and being blessed by his Father , he blessed Joseph's Children : For , Ver. 21. By Faith Jacob , when he was a dying , blessed both the Sons of Joseph , and worshipped , leaning on his Rod. IT 's an happiness to be the Children of believing Parents , who by their Faith transmit Blessings to Posterity : For Jacob , the Son of believing Isaac , was blessed , and he by his Faith transmits God's Blessings to Joseph's Children . In the words we may note , 1. Jacob's Effects or Works of Faith. 2. His Faith. The Effects are two : 1. His Blessing of Joseph's Children when he was a dying . 2. His Adoration , leaning upon his Staff. 1. To begin with the Blessing , which was both predictive and effective , as the former was : we may observe , 1. The Persons blessed . 2. Divers Circumstances and Passages of this Act. The Persons were not his own immediate Children , but his Grand-Children by Joseph [ every one of the Sons of Joseph . ] These were Ma●●asseh and Ephrains ; and , as we read of no other , so it 's likely these two were all the Sons of Joseph at that time . The Blessings by him solemnly then declared , were to be expected and received by their Posterity . 2. The Circumstance of time is expressed to be , when he was a dying , that is , a little before , and when he was drawing nigh unto death : For then , having some thoughts and care of his Posterity , and especially of Joseph and his Children whom he dearly loved , the Spirit of the Almighty came upon him , to inform him of things to come , especially concerning his Nephews , and moved him to bless them , and that being done , he leavs the World. The Passages are many . Joseph presents his two Sons before him , and perhaps by some divine Instinct or Impulse , that he might bless them before his death ; and intended the Priviledg of Birth-right to his Elder Son , as Isaac did formerly purpose . Jacob layes his hands upon them , a Rite used in Benediction . He guided them so , that he laid his right hand upon Ephraim the Younger , and this was purposely done by divine direction . This being done , he adopts them , and by Adoption makes them his immediate Children , and by his Blessing gives them the Portion of two Tribes with the rest of his Sons , and prefers the Younger before the Elder . 2. The second Effect is his Adoration leaning upon his Staff ; where you must observe that the Apostle follows the Septuagint , as in most part of this Epistle he doth : Whereas others , following the Hebrew Copies we have now , translate the place thus , And Israel bowed himself upon the Beds-head . To reconcile these , some tell us of the difference of Mittah and Matteh , the one signifying a Bed , the other a Staff ; and say , that the word being at first unpointed might be taken to signify the one or the other , or both ; so that he might be at the head of his Bed , leaning upon a Staff. It 's true that the Chaldee and Samaritan read it [ Mittah ] a Bed. The Syriack turns the word Sceptrum : Yet this is clear enough , that the Apostle followed the Greek Translation , and we may safely follow him being divinely inspired . Upon this Staff he leaned , and by it supported himself , after that Joseph had sworn to him that he would bury him in the Land of Canaan in the burying place of his Fathers . He leaned thus upon his Staff that he might bow and worship . But the Question is , To whom he bowed ? Some think he bowed to Joseph , not looking upon him now as his Son , but as a Prince and Administrator General of the Kingdom of Egypt ; and this might give occasion to the Syriack Interpreter to think this Staff was Joseph's Scepter , as though by this Posture he gave not only Honour but Thanks unto his Son , that he would not only promise , but confirm his Promise by Oath . Others conceive that he had far higher thoughts , and that with all humility he adored the divine Majesty , and dd praise his glorious Name , that he had provided for his Burial in the Land of Promise , where his Posterity should settle , where his Saviour should be born , and where he should rise again to eternal Glory ; and this outward bowing was a Sign of his most humble Submission and Adoration of the supream and eternal Lord. This doth teach us , 1. That the Object of religious Adoration is God , as Supream Lord of infinite and eternal Excellency . 2. That Humility is essential to this Act of Adoration . 3. That by outward Carriage in the Worship of God , we should signify our inward Humility . 4. That near our End we should think not only of Death , but of the Resurrection , and with the thoughts thereof support and comfort our hearts . Thus Jacob blessed , thus he bowed , and both by Faith : For they were Effects of Faith , without which it was impossible to do either of them , as he did them . This is the principal thing intended in all the Examples , to shew the necessity and excellency of Faith , and by both to perswade Perseverance therein : And surely Jacob had some divine Revelation concerning the future Fates of his Grand-children , and upon Joseph's Oath of his Burial in the Land of Canaan , and he did most certainly believe it and rely upon it ; and this Belief and Reliance was the inward Principle of his Benediction and Adoration ; otherwise they had neither been effectual nor acceptable . § . 21. Thus both Joseph's Sons were blessed by the Faith of his Father Jacob ; and Joseph also had his Faith , which was effectual too : For , Ver. 22. By Faith Joseph when he dyed made mention of the departing of the Children of Israel , and gave Commandment concerning his Bones . HEre likewise we have , 1. The Effects of Joseph's Faith. 2. His Faith the ground of these Effects . The Effects are two , 1. Mention of Israel 's Departure . 2. A Charge or Command concerning his Bones . 1. Joseph made mention of Israel's Departure . Israel was the divine Name of Jacob ; for it was given him from Heaven , because by his earnest and fervent Prayers he prevailed with God. This Name was after given to his Posterity according to the Flesh , and in the New Testament to his Children according to the Spirit : In this place it signifies those Children , and that Posterity of his , who were living when God sent Moses to Pharaoh . This Departure here meant , is their departure out of Aegypt , and Freedom from that miserable Bondage they suffered there . This Deliverance , Joseph being ready to dy , and knowing his End to be near , remembred as a matter of very great moment , and out of this remembrance puts the Israelites his Brethren , and probably his own Children and Nephews , in mind of it ; and this perhaps also he did with a special Charge , they should make it known to their Childrens Children , that it might not be forgotten . Of this we thus read , And Joseph said unto his Brethren , I dy ; and God will surely visit you , and bring you out of this Land unto the Land which he sware to Abraham , to Isaac , to Jacob , Gen. 50. 24. These words do fully explain this part of the Text. This was the first Effect . 2. The second was , That he gave Commandment concerning his Bones . This is explained by the words following , Gen. 50. 25. And Joseph took an Oath of the Children of Israel saying , God will surely visit you , and ye shall carry up my Bones from hence . These words imply that he had a great desire that his very Bones , and that part which at the time of their Deliverance remained , might be buried in Canaan , and so take Possession of that Land , where his Saviour should be born , redeem sinful Man , and rise again to Glory . Out of this desire he gives a strict Charge unto his surviving Brethren , and their Posterity , to carry his Bones with them out of Aegypt into that Holy Land ; and if their Love to him could not perswade them , as his Father took an Oath of him , so he took an Oath of them to do this last Service and Office of Love , that so not only Affection and Respect to him , but the fear of the eternal God by whom they had sworn , might make them and their Posterity mindful of their Promise . And according to his Command , their Promise and Oath , the thing was done ; For Moses took the Bones of Joseph with him , for he had straitly sworn the Children of Israel , saying , God will surely visit you , and ye shall carry up my Bones hence with you , Exod. 13. 19. And they were buried many years after in Shechem the Portion of Joseph , Josh. 24. 32. All this was done by Faith , which was grounded upon that Promise , which was confirmed by an Oath unto Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob , that he would give them the Land of Canaan , and bring their Children out of Aegypt , for to settle them in that Country which was a Type of Heaven , and in which by Christ they should rise again to everlasting Life . This Revelation from Heaven he did assuredly believe , and rested upon the Promise . This Example should teach us to remember , and never to forget , the Promises of God , to mind others of them , perswade them to rest upon them , and deeply to engage them to their God , and the Performance of their Duty : This doth also inform us of the Excellency of the Bodies of the Saints , which have been Temples of the Holy Ghost , and one day shall be made immortal . § . 22. And now we are come to the great Prophet Moses , whose Preservation was wonderful , and his Works glorious : The Apostle instanceth , 1. In his Preservation , as an Effect of his Parents Faith. 2. In his Works , which were Effects of his own Faith. His Preservation is expressed thus , Ver. 23. By Faith Moses , when he was born , was hid three Months of his Parents , because they saw he was a proper Child , and they not afraid of the King's Commandment . IN which words we have , 1. The Work of his Parents . 2. The Intimation of their Faith whereby they did this Work. 1. The Work of his Parents was , that they hid him three Months : For , 1. Moses was hid . 2. He was hid three Months . 3. He was hid so long by his Parents . The hiding of Moses was a concealing of his Birth for to prevent his Ruine , and it was of great difficulty , and no less danger , and of strange Consequence ; for this hiding was a means of his Preservation , and his Preservation the Ruine of Aegypt and the Deliverance of Israel : Yet unto this concealment we must add the exposing of him in that manner , as that Pharaoh's Daughter did adopt him , take care of him , and brought him up like a Prince ; so that he was skilful in all the Learning of the Aegyptians . We may read the History at large , Exod. 2. where we may observe divers special Passages of God's Providence . The time was three Months , a thing hard to be done ; because , as some relate , and it 's very likely , the King of Aegypt had Searchers amongst the Hebrews to find out their Male-Children as soon as they were born : For , no sooner were they born , but they were to be destroyed , as designed to destruction before their Entrance into the World : Thus long he was hid , and no longer could they conceal him , so the Text saith Exod. 2. This is said to be the Work of his Parents : It 's ascribed only to the Mother in the History , yet no doubt with the consent and advice of the Father . 2. This was done by Faith ; the Faith of his Parents , intimated in two things : 1. In that they saw him to be a proper Child . 2. In that they feared not the Wrath of the King. 1. They saw him to be a proper Child . 1. He was a proper Child . 2. They saw it . 3 , Because they saw it , therefore hid him three Months . 1. He was a proper Child ; that is , fair , comely , beautiful , and that not in an ordinary but an eminent measure ; God perhaps had imprinted some extraordinary Characters upon him . 2. This his beauty and comliness they saw , and as it did appear unto them , so they took special notice of it , and began to conceive that God had designed him for some extraordinary Work. 3. Because he was such , and they saw it , therefore they resolved to hide and conceal him so long as they could , and when they could no longer do it , they expose him in the wisest way they could unto divine Providence . It 's true , that natural Affection might incline them much , and his divine beauty might move them more to use all means to prevent his Ruine : Yet this could not be all , there was some divine Revelation and Instinct which was the Ground of their Resolution and their Confidence ; and some tell us that it was so . Out of Confidence and Trust in God's Mercy , they might earnestly pray , and upon their Prayer God might further manifest his Will concerning that Child , and so more fully settle their minds . 2. That they had some Faith , it further appears by their boldness , that they feard not the Commandment of the King. This King was one of the Phara●hs and Lord of Aegypt , who , out of State-Policy , fearing the multiplication and strength of Israel being Strangers , sent out a cruel Edict and Command to murther all their Males so soon as born . And it 's very likely he appointed certain Persons , as the Mid-wives with some others , for the Execution , with a strict Charge , upon pain of death if they should not execute his Command , and either spare them or conceal them . This Command made it so full of danger and hazard to his Parents to hide and conceal him so long : Yet this Command or Edict they did not fear , so as to bewray him . No doubt their fear was great , yet their Faith was greater , and overcame their fear ; and this undaunted and resolved boldness was an Evidence of their Faith. Therefore is it said , that by Faith they hid him three Months , and so he was preserved ; if it was by Faith formerly described , then there must be some divine Testimony and Promise , which was both the Ground of their Faith and also of their Hope . § . 23. Thus far his Preservation by the Faith of his Parents : Now follow the Works and rare Effects of his own Faith ; for , Ver. 24. By Faith Moses , when he was come to years , refused to be called the Son of Pharaoh 's Daughter . Ver. 25. Chusing rather to suffer Affliction with the Children of God , than to enjoy the pleasures of Sin for a season . Ver. 26. Esteeming the Reproach of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures of Aegypt ; for he had respect unto the Recompence of Reward . THE Apostle doth instance in four several Effects of Moses Faith : The first whereof is the principal , upon which he doth most of all enlarge ; and in the same we may observe , 1. His Obedience to the principal Command . 2. His Faith an effectual Principle of his Obedience . Of his Obedience we find two parts , 1. His Self-Denial , or his Refusal . 2. His bearing of the Cross , or his Choice . 1 , His Self-Denial was this , That when he come to years , he refused to be called the Son of Pharaoh 's Daughter . Where I must explain , 1. Who Pharaoh's Daughter was . 2. What it was to be called her Son. 3. What the Refusal of this was . 4. When he did refuse it . 1. Pharaoh's Daughter was a Lady and great Princess ; for she was the Daughter of a great King. Whether she was the only Daughter , or , if the onely Daughter , the onely Child , and Heir Apparant to that rich and potent Kingdom , we know not ; yet howsoever , her place was a place of great Honour , Power , Wealth , and Delights ; and such , as that she might advance Moses very high , not only because he was her Son by Adoption , but also because he was so goodly a Person , of such excellent parts , and of so great deserts ; for he was skilful in all the Learning of the Aegyptians , and mighty in words and deeds , eminently qualified , and above the ordinary ranck not only of ordinary men but of Princes . 2. He was called the Son of this great Princess . To be called , as I have formerly observed , is sometimes for to be ; therefore in this sense to be called her Son , was to be her Son : so that this Name was not a meer Title , but a Reality . Yet to be called , may signify something more ; for it 's implyed here , as it is expressed in the History , that he was not her natural but her adopted Son ; he was not of her Flesh and Blood , but of her Will and Choice : For Adoption is a Choice of one that is no Son , to be a Son. So he was called , is , that he was chosen and adopted ; which kind of Filiation is accounted good in Law , by the Consent of Nations : Yet there is another thing which may be signified by this word called ; that is , he was not only so called by her , but so accounted , called , honoured , by others . God had made her an Instrument not only of his Preservation , but his excellent Education , Honour , and high Advancement . 3. Yet he refused to be called her Son. It 's not meant , that he was base and unthankful , as not acknowledging her tender Compassion towards him , when he was ready to perish , or her singular Love to him , and special care of him , manifested in his Education and Advancement . No doubt he did account her as his best friend under Heaven , and his greatest Benefactrix under God , and he did give her all Respect and Honour due unto her as his Mother : His own natural Mother might have been willing , but was no wayes able , to do so much for him . This Refusal therefore was no unworthy Incivility , Disrespect , or base Ingratitude , but a free and noble Act of his divine and sanctified Soul , whereby he being illuminated from Heaven did see the baseness , uncertainty , and danger of that great Estate of Honour , Wealth , Power , and rare Contents of the World ; and did judge the Enjoyment of it , if not inconsistent with , yet prejudicial to , his spiritual and eternal Happiness : And upon this account he was willing to part with them for a better end , and a great good . Whilest we are seeking the eternal Bliss of Heavens Kingdom , we must be willing to part with and forsake all things , even the most delicious and glorious , though we affect them much . In this Case , we must not only forsake Sin , but such things , which at other times , upon other occasions , we may justly love , and lawfully enjoy . Isaac must be sacrificed , if God command it ; and Christ himself for a time must lay aside his Glory , if it be the Will of God that he should sacrifice himself upon the Cross : Whosoever loves not Jesus Christ above all , more than his Life , more than himself , he cannot be Christ's Disciple , nor expect Salvation and eternal Life by him . This was not the Spirit of the World , for most men will rather refuse to be called the Sons of God , that they might be the Sons of Pharoah's Daughter , and advanced in Princes Courts , than refuse to be called Pharoah's Sons , that they might be the Disciples of Christ and Sons of God. Man devoid of Grace and heavenly Wisdom is strongly bent and strongly inclined to the Glory , Honour , Wealth , and Delights of this World ; they seem so glorious , and taste so sweet , that they much take the Soul ; they promise some rare Content and perfect Happiness . Therefore men seek and pursue them eagerly , hoping and expecting much from them ; and if they once are possessed of them , and enjoy them : Oh! How unwilling are they to part with them ? They prefer them before Heaven , and the eternal felicity thereof . The young man , who so much desired to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven , and yet refused to receive it upon our blessed Saviour's terms , is an Example universally to be remembred and considered ; for it plainly tells us , that to part them , and the heart of Man once strongly affected with them , is impossible to any created Power , and only possible to the Almighty Power of God. Hence it doth appear how highly elevated , and how excellently qualified , the Soul of Moses was , who could so fully and freely refuse to be called the Son of Pharoah's Daughter : This perhaps was not done without some great Conflict , the issue whereof was a clear and glorious Victory . 4. This mighty turn and change was made in Moses , when he came to years of Age. The distinct and particular Year of his Age , when he made this Refusal , is not mentioned : As for Instruction or Example for any such heavenly vertue , it was not likely he should find any such thing in the Court of an Heathen Prince . It might be that he might have some concealed Converse with his Parents , or his Brethren , in whom that Heavenly aspiring Spirit which was in Abraham , Isaac , Jacob , might remain . These might inform him of some divine and saving Truths , and of that Seed in whom all Nations should be blessed , yet in the midst of so many Temptations , these could work little upon him . Therefore it is to be presumed , that as Abraham , so he , was Partaker of the heavenly Call , and this did enable him to make this noble Resolution . Howsoever it was with him ; yet we are born and bred up in the Church , upon whom the Light of the Gospel doth continuallp shine , and at the door of whose hearts Christ stands continually knocking , should learn this Lesson betimes . We having so many helps and means of Conversion should consecrate our tender years , and much more the slower and time of our riper dayes , unto God : But wo unto us , because we will not know the day of Visitation , and the things which belong unto eternal Peace , we are worse than the Ox that knows his Owner , and the Ass which knows his Master's Crib , than the Turtle , the Swallow , and the Crane , which know their times ; and yet we do not know our God , we do not know our Saviour . § . 24. This was his Self-Denial , after which the Apostle informs us of his bearing the Cross : Where we must consider , 1. His Choice . 2. The Ground of it . 1. His Choice was rare and wonderful ; for he chose the Cross : Two things indeed were proposed unto him , 1. The Suffering of Affliction with God's People . 2. The Enjoyment of the pleasures of Sin for a season . The one was sweet , and in present Possession ; the other , bitter : Yet if we consider the Society and Company with whom he must suffer , they were the People of God ; but the other were cursed profane Wretches . So that if he look at the Company , the Choice was easily made ; yet if he compare Afflictions and present Sufferings , with present pleasures and the Enjoyment of them , it would prove very difficult to forsake the sweet , and pitch upon the bitter . And here we must observe , 1. That Self-Denial and bearing the Cross do go together . 2. That to refuse to be called the Son of Pharoah's Daughter , and to for sake the Enjoyment of the pleasures of Sin , and the Riches of Aegypt , were the same ; and he that refuseth the one must forsake the other . The matter will be more plain , if we reduce this Text to Propositions in this manner , 1. God's People suffered Afflictions . 2. He was willing to suffer with them . 3. He was willing rather to suffer with them , than to enjoy the pleasures of Sin for a season . 1. By People of God in this place , may be understood the Israelites , who at that time were the only Nation in Covenant with God , and were his People in a special manner , and then under grievous Afflictions , by reason of the Cruelty of the Aegyptian King : Yet this Title of God's People may be given to the Church of all times , which began to suffer in Abel , and continued suffering to our dayes , and shall do unto the end : For as Affliction is the common Lot of all Christ's Members , so it is the way of God's training them for an eternal Crown of Glory . 2. He was willing to suffer with them ; for they were his own Brethren , and the best Society in the World , and had the highest Promises with the greatest Priviledges , and the best Hopes . Yet , though these were in a suffering condition , he had rather partake with them in their Miseries , than forfeit their Hopes and Priviledges : Though Suffering , as Suffering , was grievous , and no way desirable or eligible as such ; yet , as it was the Lot of God's People , and tended to a most excellent End , it put on the notion of Good , and might be willingly accepted , and as the Case then stood not to be refused . 3. When there is no better Condition to be expected , a wise man will make a vertue of necessity , and make the best use of that which in it self was bad , and no wayes avoidable . But there were pleasures which he either did enjoy or might have enjoyed : Yet these were pleasures of Sin , and but for a time , and these abated much ; and it was better to suffer a little Misery for an eternal Reward , than to enjoy a little momentary pleasure , and after that endure eternal Punishment . As eternal Pleasures do far excel temporal , so Justice is infinitely better than Sin. Ho●ustum is far above Jucundum , and infinitely more desirable . To suffer with God's People willingly and patiently , was a rare vertue ; but the Delights of Pharoah's Court , though they should have been lawful , were no such thing : But they were not lawful , they were Pleasures of Sin , that is , sinful Pleasures ; they could not be enjoyed without Sin. The matter of them might be base , and no wayes allowable ; and besides the Use and Enjoyment of them might be immoderate and inordinate ; and with all unsanctified Persons addicted to them they prove sinful in both respects . These being carnal , blind the hearts of men , and cause them to forget their God , and neglect their Souls and eternal Estate : Besides , they were but for a time , a little season , and vanish suddenly away , a little pleasure leavs a cruel Sting behind it which will torment for ever . The just and vermous Suffering with God's People , upon which followed a glorious Estate of Bliss , was far more eligible than momentary sruful Pleasures : Therefore he did prefer and choose the one before the other . He saw two wayes before him , the one was rough , the other smooth ; yet at the end of one he saw a Paradise , and at the end of the other a Lake of Fire ; he refuseth the smooth , to avoid the Lake of Fire , and takes the rough that he might enter into the Paradise to which it led him . This was Moses Choice , which few in the World take : Most men look at present Pleasures , not at future Joyes . § . 25. The next thing to be enquired is the Ground of this Choice , and that was the ultimate Dictate of illuminated and elevated Reasons , whereby he did believe : For by Faith he made both this Refusal and this Choice , resolved to deny himself , and to take up the Cross , and actually and constantly did both ; for they were the principal parts of his Obedience : The Objects of this Reason were three , 1. The Reproach of Christ. 2. The Treasures of Aegypt . 3. The Recompence of Reward . The divine inspired Truth gave a true Representation of every one of these , and did so direct him , that he judged aright both of the Reproach of Christ , and the Treasures of Aegypt , and that not onely absolutely but comparatively too● ; and did furnish him with a strong Reason taken from the Reward to determine his Election . The first Object was the Reproach of Christ , that is , such a Reproach as that of the Cross , which Christ was to suffer , or which he resolved to suffer for Christ's sake , and by the Dictate of Faith in Christ : For Moses his Faith was conformable unto that of his Fathers , whereby they believed in that Seed of theirs in whom all Nations should be blessed , which was Christ. Some Apprehensions they had of Christ's Sufferings , and his Glory which should follow after ; but whether they had any distinct Notion of the Cross , which was the Sum of all Afflictions and Sufferings , may be doubted of us , because we know not what special Revelations they might have . This Cross was not only a suffering of Pain , but of Reproach ; for that kind of death was both cruel and very ignominious , and therefore much abhorted by Flesh and Blood , which sometimes fears Reproach more than Pain . This Reproach , if suffered for our own Crimes , and not for Christ and Righteousness sake , can minister no Comfort , or be in any wise gainful . Yet it was counted Riches , and a rare Revenue , an incomparable Treasure , not in respect of it self , but of that which followed by vertue of God's Promise : Thus it was considered , if suffered patiently for Christ , out of Faith in Christ and Love to Christ. The second Object was the Treasures of Aegypt : These he considered , and knew to be great , yet of a finite value , for though men dote upon these earthly Treasures idolize them , take them for a God ; yet the price and worth of them was not very much , they were like the Pleasures ; that is , sinful , and only for a little season : Thus he considered them absolutely ; but not content with that , he weighs them in a true Ballance , and compares them , and finds the Reproach of Christ greater , the Treasures of Aegypt less ; the latter base in respect of the former , which was far more excellent . And if we would compare the Treasures of the Earth , which men so much affect , with the Treasures of Heaven , which few seek after , they would appear no better than Trash or Dung. The third Object was , The Recompence of the Reward : Reward here must be understood of the great and final Reward of eternal Glory ; this Reward , though excellent in it self , is little worth except it be rendred , that is , given by God , and received and enjoyed by us . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both , that is , the Reward , and the rendring of it ; yet it 's given only to such as are willing to bear the Reproach of Christ , in compensation of our Sufferings for Christ. At this Reward , promised by God , merited by Christ , and to be rendred unto Man , he looked ; he eyed it very much , and understood , and that most certainly , that it put a very high price upon suffering the Reproach of Christ , and made it of far greater value than the Treasures of Aegypt , because it was the way and means for to attain eternal Glory ; a Reward , which neither the Treasures of Aegypt , nor of all the World , could purchase or parallel : So that the Reproach of Christ was not so excellent in it self , but as leading to the Estate of Heaven's Glory ; not that it could merit the Reward , but only qualify him for the Enjoyment , and give a Title to it by vertue of God's Promise made upon the Merit of Christ , who by the Cross did merit this Reward for all such as by Faith should bear the Cross and follow him . This Faith moved him to this Obedience of Self-Denial , and bearing the Cross , and gave him Power to overcome the World ; and that Faith which is not thus victorious is not justifying and saving . The Philosopher's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Temperance and Fortitude , seem to have some Affinity with this Doctrine , but comes far short . And here it 's observable , That the Honour to be Pharoah's Daughter's Son , the temporary Pleasures of Sin , and the Treasures of Aegypt go together ; so do Afflictions of God's People , and the Reproach of Christ. The Reproach of Christ is opposed to Honor , the Afflictions of God's People to the Pleasures of Sin , the Riches of Reproach for Christ to the Treasures of Aegypt . The Reproaches of Christ and Afflictions are better to Man , as his Case now stands , not only in this , that they tend to the Reward , but also through Sanctification of the Spirit they exercise and improve our heavenly vertues , and prevent many grievous Sins . If we will be happy with Moses , we must make Moses Choice , and pray for the Power of the Spirit to enable us , not only to resolve but also perform as he did , and also often to eye the great Reward which will be a mighty Motive to Obedience . Neither must we think it mercenary to look at the Reward ; for God's Glory and our Happiness are linked together , so that the Belief and Expectation of the Reward do no wayes abate of our Love to God in Christ. § . 26. The second Work of Moses his Faith , wherein the Apostle instanceth , was his forfaking of Aegypt : For , Ver. 27. By Faith he for sook Aegypt , not fearing the Wrath of the King ; for he endured , as seeing him who was invisible . FOR the better understanding both of this and the former part of the Example of Moses , we must observe , 1. That Moses had some divine Information of God's Intention by him to deliver Israel , as is implyed by this , that he visited his Brethren when he was forty years of Age ; for then it came into his heart to do so , and in this Visitation he slew an Aegyptian who wronged and oppressed one of his Brethren . By this Visitation and Act he supposed his Brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them , but they understood not , Acts 7. 23 , 24 , 25. 2. That if he would have laid aside all Affection and Care of his Brethren , and all thoughts of delivering them , he might have still continued to have been called the Son of Pharoah's Daughter , and to have enjoyed the Pleasures and Treasures of Aegypt . 3. That he was resolved , though with the loss of all , to attempt and undertake this Work , and began it with this Visitation and Deliverance of one particular Person ; yet this way proved ineffectual , for the time was not yet come . 4. That in this Visitation it so fell out , through the Folly and Iniquity of one of his own Brethren , that Pharoah was incensed against him , and sought to kill him ; and now he begins to suffer Affliction with God's People , and to bear the Reproach of Christ. And now his Case was this , that he must either fly and forsake Aegypt , or be slain : He cared not so much for the King's Wrath , nor did he fear . Death so much , as he was grieved for the sad condition of his Brethren , and troubled that the design of their Deliverance did for the present fail . But to return unto the words , wherein we may observe these Propositions , 1. Moses for sook Aegypt , not fearing the Wrath of the King. 2. In this he endured , as seeing him who is invisible . In the former we have , 1. His leaving Aegypt . 2. The manner how he left it . 1. He forsook Aegypt . Two several times . 1. When he fled into the Land of Midian , where he was a Stranger and a Shepherd for many years . 2. When he brought Israel out of Aegypt . The great doubt is , Whether of these is here intended ? Some think the former ; some , the latter ; some , both : Yet , whether it be one or both , it 's certain , both that he did leave Aegypt , and that he did leave it in this manner . In the former Departure , he fled to avoid danger ; in the latter , he marched out like a Prince and General with a mighty Host. The former was the loss of all his Honour , high and happy . Estate , which he formerly enjoyed in Pharoah's Court , and the beginning of his suffering Affliction and Reproach with the People of God. This was from himself , who , out of Pity and ardent Affection to his Brethren , brought himself into this Condition . This seemed to be a great Fall , for a great Prince became a poor Fugitive : yet he was well content , nay judged the Estate of the latter to be far better than that of the former . For it was far more free from Temptation , and more calm , so that he might freely give himself to contemplation and converse with his God. Therefore if we well consider this , the former forsaking Aegypt is rather to be referred and ascribed to that Faith , whereby he denyed himself and took up the Cross looking at the great Reward . 2. In the latter , though the Wrath of the King was great , yet he feared it not . The last time he was in the King's presence , he did fearfully menace him , saying , Get th●t from me , take ●eed to thy self , see my face no more ; for in that day thou seest my face , thou shalt dy , Exod. 10. 28. This signifies that he was enraged against Moses , and though , upon the last and greatest Execution upon the Egyptians in the death of the first born , he did for the present remit his fury , and sending to Moses and Aaron did dismiss them , and all Israel , yet he suddenly changed his mind , and armed all Aegypt to pursue them . This Moses knew full well , yet he marched with all the Armies of Israel out of that wicked Country with invincible Boldness , and certain Confidence that God would make his March good , and their Deliverance full and effectual , against all the fury and force of that wicked King. The Reason of this Boldness was his Faith , whereby he endured , as seeing him who is invisible , which is the second Proposition . Where , 1. The Object of his Faith was , the Invisible . 2. The Act was , he saw him , or looked upon him . 3. The Effect immediate was , he endured . 1. He that was invisible was God , who is said to be the eternal , immortal , invisible God , 1 Tim. 1. 17. whom no man hath seen nor can see , Cap. 6. 16. and the invisible God , Colos. 1. 15. To be invisible , as here is meant , must needs be proper unto God : It 's true that many things , especially spiritual Substances , as immortal Souls and Angels , are not visible or perceivable by bodily Eyes , and in that respect invisible ; but not in that manner a● God is . No Man , not Moses , can see God and live , as Angels and glorified Saints do , neither can they see him as he sees himself , so that in some respects he is invisible to all , and only visible to himself . 2. The Act of his Faith , was that whereby he , as it were , and in some manner , saw this invisible God : He saw him , not by his Senses , nor by the natural Light of Reason , but by a diviner and more excellent visive faculty , to which he did represent himself in his Wisdom , almighty Power , Promise , and Fidelity , with all which he was engaged in this Act. This sight of him made Pharoah , though a King of mighty Power , as contemptible in his Eyes : So glorious did he appear , that all the Power and Princes of the World were nothing to him . 3. The immediate Effect was , that he so seeing him as though he were present , marching in the Van , bringing up the Rear , and garding Israel on every side , did endure , not only with a patient but a constant and undaunted mind , the Wrath of the King , whom he feared . He strengthned and hardned himself , and resolved to carry Israel out of Egypt , and rescue them from the Egyptian Bondage and Tyranny . This was an Act of Faith , of strong Faith ; and this Instance doth teach to fortify and embolden our hearts by Faith in God , against all fears of the greatest , most cruel , and enraged Enemies . § . 27. The third Instance is made in that Act of keeping the Passover , and preserving the first-born of Israel from the destroying Angel : For , Ver. 28. Through Faith he kept the Passover , and the sprinkling of Blood , lest he that destroyed the first-born should touch them . IN these words we may observe , 1. A Command . 2. A Promise . 3. Faith , whereby the Command was obeyed , and whereupon the Promise was performed . 1. The Command , for the matter , was two-fold : 1. The Celebration of the Passover . 2. The sprinkling of Blood. What the Passover was we easily learn from Exod. 12. and most do know it : It was a Sacrament of the Old Testament , to confirm the Promise of God made to Israel . The Matter of it was a Lamb without blemish ; the Actions were Separation of the Lamb , preparing and rosting it with fire , and eating of it with soure Herbs and unleavened Bread , with their Loins girt , and their Staffs in their hand at the first time of the Institution . Some tell us of a form of words prescribed , but in this the Scripture is silent : It was the same to them , that the Eucharist is to us . The use of the Blood at that time , of which we never after read , was to sprinkle the upper and side posts of their Doors with it , and for this end , to avert the destroying Angel. In all this , a far greater thing was mystically infolded , as Christ our Paschal Lamb , whose Blood sprinkled by Faith upon our Souls , delivers us from the destroying wrath of God , and the punishments of Hell ; of which Blood and Sacrifice of Christ you have heard much in the former Chapters . That they should thus celebrate this Sacrament , and thus sprinkle this Blood , was the Command of God to Moses , and by him declared to Israel . 2. The promise of God was , that if they did celebrate the Passover , and sprinkle the Blood of the Paschal Lamb , accordingly as God prescribed , he would bring them out of Aegypt , and save their first born in that Night , when he would destroy all the first born of Man and Beast in the Land of Aegypt . The great mystery was , that whosoever should partake of Christ , the immaculate Lamb of God which taketh away ●he Sin of the World , and have the door of their Souls sprinkled with his Blood , they should be delivered from the power of Satan , freed from the wrath of God , and pass on safely towards their heavenly Canaan , and the place of their eternal Rest. 3. Moses believed the Word of God concerning these particulars , and Israel believed Moses as speaking to them from God , and both he and they relied upon the Promise . By this Faith he and they obeyed the Command of God , in celebrating the Passover , and in sprinkling the Blood of the Paschal Lamb ; and upon this Obedience the Promise of God was performed , their first born was saved , and all of them that Night brought out of Aegypt . Without this Faith , they neither could have obeyed the Command of God , nor obtained the great mercies promised . So if we by Faith eat Christ's Flesh , and drink his Blood , we shall live , and be everlastingly saved . From hence we learn , That Faith enables and stirrs us up to obey the Commands of God , that so by it we may obtain the Rewards , which God hath promised . § . 28. The fourth instance is of Israel's Faith , whereby they passed through the Red Sea with safety , when the Egyptians were drowned . For , Ver. 29. By Faith they passed through the Red Sea , as by dry Land , which the Egyptians assayling to do , were drowned . ] IN these words we have , 1. The safety of Israel . 2. The destruction of the Egyptians . 3. The reason of the one and of the other . 1. The safety of Israel was , That they passed through the Red Sea , as by dry Land. To understand this , we must remember and call to mind the History : We have heard of the bringing of Israel out of Aegypt , and the saving of their first Born. After they were marched on their way towards the Red Sea , according to God's direction ; Pharoah repented of the dismission of Israel , and by spies , or some others , informed what way they took , and where they were conceived them to be in straits , and easy to be reduced or destroyed . Thereupon he arms and musters up the main strength of Aegypt , marcheth himself in person with his Potent Armies , and pursues them , and some came near to them . The Angel of God removes into the rere-ward , and strikes in between Israel and Pharoah's Army , till they came to the Red Sea , where they were flanked on both sides with impulsive mountains , the Red Sea was before them , the mighty Army of Aegypt behind them ; so that in humane reason , nothing but destruction could be expected . Israel cryes out to Moses , and Moses calls to God : God here commands Moses to strike the Sea with a Rod , and commands Israel to pass forward , and expect the Salvation of God promising to deliver them . The Sea was divided , the Waters stood like walls and mountains , as though they had been congealed and turned to Ice . The bottom , which never saw the Sun before , appears , is made firm ground , without deep mud or quicksands ; Israel passeth on , arrives at the further shore , and neither Man nor Child is drowned . As the deep and drowning waters saved Noah by bearing up the Ark , so now the dangerous and threatning Sea , and tumultuous waters , are a safety to Israel . This was a strange and glorious work of God's Almighty Power and unspeakable mercy : This is called often in the Hebrew the Sea of Suph or Bulrushes , which it seems grow upon the banks ; and also the Sea of Edom : and because Edom signifies Red , therefore it 's named the Red-Sea , as the Septuagin●turns the proper substantive into an appellative . 2. Pharoah and the Egyptians pursue them into the Sea , and so were drowned . This was ordered by the wisdom of God , and was the execution of his just Judgment . While way is made for Israel to pass , the inconsistency and fluid nature of the Waters is suspended , that the Egyptians , following after the Israelies , might enter into the heart and depth of the Channel . Yet in the mean time , the Angel of God continues to keep between Israel and Pharoah's Army , till such time as all the People were safely landed , and , to retard the march of the Horse , takes off their Chariot Wheels , so that they drove heavily . When Israel was past all danger , God suffers the Waters to return to their former Course ; and so they overwhelm Pharoah and all his Host , who sunk like lead into the bottom of the Sea ; and this was done in the sight of Israel , that they might rejoyce and give glory unto God for their Salvation , and the destruction of their Enemies . This was a wonderful deliverance of God's People , and the end of a proud and cruel Tyrant . 3. The reason of the one , was Faith ; of the other , Unbelief : For by Faith they found a way through the great deep : And this was not the Faith of Israel alone , but principally of Moses . For it might truly be said , They passed through the Sea by his Faith , yet joyned with their's : For God commanded Moses with his Rod to smite the Sea , and Israel to pass on , and promised to divide the Sea , and save them not only from the Waters , but from their Enemies . This Moses did believe , and perswades them to do so likewise : and this Faith moved them to obey God's Command , and upon their Obedience to expect the Mercy promised . Without this Warrant and Word from Heaven , and their belief of it , and confidence in it , it had been impossible for them to have escaped destruction . The Egyptians assaying without this Faith to passe , were drowned : Pride , cruelty , desire of revenge drove them forward ; they had neither Revelation , nor Command , nor Promise , and therefore they perished , This example informs us , 1. That there is no danger so great , but God can deliver us out of it ; for God hath many wayes to deliver us . 2. That when man's danger is the greatest , God's help is the nearest : For , as the saying is , Man's Extremity is God's Opportunity . For he is a present help in time of trouble ; in the midst of the Waters , and in the fiery Furnace . 3. Many times the Salvation of God's People is the destruction of their Enemies ; and when he saves the one , he destroyes the other ; and there will a day come when all God's People shall see their desire upon all their Enemies . Yet we must believe and obey , and trust in God ; and have a just Cause , if we will expect deliverance : and he that doth not so believe , as to be ready to do what God Commands , can never attain the benefit God doth promise , which is so limited and consined to the performance of the Command upon Faith , that , without Performance and Obedience , the Mercy promised cannot be expected and received . This is the true reason , why justifying Faith is inconsistent with the predominancy of any Lust and Sin. For true Faith receives the Promise with the terms and conditions it requireth ; and whosoever believes , or is perswaded that he may receive the Blessing promised , without obedience to the Command annexed , doth deceive himself . For he that , continuing in his sins , not resolving from his heart to forsake them , to renounce all righteousness in himself , to rely wholly and solely upon the merit of Christ , and mercy of God , perswades himself of Remission promised , doth mistake the Promise , and shall not obtain that which he desires . For his Faith is not sincere , his confidence is but presumption , and the issue will be shame and confusion : This Doctrine also ministreth unspeakable comfort to all true Believers in the midst of their Extremities . § . 29. Joshua succeeded Moses , and he by Faith did many glorious works ; one whereof the Apostle singleth out , and instanceth in , which was the fall of the walls Jericho . For , Ver. 30. By Faith the Walls of Jericho fell , after they were compassed about seven times . ] THis work was miraculous , and is ascribed to Faith in God's Word . The whole History here abridged by the Apostle , we may read at large , Joshua 6. Upon which , as upon the rest of that Book , Masuis doth excellently discourse . In the words , as in the former examples , we may observe : 1. The Work. 2. The Faith whereby it was done . In the Work , as it 's briefly here expressed , we may consider ; 1. What it was , The fall of the Walls of Jericho . 2. The means whereby it was done , and that was by compassing them about seven times . 3. The time , When they had seven times compassed them . But if we consider the History , the principal things remarkable , are ; 1. The Command and Instructions of God given to Joshua and the People . 2. God's Promise . 3. Their Obedience . 4. The Issue or Event . 1. God's Command was signified to Joshua , and by Joshua to Israd ; and in general it was to compass about Jericho , which was the first City of Canaan , on this West side of Jordan which God gave into their hand ; and in such a manner , as that it might encourage his Pecple , and strike a terrour into the rest of their Enemies , and let them know what to expect . It was not very great , yet strong . For the manner how often , in what order , with what rites , when to begin , when to end , they received Instructions and Directions , and they were bound to follow them . For we must not only do the thing God Commands , but we must do it in that manner as he shall prescribe . 2. God's Promise was in general to deliver it into their Hands , and in that manner , as that there should be no formal Siege or effusion of Blood. This was a miraculous and extraordinary way , which he did prescribe unto them , and in it self very unlikely to take effect ; for there seemed to be no causality in the means , not any power in them for to produce the effect . Therefore a Promise of God was necessary , that so they might have a ground of their Faith , an encouragement to use the means , and , upon the use , a certain expectation of the event . Neither would the Promise of any other but of God serve the turn ; yet seeing they had had so much experience of his wonderful and almighty power , it was sufficient , and there was no cause of doubting . 3. Seeing God had promised , and they believed ; therefore they obey his Command , readily and chearfully use the means , and follow his Directions , and compass the City in that manner , and so often , as God required . This obedience , to the Enemies , who were ignorant both of God's Command and Promise , might seem ridiculous , and a matter of laughter rather then of fears , except they did suspect some magick Spells , and di●belical power might be used in that formal procession . 4. The Event was the fall of the Walls of Jericho and the ruine of that City and the Inhabitants . Some think this fall to be the sinking of the Wall whole and entire into the ground , so that the highest parts of them lay level with the surface of the Earth , yet there is no certainty of this . But this is certain , that they so fell as that Israel might easily enter : This was a work of almighty power , and by this example we easily understand , that when out of Faith we obey God's Commands , that which God hath promised will be effected . Therefore when any business is difficult to be done , we must not so much look at the impotency of natural and secondary Causes , as at the promise of God , and the performance of our Duty . And though it 's true , that the principal , if not the sole effective cause be the Power of God ; yet without the Faith and Obedience of man , the fulfilling of the Promise cannot be expected . This manner of giving Jericho into Israel's hand , to humane reason , not acquainted with the Counsel of God , might seem strange . Yet it was an excellent way to animate Israel , and terrify the Canaanites : For by this miraculous Event , Israel might understand how easily , without blow or blood of any man , the strongest City might be taken and delivered into their hands ; and the Enemy might know , that neither the strongest and highest Walls , nor the power of the most warlike Souldiers , could be able to stand out . The principal thing here to be observed , is the excellency of Faith grounded upon the Word and Promise of God. § . 30. In this strange and fearful destruction of Jericho , God remembred mercy , and saved Rahab and her Family , so that they perished not with the rest . For , Ver. 31. By Faith the Harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not , when she had received the Spies with peace . THis is the last Example of those , whereupon the Apostle severally and more distinctly insists . In it we may observe , 1. The Party named and proposed for an Example , which was Rahab the Harlot . 2. The Work of her Faith , She received the Spies in peace . 3. Her Preservation in the general ruine of that City . 4. Her Faith , whereby she obtained that Reward . 1. The Party was a Woman , her Name Rahab , a Gentile , a Canaanite , an Inhabitant and Native of Jericho , an Inn-Keeper , and an Harlot ; for she seems to be both : Yet this is so far true , that though she had formerly been guilty , yet now she was a Penitent , and upon her Faith , if not before , reformed . God had prepared her for his own Design , and made her a sit Instrument to save the Spies , and the Spies fit Agents to inform Joshua of the Truth , and to encourage all Israel to go on boldly in the Conquest of all Canaan . 2. Her Work of Faith was , that she received the Spies in peace . These Spies were Agents sent by Joshua , to discover the Country on the West-side of Jordan according to his Directions ; and his End in sending them was , to receive Information from them of such things as were convenient to be known , as Preparative for the future Conquest . As Stratagems , so Spies were useful , as other Intelligencers are , in a well-ordered State that hath to deal with Enemies ; and if the Cause be just , and the Enemies unjust , they are certainly lawful . These she received , though Enemies to her Country , not only as Guests but Friends ; and , as she received , so she dismissed them in peace , that is , in safety , and as Friends , and not as Enemies : This she did with so great Care , Prudence , and Fidelity , that their best Friends in that Case could not have done more and better for them . The manner how she entertained them , the Conference she had with them , the Contract made between them , the Act how she concealed them , the Counsel she gave them , and the Contrivance of their safety , you may read more at large in the Book of Joshua : Her officious Lie which she made in their behalf cannot in strict Justice be excused , though in mercy it may be pardoned . And in this Act and Work of Charity towards them , she was not guilty of persidious Treachery to her own Country , which she knew to be wicked , and destined by God himself unto Destruction ; and she was bound to love God more than her Country , and his People more than his Enemies : By her Faith she had renounced all to serve the true God , and in her heart was become already one of God's Saints and Servants . Treachery indeed is unjust , and contrary to the Laws of God , which require fidelity to God first , and then to our Country , so far as it shall be consistent with Fidelity to the Supream Lord , and not one ●ote further . 3. Her Reward followed upon this , For she perished not with them that believed not : Where we have , 1. The Destruction of Unbelievers . 2. Her Preservation . The first implies , that her Neighbours and Fellow-Citizens were grievous Sinners , and so hardned in their Sins , that they did not believe , and so were Vessels of Wrath , and fitted for Destruction . These being such did perish , and suffered Punishment due unto their Sins , which was a total and final ruine . But she perished not , but was preserved ; and the manner of her Preservation we find related in the History : For both the Spies and Joshua were faithful to her , and performed the Promise and the Oath made unto her . By this we learn how easily God can save us even in the midst of general Calamities . 4. This her Preservation was a Reward of her Faith ; not that Faith did merit it , but made her capable of God's Mercy . This here Faith was wrought in her by the Fame of God's glorious Works and Counsels which she had heard , and by the Power of the Holy Ghost ; and it was manifested much , and very much , both by her Words and Deeds , when she received the Spies , and preserved them from Death . It was so much the more to be admited , seeing she was an Alien , a Gentile , a Canaa●ute , and dwelt amongst a cursed People , amongst whom she had been a grievous Sinner : Surely she will rise up in Judgment , against the Unbelievers of our times . § . 31. The Apostle forbears to insist largely and particularly upon the Faith of any more of the ancient Worthies , either Men or Women ; and draws towards a Conclusion by Contraction of his Discourse , and in this manner : Ver. 32. And what shall I more say ? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon , and of Barac , and of Samson , and of Jeptha ; of David also and Samuel , and of the Prophets . IN these words , and those that follow in this Chapter , we must consider , 1. The manner how the following Discourse is brought in . 2. The matter of it . 1. The manner is , by a Rhetorical Paraleipsis , signifying 1. There was no necessity of any more Instances , because the former were sufficient . 2. That to go on to instance so largely in the rest of the following Ages , would be too tedious , take up much time , and enlarge his Letter till it swell to a great Volume . 3. Yet he lets them know , that if need were , and it were requisite , he could instance in many more ; but yet he thought it no Wisdom to do so . 2. In the matter we have , 1. A particular enumeration of certain former Worthies . 2. Their rare Exploits . 3. Their many Sufferings . 4. Their Deeds and Sufferings issuing from Faith. 5. The time when they lived , believed , did these Works , and suffered . 6. God's benignity to us , who in his Wisdom did so order it , that they should not be perfect without us . This is the Sum and Substance of the rest of this Chapter , which contracts much matter into a narrow Compass , and expresseth it in a few words . As for the Persons commended for their Faith , 1. Some of them are signified particularly by Name , some by a general term expressing their Office. 2. That though he names but six , yet this was not because there were no more but these , or that he was ignorant of them , but because it was not needful . 3. Amongst these we have four Judges , one Prophet , one King ; yet so that the Prophet was a Judge , and the King a Prophet . The Persons not mentioned by Name , but signified by their Office , were the Prophets ; and whereas there were Prophets both ordinary and extraordinary , the extraordinary are intended . By this passage and proceeding of the Apostle , we learn , that in our Discourses we should not be needlesly tedious , and say all that we can , but that only which is sufficient , most expedient , and conducing to the main Scope . This was a Letter , and he was not willing to enlarge beyond the bounds of a Letter , which he must needs have done if he had instanced and amplified in all the particulars which he knew . § . 32. These are the Persons : Their rare Exploits and Works of Faith follow ; for thus we read , Ver. 33. Who through Faith subdued Kingdoms , wrought Righteousness , obtained Promises , stopped the Mouths of Lions . Ver. 34. Quenched the violence of Fire , escaped the Edge of the Sword , out of Weakness were made strong , waxed strong in Fight , turned to flight the Armies of the Aliens . THE Effects of their Faith being , doing great things , obtaining great Mercies , suffering great Afflictions , are here only touched upon , and briefly related : Yet this is done without any Attribution of them to the Persons formerly named and mentioned ; for of these Persons those things are to be understood , and they are all Effects and Consequents of Faith. There is it said , Who by Faith subdued , &c. And seeing his chief Intention was to shew the Excellency of Faith , and these Effects were rare and excellent , and such as depended upon Faith as Effects upon the Cause , it was sufficient in this manner to reckon them up , and to inform these Hebrews of them . 1. They subdued Kingdoms . Though this may agree to , and be affirmed of , others ; yet in this particular , David seems to be most eminent , who subdued the Philistins , Edomites , Ammonites , and other of the Syrian Kingdoms . For to understand this , it 's to be observed , 1. That the Cause of the Conqueror was just . 2. That he had Warrant from God , and many times the Warrant was extraordinary . 3. Sometimes he had Directions from God , who was first consulted . 4. He depended not upon his own strength and policy but upon his God. 5. The Victory was given by God , upon the Faith and Prayer of the victorious Party . 6. The Kingdoms subdued were not only Enemies to God's People , but to God himself and his Laws ; so that both the safety of the People , and also of Religion , did much depend upon these Victories , which were far more glorious and excellent , because given upon the Faith of such as trusted in their God , Others might prove Conquerors , who waged War against others out of Ambition , Pride , Covetousness , Cruelty , without any just Cause of Commission from Heaven ; and they were rather Executioners of God's just Judgments upon wicked People and Offenders , whom they cruelly punished without any thoughts of God or care of Justice , as being wicked Person themselvs . 2. They wrought Righteousness . The subduing of Kingdoms was the exercise of their Military Power , and this may seem to be the Use of the Sword of Justice : For the Judges and David were Generals in War , and Judges in peace ; they went out before the People , and fought their Battles , and in the time of Peace they did Justice and Judgments ; by reason of their Faith they were victorious in their Wars , and just in their Judgment : The Duty of a Prince is , to defend his People from Forreign Enemies , and to protect their just and loyal Subjects , and punish the Oppressors and Injurious . This Righteousness therefore is judicial Righteousness , and their doing of Righteousness , their constant Administration of Justice : For the meaning is not meerly that they did some few Acts of Justice ; for so many wicked Princes do : but these did execute Justice and Judgment constantly , and in an eminent manner : And the more their Faith , the more their Righteousness ; for Faith must needs effectually incline them unto it . 3. By Faith they obtained Promises . By Promises understand things promised , and these not general , but particular . To the Patriarchs , before Joshua , the Land of Ca●aan was promised ; yet not given , not enjoyed ; only their Posterity under Joshua obtained that Promise . Christ was promised to them all , yet they obtained not this Promise ; for he was not exhibited till many years after : These were more general Promises . There were besides many eminent Mercies particular , of Victory , Deliverance , Peace , and other things , which by Faith they obtained ; yet so as that they used the means which God vouchsased unto them , and these means without Faith had been insufficient . This informs us , that as great things are done , so great things are obtained by Faith , which believeth the Word of God , and relyeth upon his Promises : For God promised , they believed , the things promised were performed . 4. By Faith they stopped the Mouths of Lions . This is understood principally of Daniel , Sampson slew a Lion , and so did David : Daniel was saved from the hungry fierce Lions , when he was cast into their Den of purpose to be devoured . This he acknowledged as a great and special Mercy from his God , when he said to Darius , My God hath sent his Angel , and hath shut the Lions Mouths , that they have not hurt me , Dan. 6. 22. This Preservation was miraculous , and a Mercy obtained by Faith : For his Cause was just , he would not intermit his constant Devotion and his Supplications unto his God , though he should suffer Death , and resolved to observe the just Command of God , and refused to obey the unjust Command of Man , and was perswaded that God was able to deliver him , and therefore he cast himself wholly upon his Mercy : This he could never have done without Faith. This place is not to be understood , that he by his own Power did stop the Lions Mouths , but that God by his Angel did it upon his Faith , whereby he obtained this Mercy . 5. By Faith some of them quenched the violence of Fire . By this and the former we understand , that divers of these particulars are not to be attributed to the Faith of all and every one , but to some particular Persons of them , as severed from the rest . The former Worthy intended was one of the Prophets , and these might be such also , yet not so eminent ; for these words are not meant of a single Person , but of Shadrac , Meshech , and Abcd●ego , three Jews , fellow-Captives with Daniel : These were cast into a fiery Furnace , so violently hot , that the very persons , who cast them in , were consumed , Yet these walking in the midst of this raging heat , were not burned . For upon their Bodies , the fire had no power , nor was an hair of their head sindged ; neither were their Coates changed , nor the smell of fire had passed upon them , Dan. 3. 27. This was a wonderful deliverance , and a work of God's almighty hand ; and it was obtained by their Faith , manifested to be sincere by their Obedience . For they disobeyed the wicked Command of the King , and stedfastly resolved to obey their God. For so they said unto Nebuchadnezzar , We will not serve thy gods , nor worship the golden Image which thou hast set up . This was their Obedience , They feared not the wrath of the King , but trusted in their God , that be was able to deliver them : This was their excellent Faith , upon which followed this deliverance . By these two last examples , we understand how easily God can , and how ready he is to deliver his believing Servants out of greatest dangers . 6. By Faith they , that is , some of them ; escaped the Sword. ] The Sword is a mortal Instrument , the Prince of Weapons , and used most of all in Wars , when once the pa●●ies joyn battel , and come close . It may here be taken Synechdochically for any kind of destroying Instrument used either in War or Peace . In War , David and many of the Judges escaped the edge of the Sword , and were saved from the fury of the Enemy . In Peace , Elijah , Elisha , Jeremy , and other , were delivered out of the hands of those who intended to murther them . They were in danger , because they served God , did his Work , and gave no just cause of offence . They were delivered , because whilst they were obedient to their God , they trusted in him . Yet here seems to be intended some great dangers , and signal deliverances upon their eminent Faith. As the former were delivered from Fire and wild Beasts , so these from the Sword : No dangers can hurt those whom God will save ; they are safe , in the midst of greatest Evils . 7. By Faith , of weak , some became strong , ] This , by many , is understood of recovery from Sickness and Diseases ; and the same sometimes mortal , and by man incurable : and some instance in Ezekiah , whom God upon his prayer of Faith restored to perfect health ; and because his Disease was mortal , therefore the cure was supernatural and miraculous , and said to be obtained by Faith. Others understand it of such as were weak in respect of Warlike strength and valour , and far inferiour to their Enemies for multitude , strength , prowesse , policy ; yet by Faith and confidence in God , few overcame many ; the weak subdued the strong ; the plain unskilful , not only defended themselves , but terrified their Enemies , ; and though at first they were fearful , yet by Faith they strengthned themselves in God , and upon their prayers were encouraged against potent Enemies . 8. Waxed valiant in fight , ] Many of God's Saints , and some of the fore-named , were Souldiers , and men of mighty Valour , who through Faith were so encouraged , that they feared neither the number , nor the strength of their Enemies . Valour is proper unto a good Souldier , and in War is necessary , as fear and co●ardize is the ruine of many a goodly Army . War is very dangerous , and full of hazard , and the event uncertain . The more the danger and the difficulty , the greater measure of fortitude is requisite : The nature of Valour is not wholly to contemn dangers , but to foresee and resist them , and no wayes yield unto them ; to adventure upon them , and march through them . It 's the strength of the mind , without which the strength of the Body is to little purpose . This is not a blind boldness , nor meerly moral , and grounded only upon Reason , but it is divine . For when the Cause was good , and they had a Command with a Promise , and sometimes with instructions from God , they had great reason to be valiant ; they might say with David , after they had prayed , I will not be afraid of ten thousands of People , which have set themselves round about me , Psal. 3. 6. When the Lord was his Light , and Salvation , and strength of his Life , he had little cause to fear . For though an Host should encamp against him , his heart was not afraid ; though War did rise against him , yet in that would he be confident , Psal. 27. 1 , 3. These did not fight only for their Estates , Wives , Children , and their Country ; but for their Religion , the Covenant , and the Cities of their God. Their valour was grounded upon the goodness of their cause , and the promise of their God ; which firmly supported their Faith , as their Faith did much increase their Valour . 9. They turned to Flight the Armies of the Aliens , ] These Aliens were Heathens and Idoliters , and so Enemies not only to their Country , but to their Religion and their God. This made their Cause the better , and more just , and the Enemies Cause the more unjust . The event of their Wars against these was , that they routed them , and made them turn their backs and sly : For as they sought for God out of Faith , so God fought for them according to his Promise , which was the ground of their Belief and Confidence . Most of these Wars seem to be defensive , or , if offensive , yet waged against injurious People , who were Enemies not only to them , but to God ; and this Success , and these Victories were extraordinary . If , in a just War , we have the like Cause , and the like Faith , we may expect the like Success . But now many Wars are made amongst Christians , and sometimes in the bowels of the same Nation ; and the Cause is not just , but the Quarrel is begun and continued out of Pride , Malice , Cruelty , Ambition , and desire of Revenge ; and they sight not out of Faith against God's Enemies , but against God's People . § . 34. The Apostle proceeds in this Rhetorical strain , to enumerate other effects of their Faith. Ver. 35. Women received their Dead , raised to life again ; and others were tortured , not accepting deliverance , that they might obtain a better Resurrection . ] IN these words , we may observe two Consequents of Faith. 1. The Resurrection of persons dead . 2. The suffering of cruel torments in hope of the Resurrection to eternal life . The first is to referred to the mercies obtained by Faith ; the second , to the sufferings which are to be reduced to the Catalogue of Sufferings , which follow . In the first , we may observe , 1. What the mercy received was . 2. Who received it . 3. By what they received it . 1. The mercy received was great , and such as could not have been given , but by God , and also by his extraordinary power . For it presupposeth the parties raised to be dead , which is the last and greatest of all evils in this Life , and puts an end to all our earthly Hopes and Comforts , which it wholly taketh away . And though men may strengthen the Weak , heal the Sick relieve the oppressed , and deliver out of many Troubles and Dangers ; yet Death they cannot prevent , when the fatal hour approacheth ; nor restore life after it 's once lost . Death is an invincible Enemy , and neither can Man or Angel rescue any out of Death's power : yet the parties dead , which were Children , were raised , life restored to them , and Soul and Body separated , were re-united , yet to be separated again ; for the life restored was not immortal . 2. The parties who received this extraordinary Mercy , were both Women and Mothers , as the parties dead were their Children . The one was the Widow of Zarepta , 1 King. 17. 19. and he that raised her son , was Elijah . The other was the Shunamite , whose son being dead , was restored to life by Elisha , 2 King. 4. 21. There was a third person raised from the dead , when he was cast into the Grave of the Prophet . We do not read of any other dead persons restored to life in the Old Testament , by these or any other Prophets . 3. By Faith they are said to have received their dead . It 's not written , that they raised them , but that they received them being raised : The Prophets did raise them , restore them , and deliver them to their Mothers . Yet neither could these Prophets , by their own power do any such thing ; for it was an effect of the almighty power of God , who made them his Instruments ; and by them , upon their instant prayers , did this great Work : yet their prayers without Faith , could not have been so effectual . The Women also did much desire this mercy , and did believe that God by the Prophets could restore their Children : which were raised by the Faith of Prophets , and received alive by the Faith of the Mothers . The second Effect here mentioned , is Patience in such as suffered cruel Torments in their Bodies . Here begins the Catalogue of the suffering of the Saints , which did evidence their Faith ; without which we can neither do good , nor suffer evil , so as God requireth . This example is not found in Canonical Scripture , therefore the Apostle knew it either by Tradition , or some historical Writing ; yet so , that he some wayes knew infallibly the truth of the matter . Some think the Apostle understood Eliazar mentioned , 2 Mach. 6. 18 , 19 , 20 , &c. and the Woman and her seven Sons so cruelly tortured , as we read in 2 Maccab. 7. Chapter following , who are related to have suffered constantly in hope of the Resurrection . In the words we may observe , 1. Their Suffering . 2. Their non-Acceptance of Deliverance . 3. Their Faith. 1. Their Suffering ; they were Tortured . The Sufferings of God's People may be truly said to be either Trials , or Chastifements , or Punishments , or some or all of these ; and if we consider the Evils which both good and bad are subject unto in this Life , we must distinguish between the matter and the manner . For the matter of Sufferings , passively considered , may be the same in all ; but the manner , as also the Causes , are very different : For the Sufferings of God's Saints are so qualified by Faith , that in them many divine vertues are manifested ; and they tend , though not to the meriting , yet to the attaining of eternal Glory : For if we suffer with Christ , we shall be glorified with him , Rom. 8. 17. And our leight Affliction , which is but for a moment , worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory , 2 Cor. 4. 17. These Persons here intended , are said to be Tympanized , which is , to be tormented several wayes ; as by beating and fustigation , by racking and extension , by tearing and excoriation ; for the word it self doth not determine the manner of Torment . Therefore it 's well turned by this general word Tortured , that is , they were put to bodily pain : The Torturers were An●●ochus and his cursed Agents , the Sufferers and Subjects of these Tortures were the Jews , which refused to obey the Commands of that cruel Tyrant contrary to the Laws of God. 2. The Non-Acceptance of Deliverance doth imply , that they might upon certain Conditions have been freed from these cruel Pains , and so have prevented Death ; and that they rather chose to suffer more and dy , than accept of the Conditions . If we consult the History , we shall understand , 1. That they were commanded to do some things contrary to the Laws of God. 2. That though they were in the Power of a cursed , cruel Prince , and perswaded both by Promise and threatning to obey , yet they refused . 3. That upon the Refusal they were tortured . 4. In some Intermission of the torture they were advised again to yield ; for their Persecutors thought the bitterness of the pain might prevail much with them . 5. Yet it did not ; for they remained constant , and were ready to suffer the worst , and to dy rather than disobey their God. This was the Cause of their Suffering , and made it glorious : For they suffered not as Malefactors for their Crimes , but for Righteousness sake , and did manifest that they loved God and Righteousness more than their lives . 3. They did thus suffer , thus refuse Deliverance , to obtain a better Resurrection ; this was the End of both , and did manifest both their Faith and Hope . 1. Their Faith , in that they did believe there was a Resurrection unto eternal Life , and that God not only could but also would raise them up again ; restore an immortal , glorious , blessed Life , for a miserable , short , and mortal Breath ; and abundantly recompence their cruel Pains suffered in Obedience to him with eternal Pleasures . They were assured , that God was a Rewarder of those who diligently seek him by doing Good , and suffering Evil for his sake . 2. Their Hope grounded upon this Faith was , their constant expectation of this Resurrection according to God's Promise ; For he had promised it to all such as really love him : and their Suffering was a great Evidence of their Title , and did assure them of Possession in due time . Here two things are to be noted : 1. That Resurrection to Immortality is general , and common to all , both good and bad ; for all must rise again to Judgment : Yet some shall rise to Condemnation , and the Suffering of eternal Shame and Punishment , and others unto everlasting Life and Glory . This latter Resurrection is here meant , which is said to be better , because by it they should receive a better Life than could be enjoyed on Earth . 2. That it 's better for any Man to suffer the most cruel Punishments , and the worst of Tortures , Man can inflict , than lye under extream and everlasting Pains , and the loss of Heaven in the Life to come ; and this was a Principle and Ground of their Patience , Constancy , and Fidelity to their God : Thus they became true Martyrs , proved Victorious , and were crowned in Heaven . § . 35. Besides the former , there were others who suffered other kinds of Evils ; for it follows , Ver. 36. And others had Trial of cruel Mockings , and Scourgings ; yea moreover , of Bonds and Imprisonment . HEre are three different Evils suffered by the Saints : 1. Mockings . 2. Scourgings . 3. Bonds and Imprisonments . So that the parts of the Text are three , 1. The Enumeration of these Evils . 2. Their Suffering of them . 3. Their Faith. 1. The Evils were , 1. Mockings . The Parties mocked were God's Saints and Prophets ; the Parties mocking were their Enemies and Persecutors , which proved to be sometimes their own Brethren , of the same Nation , Language , Kindred , Religion ; and amongst these , sometimes the basest of the People , sometimes the Priests , Princes , and Rulers , who should have honoured and protected them . These Mockings issue out of Contempt , and tend unto the Disgrace and Dishonour of the Party mocked , and makes it a Sport to abuse them , so as to rejoyce in their misery : These Mockings are sometimes in words , sometimes in signs , sometimes in both . And because to a grave serious Person , of eminent Worth , some of these Mockings are very bitter , cutting , cruel , not only in respect of the matter , but also of the Circumstances , this made the Sufferings more glorious . But why our Translators should add the word Cruel , I know not ; the Septuagint , and other Authors , do not use either the Verb or Noun in that sense : Yet to proud men that stand upon their Honour , Mocking is far more grievous than to the lowly & humble . 2. Scourgings . This is a Punishment also of great disgrace & somtimes of cruel pain , when by Whips , either of Cords or Wires , not only the Skin is broken , but the very Flesh torn . And this was the more grievous , because it was an usual Punishment of Slaves , of vilest Persons , and of such as were of worst behaviour , and by it they were not only put to pain , but to open shame . 3. The third Punishment was of Bonds and Imprisonnsent : Bonds were Shackles , Fe●●ers , Chains , Manacles , wherewith their feet or hands or some other parts were bound . Prisons were usually strong places , and many times nasfy and uncomfortable ; and the worst kind of them were deep , dark , and dirty Dungeons : Both these were restraints of Liberty , which is so precious and desirable . The End of them was the Reservation of Malefactors or suspected Persons , till the time of Trial and Judgment ; and close Imprisonment was so much the more grievous , when they were deprived of all comfortable Society , and no friends suffered to relieve them . 2. These they suffered ; some endured one of them , some more , some all : For they had Trial or Experience of these things ; so some understand it , as though the sense were , that they did not fear them threatned , but feel them inflicted . Others think that these were called Trials from God , to manifest the sincerity of their Faith and their heavenly Vertues , that they might certainly know the happiness of their Condition ; or from their Petsecutors , to shake their Faith , and cause them to renounce their Fidelity to God. But the former sense is more plain and genuine , as appears by the Septuagint using it so , and also from the 29th . Verse of this Chapter ; and it signifies , that they were not onely in danger of , but under the present pressure of these evils . Though their Enemies did afflict and vex them unjustly and wickedly , yet they suffered them patiently , and resolved that though God should kill them , yet they would trust in him . 3. They thus suffered these things by Faith : For they knew the way to Heaven was rough and troublesom , and that these Sufferings could not separate them from the Love of God , nor deprive them of the great Reward , but prepare them for eternal Glory : For they vetily believed that there was eternal Life , that God had promised it , and that Constancy in the Covenant , and Perseverance in the way of Righteousness was the only means to attain Possession ; and they knew , that though their Sufferings were grievous , yet the Reward would infinitely recompence all . § . 36. The Catalogue of the Saints Sufferings is continued and enlarged : For , Ver. 37. They were stoned , sawen asunder , tempted , slain with the Sword ; they wandred about in Sheep-skins , and Goat-skins , destitute , afflicted , tormented . IN this Text we find several sorts of Sufferers ; for some were put to Death , some banished , or fled , and wandred in great want and misery , seeking to save their Lives and keep a good Conscience : So that they are of two sorts . 1. Such as were put to Death . 2. Such as wandred and continued a miserable Life . 1. Those that dyed were , 1. Either stoned , or 2. Sawen asunder , or 3. Tempted , or 4. Slain with the Sword. These were the several wayes whereby they were put to Death : And those capital Punishments , which God and just Law-givers determined for capital Offendors , were inflicted upon the most innocent and best Persons of the World. The Power of punishing Offenders is good , and from God , but the abuse of it is most intolerable ; for Persecutors condemn those whom God doth justify . 1. Some were stoned . This was a Punishment determined by God in the Judicial Laws of Moses , to be executed upon several Delinquents and Transgressors : Yet no Judg had Warrant from God to condemn any innocent Person to this kind of Death ; yet Zacharias , for charging the Jews with their Sins , and denbuncing God's Judgments against them , was stoned to Death . 2. Some were sawen asunder : Thus some say Isaiah was slain by Manasses , this was a cruel kind of Execution . 3. Some were tempted , so many printed Books read ; yet few can make sense of it : Others think it should be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were bu●●t ; and this is more agreeable to the Place and Scope ; Others omit it , as the Syriack , the Aethiopick , the first Greek Manu-script in New-Colledge , Oxford . Neither do Chrysostom or Theophylact read it , as Grotius informs us ; yet a Lapide finds it in Chrysostom , which seems to imply , that either one of them was mistaken , or that they followed several Editions . If it should be read , and in this place , as it 's hardly probable , then it signifies , that several were tempted by some cruel kind of Death to forsake their God , yet they did not . 4. Some were slain by the Sword , which is used as well by the Magistrate against offending Subjects , as by the Souldier against Enemies : Martyrs might be thus slain , either judicially or extrajudicially , without any formal Process of Judgment ; for many times they laid hainous Crimes to their Charge , suborned Witnesses , and so sentenced them to Death : Sometimes they made Justice Injustice , Obedience to God Disobedience to Man , and vertuous Acts hainous Crimes ; and so called Good , Evil ; and Light , Darkness . Yet these were not all the kinds of capital Punishments which the Servants of God suffered , but only some few ; for the Cruelty of Persecutors invented others , and made use of them . The whole signifies , that the Lives of the Saints and Prophets were taken away cruelly and most unjustly by several kinds of tormenting Deaths . 2. Some were not slain , but lived a miserable Life : For , 1. They wandred . They might be Wanderers , either by constraint , or voluntarily ; by Constraint , as when they were banished , or forcibly dispossessed of their Houses and dwelling places ; voluntarily , as when for fear of Death , or to enjoy the quiet of Conscience , they fled out of their Country , or from the places of their Habitation , so that they had no certain safe place of Rest : They were continually flitting and removing , as not having where to lay their heads . 1. In this wandring condition they were destitute of Rayment and Cloaths , whereby they might cover their Shame , and defend their Bodies from the Injuries of Heaven . They wanted Stuff , or , if they had Stuff , they could not have them made ; and in this Case they used Sheep-skins and Goat-skins ; which Expression implyes , 1. That their Cloathing was very mean and coorse ; yea , not so much as shapen , sewed up , and sitted for their Bodies , but only wrapped about some principal pa●●s , leaving others naked . These did not deserve the name of Garments , but were nothing else but Skin upon Skin , the Skin of Beasts upon the Skin of Man. We use Apparel for necessity , conveniency , decency , and pomp : These were far from pomp , there was neither decency not conveniency in them ; they did hardly reach so far as necessity required . Though great is the Pride , Vanity , and excess in Apparrel of many in these times , who little think of this sad condition of God's Saints ; yet they know not how soon they may be stript of all . 3. They were destitute , that is , in great want of other Necessaries , and , as the Word doth signify , very poor and indigent : for they had left all their Substance , or it was taken from them , or they could have no use of it in their Necessity . And if they wandred amongst strangers , little was to be expected from them ; for strangers are many times used strangely , and few are sensible of their miseries . Some think the word may be turned [ descerti ] , deserted and forsaken ; for in such a case , few dare own their own Flesh and Blood , and nearest Relations . Yet the former sense seems to be more genuine ; For their very Habit did signify , that their Penury was very great . 4. They were afflicted ; for in such a case their straits must be many , and the pressures and perplexities of Body and Mind very great ; and such as none , but some , who have been in their case , can truly apprehend . 5. They were tormented . The word may signify , they were ill handled , sorely vexed , oppressed , and brought very low . § . 37. Yet these were not all their miseries ; for though they were precious men of worth , and the best in the World , yet they were thrust out of the World. For so it followeth , Ver. 38. Of whom the World was not worthy ; they wandred in Deserts , and in Mountains , and in Dens and Caves of the Earth . ] THe first words seem to be put in parenthetically , and so the words following agree immediately with the 37 verse . The Propositions are two , 1. The World was not worthy of them . 2. They wandred in Deserts , Mountains , Dens and Caves of the Earth . The first stands of it self , and is yet pertinenly interlined . Their Persecutors did vilify them , and thought them unworthy to live and converse amongst men , not fit to be suffered in any civil or religious Society . They counted them the dross , r●feuse , and filth of the World. Therefore they banished them , expelled them , and , as it were , forced them out of their Company , to live amongst Beasts ; yet they were persons of excellent worth , the honour and grace of the World , more fit for Heaven then Earth , the only persons who were able to avert God's wrath , and for whose sake the World did stand , and by whom the destruction and conslagration of the World was delayed . They were of high esteem with God and the wicked World was not worthy of their Society . 2. These , put out of the World , were put to wander . Before , it 's said , in the former verse , They went about , for so the word signifies ; here it 's said , They wandered . Some think the former word intends , that they went from place to place , and conversed with men , though strangers , though they had no certain place of aboad amongst them ; and this latter denoted a more sad and desolate condition ; for they wandred out of all wayes , and in places neither inhabited , nor well habitable . Yet both words signify , they had no fixed place of habitation amongst men : But then it might be said , Where did they wander ? The answer , in places inhabited by men , or in places not so inhabited , the latter is here meant . For they wandred , 1. In deserts and solitary places , where were neither Cities , nor Towns , nor Villages , nor Houses , nor so much as any poor Cottages . And though man by Nature be a sociable Creature , and society with men be comfortable ; yet they could not enjoy any such comfort . To converse with men , was dangerous to be deprived of society , was uncomfortable ; therefore to avoid the danger , they willingly did forego the comfort . 2. They wandered in Mountains , which also are solitary places , and remote from the company of men . And 3. In these Mountains , amongst the high and craggy Rocks , there were dens and hollow places made by Nature , or by Art. 4. Where there were neither Deserts nor Mountains , they made Caves and Holes under the Ground , and by Art and Industry contrived Labyrinths , and subterraneal Passages , like unto Roma Soterana . Here they hid themselves , and laid up such Utensils and Necessaries as they had ; hither they did in time of danger retire themselves . So abandoning the World , they chose such desert and desolate places , where they might be more safe amongst wild Beasts than amongst their Persecutors ; where they might enjoy peace and quiet of Conscience , converse with God , and have sweet communion with their Saviour , whom they prized and preferred far above the contents of the World. Thus David hid himself in the Wilderness of Maon , and of Ziph , in the Cave of Adullam , and in divers other places for to save himself from the persecuting rage of Saul . Thus an hundred of the Lord's Prophets were hid by Obadiah by fifty in a Cave , and were fed with Bread and Water . Thus Elijah fled from Jezabel into the Wilderness , and stayed not till he came to Horeb. In all these Sufferings , you must observe , 1. That they were innocent , and so persecuted without any just cause . 2. They encured Death , and all these miseries with patient and chearful minds . 3. In all this they preferred Christ before the World , and were willing to suffer loss of All , and many great miseries for his sake , and continued faithful in the Covenant of their God. 4. They did all this by Faith. For they believed the Word of God to be true , rested in his promises , exspected the great Reward , and were assured , that it was better to suffer Affliction for a while , then lose the eternal Comforts of their God. § . 38. Thus the Catalogue and Induction of these rare Worthies is finished ; and by it we understand the universal necessity of Faith , and the excellency of it in the rare Effects thereof , and the Chapter is closed up thus , Ver. 39. And these all having obtained a good Report through Faith , received not the Promise : Ver. 40. God having provided some better thing for us , that they without us should not be made perfect . IN these words , we may observe the difference of the Times wherein these Worthies , and those wherein the Apostle and these Hebrews lived ; with the imperfection of the one , and the perfection of the other . In the former Verse we have a Rhetorical Epanalepsis , and a elegant Repetition of the main Proposition , which the Author intended to prove by Induction . For he had said , ver . 2. That by Faith , which he had described , the Elders obtained a good Report . This he repeats again in this manner , These all having obtained a good Report through Faith. The propositions are two , 1. The forementioned Elders obtained a good Report through Faith. 2. Yet they received not the Promise . In the first , we must consider ; 1. The parties intended . 2. Their good Report . 3. The means whereby they obtained this good Report . These things were formerly spoken of , and therefore I may be brief : 1. The persons formerly said to be the Elders ; that is , the Saints who lived in former time . This was a general term , which is here more explicitely limited , and enlarged by pointing at the particular persons . The words are [ all these ] ; by [ these ] are meant Abel , Enoch , Noah , Abraham , and the rest by name expressed , or some other wayes implyed . [ All ] , this note of universality puts them all and every one together , without exclusion or exception of any one . 2. These , all these , obtained a good Report , and had their Testimonials : To be witnessed , is to be commended and well spoken of by a Synechdoche , as you formerly heard , The person , who approved and testified of them , was God , and that in the holy Scriptures , and Records of former times ; and they must needs be good , whom God doth commend . All expressed by name , are spoken of expresly and particularly in the Canonical Writings of the Old Testament ; and some others not named at all . The rest who lived after the Canon was finished , are also in the Canon commended implicitely , and by undoubted Consequence . For when God approves any Virtues and virtuous Acts , he approves all such as are endued with those Vertues , and manifest them in their lives and conversation . 3. The means whereby they became so famous , and of so good report , was , their Faith. For without it , they neither could have pleased God , nor done so rare and glorious Works , nor obtained so great Promises , nor suffered with patience so great tryals and afflictions . Faith was the fundamental Virtue in them all , and the very principle of all their divine Actions and Sufferings . These obtained a good Report , yet received not the Promise . For , 1. They had a Promise . 2. They received it not . 1. By Promise , understand something promised , which , upon God's Promise made to them , they expected . What this was , is doubted by many ; some will have it to be the Resurrection , some the Deliverance out of Limbus ; where it 's imagined , their Souls were lodged till Christ descended into Hell , and brought them out of that Lake . As for the former opinion , if understood of the universal Resurrection , it may be true : As for the latter , it presupposeth divers things , which yet were never proved ; and therefore it 's no matter or fit object of a divine Faith : it 's a meer fiction , and no better . This is very certain , and clear out of Scripture , that they all had a Promise , of Christ to be exhibited ; and this was the great Promise , the foundation and chief corner-stone of their Faith : No Faith but in him could please God , or give sinful man any hope of eternal Glory . 2. This Promise they received not ; for though it be said before , ver . 33. That many of them received Promises , and it 's true they did so ; yet Christ was not exhibited in their times , they all dyed before the Incarnation , Passion , Death , and Glorification of Christ , The Word made Flesh. This signifies both the imperfection of those Times , and of their Faith ; for they believed indeed in Christ , and by that Faith were justified and saved : yet their Faith was in Christ to come , and could not be so full and clear , as that of the Saints under the dispensation of the Gospel . And the Redemption of Christ to come was fore-seen , and fore-accepted of God , and was effectual to all Believers from the beginning . Yet this doth manifest the excellency of Faith , in that it was so effectual in these Saints before the exhibition of Christ ; and doth much commend these Saints , who seeing Christ represented unto them at so great a distance , yet did so firmly believe in him , and by that Faith did effect so glorious Works , and so constantly endured so many Afflictions . And here one thing specially is to be noted , that is , that the Faith , whereby they obtained a good Report , was not a meer speculative assent , but a divine , lively , powerful , working Faith : Such must ours be , or else we can never certainly expect eternal life . This condemns many of us , living in the times and light of the Gospel . For some of us have no Faith ; some have only a speculative liveless Faith , some have only a weak Faith , and come far short of these Worthies . Yet we have their example , and enjoy a clearer Light : Thus far concerning the times wherein these Saints lived . 3. In the next place , follows God's benignity and favour unto us , who live in the dayes of the Gospel . [ For God hath provided some better thing for us , that without us they should not be made perfect . ] Where we have two Propositions , 1. God provided some better thing for us . 2. They were not made perfect without us . In the former observe , 1. Some better thing . 2. The same provided by God. for us . This better thing is the exhibition of Christ , and the revelation of the Gospel , which made the latter times more perfect and more happy . The truth of this appears , 1. By that [ Halelujal● ] which the Angels sung at Christ's Nativity , when they brought the News thereof from Heaven , Luke 2. 13 , 14. 2. By words of our Saviour , who turning unto his Disciples , said privately , Blessed are the Eyes , which see the things , that ye see . For I tell you , that many Prophets and Kings have desired to see the things which ye see , and have not seen them ; and to hear the things which ye hear , and have not heard them , Luke 10. 23 , 24. 3. The joy of Simeon , when he saw his Saviour , though then but an Infant , and imbraced that blessed Babe in his arms , doth manifest the same . 4. We might add , that the times of the Gospel were more excellent , because the Angels came to School on Earth amongst Men , to learn something that they had not known before . This is implyed by these words of Paul , And to let all men see , what is the fellowship of the mystery , which from the beginning of the World hath been hid in God , who created all things by Jesus Christ. To the intent that [ Now ] unto Principalities and Powers in heavenly places , might be known [ by the Church ] the manifold wisdom of God : According to the eternal purpose , which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord , Eph. 3. 9 , 10 , 11. And by those of Peter , 1 Pet. 1. 17. — Which things the Angels desire to look into . 5. Upon the exhibition of Christ , and the revelation of the Gospel , the rule of Faith was more fully , clearly , and distinctly declared ( as the former places do signify ) , and the Holy Ghost was more plentifully powred down from Heaven . So that the times of the Gospel were times of far greater perfection then the former had been . 2. This better thing was provided by God , who disposeth of all times , and of all things to be done , as knowing both what , and when is most fit to be effected . And as by his Wisdom he contrived this better thing , so by his Will he determined it , and when the time came by his Almighty Power , he accomplished what he had provided . This implie● , that it was his Work , and from his own free Will he made this provision , without any thoughts of Man. 3. He provided this better thing [ for us ] , that is , for Paul and the Hebrews , and all such as lived under that excellent dispensation , and enjoyed the light of the Gospel . For they are the parties , who had the benefit and the priviledg , which the Elders and Ancient worthies expected , but never received in their times . § . 40. They were not perfected without us , this is the second Proposition , which , 1. Implies , That they were perfected . 2. Expresly affirms , That they were not perfected without us . 1. The former times were times of imperfection , both in respect of the object of Faith , which was Christ to come , and also in respect of the revelation and proposal of the rule , which was then more dark and implicite ; and therefore before Christ's exhibition , and the clear light of the Gospel , the Saints and Elders of Old , could not be perfected . What the imperfection of their Souls and Spirits separated , was before the time of Christ's Ascention , we know not so clearly , and we are ignorant in part of that perfection , which they then acquired . But certainly , besides that some of them were raised with Christ , their condition was much bettered . The knowledg of their Saviour was much increased , and their joyes much advanced . But that this perfection should be their deliverance out of the dark [ Limbus ] , and upper part of Hell ; I cannot be perswaded , I find no Scripture for it . 2. Yet they were not perfected without us , who live under the Gospel . God so ordered it , that as their Faith was not so perfect as ours , so their estate should not be bettered , till the glorious light of Heaven shined out upon us and them joyntly , and upon us both together . If they were not made perfect without us , and they received not the promise , and we did , and they continued constant in Faith ; how much more are we , who have received it , bound to be constant and persevere . § . 41. Though we find many examples in Scripture proposed for imitation , and several Duties pressed thereupon ; yet we find no place in this kind so full , so large , so particular as this of the Apostle , wherein he singles out the prime and choisest Worthies of God , which have lived in all Ages before Christ from the beginning of the World. And it 's a kind of Induction , which though not expresly , yet implicitely reacheth almost a general . For examples logically considered , are but particular individuals , which united together , make up a [ Totum genericum ] , which many say , is nothing but [ species ●●sima ] ; but we must not quarrel about words . Morally and Theologically taken , they do illustrate and make plain the matter whereof they are examples ; but as examples do not bind , except the matter be found in some precept in force , or of universal and perpetual obligation , as this of Faith and perseverance in Faith is . Yet this is observable in Scripture , that God doth not only give us examples for imitation , but commands us to follow them , and they are added to the precepts to make the duty more evident , more easy , and more fit for encouragement . Surely there was some special reason , why the Authour should so inlarge in this topick of examples : The reason seems to be the necessity of Faith in respect of Salvation , which was such as that never any of the best of Saints could attain it , or did attain it without this Virtue . Besides , as there was danger , so there was great fear of Apostacy , because of many temptations . And it 's remarkable , that he doth not instance in any Ceremonial Duty , as of Sacrifice , and such like ; nor in the works of the Law , but in Faith , yet a most lively and working Faith : and he doth manifest , that this was a fundamental virtue from the beginning . As for his method , it 's as clear as such a matter is capable of , and the subject is handled with a great deal of artifice . He , 1. Describes Faith , and makes that the basis and foundation of his following Discourse , not only to let them know what the duty was he formerly exhorted unto , but to give light to the Examples following . 2. He signifies that it was an ancient and general vertue whereby the Elders became so famous . 3. Because it was fit in producing so many Examples to observe some Order , and so begin ; with one more ancient than the rest , as with Abel , who was the second Son of the first Man ; and lest it might be said that there were many Ages of the World before his time , he informs us that the World had a beginning , and that by Faith we believe it , and therefore his first Example is one living in the beginning of the World , and from him draws the Series or Catalogue down to latter times . CHAP. XII . Wherein the Exhortation to Perseverance is continued . § . 1. THE Analysis of this Chapter is easy ; for in the Exhortation continued , we must observe , 1. The Duty exhorted upto , which is Perseverance . 2. The Reasons and Motives whereupon it 's urged . Which are , 1. The former Examples . 2. The Example of Christ. 3. The Nature of their Sufferings , as they come from God. 4. Divers ill Consequents ; if Apostacy , and the Causes and Occasions thereof , be not avoided . 5. The Excellency of the Church under the Gospel , above the Church under the Law. 6. The Manner of revealing the Gospel . 7. The Immutability of that happy and glorious Estate which we receive by the Gospel . The first Reason is from the former Examples , in this manner , Ver. 1. Wherefore seeing we also are encompassed about with so great a Cloud of Witnesses , let us lay aside every weight , and the Sin which doth so easily beset us , and let us run with Patience the Race that is set before us . IN these words the Apostle makes use of the former Examples , inferring from thence an hortative Conclusion : For they are brought in by the Illative Particle Therefore , which implies , that Logically considered they are Dianoetical . So that in them we may observe , 1. The Premisses . 2. The Conclusion . If we look upon the Text Theologically , we find 1. A Duty commanded , which is , Perseverance . 2. A Reason why we should perform it , and that is , the Multitude of Examples proposed for Imitation . I will begin with the Reason , wherein we have the Premisses ; and it is this , [ We have a Multitude , or are compassed with a Multitude of Witnesses . This is the Assumption of the Syllogism , and presupposeth the Proposition , which is this , [ That they who have a Multitude of Examples , ought to follow them , ] out of which the first words of the Text are assumed : And in them two things are affirmed , 1. There was a Multitude , or a great Cloud of Witnesses . 2. They were compassed with this great Cloud . 1 , There were Witnesses . By Witnesses are understood the rare Worthies mentioned and reckoned up in the former Chapter , as Abel , Enoch , Noah , Abraham , and the rest , which here he doth not severally and distinctly name , but puts them in one Body to make them a great Cloud . These are called Witnesses , not only passively because they obtained a good Report or Testimony , for God witnessed of them and commended them ; but also actively , because they testified and declared by their rare Acts , and many Sufferings , the excellency and necessity of Faith ; so that by it they became Examples worthy of Imitation . Every one of them severally , and all jointly , speak to all future Generations , and exhort them to believe constantly as they did , and they shall receive the like Reward : Yet they might be Witnesses , and yet not so many as to make a Cloud , but they were a Cloud , that is , a Multitude , as a Cloud is made up of a Multitude of Vapours gathered together , & condensed in one Body . The Expression seems to be taken from the words of the Prophet , Who are these that fly as a Cloud , and as Doves to their Windows ? Isa. 60. 8. The place speaks of the Multitude of Converts which should be added to the Church , and they are compared for their Multitude to a Cloud , and to Doves which fly in great Companies , and darken the Air intercepting the Light of the Heavens . Yet they were not only a Cloud , and so many , but a great Cloud , and so very numerous ; and yet more numerous , because they did compass them on every side . All these did compass them , and were set before them in such Multitudes as Examples , and proposed to them for Imitation and Encouragement . 2. The Conclusion he infers from the Euthymetical Premisses , follows ; the Illation implies an Obligation to imitate them , and the Duty is delivered by way of Exhortation ; For it was their Duty to follow their Example , and he exhorts them to do so . The Duty exhorted unto hath two parts , 1. They must lay aside every weight , and the Sin which doth so easily beset them . 2. They must run with Patience the Race which was set before them . The former is subordinate unto the latter , which cannot be performed without the Performance of the former . The Pharse and Expression is Metaphorical , and taken from the Isthmian or Olympian Games , wherein certain Persons did strive in wrastling or running or some other Excercises for a prize . And in these there were many By-standers and Spectarors , and a space in the midst of them for the Agonists and Contenders to run in , and a Goal before them ; and he that by constant and speedy running did reach the Goal first , obtained the Victory and wan the Prize ; and in the first place they laid aside their loose and heavy Garments , that they might not be hindred or entangled with them , but that they might more speedily , and with greater Expedition , finish the Stage and Course . Thus much premised , the parts of the Duty , as you have heard before , are two : 1. They must lay aside every weight , and the Sin that did so easily beset them . 2. They must run with Patience the Race that was set before them . 1. There is something to be laid aside : It was their Duty [ removere prohibens ] to remove Impediments ; for there are Impediments , and these must be removed and laid aside , because they will hinder us in this heavenly Course . The things that do hinder are said to be Weight and Sin. By the former , some understand all outward ; by the latter , all inward things which make our Passage slow and troublesom . By Weight no doubt is meant something , which to the Soul is as heavy things are to the Body : Some think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies Pride , and an high Perswasion of our own Perfection , as though we had finished our Course and obtained the Prize . This is contrary to that of the Apostle , Brethrea , I count not my self to have apprchended , but this thing I do , forgetting those things that are behind , and reaching forth to those things that are before ; I press towards the Mark for the high prize of the Calling of God in Christ Jesus , Phil. 3. 13 , 14. This is Hensius his conceir . Others by it do think are signified the cares of this Life , the Multitude of secular business , the many Temptations and Opposition ; from without ; and no doubt all these do hindet much . Yet by Weight may be signified Sin , and so the latter word is put exegerieally to interpret the former : This Sin , as many tell us , is our imbred Corruption ; and this is not only native , but acquired and improved ; and is not only our Imperfection , which is our Weakness and Want of Strength , but a positive Deprivation , which ; with the Devil and the World , will make a great Opposition . By Reason of the former , we can make but little speed ; by Reason of the latter , we are often Interrupted . From this Corruption arise our cares , fears , discouragements , and our too much love of the World : And our Translation takes notice of the Article in the Greek , and turns it The Sin , which some will have to be original Corruption and Concupiscence ; yet it may import , that in every Man there is some Predominant Sin , and in every regenerate Person some Reliques of that Sin , from which is the greatest danger , because , as it followeth , it will so easily beset us . It 's like our Garments , which enfold us , and stick close unto us . By Reason of this Weight , and the Sin which doth easily beset us , our spiritual Strength , Vigour , and Agility , are much abated , and our Course towards eternal Glory retarded ; therefore the Duty is , to cast off these . This is the same with putting off the Old Man , and mortifying the inordinate Inclinations and Motions both of the concupiscible and irascible part ; and this Mortification must be universal , we must cast off every weight . 2. The second Proposition is , That when these Impediments are removed , and every Weight and Sin cast off , to run with Patience the Race that is set before us . This implies , 1. That there is a glorious prize set before us . 2. That there is a Distance between it and us . 3. That there is a space or way through which we must pass , and leads directly unto it . These things presupposed , the Duty is , To run with Patience the Race that is set before us . This Running is a Motion , and a speedy Motion too , whereby we measure the space between Heaven and us ; it must be speedy , and therefore requires the putting forth of our utmost Strength so as to strive , as the Original word turned Race implies . As we must run , and so make speed , so we must run with Patience . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies , 1. That the way is troublesom . 2. That it 's long . It 's troblesom , because we shall meet with many Impediments ; it 's long , because of the great Distance between us and eternal Glory . Because it 's troublesom and grievous to Flesh and Blood , therefore we must be patient and endure ; because it 's long , we must be constant : and though the Flesh may much desire it , yet we must not rest , nor think of Rest , before we reach the Goal , and be possessed of the Prize ; for the word doth not only signify Patience , but continued Patience . If it be God's Will , that we must pass unto our heavenly Inheritance through a Wilderness , and there to wander forty years and longer , we must be content , go on , not rest , not think of returning into Aegypt ; we must quietly submit unto his good Pleasure . This business of Perseverance is not so easy ; it cannot be performed , except we receive a new life and vigour from Heaven , and continual Assistance ; besides our care , watchfulness , and incessant labour . We must strive if ever we will enter in at the strait Gate ; for the Kingdom of God suffereth violence , and the violent take it by force : Yet the Prize is excellent , and far above all that we can do and suffer ; for though we pass through Fire and Water , yet God bringeth us into a wealthy place . The force of the Apostle's Reason is very strong ; for we should persevere , because 1. We have good Examples . 2. These Examples are many . 3. They are Examples of rare and excellent Persons , some of the best that ever lived under Heaven . 4. These Examples , being upon Divine Record , are proposed unto us by God himself . 5. They are Patterns of the rarest Vertues , manifested in their Divine and Noble Acts. 6. They are Precedents , not onely in Words and Profession , but in Deeds and bitter Sufferings , and do manifest unto us , that there is nothing in this Duty impossible , nor any thing so difficult but may be overcome through Christ strengthning and enabling us . § . 2. The Apostle closeth up this Induction with the Example of Jesus Christ our Lord , and the Son of God : This he kept for a Reserve , as far above all the rest ; for Christ was the purest Mirrour of all heavenly Vertues , which , as exemplified in Him , were beyond Comparison , and in the highest Degree . They must eye the other Worthies much , but Christ more , for they must follow them , and run their Race ; yet in running they must be Ver. 2. Looking unto Jesus , the Author and Finisher of our Faith ; who , for the Joy that was set before him , endured the Cross , despising the Shame , and is set down at the right hand of the Throne of God. IN these we have , 1. An Example proposed . 2. An Exhortation to look upon it . In the first we may consider , 1. Who it is that is proposed as an Example . 2. Wherein He is an Example , and what it is in Him which we must look upon . The Party proposed for an Example is Christ , who is described to be 1. The Author 2. The Finisher of our Faith. That which we must look upon , is , 1. His Vertues manifested in his Humiliation . 2. The great Reward of these Vertues , and his glorious Exaltation . The whole may be reduced to these Propositions , 1. Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of our Faith. 2. He , for the Glory set before him , endured the Cross , and despised the Shame . 3. After that , despising the Shame , he had endured the Cross ; he sate down at the right hand of God. 4. In running with Patience the Race that is set before us , We must look upon him thus represented . 1. Christ is the Author and Finisher of our Faith. This is not meant , that he is the adequate Object of our Faith , as saving ; nor , that if Faith be taken for the habit and gift of Faith , that he doth plant it in us at the first , and continueth to preserve it till it be finished ; though both these in some respects are true . But Faith seems here to be taken for our Christian Religion which we profess , and also for the Rule of our Faith and Religion . It 's true , that this Christian Faith was from the beginning , in a large sense ; for there was never any time since the first Promise of Christ , wherein the Saints did not believe in Christ , and had a certain Rule of their Faith : Yet here Faith is taken more strictly for that Doctrine , which represents Christ more fully and clearly , as already come into the World , and as having finished the great Work of Redemption . This place is like that in Chap. 3. 1. where these Hebrews were exhorted to consider the Apostle and the High-Priest of their Profession Christ Jesus . That which is there called Profession , is here called Faith ; he who there is said to be the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession , is said here to be the Author and Finisher of our Faith ; as though he were the Author as an Apostle , and the Finisher as a Priest. That as an Apostle and Prophet he was the Author , Institutor , and first Publisher of our Faith , is evident : For , Chap. 2. 3. that Salvation , that is , that Doctrine of Salvation , which is the Gospel , began first to be spoken by the Lord. He might be said to finish , perfect , and confirm it , as a Priest , when he sealed i● with his Blood , and merited the Spirit of Revelation , to make it known , and of Power , to make it effectual upon our hearts . Again , he is the Finisher of it , as sending the Holy Ghost from Heaven upon the Apostles , and by them making known the Gospel , and diffusing the Christian Religion through the World. In a word , He was the sole and whole efficient Cause of Christian Religion ; and this is the meaning of the words . The Reason of this Character given , is , to set forth the Excellency of the Person , who is here proposed a Pattern , more effectually to encourage us to Imitation . And whom should we follow , if not him to whom we have so near Relation , and upon whom that Religion and Faith whereby we hope to be saved doth so much depend , for the institution , efficacy , and perpetual continuance ? The second Proposition . This Jesus Christ , for the joy that was set before him , endured the Cross , despising the Shame . Wherein we have , 1. The Rice , or Vertue . 2. Prize , or Reward . The way was tough , the Prize was excellent ; yet he ran the Race , and won the Prize . That which made the way so troublesom was the Cross , and the Shame of the Cross ; yet he endured the Cross , and made nothing of the Shame , but run through Pain and Shame , and so attained the eternal Crown of Glory . By Cross is meant , all the cruel pains of his Body , and bitter sorrows of his Soul , which islued from , and were caused by , all these Wrongs and Evils inslicted upon him unjustly and maliciously from Men and Devils , yet justly from God for our Sins , which he had undertaken to expiate . These were such as never any man did suffer , which never any Angel could have born as He did ; thus dear it cost our Saviour to propitiate for our Transgressions , though many make a mock of Sin. By shame we understand all the Abuses , Reproaches , and Indignities cast upon him . He was apprehended , accused , condemned as a Malefactor ; buffetted , hood-winkt , spit upon , scourged , reviled , derided , and put to death upon a Cross , which was the most ignominious death of all others . And the more excellent and innocent he was , the more intolerable the shame . All this must be laid upon him , that God might manifest his hatred of Sin , the sacred power of his Laws , his severest justice against Sin , his Love to Man in transferring from him unto Christ his own Son , that Punishment , which was deserved by our Sin ; and to let men know , that he would not pardon Sin , except his Justice were satisfied . Therefore let no man presume to Sin , but to be afraid to offend his God and Supreme Lord : Yet he endured the Cross , which implies , that he was sore pressed with our sins , and was very sensible of the pressure ; but notwithstanding his strength was such , as he bare this heaviest burden , and that with greatest patience . He did not yield , faint , murmur , or despair ; he overcame all . He despised the shame : Some high Spirits dare look Death in the face , and be no whit daunted or appaled ; yet even these cannot brook shame and disgrace ; they will rather dye , then suffer in their Honour and Reputation , which are dear unto them . Yet Christ endured the shame , and with that patience and constancy , as that he made nothing of it : He despised it , as though it were nothing ; though it was much , and so much as never any suffered . That which in all this did strengthen and encourage him , was the glorious prize , and the joy set before him . This joy , by a Metonymy , signifies that happy and glorious estate which followed upon his Suffering ; for immediately upon his Resurrection he attained an estate of perfection , and layd aside his mortality , and the infirmities of his humiliation , was fully and for ever freed from all Sorrows and Sufferings , did enjoy a most sweet calm and blessed peace of eternal continuance , after that ascends above all Heavens , entred the place of Glory , and had fulness of joy in his Fathers presence , and pleasures at his right hand for evermore , and so bathes himself perpetually in the streams of eternal delights . This joy was set before him , both by a clear representation , and a firm promise , and he had a lively apprehension of it , as it was represented ; and a certain expectation of it , as it was promised . This joy and blessed estate so apprehended , so expected did strengthen , revive , and refresh him in the midst of his Suffering , so that his burden was made the lighter , and his sorrows much abated ; and this was the reason , why he was so patient and chearful in his Sufferings , and so much despised the shame . This patience and chearfulness might be attributed to his Faith ; for he did both believe and trust in his heavenly Father . Yet this Faith was of another kind then ours , far more perfect , and far above our Sphear : And if we had a firmer belief , more lively apprehensions , and a more full assurance of Heaven's Joy and Glory , we might rejoyce in , Tribulation , and be exceeding glad in the midst of siery Flames . Christ knew the time of the Cross and shame was but short , the distance between him and eternal Joy not long , and his assurance of Glory very great ; and this was the reason why he made so little account of the greatest evils that any ever yet did suffer . Proposit. 3. After he had endured the Cross , despising the shame , he sate down at the right hand of the Throne of God. God's Throne puts us in mind of his Majesty and Power ; for he is the Supreme and Universal Lord , Lawgiver , and Judge of the World. The right hand of this Throne is the highest place of Honour , Dignity , and Power , next unto that of Gods. Christ was set at the right hand of this Throne , when he was advanced and mounted above all Angels , and all other Creatures . For all Power in Heaven and Earth was given him before his Ascension , and after he was solemnly invested in Heaven , he began to reign and exercise this Power as Administratour-General of the World. This glorious estate was the great Reward which he received and enjoyed after that he had endured the Cross , and despised the shame . For because he had taken upon him the form of a Servant , and been Obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross , God exalted him , and gave him a Name above every Name . Proposit. 4. In running with patience the Race that is set before us , we must look on Christ thus represented . He that hath a Copy or Pattern set before him for imitation , must often look upon the Pattern or Copy ; and the more excellent the Pattern , the more carefully and frequently it must be eyed and observed . This Pattern is the best that ever was proposed , and that in three respects . 1. Of the person . 2. Of the rare performance of the hard Service performed so patiently and chearfully . 3. The glorious Reward , which followed thereupon . 1. The person was the Authour and Finisher of our Faith , one far above all others . 2. The Pattern wherein his heavenly Virtues were manifest , was the fairest and most excellent that ever was given . And though the Service was the hardest that ever was undertaken , yet it was performed with the greatest perfection . 3. The reward attained and enjoyed , was incomparable and most glorious . All these must severally , and seriously , and frequently be viewed , that we may be the more effectually encouraged . § . 3. Besides what had been said of Christ example , there was something in it farther considerable ; therefore he goes on with his Exhortation , in the words following , Ver. 3. For consider him that endured such contradiction of Sinners against himself , lest you be wearied and faint in your minds . ] THe Apostle here seems to use a Rhetorical Prolepsis or anticipation , for to prevent an Objection which might be made . For they might say , We have not only been reproached and spoiled of our Goods , but much opposed , and our profession is continually contradicted . So the Jews at Rome could tell Paul , As concerning this Sect , we know that every where it 's spoken against , Acts 28. 22. The Answer implied in these words , is to this purpose ; What though it be so much contradicted and opposed , yet there is no reason why ye should be wearied and faint in your minds , if you consider Christ , who endured such contradiction of Sinners against himself . The Text is an Exhortation , and in it we may observe , 1. The Duty exhorted unto . 2. The reason why we should perform it . In the Duty , we have 1. The Matter and Object to be considered . 2. The Act of consideration . All this may be reduced to Propositions , thus . 1. Christ endured much contradiction of Sinners against himself . 2. This they must consider . 3. It must be considered , left they be wearied and faint in their minds . For to understand the first , we may note the several parts of it , as 1. Christ himself was contradicted . 2. He was contradicted by Sinners . 3. He was contradicted much . 4. Yet he endured all this contradiction from Sinners . Propos. 1. 1. Christ himself was contradicted . To be contradicted in strict sense , is to be spoken against ; yet sometimes the word is taken more largely to be opposed , and so one may be in words or deeds . This contradiction presupposeth , 1. A difference in Judgment . 2. For the most part , in Affection ; and this difference is signified usually by words or writing , or some other way . It 's either just or unjust : Just , when it ariseth from a certain knowledg of , and a firm adherence unto , the Truth with that affection , that the party contradicting cannot brook the contrary errour . Unjust , issues either from ignorance , or the contrary errour received into a man's mind ; and sometimes it 's joyned not only with an hatred of the Truth , but of the person professing it : Such was the contradiction here expressed . The party contradicted was not John the Baptist , though he was spoken against , nor the Apostles and Disciples , but Christ himself ; and they spake not only against his Doctrine , and his Miracles , but against his person , and his divine Offices . They not only denied his Doctrine as false , and refused to receive it ; but accused him as a false Prophet , a seducer of the People , an Impostor , an Enemy to Moses , a Blasphemer . They ascribed his glorious Miracles to Belzebuh the Prince of Devils : They denyed him to be the Son of God , the great Prophet , the King of Israel , and the Messias . 2. This contradiction was from Sinners . For though he was innocent , and never deserved any blame , nor ever gave them any cause of contradiction , and they were many wayes guilty of many grievous sins ; yet they did oppose and contradict him , so that the most worthy suffered from most unworthy , wicked , cursed persons . It 's true , that Christ suffered from all sort of persons , both Civil , and Military , and Ecclesiastical ; and from these of all ranks , even very abjects : yet they who most opposed him , were the Scribes , Pharisees , Priests , and Rulers , who under pretence of greatest Piety , and purest Holiness , were the most cursed , wicked , and abhominable Wretches under Heaven . They were proud , ambitious , covetous , envious , malicious , bloody wretches , and guilty of most damnable Hypocrisy . He was the best , and they the worst of all others : That he so excellent , should suffer from them so vile , did aggravate ; as their Sin , so his Suffering very much . For , 3. He suffered much . For [ such ] is [ so much ] contradiction . And this implies , that it , was much , and that it was so much , that is , very much . And so it was in respect , 1. Of the Persons , which were Sinners , and they very many . 2. Of the Contradictions , which were also many , frequent , bitter , base , malicious , continued to the end of his Life ; yea , after his Death and Resurrection . Even Paul himself was a Blasphemer , and many more , and did violently contradict him . 4. Yet he endured all this ; He was not wearied , he fainted not ; but as the contradiction was continued , so was his patience . For he did not yield or abate the least of his heavenly zeal and fervour , but went on to testify the Truth , to confirm it by his miraculous Works , to reprove Sin , to convert Sinners , to gather Disciples , and to finish his Fathers great business . His courage and constancy was invincible , and unparallel'd . Propos. 2. This is the thing to be considered ; to consider this , is the Duty . What consideration is , you have heard before : it is opposed to glances , to leight sleighty , superficial , momentany thoughts , and cogitations of a serious business . It 's an act of the Understanding , which more clearly apprehends , more exactly judgeth of things , and re-views and remembers them often , so that in it we find the use of apprehension , judgment , memory , and all the acts of the intellective faculty . And they must not only consider what these Contradictions were , but also how many , and sum them up ; that they may appear not only what they are , but how great they be ; this the word implies . The end of all this , is the more perfect knowledge of them both as absolute , and also as comparative . The object and matter which we must consider , is , 1. Christ so excellent , the party suffering . 2. The thing suffered , Contradiction . 3. The parties from whom he suffered , Sinners , so base , so unworthy . 4. How much , how long he suffered . 5. How patiently and constantly he endured all . And shall he , so far more excellent then we are , endure so long , so patiently , from such unworthy persons , so vile , and so much contradiction ? And shall we so unworthy , not endure far less ? Was not He most innocent , and more glorious then the Angels , and We poor and unworthy . Wretches ? Are our Sufferings comparable to his ? And shall he endure , and we be impatient under so light a burden ? O continue patient to the end . Propos. 3. This must be considered , left they be weary and faint in their minds ; wherein three things , 1. The dificiency of their minds . 2. The remedy to prevent it . 3. The use of the remedy for prevention . 1. There is a two-fold deficiency , one of the Body , another of the Mind . The former is expressed in two words , [ weariness and fainting ] . These are accidential to the Body , and may signify the same thing ; or , if they differ , it 's but gradually ; and weariness is a less , fainting , an higher degree of deficiency ; which may arise from labour , hunger , thirst , sickness , travall , which abate the strength , weaken the active power , and dull the vital spirits , and principle of motion , so that the body requires some rest or refreshment , or receiving Cordial , without which , all labour , motion , resistance , toleration ceaseth , and sometimes the vital power is contracted , retires , and leaves the curward parts liveless and sonsless . This is the deficiency of the Body , from which the Metaphor is taken : For , the deficiency of the Soul , in the profession of the Christian Faith is intended , and signified by these words ; therefore is added the word [ mind , ] that is , lest you ●e ●●ary and faint in your mind . This implies , that there is a divine , spiritual , or moral strength and fortitude of the mind , whereby it 's enabled to endure Persecutions and Contradictions , though many , and long continued . Yet as the Body , so the Mind may be wearied , faint , yield , ly under the burden , and entertain thoughts of forsaking the Faith , and at length forsake it indeed , And this was the Devils design , to tire and weary them out , that so they might be willing to renounce Christianity , the Profession whereof was so toublesom . 2. The Remedy here mentioned , whereby this sad Event might be prevented was to consider , what Contradiction Christ suffered from Sinners , and yet endured with Patience to the End. This , through the Sanctification of God's Spirit , would refresh , strengthen , and revive them . And here we must observe that some are of so poor a spirit , as that they will yield before their Strength fail them ; some are lazy , and love their Ease ; some are negligent , and make no use of such Helps as God hath put in their power , and this is a great Sin in any of us who profess the Faith of Christ , and it tends to Apostacy : For God requires whilst we have any strength , to use it . 3. Therefore they are exhorted to use the means , and consider Christ's Patience and Constancy , and following his Example , not sink under a far leighter burden , seeing he did not shrink under a far more heavy Temptation . § . 4. Besides the Example of Christ , which they must consider , there is another Reason . Ver. 4. Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood , striving against Sin. THough this may seem to be another distinct Reason from the former , yet it may be a Branch of the same : For Christ had resisted to Blood , which they had not done . Yet there may be something more in the Text ; for , not only Christ , but also other Saints far inferiour to Christ had been faithful unto Death , and had sealed their Profession with their Blood. This was no more than Duty , and God required it at their hands , and to faint and fall off , before that Period , was agrievous Sin : This therefore presupposeth that it was their Duty to resist unto Blood , and to suffer far more than yet they had endured , therefore they must go on . In the words we have two Propositions , 1. They did strive against Sin , or they did suffer striving against Sin. 2. In striving against Sin , they had not yet resisted unto Blood. 1. By Sin is not meant any kind of Sin , but some one principal , and far above the rest , and its Apostacy , called so [ Antonomastik 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s ] by way of Eminency . It 's true , that it 's a general Duty of all Christians to strive against all Sin ; for we are no sooner regenerate , and have renounced the Devil and the World , and bid desiance and proclaimed eternal Feud and Hostility , but we are fearfully assaulted , and after that time our Life is a continued Warfare ; hence the many fearful Conflicts between Flesh and Spirit within us . The Events of this War are many and various , but the final Issue is a total , final , eternal Victory . The great Design of Satan in this Battle is , to shake our Faith in pieces ; for then , if that be done , the Conquest is compleat : Therefore said our Saviour to Peter , Simon , Simon , Behold Satan hath desired to have you , that he might sift you as Wheat : But I have prayed for thee , that thy Faith fail not , Luk. 22. 31 , 32. And if Christ should not strengthen and support , no Man could stand . Therefore we should remember and consider what our condition is , it 's a state of War and not of Peace , and we are environed continually with potent , vigilant , and cruel Enemies , which seek our temporal and eternal Ruine ; in this respect we must alwayes sight , and strive with all our Power , and stand continually upon our Watch , pray for help , and humbly depend upon our God ; and of all other things , let us keep our Faith : If that be safe , all is safe , and all other Sins pardonable ; but if that be lost all is lost , and our case is desperate . 2. Yet in this War they had not resisted to Blood. By Blood is meant Death , and a violent taking away of Life ; and though they had resisted stoutly , and suffered much , yet their lives were safe . Reproaches , and loss of Goods , were grievous ; yet Life is very precious , and the best thing we have in this World , it 's far more than Goods and these temporal Estates , and Man will do much and give much to save it : In this respect Death is said to be so terrible , as the greatest of all temporal Evils . Upon this he urgeth this Duty of Perseverance in Resistance , because their Life was due to Christ , and whosoever will not lay it down for Christ's sake , cannot be his Disciple : For if any man ( saith Christ ) come to me , and hate not his Father , and Mother , and Wife , and Children , and Brethren , and Sisters ; yea , and his own Life also , he cannot be my Disciple . Seeing therefore their Duty was to do and suffer far more than yet they were put unto , they should not faint under the loss , when they were bound to bea● the greater burden : And as this was their Duty , so it 's ours ; and if we think it unreasonable to be put unto so hard Service , to resist even unto Blood if God require it , let us consider , that Christ suffered cruel pains , and laid down his Life for us , that many of God's Saints did cheerfully suffer loss of all earthly Comforts and of life it self ; that if we lose our life , which is but mortal and momentany , we find a Life immortal , glorious , and for ever blessed ; that we resist and strive not for our temporal Estates , Wives , Children , earthly Country , but for our eternal Safety , Peace , and Happiness ; that our Sufferings , though far greater than they are , yet are but leight and for a moment , but the Glory which will follow is exceeding and eternal , and will make amends for all . Lord encrease our Faith , and strengthen our hearts in the hour of Temptation . § . 5. The next Argument is taken from the Nature of their Sufferings , as they are Chastisements upon them from God , as a Father chastning every Child , according to his Wisdom , for their Good and Happiness , wherein they end ; for the end of them is Peace . This Argument we find proposed first , and then excellently polished . It begins , Ver. 5. And ye have forgotten the Exhortation , which speaketh to you as to Children , My Son , despise not thou the chastening of the Lord , nor faint when thou art rebuked ef him . IN these words , with those that follow unto Ver. 14 , we may observe 1. Something presupposed . 2. Something expressed . 1. The thing presupposed is a Text , found in the Old Testament , and here alledged and applyed to these Hebrews . 2. In that which is expressed , or expresly delivered , we find three things : 1. The manner how this Text is brought in and applied . 2. The Text it self . 3. The Apostle's Discourse upon the same . 1. It 's brought in by way of Reprehension ; for they are charged with forgetfulness of an Exhortation of a Father to them as Children . This informs us , 1. That the words are an Exhortation . 2. This Exhortation is directed unto them . 3. It 's directed to them as Children . 4. They had forgotten it . 1. The words are an Exhortation . To understand this , we must consider both what an Exhortation is , and also how these are an Exhortation . An Exhortation in Scripture hath alwayes for Object some Duty commanded by God , and is a stirring up of Man to the Performance of the Duty , and that the Will may be more effectually moved , the Performance is urged upon powerful Motives . That they are an Exhortation may easily appear , if we understand the general nature of all Exhortations , and consider the Portion of Scripture whence these words are taken , wherein we find the wise man pressing many and weighty Duties . The word it self here used in the Greek doth sometimes signify a Consolation , and such the Text is ; sometimes an Exhortation , and such it may also be : Yet in strict sense it is a Dehortation , for it 's Negative [ despise not , faint not ] , and to despise the chastening of the Lord , and faint under his Rebuke , is an Evil , a Sin , which is forbidden in God's Law , and here dehorted f om : But yet as every Negative implies an Affirmative , so doth every Dehortation an Exhortation to some Duty ; and the Duty here exhorted to , is , to take our Sufferings as Chastisements from God , and to bear his Rebukes patiently . 2. This Exhortation is directed to them ; for so it 's said , The Exhortatien which speaketh unto you : It 's true that the words are the words of God , written by Solomm , and seem to be directed more immediately to the People of God in his time ; yet this is a certain Rule , that when a Duty is ordinary and general , and of general Concernment , and commanded in the Scriptures by God the universal Law-giver , then it concerns all men , so that no man can be exempted ; nay further , if it be not only universal , but also perpetual , it binds all men of all timos , And in this respect it may be said , that what God speaks to one , he speaks to all , like that of our Saviour , [ What I say to you , I say to all , Watch. ] Therefore we must understand this as spoken even to us , as well as to others of former times : This therefore would be our wisdom , that when we read or hear of exhortations to duties , of universal and perpetual Obligation , to apply them to our selves , and to make full account , that God in them doth speak to us . 3. It 's directed to them as Children . This he infers from the word [ my Son ] , where word [ Son ] , though singular , must be taken collectively , so as to include the whole body and community of Sons , both all joyntly , and every one severally , without exception . This implies a special Relation , such as is between Father and Children ; and also the love and authority of a Father , and the Duty and Obligation of a Child . Yet there are many kinds of Sons , as natural , & adopted amongst men ; and also spiritual , who are related unto God , and such are here meant . Such all should be , but many are nor , some are : These are made by spiritual Regeneration , and gracious Adoption ; and so soon as any shall sincerely believe in Christ , they are justly Sons , and so in this special manner related to God. The matter of the Exhortation is such , that it must be directed unto them , and them alone . 4. This they had forgotten . It was their duty to have remembred it ; yet they did not : For , 1. It was forgotten ; this was a sin . 2. [ They ] had forgotten it ; this was their sin , and therefore so charged upon them by the Apostle : actually to remember this expresly at all times was impossible , neither was it required : yet in time of Affliction , when God's chastising and rebuking hand was upon them , they should have thought upon it . But it was not necessary to remember these very words , but the thing contained in the words , neither is the remembrance here required meerly speculative , and an act only of the Understanding ; but it 's also practical . For they must so remember the Duty , as to do it ; memory without this is to no purpose . This seems to imply , that we are bound to understand the word of God in Scriptures necessary to Salvation ; and often to call to mind , that which we do understand . § . 6. Thus the Text , which we find , Prov. 3. 11. is brought in ; and now the matter is to be considered , wherein we have , 1. The compellation . 2. The exhortation it self . 1. The compellation is sweet and comfortable ; for the person speaking and calling unto us , is God , as a Father ; the parties called unto are sinful men , as children . This implies a great condescension , and a special love on God's part , and a near relation and happy condition on mans part . How low did the glorious and eternal Lord of Heaven and Earth descend to look upon , respect , and love poor mortal man , dust and ashes ; who had defaced his Image imprinted upon him , and was become his Enemy . To redeem him with the precious Blood of his only begotten Son , to call him , regenerate him , adopt him , and make him Heir of an eternal Crown , was matter of astonishment to Angels . And how much is this silly and unworthy Creature honoured ? and how much is his estate advanced by this Relation ? How deeply is he engaged and obliged to eternal gratitude and obedience ? David might well admite and say , Lord , What is man , that thou takest knowledg of him ? or the Son of man , that thou makest account of him ? Psal. 144. 3. This compellation [ my Son ] is full of comfort , and should be a mighty motive and incentive unto perseverance in the midst of greatest Sufferings . 2. In the exhortation it self , we may consider ; 1. The Duty exhorted unto . 2. The Motive unto performance . 1. The Duty is ; 1. Not to despise the Lord's chastening . 2. Not to faint under his Rebuke . In the first , we may take notice : 1. Of Chastisement and Rebuke . 2. Of not despising , not fainting . 1. Chastisement and Rebuke are here taken for the same , and signify their Sufferings from their unbelieving Brethren ; yet so , that in the Book of the Proverbs , they signify any Afflictions suffered by God People . The Hebrew word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] signifies to restrain or correct by instruction , admonition , chiding , threatning , punishing . So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to blame or reprove : Both these are either verbal or real ; by words of the Mouth , or violence of the Hand : and here both may be meant , and especially the latter . The former word used in the Greek , seems to allude to the institution and education of Children ; who are sometimes more severely corrected , not only by Words , but by the Rod. The cause of Rebuke and Chastisement , is some fault or offence ; the end is , correction and reformation : in respect of the former , they are Punishments ; in respect of the latter , Corrections ; in themselves they are Afflictions , and sometimes they are Tryals . God's Children have their failings , ignorances , negligences , and sometimes are guilty of more hainous Sins . In respect of these God , as a Judge , doth punish , as a wise Master tryes them , as a loving Father corrects them , and by these doth prevent Sin for time to come , stirs up to heavenly Duties , makes them more penitent for Sin past , more careful of themselves , and prepares them for their possession of their eternal Inheritance . Though they may truly be said to be Punishments , because grievous for the time ; yet they are more properly Chastisements and Corrections ; because the principal thing intended , is their future good . As they come from their Persecutors , they are Wrongs ; as from God , they are Effects , not only of his Justice , but chiesly of his Mercy . 2. To despise , is , to think them fortuitous , and to bear them with a stupid or sensless mind , and not consider and understand they come from God ; that the end is repentance and amendment , that the cause is sin ; or , if we understand these things , not to repent and reform , but continue and harden our hearts in sin : For this is not to regard God's chastising hand , so as to make right use of our Sufferings . To faint under these , is to be weaty of our Profession , and to incline to Apostacy , because our Sufferings for it are so grievous , and of so long continuance . And in this negative Dehortation , is implied an affirmative Exhortation ; and the Duty exhorted unto , is to make the right use of our Afflictions by reformation of our selves , and a patient and constant Suffering unto the end . For God's des●●n in these , is to prevent Apostacy , that we may not be condemned with the World. § . 7. The Motive and Reason inclining us to performance followeth , Ver. 6. For whom the Lord loveth , he chasteneth , and scourgeth overy Son , whom he receiveth . ] AS for the translation of these words , there is some difference between the Hebrew Copies which we now have ; and the Septuagint , which the Apostle followeth . For the Hebrew readeth , [ That God correcteth even as a Father the Son , in whom he delighteth . ] ; but the S●ptuagint otherwise , [ That he chastenth and scourgeth every Son , whom he receiveth . ] Some think , that the Hebrew Copy which the Seventy translated , differed from that which we now have . Yet notwithstanding the sense of both , for the matter and substance , is the same : For , to chastise a Son whom he loveth , and in whom he receiveth ; is , to correct and scourge as a Father the Son , in whom he delighteth . The words must be considered , 1. In themselves absolutely . 2. As a reason of that which went before . 1. In themselves , the matter and subject of them is the castigation and correction of Children . And here correction and chastigation of every Child whom God receiveth is the Effect , and his love is the Cause ; and from this Cause and love of God , is inferred the Effect , the Chastisement of every Child . The Propositions are two , 1. God loveth and receiveth some as Children . 2. He chastiseth every one whom he so loveth and receiveth . 1. This Love here intended , is a Love wherewith God loves us as Children , which is the greatest and most tender love of all others ; and presupposeth another love antecedent , whereby he Regenerates , Adopts , and makes us his Children : this latter is a Love of benevolence and good will , issuing from his own Goodness ; and that most freely . The Object of it is Man , as sinful , ungodly , an Enemy , in whom there is nothing amiable and sit to move God to love us . The former is a Love of complacency , after he hath made us amiable , and a sit Object of Love : This Reception may either be an admission of us into the number of Sons , which is adoption ; or his acceptation of us , and delight in us once adoped ; and this seems here to be intended : This paternal love and acceptation is the cause . 2. The Effect is Chastisement : For to correct , chasten , and scourge a Son here are the same . And here it 's to be noted , 1. That the Subject of this Castigation is , Every Son. 2. That it 's an Effect of Fatherly Love. 1. It 's proper to a Son ; for though he may punish and afflict others , yet he doth not chastise them . And as it 's proper unto Sons , so it agrees to every Son , not any one of them is excepted ; for as all are castigable , so all are castigated in one kind or another , in a greater or lesser measure . 2. That this Castigation is from Love , because it tends , conduceth , and is in some sort necessary , to our spiritual and eternal good . God knows both our condition and disposition , that both are such that they require Chastisement and Correction , without which we are in danger of many Sins , and of Apostacy to be prevented . Yet the principal Cause of prevention is the sanctifying Spirit , which alwayes makes use of the Word , and many times of the Rod of Correction , which will not be laid aside wholly whilst God's Children are in the Flesh : But in Heaven , where there is no danger , there is no Use of it any more : because them we shall be sanctified fully and for ever . This is the meaning of the words considered absolutely ; but if we refer them to what went before , we shall find them to contain a Motive and a Reason to perswade us to perform the Duty exhorted unto . And the force of it is very great ; for if our Sufferings be from God as a Father , and out of Love to us as his Children , tending to our good ; and no Child of his is exempted from them , then we should not despise them , not faint under them ; but God himself saith they are such . This Reason is more distinctly and particularly unfolded and urged in the words following . § . 8. Thus you have heard , 1. How these words are brought in , 2. What the Matter of them is : Now , 3. Follows the Apostle's Discourse upon them . Ver. 7. If you endure Chastening , God dealeth with you as with Sons ; for , what Son is there whom the Father chasteneth not ? Ver. 8. But if ye be without Chastisement , whereof all are Partakers , then are ye Bastards and not Sons . THis Discourse is grounded upon these words of the former Text [ He chastiseth every Son ] , and informs us , that God by his Chastisements doth evidence his Fatherly Affection towards us , and that he accounts us his Children and not Bastards . The Reasons which he finds in the former words of Scripture are reducible to three . The first is taken from his Fatherly Affection manifested in Chastisements . The second from God , as a Father different from all earthly Fathers , even in chastening us . The third is taken from the Issue and Effect of Chastisements . In the first , the Apostle makes this his Principle , that chastening is proper to every Child of God ; and so proper , that it agrees to none else : From hence he argues to this purpose , If God chastiseth all Sons and only Sons , then if you endure Chastening , he dealeth with you as with Children . But he chasteneth all Sons , and only Sons ; Therefore if you endure Chastening he dealeth with you as with Sons . The Assumption , that he chasteneth all Sons and every Son , we find in the latter end of Ver. 7. That he chasteneth only Sons is implied Ver. 8. For Explination I will 1. Reduce the whole into Propositions . 2. Inform you of the principal Conclusion inferred from the whole . The Propositions are these , 1. With those who endure Chastening , God dealeth as with Sons . 2. There is no Son whom the Father chasteneth not . 3. They who are without Chastening , whereof all are Partakers , are Bastards and ●as Sons . These Propositions are made in Thesi , though we find them here in Hypothesi , as applyed to these Hebrews . In the first Proposition we have 1. The Antecedent . 2. The Consequent . 1. The Antecedent supposeth them chastened , or enduring Chastening ; for these may be the same , because enduring may be suffering , so as that in and under Afflictions they may be considered as only passive . Yet sometimes to endure may be a vertuous Act of the Soul , receiving and bearing Affliction as a Chastening from God ; for Affliction may be sent from God as a Chastisement , and for Correction , and yet not so received by Man. Thus God complains of his People , They received not Correction , they turned not to him that smote them ; God dealt with them as a Father , but they proved undutiful Children . When God doth accompany his Chastisements with the sanctifying power of his Spirit , so that Reformation followeth , then the Party chastened may be said to endure Affliction not only passively but actively too . 2. This presupposed and granted , the Consequent of this first Proposition is , that God dealeth with them as with Children ; that is , out of Love he chasteneth them for their spiritual Good which he intends , because he will not suffer Sin to ly upon them , lest it prove their Ruine . The Chastening issues from Love , and the End is their Benefit and Good ; for such is the Chastening of a wise and good Father . This is necessarily consequent upon the former granted : For if he chastise any , so that they are corrected , then he doth the part of a loving Father , and thereby manifests that he accounteth them as Children . The second Proposition . There is no Son which the Father chasteneth not . Here it 's expressed Interrogatively ; For what Son is there whom the Father chasteneth not ? Where the Rule , That a negative Interrogation is a vehement Affirmation , holds good . This may be understood of an earthly or an heavenly Father ; if of an earthly , then it 's to be understood of wise and good Fathers , not of such as are careless , or ignorant , or foolishly indulgent , as too many such there be : And of such , if they have many Children , they deal thus with every one , and all such Fathers deal thus with their Children . And as this is true of all wise earthly Parents , so much more is it true of our heavenly Father : For , there is not any Son of his who needs Correction , but he correcteth him , otherwise he did not love him . The rational or causal Conjunction for , doth intimate unto us , that when it 's said , He dealeth with you , or useth you as Children , that by Children he means all and every Child of his . The third Proposition . They which are without Chastisement , whereof all are Partakers , are Bastards and not Sons . Here it 's put Hypothetically , and the Proposition is Connex , yet so that it may be extended to an universal Categorical . This takes for granted , according to the former Proposition , that all are Partakers of Chastisement ; for all the Sons of God are corrected . This presupposed , the Antecedent is , that some are without Correction or Chastisement ; that is , God suffers them to go on in their Sins , and in his just Judgment permits them to go on to their own eternal undoing : The Consequent of this is , that all such are Bastards and not Children , and so accounted of God , who denies his Mercy unto them . No 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Bastard , may be either a Son illegitimate , or if Legitimate yet degenerate , or one that is no Son ; or if a Son , yet not so accounted , not so acknowledged : Many such there be , who profess themselvs the Children of God , and bear that glorious Name , yet are not truly and really such , and God doth deny them ; therefore it 's said that they are Bastards and not Sons ; where it 's implyed , that by Bastards are meant such as are not Sons of God , either in his account or indeed . The Consequence is clear enough ; for if all Sons are Partakers of Chastisement , and some or many are without , then such as God chasteneth not are not his Sons , they are Bastards ; and to be such is the saddest condition of all others , for no man in this Life can be in a worse or more miserable . It 's a sad and woful thing for a Child to be left unto himself , and suffered to go on in untoward courses ; but far more sad it is for a Man to be suffered to go on in Sin without any Chastisement or Correction : There is no Hope of such ; God seems to cast them off , desert them , leave them to their own Lusts , deliver them unto Satan , and then they must needs perish : It 's evident , God loves not such , nor intends their everlasting Salvation , but leavs them with the World , to be condemned with the World. Blessed be that God , who takes a more special care of us , and , when we need , corrects us , and so deals with us as with Children . 2. The Conclusion , which he intends to infer from this , is , That if God out of a Love as a Father chasteneth us as he doth every Son , and only his Sons , then it 's our Duty not to despise the Chastening of the Lord , nor to faint under his Rebuke . § . 7. The second thing observed by the Apostle , is , that God is a Father , as is implyed in the Text , where we are called his Sons ; and if we be his Sons , then he is our Father in chastizing us , and far above our earthly Fathers , and that in chastizing : For thus he argues , Ver. 9. Furthermore , we have had Fathers of our Flesh , which corrected us , and we gave them reverence : Shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of Spirits and live . Ver. 10. For they verily , for a few dayes , chastened us after their own pleasure ; but he for our profit , that we might be partakers of his Holiness . THese words are virtually an Exhortation ; for by the clear manifestation of the Duty , he exhorts us to performance . The Duty is , subjection to God our spiritual Father Chastising us : The reason of this Duty is delivered by way of comparison , taken from our subjection to our earthly Fathers , and that from 1. The excellency of our heavenly Father , as far above the Fathers of the Flesh , ver . 9. 2. The manner of Chastening us , for our greater good , ver . 10. The reasoning in form , is to this purpose ; If we have been subject to the Fathers of our Flesh , how much more ought we to be subject to the Father of Spirits , that we may live . But we have been subject to the one Chastening us . Therefore much more ought we to be subject to the other . This is the substance of ver . 9. The Consequence he proves thus ; 1. If our earthly Fathers Chastened us only for a few dayes , and after their own pleasure , and yet we were subject to them ; much more ought we to be subject to God our heavenly Father chastening us for our profit , that we might be partakers of his Holiness . But we were subject to them so chastening us for a few dayes after their pleasure . Therefore much more ought we to be subject to him , Chastening us for our profit , that we may be partakers of his holiness . This being the form of the Apostle's Argument , I will proceed to consider the words , 1. Absolutely . 2. Comparatively . I need not stand upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , turned [ furthermore ] , whereby the Connexion with the former words , is signified to this purpose ; that besides what I have observed out of the former Text , it 's further observable , that God is compared to a Father , who both as a Father , and as Chastening , is far more excellent then any earthly Father , and from thence an argument , and that of great force , is drawn to prove , that they should take his Chastening patiently . This premised , the words considered ; 1. Absolutely , declare some things of Man , as chastising Fathers . God , as chastising his Children . Of men , three things ; 1. We have had the Fathers of our Flesh. 2. These corrected us . 3. We gave reverence to them correcting us . 1. We have had Fathers of our Flesh. All Children have their Fathers ; for in that respect they are called Fathers , because they have Children . There are Fathers Moral , Political , Physical , and all regenerate persons have a Father spiritual , and the same subordinate or supreme . By Fathers , here are meant , they who are Physical or Natural , who under God , by regeneration , are causes of our natural Being ; and these are said to be the Fathers of our Flesh , that is , as most do understand it , of our Bodies ; thereby implying , that our Souls are not by Genetation or [ Ex traduce ] , but in a more excellent and immediate manner from God creating and infusing them , as many do express it . Whether these be proper or fitting expressions , I do not here debate ; but only say , that the immortall Soul is concreated with , and in the Body , as a fit Receiptacle by an higher way , and in a more excellent manner then we do or can know . This doth not exclude , though it doth not intend Fathers by Adoption , and seems to be added to difference Men from God , and earthly Fathers from our heavenly ; who makes the Body , yet frames the Soul in a more special manner . 2. These Fathers of the Flesh did correct us . And this is the Duty of all Parents , if they wisely and truly love their Children , desire their happiness , hope for comfort from them . And there are very few Children , which do not sometimes need Correction , as well as Instruction . Yet many Parents are very negligent in this particular : Some are imprudent , some are too indulgent and remiss ; some are careless , and do not consider what the Consequents of this neglect will be . The ignorance , imperfection , corruption of Children conceived and born in Sin , require in their Parents a more then ordinary care . Yet many Children are duly corrected , and this Correction is a kind of punishment , and yet a mercy , and may prevent many sins , and much misery for time to come , for the end of it is reformation ; and though the party correcting may in respect of correction be thought to be , and in some sort is , a severe Judg ; yet in respect of the good intended , he is a loving Father . Happy are those Children which are duly corrected in time . 3. Being corrected , we gave them reverence . The word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] seems in signification to agree with the Hebrew [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , which is , with humility to submit . For Children being ashamed of what they have done amisse , do with humility submit , not only to their Fathers instruction , but correction . And though they would take it ill at the hands of others , yet they endure it patiently from them to be beaten and scourged for their faults . And all Children should know , that their Fathers have power not only to instruct and direct , but to punish them , when they see just Cause ; and they should the more willingly subject themselves , because their Parents are under God , the Cause of their Beeing , maintain them , love them , and even in punishing them seek their good . § . 10. These absolutely declare some things concerning Men , as earthly Fathers ; the words following inform us of some things concerning God as a Father , and our Duty to him as such , and they are three : 1. God is the Father of Spirits . 2. We must be subject to him . 3. We must be subject that we may live . 1. God is the Father of Spirits . By Spirits , some understand spiritual intellectual substances , as Angels and immortal Souls ; yet here it seems to be restrained to humane Souls , as contradistinct to the Flesh and Body , mentioned before . And the Soul is a Spirit , that is , an invisible , spiritual , intellectual Substance , of a far more curious and excellent constitution then the Body . Yet here it may be taken , not only Physically as a Soul and Spirit ; but Morally , as capable of a spiritual Felicity : God is here said to be the Father of this Soul , this Spirit ; in the Creation whereof , the earthly Father hath no efficiency , as by Generation , not able to reach so noble and divine a Substance . God only is the Efficient and Maker of it , as you have heard before , and that in some special manner : And he is the Father , not only because he hath made it , but also because he alone hath power over it ; so that it 's exempted from all jurisdiction both of Men and Angels , who , as they cannot make it , so they cannot command or judge it . For the Conscience and immortal Soul is only subject unto his Imperial Dictates , especially as it is ordinable unto an eternal estate . 2. Therefore as he alone hath power over it , so our Spirits and Souls are bound to be subject to him , and him alone . For where there is Soveraignity , there subjection is due ; and as it 's due to him alone , so we must submit freely and willingly to him alone , as our Supreme Lord both commanding , ; and as a Father correcting , and sanctifyng his correction unto our good . 3. For we must be subject unto him , that we may live . To live , is not only to enjoy a physical Life and Beeing , but to be happy . For as bitter Pills and Portions , and also correcting Plaisters may effectually cure our Bodies motrally wounded or diseased ; so the Lord's Chastisements may heal our sick Spirits , and so prevent spiritual Death and Punishments . And as the Patient must be willing to receive bitter Pills and Potions for recovery ; so must we chearfully submit unto our heavenly Fathers Correction , for our eternal safety and felicity . § . 11. Thus far the absolute consideration of these words : Now follows the Comparison , which , presupposing some agreement in quality , as in quanity of imparity . For if we be bound to obey and reverence our earthly Fathers correcting us , then we are bound to obey and be in subjection to our heavenly Father chastening us : The reason is , because as they , so he hath power over us . But this is not all ; for if we are bound , if to them much , then to him much more : They are only Fathers of our Flesh and Bodies , and have only a correcting power over them ; but he is the Father not only of our Bodies , but also of our Spirits , and hath an absolute Dominion over both , not only to instruct , counsel , command , but also to correct ; and his Correction tends not only to our temporal but our spiritual Health , Safety , and Happiness . This the Apostle makes evident in the 10th Verse . Where again we may consider some things , 1. Absolute , concerning our Earthly Heavenly Father . 2. Comparative . The words absolutely considered , inform us 1. That our earthly Fathers for a few dayes chastened us after their own pleasure . 2. That God , our heavenly Father , chasteneth us for our profit , that we may be Partakers of his Holiness . 1. In the former Chastisement we may observe , 1. It 's short , and for a few dayes . 2. It 's arbitrary , after their own pleasure . 1. It 's short , because it continues only for the time f our Child-hood and Minority , when we are most apt to go astray , and least able to direct out selves . In these tender years , Children may receive any Impression , and that more easily than afterwards : then the Foundation of Vertue or Vice is laid ; and if Children have their Liberty , be neglected , and left unto themselvs , they are most subject to be corrupted : Therefore the● they have most need of Correction , and may be more easily kept under ; yet many times it falls out , that Fathers devoid of Wisdom , and not considering what is best and most truly good for their Children , out of Passion , and rashly , not aiming at the choise End , do correct them : And the more Power they have , and the less Resistance there is , the more arbitrary and irregular their Chastisements prove ; so that as the time of their Chastening is short , so it 's not regulated by the Dictates of Reason , but follows Fancy and false Imaginations of the mind , which many times represents , as just and good , that which indeed is evil and unjust . The Intention of the Apostle in these words , is , to manifest the imperfection and deficiency of humane Castigation , whereby it differs from that which is divine . For , 2. God chasteneth ●● for our Profit , that we may partake of his Holiness . This is the Perfection of God's Correction , which is not for a few dayes , but continues for term of Life , till he hath made us perfect , and done his whole Work upon us . It 's always regulated by his perfect Wisdom ; issues from purest Love ; tends unto , and ends in , our Happiness ; It 's no wayes arbitrary , for he never chasteneth but when he sets cause , and knows certainly that it will be good for us . All this is implyed in these words [ for our profit ] ; where by profit , we must not understand the good things of this World , and the great Mammon which so many worship ; but some better thing , some spiritual and divine benefit , which in a word , is a Participation of God's Holiness , which Clause seems to be exegetical , that we might know what he meant by Profit : For whatsoever tends to make us spiritually better , more like to God , and more capable of Communion with him , that 's true Profit . God's Holiness may either be that whereby she is holy in himself , o● that whereby weare holy . He in himself is essentially , infinitely , and eternally holy , most glorious , excellent , and pure in himself : For the Holiness of God is sometimes taken for his Excellency and Glory sometimes for his Purity and perfect Righteousness , in which respect it 's said , That he is Light , and in him is no Darkness , so that he cannot sin , be impure or unjust ; and therefore may be said to be Holiness it self : As he is holy in himself , so he is the Efficients and Fountain of Holiness to us , for he makes us holy ; yet our . Holiness is from him by participation , and participated by us , is more his than ours . To be Partakers of his Holiness is , either to be made holy as he is , and so purified from Sin , or , being made holy , to have Communion with him in some degree here , or fully and for ever hereafter . This Holiness is communicated to us by Chastisement , accompanied with the Sanctisication of the Spirit ; for that 's the end wherea● God aims , and the Effect which he produceth in his Children : His Love doth set him on work , his Wisdom directs , and his Almghty Power effecteth that which his Love desireth . This is the Absolute Consideration : the Comparative followeth , and that in quantity inequal ; for he argues from the less unto the greater . For , if they had with Patience endured their earthly Fathers chastizing them for a few dayes after their pleasure , how much more should they with Patience and all humble Subjection endure their heavenly Father chastizing them in Wisdom for their everlasting Good. This is a place which teacheth all Children their Duty towards their Parents chastening them ; and they must acknowledg their Power , humbly submit unto it , and be thankful unto them and their God for this good Work , without which they might have been more wicked and more miserable . And all Fathers should know , that their Children are trusted in their hands by God , not only to be instructed but corrected ; and in this part of Education they must imitate God , and chasten them wisely in Love for their good . The principal thing to be remembred , is , that seeing it is God that doth chastile them , and in this manner , and for their greatest good ; therefore they should not faint in their Sufferings for their Profession . § . 11. The Apostle proceeds further to discourse on the Text in Proverbs , which speaks of Chastisement . Of which it might be said , that it 's a matter not of Joy but Grief , and how then can it proceed from Love , and be any wayes beneficial ? By way of prevention he resolvs this doubt in the words following , Ver. 11. Now , no Chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous , but grievous : Nevertheless afterward , it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of Righteousness , unto them that are exercised thereby . BY these words we learn what the End and Effect of the Lord 's Chastening is , & that is , The peaceable fruit of Righteousness ; for surely there is nothing which God doth unto his Children , but therein he intends their good . The Subject Matter of this Passage , as of the former , is the Lord 's chastening of his Children ; and it 's considered , 1. In respect of it self , for the present . 2. In respect of the Fruit , which follows afterward . According to these two Considerations , we have two Propositions , 1. That Chastening for the present seeineth not to be joyous , but grievous . 2. That nevertheless afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of Righteousness to them , that are exercised therewith . 1. The Nature of all Chastening in general , and of the Lord 's Chastening his Children in particular , is here assumed to be grievous and evil : For it 's not matter of Joy , but Sorrow , to the Party suffering it ; for , as Good present is the cause of Joy , so Evil is the cause of Sorrow : Yet this Evil is not the evil of Sin but of Punishment ; yet it 's for Sin , as deserving it , and to take away Sin and prevent the Punishment ; and when Sin is taken away , and the Party chastened is reformed then God's chastizing hand is taken off us ; and in Heaven , where shall be no Sin , shall be no Chastening . Yet because it issues from Love , and tends unto the good of the Party chastened , therefore the Evil is so little that it may be a Question whether it should have the Denomination of Evil : For this Reason the Apostle useth terms of Abatement , as , 1. It 's so only for the present . 2. It seemeth to be so , not that it is so absolutely , or in any high degree , or in it self , but rather in the sense and conceit of the Sufferer . 3. It 's not of Joy , that is , it seemeth not to be Joyous ; for many times God's Saints rejoyce in Tribulation ; and these very Hebrews suffered joyfully the spoiling of their Goods . In the second Proposition we may observe , 1. The Benefit and Profit of Chastisement . 2. The Parties that reap this Benefit by it . 3. The time of receiving this Benefit . 1. This Benefit is the peaceable fruit of Righteousness ; where fruit of Righteousness is nothing but Righteousness , which is here compared to Fruit , as every Effect may be said to be a fruit of it's Cause . Man is the Soil , God's Chastening is the Culture or good Husbandry ; and this Man , thus cultivated by Chastening , accompanied with the Word and Spirit , yields and brings forth this Fruit. But it 's much doubted what this peaceable Righteousness is : Some think that Righteousness signifies heavenly Vertues , or the Works of these Vertues ; for Justitia in s●f● virtutes co●tin●● omnes , and righteous Works are vertuous Works ; Others conceive , that by Righteousness is meant that particular Vertue of Patience , which seems to be a proper Fruit of Chastizing , Tribulations , and Afflictions ; For Tribulation worketh Patience , Rom. 5. 3. and the trying of our Faith by Temptations and Afflictions worketh Patience , saith another Apostle , Jam. 1. 3. And Patience may be said to be peaceable , because it is the quiet , the peace , the calm of the Soul , in the midst of the Storms of Affliction . But to understand the words more fully , we must consider , 1. That the End of God's Chastening is Correction , Reformation , and the reducing of the Party chastened into the right way : For , saith David , Before I was afflicted I went astray , but now I have kept thy Word , Psal. 119. 67. and again , It 's good for me that I have been afflicted , that I might learn thy Statutes , Ver. 71. Where we may observe , 1. That Afflictions , which are God's Chastisements , are for Sin ; for he had gone astray . 2. The End and Effect is Obedience , keeping of God's Word , and learning to do his Statutes : To obey and do God's Laws is Righteousness . 2. Upon this Reformation follows Peace ; for God's Anger and Chastisements , the Effects thereof , do cease , the Conscience is quiet , and the Comfort of the Party corrected is great . 3. This Chastening may be used as a means of our first Conversion , and so of unrighteous may make us righteous ; or it may be made subservient to the Reformation of one converted by making him sensible of Sin , and causing him to renew his Repentance , and exercise and improve his heavenly Vertues , which lay dormant in him through his neglect . The Sum of all this is , 1. God by his Chastisements , joyned with his Word and Spirit , makes his Children more holy and righteous , and also more happy . By this , that is , Smiting and Affliction , or Chastisement , ) shall the Iniquity of Jacob be purged , and this is all the fruit to take away Sin , Isa. 27. 9. And the End of all our Chastisements , which we suffer here on Earth , is , that when this Life is ended , we may be perfectly righteous , and attain eternal Peace : For they exercise our Graces of Repentance and Faith , whereby we obtain Remission of Sin , a greater measure of Sanctification , and Reconciliation with our God. 2. The Parties that are Partakers of this benefit are , such as are exercised therewith : There is an Exercise of the Body , whereby men are made stronger , more active , more skilful in the thing wherein they are exercised , and by continued Practice are enabled to endure and hold out far more and far longer than others can do . There is also an Exercise of the Soul in the School of Affliction ; for this is the manner of God's training of his Children , and the stirring up and improving of their heavenly vertues . The principal Vertue he intends to teach them is Patience , which once had , and brought unto some Perfection , is a rare vertue . This is an hard Lesson , and not easily learned , and without Exercise cannot be attained ; yet this vertue once made habitual raiseth Man to an high degree of Christianity , so that nothing will be difficult unto him : Therefore this was the Exhortation of the Apostle , Let Patience have her perfect Work , that ye may be perfect and entire wanting of nothing , James 1. 4. They therefore who are exercised by Afflictions , so as to be habitually patient , are they who receive this benefit , and reap the peaceable fruit of Righteousness . 3. Yet there must be some time before an habit be acquired ; therefore the Apostle saith , That , not at first but afterward , when we have been well ●v●rcised , then it yieldeth this peaceable fruit , and not before . God could so sanctify us at first , and in an instant so deeply implant all heavenly vertues in us , that this Exercise might be needless : Yet it was not his Will and Pleasure so to do , he will humble us , try us , refine us , before he admits into his Kingdom of Glory . He knew this was good for us ; for it is good for a Man that he bear the Yoke in his Youth ; He sitteth alone , and keepeth silence , because he hath born it upon him , Lament . 3. 27. 28. The Sum of this Discourse is , That seeing from the Text of Solomon it appears , that God out of Love chasteneth all his Children , so that none are exempted ; and he doth this , not like our earthly Fathers in an arbitrary way , but after a certain Rule of perfect Wisdom , and that for our good , that we may be more holy , and reap the peaceable fruit of Righteousness , let us endure it with Patience , and patiently continue to the End. § . 12. After this Discourse , the Exhortation to the main Duty is expressed and repeated in these words , Ver. 12. Wherefore lift up the Hands which hang down , and the feeble Knees . Ver. 13. And make strait Paths for your feet , lest that which is lame be turned out of the way , but let it rather be heaeled . THis Text might be considered as a Conclusion drawn from the former Discourse , or inferred from the last words of Ver. 13. If from the former , then take it in this manner : If Suffering be God's Chastening , issuing from Love , ordered in Wisdom , ending in our greater good , then we must lift up the hands which hang down , &c. If from the latter , then the Argument is drawn from the ill Consequence of our fainting Remissness , we shall , like that which is lame , be turned out ●f the way . In the words themselvs we have , 1. A Duty . 2. The Reason why it should be performed . 1. The Duty is set forth in Metaphorical terms , and the Similitudes seem to be taken , 1. From Wrastlers . 2. From such as run in a Race . The former , when once they begin to faint , hang down their hands , and cannot lift them up ; the latter , when they are wearied , become feeble in their knees , cannot run strait on , but turn or are turned out of the way . These things are translated unto the Soul : It implies , that these Hebrews , through neglect of their heavenly vertues , and other means of Perseverance and Prayer unto God , began to faint and lag in their heavenly Course . They were wearied much , and vexed with the Opposition of their unbelieving Brethren , reproaching , persecuting , threatning them , and spoiling them of their Goods , and began to waver in their Profession : They perhaps entertained thoughts of falling away , and debated within themselvs , whether they should continue or no ; and to doubt , and be unresolved , was a degree of Apostacy : This was in them a Sin ; and though the words are an Exhortation yet they imply a Reproof . The Duty exhorted unto , was a Reformation of this deficiency , by a more serious consideration of so many and rare Examples ; the nature of Sufferings , they were Chastisements ; the glorious Reward of Perseverance ; the fearful Punishment of Apostacy : And by this consideration , with Prayer for strength , they ought to encourage themselvs , rouze up their drowzy Spirits , gird up the Loyns of their minds , and resolve to go on and finish their Race : They must not through sloth , love of Ease , of their Estates , of Liberty , of their Lives , now begin to turn back , and so lose the benefit of their former Labours and Sufferings . By this we understand our frailty , and how ready we are to give back in the way to eternal Glory , if God do desert us ; yet this is our Comfort , that he will not deny to support us , except we give him Cause by our negligence and grievous Sins . 2. The Reason why we should often renew and raise up those Graces which are left in us , is , lest we prove lame , and so be turned out of the way . To be lame , is , to lose our spiritual strength and vigour of heavenly motion ; and this is our Sin , because we diminish it by not using that Power which God hath given us : And the Punishment of this Sin is , to turn us out of the way , and reject us ; for God may in this Case justly withdraw his sanctifying Power , and condemn us as unworthy of that eternal glorious Reward to which he called us . Yet this turning out may be considered , either as a Punishment and Judgment from God , or as a Sin of Man , who willingly turns out of the way and makes himself guilty of Apostacy . This Lameness may be cured , for some times it is not a mortal and desperate Disease , but such as by Discipline of the Church , and Penitency of the Party may be healed . Therefore it 's added . But let it rather be healed : This seems to point at Ecclesiastical Censures , whereby Persons that begin to fall away are excommunicated and delivered up to Satan , and so left in a desperate Case ; yet the Apostle doth advise , that where there is any hope of Recovery , the Church should endeavour to make them penitent , and so to absolve and restore them upon Repentance , and not leave them to perish . Thus the ancient Church dealt with those who were called Lapsi : And according to this sense , to turn out of the way , is , to censure and excommunicate , and to heal , is , to restore them made penitent . § . 13. Though Perseverance both in Faith , and the Profession thereof , be the principal D●ty ; yet Faith cannot be without other vertues , as Peace and Holiness , therefore he adds , Ver. 14. Follow peace with all men , and holiness , without which no man shall see God. THe reason of this Exhortation to these two Duties of Peace and Holiness , may be this , 1. Because , without these , our Profession is but Hypocrisy . 2. These beautify and grace Christian Religion much , and demonstrate our sincerity . 3. By these we so demean our selves , that our very Adversaries can have no just occasion to persecute us . 4. If we follow peace with all men , we shall avoid many Troubles , which unadvised Zelots , busy-Bodies , turbulent and quarrelsom Persons bring upon themselves , & other good Christians . If we follow holiness , we shall give no scandal unto others , please God , and prepare our selves for Heaven , the vision and fruition beautifical , which will be our full hapiness . So that there was special reason for to add these Exhortations : But to consider the words in themselves , we find in them a two-fold Duty : 1. Of peace with Men. 2. Of holiness towards God. 1. We must follow peace with all men , where we must consider , 1. What peace is ? 2. The parties with whom we must have peace . 3. The following of this peace . 1. Peace in this place , is not agreement with every one in opinion , affection , practise ; for many have false opinions , corruptions in affections , and their practise is ungodly . But peace is a virtue whereby we live quietly : It issues from the loving of our Neighbour , as our selves . It 's opposed to a turbulent disposition of the Soul , and all those qualities , motions , passions , which cause dissension . It cannot be without humility , meekness , patience , forbearance , kindness : It so orders all words and actions , that they tend to preserve concord , and it gives no just cause of offence to any . It labours to make up Breaches , and reconcile Differences : It 's an excellent virtue , and is hardly separable from any Duty of the second Table ; therefore some have thought , that by Peace , in this place , is signified the observation of all the Duties of that part of the moral Law , which prescribes the duty of man to man. 2. The parties with whom we must have peace , are [ all men ] . For as we must love all men , even Strangers , Enemies , and Persecutors ; so we must have peace with all , yet so far as this concord agrees with the Laws of God. For we must agree with no person in that which is evill ; and we must have a special care to agree with the best : If we differ from any man in that which is lawful , we offend . This peace presupposeth society , and is the bond that knits together multitudes . 3. We must follow peace , as one that followeth and pursueth some thing running from him , for to take it ; it 's the same with that Exhortation : Seek peace , and pursue it , Psal. 34. 14. The phrase implies , that it is a very difficult thing to have peace with a few , much more with all . For we find that true , That when we are for Peace , and speak for it , most men are for War , Psal. 120. 7. The means whereby we may lay hold of it , according to the advice of the Psalmist , is , to eschew Evil , and do Good ; to keep our Tongues from Evil , and our Lips from speaking Guil. For we must not comply with any person in his Errours , or his Sin , nor neglect to reprove him or oppose him in his iniquity , for our own quiet . Yet to be just and merciful , and kind , is a good and lawful means , and very effectual to obtain peace . And in this way we must do what we can , and use all diligence ; and if the issues answer not our defires and endeavours , we have done our Duty , and discharged our Conscience ; God doth not bind us to impossibilities : For the Command is not absolute , but given with this Proviso , If it be possible , as much as in you lieth , live peaceably with all men , Rom. 12. 18. The sum of all is this , We must give no just occasion or cause of difference to any person , but use all lawful wayes , and just means to procure peace . Secondly , We must follow holiness , &c. where we have , 1. The Duty , which is holiness . 2. The Reason why we should perform it , and that is , because without it no man shall see the Lord. Some think these words are added to limit and direct our pursuance of peace , wherein we must be so innocent , as not to offend our God. Some think holiness to be sincerity in the religious Service and Worship of our God : For all Worship , even of the true God , is unholy , if not performed with a sincere heart ; which being washed in the Blood of Christ , and sanctified with the Spirit out of love to God , hates Sin , and endeavours to avoid it . The principal subject of Holiness , is the will and heart of man , and it is a qualification , whereby it 's conformed , and made like to God. It is the supernatural light , beauty , and purity of the Soul ; and purifies all acts and operations , both inward and outward . It 's that whereby we devote and consecrate our selves to God , and have union and communion with him : It 's opposed not only to profaness , but hypocrisy and iniquity . This holiness we must follow and pursue ; for it 's a difficult thing , as to follow peace with all men , so to be holy ; and the greater the difficulty , the greater must be our care , not only to be , but to continue holy . 2. The Reason hereof is , because without it no man shall see God. This implies , 1. That God may be seen . 2. That without holiness he cannot be seen . 3. That by holiness , this happiness may be obtained . 4. That because without holiness it cannot , and by holiness it may be obtained ; therefore we must follow holiness with God , as we do peace with Man. The three first are absolute ; 1. To see God , as many understand it , is immediately and clearly to behold God's Glory , which is a priviledg reserved for Heaven . Thus to see him , is that which they call intuitive Knowledg , and beatifical Vision , from which unspeakable joyes , and eternal delights do ever issue . Yet it 's an Hebrew expression , and signifies to enjoy ; therefore to see God , is to enjoy him , and have some special union and communion with him , and derive some happiness from him ; either by Grace in this Life , and Glory in the Life to come . 2. This communion cannot be obtained without holiness . For all Communion presupposeth union , all union agreement , and without holiness there can be no agreement , no union , no communion with God. For he is holy , and requires holiness in all them that draw near unto him , for to worship him : He is Light , and in him is no Darkness ; that is , He is pure , and perfectly holy : and as there is no fellowship of Light and Darkness ; so they who walk in Darkness , and are polluted with Sin , can have no fellowship with him . So that without holiness we are not capable of fellowship with him . 3. By holiness we may see him and enjoy him ; and according to the measure of our holiness , is the measure of our enjoyment . The more holy we are , the nearer fellowship we have with him , and derive more joy and comfort from him . That by this holiness , this sight and enjoyment may be obtained , is evident from Christ's words , [ Blessed are the pure in heart , for they shall see God. 4. Seeing there can be no vision or fruition of God without holiness ; therefore our Duty is to be holy , as God is holy , for that 's the Duty urged upon this ground . The reason , why it 's not said , [ by holiness we may see God ] , but [ without hol●ness we cannot see God ] , is to signify the necessity of this purity , as a means without which this blessed fruition cannot be attained . Every one that knows how blessed a thing it is to be near unto our God , and converse with him , doth purify himself as he is pure , 1 Joh. 3 , 3. And it highly concerns us all to keep our hearts right with God ; and this should be our chiefest work in this Life , as we desire to have Communion with God here , or see his Face in the Light of eternal Glory by Repentance , and Faith in Christ's Blood , and constant prayer for sanctification to cleanse our hearts from all impurity . For the more pure we are , the more capable we shall be of this great benefit ; and when we are once fully purified , we shall be admitted into his glorious presence , and enjoy him for evermore . And this must be a certain principle , That he that will be happy as God is , must be , holy as he is . § . 14. That they might continue holy , the Apostles Exhortation is ; Ver. 15. Looking diligently , lost any man fail of the Grace of God , lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you , and thereby many be defiled . ] THese words may be understood either of private care and vigilancy of one over another , or of publick Discipline , and the end of both ; especially of the latter , is to prevent Apostacy and Scandal . And here are observable , 1. Some Danger or Evil to be prevented . 2. The prevention of the same . The Evil seems in this Text to be Apostacy ; in the next , Scandal . If we reduce the whole to Propositions , they are these : 1. Some of them might fail of the Grace of God. 2. There might grow up amongst them a root of bitterness . 3. By this Root growing up , many might be defiled . 4. They must be careful and vigilant to prevent any such thing . 1. To fall short of the Grace of God , is to fall from the Grace of God. By Grace , may be meant the Gospel , which is the Doctrine of that special favour and grace of God in Christ , wherein was revealed and promised remission of Sin and eternal Life ; which Doctrine they professed , and by which they expected to receive these incomparable mercies upon their Belief . To come short of this Grace with some , is to faint and recede from their Profession , especially because of persecution or seduction ; and this is nothing else but Apostacy , or else at least some degree thereof : and if any do thus either out of doubting , or the love of the World ; he deprives himself of that excellent benefit , which by perseverance he might have obtained . There was great danger of this , not only because of their frailty , but of the many temptations of those times . 2. There might grow up amongst them a Root of bitterness . A Root of bitterness , is a bitter Root ; and a bitter Root is some person infected with heresy ; which is one kind of Apostacy , or at least is the beginning of Apostacy which begins in the Understanding , receiving some ●●●our contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel ; goes on in the Will , resolving to deny the Truth ; and is finished in the profession of that Heresy . Such heresies , by reason of many subtil Seducters , and the ignorance of Professors , with other temptations , might easily by degrees grow up amongst them , and in the end manifest themselves . Whereas it 's added , [ Left any such ●oot sprining up trouble you ] It 's very likely , 1. That the Apostle followed the Septuagint , which thus translate the place , [ Left there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rest springing up , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , in gall and bitterness . 2. That the Transcribes turned the words , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] into [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , which signifies to trouble . 3. We must note , That the Root of Gall and Wormwood in Moses , signifies an Apostate , who violates the Covenant of God , in turning to Idols ; and therefore , in this place , to fail of the Grace of God , and to be a Root of bitterness are the same , and both intend Apostates and Apostacy . We must not here too curiously distinguish between Apostacy and Heresy ; for though some Heresy is not Apostacy , yet some is ; because it denies the fundamental Truth of the Gospel . 3. By this Root of bitterness many may be defiled . For a little leaven seaveneth the whole Lump . Heresy and Apostacy are like Wormwood and Gall , a little of them will make bitter a great measure of Water , Wine , or any other Drink or Meat : One evil example may do much hurt , many will do more . One Heretick or Apostate , especially if eminent , may draw many after him , not only by his example , but by his false Doctrine . The Dragon is said with his tail to draw down the third part of the Stats : 〈◊〉 could cause all Israel to Sin. How much mischief was done to the Church by Simon Magus , Cerinthus , Ebion , Valentius , and other Hereticks ? Therefore by one , many may be polluted . 4. To prevent this danger , they must look diligently . To this end , 1. Every man must have a care of himself , and look to his own Soul. 2. They must watch one over another : and , if they see any inclining to Apostacy , or beginning to doubt of , or decline his Profession , they must by good example , instruction , admonition , reproof , and exhortation , seek to 〈◊〉 him , 3. The Minister of the Gospel being trusted with man's Soul , must be very watchful above all other ; must exhost , reprove , and by his wholesome Doctrine , inform the ignorant , strengthen the weak , reform the erroneous , encourage the faint , and suffer no such bitter Root to spring up amongst his People . 4. They that have the power of discipline , upon information must by Admonition and fighter Censures first seek to reclaim a sinning Brother ; and , if so they cannot rectify him , they must cast him out , left others be infected . § . 15. As Apostacy , so Scandal must be prevented ; therefore he add , Ver. 16. Lest there be any Fornicatour , or profane person , as Esau , who for one morsel of meat sold his brithright . Ver. 17. For ye know how that afterwards when he would have inherited the Blessing , he was rerejected ; for he found no place for Repentance , though he sought it carefully with tears . ] IN these words , as in the former , we have two things : 1. Some Evil to be prevented . 2. The prevention of the same . The prevention is the same you heard before . For the words [ looking diligently ] are to be re-iterated ; and every one must have a care of himself , watch over others ; and the Minister must especially watch over his Flock , and they , who are trusted with the power of the Keys , must use all means to make the parties guilty , penitent and sensible of their sins ; or , if they continue impenitent , they must cast them out . The Scandal to be prevented , is two-fold ; 1. Fornication . 2. Profaness . These two are expresly named , because there were some amongst them guilty of them , or many or some of them propense and inclined unto them . Yet by these all other Scandals may be understood , which are not to be suffered in a Church . 1. They must look diligently , lest there be any Fornicatour . By Fornication in Scripture is signified not only simple Fornification between single persons , but also Whoredome , Adultery , Incest , and all kind of Lewdness and Uncleanness . And Christians , of all others , should take heed of this Sin ; especially because they are called to Holiness : their Bodies are redeemed by the Blood of Christ , consecrated to God by Baptism , and are the Temples of the Holy Ghost . 2. Profaness is the second Sin to be eschewed ; and this is to be considered , 1. In General ; for we must not be profane . 2. In Particular ; for we must not be profane , as Esau. 1. Profane is opposed to holy : and as that which is holy is pure ; so that which is profane is impure and polluted . As there be things , so there are persons that are profane Profane things are such as are common , base , contemptible , not consecrated to God , not set apart for any religious Use : Profane persons are such as are irreligious , polluted with Sin , who fear not God , contemn holy things , and by their contempt profane them . And this profaness of persons is sometimes plain Atheism , and alwayes some degree of Atheism , on rather a Sin issuing from an Atheistical heart . 2. Profaness in particular is here the profaness of Esau ; there must be no profane person amongst them like unto Esau. This instance he gives not only that they might understand what the Sin is , but that by his example , they might abhorr it . In Esau , we must consider , 1. His Sin in General . Particular . 2. The Punishment and Consequent of this Sin. 1. The Sin in general was profaness ; for by the History it appears , that the disposition of his heart was irreligious and profane , and his practise did manifest the same . His marriage , and his purpose to murther his Brother were sufficient evidence . Yet the particular here expressed , was the selling of his Birthright for a morsel of meat : This was a plain contempt of his Birthright , as not worthy to be regarded . To understand this the better , we must consider , 1. What this Brithright was . 2. His sale of it . 1. This primogeniture , which is here meant by Birthright , anciently had certain Priviledges . As , 1. The dominion over his Brethren , upon the Death of his Father . 2. A double portion . 3. The Priest-hood . Yet besides these in the Birthright , there was something peculiar , and that was his Fathers Blessing , which included the Covenant , and the promise of the Messias ; and these were sacred things , and of great value . So much is intimated by his seeking of it with tears . 2. This Birthright he sold , and that for a morsel of meat . By which words we understand his Contempt of this sacred Birth-right ; for , 1. He sold it , that is , he voluntarily parted with it ; for sale is voluntary . 2. He sold it at a very vile Rate , even for one Morsel of Meat , one Meal to satisfy his Appetite . Therefore is it said , He did eat , and drink , and rose up , and went his way ; thus Esau despised his Birth-right , Gen. 25. 34. This was his Profaness in particular . By this we easily understand , that Profaness is a Contempt of that which is sacred . And many may exceed in Reverence and Devotion of outward Worship , and the Observation of Rites and Ceremonies , and yet be guilty of this Sin , whilest they make their Belly their God , and prefer earthly Profits or Pleasures before those heavenly Blessings which Christ hath purchased and God hath promised . These two , Fornication and Profianess , may be termed Apostacy in Practice , as the former in Profession . 2. The Punishment follows , and that was an irrecoverable loss of the Blessing . The words contain two Propositions , 1. That Esat lost the Blessing irrecoverably . 2. They knew this . 1. That he lost it irrecoverably is evident ; for , 1. He would have inherited it , and was rejected . 2. He sought it carefully with tears , and found no place for Repentance . All this we may learn from the History of Isaac the Father , and Jacob and Esau his Sons ; for Jacob , according to the Direction of his Mother Rebeccah , obtains the Blessing from Isaac : Esau comes after with a purpose to receive the Blessing , of which he made full account . But the Blessing being already passed upon his Brother , his expectation was disappointed : Upon this he weeps , he petitions , and with greatest Importunity ; yet all in vain , and too late , the Blessing was gone , and what was done could not be undone . That which was done unwittingly by Isaac was confirmed by God , and made irrecoverable and unalterable . Therefore is it said , There was no place found for Repentance ; that is , the Blessing of Jacob stood firm and could not be altered ; no place was found for Esau's Repentance , but that was in vain ; no place was found for Isaa●'s Repentance , for the Blessing could not be revoked , nor transferred from Jacob to his Brother : For so he said . I have blessed him ; yėa , and he shall be blessed , Gen. 27. 33. 2. This they knew ; for , being Hebrews , they took Moses for a Prophet , and were acquainted with his Writings , and in particular with this History of their Father Jacob , from whom they were descended . He puts them in mind of this , as a thing well known unto them , that by this Example they might take heed of Profaness , that grievous Sin , lest in the End they suffer the like Punishment : For if any of them should be profane , and despise the Blessing of eternal Life , tendred in the Gospel , and should preferr their Credit , the quiet and peaceable Possession of their Estates , and other temporal advantages , before this glorious Reward , their Punishment in the End would be grievous ; because they should not only lose the Blessing irrecoverably , but also suffer eternally . And all such as prefer the World before Christ , and earthly Blessings before heavenly , are profane ; and whatsoever their Profession may be , they are in great danger of Apostacy . § . 18. The Author willing to omit nothing that might confirm them in their Profession , and prevent their Apostecy , argues further in this manner . Ver. 18. For ye are not come to the Mount that might be teuched , and that burned with fire , nor to Blackness , and Darkness , and Tempest ; Ver. 19. And to the sound of a Trumpet , and the Voice of words , which Voice they that heard , entreated that the Word should not be spoken to them any more . Ver. 20. For they could not endure that which was commanded : And if so much as a Beast touch the Mountain , it shall be stoned , or thrust thorow with a Dart. Ver. 21. And so terrible was the sight , that Moses said , I exceedingly fear and quake . TO find the Connexion of these with the former words is difficult ; because they seem to come in abruptly , without any dependance upon the antecedent Discourse . Some think these , with those that follow unto Ver. 25. are the same with those , Ye are not under the Law , but under Grace , Rom. 6. 14. and likewise with those , You have not received the Spirit of B●●dage to fear again , cap. 8. 15. For , as these two Passages , so this Text speaks of the different Estate of such as are under the Law , and such as are under the Gospel ; so doth this . And if compared together , they do assert and implicitly prove , that the State of the one is far more excellent and hapyy than the Estate of the other . And if we consider the Scope of the Apostle , which is , to confirm these Hebrews in the Faith , and perswade them to Perseverance in their Christian Profession and Practice , then this is an effectual and convincing Argument to perswade , and a forcible Motive to stir them up unto Perseverance . Yet this is not all ; for if the Gospel , and the Estate of such as are under the Gospel , be so much more excellent than the Law and the Estate of those that are under the Law , then we must have a special care to persevere in the Profession of the Gospel : The Reason of the Consequence we find Ver. 25. For if they escaped not , who refused him that spake on Earth ( when he gave the Law ) , much more shall not we escape , if we turn away from him that speaketh from Heaven . Where the Apostle presupposeth , 1. That the greater the Sin is , the greater the Punishment is . 2. That it 's a greater Sin to reject and transgress the Gospel , than to reject and transgress the Law ; and from these presupposed , he inferrs , That as they would escape a far greater and severer Punishment , so they should avoid the far greater Sin of Apostacy from the Gospel . So that the Order and Method of the Apostle is this , 1. He compares the Law and the Gospel . 2. By this Comparison manifests the excellency of the Gospel above the Law. 3. From this manifested , he inferrs the Duty , They must not reject the Gospel and fall away . 4. He urgeth the Performance of the Duty from the severe and terrible Punishment , which must be suffered by such as perform it not . So that from the 18th . Verse to the 25th . we have the Doctrine ; and in the 25th . the Use. This Argument hath great Affinity with that we find used Chap. 2. 2 , 3. § . 19. This being the Coherence , whereby the Scope of the Apostle may be understood : Let us consider the words themselvs , wherein we may observe the Doctrine concerning 1. The Law. 2. The Gospel . 3. Their passing from the one to the other . 4. The Use to be made of it . In the first we have , 1. The Manner of Promulgation . 2. The fear it caused in Israel and Moses . 3. Their freedom from it . According to these three things we have three Propositions , 1. The Promulgation of the Law was terrible . 2. Being terrible , it caused both Israel and Moses to fear exceedingly . 3. These Hebrews were freed from this Law. 1. For to understand the manner of Promulgation , we must know the place , and that in general was a Mountain , in particular Sinai , a Mountain in Arabia the Desert . This Mountain is said to be [ palpabilis , tactilis , ] touchable , or which may be touched ; that is , it was visible and sensible , a Mountain bodily accessible , though not at that time , and on Earth . This is added , to put a difference between this Hill , and the spiritual Zion , which is sometimes called Heaven , from whence the Gospel was revealed ; therefore when Christ revealed the Gospel , it 's said he spake from Heaven ; whereas , when God gave the Law on the Mountain , he is said to speak on Earth , Ver. 25. This place was not terrible in it self but at this time , because of the Fire wherewith it burned at that time : For some Mountains , where there are Vulcans , as upon Vesuvius , Aetna , Hecla , the Pike of Tenariff , and many in America and other places of the Earth , to burn with Fire is usual , But this Burning was extraordinary at this time ; for the Mountain then did burn with fire , Deut. 5. 23. yea , it did burn with fire up to the midst of Heaven , Deut. 4. 11. as though Heaven and Earth had been on a flame : And this was some resemblance of that dreadful Fire , which shall consume the combustible World at the latter day . The flaming Fire gave Light , but there was Blackness and Darkness , which might be caused by thick Clouds and Smoak which covered the Mountain ; for ●as before , it burnt with Fire unto the midst of Heaven , with Darkness , Clouds , and thick Darkness , Deut. 4. 11. For Mount Sinai was altogether on a Smoak , because the Lord descended upon it in Fire , and the smoak thereof ascended as the Smoak of a Furnace , and the whole Mount quaked greatly , Exod. 19. 18. There were also Thundrings and Lightnings , and the Noise of the Trumpet , and the Mountain smoaking , Chap. 20. 18. This was a Type of that utter Darkness of Hell. Besides , there were Tempests and terrible Storms , a Sign of God's fearful Indignation , which shall fall upon the Wicked . The Sound of the Trumpet , and the Voice of words , did encrease the terrour ; for the Voice of the Trumpet was exceeding loud , Exod. 19. 16. And all the People saw the Thundrings , and the Lightnings , and the Sound of the Trumpet , Chap. 20. 18. This Trumpet did summon the People to appear before the Lord , and did prepare them for to receive the Law , and to hear their doom if they should transgress it : As this was a Legislative , so there shall be a Judicial Trumpet to convent the whole World to appear before the Judgment-seat of Christ ; An Arch-Angel shall sound the Trumpet , and the Noise shall be loud and miraculous . When the People were prepared , on the third day the Trumpet sounded , and then followed the Voice of words ; for God , condescending to the Capacity of Man , gave the Law out of the midst of the Fire , and spake in an audible Voice in the Language of that People , that they might understand it . As the Sound of the Trumpet , so the Voice of God was loud , majestick , terrible , like Thunder ; so that the Words or Commands of the Law were dreadful , not only in respect of the Sound but the Matter . This dread and terrour did appear in two things , 1. In this , that they that heard entreated , that the word should not be spoken to them any more ; for they said to Moses , Speak thou with us , and we will hear ; but let not God speak with us , lest we dy , Exod. 20. 19. And again they said , Now therefore why should we dy ? for this great Fire will consume us : If we hear the Voice of the Lord our God any more , we shall dy , Deut. 5. 25. Let me not hear again the Voice of the Lord my God ; neither let me see this great Fire any more that I dy not , Chap. 18. 16. 2. They could not endure it , and this is evident from their fear of Death . And if Israel could not endure this Voice of the Law-giver , and the sight of the Lord , how will Wicked men endure to see Christ come from Heaven in flaming Fire , and to hear his Sentence , Go ye cursed into everlasting Fire , prepared for the Devil and his Angels , the most dreadful words that ever God spake , or Man did hear or shall hear . The terrour was yet greater ; for there was a Line drawn , and a Range sixed , to keep both Man and Beast at a Distance from the Mount , and Moses was commanded to set these bounds before-hand to the People ; and if either Man or Beast came within the Range , they were stricken dead instantly by Lightning or Thunderbolts . The Reasons why this Law was given in this manner are many ; as , 1. To signify the Majesty of the Supream Lawgiver , and that they inight know , that the Laws given were not the Laws of men but of the great Lord of Heaven and Earth : And the more clearly he did manifest himself , the greater Authority the Law must needs have . 2. Great and weighty things are done with greatest solemnity ; and the more the solemnity is , the greater Impression is made upon mens hearts . 3. Seeing the very Promulgation and giving of the Law was so dreadful , how dreadful must the Transgression be ; this was a mighty Motive to incline them to Obedience . Therefore Moses said , that God was come to prove them , and that his fear might be before their faces , that they sin not , Exod . 20. 20. 4. This did let them know , that little Comfort was to be expected from that Law , which did so strictly command , and ministred no Power to obey , had no Promise of Pardon ; therefore they should more earnestly desire and look for that great Prophet , by whom God would speak unto them more comfortably , and by whom they might have free access and boldness to come before the Throne of Grace , made accessible by his Blood. This was a Law or Covenant rather of Justice than of Mercy , of Fear than of Hope , of Servitude and Bondage rather than of Liberty : It was made to discover Sin , to make it exceeding sinful , to be a School-master to Christ. 2. This was the terrible manner of Promulgation , the Effect whereof was fear and terror , and the same very great and exceeding ; and that 1. In the People , as we heard before , who could not endure either the Voice or the strict Commands and Comminations : They endured it a little , but could endure no longer , for fear of present death . 2. And that which was more , in Moses ; for , so terrible was the sight , that Moses feared , did quake , did fear and quake exceedingly , and he said so , and expressed his great fear . And how terrible must that sight be which did strike such a terrour into a man so holy , of such a constant Spirit , so familiarly acquainted with God , and who alone at that time should comfort and encourage the People : That Moses said thus we do not read , yet that which is affirmed by a man inspired , as inspired , must needs be true . 3. They were not come to this Mount to receive so terrible a Law ; but they were freed from all these Terrours , and from the Curses threatned , and had received the Spirit of Adoption ; and therefore there was no reason why they should fall off to Judaism , and return to that dreadful Mount and consuming Fire any more . § . 20. Thus far of the terrour of the Law , the condition of such as were under it , and the freedom of these Hebrews from it : Now follows the condition of them as freed from the Law , and living under the Gospel . Before their Conversion they were in Minority , Servitude , and continual Fear ; but since they are in a more happy condition , as being translated into the Kingdom of God's dear Son , wherein they enjoyed incomparable Priviledges , spiritual Liberty , and many sweet Comforts . To understand all this , the Apostle saith , Ver. 22. But ye are come unto Mount Zion , the City of the living God , the heavenly Jerusalem , and an innumerable Company of Angels . IN these words , and those which follow unto the five and twentieth Verse , we may observe , 1. A Description of a spiritual and eternal Kingdom . 2. The Enjoyment of , or rather the Admission into , the same . In the Description some observe , 1. The Place 2. The Persons of this Kingdom . The Place is Zion , the City of the Living God , the new Jerusalem . The Persons are , Subjects , Soveraign . The Subjects are Angels . Men. Living . Departed . The Soveraign is God , the King and Judg. Christ , the Priest and Mediator . There was a certain Place and certain Persons , and they were come unto this Place , these Persons . Here we have a Zion , a City , a Jerusalem ; this Zion is a Mount , this City is the City of the living God , this Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem . Zion the Mount , the City of the Living God , the heavenly Jerusalem , here are the same ; and they may signify the Place or the Persons , or the Association of Persons in such a Place ; and they may signify grammatically and properly , or Rhetorically and Tropically . Grammatically , Zion opposed to Sinai is a Mount in Jerusalem ; where was first a Fort of the Jebusites , then the Royal Palace of King David , who adorned it with other Buildings , and thence it was called The City of David : On the North of this Mount some say the Temple was built ; and because that was the Palace and Throne of God , therefore , according to some Writers , it was styled The City of the great King ; and , because God did choose that place for his special presence , it had the Name of The City of the Living God. Shindler observs , that the whole City was called Jerusalem in the Dual Number , because it had two parts ; the one was the City of David on Mount Zion , the other the City of Vision on Moriah , which afterwards was inclosed . But not to stand upon these things , Zion and Jerusalem are taken for one City , which God in former times did honour above all Cities in the World. Therefore sung the Psalmist , Why leap ye , ye high Hills ? This is the Hill which God desireth to dwell in : yea , the Lord will dwell in it for ever , Psal. 68. 16. For by God's special Residence in this place it was advanced above all other Cities of the Earth , though never so magnificent : But this was her greatest Glory , That Christ the Son of God was presented there , preached there , and there did glorious Works ; there the Holy Ghost came down from Heaven upon the Apostles , there the Gospel began first to be preached , and thence it came out into all the World. According to the Prophecy of old it came to pass ; for so the Evangelical Prophet wrote , And in the last dayes it shall come to pass , that the Mountain of the Lord's House shall be established in the top of the Mountains , and exalted above the Hills , and all Nations shall flow unto it . And a little after , for out of Zion shall go forth the Law , and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem , Isa. 2. 2 , 3. Where , by Law , and the Word of God , understand the Doctrine of the Gospel : This is the Grammatical sense . Rhetorically Zion and the City of Jerusalem often signify the Church Militant and Triumphant , by reason of God's spiritual and supernatural presence and habitation in the same . If we consider this Church locally , the place of our Pilgrimage is the Earth , the place of our Rest and perpetual Abode is Heaven , from whence we receive our spiritual Being , where we must converse , and whither we tend ; in these respects Heaven may be said to be the place whither upon our first Conversion we come . The Persons which make up this Body , and the spiritual Inhabitants , are more intended by this Zion and this City ; yet they cannot make up this Politick Body , Society , and Common-weal , but as associated under their Soveraign , God-Redeemer . And to distinguish this Zion and City of Jerusalem from that which was on Earth , situate and lying in the Land of Canaan , in the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin , this is said to be The heavenly Jerusalem which is above , and the Mother of us all , which one day shall come down from Heaven , as a Bride prepared for her Husband ; and God , who dwells in her by Grace , shall then dwell in her by Glory , and bless her fully and for ever . To come to this City and Kingdom is to be admitted and incorporated into the same , upon our sincere Faith in Christ. In this City we find many Persons , amongst whom the most eminent are the Angels , those holy , immortal , and blessed Spirits of Heaven , who ever see the face of God , and environ his glorious Throne : These are not few but many ; for they are an innumerable Company or Multitude , for the Chariots of God are twenty thousand , even thousands or ( many thousands ) of Angels , Psal. 68. 17. The number of the Angels round about the Throne of God are ten thousand times ten thousand , even thousands of thousands , Revel . 5. 11. To come to these is , to be of their Society , and every true Believer upon his Regeneration begins to have Communion with these blessed Spirits ; for regenerate Men and Angels are fellow-Citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem , and fellow-Subjects of the same Kingdom . They are above us , and we are a great Distance from them in respect of our present Estate , yet some of them are very near us , though we do not see them , nor speak unto them , nor familiarly converse with them ; and they love us , have a special care of us , and all of them are ministring Spirits for us , who shall be Heirs of Salvation . § . 21. Yet there are other Subjects of this Kingdom of a lower and inferiour Ranck , and a Supream Lord and Judg of all : For we come , Ver. 23 To the general Assembly , and Church of the first-born , who are written in Heaven , and to God the Judge of all , and to the spirits of just men made perfect . ] VVHere we have God the Soveraign both of Angels and Men ; the Men who are Subjects in this Kingdom are the Living or Dead ; both , in his Dominion , and under his Power . Some Copies and Translations joyn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to the word Angels in the former verse , [ You are come to Myriads , the general assembly of Angels . ] But others read as we do in our English : The sense is not much altered by this difference , for there is a general Assembly of Angels , and a general Assembly of Men , and these are different ; yet both make but one Body and Community of Subjects in this heavenly and spiritual Polity . The Propositions are these , 1. There is a general Assembly and Church of the first-born , who are written in Heaven . 2. There is God the Judge of all . 3. There are Spirits of just men made perfect . 4. They were come to these . 1. In the first we have the first-born ; these are written in Heaven , these are a great Assembly and Church . 1. The first-born in this place are , 1. Such as are regenerated and adopted ; for here , to be born , is to be born again , and made the Sons of God by Word and Spirit . They are God's first-born , because they have the spiritual priviledges of primogeniture ; they are Heirs , and also Kings and Priests to God for ever . This signifies their excellent dignity above other men , and their near relation to God and Christ. 2. These first-born are written or enroll'd in Heaven , which is the same with having their Names written in Heaven , and in the Book of Life , Luke 10. 20. Rev. 20. 12. and in the Book of the Lamb. The meaning of the Phrase is , that upon their serious Faith in Christ , God doth account them as his Children , and Heirs of Glory ; therefore it imports two things , 1. Their title unto everlasting Glory . 2. The certainty of the possession in due time , so that there shall be no alteration of their Condition . They are destined to an eternal Inheritance , by an immutable decree ; and therefore their Names are said to be written in this Book from the beginning of the World , and so they shall never be blotted or rased out again . This enrolment is but virtual , which upon their new Birth becomes actual : This is a great priviledg , to have our Names enrolled in the Register of Heaven , which never shall be changed ; and an unspeakable comfort , by our sincere Faith and Obedience to know it . 3. There is the Church of these first-born ; that is , though they be many , yet they are called , chosen , congregated , and united into one spiritual Body politick , and made one Society ; therefore the Church is so often compared to a Body , which hath many members : yet all these united , make but one Systeme , called the Church , the members and parts whereof are not natural but naturalized , and by free Grace ingrafted . 4. They are a general Assembly , made up of many different persons , gathered together out of several Countries into one Body , though not into one place . Some think the Apostle alludes unto the Olympian , and other Assemblies of the Greeks , wherein many from many places met together . Some were Schollars , as Philosophers , Poets , Orators , who did exercise their wit ; some did manifest their activity in running , wrastling , and other bodily Exercises : they had also their Delights and Recreations . But the Analogy is not in these things , but in this , that they were one general Assembly , and so did represent the Church as Catholick and Universal . For these are a number gathered and redeemed by the Blood of Christ out of every Kindred , and Tongue , and People , and Nation ; and a great multitude not only of Jews but Gentiles , which no man can number , of all Nations , and Kindreds , and People , and Tongues , Rev. 5. 9 , & 7 , 9. They were come to these , and were incorporated into this Society , and made Subjects of this Kingdom , and the first-born of God , had a title to the same heavenly Inheritance , and their Names were enrolled in the Book of Life , and they were destin'd to eternal Glory . 2. They were come to God the Judge of all : What is the Body without an Head ? a Kingdom or multitude of Subjects without a King , who is the Basis of the People , and the Center of them all wherein they are united , and the Corner-stone , that doth support them ? Therefore in this most excellent , Society , there must be a King and Soveraign , and this is God , who is here styled the Judg of all . In Hebrew , to judg is to rule and govern ; and a Judg is a Ruler and Governour , and so it may be taken here : Yet there are inferiour and subordinate Rulers , and also supream and universal . Such God is , for all things are subject to his Power ; yet he hath a special Kingdom , as he is Lord and Redeemer by Christ , and so he is in a special manner the Supream Governour of this general Assembly and Church of the first-born , who are not only his Servants and Subjects , but his Sons and Heirs of Glory . He is their Lord and Father , their Law-giver , and their Judg ; he takes a special care of them , and by his Laws doth order them to eternal Happiness , and in the End rewards them with Glory . He is Almighty in Power , exactly just , wonderfully wise , and infinitely merciful , and exerciseth his Perfections in promoting their eternal Bliss : And they were come to him , and admitted into his Kingdom , received & into his Protection ; and as he is able , so he is resolved , to destroy all their Enemies , and give everlasting Peace : His Angels must guard them , all Creatures serve them , and all things must work together for their good : He continually sits in the Throne of Grace , not in the midst of Smoak and Fire as upon Mount Si●ai ; he is compassed with Light , and ever shines upon them with his favour . 3. They were come unto the Spirits of just men made perfect . Those Spirits were not Angels , but the Souls of Men ; yet not in their Bodies , but uncloathed and divested of their Bodies : Yet there were Millions upon Millions of separated Souls before their times , and many of these the Souls of men dying in their Sins ; but these were the Souls and Spirits of just men , who in their mortal Life upon Earth were upright , walked with their God , and endeavoured an universal Obedience ; yet they were not perfectly righteous in themselvs , but were justified , sanctified , and cleansed from all Sin by their Faith in Christ , before they departed this World : For , they were the Spirits of Patriarchs , Prophets , Martyrs , and the Saints of God , who lived in former times , which were made perfect . To be made perfect , is , to be washed in the Blood of Christ , and consecrated , as many in this Life are ; yet these had finished their time of Consecration , and were made capable of a nearer Communion with God than we Mortals are : Though these were removed out of the Church Militant , yet they had not attained an Estate of full Perfection ; for they had not received their full Reward , though they were secure of it , as of the Resurrection of their Bodies ; and were nearer unto God and eternal Bliss than we on Earth can be . These were the Spirits of just men made perfect , and to these the believing Hebrews were come : For , wheresoever or howsoever God had disposed of them , yet they were within the Verges of his Kingdom , and not only in , but of , this society , and fellow-Members of the same Body . They were come unto them , though not in the same place with them , and must expect to be by Death removed , and more nearly associated with them when the time of their Consecration should be finished , and then they should be freed from all Sin and Temptation , and their condition would be comfortable and most certain . Our Converse with Saints departed is very little or none , though some Communion there is between them and us living upon Earth : We and they have the same God and Sovereign , the same Head Jesus Christ , the same Charity , the same desire and hope of Resurrection . § . 22. They were also come Ver. 24. To Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant , and to the Blood of Sprinkling , that speaketh better things than that of Abel . THis Text informs us , 1. That Jesus is the Mediatour of the New Covenant by his Blood. 2. This Blood of Sprinkling speaks better things than that of Abel . 3. They were come to this Mediatour , and this Blood of Sprinkling . 1. Christ is the Mediatour of the New Covenant by his Blood. Of this Covenant , and of Christ the Mediatour of it , you have formerly heard Chap. 8. 6. & Cap. 9. 15. It 's written that the Law was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator , Gal. 3. 19. This Mediatour was Moses , who 1. Signifies the mind of God to Israel in his stipulation of Subjection and Obedience , and his Promise to be their God , and make them his peculiar People , and return the Promise and Restipulation of that People unto God , Exod. 19. 5. 6 , 7 , 8. 2. He confirms this Covenant by sprinkling of the Blood of the Sacrifice , Exod. 24. 34 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. In this he was a Type of Christ , who is the Mediatour of the new and better Covenant , to procure it , confirm it , make it effectual : Some inform us , that he procure ; it by his Blood and Sacrifice satisfying God's Justice , and meriting his Mercy for sinful Man. He makes it effectual , 1. By proposing it unto Man , and pressing the keeping of it upon powerful Motives ; and this is done by the Word of the Gospel . 2. He enables Man by the Spirit to keep it . 3. Upon his keeping of it by his Repentance and Faith , he makes Intercession for Man repenting and believing , and obtains Pardon of his Sins and Defects , and Acceptation of his endeavours ; and in the End , he , as a Judg , gives Possession of eternal Life : So that after once the Covenant is procured by his Blood , as a Prophet he proposeth and declareth it , as a Priest he makes Intercession , as a King and Judg he gives Possession ; Yet , according to the Scripture , Christ is a Mediatour in proper and more strict sense as a Priest , and his Blood and Death is the Foundation of this Covenant ; for all the Promises thereof are made for , and in consideration of , this Blood and Death , without which there is no Expiation of Sin , or hope of Pardon . And though the Promises were made from the beginning , and that upon condition of Faith in his Blood ; yet they had been vain and unprofitable to Man , if Christ in fulness of time had not shed his Blood , and by his Death made this Covenant firm and unalterable for ever : And as this Blood , satisfying divine Justice , and meriting his favour and all Mercies necessary for our happiness , is the Foundation of this Covenant ; so this Blood , by Christ's Intercession sprinkled upon our Souls , makes this Covenant effectual : So that as this Blood being shed procures and confirms this Covenant in it self , so this Blood pleades before the Throne of Grace in our behalf , confirms this Covenant to us , and makes it effectual to our Salvation . Therefore , though Christ as a Prophet and a King may do something about this Covenant , yet it mainly depends upon Christ as a Priest , and as a Priest he is a Mediatour . Take away this Blood shed and there is no Covenant ; take away the pleading of this Blood before the Judgment-Seat of God , and there is no efficacy of this Covenant to us in particular : And here , as we must distinguish of this Blood , as shed , as pleaded , and as sprinkled ; so we must of this Covenant , as procured , as made , as confirmed ; as likewise of it as kept , and as made effectual unto us . In all these respects it depends upon Christ as a Priest , and upon his Blood , and by and in respect of this Blood he is a Mediatour . And it is further to be observed , that a Mediatour is one that deals and acts between two Parties , and is distinct from both , at least so to be considered . The Parties here , are God and sinful Man : Christ , as a Priest , is different from both ; for , though he agrees with both , yet in this business he is neither . The End of this Mediation is , Reconciliation of God and Man , of the Sovereign offended and the Subject offending : God offended will not hear of Reconciliation but upon certain terms ; as the satisfaction of his Justice by Blood , the Repentance of Man offending , casting himself wholly upon his Mercy , and the Intercession of a just Party , which had shed his Blood for Sins . Christ therefore being the Word made Flesh , offers his pure and unspotted Blood in behalf of Man to satisfy Justice , and this Blood is accepted ; he makes Intercession for Man repenting , and relying upon this Blood and God's Mercy , and so the Reconciliation is made , and the Covenant proves effectuall on both sides , and that by vertue of a Mediatour coming between God angry and Man guilty , and interposing between Man repenting and God sollicited by this High-Priest ascended into Heaven . 2. This Blood of Sprinkling speaketh better things thau the Blood of Abel . This Blood is the Blood of Christ ; and the End , and so the principal Effect , is , to cleanse away Sin : yet this it cannot do , except it be first shed , and then sprinkled . Once shed , it hath a cleansing Power and Vertue , yet actually cleanseth and purifieth no man till it be sprinkled upon him . The Blood of sprinkling is Blood to be sprinkled , and it is to be sprinkled upon the unclean to make clean , and therefore the Blood of Sprinkling is by a Metonymy cleansing and purifying Blood : Yet there was a sprinkling of Blood in the Sanction and Confirmation of the Old Covenant , and so Blood of Sprinkling here may be the Blood of Confirmation : for , as you heard ( Chap. 9. 16 , 17. ) a Testament is of force after men are dead ; so upon and by the death of Christ the new Covenant was made firm , valid , and in full force and power for that end God intended it . If Christ had not dyed God might have abrogated or altered his Covenant ; but upon his death he was bound to stand to it for ever , and the Title to the heavenly Inh●r●tance is good to all such as observe the terms and conditions ; yet in this Expression it is very probable the Apostle alludes to the Legal Purifications by Water , Ashes , Blood , which being sprinkled upon such as were Legally unclean , or upon the Lepers , did purify them . The like Effect Christ's Blood hath upon all such as are capable of it ; therefore do we read , that the Blood of Christ doth , cleanse us from all Sin , 1 Joh. 1. 7. and to cleanse is to forgive , to be cleansed is to be pardoned , as is implyed in that Text , If we confess our Sins , he is faithfull and just to forgive us our Sins , and to cleanse us from all Unrighteousness , Ver. 9. This Blood is sprinkled upon such as confess , repent , believe , pray , receive the Sacraments . The means of sprinkling is the Word , Sacraments , and principally the Spirit , or whatsoever worketh or increaseth and strengthneth Faith ; and then it 's sprinkled , when it 's so applyed as that the Person receiveth the benefit of Christ's Passion , one Effect , and the principal , is Remission of Sin and Sanctification , whereby we are freed from Sin , and the woful Consequents thereof ; for this Blood speaketh better things than that of Abel . Abel's Blood was shed , so was Christ's ; Abel's Blood shed speaketh , so Christ's Blood shed speaketh ; Abel's Blood speaketh to God , so Christ's speaketh to him likewise ; they both speak loud , and cry so that God hears : Abel's Blood was precious , Christ's far more precious , and the Cry of both is heard in Heaven . Thus far they agree , yet differ much ; for the one cryes for Mercy , the other for Judgment ; the one cryes against Man that did shed it , the other for Man though his Sins did cause it to be shed . The meaning is , that Cain's Murther of his Brother Abel did so much offend God that it moved him to revenge it ; Christ's death , as caused by the cursed , cruel , impenitent Jews , did so far provoke God , that he fearfully punished them and their Children , according to their own words , Let his Blood be upon us and our Children ; yet , as suffered for the Sin of Man , and offered unto God , it was so pleasing , so precious , and so highly accepted , that for , and in condsieration of it , God was effectually moved both to reward him , and pardon all penitent and believing Sinners , and that for evermore . This Blood spake when it was shed , and speaks effectually when pleaded before the eternal Judg. 3. They were come to this Mediator , to this Blood. They were not come to the Mount of Fire , Smoak , Darkness , Terrour , Death , where there was no Mediator to make their peace with God , no blood to cry for Metcy and cleanse them from their Sin , and free them from eternal Death . But they were come into that Society , where Christ was their Mediator and Priest , where they were freed from the Law of Sin and Death , and under the Covenant of Free Mercy , Grace , and Life ; where the Blood of Christ , sprinkled upon their Souls , did cry aloud to Heaven for Mercy , and did cleanse them from all Sin for ever . And now since , they were received into an heavenly Society , ( where Angels , and the best of men both living and dead , were their fellow-Subjects ; God Redeemer sitting in the Throne of Grace , their Soveraign ; Christ the Son of God , their Priest , who shed his Blood to wash away their Sins : and though they had many Offences , yet upon their Repentance would make Reconciliation for them ; and though they had many failings , yet he was a righteous Advocate with their Father , and would plead their Cause with his own Blood , procure their pardon according to the Covenant of Grace , so that they should be justified and live for ever ; ) there was no Reason in the World to return to Sinai and the Law again , and forsake the best and happiest Kingdom that ever was , a Kingdom of eternal Righteousness and Peace : If they did , Heaven might be astonished , and Earth amazed , at their Folly. In this with that which follows , the Apostle seems to sum up briefly , in a few words , all the former Arguments taken from the excellency of the Prophetical Office , of the Covenant , of the Priest-hood of Christ , and he doth this in that manner that he clearly takes away all colour of excuse from such as should incline to Apostacy . § . 23. Therefore he further argues thus , Ver. 25. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh ; for if they escaped not , who refused him that spake on Earth , much more shall not we escape , if we turn away from him that speaketh from Heaven . THE words are a Dehortation , wherein we have 1. The Sin dehorted from . 2. The Reason why we should take heed of it . 1. The Sin is , to refuse him that speaketh . 2. The Reason is taken from the greater Punishment to be suffered if they do refuse . 1. To refuse him that speaketh , implyes , 1. That Christ doth speak , and God by him . To speak , is , not only to reveal the Doctrine of the Gospel , which is the thing spoken ; but also to command Repentance and Faith in Christ , with a Promise of Righteousness and eternal Life , and a Commination of eternal Death unavoidable . To refuse him that thus speaketh , is , either to reject this Doctrine , and not receive it ; or , if they have once received it , to renounce it ; so that this Refusal includes both Unbelief , and also Apostacy from the Christian Profession : But they who had made Profession of this Doctrine must not refuse to continue in it , nor renounce it to the dishonour and Contempt of God , who out of greatest Mercy had tendred Salvation upon fairest terms . 2. The Reason is taken from the hainousness of the Sin , and the grievousness of the Punishment , both which are set forth by a Comparison in Quantity : And this Comparison presupposeth many things ; as , 1. That God did speak in former times , and now again in these last dayes ; then by Moses and the Prophets , now by Christ his Son. 2. That when he gave the Law , and made the former Covenant , he spake on Earth upon Mount Sinai ; but when he spake by Christ he spake from Heaven ; for he came from Heaven , returned to Heaven again , and from Heaven sent down the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and by that Spirit in them revealed the Gospel . 3. That some Sins are more hainous than others ; and the more hainous the Sin is , the more heavy the Punishment will be . 4. That to refuse God speaking on Earth was a grievous Sin , and deserved a grievous Punishment ; and so to refuse him speaking from Heaven is a great Sin , and renders the Refuser liable to fearful Punishment . 5. That the latter is a more grievous Sin than the former , and deservs a greater Punishment . These things presupposed , the Reason is clear , and we must in any wise take heed of rejecting or renouncing the Gospel ; because , if they who transgressed the Law given on Earth were severely punished , then they , if guilty of a far greater Sin , as all such are who refuse the Gospel revealed from Heaven , then they must suffer a far greater Penalty , and no wayes could they escape it . This differs something from the Argument used Chap. 2. 2 , 3 , &c. for that compares the Law delivered by Angels , with the Gospel spoken and confirmed by Christ , and the excellency of Christ above the Angels is the ground of his Argument : But here God's speaking on Earth by Angels , is compared with God's speaking from Heaven by Christ ; and here the Excellency of Heaven from whence the Gospel was revealed , above the Earth where the Law was given , is made the Foundation of the Reason : And God , by giving the Law on Earth , and the Gospel from Heaven , did intimate , that there was some Excellency in the Gospel which was not in the Law , in the new Covenant which was not in the old ; otherwise , God could have revealed them both on Earth or both from Heaven . Let us apply this unto our selvs , and consider , 1. Who speaks unto us . 2. What he speaks . 3. From whence he speaks . 1. It 's not Man , but God ; not Moses , but Christ : The Law indeed was by Moses , but Grace and Truth by Jesus Christ. The Majesty and Power of him who speaks is such , as Angels are bound to attend and obey with all humble Submission ; and shall we Worms , nay Dust and Ashes , refuse to hear this glorious Lord ? 2. The Matter that he speaks and we hear , is the best , the most sweet , the most comfortable , and the most excellent ; never better things seen , or heard , or understood by the Heart of Man. The Gospel is a Doctrine of profoundest Wisdom , of greatest Love and Mercy , and of highest Concernment , and most conducing to our everlasting good . And shall we reject it ? Shall we sin against so great a Majesty , so great a Mercy ? Sins against the Mercies of God so freely tendred to us in Jesus Christ , are the most hainous of all others : Let us tremble to think of these Sins , and those Punishments which they must suffer that are guilty of them . 3. He speaks from Heaven ; for the Gospel is a Mystery hid from the beginning of the World , and was brought unto us from the Bosom of the Father , by his only begotten Son ; and by the Holy Ghost ; it 's the clearest manifestation of God's deepest Counsels concerring Man's eternal Estate , and of his greatest Love to sinful Wretches , the brightest Light that ever shined from Heaven ; yet we hear it , and most men regard it not , but reject it to their everlasting Woe . § . 24. The Apostle draws to a Conclusion , and urgeth Perseverance by another Argument in the words following , Ver. 26. Whose Voice then shook the Earth ; but now he hath promised , saying , Yet once more , I shake not the Earth only but Heaven also . Ver. 27. And this Word , Yet once more , signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken , as of things that are made ; that those things which cannot be shaken may remain . GOD shook the Earth when he gave the Law , and from this shaking the Authour takes occasion from the words of Haggai , to prove the Immutability of the Gospel , and the Administration of Christ's Kingdom . In the Text the Proposition concerning this Immutability is 1. Cleared . 2. Applyed , in the two last Verses of the Chapter . In the first , he doth 1. Affirm the shaking of the Earth in giving of the Law. 2. Alledgeth God's Promise of another shaking not only of Earth but Heaven . 3. From that Promise he infers the Immutability of the Evangelical Administration . The Propositions of the first part of the Text are two : 1. That God then shook the Earth . 2. That he that then shook the Earth , promised to shake once more not only the Earth but Heaven also . 1. God then shook the Earth . The Adverb [ then ] points at the time of giving the Law on Mount Sinai ; for in the former ; Verse it 's said , that he spake on Earth in the Hearing of all Israel . That then he shook the Earth , is the express words of the History ; Mount Sinai was all on a S●●ak , and the whole Mount quaked greatly , Exod. 19. 18. With this agrees that of the Psalmist , When thou O God wentest before thy People , when thou didst march through the Wilderness , The Earth shook , the Heavens also dropped at the presence of God ; even Sinai it self was moved at the presence of God , the God of Israel , Psal. 68. 7 , 8. The principal things then signified by this shaking the Mount and the Earth were two , 1. The Alteration of the former Administration of the Church , and 2. The Constitution of that Order , which continued untill the times of the Gospel : For , 1. Then God made a great Alteration in the Kingdom of Aegypt , divided the Red Sea , and shook the hearts of men in several Nations . 2. He reduced the People of Israel into a Polity both Civil and Ecclesiastical , made a Covenant with them , gave them Laws Moral , Ceremonial , Judicial , ordained a Priest-hood , instituted a Form of Worship to continue till the coming of the Messias . Thus then he shook the Earth . 2. He promised once more to shake not only the Earth but Heaven . Where the Subject is Shaking , and presupposeth one Shaking past , and informs us of another , and the same far greater : The former was only of the Earth , the latter of Heaven too . This Shaking is the thing promised ; the Promise was made first , the Performance followeth several hundred years afterwards . The Promise we find in Haggai the Prophet ; the words are these , For thus saith the Lord of Hosts , Yet once it is a little while , and I will shake the Heavens , and the Earth , and the Sea , and the dry Land. And I will shake all Nations , and the Desire of all Nations shall come , and I will fill this House with Glory , saith the Lord , Hag. 2. 6 , 7. Where we may observe , 1. That the Occasion of these words was this ; the People of Judah returned out of Captivity , rebuilt the Temple , and dedicated the same with great Joy , yet so that many in this Solemnity did weep ; for the ancient People which had seen the former House built by Solomon , knew that it was far more magnificent than this latter Temple , which was no wayes comparable to the former . God , to comfort these dejected Jews , makes a Promise to make this latter House far more glorious than the former by the coming of Christ , who should honour it with his presence . 2. That the Apostle neither follows the Hebrew , nor the Septuagint , precisely ; yet he takes that which was for his purpose , and retains the sense , and rather expounds , than translates or cites , the Prophet ; for ●ie signifies , 1. That the words are a Promsse of God. 2. That the Shaking promised , and to come was greater than the former ; for then God's Voice shook the Earth , but now he would shake not only the Earth but the Heavens . 3. That the Earth , the Sea , the dry Land , are the same , and only different parts of the same Globe . By all this we understand the mighty Power of God , who by his Word and Voice can shake the Earth , the Rocks , the strongest Mountains ; who can shake not only Earth but Heaven ; who can make great Alteration in the World when he pleaseth ; yet the proud and stony Heart of Man is little moved at the word of this glorious God. But , for the more full Explication of the words of the Prophet , we must consider , what this shaking of Heaven and Earth is , and how this was fulfilled . 1. This Shaking is a Work of God , whereby he makes great Alterations and Commotions in the World , preparing for something to follow ; and in this he usually manifests his glorious Power and Wisdom ; Yet these Alterations are seldom made without some prodigious and miraculous Works , and such as many times amaze and terrify mortal men . Thus , before the coming of Christ when this Promise was fulfilled , there were many prodigious and dreadful Signs i● Heaven , Earth , the Sea ; before the Civil Warrs between Pompey and Cesar ; and that between Augustus and Brutus , Cassius , Lepidus , Antony . Upon these followed the Alteration of the Roman Government , and an universal Peace . At Christ's Birth the universal Enrollment was a great Commotion amongst men ; the Angels from Heaven singing and celebrating Christ's Nativity on Earth , and the new Star seen of the wise men in the East , and directing them to the place where Christ was born , imply an extraordinary Commotion in Heaven . When Christ suffered and dyed upon the Cross , the Heavens were darkned , the Earth did quake , the Rocks were rent asunder , and the Graves were opened ; and at his Resurrection there was an Earth-quake , and a glorious Angel descended from Heaven , so that even then the Earth and the Heaven were shaken : and so they were before the Ruine and Destruction of Jerusalem . But the principal performance of this Promise was , the Alteration made by taking away the Law and bringing in the Gospel : Then Heaven was shaken ; for Christ ascended , entred , sate down at the right hand of God , began to reign and make Intercession , the Angels and all the Holls of Heaven became Subject unto him , and all Creature ; were at his Command . Then the Earth was shaken ; for the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles , the Gospel was preached to Jews and Gentiles , the Law and Levitical Service and Priest-hood were taken away , the Idolat●y of the Gentiles beaten down , the Jews and Gentiles are converted and became Christian. So that this Shaking was an Alteration in Religion and in the Administration of Christ's Kingdom , and it was universal in Heaven and Earth . § . 25. The latter part of the Text is a Discourse of the Apostle upon the words of the Propher , wherein he 1. Takes notice of the word Yet once more . 2. Informs us what it signifies and imports . Yet once more hath no sense without the Verb I will shake , which is therefore to be understood . The Action is Shaking , yet once more the Circumstance : The meaning is , I have once shaken the Earth , and I will shake it again , and not shake it but Heaven also , and make a far greater Alteration ; yet I will but do this once , and no more . From hence in the second place the Apostle inferrs two things , 1. That whatsoever was removed and abolished in this latter Shaking , was removed for ever ; and , 2. Whatsoever was then brought in , must stand unalterable for ever . This is that which the Apostle saith is signified by that word Yet once more . If the words be reduced to Propositions they are these , 1. There is a removing of things shaken , as of things made . 2. There are things which cannot be shaken , which remain . 3. The former things were removed , that the latter might remain . 4. All this was signified by the word of God's Promise , Yet once more . 1. There is a removing , &c. 1. We have things shaken : The things are the Levitical Law , Priest-hood , Tabernacle , Service , and the Administration of God's Kingdom under the Law , and the first Covenant . These things were shaken , moved , and altered ; yet an Alteration may be of the Substance or Accidents of the thing , but this was of the Substance ; for they were so moved that they were removed , the very Substance and Being of them was so changed that they were wholly taken away ; for as one Law may be so made as to repeal and wholly abrogate another , so the Gospel and the Administration of Christ were so brought in by God as they took away and wholly abolished the Law. It 's further said , that there was a removing of these , as of things made ; which some do so understand as though the things made were the Tabernacle or Temple , with all the Utensils of both ; which , though they were made according to the Pattern in the Mount , yet were [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] things made with hands , and but Shadows of far better things , which once exhibited , these must needs vanish : Yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify things finished and past , never to return again . The Hebrew wo●d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is very often turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify to destroy , suppress , and make an End of . 2. There were things which could not be shaken , which remained . Things not shaken or moved are the Gospel , and the manner of the Administration of Christ's Kingdom , after his sitting at the right hand of God : These are not shaken nor altered , either in part or whole , in Substantials or Accidentals ; but they remain in full force , and shall so continue unto the End. No other Doctrine , Manner of Worship , Order in Heaven or Earth or Administration must be expected ; for the Christian Religion shall continue to the End , till time shall be no more ; and this was God's purpose in the bringing in of these things . 3. The former things were removed , that these might be introduced and established When two things cannot stand together , the one is removed that the other might take place ; and this is the Case in particular . The Law and the Gospel are inconsistent ; so is the Legal and Evangelical Administration , and they cannot stand in force together ; therefore there is a necessity of nulling the one , because otherwise the other cannot be established . Now , though the Law was suitable to former times of Minb●ity and Imperfection , yet , being imperfect and full of shadows , there was great Reason it should be removed when the Substance of those shadows , and that which was far more perfect , was exhibited ; and there was a necessity of the removal of the former , that way might be made for the latter as far more excellent . This was the Reason why the Apostles , especially Paul , did labour so much not only to prove the Imperfection , but to endeavour the Abolition of the Law , after the Gospel was revealed from Heaven . 4. This Removal of the Law , to bring in the Gospel and a more perfect Administration , was signified by that word of the Propher Yet once more : For if God had said , I will again shake Earth and Heaven , and omitted the word once more , then there had been in that Promise no ground of the Apostle's Inference to prove the stability and immutability of the Gospel . But seeing the word yet once more is [ added , his Inference was firm and valid ; and the Apostle knew that God's meaning was not basely this I will once more , but I will once , and no more , and never again , shake Heaven and Earth : For , from the Expression thus understood it doth necessarily follow , that if in this one shaking he 〈◊〉 any thing , that must needs stand firm for ever ; because there shall be no 〈◊〉 , no Alteration in matter of Religion to the World's End. This is a strong place against M●●●-nens , and the cursed Innovators of all times . § . 26. Thus far the Doctrine concerning the Gospel and the Immutability of Christ's Kingdom hath been cleared ; the Application of it to these Hebrews follows , Ver. 28. Wherefore we receiving a Kingdom which cannot be moved , let ●● have Grace whereby we may serve God 〈◊〉 with reverence and godly fear . Ver. 29. For our God is a consuming Fire . THE illative Particle [ Wherefore ] doth inform us , that these words follow upon the former as a Conclusion from the Premisses ; yet the Conclusion is not in the first words , but those that follow . If we consider the words in themselves , we have 1. A Doctrine in the first words . 2. An Use in those which follow . The Use is an Exhortation , wherein we may observe , 1. The Duty exhorted unto , which is , To have Grace to serve God. 2. The manner how we must serve God , and that is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ●●dy fear . 3. The Reason , Because our God is a consuming Fire . The Doctrine is this , [ Paul and thsee Hebrews received a Kingdom , which could not be moved , ] ; and it 's first to be explained , and the difficulty lies in this phrase of receiving a Kingdom . For , 1. There is a Kingdom . 2. This Kingdom cannot be moved . 3. They received it . 1. There are many temporal Kingdoms , but this is Spiritual and Divine . The King is God , the Administratour-General is Christ ; who in the administration of this Kingdom is so one with God , that he is King as he is ; the Subjects , believing Saints ; the rules of Goverment are the Doctrines of the Gospel , the priviledges and benefits of this Kingdom are the blessings of Grace and Glory . 2. This Kingdom cannot be moved , or is not movable or alterable , because Prince , People , Laws , and Administration continue for ever . The present manner of Administration shall not determine , till God be all in all : That it cannot be moved , but remains stable , you have heard before . 3. They had received this Kingdom : A Kingdom may be received either by a Prince to Govern it , or by Subjects to be Governed ; the former is not , the latter is intended . For Subjects to receive a Kingdom , may be either a Duty or a Benefit ; as a Duty , it is to submit unto the Power and Laws of the Soveraign : as a Benefit , it is to be admitted as a Subject to enjoy the priviledges , peace , and happiness of the Kingdom . Both may be here meant , and the benefit presupposing the Duty fully and finally performed may be and shall be , that we shall be Kings and Priests , and reign with Christ for ever . For the eminent and excellent estate of Glory following upon a final Victory over all Enemies , even Death it self subdued , is said to be a Kingdom . This expression seems to be taken from that of the Prophet : But the Saints of the most High shall take [ or receive ] the Kingdom , and shall possesse the Kingdom for ever , even for ever and ever , Dan. 7. 18. The reason why here is mention of a Kingdom , is , because the former Discourse from ver . 22. to this Text is , concerning the excellent administration of Christ's Kingdom ; unto which , God by his Grace and Calling upon their receiving of the Gospel , had translated and admitted them . § . 27. This is the Doctrine ; the Exhortation followeth , Where , 1. The Duty is to have Grace to serve God. Where we may observe , 1. Grace . 2. The having of this Grace . 3. The having it to serve God. 1. By Grace , may be meant the Doctrine of Grace , which is the Gospel so called , Tit. 2. 11. 2. Faith and Belief . 3. The profession of this Faith. 4. The sanetifying power of the Spirit , which all true Believers and Professors have ; and this presupposeth all the former , or infolds them . 2. To have this Grace , is to have this sanctifying power , and to hold it , keep it , exercise it more and more : And though some Coples read it Indicatively [ we have ] , yet most read it [ let us have ] ; that is , let us hold it . 3. The end why , we must have and hold it , is that we may serve God. This implies , that God is the Soveraign in this Kingdom , and we are the Subjects , and our duty is continually to serve our Lord and King. To serve him , is not only with all humility to adore his excellent Majesty ; but also sincerely , wholly , and absolutely to submit unto his power , and obey his Laws . This implies , 1. That in this Kingdom we are not our own Masters , or at liberty to do what we would . But God is our Master , and we are bound to obedience by his Laws . 2. That without the Grace of God continued and held fast , we cannot serve our God constantly : without Grace , we cannot serve him ; without Grace held fast , we cannot serve him to the end . 2. The manner how we must serve God , is to serve him acceptably with reverence and goldly fear . In general , our Service must be acceptable ; in particular , it must be reverence and godly fear , which render it pleasing to God , and without which it cannot be accepted . Men may fear God , that is , perform some religious Service to God , and yet it will not prove acceptable . For some serve God , and not with a pure and sanctified heart ; some serve God in outward Circumstantials and Rituals , not in Substantials ; some serve God with a profane and wicked heart ; some serve him ignorantly or negligently , without servency and due affection . The Pharisee could give Alms , Fast , Pray , pay Tythe of Mint , Anniseed , Cumin , and neglect the weighty things of the Law , as Justice , Judgment , Mercy ; they could and did draw near to God with their Lips , and yet be far from God with their hearts : they served God , but according to the Traditions of men . The Jews were zealous , and devout in Ceremonials ; yet their hearts were polluted , and their hands full of Blood. Therefore we must know , that no profane man or hypocrite , or indisposed person can serve God acceptably . To do this , doth presuppose man in the state of Grace , and an heart prepared and rightly disposed ; the person must first be accepted , before the work can please God. And as the Person , so the Service must be rightly qualified ; and so it is , when it proceeds from Faith in Christ , is conformable to the Word of God , and tends unto his Glory . And if We and our Service be thus qualified , though our infirmities be many ; yet so great is God's mercy , that for Christ's sake he will accept both us and it : we must not presume upon his mercy ; but yet we must rely upon him , when we have a special care to shun that which offends him , and do that which is just and holy ; and when we have done our best , humbly in the Name of Christ pray for pardon of defects , and acceptance of our sincere endeavours : Yet we cannot serve God thus acceptably , without reverence and godly feat . Reverence , in God's Service , looks at his excellency and glorious Majesty , and at our own unworthiness , and the infinite distance between Him and Us ; and therefore we must adore God's excellent Majesty with deep humility , abasing our selves very low , being afraid and ashamed , out of a sense of our own vileness , to come near him , except in his great mercy and free grace he vouchsafe access : Signs of this reverence , is cut kneeling , bowing , covering our faces , prostration , and such like gestures . And if we were either apprehensive and sensible of our own vileness , or God's excellency , how could we possibly be so profane and unreverent in his Worship ? Godly fear may be the same with Reverence , or distinct from it . The word in the Greek signifies sometimes caution , sometimes devotion , sometimes fear , and that in the Service of God ; which is a religious fear , and care not to offend , but to please him . Both reverence and fear , in this place , may farther be , a more then ordinary care and diligence in the Service of God , that we may please him , and be accepted of him . For , as the greatest honour with the greatest humility is due to God , that Supreme Lord , whose Majesty is infinite and eternal ; so the greatest caution must be used in his Worship , for he will be sanctified in all them that draw near unto him . 3. This is the manner how he will be served , by all such as are admitted Subjects of this unmoveable and unchangeable Kingdom . The reason is , He is a consuming Fire : These words are improper and metaphorical ; and a Metaphor is a contract Similitude , which here we find . In such Comparisons , we may observe , 1. The things compared , as like and agreeing . 2. The thing wherein they do agree . The things here compared , are God and Fire ; God is like to Fire . The thing wherein they agree is this , that they are consuming . So that the meaning is , That God is like unto Fire ; and he is like to it in this , that as That , so He , hath a consuming force , Many are the qualities and effects of Fire , but this one is singled to represent the terrour of God. For though that flery Law , which God gave out of the midst of fire burning up to Heaven be removed ; yet in the Gospel of sweetest mercy and freest grace , there are threatnings of unquenchable Fire and eternal Flames . Therefore this expression signifies his punishing and vindictive Justice ; the Subjects whereof are profane , impenitent , and unbelieving persons , who are disobedient to the Law of Grace , and refuse the tender of saving mercy . The effect of this Justice , upon these Offenders , are severe and everlasting punishments , which cannot be expressed or conceived ; but are represented by the raging flames , and ●●erce burning of the most violent Fire which cannot be quenched . And as the torment of violent hottest flames is the most grievous , so these punishments are ; and , if the Sufferers be immortal , and immortally sensible , the Torment will be not only grievous , but perpetual . The sum is , that the punishment of delinquent and disloyal Subjects , which the Judge shall execute , and they suffer , is extreme and everlasting . The force of the Reason is great ; for as men tremble to think of everlasting , tormenting , and consuming Flames ; so let them have a special care to serve God unto the end , in due manner . This implies , that there is a glorious Reward of eternal Light , and delight to all such as shall like loyal Subjects continue constant unto the end , in the profession of the Truth , and the acceptable Service of this glorious and eternal Soveraign . CHAP. XIII . § . 1. PRofession without Practise ; Faith without good works cannot attain the fruition of that eternal Life , which Christ hath merited , and God hath promised ; therefore the Apostle in this Chapter exhorts to Love , good Works , constancy in the Truth , and other Duties . He begins with Love , Ver. 1. Let brotherly Love continue . ] THe Analysis of this Chapter is easy ; for we have , 1. The hortatory part thereof . 2. The conclusion of the whole . The Duties exhorted unto with several Motives , are reduced to a kind of order by divers Expositors : Yet as this is not exactly done , so it 's needless to do it . We may indeed enumerate the Duties , and reduce them to their proper places and heads in the Body of Divine Wisdom ; and that is very easie to be done . Yet the Wisdom of the Apostle was this , that he doth not mention all Duties ; but such as were most requisite at that time to be performed by those persons ; and doth not strictly follow the method of the moral Law , but takes liberty to place them in that order which he thought most convenient . For he knew the performance of them to be the principal thing , and it was sufficient for him to press them , and then to know them . The first Exhortation is to brotherly Love. The Duty is , 1. Brotherly love . 2. Continuance in it . Brotherly love , is love of the Brethren : For there are Brethren , and these must be loved . To love our Neighbour as our selves , is the substance of the second Table of the moral Law. And as there are several degrees of Neighbours , so there is of Love : Neighbours , in full extent , include Strangers , Enemies , and all such as are capable of our Love : Of these , some are more nearly linckt unto us , as Brethren . Yet these are either natural , political , or spiritual ; here spiritual Brethren are meant , who have God to be their Father , Jerusalem above to be their Mother , are born of the same incorruptible seed , animated with the same Spirit of Christ , and partakers of a divine Nature . This spiritual consangunity is a principle of spiritual Love , and this Divine Nature an object of a more ardent affection . Though therefore we must love others truly , and as our selves ; yet these , if we be Christians , we must love more then others . And though we know no man's heart and reins , yet such as appear , and manifest themselves by their profession and practise to be Saints , we must love as Brethren ; and though they be not such , and we mistake , yet our Love is acceptable to God. This Love is not only a complacency in them , and an esteem of their persons , as having more of God in them then other men ; but we must effectually desire their good and happiness , and when occasion serves , really promote it . It must be a real , and a giving , and a suffering love : For as Christ laid down his Life for us , so we must lay down our Lives for the Brethren : And we must not love only in word and tongue , but in deed and in truth , 1 Joh. 3. 16 , 18. By vertue of this Love , there is in us a secret Sympathy , which will manifest it self by rejoycing with them that rejoyce , and mourning with them that mourn . Yet this spiritual Love , and divine Affection , is found in few ; and it 's not so fervent and effectual in us , as it should be : Self-love , and love of the World , do much abate it : And as the Brethren love the Brethren , so the World hates them , and counts them their greatest Enemies . This is the love ; we must love them , but this love must remain and continue in them . This doth presuppose , that they formerly had loved them , and that was evident enough ; for they had ministred unto the Saints , and did minister , Chap. 6. 10. and became Companions of such as were teproached , Chap. 10. 34. And their Duty was , that as they had begun , so they should go on , and love to the End : Life and Love must end together , whilest we live we must love the Brethren . And the words are not onely Paul's Exhortation , but God's Command , and the same universal , and binds us as well as them . § . 2. The second Duty is Hospitality , Ver. 2. Be not forgetful to entertain Strangers ; for thereby some have entertained Angels unawares . VVHere , 1. The Duty is , to entertain Strangers . 2. The Motive is , Because some have thereby been so happy as to entertain Angels unawares . The Object of this Duty is , Strangers ; the Duty it self is , to entertain them ; the Cayeat is , Not to forget so to do . Strangers , in this place may be either Christians , or others ; both are an Object of Charity , but especially the former : We are Strangers when we are from home in another Place or Country , where we have few Friends , are not well known : And being amongst Strangers , where we have neither harbour nor other necessaries , we must needs be in a miserable Condition , and a proper Object of Hospitality . Though this extends to others , yet it 's principally understood of such as in these times were persecuted and scattered in strange Countries , and being spoiled of their Goods were in great necessity , not knowing sometimes where to have the next Lodging or Morsel of Bread : These are principally meant , and must be entertained . To entertain them , is , freely to take them into our Houses , and according to our ability supply their Wants ; for , where should these receive Comfort or Relief , but with Christian Brethren ? Some might pretend themselves to be such , and that falsly , and so abuse the Charity of well-meaning Christians ; yet there were several wayes whereby poor Christians and their sad Condition might be known : And if they were once known , we must not forget this Duty ; to forget , is , to neglect it ; not to forget , is , to perform it . The Motive or Reason is this , That by the performing of this Duty some have entertained Angels unawares . The Persons who are here understood were Abraham and Lot , both pious and righteous men of great Civility and Humanity , and such as considered the Condition of Strangers , as being Strangers themselves , and dealt with them accordingly . These received and entertained Angels , who being sent by God did appear first to Abraham , then to Lot : Their business was to destroy Sodom , Gomorrah , and the Cities of the Plaines : Yet in the Execution of this Judgment , God remembred Abraham and Lot , and according to his tender care of them , gave these Angels a Charge and Instructions to preserve them . They first came to Abraham in the appearance of men , and of Strangers , and as such he invites them and entertains them ; in the same manner they came to Sodom where they were invited and entertained under the same Notion ; yet they were truly and really Angels , though conceived to be Men : Therefore is it said , they entertained them unawares ; that is , though wittingly and willingly they received them as Men , yet they knew them not at first to be Angels . The force of this Reason to perswade Hospitality , is , 1. In respect of the Guests . 2. Of the benefit they received by them . 1. It was an Honour and a special Grace , that the glorious , blessed , immortal Inhabitants of Heaven should enter their Houses and Tents , accept of their Invitation , and be so familiar with them . 2. In respect of the benefit they received by them ; for first they came from Heaven to Abraham to let him know his Wife Sarah should bear him a Son , and within a short time God would perform his Promise unto him : This was a great Blessing , much expected and desired of a long time , and now determined assuredly to a certain Period within the present Year ; besides , God acquainted him by these Angels with his Intention to destroy Sodom , and yet upon his Intercession to save the Righteous in it ; and this Prayer may be conceived to be effectual for saving , though not the City , yet his Kinsman in it . Lot also had the Honour and the Benefit too ; for , by his blessed Guests he was saved not only from the cursed Sodomites , but from the Flames that destroyed that City . Yet it may be said , What was this to these Hebrews ? or , What is it to us ? It was a rare thing , and not expected of these Saints and beloved Servants of God : Yet it is much to us ; for by the receiving Strangers out of Faith in Christ and Love to God , we may receive precious Saints , and with them some blessed Angels which have a special Charge to keep and guard them in that condition ; and if a Cup of cold Water shall be rewarded , how much more will so great a Work of Mercy be remembred : Nay , which is more , by receiving them , we receive Christ , who will acknowledg this kindness as done to Him : For , in the day of final Judgment He will acknowledge before all Men , all Angels , and his heavenly Father , that this Work of Mercy done to His was done to Him. § . 3. Yet there is another Work of Mercy , which he exhorts them unto in this manner . Ver. 3. Remember them that are in Bonds , ' as bound with them , and them which suffer Adversity , as being your selvs also in the Body . IN this Exhortation we have , as in the former , 1. The Duty exhorted unto . 2. The Reason , why we should perform it . In the Duty there be 1. Some Persons to be remembred . 2. The Remembrance of them . 1. The Persons are of two sorts , and the Reasons applyed severally . 1. There are Persons bound ; and here we must consider , 1. Their Condition . 2. The Cause . 1. Their Condition in general is miserable ; in particular , they are restrained of their Liberty , which is a precious thing . The misery of them that are bound may be greater or less , according to the place of Imprisonment , or their Usage , or Absence from such as would relieve them , or some other Accidents . The Place may be a Dungeon , or filthy and nasty , or very grievous in respect of the wicked fellow-Prisoners . Their Usage may be very bad , because they may be denyed Food and other necessaries , their friends not suffered to come to them or relieve them , or they may be scourged and abused : They may be so consined , as that their Friends may be ignorant both of the Place where they are , and also of their Condition . 2. The Cause in this place may imply , that they are Christians and God's Servants ; thus Paul and Silas , and Peter , and many other Disoiples were cast in Prison , and that for the Profession or Preaching of the Gospel ; this was to suffer for Righteousness sake , and for Christ's sake , and in a good Cause . This Imprisonment , if just , was a disgrace , a securing of Malefactors , not only to restrain them from mischief , but to reserve them for Trial and Punishment , and sometimes it was a Punishment in it self ; and was never intended for innocent but for criminous and guilty Persons . These must be remembred , and their Case and Cause considered , that so they might be visited , comforted , encouraged , relieved , or released , eased , and delivered : Thus to remember is an Act not only of the Understanding , but the Will , and also the Executive Power ; so that the word is taken both Metonymically and Synechdochically . 2. They , and so we , must remember them , as being bound , or in Bonds . This implies the Manner how they must , and also a Reason why they must remember them : We must love our Neighbour as our selves , and this we cannot so well do , except we make our selvs ohe with them , and make their condition ours so as that we may do as we would be done unto . In particular , when we seriously suppose our selvs bound , even then when we are free and at Liberty , we are made far more sensible of their misery , and are the more effectually moved to Compassion ; therefore some observe , that Misericordia , est miseria aliena in corde nostro : For when the Misery of others is not only in our Memory but in our hearts , we are affected with it , sensible of it , and moved to relieve and comfort them : This is the manner of Remembrance . The Reason implied is , That seeing they are one Person with us , and our Brethren , if they be bound we are bound with them , because one part of us is in Bonds , and as we would be sensible of our misery , and would use all means to release and relieve our selves , so we should endeavour to help and deliver them : They are part of our selves , therefore we must remember them . Again , we are one with them , so that we are in the same Condition with them so far , that we are obnoxious to Bonds as well as they , and we know not how soon it may be our Case ; and this should perswade us much to do our Duty : For we being in Bonds will stand in need of the help of others ; and of them , if they be set at Liberty , when we are bound . The second Duty is , to remember those that are in Adversity : This implies that there are many kinds of Afflictions , besides Bonds ; for that is one kind of misery : and that of Bonds is not alwayes single , but joyned often with other Vexation ; and Adversities . Therefore , not only they that are in Bonds , but others in other Adversities , must be remembred , and so relieved and comforted ; and we must use all our Power and Ability , which God hath given us , to remove their Afflictions , and make their Condition more comfortable : For the Providence of our heavenly Father doth so order it , that the whole Body , and all the Members of the Church should not be afflicted at one time , but whilest some are afflicted others are free , that they may relieve and comfort their Brethren , and so exercise their Grace ; and manifest their Vertues : And the Afflictions of our Brethren will discover either our sincerity or hypocrisy . The Reason why we should remember these , is , because we are in the Body : To be in the Body , and to be in the Flesh , are Scripture-Phrases , and signify the same thing . They imply , that there are some in the Body , and some out of the Body ; the one living , the other dead : For while we are living on Earth , the Soul , which is the principal part , is in the Body , which is said to be the Tabernacle and Mansion of the Soul : But Death separates them , and divests and dispossesseth the Soul. This Soul in it solf is above the Power of Man , and no mortal hand can reach it , not touch it immediately ; yet because of the Body which is so nearly united unto it , men may vex and torment it , and that very much , and whilest it 's in the Body it 's liable to these Vexations ; and the Body , whilest it 's enlivened by the Soul , is sensible of many miseries : But when these are parted by Death , both are free from all sense of these Afflictions . Therefore said our Saviour , That when men have killed the Body , after that , they have no more that they can do , Luke 12. 4. All this being presupposed , the Apostle to perswade them to Compassion towards their afflicted Brethren , puts them in mind of their present condition : They were yet in the Body , that is , they were obnoxious to the same Adversities , and cannot promise to themselvs security from them for a day or an hour ; therefore they must pity them as themselves , and use all means to comfort , help , and deliver them . Thus to remember our Brethren in Bonds and Adversity is the Duty of all such as profess their Faith in Christ , and own the Name of Christian ; yet few perform what by their Profession they are bound to do . Where are our Bowels of Compassion ? Where is our Christian Charity ? We should remember , that as Christ pitied us , so we should pity our distressed Brethren , and shew Mercy unto them , as we desire God in the time of our distress to have Mercy upon us . But many who are Christians in Name are devoid not only of Christian Compassion and Charity ; but of Humanity and Civility , which have bin found in very Heathens and Mahometans . § . 4. These were Duties which we owe unto others , especially to our Christian Brethren ; and now the Apostle exhorts to Duties of another kind , as first of Chastity . Ver. 4. Marriage is honourable in all , and the Bed undefiled ; but Wheremongers and Adulterers God will judg . VVHere we have , 1. A Duty , which is Chastity and Fidelity in Marriage . 2. The Reason why we should be chaste , and that is , because Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judg . 1. The Duty is expressed in most Copies and Translations Indicatively , not Imperatively ; for it 's not said , Let Marriage be honourable in all , &c. but , It is honourable : Yet this is not material ; for , suppose the Indicative-Reading should be true , yet a Duty is plainly implied ; for , 1. The Texts both antecedent and consequent are hortative to Duties . 2. That Marriage should be honourable , and the Bed be undefiled , is certainly a Duty , and an Exhortation thereunto is implied . 3. The Reason added doth prove as much . The Duty exhorted unto is Chastity , and Chastity is two-fold ; first , of single , then of married Persons : This is of married Persons , who according to God's Constitution and their own Contract give their Bodies one unto another , and are bound to be faithful : And this Fidelity is , to preserve the honour of Marriage , which they do whilest they keep the Marriage-Bed undefiled . When it 's said , Marriage is honourable , and the Bed undefiled ; the meaning is , Marriage ought to be honourable , and the Bed ought to be undefiled . Not only Adultery , but also Fornication and all Uncleanness dishonour the Body ; and this is evident from these words of the Apostle , For this is the Will of God , even your Sanctification that you should abstain from Fornication : That every one of you should know how to possess his Vesselin Sanctification and Honour , 1 Thess. 4. 3 , 4. Where we may observe , that by Vessel , according to the Hebrew , is meant the Body . 3. That by Sanctification in that ●lice is understood Chastity , as opposed to the Lust of Concupiscence . 3. That this Sanctification is the Honour of the Body ; therefore when it 's said , That he that commi●●eth Fornication , sinneth against his own Body , 1 Cor. 6. 18. the meaning is , He dishonoureth his own Body . As Marriage must be honourable , so the Bed must be undefiled ; which latter words explain the former , for then is Marriage honourable , when the Marriage-Bed is kept undefiled : For , by Bed is meant the Marriage-Bed , and the Bodies of the Parties married ; to be undefiled , is , not to be polluted by Adultery : And if it be , it 's dishonoured ; if it be not , then the Honour of it is preserved . So that the sense of the whole is this , Let married Persons be faithful one unto another , and take heed of dishonouring their Bodies by Adultery . To signify this Duty to be general , and to bind all such as are Man and Wife , he faith , Marriage is , and by God's Institution ought to be , honourable in all ; that is , in all married Persons both Man and Wife , whilest they are Man and Wife : And as it ought to be honourable , so it ought to be undefiled in all . In these words , Whoredom and Adultery are prohibited and ehorted from . This Chastity is the Duty of Christians more than of other Persons , because they know God's Institution , and their Bodies are the Members of Christ , and the Temples of the Holy Ghost . 2. The Reason and Motive is , because Whore-●ougers and Adulterers , who dishonour their Bodies and defile the Marriage-Bed , God will Judge , that is , punish : So that the Dissuasive is [ à Poena ] from the Punishment which God will certainly inflict , and they shall certainly suffer , if they be not chaste but prove guilty of Adultery . This Punishment is not only eternal after this Life , if they repent not ; but also temporal , even in this Life , though they may repeht . This is evident in David , who , though he repented , yet suffered grievously for his Adultery . [ More of Marriage , Chastity , Adultery , may be read in my [ Th●c-Politica . ] § . 5 , The fifth Duty pressed upon them , followeth Ver. 5. Let your Conversation be without Covetousness , and be content with such things as ye have ; For He hath said , I will never leave thee nor for sake thee . Ver. 6. So that we may boldly say , The Lord is my Helper , I will not fear what Man shall do unto me . IN these words we must consider , 1. The Duty . 2. The Reason why we should perform it . The Duty is , 1. Negative , Be not covetous . 2. Astirmative , Be contented . For if we look at the Law , and so consider the words , they are 1. A Prohibition . 2. A Precept . If we look upon the Performance of the Duty as expressed by the Author , we have , 1. A Dehortation . 2. An Exhortation . The Dehortation is this , Let your Conversation be without Covetousness : The meaning whereof in brief is , Be not cove●ou● . The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned by our English Translators Conversation ; by the Viugar and Vatablus , [ Mores , Manners ] ; by the Syriack and Arabick , [ Mens , Animus , the Mind . ] All these may be easily reconciled ; for Conversation signifies humane Actions , as they are habitually morally-good or evil ; these as Habits are termed by the Moralists , Mores , Manners or Customs , as vertuous or vicious : And because the Principle of these Actions are the Mind , as taken for the Understanding , and the Will ; therefore the word may be turned [ mind or affection ] , for so the word in Greek doth sometime signify . Some do understand by the Original word , the means whereby we seek these earthly things , and the manner how we use , spare , or spend them . And this sense differs not much from the former : This Duty doth presuppose , 1. A right Judgment of these worldly Goods , in respect of themselves , the end for which they are given , the manner how they are justly acquired , used , expended . 2. A right disposition of the heart , agreeable to this Judgment . These things presupposed , we may the better inquire into the nature of Covetousness , which is defined by many to be , An immoderate love and desire of these earthly Goods . The object and matter therefore in general is these earthly Goods , whether corporeal , movable , or immovable , or incorporeal , according to the distinction of the civil Law. These are considered as conducing to the preservation and continuance of man's Life ; therefore called our Livelyhood : The principal things , as most necessary and more immediately preserving Life , are Food and Raimen● . And because Mony answers in value , and the esteem of men , all those things , which may be called Goods , and by It upon exchange they may be purchased and acquited ; therefore covetousness is called sometimes the love of many , 1 Tim. 6. 10. And here our Conversation must be free from the love of mony ; so the Original is : The proper act of Covetousness is in the heart and mind of man , conceiving and judging of these things , as more necessary or excellent then they are , which is a kind of overvaluing , and setting too high a price on them , 2. Affecting , loving , and desiring them immoderately above the worth of them , and that measure which God hath prescribed in his Word . Of this Sin , there are many kinds and degrees : For some cover superfluity and abundance , and will not be content with Necessaries , that they may maintain their pride and pleasure , for both are costly . In these , Covetousnes is a grievous Sin ; yet not predominant , but subservient to their love of other things , which they more affect . Others highly esteem and admire Wealth , as some excellent thing , as though it could make them happy . These not considering the baseness , uncertainty , and emptiness of this worldly trash , do insatiably thirst after it , as the chiefest good man is capable of , or can attain ; and these are flat Idolaters , and Mammon is their God , and him they serve with as great devotion , as Saints do the true and living God. Others fearing want for time to come , and judging their estates poor and insufficient , do distract themselves with fruitless cares and thoughts for the things of this Life . These being weak in Faith , do not consider that their heavenly Father knows they have need of these things , and will certainly provide Bread for his Children ; and that if they first seek his Kingdom , and the Righte c●sness thereof , these things shall be added unto them , they must needs be guilty of this Sin. And this is the Covetousness that seems to be here intended , as the words following do imply . Some of God's own Children , in this particular , can hardly be excused : For whosoever loves and desires these earthly Necessaries more then God allows , and dare not trust in their heavenly Father for daily Bread , are certainly covetous though not in so high degree as others . Therefore we must remember both the advice which Christ gives us , when he saith unto us , Take ●● thought , saying , What shall we ent ? or what shall we drink ? or wherewith shall we be clothed ? and also the gracious promises wherewith he seeks to strengthen out hearts against these cares and thoughts of the World. We can see and censure this Sin in others , but not in our selves ; for it steals insensibly into the hearts of men , and at the first doth not appear to be what it is . Therefore some have taken very good pains in discovering of it by certain proper Marks and Characters . But to speak of these , and of the Causes and Effects of this Sin in general , in this place is not so pertinent ; and therefore I refer the Reader to other Texts of Scriptures , and to other Authours , who have treated more at large upon it . The exhortation follows in these words , But be content with such things as ye have . This discretive particle [ but ] implie , that Cove●ousness and contentment are Contrary , and inconsistent in one and the same heart . This presupposeth , 1. They had something for the present . 2. Perswadeth to contentment with that they had . What they had for the present , is not here expressed ; yet some had more , some had less , and some very little : yet he that had the least , had Food and Raiment , and did live , and so live , that he had time to serve his God , seek his Kingdom , and the Salvation of his Soul. Such as had less , might be perplexed with fear and doubt of want for time to come , and out of a desire to prevent it , resolve upon a course to supply their wants , and to distract themselves . Lest any should do thus or be thus perplexed , he exhorts every one , even him that had the least to be contented , with what he had . This contentment is opposed to murnuring against God , to distrusting and distracting cares , to covetous desires , to all disquiet of mind about these earthly things . It 's a quiet temper of the mind , relying upon God's merciful providence , and gracious promises for support and necessaries . This Faith and Reliance is grounded upon certain principles of Divine Truth ; As , 1. That we brought nothing into this World , neither must we carry any thing out . 2. That this Life was given us to seek a better . 3. That these earthly necessaries are given us to preserve this Life . 4. That all , besides Food and Raiment , which maintain this life are not necessary . 5. That God careth for his People , as knowing that we have need of these things . 6. That if we be godly , and first seek his Kingdom , he hath bound himself to give us these things . For godliness hath the promises of this Life , and that which is to come . Upon these , and the like , the heart quieteth it self in God , is content with little , mind , the greatest business of Salvation , and for these earthly necessaries casteth all care ●on God. For he knows he is but a Pilgrim and Stranger here , seeking after a better Conntry , and cares not much for earthly Treasure , if he can lay up Treasure in Heaven ; and knows for certain , That godliness with contentment is great gain . 2. After the Duty , follows the Reason or Motive , where we must consider , 1. What God doth promise . 2. What Man may expect . For we have , 1. God's Engagement unto Man. 2. Man's Confidence and Security upon this Engagement . The promise we find in several places of the Old Testament , as , ( 1. ) Deut. 31. 6. ( 2. ) Ibid. v. 8. ( 3. ) Joshua 1. 5 , 11. ( 4. ) 1 Chron. 28. 20. But these very words , with the five Negative Particles , yet in the third person are found no where but in the first , Deut. 31. 9. The words , according to the Septuagint and the Apostle , turned verbatins , word by word , run thus , I will not not leave , I will not , not , not forsake thee . As they are the words of God related by Moses , the Verbs are of the third person , as spoken by God himself to Joshua , they are of the first . In Hebrew , in all the places , the Verbs are the same . For the better understanding of them , we must observe , 1. That the words are a Promise . 2. That they are a Promise of God. 3. The matter Promised is God's special presence and providence , according to their Condition and Necessity . 4. To assure us of both . He , 1. Useth the Negatives , [ not leave , not forsake ] , which implies the affirmative without the least failing ; and this manner of expression is more full and peremptory , and in a Promise more strongly obliging . 2. He was not content to say , I will not leave thee , but adds further , I will not forsake thee . 3. He , prefixeth two Negatives before the first Verb , and three before the second . 4. Though in the Hebrew , the Negatives be simple ; yet the Septuagint , and much more the Apostle , knew that the fives Negatives were included in the Verbs . 5. The sum of the Promise is , That God would in no wise , not in the least measure , neglect or desert his People , or withdraw his Wisdom , his Mercy , his Power , or any wayes , in the least degree , remit them ; but he would most certainly and effectually be with them , provide for them , and help them in all things , so far as their necessity required . 6. Though this Promise doth extend to God's presence and providence in all things , wherein they were requisite and necessary ; yet here it seems to be more particularly confined to that part of providence whereby God supplies their wants in Necessaries : yet so , as that it doth rather include then exclude his protection against Dangers and Enemies . This is the meaning of the words , the force of the reason contained in them is very strong , both to dehort from Cove●ousness , and exhort to Contentedness . For there is no reason in the World why we should either cover these earthly Goods inordinately or immoderately , so as to distract and vex our minds ; or that we should not be contented with that we have , though little , seeing God hath so deeply and strongly engaged himself to be present with us , and to provide for us . If we had Faith to believe this , and were so qualified , as that we could truly apply it to our selves , it would effectually quiet our minds in God , in all our Necessities , S●raits , and Perplexities . For the words being the words of God , fully and perfectly expressing his mind and purpose , delivered by way of Promise , whereby he so strongly obligeth himself , extending to all persons in Covenant with him , keeping the Conditions thereof , including all times , and all conditions , and all kind of helps and assistance , are abundantly sufficient to cut off all covetous thoughts and cares , and to content the mind with any estate . For whilst we have our God , we have Perfection , Safety , Food , Raiment , and all things that are necessary in this our time of Pilgrimage , untill we come to our abiding City . § . 6. After the Promise of God , follows the Confidence of Man grounded upon this Promise : For we may boldly say , The Lord is my Helper , and I will not fear what Man shall do unto me . Where we must enquire , 1. Whence the words are taken . 2. What the Substance of them is , and what they do import . 1. We find words to the same purpose , Psal. 56. 4 , 11. Yet the very same without any variance we rea● , Psal. 118. 6. if we follow the Septuaginr . The words in the Hebrew are Elleiptical , and are made up and expounded from the Verse following ; for the first words are turned by Hierom , Thou art my Lord ; by Pag●ine , The Lord is with me ; by Pr●tensis , The Lord is for me : The Septuagint give the sense , That the Lord was my Lord , with me , for me , to help me : For it follows , Ver. 7. Thou are amongst or with them that help me . For the Lord to be with us , for us , and , as Vatablus hath it , to on stand our side , is for God to be our Help . 2. The Matter of the words are God's Help , Man's Safety and Security : The Psalm is understood of Christ , and his Church and People . Here the Apostle applies it to God's People : 1. These have their Enemies , signified by the word Man , What Man may do against me . 2. These men being Enemies do much against them , or at least attempt to do much ; for wicked men together with the Devil are great Enemies to Christ's Kingdom and his Subjects . The Devil designs their spiritual ; the wicked their temporal Ruine ; and the Design of the one is subservient to the other . The Devil makes Use of temporal Persecutions to shake their Faith ; both have the Church , and thrust sore at it , and consult and combine their forces to destroy it : They fine God's Servants , imprison them , banish them , torture them , murther some of them , spoil others , make them poor , and bring them very low , and sometimes to a Morsel of Bread. 3. Yet God is with them , stands for them , helps them , strengthens and protects them , and will not see them perish or want Bread , and gives them Safety in the midst of Danger , Joy in the midst of Sorrow . Bread in the midst of Famine . If they kill the Body , he will save the Soul , and raise up the Body again at the last day , and all their Sufferings shall conduce to their eternal Happiness . 4. If God be with them , for them , and their Help ; they need not fear any thing , no not the worst that Man can do unto them , but may be confident of Safety and Deliverance ; they need not much desire the best things of the World , nor fear the worst . 5. They may think , believe , say , and be assured , That God is their Help . And so much the rather , because God hath promised , that he will not leave them or forsake them at any time ; and why should they be covetous or fearful , there is no cause of either . Thus the Apostle disswades from Covetousnesse and perswades to Contentedness , and that upon most powerful Reasons taken out of the Book of God , wherewith they were well acquainted . And though both the places are restrained to this particular Duty , yet they are of far greater latitude , and minister effectual Comfort . § . 7. The next Duty exhorted unto is , the Imitation of their Teachers in Ver. 7. Remember them who have the Rule over you , who have spoken unto you the Word of God ; whose Faith follow , considering the end of their Conversation . Ver. 8. Jesus Christ , the same yesterday , to day , and for ever . THese words may be considered in their general Coherence with the former , as they are an Exhortation to another distinct Duty , or in their particular Connexion with the Text immediately antecedent ; for their Guides and Teachers have given them an Example , in that not being covetous , but contented alwayes with their present Estate though poor , they continued constant in the Profession and Preaching of the Gospel of Christ in the midst of all necessities and persecutions , and did not doubt of God's Presence and Providence , nor fear what Man could do unto them : The former Connexion is certain , the latter probable . In the Duty exhorted unto , we may observe , 1. Three Acts. 2. Their three Objects . 3. The subordination of these Acts upon these Objects , one unto another . 1. The Acts are , Remembrance , Consideration , Imitation . 2. The Object of their Remembrance was , their Guides , which had spoken to them the Word of God ; the Object of their Consideration was , the end of their Conversation ; the Object of their Imitation was , their Faith. 3. The Subordination was , that they must remember , that they may consider ; consider ; that they may imitate . They must remember their Guides , who had taught them the Word of God ; they must remember them , that they may consider the end of their Conversation ; they must consider the End of their Conversation , that they may follow their Faith. In the first Act upon the first Object we may observe three Propositions : 1. They had their Guides . 2. These had spoken unto them the Word of God. 3. These they must remember . 1. They had their Guides : These were the Apostles especially and principally , and also others , both extraordinary and ordinary Dispensets of the Gospel . These were Guides , because they did direct them unto Christ , by Christ to God , and in God to eternal Life ; for without a Guide , sinful , blind , and ignorant Wretches know nothing of Christ , God , eternal Life , and the way leading thereunto ; and therefore they wander in the wide way which leadeth unto Destruction . These Guides are said to be Overseers , which have a Charge of men's Souls committed unto them for Direction unto eternal Bliss ; and also Rulers , because of their Power and Authority whereby they may in the Name of Christ command them to obey his Laws ; and in this respect the People are subject unto them in that manner , that if they hear and receive them , they receive Christ who sent them , and God who sent Christ : And whosoever receiveth not but despiseth them , desplseth Christ and God who sent them . 2. These Guides , lest they should be ignorant who they were , were such as had spoken the Word of God unto them . The Word of God is that part of the Word of God which we call The Gospel , which is concerning Christ exhibited , humbled , exalted , and reigning at the right hand of God , contained in that part of the Scripture we call The New Testament . This Doctrine is the Word of God , not only because it speaks of God , but also because it was revealed by God , and that by his own Son , in the last dayes . This Word they had spoken and declared both by Word and Writing , and that infallibly according as by Inspiration they had received an immediate Knowledg of it ; and this their infallible Doctrine was the Rule of inferiour Teachers . 3. These they must remember : Some of these might be living , some of them dead ; both must be remembred . To remember in this place is to call to mind , which presupposeth a former Act of Understanding , and is a Reiteration of the same Act upon the same Object . These must be remembred not only as Men , but as Guides , and as such as had spoken the Word of God even unto them , so as that they had heard them , and learned from them the Mystery of the Gospel , so as to believe in Christ : Yet amongst these they must principally remember the most eminent , and in particular those by whom they had believed : For , if men begin once to forget their Teachers , they will soon forget their Doctrine . The second part of their Duty to which their former Remembrance was subservient , is , the Consideration of the end of their Conversation . Their Conversation and Course of life , no doubt , was agreeable to their Doctrine , and the Word of God they taught , their Preaching and their Practice were suitable ; and as their Conversation was good , so the End was answerable : In that Faith they lived , in the same they dyed ; and as their Life was holy , so their Death was happy . In these words some observe two things ; 1. That these were dead , and some of them at least had sealed the Truth of the Gospel with their Blood , and dyed Martyrs . 2. That they had been constant in the Profession and Practice of that heavenly Truth which they had preached and taught to others . This Constancy and blessed Issue of their Conversation they are exhorted to consider and seriously review with the Eyes of their Souls , as a rare and excellent Pattern worthy their Imitation . 3. And if they were so worthy Imitation , it was their Duty in the third place to follow their Faith , that is , their Doctrine which they preached , believed , professed , practised , unto Death ; and which they confirmed by their Suffering : This is the true End of hearing Word of God , and the true Use of all good Examples , which are given us and set before our Eyes for this very End , that we may do as they did , and as they taught us both by their Words and Works , their Doctrine and Practice . We must follow the Example of all good men , and above others , of such Guides as these were ; amongst these Guides , the most eminent in Truth , Piety , and Perseverance , because their Doctrine and Life did agree and contiued suitable to the End. § . 8. It followeth , Jesus Christ the same , &c. These words seem to stand absolute in themselvs , without any dependance upon , or Connexion with , the Context antecedent or consequent ; and this hath given occasion to many several and different Expositions . Some of the Ancients consider them in themselvs , and understand them of Christ as God ; and from them prove his God-head by his perpetual Existence , because he was , is , and shall be for ever ; and by his immutability , because he alwayes is the same . Some understand this of Christ as Redeemer , whose Power and Efficacy in redeeming and saving all such as believe in him , was from the first time that he was promised unto the World's End ; for he saved all those who believed in him for to come , and all such who believe in him already come and exhibited . Both these senses are true ; but whether intended here or no , may be a Question . But most Expositors consider the words in Coherence , either with that which goes before , or that which follows ; 1. With that which goes before ; and that two wayes , 1. That as Christ the Word , not incarnate or made Flesh , spake to Joshua , and promised not to leave him and forsake him ; so , if they follow the Faith of their Guides and Teachers , and persevere in the same to the End , Christ will be with them , and not leave them nor forsake them . 2. That the Faith of their Guides was Faith in Christ , according to their Doctrine of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ , an eternal , unchangeable , and never-failing Saviour ; and this their Faith in Christ they must follow , and then Christ will be to them the same he was to their Guides , and will certainly save them . In this sense the words not only signify what kind of Faith that of their Teachers was , and what was the Object and Foundation of it , but also contain a Reason why they should follow it : For their Faith was Faith in Christ , which is the only saving Faith for ever , as he Himself is the same for ever . The Aethiopick Version favours this sense in part ; for thus they translate the words , [ Follow me in the Faith of Christ , &c. ] So that , according to this , Christ is Faith in Christ. But others understand by Jesus Christ , the Doctrine of Jesus Christ ; which is the same as Christ is , and that for ever , and never shall be changed : Therefore they must follow it , and never turn from it . Christ may , by a Metonymy , signify Faith in Christ , and the Doctrine of Christ , because he was the Object of their Faith , and the Subject of their Doctrine : This Vatablus terms an Enallage . This seems to be confirmed by the Exhortation following : To apply this to our selves ; as it is our Duty , so we must have a care often to remember the Apostles , and their Successours , who have taught us the Word of God , and considering their happy Departure out of this World , with the Joy and Comfort which they found in their Saviour , let us follow their Doctrine and their Faith in Christ ; which if we do , we shall have the same End , and find the same Comfort in Christ , who will be the same to us which he was to them ; for as He , so his Doctrine , is unchangeable for ever , and whosoever shall follow his Doctrine , and believe in him , shall find this to be so . § . 9. Because the Faith and Doctrine of Jesus Christ , taught by the Apostles , is , as Christ himself , the same yesterday , to day , and for ever ; therefore the Apostle dehorteth them thus , Ver. 9. Be not carried about with divers and strange Doctrines : for it is a good thing that the heart be established with Grace , and not with meats , which have not profited them , which have been occupied therein . ] THese words are a Dehortation , and in it we may consider ; 1. The Sin dehorted from . 2. The reason , why they should take heed of it . 1. The Sin is , to be carried about with divers and strange Doctrines . Doctrines , divers and strange , are all such as are different from the Gospel ; which is a Doctrine of perpetual and immutable truth , and alwayes uniform & the same . Therefore the word divers may signify such as are different from it , and different amongst themselves , as all false and heretical Doctrines are ; though the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , signifies new or absurd , and such all errors in Religion are . They are new , because invented and vented after the Truth was revealed ; and absurd , because all such are irrational , and many of them very gross . They are also strange , as having not the same Original with the Truth , which was revealed from Heaven ; and of another stamp and quality . By these , some think , he means Judaism and Philosophy , and the Errors and Superstitions of the Morinthians and Cerinthians , who attempted to make up one Body of Religion , by joyning Judaism and Christianism together ; yet not only these , but all other Heresies whatsoever are here intended . They must not be carried away , or about with these ; this is the Duty : The Metaphor seems to be taken from Wethercocks or Ships , which turn every way as the Wind carries them ; to be so carried about , implies that they turn from the truth of the Gospel , believe these false Doctrines , and so are deceived , as the word in the Original may signify ; and it signifies the inconstancy of such as receive them , as not being firm and fixed in the saving Truth . For if we once turn away from that , we fall first into one Error , then into another ; and are first of one Sect , after that of another , and can settle no where . We have had sad experience of this in our times , wherein many forsaking their Orthodox Teachers , and the antient and apostolical Doctrine , turned Anabaptists , Seekers , Quakers , and men above the Ordinances of Scripture , Sacraments ; Sabbaths . Such we must not be , not so erroneous , heretical , unstable : This Text agrees with many others ; as , Rom. 16. 17. Ephes. 4. 14. Colos. 2. 8 , 16. and many more , noted by Curcella●s . Great is our frailty in this particular , because of the imperfection of our Understanding , the corruption of our Hearts , the subtilty of the Devil and Seducers ; therefore let us he well informed in the Truth , endeavour to live according to the Truth certainly known , pray for the Spirit of Truth to guide us . For it is not wit or learning , without the Grace of God , can preserve us from these Doctrines , which carry us away from Christ , and cause us to wander in by-wayes , that lead our Souls into Destruction . 2. The reason is , 1. Because the Doctrine of the Gospel can save us . 2. These strange Doctrines cannot promote our Salvation ; it is , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] For , 1. It 's good the heart be established with Grace , not with Meats . By Grace may understand the Truth , and the Truth of the Gospel ; so it 's taken , Tit. 2. 11. And it 's called Grace , because it 's the Word or Doctrine of Grace , Act. 20. 24 , 32. which manifests the Grace of God in Christ ; and the Knowledg and Love of it is a Grace and Mercy of God. To have the heart established therewith , is to understand it , believe it , be affected with it , so as to adhere unto it , and make it our care in seeking eternal Life . And then the heart is thus established with it , when the Spirit of God writes it in our hearts , so that we know it more clearly , and are effectually moved to follow and practise it . It must be deeply imprinted in our hearts , and our hearts must be firmly fixt in it : And this is good and profitable for Sanctification and Salvation , but meats are not so . By Meats , is understood the Doctrine of Meats ; and by Doctrine of Meats , may be meant Doctrine of Ceremonies : such we find in the Books of Moses , yet all abolished by the Gospel . The Jews were perswaded , that they were sanctified by the observation of Mosaical Ceremonies , and the Traditions of their Elders . This also was the perswasion of all Superstitious Wretches , whether Heathens or Hereticks : For Meats may here signify not only false Doctrines , and Ceremonial Observations of the Jews , but also all other various , strange , and different Opinions , and Superstitions of all others , whose hearts were not stablished by Grace . And though men's hearts be never so pertinaciously fixed in them , yet they could not advance their Salvation . For it followeth , which have not profited such as were occupied or ( as the Greek word signifies ) walked therein . To walk in them , is to profess , and in their practise constantly to observe them : Not to profit them , is , not to sanctify , justify them , or make them acceptable to God. For that is truly profitable in this kind , which makes a man more holy , brings him nearer unto God , and renders him more capable of eternal Life . The sum is , they must take heed of all false Doctrines , and adhere to the truth of the Gospel : And the reason is , 1. Because establishment in the truth of the Gospel is good , and certainly conduceth to eternal Life . 2. The belief , profession , practice of any other Doctrine is not so , cannot further our happiness . § . 10. There is another reason , why they must not return to Judaism , or any other Doctrine different from the Gospel . For , Ver. 10. We have an Altar , whereof they have no right to eat , which serve the Tabernacle . IN these words , we have ; 1. A benefit or priviledg . 2. A right unto it , granted unto Christians . denied unto Jews and others . The Propositions are two , 1. We have an Altar . 1 2. They who serve the Tabernacle , have no right to eat of it . 1. Altar here is the Priest or Sacrifice offered upon , and sanctified by , the Altar . The Sacrifice is that of Christ's Body slain and offered by the eternal Spirit , without spot unto God. To have this , is to have a right unto it , so as to eat and be partakers of it : The expression and phrase is Legal and Levitical . For in the Law there were certain Sacrifices , whereof part was given and offered to God , part was given to the Priests to eat thereof , part was allowed to the People , which brought the Sacrifice , and they might eat thereof before the Lord , in the Tabernacle or the Temple : The same Custom many of the Gentiles had . To this the Apostle doth allude , and doth imply , that the Body of Christ was slain and offered unto God to expiate Sin , given unto man in the Word and Sacrament , as Food to preserve both Body and Soul unto eternal Life . And as the Jews only had right to eat of their Sacrifices ; so Christians , and only Christians , have right unto , and by a true and lively Faith , according to the Gospel , may partake of the same , and live for ever . For this meat alone doth profit those alone , whose hearts are established with or by Grace , and the Doctrine of the Gospel . 2. To eat of this Altar and Sacrifice , they who serve the Tabernacle have no right . They who served the Tabernacle , were unbelieving Jews , Priests , and People , who adhered to the Law of Moses , rejected the Gospel , and refused to receive Christ for their Saviour . These could have no right unto the benefit of Christ's Sacrifice● for it was ordained only for the Salvation of such as should believe on him . But these Jews out of a perverse belief , that they should be justified and saved by the Law , would not believe the Doctrine of the Gospel , and seek righteousness by Faith in Christ. So that Israel , following after the Law of Righteousnes , attained not to the Law of Righteousness . And why ? they sought not Righteousness by Faith in Christ , who was the end of the Law , which was a School-master to Christ. They were so confident , that the Law was given for Justification and Salvation ; that they thought Christ not only needless , but an Enemy to Moses , and all Christians to be Hereticks , and worthy to be persecuted to Death . The force of the Apostle's Argument is , That if their heart was not established with Grave , but carried about with divers and strange Doctrines ; they deprived themselves of the inestimable benefit of Christ's Sacrifice ; for there is no Faith without the Gospel , and no benefit in the Sacrifice of Christ without Faith ; for all right unto , and participation of , this Sacrifice is by Faith grounded upon the Gospel . § . 11. That they that serve the Tabernacle , have no right to eat of this Altar , he proves thus ; Ver. 11. For the body of those Beasts , whose Blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the High-Priest , are burnt without the Camp. ] Ver. 12. Wherefore Jesus also , that he might sanctify the People with his own Blood , suffered without the Gate . ] IN these words , we have , 1. An Argument to prove the unbelieving Jew to have no right to eat of the Sacrifice of Christ ; And this is a Doctrine . 2. A practical Conclusion and Application of this Doctrine unto our selves , in the two verses following . In the Argument , we may observe ; 1. The Proposition and the Type . 2. The Reddition and Anti-type . 1. There were several Beasts Sacrificed , whose Bodies were burnt without the Camp , yet their Blood was not brought into the Sanctuary ; therefore it can hardly be thought the Apostle intended any Sacrifice so much , as that of general Expiation , whereof we read , Lev. 16. For though this doth agree to other Sacrifices , that their Blood was brought into the Sanctuary to be sprinkled upon the horns of the Altar of Incense , and before the Veil , and their Bodies were burnt without the Camp , as we may understand from Exod. 29. Lev. 4. Yet of this Sacrifice , it 's clearly written , 1. That the Blood was brought into the inward Sanctuary , within the second Veil , and was sprinkled upon the Mercy-seat . 2. This was done by the High-Priest alone , and could be done by none else . 3. This Blood was brought in and sprinkled for Expiation and Reconciliation . 4. The Bodies of these Sacrifices were burnt without the Camp. This Sacrifice , as you have heard , was a more lively resemblance of Christ , who is the propitiation for the Sins of the whole World. The principal thing the Apostle takes notice of , is the burning of their Bodies out of the Camp ; for the Camp was that plot of Ground which was taken up with the Tents and Habitations of the Israelites in the Wilderness . All this was counted holy , and all unclean persons and things were to be removed out of the same . And because the sins of the People were laid upon these Beasts , therefore they were unclean , accursed : and God to signify , that all Sinners are accursed , and to be cast out of his presence , and to be tormented with eternal fire , and also to express his detestation of Sin , he caused these Bodies , 1. To be removed out of the Camp. 2. To be burned . 2. This was the Type , the Anti-type was Christ , of whom it is affirmed , 1. That he Suffered without the Gate . 2. That he Suffered there , that he might sanctify the People by his Blood. To Suffer , here , is to be Crucified and dye upon the Cross : Without the Gate , signifies , the place where he Suffered and was Crucified ; and in particular , it was Golgotha , which was without the Gate of Jerusalem , which was called the holy City , because God chose that City to put his Name there , and so did consecrate it ; this answered to the holy Camp. The reason , why God thus in his wise providence did order it , was , because Christ had taken upon him the Sins of the World , and God had laid on him the Iniquities of us all . One sad consequent of Sin not pardoned , is , a Curse and Excommunication out of God's presence , so as that the person cursed is put at a distance , and deprived of all communion with Saints and God. Therefore it is written , That Christ was made a Curse for us , Gal. 3. 13. The end of this Suffering , and that without the Gate , was , that by his Blood , he might sanctify the People . The People are all such as believe in him ; To sanctify them , is to free them from the guilt and punishment of Sin : For he was made a Curse for us , that he might redeem us from the Curse due unto us for our Sins ; And this he doth immediately by his Blood being shed , and his Death , which virtually and efficiently took away Sin , and procures actual Remission and Sanctification upon our Faith. For his Suffering out of the Gate made Sin pardonable , and the punishment endured by him , and deserved by us , removable . But when by Faith it 's sprinkled upon our Souls , we are actually pardoned , and the punishment actually removed , because God will not punish Sin both in him , and us believing : The comparison is in similitude , and like quality . The things wherein the Type and Anti-type agree , are these . In the Sacrifice of general Expiation , 1. The Blood is brought into the holy Place ; so Christ by his own Blood entred the holy place of Heaven . 2. That Blood did expiate Sin ; so this doth obtain eternal Expiation , and the People are sanctified by it . 3. The Bodies of those Sacrifices were burnt without the Camp ; so Christ suffered upon the Cross without the Gate of Jerusalem . 4. As they who serve at the Tabernacle had no Right not Licence to eat of those Sacrifices whose Bodies were burned without the Camp ; so no Jews that will not leave Judaism , nor any other that will not go out of the World to suffer for Christ's sake , can have any Right to eat of this Altar and Sacrifice of Christ , so as to be saved by it . § . 13. Therefore the Apostle draws a practical Conclusion from the former words in this manner , Ver. 13. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the Camp , bearing his Reproach . Ver. 14. For here we have no continuing City , but we seek one to come . THis Text is an Exhortation ; and therein two things are observable : 1. The Duty exhorted unto . 2. The Reason whereupon it 's urged . 1. The Duty is two-fold , 1. We must go forth to him . 2. We must bear his Reproach . 1. We must come forth of the Camp or City to him . 1. The Camp or City is Judaism , and all erroneous Sects , and also the World , and men of the World ; we must separate from all things inconsistent with the Truth and Christ. This is not expressed , but implied . 2. Out of this Camp or City we must come forth ; and that we do when we renounce all Errours in Religion , and all earthly Affections : Our Opinions and Errours in Religion are so many Idols setup in our Souls , and are contrary to the Truth of the Gospel ; and the things of the World , which we so much affect and dearly love , are all of us by Nature contrary to the Love of Christ : We have something in our hearts which keeps us from our God , till we be truly converted . 3. To come forth to Christ therefore , is to be rightly informed , and to believe the saving Truth of Christ ; and upon this right Information , to love him above all , as far more necessary , excellent , and beneficial than any thing , than all things else . This is the same with denying ourselvs , forsaking all for his sake , hating Father , Mother , Wife , Children , Brethren , Sisters , and Life itself , out of love to him , and to forsake all for his sake : For , lay all of these , with all the Kingdoms and rarest Contents of the World together on oneside , and Christ on the other ; they are all base , uncertain , vain , empty things , Dross and Dung , and nothing to Christ , who is infinitely precious , and incomparably more excellent than all , and more beneficial to a poor guilty Sinner . To come forth to him , is not to change the Place but our Hearts ; it 's a Motion not of the Body but the Soul ; and if we once knew the Beauty of Christ , and had tasted of his Sweetness , we should be ravished with him , and all the World could not keep us from him ; In him alone true Happiness is to be found . 2. The second part of the Duty is , to bear his Reproach : Here is Reproach , his Reproach , the bearing of his Reproach . In this the Author alludes unto the bearing of the Cross , which was the greatest Shame and Disgrace any man could be put unto . To endure Shame and Disgrace , and suffer in our Reputation , Credit , Honour , and good Name is a very grievous Evil , and few can endure it , and some can better suffer Death than Ignominy and Disgrace . The Cross was not only a matter of Reproach , but of grievous pain and torment , and was the Epitome of all positive Evils ; and therefore by Reproach is signified all kind of afflictions and miseries which we may suffer from men , or may be obnoxious unto in this Life : Yet this Reproach and this Cross here meant must be his Reproach , his Cross. If we suffer Punishment for our own Crime , and through our own Folly , then it 's not Christ's Cross : Simon of Cyrene did not bear his own but Christ's Cross , and followed him . This is a Reproach and Cross laid upon us for his sake , because we profess his Truth , obey his Laws , oppose Sin and his Enemies , refuse to comply with the World in any Sin , renounce all Errours , Idolatry , Superstition , and wicked Customs of the World , and all this out of Love to Christ. To bear this Cross , is not meerly to suffer any wayes , but to suffer the worst Man can do unto us with Patience , with Constancy , with Joy ; and to think our selve● happy , and much honoured , that we are counted worthy to suffer for so great a Saviour , ●nd in so noble a Cause . This requires a divine Faith well grounded upon the Word and Promises of God , and a special Assistance of the d●vine Spirit ; for these will strengthen our hearts , and make us willing to suffer any thing before we offend our God and lose our Saviour . § . 13. The words of the former Verse considered as a Doctrine or Proposition are a Conclusion deducible from antecedent Premisses : but as containing a Duty to be performed they are inferred from the 14. Ver. where we have a Reason given us , why we should come forth to Christ ; and it is two-fold , 1. Because we have here no abiding City . 2. Because we seek one to come . 1. We have no abiding City . By City understand two things , 1. A place fit for comfortable and safe habitation . 2. An Estate answerable unto this Habitation , whereby we may live happily in this place : For , neither can an Estate without a place , nor a place without an Estate , make our condition good , and such as we desire . An abiding City is a place of eternal Rest and Safety , which in it self stands firm for ever , and the Inhabitants shall never remove or be dispossessed : As it is such a Place , so it 's an Estate not only of all necessaries , but of all things delectable and desirable , with plenty of them , sufficient to make a man fully happy ; and as these things in themselvs , so the Enjoyment of them is everlasting : Yet here , that is , in this life on Earth , and under Heaven , there is no such City , no such Place , no such Estate , And , as it is not here , so we have it not ; for nothing can be had or enjoyed where it is not . We may have many great and glorious things on Earth ; for here are goodly Estates , Kingdoms , and vast Empires , strong and beautiful Cities , Towns , and Habitations , and some have them ; yet these are not abiding in themselvs , nor in the Possession of the Owners ; Experience of all times , besides the Word of God , doth teach us this certain Truth : Therefore , we knowing that there is no such City here , seek no such thing here , because no such thing can be had here . 2. But we seek one to come . That is , though there be no such thing here , neither have we any such City on Earth ; yet there is such a City , though not here , yet else-where ; though not present , yet to come , and we seek it . There is one , a Place of everlasting Rest , and firm Mansions in our Father's House , and a glorious Estate of full and perfect Happiness , far above the Conceit and Imagination of mortal men ; and the Possession both of the Place and Estate shall be everlasting , as all the Inhabitants and Owners of this City shall live for ever . Yet it 's to come , which signifies , that no such thing is here , neither can it be enjoyed in this present mortal life ; the full and perfect Fruition is reserved for Heaven , and the time of Resurrection and Immortality . And we seek it ; this implies , 1. That we believe there is such an Estate , and that upon sure Ground ; for God hath said so . 2. That we knowing the Excellency and Glory of it , do much desire and long for it , as that which , once possessed , will make us fully and for ever blessed . 3. That we have some hope of the attainment , and the same certain , as being grounded upon the Promise of God confirmed to us by an Oath ; and besides , we have a present Title unto it , and the first fruits thereof , even in this Vale of Tears . This Belief , this Hope , this Title , these first-Fruits , set us on seeking of this City ; and all our Life-time is nothing else but a Seeking , and this is our great business ; all our other Works and Labours are but upon the by , or subordinate to this . This Seeking is the Exercise of our u●most Power , with greatest diligence in the Use of those means God hath ordained for the attaining of that blessed Condition , which was prepared from the beginning , but to be fully enjoyed in the End of the World : The outward means are Word and Sacraments ; the inward Knowledg , Repentance , Faith , and new Obedience ; for by the Use of the outward , and Improvement of the inward means , we are made capable of Heaven . The words being th●s explained ; let us consider the force of the Reasons and Motives therein contained , which are two : 1. We have no abiding City . 2. We seek one to come . 1. If we have nothing certain and constant here , Why should we be willing to abide here where we have no abiding , nor enjoy any thing that is abiding and permanent ? All things are Vanity of Vanities , even most vain , flitting , and empty of all solid Goodness . Every thing under Heaven , though never so excellent and lasting , is subject to waste and consumption ; yea , the Heavens and the Earth shall perish , and wax old , and God shall change them as a Garment , and as a Vesture shall they be changed : And as all things are mutable and perishing in themselvs , so our Possession of them is uncertain ; and how many wayes may we be dispossessed of them ? And shall it trouble us to part with that which one day , and we know not how soon , must be taken from us ? and to leave that place which suddenly must be left ? For , at the time of death , if not sooner , shall we be stript of all , take our leave with dearest Friends ; and all things and persons , though never so near and dear unto us , must be left behind us , and then we must remove hence and be no more seen . And why should the thoughts of bearing his Reproach torment our minds ? For Christ hath born it before us , and the burden is but leight , and shall not ly long upon our backs ; for no Sufferings can extend beyond this mortal Life . 2. The second Reason is very effectual ; for we have an abiding City to come . Christ , as you heard , for the joy that was set before him , endured the Cross , and despised the Shame ; and why should not we follow him , and do as he hath done ? We can lose nothing of much value , but for what we lose we shall receive many things incomparably better ; for Treasure : on Earth , Treasure in Heaven ; for a Mortal Life , an Immortal ; for uncertain and fading things , certain and everlasting ; for a removable Tabernacle , an everlasting Temple ; for a Wilderness , an ever-blessed Canaan . And every step of our Remove out of this World is but an Approach unto our abiding City ; where will be no Reproach , no Cross , no Suffering ; but perpetual Ease , Peace , Safety , Happiness : And if we had any effectuall Faith and lively Hope of these eternal Mansions and this glorious Estate , how easy were it for us even with Joy to go out of this Camp , this City , to our Saviour , bearing his Reproach ? For want of Consideration we have no lively clear Apprehension , no firm Belief and effectual Hope of this heavenly City . Some press this Duty upon other Reasons implied in the former words ; namely , because , 1. We shall be Partakers of the Sacrifice of Christ. 2. We are sanctified by his Blood. 3. He went out of the City first , carrying his Cross , and gave us an Example . Yet these may inferr and prove this to be a Duty , though they be not so powerful Motives stirring up to Performance . § . 14. The next Duty we are exhorted unto , we find Ver. 15. By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually , that is the fruit of our Lips , confessing unto his Name . LET us consider , 1. The Context . 2. The Text. 1. The Context , and Connexion with the former words , is implied in the Illative Therefore , which usually inferrs a Conclusion from some Premisses Antecedent ; and most Expositors do take this Text to be a Conclusion ; but what the Premisses , be they do not agree . 1. Some think they referr to Ver. 10. We have an Altar , though not Mosaical and Levitical , therefore let us make use of it , and offer upon it some Moral and Spiritual , not Carnal Sacrifice : Others inferr it from Ver. 12. where it 's said , We are sanctified by Christ's Blood , therefore let us offer , &c. For the Priests were first sanctified and consecrated by Blood before they could minister and Sacrifice : Others make it part of the formet Duty Ver. 13. and urged upon Motives in the 14th . and in this manner . Seeing we have no abiding City here , but seek one to come , which is purchased by Christ's Blood ; let us not only go forth to him bearing his Reproach , but let us also do this with Praise and Thanksgiving , in that we are counted worthy to suffer for him and with him . This seems to agree with that of the Apostle , Coloss. 1. 11 , 12. where Prayer is made for strength , that they may be able to suffer with Patience , long-Suffering , and Joyfulness , giving thanks that they were made fit to have part of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light : And it 's true that this Conclusion may be inferred from these severally , or from all jointly in this manner , That seeing we have an Altar , an High-Priest , are sanctified by his Blood , and made capable of an abiding City to come ; therefore let us offer , and offer this Sacrifice of Praise , and that by him : Yet the Cónjunction thereforē may be expletive here , as sometimes it is , and the words have no Reference to the former , but be a new Exhortation distinct from the former , and added unto them . 2. The Text in it self is an Exhortation , and therein we may observe , 1. The Duty exhorted unto , which is , to offer the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving . 2. The Directions how it must be offered , and they are these : It must be offered , 1. By Christ. 2. To God. 3. Continually . 4. To his Name . Yet the Directions concerning the manner are properly two : It must be offered , 1. By Christ. 2. Continually . If we reduce these into divine Axioms or Propositions , we may digest them thus , 1. There is a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanks-giving . 2. This Praise is the fruit of our Lips , and so is Thanks-giving . 3. This Sacrifice of Praise must be offered unto God , with Thanks-giving to his Name . 4. This Sacrifice must be offered by Christ. 5. It must be offered continually . 1. There is a Sacrifice of Praise ; for there is Praise , and this Praise is a Sacrifice . Praise , as it 's a Duty to be performed to God , 1. Hath for Object some divine Vertues and Perfections , and the same manifested unto us by his Word , or Works , or both ; and also apprehended by us . 2. It is an Acknowledgment of these Perfections as proper unto God , as most glorious and excellent in respect of them . 3. Some outward Expression of this Acknowledgment , as by word of Mouth , or some other way . 2. This Praise is a Sacrifice , because to be offered to God , of which hereafter . 2. This Praise is the fruit of our Lips , because by our words which issue from the heart , we express our inward thoughts and high Apprehensions of the same : Therefore our Tongue in Hebrew is said to be our Glory ; and the Reason given by some is not only this , that by our Speech and Language we excel irrational Creatures , but because it was given us to praise and glorify God : And as our Understanding is given us to think of God , and to know him ; so our Speech was given us to speak of God , and declare his wondrous Works , and his excellent Perfections manifested therein . In this respect , Praise is said to be a speaking well of the person or thing to be praised . This Expression is made either in private or publick , and the publick is the principal : It is made either in our Prayers , in our singing of Psalms , Hymns , and spiritual Songs , wherein the Voice is louder , sweeter , and melodious , which is called Vocal Musick , sometimes joyned with that which is called Instrumental : The Reason why in Assemblies we use this Vocal Praise , is , to inform others , and stirr them up to praise God joyntly with us . Thanks-giving also is the Fruit of our Lips , wherein we use our Voice as in Praise , and sometimes Praise and Thanks-giving are the same ; therefore the word here used signifies Confession , which presupposing our inward Acknowledgment , is an outward Declaration of the same . Yet Thanks-giving strictly taken , is different from Praise ; for the object of it is the works of God , as beneficial to us , and manifesting his mercy , love , and kindness ; and the act of it is an acknowledgment of his love , mercy , and kindness , and an expression of the same . And this is also a Fruit of our Lips as well as Praise , and is signified outwardly for the same Reasons , for which the inward Acknowledgment of Praise is expressed : This Phrase [ Fruit of our Lips ] is taken out of the Prophets , as Isa. 57. 19. but especially Hosea 14. 2. where the word Calves is turned by the Septuagint , Fruit. 3. This Sacrifice of Praise and Thanks-giving must be offered to God and to his Name . A Sacrifice is sometimes taken largely for an Oblation or Offering , and in this sense a Sacrifice is an Offering of something to God , as Supream Lord. Praise therefore , and so Thanksgiving being something offered to God as Supream , may be said to be a Sacrifice ; which is proper to a Deity . Praise is due to Him , as Supream in some Perfections ; Thanks as to the Supream Benefactor , and Fountain of all Goodness , Blessings , Mercies . These are due to him as he is Supream , and we are bound to offer these by vertue of the first Commandment , which requireth Love , Fear , Praise , Thanks-giving , Honour , and other Duties to be performed to Him alone , as Supream in the highest degree . The Reason why the Authour mentions Sacrifice may be this , Because all Religions require Sacrifices to be offered to a God whether true or imaginary ; and God required in the Law several kinds of Sacrifices , both Ilastical and Eucharistical to be offered unto him , and these Hebrews might say , What is the Law of Moses so abrogated , that all Sacrifices and Offerings to God are taken away ? Hath Christian Religion no such thing ? Is it singular in this particular ? To this the Apostle answers , that indeed all Sacrifices of Bullocks , Goats , Lambs , Rams , which were carnal are taken away ; yet there are more excellent Sacrifices , which are moral and spiritual , of which praise and thanksgiving are not the least , to be offered unto God as Supreme Lord. For you are an holy Priest-hood , to offer up spiritual Sacrifices , &c. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Where it 's expresly signified , 1. That there must be Sacrifices in the Christian Religion and Worship . Yet , 2. These Sacrifices must not be carnal , but spiritual . And under the Law God required the Sacrifice of Thanksgiving , more then the Blood of Bulls and Goats , Psal. 50. 14. and the Knowledg of God and mercy , more then those Legal Sacrifices of Beasts , Hos. 6. 6. and the Sacrifices of a broken Spirit , of a broken and contrite heart , Psal. 51. 17. This Sacrifice of praise was and is most solemnly to be offered in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ , for that inestimable blessing of Redemption by that great Sacrifice offered upon the Cross. Therefore that Sacrament was called the Eucharist or Thanksgiving , and a Commemoration of Christ's Death . And this might be the reason , why the Antients so often called it a Sacrifice , to signify , that neither the Heathens nor Jews had any reason to upbraid them with the want or neglect of Sacrifice . It must be offered unto God , and God alone , as Supreme , and to his Name : where , by Name may be signified either his Majesty and Supremacy ; and it is the same with offering unto God ; or it may signify his Glory : and then the meaning is , that it must be offered to him to manifest his Glory , and to ascribe all Glory , Honour , excellency and Perfection unto him . 4. This Sacrifice must be offered by Christ. By Christ , that is , by Faith in Christ : 1. As having propitiated God by his Blood , and made his Throne accessible . For by him we have access by Faith , into this Grace wherein we stand , Rom. 5. 2. Through him we have access , by one Spirit , to the Father , Eph. 2. 18. And in him we have boldness , and access with confidence , by Faith of him , Col. 3. 12. For how should sinful guilty man , dare to approach into his presence of an holy and just Lord , if satisfaction be not made first unto Divine Justice , offended by Sin. 2. By Faith in him , as having merited God's favour , and acceptance of our Services ; for without this Merit , we are unworthy to enter into his presence , and our best Services considered in themselves , without his merit are not acceptable . 3. By him , as our Mediatour and Intercessour ; for he is our Advocate with the Father , 1 Joh. 2. 1. As no man under the Law could offer his Sacrifice unto God , but by the Priest ; so under the Gospel , no man can offer his Prayers , Praises , Alms , or any other spiritual Sacrifice unto God , but by Christ as his High-Priest , who offers them unto God. John , in a Vision , sawin Heaven an Angel standing at the Altar , having a golden Censer , and there was given him much Incense , that he should offer it with the Prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar which was before the Throne , Rev. 8. 3. This Angel is Christ our High-Priest , who offers the Prayers of all his Saints perfumed with the Incense of his merits , mhich makes them as offered by him so acceptable , and so effectual . This is the reason , why we conclude our prayers in Christ's Name , and desire that they may be heard for his sake . 5. We must offer this Sacrifice [ continually ] , not that we must be like the Euchitae , which would do nothing but pray , but that we must keep a constant Course , and observe a certain order in worshipping God , both in private and publick . For God is continually , beneficial unto us , blessing and delivering his People every day , and by new mercies giving new matter of praise and thanksgiving ; and there are some mercies so general and so beneficial , that they should never be forgotten ; but remembred before God every day . This is the same with that Exhortation of the Apostle . To give thanks [ alwayes ] for all things unto God and the Father , in the Name of Jesus Christ , Eph. 5. 20. We read , that the four Beasts : which were the universal Church , did not rest Day and Night , saying , Holy , Holy , Holy , Lord God Almighty , which was , and is , and is come , Rev. 4. 8. For this is one continual Imployment of the universal Church militant , to give Praise and Glory to God for ever . The more lively apprehension we have of God's perfection , and the more sensible of his love and mercy we shall be , the more excellent and acceptable this Service will prove . § . 15. There is another Sacrifice to be offered , which is the matter of another Exhortation . Ver. 16. But to do good , and to communicate , forget not : for with such Sacrifices God is well pleased . ] VVHere we have , 1. The Duty exhorted unto ; 2. The Motive . 1. The Duty is , Not to forget to do good , and to communicate . This hath some affinity with the former , and is fitly subjoyned . For , 1. If God be beneficial to us , and communicate his goodness , then we must be benesicial unto our Neighbour , especially his poor Saints , and communicate of those Goods he hath given us ; for he hath not given us a greater measure of his Blessings , either to hoard them up , or spend them vainly and sinfully upon our selves , to maintain our pride and pleasure . We are but Stewards , and only trusted with them , and must give an account ; 2. There were Eucharistical Sacrifices under the Law , wherein they must remember the Levit , the Poor , the Fatherless , the Widow ; such as these are , and God requires them in the Gospel . 3. By doing good to others , we manifest our praise and thankgiving offered to God , to be real and sincere ; for I cannot think , that any man can be truly thankful to God , who is not merciful to his Brother . The matter of this Duty , is something of these worldly Goods which God hath given us , are justly our own , and which we may spare , though never so little , if but the poor Widow's mite : for God requires our Charity according to our portion , we must give willingly and plentifully . The Objects of this our Charity , are such as want , and we are able to relieve ; and , amongst others , the poor Saints of Christ. This Duty must not be forgotten , that is , neglected ; but we must have a special care to exercise our Charity , as God shall call for it . Though we are not bound to relieve others by the Laws of Men , yet we are deeply obliged unto it by the Laws of God ; and therefore we are not left at liberty , to give or not give : it 's an universal Duty , and lies upon us and all Christians , and upon them more then upon any other . 2. The reason and motive is , With such Sacrifices God is well pleased . Where it 's implyed , every work of Charity should be a Sacrifice , and so given to Man , as to be offered to God. So it is , when it 's done out of Faith in Christ , love to God , and in obedience to his Command . In this respect , Alms are part of God's Worship , given and offered to God at the perception of the Sacrament , of the Eucharist , added unto their thanksgiving . Therefore they were called Oblations , and also were reckoned as works of Sanctification of the Christian Sabbath , 1 Cor. 16. 1 , 2 , &c. This Sacrifice , if offered aright , is pleasing to God ; there are Sacrifices which God is not well pleased with ; for some he abhominates , some he regards not , but this he accepts , and it 's very pleasing unto him . For the benevolence and charity of the Philippians sent to Paul , was an Odour of sweet smell , a Sacrifice acceptable and well-pleasing to God , Phil. 4. 18. Where we may observe , 1. That it was a Sacrifice . 2. It was acceptable and well-pleasing , that is , very much and highly accepted of God. It 's called [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , the ministration of divine Service , a part of the Liturgy and Service of God , 2 Cor. 9. 12. Thatit is thus pleasing to God , is evident , because hecommands it , commends it , and that often and much , promiseth to reward it with temporal and spiritual Blessings , takes that which is given to the poor , as lent unto himself , and becomes Debtor to repay it : Christ takes that done to himself , which was done to his poor Saints , and assures us , that a Cup of cold water should not be forgotten , and magnisies the Widow's mite cast into the Treasury . And how willing and ready should we be to perform that Duty , which God so much accepts ! § . 16. The last Exhortation followeth , Ver. 17. Obey them that have the Rule over you , and submit uour Selves ; for they watch for your Souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it with joy , and not with grief : for that is unprofitable for you . ] CHrist in the administration of his heavenly Kingdom , and the ordering of men unto everlasting Life , hath his Officers under him . For though by his Spirit alone , without the Ministry of Men or Angels , he could save us ; yet he is pleased to make use of Min , and by Man convert Man , and bring him to everlasting Glory . Therefore when he ascended up on high , to take possession of his Kingdom , he gave Gifts to Men , and gave some Apostles , some Prophets , some Evangelists , some Pastors and Teachers ; and all this for the building up of his Church . In laying the foundation , he used extraordinary ; in building upon the foundation , ordinary Officers : and this Text is concerning both ; the work of these Officers , and the duty of the People subject unto them : In that as being an Exhortation , we have , as in most of the rest , 1. The Duty exhorted unto . 2. The Reasons and Motives . 1. The Duty is , To obey them who have the Rule over us , and to submit our selves . The parties who must perform this Duty are Christian People , as having Rules over them ; they are the Flock under their Shepheards , Subjects under their Governours . The parties to whom the Duty must be performed , are such as have the Rule over them , who before were called Guides , which taught unto them the Word of God , and here such as watch over their Souls . All this implies , that they are Superiors , Governours , Officers ; and to distinguish them from Civil Magistrates , they are said to be trusted with men's Souls , not their Bodies and Estates ; these are Officers in the Church , whether extraordinary or ordinary ; of what order , ranck , or quality soever , if instituted by Christ : yet ordinary are here chiefly meant . These are called Ministers of the Gospel , Elders , Pastors , Teachers ; Their work chiefly is in Word , Prayer , administration of the Sacraments : These most be fitly qualified for knowledg , life , utterance ; and approved by such as being sufficient to judg of them , are appointed by the Church for that work . They should be such as against whom no exception can justy be taken : And this is said to be their Vocation , upon which usually follows Ordination , by Imposition of hands , a certain form of words and prayer . These are acts of the Church designing , and engaging fit persons ; but their power is from Christ : All this is to be understood of ordinary Pastors : These are the persons to whom the Duty is to be performed ; The duty is Obedience and Subjection . Obedience presupposeth Commands , and subjection Power : The Commands must be done , the Power must be acknowledged . The Power is spiritual , and from God ; for they are made Overseers of the Church by the Holy Ghost , Act. 20. 28. And it 's so great , that Christ plainly affirms , That whosoever heareth and receiveth them , heareth and receiveth Christ , and God who sent Christ ; and he that despiseth them , despiseth Christ , and God who sent him , Matth. 10. 40. Luke 10. 16. And this is true , not only of the Apostles , but of their Successors : Yet this presupposeth , that they do all things in their place , according to their Commission from Christ , and in his Name , exercising their Power according to his Command . 2. The Reasons are taken , 1. From their Work. 2. From their Account . 1. Their work is to watch over their Souls ; and here we must take notice , 1. That the subject of their work , are mens Souls , and the Soul is the principal and more noble part of man ; and here it 's to be considered as immortal , and capable of an eternal estate of felicity or misery . And here they are considered , as in great danger of eternal punishment , and the work of the Minister must be to prevent it so far as he can . This is done by watching , which is a Metaphor taken from a Shepheard , or a Scout , or Sentinel . And whatsoever the one should do for his Sheep , and the other for his Country , to save and preserve them ; this he must do for the Salvation of mens Soul. For mens Souls are as Sheep without a Shepheard , wandring in the wayes of Sin , in danger of Satan , Hell , and Death ; d●st●●ute of all necessary saving Blessings , and all power either to direct or protect themselves . And this Watching includes many works , as instruction of the Ignorant , reproof of the Guilty , threatening the Stubborn , strengthening the Weak , comforting the Sorrowful , directing all , giving good example to all , encouraging all ; praying for all . To Watch , is to do the whole work of the Ministry for Doctrine and Worship , in the right dispensation of the Word and Sacraments . Some understand by these Guides and Rulers , all other Officers and Governours of the Church for Discipline ; but these may be other besides Ministers , which are here principally intended . Seeing these watch , and that over their Souls , and for their eternal Salvation , to prevent their damnation , they should be considered as most necessary of all other men , and should be esteemed highly in love for their works sake . People do little consider how great a blessing from God , and happiness to Man , good and faithful Ministers are ; but if they once find the power of their Doctrine , and the comfort of the Spirit , they prize them as Messengers and Angels sent from Heaven , out of great mercy for their eternal good . Yet the best are most hated of the Devil , despised by Men , reviled , persecuted , and sometimes martyred : Yet we must not think this any strange thing , seeing they called Christ Beelzebub , and counted the Apostles the filth of the World , and the off-scouring of all things . But the insufficiency and infidelity of vicious , lazy , ambitious , covetous Wretches , though it may give some occasion of contempt , cannot excuse the wickedness of the World in this particular . 2. As Watching over mens Souls , is the first reason ; so the second is taken from their Account , which may be good or bad , in respect of the Ministers or the People committed to their Charge : where it 's to be observed , that it may be good in respect of the Minister , who hath been faithful ; and yet bad in respect of the People , who have been disobedient : Yet here the account is chiefly considered , with reference to the People . And it is two-fold , 1. Good , and made with joy , which is profitable . 2. Bad , and made with grief , which is unprofitable to the People . This implies , that Ministers , as they receive power from Christ ; so they receive Mandates with Instructions , and are deeply charged ; and wo unto Paul , if he preach not the Gospel . For such will be guilty , not only of their own sins , but of the Blood and Damnation of the Peoples Souls ; this is an heavy Charge . This implies , they are Stewards , and the Flock is not their own , but Christ's , who trusted them in their hands , and will call them to account ; and as they prove faithful or unfaithful , so he will deal with them , and punish or reward them more then other men : and surely if we did remember this Account , or loved Christ , we would feed his Flock , which cost him so dear , even his own Life and Blood. And the People should consider the expence of Christ's Blood , the charge , the study , the pains , the prayers of their faithful Ministers ; and this consideration should work much upon them , and perswade them to obedience and submission , because the performance of the Duty will end in the Ministers joy , and their profit . For as it is a great grief to their Guides to see the People impenitent , and all their labour lost in respect of them ; so it is a matter of great joy to see them converted , and brought into an estate of Salvation , so that they can say , These Souls I have gained and saved from Hell ; and can present them blameless , as washed in the Blood of Christ , before the Judgment-seat of God. And as it is a joy to their Pastors , so it is a profit and great advantage unto them ; for their joy shall end in the Peoples Salvation , who will bless the Day , that ever they hearkened to them ; and in receiving them , received Christ , and God who sent him . But then on the contrary , if the People be disobedient , though the Ministers conscience will acquit him , and Christ will richly reward his fidelity and pains ; yet it will trouble him much to see his Labours lost , the People's Souls , whose Salvation he so much desired , and laboured for , to perish . And as this will be a grief to him , so it will be an unspeakable dammage unto them ; for they shall lose the fairest opportunity of Salvation , and shall be condemned to eternal punishments , and the same more grievous , because their sin was greater then the sin of other men , who never heard the Gospel . For the greatest punishments in Hell shall ly upon such as continued impenitent and unbelieving under the Gospel , and a powerful Ministry . For it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Zidon in the day of Judgment , then for Bethsaida and Corazin ; and for Sodom and Gomorrha , than for Capemaum . These are mighty and powerful reasons ; and if People would lay them to heart , they would tremble to think of disobedience to their Guides . Where it 's to be noted , that the same word , which ver . 7. is turned Guides , is here translated Rulers ; for they are not meerly Guides , to direct , but Rulers , instructed with power to command , and forbid , to bind and loose in the Name of Christ ; and in the former place the Authour seems to speak of such as were Dead , and here of such as are Living . And some observe , that this is the last Exhortation , because the Apostle , for other Duties not here mentioned , referred them to their present Pastors . § . 17. Thus far the Epistle hath been continued in the main Matter and Substance ; and it 's an excellent and profound Discourse concerning Christ's Prophetical and Sacerdotal Office , joyned with an Exhortation unto Perseverance in their Christian Profession and Practice . That little which remains may be said to be the Conclusion ; and of the same , in a few words , we have many parts or particulars ; as 1. A Request . 2. An Intercession . 3. An Exhortation . 4. An Information . 5. A Salutation . 6. A Benediction . 1. The Request we have , Ver. 18. Pray for us ; for we trust we have a good Conscience , in all things willing to live honestly . Ver. 19. But I beseech you the rather do to this , that I may be restored to you the sooner . IN this we may observe , 1. The thing requested by Paul ; and that was their Prayers . 2. The Reason of this Request : And It was two-fold , 1. He was capable of their Prayers , and a fit Object of the same . 2. Upon their Prayers he might the sooner be restored unto them . 1. From this , that he desires their Prayers for him , we may observe , 1. That we must pray for others as well as for our selvs , and most of all should pray for the Church , and in the Church for the Guides thereof , upon whom the Good , Edification , Peace , and Welfare of it doth so much depend . 2. That there is no Man living but needs the Prayers of others , no , not the best and most eminent , not Ministers , not Apostles , not Paul ; nay , Christ himself in the day of his Agony desired the Prayers of the Apostles . 3. That though the Apostle doth not mention or express what in particular they must seek of God by Prayer for him , yet this was easily understood , and we may learn from other places what the matter of their Prayers for him must be ; they must pray for Utterance , Boldness , Success in Preaching the Gospel , Deliverance from wicked and absurd men , and in particular for his Liberty and Enlargement , as is implied in the next Verse And he implies , that all these may be obtained by their Prayers . 2. The Reason which might perswade them to perform this Office of Love , was , 1. Because he was not altogether unworthy of their Prayers , nor any wayes uncapable of the benefit of their Petitions : For there are some whom no Prayers and Intercession can help or profit ; though Moses , Joh , Daniel , pray for them , God will not hear . But he was none of these ; for he was perswaded he had a good Conscience , and the Reason of this perswasion was , because he was willing in all things to live honestly . Here some observe his Modesty , in that he doth not say I have , but I trust I have a good Conscience ; not , that in all things he lived honestly , but that he was willing to do so . A good Conscience in this place is , 1. A Conscience rightly informed by the Word of God , and of his own Life as agreeable thereunto . 2. A Conscience that could restify of the sincere Intention of his Heart , and the Righteousnes of his Actions without Errour . 3. It may be a Conscience also which did rightly dictate the Truth , and put him on to do good . * Such a Conscience his was , and he was perswaded of it ; for by due Examination a Man may know his own Conscience , or his own Conscience may know it self . The Reason of this Testimony of himself might be , because some did accuse him that he was an Apostate from Judaism , and turned Christian out of hatred to Moses and the Law , and out of Design not of Sincerity ; but he being conscious to his Intentions , and the Grounds of Conversion knew this Accusation to be false . The Reason of this Trust was this , he was willing in all things to live honestly : To live honestly , is , to direct our Lives according to the Will of God , and that in all things ; for true Honesty is a divine Vertue , and a Life regulated constantly and universally by the Word of God. And though no man attains to this Perfection of Honesty in this Life , because every one hath his failings , and none lives and sins not , yet we may be willing to live so as to be perfectly honest . The Will is the Imperiall Power in the Soul , the first Mover , and Principle of Moral Actions , and , as it stands disposed and constantly bent , so the Life is good or bad . Paul's heart was rightly disposed , and predominantly bent unto Righteousness , and he knew it to be so , and especially in his proper Work of his Apostle-ship , which was the Preaching of the Gospel , which he first undertook , and afterward continued upon right Grounds , strong Convictions , and out of the Sincerity and Integrity of his heart . 2. There was another Reason which might make their Prayers in his behalf more frequent and ardent , and stir them up unto this Work , and that was Hope of his more timely Liberty , and Restitution unto them . This implies , he was in Bonds , and that he had some Hope of Liberty , which their Prayers might obtain , or at least hasten . Some think he was then promised his Liberty , but not yet fully discharged ; but whether it was so or no , yet the force of the Reason is from the comfort and benefit which might redound to them upon his Release . When James was slain and Peter imprisoned , earnest and continual Prayer was made by the Church for his Release , and this Prayer was so successfull and effectual , that he was miraculously delivered and restored unto them , for their great Comfort and the benefit of the Church . And it 's certain , many Prayers were made for Paul's Liberty , when a Prisoner at Rome : For they thought it a great Prejudice to the Gospel , a Dammage to the Church , and an hinderance of the Conversion of many Souls , that so vigilant , laborious , faithful , zealous , and eminent an Apostle should be imprisoned and consined . And Paul himself knew that his Liberty and his Presence would be both a great Comfort , and also a Benefit , not only unto these Hebrews , but to many other Christians and Disciples . Therefore he requests them , as they desired the Comfort and Benefit of his presence amongst them upon his speedy Release , to pray for him frequently and servently . § . 18. The next part of the Conclusion is the Apostle's Prayer , Ver. 20. Now , the God of all Peace , that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus , that great Shepherd of the Sheep , through the Blood of the everlasting Covenant . Ver. 21. Make you perfect in every good Work to do his Will , working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight , through Jesus Christ , to whom be Glory for ever and ever . Amen . THESE words are a perfect Prayer ; of which we have two principal parts , 1. A Petition . 2. A Doxology . Yet these may be made four , 1. The Compellation of the Party invocated . 2. The Petition of the Party invocating . 3. The Doxology . 4. The Conclusion and Confirmation of the whole . Yet the first and last of these four belong both to the Petition and Doxology . To begin with the Petition , which , presupposing Adoration , begins with the Compellation and goes on with the Petition . In the Compellation we have a Description of God , the Party prayed to , and that is from his Titles , 1. Of Peace ; and , 2. Of Power . He is first acknowledged the God of Peace , as in another place the God of all Grace , 1 Pet. 5. 10. The God of all Peace and Grace may be the same , and that is , a most gracious and loving God. Yet if Peace be taken according to the Hebrew for perfect Happiness , and the Enjoyment of all Blessings , then the God of Peace is that God which is the Fountain of all Goodness , and perfect , full , eternal Happiness ; yet such he is , as a gracious God and loving Father reconciled and propitiated by the Blood of Christ. As he is a God of Peace , so he is of Power , and this Power is set forth by that glorious Work of raising Christ from the dead ; for therein was manifested the exceeding greatness of his Power , according to the working of the s●●e , when he raised Christ , Ephes. 1. 19 , 20. The Party whom he raised was Jesus Christ , whom he describes from his Relation to the Church to be the great Shepherd of the Sheep , through the Blood of the everlasting Covenant . Where we may observe , 1. That there is the Blood of the everlasting Covenant . 2. By or through this Blood Christ became the great Shepherd of the Sheep . 3. God raised this great Shepherd from the dead . 1. The Covenant is the Law and Covenant of Grace , wherein God binds himself to sinful Man by excellent Promise upon the Conditions of Repentance and Faith , to give him remission of all his Sins , and everlasting Life ; Of this you have heard , Chap. 8. This Covenant is everlasting , because , though the Covenant made with Israel in the Wilderness was abolished ; yet this is unalterable , and shall continue for ever , and by it , and it alone , the Called attain both the title and possession of the eternal Inheritance . The Blood of this Covenant , so called by Christ , Mark 13. 22. Luke 22. 20. is the Blood of Christ , which was shed , as for other ends , so for the confirmation of this Covenant . And the Blood , Death , and Sacrifice of Christ confirmed the Covenant , because it made it effectual , and able to reach the end , which was the eternal Salvation of sinful man. For by this Blood being shed , he satisfied divine Justice , and made Sin remissible , and merited the mercies promised , the promises themselves , the terms and conditions , and power to perform them ; and by this Blood pleaded in Heaven , upon the performance of the conditions , he obtains actual Remission , and in the end actual fruition of their eternal Inheritance . The former Covenant with Israel was indeed confirmed with Blood of Sacrifices ; yet because that Blood could not expiate Sin , and the Levitical High-Priest could not enter Heaven to plead any such expiatory Blood ; therefore that Covenant was not everlasting . In respect of this Blood , purging mens Consciences from dead Works , Christ was made the Mediatour of the New Covenant : of which you may see , Chap. 9. 15. By this Blood therefore it is said , That Christ is the great Shepheard of the Sheep : For because Christ took upon him the form of a Servant , and became obedient unto Death , the Death of the Cross , and shed his Blood ; therefore God exalted him , and gave him a Name above every Name . And therefore did his Father love him , and made him an eternal Shepheard of the Sheep , because he had laid down his life for his Sheep , Joh. 10. 17. For this very cause his Father gave him Po●er over all Flesh , that he might give eternal Life to as many as he had given him , Joh. 17. 2. So that by this Blood , he became the Shepheard , the Great Shepheard : For all the Prophets , and the Apostles , and Ministers of the Gospel , are Shepheards ; yet so , that they are but Servants under him ; the Sheep are not theirs , but Christ's , who bought them by his Blood. And God raised him , and made him Lord , and the great and chief Shepheard of the Flock , that he might keep them , raise them up at the last Day , and then give them everlasting life . This Shepheard was raised by the mighty power of God , who not only raised him From the Dead , but made him King and Priest for ever ; that is , the great and chief Shepheard . This is more at large described , Eph. 1. 19 , 20 , 21. to the end ; for that place doth expound this for one part . For if we consider Christ in this place , as the Object of God's almighty Power : We may observe , 1. His Humiliation . 2. His Exaltation . His Humiliation is signified by his Blood and Death , whereby the new and everlasting Covenant is confirmed : Thus humbled , thus Dead , he is the subject of God's almighty Power , which did manifest it self , 1. By raising him from the Dead . 2. By making him the great Shepheard , Lord , and King , advancing him above the Angels , the Principalities , Powers , and Dominions of Heaven , and all Names and Powers on Earth , and gave him to be Head and Shepheard of the Church-Universal . And the reason why the Apostle gives God these titles of Peace and Power , and instanceth in the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ , as glorious Effects of this Power , is , because the continued sanctification and perfection of man once regenerate , which is the thing desired in the Petition following , depends upon this mercy and power as having raised and advanced Christ first , that by him thus raised and exalted , he may first sanctify us fully , and then give us everlasting Glory . Therefore the Apostle saith , That God out of his great mercy and love had quickned the believing Ephesians , being formerly dead in Sins & Trespasses , together with Christ , and raised them up together , and set them in heavenly places in Christ Jesus , Eph. 2. 4 , 5 , 6. Where we may observe , 1. That he quickened Christ being dead , raised him up , and set him in heavenly places . 2. That he quickened them being dead in Sins and Trespasses , raised them up , and set them in heavenly places together with Christ , and by Christ. 3. That both these were done by the same mercy and power first exercised upon Christ , and then upon them . After the Adoration and Compellation , follows the Petition , wherein the principal thing desired is Sanctification , and the power of Regeneration continued in them , that so they might perform a constant and universal Obedience● which was a means to attain the possession of eternal Glory . Where we must observe , 1. That the Apostle having requested their prayers formerly , doth in these words , being not requested , but of his own accord pray for them . 2. That having exhorted them to the performance of several Duties , and the exercise of several Virtues , knowing , that without the sanctifying Grace of God they could not perform these Duties constantly , to the end , in these words he prayes for the continuance of God's sanctifying power to enable them to do that , which they without it cannot do . 3. That seeing the Duties exhorted unto were but few , and there were many more , he desires God to perfect them , not only in these , but in every good Work , that so they might perform an universal Obedience . These things first observed , in the words we must consider 1. Their Duty which is to be perfect in every good Work , to do God's Will , and that which is well pleasing in his sight , through Jesus Christ. 2. God's Power , whereby they are enabled to do their Duty , and the same sought for by prayer . 1. The Duty , 1. Hath for the Rule the Will of God. 2. This Will is observed , when we do every good Work. 3. Every good work thus done according to the Will of God , is well-pleasing unto God. 1. By the Will of God , is meant his legislative and commanding Will , whereby he signifies unto man what is just and good , and binds him to observe these his Laws . 2. The Will of God , being our binding Rule our Duty is to observe it ; and we observe it , when we do every good Work. The works of man are the actions and operations of Man , as a rational Creature , and subject to the Laws and Will of God. These works may be good or bad ; and then they are good , when they are conformable to the Will and Law of God : and this goodness presupposeth knowledg of this Will , and the right disposition and qualification of the heart . For if the heart be not good , the work , which is qualified by the heart , cannot be good . But it 's not sufficient to do some , but every good work : For the Laws of God command all good works , and require that every work of man be good . This is universal Obedience ; for the Law binds in all things , and at all times , so that it gives no liberty to do evil , or transgress at any time . 3. Every good work , as good , is well pleasing to God through Jesus Christ , because it 's agreeable to his Will : for to please God , so as to be accepted of God , is a Consequent of the goodness of the work , as it is the end whereat man must aim . Yet it cannot please God , but by Faith in Jesus Christ : For without Faith , it 's impossible to please God. Though these word ; [ Jesus Christ ] may be referred also to the Prayer , wherein they desire sanctifying power through him , and for his sake . 2. The sanctifying power desired of God , is expressed in two words , 1. Perfecting . 2. Working . 1. The work of God must perfect us , before we can do any good ; the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] , in the Septuagint , signifies to uphold , stablish , direct , compose and make up a thing , so as to set it in order , and finish it , that it may be fit for the end it was made . Thus to compose , and make up a man in this place , is to sanctify him , and give him a power to do every good work : and this is a work of the regenerating Spirit of God abiding in us , and renewing us more and more . In this respect we are said to be God's workmanship , created in Christ Jesus unto good Works , Eph. 2. 10. Yet this is not here meant of the first Regeneration , but of the continuance and increase of this sanctifying Grace , to strengthen us more and more . As preservation and providence is to Creation , so this work of perfecting is to the first Regeneration ; and as we are at first created unto good Works , so we are perfected in Christ. Another thing desired of God is , [ working in us that which is well pleasing unto him ] ; this signifies , that God doth not only give us Power , but continually co-operate and work in us , and with us , without whose co-operation , we can do nothing that will please him . For it is he that works in us , both the Will and the Deed of his good pleasure , Phil. 2. 13. This prayer in effect is the same with that we read , was made for the Colossians . For the Apostle and Timothy did not cease to pray for them , and desire , that he might be filled with the knowledg of God's Will in all spiritual Wisdom and Understanding . That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing , being fritful in every good Work , increasing in the knowledg of God , Col. 1. 9 , 10. Where we have , 1. The Will of God , as here , which is the rule of our Obedience . 2. Being fruitful in every good Work , which is the same with doing every good Work , which is the observation of God's Will. 3. They must walk worthy to all pleasing ; so here , they must do that which is well pleasing in his sight , not in the sight of Man : And as here , when we do every good work , we please him ; so there we please him , by being fruitful in every good work . 4. As here they could not please God , except God perfect them , and work in them ; so there , neither could the Colossians please God , without spiritual Knowledg , Wisdom , and Understanding of God's Will : for Knowledg , spiritual Wisdom , and Understanding , are the same , as appears ; Prov. 2. 6. Where we find , the words of the Septuag●nt taken up by the Apostle . 5. As there this Grace of wisdom , and fulness of it , was sught by prayer ; so this continuance of God's sanctifying Grace , is prayed for here . This prayer informs us , 1. That in doing all our good works , we depend upon God , both for the power given at the first , and continued unto us , and also for the working it self : both will and deed are from him , because he makes us of unwilling , willing ; and causeth us actually to do that which we do . 2. That we cannot obtain any mercy of God , but by Christ , nor do any Good pleasing to God , but by him : For without me , saith Christ , ye can do nothing . This Petition is reducible to that in the Lord's Prayer , Thy will be done on Earth as it is done in Heaven . The Doxology followeth , [ To whom be Glory for ever and ever . ] This presupposeth , 1. God's glorious and excellent perfections ; for he is glorious for ever in himself . 2. The manifestation of these glorious and excellent perfections . 3. The acknowledgment of this glory manifested in his works unto him , so as to ascribe praise , honour , thanks unto him , as due . 4. The ascribing of it to him , as due for ever and ever : This may be understood by that of the Apocalyptist , Thou art worthy , O Lord , to receive Glory , Honour , and Power ; for thou hast created all things , and for thy Will and pleasure they are and were created , Rev. 4. 11. Where we may observe , 1. That God did manifest his excellency and perfections by his glorious works . 2. That in this respect , Glory , Honour , and Power was due unto him , and deserved by him ; for he was worthy to receive it both from Men and Angels . 3. This they acknowledg , and by their acknowledgment return and give them unto him . And here this Glory may be understood as given unto him , for that great and blessed Work of raising Christ , and making him the great Shepheard of the Sheep , for their eternal Salvation . As when we depart out of the presence of Kings and great Ones , we bow and bless them ; so when we have made our Prayers , and presented our Petitions to the great Soveraigh of Heaven and Earth ; we do not abruptly and rudely turn our backs , and so depart , but in all humility bless and glorify his Name , and acknowledg him worthy of eternal praise : This is one of the Ceremonies used in the Court of Heaven . The Petition presented , is sealed up with [ Amen ] ; which is to be understood as added not only to the Petition , but the Doxology ; it 's the conclusion of the whole , and seems to request that God would subscribe his [ Fiat ] to our Petitions , and so seal up and confirm our Prayer . We find it used in the Old Testament , to signify our consent with others in what they had said or pray'd ; and so it 's implyed , it should be used under the Gospel , 1 Cor. 14. 16. It 's a word of Faith and Hope , as Prayer is an Act of both ; and though our Prayer be long , yet it 's an Abridgment , and contains the substance of all , and repeats , and in one word , prayes the whole prayer over again . § . 19. The third part of the Close , is a kind of Exhortation or entreaty . Ver. 22. And I beseech you , Brethren , suffer the Word of Exhortation ; for I have written a Letter unto you in few words . ] IN these words , we have two Propositions ; 1. Paul had written unto them in a few words . 2. He beseecheth or entreates them to suffer the Word of Exhortation , which he had written in a few words unto them . 1. That which he had written , and sent unto them in writing , was this Epistle ; and it 's the largest Epistle of all the Epistles general of James , Peter , John , and Jude ; and of Paul's , except two ; that to the Romans , and the first to the Corinthians . Yet he terms it brief ; and if we consider the hortatory part , it is but brief , though the whole be somewhat large . If we consider the matter and subject , it required a very large Discourse ; yet he comprised much matter concerning the Offices of Christ , both prophetical and facerdotal , in a few words . For we find , that he omits many things , not only because of their incapacity , but because he had confined himself to such things as were most pertinent , necessary , and of greatest concernment . And by this his practice he seems to condemn all such , as unnecessarily enlarge their Discourses upon a certain distinct subject by impertinent , needless ; and sometimes empty and unprofitable Digressions , as many of copious Inventions , and yet of no solid Judgment , use to do . 2. Because his Discourse was brief and contracted , and not likely either to oppress their Memory or confound their Judgment , he beseecheth them as Brethren ( for that 's his loving Compellation ) to suffer it : He calls it a word of Exhortation . By a Word , is meant an orderly , solid , and Methodical Discourse ; and by a Word of Exhortation may be understood a Discourse of Comfort , as the Vulgar , Syriack , Arabick , turn the word , or of Reproof , Instruction , Admonition : For the word may imply , if not directly signify , all ; for Sermons and whole Discourses had the Name of Exhortation , though we find in them many other things . Howsoever the Apostle meant by the word the whole Epistle , which in respect of the last part from Chap. 10. 19. is chiefly hortative and consolatory . They must suffer this , so our Translators and some others turn the word ; which gave occasion to some to tell us , that Paul was more offensive to the Hebrews than any other of the Apostles , because they were so much taken with the Law and Ceremonies , to which they had been so long accustomed ; and therefore he both conceals his Name , and desires them to bear with this Discourse , and not to be offended with it . But whether this was so or no , it 's certain that the word here used signifies not only to suffer and tolerate but to receive , hear , and obey ; and so certainly it must be taken here : For if they did not thus receive his Doctrine and Exhortation with Attention and Obedience , the Epistle had been in vain and unprofitable unto them . And whereas he might have commanded them as Inferiours , and subject to his Apostolical Power , yet in his Wisdom he thought good to entreat them as Brethren . And this might the rather perswade them , because his Discourse was brief , and contained much profitable and necessary matter in a few words : This implies , 1. That it is our Duty to receive the Word of God readily , and with all Attention , and with Thankfulness of heart , because it 's so great a Blessing . 2. Yet such is our Corruption and depraved disposition , that a short Discourse though full of heavenly matter is tedious to us , and we are soon weary of it : But profane and wicked Persons will not endure it . § . 20. The fourth thing is Information concerning Timothy , Ver. 23. Know ye that our Brother Timothy it set at liberty , with whom , if he come shortly , I will see you . THis was Intelligence and good News ; the Subject of it was Timothy and himself . Of Timothy he delivers , 1. That he was set at Liberty . 2. Gives some hope that he would come shortly . Of himself he promiseth , upon condition of Timothy's speedy coming to them , that he would 1. Come with him . 2. See them ; so that there was some hope that they might see both him and Timothy together , and enjoy their blessed Society . 1. Timothy was set at Libetry : Who this Timothy was , both by Birth , Education , Office , and Employment , we we may easily understand from the Acts of the Apostles , Paul's Epistles , and especially from two written and directed to him in particular : He was a Jew by his Mother , a Christian by Paul's Conversion of him , a Minister of the Gospel , an Evangelist , and an Assistant unto Paul in the Work of the Ministry ; and though he was but young , yet he was eminent and famous in the Churches planted by Paul , a Person of Integrity and Fidelity . This Timothy was set at Liberty ; which implies , that he was bound imprisoned , or some wayes restrained of his Liberty ; but where and how , is not expressed in Scripture : Yet now he was set at Liberty , God had delivered him out of the hands of his Enemies , and they must know it as a matter of Joy and Comfort . It was a sad thing that such a Man as Timothy , so faithful , so serviceable , to Paul and the Church of God , should be restrained ; and he knew , that to hear and have certain Intelligence , and from him , that he was released , must needs comfort and rejoice their hearts : So also we , when we hear of the Liberty and Peace of the Church , and especially of pious and eminent Ministers , should be glad and should render Thanks unto our God , for so great a Mercy . 2. Yet there was a further degree of Comfort ; for he gives them hope , that as Timothy was ser at Liberty so he would come unto them shortly , and would see them , and give them a Visit in his own Person . And not only Timothy , but he himself would come with him , and see them together with him , that they might mutually comfort and rejoice one another ; and this Meeting and Society would be sweer . To hear of their Liberty was good News , but to be certified of their speedy coming together to see them was better : God's Servants cannot alwayes converse together on Earth , that Happiness is reserved for Heaven ; yet their hearts do rise and much rejoyce , when they can see and enjoy one anther , though but for a time . § . 21. The fifth part of the Close of this Letter is spent in Salutations , Ver. 24. Salute all them that have the Rule even you , and all the Saints . They of Italy salute you . THE Saulutations are , 1. Of Paul. 2. Of them of Italy . For Paul and they of Italy were the Persons saluting ; and their Guides and the rest of the Saints were the Persons saluted . True and hearty Salutations are an Expression of our Love and good Affection towards the Persons saluted ; and they are either of Persons present or absent . When we salute Persons present , we express our Affection by words of Peace , Health , Happiness , and by Embracements , or Kisses , or both , according to the Custom of the Time and Places : But when Friends are absent , we signify our good desires by Writing , or words of Messengers , and so embrace one another at a Distance . There are some who are not capable of Salutation , to whom we must not say , God speed , 2 Joh. 10. Some are capable , but not of a Christian Salutation , because not capable of spiritual Grace and Peace in Christ : Yet these Salutations are Christian , 1. From Paul a Christian to the Hebrews Christians . 2. From the Saints and Christians of Italy to the Saints and believing Hebrews . Paul is the first in sending Salutations ; the Persons by him saluted are , 1. Their Guides or Ministers , put in the first place because of their Office and Eminency . 2. The People , which by Profession of Faith in Christ , their Baptism , and Society with the Church , were Saints . The Persons saluting in the second place , and that by Paul , were they of Italy , that is , their Brethren , Saints , and Believers in Italy , and of the Church of Churches in Italy ; the Persons saluted are the same saluted before . To salute anciently amongst the Jews and Israelites was to wish Peace ; under the Gospel , Grace and Peace . The Syriack turns these words , Desire ye the Peace of your Guides , &c. but he is singular . These Salutations , though good in themselvs , are much abused , and made words of Course and Custom , or turned into Complements devoid of reall and hearty Love. § . 22. The last part of the Conclusion is a Benediction in these few words , Ver. 25. Grace be with you all . Amen . THis is so a Salutation , as that it is a Benediction pronounced with Apostolical Power , and was effectual upon all such as are capable . This is a Benediction proper to Paul , and usually if not alwayes written with his own hand ( which then was well known in many Churches ) , though the Epistle it self might be written by some other , whom he used for his Scribe . It is so proper unto him , that we find it used by none other of the Apostles , neither James , nor John , nor Peter , nor Jude : Only John doth conclude and shut up the Revelation with it ; but that was not written with Paul's own hand : And by this in those times this Epistle might certainly be known to be his . We use to salute one another at our first Meeting , and also at our Parting , which latter is called a Valediction . So Paul in all his Epistles , excepting this , begins with Grace and Peace , and that 's his Salutation ; and he ends this as all the rest with Grace , and this is his Valediction and Benediction . This Benediction we find sometimes briefer , sometimes larger , and the largest of all closeth up the second Epistle to the Corinthians ; and we must know that the briefest contains all the matter of the largest though not expresly . The usual Blessing both of old and of latter times is , The Lord be with you : For if the Lord be not against us , but for us , and with us , we must needs be so far happy ; yet the Lord may be with us , and in Mercy many wayes ; but to be with us in the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is the highest and happiest degree of God's presence tending to our eternal Bliss . Therefore the Apostle's Blessing is , The Lord be with you all greater Blessing than this there cannot be : By Lord , is meant Jesus Christ , our God-Redeemer ; whom the Father out of greatest Love sent to save us ; in whom and by whom we receive all spiritual Blessings , which are signified by Grace , which presupposeth here the Love of the Father , the Redemption by Christ , and the Communion of the Spirit : the Effects of all which in us is Remission , Reconciliation , Adoption , Sanctification , heavenly Joy and Comfort : For this Grace is sufficient to make us in time , though by degrees , fully and for ever happy : And by Grace here is meant the continuance , encrease , and perfection of Grace . This Grace he desired ; prayed for , and pronounced upon , them all as Believers ; for none but such are capable of it . Amen is added to Petitions , Doxologies , Confessions , and Benedictions ; as here it is to confirm his Benediction , and to seal it up unto them . The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ be blessed for ever . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A49796-e6290 * Though the principal subject be the prophetical and sacerdotal office , yet there is mention made several times of his Regal excellency . b I take prophecy in a large sense . * 1 Pet. 4. 22. * Beza upon the place . Ver. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ; &c. Ver. ● . * He signifies , 1. That the Hebrews had no reason to be offended with the death and humiliatiof Christ. 2. That this humiliation was no hinderance of , but a means unto , his exaltation ; and it was so ordered by the wisdom of God for the unspeakable benefit of man , who ●ould ●ot he saved but by this being lower then the Angels . * There is no need to distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , between videre ●●d cernere . † It may be a word which suited with the metaphor of a Cup wherein is contained some bitter po●ion , which torments him who tasts of it . Therefore Christ compares his sufferings to such a Cup , ' when he saith , Let this Cup passe from me . Ver. 13. Ver. 14. * Therefore the Sacraments in publick Assemblies , were called Exhortations . * Many think that Priesthood is of Institution . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * The Aethiopick and Arabick have not the word Imposed : Some Copies read not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Voluntas est ambulatoria . * For we find the word [ Megillah ] taken for a Roll. Ezra 6. 2. Ezek. 2. 9 , & 3 , 1 , 2 , 3. † The Psalmist seems chiefly to intend the Books of Moses , which were written before his time . * Yet in this the Apostle may allude to the purifications under the Law. By Ceremonial , understand Typical . * 1 Cor. 15. 18. * Conscience may be taken for the Heart , and the intention of the Heart .